The Distance Insights report

[Thomas Dai]

While I might agree with you that, on purely a cost basis, a guy who is losing several balls a round might do better to find a cheaper option than a ProV1, a higher index player needs MORE help from his equipment, not less.  So a ball that spins more, has tighter dispersion, and is as long or longer, is a good choice for ANY golfer IF they can afford it.  And now, of course, there are options from premium balls that don't cost like a ProV1.
But this is really at the heart of the problem.  Nobody cared how far a Pinnacle went, because good players didn't use Pinnacles.  But when premium balls became Pinnacles off the tee, but had high spin off wedges, everything changed.  And that's the problem with a "roll back"; the Pinnacle was always legal.  "Roll back" is a popular catch phrase here and elsewhere, but it's a simplistic term that really doesn't have a path forward.
So it's either bifurcation, or leave it alone.

An historical aside - Once-upon-a-time, a couple of decades ago, players including elite players in elite events could change to a different type of ball mid-round. It wasn’t unusual for elite players in elite events to use a ‘rock’ on some holes and a softer, more controllable ball, ie a balata, on another. Then the regulations changed and it was play all the holes in a round with the exact same type and spec of ball.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

The only sense in which the analogy has an validity is that baseball has survived bifurcation of bats between amateurs and professionals, but using something that was done for cost purposes and that doesn't fundamentally alter the way the game is played at either level isn't good logic.

But we would be altering golf balls for cost purposes, too -- to save the money spent changing golf courses because they are obsolete for elite players with modern equipment.  It's a small number, though -- maybe 200 courses per year @ $1 million to $2 million each, plus the occasional $15m at Merion, Oakland Hills, etc.     Of course Titleist pays none of that, while they rake in their profits on the Pro V1.


Note that I am not saying courses NEED to do that; but I am saying that's WHY they are doing it.

[Jeff Schley]

Wow did you guys see Bryson's 423 yard drive today at MV?  I think the carry was almost 350. I would have loved to have had a camera on Jack when he saw this drive. I guess we will see some changes on hole 1 for this redo after that shortcut.

[Pete Lavallee]

Actually they showed the video clip to Jack when he was in the booth and he was amazed. Faldo asked if he was going to put a stream or bunker there and Jack said no, he appreciated Bryson effort and more power to him for accomplishing that. He then begged the USGA to do something to the ball, estimating that it has been 43 years he’s been on that soap box now. 

[Jeff Schley]

Thanks Pete, I would think that would make him a bit peeved at the equipment. So he is saying hey USGA change the ball so I (GCA's) don't have to keep making expensive changes.

[Tom_Doak]

Thanks Pete, I would think that would make him a bit peeved at the equipment. So he is saying hey USGA change the ball so I (GCA's) don't have to keep making expensive changes.

He's been saying that the whole time.


I ghost-wrote an article for Pete Dye when I worked for him that said the exact same thing.  In 1984.

[Jeff Schley]

Thanks Pete, I would think that would make him a bit peeved at the equipment. So he is saying hey USGA change the ball so I (GCA's) don't have to keep making expensive changes.

He's been saying that the whole time.


I ghost-wrote an article for Pete Dye when I worked for him that said the exact same thing.  In 1984.

Yeah JN was one of the first players to come out and say it, or at least one of the first stars to say it.
What does this tell you that for almost 40 years the USGA/PGA Tour/Masters/R&A haven't put their foot down.  Those in power in those organizations that could make a difference haven't. Where would we be if they didn't limit 460 cc drivers and COI in the mid 2000's? Go back to the Titleist Professional 90/100 compression and see what happens, I believe many pros played this before the prov1.

It is like disenfranchised stakeholders holding megaphones protesting, but those who can change it have on noise cancelling headphones. Shows the powerful people and the $$$ who are against the change.

[Thomas Dai]

Having no spectators at the most recent pro events has had one advantage ....... no spectators around to be hit by errant and even not so errant tee shots.
atb

[A.G._Crockett]

Thanks Pete, I would think that would make him a bit peeved at the equipment. So he is saying hey USGA change the ball so I (GCA's) don't have to keep making expensive changes.

He's been saying that the whole time.


I ghost-wrote an article for Pete Dye when I worked for him that said the exact same thing.  In 1984.

Yeah JN was one of the first players to come out and say it, or at least one of the first stars to say it.
What does this tell you that for almost 40 years the USGA/PGA Tour/Masters/R&A haven't put their foot down.  Those in power in those organizations that could make a difference haven't. Where would we be if they didn't limit 460 cc drivers and COI in the mid 2000's? Go back to the Titleist Professional 90/100 compression and see what happens, I believe many pros played this before the prov1.

It is like disenfranchised stakeholders holding megaphones protesting, but those who can change it have on noise cancelling headphones. Shows the powerful people and the $$$ who are against the change.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the USGA distance standards for golf balls predate the Titleist Professional.  That ball was a tiny, brief interlude in the golf ball market while manufacturers learned to make a sold ball that spun off a wedge but not off a driver.  I'd be interested in testing to see the differences between a ProV1x and a Titleist Professional, but my suspicion is that the results would be less different than we suspect, and that those differences don't really account for what's happened to Tour distances over the last 25 years.
I'm no fan of the USGA; I dropped my membership a number of years ago.  I think they get a lot more wrong than they get right in a lot of areas.  But I have a hard time looking at Tour distances, with DeChambeau as the current poster child, and blaming the USGA because of the golf ball.  I don't blame the USGA for not knowing what couldn't be known, and I'll put titanium, tungsten, super high quality graphite, Trackman, and highly specialized and effective golf-specific workouts in that category, along with multilayer urethane golf balls that fly off the driver like a Pinnacle did but spin off a wedge like a Tour Balata did.

George Bernard Shaw, while in the Irish Parliament, said something to this effect.  "It is harder by far to write a good law than to write a good play, and there are not a hundred men alive that can write a good play." (Forgive my paraphrase.)  And that to me is the problem with Nicklaus bleating about the USGA and the ball.  Forget the idea of a "roll back"; there is nothing to roll back TO that doesn't disproportionately penalize the recreational golfer, and that can't be good for the game.

It's either bifurcation or leave it alone, period.

[Thomas Dai]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the USGA distance standards for golf balls predate the Titleist Professional. That ball was a tiny, brief interlude in the golf ball market while manufacturers learned to make a sold ball that spun off a wedge but not off a driver.  I'd be interested in testing to see the differences between a ProV1x and a Titleist Professional, but my suspicion is that the results would be less different than we suspect, and that those differences don't really account for what's happened to Tour distances over the last 25 years.
I'm no fan of the USGA; I dropped my membership a number of years ago.  I think they get a lot more wrong than they get right in a lot of areas.  But I have a hard time looking at Tour distances, with DeChambeau as the current poster child, and blaming the USGA because of the golf ball.  I don't blame the USGA for not knowing what couldn't be known, and I'll put titanium, tungsten, super high quality graphite, Trackman, and highly specialized and effective golf-specific workouts in that category, along with multilayer urethane golf balls that fly off the driver like a Pinnacle did but spin off a wedge like a Tour Balata did.
George Bernard Shaw, while in the Irish Parliament, said something to this effect.  "It is harder by far to write a good law than to write a good play, and there are not a hundred men alive that can write a good play." (Forgive my paraphrase.)  And that to me is the problem with Nicklaus bleating about the USGA and the ball.  Forget the idea of a "roll back"; there is nothing to roll back TO that doesn't disproportionately penalize the recreational golfer, and that can't be good for the game.
It's either bifurcation or leave it alone, period.

Worth recalling that for many decades there were 2 mainstream golfballs - the 1'68" USGA ball and the 1:62" ball.

The 1'62" ball wasn't just a British ball ...... it was the standard international spec ball used wherever R&A rather than USGA regulations were followed.

The 1'62" ball was longer, it went further.

The 1:62" ball could be used in The Open until 1974 when the 1:68" became compulsory.

But the 1:62" was still being manufactured and was a legit spec ball to play in club golf until 1990.

Did golfers, both pros and amateurs and ball manufacturers moan and complain and hint at legal action when they couldn't use the 1:62" anymore?

No!

They just got on with it.

Many/most club amateurs probably didn't even realise something had changed.

I guess the propensity of golfers to bitch and moan and generally gripe and manufactures to hint at legal action has increased a lot in the period from 1974/1990 to 2020. Maybe it's a nationality thing?

An example of less cajones within golf?

atb

[Lou_Duran]

Thanks Pete, I would think that would make him a bit peeved at the equipment. So he is saying hey USGA change the ball so I (GCA's) don't have to keep making expensive changes.

JN doesn't have to make expensive changes.  He is a smart guy who learned through the school of hard knocks that real estate development is best done with other people's money.  I suspect that there is no shortage of well-off golfers in Columbus who are happy to rub shoulders with the great man and fund his attempts at perfection.  If this ups the ante to the Joneses, that is the latter's problem.


Ironic that a man of government is now paraphrasing Shaw ("It is harder by far to write a good law than to write a good play, and there are not a hundred men alive that can write a good play." ......"And that to me is the problem with Nicklaus bleating about the USGA and the ball.  Forget the idea of a "roll back"; there is nothing to roll back TO that doesn't disproportionately penalize the recreational golfer, and that can't be good for the game.

It's either bifurcation or leave it alone, period."


It has taken me awhile to get here, but I agree 100%.  JN in his heyday had a huge competitive advantage with his extraordinary power.  No doubt that ball and equipment enhancements have contributed to democratizing this advantage, but I would not underestimate the effects of more money bringing better athletes into the game who further developed their skills through specialized instruction and a team approach to maximize fitness, diet, equipment, course knowledge and planning, travel, etc.


Nevertheless, I would enjoy a tournament or two where the sponsor would dictate a specific ball.  Any 30 year-old ball design would suit me, but I would recommend the Acushnet "Club Special" of the late 1960s era.  It was a cheap ball that felt good off the face and traveled decent distances. My guess is that the pros would lose some distance, but with some practice, would still go low.


BTW, I won a club championship on a very tight course with the first generation of the Pinnacle.  It was circa 1981 and I got through the tournament with one sleeve of balls and never made more than bogey on a hole.  They went far and felt good even around the greens.  I think that the ball "problem" is greatly overstated and, perhaps, more of a Rorschach than anything else.

[Tom_Doak]

Worth recalling that for many decades there were 2 mainstream golfballs - the 1'68" USGA ball and the 1:62" ball.

I have been pointing out that history for years now, but there are several differences in the politics between now and 1974:


1.  The USGA and R & A rules were already bifurcated, and the two balls already existed, so moving toward the big ball required no new products and the equipment companies couldn't whinge about that.


2.  The R & A was wise to make the big ball mandatory only for The Open and The Amateur, and let the players themselves insist on further change at the regional and local levels.


3.  The R & A was motivated in part because the American players wanted to see this change for The Open [so they wouldn't have to adjust to the small ball or give up yardage to the field], and the R & A wanted more Americans to come across for The Open.


4.  I'm sure Titleist was on board, because it would be easier to get a bigger share of the overseas market, so they didn't lean on the players to resist.


5.  The USGA didn't have to do anything. 


6.  It was all done before the days when the leaders of the R & A and the USGA saw themselves as CEO's and spent a good part of their time in meetings with the Tours and with their Golf Industry partners.  Now they are united in the notion that it's all about the $$$$$.

[Thomas Dai]

All valid points Tom.
Something indicates to me that these days No 6 might be the biggest contributing factor!
Atb

[Garland Bayley]

...
Forget the idea of a "roll back"; there is nothing to roll back TO that doesn't disproportionately penalize the recreational golfer, and that can't be good for the game.
...

No one gets penalized. Given your reported ability, you can probably beat me by 15 strokes. Roll back the ball, and drivers, you will still be beating me by about 15 strokes.

Set up the courses an appropriately shorter distance, and your scores won't go up. And, guess what. Your scores may go down, because the limited equipment effectively widened the course.

Win, Win all around.

[jeffwarne]

...
Forget the idea of a "roll back"; there is nothing to roll back TO that doesn't disproportionately penalize the recreational golfer, and that can't be good for the game.
...

Set up the courses an appropriately shorter distance, and your scores won't go up. And, guess what. Your scores may go down, because the limited equipment effectively widened the course.

exactly

[Jeff Schley]

...
Forget the idea of a "roll back"; there is nothing to roll back TO that doesn't disproportionately penalize the recreational golfer, and that can't be good for the game.
...

Set up the courses an appropriately shorter distance, and your scores won't go up. And, guess what. Your scores may go down, because the limited equipment effectively widened the course.

exactly

This is as well as playing the appropriate tee box.

[Thomas Dai]

What's the appropriate tee-box for a big, strong low/mid even high handicap amateur who can hit tee-shots with the current day ball and the current day frying-pan size Driver damn near as far as Bryson and Co yet never knows what direction their tee-shots are going to go?
These are literally the danger men/women, these one's a roll-back must take into account.
atb

[Duncan Cheslett]

What's the appropriate tee-box for a big, strong low/mid even high handicap amateur who can hit tee-shots with the current day ball and the current day frying-pan size Driver damn near as far as Bryson and Co yet never knows what direction their tee-shots are going to go?
These are literally the danger men/women, these one's a roll-back must take into account.
atb

I played the other day with a youngish doctor who doesn't play a lot of golf, isn't a member of a club, and has never had a handicap.


He was routinely hitting 300 yard drives. Few of them hit the fairway he was aiming at.


This isn't just a problem for the pro game, or even the elite amateur game. Kids hitting the ball 300 yards without a great deal of skill is potentially bloody dangerous!

[Thomas Dai]

What's the appropriate tee-box for a big, strong low/mid even high handicap amateur who can hit tee-shots with the current day ball and the current day frying-pan size Driver damn near as far as Bryson and Co yet never knows what direction their tee-shots are going to go?
These are literally the danger men/women, these one's a roll-back must take into account.
atb

I played the other day with a youngish doctor who doesn't play a lot of golf, isn't a member of a club, and has never had a handicap.
He was routinely hitting 300 yard drives. Few of them hit the fairway he was aiming at.
This isn't just a problem for the pro game, or even the elite amateur game. Kids hitting the ball 300 yards without a great deal of skill is potentially bloody dangerous!

Excellent example Duncan.
The pro's and elite amateurs are merely the poster boys/girls for the issue but at least they essentially know which direction their shots are going.
It's the big, strong, long hitting, but wildly inaccurate amateurs, like the one you highlight, that are the real issue, the real danger. And there are more and more of them coming along by the day.
atb

[Jeff Schley]

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/jack-nicklaus-usga-golf-equipment-do-something?itm_source=parsely-api


Jack Nicklaus rips golf's governing bodies over distance gains: 'Stop studying it and do something!'


“The USGA and the R&A have got to wake up sooner or later,” Nicklaus said after being asked about the topic by Nick Faldo. “They can’t just keep burying their heads on this. They see it, they watch television, they see where these guys hit the golf ball. It isn’t about how far they hit it. You just can’t keep making golf courses longer. You just don’t have enough land, you don’t have enough money to do it.”[/font][/font][/size]

[jeffwarne]

What's the appropriate tee-box for a big, strong low/mid even high handicap amateur who can hit tee-shots with the current day ball and the current day frying-pan size Driver damn near as far as Bryson and Co yet never knows what direction their tee-shots are going to go?
These are literally the danger men/women, these one's a roll-back must take into account.
atb

I played the other day with a youngish doctor who doesn't play a lot of golf, isn't a member of a club, and has never had a handicap.
He was routinely hitting 300 yard drives. Few of them hit the fairway he was aiming at.
This isn't just a problem for the pro game, or even the elite amateur game. Kids hitting the ball 300 yards without a great deal of skill is potentially bloody dangerous!

Excellent example Duncan.
The pro's and elite amateurs are merely the poster boys/girls for the issue but at least they essentially know which direction their shots are going.
It's the big, strong, long hitting, but wildly inaccurate amateurs, like the one you highlight, that are the real issue, the real danger. And there are more and more of them coming along by the day.
atb

Nothing to see here.
We MUST, at all costs to our game-- protect the fragile egos of the men who are worried their 200-250 yard drives will be so affected by some sort've draconian rollback to the dark ages of 2000 that they will quit in droves.
I doubt they would notice as optimization requires a proper fit,hitting the center of the face with an ideal angle of attack, path and clubface matchup and multiple other factors, but that is of course beside the point.
and while you're at it build me another set of tees so I can hit the greens in regulation-despite my 21 handicap.

[Adam Clayman]

The easiest bifurcation would be a difference in hole size. (Edit; Pros should have to play to a smaller hole) All this green flattening for speed, needs a counter weight to balance and equate the challenges.


Have more contours, on great greens been lost, due to The Speed Race than principles ingrained in the rules? It's probably close.


Jack sounds like he's doing an advertisement for his brothers in the ASGCA. Ensuring further renovation work for decades to come.


He should lobby the president to give golf courses special tax free considerations. Like a religion.

[Garland Bayley]

What's the appropriate tee-box for a big, strong low/mid even high handicap amateur who can hit tee-shots with the current day ball and the current day frying-pan size Driver damn near as far as Bryson and Co yet never knows what direction their tee-shots are going to go?
These are literally the danger men/women, these one's a roll-back must take into account.
atb

Any tee on a course occupying 500 acres with vast separation between holes.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Go back to the Titleist Professional 90/100 compression and see what happens, I believe many pros played this before the prov1.

I'm curious what you and others think would happen if this was somehow done. Even if you literally gave them that ball, with no advances in aerodynamics applied to the construction (but maybe some better manufacturing techniques for more consistent balls).

[Mark Smolens]

i remember knocking a Titleist Professional out of round, way out of round, at least 3x each time I played. Might've been good for the shag bag, but not for the golf budget. I can't imagine what an off-center hit by DJ or Bryson would like like on a Titleist Professional.