Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.

[Bill_McBride]

Tony,
I'm in a position to see 1,000's of golfers per season tee off on hole #1 and come in on hole # 9. Those who are in no danger of hitting the ball far, far, far, far, etc., outnumber those who are.

If the USGA/R&A and the PGA Tour agree to yank back the ball for tournament play than I say OK, but leave everyone else alone, they're having a hard enough time out there as it is.

Jim,

You are operating under a mistaken assumption here. The less far the ball goes, the better everyone plays. If everyone were playing the Cayman ball at a course made for it, such as in the Cayman Islands, the difference between skills would diminish and the poorer players would be less frustrated. Because of this, I would suggest that if the pros were dialed back to 6700 yards, the average Joe would be more willing to play from 6200 yards, instead of trying to manage 6700 yards as he does now.

It's time to drop the tired old logic, and start thinking outside the box Jim.

There's a fallacy there, Garland.  If I swing 85 MPH and a pro swings 125 MPH (not an unrealistic assumption), the rollback is going to affect him much more than me.  I'll still be very happy playing 6200 yard courses, while a 7300 yard course is going to play a lot longer for him.

I'm no rocket scientist mind you.........

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Well then I guess you're no rocket scientist either!

A faster swing with same equipment sends the ball farther by some percentage, no?

If the equipment (the ball in this case) is reduced in velocity or whatever by a fixed amount, then the distance produced by the slower swing will not be reduced as much as the distance produced by the faster swing.   One of the variables is changed, everything else remains constant.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Melyvn,
Just remember, your ancestor promoted a ball that went a lot farther than the featherie. Even though that ball helped bring golf to a wider market by reducing costs and improving durability, it nonetheless was an 'aide-de-help'.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

Merry Christmas to you. I am not that man, but your point is not totally correct as the feathery was not a round ball as we know it, When wet and after been hit, it has a serious problems of not wanting to roll, so there was a need to find a consistent ball that worked as a ball. Allan's moan was that part of his business was making the feathery and it was going to cost him money. Yet he used the Gutty up to his death. It’s that old problem that the manufacturers want to control and of course make money, the game is of no importance to them, it’s all about money, as was Allan’s initial problem with Tom.

So I see no problem supporting Tony, but I believe we need a single ball or why not just split the game up to suit each region in the world. Will not really work, will it.

Melvyn

[Garland Bayley]

GB,
Who wants to diminish the difference between skills, strength being one of them?  They do still make forward tees for the horizontally challenged.  
...

Paying customers! That's who! The average handicap is somewhere around 20. Are you one of the many paying customers with a handicap around 20, or are you one of the few paying customers with a handicap much less?

Next time I play golf, I'll make sure I jump in my cart and ride to the forward tees. 

[Garland Bayley]

Tony,
I'm in a position to see 1,000's of golfers per season tee off on hole #1 and come in on hole # 9. Those who are in no danger of hitting the ball far, far, far, far, etc., outnumber those who are.

If the USGA/R&A and the PGA Tour agree to yank back the ball for tournament play than I say OK, but leave everyone else alone, they're having a hard enough time out there as it is.

Jim,

You are operating under a mistaken assumption here. The less far the ball goes, the better everyone plays. If everyone were playing the Cayman ball at a course made for it, such as in the Cayman Islands, the difference between skills would diminish and the poorer players would be less frustrated. Because of this, I would suggest that if the pros were dialed back to 6700 yards, the average Joe would be more willing to play from 6200 yards, instead of trying to manage 6700 yards as he does now.

It's time to drop the tired old logic, and start thinking outside the box Jim.

There's a fallacy there, Garland.  If I swing 85 MPH and a pro swings 125 MPH (not an unrealistic assumption), the rollback is going to affect him much more than me.  I'll still be very happy playing 6200 yard courses, while a 7300 yard course is going to play a lot longer for him.

I'm no rocket scientist mind you.........

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Well then I guess you're no rocket scientist either!

A faster swing with same equipment sends the ball farther by some percentage, no?

If the equipment (the ball in this case) is reduced in velocity or whatever by a fixed amount, then the distance produced by the slower swing will not be reduced as much as the distance produced by the faster swing.   One of the variables is changed, everything else remains constant.

What does any of that have to do with your claim that there was a fallacy in what I wrote?

[Bill_McBride]

Tony,
I'm in a position to see 1,000's of golfers per season tee off on hole #1 and come in on hole # 9. Those who are in no danger of hitting the ball far, far, far, far, etc., outnumber those who are.

If the USGA/R&A and the PGA Tour agree to yank back the ball for tournament play than I say OK, but leave everyone else alone, they're having a hard enough time out there as it is.

Jim,

You are operating under a mistaken assumption here. The less far the ball goes, the better everyone plays. If everyone were playing the Cayman ball at a course made for it, such as in the Cayman Islands, the difference between skills would diminish and the poorer players would be less frustrated. Because of this, I would suggest that if the pros were dialed back to 6700 yards, the average Joe would be more willing to play from 6200 yards, instead of trying to manage 6700 yards as he does now.

It's time to drop the tired old logic, and start thinking outside the box Jim.

There's a fallacy there, Garland.  If I swing 85 MPH and a pro swings 125 MPH (not an unrealistic assumption), the rollback is going to affect him much more than me.  I'll still be very happy playing 6200 yard courses, while a 7300 yard course is going to play a lot longer for him.

I'm no rocket scientist mind you.........

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Well then I guess you're no rocket scientist either!

A faster swing with same equipment sends the ball farther by some percentage, no?

If the equipment (the ball in this case) is reduced in velocity or whatever by a fixed amount, then the distance produced by the slower swing will not be reduced as much as the distance produced by the faster swing.   One of the variables is changed, everything else remains constant.

What does any of that have to do with your claim that there was a fallacy in what I wrote?

Bear with me.  What I feel is a fallacy is that EVERYBODY needs to play a reduced distance ball.  I think the 85 MPH swingers don't need to have their distance reduced with a new ball, but the 125 MPH swingers do.

Sorry if I misread what you were saying, but I thought you were saying everybody would play the new ball.

[Sean_A]

I am most certainly in the camp which doesn't give a rats ass what the pros do.  I don't play nearly well enough to worry about how I do either.  However, the way I see it, the biggest problem with the long ball are the reactions of those in power.  First and foremost seems to be a knee jerk reaction to increase the length of courses.  I think this is totally unnecessary, but sadly, the powers that be, from elite players in clubs, to club committees to the USGA & R&A, seem to believe this is the way forward.  Personally, I think the best way forward is to ignore the situation and let scores get lower and lower and/or try to improve the maintenance of courses to make them far firmer.  However, and I am not sure why, but that view seems to be in the extreme minority and because of this the continued lengthening of courses will continue.  Thus, to stop the meddling with courses that in no way need meddling, I am forced to come to the conclusion that some sort of action needs to be taken to curb the intense desire on the part of decision-makers to make courses longer.  What that action should be, I don't know, but I do know that the time for talk is over.  

In essence, I don't think there is a problem with length - the problem is with those who have power and wield it unwisely.

Ciao      

[Chuck Brown]

JM/Chuck,

There is enough data to suggest that a PROV1 helps a wide range of players, and I could give you personal examples but I don't think that will change much.

Over 70% of all golf balls sold in Pro shops are ProV's, but there are many other balls that suit the average player as well. Overall, the compression of modern balls has widened the range of players who can use them, including the ProV1.

Players who will never, or rarely, buy ProV's new are as gleeful today when they find one on the course as they were when Pro V's came out.

Go figure.  

Jim Kennedy - My assertion that "most recreational players don't even use urethane balls" (which are the main catalyst in the 21st centruy distance explosion) comes from the USGA's Second Report on Spin Generation, referencing 2006 data from Golf Data Tech.  Footnote 2.  Their review of On- and Off-course golf ball sales led them to conclude that roughly 70% of all golf ball sales were Surlyn-covered balls.  Nowadays, there are an even greater number of ionomer budget-ball alternatives to urethane, besides Surlyn.  So, despite being several years out of date, I'll bet that those 2006 numbers are still valid.  I expect that while your location might sell a lot of Pro V's to well-heeled 'aspirational' recreational golfers, I don't think your experiential numbers hold up when sales at WalMart, Dicks, and the local Golf Shack are added in to national averages.

[Jim_Kennedy]

MM,
Merry Christmas to you and yours, hope all remains well within your family.

Garland,
At any given time there might be a 20 point difference in the range of handicaps in the groups I play with, and we always let the shorter or older or female players choose the tee they feel most comfortable playing from. Very egalitarian and it works like a charm, no matter if they are riding up to it or walking.  

[Garland Bayley]

...
Bear with me.  What I feel is a fallacy is that EVERYBODY needs to play a reduced distance ball.  I think the 85 MPH swingers don't need to have their distance reduced with a new ball, but the 125 MPH swingers do.

Sorry if I misread what you were saying, but I thought you were saying everybody would play the new ball.

What you wrote assumed that I was referring to swing speed. I was referring to all golfers and all their faults. You also seemed to assume that with I reduced distance ball I would expect you to play from the same tees you do now (or, at least you figured you would play from the same tees). If the reduced ball, forced the pros from 7300 to 6700, why would you object to move from 6200 to 5900, or whatever tees had you hitting the same clubs into the greens that you hit now. At the reduced distance, hitting the same clubs into the greens you do now, you would play better, because lack of distance is not the only problem golfers have.

[Bill_McBride]

...
Bear with me.  What I feel is a fallacy is that EVERYBODY needs to play a reduced distance ball.  I think the 85 MPH swingers don't need to have their distance reduced with a new ball, but the 125 MPH swingers do.

Sorry if I misread what you were saying, but I thought you were saying everybody would play the new ball.

What you wrote assumed that I was referring to swing speed. I was referring to all golfers and all their faults. You also seemed to assume that with I reduced distance ball I would expect you to play from the same tees you do now (or, at least you figured you would play from the same tees). If the reduced ball, forced the pros from 7300 to 6700, why would you object to move from 6200 to 5900, or whatever tees had you hitting the same clubs into the greens that you hit now. At the reduced distance, hitting the same clubs into the greens you do now, you would play better, because lack of distance is not the only problem golfers have.

What if my current course doesn't have a set of tees at 5900 yards?  Why can't I keep using my current golf ball, play the same game from the same tees, etc?  Let the authorities who rule golf pass out competition balls to the top players at the first tee, or at least verify that the competition ball each company could start manufacturing in a few weeks is legal according to the new regulations.

One thing we wouldn't want is new construction costs (say for a new intermediate set of tees) for the shorter hitters.  They aren't the problem with the game.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chuck,
You should notice that my personal experience was about the benefit to players, the percentage of ProV's sold at on-course shops is not experiential, you'll find that information posted in trades to the business. Plus, nowhere did I include any numbers for off-course sales. Value balls will always 'rule' at Walmarts and Dick's, partly because you won't find all the premium balls there, partly because those companies sell them as loss leaders and finally, there is no way that most Pro shops have the space to stock 50 different species of balls.

The real issue is not about ProV's, it's about the fact that these 50 different golf balls all can be hit into the stratosphere by a Touring Pro and Top Amateurs.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Bear with me.  What I feel is a fallacy is that EVERYBODY needs to play a reduced distance ball.  I think the 85 MPH swingers don't need to have their distance reduced with a new ball, but the 125 MPH swingers do.

Sorry if I misread what you were saying, but I thought you were saying everybody would play the new ball.

What you wrote assumed that I was referring to swing speed. I was referring to all golfers and all their faults. You also seemed to assume that with I reduced distance ball I would expect you to play from the same tees you do now (or, at least you figured you would play from the same tees). If the reduced ball, forced the pros from 7300 to 6700, why would you object to move from 6200 to 5900, or whatever tees had you hitting the same clubs into the greens that you hit now. At the reduced distance, hitting the same clubs into the greens you do now, you would play better, because lack of distance is not the only problem golfers have.

What if my current course doesn't have a set of tees at 5900 yards?  Why can't I keep using my current golf ball, play the same game from the same tees, etc?  Let the authorities who rule golf pass out competition balls to the top players at the first tee, or at least verify that the competition ball each company could start manufacturing in a few weeks is legal according to the new regulations.

One thing we wouldn't want is new construction costs (say for a new intermediate set of tees) for the shorter hitters.  They aren't the problem with the game.

Come on Bill! Think outside the box. I am reasonably sure that you could find a set of tees at your course that would add up to 5900 yards. Have you heard about my GPS device that will automatically do the slope rating and course rating from whichever set of tees you play from? Scorecards are a thing of the past my man!

EDIT: As far as bifurcation of the rules is concerned, I'm against that. Nuf said.

[Bill_McBride]

...
Bear with me.  What I feel is a fallacy is that EVERYBODY needs to play a reduced distance ball.  I think the 85 MPH swingers don't need to have their distance reduced with a new ball, but the 125 MPH swingers do.

Sorry if I misread what you were saying, but I thought you were saying everybody would play the new ball.

What you wrote assumed that I was referring to swing speed. I was referring to all golfers and all their faults. You also seemed to assume that with I reduced distance ball I would expect you to play from the same tees you do now (or, at least you figured you would play from the same tees). If the reduced ball, forced the pros from 7300 to 6700, why would you object to move from 6200 to 5900, or whatever tees had you hitting the same clubs into the greens that you hit now. At the reduced distance, hitting the same clubs into the greens you do now, you would play better, because lack of distance is not the only problem golfers have.

What if my current course doesn't have a set of tees at 5900 yards?  Why can't I keep using my current golf ball, play the same game from the same tees, etc?  Let the authorities who rule golf pass out competition balls to the top players at the first tee, or at least verify that the competition ball each company could start manufacturing in a few weeks is legal according to the new regulations.

One thing we wouldn't want is new construction costs (say for a new intermediate set of tees) for the shorter hitters.  They aren't the problem with the game.

Come on Bill! Think outside the box. I am reasonably sure that you could find a set of tees at your course that would add up to 5900 yards. Have you heard about my GPS device that will automatically do the slope rating and course rating from whichever set of tees you play from? Scorecards are a thing of the past my man!

EDIT: As far as bifurcation of the rules is concerned, I'm against that. Nuf said.

My last thought - I don't think the game, equipment or anything else needs to change for the vast majority of golfers.  We aren't the ones who are causing Augusta National to add hundreds of yards for one week a year, or the Old Course to have tees that are out of bounds.  Tweak the equipment, balls, clubs, whatever for that tiny minority and it's end of story, full stop.

[Garland Bayley]

...

My last thought - I don't think the game, equipment or anything else needs to change for the vast majority of golfers.  We aren't the ones who are causing Augusta National to add hundreds of yards for one week a year, or the Old Course to have tees that are out of bounds.  Tweak the equipment, balls, clubs, whatever for that tiny minority and it's end of story, full stop.

Why Bill, you old bifurcator you!

[Bill_McBride]

...

My last thought - I don't think the game, equipment or anything else needs to change for the vast majority of golfers.  We aren't the ones who are causing Augusta National to add hundreds of yards for one week a year, or the Old Course to have tees that are out of bounds.  Tweak the equipment, balls, clubs, whatever for that tiny minority and it's end of story, full stop.

Why Bill, you old bifurcator you!

I did not have bifurcation with that woman!

Oh, sorry!

Look, if the split that needs to be addressed was 70/30 or 80/20, I would agree, roll it back for all.   But 99.5/0.5?  Why bother?  Joe Sixpack likes his Pro V1, but he's not causing changes to old classic golf courses.

See ya, I actually have to do some work today!

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck,
You should notice that my personal experience was about the benefit to players, the percentage of ProV's sold at on-course shops is not experiential, you'll find that information posted in trades to the business. Plus, nowhere did I include any numbers for off-course sales. Value balls will always 'rule' at Walmarts and Dick's, partly because you won't find all the premium balls there, partly because those companies sell them as loss leaders and finally, there is no way that most Pro shops have the space to stock 50 different species of balls.

The real issue is not about ProV's, it's about the fact that these 50 different golf balls all can be hit into the stratosphere by a Touring Pro and Top Amateurs.

Right, Jim.  I agree that the elite players could whack down-scale distance balls as far or even farther than Pro V's.  Pure distance doesn't require Urethane covers and multilayer construction.  All that the multilayer construction did, was to provide a superior combination of spin and distance to elite players, who were in a position of skill to use that combination.  And thereby render classic championship golf courses obsolete.  Which, in my book, makes it an absolute no-brainer; something needs to be done to correct the status quo ante.

My only point about Pro V's (nota bene - I use "Pro V" in a purely generic sense as easier shorthand for "modern multilayer urethane covered balls."  And also because Wally Uihlein has been such a leading propagandist against any consideration of a rollback) being used by relatively few people is to note that what has been of huge benefit to the elite players has been of little if any benefit to recreational players.  That few players buy Pro V's, and the few that do, could just as easily get the same enjoyment out of the game with Surlyn balls.  (Not that Surlyn balls are an answer to the Tour's distance problems; it would not be an answer.)  

Anyway, there is scarcely a recreational player alive who should fear that a wholesale revision of golf ball regulations (if done correctly) would harm their enjoyment of the game.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chuck,
Something you should consider, Acusnet will admit to selling 2 billion dollars worth of ProV1's over the last 8 1/2 years.

Hardly a ball that "....few players buy".   

[Ken Moum]

The real issue is not about ProV's, it's about the fact that these 50 different golf balls all can be hit into the stratosphere by a Touring Pro and Top Amateurs.

All that the multilayer construction did, was to provide a superior combination of spin and distance to elite players, who were in a position of skill to use that combination.

Anyway, there is scarcely a recreational player alive who should fear that a wholesale revision of golf ball regulations (if done correctly) would harm their enjoyment of the game.

You're dead right about the impact of multilayer balls, it allowed thebest players to effectively use a higher percentage of their power on long shots--just a TopFlite would have--due their relatively low spin on long shots.  At the sime time, it gave them a useful amount of spin around the green. It's as if they'd been allowed to change balls like the do clubs--based on the length and type of shot they wanted to play.

I believe that if someone built a golf club that did the same thing, EVERYONE would want it banned...

The trick would be create a ball that was like a balata in that the harder you hit it, the more demanding of precision it became.  That's precisely what balata balls did--with ultra-high clubhead speeds they spun so much that elite players had to throttle back to keep them in play.  This effect still allowed the longest, most accurate players to prevail, but it also meant we could play on WIDER and shorter courses without having too many super-low scores.

My solution to the problem is the same one that the USGA used in the 1930s--a lighter golf ball.

Now, there's already an essay on here explaining why this is a bad idea -- http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball -- but i think John is wrong.  With modern balls and clubs, the "horrible" effects of a 1.55-ounce balata ball, hit with 1930s clubs would not be exhibited.

Given my knowledge of shotgun ballistics from another life, there are some easily understood effects of reducing the cross-sectional density of a round projectile. The rate of decelleration is one thing that would change, and that rate is proportional to initial velocity.

So... a ball that weighed 1.55, or maybe 1.58 ounces, would lose its initial veolcity faster, and the effect which would only be most noticeable at the high ball speeds. Choosing the weight would control how this effect worked.

It would curve a little bit more easily than the current ball, bringing back some of the balance between power and ball striking to competitive golf.

It would sit up just a bit better, making it easier for the shortest hitters to get it airborne and it would saty airbrone a little more easily, giving them slightly more carry (which is something 90% of Sr and women players need)

It would make certain kinds of short-game shots easier, but I'm betting that it would make others more difficult.

It could give the manufacturers free reign on innovation in other areas of ball development, and maybe even remove some of the concern over regulating clubs.

Finally, it would create a standard that anyone with a digital scale could test for.

Alas, it's unlikely that anyone is going to go for it, thanks to thinking like that in John's essay.

Ken

[Ken Moum]

Chuck,
Something you should consider, Acusnet will admit to selling 2 billion dollars worth of ProV1's over the last 8 1/2 years.

Hardly a ball that "....few players buy".   

Chuck,

The primary benefit of a ProV1-class ball over the less-expensive versions is that you can spin them on short pitches around the green.  And of the dozens of average handicappers who I play with, there's less than one in a hundred who hit that shot.

They're paying for something that they aren't good enough to make use of.

Even though I grew up in the balata era, and am not only capable of hitting that pro-style spinner around the greens, I LOVE doing it--I have recently concluded that on 9 out of 10 courses I play the cheaper ball actually produce better scores.

They are slightly straighter, slightly longer (for me) and I really only hit a couple of spinners a round most of the time anyway.  The exceptions being courses with firm and fast conditions, which simply don't exist in most parts of the US.  Of course, on really fast courses, like those in Scotland, lower-spin balls work because even a PtoV1 won't stop most of the time.

K

[Jim_Kennedy]

kmoum,

A ProV1 has a low enough compression for it to be beneficial to all those folks who can only occasionally take advantage of the spin.  Add in the nice feel that the ball gives when putting and the perceived benefit one gets when playing a premium ball and it's no wonder that Acushnet sells so many of the darn things. 

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck,
Something you should consider, Acusnet will admit to selling 2 billion dollars worth of ProV1's over the last 8 1/2 years.

Hardly a ball that "....few players buy".   

Chuck,

The primary benefit of a ProV1-class ball over the less-expensive versions is that you can spin them on short pitches around the green.  And of the dozens of average handicappers who I play with, there's less than one in a hundred who hit that shot.

They're paying for something that they aren't good enough to make use of.

Even though I grew up in the balata era, and am not only capable of hitting that pro-style spinner around the greens, I LOVE doing it--I have recently concluded that on 9 out of 10 courses I play the cheaper ball actually produce better scores.

They are slightly straighter, slightly longer (for me) and I really only hit a couple of spinners a round most of the time anyway.  The exceptions being courses with firm and fast conditions, which simply don't exist in most parts of the US.  Of course, on really fast courses, like those in Scotland, lower-spin balls work because even a PtoV1 won't stop most of the time.

K

I agree with all that you've written.  And, for most recreational players, if they purchased the Callaway HX Hot, instead of the Pro V, they'd probably hit it a little further, and a little straighter, than a Pro V.  (I say only a little, because most recreational players don't even play well enough to make equipment comparisons meaningful at all.)  Still, they'd find some utility in the harder, non-urethane balls.

Tour players, on the other hand, could hit those Callaways insanely far, but they wouldn't be able to spin them properly at all.

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck,
Something you should consider, Acusnet will admit to selling 2 billion dollars worth of ProV1's over the last 8 1/2 years.

Hardly a ball that "....few players buy".    

Yessir, I won't argue.  It's a massive-seller for Acushnet.  It's the leading single golf ball SKU in the world.  But it is not the kind of ball that most recreational players use.  Most, that is well more than half, use budget or mid-priced golf balls.   The Pro V is not a ball that most recreational players need.  An awful lot of recreational players might well benefit from an even lower-spinning ball, if for no other reason than to decrease their miserable, almost-off-the-course slices and hooks.

[Rob Rigg]

I don't think the game needs to change for amateurs but I agree that a ball, ideally, should be used to make the pros experience a course as intended by the architect.

My issue with distance is that courses are getting ruined and developers have been building "championship" courses for a tiny percentage of the golfing population.

If rolling back the ball on the pros means that courses will be less than 7k yards then the industry will reap the benefits of lower maintenance costs, faster rounds, more enjoyable golf, and the other usual suspects. All the idiots playing from the tips when they can't break 90 will move forward over time as the tips on courses return to 6,500 to 6,900 and most golfers will play the blues or white at 6,300 or 6,000 which is probably "right" for them.

I understand that manufacturers want to continue to push the envelope, but in terms of golf balls - 1) if you change the balls the pros use in pro tournaments then it doesn't change anything for anyone else and 2) the golfers who buy your product will continue to buy golf balls because they lose one every few holes. This would allow companies to better design balls for average players.

How is the rest of the golf industry - ie) ex-equipment - not pushing for something like a standard tournament ball? Why are old clubs with spectacular classic courses not refusing to ruin what they have for the sake of a tournament until the tour makes a change?

While land was available this was not as big a deal - but when you see TOC blowing out a wall and moving a tee across a road, past another wall and onto a driving range how can you not think - WTF, is this not too much?

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Progress".  It seems in other sports they've kept the distance the same and seen times come down. Why has golf tried to keep the score the same and made the courses, longer, narrower and harder?  No one's ever explained the reason for that to me.

Tony,

Driving by the public park yesterday, it dawned on me that their were baseball fields downsized for kids.  High school fields don't have as big a dimenision to the fences as college fields and college fields aren't as large as pro fields.  The ballparks get bigger in relation to the strength and power level they are designed for.

There were numerous soccer fields there and even for different level kids they were at different sizes, much smaller than pro fields.  I know from my kids playing days that there are different sized balls from age 6 and up.

I think the problem with golf is the commerical aspect of trying to make all courses fit all players, not that some players play too well. 

All of the ballfields I saw were either subsidized recreation by the city, or commerical places for the pros (i.e. the Texas Rangers baseball stadium just down the street from me)  They couldn't be both, but the nature of golf tries to make our playing fields serve too many masters.  Thus, the idea of the PGA Stadium Courses might not be so bad, except that we want to see Tiger and Phil win where Ben and Jack did more than baseball does.  They seem to realize that their fans want the conveniences of new stadiums other than Fenway and Wrigley Field, which I guess must be the TOC and NGLA of golf, no?

BTW, in general are newer parks bigger than Wrigley?  I know some are built smaller specifically so more homers are hit, not unlike TPC courses having the driveable par 4 and reachable par 5's because the Tour knows fans like birdies.  And they like the long ball in both sports.

The idea of trying to limit the abilities of different players seems kind of odd in any sport that is trying to identify the best players, no?  I don't think there is any "magic" point in time where golf got it exactly right that we should force people into. Just like life itself, we just have to see where it evolves to and that is the natural order of things, not stagnation.