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

[sigep1967]

Yall do realize that wound ball in the test was not Balata.

[smashdn]

> @clevited said:

>These are not good reasons at all to make a dramatic negative change to the entire sport.

 

You've injected two opinions into one statement here. First is the second. Why is it or would it be presumably a negative change? Why would limiting total distance (for everyone (prefessionals or PGA only if you like) as a whole) a bad thing or even a noticeable thing? Secondly, is not the additional cost to maintain a course a good reason to reign in distance at the pro level? Is not the fact we will run out of room to lengthen courses a good enough reason to do something about stemming the need? What about wanting today's pros to deal with same challenges as yesterday's?

 

> @clevited said:

> I will add one more thing to this debate and do my best to stay the **** away from this before I get completely sucked in to countering 15th's and others narrow mindedness or misconceptions/misinformation. If the USGA determines it needs to roll the ball back, what will they roll the ball back to? If you think about it, especially with the previously mentioned JB Holmes thing as well as a recent video of Tony Finau showing his true driving capabilities, the ball would need to be rolled back VERY dramatically. Then if you do that, power will become even more of a hot commodity and you will more than likely see more and more people with Cameron Champ like ability rising to the top because it will put an even larger premium on distance. A person also has to remember that the technical manner in which a roll back can happen is problematic. Do you lower ball speed? Do you add more spin? There are ways around both of these. Faster swingers again rise to the top, or you evolve equipment and technique to deal with the higher spin and nothing really changes.

 

I think you can get by with just adding spin myself. The guys that can control it can still smash it. If they cannot they are severely punished.

 

I would also like to see the ball flight lowered. You likely cannot do that with a change to the ball alone however. I really think the high driver shot has taken a good deal of skill out of driving as well.

[clevited]

> @smashdn said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > But writing a book(s) does not make you an expert... Sorry.

> > >

> > > Wow. When you find yourself in a hole quit digging.

> > >

> >

> > Listen, my point is that on that panel you have a few individuals that I think are pretty knowledgeable. It is arrogant to say he know more than them all put together. That is my point.

>

> So say that, not writing nine books on golf course architecture doesn't mean you aren't an expert on golf course architecture. You don't even have to like what he writes to concede he knows more than a little about what he is talking about.

 

If Geoff was an expert, he wouldn't keep spewing the same nonsense he does. He would admit to the faults that exist in modern architecture. The fault is, you cannot control how someone chooses to approach the game. You can attempt to control but that is it. Short of making mobile sand traps and other hazards or obstacles for each player hitting off the tee, you cannot keep every one of these in play for every individual. Being upset and annoyed that you "have to" lengthen a course to make the course play how the designer wants it to and then complaining about the cost and sustainability of it is idiotic. He cannot be an expert when he makes these claims otherwise he would understand that the game will evolve and players will adapt to every course. His perception of what is correct is what the problem is. Same with USGA, same with 15th. The majority that play the sport don't agree with that perception as it is a narrow minded and ignorant one.

[15th Club]

The PGA Tour wants nothing to do with the Rules and most of all equipment technology regulations. Doing all of that is a costly, thankless task for the ruling bodies. The PGA Tour isn’t more interested in working on favorable tax treatment for its massive pension plan.

[15th Club]

... “is more interested...”

Damn autocorrect.

[smashdn]

> @clevited said:

>Being upset and annoyed that you "have to" lengthen a course to make the course play how the designer wants it to and then complaining about the cost and sustainability of it is idiotic.

 

Explain this to me.

 

Because in my mind I see a fairway bunker, heck maybe two, let's call it a bottle hole on a course built in 1950. There are two bunkers necking down the fairway at 260 yards from the back tee. There is a short green to tee walk from the previous hole because in 1950 we walked when we played golf. So on the tee with those bunkers you had a few options you could employ. First, shoot a drive right up between those bad boys, but you better be accurate, hit a dead straight ball and be pretty ballsy yourself. Next you could pull your trusty four wood and lay back to about 230 and contend with a longer approach shot as a result, the conservative play if you will. Lastly, only the longest guys would just blast it over the bunkers.

 

Fast forward to 2019 and most high school golfers can carry driver 260 and probably a good deal of them can carry a three wood that far. How do you restore the design intent of a bottle hole? Why would you not want to?

 

 

[15th Club]

Hopefully the USGA and the R and A will:

 

A. Pay very little attention to what is said by young millionaire Tour players with Titleist endorsement contracts, and;

 

B. Deal carefully, forcefully and effectively with Titleist’s litigation counsel.

[clevited]

> @sigep1967 said:

> Yall do realize that wound ball in the test was not Balata.

 

No I didn't even notice that. Honestly good eye. I guess I assumed it was also balata. Other than durability, I am unsure if it would be much different, depending on how far back in the balata world we want to go. I will see if I can find the specs on the professional 90 and 100 to see how they compare according to Titleist.

[SNIPERBBB]

When talking about ballata vs today's ball and spin, don't you have to compare the actual flight and ground reaction is over just the spin numbers?

[clevited]

> @smashdn said:

> > @clevited said:

> >These are not good reasons at all to make a dramatic negative change to the entire sport.

>

> You've injected two opinions into one statement here. First is the second. Why is it or would it be presumably a negative change? Why would limiting total distance (for everyone (prefessionals or PGA only if you like) as a whole) a bad thing or even a noticeable thing? Secondly, is not the additional cost to maintain a course a good reason to reign in distance at the pro level? Is not the fact we will run out of room to lengthen courses a good enough reason to do something about stemming the need? What about wanting today's pros to deal with same challenges as yesterday's?

>

> > @clevited said:

> > I will add one more thing to this debate and do my best to stay the **** away from this before I get completely sucked in to countering 15th's and others narrow mindedness or misconceptions/misinformation. If the USGA determines it needs to roll the ball back, what will they roll the ball back to? If you think about it, especially with the previously mentioned JB Holmes thing as well as a recent video of Tony Finau showing his true driving capabilities, the ball would need to be rolled back VERY dramatically. Then if you do that, power will become even more of a hot commodity and you will more than likely see more and more people with Cameron Champ like ability rising to the top because it will put an even larger premium on distance. A person also has to remember that the technical manner in which a roll back can happen is problematic. Do you lower ball speed? Do you add more spin? There are ways around both of these. Faster swingers again rise to the top, or you evolve equipment and technique to deal with the higher spin and nothing really changes.

>

> I think you can get by with just adding spin myself. The guys that can control it can still smash it. If they cannot they are severely punished.

>

> I would also like to see the ball flight lowered. You likely cannot do that with a change to the ball alone however. I really think the high driver shot has taken a good deal of skill out of driving as well.

 

First, I think its pretty self explanatory why it would be a negative change. The proposed change currently is a golf ball change. This change would lower distance because that is what is desired? By how much? By quite a bit if they want to fix the perceived problem. This would be absolutely noticeable, more so by the longer hitter. This has to logically be true. Think about it.

 

Second, the solution to the perceived problem is to lengthen courses. This notion that you "need" to lengthen a course is logically incorrect. I mentioned previously that it increases distance. It has to. The shorter players will be even less common and you will have more and more Cameron Champs on tour. Did you see what was written about the longest tour pro's already having to hold back? It doesn't help them. There are diminishing returns with belting every single drive out there as far as possible. Let the players play the game as they see fit. A course cannot be designed to have hazards in the needed locations for every player. Also, par is just a number, the lowest score wins no matter how it is achieved.

 

I think you can certainly initially lower driving distance with a high spinning ball, keyword, initially. The golf industry will find a way to lower it, just like a positive attack angle swing can do today, or hitting it higher on the face, or moving weight forward in the head, or changing a shaft, or shortening the club......there are ways around that. You want to see the game played a certain way, you have an idealized view of what golf should be. That is not a good enough reason in many's eyes to change the ball or any equipment involved in the game.

[sigep1967]

> @clevited said:

> > @sigep1967 said:

> > Yall do realize that wound ball in the test was not Balata.

>

> No I didn't even notice that. Honestly good eye. I guess I assumed it was also balata. Other than durability, I am unsure if it would be much different, depending on how far back in the balata world we want to go. I will see if I can find the specs on the professional 90 and 100 to see how they compare according to Titleist.

 

I can assure you the balata ball was way different that the Profesional which was urethane wound ball. as far as the actual spin numbers I have no idea and not sure you could get "real" numbers as any balls you would get now would be so old the preformence would be lacking I would think. I do know you could do things with the wound balls that are very hard to duplicate with the new balls. For you young guys that never got to hit wound balls you just can't understand the feel of a well struck shot with a wound ball.

[gvogel]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > Just a fun addition.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > Oh thanks for posting that. That is so beautiful. Five pros or quasi-pros, several of them literally under contract to Titleist/FJ/Acushnet (and Callaway), fighting with Geoff Shackelford who **knows more about golf course architecture than all of them combined**. Five versus one, in the case of Shackelford, isn't even a fair fight.

> >

> > How many Acushnet logos in that video? Charlie Rymer has his FJ on display; Michael Breed looks like an Acushnet NASCAR driver.

> >

> > What a bunch of tools. There isn't a golf course in the country that could not be set up overnight to play beautifully at 5800 yards for a rolled back golf ball. And there are damned few golf courses anywhere in the world that play properly for modern elite-level players unless they are tweaked to the limit.

> >

> >

> >

>

> What an arrogant statement.... no one around the tee boxes huh?? (see below) what a tool. The reason there are not as many around the tee boxes is because there is simply not enough room.. I will use the words you said to me before. "if you do not like the current game, you are welcome to go play a different one".

>

> This idea that you can only roll the ball back is soo wrong it twist my head. There are hundreds of other things you can do.

>

>

>

>

 

Funny. The guy hitting the tee ball in that picture says the modern ball goes too far.

[clevited]

> @smashdn said:

> > @clevited said:

> >Being upset and annoyed that you "have to" lengthen a course to make the course play how the designer wants it to and then complaining about the cost and sustainability of it is idiotic.

>

> Explain this to me.

>

> Because in my mind I see a fairway bunker, heck maybe two, let's call it a bottle hole on a course built in 1950. There are two bunkers necking down the fairway at 260 yards from the back tee. There is a short green to tee walk from the previous hole because in 1950 we walked when we played golf. So on the tee with those bunkers you had a few options you could employ. First, shoot a drive right up between those bad boys, but you better be accurate, hit a dead straight ball and be pretty ballsy yourself. Next you could pull your trusty four wood and lay back to about 230 and contend with a longer approach shot as a result, the conservative play if you will. Lastly, only the longest guys would just blast it over the bunkers.

>

> Fast forward to 2019 and most high school golfers can carry driver 260 and probably a good deal of them can carry a three wood that far. How do you restore the design intent of a bottle hole? Why would you not want to?

>

>

 

Those bunkers are still intimidating and in play for a large amount, dare I say vast amount of amateur players are they not? The pro's make it look easy but you know it is not. Unless you are a long ball hitter and can confirm it is super easy to hit it over 300 and be accurate with today's equipment?

[QuigleyDU]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

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

> > > > > > > > @beluga99 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Of course it is significant. Players swinging 45" drivers with 60 or 70 gram shafts, instead of 43.5" drivers with 123 gram shafts. And how do they manage to hit such drivers straight, with all that head speed? Solid core multilayer balls with urethane covers that don't spin as much.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If anybody wishes to argue that it takes consummate skill, to hit drivers the way that PGA Tour players do, save it. I agree. Tour players are fantastically skilled. But if balls were rolled back by some significant/realistic percentage, the Tour players would still be exercising all of their skill. Only in a slightly shorter distance frame. Long players would still be long, shorter players would still be shorter. Accurate players would still be accurate. Wild drives would still be penalized.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And we'd have a game that better fit the historic championship golf courses.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but you are. The balata balls of old do not spin more. They in fact, spin about the same, they are simply just super soft and slow off clubs. In fact, off wedges, the spin less. I don't understand how people can think that something with a liquid core, and wound rubber bands can spin more than a solid core hard ball.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Here is a little data for you to look at. Yes, this is one mans test, but still it is a real test.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Balata balls also have a shelf life. Shiels found some pretty good ones, but there is an advertisement that shows their initial velocity to be at the regulated max. The same max as today. In other words, if the balata balls were made brand new today, they would likely be closer yet in initial ball speed vs the modern ball.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > That part could be true. I don't know. I am just simply saying that everyone is looking back at balatas with rose colored glasses. Thinking they spun more is not really correct. Off the driver, maybe a touch.

> > > >

> > > > Like I have been trying to say all along, there is sooooooooooo much more to the equation than just the ball. For every mile per hour of club head speed increase it is about 3 yard gain in distance. If you look at the numbers originally posted. that equals about 5 miles per more in club head speed. Which that number or more is easily visible on tour. They are all swinging faster. There are way more tour pros at our near 120 club head speed than in the past. That is why there are a lot more out there hitting it further. It is not just the ball.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Yep. Easy to point the finger at the ball/clubs, but I think most folks who are most critical of the modern game are just disgruntled that the modern tour player has athleticism that they simply do not (not now and perhaps not ever). And they point at the equipment being the reason for the distance gains, but also completely ignore how modern pros and elite players use technology and fitness to hit the ball further (ie radar based launch monitors, pressure plates, 3D, overspeed training etc) by both optimizing launch conditions and optimizing speed. Sure the clubs may help in terms of off center hit forgiveness, but to have near perfect impact while swinging 120+ is incredible. In the past there were some players who really did "find it in the dirt" and thus had an advantage over the field, modern tech just makes that search much more clinical.

> >

> >

> > I don’t know how many times this needs to be repeated; even if we were to assume, arguendo, that fitness and athleticism were the true sole causes of the distance explosion in golf that just so happened to coincide with the introduction of urethane balls, IT DOES NOT MATTER. It does not matter because the ruling bodies have already determined to take some action if and when distances increase further. And they have.

> >

> > Put another way; the USGA can’t and won’t regulate fitness or athleticism. They regulate equipment. So that is what they will do, regardless of whether athleticism or urethane covered balls are the true cause in fact.

>

>

>

> The final decision would be with the players/PGA Tour. The USGA can't do anything that the players, overwhelmingly, don't want them to do.

>

>

>

>

 

Well, I want to say this is true.

 

> @gvogel said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > Just a fun addition.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Oh thanks for posting that. That is so beautiful. Five pros or quasi-pros, several of them literally under contract to Titleist/FJ/Acushnet (and Callaway), fighting with Geoff Shackelford who **knows more about golf course architecture than all of them combined**. Five versus one, in the case of Shackelford, isn't even a fair fight.

> > >

> > > How many Acushnet logos in that video? Charlie Rymer has his FJ on display; Michael Breed looks like an Acushnet NASCAR driver.

> > >

> > > What a bunch of tools. There isn't a golf course in the country that could not be set up overnight to play beautifully at 5800 yards for a rolled back golf ball. And there are damned few golf courses anywhere in the world that play properly for modern elite-level players unless they are tweaked to the limit.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > What an arrogant statement.... no one around the tee boxes huh?? (see below) what a tool. The reason there are not as many around the tee boxes is because there is simply not enough room.. I will use the words you said to me before. "if you do not like the current game, you are welcome to go play a different one".

> >

> > This idea that you can only roll the ball back is soo wrong it twist my head. There are hundreds of other things you can do.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Funny. The guy hitting the tee ball in that picture says the modern ball goes too far.

 

He is saying that now as he has gotten older and no longer out drives anyone... haha. He also says his ball is 6.2 yards longer soo. lots of double speak there..

 

[clevited]

> @sigep1967 said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @sigep1967 said:

> > > Yall do realize that wound ball in the test was not Balata.

> >

> > No I didn't even notice that. Honestly good eye. I guess I assumed it was also balata. Other than durability, I am unsure if it would be much different, depending on how far back in the balata world we want to go. I will see if I can find the specs on the professional 90 and 100 to see how they compare according to Titleist.

>

> I can assure you the balata ball was way different that the Profesional which was urethane wound ball. as far as the actual spin numbers I have no idea and not sure you could get "real" numbers as any balls you would get now would be so old the preformence would be lacking I would think. I do know you could do things with the wound balls that are very hard to duplicate with the new balls. For you young guys that never got to hit wound balls you just can't understand the feel of a well struck shot with a wound ball.

 

Yeah, it is a shame we cannot have freshly manufactured versions for a nostalgia type feeling and for testing. Limited run thing or something. They did feel amazing I remember. I couldn't afford them but I did find the occasional one. I just remember them not lasting long.

 

I would would be curious to see if in the hands of a pro, that bomb and gouge would be even easier with a balata. If they can manage to keep the spin reasonable off the tee (which with practice I am sure they could), and hit it in the rough, they might get enough spin to hold today's greens more easily when with the wind or when they would normally get a flier.

[gvogel]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

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

> > > > > > > > @beluga99 said:

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

> > > > > > > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Of course it is significant. Players swinging 45" drivers with 60 or 70 gram shafts, instead of 43.5" drivers with 123 gram shafts. And how do they manage to hit such drivers straight, with all that head speed? Solid core multilayer balls with urethane covers that don't spin as much.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If anybody wishes to argue that it takes consummate skill, to hit drivers the way that PGA Tour players do, save it. I agree. Tour players are fantastically skilled. But if balls were rolled back by some significant/realistic percentage, the Tour players would still be exercising all of their skill. Only in a slightly shorter distance frame. Long players would still be long, shorter players would still be shorter. Accurate players would still be accurate. Wild drives would still be penalized.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > And we'd have a game that better fit the historic championship golf courses.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but you are. The balata balls of old do not spin more. They in fact, spin about the same, they are simply just super soft and slow off clubs. In fact, off wedges, the spin less. I don't understand how people can think that something with a liquid core, and wound rubber bands can spin more than a solid core hard ball.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Here is a little data for you to look at. Yes, this is one mans test, but still it is a real test.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Balata balls also have a shelf life. Shiels found some pretty good ones, but there is an advertisement that shows their initial velocity to be at the regulated max. The same max as today. In other words, if the balata balls were made brand new today, they would likely be closer yet in initial ball speed vs the modern ball.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > That part could be true. I don't know. I am just simply saying that everyone is looking back at balatas with rose colored glasses. Thinking they spun more is not really correct. Off the driver, maybe a touch.

> > > >

> > > > Like I have been trying to say all along, there is sooooooooooo much more to the equation than just the ball. For every mile per hour of club head speed increase it is about 3 yard gain in distance. If you look at the numbers originally posted. that equals about 5 miles per more in club head speed. Which that number or more is easily visible on tour. They are all swinging faster. There are way more tour pros at our near 120 club head speed than in the past. That is why there are a lot more out there hitting it further. It is not just the ball.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Yep. Easy to point the finger at the ball/clubs, but I think most folks who are most critical of the modern game are just disgruntled that the modern tour player has athleticism that they simply do not (not now and perhaps not ever). And they point at the equipment being the reason for the distance gains, but also completely ignore how modern pros and elite players use technology and fitness to hit the ball further (ie radar based launch monitors, pressure plates, 3D, overspeed training etc) by both optimizing launch conditions and optimizing speed. Sure the clubs may help in terms of off center hit forgiveness, but to have near perfect impact while swinging 120+ is incredible. In the past there were some players who really did "find it in the dirt" and thus had an advantage over the field, modern tech just makes that search much more clinical.

> >

> >

> > I don’t know how many times this needs to be repeated; even if we were to assume, arguendo, that fitness and athleticism were the true sole causes of the distance explosion in golf that just so happened to coincide with the introduction of urethane balls, IT DOES NOT MATTER. It does not matter because the ruling bodies have already determined to take some action if and when distances increase further. And they have.

> >

> > Put another way; the USGA can’t and won’t regulate fitness or athleticism. They regulate equipment. So that is what they will do, regardless of whether athleticism or urethane covered balls are the true cause in fact.

>

>

>

> The final decision would be with the players/PGA Tour. The USGA can't do anything that the players, overwhelmingly, don't want them to do.

>

>

>

>

 

Historically, the USGA and R&A have governed the rules of golf, including equipment specifications. The USGA along with the R&A could change the specifications for the ball and club head. If the PGA Tour players decided to not follow the present rules makers, they would be making their own rules. They could very well move in that direction.

 

If they then played in the US Open and Open Championship, they would then have to change equipment to enter the competition. Being that there is a fairly close connection between the folks at Augusta National and the USGA and R&A, I believe that such new specs would also be a condition for playing in the Masters.

 

Tour life would be interesting.

[15th Club]

> @gvogel said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > Just a fun addition.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Oh thanks for posting that. That is so beautiful. Five pros or quasi-pros, several of them literally under contract to Titleist/FJ/Acushnet (and Callaway), fighting with Geoff Shackelford who **knows more about golf course architecture than all of them combined**. Five versus one, in the case of Shackelford, isn't even a fair fight.

> > >

> > > How many Acushnet logos in that video? Charlie Rymer has his FJ on display; Michael Breed looks like an Acushnet NASCAR driver.

> > >

> > > What a bunch of tools. There isn't a golf course in the country that could not be set up overnight to play beautifully at 5800 yards for a rolled back golf ball. And there are damned few golf courses anywhere in the world that play properly for modern elite-level players unless they are tweaked to the limit.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > What an arrogant statement.... no one around the tee boxes huh?? (see below) what a tool. The reason there are not as many around the tee boxes is because there is simply not enough room.. I will use the words you said to me before. "if you do not like the current game, you are welcome to go play a different one".

> >

> > This idea that you can only roll the ball back is soo wrong it twist my head. There are hundreds of other things you can do.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Funny. The guy hitting the tee ball in that picture says the modern ball goes too far.

 

 

Things I wish I had written...

 

Still , there’s this. That picture is Sunday at the Masters where the 30,000 or so patrons have only one or two pairings to watch, in an area where foot traffic from 17 green and 15 tee are jammed into a small area flowing up the hill to the clubhouse.

 

More significantly; what Geoff Shackelford could have said was that nobody cares about seeing the replay of a 343-yard drive on Golf Channel or SportsCenter. There’s no scale, no interest, no relation to the course or scoring.

 

One of the most important and poetic things written about golf in the last 20 years is Geoff Shackelford’s line that “In no other sport are the venues in which the game is played as important and as fragile as in golf.”

 

[gvogel]

Just to entertain all of you, I have been playing reduced distance golf balls (Point Five) for the last couple of months, partially due to a torn shoulder rotator cuff tendon. My modern golf ball driving distance is down to around 210, and I hit the reduced distance ball around 175. The reduced distance ball is lighter and doesn't hurt anyway near as much as a Pro V1.

 

So what do I do? Playing par 3 courses is fun, but I have also played my regular muni off the ladies tees, or even farther up on par 5's and longer par 4's. It is pretty much the same game, but on a smaller footprint. The reduced distance ball can still be hit crooked, or straight. Pitching is about the same. I will say that the lighter ball doesn't hold a line on the putting green as well as a regular ball. I will also say that speed of play is enhanced, since I get to the ball faster, and really bad shots don't fly as far off line.

 

Those of you who don't want any changes to modern equipment should pick up a pack of Point Five balls, and figure out where you have to play to hit the same relative shots that you do now. Then come back here with your perspective, either changed or unchanged.

[15th Club]

Tiger Woods’ published feelings about the golf ball distance debate go back more than a decade.

 

The important thing is that he is not being coerced/silenced by a Titleist contract.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

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

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > Just a fun addition.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Oh thanks for posting that. That is so beautiful. Five pros or quasi-pros, several of them literally under contract to Titleist/FJ/Acushnet (and Callaway), fighting with Geoff Shackelford who **knows more about golf course architecture than all of them combined**. Five versus one, in the case of Shackelford, isn't even a fair fight.

> > > >

> > > > How many Acushnet logos in that video? Charlie Rymer has his FJ on display; Michael Breed looks like an Acushnet NASCAR driver.

> > > >

> > > > What a bunch of tools. There isn't a golf course in the country that could not be set up overnight to play beautifully at 5800 yards for a rolled back golf ball. And there are damned few golf courses anywhere in the world that play properly for modern elite-level players unless they are tweaked to the limit.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > What an arrogant statement.... no one around the tee boxes huh?? (see below) what a tool. The reason there are not as many around the tee boxes is because there is simply not enough room.. I will use the words you said to me before. "if you do not like the current game, you are welcome to go play a different one".

> > >

> > > This idea that you can only roll the ball back is soo wrong it twist my head. There are hundreds of other things you can do.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Funny. The guy hitting the tee ball in that picture says the modern ball goes too far.

>

>

> Things I wish I had written...

>

> Still , there’s this. That picture is Sunday at the Masters where the 30,000 or so patrons have only one or two pairings to watch, in an area where foot traffic from 17 green and 15 tee are jammed into a small area flowing up the hill to the clubhouse.

>

> More significantly; what Geoff Shackelford could have said was that nobody cares about seeing the replay of a 343-yard drive on Golf Channel or SportsCenter. There’s no scale, no interest, **no relation to the course or scoring**.

>

> One of the most important and poetic things written about golf in the last 20 years is Geoff Shackelford’s line that “In no other sport are the venues in which the game is played as important and as fragile as in golf.”

>

 

I would disagree with you and with Geoff. There is a ton of interest in watching tour pros hit drives. It is simple the availability of space for grand stands. There is less interest in watching tour pro roll 5 footers for par over and over again in highlight reels.

 

With statements like what I highlighted, its like you do not even play golf. Or at least you do not understand it. Other than the putter no other club makes as big of a difference to score as the driver. I may argue that the driver is more important considering how few times you hit it per round

[QuigleyDU]

> @gvogel said:

> Just to entertain all of you, I have been playing reduced distance golf balls (Point Five) for the last couple of months, partially due to a torn shoulder rotator cuff tendon. My modern golf ball driving distance is down to around 210, and I hit the reduced distance ball around 175. The reduced distance ball is lighter and doesn't hurt anyway near as much as a Pro V1.

>

> So what do I do? Playing par 3 courses is fun, but I have also played my regular muni off the ladies tees, or even farther up on par 5's and longer par 4's. It is pretty much the same game, but on a smaller footprint. The reduced distance ball can still be hit crooked, or straight. Pitching is about the same. I will say that the lighter ball doesn't hold a line on the putting green as well as a regular ball. I will also say that speed of play is enhanced, since I get to the ball faster, and really bad shots don't fly as far off line.

>

> Those of you who don't want any changes to modern equipment should pick up a pack of Point Five balls, and figure out where you have to play to hit the same relative shots that you do now. Then come back here with your perspective, either changed or unchanged.

 

Well, I said yes,,, but... how is any of the below true if it is 40% reduced?

 

quickens play, improves course par, floats, addresses safety and environmental issues. (Made in USA) Meets US Golf Ball Standards.. Plus $26 for 3??!!

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

 

>

> Things I wish I had written...

>

”

>

 

Well, we can't include his opinion because he is making millions off a ball contract... Right?? I mean, that is your argument for any titleist staffer.

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> Tiger Woods’ published feelings about the golf ball distance debate go back more than a decade.

>

> The important thing is that he is not being coerced/silenced by a Titleist contract.

 

But he can still make money saying his ball goes further than Titleist's.. and not be coerced?? you are getting silly in your old age...

 

 

 

[15th Club]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

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

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > Just a fun addition.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Oh thanks for posting that. That is so beautiful. Five pros or quasi-pros, several of them literally under contract to Titleist/FJ/Acushnet (and Callaway), fighting with Geoff Shackelford who **knows more about golf course architecture than all of them combined**. Five versus one, in the case of Shackelford, isn't even a fair fight.

> > > > >

> > > > > How many Acushnet logos in that video? Charlie Rymer has his FJ on display; Michael Breed looks like an Acushnet NASCAR driver.

> > > > >

> > > > > What a bunch of tools. There isn't a golf course in the country that could not be set up overnight to play beautifully at 5800 yards for a rolled back golf ball. And there are damned few golf courses anywhere in the world that play properly for modern elite-level players unless they are tweaked to the limit.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > What an arrogant statement.... no one around the tee boxes huh?? (see below) what a tool. The reason there are not as many around the tee boxes is because there is simply not enough room.. I will use the words you said to me before. "if you do not like the current game, you are welcome to go play a different one".

> > > >

> > > > This idea that you can only roll the ball back is soo wrong it twist my head. There are hundreds of other things you can do.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Funny. The guy hitting the tee ball in that picture says the modern ball goes too far.

> >

> >

> > Things I wish I had written...

> >

> > Still , there’s this. That picture is Sunday at the Masters where the 30,000 or so patrons have only one or two pairings to watch, in an area where foot traffic from 17 green and 15 tee are jammed into a small area flowing up the hill to the clubhouse.

> >

> > More significantly; what Geoff Shackelford could have said was that nobody cares about seeing the replay of a 343-yard drive on Golf Channel or SportsCenter. There’s no scale, no interest, **no relation to the course or scoring**.

> >

> > One of the most important and poetic things written about golf in the last 20 years is Geoff Shackelford’s line that “In no other sport are the venues in which the game is played as important and as fragile as in golf.”

> >

>

> I would disagree with you and with Geoff. There is a ton of interest in watching tour pros hit drives. It is simple the availability of space for grand stands. There is less interest in watching tour pro roll 5 footers for par over and over again in highlight reels.

>

> With statements like what I highlighted, its like you do not even play golf. Or at least you do not understand it. Other than the putter no other club makes as big of a difference to score as the driver. I may argue that the driver is more important considering how few times you hit it per round

 

 

No, it isn’t just putter; it is shotmaking to, and around, imaginative green complexes. Those are the memorable shots in golf.

 

Everyone thinks of Hogan’s 1-iron at Merion. No one cares about his drive.

 

Everyone thinks about Nicklaus rattling the flagstick on the 17th at Pebble to beat the field, or Watson’s chip in to beat Nicklaus.

 

I know what it looks like when Bubba Watson hits a tee shot but the one indelible Bubba memory for me is seeing him spin an unbelievable shot out of the trees on the 10th hole at Augusta.

 

Speaking of Augusta, I submit what is probably the single most sublime shot of Fred Couples’ career; his second shot at 13 en route to a green jacket. That hole is one of several historic holes that virtually define golf’s distance problem.

[bigred90gt]

Here’s an idea: ask the membership at these “old historic courses” if they think their course plays too easy for them and if they hit it too far for their course to be challenging.

 

I don’t give a flying flip about professional or elite tournament golf “problems”. The golfing public is who supports this game, and the golfing public does not hit the ball too far. The overwhelming majority of the golfing public can’t break 90 on any given day and has never set foot on the back tees at a golf course.

 

And don’t give me this hooha about a ball that magically starts reducing distance above some arbitrary clubhead speed. That isn’t going to happen for reasons that have been explained to death in the 100+ page previous thread on this topic.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

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

> > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > Just a fun addition.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Oh thanks for posting that. That is so beautiful. Five pros or quasi-pros, several of them literally under contract to Titleist/FJ/Acushnet (and Callaway), fighting with Geoff Shackelford who **knows more about golf course architecture than all of them combined**. Five versus one, in the case of Shackelford, isn't even a fair fight.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > How many Acushnet logos in that video? Charlie Rymer has his FJ on display; Michael Breed looks like an Acushnet NASCAR driver.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What a bunch of tools. There isn't a golf course in the country that could not be set up overnight to play beautifully at 5800 yards for a rolled back golf ball. And there are damned few golf courses anywhere in the world that play properly for modern elite-level players unless they are tweaked to the limit.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > What an arrogant statement.... no one around the tee boxes huh?? (see below) what a tool. The reason there are not as many around the tee boxes is because there is simply not enough room.. I will use the words you said to me before. "if you do not like the current game, you are welcome to go play a different one".

> > > > >

> > > > > This idea that you can only roll the ball back is soo wrong it twist my head. There are hundreds of other things you can do.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Funny. The guy hitting the tee ball in that picture says the modern ball goes too far.

> > >

> > >

> > > Things I wish I had written...

> > >

> > > Still , there’s this. That picture is Sunday at the Masters where the 30,000 or so patrons have only one or two pairings to watch, in an area where foot traffic from 17 green and 15 tee are jammed into a small area flowing up the hill to the clubhouse.

> > >

> > > More significantly; what Geoff Shackelford could have said was that nobody cares about seeing the replay of a 343-yard drive on Golf Channel or SportsCenter. There’s no scale, no interest, **no relation to the course or scoring**.

> > >

> > > One of the most important and poetic things written about golf in the last 20 years is Geoff Shackelford’s line that “In no other sport are the venues in which the game is played as important and as fragile as in golf.”

> > >

> >

> > I would disagree with you and with Geoff. There is a ton of interest in watching tour pros hit drives. It is simple the availability of space for grand stands. There is less interest in watching tour pro roll 5 footers for par over and over again in highlight reels.

> >

> > With statements like what I highlighted, its like you do not even play golf. Or at least you do not understand it. Other than the putter no other club makes as big of a difference to score as the driver. I may argue that the driver is more important considering how few times you hit it per round

>

>

> No, it isn’t just putter; it is shotmaking to, and around, imaginative green complexes. Those are the memorable shots in golf.

>

> Everyone thinks of Hogan’s 1-iron at Merion. No one cares about his drive.

>

> Everyone thinks about Nicklaus rattling the flagstick on the 17th at Pebble to beat the field, or Watson’s chip in to beat Nicklaus.

>

> I know what it looks like when Bubba Watson hits a tee shot but the one indelible Bubba memory for me is seeing him spin an unbelievable shot out of the trees on the 10th hole at Augusta.

>

> Speaking of Augusta, I submit what is probably the single most sublime shot of Fred Couples’ career; his second shot at 13 en route to a green jacket. That hole is one of several historic holes that virtually define golf’s distance problem.

 

But you leave out the Tee shot where Daly drove 18 into the wind, with hangover shakes at the old course,

 

Or the tee shot of bubba at Augusta where he carried all the trees,

 

Or that Phil won the masters playing two different drivers one year.

 

Or that Greg Norman lost the masters to Faldo largely because he lost his accuracy off the tee with the driver and was getting double crossed.

 

Or the year the Tiger won his first masters, it was partly because off the tee he was further down the fairway than anyone.

 

Or Arnold Palmer driving the green at Cherry Hill.

 

Or that Brooks was quoted as say "I see driver'. When everyone else is laying up.

 

OR Jean Van De Velde losing the open because of pulling driver when it was not needed..

 

See I can play this game too. I remember lots of drives there were hugely impactful.

[bscinstnct]

=> @bigred90gt said:

> Here’s an idea: ask the membership at these “old historic courses” if they think their course plays too easy for them and if they hit it too far for their course to be challenging.

>

> I don’t give a flying flip about professional or elite tournament golf “problems”. The golfing public is who supports this game, and the golfing public does not hit the ball too far. The overwhelming majority of the golfing public can’t break 90 on any given day and has never set foot on the back tees at a golf course.

>

> And don’t give me this hooha about a ball that magically starts reducing distance above some arbitrary clubhead speed. That isn’t going to happen for reasons that have been explained to death in the 100+ page previous thread on this topic.

 

How would they implement this?

 

What are they going to do, just start experimenting on the players during the season? Make the players get used to the new ball in the off season?

 

None of the players is going to comply. They will all just band together and say...'Uh, no"

 

They would have to set a target date like 10 years from now and make all the school age/college kids start using the ball now.

 

Be like, bifurcation but with everybody *except* the current PGA Tour pros playing the limited ball ; )

[bigred90gt]

> @bscinstnct said:

> => @bigred90gt said:

> > Here’s an idea: ask the membership at these “old historic courses” if they think their course plays too easy for them and if they hit it too far for their course to be challenging.

> >

> > I don’t give a flying flip about professional or elite tournament golf “problems”. The golfing public is who supports this game, and the golfing public does not hit the ball too far. The overwhelming majority of the golfing public can’t break 90 on any given day and has never set foot on the back tees at a golf course.

> >

> > And don’t give me this hooha about a ball that magically starts reducing distance above some arbitrary clubhead speed. That isn’t going to happen for reasons that have been explained to death in the 100+ page previous thread on this topic.

>

> How would they implement this?

>

> What are they going to do, just start experimenting on the players during the season? Make the players get used to the new ball in the off season?

>

> None of the players is going to comply. They will all just band together and say...'Uh, no"

>

> They would have to set a target date like 10 years from now and make all the school age/college kids start using the ball now.

>

> Be like, bifurcation but with everybody *except* the current PGA Tour pros playing the limited ball ; )

 

I think you quoted the wrong post my man.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @Sandhurst241069 said:

> >

> Yep faster, firmer conditions equals better golf ..

 

??? Why?

 

 

[bscinstnct]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > => @bigred90gt said:

> > > Here’s an idea: ask the membership at these “old historic courses” if they think their course plays too easy for them and if they hit it too far for their course to be challenging.

> > >

> > > I don’t give a flying flip about professional or elite tournament golf “problems”. The golfing public is who supports this game, and the golfing public does not hit the ball too far. The overwhelming majority of the golfing public can’t break 90 on any given day and has never set foot on the back tees at a golf course.

> > >

> > > And don’t give me this hooha about a ball that magically starts reducing distance above some arbitrary clubhead speed. That isn’t going to happen for reasons that have been explained to death in the 100+ page previous thread on this topic.

> >

> > How would they implement this?

> >

> > What are they going to do, just start experimenting on the players during the season? Make the players get used to the new ball in the off season?

> >

> > None of the players is going to comply. They will all just band together and say...'Uh, no"

> >

> > They would have to set a target date like 10 years from now and make all the school age/college kids start using the ball now.

> >

> > Be like, bifurcation but with everybody *except* the current PGA Tour pros playing the limited ball ; )

>

> I think you quoted the wrong post my man.

>

>

 

So? You gotta problem?

 

Lol, bigred! Just kidding. I just took your post to mean you were not in favor of a roll back and replied in general agreement.

 

 

I just don't see how they can tell the best players in the world, players that have been honing their skills their whole lives with certain equipment that is basically an extension of themselves and tell them they are totally changing their games now.