[Padraig Dooley]

A little anecdote I've relayed to a few people on this topic, back when I was in college I and two of my friends used to play regularly with an elderly doctor in the club's Wednesday fourball, he was a great guy, loved the game, a student of the game but also used to buy all the latest equipment as soon as it came out. He used to say to us that he loved playing with us as we would hit it so far past him, he ignored us and would play his own game, however when he played his normal Monday and Friday game and one of his friends would hit it past him that normally wouldn't, he would be jumping all over the next tee shot to make sure he'd be longer next and many times this would lead to worse results than he would have liked.

The moral of the story is distance is judged by comparison not by the actual distance, is 180 metres short? Is 300 metres long? 180 metres is long compared to 10 metres, 300 metres is short compared to 3 kms.

Golfers compare the distance they hit to other golfers and in particular to the golfers they play with the most, with a rollback where everyone hits the ball shorter than before won't bother golfers as much as others think, as they will still just compare themselves to the golfers they play with.

The simple argument for a rollback is sustainability, a shorter ball means shorter courses, less area needed, less inputs needed, less resources needed, better to voluntarily use less resources rather than forced into it at a later stage and not be prepared for it.

The nature of the game argument is a poor one, as different golfers have always played holes different and will always do, even golfers at the highest level don't play the same shot, same club in the same way to same hole all the time, the hole can even play differently from the morning to the afternoon.

[jeffwarne]

As some one who works with multiple inner city courses, the impact of a uniform ball rollback is massive. This helps address the safety issues created by ever-increasing distance a ball goes off property. Most clubs are surrounded by roads, sidewalks, paths, houses and even schools. It's a frightening thing to have to deal with at times. It's becoming more and more common for courses being forced to move greens or holes to address the problems of stray golf balls. A change can't come soon enough.

Yet another common sense argument.
The whole .1 or 1% notion is total nonsense----usually followed by "handicaps haven't gotten lower"
or "the average guy only hits it 217"
The "average" guy(or whoever it is that's bringing that average down:)) isn't causing the problem of off property hits, it's just the distance the ball travels off high speed swingers with longer, lighter shafts, rebounding this faces and low spin balls (and yes more athletic technique) that are causing the problems.
There are more players THAN EVER able to exit the property with velocity-doesn't matter why, but there's a simple cure.


Reduce how far the ball travels.


Long hitters will still be long, short will still be short.
Average will still be average.

[Tim Martin]

As some one who works with multiple inner city courses, the impact of a uniform ball rollback is massive. This helps address the safety issues created by ever-increasing distance a ball goes off property. Most clubs are surrounded by roads, sidewalks, paths, houses and even schools. It's a frightening thing to have to deal with at times. It's becoming more and more common for courses being forced to move greens or holes to address the problems of stray golf balls. A change can't come soon enough.

Yet another common sense argument.
The whole .1 or 1% notion is total nonsense----usually followed by "handicaps haven't gotten lower"
or "the average guy only hits it 217"
The "average" guy(or whoever it is that's bringing that average down:)) isn't causing the problem of off property hits, it's just the distance the ball travels off high speed swingers with longer, lighter shafts, rebounding this faces and low spin balls (and yes more athletic technique) that are causing the problems.
There are more players THAN EVER able to exit the property with velocity-doesn't matter why, but there's a simple cure.


Reduce how far the ball travels.


Long hitters will still be long, short will still be short.
Average will still be average.

A great example of the distance gains are the many course driving ranges that have been made obsolete as they now pose a safety risk.

[A.G._Crockett]

As some one who works with multiple inner city courses, the impact of a uniform ball rollback is massive. This helps address the safety issues created by ever-increasing distance a ball goes off property. Most clubs are surrounded by roads, sidewalks, paths, houses and even schools. It's a frightening thing to have to deal with at times. It's becoming more and more common for courses being forced to move greens or holes to address the problems of stray golf balls. A change can't come soon enough.

Yet another common sense argument.
The whole .1 or 1% notion is total nonsense----usually followed by "handicaps haven't gotten lower"
or "the average guy only hits it 217"
The "average" guy(or whoever it is that's bringing that average down:)) isn't causing the problem of off property hits, it's just the distance the ball travels off high speed swingers with longer, lighter shafts, rebounding this faces and low spin balls (and yes more athletic technique) that are causing the problems.
There are more players THAN EVER able to exit the property with velocity-doesn't matter why, but there's a simple cure.


Reduce how far the ball travels.


Long hitters will still be long, short will still be short.
Average will still be average.

A great example of the distance gains are the many course driving ranges that have been made obsolete as they now pose a safety risk.

Interesting!


Since you say “many”, can you list some, or provide a link to a list?  I ask because I’ve never encountered this even once.  I’ve seen courses where they’ve put up a net, like Topgolf does, but I can’t recall a full on closure of a range.

[Tim Martin]

As some one who works with multiple inner city courses, the impact of a uniform ball rollback is massive. This helps address the safety issues created by ever-increasing distance a ball goes off property. Most clubs are surrounded by roads, sidewalks, paths, houses and even schools. It's a frightening thing to have to deal with at times. It's becoming more and more common for courses being forced to move greens or holes to address the problems of stray golf balls. A change can't come soon enough.

Yet another common sense argument.
The whole .1 or 1% notion is total nonsense----usually followed by "handicaps haven't gotten lower"
or "the average guy only hits it 217"
The "average" guy(or whoever it is that's bringing that average down:)) isn't causing the problem of off property hits, it's just the distance the ball travels off high speed swingers with longer, lighter shafts, rebounding this faces and low spin balls (and yes more athletic technique) that are causing the problems.
There are more players THAN EVER able to exit the property with velocity-doesn't matter why, but there's a simple cure.


Reduce how far the ball travels.


Long hitters will still be long, short will still be short.
Average will still be average.

A great example of the distance gains are the many course driving ranges that have been made obsolete as they now pose a safety risk.

Interesting!


Since you say “many”, can you list some, or provide a link to a list?  I ask because I’ve never encountered this even once.  I’ve seen courses where they’ve put up a net, like Topgolf does, but I can’t recall a full on closure of a range.

I should have been more specific as my point was that they were obsolete for purposes of hitting driver. Although I guess i wasn’t clear I didn’t mean that the range suffered a complete closure.

[A.G._Crockett]

As some one who works with multiple inner city courses, the impact of a uniform ball rollback is massive. This helps address the safety issues created by ever-increasing distance a ball goes off property. Most clubs are surrounded by roads, sidewalks, paths, houses and even schools. It's a frightening thing to have to deal with at times. It's becoming more and more common for courses being forced to move greens or holes to address the problems of stray golf balls. A change can't come soon enough.

Yet another common sense argument.
The whole .1 or 1% notion is total nonsense----usually followed by "handicaps haven't gotten lower"
or "the average guy only hits it 217"
The "average" guy(or whoever it is that's bringing that average down:)) isn't causing the problem of off property hits, it's just the distance the ball travels off high speed swingers with longer, lighter shafts, rebounding this faces and low spin balls (and yes more athletic technique) that are causing the problems.
There are more players THAN EVER able to exit the property with velocity-doesn't matter why, but there's a simple cure.


Reduce how far the ball travels.


Long hitters will still be long, short will still be short.
Average will still be average.

A great example of the distance gains are the many course driving ranges that have been made obsolete as they now pose a safety risk.

Interesting!


Since you say “many”, can you list some, or provide a link to a list?  I ask because I’ve never encountered this even once.  I’ve seen courses where they’ve put up a net, like Topgolf does, but I can’t recall a full on closure of a range.

I should have been more specific as my point was that they were obsolete for purposes of hitting driver. Although I guess i wasn’t clear I didn’t mean that the range suffered a complete closure.

I have seen that twice, but only when the very forward turf areas were being used; in both cases, when the designated teeing area was to the rear of the available area, you could still hit driver.  I don’t think I’ve ever played a tournament round where I couldn’t hit driver on the range; it’s actually more common, I think, for very old courses not to have a range at all. 

[Matt Schoolfield]

Since you say “many”, can you list some, or provide a link to a list?  I ask because I’ve never encountered this even once.  I’ve seen courses where they’ve put up a net, like Topgolf does, but I can’t recall a full on closure of a range.

Don't play the first hole at Presidio with a yellow ball. The fairway tends to get covered in them because players can now trivially hit them over the net. Both the side of the net, and even the back of the net.

I try to play my first shot on this course with an orange ball and then switch to a standard ball after, simply because you can easily lose them on a day when someone strong is working on their driver.

[Thomas Dai]

Some curious phrasing in the online Acushnet/Titleist corporate environmental policy.


Interesting to interpret how their corporate policy stands up to care for the environment, public safety etc in relation to the distance the golf balls they manufacture and sell travel. And how far their clubs hit the ball too.

“Protection of the environment is one of our biggest responsibilities and we respect the needs and concerns of the communities in which we live and work. We are committed to responsible environmental practices that minimize our impact on the environment and protect the safety and health of our associates and the public. We will comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations and we continuously look for ways to reduce the environmental impact of our operations.”

Extracting two particular lines: ‘..minimise our impact on the environment and protect the health and safety of our associates and the public’ and “..we continuously look for ways to reduce the environmental impact of our operations”.


Maybe their balls would minimise and reduce things a bit more if they didn’t travel so far!


Atb

[A.G._Crockett]

Since you say “many”, can you list some, or provide a link to a list?  I ask because I’ve never encountered this even once.  I’ve seen courses where they’ve put up a net, like Topgolf does, but I can’t recall a full on closure of a range.

Don't play the first hole at Presidio with a yellow ball. The fairway tends to get covered in them because players can now trivially hit them over the net. Both the side of the net, and even the back of the net.

I try to play my first shot on this course with an orange ball and then switch to a standard ball after, simply because you can easily lose them on a day when someone strong is working on their driver.

C’mon, guys; you’re talking about RANGE BALLS as if they are the same as premium golf balls used on the course, and they just aren’t.  Effectively, range balls are already “rolled back”; they’re nowhere near as long as premium golf balls, even when they’re brand new.  Launch monitors allow you to select range balls, and then apply an algorithm to determine what your actual yardage would be with a premium ball of your choosing.


So unless you’re advocating limiting drivers, or swing speeds, or great coaching, or whatever, let’s move on from talking about driving ranges as an argument for limiting distance on the golf ball; it just doesn’t make any sense.


And Matt?  A bunch of range balls in a fairway landing area is a course management/maintenance issue that says ZERO about golf balls, even range balls.  A few? Sure, there are crazy slices and shanks and hooks being hit on ranges; in a lot of cases, that’s why the guy is on the range in the first place.  But if you can’t find your own ball because of range balls on the course, that a pretty poor operation.

[John Kavanaugh]

Love the look of the first hole at Presidio. Can Scoofy cut the corner?


https://www.presidiogolf.com/course/hole-by-hole-tour/

[Kalen Braley]

Speaking of nets, the driving range ain't the only place you see more of them.

Also on the course - installed by both course mgmt. and homeowners.  Curious if homes in those those tightly spaced track-housing courses from yesteryear have lost any of their luster and/or value?  I'd certainly be very wary.

P.S.  Thomas I wouldn't read too much into that Corporate Policy.  Not sure how European companies work, but here in America the vast majority of those "declarations" are absolute pandering rubbish.

[Bruce Katona]

I wrote a longer reply earlier today, it went MIA.


Anyway, in my $0.02, provided the engineering is there (which I believe it is); the ball manufacturers will produce a ball that goes 10% less for the 0.10% of payers playing at an elite level with corresponding swing speed.


For the rest of us mere mortals who swing within the average swing speed range (and get miniscule distance help with the modern ball), this new ball likely won't impact us much, one way or the other.   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But again, 5% rollback doesn't begin to address the issue. I can see it now, rollbackers slapping each other on the back over an inconsequential rollback after spending all their currency in the fight. Rollbackers should be trying the approach which has the best chance for biggest rollback.

And a universal 10% rollback will have guys who hit their 7I 160 hitting it 145. Yet many (including some here) claim that "they won't notice." Hmmmm.

Agree with the first but the average Handicap staying roughly the same over time, doesn't support your other "facts"."Facts" are used selectively at best.

As AG posted, the average handicap staying roughly the same over time is a myth. It's dropping, and has been for quite some time.

Plus, only about 14% of golfers ever get instruction, so our (instructors) ability to affect the average handicap index is somewhat limited.

For the rest of us mere mortals who swing within the average swing speed range (and get miniscule distance help with the modern ball), this new ball likely won't impact us much, one way or the other.

I had suggested something similar (though perhaps not that extreme), and plenty of people directly involved said that was basically impossible. If it affects a 185-mph ball speed guy 10%, it's gonna affect a 120-mph ball speed person almost 10%. Maybe they could get to 8% or something, but it's not going to be only 5% or less.

[A.G._Crockett]

I wrote a longer reply earlier today, it went MIA.


Anyway, in my $0.02, provided the engineering is there (which I believe it is); the ball manufacturers will produce a ball that goes 10% less for the 0.10% of payers playing at an elite level with corresponding swing speed.


For the rest of us mere mortals who swing within the average swing speed range (and get miniscule distance help with the modern ball), this new ball likely won't impact us much, one way or the other.

Fwiw, Dean Snell disagrees with you about the engineering, and he likely knows as much about golf balls as anyone alive.  It is one thing to say, “We want a ball that goes X percent shorter.”; it is another thing entirely to get the spin characteristics, layers, dimples, etc, such that the ball performs well.


There will be a LOT of R&D to this, and I think it’s a fair assumption that those costs will be passed along to consumers. At the very least, it means completely retooling production lines, and that plus the R&D costs may mean that DTC companies like Snell and Vice, who would have been fine with bifurcation because their balls aren’t being used on Tour anyway, will struggle to survive.

[Sean_A]

But again, 5% rollback doesn't begin to address the issue. I can see it now, rollbackers slapping each other on the back over an inconsequential rollback after spending all their currency in the fight. Rollbackers should be trying the approach which has the best chance for biggest rollback.

And a universal 10% rollback will have guys who hit their 7I 160 hitting it 145. Yet many (including some here) claim that "they won't notice." Hmmmm.

Agree with the first but the average Handicap staying roughly the same over time, doesn't support your other "facts"."Facts" are used selectively at best.

As AG posted, the average handicap staying roughly the same over time is a myth. It's dropping, and has been for quite some time.

Plus, only about 14% of golfers ever get instruction, so our (instructors) ability to affect the average handicap index is somewhat limited.

For the rest of us mere mortals who swing within the average swing speed range (and get miniscule distance help with the modern ball), this new ball likely won't impact us much, one way or the other.

I had suggested something similar (though perhaps not that extreme), and plenty of people directly involved said that was basically impossible. If it affects a 185-mph ball speed guy 10%, it's gonna affect a 120-mph ball speed person almost 10%. Maybe they could get to 8% or something, but it's not going to be only 5% or less.

To be honest, I have a hard time believing the rollback will barely be noticed by slow swingers relative to fast swingers. I have been told this is the case, but I would prefer to discover the answer for myself…something bifurcation allow me to do.


Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

...
I’m one of those wild swinging mid-handicaps.
...

I can attest to that.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Like I said, if they're going to roll it back, I only had four real positions:

• I don't think they need to base any change on 0.1% of the world's golfers.

...
[/list]

The Pope of Slope said 11 or 12 percent of golfers were Wild Willys.

...

And actually, I think it's the right move.  There are a ton of young, wild swinging golfers out there today.  Making their wild ones not go so far would be a favor to everyone else on the course.  Some quarters will fret that we can't afford to lose these golfers, but nobody is drawn to golf because it's easy.

I guess the definition of ton is 11 to 12 percent of golfers.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The Pope of Slope said 11 or 12 percent of golfers were Wild Willys.

My 0.1% was basically referring to Tour players, and the Dean says 8% are Wild Willy players, or does here at least: http://www.popeofslope.com/courserating/twoparameter.html.

[Mike Hendren]

At the age of 65 I certainly understand the need to rein in my 220 yards bombs from the tee.  ‘Bout damn time.


Also will all courses require re-sloping?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Also will all courses require re-sloping?

Re-rated (CR and Slope), probably, yes. Especially at about 10%, yeah. I've enjoyed being a course rating captain for my area, but that might be the year I stop doing that. 

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Also will all courses require re-sloping?

Re-rated (CR and Slope), probably, yes. Especially at about 10%, yeah. I've enjoyed being a course rating captain for my area, but that might be the year I stop doing that. 

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".
So there's no need to re-rate golf courses.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

[Niall C]

Some random thoughts;


- 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.


- what is the optimum spec of golf ball for individual golfers ? personally I play Pro V's even though I have a relatively slow swing speed. The reason I play them is that I like the feel and control around the greens, even though I'm sure there are other golf balls that could give me more distance.


- I'm now in my late 50's. I haven't been a member at the club I grew up at for about 30 years however every few years or so I go back and play there. When I do go back there are a couple of holes which provide a yardstick for me in terms of how far I hit my driver. What I can say for definite is that my drives go further (20-30 yards) than they did when I was in my 20's and at my fittest. I've been playing a ping i20 driver from not long after it came out.


- what will this mean for golf course design ? Sadly I think we'll mostly see a rash of new forward tees on existing courses.


Niall

[Tim Martin]

- what will this mean for golf course design ? Sadly I think we'll mostly see a rash of new forward tees on existing courses.

Niall

+1

[Erik J. Barzeski]

- what will this mean for golf course design ? Sadly I think we'll mostly see a rash of new forward tees on existing courses.

Sadly? Oh boy.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()