We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Jack Nicklaus and the request for a ball roll back

GolfTravelDude said:
Do you apply that logic to Tiger? Do you know Jacks profits via golf balls?
Click to expand...
I do apply that logic to Tiger.

Let me be clear, celebrity course designers are a bigger threat to the future of golf than shot distance on the PGA Tour.

If Jack or Tiger we're truly concerned about golf, they wouldn't design high dollar resort courses.

But nobody is going to pay Jack's or Tiger's asking price for a $50/round golf course.

Tiger and Jack are both more concerned about their profits than their principles.
 
Last edited:
And here I am thinking I was going to have the hottest take in this thread. 🔥
 
This thread became quite a hot topic today. I couldn't help but giggle when I read the article today, but it definitely stirred some emotions. Maybe, just maybe that's what Jack is trying to do. Just get the industry all riled up.
 
blugold said:
I do apply that logic to Tiger.

Let me be clear, celebrity course designers are a bigger threat to the future of golf than shot distance on the PGA Tour.

If Jack or Tiger we're truly concerned about golf, they wouldn't design high dollar resort courses.

But nobody is going to pay Jack's or Tiger's asking price for a $50/round golf course.

Tiger and Jack are both more concerned about their profits than their principles.
Click to expand...

 
I can get where the PGA might be concerned about distance, as Tour golfers are only getting longer but their courses aren't. That's a trend that's only heading one way, as pros train for distance more and frankly as PEDs get better.

Weekend hacks aren't bomb-and-gouging every course though, and shortening their ball flight would murder pace of play. That's slower rounds for foursomes, fewer bookings for golf courses to sell, less revenue for courses to stay open and avoid being bulldozed into subdivisions, and more players leaving the game. IMO it would be catastrophic.

I think the PGA is right to look at measures to start capping distance, such as banning 48" Bryson drivers. And if Tour pros gain another 30 yards of driving distance in the next 20 years, then maybe they will need to start limiting ball aerodynamics or driver COR to shorten things up. But the last thing golf needs is for weekend players to be capped on distance. Most of them are playing too long of courses already.
 
blugold said:
The PGA Tour needs to get their PR team on this immediately and push back against Jack's senility. Distance is marketable. Nobody is tuning into weekend golf to watch the best golfers in the world smash drives 275 yards.
Click to expand...
Don't worry the PGATOUR agrees with you. 1960 golf don't sell.
 
So, let me start over... deleted my prior contribution, as i hadn't completed before it posted.

Options seem to be:
1. Do nothing and Pro Golf turns into a drive/pitch & putt style event. Zzzzzz..... I'd much rather see shotmaking and course managment vs. bomb & gouge
At some point, might not the courses need to be re-rated as the regular Joe golfers will be using Tech to hit the ball ever further and short par 4's and 5's become 3's and 4's ?
2. Build bigger longer courses for the Pro's in areas where land is available. The old classics cease to be used, tournament dollars leave the communities they once benefitted.
Courses are already under pressure for use of resources (water, chemicals) and the cost involved. At some point, i can see environmentalists and government pushing to limit
use of those resources, to direct elsewhere for the public good.
3. Limit future ball flight or club Tech for all.
4. Bifurcate and limit ball flight and club Tech for Pro's only.
5. I'm sure there are a few other more subtle options out there... but these are what I see.

It's amusing things have gotten this far with the USGA and R&A pushing decisions off year after year. (Maybe they're waiting for someone else to make the decision for them)

I'm not overly thrilled with any of the options and I'm not going to quit playing golf, regardless of what happens..... BUT I'd be "ok" with #3.
It would allow me (all of us, actually) to continue to play the same game (and in some instances on the same courses) as a pro and compare our abilities to what we see on the tube every weekend. Not too many other sports offer up that opportunity.

Besides, I'm 56 and, as it is, I'm hitting the ball farther than i ever have in my life and on some of the same courses i played when i was in my 20's and 30's (so i can make an apples to apples comparison of my game)... and that's just silly.... I mean, I'll take it, but how much longer are "they" going to make enable me hit the ball in another 5 years???? :ROFLMAO:
 
JB said:
You could make the case that you dont need to lengthen, but to make them more penal off the tee would actually be a better solution.
Challenging rough, creative designs, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, and i neglected that in my revised post..... There are certainly ways to do make the course more penal and i'm all for that as well. (narrowing the fairways the farther out from the tee you get) I'm also up for varying greens speed week to week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
blugold said:
I do apply that logic to Tiger.

Let me be clear, celebrity course designers are a bigger threat to the future of golf than shot distance on the PGA Tour.

If Jack or Tiger we're truly concerned about golf, they wouldn't design high dollar resort courses.

But nobody is going to pay Jack's or Tiger's asking price for a $50/round golf course.

Tiger and Jack are both more concerned about their profits than their principles.
Click to expand...
High $ resort courses attract high $ spenders for their entertainment. That paradigm is appropriate. Meanwhile the pardigm of Jordan sneaks or any other bb jock sneak...Who buys them? Many who shouldn't.
Unlike soccer or BB which can be played for free....Golf has costs...At times substantial costs. Each of us can play golf but never for free. Varying costs many times with higher cost courses being nicer. To endeavor to say the elite segment shouldn't be is just off base.
 
TxAggie2018 said:
Weekend hacks aren't bomb-and-gouging every course though, and shortening their ball flight would murder pace of play.
Click to expand...
While I have my own opinions on all of this, I'm generally just watching this thread, though I've lost sight of whether it's about de-juiced balls for the tour only or for everyone.

Anyway, can I ask you to explain this remark? I tend to think the opposite. It seems like there are plenty of times I find myself waiting for a long hitter who's waiting for a green to clear on a short par-4 or on a par 5. Not casting judgment- nobody wants to get hit by a golf ball, and I've been guilty of waiting for a green to clear from a distance that is possible, but not likely for me to reach. But long hitting tends to slow things down more than speed it up from what I can see.
 
GolfTravelDude said:
High $ resort courses attract high $ spenders for their entertainment. That paradigm is appropriate. Meanwhile the pardigm of Jordan sneaks or any other bb jock sneak...Who buys them? Many who shouldn't.
Unlike soccer or BB which can be played for free....Golf has costs...At times substantial costs. Each of us can play golf but never for free. Varying costs many times with higher cost courses being nicer. To endeavor to say the elite segment shouldn't be is just off base.
Click to expand...
huh? I can't imagine how you got any of that out of my post.

I am not saying championship resort courses shouldn't exist. I am not saying expensive courses shouldn't exist.
 
I'm not really a fan of rolling back the ball. I think the people who want it are obsessed with the pro game which at the end of the day is a small part of golf. Most of the arguments also seem very pro game focused even when they masquerade as not being so

-99% of courses don't need to be more than 6500-6600yds. Pro courses do, but so what. That's like complaining that maintaining Gillette Stadium is expensive so we should re-look at Football fields overall.
-Having 1-2% of the courses in the US play 7200-7500yds is a negligible impact on cost overall
-Who is complaining about the pro game these days other than Jack and Mike Davis and a handful of others? Is there any actual data or evidence that the tour is less popular because of guys hitting it far or shooting lower scores.

This whole thing to me seems like it's Jack (who admittedly calls himself "an old fuddy duddy" on broadcasts) and a bunch of people in senior USGA positions who grew up watching Jack acting like they speak for all golfers.

Reminds me of everything i read about Babe Ruth supporters and writers hating on Roger Maris for no other reason than they loved Babe and hated change
 
This ball argument is older than Jack. When I started playing we used wound balls and ”wood” woods. Should we go back to those? Maybe hickory shafted clubs and gutta percha balls? I loved Jack as a player, probably my 2nd favorite of all time behind Hogan. But Jack, the game you helped become more popular has now transcended you. Roll back the ball? No. Roll back club tech? No. Jack probably wouldn’t be saying these things if he were playing in his prime right now. This distance thing is a ratings bonanza. The PGA and advertisers won’t have it any other way.
 
tilley88 said:
This ball argument is older than Jack. When I started playing we used wound balls and ”wood” woods. Should we go back to those? Maybe hickory shafted clubs and gutta percha balls? I loved Jack as a player, probably my 2nd favorite of all time behind Hogan. But Jack, the game you helped become more popular has now transcended you. Roll back the ball? No. Roll back club tech? No. Jack probably wouldn’t be saying these things if he were playing in his prime right now. This distance thing is a ratings bonanza. The PGA and advertisers won’t have it any other way.
Click to expand...
you're underestimating the USGA's ability to see the correct course of action, and then doing the exact opposite.
 
GolfTravelDude said:
High $ resort courses attract high $ spenders for their entertainment. That paradigm is appropriate. Meanwhile the pardigm of Jordan sneaks or any other bb jock sneak...Who buys them? Many who shouldn't.
Unlike soccer or BB which can be played for free....Golf has costs...At times substantial costs. Each of us can play golf but never for free. Varying costs many times with higher cost courses being nicer. To endeavor to say the elite segment shouldn't be is just off base.
Click to expand...

I think what he's saying is an overwhelming majority of Jack and Tiger's designs are high dollar. There is nothing wrong with having those courses as you said, but when it comes to new course design, the average Joe price point is being largely overlooked. If Jack and Tiger really wanted to grow the game, they'd spend some of their time taking a lower fee to design more attainable tracks.
 
What's the point of making golf so hard? It doesn't make it more enjoyable. Give me a course that is firm and fast with longish rough and the tournament will be fun and exciting. They always are. It keeps low scores and big mistakes in play. It's why The Masters is such a great tourney. Yes they go low, but there's always excitement on Sunday. The US Open on the other hand is often super penal and ends up being a bit of a snooze fest at times. Why is the quality of a course judged by how hard it is anyway?
 
Greg Kulbick said:
What's wrong with forced carries, tons of sand and demanding a high fade and nothing else?
Click to expand...
Oh, I see you’ve played Dove Mountain GC too! 🤣
 
 
I haven't played a Jack designed course. From what I read about them here, they're not easy. It's probably not the type of golf I want to play. I'm not into exercises in frustration. I'm into fun.:D

Jack is sounding to me like an old stick in the mud that can't accept that the game that he loves dearly and pays for his yachts is changing.🤷‍♂️:ROFLMAO:
 
We should probably do away with the CT limit too.

Easy and fast golf for everyone!
 
I’m going to vote no on this one. Jack is entitled to his beliefs. But it’s simple shrink the fairways and grow the rough. Problem solved.
 
tahoebum said:
My thinking is scoring average has stayed the same within a narrow range the last 20 years even though the improvements in agronomy and greens keeping has made course conditions much more consistent and better. Whatever improvements to the ball, fitting, equipment, and fitness has been offset by longer or tougher courses because the scoring is basically the same. The last two years it was right around 71.

I think a lot of us think the average would be sub 70 but that’s never been the case in spite of some tournaments like the Phoenix Open where that might be true.

Here’s a decade of Tour scoring average.

View attachment 9060479
Click to expand...
purist should take a look at scoring average instead of obsessing over swing speed and pros whacking it as far as they can.
 
This has been real fun to participate in with you guys today today. We've taken the cart so far off the road and back. We've gone through the ditch, the field, the following county came back broke the wheels off getting back onto the road, caught the cart on fire on the road, flagged somebody down and started it all over again. Thanks for making my day today THP fam!:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Gusset said:
While I have my own opinions on all of this, I'm generally just watching this thread, though I've lost sight of whether it's about de-juiced balls for the tour only or for everyone.

Anyway, can I ask you to explain this remark? I tend to think the opposite. It seems like there are plenty of times I find myself waiting for a long hitter who's waiting for a green to clear on a short par-4 or on a par 5. Not casting judgment- nobody wants to get hit by a golf ball, and I've been guilty of waiting for a green to clear from a distance that is possible, but not likely for me to reach. But long hitting tends to slow things down more than speed it up from what I can see.
Click to expand...
My first comment on this topic but if a long hitter has 72 strokes a round and the shorter has 90 for arguments sake , the differential in time ( to play 18 additional shots )is significant ….
 
ls nt it interesting that we place great weight on those who have played and left great marks on the game . But they choose to pass judgment , that affects millions of average golfers who are clearly not in the league / talent / class .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top