USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[ThinkingPlus]

It's because many (not all) of the roll back crowd are interested in course architecture and design. They want to keep the great designs relevant for elite play and they want golf courses to be setup fast and firm. Setting up those older, shorter courses fast and firm turns them into pitch and putts even more. Also narrowing fairways and lengthening the rough goes against the design intent of the architect and leads to one-dimensional boring golf. I don't particularly care for narrow and deep as a means to challenge an elite group of players, but if you want fast/firm conditions of play then there has to be a penalty somewhere. I favor pot bunkers, shrubbery, strategic trees and water, and grass bunkers around the greens. I also like wispy rough that causes flyers (maybe) rather than hay.

[oikos1]

My goodness the denial is strong. This is what is happening right now!"...superintendent Steve Rabideau, who is as brilliant a grassman as anyone in the grill room can remember. Rabideau is also a bit ornery. The tuning of the golf course for this specific week has been his priority numero uno since he took the job. The rough on the West, a blend of rye and bluegrass and poa annua, just popped. Like magic, it’s twice as thick as the rough on the neighboring East Course. How will it survive the hot summer? Sitting in a cart, Rabideau exhales smoke from his cigar with a faraway look. Come fall, the grass blades will inevitably thin to produce both good lies and bad lies in the rough. Right now, they’re all bad, which is good, even at two inches height."https://www.golfdigest.com/story/it-is-still-us-open-week-at-winged-foot

[oikos1]

Oh, my mistake. I literally just read reduce the amount of land, pace of play, and safety concerns as reasons to roll the ball back.

[ThinkingPlus]

Yes. That made my head hurt as well.

[gvogel]

This roll-backer is a big fan of grass bunkers. Also, un-raked bunkers. They are supposed to be a hazard of some sort, not a get out of jail card for the highly skilled.

By the way, I say this as a pretty darn good bunker player.

[ThinkingPlus]

I already think luck plays enough of a role to not add playing from a footprint in the bunker to its repertoire. However, to make bunkers more challenging they can simply change to a different kind of sand. Tour sand is easy. Sand type can be a design choice. I wouldn't go with pluggable sand, but something where the ball sits down a bit. Injecting uncertainty as to how the ball comes out of the bunker is all that is needed. Adding uncertainty to shots is the subtle way to challenge a player.

[klebs01]

Those are reasons included in the USGA report.

[klebs01]

Not sure what you think I’m denying. Yeah. Rough is ok. Doesn’t change anything with regards to distance or strategy. Narrowing fairways properly is a TON of work. It’s not just letting the grass grow. Then you are also making life miserable for higher handicaps with out changing much for better players. You are also devaluing iron play.

[oikos1]

I have yet to see it explained sufficiently that growing rough or narrowing a fairway would dramatically impact higher handicaps. First of all, not all golf courses even need to be changed. Second, many that may have an issue only need a few holes tweaked, not the entire course.

Let's take a 375 yard par 4 for example. There's a couple of fairway bunkers left side of the fairway that cover roughly 250 to 290 yds. Currently, if you can carry that bunker the fairway beyond opens up and the player has 75 yards or less in. If you can't carry the bunker, perhaps driver is fine because it goes about 240-250, or your accurate enough to play to the right of the bunker or you lay back and have maybe a 125 to 150 yard shot. The 200 to 220 high handicap male drive is going to have 150-175 yards in.

Now, say you add some rough, another bunker, or waste area (which could be more environmentally friendly and reduce maintenance costs), 30 yards continuous beyond the last fairway bunker. Now it's a 320 carry to stay out of trouble. Decisions now in play for the bomber. In no way does that impact the higher handicap player. And if you can't reach a 375 yard par 4 in two, you're probably playing the wrong tees. However, the higher handicap can still bump, bunt and run their ball in the fairway to the right of the bunkers and new rough/bunker/waste area and still get on in three.

I also support ThinkingPlus's thoughts on other creative ways to add challenges and introduce "uncertainty" for better players. And let's be honest, any "historic" or great design course worth preserving or keeping relevant or any course in play on the PGA Tour for that matter, money is not an issue. Golf courses change all the time once a year so the PGA Tour will have a tournament at their venue.

[cardia10]

I have never understood the issue with some courses just playing easier than others for the pros. Overall score is irrelevant if they are all playing the same course. Everyone tees off at even and after 4 days, you have all played the same course 4 times. What fun is it if all courses are equal. Why is -20 bad and even par winning is good. This again is the USGA trying to stay relevant which after the groove debacle proving the exact opposite of USGA science and theory, they have done zero to bring more players to the game but have had quite the opposite effect.

[klebs01]

I’m not sure how your changes modify my strategy much other than pushing my aiming point a touch right so I have a full lob wedge in vs a flip lob wedge. It will require spending a ton of capital for the changes and increase maintenance in the future. Waste areas in most of the country are actually high maintenance areas. Certainly are around me unless it just goes to nature but then it’s just a lost ball so it will slow play. How long are you looking to grow the rough to impact high swing speed players? Will slower players be able to hit out? How many people will lose their balls? How will that impact pace of play. Thinking through your example I see a lot of money tossed at a solution that accomplishes nothing.

[storm319]

Rolling back the golf ball that 7-10% that you suggested does not solve any of those problems either (especially if this ends in bifurcation only impacting a small number of elite players).

[klebs01]

7% is pre prov1

10% is back to the mid 80s

[storm319]

According to the USGA, the majority of lengthening of golf courses occurred between 1930 - 1990 (the vast majority of golf courses have barely increased in the past 30 years and are perfectly fine as is for amateur play). The critical question that no one can seem to answer with any factual support is what is "desirable" as it pertains to the land footprint of a course. If the current situation is really that dire in terms of land and maintenance costs, then solving that problem would require a much more drastic rollback in order to properly scale courses back to a 19th century footprint which would likely have a devastating impact on future participation.

Also keep in mind that the majority of the land concern for courses that host PGA level events (a relatively small percentage of the total golf courses) is based more on the land needed for infrastructure, spectators, and hospitality than the actual playing course.

[oikos1]

 

Lol. Perhaps you're not playing the proper tees or a course too easy for you. One of the courses I play is 6800 from the tips and there are only two par fours that come in under 375 yards. Me thinks you might not always be having a "flip wedge" in. However, if you can aim "a touch right" avoid the fairway bunkers and new waste area, avoid the right rough and keep it in a narrowing fairway at 300 yards, then you deserve the lob wedge in on this particular hole at 375 yards..

Of course, if you really wanted to challenge yourself, speed up play, save golf courses from over developing and consider the safety of home owners, you could play a reduced distance golf ball so you're hitting mid and long irons for your approaches. But it doesn't sound like that would be any fun for you. You seem to want everyone else to have to do that, even though too much distance is only a very small problem for the majority of golfers, golf courses and the game of golf.

By the way, if we do the math on 10%, assuming all things equal which they would never be but just for the sake of the discussion, 10% of a 300 yard drive is now a 270 drive. 10% of a 240 yard drive is now 216 yards. 10% of a 220 yard drive is now 198 yards. And if it isn't an "equal" percentage drop in distance for a rolled back ball, then you are now taking away a long drivers advantage, which the claim has always been no one wants to do that.

Good luck selling that to the majority of golfers.

[smashdn]

"...play classic courses for a fraction of the purse vs the common stadium format for the currently historic purses." 

Why is it either or? Are the stadium courses the reason for the historic purses?

[smashdn]

270 x 1.2 =324

 

1980 - Dan Pohl - 274.3 yards

2020 - Bryson - 323.8

[smashdn]

"30 years might have seen a few percent at most?"

1990 - Tom Purtzer - 279.6 yards

2020 - Bryson - 323.8

 

323.8 - 279.6.3 = 44.2

44.2 / 279.6 = 16.11%

 

By 1990 most of the PGA tour had graduated to metal woods. The Rules of Golf have been limiting equipment but the RoG have not been the limiting factor.

[ThinkingPlus]

It has been well documented that equipment is only a part of the distance increase. Agronomy and fitness added a chunk.

[smashdn]

No doubt. Wherever and why ever it came it has had the same effect of causing (we can argue the justifiablility) courses to lengthen, chief among other unpleasant results. The USGA report says as much. They are down on distance gains from any source because it has that same effect, but they recognize they can only control equipment via the rules and set-ups at their hosted tournaments.

[ThinkingPlus]

I understand their issue and desires. I am afraid their solution will not achieve what they want and the worldwide golfing community will suffer needlessly. Their recent track record with solutions to perceived problems isn't very good.

[milesgiles]

Limit the tee to half an inch. No other changes required. Takes the 300 plus bomb out of the game, which is what is spoiling the historic courses.

tell me I’m wrong

[smashdn]

I agree on both points. They don't have a good solution. The consequences of inaction seem not good either.
@milesgiles , sorry but I think you are wrong. They can carry 300 with a three wood off the deck if they want. I can hit a persimmon 300 with a short tee when you factor in roll. If I can do it they can do it, so much easier. It's as much tuned in swing and build as it is the other factors.
That is what makes the solution so hard to go get. Which of the ten variables are you going to work on? USGA can only chip at a few. Some we can't regulate. Some (ie, agronomy) we don't want to regulate.
To ThinkingPlus' point earlier about the 20% reduction, that is what it would take from solely an equipment roll back to get the job done. Nobody is signing up for that.
The PGA Tour will reach some kind of break point. Maybe the US Open does first though. They just can't find a place to make long enough or hard enough to challenge the pros. At that point maybe pro golf implodes and goes the way of NASCAR. People stop caring and they only care about how they play golf and what they get out of it. We aren't really all that far off from the last bit. I'd venture more "golfers" don't play by the rules than those that do. The old saw that "50% of US golfers don't carry a handicap" gets thrown around a bunch here. Is that not sort of indicative that the vast majority of people playing golf are not playing Golf? Getting a handicap now is so much easier than it was 5-10 years ago. I don't belong to a proper club but through online entry of scores I have a compliant handicap.

[milesgiles]

I’ve watched Rory on toptracer dozens of times. He is consistently 280 carry with a 3 wood year in, year out.. and he’s one of the longest.

the runout is irrelevant. The obstacles are still in play but you have to be straight, rather than crashing it over the top

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Ha, right, I have to wonder what is their motivation?

[Titleist99]

LOL!.......You just described a links course. Classic courses was designed when players was using hickory clubs, feathery golf balls, players dressed in suit and ties. So, please stop with the architects intent. Not to mention that most classic courses started off at nine holes and later expanded to eighteen....

[Titleist99]

It amazes me that some think that the only way to challenge tour players is through length and firmness....

[ThinkingPlus]

You have misinterpreted the intent of my post. It happens frequently with the new site not showing all the past comments. When discussing the classic courses I was representing the opinion of many in the rollback crowd, but not my own opinion. I do favor other means of challenging good players rather than growing the rough and narrowing fairways, but that reflects a personal preference for links style golf courses which I find more fun and interesting to play.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

The good thing about the USGA is it can take 20 years and a ton of money to conclude that something is “unpleasant”, and then take absolutely ZERO action, whilst making sure to remind everyone that it makes the rules and is the steward of golf. Leadership like you read about.

[Titleist99]

Sorry I understand because my comments are often taken out of context for the same reason you mentioned.