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

[disco111]

Golf in general is at a disturbing crossroads. We have discussions here about ball lengths (I concur it should be capped where it presently sits) and perhaps lowering driver size along with various examples of course set ups. Now the major question is, at least IMO, if the USGA attempts to reign in the manufactures (ie; technology), then what and where do the manufactures have to go. Every 6 months or so they come out with the best newest, longest, stroke saving etc rhetoric, up the price and folks run haywire to purchase. Now I don't have an easy answer to that question, but I can see the fallout that may/would occur, if the manufactures are forced into a semi state of stagnation. Now unlike other sports, regardless of what equipment changes made, the general public doesn't play their game. On the other hand, the general golfing public does play the same basic game as the pros, perhaps not as good, but we play the same basic equipment and play the same basic structured set ups (not as fine tuned granted, but none the less relatable).

 

If the manufactures are allowed to keep finding upgrades to balls, when and where does or should it stop. Anyone remember the super balls kids played with? Imagine a golf ball with the same properties and courses would have to be 15,000 yards. Granted, this is way over the top, but who knows. Everything has a saturation point and I think golf is at the cusp of it now. New equipment costs, playing costs, time allotment, all factor in to today's state of golf. So the additional question is.......where do we go from here?......

[slc247]

"These Guys Are Good" *

 

*well, some of them are really good, so we snipped them, everybody gets a trophy.....

[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)).

 

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.

 

We're talking PGA tour courses here, money is no object. These types of courses are spending hundreds of thousands/millions each year on renovation/repair/adjustments, oh, and irrigation.

 

I'm talking about putting hazards in strategic places - not at the 200-250 yard distance that your average weekend golfer is hitting too. Why are we even talking about your average weekend golfer? The original quote above was about bringing courses back to the old, shorter, not used anymore US Open courses, where lengthening is an issue.

 

If the top players are hitting drives 300-350 yards but spraying it a little in order to do so (bomb and gouge), then put your hazards in that zone, as they've done traditionally with bunkers etc further back at 200-300 yards. Of course, if you bomb a straight one 320 yards down the middle, you don't get penalised obviously, and the best player on the day/week will win if he's doing that often enough. It might bring some of the strategy back into some of the old, classic courses.

 

The UK is the same, in that we have a list of courses that are obsolete to the Euro tour - e.g. Sunningdale, Woburn etc.

[caniac6]

Almost every time the USGA says something, my blood pressure goes up.

[ratspros]

I like this comment - "I don't think that you can find another sport that has allowed equipment to dictate how playing fields get changed."

 

I think this is one of the stupidest comments in the article.

 

1.) hockey composite sticks making shots quicker

Light weight skates making skating faster

Different sharpening techniques to make skating quicker

Compounds rubbed on skate blades making coasting faster/more efficient.

 

2.) tennis composite racquets making game faster

Increased tension on strings making game faster

 

3.) football

Light weight pads/shoes/better cleats allowing game to be faster

Sticky gloves making catching easier

 

Almost every sport has been effected by increased technology. The ones that use sticks, ie golf obviously get effected more then ones that are just human powered, is basketball.

 

 

Plus almost all other sports do not allow for a different ball, puck, etc. The only ball change I'd support is going to one standard golf ball for everyone but I'm guessing the manufacturers aren't going to go for that one.

 

You gave examples of how equipment has changed and made the game different for hockey, tennis, and football. But the actual playing field for those sports have not changed. Just about every sport has seen advances in equipment but few, if any, have had to change the actual playing field like golf has had to do.

 

Golf hasn't HAD to change anything. Some courses have made changes and tweaks, some great classic courses haven't done a darn thing and they are still great classic courses.

 

You also can not compare the playing field of hockey, tennis etc to golf. Those are all standard size fields of play. Golf courses have always been unique and individual. There is no set yardage needed on a golf course, there is no set routing. So how can you compare something that has never had a standard field of play to sports that always have had standard size fields of play?

 

How come no one suggests to combat this so called problem we take agronomy back to the 30's which will reduce distance with eliminating balls rolling forever in the fairway etc. Green reel mowers with no more then 4 blades, fairway mowers must be pulled by horse, rough maintained by some cute little sheep? Answer; because its a stupid suggestion. Just like in my opinion rolling back the ball is a stupid suggestion.

 

Maybe we go go back to hickory shafts? What happens when Dustin still hits an old balata 320 yards, do we make him play a gutta percha?

 

The games just fine and technology with in the game is fine.

 

Seriously why do the people trying to grow the game always nit pick about every small and meaningless so called problem and not shine lights on the so many amazing and wonderful things about the game?

[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.

 

We're talking PGA tour courses here, money is no object. These types of courses are spending hundreds of thousands/millions each year on renovation/repair/adjustments, oh, and irrigation.

 

I'm talking about putting hazards in strategic places - not at the 200-250 yard distance that your average weekend golfer is hitting too. Why are we even talking about your average weekend golfer? The original quote above was about bringing courses back to the old, shorter, not used anymore US Open courses, where lengthening is an issue.

 

If the top players are hitting drives 300-350 yards but spraying it a little in order to do so (bomb and gouge), then put your hazards in that zone, as they've done traditionally with bunkers etc further back at 200-300 yards. Of course, if you bomb a straight one 320 yards down the middle, you don't get penalised obviously, and the best player on the day/week will win if he's doing that often enough. It might bring some of the strategy back into some of the old, classic courses.

 

The UK is the same, in that we have a list of courses that are obsolete to the Euro tour - e.g. Sunningdale, Woburn etc.

 

You're kidding right? PGA Tour courses aren't magical places that have unlimited funds. They are courses that are used by members or the paying public 99.5% of the time. If a course adds bunkers, grows out the rough or adds tees it's usually paid for by the membership. Or if the course is public, it just drives up greens fees.

As for the amateur weekend golfers who play. If you add a bunker 250 yards out it will have an impact on everyone. The 18 handicap playing from the white tees is going to hit it into that bunker, which makes the course harder for them. Growing in the rough takes several weeks, if not months. Again, makes for a miserable experience for the weekend golfer.

 

Dial the ball back to 80% for tour pros and nothing about the courses needs to change.

[CCTxGolf]

I like this comment - "I don't think that you can find another sport that has allowed equipment to dictate how playing fields get changed."

 

I think this is one of the stupidest comments in the article.

 

1.) hockey composite sticks making shots quicker

Light weight skates making skating faster

Different sharpening techniques to make skating quicker

Compounds rubbed on skate blades making coasting faster/more efficient.

 

2.) tennis composite racquets making game faster

Increased tension on strings making game faster

 

3.) football

Light weight pads/shoes/better cleats allowing game to be faster

Sticky gloves making catching easier

 

Almost every sport has been effected by increased technology. The ones that use sticks, ie golf obviously get effected more then ones that are just human powered, is basketball.

 

 

Plus almost all other sports do not allow for a different ball, puck, etc. The only ball change I'd support is going to one standard golf ball for everyone but I'm guessing the manufacturers aren't going to go for that one.

 

You gave examples of how equipment has changed and made the game different for hockey, tennis, and football. But the actual playing field for those sports have not changed. Just about every sport has seen advances in equipment but few, if any, have had to change the actual playing field like golf has had to do.

 

Golf hasn't HAD to change anything. Some courses have made changes and tweaks, some great classic courses haven't done a darn thing and they are still great classic courses.

 

You also can not compare the playing field of hockey, tennis etc to golf. Those are all standard size fields of play. Golf courses have always been unique and individual. There is no set yardage needed on a golf course, there is no set routing. So how can you compare something that has never had a standard field of play to sports that always have had standard size fields of play?

 

How come no one suggests to combat this so called problem we take agronomy back to the 30's which will reduce distance with eliminating balls rolling forever in the fairway etc. Green reel mowers with no more then 4 blades, fairway mowers must be pulled by horse, rough maintained by some cute little sheep? Answer; because its a stupid suggestion. Just like in my opinion rolling back the ball is a stupid suggestion.

 

Maybe we go go back to hickory shafts? What happens when Dustin still hits an old balata 320 yards, do we make him play a gutta percha?

 

The games just fine and technology with in the game is fine.

 

Seriously why do the people trying to grow the game always nit pick about every small and meaningless so called problem and not shine lights on the so many amazing and wonderful things about the game?

 

You compared golf courses to those sports and there equipment. The article was about the actual fields that they play on and how equipment does not dictate the fields dementions in those sports. In golf it does. You cannot seriously say that these guys could still play on courses from the 30's, or hell even the 90's. The couses HAD to be lengthened.

 

I do agree that the game is fine and they should quit nitpicking for sure.

[Scooterboy59]

All I have to say is Merion. What was the winning score? Usga is going to screw this one up as they did the putter. All you need to do is firm up the greens and grow a little rough, not knee deep ether. Look at that first hole last week. 300 +yards and you had birdies and doubles. Golf equipment is fine and there are rules in place. Leave it at that.

[widow-maker]

The USGA already has a limit on golf ball COR. This is just a question of if it should be changed again. They could take the COR limit off and let golf ball companies make a ball that goes well over 400 yards. Would that be good for the game? What would the Championship courses have to do to keep up with 400+ yard drives? Increase course distance over 9000 yds? This is really just a question of whether the current COR is correct for the increased swing speeds we're seeing or if they should rethink it instead of expensively retrofitting golf courses. It's certainly a subject that needs to be addressed and talked about. I think I read somewhere that when they originally set COR for the golf ball it was based off of a swing speed max of 109mph and a top end distance of 290. Modern equipment with thinner and thinner faced drivers with increased trampoline effect and player fitness has certainly gone beyond what they thought the limit would be.

[ratspros]

I like this comment - "I don't think that you can find another sport that has allowed equipment to dictate how playing fields get changed."

 

I think this is one of the stupidest comments in the article.

 

1.) hockey composite sticks making shots quicker

Light weight skates making skating faster

Different sharpening techniques to make skating quicker

Compounds rubbed on skate blades making coasting faster/more efficient.

 

2.) tennis composite racquets making game faster

Increased tension on strings making game faster

 

3.) football

Light weight pads/shoes/better cleats allowing game to be faster

Sticky gloves making catching easier

 

Almost every sport has been effected by increased technology. The ones that use sticks, ie golf obviously get effected more then ones that are just human powered, is basketball.

 

 

Plus almost all other sports do not allow for a different ball, puck, etc. The only ball change I'd support is going to one standard golf ball for everyone but I'm guessing the manufacturers aren't going to go for that one.

 

You gave examples of how equipment has changed and made the game different for hockey, tennis, and football. But the actual playing field for those sports have not changed. Just about every sport has seen advances in equipment but few, if any, have had to change the actual playing field like golf has had to do.

 

Golf hasn't HAD to change anything. Some courses have made changes and tweaks, some great classic courses haven't done a darn thing and they are still great classic courses.

 

You also can not compare the playing field of hockey, tennis etc to golf. Those are all standard size fields of play. Golf courses have always been unique and individual. There is no set yardage needed on a golf course, there is no set routing. So how can you compare something that has never had a standard field of play to sports that always have had standard size fields of play?

 

How come no one suggests to combat this so called problem we take agronomy back to the 30's which will reduce distance with eliminating balls rolling forever in the fairway etc. Green reel mowers with no more then 4 blades, fairway mowers must be pulled by horse, rough maintained by some cute little sheep? Answer; because its a stupid suggestion. Just like in my opinion rolling back the ball is a stupid suggestion.

 

Maybe we go go back to hickory shafts? What happens when Dustin still hits an old balata 320 yards, do we make him play a gutta percha?

 

The games just fine and technology with in the game is fine.

 

Seriously why do the people trying to grow the game always nit pick about every small and meaningless so called problem and not shine lights on the so many amazing and wonderful things about the game?

 

You compared golf courses to those sports and there equipment. The article was about the actual fields that they play on and how equipment does not dictate the fields dementions in those sports. In golf it does. You cannot seriously say that these guys could still play on couses from the 30's, or hell even the 90's. The couses HAD to be lengthened.

 

My point is technology has changed how all those sports are now played because they decided not to change the field of play. Like golf if we don't change the courses it will simply change how the game is now played. No difference. But some golf courses have decided instead of letting the game evolve they will just increase all their overhead by lengthening courses.

 

I'll agree to disagree about them not being able to play courses from the 30's. (Shinnecock was only 200 yards longer for their last us open then it was in the 30's).

 

Great architecture doesn't mean long and it doesn't need to be tweaked every year or two. I mean Bandon is the pinnacle for modern day courses and not one of them is 7,000.

 

Golf doesn't HAVE to and never HAD to change its playing fields.

[CCTxGolf]

I'm picking up what you are putting down ratspros. I can definetely appreciate the argument of never beginning to lengthen courses and the game evolving in that way. It would be interesting to see which way technology went if the desire for massive distance gains was never really necessary. I also feel like handicapping long players is not fair. How would they then handicap a great wedge player, or low ball hitter, etc. We all play to our strengths and the equipment/ball that best suits our strengths. What's next, everyone has to play the exact same bag set up? 54* wedges are outlawed! lol

 

Have a good night. Very interesting outlook. Thanks

[RSinSG]

Wouldn't be easier to just let the fairways grow out a little? No more 20 yards of roll.

 

I do not like the idea of pros using different equipment than the rest of us schmucks. Part of the thrill of hitting the occasional perfect shot is knowing you just did something just like the best in the world do. And, watching them play like they do on almost every shot using the same tools (pretty much) as me is very compelling.

[gvogel]

Golf in general is at a disturbing crossroads. We have discussions here about ball lengths (I concur it should be capped where it presently sits) and perhaps lowering driver size along with various examples of course set ups. Now the major question is, at least IMO, if the USGA attempts to reign in the manufactures (ie; technology), then what and where do the manufactures have to go. Every 6 months or so they come out with the best newest, longest, stroke saving etc rhetoric, up the price and folks run haywire to purchase. Now I don't have an easy answer to that question, but I can see the fallout that may/would occur, if the manufactures are forced into a semi state of stagnation. Now unlike other sports, regardless of what equipment changes made, the general public doesn't play their game. On the other hand, the general golfing public does play the same basic game as the pros, perhaps not as good, but we play the same basic equipment and play the same basic structured set ups (not as fine tuned granted, but none the less relatable).

 

If the manufactures are allowed to keep finding upgrades to balls, when and where does or should it stop. Anyone remember the super balls kids played with? Imagine a golf ball with the same properties and courses would have to be 15,000 yards. Granted, this is way over the top, but who knows. Everything has a saturation point and I think golf is at the cusp of it now. New equipment costs, playing costs, time allotment, all factor in to today's state of golf. So the additional question is.......where do we go from here?......

 

I don't believe that you can measure the health of the game of golf by measuring the health of the equipment manufacturers. We should measure the health of the game by the health of the operators of public courses, and the membership rolls of private courses.

 

A reduced distance ball might make the game faster, which could equate to more participation, and more rounds played. It might make the cost of course maintenance go down, which would also help the health of course operators and private clubs. I certainly think that it would be worth the experiment to have the ball manufacturers make such a ball, and encourage its play for a year or two in order to determine the results.

[gvogel]

I don't really see why there is so much resistance to a rolled-back ball. Elite athletes in all sports welcome a challenge. Some of the elite mountain climbers are climbing Everest without oxygen, because it is more of a challenge. Endurance bicyclists are racing from Canada to Mexico through the Rockies - something that was never considered a decade ago. Some skiiers are going out of their way to explore new mountains in British Columbia - they hike up to ski down.

 

If a reduced distance ball can make an existing golf course more difficult, why not welcome the challenge?

[bladehunter]

I don't really see why there is so much resistance to a rolled-back ball. Elite athletes in all sports welcome a challenge. Some of the elite mountain climbers are climbing Everest without oxygen, because it is more of a challenge. Endurance bicyclists are racing from Canada to Mexico through the Rockies - something that was never considered a decade ago. Some skiiers are going out of their way to explore new mountains in British Columbia - they hike up to ski down.

 

If a reduced distance ball can make an existing golf course more difficult, why not welcome the challenge?

 

Because the ams are used to the help in driving the ball. They will tell you with one breath that it hasn't made a difference etc. average driving distances are same. But offer to dial it back and noooo ! Wonder why ? Because they all know they are longer. Much longer with the new ball vs 15 years ago.

[finleysg]

I don't really care what professionals play and how far they hit it. But I really like the fact that I am playing the same yardages at 56 that I did at 18. Thank you, technology!

[nochct1]

Wouldn't be easier to just let the fairways grow out a little? No more 20 yards of roll.

 

I do not like the idea of pros using different equipment than the rest of us schmucks. Part of the thrill of hitting the occasional perfect shot is knowing you just did something just like the best in the world do. And, watching them play like they do on almost every shot using the same tools (pretty much) as me is very compelling.

 

Fast fairways provide rollout, but the ball also rolls into the rough. If the fairways are slow, it's easier to keep the ball in the fairway. And the longest players can still fly it 300+.

As nice as it is to use the same equipment, the reality is that you and nothing like the pros. Even on the occasional great shot.

If they did go to a "pro ball" you would still be able to use it. Feek free to shoot from NBA 3 point range in your rec league as well.

[disco111]

I don't believe that you can measure the health of the game of golf by measuring the health of the equipment manufacturers. We should measure the health of the game by the health of the operators of public courses, and the membership rolls of private courses.

 

While I can only offer conditional reviews from my area, I would surmise, that it's not that far off from a national trend. Todate, we have lost 3 local courses and there are at least 2 I'm aware of that are for sale. Muni fees have doubled with in the last 5 years (with nothing added to course conditions) and overall play is down. Several courses are offering special rates, at specific times, to get folks out.

 

As far as measuring the games health via manufactures, they are the only open sources of information readily available to the golfing public. We have Nike, Golfsmith, Hogan leave the playing field. TM is being offered for sale and I'm sure other manufactures are in some sort of selling or merger discussions, which we are not yet privy to. But everything in the golfing industry has a domino effect, that will eventually effect the golfing public, one way or another. While the main intent seems to be focused on the tour and length of the ball, golf has more problems than that to face. As i stated before in another post, the USGA and the manufactures are facing a saturation point with technology. They can't or should not allow the OEM's to keep going the way they are now, for where and how will it finally end. But for discussion sake, let's hypothesise the following. Cor and head size limits already in place, new ball limits initiated. These are the biggest attributes for OEM sales, as of now. So if the OEM's can't offer new and improved, what happens to their bottom line? Drivers and balls from 2 or 3 years ago are just as good as brand new, so where's the incentive to buy and where's the OEM's incentive to offer something new and improved (actually is new and improved and not just sales rhetoric)? Sales go down, so prices go up or perhaps they just can't generate enough sales to stay afloat. The cost of new equipment now, is over the top for many folks, so used becomes the new and OEM sales takes another hit. Everything in golf is manufactured driven and the USGA lost control a long time ago, by giving the OEM's free reign.

[Doyle Hargraves]

Wow, another wonderful idea from the USGA. I thought he might have learned his lesson from two past "solutions" non existent problems (grove rule/anchored putting ban).

 

Someone needs to tell him that golfers are entertainers, nothing more.

 

Patrons of PGA events do not want to see 240 yard drives and 175 yard three irons into greens. They want big drives, iron shots at the pins, and low scores.

 

Any proposed rule which would lessen the entertainment value of the product should be scoffed at and dismissed without discussion.

[canonlbp430]

Two questions for the guys saying that they should have tour ball and a non tour ball.

 

1) they will have to use a manufacturer to produce the tour ball - why would any manufacturer what to allocate factory space for this? They give away the balls to the pros for free so will have no revenue and producing multiple lines in a factory always adds cost. You could say for marketing purposes but it would be different than other sports because you're producing something you aren't going to sell to the public.

 

2) if I'm an aspiring junior and I make the tour now I have to play a completely different ball than I have played my whole life? So now in addition to having to adjust to new courses, tour competition, and a tour schedule I have to completely reshape my game once I finally get there? And you could say aspiring amateurs should play that ball as an amateur. So now I have to play a tour ball as an am even though other top amateurs that don't plan on going pro will be playing a non tour version?

[hogans71]

All I have to say is Merion. What was the winning score? Usga is going to screw this one up as they did the putter. All you need to do is firm up the greens and grow a little rough, not knee deep ether. Look at that first hole last week. 300 +yards and you had birdies and doubles. Golf equipment is fine and there are rules in place. Leave it at that.

 

I couldn't agree more...

[caniac6]

Please excuse me if this has already been asked, but didn't the USGA recently come out with a report that the distance gain from balls was rather small over a period of years?

[nochct1]

Two questions for the guys saying that they should have tour ball and a non tour ball.

 

1) they will have to use a manufacturer to produce the tour ball - why would any manufacturer what to allocate factory space for this? They give away the balls to the pros for free so will have no revenue and producing multiple lines in a factory always adds cost. You could say for marketing purposes but it would be different than other sports because you're producing something you aren't going to sell to the public.

 

2) if I'm an aspiring junior and I make the tour now I have to play a completely different ball than I have played my whole life? So now in addition to having to adjust to new courses, tour competition, and a tour schedule I have to completely reshape my game once I finally get there? And you could say aspiring amateurs should play that ball as an amateur. So now I have to play a tour ball as an am even though other top amateurs that don't plan on going pro will be playing a non tour version?

 

- Most golfers won't know that pros are playing a tour only ball. They will just see Titleist, Taylor Made, Callaway Bridgestone. For example, there would be ProV1, ProV1X and Pro V1 Pro.

 

- As for adjusting to a pro ball. It's not much different than other sports. Amateur baseball players adjust to different bats and ball. Basketball players adjust to different three point lines. Football players adjust to different rules, goalposts, balls etc. Why is it unreasonable to adjust to different ball? With trackman you would have new numbers in one session.

The tour was in Mexico last week. The ball flew 15% further. The adjusted and did just fine. If a pro only ball reduced distance by 20% they would also be able to adjust.

[nochct1]

All I have to say is Merion. What was the winning score? Usga is going to screw this one up as they did the putter. All you need to do is firm up the greens and grow a little rough, not knee deep ether. Look at that first hole last week. 300 +yards and you had birdies and doubles. Golf equipment is fine and there are rules in place. Leave it at that.

 

I couldn't agree more...

 

I thought the US Open at Merion was terrible. They ended up tucking pins into corners where it was almost impossible to get the ball close, even with a great shot. Dial back the ball and the course can be played at it was designed to.

[mosesgolf]

I have a better idea make the landing area for those guys that carry it 300 plus 15 yards wide and for the regular length hitters make the landing area 50 yards wide. Voila guys like DJ has to club down to 3 wood or hybrid. :D

 

Yeah let's just take driver out of the equation on half the holes due to other people's lack of talent, gifts, skill or physical ability. :rolleyes:

[tannyhoban]

Two questions for the guys saying that they should have tour ball and a non tour ball.

 

1) they will have to use a manufacturer to produce the tour ball - why would any manufacturer what to allocate factory space for this? They give away the balls to the pros for free so will have no revenue and producing multiple lines in a factory always adds cost. You could say for marketing purposes but it would be different than other sports because you're producing something you aren't going to sell to the public.

 

2) if I'm an aspiring junior and I make the tour now I have to play a completely different ball than I have played my whole life? So now in addition to having to adjust to new courses, tour competition, and a tour schedule I have to completely reshape my game once I finally get there? And you could say aspiring amateurs should play that ball as an amateur. So now I have to play a tour ball as an am even though other top amateurs that don't plan on going pro will be playing a non tour version?

 

- Most golfers won't know that pros are playing a tour only ball. They will just see Titleist, Taylor Made, Callaway Bridgestone. For example, there would be ProV1, ProV1X and Pro V1 Pro.

 

- As for adjusting to a pro ball. It's not much different than other sports. Amateur baseball players adjust to different bats and ball. Basketball players adjust to different three point lines. Football players adjust to different rules, goalposts, balls etc. Why is it unreasonable to adjust to different ball? With trackman you would have new numbers in one session.

The tour was in Mexico last week. The ball flew 15% further. The adjusted and did just fine. If a pro only ball reduced distance by 20% they would also be able to adjust.

 

Because golf doesn't need bifurcation. Its a simple game at its core. Did adding aluminum bats and then composite help amateur baseball? No. It did create an instant market for mfgs to exploit and subsequently throttled back with bbcor.

 

Team sports in general are not a good analogy with golf. They just aren't.

[canonlbp430]

Two questions for the guys saying that they should have tour ball and a non tour ball.

 

1) they will have to use a manufacturer to produce the tour ball - why would any manufacturer what to allocate factory space for this? They give away the balls to the pros for free so will have no revenue and producing multiple lines in a factory always adds cost. You could say for marketing purposes but it would be different than other sports because you're producing something you aren't going to sell to the public.

 

2) if I'm an aspiring junior and I make the tour now I have to play a completely different ball than I have played my whole life? So now in addition to having to adjust to new courses, tour competition, and a tour schedule I have to completely reshape my game once I finally get there? And you could say aspiring amateurs should play that ball as an amateur. So now I have to play a tour ball as an am even though other top amateurs that don't plan on going pro will be playing a non tour version?

 

- Most golfers won't know that pros are playing a tour only ball. They will just see Titleist, Taylor Made, Callaway Bridgestone. For example, there would be ProV1, ProV1X and Pro V1 Pro.

 

- As for adjusting to a pro ball. It's not much different than other sports. Amateur baseball players adjust to different bats and ball. Basketball players adjust to different three point lines. Football players adjust to different rules, goalposts, balls etc. Why is it unreasonable to adjust to different ball? With trackman you would have new numbers in one session.

The tour was in Mexico last week. The ball flew 15% further. The adjusted and did just fine. If a pro only ball reduced distance by 20% they would also be able to adjust.

 

Good points, you could be right about people not really knowing the difference in the ball.

 

I guess adjusting to the ball would probably depend on what type of ball we're talking about. If we're talking about a ball that is just distance impaired it could probably be doable in a reasonable amount of time. I think if we're talking about balls that act like the balls of the 90s that would be a whole different situation. Now you would have to change how you play the game because of the increased spin. Irons shots and distance control into greens would be much different.

[nochct1]

Two questions for the guys saying that they should have tour ball and a non tour ball.

 

1) they will have to use a manufacturer to produce the tour ball - why would any manufacturer what to allocate factory space for this? They give away the balls to the pros for free so will have no revenue and producing multiple lines in a factory always adds cost. You could say for marketing purposes but it would be different than other sports because you're producing something you aren't going to sell to the public.

 

2) if I'm an aspiring junior and I make the tour now I have to play a completely different ball than I have played my whole life? So now in addition to having to adjust to new courses, tour competition, and a tour schedule I have to completely reshape my game once I finally get there? And you could say aspiring amateurs should play that ball as an amateur. So now I have to play a tour ball as an am even though other top amateurs that don't plan on going pro will be playing a non tour version?

 

- Most golfers won't know that pros are playing a tour only ball. They will just see Titleist, Taylor Made, Callaway Bridgestone. For example, there would be ProV1, ProV1X and Pro V1 Pro.

 

- As for adjusting to a pro ball. It's not much different than other sports. Amateur baseball players adjust to different bats and ball. Basketball players adjust to different three point lines. Football players adjust to different rules, goalposts, balls etc. Why is it unreasonable to adjust to different ball? With trackman you would have new numbers in one session.

The tour was in Mexico last week. The ball flew 15% further. The adjusted and did just fine. If a pro only ball reduced distance by 20% they would also be able to adjust.

 

Good points, you could be right about people not really knowing the difference in the ball.

 

I guess adjusting to the ball would probably depend on what type of ball we're talking about. If we're talking about a ball that is just distance impaired it could probably be doable in a reasonable amount of time. I think if we're talking about balls that act like the balls of the 90s that would be a whole different situation. Now you would have to change how you play the game because of the increased spin. Irons shots and distance control into greens would be much different.

 

It would be cool to go back to old 90s balls. But I don't see that happening. I think simply restricting distance would be fine. It would allow manufacturers to keep making balls with varying launch and spin characteristics. But would reduce the need to make 8500 yard golf courses.

[nochct1]

Two questions for the guys saying that they should have tour ball and a non tour ball.

 

1) they will have to use a manufacturer to produce the tour ball - why would any manufacturer what to allocate factory space for this? They give away the balls to the pros for free so will have no revenue and producing multiple lines in a factory always adds cost. You could say for marketing purposes but it would be different than other sports because you're producing something you aren't going to sell to the public.

 

2) if I'm an aspiring junior and I make the tour now I have to play a completely different ball than I have played my whole life? So now in addition to having to adjust to new courses, tour competition, and a tour schedule I have to completely reshape my game once I finally get there? And you could say aspiring amateurs should play that ball as an amateur. So now I have to play a tour ball as an am even though other top amateurs that don't plan on going pro will be playing a non tour version?

 

- Most golfers won't know that pros are playing a tour only ball. They will just see Titleist, Taylor Made, Callaway Bridgestone. For example, there would be ProV1, ProV1X and Pro V1 Pro.

 

- As for adjusting to a pro ball. It's not much different than other sports. Amateur baseball players adjust to different bats and ball. Basketball players adjust to different three point lines. Football players adjust to different rules, goalposts, balls etc. Why is it unreasonable to adjust to different ball? With trackman you would have new numbers in one session.

The tour was in Mexico last week. The ball flew 15% further. The adjusted and did just fine. If a pro only ball reduced distance by 20% they would also be able to adjust.

 

Because golf doesn't need bifurcation. Its a simple game at its core. Did adding aluminum bats and then composite help amateur baseball? No. It did create an instant market for mfgs to exploit and subsequently throttled back with bbcor.

 

Team sports in general are not a good analogy with golf. They just aren't.

 

Team sports are fine analogy when it comes to equipment.

 

The equipment at the pro levels is different because of the skills of the individuals using them. It doesn't matter if it's golf, baseball, football or basketball.

 

Maybe you're one of those 18 handicaps that like the fact that you play the same game as the pros. Which we know just isn't true. The average 18 handicap hits it 215 off the tee. Hits 3 GIR and can't control spin. The average tour pro hits it 80 yards longer, hits 60% GIR and can go out on any course in the country and shoot 65.

 

We can keep changing the courses or we can dial back the ball and stop the needless spending that comes with course renovation.

[Sean2]

All I have to say is Merion. What was the winning score? Usga is going to screw this one up as they did the putter. All you need to do is firm up the greens and grow a little rough, not knee deep ether. Look at that first hole last week. 300 +yards and you had birdies and doubles. Golf equipment is fine and there are rules in place. Leave it at that.

 

I have been saying this for years. Seems kind of obvious, but...