USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[bladehunter]

Lol. A low riser I’m sure .... one that climbs late and apex’s high. Carrying out around 182. Divot you can place a dolllar bill in ( borrowed from Azinger ). Kind of strike you feel down in your plums.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Actually 183.5. Divots usually look like boomerangs and end about 8” in front of my left foot. I filled one with the sand/seed mix on #14 last fall, and now there’s a 3 foot tall eucalyptus tree growing there.

[bladehunter]

@Ashley Schaeffer Now I can help with that. I’ve actually hit my lead foot a couple times So I started wearing this over my saddle oxfords . Best of all They are unisex........ So anyone can reap the whirlwind . ?
[img]https://s3.amazonaws.com/golfwrxforums/uploads/829/VEDOLPDIW54S.png[/img]

[15th Club]

So I am just talking past you now, Ashley Schaeffer. It doesn’t matter to me what you think or what you think or want to think.

DEAR TITLEIST;

Do you have a large financial interest in the golf ball market?

If yes, are you contending that a USGA rollback of golf ball performance would damage that interest? How would you prove such damages? And why would an equipment maker have standing to sue the USGA over what rules it makes for the game that it has presided over for more than a century? Is it true that the USGA invited your input on new ball standards repeatedly for about 20 years?

I don’t expect Titleist to answer, “Naw, we don’t have any great financial interest in the golf ball market.”

Now, both my comments and Jack’s about how we doubt any great financial loss for Titleist go to one of the earlier questions: “How does Titleist expect to prove that it has suffered significant losses due to some wrongdoing (?!) on the part of the USGA?”

Titleist has many, many millions tied up in ball patents. More millions in trademarking. Many more millions in advertising and promotion. And of course millions in constant paychecks to a very large stable of Tour players using Titleist balls. Only Titleist knows if they would feel the need to litigate to protect whatever their own position might be with that.

I say Titleist loses. That it is the USGA and the R&A that make our Rules. Not Titleist. Especially since the record is bound to show the distance increase warned about in 2002 has occurred, and the ruling bodies deemed it undesirable when they first warned about it, carefully documented it, and invited manufacturers’ input on how to address it. Titleist loses because they don’t get to make the Rules, and because all of Titleist’s research and development and marketing and promotion and brand-name can go into new-design balls.

But no matter what, the ruling bodies still get to make the Rules.

[Titleist99]

Because you say something a thousand times doesn't make it true.LOL!.. What you call tricked up, other people call it course defense. Nothing about PGA National is tricked up, just ask the players and to a man they will tell you that it is one of the best and fairest course that they play on tour. I think that they know a little bit more about playing conditions than you. I know you believe what you believe and all the facts in the world won't change your mind but the entire PGA can't be wrong....

~just my opinion.

[bladehunter]

lol

[Ashley Schaeffer]

A simple, “I’ll take the L on this one” would’ve saved you a lot of typing.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Haha! Charge your phone, you animal!

[golfer07840]

I heard Rocco Mediate on a podcast this past week say everyone is so obsessed with the number on the bottom of the club.

Who cares? If you're 150 out, hit your 150 club. Does it really matter if it's a 5 or 7i?

[Titan2113]

 

Here’s 15th (L) and Ashley Schaeffer ® from their last golf outing.

[Titan2113]

I’m not entirely sure what the USGA/R&A will do and tbh I don’t really care because I’ll still tee it up and compete in state association events or club events, and aside from one “executive” on these thread I doubt most of the USGA executives care about what is said on a golf board or on the golf course amongst regular players, I could be wrong and I hope I am. They’re going to do what they are going to do, whether that’s with support of the players or not we’ll see, I do tend to be more of the mindset this could lead to a schism between the tour and USGA. Oddly enough to paraphrase my “idol” lol BNGL not long ago on here in the, king of golf for a day thread said he’d get rid of the PGA Tour because it wasn’t representative of golf he went into more detail and was summarily laughed at but he called it entertainment purposes only. Which I agree with and rules/policy shouldn’t be implemented on the basis of entertainment only products.

As far as a split goes, it could happen I think maybe I’m naive but for those saying the tour doesn’t want to make the rules you’re right, to an extent, because they haven’t been in a position where maybe making their own rules was a benefit to them. OR maybe things do get a rollback, what’s to stop the competition committee from moving tees way up to make those bunkers “obsolete” like we’re supposedly seeing now?

the biggest factor keeping the tour away from Newport CC Myopia Hunt or Chicago GC (or any place that hosted USGA Championships in the past) is lack of infrastructure. That’s what drives and sustains a venue more than the quality of the course I think (must have a place to park, gather, bus, areas for acres of corporate tents, large practice facility, etc). Without those things the Tour won’t touch a course. USGA Championship require the same things plus a fee to host it which a lot of good courses that could host a Senior or Ladies Open don’t see the value/return to ponying up 385-450k to host.

 

[Roadking2003]

It never has been all bomb and gouge. Meanwhile, scoring isn't going down and courses recently have shown that you don't need more yardage to make them relevant. Short hitters are winniing. Short to medium length courses are producing US Open type scores.

[Roadking2003]

Exactly! A 550 yard hole takes tremendous skill to get the ball in the hole with four strokes. So with distance increses over the past 15 years, scores aren't going down. That just proves that golf is much more than a long driving contest.

[Roadking2003]

I would like to see a list of courses that would be wonderful US OPen venues if they were just longer. I suspect it would be a short list.

[bladehunter]

just remember. This was a par 70. Add back two par 5s and the scoreboard looks Normal. As in the total strokes wasn’t really off base . Lots of posturing about setup for naught.

[storm319]

Based on the USGAs own data, courses at the 90th percentile (many PGA event hopefuls) have only increased the measured range by ~100 yards since 1980. With few exceptions, people have been greatly over exaggerating the distance increases that have occurred in the past 30 years.

[Roadking2003]

What's wrong with par 70? Courses have been changing par for tournaments for decades.

[storm319]

and courses on that list would be still be poor choices even after a massive rollback (mostly due to poor infrastructure). People keep need to keep in mind that there were plenty of turds that hosted the US Open/PGA Championship in the first half of the 1900s.

[bladehunter]

Didn’t say anything was wrong with it. But when considering scores. Take it into account. We could change a course to par 18 and claim “ scores are going up. Golf is getting harder “ because everyone is 48 over par. But that doesn’t make it true.

[15th Club]

So I just want to stop the discussion here, and point out just how absurd it would be, to think that we are only concerned about US Open golf courses. Or PGA Tour golf courses.

That is completely false. And it is the falsity of such a presumption that is really driving the USGA and especially the R&A. They are concerned — and they need to be concerned — about hundreds and even thousands of other courses that host competitive events for elite level play.

[storm319]

The obsession with the score relative to par and comparisons to past results are a big part of the problem. What really matters is that the lowest aggregate score wins that particular competition.

[bladehunter]

Yep. And that’s al I was trying to say. Jack ( or whomever ) has that course set artificially 2 shots low. In my opinion.

or on the flip side. We need more par 70s on tour. Lol. It really makes no difference which way you look at it.

[QuigleyDU]

Ok, so broaden the stroke? Which courses are not being considered for elite level play?

[Roadking2003]

Look at the PGA Tour scoring average leader results since the USGA distance limitations went into effect in 2004. And what is the obvious conclusion? Distance isn't lowering scores.

 

Also, the scoring leader was not a bomber in five of those years (Kucher, Donald, Spieth twice, Stricker)

 

 

 

[klebs01]

Not sure why people keep pointing to scores. Scores aren't the issue. Its the distance the ball is traveling relative to the playing field, the amount of land required to achieve appropriate scale, safety issues when there is a mismatch, and sustainability issues related to the increased amount of land required. Elite was clearly chosen to define a group of players that extended way beyond the tour, otherwise they would have simply said tour players or pros. Yes, they used PGA Tour data because its readily available.

Mackenzie had some great wisdom about the need to shrink the scale of golf. The thrill of distance is really just relative to fellow competitors. That shrinking the length of the game to make it faster would be very good for the game. That even back then there was too much walking and not enough golf with the lengthening of courses that was occurring at the time. This isn't a new issue, and should have been addressed years ago. Now is a great time to take action. The outcry would soon pass and the game will be better for the change.

[bladehunter]

You’d have to overlay that with all courses current and past lengths to make that point. We all know they’ve all lengthened. Some several times.

[bladehunter]

Exactly. I don’t care if they go -30 anywhere.

[QuigleyDU]

I posted this a few pages back and no one seemed to see it. Doak is building a 6000 yard par 68 course right now. I think that is a wonderful alternate solution. Smaller footprint achieved and no roll back needed.

[bladehunter]

I like the idea. But seems like a pace of play nightmare. It would have to have several Short par 4s and all gettable par 5s. That’s going to make for alot of waiting.

[Roadking2003]

The USGA has been lowering par for the US Open for decades.