USGA's Davis Has An Idea.....

[the bishop]

The only place I want to see Mike Davis's face is on a milk carton.

[North Texas]

My idea of a variable ball is one that affects distance proportionately. Something along the line that the 120 mph swing would lose 10%, the 90 mph swing would lose 5%, and the 70 mph swing would lose nothing. The actual numbers could vary somewhat of course.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that there are people that are smart enough in the ball industry who could figure out how to do it.

[bscinstnct]

Just give DJ a field hockey stick and a superball.

 

Ratings bonanza.

[Mr. Herbert]

By his logic, the three point line should be moved back to the half court line for Steph Curry.

 

Any idea that punishes someone for being more talented than others is plain dumb.

 

The article doesn't say anything about punishing specific players. Not sure where you are getting your "logic" from.

[whr]

By his logic, the three point line should be moved back to the half court line for Steph Curry.

 

Any idea that punishes someone for being more talented than others is plain dumb.

 

The article doesn't say anything about punishing specific players. Not sure where you are getting your "logic" from.

 

No need for the salty reply bro.

 

I simply don't agree with an idea that advocates putting talented player A at a disadvantage by having him/her use an 80% ball while less talented Player B uses a 100% ball.

 

 

[Sean2]

I only have three words to say to Mr Davis: No, no, no.

 

As an aside, courses don't need to be longer for professionals. Simply narrow the fairways and grow the rough, along with shaved banks around the greens, and what not. Places like Harbor Town, Merion Golf Club, Chapultepec (which played about 6400 given the elevation), are short on yardage, but manage to challenge the world's best.

[cardoustie]

What's wrong with 370 yard drives ? Nicklaus was moving it out there 310 in the 1960's with crap balls and persimmon

 

The game, the clubs, the courses, and the players have evolved .... should we also cry that:

 

- the greens are too smooth

- the tees are too tall

- fairways are too fast

- players are too strong and fit

- shafts are graphite

 

etc etc

[cardoustie]

I only have three words to say to Mr Davis: No, no, no.

 

As an aside, courses don't need to be longer for professionals. Simply narrow the fairways and grow the rough, along with shaved banks around the greens, and what not. Places like Harbor Town, Merion Golf Club, Chapultepec (which played about 6400 given the elevation), are short on yardage, but manage to challenge the world's best.

 

Exactly. Merion was a short course but still a stern test. Make the targets smaller and the greens firmer and faster

 

Blame the standard tour set up more than anything ... 70 yard wide fairways, minimal rough, massive and pure greens, runways posing as fairways, bunkers that are simple to play out of etc etc

[Lakeeffectgolf]

The only place I want to see Mike Davis's face is on a milk carton.

two thumbs up.

[PJ72]

I don't hate it but its not going to bring US Opens back to the classic courses, sure the length is a factor but a bigger issue is the lack of room for the infrastructure.

 

I think lengthening courses has completely missed the point - if you increase the length of the course, it means that players have to hit it further to compete, then it puts you back to the start.

 

The courses need tightening up, and perhaps more hazards in strategic places (NOT in the middle of fairways, duh, and NOT at approx. driver limits (because some'll hit it past them, and everyone else will play from the exact same spot)).

[knock it close]

By his logic, the three point line should be moved back to the half court line for Steph Curry.

 

Any idea that punishes someone for being more talented than others is plain dumb.

 

The article doesn't say anything about punishing specific players. Not sure where you are getting your "logic" from.

 

No need for the salty reply bro.

 

I simply don't agree with an idea that advocates putting talented player A at a disadvantage by having him/her use an 80% ball while less talented Player B uses a 100% ball.

isn't that the same thing that happens when people play different tees?

[fore_life]

Whenever I see Davis, I always think of the weasel guy from princess bride

[disco111]

The wound ball was mentioned and that is really not all that bad of an idea. If you want to do a somewhat equitable comparison to players of different era's, using the same ball as they did could offer some interesting stats. For those that have never played with a wound ball, ball flight and control could/would be a very real eye opener. I realize that this is nothing more than a fantasy wish, but is sure is tantalizing to see what would happen.

[whr]

The wound ball was mentioned and that is really not all that bad of an idea. If you want to do a somewhat equitable comparison to players of different era's, using the same ball as they did could offer some interesting stats. For those that have never played with a wound ball, ball flight and control could/would be a very real eye opener. I realize that this is nothing more than a fantasy wish, but is sure is tantalizing to see what would happen.

 

Exactly.

[nochct1]

They should have two golf balls. One for the pro tours and one for everyone else. There can still be different types of balls with different spin characteristics but the pro ball would have 80% distance.

This would be very similar to baseball where wooden bats are used at the pro level while everyone else uses metal (except in select tournaments and some summer leagues). Baseball even has different balls for the pro level.

 

Limiting overall distance would still give DJ and others a distance advantage, but it would also prevent the ongoing need to renovate golf courses.

[nochct1]

I don't hate it but its not going to bring US Opens back to the classic courses, sure the length is a factor but a bigger issue is the lack of room for the infrastructure.

 

I think lengthening courses has completely missed the point - if you increase the length of the course, it means that players have to hit it further to compete, then it puts you back to the start.

 

The courses need tightening up, and perhaps more hazards in strategic places (NOT in the middle of fairways, duh, and NOT at approx. driver limits (because some'll hit it past them, and everyone else will play from the exact same spot)).

 

It costs a lot of money to change courses. You don't want to lengthen, but you want to change the rough, which is a nice idea until there's no rain and rough doesn't grow. And adding hazards costs as much as adding tee boxes, if not more. And the hazards have a huge impact on the weekend player who is using these courses 99% of the time.

[madchens]

It is a natural evolution of the game. The courses that were built a long time ago become obsolete.

 

It is just like computers, you would never use the computer from 1995 that now has less power than a cell phone. It would be like telling Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc engineers "You are developing too many good products, you need to develop against servers from 1995".

 

Evolution of a sport is a good thing. New and exciting courses can be built using the framework from courses from the past.

[MtlJeff]

I wish the USGA would spend more time worrying about the 99.9% of players rather than the pros. Courses are already built to support the pro game, and distance hasn't changed much in a decade. The infrastructure is there already. It's a non issue. The Canadians don't play at the Forum anymore, the Yankees moved too... I don't see the obsession with playing courses because they were used 100yrs ago. It's not the most important thing in the world.

 

How does this affect 99% of golfers who don't hit the ball that far to begin with? It's a solution to a largely nonexistent problem

 

 

[BIG STU]

The wound ball was mentioned and that is really not all that bad of an idea. If you want to do a somewhat equitable comparison to players of different era's, using the same ball as they did could offer some interesting stats. For those that have never played with a wound ball, ball flight and control could/would be a very real eye opener. I realize that this is nothing more than a fantasy wish, but is sure is tantalizing to see what would happen.

I am a product of the wound ball/balata days and you are correct. I have said this all along when Nicklaus started his babbling about reeling the ball in that the ball manufacturers would go broke. None of the recreational players would buy them. The only ones that would buy them would be serious players playing sanctioned events and that is probably less than 10% of the total of people that play golf period. If the USGA today mandated a rule limiting the flight and distance of the ball think of how many Billions of balls that are legal to today's rules are out there everywhere. I mean I have seen how many of different type balls some WRX members have in their club rooms and I am no exception myself. If they passed a rule for the tour only the ball companies would take a huge loss because 99% of the tour players get balls for free. Also the add agencies would take a huge hit as in how could they advertise that a certain player plays brand x on tour? and gets huge distance/spin etc. IMHO the USGA is stepping off in it again as is their SOP

[whr]

I wish the USGA would spend more time worrying about the 99.9% of players rather than the pros. Courses are already built to support the pro game, and distance hasn't changed much in a decade. The infrastructure is there already. It's a non issue. The Canadians don't play at the Forum anymore, the Yankees moved too... I don't see the obsession with playing courses because they were used 100yrs ago. It's not the most important thing in the world.

 

How does this affect 99% of golfers who don't hit the ball that far to begin with? It's a solution to a largely nonexistent problem

.

 

[BIG STU]

I don't hate it but its not going to bring US Opens back to the classic courses, sure the length is a factor but a bigger issue is the lack of room for the infrastructure.

 

I think lengthening courses has completely missed the point - if you increase the length of the course, it means that players have to hit it further to compete, then it puts you back to the start.

 

The courses need tightening up, and perhaps more hazards in strategic places (NOT in the middle of fairways, duh, and NOT at approx. driver limits (because some'll hit it past them, and everyone else will play from the exact same spot)).

 

It costs a lot of money to change courses. You don't want to lengthen, but you want to change the rough, which is a nice idea until there's no rain and rough doesn't grow. And adding hazards costs as much as adding tee boxes, if not more. And the hazards have a huge impact on the weekend player who is using these courses 99% of the time.

Funny thing is that a friend of mine and I had a discussion the other night on the same line. We grew up in the same area at the same time. We were talking about the bump and run game around the greens in general. Most of the courses here can be difficult to play the traditional bump and run with elevated greens and forced carries. Hazards especially down here in this tourist mecca seem to slow down play and make it difficult for the average player to deal with. The thing down here now is for courses to see and advertise how many traps they have. And from being in the golf business I know first hand how much it costs to maintain traps. And you have to maintain the traps because after all they are charging people a preminun price to play some of these courses and they expect playable traps I might add rightfully so. I know some courses in this area have so many traps that they have 3 of 4 guys just maintaining traps on a daily basis.

[darredondo09]

Don't agree with scaling back the ball, but I would 100% watch a tournament played at The Old Course with all old-school equipment, ball, clubs, clothes, no yardage books.

[Forged4ever]

My idea of a variable ball is one that affects distance proportionately. Something along the line that the 120 mph swing would lose 10%, the 90 mph swing would lose 5%, and the 70 mph swing would lose nothing.

Hey NT, I hope all's well :)

 

I'm just curious as to why would ya penalize a guy/gal that is swinging at 90mph with ANY type of reduction at all?

 

Thanks a lot for responding!

 

My Best,

RP

[North Texas]

My idea of a variable ball is one that affects distance proportionately. Something along the line that the 120 mph swing would lose 10%, the 90 mph swing would lose 5%, and the 70 mph swing would lose nothing.

Hey NT, I hope all's well :)

 

I'm just curious as to why would ya penalize a guy/gal that is swinging at 90mph with ANY type of reduction at all?

 

Thanks a lot for responding!

 

My Best,

RP

 

I was just throwing out a general idea. Maybe 90 mph is the point at which you don't see a reduction. Or 85 or under 100. I don't know, lol.

 

Hell, I probably subconciously picked 90 mph since that's about what I swing :taunt:

 

But I do appreciate that you think us 90 mph'ers need all the help we can get :wave:

[Forged4ever]

Me personally, I'd rather see em go back to steel shafts before this variable distance ........

 

The bombers would still take it 300+

 

I mean Sam hit a measured 344yds in the 1938 PGA Championship against Paul Runyan(Mr. Runyan hit a measured 242yder and then chipped in for an eagle to take the hole, lmao) and Jack won that one Tour Long drive with a drive of 360 somethin so it's not like they still couldn't go deep-

 

That just me and I know it's not even on the table

 

All the Best,

RP

[North Texas]

Me personally, I'd rather see em go back to steel shafts before this variable distance ........

 

That just me and I know it's not even on the table

 

All the Best,

RP

 

Man, those were the days.

[cardoustie]

My idea of a variable ball is one that affects distance proportionately. Something along the line that the 120 mph swing would lose 10%, the 90 mph swing would lose 5%, and the 70 mph swing would lose nothing.

Hey NT, I hope all's well :)

 

I'm just curious as to why would ya penalize a guy/gal that is swinging at 90mph with ANY type of reduction at all?

 

Thanks a lot for responding!

 

My Best,

RP

 

I was just throwing out a general idea. Maybe 90 mph is the point at which you don't see a reduction. Or 85 or under 100. I don't know, lol.

 

Hell, I probably subconciously picked 90 mph since that's about what I swing :taunt:

 

But I do appreciate that you think us 90 mph'ers need all the help we can get :wave:

 

Asinine

Let's put something in play to penalize better putters ..

[Forged4ever]

My idea of a variable ball is one that affects distance proportionately. Something along the line that the 120 mph swing would lose 10%, the 90 mph swing would lose 5%, and the 70 mph swing would lose nothing.

Hey NT, I hope all's well :)

 

I'm just curious as to why would ya penalize a guy/gal that is swinging at 90mph with ANY type of reduction at all?

 

Thanks a lot for responding!

 

My Best,

RP

 

I was just throwing out a general idea. Maybe 90 mph is the point at which you don't see a reduction. Or 85 or under 100. I don't know, lol.

 

Hell, I probably subconciously picked 90 mph since that's about what I swing :taunt:

 

But I do appreciate that you think us 90 mph'ers need all the help we can get :wave:

 

Asinine

Let's put something in play to penalize better putters ..

Woahhhhhh Bro, lmao

 

That may be the only part of the game that I can still hang and I'm still leary of reading Greens one eyed, lol

 

But WTF, Tommy Armour did it one eyed and sauced half the time, haha

 

But I ain't no Tommy Armour ;)

 

Life sucks & so does Davis and the USGA ?

 

I'm kiddin, I know that you were being facetious :)

 

Thanks for dropping in?

 

My Best,

RP

[Hawkeye77]

He is just goofy. I want to see DJ smoke it. If I had ever got to play with Jack I want to see everything he's got. If we are playing against each other (lol) that's what the handicap system is for.

 

Brainpower? Mike Davis = 40 handicap (no offense to any golfing 40s, just an analogy).

[nochct1]

It is a natural evolution of the game. The courses that were built a long time ago become obsolete.

 

It is just like computers, you would never use the computer from 1995 that now has less power than a cell phone. It would be like telling Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc engineers "You are developing too many good products, you need to develop against servers from 1995".

 

Evolution of a sport is a good thing. New and exciting courses can be built using the framework from courses from the past.

 

There's the slight issue of land. Maybe you can head the Northeast and try to find a bunch of land to make courses longer. And then tell the members that they have to pay for it.