[Dave Doxey]

I fail to understand the rollback arguments.

Any course that adds length does so per it’s own decision.  Vanity, I assume.  “Protecting par”.  There is no need to build longer courses.  The back tees at most courses get limited use today.  If members want longer courses and faster greens that allow them to brag about difficulty, let them pay for that.  Courses that manage to their budget will survive.  Those that overextend or fail to manage budget will not.

Let the pros score whatever they score.  They only play a small number of courses anyway. Not the ones that most golfers play.  A pro will beat the average player, regardless of equipment.  Hitting a tennis ball with a bunker rake.  Let them score 50 under in tournaments.  What does that matter?

I play with seniors who carry 18 clubs and two rangefinders.  They have $400 drivers, which they adjust multiple times during a round.  They buy new irons every year or two.  Most never hit it more than 180 yards.  They play a 5000 yard course.  Without today’s giant drivers and hot golf balls, they’d not play at all.  If they see a pro win with a new putter, it’s in their bag the next week.  If an endorsement promises them 10 yards longer drives, they take out the credit card.  Do you think they care about a rollback?

On the other extreme, there are players who carry bags with assorted clubs, including 3 rusty 5-irons and a beer cooler.  A 15 pack of top-flights usually gets them through a round. Do they care about rollbacks?

These groups make up a large percentage of the golfing public, that pays the bills.  Despite what the NGA or USGA wants to believe, neither of the above groups follows the rules very closely.  They do, however, watch the pros and buy the equipment that the pros endorse.

Let the kids bomb it and enjoy that. Make the game more difficult and the younger generations will play on their iPhone, not on your golf course.

Finally, what is the agreed upon proposed rollback?  Hickory and featheries would certainly allow for shorter pro courses.  How are equipment limits measured and enforced?  Manufacturers demonstrate the ability to work around legislated limits.  Recent club tests by the Tour have shown that.

I guess the equipment rules could mandate a rollback, but why?  Instead, make courses beautiful, sustainable, interesting, and with multiple shot options.  (This IS a forum on course architecture, right?)

[Jason Topp]

My take on ball rollback after debating this issue over my last 15 years on GCA:

1.  Absent equipment innovations, PGA tour average driving distance pretty consistently increases around a yard per year.  Jumps have occurred during years of big technical innovations but overall expect average driving distance to increase 15-20 yards over the next 20 years. 

https://www.pga.com/news/pga-tour/how-driving-distance-has-changed-over-past-40-years-pga-tour


2.      The cause of distance increases is irrelevant in my view.  The question is whether something should be done to dial distance back, regardless of cause.

3.      The positive of increased distance is the fun of crushing a golf ball for the player and the premium prices club and ball manufacturers can charge for equipment.  It will be tough to sell the newest driver or ball at a premium price if it they are shorter than prior versions.

4.      The negatives of increased driving distance include a fundamental change in the challenge presented by classic golf courses, a growing disparity in the distance different levels of player hit the ball, increased acreage necessary for a golf course, increased time necessary to walk a course and increased safety issues caused by shots going further offline.

5.      I believe distance is a bigger issue for everyday play than it is at the professional level.  I recently waited for the green to clear on a 350-yard hole so a 10-handicap kid could wait to hit driver.  He hit it to the back fringe on his way to shooting 42 for nine holes.  I have seen a lot of athletic, mediocre golfers launch the ball a long ways in a wide variety of directions.

6.      People have been howling about the distance the ball goes for at least 100 years.  Rollback proponents need to be able to argue why there is a crisis now. 

7.      I believe a rollback would improve the game because it could lower cost, shorten the walk and reduce the time needed to play the game. I do not think it will happen because the manufacturers who invest in the game see business risk. 

[Garland Bayley]

...
I play with seniors who carry 18 clubs and two rangefinders.  They have $400 drivers, which they adjust multiple times during a round.  They buy new irons every year or two.  Most never hit it more than 180 yards.  They play a 5000 yard course.  Without today’s giant drivers and hot golf balls, they’d not play at all.

That's total BS!

If they see a pro win with a new putter, it’s in their bag the next week.  If an endorsement promises them 10 yards longer drives, they take out the credit card. 

You expect us to believe that they will spend lots of money on equipment, and they will quit if they can't? So these are shoppers, not golfers?

Do you think they care about a rollback?

If they don't care, then there is no reason to discuss them. Why did you bring them up?

On the other extreme, there are players who carry bags with assorted clubs, including 3 rusty 5-irons and a beer cooler.  A 15 pack of top-flights usually gets them through a round. Do they care about rollbacks?

If they don't care, then there is no reason to discuss them. Why did you bring them up?

These groups make up a large percentage of the golfing public, that pays the bills.  Despite what the NGA or USGA wants to believe, neither of the above groups follows the rules very closely.  They do, however, watch the pros and buy the equipment that the pros endorse.

Let the kids bomb it and enjoy that. Make the game more difficult and the younger generations will play on their iPhone, not on your golf course.

Rolling back equipment will not make the game more difficult for these people. The game already is difficult.

Finally, what is the agreed upon proposed rollback?  Hickory and featheries would certainly allow for shorter pro courses.  How are equipment limits measured and enforced?  Manufacturers demonstrate the ability to work around legislated limits.  Recent club tests by the Tour have shown that.

What is useful is dependable equipment. Hickories are not dependable, they break. Balata balls are not dependable, they cut. Graphite shafts are dependable, but for the most part unnecessary. I find them useful in the winter when steel shafts have activated arthritis in my hands. Some people find hybrids helpful. Emphasis should be reliable equipment on useful improvements. If the manufacturers find a way to beat limits, adopt new limits. The reason stated for not reining in the ball when it advanced was that the USGA believed it would bankrupt one significant company. They didn't state which company, but I have always assumed that it was TopFlite since they were totally dependent on low spin balls, and reining in the distance traveled by low spin balls would affect their entire product line.

I guess the equipment rules could mandate a rollback, but why?  Instead, make courses beautiful, sustainable, interesting, and with multiple shot options.  (This IS a forum on course architecture, right?)

The more the divergence in distance from long hitters to average hitters, the harder it is to make interesting courses for the golfing public.

[Dave Doxey]

Garland, you missed my point.  The majority of golfers, who buy the equipment and spend the money to keep the golf business going, do not care about equipment rollback.  They want help in playing and enjoying the game.  They are influenced by pro players who endorse equipment.  Why do you think they spend the money?  Chasing dreams.

No need to change courses, leave them as they are.  The fact that a small number of private courses are adding length to protect par and retain their bragging rights is not sufficient to justify more difficult equipment.  Let those members pay the cost of course changes, if they want.  Most courses will stay unchanged.  I can not name a course near me that has added length, other than one or two that host Tour events, which I assume more than pays for the changes.

Kids who bomb the ball enjoy that and are attracted to the game.  Why limit that?  Why drive players away with more difficult equipment?  How will rolled back equipment attract more players to the game or keep existing players? Equipment should change to make the game easier.

Top players scoring lower matters not to me.  It’s just a number and a minuscule percentage of golfers. Build courses for the average golfer, not the 1%.

Reasoning for rollback continues to escape me.  Apologies for adding fuel to the debate.  I’ve said all I intend to on the subject.

[jeffwarne]

Dave
What were my childhood friends and I and all those old men in front of us thinking taking up and ,playing golf in in an era when it was no fun evidently.


You really think old men will quit and kids won't play if they cant use waffle sized clubs on hot golf balls.
Distance is relative and skill that encourages long term participation and enduring passion is earned-not bought.
A wooden driver still propels a balatalike golf ball significantly farther than any other ball travels in sport.


What if the limited financial resources available were spent on green fees, memberships, lessons and golf events,rather than lining the pockets of CEOS, investment bankers,marketers and investors of manufacturers with no interest whatsoever in the local culture or economy?


Maybe the above  explains why golf was growing when equipment gains were stable and now its shrinking while equipment gains have exploded.


As you say, if you nobody but 1% is worried about a rollback, why should we worry about losing players who already ignore the rules or would ignore a rollback?


Maybe some players would actually go exercise and practice after being outdriven rather than constantly and semiannually seeking out snd purchasing the latest and greatest equipment whose cost is highly inflated by a highly paid touring pro schill?
Years ago we used to laugh at claims about equipment-now many claims are actually true.


And I sell golf clubs and bave a club endorsement deal!


To think that golf courses won't grow in size as equipment grows- ignores the fact that nearly every course I've competed in the last 40 years is now longer and many more sets of tees and distance gaps exist than in the balata/wooden era.
Why?because the elite got much longer,the long and wrong athlete got much longer and the old men who are about to supposedly "quit" didnt and got left behind.
They wont lose something they never gained from equipment that optimizrs distance for higher speed and spin players..



But Im totally cool with bufurcation as its more practical and as you illustrate the game is already bifurcated in many ways and with separate tees thats the ultimate bifurcation

[Ian Andrew]

1. I've been at this for 30 years. The width required for safety is 50% more than it was 30 years ago. This is killing inner city courses with lawsuits.

2. It needs to be a complete rollback. There are 10 people at every club who can hit as far as the professionals can. 9 of them hit only a fairway or two a round. My biggest issue is not with professionals, it is someone who can match their swing speed without any control. We are required to design to address the worst case scenario. The problem with the ball for me is how far it will fly off line


I can give you other related issues like water consumption, land requirements, the challenge of finding labor, etc, etc. Whether you like to admit it or not, the game is not economically sustainable in the long run around cities. But if you reduce the footprint, the economics work much better.

[jeffwarne]

1. I've been at this for 30 years. The width required for safety is 50% more than it was 30 years ago. This is killing inner city courses with lawsuits.

2. It needs to be a complete rollback. There are 10 people at every club who can hit as far as the professionals can. 9 of them hit only a fairway or two a round. My biggest issue is not with professionals, it is someone who can match their swing speed without any control. We are required to design to address the worst case scenario. The problem with the ball for me is how far it will fly off line


I can give you other related issues like water consumption, land requirements, the challenge of finding labor, etc, etc. Whether you like to admit it or not, the game is not economically sustainable in the long run around cities. But if you reduce the footprint, the economics work much better.

Amen.


Scale scale scale.
And virtually no course modifications or setups address the scale issue...
Which is so simply solved

[Matthew Mollica]

Thanks Ian and Jeff.


I find it surprising someone could hold a contrary view to you Ian, given what you see, how long you’ve been in the field, and how succinctly you express your observations. Particularly given that you stand to profit from consulting in the problems caused by escalating distance, yet speak about curtailing it.


Again, this issue is way beyond how far the top few PGA Tour professionals drive or what they score. Anyone who bases their discussion of distance on those points is not seeing the big picture.


Matt

[John Kavanaugh]

Hello,


I get a minimum of 50 balls a year in my pool and last year one club. It is destroying the value of my property. Yet I am against a roll back because I both play and love the game. I am the voice of reason.

[David_Elvins]

Garland, you missed my point.  The majority of golfers, who buy the equipment and spend the money to keep the golf business going, do not care about equipment rollback.  They want help in playing and enjoying the game.  They are influenced by pro players who endorse equipment.  Why do you think they spend the money?  Chasing dreams.

No need to change courses, leave them as they are.  The fact that a small number of private courses are adding length to protect par and retain their bragging rights is not sufficient to justify more difficult equipment.  Let those members pay the cost of course changes, if they want.  Most courses will stay unchanged.  I can not name a course near me that has added length, other than one or two that host Tour events, which I assume more than pays for the changes.

Kids who bomb the ball enjoy that and are attracted to the game.  Why limit that?  Why drive players away with more difficult equipment?  How will rolled back equipment attract more players to the game or keep existing players? Equipment should change to make the game easier.

Top players scoring lower matters not to me.  It’s just a number and a minuscule percentage of golfers. Build courses for the average golfer, not the 1%.

Reasoning for rollback continues to escape me.  Apologies for adding fuel to the debate.  I’ve said all I intend to on the subject.

Dave,


Would you argue that equipment regulations should be relaxed so that the ball goes farther and clubbers are bigger, as a way of increasing the popularity of the game?

[Chris Kane]

Top players scoring lower matters not to me.  It’s just a number and a minuscule percentage of golfers. Build courses for the average golfer, not the 1%.

This is one of the most popular straw men used by the corporate shills who oppose taking action.

[Garland Bayley]

... I am the voice of reason.

Barney,

That's your funniest line ever!

[Mike_Clayton]

One of the problems with this whole debate is its dominated by Americans and American companies (bent only on profit,distance and in the business of selling hope) who don't care one dot about how this affects the rest of the world.
And we already know the game survived - thrived even -around the world when the ball was rolled back in the early 1980s.


And Ian Andrew is right - the ball has never been hit so far off line. Which is why amateurs spending all this money buying hope haven't lowered their scores.

[Thomas Dai]

... I am the voice of reason.

Barney,
That's your funniest line ever!

.... apart from the one above about the offside law in soccer!

atb

[Thomas Dai]

1. I've been at this for 30 years. The width required for safety is 50% more than it was 30 years ago. This is killing inner city courses with lawsuits.

2. It needs to be a complete rollback. There are 10 people at every club who can hit as far as the professionals can. 9 of them hit only a fairway or two a round. My biggest issue is not with professionals, it is someone who can match their swing speed without any control. We are required to design to address the worst case scenario. The problem with the ball for me is how far it will fly off line

I can give you other related issues like water consumption, land requirements, the challenge of finding labor, etc, etc. Whether you like to admit it or not, the game is not economically sustainable in the long run around cities. But if you reduce the footprint, the economics work much better.

Excellent post Ian. +1.
It's not about scoring, there's a much bigger picture to consider.
atb

[Pete Lavallee]

Seems like it all boils down to those who care about golf against those who care about money. How do the golf lovers win that battle?

[JESII]

By showing those with money how it’s better for them...

[JESII]

Was the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2010 good for mortgage lenders?


The build up to it was...but they’d likely have preferred a steadier path to today.

[Jason Topp]

By showing those with money how it’s better for them...

I agree and I do not mean that in a disparaging way.  Practically I do not think it happens otherwise.

[John Kavanaugh]

People who don't play can not be allowed to impose their will on those who do. When do you think the people who got elephants banned last went to the circus? Sure banning elephants from the entertainment business was a noble cause but try telling that to an unemployed contortionist.

[Bernie Bell]

Titleist is South Korean, Bridgestone is Japanese, and Callaway is American.  Each, I imagine, care about both golf and profit.  In any event, not clear that rollback, with or without bifurcation, would be less profitable.  The USA and market capitalism aren't to blame for all of the world's perceived ills.  To paraphrase, it is not from the benevolence of the manufacturers that we expect our golf equipment, but from their regard to their own self-interest.  As for the American consumer, I think proponents would do well to prove the promise that a rollback will pull back the 300+ belters without much effect on the vast majority of lesser hitters.  This would hit the American sweet spot:  Righteous, with all cost borne by others.

[Kalen Braley]

... I am the voice of reason.

Barney,
That's your funniest line ever!

.... apart from the one above about the offside law in soccer!
 
atb

That was a good idea actually, very out of the box, even if the method of implementation isn't palatable.

Reminds me a bit of my tournament softball days.  They had so many good players who could hit every other ball a country mile, so they had a rule of two home runs per team per game...every one after that was an out.  Made for far more interesting games when players weren't swinging for the fences on every pitch. 

[John Kavanaugh]

A common sense solution compared to building a new fence or forcing everyone to play with dead bats.

[Kalen Braley]

A common sense solution compared to building a new fence or forcing everyone to play with dead bats.

You know how they fixed it since then?  With a flight limited ball.  When I was playing it was just being introduced and the complaints were off the charts, but rec softball is more popular than ever...

Everything else stays the same, just fix the ball....

[John Kavanaugh]

And Pickleball is crazy popular with its slow ball and small courts.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()