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

[15th Club]

15, you lol at "short hitting elite" but they are out there. Even on tour. You had earlier claimed that the 108 mph and less could not be affected. There are some pretty good pros in that category.

 

Your new yardage rollback would be 5% or so. Which is more reasonable but not enough to bring some of your courses back into play. Below 7000 will still be too short.

 

Every time I start throwing out numbers, I regret it.

 

People are studying this, and there is so much data and information that is beyond me. There are no absolutes in this. It is an essentially aesthetic issue.

[Roadking2003]

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.

 

So DJ hits 3 wood / 8 iron and Nicklaus hit driver / 2 iron. Both play the same 525 yards. It requires the same skill. The number on the bottom of the club makes no difference.

 

It's pretty tough to argue against illogical thinking like that. With Nicklaus' swing speed and modern equipment, the driver /2-iron goes well over 600 yards, which is a significantly more skillful two shots than 3-wood /8-iron to 525.

 

So you think the number on the bottom of the club makes a difference? Using that logic, ANGC #13 and Sawgrass #17 are getting easier every year.

 

I think the distance required is the challenge, not the number on the bottom of the club.

[North Butte]

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.

 

So DJ hits 3 wood / 8 iron and Nicklaus hit driver / 2 iron. Both play the same 525 yards. It requires the same skill. The number on the bottom of the club makes no difference.

 

It's pretty tough to argue against illogical thinking like that. With Nicklaus' swing speed and modern equipment, the driver /2-iron goes well over 600 yards, which is a significantly more skillful two shots than 3-wood /8-iron to 525.

 

So you think the number on the bottom of the club makes a difference? Using that logic, ANGC #13 and Sawgrass #17 are getting easier every year.

 

I think the distance required is the challenge, not the number on the bottom of the club.

 

Exactly. The challenge is getting a ball from here to waaaaaaaay over there and leaving it right next to a small target.

 

Is eagling a 550-yard hole easier with today's equipment and balls than with the stuff Young Tom Morris was using? Absolutely. Is it no longer a challenge? Don't make me laugh.

[KMeloney]

Because it has always been a premier golf course and a great test. Because they pinched the fairways, and let the fairway grass grow out by 1/2". They made the rough as punitive as they could and not make it a bad joke. And they firmed up the greens to the maximum amount given the weather. Those are all things that can make Merion playable as a test for the US Open. Those things mask the problems caused by golf ball technology. They don't make Merion terrible; nothing could make Merion terrible. They just don't make Merion better. They are defensive compromises.

 

"Defensive compromises"? What's that supposed to mean? What's the purpose of ANY rough on any course except to put a premium on hitting the fairway? Why put hazards or sand traps or bring OB into play if not for their defensive attributes?? Merion's rough has always been penal, tournament or not. There have always been roads that are OB just off of #2 and #14. The tall grass in or around the bunkers there isn't the result of the greenskeeper's assistant calling out sick since 1912. These aren't "compromises" -- they're all design features of the course, and ones that make you reconsider bombing driver off of every tee.

 

Are you saying that a shorter-flying ball will allow places like Merion to keep from having to grow and pinch in the rough and speed up the greens? If so, where would that get you? If the rough is shorter, and the greens more receptive, then what would keep you from simply trying to hit the ball off the tee as far as you can? Being less concerned about landing in the rough would cause you to use less strategy around the course, not more. That's completely counter to your ball roll-back argument.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure you'd have support from folks like Sergio (3 balls through the fairway to the road on #15) and Phil (arguably lost the tournament bombing a wedge over the green on #13) for a shorter-flying ball...

 

Maybe Merion is simply a bad example of a classic course that suffers from the ball flying too far.

[North Butte]

They could hold a US Open at Harbor Town from the usual tournament tees with today's balls and clubs and it would be an entertaining and compelling test of golf. Probably be won by a Webb Simpson type rather than a bomber, too.

[15th Club]

Because it has always been a premier golf course and a great test. Because they pinched the fairways, and let the fairway grass grow out by 1/2". They made the rough as punitive as they could and not make it a bad joke. And they firmed up the greens to the maximum amount given the weather. Those are all things that can make Merion playable as a test for the US Open. Those things mask the problems caused by golf ball technology. They don't make Merion terrible; nothing could make Merion terrible. They just don't make Merion better. They are defensive compromises.

 

"Defensive compromises"? What's that supposed to mean? What's the purpose of ANY rough on any course except to put a premium on hitting the fairway? Why put hazards or sand traps or bring OB into play if not for their defensive attributes?? Merion's rough has always been penal, tournament or not. There have always been roads that are OB just off of #2 and #14. The tall grass in or around the bunkers there isn't the result of the greenskeeper's assistant calling out sick since 1912. These aren't "compromises" -- they're all design features of the course, and ones that make you reconsider bombing driver off of every tee.

 

Are you saying that a shorter-flying ball will allow places like Merion to keep from having to grow and pinch in the rough and speed up the greens? If so, where would that get you? If the rough is shorter, and the greens more receptive, then what would keep you from simply trying to hit the ball off the tee as far as you can? Being less concerned about landing in the rough would cause you to use less strategy around the course, not more. That's completely counter to your ball roll-back argument.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure you'd have support from folks like Sergio (3 balls through the fairway to the road on #15) and Phil (arguably lost the tournament bombing a wedge over the green on #13) for a shorter-flying ball...

 

Maybe Merion is simply a bad example of a classic course that suffers from the ball flying too far.

 

The highlighted paragraph; yes, indeed, a shorter-flying golf ball allows Merion to not pinch its fairways and trick up the greens. Where that gets us, is back to a wider, more natural Merion. And the width allows for more strategy, as opposed to playing along a single narrow line that everybody needs to play. It would also demand/allow for more drivers, instead of what we saw. I don't know how many/few times that Justin Rose hit driver at Merion. Did Phil Mickelson even carry a driver?

[QuigleyDU]

Because it has always been a premier golf course and a great test. Because they pinched the fairways, and let the fairway grass grow out by 1/2". They made the rough as punitive as they could and not make it a bad joke. And they firmed up the greens to the maximum amount given the weather. Those are all things that can make Merion playable as a test for the US Open. Those things mask the problems caused by golf ball technology. They don't make Merion terrible; nothing could make Merion terrible. They just don't make Merion better. They are defensive compromises.

 

"Defensive compromises"? What's that supposed to mean? What's the purpose of ANY rough on any course except to put a premium on hitting the fairway? Why put hazards or sand traps or bring OB into play if not for their defensive attributes?? Merion's rough has always been penal, tournament or not. There have always been roads that are OB just off of #2 and #14. The tall grass in or around the bunkers there isn't the result of the greenskeeper's assistant calling out sick since 1912. These aren't "compromises" -- they're all design features of the course, and ones that make you reconsider bombing driver off of every tee.

 

Are you saying that a shorter-flying ball will allow places like Merion to keep from having to grow and pinch in the rough and speed up the greens? If so, where would that get you? If the rough is shorter, and the greens more receptive, then what would keep you from simply trying to hit the ball off the tee as far as you can? Being less concerned about landing in the rough would cause you to use less strategy around the course, not more. That's completely counter to your ball roll-back argument.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure you'd have support from folks like Sergio (3 balls through the fairway to the road on #15) and Phil (arguably lost the tournament bombing a wedge over the green on #13) for a shorter-flying ball...

 

Maybe Merion is simply a bad example of a classic course that suffers from the ball flying too far.

 

The highlighted paragraph; yes, indeed, a shorter-flying golf ball allows Merion to not pinch its fairways and trick up the greens. Where that gets us, is back to a wider, more natural Merion. And the width allows for more strategy, as opposed to playing along a single narrow line that everybody needs to play. It would also demand/allow for more drivers, instead of what we saw. I don't know how many/few times that Justin Rose hit driver at Merion. Did Phil Mickelson even carry a driver?

 

while he didnt carry a "driver" he did carry a 12 degree frankenwood that is essentially a driver.

[golfer07840]

this is still a thing???

[North Butte]

this is still a thing???

 

Until a certain cohort of grumpy old men (and a few grumpy young men) who came to golf pre-1998 die off, it's going to be a thing. Decades still to run on this one.

 

When the change from gutties to Haskells happened and when the switch from hickory to steel shafts came about, there wasn't an internet and a 24x7 social media soapbox for all the grumpy old men to blast their Grandpa Simpson diatribes to the four corners. These guys seem to them they are the first people in history to be forced to deal with the game of their childhood evolving into something different and better.

[rangersgoalie]

Because it has always been a premier golf course and a great test. Because they pinched the fairways, and let the fairway grass grow out by 1/2". They made the rough as punitive as they could and not make it a bad joke. And they firmed up the greens to the maximum amount given the weather. Those are all things that can make Merion playable as a test for the US Open. Those things mask the problems caused by golf ball technology. They don't make Merion terrible; nothing could make Merion terrible. They just don't make Merion better. They are defensive compromises.

 

"Defensive compromises"? What's that supposed to mean? What's the purpose of ANY rough on any course except to put a premium on hitting the fairway? Why put hazards or sand traps or bring OB into play if not for their defensive attributes?? Merion's rough has always been penal, tournament or not. There have always been roads that are OB just off of #2 and #14. The tall grass in or around the bunkers there isn't the result of the greenskeeper's assistant calling out sick since 1912. These aren't "compromises" -- they're all design features of the course, and ones that make you reconsider bombing driver off of every tee.

 

Are you saying that a shorter-flying ball will allow places like Merion to keep from having to grow and pinch in the rough and speed up the greens? If so, where would that get you? If the rough is shorter, and the greens more receptive, then what would keep you from simply trying to hit the ball off the tee as far as you can? Being less concerned about landing in the rough would cause you to use less strategy around the course, not more. That's completely counter to your ball roll-back argument.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure you'd have support from folks like Sergio (3 balls through the fairway to the road on #15) and Phil (arguably lost the tournament bombing a wedge over the green on #13) for a shorter-flying ball...

 

Maybe Merion is simply a bad example of a classic course that suffers from the ball flying too far.

 

The highlighted paragraph; yes, indeed, a shorter-flying golf ball allows Merion to not pinch its fairways and trick up the greens. Where that gets us, is back to a wider, more natural Merion. And the width allows for more strategy, as opposed to playing along a single narrow line that everybody needs to play. It would also demand/allow for more drivers, instead of what we saw. I don't know how many/few times that Justin Rose hit driver at Merion. Did Phil Mickelson even carry a driver?

 

I watched the Massacre at Winged Foot as a kid and junior golfer in 1974

Caddied one practice round and followed my brother in the 1980 us open at Baltusrol

And was a big watcher of Merion in 1981 which was in my neck of the woods.

And Ben Hogans open at Oakland hills when they redesigned and made it nearly impossible is the stuff of legends

 

All of those were as bad if not worse than The most recent Merion mess they played. When Miller shot his 63, the USGA had a collective stroke in succeeding years, especially Winged Foot the next year.

 

There has always been this battle. Tell the best players we're making course longer, and like Erin Hills, wider, and sit back in amazement when players push to answer, with equipment companies pushing to help.

 

 

[15th Club]

this is still a thing???

 

Until a certain cohort of grumpy old men (and a few grumpy young men) who came to golf pre-1998 die off, it's going to be a thing. Decades still to run on this one.

 

When the change from gutties to Haskells happened and when the switch from hickory to steel shafts came about, there wasn't an internet and a 24x7 social media soapbox for all the grumpy old men to blast their Grandpa Simpson diatribes to the four corners. These guys seem to them they are the first people in history to be forced to deal with the game of their childhood evolving into something different and better.

 

I really should just be happy to let Jordan Spieth, Justin Thomas and Ricky Fowler get to the end of their Titleist contracts, and then see what they really think about a ball rollback. But because I am a restless sort, I can't wait, honestly, to see copies of those contracts, and copies of all of the communications between Acushnet's legal and marketing guys, and those players on the subject of equipment regulations.

[QuigleyDU]

this is still a thing???

 

Until a certain cohort of grumpy old men (and a few grumpy young men) who came to golf pre-1998 die off, it's going to be a thing. Decades still to run on this one.

 

When the change from gutties to Haskells happened and when the switch from hickory to steel shafts came about, there wasn't an internet and a 24x7 social media soapbox for all the grumpy old men to blast their Grandpa Simpson diatribes to the four corners. These guys seem to them they are the first people in history to be forced to deal with the game of their childhood evolving into something different and better.

 

I really should just be happy to let Jordan Spieth, Justin Thomas and Ricky Fowler get to the end of their Titleist contracts, and then see what they really think about a ball rollback. But because I am a restless sort, I can't wait, honestly, to see copies of those contracts, and copies of all of the communications between Acushnet's legal and marketing guys, and those players on the subject of equipment regulations.

 

haha. Jordan and Ricky are not considered among the bomber crowd. i doubt you have their support, in secret or otherwise.

[North Butte]

Is it just me or does anyone else fear that our friend is exhibiting signs of clinical paranoia?

 

He seems to have almost convinced himself that the only thing standing between golf and a "rollback" to the 1970's is a vast conspiracy funded by Titleist. That's getting pretty out there, man.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

this is still a thing???

 

Until a certain cohort of grumpy old men (and a few grumpy young men) who came to golf pre-1998 die off, it's going to be a thing. Decades still to run on this one.

 

When the change from gutties to Haskells happened and when the switch from hickory to steel shafts came about, there wasn't an internet and a 24x7 social media soapbox for all the grumpy old men to blast their Grandpa Simpson diatribes to the four corners. These guys seem to them they are the first people in history to be forced to deal with the game of their childhood evolving into something different and better.

 

I really should just be happy to let Jordan Spieth, Justin Thomas and Ricky Fowler get to the end of their Titleist contracts, and then see what they really think about a ball rollback. But because I am a restless sort, I can't wait, honestly, to see copies of those contracts, and copies of all of the communications between Acushnet's legal and marketing guys, and those players on the subject of equipment regulations.

 

Yeah, once those contracts are up, I'm sure Acushnet will call you to see which delivery method you prefer, especially if they are at least arguably privileged as communications to and from legal.

[gvogel]

The R&A and USGA announced Tuesday that they have jointly launched a distance project intended to gather perspective and information from all areas of the game.

Called the Distance Insights project, the exercise is designed to examine distance and its effects on golf. Focus groups and discussion forums will be formed throughout the year in order to secure a broad range of perspectives.

Among other topics, the organizations will seek distance-related data on pace of play, golf course construction, maintenance practices, evolution of equipment, golf course design, player enjoyment and participation.

“Distance in golf is a complex issue which is widely debated at all levels of the sport,” R&A chief executive Martin Slumbers said. “It is important that we collate all of the relevant data and hear the many different perspectives on this issue that exist in the international golf community. We intend to conduct this process openly, comprehensively and promptly and will work with all of the key stakeholders to ensure we have a fully rounded view of distance and its implications.”

Said USGA CEO Mike Davis: “The topic of increased distance and its effects on the game have been discussed for well over a century. We believe that now is the time to examine this topic through a very wide and long lens, knowing it is critical to the future of the game.”

Anyone interested in providing feedback can visit usga.org/distanceinsights, randa.org/distanceinsights or can email either the R&A or USGA.

A comprehensive distance report with findings from the insights project will be released in 2019.

 

It looks like this issue is going to be discussed at the highest levels, by all the major participants (which hardly includes yours truly).

[gatorpedsMD]

No.

[gvogel]

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.

 

So DJ hits 3 wood / 8 iron and Nicklaus hit driver / 2 iron. Both play the same 525 yards. It requires the same skill. The number on the bottom of the club makes no difference.

 

It's pretty tough to argue against illogical thinking like that. With Nicklaus' swing speed and modern equipment, the driver /2-iron goes well over 600 yards, which is a significantly more skillful two shots than 3-wood /8-iron to 525.

 

So you think the number on the bottom of the club makes a difference? Using that logic, ANGC #13 and Sawgrass #17 are getting easier every year.

 

I think the distance required is the challenge, not the number on the bottom of the club.

 

I think that if it takes a driver and a long iron to achieve a certain distance, that takes more skill than that same person hitting a 3-wood and an 8-iron.

 

Well, at least it is for me. I can hit a 3-wood straighter than a driver, and my 8-iron is much more consistently straight and accurate than my 4-iron. I don't have a 3-iron anymore.

 

It also takes more skill to get the distance off the tee with a smaller headed, lower COR driver than todays 460 clubs.

[BrockPSU]

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.

 

So DJ hits 3 wood / 8 iron and Nicklaus hit driver / 2 iron. Both play the same 525 yards. It requires the same skill. The number on the bottom of the club makes no difference.

 

It's pretty tough to argue against illogical thinking like that. With Nicklaus' swing speed and modern equipment, the driver /2-iron goes well over 600 yards, which is a significantly more skillful two shots than 3-wood /8-iron to 525.

 

So you think the number on the bottom of the club makes a difference? Using that logic, ANGC #13 and Sawgrass #17 are getting easier every year.

 

I think the distance required is the challenge, not the number on the bottom of the club.

 

I think that if it takes a driver and a long iron to achieve a certain distance, that takes more skill than that same person hitting a 3-wood and an 8-iron.

 

Well, at least it is for me. I can hit a 3-wood straighter than a driver, and my 8-iron is much more consistently straight and accurate than my 4-iron. I don't have a 3-iron anymore.

 

It also takes more skill to get the distance off the tee with a smaller headed, lower COR driver than todays 460 clubs.

 

So Djs skill to hit the ball longer then Nicklaus is what then? Yes technology plays an impact but lets be honest DJ Still hits the ball longer then Nicklaus in his prime.

 

When did having an advantage become not being skilled at something because someone else refuses to put the time and effort as he does into that aspect of the game?

[gvogel]

 

 

So Djs skill to hit the ball longer then Nicklaus is what then? Yes technology plays an impact but lets be honest DJ Still hits the ball longer then Nicklaus in his prime.

 

When did having an advantage become not being skilled at something because someone else refuses to put the time and effort as he does into that aspect of the game?

 

Do you know how far and straight DJ can hit the ball with a persimmon headed, steel shafted driver? If no, than you cannot judge relative skill levels.

[15th Club]

Is it just me or does anyone else fear that our friend is exhibiting signs of clinical paranoia?

 

He seems to have almost convinced himself that the only thing standing between golf and a "rollback" to the 1970's is a vast conspiracy funded by Titleist. That's getting pretty out there, man.

 

Here is what I said, basically: I suspect that the reason that players like Jordan Spieth, Justin Thomas and Ricky Fowler are silent on the rollback issue is because they have current multimillion dollar contracts with Titleist. That isn't a "conspiracy." That is "contractual obligation." They don't have to have an opinion, and they are certainly free to withhold an opinion, particularly if it is part of an important sponsorship. All that I ask of people is please do not be so foolish as to think that Titleist itself isn't fanatical about this. Titleist has put out press releases, Wally Uihlein has made statements, Titleist ad managers have used the John Cleese caricature of the old golf architecture fanatic, etc., etc.

 

Now, before anyone continues with trash talk about "clinical paranoia," what I want to do is to quote Jack Nicklaus. I essentially agree with Nicklaus's sentiment. But I am a lawyer, and Jack is not. And I like to be really, really careful about language. And Jack is someone who is challenged so infrequently, he is often not careful about precision in his language. So while I would not have used these words, I want to quote Jack Nicklaus. (In fairness, Nicklaus was responding to a reporter's question that specifically and pointedly mentioned Titleist. And of course the reporter mentioned Titleist precisely because it is so well- and widely-understood that Titleist is the central clearinghouse for opposition to a ball rollback, protecting the market share of the Pro V1.) So here is Jack: "The only manufacturer that hasn't been against it [a ball rollback] has been Titleist. And Titleist basically controls the game. ...Titleist... they just don't make the Rules of the game....I just don't understand why Titleist would be against it [a ball rollback]. And I know they are; but I just don't understand why they would be against it. They make probably the best product. And it would be the best product if it went 20% shorter. What difference would it make? Their market share isn't going to change, a bit. They're still gong to dominate the game..."

 

I don't mind if anybody disagrees with me, or with Jack. But this isn't a "conspiracy theory." If you think that, you really need to catch up on the details of this debate, and its history over the last ten years. Jack is fully aware of it.

[BrockPSU]

So Djs skill to hit the ball longer then Nicklaus is what then? Yes technology plays an impact but lets be honest DJ Still hits the ball longer then Nicklaus in his prime.

 

When did having an advantage become not being skilled at something because someone else refuses to put the time and effort as he does into that aspect of the game?

 

Do you know how far and straight DJ can hit the ball with a persimmon headed, steel shafted driver? If no, than you cannot judge relative skill levels.

 

Smh, you think that one of the best golfers probably in this day and age cant hit a persimmon head or steel shafted driver great also? It blows my mind how people think that how fit DJ, Rory and Brooks are has nothing to do with how far they are hitting the ball. How about we ban putters also because when Webb, Jordan and company heat up its unfair that they have that much talent at making putts also.

[Shilgy]

15-so to be clear...you truly believe the other manufacturers feel it is in their best interest to have a roll back? And that is why a Bridgestone endorser(Tiger) can support a rollback but not a Spieth because he is with Titleist?

 

Does the evil empire promote their balls as the longest or just the best performing?

[15th Club]

So Djs skill to hit the ball longer then Nicklaus is what then? Yes technology plays an impact but lets be honest DJ Still hits the ball longer then Nicklaus in his prime.

 

When did having an advantage become not being skilled at something because someone else refuses to put the time and effort as he does into that aspect of the game?

 

Do you understand how pointless this is in the context of this debate? Competitively, a comparison between Jack Nicklaus and Dustin Johnson means nothing. With a ball rollback, Dustin Johnson will still be a very long hitter of the ball. He will still have that competitive advantage. His skill, talent and work will still pay off. But with a ball rollback, the entire world of elite-level golf may be able to play a lot more, and better, golf courses without millions of dollars' worth of architecture-defacing rework being done to those golf courses.

 

The absolute first person to tell you that what Jack Nicklaus did in his prime means nothing in the context of the ball-rollback debate is... Jack Nicklaus.

[15th Club]

15-so to be clear...you truly believe the other manufacturers feel it is in their best interest to have a roll back? And that is why a Bridgestone endorser(Tiger) can support a rollback but not a Spieth because he is with Titleist?

 

Does the evil empire promote their balls as the longest or just the best performing?

 

Yes, I believe that. Absolutely, I believe that. However, to be fair and accurate, Tiger Woods endorsed a ball rollback before he ever made a deal with Bridgestone. Because he hasn't been with Titleist for a very long time.

 

*Edit - Let's be clear about one thing. Taylormade recently came out in opposition to a ball rollback. My own theory is that TM is looking at popular market survey research and sees that their target demographic -- like the GolfWRX membership -- is strongly opposed to a ball rollback. And so their "political" position, as it were, in this case is a bit like a big corporation that is against climate change or world poverty. It makes their customers feel better about the company. When the actual position is meaningless because nothing that the company says or does will matter, and is cost-free to the company.

[BrockPSU]

Is it just me or does anyone else fear that our friend is exhibiting signs of clinical paranoia?

 

He seems to have almost convinced himself that the only thing standing between golf and a "rollback" to the 1970's is a vast conspiracy funded by Titleist. That's getting pretty out there, man.

 

Here is what I said, basically: I suspect that the reason that players like Jordan Spieth, Justin Thomas and Ricky Fowler are silent on the rollback issue is because they have current multimillion dollar contracts with Titleist. That isn't a "conspiracy." That is "contractual obligation." They don't have to have an opinion, and they are certainly free to withhold an opinion, particularly if it is part of an important sponsorship. All that I ask of people is please do not be so foolish as to think that Titleist itself isn't fanatical about this. Titleist has put out press releases, Wally Uihlein has made statements, Titleist ad managers have used the John Cleese caricature of the old golf architecture fanatic, etc., etc.

 

Now, before anyone continues with trash talk about "clinical paranoia," what I want to do is to quote Jack Nicklaus. I essentially agree with Nicklaus's sentiment. But I am a lawyer, and Jack is not. And I like to be really, really careful about language. And Jack is someone who is challenged so infrequently, he is often not careful about precision in his language. So while I would not have used these words, I want to quote Jack Nicklaus. (In fairness, Nicklaus was responding to a reporter's question that specifically and pointedly mentioned Titleist. And of course the reporter mentioned Titleist precisely because it is so well- and widely-understood that Titleist is the central clearinghouse for opposition to a ball rollback, protecting the market share of the Pro V1.) So here is Jack: "The only manufacturer that hasn't been against it [a ball rollback] has been Titleist. And Titleist basically controls the game. ...Titleist... they just don't make the Rules of the game....I just don't understand why Titleist would be against it [a ball rollback]. And I know they are; but I just don't understand why they would be against it. They make probably the best product. And it would be the best product if it went 20% shorter. What difference would it make? Their market share isn't going to change, a bit. They're still gong to dominate the game..."

 

I don't mind if anybody disagrees with me, or with Jack. But this isn't a "conspiracy theory." If you think that, you really need to catch up on the details of this debate, and its history over the last ten years. Jack is fully aware of it.

 

Market share wont change when everyone goes back to a "restart" and you don't think people will try different types of golf balls when they come out? If that is the case then why is every manufacturer pushing for the rollback if it has no advantage? Just like Titleist doesn't want a rollback because they already have the market share and a great product. Why would Titleist want to give that up because every other manufacturer cant compete with it? It sounds like all business and has nothing to do with the integrity of the game.

[Shilgy]

15-so to be clear...you truly believe the other manufacturers feel it is in their best interest to have a roll back? And that is why a Bridgestone endorser(Tiger) can support a rollback but not a Spieth because he is with Titleist?

 

Does the evil empire promote their balls as the longest or just the best performing?

 

Yes, I believe that. Absolutely, I believe that. However, to be fair and accurate, Tiger Woods endorsed a ball rollback before he ever made a deal with Bridgestone. Because he hasn't been with Titleist for a very long time.

So it truly is a Titleist conspiracy-they run(control) the game as you posted a couple posts above? Only non Titleist peeps will support a rollback?

[BrockPSU]

So Djs skill to hit the ball longer then Nicklaus is what then? Yes technology plays an impact but lets be honest DJ Still hits the ball longer then Nicklaus in his prime.

 

 

When did having an advantage become not being skilled at something because someone else refuses to put the time and effort as he does into that aspect of the game?

 

Do you understand how pointless this is in the context of this debate? Competitively, a comparison between Jack Nicklaus and Dustin Johnson means nothing. With a ball rollback, Dustin Johnson will still be a very long hitter of the ball. He will still have that competitive advantage. His skill, talent and work will still pay off. But with a ball rollback, the entire world of elite-level golf may be able to play a lot more, and better, golf courses without millions of dollars' worth of architecture-defacing rework being done to those golf courses.

 

The absolute first person to tell you that what Jack Nicklaus did in his prime means nothing in the context of the ball-rollback debate is... Jack Nicklaus.

 

Stop holding on to the past of old courses and let the game grow......The old course still destroys when weather is there and always will. That's the way it always has been.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

So Djs skill to hit the ball longer then Nicklaus is what then? Yes technology plays an impact but lets be honest DJ Still hits the ball longer then Nicklaus in his prime.

 

 

When did having an advantage become not being skilled at something because someone else refuses to put the time and effort as he does into that aspect of the game?

 

Do you understand how pointless this is in the context of this debate? Competitively, a comparison between Jack Nicklaus and Dustin Johnson means nothing. With a ball rollback, Dustin Johnson will still be a very long hitter of the ball. He will still have that competitive advantage. His skill, talent and work will still pay off. But with a ball rollback, the entire world of elite-level golf may be able to play a lot more, and better, golf courses without millions of dollars' worth of architecture-defacing rework being done to those golf courses.

 

The absolute first person to tell you that what Jack Nicklaus did in his prime means nothing in the context of the ball-rollback debate is... Jack Nicklaus.

 

Uh, yeah, EXACTLY.

[15th Club]

15-so to be clear...you truly believe the other manufacturers feel it is in their best interest to have a roll back? And that is why a Bridgestone endorser(Tiger) can support a rollback but not a Spieth because he is with Titleist?

 

Does the evil empire promote their balls as the longest or just the best performing?

 

Yes, I believe that. Absolutely, I believe that. However, to be fair and accurate, Tiger Woods endorsed a ball rollback before he ever made a deal with Bridgestone. Because he hasn't been with Titleist for a very long time.

So it truly is a Titleist conspiracy-they run(control) the game as you posted a couple posts above? Only non Titleist peeps will support a rollback?

 

Pay better attention, please. Be more careful. It was Jack Nicklaus that said, "Titleist controls the game." And before I quoted Nicklaus, I said that I would have been more careful in my language, because I am a lawyer and accustomed to careful and conservative language.

 

I did NOT say that "Only non Titleist peeps [sic] will support a rollback." What I am saying is that, with only one exception that I know of (and that story is worth a great big report all by itself), no Titleist-contracted player will support a ball rollback. Those are two different propositions.

[15th Club]

So Djs skill to hit the ball longer then Nicklaus is what then? Yes technology plays an impact but lets be honest DJ Still hits the ball longer then Nicklaus in his prime.

 

 

When did having an advantage become not being skilled at something because someone else refuses to put the time and effort as he does into that aspect of the game?

 

Do you understand how pointless this is in the context of this debate? Competitively, a comparison between Jack Nicklaus and Dustin Johnson means nothing. With a ball rollback, Dustin Johnson will still be a very long hitter of the ball. He will still have that competitive advantage. His skill, talent and work will still pay off. But with a ball rollback, the entire world of elite-level golf may be able to play a lot more, and better, golf courses without millions of dollars' worth of architecture-defacing rework being done to those golf courses.

 

The absolute first person to tell you that what Jack Nicklaus did in his prime means nothing in the context of the ball-rollback debate is... Jack Nicklaus.

 

Uh, yeah, EXACTLY.

 

And so you naturally gloss over the point that "So Jack Nicklaus is not trying to protect any personal legacy, or record or performance," and you go straight to, "So Jack Nicklaus doesn't matter."