[Mike_Clayton]

Rob


+1


What the administration need to do is run a test with the current ball and a rolled back ball with a club swung at 70mph and every 1 mph all the way through to 130 to show how much everyone is going to lose.


Under 100 my guess is hardly anything at all - certainly nothing noticeable and nothing that would affect a score. Or as Phil Blackmar once said 'does it really make any difference if you shoot 86 or 88?'


If that determines your enjoyment - or not - of the game you're playing it for the wrong reasons.

[Thomas Dai]

I wonder what the ultimate outcome was from this incident? Lots of media etc at the time but it things then seemed to go quiet  - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,66421.25.html
A golf ball can be an incoming missile and these days they travel a long, long way and when you can't see them coming or going or land ......
atb

[Sean_A]

Rob

+1

What the administration need to do is run a test with the current ball and a rolled back ball with a club swung at 70mph and every 1 mph all the way through to 130 to show how much everyone is going to lose.

Under 100 my guess is hardly anything at all - certainly nothing noticeable and nothing that would affect a score. Or as Phil Blackmar once said 'does it really make any difference if you shoot 86 or 88?'

If that determines your enjoyment - or not - of the game you're playing it for the wrong reasons.

Mike


Not to single you out, but your last line is part of the problem with some rollbackers.  The language can come across as smug and superior.  Telling a guy he plays golf for the wrong reasons is a sure way to switch him off to your argument.


In any case, it sounds like some rollbackers are really bifurcationists?  Or am I misreading?


Ciao 

[Kyle Harris]

Instead of waiting for someone to implement a rollback, what’s preventing these guys from playing balls and equipment that aren’t tricked out/juiced? 


Nothing really makes a statement than leading by example.

Demand.


Which they are trying to create.


Perhaps out of my non-existant Florida basement I'll start a "Let Me Walk" Coalition to create the same.

[Matthew Mollica]

… part of the problem with some rollbackers.  The language can come across as smug and superior.  Telling a guy he plays golf for the wrong reasons is a sure way to switch him off to your argument.

In any case, it sounds like some rollbackers are really bifurcationists?  Or am I misreading?

Ciao

Sean - I agree that those of us in favor of a rollback can have the tendency to sound holier than thou. I know I fight that tendency. I hope I am winning the fight. The game is a broad church and the Rollback Alliance effort needs to be inclusive and positive - you're not the only one to tell me that this week. A very important point.


And yes - some after a rollback are in favor of bifurcation, while others prefer a universal rollback.


John K - The Bandon Test is a good yardstick. That comment has made me think - I am of the opinion that poorly designed courses quite likely magnify the ills of technological advancements in golf in many instances. Some good courses invariably neuter, to some extent, the harmful effects of burgeoning ball distance on the game. Those that demand great thought, are firm, and demand accuracy, and especially so in the case of Bandon, are also built a long way from suburban sprawl and roads, aren't at the forefront of my mind when I ponder this issue of distance.



And Jim Sullivan - to your question of me as to what I'd say to Jay Monaghan and Keith Pelley if I were to speak with them on this topic? Well, they're employees of the respective Tours. High profile, high ranking, and intelligent employees, but employees nonetheless. And both Tours are member run organisations. They essentially do what the pro players want them to do. I suspect the Tours would not fight a rollback if they thought the ball and equipment companies were happy with it, seeing they are the largest single paymaster of the players. And the Tours would presumably also be OK proceeding down this path if they thought they could make money off it, and not lose key sponsors.


Matthew

[Derek_Duncan]

In any case, it sounds like some rollbackers are really bifurcationists?  Or am I misreading?


Ciao

Sean,


I signed on as a Rollback pilot, but I am actually for bifurcation out of all the options.


As has been brought up, I generally don't care what professionals shoot in their tournaments -- the low scoring has to do with other things than equipment. But I am concerned the length professionals drive the ball is going to increase and at some future point, with average 350- to 400-yard drives, golf ceases to become golf as we know it.


What do you do with courses at that point? Doesn't it continue to shrink the venues that can host tournaments? And when you get this far down the line, how is the entertainment value of the product not threatened?


Not to sound dramatic but this might be the last chance to install a set of rules or regulations for professional golf that will help maintain the integrity of the equipment, the courses they play and the professional product overall.


For everyone else, play whatever you like.

[Mike_Clayton]

Rob

+1

What the administration need to do is run a test with the current ball and a rolled back ball with a club swung at 70mph and every 1 mph all the way through to 130 to show how much everyone is going to lose.

Under 100 my guess is hardly anything at all - certainly nothing noticeable and nothing that would affect a score. Or as Phil Blackmar once said 'does it really make any difference if you shoot 86 or 88?'



If that determines your enjoyment - or not - of the game you're playing it for the wrong reasons.

Mike


Not to single you out, but your last line is part of the problem with some rollbackers.  The language can come across as smug and superior.  Telling a guy he plays golf for the wrong reasons is a sure way to switch him off to your argument.


In any case, it sounds like some rollbackers are really bifurcationists?  Or am I misreading?


Ciao

Sean,


Apologies if it came across that way. My only point was there is very little difference between shooting 88 and 86 - or at least that was Phil's point - and the way the anti- rollbackers come across it seems that is the some of them frame the debate.  Are those few extra yards  really going to make that much difference to their enjoyment?
For most surely the enjoyment of the game comes from the company, the golf course and the shots you hit. The ball going a little less far shouldn't diminish any of those factors and it it does then I think it's missing the point of the game.

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,


To be fair - to the golfer shooting 86 or 88 there is exactly the same difference between the golfer shooting 62 or 64.


Two shots.

The issues seems to be whether or not those two shots are worth $5 in a match or $500,000 in a tournament. To both groups, that is important.

[JESII]

I don't know Kyle, I think the equipment enables the Tour level player to do a lot more that makes the 62 possible whereas the 12 handicapper has so many other variables in their round that picking up (or losing) 10 or 20 yards off the tee would be a very small factor in that result...especially when a different set of tees is a very easy solution.

[Kyle Harris]

I don't know Kyle, I think the equipment enables the Tour level player to do a lot more that makes the 62 possible whereas the 12 handicapper has so many other variables in their round that picking up (or losing) 10 or 20 yards off the tee would be a very small factor in that result...especially when a different set of tees is a very easy solution.

But this, too, works both ways. I agree with the idea but the rhetoric still loses steam because it applies equally for everybody. Shorter tees on the one extreme vs. longer tees on the other.

The question to me is whether or not a rollback becomes the "Nixon Shock" for the currency of the game: the stroke.

[Mark Pritchett]

The USGA rolled back grooves a few years ago, how did that workout? 

[Thomas Dai]

Rollback isn’t just about scoring and other aspects within the game. There’s a lot more at stake for the game than just that. Consider land use, water usage and the like in the future.

Mike Cirba in his interview with Ran in April perceptively said this -

“A game dependent on so much of the earth’s acreage on a shrinking planet with finite resources is inevitably going to be on the wrong side of history and a game where the balls and implements aren’t effectively controlled within certain parameters befitting the challenge is similarly going to become antiquated, much as that may seem counter-intuitive.”

When golf started to become popular, for ease of discussion let’s say circa 1900, the population of the world was about 1.7 billion. It’s now about 7.7 billion.

Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

With wind speeds increasing due to climate change this is hardly the time to ask golfers to play with a weaker ball.


Any of us who have played at all know that the key to hitting a shot during windy conditions is solid contact. A 20% roll back in laboratory conditions will be far worse in the field.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/amp/climate-change-could-bring-stronger-winds-more-wind-power.html

[Sean_A]

In any case, it sounds like some rollbackers are really bifurcationists?  Or am I misreading?

Ciao

Sean,

I signed on as a Rollback pilot, but I am actually for bifurcation out of all the options.

As has been brought up, I generally don't care what professionals shoot in their tournaments -- the low scoring has to do with other things than equipment. But I am concerned the length professionals drive the ball is going to increase and at some future point, with average 350- to 400-yard drives, golf ceases to become golf as we know it.

What do you do with courses at that point? Doesn't it continue to shrink the venues that can host tournaments? And when you get this far down the line, how is the entertainment value of the product not threatened?

Not to sound dramatic but this might be the last chance to install a set of rules or regulations for professional golf that will help maintain the integrity of the equipment, the courses they play and the professional product overall.

For everyone else, play whatever you like.

Derek

I understand and share the concerns of roll backers, but perhaps not to the same degree. 

Like you, I am not overly concerned about professionals.  It is entirely up to them to figure out how to make their product entertaining and a viable product.  That said, I think, it would be best for "golf" if pros and elite level amateurs played rolled back equipment...more than just the ball.  If only because it would seem clubs, owners and developers seem incapable of ignoring elite players when it comes to the custodianship of courses.  I would also like to see a club loft limit of something like between 17 to 50 degrees (putter excepted) as well....and 8 clubs max.  Therefore, I do believe the USGA and R&A should act, hopefully in concert with professional tours etc. 

I am very much against a total roll back because I am not convinced the effects will be next to nothing for non-elite amateurs, plus I am not convinced it is necessary. 

Mike

No worries on my part, but I know there is certainly a backlash against talking heads acting as if they know what is best for all. 

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

The USGA rolled back grooves a few years ago, how did that workout?

Actually that was bifurcation as pre 2010 grooves are legal until 2024, unless specifically banned as a condition of competition.


Their (misplaced) intent was that players would fear the rough and fliers and make more conservative choices off the tee,
thereby their (yet again) misguided attempts to duck the real problem of club and ball tech outpacing reality and judgement at the USGA.
and hence, bomb and gouge was born when players realized a wedge flier from the rough was easier than a 7 iron from the fairway.


But hey., we got no anchoring (if you X-ray Bernhard and McCarron I'm sure you'll see  their "intent" is not to anchor-better yet just ask 'em) knee high drops and pins going in and out so why not fiddle more why Rome is burning and  evidently Pickleball (rolled back tennis) is flourishing.
Besides, irons only ranges are really cool (auto rollback)unless of course you'd like to hit driver on a "driving" range.
I'd say 3/4 of the driving ranges in the northeast are that now-wasn't the case 20 years ago, but all it takes is an 18 year old with a Twistface and a Pinnacle and look out.


Then there are the simplified rules...
Name one person who knows the rules better now than they did a year ago.
I'd bet not one person who didn't bother to learn the rules pre revision that would suddenly bother to learn them now that they're "simplfied", while the thousands who did know them are simply confused and bemused.

[John Kavanaugh]

If you really want to change the game for the long hitters simply institute an off sides rule like soccer. Hit the ball past a certain spot, say 330 yds out and you are off sides, 1 stroke penalty. It will only harm those who hit the ball like you no longer can.


Cost: A can a spray paint.

[JESII]

The groove rule is instructive to me in that it demonstrates that the manufacturer's can be quite smart at delivering conforming equipment to their players that meets a "new" standard.


I suspect that within a couple years of an across the board rollback of some sort, the top players on Tour will hit the ball just as far as they do today.  If the reward is there, they will find a way.


If I am correct, what would have been gained?

[John Kavanaugh]

Once the off sides rule is instituted elite golfers will look for club configurations focused on accuracy over distance. Golfers like Rory may carry one less wood and one more wedge. Ball manufacturers will introduce scoring balls over distance balls. It's everything the rollbackers want without hurting anyone.


For the pure strategist and using another soccer reference the first off sides in a round would be a yellow card warning with a one stroke red card penalty for the rest. Sometimes we want the long baller to give it a rip. Now it will be limited to once a round.

[JESII]

Forget your goofy offsides rule...just play courses at 6500 yards with rock hard funky little greens...DJ will beg for an old balata and the rest will take care of itself.

[Derek_Duncan]

Derek

I understand and share the concerns of roll backers, but perhaps not to the same degree. 

Like you, I am not overly concerned about professionals.  It is entirely up to them to figure out how to make their product entertaining and a viable product.  That said, I think, it would be best for "golf" if pros and elite level amateurs played rolled back equipment...more than just the ball.  If only because it would seem clubs, owners and developers seem incapable of ignoring elite players when it comes to the custodianship of courses.  I would also like to see a club loft limit of something like between 17 to 50 degrees (putter excepted) as well....and 8 clubs max.  Therefore, I do believe the USGA and R&A should act, hopefully in concert with professional tours etc. 

I am very much against a total roll back because I am not convinced the effects will be next to nothing for non-elite amateurs, plus I am not convinced it is necessary. 

Mike

No worries on my part, but I know there is certainly a backlash against talking heads acting as if they know what is best for all. 

Ciao

Sean, I'd be on board with everything you said. And my definition of bifurcation or whatever it's to be called would certainly address things beside the ball, specifically the driver.

[John Kavanaugh]

Forget your goofy offsides rule...just play courses at 6500 yards with rock hard funky little greens...DJ will beg for an old balata and the rest will take care of itself.

That isn't possible without making drastic changes to existing courses with tournament infrastructure.

[Kalen Braley]

Barney,


I like where you're going with this one.  But perhaps just grow swaths of US Open-like rough to limit how far they can hit it...a bit like 15 at Muirfield Village.  Then just mow it back down after the tourney.

[jeffwarne]

Plenty of goofy ways to thwart long hitters, but that's not the objective.
Long driving and even better, long accurate driving, is a skill that historically has and should be rewarded.
The best players always had power, at least in reserve.



Like other sports, I'm just asking the governing bodies (who never cease to regulate in other ridiculous ways)to properly regulate the technology advancements of the equipment, like other sports do.
Should every fly ball be a home run in baseball?


Jim does bring up an interesting point about the groove change tech change being regained within a year or two.
I mean how smart exactly do manufacturers have to be to thwart an organization who butchered the same course twice after vowing it wouldn't happen again(again), etc.....


What many forget is that it's not just the elite hitting it miles, but the athletic that aren't so elite yet hit it 330 quite long and wrong.


Let the longest be the longest-the longest and most skilled will BENEFIT as they will still be bombing it in relation to others, without being reigned in by goofy setups and/or tees miles away from the last green.

[John Kavanaugh]

Isn't offsides in soccer designed to prevent the best athletes from running past everyone and scoring. OfTsides in golf is the exact same principle in that it reigns in athleticism.  I have coined the term ofTsides with a capital T to bring attention to the problems also created through technology.

[Garland Bayley]

Mike,


To be fair - to the golfer shooting 86 or 88 there is exactly the same difference between the golfer shooting 62 or 64.


Two shots.

The issues seems to be whether or not those two shots are worth $5 in a match or $500,000 in a tournament. To both groups, that is important.

If the competitors are playing by the same rules (I&B), the money is not important, because their competitors also shoot higher scores.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()