distance debate

[Double Mocha Man]

6 hours ago, So_Cal said:

Golfers are way below NBA / NFL players.  Pat Reed on an NBA court.  😂 

Jalen Rose on a golf course.

[kasting333]

8 hours ago, mahonie said:

I'm talking about your second statement.

 

Before 460cc heads and the Pro V1 came along, the maximum, relatively consistent, straight-ish distance I was getting out of my game with persimmon and balata was 220 yards. I just couldn't get a persimmon headed driver in the fairway often enough, it was always 2 fairways over to the right! I could just about control a 3-wood, hence the 220 yard maximum distance.

 

Using the PGA Tour convention that the first cut is classed as fairway (?), nowadays I'm consistently hitting 60-70% and getting it out to 260 yards with a controlled swing, a few yards more if I swing flat out. 

I was questioning driver being the easiest club in the bag to hit. Quite a few easier clubs to hit in the bag, in my opinion. 
 

I also believe the difficulty, and especially the waywardness of persimmon drivers is massively overblown.

[mahonie]

16 minutes ago, kasting333 said:

I was questioning driver being the easiest club in the bag to hit. Quite a few easier clubs to hit in the bag, in my opinion. 
 

I also believe the difficulty, and especially the waywardness of persimmon drivers is massively overblown.

Driver 260 yards and in fairway against PW from 120 yards and within 10 yards of hole...for me driver wins 6/10 times. I have so much more confidence in my driver than any other club except perhaps putter.

 

The only way to check how overblown the waywardness of persimmon drivers versus modern drivers is you would have to do a back-to-back test. When I did that back in the day, it was no comparison. You needed a high level of skill to hit a balata ball long and straight. I don't have that level if skill, but I suddenly found I could hit it longer and straighter using 460cc and Pro Vs.

[clevited]

On 9/4/2022 at 4:16 AM, mahonie said:

I'm talking about your second statement.

 

Before 460cc heads and the Pro V1 came along, the maximum, relatively consistent, straight-ish distance I was getting out of my game with persimmon and balata was 220 yards. I just couldn't get a persimmon headed driver in the fairway often enough, it was always 2 fairways over to the right! I could just about control a 3-wood, hence the 220 yard maximum distance.

 

Using the PGA Tour convention that the first cut is classed as fairway (?), nowadays I'm consistently hitting 60-70% and getting it out to 260 yards with a controlled swing, a few yards more if I swing flat out. 

 

You sure your swing hasn't also become better over time and thus skewing your perception of the past?  It usually happens with people.  They become better at golf as they get older.  

 

People keep blaming equipment as if it does everything all by itself.  Equipment became better designed yes.  Yes it got hotter, but that has been limited for decades now.  Blame USGA all you want for allowing that but it isn't the biggest source of length increases on the tour.  These are how I rank the variables that have increased average tour distance over the past 22 years or so.

 

1) Increased number of players learning to swing much faster than prior generations at an early age.

2) Increased number of players that are much better athletes than previous generations of pro golfers which lends to natural increases in speed. 

3) Intimate understanding of ideal ball launch conditions thanks to launch monitors like Trackman.

4) Equipment advances such that optimal ball flight as learned from launch monitors can be had by anyone with any swing type.

5) Equipment advances such that clubs are lighter and springier, ball now is now a mix of solidcore/wound performance (majority of these advancements occurred 20+ years ago and hasn't changed much)

5) Agronomy of modern tour venues.  They are often fast, firm and the PGA tour seems to want bomb and gouge so they don't put in much for defenses against it (rarely long rough or anything).

 

I would maintain that you simply were metaphorically playing wiffle ball when you could have been playing baseball back then Mahonie.  I played persimmon and wound balls.  I own quite a few old drivers today.  I have found that decent launching drivers did exist but that they are hard to find because not many people pushed themselves to learn to swing fast like today (so they didn't exist in very large numbers).  You can find wooden drivers that launch pretty close to modern drivers.  Its mostly a loft and shaft thing from my observations.  Hardly any drivers from that era were made for pro like speed so anyone that had pro like speed but only played the game as a hobby without access to multiple models and shafts like pro's were, were not going to be getting the most out of their equipment.  Today, we can all get clubs that suit us and that to me is a positive evolution, not equipment ruining the game.

 

[mahonie]

4 hours ago, clevited said:

 

You sure your swing hasn't also become better over time and thus skewing your perception of the past?  It usually happens with people.  They become better at golf as they get older.  

 

People keep blaming equipment as if it does everything all by itself.  Equipment became better designed yes.  Yes it got hotter, but that has been limited for decades now.  Blame USGA all you want for allowing that but it isn't the biggest source of length increases on the tour.  These are how I rank the variables that have increased average tour distance over the past 22 years or so.

 

1) Increased number of players learning to swing much faster than prior generations at an early age.

2) Increased number of players that are much better athletes than previous generations of pro golfers which lends to natural increases in speed. 

3) Intimate understanding of ideal ball launch conditions thanks to launch monitors like Trackman.

4) Equipment advances such that optimal ball flight as learned from launch monitors can be had by anyone with any swing type.

5) Equipment advances such that clubs are lighter and springier, ball now is now a mix of solidcore/wound performance (majority of these advancements occurred 20+ years ago and hasn't changed much)

5) Agronomy of modern tour venues.  They are often fast, firm and the PGA tour seems to want bomb and gouge so they don't put in much for defenses against it (rarely long rough or anything).

 

I would maintain that you simply were metaphorically playing wiffle ball when you could have been playing baseball back then Mahonie.  I played persimmon and wound balls.  I own quite a few old drivers today.  I have found that decent launching drivers did exist but that they are hard to find because not many people pushed themselves to learn to swing fast like today (so they didn't exist in very large numbers).  You can find wooden drivers that launch pretty close to modern drivers.  Its mostly a loft and shaft thing from my observations.  Hardly any drivers from that era were made for pro like speed so anyone that had pro like speed but only played the game as a hobby without access to multiple models and shafts like pro's were, were not going to be getting the most out of their equipment.  Today, we can all get clubs that suit us and that to me is a positive evolution, not equipment ruining the game.

 

I don't disagree with any of your points, they are all valid reasons behind the modern distance game.

 

I'll level with you why I don't like the modern distance game and it's purely for selfish reasons. The best part of my game was and still is long- and mid-irons. With the modern driver distance and restricted length of the courses in the UK (there is no space to expand), I find that I rarely hit 4-6 irons anymore taking away my biggest advantage.

 

Golf should be a test of all 14 clubs, not just driver, 7-9 iron, 4 wedges and putter. I've played rounds at my course measuring 6,500 yards, par 73, where the longest iron I've hit is 8-iron. Take the driver out of the equation and I might as well be playing the local pitch and putt. It is nowhere near as satisfying as the game used to be.

 

This situation is exactly mirrored on the PGA Tour where more often than not it boils down to a pitch and putt competition. To me the PGA Tour is just a product that needs to sell itself and the easiest way to do that is through distance, hence the constant focus on how far the ball is now going. It is just not entertaining and it has filtered down to the game I'm seeing. 

[Pastit]

13 hours ago, mahonie said:

I don't disagree with any of your points, they are all valid reasons behind the modern distance game.

 

I'll level with you why I don't like the modern distance game and it's purely for selfish reasons. The best part of my game was and still is long- and mid-irons. With the modern driver distance and restricted length of the courses in the UK (there is no space to expand), I find that I rarely hit 4-6 irons anymore taking away my biggest advantage.

 

Golf should be a test of all 14 clubs, not just driver, 7-9 iron, 4 wedges and putter. I've played rounds at my course measuring 6,500 yards, par 73, where the longest iron I've hit is 8-iron. Take the driver out of the equation and I might as well be playing the local pitch and putt. It is nowhere near as satisfying as the game used to be.

 

This situation is exactly mirrored on the PGA Tour where more often than not it boils down to a pitch and putt competition. To me the PGA Tour is just a product that needs to sell itself and the easiest way to do that is through distance, hence the constant focus on how far the ball is now going. It is just not entertaining and it has filtered down to the game I'm seeing. 

All too true though 6500 is a bit on the short side. But the biggest difference I see when comparing traditional U.K. with American courses is the lack of jungle. I.e. I take it that in the US one must be able to play from anywhere; water excepted. 
 

I must say that the playing those PGA Tour courses with water would give me nightmares. 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Pastit

[farmer]

I played wood and occasionally balata back in the old days.  Woods were kind of a crapshoot, due to the variability of the material.  Tour guys had clubs built, but even then, there was no uniformity.  If hit reasonably solid and reasonably square, the ball went reasonably straight.  If hit with a big ol' wipey swing, a balata ball would try to get off the planet, or it would go left so quick it would damn near get your toes.   I watched pros up close and personal, and they were not just bunting the ball around trying to keep it in play. 

In those days, courses that were going to be on TV watered their fairways and greens, so they would look nice on the screen.  Fairways were cut at 1/2 inch with gang mowers, and my guess, from having played some tour courses, greens might have stimped at 10.

Here's the point:  golf is better.  Clubs are incomparably better.  Balls are so much better than balata or Tour Pros that the comparison is laughable.  If given decent money, courses are better.  Maybe the ball goes too far for your taste or maybe not, but the game is better.

[MattC555]

3 minutes ago, farmer said:

I played wood and occasionally balata back in the old days.  Woods were kind of a crapshoot, due to the variability of the material.  Tour guys had clubs built, but even then, there was no uniformity.  If hit reasonably solid and reasonably square, the ball went reasonably straight.  If hit with a big ol' wipey swing, a balata ball would try to get off the planet, or it would go left so quick it would damn near get your toes.   I watched pros up close and personal, and they were not just bunting the ball around trying to keep it in play. 

In those days, courses that were going to be on TV watered their fairways and greens, so they would look nice on the screen.  Fairways were cut at 1/2 inch with gang mowers, and my guess, from having played some tour courses, greens might have stimped at 10.

Here's the point:  golf is better.  Clubs are incomparably better.  Balls are so much better than balata or Tour Pros that the comparison is laughable.  If given decent money, courses are better.  Maybe the ball goes too far for your taste or maybe not, but the game is better.

 

Yup.  I have no wish to go back to Tour Pros and steel shafted persimmon drivers.  The persimmon are fun to dust off and hit once a year...but only once a year. 

[oikos1]

 

It was the mid 1960's, he wasn't a linebacker and didn't play in the NFL but Hale Irwin is about as close as you are going to get to a baller golfer.

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, farmer said:

I played wood and occasionally balata back in the old days.  Woods were kind of a crapshoot, due to the variability of the material.  Tour guys had clubs built, but even then, there was no uniformity.  If hit reasonably solid and reasonably square, the ball went reasonably straight.  If hit with a big ol' wipey swing, a balata ball would try to get off the planet, or it would go left so quick it would damn near get your toes.   I watched pros up close and personal, and they were not just bunting the ball around trying to keep it in play. 

In those days, courses that were going to be on TV watered their fairways and greens, so they would look nice on the screen.  Fairways were cut at 1/2 inch with gang mowers, and my guess, from having played some tour courses, greens might have stimped at 10.

Here's the point:  golf is better.  Clubs are incomparably better.  Balls are so much better than balata or Tour Pros that the comparison is laughable.  If given decent money, courses are better.  Maybe the ball goes too far for your taste or maybe not, but the game is better.

Greens didn't reach 10 on the stimpmeter until the late 80s to early 90s and only at places like Oakmont.  If you go back to the 60s and 70s most greens on tour stimped around 7 or 8.  Huge change in green conditions in the last 50 years.

[farmer]

 John Brodie was a very good qb for the 49er's, retired from football, football announcing and played on the Senior Tour from mid-eighties? to late 90's? with one win and some top 10s.

[mahonie]

12 hours ago, Pastit said:

All too true though 6500 is a bit on the short side. But the biggest difference I see when comparing traditional U.K. with American courses is the lack of jungle. I.e. I take it that in the US one must be able to play from anywhere; water accepted. 
 

I must say that the playing those PGA Tour courses with water would give me nightmares. 

6,500 yards is pretty much the norm if not towards the top end of the average course length around the Midlands having just checked some of my local courses. Local course used for Open qualifying tops out at 6,700 and that is pretty much the longest of the courses you would want to play.

 

2 of my favourite courses up your way, Bamburgh Castle and Dunstanburgh Castle are quite a bit shorter but they are on the coast and the wind usually negates the short length very effectively!!

 

Having played an American-style course in Florida, I have to say the water doesn't come into play as much as you would think it would. Usually, it must be a pretty poor shot to get wet...that's not saying I didn't find the water more than once!

[Pastit]

1 minute ago, mahonie said:

6,500 yards is pretty much the norm if not towards the top end of the average course length around the Midlands having just checked some of my local courses. Local course used for Open qualifying tops out at 6,700 and that is pretty much the longest of the courses you would want to play.

 

2 of my favourite courses up your way, Bamburgh Castle and Dunstanburgh Castle are quite a bit shorter but they are on the coast and the wind usually negates the short length very effectively!!

 

Having played an American-style course in Florida, I have to say the water doesn't come into play as much as you would think it would. Usually, it must be a pretty poor shot to get wet...that's not saying I didn't find the water more than once!

There are reasons for Dunstanburgh and maybe Bamburgh being short as the first was a private 14-hole par 3 course originally I believe. The second was probably just a village course on the former Lord Crew Estate. 
 

Both are toy courses but lose nothing for that. Goswick is the only true links but even then has 3 tricked-up holes. Whitley Bay is close to a links and the best private member’s club around here due to extensive correction works to holes replacing one’s lost to housing. 
 

All 3 have taken the strategy of pricing locals out of daily fees, deals excepted. Thanks.

[MattC555]

5 hours ago, mahonie said:

6,500 yards is pretty much the norm if not towards the top end of the average course length around the Midlands having just checked some of my local courses. Local course used for Open qualifying tops out at 6,700 and that is pretty much the longest of the courses you would want to play.

 

2 of my favourite courses up your way, Bamburgh Castle and Dunstanburgh Castle are quite a bit shorter but they are on the coast and the wind usually negates the short length very effectively!!

 

Having played an American-style course in Florida, I have to say the water doesn't come into play as much as you would think it would. Usually, it must be a pretty poor shot to get wet...that's not saying I didn't find the water more than once!

 

Depends on the region and course.  Kiawah's Ocean course has water bordering greens for instance.  Up here in New England the woods are basically OB.  On top of that our courses are seemingly much longer than yours.  My three favorite courses in CT are:  Gillette Ridge(7191 yards), Fox Hopyard(6912), and Lyman Jones(7011).  Each has forced carries, thick woods, and water. 

 

I'll be playing all of the Barefoot courses in Myrtle in a few weeks.  I believe 3 out of 4 are over 7000 yards.  The Dye course is over 7300 yards.  I enjoy playing from the tips.  I wouldn't be able to if I was playing a Balata. 

[trilerian]

2 hours ago, MattC555 said:

 

Depends on the region and course.  Kiawah's Ocean course has water bordering greens for instance.  Up here in New England the woods are basically OB.  On top of that our courses are seemingly much longer than yours.  My three favorite courses in CT are:  Gillette Ridge(7191 yards), Fox Hopyard(6912), and Lyman Jones(7011).  Each has forced carries, thick woods, and water. 

 

I'll be playing all of the Barefoot courses in Myrtle in a few weeks.  I believe 3 out of 4 are over 7000 yards.  The Dye course is over 7300 yards.  I enjoy playing from the tips.  I wouldn't be able to if I was playing a Balata. 

 

I've just started playing the tips at courses I go to this season.  So far I have played out to 6940 yds, par 72.  I've been working towards being able to play these tees for a long time, and it is an accomplishment I feel I have achieved.  I have no desire for that to be taken from me because some people think the ball goes to far.  7300 though, not there yet, lol.  

[So_Cal]

1 hour ago, trilerian said:

 

I've just started playing the tips at courses I go to this season.  So far I have played out to 6940 yds, par 72.  I've been working towards being able to play these tees for a long time, and it is an accomplishment I feel I have achieved.  I have no desire for that to be taken from me because some people think the ball goes to far.  7300 though, not there yet, lol.  

Congrats man.  That’s some serious yardage.  I don’t think anyone wants to roll back for the average guy, only the 0.001% so that the course’s architecture is relevant again.  

[Double Mocha Man]

31 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

Congrats man.  That’s some serious yardage.  I don’t think anyone wants to roll back for the average guy, only the 0.001% so that the course’s architecture is relevant again.  

 

This is not against you but I am opposed to any roll backs.  That is a slippery slope.  Rolling back belly putters and wedge grooves is one thing but rolling back distance is another.  If you want to turn golf back into a "ghost town" for the average golfing population just roll back their distance.

[mahonie]

4 hours ago, MattC555 said:

 

Depends on the region and course.  Kiawah's Ocean course has water bordering greens for instance.  Up here in New England the woods are basically OB.  On top of that our courses are seemingly much longer than yours.  My three favorite courses in CT are:  Gillette Ridge(7191 yards), Fox Hopyard(6912), and Lyman Jones(7011).  Each has forced carries, thick woods, and water. 

 

I'll be playing all of the Barefoot courses in Myrtle in a few weeks.  I believe 3 out of 4 are over 7000 yards.  The Dye course is over 7300 yards.  I enjoy playing from the tips.  I wouldn't be able to if I was playing a Balata. 

Glad you have the space and resources for courses that long and can use all the tools in the bag.

[ThinkingPlus]

26 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

This is not against you but I am opposed to any roll backs.  That is a slippery slope.  Rolling back belly putters and wedge grooves is one thing but rolling back distance is another.  If you want to turn golf back into a "ghost town" for the average golfing population just roll back their distance.

@So_Cal lives in fantasy land.  The RBs have already distributed their proposed rule changes (for discussion and feedback) which include a 2% - 4% distance reduction across the board for all players.  There are additional MLRs for elite player tournaments to reduce distance further.

 

There is still a chance the RBs do nothing or only put the MLRs in place, but I would not expect that to occur.  We should know in the next few months.

[mahonie]

10 hours ago, Pastit said:

There are reasons for Dunstanburgh and maybe Bamburgh being short as the first was a private 14-hole par 3 course originally I believe. The second was probably just a village course on the former Lord Crew Estate. 
 

Both are toy courses but lose nothing for that. Goswick is the only true links but even then has 3 tricked-up holes. Whitley Bay is close to a links and the best private member’s club around here due to extensive correction works to holes replacing one’s lost to housing. 
 

All 3 have taken the strategy of pricing locals out of daily fees, deals excepted. Thanks.

That's a shame. It's been a while since I played up there but I remember Dunstanburgh being really very good value for money. The other thing I remember is that both were really enjoyable...I love the challenge of James Braid courses and Dunstanburgh didn't disappoint.

[So_Cal]

1 hour ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

This is not against you but I am opposed to any roll backs.  That is a slippery slope.  Rolling back belly putters and wedge grooves is one thing but rolling back distance is another.  If you want to turn golf back into a "ghost town" for the average golfing population just roll back their distance.

Not talking about average golfing population.  Stated above 

[So_Cal]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

@So_Cal lives in fantasy land.  The RBs have already distributed their proposed rule changes (for discussion and feedback) which include a 2% - 4% distance reduction across the board for all players.  There are additional MLRs for elite player tournaments to reduce distance further.

 

There is still a chance the RBs do nothing or only put the MLRs in place, but I would not expect that to occur.  We should know in the next few months.

2%.  Wow that’s practically nothing.  20% would bring pro golf back to the Big Bertha era. 

[Double Mocha Man]

9 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

2%.  Wow that’s practically nothing.  20% would bring pro golf back to the Big Bertha era. 

 

Hey!  I'm looking for a 2% increase in distance, not a decrease. 

 

And let me stick a thumbtack in the side of your ball when you're putting.  That's practically nothing.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Double Mocha Man

[mahonie]

17 minutes ago, So_Cal said:

2%.  Wow that’s practically nothing.  20% would bring pro golf back to the Big Bertha era. 

Everybody is looking at this from the wrong end. Limit the length of golf courses to 6,400 yards maximum. It's easy enough to put shorter tees in. If you're 40 yards offline at 300 yards, the rough is so thick that you won't find your ball. Then play the equipment as it is. I would expect a massive increase in participation. 

[gvogel]

On 9/6/2022 at 8:51 AM, clevited said:

 

You sure your swing hasn't also become better over time and thus skewing your perception of the past?  It usually happens with people.  They become better at golf as they get older.  

 

People keep blaming equipment as if it does everything all by itself.  Equipment became better designed yes.  Yes it got hotter, but that has been limited for decades now.  Blame USGA all you want for allowing that but it isn't the biggest source of length increases on the tour.  These are how I rank the variables that have increased average tour distance over the past 22 years or so.

 

1) Increased number of players learning to swing much faster than prior generations at an early age.

2) Increased number of players that are much better athletes than previous generations of pro golfers which lends to natural increases in speed. 

3) Intimate understanding of ideal ball launch conditions thanks to launch monitors like Trackman.

4) Equipment advances such that optimal ball flight as learned from launch monitors can be had by anyone with any swing type.

5) Equipment advances such that clubs are lighter and springier, ball now is now a mix of solidcore/wound performance (majority of these advancements occurred 20+ years ago and hasn't changed much)

5) Agronomy of modern tour venues.  They are often fast, firm and the PGA tour seems to want bomb and gouge so they don't put in much for defenses against it (rarely long rough or anything).

 

I would maintain that you simply were metaphorically playing wiffle ball when you could have been playing baseball back then Mahonie.  I played persimmon and wound balls.  I own quite a few old drivers today.  I have found that decent launching drivers did exist but that they are hard to find because not many people pushed themselves to learn to swing fast like today (so they didn't exist in very large numbers).  You can find wooden drivers that launch pretty close to modern drivers.  Its mostly a loft and shaft thing from my observations.  Hardly any drivers from that era were made for pro like speed so anyone that had pro like speed but only played the game as a hobby without access to multiple models and shafts like pro's were, were not going to be getting the most out of their equipment.  Today, we can all get clubs that suit us and that to me is a positive evolution, not equipment ruining the game.

 

I think that you minimize the experience of some extremely gifted golfers back in the persimmon days who were playing something much more advanced that wiffle ball.  Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus were brought up to hit the ball has hard as possible, and then learned to control it as they matured.  Football player Hale Irwin was a developed athlete who had some success at golf.  There was definitely equipment that was made with X shafts and face angles to allow players to achieve maximum distance, given the limitations of persimmon and steel shafts.

 

The state of the art was perfected by extremely good players who shared observations with club makers.  They substituted their long time trial and errors of ball flight for launch monitor data.  Were those efforts as comprehensive as today?  No, club heads were smaller, and internal weighting systems, while developed, would pale in comparison to what is available internally in a 460 cc metal club head.  Certainly, today's versions of the graphite shafts in use are more stable than what was available in steel at the time.

 

But don't think for a minute that the fine players back in the 1960's through 1980's didn't develop without hitting the ball very hard by swinging fast, and that some were very fine athletes at the time.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

31 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

Hey!  I'm looking for a 2% increase in distance, not a decrease. 

 

And let me stick a thumbtack in the side of your ball when you're putting.  That's practically nothing.

Then improve your swing/contact/etc.

 

Also we don’t even know that slower swingers will be affected that much with potential initial velocity changes.

 

And that analogy makes no sense. I don’t know why everyone seems to think a slight distance roll back of the ball means a return to balata or some other change that will drastically hurt performance.

[Double Mocha Man]

3 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Then improve your swing/contact/etc.

 

Also we don’t even know that slower swingers will be affected that much with potential initial velocity changes.

 

And that analogy makes no sense. I don’t know why everyone seems to think a slight distance roll back of the ball means a return to balata or some other change that will drastically hurt performance.

 

(Straight) distance is king.  Nobody wants even a slight rollback of the ball.  It's human nature.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

Just now, Double Mocha Man said:

 

(Straight) distance is king.  Nobody wants even a slight rollback of the ball.  It's human nature.

Of course it’s king, it’s just gotten way out of hand. Nobody? What’s this thread about then?

[Double Mocha Man]

7 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Then improve your swing/contact/etc.

 

Thanks.  But my technique is already maxed out.  Played high school golf and college golf at a high level, participated in two NCAA Championships.  Would you be okay at Popeye's or Denny's if they gave you 2% less food for the same price.  Oh, my bad, they already are.

 

The point being:  Nobody wants less after working their a** off to gain more.  

[mahonie]

1 minute ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

(Straight) distance is king.  Nobody wants even a slight rollback of the ball.  It's human nature.

I'm not necessarily interested in a roll back, but...and it's a big but...make the ball spin off the driver so that only the best ball-strikers can get the ball out there. Anyone with a less than perfect contact is penalised in both distance and line. Bring some skill back into the game.