Rolling back the ball

[Wesquire]

They are talking about it again on PGA tour live. I think it is a horrible idea. They are concerned about long hitters, but this would only favor long hitters because they are still going to be longer, but they will also have more room for error.

 

What do you think the actual chances for this happening are? Equipment is about maxed out now (and has been for over a decade), why not just let everything adjust for a bit?

[MMB1500]

See this thread.

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1598604-nicklaus-says-titleist-is-resistant-to-rolling-ball-back/page__pid__16898572__st__120#entry16898572

[15th Club]

Let's get this straight: nobody is "only concerned about the long hitters." Unless we agree (and I might!) that the entire field at a men's Tour event, or a men's NCAA event, are all "long hitters."

 

This is not about punishing, or favoring, any one group of elite players. It is not about trying to skew any part of elite men's golf events toward any particular competitive result. It isn't about anybody's competitive advantage.

 

What it is all about, is just one thing; scaling technologically-produced distance in golf, to the existing classic championship golf courses.

 

Period. Full stop.

[ClintDagger]

It will never happen but just to be clear, it’s a misconception that rolling back the ball will help long (or for that matter short) hitters. It will help the shot makers and pure ball strikers. Essentially, the elite swingers. It will hurt or be neutral to bomb and gougers or short hitters.

[Vindog]

It will never happen but just to be clear, it's a misconception that rolling back the ball will help long (or for that matter short) hitters. It will help the shot makers and pure ball strikers. Essentially, the elite swingers. It will hurt or be neutral to bomb and gougers or short hitters.

 

When you put it this way, I'm all for it!

[Wesquire]

It will never happen but just to be clear, it’s a misconception that rolling back the ball will help long (or for that matter short) hitters. It will help the shot makers and pure ball strikers. Essentially, the elite swingers. It will hurt or be neutral to bomb and gougers or short hitters.

 

The elite swingers are the bombers. They will still be longer than everyone else, but with a shorter ball they will also hit more fairways.

[Wesquire]

Let's get this straight: nobody is "only concerned about the long hitters." Unless we agree (and I might!) that the entire field at a men's Tour event, or a men's NCAA event, are all "long hitters."

 

This is not about punishing, or favoring, any one group of elite players. It is not about trying to skew any part of elite men's golf events toward any particular competitive result. It isn't about anybody's competitive advantage.

 

What it is all about, is just one thing; scaling technologically-produced distance in golf, to the existing classic championship golf courses.

 

Period. Full stop.

 

Technologically produced distance hit a wall over a decade ago. This is just a reaction to golfers getting better and longer.

[Socrates]

The Ruling Bodies would have to come up with a new distance standard for the golf ball and then declare every ball made before the date of the announcement would be illegal. After they declared bankruptcy because they were sued by every ball manufacturer on the planet the whole thing would become moot.

 

The ball distance is a red herring. They just have to face the fact that today's pro athletes are just that much better, stronger and technologically smart. I would love Titleist to make a run of 1980's Tour Balata's (exactly like they were) and give them to all the Tour players to test and play with. I think know that they would be hitting that ball just as far.

 

If all these people who want to roll back the ball and live in the past, they need to outlaw all working out, Trackman usage and ban metal woods. Put up a poster of Craig Stadler and mandate you must look like this to play professional golf. All golf records since 1996 will have to be expunged and the Tiger Era never happened. I guess that would make Jack happy.

[larrybud]

What it is all about, is just one thing; scaling technologically-produced distance in golf, to the existing classic championship golf courses.

 

Period. Full stop.

 

Except driving distances are flat the last 15 years. The ball has limits, club heads have limits. It's completely a non-issue.

[Wesquire]

The Ruling Bodies would have to come up with a new distance standard for the golf ball and then declare every ball made before the date of the announcement would be illegal. After they declared bankruptcy because they were sued by every ball manufacturer on the planet the whole thing would become moot.

 

The ball distance is a red herring. They just have to face the fact that today's pro athletes are just that much better, stronger and technologically smart. I would love Titleist to make a run of 1980's Tour Balata's (exactly like they were) and give them to all the Tour players to test and play with. I think know that they would be hitting that ball just as far.

 

If all these people who want to roll back the ball and live in the past, they need to outlaw all working out, Trackman usage and ban metal woods. Put up a poster of Craig Stadler and mandate you must look like this to play professional golf. All golf records since 1996 will have to be expunged and the Tiger Era never happened. I guess that would make Jack happy.

 

What would they be able to sue them for?

[Socrates]

The Ruling Bodies would have to come up with a new distance standard for the golf ball and then declare every ball made before the date of the announcement would be illegal. After they declared bankruptcy because they were sued by every ball manufacturer on the planet the whole thing would become moot.

 

The ball distance is a red herring. They just have to face the fact that today's pro athletes are just that much better, stronger and technologically smart. I would love Titleist to make a run of 1980's Tour Balata's (exactly like they were) and give them to all the Tour players to test and play with. I think know that they would be hitting that ball just as far.

 

If all these people who want to roll back the ball and live in the past, they need to outlaw all working out, Trackman usage and ban metal woods. Put up a poster of Craig Stadler and mandate you must look like this to play professional golf. All golf records since 1996 will have to be expunged and the Tiger Era never happened. I guess that would make Jack happy.

 

What would they be able to sue them for?

Look up USGA v Karsten Solheim. Restraint of trade and damage to business comes to mind. It would invalidate decades of engineering research and force OEM's to retool 100's of millions of dollars of ball production. They aren't going to do it for nothing just because the USGA says to.

[Vindog]

The Ruling Bodies would have to come up with a new distance standard for the golf ball and then declare every ball made before the date of the announcement would be illegal. After they declared bankruptcy because they were sued by every ball manufacturer on the planet the whole thing would become moot.

 

The ball distance is a red herring. They just have to face the fact that today's pro athletes are just that much better, stronger and technologically smart. I would love Titleist to make a run of 1980's Tour Balata's (exactly like they were) and give them to all the Tour players to test and play with. I think know that they would be hitting that ball just as far.

 

If all these people who want to roll back the ball and live in the past, they need to outlaw all working out, Trackman usage and ban metal woods. Put up a poster of Craig Stadler and mandate you must look like this to play professional golf. All golf records since 1996 will have to be expunged and the Tiger Era never happened. I guess that would make Jack happy.

 

What would they be able to sue them for?

Look up USGA v Karsten Solheim. Restraint of trade and damage to business comes to mind. It would invalidate decades of engineering research and force OEM's to retool 100's of millions of dollars of ball production. They aren't going to do it for nothing just because the USGA says to.

 

And The USGA / R&A's handling of the anchored putter situation cleverly sidestepped this issue, by not banning the equipment itself.

[gvogel]

There is no reason for COR to be .83. The game would be just as good at .76. That would not change the game for 98% of players, but it would restore playability of courses for elite players.

[15th Club]

Let's take the following points apart, in order:

 

The Ruling Bodies would have to come up with a new distance standard for the golf ball and then declare every ball made before the date of the announcement would be illegal. After they declared bankruptcy because they were sued by every ball manufacturer on the planet the whole thing would become moot.

The USGA and the R&A could easily come up with new standards. They could (with probably much more difficulty, but still...) even come up with standards that increase the interest in new equipment; something like balls that spun more, the harder they were hit at increasing rates. Perhaps something to reduce the vast gulf between elite players and recreational players.

 

But I will assure you that not "every ball manufacturer on the planet" would sue them. My guess is that exactly one ball manufacturer would sue them. And I'd sort of like to see that happen, so that the USGA and the R&A could stand up and stand for something and reverse the terrible results of the Ping/groove lawsuit and the Casey Martin decision. I expect that just one ball manufacturer would regard a rollback as a problem; all the others just might regard it as the opportunity of a lifetime.

 

The ball distance is a red herring. They just have to face the fact that today's pro athletes are just that much better, stronger and technologically smart. I would love Titleist to make a run of 1980's Tour Balata's (exactly like they were) and give them to all the Tour players to test and play with. I think know that they would be hitting that ball just as far.

For these purposes, I'll happily assume that you are correct, and that "today's pro athletes are just that much better, stronger and technologically smart." I personally think that "technologically smart" means "technologically privileged," but whatever. It doesn't matter. If indeed the guys today are just better, and stronger, and playing with better-matched and better-made clubs, on faster, harder surfaces... IT ONLY PUTS MORE PRESSURE ON DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THE BALLS. Do you want to abandon Riviera, or The Old Course, or keep facelifting ANGC, when fixing the golf ball specs could avoid all of that? Who cares about golf ball specs, in comparison to golf's irreplaceable shrines of historic championship golf? Who has any sort of "investment" in balls? (Other than the hedge fund guys who own Acushnet?) Golf balls are without a doubt the LEAST memorable, LEAST important, LEAST critical, LEAST valuable part of anybody's golfing experience. Changing the golf ball is the easiest thing to change in golf, even if we assume that you are right and that today's professional golfers are just plain stronger and better.

 

If all these people who want to roll back the ball and live in the past, they need to outlaw all working out, Trackman usage and ban metal woods. Put up a poster of Craig Stadler and mandate you must look like this to play professional golf. All golf records since 1996 will have to be expunged and the Tiger Era never happened. I guess that would make Jack happy.

Here is exactly how I want to "live in the past": I want them to be able to play the 2073 Open Championship at the St. Andrews Old Course, on the bicentennial of the first Open held there. And not have to trick the course out of understanding, or mar it with ugly changes.

 

Jack Nicklaus -- the greatest golfer in history, and a golf course architect who has forgotten more than you will ever know about that profession -- is worth listening to. Not because he's just Jack, and certainly not because he reflects the thinking of a retired player long past his prime, but because his views are shared by most of golf's brightest minds, from Geoff Shackelford to Gary Player to Mike Davis to Tom Doak... basically everybody who is not under a current contract as a "Titleist Brand Ambassador."

 

And because you brought Tiger Woods' name into this, I want to run this quote by you:

"We need to do something about the golf ball."

~Tiger Woods, 2017

[15th Club]

What it is all about, is just one thing; scaling technologically-produced distance in golf, to the existing classic championship golf courses.

 

Period. Full stop.

 

Except driving distances are flat the last 15 years. The ball has limits, club heads have limits. It's completely a non-issue.

 

I think it is a myth, that distances have essentially remained flat. You know the saying, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Read Geoff Shackelford's years-long writing and blogging on this subject. He rightly points out that the PGA Tour driving distance stat by itself is misleading. It is a number that is shaped by the drives that are being played on-course. Tighter fairways, more 3 woods used off the tee, etc. Geoff looks at a different number; the number of extremely long drives (350+, 400+) and sees those numbers rising dramatically after a period of flatness. Tour players, it seems, are holding back more and more reserved distance from the basic on-course "Driving distance" stat.

[Wesquire]

The Ruling Bodies would have to come up with a new distance standard for the golf ball and then declare every ball made before the date of the announcement would be illegal. After they declared bankruptcy because they were sued by every ball manufacturer on the planet the whole thing would become moot.

 

The ball distance is a red herring. They just have to face the fact that today's pro athletes are just that much better, stronger and technologically smart. I would love Titleist to make a run of 1980's Tour Balata's (exactly like they were) and give them to all the Tour players to test and play with. I think know that they would be hitting that ball just as far.

 

If all these people who want to roll back the ball and live in the past, they need to outlaw all working out, Trackman usage and ban metal woods. Put up a poster of Craig Stadler and mandate you must look like this to play professional golf. All golf records since 1996 will have to be expunged and the Tiger Era never happened. I guess that would make Jack happy.

 

What would they be able to sue them for?

Look up USGA v Karsten Solheim. Restraint of trade and damage to business comes to mind. It would invalidate decades of engineering research and force OEM's to retool 100's of millions of dollars of ball production. They aren't going to do it for nothing just because the USGA says to.

 

It doesn't prevent them from being sold. The USGA doesn't have to consider the effect on the manufacturers. Suing them is silly. The Ping lawsuit was only a thing because it was only one manufacturer being harmed. It was an antitrust issue.

[Socrates]

So stop blaming the golf ball.

 

And because you brought Tiger Woods' name into this, I want to run this quote by you:

"We need to do something about the golf ball."

~Tiger Woods, 2017

Tiger had nothing to say about the subject until he was on the cusp of being a hasbeen. Now all of a sudden he's about changing the ball. BTW, I didn't see him complain about how far he hit it on #10 yesterday. Seemed pretty happy about it.

 

And I can see how this is a Titleist conspiracy because they stand to lose the most. Titleist would make just as much as the rest of them if a change were to happen.

[marmooskapaul]

For the most part scoring is fine. Look at this weeks Honda scoring. Tired of hearing about "classic" courses becoming obsolete. Every course in Europe has been too short for decades...the were built and designed by sheep herders...100 years ago!...

I think I read this on G. Shackelford's site...lol.

[Wesquire]

Why do you think they will be obsolete? The game is just changing. That's fine. Stop trying to artificially make scores like what they were 100 years ago. Players are better now. Who cares if the winning score is -25? The average Joe would still be in triple digits.

 

If you want to play with wound balls, do it. No one is stopping you. Don't mess with everyone else just because they are giving you an inferiority complex.

[Golf Dino]

If the real issue is that the modern game of golf has evolved to the point that many courses have become too easy to play (for tour pros) and, would therefore require additional land to lengthen the course or preferably reduce the distance that a golf ball can travel, then I am not sure that scaling the golf ball back is the real answer or solution nor is the solution to keep adding land, etc.

 

Golf from day one in North America and presumably Great Britain and Ireland, has had multiple ball manufacturers. There never has been a single "official" ball of either the R&A or the USGA, etc. It is not even a case of trying to get the "genie back into the bottle", but rather the proverbial "genie was never in the bottle" ! Golf is not baseball or basketball -- this speaks to the far more international growth and development of golf since its infancy.

 

Furthermore, I daresay that most amateurs, say some 99% of amateurs, would not say that golf has become too easy.

 

The issue is that the pro game has become "power dominant" and has evolved to reward players with a long power game. These players typically get the ball off the tee some 300+ yards on a regular basis, they play 8-irons from 170-190 yards out. I would suggest that there are only a handful of players at any given golf club, private or public, that can attain these numbers.

 

So, it seems to me that the better solution to this problem is not "dialing the ball back" to make courses play longer or to add more land, but rather focus on set-up for professional tournaments. Keeping mind that there are plenty of set up options and ideas, at least consider how the courses are set up in terms of:

• narrowing fairways by a few yards or more as needed.
  
• Increase the thickness of the first and second cuts of the rough off of the fairway so that it becomes a bit more penal.
  
• Design fairways or set up fairways that have deliberate and thoughtful "landing areas" for tee shots so that if a player is too long they get caught up in thick penal rough.
  
• Design or Redesign courses to improve bunkering so that it is a bit more penal like the British Open and it's pot bunkers.
  
• Design or redesign green complexes so that they incorporate a judicious use of slope and undulation to challenge players.
  

 

A great example of this is the current HONDA CLASSIC that is being played at PGA NATIONAL that has been designed, ironically, by (ahem) Jack Nicklaus. At the start of Round 3, the leading score is -3. The cut line was at +5. The set up challenges the best players in the world with forced carries, smaller landing areas and challenging green complexes. All of this is happening despite playing modern drivers and today's golf balls.

 

RIVERIA G.C.&C and the LA OPEN demonstrated that set up can challenge the players in TODAY'S power biased game.

 

When I consider this, there is a part of me that cannot escape a plausible conclusion and that is perhaps Jack - my second favourite player of all time, is giving into vanity and the entire "things were better in my day" or put another way, these "young guys don't know how hard golf can be with persimmon woods and wound golf balls."

[dbleag]

Change the size of the golf ball.

 

We did it years ago from 1.62" to 1.68".

 

Time to go to 1.74".

 

Make it mandatory in professional tournament play first, then roll it out to all players. Give manufacturers time to switch their equipment.

[15th Club]

Why do you think they will be obsolete? The game is just changing. That's fine. Stop trying to artificially make scores like what they were 100 years ago. Players are better now. Who cares if the winning score is -25? The average Joe would still be in triple digits.

 

If you want to play with wound balls, do it. No one is stopping you. Don't mess with everyone else just because they are giving you an inferiority complex.

 

We're not talking about scoring. We're talking about the quality of play. Of course you can keep scoring constant in the face of advancing technology; just grow rough deeper, narrow the fairways, and trick up the greens. All of which is rotten, in the context of interesting and strategic golf, and architectural integrity.

 

I didn't say anything about wound balls. And because of your attitude, and because you baselessly accused me of an "inferiority complex" (Thanks; have a nice day!) I am going to school you on a thing or two, sport.

 

I've never been a luddite on golf equipment. There have been some wonderful advances in golf equipment, and there will be more of them. And some bad developments as well, that deserve to be checked.

 

"The good developments":

• Modern greens mowers - they made putting an art, and green design much more interesting.
  
• Steel shafts - cheaper than hickory, easier to work with, and less fragile, they helped democratize the game of golf. Matched sets of clubs immediately became cheaper.
  
• Surlyn golf balls - no more replacing 3 or 4 balls a round with cuts in them. (This would then apply to all of the durable solid core balls.)
  
• Metalwoods - see, "hickory shafts."
  
• Adjustable hosel sleeves. When once only tour players could get titanium alloy drivers bent to their satisfaction, all golfers can now do it.
  
• The modern return to natural, low-water, links-based, classic course design.
  

"The bad developments":

• The failure to cap driver volume at something like 300cc; creating the platform for ultra-low spin heads at ultra-high swing speeds
  
• Green speeds and the competition for superfast greens. This is why the USGA will not allow sales of their own proprietary Stimpmeter to anyone other than their approved turfgrass staff and other turfgrass pros.
  
• Expensive composite shafts. Only extends the gulf between expensive and elite golf, versus everyday recreational golf. What is the benefit, other than pure distance?
  
• The Pro V1 (and the other multilayer urethane balls) - it is a ball that is used to tremendous advantage by high-swing-speed elites. They can hit low-spin drives, with higher-spin wedges. Recreational player get little benefit. Most recreational players don't even buy urethane balls.
  

[Uhit]

What it is all about, is just one thing; scaling technologically-produced distance in golf, to the existing classic championship golf courses.

 

Period. Full stop.

 

Except driving distances are flat the last 15 years. The ball has limits, club heads have limits. It's completely a non-issue.

 

I think it is a myth, that distances have essentially remained flat. You know the saying, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Read Geoff Shackelford's years-long writing and blogging on this subject. He rightly points out that the PGA Tour driving distance stat by itself is misleading. It is a number that is shaped by the drives that are being played on-course. Tighter fairways, more 3 woods used off the tee, etc. Geoff looks at a different number; the number of extremely long drives (350+, 400+) and sees those numbers rising dramatically after a period of flatness. Tour players, it seems, are holding back more and more reserved distance from the basic on-course "Driving distance" stat.

 

So, you are talking about that myth:

 

 

 

...which is from the USGA itself, and includes the roll of the ball, on fast, and firm fairways, especially setup for pro tournaments...

 

...and you rather believe someone, who favors the extremely long drives, that happen by accident, if a ball is running down a cart path, or rolling down a downhill slope, or in conjunction with a strong downwind situation etc...

 

...there is a reason, why a representative statistic should not focus on accidental exceptions, to be meaningful.

 

-

 

Now, I know at least, that I can save some time, and rather play a round of golf, instead of reading Geoffs nonsense.

 

-

 

The best way would be to look at the average carry distances...

 

...because this is, what is really done by the player.

[Wesquire]

I wasn't even talking to you. I was being rhetorical.

[WidespreadPanic]

James Hahn tweeted, and Kevin Chappell retweeted "Breaking news. In addition to limited flight balls, the USGA will ban working out, diet plans, and swinging faster than 105mph. They are also planning on taking away the 3 point line in the NBA."

[15th Club]

Uhit, in your chart, what percentage of the drives, in each year, were hit with less than driver? Did the courses change over time? If so, how?

[15th Club]

James Hahn tweeted, and Kevin Chappell retweeted "Breaking news. In addition to limited flight balls, the USGA will ban working out, diet plans, and swinging faster than 105mph. They are also planning on taking away the 3 point line in the NBA."

I always liked Hahn. Smart guy. Cal-Berkeley.

 

But that statement is ridiculous and idiotic. Nobody is trying to punish players for fitness. Nobody is going to ban workouts, or even launch monitors. I don't even want them to slow down golf courses. I want them as firm and as fast as possible.

 

The simple fact is, even if we assume that "fitness" is to blame for increased distance, the easiest answer is to scale back the golf balls. Because who cares about the golf balls? I'd choose to scale back the golf ball, rather than deface The Old Course or Merion or Oakland Hills or Muirfield.

[Wesquire]

James Hahn tweeted, and Kevin Chappell retweeted "Breaking news. In addition to limited flight balls, the USGA will ban working out, diet plans, and swinging faster than 105mph. They are also planning on taking away the 3 point line in the NBA."

I always liked Hahn. Smart guy. Cal-Berkeley.

 

But that statement is ridiculous and idiotic. Nobody is trying to punish players for fitness. Nobody is going to ban workouts, or even launch monitors. I don't even want them to slow down golf courses. I want them as firm and as fast as possible.

 

The simple fact is, even if we assume that "fitness" is to blame for increased distance, the easiest answer is to scale back the golf balls. Because who cares about the golf balls? I'd choose to scale back the golf ball, rather than deface The Old Course or Merion or Oakland Hills or Muirfield.

 

Or just do neither of those and stop trying to fix something that isn't broken. The product of "golf" for pros, ams, and viewers has NEVER been better. Also, the players are evolving, why wouldn't the courses (if anything) have to evolve too?

[Golf Dino]

James Hahn tweeted, and Kevin Chappell retweeted "Breaking news. In addition to limited flight balls, the USGA will ban working out, diet plans, and swinging faster than 105mph. They are also planning on taking away the 3 point line in the NBA."

I always liked Hahn. Smart guy. Cal-Berkeley.

 

But that statement is ridiculous and idiotic. Nobody is trying to punish players for fitness. Nobody is going to ban workouts, or even launch monitors. I don't even want them to slow down golf courses. I want them as firm and as fast as possible.

 

The simple fact is, even if we assume that "fitness" is to blame for increased distance, the easiest answer is to scale back the golf balls. Because who cares about the golf balls? I'd choose to scale back the golf ball, rather than deface The Old Course or Merion or Oakland Hills or Muirfield.

 

The Old Course has been considered functionally obsolete for decades in terms of its length. It's real defense is the wind and weather. More times than not, the Open winner seems to come from the side of the draw that the weather favours. The same could be said of Muirfield - though not to the same degree as the Old Course. It will be interesting to see how Carnoustie plays this year as it has the reputation of being the most difficult venue on the Open rota.

 

Merion played beautifully at the US Open a few years back. It's only drawback is the lack of supporting amenities and facilities - not the course itself. Merion has always had smaller greens and its traditional set up demanded good shot-making/ball-striking and course management from its champions. It has been a fantastic test of golf.

[Uhit]

Uhit, in your chart, what percentage of the drives, in each year, were hit with less than driver? Did the courses change over time? If so, how?

 

This is not my chart:

 

 

 

...you should probably read this article:

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...ns-on-pga-tour/

 

...and the distance-study.pdf from the USGA.

 

-

 

Like I said you better look at the average carry distances.

 

And if you look at those - especially those from the long hitters, like Bubba, Holmes etc.,

you will find, that it was an up and down from year to year, and on average the same.

 

What else should matter, if we talk about distances?

 

You can see, that - no matter what club was used, or in which conditions, because of the long term average of a big data set - the distances didn't change.

 

-

 

Only rare exceptions like this:

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

...skew up the data, if the data set is not big enough...

...and your guy obviously prefers to skew up the data with a restricted data set of preferred exceptions.

 

Why didn't he look at the exceptional short drives?

 

...maybe because this wouldn't help his agenda.