USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[storm319]

That calculation is assuming that the two variables in question are the only variables, so the correlation percentage for each distinct "matchup" will be overstated. Even if you find a way to thoughtfully aggregate the matchup results, the end result will not be accurate.

[Roadking2003]

 

I don't think anybody is saying that only one item was responsible at any time. They are just identifying the primary driver of the distance gain.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

USGA already admits that there are far too many factors governing the distance increases, why would you attempt to state otherwise?

My primary assertion is that the reasons for limiting distances are still invalid. Doesn't really matter how distance increased over the years. The fact is, all those “super courses” designed or modified in recent times are not going to be player proof as we move forward no matter what USGA attempts to do. Furthermore, I’m asserting that there’s no reason to attempt to keep up with the evolving player’s skills. Scores will drop.

The issue I have is all the shorter hitters are going to be affected by a hapless attempt at bifurcation, which will for ego or other reasons not be implementable for the common golfer who thinks he currently drives 225-250 yards. In reality, the common golfer will only drive 180-200 with the newer shorter equipment.

Slower play will ensue, and bifurcation will all but be forgotten in favor of everyone being required to play the pro ball for the same reasons local tournaments currently make players use the “tournament tees” which in turn will force many players to play from these tees to insure better play during tournaments.

Money games will all require the pro equipment as well.

Handicapping will become even more obfuscated as many players attempt use the pro equipment to establish their handicaps then play with standard equipment when it “counts”

Bifurcation is not going to work.

[Sean2]

The problem I see with bifurcation is what does the aspiring amateur golfer use for a ball? The roll backed one? The "regular"one? What about local, regional, and state tournaments, what ball will be used? What about college golf? Not to mention who pays for the roll backed ball...many of the folks using it will no doubt get the balls for free (elite amateurs, professionals).

[DFS PFD]

Do I use my wood baseball bat for this tournament or aluminium? This bifurcation is already prevalent in NCAA and high level baseball with different BPF's and standards in different leagues. It is less than ideal and I hope they don't rule any form of bifurcation, but people could make it work.

[Roadking2003]

Absolutely it could work. If the Tours want to dumb down the ball, that's their choice. They are selling entertainment. So if they think people will be more entertained with a dumbed down ball, go for it. Just don't try to sell millions of duffers on a shorter ball. We will revolt.

[OrangeGravy]

None of those things are problems for every other sport that deals with bifurcation of equipment, some with multiple levels of different equipment. They are minor inconveniences at best and the only real argument against bifurcation is rooted in a preference to maintain the tradition of not doing it (I'd argue it already exists in lesser forms). Just as the opinion to rollback or not, is mainly rooted in one's preference to a particular type of golf. Everything else is puffery.

[duffer987]

Who cares about their situation, outside of their small bubble? That would just be part of their journey as an elite level competitor. There are all sorts of things that go into 'making it', so have one more and get on with it. Scholarships will still be handed out and folks will still try and qualify for the US Open.

Leave the 99.9% be and do whatever you want at the elite level. Roll the ball back, limit drivers to 280cc, reduce max tee length to 1", make them play in plus 4s and jackets...

[Sean2]

I don't. I was just saying.

At almost 65 years old, if anything I need the stuff rolled forward.

[Roadking2003]

I agree. My life will not change if they roll back the ball for the pros. It also will not change if pros begin hitting it farther every year and by 2030 hit it 350 off the tee.

[The Pearl]

The PGA Tour is already bifurcated from the greens fee paying backbone of the game.

Customized and perfected equipment, pristine greens, mint fairways, perfectly manicured and level tee boxes, flawless bunkers and due to the nature of the tour schedule, usually dreamy weather conditions.

Fitness vans, unlimited access to practice facilities with actual grass to hit off before the round, unlimited on call swing instruction, and eager fans hunting for their golf balls.

Caddies tending to their every need, no running out of water of water on hole 14 on a hot day, and no maintenance crews mowing the other half of the green while they have a biridie putt.

God forbid they have to swing while transient noise is present.

No worries about the shop throwing the 9 hole playing foursome out in front of them on the back 9 as they make the turn, no temp greens, or ground under repair in their landing areas.

And I can't believe they have not allowed playing partners to play music during competition....I mean if it doesn't bother anyone, why not?

And where are the leafs on the course during the fall schedule?

But my goodness the world of golf as we know it will be forever tarnished if this little traveling entertainment side show plays their own little rolled back golf ball.

 

[15th Club]

All this bifurcation talk!  Why?

The main players in this debate -- Titleist (and the manufacturers that follow in the wake of their media pressure, and watching the mood of places like GolfWRX) and the USGA -- are both firmly against bifurcation.  Almost nobody who has any powerful influence in the outcome of the debate actually wants bifurcation.  I see it as the least likely outcome.

Titleist's whole business model is to sell you what its highly-paid Brand Ambassadors play with. After they run ads worldwide with this week's ball count at three different tour events.

 

[Mudguard]

The PGA Tour is already bifurcated from the greens fee paying backbone of the game.

 

Are green fee players the backbone of golf? Perhaps in the US, but I'd argue not anywhere else. Now I realise that golf in the US is different to Europe and Australasia. The bulk of golf outside of the US I would argue is played by members of clubs. So green fee players are just a bonus. I argued on the committee at my old club that we shouldn't be bending over backwards to encourage green fee players, that we should be encouraging people to join instead. NB I think being a member of a golfer club in New Zealand is way cheaper than the US. Most small town clubs would be less than $1000NZ ($605US), big towns are $2000-$3000 ($1210-$1810) and no minimum spends, 90% walk etc. And being a member is the only way to have a handicap.

[Mudguard]

I'm aware that no one really wants bifurcation, but surely it's going to have to be considered? I've discussed ad nauseam that the world's elite shouldn't be determining the rules the bulk of golfers play under. Personally my big beef was anchoring, if there was perception that it was poised to become mainstream on the Tour, then why not wait and see? And if so, why do anything about it? I wasn't adopted almost instantly like the Pro V (46 players in it's first event!) or metal drivers. As far as I can tell, the long putter had been around for about a hundred years and still not caught on (personally I find a broomstick almost impossible to use), the belly on the other hand..

If distance for professionals is an issue, then fix it for professionals only. I don't really care how they do it.

 

NB for Titleist my local proshop sold in the following number of sleeves

3230 Pro V

4052 the rest.

[oikos1]

Lol. That sounds great except for the fact that the long anticipated distance insights report, as it's first item, was a possible rule that allowed for bifurcation at local sites. The exact opposite of what you keep suggesting.

Just a friendly reminder:1. We will assess the potential use of a Local Rule option that would specify use of clubs and/or balls intended to result in shorter hitting distances.

[15th Club]

This is actually a great comment. Deserves a good response. I hope I am up to it. I am going to do it in three parts, A-B-C. Because there are always three parts, right?

A. Let's first review what Mike Davis has said about "Bifurcation." And then think some more about what bifurcation would actually mean. So here's Mike Davis:

“For those who think we should bifurcate, I’m telling you, you haven’t thought through the ramifications. Once you open Pandora’s box, it will forever change the game. We are steadfast on this one. People who want to bifurcate don’t understand what they’re asking.” That's pretty definitive. But there's more. Here's Mike, talking about bifurcating equipment:

""We are steadfast in our belief that one set of rules is in the best interest of the game for everyone," said Mike Davis, CEO of the USGA in a conference call. "The concept of a local rule -- there have been local rules going back to the mid-1700s. The concept is allow golf courses or tournament committees to have more flexibility when it makes sense... As we see this, as an example, when you hear the idea of a local rule for the elite men's game ... we're viewing it much more broadly. An existing shorter course might want to adopt this local rule so it doesn't have to lengthen or so make maintenance costs go down and keep the game enjoyable."

So is Mike Davis saying something that is different from, and irreconcilable with, the Distance Insights monograph? No. You see, real "bifurcation," is two different sets of Rules and/or standards. But a local rule, here and there, is not a separate set of Rules. One set of Rules, with optional local rules for some courses, for some events.

B. Next, let's remember where we are in this controversy. We are at a stage where the USGA is in "pre-litigation." Getting its story in order. And what the Distance Insights monograph says, is that the USGA is very interested in trying out new ideas for reduced distance balls. Inviting ideas from all over, for different events to try out different standards under local rule conditions. This is all part of that. To try stuff out, before a new SINGLE, NON-BIFURCATED rollback ball standard is made part of the Rules. All via local rules at first.

C. If I were Titleist's counsel, it would be my worst nightmare for the USGA to do some rollback-ball tourneys at shorter classic courses. Am events, and NCAA events. Where prickly, highly-sponsored Tour players aren't involved, but some very long hitters are involved. Titleist can't much claim that it has millions of dollars at stake, at an amateur invitational. I think this is Mike Davis sticking his finger in Wally Uihlein's eye, in an unusually effective way. "Hey, it's just the USGA telling an event that they can do what they want. We aren't bifurcating any Rules. Not yet, anyway..."

 

[oikos1]

Appreciate the reply, but there's quite a bit of special pleading throughout your three parts.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Right, some of these folks fighting for rollback haven’t carefully read everything yet?

In ten years, I’ll be playing on a simulation anyway. I’ll just crank up the simulator numbers if I don’t hit far enough.

ProV1 are not the longest ball. All the dimple technology is to reduce the effects of more spin. The primary reason most people use them is for more spin and consistency, not distance.

Pros can and do already use smaller playing heads. We can too. They also typically play shorter shafts. They have a choice just like we do.

[15th Club]

What did I get wrong?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

You failed to specify the “odd extensions” currently being undertaken at Pebble, Riv, Kiawah, Whistling Straits, and failed to specify how the USGA is going to lengthen LACC. You said “every championship course”, but I suppose you were incorrect, yet again. Haha!!!

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Yeah, nearly 20 years of “research” only to punt the decision to others. That’s what I call leadership.

[bladehunter]

i thought the game cost too much and nobody wanted to buy new gear because of a rollback. Now you’re saying they will buy 2 bags full to cheat ? Wow.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Not sure I agree with hearing that many feel the game costs too much? I hadn’t heard that at all?

Sure, cheating has its rewards. A second set of conformant equipment, especially much lower performing equipment doesn’t really sound expensive.

Unforgiving 250cc steel headed and steel shafted drivers sounds like something you can grab from a local rubbish bin. Lol

What’s a hassle is having to make sure you are playing the correct balls and the retailers having to stock double of everything.

[Mudguard]

I still think if there was a short ball for professionals only, most pro shops wouldn't need to carry them.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

I’m not convinced of that? Unless, USGA makes them against the rules for us to use?

If one store sells them, all will, eventually.

[b.helts]

Someone mentioned this a ways back, but in the old days we had balatas and DT type balls.

I contend that the best available option is to make a ratio of spin to distance. So you can have distance with less spin or you can have spin with less distance. you can’t have The best of both anymore.

[15th Club]

Just correcting, once again, the notion that we are only concerned about “professionals.” Or “the Tour.”

The concern is with all of elite-level golf.

 

[Mudguard]

Why on earth would an amateur use one if they didn't have to?

[Mudguard]

What is elite level if not tour golf? I'd say elite amateur golf is probably even smaller than professional golf. I didn't think that anyone was concerned about distance for anything other than professionals?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

All? Or just all male?