Rolling back the ball

[PGArox]

"Based on the information we have seen, we are highly skeptical that rolling back the golf ball in whole or part will be in the best interest of the sport and our collective efforts to grow the game."

 

 

 

Love it.

[QMany]

The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game.

 

What a crock!

[Uhit]

I remind everybody of what Geoff Shackelford wrote about the game we love: that in no other sport, are the venues at which the game is played as important to the game, and as fragile, as golf.

 

I remind you, that you still haven't answered those interesting questions:

 

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.

 

Strange, that he started talking about a roll back after his prime...

...same with Tiger - isn't it?

 

I could well imagine, that the MacGregor Tourney ball (if it really was perceived as the flatly inferior ball),

was better suited for very high swing speed players (like Jack) - which were very rare at that time.

 

-

 

However, why didn't you answer to this part of my post?:

 

 

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.

 

-

 

And I also want to hear a reply to this:

 

Wrong. Hard, firm, fast fairways do two important things for a 72-hole competition.

1. Architects intend for golf courses to play firm and fast. Firm and fast is how you bring the ground game into golf. The golfer then needs to not merely line and distance, but also how the ball might bounce and kick. That is the essence of golf.
    
    
    
    
    
   
2. Tournament administrators know what they are risking if they soak a course before tournament play. If it rains, the course cannot absorb any more moisture. The event might be ruined.
   

So why trick up a golf course outside of what is best, or what was intended for the course design, just to satisfy a golf ball marketplace? When did the golf ball specifications become so important?

 

1. golf was not invented to please the intentions of architects.

 

2. water, bunker, rough, (and 2. and 1. cut), and greens with a lot of slope, are the traditional ways to bring the ground game into golf - no need for a fantasy, that someone hits 300 yards, from a tee box, exactly to the wanted square-yard, within a fast and firm fairway.

 

3. since 1980, the average swing speed on tour increased from 104 mph to 113 mph, which equates in roughly 24 yards more distance - which is the biggest part of the increase in driving distance:

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...ns-on-pga-tour/

 

...interestingly, they don't highlight the substantial increase due to the changes in swing speed, within this chart...

 

...they also missed to highlight the additional roll of the ball, on faster and firmer fairways, which is also included in the shown driving distances...

 

...the chart pretends that those two factors would not exist and not contribute to the increase in driving distance, but only the equipment.

 

4. as you can see, the LET tour, which already lost more than 10 yards in driving distance since 2006, would run in real trouble

 

5. The true story in regard of the increased average driving distance since 1980 would rather look like:

 

24 yards because of swing speed

 

9 yards because of the fairways, and the equipment including the ball*

 

6. Jack made the golf ball specifications so important:

 

* http://www.golfwrx.c...k/page__st__210

 

btw wasn't Geoff the guy, who tried to manipulate driving distance statistics by highlighting the extremes on the long side, but not on the short side?

 

And as a course designer, he is biased anyway - even if he would try to stay unbiased...

[North Butte]

btw wasn't Geoff the guy, who tried to manipulate driving distance statistics by highlighting the extremes on the long side, but not on the short side?

 

And as a course designer, he is biased anyway - even if he would try to stay unbiased...

 

 

Shack is a course designer in the same sense that a tick on a cow's rump is a dairy farmer.

[Golf Dino]

 

I could well imagine, that the MacGregor Tourney ball (if it really was perceived as the flatly inferior ball),

was better suited for very high swing speed players (like Jack) - which were very rare at that time.

 

 

I should add that the MacGregor Tourney golf balls really were inferior products. I kid you not. I really believe that Jack did himself a big disservice by playing those balls for as long as he did. I remember coming across an article that proclaimed that the golf balls sold by Walgreens were more popular at one point than MacGregor balls!

 

I think that was part of the reason that he went into the equipment business himself ... much like Hogan and Palmer. The big difference to me though is that Hogan really did get out of his golf ball sponsorship deal so that he could move to Titleist in the 1940s (I believe that timeframe is correct and I don't want to start digging through my books and literature to find the exact year!)

[tnord]

you're mischaracterizing the argument for a reduction in distance on purpose, and you know it.

The NCAA did not overwhelm PD in 2014. As a +hdcp, do you beat it up? How many members do you know who bemoan the relative lack of length at PD?

 

i shoot what my index says i should shoot. score is irrelevant despite your desire to make it so, it's HOW you get to that score i take issue with.

 

there are two or three par 4s that have now become driveable that should not be.

there are four to six bunkers on the insides of doglegs that are no longer anything but a sightline.

 

on a "normal" day, here are the clubs i would approach the green with from the back tees;

 

1) 8/7

2) 9/8

3) 58deg

4) 8

5) 6/7

6) 58/54

7) 6 (par 5)

8) 8/7

9) 8/7

10) 8/7

11) 8/7

12) 54/50

13) 8/7

14) 58

15) 5 (longest par 3)

16) 9/8

17) par 5

18) 8/7

 

nothing longer than a 6i unless i hit a bad tee shot or the wind is howling.

 

what happens at PD isn't really relevant outside of how the game has changed across the board. hazards aren't hazards anymore. a host of par 4s are now driveable and par 5s reachable (slows down play). strategy has been deemphasized, long irons stay in the bag, and better players and weekend warriors can very seldom enjoy the same golf course.

 

I would think you are the exception rather than the rule. If I played 7000+ yards the average par 4 for me would be driver, wood, wedge, and the same for most of the people I know.

 

i am not exceptional among good players. above average? probably slightly, but not exceptional.

 

just because the local muni isn't adding 18 new tees doesn't mean the issue of golf becoming a one dimensional game is incorrect. the old local muni here in town is not a test of golf at all. drive the green on #1, hit 8 or 9i into the par 5 2nd...the toughest holes on the course 3 4 5 are driver wedge. 6 is actually a real hole, 200yd par 3. 7 is driver 6i par 5. 8 gap wedge. 9 driver lob wedge. 3i gap wedge 10, 11 is good - 200yd par 3 again, 12 is 3i 7i PAR 5, 13 is another good par 3, 14 is the toughest on the back at driver PW. drive the green on 15, 16, 18. boring.

 

the other public course in town is a somewhat tricked up Faldo design, with some blind goofy shots to challenge people. it was designed and built recently (2007 maybe) in the modern equipment era, and has bunkers, long native, water, length, and angles to deal with that. the result is what you'd expect - juniors, regular people, beer drinkers play the old muni, people that are better than average play the faldo course. the result is that BOTH courses struggle financially. playing in charity events with wide ranges of abilities is HORRIBLE here. the regular guy can't get around at all and it takes 6hrs.

 

neither situation is financially healthy for the golf course, the city, or the game itself.

 

there already is a bifurcation of the game whether you want to admit it or not. better players are not playing anything close to the same game or golf course the 20hdcp is. even though you dismiss them as traditionalists, the modern architects are finding ways to build courses that appeal to all golfers but it requires SPACE that existing courses don't have. these are the same people saying that distance is a significant problem.

[North Butte]

This is probably not the ideal forum for trying to gain credibility by dragging GCA and the Shackelford site in as authoritative experts.

[Bye]

So everything pre 2003 has no meaning. Is this an attempt by the ruling bodies to claim that they fixed the problem in 2003 and all is ok becuse of them.

 

Using 2003 as a base line is a joke.

 

So, what year as a baseline would not be a joke? 1885? 1910? 1940?

 

Any year before 1996 will do just fine. At least then the largest recorded distance gains will be taken in to account. Puts a bit more persective on it.

[golfer07840]

I’m curious how this would impact non-driver shots. I hit an 8 iron 160 with a professional 100 or a pro v1. Say we get jack’s desired 20% reduction and it would suddenly only go 128. This wouldn’t be as simple as just playing a new ball. Most people would probably have to completely alter their clubs to fit with the distances they are playing.

 

But you must do it. Didn't you hear? Pebble Beach is obsolete. So therefore you must suffer.

[tnord]

you guys that are so opposed to losing a single yard.....

 

what makes an enjoyable round of golf?

[PGArox]

you guys that are so opposed to losing a single yard.....

 

what makes an enjoyable round of golf?

 

350 yard drives, baby! :)

 

 

j/k

[rawdog]

you guys that are so opposed to losing a single yard.....

 

what makes an enjoyable round of golf?

 

The fact that I'm playing golf makes it enjoyable.

 

Doing my best even when I don't have it makes it enjoyable.

 

Having overcome Guillain-Barre Syndrome and not being able to walk for 3 months of my early 20s makes me really not give too much of a s*** about what club someone hits for their approach shots.

[North Butte]

you guys that are so opposed to losing a single yard.....

 

what makes an enjoyable round of golf?

 

Why do you keep saying "single yard" in a conversation that is about Dustin Johnson hitting the ball 50 yards farther than you want him to.

 

Or are you really plumping for a 1% rollback?

[rawdog]

you guys that are so opposed to losing a single yard.....

 

what makes an enjoyable round of golf?

 

Why do you keep saying "single yard" in a conversation that is about Dustin Johnson hitting the ball 50 yards farther than you want him to.

 

Or are you really plumping for a 1% rollback?

 

0.33% rollback if we're talking 1 yard.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Let's expedite this:

 

A: Why is there concern over the golf ball?

B: Goes too far.

A: Why do we care how far the ball goes?

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

A: How could they become obsolete?

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

A: So what?

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

A: So, what?

B: I don't want that to happen.

A: Understood.

[15th Club]

I want to correct some more misstatements and unfair misconceptions...

• As for the opinion(s) of Jack Nicklaus, he complained about his own ball (the MacGregor Tourney) a lot; to his contacts at MacGregor, at the time. It's not in dispute. How bad the Tourney ball was, has probably never been quantified. But it was well known at the time.
  

• Through just about all of Jack's competitive career, equipment didn't change much, and distance remained mostly flat. Look at the graphs that have been variously posted here, and look at the flatness of driving distance before metalwoods and new ball designs. I do think balls improved, gradually, from 1950 to 1985. But clubs didn't change much at all.
  

• Jack would have had little reason to complain about distance/equipment issues until his career was nearly over, because there was nothing much to complain about.
  

• Jack's complaints about the golf ball do coincide with real distance gains; it is a real disservice to the debate to claim that Jack only began to complain recently, or because his competitive career ended.
  

• Tiger Woods began talking about golf ball-related distance many years ago. It was not when Tiger had somehow passed his prime. So ditto Tiger Woods; his complaints are NOT co-incident with a new ball contract, or any change in his own playing competitiveness.
  

• Geoff Shackelford has an important personal history as an author and as an architect. He was central to the recent re-do of LACC. He co-designed Rustic Canyon, an award-winning daily fee course, and he's done a number of other projects on his own or with Gil Hanse. The comments I've seen here critical of Shackelford are trashtalk.
  

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%", and many hope that such a result won't happen. I'd like to see (this is just me) a single rule and testing protocol for all of golf, regulating a new golf ball technology that effectively rolls back long-hitting elites by something close to 10% or perhaps more, but which does nothing to the average distances of recreational players. Only if you are a golfer who has gotten significant distance gains from using a multilayer urethane ball, would you have any concern over losing distance in my idealized rollback.
  

• And again -- I just don't know how many times I have to say this -- I do not care, if someone thinks that "fitness," or "player size", or "swing speed", or "agronomy", or "course set-up", or "launch monitors" are advanced as true causes for increased distances in golf. The simple fact remains that even if, and especially if, those other things are changing, the easy and simple thing to use to correct the overall distance equation is the golf ball. Because, as everybody keeps saying, we aren't going to regulate "fitness." Because the only other thing left, if you don't adjust the golf balls, is to keep on adjusting the golf courses. Which is a crime against golf course architecture and the history of the game.
  

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I want to correct some more misstatements and unfair misconceptions...

• As for the opinion(s) of Jack Nicklaus, he complained about his own ball (the MacGregor Tourney) a lot; to his contacts at MacGregor, at the time. It's not in dispute. How bad the Tourney ball was, has probably never been quantified. But it was well known at the time.
  

• Through just about all of Jack's competitive career, equipment didn't change much, and distance remained mostly flat. Look at the graphs that have been variously posted here, and look at the flatness of driving distance before metalwoods and new ball designs. I do think balls improved, gradually, from 1950 to 1985. But clubs didn't change much at all.
  

• Jack would have had little reason to complain about distance/equipment issues until his career was nearly over, because there was nothing much to complain about.
  

• Jack's complaints about the golf ball do coincide with real distance gains; it is a real disservice to the debate to claim that Jack only began to complain recently, or because his competitive career ended.
  

• Tiger Woods began talking about golf ball-related distance many years ago. It was not when Tiger had somehow passed his prime. So ditto Tiger Woods; his complaints are NOT co-incident with a new ball contract, or any change in his own playing competitiveness.
  

• Geoff Shackelford has an important personal history as an author and as an architect. He was central to the recent re-do of LACC. He co-designed Rustic Canyon, an award-winning daily fee course, and he's done a number of other projects on his own or with Gil Hanse. The comments I've seen here critical of Shackelford are trashtalk.
  

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%", and many hope that such a result won't happen. I'd like to see (this is just me) a single rule and testing protocol for all of golf, regulating a new golf ball technology that effectively rolls back long-hitting elites by something close to 10% or perhaps more, but which does nothing to the average distances of recreational players. Only if you are a golfer who has gotten significant distance gains from using a multilayer urethane ball, would you have any concern over losing distance in my idealized rollback.
  

• And again -- I just don't know how many times I have to say this -- I do not care, if someone thinks that "fitness," or "player size", or "swing speed", or "agronomy", or "course set-up", or "launch monitors" are advanced as true causes for increased distances in golf. The simple fact remains that even if, and especially if, those other things are changing, the easy and simple thing to use to correct the overall distance equation is the golf ball. Because, as everybody keeps saying, we aren't going to regulate "fitness." Because the only other thing left, if you don't adjust the golf balls, is to keep on adjusting the golf courses. Which is a crime against golf course architecture and the history of the game.
  

 

I don't buy that courses need to be adjusted. Why?

[15th Club]

This is probably not the ideal forum for trying to gain credibility by dragging GCA and the Shackelford site in as authoritative experts.

 

Yeah, and this is probably not the ideal forum to try to talk about the art and history of golf course architecture. But I am the sort of person who likes to confront disagreement. I'm not really looking for social networking with like-minded people. I want a debate. I want to marshal facts, and to shoot down bad arguments and misconceptions. I want the very best arguments pitted against each other.

[knock it close]

Let's expedite this:

 

A: Why is there concern over the golf ball?

B: Goes too far.

A: Why do we care how far the ball goes?

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

A: How could they become obsolete?

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

A: So what?

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

A: So, what?

B: I don't want that to happen.

A: Understood.

I don't care about the scoring records, I don't care that Erin Hills was -18 or whatever last year (it's too bad it was so soft though) or that The Masters gets into the mid-upper teens every soft often. I care about guys being challenged up and down their bags and variety in golf holes. If you don't make courses longer or limit the ball guys are not forced to hit 4 or 5 irons into par 4s which is part of identifying who the best golfer is.

[tnord]

you guys that are so opposed to losing a single yard.....

 

what makes an enjoyable round of golf?

 

350 yard drives, baby! :)

 

 

j/k

 

it's a legitimate question. please answer it.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Let's expedite this:

 

A: Why is there concern over the golf ball?

B: Goes too far.

A: Why do we care how far the ball goes?

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

A: How could they become obsolete?

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

A: So what?

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

A: So, what?

B: I don't want that to happen.

A: Understood.

I don't care about the scoring records, I don't care that Erin Hills was -18 or whatever last year (it's too bad it was so soft though) or that The Masters gets into the mid-upper teens every soft often. I care about guys being challenged up and down their bags and variety in golf holes. If you don't make courses longer or limit the ball guys are not forced to hit 4 or 5 irons into par 4s which is part of identifying who the best golfer is.

 

I think the ability to not have to hit 4 or 5 irons into par 4s is a part of identifying who the best golfer is.

[PGArox]

Let's expedite this:

 

A: Why is there concern over the golf ball?

B: Goes too far.

A: Why do we care how far the ball goes?

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

A: How could they become obsolete?

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

A: So what?

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

A: So, what?

B: I don't want that to happen.

A: Understood.

 

Amusing, Ashley, but not quite where it's at. Somewhat close, but not quite there.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Let's expedite this:

 

A: Why is there concern over the golf ball?

B: Goes too far.

A: Why do we care how far the ball goes?

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

A: How could they become obsolete?

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

A: So what?

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

A: So, what?

B: I don't want that to happen.

A: Understood.

 

Amusing, Ashley, but not quite where it's at. Somewhat close, but not quite there.

 

Help me fill in the gaps, man!

[15th Club]

I want to correct some more misstatements and unfair misconceptions...

• As for the opinion(s) of Jack Nicklaus, he complained about his own ball (the MacGregor Tourney) a lot; to his contacts at MacGregor, at the time. It's not in dispute. How bad the Tourney ball was, has probably never been quantified. But it was well known at the time.
  

• Through just about all of Jack's competitive career, equipment didn't change much, and distance remained mostly flat. Look at the graphs that have been variously posted here, and look at the flatness of driving distance before metalwoods and new ball designs. I do think balls improved, gradually, from 1950 to 1985. But clubs didn't change much at all.
  

• Jack would have had little reason to complain about distance/equipment issues until his career was nearly over, because there was nothing much to complain about.
  

• Jack's complaints about the golf ball do coincide with real distance gains; it is a real disservice to the debate to claim that Jack only began to complain recently, or because his competitive career ended.
  

• Tiger Woods began talking about golf ball-related distance many years ago. It was not when Tiger had somehow passed his prime. So ditto Tiger Woods; his complaints are NOT co-incident with a new ball contract, or any change in his own playing competitiveness.
  

• Geoff Shackelford has an important personal history as an author and as an architect. He was central to the recent re-do of LACC. He co-designed Rustic Canyon, an award-winning daily fee course, and he's done a number of other projects on his own or with Gil Hanse. The comments I've seen here critical of Shackelford are trashtalk.
  

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%", and many hope that such a result won't happen. I'd like to see (this is just me) a single rule and testing protocol for all of golf, regulating a new golf ball technology that effectively rolls back long-hitting elites by something close to 10% or perhaps more, but which does nothing to the average distances of recreational players. Only if you are a golfer who has gotten significant distance gains from using a multilayer urethane ball, would you have any concern over losing distance in my idealized rollback.
  

• And again -- I just don't know how many times I have to say this -- I do not care, if someone thinks that "fitness," or "player size", or "swing speed", or "agronomy", or "course set-up", or "launch monitors" are advanced as true causes for increased distances in golf. The simple fact remains that even if, and especially if, those other things are changing, the easy and simple thing to use to correct the overall distance equation is the golf ball. Because, as everybody keeps saying, we aren't going to regulate "fitness." Because the only other thing left, if you don't adjust the golf balls, is to keep on adjusting the golf courses. Which is a crime against golf course architecture and the history of the game.
  

 

I don't buy that courses need to be adjusted. Why?

 

"We can move all of our tees forward, if we wish, without investing more money in costly land, but we cannot keep on moving them backward."

~ BOBBY JONES

[PGArox]

you guys that are so opposed to losing a single yard.....

 

what makes an enjoyable round of golf?

 

350 yard drives, baby! :)

 

 

j/k

 

it's a legitimate question. please answer it.

 

Well, I am not one of the folks who are opposed to losing even a single yard, so I really can't answer the question.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I want to correct some more misstatements and unfair misconceptions...

• As for the opinion(s) of Jack Nicklaus, he complained about his own ball (the MacGregor Tourney) a lot; to his contacts at MacGregor, at the time. It's not in dispute. How bad the Tourney ball was, has probably never been quantified. But it was well known at the time.
  

• Through just about all of Jack's competitive career, equipment didn't change much, and distance remained mostly flat. Look at the graphs that have been variously posted here, and look at the flatness of driving distance before metalwoods and new ball designs. I do think balls improved, gradually, from 1950 to 1985. But clubs didn't change much at all.
  

• Jack would have had little reason to complain about distance/equipment issues until his career was nearly over, because there was nothing much to complain about.
  

• Jack's complaints about the golf ball do coincide with real distance gains; it is a real disservice to the debate to claim that Jack only began to complain recently, or because his competitive career ended.
  

• Tiger Woods began talking about golf ball-related distance many years ago. It was not when Tiger had somehow passed his prime. So ditto Tiger Woods; his complaints are NOT co-incident with a new ball contract, or any change in his own playing competitiveness.
  

• Geoff Shackelford has an important personal history as an author and as an architect. He was central to the recent re-do of LACC. He co-designed Rustic Canyon, an award-winning daily fee course, and he's done a number of other projects on his own or with Gil Hanse. The comments I've seen here critical of Shackelford are trashtalk.
  

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%", and many hope that such a result won't happen. I'd like to see (this is just me) a single rule and testing protocol for all of golf, regulating a new golf ball technology that effectively rolls back long-hitting elites by something close to 10% or perhaps more, but which does nothing to the average distances of recreational players. Only if you are a golfer who has gotten significant distance gains from using a multilayer urethane ball, would you have any concern over losing distance in my idealized rollback.
  

• And again -- I just don't know how many times I have to say this -- I do not care, if someone thinks that "fitness," or "player size", or "swing speed", or "agronomy", or "course set-up", or "launch monitors" are advanced as true causes for increased distances in golf. The simple fact remains that even if, and especially if, those other things are changing, the easy and simple thing to use to correct the overall distance equation is the golf ball. Because, as everybody keeps saying, we aren't going to regulate "fitness." Because the only other thing left, if you don't adjust the golf balls, is to keep on adjusting the golf courses. Which is a crime against golf course architecture and the history of the game.
  

 

I don't buy that courses need to be adjusted. Why?

 

"We can move all of our tees forward, if we wish, without investing more money in costly land, but we cannot keep on moving them backward."

~ BOBBY JONES

 

OK, so why not keep the tees where they are?

[Bye]

So everything pre 2003 has no meaning. Is this an attempt by the ruling bodies to claim that they fixed the problem in 2003 and all is ok becuse of them.

 

Using 2003 as a base line is a joke.

 

It's the ruling bodies saying two thing:

 

1 They allowed the modern ball to be conforming in 2003

2) since 2003 there has been no meaningful increase in ball performance beyond what they allowed in 2003

 

So apparently you want them to undo the decision they made nearly 20 years ago to allow the ProV1 to be conforming. You are free to ask them to go back an undo it. Their answer will be NO.

 

Yes that is what they are saying. It’s drawing attention to what they have done whilst ignoring the bit they don’t want to talk about.

 

 

 

 

[knock it close]

Let's expedite this:

 

A: Why is there concern over the golf ball?

B: Goes too far.

A: Why do we care how far the ball goes?

B: Because, uh, courses are becoming obsolete.

A: How could they become obsolete?

B: Because, uh, uh, the designers didn't foresee . . . uh, the clubs hit into greens by long hitters.

A: Haven't great players overpowered courses for generations?

B: Yeah, but now courses will have to take up more real estate Think of the environment.

A: Why do courses have to be longer?

B: Because scoring will be lower if they aren't lengthened.

A: So what?

B: Well, uh, the players from yesteryear will have their scoring records broken.

A: So, what?

B: I don't want that to happen.

A: Understood.

I don't care about the scoring records, I don't care that Erin Hills was -18 or whatever last year (it's too bad it was so soft though) or that The Masters gets into the mid-upper teens every soft often. I care about guys being challenged up and down their bags and variety in golf holes. If you don't make courses longer or limit the ball guys are not forced to hit 4 or 5 irons into par 4s which is part of identifying who the best golfer is.

 

I think the ability to not have to hit 4 or 5 irons into par 4s is a part of identifying who the best golfer is.

So if you don't want to test the full realm of players abilities lets just play everything from 6200 yards and cut the holes 15"

 

Ball striking prowess up and down the golf bag is vital in identifying the elite imo and the ability of elite middle to long iron players is diminished

[North Butte]

So everything pre 2003 has no meaning. Is this an attempt by the ruling bodies to claim that they fixed the problem in 2003 and all is ok becuse of them.

 

Using 2003 as a base line is a joke.

 

It's the ruling bodies saying two thing:

 

1 They allowed the modern ball to be conforming in 2003

2) since 2003 there has been no meaningful increase in ball performance beyond what they allowed in 2003

 

So apparently you want them to undo the decision they made nearly 20 years ago to allow the ProV1 to be conforming. You are free to ask them to go back an undo it. Their answer will be NO.

 

Yes that is what they are saying. It’s drawing attention to what they have done whilst ignoring the bit they don’t want to talk about.

 

There was more than ample talk about it at the time. What new is there to be said about a two decade old decision.

 

You hated it then, you hate it now. They made the decision then and aren’t going to unmake it now.

 

Not much new there...

[Roadking2003]

Or we adopt a par of 67 or 68 for elite competition events and call it par 71 or 72 for the other 361 days a year.

What the hell does changing the par on a hole do if the hole doesn't play how it is intended to? If a course plays close to par because it's a good course awesome, forcing it to play close to an arbitrary number is complete lunacy.

 

I agree and nobody decides how to play a hole based on par.

 

You should tell this to the USGA. They routinely change par to achieve their goals.