Consider What a 20% Ball Roll-Back Would Mean

[p1n9183]

Yeap, it´s ok the way it is. Only a few percent of players destroy golf courses because of their length from the tee with driver. Good for them! don´t punish the regular golfer for that.

[shanksalot]

They need a tour ball rolled back 20%, but not for the guys like most of us who play the game for enjoyment. If they rolled back the ball they would lose a lot of the older players who can not move up any further in their play it forward suggestions. Jack may be spot on for the elite players of the game, but not for the average player it just would not work. Plus can you imagine someone just taking up the sport? I doubt they would last very long with the high cost of the game today.

[Piz]

20% wouldn't be such a big deal; especially if you chose Pill A.  

[jsgolfer]

Would be the death knell to golf.  Who wants to hit the ball 20% shorter, I don't want to hit the ball 1% shorter.  Us mere mortals are always searching for more distance.  I don't think the ball goes too far, it's that there are more better golfers.   Yes the equipment and balls have improved, but you still have to have a great swing in order to shoot low numbers.  And add in better training (both swing and fitness), you just get more golfers that are really good.  Much more than when I started playing in 1980.  

There have always been guys who have bombed drives, even with Persimmon Drivers and Woods back in the day and stock shafts. 

I never understand why so many people pine for the golf ole days.  

 

 

[nevets88]

I'm out of the loop regarding this 20% and had to look it up, catching up. Here are some pieces hopefully I'm not reposting articles that have been linked to in this site many times already.

http://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/nicklaus-eager-help-usga-rein-golf-ball-distance/

https://www.golfadvisor.com/articles/nicklaus-ball-rollback-17680.htm#.WpYK0QnU4yI.twitter

http://read.nxtbook.com/global_golf_post/global_golf_post/20180226/index.html#nugent_col

[jkelley9]

Well I guess I'm in the minority opinion here, since I honestly like the idea of "rolling the ball back." 

It seems all relative, to me. 

But then I'm not the guy who would be butt-hurt about hitting it shorter. It wouldn't bother me in the least, so long as I'm in an even playing field. 

Sure course dynamics changes, but I feel like it could be managed.

It's not a perfect solution, surely. Far from it. I'm just saying it would be kind of nice not having to walk so far to get to my drive! lol.

I also have zero problem playing more forward tees.

But I would feel for the seniors and ladies, if courses didn't put in new (shorter) boxes.

[NJpatbee]

I am a member of the USGA but if they instituted a 20% roll back on ball distance they would cease to be relevant.  

[mvmac]

Heck while we're at it, let's roll back the clubs!

 

47 minutes ago, shanksalot said:

They need a tour ball rolled back 20%, but not for the guys like most of us who play the game for enjoyment.

You think the tour balls should be rolled back 20%?  Did you see this part of @iacas post? 

Quote

At what point in time would a 20% roll-back be? Dustin Johnson hits the ball 315 yards, let's say (because it was his average exactly in 2017). Well, welcome to 2021, where the new and improved Dustin Johnson absolutely annihilates the ball 252 yards! Dan Pohl led the PGA Tour in driving distance in 1980 - 1980 - with a driving distance of 274.3 yards. That's just over 87% as far as Dustin Johnson, so if you wanted to roll back to 1980 standards, you're way, way closer to 10% than 20%.

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

If you wanted to roll back to the mid 90's, you'd only need a 7% decrease in distance. Distance has not increased, in percentage, the amount they think.

And that's not accounting for the fact that players swing faster these days, nor the fact that PGA Tour players chose to play a shorter ball than was legal back then. They could have played a Pinnacle and hit it almost as far as they do now.

46 minutes ago, shanksalot said:

They need a tour ball rolled back 20%, but not for the guys like most of us who play the game for enjoyment.

So you want to see Dustin Johnson booming it out there 252 yards?

And you'd be okay with PGA Tour players playing courses significantly shorter than some average golfers play?

7300 yard courses on the PGA Tour would become 5,840 yard courses, and you're okay with that? Huh?

20 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

Sure course dynamics changes, but I feel like it could be managed.

I don't feel as though you really read the first post.

EVERY course would have to be dramatically altered. EVERY course.

[Missouri Swede]

Wouldn't all course slope and ratings be invalid? Wouldn't they have to be re-calculated based on the new distances?

[dennyjones]

3 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

Wouldn't all course slope and ratings be invalid? Wouldn't they have to be re-calculated based on the new distances?

Handicaps also.   It's just not feasible.  

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

And that's not accounting for the fact that players swing faster these days, nor the fact that PGA Tour players chose to play a shorter ball than was legal back then. They could have played a Pinnacle and hit it almost as far as they do now.

I didn't consider that point.

 

[iacas]

20 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

Wouldn't all course slope and ratings be invalid? Wouldn't they have to be re-calculated based on the new distances?

Of course, yes.

[JxQx]

It seems like a huge waste of time and money, I mean how many courses will have to be renovated to shorten them vs courses that are are "obsolete" due to length. 

[Braivo]

This is a well-constructed argument as to why a roll-back is unnecessary and bad for the game. 

I have yet to see well-constructed argument FOR a roll-back. Not one. 

It's always "these guys are chewing up these courses, they hit it too far, etc." but it is all subjective opinion with zero basis in facts. This argument always seems to come about when Jack Nicklaus gets on TV and talks about players hitting it too far. I have no idea why he holds that position so strongly, but just because a great like Jack said it doesn't mean it's a valid idea. 

[dbuck]

Get up a petition to the USGA, and I will sign it.

I definitely do not need my golf ball to go less distance.

The most I would be ok with would be capping it at the current level.

Who really has the bee in their bonnet driving this nonsense? I know that Jack has openly campaigned for this for years. He is one of my heroes, but I have to disagree with him here.

[JonMA1]

5 hours ago, DeadMan said:

 

• Driver - goes from 220 to 176
• 3 Wood - goes from 210 to 168
• 5 Wood - goes from 200 to 160
• Hybrid - goes from 190 to 152
• 4 Iron - goes from 180 to 144
• 5 iron - goes from 170 to 136
• 6 iron - goes from 160 to 128
• 7 iron - goes from 150 to 120
• 8 iron - goes from 140 to 112
• 9 iron - goes from 130 to 104
• PW - goes from 120 to 96
• GW - goes from 110 to 88
• SW - goes from 100 to 80

These look like my GameGolf stats after a bad round. Hell, I don't need a restricted flight ball to get this kind of rollback. 

For the love of God, don't do it! (Trust me, it's no fun.)

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, dbuck said:

The most I would be ok with would be capping it at the current level.

Distance is capped. The ball is one of the most highly regulated pieces of equipment in sports.