The primary anti-roll back the ball argument

[clevited]

Too bad these fairways at the US Open aren't softer, this course would be much more difficult if it wasn't for all that roll.

 

+1.

 

But seriously, did you hear Jordan Spieth's presser on Tuesday or Wednesday? He said something really smart and interesting. He said that of course the fairways are cut wider now at Shinnecock Hills, but that as this week goes on, with more sunny weather and more breezy, less-humid air, the course is going to dry out and get firmer and faster. And that the firmer, faster fairways will thereby play as narrower fairways, even though they are physically cut wider than before. There's more to it than just that, but it is a window into a good player's attitude toward firm and fast fairways. The GolfWRX crowd thinks that firm and fast fairways are like a huge advantage for touring professionals who then enjoy exorbitant amounts of roll. But on an elegantly designed course like Shinnecock Hills, "firm and fast" means that players have to contend with the ground game. It requires a lot more strategy, skill and shot-shaping. But of course since there is all of that roll, it becomes all the more important to scale back the balls to fit the course.

 

You are pretty good at taking statements and twisting them to favor your position. The anti-rollback crowd IS NOT saying that the fast and firm fairways are a huge advantage to the touring pro. They are saying that fast and firm fairways EXAGGERATE the distance the pro's are hitting the ball therefore the hue and cry for a rollback is misguided. Furthermore, GOLFWRX's are not opposed to fast and firm fairways, they are opposed to fast and firm fairways that don't have consequences. This is what is happening on your standard tour event. Fast and firm fairways with light rough and no serious hazards, hence the emergence of the concept of bomb and gouge. The argument for softening and narrowing the fairways and growing up the rough is not a protest against link style courses, it is a potential solution of managing Tour distance without consequences to the average Joe.

 

There is nothing smart or interesting about Speith's comments. Of course windy, sunny, and humid weather makes fairways fast and firm and obviously when this occurs they play "narrower". Anybody who has ever played at Bandon or over in Scotland or Ireland knows this and quickly realizes why the fairways are designed the way they are relative to your standard American golf course.

 

You make the assumption that if they roll the ball back the ground game is going to come back in vogue. The ground game has never been in vogue on the American PGA Tour. Not when Hogan, Palmer, or Nicklaus played. In fact even in Links golf, despite the need at times for a particular shot, the game is not played on the ground UNLESS there is wind involved. If there is no wind and the course happens to be soft due to over night rains, the pros tear the place apart..through the air.

 

If you roll the ball back, the ground game isn't coming back on the classic courses, in fact how many classic courses are even designed to be played like that? I suspect the answer is few. If you roll the ball back and the average tour drive is 250 those guys are going to get on trackman and maximize launch conditions with their gear for max carry. They won't give one rat's rear end about roll out.

 

Very well put, you represent most of us anti roll backers very well with that post.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Too bad these fairways at the US Open aren't softer, this course would be much more difficult if it wasn't for all that roll.

 

+1.

 

But seriously, did you hear Jordan Spieth's presser on Tuesday or Wednesday? He said something really smart and interesting. He said that of course the fairways are cut wider now at Shinnecock Hills, but that as this week goes on, with more sunny weather and more breezy, less-humid air, the course is going to dry out and get firmer and faster. And that the firmer, faster fairways will thereby play as narrower fairways, even though they are physically cut wider than before. There's more to it than just that, but it is a window into a good player's attitude toward firm and fast fairways. The GolfWRX crowd thinks that firm and fast fairways are like a huge advantage for touring professionals who then enjoy exorbitant amounts of roll. But on an elegantly designed course like Shinnecock Hills, "firm and fast" means that players have to contend with the ground game. It requires a lot more strategy, skill and shot-shaping. But of course since there is all of that roll, it becomes all the more important to scale back the balls to fit the course.

 

You are pretty good at taking statements and twisting them to favor your position. The anti-rollback crowd IS NOT saying that the fast and firm fairways are a huge advantage to the touring pro. They are saying that fast and firm fairways EXAGGERATE the distance the pro's are hitting the ball therefore the hue and cry for a rollback is misguided. Furthermore, GOLFWRX's are not opposed to fast and firm fairways, they are opposed to fast and firm fairways that don't have consequences. This is what is happening on your standard tour event. Fast and firm fairways with light rough and no serious hazards, hence the emergence of the concept of bomb and gouge. The argument for softening and narrowing the fairways and growing up the rough is not a protest against link style courses, it is a potential solution of managing Tour distance without consequences to the average Joe.

 

There is nothing smart or interesting about Speith's comments. Of course windy, sunny, and humid weather makes fairways fast and firm and obviously when this occurs they play "narrower". Anybody who has ever played at Bandon or over in Scotland or Ireland knows this and quickly realizes why the fairways are designed the way they are relative to your standard American golf course.

 

You make the assumption that if they roll the ball back the ground game is going to come back in vogue. The ground game has never been in vogue on the American PGA Tour. Not when Hogan, Palmer, or Nicklaus played. In fact even in Links golf, despite the need at times for a particular shot, the game is not played on the ground UNLESS there is wind involved. If there is no wind and the course happens to be soft due to over night rains, the pros tear the place apart..through the air.

 

If you roll the ball back, the ground game isn't coming back on the classic courses, in fact how many classic courses are even designed to be played like that? I suspect the answer is few. If you roll the ball back and the average tour drive is 250 those guys are going to get on trackman and maximize launch conditions with their gear for max carry. They won't give one rat's rear end about roll out.

 

Great post.

His love of the ground game and firm/fast conditions, concerns about real estate prices, obsolescence of classic layouts that the pros don't even play now, and designer's intent, aren't the real reasons he wants a rollback.

Those are fake reasons that make it impossible to achieve his "solution" without rolling back the ball.

 

His hate of Titleist is the real reason he wants a rollback.

Otherwise, he wouldn't be so dismissive of every other valid suggestion.

[clevited]

Too bad these fairways at the US Open aren't softer, this course would be much more difficult if it wasn't for all that roll.

 

+1.

 

But seriously, did you hear Jordan Spieth's presser on Tuesday or Wednesday? He said something really smart and interesting. He said that of course the fairways are cut wider now at Shinnecock Hills, but that as this week goes on, with more sunny weather and more breezy, less-humid air, the course is going to dry out and get firmer and faster. And that the firmer, faster fairways will thereby play as narrower fairways, even though they are physically cut wider than before. There's more to it than just that, but it is a window into a good player's attitude toward firm and fast fairways. The GolfWRX crowd thinks that firm and fast fairways are like a huge advantage for touring professionals who then enjoy exorbitant amounts of roll. But on an elegantly designed course like Shinnecock Hills, "firm and fast" means that players have to contend with the ground game. It requires a lot more strategy, skill and shot-shaping. But of course since there is all of that roll, it becomes all the more important to scale back the balls to fit the course.

 

You are pretty good at taking statements and twisting them to favor your position. The anti-rollback crowd IS NOT saying that the fast and firm fairways are a huge advantage to the touring pro. They are saying that fast and firm fairways EXAGGERATE the distance the pro's are hitting the ball therefore the hue and cry for a rollback is misguided. Furthermore, GOLFWRX's are not opposed to fast and firm fairways, they are opposed to fast and firm fairways that don't have consequences. This is what is happening on your standard tour event. Fast and firm fairways with light rough and no serious hazards, hence the emergence of the concept of bomb and gouge. The argument for softening and narrowing the fairways and growing up the rough is not a protest against link style courses, it is a potential solution of managing Tour distance without consequences to the average Joe.

 

There is nothing smart or interesting about Speith's comments. Of course windy, sunny, and humid weather makes fairways fast and firm and obviously when this occurs they play "narrower". Anybody who has ever played at Bandon or over in Scotland or Ireland knows this and quickly realizes why the fairways are designed the way they are relative to your standard American golf course.

 

You make the assumption that if they roll the ball back the ground game is going to come back in vogue. The ground game has never been in vogue on the American PGA Tour. Not when Hogan, Palmer, or Nicklaus played. In fact even in Links golf, despite the need at times for a particular shot, the game is not played on the ground UNLESS there is wind involved. If there is no wind and the course happens to be soft due to over night rains, the pros tear the place apart..through the air.

 

If you roll the ball back, the ground game isn't coming back on the classic courses, in fact how many classic courses are even designed to be played like that? I suspect the answer is few. If you roll the ball back and the average tour drive is 250 those guys are going to get on trackman and maximize launch conditions with their gear for max carry. They won't give one rat's rear end about roll out.

 

Great post.

His love of the ground game and firm/fast conditions, concerns about real estate prices, obsolescence of classic layouts that the pros don't even play now, and designer's intent, aren't the real reasons he wants a rollback.

Those are fake reasons that make it impossible to achieve his "solution" without rolling back the ball.

 

His hate of Titleist is the real reason he wants a rollback.

Otherwise, he wouldn't be so dismissive of every other valid suggestion.

 

I almost forgot to say that I approve and applaud the paraphrasing you performed regarding us rollback haters.

[North Texas]

Agree to disagree. I've disliked him from the first time I laid eyes on him, and I will never respect him.

 

Geez, not exactly open-minded, are you?

 

What does that have to do with anything?

I don't have to like or respect Jack Nicklaus.

 

For the record, I don't care for Jack either. Or Gary Player. Mostly because of their ramblings about the BALL or this or that needs to change. Lost any respect I may have once had for them.

Based on other comments i think I understand where you are coming from.

 

It is quite possible to respect their achievements in golf but to have little or no respect-or give their opinions little weight- on matters such as this one.

 

Let's face it. You guys don't respect or like anyone that has a different opinion than you do because you truly believe you are the smartest people in the room.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

Let's face it. You guys don't respect or like anyone that has a different opinion than you do because you truly believe you are the smartest people in the room.

 

I have a different opinion, but I respect you, NT.

[clevited]

 

 

Let's face it. You guys don't respect or like anyone that has a different opinion than you do because you truly believe you are the smartest people in the room.

 

Na man. I don't have respect for has beens that are trying to change the game by using their fame and "pull" to get a change to happen in a sport they no longer play competitively, and in a sport where they obviously don't understand who they would be hurting and how if they get their way. I don't respect it when people don't use their brains and only use their emotion to make or push for something that negatively effects the majority.

 

[Shilgy]

 

Let's face it. You guys don't respect or like anyone that has a different opinion than you do because you truly believe you are the smartest people in the room.

If you read my post again you may understand that I only stated I understood his pov.

 

Jack claims he's been complaining about the ball since 1977. Really? What changed from the first 17 years or so of his career? What technical marvels were introduced in equipment in that time frame? Other than perhaps his distance advantage was steadily eroding?

 

Personally I believe any golfer HAS to respect Jack's career. How can you not? That said I've never been a fan of many of his course designs, especially here in Arizona.

 

Does the ball go further than ideal on tour? Perhaps. Does that mean everyone should play a ball that is rolled back some absurd amount. I think not. When Jack and company say 20% I have never ever heard or read any of them refer to the common man. Not once. Why is that? Do they really not care? Or is their view so myopic that only how the elite play the game matters?

[North Texas]

 

Let's face it. You guys don't respect or like anyone that has a different opinion than you do because you truly believe you are the smartest people in the room.

If you read my post again you may understand that I only stated I understood his pov.

 

Jack claims he's been complaining about the ball since 1977. Really? What changed from the first 17 years or so of his career? What technical marvels were introduced in equipment in that time frame? Other than perhaps his distance advantage was steadily eroding?

 

Personally I believe any golfer HAS to respect Jack's career. How can you not? That said I've never been a fan of many of his course designs, especially here in Arizona.

 

Does the ball go further than ideal on tour? Perhaps. Does that mean everyone should play a ball that is rolled back some absurd amount. I think not. When Jack and company say 20% I have never ever heard or read any of them refer to the common man. Not once. Why is that? Do they really not care? Or is their view so myopic that only how the elite play the game matters?

 

Good post Shilgy with some good and valid points.

 

For the record, I'm not fond of playing Jack's course either. And I don't totally agree with him on what is for now a "supposed" roll back issue.

 

But one of the all-time greats, who has done many things for the good of the game, he has earned the respect of being heard on any golf matter regardless of whether or I, or anyone else, agree with him.

 

And he has done absolutely nothing to earn the put-downs and insults that some are throwing his way.

[Big Ben]

Hey let's roll the ball back!? PLEASE

193 doubles or more today....

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Let's face it. You guys don't respect or like anyone that has a different opinion than you do because you truly believe you are the smartest people in the room.

If you read my post again you may understand that I only stated I understood his pov.

 

Jack claims he's been complaining about the ball since 1977. Really? What changed from the first 17 years or so of his career? What technical marvels were introduced in equipment in that time frame? Other than perhaps his distance advantage was steadily eroding?

 

Personally I believe any golfer HAS to respect Jack's career. How can you not? That said I've never been a fan of many of his course designs, especially here in Arizona.

 

Does the ball go further than ideal on tour? Perhaps. Does that mean everyone should play a ball that is rolled back some absurd amount. I think not. When Jack and company say 20% I have never ever heard or read any of them refer to the common man. Not once. Why is that? Do they really not care? Or is their view so myopic that only how the elite play the game matters?

 

Good post Shilgy with some good and valid points.

 

For the record, I'm not fond of playing Jack's course either. And I don't totally agree with him on what is for now a "supposed" roll back issue.

 

But one of the all-time greats, who has done many things for the good of the game, he has earned the respect of being heard on any golf matter regardless of whether or I, or anyone else, agree with him.

 

And he has done absolutely nothing to earn the put-downs and insults that some are throwing his way.

 

I should just clarify that I'm simply not a fan of his. I never have been from the first time I saw him play on TV when I was like 8 years old. I could go into many reasons why, but that isn't what this thread is about. I'll leave it at the fact he's somehow proud he's been complaining about something since 1977. That is a microcosm of why I feel the way I do about him. I don't think everyone should share my opinion, and have no problems with people worshipping him. My minority opinion doesn't mean he wasn't great at golf. He was. Was.

[bladehunter]

Jacks steel driver shaft was 2” shorter than Stenson’s 3W..

Just sayin’

 

Not saying the ball hasn’t changed, only that equipment improvements are equal to ball upgrades in terms of distance gained...

The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho

 

 

-Chris

 

Agree. I’m totaly on board with everyone playing steel !

 

Hey let's roll the ball back!? PLEASE

193 doubles or more today....

 

You said that aready.

 

Obviously not everyone course is tricked up like shinny .

[bladehunter]

 

 

Let's face it. You guys don't respect or like anyone that has a different opinion than you do because you truly believe you are the smartest people in the room.

 

Na man. I don't have respect for has beens that are trying to change the game by using their fame and "pull" to get a change to happen in a sport they no longer play competitively, and in a sport where they obviously don't understand who they would be hurting and how if they get their way. I don't respect it when people don't use their brains and only use their emotion to make or push for something that negatively effects the majority.

 

It truly doesn’t effect anyone anywhere except ego. We have 14 clubs. And several teeing options. That’s the true thinking wit emotions going on here.

[clevited]

 

 

Let's face it. You guys don't respect or like anyone that has a different opinion than you do because you truly believe you are the smartest people in the room.

 

Na man. I don't have respect for has beens that are trying to change the game by using their fame and "pull" to get a change to happen in a sport they no longer play competitively, and in a sport where they obviously don't understand who they would be hurting and how if they get their way. I don't respect it when people don't use their brains and only use their emotion to make or push for something that negatively effects the majority.

 

It truly doesn’t effect anyone anywhere except ego. We have 14 clubs. And several teeing options. That’s the true thinking wit emotions going on here.

 

I disagree completely.

[Big Ben]

Jacks steel driver shaft was 2” shorter than Stenson’s 3W..

Just sayin’

 

Not saying the ball hasn’t changed, only that equipment improvements are equal to ball upgrades in terms of distance gained...

The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho

 

 

-Chris

 

Agree. I’m totaly on board with everyone playing steel !

 

Hey let's roll the ball back!? PLEASE

193 doubles or more today....

 

You said that aready.

 

Obviously not everyone course is tricked up like shinny .

Theres nothing tricked what so ever just a tough course.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Jacks steel driver shaft was 2" shorter than Stenson's 3W..

Just sayin'

 

Not saying the ball hasn't changed, only that equipment improvements are equal to ball upgrades in terms of distance gained...

The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

-Chris

 

Agree. I'm totaly on board with everyone playing steel !

 

 

I'm COMPLETELY on board with this, but I know it's not a popular opinion. OK, maybe not everybody would have to play steel. If they just required steel shafts in pro golf, I bet nothing else would have to be changed (although, I don't really think anything has to be changed now). I get that the current drivers might not accept a steel shaft with great results, but I don't know that for sure. I think the impact on OEMs and the amateur game would be less than if they changed the ball for everyone. It's an interesting thought, for sure.

[clevited]

Jacks steel driver shaft was 2" shorter than Stenson's 3W..

Just sayin'

 

Not saying the ball hasn't changed, only that equipment improvements are equal to ball upgrades in terms of distance gained...

The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

-Chris

 

Agree. I'm totaly on board with everyone playing steel !

 

 

I'm COMPLETELY on board with this, but I know it's not a popular opinion. OK, maybe not everybody would have to play steel. If they just required steel shafts in pro golf, I bet nothing else would have to be changed (although, I don't really think anything has to be changed now). I get that the current drivers might not accept a steel shaft with great results, but I don't know that for sure. I think the impact on OEMs and the amateur game would be less than if they changed the ball for everyone. It's an interesting thought, for sure.

 

I personally only lose a few mph of clubhead speed with my persimmon. I have come to find its not always intuitive what will and will not decrease clubhead speed. Everyone is different as far as how overall club weight, swing weight, amd moi effect there swing. Just as an example, Rickie only swung a persimmon a few mph slower than his gamer max, and we don't know for sure if he swung that persimmon hard as he could.

 

I have an 80 gram shaft in my driver currently. I swing it faster more easily than my lighter shafted but slightly heavier headed driver of the exact same length. I also have a super light long drive club that is 48 inches long and I cannot swing it any faster than my 44 inch drivers.

 

These are just examples for me, but I am just trying to illustrate that even that won't stop guys from swinging ridiculously fast.

 

Edit: I will add that there is definitely a point where a club can get light enough where it is basically like swinging a bare shaft, then you might see guys swinging one armed because that is MUCH faster when a club gets to be a certain weight. Overall weight os one of those forward thinking limits that USGA should be looking into imo and creating a limit. That is honestly the only single tech improvement I can think of that does not yet have a limit and could make a huge difference down the road.

 

Its funny, I completely forgot about this point when we brought up limits before.

[BNGL]

Too bad these fairways at the US Open aren't softer, this course would be much more difficult if it wasn't for all that roll.

 

+1.

 

But seriously, did you hear Jordan Spieth's presser on Tuesday or Wednesday? He said something really smart and interesting. He said that of course the fairways are cut wider now at Shinnecock Hills, but that as this week goes on, with more sunny weather and more breezy, less-humid air, the course is going to dry out and get firmer and faster. And that the firmer, faster fairways will thereby play as narrower fairways, even though they are physically cut wider than before. There's more to it than just that, but it is a window into a good player's attitude toward firm and fast fairways. The GolfWRX crowd thinks that firm and fast fairways are like a huge advantage for touring professionals who then enjoy exorbitant amounts of roll. But on an elegantly designed course like Shinnecock Hills, "firm and fast" means that players have to contend with the ground game. It requires a lot more strategy, skill and shot-shaping. But of course since there is all of that roll, it becomes all the more important to scale back the balls to fit the course.

 

You are pretty good at taking statements and twisting them to favor your position. The anti-rollback crowd IS NOT saying that the fast and firm fairways are a huge advantage to the touring pro. They are saying that fast and firm fairways EXAGGERATE the distance the pro's are hitting the ball therefore the hue and cry for a rollback is misguided. Furthermore, GOLFWRX's are not opposed to fast and firm fairways, they are opposed to fast and firm fairways that don't have consequences. This is what is happening on your standard tour event. Fast and firm fairways with light rough and no serious hazards, hence the emergence of the concept of bomb and gouge. The argument for softening and narrowing the fairways and growing up the rough is not a protest against link style courses, it is a potential solution of managing Tour distance without consequences to the average Joe.

 

There is nothing smart or interesting about Speith's comments. Of course windy, sunny, and humid weather makes fairways fast and firm and obviously when this occurs they play "narrower". Anybody who has ever played at Bandon or over in Scotland or Ireland knows this and quickly realizes why the fairways are designed the way they are relative to your standard American golf course.

 

You make the assumption that if they roll the ball back the ground game is going to come back in vogue. The ground game has never been in vogue on the American PGA Tour. Not when Hogan, Palmer, or Nicklaus played. In fact even in Links golf, despite the need at times for a particular shot, the game is not played on the ground UNLESS there is wind involved. If there is no wind and the course happens to be soft due to over night rains, the pros tear the place apart..through the air.

 

If you roll the ball back, the ground game isn't coming back on the classic courses, in fact how many classic courses are even designed to be played like that? I suspect the answer is few. If you roll the ball back and the average tour drive is 250 those guys are going to get on trackman and maximize launch conditions with their gear for max carry. They won't give one rat's rear end about roll out.

 

Great post.

His love of the ground game and firm/fast conditions, concerns about real estate prices, obsolescence of classic layouts that the pros don't even play now, and designer's intent, aren't the real reasons he wants a rollback.

Those are fake reasons that make it impossible to achieve his "solution" without rolling back the ball.

 

His hate of Titleist is the real reason he wants a rollback.

Otherwise, he wouldn't be so dismissive of every other valid suggestion.

 

Geoff Shackelford dislikes your posts

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Too bad these fairways at the US Open aren't softer, this course would be much more difficult if it wasn't for all that roll.

 

+1.

 

But seriously, did you hear Jordan Spieth's presser on Tuesday or Wednesday? He said something really smart and interesting. He said that of course the fairways are cut wider now at Shinnecock Hills, but that as this week goes on, with more sunny weather and more breezy, less-humid air, the course is going to dry out and get firmer and faster. And that the firmer, faster fairways will thereby play as narrower fairways, even though they are physically cut wider than before. There's more to it than just that, but it is a window into a good player's attitude toward firm and fast fairways. The GolfWRX crowd thinks that firm and fast fairways are like a huge advantage for touring professionals who then enjoy exorbitant amounts of roll. But on an elegantly designed course like Shinnecock Hills, "firm and fast" means that players have to contend with the ground game. It requires a lot more strategy, skill and shot-shaping. But of course since there is all of that roll, it becomes all the more important to scale back the balls to fit the course.

 

You are pretty good at taking statements and twisting them to favor your position. The anti-rollback crowd IS NOT saying that the fast and firm fairways are a huge advantage to the touring pro. They are saying that fast and firm fairways EXAGGERATE the distance the pro's are hitting the ball therefore the hue and cry for a rollback is misguided. Furthermore, GOLFWRX's are not opposed to fast and firm fairways, they are opposed to fast and firm fairways that don't have consequences. This is what is happening on your standard tour event. Fast and firm fairways with light rough and no serious hazards, hence the emergence of the concept of bomb and gouge. The argument for softening and narrowing the fairways and growing up the rough is not a protest against link style courses, it is a potential solution of managing Tour distance without consequences to the average Joe.

 

There is nothing smart or interesting about Speith's comments. Of course windy, sunny, and humid weather makes fairways fast and firm and obviously when this occurs they play "narrower". Anybody who has ever played at Bandon or over in Scotland or Ireland knows this and quickly realizes why the fairways are designed the way they are relative to your standard American golf course.

 

You make the assumption that if they roll the ball back the ground game is going to come back in vogue. The ground game has never been in vogue on the American PGA Tour. Not when Hogan, Palmer, or Nicklaus played. In fact even in Links golf, despite the need at times for a particular shot, the game is not played on the ground UNLESS there is wind involved. If there is no wind and the course happens to be soft due to over night rains, the pros tear the place apart..through the air.

 

If you roll the ball back, the ground game isn't coming back on the classic courses, in fact how many classic courses are even designed to be played like that? I suspect the answer is few. If you roll the ball back and the average tour drive is 250 those guys are going to get on trackman and maximize launch conditions with their gear for max carry. They won't give one rat's rear end about roll out.

 

Great post.

His love of the ground game and firm/fast conditions, concerns about real estate prices, obsolescence of classic layouts that the pros don't even play now, and designer's intent, aren't the real reasons he wants a rollback.

Those are fake reasons that make it impossible to achieve his "solution" without rolling back the ball.

 

His hate of Titleist is the real reason he wants a rollback.

Otherwise, he wouldn't be so dismissive of every other valid suggestion.

 

Geoff Shackelford dislikes your posts

 

Lol. I don't even read his.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Jacks steel driver shaft was 2" shorter than Stenson's 3W..

Just sayin'

 

Not saying the ball hasn't changed, only that equipment improvements are equal to ball upgrades in terms of distance gained...

The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

-Chris

 

Agree. I'm totaly on board with everyone playing steel !

 

 

I'm COMPLETELY on board with this, but I know it's not a popular opinion. OK, maybe not everybody would have to play steel. If they just required steel shafts in pro golf, I bet nothing else would have to be changed (although, I don't really think anything has to be changed now). I get that the current drivers might not accept a steel shaft with great results, but I don't know that for sure. I think the impact on OEMs and the amateur game would be less than if they changed the ball for everyone. It's an interesting thought, for sure.

 

I personally only lose a few mph of clubhead speed with my persimmon. I have come to find its not always intuitive what will and will not decrease clubhead speed. Everyone is different as far as how overall club weight, swing weight, amd moi effect there swing. Just as an example, Rickie only swung a persimmon a few mph slower than his gamer max, and we don't know for sure if he swung that persimmon hard as he could.

 

I have an 80 gram shaft in my driver currently. I swing it faster more easily than my lighter shafted but slightly heavier headed driver of the exact same length. I also have a super light long drive club that is 48 inches long and I cannot swing it any faster than my 44 inch drivers.

 

These are just examples for me, but I am just trying to illustrate that even that won't stop guys from swinging ridiculously fast.

 

Edit: I will add that there is definitely a point where a club can get light enough where it is basically like swinging a bare shaft, then you might see guys swinging one armed because that is MUCH faster when a club gets to be a certain weight. Overall weight os one of those forward thinking limits that USGA should be looking into imo and creating a limit. That is honestly the only single tech improvement I can think of that does not yet have a limit and could make a huge difference down the road.

 

Its funny, I completely forgot about this point when we brought up limits before.

 

Fair enough. I would love to see what would happen with an x-100 in a 917D3. It's probably just because the best golf I ever played was with that shaft in a 975D. I bet you're right about guys still ripping it, and that's totally fine. It was just an alternative idea that might not have such widespread impact on every golfer like Mike Davis seems to lean toward.

[jj9000]

The distance genie is out of the bottle. OEMs have been touting distance for years. People gravitate towards distance. Jamie Sadowski blasting a Cleveland Driver off of a mountain is selling distance.

 

You want to throw a fork in the 'grow-the-game' initiative? Roll the ball back 20% and watch folks leave because they enjoy hitting the ball far as far as they can. Ask yourself how many times you've been in casual conversation with someone and they describe that one drive on hole # X that had to have been 300 yards. Average golfers don't talk as much about stuffing a Sand Wedge to 3 feet from 100 yards. They don't remember the 3 balls lost OB off the tee. They'll be quick to tell you about that one spectacular 300 yard drive though.

[radiman]

The distance genie is out of the bottle. OEMs have been touting distance for years. People gravitate towards distance. Jamie Sadowski blasting a Cleveland Driver off of a mountain is selling distance.

 

You want to throw a fork in the 'grow-the-game' initiative? Roll the ball back 20% and watch folks leave because they enjoy hitting the ball far as far as they can. Ask yourself how many times you've been in casual conversation with someone and they describe that one drive on hole # X that had to have been 300 yards. Average golfers don't talk as much about stuffing a Sand Wedge to 3 feet from 100 yards. They don't remember the 3 balls lost OB off the tee. They'll be quick to tell you about that one spectacular 300 yard drive though.

 

I guess the average golfer I play with is a lot different than everyone else. I rarely hear anyone talk solely about distance. More often than not, whether or not their putting well seems to be the conversation.

 

It seems that there is a stereotype of some slouch who says, "hold my beer" every time he tees off just to swing out of his shoes and slice the ball 100 yards OB.

 

The average golfer I play with is reserved, seems to have a handle on his limitations, and is more concerned about direction than they are distance. They don't always hit it straight, but they try.

 

It is a bit off-topic. But, the rash generalizations of some clueless moron who thinks he can hit the ball 300 yards seems to be a bit overplayed. Not saying they aren't out there. I just seem to find them in the minority. Maybe it's just here in the midwest?

[North Texas]

The distance genie is out of the bottle. OEMs have been touting distance for years. People gravitate towards distance. Jamie Sadowski blasting a Cleveland Driver off of a mountain is selling distance.

You want to throw a fork in the 'grow-the-game' initiative? Roll the ball back 20% and watch folks leave because they enjoy hitting the ball far as far as they can. Ask yourself how many times you've been in casual conversation with someone and they describe that one drive on hole # X that had to have been 300 yards. Average golfers don't talk as much about stuffing a Sand Wedge to 3 feet from 100 yards. They don't remember the 3 balls lost OB off the tee. They'll be quick to tell you about that one spectacular 300 yard drive though.

 

Well, not everybody.

 

Your post made me think about today's round. One of my better ball-striking rounds of the year which I was telling the wife about. Recounted several shots in the round and not one of them was a drive. Even though I had one drive of 300+ while my average drive is more in the 240-250 range.

 

And that pretty much is what happens when my buddies and I come in after the round and start talking about all the good shots. We're talking mostly about our good shots and the majority are NOT long drives. At all.

[North Texas]

The distance genie is out of the bottle. OEMs have been touting distance for years. People gravitate towards distance. Jamie Sadowski blasting a Cleveland Driver off of a mountain is selling distance.

 

You want to throw a fork in the 'grow-the-game' initiative? Roll the ball back 20% and watch folks leave because they enjoy hitting the ball far as far as they can. Ask yourself how many times you've been in casual conversation with someone and they describe that one drive on hole # X that had to have been 300 yards. Average golfers don't talk as much about stuffing a Sand Wedge to 3 feet from 100 yards. They don't remember the 3 balls lost OB off the tee. They'll be quick to tell you about that one spectacular 300 yard drive though.

 

I guess the average golfer I play with is a lot different than everyone else. I rarely hear anyone talk solely about distance. More often than not, whether or not their putting well seems to be the conversation.

 

It seems that there is a stereotype of some slouch who says, "hold my beer" every time he tees off just to swing out of his shoes and slice the ball 100 yards OB.

 

The average golfer I play with is reserved, seems to have a handle on his limitations, and is more concerned about direction than they are distance. They don't always hit it straight, but they try.

 

It is a bit off-topic. But, the rash generalizations of some clueless moron who thinks he can hit the ball 300 yards seems to be a bit overplayed. Not saying they aren't out there. I just seem to find them in the minority. Maybe it's just here in the midwest?

 

Radiman gets it.

[jj9000]

The fact that we're having this discussion on GolfWRX (a small population of golf fanatics) is indicative that radiman, North Texas, or the lion share of contributing members here do not fall into the average golfer designation I referenced.

 

Additionally...the folks in your Foursomes are most likely not the average golfer I referenced.

 

The bottom line here gents is that the quest for distance ship has sailed. Try rolling it back 20% and you're going to lose some folks in your efforts.

[clevited]

Jacks steel driver shaft was 2" shorter than Stenson's 3W..

Just sayin'

 

Not saying the ball hasn't changed, only that equipment improvements are equal to ball upgrades in terms of distance gained...

The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

-Chris

 

Agree. I'm totaly on board with everyone playing steel !

 

 

I'm COMPLETELY on board with this, but I know it's not a popular opinion. OK, maybe not everybody would have to play steel. If they just required steel shafts in pro golf, I bet nothing else would have to be changed (although, I don't really think anything has to be changed now). I get that the current drivers might not accept a steel shaft with great results, but I don't know that for sure. I think the impact on OEMs and the amateur game would be less than if they changed the ball for everyone. It's an interesting thought, for sure.

 

I personally only lose a few mph of clubhead speed with my persimmon. I have come to find its not always intuitive what will and will not decrease clubhead speed. Everyone is different as far as how overall club weight, swing weight, amd moi effect there swing. Just as an example, Rickie only swung a persimmon a few mph slower than his gamer max, and we don't know for sure if he swung that persimmon hard as he could.

 

I have an 80 gram shaft in my driver currently. I swing it faster more easily than my lighter shafted but slightly heavier headed driver of the exact same length. I also have a super light long drive club that is 48 inches long and I cannot swing it any faster than my 44 inch drivers.

 

These are just examples for me, but I am just trying to illustrate that even that won't stop guys from swinging ridiculously fast.

 

Edit: I will add that there is definitely a point where a club can get light enough where it is basically like swinging a bare shaft, then you might see guys swinging one armed because that is MUCH faster when a club gets to be a certain weight. Overall weight os one of those forward thinking limits that USGA should be looking into imo and creating a limit. That is honestly the only single tech improvement I can think of that does not yet have a limit and could make a huge difference down the road.

 

Its funny, I completely forgot about this point when we brought up limits before.

 

Fair enough. I would love to see what would happen with an x-100 in a 917D3. It's probably just because the best golf I ever played was with that shaft in a 975D. I bet you're right about guys still ripping it, and that's totally fine. It was just an alternative idea that might not have such widespread impact on every golfer like Mike Davis seems to lean toward.

 

I personally don't mind steel shafts at all, but man, when you do miss hit one, graphite sure save a guy from the hand shock. I too tend to swing a heavier shaft better. I have theories to why but I won't get into that here.

[clevited]

The distance genie is out of the bottle. OEMs have been touting distance for years. People gravitate towards distance. Jamie Sadowski blasting a Cleveland Driver off of a mountain is selling distance.

 

You want to throw a fork in the 'grow-the-game' initiative? Roll the ball back 20% and watch folks leave because they enjoy hitting the ball far as far as they can. Ask yourself how many times you've been in casual conversation with someone and they describe that one drive on hole # X that had to have been 300 yards. Average golfers don't talk as much about stuffing a Sand Wedge to 3 feet from 100 yards. They don't remember the 3 balls lost OB off the tee. They'll be quick to tell you about that one spectacular 300 yard drive though.

 

Distance is the single most impressive physical feat in golf. It is no different than the home run or 100 mph pitch in baseball, the 80 yard passing td or 100 yard kick return in football, the 100 mph slap shot in hockey, orthe serving ace in tennis. These are impressive feats of skill, power, and athleticism. I think it is just ingrained into the human psyche to love that stuff.

[bladehunter]

 

 

Let's face it. You guys don't respect or like anyone that has a different opinion than you do because you truly believe you are the smartest people in the room.

 

Na man. I don't have respect for has beens that are trying to change the game by using their fame and "pull" to get a change to happen in a sport they no longer play competitively, and in a sport where they obviously don't understand who they would be hurting and how if they get their way. I don't respect it when people don't use their brains and only use their emotion to make or push for something that negatively effects the majority.

 

It truly doesn’t effect anyone anywhere except ego. We have 14 clubs. And several teeing options. That’s the true thinking wit emotions going on here.

 

I disagree completely.

 

And that’s cool

 

 

 

But think about it as you say. Both sides argue based purely on emotion. Otherwise we’d just negotiate and compromise somewhere and both sides would feel vindicated.

 

99.9 % of players against a rollback could move up a set of tees and not be truly effected in an on paper kind of way. But emotions cause them to throw out the anchor and say “ no “! The emotion is pride.

 

Disagree of you like. But that idea is just as true as yours is on why some want it rolled back. Yes. You are correct too. Or either we are both wrong. But if it’s thought of simply as a problem in need of a solution minus emotion there’s zero reason why a solution that suits All couldn’t be reached.

[radiman]

The fact that we're having this discussion on GolfWRX (a small population of golf fanatics) is indicative that radiman, North Texas, or the lion share of contributing members here do not fall into the average golfer designation I referenced.

 

I am the only person that I know of locally that is a golfwrx member. In fact, a lot of people that I play with are not exactly golf fanatics. I am a fanatic, most of them are hobbyists.

 

My personal experience is just that. My small sample size isn't necessarily indicative of the national trend. I just have a hard time believing that the majority of the golfing public is about distance at all costs. Again, not saying they aren't out there, I just don't think it's a fair representation of the golfing population.

 

I feel that it gets thrown around here like it's fact. And in turn, it cheapens that argument against a rollback (which I oppose).

 

Edit: I see you added to your post. I agree to some extent, the current distances are now to be expected. The ego is a fragile thing. Take away a big chunk of yards from someone's long drive and it'll damage the ego no matter how much they'd like to deny it. It'll bother some more than others, they'll be the ones who quit playing.

[North Texas]

The fact that we're having this discussion on GolfWRX (a small population of golf fanatics) is indicative that radiman, North Texas, or the lion share of contributing members here do not fall into the average golfer designation I referenced.

 

Additionally...the folks in your Foursomes are most likely not the average golfer I referenced.

 

The bottom line here gents is that the quest for distance ship has sailed. Try rolling it back 20% and you're going to lose some folks in your efforts.

 

The real bottom line is that there will be no across the board rollback of 20%. Or even 10%.

[clevited]

 

 

Let's face it. You guys don't respect or like anyone that has a different opinion than you do because you truly believe you are the smartest people in the room.

 

Na man. I don't have respect for has beens that are trying to change the game by using their fame and "pull" to get a change to happen in a sport they no longer play competitively, and in a sport where they obviously don't understand who they would be hurting and how if they get their way. I don't respect it when people don't use their brains and only use their emotion to make or push for something that negatively effects the majority.

 

It truly doesn’t effect anyone anywhere except ego. We have 14 clubs. And several teeing options. That’s the true thinking wit emotions going on here.

 

I disagree completely.

 

And that’s cool

 

 

 

But think about it as you say. Both sides argue based purely on emotion. Otherwise we’d just negotiate and compromise somewhere and both sides would feel vindicated.

 

99.9 % of players against a rollback could move up a set of tees and not be truly effected in an on paper kind of way. But emotions cause them to throw out the anchor and say “ no “! The emotion is pride.

 

Disagree of you like. But that idea is just as true as yours is on why some want it rolled back. Yes. You are correct too. Or either we are both wrong. But if it’s thought of simply as a problem in need of a solution minus emotion there’s zero reason why a solution that suits All couldn’t be reached.

 

Na, I truly and firmly believe the anti roll back crowd have the strongest and most non emotionally driven points compared to the other point of view. I am honestly trying to see the other side through as much of an unbiased mind as I can. I am trying to understand that side and put myself in that mindset as best I can. I still fail to see any valid argument. To me, this is very much like an argument between flat earthers and physicists. It is that cut and dry.