[Adam Lawrence]

- re golf ball manufacturers. I very much doubt they are concerned about the market for golf balls disappearing but are rather more concerned about their individual market share, particularly the dominant brands such as Titliest.

Yes, of course. If you're the dominant player in a market, any major change is a threat.

[Mark Stewart]

Since the introduction of the ProV1 in 2001, Men's Indexes have dropped from 15.5 to 14.0,(source: USGA) while rounds played in the US dropped by 16 % from 2001-2018(source:National Golf Foundation).



Has technology made the game easier? Absolutely


Was this easier game more popular than before? Absolutely Not


What new breakthroughs in equipment contributed to golf's recent resurrection? Absolutely None.


At best, equipment has minimal impact on golf participation; at worst, modern equipment harmed golf for nearly two decades.

[Thomas Dai]

- re golf ball manufacturers. I very much doubt they are concerned about the market for golf balls disappearing but are rather more concerned about their individual market share, particularly the dominant brands such as Titliest.

Yes, of course. If you're the dominant player in a market, any major change is a threat.

Understood.

Mind don’t buy their products and embarras their disingenuous displays of corporate policy (see post above).
Atb

[Tim Gavrich]

FWIW, nothing I have heard about modifying the golf ball suggests that it will amount to a flat tax on distance for all golfers. The idea very much seems to be that the longest hitters will see more of a hit to distance than will shorter hitters. This means that the vast majority of recreational players will experience negligible impact, relative to rollback's main target demo. Given there have been several closed tests of a prospective rolled-back ball in recent years, overseen by the USGA, I'm guessing that notion has some heavy anecdotal and data backing.


This will be a great step for golf because the current ball (and driver, which I hope is addressed next) has widened the gap between short hitters and long hitters in every handicap tranche to an unsustainable level. That's why golf courses are trotting out 6 and 7 sets of tees when 3 or 4 used to be sufficient.


Finally, the consternation over equipment regulation changes from rank-and-file golfers is way out of proportion. Only a small fraction of golfers even carry a handicap, which means that after rollback happens, the vast majority of golfers can do what they've always been free to do: play non-conforming equipment. If distance is truly as essential to people's enjoyment of golf as anti-rollbackers protest, then there will be billions of dollars to be made in non-conforming balls and clubs.


But I reckon the reality is that this is a tempest in a teacup, and after some initial toddler-like whining, golfers will have as much fun as they always have playing conforming equipment.

[Ryan Van Culin]

I'm going to echo what was just said. If they introduce a 10% shorter ball, effective Jan 1, 2024, what is to stop people from buying a pallet of 2023 balls and playing them the rest of their lives?


Is there a way that the new balls would be easily recognizable as conforming? Mind you, I'm not talking about elite golf, I'm referring to club championships, member-members, charity events, and even recreational golf. How are you going to know your opponent didn't swap out a 2023 100% distance ball on the 2nd hole?


It seems like a can of worms that doesn't need opened. I'm in the Top 5% of distance of all golfers and I'm not hitting into streets and daycares every time I play. Also, didn't Mark Broadie determine that as players get relatively longer, they also get more accurate?


My opinion, which matters none, is that the clubs be made less forgiving. The reason average swing speed has increased, I believe, is because there is less of a penalty for mishits.

[Garland Bayley]

Since the rating system has never adjusted to the increase in the length the golf ball has been hit, and stuck to it's own defined "lengths".

Yes, you're right that it's never been "adjusted," but since the average scratch golfer still hits it about 250 and the average bogey golfer still hits it about the length in the course rating system… knocking 10% off that could be significant.

In other words, what was a little stiff decades ago (250 yards for a scratch golfer was maybe five or six yards long), is now only a little bit shy (five or six yards short). 230, though, would be somewhat significant (256 - 10%), as would 200 * 0.9.

And that's to say nothing of the second shots: right now it's 250 and 220 (or 200 and 170), so 470 and 370. Those numbers become 423 and 333.

There is no need to talk about rerating. No rerating need be done. Players handicaps will simply change as they post scores with the new balls. Probably they won't change that fast, as the amateurs will probably still play the old balls in stock. Since it is easy to find golf balls, many amateurs will have their handicaps slowly change proportional to the number of restricted balls they find, thereby slowly upping the proportion of new balls in their collection.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The idea very much seems to be that the longest hitters will see more of a hit to distance than will shorter hitters.

In yards, sure. Probably not as a percentage.

This means that the vast majority of recreational players will experience negligible impact, relative to rollback's main target demo.

Wishful thinking or fantasy based on talks with golf ball engineers (aero, plastics, etc.).

the vast majority of golfers can do what they've always been free to do: play non-conforming equipment.

They don't, though. Not many "Bandit" balls sold. The ERC II went over like a lead balloon.

Is there a way that the new balls would be easily recognizable as conforming? Mind you, I'm not talking about elite golf, I'm referring to club championships, member-members, charity events, and even recreational golf. How are you going to know your opponent didn't swap out a 2023 100% distance ball on the 2nd hole?

The same rules that stop people from doing that now.

Also, didn't Mark Broadie determine that as players get relatively longer, they also get more accurate?

Yes, because they're by and large more skilled, too.

There is no need to talk about rerating. No rerating need be done. Players handicaps will simply change as they post scores with the new balls.

Great. "The new ball turned this +1 into a 1.7 and that 10.2 over there is now a 13.1!"

[Ryan Van Culin]

Is there a way that the new balls would be easily recognizable as conforming? Mind you, I'm not talking about elite golf, I'm referring to club championships, member-members, charity events, and even recreational golf. How are you going to know your opponent didn't swap out a 2023 100% distance ball on the 2nd hole?

The same rules that stop people from doing that now.


It's a different story if a player is playing a 2023 ProV1 vs 2024 ProV1 with a 10% difference in distance. Currently, if I deviate from the one ball rule (which is only a playing condition, not a rule, I think), I'm not gaining 10% distance.

Also, didn't Mark Broadie determine that as players get relatively longer, they also get more accurate?

Yes, because they're by and large more skilled, too.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe he found this difference across all handicaps, i.e. a longer 10 index is also a straighter 10 index. Maybe we're saying the same thing, I'm not trying to split hairs.


I always enjoy being quoted by you, Erik. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It's a different story if a player is playing a 2023 ProV1 vs 2024 ProV1 with a 10% difference in distance. Currently, if I deviate from the one ball rule (which is only a playing condition, not a rule, I think), I'm not gaining 10% distance.

No, it's the same rule: you have to play with approved equipment. I know you know this, but there's a list of approved equipment, and again… players don't generally play illegal equipment. The new balls would have different markings and would be pretty clearly distinguishable. The penalties for playing with non-conforming equipment are pretty severe.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I believe he found this difference across all handicaps, i.e. a longer 10 index is also a straighter 10 index. Maybe we're saying the same thing, I'm not trying to split hairs.

[Garland Bayley]

There is no need to talk about rerating. No rerating need be done. Players handicaps will simply change as they post scores with the new balls.

Great. "The new ball turned this +1 into a 1.7 and that 10.2 over there is now a 13.1!"

And, the +1.1 turned into a 1.6! And, the 10.3 turned into a 13.2!   

Nothing changed! Unless for some reason your ego is tied to a number. 

You really don't seem to grasp the concept of handicapping.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And, the +1.1 turned into a 1.6! And, the 10.3 turned into a 13.2!

Not necessarily, no. Every player wouldn't be affected by the same number of strokes, etc. I was only illustrating that a +1 could become a 1.2 or a 1.8 or a 0.7 or something… but still be the same golfer, but that would indicate something is off with the rating.

Maybe the movement wouldn't be that much. Maybe it'd be half a shot, or 0.3. But that's not negligible. But distance is a big component of a course's ratings (scratch and bogey), so a 10% (maybe) reduction could necessitate changes.

You really don't seem to grasp the concept of handicapping.

I grasp the concept just fine, and it has nothing to do with "ego." Handicaps aren't just used for determining strokes in a match — they can also determine who is eligible to play in an event, or to attempt to qualify for an event, etc.

My grasp of basic math has never been the question here. You cannot say the same.

[Jerry Kluger]

There is a fellow in the US, Michael Breed, who is a pro and has a show on PGA Tour channel and he is totally against dialing back the ball - I believe it should be for the very best players.  He was discussing this on his show yesterday and I called in.  I posted a summary of my conversation with him in a companion thread about the Old Course and dialing back the ball. This is what I said:

[/size]I called into his show yesterday and had quite a discussion with him and he lost his credibility because he said that we must protect the jobs of the guys who dive for balls as they balls would not be allowed anymore to which I responded - things happen and the jobs of 50 guys aren't going to stop the evolution of the game.  He said that baseball doesn't use aluminum bats because it would be dangerous - I explained to him that the reason is that they would have to build all new stadiums because the outfield fences wouldn't be deep enough and that would never happen as the owners would never pay for it.  He also got off on a tangent saying that removing trees from courses has made them easier as it is easier to play from rough than from behind a tree and the tree removal is just to make the fairway grasses grow better - I said that by removing trees and allowing the rough to grow makes it far more difficult as the best players might have to deal with the trees once or twice in a round but they are likely to play out of the rough 6 or 8 or even more times during a round - I told him he should ask Tom Doak or Ben Crenshaw or Andrew Green about tree removal. I also asked him if he thought Oakmont was an easier course after they removed the trees and he said it was.  I said how many courses are there that have the money to spend to buy land to make the course longer like they did at ANGC - it makes so many great courses too short for the best players to be challenged such as the hybrid - wedge, which one player hit into the 18th at Sawgrass.  I don't know if I covered everything or if the comments were in this exact order but I was driving so I wasn't able to stop and take notes. [/color]

[Garland Bayley]

Erik,

There is a difference between the concept of handicapping, and the math of handicapping. You seem to over emphasize the math, which given the formulas and told where to put the numbers, many elementary students could do.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There is a difference between the concept of handicapping, and the math of handicapping. You seem to over emphasize the math, which given the formulas and told where to put the numbers, many elementary students could do.

I suppose that explains why you have so much trouble. 

I know about the concepts and the differences. I also noticed you ignored that I said handicaps apply to more than just a match against someone. And you don't think people are going to be pissed if they were a 10.1 that goes to a 12.7? Ha.

I'll make this simple for ya: you ignore me, I ignore you. Take care.

[Craig Sweet]

This is a solution looking for a problem. Do you honestly think anyone REALLY cares how far the ball is going with the exception of a handful of bed wetters raging and ranting that the game is too easy, using up too much land, and bouncing wayward shots of houses built 50 feet off the fairways?


If someone finds a 6000 yard course isn't challenging they can go play somewhere else.  That will open up a membership spot for someone like me that hits 220 yard drives and has a killer short game.


Frickin' bed wetters are ruining golf.

[Ryan Van Culin]

Nothing changed! Unless for some reason your ego is tied to a number. 

As Erik said, the handicapping isn't about ego for everyone. For me, I'm always on the cusp of qualifying or not for tournaments and qualifiers. If I go from a 0.0 to a 2.5 handicap, now I can't get into US open and US amateur qualifiers. I understand I'm not likely to contend or even qualify, but I still enjoy playing.

[Rob Marshall]

Nothing changed! Unless for some reason your ego is tied to a number. 

As Erik said, the handicapping isn't about ego for everyone. For me, I'm always on the cusp of qualifying or not for tournaments and qualifiers. If I go from a 0.0 to a 2.5 handicap, now I can't get into US open and US amateur qualifiers. I understand I'm not likely to contend or even qualify, but I still enjoy playing.

For me it's a benchmark for how I'm playing. There are also plenty of guys playing in those qualifiers whose handicap in reality is higher than 2.5.

[Charlie Goerges]

Nothing changed! Unless for some reason your ego is tied to a number. 

As Erik said, the handicapping isn't about ego for everyone. For me, I'm always on the cusp of qualifying or not for tournaments and qualifiers. If I go from a 0.0 to a 2.5 handicap, now I can't get into US open and US amateur qualifiers. I understand I'm not likely to contend or even qualify, but I still enjoy playing.

Are we certain the USGA wouldn't raise the handicap limit commensurate with an overall increase in handicaps?

[A.G._Crockett]

Nothing changed! Unless for some reason your ego is tied to a number. 

As Erik said, the handicapping isn't about ego for everyone. For me, I'm always on the cusp of qualifying or not for tournaments and qualifiers. If I go from a 0.0 to a 2.5 handicap, now I can't get into US open and US amateur qualifiers. I understand I'm not likely to contend or even qualify, but I still enjoy playing.

Same here; I play in a couple of tournaments that require a single digit index to enter even the qualifiers.  I don’t think I suffer from any excessive amount of ego about my index; I probably DO suffer from an excessive love of competition.

[Ben Hollerbach]

If the ball change is implemented for all, then the impact of the ball change would be felt by all, including a potential impact to player's handicaps
If you handicap rises while your playing neighbors does not, that says little about the overall impact of the ball on the game and more about your inability to adjust to the ball.
Which really makes the whole discussion about handicap moot under this context.

[A.G._Crockett]

If the ball change is implemented for all, then the impact of the ball change would be felt by all, including a potential impact to player's handicaps
If you handicap rises while your playing neighbors does not, that says little about the overall impact of the ball on the game and more about your inability to adjust to the ball.
Which really makes the whole discussion about handicap moot under this context.

I wasn’t talking about my “playing neighbor’s” index in comparison to mine, nor was Ryan.  We were speaking of index requirements for entering tournaments.  So it isn’t a moot discussion at all, at least to us.

[Ben Hollerbach]

If the ball change is implemented for all, then the impact of the ball change would be felt by all, including a potential impact to player's handicaps
If you handicap rises while your playing neighbors does not, that says little about the overall impact of the ball on the game and more about your inability to adjust to the ball.
Which really makes the whole discussion about handicap moot under this context.

I wasn’t talking about my “playing neighbor’s” index in comparison to mine, nor was Ryan.  We were speaking of index requirements for entering tournaments.  So it isn’t a moot discussion at all, at least to us.

But yet your are talking about your playing neighbors when you speak to qualifying for a tournament. Especially if this year you both qualify and next year only they do.

Blaming the handicap system on your inabilities as a player is an excuse and an exercise in vanity. The change in the ball would propose the same question to all, its up to the individual players to answer it.

[Ryan Van Culin]

If the ball change is implemented for all, then the impact of the ball change would be felt by all, including a potential impact to player's handicaps
If you handicap rises while your playing neighbors does not, that says little about the overall impact of the ball on the game and more about your inability to adjust to the ball.
Which really makes the whole discussion about handicap moot under this context.

I wasn’t talking about my “playing neighbor’s” index in comparison to mine, nor was Ryan.  We were speaking of index requirements for entering tournaments.  So it isn’t a moot discussion at all, at least to us.

But yet your are talking about your playing neighbors when you speak to qualifying for a tournament. Especially if this year you both qualify and next year only they do.

Blaming the handicap system on your inabilities as a player is an excuse and an exercise in vanity. The change in the ball would propose the same question to all, its up to the individual players to answer it.

No one is blaming the handicap system for our inadequacies as human beings. We are simply saying that if everyone's index went up a certain percent, which was previously mentioned, then certain of us will no longer qualify for events, with no change in our ability or inability. The "play better" argument is the argument anyone would make if they had no logical argument on which to stand. Sure, I can practice more, thanks for that. Maybe you should give seminars.


Also, if you're making the argument that everyone will, in theory, be affected equally, then you may also assume that the governing bodies will raise the index requirements to enter these events. That is a reasonable assumption, but not an assumption that was made in the original statement. The assumption was my index goes from 0.0 to 2.5 and the requirement to enter, for example, US Am qualifying remains at 2.4.

[A.G._Crockett]

If the ball change is implemented for all, then the impact of the ball change would be felt by all, including a potential impact to player's handicaps
If you handicap rises while your playing neighbors does not, that says little about the overall impact of the ball on the game and more about your inability to adjust to the ball.
Which really makes the whole discussion about handicap moot under this context.

I wasn’t talking about my “playing neighbor’s” index in comparison to mine, nor was Ryan.  We were speaking of index requirements for entering tournaments.  So it isn’t a moot discussion at all, at least to us.

But yet your are talking about your playing neighbors when you speak to qualifying for a tournament. Especially if this year you both qualify and next year only they do.

Blaming the handicap system on your inabilities as a player is an excuse and an exercise in vanity. The change in the ball would propose the same question to all, its up to the individual players to answer it.

Wow; get judgmental and sanctimonious much?


Since I haven’t NOT qualified yet, I don’t think I’m blaming anything, or being vain.  We were discussing POSSIBLE impacts of the change.  Get off your high horse.

[Adam Lawrence]

If the ball change is implemented for all, then the impact of the ball change would be felt by all, including a potential impact to player's handicaps
If you handicap rises while your playing neighbors does not, that says little about the overall impact of the ball on the game and more about your inability to adjust to the ball.
Which really makes the whole discussion about handicap moot under this context.

I wasn’t talking about my “playing neighbor’s” index in comparison to mine, nor was Ryan.  We were speaking of index requirements for entering tournaments.  So it isn’t a moot discussion at all, at least to us.

Surely it is moot? If handicap indices go up then so will the qualifying requirements. Pretty simply logic.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()