Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.

[Sean_A]

"Progress".  It seems in other sports they've kept the distance the same and seen times come down. Why has golf tried to keep the score the same and made the courses, longer, narrower and harder?  No one's ever explained the reason for that to me.

Tony,

Driving by the public park yesterday, it dawned on me that their were baseball fields downsized for kids.  High school fields don't have as big a dimenision to the fences as college fields and college fields aren't as large as pro fields.  The ballparks get bigger in relation to the strength and power level they are designed for.

There were numerous soccer fields there and even for different level kids they were at different sizes, much smaller than pro fields.  I know from my kids playing days that there are different sized balls from age 6 and up.

I think the problem with golf is the commerical aspect of trying to make all courses fit all players, not that some players play too well. 

All of the ballfields I saw were either subsidized recreation by the city, or commerical places for the pros (i.e. the Texas Rangers baseball stadium just down the street from me)  They couldn't be both, but the nature of golf tries to make our playing fields serve too many masters.  Thus, the idea of the PGA Stadium Courses might not be so bad, except that we want to see Tiger and Phil win where Ben and Jack did more than baseball does.  They seem to realize that their fans want the conveniences of new stadiums other than Fenway and Wrigley Field, which I guess must be the TOC and NGLA of golf, no?

BTW, in general are newer parks bigger than Wrigley?  I know some are built smaller specifically so more homers are hit, not unlike TPC courses having the driveable par 4 and reachable par 5's because the Tour knows fans like birdies.  And they like the long ball in both sports.

The idea of trying to limit the abilities of different players seems kind of odd in any sport that is trying to identify the best players, no?  I don't think there is any "magic" point in time where golf got it exactly right that we should force people into. Just like life itself, we just have to see where it evolves to and that is the natural order of things, not stagnation.

I think your argument potentially fails on two levels.  First, it was always the case that the ideal course was suitable for most players if not nearly all players.  Whether or not there was a significant number of courses which actually achieved "ideal" status - I don't know, but I think it is clear that achieving that level of "ideal" is harder today than ever.  Second, the folks who want to cut back on the influence of technology and restore some sort of balance are asserting that the players aren't getting better, or at least not improved enough to explain the huge gains in distance these past 10 years. I think the roll backers are suggesting that the players of today are better equiped and this equipment is creating a sitaution whereby the ideal course can no longer be the goal.  So much so is this problem that even non-championship courses are altered to accommodate the long ball.

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

"Progress".  It seems in other sports they've kept the distance the same and seen times come down. Why has golf tried to keep the score the same and made the courses, longer, narrower and harder?  No one's ever explained the reason for that to me.

Tony,

Driving by the public park yesterday, it dawned on me that their were baseball fields downsized for kids.  High school fields don't have as big a dimenision to the fences as college fields and college fields aren't as large as pro fields.  The ballparks get bigger in relation to the strength and power level they are designed for.

There were numerous soccer fields there and even for different level kids they were at different sizes, much smaller than pro fields.  I know from my kids playing days that there are different sized balls from age 6 and up.

I think the problem with golf is the commerical aspect of trying to make all courses fit all players, not that some players play too well. 

All of the ballfields I saw were either subsidized recreation by the city, or commerical places for the pros (i.e. the Texas Rangers baseball stadium just down the street from me)  They couldn't be both, but the nature of golf tries to make our playing fields serve too many masters.  Thus, the idea of the PGA Stadium Courses might not be so bad, except that we want to see Tiger and Phil win where Ben and Jack did more than baseball does.  They seem to realize that their fans want the conveniences of new stadiums other than Fenway and Wrigley Field, which I guess must be the TOC and NGLA of golf, no?

BTW, in general are newer parks bigger than Wrigley?  I know some are built smaller specifically so more homers are hit, not unlike TPC courses having the driveable par 4 and reachable par 5's because the Tour knows fans like birdies.  And they like the long ball in both sports.

The idea of trying to limit the abilities of different players seems kind of odd in any sport that is trying to identify the best players, no?  I don't think there is any "magic" point in time where golf got it exactly right that we should force people into. Just like life itself, we just have to see where it evolves to and that is the natural order of things, not stagnation.

I think your argument potentially fails on two levels.  First, it was always the case that the ideal course was suitable for most players if not nearly all players.  Whether or not there was a significant number of courses which actually achieved "ideal" status - I don't know, but I think it is clear that achieving that level of "ideal" is harder today than ever.  Second, the folks who want to cut back on the influence of technology and restore some sort of balance are asserting that the players aren't getting better, or at least not improved enough to explain the huge gains in distance these past 10 years. I think the roll backers are suggesting that the players of today are better equiped and this equipment is creating a sitaution whereby the ideal course can no longer be the goal.  So much so is this problem that even non-championship courses are altered to accommodate the long ball.

Ciao

Add to Sean's cogent thoughts above the impact on new courses (although this likely won't be a problem in the near term    ) - the extra length and ensuing width required to accommodate the distance achieveable with new equipment and the desire of owners to host major events means more acreage, more irrigation, more maintenance.  If courses could be < 7,000 yards and still challenge the top players through regulation of the B&I, solid savings and water conservation can result.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I recall someone did an analysis of how much of the distance gains were clubs, balls, maintenance and fitness.  I think the ball was 25% but I could be wrong.

Yes, the ideal course always was for "everyone."  Except that for a long time, everyone didn't include women!  I think the biggest factor in 100 yard tees has been retrofitting courses on the short end (take away 1000 yards rather than add 200)  But yes, adding the back tees is a challenge today.  The 7000-6500-6000-5000 yard courses built in the last 30 years really don't fit anyone - the back tees are too short, and the 6000 and 5000 yard tees are actually too long for those who use them and should be 5750 and maybe 4400 yards.  6500 is a fairly useful distance.

So, why isn't the idea of ignoring the 1% of golfers who want or "need" a 7300 yard course just as viable as limiting their length via technology rollbacks?

In reality, how many foursomes are comprised of mixed groups of scratch golfers and mid handicappers that need some kind of equalization on the competitive side to make their daily round more enjoyable (beyond handicap and distance equalizations?)

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I recall someone did an analysis of how much of the distance gains were clubs, balls, maintenance and fitness.  I think the ball was 25% but I could be wrong.

Yes, the ideal course always was for "everyone."  Except that for a long time, everyone didn't include women!  I think the biggest factor in 100 yard tees has been retrofitting courses on the short end (take away 1000 yards rather than add 200)  But yes, adding the back tees is a challenge today.  The 7000-6500-6000-5000 yard courses built in the last 30 years really don't fit anyone - the back tees are too short, and the 6000 and 5000 yard tees are actually too long for those who use them and should be 5750 and maybe 4400 yards.  6500 is a fairly useful distance.

So, why isn't the idea of ignoring the 1% of golfers who want or "need" a 7300 yard course just as viable as limiting their length via technology rollbacks?

In reality, how many foursomes are comprised of mixed groups of scratch golfers and mid handicappers that need some kind of equalization on the competitive side to make their daily round more enjoyable (beyond handicap and distance equalizations?)

Jeff

On the truly ideal courses I would say women were included.  They could play from men's tees without losing a ball or feeling and more beat up by length than poos male golfers. 

I am with you in that ignoring the long ball hitters is the most prudent way forward.  I say let them sort out how best to make the game challenging without changing courses.  However, the folks who make decisions about these things obviously disagree and continue to lobby for increased lengths on new and old courses.  As I stated earlier, these power guys are the problem with their knee jerk reactions, but it would seem they are infallible.  That only leaves attacking the technology which is largely responsible for the long ball game as we know it today (which to me is the distance guys carry the ball).  It doesn't matter if differing abilities play with each other - the option for the long hitters is made available on many courses.  This, of course, jacks up the costs and the price to the end user.

Ciao

[Michael Whitaker]

FACT:  There were no rules governing clubs until 1908, or balls until 1921.

FACT:  The USGA limited the number of clubs to 14 in 1938; the R&A followed suit in 1939.  Before these dates there were NO LIMITS to the number of clubs a player could carry.

FACT:  The loft for putters was limited to 10 degrees in 1976.

It seems to me there are two very simple answers to the "rollback" issue:

1) When necessary (e.g., due to course length) tournament committees could use a local rule to limit the number of clubs that the competitor can carry. Cut the pros from 14 clubs back to 12 or 10 and see how they deal with the challenge of crafting shots.

and/or

2) The USGA, PGA Tour, R&A, et al, could enact a local rule during competitions limiting the acceptable lofts of clubs. Lofts could be limited to 15 or 16 degrees on one end and 56 on the other, for example. This would effectively lengthen the course while still allowing professionals to use equipment available to the general public. 

Both of these solutions can be accomplished within the current rules of golf WITHOUT altering the benefit of modern equipment to the average player... or, without the ruling bodies risking litigation from the manufacturers.

What say you?

[Chuck Brown]

Michael -

Sorry.  I say, "No."

Limiting the number of clubs has been raised by Frank Thomas.  Frank Thomas was the genius who told us, back in the days of the Great Big Bertha, that driver head size was fast reaching a point of diminishing returns and wouldn't get much bigger (in those days, a 360 cc driver head was the biggest thing anyone could imagine).  Frank was wrong.  As we found out, when the USGA hastily slapped a limit of 460cc on drivers becaus, uh, the biggest drivers then being sold were 460 cc.  And limiting the number of clubs is another dumb Frank Thomas idea.  Sorry.  We don't have a problem with players being tested on their creativity with trying to hit cut 5-irons.  We have a much simpler problem; the fact that there is hardly a Par 4 in the world that JB Holmes cannot turn into a drive and a wedge.  Distance is the problem.  Not anything else.  If you limited players to 12 clubs or 10 or whatever, THE LAST three clubs to come out to of the bag will be driver, lob wedge and putter.  Limiting the numbers of clubs does nothing to dent the strategy of bomb-and-gouge.  Period.  End of discussion.  I am sorry to be so abrupt.

And yes, you could limit the loft of clubs.  Allow me to tell you why I do not like that rule-idea.  First, I don't really know what it is that anyone is trying to prevent, or challenge, or change by limiting loft.  Tell me, what is the problem with a 60-degree wedge?  What excess is it that you are trying to address with a loft limit?  Second, the only way to police loft is to test all lofted wedges at all events; there's not much to having a (labeled) 56-degree wedge that is bent to 58.  Is the idea of limiting wedge loft to somehow make players throttle back with driver?  Is that the idea of heavy rough?  Narrowed fairways?  What's the point?  Why ask players to "throttle back" at all?  If they can hit golf balls that just go too far with driver (as is the case, right now) why not just put better limits on the golf balls?

I have never understood all of these weird, roundabout methods for dealing with distance problems:  it is as though there were a new fleet of Ferrari F-1 passenger cars, all going 200 mph on freeways (and causing the kinds of problems that going 200 mph in traffic would generate), and the way that authorities dealt with the problem was to make roads more slippery, or more narrow, or that they removed guardrails, or spread oil slicks, to get the drivers to throttle back.

Yes, there is a distance problem in golf.  Nobody needs to guess about that; it is not debatable.  It is a problem.  We know it is a problem for the simplest of reasons; we are having to deface great classic championship courses in order for them to host major championships.  So that's the problem.  And the problem is that players hit the ball too far.  And they hit the ball too far for many reasons, virtually all of them technological in nature, which can all easily be addressed by better technological regulations.  But BY FAR the easiest thing to regulate, without doubt and beyond any serious arguement, is THE BALL!  The ball is the cheapest, most fungible, least memorable, least important part of the game.  It is the easiest thing in the game to change, to re-regulate, to modify, in order to preserve the best, most fragile, most historic, most irreplacable, most enduring most important thing about our game -- the classic championship golf courses.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Chuck I like your style of thinking.  Now please apply yourself to how WE can influence this situation and post your ideas for action on the other thread. 
Tony via Blackberry

[Sean_A]

Michael -

Sorry.  I say, "No."

Limiting the number of clubs has been raised by Frank Thomas.  Frank Thomas was the genius who told us, back in the days of the Great Big Bertha, that driver head size was fast reaching a point of diminishing returns and wouldn't get much bigger (in those days, a 360 cc driver head was the biggest thing anyone could imagine).  Frank was wrong.  As we found out, when the USGA hastily slapped a limit of 460cc on drivers becaus, uh, the biggest drivers then being sold were 460 cc.  And limiting the number of clubs is another dumb Frank Thomas idea.  Sorry.  We don't have a problem with players being tested on their creativity with trying to hit cut 5-irons.  We have a much simpler problem; the fact that there is hardly a Par 4 in the world that JB Holmes cannot turn into a drive and a wedge.  Distance is the problem.  Not anything else.  If you limited players to 12 clubs or 10 or whatever, THE LAST three clubs to come out to of the bag will be driver, lob wedge and putter.  Limiting the numbers of clubs does nothing to dent the strategy of bomb-and-gouge.  Period.  End of discussion.  I am sorry to be so abrupt.

And yes, you could limit the loft of clubs.  Allow me to tell you why I do not like that rule-idea.  First, I don't really know what it is that anyone is trying to prevent, or challenge, or change by limiting loft.  Tell me, what is the problem with a 60-degree wedge?  What excess is it that you are trying to address with a loft limit?  Second, the only way to police loft is to test all lofted wedges at all events; there's not much to having a (labeled) 56-degree wedge that is bent to 58.  Is the idea of limiting wedge loft to somehow make players throttle back with driver?  Is that the idea of heavy rough?  Narrowed fairways?  What's the point?  Why ask players to "throttle back" at all?  If they can hit golf balls that just go too far with driver (as is the case, right now) why not just put better limits on the golf balls?

I have never understood all of these weird, roundabout methods for dealing with distance problems:  it is as though there were a new fleet of Ferrari F-1 passenger cars, all going 200 mph on freeways (and causing the kinds of problems that going 200 mph in traffic would generate), and the way that authorities dealt with the problem was to make roads more slippery, or more narrow, or that they removed guardrails, or spread oil slicks, to get the drivers to throttle back.

Yes, there is a distance problem in golf.  Nobody needs to guess about that; it is not debatable.  It is a problem.  We know it is a problem for the simplest of reasons; we are having to deface great classic championship courses in order for them to host major championships.  So that's the problem.  And the problem is that players hit the ball too far.  And they hit the ball too far for many reasons, virtually all of them technological in nature, which can all easily be addressed by better technological regulations.  But BY FAR the easiest thing to regulate, without doubt and beyond any serious arguement, is THE BALL!  The ball is the cheapest, most fungible, least memorable, least important part of the game.  It is the easiest thing in the game to change, to re-regulate, to modify, in order to preserve the best, most fragile, most historic, most irreplacable, most enduring most important thing about our game -- the classic championship golf courses.

Chuck

What is the inherent problem with distance and how does distance specifically effect you?

Ciao

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck

What is the inherent problem with distance and how does distance specifically effect you?

Ciao

Sean I don't know about "inherent" problems.  The straight ol' simple "problem" with distance as we know it today is that it has made it so that elite players cannot contest championships on our historic, classic championship courses.  (That response from me could not have surprised you.)  I mean, we could technically hold a championship anywhere, but the fact is that elite players now just overpower all but the exceptional, extremely long, golf courses.

The distance issues of the elites don't affect me at all.  Not personally, not even in my dreams.  I'm a 53 year-old with a 9.1 index.  But let me tell you a little story.  When I was 17, I caddied for a 34 year-old Jack Nicklaus; 1973, in his prime.  He was LONG.  As long as anybody on the tour, when he wanted to be.  He was very much playing within himself, however.  Still, he dug the long ball the way chicks dig the long ball.  Jack's favorite little keepsake was a money clip he won, for beating George Bayer in a PGA Championship long-drive contest.  Anyway,  I had the exteremely rare privilege of caddying for him on a course he only saw once but which he had designed (in name) with Pete Dye in the Detroit suburbs and when he found out that I had caddied for Lee Trevino on the same course a few months earlier, he became eager to talk to me about distances and club selection, etc.  And as we went around, I remember the locations that he had hit shots to where I had never been, as well as shots that were well within my comprehension as a then-strong 17 year-old.  I wish Jack were here to confirm this story; there were places that he and I could have used the same club to get home.  There were also shots that just left me saying, "Wow."  Nowadays, there are but a few world-class 17 year-olds who can play with long-hitting tour pros.  (We know some, as freaks of nature and biognenic research:  a young Tiger Woods, a Ricky Barnes, etc.)  My point is I am not that good and wasn't that good.  But the new era of equipment has widened the gap between merely good players and tour pros.  If you ask Jack today, that is exactly what he will tell you.

Anyway, I wouldn't even care; I'm not good enough to worry about anybody's game but my own, and I am not overpowereng anything; not Merion, not Maidstone, not my local muni.

I simply stand for these principles:

1.  The game of golf is best when played the world over by one set of rules.  Any bifurcation of the Rules of Golf is bad.  Very bad.

2. The simple problem with distance is only that elite players, playing with equipment that conforms to the current regulatory regime, are obsoleting great classic golf courses, which are the heart and soul of the game we love.  I don't care who is winning, or losing, on the PGA Tour.  I don't wish to see long hitters be beaten, or short hitters win.  Or lose.  I am unconcerned about "Tigerproofing" aything.  I would very much like to see the Tour driving average rolled back by about 5%-10%, but particularly with the longer hitters; not because I don't like them but only because I like to see golf played as a game that fits the golf courses as they were designed.

3.  We should be able to find a way to reign in distance for the elites, without affecting recreational players.  I know that Pro V's have not helped me gain any great distances.  I can tell, from PGATour.com and from Shotlink, how much the ProV has helped tour players since 1999.  If they banned the Pro V tomorrow (not that that would be a solution to anything; it wouldn't) it would have no discernable affect on me.

[Bill_McBride]

Chuck, you may be opposed to bifurcation, but your well reasoned arguments point in that direction,   IF we give a fig about protecting the classic courses and throttling back the distance of new courses.

[Craig Sweet]

Personally, I could care less if they hold another PGA/USGA tourney on a classic course...if they want to limit the distance the ball played by pro's will go so they can continue to play those courses, fine.  But 99% of us are not over powering these courses.

[Ken Moum]

Nowadays, there are but a few world-class 17 year-olds who can play with long-hitting tour pros.

I, too, like the way you think.  But everyone here who thinks that this is a problem that only shows up on Tour is not paying attention.

In the last couple of years I have had the opportunity to ride around in a cart with a writer friend of mine at some Kansas Golf Assn. events and I can tell you that there are dozens of amateurs in Kansas who absolutely beat a golf course to death with distance.

When Gary Woodland was still an am. he was the longest by several yards, but the guys I watched in his group weren't very far behind him off the tee.  And when he turned pro, he was instantly one of the top five in driving distance on Tour.

Heck, even in my little club in Topeka there are several guys who can, on a given day, drive any par four that's under 350 yards.  I was a walking scorer for the State 6A high school tournament last spring on a cool, breezy day and watched a Jr. drive it within 5 yards of a 358-yard straight par four, and watched him hit 8 iron on the green on two 180-yard par threes.  On a 555-yard par five, into the wind, with a dramatically uphill approach, he hit Driver, three iron into a greenside bunker on the fly.

On of my brother's buddies, is a 50-year-old 6 handicapper who plays less than once a week, and can drive it like that high school kid.

The "problem" of bomb and gouge is affecting every level of golf, and it's hurting players like me because courses that can't be lengthened are narrowing the fairways, watering the rough, and planting trees to "protect" the course.

Something has to be done.

Make the ball lighter.

K

[Tim Gavrich]

I want to say up front that I really have mixed feelings about this issue, so I have some questions.

For those who are in favor of rolling back the golf ball, which year/average distance would you like to reset to?  If Bubba Watson currently averages 315 yards off the tee, where should he be in order to regain the integrity of the game?  300?  280?  If you kick everyone back by 25 yards then Steve Stricker is going to find himself averaging 255 off the tee, it seems.  Would that be acceptable?

Having basically a Tour-Only rolled-back ball would be the easiest change to make theoretically, but I just don't think many people would be comfortable effectively penalizing the players who work hard to be able to hit the ball long and straight...primarily those long, straight players.

In a perfect world, I would favor a more passive curtailing of driving distances--e.g. graduated rough where the nastiest stuff gets closer to the fairway in the 300 yard range and generally demanding courses that do not permit the bomb-and-gouge game so easily.  Guys who hit it 300 yards are a dime a dozen.  Great ball-strikers and putters are still rare.  If golf's governing bodies agree that the ability to maneuver the ball left and right is higher than the ability to hit it 330 yards sometimes, then they need to choose and set up golf courses in accordance with that view.

I feel like this debate will really come to a head at the 2013 US Open at Merion.  I am very excited to see the course setup and the scores.  Barring ultra-soft conditions, I think something around even par will win without the golf course being "tricked up."  I think Mike Davis is good at what he does.

I would also like to put forth TPC River Highlands as an example of a course that places the right sorts of demands on Tour pros.  While it will yield the occasional 63 (par 70), it also tests players and identifies a champion who has thought his way around the course instead of overpowering it.  And I am a defender of River Highlands as a course of substantial architectural merit.

Cheers, and Merry Christmas to one and all, bifurcators or otherwise. 

[Ken Moum]

I want to say up front that I really have mixed feelings about this issue, so I have some questions.

For those who are in favor of rolling back the golf ball, which year/average distance would you like to reset to?  If Bubba Watson currently averages 315 yards off the tee, where should he be in order to regain the integrity of the game?  300?  280?  If you kick everyone back by 25 yards then Steve Stricker is going to find himself averaging 255 off the tee, it seems.  Would that be acceptable?

As I said above, I want to try a lighter ball.  It come the closest to doing what the balata ball did in terms of narrowing the spread between the longest and shortest hitters. Players like my mother who was hitting it under 120 off the tee before she quit at age 85, would almost certainly gain  a little carry and find it easier to get in the air.

Guys at the other end, Bubba and Gary Woodland, would lose a little distance, but they'd also find that like the balata ball, it was just a little hardr to control at high ball speeds, so they'd have to be more careful if they wanted to keep it in play.  Since it would also be easier to curve, I believe we'd see more players working the ball.

Having basically a Tour-Only rolled-back ball would be the easiest change to make theoretically, but I just don't think many people would be comfortable effectively penalizing the players who work hard to be able to hit the ball long and straight...primarily those long, straight players.

A lighter ball would actually favor those guys, while harder for the super-long, but not-so-straight guys to stomp all over the shortish-and-very-straight guys.  I don't see any change that would put the short hitter back in competition with the longest, straightest hitters--which is as it should be.

In a perfect world, I would favor a more passive curtailing of driving distances--e.g. graduated rough where the nastiest stuff gets closer to the fairway in the 300 yard range and generally demanding courses that do not permit the bomb-and-gouge game so easily.

The problem with course setups like that is that they REALLY punish the person who hits it under 200 yards off the tee.  I know you're talking about pro setups, but the reality is that stuff like this filters to all tournament setups, and ends up being played over by all golfers.

Remember, the average make amateur is still only hitting it abouyt 185 off the tee.  So there are a lot of guys who hit more 170-yard drives than they do 22-yard drives.  That means that on a 450-yard par four, their second shot is going to end up in your tight, tall-rough, area--I'm not OK with that.

[Craig Sweet]

A lighter ball?  Something like a wiffle ball? 

[Chuck Brown]

Nowadays, there are but a few world-class 17 year-olds who can play with long-hitting tour pros.

I, too, like the way you think.  But everyone here who thinks that this is a problem that only shows up on Tour is not paying attention.

In the last couple of years I have had the opportunity to ride around in a cart with a writer friend of mine at some Kansas Golf Assn. events and I can tell you that there are dozens of amateurs in Kansas who absolutely beat a golf course to death with distance.

When Gary Woodland was still an am. he was the longest by several yards, but the guys I watched in his group weren't very far behind him off the tee.  And when he turned pro, he was instantly one of the top five in driving distance on Tour.

Heck, even in my little club in Topeka there are several guys who can, on a given day, drive any par four that's under 350 yards.  I was a walking scorer for the State 6A high school tournament last spring on a cool, breezy day and watched a Jr. drive it within 5 yards of a 358-yard straight par four, and watched him hit 8 iron on the green on two 180-yard par threes.  On a 555-yard par five, into the wind, with a dramatically uphill approach, he hit Driver, three iron into a greenside bunker on the fly.

On of my brother's buddies, is a 50-year-old 6 handicapper who plays less than once a week, and can drive it like that high school kid.

The "problem" of bomb and gouge is affecting every level of golf, and it's hurting players like me because courses that can't be lengthened are narrowing the fairways, watering the rough, and planting trees to "protect" the course.

Something has to be done.

Make the ball lighter.

K

I don't disagree:  I sometimes resort to shorthand, in these Discussion Board debates.  I use a term like "Pro V" interchangeably with "all urethane balls."  And I use "Tour player" when a term like "elites" is better.  Because, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I watched NCAA players this summer, at a bona fide US Open course (Inverness), kind of dismantle it from a strictly distance perspective.  (Nothing against Inverness; it's a wonderful and challenging golf course and produced a great tournament but a few of the Par 5's posed nothing more than a Par-4 challenge  - drive and 9-iron for some of the guys...!.)

[Chuck Brown]

I want to say up front that I really have mixed feelings about this issue, so I have some questions.

For those who are in favor of rolling back the golf ball, which year/average distance would you like to reset to?  If Bubba Watson currently averages 315 yards off the tee, where should he be in order to regain the integrity of the game?  300?  280?  If you kick everyone back by 25 yards then Steve Stricker is going to find himself averaging 255 off the tee, it seems.  Would that be acceptable?

Having basically a Tour-Only rolled-back ball would be the easiest change to make theoretically, but I just don't think many people would be comfortable effectively penalizing the players who work hard to be able to hit the ball long and straight...primarily those long, straight players.

In a perfect world, I would favor a more passive curtailing of driving distances--e.g. graduated rough where the nastiest stuff gets closer to the fairway in the 300 yard range and generally demanding courses that do not permit the bomb-and-gouge game so easily.  Guys who hit it 300 yards are a dime a dozen.  Great ball-strikers and putters are still rare.  If golf's governing bodies agree that the ability to maneuver the ball left and right is higher than the ability to hit it 330 yards sometimes, then they need to choose and set up golf courses in accordance with that view.

I feel like this debate will really come to a head at the 2013 US Open at Merion.  I am very excited to see the course setup and the scores.  Barring ultra-soft conditions, I think something around even par will win without the golf course being "tricked up."  I think Mike Davis is good at what he does.

I would also like to put forth TPC River Highlands as an example of a course that places the right sorts of demands on Tour pros.  While it will yield the occasional 63 (par 70), it also tests players and identifies a champion who has thought his way around the course instead of overpowering it.  And I am a defender of River Highlands as a course of substantial architectural merit.

Cheers, and Merry Christmas to one and all, bifurcators or otherwise.  

Tim the presumption seems to be that there can only be one kind a rollback -- and that it would be a kind of linear, static, percentage reduction for all golfers, of whatever skill or power or distance or spin rate.

I don't accept that.  As ball designers know (I presume, since I am not a ball desinger,) golf balls are actually complicated, dynamic little buggers, and that regulations on manufacture and performance could impose different spin and compression factors, different constraints on cores, mantles and covers, aerodynamics, etc., that could effectively scale back all of the elite players who are overpowering courses, and leave alone all the recreational players who aren't overpowering anything.

[Ken Moum]

A lighter ball?  Something like a wiffle ball? 

Sort of.

Go read John V's essay from GCA's In My Opinion section, about the Balloon Ball of the 1930s.

Except imagine a ball that had today's hotter, low-spin characteristics instead of the crummy balatas of 80 years ago.

The other thing would be that it might not have to be as light as the 1.55 ounces used back then.

Also note that prior to the institution of ball rules then, players had a choice of different weights and sizes, with the best players using balls that were probably as hot as the ProV1.  so a ball rollback isn't exactly breaking new ground.

By the same token, the rules makers also banned concave-faced sand wedges even AFTER Bobby Jones carried one in his Grand Slam year. And they banned deep-grooved faces after they had gotten into widespread use.

Ken

[Sean_A]

Chuck

What is the inherent problem with distance and how does distance specifically effect you?

Ciao

Sean I don't know about "inherent" problems.  The straight ol' simple "problem" with distance as we know it today is that it has made it so that elite players cannot contest championships on our historic, classic championship courses.  (That response from me could not have surprised you.)  I mean, we could technically hold a championship anywhere, but the fact is that elite players now just overpower all but the exceptional, extremely long, golf courses.

The distance issues of the elites don't affect me at all.  Not personally, not even in my dreams.  I'm a 53 year-old with a 9.1 index.  But let me tell you a little story.  When I was 17, I caddied for a 34 year-old Jack Nicklaus; 1973, in his prime.  He was LONG.  As long as anybody on the tour, when he wanted to be.  He was very much playing within himself, however.  Still, he dug the long ball the way chicks dig the long ball.  Jack's favorite little keepsake was a money clip he won, for beating George Bayer in a PGA Championship long-drive contest.  Anyway,  I had the exteremely rare privilege of caddying for him on a course he only saw once but which he had designed (in name) with Pete Dye in the Detroit suburbs and when he found out that I had caddied for Lee Trevino on the same course a few months earlier, he became eager to talk to me about distances and club selection, etc.  And as we went around, I remember the locations that he had hit shots to where I had never been, as well as shots that were well within my comprehension as a then-strong 17 year-old.  I wish Jack were here to confirm this story; there were places that he and I could have used the same club to get home.  There were also shots that just left me saying, "Wow."  Nowadays, there are but a few world-class 17 year-olds who can play with long-hitting tour pros.  (We know some, as freaks of nature and biognenic research:  a young Tiger Woods, a Ricky Barnes, etc.)  My point is I am not that good and wasn't that good.  But the new era of equipment has widened the gap between merely good players and tour pros.  If you ask Jack today, that is exactly what he will tell you.

Anyway, I wouldn't even care; I'm not good enough to worry about anybody's game but my own, and I am not overpowereng anything; not Merion, not Maidstone, not my local muni.

I simply stand for these principles:

1.  The game of golf is best when played the world over by one set of rules.  Any bifurcation of the Rules of Golf is bad.  Very bad.

2. The simple problem with distance is only that elite players, playing with equipment that conforms to the current regulatory regime, are obsoleting great classic golf courses, which are the heart and soul of the game we love.  I don't care who is winning, or losing, on the PGA Tour.  I don't wish to see long hitters be beaten, or short hitters win.  Or lose.  I am unconcerned about "Tigerproofing" aything.  I would very much like to see the Tour driving average rolled back by about 5%-10%, but particularly with the longer hitters; not because I don't like them but only because I like to see golf played as a game that fits the golf courses as they were designed.

3.  We should be able to find a way to reign in distance for the elites, without affecting recreational players.  I know that Pro V's have not helped me gain any great distances.  I can tell, from PGATour.com and from Shotlink, how much the ProV has helped tour players since 1999.  If they banned the Pro V tomorrow (not that that would be a solution to anything; it wouldn't) it would have no discernable affect on me.

Chuck

When you write the classic courses can no longer challenge the pros, what exactly does this mean?

Ciao

[Michael Whitaker]

I hear you guys pleading for a change in the modern equipment, but the average golfer LOVES this stuff and it ain't going away... just like the Haskell didn't go away.

There is NOTHING sacred about the number of clubs a golfer is allowed to carry or the lofts he is allowed to use. A local rule restricting competitors to a loft of 15, 16 or 18 degrees on their "driving" clubs would allow "classic" courses to be used without tricking them up or adding extra length.

It just seems so simple to me... and easy. Why fight legal battles and wrangle over equipment that most golfers want and enjoy. Limit the pros to what is in effect a 4-wood or 5-wood off the tee and they can compete on any course in the world.

All this can done in 15 seconds with a word processor.

[Chuck Brown]

I hear you guys pleading for a change in the modern equipment, but the average golfer LOVES this stuff and it ain't going away... just like the Haskell didn't go away.

There is NOTHING sacred about the number of clubs a golfer is allowed to carry or the lofts he is allowed to use. A local rule restricting competitors to a loft of 15, 16 or 18 degrees on their "driving" clubs would allow "classic" courses to be used without tricking them up or adding extra length.

It just seems so simple to me... and easy. Why fight legal battles and wrangle over equipment that most golfers want and enjoy. Limit the pros to what is in effect a 4-wood or 5-wood off the tee and they can compete on any course in the world.

All this can done in 15 seconds with a word processor.

Ahh...  Ban drivers.  Four woods only.  Jose Maria Olazabal just called me and asked me to thank you. 

Remember his line, from back in the days of the Callaway ERC driver controversy?  (The USGA's fight over CoR and the springlike effect?)  Somebody asked Chemma (historically a crummy driver of the golf ball) if he agreed with the banning of "hot" drivers.  Chemma said, "I think they should ban all drivers."

So you say bifurcate the game , banning drivers, as needed, for certain courses.  If you're going to bifurcate, why not special balls for different locations?  Easier to change the balls than the drivers, wouldnt you say?

As for the average golfer's love of equipment -- that would go double for him (I understand; you thnk average golfers need NO equipment banned)?  Much easeir to re-regulate balls, than clubs, in any event. 

Moreover, would you agree that the average golfer is really in love with the idea, that newer and high-tech equipment will help him?  It is not neccesarily the case, of course; I'm not really sure how much of the distance-producing technology for the Tour has helped average players.   What we've seen with some equipment, is that indeed it is really high-tech, and expensive, but not really essential for the average player.

Not that I am an anti-technology Luddite.  I am not.  I think any ball rollback will have to be VERY hi-tech to fit my requirements of not hurting the average player.  Still, let's remember; there's been good technology and bad.

Good technology:  steel shafts (cheaper for the average guy and much easier to work with , than hickory); surlyn balls (harder to cut); modern greens mowers (Bobby Jones' own nomonatoin for the most important technological advance in the game); metal woods (allowed hobbyists to build their own clubs -- and more uniform than quirky, hard-to-find persimmon) and modern epoxy (no more whipping and pinning clubs).  All those things made equipment MORE accessible, and CHEAPER for the average guy.  You can't say that, about exotic titanium alloy heads and composite shafts.

And I'd put the Pro V in the realm of bad technology insofar as it is expensive (although it is a relatively minor concern in any event) and, most of all, it is a development that has effectively widened the gap between elite players and recreational players.   

[Mac Plumart]

Just a thought...

http://www.golfweek.com/news/2009/dec/25/having-ball-playing-hickory-golf/

Interesting read.

[Chuck Brown]

Just a thought...

http://www.golfweek.com/news/2009/dec/25/having-ball-playing-hickory-golf/

Interesting read.

I enjoyed that very much.  They didn't talk about the cost of the clubs.  What does a real, playable, set of hickory-shafted clubs cost?  I have some -- antiques -- given to me by my grandfather and also another old friend, and yeah, the sole of a Mashie or a Niblick is about a quarter-inch, with no bounce but crazy camber.

[Ken Moum]

Just a thought...

http://www.golfweek.com/news/2009/dec/25/having-ball-playing-hickory-golf/

Interesting read.

I enjoyed the very much.  They didn't talk about the cost of the clubs.  What does a real, playable, set of hickory-shafted clubs cost?  I have some -- antiques -- given to me by my grandfather and also another old friend, and yeah, the sole of a Mashie or a Niblick is about a half-inch, with no bounce but crazy camber.

I put together a playable set by buying on eBay, with most of them costing under $50.  But i had to buy more than a few extras to end up with a set.

The guy mentioned in that article, Randy Jensen has a lot of sticks on eBay at http://shop.ebay.com/classicgolf4/m.html. His prices aren't cheap, but he does nice restoration on them. If you ever get to Omaha, the Classic Golf shop is a must see.  I have been visiting it for at least 25 years, before Randy was even totally into the hickory deal. He and his brother have THOUSANDS of old persimmons and blade irons from the 50s and 60s.

Ken

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tony Muldoon,
Not only did you need to brush up on the current status of the Titleist V. Callaway situation  , you should also have a look at the 5 patents that Titleist has applied for under the heading of "High Performance Golf Ball Having A Reduced Distance".

They made these applications in May of 2009:

20090124422
20090124423
20090124424
20090124425
and
20090124428

You can plug the numbers in here:   http://www.pat2pdf.org/pat2pdf/foo.pl

I posted this on the other thread so I thought I'd bring it here too.