Rolling back the pro game

[IanM]

Spookily last week there was a Tour Event where landing in the rough had an appropriate level of risk attached.

More of this and Darwin will kick in!

 

[irip]

I like seeing the guys hitting bombs off the tee and wouldn’t want to take that away.
The punishment for missing the fairway needs to be harsher than it currently is.

The courses that seem to trouble the players currently seem to have greens that are not watered as much so they are fairly solid.
Trying to control the ball out of the rough becomes harder then for the top players so finding the fairway is paramount but obviously longer on the fairway is better than shorter on the fairway.

I liked the set up of the players for me it got the balance right between rewarding good shots and punishing bad shots.

 

[Imurg]

There's a lot of potential issues with Rollback
Reducing the distance the ball goes benefits the long hitter.
Instead of hitting a 9 iron he's hitting 8
But the shorter guy who's hitting 8 iron now has to hit 7 or more so the long hitter is still 1 up.
Grow the rough....long hitters may find the rough more than short hitters but, I suspect, not by much
So your short hitter is disadvantaged when he misses the short stuff...which they do frequently.
Make the greens harder and faster....again, the shorter hitter coming in with a 7 iron isn't going to get the stop that the 8 iron bomber is going to get.
So it's not an easy thing to pin down.
As to what the answer is.....well, it's a long way above my pay grade...

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

There's a lot of potential issues with Rollback
Reducing the distance the ball goes benefits the long hitter.
Instead of hitting a 9 iron he's hitting 8
But the shorter guy who's hitting 8 iron now has to hit 7 or more so the long hitter is still 1 up.
Grow the rough....long hitters may find the rough more than short hitters but, I suspect, not by much
So your short hitter is disadvantaged when he misses the short stuff...which they do frequently.
Make the greens harder and faster....again, the shorter hitter coming in with a 7 iron isn't going to get the stop that the 8 iron bomber is going to get.
So it's not an easy thing to pin down.
As to what the answer is.....well, it's a long way above my pay grade...

This sums it up perfectly roll back doesn’t work because the longer hitters are still longer than the rest. I’ve said it for years it’s all to do with course set up but that doesn’t seem to sit the same with everyone clamouring for the old days.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

This sums it up perfectly roll back doesn’t work because the longer hitters are still longer than the rest. I’ve said it for years it’s all to do with course set up but that doesn’t seem to sit the same with everyone clamouring for the old days.

That assumes that rollback is just about restricting driver length to bring the players closer together. It isn't, imo. It's about protecting existing courses on the tours, keeping them relevant still. We don't just want stadium courses and 600yd par 5's.

I'm happy for the longer drivers to be the longest still, same as the best iron, wedge and putters being rewarded. It's about courses, not players.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

That assumes that rollback is just about restricting driver length to bring the players closer together. It isn't, imo. It's about protecting existing courses on the tours, keeping them relevant still. We don't just want stadium courses and 600yd par 5's.

I'm happy for the longer drivers to be the longest still, same as the best iron, wedge and putters being rewarded. It's about courses, not players.

Surely that point still stands! The advantage is still with the longer hitter regardless of protecting the courses.

You’re not suddenly going to get deeper fields and shorter hitters winning more it’s not going to make a great deal of difference to scoring as the big boys go from hit a 52° wedge to hitting a normal wedge.

Courses can have their set up tweaked make them more penal you don’t just need length to make a course harder or roll a ball back to make a shorter course relevant.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Surely that point still stands! The advantage is still with the longer hitter regardless of protecting the courses.

You’re not suddenly going to get deeper fields and shorter hitters winning more it’s not going to make a great deal of difference to scoring as the big boys go from hit a 52° wedge to hitting a normal wedge.

Courses can have their set up tweaked make them more penal you don’t just need length to make a course harder or roll a ball back to make a shorter course relevant.

Maybe we are at cross wires here. I'm not looking for shorter hitters suddenly to win more. I want to see interesting courses being used still, not big, long courses because they are the only ones that challenge pro's.

I get the argument about rough and hard greens but will courses really want to penalise their memebers for 2 months whilst the course gets toughened up just for the pro tournament? Take 20-30yds off the ball for everyone, job done. Pro's and elite tournaments only, leave the club player alone as this does not affect them.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Maybe we are at cross wires here. I'm not looking for shorter hitters suddenly to win more. I want to see interesting courses being used still, not big, long courses because they are the only ones that challenge pro's.

I get the argument about rough and hard greens but will courses really want to penalise their memebers for 2 months whilst the course gets toughened up just for the pro tournament? Take 20-30yds off the ball for everyone, job done. Pro's and elite tournaments only, leave the club player alone as this does not affect them.

Maybe we are but I still disagree I don’t think roll back makes courses more relevant and means they bring them back into tournaments rotas.

The course will be more penal for members to but that ls just tough maybe members should get used to playing their course in a harder way to improve their games as well then they can claim they do actually play their same course the Pros do and they will also find they need to manage their games better.

A lot of people imo will be very upset playing their own course from 20-30 yards further back all because they’re trying to limit how far people hit to keep courses relevant for a handful of tournament professionals that they can never compete with anyway. Golf has evolved like everything around it, course planners and the like need to evolve to and find ways to make courses relevant not go backwards to the detriment of everyone for the sake of the few.

 

[Orikoru]

Maybe we are at cross wires here. I'm not looking for shorter hitters suddenly to win more. I want to see interesting courses being used still, not big, long courses because they are the only ones that challenge pro's.

I get the argument about rough and hard greens but will courses really want to penalise their memebers for 2 months whilst the course gets toughened up just for the pro tournament? Take 20-30yds off the ball for everyone, job done. Pro's and elite tournaments only, leave the club player alone as this does not affect them.

I think this is a bit backwards, personally. And maybe what Lucifer is getting at? You can make them longer and longer but it will change nothing. But what if you make a dogleg hole shorter, with trouble waiting for those who try and cut the corner off and get it wrong? Or holes where you can't use driver because it will roll out too far? We're back to course design making the difference again. I don't think 'rolling back the ball' makes any real difference.

 

[cleveland52]

Spookily last week there was a Tour Event where landing in the rough had an appropriate level of risk attached.

More of this and Darwin will kick in!

Oh my goodness! What a concept. Adding hazards and protecting the golf course. You mean a player actually has to think on the Tee box?

Like I said, what a concept!

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I think this is a bit backwards, personally. And maybe what Lucifer is getting at? You can make them longer and longer but it will change nothing. But what if you make a dogleg hole shorter, with trouble waiting for those who try and cut the corner off and get it wrong? Or holes where you can't use driver because it will roll out too far? We're back to course design making the difference again. I don't think 'rolling back the ball' makes any real difference.

What about existing courses, do you just get them redesigned as well? Is that always possible, is the land there. Dog legs, they just go over them. Dog legs works for ams, these guys don't care about them.

All of these redesigns cost huge amounts of money. Far more than simply taking something off the ball.

You guys are looking at improving the ballpoint, I'm saying use the pencil (yes, I'm aware the story is not perhaps all that it is made to be but you get the gist)

 

[wjemather]

Extending courses actually favours long hitters in scoring. The longer the course, the more critical it becomes to hit the ball further, and the more rewarding it becomes to hit it big.

Indeed. And narrowing fairways and growing the rough favours them even more.

 

[Orikoru]

What about existing courses, do you just get them redesigned as well? Is that always possible, is the land there. Dog legs, they just go over them. Dog legs works for ams, these guys don't care about them.

All of these redesigns cost huge amounts of money. Far more than simply taking something off the ball.

You guys are looking at improving the ballpoint, I'm saying use the pencil (yes, I'm aware the story is not perhaps all that it is made to be but you get the gist)

If there is a tree in the way though? In terms of redesigning, it's just a matter of how you grow the grass? Narrow the fairway a bit, grow the rough up a bit at the 300 mark. Making certain spectator areas out of bounds doesn't cost a thing.

Surely there will be massive cost implications to changing the ball as well? Just to every ball manufacturer instead of the course owners.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

If there is a tree in the way though? In terms of redesigning, it's just a matter of how you grow the grass? Narrow the fairway a bit, grow the rough up a bit at the 300 mark. Making certain spectator areas out of bounds doesn't cost a thing.

Surely there will be massive cost implications to changing the ball as well? Just to every ball manufacturer instead of the course owners.

Totally agree with that but there is not sign of it happening.

Not sure the implications are that big and I think ball mfrs have pretty broad shoulders. Tweak the design, change the moulds, off you go. I imagine they already have options up their sleeves in they needed to take different distances off the length, ie 20yds off, 30yds off etc.

 

[Neilds]

A quick win would be get rid of the ball spotters and let them find their own balls. Might be a bit more wary about going in the rough then.

 

[wjemather]

I like seeing the guys hitting bombs off the tee and wouldn’t want to take that away.
The punishment for missing the fairway needs to be harsher than it currently is.

The courses that seem to trouble the players currently seem to have greens that are not watered as much so they are fairly solid.
Trying to control the ball out of the rough becomes harder then for the top players so finding the fairway is paramount but obviously longer on the fairway is better than shorter on the fairway.

I liked the set up of the players for me it got the balance right between rewarding good shots and punishing bad shots.

Nothing would take that away (except perhaps crazy course changes).
"Hitting bombs" is relative.
People marvelled at Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Fred Couples, Davis Love, John Daly, etc. and none hit anywhere near today's (equipment fueled) distances.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

I think this is a bit backwards, personally. And maybe what Lucifer is getting at? You can make them longer and longer but it will change nothing. But what if you make a dogleg hole shorter, with trouble waiting for those who try and cut the corner off and get it wrong? Or holes where you can't use driver because it will roll out too far? We're back to course design making the difference again. I don't think 'rolling back the ball' makes any real difference.

Exactly my point the length becomes irrelevant if the course is set up properly

What about existing courses, do you just get them redesigned as well? Is that always possible, is the land there. Dog legs, they just go over them. Dog legs works for ams, these guys don't care about them.

All of these redesigns cost huge amounts of money. Far more than simply taking something off the ball.

You guys are looking at improving the ballpoint, I'm saying use the pencil (yes, I'm aware the story is not perhaps all that it is made to be but you get the gist)

Don’t redesign anything. If they want to carry the dog leg then bring the rough in to their desired landing area, give them the choice is the carry worth it if I’m in long grass playing out sideways for my 2nd shot. It doesn’t cost a lot of money at all to simply
Let the grass grow. Make them care about dog legs again and make them play golf and the course how it was meant to be played. Rolling the ball back 20yards isn’t going to change them as much as a correctly set up golf course will.

Your mention of saying use the pencil I get the analogy but it’s just another way of saying the past is better let’s use old technology when we already have something better. I also stand by my point this will be far more damaging for the everyday golfer, everybody in this debate only ever talks about the Professional game and not how this affects the everyday club player.

Take that ball back 20yards could be the difference in some not even being able to play their own courses or getting any enjoyment out of it. Shorter hitters that ping their driver out to 200yards can suddenly only get 180yds and so on through their bags. The enjoyment will be gone for so many people and it really isn’t needed. It’s time people accepted we don’t played in the 50s, 60s,70s or 80s anymore the game is different and better ideas are needed not looking backward.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Nothing would take that away (except perhaps crazy course changes).
"Hitting bombs" is relative.
People marvelled at Sam Snead, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Fred Couples, Davis Love, John Daly, etc. and none hit anywhere near today's (equipment fueled) distances.

With the exception of Norman none of them were hitting the gym and developing their bodies to allow for greater forces or speed generation. So bit of a moot point trying to bring the past into it as a relevance for distance.

Everyone focuses is its just equipment that’s made people longer, they forget golfers used to be dudes walking round with a cigarette on the go and doing no physical development. The majority of players now are athletes and a 6500yard historic course even with rollback is still not relevant to the modern day professional.

 

[wjemather]

Exactly my point the length becomes irrelevant if the course is set up properly
Don’t redesign anything. If they want to carry the dog leg then bring the rough in t their desired landing area, given them to choose is the carry worth it I’m in long fess plying outsides for my 2nd shot. It doesn’t cost a lot of money at all to simply
Let the grass grow. Make them care about dog legs again and make them play golf and the course how it was meant to be played. Rolling the ball back 20yards isn’t going to change them as much as a correctly set up golf course will.

Your mention of saying use the pencil I get the analogy but it’s just another way of saying the past is better let’s use old technology and when we already have something better. I also stand by my point this will be far more damaging for the everyday golfer, everybody in this debate only ever talks about the Professional game and not how this affects the everyday club player.

Take that ball back 20yards could be the difference in some not even being able to play their own courses or getting any enjoyment out of it. Shorter hitters that ping their driver out to 200yards can suddenly only get 180yds and so on through their bags. The enjoyment will be gone for so many people and it really isn’t needed. It’s time people accepted we don’t played in the 50s, 60s,70s or 80s anymore the game is different and better ideas are needed not looking backward.

You're talking about people who generally play random balls that would be 20 yards different for a long hitter without noticing any difference at all for them. And that's not just because they are too inconsistent to notice, it's because the difference at those clubhead/ball speeds speeds is minimal.

People seem to forget we already had a rollback when we adopted the large American ball. The sky didn't fall in, most didn't notice the distance difference, and no-one stopped enjoying the game.

 

[wjemather]

With the exception of Norman none of them were hitting the gym and developing their bodies to allow for greater forces or speed generation. So bit of a moot point trying to bring the past into it as a relevance for distance.

Everyone focuses is its just equipment that’s made people longer, they forget golfers used to be dudes walking round with a cigarette on the go and doing no physical development. The majority of players now are athletes and a 6500yard historic course even with rollback is still not relevant to the modern day professional.

Yes, the freak of one generation is the norm of the next. However, this generation suffers no distance or direction consequences for mishitting while whaling away as hard as they can. That's entirely down to equipment, and nothing at all to do with athleticism.