Roll Back Discussion

[Swango1980]

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.

Well, the first thing is that I think we are talking about golf courses that host the big professional tournaments, so that will be a ridiculously small percentage of golf courses? Leading up to the tournament, I think there will be bigger things obstacles for members? They will be putting up grandstands, they may not be allowed to play from certain areas or might have to use mats? They may not even be allowed to play on the course a week or 2 before the event. So, if the club decide to grow rough in certain areas, I doubt it will be a big hindrance to members (plus, depending on tees, most may not be able to get there).

I suppose the best example would be courses that host the US Open, as they traditionally make that ridiculously tough. I wonder how this impacts on members leading up to the tournament?

 

[Wabinez]

I suppose the best example would be courses that host the US Open, as they traditionally make that ridiculously tough. I wonder how this impacts on members leading up to the tournament?

Lets use Winged Foot as an example. A club that has 2 courses on site.

They lost complete access to the championship course in 2006, and the other course was closed for 4 months after the event, which was used for corporate hospitality.

Part of the whole 'ethos' of the ball change was that the USG and R&A did not want to impact the recreational golfer in any way. Growing the rough, narrowing fairways, planting trees....it all impacts the recreational golfer. Changing the ball that will be used in Elite events does not impact the recreational golfer.

 

[LincolnShep]

With a ball change, the guys that hit it the longest will still be hitting it the longest, so they haven't lost their advantage. The longer hitters will still be able to overpower their opponents and that's how it should be - that's their reward for putting in the hours in the gym. The difference is that they won't be able to overpower the courses. Tournament organisers can still play with tee positions to create risk/reward driveable par fours, they will just be (slightly) shorter than they were before. The pros will still be hitting it distances that are beyond comprehension to the likes of us.

 

[wjemather]

I find it odd that anyone would rather butcher golf courses (by extending tees ever farther back, growing ridiculously long rough, creating artificial barriers, stupidly narrow fairways, etc.) than simply bring the original strategic design features back into play by restricting equipment to reduce distances.

As a spectacle, it doesn't matter one jot if the longest hitters are driving it 280 yards or 320 yards as long as the course provides suitable challenges/rewards at those distances - we have long since passed the point where most courses do that without being tricked-up in some way (the Old Course being an extreme example, where extending the holes is impossible).

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

It already happens when any other Tour event happens at a members club

If anything the members from my experience love to have a crack at the course set up for the pros - most of the clubs have a club comp after the pro event and it’s always popular.

It’s the same when playing courses that have been set up for Open Qualifying etc

It’s also the same for when club set up for county events , club champs etc

I find it odd that anyone would rather butcher golf courses (by extending tees ever farther back, growing ridiculously long rough, creating artificial barriers, stupidly narrow fairways, etc.) than simply bring the original strategic design features back into play restricting equipment to reducing distances.

As a spectacle, it doesn't matter one jot if the longest hitters are driving it 280 yards or 320 yards as long as the course provides suitable challenges/rewards at those distances - we have long since passed the point where most courses do that without being tricked-up in some way (the Old Course being an extreme example, where extending the holes is impossible).

Reducing by 15 yards won’t achieve much really and courses will still be toughened up

Courses and clubs aren’t being butchered.

But many courses aren’t created for Tour events.

Courses and clubs don’t really want Tour events anyway - for multiple reasons.

But does it matter if someone wins scoring 20 under or level par ? It will still be the best person playing that day regardless of how far they hit it

 

[Swango1980]

I find it odd that anyone would rather butcher golf courses (by extending tees ever farther back, growing ridiculously long rough, creating artificial barriers, stupidly narrow fairways, etc.) than simply bring the original strategic design features back into play restricting equipment to reducing distances.

As a spectacle, it doesn't matter one jot if the longest hitters are driving it 280 yards or 320 yards as long as the course provides suitable challenges/rewards at those distances - we have long since passed the point where most courses do that without being tricked-up in some way (the Old Course being an extreme example, where extending the holes is impossible).

Why do you find it odd? Given that as golf has advanced over the years, one of the biggest marketing points has been related to distance. I just randomly typed some golf brands into Google, plus advertising, to see what comes up. As expected, so many of the advertising campaigns focus on distance.

Who are the most marketable professional golfers in the world? That is an open question, I don't know the definitive answer. However, just looked at a "top 40 most searched golfers in 2020/21", and top 5 were Woods, DJ, Bryson, JT and Rory. I strongly suspect hitting it a long way also goes a long way to making you a more marketable golfer, along with talent of course. If that was the case, then it is because it is what many fans want to see.

So, in your eyes, it may not matter one jot if the longest hitters are driving 280 yards or 320 yards. Fair enough, fair opinion to have. But, you obviously don't speak for the entire golfing community. For example, I personally find it much more impressive if a golfer drives it 320 rather than 280. In fact, on nearly every shot broadcast these days, as soon as the pro hits it, a graphic appears rapidly counting upwards as the ball flies through the air. I'm sure they've added that as many fans like it, keeps them more engaged. I find myself fascinated by what number it will end up on, i.e. the carry distance. Anything up towards 300 yards I'm impressed. Not so much if it was 250/260 yards, and I'm suddenly thinking is it uphill, did they mis hit it, is it a short hole, etc. If they just reduced the length they can hit the ball, then it just becomes much less appealing knowing that information, to me, as it is much more difficult to compare it to what a normal human in a monthly medal can do.

And again, how many golf courses are being "butchered". Mine isn't. Is yours? And, of the courses that are, how many members are they losing? Are they losing money? I'd have thought being a member of such courses would be a privilege, one you need to pay for. If you are able to pay a green fee to play, I'm sure it wouldn't come cheap. I suspect "butchered" is a pretty poor word to use for many of the courses we see players playing on the PGAT, as they might actually be considered amongst the best courses in the world.

 

[Mel Smooth]

All this nonsense so elite pros might have to hit one club more into a green.

If you explained it to a non-golfer they’d be completely dumbfounded.

 

[Orikoru]

All this nonsense so elite pros might have to hit one club more into a green.

If you explained it to a non-golfer they’d be completely dumbfounded.

I look forward to football making the goals bigger to allow for how much taller goalkeepers are nowadays.

 

[Imurg]

All this nonsense so elite pros might have to hit one club more into a green.

If you explained it to a non-golfer they’d be completely dumbfounded.

There are many, many things about golf that if you tried explaining to a non golfer they'd be calling the men in white coats....

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I look forward to football making the goals bigger to allow for how much taller goalkeepers are nowadays.

good idea

 

[chrisd]

I look forward to football making the goals bigger to allow for how much taller goalkeepers are nowadays.

Ah but only at the away end with the right to change the goals at half time

 

[Swango1980]

I look forward to football making the goals bigger to allow for how much taller goalkeepers are nowadays.

Presumably footballers are generally a lot quicker and fitter than they used to be, so probably best to make the pitches bigger as well? Or, put weights in their shoes, and strap them on their arms and legs, so they can play football like it was designed to be played

More seriously, though. I can see the argument, for those that want distance reduced, because they want golfers to play the course as it was designed to be played. I don't agree with it, but I get what they are saying. Another issue I have with this is, however, is that some golf courses were founded well over a century ago. Some may have only been founded in the last decade. Many older courses will also have undergone design changes over the many years they have been open. Some more than others. So, how far back in time do people want to go, to say "that is the way golf should be played, and this is the correct distance the ball should be hit based on certain swing characteristics"?

You could have a golf course well over a century old, that has not had any real fundamental changes in length. So, it was designed when ball distance was so much less than now. Presumably we do not reduce distance by that much, so you'd still be playing golf on a course not designed to the length players now hit the ball. However, if we reduce yardage back by a certain amount, it may well be shorter than was assumed when some of the newer courses were founded. Some courses may have recently made some fundamental changes, and now they almost become redundant, because they were designed for longer hitting players, that is much less applicable once distance is rolled back.

So, what is the correct answer. What is the correct distance a golf ball should travel, if today is considered too far. Was it OK in 2010, 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, etc? Does it depend on who you are? Some who loved the Nick Faldo era think that was "proper golf", while others who loved the Jack Nicklaus era thought that was "proper golf". And, was golf more popular back in those days than it is today, and so there is logic to say that reducing distance would truly be better for the game?

 

[Mandofred]

Presumably footballers are generally a lot quicker and fitter than they used to be, so probably best to make the pitches bigger as well? Or, put weights in their shoes, and strap them on their arms and legs, so they can play football like it was designed to be played

More seriously, though. I can see the argument, for those that want distance reduced, because they want golfers to play the course as it was designed to be played. I don't agree with it, but I get what they are saying. Another issue I have with this is, however, is that some golf courses were founded well over a century ago. Some may have only been founded in the last decade. Many older courses will also have undergone design changes over the many years they have been open. Some more than others. So, how far back in time do people want to go, to say "that is the way golf should be played, and this is the correct distance the ball should be hit based on certain swing characteristics"?

You could have a golf course well over a century old, that has not had any real fundamental changes in length. So, it was designed when ball distance was so much less than now. Presumably we do not reduce distance by that much, so you'd still be playing golf on a course not designed to the length players now hit the ball. However, if we reduce yardage back by a certain amount, it may well be shorter than was assumed when some of the newer courses were founded. Some courses may have recently made some fundamental changes, and now they almost become redundant, because they were designed for longer hitting players, that is much less applicable once distance is rolled back.

So, what is the correct answer. What is the correct distance a golf ball should travel, if today is considered too far. Was it OK in 2010, 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, etc? Does it depend on who you are? Some who loved the Nick Faldo era think that was "proper golf", while others who loved the Jack Nicklaus era thought that was "proper golf". And, was golf more popular back in those days than it is today, and so there is logic to say that reducing distance would truly be better for the game?

And then you have the argument about pink castle tee's......I'm pretty sure Jack didn't play with a pink castle tee. Obviously they should then be banned....because.....they should be maroon. Why? I like maroon .....and it sounds like somebody saying moron.

 

[bobmac]

I find it odd that anyone would rather butcher golf courses (by extending tees ever farther back, growing , creating artificial barriers, stupidly narrow fairways, etc.) than simply bring the original strategic design features back into play by restricting equipment to reduce distances.

As a spectacle, it doesn't matter one jot if the longest hitters are driving it 280 yards or 320 yards as long as the course provides suitable challenges/rewards at those distances - we have long since passed the point where most courses do that without being tricked-up in some way (the Old Course being an extreme example, where extending the holes is impossible).

You don't need to ''butcher'' a golf course to make it more difficult, likewise, you don't need ridiculously long rough or stupidly narrow fairways. You make the rough a bit longer and the fairways a bit narrower. That way, some players will take on the risk reward shots.
The only reason joe public goes to watch golf tournaments is to see the pros hit the ball over 300yds, something they can't do.

 

[Mandofred]

The only reason joe public goes to watch golf tournaments is to see the pros hit the ball over 300yds, something they can't do.

I have no clue why people go to watch people play golf. It's like watching paint dry. But then again.....to me it's the same with football, tennis etc etc. I've played with some guys that absolutely crush the ball.....I'm not going to go watch them play to see them hit the ball a long way. I don't understand why people spend money/time to watch Formula 1, football, tennis....well....any sport.

 

[Swango1980]

I have no clue why people go to watch people play golf. It's like watching paint dry. But then again.....to me it's the same with football, tennis etc etc. I've played with some guys that absolutely crush the ball.....I'm not going to go watch them play to see them hit the ball a long way. I don't understand why people spend money/time to watch Formula 1, football, tennis....well....any sport.

You might not be in the best position to debate whether big hitting, or not, is better for the game

I don't watch American Football, Rugby or Cricket, so I certainly wouldn't have an opinion to express on changes to those particular sports at the elite level.

 

[clubchamp98]

And then you have the argument about pink castle tee's......I'm pretty sure Jack didn't play with a pink castle tee. Obviously they should then be banned....because.....they should be maroon. Why? I like maroon .....and it sounds like somebody saying moron.

Think it’s only you that’s hearing that.

 

[Mandofred]

Think it’s only you that’s hearing that.

And accurate it would be...... I'm......as they say.....different.

 

[jim8flog]

Having seen the announcement biggest things I noticed was

Golf balls that conform to the MLR must not exceed the current Overall Distance Standard (ODS) limit of 317 yards (plus three yards tolerance) at modified Actual Launch Conditions with a clubhead speed of 127 mph and based on a calibration set-up for 11 degrees and 37 revolutions per second (2220 rpm) as part of this proposal.

coupled with

Data provided for the report showed that the average clubhead speed on the PGA TOUR was 114.6 mph last year, with an average launch angle of 10.3° and average spin of 2597 rpm. The mean of the fastest one percent of clubhead speeds was 127.5 mph in 2022, while the mean of the fastest five percent of clubhead speeds was 124.2 mph.

The modified testing set-up in the proposed MLR is expected to reduce hitting distance by 14-15 yards on average for the longest hitters with highest clubhead speeds.

The distance loss being quoted will bring a lot of bunkers in to play that we see on the pro tours so the players are much more likely to be aiming to play short of them so it might be more than one club on a lot of holes. Plus the distance loss with irons might well be a club.

 

[clubchamp98]

And accurate it would be...... I'm......as they say.....different.

Nothing wrong with being unique!