Rolling back the ball

[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?

 

The winner of the golf tournament is the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots. The measurement of their score to par has no bearing.

 

Right. Do I really have to state my agreement with that?

 

But it isn't just about "the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots." It's also about the quality of the shots played, and the overall play. In every tournament, there is a winner. Somebody shoots the lowest score, or wins a playoff, or wins the match play bracket. Somebody wins, whether the track is a muni, or whether it is an Open Championship at Muirfield. But the event at Muirfield, under major championship conditions, is a different sort of test, than shooting 58 at a U.S. Open qualifier at 6,600 yard Woodmont. Which has of course happened.

 

It's just a number. It's ten strokes less than 68. It's ten strokes more than 48, for that matter. They are all just numbers. But my point, as always, is the quality of the play.

[15th Club]

hat's what often gets lost in all of this. Why is nobody advocating for the rollback of greens to 8 on the stimp and flat? I don't think the designers intended for them to be rolling at an undulating 12.

 

I want so much to agree with you for once. I can... almost.

 

First, the main point. Yes, the notion that green speeds have been tricked up to combat distance is well-known. Geoff Shackelford writes about it all the time. The USGA used to not want to sell its proprietary Stimpmeters to the public, for fear of Stimpmeter-competitions, and club members wanting to speed up greens without end and without reason.

 

You raise a very good point; green speeds can rather easily reach a point at which the design concept for the green is defeated. You lose pin positions. You can only find a few places flat enough to cut a cup. You effectively lose parts of greens. There have been numerous cases of green alterations, because of ultrafast modern green speeds.

 

What I endorse is greens that roll true and smooth and putt in such a way that reading them is a challenge -- a good and fair challenge -- and that putting on them requires skill and creativity. I like fast greens. My idea of "fast" is nothing like the Tour's idea of "fast." I have seen, and have only a couple times putted on -- ultrafast championship greens. I know what they are like. And how hard they are, to make even a short putt. Crazy. I hate that. I don't like to see it, especially as an essentially false defense, to golf ball distance.

 

I think I am somewhat agreeing with you. But since we so obviously disagree with everything else, I am not sure.

 

Yeah, if they rollback the ball, I think the greens should be slowed down, and flattened out to make sure the designers' intentions are preserved. In that case, I'd like to see the Old Course rolling at a gentleman's 3.5 and ANGC rolling more like it did in 1950. They would have to rollback the length of the courses, too. I don't think the designers would have wanted #11 at Augusta to be 500 yards. The point is, we definitely can't just rollback the ball and keep everything else the same. Gotta rollback everything.

 

Well.... yeah! And just maybe, ANGC wouldn't have to spend $25 million, and mess up Augusta Country Club, and build a new tee for #13. Yeah! I'd like to see it, so that no major championship needed more than 7000 yards or so.

 

So that players wouldn't have to walk backwards 120 yards, past the tee that Tour players used in 1990, to find the new tee that Rees Jones built to combat distance.

 

So that we didn't have to keep re-placing fairway bunkers, etc.

 

And very much in agreement with you... so that green speeds could be normalized. Not punitive.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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?

 

The winner of the golf tournament is the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots. The measurement of their score to par has no bearing.

 

Right. Do I really have to state my agreement with that?

 

But it isn't just about "the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots." It's also about the quality of the shots played, and the overall play. In every tournament, there is a winner. Somebody shoots the lowest score, or wins a playoff, or wins the match play bracket. Somebody wins, whether the track is a muni, or whether it is an Open Championship at Muirfield. But the event at Muirfield, under major championship conditions, is a different sort of test, than shooting 58 at a U.S. Open qualifier at 6,600 yard Woodmont. Which has of course happened.

 

It's just a number. It's ten strokes less than 68. It's ten strokes more than 48, for that matter. They are all just numbers. But my point, as always, is the quality of the play.

 

For sure. While the bolded above might be the most outlandish thing I've ever read about the game of golf, I think you're on to something. Maybe they should incorporate shot value into the score. For instance, if Player A hits a four iron into a certain par 4, it should only count as 0.8 strokes, whereas if Player B hits his drive farther and has a 9 iron in, it counts as a full stroke. Player A had a greater shot value, and should be rewarded. Of course, then, Player Bs drive would have to count as 0.8 strokes because he hit the better drive. Wait, so I guess they should all just count as 1 full stroke.

[North Butte]

Make it like a Big Break challenge. Hand them all a 1-iron, put a garbage can lid size target out there 250 yards and the first guy to hit the bullseye two shots in a row wins.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

hat's what often gets lost in all of this. Why is nobody advocating for the rollback of greens to 8 on the stimp and flat? I don't think the designers intended for them to be rolling at an undulating 12.

 

I want so much to agree with you for once. I can... almost.

 

First, the main point. Yes, the notion that green speeds have been tricked up to combat distance is well-known. Geoff Shackelford writes about it all the time. The USGA used to not want to sell its proprietary Stimpmeters to the public, for fear of Stimpmeter-competitions, and club members wanting to speed up greens without end and without reason.

 

You raise a very good point; green speeds can rather easily reach a point at which the design concept for the green is defeated. You lose pin positions. You can only find a few places flat enough to cut a cup. You effectively lose parts of greens. There have been numerous cases of green alterations, because of ultrafast modern green speeds.

 

What I endorse is greens that roll true and smooth and putt in such a way that reading them is a challenge -- a good and fair challenge -- and that putting on them requires skill and creativity. I like fast greens. My idea of "fast" is nothing like the Tour's idea of "fast." I have seen, and have only a couple times putted on -- ultrafast championship greens. I know what they are like. And how hard they are, to make even a short putt. Crazy. I hate that. I don't like to see it, especially as an essentially false defense, to golf ball distance.

 

I think I am somewhat agreeing with you. But since we so obviously disagree with everything else, I am not sure.

 

Yeah, if they rollback the ball, I think the greens should be slowed down, and flattened out to make sure the designers' intentions are preserved. In that case, I'd like to see the Old Course rolling at a gentleman's 3.5 and ANGC rolling more like it did in 1950. They would have to rollback the length of the courses, too. I don't think the designers would have wanted #11 at Augusta to be 500 yards. The point is, we definitely can't just rollback the ball and keep everything else the same. Gotta rollback everything.

 

Well.... yeah! And just maybe, ANGC wouldn't have to spend $25 million, and mess up Augusta Country Club, and build a new tee for #13. Yeah! I'd like to see it, so that no major championship needed more than 7000 yards or so.

 

So that players wouldn't have to walk backwards 120 yards, past the tee that Tour players used in 1990, to find the new tee that Rees Jones built to combat distance.

 

So that we didn't have to keep re-placing fairway bunkers, etc.

 

And very much in agreement with you... so that green speeds could be normalized. Not punitive.

 

Totally. I'm glad we agree that a ball rollback would necessitate a rollback of absolutely everything, including course distance, green speed, green relief, rough, etc. That way, the long players still have the advantage over short hitters, and the test is normalized over generations. It would be silly to just rollback the ball without adjusting everything else. I say we need a year. I vote for a year that one of the Legends had a good season. Maybe 1965 or so. Make everything like it was in 1965. Should be simple.

[North Butte]

1930.

 

The year of what is still the only Grand Slam in golf history, with apologies to the great Tiger Woods.

[farmer]

I don't know how balls would be rolled back. Spin more, poorer aerodynamics? If it's across the board, I don't have 20-30 yds to spare, and there are no tees that far in front of where I play. Tour players and elite ams only? A nightmare of rule complexity. All because a minute percentage of players hit the ball "too far".

[North Butte]

All because a minute percentage of players hit the ball "too far".

 

And the majority of those players are actually perfectly happy with how far they hit it. They simply hit it farther than some spectators want them to.

 

Except the majority of spectators, in fact, seem to dig the long ball too.

 

It's a puzzler.

 

When on one side you have virtually every amateur golfer in the world, most touring professionals, the major Tours themselves and the punters who pay the bills by supporting the Tours and on the opposing side you have the likes of Geoff Shackelford and our own "15th Club" it kind of solves the puzzle, though...

[rawdog]

 

But it isn't just about "the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots." It's also about the quality of the shots played, and the overall play. In every tournament, there is a winner. Somebody shoots the lowest score, or wins a playoff, or wins the match play bracket. Somebody wins, whether the track is a muni, or whether it is an Open Championship at Muirfield. But the event at Muirfield, under major championship conditions, is a different sort of test, than shooting 58 at a U.S. Open qualifier at 6,600 yard Woodmont. Which has of course happened.

 

It's just a number. It's ten strokes less than 68. It's ten strokes more than 48, for that matter. They are all just numbers. But my point, as always, is the quality of the play.

 

Whoah. Literally the only thing golf is about is taking the fewest number of shots.

[rawdog]

I don't know how balls would be rolled back. Spin more, poorer aerodynamics? If it's across the board, I don't have 20-30 yds to spare, and there are no tees that far in front of where I play. Tour players and elite ams only? A nightmare of rule complexity. All because a minute percentage of players hit the ball "too far".

 

Nah, you just take a magic wand and poof, the ball goes X% the distance it normally would.

 

I kid, but you bring up a good point. I really haven't head anyone explain the mechanism by which the ball would be limited.

 

I would assume it would be done by changing the Overall Distance Standard, which is an arbitrary distance in the rules of golf that limits how far a golf ball is allowed to travel under certain conditions.

 

http://www.usga.org/...tml#!rule-14611

[clevited]

Would I be mistaken if I said that if you compiled all of the information brought to the table in this thread, that we have indeed concluded that a roll back would be terrible? I mean, the con's and possible con's that have been brought to light, pretty clearly out weigh the pro's of a change.

 

Pro's of change.

 

-Old courses more challenging, would be played in the preferred manor and could be played on tour again.

-Courses no longer need to get longer to appropriately challenge top professionals.

 

Con's of change

 

-Bifurcation causes a rift between pro and ametuer.

-Handicap issues with bifurcation.

- Excluding any bifurcation, short players will get even shorter on tour and at our levels.

-If spin is added, the game gets even more difficult for new players and current players.

-Courses will likely need to change again due to the new ball (Shorter?Softer greens?Softer fairways?Shorter rough?).

-Players will still over power courses, even if nerfed a lot, therefore making the change not accomplish its goal.

-Change is definitely NOT going to grow the game, it would if anything, hurt it. To what extent is unknown.

[North Butte]

In the end we are just arguing about whether or not an organization who doesn't care WHAT we think ought to do something they've repeatedly said they have no intention of doing.

 

If that isn't Peak GolfWRX, don't know what is!

 

But we did finally get around to man-boob jokes so there we've got that going for us...

[Roadking2003]

In the end we are just arguing about whether or not an organization who doesn't care WHAT we think ought to do something they've repeatedly said they have no intention of doing.

 

Are you sure? I heard a rumor that the USGA plans to do whatever we (WRX board posters) decide needs to be done.

[clevited]

In the end we are just arguing about whether or not an organization who doesn't care WHAT we think ought to do something they've repeatedly said they have no intention of doing.

 

Are you sure? I heard a rumor that the USGA plans to do whatever we (WRX board posters) decide needs to be done.

 

I think they should. We do afterall represent the consumers of golf and make it all happen from a money standpoint. We are golf.

[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?

 

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?

 

The winner of the golf tournament is the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots. The measurement of their score to par has no bearing.

 

Right. Do I really have to state my agreement with that?

 

But it isn't just about "the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots." It's also about the quality of the shots played, and the overall play. In every tournament, there is a winner. Somebody shoots the lowest score, or wins a playoff, or wins the match play bracket. Somebody wins, whether the track is a muni, or whether it is an Open Championship at Muirfield. But the event at Muirfield, under major championship conditions, is a different sort of test, than shooting 58 at a U.S. Open qualifier at 6,600 yard Woodmont. Which has of course happened.

 

It's just a number. It's ten strokes less than 68. It's ten strokes more than 48, for that matter. They are all just numbers. But my point, as always, is the quality of the play.

 

For sure. While the bolded above might be the most outlandish thing I've ever read about the game of golf, I think you're on to something. Maybe they should incorporate shot value into the score. For instance, if Player A hits a four iron into a certain par 4, it should only count as 0.8 strokes, whereas if Player B hits his drive farther and has a 9 iron in, it counts as a full stroke. Player A had a greater shot value, and should be rewarded. Of course, then, Player Bs drive would have to count as 0.8 strokes because he hit the better drive. Wait, so I guess they should all just count as 1 full stroke.

 

Ashley, I like your style.

[DavePelz4]

I don't know how balls would be rolled back. Spin more, poorer aerodynamics? If it's across the board, I don't have 20-30 yds to spare, and there are no tees that far in front of where I play. Tour players and elite ams only? A nightmare of rule complexity. All because a minute percentage of players hit the ball "too far".

 

Nah, you just take a magic wand and poof, the ball goes X% the distance it normally would.

 

I kid, but you bring up a good point. I really haven't head anyone explain the mechanism by which the ball would be limited.

 

I would assume it would be done by changing the Overall Distance Standard, which is an arbitrary distance in the rules of golf that limits how far a golf ball is allowed to travel under certain conditions.

 

http://www.usga.org/...tml#!rule-14611

 

Let's use these bad boys...

 

[Wdwfreak]

chiming in way late but to give a pro's opinion: only sport in the world where we go "Hmmm we hit the ball further, lets make the stadium bigger"

 

No, pro baseball players use wooden bats, rather than making a bigger and longer outfield.

 

Shame to see courses getting eaten up and no longer playable because of their length.

 

I responded I would be in favor of changing the rules on the PGA survey all members received yesterday, even though the president essentially said a huge no to something that doesn't exist.

 

This is going to be a long long debate, shame that one of the sides is a ball manufacturer which is an absurd conflict of interest for this debate.

 

I live in Wisconsin, enjoyed Erin Hills, but US Opens and other tournaments of that caliber deserve to be on the classics, and no I don't mean tricked out, absurd, butchered Merion from '13, I am so tired of hearing that argument because that course was under 7000 yards.

 

Cheers,

[15th Club]

Would I be mistaken if I said that if you compiled all of the information brought to the table in this thread, that we have indeed concluded that a roll back would be terrible? I mean, the con's and possible con's that have been brought to light, pretty clearly out weigh the pro's of a change.

 

Pro's of change.

 

-Old courses more challenging, would be played in the preferred manor and could be played on tour again. True!

-Courses no longer need to get longer to appropriately challenge top professionals.

True!

 

Con's of change

 

-Bifurcation causes a rift between pro and ametuer.

Maybe. So let's not bifurcate.

-Handicap issues with bifurcation.

What issues? Not if players play from appropriate tees and Course Ratings and Slope adjust with changes in playability with legal equipment.

- Excluding any bifurcation, short players will get even shorter on tour and at our levels.

I'm not sure I even understand this.

-If spin is added, the game gets even more difficult for new players and current players.

I never proposed anything about "spin," and I don't recall anybody else making such a proposal. It's complete speculation on your part.

-Courses will likely need to change again due to the new ball (Shorter?Softer greens?Softer fairways?Shorter rough?).

No. Emphatically, no. The whole idea is to bring the cycle of course changes to an end.

-Players will still over power courses, even if nerfed a lot, therefore making the change not accomplish its goal.

Says who?

-Change is definitely NOT going to grow the game, it would if anything, hurt it. To what extent is unknown.

You don't know that. Your one honest point is saying it is "unknown." To me, it is "unknown" that there will be ANY downside. I don't see it; I don't expect it.

 

 

[AceCatKY]

Cant wait to take my niblick, spoon and gutta percha ball and go play the classics like they should be!

[15th Club]

I don't know how balls would be rolled back. Spin more, poorer aerodynamics? If it's across the board, I don't have 20-30 yds to spare, and there are no tees that far in front of where I play. Tour players and elite ams only? A nightmare of rule complexity. All because a minute percentage of players hit the ball "too far".

 

Nah, you just take a magic wand and poof, the ball goes X% the distance it normally would.

 

I kid, but you bring up a good point. I really haven't head anyone explain the mechanism by which the ball would be limited.

 

I would assume it would be done by changing the Overall Distance Standard, which is an arbitrary distance in the rules of golf that limits how far a golf ball is allowed to travel under certain conditions.

 

http://www.usga.org/...tml#!rule-14611

 

 

That's right! The ODS is an "arbitrary standard." Well, perhaps not completely arbitrary. Why pick 315 yards as the current testing ODS? Because it was felt to be a number that fit the golf courses. They could have picked 260. Or 360. But they picked 315. Because they were trying to approximate real world conditions in a test, and they were ever-so-conscious of what they were trying to "fit" balls into. They were trying to "fit" the great courses of USGA championship history.

 

So that's what they did. Problem was, external factors outside of the pure test have changed, such that in the real world, there are bombers for whom 315 yards is a solid 3-wood. The testing protocol no long fits the golf courses, because clubs, shafts, players and launch monitoring are so much better. And really, who should be surprised, if clubs, players and launch monitoring get better? Not me. I expect them to get better next year, and the year after, and the year after, et cetera.

 

Roll the ODS back. Take something like 15 yards off of the 120 mph test with "Iron Rugge," and who knows if it will even knock 5 yards off the recreational player who hits his driver 225?

[Barfolomew]

If they have to roll the ball back because courses are too expensive to fix I understand BUT if they are rolling it back thinking it will help short hitters compete w long hitters it wont help

[radiman]

Would I be mistaken if I said that if you compiled all of the information brought to the table in this thread, that we have indeed concluded that a roll back would be terrible? I mean, the con's and possible con's that have been brought to light, pretty clearly out weigh the pro's of a change.

 

Pro's of change.

 

-Old courses more challenging, would be played in the preferred manor and could be played on tour again. True!

-Courses no longer need to get longer to appropriately challenge top professionals.

True!

 

 

Con's of change

 

-Bifurcation causes a rift between pro and ametuer.

Maybe. So let's not bifurcate.

 

-Handicap issues with bifurcation.

What issues? Not if players play from appropriate tees and Course Ratings and Slope adjust with changes in playability with legal equipment.

 

- Excluding any bifurcation, short players will get even shorter on tour and at our levels.

I'm not sure I even understand this.

 

-If spin is added, the game gets even more difficult for new players and current players.

 

I never proposed anything about "spin," and I don't recall anybody else making such a proposal. It's complete speculation on your part.

 

 

-Courses will likely need to change again due to the new ball (Shorter?Softer greens?Softer fairways?Shorter rough?).

 

No. Emphatically, no. The whole idea is to bring the cycle of course changes to an end.

 

 

-Players will still over power courses, even if nerfed a lot, therefore making the change not accomplish its goal.

 

Says who?

 

 

-Change is definitely NOT going to grow the game, it would if anything, hurt it. To what extent is unknown.

 

You don't know that. Your one honest point is saying it is "unknown." To me, it is "unknown" that there will be ANY downside. I don't see it; I don't expect it.

 

 

 

 

 

You seriously don't see any downside to the masses hitting the ball shorter? As far as handicap, players post their scores by the tees they play. If they should move up a box or not isn't reflected in their handicap. Are you basically saying the majority of golfers shouldn't bother keeping a handicap making this a non-issue?

[North Butte]

Would I be mistaken if I said that if you compiled all of the information brought to the table in this thread, that we have indeed concluded that a roll back would be terrible? I mean, the con's and possible con's that have been brought to light, pretty clearly out weigh the pro's of a change.

 

Pro's of change.

 

-Old courses more challenging, would be played in the preferred manor and could be played on tour again. True!

-Courses no longer need to get longer to appropriately challenge top professionals.

True!

 

 

Con's of change

 

-Bifurcation causes a rift between pro and ametuer.

Maybe. So let's not bifurcate.

 

-Handicap issues with bifurcation.

What issues? Not if players play from appropriate tees and Course Ratings and Slope adjust with changes in playability with legal equipment.

 

- Excluding any bifurcation, short players will get even shorter on tour and at our levels.

I'm not sure I even understand this.

 

-If spin is added, the game gets even more difficult for new players and current players.

 

I never proposed anything about "spin," and I don't recall anybody else making such a proposal. It's complete speculation on your part.

 

 

-Courses will likely need to change again due to the new ball (Shorter?Softer greens?Softer fairways?Shorter rough?).

 

No. Emphatically, no. The whole idea is to bring the cycle of course changes to an end.

 

 

-Players will still over power courses, even if nerfed a lot, therefore making the change not accomplish its goal.

 

Says who?

 

 

-Change is definitely NOT going to grow the game, it would if anything, hurt it. To what extent is unknown.

 

You don't know that. Your one honest point is saying it is "unknown." To me, it is "unknown" that there will be ANY downside. I don't see it; I don't expect it.

 

 

 

 

 

You seriously don't see any downside to the masses hitting the ball shorter? As far as handicap, players post their scores by the tees they play. If they should move up a box or not isn't reflected in their handicap. Are you basically saying the majority of golfers shouldn't bother keeping a handicap making this a non-issue?

 

If the "amateurs" are playing a different ball specification than now, in theory the courses would need to be re-rated. Right now, for a given set of tees, you have slope and course ratings for women and for men. In the Brave New Bifurcated World you would have slope and course ratings (for each tee) for men playing the real ball, men playing the hacker ball, women playing the real ball, women playing the hacker ball.

[QMany]

2.2% since 2003.

 

With the advent of Trackman and training programs (weight training, overspeed training, etc.), that seems like a pretty small number.

[jaygween]

chiming in way late but to give a pro's opinion: only sport in the world where we go "Hmmm we hit the ball further, lets make the stadium bigger"

 

No, pro baseball players use wooden bats, rather than making a bigger and longer outfield.

 

Shame to see courses getting eaten up and no longer playable because of their length.

 

I responded I would be in favor of changing the rules on the PGA survey all members received yesterday, even though the president essentially said a huge no to something that doesn't exist.

 

This is going to be a long long debate, shame that one of the sides is a ball manufacturer which is an absurd conflict of interest for this debate.

 

I live in Wisconsin, enjoyed Erin Hills, but US Opens and other tournaments of that caliber deserve to be on the classics, and no I don't mean tricked out, absurd, butchered Merion from '13, I am so tired of hearing that argument because that course was under 7000 yards.

 

Cheers,

 

Why can't Erin Hills become a classic? By all accounts of those I follow that are golf course architecture guru's, Erin Hills is a well designed modern course.. lots of widths and angles. Everyone complained that the course was "easy" because -16 won. But if they just would have magically changed it to a par 70, -8 would have won, with 11 total players under "par". The cut would have been +6 and everyone would have been talking about it was a "bloodbath" and that was with pretty much no wind all week. Brooks Koepka would have still have won with 272 strokes but the perception on how easy or difficult the course was could have changed. The notion that the US open shouldn't return to Erin Hills because it wasn't a proper US Open test is all based on peoples perception of par.

[15th Club]

Cant wait to take my niblick, spoon and gutta percha ball and go play the classics like they should be!

 

Spoon is actually a better name for a 13-degree 3-wood, than "Three-metal."

[QMany]

chiming in way late but to give a pro's opinion: only sport in the world where we go "Hmmm we hit the ball further, lets make the stadium bigger"

 

No, pro baseball players use wooden bats, rather than making a bigger and longer outfield.

 

Shame to see courses getting eaten up and no longer playable because of their length.

 

I responded I would be in favor of changing the rules on the PGA survey all members received yesterday, even though the president essentially said a huge no to something that doesn't exist.

 

This is going to be a long long debate, shame that one of the sides is a ball manufacturer which is an absurd conflict of interest for this debate.

 

I live in Wisconsin, enjoyed Erin Hills, but US Opens and other tournaments of that caliber deserve to be on the classics, and no I don't mean tricked out, absurd, butchered Merion from '13, I am so tired of hearing that argument because that course was under 7000 yards.

 

Cheers,

 

Exactly, baseball governing bodies aren't adjusting the fences or rolling back the ball. They are letting them score! In 1980, there were 3,087 home runs total across MLB (26 teams). Last year (30 teams), 6,105!

[15th Club]

If they have to roll the ball back because courses are too expensive to fix I understand BUT if they are rolling it back thinking it will help short hitters compete w long hitters it wont help

 

Yeah well about 20 different times in this thread we've made it clear that no one is aiming at that result in any event.

[North Butte]

chiming in way late but to give a pro's opinion: only sport in the world where we go "Hmmm we hit the ball further, lets make the stadium bigger"

 

No, pro baseball players use wooden bats, rather than making a bigger and longer outfield.

 

Shame to see courses getting eaten up and no longer playable because of their length.

 

I responded I would be in favor of changing the rules on the PGA survey all members received yesterday, even though the president essentially said a huge no to something that doesn't exist.

 

This is going to be a long long debate, shame that one of the sides is a ball manufacturer which is an absurd conflict of interest for this debate.

 

I live in Wisconsin, enjoyed Erin Hills, but US Opens and other tournaments of that caliber deserve to be on the classics, and no I don't mean tricked out, absurd, butchered Merion from '13, I am so tired of hearing that argument because that course was under 7000 yards.

 

Cheers,

 

Exactly, baseball governing bodies aren't adjusting the fences or rolling back the ball. They are letting them score! In 1980, there were 3,087 home runs total across MLB (26 teams). Last year (30 teams), 6,105!

 

And just like in golf there are grumpy old men (and a few grumpy young wanna-be old men) whining mercilessly about how the game has been destroyed.

 

Heck, it took nearly half a century for them to shut the heck up about the designated hitter rule.

[clevited]

Holy cow, I had to clean up this post, all kinds of weird formatting issues!

 

-Bifurcation causes a rift between pro and amateur.

Maybe. So let's not bifurcate

 

OK but there is still disagreement about how to handle it, don't bifurcate and you piss off the amateurs, bifurcate and you make amateurs feel like they need to play the new ball to have a legit handicap. Chaos.

 

-Handicap issues with bifurcation.

What issues? Not if players play from appropriate tees and Course Ratings and Slope adjust with changes in playability with legal equipment.

 

Sounds like more chaos. The handicap issues are if bifurcation is there. My reason is stated above. The possible two different handicaps, the need for people to have handicap comparable to pro's.

 

- Excluding any bifurcation, short players will get even shorter on tour and at our levels.

I'm not sure I even understand this

 

The ball will play shorter. Therefore shorter players get shorter, as do all other players if there isn't bifurcation. I would argue that they will also suffer even if there is bifurcation as stated above regarding the "need" to play the pro ball.

 

-If spin is added, the game gets even more difficult for new players and current players.

I never proposed anything about "spin," and I don't recall anybody else making such a proposal. It's complete speculation on your partys

 

Spin is one of the ways to reduce distance, as is a change in COR. The arguments I have seen and heard is a desire to go back to balata type balls to accomplish this. You guys on the change the ball side of things need to pick how you would propose the ball would be nerfed. Is it spin, COR or both? I have seen both mentioned in this thread.

 

-Courses will likely need to change again due to the new ball (Shorter? Softer greens? Softer fairways? Shorter rough?).

No. Emphatically, no. The whole idea is to bring the cycle of course changes to an end.

 

I think you will find they will change, and remember, these are possible con's as well as for sure con's.

 

 

-Players will still over power courses, even if nerfed a lot, therefore making the change not accomplish its goal.

Says who?

 

Says me and my capable imagination. Did you read any of what I posted before about the higher swing speed players? Nerfing ball distance will just cause these guys to unhitch the plow and still bomb and gouge, thus making the attempt to stop that MOOT. You would REALLY have to nerf the ball to get the desired result.

 

 

-Change is definitely NOT going to grow the game, it would if anything, hurt it. To what extent is unknown.

You don't know that. Your one honest point is saying it is "unknown."

 

It is not hard to see that changing the ball definitely WON'T help the game. Yes I am speculating it would if anything, hurt the game. How much I don’t know but logic dictates it won’t help. It is one of those dominoes I worry will fall.