Rolling Back Equipment to 1980s Specs for Tour Players

[Golfingdad]

It's a combination, the smaller courses have even less available land to lengthen the course and still provide all the amenities that the PGA Tour requires to host a tournament.  Maybe the older courses will become better suited for the LPGA, Web.com, etc tours so they still maintain their place in golf history.

I tend to view golf courses like old sports stadiums, there were some classic stadiums that were part of the rich tradition of sports but because of age, dimensions, seating capacity, amenities were no longer feasible for the game today.  I much prefer to see the game grow, even at the expense of some of the older (and shorter) courses than for us to impede progress in the sport beyond the limitations the USGA and R&A; have already established.

Agree with @ccotenj ... this is a geat analogy.  Solid post ntg.

[ccotenj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

It's a combination, the smaller courses have even less available land to lengthen the course and still provide all the amenities that the PGA Tour requires to host a tournament.  Maybe the older courses will become better suited for the LPGA, Web.com, etc tours so they still maintain their place in golf history.

I tend to view golf courses like old sports stadiums, there were some classic stadiums that were part of the rich tradition of sports but because of age, dimensions, seating capacity, amenities were no longer feasible for the game today.  I much prefer to see the game grow, even at the expense of some of the older (and shorter) courses than for us to impede progress in the sport beyond the limitations the USGA and R&A; have already established.

Agree with @ccotenj ... this is a geat analogy.  Solid post ntg.

what's interesting (to me, anyway), is that golf is not the only sport that suffers from "old vs. new"...   i'm a really big cycling fan, and the "old vs. new" parcours/races/the sport in general "discussions" can get rather heated...

"tradition", while it should be given its proper place, should not (and does not) mean "do everything the same forever"...  golf, more than any other sport, REALLY needs to get over its hide-bound "traditions"*...

* the temptation to rant about rules written 400 years ago for courses "built" by sheep is strong here, but i'll stay on topic...

[Big Lex]

It was a rhetorical question. It's not written anywhere, and don't think it's a great argument (my opinion) that we have to concern ourselves with always being able to play courses forever. Let's see new courses. As much as I love Oakmont, if a new, better course comes along that offers a fair challenge, let's play that one! In other words… I disagree with your opinion. I don't think we need to keep playing the old courses.

Exactly. Much if not all of the rollback argument rests on the assumption that it is important that "classic" golf courses (as we define them today...) must be preserved as viable venues to host high level championship golf. I don't think it is important to preserve Oakmont or Baltusrol or Southern Hills or any specific course as a major championship venue and I don't think anyone has made a convincing argument to that effect. Other than "we've always played them there," there is no substance to the argument. "They are great designs with classic shot values." Yes. So are hundreds of newer courses, many of them as good or better. "They've stood the test of time." Well, frankly they haven't. Eventually the game outran them, or at least the ones that have been unable to adapt enough. But this isn't something new! The courses which held many of the majors in the pre-WW2 days are no longer relevant....it's ok, it's just how things go. "We are losing golf's cathedrals." No we're not. They remain great golf courses for their members and anyone who plays them. They can host qualifying events for majors, they can host junior events, they can host ladies events, they can host local championships and lower level PGA events. Finally......the "rendered obsolete" argument, frankly, doesn't really hold water in many cases....in other words, in many cases where people say a course has been rendered irrelevant, it really hasn't. It's just an appearance thing. It's an emotional reaction to what we see at the top of the field, and a closer look often leads to a different conclusion: What's wrong with playing the U.S. Open at par 70 or 69? The game is so, so hard. People see three or four players tear up a golf course.....maybe reach a 500 yard hole with a driver and gap wedge, and the appearance is so shocking they jump to erroneous conclusions. Not ALL of the players can do this. Even among the ones who can, you never have more than a few firing on all cylinders in a major anyway. There are no long drive tour guys winning on the PGA tour, and if power is what rules the game, why aren't the guys who hit it 400 yards making cuts? Because you still have to hit it straight! "Bomb and gouge" makes it sound like these guys hit it all over the map....they don't! The wildest tour player is so much straighter off the tee than your average 2 hcp amateur it isn't even funny. Again, some react disproportionately to seeing the one or two wild shots on TV, when the sobering reality is that all of these guys, relatively speaking, hit the ball very very straight. They are on tour as much or more for accuracy as for length. . Ask anyone who has fitted clubs on a launch monitor about how many golfers at the college level can carry the ball 290+. ALOT of them. How many make it to the tour? Same as always: almost NONE...only the ones who can hit it straight and putt. Leave the game alone, I say, and keep one set of rules. Any tournaments played with equipment restrictions should- if they really want to do them - be "one-off" exhibition type events. Yes, the game is different than when Jack Nicklaus played, yet as the French say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[inthehole]

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthehole

Equipment is fine.

It's the ball.

SOLUTION:  Upon arrival at the PGA event, every tour pro receives 2 sleeves of balls a day.    The ball is a limited flight tour quality ball.    Every player plays the same ball, so there's no crying.

PGA ... I accept Paypal for my ideas, PM me.

Maybe they could all be "issued" the same clubs too. All the same shafts, lofts, grips.....the whole thing. No reason for anyone to play any piece of conforming equipment that's best suited to their particular game and preferences.

Comon, thats a silly arguement.     Pro baseball players have to use "limited flight" wooden baseball bats, not high tech super lightweight aluminum bats they use in college.    Regardless of manufacturer,  Nascar teams have to use the same aero package and work within that platform.     Make pro golfers use the same tour quality limited flight ball - they will adapt.      Of course, they can use whatever equipment they choose and continue their sponsorships.   Some will still hit it farther than others.   THat will not chnge.     If the golf governing bodies ever really want to get serious about this issue, that is the solution.

[saevel25]

SOLUTION:  Upon arrival at the PGA event, every tour pro receives 2 sleeves of balls a day.    The ball is a limited flight tour quality ball.    Every player plays the same ball, so there's no crying.

PGA ... I accept Paypal for my ideas, PM me.

I think it's fine that each player plays their own golf ball.

It's a combination, the smaller courses have even less available land to lengthen the course and still provide all the amenities that the PGA Tour requires to host a tournament.  Maybe the older courses will become better suited for the LPGA, Web.com, etc tours so they still maintain their place in golf history.

I think you could take older courses and make them a challenge. Just say, where is 300 yards at. From there till the green the rough is going to be 6 inches deep, and the fairways are going to be 20 yards wide. Make anything before 300 yards wider and lighter rough.

If you want to go for the fairway, have at it. If you miss it you are going to hack out. You might be able to advance it or sneak it on the green but you are going to struggle to do so.

[RussUK]

Comon, thats a silly arguement.     Pro baseball players have to use "limited flight" wooden baseball bats, not high tech super lightweight aluminum bats they use in college.    Regardless of manufacturer,  Nascar teams have to use the same aero package and work within that platform.     Make pro golfers use the same tour quality limited flight ball - they will adapt.      Of course, they can use whatever equipment they choose and continue their sponsorships.   Some will still hit it farther than others.   THat will not chnge.     If the golf governing bodies ever really want to get serious about this issue, that is the solution.

Same Aero maybe. But they are allowed to use engines form different manufacturers different setups, gear ratios, wheel cambers etc. etc. so not quite the same as players using one type of ball from one manufacturer. Nearest thing i can think of would be all the ball makers to use the same pattern e.g. 2 piece urethane with identical compressions but allow different dimple patterns. Kind of golfs version of changing a cars setup

[iacas]

Comon, thats a silly arguement.     Pro baseball players have to use "limited flight" wooden baseball bats, not high tech super lightweight aluminum bats they use in college.

And amateurs are free to use balls and clubs that violate the Rules of Golf, too. But not everyone is issued the same bat or the same glove - players in every sport are free (within the rules) to customize the equipment THEY alone handle.

Baseball bats come in all sorts of variations. Hockey sticks too. Different flexes, stick lengths, curves, blade length, bend points, etc.

The baseball is a shared object in baseball, so it's the same for all. The golf ball is not a shared object. The bats, and clubs? Not shared objects.

Make pro golfers use the same tour quality limited flight ball - they will adapt.

Some will have an easier time adapting and some will not adapt: the ball will definitely favor one type of player over another.

If the golf governing bodies ever really want to get serious about this issue, that is the solution.

I disagree, and you haven't made the case for it at all. Nor have you made the case for WHY they should "get serious" about the issue either.

[inthehole]

The baseball is a shared object in baseball, so it's the same for all. The golf ball is not a shared object. The bats, and clubs? Not shared objects.

Exactly my point ... in your words, I'm suggesting the golf ball should be a shared object.   ---- IF----  the governing body wants to dial back the ball ... FORCE all golf professionals to use the same ball.   Its the only way to provide a level playing field if in fact the ball is determined to be the the single object that is responsible for reducing distance.

Nascar teams have to use the same tire that Goodyear supplies for each event.    The teams start out on a level playing field and they all adapt.    Obviously, not a case of apples to apples, but I see nothing wrong with a player of professional skill level having to adapt to a uniform tour quality reduced flight golf ball .... if and only if dialing the ball back is of important enough concern to the governing body.

[iacas]

Exactly my point ... in your words, I'm suggesting the golf ball should be a shared object.

It's not a shared object. It's the player's unique equipment. Like a baseball player's glove, or a basketball player's sneakers.

[inthehole]

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthehole

Exactly my point ... in your words, I'm suggesting the golf ball should be a shared object.

It's not a shared object. It's the player's unique equipment. Like a baseball player's glove, or a basketball player's sneakers.

Agreed, a golf ball is not currently a shared object, got that. Why couldn't it be a shared object if the hypothetical goal is to dial it back consistently (not saying that this is the only solution, just seems to be the rabbit hole we're all going down here in this discussion) ?? Seems like a very reasonable solution to this hypothetical dialing the ball back idea.    Nobody's listening to Nicklaus who seems to be the most vocal on this issue ... it'll never happen for a variety of reasons others have stated, so it's just a silly discussion anyways

[DrvFrShow]

Who really cares? I say leave it alone. The distance has been good  for the game.

[mvmac]

Agreed, a golf ball is not currently a shared object, got that.  Why couldn't it be a shared object if the hypothetical goal is to dial it back consistently (not saying that this is the only solution, just seems to be the rabbit hole we're all going down here in this discussion) ??

Because you can't have one ball for every player. Different players create different launch and spin conditions, they should be able to use balls that appropriately fit their games. Even with Titleist balls, ProV1 or ProV1x, not all the ProV1's are the same. Some pros play older versions, some play the newest version. All depends on what fits their game and how they want the ball to react when they hit it.

[newtogolf]

Agreed, a golf ball is not currently a shared object, got that.  Why couldn't it be a shared object if the hypothetical goal is to dial it back consistently (not saying that this is the only solution, just seems to be the rabbit hole we're all going down here in this discussion) ??     Seems like a very reasonable solution to this hypothetical dialing the ball back idea.    Nobody's listening to Nicklaus who seems to be the most vocal on this issue ... it'll never happen for a variety of reasons others have stated, so it's just a silly discussion anyways

In theory the majority of the PGA Tour players are already using a Titleist Pro V1 or Pro V1x.  According to Titleist.com close to 60% of the PGA Tour players use Titleist Pro V1 or Pro V1X, which includes long hitters like Bubba Watson (Pro V1X) and the two shortest hitters on Tour, Ben Crane and David Toms who play the Pro V1X.  The same ball that Bubba averages 315 yards with only averages 270 yards when Toms or Crane hit it.   That's a 45 yard difference in average driving distances using the same ball.

So how do you roll back the ball?  If you make it so Bubba and DJ can only hit it 290 you're likely going to drop Crane and Toms to under 250 yards.   Are you also going to require the Web.com and LPGA use this new ball, if yes what happens to their driving distances?  If no, we'll have the ladies and web.com players out driving the best on the PGA Tour.

What ball gets used for US Open qualifiers or at the Masters?  This is why bifurcation doesn't work, at some point the trickle down effect impacts everyone and confuses the sport.

[dkolo]

Exactly my point ... in your words, I'm suggesting the golf ball should be a shared object.   ---- IF----  the governing body wants to dial back the ball ... FORCE all golf professionals to use the same ball.   Its the only way to provide a level playing field if in fact the ball is determined to be the the single object that is responsible for reducing distance.

Nascar teams have to use the same tire that Goodyear supplies for each event.    The teams start out on a level playing field and they all adapt.    Obviously, not a case of apples to apples, but I see nothing wrong with a player of professional skill level having to adapt to a uniform tour quality reduced flight golf ball .... if and only if dialing the ball back is of important enough concern to the governing body.

You ignore that each team inflates the tires to fit their needs, scuffs them or not depending on how they prefer it, adjust camber, etc. If you look at it in its totality, it's actually much more like what the current ball situation is on Tour than your proposal.

[DrvFrShow]

It's a bad idea. This crap has a tendency to creep into the amateur game. No.

[WUTiger]

Establish a class of golf balls with reduced distance capabilities; mandate their use on the Pro tours, Division I and II college golf, and high level USGA Amateur competitions.

This plan uses a Conditions of Competition approach.

[newtogolf]

Establish a class of golf balls with reduced distance capabilities; mandate their use on the Pro tours, Division I and II college golf, and high level USGA Amateur competitions.

 

This plan uses a Conditions of Competition approach.

So you'll establish a rule that penalizes everyone but is designed to target only the Top 35 (number of golfers that average over 289 yards) in average driving distance.   

The Tour average driving distance is 289 yards, if you create a ball with reduced distance that reduces yardage by 1 standard deviation from the current average distance you're going to reduce the average drive distance for everyone by approximately 19 yards.   

That means DJ, Bubba and Day will average around 296 and Justin Leonard, Ben Crane and David Toms will average around 250 yards.  In comparison to the LPGA average driving distances, 65 women on the LPGA will either have equal or higher driving distances than the men with the lowest driving averages.     

I don't know about you, but I can drive the ball 250+ yards so watching the pro's using a restricted flight ball and hitting the same distances as I do and shorter than half of the LPGA won't be as exciting for me too watch. 

[Mike Boatright]

When pga tour pro's routinely hit it 415 yards we will have a problem.