"Jack thinks the USGA is close to rolling back the ball"

[JPR1959]

Most of the changes that need to be done should apply to professionals or tournament golf only. The USGA and R&A need to let amateurs enjoy the game. Grow the rough and narrow the fairways for competition, but leave everyone else out of it.

 

[jitzy]

It's been said time and time again in this thread, the ball is not a problem. It's such a small percentage of players that are truly elite. The USGA needs to take care of the masses and not the few. Shortening the length of the ball isn't gonna do much for play for the average weekend warrior because your still gonna have guys teeing off from tee boxes they don't belong playing from hitting it over a house or a fence. Only difference will be it won't go out of bounds as far.

Distance doesn't automatically equal wins, look at guys like Zack Johnson, one of the best golfers out there and his game is certainly not long.

 

[Vegan702]

Guess I just don't see the other side of it. If I drive a ball 250 today and my peers do, after a ball change I drive the ball 220 and my peers do, what does it matter? I will still be hitting similar irons into greens or on 2nd shots as the rest of my peers, so it affects us all evenly. If I am hitting a 5 or 6i into a green with a new ball vs a 9 or PW now, move up a tee box and the game ends up being the same as it now, except the yardage you are playing will be shorter. At first I thought it was more of a messenger issue as pointed out, but it sounds more like an ego issue and not being able to say you can drive a ball 275-300yds or hit a 7i 180yds to most. I am all for having a tour only ball and even tour only equipment, heck there is so much of that now it is crazy. How many different versions of driver/wood heads are there for the tour players that we don't ever see? I think there were 4 or 5 iterations of the R1 out on tour, Tiger forever played a driver head that was around 380cc but the same head was only sold to the public in 440cc or 460cc I believe. There already is kind of a difference in stuff on tour vs what is sold to us and making a tour ball only wouldn't have as much of an impact on sales I wouldn't think. It's not like 99.99% of the golfers could play the equipment that they use on tour that is special to the tour only anyways.

I can see though in the future something will change, be it ball, 2 sets of rules, etc, but something will be changing.

 

[AZArmyGolfer]

Rolling back the ball won't happen. Freezing it at some point probably will just as the COR limit was imposed, shaft lengths limited, and driver head size limited. Billions and billions of existing "non conforming" balls make is virtually impossible to police a roll back at the amateur level, there are already plenty of non conforming balls out there.

If balls did fly half as far: courses could be half as long, cost half as much to build and maintain, offer lower green fees and take less time to play. Too late for that. The equipment enables everyone to hit it farther. I'm fat and out of shape plus ten years older but hit the ball farther than I did ten years ago. It has nothing to do with fitness training, high speed cameras, or custom fitting. I score the same because I putt no better than I did ten years ago.

I have to agree with the consensus opinion that retired players should entertain us with stories of how it was and not worry about how it is for those still working at it for a living.

 

[AZArmyGolfer]

I hate to say this, but working around current and retired Soldiers, I see this same attitude in regards to everything in life as people get older:

"You guys have it so much easier than we did". I can't count the number of times I've heard that at work and it's extremely irritating. The only difference between the old guys that I work with and Jack is that Jack is famous so people actually pay attention to what he says, no matter how ridiculous.

As an old (52) retired Soldier, I can tell you that you are absolutely right - about people as we get older. I see it in myself and in the "older" guys I play golf with. Its both funny and a little sad at the same time but seemingly inevitable.

 

[blugold]

Guess I just don't see the other side of it. If I drive a ball 250 today and my peers do, after a ball change I drive the ball 220 and my peers do, what does it matter? I will still be hitting similar irons into greens or on 2nd shots as the rest of my peers, so it affects us all evenly. If I am hitting a 5 or 6i into a green with a new ball vs a 9 or PW now, move up a tee box and the game ends up being the same as it now, except the yardage you are playing will be shorter. At first I thought it was more of a messenger issue as pointed out, but it sounds more like an ego issue and not being able to say you can drive a ball 275-300yds or hit a 7i 180yds to most. I am all for having a tour only ball and even tour only equipment, heck there is so much of that now it is crazy. How many different versions of driver/wood heads are there for the tour players that we don't ever see? I think there were 4 or 5 iterations of the R1 out on tour, Tiger forever played a driver head that was around 380cc but the same head was only sold to the public in 440cc or 460cc I believe. There already is kind of a difference in stuff on tour vs what is sold to us and making a tour ball only wouldn't have as much of an impact on sales I wouldn't think. It's not like 99.99% of the golfers could play the equipment that they use on tour that is special to the tour only anyways.

I can see though in the future something will change, be it ball, 2 sets of rules, etc, but something will be changing.

The issue is that amateur golfers are not over powering course. Neither are professionals. The USGA is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. By doing so will affect how amateurs enjoy the game. The USGA is not protecting the game for amateurs. It's protecting the game for a 70 year old man that is scared his accomplishments are going to be out shined.

 

[Paladin]

I disagree with Jack that it needs to happen, and agree with everyone that Jack stands to profit as a course designer if burly courses have to find an alternative to raw distance to make courses more challenging. Most courses already do find alternatives. I also don't like the idea that it's a rule that will have numerous and far-reaching consequences, simply because professional golfers don't take constraints on their game lying down. If a guy is used to driving 310 yards, he's going to find some way to stay as close to that number as possible. R&D money will be spent, coaches will switch around, and most bombers will still be bombers. OEM's recoup their money on the backs of guys who lose 5 golf balls per round and buy new gear annually. Ultimately the weekend warrior bears the brunt of USGA changes, not the pros. The same players who, as if by magic, got new clubs conforming to the 2010 wedge rules altered their game slightly and played on, with barely a hiccup done to affect scoring.

I agree that the USGA needs to have an eye toward the future, but I think right now everyone's eye is on the major tournaments. When they reach the point where people are able to dominate the course, and it's because of a combination of incredible distance and accuracy off the tee and spin into the greens. But right now they can make a course suitably diabolical for E to win the US Open. When that stops being the case, and they can attribute it directly to the golf ball, then sure, let's talk about the golf ball. But right now, I think the increased spin a ball generates just means bad swings go farther left & right, along with the increased distance.

 

[tequila4kapp]

Merion proved the game can "be saved" from the bombers by adjusting landing zones to require accuracy and penalize misses. Seems pretty obvious that's an easier solution than building longer courses and modifying equipment rules.

 

[tgtt]

Don't agree with dialing them back but would have no problem with them being capped at where they are now.

 

[SaffaClint]

Merion proved the game can "be saved" from the bombers by adjusting landing zones to require accuracy and penalize misses. Seems pretty obvious that's an easier solution than building longer courses and modifying equipment rules.

And then you get people who say this kind of golf is boring and that making par to win a tournament is not on. I think players grinding to make par is far more entertaining than scoring -20 to win by the way.

 

[Roadrunner]

I consider myself a good golfer. I played today from 6900 yards and it was a stretch for me and I can hit the ball fairly deep. Anyone purposely playing from tees longer than 7000 is either:

A. Stupid
B. Stupid
C. Has an Ego (Stupid)
D. A professional.

The ball is fine. Maybe he should focus more on penalizing longer hitters with course design rather than blaming the ball.

I have friends that insist on playing off the back tees "for the challenge" - - sure, they all have 15-19 handicaps and shoot 90+, but it's challenging. :confused2:

 

[fupresti]

I have friends that insist on playing off the back tees "for the challenge" - - sure, they all have 15-19 handicaps and shoot 90+, but it's challenging. :confused2:

So is competitive fire eating and I avoid that too.

 

[blugold]

Harry Arnett had an interesting take on this very thing in the THP Podcast we just put up last week.

Was this the 2/7 podcast?

I just listened to it and didn't hear any specific mentions of new ball restrictions. Did I miss something?

 

[Hawk]

He is the Clint Eastwood of retired golfers.

For a guy that wants people to have fun and enjoy the game he really makes some annoyingly hard golf courses.

 

[JB]

Was this the 2/7 podcast?

I just listened to it and didn't hear any specific mentions of new ball restrictions. Did I miss something?

It was in reference to the post above what you quoted. About larger holes, different game (IE Hack Golf).

 

[Brianbigoats]

I have friends that insist on playing off the back tees "for the challenge" - - sure, they all have 15-19 handicaps and shoot 90+, but it's challenging. :confused2:

I see many Guys do this on tthe course the feel more macho playing from the tips with a 20+ HC it takes them quite a few shots to hit the green. This would be even worse with a ball roll back

When I play with someone with a higher HC i allow them to pick the tees so they feel comfortable

 

[Canadan]

Interesting article that I just read where Jack Nicklaus thinks the USGA might do what they did to grooves and dial it back. I am surprised though that it's in reference to distance. This has to be more directed towards the pros too. I feel like there are more variables when it comes to distance rather then just say the ball has to change. What do you guys think?

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/hom...e-usga-is-close-to-rolling-back-the-ball.html

I think for 1000x over, the USGA should stop treating professional athletes and amateur golfers the same. The length of my golf course accommodates 99.9% of the membership. It doesn't need a ball to get dialed back to improve anything.