[jeffwarne]

So Jeff, how do you explain Bryson D? Result of simple, valid, and not harmful teaching?

How about Bubba W?

Both talented, both went to the same charm school.
Bryson will be Bryson-not sure I'd blame or credit his action on a teacher.
Bubba came to it on his own-no formal lessons.
Who is to say either's action is harmful?-they are successful.
A teacher using one of them as an inflexible model for their students would be the one doing harm.

So perhaps you can see why I don't see teaching, athletic training, sports science, etc. as big factors in the increase in distance the ball is being propelled. The improvements in technology to me are the keys. Therefore, roll back the ball by adding spin and ball COR. Roll back club COR to the COR of persimmon. Reduce the size of drivers to perhaps half.
Let me be able to see where the ball flies to so that I can find it in a timely fashion, and complete my round sooner.
After all, I want an after breakfast round followed by an after lunch round, and completed by an after dinner round.

Agreed 100% about the equipment tech being the biggest jump.
And those other things contribute as well.
At the end of the day, no matter what it is, the scale of golf is out of whack and bifurcation/rollback is inevitable and needed.


But teaching has improved vastly-and it makes a huge difference when a 10 year old is not being told to keep his head down , drive his legs, and keep his left arm straight.
In fact telling a kid nothing is far better than any of that.
I've spent 40 years visiting and interviewing teachers, and there are FAR more good teachers today-it's not even close, as they have learned from all the greats before them-and the ability to use the internet has made all of that far easier.
Of course, with so many more total teachers out there, there are of course more bad teachers as well, but as a total number, far more good teachers than ever before, and far easier ways to reach and access them.
While you are correct that most teachers(or anyone else) are "average" by definition, that average can be much better than 30 years ago.
and it is.


I certainly hope the "average" doctor is better than he was 40 years ago.


and SL, your post is spot on

[David_Elvins]

But teaching has improved vastly-and it makes a huge difference when a 10 year old is not being told to keep his head down , drive his legs, and keep his left arm straight.
In fact telling a kid nothing is far better than any of that.
I've spent 40 years visiting and interviewing teachers, and there are FAR more good teachers today-it's not even close, as they have learned from all the greats before them-and the ability to use the internet has made all of that far easier.
Of course, with so many more total teachers out there, there are of course more bad teachers as well, but as a total number, far more good teachers than ever before, and far easier ways to reach and access them.

  The quality and amount of resources on the internet for improving one's game is really quite ridiculous.

[David_Tepper]

Little League baseball has introduced "deader" bats:

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/8/20/little-league-putting-an-end-to-launch-angle-chase-with-new-deader-bats

[jeffwarne]

Little League baseball has introduced "deader" bats:
https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/8/20/little-league-putting-an-end-to-launch-angle-chase-with-new-deader-bats

evidently 12 year olds have less need to cling to their youth than 50 year old men....

[Steve_ Shaffer]

From Alan Shipnuk's mailbag @ Golf Mag:


I am really ready for a golf ball rollback. Do you think it’ll happen?
I’m more optimistic than I used to be. We’ve clearly reached an inflection point, if not a tipping point. There are many factors that have led to the distance explosion but a bifurcated ball is the cleanest, fastest solution. However, the entire multi-billion dollar equipment industry which powers every level of the game is built on FOMO — we all want the latest greatest equipment so we can try to hit the ball like the pros. But it’s not so much fun to watch Matt Wolff drive it 275 yards… I can do that myself right now. The stewards of the game have failed so spectacularly in that the current situation is unsustainable but there is no easy solution.

[Thomas Dai]

There is a April 2004 interview herein with Ralph Livingston about equipment over the ages - see - http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/feature-interview-with-ralph-livingston/


With regard to the performance of the golf ball, question 2 is particularly worth reading (actually the whole interview is worth reading) as it contains various quotes from Jones/Keeler and other notables of the time regarding the performance of the ball and counteracting it's ever-increasing performance.

atb

[jeffwarne]

From Alan Shipnuk's mailbag @ Golf Mag:

But it’s not so much fun to watch Matt Wolff drive it 275 yards… I can do that myself right now. The stewards of the game have failed so spectacularly in that the current situation is unsustainable but there is no easy solution.

Most of the above post is pretty good, but then.......utter balderdash
out of sight is out of sight
if someone's entire interest in spectating golf is predicated on some machine telling them a ball went 275(or 350) yards, then the end truly is near.
It was PLENTY of fun to watch Norman and Nicklaus hit it 280-300 no one could tell the difference with the naked eye.

[SL_Solow]

Little League has safety motivation

[Matthew Mollica]

I wonder what percentage of the world’s golf courses have a safety issue with a boundary.


And what percentage of the world’s courses have faced rising insurance premiums due to boundary issues. Or made changes to the course as a response to same.

[Ira Fishman]

I know I am in favor of limiting ball distance and increasing spin as well as doing something about the driver. I am more torn on bifurcation, but it actually might be the case that more fans would watch golf if they could say that they could hit it almost as far as the pros. A weird consequence of bifurcation, but maybe a reason to try it.


Ira

[Peter Flory]

If I could choose one constraint it would be the volume of the clubhead.  I'd limit it to what a typical persimmon driver head was in the mid 80s. 


In my opinion, the main problem with today's drivers is that they are brainless to hit for good players.  Pros used to have to worry about missing the sweet spot off the tee.  But now it is incredibly rare. 

[Garland Bayley]

From Alan Shipnuk's mailbag @ Golf Mag:

But it’s not so much fun to watch Matt Wolff drive it 275 yards… I can do that myself right now. The stewards of the game have failed so spectacularly in that the current situation is unsustainable but there is no easy solution.

Most of the above post is pretty good, but then.......utter balderdash
out of sight is out of sight
if someone's entire interest in spectating golf is predicated on some machine telling them a ball went 275(or 350) yards, then the end truly is near.
It was PLENTY of fun to watch Norman and Nicklaus hit it 280-300 no one could tell the difference with the naked eye.

Here's the solution to the naked eye deficiency issue. Line the fairways with black mining slag waste areas like at The Works in Anaconda, Montana. That way you can see and celebrate a ball 350 yards off the tee about half the time. If it ends up in the fairway, well good luck with seeing that.

[Rob Rigg]

If I could choose one constraint it would be the volume of the clubhead.  I'd limit it to what a typical persimmon driver head was in the mid 80s. 


In my opinion, the main problem with today's drivers is that they are brainless to hit for good players.  Pros used to have to worry about missing the sweet spot off the tee.  But now it is incredibly rare.

Totally agree with you Peter on the driver, but high swing speed players being able to hit forged blade 7 irons 200 yards just illustrates how much the golf ball has progressed (and these aren't "jacked loft" GI or SGI irons with various "speed" technologies).

Unfortunately, the solution would need to be ball and metalwood for any realistic "rollback" to be successful.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Here's a possible rollback for the driver:


https://newsroom.taylormadegolf.com/en-CA/172515-celebrating-company-s-40th-anniversary-taylormade-golf-company-introduces-original-one-mini-driver[/font][/size][/size][/size][/size]I'm still in favor of Bifurcation for the 1%.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Totally agree with you Peter on the driver, but high swing speed players being able to hit forged blade 7 irons 200 yards just illustrates how much the golf ball has progressed (and these aren't "jacked loft" GI or SGI irons with various "speed" technologies).

Give that same guy a Pinnacle from 1998 and he'd hit it pretty far, too. The current ball already fits the "rolled back" ball requirements/limits/rules. They just figured out how to give the good players the control they got from balata with the distance they could have gotten from a Pinnacle.

So, "rollback" is likely the wrong term, because they'd just slap urethane covers on Pinnacles. There's no point you could "roll back" to where a Pro V1 wouldn't conform, basically. You would actually need entirely new rules. A "rollback" wouldn't cut it.

[Garland Bayley]

Totally agree with you Peter on the driver, but high swing speed players being able to hit forged blade 7 irons 200 yards just illustrates how much the golf ball has progressed (and these aren't "jacked loft" GI or SGI irons with various "speed" technologies).

Give that same guy a Pinnacle from 1998 and he'd hit it pretty far, too. The current ball already fits the "rolled back" ball requirements/limits/rules.

WHAT? What "rolled back" rules are you taking about? There has been no rules so cause a roll back of distance. There has only been rules that stuck to stop the balls and implements from causing the balls to go farther then they were at the time the rule was implemented. The only roll back in the rules was to prevent the Polara ball from being legal after it came out.

They just figured out how to give the good players the control they got from balata with the distance they could have gotten from a Pinnacle.

So, "rollback" is likely the wrong term, because they'd just slap urethane covers on Pinnacles. There's no point you could "roll back" to where a Pro V1 wouldn't conform, basically.

You would actually need entirely new rules. A "rollback" wouldn't cut it. How is it that you haven't understood that this whole topic has been about creating "entirely new rules" that would require the manufacturers to produce balls (and clubs) with less performance.

[Sean_A]

Little League baseball has introduced "deader" bats:
https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/8/20/little-league-putting-an-end-to-launch-angle-chase-with-new-deader-bats

evidently 12 year olds have less need to cling to their youth than 50 year old men....

I spose if the best players exert the influence most seem to claim, maybe they should be the first to lay down their weapons 😎

Ciao

[Jim Hoak]

Not to extend/resurrect this discussion, but I note—without conclusion—the announcement yesterday that measured drives on all tours—except the LPGA—were lower this year.  No reasons given.  A few fewer drivers hit on the measured holes, but close.  Swing speed was up, which I guess is more related to athleticism than to equipment.   
The only conclusion I might suggest is the need to bifurcate the Ladies.

[Mike_Clayton]

Jim,


The problem is the horse bolted 15 years ago. The next quantum leap will be when today's 14 years olds get out there.
Related to the climate change debate - the weather isn't the climate.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

WHAT? What "rolled back" rules are you taking about? There has been no rules so cause a roll back of distance. There has only been rules that stuck to stop the balls and implements from causing the balls to go farther then they were at the time the rule was implemented. The only roll back in the rules was to prevent the Polara ball from being legal after it came out.

I'm simply pointing out that the ODS hasn't really changed in decades. A Pro V1 conforms to the 1990 standard. So, it's not about rolling back the rules/regulations/limitations, but actually rolling back the technology (making a Pinnacle that can spin - the Pinnacle part being the solid core for distance with the driver, the "spin" part being the urethane cover for spin/control off short irons).

How is it that you haven't understood that this whole topic has been about creating "entirely new rules" that would require the manufacturers to produce balls (and clubs) with less performance.

I understand it perfectly well, Garland… the fact is that it's not a "rollback" so much as it is a completely new implementation. Those who favor whatever this is would do well to choose a better title.

The problem is the horse bolted 15 years ago. The next quantum leap will be when today's 14 years olds get out there.

You keep saying things like this, but your only real "proof" is the past, and you yourself acknowledge that people aren't going to continue to run much faster, or swim much faster, etc.

It's fear mongering of a sort (keeping in mind that we're talking about a silly game we all enjoy far too much). FUD.

[Thomas Dai]

Worth watching - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e050tXKQDT0

It would be nice to hear from say an experienced just retired golf ball tech (who hasn't signed a confidentiality agreement!!!!!!) at one of the big manufacturers just what the manufacturers have got in the experimental/prototype/not for release cupboard.

I strongly suspect they all have a series of roll-back balls of various sorts sitting there. And their commercial depts will have run loads of economic models detailing cost/revenue/atoi scenarios for introduction.

As to the potential legal situation, any lawyers on here care to opine on restraint of trade vrs health & safety (or other aspects) in relation to an overall rollback?

atb

[Niall C]

A couple of years ago I played with a former patent lawyer for Taylor Made and asked him about my R7 driver. FWIW he said the technology was still current.


Niall

[Garland Bayley]

FWIW just caddied LPGA pro-am. Szokol was hitting out of sight and  blowing it over bunkers that used to be in play.

[Terry Lavin]

WHAT? What "rolled back" rules are you taking about? There has been no rules so cause a roll back of distance. There has only been rules that stuck to stop the balls and implements from causing the balls to go farther then they were at the time the rule was implemented. The only roll back in the rules was to prevent the Polara ball from being legal after it came out.

I'm simply pointing out that the ODS hasn't really changed in decades. A Pro V1 conforms to the 1990 standard. So, it's not about rolling back the rules/regulations/limitations, but actually rolling back the technology (making a Pinnacle that can spin - the Pinnacle part being the solid core for distance with the driver, the "spin" part being the urethane cover for spin/control off short irons).

How is it that you haven't understood that this whole topic has been about creating "entirely new rules" that would require the manufacturers to produce balls (and clubs) with less performance.

I understand it perfectly well, Garland… the fact is that it's not a "rollback" so much as it is a completely new implementation. Those who favor whatever this is would do well to choose a better title.

The problem is the horse bolted 15 years ago. The next quantum leap will be when today's 14 years olds get out there.

You keep saying things like this, but your only real "proof" is the past, and you yourself acknowledge that people aren't going to continue to run much faster, or swim much faster, etc.

It's fear mongering of a sort (keeping in mind that we're talking about a silly game we all enjoy far too much). FUD.

You ain’t Mike Clayton. Or Jeff Warne. Or anybody else that you constantly attempt to denigrate.


Go back to The Sandbox. FUD.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Hello shadow. Thanks for the contribution once again.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()