[Tyk]

RoverRick, on 15 January 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

Here's an idea. Instead of limiting the equipment, they just need to make a rule that says instead of the pro's going to the range or the gym or the manufacture's trailer to get the equipment tweeked like they do now because they play for big $$, they go hang out in the bar and drink and smoke cigarettes like they used to. I did this today and did not have a single drive of 300 yards, so I have proof it works. (I did have a 290 but no 300's). It certainly works better than changing the grooves on the wedges.

LOL, this is a very effective distance limiting regimen!

[GolfSpy Matt]

Tyk, on 14 January 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

I guess I'm not opposed to it. It makes more sense than continuously tinkering with recreational golfers to no good end. The so called problems with professional golf don't have much bearing on the world of recreational golf imo. We just had 4 golf courses close in Kansas City with the start of the new year. That didn't have a thing to with how far the ball flies! That's a problem more worthy of attention imo.

I guess my main beef with all this is that I don't think anyone has really demonstrated that players hitting the ball further is actually a problem in golf. If it is in fact a problem, there are other much less intrusive solutions than mandating equipment roll backs and rule changes. Fixing the course the pros play is an obvious example. Narrow the fairways, lengthen the rough, push the tees back. These are some obvious solutions the don't impact amateurs. This doesn't make any course unplayable for amateurs, as only the lucky few ever get to play a tournament course in tournament conditions. A US Open Course isn't set up that way very long!

I think where we disagree is on whether or not the pro game impacts the recreational game. I would argue it has a huge impact. Here are a couple reasons:

1) Longer courses = long courses for you and me. For the same reason that people want to play the equipment that the pros do, they want to play courses like the pros do. This is why you hear nonsense like, "I don't want to play at ____, it's just a short course." My question to those people is, "How far under par were you the last time you played there?" It's not logical, but people want to play golf like they see on TV.

2) Longer courses = Big $$$ renovations. Courses do not get longer, narrower, etc for free. Whether you're talking about only renovating tour courses, or renovating recreational courses to suit the desires of everyday players, someone has to pay that bill. Since we all know that golf needs to get LESS expensive, not MORE expensive, this is not a good thing.

3) Longer courses = higher maintenance costs. Pretty simple logic here: a course that's 7,500 yards requires more money to maintain than one that's 6,500. Again, that cost is going to get passed on to the golfers one way or another.

4) Longer courses = longer rounds. This ties back to the first point, but lots of golfers want to "see the whole course" which leads to those 5+ hour rounds that we all hate. We can all talk until we're blue in the face about recommending shorter tees, but the best solution (IMO) is not giving people the option of playing the course at 7,300 yards.

I'm sure there are other things, but this is what comes to mind quickly.

My feeling is that golf does not and will not split the rules, and the easiest way to roll back the distance is with the ball.

[Tyk]

Like I said, first you have to believe that there's a problem to solve before you go mucking about trying to fix it!

Let the pros hit it 40 yards further, let them go 20 under in 4 days on a forgiving (for them) course, why should we care? How many courses are ever considered for a tour event? A very small percentage overall. Those courses are all very high end courses that are financially out of reach of most players. Tour golf is being played on what is essentially a "golf stadium" that does not bear much resemblance to your local muni. That's great, but . . .so what?

And the guys that don't belong on the tips, that's up to the local courses to manage and police that, same with pace of play. My course is a beast from the tips, and while I'm long enough to play from there, 80% of the time I don't because the groups I play with don't want to beat themselves up back there. Sure, there are exceptions, but I don't believe it is the problem we're led to believe. Most golfers don't enjoy deliberately biting off more than they can chew. The exceptions to the rule are less than we're led to believe.

[RoverRick]

Is the distance the pros are driving the ball a problem? There have been two tournaments so far this year, the Hyundai Tourament of Champions and the Sony Open of Hawaii. The TOC featured several drives over 400 yards. They had one 382 yard "drivable" par 4. The Sony Open did not. It featured guys that putt worse than me. Well, they were not that bad, but the only highlights to the tournament was the three and almost four putts from 3 feet. A boring tournament.

If you ask me, and you did, give me the big drives and low scoring. I love seeing the guys bomb the ball.

As far as low scores, the lower the better.

[GolfSpy Matt]

Before I say anything else, I'll say this: I'm really enjoying this discussion, thanks guys.

Now: I don't disagree with you about how far the pros hit it. I don't care either. I don't mind if they hit it 350 and shoot way under par.

The "problem" is that the powers that be do seem to care. Who does that include? The courses that host tournaments and the USGA (probably others too, but I'll limit myself for now).

The courses that host tournaments don't necessarily want to see pros destroy the course, so they want to make the course tough, stretch it out, etc. That leads to the problems that I mentioned in my last post.

As far as the USGA, it does seem like they're intent on doing something about distance whether we think they should or not. To me, option #1 would be to have a separate set of rules for the pros, but, failing that, I would like to see them do something sensible with the ball instead of messing with the clubs more. And, going back to the OP, as far as ball-related solutions go, I like Solheim's solution quite a bit.

[Tyk]

I agree, its a great discussion. I think (hope?) that they will be pretty reluctant to further tamper with rules that impact amateur golf in a negative way. The economy is to fragile to risk driving people away (arguable whether it would or not) and I don't think the equipment manufactures will put up with it. I think they hold the power of the purse strings and anything that would seriously upset them probably isn't going to happen. I think the perceived failure of the wedge/groove debacle is going to make them think twice about doing anything that the amateur is likely to notice, much less perceive negatively.

Do you think the ball makers are going to like having to develop, maintain, distribute, and sell multiple lines of golf balls (moreso than they already do)? Sounds like an expensive and confusing endeavor.

[RoverRick]

What they should be concerned about is $$$. Not distance or scores. What was the watershed momemt in golf? Tiger Woods winning the Master's by 12 strokes. Another thread on this forum asks "Why you started playing golf?" I have not checked lately but at one point 25% of the respondants mentioned Tiger Woods and many more of us probably were at least reinvigorated by that event. At the time I worked in an office in Dallas and no one ever spoke of golf. That was all any one would talk the next week. Even the women that worked there. Some of us even decided to go play golf the next weekend. I recall playing several times with co-workers from there after that, but never before.

I have no idea how much money I have spent on golf equipment, green fees, buying my own cart, monthly country club and cart shed fees, food and drinks at the club, and tournaments. Last year I played, and of course paid the entry fee, in 9 tournaments. Three holiday weekends for the last 4 years have revolved around golf.

I want to spend my money on 350 yard drivers, wedges that make the ball land like a lawn dart, and balls that do not get lost or bounce off the water. (That is as likely as me hitting the ball 350 yards.)

I play at a semi private course and a typical round is less that 4 hours. We are not shy about asking (nicely) if we can play through if need be and since it is a small town, we probably know who ever is in front of us anyway, so I can not complain about that.

As far as the PGA, USGA, tournament directors and course owners are concerned they should do what ever the ratings and subsequent dollars dictate.

Yes, golf is also a business.

[GolfSpy Matt]

Tyk, on 16 January 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Do you think the ball makers are going to like having to develop, maintain, distribute, and sell multiple lines of golf balls (moreso than they already do)? Sounds like an expensive and confusing endeavor.

I would have said the same thing about ball manufacturers having 6, 7, or more different models on the shelf, but go to any big box and count the number of Callaway balls on the shelf (Tour ix, iz, couple Diablos, a few Warbirds, Big Berthas...). Personally I think they'd eat it up. You don't think plenty of people would go out and buy a box of each just for fun, to see the difference? I think it might lend some clarity to the very confusing world of golf balls if you at least had them in 3 sections: long, medium, and short. Think of all the marketing that you can do: "We have the longest ball in every category" and stuff like that.

[Tyk]

Yeah, that is certainly one way they could go with it! What a freakin mess that would be for the consumers! And yes, some people (people like us) would enjoy figuring out what the balls were and what they did. But I don't think most would. It would be fun for all of 10 minutes and we'd all go get our regular brand and model and go on with our lives! I know I'm not going to play a distance governed ball unless I had to for some reason.

So essentially what Solheim is talking about just isn't workable or applicable to recreational golf. So if they want to make the pros play a shorter ball, go for it. I predict epic failure, just to get that noted early!

[RoverRick]

In this weeks Global Golf Post, they did a comparison of the 1st and 70th ranked PGA Tour player, 2011 vs 1991, in driving distance and accuracy, GIR, scrambling, putts, and scoring, in an effort to address the "Distance and equipment is ruining the game of golf." Basically, according to the statistics, while distance is up 30 yards, everything elst is basically the same. Their conclusion is that this claim is BS.

While I am certainly not a tour pro, I played the last four days. Friday, 70 degrees, regular tees, shot a 78. Saturday, 40 degrees, played forward tees, the equivilant of gaining 30 yards, shot a 71. Sunday, regular tees, 55 degrees, 45 mph wind, shot a 80. Today, 65 degrees, forward tees, shot 78. Conclusion, I played great Saturday morning. I experienced the same thing that I do when I move back a set of tees. Scores are about the same no matter which tees I play from. Being in range of the green and reaching the green are two different things. Saturday, my driving was awesome. I was not only in range of 6 greens, but actually landed on 5 of them. The sixth I layed up because I was too close to the tree (from the regular tees I regularly go for the green on that hole but usually come up 10 yards short but have made it many times). I made a 3 foot eagle, and birdied 3 others but also had a 4 putt bogey. I bogied a par 5 from 130 out after the drive.

So the conclusion is I played really well on Saturday, but gaining 40 yards only exposes more flaw in the short game. But I had a great time pretending like I was a bomber off the tee. I actually have a driving average of 273 and hit 85% of fairways with the driver, but have not hit a GIR since Clinton was President. That is an exaggeration but irons including par 3's are one of my weaknesses.

[AuGoGo]

I don't like the idea of having different balls for pros and amateurs or of "rolling back" equipment.

I think back to the Presidents Cup last year as an example of how a course can be set-up to be challenging for the pros without having to be 8000 yards long. I love the variety that Royal Melbourne gave us - a lot of that had to do with the climate and environment where the course finds itself, but there are things that many courses on the PGA Tour could do to become more challenging without having to buy more property.

But if we are seriously wanting to limit the distance the pros are hitting the ball then let's look at this from another point of view. What if we limited the amount of times a new ball could be played in a round? Or what if we gave the pros 8 golf balls at the beginning of the tournament and told them that was all they had for the week?

Every time their razor sharp wedge grooves tore the cover to shreds they would have to make a decision. Put a new ball in play or play with the scuffed ball. The scuffed ball is less aerodynamic and will not fly as far.

Maybe 8 balls is too severe. Maybe it's too generous. Maybe pros would ask manufacturers to make wedges with less aggressive grooves, which equals less spin. Maybe they would ask for balls that were more durable, which would equal less spin, which would make them choose 250 down the middle over 300 in the rough. Just thinking out loud...