Rolling back the ball

[bladehunter]

Just saw the 4 way debate on GC myself. Matt brought up and interesting idea. He says the 99% ( I’d say it’s more like 75% ) that hit it the average or below distance need more distance. Maybe that’s the compromise ? Bifurcation. Give the 75% more distance for their Sunday 4 ball and pull it back for people who compete. Would a 25% increase in distance get your vote for bifurcation ?

[OrangeGravy]

Just saw the 4 way debate on GC myself. Matt brought up and interesting idea. He says the 99% ( I'd say it's more like 75% ) that hit it the average or below distance need more distance. Maybe that's the compromise ? Bifurcation. Give the 75% more distance for their Sunday 4 ball and pull it back for people who compete. Would a 25% increase in distance get your vote for bifurcation ?

 

I don't understand why so many are against bifurcation? I could't care less. 99% of normal golfers don't play by the rules or come any where close to complying to equipment rules. Any changes the USGA/RnA might ever make to the game have absolutely no affect on anyone playing golf from a percentage perspective.

[North Butte]

Just saw the 4 way debate on GC myself. Matt brought up and interesting idea. He says the 99% ( I’d say it’s more like 75% ) that hit it the average or below distance need more distance. Maybe that’s the compromise ? Bifurcation. Give the 75% more distance for their Sunday 4 ball and pull it back for people who compete. Would a 25% increase in distance get your vote for bifurcation ?

 

How can 99 percent be below average?

 

I am quite happy with today’s balls and clubs and have no interest in seeing the USGA specification changed for either an increase or decrease. Increasing the allowed distance would be just as silly as reducing it, there is zero reason to do so.

[Roadking2003]

Spend some time listening to architects talk, there's a wealth of information here;

http://www.friedegg.co/

 

A very interesting web site. Thanks for posting.

[Roadking2003]

Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene. Go back to pre-Tiger and chart all of the course mods done on tour courses to present day and then think what golf and scores would look like if none of those mods were done. I think some of this would be a lot easier to see if courses hadn't gradually adjusted to things over the last 20 years. It has masked the issue to some degree

 

Other than Augusta, what are they? "Pretty consistently adjusted" implies almost all of them. So give us a list.

[North Butte]

Golf course owners have been “adjusting” golf courses as long as there have been golf courses to own.

[bladehunter]

Just saw the 4 way debate on GC myself. Matt brought up and interesting idea. He says the 99% ( I’d say it’s more like 75% ) that hit it the average or below distance need more distance. Maybe that’s the compromise ? Bifurcation. Give the 75% more distance for their Sunday 4 ball and pull it back for people who compete. Would a 25% increase in distance get your vote for bifurcation ?

 

How can 99 percent be below average?

 

I am quite happy with today’s balls and clubs and have no interest in seeing the USGA specification changed for either an increase or decrease. Increasing the allowed distance would be just as silly as reducing it, there is zero reason to do so.

 

I agree with the math. I think the amount of folks who only carry Driver 200 is much lower than 99%. Just repeating the 99% mantra he kept repeating.

 

 

I’m curious as to why you wouldn’t want more ?

[bladehunter]

Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene. Go back to pre-Tiger and chart all of the course mods done on tour courses to present day and then think what golf and scores would look like if none of those mods were done. I think some of this would be a lot easier to see if courses hadn't gradually adjusted to things over the last 20 years. It has masked the issue to some degree

 

Other than Augusta, what are they? "Pretty consistently adjusted" implies almost all of them. So give us a list.

 

Merion. Seminole. What will a list prove to you ?

 

My home course built in 1969. We’ve added 5 new tees since 2013. And need at least 3 more.

[Roadking2003]

Not picking on you specifically Roadking, but the anti-rollback reply to your problem would be, " find a shorter course to play". Why would you quit golf? I don't hear anyone for a rollback saying they would quit golf if things stay as they are. Would you really quit playing? I'm sure some people who hardly play now might quit, but they're the type of golfer that might play a couple times a year.

 

I probably wouldn't quit if they rolled it back 50%. But even 20% would take the fun out of golf for my age group. We have five tees. When I joined the club 15 years ago I played the tips. Then the golds. Now the blue tees. I refuse to play the ladies tees, so I can only move up one more to the whites which I will do in two or three years.

 

Find a shorter course? And walk away from a $100,000 investment? Never.

[bladehunter]

Not picking on you specifically Roadking, but the anti-rollback reply to your problem would be, " find a shorter course to play". Why would you quit golf? I don't hear anyone for a rollback saying they would quit golf if things stay as they are. Would you really quit playing? I'm sure some people who hardly play now might quit, but they're the type of golfer that might play a couple times a year.

 

I probably wouldn't quit if they rolled it back 50%. But even 20% would take the fun out of golf for my age group. We have five tees. When I joined the club 15 years ago I played the tips. Then the golds. Now the blue tees. I refuse to play the ladies tees, so I can only move up one more to the whites which I will do in two or three years.

 

Find a shorter course? And walk away from a $100,000 investment? Never.

 

You do know that their is no such thing as “ladies tees “ right ? Plenty of ladies play the same tee you are playing now.

[Roadking2003]

Just saw the 4 way debate on GC myself. Matt brought up and interesting idea. He says the 99% ( I’d say it’s more like 75% ) that hit it the average or below distance need more distance. Maybe that’s the compromise ? Bifurcation. Give the 75% more distance for their Sunday 4 ball and pull it back for people who compete. Would a 25% increase in distance get your vote for bifurcation ?

 

How can 99 percent be below average?

 

That's the new political math.

 

I am quite happy with today’s balls and clubs and have no interest in seeing the USGA specification changed for either an increase or decrease. Increasing the allowed distance would be just as silly as reducing it, there is zero reason to do so.

 

me to.

[Roadking2003]

Not picking on you specifically Roadking, but the anti-rollback reply to your problem would be, " find a shorter course to play". Why would you quit golf? I don't hear anyone for a rollback saying they would quit golf if things stay as they are. Would you really quit playing? I'm sure some people who hardly play now might quit, but they're the type of golfer that might play a couple times a year.

 

I probably wouldn't quit if they rolled it back 50%. But even 20% would take the fun out of golf for my age group. We have five tees. When I joined the club 15 years ago I played the tips. Then the golds. Now the blue tees. I refuse to play the ladies tees, so I can only move up one more to the whites which I will do in two or three years.

 

Find a shorter course? And walk away from a $100,000 investment? Never.

 

You do know that their is no such thing as "ladies tees " right ? Plenty of ladies play the same tee you are playing now.

 

OK. The RED tees that 99% of the ladies play.

[ode1]

Just saw the 4 way debate on GC myself. Matt brought up and interesting idea. He says the 99% ( I’d say it’s more like 75% ) that hit it the average or below distance need more distance. Maybe that’s the compromise ? Bifurcation. Give the 75% more distance for their Sunday 4 ball and pull it back for people who compete. Would a 25% increase in distance get your vote for bifurcation ?

 

He was talking about the average drive for an amateur man and an average drive for a am women, the 99.99% # he spoke of was if the ball rolling back was for all it would be for pro's and unduly impact all the rest. I think he stated average drive was ~ 200 for men and ~ 148 for women, therefore needing distance not the other way around. I think the biggest points of contention we're 1) when this info was being discussed before official release there was no mention of bifurcation and the regular folks had significant push back, and 2) he other two guys share a significant concern that the historic courses are or will be obsolete, there is no more room to add distance.....it was very much a 1 (pga of America/Matt Adams) vs. 2 (Jaime and the other guy/USGA/r and a/ruling bodies) debate.

 

IMO it's short sited to focus only on the ball vs. raw natural talent, equipment advances, technology such as trackman/etc, and fitness....these all play a roll and now we have many more natural athletes in the game with all the above at their disposal. I for one embrace the athletes, their talents and tip the cap to them and accept the game as it is. It's not as if the game has been bastardized by PED's like cycling and baseball was.

 

IMO there is real danger in rolling back the ball and doing irreparable harm to a game that is already in trouble. Its possible that the traditional courses will be saved from being obsolete to the pro game, but will it stymie interest/growth and ultimately turn away more folks from the game who are not in agreement with a rollback? And by Folks I mean Pro's, Am's, and the novice fan who may just tune in or talk about the game from time to time.

[Roadking2003]

Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene. Go back to pre-Tiger and chart all of the course mods done on tour courses to present day and then think what golf and scores would look like if none of those mods were done. I think some of this would be a lot easier to see if courses hadn't gradually adjusted to things over the last 20 years. It has masked the issue to some degree

 

Other than Augusta, what are they? "Pretty consistently adjusted" implies almost all of them. So give us a list.

 

Merion. Seminole. What will a list prove to you ?

 

My home course built in 1969. We've added 5 new tees since 2013. And need at least 3 more.

 

My club has four courses built between 20 and 35 years ago. None of them have been lengthened.

 

A very long list would prove that "Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene."

[tnord]

Just boggles my mind the reasoning for wanting to change the ball. Its peaked as far as what it can contribute to the game as has the equipment. The players are growing up, learning to swing faster and control it. They are dedicating all of their time to the game. That wasn't the case in the past I don't think. The players are better, but they can only get so good or so fast. Any idea how much trouble you get in swinging 120+ and being off just a degree or two? Courses need to evolve but not necessarily be 8k long. There are more clever ways to make both parties happy without completely disrupting pretty well established ball performance.

 

A sudden change to said ball might also completely disrupt the entire field. Only the experienced will survive, the rest (the young guns) will struggle for some time no doubt.

 

i am aware of the results of small variability at 120mph. and it's not what it used to be even 10 years ago. people are swinging faster because the equipment goes straighter. it's not like you have to spend a bunch of time in the weight room to swing fast. there are more actual athletes coming into the game now, and those athletes do not have a problem generating that kind of speed. there's plenty of speed left too, just look at where the long drive guys are. the more equipment improves, the more and more game is going to move in that direction. if equipment has improved year after year since 2003, why in the world would you think it would conveniently stop now?

 

it is NOT that hard to adjust to a new distance. have you traveled and played golf at all? the ball flies differently in KS compared to the desert, different again than california, different again than bandon, different than denver. was adjusting elevation really that hard for the guys in Mexico last weekend?

 

it absolutely does not disrupt the entire field.

[tnord]

Not picking on you specifically Roadking, but the anti-rollback reply to your problem would be, " find a shorter course to play". Why would you quit golf? I don't hear anyone for a rollback saying they would quit golf if things stay as they are. Would you really quit playing? I'm sure some people who hardly play now might quit, but they're the type of golfer that might play a couple times a year.

 

I probably wouldn't quit if they rolled it back 50%. But even 20% would take the fun out of golf for my age group. We have five tees. When I joined the club 15 years ago I played the tips. Then the golds. Now the blue tees. I refuse to play the ladies tees, so I can only move up one more to the whites which I will do in two or three years.

 

Find a shorter course? And walk away from a $100,000 investment? Never.

 

gee....and people accused me of having self serving interests.

 

i don't think a different ball will cost you any amount of distance you'll really notice. you don't find the middle of the face enough or generate enough speed as it is to maximize the equipment you have. you could go out and play with a noodle laddy or whatever and it won't really make a difference.

[JaNelson38]

The PGA Tour and the game in golf in general is now reaping what they've sown with regards to "Tiger proofing" courses years ago. Tiger overpowered courses. Courses made themselves longer. Ball and club manufacturers made longer equipment. Focus on golf was put on distance, not shot making. And now here we are.

 

The USGA doesn't help itself either when it consistently mutilates courses for its tournaments. Or when it sets up 260 yard par threes.

 

Golf needs to evolve and start designing courses that you have to think your way around, and start being less afraid of the score being posted. There's plenty of 7000 yard and less courses out there that, while pros would probably score well, would be a wonderful test of golf.

 

Forget the ball and equipment and changing the tools of the game that make it easier for everyone to play. Make the changes with regards to course design.

[clevited]

Just boggles my mind the reasoning for wanting to change the ball. Its peaked as far as what it can contribute to the game as has the equipment. The players are growing up, learning to swing faster and control it. They are dedicating all of their time to the game. That wasn't the case in the past I don't think. The players are better, but they can only get so good or so fast. Any idea how much trouble you get in swinging 120+ and being off just a degree or two? Courses need to evolve but not necessarily be 8k long. There are more clever ways to make both parties happy without completely disrupting pretty well established ball performance.

 

A sudden change to said ball might also completely disrupt the entire field. Only the experienced will survive, the rest (the young guns) will struggle for some time no doubt.

 

i am aware of the results of small variability at 120mph. and it's not what it used to be even 10 years ago. people are swinging faster because the equipment goes straighter. it's not like you have to spend a bunch of time in the weight room to swing fast. there are more actual athletes coming into the game now, and those athletes do not have a problem generating that kind of speed. there's plenty of speed left too, just look at where the long drive guys are. the more equipment improves, the more and more game is going to move in that direction. if equipment has improved year after year since 2003, why in the world would you think it would conveniently stop now?

 

it is NOT that hard to adjust to a new distance. have you traveled and played golf at all? the ball flies differently in KS compared to the desert, different again than california, different again than bandon, different than denver. was adjusting elevation really that hard for the guys in Mexico last weekend?

 

it absolutely does not disrupt the entire field.

 

There are more than a few pros that can do long drive competitively. They aren't getting it much further out there than most of the field on most holes. There just aren't many holes where you can carry 360 and land it safe. Longer the ball is in the air, the more it gets pushed off line. Risk and reward.

 

Ball roll back would absolutely disrupt the field. They will spin differently, go shorter, curve more. There have been plenty of pros that have switched balls and had their performance drop significantly for some time. It takes getting used to at that level, and this would be a more drastic change than those instances. Some sink while others will swim.

[North Butte]

Not picking on you specifically Roadking, but the anti-rollback reply to your problem would be, " find a shorter course to play". Why would you quit golf? I don't hear anyone for a rollback saying they would quit golf if things stay as they are. Would you really quit playing? I'm sure some people who hardly play now might quit, but they're the type of golfer that might play a couple times a year.

 

I probably wouldn't quit if they rolled it back 50%. But even 20% would take the fun out of golf for my age group. We have five tees. When I joined the club 15 years ago I played the tips. Then the golds. Now the blue tees. I refuse to play the ladies tees, so I can only move up one more to the whites which I will do in two or three years.

 

Find a shorter course? And walk away from a $100,000 investment? Never.

 

gee....and people accused me of having self serving interests.

 

i don't think a different ball will cost you any amount of distance you'll really notice. you don't find the middle of the face enough or generate enough speed as it is to maximize the equipment you have. you could go out and play with a noodle laddy or whatever and it won't really make a difference.

 

You just can’t stay away from that line can you?

 

Just a gentle reminder that repeating stuff like that reflects much more poorly on you than on the people you are insulting. As if you’d rather drag the discussion down to the level of interpersonal sniping.

 

Let’s all try to keep to the high ground, at least in this one thread, what say?

[tnord]

Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene. Go back to pre-Tiger and chart all of the course mods done on tour courses to present day and then think what golf and scores would look like if none of those mods were done. I think some of this would be a lot easier to see if courses hadn't gradually adjusted to things over the last 20 years. It has masked the issue to some degree

 

Other than Augusta, what are they? "Pretty consistently adjusted" implies almost all of them. So give us a list.

 

Merion. Seminole. What will a list prove to you ?

 

My home course built in 1969. We've added 5 new tees since 2013. And need at least 3 more.

 

My club has four courses built between 20 and 35 years ago. None of them have been lengthened.

 

A very long list would prove that "Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene."

 

where do you play?

 

pretty much every course that attracts any tournament play (pro OR am) has gotten longer. and not only that, look at the dramatic difference in architecture between those courses built in the last 30 years and those built prior. the propensity of golf courses unfriendly, and unwelcoming to beginners is a direct result of equipment advancements. that is not good for the game at all.

 

http://www.sandcreekgolfclub.com/

 

look at that course, it was built very recently, and is the only muni course in that town as far as i know. it's a giant asset for the newton community, but look at how hard that place is. do you think people just starting in golf at that golf course will have a good time? how likely are they to come back? how likely are they to even try it?

[QMany]

i invite anyone to refer me to educational material on why the ball NEEDS to go farther, and why that makes golf a better game.

 

I don't think the ball needs to go farther. It has been regulated for 15+ years. I don't want the governing bodies to lift the restrictions already in place.

 

At the same time, you can't regulate or punish players for more athletic or getting their game more efficient with an instructor/Trackman.

 

I don't understand why some people (not saying you) have a hard time admitting that this era of golfers are just better, stronger, faster, taller, more athletic. In every other sport, most fans are able to admit that. We don't pretend that John Havlicek could check LeBron James. Ted Williams wouldn't hit .400 against the arms today. OL from the 60s and 70s would be eaten alive by Jadeveon Clowney. I feel like golf has a hard time with that realization. I wish more people would follow some of the top fitness professionals on social media. Follow along with Joey D and Kolby Wayne training their stable in in Florida. Look at what Andrew Hannon and PFS are doing in Scottsdale. Watch the daily workouts of the top collegiate programs, like Stanford who work with the same trainer as the basketball team, former Nebraska and NFL player Cory Schlesinger. Maybe your Finaus, Woodlands, and DJs just aren't supposed to hit the same shots as Ben Hogan, Tom Kite, Tom Watson, etc.

 

At the same time, the golf instruction industry has taken off. We don't see as much Hogan "digging it out in the dirt" by himself or Jack's few lessons only at the beginning of the year with Grout. Kids are growing up with a plethora of coaching options and a Trackman by their side.

 

It is a different game, I think we should embrace it. Between bigger, stronger, faster athletes, Trackman, and instruction, I'm actually a little surprised the gains are so small in the last 15 years.

 

For me, that is the most troubling part of the Distance Report:

 

The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase.

 

The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game.

[15th Club]

IMO it's short sited to focus only on the

ball

vs. raw natural talent, equipment advances, technology such as trackman/etc, and fitness....these all play a roll and now we have many more natural athletes in the game with all the above at their disposal. I for one embrace the athletes, their talents and tip the cap to them and accept the game as it is. It's not as if the game has been bastardized by PED's like cycling and baseball was.

 

We've been through that argument many times. It doesn't matter. Even if you assume that a new breed of super-athlete is responsible for longer distances in golf, it still remains that it is far preferable to fit cheap golf balls to the courses, than to fit irreplaceable works of golf course architecture to the balls.

 

 

IMO there is real danger in rolling back the

ball

and doing irreparable harm to a game that is already in trouble. Its possible that the traditional courses will be saved from being obsolete to the pro game, but will it stymie interest/growth and ultimately turn away more folks from the game who are not in agreement with a rollback? And by Folks I mean Pro's, Am's, and the novice fan who may just tune in or talk about the game from time to time.

 

I keep hearing about the "danger" of a ball rollback. What "danger"? Why would someone who loves golf give it up, if the equipment changed very slightly for everybody? It seems like wondering if people would give up golf if we changed the rule on lost balls, or out of bounds, or the number of clubs allowed.

 

Golf needs to evolve and start designing courses that you have to think your way around, and start being less afraid of the score being posted. There's plenty of 7000 yard and less courses out there that, while pros would probably score well, would be a wonderful test of golf.

 

We have those courses now. They are the championship courses built in the classic era of golf course design. And golf ball distance threatens the way that they were intended to be played.

[tnord]

Just boggles my mind the reasoning for wanting to change the ball. Its peaked as far as what it can contribute to the game as has the equipment. The players are growing up, learning to swing faster and control it. They are dedicating all of their time to the game. That wasn't the case in the past I don't think. The players are better, but they can only get so good or so fast. Any idea how much trouble you get in swinging 120+ and being off just a degree or two? Courses need to evolve but not necessarily be 8k long. There are more clever ways to make both parties happy without completely disrupting pretty well established ball performance.

 

A sudden change to said ball might also completely disrupt the entire field. Only the experienced will survive, the rest (the young guns) will struggle for some time no doubt.

 

i am aware of the results of small variability at 120mph. and it's not what it used to be even 10 years ago. people are swinging faster because the equipment goes straighter. it's not like you have to spend a bunch of time in the weight room to swing fast. there are more actual athletes coming into the game now, and those athletes do not have a problem generating that kind of speed. there's plenty of speed left too, just look at where the long drive guys are. the more equipment improves, the more and more game is going to move in that direction. if equipment has improved year after year since 2003, why in the world would you think it would conveniently stop now?

 

it is NOT that hard to adjust to a new distance. have you traveled and played golf at all? the ball flies differently in KS compared to the desert, different again than california, different again than bandon, different than denver. was adjusting elevation really that hard for the guys in Mexico last weekend?

 

it absolutely does not disrupt the entire field.

 

There are more than a few pros that can do long drive competitively. They aren't getting it much further out there than most of the field on most holes. There just aren't many holes where you can carry 360 and land it safe. Longer the ball is in the air, the more it gets pushed off line. Risk and reward.

 

pros can swing harder than they do currently for sure, but they don't as of right now because it's too risky. as the equipment flies straighter and straighter year after year, they'll hold back less and less. the ball has been going further and further for 15 years since the last set of regs, it's not going to stop now.

 

Ball roll back would absolutely disrupt the field. They will spin differently, go shorter, curve more. There have been plenty of pros that have switched balls and had their performance drop significantly for some time. It takes getting used to at that level, and this would be a more drastic change than those instances. Some sink while others will swim.

 

eh, there's some examples of that, like rory switching gear. but there's also the opposite where guys make a change and instantly get better. it can take some getting used to, but that's more an individual thing than universal.

 

and pros really are little to none of my concern. guys like you and me can adapt to a new ball in about 18 holes. it's not that big of a deal.

[15th Club]

At the same time, you can't regulate or punish players for more athletic or getting their game more efficient with an instructor/Trackman.

 

When will these comments ever stop?

 

We aren't trying to "punish" anyone. Everyone will play by the same rules for golf balls. Who is being punished? Is it "punishment" if the entire field plays with balls that are designed and manufactured under slightly different specifications than at present? By that reasoning, players are being "punished" by all of them being asked to play a U.S. Open on a golf course that is nearly 8,000 yards.

 

I don't understand the persistence of this "punishment" myth.

 

Again, people; we are trying to scale the distances that golf shots are generally hit in championship competitions, to the distances that were anticipated when the great championship courses were designed. (Which has a myriad of side benefits by moving golf more generally to shorter courses that can be firmer, faster, with lowered rough and fewer punitive hazards, all of which will hopefully speed up play.)

[finleysg]

It's fun to pop in every 5 pages or so to see if the arguments have changed.

[trackcoach13]

i invite anyone to refer me to educational material on why the ball NEEDS to go farther, and why that makes golf a better game.

 

I don't think the ball needs to go farther. It has been regulated for 15+ years. I don't want the governing bodies to lift the restrictions already in place.

 

At the same time, you can't regulate or punish players for more athletic or getting their game more efficient with an instructor/Trackman.

 

I don't understand why some people (not saying you) have a hard time admitting that this era of golfers are just better, stronger, faster, taller, more athletic. In every other sport, most fans are able to admit that. We don't pretend that John Havlicek could check LeBron James. Ted Williams wouldn't hit .400 against the arms today. OL from the 60s and 70s would be eaten alive by Jadeveon Clowney. I feel like golf has a hard time with that realization. I wish more people would follow some of the top fitness professionals on social media. Follow along with Joey D and Kolby Wayne training their stable in in Florida. Look at what Andrew Hannon and PFS are doing in Scottsdale. Watch the daily workouts of the top collegiate programs, like Stanford who work with the same trainer as the basketball team, former Nebraska and NFL player Cory Schlesinger. Maybe your Finaus, Woodlands, and DJs just aren't supposed to hit the same shots as Ben Hogan, Tom Kite, Tom Watson, etc.

 

At the same time, the golf instruction industry has taken off. We don't see as much Hogan "digging it out in the dirt" by himself or Jack's few lessons only at the beginning of the year with Grout. Kids are growing up with a plethora of coaching options and a Trackman by their side.

 

It is a different game, I think we should embrace it. Between bigger, stronger, faster athletes, Trackman, and instruction, I'm actually a little surprised the gains are so small in the last 15 years.

 

For me, that is the most troubling part of the Distance Report:

 

The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase.

 

The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game.

 

I think launch monitors are the one of the biggest contributors to what we now see. I went for a driver fitting lesson and went from 105 mph speed with 225-230 carry and 3500 rpm to a new setup with 105 mph speed 245-250 carry and 2400 rpms. Now I hit hit up between 4 and 5 degrees whereas before I hit down 1 to 2 degrees. They have truly revolutionized how we understand ball flight "laws" and how we teach aspiring golfers.

[rawdog]

It's fun to pop in every 5 pages or so to see if the arguments have changed.

 

Speaking of "punishment"...

[QMany]

At the same time, you can't regulate or punish players for more athletic or getting their game more efficient with an instructor/Trackman.

 

When will these comments ever stop?

 

We aren't trying to "punish" anyone. Everyone will play by the same rules for golf balls. Who is being punished? Is it "punishment" if the entire field plays with balls that are designed and manufactured under slightly different specifications than at present? By that reasoning, players are being "punished" by all of them being asked to play a U.S. Open on a golf course that is nearly 8,000 yards.

 

I don't understand the persistence of this "punishment" myth.

 

Again, people; we are trying to scale the distances that golf shots are generally hit in championship competitions, to the distances that were anticipated when the great championship courses were designed. (Which has a myriad of side benefits by moving golf more generally to shorter courses that can be firmer, faster, with lowered rough and fewer punitive hazards, all of which will hopefully speed up play.)

 

LeBron James is too fast. The game wasn't meant to be played at this speed and elevation. Roll back the shoes.

[Roadking2003]

where do you play?

pretty much every course that attracts any tournament play (pro OR am) has gotten longer. and not only that, look at the dramatic difference in architecture between those courses built in the last 30 years and those built prior. the propensity of golf courses unfriendly, and unwelcoming to beginners is a direct result of equipment advancements. that is not good for the game at all.

 

Barton Creek CC.

[OrangeGravy]

Courses have been pretty consistently adjusted since about Tiger coming onto the scene. Go back to pre-Tiger and chart all of the course mods done on tour courses to present day and then think what golf and scores would look like if none of those mods were done. I think some of this would be a lot easier to see if courses hadn't gradually adjusted to things over the last 20 years. It has masked the issue to some degree

 

Other than Augusta, what are they? "Pretty consistently adjusted" implies almost all of them. So give us a list.

 

 

They talk about it all the time on the tournament broadcasts in the last 20 years. Have you not noticed?