[John Kavanaugh]

"Innumerable courses of significance are already lost to the professional game – which is terrible." Please give a specific example how this is terrible for a given course? Who is harmed by being a member of a course that does not host the pros?

[Matthew Mollica]

John, future golfers will never see Cypress Point, North Berwick, Walton Heath, Seminole and other such courses on television. The inability of these courses to host professional play does nothing positive to foster greater youth participation in the game. Viewers and future golfers are instead largely fed an insipid diet of bland, purpose built TPC courses.


Neither the clubs listed above, nor the courses themselves are harmed per se, but I feel the the game as a whole suffers with their absence from our screens. You will celebrate seeing Royal Melbourne on your TV this December. You and others could experience that same feeling many more times each year if the scale of contemporary golf had not got out of hand.

[John Kavanaugh]

Rolling back the ball to make for better TV doesn't fly. I am curious what we will find in the middle when both sides build their arguments on a foundation of bullshit.

[John Kavanaugh]

I was just thinking about the future of golf as it relates to my grandson. It is my estimation that with current equipment we will be hitting the ball approximately the same distance in 10 years when he is 12 and I am 70. Wouldn't it be beautiful with this new ball you propose that as his swing speed increases into his teens and mine decreases as I age we continue to hit the ball the same distance off the tee? Isn't that how we want to raise our future children, robbing them of the joy of increased distance through hard work and dedication? I had a few broken windows in my youth because balls went further as I got stronger and I hope the same for my grandson, but that's just me.

[John Kavanaugh]

Just for the record. The opposite of flubber is buffer. The new anti-energy transfer ball will be called the Buffer Ball.


Who wouldn't want hit the links and shoot some BB's?

[Peter Pallotta]

Complex subject, for sure.
But the architecture keeps getting worse.
And uglier.
And ever-less sustainable.
Celebrate technology and artificiality and vaulting ambition (ie the Borg) and we all become merely cogs in the machine — with no Jean Luc Picard to fight against our inevitable assimilation.
Just like we’re now ‘consumers’ instead of ‘customers’ — not people but mindless entities that exist only to gobble up everything in sight.
I know, I know:
‘It’s their money, it’s their club, it’s their course — they have a right to do what they want’.
Golf’s epitaph.

[John Kavanaugh]

Courses get uglier? I thought the work of Doak, C&C and Hanse was largely based on beauty. Firestone was built for balata.

[Peter Pallotta]

Doak, C&C and Hanse build their new/original courses for guys like you and me (and just about everyone else here) -- and so they don't have to make them long (or ugly) despite the new club & ball technology because a) we don't hit the ball as far as we used to, and actually never did, and b) none of us are willing to pay big money only to be embarrassed by looking at our limitations face on: we're all become Jack Woltz: "A man in my position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous!" But I have in my mind's eye an image of what Merion (etc etc) looked like when first built -- once, years ago, before the confluence of money, ego, pride, ambition, and vanity took hold. There's a reason, I think, why the deadly sins were considered 'deadly'.
But perhaps I overstate my case.     
   

[John Kavanaugh]

Friars Head did not suffer at the hands of beauty yet was built by one of the finest players in the country. Pinehurst was made more beautiful in preparation for a US Open. Even Augusta National is more beautiful today than anytime in its long history.

[John Kavanaugh]

I find a mountain that I can not climb more beautiful than the hill from which I spout my nonsense.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt, Jim, et.al.

Good points on the ball companies, even if it doesn't seem they have a leg to stand on, I don't doubt them using the legal system to bully the governing bodies...

All the more reason it seems the path for the PGA Tour and USGA is to have thier own ball for approved events, that way they aren't explicitly excluding anyone, just using a specified ball like pretty much every other sport.  I'm guessing hockey, football, baseball, basketball, tennis, etc doesn't have to deal with this nonsense...

[Peter Pallotta]

I find a mountain that I can not climb more beautiful than the hill from which I spout my nonsense.

Terrific line, nicely done.
But then presumably you'd find playing a shorter ball more satisfying than hitting a 7 iron, which was a 5 iron, further than you used to hit your 4 iron.   

[Ira Fishman]

I find a mountain that I can not climb more beautiful than the hill from which I spout my nonsense.

John,


Permission to steal whenever fits my circumstances at the time? Will be often.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

I think our primary problem is people listening to the person with the highest station/loudest bull horn....instead of simply evaluating/processing the message.

[jeffwarne]

I think our primary problem is people listening to the person with the highest station/loudest bull horn....instead of simply evaluating/processing the message.

So far the biggest bullhorns have belonged to those with a vested interest of keeping the gravy train rolling.
by merely threatening the vanity of aging men.
the game and the venues be damned.


Imagine quitting a game you love because suddenly fairways and corridors played wider, the game was faster to play(for you and those in front of you) , and countless incredible historic courses could be returned to the entertainment arena of elite events-to say nothing of a reasonable comparison to bygone eras.


I get that antirollbackers don't want change.
That ship sailed, and resails every year.
reset

[Thomas Dai]

As an side to this debate, I for one am far from convinced that most golfers could tell whether or not they're playing with a rolled-back ball. Some could but I reckon they'd be in the minority.
And of course if you top it, fat it, thin it, shank it, lose it, miss it even it doesn't matter what kind of ball you're using. Some folks even play with range balls, or balls they've found in a pond or the rough and some play with what they think are perfect brand name balls but that may well be counterfeit or re-conditioned.
atb

[Matthew Mollica]

Further to the discussion on the previous pages regarding a variable distance design ball, here's the thoughts of John Solheim back in 2011 -

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/pings-solheim-distance-proposal

and Mike Davis on the issue in 2017 -

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-executive-director-says-variable-distance-ball-could-be-part-of-golfs-future


Food for thought.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

He actually said "AntiRollBackers don't want change", I think Jeff is on the Roll Back train.... 

[Matthew Mollica]

Matt,

He actually said "AntiRollBackers don't want change", I think Jeff is on the Roll Back train.... 

Ah ha - re-read. Sorry for the mistake. Edited.

[Mike_Clayton]

Because of multiple sets of tees the distance I hit my drive is immaterial. The distance I have to carry hazards is not. Currently my maximum carry off a tight level lie in ideal conditions is 195 yds with a 5 wood. Cut that by 10 yds and my strategic options will be greatly limited. Throw in some wind and you have to ask yourself the sustainability of courses built after 1960. We made our bed now we've got to sleep in it.

Perhaps hit a 3 wood?

[Mike_Clayton]

I wish we could be more careful about the distance of the small ball back in the early 80's. I was a plus handicap golfer at that time and had an occasion to play that ball. In optimum conditions, baked out fairways and a wind at my back, I could drive 4 of the greens at my course that were each 300+ yds with the large ball. The only occasion where the small ball would be a benefit was into a head wind. I doubt that it rolled out much further and would question its ability to out soar a spinning larger ball with a tail wind. Overall I would give it a 5% advantage or around 8 yds for the expert player. That is only a guess because the only fact I know is that when given the chance I would always play the best ball possible and never felt the overall playability of the small ball exceeded the 100 compression Titleist Pro Traj.


John,


If it's true the playability of the Titlest Pro-Traj (a great ball for the US but not so good in Aust or GB because of the windier conditions) was superior why did almost every single American who played in The Open (pre 1974) or down in Australia (1978) use the small ball?
Jack Nicklaus went from the Australian Open and The Dunlop International in late 1971 to team with Lee Trevino in the World Cup in Florida the following week and used the 1.62 ball.

It was the same weight and noticeably smaller and to think it only went 8 yards further is fanciful. I grew up playing the small ball and transitioned and it was way more than 8 yards.



150 yards off line?  I played with a lot of good players in the 80s and never saw such a shot. Not even Anders Forsbrand hit it that far off line on his bad days - and he was as wild a good player as there ever way He made Seve look like Ben Hogan.
I've never seen more high blocks with the modern ball (not so many duck hooks) and they go much further off line than the old ball/driver combination. It's not the ball though - it's the club in the hands of strong blokes who get it way inside with an open face and catch it in the middle. It's because all they do is bash it as hard as they can.

[jeffwarne]

I wish we could be more careful about the distance of the small ball back in the early 80's. I was a plus handicap golfer at that time and had an occasion to play that ball. In optimum conditions, baked out fairways and a wind at my back, I could drive 4 of the greens at my course that were each 300+ yds with the large ball. The only occasion where the small ball would be a benefit was into a head wind. I doubt that it rolled out much further and would question its ability to out soar a spinning larger ball with a tail wind. Overall I would give it a 5% advantage or around 8 yds for the expert player. That is only a guess because the only fact I know is that when given the chance I would always play the best ball possible and never felt the overall playability of the small ball exceeded the 100 compression Titleist Pro Traj.


John,


If it's true the playability of the Titlest Pro-Traj (a great ball for the US but not so good in Aust or GB because of the windier conditions) was superior why did almost every single American who played in The Open (pre 1974) or down in Australia (1978) use the small ball?
Jack Nicklaus went from the Australian Open and The Dunlop International in late 1971 to team with Lee Trevino in the World Cup in Florida the following week and used the 1.62 ball.

It was the same weight and noticeably smaller and to think it only went 8 yards further is fanciful. I grew up playing the small ball and transitioned and it was way more than 8 yards.



150 yards off line?  I played with a lot of good players in the 80s and never saw such a shot. Not even Anders Forsbrand hit it that far off line on his bad days - and he was as wild a good player as there ever way He made Seve look like Ben Hogan.
I've never seen more high blocks with the modern ball (not so many duck hooks) and they go much further off line than the old ball/driver combination. It's not the ball though - it's the club in the hands of strong blokes who get it way inside with an open face and catch it in the middle. It's because all they do is bash it as hard as they can.

Great comments


especially the high blocks part-in the air a long time and scary off line.
The bane of those of us who grew up playing a big inside out draw.
Less spin can be a real killer for an old school push drawer, and the reason you see SO many left to right players these days.
Way easier to time and low spin equipment means no loss of distance being on top of it and cutting it

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,


The Pro Traj was not introduced until 1975. When I speak of good players hitting the ball 150 yds off line I was talking about my friends who were very fine athletes outside of golf.  It's like marking telephone poles after a flood. I can show you where flood water has reached that defies all common sense and engineering principles. Sadly I can also show you where friends of mine hit golf shots of the same remarkable caliber. It's one of the beauties of playing the same course for over 50 years.

[Rob Rigg]

To address some questions that were answered but continue to be asked:

Golf Ball - Technology is so advanced that manufacturers could absolutely create a "rollback to this" ball which would reduce the distance on high swing speed players by 10% or 20% while reducing the distance for slow swing speed players by nothing.


....................

Your assertion about advanced technology suggests that ball manufacturers could change the slope of the distance vs swing speed line to be flatter. (see this article for a graph of the current slope of the line with modern balls - https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html   The current balls go about 3 yards further per mph gain in swing speed.  You're suggesting that they could build balls that only gain, say, 1 yard per mph gain in club head speed.


If that were true, why would the converse not be true?  Why couldn't manufacturers today make a ball that goes the same distance for top end swing speeds but goes further for slower swing speeds.  Why haven't the manufacturers built that ball if they have the advanced technology?  It would conform and be a really hot seller for slow swingers.

I believe that no such technology exists.  If you want to roll back the top end 30 yards then the bottom end is likely to lose about 30 yards too.

Hi Bryan - Very interesting link. Quite fascinating based on the available data showing how much distance pros have picked up with "the modern ball" versus amateurs.

If you speak with a club fitter who spends time with golfers who have a range of swing speeds you will find the following.
1) The ability to manage launch and spin is a much larger advantage for high swing speed golfers vs low swing speed golfers. It's just math.

2) The gains from properly fit equipment benefit high swing speed golfers much more than low swing speed golfers. In fact, driver shaft selection is much more important at high swing speeds than low swing speeds - i.e. after market shafts start to prove a clear advantage

3) Manufacturers have made golf balls for lower swing speed golfers and that is the foundation of Bridgestone's marketing campaigns. i.e. buy the right ball for your swing speed - Because a "tour level" ball isn't the right one for amateurs anyways. Why? They don't get the advantage of the TOUR level modern golf ball.

[Bryan Izatt]

To address some questions that were answered but continue to be asked:

Golf Ball - Technology is so advanced that manufacturers could absolutely create a "rollback to this" ball which would reduce the distance on high swing speed players by 10% or 20% while reducing the distance for slow swing speed players by nothing.


....................

Your assertion about advanced technology suggests that ball manufacturers could change the slope of the distance vs swing speed line to be flatter. (see this article for a graph of the current slope of the line with modern balls - https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html   The current balls go about 3 yards further per mph gain in swing speed.  You're suggesting that they could build balls that only gain, say, 1 yard per mph gain in club head speed.


If that were true, why would the converse not be true?  Why couldn't manufacturers today make a ball that goes the same distance for top end swing speeds but goes further for slower swing speeds.  Why haven't the manufacturers built that ball if they have the advanced technology?  It would conform and be a really hot seller for slow swingers.

I believe that no such technology exists.  If you want to roll back the top end 30 yards then the bottom end is likely to lose about 30 yards too.

Hi Bryan - Very interesting link. Quite fascinating based on the available data showing how much distance pros have picked up with "the modern ball" versus amateurs.


Can you point to the "available data" you're referring to?  The USGA study is quite clear:

"In short, there is no extra distance "bonus" for high swing speeds. This is true for balls used on the PGA Tour, and all others as well. In fact, distance does not even increase in a straight line (see Figure 1): there are diminishing returns at higher swing speeds – just the opposite of the popular misconception. To be sure, hitting the ball faster means it goes farther; it's just that you don't get quite as much bang for the buck at the highest speeds.


If you speak with a club fitter who spends time with golfers who have a range of swing speeds you will find the following.
1) The ability to manage launch and spin is a much larger advantage for high swing speed golfers vs low swing speed golfers. It's just math.


I don't follow this point.  More skilled players are more likely to be able to manage their swing, driver and ball to achieve optimal  launch conditions and distances.  But optimal launch conditions don't disproportionately advantage higher swing speeds.  See the the Trackman optimal launch conditions for various swing speeds at the following link:  https://trackman.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115006035208-Driver-Optimization


2) The gains from properly fit equipment benefit high swing speed golfers much more than low swing speed golfers. In fact, driver shaft selection is much more important at high swing speeds than low swing speeds - i.e. after market shafts start to prove a clear advantage

I don't buy this "benefit" either.  Where is the evidence?  Have you read the Wishon book on driver fitting.  There are a number of swing attributes besides swing speed that affect what shaft will help any player achieve optimal launch conditions.  All the major manufacturers give you after market shaft options when you lay out your $600 for a new driver these days.


3) Manufacturers have made golf balls for lower swing speed golfers and that is the foundation of Bridgestone's marketing campaigns. i.e. buy the right ball for your swing speed - Because a "tour level" ball isn't the right one for amateurs anyways. Why? They don't get the advantage of the TOUR level modern golf ball.


No doubt different balls and their interaction with the driver and the player's swing can help achieve the optimal launch conditions.  A "tour level" ball may well be the right one for an amateur based on their swing and driver, regardless of swing speed.  The advantage from "tour level" balls is that they spin less off the driver and more with wedges. That can be an advantage for anyone if you can use those features to achieve optimal driver launch conditions and you have good hand/eye coordination that gives you a good short game that you can play in the air.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()