Monty says a new tour ball is needed to counter Bryson DeChambeau's crazy distance

[gvogel]

A ball that goes farther doesn't make the game any more accessible. A ball that goes shorter can be just as enjoyable, if you play a shorter golf course.

[smashdn]

"...gain life long expertise with it to excel at the pro level."

So do you need a lifetime to gain expertise with a ball change or no? Seems Tiger can switch from Titleist to Nike to Bridgestone and not really have all that much difficulty.

Or is it that you only need "life long expertise" to excel when the changes are not of your own volition?

Here's a real mind screw, how do those guys adapt to new driver's every year?

 

And the best part of any of this regarding a ball change, we already, with a good deal of certainty, know how the ball will perform and what the game will look like if there is a roll-back because we have already been there! Yes, professional golf has already been played with balls that go shorter distances. Long drivers were still long. Short hitters were still short. A 7200 yard course was long and an ~560 yard par five was about the point where guys had to really contemplate whether attempting to go for it in two shots was the prudent play.

Crazy.

[smashdn]

Not to mention seam height on the different balls. Give a major league pitcher a high school baseball and he could throw a curve with 6' of break.

[trilerian]

In tennis it's not about the historic nature of the event, it's about the surface. On clay they actually use a ball that speeds up the game since clay is pretty slow. I will admit that Wimbledon takes it a step further by opening all balls the morning of the tournament and storing them at 68* court side, where every other event balls are opened as needed. But, I could get on board with a venue specific ball for an event, however I think a 20% reduction in distance is a bit extreme. I think more of a 10% cut seems good, even at 10% short hitters are going to struggle. I'm not sure what type of legal issues this brings up though. I'm not in any way a legal expert, but I would think that unless the PGA has any contracts or implied agreements with any ball manufacturer, it wouldn't be an issue. Just let all the ball manufactures bid on their "tour" ball for the venue.

Is it the right answer? I don't know. I think growing out the rough and narrowing fairways is a better option, making risk reward more penal. I like watching the pros hit long bombs, I like watching them go low.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Bryson gained 25 pounds of muscle, got really strong drives farther now and Monty says we need to shorten the ball? Monty likely just said that to make Bryson feel good. No sane person could actually think that?

When I was young, I hit quite a few flyers with persimmon and Balata, and if I were a good player I would have hit many more longer shots. The courses were all shorter back then too.

Sometime in the 1980s and 1990s, courses started getting longer. After that, all the people I knew started working on their long game more and more. At one point, all the good players ended up devoting more than half their time on the long game. The cause of the longer ball was the competition to design longer courses due to the misconception that only longer is more challenging.

To combat this, equipment makers made more consistent clubs to help players as best as they could, and a newly created field of “fitting” was created to fully optimise any players capabilities.

The equipment makers and new wave of “fitters” only increased the average distances, not the maximum. That was just to help combat the new wave of course designers.

Prior to that time period, I don’t recall too many conversations about driving distances. Most just played their game of strategy and placement.

The real difference between modern equipment and wood is consistency over all playing conditions and not maximum distance.

The fact that Bryson got stronger and now hits farther only helps prove that distance increases are likely due to better fitness in golf and the modern player is stronger than past players.

That and the science of golf fitness is much more evolved.

[chillybilly]

I know that Monty is a lightning rod but as someone who seeks out any non-US stream of golf coverage when it's available I must say that he is an excellent commentator and his dry sense of humor matches my own. He's also been on GC Masters segments and so forth.

In fairness, much of what he says about the ball has been the mantra for many years of none other than Jack William Nicklaus.

A cynic might say that Jack started complaining about the ball when Tiger Woods showed up to hunt the Golden Bear's records but a realist or an optimist would say that Jack, as a student, historian and steward of the game, as well as a course architect, has the game's best interests in mind, especially at age 80.

[smashdn]

I don't understand how short hitters would struggle anymore with a 10% rollback than they do today? If the rollback is even across the board how does it hurt one group more than another?

 

To answer my own questions I could actually see it hurting them in this regard; where certain par fives are no reachable by everyone, giving the entire field basically an opportunity at eagle and a fairly easy two putt birdie, if you now have roughly half the field unable to reach in two it creates some separation ability and places a greater emphasis for those shorter players to strategically play the hole in a way that gives them wedge/short iron third shot that they must stuff for birdie. Plus it may put a long iron in their hands on some par fours. It might give the guys who are accurate long iron players a chance against the long driving guys with a 7 or less in their hands. Wait, I think that shortening the distance the ball goes actually sounds like a good idea where something other than distance gets rewarded such as stringing three good shots together or playing to certain spots.

Long courses benefit long hitters. When everyone in the field can reach a par five in two no one has an advantage. When only the longest hitting guys can hit a par five in two they have the decided advantage.

 

Long is relative. Low is relative.

[15th Club]

So in this comment I want to singularly destroy the untrue, ignorant, idiotic notion — and it is one that is repeated far too often — that somehow, in some way, Jack Nicklaus favors a ball rollback ‘because he wants to protect his records.’

It is nonsense. What records is Nicklaus trying to protect? How would a ball rollback protect any records?

Nicklaus’ one great overwhelming record is 18 majors (more, if we counted US Amateur championships as I agree we should). How would a ball rollback “protect” that record? Is it presumed that a rollback to a slightly shorter, and perhaps spinnier golf ball would personally hurt Tiger Woods more than other players? That’s not true; it is the opposite of true. Tiger would have been even more dominant with balls that were more like mid-nineties golf balls. I think Tiger knows that better than anyone. I think Jack knows that.

Nicklaus began talking to the USGA about golf ball specifications and regulations back in 1977. When Tiger Woods was 2.

Let’s end the embarrassingly dumb idea that ‘Jack Nicklaus wants a ball rollback to protect his records.’ It’s not true; it’s not close to true; it’s not even sensible.

 

[bscinstnct]

 

Great post and you raise good points and questions.

 

Yes, “these guys are good” ; ) They could adapt for sure. Heck, in MLB, you could change the ball, make it lighter and bigger with bigger stitches and give them all an old school stick ball bat. And you’d have guys throwin 6-foot sliders and still able to hit .300!

 

But, having a guy who has played 10 years on tour, developed so many innate feels for how the ball and clubs interact, How the ball will interact with the turf, has dialed in his distance to the foot. And has an ingrained eye for how to play the current set ups on tour courses developed over a decade...

 

Now, what, you’re going to hand Rory a new ball, probably a different set of clubs will be needed, make him 10% shorter, and stick him on courses that play totally differently?

 

And you’re going to tell him this is happening next season! ? Or, you tell him he has a couple of years to get used to the new ball, clubs, and courses and now how and when does he have the time to do this and play 20 events a year and prep for majors?

 

I would actually like too see less Driver/wedge out there. But, if they really want to do this, plan it out, get the ball in the hands of juniors or at least high school age competitive golfers, figure out how to redo all the tour setups. Meantime, put a 5-10 year time frame on the current tour pros to get good with the new gear. And give it time to play out.

 

The current guys on tour will straight up veto this if they try to force them.

 

 

 

 

[15th Club]

The one great freedom that Jack Nicklaus has, to speak freely about a ball rollback, is that he isn’t under contract to Titleist, and never has been.

That’s the fact.

There is much more to it, of course. The historical perspective. The deep involvement with course architecture and development. The past involvement with an equipment company. The profound appreciation for strategic golf in major championships.

But yeah; there is a reason why we hear much more from older players about a ball rollback, than from current tour stars.

Read the fine print in their contracts.

[Nels55]

Why would Titliest care if the ball is rolled back? It would mean the same spec for all manufacturers and they would still have the same market that they have now. As a matter of fact they would sell more balls for a while as many would want to convert to the new spec ball. In a few years it would all be forgotten would it not? LOL other then old timers talking about how far they used to be able to hit it...

[Soloman1]

Course and scoring records are meaningless.

[trilerian]

Knock 10% off the short hitters and then they are hitting 250ish. 7200 yds for someone hitting 250 off the tee is a long way. Short hitters will struggle. If you start playing from shorter distances because of the ball, what's the point?

[Soloman1]

Why do people keep talking about short hitters? This is about a Tour ball, not for amateurs. What's wrong with you people? Are you people trolling?

 

Here, look at this for a few minutes:

[15th Club]

Read their anti-rollback propaganda:https://media.titleist.com/images/titleist/files/US/traditionandtechnology-2019.pdf

The funny thing is that I agree with you. I happen to know that Nicklaus does as well, because he has said so, specifically. Jack thinks that Titleist has “the number one ball,” and that they’d still be number one after a rollback.

So talk to the lawyers at Acushnet Holdings Company, and then come back and tell us what they said.

[gvogel]

The point is that they can play some courses at 6,800 or 6,900 yards, which is good for the game. Maybe even shorter.

If the ball is rolled back, we will all play shorter golf courses. The two are dependent upon one another.

[smashdn]

It broadens the pool of courses that can be played by elite level golfers on all tours and levels. It keeps more of the architectural elements designed within the courses relevant for more golfers. It negates the (perceived) need to lengthen courses. It makes the game more sustainable now and into the future. Acreage requirements go down slightly. You can most always (for elite men anyway) move up a tee and add variety and flexibility to the set up, but you cannot move back further when you have nowhere left to go. Putting a tee box on the other side of public road from the bulk of the hole to provide ample length is silly.

Would not a 380 yard par four play the same as a 450 yard par four with a ball that flys 20% shorter? Would you rather have to build and maintain a 6500 yard course or a 7800 yard course?

 

7200 yards should be a long course at par 72.

[gvogel]

When Rory McIlroy plays at sea level in 55* on the coast of Scotland or Ireland, the ball goes a certain distance. When he plays in Mexico City, the ball goes a lot farther. When he putts at Augusta National, the ball rolls out a long way; in Scotland, not so much.

The best players in the world adjust to different conditions all the time. The human brain is a super computer; it figures out examples such as these all the time.

[Mr. Grumpy]

I am sure this has been said, but I guess all the "crazies" of fora past are now vindicated because Monty is now in that camp?

[adl300]

my comments have nothing to do with Nicklaus's records. i am saying that reducing performance of golf ball will make the game that much harder for average golfers. pros are trend setters. if regulations are in effect for the pros, i am sure that the general public will start using the new golf balls. no need to make the game harder than it is. we need to consider growing the game and increasing its popularity.

[smashdn]

Was going to mention the same thing but you beat me to it. Conditions change how the ball behaves and how far it goes. Heck, humidity and just general dampness changes how the ball rolls on putts.

 

As many balls as these guys hit through a week I would bet that they would have it figured out in that time and certainly no longer than a month of using any ball. They adapt very quickly when hitting to a bermuda green where the ball releases versus a poa or bent green where the ball backs up.

[15th Club]

Here’s Jack Nicklaus, talking specifically about Titleist in the rollback debate: Jack Nicklaus eager to help USGA rein in golf ball distanceAnd here is Wally Uihlein, before his mostly-retirement, firing back:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfchannel.com/news/wally-uihlein-fires-back-jack-nicklaus-ongoing-golf-ball-distance-debate%3famp

[adl300]

average golf course in U.S is 6700 yards. that means an average hole is about 372 yards. an average handicap in U.S is 15. an average golf round with a foursome is 4 hours.

whatever happens on the pga tour is a trend in golf. we all want to play the golf courses that they play, we all want the equipment that they play, etc.

an average golfer doesn't complain that a golf course is too short. no one wants to see their handicap go up. no one wants to take more than 4 hours to play one round of golf.

[Soloman1]

It's a sin that the PGA Tour takes money from Titleist.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Yes, especially at age 80. Much a relevant steward, we should regard every word he utters as gospel no doubt.

[15th Club]

The arguments are:

a) A rollback might be accomplished without much affecting lower swing speeds and the vast majority of recreational play.

b) Most recreational players, right now, are not playing with Tour-level urethane balls, and in any event those urethane balls haven’t done much, distance-wise, for most recreational players.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

I’ll be sure to let struggling players know to tee off from the fairway once the ball is reduced 10%, because the ladies tees just won’t be far forward enough. “You might consider teeing off at the fairway bunker over there .” That certainly would grow the game. Hehehe

[adl300]

i agree that it can be done without affecting lower swing speeds. but why do we need to make this game any harder than it already is? is the game too easy for the tour pros? is Bryson winning more tournaments after he started to whip it 325 plus? this game is won or lost from within 100 yards.

[15th Club]

Do you know how many times I have repeated the mantra that IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO IS WINNING ON THE PGA TOUR...?

The ball rollback initiative is aimed at the entire field, and is intended to protect the integrity of golf courses from a distance perspective.

Not having anything to do with whether any particular player is winning or not.

[trilerian]

I think that may be asking for a lot of lawsuits. If you knock off too much distance then the courses that spent millions to lengthen their courses are essentially out that money. I know, this doesn't affect the normal golfer, but be real. If the Tour guys aren't playing from 8000 yds, what normal guy is going to want to?