USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[bigred90gt]

Because I do not put professional or elite golf above the rest of the world that supports the game. The professional and elite tournament game of golf could disappear tomorrow, and the only effect it would have on me would be I would have to find something else to watch on TV on a rainy weekend. My enjoyment of the game does not come from USGA events or PGA Tour events, and I suspect I am not alone in that by any stretch. I meet more people playing golf that wouldn't watch golf if it was the only thing on TV than I do people who actually watch and follow golf.

 

I don't care if elite championship golf "fits" on ANY golf course, at all. Not one bit. I care about the game I play, and the game the rank and file amateur plays, and for those of use that fit into that category of player, any rollback of specifications will have a negative effect on the game we play. I get that you want the game of golf to look the way you want it to look, you want it to be played the way you dictate it should be played. But you need to understand that people do not share that viewpoint, and for the absolutely overwhelming majority of people who play this game, and those that actually support the industry with our money, we do not feel the need for anything to change. And as stewards of the game, it would be in the interest of the USGA and the R&A to side with the people that support the game and industry as a whole, as opposed to those who own and operate exclusive clubs that feel their opportunities to host tournaments are dwindling because they think their course is not long enough. And it circles back to: why is it that they feel it is not long enough? Because they are trying to protect a score they feel should be protected, nothing more nothing less. I would go as far as to say that playing a championship tournament on a shorter course (6500 just to throw a number out) would actually give the shorter players a chance. No need to change anything and you have a deeper field of players capable of winning. Then you can have your stuffy exclusive country clubs hosting the championships you hold so dear, all the while not affecting anyone else's enjoyment in the slightest.

[Mudguard]

People bring up Jack all the time because he's a big proponent of reigning in the distance. The irony was he was one of the longest players in his day.

[bladehunter]

But isn’t that the disconnect ? What happens if the elite say they don’t care about the rank and file ? All hell breaks loose , right ? Why not both ends care about the other end and work on a compromise that suits the GAME instead of ourselves for years to come ?

[bigred90gt]

Because there is nothing wrong with the game that needs changing?

 

And if the USGA and R&A roll back equipment to reduce distance, that is exactly what they are doing. That is exactly the elite telling the rank and file that they do not care one bit about them. The game of golf, for the overwhelming majority of people that play it, is about far more than elite tournament play. I would say elite tournament play is very low on the list of concerns for the average golfer.

 

I am an avid golfer, and a huge fan of the game and everything about it (even though some wouldnt believe that because I dont share their view on distance). I could not tell you one person who won any USGA amateur even in the last 20 years. I could name Tiger (and yes, I know his wins were more than 20 years ago), because everyone knows he won a few, but I could not name another player with any level of certainty. It would be a pure guess. I'm guessing there are more people who play golf that couldnt either than there are that could.

[bladehunter]

Lol. And that’s fine for you to think. But. I don’t want to be called the selfish one anymore. We all are. But if you aren’t willing to budge , you can’t really claim the reasonable ground.

oikos let the cat out of the bag above. He knows what I’ve been saying is true. He said so. He just isn’t willing to give it up. Perfectly respectable position. We are making progress. Lol.

 

edit - I don’t mean that as harsh as it sounds. Just trying to invoke thought .

[physasst]

Best dam post in the thread. With the exception of Ashley's of course...

M

[bigred90gt]

There has only been one person in this thread that has wavered in their position that I recall (and unfortunately I cannot recall who it is). If that is the stance you want to take about people not willing to budge being able to claim a reasonable position, then essentially every person in this discussion fits that category.

 

I'm all for changing equipment specs at the elite level if that is what some feel is necessary. Great. Have at it. If I decide to dedicate enough time and energy to ever pursue any kind of elite championship, I will do so with that equipment that fits those regulations. But why create a problem for every golfer on the planet to suit a handful of exclusive country clubs that want to host tournaments? That is what this whole discussion is about. I just cannot understand the logic in that thought process, and no one has yet given an explanation that justifies it.

[15th Club]

I really love this comment. I like the clarity. I like the absolutism.

And yes, you and I are on polar-opposite sides. There may be some compromise solution in the end but it won’t be because you or I want to compromise.

Your point of view, which I honestly think you have stated with admirable precision, is everything that I don’t want and don’t care about. The psychological addiction to length. The common golfers’ ignorance of great historic architecture. The presumption that the USGA is elitist and classist, which is itself your own classist, presumptive attack.

I hope and pray that golf’s ruling bodies do something that disappoints you greatly.

[golfer07840]

I started playing/following golf in 1995. Seems to me, distance has ALWAYS mattered. Now, maybe it's because I'm part of the generation (I was 22 when I started following/playing) that when they started, the persimmon drivers and fairway woods were on their way out, but it has felt like players were chasing distance and this was 5 years prior to the PRO V1.

Then 2 years later, Tiger happened. In the meantime, sometime around 1996, the HP2 ball was introduced. My god it felt so good to hit that thing, instead of the rock hard Top Flight's or Dunlop balls. I never hit a Balata, because I was told "You don't want to, they break and since your'e just starting, you'll never hit it straight and also, they are expensive."

So what I'm saying is, I admit, distance is a thing. Do I think it is some sort of problem? No. I don't believe it's all the ball. I think it's everything combined. Ball, club forgiveness, shaft material and weight, better athletes (Thanks Tiger), modern teaching, along with Trackman and understanding optimal launch angles, etc. It's ALL of these things.

And I get it, with some of these courses, they don't play the same way they were intended. ANGC #13 as an example. I get it, it's not a 3W or 2i into the green. They can hit 5i into it. Heck, I think Tiger in 1997 hit PW into it. But that course was designed what? almost 90 years ago? The game has evolved. Humans, in general, have evolved physically. Bobby Jones in the early 60's even said when he saw Jack play, he wasn't familiar with the game he was playing. And that was 60 years ago.

[golfer07840]

Because Jack started this movement 25 years ago. That's why he keeps being brought up.

[bladehunter]

And that is half the battle. A lot of what brings out the yelling in these things is one sides inability to admit that the other side is seeing what they are seeing. If we could get past that , then it can be debated if what everyone knows is true , is good or bad.

[QuigleyDU]

The common golfers ignorance of golf architecture is there for a reason. They are not allowed to play them. Only 200-300 people in the world are allowed to play them. And you have to be male, white, and super rich.

[bladehunter]

I’ve wavered , heck I’m continuously on that fence.

but that’s besides the point. Pro rollbackers discussing many options to roll it back , is not the same sort of rock hard stance as “ it’s fine as is. Doesn’t need a thing “.

[davep043]

I'm not sure that anyone that matters has suggested that the increasing distance will lead to the "demise of golf". What I've read is that the distance increases at the top levels have altered the balance of skills required to play at the top levels in a way that many find undesirable. Probably because I grew up with golf in the 70s, I generally agree with that viewpoint, I'd prefer to see driving accuracy be a more valuable skill than it is currently. They've also provided some data suggesting that an increased demand for longer courses, from people who don't actually need longer courses, is leading to some increased expenses. Both are logical, if not actually provable.

"They blew it 20 years ago"

What do you suggest the USGA/R&A should have done differently 20 years ago? That was the time period they limited spring-like reaction from clubfaces, they revised the testing procedures for balls, they set volume and other limits on drivers in 2004, and have continued to update regulation of drivers since then. As is pretty common in most quickly changing fields, the regulators have been a step behind the innovators, and its easy to criticize that. But really, what do you believe the Ruling Bodies should have done differently 20 years ago? And if they DID make mistakes 20 years ago, should they just stop regulating distance entirely? "Well, I screwed up this time, y'all just do whatever you want now"

I've said it before, the continued evaluation of distance should be done, and it is a perfectly appropriate job for the Ruling Bodies. I don't believe there's any other entity more qualified and less biased to do it. Not that they're UNbiased, just less biased than anyone else. What's the right thing to do? Its a matter of opinion, in many cases it gets down to value judgements. What are the practical options? That's a much tougher problem. I support continuing to keep equipment-related restrictions as they are, even introduce new items to test to limit future gains. I don't support bifurcation, not mandatory, not through optional Local Rule, I jsut don't think its workable, and I don't think its good for the game over all.

 

[golfer07840]

I'm like the perfect age for this discussion. I don't have childhood memories of Jack in '86 (I admit, I was 13, was more into baseball that time of year), but I am old enough to remember my now wife, having a bag of woods and solid Patty Berg irons when I first met her. They were handed down to her from her mother, after her mother went out and bought nice new shiny clubs. Callaway Great Big Bertha woods and Lynx Parallax irons with graphite shafts. That, right there, you could argue, is where this all started. That transition of equipment.

I've seen this game grow from the Pro's topping out around 290 with a driver to know 330. The weird thing is? It's never bothered me. I remember in '99, hole 17, US Open at Pinehurst, Phil had 185 yards to the green. He his 4i that day (And I remember this because I saw it replayed a few years ago and was thinking, "LOL a 4i?) now he would probably hit 6 or 7. But when I saw it replayed that evening and giggled over it being a 4i, it just didn't bother me.

People think I'm kidding or being goofy when I say this, but I'm dead serious. This all started, April, 1997 with Tiger.

Now you're seeing an entire generation that watched what he did and how he did it and they were all coming up with the game at the exact time that the Manufacturer's were making clubs and balls to go further, so the avg Joe could hit it like Tiger.

[golfer07840]

There is a ton of truth in what you say.

[bigred90gt]

"The common golfers’ ignorance of great historic architecture."

 

I feel like I need to make a comment on this, because in putting my opinions and stance out there, I feel that perhaps I have overlooked this. For me, I absolutely appreciate a great design. I love the challenge of a well thought out hole that makes you think about how you are going to play it. I dont necessarily care about the historic nature of it, just what it presents when playing it. What you cannot seem to grasp is that very "common golfer" you have so much disdain for, is the very person keeping this game alive. Without that common golfer, this game disappears completely. That common golfer makes up the absolute majority of people who keep the doors open at courses across the world.

 

The disconnect I have is, for the vast majority of golfers, the ones who put out their hard earned dollars to play and support the game, and industry as a whole, those great architectural features and challenges are very relevant. Yes, there are outliers amongst the rank and file amateur that hit the ball beyond a lot of the designed "hazards" (I mean hazard to encompass any architectural feature intended to be a challenge). I used to be one of them. That is great for that player to have put in the work to be able to do that, and they should absolutely realize that advantage if they can control it. If they feel golf is too boring because they hit the ball too far, there are balls available that limit flight already, start playing with those. For the overwhelming majority of players of this game, it is plenty difficult as is, and there is no need to make it more so.

[bladehunter]

I agree with you on all points. That last line is my gripe. People are in denial about how much help they are receiving. Or .... they aren’t and they simply enjoy that they don’t have to work for what was once hard to attain. Kind of like a participation trophy.

 

ive got tO get off here. This thread is irritating . Lol. And not shot at any one person.

[bigred90gt]

It is the same, because in every scenerio, it gets rolled back. They cannot see that there is no problem, just as those who are against a roll back cannot see that there is a problem. It is exactly the same thing, regardless of the method used to roll back distance. I've already given my opinion on how it can be done without affecting anyone other than people playing that given tournament on that given week. It has been shot down by those in favor of an equipment based roll back. I'm willing to compromise. If the need to roll back distance is felt at a venue, slow down the fairways, pinch them in, and grow the rough. Same effect. you will have people rolling back their own distance when they realize they cannot play from the rough, or that they need to be in a specific spot to have an angle, and when that tournament is over, mow the fairways back to what they were, along with the rough, and let the people who play the course every day go back to the conditions they play. If there ever was a problem, it is now solved without changing a single piece of equipment.

 

Unfortunately, for some, that just is not good enough for whatever reason.

[15th Club]

Of course that is untrue.

The Old Course is a muni. North Berwick West Links. Royal Dornoch. Lawsonia Links. University of Michigan. Mid Pines. Pine Needles. Belvedere. On and on and on.

[bladehunter]

Doesn’t work because it just eliminates driver. Score is NOt the issue. As much as 15th hates for me to agree with him. Scale of the game is. And it’s not incredibly rare in any course in the world under 6800 yards. Which is most of them.

taking driver out of longer hitters hands only amplifies the Problem. It makes for boring golf. It’s like restrictor plate stock car racing. yawn. So what’s that answer ? Less horsepower. So they actually race. But also stay on the track and not kill themselves. Which is the scale I’m talking about.

 

anyway. I’m done again. Neither of us have a vote. I’m going to go buy some more distance , and stop reading this. ?

[QuigleyDU]

Haha. It is also incredibly true at the same time...

 

 

 

 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Agree that taking distance away would create even lower opinions of the USGA among players as a whole, and it knows it. That's why the USGA is trying so hard to convince everyone that it needs to be done, and is having a lot of trouble doing so. The USGA can sleep well at night knowing that it has its viceroy 15th spreading the good word to us peons.

[bladehunter]

Lol. I don’t know if all 3 are. I’m not wealthy by a long shot. I work for wealthy people. Who work for other wealthy people. But. Sometimes they do let me in on the “ ballstriking Jesse “ credentials alone ! Lol. You know. When they need a best ball partner or similar.

[QuigleyDU]

Nice!!! It is always fun to see the other side of the fence.

[gvogel]

I'm a muni player currently, but I have been fortunate to have played a few on that list. I would also submit that there are other public courses such as Cape Arundel and Harding Park that are accessible to non-white, non-rich male golfers. I might add Aiken Golf Club, Highland Park (Birmingham), and the Upper Cascades courses to that list.

[QuigleyDU]

Of courses there are nice courses out there that are public. They are not the top shelf courses that are considered "Architectural gems"

https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/commercial-real-estate/the-10-most-exclusive-golf-clubs-in-america-72932#0

[smashdn]

I was going to use the term "philistines" for those who don't "get" the architecture side of things but you did a better job than I could have. And I would be one of the unwashed on the "wrong" side of the gate.

 

A template hole is a heckuva drug.

[golfer07840]

And Harding Park will be hosting the PGA this year. Let's see how that goes.

[smashdn]

But he isn't. A) He was the Cameron Champ of his day. B) Check the tour stops and see if they weren't designed by Jack or re-done by him or if he has consulted there. That is two very relevant perspectives to bring to the discussion.