Smaller drivers.....????

[macedan]

> @"15th Club" said:

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

>

> Think of a less stupid angle.

>

 

Lol, how would he be making money to redesign **his own course designs constructed by his own company**. Maybe try thinking of a less stupid angle than the Old Course at St. Andrews a Nicklaus Design, or Augusta National a Nicklaus Design. I understand the possibility of his company taking on outside restoration projects but the cost of renovating his own designs offsets that income.

[QuigleyDU]

> @CROUSE99 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!!

>

> > @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?

 

on certain things, yes. I do find my parents point of view irrelevant. There are things that I am more than willing to listen to Jack on. The ball is not one of them.

 

As for me being irrelevant, there are many topics that at 40 I already am and I accept it. Social media, social media influencers, stuff like that. I am sure there is more. I am ok with it.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

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

>

> Think of a less stupid angle.

>

 

you as well.

[JaNelson38]

> @smashdn said:

> > @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.

 

 

Why? The average amateur/weekend golfer hits it just over 200-ish off the tee. How does designing a course that is shorter, narrower, with more angles and hazards, mean impossible play? Or higher costs? If anything, a course like that will be CHEAPER to maintain, not more expensive. Heck, some of the toughest driving and narrowest courses I know are resort/daily fee courses, because they didnt have tons of land to create the course with. 25-yard-wide landing areas are the norm at a lot of these courses.

 

And most membership/resort courses I know don't have greens that roll 12 on the stimp.

 

The great majority of weekend golfers dont play high-end balls, or certainly not the balls that tour players play...this is the one thing that those in the roll-back-the-ball debate dont get. The idea that "reigning in the ball" is going to change anything with regards to how the game is played is nonsense.

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"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.

 

I will allow Nicklaus a voice in this debate as soon as he releases all of his financial interests. Not a moment sooner.

 

Does he happen to own a company that sells golf balls? Not just any golf balls, but inferior ones currently played by zero tour pros/elite amateurs? Yeah. Nicklaus doesn’t get to talk anymore until I review the financials and documents regarding corporate strategy.

 

 

[AMLemus]

> @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.

 

I feel like asking for wholesale course adjustments (for how many courses nation/worldwide?) would end up costing more in total in property purchases and renovations than implementing equipment limitations.

[smashdn]

> @JaNelson38 said:

> The great majority of weekend golfers dont play high-end balls, or certainly not the balls that tour players play...this is the one thing that those in the roll-back-the-ball debate dont get. The idea that "reigning in the ball" is going to change anything with regards to how the game is played is nonsense.

 

I am not interested in reigning in the ball for average golfers. They are getting about as much as they can with what speed they can swing it. I am interested in limiting distance on the upper end. It can be done.

 

Or you bifurcate the rules. Suites me just fine to do that but I know some check out of the conversation when it gets brought up.

 

You tell me how narrowing fairways and adding more hazards doesn't add time to play the game for the "average/weekend golfer?

 

 

[golfer07840]

> @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.

 

Wow, imagine that. A course designed in the 1930's, almost 100 years ago, no longer plays the way it used to.

 

 

[15th Club]

> @golfer07840 said:

> > @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.

>

> Wow, imagine that. A course designed in the 1930's, almost 100 years ago, no longer plays the way it used to.

>

>

 

 

That’s not the point. Only Augusta, with a bottomless pit of money, could pay to re-route Berckmann Road, buy up an entire neighborhood and the Ninth hole at Augusta Country Club.

 

No other club could do that, and no other club should ever have to think about any need to do it.

[Shilgy]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @golfer07840 said:

> > > @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.

> >

> > Wow, imagine that. A course designed in the 1930's, almost 100 years ago, no longer plays the way it used to.

> >

> >

>

>

> That’s not the point. Only Augusta, with a bottomless pit of money, could pay to re-route Berckmann Road, buy up an entire neighborhood and the Ninth hole at Augusta Country Club.

>

> No other club could do that, and no other club should ever have to think about any need to do it.

 

And because of the wonderful design of #13 they do not need to stretch the hole. It plays perfectly as a par 4.5 virtually every Masters.

 

PS that certainly is the point though. You missed it in your rant. Why should a century old course play exactly as it used to? If you want to create

a sentimental virtual reality tour that plays old equipment and old courses just the way you remember from your youth that is fine. Do so.

The whole idea that golf is a shambles and needs to be fixed?? Silly talk by those trying to connect with a game that does not exist. And only did exactly that way for a short snippet of time.

[15th Club]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"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.

>

> I will allow Nicklaus a voice in this debate as soon as he releases all of his financial interests. Not a moment sooner.

>

> Does he happen to own a company that sells golf balls? Not just any golf balls, but inferior ones currently played by zero tour pros/elite amateurs? Yeah. Nicklaus doesn’t get to talk anymore until I review the financials and documents regarding corporate strategy.

>

>

 

 

You seem to be suggesting that Jack Nicklaus has been advocating better regulation of golf balls for the last 34 years because he’s seeking a competitive advantage for golf balls that he does not manufacture but which are vanity balls bearing his logo.

 

But that would be too stupid even for you.

[JohnnyCashForever]

> @smashdn said:

 

> 290 is long but not out of range with persimmon when hit on the screws.

 

Obviously, since DJ did it.

 

>I doubt he is carrying 330 with a steel shafted persimmon head though.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. He carried 290 (318 total) on a goof. It's not like he was practicing all week with that persimmon driver for that day. The story makes it sound like he was handed the club and had at it. I think if he were forced to put one in the bag as a gamer and practiced with that club, he would crank it way beyond 290.

 

https://www.pga.com/news/golf-buzz/watch-dustin-johnson-use-jack-nicklaus-old-1-iron-persimmon-driver

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"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.

> >

> > I will allow Nicklaus a voice in this debate as soon as he releases all of his financial interests. Not a moment sooner.

> >

> > Does he happen to own a company that sells golf balls? Not just any golf balls, but inferior ones currently played by zero tour pros/elite amateurs? Yeah. Nicklaus doesn’t get to talk anymore until I review the financials and documents regarding corporate strategy.

> >

> >

>

>

> You seem to be suggesting that Jack Nicklaus has been advocating better regulation of golf balls for the last 34 years because he’s seeking a competitive advantage for golf balls that he does not manufacture but which are vanity balls bearing his logo.

>

> But that would be too stupid even for you.

 

Should be no problem to disclose the financials, then. It’s definitely on-brand for Nicklaus to do things for vanity, but we have to be sure. He must disclose the financials so I can review them before he will be allowed to speak again on this subject.

 

 

[NevinW]

On the golf channel this evening Billy Andrade said that at his peak he averaged 257 yards per drive, but now averages 280. He has clearly become a better athlete and his years of strength training are paying off.

[jmvargas]

Adam Scott said it best...smarter--not longer--courses!!

[Nessism]

Driver size effects forgiveness not distance. Scores may increase with a smaller head but only because mishits would be more penal.

[mark m]

Vijay 1993 = 273.2

Vijay 2003 = 301.9

 

Phil 1993 = 269.2

Phil 2003 = 306.0

 

Look at the TM Original Mini:

https://www.taylormadegolf.com/Original-One-Mini-Driver/DW-JJI11.html?lang=default

Standard is 43.75" and it is 275cc. Anyone could play with it. I would assume it still has the max COR.

 

Too bad they did not set the standards in the late 1990's at max size around 260-290cc and same COR as wood. And the ball could have been 300 yards max carry with 120 chs (instead of around 320 yards carry today). I think it's too late now as a generation has grown up using nothing but the modern weapons. I believe the R&A and USGA have tested stuff and already know where they would like things to be - but it would be hard to implement anything significant and - even if they did - it would probably have a very long transition period. (If it happened, many would play a shorter course distance.)

 

The R&A and USGA have this "Distance Insights" project and are going to release the full reoprt later this year:

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/driving-distance/Q12019_DistanceInsightsProgressUpdateff.pdf

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Seems like guys hit it farther now than they used to. Where does it end? They should put distance limits in place for balls and clubs so any further increases are due to the player.

[padge1984]

This debate is kind of silly really, it’s like saying, they should change the shoes in the nba so the guys won’t jump as high. These guys got the ball far because they have excellent swings and very high swing speeds. Hit the ball in the center and that’s a recipe for some yardage. It is what it is. They would still be as good if they changed the equipment IMO

[15th Club]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @"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.

> > >

> > > I will allow Nicklaus a voice in this debate as soon as he releases all of his financial interests. Not a moment sooner.

> > >

> > > Does he happen to own a company that sells golf balls? Not just any golf balls, but inferior ones currently played by zero tour pros/elite amateurs? Yeah. Nicklaus doesn’t get to talk anymore until I review the financials and documents regarding corporate strategy.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > You seem to be suggesting that Jack Nicklaus has been advocating better regulation of golf balls for the last 34 years because he’s seeking a competitive advantage for golf balls that he does not manufacture but which are vanity balls bearing his logo.

> >

> > But that would be too stupid even for you.

>

> Should be no problem to disclose the financials, then. It’s definitely on-brand for Nicklaus to do things for vanity, but we have to be sure. He must disclose the financials so I can review them before he will be allowed to speak again on this subject.

>

>

 

 

And exactly what financial information would you expect with Jack Nicklaus that would be relevant to any personal interest in the ball debate?

[bladehunter]

> @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.

 

No offense. But that’s some more of that “ won’t make a difference , but don’t change a thing “ talk. It either won’t or will make a difference. It can’t be both. If it doesn’t matter then why does it matter ?

[Tyeetime]

> @CROUSE99 said:

> 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.

 

This is how I feel as well. I want to see the odd 4 iron to a par 4.

And people that say rolling the ball back or making drivers smaller is "gimmicky" should remember that this is a tour that is going to start a tournament with someone at -10.

Baseball has stayed true to the wooden bat. Formula 1 has rolled back engine sizes. It can be done without being Gimmicky.

How about this as an idea; Certain tournaments limit driver size. This would add some variety, and would provide some data. Maybe another tournament would use a spec ball. We would at least find out the effect these have on modern players playing on mature courses.

The manufacturers can still sell their big dogs to the public.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

> @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!!

 

First of all, the old players of the NBA do complain about the current crop, though not like golfers. Jordan complains constantly about the defensive rules today vs. his era. He probably would have averaged 35+ per game if defenders didn’t have two hands on him the whole game.

 

Second, the legends praise Steph because he uses the same ball, same net, same court as the legends (in the 3-point line era). I’m willing to bet they’d have a problem with him hitting so many threes if the rim was bigger or the 3-point line was 5 feet closer. He’s playing with the same equipment on the same court. Not even close to the same can be said about golf. The ball goes 30 yards further, doesn’t curve much, is barely affected by the elements, and drivers are low spinning and more forgiving than a grandmother.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @"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.

> > > >

> > > > I will allow Nicklaus a voice in this debate as soon as he releases all of his financial interests. Not a moment sooner.

> > > >

> > > > Does he happen to own a company that sells golf balls? Not just any golf balls, but inferior ones currently played by zero tour pros/elite amateurs? Yeah. Nicklaus doesn’t get to talk anymore until I review the financials and documents regarding corporate strategy.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You seem to be suggesting that Jack Nicklaus has been advocating better regulation of golf balls for the last 34 years because he’s seeking a competitive advantage for golf balls that he does not manufacture but which are vanity balls bearing his logo.

> > >

> > > But that would be too stupid even for you.

> >

> > Should be no problem to disclose the financials, then. It’s definitely on-brand for Nicklaus to do things for vanity, but we have to be sure. He must disclose the financials so I can review them before he will be allowed to speak again on this subject.

> >

> >

>

>

> And exactly what financial information would you expect with Jack Nicklaus that would be relevant to any personal interest in the ball debate?

 

Not personal interest; financial interest. He needs to disclose all of it to be taken seriously in this debate. The golfing public needs to make sure his statements are not financially motivated. The vocal geriatrics are not immune to your own requirement of current tour pros to disclose their financial interests before they can participate in the debate.

 

 

[d1bound]

It was interesting to me reading Billy Casper's book. Multiple times he references winning at -19 or -20. Don't know the stats but has the scoring on tour really changed?

[Soloman1]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

 

> Should be no problem to disclose the financials, then. It’s definitely on-brand for Nicklaus to do things for vanity, but we have to be sure. He must disclose the financials so I can review them before he will be allowed to speak again on this subject.

>

So YOU can review and decide if he’s “allowed” to speak? Oh my...

 

 

[mwkbmw]

I find most professional golf boring these days. Not all, but most. I enjoyed pre-slump Spieth because he got it done in ways other than "bomb and gouge". Now even that is gone. Sigh....

[grm24]

> @d1bound said:

> It was interesting to me reading Billy Casper's book. Multiple times he references winning at -19 or -20. Don't know the stats b**ut has the scoring on tour really changed**?

 

No. There has always been low scoring on the on the PGA Tour. Just more people whining about these days. In 1955 Mike Souchak set the PGA scoring record at 27 under. In 1958 he won another event at 25 under.

 

https://golfhistorytoday.com/tag/1955-pga-tour/

 

Arnie won his first event in 1955 at 23 under.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @Soloman1 said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

>

> > Should be no problem to disclose the financials, then. It’s definitely on-brand for Nicklaus to do things for vanity, but we have to be sure. He must disclose the financials so I can review them before he will be allowed to speak again on this subject.

> >

> So YOU can review and decide if he’s “allowed” to speak? Oh my...

>

>

 

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, pompous, and self-satisfied to even suggest it, doesn’t it?

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @PowderedToastMan 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!!

>

> First of all, the old players of the NBA do complain about the current crop, though not like golfers. Jordan complains constantly about the defensive rules today vs. his era. He probably would have averaged 35+ per game if defenders didn’t have two hands on him the whole game.

>

> Second, the legends praise Steph because he uses the same ball, same net, same court as the legends (in the 3-point line era). I’m willing to bet they’d have a problem with him hitting so many threes if the rim was bigger or the 3-point line was 5 feet closer. He’s playing with the same equipment on the same court. Not even close to the same can be said about golf. The ball goes 30 yards further, doesn’t curve much, is barely affected by the elements, and drivers are low spinning and more forgiving than a grandmother.

 

I see some of your points but I would say that none are saying today’s players need to start wearing chuck Taylor’s because they are jumping too high. I see that is the best apples to apples comparison. Taking about the hoop or three point line is not the same. That’s the course, not the equipment. I am sure the ball has changed some, although obviously not like a golf ball.