We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Golfball Roll Back

rollin said:
And so will everyone else's so your still in the same place.
Ive mentioned earlier.....your hc isnt changing because if this. You hit every tee shot same exact yardage anyway? Your a 9 cap because your darn good enough. I dont know how long you are but you think your going to now be a 13 because you lose some yards from your best longest hits? Or 2 yrds off your 150 iron?
Click to expand...
That's just it does the R&A think that they are going to see golf grow because of this. They are purposely changing the rules to punish all golfers because a few made the old courses look mundane with -20 scores.
Name one time in a local tournament or a round with your pals where ANYONE has complained that it would have been a better round if we all just hit the ball shorter. The same people who have one are still winning because they are better or played better that day.
 
Paulsack said:
Damn, I read this entire thread today and there is no way to get the last 3 hours of my life back. But thanks for the entertainment guys it was fun reading all the replies, comments , and some would say crazy discussions. I have to ask, maybe even make it a poll thread, how many of you want to hit a ball that goes shorter ? In a world where every single golfer wants to hit the ball farther than they currently do I would say the poll would be 100% longer and 0% shorter.
Personally the only ball rollback I would like to see is the wedge shot that lands above the hole , spins back , and rolls into the hole.
Click to expand...
It's pretty brutal for marketing, I don't envy the ball companies having to spin these up and excite people to buy them.

"Buy our new ball! It goes anywhere from 1-20 yards shorter than our previous one! It's not straighter, doesn't offer any better greenside performance, and doesn't feel any better than the old ones, but hey, It'S wHaT tHe PrOs ArE pLaYiNg!!!"
 
I think anyone who wants to play golf with a ball that goes shorter than what they currently play should seek professional help for their craziness. I know it is a bold statement and in the realm of a Hot take but I will die on the hill that says , " All golfers want more distance " !
 
This whole thread is comical, and much ado about nothing. Ams are going to lose maybe 3 to 6 yds. Mike Whan has said as much on publicly on Golf Subpar. He also said nearly 30% of balls currently on the market will still be on the market post rollback. Plus by the time the rollback happens golfers will have figured out the proper launch conditions for the new ball. Scott Hamilton who coaches 18 PGA Tour Players said his guys who have hit prototype rollback balls hit it just as far or farther. Geoff Shackelford also alluded to the same thing in his newsletter.
 
The Milk Man said:
This whole thread is comical, and much ado about nothing. Ams are going to lose maybe 3 to 6 yds. Mike Whan has said as much on publicly on Golf Subpar...
Click to expand...
What's my incentive to play a ball that's going to leave me a half club more into the green? What about that is supposed to get me excited and/or make me a proponent of the rollback?


The Milk Man said:
...Scott Hamilton who coaches 18 PGA Tour Players said his guys who have hit prototype rollback balls hit it just as far or farther. Geoff Shackelford also alluded to the same thing in his newsletter.
Click to expand...
Then what is the rollback accomplishing, if PGA Tour players are hitting the ball just as far or farther? Sounds counterproductive to me, and like maybe they should have investigated better options before climbing down this sewer hole.
 
The Milk Man said:
Scott Hamilton who coaches 18 PGA Tour Players said his guys who have hit prototype rollback balls hit it just as far or farther. Geoff Shackelford also alluded to the same thing in his newsletter.
Click to expand...
This is the benefit of the exhaustive testing being carried out, and this particular prototype ball is a failure. It will be tweaked, or the regulations will be tweaked, to ensure the distance they can get is lower. One thing the USGA aint setting out to do is 'rollback' the ball by zero yards for PGAT pros. There are still 4 years to get it right.
 
Last edited:
At this point. Do it, dont do it. I dont really care.
 
The Milk Man said:
This whole thread is comical, and much ado about nothing. Ams are going to lose maybe 3 to 6 yds. Mike Whan has said as much on publicly on Golf Subpar. He also said nearly 30% of balls currently on the market will still be on the market post rollback. Plus by the time the rollback happens golfers will have figured out the proper launch conditions for the new ball. Scott Hamilton who coaches 18 PGA Tour Players said his guys who have hit prototype rollback balls hit it just as far or farther. Geoff Shackelford also alluded to the same thing in his newsletter.
Click to expand...
Then why bother with it
 
18Slices said:
This is the benefit of the exhaustive testing being carried out, and this particular prototype ball is a failure. It will be tweaked, or the regulations will be tweaked, to ensure the distance they can get is lower. One thing the USGA aint setting out to do is 'rollback' the ball by zero yards for PGAT pros. There are still 4 years to get it right.
Click to expand...
I guess this is some indication that i must be wildly difficult to engineer a ball that loses more distance for the higher swing speeds than the more moderate speeds (as seems to be the intention). Perhaps they'll come up with some non-ball related ideas for the Tour, that include a comprehensive approach, rather than relying on just one piece of the puzzle. Personally, for my game 3-5 yards isn't something i get too wound up over... but perhaps there are alternatives that can be at least considered
 
rhinosparky said:
That's just it does the R&A think that they are going to see golf grow because of this. They are purposely changing the rules to punish all golfers because a few made the old courses look mundane with -20 scores.
Name one time in a local tournament or a round with your pals where ANYONE has complained that it would have been a better round if we all just hit the ball shorter. The same people who have one are still winning because they are better or played better that day.
Click to expand...
I never argued that amateurs (including myself) are going to think its a better game for us.

I dont think they are purposely trying to punish anyone. I think they just feel the need to keep courses relevant for the top tier performers. We just happen to be collateral damage.

But (and I been saying/repeating this all along) if the estimates are pretty accurate we are not being so very punished not nearly to the degree this hysteria so many us have would imply. Its not ruining our golf like so many think.
 
Bad idea. Being a senior golfer, playing a reduced distance ball makes no sense. My distance has gone down as I age up anyway. Reduced distance likely will cause gapping issues throughout the bag.
 
The Milk Man said:
This whole thread is comical, and much ado about nothing. Ams are going to lose maybe 3 to 6 yds. Mike Whan has said as much on publicly on Golf Subpar. He also said nearly 30% of balls currently on the market will still be on the market post rollback. Plus by the time the rollback happens golfers will have figured out the proper launch conditions for the new ball. Scott Hamilton who coaches 18 PGA Tour Players said his guys who have hit prototype rollback balls hit it just as far or farther. Geoff Shackelford also alluded to the same thing in his newsletter.
Click to expand...
I brought this up (sort of) at some points in this thread. I mentioned I do not think what they are even doing is solving anything as for the issue they believe that have. I mean 15 yrds off the longest pro hits is really solving the issue? I dont see that doing anything for the issue they feel they have. Heck they dont even use driver on all tees. Whie i do get the gist of the issue and why they feel there is one., this imo isnt solving it. Its not enough to solve it imo. I mean do something where they will lose 30 yrds or something off or perhaps something llike lose 25 off every club. Whatever Im just throwing numbers but you get the point. Imo it isnt solving their problem.
 
scott.french3 said:
Bad idea. Being a senior golfer, playing a reduced distance ball makes no sense. My distance has gone down as I age up anyway. Reduced distance likely will cause gapping issues throughout the bag.
Click to expand...
I dont see where gapping issues come in.
 
BigMac said:
It's pretty brutal for marketing, I don't envy the ball companies having to spin these up and excite people to buy them.

"Buy our new ball! It goes anywhere from 1-20 yards shorter than our previous one! It's not straighter, doesn't offer any better greenside performance, and doesn't feel any better than the old ones, but hey, It'S wHaT tHe PrOs ArE pLaYiNg!!!"
Click to expand...
Ive thought about the marketing issues but now Im not so sure marketing would be so brutal. Because there will still be distance balls except only under the new conformities. So they can still market for distance just the same. Still design balls with slower swings in mind.
 
Gapping is an area where the shorter hitter wins. If you are filling a smaller distance range with the same number of clubs, the gap between clubs reduces. The long hitter ends up with bigger gaps and so has to control speed and flight to better hit a particular distance.
 
18Slices said:
Gapping is an area where the shorter hitter wins. If you are filling a smaller distance range with the same number of clubs, the gap between clubs reduces. The long hitter ends up with bigger gaps and so has to control speed and flight to better hit a particular distance.
Click to expand...
Imo gapping is not a concern for anyone except only at first. For any avid player why would it be so very difficult to figure any gapping difference within a relative short period of time?
 
rollin said:
I never argued that amateurs (including myself) are going to think its a better game for us.

I dont think they are purposely trying to punish anyone. I think they just feel the need to keep courses relevant for the top tier performers. We just happen to be collateral damage.

But (and I been saying/repeating this all along) if the estimates are pretty accurate we are not being so very punished not nearly to the degree this hysteria so many us have would imply. Its not ruining our golf like so many think.
Click to expand...
Okay are you saying a course that has a four day total of -22 under is somehow any more or less entertaining than a tournament that finishes -17 under?
 
Templet0n said:
At this point. Do it, dont do it. I dont really care.
Click to expand...

Kinda in the same boat. I'll won't be more or less upset if I hit it 6 yards less far into the pond or into the amazon rain forest that always seems to grow to the right side of the holes for me.
 
rhinosparky said:
Okay are you saying a course that has a four day total of -22 under is somehow any more or less entertaining than a tournament that finishes -17 under?
Click to expand...

I like to see the card when a Pro finishes the 18th hole to see all the eagles and birdies and dream of what it would be like to score like that. Nobody can say honestly that looking at a tournament winner with 18 pars on the card would be aspiring. Bombs , birdies, eagles , and hole outs make watching PGA golf worth it.
 
rollin said:
And so will everyone else's so your still in the same place.
Ive mentioned earlier.....your hc isnt changing because if this. You hit every tee shot same exact yardage anyway? Your a 9 cap because your darn good enough. I dont know how long you are but you think your going to now be a 13 because you lose some yards from your best longest hits? Or 2 yrds off your 150 iron?
Click to expand...

rhinosparky said:
That's just it does the R&A think that they are going to see golf grow because of this. They are purposely changing the rules to punish all golfers because a few made the old courses look mundane with -20 scores.
Name one time in a local tournament or a round with your pals where ANYONE has complained that it would have been a better round if we all just hit the ball shorter. The same people who have one are still winning because they are better or played better that day.
Click to expand...

rollin said:
I never argued that amateurs (including myself) are going to think its a better game for us.

I dont think they are purposely trying to punish anyone. I think they just feel the need to keep courses relevant for the top tier performers. We just happen to be collateral damage.

But (and I been saying/repeating this all along) if the estimates are pretty accurate we are not being so very punished not nearly to the degree this hysteria so many us have would imply. Its not ruining our golf like so many think.
Click to expand...

rhinosparky said:
Okay are you saying a course that has a four day total of -22 under is somehow any more or less entertaining than a tournament that finishes -17 under?
Click to expand...
Im not saying anything about entertainment nor the minus par score... I never brought it up.
I said they are trying to fix an issue they feel they have with keeping courses relevant. Meaning as it pertains to the gradual forever and needed lengthening of holes and courses (and also ones which have become obsolete) due to length. thats real.

But hypothetically exaggerated sinc you bring up entertainment...how good would golf be if the pros played 6200 course where whole bunch p4 dogleg greens were drivable? Or where they can bypass majority of holes layout design integrity rendering it meaningless? How about 10 birds per with no bogeys? Whatever the case Im just throwing things out there to emphasize why holes and courses keep getting longer (which is real and an issue). Some have become obsolete and other have had to lengthen to stay relevant.

The only things I really eve say in this thread is that I do not believe its going to be such the devastation to us as so many think unless their estimates are way off. And the other thing I say is that I do feel they do have an issue at the tour level and courses needing to grow longer and longer. Imo they should do it some other way or bifurcate.
 
Last edited:
NeverWiff said:
I guess this is some indication that i must be wildly difficult to engineer a ball that loses more distance for the higher swing speeds than the more moderate speeds (as seems to be the intention). Perhaps they'll come up with some non-ball related ideas for the Tour, that include a comprehensive approach, rather than relying on just one piece of the puzzle. Personally, for my game 3-5 yards isn't something i get too wound up over... but perhaps there are alternatives that can be at least considered
Click to expand...
Actually think the proportional loss for the different swing speeds imo is the easy part. In fact Id say it would be a natural thing need not even be intentional. The further a ball travels the more its affected by everything anyway. Wind, pressure, temp, humidity, all have a greater affect on longer vs shorter hits.
 
rollin said:
Actually think the proportional loss for the different swing speeds imo is the easy part. In fact Id say it would be a natural thing need not even be intentional. The further a ball travels the more its affected by everything anyway. Wind, pressure, temp, humidity, all have a greater affect on longer vs shorter hits.
Click to expand...
I'm not a scientist, or a physicist, but it sure does sound right when you say it that way!!
 
rollin said:
Actually think the proportional loss for the different swing speeds imo is the easy part. In fact Id say it would be a natural thing need not even be intentional. The further a ball travels the more its affected by everything anyway. Wind, pressure, temp, humidity, all have a greater affect on longer vs shorter hits.
Click to expand...
I was thinking that, from a material engineering standpoint that, finding a core, cover, and whatever other layers are involved would be a big challenge in order to give a disproportionate effect that would penalize only/mostly the long(er) hitters...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top