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

[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.

 

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

 

I can't even name one, but if we roll the ball back I bet they'll finally find their potential!

[mjen43]

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?

 

IDK about JDay's stymie game, but JTs is elite:

 

[geesecougar2]

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?

 

My view is that bomb and gouge DID partially define the best player, back when it was a lot harder to bomb and gouge it. Seve was the prototypical bomb and gouge, he did it with tiny persimmon heads and low lofted wedges. That was baller.

 

Now that the equipment has made it easier. Even if just marginally, it has changed the fundamental calculus of risk/reward enough to swing the odds further away from the best players.

[geesecougar2]

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.

 

I can't even name one, but if we roll the ball back I bet they'll finally find their potential!

 

None of these guys are superstars, no more so than Paddy or Retief were superstars. These guys are just young and good looking and fit the prototype of what the PGA Tour wants in their stars, so they are built up as superstars.

 

But that's not to say that if they were playing with equipment from the 80's and 90's, Jordan, Rory, Dustin, Jason, JT, et al wouldn't still be the best. They might actually have won more by now......

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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?

 

My view is that bomb and gouge DID partially define the best player, back when it was a lot harder to bomb and gouge it. Seve was the prototypical bomb and gouge, he did it with tiny persimmon heads and low lofted wedges. That was baller.

 

Now that the equipment has made it easier. Even if just marginally, it has changed the fundamental calculus of risk/reward enough to swing the odds further away from the best players.

 

Interesting thought. However, if two players bomb it into the rough, doesn't the best player (at that game) still win?

I guess it boils down to the fact that some people appear to care a lot about how, and not just how many (and also making sure how many is a high enough number).

[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.

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?

 

No. As I keep saying repeatedly; there are non-generational reasons at work. All of the young guys have big-dollar equipment contracts. Some of the older guys do too. But not so many with Titleist and/or TaylorMade. And really, I'm not so sure that apart from those two, a ball rollback is so bothersome to any other manufacturer.

 

Also, I can sure think of an older guy, who is a staunch rollback opponent; Brad Faxon. Who has been a kind of a mouthpiece for Titleist, for about 20 years. Under contract at all times.

 

Further, it is the older guys who have the deepest appreciation of architecture. So correlation is not causation. A contract with Titleist is near-perfect "causation" in this instance Ogilvy being the one remarkable exception, as a guy with a Titleist contract who has spoken up for a rollback. Has anybody ever asked G.O. about that? I'm not aware of it. It would be really interesting.

[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.

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?

 

No. As I keep saying repeatedly; there are non-generational reasons at work. All of the young guys have big-dollar equipment contracts. Some of the older guys do too. But not so many with Titleist and/or TaylorMade. And really, I'm not so sure that apart from those two, a ball rollback is so bothersome to any other manufacturer.

 

Also, I can sure think of an older guy, who is a staunch rollback opponent; Brad Faxon. Who has been a kind of a mouthpiece for Titleist, for about 20 years. Under contract at all times.

 

Further, it is the older guys who have the deepest appreciation of architecture. So correlation is not causation. A contract with Titleist is near-perfect "causation" in this instance Ogilvy being the one remarkable exception, as a guy with a Titleist contract who has spoken up for a rollback. Has anybody ever asked G.O. about that? I'm not aware of it. It would be really interesting.

 

Your argument is losing so much ground with me. While I disagreed I at least appreciated your argument in the beginning. You are quickly losing your credibility with me and becoming more and more what feels like a conspiracy theorist.

 

I am not sure how you cannot see that what you keep saying is one generally wrong (old guys appreciate architechture). Two that that is some how “evil big golf business” in titleist that is keeping this from happening. And how that is somehow not related to age.

[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.

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?

 

No. As I keep saying repeatedly; there are non-generational reasons at work. All of the young guys have big-dollar equipment contracts. Some of the older guys do too. But not so many with Titleist and/or TaylorMade. And really, I'm not so sure that apart from those two, a ball rollback is so bothersome to any other manufacturer.

 

Also, I can sure think of an older guy, who is a staunch rollback opponent; Brad Faxon. Who has been a kind of a mouthpiece for Titleist, for about 20 years. Under contract at all times.

 

Further, it is the older guys who have the deepest appreciation of architecture. So correlation is not causation. A contract with Titleist is near-perfect "causation" in this instance Ogilvy being the one remarkable exception, as a guy with a Titleist contract who has spoken up for a rollback. Has anybody ever asked G.O. about that? I'm not aware of it. It would be really interesting.

 

Nicklaus: "Architecture". That's it! We'll call it a defense of "architecture". That'll throw them off the scent of our true motives.

Irwin: Nobody should be able to dismantle golf courses like you did, Jack. That's, just . . . unfair.

Nicklaus: Kind words, Hale. Thanks. I bet they buy it.

Watson: Totally.

Trevino: Are you gonna finish that, Hale?

Irwin: The crust? No. Have at it, man.

Trevino: Sweet!

*check comes*

Jack: Well, my soup was cold, but they didn't take it off the bill. I'm not tipping for it.

Watson: Totally. Whatever you say.

Irwin: Yeah, you're the best!

Trevino: Yo, you gonna finish that parsley?

Faxon: Jack, c'mon, it was on the early bird. It was like $2.00.

Jack: Shut it, youngblood! You shouldn't even be here.

*Norm's waitress gets a $5.12 tip on a $55.00 check*

[marmooskapaul]

Maybe Callaway already has a reduced distance ball produced. Maybe pro Callaway people are trying to obtain a larger portion of the ball market by kissing up to USGA and RA...or through any means necessary to change rules governing the golf ball?? Maybe they would make a dent in Titleists strangle hold on the ball market?

Maybe...maybe not...lol.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Maybe Callaway already has a reduced distance ball produced. Maybe pro Callaway people are trying to obtain a larger portion of the ball market by kissing up to USGA and RA...or through any means necessary to change rules governing the golf ball?? Maybe they would make a dent in Titleists strangle hold on the ball market?

Maybe...maybe not...lol.

 

Playing the long game by betting on the short game...I love it.

[knock it close]

Maybe Callaway already has a reduced distance ball produced. Maybe pro Callaway people are trying to obtain a larger portion of the ball market by kissing up to USGA and RA...or through any means necessary to change rules governing the golf ball?? Maybe they would make a dent in Titleists strangle hold on the ball market?

Maybe...maybe not...lol.

 

Playing the long game by betting on the short game...I love it.

That would be pretty smart imo, if you're any company other than Titleist I'd be pushing this to put a dent in their perceived superiority.

[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?

 

No. As I keep saying repeatedly; there are non-generational reasons at work. All of the young guys have big-dollar equipment contracts. Some of the older guys do too. But not so many with Titleist and/or TaylorMade. And really, I'm not so sure that apart from those two, a ball rollback is so bothersome to any other manufacturer.

 

Also, I can sure think of an older guy, who is a staunch rollback opponent; Brad Faxon. Who has been a kind of a mouthpiece for Titleist, for about 20 years. Under contract at all times.

 

Further, it is the older guys who have the deepest appreciation of architecture. So correlation is not causation. A contract with Titleist is near-perfect "causation" in this instance Ogilvy being the one remarkable exception, as a guy with a Titleist contract who has spoken up for a rollback. Has anybody ever asked G.O. about that? I'm not aware of it. It would be really interesting.

 

Your argument is losing so much ground with me. While I disagreed I at least appreciated your argument in the beginning. You are quickly losing your credibility with me and becoming more and more what feels like a conspiracy theorist.

 

I am not sure how you cannot see that what you keep saying is one generally wrong (old guys appreciate architechture). Two that that is some how "evil big golf business" in titleist that is keeping this from happening. And how that is somehow not related to age.

 

I wonder if the older guys (since apparently there's no generational issue here?) have the most vested interest in the subject because; they have designed a lot of courses in the last 20 years, they're likely (I have no clue) owners or share holders in a lot of these ventures, or they're sick and tired of watching the new generation of golfers be better off than they were. I'm sure I would appreciate the "architecture" of a course if I designed it a lot more!

[QuigleyDU]

 

 

Right in line. These guys who’s age is of no consequence and has nothing to do with the issue. as “gentlemen” of the game, they are concerned for its well being and that their beloved architecture.

 

But their age doesn’t matter. Pfft.

 

 

[15th Club]

https://www.golfchannel.com/video/jack-tour-pros-cant-believe-nicklaus-stats/

[Ashley Schaeffer]

https://www.golfchan...nicklaus-stats/

 

The reddest of herrings. Getting pretty desperate, 15.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Maybe Callaway already has a reduced distance ball produced. Maybe pro Callaway people are trying to obtain a larger portion of the ball market by kissing up to USGA and RA...or through any means necessary to change rules governing the golf ball?? Maybe they would make a dent in Titleists strangle hold on the ball market?

Maybe...maybe not...lol.

 

Playing the long game by betting on the short game...I love it.

That would be pretty smart imo, if you're any company other than Titleist I'd be pushing this to put a dent in their perceived superiority.

 

Can't beat 'em? Lobby to change the industry.

It's a fun idea, but I'd bet my house that Titleist engineers have tech at the ready if the USGA decides to change/"grow" the game.. But, maybe Titleist thinks that it doesn't have to hedge on account of the whims of a useless governing body. It should be interesting when absolutely nothing happens.

[mjen43]

Maybe Callaway already has a reduced distance ball produced. Maybe pro Callaway people are trying to obtain a larger portion of the ball market by kissing up to USGA and RA...or through any means necessary to change rules governing the golf ball?? Maybe they would make a dent in Titleists strangle hold on the ball market?

Maybe...maybe not...lol.

 

Playing the long game by betting on the short game...I love it.

That would be pretty smart imo, if you're any company other than Titleist I'd be pushing this to put a dent in their perceived superiority.

 

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

[15th Club]

Maybe Callaway already has a reduced distance ball produced. Maybe pro Callaway people are trying to obtain a larger portion of the ball market by kissing up to USGA and RA...or through any means necessary to change rules governing the golf ball?? Maybe they would make a dent in Titleists strangle hold on the ball market?

Maybe...maybe not...lol.

 

Playing the long game by betting on the short game...I love it.

That would be pretty smart imo, if you're any company other than Titleist I'd be pushing this to put a dent in their perceived superiority.

 

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

 

You are right, to have a hard time understanding that. After the rollback, people will still play golf; they will still need new golf balls.

 

The main theory seems to be that if the status quo in the golf ball market were dramatically upset, Titleist could only lose; because they are the Number 1 golf ball brand by far right now and the only place to go from Number 1, is down. Not that fewer balls will be sold; but that Titleist's market share will be damaged. And so, no one has been more aggressive in policing the anti-rollback side of the debate than Titleist. With its multimillion-dollar payments to Spieth, Thomas, Fowler, Watson and all the others, Titleist is keeping them all out of the ball debate.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Maybe Callaway already has a reduced distance ball produced. Maybe pro Callaway people are trying to obtain a larger portion of the ball market by kissing up to USGA and RA...or through any means necessary to change rules governing the golf ball?? Maybe they would make a dent in Titleists strangle hold on the ball market?

Maybe...maybe not...lol.

 

Playing the long game by betting on the short game...I love it.

That would be pretty smart imo, if you're any company other than Titleist I'd be pushing this to put a dent in their perceived superiority.

 

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

 

You are right, to have a hard time understanding that. After the rollback, people will still play golf; they will still need new golf balls.

 

The main theory seems to be that if the status quo in the golf ball market were dramatically upset, Titleist could only lose; because they are the Number 1 golf ball brand by far right now and the only place to go from Number 1, is down. Not that fewer balls will be sold; but that Titleist's market share will be damaged. And so, no one has been more aggressive in policing the anti-rollback side of the debate than Titleist. With its multimillion-dollar payments to Spieth, Thomas, Fowler, Watson and all the others, Titleist is keeping them all out of the ball debate.

 

Those guys aren't RGs, right?

You won't answer, because you can't.

You definitely have to be a troll at this point. Nobody would say those guys aren't RGs.

[15th Club]

...

 

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

 

You are right, to have a hard time understanding that. After the rollback, people will still play golf; they will still need new golf balls.

 

The main theory seems to be that if the status quo in the golf ball market were dramatically upset, Titleist could only lose; because they are the Number 1 golf ball brand by far right now and the only place to go from Number 1, is down. Not that fewer balls will be sold; but that Titleist's market share will be damaged. And so, no one has been more aggressive in policing the anti-rollback side of the debate than Titleist. With its multimillion-dollar payments to Spieth, Thomas, Fowler, Watson and all the others, Titleist is keeping them all out of the ball debate.

 

Those guys aren't RGs, right?

You won't answer, because you can't.

You definitely have to be a troll at this point. Nobody would say those guys aren't RGs.

 

RGs? Are you referring back to your plucking my term "real golfers" out of context?

 

I don't know what to say. They are some extraordinary golfers, in their 20's, without much of anything notable in the way of golf course architecture study or experience. Collectively, they have said almost nothing about a ball rollback. Again, they are each receiving something like $5-10 million per year from Titleist. So I don't expect them to say much of anything about it, if it were to contradict Titleist's market-share interest.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

...

 

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

 

You are right, to have a hard time understanding that. After the rollback, people will still play golf; they will still need new golf balls.

 

The main theory seems to be that if the status quo in the golf ball market were dramatically upset, Titleist could only lose; because they are the Number 1 golf ball brand by far right now and the only place to go from Number 1, is down. Not that fewer balls will be sold; but that Titleist's market share will be damaged. And so, no one has been more aggressive in policing the anti-rollback side of the debate than Titleist. With its multimillion-dollar payments to Spieth, Thomas, Fowler, Watson and all the others, Titleist is keeping them all out of the ball debate.

 

Those guys aren't RGs, right?

You won't answer, because you can't.

You definitely have to be a troll at this point. Nobody would say those guys aren't RGs.

 

RGs? Are you referring back to your plucking my term "real golfers" out of context?

 

I don't know what to say. They are some extraordinary golfers, in their 20's, without much of anything notable in the way of golf course architecture study or experience. Collectively, they have said almost nothing about a ball rollback. Again, they are each receiving something like $5-10 million per year from Titleist. So I don't expect them to say much of anything about it, if it were to contradict Titleist's market-share interest.

 

Nope. Plucked it directly from within context. You know it because you wrote it.

[15th Club]

...

 

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

 

You are right, to have a hard time understanding that. After the rollback, people will still play golf; they will still need new golf balls.

 

The main theory seems to be that if the status quo in the golf ball market were dramatically upset, Titleist could only lose; because they are the Number 1 golf ball brand by far right now and the only place to go from Number 1, is down. Not that fewer balls will be sold; but that Titleist's market share will be damaged. And so, no one has been more aggressive in policing the anti-rollback side of the debate than Titleist. With its multimillion-dollar payments to Spieth, Thomas, Fowler, Watson and all the others, Titleist is keeping them all out of the ball debate.

 

Those guys aren't RGs, right?

You won't answer, because you can't.

You definitely have to be a troll at this point. Nobody would say those guys aren't RGs.

 

RGs? Are you referring back to your plucking my term "real golfers" out of context?

 

I don't know what to say. They are some extraordinary golfers, in their 20's, without much of anything notable in the way of golf course architecture study or experience. Collectively, they have said almost nothing about a ball rollback. Again, they are each receiving something like $5-10 million per year from Titleist. So I don't expect them to say much of anything about it, if it were to contradict Titleist's market-share interest.

 

Nope. Plucked it directly from within context. You know it because you wrote it.

 

So, maybe you could state with a bit more clarity what exactly your point is. I'll be happy to respond.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

So, maybe you could state with a bit more clarity what exactly your point is. I'll be happy to respond.

 

No need. We all know where you stand. RGs must agree with you, and you know more than those peasant non-RGs like Fowler and Thomas because you read a book once.

Like Clark from Good Will Hunting.

[15th Club]

So, maybe you could state with a bit more clarity what exactly your point is. I'll be happy to respond.

 

No need. We all know where you stand. RGs must agree with you, and you know more than those peasant non-RGs like Fowler and Thomas because you read a book once.

Like Clark from Good Will Hunting.

 

I understand now. You didn't have a point.

 

And I sure don't think Fowler and Thomas are peasants; not with the millions they are making from Titleist. And I don't even know what their views on a ball roll back are. I don't think they have said. I feel as though I know why they haven't said anything, but I am sure not claiming to know what their real views are.

[rangersgoalie]

you don't expect them to say anything if it impacts Titleist market share. Doesn't that mean you believe they're pro roll back but won't say anything somas not to impact their contracts?

 

Seems they'd be willing to support current technology otherwise and be encouraged to bash the roll back?

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

So, maybe you could state with a bit more clarity what exactly your point is. I'll be happy to respond.

 

No need. We all know where you stand. RGs must agree with you, and you know more than those peasant non-RGs like Fowler and Thomas because you read a book once.

Like Clark from Good Will Hunting.

 

I understand now. You didn't have a point.

 

And I sure don't think Fowler and Thomas are peasants; not with the millions they are making from Titleist. And I don't even know what their views on a ball roll back are. I don't think they have said. I feel as though I know why they haven't said anything, but I am sure not claiming to know what their real views are.

 

Troll on, RG!

[lowheel]

Maybe Callaway already has a reduced distance ball produced. Maybe pro Callaway people are trying to obtain a larger portion of the ball market by kissing up to USGA and RA...or through any means necessary to change rules governing the golf ball?? Maybe they would make a dent in Titleists strangle hold on the ball market?

Maybe...maybe not...lol.

 

Playing the long game by betting on the short game...I love it.

That would be pretty smart imo, if you're any company other than Titleist I'd be pushing this to put a dent in their perceived superiority.

 

I still don't understand how a ball rollback would put any kind of dent in the ball market. Is the idea behind this conspiracy theory that Titleist just doesn't want to pay for R&D? Or that the ball rollback will shrink the game?

 

It absolutely would but it will never happen because the manufacturers would file a class action so fast and get an injunction overnight.

Nobody is buying an older slower phone and nobody is buying a shorter ball.Human nature. these companies legal teams are praying this happens but it wont

[OrangeGravy]

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.

 

Ball roll back or not, this to me is and always has been golf's major issue where popularity is concerned. A sport like golf can only break through to the mainstream if there is a huge star. Anything short of that and it's mostly just a footnote even in the sports world. Parity may appeal to hardcore golfers, but it puts everyone else asleep.

[Valtiel]

I don't know about you guys but I'm sure glad I have a degree in Golf Course Architecture from the University of Pretentious Arguments so I can be considered a Real Golfer™. I don't know how anyone can show their face on the course without one.

[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.

 

Ball roll back or not, this to me is and always has been golf's major issue where popularity is concerned. A sport like golf can only break through to the mainstream if there is a huge star. Anything short of that and it's mostly just a footnote even in the sports world. Parity may appeal to hardcore golfers, but it puts everyone else asleep.

 

totally agree.. it shows the fickle nature of the world rankings and really is a debbie downer in terms of anyone wanting to see greatness...We have gotten some sparks from Spieth ...1 or two from Rory when he shows up, and DJ i guess at times... But None that last for months... I personally think if the longer hitters were given the full advantage back that we could see someone dominate ... DAy, or DJ being the two most likely ... But ill repeat.. I dont think its the ball alone... Its the huge forgiving driver ... and Now creeping up to join its the 290 yard driving iron... those two clubs are too easy for too many in the field to use. Anyone who doubts that should just go buy a 975D and some small long irons and play for the next month... Sure 'these guys are good"...but they still miss , and misses will change scores.