Would It Bother You to Lose Distance if They Rolled Back the Ball?

[Phil Benedict]

Bifurcation reminds me of the guy who dunks on an eight foot goal at the YMCA and then looks around to see who is impressed.

I think the analogy between dunking and hitting a long drive is a good one by the way.  As a freshman in college I got so I could dunk pretty routinely (although it was outlawed in the games in those days).  Nothing that would win a dunking contest or make it on an ESPN highlight reel but I loved it nonetheless.  I used to go to the gym at night and just dunk.  To this day I can remember the feeling of dunking in a pickup game.

To a certain extent, a 300-yard drive provides the same type of rush, and I can still do this occasionally because of technology.  Sadly, my dunking days are over.

[Philippe Binette]

I won't mind

My distances last year

260 yards average in scotland march to may
245 yards in Montreal in summer
235 yards in cold and wet autumn

it changes in the course of the year, I wouldn't care if they roll it back

[Matt_Cohn]

Brent,

If you can convince me that bifurcation will ruin the game, then I'll believe you. But since pro's and amateurs already play completely different equipment, and essentially play a completely different game anyway, I jut don't see how that is possible.

The only thing it would ruin is the Pro V1's advertising campaign. Remember, clubs wouldn't be affected. Only golf balls.

I work in a golf store. People buy golf balls when they need them - not when they want them. You can't increase (or decrease) the frequency with which people will buy golf balls. For this reason I think companies' ball sales overall should be quite safe from decline.

Besides, if people still wanted to play tour-spec balls, they could.

Would it bother me? Well, when I first played the Pro V1 I was excited. After two weeks, the excitement faded. I'm sure with a new shorter ball, it would bother me for about two weeks, and after that I would feel just the same as I had before. I think I'd be just fine.

[Pete Lavallee]

As the second shortest hitting 6 marker on the planet I would love a roll back since it would bring everyone back and therefore closer to me. I didn't gain any distance by switching to the ProV1, so I wouldn't loose any distance in a roll back.

[Brent Hutto]

Matt,

The subject doesn't really admit much in the way of convincing. Quite simply, on the face of it, I affirmatively value playing the game as it has traditionally been played...under the same Rules as the best players. If that is of no value or minimal value to you then of course bifurcation doesn't ruin the game, it wouldn't matter at all.

If you split the game, then the matter will not be limited to ball specifications and maybe groove on the clubface. If there are two sets of Rules then there's no reason not to have two ways of defining or dealing with Hazards, two different size holes in the green or for that matter allowing hackers to take a mulligan per side. I'm not being faceteous here. Once you  decide that things as minor as how springy the golf ball is when hit by a Titanium driver are big enough issues to warrant entirely separate Rules then you're on a path that will eventually lead off to Cloud Cuckoo Land for no good reason.

[Brent Hutto]

Sean,

I share your sentiments but would point out the one argument for which I do have a lot of time, so to speak. The only thing regrettable IMO about modern distance is its effect in making the game more expensive, less accessible and slower to play by leading to 7,500+ yard courses everywhere you look. The spec of the ball could be changed 10% in any direction and it would affect my game not much and my scoring not at all but a less-lively ball would possibly slow down the runaway scale to which courses are being built and renovated.

[Garland Bayley]

Wouldn't bother me. Everyone gets rolled back, so what's the problem? Few objected when everyone was "rolled forward. The point is, relative to your playing partners you are still the same!

[Adam Clayman]

Bring it back to the featheries!

End the quest for greater and greater distance for the first time in the history.

As long as this sport has been around, someone somewhere has had the desire to get extra distance.

Changing would be great for ending the industry mindset. Place hundreds of thousands out of work and pretty much cease all the BS Golf has become.

[Doug Siebert]

I'm pretty long, and I guess I'd miss some of the ridiculously long drives I've hit over the past few years, but I don't think it'd take me that long to get used to it.  I certainly wouldn't be "bothered" by it though.  Well, that's not true, one thing would bother me:  I'm sure a small minority of golfers who hated this would have hoarded a lifetime supply of Pro V1s in their basement, and after about 10-15 years lost so many that they'd be spending a half hour looking for every one they lost because they couldn't afford to lose another!

I really have to wonder at the people who say they would be bothered by it because the longer ball has been compensating for their aging.  What are ya gonna do if the equipment makers can't keep delivering distance increases to compensate for your aging body, lobby the USGA to raise the ODS?

And for the inevitable 'you hypocrite' comments about people who want a rollback playing Pro V1 and Ti drivers.  We're just playing by the rules as they currently exist, just like the other golfers out there all the way up to and including Tiger Woods.  That doesn't mean we can't say the rules should be changed.
 
I kinda like what Shivas said about getting back to 1983ish times, but I wonder if that's just because of our age.  You ask a, er, "more mature" GCAer like Patrick Mucci or Bob Huntley, and they might suggest an earlier date.  I don't really care so much about what time they target, if they chose to target a time at all, I just want to go back to the way the ball behaved prior to the Pro V1 and similar balls.  Let people keep their 460cc drivers, I have some reservations about those but clearly they benefit the hacker more than the expert.  But getting additional distance (especially since it mostly accrues to those of us who already have plenty) is far more useful the lower your handicap.

[Tim Bert]

It wouldn't bother me if they froze the ball where it is today, but I think it would bother me (I'd get over it; there are more important things in life) if they rolled it back.  I'm comfortable with the distances I hit the ball now.  I wouldn't want to lose distance off the tee, particularly in the brutal winter months when I can't get the ball to go anywhere with the current technology.

Perhaps seasonal balls are in order.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil Benedict,

If you love the game, distance isn't a critical factor.

You'll play the game irrespective of the distance you can produce.

Was the game less enjoyable in 1950, 1960, 1970 or 1980, prior to when prodigious distances became routine ?

Terry Lavin brings up a related issue.
If the ball/equipment were dialed back, golf courses would have to be dialed back as well, but, that's easy to do.

You can't present 7,400+ yard courses and expect them to be played with I&B circa 1970.

I recently lost a great deal of distance, yet, I enjoyed the game just as much as I did before I experienced a significant loss in distance.   The game was even more alluring since it required MORE strategy on my part.  Features, especially hazards and architectural impediments became more of a factor in determining my play.

There are those who think golf is all about the long ball, and then there are those who understand the inherent lure and attraction of the game, and for them, distance ain't it, nor will it ever be.

[Justin Gale]

I would welcome the rollback. As with many others, I have not gained distance with using better balls, but have by using better clubs - significantly infact. Rolling back the ball will even up the playing field.

Part of the problem for me is watching long time playing partners, who never used to have any touch around the green, chucking up flops with their 60 degree spin-milled face and Pro V and sticking it. What ever happened to soft hands and skill for these shots?

[Lloyd_Cole]

 I have a relatively high typical swing speed of 116mph
 

You're an animal!

I can confirm that.

And roll it back! It won't affect me, I'm a very civilized human being next to Wayne.

[Glenn Spencer]

If professionals and state level and USGA competitons, (Walker Cup included, Mr. Mucci) play the same ball, I don't care what they do. I would prefer a rollback to the early or mid-90's as Ryan said. Let people play whatever the hell they want, but when calligraphy is being used pros and ams should play the same ball because they play in the same tournaments. It would not be fair to an amateur stick to have to go back and forth between balls to be on the same playing field with his amateur counterparts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Glenn Spencer,

If the USGA adopted a "competition" ball, regional, state and local associations would be quick to adopt it for their competitions.  Thereafter, the trickle down affect would take root in local clubs for their tournaments, and gradually, the competitive golf world would migrate to the ball, tournament or no tournament.

My guess is that The Masters will adopt a  "competition" ball FIRST, and that the USGA would adopt that ball or a variation of that ball, and thus the transition process would begin.

ANGC holds the key for a rapid adoption, not the USGA.

[Doug Siebert]

To be honest I just don't really see the USGA going the route of a competition.  I could perhaps see The Masters going there, but it would be more of a 'proof of concept' to show the USGA it could work to prod them into action.  I think this is less likely than I did a few years ago, for a time it really did sound like they gave it strong consideration.  Maybe the USGA told them they really planned to do something, or maybe Fazio showed them where he could put the 8000 yard tees for the 2010 Masters.

The USGA hasn't done or said anything to suggest that they want to maintain a different set of equipment rules for competition versus casual play.  Can anyone point to something that suggests otherwise, which doesn't require a lot of assumptions and reading between the lines?

If the USGA rolled back the ball for all golfers, there will be nothing, aside from the Rules of Golf, preventing golfers from playing balls conforming to the current rules.  There is, in fact, nothing preventing golfers today from playing balls that do not conform to today's Rules of Golf and as a result go significantly longer than today's ball is capable of.

I don't know exactly how much further they could go if not reigned in by the rules, but I'll again point out my little personal story about the guy I played with in the 80s who had some "illegal" balls who gave me one to try on my home course, and I hit one pin high on a 386 yard hole straightaway hole.  To this day that is 30 yards further than I've ever been on that hole, despite all the technology and 20 years worth of chances to get a really damn strong wind at my back!  I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that if technology was allowed complete free reign without regard for any initial velocity or ODS standard that I could drive it pin high on some of the shorter par 5s (probably pin high a fairway or two over, of course )

Nonconforming balls are rare today (do they still have ads for them in the back of golf magazines?)  So after a period of adjustment that might last a bit longer than the rules allow, I'd expect that the only source of nonconforming balls will be basement hoards or Pro V1s and wherever those balls you hit OB really deep in the trees today end up going.

[Doug Siebert]

Sean,

To be sure, "what the market will pay" is one component of the pricing of courses.  But its not quite so simple, what if the market won't pay what you need to make ends meet?  Having a lower 'breakeven' price is pretty important in such circumstances.  Even when you are making a healthy profit, would it be desirable to have lower loan payments and maintenance costs so your profit is even healthier?

Let's say you plan to design a typical "championship" course to open in 2009, so you use enough land to make it 7500 yards long, and leave room to expand it to 7900 "just in case".  Based on your land and maintenance costs, plus all the other costs, you have to charge $50/round to make a profit.  If you charge less, it loses money and goes bankrupt.

If the ball is rolled back, perhaps for that very same project you make it 7000 yards long, and maybe only leave 200 yards of "just in case" room.  Your land costs are perhaps 10% less, plus your maintenance is a bit less too.  Maybe your break even line is now $45/round instead of $50.

Its only $5/round, but what if the local market will provide sufficient demand to keep it afloat at $45, but it is too expensive and not enough people come out at $50?  There are probably more struggling courses that barely make ends meet or even lose some money each year that the owners hope will be made up down the road when the loan is paid off, more real estate is sold, or whatever, than there are courses that make plenty of money and have the luxury of trying to find that golden 'what the market will bear' point in the supply and demand curve where they maximize profit.

[Willie_Dow]

Patrick -

I agree with your mention of Augusta, and recall the Ohio Golf experiment.  It is something that should be kept on the table.

Willie

[TEPaul]

Doug:

I agree with you that the USGA doesn't seem at all interested in a "competition" golf ball that would create two separate equipment conformance standards. They say so very clearly in the "R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Principles" that can be found on the USGA website.

Patrick:

To expect a comprehensive trickle down effect to the average golfer with a "competition" ball is a pipe-dream. The fact that the average golfer played a type of golf ball for about 35 years that was significantly different from what all pros and good amateurs played basically proves that.

If the R&A/USGA rolls back distance via the golf ball it will be for everyone in the context of a unified single I&B standard.

The thing that interests me so much is the fact that the new age golf ball has basically benefited the high swing speed player disproportionately distance-wise.

If whatever characteristics of the new age ball that resulted in that disproportionate distance increase for high swing speed players is removed in a rule and reg change theoretically it's the high swing speed player who should be negatively effected, not the lower swing speed player.

That, in theory should bring the distance differential between the high swing speed player and the lower swing speed player back more in line with what it once was 10-20 years ago. And it should be able to be done in the context of a unified single conformance standard.

The thing that interests me about the contributors to this website is they have their own ideas about what the USGA should do and will do but they seem to completely overlook the fact that the USGA has asked all the ball manufacturers to submit prototype golf balls that go 15 or 25 yards less far.

Why does no one on here care to discuss why it was the USGA did that?    

[Phil Benedict]

Phil Benedict,

If you love the game, distance isn't a critical factor.

You'll play the game irrespective of the distance you can produce.

Patrick,

I do love the game and wouldn't love it any less if the technological advances of the past few years hadn't occurred.  However, we don't live in a vacuum and I have to admit I like the distance the new technology affords.  For one thing, it creates the illusion that I am still in my physical prime when in fact I am well into middle age.  For another thing, I have never really considered myself a good player but have always had above-average length.  I would rather be a good player with average length but haven't gotten there yet.

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick

"If the USGA adopted a "competition" ball, regional, state and local associations would be quick to adopt it for their competitions.  Thereafter, the trickle down affect would take root in local clubs for their tournaments, and gradually, the competitive golf world would migrate to the ball, tournament or no tournament"

You are living in a fantasy world...and this is where your fantasy of 300 yard carrys would hit the reality of just how far most golfers really hit the ball....

[Craig Sweet]

I can show you how to knock 20-30 yards off the average drive and it will save you lots of money.....

Return your fairways to 1970 mowing heights and ease back on maintinance to eliminate consistancy....in other words as the seasons change so would the firmness of the faiways and greens....softer in the wet spring, firmer in the dry summer (unless its a wet summer) and softer in the fall....

[Glenn Spencer]

Phil Benedict,

If you love the game, distance isn't a critical factor.

You'll play the game irrespective of the distance you can produce.

Patrick,

I do love the game and wouldn't love it any less if the technological advances of the past few years hadn't occurred.  However, we don't live in a vacuum and I have to admit I like the distance the new technology affords.  For one thing, it creates the illusion that I am still in my physical prime when in fact I am well into middle age.  For another thing, I have never really considered myself a good player but have always had above-average length.  I would rather be a good player with average length but haven't gotten there yet.

Phil,

Just asking, so I can get a feel for your game. How far did you hit at in 95 in what your 20's or 30' s or whatever and how far do you hit it now? I am not picking on you in anyway, but from what you wrote, it sounds as if you were above average then and now you are still above average. This is my point, the equipment doesn't help anyone get longer respectively, it just helps everyone get longer. While doing this, it adds expense to every course in the world that tries to adapt and it makes classics obsolete and it dumbs down the game. What exactly are the benefits? I have news for you that I have to stomach all the time, we are older and 16-year olds are still going to blow it by us, just like when we were 16. I don't think anything has changed.

[Glenn Spencer]

Glenn Spencer,

If the USGA adopted a "competition" ball, regional, state and local associations would be quick to adopt it for their competitions.  Thereafter, the trickle down affect would take root in local clubs for their tournaments, and gradually, the competitive golf world would migrate to the ball, tournament or no tournament.

My guess is that The Masters will adopt a  "competition" ball FIRST, and that the USGA would adopt that ball or a variation of that ball, and thus the transition process would begin.

ANGC holds the key for a rapid adoption, not the USGA.

Patrick,

You  may be right, I don't know how it could or would work best. I think your path is probably correct. My point, is that it would be unfair for Trip Kuehne and players of his calibre to have to go back and forth between balls. The state amateur and the US Open or Masters should be using the same ball. I don't think it matters what they use in the club championship.

[Craig Sweet]

Glenn...technology is not making everyone longer and straighter....those guys getting longer are those who work at their game...the guys that practice and work to improve their swing...the hack that was hitting it 175-200 yards STILL hits it 175-200 yards...sometimes a little straighter...MOST importantly, the new equipment might make the game more enjoyable...fewer real bad misses, no huge smiles in their $3.00 golf ball...

As for courses getting longer I have to ask why? For whom? Do these developers seriously think more than 1% of ALL golfers need to be challenged by 7500 yards?  Do they seriously think that boasting about, and building an 8000 yard course will make them money?

Old classic courses needing to be lengthened? Again, for whom? Why?  Are you telling me they are no longer a challenge for their membership? Are you telling me their membership consists of former 15 handicappers that are now 2 handicappers blasting the ball 300 yards because of new equipment?