So, let's say that

[Patrick_Mucci]

the ball is dialed back 10 % and driver clubheads reduced in size by 25 %, what will the impact on golf courses be.

Will relatively new back tees be abandoned at local clubs ?

Will there be a change in the height of the rough ?

The width of the fairways ?

What changes to golf courses and architecture would actually occur if the ball and driver was dialed back ?

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The distance the ball travels was the main discussion this week at Qschool finals because there is no evidence showing an advantage in using an anchoring putting technique.  How many players who anchor putters advanced this week?  On the other hand, there was not one player in the field with a driver older than 3 years and  not one player using a golf ball older than 2 years ago.  Gone are the days when some players used the Titliest 384 10 years past the introduction of the Tour 100.  An aside, the pace of play has slowed down simply because players are walking 50 yards back to tees before the additional walk forward--the simple act of walking and extra 600 yards adds at least 15 minutes to the length of a round.
And for those who know PGA West, quite a few players hit the 11th in 2 with irons and many players were greenside on their drives on both 12 and 14.  On the Nicklaus Tournament, the 15th was from the 516 tee and  2 players in the group in front of my student's drove with 3 woods so that they would stay short of the water at 320 yards(the fairways were not firm)!!!

[Tony Ristola]

the ball is dialed back 10 % and driver clubheads reduced in size by 25 %, what will the impact on golf courses be.

10% may not be enough.

Will relatively new back tees be abandoned at local clubs ?

In some instances yes.

The width of the fairways?

This may be the greatest benefit if the ball is rolled back to a point where 255-yards is the average drive, and Dan Pohl's 273 or so yards tops the driving stats. If the change isn't big enough to accomplish this, I don't see fairways getting wider.

What changes to golf courses and architecture would actually occur if the ball and driver was dialed back ?

Shorter courses, wider fairways would be possible.

I know of courses where the super has intentionally and stealthily narrowed the fairways to ribbons to ease the burden. I don't know if many clubs associate width with interest or think it a positive. I do know in the pursuit of high course ratings they do narrow the fairways (less than 20-yards), and see this as a good thing (we're talking central Europe).

A shorter ball and less forgiving (and shorter) driver would reintroduce old school strategy among the top players. If they got the head size right, guys wouldn't be going after drives full out; they'd need to throttle back for a little control. It could reintroduce guys picking sides of fairways, guys laying up to 100-yards instead of full out attacks on par-5's, and we might see some longer irons into par-4's.

[Connor Dougherty]

Some holes will be worse.

Don't get me wrong, I think equipment should definitely be rolled back, but some holes, like the 18th at Pebble Beach, will become worse because reaching the green in 2 will no longer be an option. In the original Confidential Guide, Tom Doak mentioned that he felt the 18th was not as good as people claimed. As technology progressed, reaching this green in 2 became an option, making the hole far more interesting, especially as players flirted with Stillwater Cove more both on their drives and approaches.

We always talk about equipment destroying golf holes. It's been one of the key points during the threads on TOC. For a change of pace, which holes do you think become worse if there is a rollback on the golf ball and drivers?

[Adam Clayman]

The distance the ball travels was the main discussion this week at Qschool finals because there is no evidence showing an advantage in using an anchoring putting technique.  How many players who anchor putters advanced this week?  On the other hand, there was not one player in the field with a driver older than 3 years and  not one player using a golf ball older than 2 years ago.  Gone are the days when some players used the Titliest 384 10 years past the introduction of the Tour 100.  An aside, the pace of play has slowed down simply because players are walking 50 yards back to tees before the additional walk forward--the simple act of walking and extra 600 yards adds at least 15 minutes to the length of a round.
And for those who know PGA West, quite a few players hit the 11th in 2 with irons and many players were greenside on their drives on both 12 and 14.  On the Nicklaus Tournament, the 15th was from the 516 tee and  2 players in the group in front of my student's drove with 3 woods so that they would stay short of the water at 320 yards(the fairways were not firm)!!!

Robert, Are you saying Peter Dawson was incorrect, when he replied to Shaq's question on the "anchoring" conference call, when he said distance gains had plateaued since the 2002 joint statement of principles?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Connor,

Long before the better/best golfers were hitting # 18 in two it was a great hole.

A return to not hitting it in two will improve the hole.

Adam,

Peter was incorrect and evidently unaware of the facts.

[jeffwarne]

The distance the ball travels was the main discussion this week at Qschool finals because there is no evidence showing an advantage in using an anchoring putting technique.  How many players who anchor putters advanced this week?  On the other hand, there was not one player in the field with a driver older than 3 years and  not one player using a golf ball older than 2 years ago.  Gone are the days when some players used the Titliest 384 10 years past the introduction of the Tour 100.  An aside, the pace of play has slowed down simply because players are walking 50 yards back to tees before the additional walk forward--the simple act of walking and extra 600 yards adds at least 15 minutes to the length of a round.
And for those who know PGA West, quite a few players hit the 11th in 2 with irons and many players were greenside on their drives on both 12 and 14.  On the Nicklaus Tournament, the 15th was from the 516 tee and  2 players in the group in front of my student's drove with 3 woods so that they would stay short of the water at 320 yards(the fairways were not firm)!!!

Let's see the players know it,
the fans know it
the club pros know it
The Superintendants know it
Local clubs know it

Who exactly is the USGA protecting?

although given that they said for multiple years that there were "no statistical distance gains with modern balls"
perhaps they just don't see it

and those of you who think small clubheads will keep players from swinging hard, never saw Player, Hogan, Palmer , even Nicklaus in their prime.
Lots of players lashed at the ball, I'd argue there was more need then as it wasn't going real far otherwise.

[Bill_McBride]

The distance the ball travels was the main discussion this week at Qschool finals because there is no evidence showing an advantage in using an anchoring putting technique.  How many players who anchor putters advanced this week?  On the other hand, there was not one player in the field with a driver older than 3 years and  not one player using a golf ball older than 2 years ago.  Gone are the days when some players used the Titliest 384 10 years past the introduction of the Tour 100.  An aside, the pace of play has slowed down simply because players are walking 50 yards back to tees before the additional walk forward--the simple act of walking and extra 600 yards adds at least 15 minutes to the length of a round.
And for those who know PGA West, quite a few players hit the 11th in 2 with irons and many players were greenside on their drives on both 12 and 14.  On the Nicklaus Tournament, the 15th was from the 516 tee and  2 players in the group in front of my student's drove with 3 woods so that they would stay short of the water at 320 yards(the fairways were not firm)!!!

Let's see the players know it,
the fans know it
the club pros know it
The Superintendants know it
Local clubs know it

Who exactly is the USGA protecting?

although given that they said for multiple years that there were "no statistical distance gains with modern balls"
perhaps they just don't see it

and those of you who think small clubheads will keep players from swinging hard, never saw Player, Hogan, Palmer , even Nicklaus in their prime.
Lots of players lashed at the ball, I'd argue there was more need then as it wasn't going real far otherwise.

"Who exactly is the USGA protecting?"

C'mon, Jeff, you know the answer.   Themselves, of course, from serious lawsuits from the manufacturers!

[Jason Topp]

Robert, Are you saying Peter Dawson was incorrect, when he replied to Shaq's question on the "anchoring" conference call, when he said distance gains had plateaued since the 2002 joint statement of principles?

There has been an increase of about 10 yards in tour measured distance since 2002.  To be fair to Dawson, however, most of that increase happened in 2003 and 2004.  Things have been pretty steady since then.

[Adam Clayman]

Jason, I'm not so sure that's accurate either. But if it is, then the measuring standard is flawed.

[RJ_Daley]

Adam, I believe you are correct about the measuring standards.  To say the distances haven't made as much advance as the statistics defies one's situational observations.   We all watch the same toon-a-mints every year and we hear these driving distances given by the announcers, and we hear more and more guys at holes that people would oh and ah at one guy in the field hitting it 300, and now half the field does that, and that one guy is out there 360+.  I think the impact of the distance technology is better observed by the yearly and situational play of the given courses and holes. 

I think the main obstacle of a call to roll back the ball doesn't necessarily come from the pro and governing body in their sense or understanding of how it impacts the cost of golf by increasing the cost of maintaining and upgrading the facilities of golf.  I think all the whose who in the regulation of the game know the issue.  The obstacle and resistance is in the goofs like us, the consumers of these technologies of distance, who get their jollies hitting the ball 260 that can't hit it 230, and we are still playing on essentially the same tees, because 230 going up to 260 doesn't change the effective distances for the average bloke, but gives them a wet spot in their pants when playing with their buddies.  So, they are the big demand behind the technology race for distance, and the pros just demonstrate the effects of that technology, exponentially.  So, the average bloke pays more for their golf, even though they aren't moving back to the Tiger tees and using the facility changes effectively on their actual game, they are just paying more for the response to that distance improvement for the tiny fraction that the changes are needed. Or, another way of saying it, facility changes aren't needed for 90% of the golfing public, even if they improve distance beyond what it is here.  The same blokes are going to hit it a little further but still within the parameters of 6200-6600 yards, and are just kidding themselves that their games are that much better.  It is all feel-good marketing, IMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Anyone who played with the old Persimmons, especially the shallow faced versions, never swung with abandon as is the case today.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,

Anyone who played with the old Persimmons, especially the shallow faced versions, never swung with abandon as is the case today.

I know that back in 1980 Nicklaus claimed to swing at 85%. I was at 100% myself and drove the ball further than I did today. I was younger and our course was not irrigated. All my friends swang at 100% back in the day just as they do now. Nothing has changed when it comes to effort.

[John Kavanaugh]

Patrick,

To answer your original question. A 10% reduction would not change a damned thing. Great players would hit 5 iron on par fours where they once hit 7's. Nobody cares.

What upsets me is that we now live in a time where it has never been better to be either an amateur or pro golfer. For some reason many people want to make the game harder just when things are getting good. I don't get it unless the people in power want the owners of courses to make more money. This is the time golfers get to eat the center of the bun. Let's eat.

I lost my putter last week. Don't take my damn ball.

[Bryan Izatt]

Robert, Are you saying Peter Dawson was incorrect, when he replied to Shaq's question on the "anchoring" conference call, when he said distance gains had plateaued since the 2002 joint statement of principles?

There has been an increase of about 10 yards in tour measured distance since 2002.  To be fair to Dawson, however, most of that increase happened in 2003 and 2004.  Things have been pretty steady since then.

Jason,

Yes there was a 10 yard jump from 2002 to the present sort of steady state, but it is misleading to take it out of context.  Using the tour statistics, driving distance was pretty static between 1985 and 1995.  There was a nice ramp up from 1995 to about 2003 or 2004, and since then driving distance has been pretty static.

Since the Pro V1 came into play in the midst of the 10 year distance growth wave there had to be other factors at play as well as the ball.  The big headed drivers with rising COR's, the perfection of light but strong graphite shafts, individual fitting optimization, improvements in athletic conditioning,  and improvements in agronomy practices all come to mind.  But, at least according to the Tour statistics there was no quantum leap as the new ball was adopted over two or three years.  Rather there appears to be a steady growth in distance over 10 years.

"Rolling back" the ball may still be the easiest way to deal with the decade long 30 yard distance gain, but the ball was not the sole cause of the problem.  I think many are being simplistic about how easy it would be to magically roll back the ball some x% through some sort of regulation, even if the powers that be could ever get their heads around actually trying to roll the ball back.





Patrick,

Vis-a-vis your opening questions,

"the ball is dialed back 10 % and driver clubheads reduced in size by 25 %, what will the impact on golf courses be. 

I think 10% would not be enough if you want to get back to 1980's distances.  Reducing driver volume by 25% would likely be a waste of time.  Do any tour pros have difficulty hitting 3 woods that are way smaller than that prodigious distances? Which courses did you have in mind, those hosting majors or tour events?  Or, member club?  Or resorts, or pay-as-play courses?

Will relatively new back tees be abandoned at local clubs ?

At my two home courses, I doubt it.  They are infrequently played now, but the few idiots who play them now probably would continue to play them.  There is a minimal cost in continuing to maintain them. 

Will there be a change in the height of the rough ?

Do you mean at tour courses or local courses?  In either instance I can't see why.  Rolling back the ball or driver doesn't necessarily mean that players, pro or amateur will be more errant.  If ball manufacturers weren't focused on distance gains they might innovate more on straighter balls.

The width of the fairways ?

Again, for which kind of courses.  Basically the same answer as above.

What changes to golf courses and architecture would actually occur if the ball and driver was dialed back ?"

Why would there be any?  Wouldn't people just go back to interfacing with architectural features as they were intended to do.

[David_Madison]

The stat regarding minimal yardage gains on the PGA Tour over the past few years is misleading. I don't have any stats on this, but observation at tour events and watching on tv makes it clear that the players have increased their use of fairway woods and hybrids to get their tee shots to the desired spots. In the old days, the Tour selected a couple of holes that everyone would likely use driver and measured just those shots, the vast majority of which were with drivers. There's practically no such thing any more, even on par-5's and long par-4's. So perhaps their average distance off the tees hasn't changed all that much recently. But their average distance when they hit driver certainly has.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Anyone who played with the old Persimmons, especially the shallow faced versions, never swung with abandon as is the case today.

I know that back in 1980 Nicklaus claimed to swing at 85%. I was at 100% myself and drove the ball further than I did today. I was younger and our course was not irrigated. All my friends swang at 100% back in the day just as they do now. Nothing has changed when it comes to effort.

JakaB,

That's because you and your friends were hackers.

Nobody that I played with, and I played with a lot of good golfers, Pros and Ams, swung with all their might.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Let's forget about the PGA Tour Pros and focus on the 99.9 % of golfers and local golf courses.

David,

I think that's a valid point.

[John Kavanaugh]

Pat,

From the age of 13 until when I had children I was never worse than a 3 handicap.  My friends were the same as we never gave or got strokes in any game we ever played.  We played a wide open course where I could drive four of the par 4's in 1977 where I can't drive any now.  We swung as hard as we could while remaining on balance, exactly as we do now.

There are two very clear reasons why I hit the ball further as a 17 year old in 1977 than I can now.  One is that back then courses were not irrigated so the ball rolled much further than it does today off zoysia.  Two, that was the year I set my high school record for the 400 meters which still stands today and will not be broken in my lifetime. (49.09) I need to go at least one month without fitting that tidbit into casual conversation.

You can not dismiss fitness, course conditioning and potential hazards when discussing the distance the modern ball is flying.  If the guys on tour had to play the over watered courses most of us play on a daily basis you would see your 10% reduction.  If holes were chosen for measuring distance where hazards are predominately in play you would see even a larger reduction.

Do you hit the ball further today than you did in 1977?  I sincerely doubt it.  Few people who were avid golfers of that time do.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Not sure which stat about "minimal yardage gains" you're referring to.  The PGA Tour stats show a 30 yard, on average, gain over 10 years.  That's well beyond minimal.

As to how many players use something other than drivers off the two holes per round where the Tour measures driving distance, I have seen no statistics so I don't really know. I'd be surprised if the Tour would pick too many holes to measure driving distance where strategic decisions off the tee would lead many players to lay up with less than a driver.  The Tour driving statistics (including the Euro tour and the Web.com tour) are the closest thing we have to reliable statistics; I think I'll go with them rather than anecdotal impressions from casual observers.


Patrick,

If you're limiting your questions to the 99.9% of golfers then I wouldn't expect to see many if any architectural changes to courses based on a rollback.  Even back tees might be kept in the off chance that courses would want to challenging if the tour ever dropped by at their course.

Recently, I've gone back to playing a course that I played 45 years ago.  Architecturally little has changed in those 45 years (apart from trees growing up).  It plays about the same way now as it did then for me.  I suppose what I've gained in equipment advantages I've lost to age.  If the ball were rolled back, I suspect that it wouldn't make enough difference now to me to change the way I'd interface with the architecture.  For younger people that are members now, the course is challenging enough now, and would be fine without change if the ball was rolled back to where it was in the 1960's.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

From the age of 13 until when I had children I was never worse than a 3 handicap.  My friends were the same as we never gave or got strokes in any game we ever played.  We played a wide open course where I could drive four of the par 4's in 1977 where I can't drive any now.  We swung as hard as we could while remaining on balance, exactly as we do now.

There are two very clear reasons why I hit the ball further as a 17 year old in 1977 than I can now.  One is that back then courses were not irrigated so the ball rolled much further than it does today off zoysia.  Two, that was the year I set my high school record for the 400 meters which still stands today and will not be broken in my lifetime. (49.09) I need to go at least one month without fitting that tidbit into casual conversation.
JakaB,

I don't consider "roll" hitting it further.

When I reference distance I usually do so in the context of "carry"
At one of the holes at my club there was a creek that required a carry of 234-240, so roll out distance was irrelevant, carry was the critical factor
Ditto three other holes with Creeks cutting through the DZ.

So, do you carry the ball further today ?

I understand the influence of trajectory and ground conditions on roll and total distance, but carry, in terms of challenging bunkers, creeks and other features would seem to be the critical distance factor

You can not dismiss fitness, course conditioning and potential hazards when discussing the distance the modern ball is flying.  If the guys on tour had to play the over watered courses most of us play on a daily basis you would see your 10% reduction.  If holes were chosen for measuring distance where hazards are predominately in play you would see even a larger reduction.

Do you hit the ball further today than you did in 1977?  I sincerely doubt it.  Few people who were avid golfers of that time do.

.

Today, probably not, last year and prior, before I wrecked my knee, yes, I was driving it further in 2010 than in 1977

[JMEvensky]

I don't consider "roll" hitting it further.

Quoted to prove detachment from reality.

Shaft companies spend a lot of time and money on improving the "angle of descent" to improve roll. It's a big part of distance gains.

Do you measure your drives like the long jump--some guy puts a flag in the ground where your tee shots land?

[John Kavanaugh]

In 77 driver lofts were 3 degrees less than today. You know better than me that the intended launch angle to maximize distance was different. I may not have carried the ball as far.  Didn't need to.

[Matthew Essig]

I agree with Pat that we should focus more on the 90%+ who are not professional golfers.

But if you want to continue to talk about the pros, the graph may be misleading because once the pros gained that distance, more switched to balls with more spin, possibly the cause for the slight dip in the late 2000's.

[John Kavanaugh]

Regular golfers do not need or want a ball roll back. You just took our putters away. Why?!?