Do you agree??

[Bravo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/golf/5010776.stm

I do completely...

Opinions please.

[ManchesterGolfer]

I don't totally agree. I don't think they should have to limit the distance less than it is now, but maybe the R&A and USGA should think about setting a speed limit the ball can leave the club face when a club is swung at a certain speed by a robot. Set it slightly higher than the Pro V and Cally HX are at the moment. That way we won't have illegal balls like we have illegal drivers at the moment.

I think the real change should be in course design. I love to see players taking on risk and reward shots. So I don't think that they should bottle neck fairways (too much) but lets put bunkers at or around the carry distance of the long hitters and lets make missing the fairway penal. By this I mean thick rough so they won't be able to get GIR from rough and bunkers that are hazards with lips on the front so you can't reach the greens from them. We still need them to be able to gain an advantage by taking on a tricky drive over doglegs or water otherwise we'll just see 2 irons off the tee all the time and I for one don't want to see that. I don't like them streching courses out all the tiime this just plays in to the hands of the big hitters. Lets make accuracy a part of the game so players like Corey Pavin and Luke Donald have a chance against the long players. How many times have you heard a pro say they would rather be in the bunker than the rough when they miss a green? I think bunkers should be like in Scotland where they are deep pot hole bunkers and some times you have to play out side ways or backwards. Maybe stop raking bunkers so you don't get a perfect lie and lets bring skill, touch and a bit of luck back to the game.

[dave.]

Yep,one robot,one test,and set a technical limit that the ball can't excede,probably spin rate.

They have limited drivers,they limit groove size,they limit putter design,they limit pretty much everything else,so why not the ball? Why limit a driver cor,and then have a huge debate over a ball spin rate?

[Bravo]

To me, the most important statement made my Monty was...

"We can't keep on borrowing land from people's gardens around the Wentworth estate - the easy option is to change the golf ball to make it go less far, to put a speed limit on it if you like. "

What are we going to do about our grand old courses - just keep trying somehow to lengthen them?. His point is spot on - where does the land come from to keep putting the tees back?

I think this is really hurting the tradition of the games oldest and some of the greatest courses in the world. What should the Trust do to the Old Course if balls just keep going longer and longer? What do you do with Augusta National? It's 7400 as it is and fortunately Alister MacKenzie had the foresight (brilliantly) to set it up where almost all of the tees could be moved back. Like Montgomerie said, "We can't keep borrowing from people's gardens".

At some point, this very ugly issue is going to have to come to a head...

[Rockford35]

Nope, totally disagree.

Grow the rough, tighten fairways and put bunkers at 290 instead of 240.

The courses we have can still eat you up if you don't put the ball in play. Make these guys use all the shots in their bag rather than just putting it out there 340 into the 1" rough and wedging it in.

If that same rough was 4", you'd see guys breaking wrists and hitting fat shots left, right and center.

It's not the equipment, it's the courses. They play to the tournament style, allowing the masses to follow along their favorite. All that wide open space alongside fairways allows mistakes to be not punishable, but allows guys to "get away with one".

Length isn't the answer, it's using what you have to challenge the skilled players. How many times do you see a player hit a ball into the pines and have a 'clear' shot to the green? What about leaving some underbrush?

This single ball theory holds no water.

R35

[SiberianDVM]

I really don't know, but what about other sports where balls are used? Tennis & baseball come to mind. Don't they have a "regulation" ball that must be used by everyone in a particular game/match/tournement?

But on the other hand, I can see where having only one tournement ball might lead......giving one manufacturer a huge advantage in advertising.

Maybe setting a speed limit on balls would be the best way, and make the manufacturers be responsible for design and compliance. That way everyone could still stay in business.

[ManchesterGolfer]

Originally Posted by Rockford35

Nope, totally disagree.

Grow the rough, tighten fairways and put bunkers at 290 instead of 240.

The courses we have can still eat you up if you don't put the ball in play. Make these guys use all the shots in their bag rather than just putting it out there 340 into the 1" rough and wedging it in.

If that same rough was 4", you'd see guys breaking wrists and hitting fat shots left, right and center.

It's not the equipment, it's the courses. They play to the tournament style, allowing the masses to follow along their favorite. All that wide open space alongside fairways allows mistakes to be not punishable, but allows guys to "get away with one".

Length isn't the answer, it's using what you have to challenge the skilled players. How many times do you see a player hit a ball into the pines and have a 'clear' shot to the green? What about leaving some underbrush?

This single ball theory holds no water.

R35

I totally 110% agree with you R35. Long rough and bunkers that are 'Hazards' miss the fairway get punnished. This way all the field have a chance. By lengthening every course it means if your not a big hitter then you've got no chance.

[David B]

I like the idea of adding bunkers in the area of 300 yards or so, so that there's a higher risk/reward of driving the ball that far... pretty soon ball and clubmakers are going to hit the wall of physics that just won't allow any more tweaking of the designs to increase distance, so in a way that will be self-limiting.

I read an article somewhere (I tried to find it before posting but was unsuccessful... I think it was at franklygolf.com) that stated even though driving distance was increasing stastically in the past 10 years, no other golf statistic showed more than an insignificant change in that same time duration (i.e. GIR, fairways hit, birdies, scores, etc.).

So balls are travelling further, but accuracy at those distances is harder to control, leading to a 'wash' overall in every other statistic.

The point they also made is that the USGA sets the rules for all golfers, not just PGA touring professionals, and most golfers suffer from a lack of distance. Also, the USGA currently does have a maximum travel distance a golf ball can travel via 'Iron Byron', and it's something like 280 yards + 17 yards tolerance (297 yards maximum). Anything over that and the ball is labeled as non-conforming.

I think that rather than limit the equipment, courses should be structured to not reward long ball distances, but instead strategic play... I mean who cares if these guys can drive 350 yards if they end up in a fairway bunker and have to waste the next stroke just getting the ball back into a playable position... most would probably lay up rather than take the risk.

That's just my $.02 anyway... I think that trying to limit the equipment, rather than give the golfer incentive to not simply muscle the ball, is the wrong way to address the issue.

Reward strategic play rather than whoever can drive the ball the farthest.

[edit]Damn... y'all are quick today... 3 replies since I hit the 'Post Reply' button.

[Davebud]

add ditches, at 290-310 yard marks, water is the bane of all golfers.

[dave.]

I didn't suggest a single ball,I just said limit the technology in balls.Why are you all happy to play with a putter,that has many technical limits set by the R&A and USGA,a driver that has even m ore technical limits,grips,,shafts,grooves,everyting in your bag has technical specs limited by the ruling bodies.

Even the ball is limited in certain ways,such as size.Why does everyone get worked up about the technology of a golf ball? Why is it that its so important to have a 'free ball',they aren't being abuse or in slavery

[David B]

One other thing I'll mention is another article I was reading mentioned that Iron Byron is being retired, and a new ball testing machine is being readied that will actually test the balls under optimal flight conditions, and those conditions may be more strict than the current test.

The article also lamented that of course all currently conforming balls will have to be grandfathered into any new rule, so all PGA pro's will do is stockpile a boatload of balls since any new balls made will have to conform to a stricter standard... so exactly how will a 'speed limit' help anything?

Just stuff to ponder.

[dave.]

The big leaps and bounds in balls have probably already been taken,once balata got dumped the changes have been small.The move from balata was huge,its now like shampoo or washing powder,they just seem to be inventing new words and marketing crap to pretend otherwise.

Another thought,if distance was everything,the pros would play Pinnacles.Its distance with spin thats causing the problem,hence why I suggested a limit on spin rate,as an example.

[DouginGA]

OH I SEE!!
you are talking about the ball going to far.
I was gonna agree with montgomery where he says ""Everything's about 75% - I'm missing too many fairways, I'm missing too many greens, I'm chipping poorly and I'm not making my putts and that adds up to two or three shots a round."
except it adds up to about 10 or 15 shots per round.

[DouginGA]

Having reread the article and thread I would ask you all to consider what a "one ball" concept would do to shottalk. No more rants and raves about what a great ball the pro V1 is?

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by Rockford35

Nope, totally disagree.

Grow the rough, tighten fairways and put bunkers at 290 instead of 240.

The courses we have can still eat you up if you don't put the ball in play. Make these guys use all the shots in their bag rather than just putting it out there 340 into the 1" rough and wedging it in.

If that same rough was 4", you'd see guys breaking wrists and hitting fat shots left, right and center.

It's not the equipment, it's the courses. They play to the tournament style, allowing the masses to follow along their favorite. All that wide open space alongside fairways allows mistakes to be not punishable, but allows guys to "get away with one".

Length isn't the answer, it's using what you have to challenge the skilled players. How many times do you see a player hit a ball into the pines and have a 'clear' shot to the green? What about leaving some underbrush?

This single ball theory holds no water.

R35

OK let's accept your logic. Keep the courses the same length they are and let manufacturers continue to produce hotter balls - no limit. Battle back against the increasingly longer balls by tightening fairways and increasing/enlarging bunkers.

So let's extrapolate for about 20 more years....balls keep getting longer and longer and course lengths at these classic courses which have no room to move stay the same.

Given your suggestion that the fairways be narrowed and the roughs grown higher - to continue this strategy would be narrower and narrower fairways. 30 yards too wide? Go to 20. Balls getting longer and longer? Go to a 15 yard wide fairway...heck maybe that is too wide to keep the scores where they should be. Go to a ten yard fairway. 6 inch rough not penal enough? Go to a foot. Keep a player from advancing the ball more than 10 yards...