Smaller drivers.....????

I'm in the "they're hittin' it too dang far" camp and have a question: say they kept the same balls but just reduced the driver head volume. If they took it back to,say, 300cc wouldn't that shrink the current massive sweet-spot? They need to make it a fairly substantial distance penalty for not dead nuttin' it. Thoughts out there?

If it did happen, somehow they would find a new cover for the ball made from splendifferous, which would increase ball speed and allow the ball to go even further than now...............

Highly unlikely as the equipment companies are very powerful within the game and everything is being done to avoid bifurcation, this would lead to that.

Big headed drivers have made a big difference for recreational players as for 99.999% of golfers it's far too difficult a game without the prospect of shrinking sweet spots. When I took up the game it was all blades and wooden headed clubs which was fine then but everyone has had the benefit of technology it would be difficult to see that rolled back.

In my opinion if the distance issues at the top level of the game needs to be addressed, some argue it doesn't, then it needs to done via clever course layout and set-up. Alternatively we could just accept it as it is. For example, who cares if -20 wins the US Open at smaller traditional venue? Constant bombed drive and short iron can get a little tedious to be fair.

I don't think that'll affect the pros at all. It'll impact the rank-and-file golfers more.

Proof? Pros hit 3 woods astronomical distances. The heads on a typical 3 wood are relatively small (<200cc). Also, didn't Dustin Johnson try out a persimmon driver at last year's PGA? 290 yards. These guys are good.

I would love to live in the "golf is too easy, so lets make it harder' camp. Sadly, I and 99% of the world does not. It is a very selective and hard to enter gated community.

> @garzar said:

> I'm in the "they're hittin' it too dang far" camp and have a question: say they kept the same balls but just reduced the driver head volume. If they took it back to,say, 300cc wouldn't that shrink the current massive sweet-spot? They need to make it a fairly substantial distance penalty for not dead nuttin' it. Thoughts out there?

The first metal head driver was the "Pittsburgh Persimmon" made by TaylorMade. It was 151 cc.

300 cc probably wouldn't change the game much for expert players (Tour players and the best ams). If they took it down to less than 200 cc, that would make a difference with a loft of 9* or 10* - it would make it harder to hit that club straight. That's what I would propose, along with a reduction in COR for drivers and fairway woods - for experts.

I've been playing a 360cc, 43.5" driver lately and can still hit it 280, and I'm almost 66 years old.

It's the ball. The ball!

To truly test these guys they're gonna need someone to build a 8,500-8,800yd. course. They just DESTROYED a 7,600yd Medina. Make them hit long irons/hybrids into holes instead of wedge/9i every time. Crush, throw dart, make putt. Pro golf today. Its a joke.

> @garzar said:

> To truly test these guys they're gonna need someone to build a 8,500-8,800yd. course. They just DESTROYED a 7,600yd Medina. Make them hit long irons/hybrids into holes instead of wedge/9i every time. Crush, throw dart, make putt. Pro golf today. Its a joke.

Well, that's one way to separate the men from the boys according to tee to green talent. But very expensive from a land acquisition and course upkeep standpoint.

The other way is to make the equipment more difficult to use, and roll the ball back.

> @gvogel said:

> > @garzar said:

> > To truly test these guys they're gonna need someone to build a 8,500-8,800yd. course. They just DESTROYED a 7,600yd Medina. Make them hit long irons/hybrids into holes instead of wedge/9i every time. Crush, throw dart, make putt. Pro golf today. Its a joke.

>

> Well, that's one way to separate the men from the boys according to tee to green talent. But very expensive from a land acquisition and course upkeep standpoint.

>

> The other way is to make the equipment more difficult to use, and roll the ball back.

I agree totally.

I'm in the they need to increase the difficulty of the course layout. Narrow the fairways down to 15-20 yards at 300-340, grow the shit out of the rough, 6 inches minimum, and make them choose. Make it more risk/reward. Most of the courses don't seem to do that. Look at Bethpage this year. They narrowed the fairways down to 20 yards, and grew that rough out. It was a fair and decent challenge. But, it highlighted risk vs reward. Making them longer can't continue forever, and some courses simply cannot do that. They need to make them harder. Not longer.

Until all of the OEMs hop on board and there is a real fix. This is going to continue to be a 'problem' They're in the business of selling drivers and using their pros to market them. The weekend golfer does not want to hit it shorter, they want to hit it further. They want to be like Rory, DJ, BK, whoever. TM, Callaway, etc.. want to be able to say they have the fastest, most forgiving driver on the market. And if their pros are hitting it only 280, I think that is when the buck stops. So I don't foresee that happening because of how 'cool' it sounds hitting a 300yd bomb.

On TV and in person it looks cool to see the pros bomb it, take an aggressive line and pull it off. It doesn't seem to have the same emphasis is on iron striking and shaping shots. We can argue about the pros using the equipment, and giving them this or that. But at the end of the day, it is the manufactures wanting to make money off us for using their pros. They're going to continue to push the technology limits and people are going to keep buying the new shiny club.

Just my opinion. It has gone this far, hard to see anything rolled back at this point.

> @physasst said:

> I'm in the they need to increase the difficulty of the course layout. Narrow the fairways down to 15-20 yards at 300-340, grow the **** out of the rough, 6 inches minimum, and make them choose. Make it more risk/reward. Most of the courses don't seem to do that. Look at Bethpage this year. They narrowed the fairways down to 20 yards, and grew that rough out. It was a fair and decent challenge. But, it highlighted risk vs reward. Making them longer can't continue forever, and some courses simply cannot do that. They need to make them harder. Not longer.

This is the absolute worst "solution." Damaging or otherwise defacing the one thing in golf that is the most delicate, the most artistic, the most aesthetic, the most historic: our great historic championship golf courses.

Whereas the one thing about golf that is the least interesting, the cheapest (for consumers), the most boring and the least historic (because they have always been in a state of flux and change) are... golf balls.

And by the way -- since I see so many people writing that they think it is a solution -- let's address the nonsense about how Tour players have it too easy because Tour courses are always dried out as much as possible, and rollout on Tour players' drives are so excessive. Go read all of the quotes and interviews with Justin Thomas from last weekend. Somewhere (late Saturday I think) he was saying how the dampened conditions made it so much easier for them, and he was NOT just talking about throwing darts at soft greens. Thomas specifically noted how much easier it is for them off the tee with moist fairways because they can land it and know where it will stick and they don't have to worry about rollout.

> @stanger37 said:

> Until all of the OEMs hop on board and there is a real fix. This is going to continue to be a 'problem' They're in the business of selling drivers and using their pros to market them. The weekend golfer does not want to hit it shorter, they want to hit it further. They want to be like Rory, DJ, BK, whoever. TM, Callaway, etc.. want to be able to say they have the fastest, most forgiving driver on the market. And if their pros are hitting it only 280, I think that is when the buck stops. So I don't foresee that happening because of how 'cool' it sounds hitting a 300yd bomb.

>

> On TV and in person it looks cool to see the pros bomb it, take an aggressive line and pull it off. It doesn't seem to have the same emphasis is on iron striking and shaping shots. We can argue about the pros using the equipment, and giving them this or that. But at the end of the day, it is the manufactures wanting to make money off us for using their pros. They're going to continue to push the technology limits and people are going to keep buying the new shiny club.

>

> Just my opinion. It has gone this far, hard to see anything rolled back at this point.

Precisely why we need the USGA and the R&A, and why we must never, ever concede the ruling of the game of golf to equipment makers.

> @gvogel said:

> > @garzar said:

> > To truly test these guys they're gonna need someone to build a 8,500-8,800yd. course. They just DESTROYED a 7,600yd Medina. Make them hit long irons/hybrids into holes instead of wedge/9i every time. Crush, throw dart, make putt. Pro golf today. Its a joke.

>

> Well, that's one way to separate the men from the boys according to tee to green talent. But very expensive from a land acquisition and course upkeep standpoint.

>

> The other way is to make the equipment more difficult to use, and roll the ball back.

Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Greg Norman all STRONGLY favor a ball rollback. Men? Or boys?

Just got to start growing more/higher rough, smaller fairways. Plant some trees.

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @physasst said:

> > I'm in the they need to increase the difficulty of the course layout. Narrow the fairways down to 15-20 yards at 300-340, grow the **** out of the rough, 6 inches minimum, and make them choose. Make it more risk/reward. Most of the courses don't seem to do that. Look at Bethpage this year. They narrowed the fairways down to 20 yards, and grew that rough out. It was a fair and decent challenge. But, it highlighted risk vs reward. Making them longer can't continue forever, and some courses simply cannot do that. They need to make them harder. Not longer.

>

>

> This is the absolute worst "solution." Damaging or otherwise defacing the one thing in golf that is the most delicate, the most artistic, the most aesthetic, the most historic: our great historic championship golf courses.

>

> Whereas the one thing about golf that is the least interesting, the cheapest (for consumers), the most boring and the least historic (because they have always been in a state of flux and change) are... golf balls.

>

> And by the way -- since I see so many people writing that they think it is a solution -- let's address the nonsense about how Tour players have it too easy because Tour courses are always dried out as much as possible, and rollout on Tour players' drives are so excessive. Go read all of the quotes and interviews with Justin Thomas from last weekend. Somewhere (late Saturday I think) he was saying how the dampened conditions made it so much easier for them, and he was NOT just talking about throwing darts at soft greens. Thomas specifically noted how much easier it is for them off the tee with moist fairways because they can land it and know where it will stick and they don't have to worry about rollout.

Yes see Carnoustie 2018, over 7,400 yards but didn't play long at all because of the crazy long run out and the winning score -8.

Of course those conditions are difficult to replicate as its weather dependent.

About driver head sizes. This is one area of the equipment debate that is not much in dispute. In the 1990's and early 2000's, Frank Thomas was the USGA's Technical Director. Driver head sizes began to increase with new designs like the Callaway Big Bertha and Great Big Bertha in the mid-90's, and then took off with much larger designs arriving at the Cleveland Launcher at 460cc in the 2002-03 period. Throughout that time, Thomas continually insisted that as long as CoR was controlled (and bigger drivers were facilitating increased CoR like never before), driver head sizes would quickly reach a point of diminishing returns. And he resisted controlling head volumes.

Good riddance, Frank Thomas.

> @Qqq123xx said:

> Just got to start growing more/higher rough, smaller fairways. Plant some trees.

And then, on the greens, we can make them putt the ball through a rotating windmill, up a ramp, and into a clown's mouth.

It's all semantics to protect an arbitrary number for par. Living in Detroit it's funny how everyone said Detroit Golf Club wasn't a tour caliber course and they guys would crush it (which they did), but the scores at Medinah for the BMW Championship were even lower overall with the same winning score at -25.

The score is IRRELEVANT. It's about the drama at the end, regardless of where guys are relative to par. If all anyone is worried about is the +/- , just call every par 5 a par 4 - problem solved. All anyone complains about is "So and so is 25 under par..." nobody say "Can you believe so and so shot 263 for the week? "

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Qqq123xx said:

> > Just got to start growing more/higher rough, smaller fairways. Plant some trees.

>

>

> And then, on the greens, we can make them putt the ball through a rotating windmill, up a ramp, and into a clown's mouth.

There are already enough greens like that. Don't need any more.

> @King_Slender said:

> It's all semantics to protect an arbitrary number for par. Living in Detroit it's funny how everyone said Detroit Golf Club wasn't a tour caliber course and they guys would crush it (which they did), but the scores at Medinah for the BMW Championship were even lower overall with the same winning score at -25.

>

> The score is IRRELEVANT. It's about the drama at the end, regardless of where guys are relative to par. If all anyone is worried about is the +/- , just call every par 5 a par 4 - problem solved. All anyone complains about is "So and so is 25 under par..." nobody say "Can you believe so and so shot 263 for the week? "

Complete nonsense. What we are trying to do is to construct a particular kind of game that is played over historic courses. Where the features of the course matter. And strategic decision making to address features of the course are required.

If we came up with new multilayer composite material construction baseball bats, which allowed players to hit 500 and 600 foot fly balls, and scores at Fenway Park were in the 20's and 30's, that might be really dramatic. And it would not be baseball as we know it.

> @"15th Club" said:

> About driver head sizes. This is one area of the equipment debate that is not much in dispute. In the 1990's and early 2000's, Frank Thomas was the USGA's Technical Director. Driver head sizes began to increase with new designs like the Callaway Big Bertha and Great Big Bertha in the mid-90's, and then took off with much larger designs arriving at the Cleveland Launcher at 460cc in the 2002-03 period. Throughout that time, Thomas continually insisted that as long as CoR was controlled (and bigger drivers were facilitating increased CoR like never before), driver head sizes would quickly reach a point of diminishing returns. And he resisted controlling head volumes.

>

> Good riddance, Frank Thomas.

And the stupid putter he designed.

(By the way, putters should be "plain and simple" in design. That's another topic for a rainy day.)

> @King_Slender said:

> It's all semantics to protect an arbitrary number for par. Living in Detroit it's funny how everyone said Detroit Golf Club wasn't a tour caliber course and they guys would crush it (which they did), but the scores at Medinah for the BMW Championship were even lower overall with the same winning score at -25.

>

> The score is IRRELEVANT. It's about the drama at the end, regardless of where guys are relative to par. If all anyone is worried about is the +/- , just call every par 5 a par 4 - problem solved. All anyone complains about is "So and so is 25 under par..." nobody say "Can you believe so and so shot 263 for the week? "

It's not all about the drama in the end. I was riveted to the Open Championship, because there was shot making in the middle. The conditions demanded it.

As a golfer, and a golf fan, I want to see the expert players tested through the bag. Hitting two shots on a 600 yard par 5 is just silly. Players hitting driver, iron on the long, uphill 8th hole at ANGC is also silly, particularly when I saw Tom Watson hit driver, driver there in 1981. That was shot making.

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @garzar said:

> > > To truly test these guys they're gonna need someone to build a 8,500-8,800yd. course. They just DESTROYED a 7,600yd Medina. Make them hit long irons/hybrids into holes instead of wedge/9i every time. Crush, throw dart, make putt. Pro golf today. Its a joke.

> >

> > Well, that's one way to separate the men from the boys according to tee to green talent. But very expensive from a land acquisition and course upkeep standpoint.

> >

> > The other way is to make the equipment more difficult to use, and roll the ball back.

>

>

> Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Greg Norman all STRONGLY favor a ball rollback. Men? Or boys?

all washed up or nearly washed up old dogs, their voice (in my opinion) is not needed or wanted regarding the future of the game. If they want to sit back and tell grandpa stories, GREAT!! but stop barking about the ball. Jeez, the group think around this is terrible and myopic. Surely there are things that can be done. I would say for the most part it does not even really matter. We are talking about the 1 percent of 1 percent of golfers. And then, only really in the right conditions do they absolutely shred courses. NEWS FLASH!!! THEY R REALLY FREAKING GOOD AT THIS GAME. Try something else then target the ball. Tell the course set up crew to do something else..

There is soooooooo much else that could be done other than lengthen a course to 10000 yard to protect some abstract number. I don't understand it. Only in golf is a number so worshiped. In any other sport no one complains about too many points being scored. No complains, that Steph Curry is hitting too many 3 pointers. You know why? Old players in those sports look at new age players and for the most part applaud them for changing the game. Only in the privileged game of golf do stuffy old fat guys sit around and talk about "how the game was meant to be played". Well if we played the game the way it was meant to, these tour courses would be 75% less manicured than they are, the greens would have some bump to them. The fairways would have sheep on them, and par may be a bit harder to shoot. If you set the course up so they get perfect lies every where they go, the greens are perfect and roll true, they are going to shred it regardless of what you do to the ball.

You roll the ball back and shorten courses, what have you actually accomplished? the same old people will say the game is too easy at that point as well..

RANT OVER!!

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Qqq123xx said:

> > Just got to start growing more/higher rough, smaller fairways. Plant some trees.

>

>

> And then, on the greens, we can make them putt the ball through a rotating windmill, up a ramp, and into a clown's mouth.

Not sure how you equate higher rough, smaller fairways and trees to a clown mouth, but good for you for doing so.

> @Qqq123xx said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @Qqq123xx said:

> > > Just got to start growing more/higher rough, smaller fairways. Plant some trees.

> >

> >

> > And then, on the greens, we can make them putt the ball through a rotating windmill, up a ramp, and into a clown's mouth.

>

> There are already enough greens like that. Don't need any more.

Are you perhaps talking about the greens at Augusta National, Seminole, Royal Melbourne, Oakland Hills, Oakmont, Yale, Sand Hills, Chicago, NGLA, Old MacDonald or Fishers Island? I'm curious which greens you are thinking of.

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @garzar said:

> > > > To truly test these guys they're gonna need someone to build a 8,500-8,800yd. course. They just DESTROYED a 7,600yd Medina. Make them hit long irons/hybrids into holes instead of wedge/9i every time. Crush, throw dart, make putt. Pro golf today. Its a joke.

> > >

> > > Well, that's one way to separate the men from the boys according to tee to green talent. But very expensive from a land acquisition and course upkeep standpoint.

> > >

> > > The other way is to make the equipment more difficult to use, and roll the ball back.

> >

> >

> > Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Greg Norman all STRONGLY favor a ball rollback. Men? Or boys?

>

> all washed up or nearly washed up old dogs, their voice (in my opinion) is not needed or wanted regarding the future of the game. If they want to sit back and tell grandpa stories, GREAT!! but stop barking about the ball. Jeez, the group think around this is terrible and myopic. Surely there are things that can be done. I would say for the most part it does not even really matter. We are talking about the 1 percent of 1 percent of golfers. And then, only really in the right conditions do they absolutely shred courses. NEWS FLASH!!! THEY R REALLY FREAKING GOOD AT THIS GAME. Try something else then target the ball. Tell the course set up crew to do something else..

>

> There is soooooooo much else that could be done other than lengthen a course to 10000 yard to protect some abstract number. I don't understand it. Only in golf is a number so worshiped. In any other sport no one complains about too many points being scored. No complains, that Steph Curry is hitting too many 3 pointers. You know why? Old players in those sports look at new age players and for the most part applaud them for changing the game. Only in the privileged game of golf do stuffy old fat guys sit around and talk about "how the game was meant to be played". Well if we played the game the way it was meant to, these tour courses would be 75% less manicured than they are, the greens would have some bump to them. The fairways would have sheep on them, and par may be a bit harder to shoot. If you set the course up so they get perfect lies every where they go, the greens are perfect and roll true, they are going to shred it regardless of what you do to the ball.

>

> You roll the ball back and shorten courses, what have you actually accomplished? the same old people will say the game is too easy at that point as well..

>

> RANT OVER!!

So any time I see the rotten, ageist attacks on Jack Nicklaus, et al, in relation to their comments on a ball rollback, I see no reason to hesitate in my comeback.

Current Tour players -- the guys who are heroes to so many of the commenters on this forum -- are really and trully ("legally," I would argue) disqualified from this argument. For the simple reason that they are corrupted by their current equipment deals. I'm not listening to what Justin Thomas, Jordan Spieth or Brooks Koepka might say about a ball rollback. They are all under contract -- for millions -- to Titleist. If they were ordinary witnesses in a civil trial, they'd be subjected to withering cross-examination over their self-interest with the leading corporate opponent of a ball rollback.

This all feels so familiar?

> @"DFS PFD" said:

> This all feels so familiar?

yup. any topic like this and we get the same rinse/repeat.