Ball limits; should they be changed?

[Wabinez]

And perhaps make the rough rougher. And maybe look at the grasses in the first cut of rough - some kikuyu on more courses perhaps?

is the climate good across the entire globe to grow Kikuyu? I can’t see Wentworth being able to grow it. how about the other courses across the DP World tour. Do the Courses have budgets, time and ability to grow various different strains of grasses?

 

[Alan Clifford]

is the climate good across the entire globe to grow Kikuyu? I can’t see Wentworth being able to grow it. how about the other courses across the DP World tour. Do the Courses have budgets, time and ability to grow various different strains of grasses?

Kikuyu was just an example. I'm not a grass expert but I'd surmise that there are examples of grasses for cooler climates that are not grown for biliard table smoothness. And yes, courses would have the budgets and develop the expertise if this sort of thing became the norm.

 

[wjemather]

You either leave it as it is or change it for everyone.
How can an elite amateur be expected to play a short ball in big events and a long ball in the monthly medal

Unlike when we changed from the small ball to the large ball, the difference won't be readily apparent to all but the keenest observer. Tour pros and elite amateurs are frequently subject to the one-ball rule (and generally stick to one model anyway), so this won't affect how they choose a ball from one hole to the next. However, when the vast majority of amateurs happily play the ball they just found in the rough/hedge/pond, that creates a few problems with applying the proposed rule for everyone.

Elite amateurs who play in events where the MLR is adopted will simply play the new ball all the time.

 

[Orikoru]

correct. PGA pros are entirely filled with their own self interest. they move from course to course and don’t care about the other 51 weeks of the year when ‘normal’ people play the courses.

USGA and R&A wanted to ensure that amateur golfers were not affected/not affected as much by the MLR.

growing grass, planting trees etc is unsustainable as well as affecting amateur play.

reducing size of the clubheads will affect amateur play. Manufacturers would very clearly object to this.

the ball makes the clearest sense to adjust, and then, in my opinion, it will simply be adapted into the amateur game without much fuss at all

None of this makes any sense. You think changing the ball that everybody uses affects amateurs less than growing the grass up on a handful of courses for two weeks of the year??

 

[wjemather]

None of this makes any sense. You think changing the ball that everybody uses affects amateurs less than growing the grass up on a handful of courses for two weeks of the year??

Growing the grass up for an event and then slowly reducing it's height afterwards takes a lot longer than 2 weeks.
It would also be counter-productive because, while making the course harder for everyone, it makes it relatively more difficult for shorter hitters, thus increasing the premium on distance.

 

[sjw]

I'll stick by my earlier suggestion - if players can hit the ball to the point where they're using a wedge in, fine. But have them and their caddies look for the ball should they hit one wayward. I know these players are accurate and won't lose a ball more often than not, but if you had someone running about looking for it to tell you where it was five minutes later, you'd throw caution to the wind, no?

 

[YandaB]

I heard somewhere recently that Dean Snell (of Snell golf balls and developer of titelist prov1, worked at Callaway etc) had a view that the easy way to cut down on distance would be to reduce the maximum height of a tee. I cannot find this using Google so might have been made up but if it does make an impact it certainly seems to be a easy and cheap change compared to anything else discussed.

Can others that know and understand ball flights, spin rates, angles of attach etc. shed any light on that?

 

[D-S]

On the Golf commentary the other day they mentioned that Hogan’s stock 2 iron was 187 yards, the same distance that Koepka hit on the 18th raised green at Oak Hill with a 9 iron.

 

[Wabinez]

None of this makes any sense. You think changing the ball that everybody uses affects amateurs less than growing the grass up on a handful of courses for two weeks of the year??

if you think growing thick rough only takes 2 weeks, boy have I got a surprise for you

also, it’s not a ‘handful’ of courses. Think of all the pro events that take place across the globe. All of these courses would be affected by simply ‘growing the grass’. you have to think more than just the PGA Tour stops.

 

[bobmac]

Unlike when we changed from the small ball to the large ball, the difference won't be readily apparent to all but the keenest observer. Tour pros and elite amateurs are frequently subject to the one-ball rule (and generally stick to one model anyway), so this won't affect how they choose a ball from one hole to the next. However, when the vast majority of amateurs happily play the ball they just found in the rough/hedge/pond, that creates a few problems with applying the proposed rule for everyone.

Elite amateurs who play in events where the MLR is adopted will simply play the new ball all the time.

Do you have a h/cap cut off in mind when amateurs become elite?

 

[wjemather]

Do you have a h/cap cut off in mind when amateurs become elite?

The official definition of elite amateur for men is scratch (index 0.0) and lower.
However, only those intending to play in events that adopt the proposed MLR would be affected, which is a small subset of those players.

 

[Backsticks]

Limiting the ball length would repair the damage done to golf over the last 25 years. The authorities were either asleep at the wheel, or I suspect more, tied up in and fearful of legal challenges from the manufacturers who only have dollars as their motivation, and not the good of the game.

I would prefer it reduced for all, dont think there is a need for bifurcation, one ball for all is neater and can work perfectly well if it is shorter. However, with that looking unlikely at least in the short term, I would prefer a shorter ball for elite levels rather than no shortening of the ball at all. The proposed limit is a compromise - not as roll-back as it should be, but a case of drawing the line now and at least gaining that, rather than going for an even shorter one, and not getting it accepted. An expedient if unpalatable solution.

A 15-20% shorter ball would improve the game for everyone, and be a win in every way.

 

[Orikoru]

if you think growing thick rough only takes 2 weeks, boy have I got a surprise for you

also, it’s not a ‘handful’ of courses. Think of all the pro events that take place across the globe. All of these courses would be affected by simply ‘growing the grass’. you have to think more than just the PGA Tour stops.

But we were talking about the effect on amateur golfers - not the effect on greenkeepers!

 

[Orikoru]

A 15-20% shorter ball would improve the game for everyone, and be a win in every way.

No it wouldn't, it would make the game more boring for me. Driver, wood on all but the shortest par 4s. Dull as ditchwater.

 

[wjemather]

No it wouldn't, it would make the game more boring for me. Driver, wood on all but the shortest par 4s. Dull as ditchwater.

Assuming you are speaking for your own golf, then you are already playing tees that are too long for you. Move forward.

 

[Wabinez]

But we were talking about the effect on amateur golfers - not the effect on greenkeepers!

beginning to lose the will to live here as you can’t seem to think outside the box and see a bigger picture.

the rough takes a long time to grow, during which time, amateurs are playing the course. Losing balls in growing rough, especially as fairways are narrowing as that’s what folks want too. you can’t cut the roughy straight after a tournament, you need to gradually reduce it, guess what, whilst amateurs are playing and losing balls in said thick rough

 

[Imurg]

Assuming you are speaking for your own golf, then you are already playing tees that are too long for you. Move forward.

And if youre already "forward"..?
Or wanting to play competitions where the tee is stated in the competition rules..?

 

[Beezerk]

No it wouldn't, it would make the game more boring for me. Driver, wood on all but the shortest par 4s. Dull as ditchwater.

It would make you a wicked fairway wood player though

 

[RichA]

beginning to lose the will to live here as you can’t seem to think outside the box and see a bigger picture.

the rough takes a long time to grow, during which time, amateurs are playing the course. Losing balls in growing rough, especially as fairways are narrowing as that’s what folks want too. you can’t cut the roughy straight after a tournament, you need to gradually reduce it, guess what, whilst amateurs are playing and losing balls in said thick rough

Is somebody forcing you to read these posts that happen to express an opinion other than your own?
I agree with @Orikoru - Leave the balls as they are for everyone. Make the competition courses harder for the professionals.

If you happen to be a member at a course nice enough for elite comps to be taking place there, then it's just tough. If you aren't good enough to play those courses with the pro set-up then join somewhere else. Kind of like the condescending "use the forward tees" argument.

 

[Beezerk]

Using the flightscope trajectory optimiser https://trajectory.flightscope.com/ I had a play around with it to see what the difference currently is.

If we use the 120mph/127mph that they are proposing and we assume everything is the same (launch angle, spin) and use the same 1.5 smash factor then the difference is more than the 15 yards for the longest hitters.

At 120mph with launch angle of 11, spin at 2100 and ball speed at 180mph then we get a carry of 296.9 yards.
At 127mph with the same conditions we get a ball speed of 190.5mph and a carry of 315.8 yards.

So the new ball at 127mph club speed needs to "only" carry 296.9 to be equal to the old ball. So not only is it losing 19 yards of carry, it's going to lose roll out as well since it's lost 10.5mph ball speed.

I'd imagine the loss won't be linear with decreasing speeds but even the weekend chopper will suffer distance loss.

Now that’s what I’m talking about
You don’t happen to have a graph with distance vs swing speed do you? The line on the graph will be curved by what you say.
Wow I’m getting really nerdy now