Rolling back the ball

[FlaBoy239]

Courses don't need to be made longer. Hazards and obstructions can be placed to prevent players flying them and leaving them obsolete. That same 400 yard hole with a huge bunker at 280 can still be 400 yards but with a bunker at 310. Courses need to keep up with the times. The times don't need to regress to the courses.

 

No, they can't. What a weird notion; that great classic historic championship golf courses can (or should) be modified as if they were made out of lego blocks and can be adjusted the way that you might let out a pair of pants if you gained weight.

 

If you take a 400 yard hole and merely accept that the drives will be flying 315 yards, the second shots will all be 85-yard flip wedges. All of the previously-calculated topography and angles are all erased.

 

And it doesn't matter, exactly which distances we are talking about. A 400-yard hole, or a 500-yard hole, or a 600-yard hole. All of the same principles pertain; the best golf courses are carefully routed over the existing terrain with a certain kind of game in mind. Doglegs, hazards and features aren't just plotted with launch monitor numbers in mind; it is artistry, to work in and take advantage of the whole of a piece of property as Grounds for Golf.

My point wasn't to change the courses. It was to incorporate the changes into new courses. If somehow the old courses become obsolete (which they arent) then so be it. That's life. Nothing lasts forever. Enjoy them while you can.

[bladehunter]

Why change anything? Why does it bother people to see the game evolve? No matter what you do half the field will still miss the cut and someone will still win. Why does it matter if the winning score is -5 or -20? Who cares? It's a competition amongst players. If someone is the best in the world with modern equipment, they will be best in the world with anything the governing bodies give them to play with. Too much is put into nostalgia. Just because a course is 100 years old doesn't justify playing it forever. If it becomes obsolete, so be it. New courses will be built and 100 years from now they will be considered the classics. It's the story of mankind.

 

Yes. On one hand. On the other some prefer to rail against he new world order line of thinking that says “ erase all history and accept the new thinking going forward “. “Nostalgia “ as you call it is the greatest teacher we have.

[storm319]

Just change par. It’s an artificial made up number and varies from course to course and for pros/ams/ladies as it is. With the distances the pros hit it they should rarely have a par five.

 

This is what Augusta should have done for #13 instead of spending $25 mil to buy more land for the bandaid expansion.

[15th Club]

In the end -- and this is a bit of an oversimplification and I dislike oversimplifications, but this is GolfWRX and not GeoffShackelford.com -- it comes down to a choice. Is your great pleasure in watching Dustin Johnson hit 350+ -yard drives on new TPC golf courses? Or is your great pleasure in watching an Open Championship played on a dry Hoylake, or Old Course?*

 

I couldn't care less, about seeing Dustin Johnson, or anybody, on most of the newly-built TPC-style courses. There's zero history, and zero tradition, in those places.

 

*If you say, "Why not both?", or "Why not one set of rules for Tour play but allow recreational players to use current-spec equipment?", we get into the bifurcation issue. And to me, one of the worst of all possible outcomes would be to bifurcate things and break up the single set of rules in golf into different layers. The greatest of all pleasures in golf are (a) playing the great historic golf courses and (b) playing by a single set of rules.

[15th Club]

Just change par. It's an artificial made up number and varies from course to course and for pros/ams/ladies as it is. With the distances the pros hit it they should rarely have a par five.

 

This is what Augusta should have done for #13 instead of spending $25 mil to buy more land for the bandaid expansion.

 

What the ANGC could have done, was what the Ohio Golf Association did several years ago, and it would have been to say, "As a condition of competition, all competitors will use this ball..."

[FlaBoy239]

Why change anything? Why does it bother people to see the game evolve? No matter what you do half the field will still miss the cut and someone will still win. Why does it matter if the winning score is -5 or -20? Who cares? It's a competition amongst players. If someone is the best in the world with modern equipment, they will be best in the world with anything the governing bodies give them to play with. Too much is put into nostalgia. Just because a course is 100 years old doesn't justify playing it forever. If it becomes obsolete, so be it. New courses will be built and 100 years from now they will be considered the classics. It's the story of mankind.

 

Yes. On one hand. On the other some prefer to rail against he new world order line of thinking that says erase all history and accept the new thinking going forward . Nostalgia as you call it is the greatest teacher we have.

Who has said erase all history? Everything evolves. There's no stopping it, nor would you want to.

[jus711]

They just said they clocked Rory today at 122 swing speed and 180 ball speed those are pretty standard numbers for Rory so maybe that radar is correct and Tiger’s numbers are legit which is mind boggling.

[storm319]

I'm in the camp that the taming of spin via modern ball and Driver has changed the calculus of the game and not always in a bad way but not always in a good one either. Shot making was requirement because the ball simply did not fly straight due to inferior design and more importantly poorer aerodynamics. If course conditions are right or it's right design it's still good, see Riviera and Honda but all too often, greens are soft, rough is benign and wind is low and we get Driver/wedge boar fest. On top of that epic layouts like Augusta or St. Andrews are on losing end. New tee boxes does not fix this. I'm more in agreement with Greg Norman on this than Jack. Ball is part of it but size and COR of Driver need adjustment at and only at the Tour level.

 

Rolling back driver size on tour will do nothing when several guys are already carrying sub-200cc fairway metals over 300 yards. Rolling back max COR a few hundredths will not amount to a substantial decrease in ball velocity.

 

Also any rollback by the USGA/R&A will eventually be across the board with maybe a delayed implementation for amateurs similar to the groove rollback that has proven ineffective. Any equipment rollback would be a logistical nightmare and have a far greater impact on the 99% than the elite that this is intended on reigning in.

[Bye]

Just change par. It’s an artificial made up number and varies from course to course and for pros/ams/ladies as it is. With the distances the pros hit it they should rarely have a par five.

 

This is what Augusta should have done for #13 instead of spending $25 mil to buy more land for the bandaid expansion.

 

They do it on 10 & 11 already.

[mahonie]

Just change par. It’s an artificial made up number and varies from course to course and for pros/ams/ladies as it is. With the distances the pros hit it they should rarely have a par five.

 

This is what Augusta should have done for #13 instead of spending $25 mil to buy more land for the bandaid expansion.

 

They do it on 10 & 11 already.

 

If Augusta didn’t have the land to expand it would already be obsolete. It plays over 1,300 yards longer for the Masters than it does normally. That’s three extra par 4s making it a par 84 for 99% of golfers (that’s bifurcation right there). Without its history, the Masters is just another PGA Tour event now.

[Nard_S]

I'm in the camp that the taming of spin via modern ball and Driver has changed the calculus of the game and not always in a bad way but not always in a good one either. Shot making was requirement because the ball simply did not fly straight due to inferior design and more importantly poorer aerodynamics. If course conditions are right or it's right design it's still good, see Riviera and Honda but all too often, greens are soft, rough is benign and wind is low and we get Driver/wedge boar fest. On top of that epic layouts like Augusta or St. Andrews are on losing end. New tee boxes does not fix this. I'm more in agreement with Greg Norman on this than Jack. Ball is part of it but size and COR of Driver need adjustment at and only at the Tour level.

 

Rolling back driver size on tour will do nothing when several guys are already carrying sub-200cc over 300 yards. Rolling back max COR a few hundredths will not amount to a substantial decrease in ball velocity.

 

Also any rollback by the USGA/R&A will eventually be across the board with maybe a delayed implementation for amateurs similar to the groove rollback that has proven ineffective well before full implementation. Any equipment rollback would be a logistical nightmare and have a far greater impact on the 99% than the elite that this is intended on reigning in.

 

Go swing a steel headed driver or better yet a persimmon and tell me COR does not matter.

 

Go on Ebay and buy a sleeve of wound balls and tell me distance and shot control are equivalent to the modern ball.

 

Go lobby the NFL, the NBA, the NHL and MLB to end all forms of bifurcation because it's so nightmarish to amateur participation.

 

I'm part of the 99% and I do not delude myself into thinking that at any given time I'm like the 1%.Golf industry promotes that delusion to sell gear but it is ultimately is watering down what the 1% can offer up. Driver/wedge golf is what we are left to watch unless millions are spent to upgrade conditions and weeks of no watering the greens are employed. Brilliant.

[starsail85]

I think the best deal would be making the ball slightly lighter . That way it will still fly off the face and climb even higher ( makes golf exciting ) , be alittle more vulnerable in the wind , and reduce the requirement of hitting it a million miles because you could get longer clubs to stop on the green without swinging it 120

[bladehunter]

I think the best deal would be making the ball slightly lighter . That way it will still fly off the face and climb even higher ( makes golf exciting ) , be alittle more vulnerable in the wind , and reduce the requirement of hitting it a million miles because you could get longer clubs to stop on the green without swinging it 120

 

 

 

Possibly. But same could be done with spin. Ball will climb quicker and stop better on greens. Funny part is most slower ams would probably hit it farther and score better with more spin.

[15th Club]

I'll say this as well, as I have before: I don't understand the hesitation to roll back the ball, when manufacturers (and golfers) could be free to build, sell, and buy non-conforming equipment. If bombing the ball great distances is so essential to enjoyment of golf for some significant portion of the golfing public, then they should buy some non-conforming balls and drivers and go knock themselves out. Get your favorite developers to build the sorts of new courses you like, and patronize them. Get your favorite manufacturer to make Bandit balls and super-CoR drivers.

 

But deep down, that is not what they want, or will accept. Amid all of the trash-talking disparagement of the USGA and the R&A is the absolute craving for USGA-sanctioning. If the USGA rolled back the golf ball specs significantly, and Acushnet sued the USGA, you'd better believe that Acushnet would be claiming that USGA approval is essential to their business model. Notwithstanding the fact that Acushnet could make the same, or longer, balls at will, and sell them to whoever will buy them. No; Acushnet wants/needs/craves USGA approval.

 

That's the funny thing. And it's the thing that Jack Nicklaus had the amazing courage to call out. Titleist doesn't want to be left alone to design and build whatever sorts of golf balls it wants. Titleist wants the USGA to help them promote their sales. The USGA is literally the essential ingredient to Titleist sales and nobody knows that better than Titleist. And with current patents and marketing, Titleist is going to do everything it can legally to preserve the status quo (and the "aspirational", to quote Wally Uihlein, trajectory of golf technology advancement) and make itself an essential part of USGA's conduct of national championships.

 

Titleist wants to stay married to the USGA, in a shotgun relationship.

[FlaBoy239]

I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for rolling the ball back. It's all based on emotions and not logic. Golf has always been fun to watch and play. Nothing has changed.

[15th Club]

I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for rolling the ball back.

 

How about this: Technology-produced distance gains in championship golf have necessitated, on a regular basis, changes to great historic championship golf courses. Irredeemably altering them. Rendering some classic golf course unusable for championship play. Not one of the rota of British Open golf courses have escaped critical re-designs; some of them ridiculous, in the way that they have made changes purely to combat distance issues... It is a problem throughout the world of historic and classic golf course architecture, and not merely championship golf. And the problem then imposes itself on all of golf, because one of the most essential charms of the game of golf is everyone playing by a single set of Rules, and thereby a single set of equipment standards. Throw that away, and you've thrown away one of the best parts of golf. Throw away the great historic links courses of the Open Championship, and you've thrown away one of the most essential parts of the history, tradition, legacy, and inspirations for all of golf.

 

I already know that some of you (many of you; most of you?) reject this thesis. Okay. For me, I say that I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for NOT rolling the ball back. I may not be convincing you; you're not convincing me.

[FlaBoy239]

Zero courses have had to change anything. They did so because of ego. They don't want lower scores. That's emotion, not reason.

[storm319]

I'm in the camp that the taming of spin via modern ball and Driver has changed the calculus of the game and not always in a bad way but not always in a good one either. Shot making was requirement because the ball simply did not fly straight due to inferior design and more importantly poorer aerodynamics. If course conditions are right or it's right design it's still good, see Riviera and Honda but all too often, greens are soft, rough is benign and wind is low and we get Driver/wedge boar fest. On top of that epic layouts like Augusta or St. Andrews are on losing end. New tee boxes does not fix this. I'm more in agreement with Greg Norman on this than Jack. Ball is part of it but size and COR of Driver need adjustment at and only at the Tour level.

 

Rolling back driver size on tour will do nothing when several guys are already carrying sub-200cc over 300 yards. Rolling back max COR a few hundredths will not amount to a substantial decrease in ball velocity.

 

Also any rollback by the USGA/R&A will eventually be across the board with maybe a delayed implementation for amateurs similar to the groove rollback that has proven ineffective well before full implementation. Any equipment rollback would be a logistical nightmare and have a far greater impact on the 99% than the elite that this is intended on reigning in.

 

Go swing a steel headed driver or better yet a persimmon and tell me COR does not matter.

 

Go on Ebay and buy a sleeve of wound balls and tell me distance and shot control are equivalent to the modern ball.

 

Go lobby the NFL, the NBA, the NHL and MLB to end all forms of bifurcation because it's so nightmarish to amateur participation.

 

I'm part of the 99% and I do not delude myself into thinking that at any given time I'm like the 1%.Golf industry promotes that delusion to sell gear but it is ultimately is watering down what the 1% can offer up. Driver/wedge golf is what we are left to watch unless millions are spent to upgrade conditions and weeks of no watering the greens are employed. Brilliant.

 

First, never said COR doesnt matter, but dropping the limit from .83 to .78 (typical persimmon or laminant value) will not reduce distance to the level that would allow drastic reduction is course length.

 

Next, windings inside a wound ball start to breakdown within a few years of coming off the line so you would never be able to make an apples to apples comparison. Even wound balls near the end of production in the early 2000s will produce sigificantly lower ballspeeds than they did 15 years ago.

 

I don't disagree that bifurcation works for many sports, but I do acknowledge that it is extremely doubtful that the USGA/R&A will allow permanent bifurcation for the rules of golf.

 

Lastly, if you don't like how the current male pros play the game, simply don't watch or watch the LPGA if you want to see something more reminiscent to the past.

[MtlJeff]

I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for rolling the ball back.

 

How about this: Technology-produced distance gains in championship golf have necessitated, on a regular basis, changes to great historic championship golf courses. Irredeemably altering them. Rendering some classic golf course unusable for championship play. Not one of the rota of British Open golf courses have escaped critical re-designs; some of them ridiculous, in the way that they have made changes purely to combat distance issues... It is a problem throughout the world of historic and classic golf course architecture, and not merely championship golf. And the problem then imposes itself on all of golf, because one of the most essential charms of the game of golf is everyone playing by a single set of Rules, and thereby a single set of equipment standards. Throw that away, and you've thrown away one of the best parts of golf. Throw away the great historic links courses of the Open Championship, and you've thrown away one of the most essential parts of the history, tradition, legacy, and inspirations for all of golf.

 

I already know that some of you (many of you; most of you?) reject this thesis. Okay. For me, I say that I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for NOT rolling the ball back. I may not be convincing you; you're not convincing me.

 

Because 99% of golfers and courses are not negatively impacted at all by the current ball nor have they been altered because of it?

 

We keep talking about championship pro courses. That's a really minuscule part of the game.

 

Oakmont and whistling straits are to regular courses what an NFL stadium is to a local football field. No football people think that every football game is being played in NFL stadiums .

 

Golf people seem to think that. What percentage of courses have been altered due to the ball?

 

 

[15th Club]

Zero courses have had to change anything. They did so because of ego. They don't want lower scores. That's emotion, not reason.

 

Oh, please. That's just not realistic. Championship courses change, because the executive directors and the championship committees come to them, and say (something like), "The field just hits the ball too far now for the course as it exists. We need you to build new tees on the 3 or 4 holes where you can; you'll need to build 8 new bunkers, and because we need green speeds at 10 or 11 or better, you'll need to revamp 5 greens to give us more usable hole positions..."

 

Now; the Links Trust, or Royal Liverpool, or Bellerive, or Oakland Hills, or Merion, or Royal Troon, or Inverness, or The Country Club can say, "Hey no thanks! we don't need your tournament, and we'd just as soon not lose it for our membership for 3 weeks in the middle of summer." That's always golf's loss, when we lose that aspect of history.

 

But ego, assuredly, has nothing to do with it. The major championships (and the PGA Tour) are all calculated and scheduled years if not decades in advance. It isn't ego, and it isn't about scoring. It's about the basic integrity of how the golf is played during the course of the championship. Many, many people -- and not just proprietary club members and course proprietors -- are involved. It's no one's "ego."

[15th Club]

I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for rolling the ball back.

 

How about this: Technology-produced distance gains in championship golf have necessitated, on a regular basis, changes to great historic championship golf courses. Irredeemably altering them. Rendering some classic golf course unusable for championship play. Not one of the rota of British Open golf courses have escaped critical re-designs; some of them ridiculous, in the way that they have made changes purely to combat distance issues... It is a problem throughout the world of historic and classic golf course architecture, and not merely championship golf. And the problem then imposes itself on all of golf, because one of the most essential charms of the game of golf is everyone playing by a single set of Rules, and thereby a single set of equipment standards. Throw that away, and you've thrown away one of the best parts of golf. Throw away the great historic links courses of the Open Championship, and you've thrown away one of the most essential parts of the history, tradition, legacy, and inspirations for all of golf.

 

I already know that some of you (many of you; most of you?) reject this thesis. Okay. For me, I say that I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for NOT rolling the ball back. I may not be convincing you; you're not convincing me.

 

Because 99% of golfers and courses are not negatively impacted at all by the current ball nor have they been altered because of it?

 

We keep talking about championship pro courses. That's a really minuscule part of the game.

 

Oakmont and whistling straits are to regular courses what an NFL stadium is to a local football field. No football people think that every football game is being played in NFL stadiums .

 

Golf people seem to think that. What percentage of courses have been altered due to the ball?

 

Tell me what the problem would be, with rolling the ball back, and recreational players adjusting (if they need to at all) by moving up a set of tees?

[starsail85]

So roll back would invalidate all records that have been set since the 60s when the ball changed size?

[MtlJeff]

I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for rolling the ball back.

 

How about this: Technology-produced distance gains in championship golf have necessitated, on a regular basis, changes to great historic championship golf courses. Irredeemably altering them. Rendering some classic golf course unusable for championship play. Not one of the rota of British Open golf courses have escaped critical re-designs; some of them ridiculous, in the way that they have made changes purely to combat distance issues... It is a problem throughout the world of historic and classic golf course architecture, and not merely championship golf. And the problem then imposes itself on all of golf, because one of the most essential charms of the game of golf is everyone playing by a single set of Rules, and thereby a single set of equipment standards. Throw that away, and you've thrown away one of the best parts of golf. Throw away the great historic links courses of the Open Championship, and you've thrown away one of the most essential parts of the history, tradition, legacy, and inspirations for all of golf.

 

I already know that some of you (many of you; most of you?) reject this thesis. Okay. For me, I say that I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for NOT rolling the ball back. I may not be convincing you; you're not convincing me.

 

Because 99% of golfers and courses are not negatively impacted at all by the current ball nor have they been altered because of it?

 

We keep talking about championship pro courses. That's a really minuscule part of the game.

 

Oakmont and whistling straits are to regular courses what an NFL stadium is to a local football field. No football people think that every football game is being played in NFL stadiums .

 

Golf people seem to think that. What percentage of courses have been altered due to the ball?

 

Tell me what the problem would be, with rolling the ball back, and recreational players adjusting (if they need to at all) by moving up a set of tees?

 

There's no "problem" with making the football round, or the 100M dash 110M

 

But why change something that isn't a problem

[bladehunter]

Zero courses have had to change anything. They did so because of ego. They don't want lower scores. That's emotion, not reason.

 

 

thick sliced bologna...... emotion leads to discussion which leads to question which leads to debate which leads to change....

[bladehunter]

I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for rolling the ball back.

 

How about this: Technology-produced distance gains in championship golf have necessitated, on a regular basis, changes to great historic championship golf courses. Irredeemably altering them. Rendering some classic golf course unusable for championship play. Not one of the rota of British Open golf courses have escaped critical re-designs; some of them ridiculous, in the way that they have made changes purely to combat distance issues... It is a problem throughout the world of historic and classic golf course architecture, and not merely championship golf. And the problem then imposes itself on all of golf, because one of the most essential charms of the game of golf is everyone playing by a single set of Rules, and thereby a single set of equipment standards. Throw that away, and you've thrown away one of the best parts of golf. Throw away the great historic links courses of the Open Championship, and you've thrown away one of the most essential parts of the history, tradition, legacy, and inspirations for all of golf.

 

I already know that some of you (many of you; most of you?) reject this thesis. Okay. For me, I say that I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for NOT rolling the ball back. I may not be convincing you; you're not convincing me.

 

Because 99% of golfers and courses are not negatively impacted at all by the current ball nor have they been altered because of it?

 

We keep talking about championship pro courses. That's a really minuscule part of the game.

 

Oakmont and whistling straits are to regular courses what an NFL stadium is to a local football field. No football people think that every football game is being played in NFL stadiums .

 

Golf people seem to think that. What percentage of courses have been altered due to the ball?

 

Tell me what the problem would be, with rolling the ball back, and recreational players adjusting (if they need to at all) by moving up a set of tees?

 

There's no "problem" with making the football round, or the 100M dash 110M

 

But why change something that isn't a problem

 

 

 

jeff it was 100 yards dash ....roughly same as 110M they only changed the name...

 

edit- track has stayed more same than any other sport id say... only a couple freaks have came along and that really produced big gains... surface and footwear being the big equipment helps... golf on the other hand , to make track equal in equipment help would be like if you let track stars ride motorcycles around the track ....and limited teh CC of the engines and tire width

[Sean2]

I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for rolling the ball back.

 

How about this: Technology-produced distance gains in championship golf have necessitated, on a regular basis, changes to great historic championship golf courses. Irredeemably altering them. Rendering some classic golf course unusable for championship play. Not one of the rota of British Open golf courses have escaped critical re-designs; some of them ridiculous, in the way that they have made changes purely to combat distance issues... It is a problem throughout the world of historic and classic golf course architecture, and not merely championship golf. And the problem then imposes itself on all of golf, because one of the most essential charms of the game of golf is everyone playing by a single set of Rules, and thereby a single set of equipment standards. Throw that away, and you've thrown away one of the best parts of golf. Throw away the great historic links courses of the Open Championship, and you've thrown away one of the most essential parts of the history, tradition, legacy, and inspirations for all of golf.

 

I already know that some of you (many of you; most of you?) reject this thesis. Okay. For me, I say that I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for NOT rolling the ball back. I may not be convincing you; you're not convincing me.

 

Because 99% of golfers and courses are not negatively impacted at all by the current ball nor have they been altered because of it?

 

We keep talking about championship pro courses. That's a really minuscule part of the game.

 

Oakmont and whistling straits are to regular courses what an NFL stadium is to a local football field. No football people think that every football game is being played in NFL stadiums .

 

Golf people seem to think that. What percentage of courses have been altered due to the ball?

 

Tell me what the problem would be, with rolling the ball back, and recreational players adjusting (if they need to at all) by moving up a set of tees?

 

Given the amount of ego in this game, I don't think many folks would move up...heck, most now should move up with the ball the way it is.

[Bye]

So roll back would invalidate all records that have been set since the 60s when the ball changed size?

 

Normally when a course is extended by a certain amount or the layout is changed the course records become obsolete. It's happened a lot over the years.

[bladehunter]

I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for rolling the ball back.

 

How about this: Technology-produced distance gains in championship golf have necessitated, on a regular basis, changes to great historic championship golf courses. Irredeemably altering them. Rendering some classic golf course unusable for championship play. Not one of the rota of British Open golf courses have escaped critical re-designs; some of them ridiculous, in the way that they have made changes purely to combat distance issues... It is a problem throughout the world of historic and classic golf course architecture, and not merely championship golf. And the problem then imposes itself on all of golf, because one of the most essential charms of the game of golf is everyone playing by a single set of Rules, and thereby a single set of equipment standards. Throw that away, and you've thrown away one of the best parts of golf. Throw away the great historic links courses of the Open Championship, and you've thrown away one of the most essential parts of the history, tradition, legacy, and inspirations for all of golf.

 

I already know that some of you (many of you; most of you?) reject this thesis. Okay. For me, I say that I still have yet to hear a reasonable argument for NOT rolling the ball back. I may not be convincing you; you're not convincing me.

 

Because 99% of golfers and courses are not negatively impacted at all by the current ball nor have they been altered because of it?

 

We keep talking about championship pro courses. That's a really minuscule part of the game.

 

Oakmont and whistling straits are to regular courses what an NFL stadium is to a local football field. No football people think that every football game is being played in NFL stadiums .

 

Golf people seem to think that. What percentage of courses have been altered due to the ball?

 

Tell me what the problem would be, with rolling the ball back, and recreational players adjusting (if they need to at all) by moving up a set of tees?

 

Given the amount of ego in this game, I don't think many folks would move up...heck, most now should move up with the ball the way it is.

 

 

isnt that part of the problem though? didn guys used to move up automatically at 65? or 70? nobody stayed back with the old ball and driver... now we have artificial distance and and slower play

[15th Club]

So roll back would invalidate all records that have been set since the 60s when the ball changed size?

 

No, I don't think it would invalidate any of the records that matter.

 

The records that matter; who won. Major championships won. Numbers of major championships won.

 

Seriously; what golfing records would be "invalidated"? Is there a driving distance award? I've never heard of one.

 

Is there a golfing statistical record that matters like 714 home runs? Or 755 home runs? Or a record that might not matter at all because technological interference, like 762 home runs?

 

I know of no threat to any golfing statistical record from an equipment adjustment to the rules. We haven't adjusted any golfing "records" for the imposition of the 14-club rule, in 1938. Or the imposition of the one-ball standard/condition in Tour events. We've adjusted specs on balls too many times to recount, in the history of golf. And there's never been any crisis of "invalidating records."

[15th Club]

Given the amount of ego in this game, I don't think many folks would move up...heck, most now should move up with the ball the way it is.

 

So the real "emotional problem" in this debate is with recreational players who couldn't stand it, if they lost distance in a ball rollback.

 

To listen to the anti-rollbackers, the equipment makers and others in the golf business, it would be such a shock to the system of many recreational players that they might play less or give up the game entirely.

 

LOL. That's an emotional problem.