[Chris Kane]

Victoria purchased a property behind the 18th tee 15-20 years ago to eek out a few extra metres.

[Thomas Dai]

Ah yes, insurance premiums (and restrictions, liability levels, payouts and the like). I did wonder when that would crop up. The world has changed over the last few decades. Incur damage or get hurt ... call a lawyer/insurance company.
Golf better get it's own house in order or restrictions, not necessarily ball/club related, will be imposed from outside. Dare I say it, good or bad, but there's an opportunity here for a golf version of Ralph Nader.
atb

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim Hoak, Bryan Izatt & others,


Rob Rigg has mentioned a variable distance ball in several posts now. You have both asked for clarification on a design that would deprive short hitters appreciably less distance than a Tour professional. I am like Rob, in that I believe such a design exists, and that manufacturers are able to mass produce and market this model - perhaps we call it the Zapruder ball for the time being.


Here is an excerpt from an article by Golf Digest writer Mike Stachura written in 2018 -


"The rule-makers haven’t offered a timetable for making a decision on a potential rollback, but they have been studying shorter-flying prototype golf balls since 2005. Golf Digest obtained samples of one of the prototype balls and tested it at four swing speeds: the ball lost 22 - 32 yards at 120 and 105 miles per hour and 7 - 10 yards at 90 and 75mph."

Link to the full article is here - https://newzealandgolfdigest.co.nz/distance-debate-mike-stachura/

Matthew

Beyond the part you've quoted, the article provides no further information about the ball or the test that produced the results quoted.   If the yardage losses are ranges for the club head speed ranges mentioned, it makes no sense that there is a discontinuity at 97.5 mph.  If the four loss numbers relate to the four club head speeds then they describe a non-linear relationship which would also be strange.  But, with technology, I'd never say never - maybe it's possible.  I remain skeptical for now.

If manufacturers could produce a ball where the slope of the yards gained per mph of swing speed line was flatter than current balls and if they could make the top end conforming, that ball would be on the market now and selling like hot cakes.  Why would the manufacturers hold it back since it would be conforming and would advantage all of slower swing speed golfers by adding yards to our drives.

As a side note I asked the two guys I was playing men's night with if they would be bothered by a roll back and they both thought a roll back was a good idea.  Both have already moved up to the most forward men's tees.  Nobody, including our 85 year old male member, has moved up to the more forward red tees.  It seems to me that from an ego perspective none of the men will ever move up to the red tees.

[Matthew Mollica]

Interesting observations with your playing partners Bryan.


Regarding science, do you think dimple depth variations, even two thousands of an inch, make a marked difference to golf ball flight?

[jeffwarne]

I cringe when I hear antirollbackers/bifurcators state that courses and clubs should "not care what pros shoot" or where elite players drive the bal-and they are just 1%.
That's not reality and clubs of course do care.


There are hundreds of otherwise excellent golf courses that time has passed by and memberships are struggling, or green fees are low because they are considered "Holiday" courses-especially in the UK.
And courses such as Myopia or even NGLA haven't been considered for championships for years, though NGLA (after building multiple new tees) had the Walker Cup in 2013.


Does this affect the other 99%. Strictly speaking no, but way more than 1% hit it far longer than the scale intended for the course and corridors-even if they are 10 handicaps. And the rest of the members often take pride(and incorporate it into their marketing and business plan) in their course hosting significant events.


Scoff if you will, but it's a reality and Merion just spent 20 million to avoid going the way of Inwood and other Championship obsolete courses.


the fix is so simple...and it's gathering momentum

[MCirba]

I cringe when I hear antirollbackers/bifurcators state that courses and clubs should "not care what pros shoot" or where elite players drive the bal-and they are just 1%.
That's not reality and clubs of course do care.


There are hundreds of otherwise excellent golf courses that time has passed by and memberships are struggling, or green fees are low because they are considered "Holiday" courses-especially in the UK.
And courses such as Myopia or even NGLA haven't been considered for championships for years, though NGLA (after building multiple new tees) had the Walker Cup in 2013.


Does this affect the other 99%. Strictly speaking no, but way more than 1% hit it far longer than the scale intended for the course and corridors-even if they are 10 handicaps. And the rest of the members often take pride(and incorporate it into their marketing and business plan) in their course hosting significant events.


Scoff if you will, but it's a reality and Merion just spent 20 million to avoid going the way of Inwood and other Championship obsolete courses.


the fix is so simple...and it's gathering momentum

Here Hear!!

[Garland Bayley]

...
If manufacturers could produce a ball where the slope of the yards gained per mph of swing speed line was flatter than current balls and if they could make the top end conforming, that ball would be on the market now and selling like hot cakes.  Why would the manufacturers hold it back since it would be conforming and would advantage all of slower swing speed golfers by adding yards to our drives.
...

I don't think you can say "the top end conforming", and "advantage all of slower swing speed golfers by adding yards to our drives". To add yards to our drives, you have to not be top end conforming. It seems to me that if you make our drives longer, you will naturally make the top end nonconforming. The issue is lower the top end, while limiting the loss for the rest of us. No manufacturer is going to make that ball, unless they are making a ball specifically for short courses in the Cayman Islands.

[Bryan Izatt]

Interesting observations with your playing partners Bryan.


Regarding science, do you think dimple depth variations, even two thousands of an inch, make a marked difference to golf ball flight?

Dimple size, number, pattern and depth all affect ball flight.  Manufacturers have been trying to optimize that for years and have come up with many variations. For me, the differences are lost in the variability of my swings and contacts.  For tour pros I imagine that they make enough of a difference that they can tune their game to a particular ball and its dimple pattern.

[Thomas Dai]

Dimple patterns -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeibKavgytc
atb

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,


The hypothesis was that there was a test ball that lost less at low swing speeds and lost more at high swing speeds.  Graphically that suggests a flatter distance to swing speed line.  For discussion, a slope of 2 yards per mph loss vs the current 3 yards per mph.  As I understand it, you are suggesting that the flatter distance gain/loss slope can only occur if the top end distance is reduced.  I was hypothesizing that with adjustments in the ball design and composition that the manufacturers could possibly achieve the flatter slope without lowering the the top end distance.  But, this is all just hypothesizing since there is no information on what this "test" ball is and how it's been tested.

[Mark Mammel]

As has been stated many times in this thread, "the fix is simple." How the 1% hit the ball is critically important; if "progress" continues unabated, and the tremendous resources invested by Titelist et al suggest it will, will ANY of the traditional courses be usable for championship play? I play at White Bear Yacht Club, a classic course that can be stretched to just short of 6500 yards- just as it was in 1915, when it opened. We have no possibility to lengthen the course (thank heavens). But young players with single digit handicaps can hit it 250-300+ yards regularly, defeating the great rolling layout that makes the course play longer than the yardage would suggest. So the impact is felt everywhere, not just in the pro ranks. Until the USGA and the R&A are willing to challenge the rich and powerful golf equipment manufacturers, we're just '...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." So, GO ROLLBACK ALLIANCE!

[John Kavanaugh]

How is the telecast of the BMW this week less exciting because of modern equipment?

[Jim Hoak]

Another solution to the problem--for which I'll surely get roundly booed on this site--is to modify the courses, not the equipment. 
Is it really that important that the Pros and elite amateurs play the great classic courses of the world?  Maybe we build Tournament courses--designed only for these 1% elite players?  Make them as long as you want.  Leave the traditional courses for the rest of us.  Would this really be the end of the golf world?  Is there some god-given right for pros to compete on classic courses?
I obviously see some issues with this solution, but it gets back to my concern that the dog's tail of elite golfers is wagging the dog's body of the recreational golfers of the world.
For the record also--I don't see the hypocrisy of saying that we should be much less concerned with what the 1% does.  And I also don't buy the simplistic statement that the solution to a golf ball that goes less far for the 1% but not less for the 99% is "a simple fix."  We'll see.

[John Kavanaugh]

It’s always people from the peanut gallery telling other people what not to do to their courses. If you really want change join a classic course and work from within. Just please don’t stand outside the gate and yell at the members. You wouldn’t do it at the zoo.

[Matthew Mollica]

"I should never care to argue for anything which would lessen the difficulty of the game, for difficulty is its greatest charm. But when, in spite of vast improvement in the ball, in seeking to preserve the difficulty and to make scoring as hard as it was in the old days, we make the mistake of destroying the effect of skill and judgement in an important department, I cannot help protesting." - Bobby Jones


Everyone owns a small piece of the greatest courses of the world.  The aspirational and inspirational effects of seeing the greatest holes and the greatest courses on the screen is immeasurable and significant.  Youth who see holes at Pebble Beach, The Old Course, Augusta National, Royal Melbourne and elsewhere on their TV during their formative golf years are on occasion, deeply affected. These courses belong to the game as a whole, not just the members of the particular clubs attached to the courses in question.  The entire game has a right to comment on them, a wish to see them on their screens, and a right to protect them from harm.  Perhaps we disagree on that point - so be it.


The notion I would work from within is attractive though John - I'm more than happy to receive immediate membership at the R&A, so as to undo the needless changes to the Eden green, and address mowing lines.  In the absence of that fanciful chain of events, I will continue to engage in educated, and respectful discussion on such matters as architecture and the ball.

[Tom_Doak]

Everyone owns a small piece of the greatest courses of the world.

I've gotta take issue with that statement.


It took me a couple of projects to understand that once I was finished with a new course, it was no longer mine.  It was owned by the client or by the members, and up to them what happened from then on.  I would only continue to be involved if I kept up the relationship.  It's sort of like being a parent, with a shorter gestation period.


I also learned from speaking out about changes to The Old Course at St. Andrews, that the more you claim some stake in a famous old course, as an outsider, the more determined the owners are to not listen to you.


So, we don't own the golf courses.  You're better off making a case that we all, collectively, own the game itself.

[Bernie Bell]

In the United States, the owners of the courses own the courses.  No one else.  It's not a matter of opinion on which people can agree to disagree.  It's a statement of law.  There's already plenty of evil afoot from people who seek power by claiming rights as "stakeholders" in the property of others.  Let's not add to it.  I accept you're motivated by love of the game, and I hold no firm opinion on roll-back, but you're not going to like the extension of your principle regarding "ownership" to Americans who despise the game and would like nothing more than to re-purpose the land.

[Mike_Clayton]

I cringe when I hear antirollbackers/bifurcators state that courses and clubs should "not care what pros shoot" or where elite players drive the bal-and they are just 1%.
That's not reality and clubs of course do care.

They care in Australia  (not that anyone in USA cares about Australia in this fight) because the best courses here were designed as our championship courses - courses played by members who understood they would be difficult but would be the places where important state and national championships would be help.


Despite years of trying to keep up (and we have been involved in many) they are all obsolete if the measure of how the original designers saw them playing.  Sure, MacKenzie would not expect them to go back to how they played with hickory but he could rightfully expect his long two-shot 2nd at Royal Melbourne was more than a drive and a 7 iron.Or the cross bunkers on 17E were still relevant.


The Presidents Cup at RM in a few months is going to be eye-opening as to how short the course now plays. Should they care? Absolutely because Mackenzie would care and its his treasure.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think a rollback is inevitable because we aren't even close to what's possible in terms of how far the best players will be able to make the ball go.

Physics - and the current Rules - disagree with this. We see guys on the WLD hitting 200 MPH, sure, and missing a 60-yard wide grid by 30 yards with six of their eight swings. Preposterous statements like this hurt the case of the pro-rollback people.

When holes are longer – they require more water.

Not necessarily. If you have a 400-yard hole and you move the tees back 10%, without extending the fairway further back, what extra land are you watering? The tees are the same size. The fairway is. The green is. Who cares about the rough in front of the back tee?

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?'

To the guy now shooting 88, I think it matters quite a bit, yeah.

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.

What's the point of this in this context of this discussion?

They're simpler, so as players learn them, they'll be easier to learn and apply. For new players, they're easier. And, they make more sense - you can move a leaf in a penalty area or a bunker, now, just like you can elsewhere on the course. (For example.)

And, I could name several people who know the Rules better now than they did before.

I find it surprising someone could hold a contrary view to you Ian, given what you see, how long you’ve been in the field, and how succinctly you express your observations. Particularly given that you stand to profit from consulting in the problems caused by escalating distance, yet speak about curtailing it.

He stands to profit from consulting about courses forced to handle a rolled back ball, too.

Which is why amateurs spending all this money buying hope haven't lowered their scores.

They have lowered their scores. This is untrue.

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

Because ams were playing Pinnacles. They were already playing legal distance balls. The pros could have played them back then, too.

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.

Golf could lose millions of players overnight.

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)

So now we just get to make things up? Slow players will still play slowly. If they're still hopping in their carts and hitting the ball five or six times per hole, they're not going to be shaving time. Furthermore, the vast majority of courses are long enough as it is for the golfers and equipment now. Hitting the ball shorter could increase round times, as players hit the ball more times to cover the same distances. Otherwise, what, they'll have to construct new shorter tees?

But we've even gone beyond that, because we have redefined accuracy to be irrelevant, and because the pros have deemed it to be unfair design to ask the player to hit into a less than 65-yard wide target from the tee.

I believe that's an incorrect characterization of the 65 yards. Those 65 yards are between penalty shots - OB, penalty areas, etc. It does not mean fairways are 65 yards wide, and it has not been "deemed… unfair".

We can put a man on the moon but can’t design a new ball that plays like a Titleist balata used too?

And yet, there was a Pinnacle available (and legal) right alongside the Balata. Better players CHOSE the balata because they needed the control/spin.

Geoff Shackelford, in his book "The Future of Golf" references an article in the December 2003 edition of Golf World, in which Top Flite Vice President of research and development Tom Kennedy states "the transfer of energy of the club to the ball at various speeds is not linear".

It wasn't linear… better players lost distance relative to the shorter hitters. Diminishing returns at higher speeds.

Again, the lower your swing speed, the less modern equipment helps.

This is not accurate.

John, future golfers will never see Cypress Point, North Berwick, Walton Heath, Seminole and other such courses on television.

I'm 41. I never saw them on television. I've survived.

----------

Those of you proposing a 20% roll-back… Do you realize how huge that is? Rory McIlroy is second on the PGA Tour for 2019 at 317.2 yards. He'd be hitting it less than 253.76 yards. 254 yards! That would have ranked 111th on the PGA Tour for driving distance in 1980.

20%? Good luck convincing the average golfer his 200-yard tee shots should go as far as his six hybrid (?) does now. And, the scale of the game would be all thrown out of whack: an approach shot from 150 yards would play like an approach shot from 187.5 now. The greens would be the wrong size.

I don't expect any real responses. This post was just for my benefit, to get some things out of my system.

If you're pro-rollback, you're doing yourself a disservice when you make false statements and some other things. You hurt your case.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Golf could lose millions of players overnight.

[/font]

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)

So now we just get to make things up? ...

You make up a doozy, and then you challenge shorter courses taking less time to play?
 

[Mike_Clayton]

Erik,


The longest players in every generation from Ray to Jones to Snead to Jack to Norman to Daly to Tiger to Champ have always been the norm in the next.
Why wouldn't that continue? If Champ becomes the norm then every course becomes par 68 and full of driver and wedge par 4s.
At some point it stops (they aren't going to ever run the 100m in 7 seconds - not without some serious drugs anyway) but it's already too late for so many of the game's great courses - if you think it's important they play somewhat close to the intent of their designers.


The next generation will learn to swing it at 130mph and get their ball speed to 195+


Amateurs have lowered their scores?
Pretty hard to prove either way but according to Google/USGA it's 15 - so a 90 shooter.
I think there is a legitimate argument to say the ease with which players can now bash away with clubs more forgiving than ever has de-skilled a lot of them.
Just like what I'm doing now has ruined our ability to match the quality of the handwriting of our grandparents time.

[David_Elvins]

It clear from reading through this thread that the game is already bifurcated.  Not between pros and amateurs but between traditional and American golf.


Carts, forced carries, lakes, soft greens, homogenized playing conditions.  Once these are part of the game distance is more of a thing.  A green is designed to be approached with a six iron and all sorts or architectural contortions are performed to make this happen for as many players as possible.  Holes are designed from the tee forward, and carry distance becomes the defining architectural feature off the tee.


I get that players that grew up playing golf this way would be anxious about anything that stops the average golfer carrying the ball as far as they currently do.


I grew up playing courses with 2 sets of tees, no water hazard, that play through all 4 seasons of the year, where greens are designed so the ball can run onto them, where hazards are often designed to be hugged, not carried. For me there is no issue playing a shorter ball, because in these conditions, the shorter ball doesn't affect the enjoyment of the game.

[Niall C]

There are hundreds of otherwise excellent golf courses that time has passed by and memberships are struggling, or green fees are low because they are considered "Holiday" courses-especially in the UK.

Jeff


Are you suggesting that clubs are struggling because they are now too short for the ball/technology and that suddenly they will be OK if either they are lengthened to "championship" length a la Merion, or alternatively if the ball is rolled back they will suddenly have a queue of new would-be members ?


Either way, I think the suggestion is beyond credible in a UK context. There are many reasons why clubs are struggling just now that are largely down to socio-economic factors, not because courses have become functionally obsolete (which by and large they haven't).


As an aside the term holiday course isn't a derisive description to a lot of golfers over here. It might be to the odd visitor golfer or scratch golfer who is after "championship" golf but the great many fully enjoy there holiday golf.


Niall

[Niall C]

"I should never care to argue for anything which would lessen the difficulty of the game, for difficulty is its greatest charm. But when, in spite of vast improvement in the ball, in seeking to preserve the difficulty and to make scoring as hard as it was in the old days, we make the mistake of destroying the effect of skill and judgement in an important department, I cannot help protesting." - Bobby Jones

Matthew


As a matter of interest, what do you think Jones was actually advocating in that quote ? I'm not sure it means what you probably think it does, assuming you think he's referring to a rollback.


Niall

[Matthew Mollica]

Niall, I don't think it relates to a rollback at all. I was more drawing on Jones suggesting "he cannot help protesting" - a feeling to which I certainly relate.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()