Rolling back the ball

[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 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.

 

So the answer from both of you is yes. Fair enough.

[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.

 

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.

 

You say problem. Note not everyone sees it as such.

[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.

 

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.

 

20% won’t happen. No one alive has played a ball 20% less than what we have now. Other than a range or practice ball.

[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 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.

 

So the answer from both of you is yes. Fair enough.

 

You make it sound as if it's an arbitrary change and rather meaningless in nature. As if we are being ridiculous for not jumping at the chance. This would be the biggest change in equipment regulations, possibly, ever.

[nix]

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.

 

So the answer from both of you is yes. Fair enough.

 

You make it sound as if it's an arbitrary change and rather meaningless in nature. As if we are being ridiculous for not jumping at the chance. This would be the biggest change in equipment regulations, possibly, ever.

 

Well, if it just goes back to a previous standard it would at BEST be equal to the change which brought us to this point, right?

[Sean2]

Roll back is a solution that doesn't have a problem.

[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.

 

20% won’t happen. No one alive has played a ball 20% less than what we have now. Other than a range or practice ball.

that is what the GOAT is pushing. It's been the only number thrown out by anyone who is at all involved in the process.

 

I still want to know what the target carry number would be. There has to be a goal behind it. What would you like to see be the tour driver carry average be.

[radiman]

 

 

Well, if it just goes back to a previous standard it would at BEST be equal to the change which brought us to this point, right?

 

That's a standard I've never played with. I'm 36, started playing semi-seriously around age 16. Didn't get fully immersed until age 18-19. Balatas were well out of the picture when I began playing. There's entire generations that haven't played with those distances.

[nix]

Roll back is a solution that doesn't have a problem.

 

Do you support a distance limited ball?

[15th Club]

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.

 

I realize all of that. You are entirely correct.

 

Of course, I never suggested anything else about what you have just pointed out. Still, it looks like they will move the #5 tee. One of the few remaining tees that they can move.

 

And the deal with ACC has nothing to do with parking, or a practice area, or a media center, or hospitality, or spectator movement. It's all about the fact that #13 -- one of the greatest holes in golf -- was being overwhelmed by the technological advances with golf balls.

[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.

 

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?

 

I doesn’t work that way in the UK. Generally, you have tees for daily play (yellow - men) and tees for competitions (usually white). Ladies play off red tees and that is it. The course today did have a set of Blue tees which are for Elite competitions only.

 

The average for the par 4s is 370 yards with 426 yards being the longest and 300 yards the shortest...so very much on the short side by today’s standards.

 

I just checked and the last pro tournament was actually held in 1969 but it did hold the British Amateur in 2010 which was won by Tommy Fleetwood.

[radiman]

I doesn’t work that way in the UK. Generally, you have tees for daily play (yellow - men) and tees for competitions (usually white). Ladies play off red tees and that is it. The course today did have a set of Blue tees which are for Elite competitions only.

 

The average for the par 4s is 370 yards with 426 yards being the longest and 300 yards the shortest...so very much on the short side by today’s standards.

 

I just checked and the last pro tournament was actually held in 1969 but it did hold the British Amateur in 2010 which was won by Tommy Fleetwood.

 

That seems like a silly rule that should change. Is it for pace of play management?

[Bye]

Radiman,

 

I think you are forgetting that there was a fairly significant change 20 odd years ago, just the other way. You may not have experienced it but some of us did. I’m 38, first played the course I am a member at as a 14 year old with a balata and a persimmon driver. I’ve played there one way or another through all of the changes and have seen first hand how the equipment has affected how the course plays. If you played there from the tips, none of the hazards would be in play from the tee.

 

The thread is 50 odd pages so I guess some of have not read every post. I think I have been fairly clear, my preference would be a 10% roll back for the tour style ball. Taking things back to 1996 distances. I have also said that if the only way it can be done is for everyone, all styles of ball then it shouldn’t happen. 20% is madness, and I have been very clear about that.

 

I don’t think that I am right and you are wrong, it’s just my point of view.

[deadsolid...shank]

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.

I read on wrx that every tee shot gets 50 yards. Rory led the tour last year and averaged 12.1 yards of roll. Hagy averaged 8.3.

 

We've discussed this before (and probably will again), but I don't care what statistics they trot out, we've all seen the shots bounding down the fairways. And we see it a lot. I think you're the only person I've seen on here who contests that.

 

I think even you would agree Shilgy that you've seen a guy hit a drive that rolls at least 30 yards on occasion. If he does that once a round, how many drives must they be hitting that are getting zero roll out at all. And that is something we rarely see.

 

Makes me think they're including irons hit off the tee into those averages.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Radiman,

 

I think you are forgetting that there was a fairly significant change 20 odd years ago, just the other way. You may not have experienced it but some of us did. I’m 38, first played the course I am a member at as a 14 year old with a balata and a persimmon driver. I’ve played there one way or another through all of the changes and have seen first hand how the equipment has affected how the course plays. If you played there from the tips, none of the hazards would be in play from the tee.

 

The thread is 50 odd pages so I guess some of have not read every post. I think I have been fairly clear, my preference would be a 10% roll back for the tour style ball. Taking things back to 1996 distances. I have also said that if the only way it can be done is for everyone, all styles of ball then it shouldn’t happen. 20% is madness, and I have been very clear about that.

 

I don’t think that I am right and you are wrong, it’s just my point of view.

 

Roll back the courses to 1996 distances too, right?

[Bye]

Radiman,

 

I think you are forgetting that there was a fairly significant change 20 odd years ago, just the other way. You may not have experienced it but some of us did. I’m 38, first played the course I am a member at as a 14 year old with a balata and a persimmon driver. I’ve played there one way or another through all of the changes and have seen first hand how the equipment has affected how the course plays. If you played there from the tips, none of the hazards would be in play from the tee.

 

The thread is 50 odd pages so I guess some of have not read every post. I think I have been fairly clear, my preference would be a 10% roll back for the tour style ball. Taking things back to 1996 distances. I have also said that if the only way it can be done is for everyone, all styles of ball then it shouldn’t happen. 20% is madness, and I have been very clear about that.

 

I don’t think that I am right and you are wrong, it’s just my point of view.

 

Roll back the courses to 1996 distances too, right?

 

No need to.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

As stated earlier, there is no space in the UK for multiple teeing grounds. I have clubs from the early 1970s which are lots of fun to play and they come out regularly. However, in money matches you still need to compete. As it happened today, I played to +1...the winner was -9.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Radiman,

 

I think you are forgetting that there was a fairly significant change 20 odd years ago, just the other way. You may not have experienced it but some of us did. I’m 38, first played the course I am a member at as a 14 year old with a balata and a persimmon driver. I’ve played there one way or another through all of the changes and have seen first hand how the equipment has affected how the course plays. If you played there from the tips, none of the hazards would be in play from the tee.

 

The thread is 50 odd pages so I guess some of have not read every post. I think I have been fairly clear, my preference would be a 10% roll back for the tour style ball. Taking things back to 1996 distances. I have also said that if the only way it can be done is for everyone, all styles of ball then it shouldn’t happen. 20% is madness, and I have been very clear about that.

 

I don’t think that I am right and you are wrong, it’s just my point of view.

 

Roll back the courses to 1996 distances too, right?

 

No need to.

 

K. So, 2018 layouts with 1996 distances.

It's totally fair if that's what you support, I just wanted to make sure.

[clevited]

Radiman,

 

I think you are forgetting that there was a fairly significant change 20 odd years ago, just the other way. You may not have experienced it but some of us did. I’m 38, first played the course I am a member at as a 14 year old with a balata and a persimmon driver. I’ve played there one way or another through all of the changes and have seen first hand how the equipment has affected how the course plays. If you played there from the tips, none of the hazards would be in play from the tee.

 

The thread is 50 odd pages so I guess some of have not read every post. I think I have been fairly clear, my preference would be a 10% roll back for the tour style ball. Taking things back to 1996 distances. I have also said that if the only way it can be done is for everyone, all styles of ball then it shouldn’t happen. 20% is madness, and I have been very clear about that.

 

I don’t think that I am right and you are wrong, it’s just my point of view.

 

I can't help but jump in a reiterate a point I made a while back that seems to get overlooked a lot.

 

10% roll back would not fix the perceived problem. I believe if you do the math, there are plenty of players that can still elevate their game to undo what that nerf would do. Right now, many of the fastest swinging pros hold back on many holes. There simply isn't a landing spot for their 100% swing. You reduce 10%, they will up there swings to 100% more often, and the guys that really have to hold back now, might become your next DJs, and Tiger Wood's.

 

I would guess a realistic top end, controllable swing speed is nearer to 135-138 mph with a 44-45 inch club. That is 200-205 mph ball speed (1.48 sf). Looking at trajectory optimizer, those speeds can top out at around ~340-350 yd carries. So nerf that by 10% you get 306-315 yd carries. With the roll out that can be had, does this solve the percieved problem? I don't think it does. You nerf the ball, the even faster guys rise to the top in the rankings. This has a likely limit, but right now, courses limit when and how often a pro can really go after one and avoid trouble. USGA would have to examine this closely and I would imagine if they really wanted to put things back to the "good ol days", you would need to be in that 20-25% region of nerf.

 

Point is, the nerf would have to be so severe to solve the perceived problem, that it would be ill advised and a no go just based on that. You would basically allow some of these LD competition capable guys unhitch the plow to overcome the nerf and become the new upper echelon of pro golfers.

 

Edit: Ok, now seriously I have come full circle with repeating myself completely. Hopefully that point sticks for a bit this time. I think its very valid, but that is just my thinking about it.

[radiman]

Radiman,

 

I think you are forgetting that there was a fairly significant change 20 odd years ago, just the other way. You may not have experienced it but some of us did. I’m 38, first played the course I am a member at as a 14 year old with a balata and a persimmon driver. I’ve played there one way or another through all of the changes and have seen first hand how the equipment has affected how the course plays. If you played there from the tips, none of the hazards would be in play from the tee.

 

The thread is 50 odd pages so I guess some of have not read every post. I think I have been fairly clear, my preference would be a 10% roll back for the tour style ball. Taking things back to 1996 distances. I have also said that if the only way it can be done is for everyone, all styles of ball then it shouldn’t happen. 20% is madness, and I have been very clear about that.

 

I don’t think that I am right and you are wrong, it’s just my point of view.

 

I appreciate everyone's viewpoint. And, I understand where both sides come from. Golf is a hard game. Keeping the challenge alive while not driving away participants is a hard formula to balance. They seriously would have had no issues if they would have addressed this in some regard 15 years ago.

 

I can only represent the issue from my perspective. Since, after all, I have no other real experience with the game from pre 1995. I played some, but it was a small muni 9 hole course. Started out with persimmon and Top Flights (or whatever else I could find). Got dropped off in the morning and picked up right before dinner time.

 

I think turning the clock back 20 years is drastic. But, I can see how it would appeal to others.

 

Question on your comments about the tips. Did they add tee boxes? That's what I got out of the comment. Now the tees are so far back, the hazards are no longer hazards?

[radiman]

As stated earlier, there is no space in the UK for multiple teeing grounds. I have clubs from the early 1970s which are lots of fun to play and they come out regularly. However, in money matches you still need to compete. As it happened today, I played to +1...the winner was -9.

 

I'm still curious why they limit which tees you can play. Is that typical across all courses, or just private?

 

-9 is impressive at any length course.

[mahonie]

I doesn’t work that way in the UK. Generally, you have tees for daily play (yellow - men) and tees for competitions (usually white). Ladies play off red tees and that is it. The course today did have a set of Blue tees which are for Elite competitions only.

 

The average for the par 4s is 370 yards with 426 yards being the longest and 300 yards the shortest...so very much on the short side by today’s standards.

 

I just checked and the last pro tournament was actually held in 1969 but it did hold the British Amateur in 2010 which was won by Tommy Fleetwood.

 

That seems like a silly rule that should change. Is it for pace of play management?

 

There is no space to build multiple teeing grounds into hardly any golf course in the UK. Prime development land can start at £1m/acre...just think how expensive that gets before you even start the building work. I am guessing that most courses in the UK were built before 1950 and other things have developed around them which means they cannot expand. My home course which is 6100 off the tips looked at trying to add 300 yards to its length a few years back. The numbers just didn’t stack up.

[Bye]

Radiman,

 

I think you are forgetting that there was a fairly significant change 20 odd years ago, just the other way. You may not have experienced it but some of us did. I’m 38, first played the course I am a member at as a 14 year old with a balata and a persimmon driver. I’ve played there one way or another through all of the changes and have seen first hand how the equipment has affected how the course plays. If you played there from the tips, none of the hazards would be in play from the tee.

 

The thread is 50 odd pages so I guess some of have not read every post. I think I have been fairly clear, my preference would be a 10% roll back for the tour style ball. Taking things back to 1996 distances. I have also said that if the only way it can be done is for everyone, all styles of ball then it shouldn’t happen. 20% is madness, and I have been very clear about that.

 

I don’t think that I am right and you are wrong, it’s just my point of view.

 

I appreciate everyone's viewpoint. And, I understand where both sides come from. Golf is a hard game. Keeping the challenge alive while not driving away participants is a hard formula to balance. They seriously would have had no issues if they would have addressed this in some regard 15 years ago.

 

I can only represent the issue from my perspective. Since, after all, I have no other real experience with the game from pre 1995. I played some, but it was a small muni 9 hole course. Started out with persimmon and Top Flights (or whatever else I could find). Got dropped off in the morning and picked up right before dinner time.

 

I think turning the clock back 20 years is drastic. But, I can see how it would appeal to others.

 

Question on your comments about the tips. Did they add tee boxes? That's what I got out of the comment. Now the tees are so far back, the hazards are no longer hazards?

 

We are all looking at it from our own perspectives, and that’s all we can do. I’m just here to chat.

 

I remember those days, 54 holes every day during the summer, I’m knackered after 18 now.

 

The course is nearly 100 years old, a couple of tees have been added. No wind (which is unusual) from the tips all of the hazards from the tee can be carried if you can fly it 240-250.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[radiman]

I doesn’t work that way in the UK. Generally, you have tees for daily play (yellow - men) and tees for competitions (usually white). Ladies play off red tees and that is it. The course today did have a set of Blue tees which are for Elite competitions only.

 

The average for the par 4s is 370 yards with 426 yards being the longest and 300 yards the shortest...so very much on the short side by today’s standards.

 

I just checked and the last pro tournament was actually held in 1969 but it did hold the British Amateur in 2010 which was won by Tommy Fleetwood.

 

That seems like a silly rule that should change. Is it for pace of play management?

 

There is no space to build multiple teeing grounds into hardly any golf course in the UK. Prime development land can start at £1m/acre...just think how expensive that gets before you even start the building work. I am guessing that most courses in the UK were built before 1950 and other things have developed around them which means they cannot expand. My home course which is 6100 off the tips looked at trying to add 300 yards to its length a few years back. The numbers just didn’t stack up.

 

But at courses with multiple tees, I'm surprised you don't have the option to use a longer set.

 

Are most courses in urban areas? I don't have three slightest idea how the landscape shakes out over there. Someday I hope to treck over for a bucket list golf trip.

[coachemup]

Why oh why did I even decide to post anything on this topic???

 

I talked to a friend of mine who develops real estate properties with golf courses. It seems one of the issues about future projects is cost. This relates to the total cost of the land. Basically, if he buys 300 acres of land and needs 200 acres for homes, etc... it only allows him 100 acres to build a nice golf course. Depending on the layout of the land and so forth, the most yardage he may be allowed for the golf course could only be 6500 yards from the tips. No matter how nice the homes may be, how exclusive the club may be, alot of golfing men will scoff at a golf course only being 6500 yards from the tips. He said this is why so many of the older properties have lost their luster over the years (many older members dying off and no new members because of the course length) and some are closing their doors.

 

I may be one of the few, but I don't care how long a course is as long as it remains in great shape for 99% of the year.

 

Carry on......

[radiman]

Radiman,

 

I think you are forgetting that there was a fairly significant change 20 odd years ago, just the other way. You may not have experienced it but some of us did. I’m 38, first played the course I am a member at as a 14 year old with a balata and a persimmon driver. I’ve played there one way or another through all of the changes and have seen first hand how the equipment has affected how the course plays. If you played there from the tips, none of the hazards would be in play from the tee.

 

The thread is 50 odd pages so I guess some of have not read every post. I think I have been fairly clear, my preference would be a 10% roll back for the tour style ball. Taking things back to 1996 distances. I have also said that if the only way it can be done is for everyone, all styles of ball then it shouldn’t happen. 20% is madness, and I have been very clear about that.

 

I don’t think that I am right and you are wrong, it’s just my point of view.

 

I appreciate everyone's viewpoint. And, I understand where both sides come from. Golf is a hard game. Keeping the challenge alive while not driving away participants is a hard formula to balance. They seriously would have had no issues if they would have addressed this in some regard 15 years ago.

 

I can only represent the issue from my perspective. Since, after all, I have no other real experience with the game from pre 1995. I played some, but it was a small muni 9 hole course. Started out with persimmon and Top Flights (or whatever else I could find). Got dropped off in the morning and picked up right before dinner time.

 

I think turning the clock back 20 years is drastic. But, I can see how it would appeal to others.

 

Question on your comments about the tips. Did they add tee boxes? That's what I got out of the comment. Now the tees are so far back, the hazards are no longer hazards?

 

We are all looking at it from our own perspectives, and that’s all we can do. I’m just here to chat.

 

I remember those days, 54 holes every day during the summer, I’m knackered after 18 now.

 

The course is nearly 100 years old, a couple of tees have been added. No wind (which is unusual) from the tips all of the hazards from the tee can be carried if you can fly it 240-250.

 

You're telling me. I took a week off last year with every intention of playing 36 at least 3 out of the 5 days. I think I made it the first day. Played 18 the second. Got rained out the third. And ended up playing 18 holes the fourth. By Friday I decided to sleep in and couldn't motivate myself to play.

[Bye]

Radiman,

 

I think you are forgetting that there was a fairly significant change 20 odd years ago, just the other way. You may not have experienced it but some of us did. I’m 38, first played the course I am a member at as a 14 year old with a balata and a persimmon driver. I’ve played there one way or another through all of the changes and have seen first hand how the equipment has affected how the course plays. If you played there from the tips, none of the hazards would be in play from the tee.

 

The thread is 50 odd pages so I guess some of have not read every post. I think I have been fairly clear, my preference would be a 10% roll back for the tour style ball. Taking things back to 1996 distances. I have also said that if the only way it can be done is for everyone, all styles of ball then it shouldn’t happen. 20% is madness, and I have been very clear about that.

 

I don’t think that I am right and you are wrong, it’s just my point of view.

 

I can't help but jump in a reiterate a point I made a while back that seems to get overlooked a lot.

 

10% roll back would not fix the perceived problem. I believe if you do the math, there are plenty of players that can still elevate their game to undo what that nerf would do. Right now, many of the fastest swinging pros hold back on many holes. There simply isn't a landing spot for their 100% swing. You reduce 10%, they will up there swings to 100% more often, and the guys that really have to hold back now, might become your next DJs, and Tiger Wood's.

 

I would guess a realistic top end, controllable swing speed is nearer to 135-138 mph with a 44-45 inch club. That is 200-205 mph ball speed (1.48 sf). Looking at trajectory optimizer, those speeds can top out at around ~340-350 yd carries. So nerf that by 10% you get 306-315 yd carries. With the roll out that can be had, does this solve the percieved problem? I don't think it does. You nerf the ball, the even faster guys rise to the top in the rankings. This has a likely limit, but right now, courses limit when and how often a pro can really go after one and avoid trouble. USGA would have to examine this closely and I would imagine if they really wanted to put things back to the "good ol days", you would need to be in that 20-25% region of nerf.

 

Point is, the nerf would have to be so severe to solve the perceived problem, that it would be ill advised and a no go just based on that. You would basically allow some of these LD competition capable guys unhitch the plow to overcome the nerf and become the new upper echelon of pro golfers.

 

Edit: Ok, now seriously I have come full circle with repeating myself completely. Hopefully that point sticks for a bit this time. I think its very valid, but that is just my thinking about it.

 

I would encourage you to go back a few pages, I am under no illusion that there isn’t more to come distance wise.

 

It may come to the point in a few years where bifurcation is the only option. But not yet.

[rangersgoalie]

It is an interesting thing that for ever, there was a callling out for firmer/faster conditions

Guys in architecture like shackelford, coore and Crenshaw, Hanse talking about width for more angles and strategy being hugely important

 

So we got wider, firmer, and faster and guys hit it even further?? Erin hills a good example without that crazy firm condition

 

Firm/fast means shorter. And I like it, but cmon. Tiger proof courses because he was obliterating them and wonder how great players developed more speed to combat it? The whole thing reads like a government plan in California

[rangersgoalie]

Sorry I don’t have the eyes to type on my phone

[clevited]

Radiman,

 

I think you are forgetting that there was a fairly significant change 20 odd years ago, just the other way. You may not have experienced it but some of us did. I’m 38, first played the course I am a member at as a 14 year old with a balata and a persimmon driver. I’ve played there one way or another through all of the changes and have seen first hand how the equipment has affected how the course plays. If you played there from the tips, none of the hazards would be in play from the tee.

 

The thread is 50 odd pages so I guess some of have not read every post. I think I have been fairly clear, my preference would be a 10% roll back for the tour style ball. Taking things back to 1996 distances. I have also said that if the only way it can be done is for everyone, all styles of ball then it shouldn’t happen. 20% is madness, and I have been very clear about that.

 

I don’t think that I am right and you are wrong, it’s just my point of view.

 

I can't help but jump in a reiterate a point I made a while back that seems to get overlooked a lot.

 

10% roll back would not fix the perceived problem. I believe if you do the math, there are plenty of players that can still elevate their game to undo what that nerf would do. Right now, many of the fastest swinging pros hold back on many holes. There simply isn't a landing spot for their 100% swing. You reduce 10%, they will up there swings to 100% more often, and the guys that really have to hold back now, might become your next DJs, and Tiger Wood's.

 

I would guess a realistic top end, controllable swing speed is nearer to 135-138 mph with a 44-45 inch club. That is 200-205 mph ball speed (1.48 sf). Looking at trajectory optimizer, those speeds can top out at around ~340-350 yd carries. So nerf that by 10% you get 306-315 yd carries. With the roll out that can be had, does this solve the percieved problem? I don't think it does. You nerf the ball, the even faster guys rise to the top in the rankings. This has a likely limit, but right now, courses limit when and how often a pro can really go after one and avoid trouble. USGA would have to examine this closely and I would imagine if they really wanted to put things back to the "good ol days", you would need to be in that 20-25% region of nerf.

 

Point is, the nerf would have to be so severe to solve the perceived problem, that it would be ill advised and a no go just based on that. You would basically allow some of these LD competition capable guys unhitch the plow to overcome the nerf and become the new upper echelon of pro golfers.

 

Edit: Ok, now seriously I have come full circle with repeating myself completely. Hopefully that point sticks for a bit this time. I think its very valid, but that is just my thinking about it.

 

I would encourage you to go back a few pages, I am under no illusion that there isn’t more to come distance wise.

 

It may come to the point in a few years where bifurcation is the only option. But not yet.

 

I am not sure you quite get me. I am saying right now, courses naturally limit distance. You nerf the ball, now or ever, faster pro's will rise to the top and it would have to be a huge nerf to put things back to how they were pre technological advancements. I don't believe highest distance numbers are going to grow much in the coming years, its plateauing now. I do believe the average distance will continue to rise. For those that don't know my obvious stance, I am 100% against rollback for way more than just this reason.