I’m for anything that helps make the game easier, thus more enjoyable for the masses.
USGA/R&A Distance Report
MartinD but 'it's too expensive for the manufacturers to make several different types of club' is not one of them
Including such variants as the Cally triple diamond LS models. Same applies to balls - easy to tweak as they
already do it for the Pros. I don't have any concerns for the OEM Manufacturers - they'll survive.
However, it will be interesting to see how the OEM's 'advertise' the new products when the time comes.
Par4QC I take my Launcher 400, or my 455DB, or Indio out ocassionally. I'm fairly good at hitting center so I don't see any loss of distance nor forgiveness over newer models.
I’m sure we all have anecdotal stories. But there’s no question there’s measurable forgiveness gains that have been made. Maybe it’s not perceivable to some, but engineering wise it’s there.
Again, I’ll take all the latest technology that helps make the game easier. I’m never going to be in favor of going backwards.
Ok, now they aren't talking about '5%' loss. They are saying the PGA Pros will lose 9-11 yds., LPGA 5-7, and amateurs only 5.
We wasted 527 posts on something trivial. We could have discussed boobies.
They seem to keep getting bigger, albeit artificially most times.
- Edited
MartinD There are several good arguments that can be made against having different equipment standards for high-level competition, but 'it's too expensive for the manufacturers to make several different types of club' is not one of them
Not my opinion, but from someone I heard on PGA Radio. They said retooling head size, forgiveness etc., with driver heads will cost money.
Just as retooling the golf ball will. How much is relative I suppose. But that’s the reason given as to why bifurcation isn’t happening.
Sneakylong
Easier isn’t inherently better, nor more enjoyable. I would much rather play a game of chess than tic-tac-toe. And, yes, I realize that golf is tough (not tic-tac-toe simple), but the distances added to the game over the last thirty plus years have not made me enjoy the game any more. The addictive part for me was in the challenge. Making the challenge harder simply makes the reward greater.
Stu1961 I chose to think of it terminating a period where we were unnecessarily rewarded
So you're saying I should be thankful that the hockey pucks I use are still the same size and weight as when I started?
I should embrace the day that they make them heavier and/or larger since all the pros shoot harder these days due to non-wooden sticks that are here to stay?
That is utter and complete asinine nonsense.
Stu1961 The addictive part for me was in the challenge.
+1!!
But, I'm not going to take out my old MacGregor blades and play any more. Challenging yes, but not quite the fun it used to be.
Challenges now consist of building something new and taking it out, without any trials, and just play. Or trying different balls. And see if shots and scores are affected.
- Edited
Par4QC We wasted 527 posts on something trivial
Maybe, maybe not. They said they’re not going to stop. They’re going to continually revisit. Next up driver forgiveness. What’s after that?
I’ll probably stop playing golf before this takes place anyway. I’m debating this out of principle.
It’s the only governing body of any sport that is trying to regress. Mind boggling. 
Again, I would have no issue if they just were doing this at the elite level and we had bifurcation.
But because of cost etc., bifurcation is off the table.
- Edited
Stu1961 the distances added to the game over the last thirty plus years have not made me enjoy the game any more.
I would argue all of the technology gains over the last 30 years have made the game better / more enjoyable for the average golfer. It’s cumulative. Why regress?
- Edited
Eguller This new ball may well stunt TW's comeback!! He was already coming up short last weekend, with irons. Driver was blasting past his partners though.
Oh wait...he'll be a Champion Tour member when it applies.
Shorter courses anyway.
Never mind.
Eguller Rory on average would lose approx. 15-26 yards.
No wonder Rory is all for this new ball.
It's going to keep him out of the trees!!
- Edited
Spuzz but only after being unnecessarily punished, and punishing those who only play for fun.
But if you are a recreational player and you don't want to be punished...move up a tee box. Problem solved. Isn't that easier than adding 600 yards to every course that hosts a competition?
If maximum enjoyment is the target here, then recreational golfers should be playing the front tee boxes at all times.
But if you want to play the back tees, but now your 250 yard drive only goes 235, then yeah, you're not going to like golf. If you want to play the back tees and feel like a Pro, well, that takes more than equipment.
Another story from my local muni. #16 is a dogleg left, all hazard left. Maybe 320 on a straight line, but you must carry 260-270. The safe route right is a 220 tee shot short of trees, leaving 200 in. But you can hit a 220 yd shot over a tall tree on the corner and leave 150 in. That shot to 150 was the usual choice and made this hole very playable.
This course was built in the 50s. I never saw anyone try to go straight at the green. Then about 10-15 years ago, that changed. All of a sudden, numerous players started taking the chance. I am sure a few heroic efforts succeeded, but the vast majority failed miserably. And many of those failures went far left into a row of houses. I remember sitting there watching a couple of 20 somethings each try 5 or 6 tee shots to drive that green. 1 may have made it, but I am certain 4 or 5 hit houses.
The homeowners sued, and won. The muni course (that means our tax dollars) had to pay for repairs, AND they had to rebuild the tee box placing large tees left. Not only did that take away the straight line shot, it also took away the 3 wood over the tree. Now you either play a duck hook, or you hit the 220 shot and leave yourself 200 in. If you hit a fade, forget it.
And guess what, the owners of the 60 year old houses left and long of the green have just sued the course, saying that the changes in the tee box have significantly increased the number of balls hitting their homes.
We'll all be playing solely on simulators soon and none of this will matter.
Sneakylong I would argue all of the technology gains over the last 30 years have made the game better / more enjoyable for the average golfer.
And I would argue that it’s only made it easier … not better, … and for the occasional golfer not average. Just like bumpers in the gutters for when kids go bowling.
Sparky But if you are a recreational player and you don't want to be punished.
By forcing rec golfers to play one ball, or change to a different tee box as you say, you are punishing them. You are removing a choice of how they enjoy the game.
Why should an archaic organization force the 99 percent of it's participants to do it their way?
It's unnecessary and it's BS.
The rest of your scenario can be rectified with simple on course out of bounds (already being done at the pro level) or local rules added. Not that hard.
As far as adding yards to competition course, why would a rec golfer give a fuck about that? And who are you to tell others how they should enjoy the game and what equates to enjoyment?
It appears you think score is the only objective to fun. It's not everyone's view.
Stu1961 I’m not going to research the history of hockey pucks. If you want to meet in the middle with tennis as a comparison, I’m game.
You don't need to. They have been the same size and weight forever.
The sticks are not wood anymore. The athletes are not small anymore. The ice they play on is smoother and faster. Average shots are faster. Sound familiar?
No puck "roll back" will happen.
I know jack shit about tennis equipment but, as a guess, I would say there are less aces on a clay court than a hard court, in comparison to how fairways are cut.
