Course architect Tom Marzolf, a senior designer with the Fazio Design Group and former ASGCA president, believes the USGA/R&A golf ball proposal is a step, but perhaps not the right one
More of a question than comment. If the new (elite) ball will go 15 yards less at 127 MPH club head speed, how much distance would be lost with a 90 or 100 MPH club head speed? A player with that club head speed does not get the exponential distance increase the the faster swinger does NOW. My guess is that the difference for the slower swinger would be very minor. If so no need to bifurcate.
My first position on this rollback was negative (against it). In my opinion, the most plausible argument against it was that "what makes golf fun is that you can use the same equipment as a pro" as if the average golfer "stacks themselves up" against the pro. I think this is bogus for the majority of golfers.... most golfers are 10+ handicaps (I think statistically, the majority of casual golfers are 15+ handicaps).
Those who are against this that fall in that 10+ handicap bucket should ask themselves if they are truly abiding by the rules of golf on a daily basis? Meaning, are they putting everything out? When a ball goes OB, are they hitting a provisional or re-teeing as they should? Are you posting every round regardless of if you shoot an 80 or a 103? Start there!
It is also an easy stance to just blatantly say the "game needs to evolve".... while I am not a "Sustainability guy", the cost to maintain larger golf courses needs to be considered as well. All of the courses on a bucket-list are those that professionals play and ones that would increase in yardage if nothing is done. More land means more maintenance, which means more cost.... this results in higher greens fees. I surely don't want Pebble Beach to be $1,000 by the time I retire.
I can't speak for the scratch golfer here.... but, for them, use the same ball as the pros! I am sure they will be made available to the public.
A change to the rules of golf should be enacted to acknowledge the differences between highly skilled players, in competition, and the average player.
Then they will have to change golf clubs also, so they do hit as far.
More of a question than comment. If the new (elite) ball will go 15 yards less at 127 MPH club head speed, how much distance would be lost with a 90 or 100 MPH club head speed? A player with that club head speed does not get the exponential distance increase the the faster swinger does NOW. My guess is that the difference for the slower swinger would be very minor. If so no need to bifurcate.
My first position on this rollback was negative (against it). In my opinion, the most plausible argument against it was that "what makes golf fun is that you can use the same equipment as a pro" as if the average golfer "stacks themselves up" against the pro. I think this is bogus for the majority of golfers.... most golfers are 10+ handicaps (I think statistically, the majority of casual golfers are 15+ handicaps).
Those who are against this that fall in that 10+ handicap bucket should ask themselves if they are truly abiding by the rules of golf on a daily basis? Meaning, are they putting everything out? When a ball goes OB, are they hitting a provisional or re-teeing as they should? Are you posting every round regardless of if you shoot an 80 or a 103? Start there!
It is also an easy stance to just blatantly say the "game needs to evolve".... while I am not a "Sustainability guy", the cost to maintain larger golf courses needs to be considered as well. All of the courses on a bucket-list are those that professionals play and ones that would increase in yardage if nothing is done. More land means more maintenance, which means more cost.... this results in higher greens fees. I surely don't want Pebble Beach to be $1,000 by the time I retire.
I can't speak for the scratch golfer here.... but, for them, use the same ball as the pros! I am sure they will be made available to the public.