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

[15th Club]

Let me get this straight; are you acknowledging, or denying, that the basic reason that the R&A has managed to keep scoring at The Old Course relatively flat is because they have made more and more changes, including many more longer teeing grounds? Longer, to the extent that if you have ever been to St. Andrews as I have and walked The Old Course, you catch yourself thinking things like, They put the 2nd tee where? Is that even part of the golf course?

 

And that basic principle is repeated throughout elite-level golf now. The ONLY courses that have held their own for championship play and their ability to combat scoring are the courses that have undertaken significant architectural changes in the Pro V era.

 

Agree?

 

No, I don't agree. I have no data to support your statement. If you have data on dozens of championship courses that changed since 2003, post it.

 

I'm just saying that scoring has stabilized and distance has stabilized so there is no need to panic.

 

The old course is still relevant.

 

BTW, scores at the Old Course went down steadily from 318 to 279 during the first half of the last century. Should they have rolled the ball back in 1960? or made steel shafts illegal in 1960?

 

No, I have addressed technology issues like steel shafts many times in past debates. I like steel shafts and I'm glad that they came along. Steel was better, and more consistent and cheaper and more durable, et cetera, than hickory. Steel shafts made golf more small-d democratic. Sales of matched sets of reasonably-priced golf clubs took off and helped fuel the worldwide golf craze of the 1920's and 30's. It was great new technology.

 

Modern solid-core multlilayer balls have many good qualities, especially for elite players. Or maybe, "exclusively" for elite players. But they have not made golf cheaper or more accessible. They have put Tour distances "on steroids." And at the same time, the expensive urethane balls have been so unremarkable among recreational players, that they don't even sell very well among them. (I know; the Pro V is the best-selling golf ball line in history; but it is simply not popular with budget-minded recreational players, who don't buy them.)

 

As for lengthening/changes to important, classic championship courses, they have virtually all been lengthened. ANGC. The complete rota of British Open Courses. Oakland Hills; Shinnecock Hills; Torrey Pines; Oakmont; Winged Foot and on and on and on. They get longer, and they get more tricked-up.

 

Some of those changes don't get a lot of press, when the courses have room to move. Sometimes, there is no room to get longer. Sometimes, other punitive changes are made, to toughen things up when more length is not an option. We are fast running out of real estate at many of those places.

[vanillafunk616]

I mean I'm pretty sure they set up courses to compensate for gains in technology. Pros aren't playing the same course setups from the 80s.

[heavy_hitter]

Scores haven't come down because at the end of the day you still have to make a putt.

[15th Club]

ST. ANDREWS, Scotland — For years now, Jack Nicklaus has been sounding the clarion call on the golf ball. Again and again (and again) he has warned that newly engineered golf balls fly too far and that they are hurting the game on a dozen different levels.

 

Is slow play keeping people from playing golf? Jack blames the golf ball. “"The main culprit [in] slow play, to me, is the golf ball and the distance the golf ball goes,” he said. “Golf, it used to take three hours, three and a half hours. Today they take close to five hours.”

 

Lack of strategy in the pro game? Jack blames the golf ball. “I like the old game of moving the ball both ways and using strategy with angles and hitting all the clubs in the bag,” he told Golf Digest. “My greatest concern, because I believe it has the most effect on the most parts of the game, is the golf ball.”

 

The seeming lack of great players on the PGA Tour? Jack blames the golf ball. “I think they will change the golf ball eventually,” he says. “I think they have to if they are ever going to get back to separating the players a little bit.”

 

There are really not many problems in this world that Jack Nicklaus does not pin on the ever-improving technology that makes golf balls fly. In truth, it got to the point where people would see Nicklaus and warn each other not to say the words “golf” or “ball” so as not to set him off.

 

But here’s the thing: Nicklaus is right. If the powers that be do not stop the golf ball arms race — the technological scramble to get a few more yards and a touch more control out of the ball — you can say goodbye to the glory that is the Old Course at St. Andrews.

 

 

Read more from Joe Posnanski here.

[knock it close]

Shilgy I'm not denying that and I've said that is a factor before (not in here though) but Merion was also tricked the f up to get it there, also they did do a significant land buy for both yardage and overall space. I think that's a reason they don't go to the shorter courses because they feel like they have to do so much to protect par, and sure you can just say well why protect par, which would be fair but then you'd have a whole other group of people bitching about how a US Open shouldn't be -15, if space or resources weren't an issue I'd have no reason to be part of this conversation but unfortunately they are.

 

Also fwiw I just looked it up and the more seats thing for yankee stadium doesn't even apply because their total capacity went down.

I am talking about seats at the golf, not baseball. They reduced ticket sales dramatically to go to Merion.

 

Also, hasn't home run production gone up over the years? Judge could blow the record out of the water if he stays good and healthy. Time to roll back the baseball...

Judge has zero chance to pass Ruth let alone break the record, try again.

 

Also funny you bring back rolling back the baseball because there were multiple reports about it being "juiced" last year

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Escalation in Syria? Jack says you can blame the golf ball for that.

His agenda is clear if one exercises just a bit of logical deduction.

I give a lot more weight to independent thought than the constant regurgitation of self-interested rants of a cranky (near) octogenarian.

[Shilgy]

Let me get this straight; are you acknowledging, or denying, that the basic reason that the R&A has managed to keep scoring at The Old Course relatively flat is because they have made more and more changes, including many more longer teeing grounds? Longer, to the extent that if you have ever been to St. Andrews as I have and walked The Old Course, you catch yourself thinking things like, They put the 2nd tee where? Is that even part of the golf course?

 

And that basic principle is repeated throughout elite-level golf now. The ONLY courses that have held their own for championship play and their ability to combat scoring are the courses that have undertaken significant architectural changes in the Pro V era.

 

Agree?

 

No, I don't agree. I have no data to support your statement. If you have data on dozens of championship courses that changed since 2003, post it.

 

I'm just saying that scoring has stabilized and distance has stabilized so there is no need to panic.

 

The old course is still relevant.

 

BTW, scores at the Old Course went down steadily from 318 to 279 during the first half of the last century. Should they have rolled the ball back in 1960? or made steel shafts illegal in 1960?

 

No, I have addressed technology issues like steel shafts many times in past debates. I like steel shafts and I'm glad that they came along. Steel was better, and more consistent and cheaper and more durable, et cetera, than hickory. Steel shafts made golf more small-d democratic. Sales of matched sets of reasonably-priced golf clubs took off and helped fuel the worldwide golf craze of the 1920's and 30's. It was great new technology.

 

Modern solid-core multlilayer balls have many good qualities, especially for elite players. Or maybe, "exclusively" for elite players. But they have not made golf cheaper or more accessible. They have put Tour distances "on steroids." And at the same time, the expensive urethane balls have been so unremarkable among recreational players, that they don't even sell very well among them. (I know; the Pro V is the best-selling golf ball line in history; but it is simply not popular with budget-minded recreational players, who don't buy them.)

 

As for lengthening/changes to important, classic championship courses, they have virtually all been lengthened. ANGC. The complete rota of British Open Courses. Oakland Hills; Shinnecock Hills; Torrey Pines; Oakmont; Winged Foot and on and on and on. They get longer, and they get more tricked-up.

 

Some of those changes don't get a lot of press, when the courses have room to move. Sometimes, there is no room to get longer. Sometimes, other punitive changes are made, to toughen things up when more length is not an option. We are fast running out of real estate at many of those places.

So some tech that made the game easier is ok-steel shafts and some is not?

 

For the record-I would call the modern urethane balls a bargain. You call them expensive. We were paying north of $40 a dozen in the late 80's as I recall for Maxfli's and Titleist. You can now pay less than that for a much better ball. Or a much less than inflation adjusted price for ProV.

[golfandfishing]

Let me get this straight; are you acknowledging, or denying, that the basic reason that the R&A has managed to keep scoring at The Old Course relatively flat is because they have made more and more changes, including many more longer teeing grounds? Longer, to the extent that if you have ever been to St. Andrews as I have and walked The Old Course, you catch yourself thinking things like, They put the 2nd tee where? Is that even part of the golf course?

 

And that basic principle is repeated throughout elite-level golf now. The ONLY courses that have held their own for championship play and their ability to combat scoring are the courses that have undertaken significant architectural changes in the Pro V era.

 

Agree?

 

No, I don't agree. I have no data to support your statement. If you have data on dozens of championship courses that changed since 2003, post it.

 

I'm just saying that scoring has stabilized and distance has stabilized so there is no need to panic.

 

The old course is still relevant.

 

BTW, scores at the Old Course went down steadily from 318 to 279 during the first half of the last century. Should they have rolled the ball back in 1960? or made steel shafts illegal in 1960?

 

No, I have addressed technology issues like steel shafts many times in past debates. I like steel shafts and I'm glad that they came along. Steel was better, and more consistent and cheaper and more durable, et cetera, than hickory. Steel shafts made golf more small-d democratic. Sales of matched sets of reasonably-priced golf clubs took off and helped fuel the worldwide golf craze of the 1920's and 30's. It was great new technology.

 

Modern solid-core multlilayer balls have many good qualities, especially for elite players. Or maybe, "exclusively" for elite players. But they have not made golf cheaper or more accessible. They have put Tour distances "on steroids." And at the same time, the expensive urethane balls have been so unremarkable among recreational players, that they don't even sell very well among them. (I know; the Pro V is the best-selling golf ball line in history; but it is simply not popular with budget-minded recreational players, who don't buy them.)

 

As for lengthening/changes to important, classic championship courses, they have virtually all been lengthened. ANGC. The complete rota of British Open Courses. Oakland Hills; Shinnecock Hills; Torrey Pines; Oakmont; Winged Foot and on and on and on. They get longer, and they get more tricked-up.

 

Some of those changes don't get a lot of press, when the courses have room to move. Sometimes, there is no room to get longer. Sometimes, other punitive changes are made, to toughen things up when more length is not an option. We are fast running out of real estate at many of those places.

So some tech that made the game easier is ok-steel shafts and some is not?

 

For the record-I would call the modern urethane balls a bargain. You call them expensive. We were paying north of $40 a dozen in the late 80's as I recall for Maxfli's and Titleist. You can now pay less than that for a much better ball. Or a much less than inflation adjusted price for ProV.

 

You were being gouged then. Tour Balatas were $7/sleeve in the golf shop I worked in, Maxfli HT’s were $8 I think. I do agree today’s balls are a better bargain though. I can play a pro v until it gets lost, sometimes 3 or 4 rounds. They turn a bit yellow but the ball is fine. Tour Balatas were minimum 2 per round, that’s without a thin shot or god forbid it hit a tree and you had an egg.

[15th Club]

So about the notion that multilayer urethane balls are really "a bargain." This is a slightly tricky notion, but I think I can explain it.

 

All of us old guys :happy: can agree that modern golf balls are better than the balls of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. Those old, wound balata balls would cut, and get knocked out round, and just generally disintegrate after a few bad shots. Often enough, after one bad shot. They were truly terrible. You could count on cutting a ball, or two, or more, in most rounds. Even some good strikes ruined golf balls. (I remember the early days of square grooves, where good hits would chip paint and make micro-cuts in balata balls.) It got expensive!

 

Then, in the early 70's along came Surlyn. Surlyn was a miracle for recreational players. The balls were nearly uncuttable, even as wound balls. After Surlyn, came more solid-core balls with other inonomer-blend covers. They didn't spin much, and they were durable. Perfect, for recreational players who just moved the ball along and played bogey golf.

 

But Tour players were never interested in those balls. Tour players took balls out of play sometimes every hole. And they wanted -- no; needed -- the spin of balata. They could never have it, until the introduction of the multilayer urethane balls like the Pro V. At that point, Tour players could get the same durable (not that it mattered) low driver-spin that recreational players had been enjoying for ten years. But now it also had the usable wedge and iron spin. And pretty soon, they were dialing in launch monitor numbers with new drivers and new balls.

 

In a way, you could say that the Pro V era just brought to the Tour players a technology that recreational players already enjoyed (but it would be also quite misleading).

 

The important thing here is that it was never necessary for there to have been a Pro V1, for recreational players to enjoy a new era of cheaper and more durable golf balls. Which is why, in the ball/rollback debates, I am routinely careful to aim my fire at "multilayer urethane" balls as the villains. And not all modern golf balls. There's a very big difference.

[cardoustie]

15th club. You are passionate, I'll give you that

 

Rolling the ball back is not a solution

 

Distance is from 4 words ... STA-DIUM COUR-SES !!! The tour wants massive open courses with viewing areas/ mounds etc with wide open rock hard fairways so fans can yammer on about distances .. and see lots of birdies

 

And your argument about athletes not being bigger over the last 100 years is a sad joke. The top echelon is WAY BIGGER nowadays in all sports. Nicklaus is puny, Babe Ruth puny, etc etc. Of course smaller guys with excellent sequencing like Rory and Ben Hogan can still move it but size helps the tall fella's for sure (larger arc anyone?)

 

As MTLJEFF said above, changing all of golf because tour players carry the ball a long way is completely asinine

 

If the powers that run events wanted scoring controlled it's very simple .. use more courses like Merion GC ... tight, rough, doglegs, strategy, course mgmt. etc ... OLD SCHOOL courses. Get the irony here? That's where golf used to be played

 

It's a tour thing, a dollars thing .... not a masses thing.

 

You said you like steel shafts as a tech change ... How about lighter and higher QC graphite? Let's ban graphite ! Let's ban lob wedges! Let's ban putter inserts ! Let's ban adj drivers !

[Ashley Schaeffer]

So about the notion that multilayer urethane balls are really "a bargain." This is a slightly tricky notion, but I think I can explain it.

 

All of us old guys :happy: can agree that modern golf balls are better than the balls of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. Those old, wound balata balls would cut, and get knocked out round, and just generally disintegrate after a few bad shots. Often enough, after one bad shot. They were truly terrible. You could count on cutting a ball, or two, or more, in most rounds. Even some good strikes ruined golf balls. (I remember the early days of square grooves, where good hits would chip paint and make micro-cuts in balata balls.) It got expensive!

 

Then, in the early 70's along came Surlyn. Surlyn was a miracle for recreational players. The balls were nearly uncuttable, even as wound balls. After Surlyn, came more solid-core balls with other inonomer-blend covers. They didn't spin much, and they were durable. Perfect, for recreational players who just moved the ball along and played bogey golf.

 

But Tour players were never interested in those balls. Tour players took balls out of play sometimes every hole. And they wanted -- no; needed -- the spin of balata. They could never have it, until the introduction of the multilayer urethane balls like the Pro V. At that point, Tour players could get the same durable (not that it mattered) low driver-spin that recreational players had been enjoying for ten years. But now it also had the usable wedge and iron spin. And pretty soon, they were dialing in launch monitor numbers with new drivers and new balls.

 

In a way, you could say that the Pro V era just brought to the Tour players a technology that recreational players already enjoyed (but it would be also quite misleading).

 

The important thing here is that it was never necessary for there to have been a Pro V1, for recreational players to enjoy a new era of cheaper and more durable golf balls. Which is why, in the ball/rollback debates, I am routinely careful to aim my fire at "multilayer urethane" balls as the villains. And not all modern golf balls. There's a very big difference.

 

I've seen you post similar things previously. I have a serious issue with this notion. I frequently play with several 12-15 handicaps who love the game just as much as I do, and work hard to improve. They can definitely tell the difference between a Pinnacle and a Pro V1, especially on and around the greens where most of their improvement is needed. You say that they would be fine with a two-piece rock because they just "play bogey golf." The rocks would be "perfect" even. Like they somehow don't require feel because they aren't good enough in your eyes. Just be happy with the Pinnacles, you hacks. Grow the game.

[15th Club]

So about the notion that multilayer urethane balls are really "a bargain." This is a slightly tricky notion, but I think I can explain it.

 

All of us old guys :happy: can agree that modern golf balls are better than the balls of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. Those old, wound balata balls would cut, and get knocked out round, and just generally disintegrate after a few bad shots. Often enough, after one bad shot. They were truly terrible. You could count on cutting a ball, or two, or more, in most rounds. Even some good strikes ruined golf balls. (I remember the early days of square grooves, where good hits would chip paint and make micro-cuts in balata balls.) It got expensive!

 

Then, in the early 70's along came Surlyn. Surlyn was a miracle for recreational players. The balls were nearly uncuttable, even as wound balls. After Surlyn, came more solid-core balls with other inonomer-blend covers. They didn't spin much, and they were durable. Perfect, for recreational players who just moved the ball along and played bogey golf.

 

But Tour players were never interested in those balls. Tour players took balls out of play sometimes every hole. And they wanted -- no; needed -- the spin of balata. They could never have it, until the introduction of the multilayer urethane balls like the Pro V. At that point, Tour players could get the same durable (not that it mattered) low driver-spin that recreational players had been enjoying for ten years. But now it also had the usable wedge and iron spin. And pretty soon, they were dialing in launch monitor numbers with new drivers and new balls.

 

In a way, you could say that the Pro V era just brought to the Tour players a technology that recreational players already enjoyed (but it would be also quite misleading).

 

The important thing here is that it was never necessary for there to have been a Pro V1, for recreational players to enjoy a new era of cheaper and more durable golf balls. Which is why, in the ball/rollback debates, I am routinely careful to aim my fire at "multilayer urethane" balls as the villains. And not all modern golf balls. There's a very big difference.

 

I've seen you post similar things previously. I have a serious issue with this notion. I frequently play with several 12-15 handicaps who love the game just as much as I do, and work hard to improve. They can definitely tell the difference between a Pinnacle and a Pro V1, especially on and around the greens where most of their improvement is needed. You say that they would be fine with a two-piece rock because they just "play bogey golf." The rocks would be "perfect" even. Like they somehow don't require feel because they aren't good enough in your eyes. Just be happy with the Pinnacles, you hacks. Grow the game.

 

Well, you mischaracterized what I wrote so badly that I hardly know where to begin. It's almost too much work to correct it.

 

My own comment was answering someone's point about modern golf balls being essentially a better deal, all things being equal and adjusted for inflation and my point was in agreement with that, but also noting that tour-grade urethane balls are not -- by overall sales numbers -- very popular with most recreational golfers. Urethane balls are essential for Tour players. They are an interesting luxury, for recreational players who can afford them.

 

It matters not to me, that some recreational players -- aspirational players, to quote Wally Uihelein -- want to play with urethane balls and get enjoyment out of them. That's fine. I don't even disbelieve them on that. What I am saying is that the old problem of cut balata balls doesn't necessarily require a urethane ball, and even if it did, there are many, many ways to make golf balls. We can devise new regulations regarding distance, spin, etc., that could better accommodate recreational players, and roll back elite players.

 

You seemed to want to make ME the elitist when in fact my point was the opposite. I don't want to interfere with any recreational player's enjoyment of the game. I don't want to "roll them back by 20%." What I'd like, is to see elite players and recreational players, all playing a game that was much more similar in nature.

[15th Club]

15th

club

. You are passionate, I'll give you that

 

Rolling the

ball

back is not a solution

 

Yeah, in fact a ball rollback is the easiest, simplest, most direct solution. The indirect, expensive, difficult, offensive "solution" is to alter and trick up golf courses at the cost of millions, to accommodate a $3.50 golf ball.

 

 

Distance is from 4 words ... STA-DIUM COUR-SES !!! The tour wants massive open courses with viewing areas/ mounds etc with wide open rock hard fairways so fans can yammer on about distances .. and see lots of birdies

 

Yuck. "Stadium courses." :bad: (I think that's the first time I ever deployed the "barf" emoticon.) The PGA Tour can have them. The USGA wants nothing to do with them. And the USGA, not the PGA Tour, is making the Rules. The PGA Tour has abdicated all work on the thankless task of the Rules of Golf.

 

 

And your argument about athletes not being bigger over the last 100 years is a sad joke. The top echelon is WAY BIGGER nowadays in all sports. Nicklaus is puny, Babe Ruth puny, etc etc. Of course smaller guys with excellent sequencing like Rory and Ben Hogan can still move it but size helps the tall fella's for sure (larger arc anyone?)

 

It was not my argument. I think it was somebody else's argument. But my point is that it doesn't matter. I don't care, if athletes get bigger, stronger, better, whatever. Nobody is going to "regulate" size, strength, skill, launch monitors, practice, etc. :nea: But the ball is easy to re-regulate. The ball is the easiest thing, by far, in the entire athlete-club-ball-skill equation to regulate. It is literally that simple. So it doesn't matter to me, if athletes are the same, or better, or neither.

[15th Club]

As MTLJEFF said above, changing all of golf because tour players carry the

ball

a long way is completely asinine

 

Except that all of the game of golf, playing by a single set of Rules, is one of the great charms of the game. We can't play at Fenway Park, or Wrigley Field, or Lord's Cricket Ground, or Wembley, or Soldier Field. But we can play at Bethpage Black, Pebble Beach, Torrey Pines, and Pinehurst #2

 

 

If the powers that run events wanted scoring controlled it's very simple .. use more courses like Merion GC ... tight, rough, doglegs, strategy, course mgmt. etc ... OLD SCHOOL courses. Get the irony here? That's where golf used to be played

 

Not sure I get it. But by all accounts among golf course architecture experts, Merion and the Old Course and ANGC have all undergone NEGATIVE changes in terms of "strategy", to host championships.

 

 

It's a tour thing, a dollars thing .... not a masses thing.

 

You said you like steel shafts as a tech change ... How about lighter and higher QC graphite? Let's ban graphite ! Let's ban lob wedges! Let's ban putter inserts ! Let's ban adj drivers !

 

Graphite shafts: You can ban them, for all I care. Tiger Woods would probably be thrilled. He was the most exciting driver of the golf ball that I ever saw, with steel. Graphite is more expensive. I would not care a bit, going back to a steel shafted driver.

 

Lob wedges: Ban them... why? You get 14 clubs. If you want one of them to be a lob wedge its fine with me. I suspect that with fewer tricked-up golf courses in championships, elite players might not need them so much. But whatever. I don't care.

 

Putter inserts: Again, what is the argument? I don't much care. I do think that if somebody came out with a brilliant, unbelievable putter insert that rolled the ball more purely than anybody had ever imagined, and that each one cost $5000 because of exotic materials, I would view that as a very negative thing.

 

Adjustable drivers: No!!! I LOVE adjustable drivers! Adjustable drivers gave, to the common man, the adjustability that had previously only been available to tour-van elites. The tour vans could bend heads and break them and not care. We could never do that. Adjustable hosels gave us that power, along with an easy and relatively cheap way to change out shafts and try new ones for the fun of it. Adjustable drivers are terrific new technology!

 

See how this works? I am not opposed to all technology. There is a way to look at technology. I don't favor "going back" to balata, or gutta-percha, or hickory; I don't yearn for equipment of my youth. All that I value, is great and historic golf course architecture, the Rules of Golf, and the traditions of the USGA.

[cardoustie]

I think it is funny that you embrace all types of technology .. just not ball tech

 

15th .. I just turned 50 .. how old are you out of curiousity?

[EKELLY]

Shilgy I'm not denying that and I've said that is a factor before (not in here though) but Merion was also tricked the f up to get it there, also they did do a significant land buy for both yardage and overall space. I think that's a reason they don't go to the shorter courses because they feel like they have to do so much to protect par, and sure you can just say well why protect par, which would be fair but then you'd have a whole other group of people bitching about how a US Open shouldn't be -15, if space or resources weren't an issue I'd have no reason to be part of this conversation but unfortunately they are.

 

Also fwiw I just looked it up and the more seats thing for yankee stadium doesn't even apply because their total capacity went down.

I am talking about seats at the golf, not baseball. They reduced ticket sales dramatically to go to Merion.

 

Also, hasn't home run production gone up over the years? Judge could blow the record out of the water if he stays good and healthy. Time to roll back the baseball...

Judge has zero chance to pass Ruth let alone break the record, try again.

 

Also funny you bring back rolling back the baseball because there were multiple reports about it being "juiced" last year

He's certainly on pace to threaten the strikeout record, or at least join the conversation!.....

[bervin]

Shilgy I'm not denying that and I've said that is a factor before (not in here though) but Merion was also tricked the f up to get it there, also they did do a significant land buy for both yardage and overall space. I think that's a reason they don't go to the shorter courses because they feel like they have to do so much to protect par, and sure you can just say well why protect par, which would be fair but then you'd have a whole other group of people bitching about how a US Open shouldn't be -15, if space or resources weren't an issue I'd have no reason to be part of this conversation but unfortunately they are.

 

Also fwiw I just looked it up and the more seats thing for yankee stadium doesn't even apply because their total capacity went down.

I am talking about seats at the golf, not baseball. They reduced ticket sales dramatically to go to Merion.

 

Also, hasn't home run production gone up over the years? Judge could blow the record out of the water if he stays good and healthy. Time to roll back the baseball...

Judge has zero chance to pass Ruth let alone break the record, try again.

 

Also funny you bring back rolling back the baseball because there were multiple reports about it being "juiced" last year

He's certainly on pace to threaten the strikeout record, or at least join the conversation!.....

 

The strikeout record will be firmly held in the hands of Judge's new team mate. Stanton. TWO PLATINUM SOMBREROS ALREADY THIS YEAR!

[Roadking2003]

ST. ANDREWS, Scotland — For years now, Jack Nicklaus has been sounding the clarion call on the golf ball. Again and again (and again) he has warned that newly engineered golf balls fly too far and that they are hurting the game on a dozen different levels.

 

Is slow play keeping people from playing golf? Jack blames the golf ball. “"The main culprit [in] slow play, to me, is the golf ball and the distance the golf ball goes,” he said. “Golf, it used to take three hours, three and a half hours. Today they take close to five hours.”

 

Lack of strategy in the pro game? Jack blames the golf ball. “I like the old game of moving the ball both ways and using strategy with angles and hitting all the clubs in the bag,” he told Golf Digest. “My greatest concern, because I believe it has the most effect on the most parts of the game, is the golf ball.”

 

The seeming lack of great players on the PGA Tour? Jack blames the golf ball. “I think they will change the golf ball eventually,” he says. “I think they have to if they are ever going to get back to separating the players a little bit.”

 

There are really not many problems in this world that Jack Nicklaus does not pin on the ever-improving technology that makes golf balls fly. In truth, it got to the point where people would see Nicklaus and warn each other not to say the words “golf” or “ball” so as not to set him off.

 

But here’s the thing: Nicklaus is right. If the powers that be do not stop the golf ball arms race — the technological scramble to get a few more yards and a touch more control out of the ball — you can say goodbye to the glory that is the Old Course at St. Andrews.

 

 

Read more from Joe Posnanski here.

 

 

As has been pointed out many times, the "powers that be" have already stopped the "golf ball arms race".

[15th Club]

I think it is funny that you embrace all types of technology .. just not ball tech

 

15th .. I just turned 50 .. how old are you out of curiousity?

 

 

Early 60’s.

 

I do hope you get it; I am not opposed to all equipment technology, and I am not opposed “only” to ball technology.

 

I say this in all seriousness; I think that you and others here would enjoy Geoff Shackelford’s book, “The Future of Golf.”

[Ashley Schaeffer]

So about the notion that multilayer urethane balls are really "a bargain." This is a slightly tricky notion, but I think I can explain it.

 

All of us old guys :happy: can agree that modern golf balls are better than the balls of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. Those old, wound balata balls would cut, and get knocked out round, and just generally disintegrate after a few bad shots. Often enough, after one bad shot. They were truly terrible. You could count on cutting a ball, or two, or more, in most rounds. Even some good strikes ruined golf balls. (I remember the early days of square grooves, where good hits would chip paint and make micro-cuts in balata balls.) It got expensive!

 

Then, in the early 70's along came Surlyn. Surlyn was a miracle for recreational players. The balls were nearly uncuttable, even as wound balls. After Surlyn, came more solid-core balls with other inonomer-blend covers. They didn't spin much, and they were durable. Perfect, for recreational players who just moved the ball along and played bogey golf.

 

But Tour players were never interested in those balls. Tour players took balls out of play sometimes every hole. And they wanted -- no; needed -- the spin of balata. They could never have it, until the introduction of the multilayer urethane balls like the Pro V. At that point, Tour players could get the same durable (not that it mattered) low driver-spin that recreational players had been enjoying for ten years. But now it also had the usable wedge and iron spin. And pretty soon, they were dialing in launch monitor numbers with new drivers and new balls.

 

In a way, you could say that the Pro V era just brought to the Tour players a technology that recreational players already enjoyed (but it would be also quite misleading).

 

The important thing here is that it was never necessary for there to have been a Pro V1, for recreational players to enjoy a new era of cheaper and more durable golf balls. Which is why, in the ball/rollback debates, I am routinely careful to aim my fire at "multilayer urethane" balls as the villains. And not all modern golf balls. There's a very big difference.

 

I've seen you post similar things previously. I have a serious issue with this notion. I frequently play with several 12-15 handicaps who love the game just as much as I do, and work hard to improve. They can definitely tell the difference between a Pinnacle and a Pro V1, especially on and around the greens where most of their improvement is needed. You say that they would be fine with a two-piece rock because they just "play bogey golf." The rocks would be "perfect" even. Like they somehow don't require feel because they aren't good enough in your eyes. Just be happy with the Pinnacles, you hacks. Grow the game.

 

Well, you mischaracterized what I wrote so badly that I hardly know where to begin. It's almost too much work to correct it.

 

My own comment was answering someone's point about modern golf balls being essentially a better deal, all things being equal and adjusted for inflation and my point was in agreement with that, but also noting that tour-grade urethane balls are not -- by overall sales numbers -- very popular with most recreational golfers. Urethane balls are essential for Tour players. They are an interesting luxury, for recreational players who can afford them.

 

It matters not to me, that some recreational players -- aspirational players, to quote Wally Uihelein -- want to play with urethane balls and get enjoyment out of them. That's fine. I don't even disbelieve them on that. What I am saying is that the old problem of cut balata balls doesn't necessarily require a urethane ball, and even if it did, there are many, many ways to make golf balls. We can devise new regulations regarding distance, spin, etc., that could better accommodate recreational players, and roll back elite players.

 

You seemed to want to make ME the elitist when in fact my point was the opposite. I don't want to interfere with any recreational player's enjoyment of the game. I don't want to "roll them back by 20%." What I'd like, is to see elite players and recreational players, all playing a game that was much more similar in nature.

 

So, I mischaracterized what you were saying, but then you summarize your point of view in the bold with that exact thing. Got it.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

15th, further, elite players and recreational players have never played a game similar in nature. Elite players have always hit it much farther than the weekenders on average.

 

If, however, we required a ball that dialed back elite players to make them more like recreational players in terms of distance, it would certainly serve to erode the distance gap between them and make more than a few 5 handicaps I know feel better about themselves. I'll give you that.

 

Blink twice if I'm getting warm . . .

[BNGL]

Because the tech that goes into setting up courses for tournament has gotten exponentially better than golf equipment

[knock it close]

 

 

The strikeout record will be firmly held in the hands of Judge's new team mate. Stanton. TWO PLATINUM SOMBREROS ALREADY THIS YEAR!

I'll tell you what you just really hate to see that, such a shame that the yankees came in touting those two names and Stanton is the first guy to go hitless with 5 k's twice in a game in the live ball era, such a shame!!!!

[Shilgy]

Hey 15... Two quick questions...

 

You brought up Fenway, Wrigley and others a few posts ago. Time for a new ballpark in Boston! The Green Monster just does not bring the same shot values as it used to. These guys are strong..did you see Harper's broken bat home run?

 

Second.. Speaking of strong.. You just started you do not endorse 20% as the rollback. I'm sure hoping you mean less? Just to combat ALL of the ways the ball goes further today?

Will we need to do so again soon? If players continue to get longer will you, and Jack, want another rollback in a decade or so?

 

As another post mentioned.. You're way too hung up on numbers. And the numbers you see most concerned with are on the clubs. If a player today hits a 180 yard 8 iron into a green and Hogan hit a 180 yard 3 iron what's the difference? Other than, of course, the fact that the modern player has to do so with a ball that spins less to a green that is firmer and the pin is more tucked.

[knock it close]

Hey 15... Two quick questions...

 

You brought up Fenway, Wrigley and others a few posts ago. Time for a new ballpark in Boston! The Green Monster just does not bring the same shot values as it used to. These guys are strong..did you see Harper's broken bat home run?

 

Second.. Speaking of strong.. You just started you do not endorse 20% as the rollback. I'm sure hoping you mean less? Just to combat ALL of the ways the ball goes further today?

Will we need to do so again soon? If players continue to get longer will you, and Jack, want another rollback in a decade or so?

 

As another post mentioned.. You're way too hung up on numbers. And the numbers you see most concerned with are on the clubs. If a player today hits a 180 yard 8 iron into a green and Hogan hit a 180 yard 3 iron what's the difference? Other than, of course, the fact that the modern player has to do so with a ball that spins less to a green that is firmer and the pin is more tucked.

As recorded the longest homeruns are:

 

1. Ruth 1921

2. Mantle 1953

3.Jackson '71

4. Stargill '78

5. Dunn 2004

 

Most home run years:

Bonds (Juice) 01

Mcgwire (Juice) 98

Sosa (Juice) 98

A series of Sosa and McGwire juice years

Maris '61

Ruth '27

Ruth '21

Stanton '17

 

And isn't the whole argument about harpers broken bat jack is that the balls are juiced, because that is what the pitchers are talking about

[lawst4days]

I believe the reason they are scoring the same is because even though the players are more fit and in shape, the courses do continue getting longer.

 

Tech and equipment may have marginal impact.

 

Since driver heads got larger and polymer golf balls came out. Technology hasn't really made that many strides in my opinion.

[15th Club]

Hey 15... Two quick questions...

 

 

You brought up Fenway, Wrigley and others a few posts ago. Time for a new ballpark in Boston! The Green Monster just does not bring the same shot values as it used to. These guys are strong..did you see Harper's broken bat home run?

 

I did not. What do you want me to observe about it?

 

 

 

Second.. Speaking of strong.. You just started you do not endorse 20% as the rollback. I'm sure hoping you mean less?

Just to combat ALL of the ways the ball goes further today?

 

About the "20%" number; it was tossed out fairly casually, by Jack Nicklaus, in a live interview. I never took it as a considered proposal, and like Geoff Shackelford, I am a bit bothered by the subsequent discussion wherein critics of any rollback are making all sorts of hypothetical calculations based on all golfers losing 20%. It is not a productive debate in Shackelford's view, nor in my view. It is all much more complicated and nuanced than any single percentage figure.

 

Will we need to do so again soon? If players continue to get longer will you, and Jack, want another rollback in a decade or so?

 

Sure! Why not? If that is the case (elite players getting significantly longer), why not? It is nothing more and nothing less than scaling the equipment to the existing courses. To make it a good game. Instead of an exercise in course-domination.

 

 

 

As another post mentioned.. You're way too hung up on numbers. And the numbers you see most concerned with are on the clubs. If a player today hits a 180 yard 8 iron into a green and Hogan hit a 180 yard 3 iron what's the difference? Other than, of course, the fact that the modern player has to do so with a

ball

that spins less to a green that is firmer and the pin is more tucked.

 

That's a really misleading example. A long hitter of today would be hitting a 180-yard second shot on something like a 500-yard hole. Ben Hogan would have been hitting a 180-yard second shot into something like a 430-yard hole. But for those changes in golf courses, we would not even be looking at a comparison of two 180-yard shots. We'd be looking at a Hogan-era player hitting a 180-yard shot and modern long hitter hitting a flip wedge from 100 yards or less.

 

We cannot turn every 430-yard hole into a 500-yard hole for all of our historic championship courses. There's not enough land; it would ruin the design in many cases. It's expensive, etc., etc., etc.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Shilgy I'm not denying that and I've said that is a factor before (not in here though) but Merion was also tricked the f up to get it there, also they did do a significant land buy for both yardage and overall space. I think that's a reason they don't go to the shorter courses because they feel like they have to do so much to protect par, and sure you can just say well why protect par, which would be fair but then you'd have a whole other group of people bitching about how a US Open shouldn't be -15, if space or resources weren't an issue I'd have no reason to be part of this conversation but unfortunately they are.

 

Also fwiw I just looked it up and the more seats thing for yankee stadium doesn't even apply because their total capacity went down.

 

I'm definitely in the camp that doesn't care about protecting par. I find it very simple to reconcile that with them still playing classic courses, without tricking them out, and keeping tech where it is now.

Or, they could change the entire industry so people won't b**** about how a US Open shouldn't be -15, but then insist that their stance isn't about scoring.

 

The entire debate reminds me of my college roommate who would turn the heat down to 60*F in the winter. I offered to pay half of his portion of the bill so we could set it at 70*F. He said it wasn't about the money. I said, great, then turn up the heat. He replied, "It's going to be like $100!"

[cardoustie]

15th ... I will look up that book - I am a huge reader - I love all sorts of golf books

 

Why is Nicklaus this way? Did Hogan demand rollbacks when Jack was blasting it past him in the early 60's US Opens?

 

I am 100% against the "powers that be" making golf harder / less enjoyable for 99.99 percent of the golfing population. Surely we can all agree the Karsten grooves was a fiasco, then the modern wedge grooves, then the long putter WERE ALL DISASTERS

 

It's funny that the rules are becoming simpler - good move IMO, and long overdue - but they want to make the game harder. Really?? Most people drop playing golf because it is too hard already !

 

Palmer had feelings on golf the polar opposite of Nicklaus and that never seems to be part of modern discussions ... why ?

[bervin]

The strikeout record will be firmly held in the hands of Judge's new team mate. Stanton. TWO PLATINUM SOMBREROS ALREADY THIS YEAR!

I'll tell you what you just really hate to see that, such a shame that the yankees came in touting those two names and Stanton is the first guy to go hitless with 5 k's twice in a game in the live ball era, such a shame!!!!

 

Oh yeah... truly eats away at me. Poor Yankees. lol

 

As a lifetime Braves fan, the Yankees can suck it (with all due respect, of course).