Jack Nicklaus and the request for a ball roll back

[rollin]

Perhaps they are seeking a solution in search of a problem?

But there is a real issue. Through the decades and even most a century courses have had to grow to keep up with the consistently lengthening game that was/is played. The lengthening of the played game may have come in chunks and not necessarily an even growth, but regardless it has always grown longer and that is a fact. And its why the holes and courses had to grow with it to stay current or relevant. Either existing holes/courses were lengthened or as new courses were built they were simply built to fit the longer current games of the era they were built during.

On the pro circuits especially courses would become obsolete if they didnt expand through the decades and during the century as new courses were built for the pro circuit in mind they had to be long enough for the time period and then they needed to grow as they aged..
They could have done other things with some courses like many of us mention here but instead they chose to simply get longer or build them longer. Either way something had to be done and always was done through the decades which is a fact and that shows us its not just a solution looking for a problem. but its always been real thing The problem nowadays is that they cant just keep growing longer and longer. It has to stop somewhere. Among other things land itself is an issue. Im not at all for rolling back the ball nor equipment of course. And i feel they should do other things to help prevent the issue and preserve what I call integrity of holes and courses for the pro game. But in the end its not at all just something they made up. History shows well thats not the case.

 

[hadi05]

It's been fun reading all these takes on this... thanks THPers. Would have never guessed this thread would be closing in on 16 pages!

 

[Canadan]

I see some posts here that are somewhat disrespectful of Jack Nicklaus. Not to scold here, but realize that he has more experience in this game and all things golf than most. He was a long hitter.
I think the effect of long drives on the game would be more subtle than you would expect. For instance, as I began playing the shorter tees as I aged, I noticed that I was having more fun than before. I enjoyed hitting long drives just like everyone else, but the "real" game of golf is played from 100 yds and in.
When you step up to the tee there you see a picture of the hole layout. If the green is 600 yds away that is a pretty boring picture. You should give Jack the benefit of the doubt here. He knows a lot.

Jack is focused on 0.01% of golfers and is using his platform in the wrong way, after enjoying a career of being longer than everyone else. He's doing it as a club architect who apparently hasn't used enough creativity to create challenge, and must use the cheap method of distance to make golf harder. If he was serious about it, the tour stops hosted by his golf courses would be soft and the tee boxes would be angled in a way that would make doglegs impossible to cover.

Instead, he made the fairways concrete and then took issue with distance not long thereafter. You ask for people to respect his experience, but everything he's accomplished in golf and does as a course architect when the spotlight is on him is contradictory.

I respect what Jack accomplished as a golfer. He's either 1a or 1b all time, and no one can ignore that. With that in mind, that doesn't open the door for him to spout extreme perspectives that isolate a minuscule portion of the golfing public.

 

[Canadan]

But there is a real issue. Through the decades and even most a century courses have had to grow to keep up with the consistently lengthening game that was/is played. The lengthening of the played game may have come in chunks and not necessarily an even growth, but regardless it has always grown longer and that is a fact. And its why the holes and courses had to grow with it to stay current or relevant. Either existing holes/courses were lengthened or as new courses were built they were simply built to fit the longer current games of the era they were built during.

On the pro circuits especially courses would become obsolete if they didnt expand through the decades and during the century as new courses were built for the pro circuit in mind they had to be long enough for the time period and then they needed to grow as they aged..
They could have done other things with some courses like many of us mention here but instead they chose to simply get longer or build them longer. Either way something had to be done and always was done through the decades which is a fact and that shows us its not just a solution looking for a problem. but its always been real thing The problem nowadays is that they cant just keep growing longer and longer. It has to stop somewhere. Among other things land itself is an issue. Im not at all for rolling back the ball nor equipment of course. And i feel they should do other things to help prevent the issue and preserve what I call integrity of holes and courses for the pro game. But in the end its not at all just something they made up. History shows well thats not the case.

What local course not associated with professional or high end amateur play is being deemed obsolete based on distances?

There's a local spot here called "Clovernook" that isn't long at all, yet is defended by trees tight onto the doglegs, which cannot be high over based on the angles of the tee box, and surely introduce death if a shot isn't shaped off the tee. Par 71, 6,555 from the tips, and driver 'can' be in play if you're feeling skilled enough. 100 year old golf course, routed beautifully and totally relevant to 99.9% of golfers. Great stuff.

I don't sympathize with architects when the pros obliterate poor course design with pure skill. That's the whole reason they are there. If the courses don't like it, MAKE IT HARDER. Don't like a pro cutting a corner, move the tee box up against a tree! Don't like the pros hitting wedges into a 500 yard par 4, stop allowing 100 yards of roll! It's SO easy.

 

[Smiter]

Golden Bear, respect.

However Because you only want to keep your records in place. There’ll be a Bryson someday with Tigers focus.

I pretty much only hear his old arrogant ass (I’ve met him and am 100% entitled to this opinion) and the USGA wanting the ball rolled back, mainly due to him. I’ve played his course. It’s beautiful. It sucks for an average decent golfer. Move up the fracking tee boxes then? I played it from 6600 or so soft when I swung harder. There are a couple holes that suck. You have to be long, and you have to not only hit the fairway but be in the correct 1/3 of it. So it plays long because of a lot of 3i’s into position (y’all young folk call them UT’s). They’re f’ing 3 irons. Sure I can slap a hybrid shaft in my 3i, but it’s still a 3i not a UT.

Short rant, why? Why call a 3i a UT? Because you can’t hit a 3i but with shaft help a UT is cool? Put a good shaft in your 3i and keep it in the set?

 

[nicklongdrive]

The lobbying to make longer players short will only hurt the shorter players more as it has been said a million times.

What local course not associated with professional or high end amateur play is being deemed obsolete based on distances?

There's a local spot here called "Clovernook" that isn't long at all, yet is defended by trees tight onto the doglegs, which cannot be high over based on the angles of the tee box, and surely introduce death if a shot isn't shaped off the tee. Par 71, 6,555 from the tips, and driver 'can' be in play if you're feeling skilled enough. 100 year old golf course, routed beautifully and totally relevant to 99.9% of golfers. Great stuff.

I don't sympathize with architects when the pros obliterate poor course design with pure skill. That's the whole reason they are there. If the courses don't like it, MAKE IT HARDER. Don't like a pro cutting a corner, move the tee box up against a tree! Don't like the pros hitting wedges into a 500 yard par 4, stop allowing 100 yards of roll! It's SO easy.

Yep, going backwards will not help the sport progress. I played Nicklaus designed courses in Cancun and thought they were not very good, lol. He abused the use of bunkers in one, water in another and made the fairways narrow as hell on the last. It didn't seem like he knew that he could combine concepts or objects, it all had to be in one thing or not. Really goofy if you ask me.

 

[NeverWiff]

I think rolling back the ball is a terrible idea, for many of the reasons already articulated. I would further add what golf ball does the aspiring junior golfer play? The college golfer? What ball would be used in AJGA tournaments, along with state and regional ones? Maybe in one tournament a golfer has to play the rolled back ball, but in another he doesn't. What kind of sense does that make?

For the professional, courses don't need to be made longer, and equipment doesn't need to be tampered with. Grow the rough? Narrow the fairways? Shaved banks around the greens?

I see what you’re saying but consider this.. MLB essentially “rolls back” the ball/game by requiring players above college level to use wooden bats by the time they reach the MLB system. Governing bodies also limit, through engineering, the trampoline effect ( or “pop” ) in aluminum bats, to control distance.

I just don’t see the big deal with the governing body of a sport (any sport) looking for a solution to maintaining some sort of equipment standard. That, coupled with course setup strategies can keep venues that the professionals play, usable for the foreseeable future. After all, course construction and/or renovation isn’t exactly simple or inexpensive.

How about this… If “they” simply maintained the equipment standards at todays level. How many of us would find issue with that? It won’t happen but, personally, I’d be ok with it.

I’d venture to guess that distances will continue to increase and bifurcation will become inevitable.

Also a question … since average handicaps haven’t plummeted with all the developments in equipment (2 shots since 1991) are we as golfers not keeping up with the improvements and playing even worse than we should be?

 

[Hitsnmisses]

I don’t think the answer is that simple -

I would suggest that since 1991 , life has immeasurably increased in pace and time, consider even the internet not available and mobile phones in their infancy and not widely available.

Many of todays constraints eat into many activities , therefore recreational time is reduced and in recent years popularity of the game limits opportunity for many .

 

[Sean]

I see what you’re saying but consider this.. MLB essentially “rolls back” the ball/game by requiring players above college level to use wooden bats by the time they reach the MLB system. Governing bodies also limit, through engineering, the trampoline effect ( or “pop” ) in aluminum bats, to control distance.

I just don’t see the big deal with the governing body of a sport (any sport) looking for a solution to maintaining some sort of equipment standard. That, coupled with course setup strategies can keep venues that the professionals play, usable for the foreseeable future. After all, course construction and/or renovation isn’t exactly simple or inexpensive.

How about this… If “they” simply maintained the equipment standards at todays level. How many of us would find issue with that? It won’t happen but, personally, I’d be ok with it.

I’d venture to guess that distances will continue to increase and bifurcation will become inevitable.

Also a question … since average handicaps haven’t plummeted with all the developments in equipment (2 shots since 1991) are we as golfers not keeping up with the improvements and playing even worse than we should be?

Equipment can help a golfer...up to a point. Regardless of what kind of equipment one has, he still has to put a good swing on the ball to get positive results.

In addition, there is only so much OEM's can do with equipment since COR has been maxed out. They have made clubs longer and lofts stronger to eek out more distance. As far as the professionals go, their distance comes from the efficiency of their swings, the science behind it, and the kind of physical condition they are in, .

On a side note, I have observed that while the touring professional on TV exclaims how great drive "x" is, he still hits the ball pretty much the same distance as he hit previous year's models.

If there is a ball roll back, the only way it will fly (pun intended), is if that roll back only applies to professionals. As far as we amateur golfers are concerned, no roll back is necessary. Consider: the average drive is 216 yards. According to a formula I read in Golf Digest, one should play yardages as follows: average length of drive x 28. In the case of 216 yards, that comes out to a little over 6000 yards.

 

[titleist981]

What local course not associated with professional or high end amateur play is being deemed obsolete based on distances?

There's a local spot here called "Clovernook" that isn't long at all, yet is defended by trees tight onto the doglegs, which cannot be high over based on the angles of the tee box, and surely introduce death if a shot isn't shaped off the tee. Par 71, 6,555 from the tips, and driver 'can' be in play if you're feeling skilled enough. 100 year old golf course, routed beautifully and totally relevant to 99.9% of golfers. Great stuff.

I don't sympathize with architects when the pros obliterate poor course design with pure skill. That's the whole reason they are there. If the courses don't like it, MAKE IT HARDER. Don't like a pro cutting a corner, move the tee box up against a tree! Don't like the pros hitting wedges into a 500 yard par 4, stop allowing 100 yards of roll! It's SO easy.

"What local course not associated with professional or high-end amateur play is being deemed obsolete based on distances?"
The answer to your question is.... NONE! The PGATOUR still play courses that's 7000 yards and less. The ones that they don't play won't support the infrastructure needed to house ......television trucks, PARKING, fitness trailers, miles of cable, corporate tents, etc..... The Tour can stop the low scores with setup anytime they choose.... again, there's no local courses deemed obsolete, just a talking point for people who think the game should be played like it did for old Tom Morris.

 

[rollin]

What local course not associated with professional or high end amateur play is being deemed obsolete based on distances?

There's a local spot here called "Clovernook" that isn't long at all, yet is defended by trees tight onto the doglegs, which cannot be high over based on the angles of the tee box, and surely introduce death if a shot isn't shaped off the tee. Par 71, 6,555 from the tips, and driver 'can' be in play if you're feeling skilled enough. 100 year old golf course, routed beautifully and totally relevant to 99.9% of golfers. Great stuff.

I don't sympathize with architects when the pros obliterate poor course design with pure skill. That's the whole reason they are there. If the courses don't like it, MAKE IT HARDER. Don't like a pro cutting a corner, move the tee box up against a tree! Don't like the pros hitting wedges into a 500 yard par 4, stop allowing 100 yards of roll! It's SO easy.

I don't disagree that there are other means. I'm only pointing out the issue does exist.

Sure you can always find given older golf courses that can still play relevant especially aming us masses.. But you cannot deny the fact that the average course has lengthened in order to stay current and the average pro tee courses have lengthened even more. That is real fact. It's not some made up statistic to satisfy some agenda. It really happened. I think you know that.

I agree instead of rolling ball back they should do other things to keep holes relevant. But the fact that many suggest this just proves or recognizes the issue or potential issue is real.

 

[Canadan]

I don't disagree that there are other means. I'm only pointing out the issue does exist.

Sure you can always find given older golf courses that can still play relevant especially aming us masses.. But you cannot deny the fact that the average course has lengthened in order to stay current and the average pro tee courses have lengthened even more. That is real fact. It's not some made up statistic to satisfy some agenda. It really happened. I think you know that.

I agree instead of rolling ball back they should do other things to keep holes relevant. But the fact that many suggest this just proves or recognizes the issue or potential issue is real.

When you say "many" who are you referring to?

If you can offer a list that doesn't include "governing bodies" and "course architects" I'll be very impressed.

 

[rollin]

When you say "many" who are you referring to?

If you can offer a list that doesn't include "governing bodies" and "course architects" I'll be very impressed.

When I say many I just mean people here or even on the outside in the discussion.

Many of us suggest they should do other things and that in itself shows some admittance of there actually being some issue.

 

[Canadan]

When I say many I just mean people here or even on the outside in the discussion.

Many of us suggest they should do other things and that in itself shows some admittance of there actually being some issue.

on tour, or elsewhere? I have NEVER heard a discussion around a golf course (regarding golfers at that golf course) about the ball being too long. Ever.

We're either talking Tour (which in my perspective is stupid based on how the Tour sets up their events), or we're talking about absolutely nothing.

 

[Cinco]

Have to agree. I've never had a golf discussion where someone has said they thought the ball goes too far.

 

[rollin]

Ok...what I am talking about is when this topic might pop up like it has here and now.
That is when people suggest other things should be done instead of ruling backbthe ball.

Bottom line is in the end courses either through thier own rennivations or as new ones gotten built , golf courses have consistently grown longer.
There is a real reason that has taken place.