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

[QuigleyDU]

Can anyone point out evidence of where distance is impacting tournaments as far as sales and viewership?

 

The question was asked "is distance ruining tour pros?".

 

 

So has anyone offered any actual evidence where distance gains are hurting the game monetarily?

 

all the evidence.. earnings, viewership, and prize money point to the fact they are doing just fine.

[AceCatKY]

Novel concept: some people enjoy watching guys hit 330 yard drives more than watching guys fade a 5 iron in to a par 4; some enjoy the opposite. I think all too often people believe their personal preference should dictate what others are forced to do. It is incredibly arrogant to advocate for major changes to modern Tour golf just to satisfy the whims and preferences from those who pine for golf they enjoyed 30 viewing years ago. I've been to several PGA tournaments and never once heard anyone remark " You know I used to like this tourney but now that guys drive further its boring and I wont be back.."

[15th Club]

my point is, that if you limit roll to say 10-15 yards rather than hitting onto green carpeted concrete you will see drastically reduce driver distances. i dont see how this does not accomplish the exact same thing? it will also be cheaper for courses to maintain, it is an absolute fact that increasing the fairway length will reduce role. Or, simply mow the grain into the players. that will affect it as well. i didn't say make the fairways soggy, just dont dry them out so much.

 

Okay, I want to address you directly. Let's take two hypothetical cases:

1. Case One: A current Pro V1, hit by an average Tour player, that flies 290 yards and rolls out just 10 yards (basically sort of two hops and a stop) on a softened, longer-grass fairway. A 300-yard drive.
   
2. Case Two: A rolled-back ball, hit by an average Tour player, that flies 260 yards and rolls out 40 yards on a firm and fast surface. A 300 yard drive.
   

In Case One, there isn't much strategy, other than trying to hit the ball straight and far to a point that you like for a second shot.

 

In Case Two, you will need to appreciate how that 40 yards of roll will affect your position. The fairway is going to take your ball in a direction that the fairway wants. You are going to need to understand the roll, the slope, the general ground game. You will essentially need to know the golf course better. You will need to understand angles and strategy. If you need to counteract a roll that is less desirable (a slope away from where you want to be), you are going to need to shape your ball flight into differing positions. You will have less trouble with mudballs, on that firm and fast fairway. The firm and fast fairway is more likely to playable if there is a big rain on Friday night. Etc., etc., etc.

 

So you see, it is not all the same, with two 300-yard drives.

[QuigleyDU]

Novel concept: some people enjoy watching guys hit 330 yard drives more than watching guys fade a 5 iron in to a par 4; some enjoy the opposite. I think all too often people believe their personal preference should dictate what others are forced to do. It is incredibly arrogant to advocate for major changes to modern Tour golf just to satisfy the whims and preferences from those who pine for golf they enjoyed 30 viewing years ago. I've been to several PGA tournaments and never once heard anyone remark " You know I used to like this tourney but now that guys drive further its boring and I wont be back.."

 

I think more and more this is the reason they want to roll things back. they "feel" there is no skill involved anymore and that if you force the ball back somehow it will automagically appear.

[15th Club]

Novel concept: some people enjoy watching guys hit 330 yard drives more than watching guys fade a 5 iron in to a par 4; some enjoy the opposite. I think all too often people believe their personal preference should dictate what others are forced to do. It is incredibly arrogant to advocate for major changes to modern Tour golf just to satisfy the whims and preferences from those who pine for golf they enjoyed 30 viewing years ago. I've been to several PGA tournaments and never once heard anyone remark " You know I used to like this tourney but now that guys drive further its boring and I wont be back.."

 

I go to a lot of tournaments. I've been inside the ropes for a few tournaments. And when a guy hits a really long drive, there is a kind of a hushed, "WOW!" And about 75% of the crowd can't even follow the ball flight.

 

But then there are some shots that live in golf history. Indelible, and producers of huge roars. A Hogan 1-iron into the 72nd hole at Merion in the Open. A Tiger Woods impossibly-imaginative chip on 16 in the Masters. Louis Oosthuizen's historic 4-iron following the magical contours of the 2nd green at Augusta. Jack Nicklaus' 1-iron on 17 at Pebble, and Tom Watson's chip on the same hole a decade later.

[QuigleyDU]

my point is, that if you limit roll to say 10-15 yards rather than hitting onto green carpeted concrete you will see drastically reduce driver distances. i dont see how this does not accomplish the exact same thing? it will also be cheaper for courses to maintain, it is an absolute fact that increasing the fairway length will reduce role. Or, simply mow the grain into the players. that will affect it as well. i didn't say make the fairways soggy, just dont dry them out so much.

Okay, I want to address you directly. Let's take two hypothetical cases:

1. Case One: A current Pro V1, hit by an average Tour player, that flies 290 yards and rolls out just 10 yards (basically sort of two hops and a stop) on a softened, longer-grass fairway. A 300-yard drive.
   
2. Case Two: A rolled-back ball, hit by an average Tour player, that flies 260 yards and rolls out 40 yards on a firm and fast surface. A 300 yard drive.
   

In Case One, there isn't much strategy, other than trying to hit the ball straight and far to a point that you like for a second shot. In Case Two, you will need to appreciate how that 40 yards of roll will affect your position. The fairway is going to take your ball in a direction that the fairway wants. You are going to need to understand the roll, the slope, the general ground game. You will essentially need to know the golf course better. You will need to understand angles and strategy. If you need to counteract a roll that is less desirable (a slope away from where you want to be), you are going to need to shape your ball flight into differing positions. You will have less trouble with mudballs, on that firm and fast fairway. The firm and fast fairway is more likely to playable if there is a big rain on Friday night. Etc., etc., etc. So you see, it is not all the same, with two 300-yard drives.

 

two things,

 

1. according to trackman the average tour drive only carries 275. yes, there are a few that are well past that, but that is the average. you may say, thats because they are not hitting drivers. I would counter with, well doesn't that accomplish the same thing?

 

2. what is wrong with having to deal with mud balls? i see that all the time, even in Nevada where we hardly get any rain. It is just like playing out of a divot, it happens and you deal with it. if big rain comes the course is going to be soaked regardless.

 

I will ask you this. Honestly, what is the agenda? what is the goal for dialing back the ball?? No one ever said a word about this till Jack started beating the drum. he is only doing it because he is old and wants people off his lawn.

[15th Club]

 

 

two things,

 

1. according to trackman the average tour drive only carries 275. yes, there are a few that are well past that, but that is the average. you may say, thats because they are not hitting drivers. I would counter with, well doesn't that accomplish the same thing?

...

 

No; "the same thing" is not accomplished by setting up a golf course with punitive rough or narrow fairways so as to scare golfers into hitting an iron or a fairway wood. Doing that reduces the strategy of the golf course. Courses get narrowed; angles are eliminated. It becomes a kind of Trackman contest of the longest and straightest repeating swing. You are insulting the course. Why not just change the ball?

 

2. what is wrong with having to deal with mud balls? i see that all the time, even in Nevada where we hardly get any rain. It is just like playing out of a divot, it happens and you deal with it. if big rain comes the course is going to be soaked regardless.

 

wtf? The ball debate has reached the point where a rollback is so intolerable that mudballs are preferred? Tell you what; all things being equal, I'd rather not see something as punitive, and as arbitrary, and as irrelevant to quality golf as a mudball.

As for soaking rains in tournament times, my worry is not that it sometimes happens; it does. My concern is how to avoid unplayability.

 

I will ask you this. Honestly, what is the agenda? what is the goal for dialing back the ball??

 

The goal is to preserve a game where elite-level players can contest championships on historic championship courses, without having to alter those courses outside of their historic design. It is to allow the entire game of golf, via the example of the major championships, to return more generally to the spirit of links golf, where the play occurred on firm and fast turf, and where the wind, and not artificilities like trees, rough and punitive hazards gave interest to the play. It is hopefully to inspire golf courses all over to use less land, and less water. And on and on and on. Read a Geoff Shackelford book. For your own good.

 

No one ever said a word about this till Jack started beating the drum. he is only doing it because he is old and wants people off his lawn.

 

That is just not true. What you just said, is false. It's false, and it is insulting. It is so insulting, that I am not going to dignify it with any more of a response. You can look up the number of people who favor a ball rollback, and when they made those statements. I've posted them here many times; you seem to have been so careless in your reading, that you've been unaware.

[Hawkeye77]

R&A looking like Nostradamus when they adopted that 14 club rule. ;-)

[QuigleyDU]

two things, 1. according to trackman the average tour drive only carries 275. yes, there are a few that are well past that, but that is the average. you may say, thats because they are not hitting drivers. I would counter with, well doesn't that accomplish the same thing? ...

No; "the same thing" is not accomplished by setting up a golf course with punitive rough or narrow fairways so as to scare golfers into hitting an iron or a fairway wood. Doing that reduces the strategy of the golf course. Courses get narrowed; angles are eliminated. It becomes a kind of Trackman contest of the longest and straightest repeating swing. You are insulting the course. Why not just change the ball?

2. what is wrong with having to deal with mud balls? i see that all the time, even in Nevada where we hardly get any rain. It is just like playing out of a divot, it happens and you deal with it. if big rain comes the course is going to be soaked regardless.

wtf? The ball debate has reached the point where a rollback is so intolerable that mudballs are preferred? Tell you what; all things being equal, I'd rather not see something as punitive, and as arbitrary, and as irrelevant to quality golf as a mudball. As for soaking rains in tournament times, my worry is not that it sometimes happens; it does. My concern is how to avoid unplayability.

I will ask you this. Honestly, what is the agenda? what is the goal for dialing back the ball??

The goal is to preserve a game where elite-level players can contest championships on historic championship courses, without having to alter those courses outside of their historic design. It is to allow the entire game of golf, via the example of the major championships, to return more generally to the spirit of links golf, where the play occurred on firm and fast turf, and where the wind, and not artificilities like trees, rough and punitive hazards gave interest to the play. It is hopefully to inspire golf courses all over to use less land, and less water. And on and on and on. Read a Geoff Shackelford book. For your own good.

No one ever said a word about this till Jack started beating the drum. he is only doing it because he is old and wants people off his lawn.

That is just not true. What you just said, is false. It's false, and it is insulting. It is so insulting, that I am not going to dignify it with any more of a response. You can look up the number of people who favor a ball rollback, and when they made those statements. I've posted them here many times; you seem to have been so careless in your reading, that you've been unaware.

 

I didnt know a golf course could be insulted??

 

also, I generally do not like "spirit of the game" arguments. They are arbitrary and biased on both sides. while i may have painted with a bit of a broad stroke, the rollback mantra while it may not have started with Jack really didn't start till he said something.

[bladehunter]

Taking Driver out of the longer guy’s hands isn’t the same thing as rolling it back. It’s actually The opposite. Why should the long guy not be able to hit the biggest club ?thats tipping the forgiveness scale to the short guy and “ evening up” the field. Which I am 1000 % against.

[North Butte]

There have been people "beating the drum" for a rollback since the first Titanium drivers showed up on the PGA Tour. And they have not shut up for one freakin' second in the 20 years since.

 

They would not be happy for long if the ball were rolled back tomorrow. As soon as they saw some guy drive a rolled back ball 320 yards or shoot 62 on a 7,400 yard course they'd be right back at it, louder than before.

 

They won't be happy until they can turn on the TV and see a live tournament being played by clones of Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus and the young Fred Couples, all using wooden clubs and rubber band wound golf balls.

[KMeloney]

The goal is to preserve a game where elite-level players can contest championships on historic championship courses, without having to alter those courses outside of their historic design. It is to allow the entire game of golf, via the example of the major championships, to return more generally to the spirit of links golf, where the play occurred on firm and fast turf, and where the wind, and not artificilities like trees, rough and punitive hazards gave interest to the play. It is hopefully to inspire golf courses all over to use less land, and less water. And on and on and on. Read a Geoff Shackelford book. For your own good.

 

So why wasn't Merion overpowered in '13?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

So why do the rollbackers want it then and what other options would you like to try?

 

Here's my take, adding distance is the best way to properly test the golfers now, a lot of tour courses struggle to find the appropriate distance they need so they have to either buy more land or resort to other gimmicks to test players. Now sure they could of left Merion wider and not put out outrageous pin positions (I would of liked that) but then you get a entire other faction of people bitching about a US Open being -13. Another issue with that is are you really identifying the best golfer if a course is overly short, of course you are finding the player that played the course the best but there could be much of the game that is left untested, and imo the mark of a great course and championship is to test every shot in a players arsenal. As far as for the regular joe who cares, move up a box, most people should anyways, or just stock up on old balls like a bunch of guys with the old red saw vokeys.

 

In closing I don't think distance is ruining the tour, I do think it would be better though with a slight rollback (not the outrageous 20% that keeps getting thrown around by the leave it be crowd) which hopefully would bring more courses in the 6800+ yard range back into consideration, you're right that some don't have the infrastructure but I'd rather see a shorter historically significant muni get a restoration to hold a tour event than another 7400 yard $400 5 hour round "resort" course pop up to host events. I do think now is the time, peak speed on tour is not going to get much higher and we understand the ideal launch conditions so they would be able to make a one time reduction, that achieved their goals.

 

And Jack Nicklaus.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Well, he said it, hasn't retracted it, and continues to b**** every time he opens his mouth, so I will believe that he wants a 20% rollback until he says otherwise.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A separate reply to this same post, with different highlighting.

 

This debate is NOT simply about Tour events. I have said repeatedly, it affects all of elite-level golf, from the NCAA, to top-level amateur golf, and even lower levels of competitive golf.

 

This is why I insist on using the terms "elite" and "recreational" golf as my arbitrary dividing lines. "Tour" versus "amateur" are useless in this context. If you haven't been to see NCAA golfers dominate courses that have recently held U.S. Opens, you might not understand this point. But you should.

 

1000% wrong. Check the thread title.

[15th Club]

The goal is to preserve a game where elite-level players can contest championships on historic championship courses, without having to alter those courses outside of their historic design. It is to allow the entire game of golf, via the example of the major championships, to return more generally to the spirit of links golf, where the play occurred on firm and fast turf, and where the wind, and not artificilities like trees, rough and punitive hazards gave interest to the play. It is hopefully to inspire golf courses all over to use less land, and less water. And on and on and on. Read a Geoff Shackelford book. For your own good.

 

So why wasn't Merion overpowered in '13?

 

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

[QuigleyDU]

I feel those that want change should start their own group. Call it the OSPGA old school pga, or TPGA. traditional PGA or whatever name they want. They can reach out for sponsors, arrange their own matches, and events. Play the events the way they want with limited equipment. Then see if it grows or goes bankrupt.

 

problem solved.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

There have been people "beating the drum" for a rollback since the first Titanium drivers showed up on the PGA Tour. And they have not shut up for one freakin' second in the 20 years since.

 

They would not be happy for long if the ball were rolled back tomorrow. As soon as they saw some guy drive a rolled back ball 320 yards or shoot 62 on a 7,400 yard course they'd be right back at it, louder than before.

 

They won't be happy until they can turn on the TV and see a live tournament being played by clones of Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus and the young Fred Couples, all using wooden clubs and rubber band wound golf balls.

 

So true. Not to mention, we have people like 15 who say that anyone who disagrees with him isn't a "real golfer". But, listen to him; he's trying to help grow the game, you chop peasant.

[MtlJeff]

Just some numbers for the tour compared to other sports. It's very difficult to say how "profitable" the tour is because i believe they are non profit and don't disclose all financials,at least they didn't use to....

 

But total purses in 2017 were 352 million dollars. If you compare that to the year 2000 the total purses were 150M so that is more than double.

 

The two most popular salary cap sports in the US are the NFL and NBA, both of those sports have pretty much tripled in salary since 2000. (NFL cap 66M to 180M....NBA 35M to 100M). the NHL, a less popular sport maybe more comparable to golf has barely more than doubled

 

At least financially, it does not appear that the tour is suffering from any adverse effects of a change in the style of play. It's growth is on par with other major sports assuming the payouts to players have remained a relatively consistent percentage of their take home

 

I believe they also negotiated new deals with several networks in the past 10 years that go beyond 2020.

 

Tour seems to be doing fine financially.

 

As mentioned a bunch of times previously, i would love to see the profits of courses that host PGA or elite AM events to know how many of those are losing money, as those are the ones that "had" to spend money to upgrade

[The Pearl]

The goal is to preserve a game where elite-level players can contest championships on historic championship courses, without having to alter those courses outside of their historic design. It is to allow the entire game of golf, via the example of the major championships, to return more generally to the spirit of links golf, where the play occurred on firm and fast turf, and where the wind, and not artificilities like trees, rough and punitive hazards gave interest to the play. It is hopefully to inspire golf courses all over to use less land, and less water. And on and on and on. Read a Geoff Shackelford book. For your own good.

 

So why wasn't Merion overpowered in '13?

 

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

 

But that is nothing new for the USGA in terms of Open prep. The USGA has pushed the boundaries in course prep long before the "roll the ball back" campaign became prevalent.

[15th Club]

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A separate reply to this same post, with different highlighting.

 

This debate is NOT simply about Tour events. I have said repeatedly, it affects all of elite-level golf, from the NCAA, to top-level amateur golf, and even lower levels of competitive golf.

 

This is why I insist on using the terms "elite" and "recreational" golf as my arbitrary dividing lines. "Tour" versus "amateur" are useless in this context. If you haven't been to see NCAA golfers dominate courses that have recently held U.S. Opens, you might not understand this point. But you should.

 

1000% wrong. Check the thread title.

 

 

HA HA! Touche'! What am I doing here? Because I don't care a whole lot about the Tour's tv ratings, or sponsors, or Acushnet's share price. "The debate" is all about all of the things I wrote about. As for the PGA Tour... Meh. Thanks for the reminder.

 

Buhbye.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Anyways, this leaves the regressives at a critical junction; they can either accept that lower scores than the glory days of their boyhood heroes will be shot, or they can create a storm, flip the table over, change the rules of the game, and start the inevitable cycle all over again. Obviously, when presented with that choice, human nature will always steer them towards option 2, and here we are fending off an extreme minority of people who want to impose their emotion based will on to people who aren't interested...

 

Well, you can use whatever words you want. "Regressives" is not a word that I am going to accept. I might say "traditionalists," or golf course aficionadi, or "real golfers."

 

 

 

How to win friends and influence people.

[bladehunter]

There have been people "beating the drum" for a rollback since the first Titanium drivers showed up on the PGA Tour. And they have not shut up for one freakin' second in the 20 years since.

 

They would not be happy for long if the ball were rolled back tomorrow. As soon as they saw some guy drive a rolled back ball 320 yards or shoot 62 on a 7,400 yard course they'd be right back at it, louder than before.

 

They won't be happy until they can turn on the TV and see a live tournament being played by clones of Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus and the young Fred Couples, all using wooden clubs and rubber band wound golf balls.

 

So true. Not to mention, we have people like 15 who say that anyone who disagrees with him isn't a "real golfer". But, listen to him; he's trying to help grow the game, you chop peasant.

 

Artificial growth of the game is the root issue. I mean how many drunk tents do we need ? I guess as many as we can pack in a 8500 yd course. After all $$$. Right ?

[knock it close]

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

So why do the rollbackers want it then and what other options would you like to try?

 

Here's my take, adding distance is the best way to properly test the golfers now, a lot of tour courses struggle to find the appropriate distance they need so they have to either buy more land or resort to other gimmicks to test players. Now sure they could of left Merion wider and not put out outrageous pin positions (I would of liked that) but then you get a entire other faction of people bitching about a US Open being -13. Another issue with that is are you really identifying the best golfer if a course is overly short, of course you are finding the player that played the course the best but there could be much of the game that is left untested, and imo the mark of a great course and championship is to test every shot in a players arsenal. As far as for the regular joe who cares, move up a box, most people should anyways, or just stock up on old balls like a bunch of guys with the old red saw vokeys.

 

In closing I don't think distance is ruining the tour, I do think it would be better though with a slight rollback (not the outrageous 20% that keeps getting thrown around by the leave it be crowd) which hopefully would bring more courses in the 6800+ yard range back into consideration, you're right that some don't have the infrastructure but I'd rather see a shorter historically significant muni get a restoration to hold a tour event than another 7400 yard $400 5 hour round "resort" course pop up to host events. I do think now is the time, peak speed on tour is not going to get much higher and we understand the ideal launch conditions so they would be able to make a one time reduction, that achieved their goals.

 

And Jack Nicklaus.

Ya Jack's old he's allowed to say stupid stuff.

[North Butte]

You gotta love wanting to rejigger the rules of the game so that a 100-year-old private club owned by rich guys can attract big-$$$ USGA events...and then claiming it's all about growing the game. That takes some nerve, right there.

 

Here's a hint. Any room for growth available to golf is not among rich guys playing at 100-year-old private club. The game has already attracted as many of those as there are to attract. Growing the game is about hackers at local courses far outside the orbit of the blue coats and their cronies.

[QuigleyDU]

You gotta love wanting to rejigger the rules of the game so that a 100-year-old private club owned by rich guys can attract big-$$$ USGA events...and then claiming it's all about growing the game. That takes some nerve, right there.

 

Here's a hint. Any room for growth available to golf is not among rich guys playing at 100-year-old private club. The game has already attracted as many of those as there are to attract. Growing the game is about hackers at local courses far outside the orbit of the blue coats and their cronies.

 

finally, someone speaking the truth. the whole agenda is based around one event at one course.

[rangersgoalie]

15th Club

 

I went to Shackelfords site to see what you meant, but couldn't get past the Callaway ads and the podcast sponsored by Callaway.

 

Guy is the biggest hypocrite in golf. Rails against equipment but takes money from them...just paying the bills.

 

Throws anybody who disagrees with him off his site while taking potshots at players and manufacturers all the time.

 

Geoff is the epitome of online warrior, which is too bad, because he has written some great stuff.

He's way more interested in clicks to generate revenue from his sponsors that he believes are ruining the game

[Ashley Schaeffer]

You gotta love wanting to rejigger the rules of the game so that a 100-year-old private club owned by rich guys can attract big-$$$ USGA events...and then claiming it's all about growing the game. That takes some nerve, right there.

 

Here's a hint. Any room for growth available to golf is not among rich guys playing at 100-year-old private club. The game has already attracted as many of those as there are to attract. Growing the game is about hackers at local courses far outside the orbit of the blue coats and their cronies.

 

The Real Golfers ("RGs") don't want to grow the game by inclusion. They want it like it was in '82 for reasons far exceeding the golf ball issue.

[knock it close]

You gotta love wanting to rejigger the rules of the game so that a 100-year-old private club owned by rich guys can attract big-$$$ USGA events...and then claiming it's all about growing the game. That takes some nerve, right there.

 

Here's a hint. Any room for growth available to golf is not among rich guys playing at 100-year-old private club. The game has already attracted as many of those as there are to attract. Growing the game is about hackers at local courses far outside the orbit of the blue coats and their cronies.

 

The Real Golfers ("RGs") don't want to grow the game by inclusion. They want it like it was in '82 for reasons far exceeding the golf ball issue.

[heavy_hitter]

my point is, that if you limit roll to say 10-15 yards rather than hitting onto green carpeted concrete you will see drastically reduce driver distances. i dont see how this does not accomplish the exact same thing? it will also be cheaper for courses to maintain, it is an absolute fact that increasing the fairway length will reduce role. Or, simply mow the grain into the players. that will affect it as well. i didn't say make the fairways soggy, just dont dry them out so much.

 

Okay, I want to address you directly. Let's take two hypothetical cases:

1. Case One: A current Pro V1, hit by an average Tour player, that flies 290 yards and rolls out just 10 yards (basically sort of two hops and a stop) on a softened, longer-grass fairway. A 300-yard drive.
   
2. Case Two: A rolled-back ball, hit by an average Tour player, that flies 260 yards and rolls out 40 yards on a firm and fast surface. A 300 yard drive.
   

In Case One, there isn't much strategy, other than trying to hit the ball straight and far to a point that you like for a second shot.

 

In Case Two, you will need to appreciate how that 40 yards of roll will affect your position. The fairway is going to take your ball in a direction that the fairway wants. You are going to need to understand the roll, the slope, the general ground game. You will essentially need to know the golf course better. You will need to understand angles and strategy. If you need to counteract a roll that is less desirable (a slope away from where you want to be), you are going to need to shape your ball flight into differing positions. You will have less trouble with mudballs, on that firm and fast fairway. The firm and fast fairway is more likely to playable if there is a big rain on Friday night. Etc., etc., etc.

 

So you see, it is not all the same, with two 300-yard drives.

 

 

LOL... These scenarios aren't even close. 1. It takes skill. 2. It takes skill and luck.