Your take on limiting technology in a golf ball?

[SharkHat]

you weren't arguing old timers vs new timers, you said they should make it harder for only 1 player. That's not what anybody is suggesting. I agree with the rest, but this conversation isn't about easier vs harder courses, it's longer vs shorter

I thought it was about the ball, and how limiting the distance it will travel will save struggling golf courses and course designers.

 

[rtparty]

this conversation isn't about easier vs harder courses, it's longer vs shorter

Isn't the argument that longer hitters are making courses too easy?



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[oiler3535]

I thought it was about the ball, and how limiting the distance it will travel will save struggling golf courses and course designers.

Isn't the argument that longer hitters are making courses too easy?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Ball: long vs shorter. I think the general argument is that pros hitting it so long is making courses longer and more expensive, and that the powers think this a bad thing so are likely to change the ball. If most courses were still 6500 yards, it would be easier, but now most well over 7k b/c of the long hitters on tour. I don't think the people in charge care about the average golfer here, they just want to help the business model and stop the long players on tour from embarrassing so many of the courses.

 

[JB]

Ball: long vs shorter. I think the general argument is that pros hitting it so long is making courses longer and more expensive, and that the powers think this a bad thing so are likely to change the ball. If most courses were still 6500 yards, it would be easier, but now most well over 7k b/c of the long hitters on tour. I don't think the people in charge care about the average golfer here, they just want to help the business model and stop the long players on tour from embarrassing so many of the courses.

Ever wonder why Jack had no issue when he was the longest guy on tour and forced developments into making courses longer? Oh yeah, thats right, because he loves him some Jack.

 

[blugold]

Ball: long vs shorter. I think the general argument is that pros hitting it so long is making courses longer and more expensive, and that the powers think this a bad thing so are likely to change the ball. If most courses were still 6500 yards, it would be easier, but now most well over 7k b/c of the long hitters on tour. I don't think the people in charge care about the average golfer here, they just want to help the business model and stop the long players on tour from embarrassing so many of the courses.

But making the courses longer is a courses' decision. And let me ask, does it hurt the game to have guys shooting -20 for a weekend?

 

[blugold]

If most courses were still 6500 yards, it would be easier, but now most well over 7k b/c of the long hitters on tour

If my home course ever lengthens itself because the guys on our are long, I will stop playing there. And it won't be a hard decision. Because it will close because its run by half wits

 

[oiler3535]

But making the courses longer is a courses' decision. And let me ask, does it hurt the game to have guys shooting -20 for a weekend?

Absolutely agree. Courses' decision. But I think the powers think they have a responsibility to keep the game growing, and they think shortening courses will keep green fees in check, keep courses from closing, and help grow the game. And I think they believe the only way to do it at this point is to change the ball. I don't necessarily agree, I'm just saying that's what I think the argument will be. And no I don't think guys that low under par hurts the game, but I think the powers do. And while I don't think low scores hurt the game, I will be honest and say the tournaments where even par is a good score are usually my favourites to watch (e.g. US Open and The Open if windy).

 

[blugold]

Absolutely agree. Courses' decision. But I think the powers think they have a responsibility to keep the game growing, and they think shortening courses will keep green fees in check,

Again it is whimsical to think that courses will reduce fees because the ball flies less far. That is an even better way to piss off golfers. Make them pay more/yardage than before

 

[Atom bomb]

To start is the ball longer today then 30 years ago. Sure it is but the courses are also getting longer. I am not sure if there are any stats out there to compare but it would be interesting to see what a 100mph swing speed resulted in with an old maxfli or balata and then see what a 100mph swing speed with a new ball would yield distance wise. Then look at what the average yardage was for the courses played in that year compared to the average yardage of the courses played now. Even if you get 10% more distance with a new ball which I am not sure it is even that but I have only really been playing for 20 years. So if in 1980 the courses averaged 6500 yards and today they average 7200 yards that would equate to about a 10% increase.

Second Jack and those guys need to look at the players today. 30 years ago golfers were not hitting the gym 5 days a week to build muscle and work on flexibility. They may have been doing some stretches but the physical part of the game was not there. I believe Tiger changed that when he started playing. Players now are bigger and stronger thus resulting in longer yardage. Look at baseball. Players are still using the same wooden bats and the same balls yet they hit more homeruns now then they did 30 years ago. Why? Because everyone is physically stronger because they have to be to keep up with the best. Changing the ball does nothing for 99.5% of golfers out there except restrict them in a game that is suppose to be fun and they play a few times a month.

 

[oiler3535]

Again it is whimsical to think that courses will reduce fees because the ball flies less far. That is an even better way to piss off golfers. Make them pay more/yardage than before

Not whimsical, economics 101. If they can have shorter courses, they should [in theory] have lower expenses in the long run. Lower expenses either means more profits for them, or they do something to try to gain more customers (and hence more profits again). Again, this might not be economical for courses who's tee sheets are already full to maximum. But in places where courses are closing and the market is very competitive, I would bet any savings would be passed on as lower green fees, or more spent on conditioning to try and draw new players that way, or at the least to minimize future fee hikes. Is it a science? No. But that's the theory our capitalist society is based on.

Now if you want to argue a shorter ball won't cause courses to shorten up, or courses won't save money by shortening up, I'll accept that as possible. I'm just elucidating my thoughts on why the powers are likely to restrict balls in the future. And I'll say it again, I think only the pros should have their balls restricted, not us mere humans, but I don't think the PGA will do that so the rule makers feel they will have to make it a universal restriction.

 

[blugold]

Theory is one thing. But you want course operators to throw a fit, wait till this ruling forces them to give money away.

 

[JB]

Not whimsical, economics 101. If they can have shorter courses, they should [in theory] have lower expenses in the long run. Lower expenses either means more profits for them, or they do something to try to gain more customers (and hence more profits again). Again, this might not be economical for courses who's tee sheets are already full to maximum. But in places where courses are closing and the market is very competitive, I would bet any savings would be passed on as lower green fees, or more spent on conditioning to try and draw new players that way, or at the least to minimize future fee hikes. Is it a science? No. But that's the theory our capitalist society is based on.

Now if you want to argue a shorter ball won't cause courses to shorten up, or courses won't save money by shortening up, I'll accept that as possible. I'm just elucidating my thoughts on why the powers are likely to restrict balls in the future. And I'll say it again, I think only the pros should have their balls restricted, not us mere humans, but I don't think the PGA will do that so the rule makers feel they will have to make it a universal restriction.

By this logic shorter courses would be less expensive than longer courses. Yet the shorter courses in our area, all cost more than Sarasota National, which is the longest in this area. Logic says it could happen, but could and should are very different things. There is a lot more to maintenance than a few hundred yards of length to determine cost structure

 

[oiler3535]

Theory is one thing. But you want course operators to throw a fit, wait till this ruling forces them to give money away.

This I don't get. How are they giving money away? Committed golfers will adjust, casual golfers won't notice a difference, but by making rounds possibly cheaper and maybe even faster, they hope to get more casual golfers and turn more of them in to committed golfers. I realize I might be an optimist here, but I give people credit for adjusting well to change, at least once it's been forced on them. The funny part to me is that 99% of the time I'm very cynical. Do I think people will kick and scream and throw tantrums during the change? Yes. But I bet a year after full implementation you'll only hear the occasional grumbling about how they used to hit it a bit farther.

 

[blugold]

This I don't get. How are they giving money away? Committed golfers will adjust, casual golfers won't notice a difference, but by making rounds possibly cheaper and maybe even faster, they hope to get more casual golfers and turn more of them in to committed golfers. I realize I might be an optimist here, but I give people credit for adjusting well to change, at least once it's been forced on them. The funny part to me is that 99% of the time I'm very cynical. Do I think people will kick and scream and throw tantrums during the change? Yes. But I bet a year after full implementation you'll only hear the occasional grumbling about how they used to hit it a bit farther.

Because they can now charge $50 +cart with the long balls. If they have to shorten the course because I restrictions, they might have to lower greens fees to be market competitive. And those greens fee pay the bills, salaries, and (most importantly) the mortgage.

 

[oiler3535]

By this logic shorter courses would be less expensive than longer courses. Yet the shorter courses in our area, all cost more than Sarasota National, which is the longest in this area. Logic says it could happen, but could and should are very different things. There is a lot more to maintenance than a few hundred yards of length to determine cost structure

Definitely agree that it's not a scientific 'x yards shorter= y dollars cheaper'. But I would argue most of the time a 7500 yard course is going to spend significantly more on maintenance than a comparably well-kept 6000 yard course. Less grass to maintain = less time cutting, less water, and less chemicals to use. Not always true, but I'm using the logic I think the rule makers would use. And while there are always exceptions, I think it makes sense.

 

[oiler3535]

Because they can now charge $50 +cart with the long balls. If they have to shorten the course because I restrictions, they might have to lower greens fees to be market competitive. And those greens fee pay the bills, salaries, and (most importantly) the mortgage.

The idea is that lower green fees will bring more people. Courses already full would likely see a hit, but struggling courses, which is partially who this rule would be looking to help, would hopefully see an increase in people/profits.

 

[SharkHat]

I'm sorry, but I think it's ridiculous to suggest that independently managed courses will change anything based on a decision to restrict the golf ball.

 

[JB]

Another honest question here.
All of those 7500 yard courses. What do you expect them to do with the extra land once they are forced (because they would be forced) to eliminate 1000 yards from their golf course?

 

[oiler3535]

I'm sorry, but I think it's ridiculous to suggest that independently managed courses will change anything based on a decision to restrict the golf ball.

You don't think they'd change if their course just went from being say 7000 yards to a ball adjusted 8400 (based on the randomly chosen 20% restriction)? Nobody would ever play the back tees, and they'd be furious if they did. I think they would likely move tee boxes around rather quickly.

 

[Ndfan301]

Bad swings will give bad results, but a flight restricted ball will go less off line just because it has less time to fly into trouble. Now, if they were to change balls by making them spin a lot more off the tee, that would cause huge problems!

Now while a e6 is not a restricted ball, in terms of spin, it is more restricted in that area than say, a ProV1. And let me tell you, they have nearly identical ball flights off the face of my driver. A few yards difference, but same location and flight. I don't see how an even more restricted ball will stop my fade/slice from being a fade/slice. In face even if it where to fix it, I still would have a problem with my swing, but since my ball was flying straight, I wouldn't try and fix the problem that I have, therefor NOT improving my game, and therefor not reducing my time on the course, and possibly still holding up the people behind me looking for my ball.

I think they should be doing number 1 anyway. Most are way too long for the ladies/seniors

Now I'm not bashing any ladies/seniors here, or the people you play/talk with that might have the problems with the lady/senior tees. But I played 10 rounds of so with my grandfather over the summer, he will be 70 this year. He played senior tees, I played white/blue depending on the course. As I stated in an earlier post, I can get 250+ on a drive, and that can easily push 275 at times. My grandfather could manage 200 downhill with the wind on a good swing. In the rounds we played, the closest I came to him, was 2 strokes. And that was just because he was having a bad round. My distance gave me no advantage what-so-ever against him.

Not whimsical, economics 101. If they can have shorter courses, they should [in theory] have lower expenses in the long run. Lower expenses either means more profits for them, or they do something to try to gain more customers (and hence more profits again). Again, this might not be economical for courses who's tee sheets are already full to maximum. But in places where courses are closing and the market is very competitive, I would bet any savings would be passed on as lower green fees, or more spent on conditioning to try and draw new players that way, or at the least to minimize future fee hikes. Is it a science? No. But that's the theory our capitalist society is based on.

Now if you want to argue a shorter ball won't cause courses to shorten up, or courses won't save money by shortening up, I'll accept that as possible. I'm just elucidating my thoughts on why the powers are likely to restrict balls in the future. And I'll say it again, I think only the pros should have their balls restricted, not us mere humans, but I don't think the PGA will do that so the rule makers feel they will have to make it a universal restriction.

Or since it's a downed economy, course owners will see a chance to maximize profit. Yes, shorter course would lead to lower maintenance fees, that can't be argued. But you can't relate that less spent in maintenance, automatically means lower green fees. It just means owners see a chance, and become greedy, and charge the same green fees for a shorter course. Plus with the costs to shorten these courses, it wouldn't automatically be seen to the golfers.

 

[Mulligan9111]

Another honest question here.
All of those 7500 yard courses. What do you expect them to do with the extra land once they are forced (because they would be forced) to eliminate 1000 yards from their golf course?

And it isn't like that land is all right next to each other either. It's so split up throughout the course that it'd just have to be filled with trees or something so that it doesn't just look like a bare area of the course.

 

[Speedliner]

Are we sure the average player would see a noticeable distance loss?

The suggestion that I think I recall Nicklaus making on Feherty was to take ball tech back a little bit - he specifically mentioned returning to wound balls.

In the 80s and 90s I played 3-piece wound balls, Titleist DTs most often and I hit them about as far as I hit current balls today. So I though his argument was that doing this would make it progressively harder for top players to hit very long distance while not impacting the average golfer much if at all. Golf courses therefore wouldn't have to be excessively long to be championship grade.

Personally I enjoy a course with a lot of details and character that come into play. Don't care if its long or short so much. playing a shorter course with more hazards, water, terrain is more fun for me than a course whose primary feature is length.

Does anyone else feel more "engaged" when hitting a 7-iron to a green amid bunkers and water than say the same shot with a 3h at 220? I do. Not because one shot is easier, I mean really engaged where you can see the ball flight well for the entire way, see where it lands, how it bounces and rolls around the target and hazards....or even the splash. My least favorite shot is that long approach...not because its hard, but because I only get to enjoy that nice flight until the 3/4 mark or so when I lose it, and most likely don't see the result.

It's that interaction with the course I enjoy is what I'm saying. I guess. A long course can have it too, but a short course can have it and be just as fun and challenging, maybe even more so because it will be more accessible.

Who knows. It's not like I'd stop playing, but I really don't expect much difference if they dial ball tech back a bit.

 

[Ndfan301]

You don't think they'd change if their course just went from being say 7000 yards to a ball adjusted 8400 (based on the randomly chosen 20% restriction)? Nobody would ever play the back tees, and they'd be furious if they did. I think they would likely move tee boxes around rather quickly.

So in order to keep the same ratio on distance, a 400 yard par 4 now becomes a 320 yard par 4 with the suggested 20% reduction and making it be the same distance with a restricted ball. What do you suggest a course designer do with that now unused 80 yards of dead space?

 

[oiler3535]

Another honest question here.
All of those 7500 yard courses. What do you expect them to do with the extra land once they are forced (because they would be forced) to eliminate 1000 yards from their golf course?

Essentially I would assume they'd let them grow in so they didn't have to be maintained. Some nicer courses would likely make gardens. I honestly think they don't care so much about current courses; they think they'll adjust enough to not be hurt by the change and maybe even lower expenses like I said. I think they'd be doing it so that new courses could be built shorter, and because shorter courses would be cheaper to make, they'd be hoping to jump-start new constructions.

 

[JB]

Are we sure the average player would see a noticeable distance loss?

The suggestion that I think I recall Nicklaus making on Feherty was to take ball tech back a little bit - he specifically mentioned returning to wound balls.

In the 80s and 90s I played 3-piece wound balls, Titleist DTs most often and I hit them about as far as I hit current balls today. So I though his argument was that doing this would make it progressively harder for top players to hit very long distance while not impacting the average golfer much if at all. Golf courses therefore wouldn't have to be excessively long to be championship grade.

Personally I enjoy a course with a lot of details and character that come into play. Don't care if its long or short so much. playing a shorter course with more hazards, water, terrain is more fun for me than a course whose primary feature is length.

Does anyone else feel more "engaged" when hitting a 7-iron to a green amid bunkers and water than say the same shot with a 3h at 220? I do. Not because one shot is easier, I mean really engaged where you can see the ball flight well for the entire way, see where it lands, how it bounces and rolls around the target and hazards....or even the splash. My least favorite shot is that long approach...not because its hard, but because I only get to enjoy that nice flight until the 3/4 mark or so when I lose it, and most likely don't see the result.

It's that interaction with the course I enjoy is what I'm saying. I guess. A long course can have it too, but a short course can have it and be just as fun and challenging, maybe even more so because it will be more accessible.

Who knows. It's not like I'd stop playing, but I really don't expect much difference if they dial ball tech back a bit.

Yes, they would notice. Lets even take 10% brought back and even someone hitting it 200 yards drops 20 yards to the 180 mark. The issue is that a large number of golfers without a doubt hit the solid core ball further than the wound counterparts.