[Sean_A]

If there is a max distance the ball is allowed (presumably fly), everybody will be capable of achieving this distance probably within 10 years. Whether or not guys chase that max distance is another question. Much would depend on what that distance is and if courses continue to get longer.

Sean--There are a variety of ways to reduce ball flight.  Most (restricting number and characteristics of layers. same with simple patterns) would not create a "max distance" but rather would reduce everyone's distance by approx X%.  I am virtually sure the technical folks at the R&A and USGA would know how to do this

That's fine, but wasn't what I was reacting to. I am dubious of the claim the ball can be designed to only effect good players mostly because I think tech is usually overblown about what it accomplishes. But, I would like to test these balls and see for myself.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I can’t believe that the clever scientists and production staff at the golf ball companies can’t come up with a rollback appropriate ball. Heck, 51 years ago two men landed on the Moon so tweaking the composition of a small ball shouldn’t be too hard. In fact I bet the manufacturers have dozens of different prototype versions in storerooms and cupboards.
Atb

[Anthony Fowler]

Thank you all for your thoughtful engagement on this topic. This is not a hill that I'm willing to die on, but I think it deserves some discussion and consideration. Let me briefly respond to a few points that have been raised.

Let me first clarify (in case it wasn't clear from my original post) that my recommendation would only apply to elite competitions. I'm certainly not recommending that the agronomy of our home courses be changed day-in day-out.

I was surprised to see so many people responding as if my proposal was an extreme one. I'm essentially just recommending that we play around with the mowing heights of the rough for professional and elite-amateur tournaments. Compared with redesigning courses, building new bunkers, or mandating new equipment, this is such a trivial, low-cost change. Maybe those other things are worth doing as well, but this is a very low-cost change that could be implemented unilaterally by tournament organizers on relatively short notice.

I'd also like to point out that my recommendation would introduce a new layer of strategy not currently present. Every tee shot will pose a new risk-reward tradeoff that wasn't there before. I think that would make elite golf more enjoyable to watch, and it would make the game less one-dimensional. (I also really like Jeff's idea for architects to give guidance about where the rough should be thickest in order to enhance strategy and highlight the architectural features of the holes.)

Great questions have been raised about the problem that we're trying to solve. In my view, there are two related problems. (1) High-level competitive golf has become too one-dimensional, meaning that players who can't carry the ball 300+ but are otherwise very skilled and talented can't compete. (2) We're often altering our classic courses for the worse just so they can host a four-day tournament once every 15 years. Even if you don't care about problem 1, everyone on this site should care about problem 2. And as long as problem 1 is around, problem 2 will be as well, so we should be looking for low-cost solutions to problem 1 that don't exacerbate problem 2.

[Craig Sweet]

Judging by the fairway divots at tournaments, most players hit the ball roughly the same distance off the tee....


A tournament ball is the easiest, and in the long run, the cheapest solution. For non PGA/USGA events the local rules committee can determine whether the tournament ball will be used or not.

[Steve Lang]

    The arguments have been made, and I'll vote for cutting the grass lower or higher in places... to at least make players think a little and as Anthony mentions, its cheap.. 


I was amused this last week with Stenson actually hitting his driver vs 3 wood off the tee.  Must have seen some advantage?


I do not look forward to "The Range Ball Classic", The Pro V1 Open, or The Callaway Supersoft Nano Matrix Bertha Tradition Tournament.

[Doug Siebert]

I think you could just add more contour in the 300+areas in both fw and rough.  It could be wobbles to create more uneven lies, or it could be a cross slope that diverted balls into a rough zone not in the prime approach position, etc.  As long as they were mowable by conventional equipment, wouldn't cost anything after building them.

That's a rather permanent change to the course, so you'd have to take into account how it plays from shorter tees. If the fairway gets all ripply at 310 to 360 from the tips, that's going to cause problems for everyone's second shots given the usual spread from tips to regular to senior to ladies.
Meanwhile if it is enough to affect Bryson he'll just tee off with a 5W and still have a 200 yard 8 iron second to a beefy 500 yard par 4...

[Doug Siebert]

I can’t believe that the clever scientists and production staff at the golf ball companies can’t come up with a rollback appropriate ball. Heck, 51 years ago two men landed on the Moon so tweaking the composition of a small ball shouldn’t be too hard. In fact I bet the manufacturers have dozens of different prototype versions in storerooms and cupboards.
Atb

Just go back to the ball we had pre 2000, where you had to make a choice between length off the tee and control around the greens. If the multilayer balls that offer the best of both worlds were banned and ball construction was legislated so you couldn't get low spin off the driver while getting high spin around the green and on wedge shots, you bring back the "Top Flite or Tour Balata" choice - but of course without the durability issues the Tour Balata had.

Mandate that a ball can have only two different materials, i.e. a cover and a core, both of which must be uniform. That doesn't stop 350 yard drives, but to get them you'd have to give up the kind of control pros need on courses with lightning fast greens.

[Michael Felton]

Thank you all for your thoughtful engagement on this topic. This is not a hill that I'm willing to die on, but I think it deserves some discussion and consideration. Let me briefly respond to a few points that have been raised.

Let me first clarify (in case it wasn't clear from my original post) that my recommendation would only apply to elite competitions. I'm certainly not recommending that the agronomy of our home courses be changed day-in day-out.

I was surprised to see so many people responding as if my proposal was an extreme one. I'm essentially just recommending that we play around with the mowing heights of the rough for professional and elite-amateur tournaments. Compared with redesigning courses, building new bunkers, or mandating new equipment, this is such a trivial, low-cost change. Maybe those other things are worth doing as well, but this is a very low-cost change that could be implemented unilaterally by tournament organizers on relatively short notice.

I'd also like to point out that my recommendation would introduce a new layer of strategy not currently present. Every tee shot will pose a new risk-reward tradeoff that wasn't there before. I think that would make elite golf more enjoyable to watch, and it would make the game less one-dimensional. (I also really like Jeff's idea for architects to give guidance about where the rough should be thickest in order to enhance strategy and highlight the architectural features of the holes.)

Great questions have been raised about the problem that we're trying to solve. In my view, there are two related problems. (1) High-level competitive golf has become too one-dimensional, meaning that players who can't carry the ball 300+ but are otherwise very skilled and talented can't compete. (2) We're often altering our classic courses for the worse just so they can host a four-day tournament once every 15 years. Even if you don't care about problem 1, everyone on this site should care about problem 2. And as long as problem 1 is around, problem 2 will be as well, so we should be looking for low-cost solutions to problem 1 that don't exacerbate problem 2.

But what would be the basis to punish longer hitters more than shorter hitters for missing the fairway? The angles are already worse the longer you hit it. If someone opts to hit it 270 instead of 330, shouldn't they be expected to hit it straighter? So why should they get light rough to play out of when they do miss?

[Mark Fedeli]

Thank you all for your thoughtful engagement on this topic. This is not a hill that I'm willing to die on, but I think it deserves some discussion and consideration. Let me briefly respond to a few points that have been raised.

Let me first clarify (in case it wasn't clear from my original post) that my recommendation would only apply to elite competitions. I'm certainly not recommending that the agronomy of our home courses be changed day-in day-out.

I was surprised to see so many people responding as if my proposal was an extreme one. I'm essentially just recommending that we play around with the mowing heights of the rough for professional and elite-amateur tournaments. Compared with redesigning courses, building new bunkers, or mandating new equipment, this is such a trivial, low-cost change. Maybe those other things are worth doing as well, but this is a very low-cost change that could be implemented unilaterally by tournament organizers on relatively short notice.

I'd also like to point out that my recommendation would introduce a new layer of strategy not currently present. Every tee shot will pose a new risk-reward tradeoff that wasn't there before. I think that would make elite golf more enjoyable to watch, and it would make the game less one-dimensional. (I also really like Jeff's idea for architects to give guidance about where the rough should be thickest in order to enhance strategy and highlight the architectural features of the holes.)

Great questions have been raised about the problem that we're trying to solve. In my view, there are two related problems. (1) High-level competitive golf has become too one-dimensional, meaning that players who can't carry the ball 300+ but are otherwise very skilled and talented can't compete. (2) We're often altering our classic courses for the worse just so they can host a four-day tournament once every 15 years. Even if you don't care about problem 1, everyone on this site should care about problem 2. And as long as problem 1 is around, problem 2 will be as well, so we should be looking for low-cost solutions to problem 1 that don't exacerbate problem 2.

But what would be the basis to punish longer hitters more than shorter hitters for missing the fairway? The angles are already worse the longer you hit it. If someone opts to hit it 270 instead of 330, shouldn't they be expected to hit it straighter? So why should they get light rough to play out of when they do miss?

I think what's trying to be accomplished is to take what happens at #10 Riviera and apply it to the strategy of every hole. If you go for the green — if you hit the longer shot — you need to hit it with near-perfect accuracy... or else. What we see at Riviera every year is a fascinating mix of decisions: a lot of long-hitting players are compelled to lay back on some days and go for it on others.


As far as better or worse angles, isn't that kind of besides the point now since Bryson proved that for most courses they play the most important thing is just missing on the proper side? But yes, it would be great if the reward for massive distance combined with pinpoint accuracy resulted in the greatest reward, provided the risk to overcome is equally great and not just a long carry.

[Pete_Pittock]

Maybe a shout out to Anthony per this Shackelford post https://www.geoffshackelford.com/. Unfortuntately it only mentions Rex Hoggard and Mike Schy (BDC's swing coach)

[Kalen Braley]

Interesting, it mentions the soon to be obsolete Pebble.  I hadn't thought of it that way even if it is short by todays standards.  But then again, it "defends par", in so many ways other than rough and seems to work just fine, primarily thru tiny and sloping greens...

Which brings this full circle to WFW. Did Hanse unintentionally make it "easier" by enlarging the greens in the restoration, which I heard on average was about 25%?

[Mike Hendren]

When is the last time YOU played with someone who dominated a course through "bomb and gouge?"

Isn't "Far and Sure" a motto of more than one renowned golf club?


To truncate distance could be the equivalent of restrictor plate racing - the result will be 15 person playoffs at the end of 72 holes.


Isn't the best way to compete with the likes of Bryson and Rory to become a better putter?


How about the tours just build a bunch of portable tees on trailers that they can drag around to each venue and set up like a scoreboard.


I say do nothing.  Nothing at all.


Bogey

[Jason Thurman]

How about the tours just build a bunch of portable tees on trailers that they can drag around to each venue and set up like a scoreboard.

This was the single greatest idea I've ever heard in the history of distance debates around here.

I say do nothing.  Nothing at all.

Until this one.


Seriously though, my club's annual meeting is coming up. I'm hoping I have time to get portatees on the ballot.

[Sean_A]

I can’t believe that the clever scientists and production staff at the golf ball companies can’t come up with a rollback appropriate ball. Heck, 51 years ago two men landed on the Moon so tweaking the composition of a small ball shouldn’t be too hard. In fact I bet the manufacturers have dozens of different prototype versions in storerooms and cupboards.
Atb

Maybe you are right. But I am the type of person who likes to see for myself. Just saying stuff about the moon doesn't sway me nearly as much as actually trying this ball that willI solve all golf's problems.

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

The fact that this is even getting discussed shows how far golf is travelling down the wrong road. 


Will clubs soon boast "we have a Senior Rough Supervisor for near  the greens and an Assistant Rough Supervisor for other areas. Too bad they don't get along, I blame the Rough Manager for letting things get to their current state...''

[Thomas Dai]

Will clubs soon boast "we have a Senior Rough Supervisor for near  the greens and an Assistant Rough Supervisor for other areas. Too bad they don't get along, I blame the Rough Manager for letting the rough get to its current state...''

Smooth Manager, deputies and assistants?
atb

[A.G._Crockett]

I can’t believe that the clever scientists and production staff at the golf ball companies can’t come up with a rollback appropriate ball. Heck, 51 years ago two men landed on the Moon so tweaking the composition of a small ball shouldn’t be too hard. In fact I bet the manufacturers have dozens of different prototype versions in storerooms and cupboards.
Atb

Just go back to the ball we had pre 2000, where you had to make a choice between length off the tee and control around the greens. If the multilayer balls that offer the best of both worlds were banned and ball construction was legislated so you couldn't get low spin off the driver while getting high spin around the green and on wedge shots, you bring back the "Top Flite or Tour Balata" choice - but of course without the durability issues the Tour Balata had.

Mandate that a ball can have only two different materials, i.e. a cover and a core, both of which must be uniform. That doesn't stop 350 yard drives, but to get them you'd have to give up the kind of control pros need on courses with lightning fast greens.

Doug,

I don't necessarily disagree with you about the efficacy of this solution, but there are two issues that I see. 


One is that the old tour balata balls weren't two-piece balls; they had a core, then were wound, then the cover.  That is not an insignificant detail; without the core, the ball goes nowhere.  And many of the better "tour" balls today are three piece balls, including the ProV1 and a couple of the Bridgestones.  (The ProV1x is four piece). 


The other is the assumption that the ball manufacturers couldn't eventually (or quickly?) make a two piece ball with a urethane (or cover that would come close to what current three, four, or five piece tour balls do.  Nobody could have seen the current developments in materials coming, and there is no reason to believe that the current materials are the only ones that COULD be used.  In fact, there is no reason to believe that urethane is the do all/be all/end all of covers.

[jeffwarne]

The fact that this is even getting discussed shows how far golf is travelling down the wrong road. 

Agreed, and if such a policy were implemented, the Bryson's of the world would continue to bomb driver, knowing a great driving week would put them in contention, and a bad one? just more gouging or at worst a simple weekend off.
At best, it would merely punish or change strategy for the longest hitters, instead of addressing an issue that even the rank and file Tour player benefit from. It's not about "leveling the field", it's about preserving the architecture and the artistry, variety and skill of other facets of the game besides driving and wedge play.

[Mike Hendren]

Jason, I'm going with either "ElasticiTee" or "MobiliTee."


Also looking at a mowing deck that tilts and elevates so the graduated rough will be graduated, not stepped.


The No Laying Up crowd is going to idolize me.


Bogey

[Steve Lang]

   Bogey ,


I was going for one cut, though i now see the concept runs amok....


What are ya going to do about these guys?  LEAVING IT ALL ALONE IS PROBABLY BEST...

[Pete_Pittock]

money would be diverted to find which grass makes the worst rough, and a different type would be planted every 19.444 yards. I'd go with kikuyu or iceplant near the green.

[Jay Mickle]

Pinehurst #2 has done fine with no rough at all and the awarding of the US Open to Pinehurst through 2049 seem to be a tip off that additional course length will not be necessary.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()