USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[bladehunter]

I’ve considered and do not agree with that at all.

 

I cant understand why it would be expensive to go back. It’s plowed ground. Easy path to follow. It’s not a guess , nor an unknown. It’s a certain recipe. The idea that most of this is due to gym work is nuts. The champions tour proves that wrong. Every player there is longer than they used to be. None are Greek gods. None. Langer the alien being the only arguable exception.

 

Should it be done is arguable. Yes. Can it be done easily ( minus considerations for people griping ) isn’t. The game can be rolled back easy.

 

As fpr for the rest. I hear loads of double speak.

 

Why does the 189 yard drive guy care what club Phil uses ? I guess I get why he cares. But why does he try to compare and copy ? It’s nuts. Can’t be done. Not to any degree

Flip it around. And fast guys are actually accused and ridiculed here for that very thing ( copying ) and in reality it’s a fitment need ( most times ). There are exceptions both ways. No doubt.

Point is.

if it’s rolled back , hybrids outlawed ( never will happen ) small driver , 2 irons to pw with no gap wedge allowed. ( lol). Every 15 handicap you can find would throw away their hybrid , buy a 2 iron and throw away the gap wedge. Why ? Orange gravy already told us. I don’t think it’s debatable that they copy what pros play. Everybody does to an extent. And that’s the only reason they don’t want bifurcation. I’m for it because they will all then voluntarily roll themselves back. As sure as the sun rises it would happen. It’s human nature. And it’s probably the best way to make it happen. Voluntarily.

 

But the simplest question I can think of is. Why does anyone who doesn’t play by the rules worried about the rules ? They can absolutely play anything they want. Including the many nonconforming clubs and balls on the market now. Why not ? Maximize the “ fun” as I hear it called.

[smashdn]

You've never been around a course when it is being set up for a tournament have you?

Easier to just "grow some grass" than regulate a $4 golf ball. Uh huh.

[vtpachyderm]

As an average golfer i.e. drives it anywhere between 220 and 250, and hits a 7 iron from 150, I'm not sure why the pros who've dedicated their lives to make a living off this game should dictate golf rules? It still boils down to low score wins, and we average joes have handicaps to even the playing field. In fact, golf is the only sport where if people are honest about their handicaps, you can have a fun competitive round with someone who is technically way better than you. Try that playing basketball or tennis...

Maybe if they just made all tournaments 18 par 3 holes, with water, bunkers, rough, devilish pin placements with shots from 190-120 yards...I mean, in most tournaments the hardest hole is that wicked little par 3 isn't it?

If you hadn't guessed, I think there is nothing wrong with the equipment as it is now, in fact, progress in equipment means it's still enjoyable as you get older and older.

[jmck]

What, exactly, are the "problems" with bifurcation? Be specific.

Let's say bifurcation is nothing more than a local rule for PGA/USGA/R&A events. From reading the report (and seeing how the groove rule played out) that is--by far--the most likely end result here. There would be zero effect on serious-bad golfers, serious-good golfers, the beer league buddies, the ladies nine and dine, etc etc etc. It would only affect people playing for a living, and those playing in high level amateur events. That's .01% of the golfers at most--probably closer to .001%. So again, how does this cause all sorts of problems for the other 99.9%+ of the golfers out there?

[bladehunter]

Yes ^. I cannot understand the issue.

[airjammer]

If the hardest hole on the golf course is the par 3’s for the most part tells you somethings wrong with the rest of the course unless those particular par 3 greens are diabolical. I mean it’s one hole that you only have to hit one shot that can be teed up. In theory it should be harder to hit 2 shots to a green than 1. I have noticed a trend that course designers and the professional tours are making par 3’s just crazy long to finally put a long iron into someones hand because it’s still hardest clubs to hit by far..the driver not so much anymore. The last club I was at had 4 par 3’s all over 180 from the tips.

[clevited]

I find it funny how contradictory or problematic many of the ideas of doing something about distance, stay with me here.
Idea 1: Nerf the ball such that only the faster players get punished and the slower players don't (aka the average joe golfer). We know, this doesn't do what @bladehunter wants. It creates an even larger unfairness that the slower speed player has. Idea 2: Nerf the ball a flat % across all speeds. The problem with this is that the USGA clearly stated they don't want to do this and this would have to be a large % to reign in distance at the highest levels adequately, which is all the USGA cares about. Idea 3: Make the ball spin much more: How much spin is enough to effectively reduce distance? How do you prevent work around with equipment changes and swing technique changes (yes @airjammer, tour players can learn to hit up a bit more than they currently do being as many hit down still. It doesn't take a ton of AoA to make a difference). USGA also again, doesn't want to negatively effect the average joe.Idea 4: Make the ball spin more only for high speed players: Again, how much spin is enough, and also, this goes against @bladehunter ideal situation. Also again, how to prevent the work arounds? Also, more spin can be more controllable making more of the point and shoot that @15th Club/USGA doesn't seem to want. They want the ball to roll out. Ground game and what not.Idea 5: Make the driver smaller: This will hurt the average joe, not so much the tour player. They hit fairway woods and bladed clubs just fine. Again, doing what the USGA doesn't want to do, hurt the average joe.Idea 6: Bifurcate: What do you do for tournaments? How would this impact handicaps? How to prevent cheating? What about the inevitability that the bifurcated ball will eventually become the normal ball available on the shelves.Idea 7: Courses determine ball to use: I think this is the only possible "solution". If a course really doesn't like the way people play on their course, and they really think that the distance people hit is killing their bottom line as well as the time it takes players to get in 18, then by all means, let them invest tons of money on golf balls that they will resell as a requirement to their members. The tour can "maybe" get a tournament at an older, historic course they they put more value on than the entire populace that plays the sport, pending they can figure out the logistics of hosting on cramped grounds. AGC can "maybe" bring back the aesthetics of the game as they desire on their course, because obviously that is so incredibly important to everyone that plays the game...the aesthetic.

I for one have solutions that aren't so drastic.
USGA could promote building shorter better thought out courses to get rid of the stigma of needing 7000+ yards for a good quality course. Really this is just a teaching/PR thing.
The USGA could research and foster ideas that can get more people into the game and get hooked. I think Top Golf for instance as being a good way to do this. I also see promoting more opportunities for people to try the sport for free or cheap via community events than they already do. USGA certainly isn't present in my community with that kind of stuff that is for sure.
Look for different types of courses to add to the rota on the elite tours. I grew up with plenty of courses that had doglegs you HAD to curve the ball around to get decent distance or position to the hole. The trees were so high, and the hole so narrow you had no choice. I also have played a few courses with a big tree right in the middle of the fairway of a par 4. Now that was interesting and required playing angles and being able to shape the ball. I say take driver out of players hands more or make them choose a club they can control better if second shots aren't seen as challenging enough. You get those precious long second shots into the green that are so dearly coveted (I say that because obviously driving it far and accurate enough to remain in play is SOOOOOOO easy today, why even let players use the club?).
I really think at the elite level, set up of courses alone can change the perception that distance is king and it will filter down to the masses over time if they really want it to. People have to understand that if you want to test more of the long irons, you have to somehow remove the driver from the players hands more often. There really is no way around it that doesn't cause major problems for the golf population at large.
I really think there is no answer to this issue that can satisfy everyone, not even close. In my opinion, it would be better for the USGA to change their perception of what golf is some more instead of trying to protect what it was. They need to say goodbye to their precious, insanely expensive and exclusive courses, they need to say goodbye to the feathered 3 irons, they need to say goodbye to par as it was and understand that the sport as it is today is loved by those who play it. The product on tv is enjoyed still by most, and most are in awe of how good the elite players are today and how mentally tough many of them are.

[physasst]

Not a fan of bifurcation. It creates too many potential loopholes for cheating. Oh, that's a tournament ball? Or is it another ball marked up to look like a tournament ball? If you don't think guys are going to try to shortchange that system to get an advantage than I want whatever you are smoking. Are the governing bodies going to have testing labs at every event to test all the equipment? Who pays for all of that? It's crazy to think of the unintended consequences.

OR, maybe, just a thought, make the courses tougher...not longer. My take would be, make the current PGA courses harder, set them up like a US open. Let the grass grow and narrow the fairways for the pros down to 15-20 yards wide and grow the rough to punishing lengths. It would be cheapest and easiest to do, and would have the same effect, putting a premium on accuracy. If you can hit 335 to a 15 yard wide fairway...good for you. If you get in the rough, good luck. I liked what Bethpage Black did last year. They made it tough, and it was fun to watch.

[jvincent]

Bifurcation will lead to lawsuits from the manufacturers because it will in all likelihood directly impact their revenue streams.

As has been mentioned by several others, people want to play what the pros play. If the "tour legal" balls/clubs give any hint of reducing sales at Titleist/Callaway/Ping/Callaway etc their lawyers will be camped on the USGA/R&A doorsteps.

You could argue that if they bifurcate then golfers will just switch to the tour legal stuff and abandon the non-conforming clubs and balls. In reality we already have that situation today, but those are fringe products.

[vtpachyderm]

I agree with you on this one. My home course has a really nice setup of tees, which gives the course a completely different character depending on where you play from. It has one long par 4 and one long par 3, which keeps you honest :-).

Golf is by far the hardest sport I play, and I for one am left in awe at what the pros/good golfers do. I mean, swinging a club at over 120 mph, and hitting a small ball straight down the line for 330 yards...I think the rules makers have forgotten just how difficult and impressive it is to do it consistently.

I mean, there's a reason long drive winners aren't cleaning up on the PGA tour right?

With regards to course design - maybe progressive rough/fairways - i.e. closer to the hole the fairways get narrower and the rough gnarlier?

[jmck]

Lawsuits? How so?

Let's say there's a tournament spec ball in addition to all the balls currently on the market. How does making that ball, in addition to all the balls they currently make, impact their revenue stream? Seems to me to be a great opportunity to sell more product.

Are golfers going to be buying fewer balls overall because they have a few more choices?

[klebs01]

Growing the grass to narrow fairways isn't that cheap unless you think weekend hacks should play the 15 yard wide fairways. You should look into the effort Shinnecock Hills undertook to change the fairway lines for the US Open and then restore them for the members after the tournament. Its really not a practical solution.

[The Pearl]

Perhaps you might have one or two pros try this, but I suspect it would be easily flushed out, plus there steps the tour could take to ensure compliance.

[bigred90gt]

Anyone who can play to a +5 handicap and state that anything make's it "so easy to maintain", is so far out of touch with reality for every other golfer on the planet, their opinion is completely and totally useless in this discussion.

 

Everyone keeps talking about "Joe Hack" and how they wont be affected. The average driving distance is what, 220 yards? Maybe those people wont be affected, maybe they will. Then you have the "elite" golfers, who are the target of this campaign. They will be affected as far as distance, but they obviously have the time and means to overcome the effects and maintain their status/abilities and consistency.

 

Then you have the rest of us. The above average golfers who are not exceptional at the game. I carry a 5 index, but only average 260ish off the tee (including rollout). There are quite a few people who fit in the same category. Maybe they dont have quite as low of a handicap, maybe they do, but 250-270 driving distance average weekly players that enjoy the game the way it is. Any rollback of equipment will negatively effect those of us in that category, and there really is no way around it. I, for one, do not want the game impacted for me and those who fit into that category, just out of spite for those in the "elite" ranks. And spite is exactly what it is.

 

You can lay off the charade of "classic era courses are becoming obsolete for elite championship play". That ship has sailed. Those courses are not capable of hosting elite level play simply due to the lack of room for the required infrastructure, parking, etc. There are only so many courses capable of truly hosting elite level tournaments, and it has nothing to do with the length of the course. Those that are capable of hosting them have the ability to support the infrastructure requirements. Those classic era courses that can no longer host tournaments are not out of the rotation due to length, that has been proven by tournaments that hold up fine at shorter lengths. Those courses are not obsolete for those that play them: their membership. IF they want to procure land to accommodate the infrastructure requirements of hosting a tournament, membership or the board will approve the purchase and construction and they can bid for a tournament. But to say that the distance a ball is hit is the reason these courses cannot host a tournament is complete and utter nonsense.

 

And with that, I will do my best to refrain from posting again in this thread. It is simply another iteration of the original thread, which went over 100 pages, with the same tired statements over and over again (from both sides, mine included). Nothing new is out, no one has changed their mind (well, one has said they would be open to it, but still dont want a rollback). this is simply another thread full of "leave the game alone or you're gonna kill it" vs "change the game or it's gonna die". I happen to fall into the former category, honestly believing that if there is a rollback that negatively effects the performance of current equipment, there will be a large subset that leaves the game. While some may welcome the open tee sheets so they can sprint around the course in an hour and brag about how fast they played, that wont last long before the courses close the doors and become another McNeighborhood. If anyone believes there wont be a mass exodus, you obviously do not know or understand the male ego.

[bladehunter]

Wall of text that doesn’t say much.

 

There isn’t a magic technique to deal with slot of spin for driver. If hitting up did it with balata they’d have figured that out. You had to swing in control.

 

didnt you catch Damron on GC this morning. His tweet at Phil and Curtis strange. He said that with the old ball you couldn’t swing much more than 115 and be effective. Why ? It either spin sideways more or if hit well rose up more. Phil replies in agreement.

 

It can be done . For all.

[bigred90gt]

And here I said I was done, lol.

 

I completely and totally 100% agree with your last statement. "If we kill the game in order to “ save “ the game. What have we accomplished ?"

 

I simply disagree with you regarding how they (the ruling bodies) are going to kill the game.

[bladehunter]

Simple question. Why did any of you over 50 play this game before 1998? It was horrible. It was detrimental to the male ego. It was soooooo punishing. Why?

Its laughable how sideways that argument is.

[clevited]

I said a lot actually, you just disagree with the points I was trying to make.

You contradict yourself with what you just said too btw. You have said many times you want your advantage to be more than it is. So now you want persimmon/balata like performance that will negatively effect you more than the slower guys? You swing faster than 115, so now you are limited and also the faster guy is now artificially limited to 115. Doesn't sound to me what you have been looking for in dozens of posts. I predict you will dance your way around this one though.

[QuigleyDU]

I think before the make any permanent rules changes I think there are simpler things they can try. For example some very very simple conditions changes. I am not talking about "clown courses". The report itself mentions about a 4-5 yard decrease simply from rain.

You can also look at the LPGA and the courses and conditions they play in as an example. They play on much much less manicured and pristine conditions than the pampered PGA. I am not talking about 12 inch rough, or anything drastic, simply a little water, and a 16th or 8th of an inch more height in the fairway. It will be barely noticeable over all but I think you would see a difference in roll.

[bladehunter]

K don’t know why I keep coming back to this argument. It’s so clearly polarized in two opposite directions.

Neither can see the other side.

case in point. I post detailed tournament results for a very local am event for 3-4 years running , and literally nobody responds. As if local ams shooting -17 for 3 days isn’t indicative of what a 7000 yard plus course is being subjected to. These aren’t body builders shooting those numbers. They are skinny kids. And they are doing it 90% with the high bomb driver. Period.

[mokedaddy]

It’s funny you mention 1998 because I posted an article from 1997 that said pros are hitting it too far. It’s an argument that comes up every generation.

[bladehunter]

No. I did not. Not when using reality.

 

It will not effect me more than them. Ask them.

 

And all those “ points “ were made up opinions that you are projecting as opinions I have. Or hypothetical points or choices for resolutions. None of them from my mouth.

To clarify. Bifurcation with a line at USga and college events for a reasonable period in hopes of rolling everyone back voluntarily over a long window is my hope. Those that don’t roll themselves back can play whatever they want just like now.

 

Why doesnt that work ? Aside from the “ i don’t want to move up a tee sect “ ?

 

yes. I’d love to swing less all out and see the same benefit

[clevited]

They weren't so much opinions as much as logically true conclusions based on the position you have taken and stuck to in all of these threads. You have made it clear you want even more advantage over the short knocker than you currently have. I posted that in an effort to show that even pro "do something about distance" people can't agree on how to go about doing it, or what is fair and best.

 

To your bifurcation point, why not just roll out the 20% or whatever ball right away then if that is the desired outcome? It would save a lot of time, money, confusion, and silliness imo.

[bigred90gt]

I would love to see some data on your average daily fee courses around the country adding length because the masses that play them are overpowering them. I dont think that data exists, but would give it a read if someone can provide it. The only courses I know of adding length are the wide open flail away as hard as you can style courses that were built with one thing in mind: Professional golf. And I couldnt care less about what those courses and their membership do with their money. When muni courses and the typical daily fee public tracks start needing to add length because the courses are too easy and people stop playing them, then we can have a conversation about it becoming a problem. For every 0.01% of players that can overpower your average muni, there is still 99.99% that couldn't break 90 from the regular tees, let alone the back tees.

[gvogel]

Tricked up? Very penal rough, very fast greens, very narrow fairways - just the way that Merion was set up the last time around.

[bladehunter]

I’m fine with rolling it out. But the sky would be deemed to have fallen if the frog is not boiled slowly.

 

I think what you aren't considering is approach shots. You’re only seeing the long drive aspect. The long guys advantage returns with a rollback. it isn’t diminished .

When par is a good score more often. The longer guy rules. When everyone has a wedge of some sort in. It’s evened out. Period.

[bladehunter]

Man. This topic is as close to politics we can go on this site. I literally feel the hate coming back through the screen when I express my opinion .

Everybody chill ( myself included ). None of us are bad folks solely because we see this differently.

[bigred90gt]

Here is my question: is hitting the ball further the same as making the game easier?

 

If the game is truly easier, he would be scoring much better than he used to. Is he? I dont know the answer to that question. If he is scoring better, is it because his short game has gotten better being that he has been playing for 40+ years? Or is it solely because he hits the ball further? I've played with quite a few people who were exceptionally long but couldnt break 90 if you held a winning lottery ticket in front of their face. To me, that isnt necessarily making the game easier. Making the game easier is creating an improvement in scoring average that is not accounted for through practice or repetition. A person who plays once or twice a year, never practices, buys new equipment each year, and their score improves with each new purchase might be able to say equipment is making the game easier.

[clevited]

Lol, don't lump me into this. I am making an honest effort to not let this bother me personally this time around. It is hard to convey intent and attitude via text. I think if we were all in a room together our conversations would be much better and enjoyable.

[clevited]

I figured that might be your stance on the bifurcation. Make the public accept it with exposure and time vs sudden change.

As far as your point on shorter irons in and such, that is a good point that I failed to keep in mind (a point I have brought up before), but we go in circles with that point. You have primarily focused on driver distance while I have brought up the advantage with the second shot like you just did. Makes me confused about what you value most in your self preservation stance.