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

[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.

 

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.

 

Wow, this is getting stupid. No; the point is that with something as technological as auto racing, and given the vast importance of the venues where auto racing is conducted, the race organizers always do a lot of "rolling back" of technology. It isn't just safety; it is other things in addition to safety. They want to promote close racing. They want there to be room for passing. They want there to be lots of competitive teams and not one single dominant car.

 

These are all, as I have said repeatedly, aesthetic decisions. It is sport; it is a human abstraction. We are creating rules for a competition of people; we are trying to create a certain kind of competition. We are not trying to get to the moon or invent a cure for cancer.

[North Butte]

It's a precious snowflake argument. It's asking the Big Bad USGA to step in and make the entire world do things in a way that 999 out of 1,000 would hate, in order to appease the aesthetic desires of that one snowflake.

 

All these arguments about the environment, growth of the game, safety (???), expense, pace of play are just puffery. It is indeed an "aesthetic" argument. A few people want to turn on the TV and see the same courses being played in exactly the same manner as they remember watching 20, 30, 40 years ago.

 

It's like a jerk that used to head the R&A continuing to veto laser rangefinders as long as he was in charge. His reason? He didn't want to look out of his office window and see golfers on the Old Course peering through rangefinders. It offended his "aesthetic" sensibility and to hell with what actual golfers might want.

[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.

Wow, this is getting stupid. No; the point is that with something as technological as auto racing, and given the vast importance of the venues where auto racing is conducted, the race organizers always do a lot of "rolling back" of technology. It isn't just safety; it is other things in addition to safety. They want to promote close racing. They want there to be room for passing. They want there to be lots of competitive teams and not one single dominant car. These are all, as I have said repeatedly, aesthetic decisions. It is sport; it is a human abstraction. We are creating rules for a competition of people; we are trying to create a certain kind of competition. We are not trying to get to the moon or invent a cure for cancer.

 

you are correct in that this is stupid. I specifically responded to your 200 mile an hour car flying into the stands so they needed to roll back the car. No, problem there. if safety is a concern then make changes. your specific example is inapplicable.

 

now, if you had said something along the line of "well, they can no longer race at Talladega due to SOME, not all of the drivers being able to drive faster than others and take a better line on the track and it is just not fair". that is an apples to apples comparison to your argument as i see and racing and that should illustrate how dumb it is. Because well, if one driver using legal equipment, is able to push harder and drive faster well, then he wins. if a golfer is able to swing harder and hit the ball farther and straighter. then well maybe he wins. it is not because the course is obsolete. it is because the individual is better.

[15th Club]

...

now, if you had said something along the line of "well, they can no longer race at Talladega due to SOME, not all of the drivers being able to drive faster than others and take a better line on the track and it is just not fair". that is an apples to apples comparison to your argument as i see and racing and that should illustrate how dumb it is. Because well, if one driver using legal equipment, is able to push harder and drive faster well, then he wins. if a golfer is able to swing harder and hit the

ball

farther and straighter. then well maybe he wins. it is not because the course is obsolete. it is because the individual is better.

 

But with a ball rollback, some players will still be longer than other players. Strength and skill and technique will still be rewarded. Being able to generate distance, all other things being equal, will still be and advantage for those who can do it. The only difference is that Dustin Johnson will not average 308 off the tee. He will average something like 288 off the tee. And Webb Simpson will not average 290 off the tee; he will average 270 off the tee. Or something. These numbers are shorthand for this argument.

 

Please confirm that you understand that part; because otherwise I don't understand you.

[golfertony]

I would guess this has been said at some point but Webb Simpson just won the players being near the end of the field in the distance categories. I will relent that the longer you hit it the easier it is to hit it close. This game will forever be about who can put the ball in the cup the best.

[North Butte]

I would guess this has been said at some point but Webb Simpson just won the players being near the end of the field in the distance categories. I will relent that the longer you hit it the easier it is to hit it close. This game will forever be about who can put the ball in the cup the best.

 

The snowflake argument isn't about long hitters vs. short hitters winning tournaments. It's about how the winners (long or short) played the course. They want to see the winners hitting a club with a certain number on the sole from a certain yardage on a certain hole JUST LIKE JACK DID IT. Anything else offends their "aesthetics".

[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.

 

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.

This is considered calling for a rollback?

 

The concept Davis is floating would leave it to other groups, from the PGA Tour all the way down to private clubs, to decide which category of balls is permitted on any given course. It could also create new options on the lower end of the sport.

[Shilgy]

...

now, if you had said something along the line of "well, they can no longer race at Talladega due to SOME, not all of the drivers being able to drive faster than others and take a better line on the track and it is just not fair". that is an apples to apples comparison to your argument as i see and racing and that should illustrate how dumb it is. Because well, if one driver using legal equipment, is able to push harder and drive faster well, then he wins. if a golfer is able to swing harder and hit the

ball

 

farther and straighter. then well maybe he wins. it is not because the course is obsolete. it is because the individual is better.

 

But with a ball rollback, some players will still be longer than other players. Strength and skill and technique will still be rewarded. Being able to generate distance, all other things being equal, will still be and advantage for those who can do it. The only difference is that Dustin Johnson will not average 308 off the tee. He will average something like 288 off the tee. And Webb Simpson will not average 290 off the tee; he will average 270 off the tee. Or something. These numbers are shorthand for this argument.

 

Please confirm that you understand that part; because otherwise I don't understand you.

Cool-per your former posts Kuchar will be as long as DJ. He averages 288 with the magic 108 mph clubhead speed so he will not be affected.

[BrockPSU]

...

now, if you had said something along the line of "well, they can no longer race at Talladega due to SOME, not all of the drivers being able to drive faster than others and take a better line on the track and it is just not fair". that is an apples to apples comparison to your argument as i see and racing and that should illustrate how dumb it is. Because well, if one driver using legal equipment, is able to push harder and drive faster well, then he wins. if a golfer is able to swing harder and hit the

ball

 

farther and straighter. then well maybe he wins. it is not because the course is obsolete. it is because the individual is better.

 

But with a ball rollback, some players will still be longer than other players. Strength and skill and technique will still be rewarded. Being able to generate distance, all other things being equal, will still be and advantage for those who can do it. The only difference is that Dustin Johnson will not average 308 off the tee. He will average something like 288 off the tee. And Webb Simpson will not average 290 off the tee; he will average 270 off the tee. Or something. These numbers are shorthand for this argument.

 

Please confirm that you understand that part; because otherwise I don't understand you.

 

So when doing a rollback you limit technology, which limits the money being put into golf, which limits the viewers, which limits the purse sizes, which limits the amount of great golfers wanting to pursue golf as a profession, which takes us back to an age that you have the 3-4 great golfers and everyone else that is not remembered. Which then puts you at a less competitive sport. Sounds like fun doesn't it.

[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 Projectas of today.

This is considered calling for a rollback?

 

The concept Davis is floating would leave it to other groups, from the PGA Tour all the way down to private clubs, to decide which category of balls is permitted on any given course. It could also create new options on the lower end of the sport.

 

That was a year ago. Davis was "floating" that "concept." We shall see, where Davis ends up.

[15th Club]

...

now, if you had said something along the line of "well, they can no longer race at Talladega due to SOME, not all of the drivers being able to drive faster than others and take a better line on the track and it is just not fair". that is an apples to apples comparison to your argument as i see and racing and that should illustrate how dumb it is. Because well, if one driver using legal equipment, is able to push harder and drive faster well, then he wins. if a golfer is able to swing harder and hit the

ball

 

farther and straighter. then well maybe he wins. it is not because the course is obsolete. it is because the individual is better.

 

But with a ball rollback, some players will still be longer than other players. Strength and skill and technique will still be rewarded. Being able to generate distance, all other things being equal, will still be and advantage for those who can do it. The only difference is that Dustin Johnson will not average 308 off the tee. He will average something like 288 off the tee. And Webb Simpson will not average 290 off the tee; he will average 270 off the tee. Or something. These numbers are shorthand for this argument.

 

Please confirm that you understand that part; because otherwise I don't understand you.

Cool-per your former posts Kuchar will be as long as DJ. He averages 288 with the magic 108 mph clubhead speed so he will not be affected.

 

See, this is why I don't like to argue numbers with guys like you who are going to try to hang me on specific swing speeds and distances. We don't yet have any official prototype rollback balls that are public. The rollback balls that are in testing right now (and there are) have been kept proprietary. So I don't have specific numbers for you. If and when a ball rollback comes, the manufacturers and the USGA will have those numbers.

[Shilgy]

That was a year ago. Davis was "floating" that "concept." We shall see, where Davis ends up.

It's from your supplied link. If you don't like it don't use it to support your argument. That could be considered "dumb" or "stupid".

 

Personally I do not see them doing a rollback. Bifurcation would be more likely but so difficult to implement it would be a nightmare. I could see them try to do something with driver head size. But it would have a negligible affect just like the grooves fiasco.

[bigred90gt]

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.

 

No, to correct your hypothetical, it would be more like Honda has developed an indy car (Professionals and elite ams) capable of reaching 400 mph, so the federal government steps in and creates regulation that the civic (every day golfer) can have a top speed of no more than 50 mph.

 

Now, tell me how that makes ANY sense.

[15th Club]

...

now, if you had said something along the line of "well, they can no longer race at Talladega due to SOME, not all of the drivers being able to drive faster than others and take a better line on the track and it is just not fair". that is an apples to apples comparison to your argument as i see and racing and that should illustrate how dumb it is. Because well, if one driver using legal equipment, is able to push harder and drive faster well, then he wins. if a golfer is able to swing harder and hit the

ball

 

farther and straighter. then well maybe he wins. it is not because the course is obsolete. it is because the individual is better.

 

But with a ball rollback, some players will still be longer than other players. Strength and skill and technique will still be rewarded. Being able to generate distance, all other things being equal, will still be and advantage for those who can do it. The only difference is that Dustin Johnson will not average 308 off the tee. He will average something like 288 off the tee. And Webb Simpson will not average 290 off the tee; he will average 270 off the tee. Or something. These numbers are shorthand for this argument.

 

Please confirm that you understand that part; because otherwise I don't understand you.

 

So when doing a rollback you limit technology, WRONG which limits the money being put into golf, WRONG which limits the viewers, WRONG which limits the purse sizes, WRONG which limits the amount of great golfers wanting to pursue golf as a profession,WRONG which takes us back to an age that you have the 3-4 great golfers and everyone else that is not remembered. WRONG Which then puts you at a less competitive sport. WRONG Sounds like fun doesn't it.

 

You have zero evidence for your pronouncements. None. Zip, zero, nada.

 

If ball specifications were rolled back, why wouldn't manufacturers still try to make the best-performing balls under the new specs? Balls are limited right now! Is golf ball R&D limited now? What you suggest doesn't make sense from the get-go.

 

And now tell me how any limitations on golf ball technology "limits the viewers" of golf. Are you saying that lots and lots of golf fans will come out to see Dustin Johnson hit a ball 310 yards, but won't come out to see him hit a ball 290 yards?

 

I am not even going to bother with the rest of this.

[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.

 

No, to correct your hypothetical, it would be more like Honda has developed an indy car (Professionals and elite ams) capable of reaching 400 mph, so the federal government steps in and creates regulation that the civic (every day golfer) can have a top speed of no more than 50 mph.

 

Now, tell me how that makes ANY sense.

 

It doesn't make any sense, because it has no relation to anything that I was arguing.

[Shilgy]

...

now, if you had said something along the line of "well, they can no longer race at Talladega due to SOME, not all of the drivers being able to drive faster than others and take a better line on the track and it is just not fair". that is an apples to apples comparison to your argument as i see and racing and that should illustrate how dumb it is. Because well, if one driver using legal equipment, is able to push harder and drive faster well, then he wins. if a golfer is able to swing harder and hit the

ball

 

farther and straighter. then well maybe he wins. it is not because the course is obsolete. it is because the individual is better.

 

But with a ball rollback, some players will still be longer than other players. Strength and skill and technique will still be rewarded. Being able to generate distance, all other things being equal, will still be and advantage for those who can do it. The only difference is that Dustin Johnson will not average 308 off the tee. He will average something like 288 off the tee. And Webb Simpson will not average 290 off the tee; he will average 270 off the tee. Or something. These numbers are shorthand for this argument.

 

Please confirm that you understand that part; because otherwise I don't understand you.

Cool-per your former posts Kuchar will be as long as DJ. He averages 288 with the magic 108 mph clubhead speed so he will not be affected.

 

See, this is why I don't like to argue numbers with guys like you who are going to try to hang me on specific swing speeds and distances. We don't yet have any official prototype rollback balls that are public. The rollback balls that are in testing right now (and there are) have been kept proprietary. So I don't have specific numbers for you. If and when a ball rollback comes, the manufacturers and the USGA will have those numbers.

You were trying to placate the masses with your 108 and below would/could not be affected. I was just pointing our the folly of that idea.

 

There are millions of balls out there that are on the conforming list. Are you suggesting they would be nonconforming on some date to be determined? The groove rule is good until 2024 for us hacks. If the masses get wind of a rollback that would take that long to implement the ball companies would not be able to keep up with production on the old ball. And even at the club level it would be a nightmare as you play your new rollback ball against the guy that hoarded 30 dozen long balls.

[15th Club]

That was a year ago. Davis was "floating" that "concept." We shall see, where Davis ends up.

It's from your supplied link. If you don't like it don't use it to support your argument. That could be considered "dumb" or "stupid".

 

Personally I do not see them doing a rollback. Bifurcation would be more likely but so difficult to implement it would be a nightmare. I could see them try to do something with driver head size. But it would have a negligible affect just like the grooves fiasco.

 

What was the grooves "fiasco"? Be specific.

 

btw; one powerful interest that is opposed to bifurcation is none other than Titleist. Titleist wants to take the product that its tour players use, and sell it to aspirational/recreational golfers.

 

Like Titleist, but for very different reasons, I also oppose bifurcation.

[bigred90gt]

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.

 

No, to correct your hypothetical, it would be more like Honda has developed an indy car (Professionals and elite ams) capable of reaching 400 mph, so the federal government steps in and creates regulation that the civic (every day golfer) can have a top speed of no more than 50 mph.

 

Now, tell me how that makes ANY sense.

 

It doesn't make any sense, because it has no relation to anything that I was arguing.

It is the very essence of your argument. You support a rollback, which effects EVERY golfer on the planet, simply because less than 1/10th of 1% of golfers in the entire world hit the ball what is perceived by some to be too far. So, as noted, because the Honda race team has created a car that can travel faster than someone deems acceptable, the car for the grocery getting public gets limited in top speed to an arbitrary number someone saw fit. That is EXACTLY what you are supporting with this rollback. If you cannot see that, than you are too ignorant to continue this debate.

 

And I do not use ignorant in a manner meant to attack, I use it in the manner in which the word is defined. You can look up the definition if necessary.

[QuigleyDU]

...

now, if you had said something along the line of "well, they can no longer race at Talladega due to SOME, not all of the drivers being able to drive faster than others and take a better line on the track and it is just not fair". that is an apples to apples comparison to your argument as i see and racing and that should illustrate how dumb it is. Because well, if one driver using legal equipment, is able to push harder and drive faster well, then he wins. if a golfer is able to swing harder and hit the

ball

 

farther and straighter. then well maybe he wins. it is not because the course is obsolete. it is because the individual is better.

 

But with a ball rollback, some players will still be longer than other players. Strength and skill and technique will still be rewarded. Being able to generate distance, all other things being equal, will still be and advantage for those who can do it. The only difference is that Dustin Johnson will not average 308 off the tee. He will average something like 288 off the tee. And Webb Simpson will not average 290 off the tee; he will average 270 off the tee. Or something. These numbers are shorthand for this argument.

 

Please confirm that you understand that part; because otherwise I don't understand you.

 

 

I understand what you just said. i just feel you bounce around in your argument to whatever point suits you. You have said multiple times and if needed i will go back and find them. that you want a ball that is reduced more for those above 108mph club head speed. That is 100% affecting those with greater ability, skill, strength. agreed????

 

you also seem to ignore direct questions. I have asked several that you just completely ignore. Your age, what year you want to roll the ball back to? etc. I know you feel age does not matter, i say that i does. especially if you want to legitimize your argument that this is not being perpetuated by hasbeens.

[BrockPSU]

...

now, if you had said something along the line of "well, they can no longer race at Talladega due to SOME, not all of the drivers being able to drive faster than others and take a better line on the track and it is just not fair". that is an apples to apples comparison to your argument as i see and racing and that should illustrate how dumb it is. Because well, if one driver using legal equipment, is able to push harder and drive faster well, then he wins. if a golfer is able to swing harder and hit the

ball

 

 

farther and straighter. then well maybe he wins. it is not because the course is obsolete. it is because the individual is better.

 

But with a ball rollback, some players will still be longer than other players. Strength and skill and technique will still be rewarded. Being able to generate distance, all other things being equal, will still be and advantage for those who can do it. The only difference is that Dustin Johnson will not average 308 off the tee. He will average something like 288 off the tee. And Webb Simpson will not average 290 off the tee; he will average 270 off the tee. Or something. These numbers are shorthand for this argument.

 

Please confirm that you understand that part; because otherwise I don't understand you.

 

So when doing a rollback you limit technology, WRONG which limits the money being put into golf, WRONG which limits the viewers, WRONG which limits the purse sizes, WRONG which limits the amount of great golfers wanting to pursue golf as a profession,WRONG which takes us back to an age that you have the 3-4 great golfers and everyone else that is not remembered. WRONG Which then puts you at a less competitive sport. WRONG Sounds like fun doesn't it.

 

You have zero evidence for your pronouncements. None. Zip, zero, nada.

 

If ball specifications were rolled back, why wouldn't manufacturers still try to make the best-performing balls under the new specs? Balls are limited right now! Is golf ball R&D limited now? What you suggest doesn't make sense from the get-go.

 

And now tell me how any limitations on golf ball technology "limits the viewers" of golf. Are you saying that lots and lots of golf fans will come out to see Dustin Johnson hit a ball 310 yards, but won't come out to see him hit a ball 290 yards?

 

I am not even going to bother with the rest of this.

 

Why would the random joe come out and see someone hit an older style golf ball that doesn't go as far as they used too? So people can be like hey remember the day when he hit it 20 yards longer but they had to limit it because he was destroying the course. Which makes 0 sense because outside of the US open and his one stretch of wins he hasn't done anything. Golf has never been more competitive now then it has been in its life, and we want to stop the growth of the game because someone hits it to far which gives them no advantage at dominating the tour. As a younger player, I wouldn't want to be hitting an older golf ball then what I have been playing all my life because the older generation is upset with distance. That has no effect on winning or competitive play.

[marmooskapaul]

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.

 

Wow, this is getting stupid. No; the point is that with something as technological as auto racing, and given the vast importance of the venues where auto racing is conducted, the race organizers always do a lot of "rolling back" of technology. It isn't just safety; it is other things in addition to safety. They want to promote close racing. They want there to be room for passing. They want there to be lots of competitive teams and not one single dominant car.

 

These are all, as I have said repeatedly, aesthetic decisions. It is sport; it is a human abstraction. We are creating rules for a competition of people; we are trying to create a certain kind of competition. We are not trying to get to the moon or invent a cure for cancer.

 

Golf has already done that...back in the 00's. COR and golf ball regulations have been set for years??

[15th Club]

...

now, if you had said something along the line of "well, they can no longer race at Talladega due to SOME, not all of the drivers being able to drive faster than others and take a better line on the track and it is just not fair". that is an apples to apples comparison to your argument as i see and racing and that should illustrate how dumb it is. Because well, if one driver using legal equipment, is able to push harder and drive faster well, then he wins. if a golfer is able to swing harder and hit the

ball

 

farther and straighter. then well maybe he wins. it is not because the course is obsolete. it is because the individual is better.

 

But with a ball rollback, some players will still be longer than other players. Strength and skill and technique will still be rewarded. Being able to generate distance, all other things being equal, will still be and advantage for those who can do it. The only difference is that Dustin Johnson will not average 308 off the tee. He will average something like 288 off the tee. And Webb Simpson will not average 290 off the tee; he will average 270 off the tee. Or something. These numbers are shorthand for this argument.

 

Please confirm that you understand that part; because otherwise I don't understand you.

Cool-per your former posts Kuchar will be as long as DJ. He averages 288 with the magic 108 mph clubhead speed so he will not be affected.

 

See, this is why I don't like to argue numbers with guys like you who are going to try to hang me on specific swing speeds and distances. We don't yet have any official prototype rollback balls that are public. The rollback balls that are in testing right now (and there are) have been kept proprietary. So I don't have specific numbers for you. If and when a ball rollback comes, the manufacturers and the USGA will have those numbers.

You were trying to placate the masses with your 108 and below would/could not be affected. I was just pointing our the folly of that idea.

 

There are millions of balls out there that are on the conforming list. Are you suggesting they would be nonconforming on some date to be determined? The groove rule is good until 2024 for us hacks. If the masses get wind of a rollback that would take that long to implement the ball companies would not be able to keep up with production on the old ball. And even at the club level it would be a nightmare as you play your new rollback ball against the guy that hoarded 30 dozen long balls.

 

There are millions of balls out there that are on the conforming list. Are you suggesting that they would be nonconforming on some date to be determined? Yeah; probably. Give everybody a year or two to use up their old balls. Give recreational players as much time as they might reasonably need.

 

As for cheating with non-conforming balls, there are three answers: (1) a ball rollback hopefully won't even mean much, to most recreational "hacks." (2) new conforming balls can be clearly marked in manufacture. (3) if it is at all important to recreational club-competition golfers, just look at the markings on the balls.

[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.

 

No, to correct your hypothetical, it would be more like Honda has developed an indy car (Professionals and elite ams) capable of reaching 400 mph, so the federal government steps in and creates regulation that the civic (every day golfer) can have a top speed of no more than 50 mph.

 

Now, tell me how that makes ANY sense.

 

It doesn't make any sense, because it has no relation to anything that I was arguing.

It is the very essence of your argument. You support a rollback, which effects EVERY golfer on the planet, simply because less than 1/10th of 1% of golfers in the entire world hit the ball what is perceived by some to be too far. So, as noted, because the Honda race team has created a car that can travel faster than someone deems acceptable, the car for the grocery getting public gets limited in top speed to an arbitrary number someone saw fit. That is EXACTLY what you are supporting with this rollback. If you cannot see that, than you are too ignorant to continue this debate.

 

And I do not use ignorant in a manner meant to attack, I use it in the manner in which the word is defined. You can look up the definition if necessary.

 

Oh, well that is an easy answer. My answer is that golf is different from auto racing in one important aspect. In golf, we all want to play by one set of rules. At least I do. I want there to be one set of USGA/R&A rules, for the highest level competition, as well as for me. In auto racing, nobody does that that. Those are highly specialized machines. So in that regard, golf and auto racing are different. I think I should thank you, for pointing this factor out.

 

Now, you can disagree with me on that; disagree; that all of golf should be under one set of Rules. What is funny to me, is to hear a bunch of recreational golfers who barely keep score correctly, and who don't go back to the spot where they played from with a lost ball, all griping about the USGA's equipment standards. Nobody is making you play with conforming equipment. If you don't like a ball rollback, who is requiring you to play with a rollback ball? Play whatever you want!

[North Butte]

If you don't like the current USGA's ball then you also are free to play with whatever you want.

 

Except what you "want" is for the other 99.9% of golfers and most importantly for the guys you watch on TV to be forced to play with the ball you like instead of the ball everyone else is happy with.

[golfer07840]

This argument.. this topic.. for the love of everything that is holy...

[15th Club]

If you don't like the current USGA's ball then you also are free to play with whatever you want.

 

Except what you "want" is for the other 99.9% of golfers and most importantly for the guys you watch on TV to be forced to play with the ball you like instead of the ball everyone else is happy with.

 

What I will play with, is whatever the best is that is allowed by the Rules.

 

What I want is, to have the USGA roll back some of those Rules to make enhance the playability of the best course by the elites. I propose to lobby the USGA to do that. My aim is with the USGA. Because the USGA does have some concerns with public perception, that is why I engage in the debate publicly.

 

Again, everybody else can do what they want.

[BrockPSU]

If you don't like the current USGA's ball then you also are free to play with whatever you want.

 

Except what you "want" is for the other 99.9% of golfers and most importantly for the guys you watch on TV to be forced to play with the ball you like instead of the ball everyone else is happy with.

 

What I will play with, is whatever the best is that is allowed by the Rules.

 

What I want is, to have the USGA roll back some of those Rules to make enhance the playability of the best course by the elites. I propose to lobby the USGA to do that. My aim is with the USGA. Because the USGA does have some concerns with public perception, that is why I engage in the debate publicly.

 

Again, everybody else can do what they want.

 

Wasn't the last winner at the old course the shortest hitter on tour? how does hitting the ball far and long effect the old course at all when you don't win?

[bigred90gt]

 

It is the very essence of your argument. You support a rollback, which effects EVERY golfer on the planet, simply because less than 1/10th of 1% of golfers in the entire world hit the ball what is perceived by some to be too far. So, as noted, because the Honda race team has created a car that can travel faster than someone deems acceptable, the car for the grocery getting public gets limited in top speed to an arbitrary number someone saw fit. That is EXACTLY what you are supporting with this rollback. If you cannot see that, than you are too ignorant to continue this debate.

 

And I do not use ignorant in a manner meant to attack, I use it in the manner in which the word is defined. You can look up the definition if necessary.

 

Oh, well that is an easy answer. My answer is that golf is different from auto racing in one important aspect. In golf, we all want to play by one set of rules. At least I do. I want there to be one set of USGA/R&A rules, for the highest level competition, as well as for me. In auto racing, nobody does that that. Those are highly specialized machines. So in that regard, golf and auto racing are different. I think I should thank you, for pointing this factor out.

 

Now, you can disagree with me on that; disagree; that all of golf should be under one set of Rules. What is funny to me, is to hear a bunch of recreational golfers who barely keep score correctly, and who don't go back to the spot where they played from with a lost ball, all griping about the USGA's equipment standards. Nobody is making you play with conforming equipment. If you don't like a ball rollback, who is requiring you to play with a rollback ball? Play whatever you want!

 

i believe it was you who said, and I can go back and quote it for confirmation if necessary, that the overwhelming majority of golfers want to play by the rules, one setof rules for all, which is why you are against bifurcation. Now you are saying that they dont. Which is it?

 

But, just to humor you, I'll change it up a bit.

 

Lamborghini makes a car, available to anyone in the public with the money to buy it, that is capable of driving 300 mph on the street. Now, being a Lamborghini, the cost is not realistic for most, lets say only 1/10 of 1% of the driving public can afford it (hey, as you say it's only numbers for the sake of a point, dont hold me to them). Now, because of the speed that car is capable of, it means that some of the older roadways are not capable of handling that kind of speed, so the federal government comes in and regulates that all cars should have a max speed of 50 mph, including the civic, which lets say the other 99.999% of the population can afford and drives regularly.

 

Or, to the point about Jack's interest in distance not being a conflict of interest where his legacy is concerned, lets say Dodge produces the Challenger Deamon, which is a 900 hp street car available to the public for purchase. Grandpa (jack) drove a challenger back in the day when they were first introduced. At the time, it was king of the road, but this new Challenger is far superior, so he lobby's to the government to reduce the specs of the new challenger to meet the specs of the old challenger. Now, he says it's because the roads just cant handle the new challenger, and has nothing to do with the fact that his old challenger is inferior and when he was behind the wheel, he was incapable of driving at the same speed.

 

Better?

[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.

 

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.

 

All valid points which I agree with in it's entirety. I think we share some similar views on this subject of the future of golf course design, where we differ, I cannot fathom a ball that doesn't uniformly reduce everyone's performance, not just the longest players. That is where I see a fundamental issue with maintaining the integrity of this great game, by not penalizing all players the same way. So now I ask, how would a non-uniform performance reduction maintain the only thing more fundamental to the game of golf than the course, which is the game itself? Shouldn't everyone be subjected to the same distance loss, equally, I don't see a way to mitigate this fairly without everyone seeing a difference.

[15th Club]

If you don't like the current USGA's ball then you also are free to play with whatever you want.

 

Except what you "want" is for the other 99.9% of golfers and most importantly for the guys you watch on TV to be forced to play with the ball you like instead of the ball everyone else is happy with.

 

What I will play with, is whatever the best is that is allowed by the Rules.

 

What I want is, to have the USGA roll back some of those Rules to make enhance the playability of the best course by the elites. I propose to lobby the USGA to do that. My aim is with the USGA. Because the USGA does have some concerns with public perception, that is why I engage in the debate publicly.

 

Again, everybody else can do what they want.

 

Wasn't the last winner at the old course the shortest hitter on tour? how does hitting the ball far and long effect the old course at all when you don't win?

 

Oh God, this again? We are not concerned with who wins or who loses in Tour events, in the rollback debate. Okay? We are not trying to help shorter-hitters win. We are not trying to prevent longer-hitters from winning.

 

What we are trying to do, at St. Andrews, is to avoid the need to continually stretch and reshape The Old Course to host the tournament. We don't want the Second tee to be placed in what would be out of bounds and off the golf course.

 

As for who wins and who loses, or what kind of player within the field does well; I just do not care. May the best, best-thinking, best-strategic, most courageous, most pressure-resistant man win.