When Equipment Has Gone Too Far

[Uhit]

What is unfair about hitting the ball harder than anyone else while also hitting it straighter than 99.9999% of golfers in the world?

 

That bloody-minded comment right there is the essence of this complaint. How on earth is having both skill and talent supposed to be NOT an advantage. That’s simply nonsense.

 

Why not say Jordan Spieth makes too many 20-foot putts so he ought to be forced to use an egg-shaped golf ball?

 

Reading all those comments, I meanwhile think, that the wish for a roll back is mainly driven by envy...

 

...as if a long hitter would have to think less, wouldn't need to be a shot maker, "just" (dumb) bomb and gauge.

 

 

If I have a bad day, and don't strike the ball well, I grab the shorter clubs, that I have to think less, and try to minimize the risk of shots who are too long, and into the wrong direction.

 

The farther the ball travels, the more skill you need - in EVERY regard - including shot shaping, course management etc...

 

 

I don't have to shape a 100 yard shot around a tree line, but a 200 yard shot!

 

If I play a course as intended, I don't have to think how I could play the course with my set of skills.

Shot making, and course management becomes more important, the less you play a course as intended!

[Bye]

What is unfair about hitting the ball harder than anyone else while also hitting it straighter than 99.9999% of golfers in the world?

 

That bloody-minded comment right there is the essence of this complaint. How on earth is having both skill and talent supposed to be NOT an advantage. That's simply nonsense.

 

Why not say Jordan Spieth makes too many 20-foot putts so he ought to be forced to use an egg-shaped golf ball?

 

I agree completely. Elite althletic ability combined with tremendous feel and hand eye coordination is NOT an UNFAIR advantage. It's superior ability. Nobody wanted to put ankle weights on Michael Jordan because he had an UNFAIR ability to jump. He was just simply better than everyone else, the same way DJ is. How on Earth could anyone be in favor of excessively punishing the player of superior ability except those without it.

 

Well said. I kind of wonder what the age group is of each stance. I don't mean any offense by it. I started golfing in the late 90's. Just before Tiger-mania started. When he came on the scene, that was what I felt golf should be. Crushing drives and sticking approach shots.

 

I wonder if those who are lobbying for a rollback came from a previous era before tiger took the game by storm.

 

I'm 38 and have been playing for 30 years. My first driver was a persimmon so I have essentially played through all of the changes.

 

I was playing on the UK mini tours when the Pro v1 was launched, the impact was incredible.

 

I still play at the same course now as in 2001-2, granted not to the same standard (working for a living and having 2 kids put pay to that). The course is nearly 100 years old and was designed by a Hall of Fame Golfer. The course can't really be lengthened, they have spent a lot of money remodelling and moving the bunkers to update the course but it has not made much of an impact.

 

For the golfers that say there are no more forward tees to play from, well in some cases going back is not an option either.

 

Like everyone else I am just stating my point. If my home course or there was a course in my local are the is 7500 yards then maybe I would have a different view.

[Nard_S]

Adding more initial spin back to the ball would shrink fairways and greens without effecting distance one inch. It's the easiest, cheapest and fairest way to engage in any "rollback" that might ever take place.

 

Do you know how many golf balls are sitting on retail shelves right now or how many get pulled out of ponds and resold every year? What do you expect to happen to those when all are deemed non-conforming? Any rollback will have a severe environmental impact and will likely have minimal impact to the players on tour that this would be intended to rein in. Most in favor of a rollback extremely underestimate how good the worlds elite really are.

 

I do not under estimate their capability, really believe we do not get to see it enough. We see it with driver & wedge, mids & long, not so much anymore.Think Speith is awesome, in part because he's such an open book & his short game is ridiculously good. Ricky is amazing when he's on to go low, Rory's swing with a blazing fast lower body is freakish,DJ have a lot of respect for his attitude and approach, never mind the ball speed, In short, I like these guys and many others.

 

If governing bodies said, "we need to roll back", a ball change is easiest, the criteria, if you get paid you play it. Simple.

 

Adding more initial spin back to the ball would shrink fairways and greens without effecting distance one inch. It's the easiest, cheapest and fairest way to engage in any "rollback" that might ever take place.

 

Do you know how many golf balls are sitting on retail shelves right now or how many get pulled out of ponds and resold every year? What do you expect to happen to those when all are deemed non-conforming? Any rollback will have a severe environmental impact and will likely have minimal impact to the players on tour that this would be intended to rein in. Most in favor of a rollback extremely underestimate how good the worlds elite really are.

 

I do not under estimate their capability, really believe we do not get to see it enough. We see it with driver & wedge, mids & long, not so much anymore.Think Speith is awesome, in part because he's such an open book & his short game is ridiculously good. Ricky is amazing when he's on to go low, Rory's swing with a blazing fast lower body is freakish,DJ have a lot of respect for his attitude and approach, never mind the ball speed, In short, I like these guys and many others.

 

If governing bodies said, "we need to roll back", a ball change is easiest, the criteria, if you get paid you play it. Simple.

[storm319]

Adding more initial spin back to the ball would shrink fairways and greens without effecting distance one inch. It's the easiest, cheapest and fairest way to engage in any "rollback" that might ever take place.

 

Do you know how many golf balls are sitting on retail shelves right now or how many get pulled out of ponds and resold every year? What do you expect to happen to those when all are deemed non-conforming? Any rollback will have a severe environmental impact and will likely have minimal impact to the players on tour that this would be intended to rein in. Most in favor of a rollback extremely underestimate how good the worlds elite really are.

 

If governing bodies said, "we need to roll back", a ball change is easiest, the criteria, if you get paid you play it. Simple.

 

The USGA does not want bifurcation. They want a single set of rules for the entire golfing world (whether some people acknowledge the rules or not is irrelevant). Every rollback in the history of this game has been across the board and manufacturers have fallen in line due to the low demand for non-conforming equipment (how many major OEMs produce drivers over .830 COR or larger than 460cc or non-conforming grooves?). The groove rollback is a prime example, no major OEMs have produced non-conforming grooves since 2010 even though there was temporary bifurcation for 14 years. This rollback was so incredibly ineffective to the point that hardly anyone remembers it mostly due to the fact that it hasn't impacted them outside of the first couple years of confusion. Personally I feel that if a rule change isn't going to make a difference, then what is the point?

 

I do not know why people think a new rollback to the ball would take a different approach. Also, trying to put some kind of minimum spin standard into play would be difficult to define, test ongoing, and would be impossible to impact everyone equally (elite players will be able to find a way to adjust and we will be having the same discussion 10 years after the rollback). Any change in restriction needs to be to a physical attribute of the ball itself, not an effect of the shot. The simplest change to the ball to reduce distance would be to lower the maximum allowable weight (which the USGA did in the 1930's before reversing the decision a couple years later due to public outcry).

[North Butte]

Or simply lower the maximum allowable distance, which they can do at any time with the stroke of a pen.

 

Except if they did, they'd lose control over what the majority of the golf world does because nobody would go along with a real, meaningful, 20% or more reduction in ball distance.

[pinestreetgolf]

...as if a long hitter would have to think less, wouldn't need to be a shot maker, "just" (dumb) bomb and gauge.

 

The farther the ball travels, the more skill you need - in EVERY regard - including shot shaping, course management etc...

 

If I play a course as intended, I don't have to think how I could play the course with my set of skills.

 

Very, very well said. So many in this thread want the "classic courses played as they were intended" like golf is paint-by-number. What a load of nonsense.

 

And I have no idea how anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of geometry could call someone who hits the fairway 60% of the time at 280 "more accurate" than someone who hits it 50% of the time at 310. The 310 player is WAY more accurate.

[North Butte]

...as if a long hitter would have to think less, wouldn't need to be a shot maker, "just" (dumb) bomb and gauge.

 

The farther the ball travels, the more skill you need - in EVERY regard - including shot shaping, course management etc...

 

If I play a course as intended, I don't have to think how I could play the course with my set of skills.

 

Very, very well said. So many in this thread want the "classic courses played as they were intended" like golf is paint-by-number. What a load of nonsense.

 

And I have no idea how anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of geometry could call someone who hits the fairway 60% of the time at 280 "more accurate" than someone who hits it 50% of the time at 310. The 310 player is WAY more accurate.

 

Please don't encourage the use of "hit the fairway" as a criterion for driving accuracy. You're playing right into the hands of the know-nothings.

[new2g0lf]

New2golf-

 

Just don't see any evidence to support that. The only evidence we have is the groove rule. And 99% have swapped out their soon to be illegal irons and wedges for conforming equipment. Even though it performs less

 

The groove rule was an annoyance, most mid - high handicappers didn't see a difference and felt new groove rule wedges were better than worn down old groove wedges.

 

When a guy goes for a driver fitting and notices he's losing 20 yards you're going to see push back.

 

What percentage of golfers do you think get fitted for driver or any clubs? Honest question, I think it's very small, but I don't know for sure.

 

It's a fair question because the use of the term "fitted" is overused and often used inappropriately. I would agree a small percentage of people are properly "fitted" for clubs every time they purchase clubs.

 

For example I like the XP 105 shaft on irons and my clients that fit me know my numbers so when I go to buy a new set of irons they will have me try out some new shafts to compare to the XP 105 but I don't go through an entire fitting process every time I buy a new set of irons.

 

I think many people demo clubs and consider that a fitting, especially with driver. The smarter ones bring their existing driver with them to compare numbers and to protect themselves from juiced up launch monitors which we're all experienced. Whether you hit a "rolled back" driver on launch monitor or outside, a 10% loss of distance and increased number of shots that miss the fairway will be noticeable.

 

The rollback is an impossible sell for retailers and manufacturers, even if Mr. Wishon is correct (which I believe he is) that for the very best you won't see the distance reduction some are seeking, the threat of lost distance and a less forgiving head are not going to be great selling points. Any rollbacks to equipment will result in hoarding of used gear and hurt the new equipment market for at least a few years.

[Nard_S]

Well, I agree defining the parameters of change would be the most difficult part but really not insurmountable,We have a max COR, we can have a min/max XXX for the "Tour" ball. As to why, there's plenty but it's a dead horse I'll stop beating for brevity, As to adoption and such, not a big deal, most amateurs do not play a tour level ball now nor did they ever but if you did, it's your money, who cares.

 

This "issue" probably will never be seriously looked at so long as the industry is healthy. If ratings go down, or participation drops a lot, they might. For 2018 or next few, things look positive for those. Better economy, good stable of talent, Tiger,etc but when the Boomers stop playing, well not so sure where things will be at. You might say," ah, who cares about them" but seat of pants says they've been and continue to be the bedrock of participation. So it leaves us with what do the young like? From what I've seen, the more difficult and dangerous is where they gravitate. So there's that too.

 

Hitting 330 w/a higher spinning initial launched ball is way more difficult than hitting it with one lower. Apples to apples it just is.Is it necessary or would it work in terms of alleviating courses from redesigns? Yeah, easily. Will they do it? Doubt it for now.

[North Butte]

Hitting it wearing a blindfold would be way more difficult than hitting it while looking at the ball.

 

There are literally infinitely many ways you could make the game harder. Shorter ball, lumpy ball, tiny-headed drivers, ball with no dimples, don't mow the putting greens, make everyone swing while standing on one leg, we could go on all day.

 

None of those things appeal to anyone other than a few curmudgeons who, against all evidence, believe the game is now too easy and needs to be made more difficult.

[Bad9]

...as if a long hitter would have to think less, wouldn't need to be a shot maker, "just" (dumb) bomb and gauge.

 

The farther the ball travels, the more skill you need - in EVERY regard - including shot shaping, course management etc...

 

If I play a course as intended, I don't have to think how I could play the course with my set of skills.

 

Very, very well said. So many in this thread want the "classic courses played as they were intended" like golf is paint-by-number. What a load of nonsense.

 

And I have no idea how anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of geometry could call someone who hits the fairway 60% of the time at 280 "more accurate" than someone who hits it 50% of the time at 310. The 310 player is WAY more accurate.

 

Since so many of the classic courses that get referred to were designed and built from 1900-1930 we should be rolling back equipment to that period. Don't hear them calling for that. :rolleyes:

[North Butte]

...as if a long hitter would have to think less, wouldn't need to be a shot maker, "just" (dumb) bomb and gauge.

 

The farther the ball travels, the more skill you need - in EVERY regard - including shot shaping, course management etc...

 

If I play a course as intended, I don't have to think how I could play the course with my set of skills.

 

Very, very well said. So many in this thread want the "classic courses played as they were intended" like golf is paint-by-number. What a load of nonsense.

 

And I have no idea how anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of geometry could call someone who hits the fairway 60% of the time at 280 "more accurate" than someone who hits it 50% of the time at 310. The 310 player is WAY more accurate.

 

Since so many of the classic courses that get referred to were designed and built from 1900-1930 we should be rolling back equipment to that period. Don't hear them calling for that. :rolleyes:

 

As these discussions have evolved it's clear to me that most of the sentiment here originated in hero worship. It's not about me or you or bladehunter or Nard_S playing classic courses in such-and-such a manner. It's about wanting to see today's best players play those classic courses in the same manner as [fill in the blank] those guys' childhood heroes played them.

 

So a course built in 1900 where Bobby Jones won a tournament in the 1920's doesn't need to be played with Bobby Jones' equipment. It needs to be played with equipment Jack Nicklaus used in the 1970's or Ben Hogan used in the 1950's or Tiger Woods used in the 1990's.

 

Same with the "too easy" rationalization. When someone says today's game is "too easy" for the likes of Dustin Johnson, they basically mean that it's physically possible for Dustin Johnson to do things that Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods did not or could not.

 

So if DJ is really that much more of a physical specimen, it's necessary not to roll it back to the equipment so-and-so used but roll it back far enough that Dustin Johnson is unable to do anything that was beyond the means of someone's favorite golfer of yesteryear. That's an ever-moving bar, of course.

[Bad9]

 

This "issue" probably will never be seriously looked at so long as the industry is healthy. If ratings go down, or participation drops a lot, they might.

 

If ratings go down or the industry becomes unhealthy equipment changes that cause people to hit it shorter is not going to help. It might speed up the decline.

[North Butte]

This "issue" probably will never be seriously looked at so long as the industry is healthy. If ratings go down, or participation drops a lot, they might.

 

If ratings go down or the industry becomes unhealthy equipment changes that cause people to hit it shorter is not going to help. It might speed up the decline.

 

Yeah that's a good one. Too many people giving up the game? That's obviously because it's too easy and we need to give them bad performing equipment so they'll keep playing.

[bladehunter]

...as if a long hitter would have to think less, wouldn't need to be a shot maker, "just" (dumb) bomb and gauge.

 

The farther the ball travels, the more skill you need - in EVERY regard - including shot shaping, course management etc...

 

If I play a course as intended, I don't have to think how I could play the course with my set of skills.

 

Very, very well said. So many in this thread want the "classic courses played as they were intended" like golf is paint-by-number. What a load of nonsense.

 

And I have no idea how anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of geometry could call someone who hits the fairway 60% of the time at 280 "more accurate" than someone who hits it 50% of the time at 310. The 310 player is WAY more accurate.

 

Since so many of the classic courses that get referred to were designed and built from 1900-1930 we should be rolling back equipment to that period. Don't hear them calling for that. :rolleyes:

 

As these discussions have evolved it's clear to me that most of the sentiment here originated in hero worship. It's not about me or you or bladehunter or Nard_S playing classic courses in such-and-such a manner. It's about wanting to see today's best players play those classic courses in the same manner as [fill in the blank] those guys' childhood heroes played them.

 

So a course built in 1900 where Bobby Jones won a tournament in the 1920's doesn't need to be played with Bobby Jones' equipment. It needs to be played with equipment Jack Nicklaus used in the 1970's or Ben Hogan used in the 1950's or Tiger Woods used in the 1990's.

 

Same with the "too easy" rationalization. When someone says today's game is "too easy" for the likes of Dustin Johnson, they basically mean that it's physically possible for Dustin Johnson to do things that Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods did not or could not.

 

So if DJ is really that much more of a physical specimen, it's necessary not to roll it back to the equipment so-and-so used but roll it back far enough that Dustin Johnson is unable to do anything that was beyond the means of someone's favorite golfer of yesteryear. That's an ever-moving bar, of course.

 

 

lol...hard for me to deny that completely.... I am named after Jack.... and i do enjoy tigers early game... BUT ill counter it by saying Im a Phil guy from the begining...... lol ( weak sauce i know) ... and hes the most progressive guy out there .....

 

 

But i dont see how preferring an era and its type of play makes the current argument void...

[Shilgy]

 

As these discussions have evolved it's clear to me that most of the sentiment here originated in hero worship. It's not about me or you or bladehunter or Nard_S playing classic courses in such-and-such a manner. It's about wanting to see today's best players play those classic courses in the same manner as [fill in the blank] those guys' childhood heroes played them.

 

So a course built in 1900 where Bobby Jones won a tournament in the 1920's doesn't need to be played with Bobby Jones' equipment. It needs to be played with equipment Jack Nicklaus used in the 1970's or Ben Hogan used in the 1950's or Tiger Woods used in the 1990's.

 

Same with the "too easy" rationalization. When someone says today's game is "too easy" for the likes of Dustin Johnson, they basically mean that it's physically possible for Dustin Johnson to do things that Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods did not or could not.

 

So if DJ is really that much more of a physical specimen, it's necessary not to roll it back to the equipment so-and-so used but roll it back far enough that Dustin Johnson is unable to do anything that was beyond the means of someone's favorite golfer of yesteryear. That's an ever-moving bar, of course.

 

 

lol...hard for me to deny that completely.... I am named after Jack.... and i do enjoy tigers early game... BUT ill counter it by saying Im a Phil guy from the begining...... lol ( weak sauce i know) ... and hes the most progressive guy out there .....

 

 

But i dont see how preferring an era and its type of play makes the current argument void...

But what part of what era? We read the idea of "as the architect intended". For Snead or Runyan? Norman or Pavin? Jack or Peete? Today it's DJ or Luke Donald. No one seems to have an issue with how the short guys in that list play the game.

I have said it before and I will say it again. We celebrated the mighty drives of Palmer and Nicklaus. Arnie at Cherry Hills and Jack at the Olde Course are part of golf's history. Why is it all of a sudden an issue that some players are longer than others?

[Nard_S]

This "issue" probably will never be seriously looked at so long as the industry is healthy. If ratings go down, or participation drops a lot, they might.

 

If ratings go down or the industry becomes unhealthy equipment changes that cause people to hit it shorter is not going to help. It might speed up the decline.

 

The game does NOT get shorter, it gets more nuanced and difficult at the tour level ONLY which I fail to see as a negative when you consider the great tournaments have inherently difficult set ups and conditions.

 

As far as participation, the active are more intense, the not so even less so than ever. So imo, the game has to do both. Get more difficult and yet make it more accessible at the same time and be real & sober about both.

[bladehunter]

As these discussions have evolved it's clear to me that most of the sentiment here originated in hero worship. It's not about me or you or bladehunter or Nard_S playing classic courses in such-and-such a manner. It's about wanting to see today's best players play those classic courses in the same manner as [fill in the blank] those guys' childhood heroes played them.

 

So a course built in 1900 where Bobby Jones won a tournament in the 1920's doesn't need to be played with Bobby Jones' equipment. It needs to be played with equipment Jack Nicklaus used in the 1970's or Ben Hogan used in the 1950's or Tiger Woods used in the 1990's.

 

Same with the "too easy" rationalization. When someone says today's game is "too easy" for the likes of Dustin Johnson, they basically mean that it's physically possible for Dustin Johnson to do things that Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods did not or could not.

 

So if DJ is really that much more of a physical specimen, it's necessary not to roll it back to the equipment so-and-so used but roll it back far enough that Dustin Johnson is unable to do anything that was beyond the means of someone's favorite golfer of yesteryear. That's an ever-moving bar, of course.

 

 

lol...hard for me to deny that completely.... I am named after Jack.... and i do enjoy tigers early game... BUT ill counter it by saying Im a Phil guy from the begining...... lol ( weak sauce i know) ... and hes the most progressive guy out there .....

 

 

But i dont see how preferring an era and its type of play makes the current argument void...

But what part of what era? We read the idea of "as the architect intended". For Snead or Runyan? Norman or Pavin? Jack or Peete? Today it's DJ or Luke Donald. No one seems to have an issue with how the short guys in that list play the game.

I have said it before and I will say it again. We celebrated the mighty drives of Palmer and Nicklaus. Arnie at Cherry Hills and Jack at the Olde Course are part of golf's history. Why is it all of a sudden an issue that some players are longer than others?

 

 

honest answer? about the time that callaway started releasing huge everything...

 

As ive said 100 times.. Im not wanting to stifle the long guys.. Im mad that the short guy gets the benefit i dont see... from irons to driver... selfish..yes.. but also honest...

theres a harder game out there that i can play.... just born too late ... again.. ill see myself out... enough snow has melted i can go hit some balls ......lol

[Bad9]

This "issue" probably will never be seriously looked at so long as the industry is healthy. If ratings go down, or participation drops a lot, they might.

 

If ratings go down or the industry becomes unhealthy equipment changes that cause people to hit it shorter is not going to help. It might speed up the decline.

 

The game does NOT get shorter, it gets more nuanced and difficult at the tour level ONLY which I fail to see as a negative when you consider the great tournaments have inherently difficult set ups and conditions.

 

As far as participation, the active are more intense, the not so even less so than ever. So imo, the game has to do both. Get more difficult and yet make it more accessible at the same time and be real & sober about both.

 

If the bolded is true then why do they need to be protected from modern players and equipment?

[North Butte]

...as if a long hitter would have to think less, wouldn't need to be a shot maker, "just" (dumb) bomb and gauge.

 

The farther the ball travels, the more skill you need - in EVERY regard - including shot shaping, course management etc...

 

If I play a course as intended, I don't have to think how I could play the course with my set of skills.

 

Very, very well said. So many in this thread want the "classic courses played as they were intended" like golf is paint-by-number. What a load of nonsense.

 

And I have no idea how anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of geometry could call someone who hits the fairway 60% of the time at 280 "more accurate" than someone who hits it 50% of the time at 310. The 310 player is WAY more accurate.

 

Since so many of the classic courses that get referred to were designed and built from 1900-1930 we should be rolling back equipment to that period. Don't hear them calling for that. :rolleyes:

 

As these discussions have evolved it's clear to me that most of the sentiment here originated in hero worship. It's not about me or you or bladehunter or Nard_S playing classic courses in such-and-such a manner. It's about wanting to see today's best players play those classic courses in the same manner as [fill in the blank] those guys' childhood heroes played them.

 

So a course built in 1900 where Bobby Jones won a tournament in the 1920's doesn't need to be played with Bobby Jones' equipment. It needs to be played with equipment Jack Nicklaus used in the 1970's or Ben Hogan used in the 1950's or Tiger Woods used in the 1990's.

 

Same with the "too easy" rationalization. When someone says today's game is "too easy" for the likes of Dustin Johnson, they basically mean that it's physically possible for Dustin Johnson to do things that Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods did not or could not.

 

So if DJ is really that much more of a physical specimen, it's necessary not to roll it back to the equipment so-and-so used but roll it back far enough that Dustin Johnson is unable to do anything that was beyond the means of someone's favorite golfer of yesteryear. That's an ever-moving bar, of course.

 

 

lol...hard for me to deny that completely.... I am named after Jack.... and i do enjoy tigers early game... BUT ill counter it by saying Im a Phil guy from the begining...... lol ( weak sauce i know) ... and hes the most progressive guy out there .....

 

 

But i dont see how preferring an era and its type of play makes the current argument void...

 

Well that argument isn't "void" as much as just an argument that won't convince anyone that there's a reason for us all to start playing lower performance equipment and balls.

 

How many golfers do you think are willing to mess up their own equipment such so you can see Dustin Johnson hitting the same approach shots as Jack? One in a thousand? I doubt it's even that many.

[Shilgy]

As these discussions have evolved it's clear to me that most of the sentiment here originated in hero worship. It's not about me or you or bladehunter or Nard_S playing classic courses in such-and-such a manner. It's about wanting to see today's best players play those classic courses in the same manner as [fill in the blank] those guys' childhood heroes played them.

 

So a course built in 1900 where Bobby Jones won a tournament in the 1920's doesn't need to be played with Bobby Jones' equipment. It needs to be played with equipment Jack Nicklaus used in the 1970's or Ben Hogan used in the 1950's or Tiger Woods used in the 1990's.

 

Same with the "too easy" rationalization. When someone says today's game is "too easy" for the likes of Dustin Johnson, they basically mean that it's physically possible for Dustin Johnson to do things that Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods did not or could not.

 

So if DJ is really that much more of a physical specimen, it's necessary not to roll it back to the equipment so-and-so used but roll it back far enough that Dustin Johnson is unable to do anything that was beyond the means of someone's favorite golfer of yesteryear. That's an ever-moving bar, of course.

 

 

lol...hard for me to deny that completely.... I am named after Jack.... and i do enjoy tigers early game... BUT ill counter it by saying Im a Phil guy from the begining...... lol ( weak sauce i know) ... and hes the most progressive guy out there .....

 

 

But i dont see how preferring an era and its type of play makes the current argument void...

But what part of what era? We read the idea of "as the architect intended". For Snead or Runyan? Norman or Pavin? Jack or Peete? Today it's DJ or Luke Donald. No one seems to have an issue with how the short guys in that list play the game.

I have said it before and I will say it again. We celebrated the mighty drives of Palmer and Nicklaus. Arnie at Cherry Hills and Jack at the Olde Course are part of golf's history. Why is it all of a sudden an issue that some players are longer than others?

 

 

honest answer? about the time that callaway started releasing huge everything...

 

As ive said 100 times.. Im not wanting to stifle the long guys.. Im mad that the short guy gets the benefit i dont see... from irons to driver... selfish..yes.. but also honest...

theres a harder game out there that i can play.... just born too late ... again.. ill see myself out... enough snow has melted i can go hit some balls ......lol

I understand your point of view. Just do not agree. I played the balata and blade and persimmon for longer than I have played the modern ball. I am 60+. But my father had Ping Eye's in the 80's so that ship sailed a ling time ago. My guess if you were around you would have been outraged by Sarazen's sand wedge creation? But you probably use one today.

[Shilgy]

 

 

Well that argument isn't "void" as much as just an argument that won't convince anyone that there's a reason for us all to start playing lower performance equipment and balls.

 

How many golfers do you think are willing to mess up their own equipment such so you can see Dustin Johnson hitting the same approach shots as Jack? One in a thousand? I doubt it's even that many.

I have read on wrx that Jack could hit it with the old equipment as far as the players of today so that happens already. :)

[Nard_S]

This "issue" probably will never be seriously looked at so long as the industry is healthy. If ratings go down, or participation drops a lot, they might.

 

If ratings go down or the industry becomes unhealthy equipment changes that cause people to hit it shorter is not going to help. It might speed up the decline.

 

The game does NOT get shorter, it gets more nuanced and difficult at the tour level ONLY which I fail to see as a negative when you consider the great tournaments have inherently difficult set ups and conditions.

 

As far as participation, the active are more intense, the not so even less so than ever. So imo, the game has to do both. Get more difficult and yet make it more accessible at the same time and be real & sober about both.

 

If the bolded is true then why do they need to be protected from modern players and equipment?

 

Why did the course for the PGA championship, which was 'fine', rebuild 4 holes & install Bermuda everywhere. To make it great, and it worked. Avg off the tee distance was low for that week and the noodling made for probably best and compelling venue of the majors last year. How many times can they go to the well for that though? Easy peasy to add spin to a ball and then 7500 yards gets a lot tougher. Call me crazy but when pros are pushed to their limits, I love it the more.

[new2g0lf]

 

 

Very, very well said. So many in this thread want the "classic courses played as they were intended" like golf is paint-by-number. What a load of nonsense.

 

And I have no idea how anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of geometry could call someone who hits the fairway 60% of the time at 280 "more accurate" than someone who hits it 50% of the time at 310. The 310 player is WAY more accurate.

 

Since so many of the classic courses that get referred to were designed and built from 1900-1930 we should be rolling back equipment to that period. Don't hear them calling for that. :rolleyes:

 

As these discussions have evolved it's clear to me that most of the sentiment here originated in hero worship. It's not about me or you or bladehunter or Nard_S playing classic courses in such-and-such a manner. It's about wanting to see today's best players play those classic courses in the same manner as [fill in the blank] those guys' childhood heroes played them.

 

So a course built in 1900 where Bobby Jones won a tournament in the 1920's doesn't need to be played with Bobby Jones' equipment. It needs to be played with equipment Jack Nicklaus used in the 1970's or Ben Hogan used in the 1950's or Tiger Woods used in the 1990's.

 

Same with the "too easy" rationalization. When someone says today's game is "too easy" for the likes of Dustin Johnson, they basically mean that it's physically possible for Dustin Johnson to do things that Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods did not or could not.

 

So if DJ is really that much more of a physical specimen, it's necessary not to roll it back to the equipment so-and-so used but roll it back far enough that Dustin Johnson is unable to do anything that was beyond the means of someone's favorite golfer of yesteryear. That's an ever-moving bar, of course.

 

 

lol...hard for me to deny that completely.... I am named after Jack.... and i do enjoy tigers early game... BUT ill counter it by saying Im a Phil guy from the begining...... lol ( weak sauce i know) ... and hes the most progressive guy out there .....

 

 

But i dont see how preferring an era and its type of play makes the current argument void...

 

Well that argument isn't "void" as much as just an argument that won't convince anyone that there's a reason for us all to start playing lower performance equipment and balls.

 

How many golfers do you think are willing to mess up their own equipment such so you can see Dustin Johnson hitting the same approach shots as Jack? One in a thousand? I doubt it's even that many.

 

Those that want a rollback have some agenda, whether it be to ensure their home course hosts events they like to attend, to provide them with a competitive advantage because they believe they can play rolled back equipment better than others or to protect their legacy of their heros or courses their heros played on.

 

In the scope of the industry, none of these reasons moves the game forward, attracts more people to the game or benefits the industry. I think most golfers do thrive on the difficulty of golf and their desire to be good at something that most others find too difficult but I don't think we want to make it harder than it already is.

 

If I was a scratch golfer I might view things differently but I doubt it.

[bladehunter]

As these discussions have evolved it's clear to me that most of the sentiment here originated in hero worship. It's not about me or you or bladehunter or Nard_S playing classic courses in such-and-such a manner. It's about wanting to see today's best players play those classic courses in the same manner as [fill in the blank] those guys' childhood heroes played them.

 

So a course built in 1900 where Bobby Jones won a tournament in the 1920's doesn't need to be played with Bobby Jones' equipment. It needs to be played with equipment Jack Nicklaus used in the 1970's or Ben Hogan used in the 1950's or Tiger Woods used in the 1990's.

 

Same with the "too easy" rationalization. When someone says today's game is "too easy" for the likes of Dustin Johnson, they basically mean that it's physically possible for Dustin Johnson to do things that Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods did not or could not.

 

So if DJ is really that much more of a physical specimen, it's necessary not to roll it back to the equipment so-and-so used but roll it back far enough that Dustin Johnson is unable to do anything that was beyond the means of someone's favorite golfer of yesteryear. That's an ever-moving bar, of course.

 

 

lol...hard for me to deny that completely.... I am named after Jack.... and i do enjoy tigers early game... BUT ill counter it by saying Im a Phil guy from the begining...... lol ( weak sauce i know) ... and hes the most progressive guy out there .....

 

 

But i dont see how preferring an era and its type of play makes the current argument void...

But what part of what era? We read the idea of "as the architect intended". For Snead or Runyan? Norman or Pavin? Jack or Peete? Today it's DJ or Luke Donald. No one seems to have an issue with how the short guys in that list play the game.

I have said it before and I will say it again. We celebrated the mighty drives of Palmer and Nicklaus. Arnie at Cherry Hills and Jack at the Olde Course are part of golf's history. Why is it all of a sudden an issue that some players are longer than others?

 

 

honest answer? about the time that callaway started releasing huge everything...

 

As ive said 100 times.. Im not wanting to stifle the long guys.. Im mad that the short guy gets the benefit i dont see... from irons to driver... selfish..yes.. but also honest...

theres a harder game out there that i can play.... just born too late ... again.. ill see myself out... enough snow has melted i can go hit some balls ......lol

I understand your point of view. Just do not agree. I played the balata and blade and persimmon for longer than I have played the modern ball. I am 60+. But my father had Ping Eye's in the 80's so that ship sailed a ling time ago. My guess if you were around you would have been outraged by Sarazen's sand wedge creation? But you probably use one today.

 

 

its true.. Iknow its a flawed view point.. but has enough truth in it to be able to drive you crazy....

 

example.... playing the game with smaller irons, a steel shafted driver etc for whatever reason come naturally to me... i own a collection and have room at home to hit driver on down ... so ive tested it all... its the modern driver that i have issues with.... or more accurately inconsistent results... hot or cold.. no in between... and felt the same with a forgiving iron.. Although i have found the answer to that ... BUT its a hand ground sharp leading edge low bounce iron... so essentially an older blade with perimeter weighting .. vega VDC-01.... any more bounce or offset and my ballstriking suffers. again ive tried it all.... iM not scoring better with this setup.. I just think that its " what im supposed to do" as in "accept" the new deal.. And 99% of that is still driver... so why am i opposite ? i have no idea... But it isnt just golf... its most things.. lol

[bladehunter]

NEW2Golf-

 

 

newsflash... we ALL have selfish agendas.... come on.... that at least cannot be argued with a straight face

[Bad9]

This "issue" probably will never be seriously looked at so long as the industry is healthy. If ratings go down, or participation drops a lot, they might.

 

If ratings go down or the industry becomes unhealthy equipment changes that cause people to hit it shorter is not going to help. It might speed up the decline.

 

The game does NOT get shorter, it gets more nuanced and difficult at the tour level ONLY which I fail to see as a negative when you consider the great tournaments have inherently difficult set ups and conditions.

 

As far as participation, the active are more intense, the not so even less so than ever. So imo, the game has to do both. Get more difficult and yet make it more accessible at the same time and be real & sober about both.

 

If the bolded is true then why do they need to be protected from modern players and equipment?

 

Why did the course for the PGA championship, which was 'fine', rebuild 4 holes & install Bermuda everywhere. To make it great, and it worked. Avg off the tee distance was low for that week and the noodling made for probably best and compelling venue of the majors last year. How many times can they go to the well for that though? Easy peasy to add spin to a ball and then 7500 yards gets a lot tougher. Call me crazy but when pros are pushed to their limits, I love it the more.

 

Really.

 

327.9

300

302.6

312.2

300.4

310.7

 

That's the driving distances listed on the PGA for round 4 of the PGA at Quail Hollow in 2017 for the top 5 and ties. Winner at the top. That's short?

 

Edit; these numbers are for the week not the 4th round.

[Shilgy]

 

 

 

its true.. Iknow its a flawed view point.. but has enough truth in it to be able to drive you crazy....

 

example.... playing the game with smaller irons, a steel shafted driver etc for whatever reason come naturally to me... i own a collection and have room at home to hit driver on down ... so ive tested it all... its the modern driver that i have issues with.... or more accurately inconsistent results... hot or cold.. no in between... and felt the same with a forgiving iron.. Although i have found the answer to that ... BUT its a hand ground sharp leading edge low bounce iron... so essentially an older blade with perimeter weighting .. vega VDC-01.... any more bounce or offset and my ballstriking suffers. again ive tried it all.... iM not scoring better with this setup.. I just think that its " what im supposed to do" as in "accept" the new deal.. And 99% of that is still driver... so why am i opposite ? i have no idea... But it isnt just golf... its most things.. lol

So if I have this right......... you should be allowed to play what works best for you but other players should not? I really am not trying to sound harsh but that is what it sounds like. That is one of the great things about the game. We all can find conforming equipment that fits us best. Sounds like you have done so.

[bladehunter]

 

 

 

its true.. Iknow its a flawed view point.. but has enough truth in it to be able to drive you crazy....

 

example.... playing the game with smaller irons, a steel shafted driver etc for whatever reason come naturally to me... i own a collection and have room at home to hit driver on down ... so ive tested it all... its the modern driver that i have issues with.... or more accurately inconsistent results... hot or cold.. no in between... and felt the same with a forgiving iron.. Although i have found the answer to that ... BUT its a hand ground sharp leading edge low bounce iron... so essentially an older blade with perimeter weighting .. vega VDC-01.... any more bounce or offset and my ballstriking suffers. again ive tried it all.... iM not scoring better with this setup.. I just think that its " what im supposed to do" as in "accept" the new deal.. And 99% of that is still driver... so why am i opposite ? i have no idea... But it isnt just golf... its most things.. lol

So if I have this right......... you should be allowed to play what works best for you but other players should not? I really am not trying to sound harsh but that is what it sounds like. That is one of the great things about the game. We all can find conforming equipment that fits us best. Sounds like you have done so.

 

I don’t think forgiveness falls under the context of “ fitment “. Necessarily. I understand what you are saying .

 

But to understand this Side of the argument. You have to view it through the context of a line when the game changed. And the want is to rewind it . Your equipment wouldn’t exist.

 

Fantasy ? Absolutely. But we are on the Internet arguing about hypothetical issues.

[TsarBomba]

 

 

 

its true.. Iknow its a flawed view point.. but has enough truth in it to be able to drive you crazy....

 

example.... playing the game with smaller irons, a steel shafted driver etc for whatever reason come naturally to me... i own a collection and have room at home to hit driver on down ... so ive tested it all... its the modern driver that i have issues with.... or more accurately inconsistent results... hot or cold.. no in between... and felt the same with a forgiving iron.. Although i have found the answer to that ... BUT its a hand ground sharp leading edge low bounce iron... so essentially an older blade with perimeter weighting .. vega VDC-01.... any more bounce or offset and my ballstriking suffers. again ive tried it all.... iM not scoring better with this setup.. I just think that its " what im supposed to do" as in "accept" the new deal.. And 99% of that is still driver... so why am i opposite ? i have no idea... But it isnt just golf... its most things.. lol

So if I have this right......... you should be allowed to play what works best for you but other players should not? I really am not trying to sound harsh but that is what it sounds like. That is one of the great things about the game. We all can find conforming equipment that fits us best. Sounds like you have done so.

 

I don’t think forgiveness falls under the context of “ fitment “. Necessarily. I understand what you are saying .

 

But to understand this Side of the argument. You have to view it through the context of a line when the game changed. And the want is to rewind it . Your equipment wouldn’t exist.

 

Fantasy ? Absolutely. But we are on the Internet arguing about hypothetical issues.

 

A line?

 

This game has been evolving from the beginning, maybe with greater leaps from time to time. This is in itself, tradition, I think.

 

Maybe even another tradition that since the beginning, somebody always wants to freeze the progression to match heros of thier particular glory years.