Golf balls or golf courses.....which should be altered?

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

Neither. One of the great things about golf is that amateurs get to play the same game as the pros, notwithstanding the difference in course setups for tourneys.

Instead, if it's decided that a shorter course should be brought back into the rotation, make the risk for trying to bomb it seriously penal. That doesn't take redesign, they just have to grow some grass. I don't care how good a player is, hitting out of 3-4" thick grass and into hourglass fairways will slow them down.

Bingo.

Also, instead of building new tee boxes fifty yards behind the old ones, how about building them beside them?

On a hole that doglegs to the right, the "Tour" tee box goes ten yards or so to the right of the other tee boxes.  Change the angle slightly and you make the hole play a lot harder.  If you're going to bomb driver, you better be able to bend it left to right or you'll be in the trees.

[SamCreamer]

I don't see why they would change the golf ball... To me it makes no sense. The technological advancement is amazing and to MOST amateur golfers, distance is extremely important. Even for me, there is no better feeling than ripping a drive 280 down the middle of the fairway. How would I feel if you made that drive 28 yards shorter? Probably not very well. New courses shouldn't be as long, to make it more enjoyable for amateurs

[iacas]

Originally Posted by RayG

There is almost no expense involved for ALL the major ball producers to bring out a USGA approved "Tour Ball". The technology is basically in the cores and dimples. The % of dimple coverage is up to some ridiculous amount these days, when just a few years ago it was about 85-90% that produced more drag and less distance. The companies could go back to their records, pull out a particular formula from say, 1990 or whatever and ramp up a production line in about an day. They have all the die's, formulas for the core and covers so it shouldn't be a problem. And to be honest- they would sell plenty to 'average consumers' who would want to prove how they 'match up' with the pros using the same ball.

The major things that all the companies would need to match is dimple percentage and the ball's launch characteristics. dimple shape and durometer would be up to the manufacturer.

There's a lot more to it than that. The first urethane, solid-core balls from 2000 are not significantly shorter than the balls we have now. And the Overall Distance Standard has remained the same, so it's not like balls are suddenly going farther.

The old Balata balls were slower at the expense of spinning more, and the old Pinnacles from 1997 went almost as far as Pro V1x do today. The Pro V1x is just a Pinnacle from 1997 with a softer cover and mantle to get short-game spin. That's it.

Changing the dimples won't have nearly the effect you think it will have, and manufacturers could add distance back in other ways. They already hold balls back because they have to satisfy the ODS.

[LovinItAll]

I don't see why they would change the golf ball... To me it makes no sense. The technological advancement is amazing and to MOST amateur golfers, distance is extremely important. Even for me, there is no better feeling than ripping a drive 280 down the middle of the fairway .How would I feel if you made that drive 28 yards shorter? Probably not very well. New courses shouldn't be as long, to make it more enjoyable for amateurs

Welcome to my world. I guess I'm the only guy on the panet that still hits it around 250, though yesterday I jacked one about 290.....after it hit the concrete 200 yard marker and bounced thirty feet in the air. Off topic, I do have to wonder, though. My swing speed is down 5mph from 6 years ago, but I'm still hitting it in the same place. I think they redesigned the ProV sometime around then (could be wrong).I may have to breakdown and try to hit one of those watermelon 460cc'ers.

[newtogolf]

C'mon Lovinit, everyone on the internet hits their drives 320+ yards.

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

Welcome to my world. I guess I'm the only guy on the panet that still hits it around 250, though yesterday I jacked one about 290.....after it hit the concrete 200 yard marker and bounced thirty feet in the air.

Off topic, I do have to wonder, though. My swing speed is down 5mph from 6 years ago, but I'm still hitting it in the same place. I think they redesigned the ProV sometime around then (could be wrong).I may have to breakdown and try to hit one of those watermelon 460cc'ers.

[Doodaddy]

I don't see why there has to be change either way.

Let the pros play on a shorter distance/easier course. Sure, their scores are likely to be incredible, but so what? The course is still relative to the player at the time and the players are vying against each other to win, not the course.

If there was a PGA tournament on a local course for me that I may struggle to break 100 on, the PGA scores would be lightyears under par, but who cares? It's fun to watch. I personally wouldn't feel any better about myself if the pros outscored me by 30 strokes instead of 60 because we neutered their ability. The pros are the best players in the world. It's indisputable. Why are we trying to make them less able and more like us?

The only sport I can think of that limits their players compared to the casual hobbyist is baseball (wooden bat), but that is more of a safety issue than anything.

[TomK82]

Don't change the ball that would be bad for everyone, shorter courses is where its at

[ThatGolfGuy]

I say neither. Just becuase the top 1% can breeze though the course what about the 99%. Changing the courses or the balls makes it more difficult(at least for me) to find the course enjoyable. I know on PINGs website it tells how there should be different levels of balls for different handicaps. So its enjoyable for everyone and I agree.

[joekelly]

Has anyone here played the Cayman Islands course that Jack speaks of and for which he invented the special 'short' ball? Seems to me the entire thing is relative. We learn to like what we have experienced, not necessarily what is the best.

[The Tin Man]

Those of us that practice with Almost Golf Balls have already limited our ball to fit our practice area.

I wouldn't mind have a selection of tour quality reduced distance balls available. It would save me a lot of money on course fees by making the local Ex. 9 playable with long irons and driver. (I could stay in practice with my long irons and driver by playing and not having to use the range.)

[Nutter]

Neither, it's not like they're hitting wedge into every hole.  Everyone's basically playing the same exact stuff so nothing should change unless they start having to shoot -30 to win

[WUTiger]

We have dozens and dozens of models of golf balls available. So, why not have a ball that goes 10% less in distance for the Tour pros and competition amateurs? Ever longer courses will eat up more real estate, and maintaining extra tee boxes and more turf acreage will increase course maintenance costs. Not a good turn in making golf more environmentally sustainable.

When somebody who just makes a PGA Tour cut scores more birdies in one week than the rest of us will make all year, it's clear that they have a different game than most of us. So, give them a different type of ball.