Rolling back the ball

[farmer]

I ask again, for the 100th time in this thread; why do all of this other stuff (slowed-down fairways, ultra-fast greens, thick rough, narrowed landing areas), when the ball is the simplest and easiest thing to fix?

 

 

For the 100th time, because changing the ball would affect every golfer on the planet for ever, whereas changing course conditions will affect a hundred or so golfers for one week. I don't understand why this is not obvious to you. Where is this 'rhetorical knot' of which you speak??

No, rolling back the ball is NOT the simplest solution to your perceived problem. Raising the height of the fairways is a simple mower adjustment, and throwing a little water on the fairways takes them back to what members play. I doubt that many courses stress out their course for the other 50 weeks of the year.

[rawdog]

 

 

I must live in a alternate golfing world. Almost...all of the public courses around me play around 6000 yards. Most have white, gold and red tees. A couple have blue tees that stretch the courses out to...6,500 or less. Most everyone plays white tees...or less. There are longer courses, of course, but there are 1000's of 6000 yard courses around the US. and plenty of short hitting golfers that still can't over power them...lol.

 

We must be neighbors, because it surely can't be that this is precisely the case in more than one corner of the world.

 

Howdy, neighbors.

 

You guys going to the block party next week?

 

Seriously, a lot of premier courses here top out around 6,500. I play up usually with some older guys I play with, around 6,200. It's plenty long for them and still a good test for me. I have never played with someone I thought should move back.

[15th Club]

I don't think you are attributing the decline to a distance problem. But, it sounds like some believe that it's part of the solution. Courses will shorten, rounds will become cheaper, and take less time. My argument against that is that we don't deal with any side effects of the perceived problem, yet we are still losing participants. From where I am, it stands to do more harm than good. Also, I've yet to see any entertainment industry actually pass savings on to a customer. Maybe country

club

memberships? But, that's not the world I live in, so I wouldn't know.

 

Quite fairly stated by you.

 

No, I don't attribute a fall off in golf participation to high-performing equipment. Yes, I do favor a shorter, simpler, faster way of playing golf.

[George1174]

It is interesting to look at PGA Tour Carry Distance, as opposed to Driving Distance. Driving Distance #1 Tony Finau averages 20.8 yards roll (6.5% of total distance). #3 Kevin Tway averages 25.6 yards roll (8%). If you hate these athletes pounding it, softening up the runways might help.

 

This notion has been raised maybe a dozen times in this long thread. Here is the simplified response:

1. It is easier to hit softened fairways.
   
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. Fairways that are so heavily soaked so as to slow down drives are also fairways that at more likely to produce mudballs, casual water (see above) and other conditions that are undesirable to good playing conditions.
   

You‘ll hit more fairways if you factor in that the ball doesn‘t roll through. But to be 30 or 40yds further from the hole is harder than closer but in the rough. Even for those guys.

Mudballs and casual water are part of the game. We all deal with it from time to time. They just don‘t look good on TV, that‘s all. If you want to see golfers struggle, send them out in the rain just like The Open proves.

[radiman]

I don't think you are attributing the decline to a distance problem. But, it sounds like some believe that it's part of the solution. Courses will shorten, rounds will become cheaper, and take less time. My argument against that is that we don't deal with any side effects of the perceived problem, yet we are still losing participants. From where I am, it stands to do more harm than good. Also, I've yet to see any entertainment industry actually pass savings on to a customer. Maybe country

club

memberships? But, that's not the world I live in, so I wouldn't know.

 

Quite fairly stated by you.

 

No, I don't attribute a fall off in golf participation to high-performing equipment. Yes, I do favor a shorter, simpler, faster way of playing golf.

 

I don't know what course you call home, so I can't make any assumptions as to available tees and such. But, at my home course, the white tees play around 6300. The next set of tees is the red that plays 1000 yards less. They haven't had to spend any money to stretch the course, as I suspect many public courses haven't. If anything, they would have to invest money into another set of tees between white and red. The distance issue hasn't been an issue for us, again, assuming the majority of courses are in the same boat. From where I stand, it appears to me that I (and everyone else in a similar situation) am being asked to adjust my game to suit the needs of private courses that want to host high level tournaments. A lot of these courses being private country clubs that I wouldn't be allowed on in the first place. While I appreciate the architecture and history of some of these courses, they exist in a world that I am not familiar.

 

If the PGA Tour folded tomorrow, I would still play golf. If they never held another US Open, I'd still play golf. I have played the game in its current state for almost 20 years now. I'm not interested in going back to a time before that so a few private courses can avoid renovations. If they choose not to renovate their members can enjoy them just as much in their current state whether they host a tournament or not.

 

My point being, there is a large portion of the golf world that exists outside of these prestigious courses and private clubs. I don't know the financial numbers. But, I dare say that if that goes away, even these well established institutions will suffer.

 

My worry is a rollback will do irreversible harm before any perceived benefits trickle down to the masses.

[gvogel]

Confession. These days 6200 is too much and 5900 is about right for enjoyment. The muni where I play cuts the fairways every 2 or 3 days, and does a lousy job at that. So I get no roll on my 215 yard bomb.

 

If the ball were rolled back, i’d play at 5600 yards, no problem. If I were playing with the clubs that i’d Played in my prime, 5600 should be where I should be playing.

 

And for the record, rolling back COR would be a more workable sulution.

 

But then there is this: I played hickory for five years. Ball goes shorter, maybe way shorter. The game might be more difficult, but that’s because the shafts twist. It is just as fun and a good shot is just as satisfying. It must be played on a shorter course, and we have a couple of real old shorter courses around here. So from my perspective, shorter equipment is a better deal than longer courses.

[radiman]

Confession. These days 6200 is too much and 5900 is about right for enjoyment. The muni where I play cuts the fairways every 2 or 3 days, and does a lousy job at that. So I get no roll on my 215 yard bomb.

 

If the ball were rolled back, i’d play at 5600 yards, no problem. If I were playing with the clubs that i’d Played in my prime, 5600 should be where I should be playing.

 

And for the record, rolling back COR would be a more workable sulution.

 

But then there is this: I played hickory for five years. Ball goes shorter, maybe way shorter. The game might be more difficult, but that’s because the shafts twist. It is just as fun and a good shot is just as satisfying. It must be played on a shorter course, and we have a couple of real old shorter courses around here. So from my perspective, shorter equipment is a better deal than longer courses.

 

I am obviously fine with the game as it is now. But, if there was absolutely no choice and something was going to be changed, there are a few things I'd rather see. First, I think letting the fairways and rough grow out more would be something that can at least be attempted by the Tour without any trouble from the USGA. A beta test if you will. These courses are pristine. Not a true testament of what the everyday golfer deals with.

 

Second, if equipment had to be changed, I'd want to see driver size limited at 400cc. Maybe some sort of rollback in MOI, or maybe even restricting max COR to a certain diameter from the center of the face. If driver size went down, I could see that as being something amateurs get used to over time. Again, I'd rather see nothing done but new rules put in place to cap it where it is now. But, if I had to choose, I'd rather see any of these rather than a limited flight ball.

[15th Club]

Second, if equipment had to be changed, I'd want to see driver size limited at 400cc. Maybe some sort of rollback in MOI, or maybe even restricting max COR to a certain diameter from the center of the face. If driver size went down, I could see that as being something amateurs get used to over time. Again, I'd rather see nothing done but new rules put in place to cap it where it is now. But, if I had to choose, I'd rather see any of these rather than a limited flight

ball

.

 

On behalf of my client Mr. Shackelford, your honor, we would happily stipulate to a 400cc head size limitation (and even a special dispensation for recreational players; anything so that an old driver is not made illegal by an ex post facto regulation).

 

Would you like to know who to blame for the state of affairs on that, by the way? There really is a villain who almost single-handedly booted that issue. It's Frank Thomas, who in about 1998-99, while working as the head technical guy for the USGA, assured them that driver head sizes were severely self-limiting such that nothing over about 380-400 cc would be useful. So the USGA took no action. Until they finally did, of course. When drivers already looked like toasters on a stick.

[BNGL]

It is interesting to look at PGA Tour Carry Distance, as opposed to Driving Distance. Driving Distance #1 Tony Finau averages 20.8 yards roll (6.5% of total distance). #3 Kevin Tway averages 25.6 yards roll (8%). If you hate these athletes pounding it, softening up the runways might help.

 

This notion has been raised maybe a dozen times in this long thread. Here is the simplified response:

1. It is easier to hit softened fairways.
   
2. Softened fairways remove an important element from golf course design and strategic golf thinking; how will the ball bounce and roll out on the ground. "The ground game."
   
3. Fairways that are so heavily soaked so as to slow down drives are fairways that won't be able to resist any added moisture if it rains heavily during tournament week. The chances of rainouts and delayed play are dramatically increased.
   
4. Fairways that are so heavily soaked so as to slow down drives are also fairways that at more likely to produce mudballs, casual water (see above) and other conditions that are undesirable to good playing conditions.
   

 

3 and 4 can be managed with proper agricultural practices, no need to make the fairway a bog but you can definitely fatten the leaf blade up (stop PGRs and add some water), that alone will take off a foot. Take heights from .300 to .450 (still lower than 95 percent of courses), mowing it into the grain too. That's a foot and half on a stimpmeter. A good penetrant would alleviate holding water from rain storms, excluding a hurricane it could handle the water if treated at higher rates. It's just not done on many areas outside greens due to cost and labor concerns.

 

At my club one tee is part of the same surround as my putting green, so every green spray it gets treated as well. That tee stimps a good foot faster than all my other ones (excluding the zoysia tees). Cutting height is the same, only difference is the leaf blade is so thin there's less friction.

[Bye]

Is playing the Pro V1, Chromesoft or what ever really that important to people? Serious question.

 

I can’t remember people being that bothered about not playing a balata.

[radiman]

Second, if equipment had to be changed, I'd want to see driver size limited at 400cc. Maybe some sort of rollback in MOI, or maybe even restricting max COR to a certain diameter from the center of the face. If driver size went down, I could see that as being something amateurs get used to over time. Again, I'd rather see nothing done but new rules put in place to cap it where it is now. But, if I had to choose, I'd rather see any of these rather than a limited flight

ball

.

 

On behalf of my client Mr. Shackelford, your honor, we would happily stipulate to a 400cc head size limitation (and even a special dispensation for recreational players; anything so that an old driver is not made illegal by an ex post facto regulation).

 

Would you like to know who to blame for the state of affairs on that, by the way? There really is a villain who almost single-handedly booted that issue. It's Frank Thomas, who in about 1998-99, while working as the head technical guy for the USGA, assured them that driver head sizes were severely self-limiting such that nothing over about 380-400 cc would be useful. So the USGA took no action. Until they finally did, of course. When drivers already looked like toasters on a stick.

 

Lol, I had a hard time adjusting to the larger size. Toaster on a stick was probably the most common description I heard too. I still think the 983k was about perfect. My Dad still has one and it now looks tiny. I know there are a few people here that have been dreaming of a 400cc driver being released. I almost picked up a Yonex driver a few years back, buy couldn't get myself to pull the trigger without trying it first. You can still put it out there with a smaller driver, but there is no way it would be as forgiving. I may borrow it once the season starts to compare it to my current driver.

[15th Club]

I want to again remind everybody to listen to that great podcast with Rod Morri, Mike Clayton and Geoff Shackelford; I am bringing it up here again in response to the general notion of mowing fairways into the line of flight to slow down the balls/driver roll...

 

Geoff mentioned talking to a prominent Tour player, who was also a Masters winner, who told Geoff that ANGC has -- and this is shocking; it was shocking to Geoff -- some of the worst fairways that the Tour plays. Geoff related it to the mowing patterns; it could also be ANGC's mania about making everything the same perfect shade of green. With the attendant amount of water used for that end.

 

My personal suspicion is that the player in question was last year's winner, in fact. And therefore something that Sergio would not want out for public attribution, and which Geoff wouldn't want to be a cause for controversy and distraction as Sergio defends this year.

[radiman]

Is playing the Pro V1, Chromesoft or what ever really that important to people? Serious question.

 

I can’t remember people being that bothered about not playing a balata.

 

I think it is the fact that the replacements being proposed would be severely lacking in performance compared to what is available now. And still having to drop serious $$ on them. It's like buying a new driver knowing it'll be 20 yards shorter than what you currently have.

[klebs01]

I could deal with a 7% roll back which would be a worse ball than a titleist professional. 20% is way too much. I absolutely will not go back to balls that are lucky to be round after 5 holes.

 

I don’t think it’s a simple as just changing the ball, some clubs and courses may need adjustments as things change.

[DavePelz4]

Here's the answer for you, "buckeyefl."

 

Yes, indeed; Augausta National is well underway with a complex series of property buyouts, city approval permit applications and private negotiations with Augusta Country Club, all with the transparent goal of cobbling together more real estate to add more yardage to the ANGC tournament course.

 

Let's start on the northwest side of the property, where the club has purchased a vast section (dozens of individual residential properties) opposite Berckmans Road. They use much of the land for Masters parking and staging. Now, owning so much of it they have petitioned the city to re-route the road, to stretch the Fifth tee backward, through what was the old fence and the Berckmans Road-bed, and build a new tee:

 

https://thegolfnewsn...th-hole-108455/

 

Next, let's go down to Amen corner, where they are clearly planning to stretch the 13th tee significantly backward and up the slope at Rae's Creek, into the area bounced by the Ninth fairway of Augusta Country Club:

 

https://www.golfdige...conic-13th-hole

 

Now I wanted to be clear, that you were actually challenging me on this stuff, before I came back to rub this in, buckeyefl. This is all now common knowledge; old news in golf architecture circles. I am surprised that a smart-aleck like you didn't know it but now I've made it clear for you.

 

There could actually be some more course-lengthening plans for ANGC; I don't know. But what I do know is that they have already stretched and pulled the course almost to the limits of the property. They have little if any room to move the 1st and 10th tees, because of the clubhouse complex. 15 tee bumps into 11. And 15 green bumps into the pond at 16. 17 tee bumps into 5. Etc., etc.

 

Now, have you learned something? Like, that ANGC actually does have some amazingly expensive, complicated, active plans to lengthen the tournament course?

 

You do realize that some of the land purchases were done to create FREE parking, improve access roads, expand the range and practice facility and to build a media center with 350 media stations and an interview room for 150, right? All of the land isn't going to just lengthen the course. The media center alone cost $56,000,000 to build. Also, ANGC gave the city a $17,000,000 loan for the re-route of the road.

[North Butte]

Is playing the Pro V1, Chromesoft or what ever really that important to people? Serious question.

 

I can’t remember people being that bothered about not playing a balata.

 

I have very low clubhead speed, fairly low trajectory and play on extremely firm greens. A ball that spins is perhaps a luxury but a very nice one to enjoy.

[radiman]

I want to again remind everybody to listen to that great podcast with Rod Morri, Mike Clayton and Geoff Shackelford; I am bringing it up here again in response to the general notion of mowing fairways into the line of flight to slow down the balls/driver roll...

 

Geoff mentioned talking to a prominent Tour player, who was also a Masters winner, who told Geoff that ANGC has -- and this is shocking; it was shocking to Geoff -- some of the worst fairways that the Tour plays. Geoff related it to the mowing patterns; it could also be ANGC's mania about making everything the same perfect shade of green. With the attendant amount of water used for that end.

 

My personal suspicion is that the player in question was last year's winner, in fact. And therefore something that Sergio would not want out for public attribution, and which Geoff wouldn't want to be a cause for controversy and distraction as Sergio defends this year.

 

I don't know this stat. But, is there driving average similar on AGNC as it is on other tour stops? I read that they mow the fairways towards the tee box to limit roll? I wonder how much of an effect that has.

 

I think it is at least worth giving it a shot before changing equipment for the masses. They can easily adjust the fairway length on a few sample events and study the results. They can even work with the USGA to see if the given results align with their goals as well. Adjust the bunkers, rough, and fairways. Doesn't have to necessarily be drastic to counteract the most recent jump in distance of a couple yards. The rough doesn't have to be 8+" long to punish a missed fairway and make your approach a lot trickier.

[15th Club]

Second, if equipment had to be changed, I'd want to see driver size limited at 400cc. Maybe some sort of rollback in MOI, or maybe even restricting max COR to a certain diameter from the center of the face. If driver size went down, I could see that as being something amateurs get used to over time. Again, I'd rather see nothing done but new rules put in place to cap it where it is now. But, if I had to choose, I'd rather see any of these rather than a limited flight

ball

.

 

On behalf of my client Mr. Shackelford, your honor, we would happily stipulate to a 400cc head size limitation (and even a special dispensation for recreational players; anything so that an old driver is not made illegal by an ex post facto regulation).

 

Would you like to know who to blame for the state of affairs on that, by the way? There really is a villain who almost single-handedly booted that issue. It's Frank Thomas, who in about 1998-99, while working as the head technical guy for the USGA, assured them that driver head sizes were severely self-limiting such that nothing over about 380-400 cc would be useful. So the USGA took no action. Until they finally did, of course. When drivers already looked like toasters on a stick.

 

Lol, I had a hard time adjusting to the larger size. Toaster on a stick was probably the most common description I heard too. I still think the 983k was about perfect. My Dad still has one and it now looks tiny. I know there are a few people here that have been dreaming of a 400cc driver being released. I almost picked up a Yonex driver a few years back, buy couldn't get myself to pull the trigger without trying it first. You can still put it out there with a smaller driver, but there is no way it would be as forgiving. I may borrow it once the season starts to compare it to my current driver.

 

lol. Just before you were playing with that 983K, I was using a 976R. 210cc. A couple of years later, I thought that the Taylor Made 300 Ti was big. They made a 360 Ti that I thought was obscene. At the time. And now here I am with an M2 that looks perfectly normal.

[radiman]

Second, if equipment had to be changed, I'd want to see driver size limited at 400cc. Maybe some sort of rollback in MOI, or maybe even restricting max COR to a certain diameter from the center of the face. If driver size went down, I could see that as being something amateurs get used to over time. Again, I'd rather see nothing done but new rules put in place to cap it where it is now. But, if I had to choose, I'd rather see any of these rather than a limited flight

ball

.

 

On behalf of my client Mr. Shackelford, your honor, we would happily stipulate to a 400cc head size limitation (and even a special dispensation for recreational players; anything so that an old driver is not made illegal by an ex post facto regulation).

 

Would you like to know who to blame for the state of affairs on that, by the way? There really is a villain who almost single-handedly booted that issue. It's Frank Thomas, who in about 1998-99, while working as the head technical guy for the USGA, assured them that driver head sizes were severely self-limiting such that nothing over about 380-400 cc would be useful. So the USGA took no action. Until they finally did, of course. When drivers already looked like toasters on a stick.

 

Lol, I had a hard time adjusting to the larger size. Toaster on a stick was probably the most common description I heard too. I still think the 983k was about perfect. My Dad still has one and it now looks tiny. I know there are a few people here that have been dreaming of a 400cc driver being released. I almost picked up a Yonex driver a few years back, buy couldn't get myself to pull the trigger without trying it first. You can still put it out there with a smaller driver, but there is no way it would be as forgiving. I may borrow it once the season starts to compare it to my current driver.

 

lol. Just before you were playing with that 983K, I was using a 976R. 210cc. A couple of years later, I thought that the Taylor Made 300 Ti was big. They made a 360 Ti that I thought was obscene. At the time. And now here I am with an M2 that looks perfectly normal.

 

The first club I bought with my own money was an original Big Bertha Warbird. Did odd jobs through the summer and saved my money. Loved it. A few of my teammates had the 975D and I was super jealous. If I remember right, it was around $500? It was definitely not something I could afford. At the time, that seemed huge. A few had the GBB too. One guy showed up on the first day of practice for the year with a Biggest Big Bertha and we all have him crap because it looked absolutely ridiculous. My how times have changed.

 

I wish I would have been able to try the M1 440 before I bought my Epic. The local shop didn't carry it. But, deep down is love to play a little bit smaller driver. Would probably be detrimental to my driving accuracy, but sweet to look down at.

[Bye]

Is playing the Pro V1, Chromesoft or what ever really that important to people? Serious question.

 

I can’t remember people being that bothered about not playing a balata.

 

I think it is the fact that the replacements being proposed would be severely lacking in performance compared to what is available now. And still having to drop serious $$ on them. It's like buying a new driver knowing it'll be 20 yards shorter than what you currently have.

 

It shouldn’t be a problem for you with what’s in your bag. But yes it would be the case.

[Sean2]

Is playing the Pro V1, Chromesoft or what ever really that important to people? Serious question.

 

I can't remember people being that bothered about not playing a balata.

 

I have very low clubhead speed, fairly low trajectory and play on extremely firm greens. A ball that spins is perhaps a luxury but a very nice one to enjoy.

 

As a senior, and recreational golfer, I count on a good short game, and work hard at it. I find a premium ball performs much better around the greens than other golf balls.

[Sean2]

I can see where rolling back the ball would be helpful at Valspar. Man, they are just tearing that course apart. :-)

[mahonie]

I don't think you are attributing the decline to a distance problem. But, it sounds like some believe that it's part of the solution. Courses will shorten, rounds will become cheaper, and take less time. My argument against that is that we don't deal with any side effects of the perceived problem, yet we are still losing participants. From where I am, it stands to do more harm than good. Also, I've yet to see any entertainment industry actually pass savings on to a customer. Maybe country

club

memberships? But, that's not the world I live in, so I wouldn't know.

 

Quite fairly stated by you.

 

No, I don't attribute a fall off in golf participation to high-performing equipment. Yes, I do favor a shorter, simpler, faster way of playing golf.

 

I don't know what course you call home, so I can't make any assumptions as to available tees and such. But, at my home course, the white tees play around 6300. The next set of tees is the red that plays 1000 yards less. They haven't had to spend any money to stretch the course, as I suspect many public courses haven't. If anything, they would have to invest money into another set of tees between white and red. The distance issue hasn't been an issue for us, again, assuming the majority of courses are in the same boat. From where I stand, it appears to me that I (and everyone else in a similar situation) am being asked to adjust my game to suit the needs of private courses that want to host high level tournaments. A lot of these courses being private country clubs that I wouldn't be allowed on in the first place. While I appreciate the architecture and history of some of these courses, they exist in a world that I am not familiar.

 

If the PGA Tour folded tomorrow, I would still play golf. If they never held another US Open, I'd still play golf. I have played the game in its current state for almost 20 years now. I'm not interested in going back to a time before that so a few private courses can avoid renovations. If they choose not to renovate their members can enjoy them just as much in their current state whether they host a tournament or not.

 

My point being, there is a large portion of the golf world that exists outside of these prestigious courses and private clubs. I don't know the financial numbers. But, I dare say that if that goes away, even these well established institutions will suffer.

 

My worry is a rollback will do irreversible harm before any perceived benefits trickle down to the masses.

 

I played a top notch private members club today off the yellow tees at 6,400 yards (it plays 6,800 yards off the tips). The course used to hold Euro Tour events in the 1970/80s and is still ranked in the top 100 courses in the UK. I had a reasonably good day with the driver and as a result I didn’t need to hit anything longer than 7-iron for any second shot. (The three par 5s were all driver, 3-wood, chip). Now I would say that I am slightly longer than average at about 250 yards with driver but even so, only playing with half of the clubs in my bag left me feeling a bit short-changed to be honest. It just confirmed to me that golf is only half the game it used to be. I’ll carry on playing for now, but it’s getting to the stage where it’s getting harder to get motivated to go play.

 

[radiman]

Is playing the Pro V1, Chromesoft or what ever really that important to people? Serious question.

 

I can’t remember people being that bothered about not playing a balata.

 

I think it is the fact that the replacements being proposed would be severely lacking in performance compared to what is available now. And still having to drop serious $$ on them. It's like buying a new driver knowing it'll be 20 yards shorter than what you currently have.

 

It shouldn’t be a problem for you with what’s in your bag. But yes it would be the case.

 

I can hit the ball a good ways. But, I don't want to lose a considerable amount of distance. I can still put it out there over 300 pretty consistently (on good contact) I still miss hit my share of drives that don't go straight. I am not interested in hitting the ball 240 going forward. I play appropriate tees.

 

I played in an event last year (a Ryder Cup style event between the two courses in town). They had us play 2 tees up from where I normally do. I did overpower the course from that distance. As in just off the greens on par 4's from clearing the trouble and pitching wedges in on the par 5's. But, that's the beauty of the courses. They have appropriate tees based on distance and skill level. Someone who maxes out at 240 wouldn't have a chance from the black tees at that course.

[radiman]

I don't think you are attributing the decline to a distance problem. But, it sounds like some believe that it's part of the solution. Courses will shorten, rounds will become cheaper, and take less time. My argument against that is that we don't deal with any side effects of the perceived problem, yet we are still losing participants. From where I am, it stands to do more harm than good. Also, I've yet to see any entertainment industry actually pass savings on to a customer. Maybe country

club

memberships? But, that's not the world I live in, so I wouldn't know.

 

Quite fairly stated by you.

 

No, I don't attribute a fall off in golf participation to high-performing equipment. Yes, I do favor a shorter, simpler, faster way of playing golf.

 

I don't know what course you call home, so I can't make any assumptions as to available tees and such. But, at my home course, the white tees play around 6300. The next set of tees is the red that plays 1000 yards less. They haven't had to spend any money to stretch the course, as I suspect many public courses haven't. If anything, they would have to invest money into another set of tees between white and red. The distance issue hasn't been an issue for us, again, assuming the majority of courses are in the same boat. From where I stand, it appears to me that I (and everyone else in a similar situation) am being asked to adjust my game to suit the needs of private courses that want to host high level tournaments. A lot of these courses being private country clubs that I wouldn't be allowed on in the first place. While I appreciate the architecture and history of some of these courses, they exist in a world that I am not familiar.

 

If the PGA Tour folded tomorrow, I would still play golf. If they never held another US Open, I'd still play golf. I have played the game in its current state for almost 20 years now. I'm not interested in going back to a time before that so a few private courses can avoid renovations. If they choose not to renovate their members can enjoy them just as much in their current state whether they host a tournament or not.

 

My point being, there is a large portion of the golf world that exists outside of these prestigious courses and private clubs. I don't know the financial numbers. But, I dare say that if that goes away, even these well established institutions will suffer.

 

My worry is a rollback will do irreversible harm before any perceived benefits trickle down to the masses.

 

I played a top notch private members club today off the yellow tees at 6,400 yards (it plays 6,800 yards off the tips). The course used to hold Euro Tour events in the 1970/80s and is still ranked in the top 100 courses in the UK. I had a reasonably good day with the driver and as a result I didn’t need to hit anything longer than 7-iron for any second shot. (The three par 5s were all driver, 3-wood, chip). Now I would say that I am slightly longer than average at about 250 yards with driver but even so, only playing with half of the clubs in my bag left me feeling a bit short-changed to be honest. It just confirmed to me that golf is only half the game it used to be. I’ll carry on playing for now, but it’s getting to the stage where it’s getting harder to get motivated to go play.

 

You can play the tips next time of you feel you're missing out. How far is the average par 4 there if you don't mind me asking?

 

 

[nix]

Just to keep these points at top of mind

 

1. ball rollback has nothing to do with the scores posted by pros.

2. Ball roll back has more to do with carry than with roll-out

3. Current ball is distance limited, the rollback is merly suggesting changing that distance to one shorter

4. 20% is discussed as a max rollback, not the consensus roll back

5. A rollback in distance would be a net increase in accuracy

[radiman]

Just to keep these points at top of mind

 

1. ball rollback has nothing to do with the scores posted by pros.

2. Ball roll back has more to do with carry than with roll-out

3. Current ball is distance limited, the rollback is merly suggesting changing that distance to one shorter

4. 20% is discussed as a max rollback, not the consensus roll back

5. A rollback in distance would be a net increase in accuracy

 

One point to add. This is being proposed due to the very best players in the world and not due to recreational players.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I don't think you are attributing the decline to a distance problem. But, it sounds like some believe that it's part of the solution. Courses will shorten, rounds will become cheaper, and take less time. My argument against that is that we don't deal with any side effects of the perceived problem, yet we are still losing participants. From where I am, it stands to do more harm than good. Also, I've yet to see any entertainment industry actually pass savings on to a customer. Maybe country

club

memberships? But, that's not the world I live in, so I wouldn't know.

 

Quite fairly stated by you.

 

No, I don't attribute a fall off in golf participation to high-performing equipment. Yes, I do favor a shorter, simpler, faster way of playing golf.

 

I don't know what course you call home, so I can't make any assumptions as to available tees and such. But, at my home course, the white tees play around 6300. The next set of tees is the red that plays 1000 yards less. They haven't had to spend any money to stretch the course, as I suspect many public courses haven't. If anything, they would have to invest money into another set of tees between white and red. The distance issue hasn't been an issue for us, again, assuming the majority of courses are in the same boat. From where I stand, it appears to me that I (and everyone else in a similar situation) am being asked to adjust my game to suit the needs of private courses that want to host high level tournaments. A lot of these courses being private country clubs that I wouldn't be allowed on in the first place. While I appreciate the architecture and history of some of these courses, they exist in a world that I am not familiar.

 

If the PGA Tour folded tomorrow, I would still play golf. If they never held another US Open, I'd still play golf. I have played the game in its current state for almost 20 years now. I'm not interested in going back to a time before that so a few private courses can avoid renovations. If they choose not to renovate their members can enjoy them just as much in their current state whether they host a tournament or not.

 

My point being, there is a large portion of the golf world that exists outside of these prestigious courses and private clubs. I don't know the financial numbers. But, I dare say that if that goes away, even these well established institutions will suffer.

 

My worry is a rollback will do irreversible harm before any perceived benefits trickle down to the masses.

 

I played a top notch private members club today off the yellow tees at 6,400 yards (it plays 6,800 yards off the tips). The course used to hold Euro Tour events in the 1970/80s and is still ranked in the top 100 courses in the UK. I had a reasonably good day with the driver and as a result I didn’t need to hit anything longer than 7-iron for any second shot. (The three par 5s were all driver, 3-wood, chip). Now I would say that I am slightly longer than average at about 250 yards with driver but even so, only playing with half of the clubs in my bag left me feeling a bit short-changed to be honest. It just confirmed to me that golf is only half the game it used to be. I’ll carry on playing for now, but it’s getting to the stage where it’s getting harder to get motivated to go play.

 

 

You are in luck. You can move back a set of tees. If not, there are TONS of screaming deals on old clubs on eBay.

You could get Titleist PT woods, a sweet set of blades, etc. on the cheap. Cheap and challenging. Problem solved.

[nix]

Just to keep these points at top of mind

 

1. ball rollback has nothing to do with the scores posted by pros.

2. Ball roll back has more to do with carry than with roll-out

3. Current ball is distance limited, the rollback is merly suggesting changing that distance to one shorter

4. 20% is discussed as a max rollback, not the consensus roll back

5. A rollback in distance would be a net increase in accuracy

 

One point to add. This is being proposed due to the very best players in the world and not due to recreational players.

 

Good one, and one final one:

 

The ball isn't the source of all the problems, but it is the simplest fix and the least costly and disruptive to both the pros and recreational golfers.

 

Also, bifurcation is an option.

[mahonie]

Is playing the Pro V1, Chromesoft or what ever really that important to people? Serious question.

 

I can't remember people being that bothered about not playing a balata.

 

I have very low clubhead speed, fairly low trajectory and play on extremely firm greens. A ball that spins is perhaps a luxury but a very nice one to enjoy.

 

As a senior, and recreational golfer, I count on a good short game, and work hard at it. I find a premium ball performs much better around the greens than other golf balls.

 

Sean, I may be remembering this through rose-tinted glasses, but the Tour balata was so much more controllable around the greens than even the latest crop of premium balls. My usual chip shot used to be a 55* sand wedge pitched straight at the hole, and if you nipped it properly, it would bounce once and stop. I’m talking about chip shots of 30 feet or so, not full wedges from 50 yards, which would back up significantly more., Of course, the ball was dead, or at least a bit smiley, if you caught it thin ;-)