Rolling back the ball

[deadsolid...shank]

I am surprised some of the other OEM's are not calling for a roll back. There must come a point where driver sales are going to dip as players keep hold of there 1/2/3+ year old drivers because they are as good as the new ones.

 

Some sort of roll back of the tour style ball might allow for the restrictions on the drivers to be relaxed.

 

Do you think people will slow down on buying new drivers Bye? I think most people know that a new club isn’t going to transform them instantly, but they still keep trying. It will be interesting to see.

 

Honestly I don't know. I have seen people buy new gear when the numbers and performance are no better, but a driver is a big investment now. For some there must come a point where there has to be an improvement to warrant spending that much. Maybe not.

 

But then who doesn't want the latest shiny new thing.

 

Just a thought, probably a wasted one.

 

I don’t think it’s a wasted one. It is a good question. When, if ever, do the majority reach that point where the purchase isn’t justified. And we not ever reach that point, $500 really isn’t a make or break amount for a lot of people anymore. Present company very much EXCLUDED!!

[radiman]

some of you are a marketing agencies dream.

 

Lol, a marketing agencies dream? I just know for a fact that those balls have different characteristics. They aren't juiced and don't have some sort of magical effect on a players swing. I know enough to realize that the equipment played by a lot of players on tour isn't the same as what I can buy off the rack.

 

but you insist on the regulations being the same so that you can "feel" like you're playing anything resembling the same game.

 

Not all players have different variations on equipment. If I wanted, I could go spend big bucks to buy a tour issued driver. But, what I have performs well enough for me, so there is no need. The tour issued equipment doesn't mean it is longer or better. More often than not, it is a tolerance issue. Their equipment is spec'd almost exactly where as the off the rack equipment will vary due to manufacturing tolerances.

[Bye]

that discussion has been going on as long as i've been on this board.

 

person; "COR is maxed, equipment can't help me."

mfg; "jailbreak rocketballz tour F3 is longer, higher, and straighter!!!!"

person: "shut up and take my money!!!!!"

 

Lol, It probably is that easy in some cases.

[North Butte]

Anybody remember that short cartoon (Looney Tunes? Merrie Melodies?) we saw when we were kids with the chameleon jumping in front of different colored walls and blending in? He jumps in front of a tartan plaid one and falls down on the ground crying, "I just can't do it!!!!".

 

That would be the Taylormade and Callaway marketing department whiz-kids if they were tasked with coming out with a ball that was 20% shorter than the last model. Talk about a tough product to sell?

 

P.S. You truly can find *anything* on Google. The cartoon was called "Unnatural History" and it was a "Looney Tunes" from 1959, directed by Abe Levitow.

[Bye]

I am surprised some of the other OEM's are not calling for a roll back. There must come a point where driver sales are going to dip as players keep hold of there 1/2/3+ year old drivers because they are as good as the new ones.

 

Some sort of roll back of the tour style ball might allow for the restrictions on the drivers to be relaxed.

 

Do you think people will slow down on buying new drivers Bye? I think most people know that a new club isn’t going to transform them instantly, but they still keep trying. It will be interesting to see.

 

Honestly I don't know. I have seen people buy new gear when the numbers and performance are no better, but a driver is a big investment now. For some there must come a point where there has to be an improvement to warrant spending that much. Maybe not.

 

But then who doesn't want the latest shiny new thing.

 

Just a thought, probably a wasted one.

 

I don’t think it’s a wasted one. It is a good question. When, if ever, do the majority reach that point where the purchase isn’t justified. And we not ever reach that point, $500 really isn’t a make or break amount for a lot of people anymore. Present company very much EXCLUDED!!

 

There are launch monitors everywhere now. The first time I saw one was at one of the OEM's back in the late 90's. As good a sales tool as it has been, there might come a point where it becomes detrimental. But then people just buy stuff off the rack.

[mahonie]

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".

 

The trouble is when the only answer is ‘over’ you might as well play in a flat field with no features whatsoever.

[bladehunter]

 

 

Bridgestone is pro roll back. Which is why titleist lost their minds.

 

I was aware that they were working with the USGA at some level. I think Titleist probably saw that as an opportunity for Bridgestone to become a leader in the new "rolled back" golf balls. I wasn't aware on their stance as a company. So, if it is beyond them working with the USGA, I haven't seen it. Not saying it isn't true. I am curious on their viewpoint however.

 

 

Maybe I should clarify..... Bridgestone is openly discussing it. Saying “ pro “ was wrong. Quick thought typing at its worst.

 

To me that’s open minded. Vs titleist and their “ no way Jose “ thought patterns. And that’s from memory. Don’t have time now look for the actual quotes.

[radiman]

Bridgestone is pro roll back. Which is why titleist lost their minds.

 

I was aware that they were working with the USGA at some level. I think Titleist probably saw that as an opportunity for Bridgestone to become a leader in the new "rolled back" golf balls. I wasn't aware on their stance as a company. So, if it is beyond them working with the USGA, I haven't seen it. Not saying it isn't true. I am curious on their viewpoint however.

 

 

Maybe I should clarify..... Bridgestone is openly discussing it. Saying " pro " was wrong. Quick thought typing at its worst.

 

To me that's open minded. Vs titleist and their " no way Jose " thought patterns. And that's from memory. Don't have time now look for the actual quotes.

 

I saw an article on it. But, it was basically Titleist's response to it. They are the very least open to it. Which, given their position, makes sense. They have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by being a pioneer in the restricted ball market. It would be foolish of them not to be involved. I do totally believe that Titleist's main motivation is to protect their market share. I just happen to be in the camp that thinks a roll back is unnecessary.

[15th Club]

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.

 

yes he is.

 

https://www.titleist...r=&OrderBy=rank

 

Lol, ok, so he plays their ball. A lot of players do. That does not disqualify his opinion. Maybe it directly impacts his game and is thus qualified to form an opinion? Which, I would argue, should be taken into consideration more than yours, mine, or Geoff Shackelford's. They are the ones who would have to deal with the consequences. But, since he doesn't agree, he is either a sellout who is representing Titleist, or he just doesn't understand the situation (according to Shackelford).

 

All Tour players are playing with a modern ball made by companies that would possibly lose sales. Do none of their opinions matter unless they agree with a rollback?

 

So let's clarify the position of Titleist, and its Brand Ambassadors.

 

Titleist's Pro V1 line of balls is by far the market leader, with a market share percentage that former CEO Wally Uihlein generally regarded as the lifeblood of the entire company. It is nearly impossible to overestimate the importance of ball market-share, to Titleist.

 

For all of his personal rollback advocacy, Jack Nicklaus, who has never been a Titleist contract player, just recently acknowledged that Titleist was making the best product in the golf ball sector (while saying, perhaps apocryphally, that "Titleist controls the game").

 

It is hard to find anyone in golf who (a) opposes a ball rollback, who (b) is not somehow attached to Titleist through employment, endorsement or sales.

 

Interestingly, there are a tiny number of Titleist-contract players who do favor a ball rollback. Geoff Ogilvy is the one I can think of. So these are not perfect predictors/identifiers of positions on a ball rollback. But the more you look, the more dramatic it seems; the correlation between rollback-opposition and Titleist involvement.

 

Other manufacturers have not been anywhere near as aggressive as Titleist, in opposing a rollback. We've seen Bridgestone's approach in recent months. Has anybody seen any strong opinion from any other golf equipment manufacturer opposing a rollback? It always seemed to me that if the dire warnings about a ball rollback destroying the popularity of recreational golf, we'd have armies of golf course owners and equipment manufacturers lining up in opposition. But mostly, it is just Titleist. Because, in my view, it is all about Titleist's desire/need to protect its market share in golf balls.

[drn92]

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.

 

you of course have a valid opinion on what provides the best entertainment on the PGA Tour - if you are entertained by bomb and gouge - you are just as entitled to your opinion as i am. but the PGA Tour is entertainment, it is interested in selling advertising (to guess who, titleist maybe?) and nothing else. that is 100% their business and their motivation, advertising sales.

 

the USGA and the R&A are chartered with protecting the game of golf itself, not selling advertising.

 

And the game of golf has no distance issues with the exception of 0.0001% of the people who play. The average driving distance for amateurs has hardly budged the last few decades from the stats I’ve seen.

 

drn92

[Shilgy]

 

The trouble is when the only answer is ‘over’ you might as well play in a flat field with no features whatsoever.

And I would probably agree with you if every feature is easily carry able with no risk. But a well designed hole will not have a hazard/feature that is only for one length of player. So if the feature is easily carryable it should bring into play another. Which is why I referenced Snead vs Runyan. Is it a good design if it is intended for one of those players? There was supposedly 50 yards or more between their drives.

[tnord]

The trouble is when the only answer is ‘over’ you might as well play in a flat field with no features whatsoever.

And I would probably agree with you if every feature is easily carry able with no risk. But a well designed hole will not have a hazard/feature that is only for one length of player. So if the feature is easily carryable it should bring into play another. Which is why I referenced Snead vs Runyan. Is it a good design if it is intended for one of those players? There was supposedly 50 yards or more between their drives.

 

and as we've been over a million times, having well placed hazards is a moving target with distance gains, and relatively very few courses have been built in the modern era that can accommodate those needs. the changes that need to be made to older courses are done at the expense of EVERY golfer, not just the people carrying it 270+. some courses that's not possible, resulting in more closures and limiting access to future golfers, water issues, cost issues, time, etc.

[tnord]

 

And the game of golf has no distance issues with the exception of 0.0001% of the people who play. The average driving distance for amateurs has hardly budged the last few decades from the stats I've seen.

 

drn92

 

true that the average hasn't moved much, which means they haven't seen the benefits of modern equipment....consequently they wouldn't experience any loss of distance either.

[radiman]

 

So let's clarify the position of Titleist, and its Brand Ambassadors.

 

Titleist's Pro V1 line of balls is by far the market leader, with a market share percentage that former CEO Wally Uihlein generally regarded as the lifeblood of the entire company. It is nearly impossible to overestimate the importance of ball market-share, to Titleist.

 

For all of his personal rollback advocacy, Jack Nicklaus, who has never been a Titleist contract player, just recently acknowledged that Titleist was making the best product in the golf ball sector (while saying, perhaps apocryphally, that "Titleist controls the game").

 

It is hard to find anyone in golf who (a) opposes a ball rollback, who (b) is not somehow attached to Titleist through employment, endorsement or sales.

 

Interestingly, there are a tiny number of Titleist-contract players who do favor a ball rollback. Geoff Ogilvy is the one I can think of. So these are not perfect predictors/identifiers of positions on a ball rollback. But the more you look, the more dramatic it seems; the correlation between rollback-opposition and Titleist involvement.

 

Other manufacturers have not been anywhere near as aggressive as Titleist, in opposing a rollback. We've seen Bridgestone's approach in recent months. Has anybody seen any strong opinion from any other golf equipment manufacturer opposing a rollback? It always seemed to me that if the dire warnings about a ball rollback destroying the popularity of recreational golf, we'd have armies of golf course owners and equipment manufacturers lining up in opposition. But mostly, it is just Titleist. Because, in my view, it is all about Titleist's desire/need to protect its market share in golf balls.

 

Oh my gosh. You are right. This is just a grand conspiracy against the USGA perpetrated by Titleist and it's mindless drones out on the PGA tour. Since all of your points are so logical, that nobody in their right mind would have a difference of opinion, there must be a puppet master behind the opposition.

 

Get real man. People aren't always going to agree with you. You speak of the brand ambassadors being the only ones speaking out. Good lord, the majority of the PGA Tour plays ProV1's. It's disproportionate. That's like implying that the only reason Tiger is for a roll back is because Bridgestone is involved in it. It is just ridiculous assumptions.

 

I appreciate the concerns you have on the matter, and they are all valid points. I just disagree to the point on how much effect it has on the game as a whole.

[Shilgy]

The trouble is when the only answer is ‘over’ you might as well play in a flat field with no features whatsoever.

And I would probably agree with you if every feature is easily carry able with no risk. But a well designed hole will not have a hazard/feature that is only for one length of player. So if the feature is easily carryable it should bring into play another. Which is why I referenced Snead vs Runyan. Is it a good design if it is intended for one of those players? There was supposedly 50 yards or more between their drives.

 

and as we've been over a million times, having well placed hazards is a moving target with distance gains, and relatively very few courses have been built in the modern era that can accommodate those needs. the changes that need to be made to older courses are done at the expense of EVERY golfer, not just the people carrying it 270+. some courses that's not possible, resulting in more closures and limiting access to future golfers, water issues, cost issues, time, etc.

And as has been said ten million times just who exactly is this affecting? You? Me? Any of these courses you still cherish-as do I- are plenty long and a challenge for all of us. Except perhaps a handful of the elite players. So that course cannot host an event. But...has been also stated ten million times or so...roll the ball back and these courses still cannot host a modern major as they do not have the room for the fans and tents and the rest of the hoopla that goes with it. If they don't have room to expand they don't have room for anything else either.

So what's the point? The rest of us should suffer to be sure Justin Thomas gets a good test if he visits the University of Michigan course?

[tnord]

The trouble is when the only answer is ‘over’ you might as well play in a flat field with no features whatsoever.

And I would probably agree with you if every feature is easily carry able with no risk. But a well designed hole will not have a hazard/feature that is only for one length of player. So if the feature is easily carryable it should bring into play another. Which is why I referenced Snead vs Runyan. Is it a good design if it is intended for one of those players? There was supposedly 50 yards or more between their drives.

 

and as we've been over a million times, having well placed hazards is a moving target with distance gains, and relatively very few courses have been built in the modern era that can accommodate those needs. the changes that need to be made to older courses are done at the expense of EVERY golfer, not just the people carrying it 270+. some courses that's not possible, resulting in more closures and limiting access to future golfers, water issues, cost issues, time, etc.

And as has been said ten million times just who exactly is this affecting? You? Me? Any of these courses you still cherish-as do I- are plenty long and a challenge for all of us. Except perhaps a handful of the elite players. So that course cannot host an event. But...has been also stated ten million times or so...roll the ball back and these courses still cannot host a modern major as they do not have the room for the fans and tents and the rest of the hoopla that goes with it. If they don't have room to expand they don't have room for anything else either.

So what's the point? The rest of us should suffer to be sure Justin Thomas gets a good test if he visits the University of Michigan course?

 

there is a group of people, who are good players, but are not on tour. hell, how many people on wrx carry it at LEAST over 250 (if there was a poll it would say 100%)? i think probably 3 out of 4 people i play with do. i mean, i don't have anything other than experience to contradict the USGA data, but I don't know if 10% of people I've ever played with only carry it 200.

 

but regardless.....the average golfer should care because THEY are paying for the additional length too. they are paying to have bunkers moved. they are paying for restorations. they don't ask you in the pro shop what tees you're playing and charge accordingly. the average golfer should care because it affects the sustainability of the course they play too.

 

the earth is not flat.

[radiman]

The trouble is when the only answer is ‘over’ you might as well play in a flat field with no features whatsoever.

And I would probably agree with you if every feature is easily carry able with no risk. But a well designed hole will not have a hazard/feature that is only for one length of player. So if the feature is easily carryable it should bring into play another. Which is why I referenced Snead vs Runyan. Is it a good design if it is intended for one of those players? There was supposedly 50 yards or more between their drives.

 

and as we've been over a million times, having well placed hazards is a moving target with distance gains, and relatively very few courses have been built in the modern era that can accommodate those needs. the changes that need to be made to older courses are done at the expense of EVERY golfer, not just the people carrying it 270+. some courses that's not possible, resulting in more closures and limiting access to future golfers, water issues, cost issues, time, etc.

And as has been said ten million times just who exactly is this affecting? You? Me? Any of these courses you still cherish-as do I- are plenty long and a challenge for all of us. Except perhaps a handful of the elite players. So that course cannot host an event. But...has been also stated ten million times or so...roll the ball back and these courses still cannot host a modern major as they do not have the room for the fans and tents and the rest of the hoopla that goes with it. If they don't have room to expand they don't have room for anything else either.

So what's the point? The rest of us should suffer to be sure Justin Thomas gets a good test if he visits the University of Michigan course?

 

there is a group of people, who are good players, but are not on tour. hell, how many people on wrx carry it at LEAST over 250 (if there was a poll it would say 100%)? i think probably 3 out of 4 people i play with do. i mean, i don't have anything other than experience to contradict the USGA data, but I don't know if 10% of people I've ever played with only carry it 200.

 

but regardless.....the average golfer should care because THEY are paying for the additional length too. they are paying to have bunkers moved. they are paying for restorations. they don't ask you in the pro shop what tees you're playing and charge accordingly. the average golfer should care because it affects the sustainability of the course they play too.

 

the earth is not flat.

 

To be fair. I don't think the average golfer is a member at the courses that host PGA Tour events. Those courses make money from these tour stops. They should have the cash to renovate if it's necessary.

 

Edit: That's probably an unfair assumption on my part. I don't know how much these renovations cost. So, I cannot speak to how much it affects the membership of the courses.

[tnord]

there is a group of people, who are good players, but are not on tour. hell, how many people on wrx carry it at LEAST over 250 (if there was a poll it would say 100%)? i think probably 3 out of 4 people i play with do. i mean, i don't have anything other than experience to contradict the USGA data, but I don't know if 10% of people I've ever played with only carry it 200.

 

but regardless.....the average golfer should care because THEY are paying for the additional length too. they are paying to have bunkers moved. they are paying for restorations. they don't ask you in the pro shop what tees you're playing and charge accordingly. the average golfer should care because it affects the sustainability of the course they play too.

 

the earth is not flat.

 

To be fair. I don't think the average golfer is a member at the courses that host PGA Tour events. Those courses make money from these tour stops. They should have the cash to renovate if it's necessary.

 

Edit: That's probably an unfair assumption on my part. I don't know how much these renovations cost. So, I cannot speak to how much it affects the membership of the courses.

 

funny, i didn't know the people of wrx only played at tour stops? i didn't know that good players didn't get a voice in this discussion? the tour events do not pay courses/clubs anything near what you think they do. in general, the events are money losers, and courses/clubs do it in hopes of improving their ranking and publicity in hopes of making it up on green fees/memberships on the back end. I can say for us to host the largest amateur event in the state is a significant 5 figure loss. or maybe you just don't give a s*** about good players, it's not your problem, and those events can be hosted at any muni because the lowest score still wins.

 

the best value memberships in Kansas City both have professional tour stops. you're assumption that this is only a professional golf problem is inaccurate.

 

is bethpage, torrey pines, chambers bay, bandon dunes, etc not massive assets to both the local golfing community and the community as a whole? shouldn't we value those places remaining relevant?

[radiman]

there is a group of people, who are good players, but are not on tour. hell, how many people on wrx carry it at LEAST over 250 (if there was a poll it would say 100%)? i think probably 3 out of 4 people i play with do. i mean, i don't have anything other than experience to contradict the USGA data, but I don't know if 10% of people I've ever played with only carry it 200.

 

but regardless.....the average golfer should care because THEY are paying for the additional length too. they are paying to have bunkers moved. they are paying for restorations. they don't ask you in the pro shop what tees you're playing and charge accordingly. the average golfer should care because it affects the sustainability of the course they play too.

 

the earth is not flat.

 

To be fair. I don't think the average golfer is a member at the courses that host PGA Tour events. Those courses make money from these tour stops. They should have the cash to renovate if it's necessary.

 

Edit: That's probably an unfair assumption on my part. I don't know how much these renovations cost. So, I cannot speak to how much it affects the membership of the courses.

 

funny, i didn't know the people of wrx only played at tour stops? i didn't know that good players didn't get a voice in this discussion? the tour events do not pay courses/clubs anything near what you think they do. in general, the events are money losers, and courses/clubs do it in hopes of improving their ranking and publicity in hopes of making it up on green fees/memberships on the back end. I can say for us to host the largest amateur event in the state is a significant 5 figure loss. or maybe you just don't give a s*** about good players, it's not your problem, and those events can be hosted at any muni because the lowest score still wins.

 

the best value memberships in Kansas City both have professional tour stops. you're assumption that this is only a professional golf problem is inaccurate.

 

What? So far the whole argument has been made that this is a problem of the .001% of golfers. People toting bifurcation. So, you think that amateurs are also hitting it too far? This is a serious question and I mean no disrespect by it. In another thread semi-related to this, I asked what the magic number is. What is the max carry the pro-rollback crowd would like to see? What would bring the game back into the realm you feel it should be at?

[tnord]

i personally have avoided this part of the conversation because i don't know much about it....but i'm curious to know more about the data sample used by the USGA. i think it was less than 200 shots measured of people with less than a 6 handicap. that to me doesn't seem like enough. what were the swing speeds of those with less than a 6?

 

whether "better player" is .001%, 1%, or 10% i'm not sure that it matters. the message that better players are the minority still holds true.

 

i dunno. my personal experience is that people hit it way farther than the USGA data suggests (as is backed up by pretty much everything on wrx, but this is a very obscure corner of the golfing world) but i will accept the data for what it is because there's obviously a world beyond the end of my nose.

[Shilgy]

there is a group of people, who are good players, but are not on tour. hell, how many people on wrx carry it at LEAST over 250 (if there was a poll it would say 100%)? i think probably 3 out of 4 people i play with do. i mean, i don't have anything other than experience to contradict the USGA data, but I don't know if 10% of people I've ever played with only carry it 200.

 

but regardless.....the average golfer should care because THEY are paying for the additional length too. they are paying to have bunkers moved. they are paying for restorations. they don't ask you in the pro shop what tees you're playing and charge accordingly. the average golfer should care because it affects the sustainability of the course they play too.

 

the earth is not flat.

 

To be fair. I don't think the average golfer is a member at the courses that host PGA Tour events. Those courses make money from these tour stops. They should have the cash to renovate if it's necessary.

 

Edit: That's probably an unfair assumption on my part. I don't know how much these renovations cost. So, I cannot speak to how much it affects the membership of the courses.

 

funny, i didn't know the people of wrx only played at tour stops? i didn't know that good players didn't get a voice in this discussion? the tour events do not pay courses/clubs anything near what you think they do. in general, the events are money losers, and courses/clubs do it in hopes of improving their ranking and publicity in hopes of making it up on green fees/memberships on the back end. I can say for us to host the largest amateur event in the state is a significant 5 figure loss. or maybe you just don't give a s*** about good players, it's not your problem, and those events can be hosted at any muni because the lowest score still wins.

 

the best value memberships in Kansas City both have professional tour stops. you're assumption that this is only a professional golf problem is inaccurate.

 

is bethpage, torrey pines, chambers bay, bandon dunes, etc not massive assets to both the local golfing community and the community as a whole? shouldn't we value those places remaining relevant?

You think any of these are too short? Really? Outdated? Bunkers in the wrong spots?

[radiman]

i personally have avoided this part of the conversation because i don't know much about it....but i'm curious to know more about the data sample used by the USGA. i think it was less than 200 shots measured of people with less than a 6 handicap. that to me doesn't seem like enough. what were the swing speeds of those with less than a 6?

 

i dunno. my personal experience is that people hit it way farther than the USGA data suggests (as is backed up by pretty much everything on wrx, but this is a very obscure corner of the golfing world) but i will accept the data for what it is because there's obviously a world beyond the end of my nose.

 

I will agree to that. I always see the average distance as rather low. But, I guess it is an average. For everyone who hits hit 20-30 yards further, there are those that are 20-30 shorter. I'd be curious to see it broken down by age as well as handicap.

[tnord]

there is a group of people, who are good players, but are not on tour. hell, how many people on wrx carry it at LEAST over 250 (if there was a poll it would say 100%)? i think probably 3 out of 4 people i play with do. i mean, i don't have anything other than experience to contradict the USGA data, but I don't know if 10% of people I've ever played with only carry it 200.

 

but regardless.....the average golfer should care because THEY are paying for the additional length too. they are paying to have bunkers moved. they are paying for restorations. they don't ask you in the pro shop what tees you're playing and charge accordingly. the average golfer should care because it affects the sustainability of the course they play too.

 

the earth is not flat.

 

To be fair. I don't think the average golfer is a member at the courses that host PGA Tour events. Those courses make money from these tour stops. They should have the cash to renovate if it's necessary.

 

Edit: That's probably an unfair assumption on my part. I don't know how much these renovations cost. So, I cannot speak to how much it affects the membership of the courses.

 

funny, i didn't know the people of wrx only played at tour stops? i didn't know that good players didn't get a voice in this discussion? the tour events do not pay courses/clubs anything near what you think they do. in general, the events are money losers, and courses/clubs do it in hopes of improving their ranking and publicity in hopes of making it up on green fees/memberships on the back end. I can say for us to host the largest amateur event in the state is a significant 5 figure loss. or maybe you just don't give a s*** about good players, it's not your problem, and those events can be hosted at any muni because the lowest score still wins.

 

the best value memberships in Kansas City both have professional tour stops. you're assumption that this is only a professional golf problem is inaccurate.

 

is bethpage, torrey pines, chambers bay, bandon dunes, etc not massive assets to both the local golfing community and the community as a whole? shouldn't we value those places remaining relevant?

You think any of these are too short? Really? Outdated? Bunkers in the wrong spots?

 

do you have any idea what it costs to update bethpage and torrey? do you know who pays for the day to day maintenance of it? who do you think paid for that? my $275 green fee is who.

[tnord]

i personally have avoided this part of the conversation because i don't know much about it....but i'm curious to know more about the data sample used by the USGA. i think it was less than 200 shots measured of people with less than a 6 handicap. that to me doesn't seem like enough. what were the swing speeds of those with less than a 6?

 

i dunno. my personal experience is that people hit it way farther than the USGA data suggests (as is backed up by pretty much everything on wrx, but this is a very obscure corner of the golfing world) but i will accept the data for what it is because there's obviously a world beyond the end of my nose.

 

I will agree to that. I always see the average distance as rather low. But, I guess it is an average. For everyone who hits hit 20-30 yards further, there are those that are 20-30 shorter. I'd be curious to see it broken down by age as well as handicap.

 

i suspect for the "average" they're counting people that even play just once a year, which is unfair. it'd be like saying bowling needs to be easier because i barely roll 100 if that on the one time a year i do it. like i said, i'm staying away from this part because i dunno.

[Shilgy]

I will agree that the average 20+ handicap that drives it under 200 yards would probably not be affected by a roll back. They are likely not hitting it near the center of the face enough to matter much. But I could be incorrect on that. But the older player that does hit the center of the face would be affected I would think and the 200-260 hitting player is the player that would likely be the most affected.

 

So is the USGA really ready to rerate every single course out there? The definition of scratch becomes the guy that hits it 200 rather than 250 and can reach a hole in two that measures 376 rather that 470. Oooo, how fun!

[Shilgy]

there is a group of people, who are good players, but are not on tour. hell, how many people on wrx carry it at LEAST over 250 (if there was a poll it would say 100%)? i think probably 3 out of 4 people i play with do. i mean, i don't have anything other than experience to contradict the USGA data, but I don't know if 10% of people I've ever played with only carry it 200.

 

but regardless.....the average golfer should care because THEY are paying for the additional length too. they are paying to have bunkers moved. they are paying for restorations. they don't ask you in the pro shop what tees you're playing and charge accordingly. the average golfer should care because it affects the sustainability of the course they play too.

 

the earth is not flat.

 

To be fair. I don't think the average golfer is a member at the courses that host PGA Tour events. Those courses make money from these tour stops. They should have the cash to renovate if it's necessary.

 

Edit: That's probably an unfair assumption on my part. I don't know how much these renovations cost. So, I cannot speak to how much it affects the membership of the courses.

 

funny, i didn't know the people of wrx only played at tour stops? i didn't know that good players didn't get a voice in this discussion? the tour events do not pay courses/clubs anything near what you think they do. in general, the events are money losers, and courses/clubs do it in hopes of improving their ranking and publicity in hopes of making it up on green fees/memberships on the back end. I can say for us to host the largest amateur event in the state is a significant 5 figure loss. or maybe you just don't give a s*** about good players, it's not your problem, and those events can be hosted at any muni because the lowest score still wins.

 

the best value memberships in Kansas City both have professional tour stops. you're assumption that this is only a professional golf problem is inaccurate.

 

is bethpage, torrey pines, chambers bay, bandon dunes, etc not massive assets to both the local golfing community and the community as a whole? shouldn't we value those places remaining relevant?

You think any of these are too short? Really? Outdated? Bunkers in the wrong spots?

 

do you have any idea what it costs to update bethpage and torrey? do you know who pays for the day to day maintenance of it? who do you think paid for that? my $275 green fee is who.

Do you think that fee will go down with a shorter ball? Why do they need updating?

[North Butte]

I will agree that the average 20+ handicap that drives it under 200 yards would probably not be affected by a roll back. They are likely not hitting it near the center of the face enough to matter much. But I could be incorrect on that. But the older player that does hit the center of the face would be affected I would think and the 200-260 hitting player is the player that would likely be the most affected.

 

So is the USGA really ready to rerate every single course out there? The definition of scratch becomes the guy that hits it 200 rather than 250 and can reach a hole in two that measures 376 rather that 470. Oooo, how fun!

 

Why would you think that? That's perilously close to the magic golf ball that knows when it's been hit harder/better and penalizes only the longer/better hitter.

 

Let's say I swing with enough clubhead speed to hit a ProV1 210 yards if I hit the sweet spot and square up the clubface. But I tend to make glancing contact so it only goes 190 for me on average.

 

Roll back to ProV1 by 10% and now it will go 189 with sweet spot and square face. Are you thinking it will go 190 when I mishit it?

 

There's no fancy math or physics here. If you reduced the performance of a golf ball it reduces more or less proportionally for any player. Maybe a tiny fraction away from perfect proportion but nothing significant.

[Bye]

Within the course rating system is the assumption that the average scratch golfer hits the ball 250 total distance on average. Has been mentioned many times.

 

There is a chart knocking about on the internet that suggests the average swing speed for a scratch golfer is 105mph.

 

105 mph with a 0 degree AOA equals 243 carry and 294 total distance according to Trackman. I suspect the average AOA is probably nearer -2 so those numbers can be dialled back a bit. So you could argue that the whole system needs re doing anyway.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

 

do you have any idea what it costs to update bethpage and torrey? do you know who pays for the day to day maintenance of it? who do you think paid for that? my $275 green fee is who.

Do you think that fee will go down with a shorter ball? Why do they need updating?

 

All of the courses will pass the savings along to the consumer. First, however, the courses will need to be altered back to pre-pro v1 standards (not just distance, right? It's about what the designers wanted). That will cost some money in the first few years, so it'll go up to $325 until the changes are done. Then, once the courses realize that players were willing to pay the higher fees, they will lower it back down to $275 out of the goodness of their hearts, and then likely back to $150 like it was before the pro v1 ruined everything.

[tnord]

do you have any idea what it costs to update bethpage and torrey? do you know who pays for the day to day maintenance of it? who do you think paid for that? my $275 green fee is who.

Do you think that fee will go down with a shorter ball? Why do they need updating?

 

torrey north just underwent an update. i believe everybody's favorite, Hanse and Shackelford are working on updating Torrey South before the 2021 US Open.

 

I can't remember the number (a few million $ i think) it's in the book "Open" by Feinstein (which yes, I own, have read, and why educating yourself is important), how much money they had to throw at bethpage to modernize the golf course before the open. i'm not saying it needs to be longer NOW, but it did 12 years ago or whenever. i think bethpage, which was run by the NY Parks Dept, was in danger of CLOSING, before the massive investment was made. it's RELEVANCE for better players, only after throwing giant piles of money at it, is why average golfers should care about distance.

 

is golf better off with a healthy and thriving bethpage? or is that really only a benefit to people hitting it 300yds?