[Cyncceply]

I still don't understand what the big problem is. Average distance isn't out of this world, even on Tour. The longest guys aren't necessarily the best guys either.

[oplapofffe]

I still don't understand what the big problem is. Average distance isn't out of this world, even on Tour. The longest guys aren't necessarily the best guys either.

This is completely correct. I don't really see a reason to change it.

[Cyncceply]

50 yards is massive!! I would think if they would ever do it that it would be more like 20-30 yards (knocking the avg down to 270ish) which would equate to 12-23 yards for us. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

I do agree making tougher for us isn't the right answer. If these courses would grow some penal rough and firm up their greens it wouldn't matter how far they hit it and scores would be closer to par and that way it only effects the best and not all of us.

For some reason, I thought the tour average was right around 270, but I very well may be mistaken.

[Cyncceply]

Regardless of 270 or 290 - I still don't think it matters.

[JacksHH]

I can see Jack's point as it is the only real way that one change could be made to affect all golfers equally. If they are going to change things this would probably be one of the better options

Someone has posted that it would knock 15yds off each shot. NO IT WOULD NOT.

It would only loose that amount off 2 clubs(driver & 3 wood) max and not be able to get it back. Yes I agree that you would not be able to use for example a 7 iron for a 160yd shot as you do now, but that loss in distance could be clawed back by hitting a 6 iron, so you don't actually loose the distance but have to use a different club to attain it. Nothing states that you MUST use a 7 iron for 160yds.

Changing the ball would not necessarily make it tougher for us, just different as we would be hitting more longer clubs. The more of those you hit, the more proficient with them you will become.

There is no way to know today what effect it will have as far as distance loss goes. It all depends as to what changes they make to the ball.

Doing anything that takes anything further from the everyday average player (you and I) would be very wrong in my view. I'm 50 years old and not nearly as long off the tee today as I was fifteen years ago, but the distance lost has not been as great as it could be because the technology in the clubs and balls have allowed me to almost keep up.

If the ruling bodies do address this in the future and I think they will, they will be looking to take more than just 15 yards off the driver shots of the tour players. Do that, and it will result in a much greater loss for the rest of us. I'm very against taking anything away from the masses, just because 300 world class players hit the ball too far. They have already stymied us enough just because of the extraordinary play of a few.

[Blellurgews]

By limiting the ball you have to rely on skill and equipment to produce greater length. I see nothing wrong with this. As for the govern bodies basing decisions on tour feedback that seems to be the only consistent arena to get feedback. These guys play the same ball all year and for the most part the same equipment. The average amateur plays what is available and cost effective. Or plays a ball not suited for their swing or game. This is not a very reliable source to base decisions on...IMO

[Gymnfacymoota]

This what they have been doing for the past few years at many courses used by the PGA Tour. Problem is, many of the courses simply have no more room to expand tee boxes back. Jack has talked often from a design standpoint that he is not in favor of building courses longer. He views further changes/restrictions to the clubs and balls as the fix.

I was tired last night... didn't even think about space. I bet there are some holes where it could be done though. They would also restrict driver shaft lengths.

[Alex Photographer]

I can see Jack's point as it is the only real way that one change could be made to affect all golfers equally. If they are going to change things this would probably be one of the better options

Someone has posted that it would knock 15yds off each shot. NO IT WOULD NOT.

It would only loose that amount off 2 clubs(driver & 3 wood) max and not be able to get it back. Yes I agree that you would not be able to use for example a 7 iron for a 160yd shot as you do now, but that loss in distance could be clawed back by hitting a 6 iron, so you don't actually loose the distance but have to use a different club to attain it. Nothing states that you MUST use a 7 iron for 160yds.

Changing the ball would not necessarily make it tougher for us, just different as we would be hitting more longer clubs. The more of those you hit, the more proficient with them you will become.

[Usesdiums]

I like Jack and he has brought the ball thing up for sometime now every chance he gets. I think he would like to see the ball rolled back. The only problem I have with it, is that only the top 0.01% of all the worlds golfers, of which there are around 35 million, hit the ball too far. Jack also does not want to see two sets of rules for 99.9% of us and for the other 0.01% (pros) so he wants this change to be across the board. Jack has a bit of tunnel vision, looking only from the world class view. Like the groove rule, rolling back the ball could have a huge negative impact on us that make of the 99.9%. Pretty sad that the ruling bodies are looking at everything based only on what happens on tour.

Yeah I'm usually around 250 off the tee with my best drive being about 295 which is about the PGA average. If they made a ball standard that took off 20-30 yards I'd really hate that since right now a long par 4 (say 420+ yards) is already a good drive and hybrid/fairway wood just to get on the green in regulation. If they take away 40 yards I wouldn't even be able to reach in 2

[JacksHH]

The simple solution would be to have the PGA tell the courses to move the tees back.

This what they have been doing for the past few years at many courses used by the PGA Tour. Problem is, many of the courses simply have no more room to expand tee boxes back. Jack has talked often from a design standpoint that he is not in favor of building courses longer. He views further changes/restrictions to the clubs and balls as the fix.

[NofFoomiTot]

If Jack gets his way, the marketing will be awesome:

Taylormade: We fly just as far as they do.

[newshep]

Jack Nicklaus recently commented that the ball is the one common factor for all golfers where distance could be limited.

Why would changing the ball be different then changing the equipment?

[Usesdiums]

We don't play 7500 yard courses either and we have the option to move up a set of tees. I think you overestimate the effect any change would have on the masses.

I disagree. I mean I'm not sure how much distance they'd be looking at taking away but if it's like 15 yards average on each shot even moving up a set of tees won't make up the difference.

Plus what about the people who already play from the front tees and don't hit the ball very far?

[JacksHH]

^Very true. There is no reason why there couldn't be two different sets of rules. It would make it easier for the manufacturers too because they already make adjustment from retail products for tour players.
The governing bodies should be doing everything they can to make golf as appealing as possible to the casual/recreational golfer, not making it harder!

I've often thought about why there couldn't/shouldn't be different rules in many sports...like, what would be wrong if the NBA played on a court a little longer, a little wider shooting to a rim a little tighter, or why couldn't the NFL play on a field a little longer, a little wider with the goal post a little closer together, or professional baseball on a field with longer baselines, and the home run fence a little further away, but I'm not sure I like the idea of different rules in golf, one for us and one for the professionals.

As radical as it may seem to most of us, I'm not sure John Solhiem is not on to something that could make sense when it comes to what will become in the very near future, the golf ball "issue". While it may not be the answer in a nut shell, it does provide food for thought. I see his idea as much better than simply rolling back the ball for the 99.9% players in the world that don't hit the ball too far. We grow the game not by making it harder. We should not be penalized because 0.01% of the worlds golfers hit the ball too far.

http://www.ping.com/clubs/bdr.aspx

[lkastonidwedsrer]

^Very true. There is no reason why there couldn't be two different sets of rules. It would make it easier for the manufacturers too because they already make adjustment from retail products for tour players.
The governing bodies should be doing everything they can to make golf as appealing as possible to the casual/recreational golfer, not making it harder!

Yes there is: The two biggest tournaments in the world determine the best golfers in the world, not just the best professional golfers in the world.

If there were 2 sets of rules, it would have been almost impossible for Mickleson to win as an amateur, and very, very difficult for the handful of amateurs out there that manage to finish on the leaderboard at pro or open tournaments to do so.

Jack's been arguing for rollbacks on the ball for a long, long time. What he needs to be working on is creative architecture that rewards GOOD shots as opposed to just long ones.

[hwood]

I disagree. If they roll back the ball to take say 50 yards off the tee shots for the world class player, what do you think the distance loss will be for us? I think it could have a huge negative effect on the other 99.9%. We don't want the ruling bodies to stymie us just because of a few.

50 yards is massive!! I would think if they would ever do it that it would be more like 20-30 yards (knocking the avg down to 270ish) which would equate to 12-23 yards for us. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

I do agree making tougher for us isn't the right answer. If these courses would grow some penal rough and firm up their greens it wouldn't matter how far they hit it and scores would be closer to par and that way it only effects the best and not all of us.

[EzequielTMann]

With what real estate? Tons of courses are already tipped out.

The simple solution would be to have the PGA tell the courses to move the tees back.

[Thigmaswams]

^Very true. There is no reason why there couldn't be two different sets of rules. It would make it easier for the manufacturers too because they already make adjustment from retail products for tour players.
The governing bodies should be doing everything they can to make golf as appealing as possible to the casual/recreational golfer, not making it harder!

[hwood]

I like Jack and he has brought the ball thing up for sometime now every chance he gets. I think he would like to see the ball rolled back. The only problem I have with it, is that only the top 0.01% of all the worlds golfers, of which there are around 35 million, hit the ball too far. Jack also does not want to see two sets of rules for 99.9% of us and for the other 0.01% (pros) so he wants this change to be across the board. Jack has a bit of tunnel vision, looking only from the world class view. Like the groove rule, rolling back the ball could have a huge negative impact on us that make of the 99.9%. Pretty sad that the ruling bodies are looking at everything based only on what happens on tour.

We don't play 7500 yard courses either and we have the option to move up a set of tees. I think you overestimate the effect any change would have on the masses.

[JacksHH]

50 yards is massive!! I would think if they would ever do it that it would be more like 20-30 yards (knocking the avg down to 270ish) which would equate to 12-23 yards for us. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

I do agree making tougher for us isn't the right answer. If these courses would grow some penal rough and firm up their greens it wouldn't matter how far they hit it and scores would be closer to par and that way it only effects the best and not all of us.

I understand what you are saying but I don't want to give up 20-30 yards and I should not have to. If only 0.01% of all golfers are hitting the ball too far, why hurt the other 99.9% like they did with the groove rule? That is the part I hate. The ruling bodies have to find another way.