The Golf Ball "Problem": PGA Tour Players Hitting it Far is a Problem for All of Golf?

[joro]

To one and all.    No matter what size the Driver, how light the Driver, how easy to hit the CB and GI irons and the "Hot" Ball, you still have to play the game.      You have to be accurate and have good short game and be a good Putter and the majority of people will never have the skills to play well, but if they are going to play just enjoy what you can do.    Whether you shoot par or 100 it is your game and that is the bottom line.     We all don't have to be perfect and Golf is not a perfect game.   

Enjoy the game;

 

[Lihu]

6 minutes ago, joro said:

To one and all.    No matter what size the Driver, how light the Driver, how easy to hit the CB and GI irons and the "Hot" Ball, you still have to play the game.      You have to be accurate and have good short game and be a good Putter and the majority of people will never have the skills to play well, but if they are going to play just enjoy what you can do.    Whether you shoot par or 100 it is your game and that is the bottom line.     We all don't have to be perfect and Golf is not a perfect game.   

Enjoy the game;

This is kind of the argument for not changing the ball and not messing with the rules we already have to follow. If it makes the game harder or take longer to play, it will be less popular than if it makes the game easier and faster to play.

[joro]

Lihu, those of us that have been in the game for a while know for a fact that nothing is going to change.     Just like anything it is money that drives the game and the club makers, ball makers, gadget makers, and Gurus are not going to change a thing as far as a roll back.   

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, joro said:

Lihu, those of us that have been in the game for a while know for a fact that nothing is going to change.     Just like anything it is money that drives the game and the club makers, ball makers, gadget makers, and Gurus are not going to change a thing as far as a roll back.   

I'm relatively new to this game, so this perspective is good to know.

[iacas]

From a recent Bamberger article:

Quote

"They understand that if they're fortunate enough to get to the next level that they will have to embrace a wood bat over their preferred aluminum."

From a recent post/comment on Shack's site…

Quote

That may have been the case 5-10 years ago, but not today. The bats used in college today (often composite) are restricted and actually perform similar to wood bats, but last longer. Home runs are uncommon in college ball and long home runs even more so. Many teams have only a handful of guys that hit more than just a few home runs all season.

So, throw that out as an example, even though college baseball and the MLB have two very different ruling bodies.

[iacas]

From GCA:

Quote

We are currently in a world of one ball and nine tees of varying length. It appears we are headed for one tee and nine balls each of varying lengths. As a golfer improves they will be given a ball that travels less far. As a golfer gets worse, or ages, they will be given a ball that travels equidistant to when they were younger. No class of golfer hits it any further than any other. Architecture reigns supreme as we all play one universal unquestionable strategy.

Slightly sarcastic post, but seriously… You can't make everything fit everyone.

[b101]

I keep finding myself coming back to this debate after a couple of rounds at non-Championship courses - whatever that definition is actually based on... I played at a local-ish course last weekend and whilst I wouldn't class myself as a big hitter (I averaged 245 or so from the tee in very wet winter conditions), I had one 7i into a green for a par 4 and a lot of full or even partial wedges. In winter, they move the whites and yellows together, so there wasn't much difference between the two there either. There's no way of making that course much more difficult other than tricking the greens up or (as it does at points) having very tight fairways and treelines that interfere with an approach shot. Rolling the ball back to make my drive 220 or so would allow for a few holes where I would take low irons and the odd 3 wood on a par four.

At the same time, I was playing with three friends whose combined handicap would have been over 100. The golf ball doesn't really matter that much to them, but one of them can hit his driver well - just that everything else is very hit and miss. So, rolling the ball back would actually take away his strength whilst leaving his weakness (topped balls etc) exactly the same. The short answer is that there's no easy answer to having us both play the same course. It just takes a lot of creativity with game format and handicapping to make it work.

https://golf.kingswood-golf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/scorecard.pdf

https://www.gamegolf.com/player/benpage101/round/1945637

Still remains an interesting debate and one that I have no idea about. 

[iacas]

@b101, you played from the yellow tees, then, basically?

What did you hit into #16? 245 from 430 still leaves 185. That's a 7-iron when you drive it 245?

If the course played its full 7000 yards (nearly), I think you'd have hit plenty of longer clubs in. Don't you?

[b101]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

@b101, you played from the yellow tees, then, basically?

What did you hit into #16? 245 from 430 still leaves 185. That's a 7-iron when you drive it 245?

If the course played its full 7000 yards (nearly), I think you'd have hit plenty of longer clubs in. Don't you?

Didn't actually play 16 due to lack of light, but yes, that would have been a longer club, for sure. I had a 7i into the 2nd and put myself out of position on 4, 8 and 13. Interesting aside that the only holes I ended up blocked out on were the longer par fours, so I wonder whether I knew that subconsciously... Certainly wasn't thinking about it specifically

[iacas]

To be clear, too, 245 carry isn't at all "short."

[b101]

27 minutes ago, iacas said:

To be clear, too, 245 carry isn't at all "short."

No, but not by any means long either. What I meant was that, given that I don't think I'm a particularly big hitter, it's not the distance that I'd think should leave 3/4 wedges into greens

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, b101 said:

No, but not by any means long either. What I meant was that, given that I don't think I'm a particularly big hitter, it's not the distance that I'd think should leave 3/4 wedges into greens

Par fours:

1. 369: Drive leaves 124 to middle. You hit it 248 + 108 (356) and were past the middle of the green.
2. 406: Drive leaves 161 to middle. You hit it 245 + 156 (401) and were past the middle of the green.
4. 395: Drive leaves 150 to middle. You hit it 214 + 105 + 91 (410) and crooked, so 390. You were past the middle of the green.
6. 390: Drive leaves 145 to middle. You hit it 245 + 137 (382) and were well past the middle of the green.
8. 405: Drive leaves 160 to middle. You hit it 211 + 36 + 141 (388) and were crooked, so 380. You were just short of the green.

12. 347: Drive leaves 102 to middle. You hit it 236 + 124 (360) around outside of dogleg, so 350. You were past the middle.
13. 400: Drive leaves 155 to middle. You hit it 230 + 148 + 19 (397) to the front of the green.

You didn't play par fours that measure: 368, 430, and 390. Those would have left you 123, 185, and 145 - only one of those might be a wedge.

The course you played played to a par four yardage of 2674 over 7 par fours. That's an average yardage of only 382 yards. The stated yardage for the holes is 2712, or about 40 yards further, so it's pretty close, except that you were also PAST the middle of most greens, so the holes may have been about 10 yards shorter than the stated yardage on average.

So, look, I think playing 7 holes that average about 372 yards… I'd expect to have a bunch of wedges in too. 372 - 245 = 127, and that's a wedge, never mind that on some holes you had 156 after a 245-yard drive, 190-ish after a 214-yard drive (so still 160-ish if you hit it 245), and 148 (or 133) after a 230/245-yard drive. So 3 of the 7 holes were not wedges, despite the average playing length being about 372.

And of course you had holes measuring 430 and 390 coming up. You'd have had 185+ and 145+ into those two holes, so now we're up to five or so out of ten, and that's only on a course playing about 6500 yards.

245 isn't short. Scratch golfers average just over 250.

[b101]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Par fours:

1. 369: Drive leaves 124 to middle. You hit it 248 + 108 (356) and were past the middle of the green.
2. 406: Drive leaves 161 to middle. You hit it 245 + 156 (401) and were past the middle of the green.
4. 395: Drive leaves 150 to middle. You hit it 214 + 105 + 91 (410) and crooked, so 390. You were past the middle of the green.
6. 390: Drive leaves 145 to middle. You hit it 245 + 137 (382) and were well past the middle of the green.
8. 405: Drive leaves 160 to middle. You hit it 211 + 36 + 141 (388) and were crooked, so 380. You were just short of the green.

12. 347: Drive leaves 102 to middle. You hit it 236 + 124 (360) around outside of dogleg, so 350. You were past the middle.
13. 400: Drive leaves 155 to middle. You hit it 230 + 148 + 19 (397) to the front of the green.

You didn't play par fours that measure: 368, 430, and 390. Those would have left you 123, 185, and 145 - only one of those might be a wedge.

The course you played played to a par four yardage of 2674 over 7 par fours. That's an average yardage of only 382 yards. The stated yardage for the holes is 2712, or about 40 yards further, so it's pretty close, except that you were also PAST the middle of most greens, so the holes may have been about 10 yards shorter than the stated yardage on average.

So, look, I think playing 7 holes that average about 372 yards… I'd expect to have a bunch of wedges in too. 372 - 245 = 127, and that's a wedge, never mind that on some holes you had 156 after a 245-yard drive, 190-ish after a 214-yard drive (so still 160-ish if you hit it 245), and 148 (or 133) after a 230/245-yard drive. So 3 of the 7 holes were not wedges, despite the average playing length being about 372.

And of course you had holes measuring 430 and 390 coming up. You'd have had 185+ and 145+ into those two holes, so now we're up to five or so out of ten, and that's only on a course playing about 6500 yards.

245 isn't short. Scratch golfers average just over 250.

Useful - I'd never thought to take crooked yardages into account. Appreciate your time and input, as ever!

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, b101 said:

No, but not by any means long either. What I meant was that, given that I don't think I'm a particularly big hitter, it's not the distance that I'd think should leave 3/4 wedges into greens

By 3/4 wedge do you mean 3/4's of your shortest wedge, or 3/4's of any wedge in your bag, because there's a big difference there. Usually when people say some has only a 3/4 wedge in they're referring to, in my experience, someone with less than a hundred yards into the green where they have to hit some sort of partial wedge (whether it be a 60* with only a little taken off, or a 56* hit with a "true" 3/4 swing) because it's too short for any full swing wedge shot. 

Having 108, 105, 137, 124, and 148 in would not count, under a definition like that for a majority of golfers, as having 3/4 wedges into a green. It would count as having a wedge or short iron (depending on your exact yardages) in your hand, which is something I'd expect from an appropriate length golf course on around 1/4 to 1/2 of the par 4's. I'd expect maybe 1-2 par 4's to be a true 3/4 wedge, and then the rest might be mid or long iron approach shots. At least that's what I've found as kind of a general average for me on nice and long championship style golf courses, your mileage may vary.

[b101]

9 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

By 3/4 wedge do you mean 3/4's of your shortest wedge, or 3/4's of any wedge in your bag, because there's a big difference there. Usually when people say some has only a 3/4 wedge in they're referring to, in my experience, someone with less than a hundred yards into the green where they have to hit some sort of partial wedge (whether it be a 60* with only a little taken off, or a 56* hit with a "true" 3/4 swing) because it's too short for any full swing wedge shot. 

Having 108, 105, 137, 124, and 148 in would not count, under a definition like that for a majority of golfers, as having 3/4 wedges into a green. It would count as having a wedge or short iron (depending on your exact yardages) in your hand, which is something I'd expect from an appropriate length golf course on around 1/4 to 1/2 of the par 4's. I'd expect maybe 1-2 par 4's to be a true 3/4 wedge, and then the rest might be mid or long iron approach shots. At least that's what I've found as kind of a general average for me on nice and long championship style golf courses, your mileage may vary.

By that, I mean a 3/4 pitching or gap wedge. Appreciate that maybe that's slightly odd terminology on my part!

[Pretzel]

3 minutes ago, b101 said:

By that, I mean a 3/4 pitching or gap wedge. Appreciate that maybe that's slightly odd terminology on my part!

I don't know whether your terminology is more common or if mine is, if I'm being honest. I've just heard it mostly referred to in the way I described it, but I've also heard it described in the way you use it as well, so I don't think either of us is really wrong or odd in that terminology there.

[uitar9]

For this hacker, please...don't lengthen courses I play or make gear I use hit the ball a shorter distance. I don't see many hit 250, let alone 300.

[Lime Shark]

IMHO, the problem for amateurs isn't the ball traveling too far. It is the inability to hit the ball without curving it into the woods.

My evidence? The Bridgestone e series golf balls. This is a midrange series. They originally had three versions:

e5 - urethane cover (short game ball)
e6 - straight flight ball
e7 - distance ball

According to Bridgestone's website, the only one they still make is the e6--the straight flight ball.