Rolling back the ball

[Roadking2003]

The Old Course is the single most important golf course in the history of the game; and there will never be another more important.

 

To golf course architecture experts and aficionada, it is also the most interesting golf course in the world, today.

 

Robert Tyre Jones Jr. said of St. Andrews and the Old Course: “I could take out of my life everything except my experiences at St Andrews and I would still have a rich, full life.”

http://www.golf-mont...cwrJUFB0o0gU.99

 

And Jones then modeled his creation in Augusta, Georgia, on the firm and fast links of Scotland with the help of Dr. Mackenzie.

 

There's probably never been a Top Ten or Top 100 list of golf courses in the world that didn't include The Old Course.

 

It is the spiritual home of golf. The day that an Open Championship cannot be held there will be a calamity for the game.

 

Do you have a point? Nobody is even close to suggesting that an Open not be held at the old course.

[Roadking2003]

Titleist has been the central anti-rollback force for a very long time.

 

Wonderful! Good for them. I'll keep buying their products.

 

BTW, if there were to be a rollback, Titleist would still dominate the market. That will never change.

 

Ball did fine in Mexico

 

As it does every week all year long.

[15th Club]

 

“BTW, if there were to be a rollback, Titleist would still dominate the market. That will never change.”

 

Fantastic !!!

 

So Titleist won’t have a damaged claim in the event of a ball rollback. I’d like you to be available to the USGA’s lawyers for a deposition if Acushnet ever decides to sue the USGA.

 

[bladehunter]

What would have Jack said in his prime time, if he would have been forced to use a ball, that flies 20% shorter, than that ball he was used to play since more than a decade?

 

I expect that Jack would have been overjoyed. What he cared about was winning majors. And if everybody in Jack's era used the same-design golf ball that was rolled back by 20%, I think that Jack would have won 6 or 8 more majors. He won most of his majors with the flatly inferior MacGregor Tourney ball.

 

Ditto Tiger Woods. I submit, having seen a young Tiger Woods compete in a major championship in 1996, that with that era's equipment, he would have won significantly more than he did. I don't think that anything in golf (ignoring things "outside of golf") held back Tiger Woods as much as the development of multilayer urethane balls for the entire field of the PGA Tour. Urethane balls allowed dozens of players less skilled than Tiger Woods to approximate his level of play.

 

Bingo. Exactly my point.

[Uhit]

What would have Jack said in his prime time, if he would have been forced to use a ball, that flies 20% shorter, than that ball he was used to play since more than a decade?

 

I expect that Jack would have been overjoyed. What he cared about was winning majors. And if everybody in Jack's era used the same-design golf ball that was rolled back by 20%, I think that Jack would have won 6 or 8 more majors. He won most of his majors with the flatly inferior MacGregor Tourney ball.

 

Ditto Tiger Woods. I submit, having seen a young Tiger Woods compete in a major championship in 1996, that with that era's equipment, he would have won significantly more than he did. I don't think that anything in golf (ignoring things "outside of golf") held back Tiger Woods as much as the development of multilayer urethane balls for the entire field of the PGA Tour. Urethane balls allowed dozens of players less skilled than Tiger Woods to approximate his level of play.

 

Strange, that he started talking about a roll back after his prime...

...same with Tiger - isn't it?

 

I could well imagine, that the MacGregor Tourney ball (if it really was perceived as the flatly inferior ball),

was better suited for very high swing speed players (like Jack) - which were very rare at that time.

 

-

 

However, why didn't you answer to this part of my post?:

 

 

It is simply envy, because not even Jack, or the USGA provided a single argument, why they don't try different approaches as a local rule, or Conditions of Competition, like:

 

 

that every shot has to be performed from the deck

 

and / or that a special ball has to be used on some (Jack) courses, or during the Open.

 

 

...not a single reason why every golfer worldwide should lose money and 20% of distance.

 

-

 

And I also want to hear a reply to this:

 

Greenskeeping 101, SOFTEN UP THE FAIRWAYS, Stop the ball from rolling out 20, 30+ yards on drives!!! No need to mess with the ball or sticks.

 

Wrong. Hard, firm, fast fairways do two important things for a 72-hole competition.

1. Architects intend for golf courses to play firm and fast. Firm and fast is how you bring the ground game into golf. The golfer then needs to not merely line and distance, but also how the ball might bounce and kick. That is the essence of golf.
    
    
    
   
2. Tournament administrators know what they are risking if they soak a course before tournament play. If it rains, the course cannot absorb any more moisture. The event might be ruined.
   

So why trick up a golf course outside of what is best, or what was intended for the course design, just to satisfy a golf ball marketplace? When did the golf ball specifications become so important?

 

1. golf was not invented to please the intentions of architects.

 

2. water, bunker, rough, (and 2. and 1. cut), and greens with a lot of slope, are the traditional ways to bring the ground game into golf - no need for a fantasy, that someone hits 300 yards, from a tee box, exactly to the wanted square-yard, within a fast and firm fairway.

 

3. since 1980, the average swing speed on tour increased from 104 mph to 113 mph, which equates in roughly 24 yards more distance - which is the biggest part of the increase in driving distance:

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...ns-on-pga-tour/

 

...interestingly, they don't highlight the substantial increase due to the changes in swing speed, within this chart...

 

...they also missed to highlight the additional roll of the ball, on faster and firmer fairways, which is also included in the shown driving distances...

 

...the chart pretends that those two factors would not exist and not contribute to the increase in driving distance, but only the equipment.

 

4. as you can see, the LET tour, which already lost more than 10 yards in driving distance since 2006, would run in real trouble

 

5. The true story in regard of the increased average driving distance since 1980 would rather look like:

 

24 yards because of swing speed

 

9 yards because of the fairways, and the equipment including the ball*

 

6. Jack made the golf ball specifications so important:

 

* http://www.golfwrx.c...k/page__st__210

[tnord]

if the data is accurate regarding swing speed increases, that supports my case. the equipment has allowed people to focus pretty much only on distance, and made the game one dimensional. clubheads have higher MOIs than the persimmons (obviously), and have now had maxed CORs for 15 years. the ball clearly flies straighter now even in the decade i've been involved. equipment that flies straighter and people swing harder should not be a surprise. my son is just starting golf lessons and the first thing they're teaching them is grip, stance, and SWING HARD. that's all that matters.

 

i really don't give two craps if the ball is 100% responsible for distance gains, 50% or 5%. it's the easiest and most comprehensive way to address the problem and wally uhlein can go F himself.

 

can we all agree that there has been a dramatic increase in distance in the last 30 years? if you can't acknowledge basic facts then go back to watching fox.

you guys that can't stand to lose 5yds off your finely tuned 20hdcp, at what distance does something need to be done? or are you ok with people hitting it 400yds or more?

[North Butte]

In other words, if the GOLF equipment lets people play GOLF to the best of the ability then we need to rejigger the rules so that can't happen.

 

Here's an alternative, the Rules could let GOLF equipment be designed to work well for GOLF rather than to mimic the shortcomings of antique equipment. Wait, that's not an alternative. That's the universe the rest of us live in.

 

Your basic screed still comes down to wanting somebody to step in and make sure that the best players are given equipment that doesn't work properly, thereby dragging them down to the level of players with less ability. What an ugly thing to wish for.

[bladehunter]

if the data is accurate regarding swing speed increases, that supports my case. the equipment has allowed people to focus pretty much only on distance, and made the game one dimensional. clubheads have higher MOIs than the persimmons (obviously), and have now had maxed CORs for 15 years. the ball clearly flies straighter now even in the decade i've been involved. equipment that flies straighter and people swing harder should not be a surprise. my son is just starting golf lessons and the first thing they're teaching them is grip, stance, and SWING HARD. that's all that matters.

 

i really don't give two craps if the ball is 100% responsible for distance gains, 50% or 5%. it's the easiest and most comprehensive way to address the problem and wally uhlein can go F himself.

 

can we all agree that there has been a dramatic increase in distance in the last 30 years? if you can't acknowledge basic facts then go back to watching fox.

you guys that can't stand to lose 5yds off your finely tuned 20hdcp, at what distance does something need to be done? or are you ok with people hitting it 400yds or more?

 

 

exactly...we need a basic account for who is on board with the idea that all players hit the ball farther today ( relative to age) than they did say in 1985-1997..... If you dont agree with that no wonder you are against it . If you do agree with that at least we can move onto the rest of the debate which is ......Is more distance good or bad for the game going forward...because the ball and driver manufacturers arent finished bending the current rules. Distance is still growing... it isnt maxed at the current rules....

 

 

 

also id love to say that i find it hilarious that Uhit mentions Tiger within the same notion that Jack is griping now as an old man past his prime.. Tiger was swinging 124 plus last tournament .... pretty far removed from a near retired old mad wouldnt you say ????

[North Butte]

Of course everyone hits 2018 balls and equipment farther than they would be hitting 1988 balls and equipment. There has been a gradual improvement in balls and equipment going back to the beginning of the game punctuated by sudden jumps such as the Haskell ball, steel shafts, then graphite+titatnium, then modern golf ball improvements over the basic Haskell model.

 

It is also undeniable that elite golfers (say the top tenth or a percent or so) are more skilled and physically capable than those a few generations ago. The skill part reflects the continuing gradual evolution that is inevitable in all athletic endeavors, since obviously each generation can learn from and build upon the skills of those before them. That has accelerated in recent decades with the promulgation of technology from the camcorder to biomechanical measurement to Trackman type devices.

 

The physical capabilities are due to an increased understanding and emphasis on being athletic (not too many decades ago being "too strong" was considered a drawback in a golfer) and on the methods necessary for achieving physical ability improvement. And to repeat my earlier point, the elite golfers are now drawn from a hugely larger geographical and sociodemographic pool than half a century ago. Not only that but the "Tiger Effect" at least briefly made it cool for athletes to choose golf instead of some "real sport".

 

The question is, why are you lot so bloody set on finding a technological way to eliminate the last two decades of progress (very specifically the last two decades vs. what went on prior to the 1990's) in both equipment and skill/ability? What privileges the period from about 1950 to 1990 as the only form of golf that you consider valid?

 

I can only conclude it's because that's when a huge demographic bulge of people were young and excited about golf, in love with the game, the equipment, the great players of the day and everything about their own experience of golf. Now those people are old a jaded and perhaps confusing their own ennui with the game itself having been "destroyed" by progress.

 

Keep in mind that for every 50-60-70 year old golfer longing for the days when Jack was knocking a Balata ball around Augusta with his steel shafted MacGregor driver there is now at least one 20-30-40 year old golfer who would think using Jack's equipment and balls was equivalent to teeing up with a set of hickories. Antiques, ridiculously hard to use and ill-suited to playing the game in the manner to which we are all accustomed today.

[gvogel]

In other words, if the GOLF equipment lets people play GOLF to the best of the ability then we need to rejigger the rules so that can't happen.

 

Here's an alternative, the Rules could let GOLF equipment be designed to work well for GOLF rather than to mimic the shortcomings of antique equipment. Wait, that's not an alternative. That's the universe the rest of us live in.

 

Your basic screed still comes down to wanting somebody to step in and make sure that the best players are given equipment that doesn't work properly, thereby dragging them down to the level of players with less ability. What an ugly thing to wish for.

 

You seem to be very vocal on this issue. As a matter of fact, about 1/4 of the posts on this thread might be yours.

 

So, on behalf of the other side of the argument, a ball roll back should not preclude people playing to the best of their ability.

 

IT isn't to give the best players equipment that doesn't work properly. And it certainly isn't to drag down the best players to levels of players with less ability.

 

The argument doesn't have anything to do with longer or shorter hitters, or greater or less ability. It is an argument to reset the equipment so that courses can be maintained at current length (maybe shorter). It is strictly an equipment versus playing length argument.

[North Butte]

And if Dustin Johnson can hit a TP5 far enough that YOU think it "overpowers" a course like Prairie Dunes or whatever classic you admire then that should be sufficient reason to make Dustin Johnson hit a lower-performing ball.

 

Even if Dustin himself, the people who pay to see him play and those watching on TV have no problem with how he plays with the current ball.

[bladehunter]

Of course everyone hits 2018 balls and equipment farther than they would be hitting 1988 balls and equipment. There has been a gradual improvement in balls and equipment going back to the beginning of the game punctuated by sudden jumps such as the Haskell ball, steel shafts, then graphite+titatnium, then modern golf ball improvements over the basic Haskell model.

 

It is also undeniable that elite golfers (say the top tenth or a percent or so) are more skilled and physically capable than those a few generations ago. The skill part reflects the continuing gradual evolution that is inevitable in all athletic endeavors, since obviously each generation can learn from and build upon the skills of those before them. That has accelerated in recent decades with the promulgation of technology from the camcorder to biomechanical measurement to Trackman type devices.

 

The physical capabilities are due to an increased understanding and emphasis on being athletic (not too many decades ago being "too strong" was considered a drawback in a golfer) and on the methods necessary for achieving physical ability improvement. And to repeat my earlier point, the elite golfers are now drawn from a hugely larger geographical and sociodemographic pool than half a century ago. Not only that but the "Tiger Effect" at least briefly made it cool for athletes to choose golf instead of some "real sport".

 

The question is, why are you lot so bloody set on finding a technological way to eliminate the last two decades of progress (very specifically the last two decades vs. what went on prior to the 1990's) in both equipment and skill/ability? What privileges the period from about 1950 to 1990 as the only form of golf that you consider valid?

 

I can only conclude it's because that's when a huge demographic bulge of people were young and excited about golf, in love with the game, the equipment, the great players of the day and everything about their own experience of golf. Now those people are old a jaded and perhaps confusing their own ennui with the game itself having been "destroyed" by progress.

 

Keep in mind that for every 50-60-70 year old golfer longing for the days when Jack was knocking a Balata ball around Augusta with his steel shafted MacGregor driver there is now at least one 20-30-40 year old golfer who would think using Jack's equipment and balls was equivalent to teeing up with a set of hickories. Antiques, ridiculously hard to use and ill-suited to playing the game in the manner to which we are all accustomed today.

 

 

I get what you are saying ...i really do.. But im not coming from the angle you think i am ... Im not wanting to see the better player brought down.... Im actually in favor of it to help the better player distance himself from the trackman baby who is maxed out driver with his 100-105 mph swing speed... the guy who wouldnt be able to keep up without todays ball and driver...

 

I say that because i believe there to be a spot where the degree of difficulty with a modern driver ramps up dramatically.... from around 109-up spin jumps by leaps and bounds for most players.... you get plenty of 110 mph guys fighting spin and seeing 100mph guys carry driver the same distances.... we see it on tour too....rare to see a 105ish guy spinning a driver at 3500rpm....but its common with a bad driver/shaft combo and a guy swinging 115-120 mph.... 3500 plus rpm and 118 mph equals about 275 carry give or take.... about 60% efficient ...... equipment doesnt help that guy at all..... In days gone by you did not see a 100-105 mph guy on tour or anywhere launch a small driver at 15-17 degrees and carry it 275-280..... its normal now .....the big hitter would hit a lower rising fade that rolled forever.... you cant survive hitting that shot anymore.. you have to max launch angle and try to control spin... and its hard to do ... very hard... equipment for the most part has helped the mediocre player not the best... thats why i say it isnt going to bring the best or longest player down.. it would bring down the mediocre player whos playing at a higher level than he ever could have 25 years ago.... with pros this is really a non issue ...say 99% .... but with ams its all over the place... you can find a dozen at any tournament who couldnt hit the center of an iron 10 balls in a row to save their life...but guess what ? they dont have to anymore... its driver wedge game now.... and irons forgive enough to get by ..

[golfer07840]

Shaving an hour or more off the length of a typical round is also quite appealing. Will you get that at your local municipal course, because they rolled back the ball? Probably not. But if a rolled back ball, then rolls back the need for longer courses, then you might start seeing shorter timed rounds, which could bring back more players.

 

When the anchor ban went into effect, I saw almost zero weekenders have it in play. Did your average joe really need to throw away the belly putter, if it in fact helped him? Probably not, but, clearly the game of golf trickles down and people alternate themselves to what the professionals do.

So with that, if the ball was rolled back to the extent of the anchor ban, then you would see the same result on the amateur side of it, which could then open up the chance of shortening the courses.

 

 

To have the ability to drop your clubs off at a course, tee off at 1pm and be off the course by 4:20pm, is a pretty awesome feeling, playing with three others and having a group in front and behind of you.

If 1000 yards were shaved off every course, that's the best chance of that happening throughout the country, for a Pro and an Am.

 

Lunacy.

 

Who the heck is shaving 1,000 yards off their course?

[tnord]

And if Dustin Johnson can hit a TP5 far enough that YOU think it "overpowers" a course like Prairie Dunes or whatever classic you admire then that should be sufficient reason to make Dustin Johnson hit a lower-performing ball.

 

Even if Dustin himself, the people who pay to see him play and those watching on TV have no problem with how he plays with the current ball.

 

you're understanding of the game of golf, architecture, the consequences of distance, and the economics of it all are so shallow you don't warrant a legitimate response. go tell someone else how hitting it 195yds instead of 200 is somehow going to ruin your enjoyment of all 100 of your strokes.

[Maximilian]

Of course everyone hits 2018 balls and equipment farther than they would be hitting 1988 balls and equipment. There has been a gradual improvement in balls and equipment going back to the beginning of the game punctuated by sudden jumps such as the Haskell ball, steel shafts, then graphite+titatnium, then modern golf ball improvements over the basic Haskell model.

 

It is also undeniable that elite golfers (say the top tenth or a percent or so) are more skilled and physically capable than those a few generations ago. The skill part reflects the continuing gradual evolution that is inevitable in all athletic endeavors, since obviously each generation can learn from and build upon the skills of those before them. That has accelerated in recent decades with the promulgation of technology from the camcorder to biomechanical measurement to Trackman type devices.

 

The physical capabilities are due to an increased understanding and emphasis on being athletic (not too many decades ago being "too strong" was considered a drawback in a golfer) and on the methods necessary for achieving physical ability improvement. And to repeat my earlier point, the elite golfers are now drawn from a hugely larger geographical and sociodemographic pool than half a century ago. Not only that but the "Tiger Effect" at least briefly made it cool for athletes to choose golf instead of some "real sport".

 

The question is, why are you lot so bloody set on finding a technological way to eliminate the last two decades of progress (very specifically the last two decades vs. what went on prior to the 1990's) in both equipment and skill/ability? What privileges the period from about 1950 to 1990 as the only form of golf that you consider valid?

 

I can only conclude it's because that's when a huge demographic bulge of people were young and excited about golf, in love with the game, the equipment, the great players of the day and everything about their own experience of golf. Now those people are old a jaded and perhaps confusing their own ennui with the game itself having been "destroyed" by progress.

 

Keep in mind that for every 50-60-70 year old golfer longing for the days when Jack was knocking a Balata ball around Augusta with his steel shafted MacGregor driver there is now at least one 20-30-40 year old golfer who would think using Jack's equipment and balls was equivalent to teeing up with a set of hickories. Antiques, ridiculously hard to use and ill-suited to playing the game in the manner to which we are all accustomed today.

I think you are mistaking what most of us on the other side of the argument are worried about. I don't want to handicap the best players, or any players at all, in any kind of way. I also understand that todays golfers swing harder and that any distance gains, real or imagined, do not only come from advances in equipment. But I don't care about that. I simply don't want all golf courses to continue to get longer and longer for the many reasons already mentioned multiple times in this thread. And that is the trend we are seeing.

 

Many years ago some people already put a limit to the ball and drivers, it's not like new technology is totally maxed out of what it could be. Titleist could very likely produce a ball and driver that my 70 year old mother could drive well over 400 yards with. But those limits were put in place to keep the game recognisable as we know it and for the most part it has worked well, but some of us think that maybe it's time to take another look at those limits before all courses that are already in place become obsolete.

 

It's not about fond memories of a recent time, jealousy of how far others hit it or thinking long hitters have an unfair advantage. If you think so you are not even trying to listen to the "other side".

[FlaBoy239]

[North Butte]

https://www.instagra.../p/Bf8YeHqnQ08/

 

Yep. Same basic, slow trend that's been going on for decades has continued from 2003-2017. Surprise, surprise.

 

So now the rollbackers will want to shift the argument away from the Tour players and instead claim huge upward distance trends for amateur players for whom, conveniently, there is no data available to refute those beliefs.

[Golf Dino]

So this was just announced earlier this morning in response to the USGA and the R&A summary of driving distances in the year 2016. In essence the joint summary reported a gain in deriving distance over 6 -Tour's, including the PGA, Web.Com, JPGA, European Tour, LPGA, etc.

 

It is reported from the Golf Channel:

 

 

GolfChannel.com reached out to the PGA of America and received the following statement from CEO Pete Bevacqua:

"Having just received the full report last evening, it is difficult for us at the PGA of America to provide meaningful comments on its content at this time. However, given the recent industry discussions and media reports regarding a potential roll back of the golf ball for all players and/or a segment of elite players, our board of directors has discussed this topic at length.

 

Based on the information we have seen, we are highly skeptical that rolling back the golf ball in whole or part will be in the best interest of the sport and our collective efforts to grow the game. Our nearly 29,000 PGA professionals would be at the forefront of implementing this potential roll back, so we will be polling them this week to fully understand their perspective, especially on what it would mean for the vast majority of the golfers they serve.

 

We look forward to offering our candid feedback to the USGA and R&A once we have collected that data and reviewed the full report."

Additionally, PGA Tour commissioner Jay Monahan sent the following note to Tour players in advance of the report's release:

Dear Tour member,

Later this morning, the USGA and R&A will be releasing an annual report on driving distance that reviews data from professional tours from the 2017 season. Since 2003, we have been closely monitoring trends in driving distance, working with the USGA and the R&A; all involved wanted to ensure the broader PGA Tour membership was made aware of the reports and its findings in advance.

Among other things, the report shows the following:

- From 2003 to 2017, average driving distance on the PGA Tour has increased by 2.3 percent, or a total of 6.6 yards.

- From 2016 to 2017, there was an increase of 2.5 yards in average driving distance. While this may seem significant when taken in isolation, it has not been uncommon over the past 15 years to see significant gains or losses. Since 2003, there have been three instances where a significant gain was recorded between years, and five instances where the average decreased.

- Since 2007, when we started monitoring launch conditions each week on Tour, average club head speed has increased by 1.5 mph. There is a strong correlation between club head speed and the total distance gains seen since 2003. We believe this increase in club head speed is mostly attributable to a combination of factors, such as increased player athleticism and fitness, physical build of the player, enhancements in equipment fitting and the proliferation of launch-monitoring capabilities. It is interesting to note that since 2003, the average age of a Tour member has gone down, and the average height has gone up.

Having carefully reviewed the data, we do not believe the trends indicate a significant or abnormal increase in distance since 2003 or from 2016 to 2017. Rest assured, we will continue to collaborate and share data with the USGA and the R&A - along with other industry stakeholders - in monitoring these trends, as we have since 2003, and are hopeful our perspectives will align. On this point, I have asked the USGA to attend our next PGA Tour Player Advisory Council meeting during the week of the Wells Fargo Championship to share their perspective.

Sincerely,

Jay Monahan

[FlaBoy239]

So this was just announced earlier this morning in response to the USGA and the R&A summary of driving distances in the year 2016. In essence the joint summary reported a gain in deriving distance over 6 -Tour's, including the PGA, Web.Com, JPGA, European Tour, LPGA, etc.

 

It is reported from the Golf Channel:

 

 

GolfChannel.com reached out to the PGA of America and received the following statement from CEO Pete Bevacqua:

"Having just received the full report last evening, it is difficult for us at the PGA of America to provide meaningful comments on its content at this time. However, given the recent industry discussions and media reports regarding a potential roll back of the golf ball for all players and/or a segment of elite players, our board of directors has discussed this topic at length.

 

Based on the information we have seen, we are highly skeptical that rolling back the golf ball in whole or part will be in the best interest of the sport and our collective efforts to grow the game. Our nearly 29,000 PGA professionals would be at the forefront of implementing this potential roll back, so we will be polling them this week to fully understand their perspective, especially on what it would mean for the vast majority of the golfers they serve.

 

We look forward to offering our candid feedback to the USGA and R&A once we have collected that data and reviewed the full report."

Additionally, PGA Tour commissioner Jay Monahan sent the following note to Tour players in advance of the report's release:

Dear Tour member,

Later this morning, the USGA and R&A will be releasing an annual report on driving distance that reviews data from professional tours from the 2017 season. Since 2003, we have been closely monitoring trends in driving distance, working with the USGA and the R&A; all involved wanted to ensure the broader PGA Tour membership was made aware of the reports and its findings in advance.

Among other things, the report shows the following:

- From 2003 to 2017, average driving distance on the PGA Tour has increased by 2.3 percent, or a total of 6.6 yards.

- From 2016 to 2017, there was an increase of 2.5 yards in average driving distance. While this may seem significant when taken in isolation, it has not been uncommon over the past 15 years to see significant gains or losses. Since 2003, there have been three instances where a significant gain was recorded between years, and five instances where the average decreased.

- Since 2007, when we started monitoring launch conditions each week on Tour, average club head speed has increased by 1.5 mph. There is a strong correlation between club head speed and the total distance gains seen since 2003. We believe this increase in club head speed is mostly attributable to a combination of factors, such as increased player athleticism and fitness, physical build of the player, enhancements in equipment fitting and the proliferation of launch-monitoring capabilities. It is interesting to note that since 2003, the average age of a Tour member has gone down, and the average height has gone up.

Having carefully reviewed the data, we do not believe the trends indicate a significant or abnormal increase in distance since 2003 or from 2016 to 2017. Rest assured, we will continue to collaborate and share data with the USGA and the R&A - along with other industry stakeholders - in monitoring these trends, as we have since 2003, and are hopeful our perspectives will align. On this point, I have asked the USGA to attend our next PGA Tour Player Advisory Council meeting during the week of the Wells Fargo Championship to share their perspective.

Sincerely,

Jay Monahan

But but but....... St. Andrews and classic courses!! My nostalgia trumps any facts and evidence you can put forward!! Save the game!

 

-Rollbackers

[rawdog]

So this was just announced earlier this morning in response to the USGA and the R&A summary of driving distances in the year 2016. In essence the joint summary reported a gain in deriving distance over 6 -Tour's, including the PGA, Web.Com, JPGA, European Tour, LPGA, etc.

 

It is reported from the Golf Channel:

 

 

GolfChannel.com reached out to the PGA of America and received the following statement from CEO Pete Bevacqua:

"Having just received the full report last evening, it is difficult for us at the PGA of America to provide meaningful comments on its content at this time. However, given the recent industry discussions and media reports regarding a potential roll back of the golf ball for all players and/or a segment of elite players, our board of directors has discussed this topic at length.

 

Based on the information we have seen, we are highly skeptical that rolling back the golf ball in whole or part will be in the best interest of the sport and our collective efforts to grow the game. Our nearly 29,000 PGA professionals would be at the forefront of implementing this potential roll back, so we will be polling them this week to fully understand their perspective, especially on what it would mean for the vast majority of the golfers they serve.

 

We look forward to offering our candid feedback to the USGA and R&A once we have collected that data and reviewed the full report."

Additionally, PGA Tour commissioner Jay Monahan sent the following note to Tour players in advance of the report's release:

Dear Tour member,

 

Later this morning, the USGA and R&A will be releasing an annual report on driving distance that reviews data from professional tours from the 2017 season. Since 2003, we have been closely monitoring trends in driving distance, working with the USGA and the R&A; all involved wanted to ensure the broader PGA Tour membership was made aware of the reports and its findings in advance.

 

Among other things, the report shows the following:

- From 2003 to 2017, average driving distance on the PGA Tour has increased by 2.3 percent, or a total of 6.6 yards.

- From 2016 to 2017, there was an increase of 2.5 yards in average driving distance. While this may seem significant when taken in isolation, it has not been uncommon over the past 15 years to see significant gains or losses. Since 2003, there have been three instances where a significant gain was recorded between years, and five instances where the average decreased.

- Since 2007, when we started monitoring launch conditions each week on Tour, average club head speed has increased by 1.5 mph. There is a strong correlation between club head speed and the total distance gains seen since 2003. We believe this increase in club head speed is mostly attributable to a combination of factors, such as increased player athleticism and fitness, physical build of the player, enhancements in equipment fitting and the proliferation of launch-monitoring capabilities. It is interesting to note that since 2003, the average age of a Tour member has gone down, and the average height has gone up.

 

Having carefully reviewed the data, we do not believe the trends indicate a significant or abnormal increase in distance since 2003 or from 2016 to 2017. Rest assured, we will continue to collaborate and share data with the USGA and the R&A - along with other industry stakeholders - in monitoring these trends, as we have since 2003, and are hopeful our perspectives will align. On this point, I have asked the USGA to attend our next PGA Tour Player Advisory Council meeting during the week of the Wells Fargo Championship to share their perspective.

 

Sincerely,

Jay Monahan

 

 

 

 

Good to hear.

[Bye]

So everything pre 2003 has no meaning. Is this an attempt by the ruling bodies to claim that they fixed the problem in 2003 and all is ok becuse of them.

 

Using 2003 as a base line is a joke.

 

 

[fairways4life]

In recent years, we've seen two discussions unfold:

 

1. The golf ball going too far (or not)

2. Teeing it forward (or not)

 

What I've found interesting is that for many people, their opinions of these two subjects contradict each other. Allow me to explain...

 

I've run into many people who don't have a problem with the pitch-and-putt game that pro golf has become (par 4's being played with a drive and a chip; par 5's being reach with 9-irons; etc). They are still entertained by it.

 

But these same people refuse to tee it forward or play shorter courses, where they would be playing a similar type of game that the pros do.

 

When you play a really short course (or a short set of tees), you're hitting wedges into all the par 4's and the par 5's become easily reachable. This is a style of play more closely aligned with PGA Tour golf. But you often hear people say that playing golf this way can be a little boring.

 

So I just find it interesting that there are many people who enjoy watching that type of golf but don't enjoy playing it. They like watching the pros hit flip wedges into par 4's and go driver-short iron into par 5's but then when they play golf they always want to play a set of tees that stretches them out and makes them play "more golf."

 

Not making a push for one or the other. To each his own. Just an observation that I've found interesting.

 

As far as the ball ..... The golf ball takes the brunt of the blame simply because it's the easiest thing to change. It's hardly the only reason pros are hitting it as far as they are. There is also clubhead/shaft technology, launch monitor data and the education that is being gained by studying things like launch angle, spin rates, etc. in order to optimize results, plus players hitting the gym and developing flexibility, core strength, etc.

 

You can't tell players they aren't allowed to work out. And you can't tell players and instructors that they aren't allowed to study launch monitor data to improve their performance. You can maybe do a little bit to regulate club technology, but the easiest thing to regulate is the ball. The ball has sort of gotten a bad rap in the whole discussion of distance, but only because it would be the easiest way to dial back distance. Not because it's the biggest (or only) culprit.

 

Even if you don't think distance is a problem now, I think we all should be open to the discussion of how much is too much or when will it become an issue. Every year golf courses get stretched out further. New tee boxes are built. Seems like every major championship now features the "longest par 4 ever in a major." I remember back when 7,000 yards was considered a beast and a 300 yard drive was a bomb. We're now approaching 8,000 yards for majors and 320 yards is just another drive. So then what? Do we just keep doing this year after year with no end in sight until we're watching guys play 12,000 yard golf courses and averaging 450 yards of the tee? I'm not adverse to change and allowing the game to evolve as we do. But we do need to consider where that change is taking the game and prepare for that direction. I think it's better to address it now rather than waiting until it's really out of control and trying to do something then. Being proactive as opposed to reactive.

[Roadking2003]

my son is just starting golf lessons and the first thing they're teaching them is grip, stance, and SWING HARD. that's all that matters.

 

Which is exactly what Nicklaus said we should do 40 years ago. This is nothing new.

 

i really don't give two craps if the ball is 100% responsible for distance gains, 50% or 5%. it's the easiest and most comprehensive way to address the problem and wally uhlein can go F himself.

 

OK, if there actually was a problem to fix.

 

 

can we all agree that there has been a dramatic increase in distance in the last 30 years? if you can't acknowledge basic facts then go back to watching fox.

you guys that can't stand to lose 5yds off your finely tuned 20hdcp, at what distance does something need to be done? or are you ok with people hitting it 400yds or more?

 

Yes, I'm OK with whatever distance they hit it. Last time I checked, the tournament winner was the one with the lowest total score, not the longest drives.

 

BTW, if you would quit watching CNN you would know that PGA Tour driving distance has stabilized over the past 15 years.

[Roadking2003]

exactly...we need a basic account for who is on board with the idea that all players hit the ball farther today ( relative to age) than they did say in 1985-1997..... If you dont agree with that no wonder you are against it . If you do agree with that at least we can move onto the rest of the debate which is ......Is more distance good or bad for the game going forward...because the ball and driver manufacturers arent finished bending the current rules. Distance is still growing... it isnt maxed at the current rules....

 

What rules are the ball and driver manufacturers bending?

 

And the debate isn't about distance in 2018 compared to 1985 or 1955 or 1905 or 1885. It's about the fact that distance has stabilized over the past 15 years.

[North Butte]

So everything pre 2003 has no meaning. Is this an attempt by the ruling bodies to claim that they fixed the problem in 2003 and all is ok becuse of them.

 

Using 2003 as a base line is a joke.

 

It's the ruling bodies saying two thing:

 

1 They allowed the modern ball to be conforming in 2003

2) since 2003 there has been no meaningful increase in ball performance beyond what they allowed in 2003

 

So apparently you want them to undo the decision they made nearly 20 years ago to allow the ProV1 to be conforming. You are free to ask them to go back an undo it. Their answer will be NO.

[Roadking2003]

So everything pre 2003 has no meaning. Is this an attempt by the ruling bodies to claim that they fixed the problem in 2003 and all is ok becuse of them.

 

Using 2003 as a base line is a joke.

 

So, what year as a baseline would not be a joke? 1885? 1910? 1940?

[fairways4life]

my son is just starting golf lessons and the first thing they're teaching them is grip, stance, and SWING HARD. that's all that matters.

 

Which is exactly what Nicklaus said we should do 40 years ago. This is nothing new.

 

i really don't give two craps if the ball is 100% responsible for distance gains, 50% or 5%. it's the easiest and most comprehensive way to address the problem and wally uhlein can go F himself.

 

OK, if there actually was a problem to fix.

 

 

can we all agree that there has been a dramatic increase in distance in the last 30 years? if you can't acknowledge basic facts then go back to watching fox.

you guys that can't stand to lose 5yds off your finely tuned 20hdcp, at what distance does something need to be done? or are you ok with people hitting it 400yds or more?

 

Yes, I'm OK with whatever distance they hit it. Last time I checked, the tournament winner was the one with the lowest total score, not the longest drives.

 

BTW, if you would quit watching CNN you would know that PGA Tour driving distance has stabilized over the past 15 years.

 

In 2002, there was one player who averaged 300 yards off the tee (John Daly) and the guy in 100th place average 280. In 2017, there were 43 players who averaged 300 yards and the guy in 100th place average 292. How is that stabilized?

[gvogel]

So everything pre 2003 has no meaning. Is this an attempt by the ruling bodies to claim that they fixed the problem in 2003 and all is ok becuse of them.

 

Using 2003 as a base line is a joke.

 

I agree fully with this statement.

 

By measuring from 2003, the USGA and R&A have tacitly endorsed the change in length for a championship course of from 7200 yards to 8500 yards.

 

By the way, watching Justin Thomas hit driver wedge yesterday on the closing hole was a joke. I will agree that he performed perfectly; but an important championship should not conclude with driver wedge. I make an exception for the Old Course because the previous hole is a par 4.5, and they have always played it that way. Also, it is no easy wedge shot over the Valley of Sin.

[gvogel]

So everything pre 2003 has no meaning. Is this an attempt by the ruling bodies to claim that they fixed the problem in 2003 and all is ok becuse of them.

 

Using 2003 as a base line is a joke.

 

So, what year as a baseline would not be a joke? 1885? 1910? 1940?

 

So you are saying that 8,500 yard golf courses should be the norm?

[North Butte]

my son is just starting golf lessons and the first thing they're teaching them is grip, stance, and SWING HARD. that's all that matters.

 

Which is exactly what Nicklaus said we should do 40 years ago. This is nothing new.

 

i really don't give two craps if the ball is 100% responsible for distance gains, 50% or 5%. it's the easiest and most comprehensive way to address the problem and wally uhlein can go F himself.

 

OK, if there actually was a problem to fix.

 

 

can we all agree that there has been a dramatic increase in distance in the last 30 years? if you can't acknowledge basic facts then go back to watching fox.

you guys that can't stand to lose 5yds off your finely tuned 20hdcp, at what distance does something need to be done? or are you ok with people hitting it 400yds or more?

 

Yes, I'm OK with whatever distance they hit it. Last time I checked, the tournament winner was the one with the lowest total score, not the longest drives.

 

BTW, if you would quit watching CNN you would know that PGA Tour driving distance has stabilized over the past 15 years.

 

In 2002, there was one player who averaged 300 yards off the tee (John Daly) and the guy in 100th place average 280. In 2017, there were 43 players who averaged 300 yards and the guy in 100th place average 292. How is that stabilized?

 

No, it has increased at almost exactly the long-term upward trend rate that has obtained for the past half century or more. One-time jumps have occurred but in between those jumps distance always trends upwards at a half a yard per year or so.

 

Modern data availability allows us to confirm that, at least since the most recent one-time jump (1998-2002) that slow increase is almost entirely explained by the slow, gradual increase in player's ability to produce clubhead speed.