Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?

[Garland Bayley]

Can you explain how the same shaft can be customized for the two different swings? I would be interested to know.

He didn't say the same shaft. He said another 70-gram, X-flex shaft may be more suitable for another player. But even the same shaft in a different flex, or tip trimmed instead of butt trimmed, etc. can produce different results for people.

I think I see what you mean. To me another means one more of the same. I think you are arguing he meant a different 70-gram X-flex shaft from GD.

[Garland Bayley]

Spin absolutely matters.  in that Open at Pebble The approach shots Tiger hit the last round on 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 15 showed amazing control.
 


The Titleist Professional doesn't get enough credit (or derision).  It was much lower spinning than its' predecessors.  Guys who had trouble with too much spin loved that ball.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/golf-johnson-equipment-0628 says most players used wound balata covered balls, which would not be the Professional, as I have read it had a harder cover.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So if you want to launch that new 6 iron with a 4 iron loft as high as the old 6 irons, you simply build a head with a wide sole and put a women's shaft with a low bend point in it, and you are good to go.

Yeah… I'd replace a "women's shaft" with simply "a longer shaft," keep the rest (a lower bend point, and a slightly lower CG), and that's about what I was trying to say. Plus we better understand spin and its role in the aerodynamics of flight.

Anyway, this argues in some ways against distance gains. Think about it… if we complain that a modern player is hitting a 9-iron to a green, but that's a 1950s era 6-iron, then that's a lot closer to the original architect's intent, no, and speaks to how we may be overblowing the distance gains in not considering that it was "really" a 6-iron, right?

I think I see what you mean. To me another means one more of the same. I think you are arguing he meant a different 70-gram X-flex shaft from GD.

I'm using "another" to mean "some other" in this case. The 70 grams could be the same, the X-flex could be the same, but the other properties could be very different.

[Garland Bayley]

Not to be to pedantic, but

Another: "used to refer to an additional person or thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about; one more; a further:"

[JESII]

I think I see what you mean. To me another means one more of the same. I think you are arguing he meant a different 70-gram X-flex shaft from GD.

I'm using "another" to mean "some other" in this case. The 70 grams could be the same, the X-flex could be the same, but the other properties could be very different.

Correct Erik...Garland, you know the guys building shafts today can do all sorts of things to fit the player as opposed to the player having to fit the shaft.

[JESII]

Your definition seems to fit my example.


Two of the primary characteristics of two things are the same, but the things are different...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Your definition seems to fit my example.

Two of the primary characteristics of two things are the same, but the things are different...

Right.

If I ask someone to get me "another" rum and Coke, I expect that I'll get rum and Coke, but the exact amounts may be different, and the number of ice cubes might be different, and the order in which they add the ingredients may be different, but it's still another 70-gram, x-stiff rum and Coke. 

But anyway…

[Pat Burke]

Spin absolutely matters.  in that Open at Pebble The approach shots Tiger hit the last round on 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 15 showed amazing control.
 


The Titleist Professional doesn't get enough credit (or derision).  It was much lower spinning than its' predecessors.  Guys who had trouble with too much spin loved that ball.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/golf-johnson-equipment-0628 says most players used wound balata covered balls, which would not be the Professional, as I have read it had a harder cover.

article said the Professional, Tour Prestige, and Maxfli Revolution were the top 3 balls

Professional was a blend cover/wound ball in 90 and 100 Comp models
Prestige was a more spin older style
Revolution was a blended cover and if I remember (may be wrong) had a unique, more solid core and urethane cover

[Garland Bayley]

article said the Professional, Tour Prestige, and Maxfli Revolution were the top 3 balls
...

But that was not about the US Open. It only named two players using balls (the Strata) other than wound balata balls at the US Open. Presumably the success of players were beginning to have with newer balls (especially Tiger) causing a shift in balls used. Since driving stats for the year did not have a significant jump in 2000, but did in 2001, it would seem balls in play didn't change much until after the open. Presumably the Tour Prestige was the ball in play mostly at the time of the open.

[jeffwarne]

Add DJ to the Rollback supporter list....
#1 in the world and a loooong hitter....
hmmm...common sense becoming common

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Add DJ to the Rollback supporter list....
#1 in the world and a loooong hitter....
hmmm...common sense becoming common

I don't think his comments were all that supportive.

"But you know I think with the ball and the equipment the gap between guys who swing really hard and guys who don't, y'know, it's not very much. I think there should be some kind of advantage for guys who work on hitting it far and getting the speed that's needed."

He's in favor of ONE ball, "like other sports" (other sports share the ball, though, which is an entirely different dynamic), and right now players basically have "one" ball with slightly different short game characteristics, or barely different launch characteristics that suit their games.

DJ says there's not much of a gap between the short hitters and the long hitters now, and that the gap should grow.

I don't take that as supporting a roll-back. I take it as him stumbling through an answer where he tries not to disagree with what Tiger just said, and little else.

[jeffwarne]

or DJ's tired of the de-skilling of the game and would prefer to see long par 5's only reachable for him


or maybe he just wants to use his 5 iron once a year


Long hitters will still be long, amateurs will still struggle.Life will go on.


Common sense is just around the corner after decades of denial-it's actually being discussed.


I say the ball manufacturers save hundreds of millions on pro endorsements and people buy just as many balls.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff, a different tack - a question for you (because I'm curious and others might be too):

You're a pro who (if I've read your posts right) still plays some tournament golf.
How would the kind of roll-back you're thinking about affect you personally?
If you don't mind, please be as specific as you can, e.g. 
How far do you hit in now off the tee, how far would you hit it then?
What would that mean for approach play - if nowadays you're coming in with a 7 iron, what would you need then?
Most importantly -- do you think you'd personally have more fun? Would the game be even more interesting for you?
Thanks

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Common sense is just around the corner after decades of denial-it's actually being discussed.

I let it go the first time but I think that's a moderately rude comment, Jeff.

Edit: "moderately" is more accurate.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff, a different tack - a question for you (because I'm curious and others might be too):

You're a pro who (if I've read your posts right) still plays some tournament golf.
How would the kind of roll-back you're thinking about affect you personally?
If you don't mind, please be as specific as you can, e.g. 
How far do you hit in now off the tee, how far would you hit it then?
What would that mean for approach play - if nowadays you're coming in with a 7 iron, what would you need then?
Most importantly -- do you think you'd personally have more fun? Would the game be even more interesting for you?
Thanks

Peter an interesting question.
In the MET Section we play nearly all classic courses that range from 6400-6900 yards mostly-though there are a few newer ones very occasionally played that are longer on day 3.
I play both Senior events and regular events as the older courses don't really vary that much tee to tee.
I carry it 245-260 depending on tempertaure and back health  and the fairways tend to be softish so I'm hitting it 250-285 depending on fairways conditions. FYI that's 10-15 farther than I did at age 24 with persimmonthough I probably got more hooky roll then and carrying it 260 would've really been a stretch then.


There are plenty bombing it 20-50 by me in the younger set.


That said, in the MET Section a rollback wouldn't matter that much as I'd be hitting more 6-7-8 irons and less 8-9, PW .(I use old school lofts) It would depend on the rollback method but if it really was across the board I'd probably not really notice as frankly I really don't know how far I hit every iron exactly as I hit a lot of "shots" cuts, fades , hooks (lots of these) based on wind, temperature, my back, and mostly based on how I'm swinging (what's working) Hard to "know" your yardages with all those variables-I use a lazer but have no qualms about hitting a 9 iron 160 yards to a back left hook pin or a 7 iron 140 yards to a right pin.


Also, in the MET section I'd just probably hit an extra driver or two (rather than a 3 or 5 wood) and others would hit more 3 woods rather than irons off tees on 5-7 holes. Older shorter courses wouldn't be that affected due to the fact that driver's not always the best play anyway.


Would I have more fun?
In the short run-yes if the ball were spinnier and more workable-especially if it was windy(very few play shots in the wind anymore)-though certain courses that have been lengthened would be quite long for me.


In the long run especially yes because classic courses would be used for majors more and remain relevant longer so some in the MET Section might be revived in popularity.
Also,we might visit a course like Inwood again(6400  yards) which was where I played my first MET PGA.


I've always been a right to left player so more spin would be welcome-I haven't ever adjusted to just aiming straight and always think my ball will turn over more with the spinless balls-but they don't
so there is that.....


On longer , modern courses I'd be hurt more but I've been avoiding them since leaving Florida in the 90's.(actually for that reason-just hated playing there)
I've always hated competing on modern development courses.


So the answer I don't know how it would affect me competively, but I know watching pro golf would be far more interesting-and playing it would involve far shorter walks and hopefully more interest.


Of course I can barely walk at the moment with hip and back issues so maybe we should do a roll forward

[jeffwarne]

Common sense is just around the corner after decades of denial-it's actually being discussed.

I let it go the first time but I think that's an incredibly rude comment, Jeff.

Sorry Erik-not directed at you personally.
What I believe is "common sense" has clearly been a minority view for a long time.(and I've been considered an alarmist for many years on this)
The tide simply seems to be changing as I regularly hear high profile golf people beginning to change their minds and/or speak out-perhaps.


Sustainabilty is such a buzzword in our society-I think a nongolfer would wonder why on earth we would continue to grow the scale and footprint of our playing fields(with a simple solution at hand) while the rest of the world goes the other way.
We may disagree whether keeping the scale intact and the classics relevent is "common sense".

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sorry Erik-not directed at you personally.

No, directed at anyone who disagrees with your opinion as lacking "common sense." It's still rude.

Suatainabilty is such a buzzword in our society-I think a nongolfer would wonder why on earth we would continue to grow the scale and footprint of our playing fields(with a simple solution at hand) while the rest of the world goes the other way.

I think the number of golf courses that are being lengthened is vastly over-estimated/stated.

Again, 95% of golfers are probably fine from 6500 yards. Or less.

PGA Tour pros hit it about 2-4 yards farther than ten years ago, and they do that because they swing a few MPH faster.

[jeffwarne]

I think the number of golf courses that are being lengthened is vastly over-estimated/stated.

Again, 95% of golfers are probably fine from 6500 yards. Or less.

PGA Tour pros hit it about 2-4 yards farther than ten years ago, and they do that because they swing a few MPH faster.

Agreed with all of the above.

[Sean_A]

It would be interesting to know how many courses have been lengthened or built longer than would have been if not for the long ball...say, in the past 25 years.  In my UK experience, I would say a significant percentage of courses have been lengthened.  Much of the time I wonder what the point is in adding 10 yards to a hole.  Sometimes I think a hole would be better if it was shortened...maybe use the forward tees for the daily tee.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

It would be interesting to know how many courses have been lengthened or built longer than would have been if not for the long ball...say, in the past 25 years.  In my UK experience, I would say a significant percentage of courses have been lengthened.  Much of the time I wonder what the point is in adding 10 yards to a hole.  Sometimes I think a hole would be better if it was shortened...maybe use the forward tees for the daily tee.

Ciao

IMHO the best way to lengthen a course is to lengthen 3-5 holes substantially(30-60 yards)-even better if they're already long holes. Adds to shot variety at low expense and avoids a bunch of similar length holes-common when lengthening wherever possible.
Palmetto does this well(though I can do without the back tee on the postage stamp 7th) -but you have to know where they are

[Sean_A]

It would be interesting to know how many courses have been lengthened or built longer than would have been if not for the long ball...say, in the past 25 years.  In my UK experience, I would say a significant percentage of courses have been lengthened.  Much of the time I wonder what the point is in adding 10 yards to a hole.  Sometimes I think a hole would be better if it was shortened...maybe use the forward tees for the daily tee.

Ciao

IMHO the best way to lengthen a course is to lengthen 3-5 holes substantially(30-60 yards)-even better if they're already long holes. Adds to shot variety at low expense and avoids a bunch of similar length holes-common when lengthening wherever possible.
Palmetto does this well(though I can do without the back tee on the postage stamp 7th) -but you have to know where they are

Jeff


I tend to agree.  If holes are already 430 or so and the club feels they need yardage then these would be the first holes I would at. I would avoid lengthing short 3s, 4s and 5s. 


Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Erik - I think we all agree that 6500 yards is long enough for 95% of golfers. But there is the reality and then there is the perception. And I'd say that the perception -- especially among those with the money to finance new course construction -- is maybe even more important than the reality.

Architects here have often mentioned the near constant pressure (from most, not all, developers) to build courses over 7,000 yards. And, over the last 25 years, many such courses have indeed been built -- with back tees well past that mark, even for resort types courses/destinations. I think it's because the perception among money men/developers is that their target audience considers 7500 yards the sign of a "top-quality" or "true championship" course (even if they'll never play those tees).

But once upon a time, in the 60s and 70s, those same type of money men/developers had courses designed and built that maxed out at 6500 or 6800 yards. (My local course, built in 1971, must be very very common i.e. back tees at 6510 yards). I think that's because, back then, even the pros on the Tour were averaging 260 yard drives; and so that total distance was considered -- by pros and would-be developers and average golfers alike -- to be "legitimate" and to be "sufficient". Today, it simply isn't.

Now, I know we can never go back to that time-period and to those distances -- but I think that, in the context of perceptions, the distance gains you cite as occurring over the last 10 years aren't nearly as important as the distance gains over the last 25 years, i.e. the 25 years or so during which the new ball and titanium club-faces and shaft lengths and graphite and swing speed and athleticism and launch angles and spin rates all came together to create very dramatic increases in length for the top players (and to a lesser extent, for the the decent-to-average golfer as well).

Which is to say/ask: is it folly to assume a "trickle down" effect if the ball is rolled-back for (at least) the top players? Doesn't it seem plausible to you that there'd be a re-thinking (about what qualifies as a "championship course") on the part of average golfers and money men alike if, with a roll-back, a regular PGA tour course or a major venue like Merion provided a fine test of golf while maxing out at 7000 yards (instead of 7600 or 8000 yards)? 

That does seem plausible to me, that potential trickle down effect. And, from my perspective, fostering that seems like a sensible thing to do...or at least to aim for.

Peter

[jeffwarne]

spot on Peter, and though 6500 is plenty for 95%, it's the 1% that get all the TV viewership and they and the other 4% make or certainly influence 95% of the decisions.


Put another way, our highways are good enough for 95% of drivers, but that doeasn't mean I want someone driving 200 mph past me.


and while a 6500 yard cleverly done course (or even less-Palmetto) can produce a challenge for an elite player, most don't- and inevitably longer tees are built.

[Garland Bayley]

You guys are forgetting all the courses that are not even 6500, and are struggling to just get there based on pressure to compete with longer, newer courses.

[Sean_A]

Garland

Very true. In the UK length of the course is the most important factor for determining course rating.  A lot of clubs will look for some extra yards to reach the limit so another shot can be added to the rating or a shot added to par.  Many golfers will not take a course seriously if it has a par or rating below 70 or if there is a big spread between par and the rating. Kington did this very thing and ruined a hole chasing yards and a stroke on par.  This is also another case of low cappers pushing decision-making.  It is very hard for low cappers (anything under 3 really) to maintain their handicap on a course with a a few shots below par.  They are often forced to break par merely to get into buffer zone.  Mostof the time length is not an issue for these guys so its easier for them to maintain a low cap on a 6800-7000 yard par 72/73, rating 73-75 rather than on a par 71 rating 69 course. 

Ciao