USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[tungstenplug]

.

Edited February 26, 2023 by tungstenplug

[gvogel]

The report says that distance is a problem for elite male golfers. It also recommends that most recreational players move up a set of tees, or two.

[bladehunter]

For an event like say mid am qualifying , us am qualifying etc. yes.

 

I assumed that would be their aim. Top am events. They aren’t making a local rule so that joe can play persimmon competitively in his Thursday night league 9 hole.

[QuigleyDU]

 

Possibly you are correct, but they did not specify that. So it could be more wide spread. I honestly have no idea. I don't think they do either and they are just throwing words out as a stale tactic. I don't expect anything to change anytime soon.

[oikos1]

We are going to tell our grand kids about the next Jack. His name is Tiger Woods. He arrived roughly 20 years after Jack's heyday and he isn't finished yet. Another one will come with time.

[Shilgy]

Fair enough. I do not see a standard ball as a solution. A rolled back ball that still has various iterations for player preference would be best IF THEY REALLY HAVE A NEED TO BE MET. Diving distance on all tours seems to be flattening out. Or even declining on some. The stated ideal of making very short, currently obsolete, courses relevant and playable for elite play is nonsense to me. If they are too short now they were too short 40 years ago. And that even disregards the needs for infrastructure needs in modern elite events to support the larger crowds and media presence.

[clevited]

@Shilgy is effectively pointing out the flaws in your arguments, he isn't changing this to a discussion about fitting.

[bladehunter]

Oh I agree there. They haven’t a clue. Lol. If they did they’d be crowing about how smart they are by now.

[davep043]

In furtherance of this, I'll post links to the actual report (102 pages) and conclusions (16 pages). This way, there's at least the possibility that the discussion will be informed by the current information:

[clevited]

The only thing I liked out of their report is the fact that they will look more seriously at course set up. I think that might just fix their problem and hopefully they will leave it at that. Mix in courses that have really harsh terrain if you miss (long rough, deep bunkers etc) along with courses that are a bombers paradise. Best of both worlds and if we see a player dominating in both types of set ups, you can crown them the next Tiger.

[braincramp52]

Never.

[BB28403]

IMO this report is just an excuse to do what they already wanted to do.

BS statements : 100 years of info (hahaha!)

forward Tees are too long for players .

People are not playing the right tees.

Hitting the ball longer leads to slower play (that’s a head scratcher)

making courses longer leads to more chemical use. (Ummmm, you could just use other techniques and make the course longer. Like Organic means or natural vegetation)

this report is BS

i have heard this before and I believe one of the whole reasons to rollback is to allow golf communities to reclaim 20% of their property for real estate lots. Thereby increasing their membership and club funds. But who knows if this is an actual motive motivating reports like these. They definitely don’t give a dang about us amateurs or game enjoyment.

[gvogel]

I am now a short hitter at 67 years old (I was never long, but I could score on occasions).

I would buy a shorter distance driver and reduced distance balls (heck, I played hickory for awhile). I would also expect to play a shorter golf course. It's all golf.

[rangersgoalie]

Allowing the use of old classic courses that MAY be obsolete due to lack of yardage (instead of lack of space for tents/grandstands/parking/etc) seems to be one large consideration

interesting to me are the costs statements, when I haven't seen many courses made obsolete by their regular customers. Only by the very top level players. I HAVE seen many courses overreact to what they perceive on television (even though their course is never in that arena) and lengthen their courses because they really can't lengthen what really bothers them.

 

More than anything, this is likely aimed at elite level players and the hope they can have their cake and eat it too.

Use the courses they care about (with some local rule) for their top level tournaments, which have historically been at the clubs that many of the USGA committees belong to.

Allow amateurs to keep their shiny new toys with a hard line in the sand at current distance levels.

Hope that the professional tours will use the local rule in spite of the fact that equipment companies provide the players with an enormous percentage of their income and there will be enormous pushback.

The new premier league throws an interesting curve at this imo

They could offer big enough purses with scaled back equipment that the players don't lose much in equipment deals

or

They could offer HUGE purses, work WITH the manufacturers and use the same equipment for every event that the regular golf public uses, gaining a bigger win for players in those events with their endorsement monies and those huge purses.

 

to me, the wording of the release could also simply mean they will draw a hard line at todays distance and adjust or reign in (back to todays numbers) going forward if there are continuing increases for any reason (ball,equipment,agronomy,gravity changes,global warniming, Trunp, and Russians,etc)

 

And 15th has to be happy, this statement reads exactly as he said it would imo

[Wdwfreak]

I havent read other comments here but honestly, to not flame anyone or something like that I have to say this.

To deny that equipment today, 2020, and the future of it being fully sustainable is just not looking at the reality of the situation. Equipment today is at an unsustainable level. If the average amateur has little benefit from the newest equipment, who’s to say if it is changed or limited they also would see little change? Everyone is so up in arms about amateur golf and “go ask my buddies or the people at the local muni if distance is a problem” that is not the case that the USGA or anyone else in favor of reducing the ball is saying. Lastly, if I hear that argument about “better athletes” one more time I will go crazy.

Think of golf like baseball, Golf basically has just added a new fence every few years to satiate the best in the game, Imagine if today the Red Sox couldnt play at Fenway or the Cubs at Wrigley, people would go crazy, baseball would have had to just keep adding a new fence and stadium to try and keep up with technology, its ridiculous and expensive to think of that, but thats what golf has done. Instead why dont we limit the equipment and the vast distances it covers? Do we want Augusta to be the only place in the world that can continue to expand its boundaries and move tees back??

I will probably get some flak for this, but I just dont understand this fear of losing distance, our our egos all that big? If you hit it 5 past your buddy you will still do that with rolled back equipment.

 

[bladehunter]

So far in reading the decisions , they appear to be on point so far. Describing exactly what I’ve been seeing on any local course that isn’t 6800-7000 yards.

 

People are just conditioned to think that they are supposed to have a wedge into every par 4. That’s not the case.

[Shilgy]

Whether you like it or not there certainly are more highly skilled professional golfers today than there were in Jacks era. Instead of club pros filling the field there are many skilled tour professionals vying just for a spot in the field. That leads to more different winners.

That said, do you not consider Tiger to be the “next Jack”? Someone else will come along eventually that will dominate and win-often.

[bladehunter]

100% spot on. We can’t move the fences back anymore.

[LICC]

Tiger was actually behind the curve with his driver. It took him longer than others to switch to newer technology. He was early with his golf ball, playing the newer model in 2001 about 6 months before most others.

[bladehunter]

I personally think tiger 1.0 is better than jack. But flamed out quick. But that’s another argument. I didn’t mention tiger on purpose. I get accused of inserting tiger too often as it is. Plus using jack as the example seems to appease all demographics.

 

but yes. I didn’t get to watch tiger in his prime live. I’ve only seen it through YouTube. And I love a dominant athlete. So I’d love to see a new tiger. The real thing. Not the Bruce , DJ , pretenders. A step on your throat killer.

[QuigleyDU]

Except that baseball changed the ball last year so that there were more home runs....

[LICC]

I don't think we are going to see another Tiger or Jack-level performance in a golfer for another generation at least. Tiger especially was a unique talent.

[dubbelbogey]

This is the most interesting chart to me (relating to amateur, handicapped golfers):

Since right around 2000/2001, when the multi-layer solid ball became the norm, there is generally no significant trend in increased driving distance. None.

How many generations of driver technology have we gone through since then? If each advancement in tech were so advantageous to get us x number of yards, why doesn't the data show it?

As a side note, the USGA likes to spin the numbers their own way citing the trend since 1996, or "over the past 100 years). I call BS on their interpretation, but do applaud them for publishing the data. I think many will come to different conclusions.

 

 

[Sean2]

Distance isn't the problem, course set up is. Simply have them play smarter golf courses. I can see this leading to bifurcation. They certainly can't dial back the equipment for the average golfer.

ps: on one drive this weekend, Webb received 52 yards of roll.

[Wesquire]

I don't think that using an average is the best way to quantify this. I would imagine that the technology advancements are allowing slower players to break into the <6 handicap range. I'm sure the top end has seen a big jump in distance.

[James the Hogan Fan]

I wouldn't exactly point at bowling as the best example of a sport on top of its new technology. Those $300+ reactive resin balls are remarkably similar to $300+ drivers in a way.

To Quigly's question regarding buying equipment, I would probably not buy new clubs but would perhaps buy a stock of balls.

 

The distance report conclusions read remarkably similarly to a number of comments I have read on here. It's going to take awhile to try and unpack it all, I'm starting with R56 'The Value of Distance'.

[GDTBATH]

I don't like the concept of bifurcating. I like the concept of changing setup to accommodate the growing distance. Narrow the fairways starting at about 300 yards to 15-20 yards wide and grow the rough way up. I know the Tour guys would howl, but who cares? They complain about anything that isn't easy. If you want to bomb it, great, but you'd better be straight. That levels the field without having to bifurcate and without having to build 8,000 yard courses. I get that the Andy Johnson's of the world would complain, but golf is about more than simply angles and unique design elements. There's an execution component to it. If you make the layouts far more penal for the offline drives, especially out at distance, you solve the problem without hurting the average golfer. Otherwise, you could change par or simply let the guys go shoot 20 under at Winged Foot. It's not like that's the end of the world. It would still be exciting.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Anybody have a TL;DR on the USGA's action? Did they roll back equipment, or just talk about it some more?

[clevited]

Some info that they omit that they really should have uncovered or thought about is the fact that many pro's like Finau for instance, throttle back their power significantly off the tee. They aren't just hitting it as hard as they can and finding it. You don't see Cameron Champ destroying courses on tour, and in fact, I think last I checked he has started to slow his speed just like many other tour players have (see JB Holmes, Bubba, Tway, Hagy, Woodland etc). If they decide to change the ball or any equipment, you will just see these guys go after it more. This is really a huge oversight with their findings imo.

[gvogel]

And they may change it back so there is more play on the field. It's a continuing dialogue.