- Staff
- #26
Fairways that stimp like muni course greens play a much larger part.
Last edited:
The Ball Rollback - thoughts and observations
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 24,435
- Reaction score
- 25,984
- Handicap
- 17.2
I bet it’s less than half the total extra roll over the last 30 years. I doubt fairways have gotten that much shorter and my driver rolls out 30 yards and my courses fairway sucks.
So 30 years ago, when you were shorter than you are today (as a relative measure of your potential) because club and ball technology and your understanding of speed were not what they are today, you were not long enough to play golf? How did you manage to play and enjoy golf?
Furthermore, not long enough for what?
- Staff
- #29
I’d take that bet.
You could argue that technology has affected all sports. You think it's easier or more difficult to play basketball in a pair of Chuck Taylor's versus a modern lightweight shoe designed to keep your foot stable? Better facilities for better health and quicker recovery. Modern turf makes players faster on football and baseball fields. Manufacturing tolerances are tighter than ever before. Most baseball players wouldn't even be able to swing Babe Ruth's bat, but now they can make them longer and lighter, with the same durability. Technology has made pretty much everything easier.
I was 10. I was much shorter. Unfortunately, I am one of the many amateurs who's joy of golf is directly related to hitting the ball far. Having spent that last 20ish years playing golf and knowing certain distances, having taken advantage of the decades of technological advancements and my understanding of speed, to have the rug pulled out from under just because Augusta National says so, well that's dumb.
The USGA just had a "Tee It Forward" campaign a few years ago with Jack Nicklaus as a spokesperson, right? 30 years ago, there weren't as many ridiculously long courses designed and built by guys like Jack Nicklaus.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2016
- Messages
- 3,645
- Reaction score
- 2,214
- Location
- The Land of Steady Habits
- Handicap
- 13.4 GHIN
Once gained.... nobody wants to lose an advantage in this game... it's human nature.
Want lower scores, relative to par? Change par for the course. Re-rate the courses factoring in any length considerations using an algorithm conjured up by some math genius and lower "par" on some of the par 4's and 5's. Make the scoring harder..... without making the game harder.... but, I imagine that wouldn't fly either.
I should have included.... this is for the Pro game.
Want lower scores, relative to par? Change par for the course. Re-rate the courses factoring in any length considerations using an algorithm conjured up by some math genius and lower "par" on some of the par 4's and 5's. Make the scoring harder..... without making the game harder.... but, I imagine that wouldn't fly either.
I should have included.... this is for the Pro game.
So I was just watching a fairway wood video with Tiger, Scottie, and Tommy Fleetwood.
Tommy went for a 275 pin with a 5-wood and made it. Scottie said his stock 3-wood carries 265, so he had to take a little off since the pin was only 275.
They discussed how they almost never hit 3-woods into par 5's anymore. Why? Because they don't have to. They're hitting 5,6, and even 7 irons into Par 5's (on their second shot).
Tommy went for a 275 pin with a 5-wood and made it. Scottie said his stock 3-wood carries 265, so he had to take a little off since the pin was only 275.
They discussed how they almost never hit 3-woods into par 5's anymore. Why? Because they don't have to. They're hitting 5,6, and even 7 irons into Par 5's (on their second shot).
Just read an interview with Gary Player, he says the ball needs to be rolled back even more than the USGA is recommending. At least 50-60 yards, if not more.
He's such a bitter, bitter old man.
He's such a bitter, bitter old man.
CrashTestDummy
Well-known member
It is a tough issue. I'm on the fence about rolling back the golf ball is the solution. However, I think the main argument/issue is that the most historical, traditional, and iconic golf courses on the PGA tour and Majors are outdated, getting too short, course defenses are not in play, and cannot be changed or lengthened because of limitations of of the land, topography, etc. I think the governing bodies are concerned that the courses are not being played like they were designed to play with course defenses in play. Since, the course defenses are not coming into play at many of the courses, why have the pros play tough golf courses? Why not just have them play easy courses with no defenses? Obviously that would not be good to watch for fans or the pros to play, perhaps occasionally, but not most of the time.
It's not just a few iconic courses. That's the point the USGA and R&A are trying to make. There's lots of courses in Ireland and the UK, and Japan which have no room. But not just there. There's lots of courses all over the world. Think about your local muni. Many of them were designed without extra room and there's a zero percent chance you're going to get a measure passed for the city to buy more land to expand a muni golf course.
Now, it's true normal golfers haven't gotten THAT much longer. But they are longer and trending even longer. Golfers who used to hit it 220 are now hitting it 235 or 245 on a good one. I know in my own game, features course designers put to clearly punish errant tee shots are sometimes less of a factor because I can fly them some of the time. We have a short par 4 on a course that I play all the time. I've had high school golfers roll balls through the green while I was putting from the blue tees at 323. We're not talking guys who are competing in the US Junior. We're talking run-of-the-mill high school players.
...and?
If a course wants to be “protected”, then furnish the tournament players with a ball that you think “protects” it. Just like tires in F-1. It doesn’t make two s***s of difference for amateurs.
Or do like Bay Hill did this year, let the f’n rough grow.
Or do like Bay Hill did this year, let the f’n rough grow.
So there's absolutely no point at which you argue "that's enough?"
Hitting a 5-wood 300 would be fine? 350 is perfectly OK too? 400 no big deal? Yes, I'm exaggerating, but I want to know - would anything be too much?
Again, they tried to go that route and the manufacturers rejected it.
You can let rough grow to a point, but do we want to be playing with furry fairways and 3-inch thick rough that extends from near the green to say 300 yards from the tee? Even if you can grow the rough you can't move the bunkers, doglegs or water.
ANGC reconfigured the 13th tee box to combat the distance and bring that second shot decision over Rae's Creek back into play. When the ball is rolled back in a few years how will that hole play then? Was the reconfiguration even necessary? Do they maybe know the rollback really won't be as much as some believe?
Agree about bunkers, doglegs, and water. I’d think if the Masters called Titleist and said “we would like to buy 10 pallets of “X-spec” ball”, they’d do it. Hell, if patrons could buy them for $100/dozen they might need to make it 15 pallets.
Maybe?
I think the current equipment standards are doing a good enough job roping in the performance of the best golfers.
But I ask, why do all amateurs need to be nerfed because a select few of the best players in the world are long?
This is totally a guess.....and i have nothing to back this up. But i would guess 80-90% + of the total rounds played in the Americas are played at <6500yds. At my home course which is one of the top 8 courses in terms of talent in Quebec, i can guarantee you that's the case. It's over 95%
In my 20 years playing golf at various clubs, even in high level ams and mid-ams---i've never met one person who thought courses were too easy/short and i've only played a competitive event at over 7000yds one time.
I really believe the only people that really need 7000+ yards to be challenged, it's like 1% of 1%.
that's just my opinion, but it's based on a lot of observational data
stryper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,498
- Reaction score
- 720
- Location
- Somewhere on the back nine of life
- Handicap
- n/a
If the governing bodies have their way, we’ll all just be retiring from this game that much earlier than we otherwise would. Life already kicks you in the nuts and takes your distance away as you age. And now the USGA and R&A wants to take more???
Shame on you, Jack, and all you other purist snobs. Honestly, I don’t give a rat’s a** about your “legacy”, because you don’t give a rat’s a** about me.
Shame on you, Jack, and all you other purist snobs. Honestly, I don’t give a rat’s a** about your “legacy”, because you don’t give a rat’s a** about me.
I see guys still hitting 3 wood off the tee this week......
Tennis dialed back rackets to slow down speed of serves. MLB still uses wood bats instead of metal/composite bats. Swimming banned suits because the advantage gained in the pool. Easton just had a bat banned for certain baseball tournaments because of being to hot compared to other approved bats.
CrashTestDummy
Well-known member
Yeah, I agree is a ton of courses that are unable to change or lengthen, but the main reason for rolling back the ball on the pros is the courses the pros play. The pros are not going to play on the local munis. There are much less courses fit for pro tournament play.