USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[jvincent]

Good point. For a long time the pervasive strategy was to lay up to a "good" number, etc.

Once bomb and gouge was validated as being statistically better for PGA tour setups a focus on maximizing distance over control is a likely side-effect.

[clevited]

I kind of thought that was common knowledge since at least 2009 when I started paying attention to my launch monitor numbers and stats and such.

[ThinkingPlus]

That's it! We have a solution. Burn all the books! ;-)

[jvincent]

The golf world moves very slowly. A lot of people refused to believe that it wasn't "all about short game" even after Every Shot Counts was released. I'm sure you can still find some.

[bladehunter]

So. The answer is to kidnap Broadie and force him to print a retraction ! Lol.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

This strategy is only good up to a point. How many amateurs really see a putt difference between a 150 versus 120 yard approach? Not many.

Generally speaking, a 3 footer versus a tap in is pretty insignificant.

[jmck]

The thing is that has already been happening, for decades. Here, just take this right here:

"Perceived problems in the game played by the world's best players have very little to do with the game the rest of us play. It would be foolhardy to make any decisions that affect ALL golfers, based on perceived problems with the elite players."and substitute "skill" or "driving distance" for "problems" then reread it.

Courses have been getting longer and longer for 30+ years because of the driving distance of the skilled golfers people see on their TVs. It IS foolhardy, and it DOES affect us all. Briefly, it leads to slower rounds and higher costs, and makes it harder for older/shorter courses to survive.

I cannot tell you the number of short knockers I come across who look down on any course which tips out at less than 7000. Why? In reality, 6500 is too long for 99% of these dudes. It's because they saw on TV that Merion or Pebble at 7000 yards is a quote-unquote short course these days, and they'll be damned if they're going to pay good money to join a club with a "short" course.

Anyway, point is, there's already been a large amount of trickle down into the 99% of the golfers based on how the 1% at the top play the game vis-à-vis the lengthening of courses. Reining in the ball for the 1% at the top will have a relatively small effect on the other 99% compared to what has already taken place, same as the groove rule aimed at the 1% made zero difference in Joe Blow's wedge game.

[davep043]

Without having real numbers in front of me, I bet most amateurs will see a 0.1 or 0.2 stroke difference between 150 and 120 yards. Over the course of 14 holes (assuming 4 par-3 holes), that could be 2 or 3 strokes in a round. But it doesn't really matter to this discussion if the strategy is effective, only that players accepting the strategy will tend to hit more drivers off of more tees, inflating the driving distance statistics.

[Sean2]

@jmck Many golfers have a large slice (pun intended) of their egos invested in this game.

[bladehunter]

That’s also a great point toward showing that every shot counts is a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. As in if more people hit more drivers , then of course the data will now show that closer is best. Why ? More people Are closer. But scores really aren’t deeper. It’s just caused more inconsistencies in players games thus more parity.

What I mean is both can be true. Shortgame did matter more when everyone played to a good number off the tee , and now distance does matter more because everyone swings as hard as they can and hopes to find it. The question is simply which is best to watch ? I prefer the point A to B way. The guy who is in control.

[jmck]

lol, you got me there buddy. Well played.

[clevited]

Isn't this just an image issue? It isn't a reason to change the game, because golf has an image issue of courses needing to be longer to be relevant. I am pretty confident there are better ways to address this than any equipment change.

 

I feel like you don't understand the magnitude of the change required to do what the USGA wants to achieve. There is no point in making a change that doesn't solve their "problem". That is wasted time and money wouldn't you agree? Either they bifurcate (won't happen and shouldn't), or they make some drastic changes to equipment. I prefer the 3rd option, do nothing to any equipment and look at much less invasive (to the golfer population at large) options. A lot of money and time is spent for set up of each tour stop, especially the majors. They have the ability to drastically change how much they reward distance with set up alone if they hate it so much and think it diminishes skill needed to win. They have the ability to inform new course designers on methods to make a challenging course without requiring ridiculous length. They have the ability to do PR campaign and inform the importance of playing the right tees if they believe in that so much, they have the ability to drum up more love for the sport through their programs and bring more people to it. They have the ability to research and share information regarding things that can help make struggling golf courses more successful. I mean, that is just some stuff off the top of my head. I just think there is so much they can do to mitigate a problem that really isn't a problem unless you choose to see golf in a certain light. Most of the people I talk to today love watching the long ball and the scrambling and last I saw, proof of this is the fact that the tour isn't struggling for viewers or money imo.

 

Just a sort of random thought. So much talk is made about how long the game takes to play. More often than not, I find it takes a long time to play because of the length of time it can take for people to find a ball, even in the first cut sometimes. People look for their ball forever and often on several holes if they aren't a great golfer. Can the USGA focus some attention on addressing that perhaps by helping develop a ball that can be tracked with your smart phone? Something like a radio frequency tag that only turns on at impact? I don't know much about this stuff but I feel like we have to have the tech that can be made small enough and take the G forces imparted on it.

 

Edit: Cost would obviously be higher but the idea is, you would lose many less balls and speed up play.

[REJ]

Yesterday I went to the range with my 1976-1977 W/S bulletback 1-PW iron set. They felt and sounded fantastic. My ability to shape shots with these things was amazing, but they just don't hit that far. Longer courses drive up the prices in excess of inflation and further make the argument for a cart bias that much stronger. I dont know how you hold back technology though. I like the standardized ball idea.

[jmck]

^^^^ Those already exist. They have infomercials for them.

[clevited]

I take it you are referring to me. Let me restate. A good performing and conforming version of a trackable ball. Promote it and try and get all major manufacturers to adopt it and improve it.

[davep043]

I think distance has always mattered, the ability to hit the ball closer to the hole from the tee has always given a player an advantage, but shorter players often had advantages in other parts of the game. The current distances at the top levels has tilted the balance some, making it more difficult for shorter players to overcome the advantage that distance gives the longer players. But driving the ball long and in play is a skill, so the game at that level is evolving to favor that particular skill. I too enjoyed the older style of play, where things seemed a bit less tilted towards the longer hitters.
Again, is that change in valuation of the various different skills really a problem for golf? Is the increasing emphasis on distance off the tee at the highest levels of golf a real problem? I don't care that different skills are being rewarded at the elite levels differently from the past, thats just evolution, we mortals still play basically the same game we always have. To me the problem for golf, as a whole, lies primarily in the aspects that @jmck outlined, the "trickle-down" that seems to be increasing the costs and time required to play for the vast majority of us who don't play at an elite level. I don't know that regulating distance at the top levels will change that, I don't know that its even possible, but I'm certain that a mandated distance reduction for golf as a whole would be a bad idea.

[Titleist99]

Just a couple of points for the USGA and the R&A to consider:

Point #1...Harold Varner III hit a drive that carried 277 yards and rolled another 30 yards. Coincidental that Harold's driving average is 307 yards.

Point #2...In a recent interview the #1 player in the world (Brooks Keopka) says that hitting fairways is overrated.

Hey ruling body! If you don't start here before any rollback then you are negligent in your job to protect the game. Course conditions matter...Just my opinion....

[bladehunter]

Yea. Mostly agree.

 

But i do see a fair fair amount of this trickle down at home too. I see a fair amount of players say over 65 that still try to play the middle set of tees. As well as countless regular “ joe hacks “ who will play from the back set. I attribute both to the modern ball and driver. If they didn’t hit it farther now than when they were 30 with driver. None would resist moving to the front men’s tee ( we have 2 other sets in front of that ). They hit driver far enough. But then are left with a hybrid or mid iron second. They don’t hit anything off the ground near as far in comparison to driver. This is a pace issue. Heck our pro is 56. He hits driver on my heels. But I’m 3 clubs longer than he with an iron or wedge. He clubs off me a lot at 3 clubs difference. That should show how much the modern driver and ball works if you optimize launch ( he does)

 

Then you flip flip the coin and have the real sharks who want to play up and try to drive every green. Rolling it back would take care of both of those pace issues.

[davep043]

As I read the report, they do realize that conditions matter. But they're not going to write a regulation that tells a course how tight the fairways are allowed to be mowed, or how long the rough must be. Just the same way that they won't try to regulate the workout regimen of the players. Really the only thing that CAN be actually regulated is equipment, and that's difficult in its own right

[15th Club]

Whoa. Wait just a minute. There are several things you are alleging here that don’t make sense.

What competition(s) are you playing in? What irons are at issue? What “list”? What problems are you talking about in the rollout of the groove rule?

[15th Club]

Well to be sure, the PGA Tour and it’s member-players and it’s executives are money-craven in ways that most of us can’t appreciate.

But as long as there has been a PGA Tour, it has always regarded it as being in their own self interest to let the USGA do the thankless heavy-lifting of maintaining the Rules.

The Tour’s professionals, themselves locked into lucrative contracts with equipment manufacturers, might be tempted to protest. But be assured that the Tour wants no part of any “Rules” fight and particularly any litigation. On any side. Gotta protect that billion-dollar tax-exempt pension fund.

[15th Club]

“how come Jack or Tiger never complained when they were out-driving everyone else. How come it always comes up when golfers are more in their ‘best before’ years ?Because, during the period of 1945 to 1995, there were very few major revolutions in golf equipment technology. There were a great many tour players including Nicklaus who, in the 1970’s, carried clubs (some of which were) from the 1950’s.

Jack, never beholden to a Titleist contract, complained as soon as multilayer urethane balls hit the Tour.

 

[QuigleyDU]

With as long as it took for this report to come out. I am suspecting it will take them twice as long to implement any change. By then I will be too old to care how far the ball goes.

[QuigleyDU]

15.. You say a lot of very very intelligent things. I enjoy reading many of them. But your constant attack on the Titleist ball is tired and old. I know you can do better than that.

[Titleist99]

Here's why nothing will be done about distance and nothing should be done about the long ball.

Point #1......ThePGATOUR is fine with the state of golf. Lots of (long) young talent and plenty to market.

Point #2......The guy with the longest driving distance don't always win.  Got to keep selling new drivers though....LOL!

Point #3...... What other semi-major sport besides bowling does the general public pay to participate? Not football, not baseball..

Point #4......Golf has its own merchandising show.....PGATOUR has to figure out a way to sell jerseys. I'm sure that they're working on it.

Point #5......Why change anything because 50% of 500 Touring Pros can hit 45% of their drives 300+ yards.

Point #6......The tour will never play a major or any other tournament at a venue that won't support the infrastructure.

Point #7......TV golf is a business supported by manufactures and sponsors. Telling them to turn back the clock seems counter productive to me.

 

I can't see how changing things will save on water or bring back shot making or grow the game. Young people just want to bomb it but there should be consequences....just flatten the fairways, put a little water on them, firm up the greens, add a few trees...Raise up the lawn mowers.

That shouldn't cost much....LOL! Just my opinion.

[15th Club]

I rather like Titleist balls.

I have a bag full of Vokey wedges and Titleist irons.

And I loathe Titleist’s barely-concealed threats to sue the ruling bodies in the event of a ball rollback.

That’s war, as far as I am concerned. We’ll see.

 

[QuigleyDU]

Well, with the potential that this future ruling could have, if Titleist did not try to protect their brand. I would be surprised. I know you are a lawyer or work in the law field so surely you can appreciate their stance. Even if you disagree with it.

Some of your constant points about Titleist players not wanting a role back is pretty baseless. For example. While not a titleist staffer Paul Casey plays a Titleist ball. He stated he felt something should be done. He did not specify a ball change (at least not that I am aware of) but seemed to concur with the USGA report.

 

So not all Titleist ball guys are complete sell outs.

[smashdn]

Regarding your point #2, he is correct. The farther you hit it the less being in the fairway matters. If he only hit it 260 off the tee being in the fairway would be a lot more important.

 

 

If you are long and accurate you dominate, if you are long and of average accuracy you win your fair share, if you are short and accurate you have a fighting chance, if you are short and wild you are playing beer league golf with the rest of us.

[Sean2]

I would not be surprised if Titleist was working on a roll-backed ball right this minute.

[QuigleyDU]

I would expect them to be as well. They need to be ready for whatever.