Smaller drivers.....????

[PowderedToastMan]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @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.

 

A few years ago, they tried to change the basketball, and the players went crazy. They hated the new synthetic ball and went back to the same leather ball used for decades. The NBA still uses balata, if you will.

 

And talking about the hoop and three point line is relevant, because the modern ball and driver shorten golf courses. Golf is easier when you are hitting short irons into greens instead of mid/long irons. This can’t be disputed.

 

[15th Club]

> @grm24 said:

> > @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.

 

 

On a 6400 yard course.

 

That is what has changed. Scoring only remains marginally constant by making courses longer and longer. But we can’t make Riviera, Oakland Hills, U of Michigan, Merion, LACC, Seminole, or Royal Melbourne any longer than they are now.

 

Practically the entire British Open rota has been maxed out.

 

[JohnnyCashForever]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @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 ?

 

Not offended at all.

 

However, not quite sure I understand your post.

 

To be clear: The OP asked if making the drivers heads and sweet spots smaller would make it harder for the pros to hit the ball far. My guess is no. The pros will still hit it far...very far. However, the change would hurt the rest of us who need/want the larger surface area and sweet spot on the driver face. So if I am understanding your post, I guess it can be "both". It won't make a difference for the pros. It will make a difference for recreational golfers (if large-headed drivers were banned).

[15th Club]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @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?

>

 

 

What is ridiculous is that Titleist has millions— maybe billions — at stake (they seem to think) in any golf ball regulation.

 

Jack Nicklaus has basically nothing to gain or lose via any new regulation.

[bladehunter]

> @JohnnyCashForever said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @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 ?

>

> Not offended at all.

>

> However, not quite sure I understand your post.

>

> To be clear: The OP asked if making the drivers heads and sweet spots smaller would make it harder for the pros to hit the ball far. My guess is no. The pros will still hit it far...very far. However, the change would hurt the rest of us who need/want the larger surface area and sweet spot on the driver face. So if I am understanding your post, I guess it can be "both". It won't make a difference for the pros. It will make a difference for recreational golfers (if large-headed drivers were banned).

 

Yes that’s what I was saying. Not truly directed at you. It was an argument that was had earlier. Guys exclaiming that “ these guys are good “ they will hit it 295 with persimmon , and in the same breathe say “ we can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. Once you see the tech you You can’t go back, what about the short knocker etc. “. That irks me. It literally can’t be both. If these guys are good then they could play anything. ( and they could ). The everyday amateur can play whatever. Bifurcation is the way to go. No different than baseball.

[15th Club]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @JohnnyCashForever said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @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 ?

> >

> > Not offended at all.

> >

> > However, not quite sure I understand your post.

> >

> > To be clear: The OP asked if making the drivers heads and sweet spots smaller would make it harder for the pros to hit the ball far. My guess is no. The pros will still hit it far...very far. However, the change would hurt the rest of us who need/want the larger surface area and sweet spot on the driver face. So if I am understanding your post, I guess it can be "both". It won't make a difference for the pros. It will make a difference for recreational golfers (if large-headed drivers were banned).

>

> Yes that’s what I was saying. Not truly directed at you. It was an argument that was had earlier. Guys exclaiming that “ these guys are good “ they will hit it 295 with persimmon , and in the same breathe say “ we can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. Once you see the tech you You can’t go back, what about the short knocker etc. “. That irks me. It literally can’t be both. If these guys are good then they could play anything. ( and they could ). The everyday amateur can play whatever. Bifurcation is the way to go. No different than baseball.

 

 

People can argue for bifurcation if they want to. It's a free country. Many rollback activists have resigned themselves to the need for bifurcating any rollback. But something in golf is lost when we bifurcate the Rules. It's a lousy option, that we should fight as much as possible and should only be a last resort. It is one of the great pleasures of the game; everyone playing by the same Rules.

 

[NevinW]

 

> People can argue for bifurcation if they want to. It's a free country. Many rollback activists have resigned themselves to the need for bifurcating any rollback. But something in golf is lost when we bifurcate the Rules. It's a lousy option, that we should fight as much as possible and should only be a last resort. It is one of the great pleasures of the game; everyone playing by the same Rules.

>

 

I don't see how there is any other choice but bifurcation. Currently, the ball and the driver goes too long and too straight for the expert player and this is leading to a decrease in the role of ball striking skills in tournament golf. It is even changing the definition of ball striking on the tours. There is little working the ball anymore, just smash it straight. It is making golf courses obsolete and will ultimately make professional golf boring with driver-wedge to every hole. On the other hand, a longer, straighter ball makes non-expert level golf more fun. At 64, I like that I hit it as long as I did when I played in college. The USGA and the R&A could have done something 20 years ago but it is too late now. Bifurcation would seem to be the best option.

[BMC]

The middle of the club is the same on any size driver. Tour pros hit the middle.

[QuigleyDU]

> @PowderedToastMan said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @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.

>

> A few years ago, they tried to change the basketball, and the players went crazy. They hated the new synthetic ball and went back to the same leather ball used for decades. The NBA still uses balata, if you will.

>

> And talking about the hoop and three point line is relevant, because the modern ball and driver shorten golf courses. Golf is easier when you are hitting short irons into greens instead of mid/long irons. This can’t be disputed.

>

 

Once again, I would love to live in the golf is too easy world..

[gioguy21]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @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?

> >

>

>

> What is ridiculous is that Titleist has millions— maybe billions — at stake (they seem to think) in any golf ball regulation.

>

>** Jack Nicklaus has basically nothing to gain or lose via any new regulation.**

 

except his records and the game as he knew it.

[nicelife]

First, I don't play on the PGA tour and I enjoy hitting the ball far. Second, I'm not upset by professionals that are exceptionally good at what they do, golfers and manufacturers. I think Greg Norman's argument is stupid because you are a member of a club by choice not by assignment. Furthermore, the number of clubs that host PGA/Korn Ferry/LPGA/Seniors/USGA is small. It's a prestigious accomplishment for a club to host one of these events and I also don't have a problem with their membership paying the course upkeep. The members are paying most of the bills and if they don't want it they have the power to stop it. Finally, I would hazard a guess that scores at the membership's club tournaments are not suffering because of the golfball.

[smashdn]

> @padge1984 said:

> 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

 

Top to bottom every PGA Tour player is longer now than 15 years ago. Did everybody's swing get better?

 

What has caused the swing speeds to increase to explain the distance increase? Could it be the equipment? You know longer driver shafts, lighter heads and lighter shafts.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @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?

> >

>

>

> What is ridiculous is that Titleist has millions— maybe billions — at stake (they seem to think) in any golf ball regulation.

>

> Jack Nicklaus has basically nothing to gain or lose via any new regulation.

 

that's horse crap. Jack has skin in the game.

[smashdn]

> @BMC said:

> Tour pros hit the middle.

 

Not all of them and not all the time. You ever watched that Phil Mickelson guy play golf?

 

The new equipment allows you to swing faster and have a looser swing because the not only is the sweet spot bigger but the periphery is less punishing when hit. The ball does not go as far off-line as when the face was smaller and the ball had more spin. A mis-hit was truly damaging. You were likely not just in the first cut of rough, you were another fairway over or OB.

 

So you have a choice to make on the tee. Swing hard and fast and risk disaster or throttle back and control the club to ensure proper contact. With the latter you give up distance.

 

The guys that are truly great ball strikers and long should want this. They have nothing to lose and this would only increase the effect of their talent over the rest of the field that has to throttle back.

 

 

[JaNelson38]

Serious question:

So when/if they "roll back the ball" and guys are still shooing -18 to win PGA Tour events, then what? Guys that are complaining now about everyone simply using "driver/wedge on every hole" (which of course is absurd and isnt true) will be complaining that guys are using driver/8-iron and still scoring well.

 

People just need to understand that these guys are good, and they're going to succeed with pretty much any kind of equipment. I use Steve Stricker as an example because he's from my local area, but he literally took a 10+ year old set of irons that was sitting in his basement and went and won a US Senior Open with them. And nobody mistakes Strick for a guy who bombs it.

 

Guys are stronger and bigger. They work out all the time. Unlike many guys a generation ago, playing golf is their full-time job due to the purse sizes. Equipment is better. Courses are manicured to perfection and are largely set up for good scoring to entertain the viewing public. Its a combination of each of these things that has made PGA Tour golf what it is today....its not just one thing or another on its own.

 

The quickest and easiest way to curtail scoring on the PGA Tour, if it is truly perceived to be a problem, is to toughen up the courses. Otherwise, just enjoy these great golfers putting on a display of great golf every week just like any other pro sport.

[tiderider]

> @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.

 

might be very expensive, but there are a limited number of courses that actually host pga tournaments ... is it easier to get them to change their course (if so desired) or is it easier to make an entire industry change? ... i'm in the camp of changing the courses ... not necessarily lengthening all of them, but there needs to be additional length all over at some courses to challenge the pros and make it more a test of patience than a test of execution with a driver, imo ...

[QuigleyDU]

> @smashdn said:

> > @padge1984 said:

> > 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

>

> Top to bottom every PGA Tour player is longer now than 15 years ago. Did everybody's swing get better?

>

> What has caused the swing speeds to increase to explain the distance increase? Could it be the equipment? You know longer driver shafts, lighter heads and lighter shafts.

 

what caused swing speed increases?? look below. All young kids are taught to hit the ball hard now. There are very very few unfit golfers out there. All are exercising and stronger, all are swinging way harder and maximizing everything they can in efficiency. I remember reading Harvey Penicks little red book where he talked about telling golfers not to lift weights. That was the old thinking. that muscle and strength messed up your swing. No one thinks that anymore.

 

 

 

[15th Club]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @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?

> > >

> >

> >

> > What is ridiculous is that Titleist has millions— maybe billions — at stake (they seem to think) in any golf ball regulation.

> >

> > Jack Nicklaus has basically nothing to gain or lose via any new regulation.

>

> that's horse crap. Jack has skin in the game.

 

 

Then describe what that is. I want this fight. What is Jack Nicklaus' financial interest in a golf ball rollback, pro or con?

 

I am saying that Justin Thomas, Jordan Spieth and most of the others who have contracts with Titleist are either prohibited contractually or heavily discouraged from offering any personal opinions about a ball rollback. As they get millions in endorsement money from Titleist. With Titleist being -- by far -- the most active corporate interest in opposing a ball rollback.

[smashdn]

> @JaNelson38 said:

> Serious question:

> So when/if they "roll back the ball" and guys are still shooing -18 to win PGA Tour events, then what?

 

I don't think the argument is "these guys are winning by too much," I think it is that you cannot maintain the integrity of the course and the challenge of the course when the equipment makes it so you can overpower all of the inherent challenges/difficulties in the design. The cost to courses to keep the original intent of the challenge in place for these guys is high. And it is certainly an option to just forgo going to classic architecture and hold the PGA Tour events on designed-for-the-purpose courses with 18 driving range like holes. It would be a lot like top golf but spread out so more people can watch and more tickets can be sold. The number under par is the visible result of blasting over the architecture. There is a whole conversation also to be had about green speed and flattening out contour but I'll leave that for another thread.

 

> @JaNelson38 said:

> People just need to understand that these guys are good, and they're going to succeed with pretty much any kind of equipment. I use Steve Stricker as an example because he's from my local area, but he literally took a 10+ year old set of irons that was sitting in his basement and went and won a US Senior Open with them. And nobody mistakes Strick for a guy who bombs it.

 

That's a beautiful example of two things. The first, Stricker is a naturally talented ball-striker and that trait in his game lead him to success over a field where he was either near the top or had fewer people far surpassing him in distance off the tee. When not everyone has the ability it becomes a true differentiator in the game.

 

The second, iron technology at the highest level hasn't changed much. I am not sure what model clubs he used but I'd bet a dollar to doughnut that a muscle back blade from the 1980's is fundamentally not different than a muscle back blade from 2019 (save the loft is different than the number on the bottom of the club).

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @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?

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > What is ridiculous is that Titleist has millions— maybe billions — at stake (they seem to think) in any golf ball regulation.

> > >

> > > Jack Nicklaus has basically nothing to gain or lose via any new regulation.

> >

> > that's horse crap. Jack has skin in the game.

>

>

> Then describe what that is. I want this fight. What is Jack Nicklaus' financial interest in a golf ball rollback, pro or con?

>

> I am saying that Justin Thomas, Jordan Spieth and most of the others who have contracts with Titleist are either prohibited contractually or heavily discouraged from offering any personal opinions about a ball rollback. As they get millions in endorsement money from Titleist. With Titleist being -- by far -- the most active corporate interest in opposing a ball rollback.

 

I wonder what endorsements Jack still has....I would be willing to bet he still has a ball and club endorsement. to witch hunt for titleist is old. time to discover new material.

 

Nicklaus' eponymous golf course design firm has designed more than 400 courses in 41 countries and 39 states. Jack is directly responsible for 298 of those courses. The firm currently has 57 course projects under development in 19 countries. That is why he does not like the ball.

 

 

[smashdn]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> what caused swing speed increases?? look below. All young kids are taught to hit the ball hard now. There are very very few unfit golfers out there. All are exercising and stronger, all are swinging way harder and maximizing everything they can in efficiency. I remember reading Harvey Penicks little red book where he talked about telling golfers not to lift weights. That was the old thinking. that muscle and strength messed up your swing. No one thinks that anymore.

 

Then the equipment has no bearing. No reason not to roll it back if it has no impact on the game at the pro level. Bifurcate or create a "Tour Ball List," it should have no effect.

 

There are several youtube videos of pro golfers hitting vintage equipment that suggest otherwise however.

 

Does Tiger hit the ball farther now or farther in 2001? Is he more fit now or in 2001?

 

[stanger37]

> @smashdn said:

> Then the equipment has no bearing. No reason not to roll it back if it has no impact on the game at the pro level. Bifurcate or create a "Tour Ball List," it should have no effect.

>

> There are several youtube videos of pro golfers hitting vintage equipment that suggest otherwise however.

>

> Does Tiger hit the ball farther now or farther in 2001? Is he more fit now or in 2001?

>

 

I don't know the answer to your question, just commenting that Tiger's comment about golf these days is interesting. How he said these days, just bomb it and hope you can have 3-4 good weeks a year.

[bladehunter]

> @JaNelson38 said:

> Serious question:

> So when/if they "roll back the ball" and guys are still shooing -18 to win PGA Tour events, then what? Guys that are complaining now about everyone simply using "driver/wedge on every hole" (which of course is absurd and isnt true) will be complaining that guys are using driver/8-iron and still scoring well.

>

> People just need to understand that these guys are good, and they're going to succeed with pretty much any kind of equipment. I use Steve Stricker as an example because he's from my local area, but he literally took a 10+ year old set of irons that was sitting in his basement and went and won a US Senior Open with them. And nobody mistakes Strick for a guy who bombs it.

>

> Guys are stronger and bigger. They work out all the time. Unlike many guys a generation ago, playing golf is their full-time job due to the purse sizes. Equipment is better. Courses are manicured to perfection and are largely set up for good scoring to entertain the viewing public. Its a combination of each of these things that has made PGA Tour golf what it is today....its not just one thing or another on its own.

>

> The quickest and easiest way to curtail scoring on the PGA Tour, if it is truly perceived to be a problem, is to toughen up the courses. Otherwise, just enjoy these great golfers putting on a display of great golf every week just like any other pro sport.

 

It’s never been about score for me. It’s the constant driver flip wedge. Shoot the same scores carving 6 irons in .... fine by me. I want to see who is the proper Approach player. Not who can dial in 46 52 56 60 on trackman.

[QuigleyDU]

> @smashdn said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > what caused swing speed increases?? look below. All young kids are taught to hit the ball hard now. There are very very few unfit golfers out there. All are exercising and stronger, all are swinging way harder and maximizing everything they can in efficiency. I remember reading Harvey Penicks little red book where he talked about telling golfers not to lift weights. That was the old thinking. that muscle and strength messed up your swing. No one thinks that anymore.

>

> Then the equipment has no bearing. No reason not to roll it back if it has no impact on the game at the pro level. Bifurcate or create a "Tour Ball List," it should have no effect.

>

> There are several youtube videos of pro golfers hitting vintage equipment that suggest otherwise however.

>

> Does Tiger hit the ball farther now or farther in 2001? Is he more fit now or in 2001?

>

 

No he is not longer now than in 2001.

 

2001 - ave distance 297.6

2019 - ave distance 296.8

[QuigleyDU]

> @smashdn said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > what caused swing speed increases?? look below. All young kids are taught to hit the ball hard now. There are very very few unfit golfers out there. All are exercising and stronger, all are swinging way harder and maximizing everything they can in efficiency. I remember reading Harvey Penicks little red book where he talked about telling golfers not to lift weights. That was the old thinking. that muscle and strength messed up your swing. No one thinks that anymore.

>

> Then the equipment has no bearing. No reason not to roll it back if it has no impact on the game at the pro level. Bifurcate or create a "Tour Ball List," it should have no effect.

>

> There are several youtube videos of pro golfers hitting vintage equipment that suggest otherwise however.

>

> Does Tiger hit the ball farther now or farther in 2001? Is he more fit now or in 2001?

>

 

I have never said the equipment has no bearing. It absolutely does. I just do not think that it is an issue. I do not believe that it is bad for the game. I do not believe that backwards thinking is the way to go.

[bladehunter]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @padge1984 said:

> > > 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

> >

> > Top to bottom every PGA Tour player is longer now than 15 years ago. Did everybody's swing get better?

> >

> > What has caused the swing speeds to increase to explain the distance increase? Could it be the equipment? You know longer driver shafts, lighter heads and lighter shafts.

>

> what caused swing speed increases?? look below. All young kids are taught to hit the ball hard now. There are very very few unfit golfers out there. All are exercising and stronger, all are swinging way harder and maximizing everything they can in efficiency. I remember reading Harvey Penicks little red book where he talked about telling golfers not to lift weights. That was the old thinking. that muscle and strength messed up your swing. No one thinks that anymore.

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

Nah. Fat john Daly in his prime still faster than Wolfe .... no dots to be connected between gym time and real speed. Guys who are fast are born fast. You can only polish what’s already there.

[RobS14526]

I believe we are headed towards a rollback on the ball. I’m also very skeptical that it will produce the desired results.

 

The elite players are going to find a way to optimize whatever equipment gets put in front of them. Is high level golf going to be more aesthetically pleasing when guys are hitting more hybrids into greens. If you force them to play a ball that spins like a balata, they’ll just load up on lower spinning, strong lofted irons.

 

They are so well equipped with high speed cameras, Doppler radars, pressure plates, etc that you can’t legislate out of the game. The law of unintended consequences has bitten golf’s ruling bodies before.

[QuigleyDU]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @padge1984 said:

> > > > 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

> > >

> > > Top to bottom every PGA Tour player is longer now than 15 years ago. Did everybody's swing get better?

> > >

> > > What has caused the swing speeds to increase to explain the distance increase? Could it be the equipment? You know longer driver shafts, lighter heads and lighter shafts.

> >

> > what caused swing speed increases?? look below. All young kids are taught to hit the ball hard now. There are very very few unfit golfers out there. All are exercising and stronger, all are swinging way harder and maximizing everything they can in efficiency. I remember reading Harvey Penicks little red book where he talked about telling golfers not to lift weights. That was the old thinking. that muscle and strength messed up your swing. No one thinks that anymore.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> Nah. Fat john Daly in his prime still faster than Wolfe .... no dots to be connected between gym time and real speed. Guys who are fast are born fast. You can only polish what’s already there.

 

When John was in his prime I would not call him fat. thick, yes but not fat. Speed is speed that is true, but everyone wants to and is trying to hit the ball far now. Plus, oh that backswing....

 

 

[15th Club]

> @JaNelson38 said:

> Serious question:

> So when/if they "roll back the ball" and guys are still shooing -18 to win PGA Tour events, then what? Guys that are complaining now about everyone simply using "driver/wedge on every hole" (which of course is absurd and isnt true) will be complaining that guys are using driver/8-iron and still scoring well.

>

> People just need to understand that these guys are good, and they're going to succeed with pretty much any kind of equipment. I use Steve Stricker as an example because he's from my local area, but he literally took a 10+ year old set of irons that was sitting in his basement and went and won a US Senior Open with them. And nobody mistakes Strick for a guy who bombs it.

>

> Guys are stronger and bigger. They work out all the time. Unlike many guys a generation ago, playing golf is their full-time job due to the purse sizes. Equipment is better. Courses are manicured to perfection and are largely set up for good scoring to entertain the viewing public. Its a combination of each of these things that has made PGA Tour golf what it is today....its not just one thing or another on its own.

>

> The quickest and easiest way to curtail scoring on the PGA Tour, if it is truly perceived to be a problem, is to toughen up the courses. Otherwise, just enjoy these great golfers putting on a display of great golf every week just like any other pro sport.

 

 

You're making several mistakes.

 

First, as a card-carrying rollback proponent, I am not terribly interested in "scoring," per se. I am interested in the quality of play, and the quality of the golf courses. I am interested in great, historic courses that produce interesting strategy and heroic choices and execution. I'd much rather see an event played at The Old Course with a winning score of -30, rather than the TPC of Wherever, with a winning score of -4. But naturally I am grieved to see anything like a 72-hole score of anything like that at The Old Course.

 

So when you suggest "toughen up the courses," that is the perfectly wrong answer to the question as I see it. The rollback question is not about scoring. It isn't about favoring long-hitting tour players or punishing long-hitting tour players. All tour players are hitting it too far for the most part. With "too long" being defined as "too long to play classic historic championship courses as they were intended."

 

And when you compare golf to other pro sports, you lose me completely. I don't watch the NFL or the NBA and I don't care about them. I don't regard the NFL or the NBA as models for golf and I hope that the USGA does nothing to emulate the NFL or NBA. I don't think that I want the USGA to do much in terms of emulating the PGA Tour for that matter.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @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?

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > What is ridiculous is that Titleist has millions— maybe billions — at stake (they seem to think) in any golf ball regulation.

> > >

> > > Jack Nicklaus has basically nothing to gain or lose via any new regulation.

> >

> > that's horse crap. Jack has skin in the game.

>

>

> Then describe what that is. I want this fight. What is Jack Nicklaus' financial interest in a golf ball rollback, pro or con?

>

> I am saying that Justin Thomas, Jordan Spieth and most of the others who have contracts with Titleist are either prohibited contractually or heavily discouraged from offering any personal opinions about a ball rollback. As they get millions in endorsement money from Titleist. With Titleist being -- by far -- the most active corporate interest in opposing a ball rollback.

 

Nicklaus has a financial interest because he has a design company and golf ball company. We simply don’t know the extent of his financial interests, we just know he 100% has them. He also has personal interests with crazy insecurity about anyone thinking any modern player could ever be better than him. Until he discloses his true motivations, he cannot debate.

 

Current players, you purely speculate, have gag orders and until those are disclosed, they cannot debate.

 

To that end, come to think of it, I believe you have ties to the USga and several clubs that have financial interests in rolling it back. Until you disclose, you cannot debate this any further. Good day.