The primary anti-roll back the ball argument

[Ashley Schaeffer]

...

...

...

...

 

Care to elaborate on why you feel entitled to form my opinions?

 

 

No.

 

Didn't think so.

[MrJones]

I still say it all drills back to dispersion. As the misses get less severe, the more likely you are to push your speed. If anything over 80% puts you OB half the time, why bother with all the hours in the gym, when you can spend that time shot shaping.

 

The ball is a big part of it but it’s not distance. They just don’t spin. It’s insane the amount of speed you can put thru impact and still have the ball react with a moderate amount of spin. There’s just no way you could pull that off “back in the day”.

That is the discussion that needs to be made. Distance is not the issue on the Tour it is the rail like quality of ball flight that supplanted old ball characteristics. It's not all gain, there has been a loss too. Progress brings on new"good" but it can destroy old "good" too. Something to be said for shot making and spin control, two things that have been mitigated to some extent with modern tech. Thick rough and crusty greens do not make up for the hazard of wind and spin.

 

Wait a second! Was there not a post earlier in this thread that compared 4 decades of different balls hit with nearly identical SS? I could have sworn the oldest ball was the lowest spinning and that overall they were all pretty close.

[radiman]

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

 

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.

The number of tour players with swing speeds of >120 doubled from 2007 to 2017. Average PGA tour club head speed increased by 9mph from 1980 to 2016...this data can't be overlooked when it comes to distance increases.

Lovely statistic.

 

In 1980, drivers were wood head on a steel shaft. They were a lot heavier, and driver length was typically 43". Now you have graphite and titanium, so clubs are lighter, and can be played at 45-1/2". I would assume anyone would gain club head speed changing from wood/steel to titanium/graphite.

 

2007-2017 has nothing to do with players from the 80's. So, listing why they swing slower does nothing to counter the argument that in the past 10 years, up and coming pros are swinging faster and faster. In the past 10 years there certainly hasn't been any new tech that has improved swing speed, unless I am missing something? Faster swingers will hit the ball farther. And, in turn, it will raise the average driving distance. Pretty straight forward. If the goal of all of this is to return distances to what it once was 30+ years ago, that isn't going to happen no matter how upset Geoff Shackelford gets.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

What kind of real golfers isn't a Nicklaus fan and doesn't own any of Shack's books

 

Next thing you know Ash will tell us he pays retail for ProV1's. Oh the humanity!

 

I only play Callaway Superhots or whatever pearls I can find in the pond with my telescoping ball retriever. The Superhots feel the best because I like a really high pitched 'click' coming off my two-way chipper.

[Nard_S]

I still say it all drills back to dispersion. As the misses get less severe, the more likely you are to push your speed. If anything over 80% puts you OB half the time, why bother with all the hours in the gym, when you can spend that time shot shaping.

 

The ball is a big part of it but it’s not distance. They just don’t spin. It’s insane the amount of speed you can put thru impact and still have the ball react with a moderate amount of spin. There’s just no way you could pull that off “back in the day”.

That is the discussion that needs to be made. Distance is not the issue on the Tour it is the rail like quality of ball flight that supplanted old ball characteristics. It's not all gain, there has been a loss too. Progress brings on new"good" but it can destroy old "good" too. Something to be said for shot making and spin control, two things that have been mitigated to some extent with modern tech. Thick rough and crusty greens do not make up for the hazard of wind and spin.

 

Wait a second! Was there not a post earlier in this thread that compared 4 decades of different balls hit with nearly identical SS? I could have sworn the oldest ball was the lowest spinning and that overall they were all pretty close.

 

Initial spin on older ball is higher, final spin is lower, new ball is more aerodynamic too, travels in a smoother 'bubble' w/ less turbulence and is less of a slave to the wind.

[clevited]

I still say it all drills back to dispersion. As the misses get less severe, the more likely you are to push your speed. If anything over 80% puts you OB half the time, why bother with all the hours in the gym, when you can spend that time shot shaping.

 

The ball is a big part of it but it’s not distance. They just don’t spin. It’s insane the amount of speed you can put thru impact and still have the ball react with a moderate amount of spin. There’s just no way you could pull that off “back in the day”.

That is the discussion that needs to be made. Distance is not the issue on the Tour it is the rail like quality of ball flight that supplanted old ball characteristics. It's not all gain, there has been a loss too. Progress brings on new"good" but it can destroy old "good" too. Something to be said for shot making and spin control, two things that have been mitigated to some extent with modern tech. Thick rough and crusty greens do not make up for the hazard of wind and spin.

 

Wait a second! Was there not a post earlier in this thread that compared 4 decades of different balls hit with nearly identical SS? I could have sworn the oldest ball was the lowest spinning and that overall they were all pretty close.

 

Initial spin on older ball is higher, final spin is lower, new ball is more aerodynamic too, travels in a smoother 'bubble' w/ less turbulence and is less of a slave to the wind.

 

I really think more research would need to be performed before making claims that the old golf balls spun more offline and stuff. Older clubs were a little less forgiving, not to mention matching shaft stiffness to swing speed wasn't as good back then. I have a persimmon and its whippy as heck! The thing to consider is they showed the weight of those balls and I find it hard to believe they were that much lighter than a current proV new. I think the lightness was a lot of what made them shorter when tracked on Trackman. This is just my guess, I would love to know the truth. I have a very hard time believing a 110 swing speed only got the older ball to go as far as it did given its launch numbers. Something doesn't add up. I also don't think the old aerodynamics were that much worse than current, but I could be wrong.

 

Just my opinion, but I really think if I had a brand new balata ball from the 90s (was made fresh today), and a current brand new proV1, the difference would be quite small. Durability and consistency would be the biggest difference I would think. I really wish I could test that for real.

[North Butte]

I still say it all drills back to dispersion. As the misses get less severe, the more likely you are to push your speed. If anything over 80% puts you OB half the time, why bother with all the hours in the gym, when you can spend that time shot shaping.

 

The ball is a big part of it but it’s not distance. They just don’t spin. It’s insane the amount of speed you can put thru impact and still have the ball react with a moderate amount of spin. There’s just no way you could pull that off “back in the day”.

That is the discussion that needs to be made. Distance is not the issue on the Tour it is the rail like quality of ball flight that supplanted old ball characteristics. It's not all gain, there has been a loss too. Progress brings on new"good" but it can destroy old "good" too. Something to be said for shot making and spin control, two things that have been mitigated to some extent with modern tech. Thick rough and crusty greens do not make up for the hazard of wind and spin.

 

Wait a second! Was there not a post earlier in this thread that compared 4 decades of different balls hit with nearly identical SS? I could have sworn the oldest ball was the lowest spinning and that overall they were all pretty close.

 

Initial spin on older ball is higher, final spin is lower, new ball is more aerodynamic too, travels in a smoother 'bubble' w/ less turbulence and is less of a slave to the wind.

 

Have you actually seen numbers quantifying any of this? Or are you just working backwards from your recollection of seeing balls of various eras fly through the air?

[MrJones]

I really think more research would need to be performed before making claims that the old golf balls spun more offline and stuff. Older clubs were a little less forgiving, not to mention matching shaft stiffness to swing speed wasn't as good back then. I have a persimmon and its whippy as heck! The thing to consider is they showed the weight of those balls and I find it hard to believe they were that much lighter than a current proV new. I think the lightness was a lot of what made them shorter when tracked on Trackman. This is just my guess, I would love to know the truth. I have a very hard time believing a 110 swing speed only got the older ball to go as far as it did given its launch numbers. Something doesn't add up. I also don't think the old aerodynamics were that much worse than current, but I could be wrong.

 

Just my opinion, but I really think if I had a brand new balata ball from the 90s (was made fresh today), and a current brand new proV1, the difference would be quite small. Durability and consistency would be the biggest difference I would think. I really wish I could test that for real.

All of the rubber items used in the products my plant produces have a 20 year max shelf life even when kept in light protective bags and controlled temps. I'm wondering if parts of these balls at their age are starting to degrade.

[clevited]

I really think more research would need to be performed before making claims that the old golf balls spun more offline and stuff. Older clubs were a little less forgiving, not to mention matching shaft stiffness to swing speed wasn't as good back then. I have a persimmon and its whippy as heck! The thing to consider is they showed the weight of those balls and I find it hard to believe they were that much lighter than a current proV new. I think the lightness was a lot of what made them shorter when tracked on Trackman. This is just my guess, I would love to know the truth. I have a very hard time believing a 110 swing speed only got the older ball to go as far as it did given its launch numbers. Something doesn't add up. I also don't think the old aerodynamics were that much worse than current, but I could be wrong.

 

Just my opinion, but I really think if I had a brand new balata ball from the 90s (was made fresh today), and a current brand new proV1, the difference would be quite small. Durability and consistency would be the biggest difference I would think. I really wish I could test that for real.

All of the rubber items used in the products my plant produces have a 20 year max shelf life even when kept in light protective bags and controlled temps. I'm wondering if parts of these balls at their age are starting to degrade.

 

I suspect that and something with that liquid center. The ball speeds where quite down compared to a proV1, and then you have Shiels comparison which, with a similar swing speed, produced only 3 mph less initial ball speed. Too bad Shiels didn't weight them, that would have been interesting to see. I could summarize here for both of those comparisons, but only for the tour 90 because that is what Shiels also tested.

 

Andrew Rice

 

Balata Titleist Professional 90

• Total Distance 262.1 yds
  
• Carry 231.9 yds
  
• Clubhead Speed 110.6 mph
  
• Ball Speed 161.4 mph
  
• Smash Factor 1.45
  
• Attack Angle -1.1 degrees
  
• Spin Loft 6.9 degrees
  
• Launch Angle 6.5 degrees
  
• Spin 2915 rpm
  

Modern Titleist ProV1

• Total Distance 298.4 yds
  
• Carry 271.1 yds
  
• Clubhead Speed 110.8 mph
  
• Ball Speed 167.2 mph
  
• Smash Factor 1.51
  
• Attack Angle -3.1 degrees
  
• Spin Loft 11.7 degrees
  
• Launch Angle 7 degrees
  
• Spin 2850 rpm
  

Shiels

 

Balata Titleist Professional 90

• Total Distance 288 yds
  
• Carry 269 yds (this seems suspect given that GCQ doesn't track ball and the launch parameters were almost identical, plugged into trajectory analyzer, only 6 yards of difference from ProV carry)
  
• Clubhead Speed 111.4 mph (this is on GCQ, likely equates to something more like 107 or 108 on a Trackman due to how they measure clubhead speed)
  
• Ball Speed 156.8 mph
  
• Smash Factor 1.40
  
• Attack Angle 3.7 degrees
  
• Spin Loft NA
  
• Launch Angle 11.2 degrees
  
• Spin 2245 rpm
  

Modern Titleist ProV1

• Total Distance 300 yds
  
• Carry 280 yds
  
• Clubhead Speed 110.5 mph (this is on GCQ, likely equates to something more like 107 or 108 on a Trackman due to how they measure clubhead speed)
  
• Ball Speed 159.6 mph
  
• Smash Factor 1.44
  
• Attack Angle 3.7 degrees
  
• Spin Loft NA
  
• Launch Angle 11.2 degrees
  
• Spin 2217 rpm
  

[Nard_S]

I still say it all drills back to dispersion. As the misses get less severe, the more likely you are to push your speed. If anything over 80% puts you OB half the time, why bother with all the hours in the gym, when you can spend that time shot shaping.

 

The ball is a big part of it but it’s not distance. They just don’t spin. It’s insane the amount of speed you can put thru impact and still have the ball react with a moderate amount of spin. There’s just no way you could pull that off “back in the day”.

That is the discussion that needs to be made. Distance is not the issue on the Tour it is the rail like quality of ball flight that supplanted old ball characteristics. It's not all gain, there has been a loss too. Progress brings on new"good" but it can destroy old "good" too. Something to be said for shot making and spin control, two things that have been mitigated to some extent with modern tech. Thick rough and crusty greens do not make up for the hazard of wind and spin.

 

Wait a second! Was there not a post earlier in this thread that compared 4 decades of different balls hit with nearly identical SS? I could have sworn the oldest ball was the lowest spinning and that overall they were all pretty close.

 

Initial spin on older ball is higher, final spin is lower, new ball is more aerodynamic too, travels in a smoother 'bubble' w/ less turbulence and is less of a slave to the wind.

 

Have you actually seen numbers quantifying any of this? Or are you just working backwards from your recollection of seeing balls of various eras fly through the air?

 

There was a rather in depth article written many years ago about this, the engineers interviewed were quite candid about the differences.

 

Personal experience then & now confirms these things and if you go on ebay much of it can be validated. A wound ball in general has more initial spin and and is more slave to wind than a pro V type modern ball. Played 1999 HT 100's for 50% of time last several years and even though they are not true old school ball, and really not much shorter, wind and spin matter more with these than solid core ball. Pro V type ball is superior for short game too.

[North Butte]

I really think more research would need to be performed before making claims that the old golf balls spun more offline and stuff. Older clubs were a little less forgiving, not to mention matching shaft stiffness to swing speed wasn't as good back then. I have a persimmon and its whippy as heck! The thing to consider is they showed the weight of those balls and I find it hard to believe they were that much lighter than a current proV new. I think the lightness was a lot of what made them shorter when tracked on Trackman. This is just my guess, I would love to know the truth. I have a very hard time believing a 110 swing speed only got the older ball to go as far as it did given its launch numbers. Something doesn't add up. I also don't think the old aerodynamics were that much worse than current, but I could be wrong.

 

Just my opinion, but I really think if I had a brand new balata ball from the 90s (was made fresh today), and a current brand new proV1, the difference would be quite small. Durability and consistency would be the biggest difference I would think. I really wish I could test that for real.

All of the rubber items used in the products my plant produces have a 20 year max shelf life even when kept in light protective bags and controlled temps. I'm wondering if parts of these balls at their age are starting to degrade.

 

I suspect that and something with that liquid center. The ball speeds where quite down compared to a proV1, and then you have Shiels comparison which, with a similar swing speed, produced only 3 mph less initial ball speed. Too bad Shiels didn't weight them, that would have been interesting to see. I could summarize here for both of those comparisons, but only for the tour 90 because that is what Shiels also tested.

 

Andrew Rice

 

Balata Titleist Professional 90

• Total Distance 262.1 yds
  
• Carry 231.9 yds
  
• Clubhead Speed 110.6 mph
  
• Ball Speed 161.4 mph
  
• Smash Factor 1.45
  
• Attack Angle -1.1 degrees
  
• Spin Loft 6.9 degrees
  
• Launch Angle 6.5 degrees
  
• Spin 2915 rpm
  

Modern Titleist ProV1

• Total Distance 298.4 yds
  
• Carry 271.1 yds
  
• Clubhead Speed 110.8 mph
  
• Ball Speed 167.2 mph
  
• Smash Factor 1.51
  
• Attack Angle -3.1 degrees
  
• Spin Loft 11.7 degrees
  
• Launch Angle 7 degrees
  
• Spin 2850 rpm
  

Shiels

 

Balata Titleist Professional 90

• Total Distance 288 yds
  
• Carry 269 yds (this seems suspect given that GCQ doesn't track ball and the launch parameters were almost identical, plugged into trajectory analyzer, only 6 yards of difference from ProV carry)
  
• Clubhead Speed 111.4 mph (this is on GCQ, likely equates to something more like 107 or 108 on a Trackman due to how they measure clubhead speed)
  
• Ball Speed 156.8 mph
  
• Smash Factor 1.40
  
• Attack Angle 3.7 degrees
  
• Spin Loft NA
  
• Launch Angle 11.2 degrees
  
• Spin 2245 rpm
  

Modern Titleist ProV1

• Total Distance 300 yds
  
• Carry 280 yds
  
• Clubhead Speed 110.5 mph (this is on GCQ, likely equates to something more like 107 or 108 on a Trackman due to how they measure clubhead speed)
  
• Ball Speed 159.6 mph
  
• Smash Factor 1.44
  
• Attack Angle 3.7 degrees
  
• Spin Loft NA
  
• Launch Angle 11.2 degrees
  
• Spin 2217 rpm
  

Several mph of ball speed (possibly due to aged wound balls), possibly a few rpm of spin and a fraction of a degree of launch. Yep, today's distance is all about the ball.

 

Which is a point I've made all along. If you want Dustin Johnson to play the same shots as Jack or Arnie or Hogan played on the same courses, you're going to need a rollback far, far, far beyond the pre-ProV1 balls of the 1990's.

[clevited]

There was a rather in depth article written many years ago about this, the engineers interviewed were quite candid about the differences.

 

Personal experience then & now confirms these things and if you go on ebay much of it can be validated. A wound ball in general has more initial spin and and is more slave to wind than a pro V type modern ball. Played 1999 HT 100's for 50% of time last several years and even though they are not true old school ball, and really not much shorter, wind and spin matter more with these than solid core ball. Pro V type ball is superior for short game too.

 

If you find that article I would love to read. I feel a problem is, we aren't isolating the issue and comparing ball vs ball. We are comparing ball combined with older tech woods (that don't help lower spin), vs ball combined with newer tech woods that do help lower spin. I suspect the ball difference is much smaller than many believe. I could be way off and a brand new balata ball behaved perhaps more spinny than these old ones that have no doubt degraded. The over all distance I do have very high confidence is skewed from age (the testing that Andrew Rice did).

 

So my guesses.

 

-If I had a brand new tour 90 ball, ball speed would be very comparable to modern proV1 (I would say at worse -2 mph)

-I would say that quality control wasn't as good back then so you could get some outliers in both ball speed and weight thus effecting overall distance.

-I would say that the spin was higher back then but not necessarily by much. The loft of the club presented to the ball at impact players a very large role in that, and if you have comparable cover grippiness and you are hitting the same club, both balls should behave similarily initially.

-I would say spin decay could be something to consider, but honesty, I would think the balata ball would decay spin quicker and either hurt you by falling out of the sky, or help you by providing just the right spin for playing high launch high speed driver shots.

I would guess that overall distance with a driver and all clubs for that matter, would be within 5% of the modern ball all things considered. There may be instances where it is worse or better (into the wind) but given a good quality balata, vs a good quality prov, they would be quite similar and not account for as much of the distance increase as a lot of people think. Its a combination of things that led to the distance increases ~15-20 years ago.

[Nard_S]

Yeah I agree with much of your sentiment, there is also the factor that a 3 piece wound has a different MOI than a solid core and solid is better optimized. Quality wise, winding up a giant rubber band around a liquid center has to add more variables than molding core layers. CAD/CAM, wind tunnel and computer modeling has made aerodynamic considerations easier to navigate.

 

I'll repeat myself, a 3 piece wound from 2000 does not really suffer in distance, it is at the mercy of the wind a bit more (in every direction too) and side spin or off axis spin is slightly more pronounced. It does not putt as well, a Pro V ball is much more consistent there. So what's missing from Tour golf in some respects is the need to manufacture shots from tee or fairway to the degree that old school balata required because frankly the ball never went straight to start with back then. I played Tour 100's with Ping Eye 2's. Easier golf was playing Ram Tour Grinds w/ 2 piece Precept MC. Still would be today. I like the new ball, but think they ought to make a tour ball more demanding spin wise for shot making reasons.At the end of day, tour golf is about mastering ball control. If I want to see 375 yard drives, I can go to my local range and watch Johnny hot stud do it.

[clevited]

Boom, found it. The original ball should have been the same weight as a modern prov1. 1.6-1.62 oz is 45-46 grams. If you look at the spin numbers too, they aren't that wild compare to today's spin numbers. Those were no doubt with less optimized clubs, and slightly different lofts. What was an 8 iron loft back then? Plus, amount of spin is preference with irons, and manipulatable with spin loft. To some extent, also with driver.

 

Edit: I will also link the good ol wrx thread I found it in. http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1146923-spin-rates-of-balata-vs-modern-urethane-balls/

[North Butte]

Boom, found it. The original ball should have been the same weight as a modern prov1. 1.6-1.62 oz is 45-46 grams.

 

Oooh, that HVC 100 was a nasty item. Bought a whole dozen of those suckers in a pro shop right before a round. By the back nine I was hoping they'd go in the water. There was no Rock Flite that clanked off a mid-iron like an HVC 100 and it was impossible to get any hang time with. Blast from the past.

 

No way I'd want to play golf with 90's-era gear now, no way.

[clevited]

Boom, found it. The original ball should have been the same weight as a modern prov1. 1.6-1.62 oz is 45-46 grams.

 

Oooh, that HVC 100 was a nasty item. Bought a whole dozen of those suckers in a pro shop right before a round. By the back nine I was hoping they'd go in the water. There was no Rock Flite that clanked off a mid-iron like an HVC 100 and it was impossible to get any hang time with. Blast from the past.

 

No way I'd want to play golf with 90's-era gear now, no way.

 

Some good discussion in that thread regarding how it behaved, distance and spin wise.

[Nard_S]

For the record, my irons are from 1992-2001 (4 sets), my #5W is from 1997. For last 2 years save for 2018 season Driver is 2003 R 510 TP, Driver and #3 are now Ti Mizuno's and putter is a BB2 blade so gear is pretty agnostic in my comparison.

[Shilgy]

Agree to disagree. I've disliked him from the first time I laid eyes on him, and I will never respect him.

 

Geez, not exactly open-minded, are you?

 

What does that have to do with anything?

I don't have to like or respect Jack Nicklaus.

 

For the record, I don't care for Jack either. Or Gary Player. Mostly because of their ramblings about the BALL or this or that needs to change. Lost any respect I may have once had for them.

Based on other comments i think I understand where you are coming from.

 

It is quite possible to respect their achievements in golf but to have little or no respect-or give their opinions little weight- on matters such as this one.

[clevited]

Notice the ball speed, was that at 120 mph? That would make for 1.45 smash and 174 mph. Seems about right for the drivers back then? I don't think the ball contributes as much to that ball speed difference as the drivers then might have. Given 1.48 smash, and 120 mph swing speed of today you could expect 177.6 mph ball speed. Roughly 3-4 mph difference, or basically what Shiels saw in his test. He must have got some good ones compared to Rice lol.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

"If a guy hits a ball 240 yards now and can reach the greens in regulation, a 20% reduction would put him below 200 yards, and he might not be able to. If he hit's it 220, it's even less after a 20% reduction. If he can reach 75% of the greens in regulation now, from the forward tees, now suddenly he cant. Are you going to say that is ok, because he doesnt deserve to hit greens in regulation anyway?"

 

I didn't even mention the rollback. Take a moment to read what you're replying to instead of automatically inserting 20% in every response.

Sure he can, just move up a set of tees... Courses would probably build more Forward tees if needed. Most people play too far back anyway. (disclaimer - I oppose a rollback of the ball unless it's Pro tours only)

 

How many courses do you think have the cash flow laying around to just up and build 18 new tee boxes at the drop of a hat? I’m not talking about big money private clubs, I’m talking about your average daily fee course that already struggles to even financially provide the Super with the tools and chemicals to even keep the course in good shape. It isn’t feasible to expect courses to all build new tees because someone thinks the pro’s and elite guys hit the ball too far.

 

I don't disagree with you. Was just saying there are options to move up but it's impossible to make a course longer if land locked.

 

Now this whole rolling back the ball thing is brought about by a few thousandths of a percent of golfers. No course has been made obsolete by equipment that "we" golf at because the pros don't play them. This is just another reason to hate the usga because they predominantly focus on elements of the game brought about by the most elite minority.

[DFS PFD]

Too bad these fairways at the US Open aren't softer, this course would be much more difficult if it wasn't for all that roll.

[Shilgy]

Too bad these fairways at the US Open aren't softer, this course would be much more difficult if it wasn't for all that roll.

And they could have played it under 7k yards like in the past. That seems to be the issue doesn't it? 15 wants the course to play firm and fast at 6700 yards and be difficult for the "elite".

[15th Club]

Too bad these fairways at the US Open aren't softer, this course would be much more difficult if it wasn't for all that roll.

And they could have played it under 7k yards like in the past. That seems to be the issue doesn't it? 15 wants the course to play firm and fast at 6700 yards and be difficult for the "elite".

 

What I would say, is that with a rollback, a 6700-yard course could be played by elites, and entirely apart from "difficulty" (which is another mischaracterization, thank you very little), a better scaling of the players and the course can allow the setup people to craft a wider, more open, firmer, faster course. You don't have to trick it into being difficult, with punitive rough and narrowed one-line fairways.

[DFS PFD]

Too bad these fairways at the US Open aren't softer, this course would be much more difficult if it wasn't for all that roll.

And they could have played it under 7k yards like in the past. That seems to be the issue doesn't it? 15 wants the course to play firm and fast at 6700 yards and be difficult for the "elite".

I was being very sarcastic. These guys are struggling to hit fairways with mid irons off the tee, imagine if you forced them to hit a few more with driver due to a shorter ball. I've enjoyed watching this style of play thus far.

[15th Club]

Too bad these fairways at the US Open aren't softer, this course would be much more difficult if it wasn't for all that roll.

 

+1.

 

But seriously, did you hear Jordan Spieth's presser on Tuesday or Wednesday? He said something really smart and interesting. He said that of course the fairways are cut wider now at Shinnecock Hills, but that as this week goes on, with more sunny weather and more breezy, less-humid air, the course is going to dry out and get firmer and faster. And that the firmer, faster fairways will thereby play as narrower fairways, even though they are physically cut wider than before. There's more to it than just that, but it is a window into a good player's attitude toward firm and fast fairways. The GolfWRX crowd thinks that firm and fast fairways are like a huge advantage for touring professionals who then enjoy exorbitant amounts of roll. But on an elegantly designed course like Shinnecock Hills, "firm and fast" means that players have to contend with the ground game. It requires a lot more strategy, skill and shot-shaping. But of course since there is all of that roll, it becomes all the more important to scale back the balls to fit the course.

[playa]

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.

This is the answer. My home track is about 6,000 yards and par 69. Easy right? We have narrow fairways, trees/water/OB everywhere, and lush Kikuyu fairways. Our slope rating is 131, and they don't even grow the rough cause it makes it unplayable. Scratch golf first time visitors come thinking low 60sand leave struggling to break 80. It really isn't all about length.

[The Pearl]

Too bad these fairways at the US Open aren't softer, this course would be much more difficult if it wasn't for all that roll.

 

+1.

 

But seriously, did you hear Jordan Spieth's presser on Tuesday or Wednesday? He said something really smart and interesting. He said that of course the fairways are cut wider now at Shinnecock Hills, but that as this week goes on, with more sunny weather and more breezy, less-humid air, the course is going to dry out and get firmer and faster. And that the firmer, faster fairways will thereby play as narrower fairways, even though they are physically cut wider than before. There's more to it than just that, but it is a window into a good player's attitude toward firm and fast fairways. The GolfWRX crowd thinks that firm and fast fairways are like a huge advantage for touring professionals who then enjoy exorbitant amounts of roll. But on an elegantly designed course like Shinnecock Hills, "firm and fast" means that players have to contend with the ground game. It requires a lot more strategy, skill and shot-shaping. But of course since there is all of that roll, it becomes all the more important to scale back the balls to fit the course.

 

You are pretty good at taking statements and twisting them to favor your position. The anti-rollback crowd IS NOT saying that the fast and firm fairways are a huge advantage to the touring pro. They are saying that fast and firm fairways EXAGGERATE the distance the pro's are hitting the ball therefore the hue and cry for a rollback is misguided. Furthermore, GOLFWRX's are not opposed to fast and firm fairways, they are opposed to fast and firm fairways that don't have consequences. This is what is happening on your standard tour event. Fast and firm fairways with light rough and no serious hazards, hence the emergence of the concept of bomb and gouge. The argument for softening and narrowing the fairways and growing up the rough is not a protest against link style courses, it is a potential solution of managing Tour distance without consequences to the average Joe.

 

There is nothing smart or interesting about Speith's comments. Of course windy, sunny, and humid weather makes fairways fast and firm and obviously when this occurs they play "narrower". Anybody who has ever played at Bandon or over in Scotland or Ireland knows this and quickly realizes why the fairways are designed the way they are relative to your standard American golf course.

 

You make the assumption that if they roll the ball back the ground game is going to come back in vogue. The ground game has never been in vogue on the American PGA Tour. Not when Hogan, Palmer, or Nicklaus played. In fact even in Links golf, despite the need at times for a particular shot, the game is not played on the ground UNLESS there is wind involved. If there is no wind and the course happens to be soft due to over night rains, the pros tear the place apart..through the air.

 

If you roll the ball back, the ground game isn't coming back on the classic courses, in fact how many classic courses are even designed to be played like that? I suspect the answer is few. If you roll the ball back and the average tour drive is 250 those guys are going to get on trackman and maximize launch conditions with their gear for max carry. They won't give one rat's rear end about roll out.

[ChaosTheory]

I haven't read the 5 pages. But the thing is, even if the ball is not responsible for distance increases, if they decide to cut back on distance, the ball is by far the cleanest and easiest fix.

[Shilgy]

Too bad these fairways at the US Open aren't softer, this course would be much more difficult if it wasn't for all that roll.

 

+1.

 

But seriously, did you hear Jordan Spieth's presser on Tuesday or Wednesday? He said something really smart and interesting. He said that of course the fairways are cut wider now at Shinnecock Hills, but that as this week goes on, with more sunny weather and more breezy, less-humid air, the course is going to dry out and get firmer and faster. And that the firmer, faster fairways will thereby play as narrower fairways, even though they are physically cut wider than before. There's more to it than just that, but it is a window into a good player's attitude toward firm and fast fairways. The GolfWRX crowd thinks that firm and fast fairways are like a huge advantage for touring professionals who then enjoy exorbitant amounts of roll. But on an elegantly designed course like Shinnecock Hills, "firm and fast" means that players have to contend with the ground game. It requires a lot more strategy, skill and shot-shaping. But of course since there is all of that roll, it becomes all the more important to scale back the balls to fit the course.

So the WRX crowd just doesn't understand that, huh. Good job making sure you didn't just call us ignorant so we couldn't come back at you with that. Well done!

For you and DFS. Since he says he never said difficult. Of course you want the courses difficult at 6700 yards. Please don't insult our wa intelligence. What else would be the reason for topping back the ball? Would it do any good to roll it back and have the courses 15 loves not be relevant because that are too easy?

 

Geez, it's like playing dodgeball with you guys! :)

 

Edit, apologies DFS, it was 15 that claims it was a mischaracterization that he asked for difficult lol.

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I haven't read the 5 pages. But the thing is, even if the ball is not responsible for distance increases, if they decide to cut back on distance, the ball is by far the cleanest and easiest fix.

100% agree, which is why I see the Tour going to some type of limited distance ball if they chose. No way they will ever be allowed to dial back the ball for the masses.