Smaller drivers.....????

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @garzar said:

> > > > > To truly test these guys they're gonna need someone to build a 8,500-8,800yd. course. They just DESTROYED a 7,600yd Medina. Make them hit long irons/hybrids into holes instead of wedge/9i every time. Crush, throw dart, make putt. Pro golf today. Its a joke.

> > > >

> > > > Well, that's one way to separate the men from the boys according to tee to green talent. But very expensive from a land acquisition and course upkeep standpoint.

> > > >

> > > > The other way is to make the equipment more difficult to use, and roll the ball back.

> > >

> > >

> > > Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Greg Norman all STRONGLY favor a ball rollback. Men? Or boys?

> >

> > all washed up or nearly washed up old dogs, their voice (in my opinion) is not needed or wanted regarding the future of the game. If they want to sit back and tell grandpa stories, GREAT!! but stop barking about the ball. Jeez, the group think around this is terrible and myopic. Surely there are things that can be done. I would say for the most part it does not even really matter. We are talking about the 1 percent of 1 percent of golfers. And then, only really in the right conditions do they absolutely shred courses. NEWS FLASH!!! THEY R REALLY FREAKING GOOD AT THIS GAME. Try something else then target the ball. Tell the course set up crew to do something else..

> >

> > There is soooooooo much else that could be done other than lengthen a course to 10000 yard to protect some abstract number. I don't understand it. Only in golf is a number so worshiped. In any other sport no one complains about too many points being scored. No complains, that Steph Curry is hitting too many 3 pointers. You know why? Old players in those sports look at new age players and for the most part applaud them for changing the game. Only in the privileged game of golf do stuffy old fat guys sit around and talk about "how the game was meant to be played". Well if we played the game the way it was meant to, these tour courses would be 75% less manicured than they are, the greens would have some bump to them. The fairways would have sheep on them, and par may be a bit harder to shoot. If you set the course up so they get perfect lies every where they go, the greens are perfect and roll true, they are going to shred it regardless of what you do to the ball.

> >

> > You roll the ball back and shorten courses, what have you actually accomplished? the same old people will say the game is too easy at that point as well..

> >

> > RANT OVER!!

>

>

> So any time I see the rotten, ageist attacks on Jack Nicklaus, et al, in relation to their comments on a ball rollback, I see no reason to hesitate in my comeback.

>

> Current Tour players -- the guys who are heroes to so many of the commenters on this forum -- are really and trully ("legally," I would argue) disqualified from this argument. For the simple reason that they are corrupted by their current equipment deals. I'm not listening to what Justin Thomas, Jordan Spieth or Brooks Koepka might say about a ball rollback. They are all under contract -- for millions -- to Titleist. If they were ordinary witnesses in a civil trial, they'd be subjected to withering cross-examination over their self-interest with the leading corporate opponent of a ball rollback.

 

I know, I know. I have heard your argument over and over. it's laughable that Jacks argument is valid are theirs is not... It is silly and still does not address the core problem. And that is, that there is not a problem. The problem is people trying to hold on to a past that is moving well, past them. Ageist a funny word, you make it sound like a hate crime when you bring up that someone is old, and that they perspective is dated..

 

I doubt that Brooks is making millions from titleist as a player that is not even sponsored by them. If he was sponsored, Surely he would be listed below since, you know, he is number 1 in the world or something like that....

 

Get your facts right.

 

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"DFS PFD" said:

> This all feels so familiar?

 

haha... Seriously...

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @King_Slender said:

> > It's all semantics to protect an arbitrary number for par. Living in Detroit it's funny how everyone said Detroit Golf Club wasn't a tour caliber course and they guys would crush it (which they did), but the scores at Medinah for the BMW Championship were even lower overall with the same winning score at -25.

> >

> > The score is IRRELEVANT. It's about the drama at the end, regardless of where guys are relative to par. If all anyone is worried about is the +/- , just call every par 5 a par 4 - problem solved. All anyone complains about is "So and so is 25 under par..." nobody say "Can you believe so and so shot 263 for the week? "

>

>

> Complete nonsense. **What we are trying **to do is to construct a particular kind of game that is played over historic courses. Where the features of the course matter. And strategic decision making to address features of the course are required.

>

> If we came up with new multilayer composite material construction baseball bats, which allowed players to hit 500 and 600 foot fly balls, and scores at Fenway Park were in the 20's and 30's, that might be really dramatic. And it would not be baseball as we know it.

 

I love your cognitive dissonance.

[JaNelson38]

> @garzar said:

> I'm in the "they're hittin' it too dang far" camp and have a question: say they kept the same balls but just reduced the driver head volume. If they took it back to,say, 300cc wouldn't that shrink the current massive sweet-spot? They need to make it a fairly substantial distance penalty for not dead nuttin' it. Thoughts out there?

 

No, it wouldnt change much. Most touring pros hit the "sweet spot" just about every time.

 

Is the equipment better than 20 years ago? Sure. But these guys "hit it too dang far" because they're simply that good. That's all there is to it. They've been taught from day one how to drive the golf ball. You see it now even with the Drive, Chip & Putt: 9 and 10 year olds are whacking it out there 200+ yards. You've got 15-year old boys in that competition cranking it 300. This is what the game of golf is emphasizing right now - distance. Because most courses demand long distance to be competitive.

 

Golf courses need a "course correction", for lack of a better term: narrower, shorter, more angles, more hazards, smaller landing areas. Sure, let the big dog eat on the par-5. But make positioning far more important than it is now, especially on the par 4 holes.

[physasst]

> @JaNelson38 said:

> > @garzar said:

> > I'm in the "they're hittin' it too dang far" camp and have a question: say they kept the same balls but just reduced the driver head volume. If they took it back to,say, 300cc wouldn't that shrink the current massive sweet-spot? They need to make it a fairly substantial distance penalty for not dead nuttin' it. Thoughts out there?

>

> No, it wouldnt change much. Most touring pros hit the "sweet spot" just about every time.

>

> Is the equipment better than 20 years ago? Sure. But these guys "hit it too dang far" because they're simply that good. That's all there is to it. They've been taught from day one how to drive the golf ball. You see it now even with the Drive, Chip & Putt: 9 and 10 year olds are whacking it out there 200+ yards. You've got 15-year old boys in that competition cranking it 300. This is what the game of golf is emphasizing right now - distance. Because most courses demand long distance to be competitive.

>

> Golf courses need a "course correction", for lack of a better term: narrower, shorter, more angles, more hazards, smaller landing areas. Sure, let the big dog eat on the par-5. But make positioning far more important than it is now, especially on the par 4 holes.

THIS^^^. .Risk/reward. If they want to hit that 330 drive, make them work for it. Punish them for missing. Make them think about laying up. THAT would be good for the game.

 

[macedan]

I am always perplexed at the anger at a problem that really doesn't exist. Not to say distances haven't increased, nor are a significant portion of the gains coming from technological advances, because they have indeed. But to worry about how Tour Pros, not the recreational golfer, are scoring in relation to par is a non-issue. How they score in relation to their competitors is the sole issue. The whole debate about dialing back equipment is becoming such a headache to listen to at this point. Where do you draw the line for change? Obviously non-tour pros/casual players play whatever, but then qualifiers for am tournaments play Balatas, steel shafted drivers/woods, and Ansr style putters only and Tour Pros play an even higher spinning ball, persimmon woods and wood shafts? Every game evolves over the course of time, this is the way of the modern game, embrace it and/or prepare for the future of Pro Tours played on Indoor simulators.

[15th Club]

Yeah and I have heard over and over how Jack Nicklaus wants a rollback to somehow protect his golfing records. Don’t bother trying to explain that one. It’s not possible.

 

I think that not one Titleist-sponsored player should get to talk in the rollback debate. Not without detailed questioning about their contracts. And now that the Taylormade CEO also took sides against any rollback, ditto all of those players too.

 

There is absolutely no equivalent self-interest conflict on the part of Jack Nicklaus.

 

I will never ever forget Brad Faxon’s virtual guilty plea on this subject. Faxon, the longtime Brand Ambassador for Titleist, once responded to a Nicklaus complaint about modern distances by saying that Jack never had a good ball contract.

 

Jaw-dropping.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @King_Slender said:

> > It's all semantics to protect an arbitrary number for par. Living in Detroit it's funny how everyone said Detroit Golf Club wasn't a tour caliber course and they guys would crush it (which they did), but the scores at Medinah for the BMW Championship were even lower overall with the same winning score at -25.

> >

> > The score is IRRELEVANT. It's about the drama at the end, regardless of where guys are relative to par. If all anyone is worried about is the +/- , just call every par 5 a par 4 - problem solved. All anyone complains about is "So and so is 25 under par..." nobody say "Can you believe so and so shot 263 for the week? "

>

>

> Complete nonsense. **What we are trying to do** is to construct a particular kind of game that is played over historic courses.

 

Good luck on your quest. I'm sure you and the other powers that be will listen to all perspectives and consider that you may not be 100% correct on every issue.

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> Yeah and I have heard over and over how Jack Nicklaus wants a rollback to somehow protect his golfing records. Don’t bother trying to explain that one. It’s not possible.

>

> I think that not one Titleist-sponsored player should get to talk in the rollback debate. Not without detailed questioning about their contracts. And now that the Taylormade CEO also took sides against any rollback, ditto all of those players too.

>

> There is absolutely no equivalent self-interest conflict on the part of Jack Nicklaus.

>

> I will never ever forget Brad Faxon’s virtual guilty plea on this subject. Faxon, the longtime Brand Ambassador for Titleist, once responded to a Nicklaus complaint about modern distances by saying that Jack never had a good ball contract.

>

> Jaw-dropping.

 

Soooo, basically anyone that has an opposing view does not get a say?? Got it.. Glad to know you are not partial.. I am not sure what you are saying Faxon was guilty of. Other than being able to possibly capitalize a little better than Jack. That has more to do with money available in a different era that quality of play.

 

Jack 100% has a partial and one sided argument. They play events at multiple courses he has had a hand in either design or re-design. It points to the fact that he cant defend his own course with design features. Therefore because he is Jack, it has to be something else other than lack of creativity. Oh, the ball!! Its the ball!! never mind, I can not design a course with enough challenge for the best golfers in the world..

[gioguy21]


 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> Yeah and I have heard over and over how Jack Nicklaus wants a rollback to somehow protect his golfing records. Don’t bother trying to explain that one. It’s not possible.

>

> I think that not one Titleist-sponsored player should get to talk in the rollback debate. Not without detailed questioning about their contracts. And now that the Taylormade CEO also took sides against any rollback, ditto all of those players too.

>

> There is absolutely no equivalent self-interest conflict on the part of Jack Nicklaus.

>

> I will never ever forget Brad Faxon’s virtual guilty plea on this subject. Faxon, the longtime Brand Ambassador for Titleist, once responded to a Nicklaus complaint about modern distances by saying that Jack never had a good ball contract.

>

> Jaw-dropping.

 

Agree that we should silence the current Titleist players on this issue unless we can see their contracts. While it’s extremely vital to the movement to silence opposition, for appearances, we should also silence the individuals in the governing bodies with interests in our historic country clubs (whether through the tournaments held there, or in the form of private memberships) until I am able to review their contracts/membership agreements. We should know just who has what to gain in our quest to keep these country clubs relevant for national championships.

 

 

 

 

[gioguy21]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > Yeah and I have heard over and over how Jack Nicklaus wants a rollback to somehow protect his golfing records. Don’t bother trying to explain that one. It’s not possible.

> >

> > I think that not one Titleist-sponsored player should get to talk in the rollback debate. Not without detailed questioning about their contracts. And now that the Taylormade CEO also took sides against any rollback, ditto all of those players too.

> >

> > There is absolutely no equivalent self-interest conflict on the part of Jack Nicklaus.

> >

> > I will never ever forget Brad Faxon’s virtual guilty plea on this subject. Faxon, the longtime Brand Ambassador for Titleist, once responded to a Nicklaus complaint about modern distances by saying that Jack never had a good ball contract.

> >

> > Jaw-dropping.

>

> Agree that we should silence the current Titleist players on this issue unless we can see their contracts. While it’s extremely vital to the movement to silence opposition, for appearances, we should also silence the individuals in the governing bodies with interests in our historic country clubs (whether through the tournaments held there, or in the form of private memberships) until I am able to review their contracts/membership agreements. We should know just who has what to gain in our quest to keep these country clubs relevant for national championships.

>

>

>

>

 

why just titleist? shouldn't you silence any/all players who have a ball contract, regardless of OEM? ...and down the rabbit hole we go.

 

again, a dead horse, no matter what you use to beat on it with.

[QuigleyDU]

> @gioguy21 said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > Yeah and I have heard over and over how Jack Nicklaus wants a rollback to somehow protect his golfing records. Don’t bother trying to explain that one. It’s not possible.

> > >

> > > I think that not one Titleist-sponsored player should get to talk in the rollback debate. Not without detailed questioning about their contracts. And now that the Taylormade CEO also took sides against any rollback, ditto all of those players too.

> > >

> > > There is absolutely no equivalent self-interest conflict on the part of Jack Nicklaus.

> > >

> > > I will never ever forget Brad Faxon’s virtual guilty plea on this subject. Faxon, the longtime Brand Ambassador for Titleist, once responded to a Nicklaus complaint about modern distances by saying that Jack never had a good ball contract.

> > >

> > > Jaw-dropping.

> >

> > Agree that we should silence the current Titleist players on this issue unless we can see their contracts. While it’s extremely vital to the movement to silence opposition, for appearances, we should also silence the individuals in the governing bodies with interests in our historic country clubs (whether through the tournaments held there, or in the form of private memberships) until I am able to review their contracts/membership agreements. We should know just who has what to gain in our quest to keep these country clubs relevant for national championships.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> why just titleist? shouldn't you silence any/all players who have a ball contract, regardless of OEM? ...and down the rabbit hole we go.

>

> again, a dead horse, no matter what you use to beat on it with.

 

Its true, around the drain we go... sigh.. I just need to put this thread on ignore and move on....

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @gioguy21 said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > Yeah and I have heard over and over how Jack Nicklaus wants a rollback to somehow protect his golfing records. Don’t bother trying to explain that one. It’s not possible.

> > >

> > > I think that not one Titleist-sponsored player should get to talk in the rollback debate. Not without detailed questioning about their contracts. And now that the Taylormade CEO also took sides against any rollback, ditto all of those players too.

> > >

> > > There is absolutely no equivalent self-interest conflict on the part of Jack Nicklaus.

> > >

> > > I will never ever forget Brad Faxon’s virtual guilty plea on this subject. Faxon, the longtime Brand Ambassador for Titleist, once responded to a Nicklaus complaint about modern distances by saying that Jack never had a good ball contract.

> > >

> > > Jaw-dropping.

> >

> > Agree that we should silence the current Titleist players on this issue unless we can see their contracts. While it’s extremely vital to the movement to silence opposition, for appearances, we should also silence the individuals in the governing bodies with interests in our historic country clubs (whether through the tournaments held there, or in the form of private memberships) until I am able to review their contracts/membership agreements. We should know just who has what to gain in our quest to keep these country clubs relevant for national championships.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> why just titleist? shouldn't you silence any/all players who have a ball contract, regardless of OEM? ...and down the rabbit hole we go.

>

> again, a dead horse, no matter what you use to beat on it with.

 

Great point. In any ruler/subject relationship it’s important to shout down any and all opposition. I’d also like to walk back my call for those in power (and course designers) to make public all of their relationships with stakeholders who want a rollback. The goal is to remain in power, and transparency can only hurt the cause.

 

 

[gvogel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @King_Slender said:

> > > It's all semantics to protect an arbitrary number for par. Living in Detroit it's funny how everyone said Detroit Golf Club wasn't a tour caliber course and they guys would crush it (which they did), but the scores at Medinah for the BMW Championship were even lower overall with the same winning score at -25.

> > >

> > > The score is IRRELEVANT. It's about the drama at the end, regardless of where guys are relative to par. If all anyone is worried about is the +/- , just call every par 5 a par 4 - problem solved. All anyone complains about is "So and so is 25 under par..." nobody say "Can you believe so and so shot 263 for the week? "

> >

> >

> > Complete nonsense. **What we are trying to do** is to construct a particular kind of game that is played over historic courses.

>

> Good luck on your quest. I'm sure you and the other powers that be will listen to all perspectives and consider that you may not be 100% correct on every issue.

>

>

 

When Tiger Woods and Adam Scott mention that some of the skill has been removed from the game, it might be time to take notice.

 

Can't wait to see when the USGA/R&A guys say when the Distance Report is issued.

[gioguy21]

> @gvogel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @King_Slender said:

> > > > It's all semantics to protect an arbitrary number for par. Living in Detroit it's funny how everyone said Detroit Golf Club wasn't a tour caliber course and they guys would crush it (which they did), but the scores at Medinah for the BMW Championship were even lower overall with the same winning score at -25.

> > > >

> > > > The score is IRRELEVANT. It's about the drama at the end, regardless of where guys are relative to par. If all anyone is worried about is the +/- , just call every par 5 a par 4 - problem solved. All anyone complains about is "So and so is 25 under par..." nobody say "Can you believe so and so shot 263 for the week? "

> > >

> > >

> > > Complete nonsense. **What we are trying to do** is to construct a particular kind of game that is played over historic courses.

> >

> > Good luck on your quest. I'm sure you and the other powers that be will listen to all perspectives and consider that you may not be 100% correct on every issue.

> >

> >

>

> When Tiger Woods and Adam Scott mention that some of the skill has been removed from the game, it might be time to take notice.

>

> Can't wait to see when the USGA/R&A guys say when the Distance Report is issued.

 

"wow, the ball goes further...hmm...and it has NOTHING to do with anything else in the environment of professional golf, not athletic evolution, not clubs, not course conditioning, nope, not a thing...yup, we need to roll the ball back."

 

*this is a joke. this is a personal observation/opinion of how i believe the USGA and R&A have viewed distance gains.

[gvogel]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > Yeah and I have heard over and over how Jack Nicklaus wants a rollback to somehow protect his golfing records. Don’t bother trying to explain that one. It’s not possible.

> >

> > I think that not one Titleist-sponsored player should get to talk in the rollback debate. Not without detailed questioning about their contracts. And now that the Taylormade CEO also took sides against any rollback, ditto all of those players too.

> >

> > There is absolutely no equivalent self-interest conflict on the part of Jack Nicklaus.

> >

> > I will never ever forget Brad Faxon’s virtual guilty plea on this subject. Faxon, the longtime Brand Ambassador for Titleist, once responded to a Nicklaus complaint about modern distances by saying that Jack never had a good ball contract.

> >

> > Jaw-dropping.

>

> Agree that we should silence the current Titleist players on this issue unless we can see their contracts. While it’s extremely vital to the movement to silence opposition, for appearances, we should also silence the individuals in the governing bodies with interests in our historic country clubs (whether through the tournaments held there, or in the form of private memberships) until I am able to review their contracts/membership agreements. We should know just who has what to gain in our quest to keep these country clubs relevant for national championships.

>

>

>

>

 

You can start with Fred Ridley. He is the Chairman of Augusta National Golf Club. Like the rest of the members, he pays to be a member. He is in charge of running one of the 4 majors. He has hinted that he really doesn't want to lengthen the 13th hole, but that the shot values these days are no where near what they used to be. He probably didn't want to spend $40M to buy the adjacent hole from Augusta Country Club - but he felt he had to, just in case they need to lengthen 13.

 

It isn't about the sacredness of par; it is about maintaining a certain skill level for the participants.

[macedan]

> @gvogel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @King_Slender said:

> > > > It's all semantics to protect an arbitrary number for par. Living in Detroit it's funny how everyone said Detroit Golf Club wasn't a tour caliber course and they guys would crush it (which they did), but the scores at Medinah for the BMW Championship were even lower overall with the same winning score at -25.

> > > >

> > > > The score is IRRELEVANT. It's about the drama at the end, regardless of where guys are relative to par. If all anyone is worried about is the +/- , just call every par 5 a par 4 - problem solved. All anyone complains about is "So and so is 25 under par..." nobody say "Can you believe so and so shot 263 for the week? "

> > >

> > >

> > > Complete nonsense. **What we are trying to do** is to construct a particular kind of game that is played over historic courses.

> >

> > Good luck on your quest. I'm sure you and the other powers that be will listen to all perspectives and consider that you may not be 100% correct on every issue.

> >

> >

>

> When Tiger Woods and Adam Scott mention that some of the skill has been removed from the game, it might be time to take notice.

>

> Can't wait to see when the USGA/R&A guys say when the Distance Report is issued.

 

Nah, the current rookies and sophomores are bringing with them ludicrous amounts of talent and understanding of the golf swing coupled with the aid of modern training programs, analysis, fitness regimens, and *sigh* yes equipment. This is the modern game, their (Woods/Scott) era is slowly waning and this is the new age. Enjoy it.

[smashdn]

> @JohnnyCashForever said:

> I don't think that'll affect the pros at all. It'll impact the rank-and-file golfers more.

>

> Proof? Pros hit 3 woods astronomical distances. The heads on a typical 3 wood are relatively small (<200cc). Also, didn't Dustin Johnson try out a persimmon driver at last year's PGA? 290 yards. These guys are good.

 

290 is long but not out of range with persimmon when hit on the screws. I doubt he is carrying 330 with a steel shafted persimmon head though.

 

I hate to pull a GolfWRX brag but I have a measured 295 yard drive with persimmon. It is not that you can't still hit it that far it is that you have to be dead nuts perfect to get that out of them. I just got lucky was what I did. Plus the flight is completely different if you want that distance. It comes out low and you need the run. That type of flight and run brings those fairway bunkers at 260-275 into play. There is no going over them without some real risk. It is really hard to explain if you haven't played the old stuff but imagine your game with your current woods but there is a ceiling at about 100 foot high that you simply cannot go above. Or if you choose to flight the ball above that ceiling you will give up 30-40 yards of total distance.

 

Head size is only one variable. Size of the sweet spot is the real player.

[ryanarneson]

> @gvogel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > Yeah and I have heard over and over how Jack Nicklaus wants a rollback to somehow protect his golfing records. Don’t bother trying to explain that one. It’s not possible.

> > >

> > > I think that not one Titleist-sponsored player should get to talk in the rollback debate. Not without detailed questioning about their contracts. And now that the Taylormade CEO also took sides against any rollback, ditto all of those players too.

> > >

> > > There is absolutely no equivalent self-interest conflict on the part of Jack Nicklaus.

> > >

> > > I will never ever forget Brad Faxon’s virtual guilty plea on this subject. Faxon, the longtime Brand Ambassador for Titleist, once responded to a Nicklaus complaint about modern distances by saying that Jack never had a good ball contract.

> > >

> > > Jaw-dropping.

> >

> > Agree that we should silence the current Titleist players on this issue unless we can see their contracts. While it’s extremely vital to the movement to silence opposition, for appearances, we should also silence the individuals in the governing bodies with interests in our historic country clubs (whether through the tournaments held there, or in the form of private memberships) until I am able to review their contracts/membership agreements. We should know just who has what to gain in our quest to keep these country clubs relevant for national championships.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> You can start with Fred Ridley. He is the Chairman of Augusta National Golf Club. Like the rest of the members, he pays to be a member. He is in charge of running one of the 4 majors. He has hinted that he really doesn't want to lengthen the 13th hole, but that the shot values these days are no where near what they used to be. He probably didn't want to spend $40M to buy the adjacent hole from Augusta Country Club - but he felt he had to, just in case they need to lengthen 13.

>

> It isn't about the sacredness of par; it is about maintaining a certain skill level for the participants.

 

He could have saved his club that $40 million simply by turning off the sprinklers and drying out the course. Pinehurst #2 figured it out.

 

But this is the club that has no qualms about piping in bird sounds or the liberal use of green paint. Heaven forbid there be a brown spot at Augusta. The Patrons simply won't stand for it. They are probably the #1 cause for every other golf course in the US overwatering and spending way too much $$$ on aesthetic maintenance just to make their course *look* pretty and green but play like a soggy wet turd.

[Shilgy]

> @gvogel said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > Yeah and I have heard over and over how Jack Nicklaus wants a rollback to somehow protect his golfing records. Don’t bother trying to explain that one. It’s not possible.

> > >

> > > I think that not one Titleist-sponsored player should get to talk in the rollback debate. Not without detailed questioning about their contracts. And now that the Taylormade CEO also took sides against any rollback, ditto all of those players too.

> > >

> > > There is absolutely no equivalent self-interest conflict on the part of Jack Nicklaus.

> > >

> > > I will never ever forget Brad Faxon’s virtual guilty plea on this subject. Faxon, the longtime Brand Ambassador for Titleist, once responded to a Nicklaus complaint about modern distances by saying that Jack never had a good ball contract.

> > >

> > > Jaw-dropping.

> >

> > Agree that we should silence the current Titleist players on this issue unless we can see their contracts. While it’s extremely vital to the movement to silence opposition, for appearances, we should also silence the individuals in the governing bodies with interests in our historic country clubs (whether through the tournaments held there, or in the form of private memberships) until I am able to review their contracts/membership agreements. We should know just who has what to gain in our quest to keep these country clubs relevant for national championships.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> You can start with Fred Ridley. He is the Chairman of Augusta National Golf Club. Like the rest of the members, he pays to be a member. He is in charge of running one of the 4 majors. He has hinted that he really doesn't want to lengthen the 13th hole, but that the shot values these days are no where near what they used to be. He probably didn't want to spend $40M to buy the adjacent hole from Augusta Country Club - but he felt he had to, just in case they need to lengthen 13.

>

>** It isn't about the sacredness of par; it is about maintaining a certain skill level for the participants.

**

Using that logic does that mean Jack was less skilled than his shorter brethren? Tiger was less skilled than Pavin early in his career? The whole current crop is less skilled than players of the past because they hit it long and straight.

 

Almost every single one of the posts that support a roll back want the game to return to their own glory days. Hickory pros are dead and gone so those guys are gone but others just want "the game and short values to be the same as the past"....subtext is "as I want , favored and remember it".

 

The game and it's equipment has evolved since it started.

[15th Club]

No, of course I am not ruling anyone out of the debate. All I am saying is that the Titleist players are allowed to debate after they have disclosed all of their financial interests. And of course they won’t.

 

Jack has no such conflicts any claim that he does is preposterous.

[ryanarneson]

> @"15th Club" said:

> No, of course I am not ruling anyone out of the debate. All I am saying is that the Titleist players are allowed to debate after they have disclosed all of their financial interests. And of course they won’t.

>

> Jack has no such conflicts any claim that he does is preposterous.

 

If people are making shambles of his golf courses, of course he has a conflict as the architect.

[macedan]

> @"15th Club" said:

> No, of course I am not ruling anyone out of the debate. All I am saying is that the Titleist players are allowed to debate after they have disclosed all of their financial interests. And of course they won’t.

>

> Jack has no such conflicts any claim that he does is preposterous.

 

**Jack 100% has a partial and one sided argument. They play events at multiple courses he has had a hand in either design or re-design. It points to the fact that he cant defend his own course with design features. Therefore because he is Jack, it has to be something else other than lack of creativity. Oh, the ball!! Its the ball!! never mind, I can not design a course with enough challenge for the best golfers in the world..**

 

Bolded is from the poster you are referring to. The quote option at the bottom of posts is quite helpful. And I would have to agree with Quigley here. His courses get demolished (by tour pros) and the only way to keep them relevant (in his way of thinking and others who think 6,500 yard par 72 courses for tour pros and wound balls played with persimmon woods and steel shafts are still relevant) is to revert equipment back thirty years. I.e. an abstract definition of bias

[CROUSE99]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @garzar said:

> > > > To truly test these guys they're gonna need someone to build a 8,500-8,800yd. course. They just DESTROYED a 7,600yd Medina. Make them hit long irons/hybrids into holes instead of wedge/9i every time. Crush, throw dart, make putt. Pro golf today. Its a joke.

> > >

> > > Well, that's one way to separate the men from the boys according to tee to green talent. But very expensive from a land acquisition and course upkeep standpoint.

> > >

> > > The other way is to make the equipment more difficult to use, and roll the ball back.

> >

> >

> > Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Greg Norman all STRONGLY favor a ball rollback. Men? Or boys?

>

> all washed up or nearly washed up old dogs, their voice (in my opinion) is not needed or wanted regarding the future of the game. If they want to sit back and tell grandpa stories, GREAT!! but stop barking about the ball. Jeez, the group think around this is terrible and myopic. Surely there are things that can be done. I would say for the most part it does not even really matter. We are talking about the 1 percent of 1 percent of golfers. And then, only really in the right conditions do they absolutely shred courses. NEWS FLASH!!! THEY R REALLY FREAKING GOOD AT THIS GAME. Try something else then target the ball. Tell the course set up crew to do something else..

>

> There is soooooooo much else that could be done other than lengthen a course to 10000 yard to protect some abstract number. I don't understand it. Only in golf is a number so worshiped. In any other sport no one complains about too many points being scored. No complains, that Steph Curry is hitting too many 3 pointers. You know why? Old players in those sports look at new age players and for the most part applaud them for changing the game. Only in the privileged game of golf do stuffy old fat guys sit around and talk about "how the game was meant to be played". Well if we played the game the way it was meant to, these tour courses would be 75% less manicured than they are, the greens would have some bump to them. The fairways would have sheep on them, and par may be a bit harder to shoot. If you set the course up so they get perfect lies every where they go, the greens are perfect and roll true, they are going to shred it regardless of what you do to the ball.

>

> You roll the ball back and shorten courses, what have you actually accomplished? the same old people will say the game is too easy at that point as well..

>

> RANT OVER!!

 

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @garzar said:

> > > > To truly test these guys they're gonna need someone to build a 8,500-8,800yd. course. They just DESTROYED a 7,600yd Medina. Make them hit long irons/hybrids into holes instead of wedge/9i every time. Crush, throw dart, make putt. Pro golf today. Its a joke.

> > >

> > > Well, that's one way to separate the men from the boys according to tee to green talent. But very expensive from a land acquisition and course upkeep standpoint.

> > >

> > > The other way is to make the equipment more difficult to use, and roll the ball back.

> >

> >

> > Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Greg Norman all STRONGLY favor a ball rollback. Men? Or boys?

>

> all washed up or nearly washed up old dogs, their voice (in my opinion) is not needed or wanted regarding the future of the game. If they want to sit back and tell grandpa stories, GREAT!! but stop barking about the ball. Jeez, the group think around this is terrible and myopic. Surely there are things that can be done. I would say for the most part it does not even really matter. We are talking about the 1 percent of 1 percent of golfers. And then, only really in the right conditions do they absolutely shred courses. NEWS FLASH!!! THEY R REALLY FREAKING GOOD AT THIS GAME. Try something else then target the ball. Tell the course set up crew to do something else..

>

> There is soooooooo much else that could be done other than lengthen a course to 10000 yard to protect some abstract number. I don't understand it. Only in golf is a number so worshiped. In any other sport no one complains about too many points being scored. No complains, that Steph Curry is hitting too many 3 pointers. You know why? Old players in those sports look at new age players and for the most part applaud them for changing the game. Only in the privileged game of golf do stuffy old fat guys sit around and talk about "how the game was meant to be played". Well if we played the game the way it was meant to, these tour courses would be 75% less manicured than they are, the greens would have some bump to them. The fairways would have sheep on them, and par may be a bit harder to shoot. If you set the course up so they get perfect lies every where they go, the greens are perfect and roll true, they are going to shred it regardless of what you do to the ball.

>

> You roll the ball back and shorten courses, what have you actually accomplished? the same old people will say the game is too easy at that point as well..

>

> RANT OVER!!

 

Really? "Washed up old dogs"? And at what age do the opinions of great players become irrelevant? Do you see the opinions of your parents as irrelevant because of their ages? At what age do you plan to become irrelevant?

[15th Club]

Baloney. Nicklaus Design would make money — they would be paid — to redesign courses for modern Tour distances.

 

Think of a less stupid angle.

 

[CROUSE99]

For me, the issue isn't score. It is that modern players no longer have to work the ball. They no longer have to hit long irons close on par 4's. They rarely have to worry about controlling spin. All they have to do is hit driver a mile and then hit a wedge on the green. It is extraordinarily boring to watch golf played that way.

[golfer07840]

> @Soloman1 said:

> I've been playing a 360cc, 43.5" driver lately and can still hit it 280, and I'm almost 66 years old.

>

> It's the ball. The ball!

 

Please tell me this isn't a complaint.

[smashdn]

> @JaNelson38 said:

> > @garzar said:

> > I'm in the "they're hittin' it too dang far" camp and have a question: say they kept the same balls but just reduced the driver head volume. If they took it back to,say, 300cc wouldn't that shrink the current massive sweet-spot? They need to make it a fairly substantial distance penalty for not dead nuttin' it. Thoughts out there?

>

> No, it wouldnt change much. Most touring pros hit the "sweet spot" just about every time.

>

> Is the equipment better than 20 years ago? Sure. But these guys "hit it too dang far" because they're simply that good. That's all there is to it. They've been taught from day one how to drive the golf ball. You see it now even with the Drive, Chip & Putt: 9 and 10 year olds are whacking it out there 200+ yards. You've got 15-year old boys in that competition cranking it 300. This is what the game of golf is emphasizing right now - distance. Because most courses demand long distance to be competitive.

>

> **Golf courses need a "course correction", for lack of a better term: narrower, shorter, more angles, more hazards, smaller landing areas. Sure, let the big dog eat on the par-5. But make positioning far more important than it is now, especially on the par 4 holes.**

 

You know this breeds courses that your average membership or amateur cannot play right? This also leads to substantially more inputs to maintain those conditions which drives the price of golf upwards out of most folks means. Positioning is important when greens have character and contour. Both things that modern green speeds are not compatible with. If you want to brag about your "greens rolling 12" then you can't have interesting contour that dictates a shot from a spot to a spot unless you want to putt balls off the green.

 

By far the simplest answer is to change the one piece of equipment used on every single shot. The one thing that could singly be controlled to prevent the additional lengthening of courses, the need for smaller, harder greens, deeper and harder hazards - the things that slow down play and drive cost to the end user and make golf less environmentally sustainable. Quite literally, within a few months all of our problems would go away, if the USGA and R&A would just regulate the ball and reign it in a bit. It is the simplest solution and quickest to implement with the least cost.

[disco111]

The new young pro's have grown up with the advanced equipment, in fact that's one of the offerings from the tour commercials. The state of the game now, with the length debate is not going to go backwards. In truth, that's not the real problem. The real problem could be coming in terms of what's next from the OEM's. The COR and the ball are at max limits. So in essence, the game should be at a standstill, tech wise. We'll have to wait and see what transpires and if the governing bodies will stand and negate further advances.