Tiger Woods on the Distance Debate

[JB]

Frankly, much of this conversation is around the golf ball and drivers. I bet if nothing else changed, but something was done to "cap" driver-tech-performance, the distance debate would go away.

Again though, it is capped. The CT test does that very thing.
They can expand around the balance point to hit that mark off center, but it is absolutely capped and has been for quite a while.

 

[Parrot]

As for bifurcation I am not sure it will work. As for courses to make them more difficult here is a thought. Instead of rough guarding fairways and greens why not shave everything Aron day the course. This way tee balls struck off line will not get caught by rough, but will run into wooded areas or hazard areas. Also doing this around the greens. Most pros will get up and down from 20 to 40 feet from the rough. But shaved areas around greens will allow misses to possibly to go 20 to 40 yards from the hole and on a tight lie. This could make good ball striking more important than just bomb it a play from the rough. Just a thought.

I like this idea.

 

[Templet0n]

Looking at the US open. Rory both was longer and hit more fairways.. hahaha. Then immediately complained that Bryson was doing something with system loopholes.. haha.

 

[Templet0n]

Looking at the US open. Rory both was longer and hit more fairways.. hahaha. Then immediately complained that Bryson was doing something with system loopholes.. haha.

Jeez, I could chase stats all day.. It just tells the story..

US open week. Rory was longer (6th), hit more fairways (3rd), and hit more greens (3rd).. He is a terrible terrible putter (50).. only 11 golfers worse than him that played the weekend.

 

[golfunfiltered]

Could Bryson do what he's done with Titleist? With TaylorMade? With MacGregor?

 

[Templet0n]

Could Bryson do what he's done with Titleist? With TaylorMade? With MacGregor?

Why not?? I mean Mac does not exist anymore so they are an obvious no. But you dont think the rest would or could build what Bryson is asking for??

 

[KEV]

Limits are not standards, and that's an important difference that may be subtle, but not semantics. The concept of prevention vs. detection also plays a role here.

For example, a speed limit does not prohibit me from driving faster than what's posted. Conversely, a governor on my motor could prevent me from exceeding a standard. A smoke detector doesn't prevent the fire, etc, etc.

I'm not suggesting all equipment be exactly the same, but can we get to a point where more preventative measures are in place to truly limit excessive equipment variance? Can we get to a place where the only variance is from the talent and skill of the player?

So should baseball all use the exact same bats and gloves? Nascar use the exact same car? Tennis use the exact same rackets?

If all brands were required to produce basically the same equipment wouldn't that have a huge negative impact on marketing for those companies?

 

[golfunfiltered]

So should baseball all use the exact same bats and gloves? Nascar use the exact same car? Tennis use the exact same rackets?

If all brands were required to produce basically the same equipment wouldn't that have a huge negative impact on marketing for those companies?

Now we've hit the nail on the head. It's not a question of if, it's a question about dollars.

Also, the other sports comparison is a red herring argument.

 

[JB]

Socialist Golf sounds awesome.
Everybody plays identical gear.
Wears identical apparel.
Hits it the same distance.
We give trophies to everybody.

 

[radiman]

That's my point though: a limit is not the same as a standard. If equipment was kept to a standard, it would eliminate any question as to what players are using, and golf courses would know what's coming at them. Plus, it would allow stronger players to keep getting stronger, thus outperforming their peers anyway.

In all of this distance debate, I have never heard one person claim that the reason Bryson is gaining distance is because of Cobra golf clubs. All of these players are using equipment that conforms to the rules of golf. The courses already know what's coming at them in that regard.

"The limit of time placed on golf clubs is 239 milliseconds with a tolerance of 18 milliseconds. Therefore, any golf club that measures higher than 257 milliseconds on the CT test is deemed illegal. "

That's not a standard, that's a limit.

Any OEM is free to make a club that is below that limit. But, it is pretty much standard practice to design clubs to meet that number as close as they can without going over.

 

[Canadan]

Frankly, much of this conversation is around the golf ball and drivers. I bet if nothing else changed, but something was done to "cap" driver-tech-performance, the distance debate would go away.

If fairways stopped propelling the ball 70+ yards forward on contact, the distance debate would go away.

 

[golfunfiltered]

If fairways stopped propelling the ball 70+ yards forward on contact, the distance debate would go away.

I agree with this too.

Human ingenuity will never end, nor should it. People will always find a way. Can golf find a way to maintain the balance? Not sure. But it has a great track record of being able to.

 

[Canadan]

I agree with this too.

Human ingenuity will never end, nor should it. People will always find a way. Can golf find a way to maintain the balance? Not sure. But it has a great track record of being able to.

What came to golf at/after Tiger was a generation of athletic and highly skilled players willing to go the extra mile to improve their craft. This fell after the generation of players who were convinced that physical fitness was actually detrimental to their game.

When you look at the distance debate, we've always had outliers. Guys who hit the ball way far with 'the pack' being well behind. I think the time for that in golf is departing, with young talent closing the gap aggressively, with others who are not so distance inclined to find ways to go about it their own way (Bryson).

Personally, I think anything done right now to alter distance is knee jerk.

 

[jints07]

Yes they should change everything because a guy is using athleticism and skill to hit it far. And then when a player comes along that just hits it too darn straight, we'll need to address that. And boy oh boy, one day someone will come along and putt like we have never seen and we'll probably make the hole smaller or outlaw flat faced putters.

Or, we ignore the weenies. The guys that are complaining because they can't hit if far and "it's not fair".

 

[BigDill]

Socialist Golf sounds awesome.
Everybody plays identical gear.
Wears identical apparel.
Hits it the same distance.
We give trophies to everybody.

I am looking forward to next year's EquiDistance Bash Experience.

 

[golfunfiltered]

What came to golf at/after Tiger was a generation of athletic and highly skilled players willing to go the extra mile to improve their craft. This fell after the generation of players who were convinced that physical fitness was actually detrimental to their game.

When you look at the distance debate, we've always had outliers. Guys who hit the ball way far with 'the pack' being well behind. I think the time for that in golf is departing, with young talent closing the gap aggressively, with others who are not so distance inclined to find ways to go about it their own way (Bryson).

Personally, I think anything done right now to alter distance is knee jerk.

Overall, I think the game has already moved on, and the distance debate has become moot to reality. For reasons expressed in this thread, OEMs want this trend to continue so they can sell more stuff. That's not a criticism. Golf has always been a game that has been defined by those who play it, and how it's played.

 

[Desmond]

Just let it go as is ... golf and human nature has a way of balancing things out over time. One doesn't alter the game based on one or a few players. The game figures it out.

All of a sudden, I feel like Jeff Goldblum ...

 

[bigskyirish]

In all this uproar over distance and Bryson and everything else, I have yet to see anyone give a single reason that I find persuasive in favor of bifurcating or rolling anything back.

For some reason, it seems that athletes in every other sport are praised for using science, new training methods, advanced metrics, etc. to improve and maximize their performance. But somehow, when golfers do it, there is something wrong with the game and we need to entirely revamp the rules? My question is, why? Because Geoff Shackleford thinks that some old golf courses that 99% of the population has no chance of ever setting foot on need to be played the way they were designed at the turn of the last century? Or because Jack doesn't like that a lot of people don't consider him the greatest of all time any more? Or maybe because some, and I emphasize some, people would rather see pros hit 6 irons into greens than wedges on TV?

I really don't get it. What's wrong with the best in the world being way better than everyone else? Especially since regular golfers can put it in context more easily than other sports. I can't go try to make a 3-pointer at Madison Square Garden with an NBA player in my face or try to hit home runs in Dodgers Stadium against major league pitching. But I can go play Torrey Pines, or Bethpage, or Shadow Creek, etc. with the same equipment as the pros (mostly) from the same tees (sometimes). And isn't part of the draw saying, "how in the hell could he have possibly hit driver-wedge on this hole" or "I'd have to play out of my mind to break 80 and these guys shot 4 rounds in the 60s"?

 

[JB]

In all this uproar over distance and Bryson and everything else, I have yet to see anyone give a single reason that I find persuasive in favor of bifurcating or rolling anything back.

For some reason, it seems that athletes in every other sport are praised for using science, new training methods, advanced metrics, etc. to improve and maximize their performance. But somehow, when golfers do it, there is something wrong with the game and we need to entirely revamp the rules? My question is, why? Because Geoff Shackleford thinks that some old golf courses that 99% of the population has no chance of ever setting foot on need to be played the way they were designed at the turn of the last century? Or because Jack doesn't like that a lot of people don't consider him the greatest of all time any more? Or maybe because some, and I emphasize some, people would rather see pros hit 6 irons into greens than wedges on TV?

I really don't get it. What's wrong with the best in the world being way better than everyone else? Especially since regular golfers can put it in context more easily than other sports. I can't go try to make a 3-pointer at Madison Square Garden with an NBA player in my face or try to hit home runs in Dodgers Stadium against major league pitching. But I can go play Torrey Pines, or Bethpage, or Shadow Creek, etc. with the same equipment as the pros (mostly) from the same tees (sometimes). And isn't part of the draw saying, "how in the hell could he have possibly hit driver-wedge on this hole" or "I'd have to play out of my mind to break 80 and these guys shot 4 rounds in the 60s"?

Bingo.
Im going to mandate that all NBA games should feature only set shots.

 

[Templet0n]

What came to golf at/after Tiger was a generation of athletic and highly skilled players willing to go the extra mile to improve their craft. This fell after the generation of players who were convinced that physical fitness was actually detrimental to their game.

When you look at the distance debate, we've always had outliers. Guys who hit the ball way far with 'the pack' being well behind. I think the time for that in golf is departing, with young talent closing the gap aggressively, with others who are not so distance inclined to find ways to go about it their own way (Bryson).

Personally, I think anything done right now to alter distance is knee jerk.

couple all that with data driven swing improvements and optimization and here we are.

 

[Desmond]

And isn't part of the draw saying, "how in the hell could he have possibly hit driver-wedge on this hole"

Hold my beer.

It's because I'm 65 and they are 27.

But let me move up a few tees and I can hit lob wedge for my approach on a 300 yrd par 4. I am now 27 again.

Is this about Geoff again? He has a great interest in golf architecture and old and ancient courses, so this is no surprise if he is generating this chaos.

 

[radiman]

In all this uproar over distance and Bryson and everything else, I have yet to see anyone give a single reason that I find persuasive in favor of bifurcating or rolling anything back.

For some reason, it seems that athletes in every other sport are praised for using science, new training methods, advanced metrics, etc. to improve and maximize their performance. But somehow, when golfers do it, there is something wrong with the game and we need to entirely revamp the rules? My question is, why? Because Geoff Shackleford thinks that some old golf courses that 99% of the population has no chance of ever setting foot on need to be played the way they were designed at the turn of the last century? Or because Jack doesn't like that a lot of people don't consider him the greatest of all time any more? Or maybe because some, and I emphasize some, people would rather see pros hit 6 irons into greens than wedges on TV?

I really don't get it. What's wrong with the best in the world being way better than everyone else? Especially since regular golfers can put it in context more easily than other sports. I can't go try to make a 3-pointer at Madison Square Garden with an NBA player in my face or try to hit home runs in Dodgers Stadium against major league pitching. But I can go play Torrey Pines, or Bethpage, or Shadow Creek, etc. with the same equipment as the pros (mostly) from the same tees (sometimes). And isn't part of the draw saying, "how in the hell could he have possibly hit driver-wedge on this hole" or "I'd have to play out of my mind to break 80 and these guys shot 4 rounds in the 60s"?

You have done a great job summing up a lot of my views. Very well put. Perhaps my biggest gripe is the fact that a lot of this is supposedly to protect ultra exclusive courses that I would likely have security called on me if I step foot on the property without a member escorting me.

 

[Tywithay]

I really don't see the issue. Here's the top 15 so far this season. Aside from about 5 names you hear often, it's mostly guys that you never see holding trophies, or in the final pairings on Sunday. Every sport has dominant athletes and the cream will always rise to the top. It's the same reason LeBron has been to nearly every NBA Finals for a decade and Tom Brady won a bunch of superbowls. Nobody wanted to change the clay at the French Open to stop Nadal from slaughtering everyone. Golf seems to be the only sport that wants to stop its athletes from performing at a higher level and it makes no sense.

 

[Scorp]

Having the players all playing the same equipment won't work... unless the equipment changed enough to allow all equipment manufacturers the opportunity to have players play their gear. Something like

ZOZO Championship - Bridgestone. All clubs, balls, and apparel used by players would be Bridgestone.
Bermuda Chamionship - Cleveland
Vivint Houston Open - Titleist
Masters Tournament - Wilson Staff
The RSM Classic - PING
Mayakoba Golf Classic - Callaway
QBE Shootout - TaylorMade
Sentry Tournament of Champions - Tour Edge
Sony Open in Hawaii - Titleist
The American Express - Srixon

It's a stupid idea and I know it wouldn't work for a lot of reasons.
Companies would complain that their competitors got better tournament selection
Players would skip tournaments if they didn't like the equipment sponsor for that tournament
Players would complain about having to change equipment weekly


How about courses make things more interesting by moving the hole during a round? Make it a moving target or something like that?

 

[radiman]

Having the players all playing the same equipment won't work... unless the equipment changed enough to allow all equipment manufacturers the opportunity to have players play their gear. Something like

ZOZO Championship - Bridgestone. All clubs, balls, and apparel used by players would be Bridgestone.
Bermuda Chamionship - Cleveland
Vivint Houston Open - Titleist
Masters Tournament - Wilson Staff
The RSM Classic - PING
Mayakoba Golf Classic - Callaway
QBE Shootout - TaylorMade
Sentry Tournament of Champions - Tour Edge
Sony Open in Hawaii - Titleist
The American Express - Srixon

It's a stupid idea and I know it wouldn't work for a lot of reasons.
Companies would complain that their competitors got better tournament selection
Players would skip tournaments if they didn't like the equipment sponsor for that tournament
Players would complain about having to change equipment weekly


How about courses make things more interesting by moving the hole during a round? Make it a moving target or something like that?

You would also hit a wall where certain gear fits one player better than another. It would be a mess. If there is a cookie cutter approach it would effect the field disproportionally giving some players a head start.