Common sense attack from the pros and governing bodies

[Pat Burke]

I've gotten involved in this many times, and it's like talking about global warming or politics..
1) I'd be ok with an equipment roll back
      A) my suggestion would be to test optimization between metal woods and balls.     A specific combination goes too far, they cannot be used together in competition
2) IF. A supposed tour ball is mandated, I believe you are setting up a problem.  Changing equipment, balls ,etc is a hazard of many tour pros.  As we learn the game, we also learn our tendencies, and make changes to our swing as well as equipment to find the best combination to compete.  Let's say the 1997 Maxfli HT is the ball decided upon.  Most tour players would make the switch and figure it out with new specs and have those balls available to practice at every event and their home TPC or other practice site.  Honestly, there would be a number or percentage who this will kill, and a number who will excel, but the easiest switch, which WOULD  take time for the majority would be made reasonable well.


What about non tour players.  Less access to the equipment and practice sites, unless wealthy or fortunate, and especially after some period of time, the tour players would have used this equipment and settled in for a couple years, and kids coming out of lower levels not mandating this equipment or with access to prepare for it would be at an incredible disadvantage when they joined the tour.


At every level down we move the line of demarcation, I believe you set up a disadvantage for a group.  That's why I personally, and Unscientifically prefer an across the board cut if anything
My two cents worth a penny thoughts

[jeffwarne]

I've gotten involved in this many times, and it's like talking about global warming or politics..
1) I'd be ok with an equipment roll back
      A) my suggestion would be to test optimization between metal woods and balls.     A specific combination goes too far, they cannot be used together in competition
2) IF. A supposed tour ball is mandated, I believe you are setting up a problem.  Changing equipment, balls ,etc is a hazard of many tour pros.  As we learn the game, we also learn our tendencies, and make changes to our swing as well as equipment to find the best combination to compete.  Let's say the 1997 Maxfli HT is the ball decided upon.  Most tour players would make the switch and figure it out with new specs and have those balls available to practice at every event and their home TPC or other practice site.  Honestly, there would be a number or percentage who this will kill, and a number who will excel, but the easiest switch, which WOULD  take time for the majority would be made reasonable well.


What about non tour players.  Less access to the equipment and practice sites, unless wealthy or fortunate, and especially after some period of time, the tour players would have used this equipment and settled in for a couple years, and kids coming out of lower levels not mandating this equipment or with access to prepare for it would be at an incredible disadvantage when they joined the tour.


At every level down we move the line of demarcation, I believe you set up a disadvantage for a group.  That's why I personally, and Unscientifically prefer an across the board cut if anything
My two cents worth a penny thoughts

agreed on all counts Pat.


As Trump would say " who knew rollbacks could be this complicated?"
Just nice to start the conversation.


A lot of players suffered as a result of PROV1 low spin tech drivers-especially curvers of the ball-particularly drawers of the ball.
unintended consequences for sure will happen if bifurcation is implemented.
Players fall off the map every year for a variety of reasons.
The condition of competition groove rules killed my short game for 2 years. (could only play with PING EYE 2 wedges after having them in the bag for 30 years-the bounce and grind-not the grooves.
Maenwhile great courses fall off the map every year

[Tom_Doak]

I've gotten involved in this many times, and it's like talking about global warming or politics..
1) I'd be ok with an equipment roll back
      A) my suggestion would be to test optimization between metal woods and balls.     A specific combination goes too far, they cannot be used together in competition
2) IF. A supposed tour ball is mandated, I believe you are setting up a problem.  Changing equipment, balls ,etc is a hazard of many tour pros.  As we learn the game, we also learn our tendencies, and make changes to our swing as well as equipment to find the best combination to compete.  Let's say the 1997 Maxfli HT is the ball decided upon.  Most tour players would make the switch and figure it out with new specs and have those balls available to practice at every event and their home TPC or other practice site.  Honestly, there would be a number or percentage who this will kill, and a number who will excel, but the easiest switch, which WOULD  take time for the majority would be made reasonable well.


What about non tour players.  Less access to the equipment and practice sites, unless wealthy or fortunate, and especially after some period of time, the tour players would have used this equipment and settled in for a couple years, and kids coming out of lower levels not mandating this equipment or with access to prepare for it would be at an incredible disadvantage when they joined the tour.


At every level down we move the line of demarcation, I believe you set up a disadvantage for a group.  That's why I personally, and Unscientifically prefer an across the board cut if anything
My two cents worth a penny thoughts

Pat:


1)  There's no reason a Tour ball spec has to be as specific as "the 1997 Maxfli".  The specs could be just like they are now, except with different numbers, giving all the ball companies a chance to compete for business.  In fact, they would insist on it.


2)  The great thing about bifurcating the ball, is that it tends to want to seek that new level over time, at all levels of play.  When they made the small ball illegal for the Open and Amateur in the late 70's, all the better players who switched, were the ones who soon demanded the big ball be mandatory for other major tournaments; and then those players demanded it be mandatory for minor tournaments, club championships, etc.  The governing bodies didn't have to legislate anything; the players did it for them.  I'm not sure how long it was before the R & A actually made the small ball illegal for club play, but by that time, most people had switched anyway and there was no furor about it




Jason T:  Yes, Mike Davis was talking about a different ball for certain courses.  But the players are not going to want to try to adjust to different equipment on the eve of a major championship, so I can't see how that would ever fly.

[Garland Bayley]

Then by your outlook, Zach Johnson should move the needle.       The long drive championship is the same thing as the home run derby, its a good laugh.  It ain't the McGuire vs Sosa competition in the season which put people in the seats game after game.

Come on Kalen, he teed up this nonsense for you to hit it outta the park. But, it seems you are MIA. What happened?

[Garland Bayley]

I don't like the reductions Mike Davis is suggesting. I don't think the average golfer is going to be buying any 80% ball, so I don't think the economics would work out. However, before the over-engineered ball appeared on the scene circa 2000, the economics did work out. There were low spin balls that hackers played to reduce their slices, and there were high spin balls that skilled players played to exercise their skills. The engineers produced an unnatural ball that did not perform consistently relative to the loft of the clubs used. Any single compound found in nature would perform consistently relative to the loft of the club used. A rock would have low spin off of the wedge and the driver. A soft rubber ball would have high spin off the wedge and the driver. I think it is time to get back to nature and make balls react like natural substances, not like over-engineered wonder balls. If they can legislate grooves that no longer allow a ball hit from the rough to spin faster than when hit from the fairway with the same club, then they should be able to legislate balls with more natural spin characteristics.

[BCowan]

Then by your outlook, Zach Johnson should move the needle.       The long drive championship is the same thing as the home run derby, its a good laugh.  It ain't the McGuire vs Sosa competition in the season which put people in the seats game after game.

Come on Kalen, he teed up this nonsense for you to hit it outta the park. But, it seems you are MIA. What happened?

Nonsense?  It's common sense which isn't to common on here.  Kalen has made lots of absurdities on this thread and it seems ur joining him.  There are more homers in baseball then 40 years ago.  One of the reason why Americans have been slow to embrace soccer is the low scoring aspect of it. 

[Garland Bayley]

And by your logic, Charles Howell would have "moved the needle". There are lot's of long hitters that haven't "moved the needle". By your logic Jordan Speith wouldn't "moved the needle".

[BCowan]

Charles Howell didn't win enough to even register on the needle.  Jordan is above average, him hitting it 260 would bore the masses.  Keep the absurdities coming

[Garland Bayley]

Talk about absurd. Even the whole senior tour drives it over 260.

By your logic, football would be hugely popular worldwide, because of all the scoring.

[BCowan]

You are on a roll, the Viagra tour....  You are helping me prove my point. 

Now you are bringing Cultural differences between countries.  Other countries may not like high scoring sports.  Volkswagen makes bigger sedans for the US market.  Understanding cultural differences in the market place.   

[Jason Thurman]

Jason T:  Yes, Mike Davis was talking about a different ball for certain courses.  But the players are not going to want to try to adjust to different equipment on the eve of a major championship, so I can't see how that would ever fly.

The one thing I'm absolutely sure will never happen is that the Tour will never accept having its entertainment professionals play with inferior equipment. If the USGA tries the "competition ball" route, the Tour will just proceed in defiance and set their own rules as an entertainment business, furthering professional golf's long, slow takeover of the game from the governing bodies. No professional sport has ever grown by making its players less entertaining. And yes, that includes baseball - the horrid sound alone makes metal bats vastly inferior equipment to wooden ones, and the use of wooden bats somehow makes players appear even more superhuman when they still hit it 450 feet. A marshmallow ball for the pros won't accomplish the same trick the wooden bat does for golf, but three or four different ratings of balls by "hotness" with courses being classified by the type of ball used for high-level competition could work. Pros are still playing the same balls we are, and mastering different characteristics of each would make the game a little more interesting. It could be a welcome change to an entertainment product that basically runs the exact same competition week after week all year long.


A lot of GCAers bitch about spoiled Tour pros a lot, but professional golfers really don't have much clout relative to athletes in team sports (who have basically no clout themselves for that matter). There's no Tour players' union to stop the Tour from adopting a "different balls for different courses" rule if the USGA went that direction. But the suits behind the Tour would damn sure be smart enough to laugh in the USGA's face if it tries to tell them to make their entertainers play with a humanizing marshmallow while the rest of us keep right on buying ProV1s.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Well done Mike Davis, as a representative of the USGA, for taking a position on entertaining an alternative to the "long" golf ball that has divided the golfing world for the last 2 decades.
 
Bifurcation is an elegant solution. Both sides can have their cake and play with it
 
All those "championship" golf courses that have already been lengthened or are post 2000 and have the majority of players that prefer playing with the "long" ball can continue playing the "long" ball.
 
But for all those older golf courses (dozens in Scotland) whose courses have been emasculated by the marked increase in distance the ball travels (mainly between 1985 and 2000), could on occasion (not always) choose to play with a “short” ball where the second shot isn’t always a wedge, and where the fairway hazards come into play.
 
The "Bifurcation" can be purely voluntary, putting no chains on the industry or conditions on Tour Players or anyone.
It is just an alternative form of golf that allows the older shorter courses to recover their "validity" and avoid the threat of obsoletion.


However the USGA should authenticate the occasional "Bifurcation" amateur tournament by accepting handicap competitions results with the “short” ball.


Rather than condemning "Bifurcation" we should be embracing it.
Give it a go

[Garland Bayley]

John,

1985-2000?

[Garland Bayley]

Ben,

The point is that popular high performing players "move the needle". Tiger was popular long after he was no longer near the top in driving. But, he still "moved the needle ". Jordan is not that long, but moves the needle.

It just so happens that hitting it longer is an advantage in golf. Therefore, high performing players that move the needle are more likely to be long hitters.

E.g., Bobby Jones, Sam Snead, Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus.

Please don't try to tell me Arnold was popular, because he hit it long.

[BCowan]

Yes, hitting it longer in golf is a tremendous advantage.  Sorry but if Zach Johnson had 5 majors compared to Jason Day and DJ one or two each the masses would be following the later.  Tiger Woods was near the top in driving later in his career, he played conservative a lot too. 

Arnold Palmer was long and he took chances.  He had it all.  AP transcended the game on many levels.

[Garland Bayley]

Yes, hitting it longer in golf is a tremendous advantage.  Sorry but if Zach Johnson had 5 majors compared to Jason Day and DJ one or two each the masses would be following the later.  ...

It seems to me that to believe that you would have to believe that more people were rooting for DJ than for US at CB

[BCowan]

Jordan Speith ranks 27th in Driving Distance in 2017.  He is well above average.

 It comes down to the masses, spectators do Not want to see someone hit it 270 anymore once they have seen a tour pro hit it 330.  If you are arguing against that, then I am done here. 

[Garland Bayley]

The problem is that you are throwing out ridiculous numbers. No one is driving it 260. Few if any are driving it 270. Most are driving it 280 or more. None are driving it 330. DJ is driving it 316 if I recall correctly.

Furthermore, few are seeing this. Most observations are on TV, which really gives no clue to what really happens as the ball flight is not seen, only a number is given. Pretty abstract.

[jeffwarne]

Jordan Speith ranks 27th in Driving Distance in 2017.  He is well above average.

 It comes down to the masses, spectators do Not want to see someone hit it 270 anymore once they have seen a tour pro hit it 330.  If you are arguing against that, then I am done here.

I am arguing that.
a spectator would not know the difference anyway.
These same spectators tell me they hit it 250........whatever
By your logic golf would be even better if we had NO limits on balls and clubs.

[BCowan]

Jeff,

   The guy telling you he hit 250 was probably once in his life on a downwind day and he is BSing himself to try and justify all the hours he spends hitting a little white ball.  I am not arguing that golf is better with pro's hitting it longer, why would I waste my time with alternate tourney thread with persimmons heads and gear backed golf balls  .  There is so much I don't like about Pro Golf, as in there is too much to change and that would be selfish to ask for it.  The spectators would know when the pro tracer says the tee ball went 270 and the pro wasn't hitting SW into 50% of the holes.

[Garland Bayley]

...The spectators would know when the pro tracer says the tee ball went 270 and the pro wasn't hitting SW into 50% of the holes.

The lucky young men of today are probably recording as many of those pro-tracers as possible to show their lady friends and reap the benefits of such a show.

[JMEvensky]

...The spectators would know when the pro tracer says the tee ball went 270 and the pro wasn't hitting SW into 50% of the holes.

The lucky young men of today are probably recording as many of those pro-tracers as possible to show their lady friends and reap the benefits of such a show.

Chicks dig the pro-tracer?

[Peter Pallotta]

Actually, they mostly like to *dance*.
When they're not dancing they *might* look at pro-tracer highlights instead, but only if they already like the person as more than, you know, just a *friend*
Of course, that's just my opinion. I have no inside scoop or anything like that. 

[JMEvensky]

Actually, they mostly like to *dance*.
When they're not dancing they *might* look at pro-tracer highlights instead, but only if they already like the person as more than, you know, just a *friend*
Of course, that's just my opinion. I have no inside scoop or anything like that.

How many dates before you can show her the pro-tracer? Standard 3?

[Steve Lang]

    Well you never pro-trace and tell