Ball limits; should they be changed?

[Ians_sporting_bro]

I think many, or even the majority of, posters have forgetten that the proposed LR is only for elite golfers - presumably because of the irrelevance an (im)practicalities of enforcement at lower levels! I can even envisage a time in the future when ALL balls have markings that identify their conformance, so the so called bifurcation issue could well disappear. It also seems that there's no 'bifurcation' involved - just a case of reducing the existing limits, by about 5%. https://www.bunkered.co.uk/golf-news/governing-bodies-announce-plan-to-roll-back-golf-ball/
Oh and anothr observation....It seems that the main driver is the R&A who are no longer able to protect TOC from the current dominance, which is unlikely to change, of big hitters. I'm a little ambivalent about their motives.

 

[wjemather]

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.

People banging on about making courses harder (presumably to limit scoring) are completely missing the point of the rollback proposal.
They are also incorrect in how they think their suggested changes would affect the game.

 

[wjemather]

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

(Not many courses don't have tees to suit everyone, but) other clubs/courses are available.
Other competitions are available.

 

[D-S]

I assume if a reduced length ball was mandatory for all then all courses would need to be re rated and there would be significant changes to both slope and CR. This would have to be factored into everyones HIs. Quite a big task and almost a restart of WHS. Not sure whether you would restart from the date of rerating or from new ball implementation date and how historic scores would be treated.

 

[Crow]

Crikey, I was only after a quick indicator of how many were in favour, I didn't expect to re-ignite the debate!

But it's good to see a higher number of posters in favour of some form of roll-back than I was expecting.

I've commented on this more than enough times in previous threads, but to summarise my own view:
The ball is going too far, this is as a result of the ball itself, club technology and the greater athleticism of golfers at the top of the game. I'd like to see the ball limited as well as greater limits on club technology, starting with driver head size!
Advantages of reducing distance:
- It will save money on the maintenance of courses and finish the need for courses to be lengthened.
- It will mean quicker rounds, something everybody seems keen on!
- Not such a one dimensional game

I won't bother listing disadvantages as everyone has their own opinion on those!

The easiest way to limit the ball is to make it slightly lighter, this will have a greater impact at higher ball speeds so the average club golfer will be insulated from significant losses in length.

 

[Orikoru]

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.

Thank you, you saved me a lot of words in my reply. That solution still affects only the members of some very elite golf courses, as opposed to changing the ball and affecting every living golfer. That was the original point anyway, before all the waffle.

 

[wjemather]

.

I assume if a reduced length ball was mandatory for all then all courses would need to be re rated and there would be significant changes to both slope and CR. This would have to be factored into everyones HIs. Quite a big task and almost a restart of WHS. Not sure whether you would restart from the date of rerating or from new ball implementation date and how historic scores would be treated.

The standard shot length for scratch and bogey golfers that is used for rating hasn't increased with technology-fueled real world distance increases.

A distance rollback would actually bring those rating specs and the real world closer together, so I don't see them being changed.

 

[D-S]

.

The standard shot length for scratch and bogey golfers that is used for rating hasn't increased with technology-fueled real world distance increases.

A distance rollback would actually bring those rating specs and the real world closer together, so I don't see them being changed.

So if the ball isn’t rolled back should the rating parameters be changed to reflect the “technology fuelled real world distance increases” ? Thereby requiring a re rating of all courses?

 

[wjemather]

So if the ball isn’t rolled back should the rating parameters be changed to reflect the “technology fuelled real world distance increases” ? Thereby requiring a re rating of all courses?

I don't believe the difference to ratings would be significant enough to justify it.

 

[D-S]

I don't believe the difference to ratings would be significant enough to justify it.

Out of interest what would be your estimation of the “technology fuelled, real world distance increases” be let’s say on a scratch players driver and roll out distance vs. the existing 230 - 250 yards?

 

[RichA]

People banging on about making courses harder (presumably to limit scoring) are completely missing the point of the rollback proposal.
They are also incorrect in how they think their suggested changes would affect the game.

Banging on? That was my first post on this subject. This is an internet forum so even us plebs are allowed to join in occasionally.
One of the points of the rollback, as I understand it, is to address the failure of simply extending holes used in elite competition to reduce the impact of huge drivers.
What's wrong with just increasing the potential jeopardy of risk/reward holes? I'm not a fan of the massive drives that we see, but only because the wayward ones don't seem to be appropriately punished. A miss should be more penal for an elite golfer. Making any hole other than the one you're playing OoB would be a fairly easy rule to start with.
Don't cut the grass at all between the trees. Even the best gougers might struggle out of the jungle many of us are used to playing from if we miss the first cut.

 

[wjemather]

Out of interest what would be your estimation of the “technology fuelled, real world distance increases” be let’s say on a scratch players driver and roll out distance vs. the existing 230 - 250 yards?

Probably 10-20 yards.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

(Not many courses don't have tees to suit everyone, but) other clubs/courses are available.
Other competitions are available.

If I want to play a comp at my course at a weekend, I work so that is my only practical choice, then I have no option but to play off the whites, current comp rules. It's the same at most courses up here. It's great that your club, presumably, offers comp tee flexibility, but that isn't the case at most clubs.

White tees are long enough, I don't need another chunk of distance adding unnecessarily. Keep the changes for pro's and elite golfers.

 

[wjemather]

If I want to play a comp at my course at a weekend, I work so that is my only practical choice, then I have no option but to play off the whites, current comp rules. It's the same at most courses up here. It's great that your club, presumably, offers comp tee flexibility, but that isn't the case at most clubs.

White tees are long enough, I don't need another chunk of distance adding unnecessarily. Keep the changes for pro's and elite golfers.

Yes, golf still has a problem with archaic rules and traditions that make zero sense. Playing comps from the back tees is one of them. Things generally won't change unless/until the members speak up and/or vote with their feet/money.

 

[D-S]

Probably 10-20 yards.

This all seems a lot of fuss over 10-20 yards.

 

[wjemather]

This all seems a lot of fuss over 10-20 yards.

It's significantly more than that for the tour pros and elite ams, for whom increased physical prowess has also contributed, who this proposed MLR is aimed at. Technology has also allowed them to unleash their power without losing significant distance or direction on off-centre strikes.

 

[Hobbit]

Many Tour event courses are 7200yds+. There’s forward tees for Joe/Josephine Bloggs when they visit. Why change things? I want to see birdie blitzes, not bogey blitzes. And back in the day I wanted to play with the same ball as tour professionals to see how my scores compared. Would I want to see a top pro shooting around level par, and leading a comp? How boring would that be.

I recognise that those leading a tournament will be shooting close on 5 under per round, and that’s the golf I want to see. But look at what least half the field are shooting? What’s the median score the field is posting? If the worst pro was shooting 5 under per round, with the best shooting 15 under per round, yes change things but that isn’t happening.

And why roll back so that the difference in yardage between the top pro and the journeyman pro narrows? Why reward poorer players? What’s next? Give the world’s best putter a googly ball?

 

[Hobbit]

It's significantly more than that for the tour pros and elite ams, for whom increased physical prowess has also contributed, who this proposed MLR is aimed at. Technology has also allowed them to unleash their power without losing significant distance or direction on off-centre strikes.

Grow the rough knee deep.

 

[wjemather]

Grow the rough knee deep.

I commented earlier on this idea. It doesn't achieve anything except making scoring ridiculously hard and giving big hitters even more of an advantage.
Also, no-one is going to want to play or watch a course setup that badly.

 

[wjemather]

Many Tour event courses are 7200yds+. There’s forward tees for Joe/Josephine Bloggs when they visit. Why change things? I want to see birdie blitzes, not bogey blitzes. And back in the day I wanted to play with the same ball as tour professionals to see how my scores compared. Would I want to see a top pro shooting around level par, and leading a comp? How boring would that be.

I recognise that those leading a tournament will be shooting close on 5 under per round, and that’s the golf I want to see. But look at what least half the field are shooting? What’s the median score the field is posting? If the worst pro was shooting 5 under per round, with the best shooting 15 under per round, yes change things but that isn’t happening.

And why roll back so that the difference in yardage between the top pro and the journeyman pro narrows? Why reward poorer players? What’s next? Give the world’s best putter a googly ball?

The proposed MLR has nothing to do with scoring.
Building ever longer courses is not sustainable and golf is (or should be) much more than driving, wedging, putting and having to hit a longer iron/wood on stupidly long par 3s.