The primary anti-roll back the ball argument

2456789

Comments

  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members Posts: 2,111 ✭✭
    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?




    That's a very good point. The USGA would do well to refrain from attempting to control a professional game over which it has no control. [background=transparent]It's like FIBA trying to tell the NBA where to put its 3PT line. "Uh, thanks for the input, now GFY."[/background]

    Sure, the Dream Team will play FIBA rules for a fun summertime exhibition, but the money is made under NBA rules. The US Open could very well become the one tournament with different rules.
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members Posts: 2,111 ✭✭

    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.






    Thing is, that has been the most important thing in the game since always.
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • DFS PFDDFS PFD Members Posts: 959 ✭✭

    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?




    That's a very good point. The USGA would do well to refrain from attempting to control a professional game over which it has no control. [background=transparent]It's like FIBA trying to tell the NBA where to put its 3PT line. "Uh, thanks for the input, now GFY."[/background]

    Sure, the Dream Team will play FIBA rules for a fun summertime exhibition, but the money is made under NBA rules. The US Open could very well become the one tournament with different rules.


    Would we get rid of the USGA Conforming list as well? That would be an expensive project for the body that takes over USGA equipment standards and testing, for manufacturers as well.
    Epic Flash SZ 9* TD  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
  • larrybudlarrybud Members Posts: 11,251 ✭✭

    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..




    And his comparison isn't valid because you need to use the equipment designed for the ball of the time. Today's drivers are designed for less spin, while the drivers of the day spun the ball to keep it in the air.
  • LittleLeftToRightLittleLeftToRight Turn that frown upside down! Members Posts: 2,038 ✭✭
    The USGA should outlaw weight lifting and any other kind of physical activity. They should also require everyone who plays golf to have a beer gut, just like in the old days. That would do it.....



    Nothing has changed that much aside from fitness. I was there back in the day so I know. The biggest change is information. Basically how to hit the ball further. You can thank Trackman for that.



    I still have Persimmon woods. I reckon more or less that they go about as far as my modern 3 wood. Others have stated the same. My modern 3 wood is a TEE 13º. Not really much difference.
  • gvogelgvogel Members Posts: 7,470 ✭✭
    clevited wrote:

    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.




    The weight and circumference of the ball have not changed since 1931 in the US.
    Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove.  P.G. Wodehouse
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,581 ✭✭
    DFS PFD wrote:


    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?




    That's a very good point. The USGA would do well to refrain from attempting to control a professional game over which it has no control. [background=transparent]It's like FIBA trying to tell the NBA where to put its 3PT line. "Uh, thanks for the input, now GFY."[/background]

    Sure, the Dream Team will play FIBA rules for a fun summertime exhibition, but the money is made under NBA rules. The US Open could very well become the one tournament with different rules.


    Would we get rid of the USGA Conforming list as well? That would be an expensive project for the body that takes over USGA equipment standards and testing, for manufacturers as well.




    Nobody has argued that the USGA shouldn't continue to make and enforce the Rules of Golf (together, of course, with the R&A). Equipment standards are one subset of these rules, and always will be.



    But I don't see the case for changing the equipment standards from their current form.
  • larrybudlarrybud Members Posts: 11,251 ✭✭
    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?




    Why would shorter golf courses mean quicker rounds? We'd all be hitting it shorter. Less fertilizer. phfft. small potatoes for an extra 30 yards for the back box. Golf courses would still have to pay taxes for the land, as the existing courses aren't going to magically get smaller.



    The primary argument is that rolling back the ball is a "solution" to a problem which doesn't exist. PGA Tour driving averages have essentially been flat for the last 15 years.
  • gvogelgvogel Members Posts: 7,470 ✭✭

    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.




    They might have been "crushing" it, but no where near as far with their titanium drivers. Also, they had a bunch of terrible, unplayable shots.
    Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove.  P.G. Wodehouse
  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members Posts: 2,111 ✭✭
    DFS PFD wrote:


    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?




    That's a very good point. The USGA would do well to refrain from attempting to control a professional game over which it has no control. [background=transparent]It's like FIBA trying to tell the NBA where to put its 3PT line. "Uh, thanks for the input, now GFY."[/background]

    Sure, the Dream Team will play FIBA rules for a fun summertime exhibition, but the money is made under NBA rules. The US Open could very well become the one tournament with different rules.


    Would we get rid of the USGA Conforming list as well? That would be an expensive project for the body that takes over USGA equipment standards and testing, for manufacturers as well.




    I fully support the USGA submitting its bid to the PGA of America to conduct equipment testing.
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • wildcatdenwildcatden China Cat Sunflower Members Posts: 900 ✭✭
    15th Club wrote:

    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.






    OK, then what about " Stop mowing fairways down to concrete-like surfaces".
  • c7015c7015 Members Posts: 2,133 ✭✭
    just roll back par ... ya that thing you used to get 5 shots into now you only have 4 ... have fun
    TS3 Smoke 70g (S Flex)
    913 FD 3 wood Whiteboard (X Flex)
    915 F 5 wood Blueboard (S Flex)
    712U 4 Iron
    715CB 5-6
    718MB 7-PW 
    Vokey SM7 50, 55, 60 
    SC Newport 2.5
  • knock it closeknock it close Members Posts: 7,945 ✭✭
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #44
    c7015 wrote:


    just roll back par ... ya that thing you used to get 5 shots into now you only have 4 ... have fun
    That doesn't do anything tho other than make hackers feel better about themselves when they see pros +5, it doesn't solve any of the perceived* problems (whether you believe they are issues depends what side of the argument you are on)
    M2, maybe
    915 FD
    913 HD
    712u 3
    714 AP2 4-p
    SM5 53, 59
    Circa62
  • gvogelgvogel Members Posts: 7,470 ✭✭
    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?




    Will your viewpoint change if a bunch of guys go into double digits under par? Of course, they manipulate scores by making the greens impossible, like last time.



    I would like to see the clubs used for second shots by the top 20 players in this tournament. And how many times they skip using driver, because they don't have to.
    Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove.  P.G. Wodehouse
  • DFS PFDDFS PFD Members Posts: 959 ✭✭

    DFS PFD wrote:


    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?




    That's a very good point. The USGA would do well to refrain from attempting to control a professional game over which it has no control. [background=transparent]It's like FIBA trying to tell the NBA where to put its 3PT line. "Uh, thanks for the input, now GFY."[/background]

    Sure, the Dream Team will play FIBA rules for a fun summertime exhibition, but the money is made under NBA rules. The US Open could very well become the one tournament with different rules.


    Would we get rid of the USGA Conforming list as well? That would be an expensive project for the body that takes over USGA equipment standards and testing, for manufacturers as well.




    I fully support the USGA submitting its bid to the PGA of America to conduct equipment testing.


    I think this is a fun subject, while bids are being processed who governs and regulates the equipment, or does professional golf follow USGA's old rules until they find a replacement? Or what if USGA declines to bid? (purely hypothetical, getting bored with the rest of the debate).
    Epic Flash SZ 9* TD  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
  • c7015c7015 Members Posts: 2,133 ✭✭

    c7015 wrote:


    just roll back par ... ya that thing you used to get 5 shots into now you only have 4 ... have fun
    That doesn't do anything tho other than make hackers feel better about themselves when they see pros +5, it doesn't solve any of the perceived* problems (whether you believe they are issues depends what side of the argument you are on)




    solves everything, (if there was anything to even solve) the argument now is that courses are too short and becoming obsolete so they have to build these monster courses where every par 5 is 700 yards



    just lower par ... par 3 too short that guys are hitting wedges into it ... ok now it's a par 2 you are expected to make "bird"
    TS3 Smoke 70g (S Flex)
    913 FD 3 wood Whiteboard (X Flex)
    915 F 5 wood Blueboard (S Flex)
    712U 4 Iron
    715CB 5-6
    718MB 7-PW 
    Vokey SM7 50, 55, 60 
    SC Newport 2.5
  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members Posts: 2,111 ✭✭
    DFS PFD wrote:


    DFS PFD wrote:


    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?




    That's a very good point. The USGA would do well to refrain from attempting to control a professional game over which it has no control. [background=transparent]It's like FIBA trying to tell the NBA where to put its 3PT line. "Uh, thanks for the input, now GFY."[/background]

    Sure, the Dream Team will play FIBA rules for a fun summertime exhibition, but the money is made under NBA rules. The US Open could very well become the one tournament with different rules.


    Would we get rid of the USGA Conforming list as well? That would be an expensive project for the body that takes over USGA equipment standards and testing, for manufacturers as well.




    I fully support the USGA submitting its bid to the PGA of America to conduct equipment testing.


    I think this is a fun subject, while bids are being processed who governs and regulates the equipment, or does professional golf follow USGA's old rules until they find a replacement? Or what if USGA declines to bid? (purely hypothetical, getting bored with the rest of the debate).




    The PGA of America adopts and follows current USGA standards for equipment.

    The PGA Tour follows PGA of America rules.

    Further equipment submissions for the PGAA conforming list are submitted to the USGA for testing (as this is the USGA's only function now).

    The PGA of America opens the equipment testing for bidding.

    You and I start an equipment testing company and undercut the USGA on price (which is made even easier if the USGA declines to bid. But it won't, because that's all it has now).
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • North TexasNorth Texas Members Posts: 4,268 ✭✭


    The USGA should outlaw weight lifting and any other kind of physical activity. They should also require everyone who plays golf to have a beer gut, just like in the old days. That would do it.....



    Nothing has changed that much aside from fitness. I was there back in the day so I know. The biggest change is information. Basically how to hit the ball further. You can thank Trackman for that.



    I still have Persimmon woods. I reckon more or less that they go about as far as my modern 3 wood. Others have stated the same. My modern 3 wood is a TEE 13º. Not really much difference.




    Nothing has changed that much aside from fitness?



    What about the ball technology and the equipment we are using?
  • ShilgyShilgy PhoenixMembers Posts: 11,604 ✭✭
    15th Club wrote:

    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.
    So in your opinion course strategy changes over time? How to best play the game changes over time? The USGA in their wisdom, as you just noted, has definitely changed what they believe to be the best challenging course setup. Gone are the penal narrow strips of fairway that force the player to take one line off the tee and one line only. In are the wider fairways that make the player think about what line exactly would be best for that days wind and pin position.

    Why oh why oh why if on course strategy has changed and the classic courses still are a stern scoring test in spite of their relatively modest length does anything need to be changed? Is it just to preserve the ideal you seek of what club is hit into which hole? If that is the case it seems the easiest fix would be to just renumber all clubs. no other change is needed.



    PS you have never responded to other changing aspects of the game. It was definitely easier to play short game shots around the softer slower greens of the past with the balata balls of the past. Why the obsession with length? Why not rail against fast firm greens that play so much differently than the architect designed?
    WITB
    Tools for the job!

    To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened . :)

    Game is recovering from total ankle replacement. Getting there and glad to be pain free!
  • ShilgyShilgy PhoenixMembers Posts: 11,604 ✭✭
    gvogel wrote:

    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?




    Will your viewpoint change if a bunch of guys go into double digits under par? Of course, they manipulate scores by making the greens impossible, like last time.



    I would like to see the clubs used for second shots by the top 20 players in this tournament. And how many times they skip using driver, because they don't have to.
    So a better game is to have the pros just walk up to every single tee box and blindly swat away with driver because they "have to"? Is that how Hogan Sead etc played the game?
    WITB
    Tools for the job!

    To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened . :)

    Game is recovering from total ankle replacement. Getting there and glad to be pain free!
  • raynorfan1raynorfan1 Members Posts: 3,581 ✭✭
    gvogel wrote:

    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?




    Will your viewpoint change if a bunch of guys go into double digits under par? Of course, they manipulate scores by making the greens impossible, like last time.



    I would like to see the clubs used for second shots by the top 20 players in this tournament. And how many times they skip using driver, because they don't have to.




    Good point. My view would not change if there were a bunch of guys minus 10. Strike the comment from the record.
  • Ashley SchaefferAshley Schaeffer Members Posts: 2,111 ✭✭
    Shilgy wrote:

    15th Club wrote:

    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.
    So in your opinion course strategy changes over time? How to best play the game changes over time? The USGA in their wisdom, as you just noted, has definitely changed what they believe to be the best challenging course setup. Gone are the penal narrow strips of fairway that force the player to take one line off the tee and one line only. In are the wider fairways that make the player think about what line exactly would be best for that days wind and pin position.

    Why oh why oh why if on course strategy has changed and the classic courses still are a stern scoring test in spite of their relatively modest length does anything need to be changed? Is it just to preserve the ideal you seek of what club is hit into which hole? If that is the case it seems the easiest fix would be to just renumber all clubs. no other change is needed.



    PS you have never responded to other changing aspects of the game. It was definitely easier to play short game shots around the softer slower greens of the past with the balata balls of the past. Why the obsession with length? Why not rail against fast firm greens that play so much differently than the architect designed?




    Exactly. I seriously doubt the intent of these classic architects was to have greens rolling at 14 and receiving shots like my grandmother's patio carpet over concrete.

    But, we have to have them like that because scores would be too low.

    But, it's not about scoring.

    But, it is.

    Because, "scaling" pros to courses isn't a concern unless people are afraid of the scores they might shoot.
    8.5* TS3 - Evenflow White T-1100
    15* M2 2017
    18* M2 2017
    4-PW Mizuno JPX850F
    SM7 50*, 54*, 60*
    SC Newport Two
  • Sean2Sean2 #TheWRX (Callaway Trip) Members Posts: 30,826 ✭✭
    Too much ego in this game. Most golfers will refuse to move up a tee box or two.
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway Rogue[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway GBB Epic 16º/20º/24º[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway Steelhead XR 25º[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway Apex CF16 6-AW [/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway MD3/MD-PM 54º/58º[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Callaway "O" Works #7[/font]
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,023 ✭✭

    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.




    I just read the entire thread and you're the only one who actually answered the OP's question.



    Everyone else immediately went straight to what they wanted to say- their same tired arguments both ways.



    You are correct, there is nothing inherently wrong about a certain club going a certain distance. It simply doesn't matter. I've always said, define the specs of what can be used as a club, define the specs of what can be used as a ball, and let the engineers run wild.



    Don't penalize innovation because you were too ignorant or complacent to change the rules.
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • ShilgyShilgy PhoenixMembers Posts: 11,604 ✭✭
    Sean2 wrote:


    Too much ego in this game. Most golfers will refuse to move up a tee box or two.
    We had an issue at my club that backs this up. The gold tees play a bit over 6300 yards and most of the 65+ set will play those tees. Problem is a few of the holes they could not reach in regulation. So a few brilliant minds wanted those tees moved up. My reply to them was when the time comes I will move up to the gold tees. When they are too long I will move up to the gold black combo and then to the black when the time comes for that. We have so many combo course ratings at our club it is crazy.

    That said a rollback is crazy. 20% would make the typical 6600 yard playing amateur need to play the course at 5280. Where do you go then when your distance wanes? The tees do not go much shorter than that on any old courses. Even if it only affects the amateur 10% he now needs to play the course under 6k yards. We did not need to play that short in the persimmon balata days.



    http://offcourse.co/courses/scorecard/tatum-ranch-golf-course
    WITB
    Tools for the job!

    To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened . :)

    Game is recovering from total ankle replacement. Getting there and glad to be pain free!
  • DFS PFDDFS PFD Members Posts: 959 ✭✭
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #57
    What's reasonable for every single golfer to be able to reach every hole in regulation? Honestly, I don't understand why everyone needs to be able to reach in reg with drives less than 200 yards. The game isn't supposed to be easy.



    Maybe we need to only have executive courses.
    Epic Flash SZ 9* TD  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
  • farmerfarmer Members Posts: 7,906 ✭✭
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #58
    To the original topic, I don't think 5% is what the rollback advocates want. They seem to want something in the 10-20% range. 15, as example, wants to roll back the ball significantly and then have every course play like a links, firm and fast. DFS, if you want to see the effects of aging out of your length, play your second shot first, then hit the long club.
  • Ben MartinezBen Martinez Bird is the word Members Posts: 113 ✭✭
    roll the ball back and it hurts the short hitter more than it hurts the longer hitter......you will still have a similar disparity between longest and shortest.
  • clevitedclevited Don't think you are, know you are. Members Posts: 1,008 ✭✭
    gvogel wrote:

    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?




    Will your viewpoint change if a bunch of guys go into double digits under par? Of course, they manipulate scores by making the greens impossible, like last time.



    I would like to see the clubs used for second shots by the top 20 players in this tournament. And how many times they skip using driver, because they don't have to.




    I don't understand why you have this pretty consistent issue with players NEEDING to use driver. Lets take me vs my friend. We both need to hit a shot 250 yards. For him, that is a perfect full swing driver, for me that is a perfect full swing 5 wood. We each have the same distance to cover, we are just using a different tool to accomplish it. The ball will still be in the air for roughly the same amount of time only difference is, I am getting a slight benefit of haveing some backspin, maybe a little less side spin, and likely a slightly shorter and easier to wield club. I have a little advantage with club choice, so what? We still have to hit the same target we are just going about it differently.



    Would it hurt you to know I can hit my lob wedge ~150 yards or 100 or 60 or 20 any time I want? I can also do that with a 9 iron, I can also do that with a driver but I won't choose to do that because for me, that is not the best tool for the job. That 150 yard lob wedge is not easy for me, it would be easier for me to use my club more suited for that distance with my full and more repeatable swing. You are dealing with aesthetics that make no sense whatsover. Look at Stenson. Loves his 3 wood, loathes his driver. So what? Most of the time he is hurting his distance by using his 3 wood but for him that is the right club for the job. Who cares if I play a course with only a 7 iron? A 3 iron? A wedge? Do you see what I am getting at?
  • MrJonesMrJones Waiting for the weekend... Members Posts: 2,724 ✭✭
    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?




    Putt-putt courses! Short club in the bag is all you need. Takes up less precious land, cuts severely down on the up keep costs, everyone plays the same ball, just different colors. Why wouldn't people want to play a super short course like this?





    Has anyone seen the new driver commercial where they're advertising less distance and it makes the game easier and faster?
    Cobra Bio Cell Pro
    Cobra Bio Cell+ 3 wood
    TM RAC MB 3-PW
    Mizuno MP-R 54*, 60*
    Odyssey White Ice 1
Sign In or Register to comment.