[Greg Murphy]

I’ve heard and read it will never happen. But I must be missing something. If the ball were rolled back 10-15%, so the strongest and most skilled were reduced to carrying the ball 260-270 yards instead of 300+, would the game lose ANYTHING? Longer players will always hit it past shorter players. It would take less time to play. It would cost less to build and maintain courses. What is the resistance to rolling the ball back?

[Garland Bayley]

Depends on how you roll it back. If it is rolled back by requiring that the spin be restored, then longer hitters will lose the straightness of the current ball. If it is rolled back by decreasing the initial velocity, then every highly skilled golfer has lost (as they already have with the current ball) some of the ability to work the ball.

[Nick Campanelli]

While it would cost less to build and maintain courses, resistance to the roll back would likely come from the thousands of golf clubs worldwide that have spent millions renovating their courses to keep up with technology.  A ball roll back would render their courses too long by 10-15%. 

Also, do you think the USGA could handle a US Open venue with par 4's only reaching 450yds? 

[Pat Burke]

I've mentioned this before, and as little as I play now, I still see an amazing difference in my own game with the modern ball.
BUT, what golf courses are obsolete for the 98+% of golfers who play the game because they love it, AND pretty much pay the bills for the game?
A very small percentage take advantage of bomb and gouge, but the average golfers still struggle with the same issues they struggled with when I caddied in the 70's.

CPC is still my favorite, whether I'm playing well or not.  The old courses I grew up in NJ still are fun. 
Yes, the best players bomb it past a lot of the "strategy" originally intended, but how many of the golfers who play these courses
the rest of the year are making ANY course "obsolete"?

[George Pazin]

I've mentioned this before, and as little as I play now, I still see an amazing difference in my own game with the modern ball.
BUT, what golf courses are obsolete for the 98+% of golfers who play the game because they love it, AND pretty much pay the bills for the game?
A very small percentage take advantage of bomb and gouge, but the average golfers still struggle with the same issues they struggled with when I caddied in the 70's.

CPC is still my favorite, whether I'm playing well or not.  The old courses I grew up in NJ still are fun. 
Yes, the best players bomb it past a lot of the "strategy" originally intended, but how many of the golfers who play these courses
the rest of the year are making ANY course "obsolete"?

Highly sensible post, only problem is that many are changing their courses for these relative few. I don't know if it's weak minded green committees or high powered tournament organizers that are leading the way with these changes.

Me, I'd rather see the big guys go low, and/or hit wedges into everything; might even prompt changes from the ruling bodies.

[Nick Campanelli]

posting in wrong thread....my apologies

[RSLivingston_III]

But the courses have been made effectively longer. If not by outright adding further back tees, then by softening conditions. I haven't seen the push for restoring F&F taking much hold on older (pre-1985) courses.
Universally, courses have sped up there greens adding more challenge, and raising scores, filling the scoring gap.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Greg,

I think you're onto something, buddy 

Too bad the issue is "so complex".

Hope all's well...

[Garland Bayley]

...
A very small percentage take advantage of bomb and gouge, but the average golfers still struggle with the same issues they struggled with when I caddied in the 70's.
...

This is a mistake made by most people that think only the pros can hit the ball a long ways. Young people can hit the ball a very long ways just like the pros, and so they are playing bomb and gouge now when they wouldn't have been before the introduction of this modern miracle of science and engineering which runs counter to nature.

[Melvyn Morrow]

No need to roll anything back just modify all the Greens to Island Greens but make the Greens half size with big bunker on three sides – move the bunker clockwise on the next 17 Greens and watch the time for a round pass from  5, 6, 7 and maybe even 8 hours. That will get the Roll Back debate going in all the right offices.

Well some of it could be called natural and of course Nature.

Melvyn

[Nick Campanelli]

MM, Well played.  Sounds like you've had your fair share of "roll back" debates 

[Garland Bayley]

Greg,

In response to your will the game lose anything question. No, it won't! It actually may gain players!

[TEPaul]

"What is the resistance to rolling the ball back?"


Greg Murphy:


Apparently the real world resistance is primarily on the part of the manufacturers and/or the regulatory bodies of I&B (the R&A and USGA) being able to get them all to do it.

I suppose one could try to take the temperature of golfers generally to determine how they would feel if both all the ball manufacturers AND the regulatory bodies agreed to roll back and did it.

However, in the last five years or so the regulatory bodies did call for all the ball manufacturers to produce "prototype" balls that were designed to go 15 and 25 yards less far. I'm not sure that many are aware of what less far means----eg 15 and 25 yards less far than WHAT? I would assume it might be 15 and 25 yards less far than the ODS limitation at the MPH test protocol of 120-122mph clubhead speed. That equals app. 300-304 yards at 120-122mph as the distance limitation of ball conformance.


Apparently all the ball manufacturers submitted those "prototype" balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far to the USGA and R&A (for the stated purpose of study) and so the logical question is if the regulatory bodies asked for that and all the manufacturers supplied it what did they do it for if they were not potentially looking to roll back distance at least that much at some point, and perhaps some point soon?

I'll tell you one thing----if the ball manufacturers suddenly decided virtually on their own to roll the ball back or roll it back as much as mentioned above do you really see either the R&A and USGA resisting that rollback for any reason? I most certainly don't!  Why in the world would the regulatory bodies resist something like that?  
 

[Bill Brightly]

Forget the pro game. A ball roll back might win a vote on GCA.com but it would fail in any other group of golfers that you could put together!  Go ask any 18 handicap how he would feel about having to switch to a ball that traveled 10 yards less off the tee (and took 50 yards off the pros' drives.)  You think he (or she) will care about the architectural integrity of their favorite golf course? I say no way, he wants to keep hope alive that he can reach the longest par 4 in two...

[Garland Bayley]

Bill,

Of what courses do you speak? Surely not a modern course with five or six sets of tees.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Garland

New world wide anthem for Roll Back including mascots    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGoDxgTE08U&feature=related

Melvyn

[Bill Brightly]

Melvin,

I do not speak of golf COURSES, I speak of GOLFERS. I think the average golfer loves the distance and lack of side spin he gets with the current ball and equipment.

[Garland Bayley]

Melvin,

I do not speak of golf COURSES, I speak of GOLFERS. I think the average golfer loves the distance and lack of side spin he gets with the current ball and equipment.

My name is not Melvin. And you did speak of golf courses when you spoke of presumably difficult to reach par 4s.
The lack of side spin is what he loves. The distance is of little importance to the average guy who doesn't really know how far he hits it, because when asked he reports his longest recent drive.

[Nick Campanelli]

My question is, why the fuss about the ball, the clubs, and the evolution of the game in the first place?  Everyone resists change, but golf is a game/sport of change and evolution.  How many times has the game evolved over the decades?  Too many times to count.  The game started by hitting rocks with sticks for fun....look at it now.  Why go backwards?  

Today's tournament golf and the desire to have consistent winning scores year to year that relate to the same winning scores from 1970-whatever is ridiculous.  As long as all competitors have equal access to the same equipment, have at it.  The routing, strategy, and setup of the course should dictate par, not a restriction on technology.  

[Garland Bayley]

My question is, why the fuss about the ball, the clubs, and the evolution of the game in the first place?  Everyone resists change, but golf is a game/sport of change and evolution.  How many times has the game evolved over the decades?  Too many times to count.  The game started by hitting rocks with sticks for fun....look at it now.  Why go backwards?  

Today's tournament golf and the desire to have consistent winning scores year to year that relate to the same winning scores from 1970-whatever is ridiculous.  As long as all competitors have equal access to the same equipment, have at it.  The routing, strategy, and setup of the course should dictate par, not a restriction on technology.  

Nick,

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Garland Bayley]

Nick,

When you let the equipment companies take over the game, they will run it into the ground trying to make short term profit.

They might as well as all consolidate under the name PT Barnum Consolidated.

You should know what that makes you.

[Pat Burke]

...
A very small percentage take advantage of bomb and gouge, but the average golfers still struggle with the same issues they struggled with when I caddied in the 70's.
...

This is a mistake made by most people that think only the pros can hit the ball a long ways. Young people can hit the ball a very long ways just like the pros, and so they are playing bomb and gouge now when they wouldn't have been before the introduction of this modern miracle of science and engineering which runs counter to nature.

Well, as someone involved with instruction for over 200 kids per week, I do have a pretty good idea of how young golfers hit it, and working with many mini tour and college players beside those kids, I definitely see kids who absolutely PUMMEL the ball.
There is a growth in how far the average players hits it, but a lot of it is a combo of balls with less spin, AND forgiveness, allowing for more effective flailing

My belief though, is that the vast majority of club golfers still have the same problem of keeping it out of the crap on one hole, and getting it over the hazard on another, regardless of the new gear.  With the exception of the top 1-4% of golfers, a 6300-6500 Ross course, still beats the avg golfer to death.  Lengthening these courses is not needed, short of ego boosting by the club.
I just believe there is an enormous over reaction by courses when a miniscule number of players can shoot low on a great course.
Length off the tee is the avg golfers nirvana, long approaches are the avg golfers panic attack.  

[Greg Murphy]

While it would cost less to build and maintain courses, resistance to the roll back would likely come from the thousands of golf clubs worldwide that have spent millions renovating their courses to keep up with technology.  A ball roll back would render their courses too long by 10-15%. 

Also, do you think the USGA could handle a US Open venue with par 4's only reaching 450yds? 

Nick,

I'm not sure the USGA would have a problem with par 4's reaching only 450 yards. Didn't the demarcation between 4 and 5 used to be around 475? Again, I really must be missing something because if it takes the same skill and force and effort and precision to get a ball on the green in two shots from 450 yards as from 525 yards, the only difference being the distance the ball travels (because of its composition) . . . what's reduced or lost? Except the amount of money and time needed to play the game?

 

[Greg Murphy]

My question is, why the fuss about the ball, the clubs, and the evolution of the game in the first place?  Everyone resists change, but golf is a game/sport of change and evolution.  How many times has the game evolved over the decades?  Too many times to count.  The game started by hitting rocks with sticks for fun....look at it now.  Why go backwards?  

Today's tournament golf and the desire to have consistent winning scores year to year that relate to the same winning scores from 1970-whatever is ridiculous.  As long as all competitors have equal access to the same equipment, have at it.  The routing, strategy, and setup of the course should dictate par, not a restriction on technology.  

Nick,

Without a doubt, one of the distinguishing features and abiding attractions of the game of golf is the grand scale and scope of its playing surfaces (and environment beyond the playing surfaces). But is there a point where size adds nothing? Is there a point where size actually diminishes the experience? I think so. I get a bigger thrill out of seeing my ball land on a green 275 yards away than I do hitting a green 325 yards away that I can't see. Does anyone get the same thrill or the same sense of anticipation setting up for a shot to a target within eyesight as just ripping the ball out-a-sight?

Even if it cost nothing more, would the game be the same if we could hit it 500 yards off the tee?

There has to be a line somewhere, when size adds nothing.

One way of finding that line -- ask if anything would be lost by reduction.

Would anything be lost if the longest par 4's were 450 yards vs 520 yards?

[Bill Brightly]

Garland,

Sorry I called you Melvin.

What I meant to say is that the average golfer would wince at the thought of losing ten yards or more off of his drive, I just assumed that almost all courses have one really long par 4 that is tough for most to reach in two.

Do you know many non-GCA guys who would vote for a rollback?  I asked a few gus at my club and they looked at me like I was nuts!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()