Rolling back the ball

[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.

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"

 

Or roll it back 40% and see who is best at hitting drivers into par threes. Just as silly.

Requiring guys to have to hit 4 and 5 irons into par fours to prove their worth would necessitate requiring a lot of the field to hit woods into those par fours.

Long hitters would still have the advantage (maybe even a greater advantage). Then, would we talk about how their whole game wasn't tested because they didn't have to hit 3 and 5 woods into par fours? Don't let your thinking get bogged down with the number on the club.

[15th Club]

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"

 

Or roll it back 40% and see who is best at hitting drivers into par threes. Just as silly.

Requiring guys to have to hit 4 and 5 irons into par fours to prove their worth would necessitate requiring a lot of the field to hit woods into those par fours.

Long hitters would still have the advantage (maybe even a greater advantage). Then, would we talk about how their whole game wasn't tested because they didn't have to hit 3 and 5 woods into par fours? Don't let your thinking get bogged down with the number on the club.

 

Too many times to count, we have shot down the notion that we are trying to take away some competitive advantage from players who are longer. We are not doing that. We are not talking about any competitive advantage. Longer hitters are longer hitters. No problem. A ball rollback is not intended to result in all Tour players hitting it the same.

 

We are only trying to better-scale the entire field, generally, to the existing classic and historic championship golf courses.

[Roadking2003]

• Pretty much every pro-rollback advocate I am aware of feels that it is unnecessary to roll back most recreational golfers by "20%",
  

 

If that ever happened, I (and millions of others) will quit golf. I would have to move up to the ladies tees and ladies would have nowhere to go.

[Uhit]

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.

 

I am still waiting:

 

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:

 

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...

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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

 

what makes an enjoyable round of golf?

 

It's not about me. Maybe that explains a lot of the division.

[Shilgy]

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

If your goal is to want to test every club have 9 par 3's and 9 par 4's. Half would range from 120-270 yards and half from 350-580.

The current test is the same, lowest score wins. But the questions have been altered.

[tnord]

so how does changing equipment regs (be it COR, ball spec, etc) help me in particular?

 

how are my motives selfish?

 

this "discussion" is illustrating how shallow the understanding of the game some of you have.

[knock it close]

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.

I have less of a problem when it's one hole, take number 2 at pebble that plays 500ish or 9 at Oakmont which is <480 playing as 4's for national championships, you could even argue that 7 at Bethpage might be a superior hole as a 4 from the up box but I'm note convinced. But the idea that we're going to change 580 yard holes to 4's or 340 yard holes to 3's is asinine, and the USGA has made some clear mistakes with par numbers especially what they did at Chambers with the 4/5's

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

 

Or roll it back 40% and see who is best at hitting drivers into par threes. Just as silly.

Requiring guys to have to hit 4 and 5 irons into par fours to prove their worth would necessitate requiring a lot of the field to hit woods into those par fours.

Long hitters would still have the advantage (maybe even a greater advantage). Then, would we talk about how their whole game wasn't tested because they didn't have to hit 3 and 5 woods into par fours? Don't let your thinking get bogged down with the number on the club.

 

Too many times to count, we have shot down the notion that we are trying to take away some competitive advantage from players who are longer. We are not doing that. We are not talking about any competitive advantage. Longer hitters are longer hitters. No problem. A ball rollback is not intended to result in all Tour players hitting it the same.

 

We are only trying to better-scale the entire field, generally, to the existing classic and historic championship golf courses.

 

Why aren't they scaled appropriately at present? Making the entire field hit it 20 yards shorter, or 20 yards longer, or the same as they do now, effectively "scales" the field without eroding the advantage for a longer hitter, no? Why change anything?

[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

 

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

 

Because steadily, ANGC #13, and #15, are becoming less and less like the tests they were intended as.

 

I have to stop and pinch myself every once in a while, to remind myself that I am arguing with people who would sooner choose:

(a) buying $25 million or so worth of extra land, or:

(b) basically allowing #13 and #15 be turned into Par 4's,

rather than changing the specs on golf balls.

 

Seriously people? Change Augusta National? Change The Old Course? Instead of very slightly changing some multilayer urethane-covered golf ball specifications?

 

To me, and many others, it is like changing the Mona Lisa instead of changing the light bulbs in the Louvre.

[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.

 

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...

 

As I have said before I only remember the chat about the driver at the time, I didn’t care back then.

 

To be honest I never really thought about it until a couple of years ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[knock it close]

Or roll it back 40% and see who is best at hitting drivers into par threes. Just as silly.

Requiring guys to have to hit 4 and 5 irons into par fours to prove their worth would necessitate requiring a lot of the field to hit woods into those par fours.

Long hitters would still have the advantage (maybe even a greater advantage). Then, would we talk about how their whole game wasn't tested because they didn't have to hit 3 and 5 woods into par fours? Don't let your thinking get bogged down with the number on the club.

 

Too many times to count, we have shot down the notion that we are trying to take away some competitive advantage from players who are longer. We are not doing that. We are not talking about any competitive advantage. Longer hitters are longer hitters. No problem. A ball rollback is not intended to result in all Tour players hitting it the same.

 

We are only trying to better-scale the entire field, generally, to the existing classic and historic championship golf courses.

 

Why aren't they scaled appropriately at present? Making the entire field hit it 20 yards shorter, or 20 yards longer, or the same as they do now, effectively "scales" the field without eroding the advantage for a longer hitter, no? Why change anything?

You thinking whole numbers "scale" without giving advantage one way or the other over percentage really doesn't help your argument.

[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?

 

Because steadily, ANGC #13, and #15, are becoming less and less like the tests they were intended as.

 

I have to stop and pinch myself every once in a while, to remind myself that I am arguing with people who would sooner choose:

(a) buying $25 million or so worth of extra land, or:

(b) basically allowing #13 and #15 be turned into Par 4's,

rather than changing the specs on golf balls.

 

Seriously people? Change Augusta National? Change The Old Course? Instead of very slightly changing some multilayer urethane-covered golf ball specifications?

 

To me, and many others, it is like changing the Mona Lisa instead of changing the light bulbs in the Louvre.

 

 

Nope. All straw man arguments. I'm saying don't change. Don't buy more land. Please read.

What would happen if #13 and #15 at ANGC were effectively turned into two-shot, par four holes? Would the player who played the best not still win?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Or roll it back 40% and see who is best at hitting drivers into par threes. Just as silly.

Requiring guys to have to hit 4 and 5 irons into par fours to prove their worth would necessitate requiring a lot of the field to hit woods into those par fours.

Long hitters would still have the advantage (maybe even a greater advantage). Then, would we talk about how their whole game wasn't tested because they didn't have to hit 3 and 5 woods into par fours? Don't let your thinking get bogged down with the number on the club.

 

Too many times to count, we have shot down the notion that we are trying to take away some competitive advantage from players who are longer. We are not doing that. We are not talking about any competitive advantage. Longer hitters are longer hitters. No problem. A ball rollback is not intended to result in all Tour players hitting it the same.

 

We are only trying to better-scale the entire field, generally, to the existing classic and historic championship golf courses.

 

Why aren't they scaled appropriately at present? Making the entire field hit it 20 yards shorter, or 20 yards longer, or the same as they do now, effectively "scales" the field without eroding the advantage for a longer hitter, no? Why change anything?

You thinking whole numbers "scale" without giving advantage one way or the other over percentage really doesn't help your argument.

 

It was purposeful. 15 necessarily assumed in his post that a roll back would better scale without taking into account percentages. That is, to say, a roll back would definitely make driving distance trend more toward the mean (given percentages), whereas 15 professed not to seek to erode a long hitter's advantage. Irreconcilable. Hope this helps.

[Roadking2003]

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.

 

They hit 4 or 5 irons into par fives. So that identifies who can hit long irons best. It doesn't matter if it's a par five or par four or par three.

[PGArox]

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.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

 

If I could like it nine times, I would.

I think they might be interested in preserving only a certain part of the rich history or the game. Poor Skokie.

[North Butte]

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.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

 

A lot of people view history purely in the context of their own memories.

 

Also a lot of people think of golf history as a bunch of guff written in books about how golf ought to be...stuff that was fanciful and ahistoric even as it was being written.

[knock it close]

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.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

So are you not disappointed that historic venues such as Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Myopia, or even say Cherry Hills have lost the ability to host your national open? My ball roll back take is less on player progression and evolution and more for wanting great historic venues to be able to host events, and hell if you could lengthen all the courses to adequately challenge the players I'd be all for it but unfortunately you run out of land and you increase your maintenance budget in doing so.

[mahonie]

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?

 

Because eventually no one will need driver. My course is 6,100 yards from the tips and I can play the course and score well with nothing longer than a 5-iron in the bag. Course doesn’t have the room to expand so it will become landfill in the next ten years.

[bladehunter]

 

UHIT-

 

 

Speaking of questions unanswered. I’ve mentioned your mentioning of tiger as if he were some slow old man waiting for pasture. He’s swinging 124plus. Why do you mention him as if he’s slow and wishing for rollback to see others comeback to him. He hit the longest carry on tour this year at Torrey.

 

Now that we’ve established that he isn’t a slow old man griping because the young guys are faster let me ask you this . Why would he want it rolled back ?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

So are you not disappointed that historic venues such as Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Myopia, or even say Cherry Hills have lost the ability to host your national open? My ball roll back take is less on player progression and evolution and more for wanting great historic venues to be able to host events, and hell if you could lengthen all the courses to adequately challenge the players I'd be all for it but unfortunately you run out of land and you increase your maintenance budget in doing so.

 

Can't answer for ROX, but I wonder why those venues aren't considered if we are concerned about history. I don't think they've lost the ability to host. But, we can't have some players hitting certain clubs into certain greens, right? That just wouldn't be testing golfers . . . because . . . that would be . . . not golf, somehow.

[15th Club]

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.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

 

And now, Oakland Hills is absolutely out of room, after having done some dubious things to their golf course just for the sake of combatting length. Oakland Hills's next step would be to start buying up neighboring properties, and that wouldn't even work in many cases.

 

They couldn't lengthen 15, so Rees Jones defaced it with another fairway bunker.

 

I actually don't need you to tell me that there is a long history of battles between equipment advances and golf course architecture. Of course that debate has been ongoing for a hundred years or more. What I don't accept is anyone telling me that I am somehow opposed to all equipment technology. I am not; and I have described my thoughts in considerable detail. We will continue to see future advances in equipment technology that I will find appealing and that will be good for the game. But the golf ball has been regulated throughout the modern history of the game, and it must continue to be regulated, and now is time for re-crafting those regulations.

[15th Club]

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.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

 

How long will a U.S. Open course need to be, in 2050? Will Shinnecock be able to host an Open? Merion? Will Riviera be able to host a Tour event?

[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?

 

Because eventually no one will need driver. My course is 6,100 yards from the tips and I can play the course and score well with nothing longer than a 5-iron in the bag. Course doesn’t have the room to expand so it will become landfill in the next ten years.

 

If they played tour events and majors at 6100, I might see what you are saying. I'll indulge you, however. What if they played a tour event at your course? It would still test who hits the ball the fewest number of times. I am saying they don't need to lengthen anything. They don't have a good answer as to why they do. In turn, there is no good reason to roll back the ball.

[Uhit]

UHIT-

 

 

Speaking of questions unanswered. I've mentioned your mentioning of tiger as if he were some slow old man waiting for pasture. He's swinging 124plus. Why do you mention him as if he's slow and wishing for rollback to see others comeback to him. He hit the longest carry on tour this year at Torrey.

 

Now that we've established that he isn't a slow old man griping because the young guys are faster let me ask you this . Why would he want it rolled back ?

 

What are you dreaming at night?

 

Please show me the post, you are referring to.

 

btw I have read something like this:

 

the USGA is a non profit organization...

 

...but it is said, that the director of equipment received close to a seven figure salary. :polling:

[knock it close]

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.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

So are you not disappointed that historic venues such as Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Myopia, or even say Cherry Hills have lost the ability to host your national open? My ball roll back take is less on player progression and evolution and more for wanting great historic venues to be able to host events, and hell if you could lengthen all the courses to adequately challenge the players I'd be all for it but unfortunately you run out of land and you increase your maintenance budget in doing so.

 

Can't answer for ROX, but I wonder why those venues aren't considered if we are concerned about history. I don't think they've lost the ability to host. But, we can't have some players hitting certain clubs into certain greens, right? That just wouldn't be testing golfers . . . because . . . that would be . . . not golf, somehow.

Yes I contend that hosting a tournament at 6500 yards wouldn't be testing the best golfers on the planet, and any attempt at that length to test them would be a complete bastardization of the course

[Sean2]

Perhaps the only way rolling back the ball would work is if there was one ball for the professional, and another for the amateur. Most amateur golfers will no accept a ball roll back. Heck, many play too far back as it is.

 

If there was a bifurcation, I think that would sour many golfers. In addition, what golf ball would the aspiring junior golfer play? What golf ball would be played at state amateur events? At AJGA events? In college?

 

Look at the roll Touring professionals get at the venues they play. A couple years or so ago I was watching the final round of the Farmers. The course was soaked. Most of the drives on Trackman were in the 275 - 285 yard range. According to Trackmangolf.com, the average carry distance on Tour is 276 yards. For the 14.5 HI golfer it's 195 yards.

 

The ball doesn't need to be rolled back.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

 

How long will a U.S. Open course need to be, in 2050? Will Shinnecock be able to host an Open? Merion? Will Riviera be able to host a Tour event?

 

7000-7500 yards.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

 

Why not? What would happen if the ball stays the same, and the Open is 7000-7500 yards in 2050?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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.

 

History of the game, huh? Well, let's take a closer look at that history.

 

In 1897 the third U.S. Open was held at Chicago Golf Club, which played slightly over 6,200 yards long.

 

The 1899 U.S. Open was held at Baltimore CC, a course of barely over 6,000 yards.

 

It wasn't until 1924, when Oakland Hills hosted the open, a course later dubbed "The Monster" by Ben Hogan, that a 6,800+ yard course would play host to our national championship.

 

You want to talk about an affront to the game's rich history? Whatever became of early U.S. Open venues like the aforementioned Baltimore CC? Or Midlothian, Brae Burn, Minikahda, Skokie or Inwood? That's right, they're all in the dustbin of history.

 

The first U.S. Open course to play over 7,000 yards was Oakland Hills, in 1937.

 

Was it an affront to the game's rich history and architecture that courses had been lengthened by as much as 800 yards in 40 years? Or was it merely the natural evolution of the game?

So are you not disappointed that historic venues such as Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Myopia, or even say Cherry Hills have lost the ability to host your national open? My ball roll back take is less on player progression and evolution and more for wanting great historic venues to be able to host events, and hell if you could lengthen all the courses to adequately challenge the players I'd be all for it but unfortunately you run out of land and you increase your maintenance budget in doing so.

 

Can't answer for ROX, but I wonder why those venues aren't considered if we are concerned about history. I don't think they've lost the ability to host. But, we can't have some players hitting certain clubs into certain greens, right? That just wouldn't be testing golfers . . . because . . . that would be . . . not golf, somehow.

Yes I contend that hosting a tournament at 6500 yards wouldn't be testing the best golfers on the planet, and any attempt at that length to test them would be a complete bastardization of the course

 

Why? Why wouldn't it test who can get around in the fewest strokes?