[Rob Marshall]

Mike, Looking at your original post it looks like I misread it. It took it to be "American Manufacturers". I think you meant manufacturers in general.

[Rob Marshall]

Did Americans complain when they were playing a bigger ball?

One main reason the R & A changed over to the larger golf ball in the 1970s was the complaints from U.S. players that they didn't like to come over for The Open and have to change to the 1.62-in ball for that one week.  I believe that Jack Nicklaus was particularly pointed in his comments about it.  And at that point the R & A were still grinding to get Americans to come and play in The Open . . . the prize money wasn't enough of a draw.

I'm sure that's true Tom but my point was that American players weren't complaining that they were using a ball the was shorter. Otherwise they would have been arguing that the smaller ball should be used in the states.

[Mike_Clayton]

Erik,


Of course it's not just the ball. Arguably the driver shaft and head is more to 'blame' for the distance the ball goes.
Good luck telling manufacturers amateurs can't play with the same club as pros - unless they want to make the game more difficult.


I don't see it as 0.1%  - it's a lot more than that if you watch top level amateur golf and just about every under 30 year old scratch player at clubs.


And the freak in one generation has always become the norm in the next - all the way back to Ted Ray, How is the game looking in 10 years when they all hit is as far as Gordon Sargent?

[Tom_Doak]

Given this is an architecture forum one thing no one has mentioned yet is a basic principle of architecture is building a green relative to, and suited, to the shot to the green.
What the equipment - ball, driver, mowing machines, trackman - has done is see players hitting wedges and short irons into greens designed for middle and long irons.
And on some par 5s, 3 woods into greens designed for wedges - which is way more interesting than wedges into big greens.
And some short par 4s are way more interesting - and dangerous -  now they are reachable.
But not the 18th on The Old Course - which is now a long par 3:)

Mike:


I am going to have to disagree with you on this point, since this is an architectural forum.


I've always figured that there are going to be golfers all over the hole hitting approaches from every distance, and I didn't want to leave the guy who didn't hit it far with no chance to hold the green.  So, I've always tried to make my greens somewhat accessible under adverse conditions, and for low-trajectory players.


I know that most architects who are good players see it your way.  [So does Mark Fine, who keeps insisting that Donald Ross and A.W. Tillinghast didn't project that technology would change the game, and intended for certain holes to be approached with a 5-iron and sized their greens accordingly.]  But that's not what I saw in the U.K., so that's not what I've normally done on my own courses.


I do think we agree that players hitting wedges into the majority of greens is not the same test of golf that good courses used to provide.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Why would you want to force the amateur to use the same equipment as the professional if they are not competing in a sanctioned event with pros?

Because that's the way it's been for, basically, ever?

One main reason the R & A changed over to the larger golf ball in the 1970s was the complaints from U.S. players that they didn't like to come over for The Open and have to change to the 1.62-in ball for that one week.  I believe that Jack Nicklaus was particularly pointed in his comments about it.  And at that point the R & A were still grinding to get Americans to come and play in The Open . . . the prize money wasn't enough of a draw.

It basically wasn't even a major for decades there, though we still credit winners in those years of having won a major.

I don't see it as 0.1%  - it's a lot more than that if you watch top level amateur golf and just about every under 30 year old scratch player at clubs.

I don't care if it's 1% - my point remains the same.

And the freak in one generation has always become the norm in the next - all the way back to Ted Ray, How is the game looking in 10 years when they all hit is as far as Gordon Sargent?

I'd bet you all the money I have that "they all" will not be hitting it as far as Gordon Sargent in 10 years. You can make your points without ridiculous hyperbole, Mike!

[John Kavanaugh]

Which side has the LPGA supported?

[Thomas Dai]

Finally, when it comes to the ball, one of the biggest knocks on golf I see that come from myself and other long-term environmentally minded folks, is that golf is currently a form of organized littering. Having a stock ball that is made from (at least) some type of inert or mostly degradable material, instead of the current polybutadiene, that can leach heavy metals into the water table over time (shout out to Dixon golf for using salts instead), having one stock ball that was made of, say, rubber, would be really fantastic on the perceptions about golf's impact.

Degradable golf balls, irrespective of the rollback debate, is a subject that seems to get overlooked. An interesting subject in relation to the environmental policies of the golf ball manufacturing companies and their parent companies.
Atb

[Ian Andrew]

As some one who works with multiple inner city courses, the impact of a uniform ball rollback is massive. This helps address the safety issues created by ever-increasing distance a ball goes off property. Most clubs are surrounded by roads, sidewalks, paths, houses and even schools. It's a frightening thing to have to deal with at times. It's becoming more and more common for courses being forced to move greens or holes to address the problems of stray golf balls. A change can't come soon enough.

[Matt Schoolfield]

As some one who works with multiple inner city courses, the impact of a uniform ball rollback is massive. This helps address the safety issues created by ever-increasing distance a ball goes off property. Most clubs are surrounded by roads, sidewalks, paths, houses and even schools. It's a frightening thing to have to deal with at times. It's becoming more and more common for courses being forced to move greens or holes to address the problems of stray golf balls. A change can't come soon enough.

I agree that this needs to be addressed, but I think ball density is how to address it. In the reading I've done, people didn't seem to mind much about hit a few times when the ball used to float. Obviously changing the density of the ball would be a huge effective rollback, and it would also likely lead to much higher shot dispersion as well.

[Thomas Dai]

As some one who works with multiple inner city courses, the impact of a uniform ball rollback is massive. This helps address the safety issues created by ever-increasing distance a ball goes off property. Most clubs are surrounded by roads, sidewalks, paths, houses and even schools. It's a frightening thing to have to deal with at times. It's becoming more and more common for courses being forced to move greens or holes to address the problems of stray golf balls. A change can't come soon enough.

It wouldn’t surprise me if a golf version of Ralph Nader were to appear. A question of timing and circumstances perhaps?
Atb

[JohnVDB]

As some one who works with multiple inner city courses, the impact of a uniform ball rollback is massive. This helps address the safety issues created by ever-increasing distance a ball goes off property. Most clubs are surrounded by roads, sidewalks, paths, houses and even schools. It's a frightening thing to have to deal with at times. It's becoming more and more common for courses being forced to move greens or holes to address the problems of stray golf balls. A change can't come soon enough.

I agree that this needs to be addressed, but I think ball density is how to address it. In the reading I've done, people didn't seem to mind much about hit a few times when the ball used to float. Obviously changing the density of the ball would be a huge effective rollback, and it would also likely lead to much higher shot dispersion as well.

Have you read the paper I wrote for this site [size=78%]https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/[/size]?


The lighter ball was almost universally hated. It was uncontrollable in wind, got blown of the been and didn’t roll true.  The only thing people liked was the larger size, which became the standard.

[Tom_Doak]

Which side has the LPGA supported?

They were fine when the proposal envisioned bifurcation, because they didn't think it would apply to them.


No word on what they think about an overall rollback.  But one of the main proponents, Mike Whan, was the most recent past commissioner of the LPGA tour, and very well liked amongst the players, so it would be a real slap in the face if they voiced strong objections.

[John Kavanaugh]

I trust him. Living in Orlando we have a number of LPGA members who play in our events. I proudly finished second to an Olympian in the member/member 4 years ago. I’d hate for us to be playing different balls. Even if just on the range.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This helps address the safety issues created by ever-increasing distance a ball goes off property.

Do you disagree with the data in the Distance Insights report? Do you have data of your own that speaks to this?

I agree that this needs to be addressed, but I think ball density is how to address it. In the reading I've done, people didn't seem to mind much about hit a few times when the ball used to float. Obviously changing the density of the ball would be a huge effective rollback, and it would also likely lead to much higher shot dispersion as well.

That would be a horrible way to go IMO, and I even specifically mentioned it in my earlier post about unintended consequences and fully understanding what would happen after some changes. Plus, read the JVDB article.

[Ben Sims]

Which side has the LPGA supported?

They were fine when the proposal envisioned bifurcation, because they didn't think it would apply to them.


No word on what they think about an overall rollback.  But one of the main proponents, Mike Whan, was the most recent past commissioner of the LPGA tour, and very well liked amongst the players, so it would be a real slap in the face if they voiced strong objections.

Who was on board with a rollback when it didn’t affect them and then changed their mind will be very interesting.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Have you read the paper I wrote for this site https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/?


The lighter ball was almost universally hated. It was uncontrollable in wind, got blown of the been and didn’t roll true.  The only thing people liked was the larger size, which became the standard.

That would be a horrible way to go IMO, and I even specifically mentioned it in my earlier post about unintended consequences and fully understanding what would happen after some changes. Plus, read the JVDB article.

I had not read the article, now I have.

I was discussing the point that, if it is safety regarding impacts we are interested in, we should address the issue of safety regarding impacts... not length.

If the counter argument is "we did this once before and the masses didn't like it" then why are we even talking about a rollback at all? Bifurcate away. Most people aren't thoughtful about this stuff and don't care anyway. They just want to hit the ball farther and score easier. I could go on-and-on about how that's a ridiculous hedonic treadmill, and we would just move the tees back farther, and keep ruining classic courses.

This contradictory thinking is exactly why I think a F1 vs NASCAR hard fork in golf is the way to go. Asking the beer-drinking, cart-riding, get-in-the-hole folks to go for a rollback is not going to fly. The folks that hate golf being hard can use whatever ball they choose, but if we wanted our older courses to be safer and play more historically accurately, we could do well by reducing the density of the golf ball.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I was discussing the point that, if it is safety regarding impacts we are interested in, we should address the issue of safety regarding impacts... not length.

I don't think it's safety that we're interested in, and even if it was, even a floater golf ball is gonna hurt when you get plonked with one. These aren't AlmostGolf balls, and they'd still be traveling pretty fast.

If the counter argument is

That is not the counter-argument, no.

Most people aren't thoughtful about this stuff and don't care anyway.

Most people don't hit it 300. Or even 250.

This contradictory thinking is exactly why I think a F1 vs NASCAR hard fork in golf is the way to go.

Nah. Bifurcation stinks.

we could do well by reducing the density of the golf ball.

Hard disagree. Wouldn't be much safer, the balls would behave poorly, and you'd have unintended consequences like reducing the skill gap in putting, as has now been mentioned a few times in this topic alone.

[Mike_Clayton]

Erik,
Who would have thought there would statistically be a handful of LPGA players longer than Greg Norman was in the mid-1980s?
Do I believe they could hit it past Greg in real life? Not really.


'They all' (Tour players) finished up hitting it was far as Snead, then Jack, then Love, then Daly, then Tiger and now Rory. Nothing surer than they will be hitting it like Sergant in a decade - or two anyway. History tells us that.
Why is this generation going to be any different?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik,

Again… I don't care about a tiny portion of the game's players, and I don't think we should change the rules of the game (or equipment) based on what they do or don't do. That argument carries almost no weight with me. Sorry.

I'd take you up on the bet, but they'll roll the ball back before ten years passes, so… it's pointless.

Also, Daly averaged 288.9 yards in 1991 and 1993. This past year, 17 players with enough rounds didn't surpass that number, 30 and 32 years later.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

.

[Sean_A]

Erik,

Again… I don't care about a tiny portion of the game's players, and I don't think we should change the rules of the game (or equipment) based on what they do or don't do. That argument carries almost no weight with me. Sorry.

I'd take you up on the bet, but they'll roll the ball back before ten years passes, so… it's pointless.

Also, Daly averaged 288.9 yards in 1991 and 1993. This past year, 17 players with enough rounds didn't surpass that number, 30 and 32 years later.

The average drive isn't really the debate so far as safety concerned. There are plenty of guys who blast it long and well wrong that are inconsistent with distance. But again, 5% rollback doesn't begin to address the issue. I can see it now, rollbackers slapping each other on the back over an inconsequential rollback after spending all their currency in the fight. Rollbackers should be trying the approach which has the best chance for biggest rollback.


Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

There are a lot more people playing golf, with better instruction, and starting much earlier,

Agree with the first but the average Handicap staying roughly the same over time, doesn't support your other "facts".
"Facts" are used selectively at best.


Can't see how a limited ball will change any of these but it could help scale back courses - a good thing IMO.

[Thomas Dai]

Apparently approx 1.2 billion golf balls are manufacturers per year.
Can’t imagine any less would be manufactured if the ball didn’t travel as far.
Atb


PS - the term ‘rollback’ probably isn’t doing those in favour of the issue any favours. A term such as ‘re-calibrating’ the game might be less antagonistic and attract less unfavourable pushback.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm 65 years old and hit the ball further than I did in my 20s.   I've gone back to courses I haven't played since my youth and the holes play considerably shorter...considerably.


There is no way that is good for the game long term, or for our courses.   My ego loves it, admittedly.

Mike, with all due respect, this is very much NOT my experience.  I’m 71, still playing competitively, and fairly regularly have the opportunity to play courses that I played decades ago. Not only do I not hit it as far as I used to, but I don’t know anybody that does.


I did my first Trackman driver fitting in 2010 at age 58; my average swing speed was 96 mph, and I hit 100 on a few swings.  At my next fitting in 2014, my average had dropped to 92, and now it’s 88 mph.  Without boring detail, trust me that I work HARD to keep my speed up, and I continually tweak my equipment, especially the driver. But there is NO way a ball, ANY ball, goes as far at 88 mph as it does at 100 mph. 

[A.G._Crockett]

There are a lot more people playing golf, with better instruction, and starting much earlier,

Agree with the first but the average Handicap staying roughly the same over time, doesn't support your other "facts".
"Facts" are used selectively at best.


Can't see how a limited ball will change any of these but it could help scale back courses - a good thing IMO.

Fwiw, handicaps have NOT stayed the same.  That is a commonly restated myth; indexes on average are lower now than 30 years ago, and by a statistically significant margin.  That is a fact.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()