USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[Hawkeye77]

I’m watching as soon as I get back from giving the dog a lengthy run on our course which still has a lot of snow, but it could be gone in about 10-12 days if the forecast holds!

Seems to me with the compressed schedule now, a stretch that included AT&T, Genesis and WGC that this week sets itself up for an obvious break before Bay Hill and The Players. Guys just aren’t going to play every week, but not many spots to find rest now, and don’t see a bunch skipping Bay Hill but I recall a few years ago when it was one that wasn’t working out for some on the schedule, now it’s set up as the tuneup before The Players.

Pulling for Westwood this afternoon!

[Sean2]

I like a course that isn't simply bomb and gouge, but requires a lot of thought to make your way around it successfully.

[bladehunter]

Gosh. I just don’t have the energy to continue to say this.

 

if everybody hits driver more. The long guys are seeing their real advantage. That’s the simplest terms I can give.

Whne it’s a tricked up , layup course , the short guys excel. See the leaderboard. The exceptions are Westwood and Fleetwood who are excellent iron players and plenty long. .the standout being Donald who drove it like a mutt and still is in the hunt due to superior long and mid iron play.

[Z1ggy16]

Wolff makes an 8 on a par 4, to go +10 for the week, lol. Yes golf is so easy, please... let's dumb down the equipment so it becomes even harder. Lottttt of guys struggling this week and the rough is only 2 inches.

[bladehunter]

Yep. I am. And I’ll withdraw that . I don’t suppose you need to watch it all to have an opinion. But they aren’t rolling it 70 yards off the first tee. And it puzzles me that most here harp on roll. I play firm and fast courses here in the summer. A plugged ball is very rare and only after a storm. I think some of the disconnect is that. Bias from where we play. You’d have to raise the fairway to rough height to and inch and a half to see any real stoppage in my neck of the woods. The ground is that hard. Maybe in the Midwest and northeast it’s soft all year and roll can be stopped ?

 

at any rate. The true irony is that when this is said and done I’ll bet you a Nickel that All our roles are reversed. You guys will be bored of watching Luke Donald win , and I’ll wish it was left alone. As I stated before I fear the USga will drop the ball. If this isn’t a fundamental reset of the game across the board , it’s a waste of time. And that goes for tricked up courses that take driver out of players hands.

[15th Club]

I've played the course. As the Fazios designed it and before they enlisted Nicklaus to try to make it a Tour-acceptable track.*  And I can scarcely recall a single hole.

*This again proves that if Nicklaus had any operative financial interest, it would be on the side of “No rollback.” Nicklaus Design makes money off of the continued lengthening and renovation needed for older golf courses to keep up with distances produced by equipment technology. At least that is part of their revenue.

But the simple fact is that Jack is not favoring a ball rollback for any financial interest. His interest is in golf course integrity and the good of the game.

 

[storm319]

There is a lot of middle ground between 50 yards of roll and ball plugged in the fairway...

Also many of your posts the past few pages have seemed to be more focused on optics than anything else. Who cares about club selection! What matters is the final score on the hole, not how the player got there.

[storm319]

...and his legacy

[bladehunter]

As was said earlier. We shall just agree to disagree. How matters. If it were only about score then they’d just play long drive for points. Or a putting contest.

 

but club selection isn’t the point. The point is about taking natural talent away from long we guys and giving it to the ones who don’t possess it by making them layup. That’s the idea for rollback put forth by titleist 99 etc. once in a blue moon course like that is fine. But if it’s every week it’s a boring art form to watch. Not to mention intellectually unfair.

[Roadking2003]

"I have pointed out that Titleist, and its sponsorship-paid Tour pros, have a powerful financial interest in opposing a ball rollback"

 

You have expressed that opinion but you haven't presented anything to support your opinion that Titleist would be financially hurt by a rollback.

[Roadking2003]

As do we all. That's what makes Pebble so exciting and the Honda today.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Don’t you get it? Distance should be reserved for the big, strong, tall athletic men. Have I reminded everyone how great of a ball striker I am today? Because, I am. I promise. And I hit down. Hard. And I’m tall and super athletic (in case anyone forgot), so it’s frustrating to watch these shrimps hit it far because of equipment. Only people like me should hit it far, because I’m a big guy and very athletic with an extremely heavy hit. I want more advantages because I deserve them for being so great.

[b.helts]

lol

[15th Club]

You misunderstand. I don’t know if it is true that Titleist would suffer any financial injury. I rather doubt it. But that would be Titleist’s claim in any litigation. Talk to Titleist about it. Let me know what they say.

 

[15th Club]

What exactly does that mean?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

"I have pointed out that Titleist, and its sponsorship-paid Tour pros, have a powerful financial interest in opposing a ball rollback"

“I don’t know if it is true that Titleist would suffer any financial injury. I rather doubt it.”

K.

[Doublebuck]

What Dean Snell says:

[Titleist99]

Here's the thing about Jack and Tiger......Never once did they advocate a rollback when they were knocking it past everyone. If you look at the Shell Wonderful world of Golf footage you can hear Jack bragging about his new found length at the age of sixty two. Tiger came out on tour averaging 290-297 right behind John Daly. He wasn't calling for a rollback then. If Jack designed all his courses like PGA National then he wouldn't need to call for a rollback, they're moving up the tees in this current tournament.....LOL!

~just my opinion.  

[15th Club]

Look, Ashley Schaeffer, I don’t like you or your comments and I really don’t like responding to you, but this is too important for my own preferences.

Yes, Titleist perceives itself and its patent and process i.p. To be extremely valuable, and threatened by any ball rollback.

And it would be part of a Titleist lawsuit if it ever came to that. Again I say; the threat of a Titleist lawsuit is very real. I hope it never happens. I don’t want it to happen and the USGA really doesn’t want it to happen. But that is Titleist’s thing. It’s up to them.

I don’t think Titleist has a case. I hope they know that but I doubt it. Again, it would be Titleist’s claim in litigation that they have lost zillions.

I doubt that. Of course, I will doubt and dispute all of Titleist’s claim in that event. I’ll be on the USGA ‘s side.

This isn’t an inconsistency. Jack Nicklaus has said the same. “Titleist owns the game,” Nicklaus said. By that, he means that Titleist owns a huge market share, and throws around massive weight in advertising and influence with superstar Tour players under sponsorship contracts. And Titleist has the lawsuit threat versus the USGA.

And in the next breath, Jack said that he didn’t really understand why Titleist would complain; they would still be a great brand. “They would still be Number 1,” Jack speculated.

These are not inconsistent notions. I think there should be clear understanding of this, even if we disagree on everything else.

And I repeat what I said about Titleist earlier. Anybody who can’t understand what I am suggesting here should ask Titleist about all of this and feel free to report back on what Titleist’s position is.

 

[bladehunter]

Lol. ?‍♂️ I appreciate you entertaining some of my Followers while I was out. But you didnt have to do that !

[QuigleyDU]

I am not sure I agree. Look at the major rollback supporters around the tour

Jack-designer

Tiger-designer

Zac Blair-designer.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

So, Titleist has a powerful financial interest in not rolling it back, but wouldn’t suffer financial injury if it was rolled back. Makes a lot of sense, Judge. Man, Titleist really is evil with its financial interest shape-shifting.

Finally, you are the one making initial assertions on who has what financial interest, so you should go ahead and ask Titleist and report back. I don’t think I should have to school you on initial burden. Maybe get something from the source this time!

[Titleist99]

Not that long ago they were trying to convince us that the PGATOUR is all bomb and gouge these days. The last handful of tournaments contradict that totally.....LOL!

~just my opinion.

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Buddy, big, tall, athletic ball-hittin’ Jesses like us need to stick together. We’re the real oppressed minorities in this whole distance debate. We shouldn’t have to be forced to hit less than driver when these other guys are free to swing for the fences to keep up with our driving irons. If I lose the County Mid-Am again this year to a guy who just happens to hit fairways and get hot with his irons and wedges and chipping and putting, I will puke. Just the other day, I flushed one 15 yards long on #18, made double, and lost to some Luke Donald type shrimpo who got lucky by scraping one up from 170 and making a 7-footer. That’s not what golf should be about.

[15th Club]

Let me try this another way.

If the USGA rolls back golf balls, Titleist may sue them. And in that event, it is a certainty that Titleist will claim enormous financial damages. Not because it will be true, but rather because that is what lawsuits claim.

Naturally, the fact that Titleist might think that they are damaged, does not prove that they were damaged. It is just what they will claim.

At the same time, just because Titleist might be affected more than other ball manufacturers doesn’t mean that the USGA isn’t well within its rights to establish better regulations on golf balls.

The Titleist-versus-the-USGA narrative has been around so long, that Nicklaus is trying to leapfrog ahead of it, suggesting that after a rollback “Titleist would still be Number 1.” I think Jack is frustrated by what he knows of Titleist’s advocacy and resistance to a rollback, and wants to defeat it.

The funny brainstorm that I had was that if Titleist would drop its objections to a rollback, Jack would agree to endorse the new post-rollback Titleist balls — for free. I think Jack would go for it.

And now here’s another idea I had as I was writing this; let’s get GolfWRX to invite a Titleist Rep to answer a lot of these questions in the ball debate. (And Geoff Shackelford too!)

 

[15th Club]

Jack Nicklaus has been advocating a ball rollback since some time in the 1990’s. And what statistics generally clearly show is that through that time, distance gains were barely incremental. The big leaps came in about 1999 onward. Urethane balls, jumbo titanium heads and composite shafts took off.

Jack was never under contract to Titleist.

Tiger Woods was under contract to Titleist, and then Nike, for equipment endorsements. He’s been freed to comment since then. And for what it’s worth, I think Tiger had gone on record about a ball rollback before Nike quit equipment manufacturing.

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

So, Titleist doesn’t have a powerful financial interest in opposing a rollback? Because, before, you said it did. Was that not true?

I’ll try it another way: Do I have a powerful financial interest in you not being the way you are because I might file a lawsuit against you for 47 billion dollars if you continue to be you, even if the suit is meritless because I haven’t been damaged?

This might be the time to just wear one, sport.

[bladehunter]

I know right !? ( air five ). Brings a song to my heart. Wanna year it ? Here it goes ! Enjoy.

 

[storm319]

Titleist’s claims (or that of any OEM) have more validity than anything that the USGA has provided thus far (and will actually be quantifiable).

Ultimately the burden of any rollback will likely outweigh the proposed benefit (just like the groove rollback). However, if the USGA is so confident that a rollback will do what they claim, then they should have no problem working with stakeholders to set quantifiable milestones to measure success and reverse any changes if those are not met.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Sonic Boom! Like the sound when I hit a full 8-iron off the deck.