[John Kavanaugh]

I hope all you fanboys enjoy seeing Mcilroy only outdrive Donald by 10 yards instead of 30.  I know it would be dangerous as hell but NASCAR would be far more exciting if every car wasn't highly regulated to go the exact same speed.  Parity is not good for a gentleman's hobby like golf.  We don't need more clones.

What I really, really hope is that the regulators increase spin rates to the point that the bump and run becomes even more obsolete.  Whiners never get what they think they are asking for.  It's a rule of man.

[Sven Nilsen]

I know it would be dangerous as hell but NASCAR would be far more exciting if every car wasn't highly regulated to go the exact same speed.

That's called Formula 1, and its not exciting.

[Jim Colton]

The yardage difference between the 10th ranked golfer and 135th ranked golfer in driving distance on tour has been pretty constant over the past 30 years:

   10th         135th          Diff
1980   269.0   250.7   18.3
1985   273.0   252.8   20.2
1990   274.8   259.1   15.7
1995   276.3   258.1   18.2
2000   285.8   270.2   15.6
2005   303.5   284.5   19.0
2010   301.1   282.4   18.7
2012   304.9   285.7   19.2

[Matthew Essig]

I know it would be dangerous as hell but NASCAR would be far more exciting if every car wasn't highly regulated to go the exact same speed.

That's called Formula 1, and its not exciting.

That's your opinion... The season finale this past weekend was the most intense show, movie, or sporting event I have ever seen (not trying to thread jack).

[Brent Hutto]

I'm still trying to get my head around two concepts here.

1) The game will be utterly destroyed and rendered totally irrelevant and obsolete by continuing to allow the use of the ball in play today at all levels.

2) The game will be saved by creating, for the first time in the history of the game, a complete split of the game into "casual" and "serious" versions of what has always been a single game played by a unified set of Rules for all.

Aren't these two statements completely ass-backwards?

Bifurcation, so-called, will simply initiate the split of "Golf" into what would eventually become two games as different as Baseball and Softball. Then eventually three or more games, I'd imagine.

As an alternative, I have to believe a continuation of the centuries-long trend toward the golf ball getting gradually longer is the lesser evil (if in fact it is evil at all). I have to believe our esteemed member is either having us on or is advancing a frankly stupid line of reasoning to prove some subtle point or another.

[Terry Lavin]

I don't mind being accused of uttering (or typing) nonsense, but I've been preoccupied with other matters and just now got back to the site with time to respond.  My take on changing technology for the everyday chop golfer is that the typical golfer would be highly irritated and outright pissed to learn that he had to put away his RocketBallz driver and fairway woods because they no longer comply.  I think the overwhelming majority would be chagrined to learn that the newer model golf balls are no longer useable because, if you're like me, these new balls seem to never get cut or too beat up to play with.  Do you remember how often you had to buy balata balls, for Chrissakes? 

From my perspective, my game has consistently gotten a little bit better with the advances in technology.  I'm hitting the ball further and straighter than I ever did before.  I'm able to get the ball to spin a little bit on the green.  I'm keeping my handicap around a 9, even though I'm not getting any younger.  The purist crowd can crow all they want about the great game of golf and how technology is killing our classic courses, but for me, playing with the new TaylorMade woods and the great Vokey irons and the Pro V-1 golf balls has kept my interest in playing golf at an all-time high.  If I had to go back to old equipment, I would probably play very seldom.  I rather doubt that I would invest in new equipment which was old equipment in all reality.

As for the pro game, there is no doubt in my mind that technology has had a deleterious effect on the professional game.  The bomb and gouge game is getting increasingly uninteresting to watch.  To see midgets like Jonathan Byrd hit the ball 400 yards does nothing for my enjoyment of professional golf.  I am also more and more uninterested in a lot of the courses that they have to play on.  Atlanta Athletic Club?  Hell, I'd play it just to remind myself that I'm a chop, but I get very little out of watching courses that are built and set up just to torture great players.  It takes all the fun out of it.  So I would support some bifurcated rules changes so the pros can hopefully get back to hitting long irons into some par 4's and maybe have the occasional three-shot par-5 hole.

But trying to stop technology for the 99% of players that are out there paying good money to buy clubs and good money to play courses and good money to join clubs will have a DEVASTATING effect on the sport, IMO.  I appreciate the points made in disagreement, but I am not persuaded that I'm wrong.  (Shocking, I know!)

Final point, other than taking the long putters away, I can't imagine that the ruling bodies are going to do anything to materially change the pro game OR our game, so this is just a rhetorical exercise anyway.

[Brent Hutto]

Maybe my thinking is terribly provincial but to gauge the current situation I'm inclined to look no further than the Ocean Course a couple hours down I-26 from my home. That course can "torture" the best players in the world (at least those who are not named "Rors"). Yet it always provides a hugely enjoyable day of golf for a short-hitting bogey golfer like myself. Given that admittedly one-off example, I have a hard time seeing how either end of the spectrum is being harmed by the situation that currently obtains.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I wouldn't expect the rolled back ball to affect any of us. But even if it did, then why not let the Pros play with a rolled back tournament ball and leave the "cutting edge" balls to amateurs? The manufacturers could still sell them by millions and legitimately claim: "Hit it as long as the Pros with our ball!"

Ulrich

[jeffwarne]

.
  Do you remember how often you had to buy balata balls, for Chrissakes? 

From my perspective, my game has consistently gotten a little bit better with the advances in technology.  I'm hitting the ball further and straighter than I ever did before.  I'm able to get the ball to spin a little bit on the green.  I'm keeping my handicap around a 9, even though I'm not getting any younger.  The purist crowd can crow all they want about the great game of golf and how technology is killing our classic courses, but for me, playing with the new TaylorMade woods and the great Vokey irons and the Pro V-1 golf balls has kept my interest in playing golf at an all-time high.  If I had to go back to old equipment, I would probably play very seldom.  I rather doubt that I would invest in new equipment which was old equipment in all reality.

Terry,
Surely there's some middle ground.
You keep all your toys, the ball stays just as durable, just as spinnable, and goes shorter for higher clubhead speed players, less so for lower speed players. That ball exists,and has been widely tested, but the manufacturers absolutely want you to keep supporting them in the arms race.
Depending upon your spin and speed, you might not lose any distance.

I guess because we play in so much wind here, I really don't know where my "normal" drive goes on a familiar course, so I just wouldn't notice(or care) if I was shorter as long as my opponent switched also.

[jeffwarne]

Maybe my thinking is terribly provincial but to gauge the current situation I'm inclined to look no further than the Ocean Course a couple hours down I-26 from my home. That course can "torture" the best players in the world (at least those who are not named "Rors"). Yet it always provides a hugely enjoyable day of golf for a short-hitting bogey golfer like myself. Given that admittedly one-off example, I have a hard time seeing how either end of the spectrum is being harmed by the situation that currently obtains.

TOC is perfect as long as we want to continue to build 7700 yard courses

[Jason Thurman]

How many want the ball rollback to affect everyone, and how many want it only to affect the longest hitters?

[Garland Bayley]

...

But trying to stop technology for the 99% of players that are out there paying good money to buy clubs and good money to play courses and good money to join clubs will have a DEVASTATING effect on the sport, IMO.  I appreciate the points made in disagreement, but I am not persuaded that I'm wrong.  (Shocking, I know!)

...

The USGA found at least two instances of a need to regulate to stop technology of the ball. They did so with the creation with the initial velocity standard, and then with the overall distance standard. So where was the "DEVASTATING" effect?

Most of the rest of your post is balderdash too. Especially that part about going back to balls that cut open easily.

[Garland Bayley]

I wouldn't expect the rolled back ball to affect any of us. But even if it did, then why not let the Pros play with a rolled back tournament ball and leave the "cutting edge" balls to amateurs? The manufacturers could still sell them by millions and legitimately claim: "Hit it as long as the Pros with our ball!"

Ulrich

Amateurs been able to hit is as long as the Pros since the advent of the TopFlite.

[JESII]

More to the point, I'd like one representative from a golf course/club to tell me how much money they'll save if golf balls are rolled back say 10%. We have owners and board members and professionals and superintendents on here all with some level of familiarity of the maintenance budget at their course...how much will you save?

[Shane Wright]

If it is determined that a change needs to be done to the ball, then count me as someone strongly in favor of bifurcation.  I think history needs to be examined a bit.  As I'm reading "Scotland's Gift - Golf" it is interesting to hear CB Mac discuss the change from the Gutta to the Haskell ball and how many more golfers started suddenly appearing on golf courses.  He goes on and on and on about yardages and how far certain people could hit the ball.  Enhancements to the golf ball is one big reason there was a big growth in the game.  

How many discussions have we had on here about growing the game and the best way to do it?  Do you know how many 45-70 yr old golfers are out there who are pretty excited about their new found distance.  Do you seriously want to take that opportunity away from them?  

It would be a really bad  decision in my opinion.  Has any amateur golfer every complained about shooting too low, or hitting it too far? For me personally, I could care less what they do with the ball, but for the game in general, I think it would be a terrible mistake.  

I don't have a strong enough opinion on what to do at the professional level.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I would love it, but then what would Rees do for a living?

[Garland Bayley]

... Do you know how many 45-70 yr old golfers are out there who are pretty excited about their new found distance.  

That has to be a pretty small percentage.

Do you seriously want to take that opportunity away from them?  

Yes sir, I do want to take it away from them and from myself.

[Neil Davis]

I'm not sure where I come out on this, but if forced to vote I think I would vote for a tournament ball to be used by professionals.  Some don't like bifurcation, but I liken it to Major League Baseball where they use wooden bats whereas as the non-professional ranks use metal bats.  I know cost comes into play for the ower level using metal bats, but bifurcation is not unheard of in sports.

[Alex Miller]

I'm not sure where I come out on this, but if forced to vote I think I would vote for a tournament ball to be used by professionals.  Some don't like bifurcation, but I liken it to Major League Baseball where they use wooden bats whereas as the non-professional ranks use metal bats.  I know cost comes into play for the ower level using metal bats, but bifurcation is not unheard of in sports.

But haven't there been changes to metal bats in recent years  so that they now resemble wood bats in their performance? I'd imagine that, like the pros, many amateurs would play with the "pro" ball.

Top of the line=used by pros, not best performing.

[Robert Thompson]

I think this is a huge fallacy as far as amateur golfers go. I rarely see anyone playing 7000 yards. Most courses I play at that have back tees (my previous home course stretched to 7450) and no one played back there. The owners stuck those tees in and they get less than 80 rounds a year -- all by visiting pros.

The other issue, as I see it, is that no one I play with -- and I play with some low handicappers -- smashes the ball 300 with any regularity. If the ground is firm a couple of us will get it there a couple of times a round -- maybe. If it is wet, a 260 drive is often very, very solid. I see no proof that amateurs regularly are hitting it that much farther.

I think this is a professional issue for pros who work on their games incessantly and have their equipment tweaked to a degree Jack Nicklaus in his prime could never have dreamed of.

We don't need to build 7700 yards

I think if you rolled back the ball it would really hurt the sport -- people who are already struggling for distance would simply stop playing. Kids like the power game -- watch any range with teenagers on it. They are working on finessing a feathery wedge. They are gripping and ripping -- and usually slicing 50 yards offline into a range net.

The truth is the R&A are tweaking one hole that played well over par in every Open -- for no real reason other than Peter Dawson is playing architect. He's just gotten Martin Hawtree to do his bidding.

I don't think you can extrapolate this ridiculous situation into the "plight of the game." Heck, I heard recently that Callaway issued a driver that one of their pros (a long hitter already) smacks 16 more yards. Guess what? I don't believe it.

Last year at the golf show in Orlando I sat in an interview with Mark King, pres of TaylorMade. He made the same claims -- the new R11 goes "20 yards longer" than the old one.

I told him they've set that every year there's a new driver -- and shouldn't the average player now hit it 340 regularly if that's the case.

He laughed and said I have a point.

COR restrictions on the driver means it can't get any hotter -- so what we are seeing is better shafts, better fitting and better fitness. Put those together with the ProV1 and you have professional -- not club pros, but tour pros -- hitting it a mile.

This is a professional issue, not an amateur problem.

Maybe my thinking is terribly provincial but to gauge the current situation I'm inclined to look no further than the Ocean Course a couple hours down I-26 from my home. That course can "torture" the best players in the world (at least those who are not named "Rors"). Yet it always provides a hugely enjoyable day of golf for a short-hitting bogey golfer like myself. Given that admittedly one-off example, I have a hard time seeing how either end of the spectrum is being harmed by the situation that currently obtains.

TOC is perfect as long as we want to continue to build 7700 yard courses

[Garland Bayley]

...
I think if you rolled back the ball it would really hurt the sport -- people who are already struggling for distance would simply stop playing. Kids like the power game -- watch any range with teenagers on it. They are working on finessing a feathery wedge. They are gripping and ripping -- and usually slicing 50 yards offline into a range net.

...

This is nonsense. People who are struggling for distance would have had more distance with the balata covered ball than the ProV1. They needed the spin to keep the ball in the air. Did they quit playing when the ProV1 came out?

Kids have been gripping and ripping it from the beginning of golf. No change there to hurt the "sport".

[Sam Morrow]

If the ball is rolled back I'm gonna go to the course and play golf, new ball, old ball, long ball, short ball, I'm gonna play golf. The object is still to get it in the hole in the least amount of strokes.

[Rick Shefchik]

I'd be much happier if the USGA and the R&A shocked the hell out of us all tomorrow and announced a rollback in the ball, as opposed to what I'm afraid they're going to announce.

I'm frankly enjoying golf more since I switched to a long putter in July and started missing fewer 2-footers. I doubt that I'd enjoy golf one iota less if I lost some distance.

[Robert Thompson]

I'm not getting into this here -- but there is no chance someone hitting a balata would hit it farther than a ProV1 -- and spin, btw, hurts distance.

...
I think if you rolled back the ball it would really hurt the sport -- people who are already struggling for distance would simply stop playing. Kids like the power game -- watch any range with teenagers on it. They are working on finessing a feathery wedge. They are gripping and ripping -- and usually slicing 50 yards offline into a range net.

...

This is nonsense. People who are struggling for distance would have had more distance with the balata covered ball than the ProV1. They needed the spin to keep the ball in the air. Did they quit playing when the ProV1 came out?

Kids have been gripping and ripping it from the beginning of golf. No change there to hurt the "sport".

[Jim Sherma]

I'm not getting into this here -- but there is no chance someone hitting a balata would hit it farther than a ProV1 -- and spin, btw, hurts distance.

...
I think if you rolled back the ball it would really hurt the sport -- people who are already struggling for distance would simply stop playing. Kids like the power game -- watch any range with teenagers on it. They are working on finessing a feathery wedge. They are gripping and ripping -- and usually slicing 50 yards offline into a range net.

...

This is nonsense. People who are struggling for distance would have had more distance with the balata covered ball than the ProV1. They needed the spin to keep the ball in the air. Did they quit playing when the ProV1 came out?

Kids have been gripping and ripping it from the beginning of golf. No change there to hurt the "sport".

Optimal spin as it relates to distance is a function of ball and clubhead speed. At slow swing speeds more spin increases total distance by increasing the lift and time in the air. At high swing speeds it hurts distance by ballooning the ball and creating too steep an angle of descent. That is why there are low compression balls like the noodle that spin more for slower club head speeds.

The old spinny ball created a natural governor to useful clubhead speed. There was little reason to swing beyond a reasonable speed at a balata because most players could not control it. You had the choice to use a top-rock, but at a cost of control in the rest of your game. The multi-layer urethane covered balls allowed high clubhead speeds to no longer have to manage the tradeoff between risking too much spin and giving up control over the rest of the game.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()