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

[RobS14526]

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

 

If we are just keeping it in the context of men's professional ranks, I think golf is in a similar position to Major League Baseball. Attendance is great, regional TV contracts are fat and by those measurements the sport is healthy. There is also a real groundswell of concern that the style of baseball that is being played has become boring due to specialization in pitching and the all or nothing approach at the plate.

 

I'm not offering an opinion, just making an observation.

[15th Club]

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

 

You know, I am fast losing interest in this discussion and all of the personal insults and far too few interesting, informed, civil arguments.

 

I came back to answer this particular provocation; that Geoff Shackelford "takes money" from equipment sponsors, but that Geoff "rails against equipment."

 

Geoff is an advocate for a different standard of golf ball regulation. So am I. I am not "against equipment," and neither is Geoff. Geoff loves to play, and he's a pretty fair player. He grew up as a very good junior player at Riviera, did a history of the course which got him interested in golf writing, and he played for Pepperdine's team. His website got popular enough to be absorbed by Golf Digest, and that led to the Callaway sponsorship.

 

And there is no hypocrisy there. Callaway hasn't much weighed in, on any ball rollback. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If I am wrong about that, it is only all the more interesting to me, since Callaway obviously wouldn't "own" Geoff's opinion in that case.

[fly787]

Today on the drivable 12th some middle tier guy hit an iron that rolled 50 or 60 yards up onto the green. The fairways are just far too firm.

[DFS PFD]

Today on the drivable 12th some middle tier guy hit an iron that rolled 50 or 60 yards up onto the green. The fairways are just far too firm.

 

You mean the ball.

[QuigleyDU]

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

 

You know, I am fast losing interest in this discussion and all of the personal insults and far too few interesting, informed, civil arguments.

 

I came back to answer this particular provocation; that Geoff Shackelford "takes money" from equipment sponsors, but that Geoff "rails against equipment."

 

Geoff is an advocate for a different standard of golf ball regulation. So am I. I am not "against equipment," and neither is Geoff. Geoff loves to play, and he's a pretty fair player. He grew up as a very good junior player at Riviera, did a history of the course which got him interested in golf writing, and he played for Pepperdine's team. His website got popular enough to be absorbed by Golf Digest, and that led to the Callaway sponsorship.

 

And there is no hypocrisy there. Callaway hasn't much weighed in, on any ball rollback. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If I am wrong about that, it is only all the more interesting to me, since Callaway obviously wouldn't "own" Geoff's opinion in that case.

 

I will say, that while i think we completely disagree on this particular topic. i appreciate your well spoken manor and general lack of personal attacks. i wish that i could be half as eloquent and i enjoy a good discussion/argument that does not devolve into name calling and personal attacks.

[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

 

You know, I am fast losing interest in this discussion and all of the personal insults and far too few interesting, informed, civil arguments.

 

I came back to answer this particular provocation; that Geoff Shackelford "takes money" from equipment sponsors, but that Geoff "rails against equipment."

 

Geoff is an advocate for a different standard of golf ball regulation. So am I. I am not "against equipment," and neither is Geoff. Geoff loves to play, and he's a pretty fair player. He grew up as a very good junior player at Riviera, did a history of the course which got him interested in golf writing, and he played for Pepperdine's team. His website got popular enough to be absorbed by Golf Digest, and that led to the Callaway sponsorship.

 

And there is no hypocrisy there. Callaway hasn't much weighed in, on any ball rollback. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. If I am wrong about that, it is only all the more interesting to me, since Callaway obviously wouldn't "own" Geoff's opinion in that case.

 

Geoffs argument is the ball goes too far (and too straight) countless times he says something has to be done about the ball, while at the same Time dismissing the work at fitness improvement, optimizing, and swing changes players have made to take advantage of the same equipment he is promoting.

I put the ball in the "equipment" category, so if that muddied the water I'm sorry. But, yes, I do believe taking money from a manufacturer while complaining about he damage the ball is doing to courses around the world is hypocritical. Having a giant floating ball on your blog welcome page weakens the argument in my opinion.

For the record, I believe it's important to have one set of rules for all golfers, not bifurcation, and I am not opposed to a roll back for all. I believe hockey nets and ice rinks should be bigger, and the hoop in basketball is too low.

And I'd say your comment about reading A Shackelford book to another poster was condescending imo, but this whole thing is opinions

Isn't it

 

 

[North Butte]

What's a mystery to me is why friend 15th Club feels the need to post 39 times on this thread when obviously we're a bunch of rubes who don't even realize what a genius "Shack" is. Seems he'd be much better off just sticking the Shack's forum.

 

It's one thing for a windup artist like Shackelford to rack up page views from his acolytes on his own forum. The constant attempts to proselytize a mainstream bunch like GolfWRX'ers eventually becomes annoying in my opinion.

[johnseg]

This whole discussion reminds me of an episode of South Park. It is about toilet safety more or less. In the end the we learn that everyone (I think) has been using the toilet different than the original designer had planned.

 

 

There are arguments being made on the intent of the architects and these men have been dead for decades or more. We don't really know why Hugh Wilson put a certain feature in exactly the place he did at Merion. We have some idea but it is really mostly speculation. Unless we can go back and ask Donald Ross, A.W. Tillinghast, Old Tom Morris, Alister MacKenzie or Henry Fownes we only know their general intent. We can't say on hole three the bunker placed at 255 yards form the furthest tee was to gather drives that went too far. Maybe there was a natural feature there and they said might as well make it a bunker.

[15th Club]

What's a mystery to me is why friend 15th Club feels the need to post 39 times on this thread when obviously we're a bunch of rubes who don't even realize what a genius "Shack" is. Seems he'd be much better off just sticking the Shack's forum.

 

It's one thing for a windup artist like Shackelford to rack up page views from his acolytes on his own forum. The constant attempts to proselytize a mainstream bunch like GolfWRX'ers eventually becomes annoying in my opinion.

 

I understand that most GolfWRX members don't like the idea of a ball rollback. (I wonder if GolfWRX has done any online polling. I know how bad most online polling is, but then again if you just want a poll of Golf WRX members, that is the way to do it.)

 

I am unconcerned about a majority of GolfWRX members. What I aim to do is to maintain my side of the debate, so that no one at the blogs, or the magazines, or at the USGA or in the PGA of America, loses sight of the fact that there is a very determined pro-rollback movement. I don't want to surrender a forum like GolfWRX to Bomb and Gouge.

 

"My" side already has the biggest names in golf, and the most persuasive and articulate advocates with people like Huggan and Shackelford. And if our judge and jury is Mike Davis and the USGA/R&A ExCom members, I like our chances. I'm looking forward to the debate heating up, and guys like Spieth, Thomas and Fowler, with current Titleist contracts, being put on the spot.

[DFS PFD]

What's a mystery to me is why friend 15th Club feels the need to post 39 times on this thread when obviously we're a bunch of rubes who don't even realize what a genius "Shack" is. Seems he'd be much better off just sticking the Shack's forum.

 

It's one thing for a windup artist like Shackelford to rack up page views from his acolytes on his own forum. The constant attempts to proselytize a mainstream bunch like GolfWRX'ers eventually becomes annoying in my opinion.

 

 

I understand that most GolfWRX members don't like the idea of a ball rollback. (I wonder if GolfWRX has done any online polling. I know how bad most online polling is, but then again if you just want a poll of Golf WRX members, that is the way to do it.)

 

 

 

I am unconcerned about a majority of GolfWRX members. What I aim to do is to maintain my side of the debate, so that no one at the blogs, or the magazines, or at the USGA or in the PGA of America, loses sight of the fact that there is a very determined pro-rollback movement. I don't want to surrender a forum like GolfWRX to Bomb and Gouge.

 

 

"My" side already has the biggest names in golf, and the most persuasive and articulate advocates with people like Huggan and Shackelford. And if our judge and jury is Mike Davis and the USGA/R&A ExCom members, I like our chances. I'm looking forward to the debate heating up, and guys like Spieth, Thomas and Fowler, with current Titleist contracts, being put on the spot.

 

"We shall accomplish our goal through lobbying and financial backing to advance our agenda despite what the majority of common sense/people voice to us!" Followed by an Acushnet rant.

[BrockPSU]

Golf starts to become relevant in main stream media and "some" people want to take the game backwards because the media makes this big claim that the ball is an issue. lol until actually young people(the future of the game) actually come out and say there is an issue, I will start to actually take it as a serious concern. Anyone that wants to hold on to the past will get left in the past. That's called life.

[QuigleyDU]

What's a mystery to me is why friend 15th Club feels the need to post 39 times on this thread when obviously we're a bunch of rubes who don't even realize what a genius "Shack" is. Seems he'd be much better off just sticking the Shack's forum.

 

It's one thing for a windup artist like Shackelford to rack up page views from his acolytes on his own forum. The constant attempts to proselytize a mainstream bunch like GolfWRX'ers eventually becomes annoying in my opinion.

 

 

I understand that most GolfWRX members don't like the idea of a ball rollback. (I wonder if GolfWRX has done any online polling. I know how bad most online polling is, but then again if you just want a poll of Golf WRX members, that is the way to do it.)

 

 

 

I am unconcerned about a majority of GolfWRX members. What I aim to do is to maintain my side of the debate, so that no one at the blogs, or the magazines, or at the USGA or in the PGA of America, loses sight of the fact that there is a very determined pro-rollback movement. I don't want to surrender a forum like GolfWRX to Bomb and Gouge.

 

 

"My" side already has the biggest names in golf, and the most persuasive and articulate advocates with people like Huggan and Shackelford. And if our judge and jury is Mike Davis and the USGA/R&A ExCom members, I like our chances. I'm looking forward to the debate heating up, and guys like Spieth, Thomas and Fowler, with current Titleist contracts, being put on the spot.

 

 

I am curious, and yes i am profiling. How old are you?? i ask because i am curious if my assumption regarding those that want to reduce the ball is correct or if i am wrong. that this is mainly backed by older golfers that see the game moving past them. that is how i take Jacks opinion.

 

If you don't want to say, that's fine and i understand.

[15th Club]

What's a mystery to me is why friend 15th Club feels the need to post 39 times on this thread when obviously we're a bunch of rubes who don't even realize what a genius "Shack" is. Seems he'd be much better off just sticking the Shack's forum.

 

It's one thing for a windup artist like Shackelford to rack up page views from his acolytes on his own forum. The constant attempts to proselytize a mainstream bunch like GolfWRX'ers eventually becomes annoying in my opinion.

 

 

I understand that most GolfWRX members don't like the idea of a ball rollback. (I wonder if GolfWRX has done any online polling. I know how bad most online polling is, but then again if you just want a poll of Golf WRX members, that is the way to do it.)

 

 

 

I am unconcerned about a majority of GolfWRX members. What I aim to do is to maintain my side of the debate, so that no one at the blogs, or the magazines, or at the USGA or in the PGA of America, loses sight of the fact that there is a very determined pro-rollback movement. I don't want to surrender a forum like GolfWRX to Bomb and Gouge.

 

 

"My" side already has the biggest names in golf, and the most persuasive and articulate advocates with people like Huggan and Shackelford. And if our judge and jury is Mike Davis and the USGA/R&A ExCom members, I like our chances. I'm looking forward to the debate heating up, and guys like Spieth, Thomas and Fowler, with current Titleist contracts, being put on the spot.

 

 

I am curious, and yes i am profiling. How old are you?? i ask because i am curious if my assumption regarding those that want to reduce the ball is correct or if i am wrong. that this is mainly backed by older golfers that see the game moving past them. that is how i take Jacks opinion.

 

If you don't want to say, that's fine and i understand.

 

No, it is not "older golfers that see the game moving past them." It is "students and lovers of golf course architecture."

 

You'd be badly mistaken, if you thought that it was personal/generational based on older players' not wanting to see others achieve more distance. That isn't even a sensible notion.

 

It is almost too obvious, what is going on. Young/current Tour players have contracts with Titleist, which is the epicenter of the anti-rollback universe. Or TaylorMade, which has chosen to side with Titleist (because, I presume, TaylorMade's marketers read the opinions of golfers typified by the Golf WRX membership).

 

Jack Nicklaus; Tiger Woods; Tom Watson; Greg Norman; Ben Crenshaw; {Arnold Palmer}; {Seve Ballesteros}; Lee Trevino; Paul Azinger; David Feherty; {Sandy Tatum}; Geoff Ogilvy; Tom Kite; Tony Jacklin; Peter Dawson; Michael Bonallack; Deane Beman; Tom Doak. These are the guys who, almost uniquely, know tournament golf and golf course architecture. And that is what it is all about.

 

You can try to get a straight answer out of any current Titleist tour player (although Geoff Ogilvy is one!), but it won't be easy. I don't even think that you can get one of them to engage on the subject for any considerable Q-and-A.

[QuigleyDU]

What's a mystery to me is why friend 15th Club feels the need to post 39 times on this thread when obviously we're a bunch of rubes who don't even realize what a genius "Shack" is. Seems he'd be much better off just sticking the Shack's forum.

 

It's one thing for a windup artist like Shackelford to rack up page views from his acolytes on his own forum. The constant attempts to proselytize a mainstream bunch like GolfWRX'ers eventually becomes annoying in my opinion.

 

 

I understand that most GolfWRX members don't like the idea of a ball rollback. (I wonder if GolfWRX has done any online polling. I know how bad most online polling is, but then again if you just want a poll of Golf WRX members, that is the way to do it.)

 

 

 

I am unconcerned about a majority of GolfWRX members. What I aim to do is to maintain my side of the debate, so that no one at the blogs, or the magazines, or at the USGA or in the PGA of America, loses sight of the fact that there is a very determined pro-rollback movement. I don't want to surrender a forum like GolfWRX to Bomb and Gouge.

 

 

"My" side already has the biggest names in golf, and the most persuasive and articulate advocates with people like Huggan and Shackelford. And if our judge and jury is Mike Davis and the USGA/R&A ExCom members, I like our chances. I'm looking forward to the debate heating up, and guys like Spieth, Thomas and Fowler, with current Titleist contracts, being put on the spot.

 

 

I am curious, and yes i am profiling. How old are you?? i ask because i am curious if my assumption regarding those that want to reduce the ball is correct or if i am wrong. that this is mainly backed by older golfers that see the game moving past them. that is how i take Jacks opinion.

 

If you don't want to say, that's fine and i understand.

 

No, it is not "older golfers that see the game moving past them." It is "students and lovers of golf course architecture."

 

You'd be badly mistaken, if you thought that it was personal/generational based on older players' not wanting to see others achieve more distance. That isn't even a sensible notion.

 

It is almost too obvious, what is going on. Young/current Tour players have contracts with Titleist, which is the epicenter of the anti-rollback universe. Or TaylorMade, which has chosen to side with Titleist (because, I presume, TaylorMade's marketers read the opinions of golfers typified by the Golf WRX membership).

 

Jack Nicklaus; Tiger Woods; Tom Watson; Greg Norman; Ben Crenshaw; {Arnold Palmer}; {Seve Ballesteros}; Lee Trevino; Paul Azinger; David Feherty; {Sandy Tatum}; Geoff Ogilvy; Tom Kite; Tony Jacklin; Peter Dawson; Michael Bonallack; Deane Beman; Tom Doak. These are the guys who, almost uniquely, know tournament golf and golf course architecture. And that is what it is all about.

 

You can try to get a straight answer out of any current Titleist tour player (although Geoff Ogilvy is one!), but it won't be easy. I don't even think that you can get one of them to engage on the subject for any considerable Q-and-A.

 

If i am reading you post correctly, and the list of men that you have, you are kinda proving my point are you not?? Other than Tiger (who is not young), and the few names i do not know, Peter Dawson; Michael Bonallack; Deane Beman; Tom Doak. these guys all fall into the group that i would say make it a generational thing. Seems also a bit simplistic to say titelist is behind the "anti-rollback". is that simply because they have the most popular ball that you decide to single them out??

 

i wonder what mister Snell would say to this if he was willing to comment? He produces a very popular ball in smaller circles and post on this website. I would be interested in his thoughts on this. i doubt he would be willing to comment, and i dont blame him. he has a company to run as well.

 

also, i take it you are not willing to answer my original question.

[rangersgoalie]

What's a mystery to me is why friend 15th Club feels the need to post 39 times on this thread when obviously we're a bunch of rubes who don't even realize what a genius "Shack" is. Seems he'd be much better off just sticking the Shack's forum.

 

It's one thing for a windup artist like Shackelford to rack up page views from his acolytes on his own forum. The constant attempts to proselytize a mainstream bunch like GolfWRX'ers eventually becomes annoying in my opinion.

 

 

I understand that most GolfWRX members don't like the idea of a ball rollback. (I wonder if GolfWRX has done any online polling. I know how bad most online polling is, but then again if you just want a poll of Golf WRX members, that is the way to do it.)

 

 

 

I am unconcerned about a majority of GolfWRX members. What I aim to do is to maintain my side of the debate, so that no one at the blogs, or the magazines, or at the USGA or in the PGA of America, loses sight of the fact that there is a very determined pro-rollback movement. I don't want to surrender a forum like GolfWRX to Bomb and Gouge.

 

 

"My" side already has the biggest names in golf, and the most persuasive and articulate advocates with people like Huggan and Shackelford. And if our judge and jury is Mike Davis and the USGA/R&A ExCom members, I like our chances. I'm looking forward to the debate heating up, and guys like Spieth, Thomas and Fowler, with current Titleist contracts, being put on the spot.

 

 

I am curious, and yes i am profiling. How old are you?? i ask because i am curious if my assumption regarding those that want to reduce the ball is correct or if i am wrong. that this is mainly backed by older golfers that see the game moving past them. that is how i take Jacks opinion.

 

If you don't want to say, that's fine and i understand.

 

No, it is not "older golfers that see the game moving past them." It is "students and lovers of golf course architecture."

 

You'd be badly mistaken, if you thought that it was personal/generational based on older players' not wanting to see others achieve more distance. That isn't even a sensible notion.

 

It is almost too obvious, what is going on. Young/current Tour players have contracts with Titleist, which is the epicenter of the anti-rollback universe. Or TaylorMade, which has chosen to side with Titleist (because, I presume, TaylorMade's marketers read the opinions of golfers typified by the Golf WRX membership).

 

Jack Nicklaus; Tiger Woods; Tom Watson; Greg Norman; Ben Crenshaw; {Arnold Palmer}; {Seve Ballesteros}; Lee Trevino; Paul Azinger; David Feherty; {Sandy Tatum}; Geoff Ogilvy; Tom Kite; Tony Jacklin; Peter Dawson; Michael Bonallack; Deane Beman; Tom Doak. These are the guys who, almost uniquely, know tournament golf and golf course architecture. And that is what it is all about.

 

You can try to get a straight answer out of any current Titleist tour player (although Geoff Ogilvy is one!), but it won't be easy. I don't even think that you can get one of them to engage on the subject for any considerable Q-and-A.

 

What are you looking forward to those players being "put on the spot" last I checked, they developed their games, worked hard to become among the best, and reap the professional rewards for that?

"My side" is interesting reflects today's society quite nicely

[15th Club]

QuigleyDU; Titleist, and particularly under its former CEO Wally Uihlein, was by far the most aggressive opponent, anywhere, against a ball rollback. He did videos; Titleist put anti-rollback themes (remember the John Cleese character?) into its advertising; he wrote letters to newspapers and press releases to the world. And what we don't even know, is what Titleist's lawyers communicated to the USGA.

 

Do you remember what else Jack said recently, along with his stray 20% comment? He said that "Titleist controls the game."

 

Of course, Titleist is protecting its market share in the gigantic golf ball industry.

[15th Club]

What are you looking forward to those players being "put on the spot" last I checked, they developed their games, worked hard to become among the best, and reap the professional rewards for that?

 

It has nothing to do with their work ethic or success. :dntknw:

 

It has everything to do with how they would answer the questions of a Jack Nicklaus or a Greg Norman about tournament golf and golf courses. Or how they'd do in an interview with a Geoff Shackelford.

 

The allegation of a supposed generational divide in this is something that really bothers me, because it is so transparently contrived.

[QuigleyDU]

Quigley DU; Titleist, and particularly under its former CEO Wally Uihlein, was by far the most aggressive opponent, anywhere, against a ball rollback. He did videos; Titleist put anti-rollback themes (remember the John Cleese character?) into its advertising; he wrote letters to newspapers and press releases to the world. And what we don't even know, is what Titleist's lawyers communicated to the USGA.

 

Do you remember what else Jack said recently, along with his stray 20% comment? He said that "Titleist controls the game."

 

Of course, Titleist is protecting its market share in the gigantic golf ball industry.

 

Why does it seem that you tend to ignore arguments that do not seem to fit your narrative? You say it is not generational, you provide a list of old men, what company would not do everything it can to protect itself when threatened? I wonder what ever other company that produces a ball thinks about this? i am sure they would fall right in line with Titleist.

 

I think Jack has his own personal agenda in this. The "he plays a game i cant comprehend" is his entire motivation. While is legacy is safely intact and will go completely unchallenged that is what he is trying to protect, That, and how much money he has to spend to build courses.. Not the spirit of the game.

[QuigleyDU]

What are you looking forward to those players being "put on the spot" last I checked, they developed their games, worked hard to become among the best, and reap the professional rewards for that?

It has nothing to do with their work ethic or success. :dntknw: It has everything to do with how they would answer the questions of a Jack Nicklaus or a Greg Norman about tournament golf and golf courses. Or how they'd do in an interview with a Geoff Shackelford. The allegation of a supposed generational divide in this is something that really bothers me, because it is so transparently contrived.

 

and maybe so obviously correct and the complete opposite of contrived, meaning a completely natural thought process...

 

old guys see a game they couldn't play when they were young, they do noy like the way these whipper snappers play their beloved game, decide that they need to make themselves feel relevant again. figures out a way to try and relive the glory days.

 

especially with the examples you continue to present. Jack, Greg?? come on, from my experience, people tend to be the most offended by the truth.

[Sean2]

IF there was a rollback, and IF it only was applied to Touring professionals, I could see where this could be a headache for the golf ball manufacturers. They would have to re-tool to develop/manufacture a ball for a few thousand people, most who get the balls for free anyway. Sure, some amateurs would purchase the ball...but they would represent a very small percentage of all golfers. In order to recoup the cost of this re-tooling, they may have to pass the cost on to the consumer, who doesn't even play the ball.

 

And, which ball does the aspiring junior golfer play? At state am events? At colleges and universities?

 

This entire thing is a solution without a problem.

[DFS PFD]

What are you looking forward to those players being "put on the spot" last I checked, they developed their games, worked hard to become among the best, and reap the professional rewards for that?

 

It has nothing to do with their work ethic or success. :dntknw:

 

It has everything to do with how they would answer the questions of a Jack Nicklaus or a Greg Norman about tournament golf and golf courses. Or how they'd do in an interview with a Geoff Shackelford.

 

The allegation of a supposed generational divide in this is something that really bothers me, because it is so transparently contrived.

Regarding your notion that the generational argument is unsubstantiated, given your list of roll back supporters, I took all of their ages, threw out the oldest and youngest (Palmer and Woods) and found the average age to be 66.4 years. The range of this group is 54-78, a bit concentrated isn't it? Is that enough to correlate the generational pattern here?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

What are you looking forward to those players being "put on the spot" last I checked, they developed their games, worked hard to become among the best, and reap the professional rewards for that?

 

It has nothing to do with their work ethic or success. :dntknw:

 

It has everything to do with how they would answer the questions of a Jack Nicklaus or a Greg Norman about tournament golf and golf courses. Or how they'd do in an interview with a Geoff Shackelford.

 

The allegation of a supposed generational divide in this is something that really bothers me, because it is so transparently contrived.

 

Haha!

 

Manager: There's a Jeff Shackleton who wants an interview.

Actual Current Player: Who?

Manager: He said he was Jeff Schakle-uh-ford, and he wants to talk about the golf ball.

ACP: Who is this guy?

Manager: He says he's really important. I guess he's some sort of blogger.

ACP: Yeah, just send him a signed glove or something.

[North Butte]

What are you looking forward to those players being "put on the spot" last I checked, they developed their games, worked hard to become among the best, and reap the professional rewards for that?

 

It has nothing to do with their work ethic or success. :dntknw:

 

It has everything to do with how they would answer the questions of a Jack Nicklaus or a Greg Norman about tournament golf and golf courses. Or how they'd do in an interview with a Geoff Shackelford.

 

The allegation of a supposed generational divide in this is something that really bothers me, because it is so transparently contrived.

 

Haha!

 

Manager: There's a Jeff Shackleton who wants an interview.

Actual Current Player: Who?

Manager: He said he was Jeff Schakle-uh-ford, and he wants to talk about the golf ball.

ACP: Who is this guy?

Manager: He says he's really important. I guess he's some sort of blogger.

ACP: Yeah, just send him a signed glove or something.

 

Shack is like Brandel Chamblee’s mean kid brother.

[geesecougar2]

It's more about, the more bomb and gouge the game is, the less often the best players will win.

 

The less often the best players win, the more parity in winners.

 

The more parity in winners, the fewer superstars.

 

The fewer superstars, the less popular the game will be.

 

There is a reason every great player loves Augusta, why their list of winners is so impressive, why it's the major everyone wants to win (and every fan loves to watch). It was designed by one of their own, in a manner that tests them the way they feel they should be tested. Minimal rough, super slick undulating greens, requires positioning off the tee, hitting/missing the green in the right place to have a shot at birdie or to get up and down. It identifies the best player, and does a better job of it than any tricked out US Open can. Every year you have be real studs duking it out on Sunday, scrubs typically don't do well there. It would be a shame for that course to be rendered obsolete.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

IF there was a rollback, and IF it only was applied to Touring professionals, I could see where this could be a headache for the golf ball manufacturers. They would have to re-tool to develop/manufacture a ball for a few thousand people, most who get the balls for free anyway. Sure, some amateurs would purchase the ball...but they would represent a very small percentage of all golfers. In order to recoup the cost of this re-tooling, they may have to pass the cost on to the consumer, who doesn't even play the ball.

 

And, which ball does the aspiring junior golfer play? At state am events? At colleges and universities?

 

This entire thing is a solution without a problem.

 

"And the handicap system? It could be uh, uh, made to deal with it."

 

-Geoff Shakleford advocating TRI-furcation

[Ashley Schaeffer]

This is like if a retired CEO said business should be done on paper because there wasn't email in his day, and he's too old to learn to use a computer. Everyone would say, "Aww, he has good days and bad days" . . . via text.

[DFS PFD]

It's more about, the more bomb and gouge the game is, the less often the best players will win.

 

The less often the best players win, the more parity in winners.

 

The more parity in winners, the fewer superstars.

 

The fewer superstars, the less popular the game will be.

 

There is a reason every great player loves Augusta, why their list of winners is so impressive, why it's the major everyone wants to win (and every fan loves to watch). It was designed by one of their own, in a manner that tests them the way they feel they should be tested. Minimal rough, super slick undulating greens, requires positioning off the tee, hitting/missing the green in the right place to have a shot at birdie or to get up and down. It identifies the best player, and does a better job of it than any tricked out US Open can. Every year you have be real studs duking it out on Sunday, scrubs typically don't do well there. It would be a shame for that course to be rendered obsolete.

 

We certainly have a superstar shortage right now.

[MtlJeff]

It's more about, the more bomb and gouge the game is, the less often the best players will win.

 

The less often the best players win, the more parity in winners.

 

The more parity in winners, the fewer superstars.

 

The fewer superstars, the less popular the game will be.

 

There is a reason every great player loves Augusta, why their list of winners is so impressive, why it's the major everyone wants to win (and every fan loves to watch). It was designed by one of their own, in a manner that tests them the way they feel they should be tested. Minimal rough, super slick undulating greens, requires positioning off the tee, hitting/missing the green in the right place to have a shot at birdie or to get up and down. It identifies the best player, and does a better job of it than any tricked out US Open can. Every year you have be real studs duking it out on Sunday, scrubs typically don't do well there. It would be a shame for that course to be rendered obsolete.

 

Very hard to prove the ball is the culprit there though. Could also very easily make the argument that more money led to greater capitalization of talent. And with greater capitalization in a sport where there is no way to defend your opponent, parity is the likely outcome

[Ashley Schaeffer]

It's more about, the more bomb and gouge the game is, the less often the best players will win.

 

The less often the best players win, the more parity in winners.

 

The more parity in winners, the fewer superstars.

 

The fewer superstars, the less popular the game will be.

 

There is a reason every great player loves Augusta, why their list of winners is so impressive, why it's the major everyone wants to win (and every fan loves to watch). It was designed by one of their own, in a manner that tests them the way they feel they should be tested. Minimal rough, super slick undulating greens, requires positioning off the tee, hitting/missing the green in the right place to have a shot at birdie or to get up and down. It identifies the best player, and does a better job of it than any tricked out US Open can. Every year you have be real studs duking it out on Sunday, scrubs typically don't do well there. It would be a shame for that course to be rendered obsolete.

 

What if bomb and gouge is the state of the game? What if that partially defines the "best player"? Why can't it?

Put another way: how is Jason Day's stymie game?

[bladehunter]

It's more about, the more bomb and gouge the game is, the less often the best players will win.

 

The less often the best players win, the more parity in winners.

 

The more parity in winners, the fewer superstars.

 

The fewer superstars, the less popular the game will be.

 

There is a reason every great player loves Augusta, why their list of winners is so impressive, why it's the major everyone wants to win (and every fan loves to watch). It was designed by one of their own, in a manner that tests them the way they feel they should be tested. Minimal rough, super slick undulating greens, requires positioning off the tee, hitting/missing the green in the right place to have a shot at birdie or to get up and down. It identifies the best player, and does a better job of it than any tricked out US Open can. Every year you have be real studs duking it out on Sunday, scrubs typically don't do well there. It would be a shame for that course to be rendered obsolete.

 

We certainly have a superstar shortage right now.

 

Very true. we Have to sew 10 of them together like power rangers to truly make 1 dominant player.