Roll Back Discussion

[Mandofred]

Out of Golf Digest.

• 52 percent don’t like the proposed rule.
• 23 percent are in favor of the proposed rule.
• 13 percent don’t know enough yet to have an opinion.
• 12 percent don’t care.

Among those who DO NOT SUPPORT the Model Local Rule:

• 72 percent indicate they “like knowing that everyone plays by the same rules.”
• 55 percent don’t think it is necessary.
• 43 percent believe it “complicates” the rules.
• 7 percent indicate they play “high level competition” and the proposed rule complicates things for them.

I can understand the first one.....52% against, 48% are iffy.
The second one is silly. How does a new ball "complicate" things? It's a ball. You hit it....then hit it again. All other rules are the same aren't they? Just use legal balls. If you ask people who do not like golf at all if they should close all golf courses.....likely get a response of "close them".....which makes sense from their opinion.

 

[Crow]

I've got a brilliant solution to this..

1. If you are concerned about long courses getting 'overpowered' - have a word with yourself.

2. Scrap the idea


It's as simple as that.

You're completely wrong, it's as simple as that.

 

[Crow]

I am old enough to remember when we changed from 1.62 to 1.68 balls.
If I remember correctly amateurs were given a 2 year lead in time.
As a young pro playing against low handicap amateurs around a breezy Dunbar in a winter league I felt at a distinct disadvantage.

Many good amateurs went straight to the 1.68 as they felt they would benefit quicker.
It was really odd selling both size balls in the pro shop.

The change to the 1.68" ball was such a long and drawn-out affair that by the time the 1.62" ball was made illegal for all (1990) just about everyone was playing the 1.68" already.

 

[Mel Smooth]

You're completely wrong, it's as simple as that.

Expand

Why are we rolling the ball back when the majority of people playing the game are against it?

 

[Backache]

Because change is only needed at the elite level, but the manufacturers rejected that.

Rollback for all is better, but there are billions of existing golf balls to be dealt with that wouldn't be an issue with bifurcation.

Bifurcation was always going to cause complexity particularly to those who can potentially need to play with different equipment , unless there was not a disadvantage to amateurs they would not have suggested bifurcation just as they have avoided it for every other equipment rule change.
Change is only needed at elite level but the change will affect every level.
I am not incidentally suggesting the change is definitely a bad, one equipment progress has been beneficial to everyone over the years but to deny it will affect amateurs is I think disingenuous.

 

[clubchamp98]

The change to the 1.68" ball was such a long and drawn-out affair that by the time the 1.62" ball was made illegal for all (1990) just about everyone was playing the 1.68" already.

I think it was seen as a good change To am golfers.
The bigger ball was easier to hit.

not sure we like losing length this time

 

[clubchamp98]

Expand

Why are we rolling the ball back when the majority of people playing the game are against it?

I would agree most would be against it!
But I havnt been asked and nobody I know has been.

So we’re guessing.
Do they have a think tank system of golfers they ask?

 

[Captain_Black.]

Providing everyone uses the new ball, it will probably have a negligible effect.
But, that is a big if.

When the majority of club golfers are forever searching for extra length & forgiveness, it does seem to be a backwards step.

 

[D-S]

I seem to recall that the gain of length in average amateurs over the years has been negligible or even non existent. Even if this new limited ball has a small (I see 5% for everyone quoted) effect for average amateurs, doesn't this mean that average amateurs will actually lose distance versus a decade or so ago? Whereas for the Pros the loss of distance will be greater but their gain of distance over the last few years has been significant. The upshot being that an amateur versus 10 or 20 years ago will be marginally shorter (no/very little gain but a small amount of reduction due to the new ball) and the Pros will be slightly longer than a decade or so ago (large gains but the new ball will take some but not all of these away).
Do the stats tell us this or not?

 

[Mel Smooth]

Providing everyone uses the new ball, it will probably have a negligible effect.
But, that is a big if.

When the majority of club golfers are forever searching for extra length & forgiveness, it does seem to be a backwards step.

More missed greens = higher scores = slower rounds.
Negligible? Maybe, maybe not - but I very much doubt people are going to shoot lower scores with a shorter ball

 

[Crow]

Expand

Why are we rolling the ball back when the majority of people playing the game are against it?

Expand? To you? What's the point?

 

[Mandofred]

Providing everyone uses the new ball, it will probably have a negligible effect.
But, that is a big if.

When the majority of club golfers are forever searching for extra length & forgiveness, it does seem to be a backwards step.

But of course.....those same people who are forever searching for extra length could get off their butts and start working out more......or, at all. And heavens forbid...practice. Get lessons and hit the ball better. Negligible effect on new rules.......to old farts like me.

 

[Mandofred]

Expand

Why are we rolling the ball back when the majority of people playing the game are against it?

Why are we cutting back (well....outlawing) sales of drugs.......to those people who are addicted to drugs? They don't want it to be outlawed.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I was 100% for the change, sadly I wasn't asked as part of the survey. I don't understand any hostility towards it in the amateur game. We stay unaffected, courses aren't too big for us, only the pro's are and they'd soon adapt. It's a shame it won't happen.

 

[Crow]

I seem to recall that the gain of length in average amateurs over the years has been negligible or even non existent. Even if this new limited ball has a small (I see 5% for everyone quoted) effect for average amateurs, doesn't this mean that average amateurs will actually lose distance versus a decade or so ago? Whereas for the Pros the loss of distance will be greater but their gain of distance over the last few years has been significant. The upshot being that an amateur versus 10 or 20 years ago will be marginally shorter (no/very little gain but a small amount of reduction due to the new ball) and the Pros will be slightly longer than a decade or so ago (large gains but the new ball will take some but not all of these away).
Do the stats tell us this or not?

I can't remember how many times I've read forummers stating that they're hitting the ball further now than they did in their younger days.

 

[Backache]

I seem to recall that the gain of length in average amateurs over the years has been negligible or even non existent. Even if this new limited ball has a small (I see 5% for everyone quoted) effect for average amateurs, doesn't this mean that average amateurs will actually lose distance versus a decade or so ago? Whereas for the Pros the loss of distance will be greater but their gain of distance over the last few years has been significant. The upshot being that an amateur versus 10 or 20 years ago will be marginally shorter (no/very little gain but a small amount of reduction due to the new ball) and the Pros will be slightly longer than a decade or so ago (large gains but the new ball will take some but not all of these away).
Do the stats tell us this or not?

According to the R&A average amateur driving distance increased by about 15 yds between 1996 and 2018.

https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/c42c7bf4-dca7-00ea-4f2e-373223f80f76/373ac107-1f1c-4f35-a24c-fa3139747bf5/R05%20-%20Analysis%20of%20Amateur%20Driving%20Distance%201996-2018.pdf

 

[Imurg]

Lots of people getting a touch warm under the collar when we know very few details...
If the change means the average golfer loses 5 yards it will not be noticeable....it simply won't.
We are not good enough to hit a ball , regularly, within a 5 yard area from more than about 20 yards away...
I'll wait until I've heard the details.

 

[Backache]

Lots of people getting a touch warm under the collar when we know very few details...
If the change means the average golfer loses 5 yards it will not be noticeable....it simply won't.
We are not good enough to hit a ball , regularly, within a 5 yard area from more than about 20 yards away...
I'll wait until I've heard the details.

If its 5% that's about 11 yds of an amateur drive not 5 yds.
Equivalent of increasing a course from 6000 to 6300 yds.
I suspect we will notice but will adapt and most handicaps will drift up a stroke or so.

 

[Mandofred]

Lots of people getting a touch warm under the collar when we know very few details...
If the change means the average golfer loses 5 yards it will not be noticeable....it simply won't.
We are not good enough to hit a ball , regularly, within a 5 yard area from more than about 20 yards away...
I'll wait until I've heard the details.

But....but......but. Details!!!??? don't let facts get in the way.

I'm not a pro......if it knocks more than a few yards off my LONGEST shots I'll be surprised. And....it will effect everybody I play with as well. Effect on me?.....nil.

 

[Imurg]

If its 5% that's about 11 yds of an amateur drive not 5 yds.
Equivalent of increasing a course from 6000 to 6300 yds.
I suspect we will notice but will adapt and most handicaps will drift up a stroke or so.

And there's the problem with this whole issue...
Not having a go at you but "if it's 5%" .....do we know that?
Is it 5% for the Pros but next to nothing for us?
We don't know....