Rolling back the ball

[Roadking2003]

why is the previous fact misguiding or irrelevant?

 

Picking one data item from 2007 and comparing it to one data item in 2017 does not make a case for anything. Just like my Bubba post. Does my Bubba post prove that he is declining in distance? No. It proves nothing.

[tnord]

more people are hitting it farther than they did 10 years ago seems relevant to me?

[storm319]

more people are hitting it farther than they did 10 years ago seems relevant to me?

 

Increases in the last 10 years have little to do with equipment. More players swinging faster and advancements in fitting optimization are the reasons for recent increases.

[Uhit]

I'd like to see the Tour move to a slightly larger ball. Up until 1990, there were two different sized balls -- 1.62" for the UK ball and 1.68" for the US ball -- so there is ample precedent for changing the size. Simply increasing it to 1.75" would cut the distance and make it easier to see on TV. Amateurs could continue to use the 1.68" ball for recreational play and USGA-sanctioned events, but Tour players would have to use the larger balls for Tour-sanctioned events.

 

This is because th R&A didn't agree with the USGA's change in the 1930s. They finally fell in line in 1990 because they want a single set of unified rules so I don't see them agreeing to a descrepancy again. Also, reducing the maximum allowable weight would be more effective at reducing ball speed without changing the size of the ball.

 

If you don't change the size of the ball, but reduce it's weight, it may happen, that the ball starts to float on (salt) water...

...which is no good idea.

 

The USGA should rather try a local rule for certain courses, if they really think that they have to protect some shorter courses against longer drives on tour...

 

...just apply this local rule:

 

 

It is not allowed to put the ball on a tee! :beruo:

 

Every shot has to be performed from the deck!

 

 

This would favor the best ball strikers,

 

and it would automatically hinder the player to use a big driver head to smash the ball,

or to hit a 3W, or a driving iron, on every occasion.

 

In addition, it wouldn't cost a dime...

 

...and nothing would change for the amateurs - no need for bifurcation, or something.

 

-

 

Everything is solved, no need to roll back the ball, or the equipment, or to lengthen courses! :yahoo:

 

...and no excuses for the USGA, Jack etc...

 

...how about that?

 

A Ball that floats on Water??? Hands down, that would be the best selling ball of all time! :taunt:

 

Hmm, well, it would probably be the best selling ball for a very short time...

 

...and you would see people start fishing (balls) instead of playing golf.

[tnord]

more people are hitting it farther than they did 10 years ago seems relevant to me?

 

Increases in the last 10 years have little to do with equipment. More players swinging faster and advancements in fitting optimization are the reasons for recent increases.

 

agreed, but i think the advancements in fitting optimization (trackman) has lead to changes in equipment to achieve those conditions.

[Roadking2003]

more people are hitting it farther than they did 10 years ago seems relevant to me?

 

And about as relevant as Bubba hitting it farther ten years ago.

[tnord]

how?

 

that makes no sense at all.

[Roadking2003]

how?

 

that makes no sense at all.

 

That's the point.

[Almostscratchonce]

more people are hitting it farther than they did 10 years ago seems relevant to me?

 

Increases in the last 10 years have little to do with equipment. More players swinging faster and advancements in fitting optimization are the reasons for recent increases.

 

agreed, but i think the advancements in fitting optimization (trackman) has lead to changes in equipment to achieve those conditions.

 

I'll concede that the players are more athletic, and attribute a good deal of the optimization to Trackman. But still believe the equipment is the catalyst that triggered the change. The low-spin of the ball and forgiveness of the driver have set up the conditions to encourage & favor swing-speed over precision. A Pro-V1 that is marginally offline today would have been off the property had it been a Professional 100.

[knock it close]

I think that something should have been done 15 years ago. You can't do anything about it now. Just let it be.

 

USGA says they are coming out with something. Was listening to Hank Haney this morning and they said they were going to recommend different colored balls and tees or something for amatuers. Stupid idea at this point.

 

Very interesting, that they seem to rush now...

 

...why is that, after a stable period of 15 years in regard of distances?

 

 

Last year 34 guys carried it over 290, in 2007 4 players did

 

Last year Bubba Watson averaged 305, in 2007 he averaged 315.

Gerry ranked 177th in carry efficiency last year, clearly he had issues with his game and more importantly probably the ball so I think that's just a cherry picked answer. Phil carried it 286 last year, in 2007 he carried it 270.. So far this year, in the year he turns 48 he is carrying it farther than he ever has

[Almostscratchonce]

how?

 

that makes no sense at all.

 

It'll make sense when someone produces Volvik stats vs. Titleist from 2007 & 2017

[knock it close]

how?

 

that makes no sense at all.

 

It'll make sense when someone produces Volvik stats vs. Titleist from 2007 & 2017

Ya 177th in efficiency last year(2.370), 43 in '07(2.405). Even stranger when pretty much everyone is increasing their carry efficiency with trackman (he was 2.470 in '16.)

[storm319]

more people are hitting it farther than they did 10 years ago seems relevant to me?

 

Increases in the last 10 years have little to do with equipment. More players swinging faster and advancements in fitting optimization are the reasons for recent increases.

 

agreed, but i think the advancements in fitting optimization (trackman) has lead to changes in equipment to achieve those conditions.

 

Yes but the recent changes in equipment have not universal improvements. Also these have still been subject to existing USGA regulations. Basically the information age has had a far greater impact than the physical equipment changes since the last USGA regulation was introduced.

[storm319]

how?

 

that makes no sense at all.

 

It'll make sense when someone produces Volvik stats vs. Titleist from 2007 & 2017

Ya 177th in efficiency last year, 43 in '07.

 

Keep in mind that he was also dealing with some health issues that could have been a factor to his on course performance. It is impossible to isolate the impact of that ball change.

[North Butte]

Storm,

 

He gets it. So he wants the ball to be changed to ERASE all of those improvements in strength, speed, technique, optimization and fitting. He wants it to be 1986 again and for the equipment to render any improvements by any means impossible.

 

Nobody should be allowed by their equipment to get a better shot than Jack did. No matter how skilled or powerful or fast or well informed they are.

 

If not Jack then Tiger or maybe Hogan.

[knock it close]

Storm,

 

He gets it. So he wants the ball to be changed to ERASE all of those improvements in strength, speed, technique, optimization and fitting. He wants it to be 1986 again and for the equipment to render any improvements by any means impossible.

 

Nobody should be allowed by their equipment to get a better shot than Jack did. No matter how skilled or powerful or fast or well informed they are.

 

If not Jack then Tiger or maybe Hogan.

Huh? The skilled, powerful, and fast would still be more skilled, more powerful, and faster than their competitors. It's more not wanting courses to be forced into expensive expansion and allowing great courses that are short on room for expansion the chance to host events. The longer the course is the longer rounds will take and the more water and crew that is necessary for maintenance.

[rangersgoalie]

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.

 

The Usga existed before the LGA tour formed, and professional tournaments used the existing rules. It was a simple process of these are the rules of golf, and the tournaments will be played by the rules.

 

The funny thing is, the tour chooses tom play by those rules. If the UsGa decides to invoke a rule for a tournament ball different from the rest of the players playing the game, they could, could, simply say NOPE we’re playing the same stuff that our fans play !

 

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.

 

The Usga existed before the LGA tour formed, and professional tournaments used the existing rules. It was a simple process of these are the rules of golf, and the tournaments will be played by the rules.

 

The funny thing is, the tour chooses tom play by those rules. If the UsGa decides to invoke a rule for a tournament ball different from the rest of the players playing the game, they could, could, simply say NOPE we’re playing the same stuff that our fans play !

[Bye]

So when is enough, enough? Anyone who thinks things have plateaued just has their head buried in the sand.

[farmer]

An easier way to roll back tour distance without redoing an entire industry would be to require tour pros to play all steel shafts in the 130gm range, and driver length capped at, say, 43.5 inches. That would be better than a higher spin ball, which could only be marketed as "Yes, it's shorter, but EVEN MORE crooked.".

[gvogel]

What's up with all the pitch and putt courses on the Tour these days? Irons off the tee at the Honda, and this week with drivable greens?

 

Doral used to be a man's course. A big man's course.

[knock it close]

What's up with all the pitch and putt courses on the Tour these days? Irons off the tee at the Honda, and this week with drivable greens?

 

Doral used to be a man's course. A big man's course.

Some would even dare to say YUGE

[fly787]

The ball today is really amazing and I would hate to see it changed. I do believe on the pro level the rock hard fairways contribute significantly to overall distance. Modern drivers and irons (with lower lofts yet higher launch angles are also contributing to distance gains. Possibly a roll back of the driver to 350cc or a minimum loft requirement of 15 could solve some of the distance issues? Whatever is done it should be looked at holistically -- with fairways and greens slowed down, graduated rough -- thicker the farther from the tee and possibly a restriction on size/loft of clubs could significantly help. I'd also ban sandwedge over 56 degrees so that chipping became more of an element in the game.

[storm319]

The ball today is really amazing and I would hate to see it changed. I do believe on the pro level the rock hard fairways contribute significantly to overall distance. Modern drivers and irons (with lower lofts yet higher launch angles are also contributing to distance gains. Possibly a roll back of the driver to 350cc or a minimum loft requirement of 15 could solve some of the distance issues? Whatever is done it should be looked at holistically -- with fairways and greens slowed down, graduated rough -- thicker the farther from the tee and possibly a restriction on size/loft of clubs could significantly help. I'd also ban sandwedge over 56 degrees so that chipping became more of an element in the game.

 

So more suggestions to ban equipment (low driver/high wedge lofts) that was available years prior to this perceived "distance issue"?

 

Also we already see guys like DJ carry his sub 200cc, under COR limit, 15* loft 3wood over 300 yards so the driver limits you suggest wouldn't reign guys like him in which is the goal for most people favoring a rollback.

[tnord]

 

Also we already see guys like DJ carry his sub 200cc, under COR limit, 15* loft 3wood over 300 yards so the driver limits you suggest wouldn't reign guys like him in which is the goal for most people favoring a rollback.

 

STOP IT!!!!

 

these topics really shouldn't be in tour talk, as what happens on tour is only an ancillary consideration to the objectives of

 

bringing strategy back into the game

to be a more complete test of golf

to stop growth in physical size of golf courses requiring additional time, money and water

to reduce the need to "trick up" a golf course design and conditioning to challenge above average players, making it unappealing to weekend players and those new to the game

[Shilgy]

 

Also we already see guys like DJ carry his sub 200cc, under COR limit, 15* loft 3wood over 300 yards so the driver limits you suggest wouldn't reign guys like him in which is the goal for most people favoring a rollback.

 

STOP IT!!!!

 

these topics really shouldn't be in tour talk, as what happens on tour is only an ancillary consideration to the objectives of

 

bringing strategy back into the game

to be a more complete test of golf

to stop growth in physical size of golf courses requiring additional time, money and water

to reduce the need to "trick up" a golf course design and conditioning to challenge above average players, making it unappealing to weekend players and those new to the game

STOP IT!!

 

Seems like some posts think that just because the current players hit it farther than their boyhood heroes that all it is is a neanderthal crush ball and crush it again game. The test has changed as have the skills required to play. The old game was simpler around the green. Pitch your high spin Maxfli HT to a softer green and you could make it sing and dance. Today's ball does not spin as much on those short touch shots and the greens are firmer and faster. On approach shots height does matter more today for the same reasons. Less spin and firmer greens.

We have one thread going that says players should have to hit it straighter, hit more fairways like the good old days, and in this thread it's a terrible thing I guess to be able to hit it long and high and straight.

The new ball does handle wind somewhat better than the old but the way many posts read it's as if wind no longer matters at all. As if it's like playing in a calm day when it's blowing 20 mph.

 

Rant over, continue bickering.

[tnord]

it absolutely has become a bomb-and-gouge game for better players - and i'm not talking pros and elite ams, i'm talking *generally* about players under the age of 50 and/or under a 7 index.

 

the first thing they teach kids is to swing HARD. the only thing college coaches look for is clubhead speed, they can teach the rest. a par 4 has to be 500 yards or longer to get into the mid-long irons for better players. golf courses have to be so huge and so tricked up to test better players that it's not enjoyable for everybody else - that's not a good situation for a whole host of reasons.

 

what is it haney keeps on about? "distance determines your potential" or something like that? i'm not a fan of HH for many reasons, but it is illustrative.

 

nobody is saying long high and straight is an undesirable skill, or a skill that should be eliminated from the game. what i'm saying is that it's increasingly easy to do that, making the game one dimensional.

[PGArox]

Reading this thread is enough to give someone a headache. It's also clear this entire issue is aimed at 1% of all golfers, the supremely talented.

 

Simple solution: where it's possible, start repositioning tee boxes in such a manner that pros are forced to shape their drives. Also, reshape select fairways in such a manner that players will need to shape their approaches around (and not over) a tree line in order to find the green.

 

These are amazingly simple solutions which would cost very little money, and they would address the issues most people have. They would introduce more shot-making; they would penalize inaccuracy to a greater degree; and they would produce higher scores.

 

It's also important for the PGA TOUR to consider moving some of their events to more interesting lay-outs. You don't need to turn the golf world upside down just for 2,000 golfers.

[tnord]

Reading this thread is enough to give someone a headache. It's also clear this entire issue is aimed at 1% of all golfers, the supremely talented.

 

Simple solution: where it's possible, start repositioning tee boxes in such a manner that pros are forced to shape their drives. Also, reshape select fairways in such a manner that players will need to shape their approaches around (and not over) a tree line in order to find the green.

 

there are 15,000+ golf courses golf courses in the US, and 30,000+ in the world. having personal experience with the work and costs to move tee boxes, they're about $3-$5k even when done 100% in house. just how many holes worldwide and at what cost are you suggesting? ultimately, the expense would be paid for by golfers through green fees, dues, and assessments. and that's ALL golfers picking up the tab, not just the ones playing the new tees.

 

just how much dirt are you proposing should be moved to reshape fairways!? surely you jest. and many (most) golf courses worldwide are not tree lined, making your proposal impossible. are you suggesting re-planting thousands of trees at oakmont? maybe you'd like to try and grow an 80' tall oak tree in Arizona? perhaps Old Tom Morris had it all wrong, and St Andrews needs a few dozen rows of pines.

 

These are amazingly simple solutions which would cost very little money, and they would address the issues most people have. They would introduce more shot-making; they would penalize inaccuracy to a greater degree; and they would produce higher scores.

 

It's also important for the PGA TOUR to consider moving some of their events to more interesting lay-outs. You don't need to turn the golf world upside down just for 2,000 golfers.

 

trying to make courses worldwide adapt to ever increasing distance would be turning the golf world upside down. exactly how would people be inconvenienced if the next time they bought balls it didn't fly quite as far? it would take what, one round to figure out your new distances? the golfer that swings 80mph and less and/or shoots 100+ might not even notice a difference at all.

 

ball mfgs are spending R&D right now trying to make it go higher and farther. they'll spend the same R&D money trying to optimize with the new parameters. margins on golf balls might get compressed for a period of time, but i'm perfectly OK with that. the game does not exist for the profit of corporations and stockholders.

[storm319]

Also we already see guys like DJ carry his sub 200cc, under COR limit, 15* loft 3wood over 300 yards so the driver limits you suggest wouldn't reign guys like him in which is the goal for most people favoring a rollback.

 

STOP IT!!!!

 

these topics really shouldn't be in tour talk, as what happens on tour is only an ancillary consideration to the objectives of

 

bringing strategy back into the game

to be a more complete test of golf

to stop growth in physical size of golf courses requiring additional time, money and water

to reduce the need to "trick up" a golf course design and conditioning to challenge above average players, making it unappealing to weekend players and those new to the game

 

The tour is absolutely the focal point of this argument. If tour averages had remained dormant for the past 20 years (just as amateur averages have), we wouldn't be having this argument (well, Jack probably still would...). Equipment has had an impact, but it has become a scapegoat in an attempt to reign in other factors that cannot be controlled.

 

Lets just admit what this argument has always been about...protecting legacy. Regardless of whether it is protecting the legacy of a record or player or venue or style of play, it is more about the past than the future.

[PGArox]

There are 15,000+ golf courses golf courses in the US, and 30,000+ in the world.

 

Did you actually read what I stated?