Rolling back the ball

[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?

 

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.

 

Just look at the groove rule if you need an example of that sort of indirect thinking supposedly changing the way the Tour players play...and failing miserably.

 

Lower the COR of the driver/ball combination and the ODS by 10 or 20 percent and they aren't going to out-engineer that. Fiddle around with clever second-order stuff and the OEMS working with Tour players will eat your lunch.

[bladehunter]

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.

 

Na. Carr riding keystone light drinkers are an issue.

 

He’s just saying some play golf. And some ride around outside and drink while golf is being played. That’s not snobbish. It’s just hard facts.

[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.

 

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.

 

OK, then it would be pretty easy to alter golf courses, not by length, but by moving trouble. You'll get your desired result, and nothing has to change in the free enterprise. Problem solved.

[bladehunter]

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".

 

 

 

I would have to say on several levels I agree with him. I mean what would the conversation be ? “ hey man how far did you hit that one “. “ hey man what wedge did you hit “. “ man that’s ball goes straight “. “ who designed this course “? “ don’t know. Built it last year , used to be a gas station and a laundromat “. “ wish we could walk. But it’s 12 damn miles between each hole “. What’s that hole over there “? “. It’s foot golf hole. If you see some of those guys hide your snacks. “. “ pass me another natty light “.

 

 

I mean that’s a sample of what you can talk about on modern course.

 

Get on an old Ross Gem in the mountains or a 100. Year old parkland and you can still hear the spikes on pavement ..... smell the ancient clubhouse. And realize that the design is sooo much better than most anything thought up today. No tricked up approaches. No music to be heard. No natty light breathe. Just perfection and the sound of a forged blade clickety clack as you walk down the literal sprinkler line. “ the game “. Is losing . No matter how much you “ grow “ it. In no other commodity can I think of people selling out at sch a high rate thinking that all the time they are “ growing “ their portfolios.

[tnord]

what is "moving trouble?"

 

recreating bunkers? adding bunkers (makes it harder for duffers too)? adding rough (again, harder for everyone)? MOVING FREAKING LAKES?!

 

this is insanity. you'd literally rather alter the landscape of golf than question whether or not you might hit it 5 yards further with different equipment.

 

to steal a comment from twitter user @JedRammell

Sanctimoniously defending the 99% who haven’t compressed a ball since they pinched their left nut sitting in a golf cart. The cheat code golf ball hasn’t helped the average club member and fixing it won’t hurt them. Cheat codes don’t apply when you swing it 84 mph

[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.

 

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.

 

OK, then it would be pretty easy to alter golf courses, not by length, but by moving trouble. You'll get your desired result, and nothing has to change in the free enterprise. Problem solved.

 

Good lord; more of the same. Move bunkers! Move tees! Reshape greens! Narrow fairways! Grow the rough! Soak the fairways and slow them down! Make the greens faster! And faster!

 

Without realizing that every part of a great golf course design is a seamless web of strategic elements, worked into a natural landscape. Not interchangeable parts like some machine.

 

All those changes to a golf course design that is part art and part architecture... all to preserve a urethane-covered $3.50 golf ball.

[bladehunter]

LOL. It’s al aboot ego. They will move lakes to not have to say their Driver flies less than now. Wow.

 

Funniest thing is that most might pickup carry. More spin would help a large portion of players on earth.

[clevited]

Advocates for bifurcation forget that a lot of recreational golfers aspire to play what the tour players play. If they can't directly compare, and their score can be poo poo'd by someone saying they didn't use the pro ball, they will eventually play the pro model anyways.

 

What I see happening....worst case, the tour average driving distance reaches roughly the current tour maximum (over time the players will continue to trend to be fast swinging and more athletic). Therefore it will flatline as long as the powers that be keep consistent regulations on equipment performance. There isn't always the necessity to make courses longer to make them interesting and competitive. You can add a bunker, narrow a fairway at an appropriate point to help keep the hole played as you want it played. Still allow the huge risk of trying to carry said bunker, or challenge that narrowing point. How about for new courses, more doglegs that the beginning straight isn't so long. Make it require a mid iron bent around a corner or a layup. Or if you are Bubba a driver off the deck, but most people aren't Bubba. Then your second shot is a long iron as intended. They might still be able to risk cutting the corner, but that is part of the excitement of the game and what Tiger brought to the table. Guys getting balsy and taking a rip and doing the impossible. Yet they still have the short game and skill to get out of some rediculous trouble. That entertains me.

 

Phil hits it plenty far, he would indeed be hitting it too far by definition of the pro-rollback peoples. But he is horribly inaccurate most of the time, but look at the crazy recoveries he pulls off! That is fun to watch and a true skill challenge. The game has changed, but I am more entertained by it than ever. You see less and less of the entitled wispy types that I loathe, and more of the athletic,amazinging talented, and mentally tough players rise to the top in the professional world.

 

Also, the long drives really get kids interested. Tiger got me interested, before Tiger, golf was a lame sport for the rich in my book. Image change is what he did and that needs to continue.

[QMany]

this is insanity. you'd literally rather alter the landscape of golf than question whether or not you might hit it 5 yards further with different equipment.

 

5 yards, c'mon. I know that's not all the restriction you want on the ball. How much would you prefer they take off?

[15th Club]

I hope I don't regret doing this. North Butte I don't much agree with you, but you've tried to make some arguable points in a legitimate way. Nevertheless, this line from you mystifies me:

 

Just look at the groove rule if you need an example of that sort of indirect thinking supposedly changing the way the Tour players play...and failing miserably.

 

I don't get that. I don't know how the groove rule failed "miserably."

 

I hate to steer the ball-rollback debate off course. And I will back off if we threaten to do that. But I don't know what sort of "failure" or what harm was done by the groove rule. FWIW, I was always something of an agnostic on that change. My main thought, to be honest with you, was that if the USGA was going to do something like that, I was going to support it, if for no other reason than loyalty to the USGA and to support their right to make Rules and enforce them. (I have been a collector of "Leonard DeCof horror stories" for years. He was Ping's lawyer in the Eye 2 groove case.)

 

What I am mostly unclear about in the groove rule matter, is who might've suffered any harm (nobody, it seems to me); and were any of the USGA's goals fulfilled? They were, as far as I know.

[North Butte]

Studies were done a couple years after the groove rule change. It showed no discernible difference in how Tour players played off the tee or their scoring when playing with wedges from the rough.

 

The rule changed forced everyone to (eventually) get new, conforming wedges and it failed totally at affecting wedge play among elite players, which was the justification.

 

At the time, the blowhards at USGA proclaimed that it would combat "Bomb and Gouge" by forcing players to pay a price for missing fairways or missing greens. They would be less able to count on controlling the ball out of the rough and would therefore place a greater premium on "accuracy" over distance.

 

As most of us could have predicted, it had no such effect.

[tnord]

Advocates for bifurcation forget that a lot of recreational golfers aspire to play what the tour players play. If they can't directly compare, and their score can be poo poo'd by someone saying they didn't use the pro ball, they will eventually play the pro model anyways.

 

if they want to play what the pros play they can go out and buy it. just the same as they can today....and they'll be kidding themselves just the same as they are today, but they can feel better saying they played their "tour ball" with "tour mega-offset-shovels" and their "tour senior flex" driver on the "tour 6000 yard" golf course.

 

What I see happening....worst case, the tour average driving distance reaches roughly the current tour maximum (over time the players will continue to trend to be fast swinging and more athletic). Therefore it will flatline as long as the powers that be keep consistent regulations on equipment performance. There isn't always the necessity to make courses longer to make them interesting and competitive. You can add a bunker, narrow a fairway at an appropriate point to help keep the hole played as you want it played. Still allow the huge risk of trying to carry said bunker, or challenge that narrowing point.

 

but wait...i thought people wanted to do what the tour players do? all of those suggestions make the game HARDER for casual golfers, and cost considerable amounts of money at the golfing publics expense (the tour sure as s*** isn't paying for it).

 

How about for new courses, more doglegs that the beginning straight isn't so long. Make it require a mid iron bent around a corner or a layup. Or if you are Bubba a driver off the deck, but most people aren't Bubba. Then your second shot is a long iron as intended. They might still be able to risk cutting the corner, but that is part of the excitement of the game and what Tiger brought to the table.

 

so now instead of changing the golf ball, we're building entire new courses to deal with the problem? doglegs are mostly irrelevant unless you have a VERY specific tree lined landscape - again not conducive to casual golfers.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

what is "moving trouble?"

 

recreating bunkers? adding bunkers (makes it harder for duffers too)? adding rough (again, harder for everyone)? MOVING FREAKING LAKES?!

 

this is insanity. you'd literally rather alter the landscape of golf than question whether or not you might hit it 5 yards further with different equipment.

 

to steal a comment from twitter user @JedRammell

Sanctimoniously defending the 99% who haven’t compressed a ball since they pinched their left nut sitting in a golf cart. The cheat code golf ball hasn’t helped the average club member and fixing it won’t hurt them. Cheat codes don’t apply when you swing it 84 mph

 

Glad you're still going after people based on your perception of their talent relative to you. As someone who played golf 11, and maybe even more, years ago, I think you can make the pros play the way you want them to play by doing things other than restricting the golf ball. You will be happy, and the free enterprise remains in tact. Win-win. The game just has to find a way to make you happy.

[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.

 

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.

 

OK, then it would be pretty easy to alter golf courses, not by length, but by moving trouble. You'll get your desired result, and nothing has to change in the free enterprise. Problem solved.

 

Good lord; more of the same. Move bunkers! Move tees! Reshape greens! Narrow fairways! Grow the rough! Soak the fairways and slow them down! Make the greens faster! And faster!

 

Without realizing that every part of a great golf course design is a seamless web of strategic elements, worked into a natural landscape. Not interchangeable parts like some machine.

 

All those changes to a golf course design that is part art and part architecture... all to preserve a urethane-covered $3.50 golf ball.

 

Hey, I'm the one who thinks nothing should be changed. You are one that thinks we need to make pros play a certain way.

Make the hole smaller for all I care if it means people like you will stop bitching about how pros play golf courses.

[tnord]

this is insanity. you'd literally rather alter the landscape of golf than question whether or not you might hit it 5 yards further with different equipment.

 

5 yards, c'mon. I know that's not all the restriction you want on the ball. How much would you prefer they take off?

 

for the average golfer Matt, i honestly don't think they'll notice a bit of difference. i know you know that 90+% of golfers couldn't tell the difference between a noodle and a pro-v. i also know you know, that you really don't get the benefit of modern equipment until you get to ~110mph swing speed. i also know you know, that the slower you swing, the more spin helps you, and that going from a high compression ball to something that spins more, potentially could HELP their game because they're hitting such longer clubs into greens as it is.

 

yes, you and i would probably lose maybe 25 yards. but the guy that can't find the middle of the clubface more than twice a round on his way to posting 100? you REALLY think he's going to notice?

[AceCatKY]

This thread is insane.

 

For all but the most talented 1% of golfers, aka Tour pros, these changes are pointless. Amateurs aren't complaining about not being able to play "classic courses" because they are too short and if someone were to find themselves in that situation they are free to go get some persimmon woods and a balata and have at it.

 

Sports change over time. NBA is not going back to peach basket hoops, MLB is not going back to pitchers throwing 3 days in a row, NFL is not going to outlaw the forward pass because "too many points are scored". It makes 0 sense for golf to essentially regress technologically bc certain people complain that Tour players hit the ball too far and feel The Old Course is now too short for them.

[clevited]

Advocates for bifurcation forget that a lot of recreational golfers aspire to play what the tour players play. If they can't directly compare, and their score can be poo poo'd by someone saying they didn't use the pro ball, they will eventually play the pro model anyways.

 

if they want to play what the pros play they can go out and buy it. just the same as they can today....and they'll be kidding themselves just the same as they are today, but they can feel better saying they played their "tour ball" with "tour mega-offset-shovels" and their "tour senior flex" driver on the "tour 6000 yard" golf course.

 

What I see happening....worst case, the tour average driving distance reaches roughly the current tour maximum (over time the players will continue to trend to be fast swinging and more athletic). Therefore it will flatline as long as the powers that be keep consistent regulations on equipment performance. There isn't always the necessity to make courses longer to make them interesting and competitive. You can add a bunker, narrow a fairway at an appropriate point to help keep the hole played as you want it played. Still allow the huge risk of trying to carry said bunker, or challenge that narrowing point.

 

but wait...i thought people wanted to do what the tour players do? all of those suggestions make the game HARDER for casual golfers, and cost considerable amounts of money at the golfing publics expense (the tour sure as s*** isn't paying for it).

 

How about for new courses, more doglegs that the beginning straight isn't so long. Make it require a mid iron bent around a corner or a layup. Or if you are Bubba a driver off the deck, but most people aren't Bubba. Then your second shot is a long iron as intended. They might still be able to risk cutting the corner, but that is part of the excitement of the game and what Tiger brought to the table.

 

so now instead of changing the golf ball, we're building entire new courses to deal with the problem? doglegs are mostly irrelevant unless you have a VERY specific tree lined landscape - again not conducive to casual golfers.

 

 

No, No and No.

 

The ball rollback would be a direct nerf to distance at the very least. So basically what I was saying is that bifurcation won't do crap because of the "need" for many recreational golfers to play what the pro's play. Thus the roll-back WILL indeed cause problems for the rest of golfers, not just the elite. It will still happen even if you try to make it not happen with the bifurcation.

 

I am only referring to the pro courses as far as adding bunker here and there, tweaking stuff etc. That doesn't effect most of the golfers, only the professional level. My local courses have no problems with people over powering them, because they don't, because they are ametuers playing on them.

 

New courses meaning any new courses already going up can consider implimenting those types of design ideas if they aspire to hold pro level tournaments.

 

Could you please read a little closer, you tend to spaz respond. Thanks.

[15th Club]

Studies were done a couple years after the groove rule change. It showed no discernible difference in how Tour players played off the tee or their scoring when playing with wedges from the rough.

 

The rule changed forced everyone to (eventually) get new, conforming wedges and it failed totally at affecting wedge play among elite players, which was the justification.

 

At the time, the blowhards at USGA proclaimed that it would combat "Bomb and Gouge" by forcing players to pay a price for missing fairways or missing greens. They would be less able to count on controlling the ball out of the rough and would therefore place a greater premium on "accuracy" over distance.

 

As most of us could have predicted, it had no such effect.

 

I am not aware of such studies. I do recall at the time, there being some thinking that the groove rule was a backdoor "ball rollback" rule. You are saying that studies show that the groove rule did not change player behavior/strategy, and so because it did not change behavior in a measurable way, it was a "failure." I'm not sure I agree. The idea was to get wedges to spin less and thereby provide less technology to get up and down from heavy rough. I think those mechanics are still true.

 

But I bolded the part of your quote that I really wanted to confront. Nobody, unless they were an elite, was forced to "change" anything. Your old wedges are still legal. Only if you play in an event where a Condition of Competition forces to use post-2010 grooves, do you have a problem. Today; as we type these comments; there is no problem using old grooves per the USGA in regular play. People who have to comply with the groove rule per C of C: Tour players; professionals; NCAA players; USGA competitors. I don't know about all state ams. I am guessing that they all do now.

 

Here's a link to a PGA of American page. Sorry I couldn't find a handy USGA page with the equivalent info. You see, for purposes of posting scores for a USGA/GHIN handicap, you can still use pre-rule clubs until 2024. When they will be at least 14 years old. And the USGA is going to review the groove rule in January 2020.

 

https://www.pga.com/node/77953

[Ashley Schaeffer]

If you're not concerned about scoring, there is no problem with the golf ball.

Argue about "shot values", etc. all you want.

[North Butte]

Let's stipulate for the purposes of discussion that a 20-handicap, short-hitting weekend golfer is at best silly and at worst crazy for wanting to play a ball just like the guys on TV play.

 

Is a top college player silly to want to use the same ball as the Tour guys? Probably not.

 

Is a talented high-school junior silly to want to use the same ball as the college player? Probably not.

 

Is the 6-handicap father of a talented high-school junior silly to want to play the same ball as it kid?

 

Is the 10-handicap old guy in the father's weekend Nassau silly to use the same ball as the father?

 

And if not, then is a 20-handicap short-hitting weekend golfer crazy to want to use that same ball that everyone "above" him is using?

 

Bifurcation will mean there's a real ball and a non-conforming ball for hackers. What percentage of rounds played every weekend do you think are played by people who want to play a non-conforming ball for hackers instead of the ball real golfers play?

[radiman]

Studies were done a couple years after the groove rule change. It showed no discernible difference in how Tour players played off the tee or their scoring when playing with wedges from the rough.

 

The rule changed forced everyone to (eventually) get new, conforming wedges and it failed totally at affecting wedge play among elite players, which was the justification.

 

At the time, the blowhards at USGA proclaimed that it would combat "Bomb and Gouge" by forcing players to pay a price for missing fairways or missing greens. They would be less able to count on controlling the ball out of the rough and would therefore place a greater premium on "accuracy" over distance.

 

As most of us could have predicted, it had no such effect.

 

I am not aware of such studies. I do recall at the time, there being some thinking that the groove rule was a backdoor "ball rollback" rule. You are saying that studies show that the groove rule did not change player behavior/strategy, and so because it did not change behavior in a measurable way, it was a "failure." I'm not sure I agree. The idea was to get wedges to spin less and thereby provide less technology to get up and down from heavy rough. I think those mechanics are still true.

 

But I bolded the part of your quote that I really wanted to confront. Nobody, unless they were an elite, was forced to "change" anything. Your old wedges are still legal. Only if you play in an event where a Condition of Competition forces to use post-2010 grooves, do you have a problem. Today; as we type these comments; there is no problem using old grooves per the USGA in regular play.

 

No one is forcing it on you, no. But, which of the major manufacturers make a non-conforming wedge? His point is, it was a rule that was designed to impact the pros and it only ended up hurting the amateurs. In that way, the almighty USGA has failed us.

[knock it close]

what is "moving trouble?"

 

recreating bunkers? adding bunkers (makes it harder for duffers too)? adding rough (again, harder for everyone)? MOVING FREAKING LAKES?!

 

this is insanity. you'd literally rather alter the landscape of golf than question whether or not you might hit it 5 yards further with different equipment.

 

to steal a comment from twitter user @JedRammell

Sanctimoniously defending the 99% who haven’t compressed a ball since they pinched their left nut sitting in a golf cart. The cheat code golf ball hasn’t helped the average club member and fixing it won’t hurt them. Cheat codes don’t apply when you swing it 84 mph

 

Glad you're still going after people based on your perception of their talent relative to you. As someone who played golf 11, and maybe even more, years ago, I think you can make the pros play the way you want them to play by doing things other than restricting the golf ball. You will be happy, and the free enterprise remains in tact. Win-win. The game just has to find a way to make you happy.

You keep saying free enterprise, there are already restrictions on the golf ball and clubs so tightening the restrictions would not be altering the free enterprise.

[tnord]

If you're not concerned about scoring, there is no problem with the golf ball.

Argue about "shot values", etc. all you want.

 

lets just make all golf courses 12 holes of 2500 yards. cheaper, faster, fit better in urban areas, everybody competes on the same course and lowest score still wins.

[jaygween]

Studies were done a couple years after the groove rule change. It showed no discernible difference in how Tour players played off the tee or their scoring when playing with wedges from the rough.

 

The rule changed forced everyone to (eventually) get new, conforming wedges and it failed totally at affecting wedge play among elite players, which was the justification.

 

At the time, the blowhards at USGA proclaimed that it would combat "Bomb and Gouge" by forcing players to pay a price for missing fairways or missing greens. They would be less able to count on controlling the ball out of the rough and would therefore place a greater premium on "accuracy" over distance.

 

As most of us could have predicted, it had no such effect.

 

I am not aware of such studies. I do recall at the time, there being some thinking that the groove rule was a backdoor "ball rollback" rule. You are saying that studies show that the groove rule did not change player behavior/strategy, and so because it did not change behavior in a measurable way, it was a "failure." I'm not sure I agree. The idea was to get wedges to spin less and thereby provide less technology to get up and down from heavy rough. I think those mechanics are still true.

 

But I bolded the part of your quote that I really wanted to confront. Nobody, unless they were an elite, was forced to "change" anything. Your old wedges are still legal. Only if you play in an event where a Condition of Competition forces to use post-2010 grooves, do you have a problem. Today; as we type these comments; there is no problem using old grooves per the USGA in regular play.

 

15th, I am interested in where you stand - From what I have gathered, you believe the ball goes to far because some historic championship courses no longer host high level events or if they do, the courses are not played how the designer intended. Do you believe that this is the best representation of your opinion on why the ball should be rolled back?

[rawdog]

 

if they want to play what the pros play they can go out and buy it. just the same as they can today....and they'll be kidding themselves just the same as they are today, but they can feel better saying they played their "tour ball" with "tour mega-offset-shovels" and their "tour senior flex" driver on the "tour 6000 yard" golf course.

 

 

Oof. I can only speak for myself, but it's not about playing the same equipment as the pros. I know I benefit from a more LPGA-esque bag than a PGA bag. I've had my distance gaps measured. No fooling myself there!

 

It's about playing by the same set of equipment rules the pros play by. Sure, there are peripheral parts of the game where pros have different "rules" than ams, but not when it comes to something as fundamental as the ball.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

what is "moving trouble?"

 

recreating bunkers? adding bunkers (makes it harder for duffers too)? adding rough (again, harder for everyone)? MOVING FREAKING LAKES?!

 

this is insanity. you'd literally rather alter the landscape of golf than question whether or not you might hit it 5 yards further with different equipment.

 

to steal a comment from twitter user @JedRammell

Sanctimoniously defending the 99% who haven’t compressed a ball since they pinched their left nut sitting in a golf cart. The cheat code golf ball hasn’t helped the average club member and fixing it won’t hurt them. Cheat codes don’t apply when you swing it 84 mph

 

Glad you're still going after people based on your perception of their talent relative to you. As someone who played golf 11, and maybe even more, years ago, I think you can make the pros play the way you want them to play by doing things other than restricting the golf ball. You will be happy, and the free enterprise remains in tact. Win-win. The game just has to find a way to make you happy.

You keep saying free enterprise, there are already restrictions on the golf ball and clubs so tightening the restrictions would not be altering the free enterprise.

 

Wait . . . what? They operate on current parameters. Altering the parameters alters the operation. Leave it alone, and enjoy seeing pros destroy courses. It's a much easier solution.

[tnord]

if they want to play what the pros play they can go out and buy it. just the same as they can today....and they'll be kidding themselves just the same as they are today, but they can feel better saying they played their "tour ball" with "tour mega-offset-shovels" and their "tour senior flex" driver on the "tour 6000 yard" golf course.

 

 

Oof. I can only speak for myself, but it's not about playing the same equipment as the pros. I know I benefit from a more LPGA-esque bag than a PGA bag. I've had my distance gaps measured. No fooling myself there!

 

It's about playing by the same set of equipment rules the pros play by. Sure, there are peripheral parts of the game where pros have different "rules" than ams, but not when it comes to something as fundamental as the ball.

 

exactly what about your callaway supersoft do you think resembles a tour golf ball?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

If you're not concerned about scoring, there is no problem with the golf ball.

Argue about "shot values", etc. all you want.

 

lets just make all golf courses 12 holes of 2500 yards. cheaper, faster, fit better in urban areas, everybody competes on the same course and lowest score still wins.

 

Sounds good. But you won't get to see JT hit a four iron, so your enjoyment of the game will be diminished. We cannot have that. Maybe 5000 yards over 14 holes with the stipulation that JT has to hit at least three 4 irons, into par 4s, of course.

[AceCatKY]

what is "moving trouble?"

 

recreating bunkers? adding bunkers (makes it harder for duffers too)? adding rough (again, harder for everyone)? MOVING FREAKING LAKES?!

 

this is insanity. you'd literally rather alter the landscape of golf than question whether or not you might hit it 5 yards further with different equipment.

 

to steal a comment from twitter user @JedRammell

Sanctimoniously defending the 99% who haven’t compressed a ball since they pinched their left nut sitting in a golf cart. The cheat code golf ball hasn’t helped the average club member and fixing it won’t hurt them. Cheat codes don’t apply when you swing it 84 mph

 

Glad you're still going after people based on your perception of their talent relative to you. As someone who played golf 11, and maybe even more, years ago, I think you can make the pros play the way you want them to play by doing things other than restricting the golf ball. You will be happy, and the free enterprise remains in tact. Win-win. The game just has to find a way to make you happy.

You keep saying free enterprise, there are already restrictions on the golf ball and clubs so tightening the restrictions would not be altering the free enterprise.

 

Wait . . . what? They operate on current parameters. Altering the parameters alters the operation. Leave it alone, and enjoy seeing pros destroy courses. It's a much easier solution.

 

And too be fair pros aren't even destroying all these shorter courses. Last week in Mexico at a sub 7000 yard course, with a stacked field, there was a diverse leaderboard including guys who aren't "bombers" and a respectable -16 winning score for a 4 day event.

[North Butte]

Studies were done a couple years after the groove rule change. It showed no discernible difference in how Tour players played off the tee or their scoring when playing with wedges from the rough.

 

The rule changed forced everyone to (eventually) get new, conforming wedges and it failed totally at affecting wedge play among elite players, which was the justification.

 

At the time, the blowhards at USGA proclaimed that it would combat "Bomb and Gouge" by forcing players to pay a price for missing fairways or missing greens. They would be less able to count on controlling the ball out of the rough and would therefore place a greater premium on "accuracy" over distance.

 

As most of us could have predicted, it had no such effect.

 

I am not aware of such studies. I do recall at the time, there being some thinking that the groove rule was a backdoor "ball rollback" rule. You are saying that studies show that the groove rule did not change player behavior/strategy, and so because it did not change behavior in a measurable way, it was a "failure." I'm not sure I agree. The idea was to get wedges to spin less and thereby provide less technology to get up and down from heavy rough. I think those mechanics are still true.

 

The manufacturers of wedges and balls very quickly adjusted to the new groove rules and came up with combinations that very nearly replicate the performance of the previous wedges with the previous models of ball. You might still think it's a good idea but I assure you in the end it made no significant difference at all. Much ado (and expense) about nothing.