USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[mahonie]

I think what you’re admitting to there is that modern golf courses played by the modern masses don’t really have any interesting architecture of note.

I would also say that you can play courses designed by some of the great architects, which are still fantastic to play because you get to play every shot in the bag (not just driver/wedge) and without having 8 tees to choose from, for less than £30 a round. Unfortunately, some of the courses are obsolete and you can play them with nothing longer than 3-iron. Those courses, and there are hundreds of them in the UK, are closing down at an ever increasing rate.

Pretty soon the only courses that will be available will be the expensive, elite clubs that you decry. When I talk of expensive clubs, I’m talking of annual subscriptions of more than £1000.

[smashdn]

"But you need to understand that people do not share that viewpoint, and for the absolutely overwhelming majority of people who play this game, and those that actually support the industry with our money, we do not feel the need for anything to change. And as stewards of the game, it would be in the interest of the USGA and the R&A to side with the people that support the game and industry as a whole, as opposed to those who own and operate exclusive clubs..."

 

75% of the USGA annual revenue is from the men's US Open. The USGA was founded by The Country Club, Newport Golf Club, St Andrews (NY) Golf Club, Chicago Golf Club and Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. The Royal & Ancient Golf Club was the only founding club and is now a club whose membership of 2500 extends worldwide.

 

Why should the USGA and R&A be any more beholden to a private industry made of corporations, some owned by investment firms and banks, than to those who own and operate golf clubs?

[15th Club]

”What you cannot seem to grasp is that very "common golfer" you have so much disdain for, is the very person keeping this game alive. Without that common golfer, this game disappears completely. That common golfer makes up the absolute majority of people who keep the doors open at courses across the world.”

It’s a funny thing; what I just quoted was the only thing that I disagreed with in your comment. You sounded like me, writing admirably about architecture and strategy.

I don’t have a-n-y disdain for public links players, and neither does the USGA.

The USGA has very deliberately gone to public courses for many of its recent national championships.

The USGA has very deliberately opened the handicap system to everyone. The USGA went out of its way to make certain that the groove rule did not force any unwilling equipment purchases on ordinary recreational players.

The USGA is spending money to promote faster play, and more walking, and more of its technical services to all courses.

Et cetera.

[QuigleyDU]

I am not sure that is what I am admitting. But maybe. I love a good par three course. Or short course. I love a good scenic walk and interesting layout. I enjoy reading about course design and set up. Maybe the masses do not. I have no idea.

If that is correct than golf is in fact dying.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Kind of related sorry for the personal anecdote, but I think it's relevant to what you say: I was thinking about this last week when I last played my home course. It's 6600; 72.5/132 from the blues and 7000 74.5/140? all the way back. Sea level, a quarter mile from the ocean, not a lot of roll at all. I only include that info to say that I feel like those factors make the 6600 more like 6800+ in other parts of the country. Not long, not short. Anyway, I got to a par 4 on the back 9 and realized it was the first time I had more than 9-iron into a par 4 all day. (Full disclosure: I'm not long by GolfWrx standards. A great drive for me goes 270-280 on that course). It was playing like driver/wedge course, but I was already five over. Why? The greens are small, severely sloped, and roll 12+ every single day. Four-putts are not uncommon in my regular group, and three-putts are just something you know you'll have to deal with going in.

I share this because it's obviously possible for greens to be a defense, but there are also days when I wish the greens were bigger and flatter, even if the course was longer to achieve the same rating. So, I can definitely see your side of things on this. But, that's for me, personally. But, I'm not of average ability. Blade, you're even less average. Tour Pros are even less average. 90% of members would score much worse because the added distance (reduced equipment) would be too much to overcome. That's where the disconnect starts and ends for me. I don't think a rollback is good for the game, even if it might be good for my game relative to others.

Another thing I'll add is that no rollback with get people like 15th what they want with all of their stipulations. You can never have a 450 yard par 4, wide open, minimal rough, firm and fast conditions, and expect tour pros to hit driver and have a mid-long iron in. That ball would have to make a tour pro carry it a driver 220, roll out to 270-280, and leave 170-180 in. So it would have to reduce tour pro driver carry by ~60 yards, but Larry in Thursday Night Mens League won't notice a thing, because he's a 15? Not buying it.

[oikos1]

There is no cat in the bag, no secrets with me. You'll have to clarify which things you've been saying that I know are true. I'm sure there are some things we agree on, and not so much on other things.

[smashdn]

"But why create a problem for every golfer on the planet to suit a handful of exclusive country clubs that want to host tournaments? That is what this whole discussion is about. I just cannot understand the logic in that thought process, and no one has yet given an explanation that justifies it."

The explanation is that there are those in the oppose side who are unwilling to accept bifurcation. The "if you must do a rollback it must be across the board." That then gives them an easy argument of "don't take the amateurs distance away, he is not the problem."

If the pro game and elite amateur game doesn't interest you that is fine, we can bifurcate and set a performance standard for those events. But if you don't care, you (collective) also should not care about the bifurcation issue as well. It is when those "who don't care" who also want to play the "same equipment the pros play" but also want the same distance they have now we run into circular arguments.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I went to buy some new wedges and couldn't find any with the old grooves from any major OEM. The same will happen with the ball if it's nerfed. The USGA claiming it took "great care" not to affect the golfing public with the groove rule is complete BS. It knew exactly what was going to happen. It doesn't get to completely ignore the extremely foreseeable consequences of its actions. "Blame the OEMs, we never told them to only make the new grooves" is like "Blame the kid, I never told him to eat cookies when I opened the package, set it in front of him before leaving the room, and told him to do whatever he wanted. Not my fault."

[oikos1]

Actually, the compromise is easy and I've said it numerous times in this thread. The USGA should institute a "freeze" stage in which future distance in ball technology is regulated. Establish a campaign that there is no such thing as a "roll back", which you claim isn't the case but is a point of contention. If manufacturers can keep advancing distance, and it can be "rolled back" as some claim, than it can certainly be "frozen". From there, it's simply regulating ball specs and looking at solutions for current golf courses that are having difficulty in adapting at elite competition levels. That could involve any number of solutions, many of which have been suggested in this thread. The PGA and USGA already have their hand in course set up. The PGA just doesn't set the course up the way many distance opponents like. As I've also said before, good luck getting the PGA and USGA to work together on that.

Perhaps what's most comedic is the USGA's first suggestion in their report is the one thing so many cry out against: bifurcation. Except, not by the USGA. No, no, they'll leave that up to a local rule. That way there's no blame on their end. Perfect.

You do realize that when you wish and pray for golf's ruling bodies to do something that might disappoint me greatly that it may very well disappoint you greatly as well?

[15th Club]

How does distance get “frozen” by an organization that simply writes rules?

I am presuming that players will stronger; better; bigger.

And Titleist will keep researching better ball designs within whatever rules are written.

And TaylorMade will keep working on better drivers.

How do you “freeze” them?

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

My problem with USGA is they just don’t care about any of the players in your group and on. 2/3 of the golfing community is going to struggle even more than now, and 99% will take longer to play. That’s not fun and not fun to watch.

[Mudguard]

Have a maximum ball speed for a given test? For professionals. No different to having a CT limit for clubs.

[bigred90gt]

They shouldn’t be beholden to any corporation. They are the stewards of the game. The game, and industry as a whole, is supported by the masses that play the game. That group of people should be the USGAs main concern.

[storm319]

The difference is that the burden of proof is on the side pushing for change and we still lack a logical definition of the problem as well as a quantifiable goal. Why does the USGA continue to use the word "undesirable" without defining "desirable"? How can the USGA move on to the solutioning stage without first clearly defining the problem and the final goal?

This thread seems to have shifted more to a focus on how elite players get from the tee to green than it is about any quantifiable metric like the score which is the ultimate basis of the game. The question remains, how do you quantify this to determine if there is a problem?

[bigred90gt]

I have said many times I have no problem with bifurcation. If someone wants to play the same clubs and equipment the pros play (after any kind of rollback), great. Have at it. For those not interested in playing elite level golf, those who are not part of any distance concern (perceived or real), leave specs where they are now. I love it, and will continue to play with whatever equipment is legal for my level of play.

[oikos1]

Are we really going to play this game? They have "frozen" golf ball maximum weight, minimum golf ball size and driver COR. Maybe spend some of that 1.1 billion dollar television contract on how to better write the rules in an ever changing technological world? This is the organization we're supposed to entrust the sanctity of the game with. They ought to be able to figure it out.

Interesting to note that you think there can be an equitable ball roll back but the USGA can't figure out how to "freeze" golf ball distance.

[storm319]

"Disdain" is a poor choice of words, "Disregard" may be more appropriate :)

As for the groove rule, following 2009 the major OEMs stopped producing equipment that met the old groove specs so even though most amateurs have been able to legally play with grooves that meet the old spec, the approach eliminated much of their choice to do so if they decided to. Ultimately any quantifiable professional statistics that they criticized as justification for that regulation change have remained the same or continued on the same trajectory thus while public outcry has died down (time will do that to anything), many viewed this regulatory change as unnecessarily burdensome for little to no material impact and are justifiably concerned that any future equipment rollback would end similarly if not worse.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Unless, of course, that equipment isn’t made anymore. 15th would invite you to manufacture your own clubs and/or play current equipment (and 2010 wedges) in perpetuity.

[storm319]

The initial ball velocity limit has been in place since 1976: https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/equipment-standards/TPX3007%20Initial%20Velocity%20Test%20Protocol.pdf

Short of some type of spin regulation, everything meaningful to distance is already regulated for the golf ball.

[DFS PFD]

Have engineer's write the performance limiter guidelines instead of lawyers or in conjunction with. Pick experienced engineers from within the industry.

[QuigleyDU]

That’s way to reasonable of an approach.

[DFS PFD]

Good point, we don't want this to be too effective. I'm sure the rebuttal will be that's already how the language was chosen, to which we can all argue they did a poor job. They need to take some time and put serious though and deliberation into whatever they choose to do. No more playing this game of cat and mouse with manufacturers.

[bladehunter]

No I get that. Which realistically, is why I said so many pages ago , that a freeze as is , is the only real thing to do. It’s definitely a multi angled deal And it’s not like the game is played on the same field every day .

I was just born way late. Or reincarnated . ( whole other tangent ).

earlier today was too busy to answer the phone. When I finally did the customer was like “ hey. I’ve been calling “. So I apologize and say “ sorry. Had my hands full ... been a busy day “. Guy pops back “ ever heard of Bluetooth “? It took all my might to not say “ ever heard of kiss my ass “? Younger guy. Impatient. And a twit. Guess who won’t be getting any work from me. Lol. Anyway. Old man rant over.

[bladehunter]

That they blew it 20 years ago and let the peasants( your words ) ( short knockers ) through the gate. Is this not essentially agreeing with me that the short guy loses most in a rollback? and that by that understanding it also means he is seeing more benefit now?

[oikos1]

I see. Yes, a slightly different interpretation. A bit tongue in cheek on my part. My reference to the "peasants" was a much broader, general description of the growth of golf in general.

Edit: I see we both agree on a freeze as is. Progress indeed!

[gvogel]

Way off base here. Cameron Champ was the George Bayer of his day. If you don't know who George Bayer was, I can't help you. Jack was a complete player, and the Tiger Woods or better of his day.

[gvogel]

And, by the way, a lot smarter than most of the players of his day. Fact.

[Mudguard]

So reduce that allowance? Didn't they tweak COR into CT? If they are concerned that courses are growing too long for PGA, then reduce the ball velocity by (10%) an arbitrary amount.

[gvogel]

This is pretty interesting. Let's say that I hit my drives 225, and you hit the ball 270. You are 20% longer than me.

Then let's say the USGA reduces distance across the board by 10%. I am hitting the ball 202, and you are hitting the ball 243. You are still 20% longer than me. Now, your absolute distance advantage is reduced from 45 yards to 41 yards, so you think that you have lost 4 yards from the reduced distance ball, compared to me. But, in fact, you are still 20% longer than me; and, in fact, you are still longer so that your next shot to the green is easier than mine, maybe even easier because now I can't get to the par 4 in two strokes, and you still can!

You guys knock me out. You think in absolute terms, while I realize that in relative terms, nothing is changed, or maybe you have an even bigger advantage.

So I get hammered by a roll back, more so than you. But I realize that from an overall perspective, golf distance is getting too long for the courses that WE want to play, so I agree to play the shorter ball. You, however, can't see the forest for the trees.

So I advocate a shorter ball, played on shorter golf courses. Which leads to less maintenance costs, and reduced time to play. I have experience on my side: I have played with a plenty reduced distance ball on an executive course (Red Reef in Boca Raton, a wonderful course in between the Intercoastal and the ocean). With the ball that I played, I got to hit every club in my bag, and we played nine holes in 1-1/2 hours. You guys are so caught up in how far that you hit the ball (on a site like GolfWRX, go figure!) that you can't comprehend that golf can be played on shorter courses with reduced distance equipment, and still be totally a great game.

[bladehunter]

Sure. And I didn’t mean it as a trap you were caught in.