USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[gvogel]

Interesting in the report, here are some of the things that make golf on TV interesting: shot tracer (45%), recovery shots (44%), High profile players (42%), the venue itself (39%) status of the event (26%) and course management (26%). Only 10% of TV watchers thought that long driving makes golf interesting.

So apparently, chicks don't place a high value on long driving. Straight from the report.

[QuigleyDU]

That makes complete sense for TV viewing. Nothing is less interesting than watching a white ball fly through blue air. I would much rather watch that feature shot tracer. I completely agree that showing anyone tapping in 2 footers is stupid.

[gvogel]

I think that Phil was bunting it around Pebble with a fairway wood last weekend, which is probably why he had success.

[Sean2]

I am not complaining. I am stating an opinion. I am against bifurcation. Period.

[Hawkeye77]

Unless it is Doug Sanders?

[QuigleyDU]

Who is Doug Sanders?? :)

 

 

 

by the way. This is painful to watch on so many levels. is this the golf we are trying to get back to?? hahahaha. I know I know.

 

I will say, there are more than equipment reasons these guys do not hit the ball far.

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

That's because distance is always there. Event status, High profile players, venue, conditions, etc. are variable from week to week.

I wouldn't list my wife's left arm as the most interesting thing about her, but I'd be bummed if she decided to chop it off.

[bscinstnct]

 

 

Oh yeah?

 

How about this report on if "chicks did the long ball"?

 

 

 

 

Ha! I make myself lol on that one ; )

[munichop]

Bifurcation already exists with grooves. It is just called a condition of competition. The idea of a local rule is birfucation on another level. Really though the male tour pros play courses that are 700-1000 yards shorter than they should be based on the distances they hit the ball. Which is why fans and most pros believe they are better than they are. Then a windy day comes along and they all are lost as to how to score. No wonder Watson beat everyone at 59; he knows how to golf. The problem is the USGA is run by amateurs who do not know how to write a specification. Otherwise when wood and balata were being replaced with metal and polymers pros would not have gained 30 yards of driver distance. That happened more than 20 years ago.

Pro tennis ruined serve and volley strategy with big rackets. Pro golf has ruined the balance of accuracy vs length with lax oversight. They honestly are overmatched by the equipment makers and their engineers. So we have all the younger players being introduced to a game that rewards power above other things at the highest level rendering strategy and risk assessment to footnotes. All this report does is detail the failure of protecting the skill balance it used to take to play the game at the highest level.

[bigred90gt]

So, you dont think that the best golfers on the planet, who all carry (or would carry if they did) +5 - +10 handicap indexes should be able to average -6 per day over a 4 day tournament? That, to you, is no longer professional golf? I think the opposite, that is EXACTLY what professional golf is. That is golfers, who are the best of the best of the smallest percentage of the best players on the planet, playing great golf. An average score of 66 for each of the 4 days gets you to -24. I just dont feel that is so far out of reach when you look at how good they are. Of course, that is average.

 

This past week at Pebble, the winning score was -19 . Is that an acceptable score for a professional in your opinion? Where would you draw the line, and how would you defend said line? These are people whose job is to play the best golf they are capable of playing. Everything they do in their professional life is to improve their ability to play golf. Of course they can shoot low numbers.

 

To be fair, -24 is not really a common winning score on the PGA tour either, so you cant pick outliers to make your argument.

 

I'm all for making the courses harder and not longer. I'm all for rewarding long and accurate, as well as not as long and still accurate. I'm all for penalizing long and wild, just as I am all for penalizing short and wild. What I am not for is changing equipment specs and requirements to reduce how far people can hit the ball simply because there is no penalty for hitting it offline. That is just complete nonsense.

 

For those that want firm and fast, just understand that added distance is going to come with that, as noted above from the ISPS Handa tournament. I'm fine with firm and fast, but make it penalizing to miss the fairway, and don't complain about people hitting the ball a long way when 20-40% of the total shot distance comes from rolling on shaved and baked fairways.

[bigred90gt]

So many people need to read this, let it sink in, then read it again for good measure.

[mahonie]

Jack driving the 18th green in the subsequent play-off:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pPicaKToelM

[QuigleyDU]

Look at him. He invented the backboard process. Smoked drive with a nice 40 mph tail wind. Works every time.

 

To be fair, i did say "these guys" meaning the two in the video... Lot more odd ball swings in those days.

 

 

[OrangeGravy]

Shouldn't e disturbing at all. I'm in that category of golfer. It's the truth. All the other "reasons" are just excuses that us bad golfers use to try and convince ourselves that it isn't about our own golf ego.

[OrangeGravy]

It's the ego bug again. I'm in that same distance range as him off the tee. I can understand not wanting to hit the ball shorter, but for me, that's only relevant if I'm the only person hitting it shorter. If everyone I play with is scaled back, it changes nothing.

[OrangeGravy]

I think hitting it further makes it easier for good players. I don't think it matters for most players how far they hit it off the tee unless we're talking inside of 30 yard approach shots on par 4s. I think that would make it easier for anybody.

[bladehunter]

lol. Stop tempting me man ! Just stop. I have qualifying questions I cannot ask without incriminating myself. Yes. For the pro game. But it doesn’t address the fact that nearly everyone here over 50 claims to hit it farther now than when they where 30. Well. If that’s played on the same course , how is it not odd at best and an issue needing address at worst.

 

Man I to just look forward to being 55-60 so I can play up and hit into several greens ? Lol. ( in reality I’ll just stop playing when I can’t get it airborne )

To orange gravy’s point. We just had a competition committee meeting for the coming years play and topic was brought up to make the champ flight for the club championship back tee only. As it used to be. Last 2 years it’s been all from middle and flighted after 36 on last day with top 5 and ties playing 9 final holes from the back to decide it.

 

We had an uproar. “ no way were playing from the back “. Etc. bruised egos galore. So I pipe up and say “ why don’t we all play from the very front “? Two walked out. Lol. Why do all these things seem to not follow common sense? They always go to the majority demographic. So they out voted the 3 of us with sense. And will play it from the middle all 54 holes. They may as well hand it to one of 5 of us. It makes several greens drivable , and the longest par 3 170 yards. I hope I have the good sense to be realistic when it’s my time to retire.

[bladehunter]

Right. And I’m thinking ahead. Everyone here knows that Father Time is undefeated. Right? I’m giving my golden years distance “ gains “ away here with this stance. I’m not sure how I can be the most selfish doing that ?

 

[15th Club]

No; I have been open to several equipment-adjustment regulations.

I have been open to a one-material requirement for golf shafts (essentially dictating a return to steel or aluminum driver shafts).

I have been open to a reduction in head volume and also another one-material requirement. (Back to something like a Big Bertha Warbird.)

I have been open to an enforced reduction in tee height, to further effectively dictate driver limitations, making them once again look like golf clubs.

I have suggested all of those things in the course of this long running debate. And said so.

And I have also suggested why it is that I think it is that balls are the cheapest, easiest, simplest, cleanest way to begin to re-regulate distance.

So please be fair and accurate when you propose to characterize me.

[15th Club]

“During the ISPS Handa I saw one player get 72 meters of roll after his ball hit. Another was just short of a 313 meter par 4...he teed off with a 4-iron.”

Dead downwind in what I thought was a fabulous 3-club wind.

Nae wind, nae golf, laddie.

 

[OrangeGravy]

I've always been curious about this. It never seemed to make sense that long drives would even translate via tv. Without the announcers going on about it, how would anyone watching even know? Unless you've played the course they're showing, you wouldn't know if they hit it 200 or 400 yards. If these percentages were even close to true, the "desire to see" distance thing is totally driven by the OEM marketing machine. Players always want to hit it as far as they can. That's never been a hard sell, but wanting to see on televised golf, never bought it.

[oikos1]

No word traps. It was just ironic that you proclaimed you loathe social golf but at the same time are involved in member recruitment at your club. Now that you have pointed out "My personal opinions said here aren’t ever voiced anywhere else", I'm sure you are doing a fine job.

[QuigleyDU]

Fair enough. I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I apologize if it seemed that way. It just seems to be the most common and most absolute approach you have mentioned. I was not trying to characterize you in any particular way other then what I have seen over the numerous threads and conversation. You have repeatedly said it is the ball and that is the easiest angle to approach the problem.

 

Again, if that is not a fair characterization, I apologize.

[15th Club]

You are presuming a basically equivalent rollback for elites and recreational players. Respectfully — and you of course are entitled to your own opinions as we all are — that notion is a non-starter with me. I think that the ultimate technological solution will be nothing like that.

 

[disco111]

Here's a question to ponder..............If the USGA places a hold on current distances, in other words the ball cannot be enhanced to achieve any additional distance, what can the OEM's offer to keep the registers ringing. Lets face facts for the average joe's that play and support the game. The average price for a new sat of name brand irons is what?...... somewhere in the ball park of $1500 and up. A new driver is around $500 and some putters are going for $250 plus. Now add to that the cost to play at a muni on the weekend and that's another $50 for the round with cart and whatever refreshments. I don't know about the rest of you, but in my neck of the woods the vast amjority of folks just can't afford to be up to date. So offering this insight, now the OEM's can't depend on ball revenue to pad the bottom line, so does the price of clubs now pick up the slack and if they do, just what can the OEM's offer to entice buyers. As with just about everything in the manufacturing world, there comes a point of no return. The auto industry proves this with all the models that are being discontinued and yeah it's not the same as golf, but if things are not selling, you get the picture. It will be interesting to see what the USGA comes up, if anything, but if they don't do anything??????

[QuigleyDU]

Well, I can say at least one OEM is doing fine. Callaway released its 2019 financials. Record year with net sales of 1.7 billion, which was nearly a 40% increase over 2018.

[OrangeGravy]

I'll happily admit that my stance on this topic comes from my own selfish POV. Ultimately I don't care what they do or don't do. It would enhance my viewing pleasure if they figured out a way to get a handle on the pro game. Any possible change won't affect my personal game.

[OrangeGravy]

If all the OEM vanished over night, would golfers just stop playing? Would golf die? I don't understand why any golfer would care about the health of an equipment company. Do they contribute in any meaningful way to the game of golf other than selling us stuff we ultimately don't need? I'm not trying to be a jerk, really. I don't get the concern for them. Sure it's nice to have new stuff and MAYBE find something that helps you play better, but would you really stop golfing if there were no more equipment companies?

[duffer987]

That analogy does not work. Automobile manufacturers (at least North American ones) are stopping 'car' production because their customer's tastes have changed and these companies end up getting people into more and more expensive vehicles of an SUV-ish nature and when they discount models, they do so as part of their business model. Those (largely German) that do still sell cars in North America, actually end up adding more variants as things get bigger.

To keep on the automotive theme, balls are wear items - like tyres and brakes - those that are keen on 'performance' will still stump up for that, while those that are sticking to a budget or value 'value' won't and will make largely cost-related choices. The OEMs could put out the same ball year after year and people are still buying ProV1s, Z Stars, whatever... Yes individual ball OEMs need a USP to get market share, but rounds played and overall participation drives ball sales for obvious reasons. Someone could dump $2500k on a bag fitting and play 20 rounds a year, someone else can dump that same $2500k and 120 rounds.

[bladehunter]

No worries. I don’t claim to be good at it. Loll. Just better than nobody. It was my idea. Once I noticed that the 1 female member we had left after swapping jobs. It’s just odd. It’s not at all a “ men’s grille “ type environment. Anyway. Sorry for the misunderstanding.