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

[bigred90gt]

> @SNIPERBBB said:

> > @bigred90gt said:

> > > @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.

> >

> > I’m curious how exactly it will save time. Unless you are randomly planting a tee at whatever yardage you decide to hit from, you are still playing the full length of the course from a designated tee box, albeit a shorter tee box than the regular men’s tee. That would have minimal effect at best of overall pace of play. You still have to get to the ball and presumably hit the same number of shots. Can you elaborate and possibly clarify how it will save any time at all, let alone the “play in 1/2 the time” claim on the website?

> >

>

> You still gotta walk or ride all 4-7 miles of the golf course no matter what tees or call you play. Only time it can save is ball search time.

 

That’s what I was getting at. I don’t believe it would save any time at all, but since he plays them and says it does, I wanted to see if he could elaborate.

 

 

[Krt22]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @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.

> > >

> > > I’m curious how exactly it will save time. Unless you are randomly planting a tee at whatever yardage you decide to hit from, you are still playing the full length of the course from a designated tee box, albeit a shorter tee box than the regular men’s tee. That would have minimal effect at best of overall pace of play. You still have to get to the ball and presumably hit the same number of shots. Can you elaborate and possibly clarify how it will save any time at all, let alone the “play in 1/2 the time” claim on the website?

> > >

> >

> > You still gotta walk or ride all 4-7 miles of the golf course no matter what tees or call you play. Only time it can save is ball search time.

>

> That’s what I was getting at. I don’t believe it would save any time at all, but since he plays them and says it does, I wanted to see if he could elaborate.

>

>

 

You might save 2-3 minutes a round on those rare holes where you need to walk back away from the last green to get to the back tee box of the next hole. That is it though lol

[Ferguson]

This conversation reminds me of one of those bags you open and chips go flying all over.

[mahonie]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @mahonie said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @mahonie said:

> > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > > @"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.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It’s interesting that all the drives you remember are pre-Pro V1, except Bubba’s. Just shows how boring the modern game is.

> > > > >

> > > > > I don’t find it boring at all. Heck I watch things like the Houston open for Pete’s sake.

> > > >

> > > > Oh dear! I watched the last couple of holes and can’t remember who won let alone what their drives were like!! As an insomniac though I think I found a cure...so at least there’s that ;-)

> > >

> > > I am simply saying I like golf, and I am willing to watch at least some of every event that I can tune in to. I couldn't tell you anything specific either. Just that I watched some of it. I can watch old events like the shell world of golf events. Old masters footage and find enjoyment in all of it. I don't feel the need to hold on to the past to make it interesting. I think watching Rory hit driver now is one of the most fun things to watch on a golf course.

> > >

> > > Golf about the whole more than its parts, if distance is a problem, and if @"15th Club" changed his argument I may be convinced it is. But, if distance is a problem. You have to look at the whole. Not just a single part being the ball. You have to look at course set up other than length. You cannot make a course too long for tour pros. You have to look at equipment as a whole, not the just the ball. See my point? there are so many things that can be done. Other than just single out the ball.

> >

> > I love golf too...I live for the weekend to get out there and play. What concerns me though is that golf is literally dying before my eyes. I’ve had club membership for 10 years and the number of members has dropped by 50% in that time. The average age must be well over 50. There are no kids coming through at all and my club is pretty typical. This may sound old-fashioned but golf is being driven from the wrong angle. You are right about about golf being more than its parts. I learnt to play from the green back to the tee. The local putting green...the pitch and putt...9 hole municipal...then a full-size 18 hole course. I’d been playing golf for 3 years before I graduated to a proper course...but I’d had so much fun learning. To this day, my favourite type of hole is a par 3.

> >

> > These days kids get on the driving range and just want to smash driver after driver. Once they hit it past 200 yards they think they can walk onto the first tee and shoot par! When they find there’s more to golf than bombing it and flicking it onto the green they just give up. People forget that it’s the shotmaking that is the real fun element...challenging yourself to pull off that 5-iron baby fade to get to that pin cut at the back right of the green to make birdie is more fun than hitting your stock 6-iron to the middle of the green and hoping for 2 putts.

> >

> > Name one great shot maker this side of Tiger, apart from Bubba...I’m struggling to be honest. The skills that Seve, Norman, Faldo, Trevino, etc had was what got me into the game...not so much Nicklaus and his long game. (I’ve come to realise just how good a shot maker Jack was when you look at today’s pros btw). I get it that time moves on but dumbing everything down to the lowest common denominator of distance is not the answer.

>

> Interesting post. I don't necessarily disagree. However, your opinion doesn't matter. Neither does mine. Or, at least they shouldn't. For every One of you or I, there are 100 or more who don't know or care about the difference between a stock 6 or a feathered punch-cut 5 in their Thursday Night Men's league or when watching on TV after mowing the lawn. They like to see players hit it far and try to do it themselves, but I think we'd be pretty ignorant to assume that they don't care about hitting irons, wedges, and putters well. Those are the people who should be the target market to "Grow the Game". The people on the fringe. The ones who might sell their clubs next year and take up tennis or spikeball. Golf already has people like us for life. We aren't leaving.

>

> People say they want to"Grow the Game", but really it's more like "Grow the Game, as long it's in the exact manner and direction I want." As for the USGA (and friends), it honestly feels that they are trying to work backward from a conclusion to ensure that there is only one viable solution to a "problem", when the cross section of players required to truly grow the game simply do not see a problem. Either act in accordance with your motto, or change it.

>

>

 

I agree that most players care about hitting irons, wedges, etc well but the issue is that irons and wedges are not as easy to hit well as the modern driver is now and that’s just backwards in my thinking. The driver should be the hardest to hit club but the 460cc head and balls that don’t spin arguably make it the easiest. Now if fairway woods, irons and wedges could be ‘dumbed down’ to the level that the driver has, the game would grow exponentially. Perhaps the USGA/R&A should let the size of the other clubs grow to the same extent that the driver has so that they are all in proportion again and the whole game becomes much easier and more attractive to the masses...heaven forbid!

 

My real issue is that the focus on distance has made the modern game very one-dimensional and diminishes the enjoyment of shotmaking to the extent that new players to the game don’t really appreciate how much of the game it used to be and how much pleasure can be gained from it.

[gvogel]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @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.

>

> I’m curious how exactly it will save time. Unless you are randomly planting a tee at whatever yardage you decide to hit from, you are still playing the full length of the course from a designated tee box, albeit a shorter tee box than the regular men’s tee. That would have minimal effect at best of overall pace of play. You still have to get to the ball and presumably hit the same number of shots. Can you elaborate and possibly clarify how it will save any time at all, let alone the “play in 1/2 the time” claim on the website?

>

 

The 1/2 the time comes from playing a par 3 course or an executive course. I've tried it, and it really takes a lot less time. There certainly is not as much walking between shots.

[gvogel]

> @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > @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.

> > > > >

> > > > > I’m curious how exactly it will save time. Unless you are randomly planting a tee at whatever yardage you decide to hit from, you are still playing the full length of the course from a designated tee box, albeit a shorter tee box than the regular men’s tee. That would have minimal effect at best of overall pace of play. You still have to get to the ball and presumably hit the same number of shots. Can you elaborate and possibly clarify how it will save any time at all, let alone the “play in 1/2 the time” claim on the website?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > You still gotta walk or ride all 4-7 miles of the golf course no matter what tees or call you play. Only time it can save is ball search time.

> > >

> > > My takeaway was that they were encouraging you to play more executive style courses but still being able to hit more clubs than you normally would because the ball doesn't go as far. Those aren't anywhere close to as long, meaning less time. I could see it being fun to take some out to a shorter course like that and still being able to hit longer clubs because of the distance loss.

> >

> > You don't get to play faster because the ball is shorter

> > Period.it still takes 4.5 minutes to walk a 400 yard hole assuming average human walking speed. Your time between tee and approach shots will be faster but it doesn't make you walk any faster.

>

> When you're playing a sub 4800 yard course it's going to take less time than when you are playing a 6000+ yard course. I'm not saying playing the 6000+ yard course from shorter distances, I'm talking playing a true executive course that is overall more compact, shorter walk. I have one near me that is 4670 for example so just over 2.6 miles. Walking half the distance of your 4-7 range you mentioned earlier, saves a pretty considerable amount of time. Playing a shorter ball on a course like that allows me to hit much longer clubs than I normally would because of the shortened length. I'm not saying it's my preferred method of play, but I can see the merits of the shorter ball for these situations.

>

> Now, when we are talking about playing the same, shorter ball on a full sized course, I don't see how it can save time, either.

 

Midwest gets it.

[gvogel]

> @bigred90gt said:

> > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > @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.

> > >

> > > I’m curious how exactly it will save time. Unless you are randomly planting a tee at whatever yardage you decide to hit from, you are still playing the full length of the course from a designated tee box, albeit a shorter tee box than the regular men’s tee. That would have minimal effect at best of overall pace of play. You still have to get to the ball and presumably hit the same number of shots. Can you elaborate and possibly clarify how it will save any time at all, let alone the “play in 1/2 the time” claim on the website?

> > >

> >

> > You still gotta walk or ride all 4-7 miles of the golf course no matter what tees or call you play. Only time it can save is ball search time.

>

> That’s what I was getting at. I don’t believe it would save any time at all, but since he plays them and says it does, I wanted to see if he could elaborate.

>

>

 

Actually, if I play a regular course with the Point Five ball, I move up considerably - ladies tees or even farther up. The ball doesn't go off line as much as a regular ball, so it's easier to find after a bad shot. Also, because it doesn't go as far, it is easier to see where it might be after a bad shot. So even on a regulation course, it can take less time. Kind of fun, really.

[bladehunter]

> @mosesgolf said:

> Not sure what to do since the genie is out of the bottle but 13th at Augusta should never be driver wedge. I remember when Faldo beat Norman in 96 he hit driver 3 or 4 iron for his 2nd shot on 13. Th 13th hole should make you think about your 2nd shot risk reward etc. Not much to think about if you're hitting a short iron in there.

 

No offense to you personally.

 

But I hate that saying. There’s no reason why the genie can’t be put back. The only roadblock is $. But I’m personally ok with bursting the bubble to return the game to reality. All course won’t close and in time it will equal out to a healthy spot.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @mahonie said:

 

> I agree that most players care about hitting irons, wedges, etc well but the issue is that irons and wedges are not as easy to hit well as the modern driver is now and that’s just backwards in my thinking. The driver should be the hardest to hit club but the 460cc head and balls that don’t spin arguably make it the easiest. Now if fairway woods, irons and wedges could be ‘dumbed down’ to the level that the driver has, the game would grow exponentially. Perhaps the USGA/R&A should let the size of the other clubs grow to the same extent that the driver has so that they are all in proportion again and the whole game becomes much easier and more attractive to the masses...heaven forbid!

>

> My real issue is that the focus on distance has made the modern game very one-dimensional and diminishes the enjoyment of shotmaking to the extent that new players to the game don’t really appreciate how much of the game it used to be and how much pleasure can be gained from it.

 

I've never really understood the term "shotmaking", but I know how others define it, so I'll use that definition.

I agree that someone brand new to the game doesn't understand shotmaking, or how much a part of the game it was in the 1970s.

I don't believe, however, that a <2 HCP who started playing in the Pro V1 era just tries to hit stock shots, and doesn't understand what shot calls for what shape.

I see great young amateurs shaping it into protected pins, knocking it down, etc. all the time. The fact that they never played with wound balls and wooden clubs like you and I did doesn't mean they don't understand "shotmaking".

 

In any sport or profession, the people who came before believe they had it more difficult than the newer people. To me, that's how this whole debate smells if we're all being honest.

(This, of course, purposely ignores our friends who stay up at night worrying about whether professional golfers will play a handful of courses the way a bunch of dead people wanted them to be played, because I honestly don't care about that, and neither does the vast majority of the USGA's supposed contituents).

 

Having said all of that, I am 110% certain that an equipment rollback (ball, driver, or both) would benefit me personally in my meaningless local matches and tournaments. I've been in the game long enough to determine within a few swings which guys with my same index would struggle greatly if we even went back in time to 2000. I'm just not sold that it would be a net benefit for golf as a whole. Hope that makes sense.

 

And, thanks for being civil!

[mahonie]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @mahonie said:

>

> > I agree that most players care about hitting irons, wedges, etc well but the issue is that irons and wedges are not as easy to hit well as the modern driver is now and that’s just backwards in my thinking. The driver should be the hardest to hit club but the 460cc head and balls that don’t spin arguably make it the easiest. Now if fairway woods, irons and wedges could be ‘dumbed down’ to the level that the driver has, the game would grow exponentially. Perhaps the USGA/R&A should let the size of the other clubs grow to the same extent that the driver has so that they are all in proportion again and the whole game becomes much easier and more attractive to the masses...heaven forbid!

> >

> > My real issue is that the focus on distance has made the modern game very one-dimensional and diminishes the enjoyment of shotmaking to the extent that new players to the game don’t really appreciate how much of the game it used to be and how much pleasure can be gained from it.

>

> I've never really understood the term "shotmaking", but I know how others define it, so I'll use that definition.

> I agree that someone brand new to the game doesn't understand shotmaking, or how much a part of the game it was in the 1970s.

> I don't believe, however, that a <2 HCP who started playing in the Pro V1 era just tries to hit stock shots, and doesn't understand what shot calls for what shape.

> I see great young amateurs shaping it into protected pins, knocking it down, etc. all the time. The fact that they never played with wound balls and wooden clubs like you and I did doesn't mean they don't understand "shotmaking".

>

> In any sport or profession, the people who came before believe they had it more difficult than the newer people. To me, that's how this whole debate smells if we're all being honest.

> (This, of course, purposely ignores our friends who stay up at night worrying about whether professional golfers will play a handful of courses the way a bunch of dead people wanted them to be played, because I honestly don't care about that, and neither does the vast majority of the USGA's supposed contituents).

>

> Having said all of that, I am 110% certain that an equipment rollback (ball, driver, or both) would benefit me personally in my meaningless local matches and tournaments. I've been in the game long enough to determine within a few swings which guys with my same index would struggle greatly if we even went back in time to 2000. I'm just not sold that it would be a net benefit for golf as a whole. Hope that makes sense.

>

> And, thanks for being civil!

 

No worries...It does make sense...totally! I play with a lot of guys who are older than me and they would absolutely hate rolling anything back and I think it’s already gone too far to do anything about it.

 

I don’t feel that we had it more difficult playing old-fashioned gear, I just think it was more enjoyable. Watching Seve getting into the same positions that I did but then playing a miraculous recovery shot or Faldo shaping his way round a course is what inspired me to play. I get that the better younger players understand shotmaking, the difference is they rarely need to use different shots. Tiger alluded to it in the video I posted earlier.

 

I just feel a bit sorry for the younger generations as a whole who are only playing half of the game which, it seems, doesn’t have the hold over them like the ‘full’ game does for our generation.

[smashdn]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> I am simply saying I like golf, and I am willing to watch at least some of every event that I can tune in to. I couldn't tell you anything specific either. Just that I watched some of it. I can watch old events like the shell world of golf events. Old masters footage and find enjoyment in all of it. I don't feel the need to hold on to the past to make it interesting. I think watching Rory hit driver now is one of the most fun things to watch on a golf course.

>

> Golf about the whole more than its parts, if distance is a problem, and if @"15th Club" changed his argument I may be convinced it is. But, if distance is a problem. You have to look at the whole. Not just a single part being the ball. You have to look at course set up other than length. You cannot make a course too long for tour pros. You have to look at equipment as a whole, not the just the ball. See my point? there are so many things that can be done. Other than just single out the ball.

 

I think the ball gets picked upon because it would be the easiest, least intrusive way to effect change. Every shot involves the ball. Not every shot is hit with a wedge or driver or putter. You would need to regulate and change much more than just the ball if you looked at equipment as a whole. It would be a ton harder to regulate. But I do agree the cause of the distance gains is much more than the ball. But also tend to think that the best way, given all the other issues you get into with broader changes, is to start with the ball.

[smashdn]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> I've never really understood the term "shotmaking", but I know how others define it, so I'll use that definition.

> I agree that someone brand new to the game doesn't understand shotmaking, or how much a part of the game it was in the 1970s.

> I don't believe, however, that a <2 HCP who started playing in the Pro V1 era just tries to hit stock shots, and doesn't understand what shot calls for what shape.

> I see great young amateurs shaping it into protected pins, knocking it down, etc. all the time. The fact that they never played with wound balls and wooden clubs like you and I did doesn't mean they don't understand "shotmaking".

>

> In any sport or profession, the people who came before believe they had it more difficult than the newer people. To me, that's how this whole debate smells if we're all being honest.

> (This, of course, purposely ignores our friends who stay up at night worrying about whether professional golfers will play a handful of courses the way a bunch of dead people wanted them to be played, because I honestly don't care about that, and neither does the vast majority of the USGA's supposed contituents).

>

> Having said all of that, I am 110% certain that an equipment rollback (ball, driver, or both) would benefit me personally in my meaningless local matches and tournaments. I've been in the game long enough to determine within a few swings which guys with my same index would struggle greatly if we even went back in time to 2000. I'm just not sold that it would be a net benefit for golf as a whole. Hope that makes sense.

>

> And, thanks for being civil!

 

I've seen interviews and read them where the PGA Tour guys don't really shape the ball any longer. They hit their stock shot and shape 99% of the time because it is predictable. I wish I could cite them at the moment but I cannot. Those that come to mind are JB Holmes and Zach Johnson but I could be recalling that incorrectly.

 

One of the most fantastic shots I have seen played was Bubba Watson from the straw right on #10 at AGNC.

 

I've said before, and I am not sure how to do it, but if you could get the ball to fly lower it would force moving the ball left and right.

[SNIPERBBB]

> @smashdn said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > I am simply saying I like golf, and I am willing to watch at least some of every event that I can tune in to. I couldn't tell you anything specific either. Just that I watched some of it. I can watch old events like the shell world of golf events. Old masters footage and find enjoyment in all of it. I don't feel the need to hold on to the past to make it interesting. I think watching Rory hit driver now is one of the most fun things to watch on a golf course.

> >

> > Golf about the whole more than its parts, if distance is a problem, and if @"15th Club" changed his argument I may be convinced it is. But, if distance is a problem. You have to look at the whole. Not just a single part being the ball. You have to look at course set up other than length. You cannot make a course too long for tour pros. You have to look at equipment as a whole, not the just the ball. See my point? there are so many things that can be done. Other than just single out the ball.

>

> I think the ball gets picked upon because it would be the easiest, least intrusive way to effect change. Every shot involves the ball. Not every shot is hit with a wedge or driver or putter. You would need to regulate and change much more than just the ball if you looked at equipment as a whole. It would be a ton harder to regulate. But I do agree the cause of the distance gains is much more than the ball. But also tend to think that the best way, given all the other issues you get into with broader changes, is to start with the ball.

 

Changing the ball will help short term...then its a new arms race in clubs to deal with the new ball. Its a never ending cycle.

[smashdn]

> @SNIPERBBB said:

> Changing the ball will help short term...then its a new arms race in clubs to deal with the new ball. Its a never ending cycle.

 

What do you have left when COR is regulated and the way iron manufacturers have been engineering distance is by decreasing loft in relation to the number on the bottom of the club? They can drive weight low to get the COG low which promotes a higher flight. I guess that does add real performance distance now that your 7i is an old 5i loft but flys as high as an old 7i as well.

 

I don't really care how far people hit their irons. I kind of tune it out with the talking heads gush about guys hitting 7i into 205 yard par threes. That also is somewhat a product of the increase in driver distance. The gap you have to cover with your 12 remaining clubs (14 minus driver and putter) grows.

 

I guess the crux of the matter is do you want golf to be a game of distance or a game of accuracy? In the past there were a rare few who possessed both. Now distance is maybe too easy to get without regard for losing accuracy. That balance has been altered. Maybe that is the bottom line, what balance do we want to keep the competitive balance alive?

[QuigleyDU]

> @smashdn said:

> > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > Changing the ball will help short term...then its a new arms race in clubs to deal with the new ball. Its a never ending cycle.

>

> What do you have left when COR is regulated and the way iron manufacturers have been engineering distance is by decreasing loft in relation to the number on the bottom of the club? They can drive weight low to get the COG low which promotes a higher flight. I guess that does add real performance distance now that your 7i is an old 5i loft but flys as high as an old 7i as well.

>

> I don't really care how far people hit their irons. I kind of tune it out with the talking heads gush about guys hitting 7i into 205 yard par threes. That also is somewhat a product of the increase in driver distance. The gap you have to cover with your 12 remaining clubs (14 minus driver and putter) grows.

>

> I guess the crux of the matter is do you want golf to be a game of distance or a game of accuracy? In the past there were a rare few who possessed both. Now distance is maybe too easy to get without regard for losing accuracy. That balance has been altered. Maybe that is the bottom line, what balance do we want to keep the competitive balance alive?

 

If we for giggles sake agree that distance is a problem (although I do not there is). I think the only location that distance is a problem is off the tee. I would be much more willing to have driver limited to 400 cc's or 390 cc's. than change the ball. I don't think that people care as much about how far a wedge is going.

[SNIPERBBB]

IF you really wanted to test accuracy, go to more postage stamp style greens where you only have 1-2 clubs you can hit only the green with outside of wedge range. Greens you can land a small jet on are more offensive to me than anything.

[Krt22]

> @smashdn said:

> > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > Changing the ball will help short term...then its a new arms race in clubs to deal with the new ball. Its a never ending cycle.

>

> What do you have left when COR is regulated and the way iron manufacturers have been engineering distance is by decreasing loft in relation to the number on the bottom of the club? They can drive weight low to get the COG low which promotes a higher flight. I guess that does add real performance distance now that your 7i is an old 5i loft but flys as high as an old 7i as well.

>

> I don't really care how far people hit their irons. I kind of tune it out with the talking heads gush about guys hitting 7i into 205 yard par threes. That also is somewhat a product of the increase in driver distance. The gap you have to cover with your 12 remaining clubs (14 minus driver and putter) grows.

>

> I guess the crux of the matter is do you want golf to be a game of distance or a game of accuracy? In the past there were a rare few who possessed both. Now distance is maybe too easy to get without regard for losing accuracy. That balance has been altered. Maybe that is the bottom line, what balance do we want to keep the competitive balance alive?

 

Perhaps you are on to something. Make the pros only use 10 clubs instead of 14. Long hitters will have to "shot make" more with the bigger gaps between clubs.

[QuigleyDU]

> @SNIPERBBB said:

> IF you really wanted to test accuracy, go to more postage stamp style greens where you only have 1-2 clubs you can hit only the green with outside of wedge range. Greens you can land a small jet on are more offensive to me than anything.

 

This, I completely agree with!! This is a perfect example of how you can design or set up a course without altering length and make it difficult. The tour stops have greens that are huge!!. I play a local dog track that is a super simple course but I never score well there because the greens are very small and the are like upside down cereal bowls.

[Krt22]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > IF you really wanted to test accuracy, go to more postage stamp style greens where you only have 1-2 clubs you can hit only the green with outside of wedge range. Greens you can land a small jet on are more offensive to me than anything.

>

> This, I completely agree with!! This is a perfect example of how you can design or set up a course without altering length and make it difficult. The tour stops have greens that are huge!!. I play a local dog track that is a super simple course but I never score well there because the greens are very small and the are like upside down cereal bowls.

 

I think the larger greens are to offer a variety of pin positions. Well designed courses have well defined landing areas where you basically are looking at a 3-putt if you dont land it in the right area for the given pin. Even with that though, the longer hitters will still be at an advantage since they will typically have a a shorter iron in hand than the short knockers.

[SNIPERBBB]

It doesnt take big greens to offer a lot of pin locations or three putt risks.

[dlygrisse]

Fusion of:

1. Driver COR-faster players get exponentially longer, while shorter hitters don't pick up much. tour pro gets 40 extra yards, I get 10. If we both picked up 40 then all is fair.

2. Tee height, with larger head, high launch and low spin.

3. Modern Ball

4. Driver Size-swing harder more forgiving no fear of hitting it dead sideways like persimmon.

5. Shaft Length, lighter shaft.

7. Firmer Fairways

8. Player fitness-This is a bit over blown, Hogan, Player and Snead were in great shape, as were others, they just didn't post on Instagram.

9. Technique and modern tech in teaching-overrated as well, but I am sure it has had a minor impact.

 

In that order, in my humble opinion. But they are all a factor.

[dlygrisse]

> @SNIPERBBB said:

> It doesnt take big greens to offer a lot of pin locations or three putt risks.

 

Changing greens on all the courses would be ridiculous anyway. Great courses differ based on topography and the conditions. Good courses generally have small greens on shorter holes and larger targets on longer holes. it's all about variety and design strategery . I do love a good short risk/reward hole though, and I think most golfers do.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @smashdn said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > I've never really understood the term "shotmaking", but I know how others define it, so I'll use that definition.

> > I agree that someone brand new to the game doesn't understand shotmaking, or how much a part of the game it was in the 1970s.

> > I don't believe, however, that a <2 HCP who started playing in the Pro V1 era just tries to hit stock shots, and doesn't understand what shot calls for what shape.

> > I see great young amateurs shaping it into protected pins, knocking it down, etc. all the time. The fact that they never played with wound balls and wooden clubs like you and I did doesn't mean they don't understand "shotmaking".

> >

> > In any sport or profession, the people who came before believe they had it more difficult than the newer people. To me, that's how this whole debate smells if we're all being honest.

> > (This, of course, purposely ignores our friends who stay up at night worrying about whether professional golfers will play a handful of courses the way a bunch of dead people wanted them to be played, because I honestly don't care about that, and neither does the vast majority of the USGA's supposed contituents).

> >

> > Having said all of that, I am 110% certain that an equipment rollback (ball, driver, or both) would benefit me personally in my meaningless local matches and tournaments. I've been in the game long enough to determine within a few swings which guys with my same index would struggle greatly if we even went back in time to 2000. I'm just not sold that it would be a net benefit for golf as a whole. Hope that makes sense.

> >

> > And, thanks for being civil!

>

> I've seen interviews and read them where the PGA Tour guys don't really shape the ball any longer. They hit their stock shot and shape 99% of the time because it is predictable. I wish I could cite them at the moment but I cannot. Those that come to mind are JB Holmes and Zach Johnson but I could be recalling that incorrectly.

>

> **One of the most fantastic shots I have seen played was Bubba Watson from the straw right on #10 at AGNC.**

>

> I've said before, and I am not sure how to do it, but if you could get the ball to fly lower it would force moving the ball left and right.

 

With, I believe, a Pro V1x.

All joking aside, we talk about the great "shotmaking" in memories, but only mention a select few when referencing it. Sure, Seve did whatever he wanted with the ball, but:

Did Trevino hit a lot of high draws under the gun? Did Nicklaus curve it both ways a lot? More modernly, Montgomerie? Couples? Lehman? All great "shotmakers" in the wound ball era, but would never be called "shotmakers" if they played elite golf today, by today's nostalgic standards of shotmaking.

[SNIPERBBB]

Shotmaking is what you do when you're 40yards deep in the trees.

 

[Titleist99]

> @Sandhurst241069 said:

> I think you need to extrapolate things forward a little more. Young players brought up with the modern 46 inch 460cc 300 gram “driver” - a new club introduced into the game of golf for all intents and purposes (lets call it the maxidriver!) - and now honed for the elite player in combination with the multi-layer solid core ball - are swinging harder and harder. Cameron Champ is not the end game here folks... eventually the outlier athletes with LDA swing speeds 150mph + will find their way onto the tour because the driver disproportionately favours speed over precision and manoeuvrability. The ball needs to be looked at for sure .. but I’d just as soon see the maxidriver rolled back to make driving the ball a more balanced skillset and re-introduce the element of risk when swinging all out from the tee... absolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control).

 

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.

[15th Club]

> @dlygrisse said:

> Fusion of:

> 1. Driver COR-faster players get exponentially longer, while shorter hitters don't pick up much. tour pro gets 40 extra yards, I get 10. If we both picked up 40 then all is fair.

> 2. Tee height, with larger head, high launch and low spin.

> 3. Modern Ball

> 4. Driver Size-swing harder more forgiving no fear of hitting it dead sideways like persimmon.

> 5. Shaft Length, lighter shaft.

> 7. Firmer Fairways

> 8. Player fitness-This is a bit over blown, Hogan, Player and Snead were in great shape, as were others, they just didn't post on Instagram.

> 9. Technique and modern tech in teaching-overrated as well, but I am sure it has had a minor impact.

>

> In that order, in my humble opinion. But they are all a factor.

 

 

 

This will be about the fourth time in this thread, and literally the umpteenth time I have mentioned it in these ongoing debates; golf's ruling bodies don't care about all of these "factors." Actually, they might recognize all of them or at least some of them, but it doesn't matter:

 

1. "Driver COR" (it's "CT" actually): It's been limited, it won't be rolled back any time in the foreseeable future insofar as millions of recreational players spent hard-earned money on conforming drivers. Maybe we'll get to a groove rule-type condition of competition. But I doubt it.

2. Tee height: I gotta confess I do love the notion of limiting the height of tees to 2 3/4". It wasn't even my idea. But the whole idea would be to jam different driver designs down players' throats, with tees that simply didn't fit most 460cc drivers. Fine with me, but not so much with all of those recreational players referenced in #1.

3. Modern ball. Bingo. We could stop there. The most fungible, forgettable, financially-insignificant (except to Acushnet Holdings Corporation shareholders) part of the game of golf.

4. Driver size. See #1.

5. Shaft length, lighter shaft. Just maybe, new ball specifications (a minmum spin requirement when hit with driver?!?) would convince the longest hitters to scale back. But here again we are talking about drivers.

6. What happened to 6?

7. Firmer fairways. A feature, not a bug, in great golf. Firmer fairways are not a problem and are nothing to be fixed. Other things in golf should always be adjusted to accommodate firm and fast conditions wherever possible.

8. Player fitness: Uh, there won't be any regulations on player fitness. If "player fitness" someday produces 400-yard driving averages, it will have been long overdue to have done something about golf ball performance.

9. Technique, teaching, launch monitors, prenatal vitamins, you name it: see above.

 

[Titleist99]

Here's my reality....Lets say that a Touring pro hits his average drive 300 yards(which most average around 290) they have

to hit it straight. Most pros hit their pitching wedge 150 yrs. which is ridiculous right there. Golf must evolve

so the sport can advance and prosper. Everyone plays the same course...half the Pros hit their driver straighter than that wedge

....LOL! Golf has been changing since the feathery and the lawn mower...

[Krt22]

What is ridiculous about a 150 yard PW?

 

[SNIPERBBB]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @Sandhurst241069 said:

> > I think you need to extrapolate things forward a little more. Young players brought up with the modern 46 inch 460cc 300 gram “driver” - a new club introduced into the game of golf for all intents and purposes (lets call it the maxidriver!) - and now honed for the elite player in combination with the multi-layer solid core ball - are swinging harder and harder. Cameron Champ is not the end game here folks... eventually the outlier athletes with LDA swing speeds 150mph + will find their way onto the tour because the driver disproportionately favours speed over precision and manoeuvrability. The ball needs to be looked at for sure .. but I’d just as soon see the maxidriver rolled back to make driving the ball a more balanced skillset and re-introduce the element of risk when swinging all out from the tee... absolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control).

>

> 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.

 

Amateur level(metal bats) has been rolling back bats and balls for 20 years. Mainly for safety concerns, so much so that they were putting warning labels on bats! Kids are getting bigger and stronger and parents getting more litigious.

[Titleist99]

~~~~> @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.

>

>

>

>

Well said...Furthermore, they can set up a 7100 yard golf course where no one breaks par if they wanted to by tucking the pins,

growing the rough and making bunkers real hazards. Rolling back the equipment should be the last alternative.

The Pgatour like the pros going low other than a few tournaments..