thoughts on a "tour-only" ball and other equipment rule changes

[Ultimate]

All these arguments were made back around 193X when steel shafts were introduced. "Play the courses as they were meant to be played"......The old course was meant to be played with wooden shafts, but has held up nicely under steel shafts, graphite shafts, and the demise of the feathery ball. "Pinch the fairways at 300 yards".......come on now, you are going punish long hitters for being atheletes, and reward the guy/gal that gets 260 - 280 off the tee. Doesn't work.

 

Golf is not an even playing field, there is nothing that can be done to negate distance. If you make it too hard to break par, then the viewing public does not watch, what could be more boring than watching a U.S. Open course every week.

 

Time marches on, the model T gave way to faster/better cars, the feathery to manufactured balls (I'm sure many lamented that change also), barefoot to golf shoes with cleats; un-mowed greens to cut greens; a pinch of dirt to a tee. Change is inevitable in all things, and all sports. New courses will be built, old courses will change with the times or fall to the waistside. Much has always been bailled-whoed about the ruin of the game, but it has always survived, and changed as needed.

 

Ahh, I remember the old days when...........who gives a sh*t about the old days. The old days are gone, move forward.

 

And such is life...nice post!

The steel-shaft comparison doesn't stand up to a good historical analysis. Steel shafts quickly became cheaper and much more democratizing elements in the game. Hickory-shafted clubs were very expensive by comparison once steel got off the ground.

I'm all for making golf more accessible, cheaper, simpler, etc. Which is why I argue that it is so stupid to let the golf ball rule over monumental changes to great historic golf courses.

Another argument shot down.

[Ultimate]

No it's not! The cheapest solution is to fix the d@mn golf balls!!!

How much will it cost you if golf balls are spec'd differently?

How much will it cost you if your club has to build 6 new tees, move five bunkers, and recontour two greens to keep up with ball distances?

You do the math.

 

If the USGA came up with a limited distance ball, would you play it?

If the USGA had new golf ball specs, you and I would both be playing it. Right now, you play legal golf balls right? Because you play by the rules. So do I. We could both play Bandit balls if we wanted. Who wants to?

[Ultimate]

Ultimate: I don't feel shot down. The steel shaft is relevant to the discussion, since we are talking about making older courses out of date. The steel shaft was a revolution and changed the way golf was played. Consistency of flight, and distance were affected by the steel shaft.

 

As to whether I would play a USGA approved ball? Yes, that is what I play now, if they further restrict the ball I would have no alternative but to play that ball. There must be a way to measure against your opponent (person or course), that is as consistent as possible. And Ultimate, I am saying measure meaning in our time of history, because there is no way to compare different times.

I guess I am not quite sure which side of the argument you are taking.

Steel shafts were good because because they put good, solid, consistent golf club sets in the hands of more people.

Recent golf ball developments are bad because they are making the older, affordable, traditional golf courses obsolete, and pushing more and more golfers into more expensive, big-real-estate, longer, harder golf courses AND (this is my favorite reason) making the gaps between average and elite golfers ever-wider. THAT'S RIGHT; golf ball developments help the Singhs and the Woodses and the DiMarcos MORE than they help Joe Weekender. That's a perverse result for anyone who claims that increasing ball performance is somehow essential to the average player's enjoyment of the game. It's a lie to say that technology is critical to the average guy's enjoyment.

[Simp]

No it's not! The cheapest solution is to fix the d@mn golf balls!!!

How much will it cost you if golf balls are spec'd differently?

How much will it cost you if your club has to build 6 new tees, move five bunkers, and recontour two greens to keep up with ball distances?

You do the math.

 

If the USGA came up with a limited distance ball, would you play it?

If the USGA had new golf ball specs, you and I would both be playing it. Right now, you play legal golf balls right? Because you play by the rules. So do I. We could both play Bandit balls if we wanted. Who wants to?

 

By implementing a limited distance golfball, and forcing the general public to use it, would devestate the game. I think you have to consider who is the biggest loser here, the PGA tour guys or the average Joe? The average golfer doesn't want to be limited. How do you think the average 15-20 handicap would feel if you told them that since they have to play the "new ball", they are only going to hit it 210 yards off the tee now. There would be so many used sets of golfclubs on Ebay it would be rediculous.

[Ultimate]

No it's not! The cheapest solution is to fix the d@mn golf balls!!!

How much will it cost you if golf balls are spec'd differently?

How much will it cost you if your club has to build 6 new tees, move five bunkers, and recontour two greens to keep up with ball distances?

You do the math.

 

If the USGA came up with a limited distance ball, would you play it?

If the USGA had new golf ball specs, you and I would both be playing it. Right now, you play legal golf balls right? Because you play by the rules. So do I. We could both play Bandit balls if we wanted. Who wants to?

 

By implementing a limited distance golfball, and forcing the general public to use it, would devestate the game. I think you have to consider who is the biggest loser here, the PGA tour guys or the average Joe. The average golfer doesn't want to be limited. How do you think the average 15-20 handicap would feel if you told them that since they have to play the "new ball", they are only going to hit it 210 yards off the tee now. There would be so many used sets of golfclubs on Ebay it would be rediculous.

That might be a problem (a ball that would go no more than 210) if anybody were actually talking about such a thing, but nobody is.

I am thinking more in terms of a golf ball that might penalize the longest hitters on tour by about 20 yards, and the average handicap player by maybe 5 yards, and the beginning golfer would not be able to tell the difference. And in two years, nobody would even be thinking about it.

[Ultimate]

Not necessarily taking a side. Just pointing out that change is inevitable, the new replaces the old. Yes would I hate to see Augusta become a driving contest......well most past winners have been long hitters, very few have had success there that weren't. I don't want to see the old course brought to its knees, but, I think it is also inevitable. Change is good.

 

I think that the ball rules currently in place are sufficient. I certainly don't support a roll back. I do support changing the courses, building new courses, and getting on with it. The game was never meant to be fair.

Okay, I guess we are on opposite sides of the argument. I've answered every one of these points already, and nobody has offered anything better. I see you believe that it is "inevitable" that the home of golf, the Old Course at St. Andrews will be "brought to its knees" in competition because no one will want to, what? Make simple reasonable limitations on golf ball performance? And that is "change" that is "good"? What a bleak notion you have for the future of golf competition.

[Simp]

That might be a problem (a ball that would go no more than 210) if anybody were actually talking about such a thing, but nobody is.

I am thinking more in terms of a golf ball that might penalize the longest hitters on tour by about 20 yards, and the average handicap player by maybe 5 yards, and the beginning golfer would not be able to tell the difference. And in two years, nobody would even be thinking about it.

 

 

Well, if this is what you're "thinking" then all of this is very one-sided and very hypothetical. No-one's opinion stands a chance when we play by your rules and to you, only your opinion makes sense.

[Ultimate]

That might be a problem (a ball that would go no more than 210) if anybody were actually talking about such a thing, but nobody is.

I am thinking more in terms of a golf ball that might penalize the longest hitters on tour by about 20 yards, and the average handicap player by maybe 5 yards, and the beginning golfer would not be able to tell the difference. And in two years, nobody would even be thinking about it.

 

 

Well, if this is what you're "thinking" then all of this is very one-sided and very hypothetical. No-one's opinion stands a chance when we play by your rules.

Huh? I don't understand what you are saying. Clearly, nobody is talking about ANY ball changes that would penalize every player by the same distance, i.e., 30 yards, so that Tiger's ave. driving distance will go from 310 to 280, and Joe Hack will go from 240 to 210. It doesn't work that way. And the distance GAINS from technology haven't worked that way. Tiger has picked up 30 yards in 10 years, while the weekender has picked up 5 or 10.

I'm not the one making any rules -- the USGA is. I threw out the kinds of numbers I thought might be reasonable. The point was to illustrate the disparity that technology has been producing of late.

 

I think my opinions make better sense because they look to be better-informed and more defensible than anything else I have seen here. But if you have better arguments on cost issues, or administration or the spirit of the game, or historical arguments, or anything else, by all means fire away.

[Subsonic]

My 2 cents-

 

Leave the equipment alone. That will create more problems than solutions.

 

Let the grass grow. We had a local links style course let the rough grow. Nothing crazy, just enough to let you know that when you were in the rough, you were in the rough. It would definitely put a hurting on your score card if you spent too much time there. They do call it rough for a reason. I have never seen so many golfers complain. It really hurt their business. So... They cut it back down to a more normal level. It has been a couple years since this occurred and every now and then you will hear somebody say "Remember when the rough was long etc...

[Ultimate]

It isn't a bleek notion, it is just the way things are going.

Well why not change "the way things are going?" Why not be proactive: protect and preserve the game and the great courses? I get the feeling that some people regard advances in golf ball distance to be something nobody can or should do anything about, something like the weather. I don't get it.

[Ultimate]

My 2 cents-

 

Leave the equipment alone. That will create more problems than solutions.

 

Let the grass grow. We had a local links style course let the rough grow. Nothing crazy, just enough to let you know that when you were in the rough, you were in the rough. It would definitely put a hurting on your score card if you spent too much time there. They do call it rough for a reason. I have never seen so many golfers complain. It really hurt their business. So... They cut it back down to a more normal level. It has been a couple years since this occurred and every now and then you will hear somebody say "Remember when the rough was long etc...

That's a terrible idea. It slows up play while 175 golfers hunt for balls in deep rough. Slow play discourages people from playing. That hurts you local golf course operator. (I'll bet that they figured that out, and that is why the rough was cut back to a "normal" length as you put it.)

 

And, what you say does nothing with regard to Augusta or Merion or Oakmont or Winged Foot getting close to the limits of their real estate. We've already established that making every tournament a U.S. Open is a very bad idea.

 

Tell me why changing just the golf balls, instead of 15,000 golf courses, "will create more problems than solutions." I don't get that part. What problems are you anticipating?

[kenfuji]

I agree 100000% w/ the use of a tour-only ball

 

but have 2 "tour-only" ball selections. one with more spin and on with less spin. problem solved.

 

Make these balls a requirement for USGA Sanctioned events only.

 

then the usga and r & a can review the balls every 5 years to either make it longer, shorter, spin more or less.

 

its a lot more cost effective and makes more sense.

 

each ball manufacture can make these balls for the pros and public so it does not effect sponsorships and contracts. It will use a standard dimple pattern the ball manufactures can use their own unique core but must fall into to specs of the tour-only spin rate and velocity set by iron-bryon machine :cheesy:

[Ultimate]

I agree 100000% w/ the use of a tour-only ball

 

but have 2 "tour-only" ball selections. one with more spin and on with less spin. problem solved.

 

Make these balls a requirement for USGA Sanctioned events only.

 

then the usga and r & a can review the balls every 5 years to either make it longer, shorter, spin more or less.

 

its a lot more cost effective and makes more sense.

 

each ball manufacture can make these balls for the pros and public so it does not effect sponsorships and contracts. It will use a standard dimple pattern the ball manufactures can use their own unique core but must fall into to specs of the tour-only spin rate and velocity set by iron-bryon machine :cheesy:

Sorry. Another terrible idea. Any idea that bifurcates the game into "tour" and "hobbyist" is a terrible idea in my book.

And the manufacturers will HATE this idea! No, I mean they will HHHAAAAATE this idea. They want us to be able to play what the tour heros play. And they want their own ball patents, and competitive advantage. This idea is one of the most likely to provoke a lawsuit against the USGA for restraint of trade...

And you say for USGA events only? Say what? Different balls for the U.S. Open and the PGA Champiopnship? Different balls for the U.S. Amateur and the NCAA Championship? Have you thought through this idea? This is a non-starter. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

[dpwrx]

For all those in favor of ball restrictions (and anyone else who cares to chime in).

 

As far as the ball debate goes, a huge problem isn't necessarily that modern balls go far. It's that they go far, and thanks to 3 and 4 piece constructions, can achieve specific spin characteristics for driver, irons, and wedges. Unlike in previous eras, where it was spin & control vs. pure distance, these balls magically become the ideal ball for each club in thebag -- unlike the days where it was a Top Flite XL or a Titleist Wound ball, and very little in between.

 

So, what about putting a regulation on ball construction -- core size, cover thickness, number of layers, etc rather than trying to legislate specific performance numbers or thresholds?

 

This could keep current distances and materials science in play, but force players to choose before they ever step on the course what they really wanted out of a ball. Bombers who couldn't stop a distance ball on a green (or control its direction) would quickly migrate to and play a higher-spin ball and sacrifice yards. Short players who knew how to spin & shape could gamble their skills would translate and step up to a harder ball if they wanted to.

 

For those that are aghast at distance and distance alone, I know this probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy you, but what about the rest of you?

[Simp]

That's a terrible idea. It slows up play while 175 golfers hunt for balls in deep rough. Slow play discourages people from playing. That hurts you local golf course operator. (I'll bet that they figured that out, and that is why the rough was cut back to a "normal" length as you put it.)

 

And, what you say does nothing with regard to Augusta or Merion or Oakmont or Winged Foot getting close to the limits of their real estate. We've already established that making every tournament a U.S. Open is a very bad idea.

 

Tell me why changing just the golf balls, instead of 15,000 golf courses, "will create more problems than solutions." I don't get that part. What problems are you anticipating?

 

It seems as if your main concern is preserving those 100 year old courses and playing them as they did 50 or so years ago. That'll never happen. Time moves forward, not backward. I like the old courses too, but if they're obsolete and not a challenge to todays players, then it's time to move on to bigger and better things. I think they're still a challenge though. Tiger will still be hitting it 30 yards by everyone else so limiting the ball will only hurt the minority. It won't work. The outcome will still be the same. We could go back and forth until doomsday and not get one thing accomplished because there are too many "if's" involved.

[Ultimate]

There is no clear cut answer. Manufactures will not stand still for a roll back, and the PGA does not have to abide by rules made by the USGA, except for the U.S. Open. I supose that the big guns; Royal Courses, USGA, and Augusta; could and might only allow a particular type of ball to be used. They have the power, but so far only the USGA is threatening, and really not that loudly yet. I don't believe that the PGA Tour wants to go with limiting the distance of the ball, or that manufactures would either, it hurts them in the pocket.

You are right about one thing; many of the ball manufacturers don't like this idea. Just read Wally Uhlein's rantings on the Titleist web site.

Too bad. Screw them. I might be at least a little sympathetic if I thought they were really going to get hurt, but there is zero evidence. Titleist is just after tiny amounts of competitive advantage in the golf ball market that they dominate. I think they'd still dominate. Or they could.

 

The USGA isn't "threatening" anything right now. What they are doing is carefully studying the problem and potential solutions. Just as they should. They are also trying to enlist the participation of the ball makers. What is wrong with any of that?

 

I don't think the the technical details of ball design are simple -- I do think that it IS simple to lay this problem on golf ball developments, and that fixing the balls is the one simple solution.

[Ultimate]

That's a terrible idea. It slows up play while 175 golfers hunt for balls in deep rough. Slow play discourages people from playing. That hurts you local golf course operator. (I'll bet that they figured that out, and that is why the rough was cut back to a "normal" length as you put it.)

 

And, what you say does nothing with regard to Augusta or Merion or Oakmont or Winged Foot getting close to the limits of their real estate. We've already established that making every tournament a U.S. Open is a very bad idea.

 

Tell me why changing just the golf balls, instead of 15,000 golf courses, "will create more problems than solutions." I don't get that part. What problems are you anticipating?

 

It seems as if your main concern is preserving those 100 year old courses and playing them as they did 50 or so years ago. That'll never happen. Time moves forward, not backward. I like the old courses too, but if they're obsolete and not a challenge to todays players, then it's time to move on to bigger and better things. I think they're still a challenge though. Tiger will still be hitting it 30 yards by everyone else so limiting the ball will only hurt the minority. It won't work. The outcome will still be the same. We could go back and forth until doomsday and not get one thing accomplished because there are too many "if's" involved.

You're darned right my main concern is preserving 100 year old golf courses! And 250 year old golf courses (The Old Course) and 75-year old courses (ANGC). In some cases, they are not being preserved, they are being improved, and that is a good thing for the most part, except that in the case of distance off the tee there is the problem in running out of real estate. The Old Course, if you know it very well, has been stretched to the limit, such that it is getting to be gimmicked up with O.B. issues that were unimaginable before. Not good.

 

Your point about Tiger is totally irrelevant. We're not talking about trying to stop Tiger from winning. We're talking about a golf ball for Tiger, and everybody else, that fits the golf course. I get tired of arguing against the same argument about "just hurting the short hitter." It's a dumb argument that I hope people will give up on. It's not what we are talking about.

[Ultimate]

For all those in favor of ball restrictions (and anyone else who cares to chime in).

 

As far as the ball debate goes, a huge problem isn't necessarily that modern balls go far. It's that they go far, and thanks to 3 and 4 piece constructions, can achieve specific spin characteristics for driver, irons, and wedges. Unlike in previous eras, where it was spin & control vs. pure distance, these balls magically become the ideal ball for each club in thebag -- unlike the days where it was a Top Flite XL or a Titleist Wound ball, and very little in between.

 

So, what about putting a regulation on ball construction -- core size, cover thickness, number of layers, etc rather than trying to legislate specific performance numbers or thresholds?

 

This could keep current distances and materials science in play, but force players to choose before they ever step on the course what they really wanted out of a ball. Bombers who couldn't stop a distance ball on a green (or control its direction) would quickly migrate to and play a higher-spin ball and sacrifice yards. Short players who knew how to spin & shape could gamble their skills would translate and step up to a harder ball if they wanted to.

 

For those that are aghast at distance and distance alone, I know this probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy you, but what about the rest of you?

This post is on the right track. Think of golf ball design as art; with all kinds of variables and tradeoffs. A new-design ball might not be just "deader." It might spin more, or interact differently with the air, or be lighter, etc.

[jscw]

I don't think why balls/clubs need to becomprised those old club courses. It's the courses

Lots things changed, or we should say, few are still the same.

They should really did something in the design or modification of the courses. Some pro used their 3 wood to hit the ball in fairway bunkers and their balls still fly over 200 yards. How about some "deeper" buckers ?

They can also work on the green to reward skilled golfers.

 

Lots things can be done in the design and modifications of the course, and making them longer is just one of them.

[Subsonic]

Ultimate-

 

Obviously, I wasn't clear. Let the grass grow for the tournaments. Cut it for regular play. Locating a ball during a televised event is not an issue. The reason they cut the grass at the local course was not slow play, but all of the complaining. It was too difficult, no one wanted to play.

 

Regulating the ball is a terrible idea. Will tour wins be split into pre ball and post ball? Face it people want to see Tiger etc JACK the Ball. Why do you think the Long Drive events have become so popular? When you start regulating equipment, the only person that loses out is the average golfer.

[Ultimate]

Ultimate-

 

Obviously, I wasn't clear. Let the grass grow for the tournaments. Cut it for regular play. Locating a ball during a televised event is not an issue. The reason they cut the grass at the local course was not slow play, but all of the complaining. It was too difficult, no one wanted to play.

 

Regulating the ball is a terrible idea. Will tour wins be split into pre ball and post ball? Face it people want to see Tiger etc JACK the Ball. Why do you think the Long Drive events have become so popular? When you start regulating equipment, the only person that loses out is the average golfer.

No! You're wrong again! Letting "the grass grow for tournaments" just takes us down that path of everything looking like a U.S. Open. How many times to we have to keep going back over the fact that a steady diet of that is what is truly boring?

Don't make rules based on "televised events", either. What about the Western Am? or the North-South? There is a whole world of tournament golf that has nothing to do with the PGA Tour.

Regulating the ball is the OBVIOUS best idea.

People may well want to see Tiger Woods hit it "far." But what is "far"? Far is farther than anybody else. Will you be dissatisfied, bored, in 2021 when Adam Scott is hitting it 475 yards? Because there may be somebody hitting it 500 by then. And if that's the case, you should just turn Augusta National into a park for the Augusta Boy Scouts. They'll need a 9,000 yard golf course.

Now explain to all of us how it is that, "When you start regulating equipment, the only person that loses out is the average golfer..." Why? How? Don't say that the average golfer will be hurt "more" distance-wise, because that is untrue. The elite player would in all liklihood find new-spec balls more limiting.

[pnomm]

Obviously no easy answer as there are so many thoughts on this. Sometimes I wonder if courses like Augusta are really as good as they seem if they have to keep lengthening them (blasphemy, I know - this coming from a guy who's will asks for his ashes to be tossed into the azaleas behind 13th green). But look at Pebble, or Harbour Town, or even St. Andrews. There has been little lengthening of these courses, yet they are still a great test. Who cares if someone shoots 61 on it. That isn't the point of the game. If anyone thinks it's too easy I would like to meet him.

 

Couple of ideas however:

 

1. Make bunkers hazards again. Nobody but tour players play with traps as easy as they do.

2. Make the rough rough. Don't even have to narrow fairways.

 

Tour players will keep getting better because that's the nature of the game. I think it should be embraced.

[Subsonic]

Ultimate-

 

I will agree to disagree with you. To me, there is something unamerican about all of this talk of regulation. Doesn't life have enough rules and regulations already?

[Ultimate]

Obviously no easy answer as there are so many thoughts on this. Sometimes I wonder if courses like Augusta are really as good as they seem if they have to keep lengthening them (blasphemy, I know - this coming from a guy who's will asks for his ashes to be tossed into the azaleas behind 13th green). But look at Pebble, or Harbour Town, or even St. Andrews. There has been little lengthening of these courses, yet they are still a great test. Who cares if someone shoots 61 on it. That isn't the point of the game. If anyone thinks it's too easy I would like to meet him.

 

Couple of ideas however:

 

1. Make bunkers hazards again. Nobody but tour players play with traps as easy as they do.

2. Make the rough rough. Don't even have to narrow fairways.

 

Tour players will keep getting better because that's the nature of the game. I think it should be embraced.

Not totally accurate. The Old Course at St. Andrews has been stretched to its limit. On the second hole, players now walk backwards, halfway back to the first tee, into an area that used to be out of bounds, to get to the tee. They have made a few of those changes. Harbour Town has been lengthened too. But it is not a course that relied on length to begin with. Treeless courses like St. Andrews, Shinnecock, Muirfield, the other links courses, etc. are particularly vulnerable and so is Augusta because Mackenzie and Jones wanted links-like qualities.

 

I'm getting tired of the "make the rough rough again" argument. Hey I've got an idea; "Make the golf balls golf balls again."

[Ultimate]

Ultimate-

 

I will agree to disagree with you. To me, there is something unamerican about all of this talk of regulation. Doesn't life have enough rules and regulations already?

You can play any game you want as a freedom-loving American. Go get yourself the longest golf ball in the world. I'll defend your right under the Constitution to hit 450-yard drives. Just don't ask the USGA to sanction you.

 

Do you want to do away with the current regulations? Golf balls are regulated now. Are you unhappy with that regulation? Or do you have some reason that I am not aware of that the current regulations are 'good', but any other regulations would be 'bad'?

[Simp]

You're darned right my main concern is preserving 100 year old golf courses! And 250 year old golf courses (The Old Course) and 75-year old courses (ANGC). In some cases, they are not being preserved, they are being improved, and that is a good thing for the most part, except that in the case of distance off the tee there is the problem in running out of real estate. The Old Course, if you know it very well, has been stretched to the limit, such that it is getting to be gimmicked up with O.B. issues that were unimaginable before. Not good.

 

Your point about Tiger is totally irrelevant. We're not talking about trying to stop Tiger from winning. We're talking about a golf ball for Tiger, and everybody else, that fits the golf course. I get tired of arguing against the same argument about "just hurting the short hitter." It's a dumb argument that I hope people will give up on. It's not what we are talking about.

 

So, you're not going to be punishing the short hitter with this new "wonder ball"? If it takes 20 yards off of Tigers drive then it sure as heck will take 20 yards off of Jeff Slumans drive as well. Nothing will change with a limited distance ball dude. If Tiger's hitting 3 iron into a green that means Jeff Sluman will be hitting a rescue club or 3 wood into a green. Don't let what a select few people on tour do, be the answer for everyone.

 

Those "old courses" are just that, old courses! They've had their day in the sun. They were really good courses for the players that played on them and the time that they played on them. If they can still cut the mustard as a competitive course (and I think they can) then so be it, keep them in the rotation. If they can't, move on the bigger and better things. That's life dude. We don't go back and relive things. We either make them better or we make new things. There are always "new and improved" versions of just about everything coming out these days, golf courses are no exception. Think with your brain, not your heart.

[Ultimate]

Nobody's offered any good, specific reason yet why golf ball distances should steer the rest of the game. People keep talking about "change" being good and "progress" being necessary. Then they get quiet when I ask about specific rule changes, specific consequences, and specific golf courses.

For the umpteenth time; I don't care about helping any certain player or hurting any certain player. There will always be short and long hitters. What I am talklng about is equipment that fits golf courses.

[TheLastDon]

It seems as if your main concern is preserving those 100 year old courses and playing them as they did 50 or so years ago. That'll never happen. Time moves forward, not backward. I like the old courses too, but if they're obsolete and not a challenge to todays players, then it's time to move on to bigger and better things. I think they're still a challenge though. Tiger will still be hitting it 30 yards by everyone else so limiting the ball will only hurt the minority. It won't work. The outcome will still be the same. We could go back and forth until doomsday and not get one thing accomplished because there are too many "if's" involved.

 

I don't think anyone wants to have them play like they did 50 years ago.....I'd be happy if they played the way they 10-15 years ago. The old courses are quickly becoming obsolete, with no further options for expansion. I like to see new courses coming into prominence, and becoming new major venues.....but when you have to replace the entire British Open rotunda and many of the U.S. Open venues you start to see a troubling trend. Not to mention, where would the Masters be held if Augusta is relegated to a pitch-n-putt?

 

Limiting the golf ball at the highest levels of compressions (either through core restrictions, spin characteristics, etc.) would hurt only the longest hitters and not the "Average" player. Neither you, me, or almost anyone else on this board would see any noticable difference for our games. Did you notice a huge difference when the Tour Balata and Professional was replaced for the ProV? The average good player didn't for the most part, but the tour pro's certainly did.

 

This combined with a little bit of course maintance changes, such as softening up the fairways just a bit (no more 30-40yd+ rolls) and doing some work to make bunkers more of a penalty (simply changing the sand type to one less condusive to spinning shots would do it) would easily keep the grand old courses relevent for the forseeable future, and have very little if any impact on the everyday joe's weekend four-ball.

[Ultimate]

I will also say this; everybody is welcome to view this issue in whatever way they want to. But the USGA is going to do something about this. If you don't like it, I suspect you are going to be out of luck. You'll just have to start rooting for Fortune Brands' lawyers in that case.

[Simp]

Nobody's offered any good, specific reason yet why golf ball distances should steer the rest of the game. People keep talking about "change" being good and "progress" being necessary. Then they get quiet when I ask about specific rule changes, specific consequences, and specific golf courses.

For the umpteenth time; I don't care about helping any certain player or hurting any certain player. There will always be short and long hitters. What I am talklng about is equipment that fits golf courses.

 

I wonder why. :cheesy: