Rolling back the ball

[gvogel]

To answer literally and truthfully, it stops when USGA says it stops. Simple as that.

 

If you take them at their word in their periodic reports, they will not take action until they are convinced of a sustained upward distance trend in excess of the historical norm. I see nothing in their position that would indicate them considering an intervention if that 20-yard increase happens between now and, say, the year 2050 or something like that.

 

OTOH, if it were 20 yards between now and 2020 they would probably feel action was required but there's no historical precedent for that so probably not worth worrying about.

 

So your line in the sand is now - or 2003 when the Tour agreed with the USGA that further distance increases are harmful to the game. The only problem with that is that so many really good golf courses were laid out before 1990.

[gvogel]

 

 

Wait a minute! You are describing hypothetical golfers that used to hit the ball 180, or would hit the ball 180, but for the Pro V. And that the Pro V gave them 30 yards.

 

I call b.s. There is no cohort of golfers like that.

 

I know full well, that for a golfer like Fred Couples, he's 30 yards longer, or more, then he'd be with his 1993 balls and equipment. But that's Fred. It's not a 70 year-old in Sarasota or San Diego or Saginaw.

 

I am describing a group of golfers I played with every Monday last season. These are golfers who have aged almost 20 years since the ProV1 has been introduced. These guys are not professional golfers and they have lives they have to attend to. When you are in your 60's and aren't a full time golfer and have an extended offseason, you can't exactly keep your game or your swing speed up for that matter. I never said that they would lose 30 yards. These guys are lucky to break 200 at this point. Take 15-20 yards from them and it's a huge impact.

 

Look, I don't know what type of company you keep. But, there are a lot of golfers out there that are not country club members that don't read books on classic golf architecture. They do play a lot and support local municipal courses. You lose that core group around here, and the course is in for trouble. The game is bigger than what you see on TV.

 

You are describing guys who can't possibly care all that much about GHIN handicaps, or the Rules. I don't expect that any of them would see much penalty in a ball rollback. But if they did, I'd propose a non-conforming ball for them.

 

There you go again. Stop it. You're embarrassing yourself or at least you ought to be.

 

He mentions guys that "...are not country club members [and] don't read books on classic golf architecture..." and you immediate deride those guys as not caring about their handicaps or the Rules or anything else. Read what you're saying, if they don't read books about classic golf course you assume they are not actually real golfers at all.

 

What an arrogant bunch of nonsense. Ignore list time.

 

If "you are lucky to break 200," -- not my quote, as you see -- a 36-handicap, or even a 40 handicap won't help you.

 

Note that I did not suggest kicking those guys off the course. I didn't suggest course operators not taking their money. What I did was suggest a way for them to have more fun out in the fresh air of a local golf course that they like. Buy, and use, some non-conforming balls. Get significantly more distance, not just a little. Because it sounds like they need it.

 

WE should stop the "lucky to break 200" bit right now. If someone can't break 200, their problem is not related to the distance of the golf ball. Their problem is tops, balls hit OB or into hazards, flubbed chips and pitches, and 4-putting. In a word, their problem is making consistent impact. No ball is going to help that.

[clevited]

Lets say the USGA is going to go through with plans to roll back the ball. They would need to do the following in order to make it hold, and create what they want to create in the game of golf.

 

-determine the maximum realistic swing speed they could expect will come about from a player in the coming years.

-limit the total weight and inertial of golf clubs so they don't get too light and become even faster (only limiter that I am surprised doesn't exist as far as I understand).

-Impliment what will end up being nearer to 30% reduction in current ball flight distance in order to prevent as much as possible, bomb and gouge on their storied and historic courses. That puts current top swing speed players at nearer to 255 carry and with roll out still at about Jacks max of 300 (could be more could be less).

-Limit driver length to 44 inches.

-Consider also rules for fairway speed if they want to further limit distance.

 

Something to understand. This will make many current pro golfers, and golfers such as yourself CRAP by comparison as only the top .5% or something of the physical specimens in this world will now be on tour. That is the future. You will have Joe Miller like people perhaps as your new Jack Nicklaus. Nothing wrong with that, but that is what I see happening. Currently, courses limit max distance. Lower the ball distance, up the talent and physical size and strength of the player.

 

Only other answer is to directly limit how far you can hit it. So and so hits it 350 on fairway, course official picks it up and moves it back to the USGA limit of 300. That is how rediculous all of this sounds to me.

 

Now what you have after all of this is only the absolute best of the best of the best as far as athleticism, talent, and whatever. If you want to truly fix this percieved problem in the name of making the old courses playable in THE WAY INTENDED as well as current courses, that is what you HAVE to do. Do you want this?????? I sure as heck don't.

[North Butte]

To answer literally and truthfully, it stops when USGA says it stops. Simple as that.

 

If you take them at their word in their periodic reports, they will not take action until they are convinced of a sustained upward distance trend in excess of the historical norm. I see nothing in their position that would indicate them considering an intervention if that 20-yard increase happens between now and, say, the year 2050 or something like that.

 

OTOH, if it were 20 yards between now and 2020 they would probably feel action was required but there's no historical precedent for that so probably not worth worrying about.

 

So your line in the sand is now - or 2003 when the Tour agreed with the USGA that further distance increases are harmful to the game.

 

Well I'd say that is USGA's line in the sand, which is the only line that counts. But yes I am entirely comfortable with it.

 

The only problem with that is that so many really good golf courses were laid out before 1990.

 

Not a problem in my view. A good golf course does not cease to be a good golf course because the longest players in the world hit the ball farther. In fact, any course which ceases to have value due to a 40-yard increase (for the top 0.01% of player, less for the rest of us) in driving distance must not have been a good course to start with. That would be a very one-dimensional, repetitive and limited course, wouldn't you think?

 

My own course was built many decades before the ProV1 and has not been altered at all (except by time and vagaries of finite maintenance budgets!) since the titanium and urethane revolution. In fact it had been fairly little altered before the ProV1 era. It's still a fine course that challenges even the longest local and regional amateur players, in addition to being wonderful for our everyday member play.

 

P.S. I will admit that like many older courses our Par 5 holes are very easy birdie opportunities for anyone who can drive the ball roughly 300 yards or so. But from the back tees, the Par 3's are absolutely brutal and the entire course is mostly designed to challenge players at the green rather than the tee or fairway.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

To answer literally and truthfully, it stops when USGA says it stops. Simple as that.

 

If you take them at their word in their periodic reports, they will not take action until they are convinced of a sustained upward distance trend in excess of the historical norm. I see nothing in their position that would indicate them considering an intervention if that 20-yard increase happens between now and, say, the year 2050 or something like that.

 

OTOH, if it were 20 yards between now and 2020 they would probably feel action was required but there's no historical precedent for that so probably not worth worrying about.

 

So your line in the sand is now - or 2003 when the Tour agreed with the USGA that further distance increases are harmful to the game.

 

Well I'd say that is USGA's line in the sand, which is the only line that counts. But yes I am entirely comfortable with it.

 

The only problem with that is that so many really good golf courses were laid out before 1990.

 

Not a problem in my view. A good golf course does not cease to be a good golf course because the longest players in the world hit the ball farther. In fact, any course which ceases to have value due to a 40-yard increase (for the top 0.01% of player, less for the rest of us) in driving distance must not have been a good course to start with. That would be a very one-dimensional, repetitive and limited course, wouldn't you think?

 

My own course was built many decades before the ProV1 and has not been altered at all (except by time and vagaries of finite maintenance budgets!) since the titanium and urethane revolution. In fact it had been fairly little altered before the ProV1 era. It's still a fine course that challenges even the longest local and regional amateur players, in addition to being wonderful for our everyday member play.

 

P.S. I will admit that like many older courses our Par 5 holes are very easy birdie opportunities for anyone who can drive the ball roughly 300 yards or so. But from the back tees, the Par 3's are absolutely brutal and the entire course is mostly designed to challenge players at the green rather than the tee or fairway.

 

That's what often gets lost in all of this. Why is nobody advocating for the rollback of greens to 8 on the stimp and flat? I don't think the designers intended for them to be rolling at an undulating 12.

[Bye]

Realistically speaking, how much more do you all think distance will increase over the next 20 years or so?

 

-Driver heads are capped at 460cc, so nothing is happening there.

 

-Graphite has allowed for lighter shafts which has in turn allowed for faster swing speeds. But are they really going to get any lighter and would tour pros even want to swing something any lighter?

 

-Golf ball is already regulated, so nothing is happening there. Maybe a ball that spins less and therefore flies further, but at some point pros will not want to lose too much spin.

 

-Player fitness saw a huge spike during the Tiger era, but the modern day tour pro is probably not going to get that much more athletic than they already are. We went from the Tim "Lumpy" Herron era of the 90s to the Gary Woodland/Dustin Johnson era of the 21st century. Not much more room to go from there.

 

-Launch monitors have allowed us to figure out what makes the ball go far by studying things like angle of attack, launch angle and spin. I'm sure we'll continue to learn more but not likely to have any more huge breakthroughs like we recently did.

 

-The club fitting process has become so fine-tuned (at the tour level) it's hard to imagine some kind of major breakthrough happening there either.

 

This is not to say that we won't continue to make modest gains in any or all of these areas. But what we've experienced over the last 20 years have been major leaps in all of these areas all happening at around the same time. And all of these things have contributed to a perfect storm for the recent distance gains, especially when added together. Going forward, it's hard to imagine the pace will keep up.

 

If I were a betting man, I would bet that distance gains for the long hitters begin to taper off in the next couple of years and that any gains made in the near future will be negligible.

 

That being said, I can see the distance gains of the overall field playing "catch up" to the long hitters as distance gains more depth in the field. So my prediction is that today's longest hitters won't get much longer but today's average hitters will. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

 

I think the historical trend of roughly half a yard per year, or thereabouts, might well continue into the foreseeable future. I don's see any looming wall in terms of the basic biomechanics.

 

There is a soft wall, you might say, of just how hard players are willing to swing in terms of damage to their bodies. But given the rewards available to even, say, the 100th or so best player in the world there's plenty of incentive to risk having your body blow out at age 30 in return for maximizing your earnings for the decade or so before that happens.

 

I would agree in terms of the average weekend warrior, but not for the tours. The PGA Tour average angle of attack is -1.3. The LPGA Tour is +3. So there is a way to go. Guys like Bubba Watson hit it as far as they did in 2003 because they we’re optimised then. The guys that have gained distance probably have not gained any swing speed but have altered their launch conditions.

 

We are in the phase of players growing up using Titanium drivers and Pro v1 style balls. We are not yet at the point of watching people that grown up using Trackman and force plates.

 

There are 16 year olds that can fly a 7 iron 220+.

[clevited]

Realistically speaking, how much more do you all think distance will increase over the next 20 years or so?

 

-Driver heads are capped at 460cc, so nothing is happening there.

 

-Graphite has allowed for lighter shafts which has in turn allowed for faster swing speeds. But are they really going to get any lighter and would tour pros even want to swing something any lighter?

 

-Golf ball is already regulated, so nothing is happening there. Maybe a ball that spins less and therefore flies further, but at some point pros will not want to lose too much spin.

 

-Player fitness saw a huge spike during the Tiger era, but the modern day tour pro is probably not going to get that much more athletic than they already are. We went from the Tim "Lumpy" Herron era of the 90s to the Gary Woodland/Dustin Johnson era of the 21st century. Not much more room to go from there.

 

-Launch monitors have allowed us to figure out what makes the ball go far by studying things like angle of attack, launch angle and spin. I'm sure we'll continue to learn more but not likely to have any more huge breakthroughs like we recently did.

 

-The club fitting process has become so fine-tuned (at the tour level) it's hard to imagine some kind of major breakthrough happening there either.

 

This is not to say that we won't continue to make modest gains in any or all of these areas. But what we've experienced over the last 20 years have been major leaps in all of these areas all happening at around the same time. And all of these things have contributed to a perfect storm for the recent distance gains, especially when added together. Going forward, it's hard to imagine the pace will keep up.

 

If I were a betting man, I would bet that distance gains for the long hitters begin to taper off in the next couple of years and that any gains made in the near future will be negligible.

 

That being said, I can see the distance gains of the overall field playing "catch up" to the long hitters as distance gains more depth in the field. So my prediction is that today's longest hitters won't get much longer but today's average hitters will. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

 

I think the historical trend of roughly half a yard per year, or thereabouts, might well continue into the foreseeable future. I don's see any looming wall in terms of the basic biomechanics.

 

There is a soft wall, you might say, of just how hard players are willing to swing in terms of damage to their bodies. But given the rewards available to even, say, the 100th or so best player in the world there's plenty of incentive to risk having your body blow out at age 30 in return for maximizing your earnings for the decade or so before that happens.

 

I would agree in terms of the average weekend warrior, but not for the tours. The PGA Tour average angle of attack is -1.3. The LPGA Tour is +3. So there is a way to go. Guys like Bubba Watson hit it as far as they did in 2003 because they we’re optimised then. The guys that have gained distance probably have not gained any swing speed but have altered their launch conditions.

 

We are in the phase of players growing up using Titanium drivers and Pro v1 style balls. We are not yet at the point of watching people that grown up using Trackman and force plates.

 

There are 16 year olds that can fly a 7 iron 220+.

 

I can fly a 7 iron 220+, depends on how you hit it. No spin, ball goes for miles. Now if they are legit, 6k-7.5k spinners, than I say DAAAAAAAAAANG son.

[buckeyefl]

Haven't read all 35 pages so apologies if this has been posted.

 

Why not change the par on holes? In the old days, the par 3's were up to 250, par 4's up to 470 (I think but could be wrong) and par 5's were over that. Make par 3's up to 325, par 4's up to 530 (as is done in some events) and start par 5's over that. We're accustomed to a course being a par 72 or 70, why not let the par drop to 68?

 

I have read all 35 pages, and commented on just about all of them. And I keep asking, why do these drastic things like changing the golf courses, or changing par? Why not just change the $3.50 golf balls?

 

You do realize changing a par 5 to a par 4 is a lot less drastic than an across the board ball rollback, right? Par is a completely irrelevant number in the scheme of tournament golf. The winner of the tournament is the player that gets around in the fewest strokes. That's it.

 

lol. Way back at an early time in this thread, somebody asked "What will happen to all of golf's records?" if there was a ball rollback. Nothing, I said. Rolling back the ball would be the best way to preserve golfing history and records.

 

And now, you lot are proving me right. You're talking about changing par. So as to preserve a golf ball that no course architect ever contemplated, and which no player from an earlier generation enjoyed. A real, serious, change to scoring standards is what you are suggesting. Just for a $3.50 golf ball.

 

Thanks for helping prove the point.

 

No one is helping prove anything. You just have this holier thant thou attitude that makes you feel that way. Sort of like the idiots you are trying to suck up to.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Can anyone explain why there doesn't seem to be anyone calling for a rollback of the greens? Make them flat and slow like the designers intended. Why not?

[buckeyefl]

That is hard to say. I play with people that already have to hit hybrids and fairway woods into a lot of par 4's. If they are suddenly hitting the ball 180 off the tee, I can absolutely see them stop participating in the handicap system, club tournaments, and eventually exiting the game much earlier than they initially would have. These guys are card carrying handicapped golfers who, while they are not the most skilled, still enjoy competing and participating in the handicapped tournaments. These guys play all the time. They enjoy the game where it is now. I can't speak for them, but I can definitely see them playing much less going forward.

 

Wait a minute! You are describing hypothetical golfers that used to hit the ball 180, or would hit the ball 180, but for the Pro V. And that the Pro V gave them 30 yards.

 

I call b.s. There is no cohort of golfers like that.

 

I know full well, that for a golfer like Fred Couples, he's 30 yards longer, or more, then he'd be with his 1993 balls and equipment. But that's Fred. It's not a 70 year-old in Sarasota or San Diego or Saginaw.

 

I am describing a group of golfers I played with every Monday last season. These are golfers who have aged almost 20 years since the ProV1 has been introduced. These guys are not professional golfers and they have lives they have to attend to. When you are in your 60's and aren't a full time golfer and have an extended offseason, you can't exactly keep your game or your swing speed up for that matter. I never said that they would lose 30 yards. These guys are lucky to break 200 at this point. Take 15-20 yards from them and it's a huge impact.

 

Look, I don't know what type of company you keep. But, there are a lot of golfers out there that are not country club members that don't read books on classic golf architecture. They do play a lot and support local municipal courses. You lose that core group around here, and the course is in for trouble. The game is bigger than what you see on TV.

 

You are describing guys who can't possibly care all that much about GHIN handicaps, or the Rules. I don't expect that any of them would see much penalty in a ball rollback. But if they did, I'd propose a non-conforming ball for them.

 

I see you share the USGAs arrogance as well. Classy.

[Bye]

Realistically speaking, how much more do you all think distance will increase over the next 20 years or so?

 

-Driver heads are capped at 460cc, so nothing is happening there.

 

-Graphite has allowed for lighter shafts which has in turn allowed for faster swing speeds. But are they really going to get any lighter and would tour pros even want to swing something any lighter?

 

-Golf ball is already regulated, so nothing is happening there. Maybe a ball that spins less and therefore flies further, but at some point pros will not want to lose too much spin.

 

-Player fitness saw a huge spike during the Tiger era, but the modern day tour pro is probably not going to get that much more athletic than they already are. We went from the Tim "Lumpy" Herron era of the 90s to the Gary Woodland/Dustin Johnson era of the 21st century. Not much more room to go from there.

 

-Launch monitors have allowed us to figure out what makes the ball go far by studying things like angle of attack, launch angle and spin. I'm sure we'll continue to learn more but not likely to have any more huge breakthroughs like we recently did.

 

-The club fitting process has become so fine-tuned (at the tour level) it's hard to imagine some kind of major breakthrough happening there either.

 

This is not to say that we won't continue to make modest gains in any or all of these areas. But what we've experienced over the last 20 years have been major leaps in all of these areas all happening at around the same time. And all of these things have contributed to a perfect storm for the recent distance gains, especially when added together. Going forward, it's hard to imagine the pace will keep up.

 

If I were a betting man, I would bet that distance gains for the long hitters begin to taper off in the next couple of years and that any gains made in the near future will be negligible.

 

That being said, I can see the distance gains of the overall field playing "catch up" to the long hitters as distance gains more depth in the field. So my prediction is that today's longest hitters won't get much longer but today's average hitters will. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

 

I think the historical trend of roughly half a yard per year, or thereabouts, might well continue into the foreseeable future. I don's see any looming wall in terms of the basic biomechanics.

 

There is a soft wall, you might say, of just how hard players are willing to swing in terms of damage to their bodies. But given the rewards available to even, say, the 100th or so best player in the world there's plenty of incentive to risk having your body blow out at age 30 in return for maximizing your earnings for the decade or so before that happens.

 

I would agree in terms of the average weekend warrior, but not for the tours. The PGA Tour average angle of attack is -1.3. The LPGA Tour is +3. So there is a way to go. Guys like Bubba Watson hit it as far as they did in 2003 because they we’re optimised then. The guys that have gained distance probably have not gained any swing speed but have altered their launch conditions.

 

We are in the phase of players growing up using Titanium drivers and Pro v1 style balls. We are not yet at the point of watching people that grown up using Trackman and force plates.

 

There are 16 year olds that can fly a 7 iron 220+.

 

I can fly a 7 iron 220+, depends on how you hit it. No spin, ball goes for miles. Now if they are legit, 6k-7.5k spinners, than I say DAAAAAAAAAANG son.

 

 

Just watch.

 

A friend of a friend is the course superintendent at a course where the British under 18’s was played. One of the par 3’s is about 210-215, they all hit 6 or 7 iron.

 

 

http://www.skysports.com/golf/news/12176/11154247/teenage-prospect-robin-tiger-williams-impresses-in-the-shot-centre

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

Lets say the USGA is going to go through with plans to roll back the ball. They would need to do the following in order to make it hold, and create what they want to create in the game of golf.

 

-determine the maximum realistic swing speed they could expect will come about from a player in the coming years.

-limit the total weight and inertial of golf clubs so they don't get too light and become even faster (only limiter that I am surprised doesn't exist as far as I understand).

-Impliment what will end up being nearer to 30% reduction in current ball flight distance in order to prevent as much as possible, bomb and gouge on their storied and historic courses. That puts current top swing speed players at nearer to 255 carry and with roll out still at about Jacks max of 300 (could be more could be less).

-Limit driver length to 44 inches.

-Consider also rules for fairway speed if they want to further limit distance.

 

Something to understand. This will make many current pro golfers, and golfers such as yourself CRAP by comparison as only the top .5% or something of the physical specimens in this world will now be on tour. That is the future. You will have Joe Miller like people perhaps as your new Jack Nicklaus. Nothing wrong with that, but that is what I see happening. Currently, courses limit max distance. Lower the ball distance, up the talent and physical size and strength of the player.

 

Only other answer is to directly limit how far you can hit it. So and so hits it 350 on fairway, course official picks it up and moves it back to the USGA limit of 300. That is how rediculous all of this sounds to me.

 

Now what you have after all of this is only the absolute best of the best of the best as far as athleticism, talent, and whatever. If you want to truly fix this percieved problem in the name of making the old courses playable in THE WAY INTENDED as well as current courses, that is what you HAVE to do. Do you want this?????? I sure as heck don't.

 

 

Lol. It isn’t going to happen. But it isn’t nearly as convoluted as all that. All they have to do is make the ball have a higher spin characteristic. Whatever makes that. Core / cover etc. and the distance will regulate itself. High spin kills high speed drivers of the ball. My self see an actual trackman verified plus or minus 40 yards from 3800 rpm down to 1800. So when my AoA gets steep and down I produce tons of spin. When it’s up or level and the right ball / clibhead combo I see 2kish and pickup 40 yards carry. That’s huge. And also hard to maintain. Now make aball that won’t get sub 3k on my best swing and you see what I mean.

[storm319]

Just kicking around an idea here...

 

What if no changes were made to the golf ball on the professional level, and everything just stayed as is. But at the recreational level, the governing bodies loosened the restrictions and non-conforming distance balls (like the Bandit or the Condor) became "legal" for amateurs.

 

This would create bifurcation (which I actually would not like to see happen), but it would allow recreational players to gain some distance without breaking any kind of rules (of course, that's assuming these non-conforming balls do in fact fly farther; I've never used one so I don't know).

 

There's no rollback of the golf ball, only a "roll forward." The pro game is not affected and us weekend hacks get to smack it a little further while remaining rule-abiding.

 

Yay? Nay?

 

Yay for me. What are they going to do if they roll the ball back, and companies like these keep making balls that still go further than the USGA restrictions? Couldn't the big companies like Titleist, Calloway etc still make a non conforming ball for us? What could the USGA do about that? My guess is the big companies would tell them to go pound sand.

 

I know on my friday afternoon what ball I will be using.

 

What makes you think that the USGA cares one bit about non-conforming equipment? I think that their only concern is with the possibility of non-conforming equipment appearing like conforming equipment. But that could be cured with clear marking requirements.

 

Hell, they have been making bandit balls for years, and the USGA never sued anybody. Compare Ping, which actually did make a non-conforming club, measurably so, and Ping sued the USGA.

 

If a ball rollback comes about, and all of you Pro V1 fanboyz are hacked off about it and want nothing to do with the USGA and would have been happy with bifurcation in any event... you can all go bifurcate yourselves! Just kidding. But seriously; if playing a long ball means a lot to you, and the USGA's authority of the game means next to nothing to you, why not just go make your own rules, or at least buy whatever kind of ball you want?

 

There is far less preventing you from moving up tees and playing 50 year old equipment and that would actually be perfectly within the current rules. What you are suggesting is a forced rollback after 20+ years of mass legal adoption that will deem the current way of playing illegal.

 

Also, the USGA is not concerned with a few small, fly by night companies producing non-conforming equipment. They are concerned with the big OEMs producing it because they want to avoid mass adoption. The anchoring ban was a prime example as people had been doing it for years and no one seemed to care until there was adoption (and major wins) on tour. Ultimately they acknowledge the influence the PGA Tour has on the amateurs and as Butte illuded, if they cannot get agreement from both PGAs any rollback will be dead in the water. Both PGAs responding within 24 hours of the USGAs release is very telling as well.

[bladehunter]

Realistically speaking, how much more do you all think distance will increase over the next 20 years or so?

 

-Driver heads are capped at 460cc, so nothing is happening there.

 

-Graphite has allowed for lighter shafts which has in turn allowed for faster swing speeds. But are they really going to get any lighter and would tour pros even want to swing something any lighter?

 

-Golf ball is already regulated, so nothing is happening there. Maybe a ball that spins less and therefore flies further, but at some point pros will not want to lose too much spin.

 

-Player fitness saw a huge spike during the Tiger era, but the modern day tour pro is probably not going to get that much more athletic than they already are. We went from the Tim "Lumpy" Herron era of the 90s to the Gary Woodland/Dustin Johnson era of the 21st century. Not much more room to go from there.

 

-Launch monitors have allowed us to figure out what makes the ball go far by studying things like angle of attack, launch angle and spin. I'm sure we'll continue to learn more but not likely to have any more huge breakthroughs like we recently did.

 

-The club fitting process has become so fine-tuned (at the tour level) it's hard to imagine some kind of major breakthrough happening there either.

 

This is not to say that we won't continue to make modest gains in any or all of these areas. But what we've experienced over the last 20 years have been major leaps in all of these areas all happening at around the same time. And all of these things have contributed to a perfect storm for the recent distance gains, especially when added together. Going forward, it's hard to imagine the pace will keep up.

 

If I were a betting man, I would bet that distance gains for the long hitters begin to taper off in the next couple of years and that any gains made in the near future will be negligible.

 

That being said, I can see the distance gains of the overall field playing "catch up" to the long hitters as distance gains more depth in the field. So my prediction is that today's longest hitters won't get much longer but today's average hitters will. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

 

I think the historical trend of roughly half a yard per year, or thereabouts, might well continue into the foreseeable future. I don's see any looming wall in terms of the basic biomechanics.

 

There is a soft wall, you might say, of just how hard players are willing to swing in terms of damage to their bodies. But given the rewards available to even, say, the 100th or so best player in the world there's plenty of incentive to risk having your body blow out at age 30 in return for maximizing your earnings for the decade or so before that happens.

 

I would agree in terms of the average weekend warrior, but not for the tours. The PGA Tour average angle of attack is -1.3. The LPGA Tour is +3. So there is a way to go. Guys like Bubba Watson hit it as far as they did in 2003 because they we’re optimised then. The guys that have gained distance probably have not gained any swing speed but have altered their launch conditions.

 

We are in the phase of players growing up using Titanium drivers and Pro v1 style balls. We are not yet at the point of watching people that grown up using Trackman and force plates.

 

There are 16 year olds that can fly a 7 iron 220+.

 

I can fly a 7 iron 220+, depends on how you hit it. No spin, ball goes for miles. Now if they are legit, 6k-7.5k spinners, than I say DAAAAAAAAAANG son.

 

 

Also have to define “7 iron “. Are we taking a club with a 5 irons loft and an inch longer shaft plus tungsten sole or an actual 7 iron ?

[irvnasty]

The golf course architect (and the crew that sets up the course for the event) present problems to golfers. It is not their job to dictate solutions.

 

You have a couple fairway bunkers pinching the fairway at 260-275 yards from the tee.

 

There are three obvious solutions, assuming the golfer would rather not end up in the bunkers:

1) Hit the ball shorter than 260 yards.

2) Hit the ball accurately enough that you can hit the ball 260-275 yards.

3) Carry the ball 275 yards or more.

 

Option (3) has always existed. The idea that some outside agency wants to dictate to players which option they should play is arrogant. If the architects or course crew wants to present a different problem, present a different problem, and maybe players will solve it differently. But golfers reserve the right to solve problems as they see fit. I don't oppose the regulation of equipment, only the idea that the way golfers play is wrong because it isn't the way the architect wants them to play. The architect has no right to an opinion on how a course should be played. There is, in fact, no way that a course "should be played". The architect creates the circumstances of play, the players create the strategy. We don't expect whomever invented poker to complain about the betting patterns of players not being what he intended.

 

If a course no longer presents problems that are relevant tests of golfers, it's a lousy course. Maybe it was good once upon a time, but it is not now. Once upon a time, Mount Everest was a good test of climbers.

 

If, to protect 50 golf courses, you want to affect the options available to golfers on 50,000 courses, you've lost the plot.

[Roadking2003]

 

Just watch.

 

A friend of a friend is the course superintendent at a course where the British under 18’s was played. One of the par 3’s is about 210-215, they all hit 6 or 7 iron.

 

And the point is ???

 

What did they score? The goal is to post the lowest score, not the longest 6 iron.

[North Butte]

Lets say the USGA is going to go through with plans to roll back the ball. They would need to do the following in order to make it hold, and create what they want to create in the game of golf.

 

-determine the maximum realistic swing speed they could expect will come about from a player in the coming years.

-limit the total weight and inertial of golf clubs so they don't get too light and become even faster (only limiter that I am surprised doesn't exist as far as I understand).

-Impliment what will end up being nearer to 30% reduction in current ball flight distance in order to prevent as much as possible, bomb and gouge on their storied and historic courses. That puts current top swing speed players at nearer to 255 carry and with roll out still at about Jacks max of 300 (could be more could be less).

-Limit driver length to 44 inches.

-Consider also rules for fairway speed if they want to further limit distance.

 

Something to understand. This will make many current pro golfers, and golfers such as yourself CRAP by comparison as only the top .5% or something of the physical specimens in this world will now be on tour. That is the future. You will have Joe Miller like people perhaps as your new Jack Nicklaus. Nothing wrong with that, but that is what I see happening. Currently, courses limit max distance. Lower the ball distance, up the talent and physical size and strength of the player.

 

Only other answer is to directly limit how far you can hit it. So and so hits it 350 on fairway, course official picks it up and moves it back to the USGA limit of 300. That is how rediculous all of this sounds to me.

 

Now what you have after all of this is only the absolute best of the best of the best as far as athleticism, talent, and whatever. If you want to truly fix this percieved problem in the name of making the old courses playable in THE WAY INTENDED as well as current courses, that is what you HAVE to do. Do you want this?????? I sure as heck don't.

 

 

Lol. It isn't going to happen. But it isn't nearly as convoluted as all that. All they have to do is make the ball have a higher spin characteristic. Whatever makes that. Core / cover etc. and the distance will regulate itself. High spin kills high speed drivers of the ball. My self see an actual trackman verified plus or minus 40 yards from 3800 rpm down to 1800. So when my AoA gets steep and down I produce tons of spin. When it's up or level and the right ball / clibhead combo I see 2kish and pickup 40 yards carry. That's huge. And also hard to maintain. Now make aball that won't get sub 3k on my best swing and you see what I mean.

 

Keep in mind that your "all you have to do is..." assumes everything else stays equal. As USGA found with the groove rule debacle, everything else will not stay equal if you try and impinge upon the performance of an elite player's balls and clubs.

[clevited]

Lets say the USGA is going to go through with plans to roll back the ball. They would need to do the following in order to make it hold, and create what they want to create in the game of golf.

 

-determine the maximum realistic swing speed they could expect will come about from a player in the coming years.

-limit the total weight and inertial of golf clubs so they don't get too light and become even faster (only limiter that I am surprised doesn't exist as far as I understand).

-Impliment what will end up being nearer to 30% reduction in current ball flight distance in order to prevent as much as possible, bomb and gouge on their storied and historic courses. That puts current top swing speed players at nearer to 255 carry and with roll out still at about Jacks max of 300 (could be more could be less).

-Limit driver length to 44 inches.

-Consider also rules for fairway speed if they want to further limit distance.

 

Something to understand. This will make many current pro golfers, and golfers such as yourself CRAP by comparison as only the top .5% or something of the physical specimens in this world will now be on tour. That is the future. You will have Joe Miller like people perhaps as your new Jack Nicklaus. Nothing wrong with that, but that is what I see happening. Currently, courses limit max distance. Lower the ball distance, up the talent and physical size and strength of the player.

 

Only other answer is to directly limit how far you can hit it. So and so hits it 350 on fairway, course official picks it up and moves it back to the USGA limit of 300. That is how rediculous all of this sounds to me.

 

Now what you have after all of this is only the absolute best of the best of the best as far as athleticism, talent, and whatever. If you want to truly fix this percieved problem in the name of making the old courses playable in THE WAY INTENDED as well as current courses, that is what you HAVE to do. Do you want this?????? I sure as heck don't.

 

 

Lol. It isn't going to happen. But it isn't nearly as convoluted as all that. All they have to do is make the ball have a higher spin characteristic. Whatever makes that. Core / cover etc. and the distance will regulate itself. High spin kills high speed drivers of the ball. My self see an actual trackman verified plus or minus 40 yards from 3800 rpm down to 1800. So when my AoA gets steep and down I produce tons of spin. When it's up or level and the right ball / clibhead combo I see 2kish and pickup 40 yards carry. That's huge. And also hard to maintain. Now make aball that won't get sub 3k on my best swing and you see what I mean.

 

I would argue that players will find a way to lower spin so they can hit it hard. Lower lofted drivers and hitting even more up on it for instance. CG of driver. Etc etc. Besides, that is basically what I am saying above. You might as well pick a max distance, anyone who hits it past that, official picks it up and moves it back to the maximum allowed distance. Conceptually, its doing almost the same thing. You are punishing long hitters. That isn't right.

[DavePelz4]

Haven't read all 35 pages so apologies if this has been posted.

 

Why not change the par on holes? In the old days, the par 3's were up to 250, par 4's up to 470 (I think but could be wrong) and par 5's were over that. Make par 3's up to 325, par 4's up to 530 (as is done in some events) and start par 5's over that. We're accustomed to a course being a par 72 or 70, why not let the par drop to 68?

 

I have read all 35 pages, and commented on just about all of them. And I keep asking, why do these drastic things like changing the golf courses, or changing par? Why not just change the $3.50 golf balls?

 

The winner of the golf tournament is the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots. The measurement of their score to par has no bearing.

[Bye]

Realistically speaking, how much more do you all think distance will increase over the next 20 years or so?

 

-Driver heads are capped at 460cc, so nothing is happening there.

 

-Graphite has allowed for lighter shafts which has in turn allowed for faster swing speeds. But are they really going to get any lighter and would tour pros even want to swing something any lighter?

 

-Golf ball is already regulated, so nothing is happening there. Maybe a ball that spins less and therefore flies further, but at some point pros will not want to lose too much spin.

 

-Player fitness saw a huge spike during the Tiger era, but the modern day tour pro is probably not going to get that much more athletic than they already are. We went from the Tim "Lumpy" Herron era of the 90s to the Gary Woodland/Dustin Johnson era of the 21st century. Not much more room to go from there.

 

-Launch monitors have allowed us to figure out what makes the ball go far by studying things like angle of attack, launch angle and spin. I'm sure we'll continue to learn more but not likely to have any more huge breakthroughs like we recently did.

 

-The club fitting process has become so fine-tuned (at the tour level) it's hard to imagine some kind of major breakthrough happening there either.

 

This is not to say that we won't continue to make modest gains in any or all of these areas. But what we've experienced over the last 20 years have been major leaps in all of these areas all happening at around the same time. And all of these things have contributed to a perfect storm for the recent distance gains, especially when added together. Going forward, it's hard to imagine the pace will keep up.

 

If I were a betting man, I would bet that distance gains for the long hitters begin to taper off in the next couple of years and that any gains made in the near future will be negligible.

 

That being said, I can see the distance gains of the overall field playing "catch up" to the long hitters as distance gains more depth in the field. So my prediction is that today's longest hitters won't get much longer but today's average hitters will. I guess all we can do is wait and see.

 

I think the historical trend of roughly half a yard per year, or thereabouts, might well continue into the foreseeable future. I don's see any looming wall in terms of the basic biomechanics.

 

There is a soft wall, you might say, of just how hard players are willing to swing in terms of damage to their bodies. But given the rewards available to even, say, the 100th or so best player in the world there's plenty of incentive to risk having your body blow out at age 30 in return for maximizing your earnings for the decade or so before that happens.

 

I would agree in terms of the average weekend warrior, but not for the tours. The PGA Tour average angle of attack is -1.3. The LPGA Tour is +3. So there is a way to go. Guys like Bubba Watson hit it as far as they did in 2003 because they we’re optimised then. The guys that have gained distance probably have not gained any swing speed but have altered their launch conditions.

 

We are in the phase of players growing up using Titanium drivers and Pro v1 style balls. We are not yet at the point of watching people that grown up using Trackman and force plates.

 

There are 16 year olds that can fly a 7 iron 220+.

 

I can fly a 7 iron 220+, depends on how you hit it. No spin, ball goes for miles. Now if they are legit, 6k-7.5k spinners, than I say DAAAAAAAAAANG son.

 

 

Also have to define “7 iron “. Are we taking a club with a 5 irons loft and an inch longer shaft plus tungsten sole or an actual 7 iron ?

 

True. The numbers on the clubs have no meaning anymore. Still I would need something in the 24-25 degree range on the mentioned hole.

[knock it close]

Haven't read all 35 pages so apologies if this has been posted.

 

Why not change the par on holes? In the old days, the par 3's were up to 250, par 4's up to 470 (I think but could be wrong) and par 5's were over that. Make par 3's up to 325, par 4's up to 530 (as is done in some events) and start par 5's over that. We're accustomed to a course being a par 72 or 70, why not let the par drop to 68?

 

I have read all 35 pages, and commented on just about all of them. And I keep asking, why do these drastic things like changing the golf courses, or changing par? Why not just change the $3.50 golf balls?

 

The winner of the golf tournament is the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots. The measurement of their score to par has no bearing.

Right which is why changing the par does nothing and doesn't address the problem, that is if you believe there is a problem

[Bye]

 

Just watch.

 

A friend of a friend is the course superintendent at a course where the British under 18’s was played. One of the par 3’s is about 210-215, they all hit 6 or 7 iron.

 

And the point is ???

 

What did they score? The goal is to post the lowest score, not the longest 6 iron.

 

Do you really need me explain it to you?

 

And the kid in the video played a European Tour event earlier this year and nearly made the cut. So he can play as well.

[irvnasty]

 

The winner of the golf tournament is the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots. The measurement of their score to par has no bearing.

 

Thank you. I, for one, would like to see the Tour show scores in the form of "to mean". If they play the first hole in 4 shots and it's averaging 4.13 shots, show them at -0.13. Adjust in real time as scores come in. Would make for a more interesting (and, indeed, accurate) perspective on what's happening out there.

[15th Club]

hat's what often gets lost in all of this. Why is nobody advocating for the rollback of greens to 8 on the stimp and flat? I don't think the designers intended for them to be rolling at an undulating 12.

 

I want so much to agree with you for once. I can... almost.

 

First, the main point. Yes, the notion that green speeds have been tricked up to combat distance is well-known. Geoff Shackelford writes about it all the time. The USGA used to not want to sell its proprietary Stimpmeters to the public, for fear of Stimpmeter-competitions, and club members wanting to speed up greens without end and without reason.

 

You raise a very good point; green speeds can rather easily reach a point at which the design concept for the green is defeated. You lose pin positions. You can only find a few places flat enough to cut a cup. You effectively lose parts of greens. There have been numerous cases of green alterations, because of ultrafast modern green speeds.

 

What I endorse is greens that roll true and smooth and putt in such a way that reading them is a challenge -- a good and fair challenge -- and that putting on them requires skill and creativity. I like fast greens. My idea of "fast" is nothing like the Tour's idea of "fast." I have seen, and have only a couple times putted on -- ultrafast championship greens. I know what they are like. And how hard they are, to make even a short putt. Crazy. I hate that. I don't like to see it, especially as an essentially false defense, to golf ball distance.

 

I think I am somewhat agreeing with you. But since we so obviously disagree with everything else, I am not sure.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Just watch.

 

A friend of a friend is the course superintendent at a course where the British under 18’s was played. One of the par 3’s is about 210-215, they all hit 6 or 7 iron.

 

And the point is ???

 

What did they score? The goal is to post the lowest score, not the longest 6 iron.

 

Do you really need me explain it to you?

 

You don't think they should be hitting a 6, even though you acknowledge it's not really a traditional 6. They should have to hit the club you want them to hit. Players should not hit it farther than you want them to hit it. Right?

[North Butte]

That’s why driving distance is the reasonable way to reckon “ball goes too far” or not. It is the best metric available for a player’s distance although it suffers from the drawback that some drives are layups.

[Bye]

Just watch.

 

A friend of a friend is the course superintendent at a course where the British under 18’s was played. One of the par 3’s is about 210-215, they all hit 6 or 7 iron.

 

And the point is ???

 

What did they score? The goal is to post the lowest score, not the longest 6 iron.

 

Do you really need me explain it to you?

 

You don't think they should be hitting a 6, even though you acknowledge it's not really a traditional 6. They should have to hit the club you want them to hit. Players should not hit it farther than you want them to hit it. Right?

 

Doesn’t make any difference to me. It’s just what is out there.

 

People seem to like telling me what I like and want on this forum.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

hat's what often gets lost in all of this. Why is nobody advocating for the rollback of greens to 8 on the stimp and flat? I don't think the designers intended for them to be rolling at an undulating 12.

 

I want so much to agree with you for once. I can... almost.

 

First, the main point. Yes, the notion that green speeds have been tricked up to combat distance is well-known. Geoff Shackelford writes about it all the time. The USGA used to not want to sell its proprietary Stimpmeters to the public, for fear of Stimpmeter-competitions, and club members wanting to speed up greens without end and without reason.

 

You raise a very good point; green speeds can rather easily reach a point at which the design concept for the green is defeated. You lose pin positions. You can only find a few places flat enough to cut a cup. You effectively lose parts of greens. There have been numerous cases of green alterations, because of ultrafast modern green speeds.

 

What I endorse is greens that roll true and smooth and putt in such a way that reading them is a challenge -- a good and fair challenge -- and that putting on them requires skill and creativity. I like fast greens. My idea of "fast" is nothing like the Tour's idea of "fast." I have seen, and have only a couple times putted on -- ultrafast championship greens. I know what they are like. And how hard they are, to make even a short putt. Crazy. I hate that. I don't like to see it, especially as an essentially false defense, to golf ball distance.

 

I think I am somewhat agreeing with you. But since we so obviously disagree with everything else, I am not sure.

 

Yeah, if they rollback the ball, I think the greens should be slowed down, and flattened out to make sure the designers' intentions are preserved. In that case, I'd like to see the Old Course rolling at a gentleman's 3.5 and ANGC rolling more like it did in 1950. They would have to rollback the length of the courses, too. I don't think the designers would have wanted #11 at Augusta to be 500 yards. The point is, we definitely can't just rollback the ball and keep everything else the same. Gotta rollback everything.

[DavePelz4]

The winner of the golf tournament is the one who completed the number of holes in the least number of shots. The measurement of their score to par has no bearing.

 

Thank you. I, for one, would like to see the Tour show scores in the form of "to mean". If they play the first hole in 4 shots and it's averaging 4.13 shots, show them at -0.13. Adjust in real time as scores come in. Would make for a more interesting (and, indeed, accurate) perspective on what's happening out there.

 

Very creative thought and certainly something that would be easy to incorporate. Sounds like something Fox would bring out.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Just watch.

 

A friend of a friend is the course superintendent at a course where the British under 18’s was played. One of the par 3’s is about 210-215, they all hit 6 or 7 iron.

 

And the point is ???

 

What did they score? The goal is to post the lowest score, not the longest 6 iron.

 

Do you really need me explain it to you?

 

You don't think they should be hitting a 6, even though you acknowledge it's not really a traditional 6. They should have to hit the club you want them to hit. Players should not hit it farther than you want them to hit it. Right?

 

Doesn’t make any difference to me. It’s just what is out there.

 

People seem to like telling me what I like and want on this forum.

 

 

I was just asking.