USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[bladehunter]

I’d say the distance metrics off the tee and the average in used for approach would do. It’s not score. Not in my mind.

why not use the robot , and trackman ? You could set maximum launch height , and Min spin easy enough according to Dean Snell. Get that right and seems like the rest takes care of itself.

[bigred90gt]

So you want to abandon all currently built and routed courses, and replace Them all with executive courses? I’m not understanding how playing a shorter ball on current courses will reduce play time

 

how on earth are you hitting the ball too far fpr courses we play at 225 yards? I hit around 250, and I certainly don’t hit it too far, and for damn sure don’t want to hit it any shorter. I’ve lost enough distance through injury, I don’t need any addition loss through regulation because a handful of people think a handful of people hit the ball too far.

[oikos1]

I had a good half page response but have since thought better of it. Probably muddle things up too much at once.

So, I'll just start with a good starting point and accept your concession that the USGA is biased, just less biased than anyone else.

[oikos1]

Don't you get it though? You've had the pleasure of hitting the ball far. Probably absolutely crushed a few over the years. Now it's time for you to dink it around. It's for the good of the game and so the other guy feels like he has an advantage to beat you because you really shouldn't be hitting it that far anyway. Really, it's for the good of the game. Maybe not yours, but hey, put your ego aside man.

[storm319]

Even if all 16000 US courses somehow were magically reduced by 10%, there would not be a substantial reduction in maintenance cost or pace of play (most amateur time waste happens around greens). What you are referring to is dramatic scaling that would bring the game back to early 1900 levels and would require a 30%+ reduction. Also if you reduce the both player distance and course length many of the complaints in this thread will remain just on a smaller scaled footprint.

[storm319]

What will take care of itself? What is the problem exactly? Why does it matter how the player gets from tee to green if the end result (score) is the same? Is there some sort of rule requiring a minimum number of different clubs to be hot that I am unaware of?

Where are the quantifiable numbers to support what is considered “desirable” length? What is the optimal length based on study of pace of play and maintenance cost data projections over the next 30 years?

Why did the USGA do little to nothing when the majority of the distance increases were occurring between 1930-1980 if this is not isolated to distance increases over the past 30 years? If the USGA admits they are unable to stay ahead of distance increase trends, the why is bifurcation even being considered via local rule? As previously stated, claims for a rollback need are greatly over exaggerated and the reasoning is not logically supported by data.

[OrangeGravy]

It's simply just a preference of what kind of golf you want to watch or what someone thinks golf should be. One view isn't any more right than the other. If someone has the view that golf is simply about getting the ball in hole in the fewest strokes and nothing else is relevant, then in the extreme, every tournament on tour should be held at the same course every week. There is no need to have different venues posing holes with different challenges. If course architecture and artistry of the game holds no value to someone, it would seem you could just have 18 straight flat holes of varying length or just 1 hole that they play 18 times a day. Of course the ultra extreme version of that would boil down to just holding tournaments at the range/putting green and turning it into a skills contest hitting targets for points.

 

[OrangeGravy]

I completely understand your stance. It's a perfectly valid one that I think a lot of people would have (even pro-rollback'ers). The only problem I see is that the USGA hasn't done anything yet and they have even said they don't want to punish the average golfer. Is the problem that you think no matter what they do, it's going to punish us average golfers? I'm in the same category of golfer as you, but nothing the USGA does is going to affect me at all. They have no hold over me. I don't play competitive golf. I keep an official handicap and that's about it. I don't carry the "poser" gene when it comes to playing the same equipment as the pros do (as someone referred to earlier in the thread), so there is no worry about bifurcation from me. If it's your distrust of the USGA that drives your concern, I get that, but what hold do they have over you if you don't play competitive golf?

[bigred90gt]

I no longer play competitive golf either, but I do play conforming equipment and I do play by the rules and maintain a handicap index.

 

theres a couple of issues I have:

i don’t believe a ball can be produced that magically knows who is hitting it. Short of bifurcation. There is no way to have an effect on professional/elite golfers and not run of the mill amateurs. a ball that does not begin to effect distance until a certain clubhead speed will have a greater effect the higher the clubhead speed. So it might be a 5% reduction at say 110mph, but a 20% reduction at 120mph. Those are just numbers to make an example, so let’s not get into holding me to them. there are rank and file amateurs that have high clubhead speed but can’t break 90 if you paid them. Why should they be negatively affected by a rollback based purely on clubhead speed?

[bladehunter]

I care less everyday on this. But.

I think you’re trying to over complicate it to make it seem like some great cipher to solve. It’s not. It’s as simple as the optic of every 5 handicap you see being able to hit high straight “ bombs” that once upon a time was A pro only feat .

but I’ll stop there. There’s no “ burden of proof “ that requires a mathematical inequality to be shown and then solved with an exact percentage calc to roll it back. We both know that demand is a paper tiger. Easy to slay really. Because it has no teeth. But so far obtuse that the tiger may be hard to even Catch to be able to kill. I’m too tired for word games tonight. Maybe I’ll spar tomorow. Lol.

[15th Club]

Frank Thomas was an experienced engineer from within the golf equipment industry when he joined the USGA. His tenure as Technical Director was a moderate disaster. If the USGA never again hired another industry insider it would be too soon for me.

[storm319]

With all do respect

[bladehunter]

lol. I tend to respond in kind.

Took a bit of thought to type that many words and only say “ I’m going to bed “.

[storm319]

But he represented the USGA that can do no wrong in your eyes. Isn’t that a paradox? :)

[storm319]

 

[golfer07840]

But you aren't playing under 3 hours and quite possibly using every club in your bag. And that's bad for the game!!!

Or something...

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Sounds like you’re already able to play the game you want (at Red Reef in Boca Raton) without requiring everyone else to do the same.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

This kind of comment lacks respect for the artistic, historical, delicate, feeble, helpless designs that haven’t hosted championships in decades (if ever), but somehow suddenly could if only tour pros carried it 220 with drivers. They are delicate; treat them carefully.

[gvogel]

Of course I don't want to abandon all currently built and routed courses. I gave an extreme example of a game played with a 30% or 40% reduced distance ball to illustrate a point. If you don't see the point, I can't be any more illustrative.

[15th Club]

So now I am hoping that in a blandly, grimly unfunny way I have knocked out the notion that I regard the USGA as holy and infallible. So we can have a better more substantive debate.

Although, as I read all of the low-information attacks on the USGA on these forums, it is a bit tempting to take that position.

[oikos1]

Actually, it's been quite enlightening to see you and other individuals on here paint the USGA as a biased, incompetent organization that is "the best we've got though" to entrust with the traditions of the game.

[smashdn]

How do you characterize the "industry" without including the golf equipment manufacturers (corporations) interests? In the USGA's perspective they are supported largely by one tournament, the Men's US Open, largely through television rights and merchandise sales. Pragmatically, the USGA cannot serve the masses through rule making, agronomy, holding other tournaments that do not produce "profit" and managing handicaps if they do not produce an entertainment event that garners the interest of television viewers.

See what I am getting at? You can't be "for the good of the game" if you can't finance it. You can't finance it without the Men's US Open.

 

I'm also not sure what all you are lumping in there when you use the term "industry."

[physasst]

Exactly. This is the course I belong to, or rather I should say, I am switching to this year. I've played it many times. It's brutal from the tips, which I don't play (7050, 74/133). Not yet at least. Even from the blues, which I do play, it's 6669, 72/130. I drive the ball about 250, but struggle off the tee. This course actually forces you to think about your tee shots, and is frequently windy. The 9th-12th holes are simply brutal. The greens are undulating and tough, and because of the wind, are typically fast.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Agree, just because you have the ability to hit long doesn’t mean you can every time and even when you can it takes careful play, maybe more so? We all have to employ strategy. Unless you drive 380+ yards there’s no such thing as “bomb and gouge”.

Of the pros, only 10 or so could do that every once in a blue moon, so we’re going to change the rules just to accommodate those few occurrences?

That’s the absurd part about the “Distance issue”

[davep043]

Please note, I believe every single entity has a bias, some pre-concieved notion of how golf should be played, some perceived financial incentive, something that pushes their opinion one way or another. The PGA Tour has specifically said they'll protect the Tour and its players. Titleist has said they don't see any problem, and will work with the "stakeholders" and will "advance and advocate" its position. Mike Davis has specifically stated his personal opinion, although the Distance Insights report doesn't make it seem as if the Ruling Bodies as a group agree completely with him. Every single entity involved is biased, including you and I. To me, the R&A and USGA have the most comprehensive understanding of the history of golf, of all facets of playing the game, and the least financial motivation in arriving at a specific outcome.

I don't believe I've called the R&A or the USGA incompetent, that position has generally been taken by the "change nothing" group. I do believe that the manufacturers will always have more money to attract the best engineers to produce innovative club and ball designs, and that the regulators will always be trying to keep up. That's not incompetent, to me, its normal whenever technological advancements are made. Perhaps someone can remind me of a field of science where regulation of a "revolutionary advancement" came before the advancement itself.

[bigred90gt]

All I am saying is if you are using the faster rounds to justify reduced flight ball, the only way that happens is to play on shorter length executive style courses. Playing a full length course with a reduced flight ball, even if played from shorter tee boxes, will not increase speed of a round. You still have to cover the full length of distance on the course.

 

Also, I am not the person who is talking about wanting additional advantage over shorter players. I do not need an advantage, as I am no longer a competitive golfer. I want everyone who plays the game to enjoy their time on the course, that is all. If a shorter player's distance is reduced further, and it takes away from their enjoyment of the game, that is of no advantage to me. So, I am not sure why that comment would be relative to anything I have said.

[15th Club]

Liked.

Elegantly written, dave.

Much better than what I had as a draft response to Oikos1 , before I decided not to hit "Post Comment." "Fucking bullshit" probably wouldn't have posted anyway.

[bigred90gt]

The golf industry as a whole, meaning golf courses and all positions related to their operation, golf cart manufacturers, of course equipment manufacturers, anyone that has a job in the industry related to golf. I am not saying the USGA needs to support them, I am saying that without the masses that play this game (recreational players by and large make up the majority of those masses), there is no golf industry or USGA. The USGA should be supporting the masses that support the game, not the elite that make up a fraction of a percentage or the exlusive country clubs that make up a fraction of a percentage of courses, and not the equipment industry. The players are the ones who support the game as a whole. I believe I have made that point many times, and I am not sure how much better I can explain it.

 

I liken the USGA to politicians. They are elected to support the citizens (the everyday masses that play golf), yet they spend their energy catering to special interest groups (elite tournaments and the exclusive country clubs that want to host them) at the expense of those who elected them into their roles (the masses who support the industry through spending).

 

And they do, and have, put on the Men's US Open for over a century. The distance professional golfers (or elite amateurs who qualify for the Men's US Open) is not going to suddenly end that tournament. So if you are trying to use that one tournament as an excuse to justify reduced distance equipment, it just does not pass the sniff test. I dont have the numbers, but I dont believe viewership is declining due to how far they are hitting the ball. Even if viewership declines, I do not know how one would make that link. Are ticket sales declining due to distance?

[15th Club]

"And they do, and have, put on the Men's US Open for over a century. The distance professional golfers (or elite amateurs who qualify for the Men's US Open) is not going to suddenly end that tournament. So if you are trying to use that one tournament as an excuse to justify reduced distance equipment, it just does not pass the sniff test."

 

If I were pressed to do so, I expect that together we could find about a dozen places in these 80+ pages, where I have specifically stated that a ball rollback is not just about the U.S. Open, or the PGA Tour, or any group of tours.

It is about all of elite golf.

Literally, I am NOT "trying to use that one tournament as an excuse to justify reduced distance equipment."

{Sniffs.}

[QuigleyDU]

You have been incredibly consistent on that front for sure.