Rolling back the ball

[AceCatKY]

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.

 

this is true. Scores are not going down.

Right because courses keep getting lengthened, narrowed, the rough grown, and the greens firmed up and running at 12+. I don't understand that argument, if the courses weren't constantly being toughened fine but that's not the case.

 

Why is that a problem? Superintendents/tourney directors can use the technology available to them (agronomy, design, etc.) to "combat" tech advances in balls and cubs available to the players.

 

Because it makes courses harder for 99.9% of golfers in order to combat the .1 percent of golfers. I know that the argument is that regular courses don't need to do that because they don't host tournaments, but they do it any way.

 

Additionally, this isn't about making the courses HARDER for pros or making the game HARDER for pros. Nobody arguing a rollback as far as I know cares what the scores the pros are shooting. This is the big disconnect. Those against the rollback are suggesting this is to make the game harder for pros, but it's not that. It's to watch the pros play the game in a similar way to the way...nevermidnd, it's been explained 10,000 times. People just ignore it anyway.

 

That attempt at an argument makes zero sense. Lengthening PGA/Euro tour stops does not effect 99.9% of golfers. No one is forcing you to tee it up from the back of every championship tee box at PGA tour courses. Further, no one is forcing you to play the back tees at your home club. Attempting to say this will cause issues for all golfers is nonsense. This literally has no effect on amateurs playing from the correct set of tees. And wanting to watch pros play a similar game to ams is such a ridiculous contention. I could want Formula One drivers to drive the same car as my daily driver, or NBA players to not dunk since I cant, or boxers to just go bare knuckle with no rounds; it doesn't make those desires rational. these are the top .1% of players and to want them to hit the same shots/use the same clubs as the weekend chops at the local muni is nonsensical.

[clevited]

Just kicking around an idea here...

 

What if no changes were made to the golf ball on the professional level, and everything just stayed as is. But at the recreational level, the governing bodies loosened the restrictions and non-conforming distance balls (like the Bandit or the Condor) became "legal" for amateurs.

 

This would create bifurcation (which I actually would not like to see happen), but it would allow recreational players to gain some distance without breaking any kind of rules (of course, that's assuming these non-conforming balls do in fact fly farther; I've never used one so I don't know).

 

There's no rollback of the golf ball, only a "roll forward." The pro game is not affected and us weekend hacks get to smack it a little further while remaining rule-abiding.

 

Yay? Nay?

 

Yay for me. What are they going to do if they roll the ball back, and companies like these keep making balls that still go further than the USGA restrictions? Couldn't the big companies like Titleist, Calloway etc still make a non conforming ball for us? What could the USGA do about that? My guess is the big companies would tell them to go pound sand.

 

I know on my friday afternoon what ball I will be using.

 

What makes you think that the USGA cares one bit about non-conforming equipment? I think that their only concern is with the possibility of non-conforming equipment appearing like conforming equipment. But that could be cured with clear marking requirements.

 

Hell, they have been making bandit balls for years, and the USGA never sued anybody. Compare Ping, which actually did make a non-conforming club, measurably so, and Ping sued the USGA.

 

If a ball rollback comes about, and all of you Pro V1 fanboyz are hacked off about it and want nothing to do with the USGA and would have been happy with bifurcation in any event... you can all go bifurcate yourselves! Just kidding. But seriously; if playing a long ball means a lot to you, and the USGA's authority of the game means next to nothing to you, why not just go make your own rules, or at least buy whatever kind of ball you want?

 

Again, they might for goof off outings with friends, but they will "need to or have to" play a conforming nerfed ball for handicap. The new conforming ball will now make courses even harder for shorter hitters, handicaps potentially go up significantly. Eventually, (and I swear this will happen), you will only be able to buy the conforming ball and now casual golfers are like WTH is happening. There could be a lot of potential for mass exodus. (I don't know that for sure, but it is a thing I wouldn't want to risk given that the struggle to grow the game is REAL).

[North Butte]

I intend to abide by USGA's equipment Rules unless they do something wildly out of character with anything they've ever done in the past.

 

The current Rules have resuited equipment and more specifically golf balls that a) work great for the best players in the world, b) work great for a hack like me, c) work great for everyone in between and d) are better performing and more durable than at any point in the history of the game.

 

Is anyone surprised I am in favor of the ball and implement Rules staying just as they are?

 

Anyone who played the game seriously before the late 1990's surely must recall that it was deemed completely impossible for one type of golf ball to work well enough for a Tour player while also performing well for a weekend hack. That was just absolute 100% "known" by everyone in the game.

 

Then it was proved wrong. New technology produced balls from the cheapest end of the spectrum right on up to the $4 Tour balls that were more playable for hackers, good players, Tour players, whoever. A ball like the ProV1 or Chrome Soft would have been consdiered a Unicorn in 1995. Heck a ball like the Callaway Supersoft would have seemed to have an almost impossible combination of features back then (remember how little spin and feel the distance rocks of the day had?).

 

So the industry produces Unicorns and now some people want to make out like it has destroyed everything that's good about the game. Tell it to the millions of golfers out playing this weekend with balls that don't totally suck.

[DavePelz4]

Haven't read all 35 pages so apologies if this has been posted.

 

Why not change the par on holes? In the old days, the par 3's were up to 250, par 4's up to 470 (I think but could be wrong) and par 5's were over that. Make par 3's up to 325, par 4's up to 530 (as is done in some events) and start par 5's over that. We're accustomed to a course being a par 72 or 70, why not let the par drop to 68?

[Bye]

That is the real problem is that it is seen to be total humiliation to admit that a mistake was made. Rather than learning from it.

 

The anchoring issue would not have happened if they had banned it on the spot. Sam Torrance was using a broomstick in the 90's. I feel sorry for the guys like Web Simpson who grew up only using a belly putter. Credit it to him for how he is doing now. It should never have come to that.

 

Not many people would want go back to the balata, but there was a clear distinction between the balata and then PTS (DT for the US) Now it is just a choice of control or firmness of the ball, max distance is a given.

 

I doubt they will do anything. But it is fun talking about it. I need to get a life..

[15th Club]

Just kicking around an idea here...

 

What if no changes were made to the golf ball on the professional level, and everything just stayed as is. But at the recreational level, the governing bodies loosened the restrictions and non-conforming distance balls (like the Bandit or the Condor) became "legal" for amateurs.

 

This would create bifurcation (which I actually would not like to see happen), but it would allow recreational players to gain some distance without breaking any kind of rules (of course, that's assuming these non-conforming balls do in fact fly farther; I've never used one so I don't know).

 

There's no rollback of the golf ball, only a "roll forward." The pro game is not affected and us weekend hacks get to smack it a little further while remaining rule-abiding.

 

Yay? Nay?

 

Yay for me. What are they going to do if they roll the ball back, and companies like these keep making balls that still go further than the USGA restrictions? Couldn't the big companies like Titleist, Calloway etc still make a non conforming ball for us? What could the USGA do about that? My guess is the big companies would tell them to go pound sand.

 

I know on my friday afternoon what ball I will be using.

 

What makes you think that the USGA cares one bit about non-conforming equipment? I think that their only concern is with the possibility of non-conforming equipment appearing like conforming equipment. But that could be cured with clear marking requirements.

 

Hell, they have been making bandit balls for years, and the USGA never sued anybody. Compare Ping, which actually did make a non-conforming club, measurably so, and Ping sued the USGA.

 

If a ball rollback comes about, and all of you Pro V1 fanboyz are hacked off about it and want nothing to do with the USGA and would have been happy with bifurcation in any event... you can all go bifurcate yourselves! Just kidding. But seriously; if playing a long ball means a lot to you, and the USGA's authority of the game means next to nothing to you, why not just go make your own rules, or at least buy whatever kind of ball you want?

 

Again, they might for goof off outings with friends, but they will "need to or have to" play a conforming nerfed ball for handicap. The new conforming ball will now make courses even harder for shorter hitters, handicaps potentially go up significantly. Eventually, (and I swear this will happen), you will only be able to buy the conforming ball and now casual golfers are like WTH is happening. There could be a lot of potential for mass exodus. (I don't know that for sure, but it is a thing I wouldn't want to risk given that the struggle to grow the game is REAL).

 

Move up a set of tees. Or two. Play a 6000-yard course. Or 5800, or 5500.

 

Personally, I think that the science exists for there to be technology, and testing standards, that could result in a single non-bifurcated standard for golf balls that would roll back elites by some significant and satisfactory percentage on distance, with only negligible effects on lower swing speeds. I leave that to the USGA's engineers, but also to the manufacturers' engineers and related scientists. We'll see. I'm not making any policy declarations; just my own personal feeling. So discount it as you wish.

 

I've asked this before but I'll do it again; With all of the arguments about how average golfers only carry the ball 210 yards (or whatever the chosen number is); what sort of benefit have they gotten in the Pro V era? We know that the Pro V era, dating back to the 1999-2001 timeframe, has given elite players 20 or perhaps 30 yards. What did that era give to recreational duffers? Who's got a number? Subtract it from 210.

[clevited]

Haven't read all 35 pages so apologies if this has been posted.

 

Why not change the par on holes? In the old days, the par 3's were up to 250, par 4's up to 470 (I think but could be wrong) and par 5's were over that. Make par 3's up to 325, par 4's up to 530 (as is done in some events) and start par 5's over that. We're accustomed to a course being a par 72 or 70, why not let the par drop to 68?

 

The argument has been that it does not satisfy what the change the ball peoples true motives are, which I have gathered is a combination of make the old courses playable as intended, make current courses playable as intended, make players have to use skill, and bomb and gouge is boring. (Bomb and gouge takes rediculous skill btw, as does the rediculous scrambling often associated with that kind of agressive play).

[North Butte]

It's not humiliation. It's survival.

 

All USGA has to do is force one, single change that causes the mass of golfers to stand up and Just Say No. They will cease to be the arbiter of the game millions play.

 

At this point, it doesn't matter if they tried to force "back to Balata" or just a vigorously enforced 10% or 20% reduction in ball performance across the board. Chance are they will have blown it once and for all.

[radiman]

Just kicking around an idea here...

 

What if no changes were made to the golf ball on the professional level, and everything just stayed as is. But at the recreational level, the governing bodies loosened the restrictions and non-conforming distance balls (like the Bandit or the Condor) became "legal" for amateurs.

 

This would create bifurcation (which I actually would not like to see happen), but it would allow recreational players to gain some distance without breaking any kind of rules (of course, that's assuming these non-conforming balls do in fact fly farther; I've never used one so I don't know).

 

There's no rollback of the golf ball, only a "roll forward." The pro game is not affected and us weekend hacks get to smack it a little further while remaining rule-abiding.

 

Yay? Nay?

 

Yay for me. What are they going to do if they roll the ball back, and companies like these keep making balls that still go further than the USGA restrictions? Couldn't the big companies like Titleist, Calloway etc still make a non conforming ball for us? What could the USGA do about that? My guess is the big companies would tell them to go pound sand.

 

I know on my friday afternoon what ball I will be using.

 

What makes you think that the USGA cares one bit about non-conforming equipment? I think that their only concern is with the possibility of non-conforming equipment appearing like conforming equipment. But that could be cured with clear marking requirements.

 

Hell, they have been making bandit balls for years, and the USGA never sued anybody. Compare Ping, which actually did make a non-conforming club, measurably so, and Ping sued the USGA.

 

If a ball rollback comes about, and all of you Pro V1 fanboyz are hacked off about it and want nothing to do with the USGA and would have been happy with bifurcation in any event... you can all go bifurcate yourselves! Just kidding. But seriously; if playing a long ball means a lot to you, and the USGA's authority of the game means next to nothing to you, why not just go make your own rules, or at least buy whatever kind of ball you want?

 

Again, they might for goof off outings with friends, but they will "need to or have to" play a conforming nerfed ball for handicap. The new conforming ball will now make courses even harder for shorter hitters, handicaps potentially go up significantly. Eventually, (and I swear this will happen), you will only be able to buy the conforming ball and now casual golfers are like WTH is happening. There could be a lot of potential for mass exodus. (I don't know that for sure, but it is a thing I wouldn't want to risk given that the struggle to grow the game is REAL).

 

God, I didn't even think of that. If you wanted to carry a legit handicap, you wouldn't have a choice. The handicap system is necessary for golfers to compete against one another across a wide segment of skill levels. They would definitely go up after a rollback. You could choose not to carry a handicap which means you couldn't play in any club tournaments.

 

But, I already know the rebuttal to this is going to be, "too bad." Some are willing to sacrifice participation so they can preserve the relevance of old courses in professional/high end am events.

 

With less participation comes less $$ being put into the game. So, in turn costs go up. USGA loses their financial support, pro golf loses sponsorhip dollars, courses charge more for memberships and greens fees, or worse start closing all together. I see this potentially creating an irreversible domino effect.

 

Just speculation on my end, but a very real possibility.

[bladehunter]

Just kicking around an idea here...

 

What if no changes were made to the golf ball on the professional level, and everything just stayed as is. But at the recreational level, the governing bodies loosened the restrictions and non-conforming distance balls (like the Bandit or the Condor) became "legal" for amateurs.

 

This would create bifurcation (which I actually would not like to see happen), but it would allow recreational players to gain some distance without breaking any kind of rules (of course, that's assuming these non-conforming balls do in fact fly farther; I've never used one so I don't know).

 

There's no rollback of the golf ball, only a "roll forward." The pro game is not affected and us weekend hacks get to smack it a little further while remaining rule-abiding.

 

Yay? Nay?

 

Yay for me. What are they going to do if they roll the ball back, and companies like these keep making balls that still go further than the USGA restrictions? Couldn't the big companies like Titleist, Calloway etc still make a non conforming ball for us? What could the USGA do about that? My guess is the big companies would tell them to go pound sand.

 

I know on my friday afternoon what ball I will be using.

 

What makes you think that the USGA cares one bit about non-conforming equipment? I think that their only concern is with the possibility of non-conforming equipment appearing like conforming equipment. But that could be cured with clear marking requirements.

 

Hell, they have been making bandit balls for years, and the USGA never sued anybody. Compare Ping, which actually did make a non-conforming club, measurably so, and Ping sued the USGA.

 

If a ball rollback comes about, and all of you Pro V1 fanboyz are hacked off about it and want nothing to do with the USGA and would have been happy with bifurcation in any event... you can all go bifurcate yourselves! Just kidding. But seriously; if playing a long ball means a lot to you, and the USGA's authority of the game means next to nothing to you, why not just go make your own rules, or at least buy whatever kind of ball you want?

 

Again, they might for goof off outings with friends, but they will "need to or have to" play a conforming nerfed ball for handicap. The new conforming ball will now make courses even harder for shorter hitters, handicaps potentially go up significantly. Eventually, (and I swear this will happen), you will only be able to buy the conforming ball and now casual golfers are like WTH is happening. There could be a lot of potential for mass exodus. (I don't know that for sure, but it is a thing I wouldn't want to risk given that the struggle to grow the game is REAL).

 

 

I agree with you on all points except the mass exodus. People who play this game are literally addicted. It combines outdoors. Some excercise. Social functions as well as competition fix for those that lovethe juice of competing. Slowing the ball down will cause gripes. But nobody who plays weekly or daily will quit playing. And after all that’s who were talking about. Not the once a year at the company scramble player.

 

To me that’s the beauty of the rollback. People will volunteer for it once the initial gripe is over.

[15th Club]

Haven't read all 35 pages so apologies if this has been posted.

 

Why not change the par on holes? In the old days, the par 3's were up to 250, par 4's up to 470 (I think but could be wrong) and par 5's were over that. Make par 3's up to 325, par 4's up to 530 (as is done in some events) and start par 5's over that. We're accustomed to a course being a par 72 or 70, why not let the par drop to 68?

 

I have read all 35 pages, and commented on just about all of them. And I keep asking, why do these drastic things like changing the golf courses, or changing par? Why not just change the $3.50 golf balls?

[Bye]

Haven't read all 35 pages so apologies if this has been posted.

 

Why not change the par on holes? In the old days, the par 3's were up to 250, par 4's up to 470 (I think but could be wrong) and par 5's were over that. Make par 3's up to 325, par 4's up to 530 (as is done in some events) and start par 5's over that. We're accustomed to a course being a par 72 or 70, why not let the par drop to 68?

 

So are you saying rather than lengthening holes rather shorten them. I.e. taking a 350 par 4 and shortening it to a 300 yard par 3?

[clevited]

Haven't read all 35 pages so apologies if this has been posted.

 

Why not change the par on holes? In the old days, the par 3's were up to 250, par 4's up to 470 (I think but could be wrong) and par 5's were over that. Make par 3's up to 325, par 4's up to 530 (as is done in some events) and start par 5's over that. We're accustomed to a course being a par 72 or 70, why not let the par drop to 68?

 

I have read all 35 pages, and commented on just about all of them. And I keep asking, why do these drastic things like changing the golf courses, or changing par? Why not just change the $3.50 golf balls?

 

Read my reply to the previous time you mentioned that, and you will see another reason why not.

[North Butte]

Just kicking around an idea here...

 

What if no changes were made to the golf ball on the professional level, and everything just stayed as is. But at the recreational level, the governing bodies loosened the restrictions and non-conforming distance balls (like the Bandit or the Condor) became "legal" for amateurs.

 

This would create bifurcation (which I actually would not like to see happen), but it would allow recreational players to gain some distance without breaking any kind of rules (of course, that's assuming these non-conforming balls do in fact fly farther; I've never used one so I don't know).

 

There's no rollback of the golf ball, only a "roll forward." The pro game is not affected and us weekend hacks get to smack it a little further while remaining rule-abiding.

 

Yay? Nay?

 

Yay for me. What are they going to do if they roll the ball back, and companies like these keep making balls that still go further than the USGA restrictions? Couldn't the big companies like Titleist, Calloway etc still make a non conforming ball for us? What could the USGA do about that? My guess is the big companies would tell them to go pound sand.

 

I know on my friday afternoon what ball I will be using.

 

What makes you think that the USGA cares one bit about non-conforming equipment? I think that their only concern is with the possibility of non-conforming equipment appearing like conforming equipment. But that could be cured with clear marking requirements.

 

Hell, they have been making bandit balls for years, and the USGA never sued anybody. Compare Ping, which actually did make a non-conforming club, measurably so, and Ping sued the USGA.

 

If a ball rollback comes about, and all of you Pro V1 fanboyz are hacked off about it and want nothing to do with the USGA and would have been happy with bifurcation in any event... you can all go bifurcate yourselves! Just kidding. But seriously; if playing a long ball means a lot to you, and the USGA's authority of the game means next to nothing to you, why not just go make your own rules, or at least buy whatever kind of ball you want?

 

Again, they might for goof off outings with friends, but they will "need to or have to" play a conforming nerfed ball for handicap. The new conforming ball will now make courses even harder for shorter hitters, handicaps potentially go up significantly. Eventually, (and I swear this will happen), you will only be able to buy the conforming ball and now casual golfers are like WTH is happening. There could be a lot of potential for mass exodus. (I don't know that for sure, but it is a thing I wouldn't want to risk given that the struggle to grow the game is REAL).

 

Move up a set of tees. Or two. Play a 6000-yard course. Or 5800, or 5500.

 

Personally, I think that the science exists for there to be technology, and testing standards, that could result in a single non-bifurcated standard for golf balls that would roll back elites by some significant and satisfactory percentage on distance, with only negligible effects on lower swing speeds. I leave that to the USGA's engineers, but also to the manufacturers' engineers and related scientists. We'll see. I'm not making any policy declarations; just my own personal feeling. So discount it as you wish.

 

I've asked this before but I'll do it again; With all of the arguments about how average golfers only carry the ball 210 yards (or whatever the chosen number is); what sort of benefit have they gotten in the Pro V era? We know that the Pro V era, dating back to the 1999-2001 timeframe, has given elite players 20 or perhaps 30 yards. What did that era give to recreational duffers? Who's got a number? Subtract it from 210.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

I've played golf with a Titleist Professional. Didn't work AT ALL for my game. Same for a Tour Balata. Complete non-starter.

 

So I played balls like the Dunlop DDH that were hard as a rock and that required me to literally land a 5-iron shot 15-20 yards short of every green and run it on. Put me on a course with bunkers or water fronting the greens? Then I had to lay up and try to hit a wedge instead of an iron to hold the green.

 

I would have KILLED for a ball that flew high and long and then held a mid-iron shot to a rock-hard Bermuda green in the middle of summer. That ball did not exist.

 

Now that ball exists at all levels. The cheap "distance" balls are far more controllable than a Dunlop DDH (or the over-spinning soft-cover solid balls of the ball that would slice into the next ZIP code if the clubface were not perfectly square). Something like a Supersoft would have made me pinch myself to be sure I wasn't dreaming.

 

But better yet, I can play a ProV1x. It goes at least as far as a Dunlop DDH and still stop on a friggin' dime with a shot that would have scuttled 10 yards off the back of the green with a Rock-Flite type ball.

 

My game has benefited immensely from the choices available today.

[15th Club]

Where is the data on how a ball rollback, if it barely impacts recreational players, will result in a loss of participation, or a rise in handicap numbers? If a ball rollback reduced distances for recreational players, course ratings would go up, players would choose correct tees, and their handicaps (and even their gross scoring) would remain static.

[Bye]

They will need to make decisions if they want to survive. Doing nothing and hoping all will be ok is not going to work forever.

[North Butte]

Where's the data to suggest a ball rollback will prevent the rich guys who own [fill in the blank] wanna-be tournament venue from continuing to butcher their courses as they've done for decades before the ProV1 was ever invented?

[bladehunter]

I do not see any evidence that USGA considers their actions a mistake but I suspect at least some people in the organization wish they had not stuck their heads in the sand for several years in the late 90's denying that anything was changing with the new drivers and balls. I certainly think they totally blew it.

 

But there are mistakes you can correct and those you can not. By the time they pulled their collective head out of the sand and decided to update their way of testing drivers and balls, the stuff had been in use for YEARS.

 

USGA do not have a police force or army, they can not impose decisions on golfers without taking into account just what golfers are willing to go along with. Once they realized that Tour players were in fact hitting it 20-30 yards farther with graphite+titanium+urethane than they had with steel+wood+Balata it would have been organizational suicide for them to declare, "OK starting next year the equipment you are playing will go 25 yards less than the stuff you're using today. All your news drivers and golf balls will be non-conforming from such-and-such a date".

 

They would have ceased to command the consent of the "governed" and lost the spot they've been privileged with for more than a century. So they did their best to draw a line at 2002-era ball and implement distance performance and everyone has been (mostly) happy with the results. Except a few malcontents to are never, ever, until the day they die going to stop complaining about a done-and-dusted decision that is rapidly becoming ancient history.

 

 

And I get that. And if being honest agree. I know that this is more politics at this point than right and wrong for the game. Or the greater right And includes the potential split of the usga from Control if enough folks quit them. Which is why it’s a political move now more so one based in fact or common sense regarding distance alone.

 

 

I do disagree that they couldn’t have fixed it 4-5 years after realizing the metal heads and balls were a big jump. But that is water under the bridge. I just somehow feel the need to cite that in a perfect world with access to uncle Rico’s time Machine that it would be better to not have let the metal head and new ball take over the game. I guess I have that in thecrecord now so I’ll stop repeating it.

[radiman]

Just kicking around an idea here...

 

What if no changes were made to the golf ball on the professional level, and everything just stayed as is. But at the recreational level, the governing bodies loosened the restrictions and non-conforming distance balls (like the Bandit or the Condor) became "legal" for amateurs.

 

This would create bifurcation (which I actually would not like to see happen), but it would allow recreational players to gain some distance without breaking any kind of rules (of course, that's assuming these non-conforming balls do in fact fly farther; I've never used one so I don't know).

 

There's no rollback of the golf ball, only a "roll forward." The pro game is not affected and us weekend hacks get to smack it a little further while remaining rule-abiding.

 

Yay? Nay?

 

Yay for me. What are they going to do if they roll the ball back, and companies like these keep making balls that still go further than the USGA restrictions? Couldn't the big companies like Titleist, Calloway etc still make a non conforming ball for us? What could the USGA do about that? My guess is the big companies would tell them to go pound sand.

 

I know on my friday afternoon what ball I will be using.

 

What makes you think that the USGA cares one bit about non-conforming equipment? I think that their only concern is with the possibility of non-conforming equipment appearing like conforming equipment. But that could be cured with clear marking requirements.

 

Hell, they have been making bandit balls for years, and the USGA never sued anybody. Compare Ping, which actually did make a non-conforming club, measurably so, and Ping sued the USGA.

 

If a ball rollback comes about, and all of you Pro V1 fanboyz are hacked off about it and want nothing to do with the USGA and would have been happy with bifurcation in any event... you can all go bifurcate yourselves! Just kidding. But seriously; if playing a long ball means a lot to you, and the USGA's authority of the game means next to nothing to you, why not just go make your own rules, or at least buy whatever kind of ball you want?

 

Again, they might for goof off outings with friends, but they will "need to or have to" play a conforming nerfed ball for handicap. The new conforming ball will now make courses even harder for shorter hitters, handicaps potentially go up significantly. Eventually, (and I swear this will happen), you will only be able to buy the conforming ball and now casual golfers are like WTH is happening. There could be a lot of potential for mass exodus. (I don't know that for sure, but it is a thing I wouldn't want to risk given that the struggle to grow the game is REAL).

 

 

I agree with you on all points except the mass exodus. People who play this game are literally addicted. It combines outdoors. Some excercise. Social functions as well as competition fix for those that lovethe juice of competing. Slowing the ball down will cause gripes. But nobody who plays weekly or daily will quit playing. And after all that's who were talking about. Not the once a year at the company scramble player.

 

To me that's the beauty of the rollback. People will volunteer for it once the initial gripe is over.

 

That is hard to say. I play with people that already have to hit hybrids and fairway woods into a lot of par 4's. If they are suddenly hitting the ball 180 off the tee, I can absolutely see them stop participating in the handicap system, club tournaments, and eventually exiting the game much earlier than they initially would have. These guys are card carrying handicapped golfers who, while they are not the most skilled, still enjoy competing and participating in the handicapped tournaments. These guys play all the time. They enjoy the game where it is now. I can't speak for them, but I can definitely see them playing much less going forward.

[15th Club]

...

...

...

 

Move up a set of tees. Or two. Play a 6000-yard course. Or 5800, or 5500.

 

Personally, I think that the science exists for there to be technology, and testing standards, that could result in a single non-bifurcated standard for golf balls that would roll back elites by some significant and satisfactory percentage on distance, with only negligible effects on lower swing speeds. I leave that to the USGA's engineers, but also to the manufacturers' engineers and related scientists. We'll see. I'm not making any policy declarations; just my own personal feeling. So discount it as you wish.

 

I've asked this before but I'll do it again; With all of the arguments about how average golfers only carry the ball 210 yards (or whatever the chosen number is); what sort of benefit have they gotten in the Pro V era? We know that the Pro V era, dating back to the 1999-2001 timeframe, has given elite players 20 or perhaps 30 yards. What did that era give to recreational duffers? Who's got a number? Subtract it from 210.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

I've played golf with a Titleist Professional. Didn't work AT ALL for my game. Same for a Tour Balata. Complete non-starter.

 

So I played balls like the Dunlop DDH that were hard as a rock and that required me to literally land a 5-iron shot 15-20 yards short of every green and run it on. Put me on a course with bunkers or water fronting the greens? Then I had to lay up and try to hit a wedge instead of an iron to hold the green.

 

I would have KILLED for a ball that flew high and long and then held a mid-iron shot to a rock-hard Bermuda green in the middle of summer. That ball did not exist.

 

Now that ball exists at all levels. The cheap "distance" balls are far more controllable than a Dunlop DDH (or the over-spinning soft-cover solid balls of the ball that would slice into the next ZIP code if the clubface were not perfectly square). Something like a Supersoft would have made me pinch myself to be sure I wasn't dreaming.

 

But better yet, I can play a ProV1x. It goes at least as far as a Dunlop DDH and still stop on a friggin' dime with a shot that would have scuttled 10 yards off the back of the green with a Rock-Flite type ball.

 

My game has benefited immensely from the choices available today.

 

So you are saying that you have gotten a significant distance boost, and a very significant playability boost, from the Pro V1? Do you agree that Tour players have all gotten a boost just as big or bigger than yours, in the Pro V era?

 

Because that is what I am saying. That elite players have gotten a significant boost, bigger than average recreational players. A big enough boost, that it is requiring significant changes to historic championship golf courses. I get the impression that you are agreeing with me.

[Sean2]

...

...

...

And, the reality is the groove rule only affected the amateur, who had enough trouble spinning the ball as it was. With the groove rule the USGA simply made it that much more difficult. The ruling affected the touring professional not one iota.

 

Brilliant.

 

This is absolutely, scientifically false. I hate seeing falsehoods in this debate.

 

The USGA tested non-urethane balls leading up to the 2010 groove rule. In simplest terms, what they found was that the combination of modern urethane balls and the old-configuration grooves produced a significant spin relation. With non-urethane balls (ionomers, surlyn, etc.) there was no difference. So for the majority of recreational golfers -- and recalling that the majority of recreational golfer don't even buy top-dollar urethane balls -- the groove rule made no difference. Add to that, the fact that the groove rule didn't force recreational players to change any of their clubs, and their pre-2010 wedges remained legal, and we see that this statement is a completely false defamation of the USGA.

 

I don't mind a good and spirited argument. I do mind falsehoods.

 

I see you are a USGA apologist. If someone questions any ruling by the USGA they are misguided at best and a "hater" at worst.

 

Yes, the groove rule has had a tremendous impact on the group it was intended for. Professionals can barely spin the ball anymore.

 

And while I will agree that the most recreational golfers do not play a urethane ball the groove rule has had an effect. It's intention was to reduce the amount of spin a golfer can impart on the ball. The grooves are rounded, not square. But apparently according to the "science" the rounded grooves have no impact on spin rate versus the square grooves. I know more than a few golfers who have noticed a difference.

 

So, according to you what I said is a "falsehood", and I have "defamed" the USGA. This reminds me of the media today: specific narratives are put forth, if those narratives are not supported, or adhered to, anything else is considered "false".

 

Has the USGA done good things? Absolutely. But at the same time they occasionally appear out of touch with reality. They spend too much time in the "beltway".

[buckeyefl]

Where is the data on how a ball rollback, if it barely impacts recreational players, will result in a loss of participation, or a rise in handicap numbers? If a ball rollback reduced distances for recreational players, course ratings would go up, players would choose correct tees, and their handicaps (and even their gross scoring) would remain static.

 

 

Well you could simply look in the magic basket that the USGA reached into to pull out data and just partially report some information to justify your stance.

[clevited]

Where is the data on how a ball rollback, if it barely impacts recreational players, will result in a loss of participation, or a rise in handicap numbers? If a ball rollback reduced distances for recreational players, course ratings would go up, players would choose correct tees, and their handicaps (and even their gross scoring) would remain static.

 

No data, but in my line of work, hasty and poorly thought out changes often have huge repercussions. I see something similar with this. It sounds like its what they want to do. Even if you try really hard to plan for everything, you are still risking that domino effect or some result you did nit think of. The RISK alone, would keep me from changing the ball.

[North Butte]

I know 70-year-old guys, decent players, who have played for half a century and been members at our club for more than half that time but who are dropping out of the game and leaving the club because they would either have to move up to the "ladies" tees or else give up on ever breaking 80 again. Maybe not even breaking 90 more than once in a while because they require driver, fairway wood and then a wedge or short iron to reach every one of the Par 4's from the "senior" tees.

 

Now some of their buddies have indeed moved up under 5,000 yards and are having a ball driving it 160 and hitting 3-woods 140 from up there. But a few of them just aren't willing to play if they can't maintain a single-digit handicap while playing from the 5,600-yard tees.

 

Ego? Vanity? Whatever. I'm not here to pass judgement on someone's inner life (I'll leave that to certain other frequent posters in this thread). Fact is, they are gone from the game forever. Surely it's in nobody interest to accelerate that process by a decade or so for the next cohort of those guys to come through.

[buckeyefl]

Haven't read all 35 pages so apologies if this has been posted.

 

Why not change the par on holes? In the old days, the par 3's were up to 250, par 4's up to 470 (I think but could be wrong) and par 5's were over that. Make par 3's up to 325, par 4's up to 530 (as is done in some events) and start par 5's over that. We're accustomed to a course being a par 72 or 70, why not let the par drop to 68?

 

I have read all 35 pages, and commented on just about all of them. And I keep asking, why do these drastic things like changing the golf courses, or changing par? Why not just change the $3.50 golf balls?

 

Or answer the question why? How is it hurting you? Why not just stop progress with the ball where it is? I've asked you that probably five times and you have yet to produce one coherent, well thought out response.

[North Butte]

...

...

...

 

Move up a set of tees. Or two. Play a 6000-yard course. Or 5800, or 5500.

 

Personally, I think that the science exists for there to be technology, and testing standards, that could result in a single non-bifurcated standard for golf balls that would roll back elites by some significant and satisfactory percentage on distance, with only negligible effects on lower swing speeds. I leave that to the USGA's engineers, but also to the manufacturers' engineers and related scientists. We'll see. I'm not making any policy declarations; just my own personal feeling. So discount it as you wish.

 

I've asked this before but I'll do it again; With all of the arguments about how average golfers only carry the ball 210 yards (or whatever the chosen number is); what sort of benefit have they gotten in the Pro V era? We know that the Pro V era, dating back to the 1999-2001 timeframe, has given elite players 20 or perhaps 30 yards. What did that era give to recreational duffers? Who's got a number? Subtract it from 210.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

I've played golf with a Titleist Professional. Didn't work AT ALL for my game. Same for a Tour Balata. Complete non-starter.

 

So I played balls like the Dunlop DDH that were hard as a rock and that required me to literally land a 5-iron shot 15-20 yards short of every green and run it on. Put me on a course with bunkers or water fronting the greens? Then I had to lay up and try to hit a wedge instead of an iron to hold the green.

 

I would have KILLED for a ball that flew high and long and then held a mid-iron shot to a rock-hard Bermuda green in the middle of summer. That ball did not exist.

 

Now that ball exists at all levels. The cheap "distance" balls are far more controllable than a Dunlop DDH (or the over-spinning soft-cover solid balls of the ball that would slice into the next ZIP code if the clubface were not perfectly square). Something like a Supersoft would have made me pinch myself to be sure I wasn't dreaming.

 

But better yet, I can play a ProV1x. It goes at least as far as a Dunlop DDH and still stop on a friggin' dime with a shot that would have scuttled 10 yards off the back of the green with a Rock-Flite type ball.

 

My game has benefited immensely from the choices available today.

 

So you are saying that you have gotten a significant distance boost, and a very significant playability boost, from the Pro V1. Do you agree that Tour players have all gotten a boost just as big or bigger than yours, in the Pro V era?

 

Because that is what I am saying. That elite players have gotten a significant boost, bigger than average recreational players. A big enough boost, that it is requiring significant changes to historic championship golf courses. I get the impression that you are agreeing with me.

 

I'm saying two things.

 

I am slightly longer and with far better overall playability with modern balls than with the crappy balls we used circa 1990.

 

And I don't give a damn what the guys on TV gain or lose from the balls I play. Golf is 100% a participatory activity for me. Not an entertainment spectacle.

 

P.S. But your "exponential gain" BS is still wrong by the way ;-)

 

P.P.S. And nothing about the current balls and equipement "require" anyone to change any course. That decision is entirely on them.

[15th Club]

 

 

That is hard to say. I play with people that already have to hit hybrids and fairway woods into a lot of par 4's. If they are suddenly hitting the ball 180 off the tee, I can absolutely see them stop participating in the handicap system, club tournaments, and eventually exiting the game much earlier than they initially would have. These guys are card carrying handicapped golfers who, while they are not the most skilled, still enjoy competing and participating in the handicapped tournaments. These guys play all the time. They enjoy the game where it is now. I can't speak for them, but I can definitely see them playing much less going forward.

 

Wait a minute! You are describing hypothetical golfers that used to hit the ball 180, or would hit the ball 180, but for the Pro V. And that the Pro V gave them 30 yards.

 

I call b.s. There is no cohort of golfers like that.

 

I know full well, that for a golfer like Fred Couples, he's 30 yards longer, or more, then he'd be with his 1993 balls and equipment. But that's Fred. It's not a 70 year-old in Sarasota or San Diego or Saginaw.

[buckeyefl]

"You're kidding, right? "

 

 

Sadly he is no,t and aside from gunning to get the call for Mike Davis fourth in Friday scramble, he likes to play the contrarian.

[buckeyefl]

Where is the data on how a ball rollback, if it barely impacts recreational players, will result in a loss of participation, or a rise in handicap numbers?

 

You cant be serious. Oh wait, I didnt notice it was you.

[jaygween]

Haven't read all 35 pages so apologies if this has been posted.

 

Why not change the par on holes? In the old days, the par 3's were up to 250, par 4's up to 470 (I think but could be wrong) and par 5's were over that. Make par 3's up to 325, par 4's up to 530 (as is done in some events) and start par 5's over that. We're accustomed to a course being a par 72 or 70, why not let the par drop to 68?

 

I have read all 35 pages, and commented on just about all of them. And I keep asking, why do these drastic things like changing the golf courses, or changing par? Why not just change the $3.50 golf balls?

 

You do realize changing a par 5 to a par 4 is a lot less drastic than an across the board ball rollback, right? Par is a completely irrelevant number in the scheme of tournament golf. The winner of the tournament is the player that gets around in the fewest strokes. That's it.