Is Increasing Driving Distance Ruining the Pro Tours? (***CONTENTS UNDER MOD REVIEW***)

[North Butte]

There are actually a lot of nuanced and complicated points that would merit an advanced discussion. For instance:

• There are the terrifically nuanced issues as to how golf ball technology are affecting certain holes, like Numbers 1, 2, 17 and 18 at The Old Course. 8 and 17 at Oakland Hills. 5 and 7 and 13 at ANGC. 9 at Muirfield. 18 at MVGC. And dozens of entire NCAA courses. There is a great architectural debate to be had, about some of those. I have so much to learn, from the great architects.
  

 

Of all of your points, you continue to go back to this as your biggest reason. Courses used for professional tournaments and elite amateur championships. Correct?

 

How does this relate to the remainder of the golf world? To the people who actually support the golf industry in every facet? From equipment purchases (including balls), green fees, cart rentals, clothing and shoe purchases, etc? How do a few holes at a handful of courses those people dont play effect those people? They dont, yet you support changing equipment that they do play, that WILL negatively effect them, for a few holes on a few select course played by a few people. Please just answer the question of how that point is relevant to the other 99.99% of the people in the world who play and support this game.

 

 

He thinks "golf" is the world he chooses to live in. A certain stratum of golf courses and a certain stratum of players, the other 99.9% be damned. He feels like his self-selected peer group (of golfers and private clubs) have lost some sort of status or cachet due to advances in the distance elite players hit the ball.

 

His 100% sole motivation is to try and rejigger entire game in a way that regains status for his peer group. The rest is just arm-waving, smoke and mirrors.

[QuigleyDU]

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

 

I am also curious, are you just some rank and file person that believes in this or are you actually part of some group or organization that is pushing for this? as in, do you speak for or represent the though process of say the USGA??? i wont be surprised if you dont answer this, you dont seem to answer any direct question really..

 

I am not paid by any golf equipment manufacturer, nor am I an employee or agent of the USGA, the R and A, the PGA of America or the PGATour.

 

ok,,, so what then?? just a concerned citizen.

[bigred90gt]

 

To go another direction, lets take a look at the USGA 2017 Distance Report (if you care to read it, https://www.usga.org...eport-final.pdf)

 

page 20 of said report states, and I quote:

Figure 13. Percentage driver usage for the different handicap categories.

 

Given the significant increase in driver usage for higher handicap golfers since 1996' date=' the driving distance data were recalculated for only shots hit with a driver. These data are presented in Figure 14. It can be seen that while there have been fluctuations in the average driving distance between 1996 and 2017, the average distance in 2017 is 4 yards longer than in 1996 (compared to an 8 yard difference when considering all clubs used). The largest overall distance increase from 1996 to 2017 has been observed for the highest handicap golfers ([/size']22 yards) with the changes observed for both the <6 and 6-12 categories being less than 1 yard and the 13-20 handicap category averaging 8 yards longer in 2017 than in 1996.

 

Since the overwhelming majority of golfers (we've gone over the percentage of pro's/elite ams vs the rest of the population) fall into this category, where is the need to roll back performance? As a matter of fact, amateurs with handicaps below 12 have shown less than 1 yard, read that again, it says LESS THAN 1 YARD, increase from 1996 to 2017. The largest increase was seen in the highest handicap golfers. Now, do you still think the ball is responsible for that? Was it the introduction of more forgiving clubheads reducing the penalty of an off center strike? It could be argued that below 12 handicap will strike the ball significantly better than above 20 handicap, yes? So, how do these numbers equate to the ball being a problem? Better yet, how do these numbers equate to the ball being the solution to a perceived problem, which in reality does not exist?

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

 

And, as has been typical of nearly every response from you, you overlook the entirety of the post to fit your own narrative. Will you address the remainder of my post, which I conveniently quoted above for you?

[QuigleyDU]

this all feels so "all golfers are created equal, but some golfers are more equal than others."

[15th Club]

To go another direction, lets take a look at the USGA 2017 Distance Report (if you care to read it, https://www.usga.org...eport-final.pdf)

 

page 20 of said report states, and I quote:

Figure 13. Percentage driver usage for the different handicap categories.

 

Given the significant increase in driver usage for higher handicap golfers since 1996' date=' the driving distance data were recalculated for only shots hit with a driver. These data are presented in Figure 14. It can be seen that while there have been fluctuations in the average driving distance between 1996 and 2017, the average distance in 2017 is 4 yards longer than in 1996 (compared to an 8 yard difference when considering all clubs used). The largest overall distance increase from 1996 to 2017 has been observed for the highest handicap golfers ([/size']22 yards) with the changes observed for both the <6 and 6-12 categories being less than 1 yard and the 13-20 handicap category averaging 8 yards longer in 2017 than in 1996.

 

Since the overwhelming majority of golfers (we've gone over the percentage of pro's/elite ams vs the rest of the population) fall into this category, where is the need to roll back performance? As a matter of fact, amateurs with handicaps below 12 have shown less than 1 yard, read that again, it says LESS THAN 1 YARD, increase from 1996 to 2017. The largest increase was seen in the highest handicap golfers. Now, do you still think the ball is responsible for that? Was it the introduction of more forgiving clubheads reducing the penalty of an off center strike? It could be argued that below 12 handicap will strike the ball significantly better than above 20 handicap, yes? So, how do these numbers equate to the ball being a problem? Better yet, how do these numbers equate to the ball being the solution to a perceived problem, which in reality does not exist?

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

 

And, as has been typical of nearly every response from you, you overlook the entirety of the post to fit your own narrative. Will you address the remainder of my post, which I conveniently quoted above for you?

 

Sure; all that I know about that link is what I read. It isn't really a measurement of balls; it is an annual measurement of drives (golfer + club + ball). It seems to me -- and you may agree or disagree and that's fine -- but that with high handicap players, they have greatly benefitted from new-generation clubs. Large alloy heads; stronger lofts, lightweight shafts. Hasn't much helped their scoring, but they are longer, shot-to-shot. With mid- and low-handicap players, they have not gotten nearly as much benefit; not from clubs or balls. And with elite players, as exemplified by the Tour stats, they all got a yuuuge boost in yardage, specifically associated with balls (less so with clubs) during the introduction of solid-core urethane balls.

[QuigleyDU]

WELL according to tiger, you should be happy to play to prov1

 

[golfer07840]

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

 

I am also curious, are you just some rank and file person that believes in this or are you actually part of some group or organization that is pushing for this? as in, do you speak for or represent the though process of say the USGA??? i wont be surprised if you dont answer this, you dont seem to answer any direct question really..

 

Haha! If he's working for the USGA to get support from the masses for a rollback, the USGA might want to "take it in another direction", so to speak.

 

I'm convinced he's Mike Davis' personal administrative assistant.

[Pepperturbo]

No business leadership including Titleist would in their right mind want to invest MM in retooling to take their highly successful contemporary products backward in time. I disagree with Jack Nicklaus regarding the ball and its effects on golf courses, and NOBODY can use "struggling golf industry" as a reason for anything.

 

The recent 2018 Golf Industry Report says good news for an industry that is valued at $84 billion and makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through nearly 2 million jobs. Among the 14,794 total golf facilities in the U.S., only 15.5 represented new course openings in 2017, while 205.5 courses closed and 96 reopened after renovations. Matches what I see happening in other industry's, right-sizing.

The CEO of PGA Stores boasted about a notable revenue increase and store expansion, while other possibly poorly managed stores are calling it quits...not surprising. :beach:

[DFS PFD]

I'm a little lost as far as the opposition is concerned here, 15th has been using what are still hypothetical numbers that have been tossed about rather casually, with no official statements from the bodies representing the ball reduction thus far. My question is, what would happen to the amateur players average distance offline with a 20% reduction in total distance? I think we could potentially see very positive scoring trend for higher handicaps. Just trying to look at this from different angles. Would also be interesting to see some more forced carries come back into play for the professionals, fewer 2 iron (300+ yards for JDAY occasionally) followed by wedge holes.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

15 which courses not currently played in elite competition at the pro level will be played at that level with a shorter ball? When?

 

Thanks in advance.

[QuigleyDU]

15 which courses not currently played in elite competition at the pro level will be played a that level with a shorter ball? When?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

good luck with an answer....

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I'm a little lost as far as the opposition is concerned here, 15th has been using what are still hypothetical numbers that have been tossed about rather casually, with no official statements from the bodies representing the ball reduction thus far. My question is, what would happen to the amateur players average distance offline with a 20% reduction in total distance? I think we could potentially see very positive scoring trend for higher handicaps. Just trying to look at this from different angles. Would also be interesting to see some more forced carries come back into play for the professionals, fewer 2 iron (300+ yards for JDAY occasionally) followed by wedge holes.

 

I've definitely thought about this, and I think it's a great point. It could very well work that way on the margins. By and large, when I see a higher handicap hit it offline, it's in trouble no matter what. In other words, it's not going to be saved because the hypotenuse is 20% shorter. If it is, the player might just be further back in the rough. All anecdotal, and I'm certain that exceptions abound. I think it's a very interesting thought.

[UncleJohn’sBand]

That was a year ago. Davis was "floating" that "concept." We shall see, where Davis ends up.

It's from your supplied link. If you don't like it don't use it to support your argument. That could be considered "dumb" or "stupid".

 

Personally I do not see them doing a rollback. Bifurcation would be more likely but so difficult to implement it would be a nightmare. I could see them try to do something with driver head size. But it would have a negligible affect just like the grooves fiasco.

 

What was the grooves "fiasco"? Be specific.

 

btw; one powerful interest that is opposed to bifurcation is none other than Titleist. Titleist wants to take the product that its tour players use, and sell it to aspirational/recreational golfers.

 

Like Titleist, but for very different reasons, I also oppose bifurcation.

 

I would imagine he’s talking about rolling back groves to make shots from the rough more penal, when in fact after the U to V grove change the tour began averaging CLOSER to the hole.

 

So the USGA did all these crazy studies, spent a ton of money, said how bad the groves were for the game yada yada yada and all of a sudden with the V groves they hit it closer.

 

So the manufacturers had to change their grove milling processes, if you wanted to play “by the rules” and play in any elite events you had to go drop $450 on a set of new wedges and $900 on some new irons, all because the best players in the world hit it too damn close out of the rough.

 

And after allllllllllll that, they now they hit it closer......that counts as a fiasco I think.

[bigred90gt]

To go another direction, lets take a look at the USGA 2017 Distance Report (if you care to read it, https://www.usga.org...eport-final.pdf)

 

page 20 of said report states, and I quote:

Figure 13. Percentage driver usage for the different handicap categories.

 

Given the significant increase in driver usage for higher handicap golfers since 1996' date=' the driving distance data were recalculated for only shots hit with a driver. These data are presented in Figure 14. It can be seen that while there have been fluctuations in the average driving distance between 1996 and 2017, the average distance in 2017 is 4 yards longer than in 1996 (compared to an 8 yard difference when considering all clubs used). The largest overall distance increase from 1996 to 2017 has been observed for the highest handicap golfers ([/size']22 yards) with the changes observed for both the <6 and 6-12 categories being less than 1 yard and the 13-20 handicap category averaging 8 yards longer in 2017 than in 1996.

 

Since the overwhelming majority of golfers (we've gone over the percentage of pro's/elite ams vs the rest of the population) fall into this category, where is the need to roll back performance? As a matter of fact, amateurs with handicaps below 12 have shown less than 1 yard, read that again, it says LESS THAN 1 YARD, increase from 1996 to 2017. The largest increase was seen in the highest handicap golfers. Now, do you still think the ball is responsible for that? Was it the introduction of more forgiving clubheads reducing the penalty of an off center strike? It could be argued that below 12 handicap will strike the ball significantly better than above 20 handicap, yes? So, how do these numbers equate to the ball being a problem? Better yet, how do these numbers equate to the ball being the solution to a perceived problem, which in reality does not exist?

Um, I am not going to guess about any of those numbers. I'll wait for some hard numbers from some actual testing. I have no doubt that they are working on it. In fact, there is no doubt that they have already conducted tour-level testing of reduced-flight balls.

 

And, as has been typical of nearly every response from you, you overlook the entirety of the post to fit your own narrative. Will you address the remainder of my post, which I conveniently quoted above for you?

 

Sure; all that I know about that link is what I read. It isn't really a measurement of balls; it is an annual measurement of drives (golfer + club + ball). It seems to me -- and you may agree or disagree and that's fine -- but that with high handicap players, they have greatly benefitted from new-generation clubs. Large alloy heads; stronger lofts, lightweight shafts. Hasn't much helped their scoring, but they are longer, shot-to-shot. With mid- and low-handicap players, they have not gotten nearly as much benefit; not from clubs or balls. And with elite players, as exemplified by the Tour stats, they all got a yuuuge boost in yardage, specifically associated with balls (less so with clubs) during the introduction of solid-core urethane balls.

 

Apparently you are reading a different chart than me. From 1992-2000, Changing of clubs, there was a 12 yard increase.

 

From 2000-2004, change from wound balls to current multi-layer balls, there was a 14 yard jump.

 

So, no, it isn’t “yuuuuuge” for balls compared to “less so” for clubs. Technological advances across the board are made for a reason, to provide a better performing product. You can’t blame the ball.

 

2016-2017, there is a 7 yard increase on the web.com tour, yet no changes to any specs on the equipment. Are you really going to blame equipment for that? Or could it be that the people coming into ranks now grew up watching tiger and the other young guys smash a ball, and worked like hell to emulate that? The guys before tiger watched jack and crew work their way around a course, and emulated that. When tiger came out, he played a different game, and the kids watching wanted to play that game, so they trained for it from a young age. That is what athletes do in all sports.

[15th Club]

That was a year ago. Davis was "floating" that "concept." We shall see, where Davis ends up.

It's from your supplied link. If you don't like it don't use it to support your argument. That could be considered "dumb" or "stupid".

 

Personally I do not see them doing a rollback. Bifurcation would be more likely but so difficult to implement it would be a nightmare. I could see them try to do something with driver head size. But it would have a negligible affect just like the grooves fiasco.

 

What was the grooves "fiasco"? Be specific.

 

btw; one powerful interest that is opposed to bifurcation is none other than Titleist. Titleist wants to take the product that its tour players use, and sell it to aspirational/recreational golfers.

 

Like Titleist, but for very different reasons, I also oppose bifurcation.

 

I would imagine he's talking about rolling back groves to make shots from the rough more penal, when in fact after the U to V grove change the tour began averaging CLOSER to the hole.

 

So the USGA did all these crazy studies, spent a ton of money, said how bad the groves were for the game yada yada yada and all of a sudden with the V groves they hit it closer.

 

So the manufacturers had to change their grove milling processes, if you wanted to play "by the rules" and play in any elite events you had to go drop $450 on a set of new wedges and $900 on some new irons, all because the best players in the world hit it too damn close out of the rough.

 

And after allllllllllll that, they now they hit it closer......that counts as a fiasco I think.

 

I am sort of pouncing on the bolded part, because I was waiting for that answer, which is thoroughly rebuttable. Here is the chronology:

• Groove rule is announced in 2008 or 2009;
  
• Manufacturers are given time to re-tool, and all "old" inventory is allowed to be sold. No large volumes of old-stock equipment are discarded or scrapped;
  
• Goes into effect, for manufacturing only, in January of 2010;
  
• All older clubs remain "legal," and nothing is declared non-conforming;
  
• As a Condition of Competition, tour players (all getting equipment for free) are required to use newly-conforming grooves as of January 1, 2010, and together the USGA and PGA Tour coordinate rulings for the US Open (all players must use C of C compliant grooves);
  
• Elite amateur competitions are urged by the USGA to NOT impose and conditions of competition until 2014; that was the rule for the US Am;
  
• Recreational golfers are given until 2024 -- or maybe longer -- to use old equipment. And in fact, absolutely no one in any club event is worried about non-conforming grooves. The USGA might eventually suggest that no condition of competition be imposed at all. It would be up to individual clubs and golf associations in any event, because the entire groove rule was prospective.
  

It was all handled mostly flawlessly by USGA. There was never any "fiasco."

[15th Club]

So, no, it isn’t “yuuuuuge” for

balls compared to “less so” for clubs. Technological advances across the board are made for a reason, to provide a better performing product. You can’t blame the ball

.

 

It may appear to be so, but I have little need to "blame" the ball, when the bottom line is whether or not it is the ball or the players or the clubs or the agronomy, the easiest thing to fix is the ball.

[Pepperturbo]

When Tiger hit the PGA, he was stronger than most other tour players and kept getting stronger until his physical problems and maybe meltdown. Not sure exactly when tour players and announcers started talking about the need to get into shape to be competitive but it was when Tiger was king.

 

That's when most everybody that wanted to win decided he or she had better hit the gym regularly. It's easy for me to say there's a peak or maximum conditioning, having worked out all my life.

For that reason I don't believe most tour players like "DJ" can get any strong or more fit then many are today. In other words, the tour players physical capability over club distance is at or near its peak.

 

I don't foresee the ball gaining much more in yardage either. IMO we should leave it alone for now and see what happens next in golf. :beach:

[DFS PFD]

Looking for honest feedback, many of you seem to be familiar with the data, what has the rate of growth been the last 5 years on Tour for distance measured when players are using driver? Multiple times I've seen the statement we're maxed out now or nearly maxed out, so should be interesting to model that growth and see where reality actually lies as far as potential is concerned.

[QuigleyDU]

When Tiger hit the PGA, he was stronger than most other tour players and kept getting stronger until his physical problems and maybe meltdown. Not sure exactly when tour players and announcers started talking about the need to get into shape to be competitive but it was when Tiger was king.

 

That's when most everybody that wanted to win decided he or she had better hit the gym regularly. It's easy for me to say there's a peak or maximum conditioning, having worked out all my life.

For that reason I don't believe most tour players like "DJ" can get any strong or more fit then many are today. In other words, the tour players physical capability over club distance is at or near its peak.

 

I don't foresee the ball gaining much more in yardage either. IMO we should leave it alone for now and see what happens next in golf. :beach:

 

I agree. one interesting thing is that Bubba Watson is as short has he as ever been this year and has won twice. Just let nature take its course.

[Shilgy]

When Tiger hit the PGA, he was stronger than most other tour players and kept getting stronger until his physical problems and maybe meltdown. Not sure exactly when tour players and announcers started talking about the need to get into shape to be competitive but it was when Tiger was king.

 

That's when most everybody that wanted to win decided he or she had better hit the gym regularly. It's easy for me to say there's a peak or maximum conditioning, having worked out all my life.

For that reason I don't believe most tour players like "DJ" can get any strong or more fit then many are today. In other words, the tour players physical capability over club distance is at or near its peak.

 

I don't foresee the ball gaining much more in yardage either. IMO we should leave it alone for now and see what happens next in golf. :beach:

But Pepper-15 doesn't like todays players hitting it longer than their hero Jack playing the game differently than they remember their heroes playing. So they want the ball rolled back and try to convince us "boyz at the local hacks muni" , his words not mine, that we won't care. Or even notice. Al so that a handful of courses feel relevant. Never mind that for the most part the "elite event" courses rota has changed over the years-and should! Why shouldn't the new stand alongside the old? And even surpass them?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

That was a year ago. Davis was "floating" that "concept." We shall see, where Davis ends up.

It's from your supplied link. If you don't like it don't use it to support your argument. That could be considered "dumb" or "stupid".

 

Personally I do not see them doing a rollback. Bifurcation would be more likely but so difficult to implement it would be a nightmare. I could see them try to do something with driver head size. But it would have a negligible affect just like the grooves fiasco.

 

What was the grooves "fiasco"? Be specific.

 

btw; one powerful interest that is opposed to bifurcation is none other than Titleist. Titleist wants to take the product that its tour players use, and sell it to aspirational/recreational golfers.

 

Like Titleist, but for very different reasons, I also oppose bifurcation.

 

I would imagine he's talking about rolling back groves to make shots from the rough more penal, when in fact after the U to V grove change the tour began averaging CLOSER to the hole.

 

So the USGA did all these crazy studies, spent a ton of money, said how bad the groves were for the game yada yada yada and all of a sudden with the V groves they hit it closer.

 

So the manufacturers had to change their grove milling processes, if you wanted to play "by the rules" and play in any elite events you had to go drop $450 on a set of new wedges and $900 on some new irons, all because the best players in the world hit it too damn close out of the rough.

 

And after allllllllllll that, they now they hit it closer......that counts as a fiasco I think.

 

I am sort of pouncing on the bolded part, because I was waiting for that answer, which is thoroughly rebuttable. Here is the chronology:

• Groove rule is announced in 2008 or 2009;
  
• Manufacturers are given time to re-tool, and all "old" inventory is allowed to be sold. No large volumes of old-stock equipment are discarded or scrapped;
  
• Goes into effect, for manufacturing only, in January of 2010;
  
• All older clubs remain "legal," and nothing is declared non-conforming;
  
• As a Condition of Competition, tour players (all getting equipment for free) are required to use newly-conforming grooves as of January 1, 2010, and together the USGA and PGA Tour coordinate rulings for the US Open (all players must use C of C compliant grooves);
  
• Elite amateur competitions are urged by the USGA to NOT impose and conditions of competition until 2014; that was the rule for the US Am;
  
• Recreational golfers are given until 2024 -- or maybe longer -- to use old equipment. And in fact, absolutely no one in any club event is worried about non-conforming grooves. The USGA might eventually suggest that no condition of competition be imposed at all. It would be up to individual clubs and golf associations in any event, because the entire groove rule was prospective.
  

It was all handled mostly flawlessly by USGA. There was never any "fiasco."

 

I think the point was that it was all for nothing, as elite players do not appear any more penalized from the rough with the new grooves.

Meanwhile, you are right that the USGA flawlessly changed manufacturing and engineering processes for all manufacturers to achieve a goal with no practical effect.

Further, even if the USGA says regular amateurs never have to use the grooves, they actually do, because you can't just go buy brand new clubs with the old grooves (to my knowledge).

Finally, this is why you are right that bifurcation of the ball would be impracticable. Everyone would be using the dead ball even if the USGA says, "You don't have to."

Just my take.

[bscinstnct]

When Tiger hit the PGA, he was stronger than most other tour players and kept getting stronger until his physical problems and maybe meltdown. Not sure exactly when tour players and announcers started talking about the need to get into shape to be competitive but it was when Tiger was king.

 

That's when most everybody that wanted to win decided he or she had better hit the gym regularly. It's easy for me to say there's a peak or maximum conditioning, having worked out all my life.

For that reason I don't believe most tour players like "DJ" can get any strong or more fit then many are today. In other words, the tour players physical capability over club distance is at or near its peak.

 

I don't foresee the ball gaining much more in yardage either. IMO we should leave it alone for now and see what happens next in golf. :beach:

 

The DJs are still too few and far between. Golf doesn't draw from the same depth and talent pool size as baseball from youth sports age.

 

If it ever does, there will be a lot more guys like this on tour and 350+ yards will be the next benchmark.

 

[bigred90gt]

So, no, it isn’t “yuuuuuge” for

balls compared to “less so” for clubs. Technological advances across the board are made for a reason, to provide a better performing product. You can’t blame the ball

.

 

It may appear to be so, but I have little need to "blame" the ball, when the bottom line is whether or not it is the ball or the players or the clubs or the agronomy, the easiest thing to fix is the ball.

 

What you can’t seem to wrap your mind around is that there is nothing that needs to be “fixed”. Nothing is broken, but if a rollback is introduced, there will be a problem for all BUT the very best players in the world, which ironically, is where you say the problem is.

 

And to say that the ball is an easier fix than agronomy is incredibly ignorant and completely nullifies anything constructive you could possibly add.

[Shilgy]

That was a year ago. Davis was "floating" that "concept." We shall see, where Davis ends up.

It's from your supplied link. If you don't like it don't use it to support your argument. That could be considered "dumb" or "stupid".

 

Personally I do not see them doing a rollback. Bifurcation would be more likely but so difficult to implement it would be a nightmare. I could see them try to do something with driver head size. But it would have a negligible affect just like the grooves fiasco.

 

What was the grooves "fiasco"? Be specific.

 

btw; one powerful interest that is opposed to bifurcation is none other than Titleist. Titleist wants to take the product that its tour players use, and sell it to aspirational/recreational golfers.

 

Like Titleist, but for very different reasons, I also oppose bifurcation.

 

I would imagine he's talking about rolling back groves to make shots from the rough more penal, when in fact after the U to V grove change the tour began averaging CLOSER to the hole.

 

So the USGA did all these crazy studies, spent a ton of money, said how bad the groves were for the game yada yada yada and all of a sudden with the V groves they hit it closer.

 

So the manufacturers had to change their grove milling processes, if you wanted to play "by the rules" and play in any elite events you had to go drop $450 on a set of new wedges and $900 on some new irons, all because the best players in the world hit it too damn close out of the rough.

 

And after allllllllllll that, they now they hit it closer......that counts as a fiasco I think.

 

I am sort of pouncing on the bolded part, because I was waiting for that answer, which is thoroughly rebuttable. Here is the chronology:

• Groove rule is announced in 2008 or 2009;
  
• Manufacturers are given time to re-tool, and all "old" inventory is allowed to be sold. No large volumes of old-stock equipment are discarded or scrapped;
  
• Goes into effect, for manufacturing only, in January of 2010;
  
• All older clubs remain "legal," and nothing is declared non-conforming;
  
• As a Condition of Competition, tour players (all getting equipment for free) are required to use newly-conforming grooves as of January 1, 2010, and together the USGA and PGA Tour coordinate rulings for the US Open (all players must use C of C compliant grooves);
  
• Elite amateur competitions are urged by the USGA to NOT impose and conditions of competition until 2014; that was the rule for the US Am;
  
• Recreational golfers are given until 2024 -- or maybe longer -- to use old equipment. And in fact, absolutely no one in any club event is worried about non-conforming grooves. The USGA might eventually suggest that no condition of competition be imposed at all. It would be up to individual clubs and golf associations in any event, because the entire groove rule was prospective.
  

It was all handled mostly flawlessly by USGA. There was never any "fiasco."

And I will ask you this....what overall effect did the groove roll back achieve? Please do not give the party line what was hoped to be achieved. How did it negatively affect the elite players it was aimed at?

[GoldenBellGW]

From my own personal experience, and not quantitatively supported, it has ruined watching golf for me unless it is a major or course such as Harbor Town which penalizes distance to a degree. Seeing wedges hit into 480-500 par 4s and mid iron's into par 5s takes all the strategy out of it. I'm a bit old school, but I like seeing a challenge and perfectly executed long irons into long 4s and 5s. Or having to create a shot with a wood to hold a green. For me, the game is too boring with all the long hitters.

 

There is talk about long rough and hard dry conditions. I vote for the deep thick rough and keeping it soaked. No more 40-50 yards of roll. If you hit the fairway, it is where it it is. If you miss, it is where it is and you have a much longer shot with some cabbage in the way.

[North Butte]

And I will ask you this....what overall effect did the groove roll back achieve? Please do not give the party line what was hoped to be achieved. How did it negatively affect the elite players it was aimed at?

 

 

The stated intention was the force players to hit the ball straighter, even if they had to lay up, by making approach shots or recovery shots from the rough more difficult.

 

Which if you just read that line of "reasoning" you have to laugh. Talk about a delusional sense of control! We're going to indirectly change something that will indirectly change something that will indirectly change the way the best players play whether they like it or not.

 

Of course that's exactly what the likes of Mike Davis and 15th Club are trying to convince us now. If the ball goes less far then scores will go up which means tournament courses won't need to be as long which means other courses won't want be as long which means people will play faster and the game will cost less and world hunger will be cured and we'll all live happily ever after.

[15th Club]

So, no, it isn't "yuuuuuge" for

balls compared to "less so" for clubs. Technological advances across the board are made for a reason, to provide a better performing product. You can't blame the ball

.

 

It may appear to be so, but I have little need to "blame" the ball, when the bottom line is whether or not it is the ball or the players or the clubs or the agronomy, the easiest thing to fix is the ball.

 

What you can't seem to wrap your mind around is that there is nothing that needs to be "fixed". Nothing is broken, but if a rollback is introduced, there will be a problem for all BUT the very best players in the world, which ironically, is where you say the problem is.

 

And to say that the ball is an easier fix than agronomy is incredibly ignorant and completely nullifies anything constructive you could possibly add.

 

No; on agronomy we just disagree. The way that I want to see golf courses set up is extremely firm and fast and as dry as weather will possibly permit. In other words, I want golf courses to promote as much roll as possible, because that accentuates the ground game which is a central feature of classic-era golf course design. And I want them as "wide" as possible, to promote strategic thinking as to angles and approaches. Again, firm fast and wide is what gets taken away if you need to trick the course into defending against equipment-technology-produced distance.

 

The only problem with that is that all of that only exacerbates the problems with longer and longer equipment technology. And so part of the rollback notion is to satisfy the desires for much firmer and faster courses.

 

I expect that many people here don't see it my way. That is okay; it's a free country. But we do disagree.

 

The nice thing for me is that most of the guys (and gals) leading the USGA and the R and A see it my way, and will try to move things in my direction.

[15th Club]

And I will ask you this....what overall effect did the groove roll back achieve? Please do not give the party line what was hoped to be achieved. How did it negatively affect the elite players it was aimed at?

 

I'm not sure.

 

I was just answering the person who called it a "fiasco."

 

All that I know for sure is that the rollout of the groove rule was not a "fiasco" as somebody alleged. It was exceptionally well managed. Disagree if you like, on the underlying principles. But it was not a "fiasco," and nobody got hurt, and virtually nobody "needed" to run out and buy a new set of irons or wedges. Elite ams had 3 years+, to wear out their old irons and wedges and get new ones. And we are talking about players in the US Am; the NCAA; the Crump Cup; the Sunnehanna; the Western Am, the Walker Cup.

[Pepperturbo]

When Tiger hit the PGA, he was stronger than most other tour players and kept getting stronger until his physical problems and maybe meltdown. Not sure exactly when tour players and announcers started talking about the need to get into shape to be competitive but it was when Tiger was king.

 

That's when most everybody that wanted to win decided he or she had better hit the gym regularly. It's easy for me to say there's a peak or maximum conditioning, having worked out all my life.

For that reason I don't believe most tour players like "DJ" can get any strong or more fit then many are today. In other words, the tour players physical capability over club distance is at or near its peak.

 

I don't foresee the ball gaining much more in yardage either. IMO we should leave it alone for now and see what happens next in golf. :beach:

But Pepper-15 doesn't like todays players hitting it longer than their hero Jack playing the game differently than they remember their heroes playing. So they want the ball rolled back and try to convince us "boyz at the local hacks muni" , his words not mine, that we won't care. Or even notice. Al so that a handful of courses feel relevant. Never mind that for the most part the "elite event" courses rota has changed over the years-and should! Why shouldn't the new stand alongside the old? And even surpass them?

 

Longer than Jack.N, when? Jack IMO is irrelevant to equipment standards, except for the golf ball his company produces. When Jack was in his prime, he was a big hitter, but part of his distance came from firm fast fairway conditions (a relative played on the tour in the 60's with him and AP).

 

Yesterday's distance (back in Jacks day) = most pros were not in good physical condition, the ball was the best it could be, but fairways played a big roll in hitting it long distances. A few guys built like Jack with body strength could hit it big on the old hard surface fairways, the rest didn't hit & run the ball that far. I won't go into the clubs

 

Today distance = tour players are in far better physical condition (much stronger and taller) everybody exercises and have a support team; and overall courses are much faster due to agronomy advancement, grain manipulation, and ball design advancement. Then and now are not equal and shouldn't be.

 

I am against rolling the ball back and producing one standard for amateurs and one for pros. The distance I (in my 60's) currently get with PROV1x allows me to play longer tees and more difficult conditions. :beach:

[bigred90gt]

So, no, it isn't "yuuuuuge" for

balls compared to "less so" for clubs. Technological advances across the board are made for a reason, to provide a better performing product. You can't blame the ball

.

 

It may appear to be so, but I have little need to "blame" the ball, when the bottom line is whether or not it is the ball or the players or the clubs or the agronomy, the easiest thing to fix is the ball.

 

What you can't seem to wrap your mind around is that there is nothing that needs to be "fixed". Nothing is broken, but if a rollback is introduced, there will be a problem for all BUT the very best players in the world, which ironically, is where you say the problem is.

 

And to say that the ball is an easier fix than agronomy is incredibly ignorant and completely nullifies anything constructive you could possibly add.

 

No; on agronomy we just disagree. The way that I want to see golf courses set up is extremely firm and fast and as dry as weather will possibly permit. In other words, I want golf courses to promote as much roll as possible, because that accentuates the ground game which is a central feature of classic-era golf course design. And I want them as "wide" as possible, to promote strategic thinking as to angles and approaches. Again, firm fast and wide is what gets taken away if you need to trick the course into defending against equipment-technology-produced distance.

 

The only problem with that is that all of that only exacerbates the problems with longer and longer equipment technology. And so part of the rollback notion is to satisfy the desires for much firmer and faster courses.

 

I expect that many people here don't see it my way. That is okay; it's a free country. But we do disagree.

 

The nice thing for me is that most of the guys (and gals) leading the USGA and the R and A see it my way, and will try to move things in my direction.

Dry, firm and fast with wide fairways is what has created the perceived “problem”! A guy might carry the ball 280, then he gets 40-60 yards of roll, and suddenly he has a 320-340 yard drive. With wide fairways, aim in the middle and then if it rolls peft or right, chances are you stay in the fairway. Soften the fairways, grow the grass out some and bring them in, and then you have to control your shots. If you get it offline, you are in jail. If you can hit the fairway, you are rewarded with a good lie, hence the name, “FAIRway”. If you think rolling back the distance a golf ball can be hit will change anything, except giving the guys a 5-7 iron instead of a 7-9 iron in to the green, you’re mistaken. It will change nothing amongst the professional ranks, but it will destroy the game for the rest of the world. You have got to look past the professional and elite amateur ranks, because the rest of the world is what aupports the game.

 

The game has gone from one played on the ground to one played in the air, and no amount of rollback will change that. Gone are the days hitting low bullets on every shot. No matter what you do, that’s not going to change. Ball rollback or not, the game will never be played that way again.

 

You can disagree all you want, but far more players (past and present) and analysts have said the problem isn’t the ball, it’s the course set up than the other way around. If the rough isn’t penal, there’s no real penalty for just getting up and swingin as hard as you can. If the fairways are wider, that encourages it even more. You are in the overwhelming minority.