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

[smashdn]

The struggling pro golfers will tee off wherever the tournament tells them to tee off from that day and they will like it or they can withdraw.

[smashdn]

Nobody was filing lawsuits because the unchecked distances were making them spend those millions.

[15th Club]

Describe exactly which courses you are talking about.

Explain how any course would be “out that money.”

If “this doesn’t affect the normal golfer,” then explain the breadth and nature of whatever problem it is that you see.

And as far as “lawsuits” go, who are you anticipating as plaintiffs; what will be their cause(s) of action, and who will the defendant(s) be?

[bscinstnct]

 

A month?

 

This is not just about a shorter ball and shorter courses. The goal, as I understand it as stated here and by those who favor a roll back, is to completely change the fundamentals of how the game is played.

 

Right? People are tired of Driver/wedge. They want the “old days”. A premium on accuracy, more consequences for a poor drive, more long irons into greens. More Faldo like strategy requires to skillfully navigate a golf course.

 

Here is a stat that backs up that argument:

 

“In 1980 the correlation between a PGA Tour player's driving accuracy and his scoring average was 53%; between driving distance and scoring average, a mere 13%. In 2017 the correlation between driving accuracy and scoring average was 12%; the correlation between distance and scoring average was 44%.”

https://www.si.com/golf/2019/02/06/golf-ball-driving-distance-rollback-debate-usga

 

I get the argument and agree with it to an extent.

 

But, it’s not just a question of the guys getting used to a new ball like they acclimate themselves to the different weekly conditions on tour.

 

It’s a complete relearning of how to play golf. And they ain’t gonna let it happen.

[Titleist99]

I'm An Old timer and I totally agree with you. Seems as if some is trying to hold on to their father and grand father's game. I say let the game evolve, let the ball fly. The Game has never been better in my Opinion. They have tournaments with nothing but old equipment being used, If you notice,,,,none is being televised. that should tell us something.

[trilerian]

The reason courses have been lengthened is because the pros play those lengths. Isn't that one of the biggest reasons for the ball rollback people, so courses don't have to lengthen? Roll back the ball too far and the distances those courses play are now irrelevant. Those courses could claim that the only reason they spent the money was because of modern distances and they needed that to attract the players that wanted to be like the pros.

I'm not a legal guy, but even I can see that these types of lawsuits could happen. Whether or not they would win, or even get to court is another argument. But before you say "no, not possible", remember that a crook who gets hurt robbing your house can sue you.

[15th Club]

Well I’m a legal guy.

And I cannot understand what you are talking about.

What I wanted from you were some specific examples, to try to illustrate what you might have been trying to convey.

[trilerian]

I don't need to provide specific examples. I'm not going to file a lawsuit. But if you think a lawyer couldn't come up with a reason to sue whoever makes it a rule to play a limited flight ball, then you aren't a good legal person. If you think that because I can't make a convincing argument on its merits, means that a good lawyer can't, you aren't a good legal person...

I don't get it, do you just want to argue to argue? I've stated that a limited flight ball wouldn't be horrible at the tour level, you just can't disregard the changes that courses have already made by limiting the flight too much. You also can't make the short hitters on tour have no chance at competing.

[bscinstnct]

 

You know, you may be right because if the USGA/RA tries to tell the guys who actually play the Pro game that they are about to mess with their livelihoods, the players will just tell the PGA Tour “no” and the tour will tell the usga/ra to forget it.

 

They can’t mandate that Titleist make their new ball or players use it. Only that this ball must be played at certain events.

 

So, here’s what happens. The players and tour promote their own majors and the US Open can have a *lot more amateurs in it ; )

 

Although, the USGA/RA might start their own lawsuits when the pga tour rolls out “The American Open” and the “British Open”....

[smashdn]

They are welcome to continue to play whatever style of golf they see fit. What they may want to play may not be as conducive to scoring though.

 

I can only speak to my personal wishes so don't lump my wants in with anybody else in the "rollback crowd," I just hope there to be a balance of styles of play that can win in any given week. That correlation to scoring that you posted points to what I personally would like to see. Less importance on pure distance and more on accuracy. For me, the heart of golf is to first control your ball. The second goal is to hit your golf ball a long way while controlling it. At some threshold of distance the need to control the ball became secondary to distance. My uneducated guess is the threshold is about 155-170 yards. When iron shots start getting much shorter than that for all players there is less ability to separate and "test" that accuracy. The courses didn't change to shift that balance, I don't want them to change to restore it. Correct what changed. To my eye that is the equipment. To what extent you roll back the equipment is anyone's guess. I, personally, would start with the ball because it is the cheapest and is involved with every shot. A spinnier ball with no distance reduction is a different animal to play with.

[Soloman1]

If you're still fighting the Civil War and can't figure out the metric system, I don't see how any change could be made in the next 200 years.

[15th Club]

”I don't need to provide specific examples....”

I don’t think that you can provide any real, serious examples in support of your earlier comment.

”I'm not going to file a lawsuit. But if you think a lawyer couldn't come up with a reason to sue whoever makes it a rule to play a limited flight ball, then you aren't a good legal person. If you think that because I can't make a convincing argument on its merits, means that a good lawyer can't, you aren't a good legal person...”

Don’t do that with me, sport. I’ve spent years in this debate, suggesting (as has Jack Nicklaus) that the one big impediment to a ball rollback is the specific threat of litigation on the part of Titleist’s parent corporation versus golf’s ruling bodies. I am hopeful that:

1) The USGA and R&A are well prepared for litigation, and have spent the last two decades preparing data that will support their defense;

2) The ruling bodies will be unafraid of litigation threats;

3) A federal judge will dismiss any claim that the ruling bodies are not perfectly capable and within their rights to set rules for the game as they have for more than 100 years;

4) Every big star in golf — past, present and future — who does not have a Titleist contract comes out in support of the ruling bodies and against Titleist, and;

5) Titleist loses.

Better than any of that, would be Titleist — a great company and a super golf brand — deciding not to litigate in the first place.

“I don't get it, do you just want to argue to argue? I've stated that a limited flight ball wouldn't be horrible at the tour level, you just can't disregard the changes that courses have already made by limiting the flight too much. You also can't make the short hitters on tour have no chance at competing.”

Yes, I want to argue. I want to argue against all of the nonsensical things that you keep bringing up in this debate. The single most important debate in golf.

I have asked you repeatedly for examples of golf courses that would require difficult/expensive renovations in the event of a rollback. You seem unable to do that.

You suggest that a rollback might leave “short hitters on tour” with no chance to compete. I have no idea where that comes from, or what the data is, since there is no actual rollback prototype in public yet.

[15th Club]

[trilerian]

Well that's not a political post at all... Do you want the thread locked?Do you think a ball the spins more would be enough? How much more spin? Are we talking wedges can't hold greens because they spin back too much? I'm only curious, I think this may be able to work. At least until manufacturers developed even lower spin shafts and heads. I suppose restrictions could be placed on that as well though.

[QuigleyDU]

 

Interestingly to your less distance more accuracy idea. Bryson has both gotten longer and more accurate... Scary.

[bscinstnct]

 

“They are welcome to continue to play whatever style of golf they see fit. What they may want to play may not be as conducive to scoring though.”

 

And that underlines my point on having to relearn the game. And why they will say “no” and it will never happen.

 

The pros are too busy, frankly, to mollify the USGA and old time HoF nostalgia.

 

If they want to change the whole way the game is played, they will need to start with a new generation.

 

Im not opposed to that at all.

[15th Club]

Trash talk.

The PGA Tour wants nothing to do with the Rules or equipment testing. They love having the ruling bodies do that difficult, expensive, thankless task for them.

And here is what I really want to say to you: I think it is a fiction, that all current Tour players oppose any rollback. I think a very large number of them want it. But they can’t say anything publicly under their endorsement deals which pay them millions.

[Nels55]

If there is a rollback of the ball then I believe that the USGA and R&A will get some sort of consensus among the various professional tours around the world and the manufacturers before they make the new rules for the golf ball. So there will be no lawsuits.

I don't care if there is a change and I can see that there are good arguments on both sides of this one. There are also a number of different possible solutions. LOL I guess that I would not mind seeing a bigger ball as that would make it easier for me to hit it...

[bscinstnct]

 

Here is what the tour said this year, looks to me like a strong disagreement and I’d be very surprised if they allowed any thing that impacted the success of their product.

 

“The PGA Tour will continue to work with the USGA and the R&A in monitoring trends. At this point, we feel today’s game is more exciting than ever for our fans and the integrity of the competitions are intact – we still see a diverse set of winners on the PGA Tour and our examination of the data reveals that the skills involved in winning a PGA Tour event remain largely unchanged. But we are carefully reviewing the findings in the Distance Insights Report and we will collaborate with all of our industry partners, including the USGA and the R&A, on the next steps in the process.”

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/dont-expect-pga-tour-embrace-distance-rollback?amp

[15th Club]

A very sensible and sober comment.

And guess what; that is EXACTLY what the USGA has been quietly doing for years. The best lawyers aren’t the ones who win unpredictable jury trials. The best lawyers are the ones who avoid litigation altogether.

[15th Club]

Yeah; as usual, the Tour Policy Board gets its standard representation out of Titleist. This year it’s Charley Hoffman.

[ChaosTheory]

It's not as if the distance gains are finished. Bryson today, probably a handful tomorrow, and then more after that. We kept being told that distance was just about maxed out, but it never is. And it won't be until there is a roll back of some sort. It's inevitable.

I contrast it with baseball. Despite all of the strength and conditioning and science, MLB batters today don't hit it any farther than Babe Ruth did ninety years ago. They could still play the same parks as he did, with the same degree of challenge.

[trilerian]

A bigger golf ball. I hit a dodge ball the other day that was in my yard. That was pretty crazy. I know, not where you were going with that statement. You really need to go back and read my posts again. I said nothing about golf ball companies suing anybody. I said golf courses suing because they spent money on renovations that didn't need to be spent because a shorter course is now eligible for a tour venue. The idea being they made an investment based on the rules being a status quo, then the rules changed and negated said investment. And yes, a good lawyer could definitely argue it. As to the courses that have done it, pick any of the courses you say have had to change their layout because of distance issues and destroyed its architecture. Ooh, another lawsuit there, a course that had to destroy its history to accommodate the tour, which decided it was going to rollback the ball, which means the course didn't need to destroy its history.

"Nonsensical things" I keep posting? I said grow the rough and narrow the fairways. That's nonsensical? I said limit the flight by a small amount, that's nonsensical? As to the short hitters on tour, yes, too much a rollback without decreasing the distance played will put them at a severe disadvantage. What you are suggesting is too extreme.

[15th Club]

“You really need to go back and read my posts again. I said nothing about golf ball companies suing anybody. I said golf courses suing because they spent money on renovations that didn't need to be spent because a shorter course is now eligible for a tour venue. The idea being they made an investment based on the rules being a status quo, then the rules changed and negated said investment. And yes, a good lawyer could definitely argue it. As to the courses that have done it, pick any of the courses you say have had to change their layout because of distance issues and destroyed its architecture. Ooh, another lawsuit there, a course that had to destroy its history to accommodate the tour, which decided it was going to rollback the ball, which means the course didn't need to destroy its history.”

So what courses are you talking about? Be specific.

And what would they sue for?

I understand you’re not a lawyer or a litigator. I am both. And I have no idea what you are talking about.

And seriously, without taking everyone into tall legal weeds, let’s just be practical golfers talking plainly about golf courses. What golf course can you think of, that can’t simply and easily accommodate itself to a slightly reduced-flight golf ball for elite competitions? For 98% of the world’s golf courses, a reduced-flight golf ball is the only thing that could make such a thing a practical opportunity.

[bscinstnct]

 

You’re a lawyer and litigator. You negotiate for a living. So, you are aware that the players hold all the cards here.

 

The PGA Tour just cut a $680MM deal over the next 9 years, the players have never made so much money.

 

There is no way they will approve such a fundamental change and potential threat to their product. And the player won’t accept any risk to their earnings potential.

 

And that 9 year TV deal? No way the sponsors or networks stand by while the USGA makes changes to the game that could impact fan interest as long as that deal is in place

 

Ultimately, there is pro-golf without the USGA. But there is no pro golf without the players and the PGA Tour.

 

This battle is over before it even starts. The best the USGA can hope to do in introduce the concept for future generations.

 

 

[mahonie]

How hard do you think the game was when you only had persimmon, blades and balata? Modern generation seems to think they can play the game without working at it and with a complete lack of skill.

[mahonie]

PGA Tour holds the cards and has all the players in it’s pocket. If you look at the birth of the PGA Tour you will see it’s always been about maximising the purse for the players and the PGA Tour administrators. All of the European Tour players are dropping down the World rankings as the PGA Tour has insisted that their tournaments can still award ranking points even though there no other tours playing. Several European Tour players can no longer qualify for WGC events and a lot of bitterness is building.

I can see a point where the PGA Tour will have no choice but to split from the rest of golf and play by its own rules. The rest of the world can then get on with the business of playing proper golf.

[chillybilly]

And here we go - forums on any subject all suffer this disease apparently. Someone deliberately misinterpreting a post to be a smartass. And if not misinterpreted then being a smartass anyway.

The point was that Jack has nothing to gain especially now. Actually, why am I bothering? Ignore button engaged.

[15th Club]

“You’re a lawyer and litigator. You negotiate for a living. So, you are aware that the players hold all the cards here.”

I accept no such thing.

I say again; neither the PGA of America, nor the PGA Tour, are set up for equipment testing. More than anything, they want no part of the expense, the technical burden, or the liability for testing equipment.

You talk about “the players” as being unified against a ball rollback. With no evidence of that.

We might agree that neither the USGA, nor Titleist, nor the PGA Tour want potentially ruinous litigation. But boy, when we get into the business of the most self-interested golfers on the planet determining the future of the game... that’s a fight I really, really want.

[adl300]

I am sure it was a different game. even tennis with wooden rackets was a different game. I have to be honest and say that I prefer golf as it is now. i am trying to go out and there and have fun. i don't want to hit balata balls with a persimmon club and punt it out there all day. so why change the golf ball now?