What is with the Hating on the USGA?

[heavy_hitter]

I don't think the USGA knows how to set up a championship course. Fans generally don't want to see the garbage of US Open week. As far as play it is one of the most boring tournaments all year to watch. Year after year guys hit good shots and aren't rewarded on greens because they are too fast.

 

USGA is now complaining about the ball. How about the super fast fairways? JT hits a 422 yard drive yesterday. 100 yards of roll out. Yeah, I played that course yesterday. It is stupid. How about not have fairways at an 11 stimp?

[gvogel]

I don't think the USGA knows how to set up a championship course. Fans generally don't want to see the garbage of US Open week. As far as play it is one of the most boring tournaments all year to watch. Year after year guys hit good shots and aren't rewarded on greens because they are too fast.

 

USGA is now complaining about the ball. How about the super fast fairways? JT hits a 422 yard drive yesterday. 100 yards of roll out. Yeah, I played that course yesterday. It is stupid. How about not have fairways at an 11 stimp?

 

Funny. I was reading the US Open thread yesterday, and a lot of posters were enjoying the carnage.

 

I guess that if you prefer regular tour stop type courses, you just shouldn't play in the national championship.

 

Now look, I get it that the greens are too fast. But the USGA likes to set up their championship course like that in order to preserve "par". If the ball didn't go as far, they could set the greens up slower.

 

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

[clevited]

I don't think the USGA knows how to set up a championship course. Fans generally don't want to see the garbage of US Open week. As far as play it is one of the most boring tournaments all year to watch. Year after year guys hit good shots and aren't rewarded on greens because they are too fast.

 

USGA is now complaining about the ball. How about the super fast fairways? JT hits a 422 yard drive yesterday. 100 yards of roll out. Yeah, I played that course yesterday. It is stupid. How about not have fairways at an 11 stimp?

 

Funny. I was reading the US Open thread yesterday, and a lot of posters were enjoying the carnage.

 

I guess that if you prefer regular tour stop type courses, you just shouldn't play in the national championship.

 

Now look, I get it that the greens are too fast. But the USGA likes to set up their championship course like that in order to preserve "par". If the ball didn't go as far, they could set the greens up slower.

 

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

 

Facepalm

 

Not this rhetoric again.

[QMany]

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

 

From the back of the tee, it is 347 to the front of the green. You can't just look at scorecard distances.

 

I was watching that Feature Group broadcast online. If you listened and observed, the tees were moved wayyy up. DJ, Tiger, and JT took a few minutes to determine their distances and strategy from that far up. JT finished in the bunker short of the green (approximately 305 yards per Google Maps).

[North Butte]

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

 

From the back of the tee, it is 347 to the front of the green. You can't just look at scorecard distances.

 

I was watching that Feature Group broadcast online. If you listened and observed, the tees were moved wayyy up. DJ, Tiger, and JT took a few minutes to determine their distances and strategy from that far up. JT finished in the bunker short of the green (approximately 305 yards per Google Maps).

 

The hyping of distance permeates every single aspect of big-time televised golf entertainment. The courses are set up to maximize rollout, often the tees are much shorter than the published "yardage", the TV networks selectively fawn over the most extreme long shots and basically exaggerate as much as they think they can get away with.

 

Yet some people seem to think there's this latent desire within the professional Tours to roll the ball back so they can hit it shorter. Where the heck would you come up with something like that. Televised golf is all about distance, always has been to a certain extent but today it's about distance above all else.

[gvogel]

I don't think the USGA knows how to set up a championship course. Fans generally don't want to see the garbage of US Open week. As far as play it is one of the most boring tournaments all year to watch. Year after year guys hit good shots and aren't rewarded on greens because they are too fast.

 

USGA is now complaining about the ball. How about the super fast fairways? JT hits a 422 yard drive yesterday. 100 yards of roll out. Yeah, I played that course yesterday. It is stupid. How about not have fairways at an 11 stimp?

 

Funny. I was reading the US Open thread yesterday, and a lot of posters were enjoying the carnage.

 

I guess that if you prefer regular tour stop type courses, you just shouldn't play in the national championship.

 

Now look, I get it that the greens are too fast. But the USGA likes to set up their championship course like that in order to preserve "par". If the ball didn't go as far, they could set the greens up slower.

 

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

 

Facepalm

 

Not this rhetoric again.

 

Well, it's nice to see that both of us are consistent in our viewpoints.

[clevited]

I don't think the USGA knows how to set up a championship course. Fans generally don't want to see the garbage of US Open week. As far as play it is one of the most boring tournaments all year to watch. Year after year guys hit good shots and aren't rewarded on greens because they are too fast.

 

USGA is now complaining about the ball. How about the super fast fairways? JT hits a 422 yard drive yesterday. 100 yards of roll out. Yeah, I played that course yesterday. It is stupid. How about not have fairways at an 11 stimp?

 

Funny. I was reading the US Open thread yesterday, and a lot of posters were enjoying the carnage.

 

I guess that if you prefer regular tour stop type courses, you just shouldn't play in the national championship.

 

Now look, I get it that the greens are too fast. But the USGA likes to set up their championship course like that in order to preserve "par". If the ball didn't go as far, they could set the greens up slower.

 

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

 

Facepalm

 

Not this rhetoric again.

 

Well, it's nice to see that both of us are consistent in our viewpoints.

 

I try to state facts and point out flaws in thinking. Like pointing out how a move a person does in chess will put them in check. You restate the same points without thinking. If JT hit it that far, maybe you should think of why instead of focusing on a number and blaming a ball. JT can swing 120 max according to his stats. That is fast as heck and given the right wind, and or other factors like tee elevation and fairway hardness and slope, 345 carry and 360 yard total is easy to achieve. Heck, I might have hit 400 yards myself if I got a hold of one in those conditions.

 

Its not the ball, and stop focusing on a number when the course itself is by and large creating those numbers for the long hitters. It is not proof of the problem you think there is.

 

Edit: just saw other posts, so it is one of the other many variables, the distance was wrong. I'm not surprised.

[Rangeballz]

Wrong thread

[North Butte]

Its not the ball, and stop focusing on a number when the course itself is by and large creating those numbers for the long hitters. It is not proof of the problem you think there is.

 

The rollbackers are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.

 

They can't keep Justin Thomas from swinging at 120mph. They can't keep courses from being set up with fairways hard as concrete. They can't keep players from using lightweight graphite shafts and hot clubheads. They can't make players hit down on the ball or stop going to the gym or improving their swings.

 

But they THINK they can convince the other 99.99% of the golf world to massively roll back the golf ball. They don't want to undo the performance of the ProV1, they want to use the ball spec to undo the performance of every single aspect of the modern game. The ball is just the scapegoat, they aren't really much bothered by all the various ways the game has changed, they just want it to LOOK JUST LIKE IT USED TO LOOK!!!!!

[DFS PFD]

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

 

From the back of the tee, it is 347 to the front of the green. You can't just look at scorecard distances.

 

I was watching that Feature Group broadcast online. If you listened and observed, the tees were moved wayyy up. DJ, Tiger, and JT took a few minutes to determine their distances and strategy from that far up. JT finished in the bunker short of the green (approximately 305 yards per Google Maps).

 

The hyping of distance permeates every single aspect of big-time televised golf entertainment. The courses are set up to maximize rollout, often the tees are much shorter than the published "yardage", the TV networks selectively fawn over the most extreme long shots and basically exaggerate as much as they think they can get away with.

 

Yet some people seem to think there's this latent desire within the professional Tours to roll the ball back so they can hit it shorter. Where the heck would you come up with something like that. Televised golf is all about distance, always has been to a certain extent but today it's about distance above all else.

If it's all about distance why isn't long drive contest more popular?

[DFS PFD]

Its not the ball, and stop focusing on a number when the course itself is by and large creating those numbers for the long hitters. It is not proof of the problem you think there is.

 

The rollbackers are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.

 

They can't keep Justin Thomas from swinging at 120mph. They can't keep courses from being set up with fairways hard as concrete. They can't keep players from using lightweight graphite shafts and hot clubheads. They can't make players hit down on the ball or stop going to the gym or improving their swings.

 

But they THINK they can convince the other 99.99% of the golf world to massively roll back the golf ball. They don't want to undo the performance of the ProV1, they want to use the ball spec to undo the performance of every single aspect of the modern game. The ball is just the scapegoat, they aren't really much bothered by all the various ways the game has changed, they just want it to LOOK JUST LIKE IT USED TO LOOK!!!!!

How many times do we have reiterate, regardless of the million variables and causes you can create from conjecture, the most simple component to roll back, is the ball.

[North Butte]

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

 

From the back of the tee, it is 347 to the front of the green. You can't just look at scorecard distances.

 

I was watching that Feature Group broadcast online. If you listened and observed, the tees were moved wayyy up. DJ, Tiger, and JT took a few minutes to determine their distances and strategy from that far up. JT finished in the bunker short of the green (approximately 305 yards per Google Maps).

 

The hyping of distance permeates every single aspect of big-time televised golf entertainment. The courses are set up to maximize rollout, often the tees are much shorter than the published "yardage", the TV networks selectively fawn over the most extreme long shots and basically exaggerate as much as they think they can get away with.

 

Yet some people seem to think there's this latent desire within the professional Tours to roll the ball back so they can hit it shorter. Where the heck would you come up with something like that. Televised golf is all about distance, always has been to a certain extent but today it's about distance above all else.

If it's all about distance why isn't long drive contest more popular?

 

Because there's already more real golf on TV than anyone could ever have time to watch.

[DFS PFD]

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

 

From the back of the tee, it is 347 to the front of the green. You can't just look at scorecard distances.

 

I was watching that Feature Group broadcast online. If you listened and observed, the tees were moved wayyy up. DJ, Tiger, and JT took a few minutes to determine their distances and strategy from that far up. JT finished in the bunker short of the green (approximately 305 yards per Google Maps).

 

The hyping of distance permeates every single aspect of big-time televised golf entertainment. The courses are set up to maximize rollout, often the tees are much shorter than the published "yardage", the TV networks selectively fawn over the most extreme long shots and basically exaggerate as much as they think they can get away with.

 

Yet some people seem to think there's this latent desire within the professional Tours to roll the ball back so they can hit it shorter. Where the heck would you come up with something like that. Televised golf is all about distance, always has been to a certain extent but today it's about distance above all else.

If it's all about distance why isn't long drive contest more popular?

 

Because there's already more real golf on TV than anyone could ever have time to watch.

Oh, so it's not all about distance? Gotcha, only when it's convenient.

[clevited]

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

 

From the back of the tee, it is 347 to the front of the green. You can't just look at scorecard distances.

 

I was watching that Feature Group broadcast online. If you listened and observed, the tees were moved wayyy up. DJ, Tiger, and JT took a few minutes to determine their distances and strategy from that far up. JT finished in the bunker short of the green (approximately 305 yards per Google Maps).

 

The hyping of distance permeates every single aspect of big-time televised golf entertainment. The courses are set up to maximize rollout, often the tees are much shorter than the published "yardage", the TV networks selectively fawn over the most extreme long shots and basically exaggerate as much as they think they can get away with.

 

Yet some people seem to think there's this latent desire within the professional Tours to roll the ball back so they can hit it shorter. Where the heck would you come up with something like that. Televised golf is all about distance, always has been to a certain extent but today it's about distance above all else.

If it's all about distance why isn't long drive contest more popular?

 

Guarantee you if tour pros had a televised long drive competition it would gain a lot more interest. Most long drivers are average joes nobody knows.

 

Distance is special, but that distance at least for me, more interesting and amazing when there is a score you are also trying to post on the hole.

 

I can bomb drives all day at the driving range, not impressive or interesting until you get on the course and see your ball position relative to your playing partner or relative to the green.

[North Texas]

Its not the ball, and stop focusing on a number when the course itself is by and large creating those numbers for the long hitters. It is not proof of the problem you think there is.

 

The rollbackers are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.

 

They can't keep Justin Thomas from swinging at 120mph. They can't keep courses from being set up with fairways hard as concrete. They can't keep players from using lightweight graphite shafts and hot clubheads. They can't make players hit down on the ball or stop going to the gym or improving their swings.

 

But they THINK they can convince the other 99.99% of the golf world to massively roll back the golf ball. They don't want to undo the performance of the ProV1, they want to use the ball spec to undo the performance of every single aspect of the modern game. The ball is just the scapegoat, they aren't really much bothered by all the various ways the game has changed, they just want it to LOOK JUST LIKE IT USED TO LOOK!!!!!

 

I know that you, and others, will find this hard to believe but people who think driving distances are getting out of hand are just as interested in the future of the game as you are.

[bigred90gt]

Its not the ball, and stop focusing on a number when the course itself is by and large creating those numbers for the long hitters. It is not proof of the problem you think there is.

 

The rollbackers are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.

 

They can't keep Justin Thomas from swinging at 120mph. They can't keep courses from being set up with fairways hard as concrete. They can't keep players from using lightweight graphite shafts and hot clubheads. They can't make players hit down on the ball or stop going to the gym or improving their swings.

 

But they THINK they can convince the other 99.99% of the golf world to massively roll back the golf ball. They don't want to undo the performance of the ProV1, they want to use the ball spec to undo the performance of every single aspect of the modern game. The ball is just the scapegoat, they aren't really much bothered by all the various ways the game has changed, they just want it to LOOK JUST LIKE IT USED TO LOOK!!!!!

How many times do we have reiterate, regardless of the million variables and causes you can create from conjecture, the most simple component to roll back, is the ball.

 

Because it has been stated, with example, that course set-up is the easiest change in the game. It costs nothing, takes no additional testing, no R&D, no modification of any rules, literally take absolutely nothing other than moving a lever or pushing a button on a mower. How can you possibly come to the conclusion that rewriting specs, re-engineering a ball, rolling out this re-engineered ball, and monitoring compliance could possibly be the "most simple component" to change?

[DFS PFD]

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

 

From the back of the tee, it is 347 to the front of the green. You can't just look at scorecard distances.

 

I was watching that Feature Group broadcast online. If you listened and observed, the tees were moved wayyy up. DJ, Tiger, and JT took a few minutes to determine their distances and strategy from that far up. JT finished in the bunker short of the green (approximately 305 yards per Google Maps).

 

The hyping of distance permeates every single aspect of big-time televised golf entertainment. The courses are set up to maximize rollout, often the tees are much shorter than the published "yardage", the TV networks selectively fawn over the most extreme long shots and basically exaggerate as much as they think they can get away with.

 

Yet some people seem to think there's this latent desire within the professional Tours to roll the ball back so they can hit it shorter. Where the heck would you come up with something like that. Televised golf is all about distance, always has been to a certain extent but today it's about distance above all else.

If it's all about distance why isn't long drive contest more popular?

 

Guarantee you if tour pros had a televised long drive competition it would gain a lot more interest. Most long drivers are average joes nobody knows.

 

Distance is special, but that distance at least for me, more interesting and amazing when there is a score you are also trying to post on the hole.

 

I can bomb drives all day at the driving range, not impressive or interesting until you get on the course and see your ball position relative to your playing partner or relative to the green.

I agree with you completely, just reinforcing that this debate is not 100% distance driven.

[North Butte]

Its not the ball, and stop focusing on a number when the course itself is by and large creating those numbers for the long hitters. It is not proof of the problem you think there is.

 

The rollbackers are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.

 

They can't keep Justin Thomas from swinging at 120mph. They can't keep courses from being set up with fairways hard as concrete. They can't keep players from using lightweight graphite shafts and hot clubheads. They can't make players hit down on the ball or stop going to the gym or improving their swings.

 

But they THINK they can convince the other 99.99% of the golf world to massively roll back the golf ball. They don't want to undo the performance of the ProV1, they want to use the ball spec to undo the performance of every single aspect of the modern game. The ball is just the scapegoat, they aren't really much bothered by all the various ways the game has changed, they just want it to LOOK JUST LIKE IT USED TO LOOK!!!!!

 

I know that you, and others, will find this hard to believe but people who think driving distances are getting out of hand are just as interested in the future of the game as you are.

 

Could be.

 

But their rollback mania is in pursuit of seeing the game played the way they want it played in future. Nothing about a ball rollback will have the slightest effect on the continued viability of golf as a mainstream activity. Those claims are self-serving poppycock.

[davep043]

USGA is now complaining about the ball.

This is the type of over-simplification that fuels these debates. The USGA is studying statistics around distance, to evaluate whether distance is increasing enough to require some correction. They have tons of data from the PGA Tour, they've decided to get lots more data from non-pro events. They've decided to get input from a wide variety of people involved with golf. The USGA has already taken measures to limit clubs in some way, so if something DOES need to be done, the ball might be the right way to do it. One (very visible) individual within the USGA thinks the ball SHOULD be limited, but he's not going to make that decision on his own.

 

Hank Haney helps fuel this hysteria. When the USGA report on distance came out this year, Haney was screaming on his radio show..."The USGA is going to roll back the ball, all over 3 yards increase!!" The report said nothing of the sort, but Haney got attention for his histrionics, and lots of people believed what he claimed. I think its appropriate to study things like distance, to have data before any decisions are made. If you believe their mind is made up, that data won't matter, that they'll manipulate the data to back up their changes, I won't argue with you. I don't believe that, but neither of us have a shred of proof either way.

[clevited]

Its not the ball, and stop focusing on a number when the course itself is by and large creating those numbers for the long hitters. It is not proof of the problem you think there is.

 

The rollbackers are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.

 

They can't keep Justin Thomas from swinging at 120mph. They can't keep courses from being set up with fairways hard as concrete. They can't keep players from using lightweight graphite shafts and hot clubheads. They can't make players hit down on the ball or stop going to the gym or improving their swings.

 

But they THINK they can convince the other 99.99% of the golf world to massively roll back the golf ball. They don't want to undo the performance of the ProV1, they want to use the ball spec to undo the performance of every single aspect of the modern game. The ball is just the scapegoat, they aren't really much bothered by all the various ways the game has changed, they just want it to LOOK JUST LIKE IT USED TO LOOK!!!!!

 

I know that you, and others, will find this hard to believe but people who think driving distances are getting out of hand are just as interested in the future of the game as you are.

 

Could be.

 

But their rollback mania is in pursuit of seeing the game played the way they want it played in future. Nothing about a ball rollback will have the slightest effect on the continued viability of golf as a mainstream activity. Those claims are self-serving poppycock.

 

Ooh ooh that's my word of the day! Poppycock! How did you know!? Lol.

[DFS PFD]

Its not the ball, and stop focusing on a number when the course itself is by and large creating those numbers for the long hitters. It is not proof of the problem you think there is.

 

The rollbackers are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.

 

They can't keep Justin Thomas from swinging at 120mph. They can't keep courses from being set up with fairways hard as concrete. They can't keep players from using lightweight graphite shafts and hot clubheads. They can't make players hit down on the ball or stop going to the gym or improving their swings.

 

But they THINK they can convince the other 99.99% of the golf world to massively roll back the golf ball. They don't want to undo the performance of the ProV1, they want to use the ball spec to undo the performance of every single aspect of the modern game. The ball is just the scapegoat, they aren't really much bothered by all the various ways the game has changed, they just want it to LOOK JUST LIKE IT USED TO LOOK!!!!!

How many times do we have reiterate, regardless of the million variables and causes you can create from conjecture, the most simple component to roll back, is the ball.

 

Because it has been stated, with example, that course set-up is the easiest change in the game. It costs nothing, takes no additional testing, no R&D, no modification of any rules, literally take absolutely nothing other than moving a lever or pushing a button on a mower. How can you possibly come to the conclusion that rewriting specs, re-engineering a ball, rolling out this re-engineered ball, and monitoring compliance could possibly be the "most simple component" to change?

You seem to have all the answers, so what would be the nationwide cost differential to leave courses long and water them twice as much as they do currently? Out West where I live, it's a constant drought and we play on rock hard dry fairways (unsustainable conditions according to this forum) all season. How about the muni's that can't afford special agronomy practice to adhere to 400 yard drives? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious what the actual expenditure would be since you seem to know, or if this all conjecture, again.

[clevited]

Its not the ball, and stop focusing on a number when the course itself is by and large creating those numbers for the long hitters. It is not proof of the problem you think there is.

 

The rollbackers are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.

 

They can't keep Justin Thomas from swinging at 120mph. They can't keep courses from being set up with fairways hard as concrete. They can't keep players from using lightweight graphite shafts and hot clubheads. They can't make players hit down on the ball or stop going to the gym or improving their swings.

 

But they THINK they can convince the other 99.99% of the golf world to massively roll back the golf ball. They don't want to undo the performance of the ProV1, they want to use the ball spec to undo the performance of every single aspect of the modern game. The ball is just the scapegoat, they aren't really much bothered by all the various ways the game has changed, they just want it to LOOK JUST LIKE IT USED TO LOOK!!!!!

How many times do we have reiterate, regardless of the million variables and causes you can create from conjecture, the most simple component to roll back, is the ball.

 

Because it has been stated, with example, that course set-up is the easiest change in the game. It costs nothing, takes no additional testing, no R&D, no modification of any rules, literally take absolutely nothing other than moving a lever or pushing a button on a mower. How can you possibly come to the conclusion that rewriting specs, re-engineering a ball, rolling out this re-engineered ball, and monitoring compliance could possibly be the "most simple component" to change?

You seem to have all the answers, so what would be the nationwide cost differential to leave courses long and water them twice as much as they do currently? Out West where I live, it's a constant drought and we play on rock hard dry fairways (unsustainable conditions according to this forum) all season. How about the muni's that can't afford special agronomy practice to adhere to 400 yard drives? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious what the actual expenditure would be since you seem to know, or if this all conjecture, again.

 

I'd like to answer this too. Conditions are conditions. Water the course to keep things alive on your muni course. Rains come and go, summer gets hot and for some days weeks, many courses get rock hard. Enjoy that when you get it. That is when record drives will no doubt happen for you and me. When it comes to setting up a pro course for a tournament, they have the money to do whatever they want. So if they don't want to see such long drives, they can slow down fairways with water, and allowing it to naturally grow a little longer. Rough too if they want. Our muni courses should be focused on keeping the course healthy, let the weather do what it is going to do, but water enough to not kill the grass.

[North Butte]

I personally have no interest in seeing or playing wet golf courses. That is a choice that some course owners seem to make but firm and fast is the essential version of the game. Playing soft or wet conditions is a compromise at best, a tedious and boring slog at worst. To play or to watch on TV.

[Shilgy]

Its not the ball, and stop focusing on a number when the course itself is by and large creating those numbers for the long hitters. It is not proof of the problem you think there is.

 

The rollbackers are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.

 

They can't keep Justin Thomas from swinging at 120mph. They can't keep courses from being set up with fairways hard as concrete. They can't keep players from using lightweight graphite shafts and hot clubheads. They can't make players hit down on the ball or stop going to the gym or improving their swings.

 

But they THINK they can convince the other 99.99% of the golf world to massively roll back the golf ball. They don't want to undo the performance of the ProV1, they want to use the ball spec to undo the performance of every single aspect of the modern game. The ball is just the scapegoat, they aren't really much bothered by all the various ways the game has changed, they just want it to LOOK JUST LIKE IT USED TO LOOK!!!!!

How many times do we have reiterate, regardless of the million variables and causes you can create from conjecture, the most simple component to roll back, is the ball.

 

Because it has been stated, with example, that course set-up is the easiest change in the game. It costs nothing, takes no additional testing, no R&D, no modification of any rules, literally take absolutely nothing other than moving a lever or pushing a button on a mower. How can you possibly come to the conclusion that rewriting specs, re-engineering a ball, rolling out this re-engineered ball, and monitoring compliance could possibly be the "most simple component" to change?

You seem to have all the answers, so what would be the nationwide cost differential to leave courses long and water them twice as much as they do currently? Out West where I live, it's a constant drought and we play on rock hard dry fairways (unsustainable conditions according to this forum) all season. How about the muni's that can't afford special agronomy practice to adhere to 400 yard drives? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious what the actual expenditure would be since you seem to know, or if this all conjecture, again.

Lol. C'mon DFS. Who cares how Joe Blow's muni mows the grass? Is that really the point? It is the so called elite events that matter in this debate. No one at your muni or private club is complaining the ball goes too far.

 

PS Why would longer grass require more watering? It is the grass cut too short that needs extra moisture.

[bigred90gt]

Its not the ball, and stop focusing on a number when the course itself is by and large creating those numbers for the long hitters. It is not proof of the problem you think there is.

 

The rollbackers are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.

 

They can't keep Justin Thomas from swinging at 120mph. They can't keep courses from being set up with fairways hard as concrete. They can't keep players from using lightweight graphite shafts and hot clubheads. They can't make players hit down on the ball or stop going to the gym or improving their swings.

 

But they THINK they can convince the other 99.99% of the golf world to massively roll back the golf ball. They don't want to undo the performance of the ProV1, they want to use the ball spec to undo the performance of every single aspect of the modern game. The ball is just the scapegoat, they aren't really much bothered by all the various ways the game has changed, they just want it to LOOK JUST LIKE IT USED TO LOOK!!!!!

How many times do we have reiterate, regardless of the million variables and causes you can create from conjecture, the most simple component to roll back, is the ball.

 

Because it has been stated, with example, that course set-up is the easiest change in the game. It costs nothing, takes no additional testing, no R&D, no modification of any rules, literally take absolutely nothing other than moving a lever or pushing a button on a mower. How can you possibly come to the conclusion that rewriting specs, re-engineering a ball, rolling out this re-engineered ball, and monitoring compliance could possibly be the "most simple component" to change?

You seem to have all the answers, so what would be the nationwide cost differential to leave courses long and water them twice as much as they do currently? Out West where I live, it's a constant drought and we play on rock hard dry fairways (unsustainable conditions according to this forum) all season. How about the muni's that can't afford special agronomy practice to adhere to 400 yard drives? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious what the actual expenditure would be since you seem to know, or if this all conjecture, again.

 

Again, the complaint is in regards to the professional and elite game. The support for a rollback is because some perceive that the professional and elite amateur golfers are hitting the ball too far to play what they deem classic courses that they feel are somehow becoming obsolete. NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with recreational golfers playing on 95% (could be 85%, could be 99%, I'm just throwing out a number as I dont know how many courses there are in the US and I'm not going to look it up) of the golf courses in this country, and nothing needs to change, especially at that level. So, for your drought riddled course, for the struggling muni, for those concerned about water conservation, or for the cheap owners that just dont want to spend the money and would rather live beyond their means on what little profits their courses earn (I know some of them, and the golf course was sold to the city and is now a park since they lost almost all of the play due to the conditions), there is nothing that needs to be changed. If the complaint centers around elite game, those tournaments are played on courses that can put down the additional water, and are set-up by organizations that would foot the bill to have the course play how they wanted it to.

 

However, I never said to drench the course to make it soggy, and if that is what has been taken from what I have said, it has been misconstrued. Mowing the grass to a longer height does not require sopping the course.

[DFS PFD]

I guess this debate is only about the scope you all see fit at that moment, I've been advocating a roll back for pro's am alike. So when you say course conditions are only applicable to tour courses yet many local and state am's are held on muni's, which would be included in the high level of amateur play rollback that has been proposed on this forum as well, that has been thrown out for your stance of the moment. And for that reason, I'm done trying to debate people who have a very good grasp of their argument (bravo you've made some fine points), but consistently misrepresent their opponents argument. Have fun.

[radiman]

Its not the ball, and stop focusing on a number when the course itself is by and large creating those numbers for the long hitters. It is not proof of the problem you think there is.

 

The rollbackers are not concerned with causes, only outcomes.

 

They can't keep Justin Thomas from swinging at 120mph. They can't keep courses from being set up with fairways hard as concrete. They can't keep players from using lightweight graphite shafts and hot clubheads. They can't make players hit down on the ball or stop going to the gym or improving their swings.

 

But they THINK they can convince the other 99.99% of the golf world to massively roll back the golf ball. They don't want to undo the performance of the ProV1, they want to use the ball spec to undo the performance of every single aspect of the modern game. The ball is just the scapegoat, they aren't really much bothered by all the various ways the game has changed, they just want it to LOOK JUST LIKE IT USED TO LOOK!!!!!

How many times do we have reiterate, regardless of the million variables and causes you can create from conjecture, the most simple component to roll back, is the ball.

 

It is the simplest way to solve a problem that a lot of people don't even view as a problem. No rollback is necessary. The distance gains at this point are coming from better athletes and optimized ball flights. It has been the case for the last 10 years (probably more). These distance gains have a cap. There is only so much that can be squeezed out of current equipment.

 

That is the core issue. It's not some sort of fixation on the golf ball remaining the same. If they were talking about rolling back .COR, there would be just as much opposition. No one cares that it's the ball. It's the principle of rolling back equipment of any kind.

[heavy_hitter]

I don't think the USGA knows how to set up a championship course. Fans generally don't want to see the garbage of US Open week. As far as play it is one of the most boring tournaments all year to watch. Year after year guys hit good shots and aren't rewarded on greens because they are too fast.

 

USGA is now complaining about the ball. How about the super fast fairways? JT hits a 422 yard drive yesterday. 100 yards of roll out. Yeah, I played that course yesterday. It is stupid. How about not have fairways at an 11 stimp?

 

Funny. I was reading the US Open thread yesterday, and a lot of posters were enjoying the carnage.

 

I guess that if you prefer regular tour stop type courses, you just shouldn't play in the national championship.

 

Now look, I get it that the greens are too fast. But the USGA likes to set up their championship course like that in order to preserve "par". If the ball didn't go as far, they could set the greens up slower.

 

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

 

A USGA set up course is a three ring circus. It isn't about the best golfer, it is about attrition and who gets the best breaks. I don't want to see a tricked out course. The USGA makes it about the USGA. I don't care about the USGA. I care about watching the players perform and the USGA needs to make it about the players.

 

A 527 yard par 5? Really? Just stupid. Shorten the hole and slow down the fairway and make it a par 5. USGA is concerned about the ball and distance then does stupid stuff like this. Three ring circus.

[braincramp52]

I guess this debate is only about the scope you all see fit at that moment, I've been advocating a roll back for pro's am alike. So when you say course conditions are only applicable to tour courses yet many local and state am's are held on muni's, which would be included in the high level of amateur play rollback that has been proposed on this forum as well, that has been thrown out for your stance of the moment. And for that reason, I'm done trying to debate people who have a very good grasp of their argument (bravo you've made some fine points), but consistently misrepresent their opponents argument. Have fun.

 

Well, you go ahead and play with a rolled back ball if you want. I'm not and I don't know anybody else that would either. I don't give a damn what the USGA does, I'm going to keep on playing the game to have as much fun as possible.

[Sean2]

By the way, I just saw Justin Thomas drive the ball into a greenside bunker on a 360 yard par 4. That carry must have been 345. That is a hot ball.

 

Edit: he went on to get it up and down for birdie.

 

From the back of the tee, it is 347 to the front of the green. You can't just look at scorecard distances.

 

I was watching that Feature Group broadcast online. If you listened and observed, the tees were moved wayyy up. DJ, Tiger, and JT took a few minutes to determine their distances and strategy from that far up. JT finished in the bunker short of the green (approximately 305 yards per Google Maps).

 

Matt, don't try to confuse the narrative with facts.

 

ps: I just saw JT hit driver...it carried 283 yards.