Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Rob Marshall on November 28, 2023, 08:31:26 AM
-
Michael Breed is on the air and says that the only reason the powers that be are pushing for a rollback is to protect the Old Course. Any thoughts?
-
Rob
I've no idea who Michael Breed is but sounds like he's just trying to create a bit of noise. The fact you've posted about it and I've responded proves its worked.
Niall
-
No comment about this Breed chap but one thing I’ve said for ages is that TOC is the perfect place to measure golf ball distances in that no legal golf ball should in still air conditions be able to carry Grannie Clark’s Wynd at TOC when hit with any club from the present day Open Championship tee. This would be a measurement that has historical relevance and as technology and human physique changes just recalibrate the ball according to the same tee, roadway and carry.
Atb
-
No comment about this Breed chap but one thing I’ve said for ages is that TOC is the perfect place to measure golf ball distances in that no legal golf ball should in still air conditions be able to carry Grannie Clark’s Wynd at TOC when hit with any club from the present day Open Championship tee. This would be a measurement that has historical relevance and as technology and human physique changes just recalibrate the ball according to the same tee, roadway and carry.
Atb
Interesting line in the sand. Why have you chosen Granny Clark’s Wynd?
Ciao
-
Michael Breed is sponsored by Titleist. Big surprise he would be towing the Acushnet company line.
-
He said he talked to numerous architects yesterday and they were the ones that said it was all about the Old but they would not go on the air.
-
No comment about this Breed chap but one thing I’ve said for ages is that TOC is the perfect place to measure golf ball distances in that no legal golf ball should in still air conditions be able to carry Grannie Clark’s Wynd at TOC when hit with any club from the present day Open Championship tee. This would be a measurement that has historical relevance and as technology and human physique changes just recalibrate the ball according to the same tee, roadway and carry.
Atb
Interesting line in the sand. Why have you chosen Granny Clark’s Wynd?
Ciao
Historical relevance to the Home of Golf.
Sensible (imo) max carry distance (persimmon and balata era).
Grannie Clark’s Wynd, the famous roadway across TOC, is a very visible ‘line in the sand’ reference marker.
Atb
-
Michael Breed is sponsored by Titleist. Big surprise he would be towing the Acushnet company line.
He was the Head Golf Professional at Sunningdale in Westchester before making the jump to the Golf Channel.
-
Michael Breed is on the air and says that the only reason the powers that be are pushing for a rollback is to protect the Old Course. Any thoughts?
Using The Old Course as a bellwether seems pretty sensible!
I've yet to hear a compelling argument - from Michael Breed or anyone else - as to why all the backtracks to the back tee boxes at The Old Course represent positive evolution of competitive golf. It's the simplest visual representation of what's wrong that I can think of.
(https://gcdnb.pbrd.co/images/kD7DiQGNkGO6.png)
-
"in that no legal golf ball should in still air conditions be able to carry Grannie Clark’s Wynd at TOC when hit with any club from the present day Open Championship tee."
Didn't Jack Nicklaus drive thru the 18th green (with a 3-wood!) some 60 years ago? ;)
-
No comment about this Breed chap but one thing I’ve said for ages is that TOC is the perfect place to measure golf ball distances in that no legal golf ball should in still air conditions be able to carry Grannie Clark’s Wynd at TOC when hit with any club from the present day Open Championship tee. This would be a measurement that has historical relevance and as technology and human physique changes just recalibrate the ball according to the same tee, roadway and carry.
Atb
Interesting line in the sand. Why have you chosen Granny Clark’s Wynd?
Ciao
Historical relevance to the Home of Golf.
Sensible (imo) max carry distance (persimmon and balata era).
Grannie Clark’s Wynd, the famous roadway across TOC, is a very visible ‘line in the sand’ reference marker.
Atb
So when was the first time it was carried? I am sure Jack did in 1970.
Ciao
-
"in that no legal golf ball should in still air conditions be able to carry Grannie Clark’s Wynd at TOC when hit with any club from the present day Open Championship tee."
Didn't Jack Nicklaus drive thru the 18th green (with a 3-wood!) some 60 years ago? ;)
I was wondering who’d be the first to reference this, which of course has no relevance whatsoever.
Firstly, the Nicklaus shot was not hit in still air conditions! It was hit with a Driver using a 1:62” size ball, a ball size that went further than the 1:68” now under discussion. There was a gale blowing from behind and the course was playing firm. And by the way, a minute or two earlier Doug Sanders drove to the front edge of the green and he only used a half-swing! :)
Atb
-
"in that no legal golf ball should in still air conditions be able to carry Grannie Clark’s Wynd at TOC when hit with any club from the present day Open Championship tee."
Didn't Jack Nicklaus drive thru the 18th green (with a 3-wood!) some 60 years ago? ;)
I was wondering who’d be the first to reference this, which of course has no relevance whatsoever.
Firstly, the Nicklaus shot was not hit in still air conditions! It was hit with a Driver using a 1:62” size ball, a ball size that went further than the 1:68” now under discussion. There was a gale blowing from behind and the course was playing firm. And by the way, a minute or two earlier Doug Sanders drove to the front edge of the green and he only used a half-swing! :)
Atb
But he used a far inferior club and ball. In any case, what is the carry?
IMO any rollback shouldn’t be aiming to absolutely set a max carry. The goal should be to reduce the advantage of modern equipment, without discouraging other means to increase distance.
The carry from the back tee must be about 275.
Ciao
-
Michael Breed is on the air and says that the only reason the powers that be are pushing for a rollback is to protect the Old Course. Any thoughts?
Not a bad reason, if true.
-
Michael Breed is on the air and says that the only reason the powers that be are pushing for a rollback is to protect the Old Course. Any thoughts?
Using The Old Course as a bellwether seems pretty sensible!
I've yet to hear a compelling argument - from Michael Breed or anyone else - as to why all the backtracks to the back tee boxes at The Old Course represent positive evolution of competitive golf. It's the simplest visual representation of what's wrong that I can think of.
(https://gcdnb.pbrd.co/images/kD7DiQGNkGO6.png)
I hope people don’t gloss over this post Tim. It’s smart. All these back tees on the home of golf. It’s absurd. And it’s happening all over the game, not just on TOC. The gap between pro, elite amateur and recreational golfer has never been larger. Controlling equipment for the entire game seems so obvious.
-
Michael Breed is on the air and says that the only reason the powers that be are pushing for a rollback is to protect the Old Course. Any thoughts?
Not a bad reason, if true.
.
Strongly disagree.(but a Tim points out that's reason enough for me!)
For someone who worked at ANGC prior to the huge lengthening, Michael certainly has a narrow(or conflicted)view.
Michael is entitled to his opinion, but few of the courses in the world have the ability to spend 20Million plus to lengthen one hole .
Anyone as closed to golf as Michael is has to see that the SCALE of the game has changed drastically, and not just for the elites.
Interesting, it's "unnamed" architects that supposedly made that statement
-
The carry must be about 275, probably a bit less. If we are talking about that as the max carry it is pre 1980. I don’t see 100 or so yards being cut from the outlier long drives. Even if this were to happen, how long would it be before a huge percentage of golfers were capped at the max distance? What then? Golf would become a farce if golfers have to throttle back their physical abilities to meet a completely arbitrary limit.
Ciao
-
Excellent post Tim.
I knew about the OOB tee on 17 and a few others, but it really shows how much surgery has been required to keep TOC in play for The Open. TOC it would seem is the Joan Rivers of golf courses, decades of nips/tucks to stay relevant and in front of the cameras.
And given 18 has basically turned into a par 3 for top players, I fired up Google Earth and they could put a tee in front of 17 green in the right rough somewhere. Or even behind 1 green? :-\
P.S. If they really wanted to jump the shark with dramatic effect, they could install a tee on top of the roof of the R&A golf museum across the street and add about 70 yards to #1! It would be an ode of sort to Top Golf! ;D
-
"in that no legal golf ball should in still air conditions be able to carry Grannie Clark’s Wynd at TOC when hit with any club from the present day Open Championship tee."
Didn't Jack Nicklaus drive thru the 18th green (with a 3-wood!) some 60 years ago? ;)
Yeah. It's 250 from the Road Hole bunker. I don't know exactly where they put the 18th tee, but…
-
Anyone as closed to golf as Michael is has to see that the SCALE of the game has changed drastically, and not just for the elites.
Interesting, it's "unnamed" architects that supposedly made that statement
Yeah, he would be 0-for-2 on this thread. I don't think Jack Nicklaus and Pete Dye were advocating a rollback years ago for the purpose of saving The Old Course, either. It's just a nice byproduct of something that would help golf courses all around the world.
I will raise him and say that I've talked to three of the top 50 players in the world who, off the record, told me they think the equipment should be rolled back. But they don't say so publicly because they are all on some equipment company's payroll.
Is Michael's opinion that making golf courses harder for elite players will not make them better players? That's another way the objection to a rollback could be phrased.
-
When Geoff Ogilvy was ranked way higher than 50 (best was #3) and talking about the ball it was made clear to him by Titleist they weren't paying him to talk about the ball.
The only one big enough to talk about it was/is Tiger. Maybe Rory - but he's not a Titleist player.
-
No comment about this Breed chap but one thing I’ve said for ages is that TOC is the perfect place to measure golf ball distances in that no legal golf ball should in still air conditions be able to carry Grannie Clark’s Wynd at TOC when hit with any club from the present day Open Championship tee. This would be a measurement that has historical relevance and as technology and human physique changes just recalibrate the ball according to the same tee, roadway and carry.
Atb
David
Unless you're going to caveat that further by excluding long hitting players from the equation then you'd likely be talking about a pre-haskell golf ball. From google earth I calculate that the carry from the back of the tee near the back of the 17th green to the other side of the closest bit of Grannie Clark's Wynd is c.230 yards. Freddie Tait or Ted Blackwell could probably have done that with their old hickory drivers ;)
Niall
-
I heard from a unnamed source that the only reason some folks want a rollback is because they are big meanies who hate fun. I heard they limited drivers to 460cc because they didn’t like guys with bigger drivers than them. /s
But seriously… this type of unserious flame bait shouldn’t even be discussed. Strawmen are one of the last bastions of folks losing an argument. Anyone who cares about golf can take serious positions on either side of this discussion without resorting to these tactics.
-
I called into his show yesterday and had quite a discussion with him and he lost his credibility because he said that we must protect the jobs of the guys who dive for balls as they balls would not be allowed anymore to which I responded - things happen and the jobs of 50 guys aren't going to stop the evolution of the game. He said that baseball doesn't use aluminum bats because it would be dangerous - I explained to him that the reason is that they would have to build all new stadiums because the outfield fences wouldn't be deep enough and that would never happen as the owners would never pay for it. He also got off on a tangent saying that removing trees from courses has made them easier as it is easier to play from rough than from behind a tree and the tree removal is just to make the fairway grasses grow better - I said that by removing trees and allowing the rough to grow makes it far more difficult as the best players might have to deal with the trees once or twice in a round but they are likely to play out of the rough 6 or 8 or even more times during a round - I told him he should ask Tom Doak or Ben Crenshaw or Andrew Green about tree removal. I also asked him if he thought Oakmont was an easier course after they removed the trees and he said it was. I said how many courses are there that have the money to spend to buy land to make the course longer like they did at ANGC - it makes so many great courses too short for the best players to be challenged such as the hybrid - wedge, which one player hit into the 18th at Sawgrass. I don't know if I covered everything or if the comments were in this exact order but I was driving so I wasn't able to stop and take notes.
-
The carry from the back of the Open Championship tee on the 18th at TOC to Grannie Clark’s Wynd is by my measurement via Googleearth 235 yds, wider if the shot is played more to left.
The specific number isn’t that important.
What is important is doing whatever is necessary to make the game in general safer and use less land, water and other inputs on our finite sized, finite resourced planet, a planet with an ever increasing population.
If it takes something drastic to do this then so be it. And to me relating things in a very visible manner to the Home of Golf has merit.
However, if someone would like to propose another reference point or marker that could be used as a benchmark and has historical relevance within the game then I’d be delighted to hear their suggestion.
Atb
-
David
Why does any benchmark have to have historical relevance ?
Niall
-
David
Why does any benchmark have to have historical relevance ?
Niall
Niall,
Interesting question, but when does a benchmark not have historical relevance? That would seem to be an inherent quality around the existence of benchmarks, a reference to something that has come or been before.
-
Whether Breed is a carny barker for his own brand ("only" reason) or whether rollback is truly in the wind for the many reasons, the fact is the last Open was a limited exhibition of broad golf skills...a pitch and putt contest, with nearly the entire stretch of 6-12 very nearly 7 one shot holes in a row, where nearly every competitor could get to within 80-100 feet, or closer, of the hole in a single blow.
I'm not demeaning the competition per se... I was following closely; it was lively, bunched and had great players in contention. Still, it was largely a pitching and putting affair ...and if lesser names were at the top. it would've more clearly id'ed as such.
I have no way of knowing but I suspect the powers that be observed something similar; even if Breed is conjuring a brick out of straw, it's valid straw... I said last year, that after such a showing, they should semi-retire the Ol Girl from the rota...only hold it there for special occasions.
-
The carry from the back of the Open Championship tee on the 18th at TOC to Grannie Clark’s Wynd is by my measurement via Googleearth 235 yds, wider if the shot is played more to left.
…
However, if someone would like to propose another reference point or marker that could be used as a benchmark and has historical relevance within the game then I’d be delighted to hear their suggestion.
Would you be okay with a relevant benchmark that was somewhat realistic within the last 80 years, or do you think the 235-yard carry is appropriate? :D If Bobby Jones drove the 18th at the Old Course, do we have to go back to the 1800s for a benchmark?
Also, why should our benchmark be related to 1% or less of the golfers who play the game?
-
The carry from the back of the Open Championship tee on the 18th at TOC to Grannie Clark’s Wynd is by my measurement via Googleearth 235 yds, wider if the shot is played more to left.
…
However, if someone would like to propose another reference point or marker that could be used as a benchmark and has historical relevance within the game then I’d be delighted to hear their suggestion.
Would you be okay with a relevant benchmark that was somewhat realistic within the last 80 years, or do you think the 235-yard carry is appropriate? :D If Bobby Jones drove the 18th at the Old Course, do we have to go back to the 1800s for a benchmark?
Also, why should our benchmark be related to 1% or less of the golfers who play the game?
Carry and overall distance are in no way the same thing. When links turf is hard, the ball runs A LOT. It is perfectly conceivable that one could drive the green without carrying the Wynd.
-
However, if someone would like to propose another reference point or marker that could be used as a benchmark and has historical relevance within the game then I’d be delighted to hear their suggestion.
Atb
Always easy to be negative or critical.
Someone like to put their head above the parapet and actually propose something?
Atb
-
The carry from the back of the Open Championship tee on the 18th at TOC to Grannie Clark’s Wynd is by my measurement via Googleearth 235 yds, wider if the shot is played more to left.
…
However, if someone would like to propose another reference point or marker that could be used as a benchmark and has historical relevance within the game then I’d be delighted to hear their suggestion.
Would you be okay with a relevant benchmark that was somewhat realistic within the last 80 years, or do you think the 235-yard carry is appropriate? :D If Bobby Jones drove the 18th at the Old Course, do we have to go back to the 1800s for a benchmark?
Also, why should our benchmark be related to 1% or less of the golfers who play the game?
Carry and overall distance are in no way the same thing. When links turf is hard, the ball runs A LOT. It is perfectly conceivable that one could drive the green without carrying the Wynd.
Plus, so far as I know, GCW has never been a benchmark so we don’t really know who and when was carrying it. Besides, a carry benchmark isn’t the proper way to look at the issue. The benchmark is the equipment. How golfers perform with that equipment is a separate issue. WW, a few proposals have come forward, hence the debate. But the proposals aren’t about a physical carry benchmark.
Ciao
-
The current unchanged "benchmark" since the 90's for a drive length by an average scratch player, as defined by the USGA for rating golf courses, is 250 yards made up of 230 yards carry and 20 yards run out.
It doesn't need to be changed after a roll back as it will be closer to reality than it is at present.
-
However, if someone would like to propose another reference point or marker that could be used as a benchmark and has historical relevance within the game then I’d be delighted to hear their suggestion.
Atb
Always easy to be negative or critical.
Someone like to put their head above the parapet and actually propose something?
Atb
David
It is for those that are proposing change to come up with the alternative. Personally I'm relatively OK with the status quo and certainly don't want to go back to the hickory era. I'm quite happy if others want to play hickory golf but having learned the game as a kid with cut down hickories I have no desire to join them.
Neither do I care that much if the pro's are routinely going round in the 60's. Good on them.
What I would say is that if I was minded to do something about distance, and I'm not, I think it would probably be more productive to greatly reduce the size of club heads and specifically driver club heads back to the size they were maybe 30 years ago. I think that would likely rein in a lot of the bombers and put more of an emphasis on ball striking.
Niall
-
Carry and overall distance are in no way the same thing. When links turf is hard, the ball runs A LOT. It is perfectly conceivable that one could drive the green without carrying the Wynd.
I know. But even still, Bobby Jones could carry the ball 235. So I'm asking how far back do we have to go, and whether we have to consider the best players in the world. :P In other words, that benchmark is silly, as would be most any benchmark.
The current unchanged "benchmark" since the 90's for a drive length by an average scratch player, as defined by the USGA for rating golf courses, is 250 yards made up of 230 yards carry and 20 yards run out.It doesn't need to be changed after a roll back as it will be closer to reality than it is at present.
https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/arccos-driving-distance-report-2023/ (https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/arccos-driving-distance-report-2023/) - It's not as far off as many seem to think. The average driving distance of a scratch golfer is about 250 yards. There are a lot of older people factoring in there, as you can see a scratch 25-year-old is likely NOT hitting it 250.
What I would say is that if I was minded to do something about distance, and I'm not, I think it would probably be more productive to greatly reduce the size of club heads and specifically driver club heads back to the size they were maybe 30 years ago. I think that would likely rein in a lot of the bombers and put more of an emphasis on ball striking.
ONly two problems with that:
a) pros still mash their 3Ws.
b) smaller club heads punish 14 handicappers FAR more than Tour players.
Smaller club heads would be counterproductive. It'd have almost no effect on the best players while severely punishing the worse players.
-
What I would say is that if I was minded to do something about distance, and I'm not, I think it would probably be more productive to greatly reduce the size of club heads and specifically driver club heads back to the size they were maybe 30 years ago. I think that would likely rein in a lot of the bombers and put more of an emphasis on ball striking.
ONly two problems with that:
a) pros still mash their 3Ws.
b) smaller club heads punish 14 handicappers FAR more than Tour players.
Smaller club heads would be counterproductive. It'd have almost no effect on the best players while severely punishing the worse players.
Oh I'm sure there are more than 2 problems with that if you think about it long enough. Truth is no one is likely to come up with an idea that affects every golfer, irrespective of their ability, the same. And that would include mucking about with the golf ball.
Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.
Niall
-
What I would say is that if I was minded to do something about distance, and I'm not, I think it would probably be more productive to greatly reduce the size of club heads and specifically driver club heads back to the size they were maybe 30 years ago. I think that would likely rein in a lot of the bombers and put more of an emphasis on ball striking.
ONly two problems with that:
a) pros still mash their 3Ws.
b) smaller club heads punish 14 handicappers FAR more than Tour players.
Smaller club heads would be counterproductive. It'd have almost no effect on the best players while severely punishing the worse players.
Oh I'm sure there are more than 2 problems with that if you think about it long enough. Truth is no one is likely to come up with an idea that affects every golfer, irrespective of their ability, the same. And that would include mucking about with the golf ball.
Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.
Niall
That's what Adam Scott said but what does he know right..............
-
Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.
Niall
I don't think there can be any doubt that that would work, but I suspect it would be too big a change for most golfers to stomach. Most every golfer of my age (early fifties) can remember just how hard it was to hit those drivers. They certainly separated the men from the boys, but a very large proportion of golfers fell into the latter category. Many, many amateurs simply never hit driver in those days because they couldn't do so with any degree of confidence. The big headed driver has made the game more fun for untold thousands, even millions of golfers. I know there is a degree of frustration among some, generally very good, players that, from being the hardest club to hit consistently, the driver has become almost the easiest, but I suspect that almost every long handicapper would say it has been a good thing that it has.
-
I don't think there can be any doubt that that would work, but I suspect it would be too big a change for most golfers to stomach. Most every golfer of my age (early fifties) can remember just how hard it was to hit those drivers. They certainly separated the men from the boys, but a very large proportion of golfers fell into the latter category. Many, many amateurs simply never hit driver in those days because they couldn't do so with any degree of confidence. The big headed driver has made the game more fun for untold thousands, even millions of golfers. I know there is a degree of frustration among some, generally very good, players that, from being the hardest club to hit consistently, the driver has become almost the easiest, but I suspect that almost every long handicapper would say it has been a good thing that it has.
The answer to the bold text may be found in the modern "Mini Driver". When the Big Bertha was first released in 1991 it was nearly the same size as the traditional persimmon driver at 190cc. But the profile of the driver different, optically giving it a larger footprint. The Great Big Bertha expanded on that in 1995 to 250cc, which incidentally was the same size as the Wilson Whale released in the 80s.
When Mini drivers first became popular a decade ago 2 of the most successful were the Callaway X2hot 2Deep at 210 cc and the Taylormade SLDR Mini at 260cc.
A decade later, only Taylormade has continued to make Mini Drivers by name, but almost all of the big companies have entered the space. Whether it was with clubs like the Ping Rapture & G400 Stretch, Titleist's line of FD fairway woods, or Cobra's line of Big Tour fairway woods, its become common to find these lower lofted, larger headed, FW/Driver hybrids in peoples bags.
If a regulation was put in place capping driver wood size to something like 250cc, The industry would just simply ramp up production of these clubs to fulfill the gap.
-
What I would say is that if I was minded to do something about distance, and I'm not, I think it would probably be more productive to greatly reduce the size of club heads and specifically driver club heads back to the size they were maybe 30 years ago. I think that would likely rein in a lot of the bombers and put more of an emphasis on ball striking.
ONly two problems with that:
a) pros still mash their 3Ws.
b) smaller club heads punish 14 handicappers FAR more than Tour players.
Smaller club heads would be counterproductive. It'd have almost no effect on the best players while severely punishing the worse players.
Oh I'm sure there are more than 2 problems with that if you think about it long enough. Truth is no one is likely to come up with an idea that affects every golfer, irrespective of their ability, the same. And that would include mucking about with the golf ball.
Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.
Niall
Sorry, but the “smaller headed” they’re still pretty big) fairway clubs are a “go to” for accuracy for top players. The size of those clubs has little to no impact and the distance vs loft Is still bigger than any rollback proponent would hope for imo.
The efficiency numbers of top players is honestly pretty impressive, which means they are hitting the center very effectively.
But…..always a but, any big miss will be uglier. But the guys playing well, rarely miss the sweet spot area.
-
Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.
Niall
I don't think there can be any doubt that that would work, but I suspect it would be too big a change for most golfers to stomach. Most every golfer of my age (early fifties) can remember just how hard it was to hit those drivers. They certainly separated the men from the boys, but a very large proportion of golfers fell into the latter category. Many, many amateurs simply never hit driver in those days because they couldn't do so with any degree of confidence. The big headed driver has made the game more fun for untold thousands, even millions of golfers. I know there is a degree of frustration among some, generally very good, players that, from being the hardest club to hit consistently, the driver has become almost the easiest, but I suspect that almost every long handicapper would say it has been a good thing that it has.
Don't reduce the size of the driver for the reasons you noted.
Reduce the ball flight back to the Titliest 384 era (early 80's) and the numbers of clubs to 9. That would eliminate bomb & gauge, as well as the four wedge scenario. You'd have Trevino and Pavin-like golfers contending regularly again, as the pro's would have to create shots due to the larger gaps between the irons. You'd find out who the Champion Golfers really are.
Manufacturers would sell more clubs, not fewer, with a 9-clum maximum.
Interesting story from Mike Clayton, about Geoff O.... but not surprising. Should every ball become a competition ball due to a roll-back, Titliest is going to lose a ton of money as other manufacturers will be able to enter the market, produce optimized balls and sell them for a fraction. It could send Titliest down the road of Ram and MacGregor in decades to come.
-
Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.
Again, pros aren't mis-hitting the hell out of their 3W. They still hit those on the button.
But…..always a but, any big miss will be uglier. But the guys playing well, rarely miss the sweet spot area.
Yup.
Reduce the ball flight back to the Titliest 384 era (early 80's)
A Pinnacle or Top-Flite from that era still went pretty far. Almost as far as a Pro V1. They just didn't have short game spin so pros didn't play them. There's no magical way to do what you're suggesting.
-
Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.
Again, pros aren't mis-hitting the hell out of their 3W. They still hit those on the button.
But…..always a but, any big miss will be uglier. But the guys playing well, rarely miss the sweet spot area.
Yup.
Reduce the ball flight back to the Titliest 384 era (early 80's)
A Pinnacle or Top-Flite from that era still went pretty far. Almost as far as a Pro V1. They just didn't have short game spin so pros didn't play them. There's no magical way to do what you're suggesting.
Pro's did use 2-piece balls back in the 70's to early 80's. They did so on par-5's they couldn't reach with balata/wound balls. That's why the USGA instituted the One-Ball Rule.
Today the rule is mute, as urethane balls travel as far as the rocks.
-
You are correct Tony.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1979/06/10/open-to-use-same-ball-rule/85172161-1250-4743-add0-01c5961c880c/
-
Pro's did use 2-piece balls back in the 70's to early 80's. They did so on par-5's they couldn't reach with balata/wound balls. That's why the USGA instituted the One-Ball Rule.
Today the rule is mute, as urethane balls travel as far as the rocks.
The rule isn’t moot today. If the one-ball rule wasn’t in effect, manufacturers could make balls with different characteristics that good players might choose to use on different holes.
That being said, the PGA hasn’t used the one-ball Rule in the PGA Championship or their other events for at least 5 years. No player has taken advantage of it to my knowledge.
I’d like to see it removed from USGA Amateur events. I’m sure it is accidentally broken at events like the Junior every year. Players don’t realize that Pro-V1s with arrows vs. ones with stars are different balls under the rule. We even had a player at a Women’s Am who wanted to switch between yellow and orange balls during her round which are classified as different.
-
Pro's did use 2-piece balls back in the 70's to early 80's. They did so on par-5's they couldn't reach with balata/wound balls. That's why the USGA instituted the One-Ball Rule.
Today the rule is mute, as urethane balls travel as far as the rocks.
The rule isn’t moot today. If the one-ball rule wasn’t in effect, manufacturers could make balls with different characteristics that good players might choose to use on different holes.
That being said, the PGA hasn’t used the one-ball Rule in the PGA Championship or their other events for at least 5 years. No player has taken advantage of it to my knowledge.
I’d like to see it removed from USGA Amateur events. I’m sure it is accidentally broken at events like the Junior every year. Players don’t realize that Pro-V1s with arrows vs. ones with stars are different balls under the rule. We even had a player at a Women’s Am who wanted to switch between yellow and orange balls during her round which are classified as different.
You're right about pro's still switching balls. They'll rightly exploit any advantage, but distance really isn't the reason to switch today. It would be other factors as you noted.
-
Interestingly B. Shamblee was ranting and calling out GCA's and Golf Geeks. Seems we matter... Does beating up on old courses matter?
In media, absolutely. They are arenas that resonate visually and iconically.
And the fact is, appreciation of golf architecture has penetrated into the consumer lexicon and viewer mainstream, and is not retreating. Do most consumer folks care? Probably not. Does the most coveted demographic sought by advertisers care. Absolutely.
Golf industry businesses arguing against bifurcation is lunacy. There was no downside. The Local Rule (Bifurcation) was the perfect solution. A ball for elite use in an elite setting. Top amateur or other highly athletic oriented events had the OPTION of invoking an MLRule for their specific tournament. From a business perspective, Joe public would have bought the “Pro” ball to vociferously claim “I play the pro ball”. From a business perspective, killing it reduces the manufacturer’s potential to generate incremental revenue.
Let’s be clear, the ball companies are chock full of talented physics engineers and scientists. Their math associated with the manufacture of a “Tournament Ball” likely has dust on it. It would take 10 minutes to update the subroutine. An argument that there are significant additional R&D costs is nonsense. In reality, there are probably currently 30-40 different PRO V composites in play across the tours that a consumer will never touch.
And the pros and elite amateurs are truly are different animals, and could score with a Nitro or a Noodle if they had to. So why would a pro would really care, other than their sponsor told them to whine. There is “Pro” equipment in every sports business sector, “Pro” model irons and Blades,”Pro” level skis, professional baseball bats, I assume cricket has “Pro” level gear, “Pro” level soccer/futbol shoes, pro bikes.
On this, golf industry seems bent on shrinking their potential sales portfolio, which I find fascinating in an industry that introduces a new driver when the waxes or wanes. Manufacturers will have one less SKU to pedal which seems counter intuitive to earning per share… They may have botched the takeaway with this one.
-
Interestingly B. Shamblee was ranting and calling out GCA's and Golf Geeks. Seems we matter... Does beating up on old courses matter?
No, still a tiny portion of the game's viewing audience. Most people judge a golf course by the conditioning, not the architecture. Also, it's Chamblee.
Does the most coveted demographic sought by advertisers care. Absolutely.
No, they do not care either. Not in significant numbers.
Golf industry businesses arguing against bifurcation is lunacy. There was no downside.
Hard disagree there.
It would take 10 minutes to update the subroutine.
Wow, no. You're incredibly far off base.
An argument that there are significant additional R&D costs is nonsense.
Tell me you don't know anything about all of this without telling me you don't know anything about this.
-
Interestingly B. Shamblee was ranting and calling out GCA's and Golf Geeks. Seems we matter... Does beating up on old courses matter?
In media, absolutely. They are arenas that resonate visually and iconically.
And the fact is, appreciation of golf architecture has penetrated into the consumer lexicon and viewer mainstream, and is not retreating. Do most consumer folks care? Probably not. Does the most coveted demographic sought by advertisers care. Absolutely.
Golf industry businesses arguing against bifurcation is lunacy. There was no downside. The Local Rule (Bifurcation) was the perfect solution. A ball for elite use in an elite setting. Top amateur or other highly athletic oriented events had the OPTION of invoking an MLRule for their specific tournament. From a business perspective, Joe public would have bought the “Pro” ball to vociferously claim “I play the pro ball”. From a business perspective, killing it reduces the manufacturer’s potential to generate incremental revenue.
Let’s be clear, the ball companies are chock full of talented physics engineers and scientists. Their math associated with the manufacture of a “Tournament Ball” likely has dust on it. It would take 10 minutes to update the subroutine. An argument that there are significant additional R&D costs is nonsense. In reality, there are probably currently 30-40 different PRO V composites in play across the tours that a consumer will never touch.
And the pros and elite amateurs are truly are different animals, and could score with a Nitro or a Noodle if they had to. So why would a pro would really care, other than their sponsor told them to whine. There is “Pro” equipment in every sports business sector, “Pro” model irons and Blades,”Pro” level skis, professional baseball bats, I assume cricket has “Pro” level gear, “Pro” level soccer/futbol shoes, pro bikes.
On this, golf industry seems bent on shrinking their potential sales portfolio, which I find fascinating in an industry that introduces a new driver when the waxes or wanes. Manufacturers will have one less SKU to pedal which seems counter intuitive to earning per share… They may have botched the takeaway with this one.
Let me ask, what's the cost of producing a Pro V versus say a NXT ? Is it so much more ? And does that account for the difference in retail price ? I suspect not. The price of Pro V's is partly set because they are viewed as being the premium ball because that is what tour pros play. Ordinary hackers like me will still buy them even if it is only really good players who will get the full benefit of their characteristics.
How many ordinary club golfers are going to pay the same price as they currently do for a Pro V for a ball that is only used by ordinary golfers ? If I was a golf ball manufacturer I wouldn't be too happy at bifurcation taking away one of my main selling points.
Niall
-
Interestingly B. Shamblee was ranting and calling out GCA's and Golf Geeks. Seems we matter... Does beating up on old courses matter?
No, still a tiny portion of the game's viewing audience. Most people judge a golf course by the conditioning, not the architecture. Also, it's Chamblee.
Does the most coveted demographic sought by advertisers care. Absolutely.
No, they do not care either. Not in significant numbers.
Golf industry businesses arguing against bifurcation is lunacy. There was no downside.
Hard disagree there.
It would take 10 minutes to update the subroutine.
Wow, no. You're incredibly far off base.
An argument that there are significant additional R&D costs is nonsense.
Tell me you don't know anything about all of this without telling me you don't know anything about this.
Sure, I have only worked my day job in media for ESPN/Disney/Fox Sports for decades and have produced a ton of golf and documentaries on golf, ski, science, F1, Blue Angels and aerospace and sports technology for a decade but that's fine.
Tell me you don't know shit about my background without telling me you don't know as much as you think you do about media marketing demographics.
I don't comment on golf instruction because I am a hack.
In media, I suggest you stay in your lane so you don't bang into the guard rail.
-
Sure, I have only worked in media for ESPN and have produced a ton of golf and documentaries on golf and sports technology but that's fine.
I could tell by how you misspelled Brandel's last name. :)
Simple truth is that you're wrong about the costs. I'm sure Callaway or whomever could produce a crappy ball that meets the new distance rules pretty quickly, but there's far, far too much money at stake to do that. They'll have to re-think and optimize every component. Do they take speed out from the core, mantle, shell? What dimple pattern produces the optimal ball flight across not only a wide range of driver clubhead speeds, but across the sets of multiple players? It's going to be a big expense. Which, granted, I'm not shedding a tear for the Callaways of the world — goodness knows they've made plenty from golfers over the years — but it's not going to be cheap at all.
-
Sure, I have only worked in media for ESPN and have produced a ton of golf and documentaries on golf and sports technology but that's fine.
I could tell by how you misspelled Brandel's last name. :)
Simple truth is that you're wrong about the costs. I'm sure Callaway or whomever could produce a crappy ball that meets the new distance rules pretty quickly, but there's far, far too much money at stake to do that. They'll have to re-think and optimize every component. Do they take speed out from the core, mantle, shell? What dimple pattern produces the optimal ball flight across not only a wide range of driver clubhead speeds, but across the sets of multiple players? It's going to be a big expense. Which, granted, I'm not shedding a tear for the Callaways of the world — goodness knows they've made plenty from golfers over the years — but it's not going to be cheap at all.
I truncated it to B Sham and the math is truly simple at this point in development.
They have already run every model and wind tunneled it. Their composites and compressions are already calculated and could be loaded into their computer controlled manufacturing within a week. It has already been paid for.
Their miscalculation is the marketing impact more than the tech. They are also more concerned with the precedent of allowing the governing bodies to influence their right to impact equipment changes than anything else.
The consumer has a short memory, and once they realize there is a cachet with the "Pro ball" it's like us hacks playing the back tees or using blades. It's a sales thing. They just couldn't afford to let the governing bodies make a decision and that is really one of the major flashpoints. The legal teams are at the front of the speed dial on this more than the engineering.
Also I know how to spell Chamblee... I just chose not to. lol
Peace
-
I truncated it to B Sham
??? No you didn't.
Interestingly B. Shamblee was ranting
They have already run every model and wind tunneled it.
Under the current regulations.
This isn't a tweak under well-known regulations that have existed for decades. This is a rewrite. Again, yes, they could make a crappy ball that conforms for a little more than their annual R&D budget, but it won't be the best performing conforming (new regulations) ball they could create. They'd get their lunch eaten by the other ball manufacturers.
If it's a matter of plugging in a few numbers, why does Titleist employ 75 scientists just for their golf ball manufacturing? Why do they spend millions of dollars annually under the current regulations on golf ball R&D?
Their composites and compressions are already calculated and could be loaded into their computer controlled manufacturing within a week. It has already been paid for.
No.
How much do you think a mold for a new dimple pattern costs? Would "easy seven figures" surprise you? How many molds and patterns do you think they'd want to actually test out in real-world scenarios, wind tunnels, etc.?
-
I truncated it to B Sham
??? No you didn't.
Interestingly B. Shamblee was ranting
They have already run every model and wind tunneled it.
Under the current regulations.
This isn't a tweak under well-known regulations that have existed for decades. This is a rewrite. Again, yes, they could make a crappy ball that conforms for a little more than their annual R&D budget, but it won't be the best performing conforming (new regulations) ball they could create. They'd get their lunch eaten by the other ball manufacturers.
If it's a matter of plugging in a few numbers, why does Titleist employ 75 scientists just for their golf ball manufacturing? Why do they spend millions of dollars annually under the current regulations on golf ball R&D?
Their composites and compressions are already calculated and could be loaded into their computer controlled manufacturing within a week. It has already been paid for.
No.
How much do you think a mold for a new dimple pattern costs? Would "easy seven figures" surprise you? How many molds and patterns do you think they'd want to actually test out in real-world scenarios, wind tunnels, etc.?
And there are more than 30 versions of the V1 pro ball as well as anticipatory molds and models for a wide variety of compression and distances. You're not wrong but this the math and molds are part of the updated computer manufacturing in both Mass and Korea.
The main concern is if they are going to have to sue more than how much it will cost to make.
-
Sure, I have only worked in media for ESPN and have produced a ton of golf and documentaries on golf and sports technology but that's fine.
I could tell by how you misspelled Brandel's last name. :)
Simple truth is that you're wrong about the costs. I'm sure Callaway or whomever could produce a crappy ball that meets the new distance rules pretty quickly, but there's far, far too much money at stake to do that. They'll have to re-think and optimize every component. Do they take speed out from the core, mantle, shell? What dimple pattern produces the optimal ball flight across not only a wide range of driver clubhead speeds, but across the sets of multiple players? It's going to be a big expense. Which, granted, I'm not shedding a tear for the Callaways of the world — goodness knows they've made plenty from golfers over the years — but it's not going to be cheap at all.
With regard to the media side, the reintroduction and reinvigoration of classics such as Inverness, Oakland Hills, Southern Hills and Cypress Point mean the world to premium sponsors. Rolex etc pay big dollars for premium courses.
Chick-Fil A could care less and pay the industrial weight ads, GCA is weighted by folks like Rolex and BMW.
More money/spend from premium and avid consumers is of prime value to Formula One, FIS Ski racing and Golf.
The challenge is balancing that with the need for more viewers and ratings by traditional Broadcast Networks.
Those needs are answered by Ford, McDonald's, Chic-Fil-a etc.
You may not get 10 Million folks watching the upcoming Am at Cypress Point but the Million folks that will watch are just as valuable to the sponsors. The problem is that model doesnt neccesarly work for tradition NBC deal IF it has to be evaluated on view ratings.
-
And there are more than 30 versions of the V1 pro ball as well as anticipatory molds and models for a wide variety of compression and distances.
Keep telling yourself these things. It's not a matter of pushing a few keys on a keyboard, and companies haven't done as much "anticipatory" stuff as you seem to think, because… they didn't (still may not) know what the new regulations are.
Again… how much do you think a new mold costs? The mold for a deodorant cap costs 7 figures.
With regard to the media side, the reintroduction and reinvigoration of classics such as Inverness, Oakland Hills, Southern Hills and Cypress Point mean the world to premium sponsors.
They aren't going back to Cypress Point (and a 5% rollback isn't much at all). Rolex doesn't care about GCA, they care about the viewership. Golf is still a niche sport, and the GCA nerds are themselves a niche of that niche.
-
And there are more than 30 versions of the V1 pro ball as well as anticipatory molds and models for a wide variety of compression and distances.
Keep telling yourself these things. It's not a matter of pushing a few keys on a keyboard, and companies haven't done as much "anticipatory" stuff as you seem to think, because… they didn't (still may not) know what the new regulations are.
Again… how much do you think a new mold costs? The mold for a deodorant cap costs 7 figures.
With regard to the media side, the reintroduction and reinvigoration of classics such as Inverness, Oakland Hills, Southern Hills and Cypress Point mean the world to premium sponsors.
They aren't going back to Cypress Point (and a 5% rollback isn't much at all). Rolex doesn't care about GCA, they care about the viewership. Golf is still a niche sport, and the GCA nerds are themselves a niche of that niche.
USGA/R&A is going to CPC for Walker Cup and Again, for some sponsors, quality matters more than quantity and the venue delivers desired viewers. Some events are loss leaders, others are magnetic.
Are US US Open is at Pebble Beach or Oak Hill because it’s not at the RTJ golf trail.
If you think the Acushnet design and engineering business model has not anticipated the potential roll back, you’re not in tune with contemporary tech design and engineering.
It’s all good, because I’m not going to argue with you about projects and business models I’ve worked on.
-
USGA/R&A is going to CPC for Walker Cup and Again, for some sponsors, quality matters more than quantity and the venue delivers desired viewers. Some events are loss leaders, others are magnetic.
And wow, what high-dollar sponsorships those are!
If you think the Acushnet design and engineering business model has not anticipated the potential roll back
I never said that they haven't "anticipated" them. I think I've been clear in what I've said, but if you want to put up a straw man and knock him over, be my guest.
You're drastically under-estimating the cost and difficulty of making a new class of balls that meet new regulations. It's not just pushing a few keys, running a few models.
-
USGA/R&A is going to CPC for Walker Cup and Again, for some sponsors, quality matters more than quantity and the venue delivers desired viewers. Some events are loss leaders, others are magnetic.
And wow, what high-dollar sponsorships those are!
If you think the Acushnet design and engineering business model has not anticipated the potential roll back
I never said that they haven't "anticipated" them. I think I've been clear in what I've said, but if you want to put up a straw man and knock him over, be my guest.
You're drastically under-estimating the cost and difficulty of making a new class of balls that meet new regulations. It's not just pushing a few keys, running a few models.
I’m not underestimating anything I’m telling you it’s already been done so there’s marginal incremental costs.
They’re more focused on trying to figure out if they’re gonna sue their way out of it or they can make the best of the situation, and are the RNA in the USGA better arm legally to go to battle this time. The science has advanced to the point where it’s not as much of a stumbling block as the potential for litigation and protest.
Plus, I would tell you you are drastically underestimating the level of advanced scientific talent involved.
It’s more business affairs than engineering.
-
I’m not underestimating anything I’m telling you it’s already been done so there’s marginal incremental costs.
And having talked to several engineers at several of the different ball manufacturers (recently as well as for much of the last 20 years), I'm saying you're wrong about that. That it will still be an added expense, and that expense will start at eight figures. Which, again, boo hoo for them — I don't feel badly for them, but to pretend it's pressing some keys on a keyboard and they'll be up and running in a week is folly.
Let's put it this way: even if they're 60% of the way toward knowing what the best core composition/size, mantle composition/size, cover composition/size/dimple pattern is going to work, the final 40% or even the final 20% is the most costly part. They can computer simulate a bunch, but they're still going to have to make dozens of molds or reformulate a bunch of machines to produce dozens of different versions of the NEW rolled back golf ball. And that's where the expense is. Under the current regulations, they might produce two or three molds to try things out. It's a well established, well known problem space. That's not true of the new regulations (whenever they come out).
Again, nobody's crying for them, but let's not make "it won't even cost manufacturers much" a talking point because it's wrong and de-values your argument.
-
I’m not underestimating anything I’m telling you it’s already been done so there’s marginal incremental costs.
And having talked to several engineers at several of the different ball manufacturers (recently as well as for much of the last 20 years), I'm saying you're wrong about that. That it will still be an added expense, and that expense will start at eight figures. Which, again, boo hoo for them — I don't feel badly for them, but to pretend it's pressing some keys on a keyboard and they'll be up and running in a week is folly.
Erik, pay attention
I never said it was easy, I said it was already done. don’t mistake my love for GCA as simply an erudite endeavor. First I came to love GCA through battle to make sure a restoration was done properly. And secondly, with current Computer modeling, simulation, and horsepower, it is easier to do these models and come up with a prototype. So that’s a fact.
Yes, I love it, but my day job is in the trenches of digital, technology and media warfare for sports, film, and convergent Media studios. I’m from LA so I not going to ::) keep pushing your idiot button. We literally deal with shootings on site, artificial intelligence, digital technology, technical issues associated with the conception of new types of coverage for golf, Formula One, and other sports, and intellectual property, theft, all in the same meeting.
And yes, the Golf ball comes up as part of technical discussions based on carry, anticipated, landing zones, and other impact to production and infrastructure. Where do we go for answers? The R&A, USGA, and the golf ball manufacturers.
You’re pissing in the wind here and soaking your trousers, so I would put your shit away.
I have sat in labs while filming, detailed and confidential sports science and technology sessions more times than you’ve probably struck a golf ball. Golf technology, football, baseball, advanced aerospace, we’ve been through it all we’ve seen people pass out, puke, arteries, stretch, and golf balls explode.
Sports and entertainment at the level we are discussing is a media and marketing driven business, don’t get it twisted and don’t be confused. I have spoken with and advised, sports technology and media companies for 30 years, and am actively involved in technically oriented media in motorsports, Golf broadcasting, golf architecture, sports science technology, and artificial intelligence.
I’m not gonna argue with you. Believe what you will and have at it. Having run new media, technology, and R&D for part of Disney studios which included collaborating and advising ESPN, our labs at Imagineering, ABC sports, and the studios, my team advised engineered and in some cases helped design both the technical and creative business models for a number of sports related technology and Media projects. I really am not guessing. I’m just not going to argue anymore.
You’re overstepping your assumed expertise with me, which is fine, that’s your right, but stay in your lane before you cause an accident.
-
Erik, pay attention
Could say the same to you.
I never said it was easy, I said it was already done.
It is not (easy or done).
And secondly, with current Computer modeling, simulation, and horsepower, it is easier to do these models and come up with a prototype. So that’s a fact.
That it's costly is also a fact. That the landscape will shift and they'll want to do the last 40% or last x% is also a fact.
Yes, I love it, but my day job is in the trenches of digital, technology and media warfare for sports, film, and convergent Media studios. I’m from LA so I not going to keep pushing your idiot button. We literally deal with shootings on site, artificial intelligence, digital technology, technical issues associated with the conception of new types of coverage for golf, Formula One, and other sports, and intellectual property, theft, all in the same meeting.
I'm not reading anything in there where you're an engineer.
You’re pissing in the wind here and soaking your trousers, so I would put your shit away.
Look in the mirror.
I’m not gonna argue with you.
What do you call the last 10 posts?
Believe what you will and have at it. Having run new media, technology, and R&D for part of Disney studios which included collaborating and advising ESPN, our labs at Imagineering, ABC sports, and the studios, my team advised engineered and in some cases helped design both the technical and creative business models for a number of sports related technology and Media projects.
That's so loosely related to actual engineering golf balls that it's funny to me how you think that any of that carries much weight.
You’re overstepping your assumed expertise with me, which is fine, that’s your right, but stay in your lane before you cause an accident.
No, I'm just going by what you've said, and giving more weight to the actual engineers with whom I've talked over the years. One of them, just this morning, sent me "" in response to one of your posts before elaborating on how off base you were. I'm choosing to trust that person, who isn't in media but is actually going to have to help create the next version(s) of their company's ball(s), over you.
This quote is sufficiently recent, and sufficiently bland enough it doesn't speak to who (or which company they work for) said it. The context was the required real-world testing of golf balls and how hinky it can be:
“We can computer model all we want, but until we make dozens of prototypes and test them all, we won’t really know what we have. That prototyping — the actual manufacturing of the prototypes, not on the computer — is where the expense lies. We can do two or three of the next gen of a current ball, but this is going to be a new landscape.”
So, yes, I'm listening to those people. I give their opinions more weight about what will actually go down over yours.
----------
At the end of the day, what I don't get about your position is… what's the point in the grand scheme of a "rollback"? Who cares if it costs Callaway or Titleist or TaylorMade or Bridgestone $100M or $1M? Those companies care, and golfers may care if they use it as a justification to raise prices yet again… but what is the point of saying "it won't cost them much, they've already done it?" What's the point?
Let's pretend that you're completely right, and the engineers and others have been talking out of their asses to me all this time. So? What does "it won't cost them much" change or make better (or worse) about any of this rollback stuff?
-
The USGA/R&A already commissioned the design and fabrication of reduced flight golf balls. Do we have any idea how much they spent to make the NP-301 and the NP-500?
Recently Bridgestone developed a new ball specifically for long drive. this might be the most analogous recent example of going off the page in golf ball development as they were working on an entirely new end use spec requirement. Does anyone have any idea how much that development costs?
-
Recently Bridgestone developed a new ball specifically for long drive. this might be the most analogous recent example of going off the page in golf ball development as they were working on an entirely new end use spec requirement. Does anyone have any idea how much that development costs?
How do you figure? That golf ball still had to conform to the existing regulations. They just didn't have to worry about making it spin off wedges or the descent angle off a 7-iron.
-
Recently Bridgestone developed a new ball specifically for long drive. this might be the most analogous recent example of going off the page in golf ball development as they were working on an entirely new end use spec requirement. Does anyone have any idea how much that development costs?
How do you figure? That golf ball still had to conform to the existing regulations. They just didn't have to worry about making it spin off wedges or the descent angle off a 7-iron.
Ha, you're cycling, got to get some work done, may you enjoy the world in which you live.
-
Ha, you're cycling, got to get some work done, may you enjoy the world in which you live.
I do enjoy the world. The Bridgestone ball is a variation under the current rules, not an entirely new ball under different regulations where they have to worry about all-around performance.
-
... and still no one responds to a golf ball whose material constituents are 100% recyclable. Is this a case of head in the sand or I don't really care? 😕
-
... and still no one responds to a golf ball whose material constituents are 100% recyclable. Is this a case of head in the sand or I don't really care? 😕
It’s a fair point JCS. There’s approx 1.2 billion golf balls made each year. And they don’t disappear as if by magic so even if hiding from obvious view they and decades worth before them are all still out there somewhere …. and they ain’t degrading.
Nice subject for the environmental and anti-golf lobby should they wish to pursue it.
Atb
-
... and still no one responds to a golf ball whose material constituents are 100% recyclable. Is this a case of head in the sand or I don't really care? 😕
It’s a fair point JCS. There’s approx 1.2 billion golf balls made each year. And they don’t disappear as if by magic so even if hiding from obvious view they and decades worth before them are all still out there somewhere …. and they ain’t degrading.
Nice subject for the environmental and anti-golf lobby should they wish to pursue it.
Atb
https://youtu.be/ESwKuITi1_k?si=9a90tUZI2X4w4NZD (https://youtu.be/ESwKuITi1_k?si=9a90tUZI2X4w4NZD)