[Sean_A]

Sean,


If shorter hitters move forward a set of tees at the time the rollback, an onerously reduced ball doesn't have as marked an effect upon them. These golfers also play a shorter course, which is quicker to walk.

We already have several tees on every hole and competitive golfers / club members possess handicaps, so there are mechanisms in place to address problems encountered with initial days of implementing reduced flight balls.

And as Bobby Jones said - “we can move all our tees forward if we wish, without investing more money in costly land, but we cannot keep on moving them backwards.”

Matt

It seems to me we are way behind the 8 ball in terms of tees. Walking forward is a better solution compared to walking backwards. Best of all is walking off a green 20 yards to a tee. This is essentially what we now have on the courses which did not overly give into the mantra of keeping up with the next door neighbour. I am not naive enough to think all courses can be this way, but why threaten t6what in real terms is a huge percentage of courses which work just fine (except for women golfers in many cases) for the sake of the courses which did chase after the long ball?

This is an extremely complicated situation which, imo, can only be solved in smaller steps. What we don't want to do is throw out the baby with the bath water over principles. A roll back in golf is a novel concept which needs clear up to date thinking rather than going back to opinions and principles of an age in which none of those people experienced what we now do. That isn't to say we can't learn from history, only that the answers to the specific problem being discussed does not not lie in history.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

If shorter hitters move forward a set of tees at the time the rollback, an onerously reduced ball doesn't have as marked an effect upon them. These golfers also play a shorter course, which is quicker to walk.

And as Bobby Jones said - “we can move all our tees forward if we wish, without investing more money in costly land, but we cannot keep on moving them backwards.”

Matthew:


To your first point, it isn't necessarily so.  One problem with modern courses is that forward tee players have to walk almost as far as those playing the stretched-out back tees, if the back tee is the one closest to the previous green.  Anyway, there are 35,000 courses that are laid out the way they are, and changing how far the ball goes does not in itself change the length of the walk.


To your last point - Bobby Jones said that?  Where and when?  I know Mr. Dye said it, but he didn't quote Jones.

[Tom_Doak]

This is an extremely complicated situation which, imo, can only be solved in smaller steps. What we don't want to do is throw out the baby with the bath water over principles. A roll back in golf is a novel concept which needs clear up to date thinking rather than going back to opinions and principles of an age in which none of those people experienced what we now do. That isn't to say we can't learn from history, only that the answers to the specific problem being discussed does not not lie in history.

Sean:


Jesus, man, you sound like Amy Klobuchar [or any of the corporate-owned Democrats] talking about health insurance, or stretching out the increase of the minimum wage to ten years.  Although I suspect you aren't being paid as much as they are to say it.


I do agree with you, though, that just rolling back the distance on a long drive will not fix everything that has changed about golf in the fifty years since I started playing.  It's a complex equation with many variables.  And unfortunately, some of the biggest players in the game have a profit motive in the outcome. 

[Thomas Dai]

Golf has been dithering and procrastinating over this matter for far too long. The world has changed at a quicker pace over the last few decades though and as it has so outside influences have come more to the fore (no pun intended), ie land use, water use, safety etc.
The game needs to stop the dithering and procrastinating so I applaud attempts like this one emanating from Melbourne to move things forward for otherwise pretty soonish outside factors, agencies and influences will change the game for us and I’d rather golfers changed the game themselves than non-golfers with their own agendas.

And simple answers are usually the best.
Atb

[Mike_Clayton]

Mike, you may recall the words of Sandy Tatum in a GCA feature interview -


 “A few years ago, Hootie Johnson had an impulse to create a ‘Masters Ball’ to deal with the distance factor that had intruded into the game … If he had carried it out it would have saved the game.”

Matthew


I respect your intent to raise the topic in a respectful and informative fashion but I have to say that comment from Tatum is complete and utter bollocks. The world will keep turning and golf will go on if the pro's routinely shoot 59's. To suggest the game will be ruined just shows how short sighted he is.


Anyway why not just let the pro's shoot 59 ?


Niall

Niall,


When are people going to understand scoring is a complete distraction from the issue - which is how great courses play versus how they were intended to play?  Holes meant to be true three shooters reduced to drives and 4 irons. Long two- shooters to drives and wedges. Par 3s testing 'wooden club play' down to 4 and 5 irons.
Anyone can manipulate the dimensions of a course - both with speedy greens, narrow fairways and high green grass - but it doesn't solve the problem and it makes for much worse golf.

[Mike Sweeney]

When are people going to understand scoring is a complete distraction from the issue - which is how great courses play versus how they were intended to play?  Holes meant to be true three shooters reduced to drives and 4 irons. Long two- shooters to drives and wedges. Par 3s testing 'wooden club play' down to 4 and 5 irons.
Anyone can manipulate the dimensions of a course - both with speedy greens, narrow fairways and high green grass - but it doesn't solve the problem and it makes for much worse golf.

I would add in one more element - accuracy. When I grew up, George Izett was the gold standard:





But if you did not hit it literally "between the screws", the ball was way left or way right. And that was when we had trees!!


Now my 23 year old son has my DNA and he is 50 yards past me for a bunch of reasons. However the the fact that he has ONLY swung hard all of his golf life is part of it. The new technology had made drivers to be very accurate and long:




https://mygolfspy.com/mygolfspy-labs-persimmon-vs-your-titanium-driver/

[Mike_Clayton]

Mike,


I'm not convinced they are more accurate. I see massive wides now - from strong, usually youngish, players who smash it but with little awareness of the clubface. They good drives are amazing - which convinces them the club is good - but the bad ones are horrific and normally way,way right. Or a low duck hook which is essentially the same shot.


For me they are no less or no more accurate - but the mishits are much better disguised!

[Sean_A]

Mike, you may recall the words of Sandy Tatum in a GCA feature interview -


 “A few years ago, Hootie Johnson had an impulse to create a ‘Masters Ball’ to deal with the distance factor that had intruded into the game … If he had carried it out it would have saved the game.”

Matthew


I respect your intent to raise the topic in a respectful and informative fashion but I have to say that comment from Tatum is complete and utter bollocks. The world will keep turning and golf will go on if the pro's routinely shoot 59's. To suggest the game will be ruined just shows how short sighted he is.


Anyway why not just let the pro's shoot 59 ?


Niall

Niall,


When are people going to understand scoring is a complete distraction from the issue - which is how great courses play versus how they were intended to play?  Holes meant to be true three shooters reduced to drives and 4 irons. Long two- shooters to drives and wedges. Par 3s testing 'wooden club play' down to 4 and 5 irons.
Anyone can manipulate the dimensions of a course - both with speedy greens, narrow fairways and high green grass - but it doesn't solve the problem and it makes for much worse golf.

This is partly what I mean. If the goal is to indescriminately revive original architectural intent it's going to be a tail chasing exercise whose goal may not even be properly understood. Or worse, maybe its not a good goal or maybe that goal is only good for a very small percentage of golfers.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Mike


re your post 29, I disagree on a couple of levels, firstly that length isn't driving whatever changes are going on - I appreciate that's not your point but it is most often the reason for making changes is it not ? As to your point, or what I think is your point, that we should all be playing like 20 or 30 years ago with the same shot values etc. for us normal humans who don't have the superlative golfing skills that you do, having a lot more half par holes because of technology is far more enjoyable than standard length.


For example, when it comes to a par 5, 9 times out of 10, a par 5 where you've got a chance of getting home in 2 is far more enjoyable than one where you can't. GCA's seem to have discovered the principle of that with more short driveable (for some) par 4's etc. but still seem to be a slave overall to a particular number in terms of par or length of course.


Niall

[Mike_Clayton]

Niall,


No doubt the holes to have benefited from the ball going further are the dangerous and interesting short 4s because they are now reachable for many and subsequently more dangerous - and more fun. Likewise really interesting par 5s. But at the same time the greatness that is the essence of Augusta 13 is lost for the best players in the world.


The disappointing thing is the 'other' holes. The stout two-shot holes where the intention was to test long second shots. And the great 3 shotters where the long second is interesting - St Andrews 14 for example or Carnoustie 6. For great players the game shouldn't lose the point of those holes.
That it took Dustin Johnson until September (2017 I think) to hit a 6 into into a par 4 is something of a concern on so may levels.


Plus - my view has always been the game should be bifurcated - as it was for 50 plus years with the small and big ball. The best thing that could happen would be for a manufacturer to somehow make a ball for short hitters (carry under 150y) that went noticeably further.

[JESII]

This is an interesting conversation on many levels...


I've long held the stance that we should ignore the best players interaction with architecture and recognize how small a percentage they are. I stand by that as an overriding navigator for my position in these conversations. In fact, they seemingly do everything they can to avoid the architecture...


Once you get below the elite level (Sponsored Tours and Top 50 NCAA Division 1), I see every reason in the world to focus on course presentation and minor tweaks to the architecture as the long term course of action to retain relevance, challenge and interest.


That said, I fully agree with our recently departed Rihc Goodale's unification theory (or something similar) in which he posited that a mandated rollback at that elite level would result, eventually, in a reunification because for one reason or another everyone would eventually play the reduced distance equipment.




Matt Mollica and Mike Clayton - if a substantial rollback is issued this winter from the R&A/USGA, which class of golfers do you think will be the first to regain their lost distance?


I propose it will be the Tour guys because they have the resources and motivation...what then?

[/size][size=78%] [/size]

[archie_struthers]

 




I signed on !   ball goes too far

[John Kavanaugh]

I may begin to buy into the rollback theory if it is ever championed by someone who is not on the downstroke of their skill level.

[Tom_Doak]

I may begin to buy into the rollback theory if it is ever championed by someone who is not on the downstroke of their skill level.

Won't happen unless they do.  The only reason the 1.62-in ball was abandoned was because the top American players didn't want to switch back and forth for The Open.  The movement was from the inside.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have made the transition from long hitter to old man enjoying the game as much as ever partly because of back tees 1,000 yds beyond where I play. It would feel selfish to me to make younger players move up to my tees through bifurcation. I had my day.

[MClutterbuck]

It is very positive that more and more people think about this and that it eventually forces USGA and R&A to address it. At the very least, I am in favor of a decision that stops technology at where it is today. No idea on how to achieve it.

[JESII]

At the very least, I am in favor of a decision that stops technology at where it is today. No idea on how to achieve it.

Isn’t it already stopped?  I think for 15+ years now...

[John Kavanaugh]

The only bifurcation that will ever work is the one that lets baby boomers hit the ball even further. We control the marketplace and the memberships.

[Tom_Doak]

At the very least, I am in favor of a decision that stops technology at where it is today. No idea on how to achieve it.

Isn’t it already stopped?  I think for 15+ years now...

So did most guys on Tour hit it this far 15+ years ago? 


I don't care about the overall driving distance stats -- when there are plenty of guys whose carry distance is further than what their Tour average is, the numbers must be manipulated somehow.

[John Kavanaugh]

With all the concessions we give millennials to join our clubs: i.e. Jeans, untucked shirts, music, etc, etc... Does anyone really believe that a rolled back ball specific course will appeal to these guys?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - it’s all due to better athletes being in better condition than ever before. If Tiger in his prime (back about 15 years ago) was a ‘10’ in this regard, today’s long hitting golfers like Justin Thomas are 11s.

[Garland Bayley]

Mike,


I'm not convinced they are more accurate. I see massive wides now - from strong, usually youngish, players who smash it but with little awareness of the clubface. They good drives are amazing - which convinces them the club is good - but the bad ones are horrific and normally way,way right. Or a low duck hook which is essentially the same shot.


For me they are no less or no more accurate - but the mishits are much better disguised!

Are not the mistakes disguised by the ball? Topflites always went straighter than balata. The modern driver just amplifies the mistakes.

[Kalen Braley]

At the very least, I am in favor of a decision that stops technology at where it is today. No idea on how to achieve it.

Isn’t it already stopped?  I think for 15+ years now...

So did most guys on Tour hit it this far 15+ years ago? 


I don't care about the overall driving distance stats -- when there are plenty of guys whose carry distance is further than what their Tour average is, the numbers must be manipulated somehow.

Seems longer,  a few numbers from PGA Tour site

2019:
# of players who average 300 or more off the tee: 49
Median Avg = 294 yards

2004:
# of players who averaged 300 or more off the tee: 15
Median Avg = 287 yards

[Mark Pritchett]

Jim - it’s all due to better athletes being in better condition than ever before. If Tiger in his prime (back about 15 years ago) was a ‘10’ in this regard, today’s long hitting golfers like Justin Thomas are 11s.

Yep, those Champions Tour players in such great shape in their 50's and 60's hitting it further than when they were in their 20's and 30's.  Nothing to do with equipment. 

[MClutterbuck]

At the very least, I am in favor of a decision that stops technology at where it is today. No idea on how to achieve it.

Isn’t it already stopped?  I think for 15+ years now...

15 years older, play less, practice less and hit it further than ever. I dont believe it has stopped.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()