The Ball Goes Too Far

golfer07840 · August 9, 2017

How about this...ban the driver. Make the max club length 43" and minimum loft 14*. Essentially a 3 wood. What the heck, 3 woods now go about as far as a 1980's era driver did. My modern 13* 3 wood actually goes about 5 yards farther than my old Macgregor persimmon driver that I play a few times a year. This would never fly of course because the club manufacturers would sue the life out of the governing bodies ( #growthegame) but maybe they could do it as an experiment at one of the older courses that are now deemed obsolete for tournament play. Maybe in the off season.

For the love of God.. will someone please name me three courses that are 'OBSOLETE'? I'd like to play on one of these mythical pieces of land.
No offense but if you are a 16 cap no course will ever be obsolete.

And oddly enough, I'm fine with that.

however, your comment is EXACTLY why there is no problem. This problem that you have all construed in your head exists for .000001% golfing world.

North Butte · August 9, 2017

A typical foursome I play with on a Saturday or Sunday will have maybe one guy who waits for the green to clear from somewhere outside the 200-yard plate. So maybe their numbers are somewhere in the 220's. For my part I will wait at 200 yards but not from longer unless it's really downhill or downwind. Some of the older guys will hit away from 180 or 190 because their 3-wood only goes 160-something carry+roll.

There is one young guy who slums it and plays with us old guys occasionally and he probably would wait from 300 yards out. I've seen him hit 4-iron to 10 feet from 225 so he ought to wait. But we're all playing the same course week in and week out and know our individual limitations.

dannyuk32 · August 9, 2017

To all those who think the ball should be left alone, do you think long irons \ fairway woods should be made obsolete, taken out of the game? answer :)

Dr. Block · August 9, 2017

How about this...ban the driver. Make the max club length 43" and minimum loft 14*. Essentially a 3 wood. What the heck, 3 woods now go about as far as a 1980's era driver did. My modern 13* 3 wood actually goes about 5 yards farther than my old Macgregor persimmon driver that I play a few times a year. This would never fly of course because the club manufacturers would sue the life out of the governing bodies ( #growthegame) but maybe they could do it as an experiment at one of the older courses that are now deemed obsolete for tournament play. Maybe in the off season.

For the love of God.. will someone please name me three courses that are 'OBSOLETE'? I'd like to play on one of these mythical pieces of land.
No offense but if you are a 16 cap no course will ever be obsolete.

There needs to be a special subset of Group 1 for Spongerob, Mr. Blank and the other guys who think they have an inside line on life among the golfing elite.

sensitive subject?

If people tuned in for distance, wouldn't viewership be higher than ever? Guys hit it further than ever, and there are more bombers as a percentage of the field than ever. Right? But the truth is, people tune in for greatness. Tiger stood out from the field with his talent, results, and charisma. I played with late 90s and early 00s equipment in HS and college which would have been the peak of my playing days. No doubt that gear was much more advanced than 70s and 80s stuff, but you still had to hit it on the button in order to perform. The fact that Tiger could swing like a bat out of hell and get the consistent results he did made him stand out. Today I can catch it a little off center, and still end up in a very playable position. So why not swing out of my shoes (which I do, ha).

I think you could do some things with the ball to make the mis-hits more punitive. That same adjustment to the ball could make workability more prevalent in the game which is what I miss (on Tour as well as with my own game).

Excellent post. I miss the workability too. And for anybody who doesn't think workability is important at least to a certain extent...look at how well Bubba's been doing since he got a hefty check to switch away from the most workable ball of the modern bunch.

North Butte · August 9, 2017

To all those who think the ball should be left alone, do you think long irons \ fairway woods should be made obsolete, taken out of the game? answer :)

In my most recent round I hit my 3-wood twice and my 4-iron and 5-iron once each even though I'm playing the senior tees. And that was a round where I was really hitting it good with the driver. Most rounds I'll use those three clubs probably twice that often.

The guys I play with who are way longer than me play two tees farther back. So they might not hit many 3-woods but they hit 3-irons and 4-irons...into Par 5's.

ClintDagger · August 9, 2017

The hacker (most golfers) having trouble hitting a ball designed shorter is a very weak argument.
Most golfers who play ARE hackers. They have bad club alignments and hardly ever hit the ball off the sweet spot, going in the wrong direction. If anything a ball going shorter distance would HELP them.
More importantly if you don't fully compress the ball with a decent swing speed (HIGH) , the difference would be very negligible.
Ask the makers - it's true.

I think this is the point most people miss. The benefit to the weekend hack has been the club technology and the forgiveness that innovation has afforded them. The ball changes have helped them negligibly. The only people that would tell a real difference is the elite player. And some of those would be happier with the change. Including some bombers like Rory that get in the groove and catch it flush every time. It would set him apart even more.

gioguy21 · August 9, 2017

To all those who think the ball should be left alone, do you think long irons \ fairway woods should be made obsolete, taken out of the game? answer :)

short answer: no.

long answer: it's a question that on the whole, would hurt the total golfing populous. If you were to entertain going down that road, instead of removing specified clubs, you'd almost have to have a limit to how far your longest club could go -- b/c a pro can hit a 6i further than some seniors can hit their drivers...so...taking long irons and fairway woods out of the bag doesn't do much aside from hurt the vast population that needs them for regular play AND are too 'short' by the standards set forth in this thread to deem them a menace to courses.

Spongerob · August 9, 2017

How about this...ban the driver. Make the max club length 43" and minimum loft 14*. Essentially a 3 wood. What the heck, 3 woods now go about as far as a 1980's era driver did. My modern 13* 3 wood actually goes about 5 yards farther than my old Macgregor persimmon driver that I play a few times a year. This would never fly of course because the club manufacturers would sue the life out of the governing bodies ( #growthegame) but maybe they could do it as an experiment at one of the older courses that are now deemed obsolete for tournament play. Maybe in the off season.

For the love of God.. will someone please name me three courses that are 'OBSOLETE'? I'd like to play on one of these mythical pieces of land.
No offense but if you are a 16 cap no course will ever be obsolete.

name one course that is obsolete for you, i assume you can shoot 65 day in day out on it because the golf ball goes too far

Many courses have been lengthened at great expense. If Augusta National played now like it did in 1985 the guys would shoot 35 under. All because of equipment. All of the courses that I played in tournaments in the 80's are pitch and putt now. A course that I used to think of as a real challenge to shoot par on is a lot easier now. Would I shoot 65 every day? Of course not. But a 65 would not be a surprise now. 30 years ago it would make the local papers.

I apologize about the cap comment. I don't mean to make the discussion personal. I just think bomb and gouge is a big expensive mistake for the game. No one wants to see their golf heroes belittled. That's why I wish golf had stayed the same. Then you could compare the greats of the past with the present.. It's gotten very difficult to do that now. Golf courses have gotten massive and green fees have gotten crazy. Mostly because of the cost to build and maintain all those extra acres. The simple solution is to roll back the ball 10%. They could roll it back secretly 1% a year and not 1 golfer in 10000 would be able to tell the difference. I know I wouldn't.

golfer07840 · August 9, 2017

Look at the 61 that Hideki shot on Sunday. Great round. But nowhere near as great as the 61 shot by Jose Maria Olazabal at Firestone in 1990. The score is the same but the skill required to do it was simply not in the same league.

You're free to define "same league" however suits you but the fact is Matsuyama's 61 required prodigious skills that are very slightly different from the set of prodigious skills required by Olazabal. The relative emphasis of power versus shot shaping or what have you has certainly changed in 27 years. But they both hit the ball enormously far (by mere mortal standards), astoundingly straight (by normal golfer standards), putted lights out (by any standard) and handled pressure that most of us can't even imagine.

The fact that Matsuyama had to swing harder or Olazabal had to hit more long iron approaches is fairly minor compared to the similarity of the demands of talent and focus.

Perhaps you would understand his post better if you were a better golfer. As a 17 cap you don't really understand the finer points of the game and how they don't really matter as much as they used to.

So now it's come down to "My Handicap (dic*) is lower (bigger) than yours, so you don't know what you're talking about."

And we wonder why the game doesn't grow. Has nothing to do with the ball. Has everything to do with the snobbery and the elitist attitude of "I'm better than you at life."

ClintDagger · August 9, 2017

How about this...ban the driver. Make the max club length 43" and minimum loft 14*. Essentially a 3 wood. What the heck, 3 woods now go about as far as a 1980's era driver did. My modern 13* 3 wood actually goes about 5 yards farther than my old Macgregor persimmon driver that I play a few times a year. This would never fly of course because the club manufacturers would sue the life out of the governing bodies ( #growthegame) but maybe they could do it as an experiment at one of the older courses that are now deemed obsolete for tournament play. Maybe in the off season.

For the love of God.. will someone please name me three courses that are 'OBSOLETE'? I'd like to play on one of these mythical pieces of land.
No offense but if you are a 16 cap no course will ever be obsolete.

name one course that is obsolete for you, i assume you can shoot 65 day in day out on it because the golf ball goes too far

Many courses have been lengthened at great expense. If Augusta National played now like it did in 1985 the guys would shoot 35 under. All because of equipment. All of the courses that I played in tournaments in the 80's are pitch and putt now. A course that I used to think of as a real challenge to shoot par on is a lot easier now. Would I shoot 65 every day? Of course not. But a 65 would not be a surprise now. 30 years ago it would make the local papers.
I apologize about the cap comment. I don't mean to make the discussion personal. I just think bomb and gouge is a big expensive mistake for the game. No one wants to see their golf heroes belittled. That's why I wish golf had stayed the same. Then you could compare the greats of the past with the present.. It's gotten very difficult to do that now. Golf courses have gotten massive and green fees have gotten crazy. Mostly because of the cost to build and maintain all those extra acres. The simple solution is to roll back the ball 10%. They could roll it back secretly 1% a year and not 1 golfer in 10000 would be able to tell the difference. I know I wouldn't.

Most courses that the rank and file play haven't been stretched over the last 20 years like the Tour courses have been. It just isn't cost effective to do a major overhaul like that at a local CC or mini.

You want to know what I NEVER practice? Shots from a fairway bunker. Because even from the tips those aren't a hazard anymore except for short to below average hitters. I might find around 10 in a season because of a really bad swing or heavy winds in the AM (but that's a rarity). But it's not worth spending any time on in practice considering how limited my time is for golf. So when I say obsolete courses, that's what I mean. I don't want to speak for others. I still have fun playing those courses, but it's hard to ignore that you are playing them in a manner with which they weren't originally designed.

golfer07840 · August 9, 2017

interesting. now we're discussing the value of two different 61's being shot -- on the 'same course' despite not being the same course at all. one could argue to the converse, and say that due to the length of firestone now versus when olazabal shot it -- it's significantly harder.

truth is, you guys are arguing why 61 doesn't = 61, when reality is, they're both the same d*mn score - regardless of how easy or hard you're saying one was versus the other.

Hey, fellow NJ person.. stop trying to make sense. That isn't allowed here. ;)

golfer07840 · August 9, 2017

I saw (on TV) Jose Maria hit an 8-iron to a front hole location on the 17th at the Players. It was playing severely downwind at the time and players had been airmailing the green with pitching wedges. I believe it was Roger Maltby on course that day and he was in the middle of saying, "I can't imagine what he's doing with that club..." when Olazabal took it back about knee high and hit an honest-to-goodness chip shot with about 1/4 of a full swing. The ball cleared the water by a couple yards and finished five feet from the hole. Maltby (or whoever it was) said, "Oh. I guess that's what he's going to do with it".

P.S. He also always has the best looking golf shoes of any golfer on any Tour. Spanish and Italian men understand that the right pair of brown shoes is perfect no matter what slacks you're wearing.

What do you know about golf shoes? You're a 17 handicap!

gioguy21 · August 9, 2017

interesting. now we're discussing the value of two different 61's being shot -- on the 'same course' despite not being the same course at all. one could argue to the converse, and say that due to the length of firestone now versus when olazabal shot it -- it's significantly harder.

truth is, you guys are arguing why 61 doesn't = 61, when reality is, they're both the same d*mn score - regardless of how easy or hard you're saying one was versus the other.

Hey, fellow NJ person.. stop trying to make sense. That isn't allowed here. ;)

two guys play a par 4. Player A hits middle of the fairway, hits an approach to 20' and two putts for a 4. Player B hits it in the trees, pitches it out, hits a wedge to a foot and taps in for a 4.

hmm...both guys shot 4...no? "Oh but Gio, the one was SO much harder than the other..."

...STILL A D*MN 4.

jaygween · August 9, 2017

How about this...ban the driver. Make the max club length 43" and minimum loft 14*. Essentially a 3 wood. What the heck, 3 woods now go about as far as a 1980's era driver did. My modern 13* 3 wood actually goes about 5 yards farther than my old Macgregor persimmon driver that I play a few times a year. This would never fly of course because the club manufacturers would sue the life out of the governing bodies ( #growthegame) but maybe they could do it as an experiment at one of the older courses that are now deemed obsolete for tournament play. Maybe in the off season.

For the love of God.. will someone please name me three courses that are 'OBSOLETE'? I'd like to play on one of these mythical pieces of land.
No offense but if you are a 16 cap no course will ever be obsolete.

name one course that is obsolete for you, i assume you can shoot 65 day in day out on it because the golf ball goes too far

Many courses have been lengthened at great expense. If Augusta National played now like it did in 1985 the guys would shoot 35 under. All because of equipment. All of the courses that I played in tournaments in the 80's are pitch and putt now. A course that I used to think of as a real challenge to shoot par on is a lot easier now. Would I shoot 65 every day? Of course not. But a 65 would not be a surprise now. 30 years ago it would make the local papers.
I apologize about the cap comment. I don't mean to make the discussion personal. I just think bomb and gouge is a big expensive mistake for the game. No one wants to see their golf heroes belittled. That's why I wish golf had stayed the same. Then you could compare the greats of the past with the present.. It's gotten very difficult to do that now. Golf courses have gotten massive and green fees have gotten crazy. Mostly because of the cost to build and maintain all those extra acres. The simple solution is to roll back the ball 10%. They could roll it back secretly 1% a year and not 1 golfer in 10000 would be able to tell the difference. I know I wouldn't.

Which one of your golf heroes is being belittled? If golf stayed the same then we would be playing with hickory clubs and a featherie. It's not that difficult to compare greats of the past in the present. You do it based on wins. You're contradicting yourself when you say you wish golf stayed the same. You want it to stay the same as when you grew up playing and watching.

Shilgy · August 9, 2017

I'd imagine Hideki Matsuyama and J M Olazabal give roughly equal credence to the opinions of 18 handicappers as they do 1.8's. Which is say, none at all. Our games are 100x more similar to each others than either is to the games of the top Tour players of any era.

Of course they wouldn't care about our opinions, I wouldn't expect them too. But in a conversation of opinion with my fellow golf wrx members there is some level of understanding about the game that vastly increases between a 17 cap and even a single digit. An understanding that would vastly alter your views on this topic.

You guys are making an awful lot of assumptions about the handicap listing of "17". Do you know for certain he was never a player but is not now elderly of has physical issues? Do we know your 1.8 is legit? I am not saying it's not so no need to pull up ghin but handicap has very little to do with knowledge of golf history. We have a buch of guys pining for how the game used to be played. Like football it is now harder stronger faster. If that is an improvement is in the eye of the beholder. Maxfli HT100's went for $39.99 back in 1991. By now they would likely be at least $75 a dozen. Same with handcrafted clubs-and the imperfections they had. You think PXG is expensive? Handcrafted persimmon would be outrageous as well.

How far back are we going to go? Someone mentioned Olazabal. We that's not far enough based on this article....

rundown on John Daly's weaponry. Daly hits a Maxfli HT 100 compression ball. He hits Cobra metal woods made out of Kevlar. a bulletproof metal, the hardest clubhead made. His woods need to be hard since he caves In the faces of regular metal woods. He hits Ping Irons and all clubs have titanium shafts. He hits a 3-lron 245 yards maximum, a 5-iron 210 yards maximum, a 7-iron 190 to 195 maximum and a 9-lron from 150 to 165. Saturday, he hit a sand wedge 140 yards that went into the water behind the eighth

It was a different game back in the day but not for everyone. I am reading a bunch of quotes about shotmaking and artistry. As if all the old players played like Corey Pavin. The old equipment did not go as far AND the athletes did not hit it as hard. Watch video of Arnie and Jack and tell me they were just going at it 80%.

Some on here just want to penalize the long hitters by narrowing the course at the longer distances. Like a bad tax plan. Why should the longer hitter have a smaller target? The already have to hit it straighter by degree than the shorter hitter.

golfer07840 · August 9, 2017

Most courses that the rank and file play haven't been stretched over the last 20 years like the Tour courses have been. It just isn't cost effective to do a major overhaul like that at a local CC or mini.

You want to know what I NEVER practice? Shots from a fairway bunker. Because even from the tips those aren't a hazard anymore except for short to below average hitters. I might find around 10 in a season because of a really bad swing or heavy winds in the AM (but that's a rarity). But it's not worth spending any time on in practice considering how limited my time is for golf. So when I say obsolete courses, that's what I mean. I don't want to speak for others. I still have fun playing those courses, but it's hard to ignore that you are playing them in a manner with which they weren't originally designed.

I'd ask to kneel and kiss the ring, but I'm not sure if my handicap is worthy.

augustgolf · August 9, 2017

I saw (on TV) Jose Maria hit an 8-iron to a front hole location on the 17th at the Players. It was playing severely downwind at the time and players had been airmailing the green with pitching wedges. I believe it was Roger Maltby on course that day and he was in the middle of saying, "I can't imagine what he's doing with that club..." when Olazabal took it back about knee high and hit an honest-to-goodness chip shot with about 1/4 of a full swing. The ball cleared the water by a couple yards and finished five feet from the hole. Maltby (or whoever it was) said, "Oh. I guess that's what he's going to do with it".

P.S. He also always has the best looking golf shoes of any golfer on any Tour. Spanish and Italian men understand that the right pair of brown shoes is perfect no matter what slacks you're wearing.

What do you know about golf shoes? You're a 17 handicap!

jaygween · August 9, 2017

Most courses that the rank and file play haven't been stretched over the last 20 years like the Tour courses have been. It just isn't cost effective to do a major overhaul like that at a local CC or mini.

You want to know what I NEVER practice? Shots from a fairway bunker. Because even from the tips those aren't a hazard anymore except for short to below average hitters. I might find around 10 in a season because of a really bad swing or heavy winds in the AM (but that's a rarity). But it's not worth spending any time on in practice considering how limited my time is for golf. So when I say obsolete courses, that's what I mean. I don't want to speak for others. I still have fun playing those courses, but it's hard to ignore that you are playing them in a manner with which they weren't originally designed.

I'd ask to kneel and kiss the ring, but I'm not sure if my handicap is worthy.

I really find it hard to believe that there are no courses in the Dallas area that would have fairway bunkers in a proper landing from the tips for Clint.

golfer07840 · August 9, 2017

great idea, lets make golf harder

lmao

we need to be making golf easier , i think 16 clubs is a start

I've been playing golf for 20 years and have yet to come across someone who thinks it's too easy.

You haven't been here long enough.. trust me, these "Dinosaurs" exit.

North Butte · August 9, 2017

Well there certainly courses out there built to a very formulaic set of yardages. If you get one of the cookie-cutter "championship" layouts built during the big construction boom in the 80's and 90's, from the back tees they would have something like fairway bunkers on the right at 240 (to punish slicers) and on the left at 260 (to punish hookers) or whatever the actual numbers were. I mean, they actually had written down magic numbers for bunkering, dogleg turn points and all that.

I guess the assumption was everyone would choose the "correct" tee box (from a set of 4 or 5) so their best drives could clear the repetitive bunkering and their mishits would be punished. It's an awful design theory but was used at lot for a while.

golfer07840 · August 9, 2017

interesting. now we're discussing the value of two different 61's being shot -- on the 'same course' despite not being the same course at all. one could argue to the converse, and say that due to the length of firestone now versus when olazabal shot it -- it's significantly harder.

truth is, you guys are arguing why 61 doesn't = 61, when reality is, they're both the same d*mn score - regardless of how easy or hard you're saying one was versus the other.

Hey, fellow NJ person.. stop trying to make sense. That isn't allowed here. ;)

two guys play a par 4. Player A hits middle of the fairway, hits an approach to 20' and two putts for a 4. Player B hits it in the trees, pitches it out, hits a wedge to a foot and taps in for a 4.

hmm...both guys shot 4...no? "Oh but Gio, the one was SO much harder than the other..."

...STILL A D*MN 4.

haha.. as the old saying goes, there aren't pictures on the scorecard.

golfer07840 · August 9, 2017

Most courses that the rank and file play haven't been stretched over the last 20 years like the Tour courses have been. It just isn't cost effective to do a major overhaul like that at a local CC or mini.

You want to know what I NEVER practice? Shots from a fairway bunker. Because even from the tips those aren't a hazard anymore except for short to below average hitters. I might find around 10 in a season because of a really bad swing or heavy winds in the AM (but that's a rarity). But it's not worth spending any time on in practice considering how limited my time is for golf. So when I say obsolete courses, that's what I mean. I don't want to speak for others. I still have fun playing those courses, but it's hard to ignore that you are playing them in a manner with which they weren't originally designed.

I'd ask to kneel and kiss the ring, but I'm not sure if my handicap is worthy.

I really find it hard to believe that there are no courses in the Dallas area that would have fairway bunkers in a proper landing from the tips for Clint.

Well, apparently he hits the ball too far.

Dr. Block · August 9, 2017

I'd imagine Hideki Matsuyama and J M Olazabal give roughly equal credence to the opinions of 18 handicappers as they do 1.8's. Which is say, none at all. Our games are 100x more similar to each others than either is to the games of the top Tour players of any era.

Of course they wouldn't care about our opinions, I wouldn't expect them too. But in a conversation of opinion with my fellow golf wrx members there is some level of understanding about the game that vastly increases between a 17 cap and even a single digit. An understanding that would vastly alter your views on this topic.
You guys are making an awful lot of assumptions about the handicap listing of "17". Do you know for certain he was never a player but is not now elderly of has physical issues? Do we know your 1.8 is legit? I am not saying it's not so no need to pull up ghin but handicap has very little to do with knowledge of golf history. We have a buch of guys pining for how the game used to be played. Like football it is now harder stronger faster. If that is an improvement is in the eye of the beholder. Maxfli HT100's went for $39.99 back in 1991. By now they would likely be at least $75 a dozen. Same with handcrafted clubs-and the imperfections they had. You think PXG is expensive? Handcrafted persimmon would be outrageous as well.
How far back are we going to go? Someone mentioned Olazabal. We that's not far enough based on this article....
rundown on John Daly's weaponry. Daly hits a Maxfli HT 100 compression ball. He hits Cobra metal woods made out of Kevlar. a bulletproof metal, the hardest clubhead made. His woods need to be hard since he caves In the faces of regular metal woods. He hits Ping Irons and all clubs have titanium shafts. He hits a 3-lron 245 yards maximum, a 5-iron 210 yards maximum, a 7-iron 190 to 195 maximum and a 9-lron from 150 to 165. Saturday, he hit a sand wedge 140 yards that went into the water behind the eighth
It was a different game back in the day but not for everyone. I am reading a bunch of quotes about shotmaking and artistry. As if all the old players played like Corey Pavin. The old equipment did not go as far AND the athletes did not hit it as hard. Watch video of Arnie and Jack and tell me they were just going at it 80%.
Some on here just want to penalize the long hitters by narrowing the course at the longer distances. Like a bad tax plan. Why should the longer hitter have a smaller target? The already have to hit it straighter by degree than the shorter hitter.

Good points, and I'm sorry I took in that direction. I meant no offense and I apologize to the parties offended. My line of thinking was changes in course set up - or if ever possible - equipment might bring back some of the finer nuances of the game. And my contention was a higher cap player may have no need or care for either playing with those nuances or watching them on TV, so it may be difficult for them to want to try and understand our viewpoint.

I think it was said pretty well already that its the clubs more than its the ball. And the science of golf is deeply invested in the marketing campaigns of all parties attached to the tour players, so its pretty likely nothing will ever change. Simply saying as long as they can still make many millions of dollars selling us the newest stuff we see in the hands of our golfing heroes, no person or golfing body is going to be big enough to knock that train off the tracks.

I think there is one thing we can all agree on though, no matter what generation, course set up, and equipment used - all of these guys can roll their rock. Putting is one thing that hasn't and will never change. When the putts fall, scores are shot.

Pepperturbo · August 9, 2017

Like so much in my long life, everything runs its course including the golf ball.

At my age, thanks to the gym and the golf ball, I still get that ball out there far enough to play out to 6800 yard tees. Don't know how long that will last. But I can't, in all honestly, support the belief ball goes too far. I am pretty sure I am not alone in that belief too. Keep in mind, long ball hitters are like extremely fast pace golfers, sliver segments, like other sliver segments in society. No sliver segment of people should define anything for the majority, that includes tour golfers.

golfer07840 · August 9, 2017

I've read through this whole thread and not found one reply to why the ball should not be shortened universally.
Just crap from kids? going on about the ball being different for amateurs and pros. No one wants that, or is arguing that. the USGA and R&A would never do it (suicide)
But the ball should be changed universally. Tell me why not? I challenge you. :)

your want to make golf harder? i see, the game is just not challenging anymore for the average folk.

hell, if we make the ball fly shorter, most golfers won't be able to reach 225 yard par 3's with driver

you must be a member at whisper rock or something if you think golf is too easy for most people
Why would golf be harder? If the ball is shorter, the tees get moved up for the everyday golfer...

Most everyday golfer's should be playing up on the tees to begin with!

North Butte · August 9, 2017

I've only got one more set of tees to move up, hopefully I can wait until I'm 80 to go there. A couple guys I know (80-ish with various health issues) have finally moved up to the "ladies" tees out of necessity. I'd hate to see the ball rolled back and those guys unable to reach any of the Par 4's in two from the shortest available tees.

sefus12 · August 9, 2017

I'd imagine Hideki Matsuyama and J M Olazabal give roughly equal credence to the opinions of 18 handicappers as they do 1.8's. Which is say, none at all. Our games are 100x more similar to each others than either is to the games of the top Tour players of any era.

Of course they wouldn't care about our opinions, I wouldn't expect them too. But in a conversation of opinion with my fellow golf wrx members there is some level of understanding about the game that vastly increases between a 17 cap and even a single digit. An understanding that would vastly alter your views on this topic.
You guys are making an awful lot of assumptions about the handicap listing of "17". Do you know for certain he was never a player but is not now elderly of has physical issues? Do we know your 1.8 is legit? I am not saying it's not so no need to pull up ghin but handicap has very little to do with knowledge of golf history. We have a buch of guys pining for how the game used to be played. Like football it is now harder stronger faster. If that is an improvement is in the eye of the beholder. Maxfli HT100's went for $39.99 back in 1991. By now they would likely be at least $75 a dozen. Same with handcrafted clubs-and the imperfections they had. You think PXG is expensive? Handcrafted persimmon would be outrageous as well.
How far back are we going to go? Someone mentioned Olazabal. We that's not far enough based on this article....
rundown on John Daly's weaponry. Daly hits a Maxfli HT 100 compression ball. He hits Cobra metal woods made out of Kevlar. a bulletproof metal, the hardest clubhead made. His woods need to be hard since he caves In the faces of regular metal woods. He hits Ping Irons and all clubs have titanium shafts. He hits a 3-lron 245 yards maximum, a 5-iron 210 yards maximum, a 7-iron 190 to 195 maximum and a 9-lron from 150 to 165. Saturday, he hit a sand wedge 140 yards that went into the water behind the eighth
It was a different game back in the day but not for everyone. I am reading a bunch of quotes about shotmaking and artistry. As if all the old players played like Corey Pavin. The old equipment did not go as far AND the athletes did not hit it as hard. Watch video of Arnie and Jack and tell me they were just going at it 80%.
Some on here just want to penalize the long hitters by narrowing the course at the longer distances. Like a bad tax plan. Why should the longer hitter have a smaller target? The already have to hit it straighter by degree than the shorter hitter.

Good points, and I'm sorry I took in that direction. I meant no offense and I apologize to the parties offended. My line of thinking was changes in course set up - or if ever possible - equipment might bring back some of the finer nuances of the game. And my contention was a higher cap player may have no need or care for either playing with those nuances or watching them on TV, so it may be difficult for them to want to try and understand our viewpoint.

I think it was said pretty well already that its the clubs more than its the ball. And the science of golf is deeply invested in the marketing campaigns of all parties attached to the tour players, so its pretty likely nothing will ever change.

I think there is one thing we can all agree on though, no matter what generation, course set up, and equipment used - all of these guys can roll their rock. Putting is one thing that hasn't and will never change. When the putts fall, scores are shot.

I agree with you 100% on the putting piece. And if that's such a big advantage, whey do some want to penalize those who can hit the ball further than others on the PGA tour, especially when it's not as big an advantage as having a hot putter?

And there's nothing stopping guys from pulling out some Titleist Professionals or Tour Balata's and trying to make it on tour while working it left and right. It's their bank account that won't let them. Bubba may not work it with the new ball as much as he used to, but he still works it. I think the "working the ball" nostalgia is a bit overblown anyways. A lot of guys move the ball one way or another and can hit some great recovery shots (punches, high fade, low hook, etc) as needed. Just because the ball doesn't curve quite as much doesn't mean these guys are any less talented.

ClintDagger · August 9, 2017

Well there certainly courses out there built to a very formulaic set of yardages. If you get one of the cookie-cutter "championship" layouts built during the big construction boom in the 80's and 90's, from the back tees they would have something like fairway bunkers on the right at 240 (to punish slicers) and on the left at 260 (to punish hookers) or whatever the actual numbers were. I mean, they actually had written down magic numbers for bunkering, dogleg turn points and all that.

I guess the assumption was everyone would choose the "correct" tee box (from a set of 4 or 5) so their best drives could clear the repetitive bunkering and their mishits would be punished. It's an awful design theory but was used at lot for a while.

I play older courses that have bunkers at a 250-ish carry. I hit the ball pretty good but there are plenty that hit it further. I have a 57 year old uncle that is in my group every week and he makes the same point. Never has problems with the bunkers at our club anymore, but did 35 years ago. My point was that a lot of older courses have misplaced bunkers regardless of the tees you play; I never insinuated that I'm flying the bunkers at Southern Hills or anything like that. I'm not sure why that point offends people.

Shilgy · August 9, 2017

To all those who think the ball should be left alone, do you think long irons \ fairway woods should be made obsolete, taken out of the game? answer :)

Of course not. But at the elite level-the one everyone seems to feel the sky is falling about-if you shorten the ball you eliminate some of the need for those clubs you mention. Shorter ball? No need for three woods and driving irons as you will hit driver off every tee. Seems that eliminates some course management as well. Shorten the ball? Again I don't need my long irons or fairway woods because rather than going for the green in two on a par 5 I will just hit 5 iron wedge. Hmm, that seems to be adding four wedge approaches by the guys that already feel there are too many.

This is not a new debate. Jack hit the ball too far and so did Jones. Steel shafts ruined the game and so did graphite shafts. Arnie drove the green on a par 4 and Tiger hit wedge into 15 at Augusta. All of that was before the new equipment.

North Butte · August 9, 2017

It sounds daft but one of the things I've most enjoyed in recent years after moving up to the senior tees at my club's course is that there are now a mixture of fairway bunkers I can fly over (with a well-struck driver), others I've got to either lay up short of or play to the side of and a few that are normally out of play but I'll occasionally reach them with an unusually well struck tee shot on a day the hole is downwind. So on quite a few holes I have to actively avoid the bunkers.

When I played the longer tees there were only 3-4 bunkers on the whole course that were even worth noticing on my tee shot. Most of them were so far my little 200-yard driver shots couldn't reach them on a bet.

So what I'm saying is I really appreciate the benefit of variety in fairway bunkering. And I understand it would be a drag to play a course where I could catch one on the toe or heel and still fly over all the trouble with ten yards to spare.