Master Ball Rollback Thread

[iacas]

Some would tell you the golf ball needs to be rolled back. I'm not among those.

They tell you the game is no longer what it once was.
They tell you the classic courses are being destroyed or made unplayable.
They tell you that golf courses all over the place are being made costlier because they're being lengthened.
They tell you this is a big problem and it needs to be solved, now, before it gets even worse.
They tell you the easiest or simplest or cheapest way to fix the problem (which they assume you believe exists) is to roll back the golf ball.

I don't buy any of that. Not a bit.

Golf still is a game of putting on the higher levels. Short par fours continue to befuddle players far more than 500-yard par fours, so perhaps architects need to put on their thinking caps and think "creative" instead of "let's add distance." I think that any rollback of the golf ball would affect every golfer, not just pros, and if we bifurcate the rules then people will not have much interest in watching the pros pound the ball out there 240-250 yards with different equipment. I think that there's no problem, and even if there was, the golf ball may not be the easiest approach. I don't care if some classic golf courses are rendered obsolete - the winning score at the Old Course wasn't -47. Oakmont's still handling things just fine. And if we get some new courses in the mix because some old ones leave us, that's fine too.

Simply put, they discuss solutions to a problem I don't even think exists.

This thread will exist to discuss this "problem" - not only the "solutions" to it but whether it even exists or not.

[PhilsRHman]

I agree with you on most of these fronts. The game has not been destroyed. Long drive champions have not taken over the sport.

If we're talking about the Tour: I'd prefer to see them make the courses smarter and harder, not longer. Put a real premium on hitting fairways, and a real penalty on hitting it wayward. Only a handful of events a year have a really penal setup, but for these players, that's what's necessary. It levels the playing field but still gives an advantage to the longer hitter because he might hit 3 iron 260 and straight as opposed to a short hitter who still has to hit driver down the middle. I believe distance is as much of a skill as putting, so to handcuff a guy who can hit it long is wildly unfair.

[newtogolf]

It would be interesting if they held a ball rollback tournament just to see the impact it would have on the pro's.

I'd imagine some of the long drive hitters might not be so willing to go all out on a drive and miss the fairway if the yardage payoff wasn't sufficient. I wouldn't be surprised if average scores actually dropped as players would take less risk on their drives and would increase their fairways hit average significantly. Overall, I'd guess the impact would be an advantage to the short game players who don't depend on drive distances to win.

[tristanhilton85]

I don't think that the game is being ruined at all. The fact of the matter is that as time goes on technology will always increase and that should be embraced. Just because somebody can hit the ball a long ways doesn't make them a great golfer either. A question was posed in another tread asking if you could only pick one, distance, accuracy, or consistency which would you choose and why? The vast majority of the answers were either accuracy or consistency. The reason for that is that no matter how far you hit it, if it isn't in the fairway or on the green (or at least somewhere close) a majority of the time, you aren't going to score well. I agree with the above post that some of the older course should be make smarter and harder but not necessarily longer. I love seeing guys go for hight risk reward shots; sure you can get on in two on that par 5 with a huge driver off the tee, but if you miss you could be looking at a bogey or wors.

[James_Black]

If they do roll back the golf ball what should they change?

Make the ball spinnier?
Make it less spinny?
Just reduce all out distance?

I think they should just leave the pro's alone and change pin positions. I was watching whatever pga tournament was on last week and a lot of the pins were basically in the middle of the green!

[TourSpoon]

The advancement in balls and equipment has paid off more for the better players as they can maximize on the improvements at a much higher percentage than can the average player. For instance if a modern ball gives a pro a 25 yard distance advantage then it may only translate to 10 for a mid-cap. I think since the genie is out of the bottle, the USGA should hold the line. Old courses are only obsolete for tour caliber players, for the average player they hold up just fine. How many amateurs really want to experience 7400 yards? I would also like to see the pro tournaments grow some rough every now and then and put more of a premium on hitting the fairways. The modern pound it game could be modified with course set-up that could bring shot-making back into the mix.

What would be fun to see would be an old-timer tournament with 70s era equipment.

[CrazyXGolfer]

OMG Im going to love this thread :)

I don't think the golf ball should be rolled back, tecnolagy is always going to get better in all sports and they need to deal with this, but letting us have some of the tec and then limeting how much we can actully use. If they roll back golf balls, it's going to make course's like my home golf club almost unplayable. It's a 6900 meter (7600 yeards I think) I mean this is going to be the other side of the story, people have spent big money trying to make these golf courses somthing awesome, and now it would have to be re designed.

The advancement in balls and equipment has paid off more for the better players as they can maximize on the improvements at a much higher percentage than can the average player. For instance if a modern ball gives a pro a 25 yard distance advantage then it may only translate to 10 for a mid-cap. I think since the genie is out of the bottle, the USGA should hold the line. Old courses are only obsolete for tour caliber players, for the average player they hold up just fine. How many amateurs really want to experience 7400 yards? I would also like to see the pro tournaments grow some rough every now and then and put more of a premium on hitting the fairways. The modern pound it game could be modified with course set-up that could bring shot-making back into the mix.

25yards? Not sure were you got that info but I read a artical were Geoff Ogilvy went and played 18 holes with the old gear and balls. Like 70's gear ect. He said he hit the same clubs every time, he said the ball did not carry as far but had alot more roll.

[TourSpoon]

25yards? Not sure were you got that info but I read a artical were Geoff Ogilvy went and played 18 holes with the old gear and balls. Like 70's gear ect. He said he hit the same clubs every time, he said the ball did not carry as far but had alot more roll.

OK, the ball plus equipment...the tour driving stats really jumped up quickly. In 1995 John Daly led the tour in distance with an average of 289, in 2010 the tour average was 287. I think you get the point.

[iacas]

OK, the ball plus equipment...the tour driving stats really jumped up quickly. In 1995 John Daly led the tour in distance with an average of 289, in 2010 the tour average was 287. I think you get the point.

Yes but the fact remains that in 1995 the average guy was playing a Pinnacle. Had John Daly wanted to hit the ball far, he'd have played a Pinnacle then as well.

And the ball isn't the only thing that changed since 1995. In no order at all - clubhead size, clubhead material, shaft weight, shaft length, player fitness, agronomy, mentality/approach to the game...

[Shindig]

The golf ball certainly isn't going too far when I hit it. I'm not convinced it's a problem on Tour, either. Remember earlier this year when Bubba Watson and Corey Pavin were tied at the end of 72 holes? You'd think that, if hitting the fall super far was this huge advantage, that Pavin wouldn't have had a chance to even reach that playoff.

[ControlJunkie]

I don't think there should be any extraneous restrictions on any equipment (outside of the standards and regulations in place now). Sure, they longer players are hitting it a little longer, but it's not some magical gain brought on by the equipment. Erik touched on one big piece of it - players now are more fit, in better shape, and stronger than guys from the 60's, 70's, and '80s. Golf isn't the only sport affected here. It's just the way it is. Still, if one player gets longer off the tee by spending more time in the gym, or more time practicing, or doing whatever, would it be fair to him for the advantage he worked so hard for be decreased so that instead of being 30 yards past his competitor, now he's only 10 yards ahead?

As far as the game not being what it used to be, well, my first thought is "blah". Things change, games evolve, and the way they're played has evolved. 30 years ago, the NFL was dominated by teams with a strong running game, but now, it's a pass happy league. It's just an example of the fact that things change. Scores aren't crazy low, and one of the longest players in the field just won his first tournament earlier this year. It might be changing the game, but it's definitely not ruining it. There are a lot of people that hate change, and they're always going to whine about something.

[David K]

I don't think the ball is the problem or even the distance that some players get. I think they need to let the rough grow longer and put a higher premium on accuracy off the tee. Slightly narrower fairways (or at least narrower past 290 yards) and longer rough would really even the playing field in my opinion. The longer hitters will still have an advantage with long approach shots but I don't think its fair to restrict to much of the advantage that more distance gives a player.

The rough at most pro tournaments seems to be only 3 or 4 inches. I practice in my backyard with longer grass then that once and a while. I remember watching Tiger play a round at TPC Sawgrass on TV. I think he had 2 GIRs and didn't hit many fairways but still finished at 1 under par (or somewhere at par or under).

[sean_miller]

Scores aren't crazy low, and one of the longest players in the field just won his first tournament earlier this year. It might be changing the game, but it's definitely not ruining it. There are a lot of people that hate change, and they're always going to whine about something.

I think they should change something in order to maintain the integrity of some older courses - without having to trick up the greens and the rough. It's just my opinion so I won't be offended if people want to whine about it.

[Paradox]

the funny thing is that by lengthening courses, all it does it help the longer hitter out. In turn, its tougher for the guy who has supreme skill but less distance. A 500+ yard par 4 is just stupid.

Use the rough for its intended purpose, stop making first cuts around the fairways so that the ball stops before it gets into real rough. If you want to redesign courses..change bunkers, landing areas, add more undulations in the greens.

I never understand why these "course redesigns" that happen before a big tourney comes to some courses never involve changing things in a way that will make shots tougher, not longer. I think one of the biggest things a course could do to tame the distance would be to narrow common landing areas and force players to THINK about whether they want to shoot the gap or take less club.

[MJP]

I don't think there should be any extraneous restrictions on any equipment (outside of the standards and regulations in place now). Sure, they longer players are hitting it a little longer, but it's not some magical gain brought on by the equipment. Erik touched on one big piece of it - players now are more fit, in better shape, and stronger than guys from the 60's, 70's, and '80s. Golf isn't the only sport affected here. It's just the way it is. Still, if one player gets longer off the tee by spending more time in the gym, or more time practicing, or doing whatever, would it be fair to him for the advantage he worked so hard for be decreased so that instead of being 30 yards past his competitor, now he's only 10 yards ahead?

That's an excellent point.

Basketball was first played with a wooden bucket as the hoop. Do you think modern society would enjoy that game more than the game that is Basketball today? I mean, who would pay to go watch an NBA game where they can't even slam dunk.

[MJP]

the funny thing is that by lengthening courses, all it does it help the longer hitter out. In turn, its tougher for the guy who has supreme skill but less distance. A 500+ yard par 4 is just stupid.

One or even three 500+y par 4 isn't stupid for touring pros. All 500y par 4s would be stupid even for touring pros.

One or even three 425+y par 4s isn't stupid for an amateur. All 425+ par 4s would be stupid for amateurs. The point is the that to have a great course the holes have to be different. So it's not a big deal if holes are too long to reach in regulation even for an "expert" (scratch) player. Why? Because everyone has the same course to play. A very short par 4s with maximum trouble, a very short par 4 with minimum trouble, a very long par 4 with minimum trouble, a very long par 4 with maximum trouble, etc etc and then have the other half be "your typical par 4" But I do agree with your point about making the course more difficult. Harder pin locations, higher premium on accuracy off the tee (narrow fairways, deeper rough) are what the game needs, not length. That's what the teeboxes are for and why most courses have at least 3 (I've seen as many as 6 on one course).

[Zeph]

I'd rather see them making the courses harder by other means. Smaller greens, bunkers in front, higher rough, trees and bushes you don't want to mess with. We amateurs got more than enough challenges through todays courses. If they rolled the ball back 10-20 yards, I have to hit 5 or 3 wood into some par 3s. That's just wrong.

All of them on tour are not long either. Guys like Jim Furyk and Tim Clark don't hit it very far compared to the longest, and will suffer even more. It won't change the rankings in this game, the longest will still be longer than the shortest and have a shorter club into the green.

Are the scores too low? Nah, it's usually around 10 under on the PGA tournaments. You got the occasional easy course where they shoot 20 to 30 under, but those cases are rare.
Putting the flag in tougher spots also make a difference. If they really want to, they can keep doing what they have for some time now, move the champions tees where the pros play farther back. They hit it far no matter what, it is the amateurs that will suffer from something like this.

[iacas]

I continue to find it interesting that the longest par fours are never thought of as the "tricky" or "interesting" holes, but the short ones continue to beguile the PGA Tour players. They make an occasional eagle (wheee!) but they rarely make as many birdies as you'd think.

I also think it'd be fun to have a 400-yard hole with a big dogleg and some trees that make a chute. If you can hit a 40-yard cut or draw off the tee with your driver or 3-wood, you are rewarded with an approach shot of 100 yards. If not, you can lay up to the corner with a 4I and have 185 in. "Extreme Doglegs."