Rolling back the ball

[15th Club]

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 it was a minor scandal, with people wondering if the MLB's supply of baseballs had changed.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/juiced-baseballs/

[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,

 

 

 

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!

 

This is a fair point, i was just trying to use it as an example because think of what pro baseball would be if they would have allowed continued unimpeded bat technology to progress, that number would probably be even bigger, or they would have made new stadiums with longer outfields. Hope that makes sense.

 

And also, the above linked article is pretty fascinating, good insight and it mentioned in there that Rawlings can manufacture balls that are slicker and "bouncier" but fall outside of pro baseball ball regulations (sounds a bit like golf to me)

[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

 

 

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?

 

Well, the original standard, as explained by Frank Thomas, seems based on balls on the market at that time.

 

"What are the rules that make them nonconforming? When I was hired as Technical Director of the USGA in 1974, one of my first duties was to come up with such rules, which I did the following year in developing something called the Overall Distance Standard.

 

We used a mechanical golfer, the famous Iron Byron, whose swing was modeled on that of Byron Nelson. We had Iron Byron beat thousands of balls on the range, and carefully calibrated the machine -- using a specific ball, we measured carry and total distance (where the ball landed then rolled to its final resting place). The wind conditions, barometric pressure and temperature were also recorded. By measuring all these factors, we developed ideal launch conditions and a swing speed for Iron Byron that were similar to those of a long-hitting tour pro. Once we'd settled on these conditions and could replicate them easily, we could test every ball on the market."

 

http://www.franklygo...golf-balls.aspx

 

What's interesting, is in the 2015 Distance Report, the USGA notes that:

 

"In 2015, the average clubhead speed was 113.2 mph, with an average launch angle of 10.8° and average spin of 2599 rpm. The 90th percentile for clubhead speed was 119.2 mph. These values are very close to the test conditions for the Overall Distance Standard (launch angle of 10°, backspin of 2520 rpm and a clubhead speed of 120mph) which regulates ball distance."

 

So it appears that while 317 + 3 yard buffer was arbitrary at one point, the USGA acknowledges that launch conditions on major tours was approaching their test conditions.

 

It may be worthwhile that rather than decreasing the ODS, why not change the launch conditions as time goes on so that 320 remains constant, but the launch conditions are updated every X years to reflect tour launch conditions?

 

Would this not appease everyone? It's a backdoor rollback. Takes into account any further advances in swing speed.

 

They've already essentially capped distance, so in theory, that precedent has been set. They have even acknowledged current ODS reflects tour launch conditions. The only failure is that ODS launch conditions may not have kept pace with tour launch conditions.

[North Butte]

Right, major-league baseball standardized the bat and left it up to the players to get better and stronger if they wanted to score more runs. Which is exactly what the players did.

 

That is EXACTLY what the USGA did prior to 2003. They standardized the clubs and balls and left it up to the players to get better and stronger if they want to hit it farther. Which they did.

[clevited]

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!

 

This is a fair point, i was just trying to use it as an example because think of what pro baseball would be if they would have allowed continued unimpeded bat technology to progress, that number would probably be even bigger, or they would have made new stadiums with longer outfields. Hope that makes sense.

 

 

Baseball did a long time ago what more or less golf did in the recent past. Lock down some limits on stuff. Baseball players are getting bigger stronger and faster, as are golfers. More time is being spent honing their skills because more practice facilities are available, more tools, more coaches etc etc etc. Golf is no different, the cream is rising to the top as far as talent and athleticism is concerned. Players are pushing the limits of speed and skill. For crying out loud, golfers actually injure themselves like regular athletes do. That's nuts for what isn't generally considered a real athletic sport.

[North Butte]

They've already essentially capped distance, so in theory, that precedent has been set. They have even acknowledged current ODS reflects tour launch conditions. The only failure is that ODS launch conditions may not have kept pace with tour launch conditions.

 

If and when they feel the need to update test conditions to reflect higher clubhead speeds (150mph anyone?) they will do so.

 

But the constraint will remain the same as when they last updated the test 15+ years ago. They will have to set the precise limits under the new test conditions so that balls currently deemed conforming do not fail the updated test. Because they will still not have the power to impose a retrograde obsolescence on balls they themselves deemed perfectly all right previously, not without risking a revolt.

 

Or perhaps they could sneak in a teensy, tiny rollback at that time. Make the new test limits equivalent to a couple percent less than the now-existing limits under the current test. And grandfather in the current balls. But that trick won't work for a 20% rollback.

[15th Club]

They've already essentially capped distance, so in theory, that precedent has been set. They have even acknowledged current ODS reflects tour launch conditions. The only failure is that ODS launch conditions may not have kept pace with tour launch conditions.

 

If and when they feel the need to update test conditions to reflect higher clubhead speeds (150mph anyone?) they will do so.

 

But the constraint will remain the same as when they last updated the test 15+ years ago. They will have to set the precise limits under the new test conditions so that balls currently deemed conforming do not fail the updated test. Because they will still not have the power to impose a retrograde obsolescence on balls they themselves deemed perfectly all right previously, not without risking a revolt.

 

Or perhaps they could sneak in a teensy, tiny rollback at that time. Make the new test limits equivalent to a couple percent less than the now-existing limits under the current test. And grandfather in the current balls. But that trick won't work for a 20% rollback.

 

Oh, come on. I could write that Rule toady, and email it to you by the close of business. Just write it like the groove rule. All equipment is deemed to be conforming as of the time it was built, And usable by recreational players for the next year, or two, or three. (What's your supply of golf balls? Right now, have you purchased the balls you'll use three years from now?) And as for elite-level play, a Condition of Competition goes into effect next year. You have to use balls manufactured to the new standard.

 

Let private clubs determine their own Conditions of Competition.

 

Done. Easy. Next question.

[rawdog]

They've already essentially capped distance, so in theory, that precedent has been set. They have even acknowledged current ODS reflects tour launch conditions. The only failure is that ODS launch conditions may not have kept pace with tour launch conditions.

 

If and when they feel the need to update test conditions to reflect higher clubhead speeds (150mph anyone?) they will do so.

 

But the constraint will remain the same as when they last updated the test 15+ years ago. They will have to set the precise limits under the new test conditions so that balls currently deemed conforming do not fail the updated test. Because they will still not have the power to impose a retrograde obsolescence on balls they themselves deemed perfectly all right previously, not without risking a revolt.

 

Or perhaps they could sneak in a teensy, tiny rollback at that time. Make the new test limits equivalent to a couple percent less than the now-existing limits under the current test. And grandfather in the current balls. But that trick won't work for a 20% rollback.

 

Very good point. I was spitballing somewhat with my idea above, and happy to hear of the unintended consequences of the bait I tossed.

 

The thing about golf balls is (outside of WRX hoarders), there's a decent amount of decay. So after a while, they all seem to disappear and new balls will need to come to market.

 

Anyhow, if it were done slowly and with full disclosure and communication, it may have a chance of avoiding revolt. If everyone wanted to play nicely, there could even be some consideration as to manufacturer R&D cycles, etc.

[rawdog]

Glad I could end the debate, guys.

 

:D

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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!

 

This is a fair point, i was just trying to use it as an example because think of what pro baseball would be if they would have allowed continued unimpeded bat technology to progress, that number would probably be even bigger, or they would have made new stadiums with longer outfields. Hope that makes sense.

 

 

Baseball did a long time ago what more or less golf did in the recent past. Lock down some limits on stuff. Baseball players are getting bigger stronger and faster, as are golfers. More time is being spent honing their skills because more practice facilities are available, more tools, more coaches etc etc etc. Golf is no different, the cream is rising to the top as far as talent and athleticism is concerned. Players are pushing the limits of speed and skill. For crying out loud, golfers actually injure themselves like regular athletes do. That's nuts for what isn't generally considered a real athletic sport.

 

It's odd. It's almost as if some people have trouble admitting that modern golfers are stronger and faster than the childhood heroes of yesteryear. Rather than admit their true reasoning, we get to read about how golf courses take up too much space, shot values, and how we don't get to see them play Cherry Hills anymore.

[North Butte]

Yeah it's possible to imagine them selling the public on something like, "Keep playing the ball you like but five years from today it will be non-conforming. Any new ball introduced after the end of this year will tested under a new procedure and may be up to 2% shorter than older balls".

 

But the problem is, something minor and palatable to the mass of golfers ain't gonna shut the Shacks and Nicklaus of the world up for a moment. They are not really looking to see Dustin Johnson start driving it 338 instead of 345 yards.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

They've already essentially capped distance, so in theory, that precedent has been set. They have even acknowledged current ODS reflects tour launch conditions. The only failure is that ODS launch conditions may not have kept pace with tour launch conditions.

 

If and when they feel the need to update test conditions to reflect higher clubhead speeds (150mph anyone?) they will do so.

 

But the constraint will remain the same as when they last updated the test 15+ years ago. They will have to set the precise limits under the new test conditions so that balls currently deemed conforming do not fail the updated test. Because they will still not have the power to impose a retrograde obsolescence on balls they themselves deemed perfectly all right previously, not without risking a revolt.

 

Or perhaps they could sneak in a teensy, tiny rollback at that time. Make the new test limits equivalent to a couple percent less than the now-existing limits under the current test. And grandfather in the current balls. But that trick won't work for a 20% rollback.

 

Oh, come on. I could write that Rule toady, and email it to you by the close of business. Just write it like the groove rule. All equipment is deemed to be conforming as of the time it was built, And usable by recreational players for the next year, or two, or three. (What's your supply of golf balls? Right now, have you purchased the balls you'll use three years from now?) And as for elite-level play, a Condition of Competition goes into effect next year. You have to use balls manufactured to the new standard.

 

Let private clubs determine their own Conditions of Competition.

 

Done. Easy. Next question.

 

Why do anything at all if there are already limits in place? Why not just leave it alone?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Yeah it's possible to imagine them selling the public on something like, "Keep playing the ball you like but five years from today it will be non-conforming. Any new ball introduced after the end of this year will tested under a new procedure and may be up to 2% shorter than older balls".

 

But the problem is, something minor and palatable to the mass of golfers ain't gonna shut the Shacks and Nicklaus of the world up for a moment. They are not really looking to see Dustin Johnson start driving it 338 instead of 345 yards.

 

Precisely. They want DJ and Co. to hit it no further than Nicklaus did in his day, but to keep the courses at 7600 yards and keep the greens rolling at 13. Nicklaus would be a lot less laughable if he just came out and revealed his obvious motivation.

[radiman]

This argument will go on forever and ever. The same points are repeatedly being made by both sides. I think each side has valid points, but that doesn't make one more right than the other. I obviously don't want to see the ball rolled back. At the end of the day, I have a feeling that there are enough parties involved that feel the same way. So, I can rest assured that nothing will happen and I can continue to enjoy the game in its current state. For those that feel differently, I hope you can come to grips with golf in its current form.

[Shilgy]

Real question. In your life how do you view and handle mistakes ?

 

 

 

Once made aware of mistakes do you try to make them right by reversing , fixing , or cleaning up whatever mess is made ?

 

 

Most will say yes.

 

 

Now for the ball. Plenty see the allowance of the V1 type balls to exist way back when was a mistake. And before you say it , no I'm not talking to back to balata. But the mistake could be fixed pretty easily if folks were open minded to the issue that does exists and will get worse in our lifetime.

 

People want to say " it's yhe big athletes joining the sport. " Sure. But the ball allows them to succeed. You could start a yes and no column to state who you thought would struggle with a ball change and who wouldnt and it would clearly show the longest straightest hitters as the most effected. ( affected ? Who cares ). So then ask yourself. Do you wish to see the game go forward with more phil micklesons , tiger woods , etc or more brooks keopka and John rahms ?

 

 

Really no wrong answer I guess. Just how I see the argument. And I'm not suggesting either above couldn't kee a job. I'm just saying they would have to adapt a lot to thrive. They are poster children for the " new game ".

If anyone's idea of a "good change/rollback" would be some type of equipment Rahm or Koepka could not play what hope would their be for the rest of us? Does anyone really believe that any of the top players such as these two listed could not find the middle of the clubface with any equipment given to them?

[rawdog]

Yeah it's possible to imagine them selling the public on something like, "Keep playing the ball you like but five years from today it will be non-conforming. Any new ball introduced after the end of this year will tested under a new procedure and may be up to 2% shorter than older balls".

 

But the problem is, something minor and palatable to the mass of golfers ain't gonna shut the Shacks and Nicklaus of the world up for a moment. They are not really looking to see Dustin Johnson start driving it 338 instead of 345 yards.

 

And that's where regulation vs. punishment comes in. If the launch conditions for the ODS outpaced tour launch conditions (say the launch speed for ODS went from 120 to 140), then it becomes punishment, in my eyes.

 

We've made progress to get where we are at now. COR is constant, off-center COR is maybe improving at glacial pace, COGs can't be manipulated too much more. So let the best guys in the world take it and run with it.

 

Back when the ODS was established, the launch conditions were based on the best players in the world playing the best equipment that was available (with an 8% buffer for balls still in development!).

 

The problem now is the ODS launch conditions don't reflect the best players in the world, so the guys are obliterating the ODS distance.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Real question. In your life how do you view and handle mistakes ?

 

 

 

Once made aware of mistakes do you try to make them right by reversing , fixing , or cleaning up whatever mess is made ?

 

 

Most will say yes.

 

 

Now for the ball. Plenty see the allowance of the V1 type balls to exist way back when was a mistake. And before you say it , no I'm not talking to back to balata. But the mistake could be fixed pretty easily if folks were open minded to the issue that does exists and will get worse in our lifetime.

 

People want to say " it's yhe big athletes joining the sport. " Sure. But the ball allows them to succeed. You could start a yes and no column to state who you thought would struggle with a ball change and who wouldnt and it would clearly show the longest straightest hitters as the most effected. ( affected ? Who cares ). So then ask yourself. Do you wish to see the game go forward with more phil micklesons , tiger woods , etc or more brooks keopka and John rahms ?

 

 

Really no wrong answer I guess. Just how I see the argument. And I'm not suggesting either above couldn't kee a job. I'm just saying they would have to adapt a lot to thrive. They are poster children for the " new game ".

If anyone's idea of a "good change/rollback" would be some type of equipment Rahm or Koepka could not play what hope would their be for the rest of us? Does anyone really believe that any of the top players such as these two listed could not find the middle of the clubface with any equipment given to them?

 

"Hey, Mr. Rahm, you should hit this old club here at this clinic even though you've never practiced with it so I can laugh and feel great about myself. Please don't pipe it 290 on the first swing."

[mahonie]

This argument will go on forever and ever. The same points are repeatedly being made by both sides. I think each side has valid points, but that doesn't make one more right than the other. I obviously don't want to see the ball rolled back. At the end of the day, I have a feeling that there are enough parties involved that feel the same way. So, I can rest assured that nothing will happen and I can continue to enjoy the game in its current state. For those that feel differently, I hope you can come to grips with golf in its current form.

 

You’d better be praying that DJ, Rahm or Koepka or, heaven forbid, Tiger doesn’t take Augusta apart in 3 weeks.

[radiman]

This argument will go on forever and ever. The same points are repeatedly being made by both sides. I think each side has valid points, but that doesn't make one more right than the other. I obviously don't want to see the ball rolled back. At the end of the day, I have a feeling that there are enough parties involved that feel the same way. So, I can rest assured that nothing will happen and I can continue to enjoy the game in its current state. For those that feel differently, I hope you can come to grips with golf in its current form.

 

You’d better be praying that DJ, Rahm or Koepka or, heaven forbid, Tiger doesn’t take Augusta apart in 3 weeks.

 

Lol, that is a very good point. On that note, I'm super excited for the Masters. Snow should be melting away by then and golf is right around the corner!

[Shilgy]

...

...

 

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.

 

We haven't stopped "progress" in all of the time that we have had static testing protocols. Technology isn't static. Technology keeps getting better. Players keep getting better. Better, that is, in relation to golf courses.

 

People keep saying, "leave it where it is." There is a ball regulation, just keep it where it is.

 

My problem is that it already went too far. But even if you don't accept my problem, the inarguable problem is that technology won't stay static; players won't stay static. A ball-testing protocol that doesn't change will result in a gradual creep upward in distance, after the massive jump upward in distance, from first metalwoods, and composite shafts, and then from urethane balls.

 

Why talk about "stop[ping] progress where it is? What made this point so magical? When you suggest "stopping progress" would you agree that something will need to be done, if there are more distance gains, in 2019, and 2020, and 2021?

 

That was the USGA's weak-sauce position with the R&A, in the 2002 Joint Statement. And then, "progress didn't stop."

perhaps the truth is finally out? The players are getting better and you don't like it? They do play a game with which you are not familiar and you just don't like it. Your ideal golf is a bunted driver for control and a 4 iron approach hit with a bit of a fade. That version of golf at the elite level went out with Paul Runyan. Snead did not play that way-not did Jack-or Arnie-or Weiskopf-or Norman-or Couples-or Tiger. Your ideal has not existed for eons.

 

Perhaps you should look into playing in the leagues that play hickory or 60's equipment. I know they exist. that way you could play the game you feel it was intended to be.

 

Even with a rollback the course you want would not be relevant as they are not big enough-please note this has nothing to do with the course or the ball- they are not big enough to host modern majors and the tents and fans and all that entails.

[mahonie]

This argument will go on forever and ever. The same points are repeatedly being made by both sides. I think each side has valid points, but that doesn't make one more right than the other. I obviously don't want to see the ball rolled back. At the end of the day, I have a feeling that there are enough parties involved that feel the same way. So, I can rest assured that nothing will happen and I can continue to enjoy the game in its current state. For those that feel differently, I hope you can come to grips with golf in its current form.

 

You’d better be praying that DJ, Rahm or Koepka or, heaven forbid, Tiger doesn’t take Augusta apart in 3 weeks.

 

 

Lol, that is a very good point. On that note, I'm super excited for the Masters. Snow should be melting away by then and golf is right around the corner!

 

Always marks the start of the season for me too. Tiger and Phil going head to head down the back nine would really be something!!

[radiman]

This argument will go on forever and ever. The same points are repeatedly being made by both sides. I think each side has valid points, but that doesn't make one more right than the other. I obviously don't want to see the ball rolled back. At the end of the day, I have a feeling that there are enough parties involved that feel the same way. So, I can rest assured that nothing will happen and I can continue to enjoy the game in its current state. For those that feel differently, I hope you can come to grips with golf in its current form.

 

You’d better be praying that DJ, Rahm or Koepka or, heaven forbid, Tiger doesn’t take Augusta apart in 3 weeks.

 

 

Lol, that is a very good point. On that note, I'm super excited for the Masters. Snow should be melting away by then and golf is right around the corner!

 

Always marks the start of the season for me too. Tiger and Phil going head to head down the back nine would really be something!!

 

I can't even. That would be a dream come true. A little taste of what once was.

[15th Club]

It's odd. It's almost as if some people have trouble admitting that modern golfers are stronger and faster than the childhood heroes of yesteryear. Rather than admit their true reasoning, we get to read about how golf courses take up too much space, shot values, and how we don't get to see them play Cherry Hills anymore.

 

No problem, sport.

 

I admit that modern golfers are stronger and faster than ever before. Stronger and faster than "the childhood heroes of yesteryear." Okay? We good on that?

 

Because, even when I agree with you that modern golfers are stronger and faster than ever before, and if I agree that clubs are better than before, and that agronomy and course conditioning and prenatal vitamins are better than before, I still say that all of those are reasons to balance the golfer/course equation by rolling back the golf ball. Because changing the ball specs is so much easier, and wiser, than changing the golf courses.

 

I care about the integrity and the playability of the golf courses, particularly the historic classic-era-designed championship courses, standing up to championship-level play. If you don't care about that, it's fine. And we can go our separate ways, not convincing each other of anything. However, I think that my view is closer to the USGA's, than yours.

[radiman]

This argument is played out. Neither side of going to completely agree. It's like trying to argue politics online. Each side has their own reasoning. Both sides make valid points. Time to sit back and see how the USGA and other entities hash this out.

[15th Club]

Why do anything at all if there are already limits in place? Why not just leave it alone?

 

Because the current testing limits are not a good enough practical limit. We want testing limits that scale the driving distances to a better fit for the existing courses.

 

So yes, there are "already limits in place." We'd simply lower the fail-point for testing. With the result that slightly new formulations of golf ball design and manufacture would be needed, to pass.

 

No big deal.

[Shilgy]

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.

you do mean you definition of quality though, correct? You posted earlier the players of today are better and they play the game the way you do not like.

 

What I have asked in a few of these threads is what exactly do you mean by "play the course as the architect intended"? Your version based on your playing distances? A course built in the 40's may have hosted a Snead Runyan match. Which player played the course as intended? A post above called it correctly. the architect designed features that need to be played short of, around or over. you just do not like that for many elite players the best answer is "over".

[15th Club]

...

...

 

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.

 

We haven't stopped "progress" in all of the time that we have had static testing protocols. Technology isn't static. Technology keeps getting better. Players keep getting better. Better, that is, in relation to golf courses.

 

People keep saying, "leave it where it is." There is a ball regulation, just keep it where it is.

 

My problem is that it already went too far. But even if you don't accept my problem, the inarguable problem is that technology won't stay static; players won't stay static. A ball-testing protocol that doesn't change will result in a gradual creep upward in distance, after the massive jump upward in distance, from first metalwoods, and composite shafts, and then from urethane balls.

 

Why talk about "stop[ping] progress where it is? What made this point so magical? When you suggest "stopping progress" would you agree that something will need to be done, if there are more distance gains, in 2019, and 2020, and 2021?

 

That was the USGA's weak-sauce position with the R&A, in the 2002 Joint Statement. And then, "progress didn't stop."

perhaps the truth is finally out? The players are getting better and you don't like it? They do play a game with which you are not familiar and you just don't like it. Your ideal golf is a bunted driver for control and a 4 iron approach hit with a bit of a fade. That version of golf at the elite level went out with Paul Runyan. Snead did not play that way-not did Jack-or Arnie-or Weiskopf-or Norman-or Couples-or Tiger. Your ideal has not existed for eons.

 

Perhaps you should look into playing in the leagues that play hickory or 60's equipment. I know they exist. that way you could play the game you feel it was intended to be.

 

Even with a rollback the course you want would not be relevant as they are not big enough-please note this has nothing to do with the course or the ball- they are not big enough to host modern majors and the tents and fans and all that entails.

 

 

Don't do that. Don't tell me, or the other readers of this board, what I think. Don't mischaracterize me like that. And don't patronize me like that.

[clevited]

I am really confused then, because what he said, reflects everything you have been saying and is the same conclusion(s) I have come to regarding your point of view.

 

Edit: Care to explain then, clearly? Seriously, I am not trying to be snarky, because truly I thought your point of view was you want the game played a certain way, and you don't like that it is not, which is what his point boils down to.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Why do anything at all if there are already limits in place? Why not just leave it alone?

 

Because the current testing limits are not a good enough practical limit. We want testing limits that scale the driving distances to a better fit for the existing courses.

 

So yes, there are "already limits in place." We'd simply lower the fail-point for testing. With the result that slightly new formulations of golf ball design and manufacture would be needed, to pass.

 

No big deal.

 

 

Even less of a big deal to leave it alone. Don't need to change courses. Don't need to change equipment. Might have to change record books, and that is the real issue most "rollbackers" have.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

...

...

 

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.

 

We haven't stopped "progress" in all of the time that we have had static testing protocols. Technology isn't static. Technology keeps getting better. Players keep getting better. Better, that is, in relation to golf courses.

 

People keep saying, "leave it where it is." There is a ball regulation, just keep it where it is.

 

My problem is that it already went too far. But even if you don't accept my problem, the inarguable problem is that technology won't stay static; players won't stay static. A ball-testing protocol that doesn't change will result in a gradual creep upward in distance, after the massive jump upward in distance, from first metalwoods, and composite shafts, and then from urethane balls.

 

Why talk about "stop[ping] progress where it is? What made this point so magical? When you suggest "stopping progress" would you agree that something will need to be done, if there are more distance gains, in 2019, and 2020, and 2021?

 

That was the USGA's weak-sauce position with the R&A, in the 2002 Joint Statement. And then, "progress didn't stop."

perhaps the truth is finally out? The players are getting better and you don't like it? They do play a game with which you are not familiar and you just don't like it. Your ideal golf is a bunted driver for control and a 4 iron approach hit with a bit of a fade. That version of golf at the elite level went out with Paul Runyan. Snead did not play that way-not did Jack-or Arnie-or Weiskopf-or Norman-or Couples-or Tiger. Your ideal has not existed for eons.

 

Perhaps you should look into playing in the leagues that play hickory or 60's equipment. I know they exist. that way you could play the game you feel it was intended to be.

 

Even with a rollback the course you want would not be relevant as they are not big enough-please note this has nothing to do with the course or the ball- they are not big enough to host modern majors and the tents and fans and all that entails.

 

 

Don't do that. Don't tell me, or the other readers of this board, what I think. Don't mischaracterize me like that. And don't patronize me like that.

 

But didn't you just spend a ton of time saying that you want to see four irons into greens? Hell, you even said that golf isn't just about hitting it the fewest amount of times.