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.’’
Reader Comments (64)
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).
“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
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?
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?
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
But on Jack's latest idea, I will agree, not a good one.
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?
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.
So instead of extending the tees back another 30 metres the ball changes.
Only pros affected.
Easy.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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