Rolling back the ball

[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?

 

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.

 

No the easiest solution is to let taller, stronger, faster and more fit golfers hit the ball a long way.

 

As long as the ball itself and the driver itself do not produce any greater distance when swung at a given speed, then yes from the point of view of REGULATING BALLS AND IMPLEMENTS then everything is OK.

 

You want the USGA's remit to be "keep PGA Tour players from hitting the ball a long way, whatever it takes". And you feel throttling back the ball is the simple and obvious way to do it.

 

Here's the problem. Almost nobody outside a small and very, very vocal minority thinks the USGA's job is making sure no PGA Tour player can possibly exceed Jack's (or Tiger's or Hogan's) performance now or forever. That's just an incredibly mean spirited thing to ask for IMO.

[North Butte]

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?

 

Does it have implications for all everyday golfers? Or just those who belong to elite private clubs seeking to attract big-time tournaments?

 

Surely you realize the latter is a tiny, tiny subset of "everyday golfers"?

[radiman]

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?

 

Looks like a nice course. It looks like there is a pretty good selection of tee boxes. The rates seem pretty reasonable as well. Most of the par 4's play just over 300 yards on the second set of tees. It would appear to me that they have done a good job of allowing the golfer to play the course at a few different lengths.

[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.

 

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?

 

Please show me evidence of any course that has not hosted or does not have any aspirations to host a high level competitive event that has lengthened their course because the every day players are overpowering or making the course obsolete. Then you give an example of a course that is already way to hard for beginners let alone regular golfers yet you want to roll the ball back for them to make it even harder? Also I would hardly call a course that hosted a 2014 AM tournament a "Muni".

[tnord]

but...it is a muni. it's how the people of Newton KS access golf. that's their entry point into the game. that's the type of golf course that gets built to attempt to appeal to all golfers, not just cart riding keystone light drinkers, but people that actually like golf as well.

 

if you want another example of a golf course that has undergone changes then the old muni in our town, Carey Park has been making changes as well. http://www.careyparkgolf.com/

 

the first hole was lengthened and a dogleg added. the 9th had a bunker added. the 14th has been updated as well.

 

want another example? http://kcparks.org/places/swope-memorial-golf-course/ has recently been updated, and is one of the better golf courses in the city but is largely ignored by better players in part because it's too short.

 

how about this one, rated one of the best public courses in missouri. https://www.stonecanyongolfclub.com/ i enjoyed playing it, but even though the distance is short enough from the white tees, i would not call it beginner friendly due to hazards and carry's.

 

http://www.canyonfarmsgolfclub.com/

another recently constructed golf course, i would call it the best "new" course in Kansas City....no way would i bring somebody out there unless they can play at least a little bit.

 

there are fewer and fewer places that are "beginner friendly," and that's not healthy for the game at all.

[North Butte]

And rolling back the ball will make those courses play easier? How could that be?

[15th Club]

Let's not go too far with limiting the debate to wealthy private golf clubs who are simply worried about the prestige of hosting major championships.

 

I keep using the two terms, "elite" and "recreational" to define the two essential groups of golfers. Among the elites who can kill it with a multilayer urethane ball are top Ams and NCAA players, as well as tour players of all kinds, not just PGA Tour players. "Elites" include golfers who are technically/legally amateurs.

 

"Recreational" players are the great body of all sorts of golfers, from duffers to single-digit handicap players. There are absolutely some very good, very long-hitting club players, whose length could be a problem for their home courses. We all have seen it. I'd have no problem with seeing recreational golfers who can hit 330-yard drives scaled back.

 

But critically in my view -- as someone who is a Victor's Club member and a frequent player at the University of Michigan's landlocked Alister Mackenzie golf course -- NCAA and top am events are often forced on to courses that are unfit for their length in the Pro V era. In some ways, it is a much tougher and more urgent problem than the PGA Tour, where events often have the luxury of being staged on courses that host Tour events annually, and where majors are conducted on courses that have had seven years or more to prepare. We need places to host state am qualifiers; USGA qualifiers; NCAA tournaments, et cetera.

[radiman]

 

 

want another example? http://kcparks.org/p...al-golf-course/ has recently been updated, and is one of the better golf courses in the city but is largely ignored by better players in part because it's too short.

 

 

That course is 6200 yards from the blues, 5700 yards from the whites. Even with dialed back golf balls, that course would be short. That is the kind of course that a beginner should be playing. If they aren't long off the tee, they are still within 150 yards of the hole.

[jaygween]

but...it is a muni. it's how the people of Newton KS access golf. that's their entry point into the game. that's the type of golf course that gets built to attempt to appeal to all golfers, not just cart riding keystone light drinkers, but people that actually like golf as well.

 

if you want another example of a golf course that has undergone changes then the old muni in our town, Carey Park has been making changes as well. http://www.careyparkgolf.com/

 

the first hole was lengthened and a dogleg added. the 9th had a bunker added. the 14th has been updated as well.

 

want another example? http://kcparks.org/p...al-golf-course/ has recently been updated, and is one of the better golf courses in the city but is largely ignored by better players in part because it's too short.

 

how about this one, rated one of the best public courses in missouri. https://www.stonecan...olfclub.com/ i enjoyed playing it, but even though the distance is short enough from the white tees, i would not call it beginner friendly due to hazards and carry's.

 

http://www.canyonfarmsgolfclub.com/

another recently constructed golf course, i would call it the best "new" course in Kansas City....no way would i bring somebody out there unless they can play at least a little bit.

 

there are fewer and fewer places that are "beginner friendly," and that's not healthy for the game at all.

 

We get it. You look down on anyone who rides in a cart or heaven for bid happen to drink a beer on the golf course. This is the second time in the last few pages you have made that same jab. You seem to be very concerned with the state and future of the game and pretend to care about beginners but based off your comments I can already see you rolling your eyes an complaining if you were ever paired with or playing behind a beginner or someone who isn't a golf purist. I honestly don't like to drink when I play, but most of my buddies do (I'm 26). I've started to enjoy walking my rounds but only do that when I play by myself since everyone I play with rides. I love pretty much everything there is about golf. Playing, talking about, watching the PGA tour, learning about the history and course architecture. But your snobbishness is seriously everything that wrong with golf as a whole from the old guard. The game changes, as do the people who play the game.

 

As to the other point, that course is not a muni. A muni is a course owned and operated by the city or other government body. I see that you're around a scratch golfer and most likely play regularly with better sticks so maybe your view is skewed but the idea that anything less than a few courses around the world are being overpowered or made obsolete just isn't true.

[tnord]

i must really hate myself if i look down at anyone that uses a cart and drinks beer.

[15th Club]

North Butte I am not aware of anyone who has made this part of their argument:

 

Here's the problem. Almost nobody outside a small and very, very vocal minority thinks the USGA's job is making sure no PGA Tour player can possibly exceed Jack's (or Tiger's or Hogan's) performance now or forever. That's just an incredibly mean spirited thing to ask for IMO.

 

Nobody is worried about any particular golfer's performance. Again and again and again I see arguments against a ball rollback framed in terms of protecting a "legacy" [Jack's, or Tiger's, or Hogan's], or protecting records. Or even protecting par! We can protect par easily enough; just trick the course up, to beyond recognition. You can produce a score, essentially. But it just isn't a good game at some point. Not unless the game is all about distance and almost nothing else. And what "records" are there to protect? What do you mean, that the USGA is making sure that no player can possibly exceed Jack's... performance no matter what...?

 

I honestly think that many golfers don't see any problem, because so many golfers don't understand golf course architecture. What makes a great course, and what makes for great play on a great course. Average golfers see PGA Tour events, and they see personalities, and see massive drives, and see scores, and see players excelling or choking under pressure. Without ever reading a single book on golf course architecture.

[clevited]

but...it is a muni. it's how the people of Newton KS access golf. that's their entry point into the game. that's the type of golf course that gets built to attempt to appeal to all golfers, not just cart riding keystone light drinkers, but people that actually like golf as well.

 

if you want another example of a golf course that has undergone changes then the old muni in our town, Carey Park has been making changes as well. http://www.careyparkgolf.com/

 

the first hole was lengthened and a dogleg added. the 9th had a bunker added. the 14th has been updated as well.

 

want another example? http://kcparks.org/p...al-golf-course/ has recently been updated, and is one of the better golf courses in the city but is largely ignored by better players in part because it's too short.

 

how about this one, rated one of the best public courses in missouri. https://www.stonecan...olfclub.com/ i enjoyed playing it, but even though the distance is short enough from the white tees, i would not call it beginner friendly due to hazards and carry's.

 

http://www.canyonfarmsgolfclub.com/

another recently constructed golf course, i would call it the best "new" course in Kansas City....no way would i bring somebody out there unless they can play at least a little bit.

 

there are fewer and fewer places that are "beginner friendly," and that's not healthy for the game at all.

 

We get it. You look down on anyone who rides in a cart or heaven for bid happen to drink a beer on the golf course. This is the second time in the last few pages you have made that same jab. You seem to be very concerned with the state and future of the game and pretend to care about beginners but based off your comments I can already see you rolling your eyes an complaining if you were ever paired with or playing behind a beginner or someone who isn't a golf purist. I honestly don't like to drink when I play, but most of my buddies do (I'm 26). I've started to enjoy walking my rounds but only do that when I play by myself since everyone I play with rides. I love pretty much everything there is about golf. Playing, talking about, watching the PGA tour, learning about the history and course architecture. But your snobbishness is seriously everything that wrong with golf as a whole from the old guard. The game changes, as do the people who play the game.

 

As to the other point, that course is not a muni. A muni is a course owned and operated by the city or other government body. I see that you're around a scratch golfer and most likely play regularly with better sticks so maybe your view is skewed but the idea that anything less than a few courses around the world are being overpowered or made obsolete just isn't true.

 

Amen!

[jaygween]

Let's not go too far with limiting the debate to wealthy private golf clubs who are simply worried about the prestige of hosting major championships.

 

I keep using the two terms, "elite" and "recreational" to define the two essential groups of golfers. Among the elites who can kill it with a multilayer urethane ball are top Ams and NCAA players, as well as tour players of all kinds, not just PGA Tour players. "Elites" include golfers who are technically/legally amateurs.

 

"Recreational" players are the great body of all sorts of golfers, from duffers to single-digit handicap players. There are absolutely some very good, very long-hitting club players, whose length could be a problem for their home courses. We all have seen it. I'd have no problem with seeing recreational golfers who can hit 330-yard drives scaled back.

 

But critically in my view -- as someone who is a Victor's Club member and a frequent player at the University of Michigan's landlocked Alister Mackenzie golf course -- NCAA and top am events are often forced on to courses that are unfit for their length in the Pro V era. In some ways, it is a much tougher and more urgent problem than the PGA Tour, where events often have the luxury of being staged on courses that host Tour events annually, and where majors are conducted on courses that have had seven years or more to prepare. We need places to host state am qualifiers; USGA qualifiers; NCAA tournaments, et cetera.

 

I understand where you are coming from, I really do. But based on all of the arguments you have made throughout these roll back topics you have stated that is a problem for those who play or want to play that game at some of the highest levels. Would you not agree you are looking for a solution for a problem that exists only at that level? So if you truly believe that it is a problem, but only at that level, bifurcation is the most logical solution. Now bifurcation is a whole other debate.

[rangersgoalie]

Just boggles my mind the reasoning for wanting to change the ball. Its peaked as far as what it can contribute to the game as has the equipment. The players are growing up, learning to swing faster and control it. They are dedicating all of their time to the game. That wasn't the case in the past I don't think. The players are better, but they can only get so good or so fast. Any idea how much trouble you get in swinging 120+ and being off just a degree or two? Courses need to evolve but not necessarily be 8k long. There are more clever ways to make both parties happy without completely disrupting pretty well established ball performance.

 

A sudden change to said ball might also completely disrupt the entire field. Only the experienced will survive, the rest (the young guns) will struggle for some time no doubt.

 

i am aware of the results of small variability at 120mph. and it's not what it used to be even 10 years ago. people are swinging faster because the equipment goes straighter. it's not like you have to spend a bunch of time in the weight room to swing fast. there are more actual athletes coming into the game now, and those athletes do not have a problem generating that kind of speed. there's plenty of speed left too, just look at where the long drive guys are. the more equipment improves, the more and more game is going to move in that direction. if equipment has improved year after year since 2003, why in the world would you think it would conveniently stop now?

 

it is NOT that hard to adjust to a new distance. have you traveled and played golf at all? the ball flies differently in KS compared to the desert, different again than california, different again than bandon, different than denver. was adjusting elevation really that hard for the guys in Mexico last weekend?

 

it absolutely does not disrupt the entire field.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

IMO it's short sited to focus only on the

ball

vs. raw natural talent, equipment advances, technology such as trackman/etc, and fitness....these all play a roll and now we have many more natural athletes in the game with all the above at their disposal. I for one embrace the athletes, their talents and tip the cap to them and accept the game as it is. It's not as if the game has been bastardized by PED's like cycling and baseball was.

 

We've been through that argument many times. It doesn't matter. Even if you assume that a new breed of super-athlete is responsible for longer distances in golf, it still remains that it is far preferable to fit cheap golf balls to the courses, than to fit irreplaceable works of golf course architecture to the balls.

 

 

 

IMO there is real danger in rolling back the

ball

and doing irreparable harm to a game that is already in trouble. Its possible that the traditional courses will be saved from being obsolete to the pro game, but will it stymie interest/growth and ultimately turn away more folks from the game who are not in agreement with a rollback? And by Folks I mean Pro's, Am's, and the novice fan who may just tune in or talk about the game from time to time.

 

I keep hearing about the "danger" of a ball rollback. What "danger"? Why would someone who loves golf give it up, if the equipment changed very slightly for everybody? It seems like wondering if people would give up golf if we changed the rule on lost balls, or out of bounds, or the number of clubs allowed.

 

Golf needs to evolve and start designing courses that you have to think your way around, and start being less afraid of the score being posted. There's plenty of 7000 yard and less courses out there that, while pros would probably score well, would be a wonderful test of golf.

 

We have those courses now. They are the championship courses built in the classic era of golf course design. And golf ball distance threatens the way that they were intended to be played.

 

Why does the distance the ball goes "threaten" golf courses? Why do anything to the courses? You cannot answer.

[jaygween]

i must really hate myself if i look down at anyone that uses a cart and drinks beer.

 

These are direct quotes from you, are they not?

 

"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 the type of golf course that gets built to attempt to appeal to all golfers, not just cart riding keystone light drinkers, but people that actually like golf as well."

 

I'm not sure how you could make these comments and somehow not see that as coming off as uppity or better than anyone else. Like it's preposterous that someone who rides in a cart or drink a couple beers when they play actually like golf or could have an opinion about what is good for the game.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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.)

 

But you are unwilling or unable to answer questions from five pages ago? It's scaled now, and you have no logical reason to change anything. Just go ahead and save some time by saying you don't want scores to be any lower. Stop the charade.

[fairways4life]

To chime in a few things...

 

1.) I really don't think rolling the ball back for weekend warriors like us has ever really been an intention. From what I've gathered, the USGA and R&A seems to be focusing their discussion on the pro tours. I think they would agree that rolling the ball back for us hacks would be awful for the growth of the game and would be entirely pointless since most of us don't play the tips anyway.

 

2.) The debate happening here is focusing largely on the driver but it's important to remember that it's not the only club that's flying farther. Fairway woods are longer. Irons are longer. If you hit a driver 280 and a 3-wood 250, you're covering 530 yards of real estate in two swings. If you experienced a 5% gain with each club over the course of several years, you would now be at 294 for the driver and 262 for the 3-wood, for a total of 556 yards. So I think it's important to consider the rest of the bag and not just the driver.

 

3.) A lot of people are putting down the USGA for even having this discussion. But I say good on them for doing it. I think it's important to keep a pulse on the game and have discussions about trends. It's a way of being proactive about the future of the game instead of reactive. Better than being radio silent for two decades and then waiting until something was truly a problem before addressing it.

 

4.) We have seen golf courses grow in length over the course of many decades. Technology has advanced, so courses have adapted. And that's fine. It's one thing that makes golf unique (football fields and basketball courts and hockey rinks and even baseball fields haven't needed to expand their dimensions). But while I think this evolution should be embraced, I also think we need to look forward and ask ourselves how long is too long? Is there a such thing as too much growth? Where do we keep going from here? I read yesterday about Shinnecock adding 446 yards and 17 new tee boxes since their last Open in 2004. It seems like every year, the US Open and PGA Championship host venues are adding new tee boxes and adding yardage. Even Augusta is now buying up more land to expand the 13th hole. So do we just keep doing this year after year with no end in sight? Is that sustainable? I don't know the answer, but I think it's a discussion worth having.

 

5.) I've watched golf for a long time and I've seen the game evolve. It used to be noteworthy when a player reached a par 5 in two (and they usually needed a 3-wood or long iron to do it). Now it's commonplace to not only reach par 5's but to do it with 6-irons. It's just not that big of a deal anymore and the number of true 3-shot par 5's on tour has shrunk considerably. There used to be more emphasis on shotmaking and golf was a little more of a finesse sport. It's now become a power sport. Screw the dogleg, just hit it as far as you can up over the trees, let a spotter find it for you and then chip it onto the green.

 

For me personally, the new brand of golf is actually not as entertaining. I'd rather watch a 420 yard hole be played with a driver and a butter fade 8-iron to a back pin as opposed to watching a cannon ball tee shot followed by a pitch and run. Now, that's just me. Some people are more entertained by the long ball style of golf and there's nothing wrong with that. Some people like to watch soccer, some people prefer to watch basketball. To each their own. To me, the discussion is less about preserving golf courses or records or being at a competitive disadvantage and more about which style of golf is more entertaining.

 

6.) For the record, I am not in favor of a rollback of the ball. I am however in favor of having these discussions, being proactive about it and trying to envision some sort of plan for the future of the game. I don't think the increased distance is a "problem." But I also think the way to prevent it from ever becoming a problem is to have these discussions along the way, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

 

-- Just one guy's thoughts

[North Butte]

North Butte I am not aware of anyone who has made this part of their argument:

 

Here's the problem. Almost nobody outside a small and very, very vocal minority thinks the USGA's job is making sure no PGA Tour player can possibly exceed Jack's (or Tiger's or Hogan's) performance now or forever. That's just an incredibly mean spirited thing to ask for IMO.

 

Nobody is worried about any particular golfer's performance. Again and again and again I see arguments against a ball rollback framed in terms of protecting a "legacy" [Jack's, or Tiger's, or Hogan's], or protecting records. Or even protecting par! We can protect par easily enough; just trick the course up, to beyond recognition. You can produce a score, essentially. But it just isn't a good game at some point. Not unless the game is all about distance and almost nothing else. And what "records" are there to protect? What do you mean, that the USGA is making sure that no player can possibly exceed Jack's... performance no matter what...?

 

I honestly think that many golfers don't see any problem, because so many golfers don't understand golf course architecture. What makes a great course, and what makes for great play on a great course. Average golfers see PGA Tour events, and they see personalities, and see massive drives, and see scores, and see players excelling or choking under pressure. Without ever reading a single book on golf course architecture.

 

So what is it exactly that the USGA is supposed to guaranteed by continuing equipment rollbacks? If not Jack's or Tiger's performance then is it some absolute driving-distance limit? Is the USGA responsible for reining in the ball if the Top 10 driving distances on Tour are 305 yards? Or 325? Or 350?

 

If "keep the ball and driver performance constant" is not the criterion, then you please suggest in exact terms what you think the USGA's responsibility should be.

 

And if you say "keep classic courses relevant" then for my part, the conversation is over. There is not one "everyday golfer" in 1,000 who cares at all about the relevance of Prairie Dunes or some MacKenzie gem in Michigan for hosting NCAA events.

[rangersgoalie]

Imo

The difference in making adjustments with your own equipment to the prevailing conditions is a big difference from being handed something you’ve not played with and worked with to know how it reacts on chips pitches wind etc

 

Know what the ball does from different lies, in wet or dry is part of working with the equipment to understand what the reaction will be under the gun

 

Going to Mexico you first figure out what the math is. How much further does the ball fly. The ball curves even less there. But the little shots around the green and scoring shots are basically the same. The biggest adjustment is simply trusting the ball will fly as far as you’ve calculated

[nix]

I think people are confusing the fact that the suggested fix is rolling back the ball, but the ball itself is not 100% of the issue. It's just the easiest and cheapest fix for players, and probably the correct one.

 

I think that the tour should consider using a rolled back ball for certain events, much like certain auto racing circuits have specific tires everyone has to use.

[QMany]

want another example? http://kcparks.org/p...al-golf-course/ has recently been updated, and is one of the better golf courses in the city but is largely ignored by better players in part because it's too short.

 

 

That course is 6200 yards from the blues, 5700 yards from the whites. Even with dialed back golf balls, that course would be short. That is the kind of course that a beginner should be playing. If they aren't long off the tee, they are still within 150 yards of the hole.

 

That course also hosts the Kansas City Matchplay Championship every year. 18-holes stroke play before 32-man matchplay cut, some of the best ams in the area. Last year, only 8 of 78 broke par. Despite being relatively short, it isn't that easy. One guy that qualified for the Trans-Miss and shot 79-74 at Prairie Dunes only shot 72 at 700-yard-shorter Swope.

 

I don't choose to not play Swope because of length. I think it is one of the better layouts in the area. I don't play there because it isn't that easy to get to from Kansas' suburbs, they have a terrible practice putting green and no driving range.

[North Butte]

I think people are confusing the fact that the suggested fix is rolling back the ball, but the ball itself is not 100% of the issue. It's just the easiest and cheapest fix for players, and probably the correct one.

 

I think that the tour should consider using a rolled back ball for certain events, much like certain auto racing circuits have specific tires everyone has to use.

 

If the PGA Tour thought playing a reduced-flight ball would increase their TV ratings by 1% or attract even one additional big-$$$ tournament sponsor they would impose such a Condition of Competition tomorrow.

 

I think they have a better handle on what punters want to see in person and on TV than Geoff Shackelford does.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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.

 

You've got that right. Can you imagine the short games of today's players on those shag greens? It would be almost ridiculous. Hell, even Nicklaus had such bad whiskey wrists that he had to putt around bunkers. Many still think he's the best to ever play, hahaha!

[tnord]

i must really hate myself if i look down at anyone that uses a cart and drinks beer.

 

These are direct quotes from you, are they not?

 

"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 the type of golf course that gets built to attempt to appeal to all golfers, not just cart riding keystone light drinkers, but people that actually like golf as well."

 

I'm not sure how you could make these comments and somehow not see that as coming off as uppity or better than anyone else. Like it's preposterous that someone who rides in a cart or drink a couple beers when they play actually like golf or could have an opinion about what is good for the game.

 

i get how that comes across. it's obviously me being f'ing fed up with others trying to tell me what my motives are or pigeonhole me into something that's not accurate.

 

i was primarily a drinking golfer when i started playing in work outings. eventually i got into the game itself, now most of the time i enjoy golf for golf....there are other times that are beer drinking cigar smoking social outings in a cart. there is absolutely room for both, and both are important. but when the beer drinking century club tries to tell me what a good test of golf is i do get a bit hacked off.

 

i don't know how to say it without sounding like a complete dick, but there's a reason there's a player aptitude test for PGA pros.

[radiman]

North Butte I am not aware of anyone who has made this part of their argument:

 

Here's the problem. Almost nobody outside a small and very, very vocal minority thinks the USGA's job is making sure no PGA Tour player can possibly exceed Jack's (or Tiger's or Hogan's) performance now or forever. That's just an incredibly mean spirited thing to ask for IMO.

 

Nobody is worried about any particular golfer's performance. Again and again and again I see arguments against a ball rollback framed in terms of protecting a "legacy" [Jack's, or Tiger's, or Hogan's], or protecting records. Or even protecting par! We can protect par easily enough; just trick the course up, to beyond recognition. You can produce a score, essentially. But it just isn't a good game at some point. Not unless the game is all about distance and almost nothing else. And what "records" are there to protect? What do you mean, that the USGA is making sure that no player can possibly exceed Jack's... performance no matter what...?

 

I honestly think that many golfers don't see any problem, because so many golfers don't understand golf course architecture. What makes a great course, and what makes for great play on a great course. Average golfers see PGA Tour events, and they see personalities, and see massive drives, and see scores, and see players excelling or choking under pressure. Without ever reading a single book on golf course architecture.

 

Hmm, that last statement about not understanding architecture is interesting. Not saying I am a golf course architecture aficionado. But, I shouldn't have to be to appreciate the game. Reading books on golf course architecture isn't a pre-requisite to be able to form your own opinion on how you perceive the game of golf. So, you feel the design of the course should completely dictate the way the game is played (not disagreeing, just trying to understand your stance)? If so, I can see that viewpoint. But, it has gone on unchecked for as long as it has. A generation of golfers have grown up playing the ProV1 or its equivalent. Not just talking local every day golfer. High level ams and new professionals have been playing with this equipment and dialing in their games based on these distances. To completely upend that from them because of a sentimental attachment to the way certain courses are meant to be played seems extreme.

[15th Club]

North Butte I am not aware of anyone who has made this part of their argument:

 

Here's the problem. Almost nobody outside a small and very, very vocal minority thinks the USGA's job is making sure no PGA Tour player can possibly exceed Jack's (or Tiger's or Hogan's) performance now or forever. That's just an incredibly mean spirited thing to ask for IMO.

 

Nobody is worried about any particular golfer's performance. Again and again and again I see arguments against a ball rollback framed in terms of protecting a "legacy" [Jack's, or Tiger's, or Hogan's], or protecting records. Or even protecting par! We can protect par easily enough; just trick the course up, to beyond recognition. You can produce a score, essentially. But it just isn't a good game at some point. Not unless the game is all about distance and almost nothing else. And what "records" are there to protect? What do you mean, that the USGA is making sure that no player can possibly exceed Jack's... performance no matter what...?

 

I honestly think that many golfers don't see any problem, because so many golfers don't understand golf course architecture. What makes a great course, and what makes for great play on a great course. Average golfers see PGA Tour events, and they see personalities, and see massive drives, and see scores, and see players excelling or choking under pressure. Without ever reading a single book on golf course architecture.

 

So what is it exactly that the USGA is supposed to guaranteed by continuing equipment rollbacks? If not Jack's or Tiger's performance then is it some absolute driving-distance limit? Is the USGA responsible for reining in the ball if the Top 10 driving distances on Tour are 305 yards? Or 325? Or 350?

 

If "keep the ball and driver performance constant" is not the criterion, then you please suggest in exact terms what you think the USGA's responsibility should be.

 

And if you say "keep classic courses relevant" then for my part, the conversation is over. There is not one "everyday golfer" in 1,000 who cares at all about the relevance of Prairie Dunes or some MacKenzie gem in Michigan for hosting NCAA events.

 

Then the conversation is over. It's been real. If there are golfers who don't care about the relevance or importance of classic championship golf courses, I'm not much interested in sharing a game with them. I take solace and confidence in knowing that the USGA conducts our national championships, is more or less the guardian of American golfing history, and together with the R&A the guardians of World golfing history, and that deep down, they agree with me.

 

The USGA and R&A probably feel a bit threatened right now, by threats of litigation from Acushnet, but we'll se what we can do about that. Getting Justices O'Connor, Souter, Rhenquist and Stevens off the Supreme Court helps quite a lot. (Part of the 7-2 majority in PGA Tour v. Casey Martin.)

[Ashley Schaeffer]

want another example? http://kcparks.org/p...al-golf-course/ has recently been updated, and is one of the better golf courses in the city but is largely ignored by better players in part because it's too short.

 

 

That course is 6200 yards from the blues, 5700 yards from the whites. Even with dialed back golf balls, that course would be short. That is the kind of course that a beginner should be playing. If they aren't long off the tee, they are still within 150 yards of the hole.

 

That course also hosts the Kansas City Matchplay Championship every year. 18-holes stroke play before 32-man matchplay cut, some of the best ams in the area. Last year, only 8 of 78 broke par. Despite being relatively short, it isn't that easy. One guy that qualified for the Trans-Miss and shot 79-74 at Prairie Dunes only shot 72 at 700-yard-shorter Swope.

 

I don't choose to not play Swope because of length. I think it is one of the better layouts in the area. I don't play there because it isn't that easy to get to from Kansas' suburbs, they have a terrible practice putting green and no driving range.

 

Trans-Miss? Pssh, I qualified for that by accident once in Thailand. No big deal.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

North Butte I am not aware of anyone who has made this part of their argument:

 

Here's the problem. Almost nobody outside a small and very, very vocal minority thinks the USGA's job is making sure no PGA Tour player can possibly exceed Jack's (or Tiger's or Hogan's) performance now or forever. That's just an incredibly mean spirited thing to ask for IMO.

 

Nobody is worried about any particular golfer's performance. Again and again and again I see arguments against a ball rollback framed in terms of protecting a "legacy" [Jack's, or Tiger's, or Hogan's], or protecting records. Or even protecting par! We can protect par easily enough; just trick the course up, to beyond recognition. You can produce a score, essentially. But it just isn't a good game at some point. Not unless the game is all about distance and almost nothing else. And what "records" are there to protect? What do you mean, that the USGA is making sure that no player can possibly exceed Jack's... performance no matter what...?

 

I honestly think that many golfers don't see any problem, because so many golfers don't understand golf course architecture. What makes a great course, and what makes for great play on a great course. Average golfers see PGA Tour events, and they see personalities, and see massive drives, and see scores, and see players excelling or choking under pressure. Without ever reading a single book on golf course architecture.

 

So what is it exactly that the USGA is supposed to guaranteed by continuing equipment rollbacks? If not Jack's or Tiger's performance then is it some absolute driving-distance limit? Is the USGA responsible for reining in the ball if the Top 10 driving distances on Tour are 305 yards? Or 325? Or 350?

 

If "keep the ball and driver performance constant" is not the criterion, then you please suggest in exact terms what you think the USGA's responsibility should be.

 

And if you say "keep classic courses relevant" then for my part, the conversation is over. There is not one "everyday golfer" in 1,000 who cares at all about the relevance of Prairie Dunes or some MacKenzie gem in Michigan for hosting NCAA events.

 

Then the conversation is over. It's been real. If there are golfers who don't care about the relevance or importance of classic championship golf courses, I'm not much interested in sharing a game with them. I take solace and confidence in knowing that the USGA conducts our national championships, is more or less the guardian of American golfing history, and together with the R&A the guardians of World golfing history, and that deep down, they agree with me.

 

The USGA and R&A probably feel a bit threatened right now, by threats of litigation from Acushnet, but we'll se what we can do about that. Getting Justices O'Connor, Souter, Rhenquist and Stevens off the Supreme Court helps quite a lot. (Part of the 7-2 majority in PGA Tour v. Casey Martin.)

 

Still can't answer the question of why classic courses would need to be altered if the ball stays the same, huh?

[gvogel]

To chime in a few things...

 

1.) I really don't think rolling the ball back for weekend warriors like us has ever really been an intention. From what I've gathered, the USGA and R&A seems to be focusing their discussion on the pro tours. I think they would agree that rolling the ball back for us hacks would be awful for the growth of the game and would be entirely pointless since most of us don't play the tips anyway.

 

2.) The debate happening here is focusing largely on the driver but it's important to remember that it's not the only club that's flying farther. Fairway woods are longer. Irons are longer. If you hit a driver 280 and a 3-wood 250, you're covering 530 yards of real estate in two swings. If you experienced a 5% gain with each club over the course of several years, you would now be at 294 for the driver and 262 for the 3-wood, for a total of 556 yards. So I think it's important to consider the rest of the bag and not just the driver.

 

3.) A lot of people are putting down the USGA for even having this discussion. But I say good on them for doing it. I think it's important to keep a pulse on the game and have discussions about trends. It's a way of being proactive about the future of the game instead of reactive. Better than being radio silent for two decades and then waiting until something was truly a problem before addressing it.

 

4.) We have seen golf courses grow in length over the course of many decades. Technology has advanced, so courses have adapted. And that's fine. It's one thing that makes golf unique (football fields and basketball courts and hockey rinks and even baseball fields haven't needed to expand their dimensions). But while I think this evolution should be embraced, I also think we need to look forward and ask ourselves how long is too long? Is there a such thing as too much growth? Where do we keep going from here? I read yesterday about Shinnecock adding 446 yards and 17 new tee boxes since their last Open in 2004. It seems like every year, the US Open and PGA Championship host venues are adding new tee boxes and adding yardage. Even Augusta is now buying up more land to expand the 13th hole. So do we just keep doing this year after year with no end in sight? Is that sustainable? I don't know the answer, but I think it's a discussion worth having.

 

5.) I've watched golf for a long time and I've seen the game evolve. It used to be noteworthy when a player reached a par 5 in two (and they usually needed a 3-wood or long iron to do it). Now it's commonplace to not only reach par 5's but to do it with 6-irons. It's just not that big of a deal anymore and the number of true 3-shot par 5's on tour has shrunk considerably. There used to be more emphasis on shotmaking and golf was a little more of a finesse sport. It's now become a power sport. Screw the dogleg, just hit it as far as you can up over the trees, let a spotter find it for you and then chip it onto the green.

 

For me personally, the new brand of golf is actually not as entertaining. I'd rather watch a 420 yard hole be played with a driver and a butter fade 8-iron to a back pin as opposed to watching a cannon ball tee shot followed by a pitch and run. Now, that's just me. Some people are more entertained by the long ball style of golf and there's nothing wrong with that. Some people like to watch soccer, some people prefer to watch basketball. To each their own. To me, the discussion is less about preserving golf courses or records or being at a competitive disadvantage and more about which style of golf is more entertaining.

 

6.) For the record, I am not in favor of a rollback of the ball. I am however in favor of having these discussions, being proactive about it and trying to envision some sort of plan for the future of the game. I don't think the increased distance is a "problem." But I also think the way to prevent it from ever becoming a problem is to have these discussions along the way, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

 

-- Just one guy's thoughts

 

I have to admire someone who can enumerate his thoughts and add to the discussion if a very thoughtful way.