Marty2019

My stance is that they are penalizing the average hacker who hits the ball barely 200 yards as it is, and these people are the ones who buy most of the golf balls, golf clubs, lessons, and pay most of the greens fees. And therefore they are hurting the golf business by rolling back the ball and making a frustrating game even more frustrating. But I wonder, are my assumptions true? Does the average hacker who barely hits the ball 200 yards actually buy most of the golf balls, golf clubs, lessons, and pay most of the greens fees? However you want to argue everything I said above, I am just asking that one question which is underlined. Is the business of golf actually supported mainly by that average hacker?

I haven't been here in several years, but I know that there are a lot of serious golfers here, so I thought this would be a good place to ask this question. Forgive me if it's been asked before. How will the rollback affect the average casual golfer who can on average hit his driver about 200 yards? The reason I ask is because I am getting older, and I think if I was forced to give up distance because of this ball rollback, I might just quit playing. And I think a lot of people would agree with me.

Between hitting about 15 shots on the range, stretching a little, hitting a few putts, and chatting with my playing partners, I'd say 30 minutes, plus whatever wait there is to tee off, which could be an extra 15 minutes if the first hole gets backed up.

I refer you to my previous answer. If you don't think excessive distance on the PGA Tour is a problem, then yes, this is a dumb idea. But when the PGA Tour and the R&A say there is excessive distance, I am alarmed at some of the solutions that have been proposed. This is the only solution I have seen that is palatable to me. It doesn't require lengthening courses, or standardizing and limiting the golf ball, or reining in club technology.

Of course, if your position is "there is no excessive distance problem" then this is a pointless idea. But if your position is that there is an excessive distance problem, and that a lot of courses are becoming obsolete, as a lot of people have expressed, then this is a very simple solution to that problem, and one that could be implemented in one day. It doesn't require dialing back the ball, or limiting club technology, or buying more land so tee boxes can be moved back 50 yards. Just make them hit it off the ground. Players who have a lot of distance like Rory would still have the advantage they deserve. It would dial back the distance off the tee proportionately across the board for all the players. It doesn't mean amateurs like me have to stop using tees. It could even be a rule that is used only on certain courses. This rule would not damage the club manufacturers, or the ball manufacturers. Plus, it's a rule the PGA Tour could very easily experiment with in one tournament on one particular course. If you believe that the PGA Tour has a driving distance problem, then this is a very simple solution that works. What it would accomplish is that the approach shots would be longer. I don't see how making a one-week rule for particular courses is bifurcating the rules.

Rory should have an advantage. No one is saying distance should be equal. What this would accomplish is it would bring the shorter courses back into play by dialing back the distance for ALL the players.

Faldo says, don't let them hit if off a tee. Make them hit if off the ground. That seems like a simple, elegant solution to me. Nick Faldo suggests a ban on golf tees to reduce driver distance Former world No. 1 golfer Nick Faldo provides his solutions to reduce driver distance, including one particularly outlandish suggestion.

Interesting discussion and thanks to everyone who gave an opinion. A couple of years ago, I bought a whole bunch of those Kirkland 4-piece balls with the Urethane cover. I played them one whole summer. Lately I've been using a different cheap ball, the Callaway Tour Soft, and it seems to me that I used to hit that Kirkland ball a lot farther, especially with my driver. So I was wondering about the difference between a premium ball and a cheap ball for an average hacker like me. It seems like nowadays when I take a good hard swing with my driver and hit the ball flush, it takes the same trajectory as it used to, but when I get to where it wound up, it's just not as far as it used to be when I was using the Kirkland ball. But based on what I have learned since the original post, if I did hit the Kirklands farther, I'm now thinking it was probably because of warmer weather, or dryer and harder fairways, or some reason that doesn't have to do with what ball I was using. Maybe it's because I'm getting older. I've still got a couple of dozen of those 4-piece Kirklands, so I might pull them back out and see if I can detect any difference.

So I'm an average hacker, drive the ball about 200 to 240, shoot in the mid to high 80s, and my question is, at that level, how much difference does it make what kind of ball I am using? I get balls at Costco, usually Callaway Toursoft or whatever they have on sale for about $24 for 2 dozen. It usually comes out to around a dollar a ball. Should I be more discriminating about what kind of ball I use, or at my level, does it make very little difference?

But how would you ever know them if you don't watch them because you don't know them?

I watch the LPGA a lot more than I used to. 1) I find the players a lot more attractive these days than they used to be. I know that's kind of sexist, but there it is. 2) I enjoy the slower swing speeds. There are some really nice swings out there on the LPGA Tour. 3) I don't care if Asians dominate the tournaments. I like Asians.

I totally agree with all of that. Here are some of my thoughts: What happens if the people who make the equipment and the balls say, "We make money selling equipment and balls to the average golfer, who wants and needs MORE, not less distance. Therefore, we will not be participating in any sort of rollback of distance." And what happens when the pro golfers who make millions from endorsing such equipment say, "We make our money on endorsements. Therefore, we will not be using any sort of ball or equipment that amateurs don't want to buy, and we will not be participating in any tournament that mandates that we cannot use the same equipment we endorse. In fact, we will form a new tour if we have to where we can use the balls and clubs that we endorse." These people are forgetting where their money comes from. Dustin Johnson doesn't buy golf clubs. I buy golf clubs. If they don't want pros to drive the ball 340 yards, they can fix that by putting hazards out there at the spots the longest players can reach. Make them lay up. That seems like a pretty easy solution.

I have heard the term "bomb and gouge" but only on the golf channel, and only a few times. The vast majority of golfers, the ones who are the real fundamental financial underpinning of the sport, want more distance, not less. If you take even just 10% of the distance away from the average hacker out there, I would bet that hundreds of thousands of them would just give up the sport. It's the millions of average golfers that buy the clubs and the balls, and it's those people that the advertising on TV for PGA Tour events is aimed at, and those advertising dollars are what finances the PGA Tour. If you hurt the average golfer, you hurt the PGA Tour. Is there a real problem here? Are the TV ratings down? Are they selling fewer tickets to PGA Tour events? I think the answer to both those questions is no, but even it the answer is yes, is it because Dustin Johnson hits the ball too far? Really?

I may be wrong about this, but here is my opinion anyway. The real financial underpinning of the golf industry as well as the game played at the elite levels for big money is the millions of amateur golfers who buy the clubs and balls and pay the greens fees and take the lessons, and who shoot in the 80s and 90s. That's where the billions of dollars that support professional golf really come from. Those people are not demanding a reduction in their distances. In fact, any action to reduce their distances or make the game even more difficult than it already is would cause a lot of them to give up the game. And that would severely damage the sport. In addition, I don't I don't see any demand among the average golf fan to have the PGA Tour reduce distances. Zero. I know Jack Nicklaus used a one-iron for that famous shot that hit the pin on that par-3 in the US Open. And I know that same shot requires a lot less than a one-iron now. But who cares, other than Jack?