Rolling back the ball

[irvnasty]

 

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

 

True, one is used by millions of people to play the sport on a daily basis.

[Shilgy]

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..."

Would you have them do so with drivers as well? I believe in a post above you felt bifurcation is not the answer. If you do the "one ball" idea it suits just a few players. One of the great things about golf is that there are standards in equipment and we can all find what suits us. Can you imagine Jack's consternation back in the day if one ball was mandated and it was a high spinning, high launching ball that suited a low hitting Trevino but not the already high hitting Jack?

[deadsolid...shank]

Admittedly I haven't read the entire thread, so,if I duplicate something I apologize beforehand.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with a ball distance roll back. But I would want it across the board. Not just for the tour.

 

Courses can be set up shorter to help the general adjust. It would sure change the way we play.

 

But my problem with doing it just for the pros or tour. At what level do you implement it? I assume the web.com guys would play it. But what about the mini tours and college level? US Amatuer, is the shorter ball in play or not?

 

Whichever way they go, just no "ballifurcation"

[Golf Dino]

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?

 

I think you are correct -- there really is nothing broken so why try and impose a fix toy something that really is not broken. If golf is compromised, it would be for only the extreme elite players like those in the PROFESSIONAL Ranks. And in the case of professional players, then more thoughtful and considered course set up would go a tremendous way towards ameliorating the issue of power/distance in the modern professional game.

[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.

 

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..."

Would you have them do so with drivers as well? I believe in a post above you felt bifurcation is not the answer. If you do the "one ball" idea it suits just a few players. One of the great things about golf is that there are standards in equipment and we can all find what suits us. Can you imagine Jack's consternation back in the day if one ball was mandated and it was a high spinning, high launching ball that suited a low hitting Trevino but not the already high hitting Jack?

 

Jack actually played most of his career with a MacGregor Tourney ball that was widely reported and recognised as being vastly inferior to every other ball that his peers were playing...it would be like DJ playing with a Noodle and dominating.

[Golf Dino]

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..."

Would you have them do so with drivers as well? I believe in a post above you felt bifurcation is not the answer. If you do the "one ball" idea it suits just a few players. One of the great things about golf is that there are standards in equipment and we can all find what suits us. Can you imagine Jack's consternation back in the day if one ball was mandated and it was a high spinning, high launching ball that suited a low hitting Trevino but not the already high hitting Jack?

 

Jack actually played most of his career with a MacGregor Tourney ball that was widely reported and recognised as being vastly inferior to every other ball that his peers were playing...it would be like DJ playing with a Noodle and dominating.

.

 

And in some interviews, Jack commented that he should have dumped the Tourney golf balls - it was just that he was making relatively good money with that sponsorship deal. Look at the situation with Bubba Watson - last year with the Volvik golf ball for the sponsorship dollars but his performance and results suffered (due in part to the ball). This year, back to his Titleist and no sponsorship deal with Volvik and voilà - he wins at Rivera!

 

Let's be perfectly clear here -- NO professional player wants to play with inferior equipment; they want the best equipment available to them. This is heightened even further when it starts to "cost them money" in terms of lost tournament winnings, etc.

[klebs01]

I’m curious how this would impact non-driver shots. I hit an 8 iron 160 with a professional 100 or a pro v1. Say we get jack’s desired 20% reduction and it would suddenly only go 128. This wouldn’t be as simple as just playing a new ball. Most people would probably have to completely alter their clubs to fit with the distances they are playing.

[Golf Dino]

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.

 

But let's also be fair and remember that there was a similar situation when a young Jack Nicklaus was playing as was too long for the Old Course too. There were many critics admonishing this new power game of Jack Nicklaus and that it was rendering classic courses more defenseless.

 

LENGTH has never been the primary defence of the Old Course -- it is the WEATHER and has always been the WEATHER and then secondarily by the strategic placement of its bunkers and the quirk that is the Car Barn..

[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..."

Would you have them do so with drivers as well? I believe in a post above you felt bifurcation is not the answer. If you do the "one ball" idea it suits just a few players. One of the great things about golf is that there are standards in equipment and we can all find what suits us. Can you imagine Jack's consternation back in the day if one ball was mandated and it was a high spinning, high launching ball that suited a low hitting Trevino but not the already high hitting Jack?

 

Lol! Jack played with a MacGregor Tourney; possibly the worst competitive golf ball of its day. A lot of people speculate that if Jack hadn't been so brand-loyal under his MacGregor contract, and had played MacGregor clubs (the best in the game by far at that time) and a Titleist ball, he'd have won a half-dozen more majors.

 

Jack would have loved a one-ball condition.

[15th Club]

But let's also be fair and remember that there was a similar situation when a young Jack Nicklaus was playing as was too long for the Old Course too. There were many critics admonishing this new power game of Jack Nicklaus and that it was rendering classic courses more defenseless.

 

True. And it has gotten exponentially worse, in the Pro V era.

[15th Club]

I’m curious how this would impact non-driver shots. I hit an 8 iron 160 with a professional 100 or a pro v1. Say we get jack’s desired 20% reduction and it would suddenly only go 128. This wouldn’t be as simple as just playing a new ball. Most people would probably have to completely alter their clubs to fit with the distances they are playing.

 

So you are suggesting that a ball rollback could be the dream come true of all golf equipment manufacturers? Thousands of golfers all re-calibrating their bags for a new ball? Fabulous.

 

Most recreational players don't even play with multilayer urethane balls. We could enact an outright blanket ban on them (I am not suggesting that) and not affect "most recreational players."

[15th Club]

And in some interviews, Jack commented that he should have dumped the Tourney

golf balls- it was just that he was making relatively good money with that sponsorship deal.

 

Yes. And it has been reported, from sources apart from Jack, that he seriously threatened to break his contract because of crappy Tourney balls. Gave the MacGregor people an ultimatum. I honestly don't know when Jack was able to get away from those balls. Might've been "75 or so. Tourney balls were such crap, that nobody bought them and MacGregor eventually abandoned the market. And they even tried, with Jack. His balls were separately picked and boxed by MacGregor.

 

I'd go back to what I just posted, however. MacGregor did make the lousiest balls. But they made the best clubs. It wasn't all bad for Jack.

[irvnasty]

St. Andrews, and most courses on the Open rota, aren't that tough for pro players to figure out.

 

They're easy courses by modern standards when the weather is good. They're very, very difficult courses in high winds.

 

Rolling the ball back may change the final scores to par by a few strokes, but St. Andrews will remain an easy course in good weather. You can't change the ball to make it Sawgrass, because Sawgrass is a harder golf course made to challenge the better players of today. With any ball, it's a tougher course to score on than St. Andrews. It was created to test players who are much better than the players that St. Andrews was created to test. It's not like Sawgrass's length is what makes it tougher, for Christ's sake.

 

Old St. Andrews isn't a tough course unless the wind is howling. Unless these guys are going to play with hackeysacks, Old St. Andrews is going to remain cake on a calm day. Can we at least acknowledge that much?

[Shilgy]

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..."

Would you have them do so with drivers as well? I believe in a post above you felt bifurcation is not the answer. If you do the "one ball" idea it suits just a few players. One of the great things about golf is that there are standards in equipment and we can all find what suits us. Can you imagine Jack's consternation back in the day if one ball was mandated and it was a high spinning, high launching ball that suited a low hitting Trevino but not the already high hitting Jack?

 

Jack actually played most of his career with a MacGregor Tourney ball that was widely reported and recognised as being vastly inferior to every other ball that his peers were playing...it would be like DJ playing with a Noodle and dominating.

And Tiger win with inferior equipment as well we're told. Clearly the ball worked just fine for Jack. Perhaps it actually suited him better than the so called better balls.

[15th Club]

St. Andrews, and most courses on the Open rota, aren't that tough for pro players to figure out.

 

They're easy courses by modern standards when the weather is good. They're very, very difficult courses in high winds.

 

Rolling the ball back may change the final scores to par by a few strokes, but St. Andrews will remain an easy course in good weather. You can't change the ball to make it Sawgrass, because Sawgrass is a harder golf course made to challenge the better players of today. With any ball, it's a tougher course to score on than St. Andrews. It was created to test players who are much better than the players that St. Andrews was created to test. It's not like Sawgrass's length is what makes it tougher, for Christ's sake.

 

Old St. Andrews isn't a tough course unless the wind is howling. Unless these guys are going to play with hackeysacks, Old St. Andrews is going to remain cake on a calm day. Can we at least acknowledge that much?

 

Whatever. So why is the second tee for Opens placed in what is normally out of bounds, and a par-3 hike from the first green?

 

I say this, and you can reject it if you want; The Old Course is the straw that breaks the R&A's back. They will never let The Old Course be obsoleted by equipment. They will break with the USGA and make their own ball rules before that happens. At Muirfield, they built seven new, longer tees for the '13 Open, and they had to lease/swap land from The Renaissance Club, and bulldoze an ancient stone wall to build a new, longer tee for #9. Oakland Hills has now used every last yard of its property to stretch tees literally as far as possible. A boundary fence on #15 prevented needed lengthening there, so Rees Jones defaced the hole with a second fairway-centerline bunker. Riviera has no more land to stretch for new tees; the course is stuck in a canyon with no more space. They keep building taller (ugly) fences for their landlocked driving range. Augusta National is buying land from Augusta Country Club, and will pay to move ACC's ninth hole, to make the famous par-5 13th hole longer. Etc., etc., etc. Ridiculous changes, all for the sake of golf balls.

[Golf Dino]

 

But let's also be fair and remember that there was a similar situation when a young Jack Nicklaus was playing as was too long for the Old Course too. There were many critics admonishing this new power game of Jack Nicklaus and that it was rendering classic courses more defenseless.

 

True. And it has gotten exponentially worse, in the Pro V era.

 

I am not sure that I would agree with "exponentially", but the trend has definitely been towards longer tee shots. As referenced, the Old Course never relied on length as its primary defence - it is weather.

 

OAKMONT - 1973 US Open, after a period of prolonged rain, Johnny Miller goes out and starts firing darts at the flags ... recording the first ever 63 in the Final Round to win the 1973 US OPEN. The normally slick and slippery greens were rendered more defenceless because of softer conditions (or so it has been said by some). The very next year, the USGA creates the abomination that is now known as the MASSACRE AT WINGED FOOT, setting up the course so brutally hard that the winning score was +7 (Hale Irwin) and the cut line was +13! They had to water the greens throughout play to keep them from becoming "rock hard".

 

AUGUSTA NATIONAL -- 1965 Masters Tournament, Jack Nicklaus wins his SECOND MASTERS championship ... with a then record score of 271 (-17) bettering the record of Ben Hogan. It led Bobby Jones Jr. to comment that Jack "played a game with which I am not familiar". His power game apparently rendered ANGC defenseless. The same happened with Raymond Floyd's win and even more emphatically with Tiger Woods in 1997. Jordan equalled Tiger's record score ... but gloom and doom did not follow. Jordan never drove the ball anywhere near as long as Tiger did in 1997 and I think he still would have trouble keeping up with Tiger of today (Honda Classic).

 

YES, ANGC made some alterations to the course to "Jack - Proof" it and then to "Tiger - Proof" it. BUT, we should also be mindful that ANGC has 0 - zero rough. It relies only on the undulations of the course and the green complexes as it's defence. If ANGC actually permitted a cut of rough along the fairways, then I think it would start playing harder and keep the score down. At 18, the tee shot eventually became too easy, they then added the bunkers at the left side corner of the fairway in the traditional landing area.

 

A great course is one that makes you consider your club selection off of the tee - many times taking the driver out of your hands as you look to put the ball safely in play with a different club.

 

I guess that I am more optimistic that the great courses still have a role to play in Championship golf ... and it does not rely on having to lengthen the course to do it.

[klebs01]

I’m curious how this would impact non-driver shots. I hit an 8 iron 160 with a professional 100 or a pro v1. Say we get jack’s desired 20% reduction and it would suddenly only go 128. This wouldn’t be as simple as just playing a new ball. Most people would probably have to completely alter their clubs to fit with the distances they are playing.

 

So you are suggesting that a ball rollback could be the dream come true of all golf equipment manufacturers? Thousands of golfers all re-calibrating their bags for a new ball? Fabulous.

 

Most recreational players don't even play with multilayer urethane balls. We could enact an outright blanket ban on them (I am not suggesting that) and not affect "most recreational players."

 

It could be great or it could crater the golf industry as people just say f it and walk away because they are suddenly hitting it much shorter and need to spend a few hundred to a few grand to get a sensible set of clubs. There is definitely risk in rolling the ball back.

[mahonie]

 

And Tiger win with inferior equipment as well we're told. Clearly the ball worked just fine for Jack. Perhaps it actually suited him better than the so called better balls.

 

Iirc, the Nike Tour Accuracy ball (along with the Callaway Rule 35) were the balls that stung Titleist into action to stealing a bunch of patents and rushing the Pro V1 to market. They were about to lose 47 pros from their stable who were playing the balata balls instigated by Mickelson. It was also Mickelson who called Tiger’s equipment inferior at the time...not one of his greatest moments.

 

There are lots of stories about how poor the Mac ball was. Jack won everything he did despite the ball, not because of it. His best winning score at St Andrew’s was -7 so he clearly wasn’t overpowering it. Talking of which, Augusta have just filed for planning permission to extend the 5th...only had to buy another 23 acres

[irvnasty]

St. Andrews, and most courses on the Open rota, aren't that tough for pro players to figure out.

 

They're easy courses by modern standards when the weather is good. They're very, very difficult courses in high winds.

 

Rolling the ball back may change the final scores to par by a few strokes, but St. Andrews will remain an easy course in good weather. You can't change the ball to make it Sawgrass, because Sawgrass is a harder golf course made to challenge the better players of today. With any ball, it's a tougher course to score on than St. Andrews. It was created to test players who are much better than the players that St. Andrews was created to test. It's not like Sawgrass's length is what makes it tougher, for Christ's sake.

 

Old St. Andrews isn't a tough course unless the wind is howling. Unless these guys are going to play with hackeysacks, Old St. Andrews is going to remain cake on a calm day. Can we at least acknowledge that much?

 

Whatever. So why is the second tee for Opens placed in what is normally out of bounds, and a par-3 hike from the first green?

 

I say this, and you can reject it if you want; The Old Course is the straw that breaks the R&A's back. They will never let The Old Course be obsoleted by equipment. They will break with the USGA and make their own ball rules before that happens.

 

Sounds like obstinance to me. The Old Course has been obsoleted by athleticism and launch monitors, too, but feel free to blame equipment specifically. I'm sure the course would play tough if pros had to hit cinder blocks, or if they could only play shaft lengths of eighteen inches.

 

Maybe it's time to retire the Old Course. It's had a good run. The world is moving on, as it's wont to do.

 

I personally would be fine with still having it in the rota. But evidently the R&A feels disgraced that we don't live in the nineteenth century, and people don't still suck at golf. Shame, that. I thought it was still a decent test of golf, but I guess it can't sustain people breaking par. It was a soft course administered by soft people in the end, I suppose.

[15th Club]

Sounds like obstinance to me. The Old Course has been obsoleted by athleticism and launch monitors, too, but feel free to blame equipment specifically.

How many times does it need to be repeated? It doesn't matter what is to "blame" for the current distance crisis with elite golf (I blame the golf balls, but I don't care if people disagree, because it doesn't matter); the simple fact is, the golf ball is the one easy thing to adjust.

 

Here is where I get to use James Hahn's line and ask if the USGA is going to ban workouts, or vitamins, or launch monitors.

 

We aren't going to do anything dramatic about golf clubs, including drivers. We sure aren't going to regulate "athleticism."

[Shilgy]

And in some interviews, Jack commented that he should have dumped the Tourney

golf balls- it was just that he was making relatively good money with that sponsorship deal.

 

Yes. And it has been reported, from sources apart from Jack, that he seriously threatened to break his contract because of crappy Tourney balls. Gave the MacGregor people an ultimatum. I honestly don't know when Jack was able to get away from those balls. Might've been "75 or so. Tourney balls were such crap, that nobody bought them and MacGregor eventually abandoned the market. And they even tried, with Jack. His balls were separately picked and boxed by MacGregor.

 

I'd go back to what I just posted, however. MacGregor did make the lousiest balls. But they made the best clubs. It wasn't all bad for Jack.

You are missing the point. A one ball rule may have harmed Jack even if the Tourney was crap.

Let's say your a high spin player and the so called one ball is very high spin. It doesn't fit your game at all but may fit others perfectly. That is a ridiculous premise that all must use the same ball.

[FlaBoy239]

Evolution is to blame. Ban it!

[Shilgy]

 

And Tiger win with inferior equipment as well we're told. Clearly the ball worked just fine for Jack. Perhaps it actually suited him better than the so called better balls.

 

Iirc, the Nike Tour Accuracy ball (along with the Callaway Rule 35) were the balls that stung Titleist into action to stealing a bunch of patents and rushing the Pro V1 to market. They were about to lose 47 pros from their stable who were playing the balata balls instigated by Mickelson. It was also Mickelson who called Tiger’s equipment inferior at the time...not one of his greatest moments.

 

There are lots of stories about how poor the Mac ball was. Jack won everything he did despite the ball, not because of it. His best winning score at St Andrew’s was -7 so he clearly wasn’t overpowering it. Talking of which, Augusta have just filed for planning permission to extend the 5th...only had to buy another 23 acres

Scores at St Andrews have everything to do with the weather. Not the players.

[storm319]

Ridiculous changes, all for the sake of golf balls nostalgia and an attempt to protect par.

 

Fixed that for you

[MtlJeff]

Sounds like obstinance to me. The Old Course has been obsoleted by athleticism and launch monitors, too, but feel free to blame equipment specifically.

How many times does it need to be repeated? It doesn't matter what is to "blame" for the current distance crisis with elite golf (I blame the golf balls, but I don't care if people disagree, because it doesn't matter); the simple fact is, the golf ball is the one easy thing to adjust.

 

Here is where I get to use James Hahn's line and ask if the USGA is going to ban workouts, or vitamins, or launch monitors.

 

We aren't going to do anything dramatic about golf clubs, including drivers. We sure aren't going to regulate "athleticism."

 

So again i feel that since this isn't a problem for 99.5% of golfers , and the pro game makes money for it's stadium and major courses that are more expensive to maintain....this is all crap and a waste of our time anyway...

 

But.....let's say they do dial back the ball. Are we maybe a little bit concerned that this just becomes "Tiger proofing 2.0" on the tour anyway? They ALREADY have 7500yd courses, so will likely still use them. Then distance becomes MORE important, guys learn to swing even HARDER (watch a LD event, these guys swing 130-140 and many have pretty decent swings). So 15 years from now we are right back where we started, and then we dial it back again?

 

And who gets hurt in all of this? The 45yr old weekend golfer who swings 92mph is now driving it 160yds. I mean what's the point of all of this? Change a billion dollar industry and make the most fun part of the game for amateurs more difficult, because some guys are upset at how the game looks on TV?

[15th Club]

 

And in some interviews, Jack commented that he should have dumped the Tourney

golf balls- it was just that he was making relatively good money with that sponsorship deal.

 

Yes. And it has been reported, from sources apart from Jack, that he seriously threatened to break his contract because of crappy Tourney balls. Gave the MacGregor people an ultimatum. I honestly don't know when Jack was able to get away from those balls. Might've been "75 or so. Tourney balls were such crap, that nobody bought them and MacGregor eventually abandoned the market. And they even tried, with Jack. His balls were separately picked and boxed by MacGregor.

 

I'd go back to what I just posted, however. MacGregor did make the lousiest balls. But they made the best clubs. It wasn't all bad for Jack.

You are missing the point. A one ball rule may have harmed Jack even if the Tourney was crap.

Let's say your a high spin player and the so called one ball is very high spin. It doesn't fit your game at all but may fit others perfectly. That is a ridiculous premise that all must use the same ball.

 

I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make with me. I was responding to the historical fact about Jack's golf ball in his prime. There were only about eight balls to choose from, from about six different manufacturers, in the 1960's. Nobody thought about high- or low-spin. Or launch angles. They didn't have Trackman. They didn't have anything like it. They went out on a range, hit balls, and watched what they did.

 

As for now, I think you are mistaking me for someone who cares, about catering to Tour pro's wishes, over the historical integrity of classic golf courses.

 

Mind you, I am not calling for a "one design" ball for all of elite golf, although it wouldn't much bother me. They have "one design" for footballs, baseballs and basketballs.

 

Anyway, I am not necessarily advocating any "one design" rule. I am advocating a rollback. If a rollback protected the classic courses, and still allowed players to choose from a range of designs that suited their game, it would be fine with me.

 

I just don't understand your upset, other than it is what the latest generation of golfers have gotten used to. Golf is frankly weird, in allowing players to choose from a whole marketplace of balls to play in competition. I can't think of any other sports that use a ball, and allow the participants to choose that essential element of the competition. Wouldn't it still be a game, if everybody used the same ball and everybody had to adjust their game to that ball?

[15th Club]

And who gets hurt in all of this? The 45yr old weekend golfer who swings 92mph is now driving it 160yds.

The guy you are describing does not even buy Pro V's. And I expect that a significant re-working of ball standards could be done so that your 45 y.o. weekend golfer wouldn't even be affected.

[rangersgoalie]

every few generations, golf courses get pushed aside

Prestwick going to host an Open when they roll back the ball??

 

Honestly, reading this is like the reading a global warming debate. Why argue, neither side wants to hear the other.

[storm319]

Sounds like obstinance to me. The Old Course has been obsoleted by athleticism and launch monitors, too, but feel free to blame equipment specifically.

How many times does it need to be repeated? It doesn't matter what is to "blame" for the current distance crisis with elite golf (I blame the golf balls, but I don't care if people disagree, because it doesn't matter); the simple fact is, the golf ball is the one easy thing to adjust.

 

Here is where I get to use James Hahn's line and ask if the USGA is going to ban workouts, or vitamins, or launch monitors.

 

We aren't going to do anything dramatic about golf clubs, including drivers. We sure aren't going to regulate "athleticism."

 

Actually, par is the easiest thing to adjust. Course Rating/Slope are re-evaluated and adjusted periodically, par probably should be as well. People seem to put more emphasis on a player's score in relation to par than the actual score so lowering par for tour events should solve these perceived "problems". People need to acknowledge that most equipment rollback arguments are driven by nostalgia and that throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks is not going to solve anything (the extremely ineffective groove rollback has proven that).

[storm319]

And who gets hurt in all of this? The 45yr old weekend golfer who swings 92mph is now driving it 160yds.

The guy you are describing does not even buy Pro V's. And I expect that a significant re-working of ball standards could be done so that your 45 y.o. weekend golfer wouldn't even be affected.

 

Please enlighten us...very intrigued to hear your ideas on how to defy physics :)