Rolling back the ball

[tnord]

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).

 

there absolutely is a problem in amateur golf that many refuse to acknowledge because they can't stand the thought of hitting it 205 instead of 210. :dntknw:

[North Butte]

I would be willing to accept a 2.5% rollback of the ball if it would shut you lot the heck up!

 

But we both know there’s no chance, your precious course is not going to be “protected” by seeing Dustin Johnson drive it 330 instead of 340.

 

Oh wait. I almost forgot. Magic golf ball, right? It goes 5 yards less for me and 50 yards less for the guys on TV.

[Uhit]

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.

 

It is simply envy, because not even Jack, or the USGA provided a single argument, why they don't try different approaches as a local rule, or Conditions of Competition, like:

 

 

that every shot has to be performed from the deck

 

and / or that a special ball has to be used on some (Jack) courses, or during the Open.

 

 

...not a single reason why every golfer worldwide should lose money and 20% of distance.

 

 

What would have Jack said in his prime time, if he would have been forced to use a ball, that flies 20% shorter, than that ball he was used to play since more than a decade?

[PGArox]

Boring to watch? Since when has golf ever not been boring to watch?

 

I was just a young pup in 1970. My father was a golfer and my favorite player was Jack Nicklaus. I remember sitting at the dinner table, talking golf, and both my mother and sister would say "golf is so boring." :)

[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.

 

 

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.

 

I would argue that talent bunching as well as slow play on tour has more to due with the amount of money that is at stake now vs in the past. To suggest that it is all due to equipment is an insult to the pros that have worked so hard to get where they are.

[North Butte]

How “bunched” wete the 10 best golfers in the world in 1970?

 

Accounting for growth in population, increased inclusiveness and the world wide spread of the game it is to be expected that the top 150 or so golfers in the world today will be similarly “bunched”.

[15th Club]

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?

Let me get this straight...

 

A ball rollback will be bad for the game, and especially bad for golf equipment manufacturers. And you think it will be bad for you, because your game is so tuned to your current golf ball that a ball rollback would force you to buy all new equipment to re-tune your bag to a new ball design. People in general will stop playing golf, and stop buying equipment, but you, and people like you, will buy all-new equipment.

 

Does anybody follow that argument? By the way, I might even agree with you to some extent. That is, absolutely everybody in the equipment business ought to regard a ball rollback as an opportunity, to sell new equipment to that segment of highly-tuned recreational and elite golfers. Of course, most recreational golfers are so un-tuned that they buy golf balls at Walmart or another big box store base on whatever is on sale. And they aren't buying urethane balls in any event. They'd buy anything if they could get them for $22 for two dozen. A ball rollback would be aimed at a product that they don't even buy.

 

As for "another" ballroll back in 100 years; YES, if the circumstances say so. If there are new developments in clubs (or, yeah, "fitness") why not? For the umpteenth time, nobody is thinking about "regulating fitness" or "athleticism." But we are thinking about protecting The Old Course as the spiritual home of golf and as an Open Championship venue for the next 100 and next 1000 years.

 

I think you guys are emotionally protecting golf balls as though golf balls are not at "fault." Who cares if golf balls are at fault? Golf balls are the easy thing to fix. Golf courses are THE LAST thing we ought to "fix." Golf balls are the FIRST.

[15th Club]

What would have Jack said in his prime time, if he would have been forced to use a ball, that flies 20% shorter, than that ball he was used to play since more than a decade?

 

I expect that Jack would have been overjoyed. What he cared about was winning majors. And if everybody in Jack's era used the same-design golf ball that was rolled back by 20%, I think that Jack would have won 6 or 8 more majors. He won most of his majors with the flatly inferior MacGregor Tourney ball.

 

Ditto Tiger Woods. I submit, having seen a young Tiger Woods compete in a major championship in 1996, that with that era's equipment, he would have won significantly more than he did. I don't think that anything in golf (ignoring things "outside of golf") held back Tiger Woods as much as the development of multilayer urethane balls for the entire field of the PGA Tour. Urethane balls allowed dozens of players less skilled than Tiger Woods to approximate his level of play.

[15th Club]

I would be willing to accept a 2.5% rollback of the ball if it would shut you lot the heck up!

 

But we both know there's no chance, your precious course is not going to be "protected" by seeing Dustin Johnson drive it 330 instead of 340.

 

Oh wait. I almost forgot. Magic golf ball, right? It goes 5 yards less for me and 50 yards less for the guys on TV.

 

Remember exactly what we are talking about. Multilayer urethane balls that are purely designed for elite players and their swing speeds. Balls of a design that most recreational players do not even buy.

 

I really do believe that with 21st century engineering, we could settle on a ball design that rolled back tour drives by 20 yards, and left recreational golfer alone. One, single ball design. I don't claim to know how. I do think that it is a relatively simple problem for engineers to figure out, notwithstanding the laws of physics. I expect that together with the input of many golf ball manufacturers -- and probably not Acushnet (although I hope so) -- the USGA and the R&A have done a lot more on this subject than any of us know.

[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.

 

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?

 

Water seeks its own level. If advancements in technology continue to produce longer and longer hitters, there will come a day when universal opinion puts an end to it. We are far from that day.

[15th Club]

The Old Course at St. Andrews is not "owned by millionaires and billionaires." It is a public golf course operated by a non-profit trust.

 

So too, the Carnoustie Golf Links.

 

The Alister Mackenzie-Perry Maxwell designed University of Michigan Golf Course which must play host to NCAA Division 1 tournament play is not "owned by millionaires and billionaires."

 

And many more examples than I can count.

[Sean2]

I would be willing to accept a 2.5% rollback of the ball if it would shut you lot the heck up!

 

But we both know there's no chance, your precious course is not going to be "protected" by seeing Dustin Johnson drive it 330 instead of 340.

 

Oh wait. I almost forgot. Magic golf ball, right? It goes 5 yards less for me and 50 yards less for the guys on TV.

 

Remember exactly what we are talking about. Multilayer urethane balls that are purely designed for elite players and their swing speeds. Balls of a design that most recreational players do not even buy.

 

I really do believe that with 21st century engineering, we could settle on a ball design that rolled back tour drives by 20 yards, and left recreational golfer alone. One, single ball design. I don't claim to know how. I do think that it is a relatively simple problem for engineers to figure out, notwithstanding the laws of physics. I expect that together with the input of many golf ball manufacturers -- and probably not Acushnet (although I hope so) -- the USGA and the R&A have done a lot more on this subject than any of us know.

 

I am not so sure. I am in my 60s, not a long hitter by any means, but I like the urethane golf ball because I can spin it around the greens, which allows me to be more aggressive with shots as I know the ball won't roll 20 feet past the hole, but will check up...if I am not hitting out of the rough that is. :-)

[15th Club]

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 new generation of golf course architects -- Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Bobby Weed, Geoff Shackelford; you name them -- all think that the golf ball flies too far and is badly in need of a rollback of specs.

 

I am trying to think of anybody in golf who does not currently have a contract with Titleist who doesn't favor a ball rollback. Anybody?

[PGArox]

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.

 

The new generation of golf course architects -- Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Bobby Weed, Geoff Shackelford; you name them -- all think that the golf ball flies too far and is badly in need of a rollback of specs.

 

Doak, Hanse, Weed and Shackelford are all tradionalists, interested only in restoring the look and feel of 1920's golf. Nothing revolutionary coming from any of them.

[storm319]

The Old Course at St. Andrews is not "owned by millionaires and billionaires." It is a public golf course operated by a non-profit trust.

 

So too, the Carnoustie Golf Links.

 

The Alister Mackenzie-Perry Maxwell designed University of Michigan Golf Course which must play host to NCAA Division 1 tournament play is not "owned by millionaires and billionaires."

 

And many more examples than I can count.

 

Distance is not what has made the Old Course irrelevant (there have been recent major venues that are shorter that have posed a much greater challenge ex: Merion). IMHO, it is a relatively easy/boring old course and no equipment rollback will change that. I acknowledge its place in history, but the fact that it is oldest course in existence doesn't make it automatically better like many people imply.

[15th Club]

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.

 

The new generation of golf course architects -- Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Bobby Weed, Geoff Shackelford; you name them -- all think that the golf ball flies too far and is badly in need of a rollback of specs.

 

Doak, Hanse, Weed and Shackelford are all tradionalists, interested only in restoring the look and feel of 1920's golf. Nothing revolutionary coming from any of them.

 

Gosh, I was so hoping that you were going to enlighten us with the views of, and hopefully quotes from, all of the influential people in golf course architecture who were NOT in favor of some form of a ball rollback. Because I can't think of anyone.

 

Just like I can't think of any great player of our time -- excepting the guys with Titleist contracts -- who are NOT in favor of a ball rollback.

 

I really wanted to make it clear who are the outliers among the people who lead the game of golf; because I see three groupings of opinion.

 

One group is the vast group of people -- people like Nicklaus, Norman, Watson, Player, Trevino, Woods, Doak, Hanse, and on and on and on -- who strongly favor a ball rollback and are not afraid to say so.

 

Another group is the current class of administrators in golf who are all concerned but afraid to say anything in the current environment of threatened litigation.

 

And the last group is the tiny group of people connected financially to Titleist and its golf ball patents and marketshare.

 

I am leaving out the great unwashed group of recreational players who don't have a good understanding of golf course architecture or championship golf course setup. I want to speak to that group, but it is hard.

[PGArox]

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.

 

The new generation of golf course architects -- Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Bobby Weed, Geoff Shackelford; you name them -- all think that the golf ball flies too far and is badly in need of a rollback of specs.

 

Doak, Hanse, Weed and Shackelford are all tradionalists, interested only in restoring the look and feel of 1920's golf. Nothing revolutionary coming from any of them.

 

Gosh, I was so hoping that you were going to enlighten us with the views of, and hopefully quotes from, all of the influential people in golf course architecture who were NOT in favor of some form of a ball rollback. Because I can't think of anyone.

 

Just like I can't think of any great player of our time -- excepting the guys with Titleist contracts -- who are NOT in favor of a ball rollback.

 

I really wanted to make it clear who are the outliers among the people who lead the game of golf; because I see three groupings of opinion.

 

One group is the vast group of people -- people like Nicklaus, Norman, Watson, Player, Trevino, Woods, Doak, Hanse, and on and on and on -- who strongly favor a ball rollback and are not afraid to say so.

 

Another group is the current class of administrators in golf who are all concerned but afraid to say anything in the current environment of threatened litigation.

 

And the last group is the tiny group of people connected financially to Titleist and its golf ball patents and marketshare.

 

I am leaving out the great unwashed group of recreational players who don't have a good understanding of golf course architecture or championship golf course setup. I want to speak to that group, but it is hard.

 

The only people who really matter are the players currently playing on the PGA TOUR, and the fans who attend the tournaments and watch on TV. The rest is noise.

 

If you were to poll all 240 +/- exempt PGA TOUR members, and the fans, you'd likely find about 5% who are in favor of rolling back the ball. It ain't gonna happen.

[Shilgy]

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.

You don't think the main reason for the bunching of fields is that the whole world is playing in most events? The game y'all want to return to will not spread the fields a bit. They're are too many good players today and it's not because they are getting helped by the too easy equipment.

 

PS your course sounds like part of the solution, not the problem. More doglegs rather than just long straight away holes.

[15th Club]

The Old Course at St. Andrews is not "owned by millionaires and billionaires." It is a public golf course operated by a non-profit trust.

 

So too, the Carnoustie Golf Links.

 

The Alister Mackenzie-Perry Maxwell designed University of Michigan Golf Course which must play host to NCAA Division 1 tournament play is not "owned by millionaires and billionaires."

 

And many more examples than I can count.

 

Distance is not what has made the Old Course irrelevant (there have been recent major venues that are shorter that have posed a much greater challenge ex: Merion). IMHO, it is a relatively easy/boring old course and no equipment rollback will change that. I acknowledge its place in history, but the fact that it is oldest course in existence doesn't make it automatically better like many people imply.

 

The Old Course is the single most important golf course in the history of the game; and there will never be another more important.

 

To golf course architecture experts and aficionada, it is also the most interesting golf course in the world, today.

 

Robert Tyre Jones Jr. said of St. Andrews and the Old Course: “I could take out of my life everything except my experiences at St Andrews and I would still have a rich, full life.”

http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/tour/open-championship/open-history-and-records/they-said-it-great-old-course-st-andrews-quotes-75198#KAeRcwrJUFB0o0gU.99

 

And Jones then modeled his creation in Augusta, Georgia, on the firm and fast links of Scotland with the help of Dr. Mackenzie.

 

There's probably never been a Top Ten or Top 100 list of golf courses in the world that didn't include The Old Course.

 

It is the spiritual home of golf. The day that an Open Championship cannot be held there will be a calamity for the game.

[15th Club]

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.

 

The new generation of golf course architects -- Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Bobby Weed, Geoff Shackelford; you name them -- all think that the golf ball flies too far and is badly in need of a rollback of specs.

 

Doak, Hanse, Weed and Shackelford are all tradionalists, interested only in restoring the look and feel of 1920's golf. Nothing revolutionary coming from any of them.

 

Gosh, I was so hoping that you were going to enlighten us with the views of, and hopefully quotes from, all of the influential people in golf course architecture who were NOT in favor of some form of a ball rollback. Because I can't think of anyone.

 

Just like I can't think of any great player of our time -- excepting the guys with Titleist contracts -- who are NOT in favor of a ball rollback.

 

I really wanted to make it clear who are the outliers among the people who lead the game of golf; because I see three groupings of opinion.

 

One group is the vast group of people -- people like Nicklaus, Norman, Watson, Player, Trevino, Woods, Doak, Hanse, and on and on and on -- who strongly favor a ball rollback and are not afraid to say so.

 

Another group is the current class of administrators in golf who are all concerned but afraid to say anything in the current environment of threatened litigation.

 

And the last group is the tiny group of people connected financially to Titleist and its golf ball patents and marketshare.

 

I am leaving out the great unwashed group of recreational players who don't have a good understanding of golf course architecture or championship golf course setup. I want to speak to that group, but it is hard.

 

The only people who really matter are the players currently playing on the PGA TOUR, and the fans who attend the tournaments and watch on TV. The rest is noise.

 

If you were to poll all 240 +/- exempt PGA TOUR members, and the fans, you'd likely find about 5% who are in favor of rolling back the ball. It ain't gonna happen.

 

They are some of the LAST people who should matter. How many among the PGA Tour are under contract to Titleist, which is the harshest and most determined opponent of any ball rollback? They are excluded, by reason of a conflict of interest.

 

I expect we'll agree to disagree on this. And maybe "agreeing to disagree" is the absolute closest we will get to any agreement.

[Sean2]

According to Trackman the average golfer hits his drive 215 yards. Those 60 and over 196 yards.

 

Yes, let's roll the ball back.

[PGArox]

I expect we'll agree to disagree on this. And maybe "agreeing to disagree" is the absolute closest we will get to any agreement.

 

I agree. :)

[15th Club]

****

"If you were to poll all 240 +/- exempt PGA TOUR members, and the fans, you'd likely find about 5% who are in favor of rolling back the ball. It ain't gonna happen."

****

 

Please somebody do this poll A.S.A.P.

 

I know how Tiger Woods, Geoff Ogilvy (Titleist player!!!), and a dozen others will vote. They have said so.

 

My guess is that the members of the Tour would favor a ball rollback by about 75%-25%.

[farmer]

Bobby Jones played St.Andrews in the 1920's. With hickory and the Haskell. ANGC does not resemble St. Andrews at all. Parkland vs links. "I guess" is a stat now? Every modern ball is essentially the same, different feels, but they are all nearly identical in performance. At Prairie Dunes in 2014, the NCAA team winner, Stanford, was -13 cumulatively. The next two teams were -4. The individual stroke play low scores were -6. PD is not long, yet held up very well against the best college players in 2014.

[TollBros]

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?

 

When the average enthusiest male golfer drives the ball 215 yards, and the average 5 or better cap drives it 250, there is no threat to any golf course except by the .0001% absolute elite levels player. To make a governing rule for 20 million people based on the performance of a few thousand is ridiculous. If the PGA Tour wants to implement such a rule, and I can assure you they do not, let them. However, for amatures, it does nothing but roll back some of their enjoyment in playing the game. The USGA needs to admit the groove rule is pointless as is any discussion of ball roll back. Leave this to the pro tours to decide. The golfers which the USGA governs don't need any part of equipment restrictions. I believe it should be just like baseball. Pro levels use wood, everyone else on the planet uses hotter aluminum or composite bats. Open the equipment industry up, improve the economic health of the game, and let ams play whatever they want.

[storm319]

They are some of the LAST people who should matter. How many among the PGA Tour are under contract to Titleist, which is the harshest and most determined opponent of any ball rollback? They are excluded, by reason of a conflict of interest.

 

I expect we'll agree to disagree on this. And maybe "agreeing to disagree" is the absolute closest we will get to any agreement.

 

If that is the case, Tiger and anyone under contract with Bridgestone are also excluded since Bridgestone's initial response is the reason why Titleist responded in the first place. Very interesting that Tiger has never once mentioned golf ball regulation until right after his sponsor does...

 

Also, most of the people calling for a rollback have something to gain (especially all of the unimaginative architects that continue to copy the same hole designs time and time again) which most would consider a conflict of interest, so who is even left to poll?

[15th Club]

They are some of the LAST people who should matter. How many among the PGA Tour are under contract to Titleist, which is the harshest and most determined opponent of any ball rollback? They are excluded, by reason of a conflict of interest.

 

I expect we'll agree to disagree on this. And maybe "agreeing to disagree" is the absolute closest we will get to any agreement.

 

If that is the case, Tiger and anyone under contract with Bridgestone are also excluded since Bridgestone's initial response is the reason why Titleist responded in the first place. Very interesting that Tiger has never once mentioned golf ball regulation until right after his sponsor does...

 

Also, most of the people calling for a rollback have something to gain (especially all of the unimaginative architects that continue to copy the same hole designs time and time again) which most would consider a conflict of interest, so who is even left to poll?

 

I am not going to be shy about correcting stuff that is flat wrong.

 

Your implied presumption that Tiger Woods never said anything about distance and golf balls until he joined Bridgestone is incorrect. It was years earlier that he made his opinions about a ball rollback public.

 

Bridgestone's debate entry is of course very recent. And I love it. Bridgestone took the opportunity to "agree" with its most notable star endorser (Woods), and Woods got some attention for having talked about a ball rollback somewhat recently on Geno Auriemma's podcast. But it is not a new opinion from Woods. He first expressed it years ago. And it is thereby not a "Bridgestone" opinion from Woods.

 

I'm not so sure what to say about this bit of trashtalk:

...all of the unimaginative architects that continue to copy the same hole designs time and time again...

Who exactly are the "anti-rollback" architects? Who are we supposed to turn to, in your esteemed view?

 

Oh, and one more thing to correct. Wally Uihlein and Titleist have been on record for more than ten years in a verbal battle over any ball rollback. Titleist's mouthpieces uh, Brand Ambassadors have been working the media world for all of that time. Including, if credible rumors are to be believed, threats of Ping-style litigation.

 

So don't suggest that Titleist was suddenly and unfairly drawn out in this debate. Titleist has been the central anti-rollback force for a very long time.

[Lancj1]

Ball did fine in Mexico

[Roadking2003]

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 new generation of golf course architects -- Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Bobby Weed, Geoff Shackelford; you name them -- all think that the golf ball flies too far and is badly in need of a rollback of specs.

 

I am trying to think of anybody in golf who does not currently have a contract with Titleist who doesn't favor a ball rollback. Anybody?

 

How about DJ, Spieth, JT, Fowler, my local club pro...etc. You only named four guys. There are thousands in the golf business.

[Roadking2003]

Distance is not what has made the Old Course irrelevant (there have been recent major venues that are shorter that have posed a much greater challenge ex: Merion). IMHO, it is a relatively easy/boring old course and no equipment rollback will change that. I acknowledge its place in history, but the fact that it is oldest course in existence doesn't make it automatically better like many people imply.

 

The Old Course is not irrelevant. Why would anybody think that? Winning scores are no lower than 25 years ago.