Would a rollback of the golf ball.....

[JSPayne]

...act more like a limited flight ball for some players, but not all?

I know the idea of a ball rollback is a popular answer the "technology" problem with length in golf, but would doing so negate the distance advantage for only the BEST drivers of the ball (Tiger, Boo, etc.) or would it equally limit the distance of all players, including your average golfer?

Answered either way, this question also begs the next:

If it does act as more of a limiting factor for only the better, high club head speed golfers.....is this just an attempt to reel them back in closer to the rest of the competition? To take away an obvious advantage they have over the rest of the field?

And if it would really effect everyone equally and subsequently reduce the demand on "lengthening courses", why is this so necessary? Lengthening is really only done for the Tour players and should not effect the everyday golfer, since they should continue to play from the tee set most suitable to their own game. What does it matter if the course can be played from 7800 yards if you know you can only handle 6500 and there is a set of tees built to that distance? It seems the real difficulty in course lengthening lies with the architects, to find creative and ingenious ways to make the course strategy elements applicable to all players from all sets of tees, and the superintedents, who may be in charge of maintaining an extra few acres of grass.

[ChipRoyce]

I don't believe a ball roll-back needs to require 1 standard ball.

I've proposed for years a method of rolling the ball back similarly to how 12 meter racing yachts are designed. Here's a description of how that works in the yachting world:

**However, the 12 Metre class, like the J boats, were designed based on a formula. This meant that 12 Metre Class yachts could vary in sail area, length, and other speed production aspects**

Translating this to the golf ball, the different dimensions could include hardness / feel, distance, spin or other dimensions. Some calculation could be developed that would say that a feel + spin ball would naturally sacrifice distance and vice versa. This would allow the golfing public to play distance balls, not taking the fun from that part of the public game, while ensuring that the professional game doesn't overempahsize distance.

Included within this suggestion is that the forumla would penalize the distance factor much more severely in order to provide "pro" styled spin and feel that one gets from the modern tour ball (ProV1, Nike One, etc..)

What do you think?

[JESII]

I propose a roll-back of people's expectations that Tiger Woods will actually ever show up at their course...

Are the people that actual do play these courses today making them "obsolete"?

[Steve Sayre]

It's not about "Tiger showing up" --- as we have seen with Holmes, Watson, Weekly et al, this is what its come to.  At my club the good 18 - 25 year-olds are overpowering holes today from the back tees ---- this is going to continue, don't you think? And there is something wrong with golf design that requires 7,400 or 7,700 yards in an era of vanishing water resources and higher and higher maintenacne budgets that are a function of acreage.

[Mark Smolens]

I'm no engineer, but we've debated/discussed this topic on Shackelford's blog a bunch.  Seems to me that the scientists who design balls for Wally, Phil, and the rest, could create a ball that when struck at huge clubhead speeds will not travel so far.  The reduction in distance for slower clubhead speeds would be incrementally reduced (so say the engineers).

Bubba JB will still be able to fly the ball further than Tiger, but only because they generate higher club head and ball speeds.  All in all, a roll back would actually increase the difference between Tiger and the rest, because he is so much more skilled than they are.  The fact remains, that when a carry of 320 over a bunker doesn't mean anything to these guys because they can simply blow it over, hazards on the type of courses that get discussed on this site (the Merions, the Oakmonts) become irrelevant -- and the courses must become tricked up, by excessively narrowing the fairways, overgrowing the rough, and placing pins next to the edge.

The lower handicap chops like me probably won't even notice the difference in the amount the ball carries because I have to avoid those hazards now. . .

[Chuck Brown]

Of course it is true that for recreational players, the Pro V era has meant little in terms of direct impact to them.  The vast majority of recreational players can happily - and should - play on 6500 yard golf courses.  For 99.8% of the members and guests at Merion, that course is and will always be a classic and fully demanding test.

Having stipulated to all of that, let's ask some more questions:

~If average consumers/recreational players have gained so little with the advances of the Pro V era, what do they have to lose in any rollback, particularly one that is aimed at the performance parameters of elite players?  Recreational players have little to lose and nothing to fear, is what I say.

~If the net result of a careful ball rollback was that recreational players' games was nearer to that (distance-wise, at least) of the tour players', would that not be a great thing for golf?  I think so.

~What is the real benefit to average golfers of technology that provides them with tiny benefits and yet provides elite players with substantial benefits?  Nothing, I say.

~What is the benefit, to the general game of golf, of equipment technology that pushes distance gains to ever-higher levels?  I once challenged the Golf Digest Equipment Bloggers "Bomb and Gouge" (Mike Stachura and E. Michael Johnson) on this point and they ultimately replied that if Augusta National and The Old Course became obsolete for championship play, that would be okay.  (They doubted it would happen, and said that they'd be happy to have an extra week to play those courses themselves if it could be arranged...)  But the point remains, what good does it do golf to have an ever-increasing arms race in terms of equipment?  Why make million-dollar changes to golf courses at all, anywhere, if instead we could retool a $3 golf ball?

[Pete Lavallee]

What does it matter if the course can be played from 7800 yards if you know you can only handle 6500 and there is a set of tees built to that distance? It seems the real difficulty in course lengthening lies with the architects, to find creative and ingenious ways to make the course strategy elements applicable to all players from all sets of tees, and the superintedents, who may be in charge of maintaining an extra few acres of grass.

JPS,

Let's say you are in charge of designing the next 7800 yard Tour course. You want to build a par 4 so you put a bunker in which requires a 320 yard carry, to keep Tiger, JB and Bubba honest. From that point you want them to hit a mid iron, let's say a 5 iron, so the distance to the green is 200 yards from there. Now just how are you going to make that 520 yard par 4 playable for an average golfer? His tee would need to be 100 yards ahead of Tiger's and then if he pulls off his tee shot to the intended landing area he has a 3 wood to the green! Boy, I just can't wait to go play there.

[Richard Choi]

Let's say you are in charge of designing the next 7800 yard Tour course. You want to build a par 4 so you put a bunker in which requires a 320 yard carry, to keep Tiger, JB and Bubba honest. From that point you want them to hit a mid iron, let's say a 5 iron, so the distance to the green is 200 yards from there. Now just how are you going to make that 520 yard par 4 playable for an average golfer? His tee would need to be 100 yards ahead of Tiger's and then if he pulls off his tee shot to the intended landing area he has a 3 wood to the green! Boy, I just can't wait to go play there.

Why can't you just have a tee box that is 120 to 150 yards ahead of Tiger's and put another bunker that is about 250 yards from there? The second bunker would not be in play for Tiger. And you will have a mid-iron in for an average player.

[JESII]

It's not about "Tiger showing up" --- as we have seen with Holmes, Watson, Weekly et al, this is what its come to.  At my club the good 18 - 25 year-olds are overpowering holes today from the back tees ---- this is going to continue, don't you think? And there is something wrong with golf design that requires 7,400 or 7,700 yards in an era of vanishing water resources and higher and higher maintenacne budgets that are a function of acreage.

Steve,

Do those other guys you mentioned play there often?

When you say there are 18 - 25 year olds overpowering holes, are they also shooting in the low 60's frequently?

Do you think a 7500 yard course would increase or decrease their advantage over you and I as opposed to a 6900 yard course with real firm greens?

[JSPayne]

Pete...

It might be hard to describe without a visual, but let's try this for an answer:

A dogleg right with the carry bunker on the inside right corner. To make the hole as short as possible, the pros would have to try to carry the bunker but risk rough through the fairway if their drive won't stop. Otherwise they are forced to bail out farther left into the middle of the fairway and have a longer second shot. Joe Blow's tees would be 100 yards closer, as you say, but forward and farther left, so the dogleg is much less severe. They still have the challange of carrying 220 over the bunker but should they accomplish it, their ball would run out down the fairway leaving a shorter shot into the green.

It's all about angles, contours and tee placement. Yeah, given specific properties and constraints it can be tough, but that's what the architects get paid for right?

[CJ Carder]

Going in a slightly different direction, I actually think rolling back the ball would help players like Tiger, not because he could still hit it further, but because having players hit from further back requires them to play golf shots rather than just aiming 10 feet right of the flat and hitting it dead straight.  And to be honest, I don't think a majority of players could hit the types of shots that would be needed to consistently score well.  Tiger can, and has said as much.

As for the average golfer, another thought I've had is that I hit the ball as far today with my Pro-V1x as I used to hit it when I first started playing golf with a Pinnacle 10 years ago.  So while the ball I use may be softer and more receptive around the greens, they can roll back the ball to 10 years ago and I can just go to a harder, lower compression golf ball and still get my distance.  Where I lose in the equation is the spin I generate out of the bunkers and on short game shots.  Therefore, I'm required to pay more attention to the architecture of the course and pay closer attention to how I manage my game.  But on the whole, I don't see it changing the way I play my average daily round that much.

[TEPaul]

We've had so many of these threads on distance and rollback and such on here but here's my opinion again:

The two regulatory bodies that control equipment standards (the R&A and USGA) should do one of two things:

1. The R&A & USGA has already asked all the ball manufacturers to submit golf balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far. Apparently all the manufacturers have submitted their prototypes that do that and apparently all those balls are now undergoing testing. When that testing phase is complete the two regulatory bodies should make these two types of ball the new standard and phase them in over about 4-5 years. Additionally, the R&A and USGA should add a "Condition of Competition" to the appendix that can be adopted for tournaments requiring the use of the ball that goes 25 yards less far.

2. Simply institute a sixth regulation on the golf ball mandating a "Mininimum" amount of spin rate. In my opinion, that minimum spin rate limitation should be something akin to the spin rate of the old "soft" or so-called balata golf ball.

[Garland Bayley]

I propose a roll-back of people's expectations that Tiger Woods will actually ever show up at their course...

Are the people that actual do play these courses today making them "obsolete"?

Sully,

I don't think it has anything to do with Tiger Woods. With the modern ball, there are all kinds of young players that drive the ball insane distances with better accuracy, and still have the control they need for the short game. In the past, if you wanted the distance and accuracy, you had to give up the short game control. If you wanted the short game control you had to give up the distance and accuracy.

I think they need to return to the times when the spin imparted to the ball was directly proportional to the loft of the club. They need to outlaw the virtual vaselineing of the ball/club interface.

Unfortunately, everything I have seen from the USGA seems to indicate they are wimping out on this. They have asked for trial balls, but they still allow the trial balls to have the unnatural spin characteristics of the modern ball.

EDIT: Interestingly, now that Titleist has lost the patent suits for the virtual vaselining technology, perhaps they will lead in getting us back to a proper ball.

[JESII]

EDIT: Interestingly, now that Titleist has lost the patent suits for the virtual vaselining technology, perhaps they will lead in getting us back to a proper ball.

I think Bridgestone did that...titleist just figured out how to sell a hell of alot more of them...

Would it be ideal to you if all the golf equipment companies fired all of their engineers? What do we need engineers for if we cannot try to improve our products? And I am serious...

[Garland Bayley]

EDIT: Interestingly, now that Titleist has lost the patent suits for the virtual vaselining technology, perhaps they will lead in getting us back to a proper ball.

I think Bridgestone did that...titleist just figured out how to sell a hell of alot more of them...

Would it be ideal to you if all the golf equipment companies fired all of their engineers? What do we need engineers for if we cannot try to improve our products? And I am serious...

Strata (TopFlite) did that with the addition of a 3rd Strata (layer) to the ball.

Engineers should be used for legitimate improvements, not for ones that play loose with the spirit of the rules.

EDIT: E.g., why did we need a balata/cuttable cover on the ball just to make it spin?

[JESII]

Right! Forgot about the Strata.

What would be a "legitimate improvement" to the equipment being developed 15 years ago?

I do not understand your EDIT question...or if I do understand it, I do not have an answer...I would guess that the balata cover was a hell of an improvement from whatever preceeded it.

[Garland Bayley]

The edit was about the fact that a legitimate improvement would be to make a cover that retained the spin characteristics of balata, but did not cut like Balata.

[Pete Lavallee]

It's all about angles, contours and tee placement. Yeah, given specific properties and constraints it can be tough, but that's what the architects get paid for right?

JPS,

Your philosophy will work OK for par 3's; just build a tee far enough forward so that Joe Public hits the same club as Tiger. But all non par 3 holes that aren't perfectly straight have a turn point that dictates the strategy of that hole. You can build it to accomdate only one class of golfer, the options for the other classes are by definition, a concession. By bringing the distance of Joe Public and Tiger closer together it will again be possible to accomadate disparate golfers in one design; for now you can't build a course that does that, no matter how imaginative the architect is.

[Phil Benedict]

The edit was about the fact that a legitimate improvement would be to make a cover that retained the spin characteristics of balata, but did not cut like Balata.

I think that's what elastomer, which I'm sure I'm spelling wrong, did with the introduction of the Titleist Professional.  This was a wound ball with flight characteristics similar to the balata balls but the cover was more durable.  Tiger won the 97 Masters with this ball. 

[JESII]

Garland,

When I need my ProV1 to spin, it does so just fine, thank you...



Pete,

Are you suggesting that there are mane courses whose non-par threes all "turn" at the same distance?

Bringing everyone closer together will do one thing, and one thing alone...minimize the importance of one of the most important factors in athletics...power. Why would we want to do that by mandate? Why not re-create the green end challenges that force a player like Bubba Watson to more carefully consider his approach position before hitting his tee ball. The guys that are really accurate have a big edge if the green is prepared properly...or...are we actually looking to bring the short, crooked hitters into play?

[Pete Lavallee]

Pete,

Are you suggesting that there are mane courses whose non-par threes all "turn" at the same distance?

JES,

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. JSP said all we need to do is build a tee farther up and the hole will play OK for the shorter hitter. But that will never happen when, from the landing zone someone is hitting a 7 iron and the other golfer is hitting his 3 wood.  I'm not trying to negate the power advantage within the Pro game; just trying to make a golf course better suit both the golfing public and the Pro game at the same time.

[Chuck Brown]

JESII - I disagree with you entirely.  No one is in any way proposing the end to golf equipment R&D.  That is your own silly and unwarranted notion.  Golf balls are heavily (just not effectively) regulated already.  Has that resulted in the end of R&D?  Of course not.

Nor would new, better, more effective regulations mean the end of R&D.  Competitive ball makers would go right back to the proverbial drawing board to build a better ball under new regs.  Isn't all of that quite obvious?

As for negating power and athleticism, that is also an unsupportable canard.  I don't propose to regulate golf balls to help or hurt JB Holmes.  I don't expect a ball rollback would "contain" Tiger Woods.  (Most likely there would be an opposite effect with Tiger, thereby putting the lie to anyone who is dumb enough to claim that Jack Nicklaus favors a ball rollback so that Tiger Woods doesn't break all of his records.  No dumber comment was ever made on the subject of Woods and Nicklaus.)

No, the point of a ball rollback is not to change any competitive balance.  It is not to hurt one class of players or help another class of players.  It is for one reason only; to preserve the game as it is currently played best.  To better fit the game to the existing courses.

[JESII]

No, the point of a ball rollback is not to change any competitive balance.  It is not to hurt one class of players or help another class of players.  It is for one reason only; to preserve the game as it is currently played best.  To better fit the game to the existing courses.

And that is our disagreement...you think the game is worse today than it was X number of years ago because Tiger Woods hits the ball so far.

What type of scores are regularly shot on the course(s) you play that warrant tee extensions?

[Chuck Brown]

No, the point of a ball rollback is not to change any competitive balance.  It is not to hurt one class of players or help another class of players.  It is for one reason only; to preserve the game as it is currently played best.  To better fit the game to the existing courses.

And that is our disagreement...you think the game is worse today than it was X number of years ago because Tiger Woods hits the ball so far.

What type of scores are regularly shot on the course(s) you play that warrant tee extensions?

Yes I think the game is worse today because Tiger Woods and almost every other tour player hits the ball so far.  Why?  One reason is becuase he only had room to hit driver once in the course of winning the British Open at Hoylake.  And to host a championship for Tiger and his fellow pros at The Old Course, the course has to be stretched and controted almost beyond recognition, and because of the changes that that kind of game has neccessitated at places like Augusta.  I regard those courses as works of art that should not be changed, at least not in their essential character.  It is so collossally easy to change the ball (an inconsequential, unimportant and unmemorable part of the game in comparison to the courses) as opposed to the classic championship sites.
And why is it important to worry about the elites' game and their championship layouts?  Because clearly one of the great traditions in golf is that it is played the wrold over under a single set of rules.
So, to answer your question, I don't know and I don't care about any scoring issues.
Now, a question to you:  How is the game served by equipment that leads to golf course obsolescence, at the elite level if not the recreational level?

[Chuck Brown]

edit. - duplicated post