The Golf Ball "Problem": PGA Tour Players Hitting it Far is a Problem for All of Golf?

[iacas]

http://scoregolf.com/blog/rick-young/uihlein-challenges-nicklaus-usgara/

“Mike Davis has not told us (Acushnet) that he is close (there is the Vancouver Protocol of 2011 that we had assumed was in force) and he has not asked us for help if and when he gets there,” said Uihlein.

*Note: The Vancouver Protocol was a document that came out of a closed-door USGA and R&A forum with equipment manufacturers in Vancouver back in November, 2011. It was meant to assist with transparency to any proposed equipment rules changes or testing procedures while allowing participation of the OEM’s to the process.

[boogielicious]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

http://scoregolf.com/blog/rick-young/uihlein-challenges-nicklaus-usgara/

“Mike Davis has not told us (Acushnet) that he is close (there is the Vancouver Protocol of 2011 that we had assumed was in force) and he has not asked us for help if and when he gets there,” said Uihlein.

*Note: The Vancouver Protocol was a document that came out of a closed-door USGA and R&A forum with equipment manufacturers in Vancouver back in November, 2011. It was meant to assist with transparency to any proposed equipment rules changes or testing procedures while allowing participation of the OEM’s to the process.

Good article.  Thanks for posting. There are other ways to make courses hard besides distance. 

[Missouri Swede]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

http://scoregolf.com/blog/rick-young/uihlein-challenges-nicklaus-usgara/

“Mike Davis has not told us (Acushnet) that he is close (there is the Vancouver Protocol of 2011 that we had assumed was in force) and he has not asked us for help if and when he gets there,” said Uihlein.

*Note: The Vancouver Protocol was a document that came out of a closed-door USGA and R&A forum with equipment manufacturers in Vancouver back in November, 2011. It was meant to assist with transparency to any proposed equipment rules changes or testing procedures while allowing participation of the OEM’s to the process.

Did the article get pulled? When I go to that link, it has an article title and byline, and then a picture of Titleist balls, but no article text.

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

Did the article get pulled? When I go to that link, it has an article title and byline, and then a picture of Titleist balls, but no article text.

No.

Still there.

[MuniGrit]

13 hours ago, uitar9 said:

Was listening to K and Mc on PGA radio-John mentioned that it was interesting that Mr. Nicklaus was supporting a shorter ball, considering the $$ he has made building golf courses.

Can't remember who mentioned just toughening up a course can curb distance, if its actually a problem.

The game is not to long for me, its getting shorter as I age 

That's why he wants to shorten the courses. Golf course business is a tough business and he is probably losing money on a few courses due to having to buy extra real estate to initially start the course and more money to take care of the course.

[MuniGrit]

The tour just needs to make the rough more penal the farther down the course off the tee you are. Merion isn't a long course and it played a lot tougher than Erin Hills. If the touring pros aren't whining, it isn't tough enough for missing fairways/greens or the greens aren't tough enough.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

The tour just needs to make the rough more penal the farther down the course off the tee you are. Merion isn't a long course and it played a lot tougher than Erin Hills. If the touring pros aren't whining, it isn't tough enough for missing fairways/greens or the greens aren't tough enough.

Dumb solution IMO.

Longer hitters with the same ° accuracy are already punished more because their ball travels further offline. Now you want to further punish a skill? No thank you.

[joro]

So, you say "Dumb solution in my opinion" since when is hitting it long and wrong a skill, not in my opinion.  

Just now, joro said:

So, you say "Dumb solution in my opinion" since when is hitting it long and wrong a skill, not in my opinion.  

 

[MuniGrit]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

Dumb solution IMO.

Longer hitters with the same ° accuracy are already punished more because their ball travels further offline. Now you want to further punish a skill? No thank you.

The rough needs to be more penalizing for everyone. Premium on accuracy. What is your solution since I know you love to argue against everyone else's ideas.

Edited February 25, 2018 by MuniGrit

[phillyk]

28 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

The rough needs to be more penalizing for everyone. Premium on accuracy. What is your solution since I know you love to argue against everyone else's ideas.

Well, to start, there isn't a problem, so there's no need for a solution.  TGC said a stat, this morning, from Jack's day (I honestly don't remember the wording exactly) on strokes gained totals or similar(?) tee to green and that for him, it was 23, and they mentioned that no one has come close since.  My horrible memory, but still, it says that Jack is trying to change something that gave him his advantage over the field.  He certainly didn't have a problem hitting it further than everybody when he was winning, so why should he care whether the big hitters tend to win now?

If the problem is versus the course, I remember when the US Open was at Chambers Bay, where #1 and #18 switched pars day to day and there were par 4's that maybe should've been a par 5.  But, we all said that, ultimately, par doesn't matter at all, because every one is playing the same course.  The relation to par doesn't matter.  What does matter is how many strokes it takes you to get in the hole.  No matter the course, the goal is the same.  Not to break par but to shoot the lowest score possible.  They want courses to be tougher to protect par, but par is just a abstract number that ultimately doesn't matter.

Edited February 25, 2018 by phillyk

[uitar9]

5 minutes ago, phillyk said:

Well, to start, there isn't a problem, so there's no need for a solution.  TGC said a stat, this morning, from Jack's day (I honestly don't remember the wording exactly) on strokes gained totals or similar(?) tee to green and that for him, it was 23, and they mentioned that no one has come close since.  My horrible memory, but still, it says that Jack is trying to change something that gave him his advantage over the field.  He certainly didn't have a problem hitting it further than everybody when he was winning, so why should he care whether the big hitters tend to win now?

If the problem is versus the course, I remember when the US Open was at Chambers Bay, where #1 and #18 switched pars day to day and there were par 4's that maybe should've been a par 5.  But, we all said that, ultimately, par doesn't matter at all, because every one is playing the same course.  The relation to par doesn't matter.  What does matter is how many strokes it takes you to get in the hole.  No matter the course, the goal is the same.  Not to break par but to shoot the lowest score possible.  They want courses to be tougher to protect par, but par is just a abstract number that ultimately doesn't matter.

Forgetting the argument about whether the game is to long for a minute (ball, equipment, it is or it isn't): What is really driving this issue? It can't be driven by us hackers. Every course is to long for us. 

Do I really care that a pro who I see on TV hits driver and then wedge on a lot of PGA courses that I will never play. Nope. Doesn't use 4 through 7 iron. Who really cares?

I hear Haney say everyone wants to see the long hitters; Home runs. Nobody wants to see bunt singles. Hitting a ball 320 yards, often into trouble, then hitting a great recovery appears to be todays pro game. Why is that too long to us hackers?

So who is really driving this argument? Is it money? TV ratings down? The PGA seems to be doing alright. Even average tour players are making a million a year.  

It seems to parallel the argument that the game is to slow. Too slow for whom?

Is society becoming that ADD? Perhaps the solution is to show nothing live, two hours max, just the highlights, that would give us more time to run around 18 holes in under three hours, drive it 320 and always score -20.

[dennyjones]

The question stipulated "all of golf".   We don't hear the issue with the LPGA, the Web.com tour, amateur tours and the weekend warrior.   I don't believe there is a problem with the ball going too long.    Can you imagine the major debacle of there being two different balls, one for the pros and one for everyone else, it wouldn't happen.   If they scale back the distance on the golf balls, you'll see somebody in the golf ball industry make a golf ball for everyone but the pros.  It would be a best seller.  

[Lihu]

6 hours ago, dennyjones said:

The question stipulated "all of golf".   We don't hear the issue with the LPGA, the Web.com tour, amateur tours and the weekend warrior.   I don't believe there is a problem with the ball going too long.    Can you imagine the major debacle of there being two different balls, one for the pros and one for everyone else, it wouldn't happen.   If they scale back the distance on the golf balls, you'll see somebody in the golf ball industry make a golf ball for everyone but the pros.  It would be a best seller.  

Ironically, web.com players hit farther on average

[Missouri Swede]

9 hours ago, Missouri Swede said:

Did the article get pulled? When I go to that link, it has an article title and byline, and then a picture of Titleist balls, but no article text.

 

9 hours ago, iacas said:

No.

Still there.

Got it. Thanks.

Spoiler

When I got around to looking at it on my MacBook Pro this evening, it shows up just fine. But on my iPad and iPhone there is still no text for the article showing up. Weird.

 

[iacas]

10 hours ago, joro said:

So, you say "Dumb solution in my opinion" since when is hitting it long and wrong a skill, not in my opinion.

You didn't read what I wrote, @joro.

If you hit it 3° offline and hit it 270 yards, you'll find the fairway x% of the time. (Say… 65%.)
If you hit it 3° offline and hit it 320 yards, you're going to find the fairway x-y% of the time. (Say… 50%.)

Long hitters - with the same "accuracy" - are already punished more. Why would you want to EXTRA punish them, for expressing their skill (the ability to swing fast)?

I never said "long and wrong." That's basically always punished already.

10 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

The rough needs to be more penalizing for everyone. Premium on accuracy. What is your solution since I know you love to argue against everyone else's ideas.

I don't need to come up with a solution because I don't see a problem.

Guys just played a golf course playing only about 7100 yards shot -8 to WIN the tournament. The scoring average most days was 72, 73 and change. Weather was warm, there was a little wind, and conditions were good.

I don't see a "problem." I've been pretty clear about that.

So I don't have a "solution" except to keep things as they are.

And, as always, you're welcome and even encouraged to argue back.

[MuniGrit]

8 under wonthe tournament because that golf course punishes misses just like they should do at every tournament with the rough. The thing at the Honda is the misses end up wet a you make double or worse.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, MuniGrit said:

8 under wonthe tournament because that golf course punishes misses just like they should do at every tournament with the rough. The thing at the Honda is the misses end up wet a you make double or worse.

Okay.

7100 yards, -8 winning score. That's my point.

I don't see a problem.

[iacas]