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

[15th Club]

Since it seems that the primary issue most of the "rollback the ball" folks lament the most is relevancy of the "classic" courses, I have a wonderful proposed solution. Simply have these classic courses begin hosting elite women's events (both amateur and professional) instead of elite men's events. This bypasses the obsolescence issue and allows these courses to remain relevant and gain redemption for many years of under serving women. No lawsuits, it would be good for everyone playing the game, the Old Course and Merion are still appreciated as architectural gems, it is win, win, win for all.

 

This is such a great point for many reasons.

It reminds me of a question nobody seems to be addressing: If the USGA does nerf the ball, will they impose the same restriction on elite women's competitions?

It applies equally to senior, mid-am, and junior events as well. In fact there are only really 4 tournaments where classic course obsolescence is even a concern: US Open, US Amateur, The Open Championship, and the British Open. Doesn't seem rational to me to rollback the ball for the sake of those 4 events.

 

I have already explained why this is untrue. It isn't just a matter of a few tournaments that the fanboyz watch on tv. There are hundreds of elite amateur tournaments, NCAA tournament courses, USGA qualifier courses that are all involved in this discussion.

 

Okay? Your comment is just plain wrong. Sorry.

[ThinkingPlus]

Since it seems that the primary issue most of the "rollback the ball" folks lament the most is relevancy of the "classic" courses, I have a wonderful proposed solution. Simply have these classic courses begin hosting elite women's events (both amateur and professional) instead of elite men's events. This bypasses the obsolescence issue and allows these courses to remain relevant and gain redemption for many years of under serving women. No lawsuits, it would be good for everyone playing the game, the Old Course and Merion are still appreciated as architectural gems, it is win, win, win for all.

 

This is such a great point for many reasons.

It reminds me of a question nobody seems to be addressing: If the USGA does nerf the ball, will they impose the same restriction on elite women's competitions?

It applies equally to senior, mid-am, and junior events as well. In fact there are only really 4 tournaments where classic course obsolescence is even a concern: US Open, US Amateur, The Open Championship, and the British Open. Doesn't seem rational to me to rollback the ball for the sake of those 4 events.

 

I have already explained why this is untrue. It isn't just a matter of a few tournaments that the fanboyz watch on tv. There are hundreds of elite amateur tournaments, NCAA tournament courses, USGA qualifier courses that are all involved in this discussion.

 

Okay? Your comment is just plain wrong. Sorry.

Only for young men. No one else.

[Shilgy]

Perhaps if hitting it the rough was actually penal these guys wouldn't just bomb it and gouge it. They would have to actually think their way around the course. That only happens in a few tournaments every year.

 

Penal rough doesn’t create the need to think. If anything it does the exact opposite and encourages players to blast away considering you will always hit balls in the rough, regardless of what club you hit off the tee.

 

what about titrated rough? shorter rough to about 280 from the tee. and longer rough 280-380 from the tee....?

So the guy that his it 275 and 15 yards wide of the fairway is better off than the guy hitting it 300 and 10 yards of the fairway. Hmm....

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Since it seems that the primary issue most of the "rollback the ball" folks lament the most is relevancy of the "classic" courses, I have a wonderful proposed solution. Simply have these classic courses begin hosting elite women's events (both amateur and professional) instead of elite men's events. This bypasses the obsolescence issue and allows these courses to remain relevant and gain redemption for many years of under serving women. No lawsuits, it would be good for everyone playing the game, the Old Course and Merion are still appreciated as architectural gems, it is win, win, win for all.

 

This is such a great point for many reasons.

It reminds me of a question nobody seems to be addressing: If the USGA does nerf the ball, will they impose the same restriction on elite women's competitions?

It applies equally to senior, mid-am, and junior events as well. In fact there are only really 4 tournaments where classic course obsolescence is even a concern: US Open, US Amateur, The Open Championship, and the British Open. Doesn't seem rational to me to rollback the ball for the sake of those 4 events.

 

I have already explained why this is untrue. It isn't just a matter of a few tournaments that the fanboyz watch on tv. There are hundreds of elite amateur tournaments, NCAA tournament courses, USGA qualifier courses that are all involved in this discussion.

 

Okay? Your comment is just plain wrong. Sorry.

 

You may have attempted to explain it, but it has been shot down nearly 1000- times with logic and reason. So, no, uh, uh, uh, uh, you have not explained it. Sorry.

[geesecougar2]

In the persimmon and wound ball days you had to dial it down, and taking a rip was more risk/reward. At some point, you couldn't swing it any faster/harder and still expect to hit it solid; this was the point of diminishing returns to greater strength and athleticism. And lower lofted wedges meant you had to be a real short game wizard to get up and down from trouble.

 

The distance gains are because the 460cc head, the solid ball, and modern shafts have made the driver forgiving enough to allow pros take real rips at it, all the time. And the 60* wedge gave them extra room to save themselves if they got in trouble. That extra window of forgiveness increased the point of diminishing returns to greater strength and athleticism, and they are now altering their games and bodies to reach that new point of diminishing returns; it remains to be seen where the newer point is.

 

Higher rough and concrete greens destroy the architectural integrity of the great courses; they are no longer a fair test of skill. If this keeps going they will need to create new ones that take the new style of game into account when testing players fairly. There is a reason baseball still uses wood bats. Even the changing of the ball marked a new epoch in the game (dead ball era). You can't go out there building new stadiums every time they come out with new bat/ball tech.

 

Seve would probably dominate in today's game. They should have never allowed the driver over 300cc, and should have capped loft at 56*.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

In the persimmon and wound ball days you had to dial it down, and taking a rip was more risk/reward. At some point, you couldn't swing it any faster/harder and still expect to hit it solid; this was the point of diminishing returns to greater strength and athleticism. And lower lofted wedges meant you had to be a real short game wizard to get up and down from trouble.

 

The distance gains are because the 460cc head, the solid ball, and modern shafts have made the driver forgiving enough to allow pros take real rips at it, all the time. And the 60* wedge gave them extra room to save themselves if they got in trouble. That extra window of forgiveness increased the point of diminishing returns to greater strength and athleticism, and they are now altering their games and bodies to reach that new point of diminishing returns; it remains to be seen where the newer point is.

 

Higher rough and concrete greens destroy the architectural integrity of the great courses; they are no longer a fair test of skill. If this keeps going they will need to create new ones that take the new style of game into account when testing players fairly. There is a reason baseball still uses wood bats. Even the changing of the ball marked a new epoch in the game (dead ball era). You can't go out there building new stadiums every time they come out with new bat/ball tech.

 

Seve would probably dominate in today's game. They should have never allowed the driver over 300cc, and should have capped loft at 56*.

 

Agree with the bold. Crazy rough isn't good. Concrete greens are worse.

I think just a bit higher rough might be decent. Not too much.

I'm curious, though, what about the current state of the game isn't a fair test of skill? It takes a LOT of skill to bomb a drive over 330 in my opinion. If the elite game dictates that as a requirement, OK.

I don't get to play on the offensive line in the NFL at 170 lbs. no matter how great my technique is.

[mjen43]

Agree with the bold. Crazy rough isn't good. Concrete greens are worse.

I think just a bit higher rough might be decent. Not too much.

I'm curious, though, what about the current state of the game isn't a fair test of skill? It takes a LOT of skill to bomb a drive over 330 in my opinion. If the elite game dictates that as a requirement, OK.

I don't get to play on the offensive line in the NFL at 170 lbs. no matter how great my technique is.

 

For some reason, a small subset of people (let's call them the regressives) do not view the golf course as a field of play, but as a literal defense to the player. Instead of viewing the competition as a match of player vs. player, they view the competition as a match of player vs. course. Over time, play at the elite levels obviously improves, like every other sport in existence, but courses generally stay the same. They don't like this. They think the course needs to improve at "defense" at a rate equivalent to the improvement of the elite player. So they lengthen the course, grow the rough, bake out the greens, etc. more and more to try and help the course keep up. After quite a long time of doing this (probably a couple hundred years at this point), some courses have ran out of space. This is a problem because the evolution of play stops for nothing. This is why they view the current state of the game as not a fair test of skill. In their eyes, the golf course is not a field of play, but an active participant in the competition tasked with the role of playing "defense" and keeping scores within their acceptable range (63 and above). In reality, any piece of land with 18 tees and holes is a fair test, as everyone always plays the same course!

 

Anyways, this leaves the regressives at a critical junction; they can either accept that lower scores than the glory days of their boyhood heroes will be shot, or they can create a storm, flip the table over, change the rules of the game, and start the inevitable cycle all over again. Obviously, when presented with that choice, human nature will always steer them towards option 2, and here we are fending off an extreme minority of people who want to impose their emotion based will on to people who aren't interested...

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Agree with the bold. Crazy rough isn't good. Concrete greens are worse.

I think just a bit higher rough might be decent. Not too much.

I'm curious, though, what about the current state of the game isn't a fair test of skill? It takes a LOT of skill to bomb a drive over 330 in my opinion. If the elite game dictates that as a requirement, OK.

I don't get to play on the offensive line in the NFL at 170 lbs. no matter how great my technique is.

 

For some reason, a small subset of people (let's call them the regressives) do not view the golf course as a field of play, but as a literal defense to the player. Instead of viewing the competition as a match of player vs. player, they view the competition as a match of player vs. course. Over time, play at the elite levels obviously improves, like every other sport in existence, but courses generally stay the same. They don't like this. They think the course needs to improve at "defense" at a rate equivalent to the improvement of the elite player. So they lengthen the course, grow the rough, bake out the greens, etc. more and more to try and help the course keep up. After quite a long time of doing this (probably a couple hundred years at this point), some courses have ran out of space. This is a problem because the evolution of play stops for nothing. This is why they view the current state of the game as not a fair test of skill. In their eyes, the golf course is not a field of play, but an active participant in the competition tasked with the role of playing "defense" and keeping scores within their acceptable range (63 and above). In reality, any piece of land with 18 tees and holes is a fair test, as everyone always plays the same course!

 

Anyways, this leaves the regressives at a critical junction, they can either accept that lower scores than the glory days of their boyhood heroes will be shot, or they can create a storm, flip the table over, change the rules of the game, and start the inevitable cycle all over again. Obviously, when presented with that choice, human nature will always steer them towards option 2, and here we are fending off an extreme minority of people who want to impose their will on the greater golfing population...

 

That is maybe the best summation I've read on the issue. A golf tournament can be played on ANY course, classic or not. The best player that week will win; be it at -45 or +8. If we eliminate the notion that a course must be played a certain way and must create a certain outcome [score], there is no debate. It just might not resemble golf in 1975. Kind of like every other sport.

 

EDIT: to subtract a lot of stuff I wrote that was basically repeating what you were saying.

[golfing_penguin]

To offer up yet another perspective in this debate:

 

My course is hosting international qualifying on Monday for the Ladies US Open and will play a mix of the yellow and white tees to end up around the 6400 mark for the competitors. The first cut is probably an inch/inch and a half long, the second cut is probably just over two inches. It's going to be tough if it's wet.

 

Now it's all well and good saying that the pros are hitting it too far and it's spoiling the sanctimony of the game, but the people that play our course from the members to the weekend warriors are struggling. Struggling to find balls, struggling to hit shots out of the first cut. And it is slowing the course up like you wouldn't believe. And people hate that. And they really, really don't fancy having the same struggles from 15 yards back with the ball roll-back.

 

Most don't want to see a bifurcation, either, because some of the better single digits that play golf for fun (7-9hcp) love watching the guys and girls do what they can with the same equipment. Most all of them have said it won't be as interesting to watch the pros do something similar to them when it's the ball reducing the pros ability. Same token - they love it when the pros mess up with the same equipment because the members can do that too!

[Valtiel]

Agree with the bold. Crazy rough isn't good. Concrete greens are worse.

I think just a bit higher rough might be decent. Not too much.

I'm curious, though, what about the current state of the game isn't a fair test of skill? It takes a LOT of skill to bomb a drive over 330 in my opinion. If the elite game dictates that as a requirement, OK.

I don't get to play on the offensive line in the NFL at 170 lbs. no matter how great my technique is.

 

For some reason, a small subset of people (let's call them the regressives) do not view the golf course as a field of play, but as a literal defense to the player. Instead of viewing the competition as a match of player vs. player, they view the competition as a match of player vs. course. Over time, play at the elite levels obviously improves, like every other sport in existence, but courses generally stay the same. They don't like this. They think the course needs to improve at "defense" at a rate equivalent to the improvement of the elite player. So they lengthen the course, grow the rough, bake out the greens, etc. more and more to try and help the course keep up. After quite a long time of doing this (probably a couple hundred years at this point), some courses have ran out of space. This is a problem because the evolution of play stops for nothing. This is why they view the current state of the game as not a fair test of skill. In their eyes, the golf course is not a field of play, but an active participant in the competition tasked with the role of playing "defense" and keeping scores within their acceptable range (63 and above). In reality, any piece of land with 18 tees and holes is a fair test, as everyone always plays the same course!

 

Anyways, this leaves the regressives at a critical junction, they can either accept that lower scores than the glory days of their boyhood heroes will be shot, or they can create a storm, flip the table over, change the rules of the game, and start the inevitable cycle all over again. Obviously, when presented with that choice, human nature will always steer them towards option 2, and here we are fending off an extreme minority of people who want to impose their will on the greater golfing population...

 

That is maybe the best summation I've read on the issue. A golf tournament can be played on ANY course, classic or not. The best player that week will win; be it at -45 or +8. If we eliminate the notion that a course must be played a certain way and must create a certain outcome [score], there is no debate. It just might not resemble golf in 1975. Kind of like every other sport.

 

EDIT: to subtract a lot of stuff I wrote that was basically repeating what you were saying.

 

I agree, very well summed up. I find it interesting that this conversation seems to fairly exclusively exist within the realm of solo sports like this. Bowling is VERY similar with the arguments about Reactive Resin bowling balls.

 

I think that subset of people can be split in to two groups; the "yesteryear" crowd who believes there was a particular golden era of the game that we have strayed too far from and the most interesting group to me, the folks that want to see the pros struggle more. Why they want to see them struggle is the interesting part, because I think it makes them feel better about their own games. Watching a pro grind out pars and bogeys on TV makes those pars and bogeys you're grinding out at your local muni feel a lot better versus watching someone light up a course with a birdie fest. Whether the top guy on the week is grinding his a** off to stay in the black because the course is murdering everyone or he's tapping in an eagle to get to -23 is literally of no consequence because as was said, the course ain't on the leaderboard.

[MrJones]

I'd be very interested in hearing from the fans that attend the tournaments and find out how many thought the course played too easy that day or that the players were hitting it too far.

[gvogel]

Agree with the bold. Crazy rough isn't good. Concrete greens are worse.

I think just a bit higher rough might be decent. Not too much.

I'm curious, though, what about the current state of the game isn't a fair test of skill? It takes a LOT of skill to bomb a drive over 330 in my opinion. If the elite game dictates that as a requirement, OK.

I don't get to play on the offensive line in the NFL at 170 lbs. no matter how great my technique is.

 

For some reason, a small subset of people (let's call them the regressives) do not view the golf course as a field of play, but as a literal defense to the player. Instead of viewing the competition as a match of player vs. player, they view the competition as a match of player vs. course. Over time, play at the elite levels obviously improves, like every other sport in existence, but courses generally stay the same. They don't like this. They think the course needs to improve at "defense" at a rate equivalent to the improvement of the elite player. So they lengthen the course, grow the rough, bake out the greens, etc. more and more to try and help the course keep up. After quite a long time of doing this (probably a couple hundred years at this point), some courses have ran out of space. This is a problem because the evolution of play stops for nothing. This is why they view the current state of the game as not a fair test of skill. In their eyes, the golf course is not a field of play, but an active participant in the competition tasked with the role of playing "defense" and keeping scores within their acceptable range (63 and above). In reality, any piece of land with 18 tees and holes is a fair test, as everyone always plays the same course!

 

Anyways, this leaves the regressives at a critical junction; they can either accept that lower scores than the glory days of their boyhood heroes will be shot, or they can create a storm, flip the table over, change the rules of the game, and start the inevitable cycle all over again. Obviously, when presented with that choice, human nature will always steer them towards option 2, and here we are fending off an extreme minority of people who want to impose their emotion based will on to people who aren't interested...

 

I suppose that you could hold the US Open on an executive course - you know, one of those with a few short par 4's and a bunch of par 3's. The best player wins.

 

Do you think that holding the US Open on such a course is the best way to determine the national champion?

[bladehunter]

Recently the USGA and the R&A, who make the rules for golf, released their third annual report on driving distances on the professional tours.

 

Crisis over. Scoring is not going down. Now let's get on to relevant topics.

 

If scoring and handicaps aren’t dropping. Then why the pushback ? You can hit it shorter and score the same.

[bladehunter]

Agree with the bold. Crazy rough isn't good. Concrete greens are worse.

I think just a bit higher rough might be decent. Not too much.

I'm curious, though, what about the current state of the game isn't a fair test of skill? It takes a LOT of skill to bomb a drive over 330 in my opinion. If the elite game dictates that as a requirement, OK.

I don't get to play on the offensive line in the NFL at 170 lbs. no matter how great my technique is.

 

For some reason, a small subset of people (let's call them the regressives) do not view the golf course as a field of play, but as a literal defense to the player. Instead of viewing the competition as a match of player vs. player, they view the competition as a match of player vs. course. Over time, play at the elite levels obviously improves, like every other sport in existence, but courses generally stay the same. They don't like this. They think the course needs to improve at "defense" at a rate equivalent to the improvement of the elite player. So they lengthen the course, grow the rough, bake out the greens, etc. more and more to try and help the course keep up. After quite a long time of doing this (probably a couple hundred years at this point), some courses have ran out of space. This is a problem because the evolution of play stops for nothing. This is why they view the current state of the game as not a fair test of skill. In their eyes, the golf course is not a field of play, but an active participant in the competition tasked with the role of playing "defense" and keeping scores within their acceptable range (63 and above). In reality, any piece of land with 18 tees and holes is a fair test, as everyone always plays the same course!

 

Anyways, this leaves the regressives at a critical junction; they can either accept that lower scores than the glory days of their boyhood heroes will be shot, or they can create a storm, flip the table over, change the rules of the game, and start the inevitable cycle all over again. Obviously, when presented with that choice, human nature will always steer them towards option 2, and here we are fending off an extreme minority of people who want to impose their emotion based will on to people who aren't interested...

 

 

Agree with all of that. But history is full of majorities that were flat wrong.

[bladehunter]

To offer up yet another perspective in this debate:

 

My course is hosting international qualifying on Monday for the Ladies US Open and will play a mix of the yellow and white tees to end up around the 6400 mark for the competitors. The first cut is probably an inch/inch and a half long, the second cut is probably just over two inches. It's going to be tough if it's wet.

 

Now it's all well and good saying that the pros are hitting it too far and it's spoiling the sanctimony of the game, but the people that play our course from the members to the weekend warriors are struggling. Struggling to find balls, struggling to hit shots out of the first cut. And it is slowing the course up like you wouldn't believe. And people hate that. And they really, really don't fancy having the same struggles from 15 yards back with the ball roll-back.

 

Most don't want to see a bifurcation, either, because some of the better single digits that play golf for fun (7-9hcp) love watching the guys and girls do what they can with the same equipment. Most all of them have said it won't be as interesting to watch the pros do something similar to them when it's the ball reducing the pros ability. Same token - they love it when the pros mess up with the same equipment because the members can do that too!

 

Doesn’t very that show you what the issue is ? The equipment ( not just the ball ) is forcing the course setup to remain that way. Pulling several things back would allow the setup to be softened so that the membership wouldn’t be slowed by the conditions. It’s either that or bifurcation. Which by the way. Already exists. Most of your membership aren’t playing the same equipment they think the pros play anyway. Similar yes. Same ? Not really. They could bifurcate and put similar logos on everything and be same difference as now except the pros would be limited. The deal breaker there is that hoe six pack would know he wasn’t playing the same. The curtain would be opened. And that would probably not work. Most folks can’t deal with the truth they want to stay in fantasy land.

[bladehunter]

Agree with the bold. Crazy rough isn't good. Concrete greens are worse.

I think just a bit higher rough might be decent. Not too much.

I'm curious, though, what about the current state of the game isn't a fair test of skill? It takes a LOT of skill to bomb a drive over 330 in my opinion. If the elite game dictates that as a requirement, OK.

I don't get to play on the offensive line in the NFL at 170 lbs. no matter how great my technique is.

 

For some reason, a small subset of people (let's call them the regressives) do not view the golf course as a field of play, but as a literal defense to the player. Instead of viewing the competition as a match of player vs. player, they view the competition as a match of player vs. course. Over time, play at the elite levels obviously improves, like every other sport in existence, but courses generally stay the same. They don't like this. They think the course needs to improve at "defense" at a rate equivalent to the improvement of the elite player. So they lengthen the course, grow the rough, bake out the greens, etc. more and more to try and help the course keep up. After quite a long time of doing this (probably a couple hundred years at this point), some courses have ran out of space. This is a problem because the evolution of play stops for nothing. This is why they view the current state of the game as not a fair test of skill. In their eyes, the golf course is not a field of play, but an active participant in the competition tasked with the role of playing "defense" and keeping scores within their acceptable range (63 and above). In reality, any piece of land with 18 tees and holes is a fair test, as everyone always plays the same course!

 

Anyways, this leaves the regressives at a critical junction, they can either accept that lower scores than the glory days of their boyhood heroes will be shot, or they can create a storm, flip the table over, change the rules of the game, and start the inevitable cycle all over again. Obviously, when presented with that choice, human nature will always steer them towards option 2, and here we are fending off an extreme minority of people who want to impose their will on the greater golfing population...

 

That is maybe the best summation I've read on the issue. A golf tournament can be played on ANY course, classic or not. The best player that week will win; be it at -45 or +8. If we eliminate the notion that a course must be played a certain way and must create a certain outcome [score], there is no debate. It just might not resemble golf in 1975. Kind of like every other sport.

 

EDIT: to subtract a lot of stuff I wrote that was basically repeating what you were saying.

 

I agree, very well summed up. I find it interesting that this conversation seems to fairly exclusively exist within the realm of solo sports like this. Bowling is VERY similar with the arguments about Reactive Resin bowling balls.

 

I think that subset of people can be split in to two groups; the "yesteryear" crowd who believes there was a particular golden era of the game that we have strayed too far from and the most interesting group to me, the folks that want to see the pros struggle more. Why they want to see them struggle is the interesting part, because I think it makes them feel better about their own games. Watching a pro grind out pars and bogeys on TV makes those pars and bogeys you're grinding out at your local muni feel a lot better versus watching someone light up a course with a birdie fest. Whether the top guy on the week is grinding his a** off to stay in the black because the course is murdering everyone or he's tapping in an eagle to get to -23 is literally of no consequence because as was said, the course ain't on the leaderboard.

 

It’s not really wanting the pros to struggle more. It’s wanting to see your own competition struggle more. Handicap am golf is pretty irritating from the point of view of a 30 something guy who watches 55-60 year olds drive the ball farther than they did in their 20s ( their own admissions ) and play 6 hybrids and score. Years gone by you continued to hit long irons or you stopped competing unless you were the rare expert with a 9 wood. Fields are full of heavily weighed by seniors. . Handicaps padded and competition skewed.

 

I feel like the long hitters advanatage isn’t as much now as it should be. And pulling back Driver and ball would solve this. If they wanted to call back hollow irons and spring faced ones I wouldn’t complain either.

 

Obviously too much $ involved for that ever to happen. But wanted to clarify why my opinion is what it is. It has zero to do with wanting to see pros suffer. I don’t think they would suffer. It would just change the game back from all aerial to some plotting for the longer guy and ground game for the shorter guy.

[15th Club]

Agree with the bold. Crazy rough isn't good. Concrete greens are worse.

I think just a bit higher rough might be decent. Not too much.

I'm curious, though, what about the current state of the game isn't a fair test of skill? It takes a LOT of skill to bomb a drive over 330 in my opinion. If the elite game dictates that as a requirement, OK.

I don't get to play on the offensive line in the NFL at 170 lbs. no matter how great my technique is.

 

For some reason, a small subset of people (let's call them the regressives) do not view the golf course as a field of play, but as a literal defense to the player. Instead of viewing the competition as a match of player vs. player, they view the competition as a match of player vs. course. Over time, play at the elite levels obviously improves, like every other sport in existence, but courses generally stay the same. They don't like this. They think the course needs to improve at "defense" at a rate equivalent to the improvement of the elite player. So they lengthen the course, grow the rough, bake out the greens, etc. more and more to try and help the course keep up. After quite a long time of doing this (probably a couple hundred years at this point), some courses have ran out of space. This is a problem because the evolution of play stops for nothing. This is why they view the current state of the game as not a fair test of skill. In their eyes, the golf course is not a field of play, but an active participant in the competition tasked with the role of playing "defense" and keeping scores within their acceptable range (63 and above). In reality, any piece of land with 18 tees and holes is a fair test, as everyone always plays the same course!

 

Anyways, this leaves the regressives at a critical junction; they can either accept that lower scores than the glory days of their boyhood heroes will be shot, or they can create a storm, flip the table over, change the rules of the game, and start the inevitable cycle all over again. Obviously, when presented with that choice, human nature will always steer them towards option 2, and here we are fending off an extreme minority of people who want to impose their emotion based will on to people who aren't interested...

 

Well, you can use whatever words you want. "Regressives" is not a word that I am going to accept. I might say "traditionalists," or golf course aficionadi, or "real golfers."

 

And yes, I want to promise you, that I do not regard an historic championship golf course as a "field of play" like a gridiron in football or a basketball court. A good golf course is a million times more interesting. The notion that golf courses are simply neutral, inanimate plots of real estate, serving to host "player v player" competition is frankly weird to me as a golfer. Golf, by its nature, is inextricably linked with the places where it is played. It is what makes golf unique. The courses, and the way that the game is played over those courses, are all unique. Golf course architecture, and the understanding of it, is an essential element of golf. I don't think you understand golf if you don't understand that. Maybe, you understand all that you care to. I really don't want to tell anybody else what to do; I really don't. I just don't understand why anybody who holds the USGA in such low regard would want to adhere to the USGA's rules if they are so offensive. Get your own golf courses, and golf equipment companies, and make equipment that really helps you dominate the landscape. Chicks dig the long ball.

 

I don't know; maybe golf needs a schism. Divide off the USGA, and the R&A, and all of the people who are part of the USGA and the R&A, very much including the leadership of Augusta National, the members and directors of all of the great historic courses all over the world, from Muirfield to Royal Melbourne to Hirono to Merion), along with the Western Golf Association, and the Evans Scholars programs all over, from the rest. Etc., etc. And turn the PGA Tour into a full-fledged NFL or NBA, as a television product, and let those golf fans do whatever the heck they want to on the golf course.

 

People in the golf business might be horrified by this. But I am not in the golf business. I'm not selling Titleist golf balls, or Textron golf carts.

[marmooskapaul]

I would bet that 95% of people who golf couldn't tell you where the 3 of the 4 majors were played last year. I just don't think the course is as all that important to the viewing public. That's not a pro or con...just an observation.

[QuigleyDU]

I really do not believe that the rollbackers really want to bring the ball back so that the top 1/2 percent of golfers in the world can play on older courses. If the ball is rolled back you will still never see shorter course start popping up on tour stop or major course rotations.

 

 

Its a lie, and they know it. it does not have anything to do with protecting par, or making it easier for courses to be maintained. I really wish they would just be up front and honest about it.

 

Where the tour goes, is 100% driven by money. That means hospitality tents, grandstands, parking, etc. all things needed for what they would consider a successful (profitable) event. If a course does not have room for all of that, it will not be EVER considered.

 

I would love to see them try some other options first. since this rollback is 100% driven by what people are seeing on the tour. I play a lot and, work part time at a golf store. The vast majority of golfers i see do not hit drives further than 200 yards!! and you want to dial it back 20%!!

[MidwestGolfBum]

 

That is absolutely what this ball roll back advocate does not want to happen. I want the guy who swings 120 to have the same advantage over a 100 mph player that he has now. I simply want their games to fit shorter courses. I want to see the 120 mph player hitting some mid irons, maybe even a long iron on a par 4, and maybe the 100 mph player has to hit a fairway wood.

 

Great, I can live with the equitable ball roll back. That isn't what those people like 15th Club and Bob Ford have said though. Bob Ford has actually been quoted as saying something along the lines of them having a ball that reduces distance above a SS of 108 and doesn't hurt those below that or is vastly reduced in comparison. I probably over generalized things with my "every person" comment, and for that, I apologize.

 

Every body hitting the ball shorter than they do now also brings me to another topic, which I have been told "you couldn't possibly be more wrong" on as well. We would need to abandon the back most tees in some cases, and add tees forward of what are currently the forward tees. This costs money, in both the sense that the course or club now has land they are being taxed on that they cannot use, as well as the fact that you have to add the new tee with labor as well as getting the course rated from that new set of tees. Is the USGA and R&A going to pay for that? There's plenty of courses who probably don't have the money to make that happen comfortably just because we need to "save" the shorter, classic championship courses because the guys on the PGA Tour hit the ball so far.

 

I have gone back to the fact that it is and was possible to hit the balata ball with a persimmon club further than some of the guys I know with their modern equipment. People with higher swing speeds should be able to hit the ball farther than those without, and it sounds like we are in agreement with that unlike some who have had this debate. I like the idea that those who can have a higher swing speed while maintaining accuracy get to hit shorter shots into greens, which we sound to agree on.

[knock it close]

I really do not believe that the rollbackers really want to bring the ball back so that the top 1/2 percent of golfers in the world can play on older courses. If the ball is rolled back you will still never see shorter course start popping up on tour stop or major course rotations.

 

 

Its a lie, and they know it. it does not have anything to do with protecting par, or making it easier for courses to be maintained. I really wish they would just be up front and honest about it.

 

Where the tour goes, is 100% driven by money. That means hospitality tents, grandstands, parking, etc. all things needed for what they would consider a successful (profitable) event. If a course does not have room for all of that, it will not be EVER considered.

 

I would love to see them try some other options first. since this rollback is 100% driven by what people are seeing on the tour. I play a lot and, work part time at a golf store. The vast majority of golfers i see do not hit drives further than 200 yards!! and you want to dial it back 20%!!

So why do the rollbackers want it then and what other options would you like to try?

 

Here's my take, adding distance is the best way to properly test the golfers now, a lot of tour courses struggle to find the appropriate distance they need so they have to either buy more land or resort to other gimmicks to test players. Now sure they could of left Merion wider and not put out outrageous pin positions (I would of liked that) but then you get a entire other faction of people bitching about a US Open being -13. Another issue with that is are you really identifying the best golfer if a course is overly short, of course you are finding the player that played the course the best but there could be much of the game that is left untested, and imo the mark of a great course and championship is to test every shot in a players arsenal. As far as for the regular joe who cares, move up a box, most people should anyways, or just stock up on old balls like a bunch of guys with the old red saw vokeys.

 

In closing I don't think distance is ruining the tour, I do think it would be better though with a slight rollback (not the outrageous 20% that keeps getting thrown around by the leave it be crowd) which hopefully would bring more courses in the 6800+ yard range back into consideration, you're right that some don't have the infrastructure but I'd rather see a shorter historically significant muni get a restoration to hold a tour event than another 7400 yard $400 5 hour round "resort" course pop up to host events. I do think now is the time, peak speed on tour is not going to get much higher and we understand the ideal launch conditions so they would be able to make a one time reduction, that achieved their goals.

[15th Club]

I really do not believe that the rollbackers really want to bring the ball back so that the top 1/2 percent of golfers in the world can play on older courses. If the ball is rolled back you will still never see shorter course start popping up on tour stop or major course rotations.

 

 

Its a lie, and they know it. it does not have anything to do with protecting par, or making it easier for courses to be maintained. I really wish they would just be up front and honest about it.

 

Where the tour goes, is 100% driven by money. That means hospitality tents, grandstands, parking, etc. all things needed for what they would consider a successful (profitable) event. If a course does not have room for all of that, it will not be EVER considered.

 

I would love to see them try some other options first. since this rollback is 100% driven by what people are seeing on the tour. I play a lot and, work part time at a golf store. The vast majority of golfers i see do not hit drives further than 200 yards!! and you want to dial it back 20%!!

 

There's simply no other way to answer this, other than to call it a kind of a lie, in the context of this discussion. The USGA has not proposed anything that will roll back recreational golfers by 20%. In this discussion, I have not called for a roll back that would take 20% of recreational golfer's' distances. I rather specifically cited Seminole pro Bob Ford (venerated, at golf's highest levels) mentioning the possibility of a ball design that rolls back distances at swing speeds above 108 mph, and which does virtually nothing to lower swing speeds.

 

And in prior threads, I have mentioned that the 20% number came from a casual comment by Jack Nicklaus in response to an interview question, and I do not think it is fair or wise or even intelligent to presume that Jack Nicklaus expects anything like a 20% rollback for low-level recreational players. (Jack Nicklaus thinks more in terms of bifurcation.)

[15th Club]

I really do not believe that the rollbackers really want to bring the ball back so that the top 1/2 percent of golfers in the world can play on older courses. If the ball is rolled back you will still never see shorter course start popping up on tour stop or major course rotations.

 

 

Its a lie, and they know it. it does not have anything to do with protecting par, or making it easier for courses to be maintained. I really wish they would just be up front and honest about it.

 

Where the tour goes, is 100% driven by money. That means hospitality tents, grandstands, parking, etc. all things needed for what they would consider a successful (profitable) event. If a course does not have room for all of that, it will not be EVER considered.

 

I would love to see them try some other options first. since this rollback is 100% driven by what people are seeing on the tour. I play a lot and, work part time at a golf store. The vast majority of golfers i see do not hit drives further than 200 yards!! and you want to dial it back 20%!!

 

A separate reply to this same post, with different highlighting.

 

This debate is NOT simply about Tour events. I have said repeatedly, it affects all of elite-level golf, from the NCAA, to top-level amateur golf, and even lower levels of competitive golf.

 

This is why I insist on using the terms "elite" and "recreational" golf as my arbitrary dividing lines. "Tour" versus "amateur" are useless in this context. If you haven't been to see NCAA golfers dominate courses that have recently held U.S. Opens, you might not understand this point. But you should.

[KMeloney]

So Merion keeps being mentioned as a, what, soon-to be-obsolete course? An already-obsolete course? And yet it was a beast as the US Open venue just 5 years ago. Were there not long hitters in that field, and did they not have the opportunity to overpower the course and go really low?

 

How'd that go?

 

And please don't tell me they "tricked up" the course for the Open.

 

There was and is currently is no reason to roll back the ball because of venues like Merion.

[QuigleyDU]

I really do not believe that the rollbackers really want to bring the ball back so that the top 1/2 percent of golfers in the world can play on older courses. If the ball is rolled back you will still never see shorter course start popping up on tour stop or major course rotations. Its a lie, and they know it. it does not have anything to do with protecting par, or making it easier for courses to be maintained. I really wish they would just be up front and honest about it. Where the tour goes, is 100% driven by money. That means hospitality tents, grandstands, parking, etc. all things needed for what they would consider a successful (profitable) event. If a course does not have room for all of that, it will not be EVER considered. I would love to see them try some other options first. since this rollback is 100% driven by what people are seeing on the tour. I play a lot and, work part time at a golf store. The vast majority of golfers i see do not hit drives further than 200 yards!! and you want to dial it back 20%!!

So why do the rollbackers want it then and what other options would you like to try? Here's my take, adding distance is the best way to properly test the golfers now, a lot of tour courses struggle to find the appropriate distance they need so they have to either buy more land or resort to other gimmicks to test players. Now sure they could of left Merion wider and not put out outrageous pin positions (I would of liked that) but then you get a entire other faction of people bitching about a US Open being -13. Another issue with that is are you really identifying the best golfer if a course is overly short, of course you are finding the player that played the course the best but there could be much of the game that is left untested, and imo the mark of a great course and championship is to test every shot in a players arsenal. As far as for the regular joe who cares, move up a box, most people should anyways, or just stock up on old balls like a bunch of guys with the old red saw vokeys. In closing I don't think distance is ruining the tour, I do think it would be better though with a slight rollback (not the outrageous 20% that keeps getting thrown around by the leave it be crowd) which hopefully would bring more courses in the 6800+ yard range back into consideration, you're right that some don't have the infrastructure but I'd rather see a shorter historically significant muni get a restoration to hold a tour event than another 7400 yard $400 5 hour round "resort" course pop up to host events. I do think now is the time, peak speed on tour is not going to get much higher and we understand the ideal launch conditions so they would be able to make a one time reduction, that achieved their goals.

 

you said a lot so i will do my best to respond to all points.

 

First and most important is. the "regular Joe". I feel that is the only person that should be considered in all of this. That is who equipment is marketed to, and who keeps all these courses, stores, and even the tour in business. you CANNOT disregard them. Yes, they can move up, but in many cases what does that actually do, shorten the course by a few hundred yards over all? for the vast majority of golfers who dont break 90. shortening the ball will affect them more than moving up a box.

 

second, options other than reducing flight. This is strictly for the tour as that is really what everyone is looking at under a microscope. Stop mowing fairways tighter than many greens i play into. Soften them so they don't get 40 yards of roll after the ball lands. adding rough i dont think makes much of a difference unless it is a foot tall. just altering the fairway alone you would see drives go from 300 to 280 almost instantly without changing a single bit of regulation to equipment. the drawback, tour pros will cry.

 

i know last years us open gets a lot of flak. they played it at a course that was designed to be a linksy style course. in links golf the main course defense is wind. they didnt have any wind that week. that is why Brooks and everyone else tore up the course. Just like at open championships when the wind stays down. when the wind is up conditions get tougher.

 

i will also be honest and upfront in that my opinions is also partial based on my general distaste for additional legislation and what i personally perceive as meddling to anything. i have a very libertarian approach to all things. i feel ruling bodies do things, like groove changes, anchoring rules, or ball role backs, to justify their existence. because, if they didn't meddle, they wouldn't be needed.

[rawdog]

Bout to stop watching. Ball going too far, hurting my ego, depressing.

 

Pass me a beer and change the channel back to 1992.

[knock it close]

I really do not believe that the rollbackers really want to bring the ball back so that the top 1/2 percent of golfers in the world can play on older courses. If the ball is rolled back you will still never see shorter course start popping up on tour stop or major course rotations. Its a lie, and they know it. it does not have anything to do with protecting par, or making it easier for courses to be maintained. I really wish they would just be up front and honest about it. Where the tour goes, is 100% driven by money. That means hospitality tents, grandstands, parking, etc. all things needed for what they would consider a successful (profitable) event. If a course does not have room for all of that, it will not be EVER considered. I would love to see them try some other options first. since this rollback is 100% driven by what people are seeing on the tour. I play a lot and, work part time at a golf store. The vast majority of golfers i see do not hit drives further than 200 yards!! and you want to dial it back 20%!!

So why do the rollbackers want it then and what other options would you like to try? Here's my take, adding distance is the best way to properly test the golfers now, a lot of tour courses struggle to find the appropriate distance they need so they have to either buy more land or resort to other gimmicks to test players. Now sure they could of left Merion wider and not put out outrageous pin positions (I would of liked that) but then you get a entire other faction of people bitching about a US Open being -13. Another issue with that is are you really identifying the best golfer if a course is overly short, of course you are finding the player that played the course the best but there could be much of the game that is left untested, and imo the mark of a great course and championship is to test every shot in a players arsenal. As far as for the regular joe who cares, move up a box, most people should anyways, or just stock up on old balls like a bunch of guys with the old red saw vokeys. In closing I don't think distance is ruining the tour, I do think it would be better though with a slight rollback (not the outrageous 20% that keeps getting thrown around by the leave it be crowd) which hopefully would bring more courses in the 6800+ yard range back into consideration, you're right that some don't have the infrastructure but I'd rather see a shorter historically significant muni get a restoration to hold a tour event than another 7400 yard $400 5 hour round "resort" course pop up to host events. I do think now is the time, peak speed on tour is not going to get much higher and we understand the ideal launch conditions so they would be able to make a one time reduction, that achieved their goals.

 

you said a lot so i will do my best to respond to all points.

 

First and most important is. the "regular Joe". I feel that is the only person that should be considered in all of this. That is who equipment is marketed to, and who keeps all these courses, stores, and even the tour in business. you CANNOT disregard them. Yes, they can move up, but in many cases what does that actually do, shorten the course by a few hundred yards over all? for the vast majority of golfers who dont break 90. shortening the ball will affect them more than moving up a box.

 

second, options other than reducing flight. This is strictly for the tour as that is really what everyone is looking at under a microscope. Stop mowing fairways tighter than many greens i play into. Soften them so they don't get 40 yards of roll after the ball lands. adding rough i dont think makes much of a difference unless it is a foot tall. just altering the fairway alone you would see drives go from 300 to 280 almost instantly without changing a single bit of regulation to equipment. the drawback, tour pros will cry.

 

i know last years us open gets a lot of flak. they played it at a course that was designed to be a linksy style course. in links golf the main course defense is wind. they didnt have any wind that week. that is why Brooks and everyone else tore up the course. Just like at open championships when the wind stays down. when the wind is up conditions get tougher.

If the ball is reduced 10% and you move from 6650 to 6000 box nothing changes for the joe except maybe their ego is a little bruised.

 

As far as slowing down the fw's how do we achieve that? If they soak them what happens with mud balls if they get more rain, do they now play ball in hand or do we just say we're ok with some guys maybe getting mud balls? They could grow them longer too I guess but then you are hindering players ability to spin the ball and the advantage they have hitting the fairway. Also with how could technology is the guys would just figure out a way to launch it a little higher maybe with a bit more spin to maximize carry distance.

 

I agree with you I didn't have a problem with Erin Hills, the rain softened it, and the USGA got a little scared by some of the player quotes, it played somewhat difficult on sunday when the wind actually blew

[15th Club]

I really do not believe that the rollbackers really want to bring the ball back so that the top 1/2 percent of golfers in the world can play on older courses. If the ball is rolled back you will still never see shorter course start popping up on tour stop or major course rotations. Its a lie, and they know it. it does not have anything to do with protecting par, or making it easier for courses to be maintained. I really wish they would just be up front and honest about it. Where the tour goes, is 100% driven by money. That means hospitality tents, grandstands, parking, etc. all things needed for what they would consider a successful (profitable) event. If a course does not have room for all of that, it will not be EVER considered. I would love to see them try some other options first. since this rollback is 100% driven by what people are seeing on the tour. I play a lot and, work part time at a golf store. The vast majority of golfers i see do not hit drives further than 200 yards!! and you want to dial it back 20%!!

So why do the rollbackers want it then and what other options would you like to try? Here's my take, adding distance is the best way to properly test the golfers now, a lot of tour courses struggle to find the appropriate distance they need so they have to either buy more land or resort to other gimmicks to test players. Now sure they could of left Merion wider and not put out outrageous pin positions (I would of liked that) but then you get a entire other faction of people bitching about a US Open being -13. Another issue with that is are you really identifying the best golfer if a course is overly short, of course you are finding the player that played the course the best but there could be much of the game that is left untested, and imo the mark of a great course and championship is to test every shot in a players arsenal. As far as for the regular joe who cares, move up a box, most people should anyways, or just stock up on old balls like a bunch of guys with the old red saw vokeys. In closing I don't think distance is ruining the tour, I do think it would be better though with a slight rollback (not the outrageous 20% that keeps getting thrown around by the leave it be crowd) which hopefully would bring more courses in the 6800+ yard range back into consideration, you're right that some don't have the infrastructure but I'd rather see a shorter historically significant muni get a restoration to hold a tour event than another 7400 yard $400 5 hour round "resort" course pop up to host events. I do think now is the time, peak speed on tour is not going to get much higher and we understand the ideal launch conditions so they would be able to make a one time reduction, that achieved their goals.

 

you said a lot so i will do my best to respond to all points.

 

First and most important is. the "regular Joe". I feel that is the only person that should be considered in all of this. That is who equipment is marketed to, and who keeps all these courses, stores, and even the tour in business. you CANNOT disregard them. Yes, they can move up, but in many cases what does that actually do, shorten the course by a few hundred yards over all? for the vast majority of golfers who dont break 90. shortening the ball will affect them more than moving up a box.

 

second, options other than reducing flight. This is strictly for the tour as that is really what everyone is looking at under a microscope. Stop mowing fairways tighter than many greens i play into. Soften them so they don't get 40 yards of roll after the ball lands. adding rough i dont think makes much of a difference unless it is a foot tall. just altering the fairway alone you would see drives go from 300 to 280 almost instantly without changing a single bit of regulation to equipment. the drawback, tour pros will cry.

 

i know last years us open gets a lot of flak. they played it at a course that was designed to be a linksy style course. in links golf the main course defense is wind. they didnt have any wind that week. that is why Brooks and everyone else tore up the course. Just like at open championships when the wind stays down. when the wind is up conditions get tougher.

 

i will also be honest and upfront in that my opinions is also partial based on my general distaste for additional legislation and what i personally perceive as meddling to anything. i have a very libertarian approach to all things. i feel ruling bodies do things, like groove changes, anchoring rules, or ball role backs, to justify their existence. because, if they didn't meddle, they wouldn't be needed.

 

Oh, stop it. Most Tour players nowadays have CARRY distances with driver that are in the 270-280 range. Ask them! Check out Golf Digest's "What's in my Bag?" feature with their carry distances! Longer grass in the fairways does nothing about that, and wetter, softer fairways is an all-around rotten idea for quality golf.

[QuigleyDU]

I really do not believe that the rollbackers really want to bring the ball back so that the top 1/2 percent of golfers in the world can play on older courses. If the ball is rolled back you will still never see shorter course start popping up on tour stop or major course rotations. Its a lie, and they know it. it does not have anything to do with protecting par, or making it easier for courses to be maintained. I really wish they would just be up front and honest about it. Where the tour goes, is 100% driven by money. That means hospitality tents, grandstands, parking, etc. all things needed for what they would consider a successful (profitable) event. If a course does not have room for all of that, it will not be EVER considered. I would love to see them try some other options first. since this rollback is 100% driven by what people are seeing on the tour. I play a lot and, work part time at a golf store. The vast majority of golfers i see do not hit drives further than 200 yards!! and you want to dial it back 20%!!

So why do the rollbackers want it then and what other options would you like to try? Here's my take, adding distance is the best way to properly test the golfers now, a lot of tour courses struggle to find the appropriate distance they need so they have to either buy more land or resort to other gimmicks to test players. Now sure they could of left Merion wider and not put out outrageous pin positions (I would of liked that) but then you get a entire other faction of people bitching about a US Open being -13. Another issue with that is are you really identifying the best golfer if a course is overly short, of course you are finding the player that played the course the best but there could be much of the game that is left untested, and imo the mark of a great course and championship is to test every shot in a players arsenal. As far as for the regular joe who cares, move up a box, most people should anyways, or just stock up on old balls like a bunch of guys with the old red saw vokeys. In closing I don't think distance is ruining the tour, I do think it would be better though with a slight rollback (not the outrageous 20% that keeps getting thrown around by the leave it be crowd) which hopefully would bring more courses in the 6800+ yard range back into consideration, you're right that some don't have the infrastructure but I'd rather see a shorter historically significant muni get a restoration to hold a tour event than another 7400 yard $400 5 hour round "resort" course pop up to host events. I do think now is the time, peak speed on tour is not going to get much higher and we understand the ideal launch conditions so they would be able to make a one time reduction, that achieved their goals.

 

you said a lot so i will do my best to respond to all points.

 

First and most important is. the "regular Joe". I feel that is the only person that should be considered in all of this. That is who equipment is marketed to, and who keeps all these courses, stores, and even the tour in business. you CANNOT disregard them. Yes, they can move up, but in many cases what does that actually do, shorten the course by a few hundred yards over all? for the vast majority of golfers who dont break 90. shortening the ball will affect them more than moving up a box.

 

second, options other than reducing flight. This is strictly for the tour as that is really what everyone is looking at under a microscope. Stop mowing fairways tighter than many greens i play into. Soften them so they don't get 40 yards of roll after the ball lands. adding rough i dont think makes much of a difference unless it is a foot tall. just altering the fairway alone you would see drives go from 300 to 280 almost instantly without changing a single bit of regulation to equipment. the drawback, tour pros will cry.

 

i know last years us open gets a lot of flak. they played it at a course that was designed to be a linksy style course. in links golf the main course defense is wind. they didnt have any wind that week. that is why Brooks and everyone else tore up the course. Just like at open championships when the wind stays down. when the wind is up conditions get tougher.

 

i will also be honest and upfront in that my opinions is also partial based on my general distaste for additional legislation and what i personally perceive as meddling to anything. i have a very libertarian approach to all things. i feel ruling bodies do things, like groove changes, anchoring rules, or ball role backs, to justify their existence. because, if they didn't meddle, they wouldn't be needed.

 

Oh, stop it. Most Tour players nowadays have CARRY distances with driver that are in the 270-280 range. Ask them! Check out Golf Digest's "What's in my Bag?" feature with their carry distances! Longer grass in the fairways does nothing about that, and wetter, softer fairways is an all-around rotten idea for quality golf.

 

my point is, that if you limit roll to say 10-15 yards rather than hitting onto green carpeted concrete you will see drastically reduce driver distances. i dont see how this does not accomplish the exact same thing? it will also be cheaper for courses to maintain, it is an absolute fact that increasing the fairway length will reduce role. Or, simply mow the grain into the players. that will affect it as well. i didn't say make the fairways soggy, just dont dry them out so much.

[MrJones]

Can anyone point out evidence of where distance is impacting tournaments as far as sales and viewership?

 

The question was asked "is distance ruining tour pros?".

 

 

So has anyone offered any actual evidence where distance gains are hurting the game monetarily?