Would a rollback of the golf ball.....

[Garland Bayley]

I never played a Balata ball and I don't play ProV1's but I'd bet a nickel the cost per round for playing the latter is far lower. I'm pretty sure good players tossed those Balatas every few holes when they got cut or out of round. A ball that costs twice as much and last 9-18 holes or more is a great deal.

Good point. But it the technology in ProV1s was not created to address that problem. As someone pointed out earlier, the Titleist Professional had already been created to address that problem with the Balata.

[JESII]

It just occurred to me...you guys might actually think they are spending more to make the ProV1 than they did to make the balata...how can you possibly think that?

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck,

I'm enjoying the conversation because you're the first guy I've discussed this with that identified both of the two very important facets:  "one set of rules" and "the powerful influence of the elite players" as support for the need to cut off distance at all costs.

I knew what NGF stood for. I asked with tongue in cheek because when I referenced worldwide growth of the game...you referenced NGF concerns about golf in America.

Of course scoring is unremarkable at your course...because the game is damned hard. Scoring is unremarkable at all clubs and courses. There is a 46 week moving circus which throws the perception of golf into total confusion. Next time the tour is nearby, go out on Friday and find the threesome with the highest cumulative score on Thursday and watch them. You will be underwhelmed...and those three guys woke up the day before with a chance to win a million dollars on the golf course.

Yes, sir.  Exactly.  The "one set of rules" idea and the "preservation of the great championship venues" is what drives all of my thinking and, I freely admit, compels all of my conclusions.

Otherwise, it would be easy to either bifurcate the rules for tour-competition balls (or even "classic course balls" for the Maidstones, etc., of the world), or to ignore the issue altogether.  Play the 2052 Masters at the redesigned 12,000-yard TPC Sugarloaf.

I've chosen my principles and I will follow the argument where it leads me.

[Chuck Brown]

It just occurred to me...you guys might actually think they are spending more to make the ProV1 than they did to make the balata...how can you possibly think that?

I don't.  It is undoubtedly easier to make solid-core balls.  Ask any of the unemployed "winders" in the city of Acushnet.

[Garland Bayley]

It just occurred to me...you guys might actually think they are spending more to make the ProV1 than they did to make the balata...how can you possibly think that?

Give me a break! The cost of making a golf ball has little to do with the price they put on it on the store. We live in the MARKETING capital of the world! 99% of all golfers have no real need for the expensive equipment marketed by golf companies these days, but they keep buying. Go figure.

[JESII]

Chuck,

You and many others have used the cost of the game argument in the roll-back debate, so how then are you agreeing that the ProV1 (along with the other solid core, high performance balls) are less expensive to make than the old stuff?

Don't buy from Titleist and they'll lower their prices, I guarantee it. What does a dozen Precepts cost?




My solution, since you haven't asked, is to play much more TV golf at places like Riviera and Colonial and let the ground get real firm...brown even...and the guys on TV will do their own voluntary roll-back. It's that simple.

[JESII]

It just occurred to me...you guys might actually think they are spending more to make the ProV1 than they did to make the balata...how can you possibly think that?

Give me a break! The cost of making a golf ball has little to do with the price they put on it on the store. We live in the MARKETING capital of the world! 99% of all golfers have no real need for the expensive equipment marketed by golf companies these days, but they keep buying. Go figure.

Garland,

You give me a break...you're trying to blame the equipment companies for selling something for the most they can. Where do come from?

[Garland Bayley]

I don't follow golf balls diligently, but I suspect the new TopFlite Gamer is the least expensive of the balls with similar performance to the ProV.

[Garland Bayley]

It just occurred to me...you guys might actually think they are spending more to make the ProV1 than they did to make the balata...how can you possibly think that?

Give me a break! The cost of making a golf ball has little to do with the price they put on it on the store. We live in the MARKETING capital of the world! 99% of all golfers have no real need for the expensive equipment marketed by golf companies these days, but they keep buying. Go figure.

Garland,

You give me a break...you're trying to blame the equipment companies for selling something for the most they can. Where do come from?

I come from dirt poor folk. I assume you come from the country club set.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jes

I was referring to posts I have read today on GCA.com including the Article by Joel Stewart ‘Are under the table payments a dirty secret in rchitecture’. However this does not stop you having the right to voice your opinion.

I reiterate, the sport that is based on technology is Motor Sport in articular Formula 1. Their Governing body, the FIA have no problem limiting or removing high technical driver’s aid from the cars each year to try and improve spectator enjoyment, increased car to car racing and to slow
the cars down. If Formula 1 can control technology on a sport founded
on technology why can’t we resolve our much more simple and basic technology problems?

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck,

You and many others have used the cost of the game argument in the roll-back debate, so how then are you agreeing that the ProV1 (along with the other solid core, high performance balls) are less expensive to make than the old stuff?

Don't buy from Titleist and they'll lower their prices, I guarantee it. What does a dozen Precepts cost?




My solution, since you haven't asked, is to play much more TV golf at places like Riviera and Colonial and let the ground get real firm...brown even...and the guys on TV will do their own voluntary roll-back. It's that simple.

Taking your last point first... why do that to a beautiful place like Riviera?  The reason it is my favorite place in Southern California is because that is where I go to see green grass!  Why trick up the golf courses?  Why not just roll back the ball?

As for the price of Pro V's, they may be vastly inflated, but in any event I don't think that the price-point of those balls is much of a factor in this argument.  AS A MATTER OF FACT... most recreational players don't bother to pay the premium price(s) anyway.  They buy cheaper solid balls (surlyn, etc.) at Wal-Mart and Dicks.  So if, tomorrow, we BANNED all multilayer urethane balls, the tour pros' world would figuratively come to an end.  They'd have to go back to the drawing board.  Meanwhile, Joe Sixpack at the local muni wouldn't even know the difference.  He wouldn't be affected.  I'd love that.

[Brent Hutto]

...why can’t we resolve our much more simple and basic technology problems?

For starters, not all of us agree that there is a problem with the technology of golf.

I'm of the opinion that the game as played with today's balls and implements is hardly different at all from the game played a decade or a century ago, at least the elements of the game that matter to me. As long as you hit a round ball with a curved stick from the tee and play it as it lies until you roll it into the hole...the rest is window dressing.

The "problems" that are being discussed have to do with expectations. Primarily the expectation that strong, fast athletes with near-perfect technique playing under standardized conditions on immaculately groomed surfaces are somehow supposed to go out there and hit the ball the same and score the same over the same distances as players half a century ago with none of those advantages. So people want to rejigger the equipment and/or the courses to manufacture that patently ridiculous outcome.

Take a look at Tiger Woods hitting a golf ball and playing around the greens. If he didn't hit the ball a hell of a lot farther, straighter, higher and better than Jack Nicklaus or Bobby Jones or Old Tom Morris then someone would be seriously amiss.

[JSPayne]

HOLY COW.....

While I enjoy the attention this thread has gotten and the lively debate (which I know has been discussed several times before), I still struggle to find a real answer to the reason why I started this discussion.

I wasn't looking to rehash the ball and equipment technology debate.

I want to seriously know....if there was a rollback, or even a newly developed ball, would that ball only effect the better players? Let's take a specific ball......the old Titlest balta balls. To your average Joe, is he going to notice limited distance to the same extent Tour pros would? Is the shortest driver on Tour going to experience the same loss of yardage that Tiger would?

As I tried to orginally ask.......is all this determination to rollback the ball an effort to reel back the best players and to not have to tweak a course as much for a Tour event, or....if it will limit the distance of EVERYONE, won't course layout and strategy just stay the same for the respective groups (average and pro) only on a course with less overall yardage?

What I'm really trying to get at I guess is....if we're really just trying to not have to lengthen the courses for the Tigers of the world and we're really just trying to reel that top 0.1% of golfers back with the rest of humanity, WHY? We KNOW Tiger can leave the driver in the bag and flush 2 irons all day long down the middle of a shorter, tighter course (British Open), but for how long is that fun to watch? It's still amazing to see his skill around the greens, but I'm all for making the BEST players try to take risks and push their limits and take advantage of their unique skills and abilities without trying to take away that advantage just to make it easier on golf courses and the rest of the field. I still believe the longer set-up...the extra set of tees, the carry hazards that WHEN DONE PROPERLY shouldn't even come in to play for the rest of the world playing from their own correct set of tees aren't that bad of a thing. A golf course only suffers if it doesn't have any room to grow to accomodate these better players. And that is a discussion for a whole other topic.

[Brent Hutto]

So if, tomorrow, we BANNED all multilayer urethane balls, the tour pros' world would figuratively come to an end.  They'd have to go back to the drawing board.  Meanwhile, Joe Sixpack at the local muni wouldn't even know the difference.  He wouldn't be affected.  I'd love that.

In all seriousness, I believe you are seriously mis-estimating the whole Arrow/Indian equation in making that statement. I'll bet you'd be amazed at how little difference it would make six months or a year down the road if Tour players were forced to use my golf ball (Bridgestone E6).

Tiger would still not be hitting driver on a baked-out Hoylake, he'd still be going for the green from 260 yards out in the rough and Bubba/JD/whoever would still be darned near driving greens on Par 4's whenever they have a chance. And scoring at Tour events might go up a stroke or two a tournament, probably not even a stroke a round. They could adjust fine. I also bet they'd use a Surlyn covered ball before they go back to spongy Balatas.

[JESII]

I come from dirt poor folk. I assume you come from the country club set.

Garland,

Do the people you come from charge less for something than the buyer is willing to pay?

[JESII]

Jes

I was referring to posts I have read today on GCA.com including the Article by Joel Stewart ‘Are under the table payments a dirty secret in rchitecture’. However this does not stop you having the right to voice your opinion.

I reiterate, the sport that is based on technology is Motor Sport in articular Formula 1. Their Governing body, the FIA have no problem limiting or removing high technical driver’s aid from the cars each year to try and improve spectator enjoyment, increased car to car racing and to slow
the cars down. If Formula 1 can control technology on a sport founded
on technology why can’t we resolve our much more simple and basic technology problems?

Melvyn,

I have not read the paying under the table thread so I can't comment.

Re: F1 and technology...would you agree that there is a safety issue in F1 that might not exist to the same degree in professional golf...other than at the Bob Hope and Pebble tournaments?

[JESII]

Chuck,

Acushnet does not make the money it makes because Joe sixpack buys Top Flights at Dick's, sorry.

As for Riviera...I think it's a shame that your first impression when I say "real firm" is "tricked up". To me, real firm equates to real golf. You'd see those guys play shots and plot strategy on every hole if the greens are contoured and firm. Power will always matter, but course setup dictates how much control you need...and control should win every day. A roll back does not address increased control.

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck,

Acushnet does not make the money it makes because Joe sixpack buys Top Flights at Dick's, sorry.

As for Riviera...I think it's a shame that your first impression when I say "real firm" is "tricked up". To me, real firm equates to real golf. You'd see those guys play shots and plot strategy on every hole if the greens are contoured and firm. Power will always matter, but course setup dictates how much control you need...and control should win every day. A roll back does not address increased control.

Oh, we agree that "firm and fast" at a place like NGL or Sand Hills or TOC is probably the ultimate experience in golf.  No argument there.  Sadly, if you do that to many courses, the elite players would end up playing it exactly as Tiger did Hoylake.  Wonderfully, masterfully, amazingly... but sans driver, due to the march of time and technology.  They are just one size too big.

As for the numbers of recreational players who use premium multilayer urethane balls, I'll try to get you a number and a source...

[JESII]

Chuck,

The sarcasm of your last sentence implies one of two things: 1) that Acushnet might not actually make as much money as they say, in which case I'd think a few shareholders might like to know, or 2) That you think I am suggesting there's is the only ball that gets purchased. Either way, you're reaching.



About the top guys playing the great courses in real firm conditions...you hit my point exactly. So what happens next? Think it through...will Tiger actually carry three woods and never hit them? No, he'll voluntarily roll-back his equipment (including ball) to better match the courses they play if that style became a consistent theme.

[jeffwarne]

The question could not be simpler -- put to the USGA; if golf ball distance is not a problem, why is it that each and every major championship venue is getting longer and tighter and harder, quite often in ways that are destructive of the architect's vision and the overall quality of the competition?

As I always feel obliged to point out at this stage of this recurring argument...

The design of the golf ball is not the only factor that allows players to hit the ball farther. Are you going to keep rolling it back every decade or so into the indefinite future as more and more players are able to hit the ball harder and harder? Or will one rollback right now satisfy you enough to STFU when the next generation of golfers hit it as much harder than Tiger as Tiger was to Jack?

Because if you doctor the ball to make Tiger hit mid-iron approaches at Merion today, you'll be seeing someone in 20 years hitting wedge approaches with that same ball. Guaranteed.

Brent,
I haven't worked out ever.
I run only when chased.
I hit it 20-40 yards farther than I ever did and I'm 45.
I've had the same irons and wedges 20 years. (and yes they have good grooves)
I'm a club to 1 1/2 club longer with my irons-in the air.
So it's the ball or typing has given me incredibly strong and fast hands.

I don't want to roll it back so Tiger hits mid irons at Merion.
I don't care if someone hits wedges at Merion or anywhere else.
I just want to see them and other good players do it with a ball rolled back to where we were before it all went nuts.

Sure there were incremental gains for centuries, but anyone who calls what happened from the late 90's  to 2005ish incremental is seeing what they want to see.

If some freak hits wedges to 500 yard par 4's (Bubba, Tiger, JB)with a dialed back ball at least we can appreciate his abilities, not his equipment

But hey, perhaps my fitness program is my secret.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Brent

Tiger is not an average golfer, nor are the hand full of professionals we see at most of the Majors. They may never play the courses I do and that I like, so why cater for long courses. The clubs and courses are used by good to average players, so the courses should be designed for its members. I may be in the minority, but most of the guys I know would rather play two rounds on an average course of around 6,000 yards that  one slow round on a ridicules 7,500 yard + .  

Length has its limitations. I don’t want to have to buy new clubs to improve my game. I am happy on a links course with my old clubs trying to enjoy and if playing well, to match or perhaps better my score from the last time I played that course. Golf has changed over the years, I’m happy with technology, but if it is correctly controlled. I like to look at my old scorecards of 25 years ago and when I replay the course, see how close I could get to my old score. Problem, equipment has changed and will not give me a true picture – it’s not all about Tiger, Faldo etc, it is about my game of golf because without us average guys there may not be the market to sustain Tiger and his fellow Professionals. Never forget it’s our game, they just make money out of it, a great deal of money.

I am from the old school, I play for enjoyment, the challenge, testing and pushing what skill I have, I don’t care if I win, because when I sit with my pint on the 19th I know that if I had wanted to, I could have been the champion of the world, but for now I will settle for another pint before the second round after lunch. That’s my Golf  

Jes

As for Formula 1, it's still total control over technology, year by year. Yes some for safety reasons but most to improved the racing.

[Peter Pallotta]

An interesting thread. 

Is golf different from most other sports? Judging from the other sports I once played competitively, I think it is.  It asks/encourages the player (who wants to score well) to think and behave better than what comes naturally, more patiently, more honestly, more controlled. Which is to say, I think the idealist/romantic view has always been that golf shouldn't be made any easier; that in golf's challenge lies its charm and its value. Golf can change behaviour. Should it try to, through its technology and its architecture? I go back and forth on that question.

Meanwhile, I think the F1 analogy is a good one, but leads to a different conclusion than Melvyn hopes for. F1 got rid of the mechanical bells and whistles because it was turning off the fans. They'd started complaining that the technology was making it all about the race car and very little about the driver, with the result that the races (and the champonship season) had become predictable and boring. Some top drivers agreed. F1 must've believed them, or at least decided to listen. They "rolled-back", not back to the Gilles Villeneuve era, but back nonetheless.  But I don't sense the PGA Tour has (or believes it has) any of the same pressures, and so it won't change; and meanwhile most average golfers wouldn't know what all the fuss was about -- or should I say, from my experience i don't believe that most golfers are all that interested in a debate about rolling back the golf ball.

Peter

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck,

The sarcasm of your last sentence implies one of two things: 1) that Acushnet might not actually make as much money as they say, in which case I'd think a few shareholders might like to know, or 2) That you think I am suggesting there's is the only ball that gets purchased. Either way, you're reaching.



About the top guys playing the great courses in real firm conditions...you hit my point exactly. So what happens next? Think it through...will Tiger actually carry three woods and never hit them? No, he'll voluntarily roll-back his equipment (including ball) to better match the courses they play if that style became a consistent theme.

I'm not sure I understand, but first with regard to Acushnet and balls, it is simply my understanding that premium multilayer urethane balls (i.e., Pro V1) account for about 40% of ball sales by SKU, and that all other balls account for about 60%.  The only reason I pick on the Pro V in these debates is as shorthand for all of those types of balls (Nike One, B-stone B330, Callaway HX, etc.) and also because I love to pick on Titleist and Acushnet since they have put out so much hokey propaganda on the subject and they deserve to be taken on.

I'm not sure I understand the last point about Tiger voluntarily "rolling back" either.  I presume that Tiger will play the longest fricking golf ball that is legal and that does what he wants it to.

You seem to keep dancing around the idea of doing things to courses to get players to somehow unilaterally disarm their golf technology.  Why not just have better golf ball regs?  Golf balls are already the subject of regulations.  All that we are talking about is adjusting the fail-point in the current testing.  Why not do that, and then go ahead and keep maintaining the golf courses in the best way we know how...

[Chuck Brown]

So if, tomorrow, we BANNED all multilayer urethane balls, the tour pros' world would figuratively come to an end.  They'd have to go back to the drawing board.  Meanwhile, Joe Sixpack at the local muni wouldn't even know the difference.  He wouldn't be affected.  I'd love that.

In all seriousness, I believe you are seriously mis-estimating the whole Arrow/Indian equation in making that statement. I'll bet you'd be amazed at how little difference it would make six months or a year down the road if Tour players were forced to use my golf ball (Bridgestone E6).

Tiger would still not be hitting driver on a baked-out Hoylake, he'd still be going for the green from 260 yards out in the rough and Bubba/JD/whoever would still be darned near driving greens on Par 4's whenever they have a chance. And scoring at Tour events might go up a stroke or two a tournament, probably not even a stroke a round. They could adjust fine. I also bet they'd use a Surlyn covered ball before they go back to spongy Balatas.

Brent, I should say this -- my point was not an attmept to prescribe what would be best for the elites' game -- I agree that giving them all TopFlites would not solve the distance problem.

Rather, what I was trying to point out that for recreational players, this thing known as the Pro V1 that has revolutionized the PGA Tour is largely irrelevant to recreational golf.  Most recreational players don't buy and don't use Pro V's.  The recreational players who do buy them probably don't get much value out of them.  In other words, there's no need to "protect" the Pro V if you are concerned about protecting most of recreational golf.

Is that clearer now?  Stated another way, I wasn't trying to claim that TopFlites would be good for the PGA Tour.  I was trying to say that tampering with the performance of the Pro V would not impact the amateur game...

[Garland Bayley]

...
I want to seriously know....if there was a rollback, or even a newly developed ball, would that ball only effect the better players? Let's take a specific ball......the old Titlest balta balls. To your average Joe, is he going to notice limited distance to the same extent Tour pros would? Is the shortest driver on Tour going to experience the same loss of yardage that Tiger would?
...

There is a chance that if the ball were rolled back to pre Strata/ProV days the average Joe would hit the Balata or equivalent ball farther, because he needs spin to help keep his ball in the air. Whereas, the tour pro swinging like Tiger would balloon the ball and loose effectively more distance.