Lets take a closer look at distance off the Tee....

[15th Club]

Because some equipment technology advances are good, and some are bad.

 

Good equipment technology advances include steel shafts; cut proof covers for balls; steelhead “Woods”; modern epoxy; compound rubber grips; modern greens mowers; all kinds of turf grass science. The latter being assisted by the USGA, in fact.

 

All things that tended to make golf less expensive and a bit more small-d democratic. Easier for hobbyists to work on their own clubs with readily-available non-exotic materials and components.

 

Hickory shafts; composite shafts; featheries; persimmon heads with hand-wound whipping: all come from different eras but all were terribly expensive for their respective times. Good riddance to all. And to the Pro V.

[QuigleyDU]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> >

> > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> >

> > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> >

> > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> >

> > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> >

> > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

>

> Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

 

I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

 

I hate when people look backwards.

[Titleist99]

Just an observation: Every generation plays a game in which the previous one is not familiar with.....How 'bout we halt the progress of the game to please the traditionalist and change the name of the game we see on TV to PGA Tour Super Golf..Driver/wedge. LOL! I'm not in favor of going back to the "featherie" but if we had stopped progress, we'd still be using it......Just my sarcastic opinion.....(smile)

[15th Club]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> >

> > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> >

> > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> >

> > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> >

> > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> >

> > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

>

> Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

 

 

We know it wasn’t the equipment because Jones likely forfeited his amateur status for having endorsed one of the first-ever matched set of retail clubs (for Spalding) that were little different from Jack’s 1950’s MacGregors. Forged/persimmon heads on steel shafts with similar lofts. 14 clubs.

[Krt22]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > >

> > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > >

> > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > >

> > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > >

> > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > >

> > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> >

> > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

>

> I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

>

> I hate when people look backwards.

 

That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

[Titleist99]

Just an observation: Every generation plays a game in which the previous one is not familiar with.....How 'bout we halt the progress of the game to please the traditionalist and change the name of the game we see on TV to PGA Tour Super Golf..Driver/wedge. LOL! I'm not in favor of going back to the "featherie" but if we had stopped progress, we'd still be using it......Just my sarcastic opinion.....(smile)

[QuigleyDU]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > >

> > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > >

> > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > >

> > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > >

> > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > >

> > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > >

> > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> >

> > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> >

> > I hate when people look backwards.

>

> That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

 

@"15th Club" how old is Geoff? He does not seem that old.

[bladehunter]

> @gvogel said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > @gvogel

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > That is a study for golf balls. I would like to see a study of different COR driver faces for different swing speeds.

> > > >

> > > > ? The ball study wouldn't have shown what it did if that was an issue. It would show the ball performance as stagnant or improving as swing speed went up would it not? If this is a modern problem, I have no issue with adding manufacturing rules to stop it through limits, but I would be willing to bet it isn't a modern issue.

> > > >

> > > > Perhaps you thinking of CT creep? This happens as a club gets used and happens more noticeably for higher speed players. It is quite minor generally.

> > >

> > > No, I suspect that there might be a 5 yard increase in distance for a 90 mph swing speed between a COR of .75 and a COR of .83, but more like a 15 yard difference between the two COR values at a swing speed of 115. I would like to see such a study.

> >

> > I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. It sounds like you have a problem with physics? COR is a percentage of energy transfer. Of course as you swing faster, that percentage is going to be a larger number because you are inputting more energy. You then have more distance.

> >

> > So you would like it to be that a guy swinging 90 mph gets 5 yards more with that increase COR but the guy swinging 120 also gets 5 yards more? Life doesn't work that way, and that is a very sad and unfair want of yours if that is what you are getting at. **You do indeed want the guy that is gifted, talented, worked hard for speed to have no reason really to have it because it won't be worth the time and effort to gain it. If this is true, it sounds so very selfish.**

>

> For centuries, the tee shot was hit with a wooden driver face with a certain COR. The differences between the longest hitters who were elite players, and shorter players who were elite players, was not so much that shorter hitters could not compete. They evened it out with superior short games. In recent times, we had such winners as Corey Pavin, Ben Crenshaw, and Tom Kite - players who were not long, but found a way to win. Jack Nicklaus has said that when he played on the Tour, he could do an exhibition with a club pro and they could both play the same golf course. He now says that because of the distance advantage that modern equipment gives the best tour players, that type of exhibition cannot be played. And where have the Corey Pavins, the Tom Kites and the Ben Crenshaws gone? Nonexistent.

>

> COR went from around .75 to .83, and you call me selfish because I want to see it rolled back. You do not. I call you "entitled."

 

Yes yes yes.

 

Make no mistake. Easy to see self interests on both sides. To call someone selfish in this argument is to be without access to a mirror.

[Shilgy]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > >

> > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > >

> > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > >

> > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > >

> > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > >

> > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> >

> > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

>

>

> We know it wasn’t the equipment because Jones likely forfeited his amateur status for having endorsed one of the first-ever matched set of retail clubs (for Spalding) that were little different from Jack’s 1950’s MacGregors. Forged/persimmon heads on steel shafts with similar lofts. 14 clubs.

 

So it was Jacks power game that was new to him??

[oikos1]

> @"15th Club" said:

> Because some equipment technology advances are good, and some are bad.

>

> Good equipment technology advances include steel shafts; cut proof covers for balls; steelhead “Woods”; modern epoxy; compound rubber grips; modern greens mowers; all kinds of turf grass science. The latter being assisted by the USGA, in fact.

>

> All things that tended to make golf less expensive and a bit more small-d democratic. Easier for hobbyists to work on their own clubs with readily-available non-exotic materials and components.

>

> Hickory shafts; composite shafts; featheries; persimmon heads with hand-wound whipping: all come from different eras but all were terribly expensive for their respective times. Good riddance to all. And to the Pro V.

 

So what exactly are you arguing for?

[15th Club]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > >

> > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > >

> > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > >

> > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > >

> > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > >

> > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > >

> > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> >

> > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> >

> > I hate when people look backwards.

>

> That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

 

 

Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

[Titleist99]

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > >

> > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > >

> > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > >

> > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > >

> > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > >

> > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > >

> > > I hate when people look backwards.

> >

> > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

>

>

> Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

 

Then maybe golf shouldn't' be played on firm and fast golf courses......hmmm

[Krt22]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > >

> > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > >

> > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > >

> > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > >

> > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > >

> > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > >

> > > I hate when people look backwards.

> >

> > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

>

>

> Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

 

I'm failing to see any coincidence between your statement and mine. But I have and do play pretty firm/fast courses, hitting driver the same distance as some pros is something I greatly enjoy.

[Shilgy]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > >

> > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > >

> > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > >

> > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > >

> > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> >

> >

> > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

>

> Then maybe golf shouldn't' be played on firm and fast golf courses......hmmm

 

Therein lies the rub, as the saying goes. Seems 15 wants the ball rolled back so that he can...

Play firm and fast courses

At a shorter yardage

 

Never mind that the courses he prefers

Were made before courses typically played firm and fast (unless there was a drought of course)

Were made for shorter equipment

And really were not designed to play firm and fast. Most courses he has mentioned in various threads were the old school private clubs in the NE US. They were not "firm and fast" as compared to today's agronomy. They were slow and shaggy. Relatively.

 

We all pine for the way things were in our youth. The good old days.

[QuigleyDU]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > Because some equipment technology advances are good, and some are bad.

> >

> > Good equipment technology advances include steel shafts; cut proof covers for balls; steelhead “Woods”; modern epoxy; compound rubber grips; modern greens mowers; all kinds of turf grass science. The latter being assisted by the USGA, in fact.

> >

> > All things that tended to make golf less expensive and a bit more small-d democratic. Easier for hobbyists to work on their own clubs with readily-available non-exotic materials and components.

> >

> > Hickory shafts; composite shafts; featheries; persimmon heads with hand-wound whipping: all come from different eras but all were terribly expensive for their respective times. Good riddance to all. And to the Pro V.

>

> So what exactly are you arguing for?

 

I swear 15th must work for the USGA. Who else would worship them so much??

[QuigleyDU]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > >

> > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > >

> > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > >

> > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > >

> > >

> > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> >

> > Then maybe golf shouldn't' be played on firm and fast golf courses......hmmm

>

> Therein lies the rub, as the saying goes. Seems 15 wants the ball rolled back so that he can...

> Play firm and fast courses

> At a shorter yardage

>

> Never mind that the courses he prefers

> Were made before courses typically played firm and fast (unless there was a drought of course)

> Were made for shorter equipment

> And really were not designed to play firm and fast. Most courses he has mentioned in various threads were the old school private clubs in the NE US. They were not "firm and fast" as compared to today's agronomy. They were slow and shaggy. Relatively.

>

> We all pine for the way things were in our youth. The good old days.

 

Oh the good old days...

[clevited]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > @gvogel

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is a study for golf balls. I would like to see a study of different COR driver faces for different swing speeds.

> > > > >

> > > > > ? The ball study wouldn't have shown what it did if that was an issue. It would show the ball performance as stagnant or improving as swing speed went up would it not? If this is a modern problem, I have no issue with adding manufacturing rules to stop it through limits, but I would be willing to bet it isn't a modern issue.

> > > > >

> > > > > Perhaps you thinking of CT creep? This happens as a club gets used and happens more noticeably for higher speed players. It is quite minor generally.

> > > >

> > > > No, I suspect that there might be a 5 yard increase in distance for a 90 mph swing speed between a COR of .75 and a COR of .83, but more like a 15 yard difference between the two COR values at a swing speed of 115. I would like to see such a study.

> > >

> > > I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. It sounds like you have a problem with physics? COR is a percentage of energy transfer. Of course as you swing faster, that percentage is going to be a larger number because you are inputting more energy. You then have more distance.

> > >

> > > So you would like it to be that a guy swinging 90 mph gets 5 yards more with that increase COR but the guy swinging 120 also gets 5 yards more? Life doesn't work that way, and that is a very sad and unfair want of yours if that is what you are getting at. **You do indeed want the guy that is gifted, talented, worked hard for speed to have no reason really to have it because it won't be worth the time and effort to gain it. If this is true, it sounds so very selfish.**

> >

> > For centuries, the tee shot was hit with a wooden driver face with a certain COR. The differences between the longest hitters who were elite players, and shorter players who were elite players, was not so much that shorter hitters could not compete. They evened it out with superior short games. In recent times, we had such winners as Corey Pavin, Ben Crenshaw, and Tom Kite - players who were not long, but found a way to win. Jack Nicklaus has said that when he played on the Tour, he could do an exhibition with a club pro and they could both play the same golf course. He now says that because of the distance advantage that modern equipment gives the best tour players, that type of exhibition cannot be played. And where have the Corey Pavins, the Tom Kites and the Ben Crenshaws gone? Nonexistent.

> >

> > COR went from around .75 to .83, and you call me selfish because I want to see it rolled back. You do not. I call you "entitled."

>

> Yes yes yes.

>

> Make no mistake. Easy to see self interests on both sides. To call someone selfish in this argument is to be without access to a mirror.

 

My motivations are not selfish I promise you. I guarantee I would be battling for things to stay the same even if I considered a crushes ball of the tee 175 yards. I have much more interest in protecting the majority especially if they are logically in the right. Which I firmly and truly believe the anti rollback people are. They have the most defendable position on the subject.

[Krt22]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> > >

> > > Then maybe golf shouldn't' be played on firm and fast golf courses......hmmm

> >

> > Therein lies the rub, as the saying goes. Seems 15 wants the ball rolled back so that he can...

> > Play firm and fast courses

> > At a shorter yardage

> >

> > Never mind that the courses he prefers

> > Were made before courses typically played firm and fast (unless there was a drought of course)

> > Were made for shorter equipment

> > And really were not designed to play firm and fast. Most courses he has mentioned in various threads were the old school private clubs in the NE US. They were not "firm and fast" as compared to today's agronomy. They were slow and shaggy. Relatively.

> >

> > We all pine for the way things were in our youth. The good old days.

>

> Oh the good old days...

 

Back in 82' I could hit it a 1/4 mile

[bladehunter]

> @clevited said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > > @gvogel

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That is a study for golf balls. I would like to see a study of different COR driver faces for different swing speeds.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ? The ball study wouldn't have shown what it did if that was an issue. It would show the ball performance as stagnant or improving as swing speed went up would it not? If this is a modern problem, I have no issue with adding manufacturing rules to stop it through limits, but I would be willing to bet it isn't a modern issue.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Perhaps you thinking of CT creep? This happens as a club gets used and happens more noticeably for higher speed players. It is quite minor generally.

> > > > >

> > > > > No, I suspect that there might be a 5 yard increase in distance for a 90 mph swing speed between a COR of .75 and a COR of .83, but more like a 15 yard difference between the two COR values at a swing speed of 115. I would like to see such a study.

> > > >

> > > > I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. It sounds like you have a problem with physics? COR is a percentage of energy transfer. Of course as you swing faster, that percentage is going to be a larger number because you are inputting more energy. You then have more distance.

> > > >

> > > > So you would like it to be that a guy swinging 90 mph gets 5 yards more with that increase COR but the guy swinging 120 also gets 5 yards more? Life doesn't work that way, and that is a very sad and unfair want of yours if that is what you are getting at. **You do indeed want the guy that is gifted, talented, worked hard for speed to have no reason really to have it because it won't be worth the time and effort to gain it. If this is true, it sounds so very selfish.**

> > >

> > > For centuries, the tee shot was hit with a wooden driver face with a certain COR. The differences between the longest hitters who were elite players, and shorter players who were elite players, was not so much that shorter hitters could not compete. They evened it out with superior short games. In recent times, we had such winners as Corey Pavin, Ben Crenshaw, and Tom Kite - players who were not long, but found a way to win. Jack Nicklaus has said that when he played on the Tour, he could do an exhibition with a club pro and they could both play the same golf course. He now says that because of the distance advantage that modern equipment gives the best tour players, that type of exhibition cannot be played. And where have the Corey Pavins, the Tom Kites and the Ben Crenshaws gone? Nonexistent.

> > >

> > > COR went from around .75 to .83, and you call me selfish because I want to see it rolled back. You do not. I call you "entitled."

> >

> > Yes yes yes.

> >

> > Make no mistake. Easy to see self interests on both sides. To call someone selfish in this argument is to be without access to a mirror.

>

> My motivations are not selfish I promise you. I guarantee I would be battling for things to stay the same even if I considered a crushes ball of the tee 175 yards. I have much more interest in protecting the majority especially if they are logically in the right. Which I firmly and truly believe the anti rollback people are. They have the most defendable position on the subject.

 

lol. Yea. But that’s still you wanting what you want. Same as me wanting what me wants. Same same.

 

 

[clevited]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > > > @gvogel

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > That is a study for golf balls. I would like to see a study of different COR driver faces for different swing speeds.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ? The ball study wouldn't have shown what it did if that was an issue. It would show the ball performance as stagnant or improving as swing speed went up would it not? If this is a modern problem, I have no issue with adding manufacturing rules to stop it through limits, but I would be willing to bet it isn't a modern issue.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Perhaps you thinking of CT creep? This happens as a club gets used and happens more noticeably for higher speed players. It is quite minor generally.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No, I suspect that there might be a 5 yard increase in distance for a 90 mph swing speed between a COR of .75 and a COR of .83, but more like a 15 yard difference between the two COR values at a swing speed of 115. I would like to see such a study.

> > > > >

> > > > > I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. It sounds like you have a problem with physics? COR is a percentage of energy transfer. Of course as you swing faster, that percentage is going to be a larger number because you are inputting more energy. You then have more distance.

> > > > >

> > > > > So you would like it to be that a guy swinging 90 mph gets 5 yards more with that increase COR but the guy swinging 120 also gets 5 yards more? Life doesn't work that way, and that is a very sad and unfair want of yours if that is what you are getting at. **You do indeed want the guy that is gifted, talented, worked hard for speed to have no reason really to have it because it won't be worth the time and effort to gain it. If this is true, it sounds so very selfish.**

> > > >

> > > > For centuries, the tee shot was hit with a wooden driver face with a certain COR. The differences between the longest hitters who were elite players, and shorter players who were elite players, was not so much that shorter hitters could not compete. They evened it out with superior short games. In recent times, we had such winners as Corey Pavin, Ben Crenshaw, and Tom Kite - players who were not long, but found a way to win. Jack Nicklaus has said that when he played on the Tour, he could do an exhibition with a club pro and they could both play the same golf course. He now says that because of the distance advantage that modern equipment gives the best tour players, that type of exhibition cannot be played. And where have the Corey Pavins, the Tom Kites and the Ben Crenshaws gone? Nonexistent.

> > > >

> > > > COR went from around .75 to .83, and you call me selfish because I want to see it rolled back. You do not. I call you "entitled."

> > >

> > > Yes yes yes.

> > >

> > > Make no mistake. Easy to see self interests on both sides. To call someone selfish in this argument is to be without access to a mirror.

> >

> > My motivations are not selfish I promise you. I guarantee I would be battling for things to stay the same even if I considered a crushes ball of the tee 175 yards. I have much more interest in protecting the majority especially if they are logically in the right. Which I firmly and truly believe the anti rollback people are. They have the most defendable position on the subject.

>

> lol. Yea. But that’s still you wanting what you want. Same as me wanting what me wants. Same same.

>

>

 

Idk about that. I feel like I am defending 2+2=4, while the other side is defending 2+2=5, but whatever way you want to spin it.

[rangersgoalie]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > >

> > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > >

> > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > >

> > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > >

> > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > >

> > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > >

> > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > >

> > > I hate when people look backwards.

> >

> > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

>

>

> Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

 

Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

[Titleist99]

Okay, Phil Mickelson just hit the pin from 353 yards away to one foot....we need to talk about this....really!

[Titleist99]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > >

> > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > >

> > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > >

> > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > >

> > >

> > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> >

> > Then maybe golf shouldn't' be played on firm and fast golf courses......hmmm

>

> Therein lies the rub, as the saying goes. Seems 15 wants the ball rolled back so that he can...

> Play firm and fast courses

> At a shorter yardage

>

> Never mind that the courses he prefers

> Were made before courses typically played firm and fast (unless there was a drought of course)

> Were made for shorter equipment

> And really were not designed to play firm and fast. Most courses he has mentioned in various threads were the old school private clubs in the NE US. They were not "firm and fast" as compared to today's agronomy. They were slow and shaggy. Relatively.

>

> We all pine for the way things were in our youth. The good old days.

 

LOL!....Between me and you ….. golf courses weren't meant to be played firm and fast.....they were mowed by sheep. So the traditionalist need to just shut up!...…………….It's always raining in Scotland!.....LOL!

[mahonie]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > > >

> > > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> > >

> > > Then maybe golf shouldn't' be played on firm and fast golf courses......hmmm

> >

> > Therein lies the rub, as the saying goes. Seems 15 wants the ball rolled back so that he can...

> > Play firm and fast courses

> > At a shorter yardage

> >

> > Never mind that the courses he prefers

> > Were made before courses typically played firm and fast (unless there was a drought of course)

> > Were made for shorter equipment

> > And really were not designed to play firm and fast. Most courses he has mentioned in various threads were the old school private clubs in the NE US. They were not "firm and fast" as compared to today's agronomy. They were slow and shaggy. Relatively.

> >

> > We all pine for the way things were in our youth. The good old days.

>

> LOL!....Between me and you ….. golf courses weren't meant to be played firm and fast.....they were mowed by sheep. So the traditionalist need to just shut up!...…………….It's always raining in Scotland!.....LOL!

 

90% of the time, golf links in Scotland are firm and fast even when it’s raining...throw in a bit of wind and you have golf in it’s purest form. My most enjoyable rounds have all been played on ‘old-fashioned’ links.

 

Some of the modern ‘parkland’ layouts with their wide open fairways are only a short step from looking like driving ranges bordered by a few trees rather than nets. I’m just waiting for distance lines to be painted across the fairways to show how far you’ve hit it.

[gvogel]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > >

> > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > >

> > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > >

> > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > >

> > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> >

> >

> > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

>

> Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

> Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

> I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

> There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

 

I, too, have played many of the courses that you mention, and some fine ones that you didn't, but never as well as you did. My lowest cap was a 5-something at one point, and later I could hardly play the game due to anxiety. But I managed a comeback of sorts.

 

It's difficult to argue for an equipment roll back on a site that celebrates the best of golf equipment and golf balls. Hey, I'm on here as well because I want to know what works, and what doesn't work as well, because I am a competitive golfer looking for any edge.

 

On the other hand, when Augusta National has to purchase a hole from Augusta Country Club for an enormous sum, so that they can lengthen the famed 13th hole (again), I have to wonder if the equipment has gotten out of hand.

 

As someone recently said, the older I get, the better I was! Right, I get that. In college, after college, we all carried our clubs. The ball didn't go so far, and the courses that we played were shorter and easier to walk. These days, they build many new courses to hold tournaments, and most of the players use golf carts because the courses have a larger footprint. That's a shame. Yes, if that's where the game is going, I long for the old days just after college.

 

I think that it is important that some of us argue for a game that can be played on a smaller footprint. Every debate needs liberals and conservatives, and the debate about golf equipment is important for the game, and needs to play out. Without reactionaries like me, the game could really get out of hand from a footprint and shot-making standpoint.

 

I would really like to see some professional events played with smaller driver heads with reduced COR, and a reduced distance ball. We will never know what might happen under those conditions unless that experiment goes forward. It would be wonderful if a sponsor would come forward to hold a tournament, with a rich purse, to get the attention of the world's best to play in those conditions.

 

 

[15th Club]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > >

> > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > >

> > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > >

> > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > >

> > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> >

> >

> > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

>

> Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

> Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

> I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

> There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

 

 

My comment as you quoted it wasn’t aimed at you. Based on your informal golfing resume, I expect that a conversation with you would be quite enjoyable.

 

My comment was clearly aimed at another commenter who presumed that the main motivation for advocates of a ball rollback was that they could no longer compete with younger (?!) players and/or who could no longer hit it as far as they used to.

 

And that sort of random baseless insult is a conversation ended. At least, a polite conversation ender.

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > >

> > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > >

> > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > >

> > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > >

> > >

> > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> >

> > Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

> > Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

> > I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

> > There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

>

>

> My comment as you quoted it wasn’t aimed at you. Based on your informal golfing resume, I expect that a conversation with you would be quite enjoyable.

>

> My comment was clearly aimed at another commenter who presumed that the main motivation for advocates of a ball rollback was that they could no longer compete with younger (?!) players and/or who could no longer hit it as far as they used to.

>

> And that sort of random baseless insult is a conversation ended. At least, a polite conversation ender.

>

 

Living and playing in NV, have spent my life on firm and fast golf courses. Many if not most of of them I think you and many would consider dog tracks, but I have played some very nice golf courses in Vegas, Mesquite, NorCal, and Utah as well.

 

I will say this, and give a slight nod to your argument for reducing, the ball speed of the driver only. I do not believe it is needed or even wanted any where else in the game. I mean, I do not want it anywhere but hear me out on my singular situation. Most courses I play are fairly to almost completely open. Meaning no trees. I mean I live in a desert. On courses like that, I do not enjoy or look forward to playing (as much) courses under about 7k yards. I could carry about 8-10 clubs and be just fine.

 

On the other hand, there are some very very short courses up in the Tahoe Donner area that are amazingly fun and because of the nature of the set up, narrow tree lined holes, that the course takes driver out of hand or I would spend the day looking for balls among the pines.

 

The problem with any kind of rollback is it would not affect me. I have the ball speed and distance that it would not matter. But!! 99% of golfers I see it would driver them from the game. Bifurcation in the game of golf is a bad idea in my opinion. Golf is not the NFL, NBA, or MLB. Golf because of the handicap system, multiple tee boxes, etc in my opinion is already designed to allow below average golfers play with and compete with very high level golfers.

 

 

 

 

[LICC]

> @clevited said:

> I feel we need to summarize the reasons some people want to lower distance in the game.

>

> 1) Pro's in their opinion, hit it too far and play courses, old and new in ways not intended.

> 2) Scores are too low

> 3) It takes skill out of the game

> 4) Historic courses cannot be played on the tour anymore

> 5) It causes slow play for amateurs

> 6) Golf today is boring to watch

>

> I would like to now try and present some counter arguments.

>

> 1) This is an OPINION and players if they are able, will always play a course not as intended if it can net them a lower score. You cannot make a course play the same way for every player of varying skill level and power. Just like anything, players will gravitate towards what works. It is more of a strategy change than a problem. They hit a stock shot whenever possible because it is the most predictable and reliable. Cut corners if you know you can hit it high enough (still risk and reward there, they hit it a tad thin it gets knocked down and is in the trees, they just make it look easy because you know, they are really good). Think about the use of "the shift" and home run hitting in the MLB today, or 3 pointers in the NBA, or the dominance of the passing game in the NFL. Strategy changes as people discover what works the best.

>

> 2) The lowest score wins which is all that matters really. You can't compare par of the 70s and 80s to par of the early days of the sport. You therefore, cannot compare scores of today to the 70s and 80s. It also isn't like everyone is shooting 62 each round they play.

>

> 3) Sure, sweet spots are bigger, there is more forgiveness but there is an absolute limit to all of this. The limits are set, the equipment is not getting drastically better. If you think that you are believing the advertising BS these companies put out today. Do you really think tour players these days are all terrible ball strikers? The vast majority of tour players would still play extremely well with smaller club heads. Look how well they hit any fairway wood for instance. Look at how many hit driving irons that have much smaller sweet spots than any driver.

>

> 4) This has been said many times, many historic courses cannot host tour events, so throw that argument out the window. These courses still have incredible value, they are played by normal people like you and I. Perhaps think of it like an old football stadium that is no longer used due to changing needs in the sport. It might be demo'd or it might be utilized by the city for other things for years to come. It is still a historic site. Some places are renovated and kept relevant, think Lambeau Field.

>

> 5) This just isn't true. Think about it, and dive into whatever facts you can bring up with this. This is just speculation, most notably mentioned by Jack Nicklaus.

>

> 6) This is an OPINION. I personally find it more entertaining now than I used to. There is still the excitement of the Sunday final round. There are still the incredible shots that these guys pull off that 99% of the players of golf in the world probably can't do, especially with only ONE shot at it and during a tournament! These guys can still shape the ball, a ball that is harder to shape than it use to be. It is harder to control you could say, and harder to stop on the greens of today. Weather is still random and can make things more interesting or more boring and easy. Set ups can make the game more or less interesting depending on your own preference. A heck of a lot of people are mesmerized by the bombs these guys hit and how they can do it under pressure and down a fairway that is 25 yards wide. They are mesmerized at how they get out of trouble and pull off a par after a wayward tee shot, or some bad luck. Different talents and strategy are prominent today compared to the previous eras. It seems to make many from those years think the game today is too easy and boring, but it obviously isn't to a lot of golf enthusiasts. Is the NBA, NFL and MLB, and NHL less entertaining? To some yes, to others no. Some lose interest in the sport, while new people gain interest. I feel the big picture needs to be seen here, and focus on the past is not a good measure or decision making tool for changing the games most important object, the ball.

>

> Just to add a few other things. I think of little league baseball when I think of golf. The courses I play around my home are mostly little league stadiums. They are plenty difficult for me, plenty long, and plenty challenging. I enjoy them. I look at the tour courses as a big league stadium. Generally longer, and much more difficult. These courses are the biggest stage in golf and should be difficult and different. Why does a need for a few courses to make their venue more difficult (whether by making it longer, or changing set up, or moving or adding obstacles) need to affect EVERYONE in golf? The need to make courses longer is a false narrative. There is NO NEED. There is a WANT. Stop making muni courses, or courses that will never be tour courses anyway crazy long and then complain about it. Make them shorter, and use creativity to make them difficult to whatever degree you want.

>

> I just feel like the arguments for any kind of change are very pathetic and self serving for a relatively small portion of the golf population. Bifurcation isn't even a solution either, and I can explain why if needed.

>

> USGA has limits in place. They are doing their job there. They can be forward thinking and limit other things they feel they should, or make a tiny roll back here and there but not a large roll back, not when the game has been played this way for 20+ years. There is a limit in everything and distance has its own limits and you already see that today. Many players today don't hit it nearly as hard as they can because it just doesn't benefit them enough. I guarantee you for example, that even Cameron Champ will dial back his speed over time in order to be more competitive on the bigger stage. If you notice, most players like him settle into the 180s ball speed average over time. It seems to be the butter zone, and they seem to only go after one when conditions and the risk/reward for doing so make sense.

 

This view misses a significant point. Golf courses were designed (the well-designed ones at least) to present particular challenges using the topography and placement of hazards and green set-up, etc. These designs were based on shot types and distances that most players hit. For decades these designs worked, because the equipment advances were incremental over time, and adjusting the courses every 15-20 years or so by backing up some tee locations or slightly moving some bunkers was manageable, and kept the designed challenges and strategies of the courses intact. The massive increase in distance in a short time period, from much greater equipment technology advances, has rendered the challenges and strategies of many courses obsolete at the PGA Tour level. This has fundamentally changed the game of golf at that level. Fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour golf have validly noted the degradation of the game through the distance increase, and validly consider it problematic.

[marmaduk]

You can’t take a closer look… I hit the ball too far now.

[Krt22]

Agreed with you there Quigley, this discussion realistically only applies to professionals and maybe 1-2% of elite ams. The reality is there are far too many ams who play the wrong tees for their skill/length and rolling back anything would only hurt them, pace of play, and ultimately the game as a whole. So the notion of bifucation comes up, which IMO would have a similar negative impact given one of the allures of golf is you can literally play the same game/courses as the professionals. If you have bifurcation, well that goes away and you have an institution essentially saying the pros and ams are playing two wildly different games.