Maginnes on Tap ... Ball Flight Restrictions

[Hawk]

They are idiots. Why approve something for play that you feel the need to remove later on. Especially when later on could mean years and years. They should be able to figure out if balls are going to go too far before they allow them to become part of the game. It's just the most ridiculous way of managing a sport that I've ever seen.

 

[MarcH]

But is it getting easier? The best scoring averages haven't been beat in the past 10 years. Tiger had the best in 2000, nobody has sniffed that. Sam Snead and Ben Hogan are in the top 10 scoring averages.

 

[Perkins Rooster]

It would if the longest hitters were the best golfers, but that's not really the way it plays out.

Yes and no. The advantage over the past decade has shifted to players that play a bomb and gouge style on courses that are short to medium in length. Even for myslef on some of the older courses in my area - par 4's are mostly driver and 8 or 9 iron and I'm not even a long hitter.

Isn't that the issue... It's not just getting easier through talent and hard work.

Exactly.

 

[thedue]

Isn't that the issue... It's not just getting easier through talent and hard work.

Sure equipment gets better, but what percentage is that causing the problem versus talent and size? Equipment growth seems like pretty natural as well, hell my car now seems a whole lot better than it was 20 years ago.

 

[Perkins Rooster]

They are idiots. Why approve something for play that you feel the need to remove later on. Especially when later on could mean years and years. They should be able to figure out if balls are going to go too far before they allow them to become part of the game. It's just the most ridiculous way of managing a sport that I've ever seen.

I agree they should have acted 10 years ago, but I don't feel that is a reason to do nothing during the next 100 years.

 

[JB]

Yes and no. The advantage over the past decade has shifted to players that play a bomb and gouge style on courses that are short to medium in length. Even for myslef on some of the older courses in my area - par 4's are mostly driver and 8 or 9 iron and I'm not even a long hitter.

That has always been the way though, just not publicized enough. Was Nicklaus not one of the longest? Was Tiger not one of the longest? Was Palmer not one of the longest? These guys have always been one of the longest (not the longest) and were rewarded with being the best.

 

[Perkins Rooster]

Sure equipment gets better, but what percentage is that causing the problem versus talent and size? Equipment growth seems like pretty natural as well, hell my car now seems a whole lot better than it was 20 years ago.

I guess I just think golf shouldn't get easier becuase of equipment advances.

 

[JB]

I guess I just think golf shouldn't get easier becuase of equipment advances.

If that is the case, then we should roll back more than just the ball. And of course, courses should all have to stay the same distances they were previously, as well as green speeds, etc.

 

[Perkins Rooster]

That has always been the way though, just not publicized enough. Was Nicklaus not one of the longest? Was Tiger not one of the longest? Was Palmer not one of the longest? These guys have always been one of the longest (not the longest) and were rewarded with being the best.

Ok, but we've gotten to the point where traditional courses are getting obsolete. At what point does it end? I think the resources, both economic and environmental, spent on retrofitting courses is a waste.

 

[Hawk]

I don't buy it. I don't think the game's gotten any easier and scores haven't dropped significantly. Not recently at least. I also don't agree that bomb and gouge is the winning formula. For some maybe, but not all. I think that simplifies it too much.

I'm not against capping things. I just think going backwards is yet another sign of imcomptency, more confusion, and little payoff.

 

[Perkins Rooster]

If that is the case, then we should roll back more than just the ball. And of course, courses should all have to stay the same distances they were previously, as well as green speeds, etc.

At this point I think rolling back the ball would be easier (politically and practically) than changing equipment rules.

 

[Hawk]

One of the greatest things that professional golf has to offer is the spectacle of guys doing things none of us can do. There are plenty of courses out there that are more than capable of harnessing scores if that's what is desired.

 

[tgtt]

That has always been the way though, just not publicized enough. Was Nicklaus not one of the longest? Was Tiger not one of the longest? Was Palmer not one of the longest? These guys have always been one of the longest (not the longest) and were rewarded with being the best.

That's all true. And they'd still be the longest with a restricted ball. Is the real estate concern not a legit one? Seems like they have lengthened every course in the Tiger Era. At some point that's gonna stop being an option, right? Maybe newer courses being built are taken this "issues" into account and leaving themselves room to grow or just start out with extra long tee boxes?

 

[JB]

Ok, but we've gotten to the point where traditional courses are getting obsolete. At what point does it end? I think the resources, both economic and environmental, spent on retrofitting courses is a waste.

Again though, that same thing was what helped the previous longest hitters make courses obsolete and changed decades ago. Its not new. I understand the land concerns and the cost concerns with needing longer, but truthfully longer does not fix distance, harder does.

 

[tgtt]

They don't even have to go backwards. Just make today's balls the standard. Drivers have limits, why can't the balls?

 

[JB]

That's all true. And they'd still be the longest with a restricted ball. Is the real estate concern not a legit one? Seems like they have lengthened every course in the Tiger Era. At some point that's gonna stop being an option, right? Maybe newer courses being built are taken this "issues" into account and leaving themselves room to grow or just start out with extra long tee boxes?

It is a legit one, but not for most golfers and I dont like seeing decisions made for all because it impacts the less than 1% that play. And based on the restrictions they are speaking of, the ones that impact the longest hitters the most, they wont be the longest, it brings them back to the pack.

 

[Hawk]

They don't even have to go backwards. Just make today's balls the standard. Drivers have limits, why can't the balls?

Technically they do. Apparently the tests to determine those limits are worthless though.

 

[Damaikis]

Length doesn't necessarily make the game easier. I'm not a fan of dialing back the ball. I need all the distance I can get.

 

[Hawk]

I am still amazed at how difficult it is for the USGA to determine, quantify, and test a baseline.

 

[Perkins Rooster]

Again though, that same thing was what helped the previous longest hitters make courses obsolete and changed decades ago. Its not new. I understand the land concerns and the cost concerns with needing longer, but truthfully longer does not fix distance, harder does.

I agree that harder is an option to adjust to longer hitters, but when a hole is designed to accept a 5 or 6 iron to the green making the hole longer is the only way to do it without completely changing how the hole is played.

 

[MWard]

All lengthening courses does is take the shorter players out of play. Scores go up when the pin placements get more tricky, or the greens aren't rolling perfect.

Last time I checked though, I'm not able to go for the majority of par 5's in two. Rolling the ball back means I'm guaranteed going for them less.

 

[syndicate559]

I don't think dialing back the ball is going to make Luke Donald drive it as far as Dustin Johnson. The longer hitters will still be longer hitters, just not as long as before.

 

[JB]

I agree that harder is an option to adjust to longer hitters, but when a hole is designed to accept a 5 or 6 iron to the green making the hole longer is the only way to do it without completely changing how the hole is played.

Designed for who? Every player is different and frankly there are many ways to make a hole harder and if it changes how the hole is played, so be it.

 

[huhhh]

One of the greatest things that professional golf has to offer is the spectacle of guys doing things none of us can do. There are plenty of courses out there that are more than capable of harnessing scores if that's what is desired.

I agree...and aren't the USGA the ones that yearly completely change a course and skyrocket the scores by adjusting the settings on the lawnmowers and sprinklers? You'd think they'd be the ones to realize that distance isn't the end all be all.

 

[Perkins Rooster]

All lengthening courses does is take the shorter players out of play. Scores go up when the pin placements get more tricky, or the greens aren't rolling perfect.

Last time I checked though, I'm not able to go for the majority of par 5's in two. Rolling the ball back means I'm guaranteed going for them less.

I don't think most par 5's are supposed to be reached in 2. That's why they're par 5's.

Designed for who? Every player is different and frankly there are many ways to make a hole harder and if it changes how the hole is played, so be it.

For most players. That's why there are 3 to 5 sets of tees on each hole on most courses.