Seems like you believe spin is solely controlled by the player and can be manipulated in a quick Trackman session.
What we are trying to say is they can make the ball spin more by changing the science of the ball. Yes, players can dial in spin with a Trackman session. But mishits become much more widely dispersed if the ball spins more on its own. Mess with the layers, density, thickness the possibilities are endless. There’s a reason why the number of golf ball patents rival things like aerospace tech… shit is complicated.
I never said that (because I don’t). I’m simply pointing out, given the topic here, what Keith said about that.
Got some data on that? I think there’s a good chance you’ll be surprised. Put in some realistic tilted spin axis numbers on the FS Trajectory Optimizer. The ball doesn’t curve a ton more when you go from 2500 to 4000 RPM.
Honestly, the most offensive thing said in that podcast, and that @Soly agreed to, was Keith suggesting that hockey has become all about size and strength, like football, or golf.
Hockey players have gotten noticeably smaller, faster, and more skilled. Brutes aren’t even close to as prominent.
The best, most historical, and most sacred courses that the game has been played on being places where you can’t hold major golf tournaments would most definitely fit under the statement that the spirit of the game has not been properly conserved.
Hey Soly, appreciate your response to my comment. Sounds like Keith has the global warming view that ‘it’s too late to fix it now’.
I just found it frustrating to listen to Keith kind of suggest changes, but then figuratively throw his ha da in the air and say ‘we’ll just figure it out anyway’.
You’ll know more than me, but aren’t viewership numbers down and a few sponsors disappearing? Maybe reframing the argument towards a concern for the future of professional golf when trends seem to suggest the game is less interesting to casual fans. Though that’s a broader question around the threats professional golf is going to deal with.
The Old Course has had to build tee boxes Out-of-Bounds on other golf courses to try to adapt. If the home of golf should have to outstrip the grounds it is intended to be played on so that Taylormade and Acushnet can find an extra 2 yards for Mrs Havekamp then the “spirit“ of the game is certainly in question.
I don’t care if it is 2 holes or 22, they have had to encroach on other courses. If you think it is normal for the home of the game to run out of space to expand then great. I happen to think it’s a fucking disgrace. But I think most of the parties here know where each of all of us stand so I am happy to agree to disagree.
But again, that’s you adding things to it that aren’t there.
The first British Opens were held on a 12-hole course played three times? Did we lose the spirit of the game when they moved to 18 hole courses?
The U.S. Open has been held on some pretty old golf courses of late. Oakmont isn’t new. Merion is pretty old. Pebble is not a baby (and isn’t all that long).
I didn’t make the statement about all classic courses. I only came in to say that the Old Course has to build tees on other courses to remotely keep up with distance. The Old Course hosting the Open in 2022 was provided as evidence against @Soly ‘s statement.
I’d say this, coming from the most recent distance report summary, defines it pretty well:
“The inherent strategic challenge presented by many golf courses can be compromised, especially when those courses have not or cannot become long enough to keep up with increases in the hitting distances of the golfers who play from their longest tees. This can lead to a risk of many courses becoming less challenging, or obsolete.”
Underrated point. It’s easy to focus on spin, spin loft, etc. when in reality it’s a larger set of dependent variables. My question is: can equipment be dialed in such that the requirements (AoA, spin, loft etc.) for hitting a low spin bomb are more stringent? KM rightly points out that with some relatively small amount of sim time they could find the answer. But could the parameter space around that new answer be made more narrow than it is at present? So, so many guys on tour are “good enough” drivers of the ball. It penalizes the likes of Adam Scott and DJ who truly hit the center of the face with optimal launch conditties almost every time. There was a long period of time when a much smaller fraction of pros really went hard at driver, because it was more of a risk with smaller window for success. I would like to go back in that direction.
As I said in the Distance Debate thread, this would be a great addition to the USGA Distance Insights Report. It would require some computing resources that aren’t free, but I guess their new Pinehurst facilities weren’t either.
I fully acknowledge that corporate partnerships and stuff are important to the USGA bottom line, which matters. But perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in that direction when it literally eliminates major championship venue options from consideration.
I also acknowledge you weren’t necessarily personally involved in the “spirit” discussion. The list of obsolete courses is of interest to me, too. Prestwick? Merion? (I know a major was played there recently but it was significantly “renovated” for the occasion) Most likely classic US courses fill out the list? The ones that still host championships are likely the exceptions, but arguments could be made that those were exemplary courses prior to being lengthened, and it’s a chicken/egg situation.
Or we could live in the real world where fans are at the events. Ignore suites and that stuff, you still need space for people. And that’s a lot of space.
