Smaller drivers.....????

[gioguy21]


 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @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.

 

https://www.hickorygolfers.com/tournaments/

 

here you go, join this group and you will have all the rollback you want..

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"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.

>

>

 

haha.. two likes if I could

[15th Club]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"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.

>

>

 

 

You haven't come close yet to offering any reason to suggest that Jack's activism for a ball rollback is based on anything other than his sincerely-held belief that the elites' extreme (and ever-increasing) length is bad for the game of golf.

 

So; he heads the most famous golf design firm in the world. So what? If equipment technology made every Nicklaus course obsolete, then his company would make money re-doing all the old ones and building newer, longer ones.

 

Just about every golf course architect favors a ball rollback these days. I can think of one noteworthy exception. Rees Jones did some infamous commercials ridiculing the preservationists who were calling for a ball rollback. More than ten years ago. Of course, Rees had a major interest in redesigning old courses for modern Tour play. And do you recall who paid Rees for those commercials? It was Titleist.

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"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.

> >

> >

>

>

> You haven't come close yet to offering any reason to suggest that Jack's activism for a ball rollback is based on anything other than his sincerely-held belief that the elites' extreme (and ever-increasing) length is bad for the game of golf.

>

> So; he heads the most famous golf design firm in the world. So what? If equipment technology made every Nicklaus course obsolete, then his company would make money re-doing all the old ones and building newer, longer ones.

>

> Just about every golf course architect favors a ball rollback these days. I can think of one noteworthy exception. Rees Jones did some infamous commercials ridiculing the preservationists who were calling for a ball rollback. More than ten years ago. Of course, Rees had a major interest in redesigning old courses for modern Tour play. And do you recall who paid Rees for those commercials? It was Titleist.

>

 

I have, you just choose to ignore it.

 

James Hahn said it best.

 

 

James Hahn

✔

@JamesHahnPGA

Breaking news. In addition to limited flight balls, the USGA plans to ban working out, proper diet and swinging faster than 105mph. They are also planning on removing the 3 point shot in the NBA.

 

We should also ban electric cars, unleaded paint, and cell phones...

[gvogel]

> @Tyeetime said:

> > @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.

>

 

I would really enjoy the Memorial Tournament if Jack came out and said, starting 2021, competitors will need a driver head size of less than 200 cc, COR of .80, and a ball of a spec that is less than current. The course will be set up at 6,800 yards. Let the best golfer win.

 

That would give the manufacturers and players over a year to come up with conforming (to Jack's specs) equipment. If the players agree that more skill is involved at that event, the Masters could go to the same specs, and the US Open and Open Championship might follow suit.

 

Motor racing has different specs for different events. There would be nothing wrong with golf to adopt the same policy.

[QuigleyDU]

some interesting stats..

 

2007 (furthest back you can go) highest ave swingspeed 124, **the number of golfers over 120 ave = 9**

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02401.2007.html

 

2019 highest ave swingspeed 128. **The number of golfers over 120 ave = 25.**

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02401.2019.html

 

as you can see, there is a large number of players swinging a lot harder.

 

 

[gvogel]

> @smashdn said:

> > @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.**

>

>

And that, right there, is why a change is necessary to protect excellent play for Tour golf.

 

[15th Club]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"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.

>

>

 

Oh I definitely have an interest. I am a Victors Club member at the University of Michigan and a regular player on our barely-6800-yard Alister Mackenzie/Perry Maxwell jewel of a golf course. The course is landlocked in terms of stretching tees for more distance. The one and only thing that the course needs is the one and only thing that Cypress Point and Royal Melbourne both need. An equipment rollback. Otherwise, it becomes less and less of an overall examination of elite tournament players.

 

So that's my interest. Jack's interest is probably much the same. Equipment technology producing, for elite players, insoluble architectural problems. (That is to say, equipment technology erasing the intended strategic questions.)

 

My interest is real, and immediate. I don't want the athletic department to have to spend money, or deface the Mackenzie/Maxwell architecture, just to preserve Titleist's market share in golf balls. Yet this course has to entertain elite golfers in competition on a regular basis.

 

[gvogel]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @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.

>

 

Or instead of bifurcation, there could be different ball specs, driver size specs and COR specs used for different courses for highly skilled players. The pros could be required to play the new specs at Augusta, the US Open, the Open Championship and some other tournaments. At other tour stops they could play to the specs available now.

 

The club golfer would not be required to change; but some might buy a new driver with the reduced specs, and some balls with same, and play from shorter tees from time to time.

[smashdn]

> @gvogel said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @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.**

> >

> >

> And that, right there, is why a change is necessary to protect excellent play for Tour golf.

>

 

If you believe that ball striking and controlling your ball are more important skills to be tested than distance. Some don't. I am likely in the minority in that I want to see (and test) creativity and execution coming into the green and not necessarily distance off the tee.

 

I bet the Tour has the focus group data that states long balls and zipped wedges are what the majority of fans want.

 

 

Since we keep making references to other sports I'll go to baseball. There was a time when stolen bases, hit and runs, bunting and manufacturing runs was the way the game was played. I dare say it was far more of a mental game than today. For me it was more interesting. I guess I am a baseball purist. I can be entertained by a one to nothing pitchers' duel if the play on the field is excellent. But, as the commercial says, "chicks dig the long ball." Baseball has fundamentally changed (the reasons are out there but not germane to my current rant). Our society's short attention span and what I will call a lack of appreciation for the subtle, has changed how that sport is played. It is not artistry of skill or chess-like but now checkers where the checkers are placed via data analysis computers.

 

The anecdotes regarding Seve in Bob Rotella's book, _Golf is not a Game of Perfect_ illustrates a little of how sanitized golf without feeling and heart is not fun.

[gvogel]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @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.

>

> https://www.hickorygolfers.com/tournaments/

>

> here you go, join this group and you will have all the rollback you want..

>

 

I am a member of that organization, and I used to play in their tournaments. Ultimately, the heavy driver got to be a problem over three days of play for my back. So my hickories get limited play these days.

 

From my experience, skill at the modern game translates easily to the hickory game, and vice versa. If you have a good golf swing and good hand/eye, you can play either effectively. My experience in playing the hickory game helped sharpen my overall skills. It also influenced my take on modern equipment.

[15th Club]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @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.

>

> https://www.hickorygolfers.com/tournaments/

>

> here you go, join this group and you will have all the rollback you want..

>

 

 

You should take your own advice. Make your own rules, with your own equipment standards, and build whatever kind of golf courses (and game) you want.

 

The USGA and the R&A know what kind of game they want and if you don't like it you should really do something else. I am really comfortable with the R&A/USGA history. I worship the founding clubs, and the historic championship sites. I like the Rules. I like their intent, and the way that the Ruling bodies expect us to play. The Open Championship? It belongs to the R&A. You don't need to be part of it. The U.S. Open, Am, etc.? National championships conducted by the USGA. You don't need to be part of it.

 

Best of all, the Ruling Bodies know what they want to do and they set down their marker in 2002 with the Joint Statement of Principles declaring that any further increases in distance, for any reason, will be undesirable. We're there now. If and when the Ruling bodies act (I expect they will), and if an when you are unhappy about it, you'll be welcome to join the opposite corollary of a hickory golf club society. Create your own "chicks dig the long ball" golf association.

 

I won't miss you.

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @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.

> >

> > https://www.hickorygolfers.com/tournaments/

> >

> > here you go, join this group and you will have all the rollback you want..

> >

>

>

> You should take your own advice. Make your own rules, with your own equipment standards, and build whatever kind of golf courses (and game) you want.

>

> The USGA and the R&A know what kind of game they want and if you don't like it you should really do something else. I am really comfortable with the R&A/USGA history. I worship the founding clubs, and the historic championship sites. I like the Rules. I like their intent, and the way that the Ruling bodies expect us to play. The Open Championship? It belongs to the R&A. You don't need to be part of it. The U.S. Open, Am, etc.? National championships conducted by the USGA. You don't need to be part of it.

>

> Best of all, the Ruling Bodies know what they want to do and they set down their marker in 2002 with the Joint Statement of Principles declaring that any further increases in distance, for any reason, will be undesirable. We're there now. If and when the Ruling bodies act (I expect they will), and if an when you are unhappy about it, you'll be welcome to join the opposite corollary of a hickory golf club society. Create your own "chicks dig the long ball" golf association.

>

> I won't miss you.

>

 

haha. I am not going anywhere, I play the game by the current rules and with whatever legal equipment I want. The ball is not going anywhere as well I look forward to the ruling or whatever it is. They set the limits and the limits have not changed.

 

Thanks for trying to grow the game with your singular my way or the highway view. That is just the elitist attitude that has stifled the growth of the game and made barriers of entry as high as they are now. Lets kick woman out as well, because if you make the game even shorter they wont want to play and have to hit there driver and three woods on every hole including the 125 yard par 3 carry over water...

 

 

[Shilgy]

> @BMC said:

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

 

Agreed-without changing COR they will hit the ball just as far.

[15th Club]

> @gvogel said:

> > @Tyeetime said:

> > > @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.

> >

>

> I would really enjoy the Memorial Tournament if Jack came out and said, starting 2021, competitors will need a driver head size of less than 200 cc, COR of .80, and a ball of a spec that is less than current. The course will be set up at 6,800 yards. Let the best golfer win.

>

> That would give the manufacturers and players over a year to come up with conforming (to Jack's specs) equipment. If the players agree that more skill is involved at that event, the Masters could go to the same specs, and the US Open and Open Championship might follow suit.

>

> Motor racing has different specs for different events. There would be nothing wrong with golf to adopt the same policy.

 

 

 

That tournament could be played at Scioto!

;)

 

An honestly; if you gave me ten rounds to split between Scioto and Muirfield Village, I'd take eight at Scioto and two and Muirfield Village.

 

[Shilgy]

> @"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.

 

Really makes me wonder what exactly Titleist ever did to 15 that any other company did not do. He is like a knight on his high horse fighting for the damsel in distress.

 

If the ball is rolled back Titleist will still be the name golfers trust to make the best ball. it may not be true but it will be. Why some-well one-seem to think that Titleist will lose their stranglehold on the ball market with a rollback baffles me.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"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.

> >

> >

>

> Oh I definitely have an interest. I am a Victors Club member at the University of Michigan and a regular player on our barely-6800-yard Alister Mackenzie/Perry Maxwell jewel of a golf course. The course is landlocked in terms of stretching tees for more distance. The one and only thing that the course needs is the one and only thing that Cypress Point and Royal Melbourne both need. An equipment rollback. Otherwise, it becomes less and less of an overall examination of elite tournament players.

>

> So that's my interest. Jack's interest is probably much the same. Equipment technology producing, for elite players, insoluble architectural problems. (That is to say, equipment technology erasing the intended strategic questions.)

>

> My interest is real, and immediate. I don't want the athletic department to have to spend money, or deface the Mackenzie/Maxwell architecture, just to preserve Titleist's market share in golf balls. Yet this course has to entertain elite golfers in competition on a regular basis.

>

 

Western Intercollegiate.

Pasatiempo. 6500 yards.

Winner: -8. Like 12 guys under par.

Maybe it’s just that some 90-year-old designs don’t stand the test of time as well as others. Not everything old is forever relevant.

 

Smarter, not longer.

 

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @"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.

>

> Really makes me wonder what exactly Titleist ever did to 15 that any other company did not do. He is like a knight on his high horse fighting for the damsel in distress.

>

> If the ball is rolled back Titleist will still be the name golfers trust to make the best ball. it may not be true but it will be. Why some-well one-seem to think that Titleist will lose their stranglehold on the ball market with a rollback baffles me.

 

What can you do.... Titliest will still make the best 10 year old ball ever... If you rolled the ball back to 2002 what would it change?? 5 yards? I am not even sure that much. So whats the point for fractions of a percentage point change. If the balls rolls backwards so be it. It wont change anything and that has been my point. so why waste the time and energy.

[15th Club]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @"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.

>

> Really makes me wonder what exactly Titleist ever did to 15 that any other company did not do. He is like a knight on his high horse fighting for the damsel in distress.

>

> If the ball is rolled back Titleist will still be the name golfers trust to make the best ball. it may not be true but it will be. Why some-well one-seem to think that Titleist will lose their stranglehold on the ball market with a rollback baffles me.

 

 

I don't think that Titleist would lose any market share.

 

Jack Nicklaus, on the record at a video event, said that same thing. Jack was griping about a ball rollback, and Jack mentioned that "Titleist owns the game." It was Nicklaus shorthand for some more complex points. (1) Titleist is by far the biggest ball manufacturer with by far the greatest presence in elite golf. (2) Titleist is by far the leading corporate opponent to a ball rollback. (3) Titleist has been involved in much litigation over the control of, and value of, the patents on multilayer urethane balls.

 

But that that event, Jack went out of his way to say that he would expect that Titleist, the Number One Ball in Golf right now, would still be the Number One Ball in Golf after a ball rollback. Jack was no doubt responding cryptically to the widely-expected notion that Titleist might sue the USGA if there were to be a ball rollback, and it would be Titleist that would be claiming major financial losses and lost market share in that instance.

 

So there. Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[golfer07840]

> @Tyeetime said:

> > @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.

>

 

Well yes, of course, they have. To get lighter and faster and also, because they are using Hybrid power. In other words, they are advancing using modern technology.

[golfer07840]

> @PowderedToastMan said:

 

>

> 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.

 

I don't disagree, however, are we talking about golf in general? or are we talking about the 1% of the 1% in sport?

 

I have NEVER EVER met anyone while playing golf and they walked off the course after the round going "Gee, that was too easy. I wish I hit the ball shorter."

 

 

 

 

[Shilgy]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @"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.

> >

> > Really makes me wonder what exactly Titleist ever did to 15 that any other company did not do. He is like a knight on his high horse fighting for the damsel in distress.

> >

> > If the ball is rolled back Titleist will still be the name golfers trust to make the best ball. it may not be true but it will be. Why some-well one-seem to think that Titleist will lose their stranglehold on the ball market with a rollback baffles me.

>

>

> I don't think that Titleist would lose any market share.

>

> Jack Nicklaus, on the record at a video event, said that same thing. Jack was griping about a ball rollback, and Jack mentioned that "Titleist owns the game." It was Nicklaus shorthand for some more complex points. (1) Titleist is by far the biggest ball manufacturer with by far the greatest presence in elite golf. (2) Titleist is by far the leading corporate opponent to a ball rollback. (3) Titleist has been involved in much litigation over the control of, and value of, the patents on multilayer urethane balls.

>

> But that that event, Jack went out of his way to say that he would expect that Titleist, the Number One Ball in Golf right now, would still be the Number One Ball in Golf after a ball rollback. Jack was no doubt responding cryptically to the widely-expected notion that Titleist might sue the USGA if there were to be a ball rollback, and it would be Titleist that would be claiming major financial losses and lost market share in that instance.

>

> So there. Hope that clears it up for you.

>

 

So why are Titleist players not allowed to speak but Jack is? Both have an interest in the ball market. For some reason-nostalgia?- a few on this board think that only the players and courses of the past era have any right to speak on the game. All of us wish to hold the game as it was when were were young with a certain reverence. Some of us can let that thought go and enjoy the game as it evolves. There are courses that can no longer hold major events. That would be true with or without an equipment change.

 

PS Jack does sell golf balls-or at least attempt to.... https://shop.nicklaus.com/NicklausWeb/GOLF-BALLS/1_71_-1_3.action

[15th Club]

Don’t play games. Jack Nicklaus is not a ball manufacturer, and nothing like Titleist, and golf ball marketing has nothing to do with Jack’s opinions on golf balls, which have been publicly expressed for more than 30 years.

[bladehunter]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @"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.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > You haven't come close yet to offering any reason to suggest that Jack's activism for a ball rollback is based on anything other than his sincerely-held belief that the elites' extreme (and ever-increasing) length is bad for the game of golf.

> >

> > So; he heads the most famous golf design firm in the world. So what? If equipment technology made every Nicklaus course obsolete, then his company would make money re-doing all the old ones and building newer, longer ones.

> >

> > Just about every golf course architect favors a ball rollback these days. I can think of one noteworthy exception. Rees Jones did some infamous commercials ridiculing the preservationists who were calling for a ball rollback. More than ten years ago. Of course, Rees had a major interest in redesigning old courses for modern Tour play. And do you recall who paid Rees for those commercials? It was Titleist.

> >

>

> I have, you just choose to ignore it.

>

> James Hahn said it best.

>

>

> James Hahn

> ✔

> @JamesHahnPGA

> Breaking news. In addition to limited flight balls, the USGA plans to ban working out, proper diet and swinging faster than 105mph. They are also planning on removing the 3 point shot in the NBA.

>

> We should also ban electric cars, unleaded paint, and cell phones...

 

Hahn has some good ideas there. Banning cell phones is a great idea. That was the start of the downfall of the world. When all tribes connected. All tribes started to die. Electric cars ? Eh. What’s he taking about with swing speed ? The tour was littered with players faster than him for eons.

[QuigleyDU]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @"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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You haven't come close yet to offering any reason to suggest that Jack's activism for a ball rollback is based on anything other than his sincerely-held belief that the elites' extreme (and ever-increasing) length is bad for the game of golf.

> > >

> > > So; he heads the most famous golf design firm in the world. So what? If equipment technology made every Nicklaus course obsolete, then his company would make money re-doing all the old ones and building newer, longer ones.

> > >

> > > Just about every golf course architect favors a ball rollback these days. I can think of one noteworthy exception. Rees Jones did some infamous commercials ridiculing the preservationists who were calling for a ball rollback. More than ten years ago. Of course, Rees had a major interest in redesigning old courses for modern Tour play. And do you recall who paid Rees for those commercials? It was Titleist.

> > >

> >

> > I have, you just choose to ignore it.

> >

> > James Hahn said it best.

> >

> >

> > James Hahn

> > ✔

> > @JamesHahnPGA

> > Breaking news. In addition to limited flight balls, the USGA plans to ban working out, proper diet and swinging faster than 105mph. They are also planning on removing the 3 point shot in the NBA.

> >

> > **We should also ban electric cars, unleaded paint, and cell phones...**

>

> Hahn has some good ideas there. Banning cell phones is a great idea. That was the start of the downfall of the world. When all tribes connected. All tribes started to die. Electric cars ? Eh. What’s he taking about with swing speed ? The tour was littered with players faster than him for eons.

 

To be fair to Hahn, and for complete transparency. I added the bold.

[smashdn]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> They set the limits and the limits have not changed.

 

Makes me wonder who told the USGA or how the USGA could have known that limiting COR was the thing to do to effect the outcome they desired? Or to put it another way, the USGA is a ruling body, they rely on input to know where to set the rules. Could they have foreseen that even after limiting COR that there would continue to be distance gains? Limiting COR is not the objective. Limiting distance gains is (stated in the 2002 blurb). COR obviously was not the only contributor to additional distance.

 

I have said before that the COR of persimmon (IIRC around .78) is not that far from the limit. It is more than just a higher COR that generates distance.

 

[15th Club]

We dealt with that asinine quote from James Hahn a long time ago:

 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/16903232#Comment_16903232

 

[macedan]

> @"15th Club" said:

> Don’t play games. Jack Nicklaus is not a ball manufacturer, and nothing like Titleist, and golf ball marketing has nothing to do with Jack’s opinions on golf balls, which have been publicly expressed for more than 30 years.

 

Nothing against Nicklaus, huge amount of respect for him and his legacy in this great sport (minus his creation of a 9 hole par 3 course with rates at $185 for play and said "we need new ideas and out of the box thinking that inspires people to get off the couch and play this great game."), but are you literally going to use him in every post? Surely there has to be others supporting your theory that you also agree with.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> We dealt with that asinine quote from James Hahn a long time ago:

>

> https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/16903232#Comment_16903232

>

 

Why is it asinine?? Because disagree?? your condescending attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you gets worse and worse.