[John Kavanaugh]

Kalen,


Take me and you for example. Today we can get together and play a fair game with handicaps at any course in the world. If bifurcation occurs I don't see how that can happen if you choose one route and I choose another. I promise you that I will go the route chosen by my friends with handicaps lower than mine, not higher.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,


Take me and you for example. Today we can get together and play a fair game with handicaps at any course in the world. If bifurcation occurs I don't see how that can happen if you choose one route and I choose another. I promise you that I will go the route chosen by my friends with handicaps lower than mine, not higher.

John,


If you wanted to play with a "Pro" ball, that would be entirely up to you.  Just like you can choose to play with Hickories and an old ballata ball right now if you wanted to as well.


This is the point, our match would be affected in no way, shape, or form, by bifurcation rules that apply just to the pros...

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm sure as hell at least going to play the same ball that the local college players use and I promise you that will be the pro ball. I take pride in kicking their ass even if they can hit it 80 yds past me. What serious golfer doesn't take pride in hitting great shots with standard equipment.


I refuse to become a second class citizen at my own course just because we live in an everyone gets a trophy world. Not in my gates!!!

[Kalen Braley]

I'm sure as hell at least going to play the same ball that the local college players use and I promise you that will be the pro ball. I take pride in kicking their ass even if they can hit it 80 yds past me. What serious golfer doesn't take pride in hitting great shots with standard equipment.


I refuse to become a second class citizen at my own course just because we live in an everyone gets a trophy world. Not in my gates!!!

John,


Whatever floats your boat...


P.S.  Good luck trying to define what "standard equipment" is to this group. I'm guessing there are many who think anything new in the last 30-60 years is an offense to the golf gods... 

[John Kavanaugh]

As illustrated above bifurcation will drive a wedge between serious and recreational golfers.

[JJShanley]

Someone described the ProV1 as the 1998 Pinnacle with a Urethane cover.  Can you produce a ProV1 that doesn't go as far, or would a rollback involve going back to the wound ball?

[Terry Lavin]

I had a longer post with several quoted pieces, but since Terry saw fit to go ad hominem, I'll try something different.

You're right, I went ad hominem after you went ad nauseum.  I shouldn't have sent that and I've deleted it. 

[Mike Bowen]

I'm sure as hell at least going to play the same ball that the local college players use and I promise you that will be the pro ball. I take pride in kicking their ass even if they can hit it 80 yds past me. What serious golfer doesn't take pride in hitting great shots with standard equipment.


I refuse to become a second class citizen at my own course just because we live in an everyone gets a trophy world. Not in my gates!!!

This is the way a lot of golfers would feel.  If they decide to bifurcate, you will see the majority of serious golfers play by the pro equipment standards.  Golfers love the idea of playing by the same standards as the professionals.  Illegal equipment does not sell for this same reason.

[JMEvensky]

As illustrated above bifurcation will drive a wedge between serious and recreational golfers.

I agree with this--to an extent. I think that wedge has always existed (Vaseline,Polaris golf balls,etc.), but it's always been winked at and dismissed as irrelevant to "real" golfers.


De facto bifurcation removes any pretense that we're all trying to play the same sport.


That said, per the Goodale Theory Of Bifurcation Leading Back To Unification (tm), after a couple of years, the only people not playing the PGAT equipment would be the same guys who used to put Vaseline on their drivers. Serious golfers would insist on it all the way down to the local club Member-Guest.

[Rich Goodale]

As illustrated above bifurcation will drive a wedge between serious and recreational golfers.

John


In my experience, there has always been a wedge between serious and recreational athletes, under unification, or even bifurcation (or tri-, quadri-, or quinti-, -furcation, etc, etc.), and that wedge is ability.  Golf used to be a leveller, as the player of lower ability could get lucky and beat the player of higher ability off scratch from time to time.  No more.  Just like baseball, basketball, tennis, sailing, hockey, bowling, snooker, etc., etc., etc.  Enjoy the walk when you play golf or the cardio benefits of tennis, or the fresh air of sailing, but don't make the mistake of thinking that you are playing the same game against players of greater ability just because some association assigns you a handicap.


And, most importantly, unification is f***ing up our beautiful golf courses.

[jeffwarne]

I had a longer post with several quoted pieces, but since Terry saw fit to go ad hominem, I'll try something different.

My style of posting is how my brain works. I like to respond directly to people, rather than to make vague statements without quotes. I like facts, not conjecture based on personal feelings. I've got a background in the sciences, and am convinced by data, not what something "seems like" to someone else.

But I'll try it differently this time. No Just one quotes. No direct challenges.

Jason, five of the top 10 is interesting, but it's less compelling if 5 of the top 10 becomes 8 of the top 50, know what I mean? It's also less compelling if one of the courses that lengthened went from 6300 yards to 6550. Signifiant increase? Yes. But also likely well overdue, as 6300 yards was fairly short (for lower handicappers) in the 1960s. I'm not saying you or anyone else is at all wrong… I'm just saying I've yet to see any actual data on this beyond more than just a few small sets.

Sean_A, I liked a lot of what you said just recently. If people think that too many courses are having to build new tee boxes NOW, what will they think when a golf course that played 6000 yards plays 7500 yards after a 20% roll-back, and the course has to build new tees at 4800 yards, 4500 yards, and 4200 yards, while letting their 6000, 6300, and 6700 yard tees go out to pasture? Yes, those players who were playing at 6700 yards can move up to the existing 5400 yard tees, but everyone else will either be faced with a MUCH more difficult game or the course will have to add multiple new FORWARD tees.

I teach some women who will never carry the ball 160+ yards. Golf is already too difficult for them. Seniors. Children. Making the game MORE difficult hardly seems like the way to grow the game.

I've said more than a few times that 6500 yards is probably plenty for 95% of golfers. Why so many people care about what a tiny fraction of golfers - the game's best - are doing is beyond me. That's the first stumbling block I've had. I polled the golfers on my site whether they think there's a "problem" with the ball to begin with. Whether they think PGA Tour players hitting the ball too far is a "problem" for all of golf. Over 77% as of now say "not a problem."

Why do we care so much if Newport Country Club can't host a U.S. Open? Some other courses can't host U.S. Opens, but often if you get to the real reason, it's more about logistics - room for parking, corporate tents, etc. - than it is about the golf course. Oakmont still hosts U.S. Opens. The Honda Classic just saw -8 as the winning score in good weather from 7100 yards. No, I'm not saying PGA National is set up how I'd like to see every courses set up, but courses that hosted majors were tricked up in the past, too.

I agree that you're not going to find a complete lack of bias anywhere. Tom Doak has a bias. Golf Digest has a bias. I have a bias. Everyone here has a bias, and for many, it's simply based on how they think golf "should" be played. I think a lot of people just think golf should be played how it was when they had their best years.

My first set of clubs were persimmon and muscleback and I played balata balls with steel spikes. The game was freaking HARD. It's more enjoyable now, and beginners can get into the sport more easily now. Clubheads are bigger. Weigh less. They don't have to choose between playing a ball that feels like a rock or one that "smiles" at you after you mishit it one time.

Pace of play is a concern, absolutely. But pace of play still, IMO, has MUCH more to do with how players play the game, not the distance the ball travels.

Jeff, c'mon man… Not only did Jim correctly call you out for pushing the idea that the golf ball is "unregulated," you still don't seem to acknowledge that if you "rolled back" to even 1988 standards… the modern Pro V1 would still be legal. Pros in 1998 or 1988 had the distance available to them then, they just were forced to make a choice between control and distance. They opted for control. But if you took a 1988 Pinnacle core, slapped a thin soft mantle and urethane cover on it… voila! Pro V1! Legal and conforming.

Golfers willingly gave up about 15 of those 25 yards. The other 10 come from longer, lighter, larger clubheads. Increased fitness. Increased understanding of launch conditions. Better agronomy.

Players swing faster now!

Distance on the PGA Tour has - as far as the ball is concerned - basically plateaued. Jason's "1 yard per year since 2002" isn't correct. It's below 1 yard per year. Nor will it continue at an increased rate for the next 25 years. His fears are completely unfounded. As with any scientific advancement, there's an instant burst (2000-2001), and then the pace of growth slows until it plateaus, until the next advancement. But there won't be a "next advancement" because the rules won't allow it. The golf ball is at the limits of the rules right now. They've done it - they've given the players all the control they want with their irons while producing 2000-3000 RPM with the driver.

The only way players can hit the ball farther than they do now? By swinging the clubhead faster. Which, Jason, has also occurred in the last 15 years. You can't really regulate that, nor can you blame the ball. Golfers are better athletes now than they were in 1988.

The USGA has driver limitations of length (48"), clubhead size (460cc), and coefficient of restitution (0.83) for quite some time. Hard to see how these guys are continuing to get distance gains.  The ball is regulated (not sure how this is debatable) and perhaps shafts and material science are what I would think.  In addition to the indian itself not the arrow so to speak, getting bigger, faster and stronger.

They just swing faster these days. Yep.

Kalen, I'm opposed to all roll-backs at this point, but I'm opposed EVEN MORE to bifurcation. I'm with Jim on that: bifurcation is a non-starter IMO.

And don't mention other sports. There's a much clearer separation point there. We have that sort of "bifurcation" in golf, too: they play different tees. But unlike in golf, the NFL doesn't have someone enter and make it through a qualifier while in high school to get to play in the Super Bowl. The lines in other sports are significantly clearer than they are in golf, where college players will play in PGA Tour stops, amateurs will compete in qualifiers and then ultimately the U.S. Open, and so on.

There's a LOT more to say against the idea of bifurcation, but that argument has also been had a thousand times, so I'm going to try to resist having it again in this topic.

P.S. Jack won the long drive contest at the PGA Championship in 1963 by hitting the ball 341 yards. Jason Kokrak won it in 2017 with a drive of… 321 yards. Some people seem to act like Jack was a peashooter. Heck, Bobby Jones hit the occasional 300 yarder.

Agreed!-Jack was certainly no pea shooter!


"Nor will it continue at an increased rate for the next 25 years. His fears are completely unfounded."

Got any stock market tips?

I've really been trying to keep this out of the equation but you have brought it repeatedly that no course in Erie has lengthened.
Perhaps my anecdotal research is biased or too small of a sampling area (about 30-60 courses a year in multiple regions and countries)
and I generally avoid big name and championship holding courses like the plague(preferring smaller gems)
but I can guarantee you that if you increased your sample size you'd see it's a lot more common than you think.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I just re-read this entire thread this morning, and maybe I missed it, but in your opinion what are the RATIONAL arguments against bifurcation?  I see a lot of anecdotal stories, by JK and others.

They've been posted a bunch of times. This feels off topic for this post, so I'm not going to get into it. This discussion is about "journalism and the equipment debate." There are other topics where arguments against bifurcation have been made.

But, briefly, one of the points addresses your second paragraph, too: Roughly 10,000 people attempted to qualify for the U.S. Open. That makes for a blurry line. That line is not nearly as clear as it is in other sports: MLB, NFL, etc. This makes bifurcation a MUCH more difficult proposition. Also, note the reaction illegal balls currently get, as well as the ERC II. Golfers don't seem to want to play "different" stuff. (In the interim I see others have made similar points.)

Terry, man, please either address the points I make, even one or two of them, or just scroll right on past.

Got any stock market tips?

I'd happily make such a wager with you, Jeff. It hasn't gone up a yard per year over the last 15; there's no evidence to support the idea that it will go up a yard per year for the next 25. None.

I can guarantee you that if you increased your sample size you'd see it's a lot more common than you think.

You can't possibly know what I think because I've never shared an actual number. I think more than 1% of the world's golf courses have added significant yardage in the last 15 years, but fewer than 50%. That's as specific as I've ever gotten, and it's not specific at all. I've never tried to come up with an actual number, because it'd be a guess, just like the one you're making.

I have repeatedly asked if anyone has any actual data on this. Hard information. "Courses are having to expand and add tees and spend money!" is a reason commonly cited by those who feel the ball needs to be rolled back. And, rather than just take their word for it, I'm simply asking for actual data. How many courses? How much money? From what yardage to what yardage? Why?

[George Pazin]

John K,


How much commonality is there between you and Kalen currently? You and me? Kalen and me?


Playing with handicaps against people on establish those handicaps on different courses, with different peer review, is already fairly capricious. Would introducing another ball warp it that much more? Playing straight up, well, you face pretty much the same issues.


------


The argument for rollback boils down to one thing to me, personally. I don't like seeing classic courses repeatedly altered to chase the big hitters. If someone could convince the people in charge - at the clubs, and at the USGA/R&A - to ignore the young bucks and not make the changes, I'd be more than happy to sign on to one ball and no rollback forever. The fact that a guy half a foot taller, 20 years younger, and one helluva fitter than me outdrives me by 50+ yards doesn't keep me up at night. It doesn't actually affect me at all.


Until they start ripping up classic courses. Or only build new courses that are 7500+ yards.


Then it affects EVERYONE. It doesn't much matter which tees you play if the course has been disfigured to "defend par" against 0.00001% of golfers, or stretched to 7500-8000 yards and end up being unwalkable, in any realistic sense of the word.



The "what date do you roll it back to" is kinda silly, if you ask me. Dial it (ODS) back 10% and see what happens. I doubt it would be armageddon, but I could be wrong. I just can't imagine people are tuning in or tuning out based on a 300 yard drive, versus a 330 yard drive, versus a 285 drive. You can't tell anything based on TV anyways, you're simply accepting a number.


Bifurcation? Is that armageddon? Again, I kinda doubt it, but I could be wrong. If you want to play in tournaments, these are the ball specs, if you don't, these are the ball specs. I'd be a little surprised if that caused armageddon, but if anyone would care to explain why, I'm all ears.


If Kalen and I were playing a match under ball X's specs, and John K and Tour Pro Q were playing under another, in the very same foursome, what exactly is the problem? Aside from John's general disdain for me and occasional disdain for Kalen, I mean... I'm a reasonable person, open to change, please explain to me the problem.


And, most importantly, unification is f***ing up our beautiful golf courses. - Rich G

[Jeff Schley]

The argument for rollback boils down to one thing to me, personally. I don't like seeing classic courses repeatedly altered to chase the big hitters. If someone could convince the people in charge - at the clubs, and at the USGA/R&A - to ignore the young bucks and not make the changes, I'd be more than happy to sign on to one ball and no rollback forever.


And, most importantly, unification is f***ing up our beautiful golf courses. - Rich G

This is my biggest concern as well. Keep the gems the gems, as in antiques you don't want to polish off the weathered finish as it decreases the value.

[Kalen Braley]

George,


Very well said on all points. 


It is interesting to note, that 99.9% of golfers already play with different balls.... against each other...the horror!! But not everyone plays a top of the line Titleist.  There are Top Flites, Pinnacles, TaylorMades,  Callaways,  etc,  etc, etc, all with different attributes,  used by millions of golfers ever day in informal and more formal competitive setups.


I don't see any Armageddon from all that.  Heaven forbid we introduce one more ball and induce world ending mass pandemonium! 

[Mike_Clayton]

What most American's don't realise, or certainly don't think about now, is the game was bifurcated for years with big and small balls.
We - outside of US,Canada,Mexico and I assume Sth America -  all started playing the small ball and when Nicklaus,Palmer and Player came down they all took up the chance to drive 20 yards further.
Then, it became apparent the 1.68 inch ball would become mandatory in professional events. The 1974 Open Championship was the first to mandate the big ball.
Some players in Australian events started to use the big ball - giving up the distance advantage for the bigger picture which was if they were going to play overseas they would have to learn to play the big one.
For a time amateur events had players using a mix of balls and when I won the 1978 Australian Am I was the only one using the big ball.
I think it was compulsory on the Australian and European Tours by then.
Amateurs played both until 1983 when the small ball was finally extinct. - and in theory - every amateur in the country - and in Britain and Europe - gave up the kind of yardage they would give up now if the ball was rolled back.
Women maybe lost a few yards but the better the player the more they lost.
It was no big deal.No one gave up golf because they lost a few yards. They all adapted. Life went on and it still will if the same thing America forced on the rest of the world happened to American golfers.
When Australia had a mass shooting two decades ago the Prime Minister took away a lot of guns. We have not had one since and people - despite some protest - saw it as reasonable and sensible.
America seems different - Don't take our guns and don't take our 30 yards.
And believe me changing to a ball which goes a little shorter will be a lot easier than changing to a different sized ball.

[JESII]

Mike - did the large ball have benefits over the small ball? Control perhaps? Sincere question as I don’t know.




Was Australia founded as a country with the right to bear arms as a critical right afforded to every citizen? Also a sincere question.

[Mike Bowen]

This weeks WGC in Mexico is a nice preview for how the game will look in another 20 years if we continue on the same trajectory as the last 20 years.

[Jeff_Brauer]

While some lament the cost of new back tees at many courses, I would like to point out that most often, it gets done when they are renovating all or some of the course anyway.  Sometimes the earthmoving is done simultaneously with other, like lake expansion or what not, obscuring and reducing the cost.


Second, even as a stand alone project or ground more or less suited to the tee, a 20 x 20 back tee (all that is required....some would say 15 x 15 feet is all that is required to distribute wear given how few actually use them), it is a $10-20K project per tee, less if all 18 were done, more if in union territory.


The reality of it is, finding 5-12 areas for back tees just doesn't cost that much and is a worthy investment if it keeps newer, younger, longer hitting members coming to the club or public course.  If they start moving holes around to get crazy length, well that is a different story, but again, unless you were going after a major tournament, it seems rare and never justified if done. 


Sometimes it comes down to "We can gain 200 yards for $40K, but 600 yards will cost $1.5M"  (No kidding, those kinds of numbers are from a recent master plan study)  9 out of 10 take 200 yards for $40K......

[JESII]

This weeks WGC in Mexico is a nice preview for how the game will look in another 20 years if we continue on the same trajectory as the last 20 years.

Mike, do you think if the Tour played a course like the one this week, every week, they would voluntarily roll themselves back simply by selecting softer balls that will curve more and react better on wedges and pitches?


I do.



Who do you think would thrive in that environment, Luke Donald or Brooks Koepka?

[Mike Bowen]

This weeks WGC in Mexico is a nice preview for how the game will look in another 20 years if we continue on the same trajectory as the last 20 years.

Mike, do you think if the Tour played a course like the one this week, every week, they would voluntarily roll themselves back simply by selecting softer balls that will curve more and react better on wedges and pitches?


I do.



Who do you think would thrive in that environment, Luke Donald or Brooks Koepka?

The current balls that spin more are not shorter than the less spinning versions.  You might see a different set of elite players but I doubt it would change very much.  This claustrophobic type of course is not for me.

[JESII]

Mike, I'm suggesting that if they played this course (or one similar) every week, Dustin Johnson would ask Taylor Made to make him a ball that curved more and was softer on short shots...if it went shorter, he wouldn't care.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It was no big deal.No one game up golf because they lost a few yards.

I'm struggling to understand how a 20% rollback (over 60 yards for the Dustin Johnsons of the world, over 50 yards from my tee shots) and "a few yards" are equivalent. (Edit: I'm not at all saying that you said they were equivalent, that's my word, but people aren't talking about dialing the ball back "a few yards." That wouldn't even be worth the effort. They're talking about 20% or so. One poster here even said 30% once, IIRC.)

This weeks WGC in Mexico is a nice preview for how the game will look in another 20 years if we continue on the same trajectory as the last 20 years.

The ball goes 15-18% farther at that course according to everything I've read. In the last 20 years, the longest and median drivers on the PGA Tour have gained about 5% and 9% respectively, the bulk of which came in the years 2000 or 2001 with the introduction of the solid core golf ball. In the last 15 years, they've gained under 1 yard per year (while players have increased their clubhead speed about 3 MPH, IIRC), so I think that statement is not at all supported by the facts.

[JMEvensky]

The reality of it is, finding 5-12 areas for back tees just doesn't cost that much and is a worthy investment if it keeps newer, younger, longer hitting members coming to the club or public course.  If they start moving holes around to get crazy length, well that is a different story, but again, unless you were going after a major tournament, it seems rare and never justified if done. 

Jeff B., this is undeniably true. But here's a unintended consequence:


A hypothetical hole plays 450 yards from the black tee markers and 400 from the blue. We think the hole needs lengthening so we spend a few thousand for a small tee box and now we can set the black tees at 500 yards. Rather than leave an unused tee pad, frequently the club will move the blue tees back somewhere near the old black tees at ~450 yards. Multiply that by 6 or 8 new back tees and you've also lengthened the course substantially for people who certainly don't need to be playing a longer golf course.


I concede the obvious easy fixes--but sometimes those fixes aren't so easy, especially when dues paying members with egos are involved. Some members think their manhood is being impugned if you ask them to play 2 tee pads up--even if it's the exact same course they're used to playing.

[Thomas Dai]

I’m sure many of us posting herein recall the early generation of mass produced metal drivers of the late 1980’s and the way they performed in comparison to the steel shafted persimmon drivers we’d been using for decades. Some of the new metals had steel shafts, some graphite shafts, some titanium shafts or later on even ceramic shafts.

However, the first time I recall a club coming along that was heavily highlighted for giving extra distance was the Bridgestone-J, a deep faced metal driver that attracts attention when Ray Floyd used one at the Masters circa 1990, and which Jumbo Osaki had been already using on the Japanese Tour.

It, and deep faced equivalents made by other manufacturers, were all the rage for a while. But the benefit was said to be through extra roll not through longer flight. There was even a deep faced titanium headed driver made by Mizuno in the early/mid 1990’s, although it was hellishly expensive. None of these were jumbo heads though, being more traditional in overall size, and the ball they hit, yee olde wound balata.

How drivers have changed.

Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()