The primary anti-roll back the ball argument

[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

 

[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.

 

975D with an x100 ?! You do realize you’re convertible right ?! Lol

 

 

I’d give a lot to see the rules rolled back to that size head and Steel shafts. I actually hit that combo better , as in more consistent and longer relatively than my current combo. But heres the rub that keeps me from using one. I hit my 3 wood past the 975d. So it’s useless. Give me a 10 degree m2 3 woodhead and is never hit another driver.

[Shilgy]

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%.

I hope your correct. But who or what will protect the courses?

[Quasimoto]

How about this?

 

Nothing needs to change in any equipment.

The way to equalize any differences in the new distance age is to eliminate the par 5 hole.

 

Yep, all tour setups will be par 3 and par 4 only @ (mostly) par 68 course set-ups.

Sure, there will be any number of arguments against this, however just think what that would do for the up-and-comers.

In 10 or 15 years they will be reaching everything over 500 yds in 2, and many 600 yds in 2.

Scoring will take a bit of a hit for a while, par will be a good score, and 62 only 4 under.

 

I know, I know, I'm an out of the box thinker so you won't insult me with rejection. :taunt:

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

 

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.

 

975D with an x100 ?! You do realize you're convertible right ?! Lol

 

 

I'd give a lot to see the rules rolled back to that size head and Steel shafts. I actually hit that combo better , as in more consistent and longer relatively than my current combo. But heres the rub that keeps me from using one. I hit my 3 wood past the 975d. So it's useless. Give me a 10 degree m2 3 woodhead and is never hit another driver.

 

I'm not sure what convertible means, but that club was the ticket, man! Stayed in my bag in HS and college golf when most on my college team had switched to the TM 300 Series. One actually hit the Callaway C4, if you remember that thing, lol. I switched late to a GBBII Pro Series, and then late to an FT-5, and then to my current 917D3. And that is my 20+ year driver history that nobody ever asked for or wanted to read.

[clevited]

 

 

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.

 

975D with an x100 ?! You do realize you're convertible right ?! Lol

 

 

I'd give a lot to see the rules rolled back to that size head and Steel shafts. I actually hit that combo better , as in more consistent and longer relatively than my current combo. But heres the rub that keeps me from using one. I hit my 3 wood past the 975d. So it's useless. Give me a 10 degree m2 3 woodhead and is never hit another driver.

 

I'm not sure what convertible means, but that club was the ticket, man! Stayed in my bag in HS and college golf when most on my college team had switched to the TM 300 Series. One actually hit the Callaway C4, if you remember that thing, lol. I switched late to a GBBII Pro Series, and then late to an FT-5, and then to my current 917D3. And that is my 20+ year driver history that nobody ever asked for or wanted to read.

 

I like to pick up older clubs from the when I first started out and couldn't afford anything nice era. Goodwill is my go to store for that. Got my persimmon, Ti Bubble, and GBB from there. I can hit the gbb great, and it doubles as a playable driver off the deck. Can't hit the TM at all, shaft is like rubber. I enjoy hitting the persimmon except it needs a regrip (i have thrown the thing a few times, leather grip is like a greased pig).

[Ashley Schaeffer]

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.

 

975D with an x100 ?! You do realize you're convertible right ?! Lol

 

 

I'd give a lot to see the rules rolled back to that size head and Steel shafts. I actually hit that combo better , as in more consistent and longer relatively than my current combo. But heres the rub that keeps me from using one. I hit my 3 wood past the 975d. So it's useless. Give me a 10 degree m2 3 woodhead and is never hit another driver.

 

I'm not sure what convertible means, but that club was the ticket, man! Stayed in my bag in HS and college golf when most on my college team had switched to the TM 300 Series. One actually hit the Callaway C4, if you remember that thing, lol. I switched late to a GBBII Pro Series, and then late to an FT-5, and then to my current 917D3. And that is my 20+ year driver history that nobody ever asked for or wanted to read.

 

I like to pick up older clubs from the when I first started out and couldn't afford anything nice era. Goodwill is my go to store for that. Got my persimmon, Ti Bubble, and GBB from there. I can hit the gbb great, and it doubles as a playable driver off the deck. Can't hit the TM at all, shaft is like rubber. I enjoy hitting the persimmon except it needs a regrip (i have thrown the thing a few times, leather grip is like a greased pig).

 

Haha, same. I remember looking through the Austads and Golfsmith catalogs as a kid wishing I could have some of those drivers that were "call for price". It would be fun to get some of them now. Also, it would be fun to have a bay like yours, but I think I might never actually play golf if I had one!

[ThinkingPlus]

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.

Actually, BH, that's not true. Maybe 99.9% of men can just move forward a tee box, but for women that option does not exist. It would not impact me much, but everyone I play with have no where to go. They can't hit, but a very small handful of GIRs per round on their best day. Do anything that reduces distance and their lot gets worse. Most (not all thankfully) folks on this forum could care less about women players and our voice will never be considered by the USGA in this debate for sure.

[ThinkingPlus]

BTW, as a complete WAG I am thinking the USGA's greatest heartburn is with the fancy 3, 4, and 5 piece balls. Their "rollback" won't take the form of Nerfing the ball, but instead legislate that all balls will be limited to 2 uniform layers only. Thus, you can have a low spin distance core, but short game, short iron spin will be compromised or a spinny core that spins alot for all clubhead speeds. No more having your cake and eating it too. My 2 cents.

[clevited]

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.

 

975D with an x100 ?! You do realize you're convertible right ?! Lol

 

 

I'd give a lot to see the rules rolled back to that size head and Steel shafts. I actually hit that combo better , as in more consistent and longer relatively than my current combo. But heres the rub that keeps me from using one. I hit my 3 wood past the 975d. So it's useless. Give me a 10 degree m2 3 woodhead and is never hit another driver.

 

I'm not sure what convertible means, but that club was the ticket, man! Stayed in my bag in HS and college golf when most on my college team had switched to the TM 300 Series. One actually hit the Callaway C4, if you remember that thing, lol. I switched late to a GBBII Pro Series, and then late to an FT-5, and then to my current 917D3. And that is my 20+ year driver history that nobody ever asked for or wanted to read.

 

I like to pick up older clubs from the when I first started out and couldn't afford anything nice era. Goodwill is my go to store for that. Got my persimmon, Ti Bubble, and GBB from there. I can hit the gbb great, and it doubles as a playable driver off the deck. Can't hit the TM at all, shaft is like rubber. I enjoy hitting the persimmon except it needs a regrip (i have thrown the thing a few times, leather grip is like a greased pig).

 

Haha, same. I remember looking through the Austads and Golfsmith catalogs as a kid wishing I could have some of those drivers that were "call for price". It would be fun to get some of them now. Also, it would be fun to have a bay like yours, but I think I might never actually play golf if I had one!

 

Ha yeah I have the bay because I don't get to golf much these days. Hopefully soon I will get back into league. For now its the occasional round, lots in the bay and some at the range. My only form of exercise currently, wailing on golf balls lol. I do enjoy a night at the range, just relaxing. I can get lost in my own ball smashing world.

[clevited]

BTW, as a complete WAG I am thinking the USGA's greatest heartburn is with the fancy 3, 4, and 5 piece balls. Their "rollback" won't take the form of Nerfing the ball, but instead legislate that all balls will be limited to 2 uniform layers only. Thus, you can have a low spin distance core, but short game, short iron spin will be compromised or a spinny core that spins alot for all clubhead speeds. No more having your cake and eating it too. My 2 cents.

 

I have thought about that and it could be a route they take. Club design and spin loft can take a lot of spin off where needed but keep it where we want it (wedges). In other words, I think that would be a self healing wound if they did that. It would also be an annoying one that I would loath and piss and moan about for quite some time lol.

[clevited]

Boom, found it. The original ball should have been the same weight as a modern prov1. 1.6-1.62 oz is 45-46 grams. If you look at the spin numbers too, they aren't that wild compare to today's spin numbers. Those were no doubt with less optimized clubs, and slightly different lofts. What was an 8 iron loft back then? Plus, amount of spin is preference with irons, and manipulatable with spin loft. To some extent, also with driver.

 

Edit: I will also link the good ol wrx thread I found it in. http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1146923-spin-rates-of-balata-vs-modern-urethane-balls/

 

In case anyone cares to know, I read a bit of the initial velocity testing procedures to try and understand that velocity posted for the balata ball and how it relates to the prov. It turns out, that ball was at the allowable limit and that means it should have had identical ball speed to a prov1.

 

Simply put, the tour 90 and prov1 would have almost identical launch numbers in most cases and it looks like Rick Shiels test was the most valid between the two (his and andrew rice). He must have had balls that were in much better condition.

[bladehunter]

Thinking plus -

 

 

Now that’s an angle I haven’t considered.

 

And it makes sense. Of course you know that we ( humans ) consider what’s familiar to our every day interactions first . And that’s the lense that I comment from. And I hope you know from my past rantings on the lpga threads that I try to not be the biggest pig on here . Lol

 

Truth is I just like to argue. And I do think that a lot of the guys reasonings are based purely on pride . I don’t expect them to roll back the ball. If any thing I’d say it’s like you said and they just limit the core to 2 piece.

[heavy_hitter]

Amateur players shouldn't be playing 6900 yards now. Most shouldn't be playing 6500 yards now and you are suggesting a 5% rollback and then playing 6500 yards. Your thought isn't very well thought out.

[bigred90gt]

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?

 

The average golfer I play with does not clamor on about distance either. We’re on the course, there’s no reason to talk about it because we can all see it with our own eyes.

 

That being said, in my line of work I meet a lot of people, and a lot of those people play golf. I would say 7 out of 10 of them, when talking about golf, say something along the lines of “I can drive the ball 300 yards, but everything else about my game sucks”, or “I can hit it over 300, just not straight”, or something along those lines. I just smile and nod, sometimes I say “wow”. I know it’s not true, but I also know I’ll most likely never play with those people so why bother correcting them. They may honestly believe it because they play scorecard math to get their numbers.

[MrJones]

Danny Willet averaged 280 yards off the tee in 2017.

 

https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.32139.danny-willett.html

 

In round 1 of the US Open the site shows him as averaging 330.8 yards.

 

Must have switched balls this year.

[North Butte]

Danny Willet averaged 280 yards off the tee in 2017.

 

https://www.pgatour....ny-willett.html

 

In round 1 of the US Open the site shows him as averaging 330.8 yards.

 

Must have switched balls this year.

 

Yeah, about time he quit with that Tour Balata 100 and switched to ProV1.

[bladehunter]

Danny Willet averaged 280 yards off the tee in 2017.

 

https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.32139.danny-willett.html

 

In round 1 of the US Open the site shows him as averaging 330.8 yards.

 

Must have switched balls this year.

 

He did change swings. Who knows ?

[ThinkingPlus]

Thinking plus -

 

 

Now that's an angle I haven't considered.

 

And it makes sense. Of course you know that we ( humans ) consider what's familiar to our every day interactions first . And that's the lense that I comment from. And I hope you know from my past rantings on the lpga threads that I try to not be the biggest pig on here . Lol

 

Truth is I just like to argue. And I do think that a lot of the guys reasonings are based purely on pride . I don't expect them to roll back the ball. If any thing I'd say it's like you said and they just limit the core to 2 piece.

BH, you are very fair and equitable with your commentary. I knew you were just getting carried away in the moment.

[MrJones]

Danny Willet averaged 280 yards off the tee in 2017.

 

https://www.pgatour....ny-willett.html

 

In round 1 of the US Open the site shows him as averaging 330.8 yards.

 

Must have switched balls this year.

 

He did change swings. Who knows ?

 

He's reportedly working on legally changing his name to Danny WHAM-IT.

[bladehunter]

Danny Willet averaged 280 yards off the tee in 2017.

 

https://www.pgatour....ny-willett.html

 

In round 1 of the US Open the site shows him as averaging 330.8 yards.

 

Must have switched balls this year.

 

He did change swings. Who knows ?

 

He's reportedly working on legally changing his name to Danny WHAM-IT.

 

Lol. That got a big chuckle

[RobS14526]

 

 

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.

 

That's a pretty harsh assessment of Tiger's game. ?

[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.

 

That's a pretty harsh assessment of Tiger's game. ?

 

Lol, well played sir, well played.

[gvogel]

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.

 

975D with an x100 ?! You do realize you're convertible right ?! Lol

 

 

I'd give a lot to see the rules rolled back to that size head and Steel shafts. I actually hit that combo better , as in more consistent and longer relatively than my current combo. But heres the rub that keeps me from using one. I hit my 3 wood past the 975d. So it's useless. Give me a 10 degree m2 3 woodhead and is never hit another driver.

 

I'm not sure what convertible means, but that club was the ticket, man! Stayed in my bag in HS and college golf when most on my college team had switched to the TM 300 Series. One actually hit the Callaway C4, if you remember that thing, lol. I switched late to a GBBII Pro Series, and then late to an FT-5, and then to my current 917D3. And that is my 20+ year driver history that nobody ever asked for or wanted to read.

 

Ashley, I found that quite interesting.

 

And I would never have pegged you as a Titleist player.

[gvogel]

I'm not sure I understand one of the primary argument that is used against the idea of rolling back the ball: That it hurts the recreational player who doesn't hit the ball far enough as it is. My question is: Let's say they made the golf ball go 5% shorter across the board. Why couldn't everyone play 6500 yard courses rather than 6900 yards. Nothing else would change. Everyone moves up a set of tees and the very back tees are eliminated. Shorter golf courses means quicker rounds, less fertilizer and expenses. Instead of hitting a 7 iron 160, one would hit it 152. How would this be catastrophic to the amateur game?

 

I want to go on record, again, and say that I support this viewpoint. Something between 5% and 10% might be better. But overall I support this concept.

[gvogel]

Amateur players shouldn't be playing 6900 yards now. Most shouldn't be playing 6500 yards now and you are suggesting a 5% rollback and then playing 6500 yards. Your thought isn't very well thought out.

 

I play in a league, and where we play has 3 nines. Two play over 3,200 and the other plays just short of 3,000. There are 4 young guys in the league who can hit the ball pretty long - say 250 or so. The rest of us are over 55, and we just aren't long anymore. When we play the short nine, I find that quite enjoyable as I am able to hit wedge or nine iron a couple times for a second shot, and the par 3's are 130 and 160. When we play the other two nines, I hardly ever get to hit a short iron for a second shot, and the par 3's play 200 and 165. There are two par 4 holes on each nine that are unreachable by most of us in the prevailing wind conditions. The first hole is a par 5 that plays 570 into the prevailing wind, and most of never get to that green in 3 shots. I have been talking to the guys about moving up to the senior tees on the par 5's and the 2 long par 4's on each of those nines. At first I was dismissed as being a nut case. But last night some of the older guys thought that might be a good idea, because of the advancing age of the guys in the league.

 

Education and realistic expectations are key.

[clevited]

I'm not sure I understand one of the primary argument that is used against the idea of rolling back the ball: That it hurts the recreational player who doesn't hit the ball far enough as it is. My question is: Let's say they made the golf ball go 5% shorter across the board. Why couldn't everyone play 6500 yard courses rather than 6900 yards. Nothing else would change. Everyone moves up a set of tees and the very back tees are eliminated. Shorter golf courses means quicker rounds, less fertilizer and expenses. Instead of hitting a 7 iron 160, one would hit it 152. How would this be catastrophic to the amateur game?

 

I want to go on record, again, and say that I support this viewpoint. Something between 5% and 10% might be better. But overall I support this concept.

 

You do understand how a rollback of only 5 or even 10 percent wouldn't even come close to addressing this supposed problem right? It would be a half Word not allowed change that does not address the USGA's (and your) issue with distance. It would be an annoying, and expensive change that will do nothing but piss off at least a little, the majority of golfers. Then in 5 years, the talk will come up again that it accomplished nothing.

[North Butte]

I'm not sure I understand one of the primary argument that is used against the idea of rolling back the ball: That it hurts the recreational player who doesn't hit the ball far enough as it is. My question is: Let's say they made the golf ball go 5% shorter across the board. Why couldn't everyone play 6500 yard courses rather than 6900 yards. Nothing else would change. Everyone moves up a set of tees and the very back tees are eliminated. Shorter golf courses means quicker rounds, less fertilizer and expenses. Instead of hitting a 7 iron 160, one would hit it 152. How would this be catastrophic to the amateur game?

 

I want to go on record, again, and say that I support this viewpoint. Something between 5% and 10% might be better. But overall I support this concept.

 

You do understand how a rollback of only 5 or even 10 percent wouldn't even come close to addressing this supposed problem right? It would be a half Word not allowed change that does not address the USGA's (and your) issue with distance. It would be an annoying, and expensive change that will do nothing but piss off at least a little, the majority of golfers. Then in 5 years, the talk will come up again that it accomplished nothing.

 

Which is why the smart money is betting on just such an outcome from USGA.

 

They will "study" it for another year or so, roll the ball spec back some single-digit percentage along with updating the testing regime to include extremely high clubhead speeds, most likely put a little bit of (ultimately ineffectual) fluff in the specs about making the ball spin more to punish high speed players and then phase the whole thing in over a decade.

 

It will be a far more onerous and expensive version of the groove rule debacle and once again, they will accomplish no significant or measurable change whatsoever in how the game is played at the highest level. But they'll declare a raging success if they spread out the phase-in long enough and they manage to avoid being sued out of existence in the process.

[gvogel]

I'm not sure I understand one of the primary argument that is used against the idea of rolling back the ball: That it hurts the recreational player who doesn't hit the ball far enough as it is. My question is: Let's say they made the golf ball go 5% shorter across the board. Why couldn't everyone play 6500 yard courses rather than 6900 yards. Nothing else would change. Everyone moves up a set of tees and the very back tees are eliminated. Shorter golf courses means quicker rounds, less fertilizer and expenses. Instead of hitting a 7 iron 160, one would hit it 152. How would this be catastrophic to the amateur game?

 

I want to go on record, again, and say that I support this viewpoint. Something between 5% and 10% might be better. But overall I support this concept.

 

You do understand how a rollback of only 5 or even 10 percent wouldn't even come close to addressing this supposed problem right? It would be a half Word not allowed change that does not address the USGA's (and your) issue with distance. It would be an annoying, and expensive change that will do nothing but piss off at least a little, the majority of golfers. Then in 5 years, the talk will come up again that it accomplished nothing.

 

A 10% roll back takes a 300 yard carry and reduces it to 270. I'm good with that. It also takes my 220 yard carry and reduces it to 200. I am also OK with that, because I can move up a set of tees.

[ThinkingPlus]

I'm not sure I understand one of the primary argument that is used against the idea of rolling back the ball: That it hurts the recreational player who doesn't hit the ball far enough as it is. My question is: Let's say they made the golf ball go 5% shorter across the board. Why couldn't everyone play 6500 yard courses rather than 6900 yards. Nothing else would change. Everyone moves up a set of tees and the very back tees are eliminated. Shorter golf courses means quicker rounds, less fertilizer and expenses. Instead of hitting a 7 iron 160, one would hit it 152. How would this be catastrophic to the amateur game?

 

I want to go on record, again, and say that I support this viewpoint. Something between 5% and 10% might be better. But overall I support this concept.

 

You do understand how a rollback of only 5 or even 10 percent wouldn't even come close to addressing this supposed problem right? It would be a half Word not allowed change that does not address the USGA's (and your) issue with distance. It would be an annoying, and expensive change that will do nothing but piss off at least a little, the majority of golfers. Then in 5 years, the talk will come up again that it accomplished nothing.

 

A 10% roll back takes a 300 yard carry and reduces it to 270. I'm good with that. It also takes my 220 yard carry and reduces it to 200. I am also OK with that, because I can move up a set of tees.

I am so happy for you. The ladies I regularly play with here at the club can't move up a tee. We are just expected make the sacrifice for the good of the game, right? Never you mind. I know we don't count in this discussion.

[North Butte]

I already walk past two sets of tees (not counting the handful of normally unused way-back tees reserved for outside tournaments) to get to the tees I play from. Hard for me to see much joy in walking on forward another 30 or 40 paces every hole to get to the farthest-forward set of tees.

 

Also, good luck "moving up a set of tees" when you already have trouble making a 140-yard carry over a pond with your approach shot using the current equipment. But hey, if it keeps Justin Thomas from upsetting some grumpy old guy watching TV maybe we can just drop on the other side if we have to.