USGA/R&A Distance Insights Project (Updated Feb. 2021)

[iacas]

4 hours ago, ncates00 said:

put a speed limit on the ball of 170 mph ball speed (or whatever number--the point is to lower it somewhere near average tour player level).

A. Please explain how this is possible given the laws of physics?

B. Completely, totally unfair.

Terrible idea, IMO.

4 hours ago, ncates00 said:

The high swing speed guys can have perhaps a couple of clubs that reach that max--say driver and 3w, so they still benefit over others.

No they wouldn't.

Guy A hits it 182 now, 170 then. Guy B hits it 170 now, 170 then. How's that fair?

[ncates00]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

A. Please explain how this is possible given the laws of physics?

B. Completely, totally unfair.

Terrible idea, IMO.

No they wouldn't.

Guy A hits it 182 now, 170 then. Guy B hits it 170 now, 170 then. How's that fair?

First, I just thought it was interesting idea.  Maybe it'll work; maybe not.

 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

A. Please explain how this is possible given the laws of physics?

I don't know if it is or not.  I said as much above.

 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No they wouldn't.

Guy A hits it 182 now, 170 then. Guy B hits it 170 now, 170 then. How's that fair?

It's not fair on its face, but again, the guy with more ball speed currently would have more clubs at the max ball speed to use--the other guy only has one.  The launch characteristics would lead to different distances so the longer player could still game the clubs.  Additionally, while driver for driver the longer guy would lose out, he still benefits through the bag because he has more speed--it would require less effort for him.  Plus, it's only the top number being affected.  The longer guy would still have shorter clubs in--the distance off the tee would just be more similar.  That's the whole point of the distance debate.

Remember, if you read the report sent out--this mostly about driver distance.  Further, the orgs want there to be a balance of many skills.  Right now when you look at strokes gained, distance is at a premium.  The orgs want to bring balance by lowering the premium on distance by making it more even.  This would lower the importance of distance and put more emphasis on approach play.  Distance is giving too much of an edge and the orgs want to even it out a bit, so the argument goes.  It's not a bad one.  When you look at a conceptual pie chart of: driving distance, approach the green, around the green play, and putting--there's too much emphasis on driving distance to the point that it swallows up the other skills to a large degree.  It directly affects approach shots via shorter distances and shorter clubs, which as we all know, leads to closer proximity to the hole and more putts being made.  Go reread your own book.

Again, it's not fair to the long ball hitter--it's not supposed to be.  It's an attempt to adjust and balance out the requisite skills to compete at the highest level.  Again, a ball speed limit, even if viable, would only affect the top players of the game, and would lessen the importance of distance, bringing balance to the skill palette.  

Edited February 17, 2020 by ncates00

[iacas]

52 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

It's not fair on its face, but again, the guy with more ball speed currently would have more clubs at the max ball speed to use--the other guy only has one.

It would be categorically unfair.

52 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

When you look at a conceptual pie chart of: driving distance, approach the green, around the green play, and putting--there's too much emphasis on driving distance to the point that it swallows up the other skills to a large degree.

No, it doesn't. Approach shot play still matters the most, and the players who drive it the farthest actually have a tougher time gaining strokes on approach shots because they have shorter approach shots.

And, really, I don't think the physics of that would really work at all.

[ncates00]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

It would be categorically unfair.

No, it doesn't. Approach shot play still matters the most, and the players who drive it the farthest actually have a tougher time gaining strokes on approach shots because they have shorter approach shots.

And, really, I don't think the physics of that would really work at all.

Maybe you're right.  I just thought it was interesting because, if viable and if the orgs are dead set on change, it could be a good way to avoid bifurcation and messing with clubs.  It also could be a cheaper route both for the consumer and the manufacturers (again, assuming the orgs insist upon change).

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

a good way

Hard disagree, in case that wasn't obvious. 🙂

[lastings]

17 hours ago, iacas said:

That's intellectually dishonest and you know it.

When you're so desperate to score points you make posts like that, I don't know what to tell you.

It was a joke. 

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, lastings said:

It was a joke. 

Then make that obvious. Not even an emoji.

[Missouri Swede]

18 hours ago, ncates00 said:

put a speed limit on the ball of 170 mph ball speed (or whatever number--the point is to lower it somewhere near average tour player level).  Meaning, no one else is affected but those that can achieve higher ball speed than that.

How would you determine this? Radar every tee shot? (“173 mph.  2 stroke penalty and tee it up again.”) What do you do on windy days when a tail wind gives a lot more guys the chance to break 170?

[ncates00]

17 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

How would you determine this? Radar every tee shot? (“173 mph.  2 stroke penalty and tee it up again.”)

Clearly, I was implicitly referring the manufacturing process--kinda like installing a governor on the ball like with a car's speed.  How?  I have no idea; I've conceded that I don't even know if it is possible.

 

18 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

What do you do on windy days when a tail wind gives a lot more guys the chance to break 170?

That's not how ball speed works.  Ball speed is measured at the moment at impact--that initial ball speed immediately off the club; hence, wind would not affect the reading.  Even if you have a gale force behind you, the wind is not likely to materially affect the ball speed.

[Vinsk]

The best way to handle this ‘dilemma’ is to shake those who believe there is an issue to address firmly by the collar, slap them just hard enough to startle them and yell, ‘Snap out of it !’

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, ncates00 said:

Clearly, I was implicitly referring the manufacturing process--kinda like installing a governor on the ball like with a car's speed.  How?  I have no idea; I've conceded that I don't even know if it is possible.

I don't see this to be possible. If someone new and strong come out are you going to require the club makers to adjust again? Do you want a handful of people to be banned from golf, or penalized for being better at something than someone else? 

[GolfLug]

Allow me to digress for a moment a bit but  what I think is relatively more unfair is there is not enough penalty for hitting off center. There is too much tech that has increased MOI (stable impact) for relatively hitting off center and less than square face to path relationship. 

Comparable to getting away with a good hit even if less than square off-equator contact with a baseball bat. 

I think if anything that has watered down requisite skill more than anything. Even in pro ranks where hair splitting difference matters.

Of course this type of tech keeps a lot of marginal club folks from quitting the game out of sheer frustration so question of bifurcation doesn't go away.

[ncates00]

28 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

If someone new and strong come out are you going to require the club makers to adjust again?

This would be a moot point if the ball has a speed limit. 

 

28 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Do you want a handful of people to be banned from golf, or penalized for being better at something than someone else? 

No.  How does your question make any sense at all?  You're making wild assumptions and strawman arguments here.  I'm fine with leaving golf the way it is.  I've merely made a suggestion that might be considered should the USGA and R&A insist on making a change. 

Read what has been posted:

 

13 hours ago, ncates00 said:

First, I just thought it was interesting idea.  Maybe it'll work; maybe not.

 

I don't know if it is or not.  I said as much above.

 

It's not fair on its face, but again, the guy with more ball speed currently would have more clubs at the max ball speed to use--the other guy only has one.  The launch characteristics would lead to different distances so the longer player could still game the clubs.  Additionally, while driver for driver the longer guy would lose out, he still benefits through the bag because he has more speed--it would require less effort for him.  Plus, it's only the top number being affected.  The longer guy would still have shorter clubs in--the distance off the tee would just be more similar.  That's the whole point of the distance debate.

Remember, if you read the report sent out--this mostly about driver distance.  Further, the orgs want there to be a balance of many skills.  Right now when you look at strokes gained, distance is at a premium.  The orgs want to bring balance by lowering the premium on distance by making it more even.  This would lower the importance of distance and put more emphasis on approach play.  Distance is giving too much of an edge and the orgs want to even it out a bit, so the argument goes.  It's not a bad one.  When you look at a conceptual pie chart of: driving distance, approach the green, around the green play, and putting--there's too much emphasis on driving distance to the point that it swallows up the other skills to a large degree.  It directly affects approach shots via shorter distances and shorter clubs, which as we all know, leads to closer proximity to the hole and more putts being made.  Go reread your own book.

Again, it's not fair to the long ball hitter--it's not supposed to be.  It's an attempt to adjust and balance out the requisite skills to compete at the highest level.  Again, a ball speed limit, even if viable, would only affect the top players of the game, and would lessen the importance of distance, bringing balance to the skill palette.  

 

12 hours ago, ncates00 said:

Maybe you're right.  I just thought it was interesting because, if viable and if the orgs are dead set on change, it could be a good way to avoid bifurcation and messing with clubs.  It also could be a cheaper route both for the consumer and the manufacturers (again, assuming the orgs insist upon change).

 

10 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Allow me to digress for a moment a bit but  what I think is relatively more unfair is there is not enough penalty for hitting off center. There is too much tech that has increased MOI (stable impact) for relatively hitting off center and less than square face to path relationship. 

Comparable to getting away with a good hit even if less than square off-equator contact with a baseball bat. 

I think if anything that has watered down requisite skill more than anything. Even in pro ranks where hair splitting difference matters.

Of course this type of tech keeps a lot of marginal club folks from quitting the game out of sheer frustration so question of bifurcation doesn't go away.

This is not the topic of this thread.  Nonetheless, despite the improvements in MOI, proximity to the hole and controlling your golf ball is still a thing at all levels of golf.  At the pro level, the guy who control his distance and shape to get closer to the hole has a huge advantage.  At the am level, like you said, it keeps people engaged.  I think the last thing the USGA and R&A want to do is make an already difficult game to get into even more difficult.  Golf is a skill-based game to be sure, but the advancements in MOI have been kept in check pretty well.  Further, the marketing on MOI is overblown; miss the ball out of the middle and not control face to path very well and you still get punished for it.  Face to path isn't going to be overruled by MOI--you might keep more ball speed, but that will just send your ball even further offline.

[saevel25]

8 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

This would be a moot point if the ball has a speed limit. 

I would say it’s not possible. 
 

ball speed is governed by impact physics. The only things that matter are the COR of the ball interacting with the club and the golfers swing speed. 

You would end up with a situation where you lower the COR enough to get the ball to 170 mph. Yet, a golfer can overcome this if they swing harder. Then you’d have to lower the COR again. 
 

 

[ncates00]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

I would say it’s not possible. 
 

ball speed is governed by impact physics. The only things that matter are the COR of the ball interacting with the club and the golfers swing speed. 

You would end up with a situation where you lower the COR enough to get the ball to 170 mph. Yet, a golfer can overcome this if they swing harder. Then you’d have to lower the COR again. 
 

 

Makes sense.  I didn't know if some engineer somewhere could figure it out, but it sounds like it's not possible.  On paper, even if not actually viable, it was a good idea to address distance at the top level without affecting ams like me and without messing with bifurcation or driver heads.  But like you said, it's likely not even possible.

[Double Mocha Man]

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I would say it’s not possible. 
 

ball speed is governed by impact physics. The only things that matter are the COR of the ball interacting with the club and the golfers swing speed. 

You would end up with a situation where you lower the COR enough to get the ball to 170 mph. Yet, a golfer can overcome this if they swing harder. Then you’d have to lower the COR again. 
 

 

Let's borrow from football.  Similar to how they raise a net behind the goal posts on an extra point to keep the football from going into the stands, we could raise a big net at 290 yards off the tee. Then lower it to allow for the next shot. That way we wouldn't have to mess with the ball and courses wouldn't have to get any longer for the tour events. 😁😁😁😁

Edited February 17, 2020 by Double Mocha Man

[ncates00]

7 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Let's borrow from football.  Similar to how they raise a net behind the goal posts on an extra point to keep the football from going into the stands, we could raise a big net at 290 yards off the tee. Then lower it to allow for the next shot. That way we wouldn't have to mess with the ball and courses wouldn't have to get any longer for the tour events. 😁😁😁😁

Can we get striped uniform officials, yellow flags, and red challenge flags too?

[Double Mocha Man]

3 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Can we get striped uniform officials, yellow flags, and red challenge flags too?

😊 This is getting better all the time!