Rolling back the ball

[North Butte]

I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for rolling the ball back. It's all based on emotions and not logic. Golf has always been fun to watch and play. Nothing has changed.

 

They are searching for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

 

Seems they have a tendency to do that a lot. For example, look at the "groove rule". Amateurs have trouble enough spinning the ball as it is, so Yes! let's make it even harder for them! The rule was supposed to be for the .000001% of golfers, and it did not affect them one iota.

 

Think about the sort of people who would be attracted toward the task of administering the Rules of Golf in the first place. Then give them unlimited, arbitrary authority and very deep pockets to do (within very broad bounds) pretty much whatever they see fit.

 

It is absolutely guaranteed that they are going to make and change Rules even when no changes are necessary. It is what gives their lives meaning and there are never going to be enough genuine Rules "problems" to keep them satisfied. So they create their own.

[nix]

If you're arguing that there is no reason to roll back the ball, are you also saying that there is no reason to limit the ball in any way? Should it go as long and straight as technologically possible? Should we allow a ball to go 500 yds with almost no chance of spinning left or right?

 

If not, then your arguement is EXACTLY the same as those suggesting a ball roll back, you're just saying that you think the CURRENT distance and straightness is the perfect setup for the ball and that you're obsessed with this exact game on this exact length of courses. Basically everything you are knocking those wanting a roll-back for is something you also adhere to if you are not ok with extending the ball further and straighter.

 

I'm assuming we all have a line at which we think the technology goes too far, for me I think when it excludes some of the great courses from being playable in tournaments, it's gone to far. For some it's gone too far when places like Augusta and the old course have to add land and extend tees into completely new places in order to hold tournaments. For some, maybe it's when all par 5s need to be 800yds. But because you like the distance now is not a higher horse.

[North Butte]

If you're arguing that there is no reason to roll back the ball, are you also saying that there is no reason to limit the ball in any way? Should it go as long and straight as technologically possible? Should we allow a ball to go 500 yds with almost no chance of spinning left or right?

 

We're saying the ball is limited. Has always been. Nobody has suggested that USGA cease testing balls for conformance to their long-standing requirements. Just that reducing those requirements by 20% or 30% is idiotic and is never going to happen.

 

The ball should go as long and straight as possible while meeting the USGA conformance standards. Which is exactly what you're seeing today's ProV1's Chrome Softs, and TP5X's do when you watch the PGA Tour on TV. The system is working exactly as intended.

 

There is no such thing as a ball that can pass the current USGA testing and go 500 yards. There is certainly no such thing as a conforming ball that has no chance of spinning left and right. Now you're just making stuff up wholesale.

 

Am I correct is that your position is if the USGA does not roll back ball performance by 20-30% today then very soon there will be golf balls flying 500 yards and dead straight with no sidespin? Geez, that's the straw man to beat all straw men right there.

 

But heck yeah. If a ball hits the market that flies 500 yards with no sidespin then I would be 100% in favor of banning such a ball.

[Uhit]

I don't think that reining in the long hitters is at all the point of shortening the distance of the ball. At least it isn't for me.

 

Of course it is.

 

I believe your point is that the goal is not to disadvantage long hitters relative to shorter hitters, e.g. it isn't to change competitive balance. That makes sense, because a roughly linear reduction in ball flight distance would probably have only a small impact on competitive balance at the tour level. The long hitters in a relative sense remain long in a relative sense.

 

But the point is 100% to rein in the long hitters. It is their ability to hit a driver 300+ yards and a wedge 150 yards that bothers people, either because they don't like that style of play, or because they feel it renders obsolete some course designs unless those courses adapt to accommodate such players.

 

I have yet to see anyone argue to use reduced flight golf balls for amateur players only. And why not? The pace of play advantages of shorter courses and the economic advantages of courses with smaller footprints (to the extent that such advantages exist in the real world) are of concern mostly to average players, and well over 99% of golf courses will never see a tour or roughly tour-level tournament.

 

This discussion is happening because a whole generation of tour players are now long hitters. Not much longer than the long hitters of the previous generation, but more universally long. The impetus for this discussion is professional golfers that can hit driver 300 yards or more. If they did not exist, this conversation does not exist. Reducing their driver distance (and perhaps their other club distance as well) is the sole purpose of this conversation.

 

If that wasn't the case, we'd be talking about bifurcation to reduce amateur distance and cheapen and speed golf over the decades as courses adjust. That's perhaps a conversation worth having, though I'd wish you good luck trying to sell it to the masses. Instead, the conversation starts and ends with tour players, which is proof positive that the goal is to rein in the longest of long hitters. Never mind that the golfing public has demonstrated for decades that they will only play tour-approved and rules-conforming equipment, and never mind that golf companies try to advance the technology of conforming equipment for professional players knowing that professional use will market it to mass consumers.

 

We're having a discussion that will affect millions about a "problem" that applies to perhaps a few hundred of the longest players in existence. Our focus on those players is a very solid indication that the goal is to reduce "maximum distance". They are the boogeymen. You may not be trying to punish them (it doesn't seem you are), but you are trying to rein them in.

 

Shorter version: yes, we are indeed "trying to rein in the long hitters." Where "long hitters" = virtually all PGA Tour players, Web.com players, and NCAA players (the men).

 

We are definitely NOT trying to rein in Bubba Watson, versus Jim Furyk. Or Gary Woodland, versus Tom Watson. Or Dustin Johnson, versus Zach Johnson or Dwayne Johnson.

 

We are trying to figure out a new golf ball specification that would hopefully make it so that the competitors at an Open Championship at St. Andrews would not overwhelm the golf course and would not require any weird setups of the golf course. And hopefully would not even be noticeable to recreational players.

 

So, you are about to force a unhealthy experiment - which affects all golfers, now, and in future,

 

because of some people who are playing St. Andrews once a year,

 

despite the possibility of simply allowing for a local rule (to use a jacked St. Andrews ball) for this special event? :swoon:

 

-

 

Are you kidding? :scare2:

 

-

 

How about to figure out, how to avoid slow play instead?

[nix]

If you're arguing that there is no reason to roll back the ball, are you also saying that there is no reason to limit the ball in any way? Should it go as long and straight as technologically possible? Should we allow a ball to go 500 yds with almost no chance of spinning left or right?

 

We're saying the ball is limited. Has always been. Nobody has suggested that USGA cease testing balls for conformance to their long-standing requirements. Just that reducing those requirements by 20% or 30% is idiotic and is never going to happen.

 

The ball should go as long and straight as possible while meeting the USGA conformance standards. Which is exactly what you're seeing today's ProV1's Chrome Softs, and TP5X's do when you watch the PGA Tour on TV. The system is working exactly as intended.

 

There is no such thing as a ball that can pass the current USGA testing and go 500 yards. There is certainly no such thing as a conforming ball that has no chance of spinning left and right. Now you're just making stuff up wholesale.

 

Am I correct is that your position is if the USGA does not roll back ball performance by 20-30% today then very soon there will be golf balls flying 500 yards and dead straight with no sidespin? Geez, that's the straw man to beat all straw men right there.

 

But heck yeah. If a ball hits the market that flies 500 yards with no sidespin then I would be 100% in favor of banning such a ball.

 

No, I'm saying the argument for staying with the current USGA guidelines or changing those guidelines to shorten the ball are not polar opposite arguments, they are exactly the same, just looking at different distances. It seems that those who are vociferously against the rollback are suggesting that constraining the ball is bad and should not be done, in which case I wonder if they want a 500yd ball. If not, then the argument isn't about rolling back vs not rolling back, it's an argument over what is the proper constraint of the golf ball, the current one or one slightly more constrained, or heck even one slightly less constrained.

 

There is an air on the anti-rollback side of not limiting the distance, but the distance is limited now so it's a moot argument on that end.

[15th Club]

I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for rolling the ball back. It's all based on emotions and not logic. Golf has always been fun to watch and play. Nothing has changed.

 

They are searching for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

 

Seems they have a tendency to do that a lot. For example, look at the "groove rule". Amateurs have trouble enough spinning the ball as it is, so Yes! let's make it even harder for them! The rule was supposed to be for the .000001% of golfers, and it did not affect them one iota.

 

Think about the sort of people who would be attracted toward the task of administering the Rules of Golf in the first place. Then give them unlimited, arbitrary authority and very deep pockets to do (within very broad bounds) pretty much whatever they see fit.

 

It is absolutely guaranteed that they are going to make and change Rules even when no changes are necessary. It is what gives their lives meaning and there are never going to be enough genuine Rules "problems" to keep them satisfied. So they create their own.

 

Yet another ad hominem attack. It goes on and on. Baseless charges that Jack Nicklaus wants a ball rollback "to protect his records." (What records? Protect them, how?) That short hitters are somehow jealous of long hitters. (Yet at the same time, arguing that one of the worst things about a ball rollback is that short hitters would be hurt as badly or worse than long hitters.) Dumb, strawman arguments that proponents of a ball rollback are purely nostalgic for old equipment or a bygone era; that they want to return to wound balls or balata or wooden heads. (All of which is purely untrue, and which has never ever been seriously proposed.)

 

And now this attack. That the only people attracted to golf administration are sociopathic rules-obsessed schoolmarms.

 

Please; everyone who has been engaging in those sorts of arguments, just stop. Quit it, with falsely attributing motives to your favorite bogeymen (pardon the golf pun).

[North Butte]

Nobody called anyone a sociopath. I said that quite naturally the Rule-making will be done by people who revel in the opportunity to make up ever more arcane Rules and have millions of people mostly, kinda, sorta follow them.

 

I think a perfectly serviceable set of Rules for normal everyday golf play could be written on one side of a sheet of paper, double-spaced and understood by anyone with above a room temperature IQ. So is someone like me ever going to get involved in administering or making the Rules of Golf? Not on your life. It would be a total waste of my time and effort.

 

No, the people administering the Rules will self-select from among those who think no matter how strange and convoluted the Rules and Decisions might get, there are always additional situations that need to be addressed. These are folks who know how to use a hammer and they spend their lives looking for nails. That's not crazy or disfunctional, just ridiculous.

[15th Club]

I think a perfectly serviceable set of Rules for normal everyday golf play could be written on one side of a sheet of paper, double-spaced and understood by anyone with above a room temperature IQ.

 

I could write a perfectly serviceable set of Rules on one sheet of paper, for your weeknight golf game, just like I could write a perfectly serviceable set of Rules for pickup basketball in my driveway.

 

But my one sheet of rules for pickup basketball wouldn't be adequate for the NCAA championships. And your one set of Rules for golf wouldn't be adequate for any of golf's national championships.

 

The USGA can't get away with writing Rules for casual golf. They are writing Rules for the entire world, and games as simple as your late afternoon round, or as consequential as the final match of a Walker Cup or the Sunday round of a US Open.

[gvogel]

This is a simple situation. There have been measurable distance gains over the past 50 years. Better players and better conditions have been part of the distance increase. Better equipment has also been part of the increase. The equipment advantage should be addressed by lowering the initial velocity of the ball, lowering the COR of the club heads. The size of the driver should also be reduced for elite golfers.

 

These changes are not to make the game harder; they are not to reduce the distance advantage of long hitters. The changes are necessary to keep the playing fields relevant. If recreational golfers find that the game becomes more difficult, the conditions of play can always be made easier by moving to forward tees and reducing extreme green speeds.

 

This is a very simple conversation about equipment and playing fields.

[North Butte]

I think a perfectly serviceable set of Rules for normal everyday golf play could be written on one side of a sheet of paper, double-spaced and understood by anyone with above a room temperature IQ.

 

I could write a perfectly serviceable set of Rules on one sheet of paper, for your weeknight golf game, just like I could write a perfectly serviceable set of Rules for pickup basketball in my driveway.

 

But my one sheet of rules for pickup basketball wouldn't be adequate for the NCAA championships. And your one set of Rules for golf wouldn't be adequate for any of golf's national championships.

 

The USGA can't get away with writing Rules for casual golf. They are writing Rules for the entire world, and games as simple as your late afternoon round, or as consequential as the final match of a Walker Cup or the Sunday round of a US Open.

 

No of course they are writing for people with extremely elaborate expectations of how the Rules will adjudicate every picky little attempt by a Tour player to rule-lawyer his way into a free drop. And if it's extremely elaborate pseudo-lawyerly Rules and Decisions that you want, don't be surprised at the type of people who volunteer to decide all that stuff. That's my whole point, people who want those sort of Rules can't be surprised when it's that sort of people they get to write them.

 

And they can't be surprised that they go over the top with manufacturing pseudo-problems to be addressed by yet more picky, arcane, bloody-minded Rules and Decisions. It's the purpose to find new and innovative ways to expand the Rulebook.

 

It's an occupational hazard of being a Rules expert that you think you can dictate exactly how the best players in the world choose to play every shot of a tournament, just by fiddling with wedge groove specs. Anyone with a healthy outside perspective will know that's never, ever going to remotely work. But those inside the system are trapped by their illusion of power and control.

[Golf Dino]

This is a simple situation. There have been measurable distance gains over the past 50 years. Better players and better conditions have been part of the distance increase. Better equipment has also been part of the increase. The equipment advantage should be addressed by lowering the initial velocity of the ball, lowering the COR of the club heads. The size of the driver should also be reduced for elite golfers.

 

These changes are not to make the game harder; they are not to reduce the distance advantage of long hitters. The changes are necessary to keep the playing fields relevant. If recreational golfers find that the game becomes more difficult, the conditions of play can always be made easier by moving to forward tees and reducing extreme green speeds.

 

This is a very simple conversation about equipment and playing fields.

 

Fair enough point. However, I am curious as to how you would "measure" or "define" a playing field that is relevant?

[North Butte]

This is a simple situation. There have been measurable distance gains over the past 50 years. Better players and better conditions have been part of the distance increase. Better equipment has also been part of the increase. The equipment advantage should be addressed by lowering the initial velocity of the ball, lowering the COR of the club heads. The size of the driver should also be reduced for elite golfers.

 

These changes are not to make the game harder; they are not to reduce the distance advantage of long hitters. The changes are necessary to keep the playing fields relevant. If recreational golfers find that the game becomes more difficult, the conditions of play can always be made easier by moving to forward tees and reducing extreme green speeds.

 

This is a very simple conversation about equipment and playing fields.

 

Fair enough point. However, I am curious as to how you would "measure" or "define" a playing field that is relevant?

 

By what club Ben Hogan hit into such-and-such green of course!

[gvogel]

This is a simple situation. There have been measurable distance gains over the past 50 years. Better players and better conditions have been part of the distance increase. Better equipment has also been part of the increase. The equipment advantage should be addressed by lowering the initial velocity of the ball, lowering the COR of the club heads. The size of the driver should also be reduced for elite golfers.

 

These changes are not to make the game harder; they are not to reduce the distance advantage of long hitters. The changes are necessary to keep the playing fields relevant. If recreational golfers find that the game becomes more difficult, the conditions of play can always be made easier by moving to forward tees and reducing extreme green speeds.

 

This is a very simple conversation about equipment and playing fields.

 

Fair enough point. However, I am curious as to how you would "measure" or "define" a playing field that is relevant?

 

How about we start with a 7,000 yard golf course? For starters, we know that 7,800 yard Erin Hills wasn't long enough for championship golf.

[North Butte]

This is a simple situation. There have been measurable distance gains over the past 50 years. Better players and better conditions have been part of the distance increase. Better equipment has also been part of the increase. The equipment advantage should be addressed by lowering the initial velocity of the ball, lowering the COR of the club heads. The size of the driver should also be reduced for elite golfers.

 

These changes are not to make the game harder; they are not to reduce the distance advantage of long hitters. The changes are necessary to keep the playing fields relevant. If recreational golfers find that the game becomes more difficult, the conditions of play can always be made easier by moving to forward tees and reducing extreme green speeds.

 

This is a very simple conversation about equipment and playing fields.

 

Fair enough point. However, I am curious as to how you would "measure" or "define" a playing field that is relevant?

 

How about we start with a 7,000 yard golf course? For starters, we know that 7,800 yard Erin Hills wasn't long enough for championship golf.

 

No it wasn't long enough for Mike Davis to get it running firm and fast, move the tees up on some holes to *substantially* shorter than their scorecard yardage, be played at Par 72 and still make the best players in the world be single-digits under par for the week.

 

That is the Mike Davis version of "too short for championship golf".

 

Play it from the tips, make Par 70 and let the fairways run slower and like MAGIC you'd see the winning score be around -2 or -3 in the US Open.

 

Mike Davis wants to do his mickey mouse setup and force the players to use a whiffle ball to make him look like a genius. As my Daddy used to put it, "...and people in hell want ice water".

[farmer]

If the USGA goes back to Erin Hills, bakes it out, shaves down the fairways where balls roll out 40-50 yds, then it becomes a 7000-7200 yd course. I doubt it was tipped out every day of the tournament, so it was not playing at that yardage.

[15th Club]

I think a perfectly serviceable set of Rules for normal everyday golf play could be written on one side of a sheet of paper, double-spaced and understood by anyone with above a room temperature IQ.

 

I could write a perfectly serviceable set of Rules on one sheet of paper, for your weeknight golf game, just like I could write a perfectly serviceable set of Rules for pickup basketball in my driveway.

 

But my one sheet of rules for pickup basketball wouldn't be adequate for the NCAA championships. And your one set of Rules for golf wouldn't be adequate for any of golf's national championships.

 

The USGA can't get away with writing Rules for casual golf. They are writing Rules for the entire world, and games as simple as your late afternoon round, or as consequential as the final match of a Walker Cup or the Sunday round of a US Open.

 

No of course they are writing for people with extremely elaborate expectations of how the Rules will adjudicate every picky little attempt by a Tour player to rule-lawyer his way into a free drop. And if it's extremely elaborate pseudo-lawyerly Rules and Decisions that you want, don't be surprised at the type of people who volunteer to decide all that stuff. That's my whole point, people who want those sort of Rules can't be surprised when it's that sort of people they get to write them.

 

And they can't be surprised that they go over the top with manufacturing pseudo-problems to be addressed by yet more picky, arcane, bloody-minded Rules and Decisions. It's the purpose to find new and innovative ways to expand the Rulebook.

 

It's an occupational hazard of being a Rules expert that you think you can dictate exactly how the best players in the world choose to play every shot of a tournament, just by fiddling with wedge groove specs. Anyone with a healthy outside perspective will know that's never, ever going to remotely work. But those inside the system are trapped by their illusion of power and control.

 

Well, no; the reason that the USGA deals with all of the thorny Rules issues is because the PGA Tour has cleverly pawned off that responsibility on the USGA. It is as if the NFL and the NCAA pawned off all of the rulemaking and officiating responsibilities (apart from actually paying referees on game days) to a non-profit organization that had to support itself.

[Roadking2003]

Shorter version: yes, we are indeed "trying to rein in the long hitters." Where "long hitters" = virtually all PGA Tour players, Web.com players, and NCAA players (the men).

 

Why? What is the problem you are trying to solve?

 

We are trying to figure out a new golf ball specification that would hopefully make it so that the competitors at an Open Championship at St. Andrews would not overwhelm the golf course and would not require any weird setups of the golf course. And hopefully would not even be noticeable to recreational players.

 

Why? Who is overwhelming St Andrews? What has changed since 1990?

 

The winning scores for Opens at St Andrews have not gone down over the past three decades. So why is -15 in 2015 a problem but -18 in 1990 was not?

 

1990: -18

1995: -6

2000: -19

2005: -14

2010: -16

2015: -15

[Roadking2003]

It seems that those who are vociferously against the rollback are suggesting that constraining the ball is bad and should not be done,....

 

No, we are not saying that. Those are two different issues.

 

What we are saying is there is no need to constrain the ball MORE than it is constrained today. The distance problem has been solved for more than a decade.

[Roadking2003]

The changes are necessary to keep the playing fields relevant.

 

Which playing fields are no longer relevant?

[Roadking2003]

How about we start with a 7,000 yard golf course? For starters, we know that 7,800 yard Erin Hills wasn't long enough for championship golf.

 

Who decided that?

 

Please tell Dustin Johnson, Rory McIlroy, Justin Rose, etc and others who missed the cut that the course was too easy.

[wfrogge1]

Weequire-

 

 

 

You are missing my point. The ball plus the modern Driver is keeping them in competition. At the am level and the pro level.

 

The other people on your side are saying the opposite.

 

I can't speak for anyone but me. I play against it. I see it. A guy hitting a traditional loft 7 iron 140 yards shouldn't be able fly a driver 250. But there all over.

 

Assuming they are putting optimal swings with both clubs... I have a friend that can carry 260 with a driver but hits his 7 iron 140 because of poor mechanics and trying to "guide" the iron.

[15th Club]

Shorter version: yes, we are indeed "trying to rein in the long hitters." Where "long hitters" = virtually all PGA Tour players, Web.com players, and NCAA players (the men).

 

Why? What is the problem you are trying to solve?

 

We are trying to figure out a new golf ball specification that would hopefully make it so that the competitors at an Open Championship at St. Andrews would not overwhelm the golf course and would not require any weird setups of the golf course. And hopefully would not even be noticeable to recreational players.

 

Why? Who is overwhelming St Andrews? What has changed since 1990?

 

The winning scores for Opens at St Andrews have not gone down over the past three decades. So why is -15 in 2015 a problem but -18 in 1990 was not?

 

1990: -18

1995: -6

2000: -19

2005: -14

2010: -16

2015: -15

 

Weather, makes this a particularly small and unreliable sampling. We all know that depending on the weather, the scoring in an Open could be -20 or +6.

 

But what is most noteworthy to me -- and undeniably a true fact -- is that recent scoring has gotten awfully aggressive since 2000 (not always, be very often) and that scoring comes in the face of the most aggressive course-revamping, by the R&A of each course in the rota as its turn comes up. They keep re-working the courses, just to attempt to keep up with scoring as a product of technologically-produced distance.

 

Tiger Woods won a magnificent Open victory, on a great golf course (Hoylake) in 2006. But he hit his driver only one time all week.

[nix]

Shorter version: yes, we are indeed "trying to rein in the long hitters." Where "long hitters" = virtually all PGA Tour players, Web.com players, and NCAA players (the men).

 

Why? What is the problem you are trying to solve?

 

We are trying to figure out a new golf ball specification that would hopefully make it so that the competitors at an Open Championship at St. Andrews would not overwhelm the golf course and would not require any weird setups of the golf course. And hopefully would not even be noticeable to recreational players.

 

Why? Who is overwhelming St Andrews? What has changed since 1990?

 

The winning scores for Opens at St Andrews have not gone down over the past three decades. So why is -15 in 2015 a problem but -18 in 1990 was not?

 

1990: -18

1995: -6

2000: -19

2005: -14

2010: -16

2015: -15

 

I'm not sure that anyone really cares about the scores, particularly the scores to par. I don't believe that a ball rollback will change scores much if at all. As a poster said above, it's keeping the playing fields relevant. I know that there is suggestions about why the ball and not the equipment too, the reason people talk about the ball is that it is the simplest thing to change and not affect the pocketbooks of players too much. Your old stores of balls may be worth less than they were, but it's easier to pick up a new set of balls than an entire new set of clubs.

 

Also, I'm ok with bifurcation.

[North Butte]

I have zero objection whatsoever to a tournament organizer mandating a whiffle ball for its events. It would IMHO be very much not in the best interest of their event but they can have at it if it makes them happy.

[Roadking2003]

Weather, makes this a particularly small and unreliable sampling. We all know that depending on the weather, the scoring in an Open could be -20 or +6.

 

This is true, but it's also true that there is NO EVIDENCE that the pros are overwhelming St Andrews.

 

But what is most noteworthy to me -- and undeniably a true fact -- is that recent scoring has gotten awfully aggressive since 2000 (not always, be very often) and that scoring comes in the face of the most aggressive course-revamping, by the R&A of each course in the rota as its turn comes up. They keep re-working the courses, just to attempt to keep up with scoring as a product of technologically-produced distance.

 

Show me the evidence of that "undeniably true fact".

 

Tiger Woods won a magnificent Open victory, on a great golf course (Hoylake) in 2006. But he hit his driver only one time all week.

 

Wonderful! So he couldn't overpower the course but won with a shorter game strategy. Who decided that you have to hit a driver?

[Roadking2003]

I'm not sure that anyone really cares about the scores, particularly the scores to par. I don't believe that a ball rollback will change scores much if at all. As a poster said above, it's keeping the playing fields relevant. I know that there is suggestions about why the ball and not the equipment too, the reason people talk about the ball is that it is the simplest thing to change and not affect the pocketbooks of players too much. Your old stores of balls may be worth less than they were, but it's easier to pick up a new set of balls than an entire new set of clubs.

 

Also, I'm ok with bifurcation.

 

So, which playing fields are no longer relevant?

[North Butte]

I'm not sure that anyone really cares about the scores, particularly the scores to par. I don't believe that a ball rollback will change scores much if at all. As a poster said above, it's keeping the playing fields relevant. I know that there is suggestions about why the ball and not the equipment too, the reason people talk about the ball is that it is the simplest thing to change and not affect the pocketbooks of players too much. Your old stores of balls may be worth less than they were, but it's easier to pick up a new set of balls than an entire new set of clubs.

 

Also, I'm ok with bifurcation.

 

So, which playing fields are no longer relevant?

 

Well there's the guy on here whose private club quit getting asked to host the US Amateur and such events. Tragic.

 

And there's Merion which can no longer host a US Open...ooops, wait. They just did.

 

Prestwick. That's the one. Hosted dozens of Open Championships, now it's no longer relevant. See I knew there was a reason I need to switch to playing a whiffle ball.

[Roadking2003]

I'm not sure that anyone really cares about the scores, particularly the scores to par. I don't believe that a ball rollback will change scores much if at all. As a poster said above, it's keeping the playing fields relevant. I know that there is suggestions about why the ball and not the equipment too, the reason people talk about the ball is that it is the simplest thing to change and not affect the pocketbooks of players too much. Your old stores of balls may be worth less than they were, but it's easier to pick up a new set of balls than an entire new set of clubs.

 

Also, I'm ok with bifurcation.

 

So, which playing fields are no longer relevant?

 

Well there's the guy on here whose private club quit getting asked to host the US Amateur and such events. Tragic.

 

And there's Merion which can no longer host a US Open...ooops, wait. They just did.

 

Prestwick. That's the one. Hosted dozens of Open Championships, now it's no longer relevant. See I knew there was a reason I need to switch to playing a whiffle ball.

 

Yes, Preswick is no longer relevant and it has hosted more opens than any other course. But it became irrelevant almost 100 years ago. Maybe we should change the rules to use clubs and balls back when Prestwick was relevant. :swoon:

[North Butte]

I'm not sure that anyone really cares about the scores, particularly the scores to par. I don't believe that a ball rollback will change scores much if at all. As a poster said above, it's keeping the playing fields relevant. I know that there is suggestions about why the ball and not the equipment too, the reason people talk about the ball is that it is the simplest thing to change and not affect the pocketbooks of players too much. Your old stores of balls may be worth less than they were, but it's easier to pick up a new set of balls than an entire new set of clubs.

 

Also, I'm ok with bifurcation.

 

So, which playing fields are no longer relevant?

 

Well there's the guy on here whose private club quit getting asked to host the US Amateur and such events. Tragic.

 

And there's Merion which can no longer host a US Open...ooops, wait. They just did.

 

Prestwick. That's the one. Hosted dozens of Open Championships, now it's no longer relevant. See I knew there was a reason I need to switch to playing a whiffle ball.

 

Yes, Preswick is no longer relevant and it has hosted more opens than any other course. But it became irrelevant almost 100 years ago. Maybe we should change the rules to use clubs and balls back when Prestwick was relevant. :swoon:

 

I think for many of these people crying over the ball, Jack winning Augusta in 1986 was as good as golf ever gets. That is the era they want frozen in amber forever.

[mahonie]

 

 

I think for many of these people crying over the ball, Jack winning Augusta in 1986 was as good as golf ever gets. That is the era they want frozen in amber forever.

 

There is an element of truth in that statement for me. With the pro game I want to see the best golfer in the world at number one, not the ‘athlete’ who can hit it the furthest. We will never be able to compare golfers from different eras, but it just seems to me that the whole game nowadays is set up to favour the big hitter, not necessarily the best all round golfer which is how it has always been. It’s why I don’t think we will ever see DJ crowned the ‘Champion Golfer of the Year’ because his all round game is not good enough to withstand the test of a typical Open Championship or even the Masters.