LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 09-30-2012, 10:01 AM   #21
Cyncceply

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
495
Senior Member
Default
Indeed it is.
Cyncceply is offline


Old 09-30-2012, 10:01 AM   #22
CarrieSexy

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
449
Senior Member
Default
I can't see them dialing the balls back, but I can see them capping the balls at their current technology, which seems reasonable.
CarrieSexy is offline


Old 10-01-2012, 10:01 AM   #23
JacksHH

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
642
Senior Member
Default
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?
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.
JacksHH is offline


Old 10-01-2012, 10:01 AM   #24
AccusaJalsBub

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
550
Senior Member
Default
Quite a few years ago, the golf channel had a "round table" about the future of the game, and Jack was talking about limiting the balls and how "everyone is so obsessed with distance and just wants to bomb 300 yard drives." To which one of the other forum members said, "Yeah, Jack, everyone wants to play like you!!"
AccusaJalsBub is offline


Old 10-01-2012, 10:01 AM   #25
Usesdiums

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
471
Senior Member
Default
For some reason, I thought the tour average was right around 270, but I very well may be mistaken.
Tour average is right around 290 pretty sure. I remember seeing it quite a bit while watching golf
Usesdiums is offline


Old 10-01-2012, 10:01 AM   #26
Gymnfacymoota

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
470
Senior Member
Default
The simple solution would be to have the PGA tell the courses to move the tees back.
Gymnfacymoota is offline


Old 10-01-2012, 10:01 AM   #27
LSg44PDu

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
440
Senior Member
Default
Maybe the solution is to make the pros drink a couple of beers on each nine and ban them from the gym.

There are virtually no par 5's on the pro tours any more; they hit driver/7 iron into many of them.

So what if they shoot in the 50's on some of the older/shorter courses. I can't (and never could) even on an executive course; that doesn't mean I can't have fun on one.

The governing bodies limit the ball speed now; they limit the COR. Like they say for the Champion's Tour, "These Guys are Good"

Let 'em play.
LSg44PDu is offline


Old 10-02-2012, 10:01 AM   #28
JacksHH

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
642
Senior Member
Default
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. 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.
JacksHH is offline


Old 10-02-2012, 10:01 AM   #29
JacksHH

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
642
Senior Member
Default
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.
I agree Hawk, but Jack has been talking about the need to rollback the ball for a couple of years now as the answer to the course becoming too short for the pro players. I just hope that they don't go the same route as the groove rule. The groove rule change had a much greater negative impact on us than it had on the professionals.
JacksHH is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity