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

[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.

 

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."

 

Nope. I never said that. Read again. Slowly.

The first person who will say it has nothing to do with what he was able to do in his day is . . . the person who was able to do those things in his day.

[DFS PFD]

Are we sure 15th isn't actually Jack after getting an online law degree? (I'm sure 15th actually studied law at Harvard, and he will inform me of his many Supreme Court decisions.) I'd like to hear an argument besides, " because Jack says Titleist is the devil!"

[15th Club]

Are we sure 15th isn't actually Jack after getting an online law degree? (I'm sure 15th actually studied law at Harvard, and he will inform me of his many Supreme Court decisions.) I'd like to hear an argument besides, " because Jack says Titleist is the devil!"

 

I only brought Jack Nicklaus into it, because commenters here began to suggest that the notion that Titleist is a powerful anti-rollback force was a "conspiracy theory" or worse. Jack Nicklaus spoke publicly about it, when Alex Micelli asked Nicklaus about it and pointedly mentioned Titleist in his question to Jack.

 

There are lots of great arguments that have nothing to do with Mr. Nicklaus. They have to do with historic golf course architecture; the nature of golf courses and the maintenance of them; the nature of elite competitions; speed of play; usage of water; the Rules of Golf and threats to the USGA's and R&A's position as keepers of those Rules.

 

How long do you have?

[DFS PFD]

To discuss the nature of golf courses and the maintenance (which I would've assumed would include usage of water, but I'm not an attorney, my background is in Metallurgy/ Engineering for reference), I am genuinely curious about your insights in those areas? My lifelong colleague is an Agronomist and is interested as well. Obviously keeping the argument 100% separate from Acushnet's role. So, how exactly would reducing ball performance for players with SS above 108 MPH, as you stated you support in the earlier pages, positively affect the "nature of the courses and maintenance" while maintaining a level playing field for all players? Please keep this response in the scope listed.

[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.

 

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.

 

If I inferred that, I was making a mistake. I certainly think that DJ can hit a persimmon driver with a steel shaft very far, perhaps farther than Jack did. But until we know what the relative distance difference is, we cannot separate the golfer athleticism of DJ from the equipment that he plays.

 

By the way, on the subject of athleticism, Rory was a pudgy kid when he broke out onto tour. His driving distance from 2009 to 2016 varied from 300 to 310; there were up years, followed by down years, with back up years. That is not a significant change as he became more and more fit from the weight lifting.

 

His driving distance increased to 317 last year; that may have been due to course conditions, or a combination of the TaylorMade ball and driver. It wasn't due to his workout routine, because he played the year with a sore rib, which curtailed his ability to work out.

 

The kid was basically long as a kid, and fitness does not have much to do with it. He was born with golf speed.

[clublender]

Agree with the bold. Crazy rough isn't good. Concrete greens are worse.

I think just a bit higher rough might be decent. Not too much.

I'm curious, though, what about the current state of the game isn't a fair test of skill? It takes a LOT of skill to bomb a drive over 330 in my opinion. If the elite game dictates that as a requirement, OK.

I don't get to play on the offensive line in the NFL at 170 lbs. no matter how great my technique is.

 

For some reason, a small subset of people (let's call them the regressives) do not view the golf course as a field of play, but as a literal defense to the player. Instead of viewing the competition as a match of player vs. player, they view the competition as a match of player vs. course. Over time, play at the elite levels obviously improves, like every other sport in existence, but courses generally stay the same. They don't like this. They think the course needs to improve at "defense" at a rate equivalent to the improvement of the elite player. So they lengthen the course, grow the rough, bake out the greens, etc. more and more to try and help the course keep up. After quite a long time of doing this (probably a couple hundred years at this point), some courses have ran out of space. This is a problem because the evolution of play stops for nothing. This is why they view the current state of the game as not a fair test of skill. In their eyes, the golf course is not a field of play, but an active participant in the competition tasked with the role of playing "defense" and keeping scores within their acceptable range (63 and above). In reality, any piece of land with 18 tees and holes is a fair test, as everyone always plays the same course!

 

Anyways, this leaves the regressives at a critical junction, they can either accept that lower scores than the glory days of their boyhood heroes will be shot, or they can create a storm, flip the table over, change the rules of the game, and start the inevitable cycle all over again. Obviously, when presented with that choice, human nature will always steer them towards option 2, and here we are fending off an extreme minority of people who want to impose their will on the greater golfing population...

 

That is maybe the best summation I've read on the issue. A golf tournament can be played on ANY course, classic or not. The best player that week will win; be it at -45 or +8. If we eliminate the notion that a course must be played a certain way and must create a certain outcome [score], there is no debate. It just might not resemble golf in 1975. Kind of like every other sport.

 

EDIT: to subtract a lot of stuff I wrote that was basically repeating what you were saying.

Interesting, especially if you consider that bogey used to be considered what golfers should shoot on a hole. Par was seen as better than expected.

[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 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.

 

If I inferred that, I was making a mistake. I certainly think that DJ can hit a persimmon driver with a steel shaft very far, perhaps farther than Jack did. But until we know what the relative distance difference is, we cannot separate the golfer athleticism of DJ from the equipment that he plays.

 

By the way, on the subject of athleticism, Rory was a pudgy kid when he broke out onto tour. His driving distance from 2009 to 2016 varied from 300 to 310; there were up years, followed by down years, with back up years. That is not a significant change as he became more and more fit from the weight lifting.

 

His driving distance increased to 317 last year; that may have been due to course conditions, or a combination of the TaylorMade ball and driver. It wasn't due to his workout routine, because he played the year with a sore rib, which curtailed his ability to work out.

 

The kid was basically long as a kid, and fitness does not have much to do with it. He was born with golf speed.

 

And, now, we have a lot more kids born with "golf speed" who are handed a golf club where they wouldn't have ever touched one in the past.

Many former greats view this as a big problem. I agree with you about "fitness", and I also agree with you about athleticism.

I wonder if this debate would be as debatable if the tour was made up of 150 Luke Donalds (great player, don't get me wrong) and like 20 outliers. I'm not concluding anything; just wondering.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

To discuss the nature of golf courses and the maintenance (which I would've assumed would include usage of water, but I'm not an attorney, my background is in Metallurgy/ Engineering for reference), I am genuinely curious about your insights in those areas? My lifelong colleague is an Agronomist and is interested as well. Obviously keeping the argument 100% separate from Acushnet's role. So, how exactly would reducing ball performance for players with SS above 108 MPH, as you stated you support in the earlier pages, positively affect the "nature of the courses and maintenance" while maintaining a level playing field for all players? Please keep this response in the scope listed.

 

I'm looking forward to counsel's response.

[marmooskapaul]

If Callaway has ...say 3% of the ball market and Titleist has ..say 90% of the ball market..why in the world would Titleist want a..reset..of the playing rules...or manufacturing rules. Basically the only place for Callaway to go is up..and Titleist is down. I don't believe for a second Callaway/TM has any more pure intentions...caring about the good of the game... than Titleist does.

They both want to protect and grow their footprint in the ball market.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Are we sure 15th isn't actually Jack after getting an online law degree? (I'm sure 15th actually studied law at Harvard, and he will inform me of his many Supreme Court decisions.) I'd like to hear an argument besides, " because Jack says Titleist is the devil!"

 

I only brought Jack Nicklaus into it, because commenters here began to suggest that the notion that Titleist is a powerful anti-rollback force was a "conspiracy theory" or worse. Jack Nicklaus spoke publicly about it, when Alex Micelli asked Nicklaus about it and pointedly mentioned Titleist in his question to Jack.

 

There are lots of great arguments that have nothing to do with Mr. Nicklaus. They have to do with historic golf course architecture; the nature of golf courses and the maintenance of them; the nature of elite competitions; speed of play; usage of water; the Rules of Golf and threats to the USGA's and R&A's position as keepers of those Rules.

 

How long do you have?

 

Like DFS PFD, I would like to discuss one of your discrete claims. Please discuss the effects of reducing ball performance for those players above 108 SS on "speed of play." As claimed, the players under 108 SS will not experience a difference with the new ball. Accordingly, I'd love to hear how the "speed of play" will be affected at my local hack muni on Saturdays once the ball is rolled back. Please do not exceed the scope of direct. Thanks in advance!

[kcowgolf]

IMO the PGA tour can easily create more parity by making the courses narrower or harder without worrying about rolling back the ball or limiting equipment. I enjoy watching the long bombs but DJ, Rory etc.... cannot overpower a hard setup. The PGA can reward shot making more than distance with course set ups if that is the goal.

[OrangeGravy]

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.

 

I don't think the first 2 will ever leave Titleist clubs and Fowler will probably always play the ball!

[15th Club]

To discuss the nature of golf courses and the maintenance (which I would've assumed would include usage of water, but I'm not an attorney, my background is in Metallurgy/ Engineering for reference), I am genuinely curious about your insights in those areas? My lifelong colleague is an Agronomist and is interested as well. Obviously keeping the argument 100% separate from Acushnet's role. So, how exactly would reducing ball performance for players with SS above 108 MPH, as you stated you support in the earlier pages, positively affect the "nature of the courses and maintenance" while maintaining a level playing field for all players? Please keep this response in the scope listed.

 

Yes, that came up last year as the rollback discussion heated up with Mike Davis of the USGA:

 

Davis imagined a scenario where courses even could reduce their footprint by adopting a shorter golf ball for use on their course, reducing water use, maintenance costs and time, noting that a future of longer, harder, overwatered courses is foolhardy. “People want to see a dark-green, perfectly manicured, overwatered golf course,” he said. “That can’t be the future of the game, not the way water is going to be.”

 

The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game. If they see shorter, dryer courses hosting majors, they will be more prone to accept shorter, dryer courses at home. Of course, if the course is dryer, and the ground firmer and rolling more, and you are also trying to shorten things up to occupy less real estate, do less grass cutting, etc., something has got to give in the distance equation. The easiest thing in all of that to change, is the ball.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

To discuss the nature of golf courses and the maintenance (which I would've assumed would include usage of water, but I'm not an attorney, my background is in Metallurgy/ Engineering for reference), I am genuinely curious about your insights in those areas? My lifelong colleague is an Agronomist and is interested as well. Obviously keeping the argument 100% separate from Acushnet's role. So, how exactly would reducing ball performance for players with SS above 108 MPH, as you stated you support in the earlier pages, positively affect the "nature of the courses and maintenance" while maintaining a level playing field for all players? Please keep this response in the scope listed.

 

Yes, that came up last year as the rollback discussion heated up with Mike Davis of the USGA:

 

Davis imagined a scenario where courses even could reduce their footprint by adopting a shorter golf ball for use on their course, reducing water use, maintenance costs and time, noting that a future of longer, harder, overwatered courses is foolhardy. “People want to see a dark-green, perfectly manicured, overwatered golf course,” he said. “That can’t be the future of the game, not the way water is going to be.”

 

The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game. If they see shorter, dryer courses hosting majors, they will be more prone to accept shorter, dryer courses at home. Of course, if the course is dryer, and the ground firmer and rolling more, and you are also trying to shorten things up to occupy less real estate, do less grass cutting, etc., something has got to give in the distance equation. The easiest thing in all of that to change, is the ball.

 

"The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game."

 

Nope. You can't expect reverse induction starting with the ball and expect every course, or even a few dozen courses, to adjust. So, the rest of it is complete BS. Bad biz.

[Shilgy]

To discuss the nature of golf courses and the maintenance (which I would've assumed would include usage of water, but I'm not an attorney, my background is in Metallurgy/ Engineering for reference), I am genuinely curious about your insights in those areas? My lifelong colleague is an Agronomist and is interested as well. Obviously keeping the argument 100% separate from Acushnet's role. So, how exactly would reducing ball performance for players with SS above 108 MPH, as you stated you support in the earlier pages, positively affect the "nature of the courses and maintenance" while maintaining a level playing field for all players? Please keep this response in the scope listed.

 

Yes, that came up last year as the rollback discussion heated up with Mike Davis of the USGA:

 

Davis imagined a scenario where courses even could reduce their footprint by adopting a shorter golf ball for use on their course, reducing water use, maintenance costs and time, noting that a future of longer, harder, overwatered courses is foolhardy. “People want to see a dark-green, perfectly manicured, overwatered golf course,” he said. “That can’t be the future of the game, not the way water is going to be.”

 

The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game. If they see shorter, dryer courses hosting majors, they will be more prone to accept shorter, dryer courses at home. Of course, if the course is dryer, and the ground firmer and rolling more, and you are also trying to shorten things up to occupy less real estate, do less grass cutting, etc., something has got to give in the distance equation. The easiest thing in all of that to change, is the ball.

 

"The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game."

 

Nope. You can't expect reverse induction starting with the ball and expect every course, or even a few dozen courses, to adjust. So, the rest of it is complete BS. Bad biz.

The question would be "which major courses are the influencers"? They are not anywhere near the same so how does this work? Will the influence come from Merion or Pinehurst? St Andrews or Erin Hills? Shinnecock or Augusta.?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

To discuss the nature of golf courses and the maintenance (which I would've assumed would include usage of water, but I'm not an attorney, my background is in Metallurgy/ Engineering for reference), I am genuinely curious about your insights in those areas? My lifelong colleague is an Agronomist and is interested as well. Obviously keeping the argument 100% separate from Acushnet's role. So, how exactly would reducing ball performance for players with SS above 108 MPH, as you stated you support in the earlier pages, positively affect the "nature of the courses and maintenance" while maintaining a level playing field for all players? Please keep this response in the scope listed.

 

Yes, that came up last year as the rollback discussion heated up with Mike Davis of the USGA:

 

Davis imagined a scenario where courses even could reduce their footprint by adopting a shorter golf ball for use on their course, reducing water use, maintenance costs and time, noting that a future of longer, harder, overwatered courses is foolhardy. "People want to see a dark-green, perfectly manicured, overwatered golf course," he said. "That can't be the future of the game, not the way water is going to be."

 

The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game. If they see shorter, dryer courses hosting majors, they will be more prone to accept shorter, dryer courses at home. Of course, if the course is dryer, and the ground firmer and rolling more, and you are also trying to shorten things up to occupy less real estate, do less grass cutting, etc., something has got to give in the distance equation. The easiest thing in all of that to change, is the ball.

 

"The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game."

 

Nope. You can't expect reverse induction starting with the ball and expect every course, or even a few dozen courses, to adjust. So, the rest of it is complete BS. Bad biz.

The question would be "which major courses are the influencers"? They are not anywhere near the same so how does this work? Will the influence come from Merion or Pinehurst? St Andrews or Erin Hills? Shinnecock or Augusta.?

 

Oh, my bad. Maybe a rolled back ball will make Merion, Pinehurst, and Augusta short and brown and make people at my club stoked with the same.

[15th Club]

To discuss the nature of golf courses and the maintenance (which I would've assumed would include usage of water, but I'm not an attorney, my background is in Metallurgy/ Engineering for reference), I am genuinely curious about your insights in those areas? My lifelong colleague is an Agronomist and is interested as well. Obviously keeping the argument 100% separate from Acushnet's role. So, how exactly would reducing ball performance for players with SS above 108 MPH, as you stated you support in the earlier pages, positively affect the "nature of the courses and maintenance" while maintaining a level playing field for all players? Please keep this response in the scope listed.

 

Yes, that came up last year as the rollback discussion heated up with Mike Davis of the USGA:

 

 

Davis imagined a scenario where courses even could reduce their footprint by adopting a shorter golf ball for use on their course, reducing water use, maintenance costs and time, noting that a future of longer, harder, overwatered courses is foolhardy. “People want to see a dark-green, perfectly manicured, overwatered golf course,” he said. “That can’t be the future of the game, not the way water is going to be.”

 

The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game. If they see shorter, dryer courses hosting majors, they will be more prone to accept shorter, dryer courses at home. Of course, if the course is dryer, and the ground firmer and rolling more, and you are also trying to shorten things up to occupy less real estate, do less grass cutting, etc., something has got to give in the distance equation. The easiest thing in all of that to change, is the ball.

 

"The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game."

 

Nope. You can't expect reverse induction starting with the ball and expect every course, or even a few dozen courses, to adjust. So, the rest of it is complete BS. Bad biz.

 

Oh well. Sorry my answer didn't satisfy you. Still, he's Mike Davis.

 

This Mike Davis.

 

Leading the USGA's Distance Insights Project as of today.

[OrangeGravy]

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.

 

If I inferred that, I was making a mistake. I certainly think that DJ can hit a persimmon driver with a steel shaft very far, perhaps farther than Jack did. But until we know what the relative distance difference is, we cannot separate the golfer athleticism of DJ from the equipment that he plays.

 

By the way, on the subject of athleticism, Rory was a pudgy kid when he broke out onto tour. His driving distance from 2009 to 2016 varied from 300 to 310; there were up years, followed by down years, with back up years. That is not a significant change as he became more and more fit from the weight lifting.

 

His driving distance increased to 317 last year; that may have been due to course conditions, or a combination of the TaylorMade ball and driver. It wasn't due to his workout routine, because he played the year with a sore rib, which curtailed his ability to work out.

 

The kid was basically long as a kid, and fitness does not have much to do with it. He was born with golf speed.

 

And, now, we have a lot more kids born with "golf speed" who are handed a golf club where they wouldn't have ever touched one in the past.

Many former greats view this as a big problem. I agree with you about "fitness", and I also agree with you about athleticism.

I wonder if this debate would be as debatable if the tour was made up of 150 Luke Donalds (great player, don't get me wrong) and like 20 outliers. I'm not concluding anything; just wondering.

 

I don't think there's any doubt that the debate would be at the very least different. For me, the only thing I don't really care for with today's version of the game from a distance standpoint is that it seems to be almost the opposite of 150 Luke Donalds/20 outliers. I do enjoy guys being able to hit monster drives, but as the percentage of tour players that can do it goes up, the wow factor goes down proportionally (FOR ME). Now days for me, it's more impressive when a "Luke Donald" type wins because they are the outlier. It's not really a better or worse thing for me so much as it's just a shift in what impresses me or surprises me more if you will. If I had a preference, I would rather the number of long hitters be on the lower side for my own selfish viewing pleasure. I don't care if the long hitters average 300 or 400 off the tee. It would be more "must see tv" for me personally if there were only 10-20 of them.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

 

And, now, we have a lot more kids born with "golf speed" who are handed a golf club where they wouldn't have ever touched one in the past.

Many former greats view this as a big problem. I agree with you about "fitness", and I also agree with you about athleticism.

I wonder if this debate would be as debatable if the tour was made up of 150 Luke Donalds (great player, don't get me wrong) and like 20 outliers. I'm not concluding anything; just wondering.

 

I don't think there's any doubt that the debate would be at the very least different. For me, the only thing I don't really care for with today's version of the game from a distance standpoint is that it seems to be almost the opposite of 150 Luke Donalds/20 outliers. I do enjoy guys being able to hit monster drives, but as the percentage of tour players that can do it goes up, the wow factor goes down proportionally (FOR ME). Now days for me, it's more impressive when a "Luke Donald" type wins because they are the outlier. It's not really a better or worse thing for me so much as it's just a shift in what impresses me or surprises me more if you will. If I had a preference, I would rather the number of long hitters be on the lower side for my own selfish viewing pleasure. I don't care if the long hitters average 300 or 400 off the tee. It would be more "must see tv" for me personally if there were only 10-20 of them.

 

Good post. Exactly what I was getting at. We have a lot more born athletes handed golf clubs nowadays, and the game will never be like it was.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

To discuss the nature of golf courses and the maintenance (which I would've assumed would include usage of water, but I'm not an attorney, my background is in Metallurgy/ Engineering for reference), I am genuinely curious about your insights in those areas? My lifelong colleague is an Agronomist and is interested as well. Obviously keeping the argument 100% separate from Acushnet's role. So, how exactly would reducing ball performance for players with SS above 108 MPH, as you stated you support in the earlier pages, positively affect the "nature of the courses and maintenance" while maintaining a level playing field for all players? Please keep this response in the scope listed.

 

Yes, that came up last year as the rollback discussion heated up with Mike Davis of the USGA:

 

 

Davis imagined a scenario where courses even could reduce their footprint by adopting a shorter golf ball for use on their course, reducing water use, maintenance costs and time, noting that a future of longer, harder, overwatered courses is foolhardy. “People want to see a dark-green, perfectly manicured, overwatered golf course,” he said. “That can’t be the future of the game, not the way water is going to be.”

 

The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game. If they see shorter, dryer courses hosting majors, they will be more prone to accept shorter, dryer courses at home. Of course, if the course is dryer, and the ground firmer and rolling more, and you are also trying to shorten things up to occupy less real estate, do less grass cutting, etc., something has got to give in the distance equation. The easiest thing in all of that to change, is the ball.

 

"The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game."

 

Nope. You can't expect reverse induction starting with the ball and expect every course, or even a few dozen courses, to adjust. So, the rest of it is complete BS. Bad biz.

 

Oh well. Sorry my answer didn't satisfy you. Still, he's Mike Davis.

 

This Mike Davis.

 

Leading the USGA's Distance Insights Projectas of today.

 

 

Not sure I care who he is if he's out of touch and incorrect. Thanks.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Are we sure 15th isn't actually Jack after getting an online law degree? (I'm sure 15th actually studied law at Harvard, and he will inform me of his many Supreme Court decisions.) I'd like to hear an argument besides, " because Jack says Titleist is the devil!"

 

I only brought Jack Nicklaus into it, because commenters here began to suggest that the notion that Titleist is a powerful anti-rollback force was a "conspiracy theory" or worse. Jack Nicklaus spoke publicly about it, when Alex Micelli asked Nicklaus about it and pointedly mentioned Titleist in his question to Jack.

 

There are lots of great arguments that have nothing to do with Mr. Nicklaus. They have to do with historic golf course architecture; the nature of golf courses and the maintenance of them; the nature of elite competitions; speed of play; usage of water; the Rules of Golf and threats to the USGA's and R&A's position as keepers of those Rules.

 

How long do you have?

 

Like DFS PFD, I would like to discuss one of your discrete claims. Please discuss the effects of reducing ball performance for those players above 108 SS on "speed of play." As claimed, the players under 108 SS will not experience a difference with the new ball. Accordingly, I'd love to hear how the "speed of play" will be affected at my local hack muni on Saturdays once the ball is rolled back. Please do not exceed the scope of direct. Thanks in advance!

 

Nothing, huh?

[Valtiel]

Just so i'm clear.....

 

As the #1 golf ball manufacturer, Titleist has a vested interest in the status quo and thus are the bad guy in this GolfWRX production.

 

As a golf course architect and businessman with a vested interest in not having to spend money changing/modifying his courses, Jack Nicklaus is completely without ulterior motives here and is the stalwart hero.

 

That right so far?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Just so i'm clear.....

 

As the #1 golf ball manufacturer, Titleist has a vested interest in the status quo and thus are the bad guy in this GolfWRX production.

 

As a golf course architect and businessman with a vested interest in not having to spend money changing/modifying his courses, Jack Nicklaus is completely without ulterior motives here and is the stalwart hero.

 

That right so far?

 

Yes, but don't forget this gem:

 

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.

 

I knew a guy who robbed a bank, and he was the absolute first person to tell you that he didn't.

[buckeyefl]

It's looking like the curtain is completely pulled aside and Wizard is being seen for what he really is.

[QuigleyDU]

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.

 

i could honestly care less about the name drop of jack. i do not feel that it gives the role back side of the arguement any more validity. in fact i think it does just the opposite and as i have said, confirms at least in my mind that it is a grumpy old man agenda. I am curious though, if you had to pick a year to role the ball back to, what year would it be?

[North Butte]

Why would Titleist be against being told to throw out the best, most successful product they've ever made and replace it a worse-performing one? Is that even a real question? Of course after investing decades and umpteen millions of dollars perfecting a product golfers love, they don't want to be part of trying to force those golfers into accepting something worse.

 

Let's say Honda knows how to make a Civic that gets 40mpg while going 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. And let's say the government steps in and says, "Nope. Not allowed. The fastest acceleration any car can have is 0-60 in 7.0 seconds flat".

 

What would Honda do? They keep tweaking the top speed, handling, mileage and comfort of that 7.0-second Civic until it was the most popular car on the road. Sells like hotcakes year after year, people just love them some Civic.

 

Now the government steps in and says, "New rule. No car can do 0-60 in less than 10.0 seconds, starting next year". Do you think Honda is for or against that new rule?

[15th Club]

Just so i'm clear.....

 

As the #1 golf ball manufacturer, Titleist has a vested interest in the status quo and thus are the bad guy in this GolfWRX production.

 

As a golf course architect and businessman with a vested interest in not having to spend money changing/modifying his courses, Jack Nicklaus is completely without ulterior motives here and is the stalwart hero.

 

That right so far?

 

Pretty much. Yes; the whole world can see that Acushnet Holding Co. has a dominant share of the golf ball market. And has about 902 million reasons each and every year for not wanting to see any disruption in that market share.

 

Now if Jack Nicklaus has any ulterior motive, I'd like to hear about it. If tomorrow, the USGA decided that the game would be better and more exciting if golf balls went much FARTHER, and we needed an immediate renovations to Augusta National and every other major/Tour/NCAA golf course in the world, it would mean MORE business for Nicklaus Design LLC. Apart from the Bear's Club and Muirfield Village GC -- already two of the longest top-level golf courses in the world, I'm not aware of Nicklaus possessing an ownership interest in any golf course, and big changes to golf courses going forward would only MAKE money for Jack. It would not COST him anything.

 

This is a silly argument in the larger debate. I hope we can dispense with this one quickly.

[bmurph]

To discuss the nature of golf courses and the maintenance (which I would've assumed would include usage of water, but I'm not an attorney, my background is in Metallurgy/ Engineering for reference), I am genuinely curious about your insights in those areas? My lifelong colleague is an Agronomist and is interested as well. Obviously keeping the argument 100% separate from Acushnet's role. So, how exactly would reducing ball performance for players with SS above 108 MPH, as you stated you support in the earlier pages, positively affect the "nature of the courses and maintenance" while maintaining a level playing field for all players? Please keep this response in the scope listed.

 

Yes, that came up last year as the rollback discussion heated up with Mike Davis of the USGA:

 

 

 

Davis imagined a scenario where courses even could reduce their footprint by adopting a shorter golf ball for use on their course, reducing water use, maintenance costs and time, noting that a future of longer, harder, overwatered courses is foolhardy. “People want to see a dark-green, perfectly manicured, overwatered golf course,” he said. “That can’t be the future of the game, not the way water is going to be.”

 

The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game. If they see shorter, dryer courses hosting majors, they will be more prone to accept shorter, dryer courses at home. Of course, if the course is dryer, and the ground firmer and rolling more, and you are also trying to shorten things up to occupy less real estate, do less grass cutting, etc., something has got to give in the distance equation. The easiest thing in all of that to change, is the ball.

 

"The general notion is that the courses that host major championships are influential in how people see the game."

 

Nope. You can't expect reverse induction starting with the ball and expect every course, or even a few dozen courses, to adjust. So, the rest of it is complete BS. Bad biz.

 

Oh well. Sorry my answer didn't satisfy you. Still, he's Mike Davis.

 

This Mike Davis.

 

Leading the USGA's Distance Insights Projectas of today.

 

 

Not sure I care who he is if he's out of touch and incorrect. Thanks.

 

He's basically saying shorten ball = shortened courses = less environmental impact. Just curious, what part of that is out of touch and incorrect?

[15th Club]

Why would Titleist be against being told to throw out the best, most successful product they've ever made and replace it a worse-performing one? Is that even a real question? Of course after investing decades and umpteen millions of dollars perfecting a product golfers love, they don't want to be part of trying to force those golfers into accepting something worse.

 

Let's say Honda knows how to make a Civic that gets 40mpg while going 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. And let's say the government steps in and says, "Nope. Not allowed. The fastest acceleration any car can have is 0-60 in 7.0 seconds flat".

 

What would Honda do? They keep tweaking the top speed, handling, mileage and comfort of that 7.0-second Civic until it was the most popular car on the road. Sells like hotcakes year after year, people just love them some Civic.

 

Now the government steps in and says, "New rule. No car can do 0-60 in less than 10.0 seconds, starting next year". Do you think Honda is for or against that new rule?

 

Come on; that is a dumb hypothetical. Here's a better "car" hypothetical: So a Honda Motorsports engineer comes up with the design for an Indy car that can go 400 mph. Only problem is, if that car hit a bump or a hot dog wrapper or a piece from another race car the wrong way, it would end up 200 yards into the hundreds of thousands of fans who populate the Old Brickyard on race day. So what do the Indy car authorities do? They roll back that technological development. They don't go back to a 1970 car; they tailor new regulations that might incorporate some aspects of that new technology, but scale the pace of the racing to fit the historic track.

 

Now there; THAT is how you do a hypothetical.

[QuigleyDU]

Why would Titleist be against being told to throw out the best, most successful product they've ever made and replace it a worse-performing one? Is that even a real question? Of course after investing decades and umpteen millions of dollars perfecting a product golfers love, they don't want to be part of trying to force those golfers into accepting something worse.

 

Let's say Honda knows how to make a Civic that gets 40mpg while going 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. And let's say the government steps in and says, "Nope. Not allowed. The fastest acceleration any car can have is 0-60 in 7.0 seconds flat".

 

What would Honda do? They keep tweaking the top speed, handling, mileage and comfort of that 7.0-second Civic until it was the most popular car on the road. Sells like hotcakes year after year, people just love them some Civic.

 

Now the government steps in and says, "New rule. No car can do 0-60 in less than 10.0 seconds, starting next year". Do you think Honda is for or against that new rule?

 

Come on; that is a dumb hypothetical. Here's a better "car" hypothetical: So a Honda Motorsports engineer comes up with the design for an Indy car that can go 400 mph. Only problem is, if that car hit a bump or a hot dog wrapper or a piece from another race car the wrong way, it would end up 200 yards into the hundreds of thousands of fans who populate the Old Brickyard on race day. So what do the Indy car authorities do? They roll back that technological development. They don't go back to a 1970 car; they tailor new regulations that might incorporate some aspects of that new technology, but scale the pace of the racing to fit the historic track.

 

Now there; THAT is how you do a hypothetical.

 

This is an even worse example as your pretense is the safety of spectators. which i do not think anyone would argue changes for safetly sack. but, that would be like trying to say the golf ball needs to be rolled back because they are hitting too many people in the gallery. fail.