USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[QuigleyDU]

i have never argued against that. I just do not believe those that pay for golf are longer. That is a false notion. We can 100% agree the tour is longer. Where we may differ is in how much, and how much of an impact that is..

[15th Club]

“Just set up a course so there's no room to hit a 300+ yard drive except on a couple of holes or so.”

Good God, what a boring notion of course design. How are you going to instill that design idea at The Old Course? At Muirfield? At Royal Melbourne or Pebble?

The more that I see people writing about extremist ideas simply to avoid the expediency of a golf ball rollback, the closer I think we get to an ultimate solution of just adjusting the Earth’s gravitational pull. Simple. Then no ball rollback would be needed.

[Sean2]

It's easier and less expensive to grow some grass (or cut it), then roll back equipment; make a course smarter...not longer. Doesn't have to be a US Open set-up, but it can give the player pause before he flails away with driver knowing that driving it into the rough comes with some consequences. Where shot making is required, not bomb and gouge, along with course management. Just my opinion though. I find bomb and gouge golf booooring. These are professionals. All facets of their game should be tested. If golf gets reduced to bomb and gouge it will become a game of distance. That also leaves the skilled, "shorter" hitter off the Tour if the game is reduced to "how far".

[strug'-a-ling]

Fair enough. I see your point.

But frankly, as a recreational player who enjoys social golf with my friends, I can't see a governing body adjusting its equipment rules according to what a few hundred elite players can do as opposed to the millions of recreational players who support not only the game but also those elite professionals as well. Few of us are hitting the ball too far.

I couldn't care less about professional golf, even if they start breaking sixty at Troon, but perhaps I'd feel differently about it if I could.

Opinions can vary among reasonable people.

 

[QuigleyDU]

I agree that’s lame.

 

i would love to sit and design a single par four and have an architect tell me how I am missing a point here or that’s not possible there and what about when a player does this? Or what a player that can’t carry the ball 200 yards. Etc etc etc.

 

I am sure we all take for granted the difficulty in this. I partisans in a shooting sport were I design stages and it is really hard to factor in how competitors will game a stage you thought was a master. Magnify that over 450 yards and over varying levels of skill.

[Titleist99]

Just for clarification.....serious question:   What would you consider "tricked up"...???

[15th Club]

Just how many times do we need to say this...?

You recreational golfers who hit the ball 200 or 225 or 250 yards; the USGA doesn’t want to ruin your fun. They really don’t want to affect your game at all.

So chill, okay?

[strug'-a-ling]

Anything by the late Pete Dye as well as anything set up by the USGA, R&A, or PGA for a major.

I'll enjoy my own club's 1906 designed Donald Ross track, thank you.

[QuigleyDU]

they way you say thing sometime really makes me wonder why you defend the USGA the way you do. And how you speak for them in such a way. I guess it could be like when a fan speaks of a team as “we”. I dunno.

[jmck]

Okay, let’s get one thing straight here. Golf course architects are not working on some sort of cost-plus or per-acre fee. Their services are a flat fee and construction costs are a totally separate discussion, whether the course gets built by the architectural firm or by a third party. At least in 99 cases out of 100, and certainly for any of the big names like Nicklaus or Player.

That is to say, Nicklaus is going to charge you ten million no matter if your course is 6500 yards on 150 acres, or 7500 yards on 300 acres. I can speak authoritatively on this, so please scratch it off the list of conspiracy theories.

[QuigleyDU]

Perfect, that makes my point even more. Thank you.

[15th Club]

Quigley; two points.

Right now, under the direction of Jack Nicklaus II, Nicklaus Design is hosting a contest to design a Par 4 hole. Check it out.If you want to know more about the rollback debate, read Geoff Shackelford’s book, “The Future of Golf.” Then look at another of Geoff’s books, “Grounds for Golf.” Then pick out a couple of books by classic era architects whose work you might know and enjoy. Almost all of them wrote a book or two or more. Donald Ross; Alister Mackenzie; Harry S. Colt; Max Behr; Robert Hunter; George Thomas. And read “The Mystery of Golf” by Arnold Haultain.

[jmck]

Not really. It’s more challenging to wedge a good course on a small parcel. I.e., in that situation above it’s quicker and easier for an architect to plop a 7500 yard course down on a huge parcel. The smaller course is going to require more man-hours figuring out routing, drainage, access, etc. But it really doesn’t matter one way of the other. Architects just don’t have a financial stake one way or the other.

[Hawkeye77]

A list of recent majors the R&A has "tricked up"?

[bscinstnct]

 

I feel a few ways about it.

 

I see the concerns and agree we are at a threshold as far as equipment goes. It should not progress further as far as distance goes.

 

But the past is the past, they are not going to roll back the ball to a percentage or way that changes the way the game is played now.

 

If equipment stays as it is, we are also at a threshold of how far guys can and will hit the ball to actually compete and score. Guys can certainly hit the ball even farther than they do now but don’t because it negatively impacts their scoring. There’s still plenty of reasons to hit fairways and the venues can work to make it even more a requirement to score.

 

We will continue to get distance freaks who push the envelope like C Champ but they still need to play every aspect of the game to compete and win.

 

And if a guy like CChamp came along who also had great short game and destroyed records. So be it, I wouldn’t want that ability restricted.

 

I mean, that was what we saw with Tiger in the late 90s and it was very exciting.

[QuigleyDU]

I am all for education and I enjoy a good read. We will see I check out his blog regularly and I actually listen to a superintendent podcast that I find very interesting.

The design a par four contest is very interesting. I am going to do it. i will even post in on here for everyone to kill. Not that I would ever have a chance.

[15th Club]

Quigley have you given up on the allegation that golf course architects have a financial interest in promoting a ball rollback? They really don’t. Their opposition is aesthetic and historical. Not a financial conflict of interest.

At the same time, I will absolutely maintain the position that current Tour players under contract to Titleist, with its carefully but aggressively anti-rollback position DO have a financial conflict of interest in the debate.

 

[mahonie]

This makes an interesting read showing the issues that St Andrews is having: What's happening to the Old Course (and should we be worried)? - Golf DigestI’m sure that if Augusta was in danger of being excluded from the Major venues played, the whole ‘distance is destroying the game’ argument would be taken a lot more seriously.

[ClintDagger]

The weekend hack that is worried about a rolled back ball isn’t good enough to notice the difference. They don’t have the speed, consistency, or ball striking skill for a rolled back ball to change their game. The elite amateur who is good enough to tell will enjoy that they get to face the same challenge as the tour guys.

[airjammer]

Nobody that has stated they are a current or former ball designer has weighed in this discussion that I am aware of...so we cannot say that the ball can not be improved upon. I mean..I’ve heard great things about the new Bridgestone balls this year. I’m sure companies aren’t just laying off their staff..that means there is more to gain besides new alignment marks.

[Hawkeye77]

Well aware and no argument here.

That's not the kind of "tricking up" that was being spouted off about in the post I was responding to.

R&A in general recognized for presenting championships a lot better than the USGA the past several years, for example.

[mahonie]

I think when the rough has to be grown so far into the fairway that the ‘fairway’ bunkers now sit outside the fairway rending them not really in play is a form of tricking up to try and force players to play in a particular ‘artificial’ way (as well as building/using several tees that are not within the bounds of the property).

[bscinstnct]

 

I agree. When I say “should not, I mean should not be allowed to progress any more as far as distance goes.

 

Im imagine they could certainly make balls go even further.

[Holy Moses]

Let’s hope so, but they didn’t give that impression in their report and USGA representatives have been interviewed since the report came out saying that distance is a problem at every level.

[The Pearl]

Freeze the current equipment for amateurs.

 

Create a special tour ball for whatever venues the USGA and the Geoff Shackelford's of the world decide so they can sleep at night with the happy visions of Shiva Irons dancing in their heads.

 

Not really sure why bifurcation at the tour level stirs so many emotions. The Tour is not sacred, it is just an entertainment industry whereby the same few dozen guys play for money and trophies.

 

None of this is about distance or integrity of the game or architecture, it is about money.

[airjammer]

It’s because most of the players look normal joes and you can identify with them. You can even have false hope that if you can just putt a bit better you could on your best day compete with them.

Golf is the about the only game you can play competitively as you age. Meaning, once you can hang with the flat bellies distance wise you can adapt your game still gouge their eyes out with pinseeker irons and dead center putts. Try to adapt playing baseball, tennis, or basketball..once you can’t run like a deer, hop out of the gym or throw flames. Not happening, you are done before 30 most of the time if you aren’t a “great”.

You can go tomorrow and play TPC sawgrass and hit the same shot as the pros on 17.

The ability to hit the same shot with essentially the same type of club and ball is why burification is hated so much. That’s why no matter what they might change the equipment to, that’s what I will play and I’ll find a way to play my best.

[QuigleyDU]

I am not sure that I agree with you but we can move on from it.

 

I will 100% maintain that I feel that a standardized test done by someone other than the USGA, R&A, or even PGA needs to be done. You could even do it indoors on launch monitors to normalize the test.

[tungstenplug]

.

Edited February 26, 2023 by tungstenplug

[bladehunter]

i see what you’re saying. But a lot of us are opposite. I for one loathe a social round of golf. If I’m not trying to shoot a score. I’ll stay home. I get that some need an excuse for being outdoors etc. I work manually half the time and am rarely ever in a climate controlled space when I’m not at home. So using golf as an excuse to be outdoors and drink beer is a literal waste of seconds of my life. And I won’t waste it that way. I’d truly rather work in the yard or catch up on paperwork. Or just hit balls on the wedge range.

 

So so I fail to see why the guy playing socially feels like he needs permission to play any equipment. Why would it matter if you played a non conforming driver and ball ? Who’d even know ? Which is why my opinion is opposite. I value the rules weighing more toward the pro and elite am side. Rules are needed for competition moreso than social rounds. No ?

[mahonie]

We already have bifurcation...I don’t see many pros playing with Pinnacles ;-)