Rolling back the ball

[tnord]

At the same time, you can't regulate or punish players for more athletic or getting their game more efficient with an instructor/Trackman.

 

When will these comments ever stop?

 

We aren't trying to "punish" anyone. Everyone will play by the same rules for golf balls. Who is being punished? Is it "punishment" if the entire field plays with balls that are designed and manufactured under slightly different specifications than at present? By that reasoning, players are being "punished" by all of them being asked to play a U.S. Open on a golf course that is nearly 8,000 yards.

 

I don't understand the persistence of this "punishment" myth.

 

Again, people; we are trying to scale the distances that golf shots are generally hit in championship competitions, to the distances that were anticipated when the great championship courses were designed. (Which has a myriad of side benefits by moving golf more generally to shorter courses that can be firmer, faster, with lowered rough and fewer punitive hazards, all of which will hopefully speed up play.)

 

LeBron James is too fast. The game wasn't meant to be played at this speed and elevation. Roll back the shoes.

this is disingenuous matt. there is NOTHING in basketball equipment that changes performance, and i know you know that. the baseball doesn't change year after year. i know you and i both played baseball, remember when they changed the regs on the aluminum bats to be -5 length to weight? did that destroy the game or was that a good thing? i don't even know if they've changed anything in baseball since then. a football is still a football.

 

a baseketball court, baseball field, football field stay the same size, in part, because there are no equipment changes year to year (month to month) like there is in golf. the bigger stronger athlete gets to also play defense as well as offense. there is no "defense" in golf.

[QMany]

If we accept the fallacy that it is just the ball making some championship courses obsolete, lets take a look at the US Open venues from 1950-2000 that a major hasn't returned:

• Northwood 1952
  
• Champions Golf Club 1969
  
• Atlanta Athletic Club 1976
  
• Cherry Hills 1978
  
• Inverness 1979
  
• The Country Club 1963 and 1988
  

That's it, by my count. Is anyone losing sleep over the fact these 6 courses haven't hosted another major? And the fact is the governing bodies had plenty of time before the ball changed to return and chose not to. Let's not pretend it was the ball's fault.

[Roadking2003]

Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene. Go back to pre-Tiger and chart all of the course mods done on tour courses to present day and then think what golf and scores would look like if none of those mods were done. I think some of this would be a lot easier to see if courses hadn't gradually adjusted to things over the last 20 years. It has masked the issue to some degree

 

Other than Augusta, what are they? "Pretty consistently adjusted" implies almost all of them. So give us a list.

 

 

They talk about it all the time on the tournament broadcasts in the last 20 years. Have you not noticed?

 

I'm just looking for facts, not TV talking head stuff.

[OrangeGravy]

Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene. Go back to pre-Tiger and chart all of the course mods done on tour courses to present day and then think what golf and scores would look like if none of those mods were done. I think some of this would be a lot easier to see if courses hadn't gradually adjusted to things over the last 20 years. It has masked the issue to some degree

 

Other than Augusta, what are they? "Pretty consistently adjusted" implies almost all of them. So give us a list.

 

 

They talk about it all the time on the tournament broadcasts in the last 20 years. Have you not noticed?

 

I'm just looking for facts, not TV talking head stuff.

 

come on, you telling me you don't believe everything the TV tells you?

[QMany]

this is disingenuous matt. there is NOTHING in basketball equipment that changes performance, and i know you know that. the baseball doesn't change year after year. i know you and i both played baseball, remember when they changed the regs on the aluminum bats to be -5 length to weight? did that destroy the game or was that a good thing? i don't even know if they've changed anything in baseball since then. a football is still a football.

 

a baseketball court, baseball field, football field stay the same size, in part, because there are no equipment changes year to year (month to month) like there is in golf. the bigger stronger athlete gets to also play defense as well as offense. there is no "defense" in golf.

 

 

 

 

[15th Club]

At the same time, you can't regulate or punish players for more athletic or getting their game more efficient with an instructor/Trackman.

 

When will these comments ever stop?

 

We aren't trying to "punish" anyone. Everyone will play by the same rules for golf balls. Who is being punished? Is it "punishment" if the entire field plays with balls that are designed and manufactured under slightly different specifications than at present? By that reasoning, players are being "punished" by all of them being asked to play a U.S. Open on a golf course that is nearly 8,000 yards.

 

I don't understand the persistence of this "punishment" myth.

 

Again, people; we are trying to scale the distances that golf shots are generally hit in championship competitions, to the distances that were anticipated when the great championship courses were designed. (Which has a myriad of side benefits by moving golf more generally to shorter courses that can be firmer, faster, with lowered rough and fewer punitive hazards, all of which will hopefully speed up play.)

 

LeBron James is too fast. The game wasn't meant to be played at this speed and elevation. Roll back the shoes.

 

Pity. I was hoping for a somewhat serious reply.

 

Football and basketball players get bigger and faster, and go against other players that are bigger and faster.

 

If golfers get bigger and faster, do we make golf courses bigger and faster? Your sarcasm helps us get to a place that is actually interesting. Because for someone who has no interest in golf course architecture and history, and who doesn't care where championships are contested, and who is more interested in seeing players hit ever-longer drives, etc. -- 300 yards, 350 yards, 400 yards, 450 yards... -- it might be plausible, to do just that, and continue to build longer and longer golf courses to pose challenges to longer and longer players.

 

In doing so, we are all falling into Wally Uihlein's dictum about golf being "an aspirational game." Wherein the game of golf is intertwined with the business of golf equipment, and the need is to continue to sell people on equipment that can produce longer distances (or which recreational players think will produce longer distances). Their "aspirations."

[North Butte]

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.

 

I don't think the ball needs to go farther. It has been regulated for 15+ years. I don't want the governing bodies to lift the restrictions already in place.

 

At the same time, you can't regulate or punish players for more athletic or getting their game more efficient with an instructor/Trackman.

 

I don't understand why some people (not saying you) have a hard time admitting that this era of golfers are just better, stronger, faster, taller, more athletic. In every other sport, most fans are able to admit that. We don't pretend that John Havlicek could check LeBron James. Ted Williams wouldn't hit .400 against the arms today. OL from the 60s and 70s would be eaten alive by Jadeveon Clowney. I feel like golf has a hard time with that realization. I wish more people would follow some of the top fitness professionals on social media. Follow along with Joey D and Kolby Wayne training their stable in in Florida. Look at what Andrew Hannon and PFS are doing in Scottsdale. Watch the daily workouts of the top collegiate programs, like Stanford who work with the same trainer as the basketball team, former Nebraska and NFL player Cory Schlesinger. Maybe your Finaus, Woodlands, and DJs just aren't supposed to hit the same shots as Ben Hogan, Tom Kite, Tom Watson, etc.

 

At the same time, the golf instruction industry has taken off. We don't see as much Hogan "digging it out in the dirt" by himself or Jack's few lessons only at the beginning of the year with Grout. Kids are growing up with a plethora of coaching options and a Trackman by their side.

 

It is a different game, I think we should embrace it. Between bigger, stronger, faster athletes, Trackman, and instruction, I'm actually a little surprised the gains are so small in the last 15 years.

 

For me, that is the most troubling part of the Distance Report:

 

The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase.

 

The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game.

 

Any time you see the phrase "protecting the game" it is almost guaranteed the person saying it does have the same "the game" in mind as you have. It's the go-to phrasing for someone who wants to "protect" one specific thing that's dear to them and is seeking to conflate the good of the entire game with his pursuit of some particular crusade or another.

 

If the current balls and equipment serves today's elite, athletic golfers and it serves the great masses of hackers, old men, ladies, weekend warrior middle-handicappers and the the like isn't that pretty darned close to serving "the game".

 

In this case, it would be in keeping with the USGA's historical origins for them to consider the good of "the game" to be the good of elite private clubs and their own aggrandizement by way of their yearly tournaments. Those two interests comprise, by my conservative estimate, perhaps 1% of "the game" overall.

[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.

 

I don't think the ball needs to go farther. It has been regulated for 15+ years. I don't want the governing bodies to lift the restrictions already in place.

 

it has been regulated for 15+ years and yet the distance gains persist.

 

At the same time, you can't regulate or punish players for more athletic or getting their game more efficient with an instructor/Trackman.

 

how is changing the golf ball punishing the player? how is changing the golf ball making you or dustin johnson go eat a double cheeseburger at winsteads every night and sit on the couch instead of going to the gym?

 

I don't understand why some people (not saying you) have a hard time admitting that this era of golfers are just better, stronger, faster, taller, more athletic. In every other sport, most fans are able to admit that. We don't pretend that John Havlicek could check LeBron James. Ted Williams wouldn't hit .400 against the arms today. OL from the 60s and 70s would be eaten alive by Jadeveon Clowney. I feel like golf has a hard time with that realization. I wish more people would follow some of the top fitness professionals on social media. Follow along with Joey D and Kolby Wayne training their stable in in Florida. Look at what Andrew Hannon and PFS are doing in Scottsdale. Watch the daily workouts of the top collegiate programs, like Stanford who work with the same trainer as the basketball team, former Nebraska and NFL player Cory Schlesinger. Maybe your Finaus, Woodlands, and DJs just aren't supposed to hit the same shots as Ben Hogan, Tom Kite, Tom Watson, etc.

 

i have ZERO problem with the golfer improving, but the bottom line is the game absolutely has changed. i really don't care what the cause breakdown is - what % is from fitness, what % is from driver size, what % is from the ball. don't care. doesn't really matter because the golf ball just goes farther now.

 

At the same time, the golf instruction industry has taken off. We don't see as much Hogan "digging it out in the dirt" by himself or Jack's few lessons only at the beginning of the year with Grout. Kids are growing up with a plethora of coaching options and a Trackman by their side.

 

It is a different game, I think we should embrace it. Between bigger, stronger, faster athletes, Trackman, and instruction, I'm actually a little surprised the gains are so small in the last 15 years.

 

there are independent studies out there more in line with what everybody knows to be true, i'll try to go find them. i think the USGA is doing a little CYA trying not to admit their horrific blunder in pandering to wally.

[North Butte]

At the same time, you can't regulate or punish players for more athletic or getting their game more efficient with an instructor/Trackman.

 

When will these comments ever stop?

 

We aren't trying to "punish" anyone. Everyone will play by the same rules for golf balls. Who is being punished? Is it "punishment" if the entire field plays with balls that are designed and manufactured under slightly different specifications than at present? By that reasoning, players are being "punished" by all of them being asked to play a U.S. Open on a golf course that is nearly 8,000 yards.

 

I don't understand the persistence of this "punishment" myth.

 

Again, people; we are trying to scale the distances that golf shots are generally hit in championship competitions, to the distances that were anticipated when the great championship courses were designed. (Which has a myriad of side benefits by moving golf more generally to shorter courses that can be firmer, faster, with lowered rough and fewer punitive hazards, all of which will hopefully speed up play.)

 

 

Any time someone says, "We have no problem with how far 99.99% of golfers hit the ball. Our concern is entirely with the fact that the 0.01% of the strongest, fastest, most skilled golfers are 'overpowering' classic golf courses. We seek to roll the ball back so that the very longest hitters are not able to produce the distance they can with today's ball. Shorter hitters and amateurs have nothing to fear, we do not want to much affect their distance".

 

That is I think a fair paraphrase of the position of a significant portion of "rollbackers". For those holding something like that position, it is exactly seeking to "punish" the very longest players by forcing them (against their own perceived best interest, mind you) to play a ball that eliminates some of the distance resulting from their special abilities. Use another word if you like but it is how it end up seeming at the pointy end of your stick.

[Rosco1216]

Hell..bring back a balata or professional with a cover that can last a full round and I’d be all for it!

[QMany]

I think it would be interesting to see us go back to Jack's era of equipment and courses. Shorter and slower (easier) greens. I don't think the golf purists would enjoy it very long when/if their records and idols fall.

[Bye]

So where is the “line in the sand”? 2002 or are we not there yet?

 

 

[North Butte]

I don't think the ball needs to go farther. It has been regulated for 15+ years. I don't want the governing bodies to lift the restrictions already in place.

 

it has been regulated for 15+ years and yet the distance gains persist.

 

Have you not looked at the graphs? Distance has been steadily increasing for DECADES before the titanium driver and urethane golf ball were invented. Driving distance on the PGA Tour has crept upward at about half a yard per year for as long as there has been a PGA Tour. Driving distance is creeping upward at about half a yard a year now.

 

We get that you did not approve of the USGA's decision to allow a one-time jump in distance from approximately 1998-2002. The USGA quite obviously does not care to revisit that.

 

So now you are arguing that unless a secular trend that has obtained for half a century or more was stopped dead in it tracks circa 2003, then the regulation of the ball was not effective. The regulation of the ball has admirably accomplished its objective (which if I'm honest, I am on record as saying would NOT happen when the new regulations were being discussed in the early 00's). The ball itself and the drivers themselves have been very nicely limited in terms of COR and overall distance.

 

You want the ball regulations adjusted every few years to force golfers to play a shorter and shorter ball in order to offset incremental gains in distance by the top 1% longest hitters. That's a fine thing to wish for but just like your disapproval of allowing the ProV1 in the first place, you have very little chance of finding a large constituency for such a retrograde, punitive equipment regulation process.

[bladehunter]

Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene. Go back to pre-Tiger and chart all of the course mods done on tour courses to present day and then think what golf and scores would look like if none of those mods were done. I think some of this would be a lot easier to see if courses hadn't gradually adjusted to things over the last 20 years. It has masked the issue to some degree

 

Other than Augusta, what are they? "Pretty consistently adjusted" implies almost all of them. So give us a list.

 

Merion. Seminole. What will a list prove to you ?

 

My home course built in 1969. We've added 5 new tees since 2013. And need at least 3 more.

 

My club has four courses built between 20 and 35 years ago. None of them have been lengthened.

 

A very long list would prove that "Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene."

 

 

Well if I thought it would end this debate I’d take the time to research and list all the courses redesigned since 2001. I’m sure it’s 100 plus courses. Redesign is code for lengthen by the way. But I know the goal posts would just move.

[North Butte]

So where is the “line in the sand”? 2002 or are we not there yet?

 

What "line" do you want drawn?

 

Are we talking a line that demarcates acceptable ball and driver performance? Whether you like the particular line that drawn or not, it was set in 2002 and I see no imminent move from USGA to move that line in a retrograde direction now. The performance of drivers and balls for Tour players has demonstrably not changed to any significant degree since 2003.

 

Or are you proposing a line that, instead of ball and implement performance, declares "No PGA Tour player shall average more than 305 yards driving distance in any given year"? That's a very different "line" and one that hardly a soul on either the PGA Tour or among golfers at large wants to see drawn.

 

Can you just imagine the outrage if golfers everywhere were told that every 4-5 years from now on, they will be required to use a shorter ball to counteract the fact that a couple Tour players had averaged 312 yards instead of 305 the previous year?

 

P.S. Or maybe you want to go whole hog and set the ball requirement so that no player hits shorter clubs into the 13th at Augusta than Jack did in 1986 or Tiger did in 1997 or whatever golden era you seek to enshrine.

[North Butte]

Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene. Go back to pre-Tiger and chart all of the course mods done on tour courses to present day and then think what golf and scores would look like if none of those mods were done. I think some of this would be a lot easier to see if courses hadn't gradually adjusted to things over the last 20 years. It has masked the issue to some degree

 

Other than Augusta, what are they? "Pretty consistently adjusted" implies almost all of them. So give us a list.

 

Merion. Seminole. What will a list prove to you ?

 

My home course built in 1969. We've added 5 new tees since 2013. And need at least 3 more.

 

My club has four courses built between 20 and 35 years ago. None of them have been lengthened.

 

A very long list would prove that "Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene."

 

 

Well if I thought it would end this debate I'd take the time to research and list all the courses redesigned since 2001. I'm sure it's 100 plus courses. Redesign is code for lengthen by the way. But I know the goal posts would just move.

 

Not to move the goal posts on you ;-)

 

But you'd need to research the rate that golf courses were lengthened prior to 2001, in order to know if the rate since 2001 is a historical norm rather than a response to a perceived "Tiger effect" and/or "ProV1 effect".

 

Rich guys that own golf courses have been renovating (often including lengthening) golf courses since long before you, I or Tiger Wood was born.

[bladehunter]

Anyone consider maybe alien intervention ? Stick with me here.

 

 

By my estimate most things in tech took off around 2001-2003 ish and have improved year by year since then. I’m in the car industry. Right about 2003 was the last of the best mix of old and new style cars. Less tech but yet enough tech to be super reliable. After these are when new fuel injection systems etc cropped up. Many more safety features and nanny features. I won’t bore you with the detailed list.

 

Also cell phones. Weapons systems , it al seemed to jumps around the same time. Never thought aboot golf balls and clubs. But it all matches.

 

So we have a transformer in a block of ice somewhere in a mountain ? That’s what I want to know.

[bladehunter]

North butte -

 

Oh for sure. And I’m not stats guy. As the old saying goes. Aboot lies and statistics. Lol.

 

Was just pointing out that he is wrong about courses not being lengthened. No denying that they are still being lengthened. Question is if it’s a faster or higher rate than pre V1 ( alien intervention ) days. ?

[North Butte]

Oh for sure. And I'm not stats guy. As the old saying goes. Aboot lies and statistics. Lol.

 

In that case some might say I'm a professional liar. But I know you're too fair-minded to even think it! ;-)

[OrangeGravy]

Anyone consider maybe alien intervention ? Stick with me here.

 

 

By my estimate most things in tech took off around 2001-2003 ish and have improved year by year since then. I'm in the car industry. Right about 2003 was the last of the best mix of old and new style cars. Less tech but yet enough tech to be super reliable. After these are when new fuel injection systems etc cropped up. Many more safety features and nanny features. I won't bore you with the detailed list.

 

Also cell phones. Weapons systems , it al seemed to jumps around the same time. Never thought aboot golf balls and clubs. But it all matches.

 

So we have a transformer in a block of ice somewhere in a mountain ? That's what I want to know.

 

I'm right with you on this. Someone on here must know the truth

[golfer929]

I think it would be interesting to see us go back to Jack's era of equipment and courses. Shorter and slower (easier) greens. I don't think the golf purists would enjoy it very long when/if their records and idols fall.

If that did happen the players today would destroy the records they posted back in the day. They are just better golfers overall now. Give them a few months to figure out the equipment and ball and you would see scores been significantly lower

[Bye]

So where is the “line in the sand”? 2002 or are we not there yet?

 

What "line" do you want drawn?

 

Are we talking a line that demarcates acceptable ball and driver performance? Whether you like the particular line that drawn or not, it was set in 2002 and I see no imminent move from USGA to move that line in a retrograde direction now. The performance of drivers and balls for Tour players has demonstrably not changed to any significant degree since 2003.

 

Or are you proposing a line that, instead of ball and implement performance, declares "No PGA Tour player shall average more than 305 yards driving distance in any given year"? That's a very different "line" and one that hardly a soul on either the PGA Tour or among golfers at large wants to see drawn.

 

Can you just imagine the outrage if golfers everywhere were told that every 4-5 years from now on, they will be required to use a shorter ball to counteract the fact that a couple Tour players had averaged 312 yards instead of 305 the previous year?

 

P.S. Or maybe you want to go whole hog and set the ball requirement so that no player hits shorter clubs into the 13th at Augusta than Jack did in 1986 or Tiger did in 1997 or whatever golden era you seek to enshrine.

 

It has nothing to do with what I think. If they “drew a line in the sand” in 2002 it was meaningless. So we just keep going until when? The whole thing is very ambiguous. Or they are just so focused on the equipment. It’s a reactive rather than proactive mind set.

 

The only thing that I have proposed rolling back the tour style ball 10% and leaving the rest alone.

 

 

 

 

[North Butte]

So where is the “line in the sand”? 2002 or are we not there yet?

 

What "line" do you want drawn?

 

Are we talking a line that demarcates acceptable ball and driver performance? Whether you like the particular line that drawn or not, it was set in 2002 and I see no imminent move from USGA to move that line in a retrograde direction now. The performance of drivers and balls for Tour players has demonstrably not changed to any significant degree since 2003.

 

Or are you proposing a line that, instead of ball and implement performance, declares "No PGA Tour player shall average more than 305 yards driving distance in any given year"? That's a very different "line" and one that hardly a soul on either the PGA Tour or among golfers at large wants to see drawn.

 

Can you just imagine the outrage if golfers everywhere were told that every 4-5 years from now on, they will be required to use a shorter ball to counteract the fact that a couple Tour players had averaged 312 yards instead of 305 the previous year?

 

P.S. Or maybe you want to go whole hog and set the ball requirement so that no player hits shorter clubs into the 13th at Augusta than Jack did in 1986 or Tiger did in 1997 or whatever golden era you seek to enshrine.

 

It has nothing to do with what I think. If they “drew a line in the sand” in 2002 it was meaningless. So we just keep going until when? The whole thing is very ambiguous. Or they are just so focused on the equipment. It’s a reactive rather than proactive mind set.

 

The only thing that I have proposed rolling back the tour style ball 10% and leaving the rest alone.

 

It's not ambiguous at all. The USGA, bless their conservative little hearts, may be conflicted over the direction they see the game moving but the actual ball and implement requirements are anything but ambiguous.

 

They view their tests as being intended to make sure no ball or driver is sold that performs appreciably better than the drivers and balls being sold in roughly 2003. They think that is their brief as a regulatory agent.

 

You believe they have a different responsibility. You don't want them regulating the performance of the balls and implements, you want them to regulate how far PGA Tour players driving the ball by way of changing the ball and implement standards as needed. Is that a fair paraphrase?

[15th Club]

I think it would be interesting to see us go back to Jack's era of equipment and courses. Shorter and slower (easier) greens. I don't think the golf purists would enjoy it very long when/if their records and idols fall.

 

There really is a problem, when we rely on superfast greens to defend against other distortions like longer-distance balls and clubs.

 

We see situations where play becomes impossible because balls blow off greens. We see lost hole positions, because the green slopes were never intended for superfast speeds. And then changes may be required to those greens.

 

I like fast greens and good green surfaces. Thank you, technology, for that. But I don't like green speeds being used to defend against something that should be unrelated to greens.

 

But just think about a return to 50's/60's/70's equipment...

 

Soft, cuttable balls. Nope. No thanks. Technology has moved on, benefitting us all.

 

Steel shafts. Yep. They were cheaper. And we probably wouldn't have 46" steel-shafted drivers.

 

Persimmon heads. Nope. Metal has been better. Metal heads goosed distance up a bit, in the 80's. But nothing like what the urethane balls did. Metal heads were cheaper, more reliable, more user-friendly for clubbuilders and hobbyists.

 

6800-yard championship golf courses. Yep; they were much closer to what their designers (Ross, Tillinghast, Mackenzie, Colt, MacDonald, etc.) intended. However, in the late 20th century something was going on that was masking the distance creep in golf equipment ("creep" that became "explosion" after 1999); a lot of older courses were getting choked with defensive trees. Trees that blocked sunlight and airflow and sightlines, but were felt to be necessary to defend par. Trees that the original architects would not have liked. We are getting away from that now. Championship courses from the classic design era are cutting down trees everywhere. The courses look more like what was intended. But then they have to find every place imaginable, to move tees and even greens, to stretch for maximum distance. Because of modern equipment.

 

Edit., to add something about "idols and records fall[ing]..." What? What idols may fall? What records may fall? I don't understand. A ball rollback has nothing to do with any records, or any player's history or legacy. It's another point that keeps coming up and I don't know why. Which idols? What records?

[rlee323]

The USGA/R&A already regulate (albeit poorly and reactionary) golf equipment. Most golfers are using conforming equipment (no 500 cc drivers, no polara golf balls) because even though we don't follow USGA rules all the time, we do want to compete with conforming equipment. I think bifurcation of equipment rules (one for serious competitions and one for recreational use) makes sense. A lot of new courses and older course remodelings are increasing in acreage to compete for golfers with negative impacts to playing time length and to the environment.

[gvogel]

I don't think the ball needs to go farther. It has been regulated for 15+ years. I don't want the governing bodies to lift the restrictions already in place.

 

it has been regulated for 15+ years and yet the distance gains persist.

 

Have you not looked at the graphs? Distance has been steadily increasing for DECADES before the titanium driver and urethane golf ball were invented. Driving distance on the PGA Tour has crept upward at about half a yard per year for as long as there has been a PGA Tour. Driving distance is creeping upward at about half a yard a year now.

 

We get that you did not approve of the USGA's decision to allow a one-time jump in distance from approximately 1998-2002. The USGA quite obviously does not care to revisit that.

 

So now you are arguing that unless a secular trend that has obtained for half a century or more was stopped dead in it tracks circa 2003, then the regulation of the ball was not effective. The regulation of the ball has admirably accomplished its objective (which if I'm honest, I am on record as saying would NOT happen when the new regulations were being discussed in the early 00's). The ball itself and the drivers themselves have been very nicely limited in terms of COR and overall distance.

 

You want the ball regulations adjusted every few years to force golfers to play a shorter and shorter ball in order to offset incremental gains in distance by the top 1% longest hitters. That's a fine thing to wish for but just like your disapproval of allowing the ProV1 in the first place, you have very little chance of finding a large constituency for such a retrograde, punitive equipment regulation process.

 

The distance increase from the advent of titanium with its higher COR and the advance of the Pro V1 is really the elephant in the room. The USGA and R&A were asleep at the switch, and only realized well after that the nature of the game of golf had been fundamentally changed. So they drew a line in the sand in 2003, and got the PGA Tour to agree that a significant increase going forward would have to be challenged.

 

Tom Watson was on Golf Channel talking about playing Cypress Point, and how the par 5's played as par 5's in his era, and now play like longer par 4's. He is a traditionalist. I am a traditionalist. Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Louis Oosthuizen and Geoff Ogilvie are traditionalists. Tiger even mentioned that the ball goes too far.

 

There are a lot of good old golf courses that were a treat to play back then, when players had to use a wide variety of shots and clubs. Now it seems that the game has become much more one dimensional at the elite level.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I would love to see the elite golfers try a ball that would be rolled back 10% in a tournament setting on an older golfer course. Just to see what would happen. I know what would happen in my game - I would be somewhat shorter off the tee. But I wouldn't be as restricted as I am when I bring out my hickories. I could deal with it, probably by moving up a set of tees, or at least on a bunch of holes.

[North Butte]

I don't think the ball needs to go farther. It has been regulated for 15+ years. I don't want the governing bodies to lift the restrictions already in place.

 

it has been regulated for 15+ years and yet the distance gains persist.

 

Have you not looked at the graphs? Distance has been steadily increasing for DECADES before the titanium driver and urethane golf ball were invented. Driving distance on the PGA Tour has crept upward at about half a yard per year for as long as there has been a PGA Tour. Driving distance is creeping upward at about half a yard a year now.

 

We get that you did not approve of the USGA's decision to allow a one-time jump in distance from approximately 1998-2002. The USGA quite obviously does not care to revisit that.

 

So now you are arguing that unless a secular trend that has obtained for half a century or more was stopped dead in it tracks circa 2003, then the regulation of the ball was not effective. The regulation of the ball has admirably accomplished its objective (which if I'm honest, I am on record as saying would NOT happen when the new regulations were being discussed in the early 00's). The ball itself and the drivers themselves have been very nicely limited in terms of COR and overall distance.

 

You want the ball regulations adjusted every few years to force golfers to play a shorter and shorter ball in order to offset incremental gains in distance by the top 1% longest hitters. That's a fine thing to wish for but just like your disapproval of allowing the ProV1 in the first place, you have very little chance of finding a large constituency for such a retrograde, punitive equipment regulation process.

 

The distance increase from the advent of titanium with its higher COR and the advance of the Pro V1 is really the elephant in the room. The USGA and R&A were asleep at the switch, and only realized well after that the nature of the game of golf had been fundamentally changed. So they drew a line in the sand in 2003, and got the PGA Tour to agree that a significant increase going forward would have to be challenged.

 

Tom Watson was on Golf Channel talking about playing Cypress Point, and how the par 5's played as par 5's in his era, and now play like longer par 4's. He is a traditionalist. I am a traditionalist. Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Louis Oosthuizen and Geoff Ogilvie are traditionalists. Tiger even mentioned that the ball goes too far.

 

There are a lot of good old golf courses that were a treat to play back then, when players had to use a wide variety of shots and clubs. Now it seems that the game has become much more one dimensional at the elite level.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I would love to see the elite golfers try a ball that would be rolled back 10% in a tournament setting on an older golfer course. Just to see what would happen. I know what would happen in my game - I would be somewhat shorter off the tee. But I wouldn't be as restricted as I am when I bring out my hickories. I could deal with it, probably by moving up a set of tees, or at least on a bunch of holes.

 

Well there are plenty of guys I've met over the years who now play hickory clubs because they get the most enjoyment from what is basically a historical reenactment. Their biggest frustration is there's not enough of them to get a manufacturer to crank up a wound-Balata ball factory to go with their hickories.

 

Perhaps the day is coming when another generation drags steel-shafted persimmon woods out of the closet and turns their back on modern golf in the same way my hickory-playing acquaintances have done.

 

Wishing for a world in which the graphite shaft, titanium driver and multilayer urethane ball were never allowed into the game is a keenly felt desire by a certain cohort of golfers. I truly would love for their to be some way for those people to follow their joy without requiring the other 99% of golfers to give up the equipment they've been using for a couple decades now. I just don't see how it can happen.

[Bye]

So where is the “line in the sand”? 2002 or are we not there yet?

 

What "line" do you want drawn?

 

Are we talking a line that demarcates acceptable ball and driver performance? Whether you like the particular line that drawn or not, it was set in 2002 and I see no imminent move from USGA to move that line in a retrograde direction now. The performance of drivers and balls for Tour players has demonstrably not changed to any significant degree since 2003.

 

Or are you proposing a line that, instead of ball and implement performance, declares "No PGA Tour player shall average more than 305 yards driving distance in any given year"? That's a very different "line" and one that hardly a soul on either the PGA Tour or among golfers at large wants to see drawn.

 

Can you just imagine the outrage if golfers everywhere were told that every 4-5 years from now on, they will be required to use a shorter ball to counteract the fact that a couple Tour players had averaged 312 yards instead of 305 the previous year?

 

P.S. Or maybe you want to go whole hog and set the ball requirement so that no player hits shorter clubs into the 13th at Augusta than Jack did in 1986 or Tiger did in 1997 or whatever golden era you seek to enshrine.

 

It has nothing to do with what I think. If they “drew a line in the sand” in 2002 it was meaningless. So we just keep going until when? The whole thing is very ambiguous. Or they are just so focused on the equipment. It’s a reactive rather than proactive mind set.

 

The only thing that I have proposed rolling back the tour style ball 10% and leaving the rest alone.

 

It's not ambiguous at all. The USGA, bless their conservative little hearts, may be conflicted over the direction they see the game moving but the actual ball and implement requirements are anything but ambiguous.

 

They view their tests as being intended to make sure no ball or driver is sold that performs appreciably better than the drivers and balls being sold in roughly 2003. They think that is their brief as a regulatory agent.

 

You believe they have a different responsibility. You don't want them regulating the performance of the balls and implements, you want them to regulate how far PGA Tour players driving the ball by way of changing the ball and implement standards as needed. Is that a fair paraphrase?

 

So as long as Iron Byron doesn't hit this years gear any further than 2002 all is ok. Nothing else matters?

 

I believe they should be looking at the whole picture not just the gear.

 

Again they can't regulate how tall the players are or how they train etc. The ball is the easiest solution.

[jaygween]

At least it seems we have finally came to a consensus that this is really only an issue at high level competitive golf. I don't believe anyone could make a case that your average joe golfer is overpowering their home course or that St. Andrews design and architecture is obsolete for the hundreds of people who cross it off their bucket list every day. So at this point it seems like the only logical argument for those who believe the ball goes too far would be for bifurcation. But it appears the vast majority of those in favor of a roll back are not in favor of bifurcation.

 

Would the sport of golf survive if St. Andrews never hosted another open? If Merion never hosts another US Open? I honestly see where people are coming from in the importance of courses like these have in the history of the game, but it is exactly just that: history. If these courses never host another PGA tournament again, the sport will go on. If these courses are THAT important to the game, I think the most logical thing to do would to make a specific rolled back ball to be used by the pros when they play there as a condition of competition. An across the board rollback by the USGA on all golfers would be an incredibly terrible decision IMO.

[tnord]

At least it seems we have finally came to a consensus that this is really only an issue at high level competitive golf. I don't believe anyone could make a case that your average joe golfer is overpowering their home course or that St. Andrews design and architecture is obsolete for the hundreds of people who cross it off their bucket list every day. So at this point it seems like the only logical argument for those who believe the ball goes too far would be for bifurcation. But it appears the vast majority of those in favor of a roll back are not in favor of bifurcation.

 

Would the sport of golf survive if St. Andrews never hosted another open? If Merion never hosts another US Open? I honestly see where people are coming from in the importance of courses like these have in the history of the game, but it is exactly just that: history. If these courses never host another PGA tournament again, the sport will go on. If these courses are THAT important to the game, I think the most logical thing to do would to make a specific rolled back ball to be used by the pros when they play there as a condition of competition. An across the board rollback by the USGA on all golfers would be an incredibly terrible decision IMO.

 

this has implications for the everyday golfer as well.

 

 

pretty much every course that attracts any tournament play (pro OR am) has gotten longer. and not only that, look at the dramatic difference in architecture between those courses built in the last 30 years and those built prior. the propensity of golf courses unfriendly, and unwelcoming to beginners is a direct result of equipment advancements. that is not good for the game at all.

 

http://www.sandcreekgolfclub.com/

 

look at that course, it was built very recently, and is the only muni course in that town as far as i know. it's a giant asset for the newton community, but look at how hard that place is. do you think people just starting in golf at that golf course will have a good time? how likely are they to come back? how likely are they to even try it?