Rolling back the ball

[OrangeGravy]

the "carry distance" stat is misleading because it's not measuring the same drives as the "driving distance" stat. A perfect example is JB who averaged 304.4 yards of carry in 2009 out of 47 attempts while his driving distance was 304.6 out of 148 attempts. That was an outlier of course, but it proves how the stats can be misleading if you do not take all the information into account.

 

That considered, the average roll out on tour is about 20 yards on the measured holes, but we've also seen balls stop on a dime or roll out 100 yards on a down slope. We've already seen Tiger get -6 yards of roll with a driver and 36 yards of roll with a downhill 3-wood this week.

 

It really is crazy how they measure these things. Unless they're going to measure this stuff properly it's all pointless. And if these are the stats they're using in the reports just released, it really is nothing but a dog and pony show. The true numbers could be significantly different either way.

 

The stat that gets me from the way they measure it is that for strokes gained from the tee, a drive that ends up in the first cut of rough is classed as being in the fairway!! It just skews all those reports that say that more strokes are gained because of distance rather than accuracy.

 

I've never really dug into any of the SG stats, but the fact they use 2 measured holes per round using any club in the bag to measure driving distance tells me that they aren't interested in accurate stats. I have to think it would be logistically possible to measure all driving holes and only measure drives using driver for the tour? If not, don't do it all. No stats are better than bad ones

[OrangeGravy]

Man, it might be the liquor talking at almost 2 am, but I love WRX. 52 pages of this. What would I do without you?

 

That's the best time to log on! I'm recovering from broken bone surgery and the pain killers have my schedule completely flipped 180, so I"m on here from the hours of 10pm-8am Pacific

[Ziggystz]

How much money would be lost by forcing all players to use same ball? Or for that matter clubs. Manufacturers provide big money to sport and reap rewards when pros win using their new gimmicky equipment.

[buckeyefl]

To thug the bunny:

 

I am now just asking you: are the distance gains we've seen since 2000 good for the game of golf? I'll tell you my view; I think that they have been bad. I think that the whole direction of distance, with elite players getting lots of benefit out of the Pro V era, and recreational golfers seeing far less gain, has been bad. Answer however you'd like. But this is not a strawman argument; this goes directly to the point at issue.

 

You say that a "distance rollback using just the ball" would be bad. Do you have something else in mind for any rollback? Why not "just the ball"? We aren't doing a fitness rollback; not any launch monitor rollback. I don't see any golf club rollback, but seriously if you've got a proposal, I am all ears. I've made the case that firm and fast golf courses are the best, so if you are going to go there we will just have to agree to disagree. I've tried strenuously to make the very pointed case that the golf ball is the one easiest thing, by far, to roll back. This again is not a strawman argument; it goes directly to the point at issue.

 

You sort of repeat yourself, claiming that "Again, people here are simply pointing out that there are many other factors besides the ball that have added to distances gains." To which I have already said, pretty much all other factors are impossible to re-regulate, or would be undesirable changes. Changing the golf courses are undesirable changes. Limiting "athleticism" is an absurdity. Rolling back golf clubs is, I am sorry to say, a non-starter. But again if you have an idea for a club rollback, by all means tell me about it.

 

I am promising you; assuring you; and I will bet you; if nothing is done about the golf ball, elite-level distances will go up, and up and up. And in so doing, we will see the USGA and the R&A stuck between that reality and their 2002 Statement of Principles, in which they said that any further increases would be undesirable.

 

None of these are strawman arguments.

 

Well none of them except every one. Keep on chugging Little Engine.

[Roadking2003]

The stat that gets me from the way they measure it is that for strokes gained from the tee, a drive that ends up in the first cut of rough is classed as being in the fairway!! It just skews all those reports that say that more strokes are gained because of distance rather than accuracy.

 

Wouldn't the first cut also skew the stats if it were included in the full rough stats? There is virtually no penalty for being in the first cut.

[Roadking2003]

the "carry distance" stat is misleading because it's not measuring the same drives as the "driving distance" stat. A perfect example is JB who averaged 304.4 yards of carry in 2009 out of 47 attempts while his driving distance was 304.6 out of 148 attempts. That was an outlier of course, but it proves how the stats can be misleading if you do not take all the information into account.

 

That considered, the average roll out on tour is about 20 yards on the measured holes, but we've also seen balls stop on a dime or roll out 100 yards on a down slope. We've already seen Tiger get -6 yards of roll with a driver and 36 yards of roll with a downhill 3-wood this week.

 

It really is crazy how they measure these things. Unless they're going to measure this stuff properly it's all pointless. And if these are the stats they're using in the reports just released, it really is nothing but a dog and pony show. The true numbers could be significantly different either way.

 

The stat that gets me from the way they measure it is that for strokes gained from the tee, a drive that ends up in the first cut of rough is classed as being in the fairway!! It just skews all those reports that say that more strokes are gained because of distance rather than accuracy.

 

I've never really dug into any of the SG stats, but the fact they use 2 measured holes per round using any club in the bag to measure driving distance tells me that they aren't interested in accurate stats. I have to think it would be logistically possible to measure all driving holes and only measure drives using driver for the tour? If not, don't do it all. No stats are better than bad ones

 

The SG stats use all shots and have for 12 years. Millions of shots.

[North Butte]

The stat that gets me from the way they measure it is that for strokes gained from the tee, a drive that ends up in the first cut of rough is classed as being in the fairway!! It just skews all those reports that say that more strokes are gained because of distance rather than accuracy.

 

Wouldn't the first cut also skew the stats if it were included in the full rough stats? There is virtually no penalty for being in the first cut.

 

I suspect that on a tournament by tournament basis they decide what “cuts” count as fairway or rough. It depends on the particular way each tournament’s course setup is done. Or so it seems to me.

[Thetid]

5% rollback is all they need.

 

300 carry becomes 285. 150 yard carry becomes 143.

 

For the biggest hitters it knocks 25 yards carry off 2 clubs into a par 5, and doesn't impact shorter amateurs very much.

[buckeyefl]

5% rollback is all they need.

 

300 carry becomes 285. 150 yard carry becomes 143.

 

For the biggest hitters it knocks 25 yards carry off 2 clubs into a par 5, and doesn't impact shorter amateurs very much.

 

There is no "need". Its an agenda based on false numbers and looking at the most elite players in the world. Silly premise. In your scenario the big hitters still reach but the shorter hitters can not not matter what where as now they may have a chance.

[gvogel]

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.

 

Given that is the case, I would think that there would be a very positive sentiment by the better players in the UK for a second ball, perhaps a ball 12% reduced in distance, so that historic courses could be played as designed. This ball would not be played by everyone, but would be played by better players at short courses.

[gvogel]

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?

 

I would say, "yes."

[buckeyefl]

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.

 

Given that is the case, I would think that there would be a very positive sentiment by the better players in the UK for a second ball, perhaps a ball 12% reduced in distance, so that historic courses could be played as designed. This ball would not be played by everyone, but would be played by better players at short courses.

 

There is nothing stopping them from playing one of the current balls with different characteristics and playing traditional lofted clubs. I do this sometimes on some of the short 9 hole courses.

[tnord]

lofts for better player clubs have only changed about 2deg in the past 30-40 years. it's not nothing, but the totally messed up "game improvement" clubs that have silly specs aren't the ones used by better players.

[mahonie]

The stat that gets me from the way they measure it is that for strokes gained from the tee, a drive that ends up in the first cut of rough is classed as being in the fairway!! It just skews all those reports that say that more strokes are gained because of distance rather than accuracy.

 

Wouldn't the first cut also skew the stats if it were included in the full rough stats? There is virtually no penalty for being in the first cut.

 

I suspect that on a tournament by tournament basis they decide what “cuts” count as fairway or rough. It depends on the particular way each tournament’s course setup is done. Or so it seems to me.

 

According to the PGA Tour website, only ‘primary’ rough is classified as rough. ‘Fairway’ also includes the first cut of intermediate rough.

 

The stats are skewed one way or another. I think we need the stats to tell us the difference in proximity to the hole when hitting from the first cut against hitting from the fairway...I can’t believe they would be exactly the same. If they are why have a first cut anyway and just make the fairways 100 yards wide?

[North Butte]

The stat that gets me from the way they measure it is that for strokes gained from the tee, a drive that ends up in the first cut of rough is classed as being in the fairway!! It just skews all those reports that say that more strokes are gained because of distance rather than accuracy.

 

Wouldn't the first cut also skew the stats if it were included in the full rough stats? There is virtually no penalty for being in the first cut.

 

I suspect that on a tournament by tournament basis they decide what “cuts” count as fairway or rough. It depends on the particular way each tournament’s course setup is done. Or so it seems to me.

 

According to the PGA Tour website, only ‘primary’ rough is classified as rough. ‘Fairway’ also includes the first cut of intermediate rough.

 

The stats are skewed one way or another. I think we need the stats to tell us the difference in proximity to the hole when hitting from the first cut against hitting from the fairway...I can’t believe they would be exactly the same. If they are why have a first cut anyway and just make the fairways 100 yards wide?

 

In many setups the first cut is there to help rolling balls from making it to the deeper rough. Especially when fairways are really fast and the primary rough is penal, having a couple yards of intermediate helps scoring a lot.

[mahonie]

The stat that gets me from the way they measure it is that for strokes gained from the tee, a drive that ends up in the first cut of rough is classed as being in the fairway!! It just skews all those reports that say that more strokes are gained because of distance rather than accuracy.

 

Wouldn't the first cut also skew the stats if it were included in the full rough stats? There is virtually no penalty for being in the first cut.

 

I suspect that on a tournament by tournament basis they decide what “cuts” count as fairway or rough. It depends on the particular way each tournament’s course setup is done. Or so it seems to me.

 

According to the PGA Tour website, only ‘primary’ rough is classified as rough. ‘Fairway’ also includes the first cut of intermediate rough.

 

The stats are skewed one way or another. I think we need the stats to tell us the difference in proximity to the hole when hitting from the first cut against hitting from the fairway...I can’t believe they would be exactly the same. If they are why have a first cut anyway and just make the fairways 100 yards wide?

 

In many setups the first cut is there to help rolling balls from making it to the deeper rough. Especially when fairways are really fast and the primary rough is penal, having a couple yards of intermediate helps scoring a lot.

 

...and takes away the skill of keeping the ball in play.

[North Butte]

Wouldn't the first cut also skew the stats if it were included in the full rough stats? There is virtually no penalty for being in the first cut.

 

I suspect that on a tournament by tournament basis they decide what “cuts” count as fairway or rough. It depends on the particular way each tournament’s course setup is done. Or so it seems to me.

 

According to the PGA Tour website, only ‘primary’ rough is classified as rough. ‘Fairway’ also includes the first cut of intermediate rough.

 

The stats are skewed one way or another. I think we need the stats to tell us the difference in proximity to the hole when hitting from the first cut against hitting from the fairway...I can’t believe they would be exactly the same. If they are why have a first cut anyway and just make the fairways 100 yards wide?

 

In many setups the first cut is there to help rolling balls from making it to the deeper rough. Especially when fairways are really fast and the primary rough is penal, having a couple yards of intermediate helps scoring a lot.

 

...and takes away the skill of keeping the ball in play.

 

Well, not every tournament needs 25 yard wide fairways bordered directly by ankle deep rough. You may find it entertaining but even USGA has backed off from that model in their US Open setups. A lot of viewers seem to find it stultifying.

[15th Club]

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.

 

It kind of bothers me a little. I welcomed the more durable cover, but I definitely prefer the balata's other characteristics even today. It just fits my swing game better for some reason.

 

As I said earlier, the advent of the ProV only netted the tour avg drive 6 yds in 2001. I would not care about losing 5 or so yds. What most of us don't want is -20% or even -10% as is being proposed by Jack. I also used to love playing balatas and remember hitting 270 yd drives with my Burner Bubble, but that was when I was in my 30s..

 

I really don't want to agree with much of anything that you've written*, but for the sake of argument only let's dream up some numbers the way that you just did, and say that in the last 20 years, "The Golf Ball" accounts for 6 yards of distance increase, and "Steel head" drivers account for 6 yards of distance increase, and "460cc Titanium head" drivers account for 6 yards, and "Composite shafts" account for 6 yards. (If you want, you can add in "Athleticism" and "Agronomy"; all that you have to do is to account for the definite 25 to 30 yards (maybe more) of increase in the last two decades.

 

So then, with that understanding, what gets rolled back? Yes, I understand one position on that is, "Nothing! Nothing gets rolled back!", but that is a non-starter with me and (more importantly than me) the USGA. The USGA is not going to -- it should not -- accept any more distance increases, per the 2002 Statement of Principles. THE BALL IS THE EASIEST, MOST OBVIOUS THING TO ROLL BACK.

 

*And I don't agree with your '6 yards' number. I don't agree that the overall, cumulative effect of the Pro V era is just 6 yards. I think that the Pro v has changed more than just its own parameter; I think it has changed how players swing, how they build their clubs, how drives are shaped, how they spin; everything. So no, I don't agree with '6 yards.' But I accepted it for the sake of argument.

[mahonie]

 

Well, not every tournament needs 25 yard wide fairways bordered directly by ankle deep rough. You may find it entertaining but even USGA has backed off from that model in their US Open setups. A lot of viewers seem to find it stultifying.

 

I find it fascinating that you seem to want to take skill totally out of the game and take everything down to a level to suit the lowest common denominator...absolutely fascinating. I’m guessing you’re first in the queue for self-driving cars, no?

[buckeyefl]

And like you the USGAs mindset is built around emotion and opinion while repeatedly skipping over the obvious and facts. How many years has it been since the ProV1 was introduced? Suddenly its the ball. As usual, just as the USGA did with its failure in testing the seaming issue with the original ProV, they are late to the game and dropping the ball. Might as well add in the long putter and groove rule you contend, before being called out, doesn't hurt the average golfer. Maybe the USGA should come down from it's phallus shaped ivery tower and take a look at real golf instead of the elite of the elite before making these ridiculous decisions.

 

I wonder when Mike Davis next feeling based decision will come along and give us another great set up like Chambers Bay. Again a solution looking for a problem.

[North Butte]

 

Well, not every tournament needs 25 yard wide fairways bordered directly by ankle deep rough. You may find it entertaining but even USGA has backed off from that model in their US Open setups. A lot of viewers seem to find it stultifying.

 

I find it fascinating that you seem to want to take skill totally out of the game and take everything down to a level to suit the lowest common denominator...absolutely fascinating. I’m guessing you’re first in the queue for self-driving cars, no?

 

I want?

 

I am describing the course setup at the vast majority of courses I’ve ever seen in person or on TV. There has been a “first cut” of rough on courses longer than you and I have been alive.

 

If you don’t like the ball and equipment the entire world uses or the way golf courses are typically mown, have you seriously considered finding another game?

 

What things, if any, about golf in the real world meet your approval?

[15th Club]

Well, not every tournament needs 25 yard wide fairways bordered directly by ankle deep rough. You may find it entertaining but even USGA has backed off from that model in their US Open setups. A lot of viewers seem to find it stultifying.

 

I find it fascinating that you seem to want to take skill totally out of the game and take everything down to a level to suit the lowest common denominator...absolutely fascinating. I’m guessing you’re first in the queue for self-driving cars, no?

 

There is so much buried in these two comments! Lots of interest!

 

First: Yes, the USGA really does seem to want to get away from the "25 yard wide fairways bordered directly by ankle deep rough..." Truly; among the students of golf course architecture favoring a more forward-looking USGA on course choices and setups, are the same students of golf course architecture who favor a ball rollback. We don't equate "width" with "easy." We look at width, on a well-designed course as promoting choices and strategy. You just need to control overall distance, when you are offering width.

 

Second: The skill involved in hitting narrow fairways bounded by brutal rough seems to be a skill of little more than a reliable, repeating swing. There may be some shot-shaping skill involved, particularly if the fairways are really hard and fast and balls off the correct line may run through and into the rough... But overall, the old USGA model of narrow fairways and punishing rough seems to be fading. What the USGA had going for it was that it was doing that (punitive setup model) on some really great historic courses; Merion, Winged Foot, Shinnecock HIlls, Oakmont, Oakland Hills, etc. With fabulously interesting greens and routing. They'd be better, with lower rough and more dried out, with shorter-flying golf balls, but that's what this debate is all about.

[15th Club]

And like you the USGAs mindset is built around emotion and opinion while repeatedly skipping over the obvious and facts. How many years has it been since the ProV1 was introduced? Suddenly its the ball.

 

It's not "suddenly"! Do you understand that? Jack Nicklaus has been complaining about technological distance and the problems it poses for championship courses, and the game at large, for 20 years.

 

Geoff Shackelford's book, The Future of Golf, came out in 2005. His blog started in 2003. And he's been championing a ball rollback the whole time.

 

And really, in all fairness to everybody, including my opponents in this debate, the tension between golf equipment technology and golf course architects has been going on for more than a hundred years. It is an old tension, which doesn't mean that it is invalid, or that it has ever been resolved because it isn't resolved at all and I don't see how it ever will be. It's part of the game.

[buckeyefl]

Stay focused, I never mentioned the GOAT it his opinion. Geoff likes okd courses, but I never mentioned not do I care about his opinion or any other designer, including Jack, who don't have the imagination to counter distance.

 

Just like you their opinions are emotion based.

[DavePelz4]

Geoff Shackelford is a narcissistic idiot who likes to hear himself talk.

 

Other than that, I like the guy.

[mahonie]

 

Well, not every tournament needs 25 yard wide fairways bordered directly by ankle deep rough. You may find it entertaining but even USGA has backed off from that model in their US Open setups. A lot of viewers seem to find it stultifying.

 

I find it fascinating that you seem to want to take skill totally out of the game and take everything down to a level to suit the lowest common denominator...absolutely fascinating. I’m guessing you’re first in the queue for self-driving cars, no?

 

I want?

 

I am describing the course setup at the vast majority of courses I’ve ever seen in person or on TV. There has been a “first cut” of rough on courses longer than you and I have been alive.

 

If you don’t like the ball and equipment the entire world uses or the way golf courses are typically mown, have you seriously considered finding another game?

 

What things, if any, about golf in the real world meet your approval?

 

My issue is that the ‘model’ for world golf is driven by the PGA Tour. What the PGA Tour market as a product, the rest of the world blindly follows through the ‘pyramid of influence.’ This typically means driver/wedge with courses set up to suit that model. Unfortunately, that model doesn’t suit the majority of the courses on the planet and the courses that don’t fit that model become obsolete. The consequence of this is that the driver/wedge model is slowly killing the game. This focus on distance is to the detriment of 90% of the rest of the game. It was the balance between power and finesse in the game that attracted me to golf in the first place. The one-dimensional nature of the modern game takes away the most satisfying parts of golf and does not attract long-term converts to take the game forward...kids don’t get bitten by the golf bug like we did. As courses become obsolete and participation dwindles (25% down in the UK in the last 10 years) golf itself will become obsolete. Hopefully this won’t happen in our lifetimes, but I don’t want to be telling my grandkids about this game that you used to be able to play.

[Sean2]

Another solution in search of a problem.

 

It would cost less to grow grass then roll the ball back.

 

Those guys are tearing it up at the Valspar. Definitely need to roll the ball back.

 

I have yet to read one compelling argument for rolling the ball back. The "courses are becoming too short" argument is certainly not one. As many of us have pointed out, a little "landscaping" can solve that problem.

 

There are 70 million golfers world wide. The roll back is geared towards a couple of thousand, if that. What about the other 69,999,000 golfers?

 

Bifurcations? Yeah, the majority of recreational golfers will jump all over that. Not to mention what ball does the aspiring junior play, what ball at AJGA events, state ams, universities?

 

OEM's would have to retool. And, who uses the roll backed ball? The professional. And, how much does the professional pay for his/her golf balls? So essentially the OEM's would retool to manufacture a ball that would see no profit.

 

Yes, rolling the ball back makes SO much more sense than a bit of agronomy.

[15th Club]

Again, Sean2; you are talking about changing historic golf courses, instead of $3.50 golf balls. I think that's completely nuts. I'm surprised that I need to make that argument, but I'm happy to do so.

 

Growing fairway grass longer doesn't change carry-distances. Slowing down fairways doesn't make for better golf.

 

I really don't like bifurcation, but if the choice is bifurcation or the obsolescence of historic courses for championship play, I'll reluctantly support bifurcation.

 

And no; a bifurcation will not be hard to administer. I'd expect that lots of AJGA participants who are aspiring NCAA and professional golfers will eagerly use the same gear that they see upper-level elite players using. It is so simple to set which balls will be used, and they will be marked for use by the OEM's.

 

Yeah, it is a problem for OEM's if in fact the market breaks itself into a group of rare elite users of rolled back balls, and virtually everybody else. Maybe that's why the ultimate rollback opponent, Titleist, is opposed (like me) to bifurcation. Tough. Titleist ought to get serious about being part of the solution and not a roadblock, if they want to avoid bifurcation. I am fully aware of how the OEM's want to sell us stuff based upon product usage by professionals on television. I'm not clamoring for bifurcation; perhaps Titleist needs to decide what is worse -- bifurcation or a game-wide rollback. I'm not sure that they know. Jack Nicklaus, who's never been a Titleist contractor, says that it is obvious to him that Titleist makes the best and most market-dominating product and he'd expect it to change in any ball rollback. I have a feeling that maybe Titleist has some other concerns about market share, patents, and consumer perceptions that Jack is not privy to.

[buckeyefl]

Well, not every tournament needs 25 yard wide fairways bordered directly by ankle deep rough. You may find it entertaining but even USGA has backed off from that model in their US Open setups. A lot of viewers seem to find it stultifying.

 

I find it fascinating that you seem to want to take skill totally out of the game and take everything down to a level to suit the lowest common denominator...absolutely fascinating. I’m guessing you’re first in the queue for self-driving cars, no?

 

I want?

 

I am describing the course setup at the vast majority of courses I’ve ever seen in person or on TV. There has been a “first cut” of rough on courses longer than you and I have been alive.

 

If you don’t like the ball and equipment the entire world uses or the way golf courses are typically mown, have you seriously considered finding another game?

 

What things, if any, about golf in the real world meet your approval?

 

My issue is that the ‘model’ for world golf is driven by the PGA Tour. What the PGA Tour market as a product, the rest of the world blindly follows through the ‘pyramid of influence.’ This typically means driver/wedge with courses set up to suit that model. Unfortunately, that model doesn’t suit the majority of the courses on the planet and the courses that don’t fit that model become obsolete. The consequence of this is that the driver/wedge model is slowly killing the game. This focus on distance is to the detriment of 90% of the rest of the game. It was the balance between power and finesse in the game that attracted me to golf in the first place. The one-dimensional nature of the modern game takes away the most satisfying parts of golf and does not attract long-term converts to take the game forward...kids don’t get bitten by the golf bug like we did. As courses become obsolete and participation dwindles (25% down in the UK in the last 10 years) golf itself will become obsolete. Hopefully this won’t happen in our lifetimes, but I don’t want to be telling my grandkids about this game that you used to be able to play.

 

Not getting into the other points but there is a lot that has happened in the last 10 years to draw people away. Same goes for the comment about kids.

[buckeyefl]

Again, Sean2; you are talking about changing historic golf courses, instead of $3.50 golf balls. I think that's completely nuts. I'm surprised that I need to make that argument, but I'm happy to do so.

 

Growing fairway grass longer doesn't change carry-distances. Slowing down fairways doesn't make for better golf.

 

I really don't like bifurcation, but if the choice is bifurcation or the obsolescence of historic courses for championship play, I'll reluctantly support bifurcation.

 

And no; a bifurcation will not be hard to administer. I'd expect that lots of AJGA participants who are aspiring NCAA and professional golfers will eagerly use the same gear that they see upper-level elite players using. It is so simple to set which balls will be used, and they will be marked for use by the OEM's.

 

Yeah, it is a problem for OEM's if in fact the market breaks itself into a group of rare elite users of rolled back balls, and virtually everybody else. Maybe that's why the ultimate rollback opponent, Titleist, is opposed (like me) to bifurcation. Tough. Titleist ought to get serious about being part of the solution and not a roadblock, if they want to avoid bifurcation. I am fully aware of how the OEM's want to sell us stuff based upon product usage by professionals on television. I'm not clamoring for bifurcation; perhaps Titleist needs to decide what is worse -- bifurcation or a game-wide rollback. I'm not sure that they know. Jack Nicklaus, who's never been a Titleist contractor, says that it is obvious to him that Titleist makes the best and most market-dominating product and he'd expect it to change in any ball rollback. I have a feeling that maybe Titleist has some other concerns about market share, patents, and consumer perceptions that Jack is not privy to.

 

I really don't like bifurcation, but if the choice is bifurcation or the obsolescence of historic courses for championship play.

 

Well lookie there, more opinion and exaggeration based on.....?????????

 

And no; a bifurcation will not be hard to administer.

 

Its unnecessary but if it happened to suggest it would be easy is as ludicrous as every other ridiculous argument you have made to get your way.

 

 

Titleist ought to get serious about being part of the solution

 

Solution to the non-problem?

 

Titleist needs to decide what is worse -- bifurcation or a game-wide rollback

 

Or, now hold onto your USGA licensed panties, just stop progress with the ball where it at. You are so disingenuous with you either or but not the most logical "solution" that you completely skip over.

 

I have a feeling that maybe Titleist has some other concerns about market share, patents, and consumer perceptions that Jack is not privy to.

 

Like your concerns that involve nothing except the fact that you don't like the current standard? So in your case emotion trumps logic, honesty, the game, business that supports the game etc etc etc.