Rolling back the ball

[15th Club]

James Hahn tweeted, and Kevin Chappell retweeted "Breaking news. In addition to limited flight balls, the USGA will ban working out, diet plans, and swinging faster than 105mph. They are also planning on taking away the 3 point line in the NBA."

I always liked Hahn. Smart guy. Cal-Berkeley.

 

But that statement is ridiculous and idiotic. Nobody is trying to punish players for fitness. Nobody is going to ban workouts, or even launch monitors. I don't even want them to slow down golf courses. I want them as firm and as fast as possible.

 

The simple fact is, even if we assume that "fitness" is to blame for increased distance, the easiest answer is to scale back the golf balls. Because who cares about the golf balls? I'd choose to scale back the golf ball, rather than deface The Old Course or Merion or Oakland Hills or Muirfield.

 

Or just do neither of those and stop trying to fix something that isn't broken. The product of "golf" for pros, ams, and viewers has NEVER been better. Also, the players are evolving, why wouldn't the courses (if anything) have to evolve too?

 

Because "evolving" historic championship golf courses is expensive, and anti-historical, and anti-architectural, and in many cases produces a lesser quality of golf strategy.

 

If later this year, the Acushnet Company came out with a baseball that produced 35% more home runs, nobody would say, "We'll just get replacement stadiums, for Fenway Park and Wrigley Field. Because chicks dig the long ball."

[Wesquire]

James Hahn tweeted, and Kevin Chappell retweeted "Breaking news. In addition to limited flight balls, the USGA will ban working out, diet plans, and swinging faster than 105mph. They are also planning on taking away the 3 point line in the NBA."

I always liked Hahn. Smart guy. Cal-Berkeley.

 

But that statement is ridiculous and idiotic. Nobody is trying to punish players for fitness. Nobody is going to ban workouts, or even launch monitors. I don't even want them to slow down golf courses. I want them as firm and as fast as possible.

 

The simple fact is, even if we assume that "fitness" is to blame for increased distance, the easiest answer is to scale back the golf balls. Because who cares about the golf balls? I'd choose to scale back the golf ball, rather than deface The Old Course or Merion or Oakland Hills or Muirfield.

 

Or just do neither of those and stop trying to fix something that isn't broken. The product of "golf" for pros, ams, and viewers has NEVER been better. Also, the players are evolving, why wouldn't the courses (if anything) have to evolve too?

 

Because "evolving" historic championship golf courses is expensive, and anti-historical, and anti-architectural, and in many cases produces a lesser quality of golf strategy.

 

If later this year, the Acushnet Company came out with a baseball that produced 35% more home runs, nobody would say, "We'll just get replacement stadiums, for Fenway Park and Wrigley Field. Because chicks dig the long ball."

 

Except MLB players do hit it much further than they used to (6 times the home runs from the 1920s and 1930s), and wall distances have stayed about the same. You just defeated your own argument. This is like if Babe Ruth were to complain about too many Home Runs just because his records were broken.

[bladehunter]

Let's get this straight: nobody is "only concerned about the long hitters." Unless we agree (and I might!) that the entire field at a men's Tour event, or a men's NCAA event, are all "long hitters."

 

This is not about punishing, or favoring, any one group of elite players. It is not about trying to skew any part of elite men's golf events toward any particular competitive result. It isn't about anybody's competitive advantage.

 

What it is all about, is just one thing; scaling technologically-produced distance in golf, to the existing classic championship golf courses.

 

Period. Full stop.

 

Yes. Absolutely. And then we vote yay or nay on that. I vote yay. ( who knows of if i spelled that correct?)

 

Why wouldn’t we want the game scaled to the courses it’s played on ?

[Uhit]

Let's get this straight: nobody is "only concerned about the long hitters." Unless we agree (and I might!) that the entire field at a men's Tour event, or a men's NCAA event, are all "long hitters."

 

This is not about punishing, or favoring, any one group of elite players. It is not about trying to skew any part of elite men's golf events toward any particular competitive result. It isn't about anybody's competitive advantage.

 

What it is all about, is just one thing; scaling technologically-produced distance in golf, to the existing classic championship golf courses.

 

Period. Full stop.

 

Yes. Absolutely. And then we vote yay or nay on that. I vote yay. ( who knows of if i spelled that correct?)

 

Why wouldn't we want the game scaled to the courses it's played on ?

 

So, you want to make the game harder for 99+ % of the golfers - for no reason... :swoon:

 

...and you want to make 90+ % of the golf courses - which would become too long - obsolet...

 

...and you want, that all amateur golfer pay that bill - direct, or indirect...

 

...and you probably think, that a cornfield, which also needs water and fertilizer, is more attractive than a golf course?

 

...and you probably play golf only because of the score, but not because of enjoying a long stroll on a scenic course.

 

 

I rather like to walk 4 minutes (400 yards) more on a long, scenic course, during a round of golf, than to wait more than 4 minutes until a slow player hits his shot, or ceases searching his ball - more than once per round!

 

I rather enjoy the looks of a golf course, than a endless cornfield, or a concrete wasteland... :golfer:

 

...your mileage may vary of course.

[Bye]

The equipment/ball is constantly changing and being developed so it's not an issue if fair warning is given to the OEM's.

 

Has anyone from the USGA or R&A gone on record to say it won't happen? Don't think so.

 

It's going to happen, probably with the tours first and maybe just with the tours.

[bladehunter]

Let's get this straight: nobody is "only concerned about the long hitters." Unless we agree (and I might!) that the entire field at a men's Tour event, or a men's NCAA event, are all "long hitters."

 

This is not about punishing, or favoring, any one group of elite players. It is not about trying to skew any part of elite men's golf events toward any particular competitive result. It isn't about anybody's competitive advantage.

 

What it is all about, is just one thing; scaling technologically-produced distance in golf, to the existing classic championship golf courses.

 

Period. Full stop.

 

Yes. Absolutely. And then we vote yay or nay on that. I vote yay. ( who knows of if i spelled that correct?)

 

Why wouldn't we want the game scaled to the courses it's played on ?

 

So, you want to make the game harder for 99+ % of the golfers - for no reason... :swoon:

 

...and you want to make 90+ % of the golf courses - which would become too long - obsolet...

 

...and you want, that all amateur golfer pay that bill - direct, or indirect...

 

...and you probably think, that a cornfield, which also needs water and fertilizer, is more attractive than a golf course?

 

...and you probably play golf only because of the score, but not because of enjoying a long stroll on a scenic course.

 

 

I rather like to walk 4 minutes (400 yards) more on a long, scenic course, during a round of golf, than to wait more than 4 minutes until a slow player hits his shot, or ceases searching his ball - more than once per round!

 

I rather enjoy the looks of a golf course, than a endless cornfield, or a concrete wasteland... :golfer:

 

...your mileage may vary of course.

 

 

Yes.

 

I enjoy a walk on the course more than most. I walk 99% of the time. Cart riders do not get the same views. That can’t be really disputed.

 

And as far as I know club players who don’t compete can play anything they desire. 25 clubs if they wish. I people like to see the artificial distance gains for those that can’t hit the center of the club yet “ compete “ to be taken away. If the ball spins more it negates the distance irons and drivers produced now.

 

If this isn’t a real thing then why would people oppose my side of the argument ? Real question.

[huskerguy18]

If they were to do this I'd prefer only be for the Pros. Most amateurs don't hit the ball that far as it is so reducing the distance could only hurt the game for them. But I doubt the R&A would agree to only changing the ball for pros

[Bye]

For the most part scoring is fine. Look at this weeks Honda scoring. Tired of hearing about "classic" courses becoming obsolete. Every course in Europe has been too short for decades...the were built and designed by sheep herders...100 years ago!...

I think I read this on G. Shackelford's site...lol.

 

There are a few sheep herders in the hall of fame then.

[Socrates]

Again we are looking to change the game for the 1% that are golf phenoms. Why? The Old Course, Riviera, Augusta or any similar classic course, I'll bet if you went to all these obsolete courses and asked the members who play there, not one of them would tell you the ball goes to far for them.

[FlaBoy239]

I wonder if feather ball era guys complained when feathers became obsolete?

[AaronSmart]

Shaving an hour or more off the length of a typical round is also quite appealing. Will you get that at your local municipal course, because they rolled back the ball? Probably not. But if a rolled back ball, then rolls back the need for longer courses, then you might start seeing shorter timed rounds, which could bring back more players.

 

When the anchor ban went into effect, I saw almost zero weekenders have it in play. Did your average joe really need to throw away the belly putter, if it in fact helped him? Probably not, but, clearly the game of golf trickles down and people alternate themselves to what the professionals do.

So with that, if the ball was rolled back to the extent of the anchor ban, then you would see the same result on the amateur side of it, which could then open up the chance of shortening the courses.

 

 

To have the ability to drop your clubs off at a course, tee off at 1pm and be off the course by 4:20pm, is a pretty awesome feeling, playing with three others and having a group in front and behind of you.

If 1000 yards were shaved off every course, that's the best chance of that happening throughout the country, for a Pro and an Am.

[gvogel]

What it is all about, is just one thing; scaling technologically-produced distance in golf, to the existing classic championship golf courses.

 

Period. Full stop.

 

Except driving distances are flat the last 15 years. The ball has limits, club heads have limits. It's completely a non-issue.

 

I think it is a myth, that distances have essentially remained flat. You know the saying, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Read Geoff Shackelford's years-long writing and blogging on this subject. He rightly points out that the PGA Tour driving distance stat by itself is misleading. It is a number that is shaped by the drives that are being played on-course. Tighter fairways, more 3 woods used off the tee, etc. Geoff looks at a different number; the number of extremely long drives (350+, 400+) and sees those numbers rising dramatically after a period of flatness. Tour players, it seems, are holding back more and more reserved distance from the basic on-course "Driving distance" stat.

 

So, you are talking about that myth:

 

 

 

...which is from the USGA itself, and includes the roll of the ball, on fast, and firm fairways, especially setup for pro tournaments...

 

...and you rather believe someone, who favors the extremely long drives, that happen by accident, if a ball is running down a cart path, or rolling down a downhill slope, or in conjunction with a strong downwind situation etc...

 

...there is a reason, why a representative statistic should not focus on accidental exceptions, to be meaningful.

 

-

 

Now, I know at least, that I can save some time, and rather play a round of golf, instead of reading Geoffs nonsense.

 

-

 

The best way would be to look at the average carry distances...

 

...because this is, what is really done by the player.

[gvogel]

You are using a graph that may have changed dramatically last year. Martin Slimbers seems to have hinted at that.

 

If they play the US Open at an older couse, the players will use driving iron or 3-wood off the tee. That skews the driving distance lower. Last year they played the US Open at Erin Hills. It was a bombers course. The USGA got a real good look at what technology has done to the game.

 

The driving distances last year were significantly higher than previous years. Stay tuned.

[gvogel]

I have no idea why a distance roll back is so anathema to so many on WRX. If you are long, you will still be long with a rolled back ball. If you are playing from the tips, your course will be harder. If you are a competitor, what’s the difference? You might beat your buds by more strokes.

If you are a recreational golfer, you move up a set of tees. No big deal.

 

Rolling back the ball and the COR protects all golf courses. If you are elequent enough on this site to rail against a ball roll back, you are smart enough to find a set of tees that enables you to play your regular game.

 

Fact is, we have thousands of golf courses that were laid out in the era of the 270 yard drive. Let’s bring the technology back to fit all the golf courses.

 

Or are you an entitled person who believes that it is your right to hit 300 yard drives, as if there is some special, sacrosanct about 300 yard drives? If so, your game revolves around hitting it long and putting. If not, the game revolves around hitting fairways, long irons or fairway woods to greens, and good lag putting.

[AaronSmart]

What other sport (of NFL, Tennis, Hockey, Basketball, Soccer and Baseball) has equipment technology greatly changed the face of the game, for the pro level?

All of those above sports can be played on the same court or field dimensions as of 50 years ago.

 

 

 

A golf course at say 5700 yards from 1903, is still possible today, but odds are the finishing score after 4 rounds is -40, which clearly effects the comparison of years prior? I assume that's the main reason the people in charge would not want that to happen?

 

Baseball is probably the closest sport to golf in terms of yardages and distance. With baseball, the baseball hasn't improved to hinder the game. In fact, the fields have gotten smaller, because the skill is actually weaker, compared to years prior, which is why we saw the usage of steroids, to get the ball further.

the MLB never had an issue of too many homeruns prior to the steroid era. T

 

But golfs "too many homeruns (or too many yards off the tee)" was because of technology, inching further and further, not skill.

[Uhit]

Shaving an hour or more off the length of a typical round is also quite appealing. Will you get that at your local municipal course, because they rolled back the ball? Probably not. But if a rolled back ball, then rolls back the need for longer courses, then you might start seeing shorter timed rounds, which could bring back more players.

 

When the anchor ban went into effect, I saw almost zero weekenders have it in play. Did your average joe really need to throw away the belly putter, if it in fact helped him? Probably not, but, clearly the game of golf trickles down and people alternate themselves to what the professionals do.

So with that, if the ball was rolled back to the extent of the anchor ban, then you would see the same result on the amateur side of it, which could then open up the chance of shortening the courses.

 

 

To have the ability to drop your clubs off at a course, tee off at 1pm and be off the course by 4:20pm, is a pretty awesome feeling, playing with three others and having a group in front and behind of you.

If 1000 yards were shaved off every course, that's the best chance of that happening throughout the country, for a Pro and an Am.

 

If 1000 yards were shaved off every course, you would save less than 10 minutes per round.

 

Because you can walk 1000 yards in 10 minutes! :read:

 

...and you have to walk roughly 10500 yards from the club house back to the club house on our 7000 yards course anyway...

...no matter if you play it at 7000 yards from the champions tees, or 5700 yards from the lady tees...

...so, you would save 0 minutes per round on our course.

 

But if you would enforce the rules in regard of slow play, then I could more often play a round in less than 4 hours, instead of more than 5 hours on the very same course! :yes:

 

Slow play kills your time, not a few yards more, or less.

 

-

 

btw if time is your concern, you can play Stableford, or less than 18 holes - right now!

 

Slow play kills on the very same course 100 minutes per round with ease...

 

...there is no golf course, that you could shorten to a degree to save 100 minutes...

 

...because you can walk 10000 yards in 100 minutes.

 

 

Again, you could walk a complete round in the time, in which you are waiting on the course because of slow play! :scare2:

 

...and Nicklaus was not really fast... ;)

[AaronSmart]

Shaving an hour or more off the length of a typical round is also quite appealing. Will you get that at your local municipal course, because they rolled back the ball? Probably not. But if a rolled back ball, then rolls back the need for longer courses, then you might start seeing shorter timed rounds, which could bring back more players.

 

When the anchor ban went into effect, I saw almost zero weekenders have it in play. Did your average joe really need to throw away the belly putter, if it in fact helped him? Probably not, but, clearly the game of golf trickles down and people alternate themselves to what the professionals do.

So with that, if the ball was rolled back to the extent of the anchor ban, then you would see the same result on the amateur side of it, which could then open up the chance of shortening the courses.

 

 

To have the ability to drop your clubs off at a course, tee off at 1pm and be off the course by 4:20pm, is a pretty awesome feeling, playing with three others and having a group in front and behind of you.

If 1000 yards were shaved off every course, that's the best chance of that happening throughout the country, for a Pro and an Am.

 

If 1000 yards were shaved off every course, you would save less than 10 minutes per round.

 

Because you can walk 1000 yards in 10 minutes! :read:

 

...and you have to walk roughly 10500 yards from the club house back to the club house on our 7000 yards course anyway...

...no matter if you play it at 7000 yards from the champions tees, or 5700 yards from the lady tees...

...so, you would save 0 minutes per round on our course.

 

But if you would enforce the rules in regard of slow play, then I could more often play a round in less than 4 hours, instead of more than 5 hours on the very same course! :yes:

 

Slow play kills your time, not a few yards more, or less.

 

I disagree.

 

 

Of course slow play kills, but that's it's own issue that can be addressed in a number of ways.

 

 

I belong to two separate courses, one is 1200 yards shorter. I play that in 3 hours and 30 minutes. The other one, I play in 4 hours.

It's not only just the walking, it's how an older course is built. Typically, greens and tees are closer from hole to hole, the layout has a better flow, for quicker play. That's what I'm compering.

 

 

 

I'm still trying to figure out your logic. If someone went for a walk, one being short then the other, alone without any restrictions, and the pace of movement was the same, how would it be equal time?

 

 

I understand that a 1000 yard smaller course might have a clubhouse that's 3 blocks away from the 1st tee, but that can be assumed for every logic.

[BNGL]

Why do you think they will be obsolete? The game is just changing. That's fine. Stop trying to artificially make scores like what they were 100 years ago. Players are better now. Who cares if the winning score is -25? The average Joe would still be in triple digits.

 

If you want to play with wound balls, do it. No one is stopping you. Don't mess with everyone else just because they are giving you an inferiority complex.

 

We're not talking about scoring. We're talking about the quality of play. Of course you can keep scoring constant in the face of advancing technology; just grow rough deeper, narrow the fairways, and trick up the greens. All of which is rotten, in the context of interesting and strategic golf, and architectural integrity.

 

I didn't say anything about wound balls. And because of your attitude, and because you baselessly accused me of an "inferiority complex" (Thanks; have a nice day!) I am going to school you on a thing or two, sport.

 

I've never been a luddite on golf equipment. There have been some wonderful advances in golf equipment, and there will be more of them. And some bad developments as well, that deserve to be checked.

 

"The good developments":

• Modern greens mowers - they made putting an art, and green design much more interesting.
  
• Steel shafts - cheaper than hickory, easier to work with, and less fragile, they helped democratize the game of golf. Matched sets of clubs immediately became cheaper.
  
• Surlyn golf balls - no more replacing 3 or 4 balls a round with cuts in them. (This would then apply to all of the durable solid core balls.)
  
• Metalwoods - see, "hickory shafts."
  
• Adjustable hosel sleeves. When once only tour players could get titanium alloy drivers bent to their satisfaction, all golfers can now do it.
  
• The modern return to natural, low-water, links-based, classic course design.
  

"The bad developments":

• The failure to cap driver volume at something like 300cc; creating the platform for ultra-low spin heads at ultra-high swing speeds
  
• Green speeds and the competition for superfast greens. This is why the USGA will not allow sales of their own proprietary Stimpmeter to anyone other than their approved turfgrass staff and other turfgrass pros.
  
• Expensive composite shafts. Only extends the gulf between expensive and elite golf, versus everyday recreational golf. What is the benefit, other than pure distance?
  
• The Pro V1 (and the other multilayer urethane balls) - it is a ball that is used to tremendous advantage by high-swing-speed elites. They can hit low-spin drives, with higher-spin wedges. Recreational player get little benefit. Most recreational players don't even buy urethane balls.
  

 

Just a heads up anyone can buy an official USGA Stimpmeter from their shop, it's 120 bucks USGA member pricing is 115 I think.

https://www.usgapublications.com/products/usga-stimpmeter?variant=25702098566

[AaronSmart]

I'm not trying to explain that the game needs to be shorter because I can't play 5 hour rounds and that I should play Stableford.

 

All I am saying, is the course doesn't "need" to be 7000 or 8000 yards long to be more enjoyable (assuming you save time), if most of the golf world gets hard ons for Pebble Beach and Augusta in it's smaller yardages.

 

I'm saying in general, if the courses were smaller, and then gave us an hour or so less, to then achieve more results in a token day, what would be the issue?

 

You feel Dustin Johnson wants to be out on the course for 3.5 hours or 5 hours?

 

I'm not saying the cure to slow play is smaller courses, I'm just saying shorter courses would thus help, which then rolls back the ball, etc etc.

 

Again, slow play is completely irrelevant in this debate. I'm not saying slow play would be fixed for shorter courses.

[Nard_S]

One of strange ironies is that modern tech exponentially helps higher swing speeds more than average or lower. Low spin 460cc offers less gain to 100 mph Joe and more to 120 mph Pro. A composite ball is more stable for the high spin and speed rates and most amateurs never even utilize those benefits.

 

The tech has given added distance and spin control at the high end but really not much to average guy.Been playing same course for 25 years, for the most part people are hitting to same spots and are not at all longer. Once in a while a real heavy hitter is around and pounds it 50 yards further, no doubt the tech allows him to wail at it or work up to wailing at it.

 

I love my Ti max COR Driver but i also love my 1993 MB's and still enjoy wound balls once in a while. "Rollback" is the wrong terminology because it really is just obscuring the issue.

[Uhit]

Shaving an hour or more off the length of a typical round is also quite appealing. Will you get that at your local municipal course, because they rolled back the ball? Probably not. But if a rolled back ball, then rolls back the need for longer courses, then you might start seeing shorter timed rounds, which could bring back more players.

 

When the anchor ban went into effect, I saw almost zero weekenders have it in play. Did your average joe really need to throw away the belly putter, if it in fact helped him? Probably not, but, clearly the game of golf trickles down and people alternate themselves to what the professionals do.

So with that, if the ball was rolled back to the extent of the anchor ban, then you would see the same result on the amateur side of it, which could then open up the chance of shortening the courses.

 

 

To have the ability to drop your clubs off at a course, tee off at 1pm and be off the course by 4:20pm, is a pretty awesome feeling, playing with three others and having a group in front and behind of you.

If 1000 yards were shaved off every course, that's the best chance of that happening throughout the country, for a Pro and an Am.

 

If 1000 yards were shaved off every course, you would save less than 10 minutes per round.

 

Because you can walk 1000 yards in 10 minutes! :read:

 

...and you have to walk roughly 10500 yards from the club house back to the club house on our 7000 yards course anyway...

...no matter if you play it at 7000 yards from the champions tees, or 5700 yards from the lady tees...

...so, you would save 0 minutes per round on our course.

 

But if you would enforce the rules in regard of slow play, then I could more often play a round in less than 4 hours, instead of more than 5 hours on the very same course! :yes:

 

Slow play kills your time, not a few yards more, or less.

 

I disagree.

 

 

Of course slow play kills, but that's it's own issue that can be addressed in a number of ways.

 

 

I belong to two separate courses, one is 1200 yards shorter. I play that in 3 hours and 30 minutes. The other one, I play in 4 hours.

It's not only just the walking, it's how an older course is built. Typically, greens and tees are closer from hole to hole, the layout has a better flow, for quicker play. That's what I'm compering.

 

 

 

I'm still trying to figure out your logic. If someone went for a walk, one being short then the other, alone without any restrictions, and the pace of movement was the same, how would it be equal time?

 

 

I understand that a 1000 yard smaller course might have a clubhouse that's 3 blocks away from the 1st tee, but that can be assumed for every logic.

 

 

If it is how it was build, then you have a reason, why nothing should be changed, because the majority of courses was build in the modern way...

...and to benefit from a shorter layout, you would have to redesign the newer courses, if the ball would be rolled back - and this would cost a lot more money, than to change a hand full of old courses...

 

...maybe this is, what Jack is really after?

 

The time can be equal, if you have to walk a certain path, to get around the course - no matter if you tee up on the champion tees, or if you walk the same way a tad farther up to the ladies tees.

 

The ladies have to walk the same way, despite they play a shorter part of the same fairway - otherwise your drive from the champions tee could not end up at the ladies tee...

...the ladies just walk that distance prior their first shot.

[grew]

Its not a black and white issue. I honestly think the tour should just do an experimental tournament at an old Donald Ross course or something and advertise that its a rolled back ball. I think that would be incredible. It would drum up interest and would probably do extremely well with viewership.

 

Don't just all of a sudden roll back the ball.. Make it a one off, fun tournament and see what happens. Then gradually expand those types of tournaments. Make them worth more Fedex Cup Points or something. Don't entirely change the game, just mix it up for a tournament or 2 or 3 every year.

 

I know I'd go out of my way to watch......

[Uhit]

I'm not trying to explain that the game needs to be shorter because I can't play 5 hour rounds and that I should play Stableford.

 

All I am saying, is the course doesn't "need" to be 7000 or 8000 yards long to be more enjoyable (assuming you save time), if most of the golf world gets hard ons for Pebble Beach and Augusta in it's smaller yardages.

 

I'm saying in general, if the courses were smaller, and then gave us an hour or so less, to then achieve more results in a token day, what would be the issue?

 

You feel Dustin Johnson wants to be out on the course for 3.5 hours or 5 hours?

 

I'm not saying the cure to slow play is smaller courses, I'm just saying shorter courses would thus help, which then rolls back the ball, etc etc.

 

Again, slow play is completely irrelevant in this debate. I'm not saying slow play would be fixed for shorter courses.

 

If you want to save time, then slow play is relevant...

 

...because slow play can kill every day 100 minutes with ease - no matter how long the course is.

 

If you can save up to 10 minutes (1000 yards less total distance) with a new designed short 5500 yards course,

but you have to wait more than 100 minutes on the same course because of slow play - then you have burned a lot of money, and gained nothing!

 

This relation is pretty relevant for this debate.

[Wesquire]

One of strange ironies is that modern tech exponentially helps higher swing speeds more than average or lower. Low spin 460cc offers less gain to 100 mph Joe and more to 120 mph Pro. A composite ball is more stable for the high spin and speed rates and most amateurs never even utilize those benefits.

 

The tech has given added distance and spin control at the high end but really not much to average guy.Been playing same course for 25 years, for the most part people are hitting to same spots and are not at all longer. Once in a while a real heavy hitter is around and pounds it 50 yards further, no doubt the tech allows him to wail at it or work up to wailing at it.

 

I love my Ti max COR Driver but i also love my 1993 MB's and still enjoy wound balls once in a while. "Rollback" is the wrong terminology because it really is just obscuring the issue.

 

Wrong. 460cc heads are by nature higher spin than smaller heads. The size is for forgiveness, not spin. So it is actually the exact opposite benefit from what you said.

[AaronSmart]

I'm not trying to explain that the game needs to be shorter because I can't play 5 hour rounds and that I should play Stableford.

 

All I am saying, is the course doesn't "need" to be 7000 or 8000 yards long to be more enjoyable (assuming you save time), if most of the golf world gets hard ons for Pebble Beach and Augusta in it's smaller yardages.

 

I'm saying in general, if the courses were smaller, and then gave us an hour or so less, to then achieve more results in a token day, what would be the issue?

 

You feel Dustin Johnson wants to be out on the course for 3.5 hours or 5 hours?

 

I'm not saying the cure to slow play is smaller courses, I'm just saying shorter courses would thus help, which then rolls back the ball, etc etc.

 

Again, slow play is completely irrelevant in this debate. I'm not saying slow play would be fixed for shorter courses.

 

If you want to save time, then slow play is relevant...

 

...because slow play can kill every day 100 minutes with ease - no matter how long the course is.

 

If you can save up to 10 minutes (1000 yards less total distance) with a new designed short 5500 yards course,

but you have to wait more than 100 minutes on the same course because of slow play - then you have burned a lot of money, and gained nothing!

 

This relation is pretty relevant for this debate.

 

The tour doesn't have a "slow play" issue, because they are their own entity and don't have to report back to us (the tv viewer) and see if they should speed up play. If someone is slow, they can deal with it, or leave it as is, their call.

 

Most private (high end) courses don't have slow play issues as well, as they get addressed.

 

For mid range private, public and municipality, slow play is more of an issue, yes, but that doesn't mean a 8000 yard course is the same speed of a 6000 yard course because of slow play. Slow play is balanced.

 

Slow play hinders your ability to get to the next hole. Just as a weather delay adds to your course time, it is what it is, you deal with it.

 

 

But a 6000 course is going to get you home faster on the PGA Tour, week in and week out, that's what I was pertaining to.

[farmer]

Tiger made a swing today measured at 128 mph. What do you do about that?

[Socrates]

Tiger made a swing today measured at 128 mph. What do you do about that?

That never happened. Totally fake. It was actually just 105mph and the ball made it carry 310.

 

Jack had no worries about the ball in 1963 when he hit it 341 at the PGA. Must have used his time machine to jump ahead to 2018 to get a ProV1 and then come back for the long drive.

[Wesquire]

Tiger made a swing today measured at 128 mph. What do you do about that?

 

I don't believe that number, but that's beside the point.

[Uhit]

I'm not trying to explain that the game needs to be shorter because I can't play 5 hour rounds and that I should play Stableford.

 

All I am saying, is the course doesn't "need" to be 7000 or 8000 yards long to be more enjoyable (assuming you save time), if most of the golf world gets hard ons for Pebble Beach and Augusta in it's smaller yardages.

 

I'm saying in general, if the courses were smaller, and then gave us an hour or so less, to then achieve more results in a token day, what would be the issue?

 

You feel Dustin Johnson wants to be out on the course for 3.5 hours or 5 hours?

 

I'm not saying the cure to slow play is smaller courses, I'm just saying shorter courses would thus help, which then rolls back the ball, etc etc.

 

Again, slow play is completely irrelevant in this debate. I'm not saying slow play would be fixed for shorter courses.

 

If you want to save time, then slow play is relevant...

 

...because slow play can kill every day 100 minutes with ease - no matter how long the course is.

 

If you can save up to 10 minutes (1000 yards less total distance) with a new designed short 5500 yards course,

but you have to wait more than 100 minutes on the same course because of slow play - then you have burned a lot of money, and gained nothing!

 

This relation is pretty relevant for this debate.

 

The tour doesn't have a "slow play" issue, because they are their own entity and don't have to report back to us (the tv viewer) and see if they should speed up play. If someone is slow, they can deal with it, or leave it as is, their call.

 

Most private (high end) courses don't have slow play issues as well, as they get addressed.

 

For mid range private, public and municipality, slow play is more of an issue, yes, but that doesn't mean a 8000 yard course is the same speed of a 6000 yard course because of slow play. Slow play is balanced.

 

Slow play hinders your ability to get to the next hole. Just as a weather delay adds to your course time, it is what it is, you deal with it.

 

 

But a 6000 course is going to get you home faster on the PGA Tour, week in and week out, that's what I was pertaining to.

 

The goal should be to grow the game - isn't it?

 

And the goal can be reached much more convenient with reducing slow play, instead of reducing existing courses, or changing the ball.

 

A flight on a 8000 yards course without J.B. Holmes and Jason Day is going to get you home much faster, than a flight with them on a 6000 yards course.

 

Because of the relation I already mentioned, which is for sure greater than 10:1 in this case.

[bladehunter]

One of strange ironies is that modern tech exponentially helps higher swing speeds more than average or lower. Low spin 460cc offers less gain to 100 mph Joe and more to 120 mph Pro. A composite ball is more stable for the high spin and speed rates and most amateurs never even utilize those benefits.

 

The tech has given added distance and spin control at the high end but really not much to average guy.Been playing same course for 25 years, for the most part people are hitting to same spots and are not at all longer. Once in a while a real heavy hitter is around and pounds it 50 yards further, no doubt the tech allows him to wail at it or work up to wailing at it.

 

I love my Ti max COR Driver but i also love my 1993 MB's and still enjoy wound balls once in a while. "Rollback" is the wrong terminology because it really is just obscuring the issue.

.

 

Absolutely disagree. A guy who hits it center can play anything. A guy who can’t needs irons and Driver that allow a one inch square variance. How does a larger sweet spot help the high speed pro ? He isn’t missing often. Now how does it help the 8 handicap who should be 15? It gets his ball in the air longer so he carries it 250 with a 100 mph swing. Something he couldn’t do 9 out of 10 swings with a 360cc Driver head.