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

[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.

 

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.

 

Thank you, for at least getting to the heart of some of the contested issues. My answer to you is that it is a technical issue. And I am not an engineer or a ball designer.

 

Personally, as a USGA member, I am disappointed that the organization has not been more transparent in studying and testing ball designs. I wish the USGA was putting out a couple of white papers every year on the subject; testing and experimenting with all kinds of ball designs.

 

To me, it was a pretty big deal that someone like Bob Ford, who is the club pro for Mike Davis, Walter Driver and Fred Ridley, would say something to the effect that they already have a ball that rolls back performance about 108 mph swing speeds but which does nothing below that. It is of course impossible for that to be literally true, I think. Bob was no doubt speaking in broad generalities. But you get the idea. If anybody would be hearing rumors about such a thing, it would be Bob Ford. If ever a truly great golf course needed protection from technological golf ball distance, it would be Seminole.

[bigred90gt]

 

 

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.

 

 

Who dictates the "need to continually stretch and reshape the Old Course to host the tournament", and for what reason?

[North Butte]

Bob was no doubt speaking out of his rear end but hey, if you agree with his sentiment it's best not to get too picky about his details.

 

And that's the essence of this whole attempt to gin up a "problem" out of whole cloth. The details never actually parse but man the sentiment feels SOOOOO good to rant about.

 

What was that quote, the handicap system could, er, uh, it could take care of it.

 

P.S. It's funny how the same technically illiterate, innumerate doofuses who've been claiming for 20 years that modern equipment gives an unfair "exponential" advantage to the longest hitters have now switched sides completely. They're all for an unfair "exponental" penalty that only affects the longest hitters. Unfairness in the service of feel-good sentimental whining is fair game, apparently. Fortunately, both irrational beliefs are equally unconnected to the real world. There is no magic golf ball that sense clubhead speed and rewards or penalizes as the designer sees fit.

[15th Club]

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?

 

I will clarify.

 

First; I do think that almost all golfers "crave" the acceptance of the USGA, insofar as they shun non-conforming equipment. All of the manufacturers know, that non-conforming equipment just doesn't sell. Can we agree on that? I hope so.

 

Second; I think it is hypocritical, to bash the USGA over any unreasonable Rules on equipment, and to suggest that they USGA is taking the fun out of golf for regular golfers, by limiting equipment. Because if length was all that mattered, they can get more length out of a laboratory. The "contempt" for the USGA could be expressed by buying (and creating a new market for) non-conforming equipment. But nobody is doing that. They are just complaining about the blue blazers at the USGA.

 

It seems to me, that what golfers like you want, is to be able to buy equipment that goes farther and farther for you, and to have the USGA sanction that equipment as legal, for you. Meanwhile, as we have seen in the Pro V era, anything that helps you hit the ball 7 yards farther will very likely help Dustin Johnson hit it 15 yards farther. That might not matter so much to me, except that if the 15 yards that Dj is getting effectively neuters a golf course like The Old Course or Muirfield or NGLA or Shinnecock for major competition.

[RobS14526]

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.

 

 

Who dictates the "need to continually stretch and reshape the Old Course to host the tournament", and for what reason?

 

I thought the last Open at St. Andrews was a real let down for the Old Course. It was either a wedge fest when the wind was down and unplayable due to green speeds when the wind was up. The old girl wasn't a good major test IMHO. I'm also not sure that is correctable with a small golf ball tweak.

[15th Club]

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.

 

 

Who dictates the "need to continually stretch and reshape the Old Course to host the tournament", and for what reason?

 

The USGA and the R&A. For their championships. And coincidentally, they will be the same people deciding the fate of a ball rollback.

[15th Club]

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.

 

 

Who dictates the "need to continually stretch and reshape the Old Course to host the tournament", and for what reason?

 

I thought the last Open at St. Andrews was a real let down for the Old Course. It was either a wedge fest when the wind was down and unplayable due to green speeds when the wind was up. The old girl wasn't a good major test IMHO. I'm also not sure that is correctable with a small golf ball tweak.

 

Your thought -- to give you credit where due -- is much like what Jack had in mind when he casually tossed out a "20%" figure. Because it is that bad, for some venues.

[QuigleyDU]

 

 

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!

 

you seem to be getting more and more condescending. i get it, you are not gathering much support here. but to imply that this specific group, the members of this forum don't understand the rules is stupid beyond belief. no where else i have seen a group understand and appreciate the rules more. You will see many here stand up and applaud changes like the anchoring ban. so as i whole i would not say they are against change. i have not seen anyone say much about the change that you no longer have to pull the pin to putt starting next year. again, a change. change is fine as long has it has a purpose that will (potentially) make the game better on a macro scale while not focusing 100% on the micro.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

 

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

 

Who is paying? Desert courses, courses on nature preserves, courses on protected land, courses with natural features, etc. There can be/is great cost and environmental impact associated with shortening courses. You don't always just get to shrink the lawn and add a shrub.

[15th Club]

 

 

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

 

Who is paying? Desert courses, courses on nature preserves, courses on protected land, courses with natural features, etc. There can be/is great cost and environmental impact associated with shortening courses. You don't always just get to shrink the lawn and add a shrub.

 

Nah.... There isn't a good course anywhere, that can't be easily set up overnight to play at 6900 or 6800 yards. Most of them were built that way. All of them -- except ANGC with its two sets of tees -- can play that way almost instantly.

[bigred90gt]

To me, it was a pretty big deal that someone like Bob Ford, who is the club pro for Mike Davis, Walter Driver and Fred Ridley, would say something to the effect that they already have a ball that rolls back performance about 108 mph swing speeds but which does nothing below that. It is of course impossible for that to be literally true, I think. Bob was no doubt speaking in broad generalities. But you get the idea. If anybody would be hearing rumors about such a thing, it would be Bob Ford. If ever a truly great golf course needed protection from technological golf ball distance, it would be Seminole.

There you go again using that to support your position.

 

There is still a problem though. Is the 108 mph an absolute number? So, if you hit a ball with your 3 wood at 107 mpg, will the distance not change? What about irons? is a 5i swung at 108 still going to travel the same distance with the same characteristics?

 

The bigger problem though is that lets say, for the sake of discussion, that 108 is indeed the magic number that they have engineered where performance starts to drop. This would have to be done with spin and core compression. As such, the higher the speed, the greater the reduction in performance. So, lets say a guy at 110 sees a 2% reduction, 115 is a 5% reduction, 120 is a 12% reduction, 125 is a 20% reduction, 130 is a 33% reduction, etc.

 

using 108 as a benchmark, lets put that at 280 for argument sake. 110 = 290, 115 = 305, 120 = 325, 125 = 340, 130 = 350 (and FYI, those numbers are not far from accurate if you care to research the data yourself, and I'm not talking about carry only before someone says xxxx will only carry yyyy). I've swung the club at a few of those numbers over various periods of time that I have played this game.

 

Under the "new ball" it would be:

108 = 280

110 = 284

115= 289

120 = 286

125 = 272

130 = 235

 

Being that there is no way (physics, you should try it) to design a ball that once hit at 108 would have a uniform drop in performance, than the only way would be that as speed increases, performance loss increases as well. looking at the numbers, it just isnt going to work. You would have the longest guys on tour hitting it the shortest distance.

 

If it were 20% across the board:

 

110 = 290, 115 = 305, 120 = 325, 125 = 340, 130 = 350.

 

108 = 224

110 = 232

115= 244

120 = 260

125 = 272

130 = 280

 

Now, take a 450 yard par 4. The Luke Donalds of the bunch wont be able to reach it in 2. 450 is not THAT long of a par 4, at the weekend level or the professional level. By professional standards, its a short hole, by weekend player standards, it a bit above average, but not extreme.

 

Now, take your average player, who for the sake of this discussion has a 95 mph clubhead speed. True average based on USGAs own research would suggest much lower (they find average driving distance by amateurs to be 208 yards, so significantly lower than 95mph clubhead speed).

lets say 95 mph gets you 250 yards. You are now hitting your driver 200 yards. A 380-400 yard par 4 is now unplayable as a par 4. How many of the courses you play on a regular basis have 400 yard par 4s? for me, every single one of them. Those holes are now unplayable as designed. So now anything longer than 400 yards becomes a par 5? So we have what, 8 par 5s on a card now and turn the course to a par 76? What about that one tough 225 yard par 3? Oh, wait, you have to play that as a par 4 now. Those 180 yard par 3s, you're hitting a 3 wood now. Are you not seeing a problem here????

 

To go another direction, lets take a look at the USGA 2017 Distance Report (if you care to read it, https://www.usga.org...eport-final.pdf)

 

page 20 of said report states, and I quote:

Figure 13. Percentage driver usage for the different handicap categories.

 

Given the significant increase in driver usage for higher handicap golfers since 1996' date=' the driving distance data were recalculated for only shots hit with a driver. These data are presented in Figure 14. It can be seen that while there have been fluctuations in the average driving distance between 1996 and 2017, the average distance in 2017 is 4 yards longer than in 1996 (compared to an 8 yard difference when considering all clubs used). The largest overall distance increase from 1996 to 2017 has been observed for the highest handicap golfers ([/size']22 yards) with the changes observed for both the <6 and 6-12 categories being less than 1 yard and the 13-20 handicap category averaging 8 yards longer in 2017 than in 1996.

 

Since the overwhelming majority of golfers (we've gone over the percentage of pro's/elite ams vs the rest of the population) fall into this category, where is the need to roll back performance? As a matter of fact, amateurs with handicaps below 12 have shown less than 1 yard, read that again, it says LESS THAN 1 YARD, increase from 1996 to 2017. The largest increase was seen in the highest handicap golfers. Now, do you still think the ball is responsible for that? Was it the introduction of more forgiving clubheads reducing the penalty of an off center strike? It could be argued that below 12 handicap will strike the ball significantly better than above 20 handicap, yes? So, how do these numbers equate to the ball being a problem? Better yet, how do these numbers equate to the ball being the solution to a perceived problem, which in reality does not exist?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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

 

Who is paying? Desert courses, courses on nature preserves, courses on protected land, courses with natural features, etc. There can be/is great cost and environmental impact associated with shortening courses. You don't always just get to shrink the lawn and add a shrub.

 

Nah.... There isn't a good course anywhere, that can't be easily set up overnight to play at 6900 or 6800 yards. Most of them were built that way. All of them -- except ANGC with its two sets of tees -- can play that way almost instantly.

 

I thought we were talking about shrinking the course for all golfers, not just the elite?

Also, you never answered my question re: how the new ball (that only affects those who swing over elite speed) will speed up play at my local hack muni, as you claim.

Wait, you're not avoiding that question or anything, are you?

[bigred90gt]

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.

 

 

Who dictates the "need to continually stretch and reshape the Old Course to host the tournament", and for what reason?

 

The USGA and the R&A. For their championships. And coincidentally, they will be the same people deciding the fate of a ball rollback.

 

You completely blew over the second half of the question. For what reason?

[bigred90gt]

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.

 

 

Who dictates the "need to continually stretch and reshape the Old Course to host the tournament", and for what reason?

 

I thought the last Open at St. Andrews was a real let down for the Old Course. It was either a wedge fest when the wind was down and unplayable due to green speeds when the wind was up. The old girl wasn't a good major test IMHO. I'm also not sure that is correctable with a small golf ball tweak.

 

Your thought -- to give you credit where due -- is much like what Jack had in mind when he casually tossed out a "20%" figure. Because it is that bad, for some venues.

So, now you speak for Jack and "what he had in mind"? lol, ok

[15th Club]

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

[15th Club]

Also, you never answered my question re: how the new ball (that only affects those who swing over elite speed) will speed up play at my local hack muni, as you claim.

 

I don't think that the boyz at your "local hack muni" ever benefitted a whole lot from the Pro V era. And that they won't much notice any ball rollback. They might say they do. They might say, "Oh, back before the USGA's danged ball rollback, I was averaging 330 off the tee." Just like when they were all-state in high school.

[QuigleyDU]

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

 

I am also curious, are you just some rank and file person that believes in this or are you actually part of some group or organization that is pushing for this? as in, do you speak for or represent the though process of say the USGA??? i wont be surprised if you dont answer this, you dont seem to answer any direct question really..

[Ashley Schaeffer]

15, the problem is, bud, when you are so adamant about something from all angles that you cannot see any validity in any counter from any angle, you expose yourself to inconsistencies and unintentional hypocrisy. Eventually, you begin to have to call arguments, or even people, "stupid" and "dumb".

[15th Club]

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

 

I am also curious, are you just some rank and file person that believes in this or are you actually part of some group or organization that is pushing for this? as in, do you speak for or represent the though process of say the USGA??? i wont be surprised if you dont answer this, you dont seem to answer any direct question really..

 

I am not paid by any golf equipment manufacturer, nor am I an employee or agent of the USGA, the R and A, the PGA of America or the PGATour.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Also, you never answered my question re: how the new ball (that only affects those who swing over elite speed) will speed up play at my local hack muni, as you claim.

 

I don't think that the boyz at your "local hack muni" ever benefitted a whole lot from the Pro V era. And that they won't much notice any ball rollback. They might say they do. They might say, "Oh, back before the USGA's danged ball rollback, I was averaging 330 off the tee." Just like when they were all-state in high school.

 

So it won't speed up play, as you claimed it would?

Also, pretty cool assumptions you get to make about us peasant, non-RGs. Pure class.

[bigred90gt]

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?

 

I will clarify.

 

First; I do think that almost all golfers "crave" the acceptance of the USGA, insofar as they shun non-conforming equipment. All of the manufacturers know, that non-conforming equipment just doesn't sell. Can we agree on that? I hope so.

 

Second; I think it is hypocritical, to bash the USGA over any unreasonable Rules on equipment, and to suggest that they USGA is taking the fun out of golf for regular golfers, by limiting equipment. Because if length was all that mattered, they can get more length out of a laboratory. The "contempt" for the USGA could be expressed by buying (and creating a new market for) non-conforming equipment. But nobody is doing that. They are just complaining about the blue blazers at the USGA.

 

It seems to me, that what golfers like you want, is to be able to buy equipment that goes farther and farther for you, and to have the USGA sanction that equipment as legal, for you. Meanwhile, as we have seen in the Pro V era, anything that helps you hit the ball 7 yards farther will very likely help Dustin Johnson hit it 15 yards farther. That might not matter so much to me, except that if the 15 yards that Dj is getting effectively neuters a golf course like The Old Course or Muirfield or NGLA or Shinnecock for major competition.

Your interpretation of what "golfers like me want" is not exactly true. There are specifications for clubs and balls currently in place. For the vast majority of golfers who play this game, and who support this industry (hint, pro's dont buy clubs, balls, clothes, course memberships [usually], etc), we do not want the decision to roll back our equipment based on what a tiny fraction of a percentage of golfers that play the game are capable of doing. Reducing the current performance characteristics of equipment hurts the game in every imaginable way for the recreational golfer, which make up the majority of the people who play. I feel like a broken record for having to continue to repeat that, but it seems like you just dont understand that. The equipment standards, that effect EVERY GOLFER ON THE PLANET, should not be adjusted because a very small percentage of people feel that the way professionals (again, a very small percentage of people who play) are playing a small percentage of courses is not what they envision it should be.

 

 

To your last point, when was the last time DJ "neutered" any of those golf courses in competition? How many of the courses you named has he won at?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

 

I am also curious, are you just some rank and file person that believes in this or are you actually part of some group or organization that is pushing for this? as in, do you speak for or represent the though process of say the USGA??? i wont be surprised if you dont answer this, you dont seem to answer any direct question really..

 

Haha! If he's working for the USGA to get support from the masses for a rollback, the USGA might want to "take it in another direction", so to speak.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

15 which courses not currently played in elite competition at the pro level will be played with a shorter ball? When?

Are we nerfing the ball now so we might get the treat of seeing a major in 15 years at some course everyone forgot about because it hasn't hosted a major since the Truman administration?

[bigred90gt]

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

 

So, you will use those numbers proposed by people you feel to hold some sort of importance to support your argument, but when someone puts the pencil to the paper using the numbers you use and support, suddenly you dont want to use those numbers? Am I reading that right?

[15th Club]

15, the problem is, bud, when you are so adamant about something from all angles that you cannot see any validity in any counter from any angle, you expose yourself to inconsistencies and unintentional hypocrisy. Eventually, you begin to have to call arguments, or even people, "stupid" and "dumb".

 

There are actually a lot of nuanced and complicated points that would merit an advanced discussion. For instance:

• Bifurcation, or not? Geoff Shackelford has resigned himself to bifurcation. I don't like bifurcation. Gary Player favors it; Jack Nicklaus is in between. The USGA, and Titleist (with wildly different views on many other things) seem to favor it.
  
• There are the terrifically nuanced issues as to how golf ball technology are affecting certain holes, like Numbers 1, 2, 17 and 18 at The Old Course. 8 and 17 at Oakland Hills. 5 and 7 and 13 at ANGC. 9 at Muirfield. 18 at MVGC. And dozens of entire NCAA courses. There is a great architectural debate to be had, about some of those. I have so much to learn, from the great architects.
  
• How PGATour course "perception" filters down through the lower levels of the game. What recreational golfers expect and want and will pay for.
  
• The corporate aspects, as I have alluded to with TM and Titleist and Bridgestone and golf ball market-shares.
  
• The legal aspects, after PGA Tour, Inc. v Martin, and Gilder [Ping] v. PGA Tour, Inc.
  
• many, many more...
  

​I get frustrated, with answering 30 different times, "Why not just grow the rough and narrow the fairways?"

[15th Club]

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

 

So, you will use those numbers proposed by people you feel to hold some sort of importance to support your argument, but when someone puts the pencil to the paper using the numbers you use and support, suddenly you dont want to use those numbers? Am I reading that right?

 

No, you're not reading that right.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

15, the problem is, bud, when you are so adamant about something from all angles that you cannot see any validity in any counter from any angle, you expose yourself to inconsistencies and unintentional hypocrisy. Eventually, you begin to have to call arguments, or even people, "stupid" and "dumb".

 

There are actually a lot of nuanced and complicated points that would merit an advanced discussion. For instance:

• Bifurcation, or not? Geoff Shackelford has resigned himself to bifurcation. I don't like bifurcation. Gary Player favors it; Jack Nicklaus is in between. The USGA, and Titleist (with wildly different views on many other things) seem to favor it.
  
• There are the terrifically nuanced issues as to how golf ball technology are affecting certain holes, like Numbers 1, 2, 17 and 18 at The Old Course. 8 and 17 at Oakland Hills. 5 and 7 and 13 at ANGC. 9 at Muirfield. 18 at MVGC. And dozens of entire NCAA courses. There is a great architectural debate to be had, about some of those. I have so much to learn, from the great architects.
  
• How PGATour course "perception" filters down through the lower levels of the game. What recreational golfers expect and want and will pay for.
  
• The corporate aspects, as I have alluded to with TM and Titleist and Bridgestone and golf ball market-shares.
  
• The legal aspects, after PGA Tour, Inc. v Martin, and Gilder [Ping] v. PGA Tour, Inc.
  
• many, many more...
  

​I get frustrated, with answering 30 different times, "Why not just grow the rough and narrow the fairways?"

 

 

 

Yeah, bud. See, my point is: You have proven that you are "right" about all of the ^^^^^^above^^^^^^ to the extent that you cannot fathom how there could possibly be merit in any counter.

Then, you've resorted to calling people names, or their points "stupid", or making assumptions about their games, or winning them over by saying all real golfers agree with you.

It opens you up, that's all I'm saying.

[bigred90gt]

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

 

So, you will use those numbers proposed by people you feel to hold some sort of importance to support your argument, but when someone puts the pencil to the paper using the numbers you use and support, suddenly you dont want to use those numbers? Am I reading that right?

 

No, you're not reading that right.

 

Ok, so how am I wrong?

 

You have used Jacks position of a 20% rollback across the board to support your argument.

 

You have used Bob Fords proposed ball that reduces performance above 108 mph to support your argument.

 

But when someone does the math using those numbers, you dont want to get into the numbers.

 

Seems to me you dont know what it is you want, you just want to make sure everyone falls in line with whatever that ends up being.

[bigred90gt]

 

There are actually a lot of nuanced and complicated points that would merit an advanced discussion. For instance:

• There are the terrifically nuanced issues as to how golf ball technology are affecting certain holes, like Numbers 1, 2, 17 and 18 at The Old Course. 8 and 17 at Oakland Hills. 5 and 7 and 13 at ANGC. 9 at Muirfield. 18 at MVGC. And dozens of entire NCAA courses. There is a great architectural debate to be had, about some of those. I have so much to learn, from the great architects.
  

 

Of all of your points, you continue to go back to this as your biggest reason. Courses used for professional tournaments and elite amateur championships. Correct?

 

How does this relate to the remainder of the golf world? To the people who actually support the golf industry in every facet? From equipment purchases (including balls), green fees, cart rentals, clothing and shoe purchases, etc? How do a few holes at a handful of courses those people dont play effect those people? They dont, yet you support changing equipment that they do play, that WILL negatively effect them, for a few holes on a few select course played by a few people. Please just answer the question of how that point is relevant to the other 99.99% of the people in the world who play and support this game.

[North Butte]

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

 

So, you will use those numbers proposed by people you feel to hold some sort of importance to support your argument, but when someone puts the pencil to the paper using the numbers you use and support, suddenly you dont want to use those numbers? Am I reading that right?

 

No, you're not reading that right.

 

Ok, so how am I wrong?

 

You have used Jacks position of a 20% rollback across the board to support your argument.

 

You have used Bob Fords proposed ball that reduces performance above 108 mph to support your argument.

 

But when someone does the math using those numbers, you dont want to get into the numbers.

 

Seems to me you dont know what it is you want, you just want to make sure everyone falls in line with whatever that ends up being.

 

The details NEVER make sense because the whole notion is stupid. It's not about the details, it's about wishing the clock could be rolled back to (at latest) the mid-90's and making it like nothing since then happened. Because in some earlier golden era the game was SOOOOOO much better than it is now.

 

Which is the ultimate thing that makes no sense. What was so much better about watching Jack Nicklaus or Fred Couples on TV than watching Dustin Johnson and Jordan Spieth? What was so much better about paying $50/dozen for wound Balata balls than than paying $50/dozen for ProV1's? What was so much better about Prairie Dunes as a NCAA venue than [wherever the heck they play now]?

 

Answer? It wasn't. It's just some kind of weird affectation in which everything about golf when you were young is deemed better than everything about it now.