Ping's Solheim has a "solution" for the distance problem

interlooper

Wishing I was golfing now
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,661
Reaction score
25
Location
Chicago, IL
Handicap
10.3
"John Solheim, chairman & CEO of Ping, thinks he has an idea for the golf ball distance "problem."

In short, Solheim believes that balls should be like the different tee boxes on a course. Solheim's proposal seek a rule change from just one overall distance standard for all balls to a "ball distance rating," that would include three types of balls. The three balls include one that is the same as today's current balls, a second ball that is 30 yards longer and a third ball that is 30 yards shorter than current balls. Golf courses, tournaments, tours and even individual players could choose their ball based on the course they're playing or the skill level of the players in the event.

What do you guys think?

Solheim Proposal
 
I get that he's trying to head off some sort of kneejerk reaction by the USGA, but it sure seems complicated, especially from a consumer standpoint.

I think things are just fine. Hitting the ball far at the pro level doesn't guarantee a thing in terms of wins.
 
Idiotic. I don't think it is even implementable. Convince companies to make shorter balls? Yeah...
 
I think this idea is impractical. For one, so many golfers dont even buy golf balls (they just use what they find), let alone three different types, so it is impractical to say to the average golfer that the sport is going to get 3x more expensive. Second, professional golfers would throw a fit. Look at what happened in the NBA when they change the ball a few years ago. Golfers are very attached with the performance characteristics of their golf balls, and I think they would be very unhappy if they had to master the distance, spin, feel characteristics of 3 different balls.
 
I don't really understand the logic behind this TBH. It just seems stupid to me.
 
Yeah that just seems silly. Maybe the thinking is that if it's easier to hit it 280+ more people would get involved in golf?

Only thing is that hitting it long doesn't guarantee a good score. When I play with my dad he can only hit the ball 180ish and I can hit it 250ish but he can quite often score about the same as me (For now) since he hits it a lot straighter and has a better short game.
 
Yeah that just seems silly. Maybe the thinking is that if it's easier to hit it 280+ more people would get involved in golf?

Only thing is that hitting it long doesn't guarantee a good score. When I play with my dad he can only hit the ball 180ish and I can hit it 250ish but he can quite often score about the same as me (For now) since he hits it a lot straighter and has a better short game.

Sure, but what happens when the USGA decides Pro's should only be hitting the ball 280 instead of 300+ to deal with the length "problem" (tell that to Brian Gay). Now you're getting out there 230ish, your dad is 160ish and the course lengths are still ludicriously long.

It won't suprise me when the USGA takes aim at changing the ball, but I have no interest in another rule change to "sort" or "help" the professional game that screws amateurs. I still think Solheim's suggestion is odd though. Just give tour players different clubs and balls (which they get anyways) and stick the consumer label on it. You still get people wanting to buy stuff because the tour player uses it and potentially a litle extra word of mouth. Some guy hitting the ball as far as Luke with his R11 is going to be jacked up and sing it from the roof tops, probably adding to sales, not realizing that Luke is losing 30% distance so that your courses are harder.
 
I don't even know how to respond to this its so ridiculous.
 
Not only that, but can you imagine if one of the "Tours" decided that sometimes they would use the "normal" balls, sometimes use the "distance balls" and sometimes use the "non-distance" balls. Then, the players would have to know their distances for each club X 3. They would also need to learn the shortgame with each ball, etc. Seems like a bad idea, and something the tour players would not be happy about.
 
I do not think that a player should be punished for having distance. To try to control that is counterproductive. There are fittings, head designs, and lessons to help shorter hitters maximize their distance. To try and make every player hit the ball the same distance is stupid, at best.
 
I get that he's trying to head off some sort of kneejerk reaction by the USGA, but it sure seems complicated, especially from a consumer standpoint.

I think things are just fine. Hitting the ball far at the pro level doesn't guarantee a thing in terms of wins.

My thoughts exactly.
 
Only in golf do they think of these ridiculously complicated solutions for a non problem
 
I am trying to wrap my head around the level of stupid that this idea is.
 
It's an interesting idea. Not one that I'm a big fan of though. Every year you hear about rolling back the golf ball and I think at some point it will happen. Every now and then around Masters time the topic comes up about a tournament being able to pick the type of ball that can be played for that weekend.
 
Only in golf do they think of these ridiculously complicated solutions for a non problem

This could make for good frat boy tricks though. Since the difference between 2 balls can be as much as 60 yards, it would be fun to have a buddy play one distance ball for 9 holes or so, and then switch his ball when he is not looking on a par 3. All of a sudden, he is 60 yards short and in the water and he has no idea why.
 
I definitely think it's an absurd idea, though maybe that's the point. Maybe they're just aiming to spark the discussion to show the USGA/R&A that they acknowledge the problem and are trying things to, as Hawk said, avoid a kneejerk reaction. I really think it's a course's problem, not the governing body's. Want to keep lengthening courses to make them harder for the better golfers? Go ahead. I could be wrong here (having played relatively few [~30] courses), but there are always forward tees for the more 'average' hacker. I know 2 courses that will not allow you to play the back sets of tees unless you are under a certain index factor. Could you lie? Sure. But it is supposed to be an honour sport, and the courses report fast round times b/c fewer bad golfers get in trouble from the tips so it might actually work.
 
That's preposterous. Let them hit the ball 600 yards if they can!
 
I definitely think it's an absurd idea, though maybe that's the point. Maybe they're just aiming to spark the discussion to show the USGA/R&A that they acknowledge the problem and are trying things to, as Hawk said, avoid a kneejerk reaction. I really think it's a course's problem, not the governing body's. Want to keep lengthening courses to make them harder for the better golfers? Go ahead. I could be wrong here (having played relatively few [~30] courses), but there are always forward tees for the more 'average' hacker. I know 2 courses that will not allow you to play the back sets of tees unless you are under a certain index factor. Could you lie? Sure. But it is supposed to be an honour sport, and the courses report fast round times b/c fewer bad golfers get in trouble from the tips so it might actually work.

But what is the problem? That golfers are hitting the ball farther? I am pretty sure that the #1 ranked player in the drives the ball ~280. Course design is the best way to curb distance. I know that is tough because of the existing courses. But scores aren't SUPER low right now. I know that Rory ate up the US Open, but the winner there is usually around par. Pebble Beach is under 7,000 yards, and yet Gmac won that with a score close to par.
 
Maybe limit the number of clubs based on handicap. 5 for scratch or better - and add a club for each additional handicap stroke up to 18.

Oh, what's that John? You would not sell so many clubs! Never mind.
 
Good luck trying to keep track of all your iron distances with the different balls.
 
Maybe limit the number of clubs based on handicap. 5 for scratch or better - and add a club for each additional handicap stroke up to 18.

Oh, what's that John? You would not sell so many clubs! Never mind.

Why not limit each player to just a putter. Granted, the holes would have to be MUCH shorter. And to add to the difficulty course designers could put windmills and clown heads in between your ball and the hole.
 
Good luck trying to keep track of all your iron distances with the different balls.

Agreed, this is the biggest problem to this solution. Its not going to be 30 yards +/- for each club or even for each player with the same club. If they could make balls +/- 30 yards for a 300 yard hitter that's 10%. So now for the average golfer were talking +/- 20 yards with the driver. When you get into irons it would be +/- 10 to 18 yards. I have enough trouble with my yardages now. I don't want to have to bring a calculator to the course. Leave the game alone, they all compete on the same course. Par is just a number.
 
Why not limit each player to just a putter. Granted, the holes would have to be MUCH shorter. And to add to the difficulty course designers could put windmills and clown heads in between your ball and the hole.

Would't have to be that much shorter. As long as there's no harzards to carry or big upwards elevation changes I can, and have, reached a few par 5's in order to get a par or bogey with only a putter. Kinda fun from time to time actually.

I don't mind Solheim's idea not being taken seriously since I don't think it has much merit. Hopefully though it'll generate enough interest that the USGA will talk about what they want to do to the ball before they actually do it. I think he can get away with saying this since Ping doesn't have a stake in the ball market where's as other companies saying anything near the same might just get hit on for trying to get a leg up on the competition through early knowledge.
Plus it might help avoid lawsuits in the future such as Ping went through over the grooves unless I'm mistaken.
 
Back
Top