Rolling back the ball

[bladehunter]

do you guys have any authorities on the subject that supports your position you can point me to? or are you just going to make fun of people that actually care about this stuff?

 

Mike Clayton was a professional golfer and is now an architect

 

I am a recreational golfer, I am therefore an authority and ambassidor for both the short hitting and the long hitting amateur. You know, the ones that buy the balls and pay to see the tournaments live, and watch them on tv getting them ad revenue. The golfers that matter.

 

i drive a car, therefor i am an expert in mechanical engineering, physics, and materials science.

 

I buy cars. Therefore I am part of the market that determines what cars we will buy and that is what GM and others are interested in. I don't need to be an expert in anything. In fact, I could be as dumb as nails. But that changes nothing. I (and millions of others) buy cars, therefore, GM must cater to us even if we are dumb.

 

GM builds cars for the MARKET, not for engineers.

 

 

sure..BUT ( and i love the car analogy because i know the most about it) ..... Uneducated consumers drive the makers to make worse and worse products which hurts those wanting quality and performance..... They also buy ideas that car makers sell as "better" just because they dont know any better...when all the ideas actually are just things that are cheaper to produce.... I.e front wheel drive cars vs rear wheel drive... they drive worse (torque steer ) , have many more wear parts if you own over 100k miles, absolutely eat front tires, and are twice as expensive on an hourly rate to work on. YET cheaper for them to produce on a modular platform ....inside almost all engines since around 1994....torque to yield fasteners .... which basically means they are engineered to stretch for 1 torque value and done.. IF ever loosened they are to be thrown away as they cant be re-used... as in not designed for rebuild and weaker shear strength which means possible shorter life... all so some robot can torque the fastener once and be done ....the bolt essentially stretches easier giving the clamp and torque value quicker ( saving $) ..... many many other examples that the uneducated consumer allows to happen...

 

 

my point... an educated customer base is much better for any product from the consumer side.

[tnord]

i read it, both Jimmy Walker and Lucas Glover are employees of titleist, not exactly an unbiased objective view. they are speaking out against a 20% rollback of the ball "for the masses"

 

Oh, so only the paid experts who agree with you have an "unbiased objective view"? How about the bias of course designers trying to protect their designs?

 

it is absolutely valid to try and understand the motivation and bias of "pro rollback" crowd.

 

most of what they're protecting are not their designs, there's something like 35,000 golf courses in the world. i actually think they'd have more business if the distance gains were left to continue, as those are the guys brought in to move bunkers, add tees, and "restore" courses. they also build new courses that can contain modern equipment but are still enjoyable for the average golfer - see bandon, streamsong, etc.

[clevited]

My issue is Geoff Shackelord being touted as an authority on the matter. He talks down to any and everybody that disagrees with him. I'm all up for a constructive debate. He is only interested in his side of the story. His opinion matters, but I'd say it matters less than the tour pros he's bashing that are speaking out against a change that effects them directly.

 

I say that realizing this thread has steered in that direction at times.

 

Yeah, I dispise that guy. He represents everything that kept me from liking golf until I was a teenager. He is Judge from CaddyShack. Shooter Mcgavin on Happy Gilmore lol.

 

I suppose your more of a Matt Genela ( spelling ?) guy? Your opinion is your opinion andthatd cool. Give me Shak over almost any golf pundit I can think of.

 

You Can't really call anyone out for talking down I don't think. So far you've stated that course architects don't know more than you. Wrong. No sane person thinks that the people who design and build any product don't now more aboot it than the end user. Surely given you're advertisement of vocation you get that. It happens to be same as mine. So I know you do.

 

And that anyone in favor of at least looking at equipment and rollback must have a Napoleon complex. Wrong. I'm 6ft3 212 and hit it plenty long. How does that work with your theory ? Am I somehow wanting to be 7ft and I world long drive ? ( I have no desire for either).

 

Come on man. At this point I can't agree with you just because of the jabs about how anyone who thinks oppposite is stuffy and stupid. Just not true. There's some merit on both sides of this debate.

 

That's what it is called, napolean complex! I couldn't think of it. No I don't think everyone has that, I should have been more clear. I DO however think that is an underlying motivation for a great many golfers. As far as thinking everyone is stuffy and stupid, I didn't say that. I do think certain people come off as that way on here and on tv or whatever. I am entitled to my opinion, and I am calling people like I see it. If they are acting stuffy and like everything that keeps a lot of people from liking golf. If someone is acting like a jerk, you tell them they are being a jerk. You aren't insulting, you are telling them how it is. Often people can't see that they are acting that way.

 

I am blunt, brutally honest and I tell it like it is. I also know when I am right, and another view point is extremely flawed. I don't usually post so much on any forum unless that is so. I think about things from many different directions and I definitely don't need to be a course architect to understand the role the golf ball plays and how a change in anyway is NOT good for the sport. Yes my viewpoint matters just as much if not more than a golf course architect. I have already stated reasons why a possible roll back would be extremelely flawed. I am not against putting limits on things, but I am definitely against taking things away, especially when they have been around for so many years. You nerf the ball, the problem won't be solved anyways as I have stated several times now and I can almost guarantee you that is the truth. You would have to nerf it a rediculous amount in order to achieve the objective of making old courses playable in the manner desired, and new courses playable in the manner desired.

 

You do also understand that technically, that todays clubs are stronger lofts that in ye olden times right? Some times 2 clubs different. So a 9 iron might actually be closer to a 7 iron, 7 iron closer to a 5. I don't recall for sure what the old lofts generally were but I know this to be true depending on the clubs. The club is just a number or a name, the golfer still has to put the ball in the hole and no matter what is done to try and regulate it, golfers are going to gravitate to what works the best, what is easiest. Just like water generally takes the path of least resistance, so do golfers, especially if they have the talent.

[tnord]

My issue is Geoff Shackelord being touted as an authority on the matter. He talks down to any and everybody that disagrees with him. I'm all up for a constructive debate. He is only interested in his side of the story. His opinion matters, but I'd say it matters less than the tour pros he's bashing that are speaking out against a change that effects them directly.

 

I say that realizing this thread has steered in that direction at times.

 

Yeah, I dispise that guy. He represents everything that kept me from liking golf until I was a teenager. He is Judge from CaddyShack. Shooter Mcgavin on Happy Gilmore lol.

 

I suppose your more of a Matt Genela ( spelling ?) guy? Your opinion is your opinion andthatd cool. Give me Shak over almost any golf pundit I can think of.

 

You Can't really call anyone out for talking down I don't think. So far you've stated that course architects don't know more than you. Wrong. No sane person thinks that the people who design and build any product don't now more aboot it than the end user. Surely given you're advertisement of vocation you get that. It happens to be same as mine. So I know you do.

 

And that anyone in favor of at least looking at equipment and rollback must have a Napoleon complex. Wrong. I'm 6ft3 212 and hit it plenty long. How does that work with your theory ? Am I somehow wanting to be 7ft and I world long drive ? ( I have no desire for either).

 

Come on man. At this point I can't agree with you just because of the jabs about how anyone who thinks oppposite is stuffy and stupid. Just not true. There's some merit on both sides of this debate.

 

That's what it is called, napolean complex! I couldn't think of it. No I don't think everyone has that, I should have been more clear. I DO however think that is an underlying motivation for a great many golfers. As far as thinking everyone is stuffy and stupid, I didn't say that. I do think certain people come off as that way on here and on tv or whatever. I am entitled to my opinion, and I am calling people like I see it. If they are acting stuffy and like everything that keeps a lot of people from liking golf. If someone is acting like a jerk, you tell them they are being a jerk. You aren't insulting, you are telling them how it is. Often people can't see that they are acting that way.

 

I am blunt, brutally honest and I tell it like it is. I also know when I am right, and another view point is extremely flawed. I don't usually post so much on any forum unless that is so. I think about things from many different directions and I definitely don't need to be a course architect to understand the role the golf ball plays and how a change in anyway is NOT good for the sport. Yes my viewpoint matters just as much if not more than a golf course architect. I have already stated reasons why a possible roll back would be extremelely flawed. I am not against putting limits on things, but I am definitely against taking things away, especially when they have been around for so many years. You nerf the ball, the problem won't be solved anyways as I have stated several times now and I can almost guarantee you that is the truth. You would have to nerf it a rediculous amount in order to achieve the objective of making old courses playable in the manner desired, and new courses playable in the manner desired.

 

You do also understand that technically, that todays clubs are stronger lofts that in ye olden times right? Some times 2 clubs different. So a 9 iron might actually be closer to a 7 iron, 7 iron closer to a 5. I don't recall for sure what the old lofts generally were but I know this to be true depending on the clubs. The club is just a number or a name, the golfer still has to put the ball in the hole and no matter what is done to try and regulate it, golfers are going to gravitate to what works the best, what is easiest. Just like water generally takes the path of least resistance, so do golfers, especially if they have the talent.

 

as a fan of old golf clubs, the difference between irons of the 80s and today is usually around 1-2deg of loft. it's a half club at best. yes, they are longer too, but i'm not sure how much to really blame mfgs for that, as people are generally taller now.

 

i'm all for bifurcation now. let the baby's have their bottle (don't be insulted, i'm just calling it like i see it), and let the people that actually appreciate golf enjoy it as well.

[bladehunter]

My issue is Geoff Shackelord being touted as an authority on the matter. He talks down to any and everybody that disagrees with him. I'm all up for a constructive debate. He is only interested in his side of the story. His opinion matters, but I'd say it matters less than the tour pros he's bashing that are speaking out against a change that effects them directly.

 

I say that realizing this thread has steered in that direction at times.

 

Yeah, I dispise that guy. He represents everything that kept me from liking golf until I was a teenager. He is Judge from CaddyShack. Shooter Mcgavin on Happy Gilmore lol.

 

I suppose your more of a Matt Genela ( spelling ?) guy? Your opinion is your opinion andthatd cool. Give me Shak over almost any golf pundit I can think of.

 

You Can't really call anyone out for talking down I don't think. So far you've stated that course architects don't know more than you. Wrong. No sane person thinks that the people who design and build any product don't now more aboot it than the end user. Surely given you're advertisement of vocation you get that. It happens to be same as mine. So I know you do.

 

And that anyone in favor of at least looking at equipment and rollback must have a Napoleon complex. Wrong. I'm 6ft3 212 and hit it plenty long. How does that work with your theory ? Am I somehow wanting to be 7ft and I world long drive ? ( I have no desire for either).

 

Come on man. At this point I can't agree with you just because of the jabs about how anyone who thinks oppposite is stuffy and stupid. Just not true. There's some merit on both sides of this debate.

 

That's what it is called, napolean complex! I couldn't think of it. No I don't think everyone has that, I should have been more clear. I DO however think that is an underlying motivation for a great many golfers. As far as thinking everyone is stuffy and stupid, I didn't say that. I do think certain people come off as that way on here and on tv or whatever. I am entitled to my opinion, and I am calling people like I see it. If they are acting stuffy and like everything that keeps a lot of people from liking golf. If someone is acting like a jerk, you tell them they are being a jerk. You aren't insulting, you are telling them how it is. Often people can't see that they are acting that way.

 

I am blunt, brutally honest and I tell it like it is. I also know when I am right, and another view point is extremely flawed. I don't usually post so much on any forum unless that is so. I think about things from many different directions and I definitely don't need to be a course architect to understand the role the golf ball plays and how a change in anyway is NOT good for the sport. Yes my viewpoint matters just as much if not more than a golf course architect. I have already stated reasons why a possible roll back would be extremelely flawed. I am not against putting limits on things, but I am definitely against taking things away, especially when they have been around for so many years. You nerf the ball, the problem won't be solved anyways as I have stated several times now and I can almost guarantee you that is the truth. You would have to nerf it a rediculous amount in order to achieve the objective of making old courses playable in the manner desired, and new courses playable in the manner desired.

 

You do also understand that technically, that todays clubs are stronger lofts that in ye olden times right? Some times 2 clubs different. So a 9 iron might actually be closer to a 7 iron, 7 iron closer to a 5. I don't recall for sure what the old lofts generally were but I know this to be true depending on the clubs. The club is just a number or a name, the golfer still has to put the ball in the hole and no matter what is done to try and regulate it, golfers are going to gravitate to what works the best, what is easiest. Just like water generally takes the path of least resistance, so do golfers, especially if they have the talent.

 

 

 

sure... fair enough on most points...

 

But i would think as a person who must be of a mind like me , which is constantly trying to find ways to produce an edge over past designs.... while still having to work inside either the fences of physics or of a rule set built by governing bodies of some sort....

 

The club and ball makers are employing hundreds of guys and gals doing this... they are trying to figure out how to get the ball to fly farther while conforming to the usga tests....

 

Take callaways Jailbreak.... I myself have witnessed several mph faster ball speeds no matter which shaft vs my M1......also see up to 1.52 smash factor for perfect strikes. on a monitor i pickup performance over any other driver.. why am i not playing one? i havent ran across a head with the face angle and heavy enough to suit me....

 

My point.... distance will continue to creep upward no matter what rules are in place...you see an average of 1-2yards a year as minimal... i see it over a 20 year period... and know its more than minimal....

 

i would say this... id be fine with leaving the ball alone and just pulling back driver size to say 360cc.....i dont mind distance near as much as i mind the forgiveness of modern clubs.... you should have to perfectly strike a ball to see it fly 270 with any speed... i can miss by quite a bit on the toe or high on the face and see it

[clevited]

I still feel strongly that the underlying reason for the desire to nerf the ball is a deeper psychological reason. Kinda like the one where men of smaller stature feel compelled to work out and bulk up all the time.

 

I am not trying to insult btw, its a legit thing and I do think it plays a role in this.

 

are you seriously trying to say that I, as somebody that actually stands to lose legitimate distance from this, is the guy with the complex, and that those who hit it 200yds but are having seizures at the thought of losing even 1yard, are not the ones with the complex?

 

surely you jest.

 

i'd be the first 6'2'' 200lb baseball/basketball/football player with a napolean complex ever.

 

I am absolutely suggesting that. I did clarify though in the previous post that obviously its not an underlying reason for everyone and I should have made that obvious. Also, 1 yard nerf isn't going to solve the "perceived" problem. Nobody absolutely nobody would cry over that, but the nerf that would be necessary to satisfy people (and I know what that number would have to be roughly) would absolutely piss a lot of people off. If the nerf isn't to the degree or very close to what I have figured out, well then its not accomplishing its goal and more people will want it nerfed again in the near future. Read my previous posts, I can't be more crystal clear regarding the flaws of nerfing ball distance, it is completely illogical and poorly thought out! Before you ask me how, I will ask you to read my posts, I can't keep popping in here and summarizing things that have been discussed.

 

All I hear is we need to nerf it so pro's can play old courses and play current ones as intended. I say no matter what you do golfers won't play as intended and you would have to nerf the ball SOOO much to get the desired outcome it would be silly. If you nerf it the needed amount as perceived, you will have players just swinging even faster. Club delivery, club cg, shafts etc will just change to lower any spin addition that might be done to achieve shorter distance. If you are such a big guy and big hitter you know very well how nerve wracking it is to try and bomb a drive over the trees and avoid trouble. Especially with wind of any sort as the longer the ball is in the air the more offline it gets pushed. Risk and reward, and a HUGE number of golfers that pay the bills, love this style of play. Also, bomb and gouge is most definitely not happening on every hole, and a lot of the time when it is attempted, a big fat 6 or 7 gets put on the card. Also remember the scrambling skill that is needed by these guys. The game is evolving, evolve yourself or get left behind.

 

Edit: I ended up summarizing anyways lol.

[bladehunter]

My issue is Geoff Shackelord being touted as an authority on the matter. He talks down to any and everybody that disagrees with him. I'm all up for a constructive debate. He is only interested in his side of the story. His opinion matters, but I'd say it matters less than the tour pros he's bashing that are speaking out against a change that effects them directly.

 

I say that realizing this thread has steered in that direction at times.

 

Yeah, I dispise that guy. He represents everything that kept me from liking golf until I was a teenager. He is Judge from CaddyShack. Shooter Mcgavin on Happy Gilmore lol.

 

I suppose your more of a Matt Genela ( spelling ?) guy? Your opinion is your opinion andthatd cool. Give me Shak over almost any golf pundit I can think of.

 

You Can't really call anyone out for talking down I don't think. So far you've stated that course architects don't know more than you. Wrong. No sane person thinks that the people who design and build any product don't now more aboot it than the end user. Surely given you're advertisement of vocation you get that. It happens to be same as mine. So I know you do.

 

And that anyone in favor of at least looking at equipment and rollback must have a Napoleon complex. Wrong. I'm 6ft3 212 and hit it plenty long. How does that work with your theory ? Am I somehow wanting to be 7ft and I world long drive ? ( I have no desire for either).

 

Come on man. At this point I can't agree with you just because of the jabs about how anyone who thinks oppposite is stuffy and stupid. Just not true. There's some merit on both sides of this debate.

 

That's what it is called, napolean complex! I couldn't think of it. No I don't think everyone has that, I should have been more clear. I DO however think that is an underlying motivation for a great many golfers. As far as thinking everyone is stuffy and stupid, I didn't say that. I do think certain people come off as that way on here and on tv or whatever. I am entitled to my opinion, and I am calling people like I see it. If they are acting stuffy and like everything that keeps a lot of people from liking golf. If someone is acting like a jerk, you tell them they are being a jerk. You aren't insulting, you are telling them how it is. Often people can't see that they are acting that way.

 

I am blunt, brutally honest and I tell it like it is. I also know when I am right, and another view point is extremely flawed. I don't usually post so much on any forum unless that is so. I think about things from many different directions and I definitely don't need to be a course architect to understand the role the golf ball plays and how a change in anyway is NOT good for the sport. Yes my viewpoint matters just as much if not more than a golf course architect. I have already stated reasons why a possible roll back would be extremelely flawed. I am not against putting limits on things, but I am definitely against taking things away, especially when they have been around for so many years. You nerf the ball, the problem won't be solved anyways as I have stated several times now and I can almost guarantee you that is the truth. You would have to nerf it a rediculous amount in order to achieve the objective of making old courses playable in the manner desired, and new courses playable in the manner desired.

 

You do also understand that technically, that todays clubs are stronger lofts that in ye olden times right? Some times 2 clubs different. So a 9 iron might actually be closer to a 7 iron, 7 iron closer to a 5. I don't recall for sure what the old lofts generally were but I know this to be true depending on the clubs. The club is just a number or a name, the golfer still has to put the ball in the hole and no matter what is done to try and regulate it, golfers are going to gravitate to what works the best, what is easiest. Just like water generally takes the path of least resistance, so do golfers, especially if they have the talent.

 

as a fan of old golf clubs, the difference between irons of the 80s and today is usually around 1-2deg of loft. it's a half club at best. yes, they are longer too, but i'm not sure how much to really blame mfgs for that, as people are generally taller now.

 

i'm all for bifurcation now. let the baby's have their bottle (don't be insulted, i'm just calling it like i see it), and let the people that actually appreciate golf enjoy it as well.

 

 

absolutely ...most longer hitters on tour play an MB....( JT, DJ, Tiger, Phil, fowler, walker, etc)... lofts now are usually 47-48 pw.. in 1960s it was 50 degrees... so 1/2 club ...

[clevited]

My issue is Geoff Shackelord being touted as an authority on the matter. He talks down to any and everybody that disagrees with him. I'm all up for a constructive debate. He is only interested in his side of the story. His opinion matters, but I'd say it matters less than the tour pros he's bashing that are speaking out against a change that effects them directly.

 

I say that realizing this thread has steered in that direction at times.

 

Yeah, I dispise that guy. He represents everything that kept me from liking golf until I was a teenager. He is Judge from CaddyShack. Shooter Mcgavin on Happy Gilmore lol.

 

I suppose your more of a Matt Genela ( spelling ?) guy? Your opinion is your opinion andthatd cool. Give me Shak over almost any golf pundit I can think of.

 

You Can't really call anyone out for talking down I don't think. So far you've stated that course architects don't know more than you. Wrong. No sane person thinks that the people who design and build any product don't now more aboot it than the end user. Surely given you're advertisement of vocation you get that. It happens to be same as mine. So I know you do.

 

And that anyone in favor of at least looking at equipment and rollback must have a Napoleon complex. Wrong. I'm 6ft3 212 and hit it plenty long. How does that work with your theory ? Am I somehow wanting to be 7ft and I world long drive ? ( I have no desire for either).

 

Come on man. At this point I can't agree with you just because of the jabs about how anyone who thinks oppposite is stuffy and stupid. Just not true. There's some merit on both sides of this debate.

 

That's what it is called, napolean complex! I couldn't think of it. No I don't think everyone has that, I should have been more clear. I DO however think that is an underlying motivation for a great many golfers. As far as thinking everyone is stuffy and stupid, I didn't say that. I do think certain people come off as that way on here and on tv or whatever. I am entitled to my opinion, and I am calling people like I see it. If they are acting stuffy and like everything that keeps a lot of people from liking golf. If someone is acting like a jerk, you tell them they are being a jerk. You aren't insulting, you are telling them how it is. Often people can't see that they are acting that way.

 

I am blunt, brutally honest and I tell it like it is. I also know when I am right, and another view point is extremely flawed. I don't usually post so much on any forum unless that is so. I think about things from many different directions and I definitely don't need to be a course architect to understand the role the golf ball plays and how a change in anyway is NOT good for the sport. Yes my viewpoint matters just as much if not more than a golf course architect. I have already stated reasons why a possible roll back would be extremelely flawed. I am not against putting limits on things, but I am definitely against taking things away, especially when they have been around for so many years. You nerf the ball, the problem won't be solved anyways as I have stated several times now and I can almost guarantee you that is the truth. You would have to nerf it a rediculous amount in order to achieve the objective of making old courses playable in the manner desired, and new courses playable in the manner desired.

 

You do also understand that technically, that todays clubs are stronger lofts that in ye olden times right? Some times 2 clubs different. So a 9 iron might actually be closer to a 7 iron, 7 iron closer to a 5. I don't recall for sure what the old lofts generally were but I know this to be true depending on the clubs. The club is just a number or a name, the golfer still has to put the ball in the hole and no matter what is done to try and regulate it, golfers are going to gravitate to what works the best, what is easiest. Just like water generally takes the path of least resistance, so do golfers, especially if they have the talent.

 

 

 

sure... fair enough on most points...

 

But i would think as a person who must be of a mind like me , which is constantly trying to find ways to produce an edge over past designs.... while still having to work inside either the fences of physics or of a rule set built by governing bodies of some sort....

 

The club and ball makers are employing hundreds of guys and gals doing this... they are trying to figure out how to get the ball to fly farther while conforming to the usga tests....

 

Take callaways Jailbreak.... I myself have witnessed several mph faster ball speeds no matter which shaft vs my M1......also see up to 1.52 smash factor for perfect strikes. on a monitor i pickup performance over any other driver.. why am i not playing one? i havent ran across a head with the face angle and heavy enough to suit me....

 

My point.... distance will continue to creep upward no matter what rules are in place...you see an average of 1-2yards a year as minimal... i see it over a 20 year period... and know its more than minimal....

 

It has a natural limit, and as I stated before, I am not oposed to more limits being put on things. If ball speed has gone up that much with that club, that means COR went up, and that is not ok. Btw, most all of the golf club "tech" crap is BS, absolute BS. With limits on COR, the only thing that will add real speed is making the inertia of the entire club much lower, to the point where it feels like you are swinging a bare shaft. THIS is a limit that needs to be added so that doesn't get out of hand, and it should have been done long ago. They better do it before we have the same fiasco as a proposed ball change.

 

I see a natural distance limit occuring and it won't be much if at all higher than it is today. The average driving distance will indeed continue to rise as the average pro gets faster and faster. The faster you are, the better your swing needs to be in order to control that speed. It has diminishing returns. I could go on and on about this from a technical stand point but I don't have that kind of time.

[clevited]

 

absolutely ...most longer hitters on tour play an MB....( JT, DJ, Tiger, Phil, fowler, walker, etc)... lofts now are usually 47-48 pw.. in 1960s it was 50 degrees... so 1/2 club ...

 

You don't necessarily know what their clubs are bent to do you? You can mine what some of them are, like for instance, I have heard many times Phil's clubs are bent strong. You have to also take into account the delivery of the club. Strong grip, closed face, what dynamic loft do players these days present to the ball vs the past generations? Ultimately, dynamic loft will be the direct comparison to what club was used in the past.

[sirparalot]

I have been thinking about this from a different angle. I am not a physicist or an expert on ball construction so if I am off base please don't kill me. Instead of dialing back equipment from a measurement standpoint (COR/CT/Smash...etc), limit the golfball construction to 2 layers max. I think this would force players to compromise what is important to their game and pretty much bring the game back to being more individual skill based. Right now I can get a 5 layer ball that launches high with low spin and then spins like a top with my wedges. With only 2 layers you are going to have to compromise. If you want distance it will come with less spin ability around the green (no mantle layer so core and cover will have to be harder). If you want control you will end up with a softer cover that spins more across the bag(inc.driver). There is room for engineers to keep improving and moving technology but there will certainly be a compromise of distance vs control. Big strong players can continue to work out and get stronger but will have to balance their game and it will bring lots of different playing styles back into play. For the 99% of us who are not on tour it will not be as big of a change as most can't and don't have the ability to really exploit the new ball tech as the pros do. Instead of lowering the limits just tighten the rules of construction. It would still be possible for DJ to knock it 340 but now his wedge will spin less if he chooses distance or if he goes control route he risks accuracy off the tee but has more control into the green. Yes it still limits technology but allows engineers to maximize the tech given construction constraints. I think it also reduces some of the manufacturer issues. If you have superior materials and manufacturing along with the patents to protect it then you still have some advantage (read Titleist) and can use it to push the ball further than your competition given some construction constraints. Basically if you are truly the best then you will still be able to deliver a higher quality ball.Just a thought.

[Roadking2003]

my point... an educated customer base is much better for any product from the consumer side.

 

I don't disagree. But in the end, The Market is always right.

[tnord]

that's an intriguing idea, that on the face of it, assuming the foundation principles are true, would be worthy of investigation.

[gvogel]

I'm glad this thread still has legs.

[storm319]

 

as a fan of old golf clubs, the difference between irons of the 80s and today is usually around 1-2deg of loft. it's a half club at best. yes, they are longer too, but i'm not sure how much to really blame mfgs for that, as people are generally taller now.

 

i'm all for bifurcation now. let the baby's have their bottle (don't be insulted, i'm just calling it like i see it), and let the people that actually appreciate golf enjoy it as well.

 

absolutely ...most longer hitters on tour play an MB....( JT, DJ, Tiger, Phil, fowler, walker, etc)... lofts now are usually 47-48 pw.. in 1960s it was 50 degrees... so 1/2 club ...

 

Typical PW loft in the 1960s was actually 52 and while I agree most clubs that tour pros are playing are probably 47 today vs the game improvement extreme of 43, it is more than half a club.

[tnord]

i don't think the 43deg PW that flies 70yds for the 20hdcp is at issue here.

[North Butte]

The obsession of golfer with what number is on the sole of someone ELSE's club never ceases to amaze me.

[marmooskapaul]

My god!!! Don't you people have to be somewhere???

 

If there was a picture of a horse being beaten....it would just be a pile of guts and fur....

[Bye]

My god!!! Don't you people have to be somewhere???

 

If there was a picture of a horse being beaten....it would just be a pile of guts and fur....

 

LOL. Haven't you noticed that they just wheel in a new one each week? Or just start another thread.

[deadsolid...shank]

My issue is Geoff Shackelord being touted as an authority on the matter. He talks down to any and everybody that disagrees with him. I'm all up for a constructive debate. He is only interested in his side of the story. His opinion matters, but I'd say it matters less than the tour pros he's bashing that are speaking out against a change that effects them directly.

 

I say that realizing this thread has steered in that direction at times.

 

Yeah, I dispise that guy. He represents everything that kept me from liking golf until I was a teenager. He is Judge from CaddyShack. Shooter Mcgavin on Happy Gilmore lol.

 

I suppose your more of a Matt Genela ( spelling ?) guy? Your opinion is your opinion andthatd cool. Give me Shak over almost any golf pundit I can think of.

 

You Can't really call anyone out for talking down I don't think. So far you've stated that course architects don't know more than you. Wrong. No sane person thinks that the people who design and build any product don't now more aboot it than the end user. Surely given you're advertisement of vocation you get that. It happens to be same as mine. So I know you do.

 

And that anyone in favor of at least looking at equipment and rollback must have a Napoleon complex. Wrong. I'm 6ft3 212 and hit it plenty long. How does that work with your theory ? Am I somehow wanting to be 7ft and I world long drive ? ( I have no desire for either).

 

Come on man. At this point I can't agree with you just because of the jabs about how anyone who thinks oppposite is stuffy and stupid. Just not true. There's some merit on both sides of this debate.

 

That's what it is called, napolean complex! I couldn't think of it. No I don't think everyone has that, I should have been more clear. I DO however think that is an underlying motivation for a great many golfers. As far as thinking everyone is stuffy and stupid, I didn't say that. I do think certain people come off as that way on here and on tv or whatever. I am entitled to my opinion, and I am calling people like I see it. If they are acting stuffy and like everything that keeps a lot of people from liking golf. If someone is acting like a jerk, you tell them they are being a jerk. You aren't insulting, you are telling them how it is. Often people can't see that they are acting that way.

 

I am blunt, brutally honest and I tell it like it is. I also know when I am right, and another view point is extremely flawed. I don't usually post so much on any forum unless that is so. I think about things from many different directions and I definitely don't need to be a course architect to understand the role the golf ball plays and how a change in anyway is NOT good for the sport. Yes my viewpoint matters just as much if not more than a golf course architect. I have already stated reasons why a possible roll back would be extremelely flawed. I am not against putting limits on things, but I am definitely against taking things away, especially when they have been around for so many years. You nerf the ball, the problem won't be solved anyways as I have stated several times now and I can almost guarantee you that is the truth. You would have to nerf it a rediculous amount in order to achieve the objective of making old courses playable in the manner desired, and new courses playable in the manner desired.

 

 

Just wow.

 

You may be brutally honest in telling everyone what your opinion is, but on this matter, that's all it is, your opinion. You absolutely do not know if you're correct or not. This is an opinion, idea, and theory driven argument. It's not a black and white issue that has one absolute correct answer. So you do not know if another viewpoint is flawed or not, just that is different from yours.

 

I remember when I was 20 and thought I knew everything too.

[bladehunter]

My god!!! Don't you people have to be somewhere???

 

If there was a picture of a horse being beaten....it would just be a pile of guts and fur....

 

Hey man. you are in here reading it so you are in the same boat ! Lol

[radiman]

My god!!! Don't you people have to be somewhere???

 

If there was a picture of a horse being beaten....it would just be a pile of guts and fur....

 

The golf season needs to start soon. I think this is a little bit of stir crazy at play. It is for me at least :)

[clevited]

My issue is Geoff Shackelord being touted as an authority on the matter. He talks down to any and everybody that disagrees with him. I'm all up for a constructive debate. He is only interested in his side of the story. His opinion matters, but I'd say it matters less than the tour pros he's bashing that are speaking out against a change that effects them directly.

 

I say that realizing this thread has steered in that direction at times.

 

Yeah, I dispise that guy. He represents everything that kept me from liking golf until I was a teenager. He is Judge from CaddyShack. Shooter Mcgavin on Happy Gilmore lol.

 

I suppose your more of a Matt Genela ( spelling ?) guy? Your opinion is your opinion andthatd cool. Give me Shak over almost any golf pundit I can think of.

 

You Can't really call anyone out for talking down I don't think. So far you've stated that course architects don't know more than you. Wrong. No sane person thinks that the people who design and build any product don't now more aboot it than the end user. Surely given you're advertisement of vocation you get that. It happens to be same as mine. So I know you do.

 

And that anyone in favor of at least looking at equipment and rollback must have a Napoleon complex. Wrong. I'm 6ft3 212 and hit it plenty long. How does that work with your theory ? Am I somehow wanting to be 7ft and I world long drive ? ( I have no desire for either).

 

Come on man. At this point I can't agree with you just because of the jabs about how anyone who thinks oppposite is stuffy and stupid. Just not true. There's some merit on both sides of this debate.

 

That's what it is called, napolean complex! I couldn't think of it. No I don't think everyone has that, I should have been more clear. I DO however think that is an underlying motivation for a great many golfers. As far as thinking everyone is stuffy and stupid, I didn't say that. I do think certain people come off as that way on here and on tv or whatever. I am entitled to my opinion, and I am calling people like I see it. If they are acting stuffy and like everything that keeps a lot of people from liking golf. If someone is acting like a jerk, you tell them they are being a jerk. You aren't insulting, you are telling them how it is. Often people can't see that they are acting that way.

 

I am blunt, brutally honest and I tell it like it is. I also know when I am right, and another view point is extremely flawed. I don't usually post so much on any forum unless that is so. I think about things from many different directions and I definitely don't need to be a course architect to understand the role the golf ball plays and how a change in anyway is NOT good for the sport. Yes my viewpoint matters just as much if not more than a golf course architect. I have already stated reasons why a possible roll back would be extremelely flawed. I am not against putting limits on things, but I am definitely against taking things away, especially when they have been around for so many years. You nerf the ball, the problem won't be solved anyways as I have stated several times now and I can almost guarantee you that is the truth. You would have to nerf it a rediculous amount in order to achieve the objective of making old courses playable in the manner desired, and new courses playable in the manner desired.

 

 

Just wow.

 

You may be brutally honest in telling everyone what your opinion is, but on this matter, that's all it is, your opinion. You absolutely do not know if you're correct or not. This is an opinion, idea, and theory driven argument. It's not a black and white issue that has one absolute correct answer. So you do not know if another viewpoint is flawed or not, just that is different from yours.

 

I remember when I was 20 and thought I knew everything too.

 

I am much older than 20 but thank you for the compliment! I would argue that I have the vast majority of golf consumers backing up my point of view, and I have several strong points that cannot be denied as legitimate and very strong. I feel pretty darn comfortable that my and manys points of view about the ball not needing a roll back. I feel like this is pretty black and white. I feel like this is math. I say 1+1 = 2, while you guys say 1+1 = 3.

 

Edit: Nothing wrong at all with being confident about something. How do you think decisions get made in life? Do you think every decision is based on opinion, or is it more often than not made based on facts and how things play out, you know, long term thinking, critical thinking at that.

[tnord]

your points have been rebutted as often as they've been made, but keep feeling like you're the wizard if you like.

[clevited]

Anyways, good luck to everyone is this thread. I have said my part over and over and over and over and over and over again. It has gotten old finally for me lol. Obviously we cannot all agree but I wish everyone well, after all we all love the same sport.

[deadsolid...shank]

 

My issue is Geoff Shackelord being touted as an authority on the matter. He talks down to any and everybody that disagrees with him. I'm all up for a constructive debate. He is only interested in his side of the story. His opinion matters, but I'd say it matters less than the tour pros he's bashing that are speaking out against a change that effects them directly.

 

I say that realizing this thread has steered in that direction at times.

 

 

Yeah, I dispise that guy. He represents everything that kept me from liking golf until I was a teenager. He is Judge from CaddyShack. Shooter Mcgavin on Happy Gilmore lol.

 

I suppose your more of a Matt Genela ( spelling ?) guy? Your opinion is your opinion andthatd cool. Give me Shak over almost any golf pundit I can think of.

 

You Can't really call anyone out for talking down I don't think. So far you've stated that course architects don't know more than you. Wrong. No sane person thinks that the people who design and build any product don't now more aboot it than the end user. Surely given you're advertisement of vocation you get that. It happens to be same as mine. So I know you do.

 

And that anyone in favor of at least looking at equipment and rollback must have a Napoleon complex. Wrong. I'm 6ft3 212 and hit it plenty long. How does that work with your theory ? Am I somehow wanting to be 7ft and I world long drive ? ( I have no desire for either).

 

Come on man. At this point I can't agree with you just because of the jabs about how anyone who thinks oppposite is stuffy and stupid. Just not true. There's some merit on both sides of this debate.

 

That's what it is called, napolean complex! I couldn't think of it. No I don't think everyone has that, I should have been more clear. I DO however think that is an underlying motivation for a great many golfers. As far as thinking everyone is stuffy and stupid, I didn't say that. I do think certain people come off as that way on here and on tv or whatever. I am entitled to my opinion, and I am calling people like I see it. If they are acting stuffy and like everything that keeps a lot of people from liking golf. If someone is acting like a jerk, you tell them they are being a jerk. You aren't insulting, you are telling them how it is. Often people can't see that they are acting that way.

 

I am blunt, brutally honest and I tell it like it is. I also know when I am right, and another view point is extremely flawed. I don't usually post so much on any forum unless that is so. I think about things from many different directions and I definitely don't need to be a course architect to understand the role the golf ball plays and how a change in anyway is NOT good for the sport. Yes my viewpoint matters just as much if not more than a golf course architect. I have already stated reasons why a possible roll back would be extremelely flawed. I am not against putting limits on things, but I am definitely against taking things away, especially when they have been around for so many years. You nerf the ball, the problem won't be solved anyways as I have stated several times now and I can almost guarantee you that is the truth. You would have to nerf it a rediculous amount in order to achieve the objective of making old courses playable in the manner desired, and new courses playable in the manner desired.

 

 

Just wow.

 

You may be brutally honest in telling everyone what your opinion is, but on this matter, that's all it is, your opinion. You absolutely do not know if you're correct or not. This is an opinion, idea, and theory driven argument. It's not a black and white issue that has one absolute correct answer. So you do not know if another viewpoint is flawed or not, just that is different from yours.

 

I remember when I was 20 and thought I knew everything too.

 

I am much older than 20 but thank you for the compliment! I would argue that I have the vast majority of golf consumers backing up my point of view, and I have several strong points that cannot be denied as legitimate and very strong. I feel pretty darn comfortable that my and manys points of view about the ball not needing a roll back. I feel like this is pretty black and white. I feel like this is math. I say 1+1 = 2, while you guys say 1+1 = 3.

 

"You guys"? Do you read all the posts? Before lumping people into either group it would be good to determine on which side of the fence they are standing on. For the record, which I've said in here, although not nearly as often as others, is I am against any rollbacks. But that is still just an opinion.

 

You have what you feel are strong points (and they very well might be), but it is still just an opinion. It's good that you feel strongly about it, and for the most part I agree with you. But it is not math, just the fact that you think you have the absolute correct opinion on it doesn't make it true.

[Shilgy]

do you guys have any authorities on the subject that supports your position you can point me to? or are you just going to make fun of people that actually care about this stuff?

 

Golf is a game. PGA Tour golf is entertainment. All of the customers are "authorities" on the subject, not just the lowest handicapped customers or golfers with the most golf skill or course designers. The only credential needed is to be a fan of PGA Tour golf. My opinion is just as valid as Jack's opinion.

 

But here is another view you might want to listen to;

 

http://www.golfchann...ers-pulse-game/

 

i read it, both Jimmy Walker and Lucas Glover are employees of titleist, not exactly an unbiased objective view. they are speaking out against a 20% rollback of the ball "for the masses"

 

1) that won't happen because "the masses" don't compress the ball as it is. the modern equipment hasn't helped them gain distance, changing it won't hurt them either. i would argue that it will actually help them via higher spin.

2) i would not support a 20% shorter ball for the guy that can't hit it 200 either.

 

 

exactly my take... shills... for sure..both struggling and in no position to have any other opinion... It maybe their true opinion but its no accident that the ones against it are all titleist at this point and any who even hint at being for a rollback are mostly independent of a 14 club and ball contract

You have Titleist in your bag. no you don't get paid to I am guessing but does that disqualify you as well. Surely if Titleist is in your bag you feel they are best for you and would not wish them harmed. :)

[deadsolid...shank]

Anyways, good luck to everyone is this thread. I have said my part over and over and over and over and over and over again. It has gotten old finally for me lol. Obviously we cannot all agree but I wish everyone well, after all we all love the same sport.

 

Now there is an opinion I think we can all agree on. At least most days! :drinks:

[QMany]

i read it, both Jimmy Walker and Lucas Glover are employees of titleist, not exactly an unbiased objective view. they are speaking out against a 20% rollback of the ball "for the masses"

 

Jack is also in the "sub-divisions that feature golf courses" business. He also sells golf balls (not very well). He also benefited from supreme length over the field back in his day. Is he objective?

[rawdog]

Anyone want to go play 9 after work?

 

 

But seriously, this is why I love this site. Wailing and gnashing of teeth for 43 pages. Bludgeoning each other's points post after post.

 

But I'd go walk 9 with 15th or tnord and listen to some cool stories and history of the courses they love so goddamn much. I love golf, after all. I'd rather do that than sit here and keep typing.

 

I'd walk 9 with Ashley Schaeffer because he seems like a funny a** guy and his commentary on that Shack podcast was terrific. I'm still pretty sure Walter Matthau is actually still alive and posting as North Butte.

 

Shalom.

[radiman]

i read it, both Jimmy Walker and Lucas Glover are employees of titleist, not exactly an unbiased objective view. they are speaking out against a 20% rollback of the ball "for the masses"

 

Jack is also in the "sub-divisions that feature golf courses" business. He also sells golf balls (not very well). He also benefited from supreme length over the field back in his day. Is he objective?

 

The possibility of a rollback of distance directly impacts these guys. I cannot believe they would be pushing the company line if they were truly for it. What about James Hahn? He isn't a Titleist paid player.