The primary anti-roll back the ball argument

NevinWNevinW Las VegasClubWRX Posts: 1,116 ClubWRX
I'm not sure I understand one of the primary argument that is used against the idea of rolling back the ball: That it hurts the recreational player who doesn't hit the ball far enough as it is. My question is: Let's say they made the golf ball go 5% shorter across the board. Why couldn't everyone play 6500 yard courses rather than 6900 yards. Nothing else would change. Everyone moves up a set of tees and the very back tees are eliminated. Shorter golf courses means quicker rounds, less fertilizer and expenses. Instead of hitting a 7 iron 160, one would hit it 152. How would this be catastrophic to the amateur game?
«13456789

Comments

  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,571 ✭✭
    I think it’s fair to say that most recreational players get a disproportionate amount of joy from hitting the ball as far as possible. Further restrictions on ball flight (the ball already has been “rolled back” to its current place) would reduce this joy.
  • wildcatdenwildcatden China Cat Sunflower Members Posts: 897 ✭✭
    The fix is truly simple (especially for the PGA): Stop mowing fairways down to concrete-like surfaces, narrow the fairways, and grow the rough another inch or so.
  • ChristosteroneChristosterone Reverse C ClubWRX Posts: 1,439 ClubWRX
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #4
    Jacks steel driver shaft was 2” shorter than Stenson’s 3W..

    Just sayin’



    Not saying the ball hasn’t changed, only that equipment improvements are equal to ball upgrades in terms of distance gained...

    The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho







    -Chris
    Sixon Z745 Japanese Tour 430cc Tour AD-DJ7 XX
    Srixon zU45 (2,3) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    Srixon JDM Z945 (4-PW) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    Cleveland 588 DSG(52,56,60) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    dumbest putter ever...backstryke with tons of lead tape
  • 15th Club15th Club Members Posts: 1,709 ✭✭


    Jacks steel driver shaft was 2” shorter than Stenson’s 3W..

    Just sayin’



    Not saying the ball hasn’t changed, only that equipment is equal to it in terms of distance...



    [media=]



    -Chris




    Note the flagstick. Dead downwind in a Fifeshire gale.
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,571 ✭✭


    The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho




    I think if you look at the USGA chart (plotting avg. distance over time, with some equipment introductions overlaid) you see that there were three step-function changes that correlate with new technology: (1) graphite shafts; (2) oversized titanium heads; (3) golf ball improvements. Of these three, I believe oversized heads drove the single biggest gains (and created the USGA rules on COR etc.).
  • ex0dusex0dus Members Posts: 501 ✭✭
    Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
    Cobra King Ltd Pro
    Nike SQ2 13*
    Mizuno MP630 clk hybrid 20*
    Bstone J40 DPC 4 iron
    Cleveland 588 mb 5-pw
    Ping Gorge wedges 56*, 52*
    Cally Mack Daddy PM grind 60*
    Machine adjuster putter
    Bridgestone 330 ball
  • knock it closeknock it close Members Posts: 7,945 ✭✭
    ex0dus wrote:


    Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
    Ya and Andrew Rice did a comparison and the balata carried 47 yards less https://www.andrewricegolf.com/andrew-rice-golf/2011/08/evolution-of-a-golf-ball . One review shouldn't be taken as gospel..
    M2, maybe
    915 FD
    913 HD
    712u 3
    714 AP2 4-p
    SM5 53, 59
    Circa62
  • BlackDiamondPar5BlackDiamondPar5 Members Posts: 5,305 ✭✭
    ex0dus wrote:


    Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.


    Most guys are bigger, stronger and all have new methods of training to optimize distance that simply wasn't around 20 years ago.



    There's another video of long drivers using persimmon woods and crushing it.
  • ChristosteroneChristosterone Reverse C ClubWRX Posts: 1,439 ClubWRX
    raynorfan1 wrote:



    The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho




    I think if you look at the USGA chart (plotting avg. distance over time, with some equipment introductions overlaid) you see that there were three step-function changes that correlate with new technology: (1) graphite shafts; (2) oversized titanium heads; (3) golf ball improvements. Of these three, I believe oversized heads drove the single biggest gains (and created the USGA rules on COR etc.).




    I should’ve said the graphite shaft in tandem with the 460cc metal head



    -Chris
    Sixon Z745 Japanese Tour 430cc Tour AD-DJ7 XX
    Srixon zU45 (2,3) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    Srixon JDM Z945 (4-PW) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    Cleveland 588 DSG(52,56,60) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    dumbest putter ever...backstryke with tons of lead tape
  • clevitedclevited Don't think you are, know you are. Members Posts: 1,008 ✭✭
    ex0dus wrote:


    Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.




    I have seen that video too, and if you take a look at his numbers and plug them into flightscope optimizer, they are only 6 yards different with the driver. I am not sure how his GCquad got 11 yards with only 3 mph difference in ball speed and nearly every other launch perameter the same. Basically, I think real life the distances would have been even closer just from my experience with many launch monitors and their algorithm differences.



    All and all, 11 yards isn't much, 6 yards is even less difference. The ball change from balata to prov is likely almost nil.
  • ChristosteroneChristosterone Reverse C ClubWRX Posts: 1,439 ClubWRX
    I loved this... Zach Johnson hit 3 balls as did Rory

    It was at altitude and makes u really appreciate the swing speeds of the long ago



    Sixon Z745 Japanese Tour 430cc Tour AD-DJ7 XX
    Srixon zU45 (2,3) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    Srixon JDM Z945 (4-PW) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    Cleveland 588 DSG(52,56,60) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    dumbest putter ever...backstryke with tons of lead tape
  • DFS PFDDFS PFD Members Posts: 951 ✭✭

    raynorfan1 wrote:



    The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho




    I think if you look at the USGA chart (plotting avg. distance over time, with some equipment introductions overlaid) you see that there were three step-function changes that correlate with new technology: (1) graphite shafts; (2) oversized titanium heads; (3) golf ball improvements. Of these three, I believe oversized heads drove the single biggest gains (and created the USGA rules on COR etc.).




    I should’ve said the graphite shaft in tandem with the 460cc metal head



    -Chris


    Any of those three, the easiest to manipulate (rollback) at this point would be?
    Epic Flash SZ 9* <> <> <>  HZRDUS Smoke Hulk 6.5TX 60g 
    M2 Tour 15* Kuro Kage DC 70TX
    790 UDI Tensei Pro White 100TX
    4-PW Apex Pro 19 DG X7's
    50* MG Raw Tour issue S400
    55* MG Raw Tour issue S400
    60* Hi-Toe Tour Issue S400
    TOULON Garage Atlanta
  • ChristosteroneChristosterone Reverse C ClubWRX Posts: 1,439 ClubWRX
    DFS PFD wrote:


    raynorfan1 wrote:



    The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho




    I think if you look at the USGA chart (plotting avg. distance over time, with some equipment introductions overlaid) you see that there were three step-function changes that correlate with new technology: (1) graphite shafts; (2) oversized titanium heads; (3) golf ball improvements. Of these three, I believe oversized heads drove the single biggest gains (and created the USGA rules on COR etc.).




    I should’ve said the graphite shaft in tandem with the 460cc metal head



    -Chris


    Any of those three, the easiest to manipulate (rollback) at this point would be?




    I disagree the ball or anything needs to be rolled back and am intransigent in this thought...



    -Chris
    Sixon Z745 Japanese Tour 430cc Tour AD-DJ7 XX
    Srixon zU45 (2,3) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    Srixon JDM Z945 (4-PW) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    Cleveland 588 DSG(52,56,60) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    dumbest putter ever...backstryke with tons of lead tape
  • DFS PFDDFS PFD Members Posts: 951 ✭✭

    DFS PFD wrote:


    raynorfan1 wrote:



    The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho




    I think if you look at the USGA chart (plotting avg. distance over time, with some equipment introductions overlaid) you see that there were three step-function changes that correlate with new technology: (1) graphite shafts; (2) oversized titanium heads; (3) golf ball improvements. Of these three, I believe oversized heads drove the single biggest gains (and created the USGA rules on COR etc.).




    I should’ve said the graphite shaft in tandem with the 460cc metal head



    -Chris


    Any of those three, the easiest to manipulate (rollback) at this point would be?




    I disagree the ball or anything needs to be rolled back and am intransigent in this thought...



    -Chris


    Okay I am well aware of that, we're playing in a hypothetical world on this board. If one of those components needed to be rolled back, which would be easiest. You seem well informed and I appreciate that, simply looking for input, not antagonizing.
    Epic Flash SZ 9* <> <> <>  HZRDUS Smoke Hulk 6.5TX 60g 
    M2 Tour 15* Kuro Kage DC 70TX
    790 UDI Tensei Pro White 100TX
    4-PW Apex Pro 19 DG X7's
    50* MG Raw Tour issue S400
    55* MG Raw Tour issue S400
    60* Hi-Toe Tour Issue S400
    TOULON Garage Atlanta
  • 15th Club15th Club Members Posts: 1,709 ✭✭
    wildcatden wrote:


    The fix is truly simple (especially for the PGA): Stop mowing fairways down to concrete-like surfaces, narrow the fairways, and grow the rough another inch or so.




    {Sigh.} Do you realize, that that "simple fix" is just a great big negative, for the quality of golf in the service of simply holding down scoring? I mean, the USGA has done it many times before. And they'd argue that they are trying to identify the best golfers and that narrowing fairways and growing rough puts an emphasis on accuracy and nerves and serves as a bit of a brake on distance as players try to hit narrowed fairways for fear of punitive rough.



    But that's old thinking, in my view. The new generation of history-minded golf course architects want to return to width; to give players options on the best lines and re-introduce course management and strategy. To open up as many lines, angles and choices as possible; to make hazards more strategic and less punitive.
  • clevitedclevited Don't think you are, know you are. Members Posts: 1,008 ✭✭

    ex0dus wrote:


    Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
    Ya and Andrew Rice did a comparison and the balata carried 47 yards less https://www.andrewri...-of-a-golf-ball . One review shouldn't be taken as gospel..




    Those results are quite opposite of Shiels, very surprising. Given the launch characteristics they should have gone almost the same distance and very similar to Shiels numbers. He did note the weight difference, which I suspect what the entire difference in distance. The question is, where those balls made to that lighter weight or did they lose weight over time sitting on the shelf like he mentions in his test?



    If I were to guess, and please correct me if my guess is wrong (I want truth), those balls likely lost weight over time due to the liquid centers. Seems unlikely they weight that much less new.



    Also, being as Sheils used GCQ and Andrew used Trackman makes sense to the differences. Trackman tracked the entire flight, GCQ only catches launch perameters and then calculates.
  • North TexasNorth Texas Members Posts: 4,264 ✭✭
    clevited wrote:

    ex0dus wrote:


    Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.




    I have seen that video too, and if you take a look at his numbers and plug them into flightscope optimizer, they are only 6 yards different with the driver. I am not sure how his GCquad got 11 yards with only 3 mph difference in ball speed and nearly every other launch perameter the same. Basically, I think real life the distances would have been even closer just from my experience with many launch monitors and their algorithm differences.



    All and all, 11 yards isn't much, 6 yards is even less difference. The ball change from balata to prov is likely almost nil.




    In the Andrew Rice link above the pro v only flew 47 yards farther than the balata. You may consider that "nil" but I **** sure don't.
  • 15th Club15th Club Members Posts: 1,709 ✭✭
    [background=transparent]Most guys are bigger, stronger and all have new methods of training to optimize distance that simply wasn't around 20 years ago.[/background]




    As we have discussed more times than I can recount, I am not sure that I accept the notion that Fred Couples' or Tiger Woods' current length, compared to 20 years ago, has anything to do with physical fitness.



    But even if it were, I'd argue strongly that since nobody would dream of regulating fitness, the thing to do is to regulate one of the most inconsequential things which is the golf ball.



    If you think I am saying that the golf ball has to take the blame for (presumed) improved athleticism, you have it exactly right. That is not punishing any or all of the athletes. It is protecting the golf course.
  • ex0dusex0dus Members Posts: 501 ✭✭

    ex0dus wrote:


    Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
    Ya and Andrew Rice did a comparison and the balata carried 47 yards less https://www.andrewri...-of-a-golf-ball . One review shouldn't be taken as gospel..






    I played college golf in the 80s with those balata balls. If he was carrying them only 225 with a 110 swing speed then he was either hitting them very poorly or the balls had degraded due to age.
    Cobra King Ltd Pro
    Nike SQ2 13*
    Mizuno MP630 clk hybrid 20*
    Bstone J40 DPC 4 iron
    Cleveland 588 mb 5-pw
    Ping Gorge wedges 56*, 52*
    Cally Mack Daddy PM grind 60*
    Machine adjuster putter
    Bridgestone 330 ball
  • clevitedclevited Don't think you are, know you are. Members Posts: 1,008 ✭✭
    ex0dus wrote:


    ex0dus wrote:


    Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
    Ya and Andrew Rice did a comparison and the balata carried 47 yards less https://www.andrewri...-of-a-golf-ball . One review shouldn't be taken as gospel..






    I played college golf in the 80s with those balata balls. If he was carrying them only 225 with a 110 swing speed then he was either hitting them very poorly or the balls had degraded due to age.




    I suspect this is so, I am trying to find original specs of the balls. I am guessing it might be mostly due to weight change.
  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members Posts: 2,082 ✭✭
    NevinW wrote:


    I'm not sure I understand one of the primary argument that is used against the idea of rolling back the ball: That it hurts the recreational player who doesn't hit the ball far enough as it is. My question is: Let's say they made the golf ball go 5% shorter across the board. Why couldn't everyone play 6500 yard courses rather than 6900 yards. Nothing else would change. Everyone moves up a set of tees and the very back tees are eliminated. Shorter golf courses means quicker rounds, less fertilizer and expenses. Instead of hitting a 7 iron 160, one would hit it 152. How would this be catastrophic to the amateur game?




    Amateurs hitting a 7 iron 160 instead of 152 isn't catastrophic, either. Nor is the current state of the game. Change all manufacturing so amateurs will hit a 7 iron a mere 8 yards shorter? Meh. Can't get behind that. Neither will OEMs. That's why absolutely nothing will happen with the ball.



    I think the USGA should focus on capping the length of courses. The cheapest way to address the issue of courses having to buy land to add length is to disallow it. That way, the USGA can still get its rocks off by "governing", and all of us can play golf exactly like we have for the last 20 years.
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • ChristosteroneChristosterone Reverse C ClubWRX Posts: 1,439 ClubWRX
    Graeme McDowell still has a beautiful reverse c even with a putter



    Sixon Z745 Japanese Tour 430cc Tour AD-DJ7 XX
    Srixon zU45 (2,3) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    Srixon JDM Z945 (4-PW) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    Cleveland 588 DSG(52,56,60) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* up
    dumbest putter ever...backstryke with tons of lead tape
  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members Posts: 2,082 ✭✭


    Graeme McDowell still has a beautiful reverse c even with a putter



    [media=]




    Never would have happened if he had to play an 8802 with a balata. Nobody should ever hit a putter further than Nicklaus.

    Roll back the ball and putter MOI!
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • tobiasjdtobiasjd Members Posts: 444 ✭✭
    To me, it's not the max carry, it's the less spin. Todays golfer can swing for the fences with no fear.
    Cobra King LTD Black
    Titleist 910FD 15° 3w
    Titleist 917F2 18° 5w
    Callaway Apex 4h
    PING iBlade 5 - PW
    PING Glide 2.0 Stealth 52°, 56°, 60° SS
    Bettinardi BB1
  • North TexasNorth Texas Members Posts: 4,264 ✭✭

    ex0dus wrote:


    Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
    Ya and Andrew Rice did a comparison and the balata carried 47 yards less https://www.andrewri...-of-a-golf-ball . One review shouldn't be taken as gospel..




    One of the things that I found interesting in the above comparison test was that the Pro V1X 332 went further than the current Pro V1 X they used.



    Wonder why Titleist quit making that ball? Maybe they were forced to roll it back image/taunt.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':taunt:' />
  • sdandreasdandrea Steve Members Posts: 2,396 ✭✭
    NevinW wrote:


    I'm not sure I understand one of the primary argument that is used against the idea of rolling back the ball: That it hurts the recreational player who doesn't hit the ball far enough as it is. My question is: Let's say they made the golf ball go 5% shorter across the board. Why couldn't everyone play 6500 yard courses rather than 6900 yards. Nothing else would change. Everyone moves up a set of tees and the very back tees are eliminated. Shorter golf courses means quicker rounds, less fertilizer and expenses. Instead of hitting a 7 iron 160, one would hit it 152. How would this be catastrophic to the amateur game?




    9 wood for me.................................... image/swoon.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':swoon:' />

    Cobra Max 10.5*
    Cobra Baffler 5w 19*
    Cobra Baffler 5H
    PING G400 6-UW
    PING Eye 2 Gorge 56*
    Odyssey V-Line


  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,571 ✭✭
    What I continue to not understand is what problem the powers that be are trying to solve for.



    We'll see a tournament contested over the weekend where the winning score will be slightly under par on one of the greatest architectural examples in all of golf.



    But who cares if guys on the PGA Tour drive the ball 400+ yards, and post up winning scores of (-25) on courses that are purpose built (the TPC courses) for their weekly reality television show?
  • North TexasNorth Texas Members Posts: 4,264 ✭✭
    tobiasjd wrote:


    To me, it's not the max carry, it's the less spin. Todays golfer can swing for the fences with no fear.




    The most important thing in today's game is how far you hit while keeping it reasonably accurate.



    To me, that's backwards.
  • knock it closeknock it close Members Posts: 7,945 ✭✭
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #30


    ex0dus wrote:


    Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
    Ya and Andrew Rice did a comparison and the balata carried 47 yards less https://www.andrewri...-of-a-golf-ball . One review shouldn't be taken as gospel..




    One of the things that I found interesting in the above comparison test was that the Pro V1X 332 went further than the current Pro V1 X they used.



    Wonder why Titleist quit making that ball? Maybe they were forced to roll it back image/taunt.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':taunt:' />
    They didn't use the the new 1X they only tested the '05 V1 and V1x and the "new" V1 (this was also from 2011 so it would of been that iteration of the ball)
    M2, maybe
    915 FD
    913 HD
    712u 3
    714 AP2 4-p
    SM5 53, 59
    Circa62
  • MtlJeffMtlJeff MontrealMembers Posts: 28,489 ✭✭
    raynorfan1 wrote:


    What I continue to not understand is what problem the powers that be are trying to solve for.



    We'll see a tournament contested over the weekend where the winning score will be slightly under par on one of the greatest architectural examples in all of golf.



    But who cares if guys on the PGA Tour drive the ball 400+ yards, and post up winning scores of (-25) on courses that are purpose built (the TPC courses) for their weekly reality television show?




    Yes, exactly



    I would support a ball rollback if the USGA would show data that the ball is hurting the average player and the courses they play at. Ie putting courses out of business, directly making golf more expensive etc...



    It seems to me that most of the money is being spent by people who can afford it.



    Cobra F8+ 9.5 w/Matrix Black Tie 80
    Callaway Epic Subzero 14* w/Matrix Black Tie 80
    Callaway Apex 20h w/Diamana D+ 95
    Callaway 2016 Apex Pro 4-PW w/S300
    Callaway MD Forged 52,56 w/S300
    Callaway MD 2.0 60 PM grind w/s300
    Odyssey O-works Red Tank #7
Sign In or Register to comment.