Originally Posted by iacas
No, I'm talking about smash factor, but TWO things become less efficient: the clubhead AND the golf ball.
So? It's the opposite of a "boost." And it's nearly 5%. That's a good bit.
That's the point I've been making… ;)
I keep hearing responses about how a ball that goes 20% less is going to kill your game because you can't "bomb" it anymore and you won't enjoy golf.
It's almost like there's only one set of tees on whatever course you play (or that's the way it sounds to me when you say that).
The USGA and PGA of America have a nice formula for choosing the appropriate tees from which to play based on your driving distance, and if they dial back distances on the golf ball those formulas will still work just fine. I'm pretty sure you won't have to trade in your testicles if you have to move up from the tips.
And as I said a few months ago when I started this thread, I enjoyed watching PGA Tour golf 30 years ago just as much as I do today, so I don't understand how someone who enjoys watching golf will only enjoy it if they can see 340 yard drives. Matter of fact, I enjoy watching the LPGA quite a bit, too, and they don't bomb it like the guys.
Since starting this thread, I've done a lot of reading on the topic and changed my mind on a lot of things. Thanks to Erik and stuff he has on The Sand Trap, I think I understand it a little better now. It's not the golf ball's fault it's going farther, but several factors that cause the ball to go farther. Can you fix it by making manufacturers create a ball that doesn't go as far? I'm pretty sure they can, considering they can create a ball now that goes exactly as fast and far as the USGA will allow but not any faster or farther. That's a pretty exact science.
I respect Jack, and I once thought his 20% was fair. That's pretty extreme. Maybe 10% is a better option. Or even 5%. So how much would it affect Tour players?
Luke List, #1 right now in driving distance, would go from 305.0 to 274.5 after a 10% rollback, or 289.75 after a 5% rollback.
Mike Weir, the shortest hitter, would go from 268.6 to 241.74 after a 10% rollback, or 255.17 after a 5% rollback.
OH...and these numbers are TOTAL distance...not just carry distance. The longest hitter on the tour is getting 305 total (and I'm assuming there was, what, about 10-20 yards of roll based on what I see on TV?).
Obviously Luke List would still have a big advantage over Mike Weir in driving distance, so it's not like you're eliminating any competitive advantage to long hitters. Right?
I don't design courses, but I can see why Jack was a little peeved that Keegan Bradley carried a 317-yard fairway bunker at his course. 317 yard CARRY. I'd love to know what his swing speed was on that one. But it's clearly a fluke for him, because (well, until now) he was 7th in driving distance on the tour with an average of 301.9 (carry + roll).