Roll Back Discussion

[Canary_Yellow]

At face value I can understand why but then I think about the differences in elite/pro golf and club golf, i.e one ball rule, 4 days of LCP when someone drops water bottle on the fairway, free equipment etc etc then all the differences I don't even know about

I'd guess too the 'elite' pro-v ball will be on-sale, so those club golfers that want to mirror the experience of pro's can still do it
(& I'd wager the diff between elite pro-v and club pro-v will be no different to current performances differences between current prov1's and current top-flite/lake balls etc so there's no new advantage/disadvantage over the rest of the monthly medal field)

I think I can also say with near certainty that despite initial reaction from Titleist, by the time it comes round all those clever little marketing departments will have a field day promoting the 'club' (boosted!) version of the xyz elite ball

Maybe, just for some reason, and I can’t really explain what it is, I don’t like the bifurcation. It just doesn’t sit right with me.

I don’t doubt that it won’t make much difference to me and I would get used to it, but for whatever reason, it just doesn’t feel like the right direction of travel.

 

[D-S]

If you believe what the manufacturers have been saying about improved ball performance with every new release, then rolling the ball back will only get us to something like the performance of a ball from 2013.
The difficulty for the ball makers might be the fact that they won’t be able to claim extra distance for each new offering as the fact that it is limited will be clearer to the buying public.

 

[Old Colner]

I agree some sort of intervention is needed, like nearly every other sports top flite, elite players are looking for an edge, an advantage over the other competitors and for many it is physical ability, weather natural or gained by hard work in the gym, look at the top sportsmen of today and compare them with those of say 40 years ago.
Take footballers for example, the majority of players these days are huge, larger than average guys, years ago they were working lads whose skills and ability made them stand out, majority spent their spare time in the pub or bookies not the gym.

I don't think the rule changes will have much difference from what we are seeing now it will just stop further advances and stop it getting too far out of hand.

As for us amateurs, I am still using NXT Tours I stocked up on over ten years ago, I don't see any real difference when I try a new ball while I look for a replacement model, so really do not see it changing anything at our level.

 

[RichA]

I agree with you, instead of making the balls slower why not just have rough the way it’s supposed to be penal, don’t even have to make fairway’s narrower,

Let the pros hit it as as far as they want but don’t let them have an easy shot out of rough make it like most of us have to put up with.

Yes. Why limit the physics? Just make the courses more technically difficult then the better golfers win.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

I agree some sort of intervention is needed, like nearly every other sports top flite, elite players are looking for an edge, an advantage over the other competitors and for many it is physical ability, weather natural or gained by hard work in the gym, look at the top sportsmen of today and compare them with those of say 40 years ago.
Take footballers for example, the majority of players these days are huge, larger than average guys, years ago they were working lads whose skills and ability made them stand out, majority spent their spare time in the pub or bookies not the gym.

I don't think the rule changes will have much difference from what we are seeing now it will just stop further advances and stop it getting too far out of hand.

As for us amateurs, I am still using NXT Tours I stocked up on over ten years ago, I don't see any real difference when I try a new ball while I look for a replacement model, so really do not see it changing anything at our level.

For me rugby is the best example of the change in sport. Backs and forward used to be very distinct, now they are all athletic units.

The game is different, is it better or worse? My old man would say worse, he loved the skill of a back running with it. I’m sure others think differently.

Anyway, rugby is irrelevant to this discussion, just an example of how sport has changed. Golf will never go back to how it was in 60s/70s/80s, or whenever the perceived best days were for those who think it is too one dimensional nowadays.

 

[Orikoru]

All roped areas are deemed O.B.

Let’s see them start trying to keep it in play like us mortals.

Totally agree with this. Added bonus of potentially protecting fans a bit more by making the golfers a bit more wary of hitting them. Don't need to mess about with the ball if you make the ropes out of bounds and get rid of the ball-spotters. Players will adjust to not being able to just smash it wherever they like.

 

[BiMGuy]

I think there are only really a couple of changes needed to pro golf.

Limit how long they take to get round. Only so I don’t have to stay up too late to watch a tournament finish. Take Sunday at the Players for example. MWL on 17 had to wait for the group in front. He waited for the group in front to finish, then spent 2 minutes discussing the shot with his caddy. He should have been ready to go. Also, pros all now seem to take it in turns to read their putts then putt. They wait for the first to putt, then go through their process.

And. Make them play from wherever they hit it. If they don’t like it, take an unplayable.

Leave the equipment as it is.

 

[Rlburnside]

QUOTE="Swango1980, post: 2611772, member: 26510"]In all fairness, I think a lot of excitement in golf comes with big hitting. Personally, I always look forward to a drivable par 4 or a reachable par 5. Especially when the bigger hitters get there. I think Bryson nearly driving that par 5 a few years ago generated lots of headlines and a buzz amongst many fans. And I am sure we all remember Bubba hitting that driver off the deck on the 18th par 5, and fading it on there. Few people remember the guy that lays up, pitches it on and makes a well worked birdie.

So, if LIV decide not to roll back distances, and the PGAT do, to me that is an immediate advertising campaign for LIV. "TUNE IN TO LIV, TO WATCH THE BIGGEST HITTING PLAYERS IN ELITE GOLF" . Pardon the pun, but I don't think the PGAT would want to be seen to lose any distance on LIV when comparing the 2 brands.[/QUOTE]

You’re right it is good viewing watching the big hitters driving par 4s. etc, but rolling back the distance of balls is nonsense, why penalize players that have worked hard to improve distance?

Let them carry on bombing it as far as they want but if they go off the fairway make it harder for them to recover.


I like the ideas of others that have been put forward no ball spotters, ob where fans are

 

[Swango1980]

You really think the big hitters won't still be able to reach short par 4's and get on par 5's in 2?

I didn't say that. I'm sure they can.

What I was saying that, if the PGAT rolled back on the distance they can hit it, then it is a matter of fact they will not be able to hit it as far as they could if they played on LIV with different equipment specifications. So, it doesn't matter so much if McIlroy is driving the green on a 350 yard par 4 (and maybe one of the few on the PGAT that can), if Westwood is driving the green on a 350 yard par 4 on LIV under similar hole and weather conditions, while Bryson is hitting a 3 wood or 1 iron onto that par 4. Basically, LIV will still be able to claim that they are the "biggest hitting tour", as they know their equipment allows them to say this. I think that would play into their hands (not for me, as some will know my thoughts on LIV and its current format, but it would certainly open the eyes for many fans).

Perhaps the PGAT could counter that with their own marketing campaign. "WATCH THE PGAT, TO SEE THE WORLDS BEST GOLFERS PLAY THE GAME THE WAY THE COURSE DEMANDS IT BE PLAYED". There may be purists who would love that, but I'm not sure it would be terribly exciting? I think more fans get into the game because they love watching players like Dustin Johnson rather than Zach Johnsen.

 

[pendodave]

You really think the big hitters won't still be able to reach short par 4's and get on par 5's in 2?

And if they can't get to a particular drivable par 4 like they used to they could always... "gasp"... move the tees up.
As a spectacle, I'm always curious what people watch when they say that distance excites them. On the telly, it's just a ball against the clouds until it lands. In person it's out of sight pretty much instantly.
Different strokes and all that I guess...

 

[Backsticks]

If you believe what the manufacturers have been saying about improved ball performance with every new release, then rolling the ball back will only get us to something like the performance of a ball from 2013.
The difficulty for the ball makers might be the fact that they won’t be able to claim extra distance for each new offering as the fact that it is limited will be clearer to the buying public.

I think what this news will highlight to many is that there is no such thing as a longer golfball even today. There is already a limit. Just a lower limit is being legalised as an option. As there is for drivers, but the unrelenting message from the manufacturers leaves many think drivers are getting longer, despite the fact that they havent for 20 years. It does make you wonder about the gullibility of the average golfer.

 

[Backsticks]

I didn't say that. I'm sure they can.

What I was saying that, if the PGAT rolled back on the distance they can hit it, then it is a matter of fact they will not be able to hit it as far as they could if they played on LIV with different equipment specifications. So, it doesn't matter so much if McIlroy is driving the green on a 350 yard par 4 (and maybe one of the few on the PGAT that can), if Westwood is driving the green on a 350 yard par 4 on LIV under similar hole and weather conditions, while Bryson is hitting a 3 wood or 1 iron onto that par 4. Basically, LIV will still be able to claim that they are the "biggest hitting tour", as they know their equipment allows them to say this. I think that would play into their hands (not for me, as some will know my thoughts on LIV and its current format, but it would certainly open the eyes for many fans).

Perhaps the PGAT could counter that with their own marketing campaign. "WATCH THE PGAT, TO SEE THE WORLDS BEST GOLFERS PLAY THE GAME THE WAY THE COURSE DEMANDS IT BE PLAYED". There may be purists who would love that, but I'm not sure it would be terribly exciting? I think more fans get into the game because they love watching players like Dustin Johnson rather than Zach Johnsen.

It will be nicer to watch a total golf contest, rather than what has been verging towards a long driving competition.

 

[patricks148]

I'm surprised they went with the ball that gave a 5% restriction, we did a ball test for the R&A at least 8 years ago and that ball restriction was 25%, only effected SS over 105. I'd have thought technology would have moved on a bit since then too.

 

[Jason.H]

If they’re changing the ball it needs to be significant.

 

[Mandofred]

Leave the equipment as it is.

But the equipment never stays the same....it keeps changing. Would it be ok to scrap all limits on golf equipment and let the manufacturers make anything they want? 60inch drivers....heads twice the size.....trampoline club faces......exploding golf balls in mid air (that would be fun).....remote controlled golf balls https://www.google.com/search?clien...#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:362dbdca,vid:TF42YVk3iW4

As has been pointed out in posts.....there are all kinds of sports that have changed the rules to keep things from getting carried away..... Golf is just another of those activities that need adjusting once in a while.....it's normal.

In my opinion.....if they are messing with the balls.....mess with all the balls, not just for the pro's. I'm fine with my drives going a little shorter than they do now.....I'll adjust.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

It will be nicer to watch a total golf contest, rather than what has been verging towards a long driving competition.

If you feel that’s what it is now, I don’t think simply reducing distance by a relatively small percentage will solve that in isolation.

And if that’s the case, I would suggest the other measures, in particular making hitting it ultra long more of a risk / reward decision, should be pursued first.

Just reigning the ball in a bit isn’t going to remove the benefit enjoyed by those that hit it the furthest.

 

[rksquire]

Didn't we just spend a tournament watching the 'best' try to hit a driveable par 4 and more often than not failing (Genesis, no. 10?). Distance is only a problem if the course isn't suitable for the players playing yet - organizers have plenty of tools at their disposal to bring the course to a level where it's super hard or quite receptive depending on who is playing. I appreciate various Open courses have more limited options, but they have options and the success or otherwise of those courses tend to be weather related.

Anyway, I'm yet to be convinced of the proposals as I can't square away some things in my own head.... eg if a pro (lets call them RM) is 10% longer than than another pro (lets call them SS), even with the changes then RM is still going to be longer and will be using less club for their 2nd and 3rd shots than SS; also, as a pro, say RM's big weapon is his driving and SS's is his putting (different pros excel at different things), you're just disadvantaging RM rather than both RM & SS, as you've taken away or reduced RM's strongest facet. Also, ability to control the ball and shape the ball etc., is also bound to have improved - should this also be rolled back? I also don't get the sustainability thing - I get that courses should be more sustainable - but not as an argument for doing this. Hole lengths don't need to be extended by 45 yards - you could accept it is an easier hole (a greater percentage of birdies doesn't kill the planet!) or define landing zones - narrow the fairway between 290 and 350 with actual penal rough either side (so the big dogs can still take on the shot), but if they miss a 5 yard fairway 310 yards away they'll still be punished. Also, pro's won't be the ones paying for a 2 tier system of manufacture - that cost will be passed onto us. Not to mention the fact I like to see the big dog fly. I've no issues being 50 yards or more behind SS (or 80 behind RM)... but with the ball change and 10% reduction I actually might only be 20 yards behind them which, ridiculous as it sounds because I will know the reason why, diminishes their prowess somewhat.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

For those wanting to narrow fairways, raise rough etc, all of which I get and agree with as a way of combating long and reckless drives, how does that fit with a course that is used by members for the rest of the year? How long will their course be too tough for them? How long does it take to grow in the fairways, grow up the rough? How many places will want to hand their course over for 4 weeks, not just the usual 7-10 days or so? The fact this happens so rarely, is it because clubs will not hand over their club for the amount of time required to tough it up to that degree?

These are genuine questions by the way, not just reasons to avoid going down this road.

 

[D-S]

For those wanting to narrow fairways, raise rough etc, all of which I get and agree with as a way of combating long and reckless drives, how does that fit with a course that is used by members for the rest of the year? How long will their course be too tough for them? How long does it take to grow in the fairways, grow up the rough? How many places will want to hand their course over for 4 weeks, not just the usual 7-10 days or so? The fact this happens so rarely, is it because clubs will not hand over their club for the amount of time required to tough it up to that degree?

These are genuine questions by the way, not just reasons to avoid going down this road.

I assume this is already the case for US Open courses as I'm sure the members wouldn't expect such deep rough just off the greens year round. There will always be courses looking to host tour events - it always costs them money now but they recoup it off higher green fees as suddenly its a Tour course. Those that host Tour events already have gone to the cost of building or extending their courses to 7,500 yards plus which certainly aren't put there and maintained for the members.

 

[Swango1980]

Didn't we just spend a tournament watching the 'best' try to hit a driveable par 4 and more often than not failing (Genesis, no. 10?). Distance is only a problem if the course isn't suitable for the players playing yet - organizers have plenty of tools at their disposal to bring the course to a level where it's super hard or quite receptive depending on who is playing. I appreciate various Open courses have more limited options, but they have options and the success or otherwise of those courses tend to be weather related.

Anyway, I'm yet to be convinced of the proposals as I can't square away some things in my own head.... eg if a pro (lets call them RM) is 10% longer than than another pro (lets call them SS), even with the changes then RM is still going to be longer and will be using less club for their 2nd and 3rd shots than SS; also, as a pro, say RM's big weapon is his driving and SS's is his putting (different pros excel at different things), you're just disadvantaging RM rather than both RM & SS, as you've taken away or reduced RM's strongest facet. Also, ability to control the ball and shape the ball etc., is also bound to have improved - should this also be rolled back? I also don't get the sustainability thing - I get that courses should be more sustainable - but not as an argument for doing this. Hole lengths don't need to be extended by 45 yards - you could accept it is an easier hole (a greater percentage of birdies doesn't kill the planet!) or define landing zones - narrow the fairway between 290 and 350 with actual penal rough either side (so the big dogs can still take on the shot), but if they miss a 5 yard fairway 310 yards away they'll still be punished. Also, pro's won't be the ones paying for a 2 tier system of manufacture - that cost will be passed onto us. Not to mention the fact I like to see the big dog fly. I've no issues being 50 yards or more behind SS (or 80 behind RM)... but with the ball change and 10% reduction I actually might only be 20 yards behind them which, ridiculous as it sounds because I will know the reason why, diminishes their prowess somewhat.

Totally agree, and I've been saying that for ages. If my average drive is about 260/270 (and disgustingly worse than that over the winter), it is extremely impressive to me when a pro is hitting it closer to 400 than 300 yards. And, I know there will be many factors, like altitude, weather, fairway roll and slope. But, it still is ridiculously impressive, even when I think of my drives in the best possible conditions. Give them equipment that brings them back closer to us mere mortals, it just doesn't feel impressive, even to a lot of us who know exactly why this would be the case. Then you get a 30 handicapper, new to the game, hitting a drive 260 yards and suddenly thinking they can almost hit it as far as someone like McIlroy. I guess they can think what they like, but it just clouds many of the less informed casual golfers as to how good the professionals truly are, and how much extra speed they get at impact.

In many respects, I think it is length that really sets the professionals and most amateurs apart. We can all hit a 100 yard shot to inside 2 feet, it is just most amateurs will probably only do it a handful of times a year, and more often than not fat it half the distance or miss the green entirely. But, we still know we have it in us at somewhere. However, very few of us can hit a drive 300+ yards, or if there is a par 5 green 260 yards away with water in front, there is no chance in hell we are going for it. So, when the professionals do go for it, there is definitely a sense of "blooming heck, that is ridiculous" in a good way.