Mike Davis on Distance

[Sean2]

Golf ball/equipment manufacturers primarily sell one thing: distance.

 

Golfers primarily want one thing: distance.

 

Here is a chart published by Golf Digest on January 4, 2017:

 

 

 

http://www.golfdiges...ll-surprise-you

 

Dialing back the equipment is not only a bad idea, it completely out of touch with the average golfer. The USGA screwed up with the groove rule: amateurs had enough trouble spinning the ball, and the USGA in their infinite wisdom made it even more difficult. And, as you can see on Tour, the groove rule affected the Tour players not one iota (not to mention the cost of re-tooling).

 

I sometimes think the USGA is trying to chase people away from the game.

[golfer07840]

Golf ball/equipment manufacturers primarily sell one thing: distance.

 

Golfers primarily want one thing: distance.

 

Here is a chart published by Golf Digest on January 4, 1917:

 

 

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/how-far-do-average-golfers-really-hit-it-new-distance-data-will-surprise-you

 

Dialing back the equipment is not only a bad idea, it completely out of touch with the average golfer. The USGA screwed up with the groove rule: amateurs had enough trouble spinning the ball, and the USGA in their infinite wisdom made it even more difficult. And, as you can see on Tour, the groove rule affected the Tour players not one iota (not to mention the cost of re-tooling).

 

I sometimes think the USGA is trying to chase people away from the game.

You meant 2017 right? Not 1917?

[golfer07840]

Golf ball/equipment manufacturers primarily sell one thing: distance.

 

Golfers primarily want one thing: distance.

 

Here is a chart published by Golf Digest on January 4, 1917:

 

 

 

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/how-far-do-average-golfers-really-hit-it-new-distance-data-will-surprise-you

 

Dialing back the equipment is not only a bad idea, it completely out of touch with the average golfer. The USGA screwed up with the groove rule: amateurs had enough trouble spinning the ball, and the USGA in their infinite wisdom made it even more difficult. And, as you can see on Tour, the groove rule affected the Tour players not one iota (not to mention the cost of re-tooling).

 

I sometimes think the USGA is trying to chase people away from the game.

BTW it's nice to see that according to that chart that a 4 hdcp DOES NOT avg 275 yards as was told on another thread.

[Sean2]

Golf ball/equipment manufacturers primarily sell one thing: distance.

 

Golfers primarily want one thing: distance.

 

Here is a chart published by Golf Digest on January 4, 1917:

 

 

 

http://www.golfdiges...ll-surprise-you

 

Dialing back the equipment is not only a bad idea, it completely out of touch with the average golfer. The USGA screwed up with the groove rule: amateurs had enough trouble spinning the ball, and the USGA in their infinite wisdom made it even more difficult. And, as you can see on Tour, the groove rule affected the Tour players not one iota (not to mention the cost of re-tooling).

 

I sometimes think the USGA is trying to chase people away from the game.

You meant 2017 right? Not 1917?

 

Hah! Thank you for pointing out my error. :-)

[golfer07840]

Golf ball/equipment manufacturers primarily sell one thing: distance.

 

Golfers primarily want one thing: distance.

 

Here is a chart published by Golf Digest on January 4, 1917:

 

 

 

http://www.golfdiges...ll-surprise-you

 

Dialing back the equipment is not only a bad idea, it completely out of touch with the average golfer. The USGA screwed up with the groove rule: amateurs had enough trouble spinning the ball, and the USGA in their infinite wisdom made it even more difficult. And, as you can see on Tour, the groove rule affected the Tour players not one iota (not to mention the cost of re-tooling).

 

I sometimes think the USGA is trying to chase people away from the game.

You meant 2017 right? Not 1917?

 

Hah! Thank you for pointing out my error. :-)

That's an excellent chart btw. And I'd say, using myself as an example, very accurate. In fact if I know I'm playing a course I'm not familiar with, I like to go on Google Maps and use the satellite feature, and measure out hole by home approx what the yardage would be on approach shots using my driving distance avg. This way I'll know right off the bat what tees I should be playing from. Constantly having to hit 19* Hy ad a 2nd shot is crazy.

[Sean2]

Golf ball/equipment manufacturers primarily sell one thing: distance.

 

Golfers primarily want one thing: distance.

 

Here is a chart published by Golf Digest on January 4, 1917:

 

 

 

http://www.golfdiges...ll-surprise-you

 

Dialing back the equipment is not only a bad idea, it completely out of touch with the average golfer. The USGA screwed up with the groove rule: amateurs had enough trouble spinning the ball, and the USGA in their infinite wisdom made it even more difficult. And, as you can see on Tour, the groove rule affected the Tour players not one iota (not to mention the cost of re-tooling).

 

I sometimes think the USGA is trying to chase people away from the game.

BTW it's nice to see that according to that chart that a 4 hdcp DOES NOT avg 275 yards as was told on another thread.

 

According to TrackMan stats taken from the PGA Tour in 2014, the average driver carry distance was 275 yards. And that's on Tour. To compare a Tour player to a 4 HI, would be like comparing a 4HI to an 18 HI.

[Sean2]

Golf ball/equipment manufacturers primarily sell one thing: distance.

 

Golfers primarily want one thing: distance.

 

Here is a chart published by Golf Digest on January 4, 1917:

 

 

 

http://www.golfdiges...ll-surprise-you

 

Dialing back the equipment is not only a bad idea, it completely out of touch with the average golfer. The USGA screwed up with the groove rule: amateurs had enough trouble spinning the ball, and the USGA in their infinite wisdom made it even more difficult. And, as you can see on Tour, the groove rule affected the Tour players not one iota (not to mention the cost of re-tooling).

 

I sometimes think the USGA is trying to chase people away from the game.

You meant 2017 right? Not 1917?

 

Hah! Thank you for pointing out my error. :-)

That's an excellent chart btw. And I'd say, using myself as an example, very accurate. In fact if I know I'm playing a course I'm not familiar with, I like to go on Google Maps and use the satellite feature, and measure out hole by home approx what the yardage would be on approach shots using my driving distance avg. This way I'll know right off the bat what tees I should be playing from. Constantly having to hit 19* Hy ad a 2nd shot is crazy.

 

Amen. This game is difficult enough as it is, and yet there are those who choose to make it more difficult.

[golfer07840]

Golf ball/equipment manufacturers primarily sell one thing: distance.

 

Golfers primarily want one thing: distance.

 

Here is a chart published by Golf Digest on January 4, 1917:

 

 

 

http://www.golfdiges...ll-surprise-you

 

Dialing back the equipment is not only a bad idea, it completely out of touch with the average golfer. The USGA screwed up with the groove rule: amateurs had enough trouble spinning the ball, and the USGA in their infinite wisdom made it even more difficult. And, as you can see on Tour, the groove rule affected the Tour players not one iota (not to mention the cost of re-tooling).

 

I sometimes think the USGA is trying to chase people away from the game.

You meant 2017 right? Not 1917?

 

Hah! Thank you for pointing out my error. :-)

That's an excellent chart btw. And I'd say, using myself as an example, very accurate. In fact if I know I'm playing a course I'm not familiar with, I like to go on Google Maps and use the satellite feature, and measure out hole by home approx what the yardage would be on approach shots using my driving distance avg. This way I'll know right off the bat what tees I should be playing from. Constantly having to hit 19* Hy ad a 2nd shot is crazy.

 

Amen. This game is difficult enough as it is, and yet there are those who choose to make it more difficult.

According to several in another thread it's too easy because of the ball

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I admittedly have not read through all of the sh*t on here (mine included before hitting POST). But, how about limiting driver shaft length to 44" instead of messing up industry with the ball? I know I hit it more solidly with a shorter shaft. My pops got fitted for a 45.75" driver the other day, and I thought it was borderline suicide. Sure, he a few bombs on the monitor, but he will struggle with that club down the road, as we all might. Maybe the old fuddy duddies will be happy when drivers are 44" again so nobody can break their records. Probably won't make a difference given the athleticism, but it ain't for lack of trying while they are still alive, right? That's kind of the whole point here, as I see it.

[Shilgy]

I admittedly have not read through all of the sh*t on here (mine included before hitting POST). But, how about limiting driver shaft length to 44" instead of messing up industry with the ball? I know I hit it more solidly with a shorter shaft. My pops got fitted for a 45.75" driver the other day, and I thought it was borderline suicide. Sure, he a few bombs on the monitor, but he will struggle with that club down the road, as we all might. Maybe the old fuddy duddies will be happy when drivers are 44" again so nobody can break their records. Probably won't make a difference given the athleticism, but it ain't for lack of trying while they are still alive, right? That's kind of the whole point here, as I see it.

Perhaps that's why the ideal height for golf used to be 5'10". Based on the 43.5" drivers of the day. Your suggestion would harm tall players more than short. And, there are players on tour already using 44" and under.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I admittedly have not read through all of the sh*t on here (mine included before hitting POST). But, how about limiting driver shaft length to 44" instead of messing up industry with the ball? I know I hit it more solidly with a shorter shaft. My pops got fitted for a 45.75" driver the other day, and I thought it was borderline suicide. Sure, he a few bombs on the monitor, but he will struggle with that club down the road, as we all might. Maybe the old fuddy duddies will be happy when drivers are 44" again so nobody can break their records. Probably won't make a difference given the athleticism, but it ain't for lack of trying while they are still alive, right? That's kind of the whole point here, as I see it.

Perhaps that's why the ideal height for golf used to be 5'10". Based on the 43.5" drivers of the day. Your suggestion would harm tall players more than short. And, there are players on tour already using 44" and under.

 

Yeah, but these longer driver shafts must be stopped! Don't even get me started on shaft weight. In a perfect world, nobody would ever hit it farther than the Legends of Yesteryear. Green and fairway maintenance need to also take a step back. Rewind 50 years of agronomy/horticulture. Go back to metal spikes so a guy can rock a club foot on most of the through-lines. We need manual mowers. We need to dial back this game at least half a century so that the old guys can feel good. Who's with me?!

[Mr.Mizzy]

Many venues cut and roll the fairways. The average carry distance on Tour is in the 270 range, but almost every week you can see how much roll these guys get. Earlier this year I was watching a rain soaked event and many of the drives were in the 265 - 275 range. And, for the average golfer technology hasn't made a huge difference. The average drive is around 215 yards.

 

Why is this not gaining any traction?

 

This is not a hard concept at all. Quit making the fairways like cart paths. And quit making sand traps, sand easys. Dial back the manicuring. Yes it "looks pretty" but come on...I watch guys week in and week out bail out to a sand trap because they know it's a far easier up and down. Or hit a line drive bullet driving iron because it runs forever.

 

Funny thing is they would just need to make the fairways and sand traps like the courses most of us play to fix this "problem".

[Lodestone]

And, to repeat a point I made earlier, if the landing areas for the big bombers were made more demanding, they wouldn't have to be so tough on the greens to "protect" par, by shaving and rolling them. Yes it would be an inconvenience for the members, but as you point out, hosting an event comes with inconveniences.

 

that's the same thing as the square groove justification - that didn't work at all. it's still a bomb and gouge game.

 

The reason the "bomb and gouge" strategy works is because there is not sufficient penalty for missing the fairway. And face it, those fairway bunkers Mackenzie put in at 240 (or whatever that older distance was) wouldn't really bother the big boys anyway, unless they are really steeply faced. They don't seem to mind long full bunker shots unless the sand is soft, or grooved, or there is a big hole you have to climb into and out of. You can tell they don't like it because they start whining about it.

 

Can't remember the guy's name who does the analyses of strokes gained in driving, putting etc. but it seems to me he says the big boys would rather have 150 in from the rough, than 180 in from the fairway. That's because they aren't afraid of the rough. Except during the US Open. Long grass, narrow fairways in the bomber zone dissuade players from the "bomb and gouge".

 

If they are coming in from 180, vs. 150 or less, then the greens don't have to be lightning. Well, that depends upon the greens as well. If the greens are flat, they need some speed. The problems arise when the hugely contoured greens that were also designed before anyone dreamed of 10 on a stimpmeter are shaved down.

 

The fact that the groove rule didn't accomplish what they envisioned is not the same as what long grass would do.

[mark m]

Golf ball/equipment manufacturers primarily sell one thing: distance.

 

Golfers primarily want one thing: distance.

 

Here is a chart published by Golf Digest on January 4, 2017:

 

 

 

http://www.golfdiges...ll-surprise-you

 

Dialing back the equipment is not only a bad idea, it completely out of touch with the average golfer. The USGA screwed up with the groove rule: amateurs had enough trouble spinning the ball, and the USGA in their infinite wisdom made it even more difficult. And, as you can see on Tour, the groove rule affected the Tour players not one iota (not to mention the cost of re-tooling).

 

I sometimes think the USGA is trying to chase people away from the game.

 

Hi Sean - or anybody that uses Game Golf Live:

 

How do they get the "handicap" percentages listed in the middle column?

 

They must be based on just those that use the app?

If so, are they based on a scores the players are entering into the app?

Or a self reported "handicap" the player enters?

 

Just curious, as those percentages would be way off if you were talking about the golfing population in general. I don't believe the distances are off by that much, just the percentage of players in the various handicap groups. Most "golfers" in the US would be in the bottom 2 handicap groups. Some play the majority of their rounds at par 3 or short executive courses. The numbers are different for those with USGA handicaps, but they make up only about 15% of the golfers in the US.

[Lodestone]

Going back to the original post, and the words of Mike Davis, it occurs to me that his agenda and the professional tours' agendas are divergent. He sees his role, and the role of the USGA (and I guess the R&A) as somehow responsible for preserving some sort of "ethic" that suggests the way the game was played decades ago needs to be relevant to how it is played today. He thinks that somehow it is the USGA's job to not let what is happening on the course today get too far away from the challenges that Bobby Jones, Bryon Nelson, Hogan, Palmer et.al. faced.

 

This is not the PGA Tour's agenda. The Tour's agenda is to attract fans, and you don't do that by developing a strategy of "Look, these guys are no better than the guys were in 1965." You hype how GREAT these young guys are. You make the courses receptive to length. You don't hear the Tour commissioner say the guys are too long. They revel in it, wrap it up and sell it to us.

 

The USGA pays lip service to the job of "growing" the game, but what is more likely to grow the game? Making it more penal? Making it so it's harder to hit the ball far for Joe 18 Handicap and his 13 year old daughter? Or giving them some equipment that will help him get the ball airborne, and help her get the thrill of hitting the ball a little farther?

 

I don't think the USGA did the recreational golfer with a bad back and a good case of the yips any favors by banning the anchored stroke. When you make the game less fun for the recreational golfer, you don't "grow" the game. You give him or her a good reason to buy a fishing boat.

[North Butte]

Golf ball/equipment manufacturers primarily sell one thing: distance.

 

Golfers primarily want one thing: distance.

 

Here is a chart published by Golf Digest on January 4, 2017:

 

 

 

http://www.golfdiges...ll-surprise-you

 

Dialing back the equipment is not only a bad idea, it completely out of touch with the average golfer. The USGA screwed up with the groove rule: amateurs had enough trouble spinning the ball, and the USGA in their infinite wisdom made it even more difficult. And, as you can see on Tour, the groove rule affected the Tour players not one iota (not to mention the cost of re-tooling).

 

I sometimes think the USGA is trying to chase people away from the game.

 

Hi Sean - or anybody that uses Game Golf Live:

 

How do they get the "handicap" percentages listed in the middle column?

 

They must be based on just those that use the app?

If so, are they based on a scores the players are entering into the app?

Or a self reported "handicap" the player enters?

 

Just curious, as those percentages would be way off if you were talking about the golfing population in general. I don't believe the distances are off by that much, just the percentage of players in the various handicap groups. Most "golfers" in the US would be in the bottom 2 handicap groups. Some play the majority of their rounds at par 3 or short executive courses. The numbers are different for those with USGA handicaps, but they make up only about 15% of the golfers in the US.

 

Game Golf does a pseudo-handicap calculation that, like the USGA one, is circularly defined. But not the same definition as USGA. They have what seems to be a distance-only formula for determining the difficulty of each course played. So they set a "scratch" point relative to that estimate of course difficulty and then compute all their user's handicaps relative to that baseline.

 

Or so I deduce. They do not document it anywhere but I'm 99% certain it is only based on the distance you enter for the tee shots each round. They certainly do NOT use USGA course and/or slope ratings. And the big limitation (again, similar to the limitations of USGA handicapping except particular to Game Golf users) is that the scores that "handicaps" are calculated from are just whatever someone tags and uploads.

[tnord]

And, to repeat a point I made earlier, if the landing areas for the big bombers were made more demanding, they wouldn't have to be so tough on the greens to "protect" par, by shaving and rolling them. Yes it would be an inconvenience for the members, but as you point out, hosting an event comes with inconveniences.

 

that's the same thing as the square groove justification - that didn't work at all. it's still a bomb and gouge game.

 

The reason the "bomb and gouge" strategy works is because there is not sufficient penalty for missing the fairway. And face it, those fairway bunkers Mackenzie put in at 240 (or whatever that older distance was) wouldn't really bother the big boys anyway, unless they are really steeply faced. They don't seem to mind long full bunker shots unless the sand is soft, or grooved, or there is a big hole you have to climb into and out of. You can tell they don't like it because they start whining about it.

 

Can't remember the guy's name who does the analyses of strokes gained in driving, putting etc. but it seems to me he says the big boys would rather have 150 in from the rough, than 180 in from the fairway. That's because they aren't afraid of the rough. Except during the US Open. Long grass, narrow fairways in the bomber zone dissuade players from the "bomb and gouge".

 

If they are coming in from 180, vs. 150 or less, then the greens don't have to be lightning. Well, that depends upon the greens as well. If the greens are flat, they need some speed. The problems arise when the hugely contoured greens that were also designed before anyone dreamed of 10 on a stimpmeter are shaved down.

 

The fact that the groove rule didn't accomplish what they envisioned is not the same as what long grass would do.

 

are you saying to cut the rough 4'' long around 290-325 distance but 2'' or less at shorter distances? that seems pretty mickey mouse to me, and an operational nightmare for grounds crews. if you're saying just pinch it in at those distances and the rough is 4'' everywhere, well that would have a massive negative effect on the average player that doesn't hit the fairway and can't reach the green in two anyway. or even for the shorter elite player, when they miss a fairway now they're trying to hit a mid-to-long-iron out of 4'' rough (which results in boring wedge-it-out play) vs the bomber that can still hit 8-W. it also would substantially slow down pace of play.

 

there does need to be SOME reward for being a good driver of the ball.

 

i still see a lot of belief in this thread that dialing back the ball will somehow affect the average player the same as the elite, which i do not believe to be the case at all. the average player likely won't see any difference in distance or performance, where the guy with 110+mph swing speeds has lost 25yds or whatever.

 

sidebar is i also really hate this attitude of catering to the lowest common denominator. golf is hard. it always has been. golf is great in large part because it is difficult, not in spite of it. it sure seems as though some people want an Al Czervik putter with a homing device on it so that they never miss. the irony of it all is that the people that are crying about possibly losing 5yds on their drive with a change in ball don't realize that the course they are playing on is substantially harder than courses of 50yrs ago BECAUSE the ball and equipment have been allowed to progress so much.

 

i'll save my next sidebar rant on TV, the pro tour, augusta, and its impacts on the game both positive and negative for another time. :)

[MtlJeff]

Sean remember the WGC Mexico? That course had 4-5 par 4's under 400yds. It had 2-3 par 3's under 200. Winning score -12.... Tree lined course

 

Pros play that every week this thread doesn't exist

 

Also the new TV contract, and FEDEX commitment doesn't exist.

 

Fair enough, but then let's all admit that playing huge wide open courses to maximize gate sales (and favouring a bomb and gouge game) is maybe more important than the purity of the game to the powers that be. Despite what they say in public

[tnord]

i absolutely agree that there's a conflict with the pro tour, governing bodies, and the public.

 

golf fans are golf fans pretty much no matter the course, players, tournament, or score. i'll watch about any golf at any time, including spectating our club championship.

 

what both the governing bodies and the pro tours are trying to do, is attract the casual sports fan, but how they do that is in conflict. the pro tour wants ratings NOW and advertisers NOW. birdies, the long ball, perfect courses with lots of hazards for impressive visuals attract eyeballs to TVs. those things i believe also hurt "average golf" for the average muni and average player. regardless of ability and budget, people THINK they want to emulate what they see on TV, be it pace of play, pre-shot-routine, perfect conditioning, etc. hazards, long rough, fast greens are costly in time and money....so the pro tours are actually counterproductive in a way to "growing the game."

 

on the other hand, if the pro game attracts casual sports fans via those methods, that's good for the game too, and conflict results.

[North Butte]

i'll watch about any golf at any time, including spectating our club championship.

 

I'd watch my club championship too if the course and the players were of the quality of Prairie Dunes. I'm just sayin'... :swoon:

[Matt J]

Some of you are naive. It's not just the pros.

 

Check the setup for your region's USAm, USOpen, or your state stroke play. Juniors, college players, even top midams bomb the ball.

 

The answer was obvious years ago, with one ball for competition being advocated by Jack et al. but the ball manufacturers have too much money and power for logic to prevail ex. Acushnet.

 

Wouldn't effect 99% of us.

 

I might even buy a sleeve for a local muni so I could practice driver out there.

[MtlJeff]

Some of you are naive. It's not just the pros.

 

Check the setup for your region's USAm, USOpen, or your state stroke play. Juniors, college players, even top midams bomb the ball.

 

The answer was obvious years ago, with one ball for competition being advocated by Jack et al. but the ball manufacturers have too much money and power for logic to prevail ex. Acushnet.

 

Wouldn't effect 99% of us.

 

I might even buy a sleeve for a local muni so I could practice driver out there.

 

I think even including elite ams it's still a drop in a bucket in terms of volume of courses needed to host these guys as well as pros. Probably still less than 1% of players and courses.

 

Unlikely to grow in numbers either as rounds played and number of golfers not growing.

 

If you include elite ams with pros, do you disagree with the 1% or so number. If there are 25m golfers in the US, that would be 250,000 elite players. And thats assuming all of them are bombers, which not everyone who plays on a state am is

[gvogel]

Some of you are naive. It's not just the pros.

 

Check the setup for your region's USAm, USOpen, or your state stroke play. Juniors, college players, even top midams bomb the ball.

 

The answer was obvious years ago, with one ball for competition being advocated by Jack et al. but the ball manufacturers have too much money and power for logic to prevail ex. Acushnet.

 

Wouldn't effect 99% of us.

 

I might even buy a sleeve for a local muni so I could practice driver out there.

 

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

And country clubs can save money on building new back tees - which some of the members want so that their club can host a "big event."

[jslane57]

If it's there, they want to play it. How many times do the starters at the courses like Chambers Bay and Bethpage have to explain what tees folks should be playing. And how many times do players go a tee or two back from recommended? Why? Because they want to play what the pros play. Same with green speeds and rough. People want to play what the pros play. So even though only 1% should be playing form those tees, how many actually do?

[Doyle Hargraves]

Some of you are naive. It's not just the pros.

 

Check the setup for your region's USAm, USOpen, or your state stroke play. Juniors, college players, even top midams bomb the ball.

 

The answer was obvious years ago, with one ball for competition being advocated by Jack et al. but the ball manufacturers have too much money and power for logic to prevail ex. Acushnet.

 

Wouldn't effect 99% of us.

 

I might even buy a sleeve for a local muni so I could practice driver out there.

 

Don't kid yourself, it will effect us 99%ers.

 

The groove rule was put into effect because the top 1% could spin the ball out of the rough and stop it on hard greens. It had nothing to do with the 99%.

 

Despite this fact, no manufacturer currently produces wedges with non-conforming grooves.

[The Pearl]

Some of you are naive. It's not just the pros.

 

Check the setup for your region's USAm, USOpen, or your state stroke play. Juniors, college players, even top midams bomb the ball.

 

The answer was obvious years ago, with one ball for competition being advocated by Jack et al. but the ball manufacturers have too much money and power for logic to prevail ex. Acushnet.

 

Wouldn't effect 99% of us.

 

I might even buy a sleeve for a local muni so I could practice driver out there.

 

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

And country clubs can save money on building new back tees - which some of the members want so that their club can host a "big event."

 

One of the often trotted out concerns and Davis's main point is that there has been "Billions" spent in updating courses. First of all, I would make a sizeable wager that the cost is nowhere near "billions". Second of all, I don't think any of us are going to feel one bit of sympathy if members of the "elite" country clubs across this country that host world class events have to dig in their pockets to upgrade their facilities.

 

Perhaps it is not known to the general public, but it seems to me, the USGA is not having any problems finding venues to hold their events.

[Doyle Hargraves]

Some of you are naive. It's not just the pros.

 

Check the setup for your region's USAm, USOpen, or your state stroke play. Juniors, college players, even top midams bomb the ball.

 

The answer was obvious years ago, with one ball for competition being advocated by Jack et al. but the ball manufacturers have too much money and power for logic to prevail ex. Acushnet.

 

Wouldn't effect 99% of us.

 

I might even buy a sleeve for a local muni so I could practice driver out there.

 

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

And country clubs can save money on building new back tees - which some of the members want so that their club can host a "big event."

 

If a club decides collectively it wants to install back tees, why should we care?

 

Should we roll back the ball to make sure new tees aren't added to some random country club in Chadron, Nebraska?

[The Pearl]

If it's there, they want to play it. How many times do the starters at the courses like Chambers Bay and Bethpage have to explain what tees folks should be playing. And how many times do players go a tee or two back from recommended? Why? Because they want to play what the pros play. Same with green speeds and rough. People want to play what the pros play. So even though only 1% should be playing form those tees, how many actually do?

 

I don't think this behavior is rampant. I play my fair share of rounds across the country. I very rarely see people playing the tips. You can still have people not playing the tips AND still playing the wrong tees. Shortening courses and rolling back the ball isn't going to solve the problem. Playing the wrong tees isn't a distance problem, it is a human problem.

[Doyle Hargraves]

Some of you are naive. It's not just the pros.

 

Check the setup for your region's USAm, USOpen, or your state stroke play. Juniors, college players, even top midams bomb the ball.

 

The answer was obvious years ago, with one ball for competition being advocated by Jack et al. but the ball manufacturers have too much money and power for logic to prevail ex. Acushnet.

 

Wouldn't effect 99% of us.

 

I might even buy a sleeve for a local muni so I could practice driver out there.

 

Bingo. We have a winner.

 

And country clubs can save money on building new back tees - which some of the members want so that their club can host a "big event."

 

One of the often trotted out concerns and Davis's main point is that there has been "Billions" spent in updating courses. First of all, I would make a sizeable wager that the cost is nowhere near "billions". Second of all, I don't think any of us are going to feel one bit of sympathy if members of the "elite" country clubs across this country that host world class events have to dig in their pockets to upgrade their facilities.

 

Perhaps it is not known to the general public, but it seems to me, the USGA is not having any problems finding venues to hold their events.

 

You make a good point when you allude to "upgrading facilities."

 

Lets be clear here, the reason some of the these older courses can't hold major isn't because the "hot ball" has rendered them obsolete. Its because hosting a major now requires substantial amounts of parking for spectators, room for tour vans, media rooms, high speed internet, etc...

 

The truth of the matter is these venues would never hold major championships even if the ball was rolled back. Adequate infrastructure is not possible in many of those locations given what is now required for a US Open or PGA.

[tnord]

rolling back the ball puts the burden on the mfgs rather than on the individual golfers and courses.

 

that seems like a good thing?