Lets take a closer look at distance off the Tee....

clevited · October 18, 2019

> @gvogel said:

> > @clevited said:

> > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

>

> We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

>

> Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

If the designers think its necessary for their own purposes, then I say do it if they can afford to. I don't think it is necessary at all though. I am not interested in protecting par or making players play the game as the designer intended it. If that is what is desired because it makes good TV, then yes, tweak the handful of courses if you can or move to a new one. There is an overwhelming amount of people that watch the tour today and think it is just fine the way it is. Why should YOUR preference for a small percentage of the golf population, or YOUR preference for how YOU want to see the game played grounds for rolling back the equipment 20 years for everyone? Risks and all included with such a change.

Give me one solid argument for doing such a thing? I really want to see a sound solid argument from anyone that is pro rollback. Every single person on here pro roll back has wanted it for personal preference reasons only. They don't want their beloved historical course to not be on tv anymore, or played in a way not intended. They want to see 3 irons into par 4 greens that curve 30 yards around a tree, or they just think so many people hitting over 300 yards is silly. There has been little to address the repercussions or logical outcomes of a ball change. There has been little discussion from this side of the issue admitting to the difficulties with doing such a thing, or admitting the problems it could or would likely cause. These really important things are overlooked or being completely ignored in order to achieve a personal vision for the sport.

bladehunter · October 18, 2019

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > “Do you know how easy it is to place forward tees?

> >

> > Do you know how difficult it is to lengthen a golf course?”

> >

> > Dit-to.

> >

> > And remember; the courses most in dire need of lengthening/defense against technologically-produced distance gains are among the most important, most iconic, most precious and irreplaceable in the history of golf. Including the Old Course and Augusta. It is a minor tragedy to me that ANGC actually has so much money that there was no realistic reason to prevent them from buying land to continue to stretch the course. I wish that they had been forced into a position on equipment instead.

> >

>

> Again, we are only talking about maybe 200 golfers in the entire world where this is a problem............ You cannot (or at least shouldn't) alter the game for 200 golfers. Why can you not grasp that???

While I understand and agree with the idea that a rollback won’t happen. If I dare defend poor 15th for a moment ( this will bite me I’m sure ).

Forget the stats as far as affected and just think of the abstract thought of “ what’s best for the game itself “. Not the players ego. Not the oems retirement funds. The game. i Think curbing the distance race 15-18 years ago would have been the best course of action long term. More distance really isn’t needed. All courses have many tees . I realize some people are handicapped as far as distance. I’d ask. Are modern clubs eliminating that handicap ? No. Then I’d say that modern clubs are stunting young players as far as making them one dimensional . I have an 11 year old that can play our home course from the forward tee ( 4800 yds) and if he doesn’t hit a squirrely drive he never has more than Pw in except par 5s. And that’s maybe a 7 iron. Loads of sand wedges etc. and his impact pattern is all over that drivers face ( callaway 815 BB alpha ) meaning he isn’t pureing it every time. What’s that teaching ? Smash it and wedge it on. That’s what. I’d rather see them learn to hit it pure first then add speed. But that’s now where the game is now. You can’t teach that anymore.

I disagree on the number of golfers in the world too. Hundreds of shorter local courses where a guy flying driver 270 plus is handcuffed off the teee. And the world is full of guys who can fly it that far with today’s ball and driver.

bigred90gt · October 18, 2019

> @"15th Club" said:

> “Do you know how easy it is to place forward tees?

>

> Do you know how difficult it is to lengthen a golf course?”

>

> Dit-to.

>

> And remember; the courses most in dire need of lengthening/defense against technologically-produced distance gains are among the most important, most iconic, most precious and irreplaceable in the history of golf. Including the Old Course and Augusta. It is a minor tragedy to me that ANGC actually has so much money that there was no realistic reason to prevent them from buying land to continue to stretch the course. I wish that they had been forced into a position on equipment instead.

>

Those courses are still 100% fine, plenty long, for those that play them. You know ,the people who actually support this game financially? Those courses are in a position to lose the most, when members sell out because they no longer enjoy the game they have grown to enjoy. What happens to "the most iconic, most precious, and irreplaceable courses in the history of golf" when membership declines to the point of closure?

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > “Do you know how easy it is to place forward tees?

> > >

> > > Do you know how difficult it is to lengthen a golf course?”

> > >

> > > Dit-to.

> > >

> > > And remember; the courses most in dire need of lengthening/defense against technologically-produced distance gains are among the most important, most iconic, most precious and irreplaceable in the history of golf. Including the Old Course and Augusta. It is a minor tragedy to me that ANGC actually has so much money that there was no realistic reason to prevent them from buying land to continue to stretch the course. I wish that they had been forced into a position on equipment instead.

> > >

> >

> > Again, we are only talking about maybe 200 golfers in the entire world where this is a problem............ You cannot (or at least shouldn't) alter the game for 200 golfers. Why can you not grasp that???

>

> I am not going to “grasp” that because it is untrue. The distance problem in golf IS NOT JUST THE PGA TOUR. It is all professional tours; it is a problem with almost all of elite golf. The NCAA; championship amateur golf. Et cetera. And indeed it is an even bigger problem for elite golf below the attention-grabbing microcosm of the PGA Tour precisely because the world of golf below the level of the PGA Tour doesn’t always have the resources to continually remake tournament golf courses. As if it were even a good idea to begin with.

>

Key-word - ELITE golf. It is not a problem with GOLF, as the rest of the world plays it. So why change the ENTIRE GAME simply because you want to see less than 1% of those who play it play on less than 1% of the courses available? You really have no ground to stand on with your reasoning.

> @bladehunter said:

> > @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > > PGA TOUR Driving Accuracy percentages.

> > > > No rhyme or reason to the years. Started at 1990 just because...I know the equipment well from that year on.

> > > > Keep reading about the laser straight ball and drivers, so got more curious.

> > > >

> > > > Driving accuracy

> > > > 1990 ... 1st 83.67%... 20th 72.33% .... 100. 64.97%

> > > > 1995 ... 1st 81.32%... 20th . 76.11% .... 100 . 69.29%

> > > > 2000 ... 1st . 79.75%... 20th . 74.26% .... 100 . 68.67%

> > > > 2005... 1st . 75.97%... 20th . 69.92% .... 100 . 62.81%

> > > > 2010 ... 1st . 76.08%... 20th . 69.87% .... 100 . 63.40%

> > > > 2015... 1st . 76.88%... 20th . 68.63% .... 100 . 60.97%

> > > > 2018... 1st . 75.19%... 20th 67.52% .... 100 .61.53%

> > >

> > > Doesn’t that show that hitting it farther and but missing fairways is the game now ? Which is pretty much what we know is the case and has been the gripe. I’d love to compare those numbers to GIR and proximities for the same years. Probably going to show how equipment has effected mindset which has changed strategy which has changed the game fundamentally , at least on he surface.

> > >

> > > All above meant in the form of a question. Not a definitive statement by the by.

> >

> > Isn't that what the shots gained method basically tells us? I can't remember the exact data, but with the SG data, I believe it showed that so long as you weren't adding penalty strokes by missing fairways, hitting the ball as far as you possibly can (within reason) was better for scoring. I could be way off base, but I remember that being the conclusion when I read "Every Shot Counts".

>

> > @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > > PGA TOUR Driving Accuracy percentages.

> > > > No rhyme or reason to the years. Started at 1990 just because...I know the equipment well from that year on.

> > > > Keep reading about the laser straight ball and drivers, so got more curious.

> > > >

> > > > Driving accuracy

> > > > 1990 ... 1st 83.67%... 20th 72.33% .... 100. 64.97%

> > > > 1995 ... 1st 81.32%... 20th . 76.11% .... 100 . 69.29%

> > > > 2000 ... 1st . 79.75%... 20th . 74.26% .... 100 . 68.67%

> > > > 2005... 1st . 75.97%... 20th . 69.92% .... 100 . 62.81%

> > > > 2010 ... 1st . 76.08%... 20th . 69.87% .... 100 . 63.40%

> > > > 2015... 1st . 76.88%... 20th . 68.63% .... 100 . 60.97%

> > > > 2018... 1st . 75.19%... 20th 67.52% .... 100 .61.53%

> > >

> > > Doesn’t that show that hitting it farther and but missing fairways is the game now ? Which is pretty much what we know is the case and has been the gripe. I’d love to compare those numbers to GIR and proximities for the same years. Probably going to show how equipment has effected mindset which has changed strategy which has changed the game fundamentally , at least on he surface.

> > >

> > > All above meant in the form of a question. Not a definitive statement by the by.

> >

> > Isn't that what the shots gained method basically tells us? I can't remember the exact data, but with the SG data, I believe it showed that so long as you weren't adding penalty strokes by missing fairways, hitting the ball as far as you possibly can (within reason) was better for scoring. I could be way off base, but I remember that being the conclusion when I read "Every Shot Counts".

>

> Yes. Exactly.

>

> A rollback would ensure that the long guy saw the advantage. We’d get a couple dominant players based on driving again. Not this taking turns winner stuff we have now. Why is it this way? Everybody is long enough now.

So now you have a problem with more than a handful of guys winning every tournament? I like watching the best player that week win, and if it is a new guy every week so be it. Why watch if the tournament is a foregone conclusion before it even starts?

bladehunter · October 18, 2019

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > “Do you know how easy it is to place forward tees?

> >

> > Do you know how difficult it is to lengthen a golf course?”

> >

> > Dit-to.

> >

> > And remember; the courses most in dire need of lengthening/defense against technologically-produced distance gains are among the most important, most iconic, most precious and irreplaceable in the history of golf. Including the Old Course and Augusta. It is a minor tragedy to me that ANGC actually has so much money that there was no realistic reason to prevent them from buying land to continue to stretch the course. I wish that they had been forced into a position on equipment instead.

> >

> Those courses are still 100% fine, plenty long, for those that play them. You know ,the people who actually support this game financially? Those courses are in a position to lose the most, when members sell out because they no longer enjoy the game they have grown to enjoy. What happens to "the most iconic, most precious, and irreplaceable courses in the history of golf" when membership declines to the point of closure?

>

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > “Do you know how easy it is to place forward tees?

> > > >

> > > > Do you know how difficult it is to lengthen a golf course?”

> > > >

> > > > Dit-to.

> > > >

> > > > And remember; the courses most in dire need of lengthening/defense against technologically-produced distance gains are among the most important, most iconic, most precious and irreplaceable in the history of golf. Including the Old Course and Augusta. It is a minor tragedy to me that ANGC actually has so much money that there was no realistic reason to prevent them from buying land to continue to stretch the course. I wish that they had been forced into a position on equipment instead.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Again, we are only talking about maybe 200 golfers in the entire world where this is a problem............ You cannot (or at least shouldn't) alter the game for 200 golfers. Why can you not grasp that???

> >

> > I am not going to “grasp” that because it is untrue. The distance problem in golf IS NOT JUST THE PGA TOUR. It is all professional tours; it is a problem with almost all of elite golf. The NCAA; championship amateur golf. Et cetera. And indeed it is an even bigger problem for elite golf below the attention-grabbing microcosm of the PGA Tour precisely because the world of golf below the level of the PGA Tour doesn’t always have the resources to continually remake tournament golf courses. As if it were even a good idea to begin with.

> >

> Key-word - ELITE golf. It is not a problem with GOLF, as the rest of the world plays it. So why change the ENTIRE GAME simply because you want to see less than 1% of those who play it play on 1% (or less) of the courses avaiable? Yu really have no ground to stand on with your reasoning.

>

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > > > PGA TOUR Driving Accuracy percentages.

> > > > > No rhyme or reason to the years. Started at 1990 just because...I know the equipment well from that year on.

> > > > > Keep reading about the laser straight ball and drivers, so got more curious.

> > > > >

> > > > > Driving accuracy

> > > > > 1990 ... 1st 83.67%... 20th 72.33% .... 100. 64.97%

> > > > > 1995 ... 1st 81.32%... 20th . 76.11% .... 100 . 69.29%

> > > > > 2000 ... 1st . 79.75%... 20th . 74.26% .... 100 . 68.67%

> > > > > 2005... 1st . 75.97%... 20th . 69.92% .... 100 . 62.81%

> > > > > 2010 ... 1st . 76.08%... 20th . 69.87% .... 100 . 63.40%

> > > > > 2015... 1st . 76.88%... 20th . 68.63% .... 100 . 60.97%

> > > > > 2018... 1st . 75.19%... 20th 67.52% .... 100 .61.53%

> > > >

> > > > Doesn’t that show that hitting it farther and but missing fairways is the game now ? Which is pretty much what we know is the case and has been the gripe. I’d love to compare those numbers to GIR and proximities for the same years. Probably going to show how equipment has effected mindset which has changed strategy which has changed the game fundamentally , at least on he surface.

> > > >

> > > > All above meant in the form of a question. Not a definitive statement by the by.

> > >

> > > Isn't that what the shots gained method basically tells us? I can't remember the exact data, but with the SG data, I believe it showed that so long as you weren't adding penalty strokes by missing fairways, hitting the ball as far as you possibly can (within reason) was better for scoring. I could be way off base, but I remember that being the conclusion when I read "Every Shot Counts".

> >

> > > @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > > > PGA TOUR Driving Accuracy percentages.

> > > > > No rhyme or reason to the years. Started at 1990 just because...I know the equipment well from that year on.

> > > > > Keep reading about the laser straight ball and drivers, so got more curious.

> > > > >

> > > > > Driving accuracy

> > > > > 1990 ... 1st 83.67%... 20th 72.33% .... 100. 64.97%

> > > > > 1995 ... 1st 81.32%... 20th . 76.11% .... 100 . 69.29%

> > > > > 2000 ... 1st . 79.75%... 20th . 74.26% .... 100 . 68.67%

> > > > > 2005... 1st . 75.97%... 20th . 69.92% .... 100 . 62.81%

> > > > > 2010 ... 1st . 76.08%... 20th . 69.87% .... 100 . 63.40%

> > > > > 2015... 1st . 76.88%... 20th . 68.63% .... 100 . 60.97%

> > > > > 2018... 1st . 75.19%... 20th 67.52% .... 100 .61.53%

> > > >

> > > > Doesn’t that show that hitting it farther and but missing fairways is the game now ? Which is pretty much what we know is the case and has been the gripe. I’d love to compare those numbers to GIR and proximities for the same years. Probably going to show how equipment has effected mindset which has changed strategy which has changed the game fundamentally , at least on he surface.

> > > >

> > > > All above meant in the form of a question. Not a definitive statement by the by.

> > >

> > > Isn't that what the shots gained method basically tells us? I can't remember the exact data, but with the SG data, I believe it showed that so long as you weren't adding penalty strokes by missing fairways, hitting the ball as far as you possibly can (within reason) was better for scoring. I could be way off base, but I remember that being the conclusion when I read "Every Shot Counts".

> >

> > Yes. Exactly.

> >

> > A rollback would ensure that the long guy saw the advantage. We’d get a couple dominant players based on driving again. Not this taking turns winner stuff we have now. Why is it this way? Everybody is long enough now.

>

> So now you have a problem with more than a handful of guys winning every tournament? I like watching the best player that week win, and if it is a new guy every week so be it. Why watch if the tournament is a foregone conclusion before it even starts?

I love a dominant team or performance. I hate parity.

Major regret I have is not having watched golf during tigers prime. Id have loved to try to guess how many he’d win by every other week.

QuigleyDU · October 18, 2019

> @gvogel said:

> > @clevited said:

> > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

>

> We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

>

> Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

Or those courses could set them up slightly different and not just rely on length...

Ashley Schaeffer · October 18, 2019

> @gvogel said:

> > @clevited said:

> > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

>

> We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

>

> Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

Shilgy · October 18, 2019

> @marmaduk said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> >

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @marmaduk said:

> > > > Quick thought… Bifurcate the ball. Make the professional level golf ball $100 per ball. Professionals don’t pay for their equipment anyways and bad golfers will very quickly realize they brought a knife to a gun fight.

> > >

> > > Best comment in the thread.

> > >

> > > I'm an early adapter. i bought a windsurfer in 1977 and learned how to do that. I bought an early MINI Cooper and enjoy my driving experience, 3 MINI Coopers later.

> > >

> > > I'm on board to pay $100 for a pack of balls that will give me the same enjoyment as I have now from a shorter set of tees.

> >

>

> $100 per ball not dozen. We need to make the stakes interesting at least.

He said “pack”.

Bottom line is the game has changed and some do not like it. You can roll the ball back...roll the equipment back....and guess what? Nothing will change. The same players will dominate and play the same style of game being played today. Just like in baseball analytics has changed the game. Players now know that the best way to lower scores is to get the tee shot as far down the fairway as possible, and get the second on a par 5 as far as possible. The old school method of plotting and plodding your way around the course may look good on the old school stats sheet. Look! Hit every green and fairway!! But will lose to the player that has more great birdie looks.

And if you do what I just suggested guess what? You still will not be able to hold championships on the old courses. They will still either be too short or just not have enough room for the increased infrastructure needed for a modern event.

QuigleyDU · October 18, 2019

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > “Do you know how easy it is to place forward tees?

> > >

> > > Do you know how difficult it is to lengthen a golf course?”

> > >

> > > Dit-to.

> > >

> > > And remember; the courses most in dire need of lengthening/defense against technologically-produced distance gains are among the most important, most iconic, most precious and irreplaceable in the history of golf. Including the Old Course and Augusta. It is a minor tragedy to me that ANGC actually has so much money that there was no realistic reason to prevent them from buying land to continue to stretch the course. I wish that they had been forced into a position on equipment instead.

> > >

> >

> > Again, we are only talking about maybe 200 golfers in the entire world where this is a problem............ You cannot (or at least shouldn't) alter the game for 200 golfers. Why can you not grasp that???

>

> I am not going to “grasp” that because it is untrue. The distance problem in golf IS NOT JUST THE PGA TOUR. It is all professional tours; it is a problem with almost all of elite golf. The NCAA; championship amateur golf. Et cetera. And indeed it is an even bigger problem for elite golf below the attention-grabbing microcosm of the PGA Tour precisely because the world of golf below the level of the PGA Tour doesn’t always have the resources to continually remake tournament golf courses. As if it were even a good idea to begin with.

>

It is 100% true that the issue with distance is limited to a very very small portion of the golfing world. If we looked at the standard deviation on this, the percentage would be so small as to say it didn't even exist. The only reason anyone even knows about it is because that hyper small portion plays on TV.

I hit the ball as far as anyone that plays the game. I know first hand the advantage/disadvantage it give me. I also know from working in industry, and fitting hundreds of not more players that 99.9999% of the people coming into the store to buy a driver are looking for one thing. Distance. Why? THEY DO NOT HAVE IT!!!!

marmaduk · October 18, 2019

> @Shilgy said:

> > @marmaduk said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > >

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @marmaduk said:

> > > > > Quick thought… Bifurcate the ball. Make the professional level golf ball $100 per ball. Professionals don’t pay for their equipment anyways and bad golfers will very quickly realize they brought a knife to a gun fight.

> > > >

> > > > Best comment in the thread.

> > > >

> > > > I'm an early adapter. i bought a windsurfer in 1977 and learned how to do that. I bought an early MINI Cooper and enjoy my driving experience, 3 MINI Coopers later.

> > > >

> > > > I'm on board to pay $100 for a pack of balls that will give me the same enjoyment as I have now from a shorter set of tees.

> > >

> >

> > $100 per ball not dozen. We need to make the stakes interesting at least.

>

> He said “pack”.

>

> Bottom line is the game has changed and some do not like it. You can roll the ball back...roll the equipment back....and guess what? Nothing will change. The same players will dominate and play the same style of game being played today. Just like in baseball analytics has changed the game. Players now know that the best way to lower scores is to get the tee shot as far down the fairway as possible, and get the second on a par 5 as far as possible. The old school method of plotting and plodding your way around the course may look good on the old school stats sheet. Look! Hit every green and fairway!! But will lose to the player that has more great birdie looks.

> And if you do what I just suggested guess what? You still will not be able to hold championships on the old courses. They will still either be too short or just not have enough room for the increased infrastructure needed for a modern event.

I was the original person quoted… And I said ball not pack.

bladehunter · October 18, 2019

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > “Do you know how easy it is to place forward tees?

> > > >

> > > > Do you know how difficult it is to lengthen a golf course?”

> > > >

> > > > Dit-to.

> > > >

> > > > And remember; the courses most in dire need of lengthening/defense against technologically-produced distance gains are among the most important, most iconic, most precious and irreplaceable in the history of golf. Including the Old Course and Augusta. It is a minor tragedy to me that ANGC actually has so much money that there was no realistic reason to prevent them from buying land to continue to stretch the course. I wish that they had been forced into a position on equipment instead.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Again, we are only talking about maybe 200 golfers in the entire world where this is a problem............ You cannot (or at least shouldn't) alter the game for 200 golfers. Why can you not grasp that???

> >

> > I am not going to “grasp” that because it is untrue. The distance problem in golf IS NOT JUST THE PGA TOUR. It is all professional tours; it is a problem with almost all of elite golf. The NCAA; championship amateur golf. Et cetera. And indeed it is an even bigger problem for elite golf below the attention-grabbing microcosm of the PGA Tour precisely because the world of golf below the level of the PGA Tour doesn’t always have the resources to continually remake tournament golf courses. As if it were even a good idea to begin with.

> >

>

> It is 100% true that the issue with distance is limited to a very very small portion of the golfing world. If we looked at the standard deviation on this, the percentage would be so small as to say it didn't even exist. The only reason anyone even knows about it is because that hyper small portion plays on TV.

>

> I hit the ball as far as anyone that plays the game. I know first hand the advantage/disadvantage it give me. I also know from working in industry, and fitting hundreds of not more players that 99.9999% of the people coming into the store to buy a driver are looking for one thing. Distance. Why? THEY DO NOT HAVE IT!!!!

But do you find it for them ? I mean real distance. 10 plus yards of real carry. I’d say very rarely. Which makes the hubbub about nothing in both directions. The 20 cap is going to be a 20. He’s not a 20 that would play so bad he quit the game if his driver shrunk.

I just see it alll as making the game easier small bit by small bit. Which any good player should rail against. Selfish. Absolutely. But isn’t that what competing is based on ?

QuigleyDU · October 18, 2019

> @bladehunter said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > “Do you know how easy it is to place forward tees?

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you know how difficult it is to lengthen a golf course?”

> > > > >

> > > > > Dit-to.

> > > > >

> > > > > And remember; the courses most in dire need of lengthening/defense against technologically-produced distance gains are among the most important, most iconic, most precious and irreplaceable in the history of golf. Including the Old Course and Augusta. It is a minor tragedy to me that ANGC actually has so much money that there was no realistic reason to prevent them from buying land to continue to stretch the course. I wish that they had been forced into a position on equipment instead.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Again, we are only talking about maybe 200 golfers in the entire world where this is a problem............ You cannot (or at least shouldn't) alter the game for 200 golfers. Why can you not grasp that???

> > >

> > > I am not going to “grasp” that because it is untrue. The distance problem in golf IS NOT JUST THE PGA TOUR. It is all professional tours; it is a problem with almost all of elite golf. The NCAA; championship amateur golf. Et cetera. And indeed it is an even bigger problem for elite golf below the attention-grabbing microcosm of the PGA Tour precisely because the world of golf below the level of the PGA Tour doesn’t always have the resources to continually remake tournament golf courses. As if it were even a good idea to begin with.

> > >

> >

> > It is 100% true that the issue with distance is limited to a very very small portion of the golfing world. If we looked at the standard deviation on this, the percentage would be so small as to say it didn't even exist. The only reason anyone even knows about it is because that hyper small portion plays on TV.

> >

> > I hit the ball as far as anyone that plays the game. I know first hand the advantage/disadvantage it give me. I also know from working in industry, and fitting hundreds of not more players that 99.9999% of the people coming into the store to buy a driver are looking for one thing. Distance. Why? THEY DO NOT HAVE IT!!!!

>

> But do you find it for them ? I mean real distance. 10 plus yards of real carry. I’d say very rarely. Which makes the hubbub about nothing in both directions. The 20 cap is going to be a 20. He’s not a 20 that would play so bad he quit the game if his driver shrunk.

>

> I just see it alll as making the game easier small bit by small bit. Which any good player should rail against. Selfish. Absolutely. But isn’t that what competing is based on ?

Most of the time no there are no real distance gains. @"15th Club" is correct that the vast majority would do better spending their $500 on lessons instead of a driver. There are times the answer is yes. But that is not very often.

My take is that @"15th Club" is not really a fan of golf. He will say I am wrong and that is fine. But, he is not a fan of golf, but of golf art. He likes pretty pictures of golf courses from days gone by, I almost think he would rather have golf courses and not golf'ers.

15th Club · October 18, 2019

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> >

> > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> >

> > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

>

> Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

Oh, absolutely!

If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. Except that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.

Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”

Ashley Schaeffer · October 18, 2019

15th, it has become more than apparent that your main opinion (which counts for the same as the rest of ours - 0.0) is that we must protect the "classic, historic, precious, championship courses ("CHPCC")". You say these courses must be played firm and fast. They must be played the way they were intended 100 years ago. OK. I disagree 1000% with all of that, BUT, let's say there is a par 4 on a CHPCC with a bunker on the corner that used to come into play, but now 80% of the field carries it. Instead of buying land to move the tees, wouldn't it be much easier to expand or move the bunker?

You're currently thinking how wrong I am because the hole still wouldn't be played the way the dead designer intended. "The players would still be hitting a shorter iron into the green than the designer wanted!" Well, that happened well before the Pro V1. Every dominant player in golf history bombed it in his era. You're never going to get these guys to carry it 250 off the tee (as the designer likely had in mind). You could, in theory, do it by taking driver out of their hands, but that's not what the designer intended.

Now, you're thinking I'm off base because you aren't advocating for guys to carry it carry it 250, you just don't want them to hit it as far as they do now, so they will "fit" into the CHPCCs for years to come. Let's say that number is a 270-280 carry. They would _still_ be playing the CHPCCs in a way the designer didn't intend. So the designer intent angle goes completely out the window. So, my question is: What is the new slant?

QuigleyDU · October 18, 2019

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > >

> > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > >

> > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> >

> > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

>

> Oh, absolutely!

>

> If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

>

> Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

>

> I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. E**xcept that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.**

>

> Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”

>

You just proved my point.

Ashley Schaeffer · October 18, 2019

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > >

> > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > >

> > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> >

> > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

>

> Oh, absolutely!

>

> If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

>

> Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

>

> I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. Except that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.

>

> **Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”**

>

Red herring. I'm talking about the next 25+ years, not the previous 25 years. If it's capped now, which it is, you will not see BK and DJ hitting it farther in their sixties.

QuigleyDU · October 18, 2019

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> 15th, it has become more than apparent that your main opinion (which counts for the same as the rest of ours - 0.0) is that we must protect the "classic, historic, precious, championship courses ("CHPCC")". You say these courses must be played firm and fast. They must be played the way they were intended 100 years ago. OK. I disagree 1000% with all of that, BUT, let's say there is a par 4 on a CHPCC with a bunker on the corner that used to come into play, but now 80% of the field carries it. Instead of buying land to move the tees, wouldn't it be much easier to expand or move the bunker?

>

> You're currently thinking how wrong I am because the hole still wouldn't be played the way the dead designer intended. "The players would still be hitting a shorter iron into the green than the designer wanted!" Well, that happened well before the Pro V1. Every dominant player in gold history bombed it in his era. You're never going to get these guys to carry it 250 off the tee (as the designer likely had in mind). You could, in theory, do it by taking driver out of their hands, but that's not what the designer intended.

>

> Now, you're thinking I'm off base because you aren't advocating for guys to carry it carry it 250, you just don't want them to hit it as far as they do now, so they will "fit" into the CHPCCs for years to come. Let's say that number is a 270-280 carry. They would _still_ be playing the CHPCCs in a way the designer didn't intend. So the designer intent angle goes completely out the window. So, my question is: What is the new slant?

The real rub is he would rather have the course the way the designer intended and not a soul playing it so that the golf course intellectuals can sit around and talk about what a great design it is.

15th Club · October 18, 2019

> @Shilgy said:

> > @marmaduk said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > >

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @marmaduk said:

> > > > > Quick thought… Bifurcate the ball. Make the professional level golf ball $100 per ball. Professionals don’t pay for their equipment anyways and bad golfers will very quickly realize they brought a knife to a gun fight.

> > > >

> > > > Best comment in the thread.

> > > >

> > > > I'm an early adapter. i bought a windsurfer in 1977 and learned how to do that. I bought an early MINI Cooper and enjoy my driving experience, 3 MINI Coopers later.

> > > >

> > > > I'm on board to pay $100 for a pack of balls that will give me the same enjoyment as I have now from a shorter set of tees.

> > >

> >

> > $100 per ball not dozen. We need to make the stakes interesting at least.

>

> He said “pack”.

>

> Bottom line is the game has changed and some do not like it. You can roll the ball back...roll the equipment back....and guess what? Nothing will change. The same players will dominate and play the same style of game being played today. Just like in baseball analytics has changed the game. Players now know that the best way to lower scores is to get the tee shot as far down the fairway as possible, and get the second on a par 5 as far as possible. The old school method of plotting and plodding your way around the course may look good on the old school stats sheet. Look! Hit every green and fairway!! But will lose to the player that has more great birdie looks.

> And if you do what I just suggested guess what? You still will not be able to hold championships on the old courses. They will still either be too short or just not have enough room for the increased infrastructure needed for a modern event.

This is such an interesting comment. Look at what is inadvertently buried in the middle. Sarcasm about “plotting and plodding your way around the course...”

The other term for that is “strategy.” It is the very definition of where the interest is supposed to be in the game of golf. Different players, of different capabilities and mindsets, making strategic risk/reward decisions about how to play a hole. It is the essence of what every good golf course architect is attempting to accomplish. Strategy. Interest. Risk. Reward. Pleasure. Aesthetic.

QuigleyDU · October 18, 2019

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > > >

> > > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > > >

> > > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> > >

> > > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

> >

> > Oh, absolutely!

> >

> > If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

> >

> > Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

> >

> > I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. Except that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.

> >

> > **Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”**

> >

>

> Red herring. I'm talking about the next 25+ years, not the previous 25 years. If it's capped now, which it is, you will not see BK and DJ hitting it farther in their sixties.

Because their prime was steel shafts and wood heads.... Jeez, if he was an auto guy we would all be driving this. A little advancement is ok.

15th Club · October 18, 2019

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > > >

> > > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > > >

> > > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> > >

> > > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

> >

> > Oh, absolutely!

> >

> > If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

> >

> > Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

> >

> > I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. E**xcept that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.**

> >

> > Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”

> >

>

> You just proved my point.

Good. I want this fight. I want it, on these terms. Because I do know that the USGA and the R&A see it as I do.

Titleist99 · October 18, 2019

> @gvogel said:

> > @rangersgoalie said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > I want to single out a few stupid comments for particular ridicule.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > First is this one: “... Perhaps you would like to roll the game back to hickory clubs and the original ball? I think that would be truer thing to do don't you?...”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No. No serious rollback advocates are desiring “hickory,” or “balata,” or featheries or gutta percha or any such things. Earlier in this thread, I referred to using the latest technology to develop new regulations and ball designs, with the simple and clear goal of better fitting elite golf to the historic championship courses. I don’t much care if anybody wants to ignore my argument. But don’t pretend that it didn’t exist.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Then there was this dumb paragraph:

> > > > > > > “I know of a solution though. How about instead of any ball change, on the tour they just hit from different tees based on how fast they can swing a club? Does that work for you? This is how I interpret what you are saying. You don't like the physics that results from a higher COR used today gives more yardage to the faster player so you want to lower it so its much closer to the same. This is so that the short knocker can compete. That just isn't how life works. We don't all have the same physical gifts. Players that want that have handicap leagues and tournaments to play in instead of the tour.”

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A ball rollback isn’t intended to provide, or remove, any particular competitive advantage or disadvantage. The notion of separate tees based on swing speed is as moronic as it is sarcastic.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Let’s hammer one more time the essential truth that the supposed gains during the Pro V era have been mostly exploited by elite level players. There can be no argument about this fact because it is a known fact that most casual recreational golfers do not spend the extra money to buy premium urethane balls.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Question for you....you eloquently espouse the desire to roll back the ball so that the old courses can be played as they were intended to be played. If the course was established in the hickory era or before why would you want to play it with newer equipment? Jack famously played a game with which Jones was not familiar. Perhaps he meant the equipment Jack used.

> > > > >

> > > > > I always wonder when people say "how it was intended to be played".. What does that mean? Original courses sheep pasture and it was a way to pass the time... I understand we have come a long way since then I think because, players always start to look for a better and easier way to skin the cat.

> > > > >

> > > > > I hate when people look backwards.

> > > >

> > > > That is all it is. I think/feel most folks who echo these types of statements have games that are well on the decline or never played a game even remotely close to how modern players do. So it's easier to look back with rose colored glasses at the game of yesteryear than it is to simply accept the game has changed. Instead they dote on trivial things like driver head size and stated lofts of irons, when going back to such things would likely mean struggling even from the most forward tees.

> > >

> > > Wow what a funny coincidence! Because it just so happens that I think/feel that most folks who don’t understand the need for a ball rollback haven’t played firm and fast golf on any really great courses and don’t understand what golf course architecture is all about.

> >

> > Funny, I've stayed out of this other than my post about accuracy numbers on the pga tour.. And you and I have sparred previously and that is pointless too. But this comment is interesting. I am not for a roll back. List my favorite courses as Kingston Heath, Royal Melbourne (composite), Cypress Point, NGLA and The Old Course. I had my best results very fast and firm, typically in windy conditions.

> > Sleeper courses I love are Wilshire, Hollywood (NJ), Mountain Ridge, San Diego CC, Jasper PArk and yes Rustic Canyon.

> > I know you said MOST, not all, but i've been in and around golf basically all of my 57 years, and have been blessed to experience amazing places thanks to competition I was able to participate in.

> > There's always, to me at least, an arrogance from MANY (NOT ALL) in the roll back side that if I don't agree, I just don't know or understand properly. BUt then again, every debate these days devolves into "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot and just aren't wise enough to understand.

>

> I, too, have played many of the courses that you mention, and some fine ones that you didn't, but never as well as you did. My lowest cap was a 5-something at one point, and later I could hardly play the game due to anxiety. But I managed a comeback of sorts.

>

> It's difficult to argue for an equipment roll back on a site that celebrates the best of golf equipment and golf balls. Hey, I'm on here as well because I want to know what works, and what doesn't work as well, because I am a competitive golfer looking for any edge.

>

> On the other hand, when Augusta National has to purchase a hole from Augusta Country Club for an enormous sum, so that they can lengthen the famed 13th hole (again), I have to wonder if the equipment has gotten out of hand.

>

> As someone recently said, the older I get, the better I was! Right, I get that. In college, after college, we all carried our clubs. The ball didn't go so far, and the courses that we played were shorter and easier to walk. These days, they build many new courses to hold tournaments, and most of the players use golf carts because the courses have a larger footprint. That's a shame. Yes, if that's where the game is going, I long for the old days just after college.

>

> I think that it is important that some of us argue for a game that can be played on a smaller footprint. Every debate needs liberals and conservatives, and the debate about golf equipment is important for the game, and needs to play out. Without reactionaries like me, the game could really get out of hand from a footprint and shot-making standpoint.

>

> I would really like to see some professional events played with smaller driver heads with reduced COR, and a reduced distance ball. We will never know what might happen under those conditions unless that experiment goes forward. It would be wonderful if a sponsor would come forward to hold a tournament, with a rich purse, to get the attention of the world's best to play in those conditions.

>

It's supply and demand....The Golf business is entertainment not sentiment. You have to remember that golf is getting younger and younger, It's no longer an old mans game.

Half the tour players have never held yet alone swung a persimmon club. People want to see the long ball and the manufacturers want to sell them the clubs to do that

$500 drivers...The traditionalist argument is "Why should the long drivers have a wedge to the green when I have to hit an eight iron"...When Kevin Na can win a tournament

I think any Touring Pro can by concentrating on what they do well...Lets make golf courses harder not longer...

Krt22 · October 18, 2019

> @marmaduk said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > Agreed with you there Quigley, this discussion realistically only applies to professionals and maybe 1-2% of elite ams. The reality is there are far too many ams who play the wrong tees for their skill/length and rolling back anything would only hurt them, pace of play, and ultimately the game as a whole. So the notion of bifucation comes up, which IMO would have a similar negative impact given one of the allures of golf is you can literally play the same game/courses as the professionals. If you have bifurcation, well that goes away and you have an institution essentially saying the pros and ams are playing two wildly different games.

>

> I agree that bifurcation would destroy pace of play as those monkeys who drive it 220 from the tips would now just be driving it 190 from the tips because they would obviously use the pro’s ball now....

>

> But, you are wildly wrong if you think pros and ams play the same game. Your game, and mine as well, looks like ping-pong compared to Nadal‘s tennis.

I know they are playing two wildly different games, but many ams think their game is only missing this or that, or they once hit this monster drive, or they once holed out for eagle, etc etc. But if the governing bodies essentially say it, such that the pros and ams play by two different sets of rules, that is a totally different situation that will only hurt a game that is already on the decline

QuigleyDU · October 18, 2019

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > > > >

> > > > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> > > >

> > > > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > > > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

> > >

> > > Oh, absolutely!

> > >

> > > If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

> > >

> > > Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

> > >

> > > I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. E**xcept that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.**

> > >

> > > Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”

> > >

> >

> > You just proved my point.

>

> Good. I want this fight. I want it, on these terms. Because I do know that the USGA and the R&A see it as I do.

Only because you work for the USGA. You just won’t admit it.

Krt22 · October 18, 2019

> @clevited said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> >

> > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> >

> > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

>

> If the designers think its necessary for their own purposes, then I say do it if they can afford to. I don't think it is necessary at all though. I am not interested in protecting par or making players play the game as the designer intended it. If that is what is desired because it makes good TV, then yes, tweak the handful of courses if you can or move to a new one. There is an overwhelming amount of people that watch the tour today and think it is just fine the way it is. Why should YOUR preference for a small percentage of the golf population, or YOUR preference for how YOU want to see the game played grounds for rolling back the equipment 20 years for everyone? Risks and all included with such a change.

>

> Give me one solid argument for doing such a thing? I really want to see a sound solid argument from anyone that is pro rollback. Every single person on here pro roll back has wanted it for personal preference reasons only. They don't want their beloved historical course to not be on tv anymore, or played in a way not intended. They want to see 3 irons into par 4 greens that curve 30 yards around a tree, or they just think so many people hitting over 300 yards is silly. There has been little to address the repercussions or logical outcomes of a ball change. There has been little discussion from this side of the issue admitting to the difficulties with doing such a thing, or admitting the problems it could or would likely cause. These really important things are overlooked or being completely ignored in order to achieve a personal vision for the sport.

Exactly. Give up the sanctity of par and this whole conversation largely goes away. On the par 72s that get converted to 70s for pros to play, well their raw score doesnt change much

15th Club · October 18, 2019

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > > > >

> > > > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> > > >

> > > > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > > > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

> > >

> > > Oh, absolutely!

> > >

> > > If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

> > >

> > > Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

> > >

> > > I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. Except that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.

> > >

> > > **Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”**

> > >

> >

> > Red herring. I'm talking about the next 25+ years, not the previous 25 years. If it's capped now, which it is, you will not see BK and DJ hitting it farther in their sixties.

>

> Because their prime was steel shafts and wood heads.... Jeez, if he was an auto guy we would all be driving this. A little advancement is ok.

>

Oh wait; so you are suggesting that equipment technology changed, and therefore players hit it farther? Didn’t the athletes get better?

I sense, in these debates (and most often it gets mentioned explicitly at some point) a sentiment that goes something like this...

_I sort of agree that maybe equipment regulations have been too lax, but we can never go backwards, and anyway the rules are tight enough now that there won’t be any more big distance gains. The important thing now is to just hold constant where we are..._

That is such a weaselly, unrealistic notion. There will always be technology advances. In golf as in any field of human endeavor. And in golf, as in any human game the rules are totally arbitrary. You can create any sort of game you’d like. You could play a game with just one club, or a hundred. You could play the game inside of a stadium, or on an abandoned airport with super balls. You could allow checking. With players wearing helmets and face masks.

However, golf’s ruling bodies have something else in mind. Their vision is of a traditional game, played in a generally particular (lol) over historic courses.

And if you don’t like their vision, and the use of historic links as general measuring sticks of how to organize and rule the game, then you are naturally free to organize your own game, make up your own rules and adapt your own equipment.

Knock yourselves out. I won’t care.

QuigleyDU · October 18, 2019

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> > > > >

> > > > > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > > > > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

> > > >

> > > > Oh, absolutely!

> > > >

> > > > If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

> > > >

> > > > Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

> > > >

> > > > I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. Except that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.

> > > >

> > > > **Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”**

> > > >

> > >

> > > Red herring. I'm talking about the next 25+ years, not the previous 25 years. If it's capped now, which it is, you will not see BK and DJ hitting it farther in their sixties.

> >

> > Because their prime was steel shafts and wood heads.... Jeez, if he was an auto guy we would all be driving this. A little advancement is ok.

> >

>

> Oh wait; so you are suggesting that equipment technology changed, and therefore players hit it farther? Didn’t the athletes get better?

>

> I sense, in these debates (and most often it gets mentioned explicitly at some point) a sentiment that goes something like this...

>

> _I sort of agree that maybe equipment regulations have been too lax, but we can never go backwards, and anyway the rules are tight enough now that there won’t be any more big distance gains. The important thing now is to just hold constant where we are..._

>

> That is such a weaselly, unrealistic notion. There will always be technology advances. In golf as in any field of human endeavor. And in golf, as in any human game the rules are totally arbitrary. You can create any sort of game you’d like. You could play a game with just one club, or a hundred. You could play the game inside of a stadium, or on an abandoned airport with super balls. You could allow checking. With players wearing helmets and face masks.

>

> However, golf’s ruling bodies have something else in mind. Their vision is of a traditional game, played in a generally particular (lol) over historic courses.

>

> And if you don’t like their vision, and the use of historic links as general measuring sticks of how to organize and rule the game, then you are naturally free to organize your own game, make up your own rules and adapt your own equipment.

>

> Knock yourselves out. I won’t care.

>

I have never ever said equipment has not improved. I have only ever said it is not a problem. I will find it very funny and will think of you when there is no ball rollback.

Krt22 · October 18, 2019

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > > > >

> > > > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> > > >

> > > > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > > > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

> > >

> > > Oh, absolutely!

> > >

> > > If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

> > >

> > > Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

> > >

> > > I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. E**xcept that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.**

> > >

> > > Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”

> > >

> >

> > You just proved my point.

>

> Good. I want this fight. I want it, on these terms. Because I do know that the USGA and the R&A see it as I do.

Sure thing, slugger.

Krt22 · October 18, 2019

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > Let us pretend that we are back in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If you saw a trend in players getting longer and longer with the equipment of those eras to the point where many of the top players on tour were a lot longer than Jack and had well rounded games and were playing courses not as intended (yes they might be a bit shorter but not as much as you think), would we be having this same discussion about rolling back equipment? You bet we would. In reality, the inevitable happened, better and better players rose to the top and figured out the easiest way to play the game. If you don't like it, you have to adapt with your venue. Longer isn't the only way to "preserve par". Ever thought that maybe the game just needs to move on from these courses? They can still be played by the masses and after all, you know, the ones that fit the course as intended just fine. You just cannot dictate how the game is played the way you pro roll back guys are trying to. It just doesn't make sense. You can't seem to see how you pushing for something unrealistic and full of risk. Take a deep dive, really analyze your points of view and try and think through the future and how it would play out. Like playing a chess game. Think through your moves. There are so many variables and risks overlooked or not understood in this issue that I don't think most see, even those that are against any rollback. The risk is just too high for the reward for a huge amount of reasons. It seems so easy in so many of your eyes but you are trying to fundamentally revert the game 20+ years. And before anyone says no to that, think, truly think about what kind of roll back would be needed to address and future proof this perceived distance problem. Jack, when he mentioned a 20% distance roll back is not far off the mark. Not far at all.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > We'll never know unless the elite players try it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Otherwise, courses will graduate to 8,000 yards in the future, for a championship course. You're in favor of that, right?

> > > > >

> > > > > Why would the courses have to graduate to 8,000 yards? The equipment limits are in place.

> > > > > I guess some might say the courses would "have to" graduate to 8,000 yards if, I don't know, the athletes got better?

> > > >

> > > > Oh, absolutely!

> > > >

> > > > If, just for the sake of argument, someone wants to claim that with current equipment limits, all current/ future distance gains are due to “better athletes,” then ABSOLUTELY I still want a ball rollback.

> > > >

> > > > Not to punish any “athletes,” but to insure that the game that they are playing is the one that the ruling bodies wish to preside over. An historic game, played at historic venues.

> > > >

> > > > I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. E**xcept that I see so much ignorance of, and even contempt for, golf course architecture among many in the game.**

> > > >

> > > > Now; back to reality. When Fred Couples, Vijay Singh and Larry Mize all drive the ball farther in their sixties than when each of them were in their prime winning Masters championships, it isn’t “athleticism.”

> > > >

> > >

> > > You just proved my point.

> >

> > Good. I want this fight. I want it, on these terms. Because I do know that the USGA and the R&A see it as I do.

>

> Only because you work for the USGA. You just won’t admit it.

And if he does..and his cronies agree..it just goes to show the USGA is completely out of touch with the modern state of golf. They would rather see the game decline than accept the game played today is simply different than what was played 20+ years ago.

Ashley Schaeffer · October 18, 2019

15th,

I'll ask it again, more concisely:

1. You want modern players to "fit" into classic, historic, precious, championship courses the way the designer intended, often 75-100+ years ago.

2. I'd posit that your wish has not been reality since the 1970s, at the very latest.

3. You say you do not wish to go back to 1970s equipment.

4. I don't think your position is that elite players should average 260-270 off the tee.

How, then, will modern players "fit" into the CHPCCs with a ball rollback? If the new ball makes them hit it 290 instead of 320 (roughly 10% shorter), they will not be playing as the designer intended.

So, is it truly the designer's intent? Or is that just to obfuscate something else?

clevited · October 18, 2019

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> 15th,

> I'll ask it again, more concisely:

> 1. You want modern players to "fit" into classic, historic, precious, championship courses the way the designer intended, often 75-100+ years ago.

> 2. I'd posit that your wish has not been reality since the 1970s, at the very latest.

> 3. You say you do not wish to go back to 1970s equipment.

> 4. I don't think your position is that elite players should average 260-270 off the tee.

> How, then, will modern players "fit" into the CHPCCs with a ball rollback? If the new ball makes them hit it 290 instead of 320 (roughly 10% shorter), they will not be playing as the designer intended.

> So, is it truly the designer's intent? Or is that just to obfuscate something else?

He is just going to move the goal post and or dance around the subject Ashley, but I know you know this. His reasoning contradicts itself often and he just doesn't address it. I asked for a convincing argument from these guys and so far nothing. They also don't address the problems with their proposed solution at all.

QuigleyDU · October 18, 2019

> @clevited said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > 15th,

> > I'll ask it again, more concisely:

> > 1. You want modern players to "fit" into classic, historic, precious, championship courses the way the designer intended, often 75-100+ years ago.

> > 2. I'd posit that your wish has not been reality since the 1970s, at the very latest.

> > 3. You say you do not wish to go back to 1970s equipment.

> > 4. I don't think your position is that elite players should average 260-270 off the tee.

> > How, then, will modern players "fit" into the CHPCCs with a ball rollback? If the new ball makes them hit it 290 instead of 320 (roughly 10% shorter), they will not be playing as the designer intended.

> > So, is it truly the designer's intent? Or is that just to obfuscate something else?

>

> He is just going to move the goal post and or dance around the subject Ashley, but I know you know this.

And use demeaning and condescending language to tell you how feeble and insignificant your thoughts are. I have asked and wondered how old he is. He will never say.. He just says how stupid it is to ask that question. That it is not an age or generation thing...

Sign In

Lets take a closer look at distance off the Tee....

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

80sFredriksson

Sandhurst241069

QuigleyDU

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment