Rolling back the ball

[North Butte]

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?

 

It meets precisely the same Rules of Golf criteria.

[jaygween]

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.

 

I know you're joking but that literally sounds like an argument that a lot of pro rollback supporters have made on this site relating to this topic. They say the ball needs to be rolled back to save land, use less water or cut down on maintenance and make the game cheaper. Or that it will make the game a lot faster to play. But if you told them why not roll it back so that 2,500 yards is playable they wouldn't agree (normally they just think it should be rolled back to the yardage that is that same as it was when they grew up playing or watching the game or when they thought the game was great).

[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.

 

I know you're joking but that literally sounds like an argument that a lot of pro rollback supporters have made on this site relating to this topic. They say the ball needs to be rolled back to save land, use less water or cut down on maintenance and make the game cheaper. Or that it will make the game a lot faster to play. But if you told them why not roll it back so that 2,500 yards is playable they wouldn't agree (normally they just think it should be rolled back to the yardage that is that same as it was when they grew up playing or watching the game or when they thought the game was great).

 

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Not one will admit it, but you hit it right on the teeth.

Buckle up for "shot value" arguments.

[AceCatKY]

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.

 

I know you're joking but that literally sounds like an argument that a lot of pro rollback supporters have made on this site relating to this topic. They say the ball needs to be rolled back to save land, use less water or cut down on maintenance and make the game cheaper. Or that it will make the game a lot faster to play. But if you told them why not roll it back so that 2,500 yards is playable they wouldn't agree (normally they just think it should be rolled back to the yardage that is that same as it was when they grew up playing or watching the game or when they thought the game was great).

 

Bolded portion is exactly right. Its the Jack Nicklaus "back in my day" brigade. Same crew that complains about the fact TV shows are different or cell phones are used too much. Just a weird misguided desire for the trappings of their youth to be the standard of today.

[tnord]

totally false. i didn't get involved in golf until 2007, already firmly in the bomb-and-gouge era.

 

i don't actually support a regulation change whereas a 12 hole 2500yd golf course would be "big enough" for a complete test of the game because that would be the same modification of current golf courses i'm against.

[fairways4life]

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

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

 

I think the concern is not necessarily about the scores themselves but how players arrive at those scores.

 

Drive and a draw with a 7-iron to a back left pin to set up a birdie putt = great golf.

 

Drive and a greenside chip to set up a birdie putt = meh.

 

I think it's more about a preferred style of play than it is about a number. It's about golf looking less like golf and more like a combination of a RE/MAX long drive competition coupled with a round of pitch-n-putt.

 

And to be clear, I'm not advocating a rollback. But for me, the debate is more about how a player arrives at a number and not so much the number itself.

[clevited]

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

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

 

I think the concern is not necessarily about the scores themselves but how players arrive at those scores.

 

Drive and a draw with a 7-iron to a back left pin to set up a birdie putt = great golf.

 

Drive and a greenside chip to set up a birdie putt = meh.

 

I think it's more about a preferred style of play than it is about a number. It's about golf looking less like golf and more like a combination of a RE/MAX long drive competition coupled with a round of pitch-n-putt.

 

And to be clear, I'm not advocating a rollback. But for me, the debate is more about how a player arrives at a number and not so much the number itself.

 

There will always be players ariving at a number in a way that was not intended.

 

Edit: I will elaborate by saying that all players gravitate towards the best way to score low given their abilities. Long hitters will still have a shorter club going into a par 4 than a short hitter. Long hitters will still find a way to cut any corner they can, they will still gravitate towards a style of play not necessarily intended.

[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.

 

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

 

It meets precisely the same Rules of Golf criteria.

 

Thank you, North. It's almost as if he didn't even read my post. I bolded it in case he wants to revisit.

[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.

 

I think the concern is not necessarily about the scores themselves but how players arrive at those scores.

 

Drive and a draw with a 7-iron to a back left pin to set up a birdie putt = great golf.

 

Drive and a greenside chip to set up a birdie putt = meh.

 

I think it's more about a preferred style of play than it is about a number. It's about golf looking less like golf and more like a combination of a RE/MAX long drive competition coupled with a round of pitch-n-putt.

 

And to be clear, I'm not advocating a rollback. But for me, the debate is more about how a player arrives at a number and not so much the number itself.

 

I don't think you and I are that far off.

Maybe the only difference is that I think someone who can hit Drive/greenside chip to set up birdie displays a lot of talent. Much more than someone who has to hit a full wedge in. That, to me, is shotmaking.

[jaygween]

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

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

 

I think the concern is not necessarily about the scores themselves but how players arrive at those scores.

 

Drive and a draw with a 7-iron to a back left pin to set up a birdie putt = great golf.

 

Drive and a greenside chip to set up a birdie putt = meh.

 

I think it's more about a preferred style of play than it is about a number. It's about golf looking less like golf and more like a combination of a RE/MAX long drive competition coupled with a round of pitch-n-putt.

 

And to be clear, I'm not advocating a rollback. But for me, the debate is more about how a player arrives at a number and not so much the number itself.

 

I understand how some could have this sentiment. But this is the same evolution in sports that have occurred for hundreds of years. I think a big help in televised golf is the top tracer technology. It will be really good when pretty much every long shot has top tracer on it. Everyone likes to state that there is no shotmaking in today's pro golf which I disagree with. It's not like every guy on tour is a robot that hits every shot dead straight with 3 feet of curve or less. Most of the time on a CBS broadcast they hit the ball and then the camera follows it in the air which is pointless and you have no idea if it is offline, online, drawn or cut, etc.

[North Butte]

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?

 

It meets precisely the same Rules of Golf criteria.

 

Thank you, North. It's almost as if he didn't even read my post. I bolded it in case he wants to revisit.

 

I imagine he read it. He just thought saying you played a Supersoft was an insult.

[North Butte]

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

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

 

I think the concern is not necessarily about the scores themselves but how players arrive at those scores.

 

Drive and a draw with a 7-iron to a back left pin to set up a birdie putt = great golf.

 

Drive and a greenside chip to set up a birdie putt = meh.

 

I think it's more about a preferred style of play than it is about a number. It's about golf looking less like golf and more like a combination of a RE/MAX long drive competition coupled with a round of pitch-n-putt.

 

And to be clear, I'm not advocating a rollback. But for me, the debate is more about how a player arrives at a number and not so much the number itself.

 

I understand how some could have this sentiment. But this is the same evolution in sports that have occurred for hundreds of years. I think a big help in televised golf is the top tracer technology. It will be really good when pretty much every long shot has top tracer on it. Everyone likes to state that there is no shotmaking in today's pro golf which I disagree with. It's not like every guy on tour is a robot that hits every shot with 3 feet of curve. Most of the time on a CBS broadcast they hit the ball and then the camera follows it in the air which is pointless and you have no idea if it is offline, online, drawn or cut, etc.

 

I did love that driver Phil hit on the 72nd hole (I think?) where the shot tracer showed it curving 31 yards to get around the trees. Given how straight the ball goes at 7,000 feet altitude, that was some serious Bubba-like lefty sidespin there. Takes a certain amount of intestinal fortitude to choose that shot at that point in the proceedings.

[radiman]

 

 

I imagine he read it. He just thought saying you played a Supersoft was an insult.

 

Hey, at least he didn't imply that you drink Keystone Light. That would just be below the belt.

[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.

 

I think the concern is not necessarily about the scores themselves but how players arrive at those scores.

 

Drive and a draw with a 7-iron to a back left pin to set up a birdie putt = great golf.

 

Drive and a greenside chip to set up a birdie putt = meh.

 

I think it's more about a preferred style of play than it is about a number. It's about golf looking less like golf and more like a combination of a RE/MAX long drive competition coupled with a round of pitch-n-putt.

 

And to be clear, I'm not advocating a rollback. But for me, the debate is more about how a player arrives at a number and not so much the number itself.

 

There will always be players ariving at a number in a way that was not intended.

 

Edit: I will elaborate by saying that all players gravitate towards the best way to score low given their abilities. Long hitters will still have a shorter club going into a par 4 than a short hitter. Long hitters will still find a way to cut any corner they can, they will still gravitate towards a style of play not necessarily intended.

 

You're on fire, and exactly right.

Should we change the entire industry, or just let it go and enjoy watching?

[rawdog]

I imagine he read it. He just thought saying you played a Supersoft was an insult.

 

Hey, at least he didn't imply that you drink Keystone Light. That would just be below the belt.

 

Good thing I didn't put "pink" Supersoft, which is what I normally play since everyone is on to neon yellow now. I get zero benefit from pro-style balls, and the Supersoft feels, well, soft. I like hitting a marshmallow with a pillow.

 

And FWIW, my cheap beer of choice in college was the champagne of beers- High Life :)

 

I can't tell if he is trying to insult people, or just doesn't know how poorly he comes off.

[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.

 

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.

 

I am not going to sidetrack all of us by arguing against this point of yours. I'm not so sure that I am able to argue against you on this in any event.

 

What I do say is that no recreational player was ever required to change anything. Few if anyone who actually has to buy his own golf equipment was ever penalized with a requirement of having to purchase new clubs.

[tnord]

personally, i'm a natty light fan. ya'll keystone people are just trashy.

[15th Club]

Should we change the entire industry, or just let it go and enjoy watching?

 

"[C]hange the entire industry"?

 

I thought we were talking about a change to golf ball testing protocols that would effectively create a minor rollback of performance conditions for golf balls. No rule changes for clubs; nothing to do with any other part of the golf game or the golf industry.

[rawdog]

personally, i'm a natty light fan. ya'll keystone people are just trashy.

 

Was unaware Smylie Kaufman was from KS, or posted on this board... pimpin sponsors.

 

Keith Stone was pretty smooth back in the day.

 

[clevited]

Should we change the entire industry, or just let it go and enjoy watching?

 

"[C]hange the entire industry"?

 

I thought we were talking about a change to golf ball testing protocols that would effectively create a minor rollback of performance conditions for golf balls. No rule changes for clubs; nothing to do with any other part of the golf game or the golf industry.

 

 

The proposed 20% sounds like a major rollback, not a minor rollback and would no doubt have a domino effect across the industry. I can say one thing for certain, nerfing a golf ball is NOT going to help an already dwindling interest in the game.

[Roadking2003]

6800-yard championship golf courses. Yep; they were much closer to what their designers (Ross, Tillinghast, Mackenzie, Colt, MacDonald, etc.) intended.

 

Retaining what the old designers put in place went out the window some time ago. A good example is Pinehurst #2. Crenshaw did a partial return to the original form, but left the greens about twice as fast as when they were designed.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Should we change the entire industry, or just let it go and enjoy watching?

 

"[C]hange the entire industry"?

 

I thought we were talking about a change to golf ball testing protocols that would effectively create a minor rollback of performance conditions for golf balls. No rule changes for clubs; nothing to do with any other part of the golf game or the golf industry.

 

 

Yeah, so, change the entire [golf ball] industry. I guess I thought that was what we were discussing, given the thread title and all . . .

[knock it close]

Should we change the entire industry, or just let it go and enjoy watching?

 

"[C]hange the entire industry"?

 

I thought we were talking about a change to golf ball testing protocols that would effectively create a minor rollback of performance conditions for golf balls. No rule changes for clubs; nothing to do with any other part of the golf game or the golf industry.

 

 

The proposed 20% sounds like a major rollback, not a minor rollback and would no doubt have a domino effect across the industry. I can say one thing for certain, nerfing a golf ball is NOT going to help an already dwindling interest in the game.

20% is absolutely insane I want to be on record saying that

 

I would be a fan of a say 7-10% change. I play at 3000'+ so that's a similar change as me going to sea level. The country club here is a wonderful Wilie Park Jr design but at our altitude the 6500 is a little on the short side, it's still awesome to play but at a say 8% ball reduction it would be more fun.

[Bye]

Should we change the entire industry, or just let it go and enjoy watching?

 

"[C]hange the entire industry"?

 

I thought we were talking about a change to golf ball testing protocols that would effectively create a minor rollback of performance conditions for golf balls. No rule changes for clubs; nothing to do with any other part of the golf game or the golf industry.

 

 

The proposed 20% sounds like a major rollback, not a minor rollback and would no doubt have a domino effect across the industry. I can say one thing for certain, nerfing a golf ball is NOT going to help an already dwindling interest in the game.

20% is absolutely insane I want to be on record saying that

 

I will second that. It’s not helpful either.

[North Butte]

I imagine he read it. He just thought saying you played a Supersoft was an insult.

 

Hey, at least he didn't imply that you drink Keystone Light. That would just be below the belt.

 

I have no idea what Keystone Light exactly is but it sounds nasty.

 

I remember one time I played with a new member at my club and after the round, without asking he went and bought us each a Bud Light. He handed it to me and I was too polite to turn it down but my politeness only lasted through the first mouthful. Wowsers.

[fairways4life]

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

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

 

I think the concern is not necessarily about the scores themselves but how players arrive at those scores.

 

Drive and a draw with a 7-iron to a back left pin to set up a birdie putt = great golf.

 

Drive and a greenside chip to set up a birdie putt = meh.

 

I think it's more about a preferred style of play than it is about a number. It's about golf looking less like golf and more like a combination of a RE/MAX long drive competition coupled with a round of pitch-n-putt.

 

And to be clear, I'm not advocating a rollback. But for me, the debate is more about how a player arrives at a number and not so much the number itself.

 

I don't think you and I are that far off.

Maybe the only difference is that I think someone who can hit Drive/greenside chip to set up birdie displays a lot of talent. Much more than someone who has to hit a full wedge in. That, to me, is shotmaking.

 

I can agree with that. I don't dispute that distance should be rewarded. It should. Just like good putting or good bunker play should be rewarded. All facets of the game should have an advantage if you do it especially well.

 

I think there's a line to toe somewhere and I'll use a particular hole from the Mexico WGC as an example. It was a par 4, around 380 yards, dogleg right. Dustin Johnson lined up practically sideways on the tee box and bombed a driver over the trees and the ball bounced off the back of the green to where his second shot was just a little chip.

 

Should DJ be rewarded for his length? Absolutely. Just like Zach Johnson should be rewarded for his wedge play or Steve Stricker should be rewarded for his putting. But I think where things get tricky is when analyzing how that hole was designed to be played. The designer did not design the hole for a player to line up sideways and bomb a 380 yard drive (altitude obviously a factor here) over the trees and onto the green. It was designed to hit a cut around the corner (not over it) or play a tee shot into the bend of the dogleg and set up a longer second shot.

 

If the game that is being played gets too big for the venue it's being played on, is that okay or not okay?

 

To take something to an extreme ...... what if we reached a point where literally every single par 4 was a pitch shot and every single par 5 was easily attacked in two shots? Would that still be a good thing or would it get a little ...... "blah?" Now obviously that's an extreme hypothetical and we aren't close to that yet. But just picturing what that would look like and whether or not that would cause more people to say "yeah this is getting a little lame here."

 

It's a good debate and one that's healthy for the game. It's a shame that so much of it has gone the way of personal attacks and insults, like so many debates here do. But such is life. :golfer:

[OrangeGravy]

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.

 

I don't think he's on your side?

[Roadking2003]

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.

 

Why are they an issue? If they are having fun, keeping pace and not interfering with others, what's the issue?

 

Golf is for all the people, not just the snobs.

[15th Club]

Should we change the entire industry, or just let it go and enjoy watching?

 

"[C]hange the entire industry"?

 

I thought we were talking about a change to golf ball testing protocols that would effectively create a minor rollback of performance conditions for golf balls. No rule changes for clubs; nothing to do with any other part of the golf game or the golf industry.

 

 

Yeah, so, change the entire [golf ball] industry. I guess I thought that was what we were discussing, given the thread title and all . . .

 

Dude, you might be mistaking me for someone who cares about "the golf ball industry."

 

Still there is no reason -- apart from some emotional thing that I do not understand -- why a rollback should be a problem for "the entire golf ball industry." New testing specs, and any new Rules would have us all buying new balls, with new designs. The manufacturers could have a big time selling us on the best balls under the new testing protocol. "The Longest Balls!" just like now, under a slightly different set of testing protocols.

[clevited]

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.

 

Why are they an issue? If they are having fun, keeping pace and not interfering with others, what's the issue?

 

Golf is for all the people, not just the snobs.

 

Golf is indeed for ALL, and not just the snobs. STOP SCARING THE "ALL" AWAY SNOBS!!! LEAVE THE BALL ALONE!! ;)