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

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @oikos1 said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @oikos1 said:

> > > And by the way, what kind of rough do most of you play out of? Where I play, if you play the ball down, it's an unpredictable b***h.

> >

> > Kikuyu.

> >

>

> I certainly hope you're not playing a classic, historic course with kikuyu. That would surely break the heart of many around here.

 

It’s historic. Idk about classic. The Velcro everywhere sure makes it play long.

 

[Krt22]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @clevited said:

> > The thing I don't understand is the desire for firm and fast fairways, but not wanting thick penal rough. If there were thick penal rough, wouldn't that make strategy and the ground game even more prominent? You would need to think about the contour of your landing area and determine if you would get bounced in the rough or not. You would more often need to shape the shot if you want to hold the fairway, or opt for more spin off the driver for control rather than low spin and height for distance. I don't get how this isn't a viable solution for the elite golfers playing on usually very expensive and or exclusive golf courses. This doesn't require lengthening, doesn't cost much to let grass grow for a tourney.

> >

>

> Long grass doesn’t stop strong players unless it’s one of two type. Bermuda and tall fescue . Loads of courses don’t have either. You can grow blue grass or rye as much as you want and strong players will just hack it on the green. Thick Bermuda isn’t even fool proof. About half the time it will hold a ball up and give a perfect lie if you pick it clean. But to do this for any you’re talking more water. Lots more water.

 

Somehow course has many of these elements. Long (7400 from the tips, 7000 from the mens tees), firm and fast, and unpredictable Bermuda rough(and fringe/fairways). Had a ball hit the just past of a fairway bunker today and somehow ended up buried in the Bermuda at belt level instead of in the bunker. If we roll back the ball id be sitting pretty in the fairway

[mahonie]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @oikos1 said:

> > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

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

> > > > > When did this notion that it’s better to be closer and in a bad lie than be farther back in the fairway start?

> > > > >

> > > > > Was it the same gig back when the wound ball spun more and 9-irons and wedges looked exactly the same?

> > > >

> > > > "Every Shot Counts" by Mark Broadie

> > > > It is the optimal scoring approach for most golf courses regardless of equipment. Edited to add the caveat that it is optimal for men mostly. Rough impacts women enough I believe to preserve the more standard approach of playing from the fairway to the exclusion of some distance.

> > >

> > > Stay tuned. Richie Three Jack has stated he has some new and enlightening data that might contradict or challenge this notion.

> >

> > Notice I prefaced the optimal statement with most courses rather than all courses. I think certain course designs and rough type/depth make bomb and gouge much less optimal. Broadie didn't have the right kind of data to do the in-depth analysis required to see how different rough type and depth impacts the stats. That data is now becoming available so it will be interesting to see the conclusions. It might even help our modern day architects do a better job of challenging the best in the game without resorting to 8000 yard monsters.

>

> And yet so many ( one in particular) quoted it as absolute gospel. Completely disregarding people’s knowledge of their own game and abilities. Several of us of have been involved in many lengthy conversations about the validity of his findings. You’re correct, it will be interesting to see if findings are different.

>

 

I will take Broadie’s findings with a pinch of salt until they only use the fairway in the stats and not include the first cut of rough as ‘fairway.’ It skews all the data in the favour of bomb and gouge and helps the OEMs sell more drivers. Why do that?

[Strömsborg]

> @Titleist99 said:

 

>

> I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

 

Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

 

[LICC]

> @"deadsolid...shank" 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.

>

> > @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.

>

> Why do they have to have similar challenges and strategies though? Every game or sport changes and evolves. “3 yards and a cloud of dust” is now spread offenses and throwing it all over the field. When was the last time you saw a hit and run (I don’t think Dave Roberts remembers what that is!). It simply is a different game now. If you want the old courses to be used, then like you said, set them up to be able to play host. People don’t like seeing Augusta’s #13 playing driver/wedge (and I agree, I don’t like it either), grow the grass and keep it wet, stop the insane rollouts in the fairway.

>

> I’m pretty old school, I don’t like a lot of the changes. Bomb and gouge, the homerun infatuation. I’d rather see long irons into greens, and small ball in the parks. But for the game of golf, I thing equipment changing is the worst answer. Penalize millions of amateur golfers because the best 1/2 of 1% of players hit it too far seems to me to be a gross overreaction. And if you bifurcate, where is the line, at what level? Only for the big tour? PGA and Korn Ferry? Sounds like a really good situation for the 1,000’s of guys out there on the mini tours trying to make it. Or the college kids set on going pro.

>

> There’s just too many question marks. And quite frankly, as one of those casual recreational golfers 15th club seems to regard with disdain (which not surprisingly seems to coincide with many USGA decisions) I don’t want to give up what the new equipment has given me.

 

Yes other sports are changing too. But not all for the better. Some is and some isn’t. I hate what baseball has become. All HRs and strikeouts. Constant shifts and bullpen changes. The game has worsened. Football? It was probably more boring when running dominated. Taking away the strategic play of course course design means diminishing the game of golf.

[bigred90gt]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @clevited said:

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

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > The thing I don't understand is the desire for firm and fast fairways, but not wanting thick penal rough. If there were thick penal rough, wouldn't that make strategy and the ground game even more prominent? You would need to think about the contour of your landing area and determine if you would get bounced in the rough or not. You would more often need to shape the shot if you want to hold the fairway, or opt for more spin off the driver for control rather than low spin and height for distance. I don't get how this isn't a viable solution for the elite golfers playing on usually very expensive and or exclusive golf courses. This doesn't require lengthening, doesn't cost much to let grass grow for a tourney.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > It’s because the proponents of a rollback start with that conclusion, and then work backward to create parameters (which are often at odds with one another) to ensure that a ball rollback is the only way. The fun part is when you know they are doing it and they don’t; they think they are being smart.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > What they think is smart, I interpret as delusional. There is no amount of facts and logic that can convince these people otherwise it seems. Contradiction after contradiction to try and stabilize their side of the argument that is so full of holes its crazy.

> > >

> > > I know a rollback isn’t going to happen. Too much $ involved at this point. But. That doesn’t stop it from having been a good idea at some point in the past.

> > >

> > > And for the record. Both sides carry the burden of delusion. Anyone who thinks distance won’t continue to grow and that it’s growth is a good thing for anyone except club makers , is by definition delusional. .

> >

> > First of all, can you explain to me how it takes tons more water to grow the rough? They water it anyway and now instead of cutting it, they just don't. Also, unless you are in a place with a drought, the grass grows tall just fine. Afterall, that is what grass does.

> >

> > Second, I will agree with you that some rough is easier than others to hack out of, but you can indeed get around this for one tourney on your course a year. I can think of several ways.

> >

> > Third, I don't think anyone is saying average distance on tour won't grow some. More and more long players will make the tour, shorter guys will dissapear, like it already is. The distance growth though has a realistic limit. There is a point where distance isn't that helpful. You already see it on tour. So many guys already hold back. There will however be some courses or situations were length will be more of an asset than others and guys might unleash a little more power. Really though, look at any long drive guy that plays actual golf on the side. They all have to hold way back on the course to score well. Rarely if ever do they go after one with their full or close to their full potential. Their is a natural limit. This limit depends highly on course set up and course mix.

> >

> > I try very hard to be a realist, as do several others that share my point of view. They are not blindly trying to protect distance as it is for their own benefit. Most if not all of us have admitted that even if we are longer than average, we would still hold an advantage over the shorter guys. We are defending the logically correct thing to defend. Why can't you and others think critically about this? Think about the fall out, the risk. Think think think please for the love of God, think.

>

> lol. And I’d urge you to do the same.

>

>

> Most local courses do not water rough regularly. Not enough to grow it 8-10 inches deep. That cost money. They water tees , green complexes and fairways. Fairways less often. The idea that we just grow the Rough and all is taken care of doesn’t work. Guys will hit just as many drivers. Why ? The pendulum has swung far enough for distance that it makes sense to be closer and in a bad lie than hit an iron and be in the fairway. No amount of Rough will change that. The answer to scale is to lengthen. Which makes zero fiscal sense.

>

> Like I said. I know it won’t happen. I describe my self as a realist as well. I know The lobby is too strong. But it’s going to be sad to watch the game completely go away.

 

It’s not the local courses growing the rough that is necessary. True they don’t put a lot of water in the rough, and don’t need to. Look at the (very few) courses that are hosting these “elite” tournaments. The rough is so lush, there’s no way they aren’t watering it already. So just stop cutting it to 3”, and grow it to 6-8”. More if necessary. If you was firm and fast fairways, I don’t care, but make it so if it rolls through they’ll have a problem getting it to the green. Like US opens rough used to be before they all started crying about it and the spineless USGA cut it caved and cut it down the day before it started. Tough luck I say, nobody forces them to play. Set it up Tough with narrow fairways and this long rough, you can keep your firm and fast fairways if you want, and let the score work itself out to what it will be. May the best man win.

[bigred90gt]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @oikos1 said:

> > And by the way, what kind of rough do most of you play out of? Where I play, if you play the ball down, it's an unpredictable b***h.

>

> Bermuda

 

Same for us on the Upper Texas gulf coast. For those of us without tour level speed, even a few inches is hard to control the ball coming out of it. If it’s healthy and watered, it’s hard to get the ball out with any significant forward motion at all. I’ve experienced it both ways. I used to have that kind of speed before I had 2 back surgeries (driver speed around 120ish). Now if I hit it 250, it was a poke. I know first hand what that difference in speed does when in the rough, and down here in the Bermuda, it is a completely different game.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"Strömsborg" said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

>

> >

> > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

>

> Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

>

 

The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

 

The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

[15th Club]

“Narrow fairways bordered by long grass make bad golfers. They do so by destroying the harmony and continuity of the game, and in causing a stilted and cramped style by destroying all freedom of play.” –Dr. Alister MacKenzie

[bladehunter]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> >

> > >

> > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> >

> > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> >

>

> The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

>

> The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

 

And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

[deadsolid...shank]

> @LICC said:

> > @"deadsolid...shank" 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.

> >

> > > @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.

> >

> > Why do they have to have similar challenges and strategies though? Every game or sport changes and evolves. “3 yards and a cloud of dust” is now spread offenses and throwing it all over the field. When was the last time you saw a hit and run (I don’t think Dave Roberts remembers what that is!). It simply is a different game now. If you want the old courses to be used, then like you said, set them up to be able to play host. People don’t like seeing Augusta’s #13 playing driver/wedge (and I agree, I don’t like it either), grow the grass and keep it wet, stop the insane rollouts in the fairway.

> >

> > I’m pretty old school, I don’t like a lot of the changes. Bomb and gouge, the homerun infatuation. I’d rather see long irons into greens, and small ball in the parks. But for the game of golf, I thing equipment changing is the worst answer. Penalize millions of amateur golfers because the best 1/2 of 1% of players hit it too far seems to me to be a gross overreaction. And if you bifurcate, where is the line, at what level? Only for the big tour? PGA and Korn Ferry? Sounds like a really good situation for the 1,000’s of guys out there on the mini tours trying to make it. Or the college kids set on going pro.

> >

> > There’s just too many question marks. And quite frankly, as one of those casual recreational golfers 15th club seems to regard with disdain (which not surprisingly seems to coincide with many USGA decisions) I don’t want to give up what the new equipment has given me.

>

> Yes other sports are changing too. But not all for the better. Some is and some isn’t. I hate what baseball has become. All HRs and strikeouts. Constant shifts and bullpen changes. The game has worsened. Football? It was probably more boring when running dominated. Taking away the strategic play of course course design means diminishing the game of golf.

 

I think saying it diminishes the game is opinion. It certainly does change the way it’s played. But not everyone feels there is a problem.

 

I really don’t think we’re actually disagreeing very much. I’m with you on both baseball and golf in not caring for the changes. I just don’t think changing the equipment is the answer. Simply put that will penalize 99.9% of the people who play because of what that .1% does. It doesn’t make sense to me.

 

Simply slow the golf courses down when the elite players are there.

 

[clevited]

 

 

> @"15th Club" said:

> “Narrow fairways bordered by long grass make bad golfers. They do so by destroying the harmony and continuity of the game, and in causing a stilted and cramped style by destroying all freedom of play.” –Dr. Alister MacKenzie

 

 

Me no care what old dead course designer say, ME WANT COOKIE NOM NOM NOM NOM -Alistair Cookie

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > >

> > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > >

> >

> > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> >

> > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

>

> And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

 

That's why I say just leave it alone. Limits are in place.

[deadsolid...shank]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > >

> > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > >

> >

> > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> >

> > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

>

> And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

 

You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

 

[LICC]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @"deadsolid...shank" 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.

> > >

> > > > @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.

> > >

> > > Why do they have to have similar challenges and strategies though? Every game or sport changes and evolves. “3 yards and a cloud of dust” is now spread offenses and throwing it all over the field. When was the last time you saw a hit and run (I don’t think Dave Roberts remembers what that is!). It simply is a different game now. If you want the old courses to be used, then like you said, set them up to be able to play host. People don’t like seeing Augusta’s #13 playing driver/wedge (and I agree, I don’t like it either), grow the grass and keep it wet, stop the insane rollouts in the fairway.

> > >

> > > I’m pretty old school, I don’t like a lot of the changes. Bomb and gouge, the homerun infatuation. I’d rather see long irons into greens, and small ball in the parks. But for the game of golf, I thing equipment changing is the worst answer. Penalize millions of amateur golfers because the best 1/2 of 1% of players hit it too far seems to me to be a gross overreaction. And if you bifurcate, where is the line, at what level? Only for the big tour? PGA and Korn Ferry? Sounds like a really good situation for the 1,000’s of guys out there on the mini tours trying to make it. Or the college kids set on going pro.

> > >

> > > There’s just too many question marks. And quite frankly, as one of those casual recreational golfers 15th club seems to regard with disdain (which not surprisingly seems to coincide with many USGA decisions) I don’t want to give up what the new equipment has given me.

> >

> > Yes other sports are changing too. But not all for the better. Some is and some isn’t. I hate what baseball has become. All HRs and strikeouts. Constant shifts and bullpen changes. The game has worsened. Football? It was probably more boring when running dominated. Taking away the strategic play of course course design means diminishing the game of golf.

>

> I think saying it diminishes the game is opinion. It certainly does change the way it’s played. But not everyone feels there is a problem.

>

> I really don’t think we’re actually disagreeing very much. I’m with you on both baseball and golf in not caring for the changes. I just don’t think changing the equipment is the answer. Simply put that will penalize 99.9% of the people who play because of what that .1% does. It doesn’t make sense to me.

>

> Simply slow the golf courses down when the elite players are there.

>

 

We are mostly in agreement. There is no clear solution. Rolling back equipment for everyone is a non-starter and wouldn't be good for the recreational player. Bifurcating the equipment for the pros and top organized amateurs is the only possibility, but that has downsides too.

[LICC]

> @raynorfan1 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @raynorfan1 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @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

> > > >

> > > > It’s not that today’s distances have made these courses not able to host a major. It has made how these courses play indistinguishable from any other course out there unless the course is tricked up.

> > >

> > > I can only speak to the country club, but knowing the course reasonably well, I think it will present a similar challenge to 1913, 1968, and 1988. The course has been stretched out in a few places so that the spots to hit for the "big" hitters have not changed all that much, and the premium on being in the right spot on the fairway will be the same as it has always been. The bomb-and-gouge closer-to-the-hole-is-always-better rules will not hold up on that golf course. Some people will complain that it's "tricked up" when balls don't hold the false front on #14 or you're buried in fescue 2 paces off a green...but at the country club, those have always been risks at play.

> > >

> > > It's also worth noting that the back nine of this "historic" club tips out at 4,200 yards (Par 37) after a front 9 that will be ~3,300 yards (Par 33). So it will be really interesting to see players grind on the back; there are very few obvious opportunities to score (#6, #9, and maybe #7), and also a handful of holes where the carry from the tee to the fairway is 250+ (and the fairway is not that wide)...

> >

> > I predict this comment won’t hold up. Will be interesting to see. But look at this year’s PGA at Bethpage. A long course with narrow fairways and brutal rough and preferred angles. The only thing that stopped low scores was heavy winds. These guys bomb it past all the strategic design and even high, thick rough doesn’t stop these guys from getting close to the pin from wedge distances.

>

> Six guys finished the tournament under par at Bethpage. That feels pretty reasonable to me.

>

> The Country Club will play to almost exactly the same length that Bethpage did this year. The greens at TCC are - on average -about half the size of the greens at Bethpage. At the 2013 Amateur, there were several guys who are currently on Tour (Bryson Dechambeau, Justin Thomas, Xander Schauffle, Matthew Fitzpatrick, etc.) and none of those "future stars" was under par in stroke play. There are currently a few changes underway that will add a couple hundred yards to the course that the Am was played on, and some bunkering/rough changes that will make the penalty for a miss even more severe.

>

> We can revisit in three years, but my guess is that fewer than 4 guys finish under Par for the tournament. There will also be plenty of complaints about how "unfair" the rough is...

 

Like I said, massive winds (which you don't commonly see in the U.S. majors) led to high scores on the last day. The cut line was +2, which was generally around what the cut lines are at the top regular PGA Tour events.

[bladehunter]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > >

> > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > >

> > >

> > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > >

> > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> >

> > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

>

> You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

>

 

And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

 

This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

[bladehunter]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @"deadsolid...shank" 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.

> > >

> > > > @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.

> > >

> > > Why do they have to have similar challenges and strategies though? Every game or sport changes and evolves. “3 yards and a cloud of dust” is now spread offenses and throwing it all over the field. When was the last time you saw a hit and run (I don’t think Dave Roberts remembers what that is!). It simply is a different game now. If you want the old courses to be used, then like you said, set them up to be able to play host. People don’t like seeing Augusta’s #13 playing driver/wedge (and I agree, I don’t like it either), grow the grass and keep it wet, stop the insane rollouts in the fairway.

> > >

> > > I’m pretty old school, I don’t like a lot of the changes. Bomb and gouge, the homerun infatuation. I’d rather see long irons into greens, and small ball in the parks. But for the game of golf, I thing equipment changing is the worst answer. Penalize millions of amateur golfers because the best 1/2 of 1% of players hit it too far seems to me to be a gross overreaction. And if you bifurcate, where is the line, at what level? Only for the big tour? PGA and Korn Ferry? Sounds like a really good situation for the 1,000’s of guys out there on the mini tours trying to make it. Or the college kids set on going pro.

> > >

> > > There’s just too many question marks. And quite frankly, as one of those casual recreational golfers 15th club seems to regard with disdain (which not surprisingly seems to coincide with many USGA decisions) I don’t want to give up what the new equipment has given me.

> >

> > Yes other sports are changing too. But not all for the better. Some is and some isn’t. I hate what baseball has become. All HRs and strikeouts. Constant shifts and bullpen changes. The game has worsened. Football? It was probably more boring when running dominated. Taking away the strategic play of course course design means diminishing the game of golf.

>

> I think saying it diminishes the game is opinion. It certainly does change the way it’s played. But not everyone feels there is a problem.

>

> I really don’t think we’re actually disagreeing very much. I’m with you on both baseball and golf in not caring for the changes. I just don’t think changing the equipment is the answer. Simply put that will penalize 99.9% of the people who play because of what that .1% does. It doesn’t make sense to me.

>

> Simply slow the golf courses down when the elite players are there.

>

 

Eh. I was a kid who grew up playing baseball. Loved it. Every second. Cubs fan. So you know I loved it. They stank. Lol. Somewhere along the way I hated the game. I cannot stand to watch it now. And I can’t even really put my finger on it. By I also have an 11 year old who’s a really good baseball player. He begged to not play this fall and play golf. So he played golf. We’ve had a long conversation about it. And he just finds it sooo boring. Plus the local leagues are so depleted from all the kids who play travel ball. It’s all you can do to get up a 11 player team for the local YOuth Association. We refuse to do travel ball and by we I mean my kid hates the idea as do I. We don’t want to be gone for 3 days every week. Somewhere somehow baseball lost “it”. And I’m not alone in that sentiment.

[QuigleyDU]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > > >

> > > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > > >

> > > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> > >

> > > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

> >

> > You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

> >

>

> And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

>

> This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

 

I am not sure that pros get more benefit, the reason I say this is most rec players due to inefficiencies in their swings and ball striking are not getting the max out of their equipment. The pros are getting that 1.45-1.5 smash factor. I regularly see your average golfer (mind you the average golfer does not break 100) getting smash factors in the 115-125 with a driver. They (the pros) are hitting the center of the club face every time, rec players are not. Their gains potential is so much more limited by equipment them your average 10-20 handicapper because of this.. Because they are maxed out in equipment and gains there (yes they do exist) are far more limited than in other areas of their games. Fitness, launch and spin data etc I think for them are were more potential exists.

 

At least that is my opinion as an equipment fitter.

[clevited]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > > > >

> > > > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> > > >

> > > > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

> > >

> > > You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

> > >

> >

> > And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

> >

> > This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

>

> I am not sure that pros get more benefit, the reason I say this is most rec players due to inefficiencies in their swings and ball striking are not getting the max out of their equipment. The pros are getting that 1.45-1.5 smash factor. I regularly see your average golfer (mind you the average golfer does not break 100) getting smash factors in the 115-125 with a driver. They (the pros) are hitting the center of the club face every time, rec players are not. Their gains potential is so much more limited by equipment them your average 10-20 handicapper because of this.. Because they are maxed out in equipment and gains there (yes they do exist) are far more limited than in other areas of their games. Fitness, launch and spin data etc I think for them are were more potential exists.

>

> At least that is my opinion as an equipment fitter.

 

Basically this I agree with. We would have to roll back to persimmon sized woods or smaller to get the desired effect Blade is looking for I think. To me, this is the same thing as rolling the ball back. Ends up hurting the everyday average golfer much more than the pro. Even then, I am confident the pro's will find a way to exploit it, or just better and better players will come up through the ranks that can hit that thing middle and ridiculously hard every time. It isn't hard to imagine that happening.

 

Just to give you an example, I have several persimmon woods and some old tiny metal woods. While the smash factor isn't super high on them, I have a couple that seem to fit my swing just right and I can get in a groove such that I am hitting it in the middle almost every single time. I can get really nice flight numbers and hit it almost as far as my modern titanium driver. My point is, I am not a pro and I am not a great golfer by any means but even I can find the middle of those pretty often. What makes a person think the pro's won't also? Sure, they might have a few more wayward strikes here and their but these guys are good. They will practice and improve because that is what they do for a living. Some guys might disappear from the world rankings while others move up. It isn't a simple fix, just like the ball isn't. There is no "simple" fix to the perceived distance problem but there sure are less invasive ones than rolling back any equipment 20+ years.

[deadsolid...shank]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > > >

> > > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > > >

> > > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> > >

> > > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

> >

> > You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

> >

>

> And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

>

> This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

 

It is interesting, and a good debate. I do detest reading the word ignorant so often however from one particular poster. Reminds me of someone from the R &E forum who thinks he’s much smarter than everyone else involved.

 

I for one have never disputed that the equipment is the biggest factor (although I also believe many do underestimate the physical side of the player as a contributing factor). I’m in the particular demographic that I think really illustrates the effect. I’m 56 now. I was long when I was younger, not obscene long, but above average (or what I believe was probably average). Up until about two or three years ago I was still hitting the ball as far as I did in my late 20’s early 30’s. That shouldn’t be happening, or at least wouldn’t have happened without the equipment.

 

When they opened our new nine holes (late 90’s I think) the first hole has a fairway bunker. When it wasn’t blowing hard behind you a person simply didn’t challenge that bunker. You played around it. Now, I think last year was the first year I’ve even worried about it again. For 15+ years I haven’t even given it a thought, just go right over it. I still remember (back in the early 2000’s) when the owner of the local Golf USA handed me a plain white sleeve of balls. No markings. He said they are the new ball from Titleist, go try them. Talk about being blown away! Then over the years, combine that with the further ball advances and new equipment.

 

I’ve lost yardage the last two years through the aging process, I don’t want lose a huge amount more in one fell swoop, just because a few guys on TV are hitting it so far. There’s far more of us than there is them.

 

[Hawkeye77]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > > > >

> > > > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> > > >

> > > > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

> > >

> > > You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

> > >

> >

> > And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

> >

> > This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

>

> It is interesting, and a good debate. I do detest reading the word ignorant so often however from one particular poster. Reminds me of someone from the R &E forum who thinks he’s much smarter than everyone else involved.

>

> I for one have never disputed that the equipment is the biggest factor (although I also believe many do underestimate the physical side of the player as a contributing factor). I’m in the particular demographic that I think really illustrates the effect. I’m 56 now. I was long when I was younger, not obscene long, but above average (or what I believe was probably average). Up until about two or three years ago I was still hitting the ball as far as I did in my late 20’s early 30’s. That shouldn’t be happening, or at least wouldn’t have happened without the equipment.

>

> When they opened our new nine holes (late 90’s I think) the first hole has a fairway bunker. When it wasn’t blowing hard behind you a person simply didn’t challenge that bunker. You played around it. Now, I think last year was the first year I’ve even worried about it again. For 15+ years I haven’t even given it a thought, just go right over it. I still remember (back in the early 2000’s) when the owner of the local Golf USA handed me a plain white sleeve of balls. No markings. He said they are the new ball from Titleist, go try them. Talk about being blown away! Then over the years, combine that with the further ball advances and new equipment.

>

> I’ve lost yardage the last two years through the aging process, I don’t want lose a huge amount more in one fell swoop, just because a few guys on TV are hitting it so far. There’s far more of us than there is them.

>

 

A little older than you and the last many years the golf ball and tech with the driver/woods has allowed me to sustain distance - with some efficiencies in my swing when those things are working, lol, I hit the ball every bit as far as I did 10 years ago and more consistently. And when my two way miss is going I hit it farther right and farther left than I used to, lol.

[bladehunter]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > > > >

> > > > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> > > >

> > > > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

> > >

> > > You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

> > >

> >

> > And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

> >

> > This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

>

> I am not sure that pros get more benefit, the reason I say this is most rec players due to inefficiencies in their swings and ball striking are not getting the max out of their equipment. The pros are getting that 1.45-1.5 smash factor. I regularly see your average golfer (mind you the average golfer does not break 100) getting smash factors in the 115-125 with a driver. They (the pros) are hitting the center of the club face every time, rec players are not. Their gains potential is so much more limited by equipment them your average 10-20 handicapper because of this.. Because they are maxed out in equipment and gains there (yes they do exist) are far more limited than in other areas of their games. Fitness, launch and spin data etc I think for them are were more potential exists.

>

> At least that is my opinion as an equipment fitter.

 

And the circle goes round and round.

 

I’m on the fence really as to who benefits more. But I’ve said that the short knocker etc benefits more in an unfair way during Net competition and have been literally roasted for it. I guess it’s nice to see someone agree with that. Lol.

[bladehunter]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > > > >

> > > > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> > > >

> > > > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

> > >

> > > You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

> > >

> >

> > And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

> >

> > This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

>

> I am not sure that pros get more benefit, the reason I say this is most rec players due to inefficiencies in their swings and ball striking are not getting the max out of their equipment. The pros are getting that 1.45-1.5 smash factor. I regularly see your average golfer (mind you the average golfer does not break 100) getting smash factors in the 115-125 with a driver. They (the pros) are hitting the center of the club face every time, rec players are not. Their gains potential is so much more limited by equipment them your average 10-20 handicapper because of this.. Because they are maxed out in equipment and gains there (yes they do exist) are far more limited than in other areas of their games. Fitness, launch and spin data etc I think for them are were more potential exists.

>

> At least that is my opinion as an equipment fitter.

 

 

1.15 smash with today’s driver ? That seems ridiculously low to me. How do you miss that bad with a club as big as a lb bag of sugar ? I simply must be in a higher than average per capita , player pocket. Sure I see people play who might fit that. But I just don’t think it’s near 8% 92% split. I’m on our handicap committee and just looked. In 128 handicap association members. We only have 16 above a 18 cap. And I can tell you that half the rest are sandbaggers. Lol.

[QuigleyDU]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> > > > >

> > > > > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

> > > >

> > > > You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

> > > >

> > >

> > > And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

> > >

> > > This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

> >

> > I am not sure that pros get more benefit, the reason I say this is most rec players due to inefficiencies in their swings and ball striking are not getting the max out of their equipment. The pros are getting that 1.45-1.5 smash factor. I regularly see your average golfer (mind you the average golfer does not break 100) getting smash factors in the 115-125 with a driver. They (the pros) are hitting the center of the club face every time, rec players are not. Their gains potential is so much more limited by equipment them your average 10-20 handicapper because of this.. Because they are maxed out in equipment and gains there (yes they do exist) are far more limited than in other areas of their games. Fitness, launch and spin data etc I think for them are were more potential exists.

> >

> > At least that is my opinion as an equipment fitter.

>

>

> 1.15 smash with today’s driver ? That seems ridiculously low to me. How do you miss that bad with a club as big as a lb bag of sugar ? I simply must be in a higher than average per capita , player pocket. Sure I see people play who might fit that. But I just don’t think it’s near 8% 92% split. I’m on our handicap committee and just looked. In 128 handicap association members. We only have 16 above a 18 cap. And I can tell you that half the rest are sandbaggers. Lol.

 

To be honest, I see sooo many people come in and they cannot hit a driver past 200 yards. These are 30-45 year old healthy males, it is sad and hard to watch at times. If I showed you a picture with impact tape you would see hits all over the face, and on the crown, off the toe. etc etc.

 

I firmly believe that if a roll back happened, it could destroy the game for a very large group of players. This is the group that pay and actually support the game. Not those that are paid by it.

 

For the vast majority of golfers. There is not enough distance in equipment.

[bladehunter]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

> > > > >

> > > > > You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

> > > >

> > > > This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

> > >

> > > I am not sure that pros get more benefit, the reason I say this is most rec players due to inefficiencies in their swings and ball striking are not getting the max out of their equipment. The pros are getting that 1.45-1.5 smash factor. I regularly see your average golfer (mind you the average golfer does not break 100) getting smash factors in the 115-125 with a driver. They (the pros) are hitting the center of the club face every time, rec players are not. Their gains potential is so much more limited by equipment them your average 10-20 handicapper because of this.. Because they are maxed out in equipment and gains there (yes they do exist) are far more limited than in other areas of their games. Fitness, launch and spin data etc I think for them are were more potential exists.

> > >

> > > At least that is my opinion as an equipment fitter.

> >

> >

> > 1.15 smash with today’s driver ? That seems ridiculously low to me. How do you miss that bad with a club as big as a lb bag of sugar ? I simply must be in a higher than average per capita , player pocket. Sure I see people play who might fit that. But I just don’t think it’s near 8% 92% split. I’m on our handicap committee and just looked. In 128 handicap association members. We only have 16 above a 18 cap. And I can tell you that half the rest are sandbaggers. Lol.

>

> To be honest, I see sooo many people come in and they cannot hit a driver past 200 yards. These are 30-45 year old healthy males, it is sad and hard to watch at times. If I showed you a picture with impact tape you would see hits all over the face, and on the crown, off the toe. etc etc.

>

> I firmly believe that if a roll back happened, it could destroy the game for a very large group of players. This is the group that pay and actually support the game. Not those that are paid by it.

>

> For the vast majority of golfers. There is not enough distance in equipment.

 

I suppose. I certainly am not calling that false.

 

 

But that brings my mind back to something I’ve said to myself a million times. Why on earth would you play a game that you were that bad at ? I know I wouldn’t. I’d go to flea markets , or build a wood shop , or have 13 kids , or something. Something I could actually do. Lol

[QuigleyDU]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

> > > > >

> > > > > This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

> > > >

> > > > I am not sure that pros get more benefit, the reason I say this is most rec players due to inefficiencies in their swings and ball striking are not getting the max out of their equipment. The pros are getting that 1.45-1.5 smash factor. I regularly see your average golfer (mind you the average golfer does not break 100) getting smash factors in the 115-125 with a driver. They (the pros) are hitting the center of the club face every time, rec players are not. Their gains potential is so much more limited by equipment them your average 10-20 handicapper because of this.. Because they are maxed out in equipment and gains there (yes they do exist) are far more limited than in other areas of their games. Fitness, launch and spin data etc I think for them are were more potential exists.

> > > >

> > > > At least that is my opinion as an equipment fitter.

> > >

> > >

> > > 1.15 smash with today’s driver ? That seems ridiculously low to me. How do you miss that bad with a club as big as a lb bag of sugar ? I simply must be in a higher than average per capita , player pocket. Sure I see people play who might fit that. But I just don’t think it’s near 8% 92% split. I’m on our handicap committee and just looked. In 128 handicap association members. We only have 16 above a 18 cap. And I can tell you that half the rest are sandbaggers. Lol.

> >

> > To be honest, I see sooo many people come in and they cannot hit a driver past 200 yards. These are 30-45 year old healthy males, it is sad and hard to watch at times. If I showed you a picture with impact tape you would see hits all over the face, and on the crown, off the toe. etc etc.

> >

> > I firmly believe that if a roll back happened, it could destroy the game for a very large group of players. This is the group that pay and actually support the game. Not those that are paid by it.

> >

> > For the vast majority of golfers. There is not enough distance in equipment.

>

> I suppose. I certainly am not calling that false.

>

>

> But that brings my mind back to something I’ve said to myself a million times. Why on earth would you play a game that you were that bad at ? I know I wouldn’t. I’d go to flea markets , or build a wood shop , or have 13 kids , or something. Something I could actually do. Lol

 

Because golf is like Pringles, once you pop, you cant stop. That is actually one of golfs greatest redeeming qualities, the endless pursuit to improve.

[deadsolid...shank]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> > > > >

> > > > > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

> > > >

> > > > You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

> > > >

> > >

> > > And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

> > >

> > > This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

> >

> > It is interesting, and a good debate. I do detest reading the word ignorant so often however from one particular poster. Reminds me of someone from the R &E forum who thinks he’s much smarter than everyone else involved.

> >

> > I for one have never disputed that the equipment is the biggest factor (although I also believe many do underestimate the physical side of the player as a contributing factor). I’m in the particular demographic that I think really illustrates the effect. I’m 56 now. I was long when I was younger, not obscene long, but above average (or what I believe was probably average). Up until about two or three years ago I was still hitting the ball as far as I did in my late 20’s early 30’s. That shouldn’t be happening, or at least wouldn’t have happened without the equipment.

> >

> > When they opened our new nine holes (late 90’s I think) the first hole has a fairway bunker. When it wasn’t blowing hard behind you a person simply didn’t challenge that bunker. You played around it. Now, I think last year was the first year I’ve even worried about it again. For 15+ years I haven’t even given it a thought, just go right over it. I still remember (back in the early 2000’s) when the owner of the local Golf USA handed me a plain white sleeve of balls. No markings. He said they are the new ball from Titleist, go try them. Talk about being blown away! Then over the years, combine that with the further ball advances and new equipment.

> >

> > I’ve lost yardage the last two years through the aging process, I don’t want lose a huge amount more in one fell swoop, just because a few guys on TV are hitting it so far. There’s far more of us than there is them.

> >

>

> A little older than you and the last many years the golf ball and tech with the driver/woods has allowed me to sustain distance - with some efficiencies in my swing when those things are working, lol, I hit the ball every bit as far as I did 10 years ago and more consistently. And when my two way miss is going I hit it farther right and farther left than I used to, lol.

 

I’ve just decided to keep moving to higher elevations now. Was at 3,800’ for years, now at 4,800. When it gets bad I’ll tell the wife it’s time to move higher! I’m sure it will go over well.

 

[oikos1]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Strömsborg" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Javelin. The atheletes were throwing it up in the stands and so they changed the center of gravity and the aerodynamics of the javelin instead of rebuilding the arenas. Feels like a sound solution. Maybe something to think about for the USGA/R&A.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The only other sport that I am aware of that has changed. Is table tennis, The went from a 38mm ball to a 40mm ball about 15 years ago. Then just a few years ago, moved from a celluloid ball to a plastic ball. This was all an attempt to slow it down and make it spin less. Mind you these changes were not to improve play per say but to make it easier to watch.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > The thing is that equipment manufacturers have already over come this change and we are right back where we started.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And I suspect golf would do the same. I truly think that. They’d even have a quick booom in sales for a few seasons. People underestimate the power of addiction. Way too many people addicted to this game to expect a mass exodus. It’s literally the only competition /sport option for middle aged and senior people in some areas. Not everyone has rec league everything. I don’t. And wish I did.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You’re correct Blade, it’s the only comp/sport for this almost senior player. And I don’t want taken away what the equipment has given me!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And I see that. I do. I think what fires me up is when the double standard is used to claim that equipment isn’t the reason for distance “ because pros are just good and getting faster “ lol , and yet when I flip it around I get what you just said. I’m not shooting this at your head by the way. Just pointing the double standard out. If you reap the benefits of increased launch , spin tuning ( up or down as you need) and a broader spot to hit the ball on , the top players do too. Period. And they get more benefit than you do honestly. Their “ miss” is rarely rewarded as a miss at all. It’s that small of a Margin of miss on such a big spot on the face.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This debate just goes on and on contradicting itself. Which is The only reason I find it so interesting.

> > > > >

> > > > > I am not sure that pros get more benefit, the reason I say this is most rec players due to inefficiencies in their swings and ball striking are not getting the max out of their equipment. The pros are getting that 1.45-1.5 smash factor. I regularly see your average golfer (mind you the average golfer does not break 100) getting smash factors in the 115-125 with a driver. They (the pros) are hitting the center of the club face every time, rec players are not. Their gains potential is so much more limited by equipment them your average 10-20 handicapper because of this.. Because they are maxed out in equipment and gains there (yes they do exist) are far more limited than in other areas of their games. Fitness, launch and spin data etc I think for them are were more potential exists.

> > > > >

> > > > > At least that is my opinion as an equipment fitter.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > 1.15 smash with today’s driver ? That seems ridiculously low to me. How do you miss that bad with a club as big as a lb bag of sugar ? I simply must be in a higher than average per capita , player pocket. Sure I see people play who might fit that. But I just don’t think it’s near 8% 92% split. I’m on our handicap committee and just looked. In 128 handicap association members. We only have 16 above a 18 cap. And I can tell you that half the rest are sandbaggers. Lol.

> > >

> > > To be honest, I see sooo many people come in and they cannot hit a driver past 200 yards. These are 30-45 year old healthy males, it is sad and hard to watch at times. If I showed you a picture with impact tape you would see hits all over the face, and on the crown, off the toe. etc etc.

> > >

> > > I firmly believe that if a roll back happened, it could destroy the game for a very large group of players. This is the group that pay and actually support the game. Not those that are paid by it.

> > >

> > > For the vast majority of golfers. There is not enough distance in equipment.

> >

> > I suppose. I certainly am not calling that false.

> >

> >

> > But that brings my mind back to something I’ve said to myself a million times. Why on earth would you play a game that you were that bad at ? I know I wouldn’t. I’d go to flea markets , or build a wood shop , or have 13 kids , or something. Something I could actually do. Lol

>

> Because golf is like Pringles, once you pop, you cant stop. That is actually one of golfs greatest redeeming qualities, the endless pursuit to improve.

 

While I agree with "the endless pursuit to improve" for those passionate about the game, I don't think that is the majority of golfer's desires. Many just chase a number, a lot like chasing distance. And then wonder why they can't score better. Yet another reason why distance just isn't an issue for the majority of golfers on any golf course on any given day.

 

Here's the real question. How many of you would be satisfied playing the game with a "rolled back" or reduced ball that meant next year, all of your club distances were at least one club more, as well as your approach distance. And all for the sake of "saving the game". My guess is most here would still play their old ball, which then would be "illegal". What a mess that would be.

 

The courses being "dominated" need to adapt. The answer really is that simple.

[DON SVO]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

>

> I’ve just decided to keep moving to higher elevations now. Was at 3,800’ for years, now at 4,800. When it gets bad I’ll tell the wife it’s time to move higher! I’m sure it will go over well.

>

 

How's she going to react to you wanting to become a Sherpa and open a golf course in Nepal? ;)