[Niall C]

As a matter of interest, for all of the rollerbackers on this thread ie. Matthew, Jeff, Ian, Chris Kane, Pete, Mike etc, can you tell me this;


1 - what clubs and balls do you currently use ?


2 - how far back do you want to roll ? eg. hickories and gutta percha or just back to the old balata days ?


Niall

[jeffwarne]

As a matter of interest, for all of the rollerbackers on this thread ie. Matthew, Jeff, Ian, Chris Kane, Pete, Mike etc, can you tell me this;


1 - what clubs and balls do you currently use ?


2 - how far back do you want to roll ? eg. hickories and gutta percha or just back to the old balata days ?


Niall

As a practical matter, I'd say bifurcation works best but...
given the fantasy choice as golf czar?
1. wooden heads (or comparable Taylormadish metal heads from 1980's that mimicked wood performance)
2. balataish spinny balls-Spalding Tour edition or some other synthetic more practical


But a rollback to hickoryish gutta percha distance would make more sense to keep shorter courses viable and provide further safety corridors for the distance gained that HAVE been gained via more actual athleticism, and reduce the space and inputs required-but I accept that might be too big of a leap


I currently play a modern Callaway driver and ball(on Callaway Staff)
Callaway irons and a 20 year old 5 wood as I still attempt(operative word lately) to compete in both regular and Senior events


What I play should not be germaine to the conversation of whether bifurcation or a rollback is good for the game but happy to provide it.

[Ian Andrew]

How far back do you want to roll ?

10% for a drive that goes 250 yds.

Longer player will lose more than 10%
Shorter player will lose less.

The gain was not equal, the reduction will work out the same way.

I've hit the test ball they made in the mid 2000's at an event where they paid players to play it for a day
I was invited to observe and try them out. It feels the same in every respect, but doesn't go as far.


I don't have any equipment that is current ...
I play what I find.

[Mike_Clayton]

As a matter of interest, for all of the rollerbackers on this thread ie. Matthew, Jeff, Ian, Chris Kane, Pete, Mike etc, can you tell me this;


1 - what clubs and balls do you currently use ?


2 - how far back do you want to roll ? eg. hickories and gutta percha or just back to the old balata days ?


Niall


Taylor made frying pan driver. Alternate between my 1958 MacGregor 3 and 4 woods and a Callaway 3 wood and Honma 5 wood
Honma irons. Titleist ball.


The equipment should go back to when the balance between course and player - at the top level - was a fair fight. It was that with persimmon and balata between the era of Hogan and Snead up until the crossover from Norman and Faldo to Tiger. Pre Jones - the first great modern player - the balance was clearly in favour of the course.


The ProV1 was the breakout ball and allied with the massive driver heads and quality graphite shafts the balance swung way in favour of the players.


As John Huggan said we should go back to the time just before they started moving tees back on The Old Course.


10% is about right - so back to when Andy Bean was the tour's longest driver at just under 280. And the real problem is still coming. Wait until you see how far the next generation is going to hit it.

[Garland Bayley]

As a matter of interest, for all of the rollerbackers on this thread ie. Matthew, Jeff, Ian, Chris Kane, Pete, Mike etc, can you tell me this;


1 - what clubs and balls do you currently use ?

My clubs are all built from components usually clearance items. I generally play balls I find. However, I will buy balls for a competition. Most recently I bought TopFlite Gamer for our club championship.
When we played our match at Carne during Buda, I was using my favorite driver. I bought the head for $9.95 (I have 3 of them), and the shaft for $20 to $25. it is 8.5 degrees so I added lead tape to the bottom of the back edge to get the swingweight up and to add loft during the swing. The brand? I don't remember, and no one would recognize it anyway.

2 - how far back do you want to roll ? eg. hickories and gutta percha or just back to the old balata days ?

Limit COR to the COR of persimmon. Allow metal "woods" as I used to shatter the hosels on persimmon woods when I was young. I doubt a metal wood with the COR of persimmon would cave in, but I may be wrong about that. I have broken a graphite shaft during play, but never a steel shaft so I have a slight preference for steel over graphite. Hickory would break too often for my tastes. I don't see the need for 460 cc drivers. Perhaps 230 cc would be a good limit. Tom Wishon once told me that oversized fairway woods never worked out very well, so I doubt there is a need to size limit clubs used to pick the ball off the ground.

I know Jack Nicklaus wants to further rein in initial velocity of the ball. But, I think they should deal with spin first. It seems to me that limiting the ball to two pieces might be the way to go. The break through in ball development was the creation of the 3 piece solid ball. If you want spin to control the ball around the green, you use a softer cover. E.g., Bridgestone produced the two piece e5 (if I remember correctly) with a urethane cover that spun off wedges nearly as well as the three piece balls. Of course it had higher spin rates off driver. Higher spin off driver lets slower swing speeds keep the ball in the air longer, but causes higher swing speeds to produce a ballooning ball flight that fell shorter.


Niall

[Matthew Mollica]

I have several sets of clubs. I’m off 9.


I love hickories and play them over the warmer six months of the year when the ground is firm. The places I play are well suited to those old clubs and the challenge is enjoyable, and the satisfaction of good shots is really something. I also marvel are the skills clubmakers must have possessed decades ago.


I sometimes play a set of 80s equipment  with steel shafts, forged blades, and persimmon. I’ve got a few balata balls remaining and it is fun to go back to the kind of equipment I started out with. I actually find the hickories easier to play than the stuff Arnie, Jack or Seve played  with.


Club competitions, tournaments and medals as well as some social rounds I use reasonably contemporary clubs but not latest models. Titleist 690 irons. Driver is a Titleist 910 and the fairway wood and hybrid are also Titleist. Always use ProV1 balls.


As my friends have heard me say, picking up the modern clubs after a spell with the hickories feels like cheating.


As far as the degree of a rollback, Clayts makes a great point about the Old Course. I’d have it around there too if I was the Czar of golf.


Matt

[Thomas Dai]

I've gone to three sets, or rather half-sets, as I don't bother to carry 14.
I usually rotate which set I use on a game-by-game basis but this does depend on whether I'm playing social golf with others, some holes on my own or a formal competition.

Set 1 - modern frying pan driver, metal fairways, cavity backs.
Set 2 - 1980's-90's persimmons and forged blades
Set 3 - hickories circa 1910 (not replica's)


The most enjoyable to play? Hickories, but I won't use them in the winter nor in the wet.
Most difficult to play? 80's-90's persimmons and blades. More difficult than hickories.
Easiest to play? Modern era.
Most practical? Modern era. They don't bend or snap or go soft if left damp. They don't need much if any care and attention or periodical re-finishing/restoring.


The ball?
Usually the Callaway Chrome Soft. I have some balata Dunlop 65's too. It's not just the greater distance the modern ball achieves but the relative 'straightness' too, especially in the wind.


Conclusion.
Older clubs are great fun but less practical than modern era equipment.
Balata balls cut and go out of round so are less practical than modern balls.
Practicality is important. Playing numbers should not decline.


Rollback.
Ball - for practicality I'd go with modern ball construction but with something like a 20% rollback in distance. I'd go with 20% to allow a margin for future cleverness by ball manufacturers and bigger, stronger people/golfers.
Clubs - again for practicality, I'd reduce the Driver head size to circa 200cc.
As an addition, I'd be keen to see a reduction to say 8 or 9 on the max number of clubs that can be carried. I'd also like to see a limit on tee-peg height.


One other aspect about a rollback - putting and less than full shots constitute the majority of shots played in a round and a distance rollback oughtn't to effect these parts of the game. And if you top or fat a shot, well the club doesn't really matter that much!


Fingers crossed for a rollback but breath not being held.


atb

[Ian Andrew]

For all those who are dead against it. I think you'll be happy in the end.
Personally, I've lost hope.

Just understand that between access to water, rising labor costs, decreasing demand and lawsuits, the game has huge looming issues in and around cities. This will become a game for the wealthy. For many this outcome is fine.

I began in public golf ... that would be a depressing outcome.

[Jason Topp]

As a matter of interest, for all of the rollerbackers on this thread ie. Matthew, Jeff, Ian, Chris Kane, Pete, Mike etc, can you tell me this;


1 - what clubs and balls do you currently use ?


2 - how far back do you want to roll ? eg. hickories and gutta percha or just back to the old balata days ?


Niall

1.  I use the best stuff I can identify for my game that makes sense financially.  I want every advantage I can identify.  I would do that regardless of the equipment rules. 


2.  I would set a standard that results in something like 250 yards of ball flight for an optimized tour average swing speed and adjust those specs as necessary every 5 years to meet the same standard.  My preference would be to do that through the ball rather than through club rules because of the cost of changing out clubs.  A good 7,000 yard course would require the best players to hit a variety of clubs to reach par 4's in regulation after a good tee ball hit with a driver.  This type of standard would preserve the advantage long hitters enjoy while making the dimension requirements for a course remain consistent.

[BHoover]

As some others have said, I have begun playing with different equipment depending on what interests me.


For most of my rounds, I play with my modern equipment. My irons are several years old, but still recent enough to be considered modern. I do appreciate how easy it is to play and score.


But when I want an extra challenge or when playing alone, I pull out the vintage persimmon woods and blades (from the 50s-80s). The excitement comes from trying to hit different shots and appreciating the skill it takes to play well with equipment that is much more difficult to hit well. The really difficult thing has been figuring out which ball to use with vintage clubs. It also has been fun learning how to restore and tinker with these old clubs. They definitely have more character and soul than modern equipment.

[jeffwarne]

Lots of interesting and informative posts here.


I guess what disappoints me is that "rollbackers or bifurcators" are seen as the crazy ones wanting to "change" the game, as opposed to the massive changes we've incurred in the last 25 years, where course alterations, maintenance, setup, safety and simple sustainability are continually compromised.(while participation drops)


Even current PGA Tour players laugh at the recent jumps, and club pros with vested equipment interests continuously speak to me agree things are way out of whack.


Many opponents think it's all good if things just remain where they are, and that most of the increases are behind us-I've been reading and hearing that for 25 + years-especially from the USGA, who would study an exit stairwell while people jumped from upstairs windows....


but damn, first we gotta stop Bernhard Langer and Web Simpson from putting so well, because everybody was altering greens due to their putting dominance.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

Thats a triple amen to that one...although I agree with the long putter rules changes! 

[Joe Zucker]

I think a rollback is a bunch of hot air that would result in very little change in who actually plays the game.  I'm not sure if Mike Clayton mentioned it in this thread, but I've heard him talk about when the switch from the small ball to the big ball happened outside of the US.  I'm too young to have experienced it, but I haven't heard about anyone who stopped playing the game even though they lost 20 yards over night.  So we have a pretty good data point that suggests that people may complain (which I'm guessing they did back then?) but they accept it and move on very quickly.


Secondly, most people aren't very good at golf and they aren't really serious about getting better.  While we all try to shoot the best score we can, I don't think it's the main thing that brings us out.  So we must be playing the game for other reasons, like friendship or being outside for 4 hours, etc.  These parts of the game will be just as much fun after a rollback and I think they are bigger drivers of play.  I doubt there is a measurable difference in fun if you go from shooting 84 to 87 or 96 to 99. People will adjust in a few months and the game will be better for it.

[Dave Doxey]

Jeff.  Many of the “rollbackers” are the same people who push for longer courses, creating the “massive course changes” you mention. That’s what creates the “maintenance, setup, safety and simple sustainability” problems. Leave the courses as they are and problem of increased maintenance and land cost does not occur. It’s the movement to protect par, and keep the scores what they were in the past, that has driven the course changes and the problems that come with that. 

What the pro’s score is not important.  It that is really a concern, make it a penalty to hit the ball over 275 yards

Leave the equipment alone.  Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation.  Equipment rollback would make the game harder for average golfers and accelerate the decrease.

As for safety, how will going to a higher spin ball decrease the off-line shots and address safety?  It would make it worse (JK would get more balls in his pool…). 

[jeffwarne]

Leave the equipment alone.

Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation.  Equipment rollback would make the game harder for average golfers and accelerate the decrease.

 

First of all--nobody's "leaving the equipment alone"
I wish they had, but that ship sails EVERY SINGLE YEAR-it does not remain static.


As to the second sentence, I strongly dispute that.
Can you really prove that some variable slows a decrease in something?
Won't an "average" golfer always be average?(except for those in Lake Wobegone?)
You don't think it's discouraging for club champions and decent club amateurs to be outdriven by 70-100 yards by elite players? as opposed to the 20-50 it used to be?


A more spinny ball may curve more but it's not going as far, so while John may have more balls in his pool, at least the house across the street not even on the course won't get pelted




I'm guessing a guy who suddenly is noticing play is faster because the group in front of them is playing at 6500 yards rather than 7000, and is looking less further off line for balls will notice and appreciate that-and suddenly may play MORE golf because it takes 3:45 hours not 4 and 1/2.

I notice this in the winter when we play up a set of tees when the temperatures is in the 40's and the ball flies 10-15% less.

And the guy who is a club champ can be joined by his college aged son on those same tees, rather than being separated by 500 yards of tee and 75 yards of driving distance.

[Jason Topp]

  Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation. 
 

Dave -


Is this assertion based on data or a gut feeling? 

[Derek_Duncan]

Jeff.  Many of the “rollbackers” are the same people who push for longer courses, creating the “massive course changes” you mention. That’s what creates the “maintenance, setup, safety and simple sustainability” problems. Leave the courses as they are and problem of increased maintenance and land cost does not occur. It’s the movement to protect par, and keep the scores what they were in the past, that has driven the course changes and the problems that come with that. 

What the pro’s score is not important.  It that is really a concern, make it a penalty to hit the ball over 275 yards

Leave the equipment alone.  Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation.  Equipment rollback would make the game harder for average golfers and accelerate the decrease.

As for safety, how will going to a higher spin ball decrease the off-line shots and address safety?  It would make it worse (JK would get more balls in his pool…). 

So many weird thoughts in this post. I'll only address the first one: I can't think of anyone in favor of a rollback who also pushed for longer courses. I'm pretty sure none of the people signed onto the Rollback Alliance do.

[Dave Doxey]

  Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation. 
 

Dave -


Is this assertion based on data or a gut feeling?

Go to your local club. In the bar ask everyone to raise their hand is they want harder to hit clubs, or loss of distance on their shots.


I play with a lot of seniors who are thankful that equipment improvements have slowed the decline of their games.  I've also seen many give up the game due to a decline.  It stands to reason that hastening that decline would lead to hastening departures from the game.

[Jason Topp]

  Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation. 
 

Dave -


Is this assertion based on data or a gut feeling?

Go to your local club. In the bar ask everyone to raise their hand is they want harder to hit clubs, or loss of distance on their shots.


I play with a lot of seniors who are thankful that equipment improvements have slowed the decline of their games.  I've also seen many give up the game due to a decline.  It stands to reason that hastening that decline would lead to hastening departures from the game.

Or . . . the fact that the cost of a premium driver today is roughly the same as the cost of an entire set before equipment exploded might have had the opposite effect.


I truly do not know what perspective is correct.  For that reason, I do not favor going back to persimmon woods or something similar.  I do not see such an approach being accepted by the public or improving the game significantly.   The game is still difficult. 


 

[jeffwarne]

  Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation. 
 

Dave -


Is this assertion based on data or a gut feeling?

Go to your local club. In the bar ask everyone to raise their hand is they want harder to hit clubs, or loss of distance on their shots.

Go to that same bar and ask everyone if they'd like to play 30 minute faster rounds..by walking shorted distances and searching for less balls (the targets are still the same size)


and I would argue that that "decline" you speak of with the seniors is more noticeable and more depressing when they are outdriven by 150-200 yards by someone with high speed who maximizes rebound effect and optimizes distance via multilayer balls that add distance off drivers and spin off wedges,
and less noticeable years ago when the gap wasn't so great due to low spin balls being chosen by low speed players and high spin balls being chosen by high speed players.


Besides, who said "hard to hit clubs" have to be mandated?
Lots of ways to come at this without normaliziing 350 yard drives by high speed players

[Thomas Dai]

As some have attempted to allude to above and elsewhere, there’s a much bigger picture than scoring and whether players in the bar want easier to hit clubs, distance etc. Folks play golf for many reasons other than score, ease of play and distance and will continue to do so.


A golf course though, takes up a big footprint on the ground. The further the ball goes, irrespective of why, the greater the footprint needed (and the greater the surrounding safety zone).


There are now approx 7.5 billion people in the world. All 7.5 billion, and their increasing by the day offspring, want somewhere to live, water to drink, clean, cook and land and water to grow and irrigate crops.


Do golfers seriously think the 7.5 billion and their increasing by the day offspring give a damn about golf?


When push comes to shove the offspring of the current 7.5 billion will if necessary pull down the fences, invade and squat on our precious golf courses, tap into the irrigation systems and grow crops on the greens and fairways.
Okay, I’m being deliberately provocative here to make a point but ultimately the game of golf is not as important as the game of life.


I’ve reposted Mike Cirbas excellent sentence before but here it is again -


“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.”


Atb

[Mike_Clayton]

I think a rollback is a bunch of hot air that would result in very little change in who actually plays the game.  I'm not sure if Mike Clayton mentioned it in this thread, but I've heard him talk about when the switch from the small ball to the big ball happened outside of the US.  I'm too young to have experienced it, but I haven't heard about anyone who stopped playing the game even though they lost 20 yards over night.  So we have a pretty good data point that suggests that people may complain (which I'm guessing they did back then?) but they accept it and move on very quickly.


Joe,


I think I mentioned it previously here but the evidence from Australia was there was barely a complaint about the switch and the overnight loss of '25 yards' Likely the majority barely noticed what they were losing.
Peter Thomson was an opponent of the change, articulating his argument that 'we shouldn't blindly be following the Americans'
He was both right and wrong. Right that we shouldn't be blindly following but wrong in that the change was necessary if the best players from outside of the USA had any chance to compete against the best players in the USA. It spawned the generation of Ballesteros,Norman,Faldo and Price.


Can anyone imagine what would have happened if the rest of the world had asked the American golfer (and manufacturers) to switch to the ball the majority of the world played? 

[James Reader]

“The game has been waging a battle against the inventor.  The one aim of the inventor is to minimise the skill required by the game.  The inventor has been allowed too much license.”


Just came across this “article of faith” of John Low written over 100 years ago.  Seemed relevant to this discussion.

[Thomas Dai]

Nicely written -https://www.rollbackalliance.org/rollback-to-the-future/
atb

[Niall C]

James


Can you provide a link to the John Low essay ? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would enjoy reading it.


And to those Rollbackers that took the time to respond to my questions, thank you. Interesting responses and I think the main thing I took out of the responses was that there is no uniform idea as to what you want to roll back to. I've got to think that will not help your cause. I suggest you need a clear idea of what standard you are wanting and how to achieve it if you are to gather popular support. Just my opinion.


As for the roll back argument itself, it has been going on since before Low and yet the more the game has been "ruined" the more people play it. I'd also suggest that if the Haskell had never been invented and they had stuck with the gutta, then there is a very good chance that the golden age of architecture might not have happened. Now that is something for folk on this discussion board to conjure with.


Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()