If you feel that the golf ball should be rolled back, what age group do you fall into?

[arbeck]

We know it's possible to make such a ball, because the lower compression balls already do this to a certain extent. If you look at a Z-Star XV, Z-Star, and Q-Star Tour, you can see there is already about 4MPH of ball speed between the fastest and slowest at 115MPH. The faster you swing, the bigger that difference is. Off an iron, ball speed is the same though. What I'm talking about is basically making all balls like the Q-Star Tour. You'd probably have to tweak it some, and you'd want more spin off irons. But it's not very far off.

And it wouldn't make the 110 guy and the 125 guy hit the same clubs going in. Today there is 40 yards separating those two guys off the tee. Making the ball less efficient as it gets hit harder wouldn't suddenly make the two guys the same off the tee. It would just narrow the gap. The 110 guy would still hit it 40 yards past the 95 guy, but the 125 guy might only hit it 20 past the 110 guy. And the theoretical 140 guy might only hit it 10 yards past the 125 guy. It doesn't stop the advantage of swinging faster off the tee, it just starts to limit the gains you get from continually swinging faster. Plus, it would have no effect on the distance of irons. So even if they were the same distance out, the faster player still is hitting less club into the green. Swinging fast would still be a huge advantage, it's just not quite as huge as it is now and makes it such that the faster you swing, the smaller the gains from trying to get even faster.

[nlinneman20]

I'm with you, I dont think an amateur needs a lesser ball by any means.

 

Tour sure, 22 under or whatever this past week isnt fun to watch. O wow the tour pro put it within 5 feet of the hole from 50 yards out...wow so entertaining.

 

Thats why i loved the Shinnecock US Open, they were struggling just like the rest of us.

[bluedot]

Of course, the flip side that is the question of why I would want to watch anybody else struggle like I do, much less the best players in the world, due to an absurd course setup, which is a USGA specialty.

Harbour Town last weekend was very unusual, at least for Harbour Town; very soft greens, and NO wind, plus in April, they are playing on overseeded rye grass with thick rough. Simpson broke the scoring record that had been set in 2009, so those numbers are NOT normal.

[bluedot]

I've looked pretty carefully at what I think is the testing you are referencing, and I see the difference that you are talking about with those balls. The strange thing is that the Q Star Tour has the longest carry numbers, despite the ball speeds, and that holds true if you compare it to the ProV1x, too.

But none of that is what really matters to me anyway, because in whatever form it takes, you'd still be talking about one of three "solutions"; you'd either be limiting the distance the golf ball goes to something below the current distance standards, which have been in place for years now, OR you'd be penalizing guys who can swing faster disproportionately to guys who swing slower, OR you'd be bifurcating the Rules. I not only don't like any of the three solutions in their own right, but I don't even think there is a problem, or at least not a problem that is solvable with the golf ball without a LOT of risk to the long term health of the game.

[arbeck]

My worry is that now that we know (from Broadie) that distance off the tee is the most important thing to success that the future tour will end up being full of guys like Bryson. Playing the way he is playing now is the best way to win. I have similar issues with Baseball and Basketball. Baseball has become much less entertaining to me once people started implementing the strategies that give you the best chance of winning. I don't begrudge them for doing it, but I just don't like watching it. The same with the NBA. It can be statistically shown that what the Houston Rockets do will lead to winning. It's just not enjoyable for me to watch.

I really don't want to bifurcate, because I think the long term health of the game does depend on regular players mostly playing the same equipment as pro's (or believing they do). But I also worry that 80 guys on tour with 190 ball speed is going to make for a very uninteresting product.

[Nard_S]

No, not really. What is not mentioned a lot is that the ball travels in a better aerodynamic bubble these days. It launches w/ lower spin but holds onto it longer and creates a smoother foil for it to cut through the wind. Increase the drag and or initial spin, shots that are less than pure will go off line more, so big bomber dude can go at it, but he will be penalized more for slight misses. If OEM's want to counter that with a new SLDR type driver, bless them, because too much low spin in the gear will remain as dangerous and reckless as those clubs were.

[storm319]

There is no amount of spin increase that could be made to the ball that would be impervious to adjustments in delivery of the club head. One big myth is how much more wound balata balls really spun vs solid core balls off the tee (the reality is a much lower differential than most people would expect especially with the lower CG/gear effect of modern drivers). As mentioned OEMs and players could find ways to circumvent. The most effective way to rollback the ball in a way that could not really be circumvented would be focused on speed either via a reduction in maximum ball weight or a reduction in the initial ball velocity limit directly.

[chipa]

Roll the ball back to the tour balata and put a limit of 360 cc on the driver head sizes. Certainly the longer hitter will be longer but the courses won't have to be lengthened. Also, the changes to the equipment aren't going to hurt the average amaateur too much, only the manufacturers.

[Nard_S]

Modern ball has a more aerodynamic envelope than old balata. It stands up better from the effects of wind and off axis spin. Modern ball really is not much longer than old but it is certainly straighter flying. Top tier golf is about spin control, has been that way for at least 70 years. Allow wind to regain some leverage, allow spin control to be a bigger issue, 200 mph ball speed becomes meaningless.

.

[storm319]

To everyone using the perceived need to lengthen courses as reasoning for an equipment rollback, keep in mind that the inadequate length argument would really only be applicable for some of the approximately 1-2% of US courses that actually host elite events (and money isn’t a problem for most of them). Also, the vast majority of classic course lengthening occurred prior to 1990 according to USGA data.

There is no need to lengthen the vast majority of US courses as the game exists today.

[Dpavs]

What I see developing in the age distribution on the poll here is interesting. While I keep hearing the narrative that those who are in favor of a roll back on the ball are only the older guys/gals but to me the poll here shows something different. If you look at the responses across the age groups, there are pretty much the same number in each 10-year increment in age from 31-60+ while under 31 there are only 2 responses in total. Based on these numbers my own conclusion would be that the narrative we keep hearing is wrong and in fact has it absolutely backwards. Amongst those who do want a roll back, it is not just the older guys and gals who favor it, but rather it is the youngest group which comprises the smallest percentage. Again, the poll results might be skewed by the GolfWRX age demographics, but without understanding what our age spread is there is no way to take that into account. Also, it should be noted that nothing in this poll was intended to show or in any way indicate if any generation is for or against a roll back. That of course is an entirely different question!

[Drainey15]

if they’re so worried about driving distance why don’t they just get rid of drivers completely and then you don’t have to change anything?

[NoTalentLefty]

61 and NO!

[bluedot]

Since the overall distance standard hasn't changed in many years, when do we get to take a poll on other, more recent factors in Tour distance gains, since that's all we're really talking about anyway.

Like, for instance:

The use of launch monitors to optimize equipment and tweak things like angle of attack to achieve maximum distance.The use of video, in conjunction with the launch monitors, to make swings more technically perfect to allow Tour players to swing faster and faster without spraying the ball.Since DeChambeau has reignited all of this by gaining 40 lbs and 30 yards, what about workouts and protein shakes?How about perfect turf conditions that allow the ball to roll out seemingly forever?Changing the ball is simplistic, and simplistic solutions to complex problems rarely work.

[wkndhckr]

Dang it! I voted but can't take it away. The ball shouldn't be rolled back. It's like pitching a fit because slam dunks are shots that are taken too close to the rim for a defender to block it. If you can dunk on people, do it.

Having said that I don't think there is a large group wanting to roll back. It's a futile effort anyway. The game requires a variety of skills. They are only focusing on shot distance.

[munichop]

JN never said the ball was the only reason for the transformation of golf at the highest level. He said of all the elements it is the easiest to adjust. He has been pretty consistent about it for a long time. This week a 50 year old hit a par 5 with a three wood 4 iron.

[Dpavs]

I think the poll has served it's purpose so I am closing the thread. Thanks to all who participated!