• Welcome To ShotTalk.com!

    We are one of the oldest and largest Golf forums on the internet with golfers from around the world sharing tips, photos and planning golf outings.

    Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

"Tournament Ball" experiment begins in Ohio

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,126
25
Country
United States United States
Let's put this in another perspective. Don't you think a shorter flying ball is going to actually give an unfair disadvantage to the top hitting players, you know, they ones people pay to see? I know with a swing speed of only 105 MPH, if I hit a low compression ball I get some really strange ball flights and lose distance. Do you think they can design a ball that will not provide an unfair advantage to the slower swinging players?

What would you think if I said "I have a swing speed of 75 mph and I want to use a Pro-V1x because I see what kind of distance people get with those". You're going to drill me a new one about how I would actually lose distance over a lower compression ball. How does this fit this logic. If they use a ball with a compression rating for someone with a speed of say 110 mph. Are you not limiting the ability of players lower or higher and giving an unfair advantage to a player with a speed of 110mph? I'm interested how you can limit the longer player without actually providing an advantage to inferior golfers. If Bubba, or Tiger or Phil hits a 385 yard drive and it is the only thing that keeps some players in the PGA, and you limit his ability so that he can only hit 285 yard, I'm assuming that in all fairness that someone that only hits the ball 285 yards, will only hit this ball 185 yards? Yeah right. I guess he will be playing 2 to all the par 3's, that would make a wonderful TV atmosphere. No, their going to make a ball that this guy probably still hits 250, or still hits 285 because it is probably the same ball with same compression rating that he currently uses.

Explain how this is fair, or how they are going to make a ball that cuts 80-100 yards off both players drives, and how this will not be rediculous for the fans. Next this commission in Ohio is probably going to say that is the ball manufacturers problem to solve.
 

ezra76

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2006
12,412
16
dave. said:
Anyhting that returns shot making to the fore has to be welcomed.The big hitters now have an advantge,simply becaus ethey are taller and stronger,or just ahve an ability to crash a ball along way.The shot makers need to be brought back into the game somehow,and I don't envy the task of those trying to decide how.

So who are these shotmaker's? I thought they included David Toms and Rory Sabatini? What about Tiger? Sure he hits it a mile, but he is also one of the best shotmakers on tour, not to mention possibly the best putter in the history of the game. If we are going to do this then how about basketball too. I'd like to see the rim raised to 12 feet, so Shaq can't dominate. Wait a minute, I forgot about Allen Iverson, I'm taller than him. Or how about baseball, I'm sick of seeing home runs. Football too, no more players over 250lbs.
 

token_hottie

token_mommy... oops!
Jan 12, 2006
580
0
ezra76 said:
So who are these shotmaker's? I thought they included David Toms and Rory Sabatini? What about Tiger? Sure he hits it a mile, but he is also one of the best shotmakers on tour, not to mention possibly the best putter in the history of the game. If we are going to do this then how about basketball too. I'd like to see the rim raised to 12 feet, so Shaq can't dominate. Wait a minute, I forgot about Allen Iverson, I'm taller than him. Or how about baseball, I'm sick of seeing home runs. Football too, no more players over 250lbs.

I'm glad you brought up professional baseball, that is a great example. They outlawed aluminum and corked bats and steroids so the players couldn't hit a home run every time they stepped up to the plate, not make all the ballparks bigger to accommodate the new advances.
 

ezra76

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2006
12,412
16
token_hottie said:
I'm glad you brought up professional baseball, that is a great example. They outlawed aluminum and corked bats and steroids so the players couldn't hit a home run every time they stepped up to the plate, not make all the ballparks bigger to accommodate the new advances.

Yes, but they also made the strike zone smaller so pitchers throw a lot more meatballs when they are down in the count. Ballparks have actually gotten smaller over the years BTW. Home runs are exciting, that's what brought baseball back after the strike. Long drives are exciting too. I appreciate watching the shotmakers work thier magic but I am a golf nut. The average fan wants to see big drives and without the fans Tiger is just another guy who plays golf, just a whole lot better than me. Look at the ratings for golf on TV with and without Tiger, big difference. Golf sales across the board (from equipment to range revenues) go up when Tiger wins a big tournament. He is the Micheal Jordan of golf, even more so. Why put 2 lb. weights in his sneakers so he can't dunk on everyone?
 

chollyred

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2006
317
0
Every time this argument comes up, I end up arguing with myself. I love seeing Woods, Villegas, etc. hit those monster drives, but hate seeing them hitting driver/wedge on every par 4. At Doral, there was one par 4 where all of the big hitters were all trying to drive the green! They've completely pulled the teeth of the blue monster.

To keep courses like this competitive, then something has to be done. Either lengthen the course (no available land), junk up the course with trees and rough, or contain the ball.

I think my first option would be to make the rough very penal. Make the long hitters think about hitting the wedge back to the fairway as opposed to aiming for the pin. (Ever try to hit out of a 4 inch fescue rough? You can break both wrists if you're not careful.)

Next, contain the ball. How many of us have played softball leagues? Most parks now require the "red stitch" or "limited flight" ball to keep from having to keep moving the fences back. Otherwise, the game is nothing but a home run derby.

The ball can be contained while still allowing Woods, Watson, Daly, etc. outdrive Toms by 50 yards. The fans will still appreciate the length, but will also get to see much more skill applied around the greens.

It won't be popular at first (remember the nationwide 55 mph speed limit?), but we can adapt to it.
 

chollyred

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2006
317
0
fredcouplesfan said:
And is the 55mph nationwide speed limit still around..... nope and this ball thing wont last either.

I'd equate today's new Ti drivers and modern clubs to your highly modded m3. It's rare that you get to take any real advantage of those mods. As the price of gasoline and insurance drove that 55 mph speed limit, the price of land will drive back the golf ball. When courses can't keep up with the technology by lengthening the holes, we'll see more and more courses ripped out for housing developments.

Who wants to see Augusta National, Pinehurst, Pebble Beach, etc. all turned into pitch and putts? Augusta has almost exhausted all avenues to lengthen their course. The next step will be to trick up the course to make it more difficult than ever. What other options are there?
 

Moppy(Lhd)

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2006
7
0
You may end up with a two tour scenario. Like Formula 1 and the A1 series of racing. If you change to a uniform ball, why not change to uniform clubs as well. Who will sponsor the game I dont know. I'm not sure who will watch either. But it could be interesting to have a level playing field though.:prop:
 

Poe4soul

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2006
85
0
If we left the damn balls alone we would not be hitting 300+ yard drives on courses designed for a 250 yard drive. The ball has changed, the equipment has changed. Should the golf courses have to break out a hoe every other year to keep up with this neck break pace of technology? I don't know about the rest of the US but I don't want to have to drive for 45 minutes to play a round of golf because equipment has made the courses I currently play obsolete.
By the way there are already limits on equipement and balls. You can buy non conforming clubs and balls. So the question isn't should there be limited on equipment but how should we limit the equipment. I bet the munufactures have more profit in clubs than in balls, especially at the retail level.
 

ezra76

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2006
12,412
16
Good point on the sales of balls. I am entering my 3rd year playing and I have bought a new dozen from a retailer only once. I just got 15 dozen balls in near mint condition (player markings) off E-bay. I probably won't buy any more for another 2 years. As far as courses becoming obsolete, not a problem for me. It's more of a challenge and higher risk-reward decision making on a shorter course. Yesterday my drives were awful and I paid for it. On many holes a 300 yd. drive dead straight is into the woods. The smart play would be 5wood-7iron, the risk is trying to shape the shot correctly and play Driver-PW. Even on par 5's, trying to put the ball out there to go for it in two, I could have played it as a 3 shot to the green off the tee. A bad tee shot now turns it into a much tougher 3 shots.
 

dave.

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2005
5,926
2
A shotmaker is a golfer who doesn't struggle if he doesn't have a wedge into a green,somone who can turn a ball into the flag using contours,wind and undulations,the exact opposite of a bomb and drop player like that mad lefty who hits it miles but can't score. (not Mickleson,the other one)
 

ezra76

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2006
12,412
16
dave. said:
A shotmaker is a golfer who doesn't struggle if he doesn't have a wedge into a green,somone who can turn a ball into the flag using contours,wind and undulations,the exact opposite of a bomb and drop player like that mad lefty who hits it miles but can't score. (not Mickleson,the other one)

It was actually a rhetorical question. My point is that the big hitters are not exactly dominating in terms of the 2006 money list. Tiger really can't be considered in the equation as he is probably near best in every category. J.B. Holmes had a great few days with the driver and finished it up with a good short game at the FBR. He was only one or two bad drives from losing it though. I think that changing the ball will have all the shotmakers at the top and Tiger will win by 10 in every event he enters. I'll guaratee he won't be using the Sasquatch though. Nike will have a carbon copy of a Titleist 983k on the market before you can blink.
 

dave.

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2005
5,926
2
I agree,Tiger will win,he is a genius with whatevre ball they use.It would just be nice to see Corey pavin come second again
 

ualtim

Carrollton, TX
Supporting Member
Aug 20, 2005
7,705
2,292
Country
United States United States
I like the concept of limiting ball performance, I just do not like the method. Providing a uniform ball is going to benefit some more than others (those who the chosen balls specs fit better.) I would much prefer to see the golf ball perfomance numbers limited and then let the manufacturers go at it with their own examples which would allow the golfer to choose the ball that best fits their game with in the performance specs which protect the the courses from becoming outdated.

Let the USGA and R&A set a distance limit, say 275 yards, that under ideal test conditions a golf ball could not travel farther than the limit. Just like the COR limitation and the club head size limitation, the distance limitation would allow manufacturers the ability to alter designs to fit different golfers as long as they did not exceed the limit.

Why am I for this even though it is only a select group of people that can make the modern ball perform to such obscene distances? Pure and simple, I do not want to pay via greens fees for the increased real estate required to expand current courses or build new ones to accomodate the longer game. Greens fees are bad enough without the added expense of lenghtening holes on a semi annual basis. I am following my money or lack there of.

There have always been equipment rules created to keep the game from morphing into something it was not intended to. IMHO, they were a little late on the COR and head size issues as the industry was ahead of the ruling bodies and the USGA and R&A should act before the ball gets any further out of hand. Besides, unless you are playing with a gallery, who in the world is going to be able to see where these 400 yard projectiles land unless you design elevated tees to straight wide open fairways with minimal rough on every par 4 or par 5? I find it hard enough to find my golf ball when it travels 265 yards and rolls into the rough a few feet from the fairway.

Just my 2 cents.:)
 

Latest posts

Top