Rolling back the pro game

[Arthur Wedge]

I pretty much agree.
I have never played it and never had the desire too.
I was only putting that because it is the home of golf and thought it a good benchmark.
You are a heathen though

It’s the same as Augusta , some events just fit in with course

TOC is iconic, every single pro golfer wants to win The Open at The Old Course

It’s the only course where I have ever had butterflies on that first tee and going round it

But as with most links courses - it needs a good breeze to help it out

99% of the players will always want The Open at TOC regularly

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

I've heard quite a few people say the 1st and 17th & 18th are iconic but the rest of it is dull.

I think thats part of the issue.. I could could describe those 3 holes to the minute detail but I couldn't tell you a thing about the rest of the course!

I've genuinely never had the desire to go there wouldn't even put in a list of top 20 courses i'd like to play in GB let alone as a bucket list course.

 

[Sand Trapped]

It’s the same as Augusta , some events just fit in with course

TOC is iconic, every single pro golfer wants to win The Open at The Old Course

It’s the only course where I have ever had butterflies on that first tee and going round it

But as with most links courses - it needs a good breeze to help it out

99% of the players will always want The Open at TOC regularly

Get this same feeling as a spectator. Old Course felt so unique as an occasion - even if it's not the best for spectators due to the lack of banking around the greens. Every 5 years is fine, keeps it special.

 

[nickjdavis]

Yeah, of course, but that is not what they've said will happen. They've said if they change the ball it will change for all of us.

I dont believe this and never have.

With engineering and computing resources available I truly believe that it is possible to create a "graduated response" ball, that has less of a drop off in performance when hit at 85mph than when it's hit at 125mph....so we can create a ball that has an impact on the professional game but far less of an impact on the amateur game.

 

[IanM]

Bobby Jones hated the Old Course when he first played it. Then he began to understand.

The whole town is golf. You have to go and experience it. It's like nowhere else. The courses, shops, pubs full of golfers from all over the world.... unique.

Players would revolt if it came off the rota. (Probably)

If you don't feel it when you go there, hey, well that's your loss.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Bobby Jones hated the Old Course when he first played it. Then he began to understand.

The whole town is golf. You have to go and experience it. It's like nowhere else. The courses, shops, pubs full of golfers from all over the world.... unique.

Players would revolt if it came off the rota. (Probably)

If you don't feel it when you go there, hey, well that's your loss.

Maybe I actually need to go there and experience it then, because from just watching it and seeing the course I've never once felt I need to or want to go there. But I am an open minded person always willing to try something and be proven wrong. I've got some extended time off at end of April/May and fancy a golf trip and the Mrs has always want to go to Scotland so maybe I can tick off 2 birds with one stone and be persuaded otherwise. If it turns out I was wrong I'm happy to openly admit to that.

 

[Orikoru]

I dont believe this and never have.

With engineering and computing resources available I truly believe that it is possible to create a "graduated response" ball, that has less of a drop off in performance when hit at 85mph than when it's hit at 125mph....so we can create a ball that has an impact on the professional game but far less of an impact on the amateur game.

That is what was said initially - that pros might lose 10 yards while we might lose 1 or 2. And I kind of made peace with that. (In this topic I was responding to someone saying dial the ball back more though.)

 

[nickjdavis]

If athletics had been administered like golf has been, stadiums would have been rebuilt to facilitate javelins flying 150 yards.

The Russians kind of did that in 1980. The Olympic stadium had a large set of doors at one end. Whenever there was a Russian thrower the stadium authorities opened the doors to create a draft and help deliver a little bit more uplift to the throw. For other nationalities they closed the doors.

 

[Crow]

I appreciate you not wanting to go round but i do feel i need to address the point of you saying 145 is actually 120yrd and that your manipulating the number to meet your argument which is fair enough, but 145 yards is still 145 yards and that would still be a 5 iron! or even your 120 yard 7 iron comment the average player is still going to be progressively worse as the shaft lengthens. So the point still stands that the control element disappears and ability to hit the target becomes less! Which adds shots and adds time regardless of the distance walked!

Seems like an odd response to make it fit but anyway as you said you don't wish to go round and I respect that .

One last comment then as I'm clearly doing a poor job of explaining my thoughts.

Let's take a 380 yard hole.
With today's ball, for Player X it's a drive of 225 yards and an iron shot of 155 yards.
With an 80% ball using the same clubs, Player X would hit his drive 180 yards and the same iron 124 yards, a total of 304 yards. So 304 yards is the equivalent length of hole that would be needed to play golf with an 80% ball and get the same challenge.

Stretch that out to every hole and the whole course; 80% of 6,500 yards = 5,200 yards.
So in theory when playing the 5,200 yard course with the 80% ball, the golfer will use exactly the same clubs they would use on the 6,500 yard course but will not have to walk the additional 1,300 yards.

That's what I meant by resetting the goalposts.
I know that it will never happen as there are too many vested interests, but if it did not only would it save time but also land and course maintenance costs.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

One last comment then as I'm clearly doing a poor job of explaining my thoughts.

Let's take a 380 yard hole.
With today's ball, for Player X it's a drive of 225 yards and an iron shot of 155 yards.
With an 80% ball using the same clubs, Player X would hit his drive 180 yards and the same iron 124 yards, a total of 304 yards. So 304 yards is the equivalent length of hole that would be needed to play golf with an 80% ball and get the same challenge.

Stretch that out to every hole and the whole course; 80% of 6,500 yards = 5,200 yards.
So in theory when playing the 5,200 yard course with the 80% ball, the golfer will use exactly the same clubs they would use on the 6,500 yard course but will not have to walk the additional 1,300 yards.

That's what I meant by resetting the goalposts.
I know that it will never happen as there are too many vested interests, but if it did not only would it save time but also land and course maintenance costs.

I appreciate the response mate and in fairness to you that makes a lot more sense than previously just moving the distance to suit your point so thank you for taking the time to explain

I absolutely understand your theory, my only caveat is my own experience of playing with people over both length courses there's a couple we play near work one is 6,200 yard and the other is 5,300 so 900 yards less walking. Even with the current balls and distances both courses regularly take over 4hrs to play and in real terms we probably only save 20mins in total time played on the shorter course. Reason being is standard of golf you'd think being closer to the hole would make things easier but sadly in my experience it doesn't we're still often waiting on people because of several reasons.

So I do totally understand where you're coming from its just me experience is the length of course doesn't save that much time and by people using longer shafted clubs even at lesser distance would only make it slower as they lose control. You do have a very valid point though

 

[Hobbit]

Simple question

Why do we need to do any sort of rolling back

Does it really matter if the scores are low in some events and the players can hit it a long way in same events

99.99% of the time the best golfer is still winning

As above.

Everyone focuses on the the top of the leaderboard. Look at the mid table scores, and those that don’t make the cut. The winning scores are the exceptional scores and deserve to win. Over half the players rarely get near level par over 4 rounds.

As for roll back; for me the only fair option is to dial the ball back. Growing the rough in at 300yds only rewards the short hitters. Dialling the ball back, rightly, still sees the longest hitters as the longest hitters.

Nichlaus had the right idea with pin placements. 6 hard, 6 so-so and 6 easy. The best players will make something out of the hard pin placements.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

As above.

Everyone focuses on the the top of the leaderboard. Look at the mid table scores, and those that don’t make the cut. The winning scores are the exceptional scores and deserve to win. Over half the players rarely get near level par over 4 rounds.

As for roll back; for me the only fair option is to dial the ball back. Growing the rough in at 300yds only rewards the short hitters. Dialling the ball back, rightly, still sees the longest hitters as the longest hitters.

Nichlaus had the right idea with pin placements. 6 hard, 6 so-so and 6 easy. The best players will make something out of the hard pin placements.

I've never heard that before.. I absolutely love that idea

Imagine how much that would level the playing field and put premium on approach play and wedge play if you miss!

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Get this same feeling as a spectator. Old Course felt so unique as an occasion - even if it's not the best for spectators due to the lack of banking around the greens. Every 5 years is fine, keeps it special.

When looking at the scores it seems that Troon also has the same record score but it is what it is - let them score well , crowds enjoy seeing players scoring well

 

[Arthur Wedge]

One last comment then as I'm clearly doing a poor job of explaining my thoughts.

Let's take a 380 yard hole.
With today's ball, for Player X it's a drive of 225 yards and an iron shot of 155 yards.
With an 80% ball using the same clubs, Player X would hit his drive 180 yards and the same iron 124 yards, a total of 304 yards. So 304 yards is the equivalent length of hole that would be needed to play golf with an 80% ball and get the same challenge.

Stretch that out to every hole and the whole course; 80% of 6,500 yards = 5,200 yards.
So in theory when playing the 5,200 yard course with the 80% ball, the golfer will use exactly the same clubs they would use on the 6,500 yard course but will not have to walk the additional 1,300 yards.

That's what I meant by resetting the goalposts.
I know that it will never happen as there are too many vested interests, but if it did not only would it save time but also land and course maintenance costs.

99% of golfers enjoy hitting a driver as far as they can

Reducing the distance that significantly with a driver would have quite a negative affect

Our course is only 6000 yards - it doesn’t get over powered because of the tightness of the course

 

[wjemather]

I appreciate the response mate and in fairness to you that makes a lot more sense than previously just moving the distance to suit your point so thank you for taking the time to explain

I absolutely understand your theory, my only caveat is my own experience of playing with people over both length courses there's a couple we play near work one is 6,200 yard and the other is 5,300 so 900 yards less walking. Even with the current balls and distances both courses regularly take over 4hrs to play and in real terms we probably only save 20mins in total time played on the shorter course. Reason being is standard of golf you'd think being closer to the hole would make things easier but sadly in my experience it doesn't we're still often waiting on people because of several reasons.

So I do totally understand where you're coming from its just me experience is the length of course doesn't save that much time and by people using longer shafted clubs even at lesser distance would only make it slower as they lose control. You do have a very valid point though

Also worth noting that as distances have increased, so has the proximity to the target.
In order words, a wayward shot with a 100% ball goes further offline than a wayward shot with an 80% ball, resulting in more time looking for balls, waiting for people on adjacent holes, etc. and more damage to adjoining properties.

 

[D-S]

I dont believe this and never have.

With engineering and computing resources available I truly believe that it is possible to create a "graduated response" ball, that has less of a drop off in performance when hit at 85mph than when it's hit at 125mph....so we can create a ball that has an impact on the professional game but far less of an impact on the amateur game.

Wouldn't such a ball change, slightly, the balance of distance within the amateur game as well?

If faster swing speeds are 'punished' more then that will necessarily advantage, versus today, slower swinging players at all levels.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Also worth noting that as distances have increased, so has the proximity to the target.
In order words, a wayward shot with a 100% ball goes further offline than a wayward shot with an 80% ball, resulting in more time looking for balls, waiting for people on adjacent holes, etc.

Totally get that but is that going to be better with an 80% ball because what used to be a 9 iron is now a 7iron etc so longer shaft less accuracy and apply that throughout the bag.

 

[wjemather]

Totally get that but is that going to be better with an 80% ball because what used to be a 9 iron is now a 7iron etc so longer shaft less accuracy and apply that throughout the bag.

It's the longer shots (espescially with driver) that make the biggest difference, not the shorter irons.

 

[nickjdavis]

Wouldn't such a ball change, slightly, the balance of distance within the amateur game as well?

If faster swing speeds are 'punished' more then that will necessarily advantage, versus today, slower swinging players at all levels.

absolutely...there are many amateurs who reach similar echelons of clubhead speed as the pro's....I'm simply making the point that it wont be a fixed yardage or fixed percentage reduction for everyone.......on the flip side though... there are many high speed swinging amateurs who would find their ball more often if it landed 20 yards shorter..

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

It's the longer shots (espescially with driver) that make the biggest difference, not the shorter irons.

I don't agree, anything 7 iron up for most club golfers increases the chance of hitting a green and then doing that with a driver so they're even further back looking for balls means more shots to get where they're going and added time..

Like I said to Crow, I get the idea in theory I don't believe it works in practice. Plus a lot of people will lose their enjoyment in the game hitting from further back and making their game harder and less enjoyable. I genuinely think the distance debate has bolted and we should just enjoy it for what it is, allow people to have fun and just enjoy the best golfers winning regardless of scores