Limited flight ball, would you play it?

[Golfingdad]

Jacks idea makes sense to me because while most courses certainly have limitations on getting longer, there really aren't any limitations on making courses shorter.  They would have to re-rate all of the courses, though, and we'd all have to up a set or two.  No biggie, I'd be up for it.  Everything's relative anyway.

[ScouseJohnny]

Quote

If the PGA implements a restricted flight ball for the tour pros, would you want hang with the pros and play the ball or stick to your current ball and play the game the same way you do now?

Is the PGA Tour likely to ban Noodles? If so, I'm buggered - no, wait, I'm not a tour player, I'm a 14 handicapper playing municipals. So unless the R&A/USGA go to war with the Noodle (soft), all is well.

Edited April 7, 2016 by ScouseJohnny

[Natural Patrick]

On 4/6/2016 at 7:34 PM, Fourputt said:

My ball already has limited flight, I don't need any help. 

X2

[Valleygolfer]

 

As mentioned, Jack Nicklaus has been a proponent of limited the flight of golf balls since the mid 80's (the Cayman ball and golf course).  After doing a little research, it seems that the flight is limited by reducing the weight of the ball.  If this is his recommendati0on, it won't work because the elements we play in (wind) will wreak havoc on any semblance the flight of a lighter ball.  It would be impossible to hit into the wind and without enough weight you couldn't even hit a bump and run.  I think that is what submarined it the first time around.

John

The way technology is today, I am sure a ball could be produced to weigh the same but have materials that do not fly as far.

[saevel25]

31 minutes ago, Valleygolfer said:

The way technology is today, I am sure a ball could be produced to weigh the same but have materials that do not fly as far.

Just change the driver and irons. 

http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/TPX3007-initial-velocity-test-procedure.pdf

Quote

5. Initial Velocity

The initial velocity of the ball must not exceed the limit specified under the conditions set forth in the Initial Velocity Standard for golf balls on file with the USGA

Yea they could limit the ball speed if they wanted. Still the ball speed is capped anyways. 

[Club Rat]

I don't feel it's necessary to set limits on equipment.

Golf courses could add bunkers, native areas or plant trees to make target zones riskier on a few holes to throttle back players on tee shots.

[iacas]

On April 6, 2016 at 11:15 AM, jkelley9 said:

However, I'm 100% on board with Jack. It makes complete sense. Less acreage, less cost for an "expensive" sport, which would hopefully translate to more "nicer" courses (better maintained). More time playing holes, with seemingly the same skills transplanting to the new ball. And bringing the original challenges of older courses/designs back into the light. 

You'd be surprised at how little that matters. Reducing the length of the course reduces maintenance costs proportionately less: the expensive things to maintain are tees, greens, and bunkers. They'd still all exist. Caring for a little bit less fairway isn't going to reduce costs much.

[jkelley9]

40 minutes ago, iacas said:

You'd be surprised at how little that matters. Reducing the length of the course reduces maintenance costs proportionately less: the expensive things to maintain are tees, greens, and bunkers. They'd still all exist. Caring for a little bit less fairway isn't going to reduce costs much.

Interesting. I may go digging around for info online regarding maintenance costs of a course because your comment peaks my curiosity. I always just assumed the fairways, bunkers and greens were the most expensive to maintain - only because it costs me ~$160-200/year to fertilize my lawn 8,000 sqft lawn, and about $100 per month to water it. So that's roughly ~$1,300/yr or $0.162/sqft/yr. At say 150 acre for a course = ~6.5M sqft. x $0.162 = roughly $1M at my home depot/residential prices. For a local muni I figured even half that at reduced rates would be a huge chunk of change on their bottom line. Not to mention all the labor to do all of that. 

But in looking online I see most of it is labor, and an average fertilizer/insecticide budget is roughly ~10% of the total budget. So I see your point.

[Buckeyebowman]

A couple of other things have occurred to me since I posted to this thread. Back when Nicklaus was in his prime he played maybe one of the worst golf balls ever made, the Macgregor Tourney! Other pros told him to change, but he wouldn't. He played Macgregor clubs and was loyal, so the ball came along with it.

Also, I never remember hearing any talk about Jack's clubhead speed or ball speed off the face of the driver. My guess is that the technology to measure that just didn't exist at the time, or would have been so expensive that the cost was prohibitive. Heck, launch monitors aren't exactly cheap even now. The only measurable they had to go by was how far you actually hit it.

[Grumpter]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 0:04 PM, iacas said:

You'd be surprised at how little that matters. Reducing the length of the course reduces maintenance costs proportionately less: the expensive things to maintain are tees, greens, and bunkers. They'd still all exist. Caring for a little bit less fairway isn't going to reduce costs much.

How about property taxes? Only through rumor I heard a rinky dink 9 hole course around me had a $10k per month property tax bill. I'm not sure how accurate that is. I can only imagine what an 18 hole course with decent space pays per month around here. I swear one year I am going to try gauge as accurately as possible how much of what I make and spend goes to taxes. The only thing stopping me is knowing how depressing it would be to see that final total.

[jkelley9]

28 minutes ago, Grumpter said:

How about property taxes? Only through rumor I heard a rinky dink 9 hole course around me had a $10k per month property tax bill. I'm not sure how accurate that is. I can only imagine what an 18 hole course with decent space pays per month around here. I swear one year I am going to try gauge as accurately as possible how much of what I make and spend goes to taxes. The only thing stopping me is knowing how depressing it would be to see that final total.

Lol I've had the exact. same. thought. Except even just adding it all up would be "taxing" lol (physically/mentally).

[Pretzel]

If they change the rule for one group, they're going to change it for both. That said, I would only switch if I was required to for tournaments. 

It's silly to arbitrarily "roll back" the restrictions that have already been put in place. The courses are already the length that they are and length is not the only thing that makes a golf course challenging. Even so, it doesn't matter if the players score -5 or -20, the winner will still be the best golfer out there that week.

On 4/7/2016 at 10:04 AM, iacas said:

the expensive things to maintain are tees, greens, and bunkers.

Bunkers are deceptively expensive. On the surface they seem like a "set it and forget it" proposition: dig a pit and fill it with sand. Then you realize that every morning you have to go out and rake each of those bunkers, paying people to drive machines that you also pay for around to prepare them for the day. Then it rains. If it rains a lot, or the sand just decides not to behave, then you have to re-do the entire drainage system, costing you thousands in materials, labor, and rented equipment. The sand also doesn't stay put, it likes to leave the bunker for a new home two counties over whenever a golfer so much as sneezes near a sand trap. The sand used in bunkers isn't cheap either, and courses need to have large piles of it on hand to replenish bunkers as the sand vacates the bunkers.