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

[Marty2019]

I haven't read all 17 pages of this topic, so I apologize if this has been covered already. 

If the golf powers that be mandated a reduced-performance golf ball for the PGA Tour, I don't see how that can ever be implemented successfully.   

1) How do you keep some player from playing a non-conforming ball?  Do they keep all the balls in a safe somewhere before the tournament starts, and then pass them out to the players?  Do you have the players take all their balls in for testing prior to the tournament?  How do you keep a player from slipping a ProV1 into his bag and playing with that? 

2) What happens to all the golf ball endorsements?  Player A says, I play a Titleist ProV1, except now he can't say that, because he has to use the reduced ball, and can't even practice with anything but the reduced ball.  There's no point in him ever even hitting a ProV1 at a driving range if he can't use it in tournament play.  

Plus, how many players have "Titleist" on their hat right now?  Now they'll have to say, "I use the Titleist dumbed-down ball.  Well, what kind of endorsement is that?  I don't want the Titleist dumbed-down ball. 

And how would the golf ball manufacturers compete with dumbed-down balls?  "My dumbed down ball is better than the competition's dumbed down ball?"  How does that work?  It can't go farther.  That would be against the rules.  They would all have to make the exact same ball. 

3) What ball would be used in amateur tournaments?  These guys hit the ball a long way, and some of them want to make the tour.   Is he going to have his 5-iron go 210 as an amateur, but when he gets to the tour, he has to re-calibrate all his clubs because now his 5-iron will only go 180? 

A governing body should never pass a regulation that is impossible to implement or enforce. 

It would be FAR FAR easier to just lengthen the courses the pros play, or set them up differently, or just live with lower scores, than to mandate a reduction in golf ball performance. 

I wonder if these guys have ever even thought about how such a regulation would be implemented or enforced. 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Marty2019

[MarvChamp]

I have read all the pages. I voted a long time ago. No, there is no problem. As a senior amateur, I  certainly do not hit the ball as far as thought I did until I seriously began measuring. Most of us don't, IMHO. See the Golf Digest article on Amateur Distances. But before my injuries, I broke 90 twice (or 3 times? I forget) this year using my UGI clubs, a modern ball, and tees set for my usual driving distance (once was from the "Regular" tees). I also practiced and had coaching. All these things, technology and my limited bettering skill included, have helped me enjoy the game again after years away. Thank you. Love TST! Best regards to all, -Marv

[joro]

2 minutes ago, Marty2019 said:

I haven't read all 17 pages of this topic, so I apologize if this has been covered already. 

If the golf powers that be mandated a reduced-performance golf ball for the PGA Tour, I don't see how that can ever be implemented successfully.   

1) How do you keep some player from playing a non-conforming ball?  Do they keep all the balls in a safe somewhere before the tournament starts, and then pass them out to the players?  Do you have the players take all their balls in for testing prior to the tournament?  How do you keep a player from slipping a ProV1 into his bag and playing with that? 

2) What happens to all the golf ball endorsements?  Player A says, I play a Titleist ProV1, except now he can't say that, because if he has to use the reduced ball, and can't even practice with anything but the reduced ball.  There's no point in him ever even hitting a ProV1 at a driving range if he can't use it in tournament play.  

Plus, how many players have "Titleist" on their hat right now?  Now they'll have to say, "I use the Titleist dumbed-down ball.  Well, what kind of endorsement is that?  I don't want the Titleist dumbed-down ball. 

And how would the golf ball manufacturers compete with dumbed-down balls?  "My dumbed down ball is better than the competition's dumbed down ball?"  How does that work?  It can't go farther.  That would be against the rules.  They would all have to make the exact same ball. 

3) What ball would be used in amateur tournaments?  These guys hit the ball a long way, and some of them want to make the tour.   Is he going to have his 5-iron go 210 as an amateur, but when he gets to the tour, he has to re-calibrate all his clubs because now his 5-iron will only go 180? 

A governing body should never pass a regulation that is impossible to implement or enforce. 

It would be FAR FAR easier to just lengthen the courses the pros play, or set them up differently, than to mandate a reduction in golf ball performance. 

 

 

Whew Marty, that was a mouthful.     First of all IF they ever "Dumb down" the Ball, which I do not believe will ever happen or needs to happen if they just added some things to make the Pros, and  that is who it is all about, hit something other than long and straight.

All balls have to submitted to the USGA for approval and are put on a non conforming list if they do not meet the requirements and usually, at least when I played they ask you what you are playing.    Same with Drivers.

There are people on the first and 10th tee looking into your bag and recording what you are playing,  that is Ball, Irons, Woods, Putter, etc and sell this information to people, usually  Manufacturers to check on their staff players or whatever.    I can't recall their name but they have been around for years.

That being said and that is what it was 49 yrs ago and I belief  still today.      Anyway, about the Ball.     There would be no difference than todays ball except it would be limited, and that is no big deal, they would just go t o the new one in their practice and game,,,, No big deal.

I want to make it clear that I do not care about the Ball, but I do think the course designs could be more Penal for the Tour.      Lets face it, 20 and more under Par is obscene.    

Happy Holidays and I hope that helps a bit.

 

 

[Phil McGleno]

@joro-You get to have an opinion like everyone else. Problem is you shout down other peoples opinions as if they are from on high while you behave the same way-That your opinion matters more because basically because you are old.

Congratulations.-I too am old. I too played many PGA Tour events back in my day.-Guess what? The guys now are miles better than we were. MILES better.

Has equipment gotten better?-Yeah and unfortunately that's to the detriment. Had equipment not gotten better Tiger might have 20 majors by now-Or 23 if you count his Amateurs like ol Jackie used to until Tiger got 3 of em.

Everyone does get to have an opinion here-Yes. But that includes the young and the old. So get off your own lawn unless you can actually participate in the discussion without just saying you are old and so what you say is right.

First of all it is the Darrell survey.

2 minutes ago, joro said:

I want to make it clear that I do not care about the Ball, but I do think the course designs could be more Penal for the Tour.      Lets face it, 20 and more under Par is obscene.

What is obscene about it? That is what the winner shoots and not at every PGA Tour event either. Guys shot those scores on the courses we played sometimes.

They are better than the guys we played against buddy. Everything is better. Every sport is better now than then. Nobody wants to watch a U.S. Open every week. More Penal, ha.

[iacas]

30 minutes ago, joro said:

All balls have to submitted to the USGA for approval and are put on a non conforming list if they do not meet the requirements and usually, at least when I played they ask you what you are playing.    Same with Drivers.

Right. If they ever did bifurcate, players on the PGA Tour wouldn't be "sneaking in a Pro V1." That's a non-issue.

1 hour ago, joro said:

I can read the frustration you are having by being chopped about everything you post by those that have no clue.

Since that's directed at me… I've gotta ask: "No clue about what?" Be specific.

1 hour ago, joro said:

If it ain't science it ain"t Golf.

What argument have I made for "science" here? About the only "science" argument I've made is that:

• Players have access to launch monitors now and can optimize their launch conditions. Simple undeniable statement of fact.
• Science advances, and equipment is better now. Simple undeniable statement of fact.
• We better understand scoring now, and how to score, and so on. Another simple undeniable statement of fact.

None of those statements are qualitative. None say "golf is better now." PLAYERS are better now, I believe, partly because of the advances science has made. But other than that, I'm as non-scientific when I play golf as anyone. I hit 8-irons from 122 when it feels like the right shot, even though 8I is my 151 club.

1 hour ago, joro said:

In our days, the days of Arnie, Snead, Jack and so on it was totally different.

@Jack Watson is likely not as old as you seem to think he is…

1 hour ago, joro said:

The equipment was different, there were no "Gurus" out there in the wings waiting to destroy a game for their own personal gaines, and we learned how to do it ourselves. Club choices, wind, perfect yardage was determined by us, no a walking computer they call a caddy.

@joro, all due respect intended for who you were and who you are now… but what's that got to do with the topic at hand?

1 hour ago, joro said:

People should not comment on those days when they have no idea. I had the opportunity to tee it  up with some of these greats and see what they did, and in some cases it was amazing, and you had to more skill which is something today they just don't get.

Today's players are better than the players against whom you played.

1 hour ago, joro said:

This is supposed to be a discussion board and with open minds and I thought maybe members would be interested in what we used to do, but I wonder.

Everyone gets to have an opinion here. Just as you can disagree with mine, I can disagree with yours. Don't be upset just because we (or even just "I") disagree with your opinion.

[joro]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

Right. If they ever did bifurcate, players on the PGA Tour wouldn't be "sneaking in a Pro V1." That's a non-issue.

Since that's directed at me… I've gotta ask: "No clue about what?" Be specific.

What argument have I made for "science" here? About the only "science" argument I've made is that:

• Players have access to launch monitors now and can optimize their launch conditions. Simple undeniable statement of fact.
• Science advances, and equipment is better now. Simple undeniable statement of fact.
• We better understand scoring now, and how to score, and so on. Another simple undeniable statement of fact.

None of those statements are qualitative. None say "golf is better now." PLAYERS are better now, I believe, partly because of the advances science has made. But other than that, I'm as non-scientific when I play golf as anyone. I hit 8-irons from 122 when it feels like the right shot, even though 8I is my 151 club.

@Jack Watson is likely not as old as you seem to think he is…

@joro, all due respect intended for who you were and who you are now… but what's that got to do with the topic at hand?

Today's players are better than the players against whom you played.

Everyone gets to have an opinion here. Just as you can disagree with mine, I can disagree with yours. Don't be upset just because we (or even just "I") disagree with your opinion.

I am not upset I know everyone has an opinion.    Please don't read into it, I named nobody,so don't take it persoally, please.   

[Lihu]

FWIW, I bought a few potentially used Tour Balata 100 balls from a local store that I sorted out of a pile of balls.

My son and I played a 9 hole executive the other day with them. We both shot low 40s. These balls were just a bit better than hitting range balls on the course. My son teed off with a 3i Cleveland CG Tour blade. He consistently hit it 230 off the tee. I teed off with my Tour Selection circa 1980 3 metal wood 15 degree loft with steel shaft hitting about the same distance. No modern drivers wood or hybrids  were employed. I used my Ping i20 clubs for approaches, and my son just used those old style blades. Not muscle backs.

So, the only thing we noticed different is that blisters started forming on the balls after a few  holes. Possibly just getting too old? They were possibly used as well.

Don't ask why I bought these, but apparently the balls are not what you'd call "collector" items. 

My distances were shorter with the 30 year old stuff, but not significantly score altering. Shots did feel good off the face though.

[Jack Watson]

Nicklaus?  Norman?  Nicklaus won a long drive with the old gear at 341.  

Chad Campbell averaged around 290.  With old gear 243.  Snedeker couldn't break 80 with old gear.  50-60 yards distance disparity between new and old.  Seems to me the new guys were the ones mishitting old gear.

Davis Love hit over 400 with new gear.  He's another who wasn't hitting low spinners with persimmon.  Tiger also.

I do agree though about Tiger maybe winning more if the new equipment had not come out.  At that time he had more skill and the gear leveled the playing field somewhat.  

Maybe this was said in haste...

13 hours ago, iacas said:

They didn't. They hit down. They launched the ball too low, and with too much spin.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Chad Campbell averaged around 290.  With old gear 243.  Snedeker couldn't break 80 with old gear.  50-60 yards distance disparity between new and old.  Seems to me the new guys were the ones mishitting old gear.

Yeah, @Jack Watson, it's perfectly fair to compare a single, one-off round where a guy just tries the old stuff on a lark to guys who grew up playing the stuff.

Give the PGA Tour guys a few weeks and they'd sort out hitting the old equipment. If you don't think that's accurate, your opinion is worth less than you've revealed it to be since joining the site.

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Maybe this was said in haste...

Nope.

[cutchemist42]

I just dont understand....are we doing this to enhance the tv product, because I dont see how dumbing down distances makes it better.

[iacas]

54 minutes ago, cutchemist42 said:

I just dont understand....are we doing this to enhance the tv product, because I dont see how dumbing down distances makes it better.

I don't know.

As far as I can figure, some people are upset at how far 0.001% of golfers hit the ball, and the fact that the challenge of the original architects is being ruined by guys hitting 9I when previous generations had to hit a 5I into the green.

So far as I can tell that's almost the entire argument.

Others say that amateurs drive the ball too far too, but that's not the ball's fault at all: a 1997 Pinnacle hit with modern equipment goes just as far.

[Patch]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't know.

As far as I can figure, some people are upset at how far 0.001% of golfers hit the ball, and the fact that the challenge of the original architects is being ruined by guys hitting 9I when previous generations had to hit a 5I into the green.

So far as I can tell that's almost the entire argument.

Others say that amateurs drive the ball too far too, but that's not the ball's fault at all: a 1997 Pinnacle hit with modern equipment goes just as far.

I agree that way too may amateurs, and the rest of the weekend warriors try to do what the pro golfers do. That or at least use the pros as a measuring stick. We amateurs play at the game. The professionals work at it. It's a fun vs pay check thing.

Myself, I know I am not capable playing like a pro, so what they can do on a golf course, has very little to do with me and my game. 

The distance they hit the ball only effects their games, and not the game as a whole. 

[billchao]

1 hour ago, cutchemist42 said:

I just dont understand....are we doing this to enhance the tv product, because I dont see how dumbing down distances makes it better.

I mostly see it as some people don't like it when things change. There's more to it than that but I'm not going to break it down any further.

---

I still don't see how this is a problem for all of golf. They're not changing my local courses because the pros hit the ball so long.... because the pros aren't playing at those courses. These courses are managed based on the people who play them and how far they hit as well as the budgets they have. The pro game has no effect on them. It's that simple.

[Lihu]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't know.

As far as I can figure, some people are upset at how far 0.001% of golfers hit the ball, and the fact that the challenge of the original architects is being ruined by guys hitting 9I when previous generations had to hit a 5I into the green.

So far as I can tell that's almost the entire argument.

Others say that amateurs drive the ball too far too, but that's not the ball's fault at all: a 1997 Pinnacle hit with modern equipment goes just as far.

Not only that, but. . .

 

3 hours ago, billchao said:

I mostly see it as some people don't like it when things change. There's more to it than that but I'm not going to break it down any further.

---

I still don't see how this is a problem for all of golf. They're not changing my local courses because the pros hit the ball so long.... because the pros aren't playing at those courses. These courses are managed based on the people who play them and how far they hit as well as the budgets they have. The pro game has no effect on them. It's that simple.

So, they want to change the ball for everyone because of something that applies to that 0.001% of golfers who play something like 1% of the courses in the world?

Gee , that's sounds really smart!

[iacas]

I'm quoting this (but not putting it in a quote because it would collapse) from Golf Club Atlas:

Question for those in favor of rollback and/or bifurcation:

Do you believe golf club and ball technology can improve ad infinitum? Do you believe that given enough time, the distance golfers can hit a golf ball will increase without limit?

If not, do you believe we are nearing the limits? Does the increase in injury to professional golfers - especially related to the back - give you reason to believe we're getting close to the plateau of golf equipment re: distance?

Or do you genuinely believe that there's a club/ball combination possible under the current tech rules that could allow pros to hit it, say, 500 yards off the tee? 600 yards? 1,000 yards?

~ ~ ~

Pure anecdote here:

I played golf today in chilly (but not unpleasantly so) Connecticut today with clubs I used about 12-15 years ago, including a 350cc TaylorMade r540 driver. It was eye-opening how a heelward mishit would produce a short, spinny, go-nowhere fade. I'm talking 25-30 yards shorter than an equivalent mishit with the 460cc driver I currently game.

Because small mishits don't really mean much with the 460cc max-sized drivers, and they've been around for the better part of a generation, we have a generation of 460cc-native elite golfers who have built their golf swings with the knowledge that they can swing for the fences due to the size of contemporary drivers' sweet spots. I bet that if the governing bodies went to, say, a new 350cc limit, it would solve a lot of the problems. By necessity, pros would have to dial back their swings most of the time, fearing real consequences for an off-center hit. There'd be a little more balance between the skill of driving it far and the skill of driving it straight.

Is this a more salable change than the ball? It certainly seems like an easier one to make from the seat of the OEMs, who could continue to innovate and market new driver tech, just within new parameters.

Without giving it too much thought I would support a roll-back on driver head size, while I do not support a roll-back on the ball at all.

[phillyk]

So Tiger just said in his pre-media interview, that he wants to roll the ball back for every level of pro.  So even if we played in Pro-Ams or any event at any stage, we would have to use a limited flight ball while all amateurs could use normal equipment. 

I don't get it.  Of the however many pros there are, how many average above 300?  Not a very high percentage at all.  Sure, if just the PGA Tour enacted a limited flight ball in all their tournaments, they could do so.  Everybody is playing the same course, same ball, sure go for it.  That's the line though.  It's still stupid.  Leave everybody else out of it.

EDIT:  So I just had a quick conversation with my course superintendent who has helped the crews at many PGA events including the Masters for a couple years, about this topic.  He actually favors a limited ball for just these events.  He said it is not simply adding another tee box.  He said you'd have to open new avenues in the trees, different mowing in landing zones, new irrigation, new cart paths, etc.  Basically saying that lengthening it a certain percentage means tinkering that same percentage in all other areas of the course to accommodate.

I'm still not nearly sold on this, but it was interesting to hear his thoughts.

Edited November 28, 2017 by phillyk

[NM Golf]

Rolling the ball back is ridiculous, I have to ask, why? People watch the TOUR boys to see them bomb it and hit ridiculously good shots. Isn't that why we watch ALL professional sports? I personally don't want to watch the US Open at Bethpage on a weekly basis. Birdies and eagles are fun to watch, watching a bunch of guys grind around the course shooting even par is okay on occasion, but I don't want to watch that every week. 

As far as the players then and now argument is concerned, can you tell me any professional sport where the players were better 30-40 years ago than they are now? I can't. The advances in all sport when it comes to nutrition, strength training, complexity of game planning, and just overall bigger faster and stronger human beings. Its not even close. 

Look at the 1985 Chicago Bears. Many consider them to be one of the best teams in NFL history. The wouldn't compete today. For one they are too small. Do you realize the heaviest offensive lineman on that team weighed 277lbs. They only had one player on the whole roster over 300lbs. The current bears do not have an offensive lineman UNDER 315lbs. Hell their TEs weigh more than either of the tackles on the 1985 team. Comes down to this todays athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, and better than they were back then. That includes the PGA Tour. 

We love to sit and reminisce about the past and how great things were. And they were great at the time. But things continue to evolve and to fight it is futile. Just enjoy it. Watch these fantastic athletes do amazing things.

Edited November 28, 2017 by NM Golf

[saevel25]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 12:49 PM, iacas said:

Without giving it too much thought I would support a roll-back on driver head size, while I do not support a roll-back on the ball at all.

I like this much more than influencing the golf ball significantly.