Joanne Carner's 30 year old R-90 wedge= 'busted'

[wkuo3]

I might bag my R-90 next week to see what's the fuzz was... But mine has the original grooves in it.

 

I never "re-groove" with a hand tool to avoid the infraction, not that it matters cause I don't play competition golf. I do have another old Wilson wedge which was obvious to the naked eyes that this one had widened grooves in the bottom 4-5 score lines.

Since you said that I went out to my building and got one of my R-90s and it will get played with the vintage clubs this weekend which will include the 1958 Mac Diamondbacks which I presume are also non conforming----- Hey what a way to poke the middle finger at the USGA----

 

It probably wouldn't make as much difference in Carner's hands than in some young GPA Pro's. It's only a club she had been using for 30+ years.

It was very unusual for the equipment conforming check at the check in desk for the tournament. I wonder if anyone had suspicion of some of these older golf clubs were not conforming to the new rules. Many of these ladies had not been in competition golf for years and decades. Pretty sure they won;t have their bag checked for the weekend Nassau.

[BIG STU]

I might bag my R-90 next week to see what's the fuzz was... But mine has the original grooves in it.

 

I never "re-groove" with a hand tool to avoid the infraction, not that it matters cause I don't play competition golf. I do have another old Wilson wedge which was obvious to the naked eyes that this one had widened grooves in the bottom 4-5 score lines.

Since you said that I went out to my building and got one of my R-90s and it will get played with the vintage clubs this weekend which will include the 1958 Mac Diamondbacks which I presume are also non conforming----- Hey what a way to poke the middle finger at the USGA----

 

It probably wouldn't make as much difference in Carner's hands than in some young GPA Pro's. It's only a club she had been using for 30+ years.

It was very unusual for the equipment conforming check at the check in desk for the tournament. I wonder if anyone had suspicion of some of these older golf clubs were not conforming to the new rules. Many of these ladies had not been in competition golf for years and decades. Pretty sure they won;t have their bag checked for the weekend Nassau.

Won't be anyone checking or giving 2 hoots in either of the weekend groups I may play in this weekend either. As you stated some of those ladies had not played comp in years and I am sure there was some unwarranted suspicion ----- or it was a press ploy by the USGA to drum up controversy for the event--- You and I and anyone that has the brains of a oyster knows that is not beyond the scope of the USGA and their "tools" the Golf Channel

[wkuo3]

I might bag my R-90 next week to see what's the fuzz was... But mine has the original grooves in it.

 

I never "re-groove" with a hand tool to avoid the infraction, not that it matters cause I don't play competition golf. I do have another old Wilson wedge which was obvious to the naked eyes that this one had widened grooves in the bottom 4-5 score lines.

Since you said that I went out to my building and got one of my R-90s and it will get played with the vintage clubs this weekend which will include the 1958 Mac Diamondbacks which I presume are also non conforming----- Hey what a way to poke the middle finger at the USGA----

 

It probably wouldn't make as much difference in Carner's hands than in some young GPA Pro's. It's only a club she had been using for 30+ years.

It was very unusual for the equipment conforming check at the check in desk for the tournament. I wonder if anyone had suspicion of some of these older golf clubs were not conforming to the new rules. Many of these ladies had not been in competition golf for years and decades. Pretty sure they won;t have their bag checked for the weekend Nassau.

Won't be anyone checking or giving 2 hoots in either of the weekend groups I may play in this weekend either. As you stated some of those ladies had not played comp in years and I am sure there was some unwarranted suspicion ----- or it was a press ploy by the USGA to drum up controversy for the event--- You and I and anyone that has the brains of a oyster knows that is not beyond the scope of the USGA and their "tools" the Golf Channel

 

I won't be able to make it across the Puget Sound to walk with these ladies, but I certainly will tune to the broadcasting if the event is on and tube ( digital screen ).

If anyone in their age could shoot close to or under par will be a feast to view.

[dlygrisse]

This is why the groove rule is such a travesty. This club in question is truly one of the most historic clubs in the history of the game, it has been used to win many tour events around the world for over 40 years. It has been in the bag of one of the greatest female players of all time for over 30 years, Nicklaus used one for a while, as did many of the other greats, it is now illegal to use in a USGA event? THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

 

The groove rule is the dumbest thing the USGA ever did. That and letting driver tech get out of control, especially since it really only benefits the long hitters and makes them exponentially longer while the average guy picked up very little. The pros are a very small percentage of who plays the game, why don't we think about the masses?

I agree with you 110%--- And I will tell you something else--- I can spin the modern conforming wedges with a modern ball maybe better than I could a R-90 with a balata ball.

 

For sure you can. Even with the fabled Ping Eye2 square groove you probably can;t spin it better than the new grooves. The only real difference MIGHT be certain lies out of very light rough. Which 99% of the players of the game would gain no advantage.

 

The USGA should have banned the Ping grooves BEFORE they hit the market and none of this would have ever been an issue. Instead they like to retroactively ban things people have been using for years. (except the modern springy faced driver.)

[BIG STU]

This is why the groove rule is such a travesty. This club in question is truly one of the most historic clubs in the history of the game, it has been used to win many tour events around the world for over 40 years. It has been in the bag of one of the greatest female players of all time for over 30 years, Nicklaus used one for a while, as did many of the other greats, it is now illegal to use in a USGA event? THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

 

The groove rule is the dumbest thing the USGA ever did. That and letting driver tech get out of control, especially since it really only benefits the long hitters and makes them exponentially longer while the average guy picked up very little. The pros are a very small percentage of who plays the game, why don't we think about the masses?

I agree with you 110%--- And I will tell you something else--- I can spin the modern conforming wedges with a modern ball maybe better than I could a R-90 with a balata ball.

 

For sure you can. Even with the fabled Ping Eye2 square groove you probably can;t spin it better than the new grooves. The only real difference MIGHT be certain lies out of very light rough. Which 99% of the players of the game would gain no advantage.

 

The USGA should have banned the Ping grooves BEFORE they hit the market and none of this would have ever been an issue. Instead they like to retroactively ban things people have been using for years. (except the modern springy faced driver.)

Well on the Ping groove thing-- Karsten was a genius in his own right he was light years ahead of the times period. No one gave grooves a second thought before he came up with them. The only type of grooves before then that caused any controversy were the dot face or punch faced grooves. But prior to Karsten no one knew anything about boxed grooves etc. If I remember correctly in the 60s 70s and 80s the only "tech" (to borrow a racing term) was the width itself. The USGA tried to ban the square grooves when he came out with them. Karsten promptly sued them under Federal product laws. I can remember him stating that he would continue to battle it out in court until he broke the USGA money wise. The USGA had to bow out then. He got a Federal injunction making them legal. In other words the USGA could not screw with him. After he passed evidently the USGA appealed to his son to get the injunction quashed for "the betterment of the game". His son went before the courts and got the injunction quashed. I can not figure for the life of me how the USGA "got to him" surely it could not be money.

[NRJyzr]

Karsten and square grooves...

 

 

The great irony is, Karsten Solheim would never have put square grooves in the Eye2 irons if the USGA hadn't approved them in 1981. Also ironically, they were approved as a way to encourage the more economical casting process for clubheads, nothing performance related. Ping didn't even put U grooves in the Eye2 until 1984. And it wasn't until they radiused the groove edges in 1985 that the ruckus started.

 

Groove rule (2010 version) is the dumbest thing they've (USGA) ever done. Second dumbest is the anchoring ban.

 

edit: great page on Dave Tutelman's site about the whole Eye2 thing:

https://www.tutelman...quaregroove.php

[fluffy265]

My blood is boiling, I have absolutely nothing nice to say here.. so I’m not going to say it.

 

Stu, please sign me up to the Outlaws! ... I’m serious.

A new governing body and a new competition is the only way to save this game.

 

J

[scomac2002]

Karsten and square grooves...

 

 

The great irony is, Karsten Solheim would never have put square grooves in the Eye2 irons if the USGA hadn't approved them in 1981. Also ironically, they were approved as a way to encourage the more economical casting process for clubheads, nothing performance related. Ping didn't even put U grooves in the Eye2 until 1984. And it wasn't until they radiused the groove edges in 1985 that the ruckus started.

 

Groove rule (2010 version) is the dumbest thing they've (USGA) ever done. Second dumbest is the anchoring ban.

 

edit: great page on Dave Tutelman's site about the whole Eye2 thing:

https://www.tutelman...quaregroove.php

 

Thanks for posting that NRJyzr. I've maintained for some time now that the OEM's who pour tons of money into the pro tours are the ones who are really calling the shots in golf in this day and age. Apparently it has always been the case or it would appear as much. The USGA and R&A are so full of sh*t with respect to upholding the integrity of the game! They just do as they're told by their overlords! :angry:

[Swingingk]

this club is obviously one of the "original" R-90's which were repros from the 70' and '80's Perhaps it has a dot-punched face, instead of grooves...?

 

That's a good point. I'm sure I read here somewhere that at least some of the R-90's had dot punched faces, in which case I could see how there might be an issue with the rules gurus.

 

Personally I can't think of too many things that would be cooler than vintage pros from the past showing up to play a modern event with vintage equipment from the past. I really like it. I'm surprised the event people didn't capitalize on that very thing and promote it.

[TimV]

Thanks for posting that NRJyzr. I've maintained for some time now that the OEM's who pour tons of money into the pro tours are the ones who are really calling the shots in golf in this day and age. Apparently it has always been the case or it would appear as much. The USGA and R&A are so full of sh*t with respect to upholding the integrity of the game! They just do as they're told by their overlords! :angry:

 

Yup, just like our Congressmen.

[Shallowface]

this club is obviously one of the "original" R-90's which were repros from the 70' and '80's Perhaps it has a dot-punched face, instead of grooves...?

 

That's a good point. I'm sure I read here somewhere that at least some of the R-90's had dot punched faces, in which case I could see how there might be an issue with the rules gurus.

 

Personally I can't think of too many things that would be cooler than vintage pros from the past showing up to play a modern event with vintage equipment from the past. I really like it. I'm surprised the event people didn't capitalize on that very thing and promote it.

 

None of the Wilson wedges of the 70s or 80s had dot punched faces.

 

There were a lot of wedges during that time that did due to the classic club craze. PGA/Tommy Armour made a brown shafted wedge called the D-20 that had a dot punched face. Dynacraft offered a remake of the Wilson Johnny Revolta wedge that had a dot punched face. There were many others, and many from component suppliers.

 

But none of those were made by Wilson. The fact is, if a club is not on the conforming club list, it's non-conforming. I don't suppose it can be approved on site at a tournament. It probably has to go through a process at the USGA HQ. I don't believe anything old is on that list, so if someone shows up at a USGA event with a set of FG-17s, those aren't going to conform either.

 

Once it was shown that the USGA could be sued out of existence, they lost whatever authority they had. They only authority they ever had was that which was granted to it, whether by an individual, a foursome, a club event or a professional tour, and truth is they are mostly ignored every single day. If they tried to roll back the golf ball, the PGA Tour could simply say that they were going to play under their own rules and tack another 50 on to the ball if they so desired, because after all they are in the sports entertainment business as well as having the largest influence on equipment purchases.

 

The USGA only truly governs their events, and they aren't going to make a stink over the ball. Instead, they just bake the greens into concrete or grow rough up to the players as... uhh... knees, none of which stops the 230 yard forged blade 6 iron or 625 yard Par 5s reached with two fairway woods (which don't show up in the stats, and neither of which has to do with COR or clubhead size or fitness or any of the other BS excuses we hear all the time). ;) :D :wave:

[dlygrisse]

this club is obviously one of the "original" R-90's which were repros from the 70' and '80's Perhaps it has a dot-punched face, instead of grooves...?

 

That's a good point. I'm sure I read here somewhere that at least some of the R-90's had dot punched faces, in which case I could see how there might be an issue with the rules gurus.

 

Personally I can't think of too many things that would be cooler than vintage pros from the past showing up to play a modern event with vintage equipment from the past. I really like it. I'm surprised the event people didn't capitalize on that very thing and promote it.

 

None of the Wilson wedges of the 70s or 80s had dot punched faces.

 

There were a lot of wedges during that time that did due to the classic club craze. PGA/Tommy Armour made a brown shafted wedge called the D-20 that had a dot punched face. Dynacraft offered a remake of the Wilson Johnny Revolta wedge that had a dot punched face. There were many others, and many from component suppliers.

 

But none of those were made by Wilson. The fact is, if a club is not on the conforming club list, it's non-conforming. I don't suppose it can be approved on site at a tournament. It probably has to go through a process at the USGA HQ. I don't believe anything old is on that list, so if someone shows up at a USGA event with a set of FG-17s, those aren't going to conform either.

 

Once it was shown that the USGA could be sued out of existence, they lost whatever authority they had. They only authority they ever had was that which was granted to it, whether by an individual, a foursome, a club event or a professional tour, and truth is they are mostly ignored every single day. If they tried to roll back the golf ball, the PGA Tour could simply say that they were going to play under their own rules and tack another 50 on to the ball if they so desired, because after all they are in the sports entertainment business as well as having the largest influence on equipment purchases.

 

The USGA only truly governs their events, and they aren't going to make a stink over the ball. Instead, they just bake the greens into concrete or grow rough up to the players as... uhh... knees, none of which stops the 230 yard forged blade 6 iron or 625 yard Par 5s reached with two fairway woods (which don't show up in the stats, and neither of which has to do with COR or clubhead size or fitness or any of the other BS excuses we hear all the time). ;) :D :wave:

My first SW was a northwestern punch dot face.

[BIG STU]

My blood is boiling, I have absolutely nothing nice to say here.. so I'm not going to say it.

 

Stu, please sign me up to the Outlaws! ... I'm serious.

A new governing body and a new competition is the only way to save this game.

 

J

No rules all you have to do is pick a number and post your member number in your signature. Bash the USGA every time you get a chance---- Main thing is play any club you darn well please and have fun doing it. In fact play the game of golf period as you see darn well fit and have fun doing

[BIG STU]

this club is obviously one of the "original" R-90's which were repros from the 70' and '80's Perhaps it has a dot-punched face, instead of grooves...?

 

That's a good point. I'm sure I read here somewhere that at least some of the R-90's had dot punched faces, in which case I could see how there might be an issue with the rules gurus.

 

Personally I can't think of too many things that would be cooler than vintage pros from the past showing up to play a modern event with vintage equipment from the past. I really like it. I'm surprised the event people didn't capitalize on that very thing and promote it.

 

None of the Wilson wedges of the 70s or 80s had dot punched faces.

 

There were a lot of wedges during that time that did due to the classic club craze. PGA/Tommy Armour made a brown shafted wedge called the D-20 that had a dot punched face. Dynacraft offered a remake of the Wilson Johnny Revolta wedge that had a dot punched face. There were many others, and many from component suppliers.

 

But none of those were made by Wilson. The fact is, if a club is not on the conforming club list, it's non-conforming. I don't suppose it can be approved on site at a tournament. It probably has to go through a process at the USGA HQ. I don't believe anything old is on that list, so if someone shows up at a USGA event with a set of FG-17s, those aren't going to conform either.

 

Once it was shown that the USGA could be sued out of existence, they lost whatever authority they had. They only authority they ever had was that which was granted to it, whether by an individual, a foursome, a club event or a professional tour, and truth is they are mostly ignored every single day. If they tried to roll back the golf ball, the PGA Tour could simply say that they were going to play under their own rules and tack another 50 on to the ball if they so desired, because after all they are in the sports entertainment business as well as having the largest influence on equipment purchases.

 

The USGA only truly governs their events, and they aren't going to make a stink over the ball. Instead, they just bake the greens into concrete or grow rough up to the players as... uhh... knees, none of which stops the 230 yard forged blade 6 iron or 625 yard Par 5s reached with two fairway woods (which don't show up in the stats, and neither of which has to do with COR or clubhead size or fitness or any of the other BS excuses we hear all the time). ;) :D :wave:

Very well stated as per SOP for you. At the end there are you beating the dead horse or the USGA??? LOL just had to ask!! In the future I see the PGA sorta pulling away from the USGA. Actually the PGA Tour had the chance over the anchored putter ban but chose not to 'for the betterment of the game" . Don't you just love that little catch phrase? Yep as you stated Fg-17s are not on the conforming lists along with all of my Macgregors and Hogans. So I guess folks like us will say screw the USGA and have fun playing "Outlaw Golf" .

[Shallowface]

Very well stated as per SOP for you. At the end there are you beating the dead horse or the USGA??? LOL just had to ask!! In the future I see the PGA sorta pulling away from the USGA. Actually the PGA Tour had the chance over the anchored putter ban but chose not to 'for the betterment of the game" . Don't you just love that little catch phrase? Yep as you stated Fg-17s are not on the conforming lists along with all of my Macgregors and Hogans. So I guess folks like us will say screw the USGA and have fun playing "Outlaw Golf" .

 

LOL! The dead horse is the distance issue. Beating on the USGA would just be kicking them when they are down at this point. Those who are upset over the distance issue often scream "why doesn't the USGA do something?!!!" I probably screamed that myself a time or three when I saw a 5'3" LPGA girl drive it 280 or the 16th at Firestone reached in two with a middle iron.

 

But then it hit me. What can they do? They have no legally binding authority, and if they tried to do anything they'd likely be ignored on the one hand and sued on the other.

[birly-shirly]

What could they do? They could do a lot more to provoke debate and try to find a consensus or compromise position. I don't think most people are naturally hostile to the USGA or R&A. I think they'd like to support them, so long as they saw each body taking sensible action - and publicly owning their mistakes.

 

Karsten was probably correct in his grooves dispute. But he was also bloody stubborn and the head of a wealthy private company, and it's the latter 2 points rather than the rightness of his position that counted. Although I respect his right to defend his business and the customers who'd bought his products, I still feel uncomfortable that he basically held a cash-loaded gun to the rules of the game. And here we are...

 

The equipment manufacturers are still here, and hostile to change. Whether any are as cash rich and autonomous as Ping was in the 80s is a moot point. Could the ruling bodies build a coalition of opinion across leading players, fans, course owners, tournament organisers, media and the mass of grassroots players and maybe outflank the manufacturers? In their current form, that's probably beyond them. The USGA in particular seems stuck in a rut in which their handling of their annual showpiece tournament attracts more attention than the players' performance.

[wkuo3]

If everyone is still bagging the 30 years old wedge then, there would be less sale for the new and improved wedge.

Is the event televised ? Not a good influence to show these gals still using the antique golf clubs in a tournament play, no equipment sponsorship for any of them as I understand.

[dalehead]

I have no problem with the USGA enforcing the rules. I do question having an official on site checking clubs. While this is the USGA's prerogative it is apparently out of the norm. If the USGA was going to take this step did they also give the entrants a firm reminder about the new equipment rules before hand? If they did then it's definitely on Carner. If they didn't, why not when they stated it was a concern of theirs? Just another USGA SNAFU?

[Shallowface]

The reason I phrased it as I did (What can they do?) comes from a personal belief that if and when the USGA attempts to implement a roll back of the ball, the PGA Tour and the equipment manufacturers will choose to ignore it, which is entirely within their right. At that point, the PGA Tour will become the governing body of golf in the United States. Considering they already drive virtually all of the interest in the game and the sales of equipment, I think it's fair to say they've already become that governing body on a de facto basis.

 

The PGA Tour sees no problem with the current state of the game. Augusta National seems perfectly willing to make whatever changes it deems necessary to its classic venue. I don't know of a single recreational player who thinks he hits it too far. The consensus is either to leave things as they are, or if anything to let them evolve even further.

 

And so the question remains, what can the USGA do? The only authority they have over the PGA Tour, or your club championship, or your foursome, or you as an individual, is that which it is granted by the entity in question.

 

Given that those entities are satisfied with the status quo, the USGA can either do nothing and like it, or attempt to do something and be rendered irrelevant. I think I know what the choice will be.

 

The challenge will be in how they spin their decision to do nothing.

[NRJyzr]

The reason I phrased it as I did (What can they do?) comes from a personal belief that if and when the USGA attempts to implement a roll back of the ball, the PGA Tour and the equipment manufacturers will choose to ignore it, which is entirely within their right. At that point, the PGA Tour will become the governing body of golf in the United States. Considering they already drive virtually all of the interest in the game and the sales of equipment, I think it's fair to say they've already become that governing body on a de facto basis.

 

The PGA Tour sees no problem with the current state of the game. Augusta National seems perfectly willing to make whatever changes it deems necessary to its classic venue. I don't know of a single recreational player who thinks he hits it too far. The consensus is either to leave things as they are, or if anything to let them evolve even further.

 

And so the question remains, what can the USGA do? The only authority they have over the PGA Tour, or your club championship, or your foursome, or you as an individual, is that which it is granted by the entity in question.

 

Given that those entities are satisfied with the status quo, the USGA can either do nothing and like it, or attempt to do something and be rendered irrelevant. I think I know what the choice will be.

 

The challenge will be in how they spin their decision to do nothing.

 

 

There's no need to roll back the ball again. It's been done twice, maybe at least three times. That's more than enough.

[mocokid]

I wonder if it was a punch face wedge, and the boys could not figure the dern thing out, Lol, don't know if any R 90s were made that way.

[mocokid]

Whoops I was lazy, didn't read all the above posts about punch faces.

[Tumbleweed_1968]

I just picked up an R61 to go with my other Sandy Andy at the thrift store today. Just for spite...

[birly-shirly]

The reason I phrased it as I did (What can they do?) comes from a personal belief that if and when the USGA attempts to implement a roll back of the ball, the PGA Tour and the equipment manufacturers will choose to ignore it, which is entirely within their right. At that point, the PGA Tour will become the governing body of golf in the United States. Considering they already drive virtually all of the interest in the game and the sales of equipment, I think it's fair to say they've already become that governing body on a de facto basis.

 

The PGA Tour sees no problem with the current state of the game. Augusta National seems perfectly willing to make whatever changes it deems necessary to its classic venue. I don't know of a single recreational player who thinks he hits it too far. The consensus is either to leave things as they are, or if anything to let them evolve even further.

 

And so the question remains, what can the USGA do? The only authority they have over the PGA Tour, or your club championship, or your foursome, or you as an individual, is that which it is granted by the entity in question.

 

Given that those entities are satisfied with the status quo, the USGA can either do nothing and like it, or attempt to do something and be rendered irrelevant. I think I know what the choice will be.

 

The challenge will be in how they spin their decision to do nothing.

 

I think your reasoning is persuasive, and I basically agree. The USGA and the R&A are not in a strong position to dictate that sort of change from on high. So really, I'm just thinking aloud as to whether there are any other alternatives.

 

I don't know how comfortable ANGC is with the current direction of travel. Do they have the physical room to move tees back further? And even if they do, do they feel that their course is being played how it was designed? Would they like to see the back-9 par 5s present a real risk/reward dilemma for the best in the world again?

 

Would there be commercial interest and upside in taking pro events back to classic venues?

 

Could you bring some manufacturers onside? Drivers are maxed out, and so is the spin from wedges. Its tough to sell innovation when the performance limits are already regulated. Maybe the manufacturers would see some commercial potential in rule changes that would put more emphasis on long iron and fairway wood play.

 

And not everyone at the grassroots level would be in favour.

 

Doing nothing is the likeliest, easiest strategy, for the reasons you give. Against that, the USGA is never more visible than when it presides annually over a borderline farcical course set up. I think a large part of their raison-d'etre is to set the toughest championship test in golf. And that's fine, but they're trying to do it with an increasingly limited set of tools. The hardness and speed of greens being set right at the edge of playable is what they've got left and what leaves them open to criticism, and worse, ridicule. Growing the rough in was deemed a lottery and a snooze fest when that was the typical set up years ago. If they really want to continue as the examiners-in-chief of tough golf, then they might need to take a brave pill or two on trying to bring in the type of regulation that would make them less reliant on knife-edge green set up and weather conditions. Strictly speaking, they don't have to take this on. But there are still consequences of doing nothing, which they're probably not wild about either.

[SteveNZ]

I don't know how comfortable ANGC is with the current direction of travel. Do they have the physical room to move tees back further? And even if they do, do they feel that their course is being played how it was designed? Would they like to see the back-9 par 5s present a real risk/reward dilemma for the best in the world again?

 

I don't imagine they're particularly thrilled about it at all. And they don't have the room - but they do have the money which is why they spent millions on acquiring land from a neighbouring course so they could extend the 13th. (The Old Course has to resort to using other courses on the grounds and out-of-bounds areas for tee placements!)

 

Interestingly, of all the organisations in golf, they are probably in the best position to take some sort of stand as they have complete control of their tournament. They could get produced (I'm sure they have already) a 'Masters' ball that doesn't travel as far, and then refuse to invite anyone who doesn't commit to playing it in the tournament. I'd love to see that - and then to see the reaction!

 

And not everyone at the grassroots level would be in favour.

 

Which is probably an argument for applying any changes at the pro and top amateur level only. Having said that it's probably reasonable to assume that the vast majority of grass-roots golfers don't have the swing speed to notice any difference if anything was to be rolled back.

 

If they really want to continue as the examiners-in-chief of tough golf, then they might need to take a brave pill or two on trying to bring in the type of regulation that would make them less reliant on knife-edge green set up and weather conditions.

 

Cannot agree more. As things currently stand, the greens are the only defence available against technology - and it's plain to see how difficult it is to get the balance right.

[wkuo3]

The reason I phrased it as I did (What can they do?) comes from a personal belief that if and when the USGA attempts to implement a roll back of the ball, the PGA Tour and the equipment manufacturers will choose to ignore it, which is entirely within their right. At that point, the PGA Tour will become the governing body of golf in the United States. Considering they already drive virtually all of the interest in the game and the sales of equipment, I think it's fair to say they've already become that governing body on a de facto basis.

 

The PGA Tour sees no problem with the current state of the game. Augusta National seems perfectly willing to make whatever changes it deems necessary to its classic venue. I don't know of a single recreational player who thinks he hits it too far. The consensus is either to leave things as they are, or if anything to let them evolve even further.

 

And so the question remains, what can the USGA do? The only authority they have over the PGA Tour, or your club championship, or your foursome, or you as an individual, is that which it is granted by the entity in question.

 

Given that those entities are satisfied with the status quo, the USGA can either do nothing and like it, or attempt to do something and be rendered irrelevant. I think I know what the choice will be.

 

The challenge will be in how they spin their decision to do nothing.

 

 

There's no need to roll back the ball again. It's been done twice, maybe at least three times. That's more than enough.

 

I believe the human limit has been tested and darn near reached in recent years. just look at all the young golfers plaque with injuries at an early age. They don't need to make the golf courses longer and no need to change the golf balls. All they need is to change the condition of the golf course, make it tighter, more risk/reward chances, and especially makes the green speed a little slower. Making the players "putt" the golf ball instead of just rolling it on the line will make this game more interesting as it was intended to be.

[BIG STU]

I just picked up an R61 to go with my other Sandy Andy at the thrift store today. Just for spite...

LOL I threw one of mine in the strictly vintage bag yesterday as my way of poking the middle finger at the USGA. I am thinking of stamping it and calling it "Miss Jo Anne" I bet the real Jo Anne would get a kick out of that with her sense of humor. I met her in Florida a few years back and she was funny as heck. I actually remet her. I met her when I was a kid at a clinic when my old man was on the Wilson Staff. She was in her 60s when I saw her in Florida and she definitely remembered my old man and I guess she remembered me too because she remarked my have you grown up

[BIG STU]

The reason I phrased it as I did (What can they do?) comes from a personal belief that if and when the USGA attempts to implement a roll back of the ball, the PGA Tour and the equipment manufacturers will choose to ignore it, which is entirely within their right. At that point, the PGA Tour will become the governing body of golf in the United States. Considering they already drive virtually all of the interest in the game and the sales of equipment, I think it's fair to say they've already become that governing body on a de facto basis.

 

The PGA Tour sees no problem with the current state of the game. Augusta National seems perfectly willing to make whatever changes it deems necessary to its classic venue. I don't know of a single recreational player who thinks he hits it too far. The consensus is either to leave things as they are, or if anything to let them evolve even further.

 

And so the question remains, what can the USGA do? The only authority they have over the PGA Tour, or your club championship, or your foursome, or you as an individual, is that which it is granted by the entity in question.

 

Given that those entities are satisfied with the status quo, the USGA can either do nothing and like it, or attempt to do something and be rendered irrelevant. I think I know what the choice will be.

 

The challenge will be in how they spin their decision to do nothing.

If you roll the ball back it is not going to work for the Manufacturers. There are billions upon billions of balls out there that meet today's standards. The ball companies would go broke because I would say 97% of the golfers out there would not buy them period. If distance is the issue at Augusta they run their own tournament with their own rules they could go back to persimmon woods for that tournament and a lower compression ball which is made standard today anyhow by all the manufacturers. Persimmon with a higher swing speed and a low compression ball will cut distance. Also everyone is screaming ball it ain't only the ball the shafts have advanced so far it ain't funny. Any of us on here that "hot rod" vintage clubs with modern shafts knows that. Agronomy also plays a huge part in the distance gains today and the way greens putt too. In reality it aint gonna happen but if you want to see Augusta play like Bobby Jones intended it to be played go back to a wound ball persimmon woods and steel shafted clubs.

[SteveNZ]

Stu - do you really believe that Titleist will go broke if the ball gets rolled back for the pros? People are still going to stick to their brand and even if it is rolled back for all, most people won’t even notice as they’re not playing at a level where it will make a difference. And even if it gets rolled back for pros only, in all likelihood people will do everything they can to get their hands on the ball the pros play anyway!

 

I think it’s beyond question that Augusta see distance as a problem. They wouldn’t be lengthening the 5th and spending millions to acquire property to lengthen what may be the finest hole in tournament golf (13th) if it wasn’t.

 

And you’re right - there is more to it than just the ball. It’s just that the ball is the quickest, most direct route to making any meaningful change.

[Tumbleweed_1968]

IMO, the love of money has brought about a perception that distance is a problem. If in fact it is a problem, courses could make it more dangerous to land in those areas rather than lengthening holes.

 

It appears to me that the money is made by promoting distance above all else. Distance is the equivalent of speed in racing for example. They limit speed for safetys sake. No such danger in golf.

 

Soon they will be hitting 400 yds. What then? Meanwhile, the pros are more vanilla, the bomb and gouge game is so predictable, coverage is formulaic & boring, and the average winner makes more than most people do in one lifetime.

 

Heck, the avg golfer cant afford to go to a tournament or play on a lot of courses. I can't spend more on my round than my clubs cost, so I'll never play Whistling Straits. Ever. So too the other courses the pros play. Too much money has ruined another sport.

 

It is in the nature of man and the way of the world to pursue a thing to the point of destroying that thing. We are witnessing the decline of professional golf, imo. We are past the point of no return and the love of money rules the day.

 

Today's pro golf is played by millionaires just like all of the other pro sports. Money rules, and people are clamouring to get their piece of the action. Same with the Olympics, which once had a robust amateur tradition.

 

Love of money is what has us where we are. The tech, the tour, the companies, the pros, the clubs, & a lot of fans are slaves to the almighty dollar, their one true god. They will no sooner roll back the ball or go vintage than they will kill their god.

 

Pro golf is boring. Vintage golf rocks. Maybe, if people stop slavishly bowing to a false god, stop chasing after distance at all cost, stop trying to buy a swing thru tech, and stop pumping money into the machine things will change. But I doubt it.

 

YMMV. I'm off to play at sunrise at a course I can afford with equipment I can afford while the pro game lumbers onward towards irrelevance. Fore!