News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #400 on: August 26, 2019, 09:05:55 PM »
Hello shadow. Thanks for the contribution once again.


The next positive vibe you add to this site may well be your first. Just like the shade you cast on Shackelford. Maybe it’s tough to disagree without being disagreeable in Erie PA, because that’s your online Modus operandi.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2019, 09:12:34 PM by Terry Lavin »
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #401 on: September 05, 2019, 04:03:36 AM »
Whilst some may be others may not be aware that the ball they’re purchasing from the pro shop or wherever isn’t the exact same model as the one the folks we see on TV play -
https://www.rollbackalliance.org/arent-we-already-bifurcated/
Atb

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #402 on: September 05, 2019, 01:24:35 PM »
Whilst some may be others may not be aware that the ball they’re purchasing from the pro shop or wherever isn’t the exact same model as the one the folks we see on TV play -
https://www.rollbackalliance.org/arent-we-already-bifurcated/
It's not like the ball some pros play are all that different. It might spin 100 RPM more, or less, or be a tiny bit different in some way. Lots of guys will simply play a 2015 model of a ball that's not "still" available at retail - but which once was. IOW, they basically play the same stuff, and their stuff must meet the same rules and regulations.

Statements like these imply that pros are getting some "secret, great, performance boosting" equipment that the average amateur can't ever get. Comparing a retail Mustang to one built and tuned for the Daytona 500 is silly and undermines the pro-rollback position. The improvements made to a Mustang are several orders of magnitude larger than the difference between a retail Pro V1x and a tour-only Pro V1* or a Pro V1z or whatever a few pros might play by special request.

Ditto anything else - amateurs can find and play the same equipment. You can hot melt your clubs like the pros do. You can order the same shafts. You can precisely measure the loft of your driver, so you know whether your 9.5 stamped driver is actually 9.22. Etc. You'll pay a pretty penny sometimes to do it, sure. But you can do it.

In answer to the question, NO, we're not already bifurcated. The rules and regulations for equipment are the same, save the grooves (and every wedge made after, what, 2010 conforms whether you're an amateur or pro there, so it's not like there's a ton of old illegal-for-high-level-comps wedges out there being played by 12 handicappers).
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Mark_F

Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #403 on: September 05, 2019, 05:24:29 PM »
In answer to the question, NO, we're not already bifurcated.
How silly.  Of course there is bifurcation.  Matthew's quasi religious fervor over this issue is just clouding his judgement, that's all.

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #404 on: September 05, 2019, 06:59:03 PM »



Dai,


Here's an article that provides more detail on these balls.  Basically they're tweaking the spin and launch for the fastidious and fine tuned tour pros.  Apparently you will be able to special order them.


https://mygolfspy.com/titleist-prov1x-left-dash-golf-ball/






Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #405 on: September 05, 2019, 08:24:08 PM »
Placebo - if they were all blank not a player in the world would be able to tell the difference.


I'm not sure that's exactly right - Tiger might - but not too many more.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #406 on: September 06, 2019, 03:16:14 AM »
Thanks for the link Bryan. Demand and price and ego time!
As Mike intimates, players, even exceptionally good ones, couldn't tell the difference if balls were blank and when you take matters to the lower skill levels of the game, the area inhabited by the majority, well players aren't good enough for full shot ball spec to make a difference anyway. A 'top' or a 'fat' is still a 'top' or a 'fat' irrespective of whether the ball's a brand new ProV1 or a 5 year old Rock Flight that the player found in a bush. And let's remember that a huge proportion of shots played are putts and does ball spec isn't much of an influence on putting.
And to generalise, as I've said before ""... is there going to be any difference in playing a 100% ball on a 100% length course to playing a 80% ball on an 80% length course? Same number of shots I suggest."
atb

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #407 on: September 06, 2019, 01:30:11 PM »
Placebo - if they were all blank not a player in the world would be able to tell the difference.
More true than almost all will probably give you credit for Mike.

When TaylorMade first came out with their golf balls (TP Red, TP Black anyway), they brought Sergio Garcia over from Titleist. He'd played Titleist balls his whole life, basically, and kept imploring Dean Snell to make the ball (TP Black I think) more like his Pro V1x.

After months of work, Sergio was back at the testing facility and Dean gave Sergio a bunch of balls to hit. Sergio hit a number of the "Titleist Pro V1x" balls and remarked after a bunch "see there Dean, that's the ball flight I want. I want it just like that." Dean smiled and Sergio hit a few more, paused, and repeated the same thing about his ball flight and so on. He switched to a driver and the same thing happened. Hit some short game shots… same thing.

Finally, Dean laughed and said "Sergio, those are the TaylorMade balls you're so in love with. We stamped Titleist Pro V1x on them for you, but those are our balls you're loving right now."

(BTW, apparently Sergio didn't notice the different dimple pattern, but I digress…)


And to generalise, as I've said before ""... is there going to be any difference in playing a 100% ball on a 100% length course to playing a 80% ball on an 80% length course? Same number of shots I suggest."

Yes, because of scale. An 8-iron from 155 will still go further offline than an 8-iron from 124, and yet the hole will still be the same size, balls likely won't climb as high in the air and thus may not have the same landing angle as we have now, etc.

There's a whole lot to consider there that you're seemingly glossing over in your assumption (?) that the scoring would be the same.

And, as noted before, 20% is HUGE. A 20% distance roll-back would have Rory McIlroy outside the top 100 in driving distance in 1980. 135th, actually.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #408 on: September 06, 2019, 01:35:25 PM »
"And, as noted before, 20% is HUGE. A 20% distance roll-back would have Rory McIlroy outside the top 100 in driving distance in 1980. 135th, actually."

But probably still first in 1960, thou once again, you miss the point....Its all relative.  If Rory was the only one being rolled back that would suck.....but it applies to all!

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #409 on: September 06, 2019, 02:17:35 PM »
But probably still first in 1960, thou once again, you miss the point....Its all relative.  If Rory was the only one being rolled back that would suck.....but it applies to all!
Of course it's all relative, but you're missing my point: 20% takes the guy driving it 310 yards back to < 248. Goodness, Bobby Jones hit it farther. Francis Ouimet probably didn't, though.

Who wants to see that? Maybe a few, but nowhere near enough people. At 20%, you'd have to redesign nearly every golf course in the world to build several new tees in front of the existing tees. Green-to-tee walks would get longer as people had to walk forward to get to the tees.

20% is nuts. Especially when nowhere near the majority of the distance gains since 1980 (or "pick-your-year") were from the ball.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #410 on: September 06, 2019, 02:25:31 PM »
Erik,

Surely you jest right?  You do realize that most golfers can't even hit it 250 off the tee today, even with modern equipment.  But somehow we've still managed to find tee boxes for those folks.  Worse case scenario you have pros playing the members tees on a couple of long holes at a tour venue...

But wouldn't it be great to see pros having to actually figure out a 450 yard par 4 again, instead of driver/wedge, wash, rinse, repeat...

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #411 on: September 06, 2019, 02:28:35 PM »
Erik makes the same canned responses here and the NLU discussion board. It really is pointless in trying to engage him in any discussion.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #412 on: September 06, 2019, 02:54:48 PM »

Rollback isn't just about golf, there's a much bigger picture than that. It's land use, water allocations and a whole bunch of other related factors as well.
Bobby Jones and Francis Ouimet were mentioned above. Well when they were playing the world population was circa 2 billion, it's now circa 7.5 billion all of whom want access to food and water. And 99.99999999% of them don't give a damn about golf.
If golf doesn't take the bull by the horns and deal with the distance and related issues itself then outside factors and outside agencies will come more and more to the fore and they'll do what they want to do not what is necessarily best for golf.
And folks can debate and analyse and procrastinate about the detail of ball specs and swings speeds and all that good stuff and how it effects different categories of player all they wish but does the tiniest smidgen of such detail really matter when the quality of players swings is such that even the elite can only make proper club-on-ball contact on very rare occasions and even then other variables outwith their control like wind, firmness of ground, even a few blades of grass can influence the outcome.
atb


Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #413 on: September 06, 2019, 04:06:33 PM »
Surely you jest right?  You do realize that most golfers can't even hit it 250 off the tee today, even with modern equipment.
No, not at all. And I know most golfers don't hit it 250.

My point was that 20% is huge. If the ball is rolled back 20%, Rory's gonna hit it 250 and the average golfer's 200-yard drives are going to go 160. That's nuts, IMO.

But somehow we've still managed to find tee boxes for those folks.
20% is huge, though… I'm aware that you can do the math, but for my own sake: I've said that "6500 yards is enough for 95% of the world's golfers." I believe it, and I've rarely gotten any push-back from anyone on it. So, with a 20% roll-back, 6500 yards becomes 5200. How many courses even have tees at 5200? Maybe all of them, but remember then: these are the new BACK tees, and everything else will have to be short of them. The existing 6000 yard tees would have to move to 4800, the 5600 yard tees would move to 4480, and the 5200-yard tees that may or may not exist now would have to be moved up to about 4160.

That's a lot of new construction, forced on every golf course that doesn't have tees at about 3600 yards and out (3600 being the current equivalent of 4500), if the ball is rolled back.

But wouldn't it be great to see pros having to actually figure out a 450 yard par 4 again, instead of driver/wedge, wash, rinse, repeat...
But again… I don't care about the pros. They're a tiny portion of the game, and they play on courses that choose to have them, with boards and owners and whatnot that choose to add the tees they need or whatever. I don't care that the winning score at the U.S. Open was -13 (on a course that was about 7000 yards).

BTW, a 450-yard hole is the modern equivalent of a 563-yard hole. That's a helluva par four. 20% is a lot.

Erik makes the same canned responses here and the NLU discussion board. It really is pointless in trying to engage him in any discussion.

They're not "canned responses" - they're my opinion. Should my opinion change from site to site? I disagree with many of you (here, I'm in a clear minority, which is fine by me) that there's a "distance problem" in need of radical solutions like "20% reduction!" Do your opinions differ depending on the site you're on?

I absolutely recognize that it's not anyone's job to do so, but still, nobody's convinced me yet that there's a problem, and I think some here can get so wrapped up in talking with like-minded people who agree with you that you don't get as much outside perspective as may be beneficial. Trust me, I'm not aggrandizing myself there in speaking for the "outside perspective" - I only offer MY perspective. But how often do you ask yourselves "gee, how big is a 20% rollback, really? Where would that put us in golf's timeline, and what would 99.9% of the world's golfing population think if they suddenly hit their driver as far as they used to hit their 5-hybrid"?

If you don't want to respond, Hoover, by all means, please don't. If "Ignore" actually worked here at GCA, I'd suggest that. I'm just posting my opinion, my thoughts.

FWIW, MattM has talked with me on the NLU site that "nobody's saying 20%" (paraphrased; I doubt he literally said "nobody") and yet, here we are, talking about 20%.

20% is nuts.


Rollback isn't just about golf, there's a much bigger picture than that. It's land use, water allocations and a whole bunch of other related factors as well.

I would understand that position if we were standing on the precipice of something massive change, but I don't think we are. Imagine a 20% roll-back. Imagine that the back tees are never used again, and all those new forward tees from 3600 yards and out are built. It's not like those little plots of land where the back tees used to be are going to be returned to the general pool of "free land."

You're still watering 18 greens. You're still watering 18 fairways (or 14, or whatever). You're still watering the same number of tee boxes. How much water is there to be saved by keeping the same plot of land, but taking some tee boxes and moving them in front of the others?


If golf doesn't take the bull by the horns and deal with the distance and related issues itself then outside factors and outside agencies will come more and more to the fore and they'll do what they want to do not what is necessarily best for golf.

I'm not convinced at all, but if I were playing devil's advocate to myself, this would likely be the best avenue. IMO the "pro-rollback" fellas would be well advised to do a few things, including picking a single message (or two) and sticking to it. As it stands now, some people are on the "the PGA Tour is boring" or "the Old Course will be obsolete soon for the British Open (or already is), and oh what a loss that will be/is". Some are talking about how much more dangerous golf is. Some are talking about the "skill" required. You're all over the place, and it muddies the message.


I imagine people don't want to keep paying more and more for golf (within reason), nor do I imagine golfers want politicians stepping in and closing down popular golf courses, or historic golf courses, simply because they've fallen out of political/environmental/etc. fashion.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #414 on: September 06, 2019, 08:48:44 PM »
You make an important point Erik, in that a clear message stands more chance of being understood.


There are many reasons favouring a rollback - environmental, skill-based, financial, legal / safety, and temporal to name a few. Expressing all of those can confuse some people.
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #415 on: July 22, 2020, 08:28:02 AM »
An excellent recent piece from the Rollback Alliance, well worth reading - https://www.rollbackalliance.org/dont-let-the-grass-grow-beneath-your-feet/
:)

atb

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #416 on: August 05, 2021, 05:06:30 PM »
Came across this video.

Something tells me that the manufacturers have likely already made a big, big bunch of ‘prototype’ balls of different sorts that’ll go varying distances and perform in different ways and have them all stored in a big, locked cupboard -
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j66SJgDt7Gg
Atb

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #417 on: September 01, 2021, 11:53:29 PM »
Another dose of common sense here from Clayts -


https://www.golf.org.au/clayton-time-we-made-a-call/
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #418 on: September 02, 2021, 03:11:48 AM »
Another dose of common sense here from Clayts -
https://www.golf.org.au/clayton-time-we-made-a-call/
+1
What a great piece.
Love the hide & seek, snakes & ladders etc references! :):)
atb

Steve Kline

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #419 on: September 02, 2021, 03:26:49 AM »
Enjoyed the article Matthew.


On Monday, I played in the USGA 4-Ball Qualifier. It rained a lot prior to the round and the course was already soft. So, there was absolutely no roll that day.


I'm 46 and my partner is 51. We have nearly identical games. We both typically carry our tee shots in the 250-265 yard range. My 5 iron goes 190 yards and his 180 yards (probably just a difference in loft).


We were paired with two high school seniors. Both were good players, but both were struggling to get any attention from division 1 programs. They routinely outdrove us by 30-50 yards. I think one of them flew his 2 iron past my driver.


Other than driving distance (and 2 clubs less per iron shot), our games were very similar. And, the only reason that I could find for the different distance was growing up in different eras. I grew up in an era where speed was not the single most important factor in golf. No one went all out, all the time. These two kids grew up in an era where everything, and most importantly the club and ball technology, says to go all out all the time.


These kids were not better athletes than me. In fact, I'm pretty sure they only played golf. I played every sport except American football. I played club/select soccer for years and very likely could have earner a college scholarship if I hadn't decided to focus on golf. My buddy grew up in South Africa playing rugby, cricket, etc. in addition to golf.


On the one hand, I don't care what happens at the pro level. Just eliminate the concept of a par 5 (there are basically no three shot holes for tour pros) and all the under par scores go up by 12-16 shots per tournament. The problem is there are thousands of younger players hitting the ball miles. Even in my recent club championship, which I won, I was outdriven in my last two matches by an average of 30 yards by two under 20 year old players.

There is a just a massive difference in distance based on what era you grew up in. It wouldn't be a problem if courses could easily be made longer and longer. But, that just isn't the case. Many courses that were built away from more urban areas are now in urban areas and are land locked (my club is a perfect example). Additional land is expensive. The maintenance of longer courses is cost prohibitive. Longer courses take longer to play. And, I don't remember having to be so worried about balls flying at me from others holes as I do today on older, more compact courses.

And, there's a reason many of my millenial friends have extra sets of clubs of wooden drivers and forged blades. They love playing the game with them.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2021, 07:35:57 AM by Steve Kline »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #420 on: September 02, 2021, 07:28:27 AM »
Well said Steve. Your last point is interesting. It is telling that so many millennials now enjoy playing with blades and woods from the 60s and 70s.


Maybe they have figured out that game they can play (bombs away) is not the game they most enjoy playing.


Bob

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #421 on: September 02, 2021, 09:02:53 AM »
As a millennial who plays the majority of the their rounds with Hickories. I'd say that the number of millennials who use vintage equipment on a regular basis is very, very small.


The majority of millennial players still rely on technology to help them play competently or are still compelled to hit the ball as far as possible. They have little interest in looking towards the past and making the game "harder" even if it might also be more enjoyable.


I remember a story about when Davis Love III was growing up his grandfather told him to focus on hitting the ball as hard as he can and then learn how to control it. This was the advice he received as a young boy in the 70's using persimmon headed woods. It's no wonder when he got to the tour he was the longest player out there. Now everyone is taught to play that way, with much more forgiving equipment.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #422 on: September 02, 2021, 09:09:46 AM »
Another dose of common sense here from Clayts -
"no one will convince me modern players are superior athletes to Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros."

That says a lot right there.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #423 on: September 02, 2021, 09:49:03 AM »
Another dose of common sense here from Clayts -
"no one will convince me modern players are superior athletes to Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros."

That says a lot right there.


What’s their “Fran” time?
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rollback alliance
« Reply #424 on: September 02, 2021, 09:51:12 AM »
Another dose of common sense here from Clayts -
"no one will convince me modern players are superior athletes to Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros."

That says a lot right there.


Are modern players more skilled than Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros?  Based on the equipment and ball they were using then vs today I would say not even close.
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back