USGA and RA about to screw up this game over distance

[Londoner]

I really don't understand the point you're trying to make in your last sentence.

[Sean2]

As the chart below shows, the average golfer doesn't hit the ball very far. To roll back the ball/equipment would be onerous for the average golfer...much like the groove rule had absolutely no impact at the professional level, but did in the recreational golf level.

[TimK1]

I'm not sure what the problem is? Yes, the players hit it much further now but the scores seem the same as always. PGA tour is a putting contest. Who ever makes the most putts for the week, wins. If distance was so much of a problem then guys would be shooting in the 50's all the time. I think Rory yesterday hit short irons for a second shot on almost every hole and still only managed a 65.

What am I missing? If distance was hurting the game and making a mockery of the courses then 3/4 of the field who shoot in the 50's

As for my game. I'm a 3.4 and cannot drive the ball over 250. I don't care what ball or driver you give me, that's it. If you change the ball then I would move up a tee box.

You can make the fairways softer also. Half the time I see long drives the ball rolls 50 yards. My club it rolls 5 or 10 yards, tops.

[Nessism]

The groove rule has had no impact on the rec level players other than those that freaked out and felt they had to replace their "illegal" wedges.

As for the ball, why assume there is going to be a rollback? I seriously doubt it will happen.

[Metzexpress4]

What are the honest opinions on bifurcation? I saw a comment on Twitter in response to an NLU pod that said, "the majority of golfers don't support bifurcation." Is this true? If there is some sort of roll back or tournament ball imposed on tour players, why can't the governing bodies apply it at the highest level and leave everyone else alone?

This might be an over simplification but why do they make every effort to ensure the .01% of golfers impact the experience for everyone else.

[davep043]

Interesting, there has been another thread going for a week and a half, accurately titled "USGA Distance Insight", where the discussion has been moderately polite and informative. And now we have "Ruling bodies are about to screw up." Have you read the report and the summary, do you actually understand what next steps are planned? Do you have a method for the USGA/R&A to regulate the "premium on accuracy" that you suggest? Remember, the USGA/R&A only run a small number of tournaments each year, the course set-up for most golf that gets televised is up to the individual tour (PGA, LPGA, European Tour, Korn Ferry, whatever). And when the USGA runs an event with a true "premium on accuracy" they get crucified by players and fans alike, its just too hard!

Have you been listening to Hank Haney? This sounds just like one of his rants.

[CMCSGolf]

So then you would be for a ball roll back? I personally think it would be far more interesting to watch a pro hit a driver and a 3 iron with a rolled back ball then a 3 iron and a 7 iron to par 5 because the fairway is only 18 yards wide.

[CMCSGolf]

If the rough is really thick and the course very narrow, there is only one "good" place to hit your tee shot. There is no strategy because nothing can be gained by your ball being on one side of the fairway vs the other because it's effectively so narrow. In this case, you're testing players on executing a shot to a predefined place. If they miss that spot, they wedge it out because the rough is so thick and there is little chance of an interesting recovery. When the penalty for missing is big (6 inch rough) and the target is very small (18 yard fairway), you're less playing golf in an interesting way and more executing a golf swing from spot to spot.

Royal Melbourne at the presidents cup this year is the polar opposite of high rough US opens. I found it much more interesting because a player could be in the fairway and be totally screwed if the angle was wrong for that days pin. Also, if they missed the fairway and were in the scrubby grass, they had a chance to recover to the green. These options are not available when the rough is 6 inches.

I fully agree you can make golf very tough at far less than 7,000 yards, even for pros, but that type of golf just isn't interesting to watch.

[Londoner]

I like to see players struggle in the rough and have to just play to get out. I also like woods dense enough to be unplayable if you get in.

I would like pro golf to be reflective of the situations I face when I play.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

seems the discussion always revolves around the distance guys hit it or how far the ball goes...yet the new technology doesn't just hit it farther, its more forgiving. mishits don't give up the distance and accuracy of old. the forgiveness of new large drivers only further encourages players to swing for the fences. why not roll back the size of the driver at the professional level.

 

i get the issue is money and amateurs want to buy drivers being played by guys on tour. for this reason, i think a pga specific ball that spins more is needed. i don't think there is an easy solution, but acknowledging there is a problem is necessary. we're creeping closer to 8000 yd layouts on tour to protect scoring.

[Nessism]

Agree.

Contrary to popular belief the sky is not falling.

This part of the Distance Insights Project document stood out for me regarding the USGA/R&A's follow up activities..

"It is not currently intended to consider revising the overall (equipment) specifications in a way that would produce substantial reductions in hitting distances at all levels of the game."In other words, they are not exploring distance rollback measures that will affect normal players.

The document does make mention of creating a "local rule" option where tournament officials can mandate reduced distance equipment. In other words, bifurcation.

Personally, I don't care either way. If the pro tours want to scale back distance with a shorter ball then fine. Have at it. I also don't care whether or not the pro's post 25 under scores during tournaments. I think it's the high dollar club members that get all upset when the pro's roll into town and rip their course a new one by posting crazy low scores. Again, who cares (other than them.)

The only thing that matters regarding this whole business in my opinion is making sure the ball for us regular folk (as in 99.9% of the players in the world) doesn't get rolled back. Based on what the distance project report states that isn't on the table so we don't have anything to worry about.

[justasgood]

Kind of like today's society....

[Sean2]

I hope you are correct.

[Sean2]

I was thinking about that. At my home course any kind of wayward tee shot is in a hazard or OB...there is no margin for error.

[bigred90gt]

lol, let me know how that works out for you.

 

You can beat a lot of things in this world, but physics aint one of them.

[davep043]

Now we agree!! Not only physics, but its patently unfair to completely remove an advantage that one player has over another. No matter what the eventual outcome, longer hitters will still be longer than short hitters, and they deserve the advantage that the skill of distance provides.

[MtlJeff]

As long as golf continues to put an emphasis on distance, people will keep it hitting it further. The same way people continue to get faster and stronger. As i've said many times, some of the long drive guys have pretty nice swings, it's perfectly conceivable that you'll have many guys on tour swinging 5-10mph faster than they do now within 10 years or so

Rolling back the ball 5% or whatever is just a temporary fix for pros, and unnecessary for amateurs.

I am not even convinced that pro golf viewers think negatively about distance, and the PGA tour is a product more than it is "golf". The NFL and XFL have different rules than local high school football in many cases. I don't know that we should even care what pro golf "looks" like if it is doing well financially. Would people stop watching if guys just went for more greens on par 4's? Maybe....I don't know. Maybe not.

It's too bad the USGA and RA do tend to overvalue the optics of the tour, when i don't think any rational person would say amateurs are hitting it too far

[farmer]

I wonder if at some point clubhead speed is limited by the durability of the clubhead? Would a conforming club stand up to 140+ ss 10+ times per day?

[Augster]

I’m not saying to roll back to hickory shafts, graphite is fine. But they really should go back to persimmon heads.

When the first metal head came out, I’m still shocked they didn’t look at that abomination and say, “Uh, no.” Anyone back in the day could have told you a steel head with a face that trampolines would be longer than a solid persimmon head with a metal face.

Roll the head back to solid persimmon. Roll the size back to the biggest persimmon head when the first metal head came out.

Guys can hit their 3-irons 270-300. Let them. Or roll the trampolining iron faces back also.

Roll it back. The longer hitters will still have the advantage they have always had. They just won’t need 8000 yard courses.

[Mr. Bean]

'I take your point but (certainly in the UK) golf was far more popular before the high tech clubs and solid balls came in.'

I seriously doubt that.

'It would seem to me that in the UK the game is dying.'

That is a completely different thing.

[Londoner]

We I'm sorry but you would be wrong.

Number of rounds - down.

Number of courses - down.

Club memberships - down.

Juniors playing - down.

[Mr. Bean]

So you mean that the numbers started to go down as soon as the new tech stuff became available? At least that is what you wrote and I do not believe you.

The number of players decreasing today from what it was say 15 years ago is a completely different thing.

[Londoner]

No. I didn't say that. I said golf was more popular before "tech" and it was.

I also said it may be due to other factors. Which it may.

[Shilgy]

Who would make said ball? Costco? A Kirkland tour ball? Why would any manufacturer want to make a ball they could not sell?

[Mr. Bean]

'No. I didn't say that. I said golf was more popular before "tech" and it was.'

You are entitled to your opinion, which is not the same thing as a fact.

Btw, approximately which year would you say the decline started and what was the year metal head woods were prevailing compared to wooden heads?

[James the Hogan Fan]

And I think for similar reasons, the technology is at the point where the expense is ridiculous. When I got into bowling and learned that to be competitive one has to assemble an 'arsenal' of various $200-300 bowling ball it certainly soured my opinion of the sport.

Same with golf: $300-500 for a driver, plus fairways and hybrids. Golf has a stigma for being expensive, and a tech-fueled arms race doesn't help anything in that department.

[Mr. Bean]

Anything is expensive if you want to have the best. But I doubt the equipment in either of those sports is the major cost. I play pool and a fairly good cue costs 4-500 euros, the best ones several thousands. Then again, playing and training a couple of hours a week makes easily 1500-2000 euros per year so a new cue every 4-5 years is no big deal and same goes with golf (and with the hourly fees of bowling alleys I can only assume with bowling, too).

[farmer]

So, what they can do is figure out a way to nerf back the ball for USGA, tour events, elite amateurs, then each company rotates being the one who produces this ball. All identical, mind you, spin, cover, dimples to drag. This way no one company gets stuck making these loss leader balls. Titleist, Cally, Bstone, Cut, Snell, Srixon, Volvik, all of them gets their turn in the barrel. Easy peasy.

No, just no to returning to persimmon. Wooden clubs frequently sucked, they beat up about as bad as balata balls, there is no major OEM who still has the technology to make them and it's ss that makes a ball go far. The early steel woods had no trampoline effect, that didn't arrive until Ti was introduced.

[Londoner]

There were more people playing golf before Big Bertha drivers than there are now. Thats a UK fact

I pointed out that this may be due to attention span and changing social attitudes lifestyles of youngsters.

I never said there was a causal link.

It may not suit your arguement (whatever it is ) but I can't help with that.

I really don't see your point or what you're accusing me of.

[Mr. Bean]

Number of golf players in Europe 1990-2018 | StatistaI just wonder how UK could be so different from the rest of Europe...