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

[Garland Bayley]

I come from dirt poor folk. I assume you come from the country club set.

Garland,

Do the people you come from charge less for something than the buyer is willing to pay?

No, we pay less than what the seller is willing to sell for.

[JESII]

Chuck,

My apologies for poorly communicating my thoughts because you have misinterpreted my statement about Tiger voluntarily rolling back his equipment.

Today, there is a preponderance of long, soft golf courses that reward long, high shots and deft putting from 15 feet and in. If they played Riviera every week and the ground were really firm, Tiger would recognize the reduced benefits of long, high bombing because ball control would increase in value. He would reconfigue his bag to match the playing conditions. Firm fairways and greens ask for shots to be shaped into the slopes. The current balls mute thatopportunity, and a shorter course would reduce the need to have a potential 330 yard drive in the bag. His 460 cc head would become less valuable and one with more shot-shaping characteristics would return. This is the voluntary roll-back that can happen.

note: when I say Tiger, I am refering to all of them.

[JESII]

I come from dirt poor folk. I assume you come from the country club set.

Garland,

Do the people you come from charge less for something than the buyer is willing to pay?

No, we pay less than what the seller is willing to sell for.

One of the most amazing comments I've ever read...

[Melvyn Morrow]

Peter

The point about Formula 1 relates to the governing body who had the strength to control technology for the good of the sport. Many teams did not want changes - they had to accept the changes

Also in the near future Golf and Tiger are going to suffer from the same problem that F1 had with Michael Schumacher. The boredom and frustration of always the same person winning, tens of thousands will
turn of the TV button and revenue from advertising will starts to slow.
But my point was that the FIA who control Formula 1 also have a firm control over the technology in the sport.  

[Garland Bayley]

I come from dirt poor folk. I assume you come from the country club set.

Garland,

Do the people you come from charge less for something than the buyer is willing to pay?

No, we pay less than what the seller is willing to sell for.

One of the most amazing comments I've ever read...

Why is that amazing?

In most cultures in this world you are a fool for paying what the seller is asking.
I think JP Barnum had a thing or two to say about the American comsumer.

[Kalen Braley]

I often pay much less than what the seller is asking...

Its called finding balls on the course.   

[JESII]

We have a Lukoil gas station a half a mile from my house...2 miles in the other direction there is another Lukoil...the two stations prices are 5 to 8 cents per gallon different...always...any idea why?

[Garland Bayley]

We have a Lukoil gas station a half a mile from my house...2 miles in the other direction there is another Lukoil...the two stations prices are 5 to 8 cents per gallon different...always...any idea why?

I don't know what this has to do with anything we are discussing, but I have a large quantity of Strata Tour Professionals that I paid 67 cents each for that I bet in a blind test, you couldn't tell from your ProVs.

[JESII]

It has to do with your comment that you buy for less than the seller will sell for...you are operating under an illusion.

At some point in time, the seller was more than happy to unload those balls for 50 cents a piece...and you bought them for 67...

[Garland Bayley]

It has to do with your comment that you buy for less than the seller will sell for...you are operating under an illusion.

At some point in time, the seller was more than happy to unload those balls for 50 cents a piece...and you bought them for 67...

]

Sully,

If you can time markets to their absolute low, then you are an absolute genius and I need you for stock market investment advice. In the mean time, I will be happy to hear of all the people you know that did better than I did.
 

[JESII]

What I'm really trying to get at I guess is....if we're really just trying to not have to lengthen the courses for the Tigers of the world and we're really just trying to reel that top 0.1% of golfers back with the rest of humanity, WHY? We KNOW Tiger can leave the driver in the bag and flush 2 irons all day long down the middle of a shorter, tighter course (British Open), but for how long is that fun to watch? It's still amazing to see his skill around the greens, but I'm all for making the BEST players try to take risks and push their limits and take advantage of their unique skills and abilities without trying to take away that advantage just to make it easier on golf courses and the rest of the field. I still believe the longer set-up...the extra set of tees, the carry hazards that WHEN DONE PROPERLY shouldn't even come in to play for the rest of the world playing from their own correct set of tees aren't that bad of a thing. A golf course only suffers if it doesn't have any room to grow to accomodate these better players. And that is a discussion for a whole other topic.

JSP,

I think continuity would suffer tremendously in the scenario you describe, for whatever that is worth.

[Sean_A]

I am not a fan of long courses and have even recently begun to think that even 6500-6700 yard courses are too long for the vast majority of players.  Even so called good players can have their hands full (and maybe even have a bit of fun) on a 6200 yard or less course if they adjust their perceptions and accept that the driver doesn't have to be the ultimate club in the bag.  Even so, I have never been a believer in the rollback theory for a few reasons. 

First, a rollback to what?  Golf has always been a tech driven game both in playing equipment and in course maintenance.  Its very difficult to say what is ok and what is not.  Say the ball was rolled back the often mentioned 10%.  What happens, and it surely will because it is the nature of sport for records to fall, when guys carry the ball 300 yards?  Is it to be a constant tit for tat with manufacturers?  Companies run with R&D only to be be reeled back in by artificial limitations on tech?  Its a game the ruling bodies will always be behind in because manufacturers are techinically smarter and better funded than either the USGA or R&A. 

Second, is equipment to blame for classic courses being altered and new courses being built at 7200+ yards or is it mainly male ego and the willingness on the part of golfers to seek out  probably the easiest skill to master in golf - hitting the ball a long way?  The desire to hit a long ball has always been there, only the description of what a long ball is has changed.  The arguments about saving money with a reduction of length can be carried to a much further extreme.  Why have many selected 6800, 7000 or 6600 yards as the target?  Would it not make sense to save more money and make courses even shorter?   

Third, people who claim to be against new equipment use it.  I know I have heard the argument about trying to keep up with the Smiths so far as competition goes.  However, the bottom line is that very few players actually play for a living.  These folks I can excuse.  The amateurs at any level who claim one thing and do another don't convince me there is a problem.  Is competing at any level of amateur golf worth selling out your basic beliefs about what should be happening?  Actions speak far louder than words.  When these folks start taking action I will start paying attention to them.  At the moment, I have very little time or sympathy with a guy who professes one thing and then fuels the fire with his actions.  All of us amateurs have the luxury of playing the game exactly as we please.  Why do we look toward the a governing body to make the game more fun for ourselves? 

Ciao

   

[Garland Bayley]

...
Second, is equipment to blame for classic courses being altered and new courses being built at 7200+ yards

YES

or is it mainly male ego and the willingness on the part of golfers to seek out  probably the easiest skill to master in golf - hitting the ball a long way?

NO

The desire to hit a long ball has always been there, only the description of what a long ball is has changed. 

No, Sean, the ball has changed.

Third, people who claim to be against new equipment use it. 

In case you haven't noticed, you can't buy the old ball anymore. In response to my query, Titleist told me not only do they not make the old balls, all the equipment has been scrapped.

...At the moment, I have very little time or sympathy with a guy who professes one thing and then fuels the fire with his actions....

Can you spell specious?

[Michael Powers]

Rolling back the ball would be positive for golf.  But creating restrictions on the design of balls seems to be a nearly impossible thing to do since the proverbial horse has already left the barn.  There have been many threads on this site and articles written regarding this subject, however, no one has offerred a clear plan on exactly HOW to go about rolling back the ball. 

This got me thinking about the first time I ever heard about the spring-like effect of drivers.  It was '95 or '96 and when the Callaway rep. told me about the new Great Big Bertha and how the face actually acted like a spring, I thought he was out of his mind.  Forget about rolling back the ball, it's to complicated.  If you want to immediately slow down ball speed (which is essential if you want to cut distance), then the USGA should prohibit any spring like effect in drivers.  It would eliminate 25 yards right away.

[Sean_A]

...
Second, is equipment to blame for classic courses being altered and new courses being built at 7200+ yards

YES

or is it mainly male ego and the willingness on the part of golfers to seek out  probably the easiest skill to master in golf - hitting the ball a long way?

NO

The desire to hit a long ball has always been there, only the description of what a long ball is has changed. 

No, Sean, the ball has changed.

Third, people who claim to be against new equipment use it. 

In case you haven't noticed, you can't buy the old ball anymore. In response to my query, Titleist told me not only do they not make the old balls, all the equipment has been scrapped.

...At the moment, I have very little time or sympathy with a guy who professes one thing and then fuels the fire with his actions....

Can you spell specious?

Garland

I would like to see this course that a golf ball built/altered. 

No kidding,  the ball has changed?  Name me a period where manufacturers weren't trying to change the ball.   

If you can't find the ball you want hit less club.  The power of choice in how to play the game rests with golfers, not manufacturers.  As soon as golfers admit to this perhaps equipment won't mean as much in terms of the balance of tech and skill.  Though, please don't forget, the vazt majority of golfers are no where near reaching this balance.  Most are hopelessly underskilled.  If better players want to effect change, it will have to be led by them. 

Ciao 

[jeffwarne]

  Quote from Sean Arble

If you can't find the ball you want hit less club.  The power of choice in how to play the game rests with golfers, not manufacturers.  As soon as golfers admit to this perhaps equipment won't mean as much in terms of the balance of tech and skill.  Though, please don't forget, the vazt majority of golfers are no where near reaching this balance.  Most are hopelessly underskilled.  If better players want to effect change, it will have to be led by them. 

Ciao 
[/quote]

Sean,
Interesting point.
Nicklaus was long a proponent of rolling back the ball ,but mainly as his skills were diminishing-(from mid 80's on)
Perhaps if Tiger (at the peak of his game- now) started a crusade, it would mean something.
He certainly doesn't need the money from Nike at this point.

And you're right. it's a non issue for 90+% of golfers.

[JESII]

Michael Powers,

I think virtually every driver ever manufactured has some component of "spring-like effect". Might be wrong, but think about it, impact is pretty violent so you'd need something incredibly stable to not contract a bit before "springing" the ball off the face.



Jeff,

For what it's worth, I believe Tiger uses a ball with less juice than whatever might be the hottest ball out there...

[Michael Powers]

Jes,
The COR on the wooden heads and steel heads of old were negligable.
What we are talking about is COR.  The problem was that the USGA never enfoced their own rules as of 1984, otherwise, these drivers with much higher COR would never had made it to the market, and the game we new in the early 1990's would have changed somewhat due to a hotter ball, but nothing like you see today. 

Since 1984, Appendix II, 5a of the USGA rule book has stated in part: " . . . the face or clubhead shall not have the effect at impact of a spring." Wooden-headed clubs and even the metal woods made of steel do not have a spring-like effect--the resilience of the ball was solely responsible for the efficiency of the impact, as measured by the "Coefficient of Restitution" or COR. If I fire a ball at 100 miles per hour at a fixed steel plate and it comes back at 75 m.p.h., the COR is .75.

In the 1990s, manufacturers unveiled larger, "more forgiving" clubheads made from titanium. A surprising result was enhanced ball speed. Why? The switch to titanium helped create thin-faced clubs that had a "trampoline effect." Eventually the USGA found itself in a position where enforcing the original rule would have created problems, so in '98 it decided to draw the line at a point to include most of the clubs in the marketplace at that time. The COR limit was set at .83, compared to the .77 level exhibited by wooden or steel heads. This is like saying: "No smoking allowed--but six cigarettes is OK."

Golf Digest, Frank Thomas

[JESII]

MP,

Can you give me a real world example of the difference between .77 (wodden heads) and .83 COR?   They seem pretty close to me, and supports my statement  "I think virtually every driver ever manufactured has some component of "spring-like effect" while contradicting your  "The COR on the wooden heads and steel heads of old were negligable" response.

[Chuck Brown]

...  Even so, I have never been a believer in the rollback theory for a few reasons. 

First, a rollback to what?  Golf has always been a tech driven game both in playing equipment and in course maintenance.  Its very difficult to say what is ok and what is not.  Say the ball was rolled back the often mentioned 10%.  What happens, and it surely will because it is the nature of sport for records to fall, when guys carry the ball 300 yards?  Is it to be a constant tit for tat with manufacturers?  Companies run with R&D only to be be reeled back in by artificial limitations on tech?  Its a game the ruling bodies will always be behind in because manufacturers are techinically smarter and better funded than either the USGA or R&A. 
   

Sean - Yes.  Whenever there needs to be a rollback or an adjustment based upon technological developments, yes, we should do so.  Why not?  Why would any body elevate the importance of a bit of equipment as silly and as inconsequential as a golf ball above the great classic golf courses?

And Sean, I don't propose to play with anything less than the best equipment for me that I can find within the rules.  My game isn't good enough to worry about, mostly, but I would never think about handicapping myself, equipment-wise.  And I think everybody should do the same.  Play with the best legal equipment you can find for yourself.  My advocacy is for changing the rules.  And the rule changes are really only intended to rein in the longest-hitting elite players.

Again, these are all elementary concepts.  If you (1) think, as I do, that all of golf should be govererned by one set of rules, and (2) think, as I do, that changes made to classic championship golf courses are detrimental to the game and to those courses, and (3) believe, as just about every informed observer of tour golf does, that changes in the game and in golf course setups are due in large part to golf ball technology and to a lesser degree in driver technologies and wedge grooves, then if you accept all of those things, you have to accept the wisdom and necessity of adjusting the already-existing and sometimes-adjusted rules on equipment technology.

[Jim Thompson]

Just make the pebble spin again and the world will be in balance. 

[Garland Bayley]

Michael Powers,

Since the spikes in additional distance on tour have corresponded to new ball technology, how do you conclude this spring like effect of drivers is the culprit?
Other than of course that it sounds impressive.

[Garland Bayley]

...
No kidding,  the ball has changed?  Name me a period where manufacturers weren't trying to change the ball.   
...

The manufacturers may have been trying to change the ball, but they were being held in check. The first thing that held them in check was the initial velocity limit. When, the manufacturers found how to make the ball go longer within the initial velocity limit, the distance standard was added to prevent them from advancing in that area. The most recent gains by the manufacturers have been obtained by artificially changing the spin rate, effectively giving the effect of putting vaseline on the driver. Since it has been illegal to put vaseline on the driver, I find it amazing that the USGA has let the ball manufacturers create this effect without regulating them. The obvious response would be to put limits on balls spin, since that was the technology that created the increased the distance players were hitting the ball.

[Sean_A]

...  Even so, I have never been a believer in the rollback theory for a few reasons. 

First, a rollback to what?  Golf has always been a tech driven game both in playing equipment and in course maintenance.  Its very difficult to say what is ok and what is not.  Say the ball was rolled back the often mentioned 10%.  What happens, and it surely will because it is the nature of sport for records to fall, when guys carry the ball 300 yards?  Is it to be a constant tit for tat with manufacturers?  Companies run with R&D only to be be reeled back in by artificial limitations on tech?  Its a game the ruling bodies will always be behind in because manufacturers are techinically smarter and better funded than either the USGA or R&A. 
   

Sean - Yes.  Whenever there needs to be a rollback or an adjustment based upon technological developments, yes, we should do so.  Why not?  Why would any body elevate the importance of a bit of equipment as silly and as inconsequential as a golf ball above the great classic golf courses?

And Sean, I don't propose to play with anything less than the best equipment for me that I can find within the rules.  My game isn't good enough to worry about, mostly, but I would never think about handicapping myself, equipment-wise.  And I think everybody should do the same.  Play with the best legal equipment you can find for yourself.  My advocacy is for changing the rules.  And the rule changes are really only intended to rein in the longest-hitting elite players.

Again, these are all elementary concepts.  If you (1) think, as I do, that all of golf should be govererned by one set of rules, and (2) think, as I do, that changes made to classic championship golf courses are detrimental to the game and to those courses, and (3) believe, as just about every informed observer of tour golf does, that changes in the game and in golf course setups are due in large part to golf ball technology and to a lesser degree in driver technologies and wedge grooves, then if you accept all of those things, you have to accept the wisdom and necessity of adjusting the already-existing and sometimes-adjusted rules on equipment technology.

Chuck

I am not sure what that means.  How far do you want the ball rolled back because of technology?  A lot of golf is about technology - from the clubs we hit, the balls we use, the courses we play on and the gadgets we employ to figure out yardage and to improve our swings.  The game of golf and technology are hopelessly meshed.  You cannot take one away from the other. 

I don't have a problem if you want to change the rules.  I follow the rules and will follow them whatever they are.  My problem is with folks who say the game is compromised by technology then use the stuff.  Its very bizarre behaviour for those that don't make a living at the GAME (golf is a game- no?).  Furthermore, then these golfers blame somebody else for creating rules which allows them to compromise the game.  Stand back and give this concept some thought.  From my perspective two things should happen if golfers really believe the game is on the rocks because of technology - unfortunately, both require action on the part of golfers which is why any success on this front will take a long time.

1. Stop supporting a system which runs counter to your beliefs.  If equipment is a problem, don't use the equipment or find another way limit its effect.

2. Start creating competitions with other like minded golfers in which equipment is negated. 

I do differ from you in that I don't really care how the big boys play the game, I don't really care if there are two sets of rules depending on how good a player is and I believe that lengthening courses due to a few long hitters is a terrible knee jerk reaction on the part of clubs that is mostly driven by ego on the part of members to have their club be seen as the best and toughest - enough so to take on the pros.  I think this sort of thinking is silly and in the long run, if acted upon, a great disservice to most members. 

Once again, the power of choice lies with each golfer.  Sometimes, we are forced to make uncomfortable choices in matching our behaviour with our beliefs.  It may not be ideal, but golf is afterall, just a game. 

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

The debate trundles on regards technology – I am not against technology because ultimately, I suppose, its progress on the march, but I am very keen in controlling the distortion it creates. Over the last 100 years, the balls and clubs have clearly changed yet retaining a visual similarity, thus giving today’s golfer a massive advantage over their earlier counterparts. This totally eliminates any type of comparison either in the performance of the golfer or his scorecard. In short, the majority of records have effectively been rendered useless. There is also the course factor to take into account.

Have read many topics on GCA.com, clearly it is a much debated subject. By now most of you will have realised that I yearn for the classic game of golf. Yes, I want a good set of clubs and a ball that will not deform, break or shatter; I want courses that blend in with the adjacent countryside. I don’t agree with mechanical transport or yardage/distance calculators (if you can’t judge distance what the hell are you doing on a golf course – this is also directed at those professionals who want to use artificial aids – because that is exactly what it is). Technology has and is changing the game, forcing longer course to pander for the Professionals and big hitters, but take away the high tech ball/clubs, those who love their long ball game can still achieve their goal, Professionals will still wow the crowds with their performance. Courses can remain within the 20th Century boundaries, reducing maintenance and build cost, limiting the financial burdens on clubs and course owners, which might reflect in sensible green fees.

This is the problem, there is no single authority with the balls to take on the job, to push the debate, coordinate with the equipment manufacturers, clubs/course owners and golfers. I deliberately have not included the Professionals, because of their numbers, and as professionals they could use their ability to adapt their skills to the more traditional game – after all they are paid a massive amount of money to entertain us.

I would of course love to see an overnight change, but I fully understand that others do not share my image of golf.  I don’t have the answer, but perhaps we should promote the use of more Hickory clubs and competitions.  Allow the golfer the option of a his/her current ball/club combination or the more classical set up, run them both together, but in separate rounds. Encourage and support the Alfie Ward’s of this world. Promote small, older course like Arbury Brae which may slowly but steadily offer an alternative to the current madness.

If you believe that Golf is all about winning then, my friend, you are lost forever.