Rolling back the ball

[tnord]

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.

 

this seems much more accurate to my experience. i'm probably slightly longer than most of my other scratch player buddies, but not by a lot. i swing it about 110.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

How much is it going to cost to restore Bethpage and Torrey back if they rollback the ball?

Clearly, nobody can be advocating that the pros should have to play with a 1990s ball on 2018 layouts, right?

That definitely wouldn't be what the designers envisioned.

[Bye]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

[OrangeGravy]

Does anyone know the breakdown of ball purchases every year, Tour type ball vs. 2 piece rock type?

[North Butte]

I only know the oft-quoted factoid (which may or may not still be true but it was for many years) that the ProV1/ProV1x family outsells any other "Tour" or 2pc ball brand.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

Tiger says Augusta plays easier now (not sure I buy that), but check out how many things Augusta would have to change to roll it back! https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/masters/2017/04/03/tiger-woods-augusta-national-changes/99964456/

[Bye]

Golfer who hits the ball 200-230 yards think a roll back is mad

 

Golfer who plays on a course that was designed after 2003 or is 7000 yards plus thinks a roll back is mad.

 

Golfer who plays on an older course under 6500 yards that can hit a driver 250+ through the air has a different perspective.

 

I don’t want to make golfer harder for anyone. If the only way to roll back anything affects everyone then it shouldn’t happen.

[OrangeGravy]

I only know the oft-quoted factoid (which may or may not still be true but it was for many years) that the ProV1/ProV1x family outsells any other "Tour" or 2pc ball brand.

 

I'm thinking sales numbers for all of the tour type ball brands vs all of the non-tour type ball brands not just prov1/x vs.

People have stated a few different times that most ams play non-urethane (tour) balls and I was just curious if that is the case and what the split looked like.

[tnord]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

how is slowing down greens (which i agree would be a byproduct of dialing back the golf ball), a major restoration? and you've got it completely backwards. some green complexes are being flattened NOW because modern agronomy practices to defend against modern equipment and the bomb and gouge game, have rendered the contours of some greens unplayable.

 

nobody is talking about going back to hickory shafts and feathery balls. there's no reason to take the golf course back that far either.

 

your lack of any effort at all to understand the issue astounds me.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

how is slowing down greens (which i agree would be a byproduct of dialing back the golf ball), a major restoration? and you've got it completely backwards. some green complexes are being flattened NOW because modern agronomy practices to defend against modern equipment and the bomb and gouge game, have rendered the contours of some greens unplayable.

 

nobody is talking about going back to hickory shafts and feathery balls.

 

your lack of any effort at all to understand the issue astounds me.

 

Then, they would have to put the undulation back into the greens. We can't just do this piecemeal by only changing the ball. Gotta go full boat. Unless, of course, people are fine with pros playing 2018 layouts with a 1990s ball. That would certainly help preserve the record books.

 

I never said anything about going back to hickory shafts. Your constant strawman arguments astound me. That's like me saying, "Well, at least if we don't rollback the ball, we won't all get sick and die of dysentery."

[tnord]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

how is slowing down greens (which i agree would be a byproduct of dialing back the golf ball), a major restoration? and you've got it completely backwards. some green complexes are being flattened NOW because modern agronomy practices to defend against modern equipment and the bomb and gouge game, have rendered the contours of some greens unplayable.

 

nobody is talking about going back to hickory shafts and feathery balls.

 

your lack of any effort at all to understand the issue astounds me.

 

Then, they would have to put the undulation back into the greens. We can't just do this piecemeal by only changing the ball. Gotta go full boat. Unless, of course, people are fine with pros playing 2018 layouts with a 1990s ball. That would certainly help preserve the record books.

 

I never said anything about going back to hickory shafts. Your constant strawman arguments astound me. That's like me saying, "Well, at least if we don't rollback the ball, we won't all get sick and die of dysentery."

 

your reference to the framers either indicates a disingenuous suggestion, or that courses need to be restored back to the days of hickories.

 

yes, i have no problem restoring contours to the greens that have been altered once the speeds are slowed down. better that than trying to modify the 35,000 golf courses of the world to modern equipment.

[Shilgy]

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?

I recall reading the book-I know it's amazing that anyone else wants to be educated- but Bethpage was more repaired than updated. It was in crap shape but the bones were fine as I recall.

 

Courses, like professional sports teams, charge what the market will bear. Or do you believe Pebble sharges what they do because their expenses are five time a normal course?

[Shilgy]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

how is slowing down greens (which i agree would be a byproduct of dialing back the golf ball), a major restoration? and you've got it completely backwards. some green complexes are being flattened NOW because modern agronomy practices to defend against modern equipment and the bomb and gouge game, have rendered the contours of some greens unplayable.

 

nobody is talking about going back to hickory shafts and feathery balls.

 

your lack of any effort at all to understand the issue astounds me.

 

Then, they would have to put the undulation back into the greens. We can't just do this piecemeal by only changing the ball. Gotta go full boat. Unless, of course, people are fine with pros playing 2018 layouts with a 1990s ball. That would certainly help preserve the record books.

 

I never said anything about going back to hickory shafts. Your constant strawman arguments astound me. That's like me saying, "Well, at least if we don't rollback the ball, we won't all get sick and die of dysentery."

 

your reference to the framers either indicates a disingenuous suggestion, or that courses need to be restored back to the days of hickories.

 

yes, i have no problem restoring contours to the greens that have been altered once the speeds are slowed down. better that than trying to modify the 35,000 golf courses of the world to modern equipment.

Who in the world ever said that 35k courses need to be renovated? For whom?

[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!

 

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.

In fairness I did say I could be incorrect. :) The duffer that averages under 200 was not the slower swing speed guys really. They are the slightly higher swingspeed but lousy contact guys that hit it solid once out of 100 times. So yes-that one shot would be shorter but in general just the same crappy shot.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

how is slowing down greens (which i agree would be a byproduct of dialing back the golf ball), a major restoration? and you've got it completely backwards. some green complexes are being flattened NOW because modern agronomy practices to defend against modern equipment and the bomb and gouge game, have rendered the contours of some greens unplayable.

 

nobody is talking about going back to hickory shafts and feathery balls.

 

your lack of any effort at all to understand the issue astounds me.

 

Then, they would have to put the undulation back into the greens. We can't just do this piecemeal by only changing the ball. Gotta go full boat. Unless, of course, people are fine with pros playing 2018 layouts with a 1990s ball. That would certainly help preserve the record books.

 

I never said anything about going back to hickory shafts. Your constant strawman arguments astound me. That's like me saying, "Well, at least if we don't rollback the ball, we won't all get sick and die of dysentery."

 

your reference to the framers either indicates a disingenuous suggestion, or that courses need to be restored back to the days of hickories.

 

yes, i have no problem restoring contours to the greens that have been altered once the speeds are slowed down. better that than trying to modify the 35,000 golf courses of the world to modern equipment.

 

Roll back the ball to the 1990s, roll back the courses to the 1990s.

A 1990s ball on a 1930s layout would be bananas. Kind of like a 1990s ball on a 2018 layout.

[Bye]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

Tiger says Augusta plays easier now (not sure I buy that), but check out how many things Augusta would have to change to roll it back! https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/masters/2017/04/03/tiger-woods-augusta-national-changes/99964456/

 

Well you have lost me, I have no idea why anything would need to change at Augusta, unless there is nothing between the tournament tees and the members tees.

[15th Club]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

how is slowing down greens (which i agree would be a byproduct of dialing back the golf ball), a major restoration? and you've got it completely backwards. some green complexes are being flattened NOW because modern agronomy practices to defend against modern equipment and the bomb and gouge game, have rendered the contours of some greens unplayable.

 

nobody is talking about going back to hickory shafts and feathery balls. there's no reason to take the golf course back that far either.

 

your lack of any effort at all to understand the issue astounds me.

 

Liked. :yes:

 

And a special word about tree removal. Great courses all over -- Oakmont, Oakland Hills, Chicago GC, Garden City, Sleepy Hollow, etc., etc. -- have all engaged in tree removal programs that range from "drastic" to "moonscape." (Well not "moonscape"; more like "linkscape.")

 

They have done so on the sometimes unwelcome advice of guys like Gil Hanse and Tom Doak. Not to mention Rees Jones (a some-time Titleist contractor).

 

The removal of trees allows for better sunlight, better air circulation (for better turfgrass) and better sightlines as envisioned by the original designers. Those courses (like ANGC) all had few trees to begin with.

 

And trees actually have a bit of bearing on our current debate because trees were once seen as a bulwark to toughen courses as players got longer. Trees = more defense of the course. But trees were a hated means of defense, by the great artists of course design in the classic era. Trees were a non-issue at the Old Course, at Muirfield, at Dornoch; at all the great links. They are mostly a non-issue at NGLA, and CGC, and CPC.

 

We can play better golf, without all but the most minimal specimen trees. But we must make sure that courses don't get overwhelmed if defensive trees are gone. Another good reason for, and another good reason to consider why, a ball rollback makes sense.

[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?

I recall reading the book-I know it's amazing that anyone else wants to be educated- but Bethpage was more repaired than updated. It was in crap shape but the bones were fine as I recall.

 

Courses, like professional sports teams, charge what the market will bear. Or do you believe Pebble sharges what they do because their expenses are five time a normal course?

 

my snark is more directed to ashley for his/her previous criticism of my reading habits.

 

from quick googling, at least two of the holes were lengthened on the back, and if i remember right they had to do major work on #3? which involved moving a road. it also played to 7400yd par 70 vs 71 for daily fee players, so there was some length surely added.

 

who knows what they'll add for the ryder cup.

[OrangeGravy]

Golfer who hits the ball 200-230 yards think a roll back is mad

 

Golfer who plays on a course that was designed after 2003 or is 7000 yards plus thinks a roll back is mad.

 

Golfer who plays on an older course under 6500 yards that can hit a driver 250+ through the air has a different perspective.

 

I don’t want to make golfer harder for anyone. If the only way to roll back anything affects everyone then it shouldn’t happen.

 

I think that's a pretty sound explanation of things. Almost everyone will look at this from their specific set of circumstances. Those circumstances being how far they personally hit the ball and what type of course(s) they play and how their ability stacks up to those circumstances. If I was a short knocker and am barely hanging on to the forward tees as it is with things right now, I would be adamantly opposed to anything changing unless it gave me more distance. If I was really long and played a had to play courses where the hazards and general layout weren't relevant to me from the tips, I would be fine with a roll back. I am personally right in the middle of these extremes. My length is usually just about right for the blue tees, but a bit too long for the white tees. A roll back wouldn't really do anything to me. I can move up or back if needed. I don't like playing white on most courses because I feel a bit cheated when I pay to play and all I end up using is D, 3w, 9-sw. I myself enjoy using everything in the bag at least a couple of times a round. I also don't want to get pounded by having to play driver/5 iron all day.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

Tiger says Augusta plays easier now (not sure I buy that), but check out how many things Augusta would have to change to roll it back! https://www.usatoday...anges/99964456/

 

Well you have lost me, I have no idea why anything would need to change at Augusta, unless there is nothing between the tournament tees and the members tees.

 

So, you would have the pros play a "Tiger proofed" (their term) layout with a ball from a pre-Tiger proofed era?

[15th Club]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

Tiger says Augusta plays easier now (not sure I buy that), but check out how many things Augusta would have to change to roll it back! https://www.usatoday...anges/99964456/

 

Well you have lost me, I have no idea why anything would need to change at Augusta, unless there is nothing between the tournament tees and the members tees.

 

Maybe I can help here.

 

Indeed, there are only two sets of tees at ANGC. A members set of tees, which is really modest length, with tees located nearby to the previous green for easy walking. And then there is the ever-moving set of tournament tees. In some cases (11 is a good example) with the tournament tees being a considerable walk backwards to get to them.

 

If there was a major ball rollback, ANGC would be all-too happy, to move tournament tees back to more comfortable locations. Play just might be a shade easier and faster; it would definitely be a tiny bit easier walk.

 

Best of all, they'd save $25 million, if they didn't have to move #13 tee to the property next door at ACC, and move ACC's Ninth fairway.

 

Win, win, win for ANGC and ACC together.

[mahonie]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

Tiger says Augusta plays easier now (not sure I buy that), but check out how many things Augusta would have to change to roll it back! https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/masters/2017/04/03/tiger-woods-augusta-national-changes/99964456/

 

Well you have lost me, I have no idea why anything would need to change at Augusta, unless there is nothing between the tournament tees and the members tees.

 

I think at the last count there is about 1300 yards between the members tees and the Masters tees. I read last week that ANGC has just spent $25m buying more land to lengthen the 5th. That builds about 5 new courses over here ;-)

[OrangeGravy]

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.

In fairness I did say I could be incorrect. :) The duffer that averages under 200 was not the slower swing speed guys really. They are the slightly higher swingspeed but lousy contact guys that hit it solid once out of 100 times. So yes-that one shot would be shorter but in general just the same crappy shot.

 

I agree. The guy that hits mostly crappy shots is never going to know the difference. My question to everyone in this debate is what percentage of golfers are this guy? Isn't it the vast majority or do I have that wrong? I really don't know. My assumption has always been that most golfers are that guy even though we here may know and play with people who aren't that guy. And if I'm correct in my assumption won't this, if anything even happens, only realistically affect about 10% of the golfing population give or take? Most golfers don't even carry a handicap. Doesn't mean everyone without a handicap is bad, but I would assume most are.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

Tiger says Augusta plays easier now (not sure I buy that), but check out how many things Augusta would have to change to roll it back! https://www.usatoday...anges/99964456/

 

Well you have lost me, I have no idea why anything would need to change at Augusta, unless there is nothing between the tournament tees and the members tees.

 

Maybe I can help here.

 

Indeed, there are only two sets of tees at ANGC. A members set of tees, which is really modest length, with tees located nearby to the previous green for easy walking. And then there is the ever-moving set of tournament tees. In some cases (11 is a good example) with the tournament tees being a considerable walk backwards to get to them.

 

If there was a major ball rollback, ANGC would be all-too happy, to move tournament tees back to more comfortable locations. Play just might be a shade easier and faster; it would definitely be a tiny bit easier walk.

 

Best of all, they'd save $25 million, if they didn't have to move #13 tee to the property next door at ACC, and move ACC's Ninth fairway.

 

Win, win, win for ANGC and ACC together.

 

For sure. They would also have to spend some money getting rid of the "forests" they planted after 1997 to restore the angles players used to be able to play before the changes, and get rid of the second cut, etc. It wouldn't make much sense to take away the advantage of the modern ball whilst keeping all of the defenses to the modern ball in place (which include, but definitely are not limited to, overall course length).

[Bye]

Golfer who hits the ball 200-230 yards think a roll back is mad

 

Golfer who plays on a course that was designed after 2003 or is 7000 yards plus thinks a roll back is mad.

 

Golfer who plays on an older course under 6500 yards that can hit a driver 250+ through the air has a different perspective.

 

I don’t want to make golfer harder for anyone. If the only way to roll back anything affects everyone then it shouldn’t happen.

 

I think that's a pretty sound explanation of things. Almost everyone will look at this from their specific set of circumstances. Those circumstances being how far they personally hit the ball and what type of course(s) they play and how their ability stacks up to those circumstances. If I was a short knocker and am barely hanging on to the forward tees as it is with things right now, I would be adamantly opposed to anything changing unless it gave me more distance. If I was really long and played a had to play courses where the hazards and general layout weren't relevant to me from the tips, I would be fine with a roll back. I am personally right in the middle of these extremes. My length is usually just about right for the blue tees, but a bit too long for the white tees. A roll back wouldn't really do anything to me. I can move up or back if needed. I don't like playing white on most courses because I feel a bit cheated when I pay to play and all I end up using is D, 3w, 9-sw. I myself enjoy using everything in the bag at least a couple of times a round. I also don't want to get pounded by having to play driver/5 iron all day.

 

It is a perspective thing, and I fully accept that there more players that would benefit from more distance. My dad is 75, a full role back would not help him. But for some of us there are no tees to move back to. In the summer I will only use my driver once or twice a round. Every hole is tee shot wedge. So my choice are, put up with it, self roll back or walk away from the game.

 

I agree with you, it’s nice to have a bit of variety rather than a full on slog or fiddling it around.

 

[Bye]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

Tiger says Augusta plays easier now (not sure I buy that), but check out how many things Augusta would have to change to roll it back! https://www.usatoday...anges/99964456/

 

Well you have lost me, I have no idea why anything would need to change at Augusta, unless there is nothing between the tournament tees and the members tees.

 

So, you would have the pros play a "Tiger proofed" (their term) layout with a ball from a pre-Tiger proofed era?

 

Part of the tiger proofing was the added length and the way they mow the fairways back towards the tees. Average driving distances there are about 20 yards shorter than pga average. Everyone keeps saying how much better the players are now, I am sure they would be fine. They don’t have to play the course at 7,400.

 

And I suspect the greens may have been altered so they could get them running faster. But I am just guessing.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

Tiger says Augusta plays easier now (not sure I buy that), but check out how many things Augusta would have to change to roll it back! https://www.usatoday...anges/99964456/

 

Well you have lost me, I have no idea why anything would need to change at Augusta, unless there is nothing between the tournament tees and the members tees.

 

So, you would have the pros play a "Tiger proofed" (their term) layout with a ball from a pre-Tiger proofed era?

 

Part of the tiger proofing was the added length and the way they mow the fairways back towards the tees. Average driving distances there are about 20 yards shorter than pga average. Everyone keeps saying how much better the players are now, I am sure they would be fine. They don’t have to play the course at 7,400.

 

And I suspect the greens may have been altered so they could get them running faster. But I am just guessing.

 

Agreed. They just have to rollback that stuff if they rollback the ball.

[DavePelz4]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

Tiger says Augusta plays easier now (not sure I buy that), but check out how many things Augusta would have to change to roll it back! https://www.usatoday...anges/99964456/

 

Will they need to bring back the Eisenhower tree at Augusta too? Think that tree ended up as firewood in the clubhouse.

 

Teed that up for you A.S.

[15th Club]

I just looked it up and the members tees at ANGC are just over 6300 yards. And hasn’t changed much in the entire history of the club. That is a very civilized length for most decent golfers. Many should play at less yardage.

 

The Toonamint is at 7400 and will be significantly more in the future, especially without a ball rollback.

[Shilgy]

Why would any course that had been altered need to undo anything? They could just use the forward tees. And then have more room for more fans.

 

I would think courses like Quail Hollow might be a bit annoyed.

 

No. That is not the intent of the Framers. Bunkers would have to be filled in, green complexes would have to be flattened and slowed down considerably, trees would have to be removed or replanted. We are talking about some major restoration projects.

 

Tiger says Augusta plays easier now (not sure I buy that), but check out how many things Augusta would have to change to roll it back! https://www.usatoday...anges/99964456/

 

Well you have lost me, I have no idea why anything would need to change at Augusta, unless there is nothing between the tournament tees and the members tees.

 

Maybe I can help here.

 

Indeed, there are only two sets of tees at ANGC. A members set of tees, which is really modest length, with tees located nearby to the previous green for easy walking. And then there is the ever-moving set of tournament tees. In some cases (11 is a good example) with the tournament tees being a considerable walk backwards to get to them.

 

If there was a major ball rollback, ANGC would be all-too happy, to move tournament tees back to more comfortable locations. Play just might be a shade easier and faster; it would definitely be a tiny bit easier walk.

 

Best of all, they'd save $25 million, if they didn't have to move #13 tee to the property next door at ACC, and move ACC's Ninth fairway.

 

Win, win, win for ANGC and ACC together.

They won't save anything-they already spent it. So we roll the ball back 20% and the Masters is played from 5948 yards. Do they have tees that short? I usually play at 6600 yards. Luckily there is -barely- a tee box that will suffice. But now my course needs to add three or four sets of tees in front of that. Where is that money going to come from? Higher dues? Assessment? Or maybe we go public and charge exorbitant green fees?