Roll back the ball - saving golf

[Andy Hughes]

David, rather than it not having impacted 'many of us', I suspect it might be more accurate to say it hasn't effected any of us though I may be wrong about that.

If the great old courses don't want to change, then they shouldn't change. If Merion has a treasure on their hands they are either fools for ruining it for 4 days of Open golf every 25 years, or they feel it is worth it.   Same for new courses. While I have no idea how many new courses are over-sized or even exactly what that means, I suspect almost all have no real reason to be so.  If a new oversized course is built to 7400 yards, how many people are going to play it from there vs 6700 or 6400; and worse, isn't the % that need to be at 7400 to be challenged so tiny that they should almost be ignored?

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

Nice story about the dude hitting the drive 370 -- just for the sake of info -- what did he score that day. Was it a tap-in eagle?

Or did the guy three-jack and walk away with a standard par ?

Thanks ...

[Jason Topp]

David, rather than it not having impacted 'many of us', I suspect it might be more accurate to say it hasn't effected any of us though I may be wrong about that.

If the great old courses don't want to change, then they shouldn't change. If Merion has a treasure on their hands they are either fools for ruining it for 4 days of Open golf every 25 years, or they feel it is worth it.   Same for new courses. While I have no idea how many new courses are over-sized or even exactly what that means, I suspect almost all have no real reason to be so.  If a new oversized course is built to 7400 yards, how many people are going to play it from there vs 6700 or 6400; and worse, isn't the % that need to be at 7400 to be challenged so tiny that they should almost be ignored?

Because clubs (and public courses) thrive when they have top quality amateurs at their course.  In order to attract such players a course needs to be long enough to warrant use to prep for state level competition.  

My course is widely considered a great test of golf for players of any ability, but it is a 6600 yard par 70 course.  The best players do not have any desire to join (even temporarily while Hazeltine gasses its fairways and greens).

Courses are not lengthening due to some macho instinct.  I believe they are doing so because it is necessary to thrive in a tough environment.

[Jason Topp]

Jason:

Nice story about the dude hitting the drive 370 -- just for the sake of info -- what did he score that day. Was it a tap-in eagle?

Or did the guy three-jack and walk away with a standard par ?

Thanks ...

I believe he shot 70.  He made birdie on the hole after two putting from 20 feet. 

As I have discussed on the other thread, score is irrelevant to this issue for me.  What is important is that a course require a variety of interesting shots.  He hit drivers/half wedges all day.  If he would have been required to hit a variety of shots and shot 55, I would view that as a wonderful development.  If he would have shot 80 after hitting drivers/half wedges on every hole, the same problem exists.

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

You're missing my point.

People can mention all the horror storis about unchecked distance but the issue certainly involved what people do shoot and how they are able to control shots when hitting for such distance.

The change in the grooves will certainly add a bit more equity to the matter at-hand because with a lack of spin control the advantages gained for certain players will be minimized by its impact.

Let me also point out the idea that EVERY one is reducing courses to the kind of driver / wedge elements you mentioned is also a big time stretch. Like I said before -- people see one guy do something and ergo the fish story then becomes much bigger.

In regards to the other point -- if a club believes they need to VALIDATE their standing by hosting some sort of event then those folks need to really understand what their course is about -- ditto on the yardage side of things. Plenty of clubs have sought to expand their ego bragging rights at the expense of a layout that more than adequately meets the needs of its membership.

One final thing -- how many of these long time bombers are routinely shooting 3, 4 or 5 under par when they play such a 6,600 yard layout? You say scoring doesn't matter -- we agree to disagree on that point.

[Gary Slatter]

China might manufacture most of what we use to play golf, however they are making it to order for US companies !
Amazing how some  companies have almost eliminated the knockoffs by having their clubs made by the same firms.
 

[Dan Herrmann]

Gary,
That's true for today, but 20 years from now, our friends in China will have begun making their own equipment to their own specs.

But to me, David said it perfectly in post 72.

[Bill Brightly]

I also agree 100% with what David said in post # 72. It is not about the average golfer, but rather, the effect the ball is having on golf course design and re-design.

I bet my club is no different than most, where the top young players are pushing for new black tees, re-located bunkers, and 6 figure construction projects become the norm.

It's crazy and unnecessary. I also think the PGA realizes that it has a major problem on its hands because of the widening disconnect between the game the pros play versus its audience.

[DMoriarty]

A few posts above Jason provided an interesting chart showing how playing Huntington Valley has changed over the years, but the last year was Jim Sullivan in 1999.  I wonder if anyone can convince Jim to give us an update.  It is a decade later and so age has likely taken it's toll, but I'll bet only the longest  par fours have become three shot holes for him.

Jason, you mentioned the change since then in percentage terms.  Without commenting on whether the percentage is correct, I'd just like to point out that looking at this in terms of percentages tends to understate the impact the increases have on the design.   Many of our courses cannot grow any more and even relatvely small percentage gains on already huge driving distances makes a huge difference.  Also, a small percentage increase for a very long driver results in a larger real gain relative to  the same percentage gain  for a much shorter driver.  In other words, on a course of static distance, the long hitter gets a bigger real advantage for the same percentage gain.  Add this to the fact that the technology already disproportionately favors the longer hitter, and one can begin to understand how the growing gap between long and short shots strains the architecture beyond the breaking point.   

[Sean_A]

Bill & David

It is not what distance does to golf courses, but members' perception of how easy their course plays when the flat bellies show once a year.  Clubs don't have to change to combat distance, they choose to, imo, much more often than not, wastefully.  To be honest, I think members would change their courses regardless of distance.  Its in the nature of a club to do so and we have ample evidence of this.  For this reason, it is best to focus on what we (as in the royal we) control, the courses and ourselves.  We have no control over what flat bellies do. In fact, even if there is a roll back of even as much as 10% - it has no virtual effect on distance - these guys can still bomb it. 

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

In fact, even if there is a roll back of even as much as 10% - it has no virtual effect on distance - these guys can still bomb it. 

Yeah, the people arguing for a "rollback" tend to claim that Tour players are now teeing off with 3-woods and hybrids instead of drivers because they hit it further than the course requires. It's a bit nervy to turn around and claim that we can "roll back" the ball 10, 15, 20 percent (whatever) and the result will be shorter courses. No, they'll just go back to hitting drivers if they need to.

[Garland Bayley]

...When I started playing golf in the early 1990's a slow swing speed hacker like me had little choice but to play hard as a rock two-piece Surlyn golf balls and just live with the fact that they chipped and putting like crap. All I've gotten out of the decade and a half of progress is that I can now play a ball that is as much fun around the greens as the balls the Tour players use but it doesn't veer off into the next ZIP code when sliced, fall out of the air after 90 yards or get destroyed when I hit a thin shot. And it goes just as far (in the air at least) as those old rocks. So when the revolution comes, I'll miss being able to eat my cake and have it too but I can play with rocks just like I used to if that's the deal. Pity it would have to come about because some people can't stand to see the elite 1% of golfers hitting it way, way, way past them instead of just way past then as they did a couple decades back.

Brent,

Do you have any data that would verify that you "had little choice but to play hard as a rock two-piece Surlyn golf balls?"
If you are the "slow swing speed hacker" you claim, that was probably the wrong ball choice. Not gaining distance with the ProV is exactly as expected since it gives the added distance to high swing speed players.

[Jud_T]

Sean,

You hit it right on the head...It's not about how the course plays for the average 15 hdcp. member, it's about keeping up with the Joneses and maintaining a courses status.  This is not to be dismissed so easily as the standing of a course in a community, rankings etc. can dramatically affect membership values, greens fees, # rounds, etc....

[Garland Bayley]

People have been imploring the USGA and the R&A for decades to roll back the ball.  Believe it or not, I found an article by the famous golf writer O.B. Keeler, in which he made the argument that the "modern golf ball" had to be adjusted to prevent the inexorable march to 7,000 yard golf courses.  He wrote this in 1928!  I think that it's very, very unlikely that anything will be done to take away the "improvements" to the golf ball.  I think we just have to accept that the professionals play a much different game and that the older courses are going to be changed if they hope to keep hosting professional tournaments.

"During the history of golf, there has been only one serious attempt to roll back the ball. This occurred in 1930 when the USGA broke from R&A and unilaterally changed the specifications for a golf ball." JVB, The Balloon Ball, IMO section

Pretty likely since it actually happened.

Are not the initial velocity test, and the overall distance standard also ball roll backs? The technology is there to far exceed them, but can't be utilized.

[Brent Hutto]

...When I started playing golf in the early 1990's a slow swing speed hacker like me had little choice but to play hard as a rock two-piece Surlyn golf balls and just live with the fact that they chipped and putting like crap. All I've gotten out of the decade and a half of progress is that I can now play a ball that is as much fun around the greens as the balls the Tour players use but it doesn't veer off into the next ZIP code when sliced, fall out of the air after 90 yards or get destroyed when I hit a thin shot. And it goes just as far (in the air at least) as those old rocks. So when the revolution comes, I'll miss being able to eat my cake and have it too but I can play with rocks just like I used to if that's the deal. Pity it would have to come about because some people can't stand to see the elite 1% of golfers hitting it way, way, way past them instead of just way past then as they did a couple decades back.

Circa 1995 I played hard (typically Top Flite) Surlyn balls. I tried various things like a Titleist Professional, a Strata, et al. and they all lost distance big-time and went crooked. This was before the ProV1 came out but when it showed up it had the same effect given my swing. A few years later the Noodle-type low compression hard-cover balls came out and they gained me some (carry) distance but still played totally like rocks chipping and putting.

Only since 2005-ish have there been a couple models on the market that are as soft as a ProV1 around the greens yet I don't give up any distance relative to a rock-ball. I think the first one that exhibited that quality was the Maxfli "M2" (IIRC) and now I'm using a Taylor Made TP Red that actually seems to carry a bit farther than a low-compression hard-cover ball (which seems unbelievable but true). And it spins nice with a wedge but doesn't spin so much as to slice or hook excessively with the longer clubs. It's really some magic technology for a bad-face-angle 90mph swinger like me.

[Garland Bayley]

Circa 1995 I played hard (typically Top Flite) Surlyn balls. I tried various things like a Titleist Professional, a Strata, et al. and they all lost distance big-time and went crooked. This was before the ProV1 came out but when it showed up it had the same effect given my swing. A few years later the Noodle-type low compression hard-cover balls came out and they gained me some (carry) distance but still played totally like rocks chipping and putting.

Only since 2005-ish have there been a couple models on the market that are as soft as a ProV1 around the greens yet I don't give up any distance relative to a rock-ball. I think the first one that exhibited that quality was the Maxfli "M2" (IIRC) and now I'm using a Taylor Made TP Red that actually seems to carry a bit farther than a low-compression hard-cover ball (which seems unbelievable but true). And it spins nice with a wedge but doesn't spin so much as to slice or hook excessively with the longer clubs. It's really some magic technology for a bad-face-angle 90mph swinger like me.

So it seems you don't have any hard data, but are simply offering impressions.
Otherwise, you wouldn't attribute opposite characteristics between two balls, where one was a copy of the other.

[DMoriarty]

Sean,

I am not so sure that the increase has only been felt by the professionals or the Plus Handicaps.   The advantage the new balls provide the player is directly related to swing speed.  The slower the swing speed, the less relative advantage these new balls provide.  While I cannot tell you from personal experience (my swing is molasis) but it seems that the distance advantage really to kicks in for those somewhere in the mid to high 90's for the ProV1 type ball and closer to 110 for the ProV1x type ball.  

And there are plenty of players -- even mid-single digit handicappers -- with high enough swing speeds to take advantage of distince dividend provided by these new balls.  And even though these guys may not be great golfers, they hit the ball a mile (well, maybe a fifth of a mile.)  And while I don't necessarily agree with them,  I understand why these guys don't feel they fit in on 6500-6600 yard courses and especially 6200-6300 yard courses.  As was noted above, these long hitters end up hitting way too many wedges and half wedges.

Plus, the growing distance gap presents design dilemnas even among those with similar scoring abilities.  We now have very good golfers (say with an index of three) who might regularly drive the ball 70 to 90 yards less than those with similar scoring abilities, and with the distance difference decreasing with each shorter club.)   My guess is that most courses have both such long and short hitters of similar abilities, but many courses cannot reasonably accomodate both groups from the same tees. This is especially so of newer courses which often feature very long carries for better players just to reach the fairways.  Remember the first open at Bethpage where some professionals were having trouble even reaching the fairways?  A similar setup and design problem exists at all courses, because the gap between golfers of similar abilities has grown and grown.   How can architecture work when there is such a huge gap between short hitters and long hitters, especially when they are of similar scoring ability?  

As for what should be done,  I disagree that anything will ever change if we rely on the golfers to change it.   Most of them don't understand the issue, and they can always find a newer and longer course or convince their own course to mutilate itself to accomidate them.   And we have far too many Wardian golfers out there whose self-worth as golfers is very much tied into the Ball-(must)-Go-Far mentality and they continue to downplay and misrepresent the issues because they need to hit it a mile in their bones.  (See Matt's posts above as an example of the kind of self-delusions these guys suffer from.  Matt apparently hadn't even noticed the 30-40  yard increase in driving distance gained by the longest hitters with the introduction of these balls!)

Plus, no matter how they might feel about the issue, I don't think it is reasonable to expect Saturday morning golfers to carry their feelings on the issue into own matches, competitions, and club events in the hopes that Titleist or their courses will notice and change their ways.    Depending on their swingspeed, playing with the old equipment might put them at a tremendous disadvantage, and I have trouble seeing how them making martyrs of themselves will help the situation.  

I do agree with you in a post above, however, that the problem [and best hope for a solution] lies with the egos of those running the old established clubs.  They need to push back against the USGA and stop the madness by saving their most valuable assets.   One would think this would be easy, because those running the old great clubs are often the same guys as those running the USGA, but unfortunately this is a major disadvantage because these guys have acted as shills for the equipment manufacturers and are voluntarily self-mutilating their courses!

_____________________________________

In fact, even if there is a roll back of even as much as 10% - it has no virtual effect on distance - these guys can still bomb it.  

Yeah, the people arguing for a "rollback" tend to claim that Tour players are now teeing off with 3-woods and hybrids instead of drivers because they hit it further than the course requires. It's a bit nervy to turn around and claim that we can "roll back" the ball 10, 15, 20 percent (whatever) and the result will be shorter courses. No, they'll just go back to hitting drivers if they need to.

Brent, once again you forget that this is about the architecture.

COURSES ARE BEING CHANGED (or built differently) because the long hitters are now hitting hybrids and irons off of tees that used to require drivers.[/b]    If the ball is pushed back to a point that they must hit drivers again, then there is no reason to mess with the courses!

I only give a damn about this because of THE IMPACT IT IS HAVING ON THE COURSES.

Is this so difficult for everyone to understand?  This is after all a website about golf courses.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm having trouble parsing your objection to my anecdote, Garland. No I am not in possession of a golf ball testing facility nor have I seen any published, comprehensive results from same. Not sure what is a copy of what but after trying the TP Red for a dozen rounds I told the pro at our club that it seemed to gain me some distance relative to other "Tour Quality" balls and he had heard the same from other players with my kind of swing speed. So it's all anecdotal but when my own experience comports with that of other players at my club and with the advice of the pro who sells all the different brands I consider that good enough evidence.

[Garland Bayley]

Sean,

A lot of us have seen the quote to the essence that it used to take two hours to play a round of golf, now it takes three. I don't recall who quotes it as their tagline here, but the interesting part is that it turns out to be a criticism of the lengthening of golf courses.

To me the ball issue causing egos of members of courses that few have any dream of accessing to lengthen their courses is of less consequence.

Unless we get a group of architects like Tom Doak that are in a position to build their courses the way they want, which is short by today's standards with a great walking game, then there is a big problem. As you well know, the new course developers are almost all demanding long courses, which leads to longer rounds, and other degradations of the game such as requiring golf carts. It is these courses that people actually have access to that can be blamed on the ever lengthening distance technology brings to the golf ball.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Brent,

You missed playing the Tour Edition ball by Spalding. It had the distance of a Top-Flite and the spin of a balata.
Do you remember watching Norman and/or Mickelson zipping one of these balls onto the green?....and sometimes chipping back on after they spun it back off the front?

[Brent Hutto]

Brent, once again you forget that this is about the architecture.

[/b]COURSES ARE BEING CHANGED (or built differently) because the long hitters are now hitting hybrids and irons off of tees that used to require drivers.[/b]    If the ball is pushed back to a point that they must hit drivers again, then there is no reason to mess with the courses!

I only give a damn about this because of THE IMPACT IT IS HAVING ON THE COURSES.

Is this so difficult for everyone to understand?  This is after all a website about golf courses.

Not difficult to understand. I just don't buy your dream scenario. You posit clubs who have lengthened their classic courses because elite players play all the Par 4's driver-wedge. Someone has pointed out that the really elite players (Tour pros) play a lot of courses with 3-woods or hybrids off the tee. Your claim is you can throttle back the ball and make them play their approach shots from further back and this will cause the clubs to cease lengthening their courses. Do I have that right?

My scenario is that no, the elite players would hit the throttled-back ball driver-wedge or maybe driver-9iron but unless you throttle it back a ridiculous amount those clubs are still going to lenghten, lengthen, lenghten some more in the hopes of seeing flat-bellies hit long irons into the greens that people were hitting long irons into 40 years ago. I do not think your proposed solution will result in your hoped-for result.

P.S. Let me amplify that one more bit. You are working from the assumption that clubs with older courses would like nothing better than to leave the courses unchanged but that the big, bad flat-bellies and equipment vendors are forcing them onto an endless path of longer, longer, longer. I think it's just as likely the clubs want to "update" their courses and will continue to do so even if (as it certainly appears at the moment) the gains in distance for elite players have leveled off.

[Jud_T]

Brendt,

you may be right that the cat's already out of the bag, but at least we can draw the line at 7500 yards instead of inexorably marching to 10,000...

[DMoriarty]

Brendt.

 I don't think you are recognizing that a huge component of the recent jump in distance is pure technology.    It has nothing to do with fitness, etc.   And it wouldn't be worth pushing the ball back a bit.  But if they pushed it back to the mid-90s that would make a huge difference in how the old (and new courses played.)

I do agree with you that swingspeeds have increased, this too was driven by TECHNOLOGY.  Not many could get away with swinging at 125 mph with a Balata because the spin would kill the shot either by a hook or slice, or by the incredible backspin such partially offseting the increased swing speed.  Technology has advanced enough that, just as many of these factors have been taken out of the game, they could be put back into the game.    In other words, the technology exists to draft regulations that actually would make a big difference and put the distance difference between long and short at a more manageable point.  And it could be done without knocking back the slower swinger to the Rock Flite.  

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I am not so sure that the increase has only been felt by the professionals or the Plus Handicaps.   The advantage the new balls provide the player is directly related to swing speed.  The slower the swing speed, the less relative advantage these new balls provide.  While I cannot tell you from personal experience (my swing is molasis) but it seems that the distance advantage really to kicks in for those somewhere in the mid to high 90's for the ProV1 type ball and closer to 110 for the ProV1x type ball.  

And there are plenty of players -- even mid-single digit handicappers -- with high enough swing speeds to take advantage of distince dividend provided by these new balls.  And even though these guys may not be great golfers, they hit the ball a mile (well, maybe a fifth of a mile.)  And while I don't necessarily agree with them,  I understand why these guys don't feel they fit in on 6500-6600 yard courses and especially 6200-6300 yard courses.  As was noted above, these long hitters end up hitting way too many wedges and half wedges.

Plus, the growing distance gap presents design dilemnas even among those with similar scoring abilities.  We now have very good golfers (say with an index of three) who might regularly drive the ball 70 to 90 yards less than those with similar scoring abilities, and with the distance difference decreasing with each shorter club.)   My guess is that most courses have both such long and short hitters of similar abilities, but many courses cannot reasonably accomodate both groups from the same tees. This is especially so of newer courses which often feature very long carries for better players just to reach the fairways.  Remember the first open at Bethpage where some professionals were having trouble even reaching the fairways?  A similar setup and design problem exists at all courses, because the gap between golfers of similar abilities has grown and grown.   How can architecture work when there is such a huge gap between short hitters and long hitters, especially when they are of similar scoring ability?  

As for what should be done,  I disagree that anything will ever change if we rely on the golfers to change it.   Most of them don't understand the issue, and they can always find a newer and longer course or convince their own course to mutilate itself to accomidate them.   And we have far too many Wardian golfers out there whose self-worth as golfers is very much tied into the Ball-(must)-Go-Far mentality and they continue to downplay and misrepresent the issues because they need to hit it a mile in their bones.  (See Matt's posts above as an example of the kind of self-delusions these guys suffer from.  Matt apparently hadn't even noticed the 30-40  yard increase in driving distance gained by the longest hitters with the introduction of these balls!)

Plus, no matter how they might feel about the issue, I don't think it is reasonable to expect Saturday morning golfers to carry their feelings on the issue into own matches, competitions, and club events in the hopes that Titleist or their courses will notice and change their ways.    Depending on their swingspeed, playing with the old equipment might put them at a tremendous disadvantage, and I have trouble seeing how them making martyrs of themselves will help the situation.  

I do agree with you in a post above, however, that the problem [and best hope for a solution] lies with the egos of those running the old established clubs.  They need to push back against the USGA and stop the madness by saving their most valuable assets.   One would think this would be easy, because those running the old great clubs are often the same guys as those running the USGA, but unfortunately this is a major disadvantage because these guys have acted as shills for the equipment manufacturers and are voluntarily self-mutilating their courses!

_____________________________________

In fact, even if there is a roll back of even as much as 10% - it has no virtual effect on distance - these guys can still bomb it.  

Yeah, the people arguing for a "rollback" tend to claim that Tour players are now teeing off with 3-woods and hybrids instead of drivers because they hit it further than the course requires. It's a bit nervy to turn around and claim that we can "roll back" the ball 10, 15, 20 percent (whatever) and the result will be shorter courses. No, they'll just go back to hitting drivers if they need to.

Brent, once again you forget that this is about the architecture.

COURSES ARE BEING CHANGED (or built differently) because the long hitters are now hitting hybrids and irons off of tees that used to require drivers.[/b]    If the ball is pushed back to a point that they must hit drivers again, then there is no reason to mess with the courses!

I only give a damn about this because of THE IMPACT IT IS HAVING ON THE COURSES.

Is this so difficult for everyone to understand?  This is after all a website about golf courses.

David

My experience of the USGA tells me they are not going to be the saviour of architecture.  Logically, this leads me to look in another direction and that has to be the consumer.  For a few reasons I know it isn't likely the consumer will be assertive on this issue. First, mist consumers don't accept there is a problem.  More accurately, most don't care.  Second, the urge change and keep up with the Jones' is overwhelmingly difficult to ignore for most.  Finally, its easier to sit back and blame someone else for the problem even though the real problem lies with the consumer.  So I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.

Garland

There are a whole host of reasons for the game being slower today than 100 years ago.  Length of courses is one of them, however; the consumer has the choice and at the moment many choose long and slow.  The point is that the consumer runs the show whether they accept that responsibility or not.  I dare say that most on this site are guilty of the very things they rail against when it comes to technology and golf.  Most are looking for ways to keep up with the Jones', yet want someone else to monitor and limit their consumer  behaviour.  I have no time for this double standard.  When guys drop the technology, then they have earned the right to be taken seriously on this issue.  

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

So I suppose you're proposing that they not only lower the ODS by 10, 15, 20 percent but that they legislate higher-spinning balls that go crooked? I guess that dovetails with the shallow-grooved wedges. If you're willing to go far enough I guess you can make the high clubhead speed guys bunt the ball around intead of swinging at it but the whole exercise seems rather bloody-minded to me.