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

[clevited]

> @smashdn said:

 

> 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 layer**s. 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.

 

The bold isn't true. The energy transfer to the ball is much more efficient the less hard you hit it (how much so depends on the ball). Take a look at some of the extensive ball review data currently floating around out there.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"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.

 

It was a joke. @LICC sometimes likes to talk about how golf is the only sport in the world where elite talent peaked in the 1970s.

[smashdn]

> @clevited said:

> 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?

 

 

No. Read my previous posts. I would be open to bifurcate. I am only concerned with impacting the professional game directly with equipment changes (ideally just the ball). Indirectly it impacts "Joe" because his course isn't continually being modified (rough, greenspeeds, tee boxes, etc.) just to continue to host a tournament two weeks a year. If Joe wants to "play it like the pros" that's his business. Kind of like the wedge groove rule. It was inacted for the pros but it directly impacted me because what little backspin I was able to generate (which I really did love when I got it) is now even less.

 

Like I alluded to already, I am not nor have ever been privy to the conversations going on behind the scenes but it seems to me there must be some tit-for-tat going on as courses continue to add length or make other modifications for these tournaments.

 

Wouldn't a club or course rather just continue day-to-day normal maintenance, host the tournament, and then essentially be playable come monday after?

 

 

I really do believe that the golf ball manufacturers are fully capable of designing a ball that performs in one manner off the tee (at driver swing speeds I guess) and have a slightly different performance from an iron. Spin is not advantageous off the driver, the balls and equipment attempt to minimize it (no grooves on driver faces, etc.). Spin is advantageous with short irons, the cover and outer layers promote it to an extent.

 

As an amateur, for whatever reason, I cannot take advantage of the spin of a prov1 or prov1x or other urethane cover ball. I would see it no different if you wanted to carry the ball thing over to all golfers but I am also ok if we wanted to bifurcate. I'll admit that it is not only pro's on tv that are hitting it further but I will concede it is a big change to go the route of limiting the ball so to minimize the feathers ruffled just implement it at the pro level.

 

[ThinkingPlus]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @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...

 

Never said otherwise.

[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 was still a large contributor but came at a heightened cost in terms of accuracy.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @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.

>

>

 

Cheaper.

Less intrusive to the 99% of players who will never play the handful of courses you believe must host men's elite golf tournaments to be considered "relevant".

But, you know that.

 

 

[jubilee_links]

Listen to any big name course architect at the moment and they think technology has changed what a course has to play like - but you can still make a short course challenging even without taking driver out of the top players hands or having ridiculous rough and green complexes.

 

Local to me is a course used for open regional qualifying - its 6500 yards par 70 and this year the top score was par. Regional qualifying is obvioulsy not top pros but lower tier guys and top am's can certainly hit it as far as those on the PGA tour.

 

A big problem with the PGA tour is the use of dull 80's and 90's TPC style courses that want to highlight big drives - if you give pros the option to hammer it 320 they will. Put them at Merion and the winning score will still be around par.

[Titleist99]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @"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.

>

>

 

You 're right, most courses can't host a Major tournament due to infrastructure problems not length...In other words Parking, crowd size, etc...

[mahonie]

> @jubilee_links said:

> Listen to any big name course architect at the moment and they think technology has changed what a course has to play like - but you can still make a short course challenging even without taking driver out of the top players hands or having ridiculous rough and green complexes.

>

> Local to me is a course used for open regional qualifying - its 6500 yards par 70 and this year the top score was par. Regional qualifying is obvioulsy not top pros but lower tier guys and top am's can certainly hit it as far as those on the PGA tour.

>

> A big problem with the PGA tour is the use of dull 80's and 90's TPC style courses that want to highlight big drives - if you give pros the option to hammer it 320 they will. Put them at Merion and the winning score will still be around par.

 

My home course hosted an Assistant Pros mini-Tour event a while ago.

 

6,100 yards off the tips, par 71.

 

Winning score? 71.

 

Average score of 17 Assistant Pros? 79

 

20 yard wide fairways, tree lined, small greens, doglegs, 3 par 5s not one over 500 yard. Course record is 66. To score well, you have to get the ball in the right place...driver comes into play on 8 holes only. The course is so much fun to play but also challenging. Take the modern driver out of play and golf gets more interesting (speaking as a 260 yard driver of the ball).

[QuigleyDU]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @"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.

> >

> >

>

> You 're right, most courses can't host a Major tournament due to infrastructure problems not length...In other words Parking, crowd size, etc...

 

Here are the upcoming US open sites and the dates they opened. All pretty historic.

 

 

2020 -- June 18-21 -- Winged Foot Golf Club, Mamaroneck, N.Y. 1923

2021 -- June 17-20 -- Torrey Pines Golf Course (South Course), La Jolla, Calif. 1957

2022 -- June 16-19 -- The Country Club, Brookline, Mass. 1882

2023 -- June 15-18 -- Los Angeles Country Club, Los Angeles, Calif. 1897

2024 -- June 13-16 -- Pinehurst No. 2, Pinehurst, N.C. 1897/98

2025 -- June 12-15 -- Oakmont Country Club, Oakmont, Pa. 1904

2026 -- June 18-21 -- Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, Southampton, N.Y. 1896 - funny thing about this course. If it was played "as intended" it would only be 5000 yards.......

2027 -- June 17-20 -- Pebble Beach Golf Links, Pebble Beach, Calif. 1919

[smashdn]

> @Titleist99 said:

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

 

That adds cost, for everyone. It takes time and money to make courses harder. Even for one week of tournament golf you are talking about weeks if not months of preparation to change mowing lines in order to shrink fairways, grow rough, lower the height of cut on greens, etc.

 

Harder does not necessarily mean more interesting golf will be played. I can't speak for others but I watch to see exceptional golfers make strategic choices and execute them (or not) and deal with the consequences. It is a plus if they are being asked the same questions of their games that were being asked of the players of yesterday.

 

> @QuigleyDU said:

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

 

Pro handicaps? Thought we were in the Tour forum. We continue to muddy the argument by dragging am's games into the conversation.

 

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> 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.

 

See response to first quote. Just because you aren't using that way back "Tiger" tee box doesn't mean you aren't paying for it. Likewise, who pays when you need to move a bunker farther out? Everyone foots the bill. Those way back tee boxes still need to be mowed and fertilized when they aren't in use.

 

I can show you trackman data for spin where I have a huge difference between a AVX versus a ProV1 and for grins and giggles a Wilson DUO. The AVX gained me 10 yards on average carry, 600 rpm less spin and 8 yards less dispersion over the ProV1. I gave up wedge spin but as I mentioned in a previous post I never really had great wedge spin. I just play for more release. The AVX lowered my hdcp 2 strokes since I started using it with my modern club this spring. Call it a ball fitting if you would like.

 

There are differences in balls, I don't think there can be an argument there. Pick the characteristic you want the pro ball to have. More spin, less spin, less full swing distance. Range balls for example. The cover doesn't spin but those balls can be made to curve both ways. The ones at my range are limited flight to the tune of about 80%. Wedge shots travel nearly right at "normal" distances. 150 yard shots are about one club off. Driver goes about 40 yards shorter than what it does out on the course.

 

Last thing, if it is tweaks and marketing why stand in the way of a "rollback" if it wouldn't really do anything?

[smashdn]

> @Krt22 said:

> You 're right, most courses can't host a Major tournament due to infrastructure problems not length...In other words Parking, crowd size, etc...

 

Not to completely go off in the ditch but even the courses that were explicitly designed to hold Majors are not 100% adequate to host them. AGNC is buying houses to create more parking. Valhalla buses people from the fairgrounds several miles away for the Senior PGA Championship. I could only imagine what went on during the PGA Championship or Ryder Cup when it was held there.

[QuigleyDU]

> @smashdn said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

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

>

> That adds cost, for everyone. It takes time and money to make courses harder. Even for one week of tournament golf you are talking about weeks if not months of preparation to change mowing lines in order to shrink fairways, grow rough, lower the height of cut on greens, etc.

>

> Harder does not necessarily mean more interesting golf will be played. I can't speak for others but I watch to see exceptional golfers make strategic choices and execute them (or not) and deal with the consequences. It is a plus if they are being asked the same questions of their games that were being asked of the players of yesterday.

>

> > @QuigleyDU said:

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

>

> Pro handicaps? Thought we were in the Tour forum. We continue to muddy the argument by dragging am's games into the conversation.

>

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > 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.

>

> See response to first quote. Just because you aren't using that way back "Tiger" tee box doesn't mean you aren't paying for it. Likewise, who pays when you need to move a bunker farther out? Everyone foots the bill. Those way back tee boxes still need to be mowed and fertilized when they aren't in use.

>

> I can show you trackman data for spin where I have a huge difference between a AVX versus a ProV1 and for grins and giggles a Wilson DUO. The AVX gained me 10 yards on average carry, 600 rpm less spin and 8 yards less dispersion over the ProV1. I gave up wedge spin but as I mentioned in a previous post I never really had great wedge spin. I just play for more release. The AVX lowered my hdcp 2 strokes since I started using it with my modern club this spring. Call it a ball fitting if you would like.

>

> There are differences in balls, I don't think there can be an argument there. Pick the characteristic you want the pro ball to have. More spin, less spin, less full swing distance. Range balls for example. The cover doesn't spin but those balls can be made to curve both ways. The ones at my range are limited flight to the tune of about 80%. Wedge shots travel nearly right at "normal" distances. 150 yard shots are about one club off. Driver goes about 40 yards shorter than what it does out on the course.

>

> Last thing, if it is tweaks and marketing why stand in the way of a "rollback" if it wouldn't really do anything?

 

I do not feel like I have muddied it. I am talking the game of golf as a whole. Encompassing all that play or potentially play it. From Brooks Koepka down to the 80 year old woman's foursome you get stuck behind on a Tuesday afternoon.

 

 

[rangersgoalie]

Augusta (the poster child for many in this type of debate)has bought land from the community, its' neighboring golf course and expanded regularly in reaction to tour pros since before Nicklaus obliterated it.

 

What hole regularly beguiles the players? 12

 

 

 

[rangersgoalie]

so, why in the world am i against bifurcation?

1) Where does it start? Professional golf? College? High level Amateur? All competitive golf?

Wherever the line is drawn, there is a group that will be at a disadvantage on the side that has been rolled back. I played a little, and I've been teaching a long time. Equipment changes are a danger for many tournament players. So, let's say they decide that all PGA players (say in 2021), have to play a rolled back ball (don't care the numbers). There will be time and resources available for PGA TOUR players to get these balls, make swing adjustments as needed, and build a set of clubs around playing with said ball. Yes, the best players SHOULD be able to make that change, with a decent amount of time to prepare. Without a doubt (to me) some players will fail, not being able to make the adjustments, just as many players have ruined their careers with equipment changes for new contracts.

 

Now (assuming the line was drawn at the PGA Tour type levels), the players have had a long time to prepare and learn the new intricacies of the equipment.

New qualifiers, rookies, etc., will be entering the PGA Tour arena having to compete with players who have had the time and resources to get this new scenario worked out. In addition to already having the advantage of being on tour, knowing the courses and all the challenges of the PGA Tour, they have the experience of using the bifurcated equipment over new players entering the fray.

This advantage will exist at whatever level the line is drawn. Players moving in to the level already playing the slowed down game will be learning a different game.

 

Now, I believe if the powers that be believe distance IS killing the game, then roll it back for all golfers. I believe it would kill the **_business_** of golf, and possibly hurt the ruling bodies hold on the game, but they believe its' a problem, so worth the risk I guess.

 

Again, an opinion, that's all

[smashdn]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> I do not feel like I have muddied it. I am talking the game of golf as a whole. Encompassing all that play or potentially play it. From Brooks Koepka down to the 80 year old woman's foursome you get stuck behind on a Tuesday afternoon.

>

>

So what was your point then? I don't understand what the fact you brought up was proving or disproving.

 

I see there are changes that directly impact all golfers (across the board equipment changes, ball changes, groove rule) but then there are changes that indirectly affect all players, cost to play, get started in the game etc.

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @smashdn said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > I do not feel like I have muddied it. I am talking the game of golf as a whole. Encompassing all that play or potentially play it. From Brooks Koepka down to the 80 year old woman's foursome you get stuck behind on a Tuesday afternoon.

> >

> >

> So what was your point then? I don't understand what the fact you brought up was proving or disproving.

>

> I see there are changes that directly impact all golfers (across the board equipment changes, ball changes, groove rule) but then there are changes that indirectly affect all players, cost to play, get started in the game etc.

>

>

 

I was making a sarcastic comment to another sarcastic comment. The truth is, even with longer balls, larger club heads, and all other equipment advances. Golfers are not getting better. It is a hard game, why make it harder just to satisfy a few that want it played a certain way?

[ThinkingPlus]

> @smashdn said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

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

>

> That adds cost, for everyone. It takes time and money to make courses harder. Even for one week of tournament golf you are talking about weeks if not months of preparation to change mowing lines in order to shrink fairways, grow rough, lower the height of cut on greens, etc.

>

> Harder does not necessarily mean more interesting golf will be played. I can't speak for others but I watch to see exceptional golfers make strategic choices and execute them (or not) and deal with the consequences. It is a plus if they are being asked the same questions of their games that were being asked of the players of yesterday.

>

> > @QuigleyDU said:

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

>

> Pro handicaps? Thought we were in the Tour forum. We continue to muddy the argument by dragging am's games into the conversation.

>

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > 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.

>

> See response to first quote. Just because you aren't using that way back "Tiger" tee box doesn't mean you aren't paying for it. Likewise, who pays when you need to move a bunker farther out? Everyone foots the bill. Those way back tee boxes still need to be mowed and fertilized when they aren't in use.

>

> I can show you trackman data for spin where I have a huge difference between a AVX versus a ProV1 and for grins and giggles a Wilson DUO. The AVX gained me 10 yards on average carry, 600 rpm less spin and 8 yards less dispersion over the ProV1. I gave up wedge spin but as I mentioned in a previous post I never really had great wedge spin. I just play for more release. The AVX lowered my hdcp 2 strokes since I started using it with my modern club this spring. Call it a ball fitting if you would like.

>

> There are differences in balls, I don't think there can be an argument there. Pick the characteristic you want the pro ball to have. More spin, less spin, less full swing distance. Range balls for example. The cover doesn't spin but those balls can be made to curve both ways. The ones at my range are limited flight to the tune of about 80%. Wedge shots travel nearly right at "normal" distances. 150 yard shots are about one club off. Driver goes about 40 yards shorter than what it does out on the course.

>

> Last thing, if it is tweaks and marketing why stand in the way of a "rollback" if it wouldn't really do anything?

 

I misunderstood your use of "pay". Extra cost for the small number of courses that feel the need to lengthen is regrettable, but we can always choose to play places that don't go that route. You misunderstood my "tweaks and marketing" statement. What I meant was a rollback ball impacts everyone. You can't create a ball that hurts the long hitter, but doesn't impact the short hitter. The AVX vs ProV1 is a tweak. Certainly beneficial to some, but wouldn't do squat to the pros. Your restricted flight range ball is very pertinent, however. That kind of performance is exactly what we would all face with a ball rollback. It wouldn't do much to me, but would kill most of the folks I play golf with.

[mcputter]

Are we thinking about 'rolling back the ball' for millions of golfers (or bifurication which has it's own set of issues) to avoid the costs and difficulties of updating a couple of dozen of the wealthiest and most exclusive clubs in the world so that they can continue to hold championships run by (tax exempt) multi-billion dollar enterprises?

[smashdn]

 

 

> @QuigleyDU said:

>

> I was making a sarcastic comment to another sarcastic comment. The truth is, even with longer balls, larger club heads, and all other equipment advances. Golfers are not getting better. It is a hard game, why make it harder just to satisfy a few that want it played a certain way?

 

But then don't you see the converse of that statement is, if balls go shorter, club heads get smaller, and all other equipment advances are removed, golfers will not get much worse? If those advances in technology didn't make anyone better at the game how would removing them make them worse? If the only thing out there making golfers better is skill then we can safely roll back equipment for the pros and see the same scores and results. But we both know that won't likely be the case.

 

I agree golf is a hard game. Inherently hard. Is it not supposed to be hard? I can't cite it but have heard it and read it that if you are below about a 15 hdcp you are in the upper 20% of all golfers playing the game. I can't recall what the average hdcp is but it is surprisingly high. Or at least I was surprised it was that high. But are 20 cappers really making the most of the technology available to them? Would they really be harmed all that much by reigning in things a bit?

 

Keeping in mind that I am not even advocating that. I say cut loose all the regulations for amateurs if they choose. In fact you already have that out there but few take advantage of it. There are non-conforming balls on the market as well as non-conforming clubs. People don't play them often (or at least in my circles I don't see them played). Why is that? Beholden to the rules? Can't be right? Too many foot wedges and rakes and mulligans happening for that to be the case right?

[Titleist99]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> Augusta (the poster child for many in this type of debate)has bought land from the community, its' neighboring golf course and expanded regularly in reaction to tour pros since before Nicklaus obliterated it.

>

> What hole regularly beguiles the players? 12

>

>

>

 

You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @mcputter said:

> Are we thinking about 'rolling back the ball' for millions of golfers (or bifurication which has it's own set of issues) to avoid the costs and difficulties of updating a couple of dozen of the wealthiest and most exclusive clubs in the world so that they can continue to hold championships run by (tax exempt) multi-billion dollar enterprises?

 

Yep. That about sums it up.

 

 

[15th Club]

Consistently, it is one side of this debate that nearly always resorts in the end to personal ad hominem attacks.

[smashdn]

> @mcputter said:

> Are we thinking about 'rolling back the ball' for millions of golfers (or bifurication which has it's own set of issues) to avoid the costs and difficulties of updating a couple of dozen of the wealthiest and most exclusive clubs in the world so that they can continue to hold championships run by (tax exempt) multi-billion dollar enterprises?

 

It is way more than a dozen. Not limited to the PGA Tour nor just the US nor just courses that already exist. We can argue whether or not the _need_ to (I personally don't think so in most cases) but if a membership gets it in their head that they want to chase a tournament or major they can. You'll lose some members opposed to the cost or assessment or inconvenience of closing and altering the course. You'll gain some from the prestige of hosting the event. Some places I am sure hold it as a point of pride that they are some how serving a higher purpose to golf by hosting a US Open or other USGA event.

 

Golf, as a whole, if you are being objective is not a very environmentally sustainable game. Some courses are likely very much at the sustainable extreme, others the opposite. But as a whole a game predicated on many acres of highly managed turf, requiring copious amounts of water and chemical inputs to maintain those conditions will face a different type of scrutiny as the world pop continues to grow. Thankfully in my immediate area open ground is plentiful and water is available mostly for free or if bought relatively cheap. No rules against capturing and collecting rainwater and fairly lax regs on chemical applications. Other places not so much.

 

Reducing the acreage that needs all those inputs is likely on the horizon. Might be way out there but it probably is. Just another reason why maybe it would be a good idea to keep courses capable of testing everyone at a more modest yardage.

[bladehunter]

> @rangersgoalie said:

> so, why in the world am i against bifurcation?

> 1) Where does it start? Professional golf? College? High level Amateur? All competitive golf?

> Wherever the line is drawn, there is a group that will be at a disadvantage on the side that has been rolled back. I played a little, and I've been teaching a long time. Equipment changes are a danger for many tournament players. So, let's say they decide that all PGA players (say in 2021), have to play a rolled back ball (don't care the numbers). There will be time and resources available for PGA TOUR players to get these balls, make swing adjustments as needed, and build a set of clubs around playing with said ball. Yes, the best players SHOULD be able to make that change, with a decent amount of time to prepare. Without a doubt (to me) some players will fail, not being able to make the adjustments, just as many players have ruined their careers with equipment changes for new contracts.

>

> Now (assuming the line was drawn at the PGA Tour type levels), the players have had a long time to prepare and learn the new intricacies of the equipment.

> New qualifiers, rookies, etc., will be entering the PGA Tour arena having to compete with players who have had the time and resources to get this new scenario worked out. In addition to already having the advantage of being on tour, knowing the courses and all the challenges of the PGA Tour, they have the experience of using the bifurcated equipment over new players entering the fray.

> This advantage will exist at whatever level the line is drawn. Players moving in to the level already playing the slowed down game will be learning a different game.

>

> Now, I believe if the powers that be believe distance IS killing the game, then roll it back for all golfers. I believe it would kill the **_business_** of golf, and possibly hurt the ruling bodies hold on the game, but they believe its' a problem, so worth the risk I guess.

>

> Again, an opinion, that's all

 

What if they did it for PGA down to all college and USGA AM events ? Then let it trickle down naturally to everyone else. Might take 10 years. But it eventually would. To most. People are funny things. Men especially. Force them to do something and they balk. But have the top guys do it and in time the rest will volunteer to do it too. Otherwise they’d all play non conforming stuff now. There’s hotter drivers and balls readily available. And cheaper too.

[smashdn]

> @Titleist99 said:

 

> You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

>

 

Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

[clevited]

> @smashdn said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

>

> > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> >

>

> Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

 

Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

[swgolf12]

> @smashdn said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > You 're right, most courses can't host a Major tournament due to infrastructure problems not length...In other words Parking, crowd size, etc...

>

> Not to completely go off in the ditch but even the courses that were explicitly designed to hold Majors are not 100% adequate to host them. AGNC is buying houses to create more parking. Valhalla buses people from the fairgrounds several miles away for the Senior PGA Championship. I could only imagine what went on during the PGA Championship or Ryder Cup when it was held there.

 

Have you ever been to ANGC? It's not about parking, It's about expanding their footprint and moving the riff raff further away.

[smashdn]

> @clevited said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> >

> > > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> > >

> >

> > Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

>

> Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

 

I made sure there was plenty of courses and places I could cite the term and phenomena before I posted that.

[clevited]

> @smashdn said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > >

> > > > You are correct.....12 is a well designed hole that should be studied by scholars....LOL! That being said, we've been here before, when Tiger Woods came on the scene. People

> > > > thought that the sky was falling. We survived that twenty two years ago, we will survive this trend.....LOL!

> > > >

> > >

> > > Tiger Proofing? "Tiger Tees?" Did we forget that occurred? Lots of courses added length just to combat one guy! Courses that he likely never set foot upon saw fit to add length, spend capital and maintenance dollars on additional tees "way back in the woods."

> >

> > Uh oh, you said Tiger Proofing, incoming 15th ....he will set you straight on this shortly I am sure. I would be disappointed if he didn't.

>

> I made sure there was plenty of courses and places I could cite the term and phenomena before I posted that.

 

Hasn't stopped him before, lets just hope he didn't see it....