USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[tsecor]

another thread that just disappears down the ole wrx rabbit hole

[bladehunter]

Sorry wasn’t clear. “ his tees “ means he will negotiate his own tee choice . Usually he plays middle tees until long par 3 or long par 5. Then he will move up to senior tees. So he picks and chooses. Although. Nobody would gripe if he moved all the way up on all holes. He’s not beating anybody off the tee. It’s his iron game.

 

yes I realize that’s handicapped technically. But only for distance. My point wasn’t that I never played net. I do. But it’s never in any group I play in. Only the club sponsored events. And as I said. Just use it for practice. You’re not going to win.

[QuigleyDU]

I agree, as he said especially in match play. Match play is a great equalizer. It make that blow up triple bogey just a one hole loss. At the end of the day you could have lost by 6 strokes or more but only lost 1 or 2 holes because of those.

[bladehunter]

That and it’s a common misconception that a plus 2 breaks par every round. Baloney. They shoot their share of 2-3 over rounds. None like to admit it. But they do. Lol. Especially under the gun.

[QuigleyDU]

True. You can be a plus and almost never break par. Or at least you could on the previous handicap system. I do not know about the new one.

[ThinkingPlus]

WHS will make no difference in this respect.

[bladehunter]

@ThinkingPlus is correct. I find the new setup for be fair in that respect. And I’ll add. My cap is about to go under the equator. No doubt. I’m so anxious for the season to start I can taste it. First year out with a putter ! But according to the rules. That doesn’t make me a sandbagger. Just still improving. And that’s apparently allowed. Right ? Lol. Oh I forgot. Age. Blank that. Supposedly age is going to stop me from improving. I deleted that memo.

anyway. Enough of my tangent. You all know this is my favorite subject. lol. Back to your much more pleasant and regularly scheduled ....argument. ?

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Distance is the issue and @Jack_H discussed distance.
If we all hit shorter, strokes and handicaps go up. Longer hitters will still have the advantage, but rounds WILL take longer. More strokes = more time.

[storm319]

Unless all courses are renovated to scale to the new distance paradigm. Then we are right back to square one and can start the rollback 2030 argument :)

[15th Club]

A. You presume that a ball rollback will hit recreational players significantly. I think that is untrue. You are welcome to think whatever you want, but you can't make me believe it.

B. You presume that in reaction/relation to any ball rollback, players who hit the ball much shorter, cannot move up to more-forward tees. I don't know why anyone would believe that.

It is almost universally presumed in serious circles, that a rollback will be aimed, as exclusively as is technologically possible, at elite-level players. Only in places like these forums, are people -- all of them recreational golfers -- freaking out about how they will lose 20% of their distance, and so before they have seen any news about any prototypes, any demonstrations, any testing. They are aided significantly in their mass freakouts by comments from Titleist, Titleist-sponsored Tour players, and their some -- definitely not all -- of their friends in the golf business; some in the PGA of America, some equipment writers for golf magazines. Almost all of them connected somehow with Titleist, or serving a sales demographic that is part of the mass freakout.

EDIT. - Until this post, I had thought that maybe the Dean Snell video thread had become the Distance Insights discussion page, and this had become the World Handicap System page.

[QuigleyDU]

B. You presume that in reaction/relation to any ball rollback, players who hit the ball much shorter, cannot move up to more-forward tees. I don't know why anyone would believe that.

If they (the player) changes balls then need to move up. Is the current ball then not appropriate? If the rollback simply forced in adjustment of play from current tees then, maybe it can be considered. But!!! if it forces a forward march on the tee box. Then it has harmed the game.

[bladehunter]

lol. Now that’s how a Segway into an argument is supposed to work ! Bravo !!!

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

“A” will happen since most serious golfers are competitive whether in a tournament or money game. Historically, all the changes geared towards the elite golfers end up propagating to the average player.

”B” you’ve apparently never played seniors who are already playing the most forward tees and make up 80% of the weekday players. They will simply take longer. I think they’ll still enjoy the game for the most part, but they will take longer so courses will likely have less players. The alternative is having to Marshall every hole to tell people to tee off when the party up front is only 200 yards away.

If this happens, why not simply play simulations? What’s the point of playing on a tiny course that’s possibly located in an overcrowded area?

[oikos1]

That's definitely where perhaps semantics gets in the way. As a reminder, this came about when it was suggested golf be made easier and a poster compared that to changing rules of other games. I simply made the point that when using the handicap system, it makes it easier for less skilled players to compete, and have a chance to win, against a more skilled player. If you don't think this is true, than explain why anyone with a handicap index not more than 1.4 can qualify for the U.S. Open, yet said handicap and "rightfully entitled" strokes are not given when qualifying.

Why would a golfer ever think it is their right to get strokes? I can think of no other sport/game where a lesser player believes it to be their right to get something for their lesser skill. In other games they may negotiate, say ask for a few points or an extra move or whatever, but that's to be determined in conjunction with their opponent. The handicap system was designed for gambling, but as it turns out it's really not that "honest" of a system. I'm not suggesting that's the case with anyone involved in this discussion, but all one has to do is find a few good wrx threads on handicapping sandbaggers to know that the system has huge problems. Not to mention there can be large swings in scoring, or in match play as already mentioned. Handicapping is useful to measure yourself in comparison to other golfers as a whole, but that's about it.

So here's my question. If I play golf matches for money, and I believe, based on my handicap, that I rightfully deserve x number of strokes every time I tee it up against a better player, what is my incentive to improve? Seriously, a player who learns the game, puts in the time and works hard has to give a lesser player, who perhaps never practices or works at improving, what they believe to be their "rightful" strokes. Perhaps this is a contributor as to why golf handicaps haven't improved much in the last 50 years.

There seems to be a real resistance to the essence of what getting/giving strokes truly means.

[15th Club]

This is all such wild speculation, about how a rollback will affect recreational players. I just don't see the point. Not until we know how the prototypes perform.

But what I do know, from the deep-seated popular/ignorant animus against anything that the USGA does (even thought it will be both ruling bodies in the end), is that the USGA may have to do some clever A/B blind testing with the sorts of players that you are talking about -- 180-yard elderly drivers -- and show conclusively that they are not affected by a coming rollback. It may help a lot if Jack Nicklaus at age 80 shows that he has lost nothing personally distance-wise in a rollback. I bet that Mike Davis is plotting that right now.

[CasualLie]

Meanwhile, other than some last Q/A from the media to the players, has anyone ever bothered to check out what the elite players think? Ask all of them that just came off Bay Hill what they think of a ball rollback. If there was ever an opening for an alternative tour, which I do not believe there is, bifurcating the rules based on a golf ball would be that opening. Money talks, not the USGA. Elite players drive the money. Without getting the elite players on board, any rollback will be met with much protest and quite possibly a mess.

That doesn’t rule out some kind of fake rollback where after years of negotiation between the USGA and elite players, some kind of technology arrangement is agreed upon which ultimately is negligible at best. Which would beg the question, what’s the point?

With all due respect to the USGA apologists who show much passion and care for the game, really why argue so much for a rollback? Is the game really in danger? Or is it just speculation based on select data? Protection of the so called classic courses? Those courses do not have some divine right to future US Opens. Like just about everything else in life, the times change and the utility of something designed/built 100 years ago is just not up to task. Should we all drive cars from the good old days of the 1920s? Work in buildings made of brick in 1910? Bring back coal powered trains to commute to work?

The US Open has shown it all - tricked up courses that blew up in the USGA’s face, and tough but fair tests of golf with strategic setups. The last two weeks on tour show what a little wind and water can do to the psyche of the elite. So it is quite possible to test the best without messing with he ball. A much bigger factor, though somewhat unpredictable, is weather. Outside of those rare perfect weather days which are an integral part of a championship course’s defense - name one time where a course at major championship level was overpowered and rendered defenseless by the field. Sure, Koepka won a couple of majors hitting bombs, but he was particularly accurate on great weather days, posted two great days, then coasted in when things toughened up.

When the cut line at the average tour event is -10, then we can talk.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

You don’t need to have prototypes to play limited distance golf. Just walk out there with limited flight balls in hand and let us all know how you play for 20 rounds. What’s your current handicap? If you play bogey, I’ll guess add 8 strokes to your average game and handicap up 4 to a 22. If you’re around my handicap, up to a 10-12 depending upon your strengths.

I’ve tried everything from that to playing only a 7i and the net result has always been more strokes. I’ve done these “antics” often while “evening the odds” with some friends.

When playing from the ladies tees, I shoot about 6 strokes better.

When I play irons only, I shoot about 6 strokes worse because my best tee shots are right around bogey distances. I’m 5 strokes better on the approaches than an actual bogey, I suppose?

Interesting enough, historical handicap data backs up my observations. Ladies do shoot 6 strokes worse and bogey golfers do average about 18 strokes or more.

I predict with certainty that rounds will take longer.

[Pepperturbo]

That's because there are too many variables to nail down every one. Like running a P&L or playing good golf. There are always fixed and variable factors.

[Pepperturbo]

@Roadking2003 - Not sure what your point is?
I been as low as "2" and played with (pro-ams) and against PGA tour pros from every tour; we were neighbors in a gated community and mutual pvt club members. Contrary to your remark I've seen touring pro lose on their home course to club member that play to -1, playing even up too. Not till you get to a -1, -2 or -3 will you realize golfers at that level can swing up to ten strokes on good or bad, including touring pros. My low was 68 on a Par 72 when playing to -2. also reason anyone with -1 or better can play in a qualify for an Open.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Makes sense, we’ve seen the bottom of any scoreboard. Pros have bad days too.

[15th Club]

This is like an encyclopedia entry of all of the things I reject in this debate.

No, I am not going to ask any Tour players about a rollback. I am certainly not going to ask any players under contract to Titleist or Taylormade. Their sponsors have a stated position of advocacy.

Money doesn’t “talk” to me. I am not paid by anyone in commercial golf. If you gave me a $10 million contract with Titleist, and told me that I had to thenprotest against any ball rollback, then money would be talking to me. Which proves my previous point.

And of course no one literally overpowers a USGA national championship course anymore. Why? Because like courses on the Tour, they are all planned years in advance, and they have all been lengthened for elite play. The exceptions prove my rule. We do hear about US Open qualifier courses yielding many low-60 rounds. Those are courses who open themselves up as a favor and tribute to the USGA, and which often reflect just how poorly elite golf fits onto all but a very few courses.

 

[Roadking2003]

A four shot swing is not hard to believe. What is hard to believe is that the four shot higher capper wins 50% of the time.

IMHO a four stroke difference in indexes is very big. I would like to see a study, but my guess is a four shot higher capper would only win about 20 - 30 % of the matches.

[Roadking2003]

"B. You presume that in reaction/relation to any ball rollback, players who hit the ball much shorter, cannot move up to more-forward tees. I don't know why anyone would believe that."

 

Our courses have five tees. Half of the guys I play with use the white tees which are the 2nd shortest. If they lose distance due to a new ball, they would need to move up to the (shortest) red tees which were traditionally called "The Ladies Tees". That is not going to happen. So they will either quit golf or continue to play tees where they cannot reach greens in regulation.

[Roadking2003]

"Why would a golfer ever think it is their right to get strokes?"

 

I don't think anybody has said that. There is no right to strokes. Strokes exist to make a golf round more competitive. Nothing else. Golfers can choose to follow the USGA handicap guidelines or to totally ignore handicaps.

 

If somebody prefers to play at a statistical disadvantage, that is their option. A 20 capper can play a 1 capper with no strokes for $1000 if that's what they want to do. But the odds would probably be 10,000 to one that the 20 capper would ever win.

[15th Club]

And again your entire presumption post relies on something that is wholly supposed and without basis in any real-world model. Your presumption is that recreational golfers, and particularly the shortest-hitting recreational golfers, will be noticeably and adversely affected.

You can think that if you want, but I won’t. It is a non-starter with me. I am not even going to engage that argument.

[QuigleyDU]

I have stayed relatively out of this thread for a bit. But I have to say the way you represent the USGA @15th Club is not the best. I know you are not paid by them but here, on this forum you are their defacto representative. No one else is flying the USGA flag. In the way you repeatedly quote, cite, and admonish them is to hold the party line so to speak. Also the repeated quoting of Mike Davis and Geoff Shackleford etc.
I think that if you represent their common attitude towards golfers in general that may be the reason many are digging in their heels on this topic. It is a top down, do as I say or else stance. If the USGA continues in a likewise manor will accomplish one thing. To drive players from the game. Maybe, behind closed doors, in cigar rooms and talking to gentleman that is really their goal. They just don't want to say it out loud so the rabble hear it.

[Mudguard]

So if he's playing mixed tees during a round, well that's not even golf. Can't actually have a score either. As it's been pointed out, mixed tees are basically a handicap. There is course rated ten shot difference between the back tees and front at my old course. That's why it's so awkward to explain to members that mixed tee events have to have handicap tweaks.

 

As for the second point, I don't know if anyone is advocating a rollback for all golf. I've said it time and time before, the elite should not be dictating the rules for everyone. He's another thought should a shorter ball change be made for everyone, perhaps your average fifteen handicap might actually hit it straighter? And therefore play quicker? Any change would be marginal, say 10%, I think here they rate courses on the bogey golfer hitting it 200m, so it's only a slight reduction. Might mean fewer waits on par fives if everyone can hit their seconds straight away.

Par fives are my group's Achilles heel when it comes to going through groups, we will catch up on the tee, only not to be called through, then we have to wait for the green to clear, so the group looks back and thinks, oh we're keeping well ahead of them.

[QuigleyDU]

I don't think that is the point. If it agreed upon that it is ok from hole one. Then what is the big deal? There are holes on every course from every tee that do not really fit. Maybe it is that one hole with an extremely hard forced carry?

[gvogel]

The course could be set up with the white tees where the red tees are now, and the red tees set on new tees even shorter. No big deal.

[bladehunter]

I’m just telling you what I know. The difference from plus 2 to 2 is not equal to the difference from 8 handicap to 12. Sorry. Not true.