Rolling back the ball

[klebs01]

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.

 

I have a ping eye 2 laminate one wood in my locker at my club and I’m surprised by how long it is. Drives end up in the same general area as with my g.

 

I also remember where my I used to hit titleist professional 100s with a 975d. Again, not a big difference.

 

Put the laminate and wood ball together an max it would be 7% difference. The 20% jack is talking about is way too much.

[FlaBoy239]

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.

There is no such thing as an anti-rollbacker. There is no roll back.

[ClintDagger]

It will never happen but just to be clear, it’s a misconception that rolling back the ball will help long (or for that matter short) hitters. It will help the shot makers and pure ball strikers. Essentially, the elite swingers. It will hurt or be neutral to bomb and gougers or short hitters.

 

The elite swingers are the bombers. They will still be longer than everyone else, but with a shorter ball they will also hit more fairways.

From what I understand a “rolled back ball” would essentially be a much more higher spinning ball. So the wild drivers would be even more inaccurate and controlling a ball out of rough would also be tougher. That’s why the experts say bomb and gouge would be far less effective.

[storm319]

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.

 

How many major OEMs still produce clubs with non-conforming grooves? How about drivers well above the CT limit? How about balls that do not conform to the diameter and weight limits that have been in place since the 1930's? The reality is the demand for non-conforming equipment is extremely low. Even as unrealistic as it is, the majority of amateurs want to play the same game as the pros.

[gvogel]

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

 

Which golf ball changed size in the 60's?

[MtlJeff]

Anti rollbacker lol...

 

I just want to see actual data that supports the fact a rollback is needed. It's so emotional for people.

 

How many courses have been modified, what percentage of total rounds are played at 6500yds~ or less?

 

No one is presenting any actual data saying that longer courses for the pro game/courses actually hurts anyone financially. Or if the courses actual amateurs play on have ever been modified or need to be.

 

 

[bladehunter]

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.

There is no such thing as an anti-rollbacker. There is no roll back.

 

 

yet... its coming..wait and see

[storm319]

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

 

Which golf ball changed size in the 60's?

 

The last USGA diameter/weight minimum change was in the early 1930's. The R&A agreed to the weight change, but keep a different diameter minimum until 1990 when they adopted the USGA minimum.

[bladehunter]

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.

 

How many major OEMs still produce clubs with non-conforming grooves? How about drivers well above the CT limit? How about balls that do not conform to the diameter and weight limits that have been in place since the 1930's? The reality is the demand for non-conforming equipment is extremely low. Even as unrealistic as it is, the majority of amateurs want to play the same game as the pros.

 

 

thats why a rollback can work...people will convert themselves

[gvogel]

 

 

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

 

I think that if the ball were rolled back, a lot of players could rationalize moving up a set of tees (maybe two). I think that you would see a lot more senior golfers playing the senior tees, for example.

[bladehunter]

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

 

I think that if the ball were rolled back, a lot of players could rationalize moving up a set of tees (maybe two). I think that you would see a lot more senior golfers playing the senior tees, for example.

 

 

exactly.... its really a rare sight these days

[FlaBoy239]

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.

There is no such thing as an anti-rollbacker. There is no roll back.

 

 

yet... its coming..wait and see

Doubt it. I could care less but I don't see why we want to create an issue where there really isn't one.

[cmatthews77]

I lean towards ball roll-back but get its a complicated subject. A few things...

 

Why do we have to assume it would apply to everyone? There could be a "tour ball" that Pros play that amateurs don't. Where's the line? Good question in terms of collegiate playing, etc. But no one complains that MLB players use wooden bats instead of composite or alloy Eastons....

 

Field Goal posts have tightened, loss of the tee, backing up kickoff spots, backing up 3-point line and plenty of other examples of pro sports tweaking rules to "preserve" the game.

 

But here's a few other points...

Rolled back ball (even if just for tour and elite amateur play) would eliminate need for:

1. Back tees and longer courses which WE pay for in fees and dues. Tour players aren't paying for their need for larger parks.

2. 12+ stimp greens for tournament play which would speed up play.

3. Crazy 4" rough to protect US Open older courses

 

 

 

 

[crazygolfnut]

Looking forward to watching the Golf Channel in low def on my black and white tv. That should be fun!

[Bye]

Anti rollbacker lol...

 

I just want to see actual data that supports the fact a rollback is needed. It's so emotional for people.

 

How many courses have been modified, what percentage of total rounds are played at 6500yds~ or less?

 

No one is presenting any actual data saying that longer courses for the pro game/courses actually hurts anyone financially. Or if the courses actual amateurs play on have ever been modified or need to be.

 

Maybe that's what's needed to get some perspective. Have no courses near you put in new tees, moved bunkers etc?

[MtlJeff]

Anti rollbacker lol...

 

I just want to see actual data that supports the fact a rollback is needed. It's so emotional for people.

 

How many courses have been modified, what percentage of total rounds are played at 6500yds~ or less?

 

No one is presenting any actual data saying that longer courses for the pro game/courses actually hurts anyone financially. Or if the courses actual amateurs play on have ever been modified or need to be.

 

Maybe that's what's needed to get some perspective. Have no courses near you put in new tees, moved bunkers etc?

 

Just one that I know of, royal Montreal. Which hosts the occasional Canadian open or Presidents Cup.

 

My course pretty much unchanged last 30-40 years. And it was good enough to be the semi permanent home of the Quebec mid am

[ClintDagger]

I lean towards ball roll-back but get its a complicated subject. A few things...

 

Why do we have to assume it would apply to everyone? There could be a "tour ball" that Pros play that amateurs don't. Where's the line? Good question in terms of collegiate playing, etc. But no one complains that MLB players use wooden bats instead of composite or alloy Eastons....

 

Field Goal posts have tightened, loss of the tee, backing up kickoff spots, backing up 3-point line and plenty of other examples of pro sports tweaking rules to "preserve" the game.

 

But here's a few other points...

Rolled back ball (even if just for tour and elite amateur play) would eliminate need for:

1. Back tees and longer courses which WE pay for in fees and dues. Tour players aren't paying for their need for larger parks.

2. 12+ stimp greens for tournament play which would speed up play.

3. Crazy 4" rough to protect US Open older courses

I think if done right, only guys with elite club head speed would really see that much of a distance loss. I think weekend golfers could still play what the pros play and not really see much of a difference. Things probably get blown out of proportion from that regard.

[Bye]

Anti rollbacker lol...

 

I just want to see actual data that supports the fact a rollback is needed. It's so emotional for people.

 

How many courses have been modified, what percentage of total rounds are played at 6500yds~ or less?

 

No one is presenting any actual data saying that longer courses for the pro game/courses actually hurts anyone financially. Or if the courses actual amateurs play on have ever been modified or need to be.

 

Maybe that's what's needed to get some perspective. Have no courses near you put in new tees, moved bunkers etc?

 

Just one that I know of, royal Montreal. Which hosts the occasional Canadian open or Presidents Cup.

 

My course pretty much unchanged last 30-40 years. And it was good enough to be the semi permanent home of the Quebec mid am

 

You are luckier than some.

[storm319]

I lean towards ball roll-back but get its a complicated subject. A few things...

 

Why do we have to assume it would apply to everyone? There could be a "tour ball" that Pros play that amateurs don't. Where's the line? Good question in terms of collegiate playing, etc. But no one complains that MLB players use wooden bats instead of composite or alloy Eastons....

 

Field Goal posts have tightened, loss of the tee, backing up kickoff spots, backing up 3-point line and plenty of other examples of pro sports tweaking rules to "preserve" the game.

 

But here's a few other points...

Rolled back ball (even if just for tour and elite amateur play) would eliminate need for:

1. Back tees and longer courses which WE pay for in fees and dues. Tour players aren't paying for their need for larger parks.

2. 12+ stimp greens for tournament play which would speed up play.

3. Crazy 4" rough to protect US Open older courses

 

Those examples were all single professional leagues self imposing rules, not a governing body imposing rules for an entire sport. If the PGA Tour wants to impose its own rules on their own pros, fine. The USGA have tried to impose equipment regulations in an attempt to reign in the elite simply due to the fact that they only have control over the course conditions, setup, and local rules for 1 PGA tournament per year.

 

If a rollback were to happen, the majority of existing courses would only really see a maintenance savings from eliminating some back tee boxes. In order to realize a sizable savings, courses would have to spend millions to completely redesign the course on a smaller real estate footprint and that cost would greatly outweigh the savings. If reducing maintenance costs were the real focus, we would see more redesigns like Pinehurst that eliminate as much grass as possible.

 

As for new courses, the reality is that there are few new courses being built in the US anyways and that trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

[ibradley]

A ball rollback is awesome. Amateurs have more fun because they have more tee options. If you play the tips now you can play a set forward if you want to keep the same. Continue playing tips for beast mode.

 

The pro game will be far more entertaining. More drivers. Less wedges.

[storm319]

I lean towards ball roll-back but get its a complicated subject. A few things...

 

Why do we have to assume it would apply to everyone? There could be a "tour ball" that Pros play that amateurs don't. Where's the line? Good question in terms of collegiate playing, etc. But no one complains that MLB players use wooden bats instead of composite or alloy Eastons....

 

Field Goal posts have tightened, loss of the tee, backing up kickoff spots, backing up 3-point line and plenty of other examples of pro sports tweaking rules to "preserve" the game.

 

But here's a few other points...

Rolled back ball (even if just for tour and elite amateur play) would eliminate need for:

1. Back tees and longer courses which WE pay for in fees and dues. Tour players aren't paying for their need for larger parks.

2. 12+ stimp greens for tournament play which would speed up play.

3. Crazy 4" rough to protect US Open older courses

I think if done right, only guys with elite club head speed would really see that much of a distance loss. I think weekend golfers could still play what the pros play and not really see much of a difference. Things probably get blown out of proportion from that regard.

 

Except for the fact that it is physically impossible to design a ball that will produce a sizable reduction at the extreme speeds without an impact to lower speeds. The perceived "problems" that instigate these arguments are what is blown out of proportion.

[storm319]

The pro game will be far more entertaining. More drivers. Less wedges.

 

The PGA Tour ratings and revenue over the past 15 years would disagree with this statement.

[irvnasty]

I don't care how far I hit a golf ball other than relatively (compared to the course, the competitors, etc.). It wouldn't bother me at all if the ball got rolled back.

 

I guess I see the debate like this:

 

Reasons to roll the ball back: Protecting some legacy courses. Allowing future courses to be constructed and maintained using less land. Possibly some marginal gains in pace of play. Maybe some reductions in the cost of play if courses are cheaper due to less land.

 

Reasons to NOT roll the ball back: A substantial portion of distance gain has nothing to do with the ball. A substantial portion of distance gain has to do with actual skill gain at the pro level, and some rollback advocates seem motivated by resentment. Current normal people courses are designed for the ball as it is (probably tens of thousands of them). I know a ton of players will stick at the same tees and slow things down with a shorter ball. Other than protecting a few legacy courses, it's hard to identify a real problem.

 

I don't know. It's a complicated debate about a problem that doesn't immediately affect (in proximity of effect or in time) almost anyone. The largest portion of people who currently have a stake in this have a stake as spectators of pro golf. Is there any evidence that the bulk of PGA spectators want the ball rolled back? I have no idea.

 

My ideal solution would be reducing driver head size and maybe marginally reducing COR limits. I have never liked how alien modern drivers look compared to their historical precedents. I also think that a lot of tour courses could solve the "problem" amply by growing their rough 25-50% higher. Make driver a riskier play in some cases.

 

I sort of feel like pro golf is in a bit of a new golden era. I also observe, totally unscientifically, that the courses that give the pros trouble have small and challenging greens, and enough trees, deep rough, or water to make guys think twice about pulling the big stick. Augusta, Riviera, Sawgrass, Oakmont, hell, even Harbour Town gives guys some real trouble if it gets any wind at all. Are we sure anything is actually broken?

[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.

 

How many major OEMs still produce clubs with non-conforming grooves? How about drivers well above the CT limit? How about balls that do not conform to the diameter and weight limits that have been in place since the 1930's? The reality is the demand for non-conforming equipment is extremely low. Even as unrealistic as it is, the majority of amateurs want to play the same game as the pros.

 

I agree with every word that you wrote. There is nearly zero consumer interest in non-conforming equipment. Because everybody wants to play by the Rules, and indeed the same Rules as the big boys. Manufacturers crave the approval of the USGA, and basically ignore any design that is non-conforming.

 

All of which makes me laugh, when message board posters start trash-talking the USGA.

[15th Club]

Reasons to NOT roll the

ball back: A substantial portion of distance gain has nothing to do with the ball. A substantial portion of distance gain has to do with actual skill gain at the pro level, and some rollback advocates seem motivated by resentment.

 

I want to destroy that notion. Kill it, with fire. Every time this topic comes up, it gets clogged with ignorant and false presumptions about the motivations of people interested in a ball rollback. Some of you boys need to get out more. Or, better said, go home more and do your reading. Geoff Shackelford has, for about a decade, been compiling "The List." It is a listing of quotes from people of importance to the game of golf, from every corner of the game, and the globe. Players, architects, administrators, etc. They all agree on the need to do something about golf balls in the Pro V1 era. And you know who isn't on the list? Any players, commentators, or executives who are associated with Titleist. And that's about the ONLY group that is not well-represented on The List.

The people on The List aren't motivated by "resentment." They are some of the wealthiest, most secure, most powerful, most satisfied, and most grateful-to-golf people in history. "Resentment has absolutely not one thing to do with anything in this debate.

 

 

Current normal people courses are designed for the

ball as it is (probably tens of thousands of them). I know a ton of players will stick at the same tees and slow things down with a shorter ball. Other than protecting a few legacy courses, it's hard to identify a real problem.

 

Well, in fact I have already agreed with the part of this that is essentially true. A ball rollback has nothing to do with helping or hurting certain players. It has nothing to do with records, or scoring, or egos, or emotions.

 

It has everything to do with protecting the architectural integrity of historic and classic championship golf courses.

[Shilgy]

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.

 

The reason is that golf courses have hazards that evolve, or were designed, for specific conditions. Drives of a certain length. Second shots played of a certain length. When the technology changes those conditions, the way the game is played changes - many of us think for the worse.

 

A fairway bunker that used to challenge an elite player is now routinely carried with modern technology. The game fundamentally becomes easier tee to green. Many of us think that produces a modern game with less skill. Duller.

Roads were originally built for a horse and buggy.

 

Golf is a game. Transportation is an economic necessity. Please don't confuse the two.

What certain length were courses designed for? There have always been players of varying length so how does that work? Snead and Runyan played the same course. So did Couples and Pavin. It is a testament to Riviera that -12 is still the winning score. There's no reason to change what is not broken.

Bottom line there is no right or wrong way to play the game. You are just pushing for the game from the era you loved. Same as some prefer this era and some preferred the game from before your time.

[Shilgy]

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.

Again, you and a couple others seem to keep saying these old course were designed for a certain length shot. It's really not a very good course if it's only suited for a very narrow demographic that fits the desired length. There have always been players that were longer and some were shorter. A great course provides a test to both.

[storm319]

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.

 

How many major OEMs still produce clubs with non-conforming grooves? How about drivers well above the CT limit? How about balls that do not conform to the diameter and weight limits that have been in place since the 1930's? The reality is the demand for non-conforming equipment is extremely low. Even as unrealistic as it is, the majority of amateurs want to play the same game as the pros.

 

I agree with every word that you wrote. There is nearly zero consumer interest in non-conforming equipment. Because everybody wants to play by the Rules, and indeed the same Rules as the big boys. Manufacturers crave the approval of the USGA, and basically ignore any design that is non-conforming.

 

All of which makes me laugh, when message board posters start trash-talking the USGA.

 

OEMs were across the board against the groove rollback so it isn't the USGA that they crave approval from. What they want is the stamp of conforming approval due to the low demand for non-conforming equipment. If the majority of golfers didn't care and wanted non-conforming equipment, the OEMs would produce it regardless of USGA response. In fact, if the USGA asked a panel of equipment OEMs if they would be in favor of removing all equipment restrictions, every last one would say yes.

[irvnasty]

Reasons to NOT roll the ball back: A substantial portion of distance gain has nothing to do with the ball. A substantial portion of distance gain has to do with actual skill gain at the pro level, and some rollback advocates seem motivated by resentment.

 

I want to destroy that notion. Kill it, with fire. Every time this topic comes up, it gets clogged with ignorant and false presumptions about the motivations of people interested in a ball rollback. Some of you boys need to get out more. Or, better said, go home more and do your reading. Geoff Shackelford has, for about a decade, been compiling "The List." It is a listing of quotes from people of importance to the game of golf, from every corner of the game, and the globe. Players, architects, administrators, etc. They all agree on the need to do something about golf balls in the Pro V1 era. And you know who isn't on the list? Any players, commentators, or executives who are associated with Titleist. And that's about the ONLY group that is not well-represented on The List.

The people on The List aren't motivated by "resentment." They are some of the wealthiest, most secure, most powerful, most satisfied, and most grateful-to-golf people in history. "Resentment has absolutely not one thing to do with anything in this debate.

 

 

Current normal people courses are designed for the ball as it is (probably tens of thousands of them). I know a ton of players will stick at the same tees and slow things down with a shorter ball. Other than protecting a few legacy courses, it's hard to identify a real problem.

 

Well, in fact I have already agreed with the part of this that is essentially true. A ball rollback has nothing to do with helping or hurting certain players. It has nothing to do with records, or scoring, or egos, or emotions.

 

It has everything to do with protecting the architectural integrity of historic and classic championship golf courses.

 

15th Club, I certainly didn't mean my post to be an attack on you or your perspective. I hope you didn't take it as such.

 

But I am a poly-sport fan, and every sport I know of has old-timers who lament the changes of the world. Football players who claim that modern teams can't play defense. Soccer players who say they would have broken Messi's legs in their day. Basketball coaches and players who think that spacing and three point shooting have wrecked the game. They're always wrong, just as the people who claim the new youngest generation are lazy and entitled are always wrong. I note the complete absence of tour pros in their twenties advocating for this change. They have more at stake than anyone, and have lived their whole lives playing by the rules that were given them. I don't see the ball designers or engineers, who work within the rules to make the best product they can. I don't see the new generation of course architects.

 

I see a bunch of people whose life work stood up brilliantly in its own context and are annoyed that it may not stand up to contemporary context.

 

Circumstances change, and the people who have to deal with those circumstances change to fit the new ones that they face. The fact that they do things differently than a previous generation is offensive to the older generation, but at a deeper level they're doing the same thing: getting by the best way they can with the reality they face. As a second component, they're usually better in an objective sense, because humanity tends to get better at things. Good for us, we improve generation by generation. We should all be proud of our contributions to that progress.

 

So, yeah, maybe the ball should be rolled back. Maybe it will be and it will be great. Who am I to know?

 

But I am very certain that opinion on this matter correlates with age. You can call it something other than "resentment", but that seems as good a word as any to me.

[15th Club]

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.

Again, you and a couple others seem to keep saying these old course were designed for a certain length shot. It's really not a very good course if it's only suited for a very narrow demographic that fits the desired length. There have always been players that were longer and some were shorter. A great course provides a test to both.

 

The Old Course is not suited to a field of players who can drive the ball 350+ yards at will. If golf technology has progressed to the point that 350-, 375-, and more-yard drives are routinely possible in competition, and if the viability of The Old Course as a championship venue is threatened, then something is wrong with golf.

 

The Old Course, and the Pro V1 golf ball, do not even belong together in the same discussion, in terms of their importance to the game of golf.