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

[phillyk]

8 minutes ago, Lime Shark said:

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.

 

They only make the e6 because it sold and the others did not.  It had a soft feel while still going a good enough distance.  They have e6 soft and e6 speed.  You can guess which one sells better... off topic, but since this split in e6, sales have overall gone down.

Really though, as it was, a e6 won't fix your slice, if you were using a e7 before.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, phillyk said:

They only make the e6 because it sold and the others did not.  It had a soft feel while still going a good enough distance.  They have e6 soft and e6 speed.  You can guess which one sells better... off topic, but since this split in e6, sales have overall gone down.

Really though, as it was, a e6 won't fix your slice, if you were using a e7 before.

Yeah.

there was very little different between the balls. They consolidated for inventory purposes, I would imagine, after seeing which marketing message sold the best.

[Lime Shark]

10 minutes ago, phillyk said:

They only make the e6 because it sold and the others did not. 

That was my point.

The e6 was the straight flight (or anti-slice) ball. 

In the player demographic group the e series was aimed at (I'm guessing intermediate amateur players), the demand for an anti-slice ball dwarfed the demand for a short-game or distance ball to the point they discontinued them.

Both the e6 current incarnations (soft and speed) have "straight distance" printed on the front in big letters (note the word straight is first).

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yeah.

there was very little different between the balls. They consolidated for inventory purposes, I would imagine, after seeing which marketing message sold the best.

And the marketing message that sold the most was "straight", which should give some insight into the purchaser's needs.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Lime Shark said:

The e6 was the straight flight (or anti-slice) ball.

You're giving far too much weight to the marketing message. The ball probably sliced 2% less. An un-noticeable amount.

2 minutes ago, Lime Shark said:

In the player demographic group the e series was aimed at (I'm guessing intermediate amateur players), the demand for the ball marketed as anti-slice dwarfed the demand for a short-game or distance ball to the point they discontinued them.

FTFY.

Another way to look at it: the e6 was the best blend of both. It wasn't purely for short game and it wasn't purely for distance. Customers simply liked that it was a "best of both worlds" type situation. Maybe they didn't care at all that it was labeled as the "straightest" (as you said they all said "straight" right?).

Anyway, not really on topic… except to point out that average golfers don't hit the ball too far.

[phillyk]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

You're giving far too much weight to the marketing message. The ball probably sliced 2% less. An un-noticeable amount.

FTFY.

Another way to look at it: the e6 was the best blend of both. It wasn't purely for short game and it wasn't purely for distance. Customers simply liked that it was a "best of both worlds" type situation. Maybe they didn't care at all that it was labeled as the "straightest" (as you said they all said "straight" right?).

Anyway, not really on topic… except to point out that average golfers don't hit the ball too far.

I think @Lime Shark is trying to say that am's are more concerned with hitting the ball straight versus hitting it far?  So they would buy balls marketed for that.  Even still, a slice now, will still be a slice if balls get reduced, only it will be 30yds shorter.

Edited December 12, 2017 by phillyk

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, phillyk said:

I think @Lime Shark is trying to say that am's are more concerned with hitting the ball straight versus hitting it far?  So they would buy balls marketed for that.  Even still, a slice now, will still be a slice if balls get reduced, only it will be 30yds shorter.

Yeah, we all need this.

[Lime Shark]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Maybe they didn't care at all that it was labeled as the "straightest" (as you said they all said "straight" right?).

No, on the old boxes, only the e6 said straight.

Old box text:

e5: distance and control
e6: straight distance
e7: pure distance

The on topic part is the USGA is considering limiting distance, because it is a problem for pros. It is NOT a problem for amateurs. 

If the USGA wanted to improve the experience for amateurs, they might do something like change the dimple rule to allow straighter flying balls. 

But then, I'm not even sure the USGA realizes there is such a thing as amateur golf.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Lime Shark

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, Lime Shark said:

But then, I'm not even sure the USGA realizes there is such a thing as amateur golf.

Oh please. Off topic, but seriously… They do a TON for/with amateur golf.

[uitar9]

I'm pretty sure, regardless of ball manufacturer, model or colour, I can slice it.

[iacas]

Dustin Johnson "reverses" his statements:

Quote

"It's not like we are dominating golf courses," Johnson said. "When was the last time you saw someone make the game too easy? I don't really understand what all the debate is about because it doesn't matter how far it goes; it is about getting it in the hole."

http://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/dj-changes-tune-golf-ball-distance-debate

I put "reverses" in quotes because I didn't get the sense that he was completely agreeing with Tiger back in December when he was last asked about this topic.

[lastings]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Dustin Johnson "reverses" his statements:

http://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/dj-changes-tune-golf-ball-distance-debate

I put "reverses" in quotes because I didn't get the sense that he was completely agreeing with Tiger back in December when he was last asked about this topic.

This is the same Dustin Johnson that came 3 inches short of holing outva 430 yd par 4 a couple weeks ago, right? 

I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again..  it’s not the distance, it’s the spin.  ProV1-style ball spin less off the tee.  Stick an old balata ball on the tee and let’s see Dustin Johnson swing 120mph without putting it 2 fairways over or ballooning straight up in the air. 

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, lastings said:

This is the same Dustin Johnson that came 3 inches short of holing outva 430 yd par 4 a couple weeks ago, right?

On an extremely downhill hole where the ball bounced and rolled about a hundred yards, sure. Players were driving that green 13 years ago, too.

4 minutes ago, lastings said:

I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again..  it’s not the distance, it’s the spin.  ProV1-style ball spin less off the tee.

So did the perfectly legal Pinnacles of the mid-90s.

4 minutes ago, lastings said:

Stick an old balata ball on the tee and let’s see Dustin Johnson swing 120mph without putting it 2 fairways over or ballooning straight up in the air. 

So? That doesn't make a point.

Dustin could have - perfectly legally - teed up a Pinnacle from the 90s and hit the same shot.

The modern ball simply married the full swing performance characteristics of the legal Pinnacle with the short-game spin (though in a very reduced capacity) of the legal balata ball.

So what can you do? First, I don't even agree with the idea that there is a "problem" in need of fixing. Neither do the majority of people here.

But, let's assume that there is a problem… how do you "fairly" reduce the distance the ball flies? Changing any characteristics will benefit some players more than others (or harm some more than others). High spin players will be affected differently tan lower-spin players. Ditto for things like high launch players vs. low launch players.

[lastings]

50 minutes ago, iacas said:

On an extremely downhill hole where the ball bounced and rolled about a hundred yards, sure. Players were driving that green 13 years ago, too.

So did the perfectly legal Pinnacles of the mid-90s.

So? That doesn't make a point.

Dustin could have - perfectly legally - teed up a Pinnacle from the 90s and hit the same shot.

The modern ball simply married the full swing performance characteristics of the legal Pinnacle with the short-game spin (though in a very reduced capacity) of the legal balata ball.

So what can you do? First, I don't even agree with the idea that there is a "problem" in need of fixing. Neither do the majority of people here.

But, let's assume that there is a problem… how do you "fairly" reduce the distance the ball flies? Changing any characteristics will benefit some players more than others (or harm some more than others). High spin players will be affected differently tan lower-spin players. Ditto for things like high launch players vs. low launch players.

But there lies the problem.  In the 90s players could have a straight ball off the tee, but to do so they had to give up spin and feel around the greens.  If they wanted spin and feel around the greens they had to slow down their swing or give up accuracy off the tee.

Classic golf risk/reward scenario.  Now it’s just, here have everything you want. Stop thinking and just hit the stupid ball. 

A player like David Toms could compete back then because shorter players were more accurate.  Now, distance no longer compromises accuracy.  Which pushes playing styles out of the game. 

Just because you, or a lot of people here, don’t think there is a problem certainly doesn’t mean you’re right.  I’m not saying I’m right either.  The answer to this question lies solely in the eye of the beholder.  

I, for one, used to love it when short accurate players could compete with players much longer than thenselves by pounding fairways and greens all day.  Those days are gone now though. 

Edited January 19, 2018 by lastings

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, lastings said:

But there lies the problem.

I don't agree that it's a "problem."

Neither do the majority of voters in the poll.

7 minutes ago, lastings said:

Classic golf risk/reward scenario.

No, that doesn't apply there. Risk/reward is an architectural thing

You're simply talking about tradeoffs and finding the best overall ball.

7 minutes ago, lastings said:

Stop thinking and just hit the stupid ball.

Golf is (still) hard. It's not "just hit the stupid ball." As Dustin Johnson said, it still takes skill.

7 minutes ago, lastings said:

A player like David Toms could compete back then because shorter players were more accurate.

That's a bit of a bogus argument. Short hitters can still play on the PGA Tour.

In 2001, David Toms was T95 in driving distance. That's ever so slightly above average. Zach Johnson in 2015 when he won the British Open? T148. Well below average. Short hitters can still win on the PGA Tour.

BTW, Zach was 169th when he won the Masters in 2007.

7 minutes ago, lastings said:

Which pushes playing styles out of the game.

How many short quarterbacks do we have these days?

Athletes get better. One aspect of getting better is the ability to swing faster. And, for all you know, David Toms was actually less accurate than Dustin Johnson. In fact it may even be likely.

7 minutes ago, lastings said:

Just because you, or a lot of people here, don’t think there is a problem certainly doesn’t mean you’re right.

Of course not, but IMO you're not presenting much of a case.

7 minutes ago, lastings said:

I, for one, used to love it when short accurate players could compete with players much longer than thenselves by pounding fairways and greens all day.  Those days are gone now though. 

Why should a short hitter, an arguably lesser skilled player, be able to win? Why should we make a change that would encourage such a thing to happen more frequently?

Hey, tall people are dominating basketball, and I really liked Spud Webb. We should lower the basket to 8' so everyone can dunk!

Hey, homers are only hit by some baseball players… let's move the fences in so everyone can hit them. Or move them back so nobody can, cuz it's not fair to worse pitchers.

Hey, some football players are faster than others, so let's mandate that everyone's cleats weigh five pounds to slow people down. That way it's more fair, right?

Speed is a skill. A 320-yard tee shot - without an increase in the accuracy - is going to get a player in trouble more easily than a 270-yard tee shot.

 

[joro]

To say length is not an advantage is stupid!!!!!!!!!!!

[saevel25]

9 hours ago, lastings said:

Classic golf risk/reward scenario.  Now it’s just, here have everything you want. Stop thinking and just hit the stupid ball. 

No, its a technological risk reward. It just makes every golf hole a risk rewards instead of actually designing a hole to have a risk reward. It makes every drive the same, or in other words, boring.

9 hours ago, lastings said:

A player like David Toms could compete back then because shorter players were more accurate.  Now, distance no longer compromises accuracy.  Which pushes playing styles out of the game

So what? Playing styles change all the time. It's only a natural progression that shorter hitters would be phased out. If you can't be deadly accurate with your irons like Jim Furyk, then you can't compete. Which is fine. Golf still rewards accuracy.

David Toms won 6 out of his 13 wins after 2003. He competed well during the distance boom. Distance has increased marginally since 2003 and dramatically from 1993 to 2003.

[RussUK]

17 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

 

So what? Playing styles change all the time. It's only a natural progression that shorter hitters would be phased out. If you can't be deadly accurate with your irons like Jim Furyk, then you can't compete. Which is fine. Golf still rewards accuracy.

David Toms won 6 out of his 13 wins after 2003. He competed well during the distance boom. Distance has increased marginally since 2003 and dramatically from 1993 to 2003.

Well said. I remember Angel Cabrera at the 2013 Masters and he was taking a club or 2 more than his playing partners into the green but thanks to his accuracy with his hybrid/long irons he was able to stay contention.

On the other hand there is Andrew Coltart who quit because he couldnt keep up and didnt think being accurate with his iron game would be enough. I still think he was too hasty in hanging up the clubs, but if you doubt your abilities then you're not going to be able to compete with the big hitters.

I suppose its like the racing driver who knows his car is down on power but compensates with being a little more aggressive and having supreme confidence (even a little cockiness) in his ability and still wins (Schumacher 1996 Ferrari springs to mind). 

Edited January 19, 2018 by RussUK

[lastings]

I don't know.   I responded last night from my phone without looking up actual stats.   

I just hearken back to a different time when the game was not all about power.   Power was always an advantage, but it wasn't the sole determiner of success and players that lacked it could compensate with other skills.   

You look at last year's money list you see Justin Thomas, DJ, Rahm, Koepka.   These guys are all huge power guys.   Accuracy just doesn't seem to matter anymore.   All those guys hit like 56% of fairways. But it just doesn't matter, because hitting a PW out of the rough is not as penalizing as hitting a 6-iron out of the rough.   

In Contrast, I just looked at 1995 as an example.   you got guys like Billy Mayfair, Lee Janzen, Corey Pavin, Steve Elkington all top 5 money guys.  None of which were top 40 in Driving.  They didn't need to overpower the field. They won by hitting over 70% of fairways.  Corey Pavin was 185th in Driving distance, for crying out loud.   

When players were hitting 255-290, Distance got you into trouble, now distance seems to get you past trouble.   If a player that is 185th on the tour in Driving can be 3rd on the money list, obviously the game was more of a strategy match.   

I don't know exactly what this means for or about the ball.   But I do know what it means for the game, and that is simply that you better learn how to bomb that Driver.   it's the only club that matters anymore, in the pro game.  

(also, anyone that is going to suggest that all the added distance is a matter of working out, training, and more advance swing mechanics is kidding themselves.   John Daly was 10 yards farther and hit 10% more fairways last year, at 50 yrs old on the champions tour than he did in his physical prime when he was winning the British Open).   

 

 

5 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Golf still rewards accuracy.

It really doesn't though.   The Top 5 guys in money last year would have been dead last or near there in driving accuracy on the tour in 1995.    Distance now outweighs accuracy.   heavily.