Is Increasing Driving Distance Ruining the Pro Tours? (***CONTENTS UNDER MOD REVIEW***)

[Roadking2003]

Higher rough and concrete greens destroy the architectural integrity of the great courses; they are no longer a fair test of skill. If this keeps going they will need to create new ones that take the new style of game into account when testing players fairly.

 

But we have already destroyed the architectural integrity of the great old courses. Like Pinehurst #2. It was designed for green Stimps of 5 - 7, not 12 - 13. That totally changes the course from the original design.

[Roadking2003]

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

 

Titleist will win no matter what they do to the ball.

[ClintDagger]

But I think if reaching par 5s in two and driving short par 4s was more of a novelty rather than a routine happening, the game would be even better.

I disagree...hitting par 4s in 1 and 5s in two rewards long shot accuracy (compared to a par 4 that is drive/wedge for most of the field). Often times there is a risk/reward tradeoff on these holes, so an inaccurate long shot can cost you a lot (which tends to be less the case on may drive/wedge par 4s). In short, if a course is all mid-length par 4s and un-reachable par 5s, short-iron and wedge accuracy is tested repeatedly, but long shot accuracy is only tested to a limited extent (as there is not usually that much reward for middle vs side of fairway, or even rough in some cases compared to a lot of reward for hitting it 2 feet from the pin from a long distance).

 

What makes the Masters so great? 13 & 15 where long shot accuracy is rewarded and bad shots are penalized. Making it a novelty for a pro to go for it on these holes would not be an improvement.

 

Personally, when I am swinging really well, I am good with the longer clubs into greens, but it is hard to get away with bad swings on these clubs into greens when I am not swinging well...much easier to get away with mediocre swings when hitting these clubs to the fairway rather than green.

Your viewpoint seems to be based on guys hitting driver / long iron into holes like 13 / 15 at Augusta. I’d be all for that if that’s what we routinely saw by big hitters. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the 50+ guys on tour capable of hitting 3-wood / 8-Iron into those holes. To me that’s not risk reward, that’s ho hum.

[ClintDagger]

But you know the people that focus on distance are the people that usually never obtain it.

That's interesting. When we have the debate at my club about rolling the equipment back it's always the longer hitters that are all for it and the shorter hitters that don't want it changed. The longer hitters want their advantage back and the short knocks enjoy occasionally putting it out there 300 plus when they have a nice breeze at their back.

 

Weird viewpoint, I don't feel that my length isn't an advantage still or that I have lost it due to the ball going farther. I think more people just hit the ball long nowadays especially in the competitive ranks. But the ball is only part of the equation. I definitely don't think a shorter ball would make the pro tours more entertaining.

That viewpoint is actually pretty common by guys that hit it far and relatively straight. You basically said it yourself that more people hit the ball long in the competitive ranks. That’s an outright admission that being a big hitter isn’t the advantage it used to be. A guy like a Rory or a JT would enjoy an even greater advantage under conditions from 25 years ago. That’s all I’m saying. What that would mean for entertainment? Who knows. It’s not getting rolled back so it’s more of a hypothetical argument anyways.

[OrangeGravy]

But I think if reaching par 5s in two and driving short par 4s was more of a novelty rather than a routine happening, the game would be even better.

I disagree...hitting par 4s in 1 and 5s in two rewards long shot accuracy (compared to a par 4 that is drive/wedge for most of the field). Often times there is a risk/reward tradeoff on these holes, so an inaccurate long shot can cost you a lot (which tends to be less the case on may drive/wedge par 4s). In short, if a course is all mid-length par 4s and un-reachable par 5s, short-iron and wedge accuracy is tested repeatedly, but long shot accuracy is only tested to a limited extent (as there is not usually that much reward for middle vs side of fairway, or even rough in some cases compared to a lot of reward for hitting it 2 feet from the pin from a long distance).

 

What makes the Masters so great? 13 & 15 where long shot accuracy is rewarded and bad shots are penalized. Making it a novelty for a pro to go for it on these holes would not be an improvement.

 

Personally, when I am swinging really well, I am good with the longer clubs into greens, but it is hard to get away with bad swings on these clubs into greens when I am not swinging well...much easier to get away with mediocre swings when hitting these clubs to the fairway rather than green.

Your viewpoint seems to be based on guys hitting driver / long iron into holes like 13 / 15 at Augusta. I'd be all for that if that's what we routinely saw by big hitters. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the 50+ guys on tour capable of hitting 3-wood / 8-Iron into those holes. To me that's not risk reward, that's ho hum.

 

This describes perfectly how I feel about distance these days. It doesn't do anything for me because just about everyone out there has plenty of it. It's not impressive anymore. Sure compared to us regular folks it is, but relatively speaking it's not. Things like that elicit a different response/reaction when only a couple people can do it. It loses it's novelty when half the field or better can do it.

[widow-maker]

This all lays at the feet of the USGA and the R&A. Their reaction time has always been glacial. The ball, the rules, the long putters, driver head size... you name the problem and the USGA has been mulling it over 25 years too long with little to no action. The cat is now completely out of the bag. In the past 30 years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent retrofitting golf courses vs increased distances that the ball travels, which is completely counter intuitive. You save hundreds of millions of dollars if you make a decision in the 90's to limit the ball. We needed reaction from the governing powers back in the 90's and instead they sat around eating steak tartare and patting each other on the back.

 

Now the consumers are used to the equipment and the players have developed a different way to play the game. Yesterday Dustin Johnson hit 3 wood/8 iron on a 525 yard par 5. That's 125 yards more than Nicklaus would have gotten out of 3 wood/8 iron in the 70's. Better or worse it's a different game that has evolved and you can't just stuff it back in the bottle.

[15th Club]

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

 

Titleist will win no matter what they do to the ball.

In his recent comments, Jack Nicklaus agreed with that. Jack — who complained that Titleist was effectively controlling the game with their concerted opposition to any rollback — also acknowledged that Titleist was the number one ball by far and would likely remain so after any rollback.

 

That graciousness on Jack’s part will do him no good with the suits at Titleist.

 

[15th Club]

Higher rough and concrete greens destroy the architectural integrity of the great courses; they are no longer a fair test of skill. If this keeps going they will need to create new ones that take the new style of game into account when testing players fairly.

 

But we have already destroyed the architectural integrity of the great old courses. Like Pinehurst #2. It was designed for green Stimps of 5 - 7, not 12 - 13. That totally changes the course from the original design.

 

You keep making the mistake that a rollback’s purpose is to go back in time, as a sort of historical reenactment. That is untrue.

 

What I want, is better golf. Stimp speeds of 12 and 13 are mostly unnatural, and have been artificially created to defend scoring from golf ball distance. I’d like to see slower green speeds (at least nothing unnatural) along with a ball rollback.

[Pepperturbo]

Yes, the ball makes a difference, which I enjoy. But it's not the only culprit that affects distance. Most people are oblivious or don't bother to take into account the extent to which tours adjust fairways for viewer and sponsor sake. Sponsors want players to hit it big. The reason why tours take over courses up to six months in advance of an event, and reconfigure thirty-six holes to make eighteen hole events.

 

Tour management want down breeze holes for measuring, add redirecting fairway grain, and rolling, and everybody is a big hitter. If I hit my average 240-250 drive and land one of those fairways, it's a 280 +/- yard drive for this late 60's man. My longest two iron was 250 yards on a similar fairway. I've observed ground crews over-time even change the direction of fairway grain away from the sun and roll the landing area to firm them up, also redirect undulations, which trains run out or hinders run out. Then after the tour event over time, grain naturally returns direction of growth towards the sun. :beach:

[PGArox]

Better or worse it's a different game that has evolved and you can't just stuff it back in the bottle.

 

This is the salient point in the debate. There will be no rollback because there is not a great enough push for it, especially from the people who truly matter.

 

I also perceive that the days of spending millions and millions of dollars lengthening old courses are dwindling, and there seems to be no push to build larger, longer and more challenging designs.

 

Golf is in a good place right now. Did you see the size of the galleries at #17 and #18 today at TPC Sawgrass? Huge.

[rangersgoalie]

Us open, masters certainly raised greens speeds to challenge the players

When jack started the Memorial in hopes of creating his Masters homage, his greens were insanely fast too.

 

The inevitable Pavlovian response of course owners and greens committees started to try to be like Augusta (and other tour events) creating a green speed one upmanship at clubs.

People have talked about the "new" ball going too far throughout golf history.

 

It's simple to look at the ball, but is a huge combination of factors bringing the distance explosion.

 

[UncleJohn’sBand]

Higher rough and concrete greens destroy the architectural integrity of the great courses; they are no longer a fair test of skill. If this keeps going they will need to create new ones that take the new style of game into account when testing players fairly.

 

But we have already destroyed the architectural integrity of the great old courses. Like Pinehurst #2. It was designed for green Stimps of 5 - 7, not 12 - 13. That totally changes the course from the original design.

 

You keep making the mistake that a rollback’s purpose is to go back in time, as a sort of historical reenactment. That is untrue.

 

What I want, is better golf. Stimp speeds of 12 and 13 are mostly unnatural, and have been artificially created to defend scoring from golf ball distance. I’d like to see slower green speeds (at least nothing unnatural) along with a ball rollback.

 

Should we go back to steel shafts in drivers and woods too, instead of the lightweight graphite that allows players to swing it faster? I see nobody has suggested that. Put 128g shafts I’m drivers instead of plyable 65g shafts

[Hawkeye77]

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

 

Titleist will win no matter what they do to the ball.

In his recent comments, Jack Nicklaus agreed with that. Jack — who complained that Titleist was effectively controlling the game with their concerted opposition to any rollback — also acknowledged that Titleist was the number one ball by far and would likely remain so after any rollback.

 

That graciousness on Jack's part will do him no good with the suits at Titleist.

 

I'm sure he doesn't care and they probably don't care that much either. Those guys wear suits?

[golfer929]

Why do we need to roll the ball back when it only affects like 500 people in the world. Have any of you ever thought that the guys you see on TV are there because they have a complete golf game? There are plenty of people in golf who hit it long.

 

What happens when you roll back the ball and then in another 30 years you have to roll it back again? Athletes get better over time. You can’t just take something away just because you don’t like it. Here’s an idea: Why don’t you worry about finding a way to beat these “long hitters”.

 

And if you want to roll it back for course concerns, what happens when you roll back the ball and then realizes “hmm.. I can’t spin it like I need to on these 2018 greens with my 1970 golf ball.”

[mjen43]

Maybe Callaway already has a reduced distance ball produced. Maybe pro Callaway people are trying to obtain a larger portion of the ball market by kissing up to USGA and RA...or through any means necessary to change rules governing the golf ball?? Maybe they would make a dent in Titleists strangle hold on the ball market?

Maybe...maybe not...lol.

 

Playing the long game by betting on the short game...I love it.

That would be pretty smart imo, if you're any company other than Titleist I'd be pushing this to put a dent in their perceived superiority.

 

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

 

It absolutely would but it will never happen because the manufacturers would file a class action so fast and get an injunction overnight.

Nobody is buying an older slower phone and nobody is buying a shorter ball.Human nature. these companies legal teams are praying this happens but it wont

 

If nobody will buy a shorter ball then, the ball companies don't have to make one? Nobody can mandate them to manufacture an unprofitable product.

[mjen43]

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

 

Titleist will win no matter what they do to the ball.

 

Agreed. That was my point.

[knock it close]

Maybe Callaway already has a reduced distance ball produced. Maybe pro Callaway people are trying to obtain a larger portion of the ball market by kissing up to USGA and RA...or through any means necessary to change rules governing the golf ball?? Maybe they would make a dent in Titleists strangle hold on the ball market?

Maybe...maybe not...lol.

 

Playing the long game by betting on the short game...I love it.

That would be pretty smart imo, if you're any company other than Titleist I'd be pushing this to put a dent in their perceived superiority.

 

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

 

It absolutely would but it will never happen because the manufacturers would file a class action so fast and get an injunction overnight.

Nobody is buying an older slower phone and nobody is buying a shorter ball.Human nature. these companies legal teams are praying this happens but it wont

Huh? People buy less spinny wedges, lower cor drivers, literally everything we buy is less than it could be because of regulations in place.

[Schley]

Yes

[15th Club]

Why do we need to roll the ball back when it only affects like 500 people in the world. Have any of you ever thought that the guys you see on TV are there because they have a complete golf game? There are plenty of people in golf who hit it long.

 

What happens when you roll back the ball and then in another 30 years you have to roll it back again? Athletes get better over time. You can’t just take something away just because you don’t like it. Here’s an idea: Why don’t you worry about finding a way to beat these “long hitters”.

 

And if you want to roll it back for course concerns, what happens when you roll back the ball and then realizes “hmm.. I can’t spin it like I need to on these 2018 greens with my 1970 golf ball.”

 

{Sigh}

 

Nobody knows better than I; the reason that I have something like 50 posts in a thread like this is because 30 or 40 of them are repeated debunkings of the same repetitive shibboleths.

 

Nobody wants “a 1970 ball.” We want an all-new, modern, high-tech, single-spec ball that doesn’t diminish enjoyment of the game by casual recreational golfers. But which much more effectively enforces, in real-life play, the spirit of the current ODS.

 

This change, which I feel is inevitable, and for which there is rapidly growing support among other the leaders of golf’s ruling bodies, has absolutely nothing to do with jealousy of the top players, and nothing to do with, competitive advantages for anyone, and is ONLY about creating the best conditions for championship play on the very best historic championship golf courses.

 

[QMany]

The ball is already limited.

 

Has the USGA ever walked back restrictions they’ve put in place? For example, 460 cc, club length, COR, etc. Is there anything like that they’ve limited and then went on to say, “we made a mistake, we’re limiting it even more.”

[rangersgoalie]

Doesn't the current ball basically respond on an linear chart in relationship of

Clubhead speed and ball speed?

I'm not certain, but it may even flatten at crazy high club speeds?

 

It seems some (not all) are advocating a ball would perform worse for high speed players than slower speed??

 

Let the average golfer have their current but curtail the I,provement at higher speeds is bifurcation as well, isn't it?

[Pigems]

If they roll the ball back they will also have to shorten courses, which means second shots are still going to be hit from the same places as they are now. So what would have actually changed?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Why do we need to roll the ball back when it only affects like 500 people in the world. Have any of you ever thought that the guys you see on TV are there because they have a complete golf game? There are plenty of people in golf who hit it long.

 

What happens when you roll back the ball and then in another 30 years you have to roll it back again? Athletes get better over time. You can’t just take something away just because you don’t like it. Here’s an idea: Why don’t you worry about finding a way to beat these “long hitters”.

 

And if you want to roll it back for course concerns, what happens when you roll back the ball and then realizes “hmm.. I can’t spin it like I need to on these 2018 greens with my 1970 golf ball.”

 

{Sigh}

 

Nobody knows better than I; the reason that I have something like 50 posts in a thread like this is because 30 or 40 of them are repeated debunkings of the same repetitive shibboleths.

 

Nobody wants “a 1970 ball.” We want an all-new, modern, high-tech, single-spec ball that doesn’t diminish enjoyment of the game by casual recreational golfers. But which much more effectively enforces, in real-life play, the spirit of the current ODS.

 

This change, which I feel is inevitable, and for which there is rapidly growing support among other the leaders of golf’s ruling bodies, has absolutely nothing to do with jealousy of the top players, and nothing to do with, competitive advantages for anyone, and is ONLY about creating the best conditions for championship play on the very best historic championship golf courses.

 

Nicklaus wants a 20% rollback. He said so, and has never retracted by giving another %. So, he wants a 1920s ball, but on a 2018 course. To, you know, preserve the game.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

If they roll the ball back they will also have to shorten courses, which means second shots are still going to be hit from the same places as they are now. So what would have actually changed?

 

Nah, man! Gotta keep those courses, that were lengthened to combat the ball, long. If not, the uh, the true goal will not be achieved.

[QuigleyDU]

Why do we need to roll the ball back when it only affects like 500 people in the world. Have any of you ever thought that the guys you see on TV are there because they have a complete golf game? There are plenty of people in golf who hit it long.

 

What happens when you roll back the ball and then in another 30 years you have to roll it back again? Athletes get better over time. You can’t just take something away just because you don’t like it. Here’s an idea: Why don’t you worry about finding a way to beat these “long hitters”.

 

And if you want to roll it back for course concerns, what happens when you roll back the ball and then realizes “hmm.. I can’t spin it like I need to on these 2018 greens with my 1970 golf ball.”

 

{Sigh}

 

Nobody knows better than I; the reason that I have something like 50 posts in a thread like this is because 30 or 40 of them are repeated debunkings of the same repetitive shibboleths.

 

Nobody wants “a 1970 ball.” We want an all-new, modern, high-tech, single-spec ball that doesn’t diminish enjoyment of the game by casual recreational golfers. But which much more effectively enforces, in real-life play, the spirit of the current ODS.

 

This change, which I feel is inevitable, and for which there is rapidly growing support among other the leaders of golf’s ruling bodies, has absolutely nothing to do with jealousy of the top players, and nothing to do with, competitive advantages for anyone, and is ONLY about creating the best conditions for championship play on the very best historic championship golf courses.

 

 

The funny thing is you keep talking out both sides of your mouth. You said not that many posts ago you were in favor of a ball that was only limited for those that swing 108 or higher. That is not fair or correct to handicap those that have the talent/ability to swing harder. They should be rewarded for that if they can control it. Communistic ideals like this are wrong.

 

I doubt seriously this will happen. The groove change happens because of your player support, the anchor ban happened because of your player support. The ball does not have their support and so it will not happen.

 

I remain convinced this is an old mans agenda. Architecture and spirit of the game are just their face arguements.

[Shilgy]

I really do not believe that the rollbackers really want to bring the ball back so that the top 1/2 percent of golfers in the world can play on older courses. If the ball is rolled back you will still never see shorter course start popping up on tour stop or major course rotations.

 

 

Its a lie, and they know it. it does not have anything to do with protecting par, or making it easier for courses to be maintained. I really wish they would just be up front and honest about it.

 

Where the tour goes, is 100% driven by money. That means hospitality tents, grandstands, parking, etc. all things needed for what they would consider a successful (profitable) event. If a course does not have room for all of that, it will not be EVER considered.

 

I would love to see them try some other options first. since this rollback is 100% driven by what people are seeing on the tour. I play a lot and, work part time at a golf store. The vast majority of golfers i see do not hit drives further than 200 yards!! and you want to dial it back 20%!!

 

There's simply no other way to answer this, other than to call it a kind of a lie, in the context of this discussion. The USGA has not proposed anything that will roll back recreational golfers by 20%. In this discussion, I have not called for a roll back that would take 20% of recreational golfer's' distances. I rather specifically cited Seminole pro Bob Ford (venerated, at golf's highest levels) mentioning the possibility of a ball design that rolls back distances at swing speeds above 108 mph, and which does virtually nothing to lower swing speeds.

 

And in prior threads, I have mentioned that the 20% number came from a casual comment by Jack Nicklaus in response to an interview question, and I do not think it is fair or wise or even intelligent to presume that Jack Nicklaus expects anything like a 20% rollback for low-level recreational players. (Jack Nicklaus thinks more in terms of bifurcation.)

Matt Kuchar, Jim Furyk and others are licking their chops at this idea. A ball that won't affect them but brings DJ and the lads back 10%. Awesome! :)

[KCCO]

Guess they will slow down pitchers pushing radar 100mph+ as well?...all sports athletes get bigger faster stronger. Way it is.

[BMC]

Webb Simpson is 145th in driving distance this season. averaging 280 this week. 19 under.

 

I don't think distance is a problem.

[KCCO]

Webb Simpson is 145th in driving distance this season. averaging 280 this week. 19 under.

 

I don't think distance is a problem.

 

Exactly....and if the game was all driving distance, I would assume you would see “long-drive” players on tour? But you don’t as they don’t have the other parts of what makes a successful tour player. Distance isn’t everything, consistent distance helps, but I believe short game and putting levels the playing field...

[QuigleyDU]

Webb Simpson is 145th in driving distance this season. averaging 280 this week. 19 under.

 

I don't think distance is a problem.

 

Exactly....and if the game was all driving distance, I would assume you would see “long-drive” players on tour? But you don’t as they don’t have the other parts of what makes a successful tour player. Distance isn’t everything, consistent distance helps, but I believe short game and putting levels the playing field...

 

Jamie sadlowski is trying, rather unsuccessfully. And he has way more game then The rest of the long drive guys.