Rolling back the ball

[knock it close]

 

 

Sounds like making some 5s into 4s would be quite the test, then. Pretzel.

Overtly penal golf has already been tried and failed, I pray we are better than that.

[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.

 

So the multilayer urethane balls that we are concerned about haven't helped you. Yet you're worried about losing them?

 

That has to be the most stupid post of this thread.

[golfer929]

I understand the argument of rolling the ball back, but I just don't understand how this is a permanent solution. What happens if we roll the ball back and then the next Tiger/Jack comes on tour and everyone emulates them. Aren't we right back to where we started? You can't just roll the ball back every time people start hitting it further. If you keep doing that we will be back to playing gutties.. Golf is just like every sport, players get better in every aspect of the game over time. The players of today are on average better than that of players in the past. You can't just try and stop the development of distance by doing this, it won't work at all. It might buy you 10 years but then what?

 

If you roll the ball back players are going to find ways to hit it further anyway, its natural. People get better over time.

[Roadking2003]

Full disclosure this may sound dumb and I get it this is just my opinion.

 

I have never played the Masters but have played Augusta quite a bit. If 15 was a par 4, I'd layup every time. It's such a difficult shot though, it really is, shorts water, longs water, right isn't great. BUT a good tee shot puts you on top of the hill (fairly flat) and you've got iron in your hands most of the time. So even if I hit in the water short and long (which is very much in play and on your mind) I can still go to a drop area and get up and in for par 5. Now if it was a par 4 I'm laying up, which isn't easy either, because you'll have a downhill lie to a green that plays deceptively longer than what you see and it's super firm and gotta control spin plus trajectory. On 2 I'm not worried about much of anything. On the tee shot I wanna turn it over and second shot is just nutting it at the front of the green at least when I've played it. Even the bunker is a decent spot. Only place that is dead is long.

 

You are joking, right? Why would anyone in their right mind change how they play a hole based on par? You play the hole to achieve the lowest score. Par is irrelevant.

[Roadking2003]

Yes but you can't simply put lipstick on my uncle and call him my aunt. If the hole isn't designed to be attacked that way you can't just slap a different number on it and expect it to test your game properly. As much as we can say par doesn't matter it is taken into account by architects and short par 5's will very likely provide vastly different challenges that long par 4's

 

Par is a useless irrelevant number. Changing par changes NOTHING.

 

NOBODY changes how they play a hole based on par. The goal is to score the lowest possible for every hole. Par is totally irrelevant.

 

Sounds like making some 5s into 4s would be quite the test, then. Pretzel.

Overtly penal golf has already been tried and failed, I pray we are better than that.

 

When was that?

[knock it close]

I understand the argument of rolling the ball back, but I just don't understand how this is a permanent solution. What happens if we roll the ball back and then the next Tiger/Jack comes on tour and everyone emulates them. Aren't we right back to where we started? You can't just roll the ball back every time people start hitting it further. If you keep doing that we will be back to playing gutties.. Golf is just like every sport, players get better in every aspect of the game over time. The players of today are on average better than that of players in the past. You can't just try and stop the development of distance by doing this, it won't work at all. It might buy you 10 years but then what?

 

If you roll the ball back players are going to find ways to hit it further anyway, its natural. People get better over time.

Eh, I liken the golf swing more to pitching motion, yes more and more pitchers are throwing in the upper 90's but the peak speed has not jumped much at all, just like golf.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Sounds like making some 5s into 4s would be quite the test, then. Pretzel.

Overtly penal golf has already been tried and failed, I pray we are better than that.

 

Agreed. Keep them as par 5s. What's the issue now? Pretzel.

[knock it close]

Yes but you can't simply put lipstick on my uncle and call him my aunt. If the hole isn't designed to be attacked that way you can't just slap a different number on it and expect it to test your game properly. As much as we can say par doesn't matter it is taken into account by architects and short par 5's will very likely provide vastly different challenges that long par 4's

 

Par is a useless irrelevant number. Changing par changes NOTHING.

 

NOBODY changes how they play a hole based on par. The goal is to score the lowest possible for every hole. Par is totally irrelevant.

 

Sounds like making some 5s into 4s would be quite the test, then. Pretzel.

Overtly penal golf has already been tried and failed, I pray we are better than that.

 

When was that?

It changes the way the hole is designed in many cases. I do agree that it shouldn't change the way you play a hole.

 

 

 

Any course that one of the Jones' butchered in the last 30 years

[tnord]

i invite anyone to refer me to educational material on why the ball NEEDS to go farther, and why that makes golf a better game.

 

And I will echo (chamber?) that sentiment to invite anyone to refer me to logical material regarding why the ball NEEDS to do anything different than what it does right now, and why that makes people think golf would be a better game.

 

The Spirit of St Andrews - Alister MacKenzie

Anatomy of a Golf Course - Tom Doak

 

Spend some time listening to architects talk, there's a wealth of information here;

http://www.friedegg.co/

 

Not just of people previously mentioned as stodgy traditionalists (even though they're credited with the best "new construction" golf courses in the world) like Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw, Tom Doak, etc, but also people like Kyle Hegland the superintendant of Sand Hills, Jim Urbina a shaper turned architect, Keith Foster that work on Philly Cricket, Colonial, Southern Hills, etc. There's so much knowledge and insight direct from the architects on fried egg I can't recommend it enough.

[knock it close]

Sounds like making some 5s into 4s would be quite the test, then. Pretzel.

Overtly penal golf has already been tried and failed, I pray we are better than that.

 

Agreed. Keep them as par 5s. What's the issue now? Pretzel.

Nothing I never asked for par to be changed, I was explaining why in some cases it's dumb, (even tho par doesn't really matter)

[wfrogge1]

I understand the argument of rolling the ball back, but I just don't understand how this is a permanent solution. What happens if we roll the ball back and then the next Tiger/Jack comes on tour and everyone emulates them. Aren't we right back to where we started? You can't just roll the ball back every time people start hitting it further. If you keep doing that we will be back to playing gutties.. Golf is just like every sport, players get better in every aspect of the game over time. The players of today are on average better than that of players in the past. You can't just try and stop the development of distance by doing this, it won't work at all. It might buy you 10 years but then what?

 

If you roll the ball back players are going to find ways to hit it further anyway, its natural. People get better over time.

Eh, I liken the golf swing more to pitching motion, yes more and more pitchers are throwing in the upper 90's but the peak speed has not jumped much at all, just like golf.

 

And you dont see the MLB trying to roll back the ball to stop it :) . I say let the pros shoot -20 as a winning score for a tournament by shortening courses. Its just a number (like folks are pointing out). USGA keeps trying to fix a problem (low scores) by creating new problems that in the end hurt the recreational player more than it hurts pros. Effin dumb :)

[Shilgy]

My point is the full repertoire of a player should be tested that means having the ability to hit long irons some holes. Now you guys are quick to jump on me for saying par 4's and are quick to say well they can do that on par 5's and 3's. I'll contend that par 5's should offer a different test and if they are trying to do the job of a long par 4 they are in fact not doing their own job. Same goes as 3's a long two shotter should test a players driving ability and ball striking where a long one shotter is only testing the latter. Now it is my opinion that truly great courses challenge players to use all their shots and you see that in the variety of holes (look at the length variety in par 4's at Oakmont, Riv, or Merion) but if the length of players out grows the players that variety is greatly diminished, the driver-long iron becomes driver-mid, the mid length holes just become less than driver and a short iron, the drive and pitch becomes drivable and the drivable can become overly penile. It is also my opinion that the game in its current form is dominated by elite drivers and wedge players, now obviously those players should have an advantage but I just feel like courses in their current state test that more than other facets of the game. Now as I said before I don't care about the scores, I want the players to have to execute a variety of shots and for them to play great and interesting courses, as it is now players are asked to hit it as far as they can, as relatively straight as they can. So to do that you either continue to lengthen golf courses which takes land, money, and adds to the maintenance or you change the ball. I feel like I've laid out decent reasons as to why just leaving the courses the same is not the best answer but you seem to feel strongly that way.

If you are truly testing the whole bag the simple answer, no lengthening required, is to make the typical course a par 70. Take the two shortest part fives and make them par fours. Then you have added two long par fours with long second shots and testing par fives.

Sounds like the typical US Open.

But that's just making the score arbitrarily harder, sometimes it works and makes sense be cause of the hole design (Pebble 2, Oakmont 9) but other times its a bastardization of the design. I just don't see how you take that out of my post.

What? Instead of two par fives you have two par fours that require a long straight drive and long second. Is that not what you asked for to test all clubs?

Yes but you can't simply put lipstick on my uncle and call him my aunt. If the hole isn't designed to be attacked that way you can't just slap a different number on it and expect it to test your game properly. As much as we can say par doesn't matter it is taken into account by architects and short par 5's will very likely provide vastly different challenges that long par 4's

Now you sound like Payne Stewart. At an Olympic course in San Francisco US Open, '98? He told the USGA setup guru of the time, was it Davis then? Anyway, Payne complained that a par five for the members could not be played as a par four because the green was not designed for such a long approach. The response was essentially " so you'll lay up every day and not go for it in two"? Of course Payne could not honestly say that. So yes, a small green long par four is just fine. Sounds like a true test of the long game.

[knock it close]

I understand the argument of rolling the ball back, but I just don't understand how this is a permanent solution. What happens if we roll the ball back and then the next Tiger/Jack comes on tour and everyone emulates them. Aren't we right back to where we started? You can't just roll the ball back every time people start hitting it further. If you keep doing that we will be back to playing gutties.. Golf is just like every sport, players get better in every aspect of the game over time. The players of today are on average better than that of players in the past. You can't just try and stop the development of distance by doing this, it won't work at all. It might buy you 10 years but then what?

 

If you roll the ball back players are going to find ways to hit it further anyway, its natural. People get better over time.

Eh, I liken the golf swing more to pitching motion, yes more and more pitchers are throwing in the upper 90's but the peak speed has not jumped much at all, just like golf.

 

And you dont see the MLB trying to roll back the ball to stop it :) . I say let the pros shoot -20 as a winning score for a tournament by shortening courses. Its just a number (like folks are pointing out). USGA keeps trying to fix a problem (low scores) by creating new problems that in the end hurt the recreational player more than it hurts pros. Effin dumb :)

Huh? I think that makes the roll back argument. If baseball velocity increased at the same rate as driving distance Chapman would be throwing like 120, even though his arm speed would be almost the same as Ryan's

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Sounds like making some 5s into 4s would be quite the test, then. Pretzel.

Overtly penal golf has already been tried and failed, I pray we are better than that.

 

Agreed. Keep them as par 5s. What's the issue now? Pretzel.

Nothing I never asked for par to be changed, I was explaining why in some cases it's dumb, (even tho par doesn't really matter)

 

OK, if par is irrelevant, then who f****** cares how far pros hit a golf ball? Super pretzel with nacho cheese.

[Shilgy]

Huh? I think that makes the roll back argument. If baseball velocity increased at the same rate as driving distance Chapman would be throwing like 120, even though his arm speed would be almost the same as Ryan's

Cripes, now you're just replying nonsense. If Judge or Stanton hit the ball further with the same bat speed as a shorter hitter you're spot on. What the heck does throwing the ball have to do with it?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I understand the argument of rolling the ball back, but I just don't understand how this is a permanent solution. What happens if we roll the ball back and then the next Tiger/Jack comes on tour and everyone emulates them. Aren't we right back to where we started? You can't just roll the ball back every time people start hitting it further. If you keep doing that we will be back to playing gutties.. Golf is just like every sport, players get better in every aspect of the game over time. The players of today are on average better than that of players in the past. You can't just try and stop the development of distance by doing this, it won't work at all. It might buy you 10 years but then what?

 

If you roll the ball back players are going to find ways to hit it further anyway, its natural. People get better over time.

Eh, I liken the golf swing more to pitching motion, yes more and more pitchers are throwing in the upper 90's but the peak speed has not jumped much at all, just like golf.

 

And you dont see the MLB trying to roll back the ball to stop it :) . I say let the pros shoot -20 as a winning score for a tournament by shortening courses. Its just a number (like folks are pointing out). USGA keeps trying to fix a problem (low scores) by creating new problems that in the end hurt the recreational player more than it hurts pros. Effin dumb :)

Huh? I think that makes the roll back argument. If baseball velocity increased at the same rate as driving distance Chapman would be throwing like 120, even though his arm speed would be almost the same as Ryan's

 

So, what?

[knock it close]

Now you sound like Payne Stewart. At an Olympic course in San Francisco US Open, '98? He told the USGA setup guru of the time, was it Davis then? Anyway, Payne complained that a par five for the members could not be played as a par four because the green was not designed for such a long approach. The response was essentially " so you'll lay up every day and not go for it in two"? Of course Payne could not honestly say that. So yes, a small green long par four is just fine. Sounds like a true test of the long game.

I think everyone is misconstruing test, with a call for it to be difficult, the SAT is a test and identifies aptitude but it is far from difficult. Small, guarded greens from long distances do nothing to inspire bold chances, it leads to boring, conservative plays.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Now you sound like Payne Stewart. At an Olympic course in San Francisco US Open, '98? He told the USGA setup guru of the time, was it Davis then? Anyway, Payne complained that a par five for the members could not be played as a par four because the green was not designed for such a long approach. The response was essentially " so you'll lay up every day and not go for it in two"? Of course Payne could not honestly say that. So yes, a small green long par four is just fine. Sounds like a true test of the long game.

I think everyone is misconstruing test, with a call for it to be difficult, the SAT is a test and identifies aptitude but it is far from difficult. Small, guarded greens from long distances do nothing to inspire bold chances, it leads to boring, conservative plays.

 

OK, so will the fewest amount of strokes still win? Seems like it would make strategy a part of the game, right?

[knock it close]

I understand the argument of rolling the ball back, but I just don't understand how this is a permanent solution. What happens if we roll the ball back and then the next Tiger/Jack comes on tour and everyone emulates them. Aren't we right back to where we started? You can't just roll the ball back every time people start hitting it further. If you keep doing that we will be back to playing gutties.. Golf is just like every sport, players get better in every aspect of the game over time. The players of today are on average better than that of players in the past. You can't just try and stop the development of distance by doing this, it won't work at all. It might buy you 10 years but then what?

 

If you roll the ball back players are going to find ways to hit it further anyway, its natural. People get better over time.

Eh, I liken the golf swing more to pitching motion, yes more and more pitchers are throwing in the upper 90's but the peak speed has not jumped much at all, just like golf.

 

And you dont see the MLB trying to roll back the ball to stop it :) . I say let the pros shoot -20 as a winning score for a tournament by shortening courses. Its just a number (like folks are pointing out). USGA keeps trying to fix a problem (low scores) by creating new problems that in the end hurt the recreational player more than it hurts pros. Effin dumb :)

Huh? I think that makes the roll back argument. If baseball velocity increased at the same rate as driving distance Chapman would be throwing like 120, even though his arm speed would be almost the same as Ryan's

 

So, what?

So when Bob Gibson a 1.12 era in '68 the MLB lowered the mound

[tnord]

Sounds like making some 5s into 4s would be quite the test, then. Pretzel.

Overtly penal golf has already been tried and failed, I pray we are better than that.

 

Agreed. Keep them as par 5s. What's the issue now? Pretzel.

Nothing I never asked for par to be changed, I was explaining why in some cases it's dumb, (even tho par doesn't really matter)

 

OK, if par is irrelevant, then who f****** cares how far pros hit a golf ball? Super pretzel with nacho cheese.

 

you are aware that there are people out there between professionals, and people for whom a good day is breaking 100 right?

 

or is golf only for people your skill level and worse?

[tnord]

Now you sound like Payne Stewart. At an Olympic course in San Francisco US Open, '98? He told the USGA setup guru of the time, was it Davis then? Anyway, Payne complained that a par five for the members could not be played as a par four because the green was not designed for such a long approach. The response was essentially " so you'll lay up every day and not go for it in two"? Of course Payne could not honestly say that. So yes, a small green long par four is just fine. Sounds like a true test of the long game.

I think everyone is misconstruing test, with a call for it to be difficult, the SAT is a test and identifies aptitude but it is far from difficult. Small, guarded greens from long distances do nothing to inspire bold chances, it leads to boring, conservative plays.

 

OK, so will the fewest amount of strokes still win? Seems like it would make strategy a part of the game, right?

 

do you even like golf? do you have any earthly idea what makes a good golf course or a good test of golf? you are aware that if the ball is rolled back you can still ride in your cart shoot 100 and drink a 12 pack of keystone right (and seriously there's nothing wrong with that at all!)?

[knock it close]

Sounds like making some 5s into 4s would be quite the test, then. Pretzel.

Overtly penal golf has already been tried and failed, I pray we are better than that.

 

Agreed. Keep them as par 5s. What's the issue now? Pretzel.

Nothing I never asked for par to be changed, I was explaining why in some cases it's dumb, (even tho par doesn't really matter)

 

OK, if par is irrelevant, then who f****** cares how far pros hit a golf ball? Super pretzel with nacho cheese.

Like I said before so the course can adequately test the entirety of a players game. Are you just going to keep replying why? or who cares? like a petulant child or are you going to add to the discussion.

[knock it close]

Huh? I think that makes the roll back argument. If baseball velocity increased at the same rate as driving distance Chapman would be throwing like 120, even though his arm speed would be almost the same as Ryan's

Cripes, now you're just replying nonsense. If Judge or Stanton hit the ball further with the same bat speed as a shorter hitter you're spot on. What the heck does throwing the ball have to do with it?

It's still the transfer of energy, its a release rather than a collision, but the point stands. MLB has a regulated ball and the top velocity has not changed much over 80 years, more people have been able to come close to the upper echelon but they haven't been able to advance it much. Same goes for homerun distance, players are stronger now than ever presumably but the longest homeruns were allegedly hit in the 20's and 50's.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

you are aware that there are people out there between professionals, and people for whom a good day is breaking 100 right?

 

or is golf only for people your skill level and worse?

 

We're going there, OK. Makes more sense now.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

OK, if par is irrelevant, then who f****** cares how far pros hit a golf ball? Super pretzel with nacho cheese.

Like I said before so the course can adequately test the entirety of a players game. Are you just going to keep replying why? or who cares? like a petulant child or are you going to add to the discussion.

 

Just don't see why a course that plays shorter can't adequately test the players (they can, and do, all the time). Thanks for the personal insult, though. Much appreciated.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Now you sound like Payne Stewart. At an Olympic course in San Francisco US Open, '98? He told the USGA setup guru of the time, was it Davis then? Anyway, Payne complained that a par five for the members could not be played as a par four because the green was not designed for such a long approach. The response was essentially " so you'll lay up every day and not go for it in two"? Of course Payne could not honestly say that. So yes, a small green long par four is just fine. Sounds like a true test of the long game.

I think everyone is misconstruing test, with a call for it to be difficult, the SAT is a test and identifies aptitude but it is far from difficult. Small, guarded greens from long distances do nothing to inspire bold chances, it leads to boring, conservative plays.

 

OK, so will the fewest amount of strokes still win? Seems like it would make strategy a part of the game, right?

 

do you even like golf? do you have any earthly idea what makes a good golf course or a good test of golf? you are aware that if the ball is rolled back you can still ride in your cart shoot 100 and drink a 12 pack of keystone right (and seriously there's nothing wrong with that at all!)?

 

That's where it's gone. I love it. Nice work.

[knock it close]

OK, if par is irrelevant, then who f****** cares how far pros hit a golf ball? Super pretzel with nacho cheese.

Like I said before so the course can adequately test the entirety of a players game. Are you just going to keep replying why? or who cares? like a petulant child or are you going to add to the discussion.

 

Just don't see why a course that plays shorter can't adequately test the players (they can, and do, all the time). Thanks for the personal insult, though. Much appreciated.

You were the one drumming up mock conversations to make yourself feel better and replying with "pretzel" quips and little else, so if the shoe fits.

[clevited]

Not to derail an already partially derailed thread, but golf elitists like several of you in this lone thread, are a large part of why the game is not growing. Tiger made it cool, he grew the game, you guys make it an old man's bickering game.

[bladehunter]

Now you sound like Payne Stewart. At an Olympic course in San Francisco US Open, '98? He told the USGA setup guru of the time, was it Davis then? Anyway, Payne complained that a par five for the members could not be played as a par four because the green was not designed for such a long approach. The response was essentially " so you'll lay up every day and not go for it in two"? Of course Payne could not honestly say that. So yes, a small green long par four is just fine. Sounds like a true test of the long game.

I think everyone is misconstruing test, with a call for it to be difficult, the SAT is a test and identifies aptitude but it is far from difficult. Small, guarded greens from long distances do nothing to inspire bold chances, it leads to boring, conservative plays.

 

OK, so will the fewest amount of strokes still win? Seems like it would make strategy a part of the game, right?

so what ? chili cheeseburger deluxe !

[bladehunter]

Not to derail an already partially derailed thread, but golf elitists like several of you in this lone thread, are a large part of why the game is not growing. Tiger made it cool, he grew the game, you guys make it an old man's bickering game.

 

 

Dude...the oldest guys in this thread are on YOUR side.....

 

the game has slowed growth due to the fact that nobody else wants to play Golf.... so now we are changing it as fast as we can with bigger beer tents, talks of night tournamants, 6 hole match play etc to try to trick others into playing..... or more accurately watching.. nobody wants to see courses more crowded.. BUT the investment men want more gate sales, and more importantly more clicks and viewers on tv to see the boner pill commercials and life insurance plugs.... NOBODY is trying to grow the game... they are trying to grow their bottom line.