Rolling back the ball

[tnord]

what do i care about legacy? i haven't even been playing for a decade.

 

personally, i'm using stats from the tour because that's what is tracked, and that's what people are most familiar with. the stats from the tour illustrate the point of what's going on across the board. if there were readily available amateur stats i'd rather use those.

 

i strongly disagree that amateur distances have remained steady. nothing i've seen indicates that.

[Uhit]

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.

 

I also think that they are rather willing to sacrifice the game for the past, than to grow the game for future generations.

[tnord]

are you saying that the longer the ball flies the more it will "grow the game?"

[TollBros]

You can't take away something people already have without overwealming negative response. Good to debate about but will never happen.

[15th Club]

I want to really drill down in blunt language what is wrong with this argument:

 

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.

 

First, I couldn't care less if anybody wants to call balls or other equipment "scapegoats."

 

We've seen tour players like James Hahn ridicule the rollback argument by asking sarcastically if anyone thought of "rolling back" player fitness, or diets, or "swinging faster than 105 mph." I've got news for James Hahn, and for a lot of people on this board; the joke isn't funny. Nobody is thinking about regulating those things and your dumb joke makes it clear how clueless you are.

 

We aren't going to regulate "fitness." We probably aren't going to do much backward regulation of golf clubs, for that matter. So it comes down to a simple choice; do we (a) keep altering the great championship golf courses, at terrible cost in terms of basic monetary outlay but also in terms of lost architectural history and integrity, or (b) do nothing, and watch golf tournaments increasingly obviate the existing architecture, or © change the one thing in golf that is unmemorable, which is just a kind of functional place-holder, that isn't itself intrinsically expansive... that being the ball.

 

And as to the second paragraph I want to be as blunt and as clear as possibly. The ball rollback position has NOTHING to do with protecting any player's "legacy." It has NOTHING to do with protecting any individual's "records" (what records?!?).

 

The ball rollback has EVERYTHING to do with protecting venues. Yes, indeed. That is the one thing you got right. Rolling back golf balls is all about protecting the integrity of much of the existing history of great championship golf courses that have made the game what it is.

[North Butte]

You can’t “protect” a bunch of rich guys from spending money lengthening and toughening a golf course that is their property. It laughable you think fiddling around the golf ball spec will let you control the actions of golf course owners. Makes the groove rule idiocy look halfway logical by comparison.

[PGArox]

I want to really drill down in blunt language ...

 

So do I. Where is it written that Shinnecock Hills, Baltusrol, The Olympic Club or any other famous golf course must hold professional championships forever?

 

The only people who care about their storied histories and the cherished traditions of the game are at least 40 years old right now, with the overwhelming majority being 50 and over. Most of these folks will be dead in 30 years, and the venues they romanticize over will slowly become obsolete, only to fade into the dustbin of history, like Myopia Hunt, Midlothian and Brae Burn.

 

We need a new golden age of golf course architecture in which man-sized layouts can test all facets of the modern pro game. Where the great classic courses can be lengthened, they should be. Where they can not, adios.

 

There are over 500 billionaires in the United States of America, and almost 5,000,000 millionaires. There is certainly enough dough floating around out there to build great new courses and establish a new tradition and legacy.

[irvnasty]

And as to the second paragraph I want to be as blunt and as clear as possibly. The ball rollback position has NOTHING to do with protecting any player's "legacy." It has NOTHING to do with protecting any individual's "records" (what records?!?).

 

You're not qualified to make that claim.

 

That may not be your motivation, but you don't speak and could not possibly speak to what motivates the hearts of other men.

[Roadking2003]

The ball rollback has EVERYTHING to do with protecting venues. Yes, indeed. That is the one thing you got right. Rolling back golf balls is all about protecting the integrity of much of the existing history of great championship golf courses that have made the game what it is.

 

Which venues would that be?

[Shilgy]

The ball rollback has EVERYTHING to do with protecting venues. Yes, indeed. That is the one thing you got right. Rolling back golf balls is all about protecting the integrity of much of the existing history of great championship golf courses that have made the game what it is.

 

Which venues would that be?

No answer yet but the funny thing is that the venues Jack and company made obsolete seemingly were lost with nary a whimper. As mentioned in a post or two above courses have become obsolete for various reasons for years. Now it's a travesty if a course can no longer hold an event it once did. The main reason venues become obsolete is not length. It is room for all of the infrastructure needed to hold a modern major.

[rangersgoalie]

I want to really drill down in blunt language what is wrong with this argument:

 

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.

 

First, I couldn't care less if anybody wants to call balls or other equipment "scapegoats."

 

We've seen tour players like James Hahn ridicule the rollback argument by asking sarcastically if anyone thought of "rolling back" player fitness, or diets, or "swinging faster than 105 mph." I've got news for James Hahn, and for a lot of people on this board; the joke isn't funny. Nobody is thinking about regulating those things and your dumb joke makes it clear how clueless you are.

 

We aren't going to regulate "fitness." We probably aren't going to do much backward regulation of golf clubs, for that matter. So it comes down to a simple choice; do we (a) keep altering the great championship golf courses, at terrible cost in terms of basic monetary outlay but also in terms of lost architectural history and integrity, or (b) do nothing, and watch golf tournaments increasingly obviate the existing architecture, or © change the one thing in golf that is unmemorable, which is just a kind of functional place-holder, that isn't itself intrinsically expansive... that being the ball.

 

And as to the second paragraph I want to be as blunt and as clear as possibly. The ball rollback position has NOTHING to do with protecting any player's "legacy." It has NOTHING to do with protecting any individual's "records" (what records?!?).

 

The ball rollback has EVERYTHING to do with protecting venues. Yes, indeed. That is the one thing you got right. Rolling back golf balls is all about protecting the integrity of much of the existing history of great championship golf courses that have made the game what it is.

I'm not arguing, but professional golf has left plenty of courses in the past. Not that it is right.

BUT, the current equipment has not made any great courses obsolete for the actual customers of those courses.

[augustgolf]

Sorry to see another golfer who can't sleep....

[gvogel]

I want to really drill down in blunt language ...

 

So do I. Where is it written that Shinnecock Hills, Baltusrol, The Olympic Club or any other famous golf course must hold professional championships forever?

 

The only people who care about their storied histories and the cherished traditions of the game are at least 40 years old right now, with the overwhelming majority being 50 and over. Most of these folks will be dead in 30 years, and the venues they romanticize over will slowly become obsolete, only to fade into the dustbin of history, like Myopia Hunt, Midlothian and Brae Burn.

 

We need a new golden age of golf course architecture in which man-sized layouts can test all facets of the modern pro game. Where the great classic courses can be lengthened, they should be. Where they can not, adios.

 

There are over 500 billionaires in the United States of America, and almost 5,000,000 millionaires. There is certainly enough dough floating around out there to build great new courses and establish a new tradition and legacy.

 

The inference is that these billionaires and millionaires will build 8,500 long golf courses to test the modern game. When do you think that golf courses are too long? When no one can walk them anymore?

 

There are enough really old good golf courses of a certain length, laid out by thoughtful golfers on terrain fit for golf. Lots of them. Walkable. I think that we should fit the game to them. And maybe in 30 years, refit the game to them.

[North Butte]

I want to really drill down in blunt language ...

 

So do I. Where is it written that Shinnecock Hills, Baltusrol, The Olympic Club or any other famous golf course must hold professional championships forever?

 

The only people who care about their storied histories and the cherished traditions of the game are at least 40 years old right now, with the overwhelming majority being 50 and over. Most of these folks will be dead in 30 years, and the venues they romanticize over will slowly become obsolete, only to fade into the dustbin of history, like Myopia Hunt, Midlothian and Brae Burn.

 

We need a new golden age of golf course architecture in which man-sized layouts can test all facets of the modern pro game. Where the great classic courses can be lengthened, they should be. Where they can not, adios.

 

There are over 500 billionaires in the United States of America, and almost 5,000,000 millionaires. There is certainly enough dough floating around out there to build great new courses and establish a new tradition and legacy.

 

The inference is that these billionaires and millionaires will build 8,500 long golf courses to test the modern game. When do you think that golf courses are too long? When no one can walk them anymore?

 

There are enough really old good golf courses of a certain length, laid out by thoughtful golfers on terrain fit for golf. Lots of them. Walkable. I think that we should fit the game to them. And maybe in 30 years, refit the game to them.

 

More likely than them building a bunch of 4,800 yard courses for me to play with a whiffle ball.

[tnord]

i disagree with 15th club. it's not about protecting Shinnecock, it's about protecting the game as a whole.

 

you guys that are so against rolling back, what are you afraid will happen? what are the downsides to this?

[North Butte]

Is that a real question?

 

I am happy with the performance of today’s balls and equipment. I do not want every shot I hit to start going shorter because the ball has been rolled back.

 

Surely anyone can see that hitting a 210 yard shot is more fun than making exactly the same swing and seeing the ball only go 180. Not one golfer in a million wishes every shot they hit went shorter.

 

And I don’t care one bit about what tournaments Prairie Dunes does or does not host. You are asking millions of golfers to give up part of their enjoyment to serve YOUR ego. We are not interested.

[Shilgy]

i disagree with 15th club. it's not about protecting Shinnecock, it's about protecting the game as a whole.

 

you guys that are so against rolling back, what are you afraid will happen? what are the downsides to this?

Mass Exodus from the game. Jack's 20% rollback is quite frankly absurd. Pros carrying it 240 max? Lol. Why carry 14 clubs to cover just 200 yards? Manufacturers will suffer. For that matter why should I need to buy a whole new bag just because if this change? And we will need to because of of the equipment that fit us with the current ball will be obsolete for us.

 

My grandfather believed that NHL goalies should not be allowed to wear masks and the others helmets as the game intended. And none of that"raise the stick way up slapshot nonsense". Football players should be in leather helmets and baseball none. As was intended. All of this has nothing to do with safety in his mind. It creates a different game entirely in all of these sports, more gentlemenly, where the players look out for one another rather than trying to main one another.

 

The problem with the roll back folks is they will never be satisfied. Roll it back a bit now and as players get bigger and stronger they will demand to have it rolled back in another 100 years to protect DJ's grandsons legacy. Oops, not legacy, to protect the game and courses so they can be played as intended. No one has ever defined even that though. As Runyan or Snead played the game? Daly or Pavin?

 

 

[Uhit]

i disagree with 15th club. it's not about protecting Shinnecock, it's about protecting the game as a whole.

 

you guys that are so against rolling back, what are you afraid will happen? what are the downsides to this?

 

...you guy pretend, as if there was no single reason mentioned by those who are against a roll back - within all those threads in regard of a roll back?!

 

It is rather the other way round, as one can see.

 

If you don't read the arguments, why do you know, that there are some people against a roll back?

 

-

 

The game will shrink, because of people not listening to arguments.

 

And it would probably shrink at least as much as the average driving distance would shrink, with a rolled back ball.

 

-

 

Golf, as a sport, is meant as a game, that you can play whilst you are walking (the distance aspect of the game)...

 

...if you don't want to walk, then golf is probably not the perfect game for you.

Maybe a golf simulator, where you don't have to walk, would be the appropriate transition?

 

Other may think of playing rather 9 holes instead of 18, if they want a shorter walk...

...however, a part of a real competition is to walk 18 holes.

[finleysg]

The phrase "solution in search of a problem" always comes to mind when this debate pops up.

[Roadking2003]

There are enough really old good golf courses of a certain length, laid out by thoughtful golfers on terrain fit for golf. Lots of them. Walkable. I think that we should fit the game to them.

 

Which courses would that be?

[tnord]

Is that a real question?

 

I am happy with the performance of today’s balls and equipment. I do not want every shot I hit to start going shorter because the ball has been rolled back.

 

Surely anyone can see that hitting a 210 yard shot is more fun than making exactly the same swing and seeing the ball only go 180. Not one golfer in a million wishes every shot they hit went shorter.

 

And I don’t care one bit about what tournaments Prairie Dunes does or does not host. You are asking millions of golfers to give up part of their enjoyment to serve YOUR ego. We are not interested.

 

i don't believe that will happen. if i remember correctly, from the last time we got into this argument, you're a prototypical average golfer. the next time you go out to play, use a women's ball and see if there's any difference in how far you hit it and your score.

 

edit; by the way, the ego comment is completely backwards. i'm suggesting a change that would make me hit it shorter, while you're opposed to losing a single yard off your 210yd drive with religious fervor.

[Roadking2003]

i disagree with 15th club. it's not about protecting Shinnecock, it's about protecting the game as a whole.

 

you guys that are so against rolling back, what are you afraid will happen? what are the downsides to this?

 

You guys that are so for rolling back the ball, what are you afraid of? What problem are you trying to solve?

 

And why does the game need to be protected? Did it need to be protected 150 years ago? Should golfers 150 years ago have outlawed new equipment development?

[Roadking2003]

The phrase "solution in search of a problem" always comes to mind when this debate pops up.

 

Exactly! There is no problem with pro or amateur golf today that needs equipment changes. Golf is fun for amateurs. Golf on TV is very competitive and quite entertaining with short hitters waxing the long guys from time to time (See Potter vs. DJ).

[bladehunter]

This argument is quite funny.

 

 

While I’m not going to get into the stupid “ which course is obscelete” argument.

 

I would ask this. Is there a single person here who thinks today’s Driver and ball hasn’t increased the average players Driver accuracy and length relative to their age and speed vs 1980? If you agree with that then it just becomes an argument about the increased length vs the course you play. Some may play on a modern long course and it fits.

 

Mine is a 1969 built tight course . From the back it plays 6750. For the white tee ( men’s ) it plays 6300. Not long. But it’s really tight. Yesterday I played from the white to prepare for a tournament next week that forces me to play from there as All men under 60 will do. It did one of two things. Took Driver from my hands completely and also had nearly zero actual irons into any hole. Par 3s were exceptions ( hit pw on two of them ) and par 5s. I hit 9 iron into one of those.

 

This bugs me. Why ? The course isn’t designed to be played this way. And moreso it creates all sorts of crazy decisions off the tee for me. Like having to hit irons off par 5 tees because of doglegs etc. and I’m not nearly the absolute longest player who’s played there. Tommy gainey , dj trahan , and serveral other pro mini tour guys have played it and I’ve heard first hand the same comments . They go like this. “ would be a great test if they built some new tees in several places. “. Is hard to explain. But on two par 5s you literally cannot cut the corner as trees are too tall so you hit 3 iron or 3 wood off tee to corner opening. So you end up farther back on a par 5 than if the tees were longer so that Driver fit. If Driver fit you could hit a big slice or hook around the corners. Takes all of a longer hitters advanatage in my opinion. Especially one who is as comfortable hitting a 6 iron as pw. Why? Because it gives the length advantage to the short guy. He’s hitting 7-8 iron in places he should be hitting 5-6 irons. Sure I’m hitting wedges. Buy two birdies cancel each other out. Where as my occasional birdie and more pars would be a better score than his most likely as his birdies would be harder to come by. Puts the pressure on the longuy that long tee balls are suppose to take off. Evens the field.

 

Anecdotal? Sure. But it’s a real world first hand example I see every day of a course that’s really not suited for today’s ball and Driver. Should we care ? I suppose that’s personal opinion.

[storm319]

This argument is quite funny.

 

 

While I’m not going to get into the stupid “ which course is obscelete” argument.

 

I would ask this. Is there a single person here who thinks today’s Driver and ball hasn’t increased the average players Driver accuracy and length relative to their age and speed vs 1980? If you agree with that then it just becomes an argument about the increased length vs the course you play. Some may play on a modern long course and it fits.

 

Mine is a 1969 built tight course . From the back it plays 6750. For the white tee ( men’s ) it plays 6300. Not long. But it’s really tight. Yesterday I played from the white to prepare for a tournament next week that forces me to play from there as All men under 60 will do. It did one of two things. Took Driver from my hands completely and also had nearly zero actual irons into any hole. Par 3s were exceptions ( hit pw on two of them ) and par 5s. I hit 9 iron into one of those.

 

This bugs me. Why ? The course isn’t designed to be played this way. And moreso it creates all sorts of crazy decisions off the tee for me. Like having to hit irons off par 5 tees because of doglegs etc. and I’m not nearly the absolute longest player who’s played there. Tommy gainey , dj trahan , and serveral other pro mini tour guys have played it and I’ve heard first hand the same comments . They go like this. “ would be a great test if they built some new tees in several places. “. Is hard to explain. But on two par 5s you literally cannot cut the corner as trees are too tall so you hit 3 iron or 3 wood off tee to corner opening. So you end up farther back on a par 5 than if the tees were longer so that Driver fit. If Driver fit you could hit a big slice or hook around the corners. Takes all of a longer hitters advanatage in my opinion. Especially one who is as comfortable hitting a 6 iron as pw. Why? Because it gives the length advantage to the short guy. He’s hitting 7-8 iron in places he should be hitting 5-6 irons. Sure I’m hitting wedges. Buy two birdies cancel each other out. Where as my occasional birdie and more pars would be a better score than his most likely as his birdies would be harder to come by. Puts the pressure on the longuy that long tee balls are suppose to take off. Evens the field.

 

Anecdotal? Sure. But it’s a real world first hand example I see every day of a course that’s really not suited for today’s ball and Driver. Should we care ? I suppose that’s personal opinion.

 

Nothing in the rules that says you cannot play older equipment that is below the existing limits in order to play that course as it was intended. That is your choice. The problem with a rollback is that it will remove that choice for those that enjoy playing the game with modern equipment while following the rules and there are far more people that enjoy the game as it is than those that are wistful about the past.

[bladehunter]

This argument is quite funny.

 

 

While I’m not going to get into the stupid “ which course is obscelete” argument.

 

I would ask this. Is there a single person here who thinks today’s Driver and ball hasn’t increased the average players Driver accuracy and length relative to their age and speed vs 1980? If you agree with that then it just becomes an argument about the increased length vs the course you play. Some may play on a modern long course and it fits.

 

Mine is a 1969 built tight course . From the back it plays 6750. For the white tee ( men’s ) it plays 6300. Not long. But it’s really tight. Yesterday I played from the white to prepare for a tournament next week that forces me to play from there as All men under 60 will do. It did one of two things. Took Driver from my hands completely and also had nearly zero actual irons into any hole. Par 3s were exceptions ( hit pw on two of them ) and par 5s. I hit 9 iron into one of those.

 

This bugs me. Why ? The course isn’t designed to be played this way. And moreso it creates all sorts of crazy decisions off the tee for me. Like having to hit irons off par 5 tees because of doglegs etc. and I’m not nearly the absolute longest player who’s played there. Tommy gainey , dj trahan , and serveral other pro mini tour guys have played it and I’ve heard first hand the same comments . They go like this. “ would be a great test if they built some new tees in several places. “. Is hard to explain. But on two par 5s you literally cannot cut the corner as trees are too tall so you hit 3 iron or 3 wood off tee to corner opening. So you end up farther back on a par 5 than if the tees were longer so that Driver fit. If Driver fit you could hit a big slice or hook around the corners. Takes all of a longer hitters advanatage in my opinion. Especially one who is as comfortable hitting a 6 iron as pw. Why? Because it gives the length advantage to the short guy. He’s hitting 7-8 iron in places he should be hitting 5-6 irons. Sure I’m hitting wedges. Buy two birdies cancel each other out. Where as my occasional birdie and more pars would be a better score than his most likely as his birdies would be harder to come by. Puts the pressure on the longuy that long tee balls are suppose to take off. Evens the field.

 

Anecdotal? Sure. But it’s a real world first hand example I see every day of a course that’s really not suited for today’s ball and Driver. Should we care ? I suppose that’s personal opinion.

 

Nothing in the rules that says you cannot play older equipment that is below the existing limits in order to play that course as it was intended. That is your choice. The problem with a rollback is that it will remove that choice for those that enjoy playing the game with modern equipment while following the rules and there are far more people that enjoy the game as it is than those that are wistful about the past.

 

 

You’re missing my general point.

 

Modern ball and Driver has helped to even the fields. The long guy sees much less advanatage. Long guy see way more advantage when he’s hitting pw-8 iron to the short guys 6-4 iron. Vs today’s game were long guy hits a lot of lob wedge and sand wedge vs pw-9 irons for the short guys. . They have moved the short guy up into the scoring clubs on most any par4.

 

Primary reason we will never ever see another jack or tiger. Fields are bunched by equipment. You can claim it’s weight training all you want. And to some degree it’s made difference in length overall. But it isn’t bunching the fields. The modern Driver and ball is.

[tnord]

i disagree with 15th club. it's not about protecting Shinnecock, it's about protecting the game as a whole.

 

you guys that are so against rolling back, what are you afraid will happen? what are the downsides to this?

Mass Exodus from the game. Jack's 20% rollback is quite frankly absurd. Pros carrying it 240 max? Lol. Why carry 14 clubs to cover just 200 yards? Manufacturers will suffer. For that matter why should I need to buy a whole new bag just because if this change? And we will need to because of of the equipment that fit us with the current ball will be obsolete for us.

 

the profits of callaway are not any of our concern.

 

do you get new gear every two years when the ball changes? were you fit using the ball you use now? i think you're being a bit disingenuous here.

 

My grandfather believed that NHL goalies should not be allowed to wear masks and the others helmets as the game intended. And none of that"raise the stick way up slapshot nonsense". Football players should be in leather helmets and baseball none. As was intended. All of this has nothing to do with safety in his mind. It creates a different game entirely in all of these sports, more gentlemenly, where the players look out for one another rather than trying to main one another.

 

changes in hockey and football haven't asked that every hockey rink and football stadium be torn down and rebuilt.

 

The problem with the roll back folks is they will never be satisfied. Roll it back a bit now and as players get bigger and stronger they will demand to have it rolled back in another 100 years to protect DJ's grandsons legacy. Oops, not legacy, to protect the game and courses so they can be played as intended. No one has ever defined even that though. As Runyan or Snead played the game? Daly or Pavin?

 

they already tried to do this with the COR limit implemented in 2003, but they failed to consider the distance gains from optimizing launch conditions.

[mahonie]

i disagree with 15th club. it's not about protecting Shinnecock, it's about protecting the game as a whole.

 

you guys that are so against rolling back, what are you afraid will happen? what are the downsides to this?

 

You guys that are so for rolling back the ball, what are you afraid of? What problem are you trying to solve?

 

And why does the game need to be protected? Did it need to be protected 150 years ago? Should golfers 150 years ago have outlawed new equipment development?

 

From my point of view, the game has got so one dimensional it is boring to watch. If it is boring to watch it is not going to attract new players who get truly hooked which means that courses are going to close and the people who really love the game will have nowhere to play so they will stop playing and the game will disappear or revert to the elitist sport that it used to be. In the UK participation is down 20% in the last 10 years with courses closing at an increasing rate.

 

The bomb and gouge model that the PGA Tour sells takes strategy and shotmaking out of the game which has been the essence of the game since it began. The satisfaction of playing golf shots rather than just hitting the ball (there is a subtle distinction) has been totally lost. The modern ball doesn’t really move that much from side to side so it just boils down to how hard can you smash it. Modern courses need to made so that if a tee shot is 25 yards offline there is no easy shot to the green.

 

Anyone who played golf seriously pre-2000 will tell you that the game is a pale shadow of what is was. Those who do say it is better are blinded by their vanity and ego...the game is so much easier now but at the same time far less satisfying. 20 years since my prime, I hit drives 30 yards longer and play to a handicap that is 10 shots better. Am I a better player than I was 20 years ago? I’m not fooling myself... I haven’t had any lessons and if anything I play less so I would say no, given that my athletic ability has decreased with age.

 

The saving grace for me is that I play a course where the distance the modern ball travels has limited impact - course is only 6,100 yards from the tips and strategy and shotmaking are the keys to scoring well. Here are the stats from an Assistant Pro Mini Tour event last year which shows the risk/reward nature of the course:

[tnord]

i disagree with 15th club. it's not about protecting Shinnecock, it's about protecting the game as a whole.

 

you guys that are so against rolling back, what are you afraid will happen? what are the downsides to this?

 

You guys that are so for rolling back the ball, what are you afraid of? What problem are you trying to solve?

 

And why does the game need to be protected? Did it need to be protected 150 years ago? Should golfers 150 years ago have outlawed new equipment development?

 

there is a reduction in the strategic elements of golf. it is ever more becoming a one dimensional game with less and less skill required for even the remaining skills.

 

they physical growth of the playing field requires additional time to play, water, chemicals, and labor to maintain, passing on the cost to the golfer. the space requirements make the game less and less accessible to those in densely populated areas.

 

the conditions needed to test better than average players are not conducive to bringing new people into golf. less and less can a 20hdcp and a 2hdcp enjoy the same golf course.

[North Butte]

Boring to watch? Six when has golf ever not beenboring to watch?

 

I play golf, that’s all I care about.