Twitter: GeoffShac
  • The 1997 Masters: My Story
    The 1997 Masters: My Story
    by Tiger Woods
  • The First Major: The Inside Story of the 2016 Ryder Cup
    The First Major: The Inside Story of the 2016 Ryder Cup
    by John Feinstein
  • Tommy's Honor: The Story of Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris, Golf's Founding Father and Son
    Tommy's Honor: The Story of Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris, Golf's Founding Father and Son
    by Kevin Cook
  • Playing Through: Modern Golf's Most Iconic Players and Moments
    Playing Through: Modern Golf's Most Iconic Players and Moments
    by Jim Moriarty
  • His Ownself: A Semi-Memoir (Anchor Sports)
    His Ownself: A Semi-Memoir (Anchor Sports)
    by Dan Jenkins
  • The Captain Myth: The Ryder Cup and Sport's Great Leadership Delusion
    The Captain Myth: The Ryder Cup and Sport's Great Leadership Delusion
    by Richard Gillis
  • The Ryder Cup: Golf's Grandest Event – A Complete History
    The Ryder Cup: Golf's Grandest Event – A Complete History
    by Martin Davis
  • Harvey Penick: The Life and Wisdom of the Man Who Wrote the Book on Golf
    Harvey Penick: The Life and Wisdom of the Man Who Wrote the Book on Golf
    by Kevin Robbins
  • Grounds for Golf: The History and Fundamentals of Golf Course Design
    Grounds for Golf: The History and Fundamentals of Golf Course Design
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • The Art of Golf Design
    The Art of Golf Design
    by Michael Miller, Geoff Shackelford
  • The Future of Golf: How Golf Lost Its Way and How to Get It Back
    The Future of Golf: How Golf Lost Its Way and How to Get It Back
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • Lines of Charm: Brilliant and Irreverent Quotes, Notes, and Anecdotes from Golf's Golden Age Architects
    Lines of Charm: Brilliant and Irreverent Quotes, Notes, and Anecdotes from Golf's Golden Age Architects
    Sports Media Group
  • Alister MacKenzie's Cypress Point Club
    Alister MacKenzie's Cypress Point Club
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • The Golden Age of Golf Design
    The Golden Age of Golf Design
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • Masters of the Links: Essays on the Art of Golf and Course Design
    Masters of the Links: Essays on the Art of Golf and Course Design
    Sleeping Bear Press
  • The Good Doctor Returns: A Novel
    The Good Doctor Returns: A Novel
    by Geoff Shackelford
  • The Captain: George C. Thomas Jr. and His Golf Architecture
    The Captain: George C. Thomas Jr. and His Golf Architecture
    by Geoff Shackelford
« Jack Won't Be Watching Tiger Or Any Golf Unless By Accident | Main | Video: 75-year-old claims more than 80 aces... »
Thursday
Dec142017

Jack Nicklaus Sounds Like He's On Board With Governing Body "Variable Distance" Option

The A Position's Steve Pike was present when Jack Nicklaus christened The Legend Course today at The Club at Ibis in West Palm Beach, Fla., and the Golden Bear spoke about the distance issue.

While this is hardly news, Mr. Nicklaus did seem to be echoing the USGA's concept of a variable distance ball.

“We ought to rate golf courses,’’ Nicklaus said. “Rather than going back and spending millions of dollars changing golf courses, golf courses should be 100 percent, 90 percent, 80 percent or 70 percent.’’

If golf’s ruling bodies (primarily the U.S. Golf Association) don’t want to roll back the golf ball, he said,  “they need to go to all the golf associations and say ‘This is our criteria to rate your golf courses.’’’

A golf ball would be rated to fit the corresponding course and could be a way to save some older, shorter courses.

“Take an old course that 5,800 yards. That doesn’t challenge anybody. But if you made that a 70 percent golf course and have a 70 percent ball for it, it would play just difficult as (The Legend) from the back tees. “If you want to play an 80 or 100 percent ball, go play it.  All you’re doing is making the course play shorter and faster.’’

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (64)

Why not just have a tournament ball for pro tournaments and leave it at that? It's far simpler.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterIvan Morris
A completely impractical idea.

The only solution that makes any kind of sense, really, is a blanket rollback of the ball at all levels.

Lost in all this hysteria about alienating amateur golfers is the simple fact that golf's greatest pleasure -- or one of them -- lies in the fact that a good shot is a good shot for everyone, regardless of your level. For those brief few seconds after you really connect with a drive or stitch a parachute shot, you're on equal footing with the greats. That's a more powerful incentive to play than sacrificing the ProV is a disincentive, imho.

On a practical level, too, I just can't see how a variable-distance option couple be applied. It might work in the United States, where the vast majority of amateurs appear only to play very casually, but in the British Isles, most golf is formalised, to the extent that it becomes very difficult to make clear distinctions between classes of golfer (ie. where a competition ball should apply and where it shouldn't).
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterJimothy
Jimothy +1

“The fun part of golf is the variety of shots. In football you can do anything with a ball, but you can do anything with a golf ball as well. When you hit a shot and the ball does exactly what you want it to do … that’s wonderful. It’s just great when you hit the ball well. You should always try not to make the ball cry.” Johan Cruyff from Ian Hardie website
I am choosing to believe that Jack meant that 5800 yds doesn’t challenge tour players and elite ams. The majority of golfers in the world should be playing 5800 yds with the longest ball they can find! I just read that Jack will be playing less than 6100 yds at the Father Son. I assume that is because 6900 is too much challenge for guys over 70.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterTaffy
Love Jack but that is nonsense and going nowhere
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterLong Knocker
At the very least, he is consistent in recognizing the problem. This may not be workable, but he keeps throwing out ideas.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterBDF
A 5800 yard course with a 70% ball would effectively be playing over 7500 yards. Really? Is this what you want? Please think this stuff through before you come up with stupid ideas. Evolution is inevitable. Prestwick was the first Open course and was past over because of going from the feathery to the gutta to the haskell...... has golf survived? Yes! It's done quite nicely. The idea that you MUST protect "classic" golf courses that fewer than .01% of golfers will ever play is a flawed straw man argument.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterNE golfer
Proving that Jack in not the man you want to design your course - he's into using distance aids and now seems to want to rate courses - wow, has this guy forgotten the very idea behind the game of golf that of 'variety'. How would you rate a course like The Old Course St Andrews based upon perhaps one day being a great calm day, the next rather windy - its madness and quite frankly stupid to even consider.

Stop F@&king about and address the issues or stand down as Governing Bodies of the game of golf - Just when will these dickheads at the R&A & USGA get their heads out of their backsides, address the issues, and do the honest thing by respect the game and its traditions.

Common sense would, well I would have thought may prevail, in that its madness to rate courses, - as conditions changes - surely Jack should have noticed or does that explain many of his designs?
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterTom Morris
I'm on the side that the ball does go too far but this idea is just plain stupid.
“Take an old course that 5,800 yards. That doesn’t challenge anybody. "

Really? It's actually where most people should be playing from instead of "one up from the tips". Go play Southern Pines GC, Pine Needles or Mid Pines from 5800 yards and you won't walk off the course saying "I wasn't challenged." And guess what, not everyone plays golf to be challenged. Every golfer has their own definition of what golf is to them. Right Tom?
12.15.2017 | Unregistered Commenterol Harv
He means it doesn't challenge pros. Please. He's coming up with ideas and they are worthy of discussion. It;'s boring watching bomb and gouge.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterDave
The 15 handicapper isn't the problem. He's still trying to beat 90 on somewhat of a regular basis, and he's only reaching a par 5 in two once a year — on the day when he has tropical-storm winds at his back.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered Commenterrgw
I cant see the attraction of making every course effectively play the same. I would rather bifurcate.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered Commenterchico
I agree with Dave and me thinks most of the people on here knew that. Call me crazy but I kind of like the idea. As with most "outside the box" notions, it needs some discussion to determine if it's practical but the idea of using the golf ball to change the shot values rather than the tees is cool.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterSchlasser
Perhaps the big winner in this scenario would be the golf ball manufacturers -- avid golfers that play a variety of courses across the year would need to purchase and have more golf balls of varying standards available for their play at 70/80/90/100 rated courses depending on the particular day/week/month/season etc. -- not sure if this is the best solution -- perhaps bifrucation may work best in this instance with a 'scratch rated ball' that is dialed back from todays ball for use at PGA/USGA/NCAA/and other championship level play/events...and then a 'club level golf ball' that could be similar to today's existing ball that is for use by the majority of golfers in the world that carry a handicap or index.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterKeith - NYC
An interesting idea, worthy of discussion. Those who summarily dismiss it are those who for whom I hold the greatest mistrust.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered Commentermeefer
A junior or amateur tournament dictates a 80 ball, and people sneak in a 90. Oh we thought that 90 was its compression. Might as well offer 110s for the corporate scrambles...
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterLoose Impediments
I must be missing something here, so help me out. I generally play a course at 6600 yards, my 100%. I know how far the ball will go with most of my clubs, when I hit it well. If I move up a tee to 6000 for a senior event, I should change my Bridgestone to my 6000/6600 (91%) ball, rather than hit a 9-iron where a smooth 7-iron was previously the club? Or 3-wood instead of driver? Nuts. Besides, as noted above, most of us are happily challenged at 5800 yards with whatever we find on the shelf at Dick's.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterKLG
This is a total strawman argument put forth by those who seek financial gain. It’s obvious why it is overworked as a topic by the host of this site: he needs clicks and the left learners and euro swine who need to cry and whine everyday about the horrible state of Golf need a place to post comments. Golf course designers ( real ones, not fake like our host) are looking for work so they throw up this ball rollback idiocy hoping it’ll stick somewhere. Give it up Shack, nobody hired you the last 20 years and rolling back the ball won’t change their minds. Just face the fact that you have no future as a course designer and stick to blogging where you can have your fun deleting truthful posts like this one.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterStrawman
This idea is even dumber than the others.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterErik J. Barzeski
It is admired that the Bear remains passionate & engaged. When the cattle started roaming the range on the distance issue, what, 30 years ago, he invented the Cayman ball. He recognized the problem and still does. 30 years and they've accomplished nothing. NOTHING. Hurts to say it.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterRRR
@RRR
You realize Jack Nicklaus makes his money designing golf courses, don’t you?
You understand that there is zero demand for brand new 8000 yd golf courses, don’t you?
So now do you understand why Nicklaus wants to “roll back the ball”?
Or do you think it’s “for the good of the game” lol
12.15.2017 | Unregistered Commenteragenda driven
Erik- rolling back the ball is not dumb..It will preserve the game and the great courses it is played on so in 100 years people can still go to the Old Course and the rest and still marvel at the history we enjoy today.
But on Jack's latest idea, I will agree, not a good one.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterEasingwold
I think it is and I’m not rehashing the same old stuff again.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterErik J. Barzeski
You're entitled to your opinion, short sighted though it is.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterEasingwold
It's much easier than Jack proposes. Use 2 balls. Pro Ball and Amateur Ball- Just like football!! Or the bats in baseball!
Div. 1 NCAA can make their own decision whether to use the pro or Am ball.
Pro ball is dialed back 15%. (That makes Dustin Johnson drive 305 yards rather than 350)
Am ball is exactly what we have now. I kinda like driving 275 now and then, and NO ONE will mistake my game for Dustin Johnson.
See.. wasn't that easy?
12.15.2017 | Unregistered Commenterjack
Absolutely that easy, Jack. All these anti-bifurcation folks(like Mr. Barzeski) fail to acknowledge that the game is already bifurcated-in reverse. Joe six-pack hacker doesn't have access to the technological and optimization gains that pros do. Unless he has weekly appointments at launch monitor centers in Carlsbad or daily access to PGA Tour level optimization tents, they aren't getting full benefit like the pros. And their games-with their lower swing speeds and substandard launch conditions-don't benefit from the ball(or club) technology as much as the pros even if they did have ready access to all those gadgets and computer analyses.

The notion that the rollback the ball crowd is "an argument put forth by those who seek financial gain" is the biggest strawman of all. I can tell you I have no financial stake in the matter, just a love of the game and appreciation for design and mental aspects of the game that have become more and more irrelevant(in the pro and top amateur game). It's actually the equipment companies that fear losing their financial gain from where most of the opposition is.

By the way, I have no issue at all with rolling it back for everybody-since most golfers wouldn't really notice the difference anyway. But something definitely needs to be done at the pro level.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterMatt
Pros play with wooden drivers. Works for baseball.
12.15.2017 | Unregistered CommenterDon
Jack's idea only needs to be used for the back tees.
So instead of extending the tees back another 30 metres the ball changes.
Only pros affected.
Easy.
Matt, they do have access to the same things. More so now than at any point in the past, really.

An equipment company who is in third or fourth (see, Bridgestone) stands to gain financially from a roll-back, because maybe they can "reset" their position in the game. Titleist is really the only one "fearing" a roll-back.
12.16.2017 | Unregistered CommenterErik J. Barzeski
How about just playing good old golf on courses designed to play golf - that at least would be a start in try to re-connect many with the game of Golf - clearly some have travelled light years away from the game and to a point, golfing reality.

The future of the game is through clever design, something lacking over the past 50-70 years or so. Roll-back/distance can be combated by utilising one’s mind and design courses which again re-connect the game through the challenges of avoiding hazards - these courses were once known as “sporty courses”, however the 'political correct' club owners, Green Committees, and Designers believed in words like strategic but without the penal content, so f@&ked up the designs, time after time. Golf Courses should reflect the surrounding land while offering a unique flavour of that area/region - they should not be identical copies of each other and by adding some fake ageing details does not establishing a pedigree nor can an Island Green define penal.

We are reaping what we’ve sown - by travelling way to far from the core concept of the game and golf course design, to the point that we have forgotten the very things we strive for - courses that reflect the honesty of the Royal & Ancient Game of Golf.
12.16.2017 | Unregistered CommenterTom Morris
There will not be a limited distance, classic course protecting golf ball produced by any manufacturer because there is not an economy of scale to warrant production. Want an example of this principle- There is a manufacturer of reproduction hickory-era golf balls that makes playable replicas of gutta-percha balls that has to charge more per ball than the MSRP of brand new Pro V1 types given the difficulty of production and the very limited market for such a pill. This guttie ball, whether with cut lines or a mesh pattern surface would immediately solve the 'too-long' ball issue.
More critically, these 'faulty-aerodynamic' spheres have such low spin rates that the dead aim drop-n-stop shot onto the green with a #7 iron would become a lucky occurance, not a given for a tour-level player. If there is a factor that can be readily modified gradually to adjust the flight of the ball is mandate a reduction of the potential spin rate of the ball. There will always be long-hitters. Demanding those same long johns perfect their shot making skills without spheres that stop-on-a-dime is another matter.
12.16.2017 | Unregistered CommenterJ. Alan
Bad choice, Jack.
12.16.2017 | Unregistered CommenterFC
Trying playing Pinehurst #3 if you think a 5800 yard course is not a challenge!
12.16.2017 | Unregistered Commenterscott
Eric, they have access but it's not free or easy access like the pros do. The average golfer doesn't have the time or money to optimize like the pros whose livelihood depends on it. The pro has benefitted far more than average players from technological gains.
12.16.2017 | Unregistered CommenterMatt
@J Alan

Throughout all this talk of ball rollback, very little is mentioned regards utilising golf course design to control distances, by being more retro in design matters. Strategic as defined by many today, no longer cuts anything for it has become a blunt, its teeth have been removed because we or rather the designers, clubs and Pro's seem to fear the very idea of playing on real golf courses. The original idea behind the game of golf was for the course to test, and challenge the golfer - not what we have today, simple courses designed to generate low scores and make todays professionals look better than they actually are.
But we can't talk about because it all relates in the end to money. Everyone is making money and to Hell with the game and its traditions. Design can combat the long shots, so why are we not seeing designers addressing this issue?
12.16.2017 | Unregistered CommenterTom Morris
Matt, you said they don't have access, and put me down in saying it.

You're wrong. It's not even that expensive - we have a FlightScope that our members can use if they just ask. They can "optimize" to their heart's content.

Most don't "optimize" frequently because they have other, more important things, to work on than whether they're getting an extra 8.4 yards on average by adjusting their launch angle half a degree. Improving their swing and finding the center of the face or not having a path that's 8° left is a bigger concern.

Saying that the game is "bifurcated already" and that I'm "failing to acknowledge" it is more bogus now than ever. Never before has "tour level optimization" been available for as many golfers. Heck the FlightScope Mevo is $500.
12.16.2017 | Unregistered CommenterErik J. Barzeski
Eris-

Who the heck has something called a "FlightScope Mevo"? Not me and nobody I know.

You note that your "members" can use this thing. At a stuffy country club, I presume? Trust me, public course golfers rarely use or have heard of these things. Every single pro optimizes. Very few regular golfers do, whether it's easily available or not(we apparently have different definitions of that).

Like I said, I have no issues with a rollback for everyone, because as you note, most golfers are better off fixing their swing than trying to bandaid with technology. Bifurcation is fine too. Titleist will whine either way, but I don't care.
12.16.2017 | Unregistered CommenterMatt
Matt, stop posting from a position of rampant ignorance. FlightScope has sold thousands of Mevos. I had ten people buy them - and they love 'em - without even seeing one personally.

"Members" are members of my site. I play most of my golf at a public course two miles from my house. Of the ten I just distributed… let's see… two went to private club members. Eight went to daily fees players.

Keep on keepin' on… being wrong. :P
12.16.2017 | Unregistered CommenterErik J. Barzeski
Is Jack senile? Or is he just dumb
12.16.2017 | Unregistered CommenterV60

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.