Why haven't PGA Tour scores come down w/ tech

[Roadking2003]

Edit., to add; As I have said many times, even if the ball was absolutely capped and produced absolutely zero distance increases in golf, it is "still the ball" that is at issue. The reason being, we will never "roll back" athleticism, or fitness, or launch-monitoring. I might be interested in any notions of rolling back golf clubs, but I don't see that happening. And we absolutely should not trick up golf courses to create any sort of effective roll back. The answer, if distances are increasing, and even if the ball is not adding to the overall distance equation, is still to roll back the ball standards, because that is the easiest thing to do. THAT is the further answer to why I say, "It's the ball!"

 

Why is it easier to roll back the ball than to roll back the driver? Or to roll back fairway speed?

[Sean2]

Edit., to add; As I have said many times, even if the ball was absolutely capped and produced absolutely zero distance increases in golf, it is "still the ball" that is at issue. The reason being, we will never "roll back" athleticism, or fitness, or launch-monitoring. I might be interested in any notions of rolling back golf clubs, but I don't see that happening. And we absolutely should not trick up golf courses to create any sort of effective roll back. The answer, if distances are increasing, and even if the ball is not adding to the overall distance equation, is still to roll back the ball standards, because that is the easiest thing to do. THAT is the further answer to why I say, "It's the ball!"

 

Why is it easier to roll back the ball than to roll back the driver? Or to roll back fairway speed?

 

Or grow the rough. However, that might be more expensive than rolling back the ball

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Edit., to add; As I have said many times, even if the ball was absolutely capped and produced absolutely zero distance increases in golf, it is "still the ball" that is at issue. The reason being, we will never "roll back" athleticism, or fitness, or launch-monitoring. I might be interested in any notions of rolling back golf clubs, but I don't see that happening. And we absolutely should not trick up golf courses to create any sort of effective roll back. The answer, if distances are increasing, and even if the ball is not adding to the overall distance equation, is still to roll back the ball standards, because that is the easiest thing to do. THAT is the further answer to why I say, "It's the ball!"

 

Why is it easier to roll back the ball than to roll back the driver? Or to roll back fairway speed?

 

Or grow the rough. However, that might be more expensive than rolling back the ball

 

Or roll back the USGA trying to convince everyone that there is a problem at all. Dirt cheap.

[15th Club]

Edit., to add; As I have said many times, even if the ball was absolutely capped and produced absolutely zero distance increases in golf, it is "still the ball" that is at issue. The reason being, we will never "roll back" athleticism, or fitness, or launch-monitoring. I might be interested in any notions of rolling back golf clubs, but I don't see that happening. And we absolutely should not trick up golf courses to create any sort of effective roll back. The answer, if distances are increasing, and even if the ball is not adding to the overall distance equation, is still to roll back the ball standards, because that is the easiest thing to do. THAT is the further answer to why I say, "It's the ball!"

 

Why is it easier to roll back the ball than to roll back the driver? Or to roll back fairway speed?

 

Rolling back drivers: Millions of golfers have considerable money and time tied up in drivers. And, with a ball rollback it might be possible to just leave them as is.

 

"Rolling back fairway speed" is the worst possible suggestion. For any golf architect, the ground game is an essential element of how a course conforms to the land. It is a point of great interest for a golfer, to understand and play for how the ball rolls out. It should be encouraged. I have no clue as to how anybody would "roll back fairway speed" even if it were desirable (and it isn't). Would you soften them with lots of water? And get plugged lies and mudballs and an unplayable course if it rained a lot? Would you let the fairway grass grow out, substantially eliminating the skill of spinning the ball from a closely-mown area as intended?

 

I've got an idea; just change the $3.50 golf balls.

[15th Club]

Edit., to add; As I have said many times, even if the ball was absolutely capped and produced absolutely zero distance increases in golf, it is "still the ball" that is at issue. The reason being, we will never "roll back" athleticism, or fitness, or launch-monitoring. I might be interested in any notions of rolling back golf clubs, but I don't see that happening. And we absolutely should not trick up golf courses to create any sort of effective roll back. The answer, if distances are increasing, and even if the ball is not adding to the overall distance equation, is still to roll back the ball standards, because that is the easiest thing to do. THAT is the further answer to why I say, "It's the ball!"

 

Why is it easier to roll back the ball than to roll back the driver? Or to roll back fairway speed?

 

Or grow the rough. However, that might be more expensive than rolling back the ball

 

Or roll back the USGA trying to convince everyone that there is a problem at all. Dirt cheap.

 

When the USGA does act, I hope that some people find a new game, or a new way to play. Start their own golf ball company, make non-conforming balls, play your hearts out, bang the long ball, and quit whining about the USGA.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

Or roll back the USGA trying to convince everyone that there is a problem at all. Dirt cheap.

 

When the USGA does act, I hope that some people find a new game, or a new way to play. Start their own golf ball company, make non-conforming balls, play your hearts out, bang the long ball, and quit whining about the USGA.

 

Or just keep it the way it is (cheap), accept the modern game (cheap), and the USGA can stop whining about virtually everything about it (cheap).

 

It's not a perfect plan because the 40 guys worried about it won't get that special day where they get to watch a telecast with a 20% rollback and get to say, "See, Ethel! I told you it was tougher back when I played!", turn off the TV, head out to make the early bird, send back the soup, and tip 11%.

[Roadking2003]

Rolling back drivers: Millions of golfers have considerable money and time tied up in drivers. And, with a ball rollback it might be possible to just leave them as is.

 

"Rolling back fairway speed" is the worst possible suggestion. For any golf architect, the ground game is an essential element of how a course conforms to the land. It is a point of great interest for a golfer, to understand and play for how the ball rolls out. It should be encouraged. I have no clue as to how anybody would "roll back fairway speed" even if it were desirable (and it isn't). Would you soften them with lots of water? And get plugged lies and mudballs and an unplayable course if it rained a lot? Would you let the fairway grass grow out, substantially eliminating the skill of spinning the ball from a closely-mown area as intended?

 

I've got an idea; just change the $3.50 golf balls.

 

We are talking about pro golfers. They get clubs free. And BTW, most golfers change drivers every few years. So rolling back the driver would be free.

 

And rolling back the fairway would make them play like they did 40 years ago. Why would it be bad today when it was good 40 years ago? (I know your answer; "because then we wouldn't need to roll back the ball")

 

So you want a ball from 40 years ago but not a driver from 40 years ago and not a fairway from 40 years ago. I got it.

 

BTW, fairways were much slower 80 years ago when all of the old wonderful courses were designed. So I suppose now they are ruined because they are mowed lower and are dryer. Why not roll back the fairways like they were originally designed? That would preserve the "essential element" of the ground game as they were designed.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Rolling back drivers: Millions of golfers have considerable money and time tied up in drivers. And, with a ball rollback it might be possible to just leave them as is.

 

"Rolling back fairway speed" is the worst possible suggestion. For any golf architect, the ground game is an essential element of how a course conforms to the land. It is a point of great interest for a golfer, to understand and play for how the ball rolls out. It should be encouraged. I have no clue as to how anybody would "roll back fairway speed" even if it were desirable (and it isn't). Would you soften them with lots of water? And get plugged lies and mudballs and an unplayable course if it rained a lot? Would you let the fairway grass grow out, substantially eliminating the skill of spinning the ball from a closely-mown area as intended?

 

I've got an idea; just change the $3.50 golf balls.

 

We are talking about pro golfers. They get clubs free. And BTW, most golfers change drivers every few years. So rolling back the driver would be free.

 

And rolling back the fairway would make them play like they did 40 years ago. Why would it be bad today when it was good 40 years ago? (I know your answer; "because then we wouldn't need to roll back the ball")

 

So you want a ball from 40 years ago but not a driver from 40 years ago and not a fairway from 40 years ago. I got it.

 

BTW, fairways were much slower 80 years ago when all of the old wonderful courses were designed. So I suppose now they are ruined because they are mowed lower and are dryer. Why not roll back the fairways like they were originally designed? That would preserve the "essential element" of the ground game as they were designed.

 

A ton of good points. Don't forget that we have to rollback all of the added yardage and make the greens roll at 6 to preserve the original intent.

The "original designer's intent" argument is silly for myriad reasons, but if we go that route for an excuse to nerf the ball, we had better not be playing on firm greens rolling 14.

[15th Club]

Rolling back drivers: Millions of golfers have considerable money and time tied up in drivers. And, with a ball rollback it might be possible to just leave them as is.

 

"Rolling back fairway speed" is the worst possible suggestion. For any golf architect, the ground game is an essential element of how a course conforms to the land. It is a point of great interest for a golfer, to understand and play for how the ball rolls out. It should be encouraged. I have no clue as to how anybody would "roll back fairway speed" even if it were desirable (and it isn't). Would you soften them with lots of water? And get plugged lies and mudballs and an unplayable course if it rained a lot? Would you let the fairway grass grow out, substantially eliminating the skill of spinning the ball from a closely-mown area as intended?

 

I've got an idea; just change the $3.50 golf balls.

 

We are talking about pro golfers. They get clubs free. And BTW, most golfers change drivers every few years. So rolling back the driver would be free.

 

And rolling back the fairway would make them play like they did 40 years ago. Why would it be bad today when it was good 40 years ago? (I know your answer; "because then we wouldn't need to roll back the ball")

 

So you want a ball from 40 years ago but not a driver from 40 years ago and not a fairway from 40 years ago. I got it.

 

BTW, fairways were much slower 80 years ago when all of the old wonderful courses were designed. So I suppose now they are ruined because they are mowed lower and are dryer. Why not roll back the fairways like they were originally designed? That would preserve the "essential element" of the ground game as they were designed.

 

I don't want a ball from 40 years ago, and I never said that I did. I actually didn't say anything about equipment "from 40 years ago." But talking about changes to historic classic golf courses is like asking, "Why would you want a Rothko, or a Jackson Pollock, or a Picasso from 40 years ago?" (Or a Van Gogh from more than a hundred years ago, or a Vermeer from more than three hundred years ago?)

 

And when you talk about fairways from 80 years ago, many of the very best designs had no watering for their fairways at all. They had no irrigation.

 

By the way, I am not talking about bifurcated rules for elites. I am talking about changes for all of golf; one set of Rules and equipment standards.

[15th Club]

Rolling back drivers: Millions of golfers have considerable money and time tied up in drivers. And, with a ball rollback it might be possible to just leave them as is.

 

"Rolling back fairway speed" is the worst possible suggestion. For any golf architect, the ground game is an essential element of how a course conforms to the land. It is a point of great interest for a golfer, to understand and play for how the ball rolls out. It should be encouraged. I have no clue as to how anybody would "roll back fairway speed" even if it were desirable (and it isn't). Would you soften them with lots of water? And get plugged lies and mudballs and an unplayable course if it rained a lot? Would you let the fairway grass grow out, substantially eliminating the skill of spinning the ball from a closely-mown area as intended?

 

I've got an idea; just change the $3.50 golf balls.

 

We are talking about pro golfers. They get clubs free. And BTW, most golfers change drivers every few years. So rolling back the driver would be free.

 

And rolling back the fairway would make them play like they did 40 years ago. Why would it be bad today when it was good 40 years ago? (I know your answer; "because then we wouldn't need to roll back the ball")

 

So you want a ball from 40 years ago but not a driver from 40 years ago and not a fairway from 40 years ago. I got it.

 

BTW, fairways were much slower 80 years ago when all of the old wonderful courses were designed. So I suppose now they are ruined because they are mowed lower and are dryer. Why not roll back the fairways like they were originally designed? That would preserve the "essential element" of the ground game as they were designed.

 

A ton of good points. Don't forget that we have to rollback all of the added yardage and make the greens roll at 6 to preserve the original intent.

The "original designer's intent" argument is silly for myriad reasons, but if we go that route for an excuse to nerf the ball, we had better not be playing on firm greens rolling 14.

 

Playing on greens that Stimp at 14 is, depending a bit on the course, almost always a bad idea for championship play. At that speed, a very windy day can blow balls out of place on the green. At that speed, more and more pin positions are unusable. At that speed, play is slowed down because of the excruciating nature of even a short putt.

 

Those basic principles are part of why it is such a rotten idea to defend courses against distance gains from golf balls, by tricking up green speeds.

 

Of course, Ashley Schaeffer, your attempt(s) to isolate any arguments with your own absolutism are routine failures. I'm not an absolutist about anything. Not about changes to golf courses. Not about rollback percentages. Not about what equipment that should be preserved or what should be banned. I'm not against all technology and we've regularly seen some technological advances that help everybody.

 

By no account did the Pro V1 Era "help everybody."

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Rolling back drivers: Millions of golfers have considerable money and time tied up in drivers. And, with a ball rollback it might be possible to just leave them as is.

 

"Rolling back fairway speed" is the worst possible suggestion. For any golf architect, the ground game is an essential element of how a course conforms to the land. It is a point of great interest for a golfer, to understand and play for how the ball rolls out. It should be encouraged. I have no clue as to how anybody would "roll back fairway speed" even if it were desirable (and it isn't). Would you soften them with lots of water? And get plugged lies and mudballs and an unplayable course if it rained a lot? Would you let the fairway grass grow out, substantially eliminating the skill of spinning the ball from a closely-mown area as intended?

 

I've got an idea; just change the $3.50 golf balls.

 

We are talking about pro golfers. They get clubs free. And BTW, most golfers change drivers every few years. So rolling back the driver would be free.

 

And rolling back the fairway would make them play like they did 40 years ago. Why would it be bad today when it was good 40 years ago? (I know your answer; "because then we wouldn't need to roll back the ball")

 

So you want a ball from 40 years ago but not a driver from 40 years ago and not a fairway from 40 years ago. I got it.

 

BTW, fairways were much slower 80 years ago when all of the old wonderful courses were designed. So I suppose now they are ruined because they are mowed lower and are dryer. Why not roll back the fairways like they were originally designed? That would preserve the "essential element" of the ground game as they were designed.

 

I don't want a ball from 40 years ago, and I never said that I did. I actually didn't say anything about equipment "from 40 years ago." But talking about changes to historic classic golf courses is like asking, "Why would you want a Rothko, or a Jackson Pollock, or a Picasso from 40 years ago?" (Or a Van Gogh from more than a hundred years ago, or a Vermeer from more than three hundred years ago?)

 

And when you talk about fairways from 80 years ago, many of the very best designs had no watering for their fairways at all. They had no irrigation.

 

By the way, I am not talking about bifurcated rules for elites. I am talking about changes for all of golf; one set of Rules and equipment standards.

 

Because we have a governing body that says the best connoisseurs don't look at the paintings "the right way".

The USGA is like an annoying college roommate that says you can't like Bob Dylan like he does because you don't really "hear" the music the right way, when all you want to do is listen to music.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Rolling back drivers: Millions of golfers have considerable money and time tied up in drivers. And, with a ball rollback it might be possible to just leave them as is.

 

"Rolling back fairway speed" is the worst possible suggestion. For any golf architect, the ground game is an essential element of how a course conforms to the land. It is a point of great interest for a golfer, to understand and play for how the ball rolls out. It should be encouraged. I have no clue as to how anybody would "roll back fairway speed" even if it were desirable (and it isn't). Would you soften them with lots of water? And get plugged lies and mudballs and an unplayable course if it rained a lot? Would you let the fairway grass grow out, substantially eliminating the skill of spinning the ball from a closely-mown area as intended?

 

I've got an idea; just change the $3.50 golf balls.

 

We are talking about pro golfers. They get clubs free. And BTW, most golfers change drivers every few years. So rolling back the driver would be free.

 

And rolling back the fairway would make them play like they did 40 years ago. Why would it be bad today when it was good 40 years ago? (I know your answer; "because then we wouldn't need to roll back the ball")

 

So you want a ball from 40 years ago but not a driver from 40 years ago and not a fairway from 40 years ago. I got it.

 

BTW, fairways were much slower 80 years ago when all of the old wonderful courses were designed. So I suppose now they are ruined because they are mowed lower and are dryer. Why not roll back the fairways like they were originally designed? That would preserve the "essential element" of the ground game as they were designed.

 

A ton of good points. Don't forget that we have to rollback all of the added yardage and make the greens roll at 6 to preserve the original intent.

The "original designer's intent" argument is silly for myriad reasons, but if we go that route for an excuse to nerf the ball, we had better not be playing on firm greens rolling 14.

 

Playing on greens that Stimp at 14 is, depending a bit on the course, almost always a bad idea for championship play. At that speed, a very windy day can blow balls out of place on the green. At that speed, more and more pin positions are unusable. At that speed, play is slowed down because of the excruciating nature of even a short putt.

 

Those basic principles are part of why it is such a rotten idea to defend courses against distance gains from golf balls, by tricking up green speeds.

 

Of course, Ashley Schaeffer, your attempt(s) to isolate any arguments with your own absolutism are routine failures. I'm not an absolutist about anything. Not about changes to golf courses. Not about rollback percentages. Not about what equipment that should be preserved or what should be banned. I'm not against all technology and we've regularly seen some technological advances that help everybody.

 

By no account did the Pro V1 Era "help everybody."

 

You're so much better than everyone else that I can barely stand it. So impressive.

[knock it close]

Rolling back drivers: Millions of golfers have considerable money and time tied up in drivers. And, with a ball rollback it might be possible to just leave them as is.

 

"Rolling back fairway speed" is the worst possible suggestion. For any golf architect, the ground game is an essential element of how a course conforms to the land. It is a point of great interest for a golfer, to understand and play for how the ball rolls out. It should be encouraged. I have no clue as to how anybody would "roll back fairway speed" even if it were desirable (and it isn't). Would you soften them with lots of water? And get plugged lies and mudballs and an unplayable course if it rained a lot? Would you let the fairway grass grow out, substantially eliminating the skill of spinning the ball from a closely-mown area as intended?

 

I've got an idea; just change the $3.50 golf balls.

 

We are talking about pro golfers. They get clubs free. And BTW, most golfers change drivers every few years. So rolling back the driver would be free.

 

And rolling back the fairway would make them play like they did 40 years ago. Why would it be bad today when it was good 40 years ago? (I know your answer; "because then we wouldn't need to roll back the ball")

 

So you want a ball from 40 years ago but not a driver from 40 years ago and not a fairway from 40 years ago. I got it.

 

BTW, fairways were much slower 80 years ago when all of the old wonderful courses were designed. So I suppose now they are ruined because they are mowed lower and are dryer. Why not roll back the fairways like they were originally designed? That would preserve the "essential element" of the ground game as they were designed.

 

A ton of good points. Don't forget that we have to rollback all of the added yardage and make the greens roll at 6 to preserve the original intent.

The "original designer's intent" argument is silly for myriad reasons, but if we go that route for an excuse to nerf the ball, we had better not be playing on firm greens rolling 14.

 

Playing on greens that Stimp at 14 is, depending a bit on the course, almost always a bad idea for championship play. At that speed, a very windy day can blow balls out of place on the green. At that speed, more and more pin positions are unusable. At that speed, play is slowed down because of the excruciating nature of even a short putt.

 

Those basic principles are part of why it is such a rotten idea to defend courses against distance gains from golf balls, by tricking up green speeds.

 

Of course, Ashley Schaeffer, your attempt(s) to isolate any arguments with your own absolutism are routine failures. I'm not an absolutist about anything. Not about changes to golf courses. Not about rollback percentages. Not about what equipment that should be preserved or what should be banned. I'm not against all technology and we've regularly seen some technological advances that help everybody.

 

By no account did the Pro V1 Era "help everybody."

 

You're so much better than everyone else that I can barely stand it. So impressive.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

 

You're so much better than everyone else that I can barely stand it. So impressive.

 

Solid work right there.

[ohioglfr]

Back in the day you could play drunk on the PGA

. . . And smoke cigs, too.

[RobertBaron]

Back in the day you could play drunk on the PGA

. . . And smoke cigs, too.

 

TBF you still can and even become the #1 player in the world!

 

[green.tea]

Rolling the ball back 20% is one of the dumbest ideas repeatedly posted on this site

[Shilgy]

Rolling back drivers: Millions of golfers have considerable money and time tied up in drivers. And, with a ball rollback it might be possible to just leave them as is.

 

"Rolling back fairway speed" is the worst possible suggestion. For any golf architect, the ground game is an essential element of how a course conforms to the land. It is a point of great interest for a golfer, to understand and play for how the ball rolls out. It should be encouraged. I have no clue as to how anybody would "roll back fairway speed" even if it were desirable (and it isn't). Would you soften them with lots of water? And get plugged lies and mudballs and an unplayable course if it rained a lot? Would you let the fairway grass grow out, substantially eliminating the skill of spinning the ball from a closely-mown area as intended?

 

I've got an idea; just change the $3.50 golf balls.

 

We are talking about pro golfers. They get clubs free. And BTW, most golfers change drivers every few years. So rolling back the driver would be free.

 

And rolling back the fairway would make them play like they did 40 years ago. Why would it be bad today when it was good 40 years ago? (I know your answer; "because then we wouldn't need to roll back the ball")

 

So you want a ball from 40 years ago but not a driver from 40 years ago and not a fairway from 40 years ago. I got it.

 

BTW, fairways were much slower 80 years ago when all of the old wonderful courses were designed. So I suppose now they are ruined because they are mowed lower and are dryer. Why not roll back the fairways like they were originally designed? That would preserve the "essential element" of the ground game as they were designed.

 

I don't want a ball from 40 years ago, and I never said that I did. I actually didn't say anything about equipment "from 40 years ago." But talking about changes to historic classic golf courses is like asking, "Why would you want a Rothko, or a Jackson Pollock, or a Picasso from 40 years ago?" (Or a Van Gogh from more than a hundred years ago, or a Vermeer from more than three hundred years ago?)

 

And when you talk about fairways from 80 years ago, many of the very best designs had no watering for their fairways at all. They had no irrigation.

 

By the way, I am not talking about bifurcated rules for elites. I am talking about changes for all of golf; one set of Rules and equipment standards.

But you do want the "shot values" from 40 years ago. Or more accurately the "as the architect intended" belief. We are miles from that never to return. Courses are not going to have fairways cut the way they used to be. Not the greens. Or the bunkers for that matter as they are groomed differently today. Pins are set much closer to the edges of greens than they used to be as well.

There is nothing wrong with how even the elite play the courses you adore. It may be a different methodology to achieve the score than you wish for but it is not wrong.

Rolling back the ball for everyone so that a very small group plays the same game you fondly remember is not better for the game. All games evolve.

There have been many good points made about why not to roll the ball back in the many many many various threads about this this winter. And yet you fight the good fight and argue on. But your main reason seems to always come back to one thing. That there is a small group of courses that cannot hold elite stroke play events any longer. What you fail to acknowledge is that the courses you mentioned never ever did. Cypress, Ngla, and others never were the type of clubs that held events.

You also scoffed at the courses the tour players hate as being on the bottom of the list. Mostly your list was the TPC's. Well guess what? On any list something has to be "lowest" ranked every of they are all good. Or would you prefer the tour and majors went back to Brackenridge Park, Keller and Pecan Valley? Or maybe Kemper Lakes?

[thug the bunny]

Edit., to add; As I have said many times, even if the ball was absolutely capped and produced absolutely zero distance increases in golf, it is "still the ball" that is at issue. The reason being, we will never "roll back" athleticism, or fitness, or launch-monitoring. I might be interested in any notions of rolling back golf clubs, but I don't see that happening. And we absolutely should not trick up golf courses to create any sort of effective roll back. The answer, if distances are increasing, and even if the ball is not adding to the overall distance equation, is still to roll back the ball standards, because that is the easiest thing to do. THAT is the further answer to why I say, "It's the ball!"

 

Why is it easier to roll back the ball than to roll back the driver? Or to roll back fairway speed?

 

Rolling back drivers: Millions of golfers have considerable money and time tied up in drivers. And, with a ball rollback it might be possible to just leave them as is.

 

"Rolling back fairway speed" is the worst possible suggestion. For any golf architect, the ground game is an essential element of how a course conforms to the land. It is a point of great interest for a golfer, to understand and play for how the ball rolls out. It should be encouraged. I have no clue as to how anybody would "roll back fairway speed" even if it were desirable (and it isn't). Would you soften them with lots of water? And get plugged lies and mudballs and an unplayable course if it rained a lot? Would you let the fairway grass grow out, substantially eliminating the skill of spinning the ball from a closely-mown area as intended?

 

I've got an idea; just change the $3.50 golf balls.

 

What's wrong with that? And who said that spinning the ball back is what was intended? I believe that running the ball up was standard strategy back in the day.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Rolling back drivers: Millions of golfers have considerable money and time tied up in drivers. And, with a ball rollback it might be possible to just leave them as is.

 

"Rolling back fairway speed" is the worst possible suggestion. For any golf architect, the ground game is an essential element of how a course conforms to the land. It is a point of great interest for a golfer, to understand and play for how the ball rolls out. It should be encouraged. I have no clue as to how anybody would "roll back fairway speed" even if it were desirable (and it isn't). Would you soften them with lots of water? And get plugged lies and mudballs and an unplayable course if it rained a lot? Would you let the fairway grass grow out, substantially eliminating the skill of spinning the ball from a closely-mown area as intended?

 

I've got an idea; just change the $3.50 golf balls.

 

We are talking about pro golfers. They get clubs free. And BTW, most golfers change drivers every few years. So rolling back the driver would be free.

 

And rolling back the fairway would make them play like they did 40 years ago. Why would it be bad today when it was good 40 years ago? (I know your answer; "because then we wouldn't need to roll back the ball")

 

So you want a ball from 40 years ago but not a driver from 40 years ago and not a fairway from 40 years ago. I got it.

 

BTW, fairways were much slower 80 years ago when all of the old wonderful courses were designed. So I suppose now they are ruined because they are mowed lower and are dryer. Why not roll back the fairways like they were originally designed? That would preserve the "essential element" of the ground game as they were designed.

 

I don't want a ball from 40 years ago, and I never said that I did. I actually didn't say anything about equipment "from 40 years ago." But talking about changes to historic classic golf courses is like asking, "Why would you want a Rothko, or a Jackson Pollock, or a Picasso from 40 years ago?" (Or a Van Gogh from more than a hundred years ago, or a Vermeer from more than three hundred years ago?)

 

And when you talk about fairways from 80 years ago, many of the very best designs had no watering for their fairways at all. They had no irrigation.

 

By the way, I am not talking about bifurcated rules for elites. I am talking about changes for all of golf; one set of Rules and equipment standards.

But you do want the "shot values" from 40 years ago. Or more accurately the "as the architect intended" belief. We are miles from that never to return. Courses are not going to have fairways cut the way they used to be. Not the greens. Or the bunkers for that matter as they are groomed differently today. Pins are set much closer to the edges of greens than they used to be as well.

There is nothing wrong with how even the elite play the courses you adore. It may be a different methodology to achieve the score than you wish for but it is not wrong.

Rolling back the ball for everyone so that a very small group plays the same game you fondly remember is not better for the game. All games evolve.

There have been many good points made about why not to roll the ball back in the many many many various threads about this this winter. And yet you fight the good fight and argue on. But your main reason seems to always come back to one thing. That there is a small group of courses that cannot hold elite stroke play events any longer. What you fail to acknowledge is that the courses you mentioned never ever did. Cypress, Ngla, and others never were the type of clubs that held events.

You also scoffed at the courses the tour players hate as being on the bottom of the list. Mostly your list was the TPC's. Well guess what? On any list something has to be "lowest" ranked every of they are all good. Or would you prefer the tour and majors went back to Brackenridge Park, Keller and Pecan Valley? Or maybe Kemper Lakes?

 

With every possible justification for changing the ball being consistently shot down, I'm beginning to think our friend here might've went super long on some balata/manilkara tree groves in the mid 1990s, or is Mike Davis's mom.

[sonomaca]

It's obviously because the players of yesteryear were better. Just look at all the multiple major champions a generation ago versus today. All the greats were born before 1950, and that is that. There are no other factors to consider. The players nowadays just swing for the fences with zero precision, and they aren't hungry for wins. Don't give me this stuff about greens being firm and fast and courses being longer. Roger Maltbie with an M4 driver would be a one-man wrecking crew on tour today.

 

Interesting thought experiments. How would Hogan fare. I’m going to say he’d still be the top player on tour.

[mark m]

Rolling the ball back 20% is one of the dumbest ideas repeatedly posted on this site

 

I agree. I was reading the latest Golf Digest (May 2018) at the gym and there is an article in it about the "distance debate." It says the USGA has been testing various balls since 2005. GD got their hands on one and it went about 30 yards less at 120 mph, and 7-10 yards less for those who swing it between 75-90 mph. It sounds like the R&A is playing a big role in this matter as well. It's not dead yet.

[knock it close]

Rolling the ball back 20% is one of the dumbest ideas repeatedly posted on this site

 

I agree. I was reading the latest Golf Digest (May 2018) at the gym and there is an article in it about the "distance debate." It says the USGA has been testing various balls since 2005. GD got their hands on one and it went about 30 yards less at 120 mph, and 7-10 yards less for those who swing it between 75-90 mph. It sounds like the R&A is playing a big role in this matter as well. It's not dead yet.

Well ya that's how percentages work. At those ss that would be pretty much a 10% drop, I agree and I said it before that 20% is absurd and insane but I would be an advocate of a 8-10% reduction

[bladehunter]

You guys are crazy if you think it’s all fairway roll. Blowing it over bunkers 310 out isn’t rare today. Not at all. Can be done with a 3 wood for some guys.

 

Answer to the op is that courses are longer and greens faster. That’s why scores stayed same. Shorten it to 6300 and slow the greens to 8 and see how Quick someone gets to -30 for 4 Days with today’s stuff.

[mark m]

Rolling the ball back 20% is one of the dumbest ideas repeatedly posted on this site

 

I agree. I was reading the latest Golf Digest (May 2018) at the gym and there is an article in it about the "distance debate." It says the USGA has been testing various balls since 2005. GD got their hands on one and it went about 30 yards less at 120 mph, and 7-10 yards less for those who swing it between 75-90 mph. It sounds like the R&A is playing a big role in this matter as well. It's not dead yet.

Well ya that's how percentages work. At those ss that would be pretty much a 10% drop, I agree and I said it before that 20% is absurd and insane but I would be an advocate of a 8-10% reduction

 

If the info in the article is correct - and they don't provide any data on whether it's carry or total distance, it would be roughly 10% for the high swing speed and about 4-5% for the guys around 75 - 90 mph.

 

There is a distance chart floating around here somewhere and it shows carry of 216 and total of 232 for 90 mph. 75 mph swing is about 180 carry and 190 total.

 

Have a great weekend.

I am snowed in. About 2' outside with the drifting. Thought I would be playing by now!

Best

MM

[knock it close]

Rolling the ball back 20% is one of the dumbest ideas repeatedly posted on this site

 

I agree. I was reading the latest Golf Digest (May 2018) at the gym and there is an article in it about the "distance debate." It says the USGA has been testing various balls since 2005. GD got their hands on one and it went about 30 yards less at 120 mph, and 7-10 yards less for those who swing it between 75-90 mph. It sounds like the R&A is playing a big role in this matter as well. It's not dead yet.

Well ya that's how percentages work. At those ss that would be pretty much a 10% drop, I agree and I said it before that 20% is absurd and insane but I would be an advocate of a 8-10% reduction

 

If the info in the article is correct - and they don't provide any data on whether it's carry or total distance, it would be roughly 10% for the high swing speed and about 4-5% for the guys around 75 - 90 mph.

 

There is a distance chart floating around here somewhere and it shows carry of 216 and total of 232 for 90 mph. 75 mph swing is about 180 carry and 190 total.

 

Have a great weekend.

I am snowed in. About 2' outside with the drifting. Thought I would be playing by now!

Best

MM

Oh yikes, ya you're right my bad, I'm snowed in too and grumpy, apologies.

[smalls]

The ball isn't the problem. ProV1's have been compared to the balls they replaced on launch monitors and there isn't 20% difference between them. When you look at spin numbers, launch angle, carry, etc. they're a lot closer than most people would think. I know I was surprised when I saw the numbers.

 

Technology in general (more forgiving clubs, maxxed out driver faces, etc.) and the golfers themselves are the "problem," if you want to call it that. Thanks to the Tiger era, athletes who would have been playing football, baseball, soccer, etc. picked up golf instead. Combine maxxed out equipment technology, actual athletes, and modern sports science (nutrition, training, recovery, etc.) and you get the distance gains. I love the older era, but calling most of those guys athletes is a stretch. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that golfers were afraid of lifting weights because they thought it would hurt their swing. Today's tour pros spend as much time in the gym as they do on the course. And they've got an army of trainers, coaches, nutritionists, etc. We joke about it now in the context of the modern era, but the John Daly diet wasn't that unusual on the tour back in the day.

[youdamantiger]

Reading through the thread on PR's ancient irons at the Masters got me thinking. Why haven't scores come down with all the new tech? Seems like going from persimmon to steel to titanium to 460cc titanium with movable weights and $1000 graphite shafts along with Trackman and ProV1s and all the other tech through out the bag would make scores come down. Plus these guys now are bigger and stronger, in better shape and have had coaches and psychiatrists and all the rest since they were kids. So why haven't scores come down much? Harder courses? Faster greens? Pins more tucked?

 

Just seems strange that 50 years ago with persimmon and butter knives and whatever they used for balls guys could shoot 65 and today with all the tech that same 65 on the same course is a good score.

 

Or am I totally wrong and scores have come down?

 

Maybe because the modern players aren't as good? These debates are pointless and never convince anyone but...once more into the breach dear friends. Let's establish some evolutionary parameters. There are NO, ZILCH, NADA, DE RIEN, NEIN, NON, NYET physiological differences between a male born in 1900 and a male born in 1990 except for a slight difference in height. And by slight I mean less than an inch. Massive gains in inherent athleticism would take hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to show up.

 

So, there are no inherent physical benefits to being born in 1990 vs 1900. With that possibility eliminated there are only 3 other ways in which today's generation could possibly be "better" than the generation of the mid-60s through the mid-80s. The first is the one you mentioned, better training and nutrition. I would admit that today's players spend more time in the gym and are, generally speaking, more "fit." But so what? Being fit does not benefit you that much in golf. If it did, 145 pound Justin Thomas wouldn't be a distance leader on Tour and neither would beer keg shaped JB Holmes. The Tour stat leaders are a motley, hodgepodge collection of different body types. And we don't even have to just look at the modern Tour to see this effect. Greg Norman looks like he was cut from granite but he was always shorter than doughy Fred Couples. Fat Jack was longer than Arnie and his boxer's physique. And Arnie was longer than Frank Stranahan who looked like he had stepped off the pages of Muscle Magazine. I would never argue that more athleticism doesn't produce an advantage in a sport like football or basketball but this is golf we're talking about. The second best player of the modern era is Phil Mickelson and the only time he lifts a weight is to look behind it for the remote.

 

The second way in which the modern generation could possibly be better is technique. But this argument only works if you think that there is such a thing as an "ideal" golf swing. I think we all know that there's not. Look at the success Jim Furyk and Daniel Berger have had with their ugly azz swings. Most of the greatest players of all time have technical deficiencies in their swing. Tiger with his head dip on the downswing. Jack with his flying elbow. They still got the job done. There are a lot of different ways to deliver that clubhead to the ball.

 

The third way modern players could be better is external advantages. And, here, is the one that I don't think anyone could deny. The list of advantages the modern player has is really stunning. Massive distance gains due to technology, pristine turf conditions, ease of travel, less financial insecurity, sports psychologist, nutritionist, personal trainer, full swing coach, short game coach, putting coach, video, trackman, yardage books that are accurate to within a foot thanks to GPS, the same caddy week to week, how could the modern player not be better? But here's the thing, those are external ​advantages, easily transferable to any other generation of golfers. And I still maintain that if we could bring the generation from the mid-60s to the mid-80s forward in time and give them all of these advantages they would outperform the modern generation.

 

It's really amazing that modern players haven't markedly improved scoring averages even with all the advantages outlined above and even though they usually have flip wedges into par fours and never face a five par that they can't reach.

[Golfjack]

The ball isn't the problem. ProV1's have been compared to the balls they replaced on launch monitors and there isn't 20% difference between them. When you look at spin numbers, launch angle, carry, etc. they're a lot closer than most people would think. I know I was surprised when I saw the numbers.

 

Technology in general (more forgiving clubs, maxxed out driver faces, etc.) and the golfers themselves are the "problem," if you want to call it that. Thanks to the Tiger era, athletes who would have been playing football, baseball, soccer, etc. picked up golf instead. Combine maxxed out equipment technology, actual athletes, and modern sports science (nutrition, training, recovery, etc.) and you get the distance gains. I love the older era, but calling most of those guys athletes is a stretch. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that golfers were afraid of lifting weights because they thought it would hurt their swing. Today's tour pros spend as much time in the gym as they do on the course. And they've got an army of trainers, coaches, nutritionists, etc. We joke about it now in the context of the modern era, but the John Daly diet wasn't that unusual on the tour back in the day.

 

Well there certainly are better athletes playing golf now than before, but still the top tier athletes are in sports like NBA, NFL, etc. I think golf might be siphoning off more baseball players than other sports.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

The fourth way the modern player could be better is the fact that there are 150 of them instead of 12. Not sayin', but just sayin'.