[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.

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.

I'm not suggesting that your ability has changed, rather the game has changed and your previous ability might not be as applicable. If a shorter golf ball posed a noticeable negative impact to your handicap under your current playing conditions, it would seem logical that one who wants to play at the same level as before would need to make adjustments, but that would not entirely mean just "playing better".

I also did not say that everyone will be affected equally. What I did say is that everyone will be affected. The existence of the new ball as a requirement for play is the question everyone will have to try and solve. For some it may be more challenging than it will be for others, but that is yet to be seen as to where and how it impacts the playing field.

I'm not convinced that a change in the ball will have a wide spectrum impact on players handicaps as some have suggested. If we were to go back 15 years, it would not be surprising to find similar comments spoken about the grove rule change impacting players performance. But as it has been pointed out earlier in this thread, handicaps have continued to improve over time. The average handicap today is lower than it was back in 2009.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm not suggesting that your ability has changed, rather the game has changed and your previous ability might not be as applicable. If a shorter golf ball posed a noticeable negative impact to your handicap under your current playing conditions, it would seem logical that one who wants to play at the same level as before would need to make adjustments, but that would not entirely mean just "playing better".

The "change" they could make would be new ratings for the course. That way your skill level (which hasn't changed) would be reflected by your handicap index not changing.

I'm not convinced that a change in the ball will have a wide spectrum impact on players handicaps as some have suggested.

Thing is, we can quantify how many strokes gaining (or losing) 25 yards off the tee will affect scoring averages, handicaps, etc. Broadie did it. Lou's done it. I've done a little bit of it. You can believe in the tooth fairy all you want, Ben. Doesn't make it real.

Edit: Let's say a player loses 25 yards on 14 tee shots a round. My home course has tees that are 6500 yards and rated 72.2/141. Add 350 yards and that's almost 50 yards longer than the next farther back tees, which are rated… 74.0/145.

And that's to say nothing of the second (or third) shots. A 6500 yard course that plays even 5% longer becomes that same 74.0/145 roughly (6825), and at 10% longer becomes 7100.

If we were to go back 15 years, it would not be surprising to find similar comments spoken about the grove rule change impacting players performance.

I lived through it, and it would surprise me. The groove rule was mostly for PGA Tour players… and it wasn't even set to take effect until next year for regular golfers. Bad example.

[Mike_Clayton]

It's a pity there is no data on how handicaps changed last time the ball was rolled back.
Back when every shot was different to some extent - chips, bunkers shots, drives into the wind and crosswinds.

[Garland Bayley]

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 know about the concepts and the differences.
...

Please note that I said the concept of handicapping. You seem to have  translated that to the concepts of handicap calculation.

[Garland Bayley]

...
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.
...

Or, that your neighbor has a large supply of nonconforming balls being used.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Please note that I said the concept of handicapping. You seem to have  translated that to the concepts of handicap calculation.

Nope. I'm talking about handicapping as it applies beyond head-to-head matches or "getting strokes." This has been made pretty clear. Handicapping is relevant to more than that. Just because you need to a calculation to get a handicap does not mean I'm talking only about the actual calculation.

Seriously, Garland. Just skip over/ignore my posts, and I'll skip over/ignore yours.

[Rob Marshall]

Congratulations Garland. Tim and I were getting lonely....

[Tim Martin]

Congratulations Garland. Tim and I were getting lonely....

  -If Erik shuns one more guy we’ll have a foursome!

[A.G._Crockett]

Congratulations Garland. Tim and I were getting lonely....

  -If Erik shuns one more guy we’ll have a foursome!

Given who Erik is and what he has done the golf industry, are you sure you should be proud of that? 

[BHoover]

Congratulations Garland. Tim and I were getting lonely....

  -If Erik shuns one more guy we’ll have a foursome!

Has anyone considered one potential benefit of a rollback — an updated version of the NYT bestseller “Lowest Score Wins: Even When You Hit It 10% Shorter”???

[Rob Marshall]

Congratulations Garland. Tim and I were getting lonely....

  -If Erik shuns one more guy we’ll have a foursome!

Has anyone considered one potential benefit of a rollback — an updated version of the NYT bestseller “Lowest Score Wins: Even When You Hit It 10% Shorter”???

That was funny!

[A.G._Crockett]

Congratulations Garland. Tim and I were getting lonely....

  -If Erik shuns one more guy we’ll have a foursome!

Has anyone considered one potential benefit of a rollback — an updated version of the NYT bestseller “Lowest Score Wins: Even When You Hit It 10% Shorter”???

That was funny!

No, it actually wasn't funny at all; it was just more of the snarkiness that passes for discussion on this site nowadays.
It's actually quite of good book; I had come across it long before I even knew who Erik was.  If you haven't read it, you might give it a look.  It has value IF you want to play better golf, and it is not unknown in the golf world.  If you're unfamiliar with it, consider the possibility that that says more about you than about the book.

It also happens that I know an outstanding young assistant pro here in NC who played college golf for Erik in PA.  He holds Erik in the highest possible regard; you can take that for what it's worth.  As a retired coach, it means something significant to me.

[Tim Martin]

Congratulations Garland. Tim and I were getting lonely....

  -If Erik shuns one more guy we’ll have a foursome!

Has anyone considered one potential benefit of a rollback — an updated version of the NYT bestseller “Lowest Score Wins: Even When You Hit It 10% Shorter”???

That was funny!

No, it actually wasn't funny at all; it was just more of the snarkiness that passes for discussion on this site nowadays.
It's actually quite of good book; I had come across it long before I even knew who Erik was.  If you haven't read it, you might give it a look.  It has value IF you want to play better golf, and it is not unknown in the golf world.  If you're unfamiliar with it, consider the possibility that that says more about you than about the book.

It also happens that I know an outstanding young assistant pro here in NC who played college golf for Erik in PA.  He holds Erik in the highest possible regard; you can take that for what it's worth.  As a retired coach, it means something significant to me.

So for any golfer that didn’t read or is unfamiliar with Erik’s book that says something about that person? You’re holding out hero worship for a guy whose tagline on a golf architecture website is “I ignore Tim, Rob and Garland” which is something you might read in an 8th grade yearbook.

[BHoover]

I have not read the book. But I am sure the points made in the book will be applicable to a rolled-back golf ball.

[A.G._Crockett]

Congratulations Garland. Tim and I were getting lonely....

  -If Erik shuns one more guy we’ll have a foursome!

Has anyone considered one potential benefit of a rollback — an updated version of the NYT bestseller “Lowest Score Wins: Even When You Hit It 10% Shorter”???

That was funny!

No, it actually wasn't funny at all; it was just more of the snarkiness that passes for discussion on this site nowadays.
It's actually quite of good book; I had come across it long before I even knew who Erik was.  If you haven't read it, you might give it a look.  It has value IF you want to play better golf, and it is not unknown in the golf world.  If you're unfamiliar with it, consider the possibility that that says more about you than about the book.

It also happens that I know an outstanding young assistant pro here in NC who played college golf for Erik in PA.  He holds Erik in the highest possible regard; you can take that for what it's worth.  As a retired coach, it means something significant to me.

So for any golfer that didn’t read or is unfamiliar with Erik’s book that says something about that person? You’re holding out hero worship for a guy whose tagline on a golf architecture website is “I ignore Tim, Rob and Garland” which is something you might read in an 8th grade yearbook.

Tim, I don’t hold hero worship for anybody on god’s green earth; nobody. Not a single soul in ANY field of human endeavor, much less golf. I respect what Erik has done in golf, from the book to teaching to college coaching to presentations to the ASGCA. But hero worship? Hardly.


You guys were substituting making fun of a book that you probably even haven’t read in place of actual discussion. His tagline came about for good reason, and I’ve read those posts, too, just like I also read that book.  It’s funny that you mention a 8th grade yearbook; I was thinking about a 5th grade lunch table when I read that series of posts from you guys.  Just juvenile meanness, nothing more, and definitely NOT funny.


I’ve been on this site almost from the beginning, and what it’s become relative to what it was and still could be is a sad, sad thing. I don’t know if there is any sort of a moderator anymore, but there should be, and some of what you guys write would be taken down with warnings and possible bans. 


I’ll move on now.

[Tim Martin]

Congratulations Garland. Tim and I were getting lonely....

  -If Erik shuns one more guy we’ll have a foursome!

Has anyone considered one potential benefit of a rollback — an updated version of the NYT bestseller “Lowest Score Wins: Even When You Hit It 10% Shorter”???

That was funny!

No, it actually wasn't funny at all; it was just more of the snarkiness that passes for discussion on this site nowadays.
It's actually quite of good book; I had come across it long before I even knew who Erik was.  If you haven't read it, you might give it a look.  It has value IF you want to play better golf, and it is not unknown in the golf world.  If you're unfamiliar with it, consider the possibility that that says more about you than about the book.

It also happens that I know an outstanding young assistant pro here in NC who played college golf for Erik in PA.  He holds Erik in the highest possible regard; you can take that for what it's worth.  As a retired coach, it means something significant to me.

So for any golfer that didn’t read or is unfamiliar with Erik’s book that says something about that person? You’re holding out hero worship for a guy whose tagline on a golf architecture website is “I ignore Tim, Rob and Garland” which is something you might read in an 8th grade yearbook.

Tim, I don’t hold hero worship for anybody on god’s green earth; nobody. Not a single soul in ANY field of human endeavor, much less golf. I respect what Erik has done in golf, from the book to teaching to college coaching to presentations to the ASGCA. But hero worship? Hardly.


You guys were substituting making fun of a book that you probably even haven’t read in place of actual discussion. His tagline came about for good reason, and I’ve read those posts, too, just like I also read that book.  It’s funny that you mention a 8th grade yearbook; I was thinking about a 5th grade lunch table when I read that series of posts from you guys.  Just juvenile meanness, nothing more, and definitely NOT funny.


I’ve been on this site almost from the beginning, and what it’s become relative to what it was and still could be is a sad, sad thing. I don’t know if there is any sort of a moderator anymore, but there should be, and some of what you guys write would be taken down with warnings and possible bans. 


I’ll move on now.

A.G.-I didn’t make fun of Erik’s book. As far as being snarky Erik is at the head of the class and gives just as good as he gets. Happy Holidays.

[Garland Bayley]

Congratulations Garland. Tim and I were getting lonely....

  -If Erik shuns one more guy we’ll have a foursome!

Has anyone considered one potential benefit of a rollback — an updated version of the NYT bestseller “Lowest Score Wins: Even When You Hit It 10% Shorter”???

Truly funny!

[Rob Marshall]

I didn't make fun of his book. He may have some valuable knowledge. Problem is it is normally presented in a condescending manner in my opinion. Just can't take someone who talks down to everyone seriously.

[Garland Bayley]

Please note that I said the concept of handicapping. You seem to have  translated that to the concepts of handicap calculation.

Nope. I'm talking about handicapping as it applies beyond head-to-head matches or "getting strokes." This has been made pretty clear. Handicapping is relevant to more than that. Just because you need to a calculation to get a handicap does not mean I'm talking only about the actual calculation.

Seriously, Garland. Just skip over/ignore my posts, and I'll skip over/ignore yours.

If you understood the concept of handicapping, you would realize the concept has nothing to do with course rating. There have been many handicap systems before there was course rating, and it may very well be that there will be a future one that surpasses the current one without using course rating. So if you truly understood the concept of handicapping, you would understand that you didn't need to rerate courses to have the concept hold true.

Your fixture on rerating courses was clearly demonstrated by your previous post.

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.

I am not the only one advising you that rerating is not necessary. Perhaps you should consider taking some advice.

[John Kavanaugh]

If he hasn’t ignored me how bright can he be?

[Bruce Katona]

JK:

Lobbying to be the 4th in that celebrated group?

[Tony Ristola]

My take is they are only looking at it from the professional level.  Tour pros may play a rolled back ball, not regular golfers.

Most golfers don't hit it consistently well to notice. If you changed balls (a roll-back) and a current ball on every other hole, my bet is most golfers wouldn't have a clue.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Most golfers don't hit it consistently well to notice. If you changed balls (a roll-back) and a current ball on every other hole, my bet is most golfers wouldn't have a clue.

So a guy normally hits his 7I 155, and on the second hole he hits it good and it goes 140. He's not gonna notice, and that with a 7I? Let alone the 24 yards shorter he hits his tee shot on the fourth hole, and the now 3+ clubs different he has into the green?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-ra-rollback-announcement-december-2023

Three of the paragraphs from the article:

The USGA and R&A are expected to announce early next week that they will be changing the rules to roll back distance in golf—and not just for elite players. The expected decision likely would make nearly every popular golf ball played both professionally and recreationally non-conforming. The news comes from multiple industry sources with direct knowledge of the plans of golf’s governing bodies, speaking on background.

That decision apparently will mean a period of bifurcated rules starting in 2028, when the elite professionals use a shorter golf ball than recreational players. But starting two years later, all balls that conform to the Rules of Golf will apparently be 15 or more yards shorter at the elite level. The effect on distance for recreational players will likely be less, but could be proportional. So that if a tour player loses five percent (or 15 yards on a 300-yard drive), then a recreational player might lose that same five percent on a 225-yard drive (or roughly 11 yards). And the same golfer likely would lose a similar percentage on his or her approach shots.

In a Golf Digest internet survey this week that was open to all golfers, with more than 600 people responding, a significant majority (64.6 percent) said they would not abide by rules that reduce ball distance. They felt nearly the same about distance limitations at the elite level, with 60.4 percent not wanting to see pros and top amateurs have their length pushed back.

[JohnVDB]

Quote[size=0px]In a Golf Digest internet survey this week that was open to all golfers, with more than 600 people responding, a significant majority (64.6 percent) said they would not abide by rules that reduce ball distance. They felt nearly the same about distance limitations at the elite level, with 60.4 percent not wanting to see pros and top amateurs have their length pushed back.[/size]


Internet surveys are worth the paper they are printed on.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()