Consider What a 20% Ball Roll-Back Would Mean

[paperclip]

I think everybody has it wrong.  Instead of rolling back the ball, we just have to roll back time.  For instance, before Tiger came along and brought fitness to golf, when everyone finished their rounds, they would go into the clubhouse bar and knock back a few beers.  Now, they go to the fitness trailers after their rounds.

So all we really have to do is to ban the fitness trailers

 

[Marty2019]

I think you'd see amateur golfers rushing down to the local golf store and buying a lifetime supply of their favorite golf balls, before the new ones come on the market. 

I'd go buy about a hundred dozen Callaway Super Soft or something, and when those finally ran out, I'd give up the game then.  Who wouldn't pay $1,000 to maintain a 40 or 50 yard distance advantage? 

In fact, if I was a golf ball manufacturer, I'd get ready to gear up my manufacturing plant, in anticipation of panic buying of the "old" golf balls. 

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by Marty2019

[dennyjones]

18 minutes ago, Marty2019 said:

I'd go buy about a hundred dozen Callaway Super Soft or something, and when those finally ran out, I'd give up the game then.  Who wouldn't pay $1,000 to maintain a 40 or 50 yard distance advantage? 

You could sell them on Ebay for the price of Pro V.   Sell them by the sleeve for $15 each and people would be knocking down your door to buy them.

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

The 20% number has been bandied about by more than just Jack Nicklaus, but he's the most recent one. I've seen 30% thrown out there by a few members of GolfClubAtlas (GCA), which is even more ridiculous. The same arguments at 20% hold true at 15 or 10%, too: they're obviously a bit less of an argument, but whether you have to move a bunker 40 yards or 20 yards, it's still about the same expense.

At any rate, the 20% number is pretty well established. If you're only gonna roll the ball back 5%, that starts to get into "why even do it" territory, so 20% is often seen as the number.

I've been supporting the "there isn't a problem, so there's no reason to roll the ball back" side of the argument for a decade or more. If you're new to the debate, I can see how you'd think it's a number I just made up. It's not.

To be fair, it's one small point in a list of points. It got a small paragraph. It's still a factor, though, because green/tee complexes are the areas where groups will play through, where you interact with the groups before or after you, and because of the effect it has on your perception of the round. If you have to drive 100 yards - or walk - between every hole, that gets tiring. Courses routinely lose points for longer walks from green to tee, and gain points when tees are situated near greens. It improves communication between groups and "feels" better to the golfer.

Not the strongest point, but I didn't say it was, either. Just another point.

You're missing the point. I'll take the blame for not being clear. It's two things:

• Scores will absolutely go up if we just roll back the ball and don't do anything else. A 5400 yard course will play 6750 yards! Even at a 10% roll-back, a 6300 yard course will play 7000 yards. Scores would go up if the ball was rolled back and nothing else changed.
• If courses were adjusted by the same 20% - scores would drop because targets - fairways AND greens - would effectively be wider. Fairways would feel 20-25% wider, and greens would feel almost 40% larger. Players would hit more fairways and, even if they didn't, hit more greens, lowering scores. It would throw the balance the game has now out of whack. Maybe you're in favor of that - decreasing the value of ballstriking and putting more emphasis on putting - but I'm not. I like the balance we have right now.

I think that's generally untrue. I think people generally play the tees that are right for them. Yes, there are the idiots out there who "want to see the whole course," but they're the minority. Most people play tees pretty well suited for them.

The simple point about the hazards is that they're placed where they're placed intentionally, by the architect, and they'd require moving to keep the architect's vision intact. Moving hazards would be very expensive.

The thing that strikes me most is even with a roll back in distance, your accuracy is not going to change. So instead of hitting my 7 iron from 150, I'm hitting my 4 iron, which we all know I am less accurate with. So even if the greens are relatively bigger, my accuracy with the longer iron will offset that. My drives won't go as far, and may not go into the rough as much, but I'm using longer clubs unless they move the tee up.

And what about shorter hitters now? My wife plays from the ladies tees. On some par 3s, she is already hitting driver when I'm using a 5 iron. Is it now a par 4 for her? Again, unless the course change the tee set up, which costs money, then they whole course becomes different and much harder.

It makes no sense.

In some way, I feel this is a Jack Nicklaus ego thing too.

[Marty2019]

I don't see how any governing body could force a golf ball manufacturer to stop selling the current golf balls to the 99.9999% of players who are not governing by the governing bodies.  There'd be such a huge market for the current golf balls, nothing would change.  No one can tell Titleist they can't sell ProV1s to the masses. 

That leaves it all up to the pros who actually play, and I don't think they would accept it, either. 

As far as I'm concerned, Jack Nicklaus is just a crotchety old man who pines for the good old days.   

When I think of all the reasons why a golf ball rollback is a dumb, unworkable idea, I can't see a snowball's chance in hell of it ever happening. 

[cutchemist42]

To me, part of Jack's whining seems self-serving. Not all legends of a sport have good opinions about it.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, onthehunt526 said:

I meant with the "golf figureheads", Not by the general golfing community, I should have been more clear...

I still don't think it's a consensus.

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

The thing that strikes me most is even with a roll back in distance, your accuracy is not going to change. So instead of hitting my 7 iron from 150, I'm hitting my 4 iron, which we all know I am less accurate with. So even if the greens are relatively bigger, my accuracy with the longer iron will offset that.

You're still going to be more accurate, because you're hitting from closer.

Again, if you have a hole you used to play Driver, 4I, and they shorten it 20% so it's still Driver, 4I, you're going to hit the fairway more often AND you're going to hit the green more often.

If the hole length isn't shortened, then of course you're going to be less accurate - if the hole is 450 yards and it's normally Driver 250, 4I 200, then you're going to have 250 yards in for your second shot later, because 250 * 0.8 = a 200 yard tee shot.

The assumption above about lower scores because the scale of the golf course will be out of whack is assuming the course shortens the tees by 20% too. That's a reasonable assumption because what golfer who played from 6200 yards before will want to effectively play a course that's 7,750 yards? None.

And yes, all those new tees will cost a lot of money, because every course will need to build them, as compared to the minority of courses that have added tees in the last 20 years, or those that will add them over the next 20 years. A number that, IMO, is constantly overstated by those who wish for a roll-back.

2 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

I don't see how any governing body could force a golf ball manufacturer to stop selling the current golf balls to the 99.9999% of players who are not governing by the governing bodies. There'd be such a huge market for the current golf balls, nothing would change.  No one can tell Titleist they can't sell ProV1s to the masses.

That doesn't make a ton of sense, @Marty2019, or Titleist would be making an illegal ball right now and selling a ton of them. The simple truth is that golfers tend to want to buy things that are legal for play. The ERC II didn't do very well, remember? There are illegal golf balls out there now, too, but virtually nobody buys them.

If there was a roll-back, I'm sure there would be some sort of cut-off date in the future, like the wedge thing (though 10+ years is a pretty long time, and I imagine it would be shorter).

I think the roll-back people have gained momentum, but I still don't think it's likely to happen. The PGA Tour wouldn't want it to happen. Least of all they wouldn't want bifurcation to happen, either.

2 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

When I think of all the reasons why a golf ball rollback is a dumb, unworkable idea, I can't see a snowball's chance in hell of it ever happening. 

Well, it's gaining momentum, but I'm still leaning toward your side than any other.

[DeadMan]

I feel like the only possible way a rollback would occur would be through a local rule requiring a restricted flight ball. The problem is that the USGA and R&A could put in that local rule, but I feel like it's unlikely the PGA or European Tour would use it. Sure, the US Open and British Open could use it, but if they're the only tournaments that do, it would be a mess.

I really don't think it's really that big of an issue. Maybe it's because I'm in Colorado, but we don't have many "championship" or "PGA Tour" level golf courses. With the altitude, a course that could host a PGA Tour stop would have to stretch out past 7,500 yards, if not more. Most courses don't have tees past 7,000 yards. Golf here is doing just fine - most courses are booked pretty solid on weekends. Sure, a regular tour stop would be cool to have again, but it's really not a problem.

We're concerning ourselves with "issues" that the top .1% of golfers face. There are maybe 150 courses around the world that host events where this might matter every year. I just don't see the problem.

Edited March 1, 2018 by DeadMan

[Groucho Valentine]

I think with a hypotetical 20% roll back, you would still see guys like Dustin Johnson or Rory McIlroy pummel the ball 300+ and hit a 7 iron 200. They'll find a way. Thats why if the ball gets rolled back, i think it should be for pros only. Distance is only a problem in the professional ranks. Leave the rest of us alone..

[DeadMan]

4 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

I think with a hypotetical 20% roll back, you would still see guys like Dustin Johnson or Rory McIlroy pummel the ball 300+ and hit a 7 iron 200. They'll find a way. Thats why if the ball gets rolled back, i think it should be for pros only. Distance is only a problem in the professional ranks. Leave the rest of us alone..

What? No, you wouldn't. Did you even read the first post?

Rory's driving distance last year was 317 yards; DJ's was 315. A 20% roll back means their driving distance would be 253 and 252, respectively.

[Groucho Valentine]

9 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

What? No, you wouldn't. Did you even read the first post?

Rory's driving distance last year was 317 yards; DJ's was 315. A 20% roll back means their driving distance would be 253 and 252, respectively.

They'll find a way. 

[DeadMan]

Just now, Groucho Valentine said:

They'll find a way. 

The Mets are more likely to win the World Series...

[Groucho Valentine]

1 minute ago, DeadMan said:

The Mets are more likely to win the World Series...

So almost certain, then. It feels good to change minds. 

[lastings]

without regard for what is the best for competition or whatnot, just from a viewership standpoint alone, the best rollback would be to where the biggest drivers are rolling the ball out to like 305 on flat fairway and no wind.   

just because it was fun from a viewership standpoint when it was a great feat to hit it over 300.   now, Tiger can average 347 for an entire tournament.   it has erased the mystique of the 300 yard drive.    
Last year Rory and DJ hit their drive 320+ about 45% of the time.  last year Rory hit 82% of his drives over 300.   DJ hit 72%   if it can be made so that the bombers are hitting like 15% of their drives 300+, we would regain the mystique of the 300 yard drive.  

not saying this is what is best for golf or for the competition, but might be best for the viewers..   

 

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by lastings

[iacas]

2 hours ago, lastings said:

but might be best for the viewers..   

Says who?

Also, this isn't really the topic for that. The "problem" thread is likely better.

[Golfingdad]

3 hours ago, DeadMan said:

What? No, you wouldn't. Did you even read the first post?

Rory's driving distance last year was 317 yards; DJ's was 315. A 20% roll back means their driving distance would be 253 and 252, respectively.

Well, technically, he's not wrong.  He didn't say anything about average drives, just that you'd still see them pummel 300 yard drives.

I'd be willing to bet that they'll still hit 300+ yard drives on 7, 17, and 18 at Kapalua, and maybe even 16 at Firestone. 

[lastings]

51 minutes ago, iacas said:

Says who?

Also, this isn't really the topic for that. The "problem" thread is likely better.

says me, and based on no fact or evidence.  just an opinion.  

[NM Golf]

So here is a question I have, how do you even dial a ball back say 20%?

20% shorter for one person may not be 20% for someone else due to spin, dimple pattern, launch, etc. There are hundreds of different types of balls that go different distances for different swings. Heck 20% may not be the same for the same person with a different setup. Before I got my Ping G400LST I was hitting the regular G400. My distances, due to excess spin, were about 5%-10% shorter. Same ball, same person, different driver head. 

It just seems pretty simplistic to say dial the ball back 20%. When you start talking about 5% I would think 5% for one person may be almost negligible for another. Am I way off base here?