[Josh Tarble]

If Nicklaus design was still in it's mid-90s heyday I'm betting he wouldn't be so concerned with how far the ball is going.

That's a fair point.  But it also reinforces that no matter what architects have done -- whether they've built longer courses and complained about it like Jack, or resisted adding length like me -- it hasn't changed the outcome one bit.  The distance problem only gets worse.

True, but if the ethos of the entire golf design industry wasn't longer & harder, the distance situation would have needed to be addressed long ago, when 6500 yard courses were on the extreme end of the spectrum. 

[Sam Andrews]

Tom,


[/size]While the economic position of many of my fellow hacks is pretty tough these days, I would be wary of suggesting that there is some widespread journalistic Stockholm syndrome at play here. As far as I can see, golf magazines reflect their readers desperation/fascination for something that will transform their game (other than actual practice, of course). I confess I rarely read them because they seem repetitively dull but, to defend them a little, it may just be that those journalists who don't see the ball as a problem simply agree with their readers, whom, I suspect, don't think their Sunday game would be improved by hitting it less far.

[/size]I would reckon that most people recognise that the pros' distance comes from a lack of moobs, beer bellies, pipe cleaner arms, nobbly knees etc... and a great deal of applied talent. They hit it a long way because the cheating swines work out with trainers and practice with huge teams of sports scientists and coaches. They would also recognise that the sheer amount of money available in the game has attracted really good athletes, who in the past would have previously played more obviously athletic sports.
[/size]
Anyway, having read this quote from Jack Nicklaus:

"The golf courses built today, they spread them out for real estate purposes. It just takes longer to play. I don’t think that’s good.”
[/size]It would be good to get your take on the influence of real estate development, does it influence the design of courses in order to create more prime building plots?

Maybe the pro game needs to ensure that the bunkers in the pros' landing zone are real hazards and that the greater deployment of properly hostile vegetation is encouraged. You may be interested to know that Rye has just planted some more gorse on the left hand side of the 10th fairway, specifically, I am told, to encourage the big hitters to dial it down off the tee. Having played with someone who ran into the spot it occupies and noted their reaction, I would say it will have that effect when it matures.

[Jason Topp]

If Nicklaus design was still in it's mid-90s heyday I'm betting he wouldn't be so concerned with how far the ball is going.

I do not have a link but I remember Nicklaus expressing concern about the length the ball traveled back in the 80's.

[Jeff Schley]

Maybe the pro game needs to ensure that the bunkers in the pros' landing zone are real hazards and that the greater deployment of properly hostile vegetation is encouraged. You may be interested to know that Rye has just planted some more gorse on the left hand side of the 10th fairway, specifically, I am told, to encourage the big hitters to dial it down off the tee. Having played with someone who ran into the spot it occupies and noted their reaction, I would say it will have that effect when it matures.

Bunkers like this perhaps is what is needed for them to be a hazard.

[jeffwarne]

If Nicklaus design was still in it's mid-90s heyday I'm betting he wouldn't be so concerned with how far the ball is going.

I do not have a link but I remember Nicklaus expressing concern about the length the ball traveled back in the 80's.

+1



Not everybody has a financial agenda.
Sometimes people speak out because they feel it is the right thing to do.
Quite often others say nothing out of fear of financial repercussions.


The scale and venues of the modern game and bigger than they used to be.
I disagree with that trend for a variety of reasons, but none are going to reward me financially-or give me an advantage at golf.

[Ken Moum]

I can't understand why the solution to this is so hard for people to understand.


We can't roll back the distance of the ball.


But we can make a change in the ball specifications that is aimed at making it easier for average players to get around the golf course.  The trend to ultra-tight mowing on fairways and green surrounds has really impacted the average player because he/she can't hit a fairway wood off those lies, nor can they pitch effectively off them


So we lighten the ball a tiny little bit. Not all the way back the Balloon Ball of 1930 see Vander Borght on the subject, and note that even that ball was proposed as an aid to the average golfer. But it went too far, It increased the diameter and lowered the weight simultaneously, and it resulted in ball everyone hated.


But if 1.55 oz. is too light how about going from the current 1.62 oz. down to 1.59, or 1.58?  It wouldn't be THAT hard for the USGA and R&A to test slighter lighter balls to see which ones were effective.


They don't have to be slowed down, and no change to the other rules about balls.


But the effect on the pros would be IMHO, a delight to see.  There's a quirk of ballistics that says two identical projectiles will have different rates of deceleration according to their initial velocity.


Simply put, a ball that leaves the driver at 167 mph (average for Tour players) will lose more of its velocity in the first 100 yards than the same ball launched at 100 mph. Or 132 mph, which is what Trackman numbers apparently show average amateurs.


So everyone would lose a little distance.


But the big thing, is that it would be slightly harder to control, and that change would have more effect as ball speed increased.


What we'd have is a ball that behaved a lot more  like the balata ball in that the very best ball strikers could get it to go massive distances, but everyone had to be careful to prevent the ball from leaving the golf course.


Great players and average players get a slight advantage, wild swingers pay the price.


K

[Kalen Braley]

Ken,


What I don't understand is why some think the ball cannot be rolled back distance wise.


Its well known in physics that dimpling patterns are what make the ball create lift and fly further.  I guarantee you its very easy to create a golf ball that will travel significantly less further than current balls.


The only question is as I see it, What should be the properties of a distance reduced ball and by how much?


P.S.  Heres a simple to understand laymans article..


http://www.franklygolf.com/dimples-on-a-golf-ball.aspx

[JESII]

I think the unanswered question is, to what end?


Is there a #1 reason that a roll back is needed? Best as I can tell, it’s because DJ can hit a driver-wedge 500 yards.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the unanswered question is, to what end?


Is there a #1 reason that a roll back is needed? Best as I can tell, it’s because DJ can hit a driver-wedge 500 yards.

Jim,


I think the why is alluded to in Toms original post.  In simple terms, its monkey see, monkey do.  Owners see courses add length to their course so they can have a championship caliber course and "test the best players", and then they must now keep up with the joneses...and the ripple effect is off and running.  Its no different than the Augusta "green" effect. It all kills the bottom line in an industry already suffering


P.S.  I can at least see why the Tour doesn't see this as their problem, its a golf industry problem, not a Tour problem.

[George Pazin]

I have to admit, I don't know for sure where anyone stands on this, I don't have the patience to read through everything and nitpick every word. I know that's bad, but I have other things to do.


I just hate seeing classic courses altered. I don't like seeing new courses face pressures to be long enough to host championship events and still be an enjoyable walk for the rest of us.


I couldn't really care less how far I hit the ball, or how far I hit it relative to a few freaks. It doesn't impact my self image in the least, but I guess it does for some people.


Having said all that, my preferences are:


1) roll back the ball for everyone


2) bifurcate


3) let it ride


If you could convince those in charge of the great courses to ignore requests/demands to alter their courses to defend par, I'd flip the bifurcate and let it ride options. Heck, I might even put let it ride #1. I couldn't care less if DJ hits driver wedge 500 yards.


Off to read the 10 posts posted since I clicked and clicked...

[Mike Bowen]

The parallels between golf ball rollback, gun regulations, and climate regulations is fascinating.

[JESII]

Ha...that's a sensible addition to this forum...


#dumpsterfire

[Tom_Doak]

The parallels between golf ball rollback, gun regulations, and climate regulations is fascinating.

Yes, and in saying that, let's not forget the root causes of each:  that some big company wants to sell stuff, and they don't give a [insert curse word of choice here] about the unintended consequences of selling as much of it as they can.

[JESII]

That's actually only in golf Tom...


But back to the regularly schedule protest...

[Mike Bowen]

I do not intend to make this discussion political.  I just find it interesting that the groups resistant to change or taking 'action' are generally doing so because they believe that status quo is good and change is bad.  But when you look at the past, and how much change there has been, inaction is really allowing this continual change.  The status quo person from 20 years ago would not recognize the game DJ, et al. are playing on tour.  To what end do we allow this process to reach before we say it has gone to far.  I believe everyone will have their tipping point.


Also I agree with Tom that corporate greed greatly influences all three of said parallels.

[BCowan]

The parallels between golf ball rollback, gun regulations, and climate regulations is fascinating.

Yes, and in saying that, let's not forget the root causes of each:  that some big company wants to sell stuff, and they don't give a [insert curse word of choice here] about the unintended consequences of selling as much of it as they can.

 

[John Kavanaugh]

I do not intend to make this discussion political.  I just find it interesting that the groups resistant to change or taking 'action' are generally doing so because they believe that status quo is good and change is bad.  But when you look at the past, and how much change there has been, inaction is really allowing this continual change.  The status quo person from 20 years ago would not recognize the game DJ, et al. are playing on tour.  To what end do we allow this process to reach before we say it has gone to far.  I believe everyone will have their tipping point.


Also I agree with Tom that corporate greed greatly influences all three of said parallels.

20 years ago I was a scratch golfer who couldn't compete on any level with Fred Couples. What exactly has changed?

[Jon McSweeny]

[Mike Bowen]

I do not intend to make this discussion political.  I just find it interesting that the groups resistant to change or taking 'action' are generally doing so because they believe that status quo is good and change is bad.  But when you look at the past, and how much change there has been, inaction is really allowing this continual change.  The status quo person from 20 years ago would not recognize the game DJ, et al. are playing on tour.  To what end do we allow this process to reach before we say it has gone to far.  I believe everyone will have their tipping point.


Also I agree with Tom that corporate greed greatly influences all three of said parallels.

20 years ago I was a scratch golfer who couldn't compete on any level with Fred Couples. What exactly has changed?

Are you saying the only golfers who have experienced distance gains are professionals?  Or are you saying hitting the ball further doesn't change how a golf course is played?  Or maybe it's both.

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm saying that even as far back as 1927 Walter Hagen hit it exactly that much better than the amateur of his day than DJ does now. if you don't believe me come play the Ross course at French Lick. I've spent a lifetime golfing my ball trying to figure that one out.


I was fortunate enough to play Streamsong Black soon enough after DJ to have my playing partners show me where he hit his drives compared to mine. No harm came to either of our games. He's a 6'4" lizard and I'm a pumpkin on wheels. Playing the same clubs, from the same fairways to the same greens. I wouldn't trade that for the world.


I couldn't replicate that with the clubs Hagen played in 27. Golf is the better for it.

[jeffwarne]

I do not intend to make this discussion political.  I just find it interesting that the groups resistant to change or taking 'action' are generally doing so because they believe that status quo is good and change is bad.  But when you look at the past, and how much change there has been, inaction is really allowing this continual change.  The status quo person from 20 years ago would not recognize the game DJ, et al. are playing on tour.  To what end do we allow this process to reach before we say it has gone to far.  I believe everyone will have their tipping point.


Also I agree with Tom that corporate greed greatly influences all three of said parallels.

20 years ago I was a scratch golfer who couldn't compete on any level with Fred Couples. What exactly has changed?

Freddy's 21 yards longer than he was...
another gym rat success

[John Kavanaugh]

If he was the gym rat he is now back in the day he would have far more than 15 victories on tour. Let's not pretend that he looks and plays like he does now well into his 50's by just getting out of the right side of bed.

[Tim Martin]

If he was the gym rat he is now back in the day he would have far more than 15 victories on tour. Let's not pretend that he looks and plays like he does now well into his 50's by just getting out of the right side of bed.

JK-I know we are getting off track a little bit but I often wonder where his place in the game would be if his ball rolled back into the water on 12 at the 92 Masters. Not unlike Sergio it’s immeasurable what a green jacket adds to a career.

[BCowan]

If Nicklaus design was still in it's mid-90s heyday I'm betting he wouldn't be so concerned with how far the ball is going.

I do not have a link but I remember Nicklaus expressing concern about the length the ball traveled back in the 80's.

+1



Not everybody has a financial agenda.
Sometimes people speak out because they feel it is the right thing to do.
Quite often others say nothing out of fear of financial repercussions.


The scale and venues of the modern game and bigger than they used to be.
I disagree with that trend for a variety of reasons, but none are going to reward me financially-or give me an advantage at golf.

-2,


    Saying you are against ball distance and building courses against your beliefs is hypocrisy.  I tip my hat to the minimalist for building tracks 6800 yards and less, not that I agree with them.  I respect that they walk the talk. 


    I find that there are certain Protected Archies on here.  Now i think Pete Dye is the example of the American dream but he built 7500+ tracks.  He also built TPC Pondgrass which might have caused more abominations in Florida and elsewhere then any course ever built.  Multiple water hazards on some holes to create strategy  .  Building a course in a swamp, that never should have been built.  Spending gobs of money as if it didn't have any value.  Multiple ridiculous costing renovations since it's inception.  Now you can play the track at 6500 yards and it ain't going to matter an iota with thee above mentioned. 


If I were the hefe and or a Statist, I'd mandate that the tour/USGA not play any PRO event on a course built before 1948!  I am more worried about flattening of greens, making hazards fu fu, and selfish golfers

[jeffwarne]

If Nicklaus design was still in it's mid-90s heyday I'm betting he wouldn't be so concerned with how far the ball is going.

I do not have a link but I remember Nicklaus expressing concern about the length the ball traveled back in the 80's.

+1



Not everybody has a financial agenda.
Sometimes people speak out because they feel it is the right thing to do.
Quite often others say nothing out of fear of financial repercussions.


The scale and venues of the modern game and bigger than they used to be.
I disagree with that trend for a variety of reasons, but none are going to reward me financially-or give me an advantage at golf.

-2,


    Saying you are against ball distance and building courses against your beliefs is hypocrisy.  I tip my hat to the minimalist for building tracks 6800 yards and less, not that I agree with them.  I respect that they walk the talk. 


    I find that there are certain Protected Archies on here.  Now i think Pete Dye is the example of the American dream but he built 7500+ tracks.  He also built TPC Pondgrass which might have caused more abominations in Florida and elsewhere then any course ever built.  Multiple water hazards on some holes to create strategy  .  Building a course in a swamp, that never should have been built.  Spending gobs of money as if it didn't have any value.  Multiple ridiculous costing renovations since it's inception.  Now you can play the track at 6500 yards and it ain't going to matter an iota with thee above mentioned. 

It's not hypocrisy, it's getting paid to build for a client's wishes.
As we've seen. nothing has been done about distance so his designs make perfect sense for the reality he lives in (an impotent USGA)


and Pete Dye built Long Cove on a shoestring budget(not gobs of money)and I'm prett sure the same is true of TPC-though Tom Doak can speak more to that.
I'm no fan of Pondgrass, bu he built for the client

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()