Dear Steve Smyers

[Chuck Brown]

...
In reality, the narrow prism argument that "we need to preserve the classic courses as tournament venues" is opinion only, but treated as fact around these parts.  I think we could come up with a nice list of former tournament courses that are no longer used as the designs become outdated by length, logisitics, or simply other newer courses being better tests of golf for pros and top ams.  The very best designs have adapted to the new game with mostly minor changes, while others fall by the wayside.

I am not sure how many classic golden age courses really care if they have a tournament or not.  Nor am I sure that the ability or lack thereof to use any particular course for a tournament is a cross section of what is right or wrong with golf.

Exhibit A is what was done to Augusta National in the name of protecting the course against technologically-produced distance.  Exhibit B is The Old Course, replete with tees built out of bounds.  Exhibits C and D are Riviera and Oakland Hills, with tees pushed back to boundary fences, their respective clubhouses, and canyon walls, in absolutely every place that they can, and praying that distance gains stop, now.

There are lots of perspectives on the issue of equipment, and the argument that equipment should make the game harder for the masses for some esoteric reason can, I think, be disproved by a trip to nearly any golf course on any day.  The fact that making it easier or more enjoyable for the masses somehow makes it bad if the tour pros can improve 4X in certain aspects of the game may be unavoidable.

That's one of the great canards in this argument.  That a carefully-crafted ball rollback would necessarily "make the game harder" for the masses.

Next time you see your friend Steve Smyers, you might ask him why it has taken the better part of a decade for the USGA to publish the results of its study of golf balls.  What happened to the Joint Statement of Principles?  And why, as Geoff Shackelford reported, did the USGA require players in its recent Canadian Tour event ball experiment to sign non-disclosure agreements?

[Jeff Fortson]

I have kept stats on my game for a long time and I have often wondered how I got longer and more accurate off the tee as I grew older.  Part of me thinks it's maturity (i.e. a more stable swing, added weight on my body and better tempo), but I can't deny specific jumps in my personal experience with increased length as those jumps relate to changes in technology.  

I had significant jumps in length and moderate improvement in accuracy with the introduction of first the Titleist Professional ball and then again with the Pro V1.  I had minor jumps in length as new, larger driver heads came out but saw a dramatic increase in accuracy with the increased size of the head.  Since the introduction of the Pro V1 my distance has plateaued.  Is it because I'm getting older?  Maybe.  But, during these increases my fitness varied and I saw little if no difference in distance increase from getting bigger, stronger, or faster.  I saw scores improve when I was in good shape as I think my body fatigued less through the round, but certainly no real increase in distance.

It's hard to put total blame for increased distance on one thing.  I agree that maintenance could play a part as well.  However, the only thing I can make of the distance boom is my own experience which clearly points to the ball.


Jeff F.

[Chuck Brown]

...
I am not sure how many classic golden age courses really care if they have a tournament or not.  Nor am I sure that the ability or lack thereof to use any particular course for a tournament is a cross section of what is right or wrong with golf.
...

This is an interesting notion, and I am sure there is at least some truth to it.  At one level, we can suppose, "They don't ever want to hold a U.S. Open at CPC, NGL, Maidstone," and be assuredly right. 

But that's the splashiest formulation.  And the easiest kind of calculus.  There are many other courses confronting elite level play that have no association with professional tours.  A Mackenzie-Maxwell course that is near and dear to me is the 6700-yard University of Michigan Golf Course.  They have no need to host the nomadic PGA Tour, but they do need to host NCAA intercollegiate play.  And they have virtually no more room to stretch more yardage out of the property.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chuck,

I am not sure when I will see Steve next, but you could get his email from the ASGCA members page and politely ask him yourself.  I suspect he would answer.

No one here hangs on my every post, but I have said a few things in the past - first, I don't think we should be using tournament golf as the benchmark for anything since it is such a small subset of Golf in America.  Second, I think that if we try to limit innovation, we may as well just end the human race, since that is one of our defining characteristics.  In the end, while I do see certain nostaligic losses and real downsides to the tech improvements (nothing is perfect and its like "Pave paradise and put in a parking lot" in some respects, I still believe that overall, had any real limits been put on the great thinkers in golf (whether gca, equipment or players) it would be far worse off today.

Why on earth would anyone want the game they love to be put into some kind of groundhog day scenario where it never changes?

[Ben Voelker]

Why on earth would anyone want the game they love to be put into some kind of groundhog day scenario where it never changes?

I couldn't agree more, especially considering all the talk of the trouble with growth that golf has at the present time.  This has been basically a never-ending debate in golf starting as soon as the game was standardized about what equipment is okay and what isn't.  I think the golf industry needs to worry about growing the game and bringing more people and not how far the guys on tour are hitting the ball, certainly not as a issue to focus on.

[Chuck Brown]

Look, Ben and Jeff;
I do understand (and agree) that the problem of elite players obsoleting classic championship courses is a highly selective one.  At the same time, it is not simply a question of whether they can hold the U.S. Open at Merion.  I've already mentioned the length problems associated with Michigan's Alister Mackenzie course.
But as for "limiting innovation;" that's an overreaction.  Golf balls are limited now; and yet there is "innovation."  We have innovation in club design, shaft design, course architecture and every other aspect of the game you can imagine.  Golf Channel does reality programming on the next big invention in golf.  A "lower fail-point on Overall Distance Standard testing" (as Frank Hannigan suggests) wouldn't impact "innovation."  Why would it, as long as different manufacturers continue to compete for market share in an open market?  I am not one of those who have suggested a single-design competition ball.
I will say this to you both; it is a big deal to me that all golfers play golf under the same set of rules.  The USGA seems to agree with me.  And indeed Acushnet -- the bogeyman to end all in the ball rollback debate -- firmly agrees that there should be no bifurcation of equipment rules.  That should tell you something.  So unless you are willing to give up on a single set of rules, we really do have to legislate with the elite level players in mind.  Hopefully, with sophisticated technology and carefully crafted specifications, we could craft new ball specs that would rein in the players who are obsoleting classic courses without impacting recreational players.  This is not the thought of Luddites, and it is not Groundhog Day.
And yes, of course I have read the comments about golf balls and technology dating back to Max Behr, et al, dating back to the beginning of the last century.  And given the wisdom of everything they said about the rest of the game and and golf course architecture, I'd be very hard-pressed to think that there was anything silly about what they suggested.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chuck,

As it happens, I took off yesterday with my college age, former junior college all american son's clubs (mentioned only to give you an idea of his level of play) so he used my Taylor Made R7's besides his blades and Titleist Driver.

He came home saying the irons were now his.  He hits the R7 irons about 30 yards longer.  (one example is that a 190 shot went from a 5 iron to a 7 iron)

This all goes to show that Steve is right - its a combo of balls, clubs, and I suspect maintenance (I know one tournament course that mows its fw back towards the tee to limit roll)

I agree all players should play under the same rules.  I understand the desire to keep classic courses relevant, even for good ams.  I love the UM course, too!  Funny thing is, my son with all his distance still has fun on our home club at 6776 yards.  For every day play, UM is fine.  For tourneys? I am not sure but close to top level tourneys have been played on shorter courses for years, with no ill effect other than ego bruising of the members, right? (i.e., scores of 20 under, etc., but that happens even at the Pete Dye courses used)

In essence, the only way to keep scores high it to raise the rough, speed up the greens, and generally cause a lot of bogeys to offset the inevitable birdie barrage. Otherwise, the courses used would be far too hard for everyday play, right?

[Chuck Brown]

Jeff, Steve Smyers could well be right, based only on what he said.  And what he said is that "the game" has been "changed" by agronomy.

And of course he is right, just as Bob Jones was right when he suggested that the biggest equipment change in his lifetime was the modern greens-mower.

Where I depart from Steve Smyers (and I would be my profound honor to debate/discuss this with Mr. Smyers) is on the notion of whether the golf ball is to "blame" for distance advances in the Pro V era, and whether, if the golf ball is not solely "to blame," whether anything should be done about it.

It seems simple to me; if there is widespread opposition to making some golf clubs illegal ex post facto, and if modern agronomy techniques make golf courses more beautiful, fairer and more fun, and if big, strong, healthy well-caoched kids can hit golf balls farther than ever... Well, that leaves the golf ball. 

One of my few gripes with Steve Smyers on the "agronomy" topic is whether agronomy techniques are being used, not to make courses better, but whether they are being used to "trick" the architecture and scoring.  We all understand the phenomenon in which greens speeds at Ross and Mackenzie designs are extremely elevated so as to protect scoring, with the side effect of making half the hole locations unusable.  And I understand the concept (dubious it may be) that fairways can be cut to such a low height as to make them as "fast" as greens.  And how irrigation has changed everything.  I understand all of that.  Assuredly, Steve Smyers understands it better than I ever will.

What I come back to is any statement from Mr. Smyers that appears to be a provocation to the golf-ball-rollback proponents.  Perhaps, there is a context to it.  Perhaps, Steve Smyers, USGA Man, has heard his fill of complaints about how the USGA has done nothing about technologically-produced distance.  If he has heard his fill of that, I'd suggest that it is deserved.

[Bill_McBride]

I have begun thinking the most reasonable way to look at the distance issue re: classic courses is, "Who cares?"  The entire tournament field plays the same course, so it makes no difference to the field in terms of competition.  If it's match play, both competitors play the same course.

Most really good classic era courses defend themselves at the green end.  Set the pins creatively.  When has a classic era golf course really been demolished because it's too short?  The best example I can recall is the dismantling of Merion by Jack Nicklaus in a World Amateur, what year was that?  Fifty years ago?

I think we are overly obsessive about this situation and it's getting a little boring........

[Chuck Brown]

I have begun thinking the most reasonable way to look at the distance issue re: classic courses is, "Who cares?"  The entire tournament field plays the same course, so it makes no difference to the field in terms of competition.  If it's match play, both competitors play the same course.

Most really good classic era courses defend themselves at the green end.  Set the pins creatively.  When has a classic era golf course really been demolished because it's too short?  The best example I can recall is the dismantling of Merion by Jack Nicklaus in a World Amateur, what year was that?  Fifty years ago?

I think we are overly obsessive about this situation and it's getting a little boring........

Bill, I have never regarded this as a "competitive" issue.  That is, I would never endorse a ball rollback whose purpose it was to punish "long hitters" or to help "short hitters."  I'd oppose any regulation with that explicit purpose.

So, yeah, it is always going to be a situation in which "everybody plays the same course."  We might, or might not, see changes in scoring numbers.  But surely you don't think the game is just about scoring numbers do you?  Don't you agree that it is about the character of the play itself?

And yeah, Merion would be far more than an adequate test of golf for me; I'll never "obsolete" a single major championship golf course.

But if elite-level players aren't hitting the ball much, much farther, then why perform all of the purely distance-fighting changes that we see to the classic championship courses?  You can't possibly argue that changes aren't being made.  Steve Smyers conceded as much; it would be madness not to concede it.  Steve Smyers seems to think (paraphrasing him) that just when somebody might think that a course like Merion can't find any more distance to lengthen itself, they find room somehow.  That seems like a weird and inexplicable rationalization to me.  I can't understand what sort of principle he is upholding, in saying that.  Oakmont might have some extra room, just by the fortuity of its property.  Muirfield has some extra room, too; espcecially when they borrow it from the Renaissance Club next door.  And Augusta found some more room for 13; they just had to make a despreate deal with Augusta Country Club to obtain it.  Is this the model of future golf course renovations?  Riviera doesn't have that room.  Oakland Hills doesn't.  A lot of championship courses are at the breaking point.

You might find this subject "boring," but I suspect that it isn't "boring" for the USGA, and for Acushnet's lawyers.  For them, I think this is deadly serious.

[Sean_A]

I have begun thinking the most reasonable way to look at the distance issue re: classic courses is, "Who cares?"  The entire tournament field plays the same course, so it makes no difference to the field in terms of competition.  If it's match play, both competitors play the same course.

Most really good classic era courses defend themselves at the green end.  Set the pins creatively.  When has a classic era golf course really been demolished because it's too short?  The best example I can recall is the dismantling of Merion by Jack Nicklaus in a World Amateur, what year was that?  Fifty years ago?

I think we are overly obsessive about this situation and it's getting a little boring........

Bill, I have never regarded this as a "competitive" issue.  That is, I would never endorse a ball rollback whose purpose it was to punish "long hitters" or to help "short hitters."  I'd oppose any regulation with that explicit purpose.

So, yeah, it is always going to be a situation in which "everybody plays the same course."  We might, or might not, see changes in scoring numbers.  But surely you don't think the game is just about scoring numbers do you?  Don't you agree that it is about the character of the play itself?

And yeah, Merion would be far more than an adequate test of golf for me; I'll never "obsolete" a single major championship golf course.

But if elite-level players aren't hitting the ball much, much farther, then why perform all of the purely distance-fighting changes that we see to the classic championship courses?  You can't possibly argue that changes aren't being made.  Steve Smyers conceded as much; it would be madness not to concede it.  Steve Smyers seems to think (paraphrasing him) that just when somebody might think that a course like Merion can't find any more distance to lengthen itself, they find room somehow.  That seems like a weird and inexplicable rationalization to me.  I can't understand what sort of principle he is upholding, in saying that.  Oakmont might have some extra room, just by the fortuity of its property.  Muirfield has some extra room, too; espcecially when they borrow it from the Renaissance Club next door.  And Augusta found some more room for 13; they just had to make a despreate deal with Augusta Country Club to obtain it.  Is this the model of future golf course renovations?  Riviera doesn't have that room.  Oakland Hills doesn't.  A lot of championship courses are at the breaking point.

You might find this subject "boring," but I suspect that it isn't "boring" for the USGA, and for Acushnet's lawyers.  For them, I think this is deadly serious.

Chuck

It sounds like Jeff and Ace share my general view in that length is only an issue if WE choose to make it one.  Sure, courses are changing, but I believe much of it isn't necessary and instead is a knee jerk reaction to distance and fears of low scoring.  The only real difference I push is memebrships ARE responsible for their courses.  If the USGA is going to demand courses be lengthened for USGA events then clubs have to decide if they want to chase championships or not.  You seem to be arguing that clubs have no control over their destiny and that distance will continue to be a problem rather than clubs making decisions which either favour changes or not.  For the vast majority of golfers this is a complete non-issue which I believe has been blown out of context by certain sections of the media, recently retired well known pro golfers and club members with large egos who sole focus is top level golf.

All that said, I will follow whatever rules the USGA and R&A come up with, but I certainly don't believe the issue is worth spending loads of money on or this much discussion to come up with a response.  This is why I will not join the USGA.  Its akin to paying taxes and watching money wasted by the score.  Honestly, it doesn't matter to me if guys score 65 in championships.  What matters to me is being entertained.  All this talk of changing classic courses is a red herring.  Courses have always changed and they will continue to change regardless if the ball is completely halted in terms of distance.  As I said, memberships have large egos and can't help themselves.  Its the way of the world.

Ciao

Ciao 

[Garland Bayley]

Sean,

I find your reasoning to be lacking. You say courses are always changing. That is true. However, the changes in the recent past were not targeted at adjusting for a ball that travels 25 yards farther than the previous popular ball. The courses or clubs that are hurt go way beyond the ANGCs of the world that can and do change their classic designs to combat the length of the modern ball. A ball that used to land in the rough next to the adjoining fairway, now has the capability to travel 25 yards into that fairway. The majority of the clubs that have a problem like that don't have the money to move fairways, or make other adjustments. I suppose the best thing they can do is grow trees to provide some protection.

The claim that the added distance is only an issue with the small percentage of tour pros and top amateurs is totally blind to the facts. When, the ProV came out, the largest mass migration in the history of the sport to a new ball occurred. Who made this migration? It seems pretty clear to me that the players that were playing Titleist balata balls made the migration. The technology of the ProV was available in the Strata, Bridgestone, and other balls, but for the most part Titleist loyalists ignored that until the ProV appeared. With them came 1000s of players who are now hitting it 25 yards farther into adjoining fairways.

Therefore, IMO this is not the small problem that many here represent it as.

Coffee is brewing Sean, how's your sniffer?

[Scott Warren]

Garland, I think you should look in the history books at the consequences to existing golf courses of the introduction of such things as the haskell ball and steel shafts. This type of issue is not new.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, I think you should look in the history books at the consequences to existing golf courses of the introduction of such things as the haskell ball and steel shafts. This type of issue is not new.

I am perfectly aware of that. However, you should look at the history books concerning the regulation of the ball. You will find that what they learned from the early ball changes (and probably shaft changes too) was that the ball needed to be controlled. Therefore, at three different points that I know of the USGA put in ball limiting regulations. It is this last ball change that they have failed to regulate. I should note that they have been doing work on a ball that travels less far. However, they have made no indication that there will be a result eminent anytime soon from that work. I hope that they may move after the patents on that technology expire, as they eventually did on wedge grooves.

[Chuck Brown]

Garland, I think you should look in the history books at the consequences to existing golf courses of the introduction of such things as the haskell ball and steel shafts. This type of issue is not new.

But as I always say, Scott, there is good technology, and bad.  Steel shafts helped to grow the game.  Steel was cheaper than hickory.  Steel was easier to work with.  It was more consistent.  It allowed more manufacturers to mass-produce more clubs, at a better cost to consumers.

I'd say the same things about Surlyn golf balls.  And steel clubheads, replacing persimmon.

If any of those things had the side-effect of increasing distance, I'd happily live with the consequences.

You can't say any of those good things about titanium-alloy heads and exotic composite shafts.  And you can't say that the Pro V1 had any beneficial, democratizing effect on golf.  To the extent that the Pro V widened the gap between elite and recreational golfers (I think clearly it did), it is a net negativie to the game.

[Bill_McBride]

I have begun thinking the most reasonable way to look at the distance issue re: classic courses is, "Who cares?"  The entire tournament field plays the same course, so it makes no difference to the field in terms of competition.  If it's match play, both competitors play the same course.

Most really good classic era courses defend themselves at the green end.  Set the pins creatively.  When has a classic era golf course really been demolished because it's too short?  The best example I can recall is the dismantling of Merion by Jack Nicklaus in a World Amateur, what year was that?  Fifty years ago?

I think we are overly obsessive about this situation and it's getting a little boring........

Bill, I have never regarded this as a "competitive" issue.  That is, I would never endorse a ball rollback whose purpose it was to punish "long hitters" or to help "short hitters."  I'd oppose any regulation with that explicit purpose.

So, yeah, it is always going to be a situation in which "everybody plays the same course."  We might, or might not, see changes in scoring numbers.  But surely you don't think the game is just about scoring numbers do you?  Don't you agree that it is about the character of the play itself?

And yeah, Merion would be far more than an adequate test of golf for me; I'll never "obsolete" a single major championship golf course.

But if elite-level players aren't hitting the ball much, much farther, then why perform all of the purely distance-fighting changes that we see to the classic championship courses?  You can't possibly argue that changes aren't being made.  Steve Smyers conceded as much; it would be madness not to concede it.  Steve Smyers seems to think (paraphrasing him) that just when somebody might think that a course like Merion can't find any more distance to lengthen itself, they find room somehow.  That seems like a weird and inexplicable rationalization to me.  I can't understand what sort of principle he is upholding, in saying that.  Oakmont might have some extra room, just by the fortuity of its property.  Muirfield has some extra room, too; espcecially when they borrow it from the Renaissance Club next door.  And Augusta found some more room for 13; they just had to make a despreate deal with Augusta Country Club to obtain it.  Is this the model of future golf course renovations?  Riviera doesn't have that room.  Oakland Hills doesn't.  A lot of championship courses are at the breaking point.

You might find this subject "boring," but I suspect that it isn't "boring" for the USGA, and for Acushnet's lawyers.  For them, I think this is deadly serious.

Sorry, "boring" is the wrong word, "tedious" is probably better.   

And the reason is that the added distance to championship courses affects only one tenth of one percent of golfers, if that.

What is an example of a Golden Age course, other than Merion by Nicklaus, that was truly taken apart?  Or do they avoid such situations? 

[Garland Bayley]

...
What is an example of a Golden Age course, other than Merion by Nicklaus, that was truly taken apart?  Or do they avoid such situations? 

Greenbrier

[Melvyn Morrow]

The one consistency is that there is no consistency in golfing equipment from the start. Thus exposing the only flaw in the Game of Golf.

Today we are paying for the lack of controlling the technology in Golf

Melvyn

PS How can anyone who loves the game knowingly accept their score when it has been enhanced by the equipment they use.

[Garland Bayley]

The one consistency is that there is no consistency in golfing equipment from the start. Thus exposing the only flaw in the Game of Golf.

Today we are paying for the lack of controlling the technology in Golf

Melvyn

PS How can anyone who loves the game knowingly accept their score when it has been enhanced by the equipment they use.

Melvyn,

Some of us are soooo bad that we have not been able to discern much difference in our score no matter what equipment we use.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The one consistency is that there is no consistency in golfing equipment from the start. Thus exposing the only flaw in the Game of Golf.

Today we are paying for the lack of controlling the technology in Golf

Melvyn

PS How can anyone who loves the game knowingly accept their score when it has been enhanced by the equipment they use.

Melvyn,

Where do you draw the line on equipment improvments, since a better club and ball was envisoned from day two of golf?

Are you ashamed to fly in a 747, or do you demand to fly only in the Wright Bros original plane? (yes, last time I mentioned this, someone told me there was an earlier plane by Curtis that should really be considered the first designer of Merion.  I mean, inventor of the airplane!

Do you not see any benefits in technolgoical advancements?  Is the world really a lesser place because things get better all the time?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

Of course there must be a starting point.  A period to understand and adjust the game. We do that with the Rules.

As for technology we need to use it to give us the consistency in the equipment. By going out and buy new clubs and ball means I can shave of two or three strokes a round is nothing short of cheating IMHO, but its cheating yourself. I am getting older and slowing, can't match my old score anymore, so next best thing buy new equipment - is that how you play sport, its not my way and I do not believe its the way most of us want to play.

AS for travel, it has nothing to do with golf and anyway it’s you just trying to be daft. Yet the worst thing we can do is con ourselves that we have improved when it’s for the most part down to the equipment - makes us look rather.........

Consistency will give us back our great courses, reduce costs in size and lengths of courses and give us just as much fun IMO as we are having anyway. The other benefit will be actually gauging our improvement or decline as it would render a true result of our performance over the years.

Melvyn
 

[JMEvensky]

 The other benefit will be actually gauging our improvement or decline as it would render a true result of our performance over the years.

Melvyn
 

 This is the part of any I and/or B rollback that I think is most overlooked.

 To use a baseball analogy,I don't want to see metal bats nor do I want to see a center fielder with a glove the size of a jai alai cesta for the simple reason that neither Mays nor Mantle used them.I want to be able to more easily compare/contrast players of different generations.(I understand that I'm conveniently omitting the DH,artificial turf,PED's,etc.).

I want to watch Tiger Woods play the same golf course Ben Hogan did with some semblance of the same equipment.

I concede all the holes in my logic including,but not limited to,drawing a unilateral line at Mays/Mantle's era.

It just seems that the argument always comes down to those in favor of technological advances and those opposed.I think this is a false dichotomy.

Golf is a lot of things.But,for most of us,it's just a game.

[Rick Shefchik]

PS How can anyone who loves the game knowingly accept their score when it has been enhanced by the equipment they use.[/b]

To purify my soul, what kind of equipment should I return to? The blade irons and persimmon woods I got when I was 18 (40 years ago), or my mother's hand-me-down Patty Berg clubs that I learned with when I was nine?

If I need to go back farther than that, let me know and I'll start surfing the collectible sites. Please keep in mind that I'm on a limited budget. I can probably afford just one hickory-shafted club per year.

[Steve Kline]

The one consistency is that there is no consistency in golfing equipment from the start. Thus exposing the only flaw in the Game of Golf.

Today we are paying for the lack of controlling the technology in Golf

Melvyn

PS How can anyone who loves the game knowingly accept their score when it has been enhanced by the equipment they use.

Do you play featheries only? How about hickory shafts? Do you use sand wedges? This whole technology argument seems rather pointless to me? What era of technology should we go back to? In my opinion it is never going to happen. And if it does people will hate it. Sure, perhaps Tour pros won't go as low anymore, but the average golfer will hate it. So, will many higher level amateurs like myself if there are two sets of rules. So, I'll end using a more difficult set of equipment but compete against others with a less difficult set in club events. The whole argument is tedious as Mr. Brightly said. And I actually think that Smyers is right that architects need to adjust.

[Garland Bayley]

...
PS How can anyone who loves the game knowingly accept their score when it has been enhanced by the equipment they use.

You can believe golf club marketing hype, and think our games are improved by the equipment advances they foist upon us.
Or, you can believe that almost all of it make no difference to the average golfer.
Or, you can go to another extreme and believe that the equipment being offered damages our games.

Anyone have a proof of any of these?

However, these balls that go farther enhance a players ability more as their driver swing speed rises above 85 mph, which is approximately the speed where the new balls decreased spin starts allowing longer drives. How much that affects score, I don't know. My guess is that for the average golfer who has trouble breaking 100, the effect if negligible.