Rollback alliance

[Mike_Clayton]

Erik,


I've never said 20% so please don't accuse me of hurting my case by misquoting it.  10% is 30 yards and well enough at this stage. And the small ball was more than 5-6 yard longer. In the 1966 Open at Muirfield's 17th hole Jack allowed one club with an iron - so that's 10 yards to begin and it was more with a driver. And more again into the wind. And you didn't lose anywhere near as much if you mishit it.


The fact Champ himself has missed cuts doesn't avoid the question that his length will be the norm a generation from now. George Bayer missed plenty of cuts too but his length became the norm.

[Mark_F]

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.

Average driving distance is a fairly irrelevant statistic Erik, as it is only calculated over a couple of holes. Doesn’t mean much when there may be another 12 two or three shot holes where driver is used but not calculated. The real issue is that so many of them can regularly smash it 330-360 yards.

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.

Unless the unholy trinity of kids, age and a desk job has unduly affected your game David, I'm not sure someone who can drive 275 metre par fours can pontificate over a shorter ball. I notice you aren’t advocating for a reduction in driver clubhead size, which would obviously affect you much more (and obviously involve RM buying more houses).

Mark,December will be a bit of a tipping point.  When the President's Cup is played at RM people will see how much the game has changed.  RM has no more land to push tee's back.  Unless the ball is rolled back they will need to start buying land if they want to remain relevant. 

Brian,There have always been long hitters though.  Joseph Johnson's book on RM mentions an Argentinian player hitting a six-iron into 17 East, and driving the 3rd East green during the World Cup in 1972.  It just happens more often these days. And 2 and 4 West were never designed to be true par fives. 
Why don't RM just play them as par fours, as they have been in various tournaments over the years?

Since I first played there more than 20 years ago, holes 2,6,11,12,13 & 18 have new back tees, and there are possibly more holes that do (14 & 16?). The new tees in 2 & 13 could not have been added should boundaries not have been extended. The course still plays quite short for elite amateur competition, much less Tour pro events.

Surely lengthening 2 and 13 just shows how misguided golf club committees are (even those like KH, which get it right more often than not).  2 and 13 are bog ordinary holes anyway, and lengthening them just makes the dreary journey along them more soporific.  And whilst 12 is obviously a better hole, it was surely a short par five even in 1985? 
Maybe the course plays short because a number of long holes run over a horizontal ridge, which is always going to advantage anyone that can carry it, whilst there are also a large number of short/medium par fours.If you had a course with ten par fours, and the four long ones were Foxy, Sea Hedrig, the Road hole and Carnoustie 17, would you not think that those long holes would always be a significant test?

Yarra Yarra is hopelessly troubled by boundary issues.

YY has always been a short course though.  It's boundary issues are more related to building a course on a small, irregularly shaped block in suburbia. And too many members.

Royal Melbourne has been stretched significantly. East and West.

Which holes?  2 has been lengthened a little, 4 has gone back maybe 40 metres?  6 maybe 15? I know East 17 and 18 have been lengthened, but it’s surely no more than 20 metres in either case (unless they have recently changed). Hardly significant.

The Club purchased a property beyond the original course boundary, and in recent years has extended the 15th tee onto what was a neighbouring residential property as recently as 2015.

See above comment in regards as to golf club committees.  Lengthening 15 West is just stupid.

Dr John Green’s residence was purchased, the old home demolished, and much of the block now serves as a safety buffer from errant long second shots into the second green in East.

You need to stop taking David down there then.  He is the epitome of the long but wild hitter that gives poor Ian headaches.

Several clubs have incurred significant cost in erecting safety fences and nets on their periphery. God knows what insurance premiums Woodlands deal with, due to balls going onto White Street off holes 1 & 2. Same with Victoria on holes 2 & 3.

That is mostly due to the Ponzi scheme economics of both governments of this country in the preceding decades. Australia has more than doubled it's population in the last forty odd years.Mordialloc used to be a dreadful suburb.  The only thing a ball flying over the fence on White street was likely to hit in days gone by was a painter and docker staggering home from the Rose and Crown.  Now, it’s more likely than not to be a pampered princess wheeling little Mikaehleeahya in a $1500 pram.
Is the issue at Woodlands and Vic the balls going over the fence, more traffic or more rounds?  Who is hitting them over the fence?

The issue might be more significant than you think. And that’s to say nothing of a loss of strategic intent.

I notice that, despite both your and Brian’s professed concern for restoring the original intent of the architect via a rollback, that even during a casual round you are still smashing driver on 2 West. 
You blithely proselytize that slow speed swingers can move up a tee, yet you two could both hit a four wood to play more like the architect intended, but it would appear, even during a casual round, you both value shooting the lowest possible score more than your principles.
Polly Farmer died during the week.  He was a 189 cm ruckman.  Now you need to be 200cm.
Most of the great golfers in the 1970s were 175-180 cm.  Now, most of them are six feet at least, with a substantial number between six -two and four.  Just because holes have been lengthened doesn’t mean they should be.  I don’t know if you have played the North or South courses yet, but 1,3,9,10 and 17 have been lengthened on North.  It’s worthwhile on 3 and 17, dubious on 1, and unnecessary on 9 and 10.Similarly, South has had 1,4,5,6,9,10,11,14 and 18 with new tees.  Do they all add to the course? 

[Rob Rigg]

US Am at #2.
The entire field is regularly hitting forged blade 8 irons 180 - 190ish yards. Same as TOUR pros each week.
How do we know? It was stated repeatedly over the past several days and we see it announced every week on TOUR.

Drives are 300 to 350 yards down the middle most of the time because the ball doesn't curve much (per Adam Scott's quote today).

These kids are hitting 3 woods 300 yards. Small heads with maxed out COR and a hot ball + high swing speed.

How on earth can you argue that high swing speed top ams and pros are not benefiting drastically from the ball, and modern equipment, versus low swing speed amateurs.

I've watched hundreds of club fittings and the benefits for high swing speed players drastically outpace those of low swing speed players in terms of distance gains (on a yardage basis) and what we see on TV each weekend, or during AM tournaments, only supports it.
"Inaccurate" - Wrong. So clearly wrong.

300 to 350 yard drives and 190 yard 8 irons. Insane.

550 yard par 4s that are playing Driver and short iron.

It's a joke.

You can't make courses long enough for the best players in the world. And we all know that "classic" courses are becoming more and more irrelevant every year.

Bitching that the "rollback" people aren't aligned on EXACTLY how much distance should be reduced for high swing speed golfers - 10% or 20% or whatever - is a ridiculous statement. It's a starting point for a discussion that the ruling bodies need to have and by attempting to ignite that debate hopefully it will happen. Then data needs to be analyzed and an agreement on "appropriate distance" established.

Maybe bifurcation is the answer but as has been stated numerous times on this thread it's unlikely to work because Amateur golfers want to play the same equipment as Pro golfers.
Maybe that will change if 120 mph SS golfers are losing 30 yards and 90 mph SS golfers are losing 6 yards (or whatever), but unlikely.

[jeffwarne]

Rather than 20%, make it 30% because the time anything happens they'll need to.
"these guys are good" but the guys in the white lab coats are better....and constantly in motion
65,63,61  can't wait for Sunday's new CR

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't believe there is any viable way other than bifurcation, and if a "Tour" ball had similar performance characteristics of early 90's balata (minus the negatives of cutting and going out of round) it would have the desired limiting effect in the top ranks of players while having a tremendous appeal to just about every non tour player who has ever picked up a club. I think they would become so popular in such a short time that manufacturers would be overwhelmed with orders for them.


I'd be playing them tomorrow if they were available.

[Jim Hoak]

To those of you advocating a rollback--
Do you believe that factors other than equipment are at least partially responsible for the increased distance that the ball travels and scores are lower?  How about better course maintenance?  How about better conditioning of the players?  How about the fact that better athletes are electing to play golf?  Etc.?
Does any of that matter to your position?  Maybe not.
But if it doesn't, do you not applaud better performance by modern athletes in other sports?  Do you not think it is admirable that people can run faster?  Jump higher?
I know there is not really an equipment element to most of these sports--maybe better poles in pole vault?  But personally, I like it when modern athletes do better than their predecessors.  So if there are some elements producing better golf performance besides equipment, shouldn't we applaud and admire that part?

[Mike_Clayton]

Jim,


Do you think if Norman.Nicklaus and Snead (the 3 best drivers probably from 1950-1995) were playing now they would be driving it on average 280 or 315?
i think the answer is pretty clear.


If Rory or Johnson or Brooks were playing in say, 1970, do you think they would be 30 yards past Jack or driving it 280 as Jack and Arnold were at their peak?


It's obvious to me it's nearly all the result of the equipment.


Are they better athletes? Were they more (or less) skilful players is a better question.
Personally I think there is a decent argument to make that the modern equipment is, in fact, deskilling players because it's much easier to use.


Im not sure about the maintenance thing - because there are wild variations the world over. This isn't just an American problem. For example the ball runs much less at Royal Melbourne since they 1/ put in a watering system in the late 1980s and 2/ changed the fairway grass a decade ago.
And all we have seen this week at Medinah is soft greens - the most significant agronomic reason for the low scores.


I'm not sure what I'm watching in athletics now or indeed for the last 50 years. So much of the 'improvement' has been due to improved equipment - running tracks surfaces, swimming pools, starting blocks, better shoes and of course, drugs. All but one of the runners on the blocks for the 100m final in Seoul subsequently failed a drug test - including the winner a couple of days later.
See this study of Jesse Owens' times compared to Usain Bolt's and whilst the gap was far, when they evened the 'equipment' out it was barely much at all.
[size=78%] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0[/size]




Nor is the running track or the swimming pool or the high jump pit a piece of architecture in need to protection from the advance of technology.

[David_Elvins]

A lot is being said about the distance players are hitting the ball but not much is being written about the ridiculous heights the modern pros hit it, compared to both amateurs and the pros of yesteryear.


The games would be far more interesting to watch if we rolled back the height the modern pros hit it.  They would have less carry distance, more roll, and they would have to use a ball that spins more, and that will fly shorter and more offline on mishits.

[Sean_A]

I thought we were talking about height because that is what makes carrying the ball so far possible.

So far as I can tell, nobody had made a good argument for a 100% equipment rollback VS bifurcation. The effect on the vast majority of golfers VS the extremely small percentage of non-elite players does not strike me as a sound trade off worth pursuing. I have said it before, courses are already far too long for most golfers. Making courses longer for all seems foolish when a more targeted solution is readily available.

The real question is how far should the elite roll back be? To me it's a half ass measure if anything considerably under 20% is on the table. In architecture terms, this sort of rollback recreates something close to the situation that existed between good recreational golfers and elite players probably as early as the 1960s. The only downside I can see is archies will probably continue to build dull par 5s 😎

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Let's just say the game goes down the bifurcate route.


The Pro's have their own ball.
All Pro's?
Just the men we see on TV?
What about other lower level pro events, other tours, regional events etc?
And then there's the Seniors? Ladies? They can bomb it too, more so these days.


And what about the group of amateurs who bomb it 280-300-320 or thereabouts (or more in the future) in the air but also spray it left and right and over the fences? What ball are they required to use ..... and not just in formal comps but in casual play with lessor ability player partners as well?


Bifrication, a bit more complex than it initially appears?


Make things easy.
Pick a date a couple of years ahead and a rollback figure whether it be say 10%, 20% or a nice compromise at say 15% and go with that for all.
Manufacturers don't hold masses of stock ("just in time" and all that) so the rundown period shouldn't be that long.
The best players would be rolled-back, the lessor players, well they won't lose much coz to be blunt, they haven't got much to lose.


atb








atb

[Matthew Mollica]

Sean - perhaps I've not stated it clearly enough. Let me try again. Maybe you dismiss my line of reasoning, or maybe I've not expressed it appropriately. We will see.


100% rollback aims to address many issues including safety / boundary problems at the amateur level, and is likely a more palatable form of regulatory review for manufacturers. It deals with the potential problems of next generation being longer than this one. In my mind - universal rollback is accompanied by a shortening of the course, likely leading to less inputs (chemicals, maintenance hours and most importantly water), likely lower cost and possibly faster rounds. I think it would be good for the entire scale of the game to shrink. It is simply too bloated, big and costly.


Bifurcation sees no impact upon long hitting amateur and recreational players, and the safety / liability issues they invite.  The next generation will be bigger, stronger and longer, and will create a more pressing issue. Bifurcation may also be a less palatable approach to manufacturers, and importantly, is contrary to the wishes of the game's governing bodies who have expressly stated a wish to retain the one set of rules for all. Bifurcation divorces the pro game from the amateur game even further than it already is.



There have been sharp minds in the game suggesting that the flight of the ball should be limited, for a century. Expressing concern with distance. MacKenzie, Behr, Crump, Tillinghast, Flynn, Longhurst, Doak, Nicklaus, Player, Palmer, Crenshaw, Faldo, Woods, Clayton, Shackelford and many, many others. Heck - Chamblee is now on the same page. Are they all wrong? Who else would you like to echo those words? At what point do you think this cohort might have a valid suggestion? And to those who refute the need for a rollback - what makes you think you know better than these people?


Also - nice points on the perils of implementing bifurcated rules Thomas. That is a more complex path than universal rollback.


Matthew

[Matthew Mollica]

To those of you advocating a rollback--
Do you believe that factors other than equipment are at least partially responsible for the increased distance that the ball travels and scores are lower?  How about better course maintenance?  How about better conditioning of the players?  How about the fact that better athletes are electing to play golf?  Etc.?
Does any of that matter to your position?  Maybe not.
But if it doesn't, do you not applaud better performance by modern athletes in other sports?  Do you not think it is admirable that people can run faster?  Jump higher?
I know there is not really an equipment element to most of these sports--maybe better poles in pole vault?  But personally, I like it when modern athletes do better than their predecessors.  So if there are some elements producing better golf performance besides equipment, shouldn't we applaud and admire that part?

Jim - no question increased distance is the result of many factors. Trackman, better instruction, taller and stronger players, and other factors. Modern balls and clubs are the two largest, by some way. I don't think agronomy is much of a factor. Some fairways are soft and overwatered, and some are baked dry. Some are clipped short and weed free.


No intelligent person is suggesting it is the ball by itself. The fact that evolution dictates the next generation will be taller and stronger, heightens the urgency of regulatory reform in my mind, especially considering the greater availability of accurate and objective data during instruction (Trackman etc) and the spread of speed based instruction. In an increasingly litigious time, where resources are scarce, the situation will only end poorly for golf unless it responsibly manages itself.


I applaud great performances, and continually marvel at what the greatest athletes in the world do - in many, many sports. I will admit I am way more suspicious these days, of the effects of performance enhancing drugs.


There are no doubt some elements producing better golf performance besides equipment.  Mental training, course management and putting to name just three. We can and should applaud and admire that. Let me ask this however - why are courses that host majors adding rough, lengthening holes, and adding trees? Why are we not simply marvelling at the greatness of modern players?


Do we value the method of play required over great architecture? The thought and skills demanded of the best courses? Do we wish to accurately compare the performances of the greats in one generation with those in another? I suspect many would answer in the affirmative to those questions. Which surely begs the question, why are we not addressing technological creep in equipment, and / or a lapse in regulatory diligence rather than markedly altering the courses? Because altering the courses is not a widely available, let alone sustainable, nor ideal option.

[Sean_A]

Let's just say the game goes down the bifurcate route.

The Pro's have their own ball.
All Pro's?
Just the men we see on TV?
What about other lower level pro events, other tours, regional events etc?
And then there's the Seniors? Ladies? They can bomb it too, more so these days.

And what about the group of amateurs who bomb it 280-300-320 or thereabouts (or more in the future) in the air but also spray it left and right and over the fences? What ball are they required to use ..... and not just in formal comps but in casual play with lessor ability player partners as well?

Bifrication, a bit more complex than it initially appears?

Make things easy.
Pick a date a couple of years ahead and a rollback figure whether it be say 10%, 20% or a nice compromise at say 15% and go with that for all.
Manufacturers don't hold masses of stock ("just in time" and all that) so the rundown period shouldn't be that long.
The best players would be rolled-back, the lessor players, well they won't lose much coz to be blunt, they haven't got much to lose.

atb

atb

Not at all. The ruling bodies can easily mandate that professionals and ams who play in their events must use specified equipment. It is very simple. I can readily imagine most if not all top flight am events following suit because of qualification ranking points for the Walker Cup etc and ego. The pro tours is a different matter, but that is the case with any such new equipment rule. If the ruling bodies can convince pro tours to significantly rollback then great. If not, march ahead. I am not one to think we all need to play the same rules and equipment because I know this is far from the case now.

Matthew

I think the concerns over safety etc in the main exist regardless if a guy can hit it 275 or 300. The main concerns are blind shots and nearby roads and homes. These have long been issues which in the main have been ignored. It's just that rollbackers have now decided they are critical issues which IMO is false.

Again, rollbackers need to find an argument, present it well and stick to it. Throwing all arguments against the wall and hoping they stick weakens their position. Identify the specific problem and find a solution which deals with that specific problem with little disruption to those who are not the problem. Rollbackers want to use a sledgehammer where a tack hammer will do.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

With regard to bifurcation, there'll be even more types of different ball for sale in pro-shops etc if we go down this line and a bunch of confusion too. Limited sales as well. Will manufacturers be interested in limited sales, unless they're at a very premium price point?
As to the arguments, some, such as those behind the Rollback Alliance, are attempting to enhance debate and put positions forward. Others though, seem to have closed ears.
Simple answers are usually the best answers.
atb

[Sean_A]

Atb

Folks disagreeing does not equate to closed ears.

I would simply ask what the real concern is. A long list of issues which a rollback is meant to cure does not ring true to me. The issues are far more complicated than simply stating a rollback solves all problems. We need specific answers to specific issues. It's time to get very serious and properly look at the issues and the impact of any potential solutions. It could well be that a rollback solves most or all the issues. I haven't looked into the issues deeply. Rollbackers have a way to go before their one size fits all solution convinces me, but my ears are not closed.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

To those of you advocating a rollback--
Do you believe that factors other than equipment are at least partially responsible for the increased distance that the ball travels and scores are lower?  How about better course maintenance?  How about better conditioning of the players?  How about the fact that better athletes are electing to play golf?  Etc.?
Does any of that matter to your position?  Maybe not.
But if it doesn't, do you not applaud better performance by modern athletes in other sports?  Do you not think it is admirable that people can run faster?  Jump higher?
I know there is not really an equipment element to most of these sports--maybe better poles in pole vault?  But personally, I like it when modern athletes do better than their predecessors.  So if there are some elements producing better golf performance besides equipment, shouldn't we applaud and admire that part?

Some minor merit to this,(athletes do continue to improve every generation) but....
When most leading runners start running 15% farther in a 15 year perod, and 60 year old runners are running faster they they ever have in their life,
such a comparison will make sense

[jeffwarne]

Atb

Folks disagreeing does not equate to closed ears.

I would simply ask what the real concern is. A long list of issues which a rollback is meant to cure does not ring true to me. The issues are far more complicated than simply stating a rollback solves all problems. We need specific answers to specific issues. It's time to get very serious and properly look at the issues and the impact of any potential solutions. It could well be that a rollback solves most or all the issues. I haven't looked into the issues deeply. Rollbackers have a way to go before their one size fits all solution convinces me, but my ears are not closed.

Ciao

We "rollbackers" clearly do not have all the right answers.
15 years ago it might've been Melvyn and I and one or two others on that side and the threads would be short.
Now the entire golf world is actually having this conversation-not just a couple of kooks on GCA.
Bringing attention to a "problem" (or a perceived one) does not mean one must have all the answers to be credible, and various ideas, suggestions or differeing opinions on how far to change does not "weaken" the argument, it encourages discussion and allows both sides to listen to each other.
Something our Government leaders could stand to do and perhaps find some middle ground on our own issues.

[Sean_A]

0k, what is the problem?

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I've never said 20% so please don't accuse me of hurting my case by misquoting it.

I didn't tag the 20% to you. If that was unclear, I apologize. Others have said 20%, and you've said (IIRC) that golf has already undergone a rollback as big as "25 yards." I believe that too is inaccurate, even for most better players with the driver, let alone the average player. I believe the earlier "small ball to standard ball" "rollback" is nowhere near the size of the one desired today by a few.

And the small ball was more than 5-6 yard longer.

Off an average player's 7-iron?

The fact Champ himself has missed cuts doesn't avoid the question that his length will be the norm a generation from now. George Bayer missed plenty of cuts too but his length became the norm.

You don't know that.

Average driving distance is a fairly irrelevant statistic Erik, as it is only calculated over a couple of holes. Doesn’t mean much when there may be another 12 two or three shot holes where driver is used but not calculated. The real issue is that so many of them can regularly smash it 330-360 yards.

So let's just make up stats, based on what you think happens…

Here you go: https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.317.html - all drives. Rory has 64 rounds and 690 measured drives. That's almost 11 per round. He's averaging 303 yards and ranks first. That would put him at 242.4 yards with a 20% rollback.

Again, ridiculous.

Furthermore, as I've said, I don't really care about the 0.001%. They're a minuscule part of "golf."

There have been sharp minds in the game suggesting that the flight of the ball should be limited, for a century. Expressing concern with distance. MacKenzie, Behr, Crump, Tillinghast, Flynn, Longhurst, Doak, Nicklaus, Player, Palmer, Crenshaw, Faldo, Woods, Clayton, Shackelford and many, many others. Heck - Chamblee is now on the same page. Are they all wrong?

You seem to be confusing facts with opinions. They can't be "wrong" because it's an opinion, not a fact.

And, are there no "sharp minds" on the opposite side of the debate? Or is it solely their agreement with your position what makes them "sharp"?

Also, the opinions of dead people pre-suppose they'd have not changed their minds.

I think the concerns over safety etc in the main exist regardless if a guy can hit it 275 or 300. The main concerns are blind shots and nearby roads and homes. These have long been issues which in the main have been ignored. It's just that rollbackers have now decided they are critical issues which IMO is false.

Again, rollbackers need to find an argument, present it well and stick to it. Throwing all arguments against the wall and hoping they stick weakens their position. Identify the specific problem and find a solution which deals with that specific problem with little disruption to those who are not the problem. Rollbackers want to use a sledgehammer where a tack hammer will do.

Folks disagreeing does not equate to closed ears.

Agree with almost all of that. Both of the quotes.

[Matthew Mollica]

Erik, can you please name the three wisest minds who have consistently voiced an opinion against equipment rollback, and briefly detail the thrust of their opinion?

[Mike_Clayton]

Erik,


No I don't know that - but it's been an indisputable pattern going back more than a century. Why would it stop now? Shouldn't we be learning from history?


And, did you ever play with a small ball?
It went noticeably further and we can argue whether it was 15 yards or 25 and the variation was often dependent on the wind-  the small ball was at its 'best' into it.


Off an average players 7 iron? How many average players hit a 7i with any consistency? By definition they don't - or they wouldn't be average players. The average (15 handicap) player's variation with the current ball and a 7 iron might be 10 - 15 yards. That's true of the 15 handicappers I play with.

[Mark_F]

So let's just make up stats, based on what you think happens…

I don't know about you, Erik, but I tend to watch television with my eyes open.  I find it makes my Foxtel subscription more of a value proposition.

Here you go: https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.317.html - all drives. Rory has 64 rounds and 690 measured drives. That's almost 11 per round. He's averaging 303 yards and ranks first. That would put him at 242.4 yards with a 20% rollback.

Again, ridiculous.

Using averages isn't much of an argument.  If McIlroy is hitting a quarter of his drives 330 yards, then another quarter 270 due to using a hybrid or 3-wood, then he's averaging 300.

I pretty much agree with some of what you have said.  Human evolution, sports science, club fitting and better coaching are responsible for some of the distance increase. The rollbackers are making a very poor fist of their position, despite the (long-winded) eloquence of Matthew's post on his webpage. 

There are at least five different categories of golfer, and a universal rollback will have a minor effect on two of them, a reasonable effect on one, a detrimental effect on the ones wreaking the most havoc in clubland, and varying to annoying effects on the last and largest group.

[Mark_F]

In my mind - universal rollback is accompanied by a shortening of the course, likely leading to less inputs (chemicals, maintenance hours and most importantly water), likely lower cost and possibly faster rounds.

That is, at best, a nonsensical supposition.

[John Kavanaugh]

In my mind - universal rollback is accompanied by a shortening of the course, likely leading to less inputs (chemicals, maintenance hours and most importantly water), likely lower cost and possibly faster rounds.

That is, at best, a nonsensical supposition.

What was China’s argument for plowing up all those courses. Ultimate rollback.

[jeffwarne]