Rolling back the ball

[jaygween]

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.)

 

You seriously aren't interested in sharing a game with someone who doesn't care about the relevance or importance of classic championship golf courses? Wow. I mean you're talking about an extremely small subset of people here. Hell you wouldn't even be interested in sharing a game with Brooks Koepka. I mean I'm a golf nerd so I respect your passion but it's really not that deep. It's a game to play for fun. The PGA tour and Euro tour are entertainment.

[North Butte]

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.

 

Glad we finally got to the root of your discontent. It explains everything you have said to date.

 

Pure elitism is fine by me as long as it is acknowledged. I am a snob about certain things myself, just not "classic golf courses".

[gvogel]

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.

 

No, there is not one. There are actually more than a few of us. (Just not that many on WRX.)

[North Butte]

One golfer in 1,000 is more than a few. It's just a tiny minority compared to the millions who play the game.

[gvogel]

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?

 

Because the shots necessary to play the classic courses have changed so much. If you don't get that, it is impossible to argue with you.

 

By the way, I see what you did there with the Trans-Miss comment.

[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.

 

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.

 

I suggest that reading books on golf course architecture need not be any sort of prerequisite to anything; I do suggest that they are one of the most amazingly inexpensive ways to get a lot more satisfaction, joy and interest out of your golfing experience, no matter what your level of play.

 

As for the statement that a

"generation of golfers have grown up playing the ProV1 or its equivalent"; sorry.

[nix]

Can I reiterate that the USGA and R&A CURRENTLY limit golf ball distances? So anyone who is fighting against distance limited golf balls must be super angry about the current state of the golf ball regulations, right?

[rawdog]

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.)

 

Wow, what a statement to make. You don't want to share the game of golf with me if I don't think that "classic championship golf courses" are somehow under attack? Geeze.

 

Inverness used to host the US Open regularly until 1979. It's obsolete now. I went graduated from University of Toledo in 2011.

 

I never played it, I never visited it, I never really knew its significance until more recently. Did my ignorance stop me from enjoying the game of golf? Do you look down upon me because I didn't really care about the history at the time? I just don't get it.

 

Which courses should we care about and why? Do we need a history lesson before we are allowed to play with you?

[North Butte]

Can I reiterate that the USGA and R&A CURRENTLY limit golf ball distances? So anyone who is fighting against distance limited golf balls must be super angry about the current state of the golf ball regulations, right?

 

Yes, their anger has been simmering for nearly 20 years now. It's now boiling over under the encouragement of the likes of Shack, Nicklaus and Bridgestone in the media world but it's the same basic complaint. They did not like the ProV1 when it appeared, they thought it should never be allowed and they aren't going to rest until that historic injustice is un-done.

 

I predict they will have a long and restless life ahead of them. But at least they'll have some respectable people on their side. And Shack.

[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.

 

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.

 

Obviously, not ever playing or seeing the course in person, I can only assume based on the information provided. With the argument being that it is ignored by better players due to the length, I would assume it was not as challenging. But, that is good to know. A course that isn't 7000+ yards is fully capable of being a good test of the game. I would imagine it is a very tight layout? It almost seems that it is simply an older course that doesn't have the amenities of some of the other courses around? But, no driving range is a killer. Are they not able to expand?

 

After your reply, I took the time to look over some of the pictures and layouts. It does look like a nice course.

[rlee323]

Bifurcation of the rules is the answer. The USGA has been badly behind or making bad decisions (e.g. anchored putting,square grooves) on limiting the equipment advances. Golfwrxers and other serious golfers will most likely play according the rules for the pro tours. The vast majority will use the more forgiving/easy to play equipment. Most other sports have different rules/equipment standards. For basketball, you see different 3 point lines, different ball sizes. In tennis which is now growing, they use softer/easier to play balls for juniors. Baseball has aluminum/wood bat differences, etc.

 

For the pro tours, I'd like to see a more limited distance and some more curvature of the ball - think the product would be more entertaining. There's a trickle down effect from the influence of the PGA Tour - it's not great for pace of play or the environment when new or renovated golf courses are lengthened continuously.

[15th Club]

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

 

You have persisted with this stupid question for so long, I guess I have to respond.

 

No course "needs to be altered" if its owners/mangers don't want to do it. Okay? You got me. For whatever that mindless point is worth, you won it.

 

If you want your course to play host to a USGA championship, or a qualifier, or an NCAA event, or any other sort of elite-level event, you'll have to talk to the sanctioning bodies and convince them that your course provides a good test to their competitors. And with today's elite-level golf game, your course is going to have to have a certain length. If it doesn't provide the right sort of test, they will pass and go on to another course.

 

In the end, all historic classic golf courses can get obsoleted. And I gather that somebody like you wouldn't care. Have I got that right? Abandon those courses, or else hold tournaments in which players overpower a too-short golf course. Maybe it is all the same to you. Either one is acceptable. Your point being, there is nothing that requires the changing of the old courses.

 

I can tell you EXACTLY what I am trying to preserve. I am trying to preserve championship golf, played properly on a properly-scaled golf championship golf course with history and tradition, and also golf's great charm which is a single set of Rules for all players.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to preserve, by preserving the current specs on golf balls. Unless you are an Acushnet executive or patent lawyer.

[North Butte]

If the product would be more entertaining, the PGA Tour (whose entire business is providing golf as entertainment) would have been all over it long before now.

[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.

 

I suggest that reading books on golf course architecture need not be any sort of prerequisite to anything; I do suggest that they are one of the most amazingly inexpensive ways to get a lot more satisfaction, joy and interest out of your golfing experience, no matter what your level of play.

 

As for the statement that a

"generation of golfers have grown up playing the ProV1 or its equivalent"; sorry.

 

 

I fear that this younger generation of players may be the future however. They owe nothing to you, or the way you envision the game to be played.

[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.)

 

Wow, what a statement to make. You don't want to share the game of golf with me if I don't think that "classic championship golf courses" are somehow under attack? Geeze.

 

Inverness used to host the US Open regularly until 1979. It's obsolete now. I went graduated from University of Toledo in 2011.

 

I never played it, I never visited it, I never really knew its significance until more recently. Did my ignorance stop me from enjoying the game of golf? Do you look down upon me because I didn't really care about the history at the time? I just don't get it.

 

Which courses should we care about and why? Do we need a history lesson before we are allowed to play with you?

 

No, you don't need to read any books if you don't want to.

 

When I say that I don't wish to share the game of golf with someone who truly doesn't care about golf history and classic golf course architecture, what I mean is that I don't want such people deciding the Rules, or how the USGA administers golf.

[15th Club]

I fear that this younger generation of players may be the future however. They owe nothing to you, or the way you envision the game to be played.

 

Right. Ditto. Let them grow up, age a bit, and serve on some greens committees and some rules and competition committees.

[Bye]

Can I reiterate that the USGA and R&A CURRENTLY limit golf ball distances? So anyone who is fighting against distance limited golf balls must be super angry about the current state of the golf ball regulations, right?

 

It’s all about the ball because it’s seen as the easiest way to do something about distance.

 

I could say let’s ban drivers and limit 3 woods to 14 degrees loft. Personally I would prefer this option but I expect it wouldn’t go down well.

 

 

[North Butte]

I fear that this younger generation of players may be the future however. They owe nothing to you, or the way you envision the game to be played.

 

Right. Ditto. Let them grow up, age a bit, and serve on some greens committees and some rules and competition committees.

 

90% of the young people playing the game today are never going to be members of any club with a "greens committee".

[fairways4life]

In the last 20 years or so, we've seen 3 things all happen at relatively the same time and they formed the perfect recipe for a distance jump.

 

1. Golf ball and club technology (drivers with bigger heads; the ProV1)

 

2. Launch monitor technology (having the ability to study data about angle of attack and launch angle and spin rate and then being able to figure out which combinations of those factors produce the optimal distance; and then being able to fit and customize clubs to those specs)

 

3. A surge in popularity in pro golf about fitness and nutrition

 

All 3 of these things emerged at roughly the same time and the end result was a distance jump. From 2003 to 2017, the number of PGA Tour players averaging at least 290 off the tee nearly doubled (from 65 to 115).

 

Now, the knee jerk reaction would be to assume that distance will continue to increase at the same pace. But when you consider the factors that contributed to the distance gain, that just isn't likely.

 

Will club and ball technology continue to advance? Perhaps marginally, but we aren't likely to see the huge jump that we've seen recently.

 

Will launch monitor technology and our deeper understanding of the golf swing continue to advance? Perhaps marginally, but we aren't likely to see the big jump in knowledge that we've acquired recently.

 

Will pros continue to morph their bodies into strong, flexible, athletic golf ball smashing machines? Perhaps marginally, but we aren't going to see the big jump that we've seen recently.

 

My feeling is that we just made 3 pretty big jumps in areas that all contribute to distance. But now that those initial jumps are out of the way, future gains in those areas will likely be far less significant.

 

Think of it like a stock. A stock could soar one day because of factors like interest rates, trading activity or the passing of a law or regulation that should give that particular company a boost. But it's not going to continue to soar at the same rate forever and ever. It will likely flatten out or fall back down. In the case of distance in pro golf, it's not going to fall back down (barring an actual rollback of the ball that is) but it's also not likely to continue to increase at the same rate that we've seen recently.

 

I think the USGA and R&A did the right thing. Have the discussion, study some data and then come to a conclusion. And I think they came to the right conclusion.

[rawdog]

 

 

No, you don't need to read any books if you don't want to.

 

When I say that I don't wish to share the game of golf with someone who truly doesn't care about golf history and classic golf course architecture, what I mean is that I don't want such people deciding the Rules, or how the USGA administers golf.

 

I would hope that anyone deciding the future of the game have knowledge of its past.

 

So all those courses that have come out of major rotations because they are obsolete... was that because of ignorance of their history, or was it because the people deciding rules of the game simply didn't care enough?

 

As others have said, golf courses becoming "too short" or "obsolete" is nothing new.

 

A serious question for you, because you have more knowledge in design than me, but what other features of courses besides length renders them unfit? Throughout time, has it always been length, or are there other features like the size or shape of greens, width of fairways, etc, that cause some courses to fall out of favor?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

 

Because the shots necessary to play the classic courses have changed so much. If you don't get that, it is impossible to argue with you.

 

By the way, I see what you did there with the Trans-Miss comment.

 

I guess I just think I am nobody to critique what shots pros play. I remember thinking the Lon Hinkle tree was bullsh*t when it happened.

Get down to the root of it. Everyone wanting a rollback doesn't want scores to be lower. That's it.

Thanks for seeing what I did with the Trans-Miss comment. It means a lot, honestly.

[gvogel]

Bifurcation of the rules is the answer. The USGA has been badly behind or making bad decisions (e.g. anchored putting,square grooves) on limiting the equipment advances. Golfwrxers and other serious golfers will most likely play according the rules for the pro tours. The vast majority will use the more forgiving/easy to play equipment. Most other sports have different rules/equipment standards. For basketball, you see different 3 point lines, different ball sizes. In tennis which is now growing, they use softer/easier to play balls for juniors. Baseball has aluminum/wood bat differences, etc.

 

For the pro tours, I'd like to see a more limited distance and some more curvature of the ball - think the product would be more entertaining. There's a trickle down effect from the influence of the PGA Tour - it's not great for pace of play or the environment when new or renovated golf courses are lengthened continuously.

 

After all this whining about the ball, I would like the first step to be a reduction of the COR of the driver and fairway woods for elite golfers (Tour players, players playing in national amateur events). These players get their clubs for free. It would be easy for a club manufacturer to use the same shell, and simply put a thicker face plate in the club. The pros drivers would look like yours and mine, but would have a COR of whatever persimmon was. It would be a simple change to make, and would help alleviate the problem with distance. The drivers could be stamped with "conforming" stamp after measurement.

 

The rest of us could play whatever.

[North Butte]

Bifurcation of the rules is the answer. The USGA has been badly behind or making bad decisions (e.g. anchored putting,square grooves) on limiting the equipment advances. Golfwrxers and other serious golfers will most likely play according the rules for the pro tours. The vast majority will use the more forgiving/easy to play equipment. Most other sports have different rules/equipment standards. For basketball, you see different 3 point lines, different ball sizes. In tennis which is now growing, they use softer/easier to play balls for juniors. Baseball has aluminum/wood bat differences, etc.

 

For the pro tours, I'd like to see a more limited distance and some more curvature of the ball - think the product would be more entertaining. There's a trickle down effect from the influence of the PGA Tour - it's not great for pace of play or the environment when new or renovated golf courses are lengthened continuously.

 

After all this whining about the ball, I would like the first step to be a reduction of the COR of the driver and fairway woods for elite golfers (Tour players, players playing in national amateur events). These players get their clubs for free. It would be easy for a club manufacturer to use the same shell, and simply put a thicker face plate in the club. The pros drivers would look like yours and mine, but would have a COR of whatever persimmon was. It would be a simple change to make, and would help alleviate the problem with distance. The drivers could be stamped with "conforming" stamp after measurement.

 

The rest of us could play whatever.

 

And the amount of money players get for endorsing clubs would inevitably be reduced because there could not longer be any realistic claim that they were endorsing a specific model of club, just a brand in general.

 

Which in the big picture is no big deal I'm sure. The real reason they don't do something like that is it is not in their best interest as entertainers to suddenly be hitting the ball shorter than they have been doing.

[knock it close]

Can I reiterate that the USGA and R&A CURRENTLY limit golf ball distances? So anyone who is fighting against distance limited golf balls must be super angry about the current state of the golf ball regulations, right?

 

It’s all about the ball because it’s seen as the easiest way to do something about distance.

 

I could say let’s ban drivers and limit 3 woods to 14 degrees loft. Personally I would prefer this option but I expect it wouldn’t go down well.

You realize that club manufactures would be smart enough to engineer the cg to make a 14 degree club launch and spin close to what the player would want out of their driver if they were forced to right?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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

 

You have persisted with this stupid question for so long, I guess I have to respond.

 

No course "needs to be altered" if its owners/mangers don't want to do it. Okay? You got me. For whatever that mindless point is worth, you won it.

 

If you want your course to play host to a USGA championship, or a qualifier, or an NCAA event, or any other sort of elite-level event, you'll have to talk to the sanctioning bodies and convince them that your course provides a good test to their competitors. And with today's elite-level golf game, your course is going to have to have a certain length. If it doesn't provide the right sort of test, they will pass and go on to another course.

 

In the end, all historic classic golf courses can get obsoleted. And I gather that somebody like you wouldn't care. Have I got that right? Abandon those courses, or else hold tournaments in which players overpower a too-short golf course. Maybe it is all the same to you. Either one is acceptable. Your point being, there is nothing that requires the changing of the old courses.

 

I can tell you EXACTLY what I am trying to preserve. I am trying to preserve championship golf, played properly on a properly-scaled golf championship golf course with history and tradition, and also golf's great charm which is a single set of Rules for all players.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to preserve, by preserving the current specs on golf balls. Unless you are an Acushnet executive or patent lawyer.

 

So, maybe the attention should be paid to governing bodies instead of the golf ball. Just a thought.

Further, it must be a tremendous burden to know precisely how championship golf should be played. I'm glad I don't have to shoulder it. Thanks for doing it for us all.

[tnord]

competitive ams get their clubs for free? really? where do i sign up?

 

if they did something about COR that would be good and i would support it. but i don't think it addresses the issue as comprehensively as the golf ball would.

[knock it close]

competitive ams get their clubs for free? really? where do i sign up?

 

if they did something about COR that would be good and i would support it. but i don't think it addresses the issue as comprehensively as the golf ball would.

I had buddies taking trips to the Oven and The Kingdom when they were juniors

[Bye]

Can I reiterate that the USGA and R&A CURRENTLY limit golf ball distances? So anyone who is fighting against distance limited golf balls must be super angry about the current state of the golf ball regulations, right?

 

It’s all about the ball because it’s seen as the easiest way to do something about distance.

 

I could say let’s ban drivers and limit 3 woods to 14 degrees loft. Personally I would prefer this option but I expect it wouldn’t go down well.

You realize that club manufactures would be smart enough to engineer the cg to make a 14 degree club launch and spin close to what the player would want out of their driver if they were forced to right?

 

Yes.

 

 

[gvogel]

Because the shots necessary to play the classic courses have changed so much. If you don't get that, it is impossible to argue with you.

 

By the way, I see what you did there with the Trans-Miss comment.

 

I guess I just think I am nobody to critique what shots pros play. I remember thinking the Lon Hinkle tree was bullsh*t when it happened.

Get down to the root of it. Everyone wanting a rollback doesn't want scores to be lower. That's it.

Thanks for seeing what I did with the Trans-Miss comment. It means a lot, honestly.

 

My desire for a roll back has nothing to do with scores. Scores (birdies, eagles) can be manipulated by playing shorter tees. Scores can be manipulated by pin positions. They can be manipulated by green speeds. I really don't care about low scores. I would simply like to see some par 5's become 3 shotters again, and see more long irons played in to par 4's. I would like a player's score to be more balanced between tee to green, and putting.

[15th Club]

Because the shots necessary to play the classic courses have changed so much. If you don't get that, it is impossible to argue with you.

 

By the way, I see what you did there with the Trans-Miss comment.

 

I guess I just think I am nobody to critique what shots pros play. I remember thinking the Lon Hinkle tree was bullsh*t when it happened.

Get down to the root of it. Everyone wanting a rollback doesn't want scores to be lower. That's it.

Thanks for seeing what I did with the Trans-Miss comment. It means a lot, honestly.

 

Lol! I was there. No, seriously; I was there on Friday (Day 2) of the 1979 US Open and watched Lon Hinkle and Chi Chi Rodriguez hit it around the "Hinkle Tree" that had been planted by a crew that morning at about 5:30 am. The tree was both unnecessary and useless. They could have moved the tee markers and done much better. But I was there; saw him drive up into the 17th fairway from #8 tee even after the Hinkle tree was up.