Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[HikingMike]

4 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Rolling back because some golfers can hit the ball long and shorter hitters can’t take on the same obstacle is dumb. There is no course that challenges all golfers the same.

rolling back only creates a tour where everyone is within 5 yards of each other and everyone will be long. Those who don’t like the pga tour now because it’s boring will hate it when everyone hits it the same distance 

"There is no course that challenges all golfers the same." - yes, agree, of course

But I don't understand the rest of this. Everyone won't hit the same distance. There will still be some players going for it over some obstacles. I don't think anybody says that is bad - it's more that it's bad if everyone does it and the risk is removed. This occurred 30 years ago as well before all the equipment changes. Did that make the Tour worse entertainment? 

By the way I did find the Sasho McKenzie podcast you mentioned and listened to the whole thing. Here it is. Interesting listen. But I still don't agree with him. It's kind of strange saying they will just increase their speed and everything will stay the same. And you're also mentioning here that lots of pros aren't going all out since control varies. There is a tradeoff. 

4 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Its shows that their goal is to dictate how golf should be played.

Yes, to a degree, definitely this is the goal. It's also why MLB doesn't allow aluminum bats or a faster baseball. They aren't saying every player should play the game the same, or choose the same types of shots. But as an aggregate, they are setting boundaries for the game through the equipment. Do you think that is a bad thing?

[HikingMike]

On 2/25/2024 at 11:16 AM, chisag said:

I have said this before but on a given line off the tee, my 81 yr old pard hitting a 200yd drive just a little off the toe will be on the edge of the fairway. If I hit on the same line with a slight toe miss I am in the rough with a 240yd drive. Again same line for an Outlaw Tour player I shared 18 with that averaged around 350 off the tee and with that slight to miss he would be well into the desert. So I would make the argument a small miss is more egregious for the Pro than the Am.

I'm going to claim this as part of my problem off the tee  I don't hit 350, but sometimes 300, and it is risky without some really good consistency, which I don't have currently lol. I've recently been reading about driver length and now I'm curious about playing a slightly shorter driver. I know it was shorter in the mid/late-90s when I was playing in high school. I need to dig up two old drivers and measure them. But I also found I have a strong inside-to-out swing path and that has surely been causing me left-right inconsistency as I compensate for that. I like a draw, but it gets out of hand. I have some work to do this spring.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

Is anybody really frowning on advancement in athleticism? I haven't see any of that and it sounds ridiculous. 

Yes. They don’t like that golfers now have more speed than they did 20,30,40 years ago. The USGAs comment that distance gains in the last 20 years has come from the golfer and not the equipment followed by them saying the ball goes to far is a perfect example. They know it’s the golfer and they can’t tell the golfer to stop working out or stop speed training so the go the route of it’s the equipment 

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

As for advancement in technology, yeah, if the game changes significantly, it needs to be looked at and some rules put in place for an even playing field for pros - unless people want the game to change that way. I don't know that it's frowned upon. But the resulting change to the game is frowned upon by some people.

Despite changes in technology the ball has a limit on how far it can go with a certain swing speed, launch angle and spin, the driver has a size limitation and a CT restriction. So whatever the technology advances are it still can’t produce equipment that exceeds these limitations which is why distance has stayed the same at the top end and increases abs come from more golfers hitting the ball the same distance 

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

Baseball is an analogy that comes up a lot, and it works fairly well. Do we want like 300% more home runs? MLB has rules on equipment and they made decisions on how they wanted equipment to affect the game. You could look at car racing for a lot more rules. They are limiting the effect of tech advances for a desired output. 

Yes fans like the home run. The home run is what saved baseball in the mid 90s. Only the true baseball fans want to see a pitching duel every night. Technology is being used to improve launch and velocity off the bat. Stats say a home run is more important than a base hit, it’s why you see more strikeouts and bigger swings. The game is about hitting the long ball. Watch the home run derby and see how excited fans get for home runs. Watch a game and see the reaction to a home run compared to a base hit

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

I'll also add that I'm in favor of taking into account changes in equipment that occurred earlier. I'm not saying we go back to that. That would be a giant change, and that's super tough to do, maybe impossible, it would be a huge backlash, tons of costs for manufacturers, all of that. That's why they are proposing such a small change right now. It's the least inconvenient way to do this. But I'm saying it should be taken into account - because those changes in the game due to equipment were big, and they have stayed. The rules bodies probably should have done something 20 years ago or whatever. Imagine MLB allowing aluminum baseball bats for 20 years, and then what? 

They are planning to change the equipment. The RBs have already said they are coming for the driver. They get people on board by sayin oh we are making a change that only impacts the long hitters and will barely be noticeable by the average golfer. They slowly rollback and people accept it then when it gets to a point where it’s really affecting the average golfer it’s too late for them to do anything. 
 

You are right they should have done something 20 years ago or even 15, but they pushed growing the game. You can’t go out the toothpaste back in the tube

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

But I don't understand the rest of this. Everyone won't hit the same distance. There will still be some players going for it over some obstacles. I don't think anybody says that is bad - it's more that it's bad if everyone does it and the risk is removed. This occurred 30 years ago as well before all the equipment changes. Did that make the Tour worse entertainment? 

Right now everyone isn’t doing it. It’s perceived that way because of what’s shown on tv, go to an actual event and you will see a different story. You will see lots of short shots, sprayed drives and more than a pw/9i into greens. It will match the data posted in this thread on shot distances

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

By the way I did find the Sasho McKenzie podcast you mentioned and listened to the whole thing. Here it is. Interesting listen. But I still don't agree with him. It's kind of strange saying they will just increase their speed and everything will stay the same. And you're also mentioning here that lots of pros aren't going all out since control varies. There is a tradeoff. 

So you disagree with someone who has a PHD and is one of the leading experts in the field and deals with speed training? What data do you have that supports he is wrong?

Yes they will add speed or work to gain more for those who don’t. We can use Finau and Bryson as examples. Finau has demonstrated that he can reach 200mph ball speed yet he chooses to keep it to 180ish in tournament play as do many others. Bryson dials it back on course compared to what he is capable of. Bryon is also an example of someone who wasn’t long that gained speed and distance. Bryson was around 297 when he came on tour and didn’t really play well. He added speed and distance and started winning.

Cam champ has dialed back his speed.

Then we look at someone like Fitzpatrick.he too lacked speed and distance. He trained harder and trained for speed and over the course of 3-4 years added 5+ mph to his swing speed. When distance becomes more of an advantage people will chase it to get that advantage. Those who can’t are going to get left behind.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

I'm going to claim this as part of my problem off the tee  I don't hit 350, but sometimes 300, and it is risky without some really good consistency, which I don't have currently lol. I've recently been reading about driver length and now I'm curious about playing a slightly shorter driver. I know it was shorter in the mid/late-90s when I was playing in high school. I need to dig up two old drivers and measure them. But I also found I have a strong inside-to-out swing path and that has surely been causing me left-right inconsistency as I compensate for that. I like a draw, but it gets out of hand. I have some work to do this spring.

And it’s why guys on tour go for control over life distance. The longer the ball is in the air the farther offline it will go.

Guys at 115mph on tour will get to 120 guys at 120 have more in the tank and instead of picking  and choosing when to step on it a bit they will do it more often and you will see those guys at 125. It’s why Sasho has said 125 mph avg on tour will happen after the rollback 

[HikingMike]

23 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Yes. They don’t like that golfers now have more speed than they did 20,30,40 years ago. The USGAs comment that distance gains in the last 20 years has come from the golfer and not the equipment followed by them saying the ball goes to far is a perfect example. They know it’s the golfer and they can’t tell the golfer to stop working out or stop speed training so the go the route of it’s the equipment 

None of that says they are frowning on athleticism. They are going to not factor that out, because it does affect distance, and this is about distance. If cosmic rays caused everyone's drives to go 20 yards further and it was a permanent effect, then they would still want to do something.

30 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Yes fans like the home run. The home run is what saved baseball in the mid 90s. Only the true baseball fans want to see a pitching duel every night. Technology is being used to improve launch and velocity off the bat. Stats say a home run is more important than a base hit, it’s why you see more strikeouts and bigger swings. The game is about hitting the long ball. Watch the home run derby and see how excited fans get for home runs. Watch a game and see the reaction to a home run compared to a base hit

What are you getting at here? So why do they limit the equipment in baseball? If everyone likes home runs, should we just allow aluminum bats, not use baseball humidors, lower the mound, etc? 

The home run derby is fine once a year. I think it's kind of boring unless I like a player in it or something. 

32 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Watch a game and see the reaction to a home run compared to a base hit

So what? Home runs are exciting. If there were a ton more home runs, they would be less exciting, they would be normal, commonplace. I think that also translates to unique golf shots by pros.

[silver & black]

3 hours ago, HikingMike said:

Is anybody really frowning on advancement in athleticism? I haven't see any of that and it sounds ridiculous. 

As for advancement in technology, yeah, if the game changes significantly, it needs to be looked at and some rules put in place for an even playing field for pros - unless people want the game to change that way. I don't know that it's frowned upon. But the resulting change to the game is frowned upon by some people.

Baseball is an analogy that comes up a lot, and it works fairly well. Do we want like 300% more home runs? MLB has rules on equipment and they made decisions on how they wanted equipment to affect the game. You could look at car racing for a lot more rules. They are limiting the effect of tech advances for a desired output. 

I'll also add that I'm in favor of taking into account changes in equipment that occurred earlier. I'm not saying we go back to that. That would be a giant change, and that's super tough to do, maybe impossible, it would be a huge backlash, tons of costs for manufacturers, all of that. That's why they are proposing such a small change right now. It's the least inconvenient way to do this. But I'm saying it should be taken into account - because those changes in the game due to equipment were big, and they have stayed. The rules bodies probably should have done something 20 years ago or whatever. Imagine MLB allowing aluminum baseball bats for 20 years, and then what? 

Most of the advance in distance over the last 20 years  is due to advancement in training/workout/nutrition.... so. yes.... advancement in athleticism. You need look no further than Bryson for proof of what advanced nutrition and workout specific routine/s can/does make.... it aint the ball.

Equipment really hasn't changed all that much in 20 years (I know others will argue that) except for materials used and weight locations. Again.... I fail to see the reason/purpose for this roll back, at least for the stated reason/s.  Being the conspiracy guy I tend to be (I trust no power entity) I believe there is a much more sinister...lol reason behind this.

Anyone can feel free to flame me over my opinion.... I have thick skin... and I still think you all rock! 

 

[silver & black]

3 hours ago, HikingMike said:

It's also why MLB doesn't allow aluminum bats

They don't allow aluminum bats because MLB players are far superior to high school and college players. Aluminum bats produce too much speed off the bat in the hands of a MLB player. They are deemed too dangerous to be used... especially for pitchers that have to duck in a millisecond from a line drive at them. I'm pretty sure that no driver or ball is dangerous to other players on the course.

MLB has curbed everything as it stands.... they didn't roll back anything. Golf should do the same. Again... just my .02. 

Edited February 28 by silver & black

[HikingMike]

33 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Right now everyone isn’t doing it. It’s perceived that way because of what’s shown on tv, go to an actual event and you will see a different story. You will see lots of short shots, sprayed drives and more than a pw/9i into greens. It will match the data posted in this thread on shot distances

Alright but you're saying that "rolling back only creates a tour where everyone is within 5 yards of each other and everyone will be long".

How does rolling back do that? Rolling back reduces distance a bit for everyone in a progressive fashion. So distances will be very slightly closer together, but not everyone within 5 yards. I understand you are saying there is incentive to hit longer because of strokes gained. But that incentive isn't new, and isn't affected by the rollback.

40 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

So you disagree with someone who has a PHD and is one of the leading experts in the field and deals with speed training? What data do you have that supports he is wrong?

Consistency decreases and dispersion increases with increased swing speed. My evidence is that they are currently not going all out, like you said. Also I learned the average driver length on tour is about 44.5" whereas the standard driver length for retail clubs at the store is 45.5"+. (I read it here. It would be nice to see a bunch of data though.) The pros purposely use a shorter club than "standard", even though they could have slightly more club speed with the longer club. This points to swing speed isn't everything. 

He has a PhD and deals with speed training - sounds great. He does also sell swing speed gear and training, so he may not be an unbiased source. They even joked on the podcast that the ball rollback will make him more money and used that as a point toward his sincerity being against it. It was odd, but ok. I don't doubt his sincerity. 

My big problem is that he hasn't explained why the rollback would cause players to want to increase speed more than the incentive that already exists now. Yes, more distance gets you to a better spot from strokes gained perspective. 

Here's another quote from him I just found-

Quote

"We're talking about the best of the best, a very, very small percentage of athletes," Mackenzie said, "but if you start playing with a ball that gets slower and slower in terms of the distance it's going off the tee, players will start swinging faster and faster, and all of a sudden players that cannot swing the club at 130 and 140 miles an hour will not be in the game. I think 160 is the limit that we're kind of working around with [in terms of] human potential. There is no reason to think that the top .005 percent of the golfers in the world won't figure out how to swing a golf club at 140 miles an hour in the next 10 years. I don't see it going any other way.”

https://https://www.golfdigest.com/story/expert--how-the-ball-rollback-might-backfirewww.golfdigest.com/story/expert--how-the-ball-rollback-might-backfire

Ok, well this could already be happening. Strokes gained says to increase distance right? Players are already increasing distance with increased athleticism. Does a rollback change that? He hasn't explained this. Maybe I can ask him on X, ugh.

Well we will have to wait and see what happens to pro distances after the ball rollback to see if it has some effect or not. Set a reminder for 2028, or a year after, and it will be settled  

[fixyurdivot]

2 hours ago, silver & black said:

Most of the advance in distance over the last 20 years  is due to advancement in training/workout/nutrition.... so. yes.... advancement in athleticism. You need look no further than Bryson for proof of what advanced nutrition and workout specific routine/s can/does make.... it aint the ball.

Equipment really hasn't changed all that much in 20 years (I know others will argue that) except for materials used and weight locations. Again.... I fail to see the reason/purpose for this roll back, at least for the stated reason/s.  Being the conspiracy guy I tend to be (I trust no power entity) I believe there is a much more sinister...lol reason behind this.

Anyone can feel free to flame me over my opinion.... I have thick skin... and I still think you all rock! 

 

One needs only look at Tiger, Bryson, Rory and many others physical stature transformations, from when they arrived on tour to mid/late career, to see that it is not all club technology.  While the club limits have been the same for the past 20 years, their still have advanced gains in distance and forgiveness. 

Just guessing here but I suspect it's a 70% physical strength/swing optimization and 30% club tech.  That means ~23 feet of the "excessive distance" goes to swole and ~10 feet to club tech. 

So you're thinking the nefarious element is to sell lots of new, neutered balls... then restart the distance race all over again?  Nah, they wouldn't do that...would they?   

[RickyBobby_PR]

6 hours ago, HikingMike said:

None of that says they are frowning on athleticism. They are going to not factor that out, because it does affect distance, and this is about distance. If cosmic rays caused everyone's drives to go 20 yards further and it was a permanent effect, then they would still want to do something.

It actually shows they are. They can’t stop the athletic golfer so they are punishing the golfers that have worked hard to gain the skill of distance using the equipment and rules the ruling bodies decided on. Since they can’t force them to not train they are doing what they can to hurt them.

6 hours ago, HikingMike said:

What are you getting at here? So why do they limit the equipment in baseball? If everyone likes home runs, should we just allow aluminum bats, not use baseball humidors, lower the mound, etc? 

The home run derby is fine once a year. I think it's kind of boring unless I like a player in it or something. 

6 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

MLB isn’t promoting home runs like the PGA tour is promoting distance. However the fans get more excited for the home run than a base hit or a double.  So more home runs make baseball more exciting for the fans

MLB has altered the equipment to influence home runs. They were caught changing balls for certain games at Yankee stadium. So if they wanted to they could change things to make home runs easier and get fans excited to watch

6 hours ago, HikingMike said:

So what? Home runs are exciting. If there were a ton more home runs, they would be less exciting, they would be normal, commonplace. I think that also translates to unique golf shots by pros.

Incorrect. The Sosa vs Big Mac with more home runs made baseball fun and brought fans back. Some fans wanted bonds to break the home run record. More home runs = more excitement. Nobody is leaving games because a bunch of players hit a bunch of home runs 

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 hours ago, HikingMike said:

Alright but you're saying that "rolling back only creates a tour where everyone is within 5 yards of each other and everyone will be long".

How does rolling back do that? Rolling back reduces distance a bit for everyone in a progressive fashion. So distances will be very slightly closer together, but not everyone within 5 yards. I understand you are saying there is incentive to hit longer because of strokes gained. But that incentive isn't new, and isn't affected by the rollbac

I’ve explained it several times including in recent replies to you.

Strokes gained shows lengthening a course gives bigger advantage to longer hitters. Rolling ball the ball is the equivalent of lengthening a course.

When distance becomes a bigger advantage more will chase it. Those who can’t will not be able to compete on tour and will be replaced by longer hitters. What you get is a tour full of golfers that are closer to the top than the middle.

You can look up Broadies findings on this

4 hours ago, HikingMike said:

Consistency decreases and dispersion increases with increased swing speed. My evidence is that they are currently not going all out, like you said. Also I learned the average driver length on tour is about 44.5" whereas the standard driver length for retail clubs at the store is 45.5"+. (I read it here. It would be nice to see a bunch of data though.) The pros purposely use a shorter club than "standard", even though they could have slightly more club speed with the longer club. This points to swing speed isn't everything. 

 

Proves he is right and your disagreement is disproven.

Guys that have extra room will just step on it a bit more often. Guys who don’t will train for it.

lets use Finau. He’s capable of 200mph but stays at 181 on the course. 185 is where most of the fastest stay. If he swings a hair faster and gets to 185-187 he’s make sup the 8-11 yards he lost being in the sub 120 mph swing speed group the ruling bodies use. He doesn’t give up that much in accuracy while getting longer.

4 hours ago, HikingMike said:

He has a PhD and deals with speed training - sounds great. He does also sell swing speed gear and training, so he may not be an unbiased source. They even joked on the podcast that the ball rollback will make him more money and used that as a point toward his sincerity being against it. It was odd, but ok. I don't doubt his sincerity. 

My big problem is that he hasn't explained why the rollback would cause players to want to increase speed more than the incentive that already exists now. Yes, more distance gets you to a better spot from strokes gained perspective. 

 

It will make him more money because more people will be speed training because it’s an advantage and they want that advantage. It’s pretty simple concept.

I’m pretty confident he understands strokes gained and as I explained distance is an advantage in general and more so on longer courses. Read Broadies work on strokesgained and you will see.

4 hours ago, HikingMike said:

Ok, well this could already be happening. Strokes gained says to increase distance right? Players are already increasing distance with increased athleticism. Does a rollback change that? He hasn't explained this. Maybe I can ask him on X, ugh.

Well we will have to wait and see what happens to pro distances after the ball rollback to see if it has some effect or not. Set a reminder for 2028, or a year after, and it will be settled  

As I’ve stated Fitzpatrick is a recent example.  Bryson is another. Both saw the advantage and went and to faster. The pros, their caddies, their coaches all understand this. It’s why speed training has become more popular and why there are more speed training systems.

it’s also why polymeric training has been a part of golfers training for years.

And broadie, sasho and Lou Stegner have all talked about the rollback not doing anything

Edited February 29 by RickyBobby_PR

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

One needs only look at Tiger, Bryson, Rory and many others physical stature transformations, from when they arrived on tour to mid/late career, to see that it is not all club technology.  While the club limits have been the same for the past 20 years, their still have advanced gains in distance and forgiveness. 

Just guessing here but I suspect it's a 70% physical strength/swing optimization and 30% club tech.  That means ~23 feet of the "excessive distance" goes to swole and ~10 feet to club tech. 

So you're thinking the nefarious element is to sell lots of new, neutered balls... then restart the distance race all over again?  Nah, they wouldn't do that...would they?   

Kyle Berkshire is another example. Added powerlifting to his routine and got faster and longer. Also started dominating the wld.

What did Tiger cause when he came on tour. More golfers including the veterans going to the gym, the vets were doing it to keep up with the young guys. Courses added length to try to stop Tiger. What did that lead to? More golfers getting longer to deal with the length. 
 

It was strokes gained at work before Broadie put it altogether for everyone to see.

BTW the ruling bodies changed the ods in 2003 from 103 to 120 mph to keep up with the faster swings. That combined with the 4600cc decision despite no manufacturer being close to that and the prov1  being 3 years old were all a promotion of distance by the RBs. They wanted more distance.

its the suits that are out of touch with the game trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube 

[THE GOLF GUY]

Rolling back the ball is not a wise decision for the masses . I might add that the masses are what stimulates and finances a lot of the golf industry. The powers that be should be trying to make the game more enjoyable not more difficult. In my opinion it’s just another way to smother and kill the game . 
 The PGA tour players and great amateurs will not be impacted nearly as much as the general populace. My question is this , why now?  

 

Edited February 29 by THE GOLF GUY

[fixyurdivot]

10 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Kyle Berkshire is another example. Added powerlifting to his routine and got faster and longer. Also started dominating the wld.

What did Tiger cause when he came on tour. More golfers including the veterans going to the gym, the vets were doing it to keep up with the young guys. Courses added length to try to stop Tiger. What did that lead to? More golfers getting longer to deal with the length. 
 

It was strokes gained at work before Broadie put it altogether for everyone to see.

BTW the ruling bodies changed the ods in 2003 from 103 to 120 mph to keep up with the faster swings. That combined with the 4600cc decision despite no manufacturer being close to that and the prov1  being 3 years old were all a promotion of distance by the RBs. They wanted more distance.

its the suits that are out of touch with the game trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube 

Interesting. So another case of those chartered with fixing the problem were (are) the problem. Worse is that it will do nothing to achieve their "stated" goal.  

TM's CEO, as part of his response to the rollback announcement, stated that they will continue to advance club tech to increase distance and forgiveness.  Presuming they and the others have more in the tank, what happens if those improvements/gains and continued physical strength and swing optimization eclipses the 33 feet?

[RickyBobby_PR]

56 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Interesting. So another case of those chartered with fixing the problem were (are) the problem. Worse is that it will do nothing to achieve their "stated" goal.  

TM's CEO, as part of his response to the rollback announcement, stated that they will continue to advance club tech to increase distance and forgiveness.  Presuming they and the others have more in the tank, what happens if those improvements/gains and continued physical strength and swing optimization eclipses the 33 feet?

The USGA leadership now is a lot different than that of the early 2000s. Not saying Frank Thomas was a good or great leader. Some say he lacked seeing the future or being able to see how the 460cc head would be used by the pros, how that and the prov1 and/or the changing of the type of golfer would affect the game.

It’s possible he did see all that and didn’t see it as a concern but rather good for the game.

The current leadership obviously disagrees with what he did or allowed to happen and see it as a problem which is what many fans think. The PGA tour doesn’t have a problem putting on events at courses and letting scores be whatever they are. And as low as the scores might be for the leaders there are plenty of golfers each week who struggle to even get to double digit under par on the same course.

It all comes down to a preference for how the game should be played and whether people enjoy the game as is or are entertained by the product the tour puts on. Some may like the current game but hate the announcers and all the commercials and how/what golf shots are shown. But there are baseball and football fans that like the game and hate the announcers and the side stories, etc. 

Like it or not professional golf and all sports are entertainment. 

[chisag]

... From the MGS article:  https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/how-driving-distance-has-evolved-on-the-pga-tour/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=03/01/24&utm_term=Active Newsletter List

[GolferXY]

22 minutes ago, chisag said:

... From the MGS article:  https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/how-driving-distance-has-evolved-on-the-pga-tour/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=03/01/24&utm_term=Active Newsletter List

Numbers for Big D in 1993 were 288 yds. per drive average for the year.  Where did MGS get these stats?

[d.lama]

49 minutes ago, GolferXY said:

Numbers for Big D in 1993 were 288 yds. per drive average for the year.  Where did MGS get these stats?

Looks like someone goofed the image. that's the average. Later in the article they give the correct info. 

[HikingMike]

On 2/28/2024 at 8:45 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

It actually shows they are [frowning on athleticism]. They can’t stop the athletic golfer so they are punishing the golfers that have worked hard to gain the skill of distance using the equipment and rules the ruling bodies decided on. Since they can’t force them to not train they are doing what they can to hurt them.

Then it follows that you think they would frown upon and seek to punish cosmic rays from my hypothetical   If this were an equipment change causing more distance, like previously, would you say they are seeking to punish large driver heads or golfers using them? I would say they are reacting to the changes in the game, which partly includes athleticism. They are not out to get athleticism or more athletic golfers. To me, it wouldn't make sense for anyone to prefer golfers not train or be athletic. It probably gives pro golf more credibility as a sport among those who denigrate it.

On 2/28/2024 at 8:45 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

Incorrect. The Sosa vs Big Mac with more home runs made baseball fun and brought fans back. Some fans wanted bonds to break the home run record. More home runs = more excitement. Nobody is leaving games because a bunch of players hit a bunch of home runs

I was there for that. But what I'm saying is that if home runs were as commonplace as base hits, then they wouldn't be as exciting as home runs are today, or with McGwire vs Sosa. Imagine there was a McGwire vs Sosa every season. It wouldn't mean as much. Home runs would still be somewhat exciting, because fans want a team to win. If MLB scores were 50-45, then also each run would be less important to the outcome of the game. I don't see another way to measure this, so it could be opinion based. Maybe you would be the odd duck where really every home run would still be equally exciting, even if there were 30 per game when before there was an average 1 per game. When something is subjective and you don't agree, you seem to just swat it down as "incorrect".

On 2/29/2024 at 9:42 AM, RickyBobby_PR said:

It all comes down to a preference for how the game should be played

Agree. And I will say that you convinced me through data that distance isn't really an issue for the non-pro game... 30 pages back or whatever it was, lol.

[RickyBobby_PR]

6 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

Then it follows that you think they would frown upon and seek to punish cosmic rays from my hypothetical   If this were an equipment change causing more distance, like previously, would you say they are seeking to punish large driver heads or golfers using them? I would say they are reacting to the changes in the game, which partly includes athleticism. They are not out to get athleticism or more athletic golfers. To me, it wouldn't make sense for anyone to prefer golfers not train or be athletic. It probably gives pro golf more credibility as a sport among those who denigrate it.

I don’t deal in hypotheticals 

we will agree to disagree on what they are trying to punish. You can’t claim on one hand the ball goes too far which btw means nothing because it’s not comparing to anything or anytime and then say that distance gain is from the golfer. And they aren’t reacting to changes in the game. The game has always been the same it’s just that we have strokes gained to prove that closer is better and the mentality laying up to a number is a bad approach.

I don’t know if it gives more credibility to the game or not because in other forums the argument isn’t about the athleticism but the lack of skill (which is a dumb statement) that the players today have compared to the past. Golf is about getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible.  The RBs can’t regulate fitness and their statement about the distance coming from the players not the equipment is a glaring fact that they are out to get the guys who have worked hard to gain the skill to hit the ball longer. They are telling a Matthew Fitzpatrick that his hard work rather than be rewarded is going to be negated by taking the distance he gained away.

13 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

was there for that. But what I'm saying is that if home runs were as commonplace as base hits, then they wouldn't be as exciting as home runs are today, or with McGwire vs Sosa. Imagine there was a McGwire vs Sosa every season. It wouldn't mean as much. Home runs would still be somewhat exciting, because fans want a team to win. If MLB scores were 50-45, then also each run would be less important to the outcome of the game. I don't see another way to measure this, so it could be opinion based. Maybe you would be the odd duck where really every home run would still be equally exciting, even if there were 30 per game when before there was an average 1 per game. When something is subjective and you don't agree, you seem to just swat it down as "incorrect".

I disagree. A battle for home run leader in the same league would be great entertainment. You get to see the best battle it out each game trying to be the best. Look at the excitement that Judge garnered during his chase for 62 home runs a couple seasons ago.

Nobody is sayin every time the ball gets hit it needs to be a home run, but rather that when a home run is hit that people get excited more for than than a base hit and that when a ball looks to be a home run the excitement grows as the ball travels then when it’s an out or hits the fence and stays in the excitement dies right away. People like highlight plays, slam dunks, home runs, diving catches. The same goes in golf with long drives and sticking it close. It’s what sells and the pga tour knows it and sets up their tournaments for it. Not every pro hits the ball long but a Rory driving a par 4 gets more cheers than a 275 yard drive in the fairway. 

[GolfSpy_APH]

https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/how-driving-distance-has-evolved-on-the-pga-tour/

[fixyurdivot]

On 3/1/2024 at 12:27 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

The game has always been the same it’s just that we have strokes gained to prove that closer is better and the mentality laying up to a number is a bad approach

This is an interesting comment/point.  I could be wrong but it seems to me that, as the years have rolled along, grabbing the stick that gets one closest to or on the green has replaced the once, much more common, layup to a yardage.  The SG analysis is partly culpable.

[RickyBobby_PR]

6 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

This is an interesting comment/point.  I could be wrong but it seems to me that, as the years have rolled along, grabbing the stick that gets one closest to or on the green has replaced the once, much more common, layup to a yardage.  The SG analysis is partly culpable.

Yep. Broadies stuff just made everyone aware what some knew. The cat is out of the bag now and the laying up to a number days are gone for those who have looked at strokes gained and then with decade and taking into account the risks of shots and distance golfers have a lot more info to make better decisions in the course. Doesn’t mean we will execute the shot we want but understating your miss allows you the chance to be in a better spot on a miss.

Pre covid a buddy I used to golf with took lessons from the pro I used to use. They were talking course strategy one day and my buddy was a play to a numbers guy. The pro told him to hit driver whenever possible. Wanted him to be more aggressive off the course to give him a better shot at scoring lower. The pro had studied strokes gained and understood the data and being closer is better

[cnosil]

18 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

This is an interesting comment/point.  I could be wrong but it seems to me that, as the years have rolled along, grabbing the stick that gets one closest to or on the green has replaced the once, much more common, layup to a yardage.  The SG analysis is partly culpable.

The 10th hole at Rivera is a great example.  Brodie's book was published in 2014.    SG was then applied to "better" course strategies like DECADE and Lowest Score Wins.  The hit is as far as possible doesn't guarantee the lowest score but maximizes the changes;  this is typically the debate presented by TV announcers.  TV announcers like to look at one player versus one player and say things like this player laid up and got par and this person hit is as far as they could and got par so it doesn't work.   They don't typically compare the field averages as a whole but we are starting to see SG images that show how the field as a whole does from various locations.     

 

[cnosil]

9 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

my buddy was a play to a numbers guy. 

the play to a number is a really difficult strategy as players can't control where the ball stops.   You want to lay up to 100 and you could be anywhere from 80-120.

[Josh Parker]

11 minutes ago, cnosil said:

The 10th hole at Rivera is a great example.  Brodie's book was published in 2014.    SG was then applied to "better" course strategies like DECADE and Lowest Score Wins.  The hit is as far as possible doesn't guarantee the lowest score but maximizes the changes;  this is typically the debate presented by TV announcers.  TV announcers like to look at one player versus one player and say things like this player laid up and got par and this person hit is as far as they could and got par so it doesn't work.   They don't typically compare the field averages as a whole but we are starting to see SG images that show how the field as a whole does from various locations.     

 

Great little example of how it's changed!  

Edited March 3 by Josh Parker

[ILMgolfnut]

On 2/28/2024 at 5:27 PM, silver & black said:

Aluminum bats produce too much speed off the bat in the hands of a MLB player.

The data from Statcast and Trackman (yes they're in baseball too) show that the current wood bats in MLB create just as much ball speed as the current aluminum/composite bats create in college. Even with college batters who will be in MLB in a few months. They restricted the coefficient of restitution of the aluminum/composite bats about 15 years ago.

[RickyBobby_PR]

56 minutes ago, ILMgolfnut said:

The data from Statcast and Trackman (yes they're in baseball too) show that the current wood bats in MLB create just as much ball speed as the current aluminum/composite bats create in college. Even with college batters who will be in MLB in a few months. They restricted the coefficient of restitution of the aluminum/composite bats about 15 years ago.

Aluminum is used at amateur levels because of costs. Its gets expensive to replace wooden bats is also partly about safety. Broken wooden bats are dangerous.

 

3 hours ago, cnosil said:

the play to a number is a really difficult strategy as players can't control where the ball stops.   You want to lay up to 100 and you could be anywhere from 80-120.

Exactly. 

[d.lama]

7 hours ago, ILMgolfnut said:

The data from Statcast and Trackman (yes they're in baseball too) show that the current wood bats in MLB create just as much ball speed as the current aluminum/composite bats create in college. Even with college batters who will be in MLB in a few months. They restricted the coefficient of restitution of the aluminum/composite bats about 15 years ago.

The only reason what you said is possible is because the NCAA slowed down the Aluminum bat. Before the NCAA rules change (i.e. the ruling body) ball speed off the bat's was measurably quicker. https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/alumwood.html