[Jim Colton]

How would you react to it personally? Would you run out to Golfsmith and buy a crate of Pro V1's to last until eternity? Would you comply and maybe just move up a set of tees? Would you get the same sort of a thrill from a 275-yard drive or reaching a 510-yard par 5 as you would from a 300-yard drive or reaching a 550-yard par 5?

How would it change the game of golf in general? Less money spent trying to find new Tiger tees on classic courses?

What about tournament golf? Wouldn't the cream still rise to the top? Maybe bring back the concept of a par 72?

[Stephen Davis]

I think I would actually appreciate them rolling the distance the ball goes back. I love the fact that the new balls fly straighter, but I don't think they need to keep getting longer. I have a real problem when I realize that my average drive is 25 yards longer than most of the great players of yesteryear in their primes.

[JESII]

For me, the change in spin rates would dictate a change in equipment, but I can't see too much else changing drastically.

[Tom Culley]

I would love it if the ball was rolled back. I play my golf at (and own) a very short course that would benefit greatly from the ball not going as far.

Purely from a golf perspective, modern balls and drivers have made a risk reward par 4 at my club no longer strategic for medium length hitters (forced carry at 200-225).

From a business perspective, our course suffers from people assuming that the lack of length equates to a poor golf course. It would be interesting to see if we reached new customers with a new 'short ball' being used.

[Terry Lavin]

A roll-back in ball or club technology might help some aspects of the pro game, but it would be DEVASTATING to the game played by the rest of us. It would kill the game and manufacturers would get slaughtered. The Luddites will not prevail. Or at least I hope they won't. Bifurcation is the only answer, IMO.

[Jud_T]

I would love it if it lead to:

1.  Shorter, quirkier fun courses

2.  Faster Rounds

3.  Cheaper Rounds

4.  More Women and Children playing the game (see above).

[JESII]

A roll-back in ball or club technology might help some aspects of the pro game, but it would be DEVASTATING to the game played by the rest of us. It would kill the game and manufacturers would get slaughtered. The Luddites will not prevail. Or at least I hope they won't. Bifurcation is the only answer, IMO.

Terry,

What are you talking about?

Did the last round of increased distance improve or enhance the game for "the rest of us"? How?

[Garland Bayley]

A roll-back in ball or club technology might help some aspects of the pro game, but it would be DEVASTATING to the game played by the rest of us. It would kill the game and manufacturers would get slaughtered. The Luddites will not prevail. Or at least I hope they won't. Bifurcation is the only answer, IMO.

Much of this is total nonsense IMO. The ball and clubs make little difference to the enjoyment of the game. People loved to play golf with the lesser equipment of the past, and they would still love to play the game with a return to that equipment. The manufacturers that have been depending on deceiving the players about the equipment they produce may get their just reward and get slaughtered. However, that may mean people will begin to see golf as an affordable past time when a driver costs $40 instead of $400.

Personally, I would go on just like before, and just like a high percentage of average golfers, and play whatever balls I find supplemented with the very occasional inexpensive ball purchase.

I would continue to play the course at the same length I play it now, as changing technology would make little difference in the game I play.

[Jud_T]

I actually agree with Terry on this.  What we need is simply a tournament ball for the pro tours and perhaps Division 1 College Golf and the top Amateur events.  The rest of us are just fine as is.

[Chris DeNigris]

A roll-back in ball or club technology might help some aspects of the pro game, but it would be DEVASTATING to the game played by the rest of us. It would kill the game and manufacturers would get slaughtered. The Luddites will not prevail. Or at least I hope they won't. Bifurcation is the only answer, IMO.

Devastating in caps? Really? Kill, slaughtered? Objection your honor, excessive hyperbole.... Sustained.

I think you just like saying bifurcation.

[Tim Pitner]

I actually agree with Terry on this.  What we need is simply a tournament ball for the pro tours and perhaps Division 1 College Golf and the top Amateur events.  The rest of us are just fine as is.

Maybe the rest of us are fine as is, but the idea that a rollback of the golf ball would be devestating to us is ridiculous.  I liked golf just as much when I was striking my old Maxfli ball with a TaylorMade System2 driver, didn't you?  Then when I bought the Callaway Warbird, forget about it . . . . Technology, particularly driver technology, has made the game more accessible, but rolling back the ball a bit, like the regulation on driver heads, won't change that in a material way.  

[Mark Pearce]

A roll-back in ball or club technology might help some aspects of the pro game, but it would be DEVASTATING to the game played by the rest of us. It would kill the game and manufacturers would get slaughtered. The Luddites will not prevail. Or at least I hope they won't. Bifurcation is the only answer, IMO.

Terry,

That's nonsense.  For some time the R&A and USGA have been conducting experiments with a rolled back ball.  Two or three years ago a special medal was played at Elie with such a ball.  All categories of membership (including women, juniors and a couple of lads who have played at a very high amateur level) took part.  Most scored roughly what they would expect to score normally.  The longer flat bellies noticed a significant loss of distance but most of the shorter hitters didn't.  My son, who played as a (then) 25 handicapper noticed no loss of distance, though he did comment that he struggled to get a feel for how hard to hit putts.  The clear conclusion was that only big hitters were significantly disadvantaged in scoring and that no-one found the ball less enjoyable.

Golf with a rolled back ball would be absolutely fine for the average club player.  Don't let the manufacturers persuade you otherwise.

[Chris DeNigris]

I actually agree with Terry on this.  What we need is simply a tournament ball for the pro tours and perhaps Division 1 College Golf and the top Amateur events.  The rest of us are just fine as is.

Maybe the rest of us are fine as is, but the idea that a rollback of the golf ball would be devestating to us is ridiculous.  I liked golf just as much when I was striking my old Maxfli ball with a TaylorMade System2 driver, didn't you?  Then when I bought the Callaway Warbird, forget about it . . . . Technology, particularly driver technology, has made the game more accessible, but rolling back the ball a bit, like the regulation on driver heads, won't change that in a material way.  

I think if they rolled it back gradually and uniformly that most of us wouldn't even notice much less feel violated. Golf, like most things, is relative- as long as your buddy isn't blowing it past you by 30 yards when you used to be even then who really would give much of a crap?

As long as the ball flies nicely and feels good off the clubface- does 15 or 20 yards of distance really affect how you enjoy the game?

So you may hit more 7 or 8 irons versus wedges and nines...is that really a reason to pack it in?

Hybrids have made it easier for the rank and file to execute longer approaches these days...hitting more of them than before wouldn't really diminish the fun factor for me..how about you?

[Tony_Muldoon]

It would work fine...


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,21535.0.html 

[jeffwarne]

A roll-back in ball or club technology might help some aspects of the pro game, but it would be DEVASTATING to the game played by the rest of us. It would kill the game and manufacturers would get slaughtered. The Luddites will not prevail. Or at least I hope they won't. Bifurcation is the only answer, IMO.

The game played by shorter hitters would hardly change.
Nobody would notice a difference in about 2 weeks, at any level.
When we play at colder temperatures, the ball goes shorter,but someone who hits it the same as me will still hit it the same as me.
The game was growing in the 80's and 90's.
It's been shrinking in the current era.
The manufacturers are already getting slaughtered.

[Josh Tarble]

I've long thought the best idea would be a ball with diminishing returns.  Meaning it really only affects the top 1 or 2% of people that play.  Above a certain swing speed would be knocked back a few yards while those with lower swing speeds would still see some gains.  Not sure if this is possible, but it seems like it could be. 

[Bryan Lewis]

I've long thought the best idea would be a ball with diminishing returns.  Meaning it really only affects the top 1 or 2% of people that play.  Above a certain swing speed would be knocked back a few yards while those with lower swing speeds would still see some gains.  Not sure if this is possible, but it seems like it could be. 

Josh,

I've always thought that, too.  I'm sure it is possible.  However, wouldn't that take some of the "skill" out of the game?  (Assuming swinging the clubhead with speed requires skill.)

[Jason Thurman]

I would eat my shoe.

It's not happening, ever. I'd wager lots on that if I could collect prior to the end of eternity.

Everyone always says golf is relative. If that were really true, we wouldn't be having this discussion because no one would care that the ball goes extra far and courses are too short to challenge elite players. We'd all just say the 55 that Rory shot to beat Phil's 57 was relative.

In the real world, numbers matter. People like breaking 70/80/90/100. People like hitting 250 yard drives, or 275 yard drives, or 300 yard drives. People like reaching par 5s in two. This hypothetical ball rollback might take 50 yards off a pro's drive and only 20 off a weekend player's. I don't buy that pros really get this ridiculous "turbo-boost" from the ball that's out of whack with the rest of us, but let's just assume they do for the sake of argument. That's still a 40 yard difference over the course of a long par 4 or par 5, and the weekend player will be pretty annoyed to not be able to reach those holes in two.

[Mark Smolens]

I've long thought the best idea would be a ball with diminishing returns.  Meaning it really only affects the top 1 or 2% of people that play.  Above a certain swing speed would be knocked back a few yards while those with lower swing speeds would still see some gains.  Not sure if this is possible, but it seems like it could be. 

Josh,

I've always thought that, too.  I'm sure it is possible.  However, wouldn't that take some of the "skill" out of the game?  (Assuming swinging the clubhead with speed requires skill.)

Bryan, I think to the contrary, the "skill" could be returned to the game if today's "bomb and gouge" style were to disappear -- if the balls would spin more, move more, require the "skillful" players to actually play shots instead of just trying to hit the driver as high and as far as possible, find it whereever it lands, and loft a wedge onto the green.

Jason, you must be a big hitter. I'm not. My index is relatively low (4.7), but I think I only hit three or four par 5s in two all year. Would my enjoyment of the game be diminished if I couldn't reach those par 5s on those few occasions? Are you kidding me? I'd love it. Let me get my big hitting buddies in a wedge match -- I'll be 90 and they'll be 40 -- and let's see who shoots the lower scores.

More importantly, my enjoyment of the game from watching those who play at the highest levels, the guys with their names on their bags, playing the very same courses that I can play, without their being able to just flat out dominate the courses because Wally and his pals have created golf balls that just go too far. Leave TOC alone and rein in the ball. . .

[Garland Bayley]

I've long thought the best idea would be a ball with diminishing returns.  Meaning it really only affects the top 1 or 2% of people that play.  Above a certain swing speed would be knocked back a few yards while those with lower swing speeds would still see some gains.  Not sure if this is possible, but it seems like it could be. 

Josh,

I've always thought that, too.  I'm sure it is possible.  However, wouldn't that take some of the "skill" out of the game?  (Assuming swinging the clubhead with speed requires skill.)

What nonsense! The modern ball took skill out of the game. Roll the ball back by restoring the spin and you put the skill back in the game.
Swinging the clubhead with speed requires flexibility, and muscle tone. Swinging the clubhead with speed at a ball that can react more adversely to flaws in the swing requires skill to properly control the ball.

[Tim Leahy]

It has been done before when the Europeans changed from the small ball to the American size ball in the 1970's.  Maybe some of our older European members can comment on the change to the big ball.
I think it is a great idea and needs to implemented asap.

[Jason Topp]

While I am strongly in favor of rolling back the ball for everyone, there are several factors that proponents need to acknowledge and deal with.

1.  It will be unpopular - at least for a bit.  I recently hit balls with a persimmon driver and the ball came out like mush.  I did not like it but quickly got used to it.  I also get irritated with taking an extra club on 40 degree days.  I think that reaction would wear off but there would be a strong reaction.

2.  It will always be opposed vehemently by the equipment industry.  Equipment manufacturers generally want to position their products as giving a technological advantage so they can charge premium prices.  Extra distance is the best advantage that converts into higher equipment costs.  Rolling back the ball will make it more difficult to charge premium prices for clubs.  I doubt it would affect balls because distance has largely already been equalized there.

3.  It may not work adequately.  Lighter shafts have produced as much distance gain as modifications to the ball.  Optimization has also had a big impact.  In order to address the issue by slowing down the ball, you would need to either reduce the smash factor or the aerodynamics of the dimples.  The smash factor can only be reduced by so much wiitghout the game seeming like a game of hitting pillows.    Non aerodnamic dimples are very unsatisfying from my experience on ranges with restricted distance golf balls.

4.  It is difficuly to quantify much benefit for the average golfer. 
 

[Jason Topp]

I've long thought the best idea would be a ball with diminishing returns.  Meaning it really only affects the top 1 or 2% of people that play.  Above a certain swing speed would be knocked back a few yards while those with lower swing speeds would still see some gains.  Not sure if this is possible, but it seems like it could be. 

Josh,

I've always thought that, too.  I'm sure it is possible.  However, wouldn't that take some of the "skill" out of the game?  (Assuming swinging the clubhead with speed requires skill.)

I think this approach is directly contrary to my view of the game where distance and carry distance are fundamental skills. 

[Sean_A]

I really don't know how I would be effected and I wouldn't know until it happened.  One thing is for certain, I certainly don't want most courses to play longer.  And, it would seem the courses I think would be better with less fire power won't play that much longer to make much difference.  In the end, I will still play so I reckon the bottom line is a rollback wouldn't make much difference. 

Ciao 

[John Chilver-Stainer]

A Roll-Back could be better for the manufacturers if the official ball distance was incrementally reduced 5 times over 10 years.
At each reduction a batch of Drivers could be declared illegal, meaning golfers would have to replace at each increment. More Sales!!!!

I recently played golf in cold weather, with heavy clothes and woolly hat and was hitting about 25m less distance. I had to resort to my 3-iron to get to some greens. After half a round I was beginning to get the hang of the 3 iron again. Terrific watching the long low trajectory compared to my usual “hoists” with a 6-iron or less.

I don’t play one of my favourite short 9-Holers any more, since 3 of the Par 4’s I can now reach with a Driver or even 3-Wood. Back in the 60’s I could never do that, not even as an overswinging teenager. Dial back the ball please..

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()