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

[smashdn]

> @Shilgy said:

>

> So it was Jacks power game that was new to him??

 

I would say yes. I already explained the high draw thing in another post but I think we don't give him enough credit. Hardly anybody was doing that or capable of doing that. A fade doesn't/didn't go as far as a draw especially a high shot. Nicklaus overcame that limitation to play a shot he could better control. But because he was physically gifted he didn't give up much length to do so. He overpowered courses of his day, not tack his way around the way the rest of the field was doing.

 

> @Krt22 said:

> Agreed with you there Quigley, this discussion realistically only applies to professionals and maybe 1-2% of elite ams.

 

This thread is in The Tour Talk section. I viewed everything here to apply only to professional events with the exception that the changes needed to accommodate pro events are paid for and impact everyone who plays that particular course.

 

> @bigred90gt said:

>

> Even still, none of that is relevant the to the game of golf outside of professional or, as some call it, “elite level” golf. Those pro and elite amateurs make up such a small portion of the global game that what they do and are capable of doing should be completely and totally inconsequential to the rest of the golfing world. yet, those of you arguing for a rollback in performance, regardless of it is equipment or ball related, are trying to do exactly that. You are advocating for ruining the game of golf for the millions and millions of people who play it because you do not like the way a relative handful play the game. How petty and ridiculous of a notion that truly is.

>

 

See above. Whether you are for or against a rollback to a ball that travels not as far with driver, you are already experiencing the impact of the pro game on your weekend foursome. I say birfurcate or have a competition ball for the PGA, EPGA and KF Tours. Easy as that. And there are valid reasons out there to not do that admittedly. But that action literally would have an impact on the fewest people, for the shortest amount of time and likely would be BY FAR the least costly alternative on the table if you care about keeping architectural intent intact.

 

If you don't care whether the majority of professional golfers can blow past bunkers by 40 yards then you won't agree there is a need to change.

 

 

So, first, is driving distance on the professional circuits a problem, is it a problem worth finding a solution to, what are the options for a solution and what option(s) do you want to implement. < Low gravy.

 

[Krt22]

What impacts the tour directly cascades down to amateurs and the game of golf as a whole, even more so with bifurcation. And rolling back the ball really only would be to address the top 30 or so drivers of the ball. The average carry on tour is still around 270 yards, those guys are the ones who would be impacted the most and the game would become even less competitive for the shorter hitters.

[smashdn]

> @bigred90gt said:

> For those that feel the “ground game” is important and not relevant today obviously do not watch much golf. Unless it is raining, I cannot recall watching a tournament where most of the field did NOT get** 40+ yards of rollout off the tee. **If you are trying to say 100 yards in the air and 100 yards on the ground is what you are looking for, well you can really just give up on that pipe dream. Those 350 yard drives you see almost always come with mass amounts of rollout. There’s just not a lot of golfers carrying the ball 350 yards in a competitive round. There’s not a lot of golfers capable of doing it.

 

We watch different tournaments.

 

Not 350 but there are plenty of carries in the 310-320 range. With no rollout that, by my standards (not my playing standards but what I would want to see on tv), is about 40 yards too long. I would really be okay with the driving average being around 270-280 and the longest guys being 300. I really think 300 yards is a good upper end benchmark. If you can keep it around that then the biggest need to add distance to holes or move hazards is probably already done. We can stop the arms race now and be comfortable with the group of courses that are capable of hosting a pro event as they currently exist. < That really is or would be my goal.

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"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.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> 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.

>

 

Can you name five (5) "classic, historic, precious, championship courses" that have hosted a major since 1980, and have room for a modern tournament crowd, that cannot host a major because they are too short?

Have we deduced your entire position to the preservation of a handful of courses? Hmmm.

 

 

[bigred90gt]

> @smashdn said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> >

> > So it was Jacks power game that was new to him??

>

> I would say yes. I already explained the high draw thing in another post but I think we don't give him enough credit. Hardly anybody was doing that or capable of doing that. A fade doesn't/didn't go as far as a draw especially a high shot. Nicklaus overcame that limitation to play a shot he could better control. But because he was physically gifted he didn't give up much length to do so. He overpowered courses of his day, not tack his way around the way the rest of the field was doing.

>

> > @Krt22 said:

> > Agreed with you there Quigley, this discussion realistically only applies to professionals and maybe 1-2% of elite ams.

>

> This thread is in The Tour Talk section. I viewed everything here to apply only to professional events with the exception that the changes needed to accommodate pro events are paid for and impact everyone who plays that particular course.

>

> > @bigred90gt said:

> >

> > Even still, none of that is relevant the to the game of golf outside of professional or, as some call it, “elite level” golf. Those pro and elite amateurs make up such a small portion of the global game that what they do and are capable of doing should be completely and totally inconsequential to the rest of the golfing world. yet, those of you arguing for a rollback in performance, regardless of it is equipment or ball related, are trying to do exactly that. You are advocating for ruining the game of golf for the millions and millions of people who play it because you do not like the way a relative handful play the game. How petty and ridiculous of a notion that truly is.

> >

>

> See above. Whether you are for or against a rollback to a ball that travels not as far with driver, you are already experiencing the impact of the pro game on your weekend foursome. I say birfurcate or have a competition ball for the PGA, EPGA and KF Tours. Easy as that. And there are valid reasons out there to not do that admittedly. But that action literally would have an impact on the fewest people, for the shortest amount of time and likely would be BY FAR the least costly alternative on the table if you care about keeping architectural intent intact.

>

> If you don't care whether the majority of professional golfers can blow past bunkers by 40 yards then you won't agree there is a need to change.

>

>

> So, first, is driving distance on the professional circuits a problem, is it a problem worth finding a solution to, what are the options for a solution and what option(s) do you want to implement. < Low gravy.

>

 

The answer to your question in the last paragraph (it’s presented like a question anyway), no, driving distance is not a problem and without a problem there is no need for a solution.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @gvogel said:

> > @ThinkingPlus 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???

> >

> > He doesn't care about the nameless, faceless masses playing golf. His whole argument is elitist and misogynistic.

>

> Misogynistic is a sexist term. There is nothing sexist in 15th's argument. All golfers would be affected by a roll back, not just men, not just women. And, as a muni player, I don't find his stance elitist in the least.

 

His argument is elitist because 5, 15, 25, etc... caps don't matter in this debate. He only cares about elite male adult golfers. They are the only ones making his precious historic courses unable to maintain relevancy in competitive golf. Senior golfers, women golfers, or junior golfers are not part of the equation since they generally don't hit the ball far enough. They are not elite in his mind, but they along with all the higher handicaps will suffer if the world of golf gets turned upside down.

[bigred90gt]

> @smashdn said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > For those that feel the “ground game” is important and not relevant today obviously do not watch much golf. Unless it is raining, I cannot recall watching a tournament where most of the field did NOT get** 40+ yards of rollout off the tee. **If you are trying to say 100 yards in the air and 100 yards on the ground is what you are looking for, well you can really just give up on that pipe dream. Those 350 yard drives you see almost always come with mass amounts of rollout. There’s just not a lot of golfers carrying the ball 350 yards in a competitive round. There’s not a lot of golfers capable of doing it.

>

> We watch different tournaments.

>

> Not 350 but there are plenty of carries in the 310-320 range. With no rollout that, by my standards (not my playing standards but what I would want to see on tv), is about 40 yards too long. I would really be okay with the driving average being around 270-280 and the longest guys being 300. I really think 300 yards is a good upper end benchmark. If you can keep it around that then the biggest need to add distance to holes or move hazards is probably already done. We can stop the arms race now and be comfortable with the group of courses that are capable of hosting a pro event as they currently exist. < That really is or would be my goal.

>

>

 

We must indeed. I don’t recall the last time I watched a tournament and didn’t see 40+ yards of roll on multiple drives. I watch a little bit of almost every tournament.

 

I used to be able to carry the ball 320+. I’ve broken par twice in my life and have never played a 7500 yard course.

[Krt22]

 

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > For those that feel the “ground game” is important and not relevant today obviously do not watch much golf. Unless it is raining, I cannot recall watching a tournament where most of the field did NOT get** 40+ yards of rollout off the tee. **If you are trying to say 100 yards in the air and 100 yards on the ground is what you are looking for, well you can really just give up on that pipe dream. Those 350 yard drives you see almost always come with mass amounts of rollout. There’s just not a lot of golfers carrying the ball 350 yards in a competitive round. There’s not a lot of golfers capable of doing it.

> >

> > We watch different tournaments.

> >

> > Not 350 but there are plenty of carries in the 310-320 range. With no rollout that, by my standards (not my playing standards but what I would want to see on tv), is about 40 yards too long. I would really be okay with the driving average being around 270-280 and the longest guys being 300. I really think 300 yards is a good upper end benchmark. If you can keep it around that then the biggest need to add distance to holes or move hazards is probably already done. We can stop the arms race now and be comfortable with the group of courses that are capable of hosting a pro event as they currently exist. < That really is or would be my goal.

> >

> >

>

> We must indeed. I don’t recall the last time I watched a tournament and didn’t see 40+ yards of roll on multiple drives. I watch a little bit of almost every tournament.

>

> I used to be able to carry the ball 320+. I’ve broken par twice in my life and have never played a 7500 yard course.

 

Indeed, instead of blaming the equipment, why not blame the course setup? Unless there has been rain, the fairways are incredibly hard and closely mowed. I've putter on muni greens that were likely slower than some tour stop fairways. Water the heck out of teh fairways and grow them to 1/2" and you will see a big distance drop.

[clevited]

> @smashdn said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > For those that feel the “ground game” is important and not relevant today obviously do not watch much golf. Unless it is raining, I cannot recall watching a tournament where most of the field did NOT get** 40+ yards of rollout off the tee. **If you are trying to say 100 yards in the air and 100 yards on the ground is what you are looking for, well you can really just give up on that pipe dream. Those 350 yard drives you see almost always come with mass amounts of rollout. There’s just not a lot of golfers carrying the ball 350 yards in a competitive round. There’s not a lot of golfers capable of doing it.

>

> We watch different tournaments.

>

> Not 350 but there are plenty of carries in the 310-320 range. With no rollout that, by my standards (not my playing standards but what I would want to see on tv), is about 40 yards too long. I would really be okay with the driving average being around 270-280 and the longest guys being 300. I really think 300 yards is a good upper end benchmark. If you can keep it around that then the biggest need to add distance to holes or move hazards is probably already done. We can stop the arms race now and be comfortable with the group of courses that are capable of hosting a pro event as they currently exist. < That really is or would be my goal.

>

>

 

You do know players like Cameron Champ and many other guys are currently capable of carrying 350 and rolling beyond that should they want to (they just often don't because it is too risky and helps them very little). So you are indeed suggesting that 20%+ will be needed to limit the longest to an average of 300 yards? So you are ok with a 200 yard shot becoming 160, heck maybe even 150 for the average joe?

[QuigleyDU]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > For those that feel the “ground game” is important and not relevant today obviously do not watch much golf. Unless it is raining, I cannot recall watching a tournament where most of the field did NOT get** 40+ yards of rollout off the tee. **If you are trying to say 100 yards in the air and 100 yards on the ground is what you are looking for, well you can really just give up on that pipe dream. Those 350 yard drives you see almost always come with mass amounts of rollout. There’s just not a lot of golfers carrying the ball 350 yards in a competitive round. There’s not a lot of golfers capable of doing it.

> >

> > We watch different tournaments.

> >

> > Not 350 but there are plenty of carries in the 310-320 range. With no rollout that, by my standards (not my playing standards but what I would want to see on tv), is about 40 yards too long. I would really be okay with the driving average being around 270-280 and the longest guys being 300. I really think 300 yards is a good upper end benchmark. If you can keep it around that then the biggest need to add distance to holes or move hazards is probably already done. We can stop the arms race now and be comfortable with the group of courses that are capable of hosting a pro event as they currently exist. < That really is or would be my goal.

> >

> >

>

> We must indeed. I don’t recall the last time I watched a tournament and didn’t see 40+ yards of roll on multiple drives. I watch a little bit of almost every tournament.

>

> I used to be able to carry the ball 320+. I’ve broken par twice in my life and have never played a 7500 yard course.

 

The only time you do not see large amounts of roll is when there is wind and or rain. Otherwise, I know from first hand volunteer experience to tour comes in and dries and firms out the course to the point that balls bounce off fairway like they would cart paths.

[smashdn]

> @clevited said:

 

> 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.

 

No need to continue to lengthen courses. Cost if you really want to boil it down. The easiest, quickest, most cost effective method to affect the change at the pro level is to create a ball made to meet tournament criteria whatever the professional tours agree those to be. Could be shorter, could spin more, could spin less. Obviously that is a huge ask, but not a huge cost to implement if they wanted to.

 

I don't have a beloved course. I just think it is a shame that we can't play the Merions, The Cherry Hills, The Aronominks the way that Palmer, Snead and Nicklaus played them. I also think it is crappy that courses, in order to stay relevant and continue to be a tour stop or major venue (if that is their prerogative) have to continue to alter the course. I don't know what conversations go on between clubs and courses and the USGA or PGA Tour but there has to be something along the lines of "we need you to make these changes to continue to hold X Tournament here." Why else do courses do these big renovations and alterations ahead of majors? These financial burdens that carried by all members or players at the courses.

[LICC]

> @bladehunter 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???

>

> 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.

 

Very few recreational golfers are hitting 270 yard consistent drives. I maybe see it 5%-8% of the time.

[clevited]

> @smashdn said:

> > @clevited said:

>

> > 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.

>

> No need to continue to lengthen courses. Cost if you really want to boil it down. The easiest, quickest, most cost effective method to affect the change at the pro level is to create a ball made to meet tournament criteria whatever the professional tours agree those to be. Could be shorter, could spin more, could spin less. Obviously that is a huge ask, but not a huge cost to implement if they wanted to.

>

> I don't have a beloved course. I just think it is a shame that we can't play the Merions, The Cherry Hills, The Aronominks the way that Palmer, Snead and Nicklaus played them. I also think it is crappy that courses, in order to stay relevant and continue to be a tour stop or major venue (if that is their prerogative) have to continue to alter the course. I don't know what conversations go on between clubs and courses and the USGA or PGA Tour but there has to be something along the lines of "we need you to make these changes to continue to hold X Tournament here." Why else do courses do these big renovations and alterations ahead of majors? These financial burdens that carried by all members or players at the courses.

 

This isn't a solid argument though. There is no "need" to continue to lengthen courses. I don't know who is dictating this but it doesn't need to happen. Lets pretend there is a "need" to do it, it is only on the tours that is supposedly "needs" to happen. This has zero effect on almost all courses that the majority of golfers play. None absolutely none of the courses I play or played growing up have lengthened. They don't need to. They are still a challenge to most everyone that plays them, modern equipment and all. The tours have MONEY, lots and lots of MONEY. They can trick up their courses all they want for these events. If they want to save costs, I suggest they find a smarter way to present the challenge they perceive to be acceptable. I suggest finding other venues, or getting creative with the layout they have. The make the course longer excuse is just that, an excuse. Resorting to changing the most fundamental object in the game which effects everyone is just plain crazy.

[LICC]

> @"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?

 

Courses would have to be closer to 9,000 yards today to pose the similar challenges and strategies that the same courses posed in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

I agree that courses today could be set up differently to mitigate some of the distance gains. Such as by making the rough longer so that fairway misses are penalized more than they are.

[bigred90gt]

> @smashdn said:

> > @clevited said:

>

> > 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.

>

> No need to continue to lengthen courses. Cost if you really want to boil it down. The easiest, quickest, most cost effective method to affect the change at the pro level is to create a ball made to meet tournament criteria whatever the professional tours agree those to be. Could be shorter, could spin more, could spin less. Obviously that is a huge ask, but not a huge cost to implement if they wanted to.

>

> I don't have a beloved course. I just think it is a shame that we can't play the Merions, The Cherry Hills, The Aronominks the way that Palmer, Snead and Nicklaus played them. I also think it is crappy that courses, in order to stay relevant and continue to be a tour stop or major venue (if that is their prerogative) have to continue to alter the course. I don't know what conversations go on between clubs and courses and the USGA or PGA Tour but there has to be something along the lines of "we need you to make these changes to continue to hold X Tournament here." Why else do courses do these big renovations and alterations ahead of majors? These financial burdens that carried by all members or players at the courses.

 

And those members obviously vote to approve those modifications. That’s their business. Membership could tell them to pound sand. They think hosting a tournament on their exclusive club brings them some prestige, so they will do what they wish to continue that. But again, how does that have any negative impact on the rest of the golf world? Simply put, it doesn’t and most people don’t care.

 

[smashdn]

> @Krt22 said:

> What impacts the tour directly cascades down to amateurs and the game of golf as a whole, even more so with bifurcation. And rolling back the ball really only would be to address the top 30 or so drivers of the ball. The average carry on tour is still around 270 yards, those guys are the ones who would be impacted the most and the game would become even less competitive for the shorter hitters.

 

That doesn't seem to follow what was occurring 30-40 years ago when the driving distances were lower for everyone. There were multiple ways to win and, for whatever reason, distance did not necessarily trump accuracy, putting, scrambling, etc.

 

The shot link data did not exist then but it would have been real interesting to compare it from that era to now to see what other variables had as big an impact as distance. My guess is that distance came at a cost of accuracy to the point where it may not have been advantageous to chase it.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @Krt22 said:

>

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > For those that feel the “ground game” is important and not relevant today obviously do not watch much golf. Unless it is raining, I cannot recall watching a tournament where most of the field did NOT get** 40+ yards of rollout off the tee. **If you are trying to say 100 yards in the air and 100 yards on the ground is what you are looking for, well you can really just give up on that pipe dream. Those 350 yard drives you see almost always come with mass amounts of rollout. There’s just not a lot of golfers carrying the ball 350 yards in a competitive round. There’s not a lot of golfers capable of doing it.

> > >

> > > We watch different tournaments.

> > >

> > > Not 350 but there are plenty of carries in the 310-320 range. With no rollout that, by my standards (not my playing standards but what I would want to see on tv), is about 40 yards too long. I would really be okay with the driving average being around 270-280 and the longest guys being 300. I really think 300 yards is a good upper end benchmark. If you can keep it around that then the biggest need to add distance to holes or move hazards is probably already done. We can stop the arms race now and be comfortable with the group of courses that are capable of hosting a pro event as they currently exist. < That really is or would be my goal.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > We must indeed. I don’t recall the last time I watched a tournament and didn’t see 40+ yards of roll on multiple drives. I watch a little bit of almost every tournament.

> >

> > I used to be able to carry the ball 320+. I’ve broken par twice in my life and have never played a 7500 yard course.

>

> Indeed, instead of blaming the equipment, why not blame the course setup? Unless there has been rain, the fairways are incredibly hard and closely mowed. I've putter on muni greens that were likely slower than some tour stop fairways. Water the heck out of teh fairways and grow them to 1/2" and you will see a big distance drop.

 

They have an answer to this: "The courses must play firm and fast, as the dead designer intended".

They would rather rewind 20+ years in an unsuccessful attempt to preserve fewer than 10 country clubs than let some grass grow.

The fun part about a ball rollback would be all the tech advancements that would allow the players to figure out how to hit it just as far and continue bomb it on these newly firm and fast courses.

[smashdn]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > So, first, is driving distance on the professional circuits a problem, is it a problem worth finding a solution to, what are the options for a solution and what option(s) do you want to implement. < Low gravy.

> >

>

> The answer to your question in the last paragraph (it’s presented like a question anyway), no, driving distance is not a problem and without a problem there is no need for a solution.

 

You are right, that is or those are the questions. If you answer no to the first one there is no need to address the latter ones.

 

Some people argue it is a problem and support it others don't think it is a problem or maybe even some who recognize it as a problem but one that may take care of itself in the near future as there will likely be no more distance gains at the rates seen in the last 20 years.

[Titleist99]

> @smashdn said:

> > @clevited said:

>

> > 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.

>

> No need to continue to lengthen courses. Cost if you really want to boil it down. The easiest, quickest, most cost effective method to affect the change at the pro level is to create a ball made to meet tournament criteria whatever the professional tours agree those to be. Could be shorter, could spin more, could spin less. Obviously that is a huge ask, but not a huge cost to implement if they wanted to.

>

> I don't have a beloved course. I just think it is a shame that we can't play the Merions, The Cherry Hills, The Aronominks the way that Palmer, Snead and Nicklaus played them. I also think it is crappy that courses, in order to stay relevant and continue to be a tour stop or major venue (if that is their prerogative) have to continue to alter the course. I don't know what conversations go on between clubs and courses and the USGA or PGA Tour but there has to be something along the lines of "we need you to make these changes to continue to hold X Tournament here." Why else do courses do these big renovations and alterations ahead of majors? These financial burdens that carried by all members or players at the courses.

 

I would bet anyone a steak dinner that the USGA could set up Marion golf course where as no one could break par for the tournament...… Would that convince you that we do not need a roll back?

The Pros would be embarrassed for them made to look silly and never return but who cares about that, right?

[QuigleyDU]

> @Krt22 said:

>

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > For those that feel the “ground game” is important and not relevant today obviously do not watch much golf. Unless it is raining, I cannot recall watching a tournament where most of the field did NOT get** 40+ yards of rollout off the tee. **If you are trying to say 100 yards in the air and 100 yards on the ground is what you are looking for, well you can really just give up on that pipe dream. Those 350 yard drives you see almost always come with mass amounts of rollout. There’s just not a lot of golfers carrying the ball 350 yards in a competitive round. There’s not a lot of golfers capable of doing it.

> > >

> > > We watch different tournaments.

> > >

> > > Not 350 but there are plenty of carries in the 310-320 range. With no rollout that, by my standards (not my playing standards but what I would want to see on tv), is about 40 yards too long. I would really be okay with the driving average being around 270-280 and the longest guys being 300. I really think 300 yards is a good upper end benchmark. If you can keep it around that then the biggest need to add distance to holes or move hazards is probably already done. We can stop the arms race now and be comfortable with the group of courses that are capable of hosting a pro event as they currently exist. < That really is or would be my goal.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > We must indeed. I don’t recall the last time I watched a tournament and didn’t see 40+ yards of roll on multiple drives. I watch a little bit of almost every tournament.

> >

> > I used to be able to carry the ball 320+. I’ve broken par twice in my life and have never played a 7500 yard course.

>

> Indeed, instead of blaming the equipment, why not blame the course setup? Unless there has been rain, the fairways are incredibly hard and closely mowed. I've putter on muni greens that were likely slower than some tour stop fairways. Water the heck out of teh fairways and grow them to 1/2" and you will see a big distance drop.

 

There is a point of diminishing returns on that. You do have to remember that it was at a soft and rained at course that Adam Scott said you cannot make a course long enough for tour pros. I agree to an extent with @15clubs that an amount of speed in the fairway does increase the need for accuracy. BUT, and this is a big BUT. there are other things you can do. Mow the fairways into the tee boxes to slow the ball down, Set the tee boxes to create angles. Etc etc.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @LICC 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?

>

> Courses would have to be closer to 9,000 yards today to pose the similar challenges and strategies that the same courses posed in the 1970s and 1980s.

>

> I agree that courses today could be set up differently to mitigate some of the distance gains. Such as by making the rough longer so that fairway misses are penalized more than they are.

 

I'd say closer to 10,000. Those guys back then were so much better than the players these days. Any schmoe can just carry it 320 over a dogleg and putt like a machine. Much more talent back when the speed was 80% of what it is today.

[smashdn]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> His argument is elitist because 5, 15, 25, etc... caps don't matter in this debate. He only cares about elite male adult golfers. They are the only ones making his precious historic courses unable to maintain relevancy in competitive golf. Senior golfers, women golfers, or junior golfers are not part of the equation since they generally don't hit the ball far enough. They are not elite in his mind, but they along with all the higher handicaps will suffer if the world of golf gets turned upside down.

 

They already suffer if they are playing and paying at a course that has had to be or chosen to be altered due to distance of the elite or lower handicap or long or however you want to describe them golfers.

 

Would you say that a person who drives it 200 yards would be impacted by a ball made in such a manner that it takes a 100 mph swing speed to be impacted either positively or negatively? That is essentially what the modern multi-layer balls do. The benefits come into play when you swing fast enough to compress into the inner layers. In a similar manner a ball could be made so that they limiting factors of distance or spin or whatever are only activated by faster swing speeds. The "elites" would then have to choose, swing slower to avoid those impacts or continue to swing fast and deal with the potential impacts.

[QuigleyDU]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @clevited said:

> >

> > > 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.

> >

> > No need to continue to lengthen courses. Cost if you really want to boil it down. The easiest, quickest, most cost effective method to affect the change at the pro level is to create a ball made to meet tournament criteria whatever the professional tours agree those to be. Could be shorter, could spin more, could spin less. Obviously that is a huge ask, but not a huge cost to implement if they wanted to.

> >

> > I don't have a beloved course. I just think it is a shame that we can't play the Merions, The Cherry Hills, The Aronominks the way that Palmer, Snead and Nicklaus played them. I also think it is crappy that courses, in order to stay relevant and continue to be a tour stop or major venue (if that is their prerogative) have to continue to alter the course. I don't know what conversations go on between clubs and courses and the USGA or PGA Tour but there has to be something along the lines of "we need you to make these changes to continue to hold X Tournament here." Why else do courses do these big renovations and alterations ahead of majors? These financial burdens that carried by all members or players at the courses.

>

> I would bet anyone a steak dinner that the USGA could set up Marion golf course where as no one could break par for the tournament...… Would that convince you that we do not need a roll back?

> The Pros would be embarrassed for them made to look silly and never return but who cares about that, right?

 

haha. No, @"15th Club" has regularly said he does not care about the score. He cares about how the course is played. It is the optics of it that matter.

[Titleist99]

> @Krt22 said:

>

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > For those that feel the “ground game” is important and not relevant today obviously do not watch much golf. Unless it is raining, I cannot recall watching a tournament where most of the field did NOT get** 40+ yards of rollout off the tee. **If you are trying to say 100 yards in the air and 100 yards on the ground is what you are looking for, well you can really just give up on that pipe dream. Those 350 yard drives you see almost always come with mass amounts of rollout. There’s just not a lot of golfers carrying the ball 350 yards in a competitive round. There’s not a lot of golfers capable of doing it.

> > >

> > > We watch different tournaments.

> > >

> > > Not 350 but there are plenty of carries in the 310-320 range. With no rollout that, by my standards (not my playing standards but what I would want to see on tv), is about 40 yards too long. I would really be okay with the driving average being around 270-280 and the longest guys being 300. I really think 300 yards is a good upper end benchmark. If you can keep it around that then the biggest need to add distance to holes or move hazards is probably already done. We can stop the arms race now and be comfortable with the group of courses that are capable of hosting a pro event as they currently exist. < That really is or would be my goal.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > We must indeed. I don’t recall the last time I watched a tournament and didn’t see 40+ yards of roll on multiple drives. I watch a little bit of almost every tournament.

> >

> > I used to be able to carry the ball 320+. I’ve broken par twice in my life and have never played a 7500 yard course.

>

> Indeed, instead of blaming the equipment, why not blame the course setup? Unless there has been rain, the fairways are incredibly hard and closely mowed. I've putter on muni greens that were likely slower than some tour stop fairways. Water the heck out of teh fairways and grow them to 1/2" and you will see a big distance drop.

 

LOL!....The roll back crowd would never go for making the course harder, how dare you suggest such a thing....LOL!

[mahonie]

> @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.

 

I have no issue with distance per se...I just think that the focus on distance in the modern game is making the game boring. The PGA Tour is the most boring sport to watch on TV...there is no variety...with the exception of Hilton Head. Sky in the UK did a piece on Justin Thomas last year in one forgettable PGA Tour event where in the 1st round he pull hooked his drive on one hole, had a clear shot to the green and made par. In the 2nd round on the same hole, he push sliced his drive, still had a clear shot to the green and again made par. Wayne Riley measured the distance between where the 2 drives finished and it was 290 yards!!

 

This is the level the game has fallen to...skill is being overtaken by the technology. Formula 1 is exactly the same...when the sponsors realise that no one is actually watching I just wonder what will happen.

[15th Club]

> @Krt22 said:

>

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > For those that feel the “ground game” is important and not relevant today obviously do not watch much golf. Unless it is raining, I cannot recall watching a tournament where most of the field did NOT get** 40+ yards of rollout off the tee. **If you are trying to say 100 yards in the air and 100 yards on the ground is what you are looking for, well you can really just give up on that pipe dream. Those 350 yard drives you see almost always come with mass amounts of rollout. There’s just not a lot of golfers carrying the ball 350 yards in a competitive round. There’s not a lot of golfers capable of doing it.

> > >

> > > We watch different tournaments.

> > >

> > > Not 350 but there are plenty of carries in the 310-320 range. With no rollout that, by my standards (not my playing standards but what I would want to see on tv), is about 40 yards too long. I would really be okay with the driving average being around 270-280 and the longest guys being 300. I really think 300 yards is a good upper end benchmark. If you can keep it around that then the biggest need to add distance to holes or move hazards is probably already done. We can stop the arms race now and be comfortable with the group of courses that are capable of hosting a pro event as they currently exist. < That really is or would be my goal.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > We must indeed. I don’t recall the last time I watched a tournament and didn’t see 40+ yards of roll on multiple drives. I watch a little bit of almost every tournament.

> >

> > I used to be able to carry the ball 320+. I’ve broken par twice in my life and have never played a 7500 yard course.

>

> Indeed, instead of blaming the equipment, why not blame the course setup? Unless there has been rain, the fairways are incredibly hard and closely mowed. I've putter on muni greens that were likely slower than some tour stop fairways. Water the heck out of teh fairways and grow them to 1/2" and you will see a big distance drop.

 

 

Why do that? The courses are much more interesting and more strategically challenging when they are firm and fast.

 

When the choice is boiled down to, “Change the ball, or change the courses; choose one,” my choice is to change the ball 11 times out of 10.

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @LICC 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?

> >

> > Courses would have to be closer to 9,000 yards today to pose the similar challenges and strategies that the same courses posed in the 1970s and 1980s.

> >

> > I agree that courses today could be set up differently to mitigate some of the distance gains. Such as by making the rough longer so that fairway misses are penalized more than they are.

>

> I'd say closer to 10,000. Those guys back then were so much better than the players these days. Any schmoe can just carry it 320 over a dogleg and putt like a machine. Much more talent back when the speed was 80% of what it is today.

 

Hand yet, handicaps have not dropped since it was something that was tracked.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @smashdn said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > His argument is elitist because 5, 15, 25, etc... caps don't matter in this debate. He only cares about elite male adult golfers. They are the only ones making his precious historic courses unable to maintain relevancy in competitive golf. Senior golfers, women golfers, or junior golfers are not part of the equation since they generally don't hit the ball far enough. They are not elite in his mind, but they along with all the higher handicaps will suffer if the world of golf gets turned upside down.

>

> They already suffer if they are playing and paying at a course that has had to be or chosen to be altered due to distance of the elite or lower handicap or long or however you want to describe them golfers.

>

> Would you say that a person who drives it 200 yards would be impacted by a ball made in such a manner that it takes a 100 mph swing speed to be impacted either positively or negatively? That is essentially what the modern multi-layer balls do. The benefits come into play when you swing fast enough to compress into the inner layers. In a similar manner a ball could be made so that they limiting factors of distance or spin or whatever are only activated by faster swing speeds. The "elites" would then have to choose, swing slower to avoid those impacts or continue to swing fast and deal with the potential impacts.

 

Why? They aren't playing the tips. Your 2nd paragraph likely isn't possible. The magic "no impact to slow swingers, 20% shorter for fast swingers" is more or less impossible. Same thing for spin. All the multi-layer design nonsense are tweaks and marketing.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > >

> > > > 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.

> > >

> > > No need to continue to lengthen courses. Cost if you really want to boil it down. The easiest, quickest, most cost effective method to affect the change at the pro level is to create a ball made to meet tournament criteria whatever the professional tours agree those to be. Could be shorter, could spin more, could spin less. Obviously that is a huge ask, but not a huge cost to implement if they wanted to.

> > >

> > > I don't have a beloved course. I just think it is a shame that we can't play the Merions, The Cherry Hills, The Aronominks the way that Palmer, Snead and Nicklaus played them. I also think it is crappy that courses, in order to stay relevant and continue to be a tour stop or major venue (if that is their prerogative) have to continue to alter the course. I don't know what conversations go on between clubs and courses and the USGA or PGA Tour but there has to be something along the lines of "we need you to make these changes to continue to hold X Tournament here." Why else do courses do these big renovations and alterations ahead of majors? These financial burdens that carried by all members or players at the courses.

> >

> > I would bet anyone a steak dinner that the USGA could set up Marion golf course where as no one could break par for the tournament...… Would that convince you that we do not need a roll back?

> > The Pros would be embarrassed for them made to look silly and never return but who cares about that, right?

>

> haha. No, @"15th Club" has regularly said he does not care about the score. He cares about how the course is played. It is the optics of it that matter.

 

Imagine thinking you are so important that you deserve to see championship golf played not only where you want it played, but how you want it played, at the expense of an industry and the vast majority of avid golfers. Blows my mind. Of course, it seems like he believes there are only two types of golfers: (1) Elite; and (2) People playing in tanktops who don't care what ball they play because they will lose it in the pond on the next hole.

[Titleist99]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus 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???

> > >

> > > He doesn't care about the nameless, faceless masses playing golf. His whole argument is elitist and misogynistic.

> >

> > Misogynistic is a sexist term. There is nothing sexist in 15th's argument. All golfers would be affected by a roll back, not just men, not just women. And, as a muni player, I don't find his stance elitist in the least.

>

> His argument is elitist because 5, 15, 25, etc... caps don't matter in this debate. He only cares about elite male adult golfers. They are the only ones making his precious historic courses unable to maintain relevancy in competitive golf. Senior golfers, women golfers, or junior golfers are not part of the equation since they generally don't hit the ball far enough. They are not elite in his mind, but they along with all the higher handicaps will suffer if the world of golf gets turned upside down.

 

Senior Pros are hitting it longer today than they did in their prime, but that only allows them to extend their senior career a few years and remain competitive on that tour...