Monty says a new tour ball is needed to counter Bryson DeChambeau's crazy distance

[FakeClubPro]

Good video on how Bryson has kind of emulated Moe Norman's set up and swing to simplify things.

Maybe Monty should have hit the gym versus the pub/fish & chips. He b*ches about Langer's slow play but Bernhard is always working out and staying fit. Langer keeps winning on the Champions Tour and made the cut at the RBC this week.

[MtlJeff]

They are just going to end up having to change the ball multiple times....this is just the beginning of guys working out and specifically distance training. Watch a Remax event there are guys who swing like 140 who have pretty nice motions. More guys on tour will start doing what Bryson is doing if he is successful , and more guys coming up on mini tours will start emulating it.

So we're going to roll back the ball, and 10 years from now all the great courses we made playable again, will once again be unplayable.

People continue to evolve, what we are discussing here is akin to continuing to lengthen the 100M dash because we want the winning time to be 10 seconds every olympics. So let's make it the 110M dash now.

As others have said until there is a real way to make distance less valuable (perhaps longer rough as has been suggested) people are going to keep crushing it. And the only real option is to just let them do it, or create a ball so different from amateur balls that it's essentially a different sport

 

 

[cugolf14]

Totally agree. Well said.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Did anyone actually do a complete analysis as to why there’s this misconception that courses NEED to get longer because SOME players are hitting what they PERCEIVE as being too far?

I hit much longer than most scratch players and yet have never even come close to breaking par?

Quite honestly, until I see leader boards all in the low 50s, I fail to see why anybody thinks courses need to be made longer?

[Titleist99]

The best of the best (Tiger Woods) averaged around 300+/- for his career, so I'll take that as being the optimum driving distance.... until I see all these long drivers winner tournaments (Cameron Champ) and bringing courses to their knees.....I will not advocate lengthening courses until I see more rough, tougher bunkers, more trees, more water hazards, tighter fairways, harder greens, softer fairways, tucked pins and more out of bounds stakes. After that then we can talk.

[Tasals]

1997 Tiger averaged 338 yards off the tee at The Masters. The Masters did end up trying to Tiger proof the place, but adding length just keeps helping the long hitter. Look at what Merrion did to the pros at the US Open. That place was short and brutal.

[15th Club]

“ ...more rough, tougher bunkers, more trees, more water hazards, tighter fairways, harder greens, softer fairways, tucked pins and more out of bounds stakes...”

All of that, instead of changing a $4 golf ball.

Insane.

[mahonie]

It’s a different sport already...even Harbour Town has become boring to watch.

[gvogel]

The ball has been changed before. It's time for a reset.

[Titleist84]

No need to alter the ball and/or equipment

1) The guys on tour already throttle back and hit fairway woods or long irons when accuracy is more important than distance.

2) Harder to spin wedge shots the closer you get to the green, so they will hit more fairway woods or long irons.

3) Too much money in endorsements and advertisements. Callaway, Taylormade,Ping, etc...will never allow it to happen (I could've saved myself the time of typing #1 and #2 and just listed this one).

 

 

 

[15th Club]

“3) Too much money in endorsements and advertisements. Callaway, Taylormade,Ping, etc...will never allow it to happen (I could've saved myself the time of typing #1 and #2 and just listed this one).”

 

Why would “endorsements” mean anything to the USGA? Or the Royal and Ancient? What are their endorsement deals? I don’t have any endorsement deals with manufacturers. Oakmont; Oakland Hills; Oak Hill; Oak Tree; they don’t have any endorsement deals with manufacturers.

And really; what does Ping care, about the golf ball market? I don’t expect that TaylorMade is too concerned about the status quo in the ball market and at one time, I recall a past TM CEO suggesting that a ball rollback might have some merit.

No; I think that the money and lawsuit issues lie solely with Titleist.

[Smada962]

I didn't find Harbor Town boring at all to watch yesterday. Tons of good names in the mix and great play.

 

Golf is the only sport I can think of where so many of it's fans want to see the best players punished and play badly. Nobody roots for bad basketball, or nothing but strikeouts in baseball, and sloppy penalty filled football. It doesn't make much sense other than fans being jealous of the pros with golf.

[carrier street]

Gary McCord knocked out exactly why bifurcation can't happen. You're right, the USGA and R&A have no exposure financially. The USGA and the R&A have no real assets, so there is nothing to sue them for. The PGA Tour owns all of the TPCs and has a bajillion dollar pension fund. People would start suing them immediately. And the TV contract is where all of the money is, which is paid for through advertising. 70+% of all advertising on the PGA Tour is equipment companies, all of whom are selling you "the longest X we've ever made". The main factor in that advertising is that the guy you are watching is using the same thing. It's way too much risk for the Tour to do it.

My main argument against all of this media peal clutching about how high Bryson's driving average was: He didn't even win.

[smashdn]

Score doesn't really play into it.

 

I know some eschew the idea that how the game is played is not important so long as the end result of the numbers on the scorecard are in line with expectations. But I don't watch golf to see scores. I watch golf to see guys hit entertaining golf shots and employ strategy to get themselves into position. It is an entertainment product first and foremost for me. Distance (especially driving distance) negates a good deal of the decision making. You hear the phrase "second shot golf course," well it is a thing. ANGC being one such example. Being in a certain spot in the fairway is not as important when you always have a wedge or thereabouts in your hand. Long guys rarely if ever have to wrestle with the decision to go for a par five in two or lay back to a yardage. There's a few guys out there that still bend the ball around the course. I like watching those guys play. Power golf is just kind of boring for me.

 

^100% opinion. You are welcome to have one 100% counter to mine. But I hoped that answered your questions as to why there is a need. It is however factual that the overall driving average is longer and the shortest guys are longer as well. I personally don't think we should lengthen the courses but should instead reign in equipment. < More opinion that has been hashed elsewhere multiple times.

[smashdn]

"bringing courses to their knees.....I will not advocate lengthening courses until I see more rough, tougher bunkers, more trees, more water hazards, tighter fairways, harder greens, softer fairways, tucked pins and more out of bounds stakes. After that then we can talk."

 

Koepka - PGA Championship at Bethpage Black

Koepka at Erin Hills.

[mahonie]

If you think driver-wedge is the epitome of the best players playing good golf, I’m afraid the game is already lost to you my friend.

[15th Club]

Carrier Street:

Most of us in the pro-rollback camp don’t care about who wins. We aren’t trying to deny wins to certain classes or styles of players. We aren’t trying to stop Brooks Koepka or Bryson DeChambeau; we aren’t trying to help Luke Donald. We are trying to protect historic championship golf course designs from entire fields of players.

If you read that word-salad McCord interview, you saw Gary say this:

“Now all the other golf courses, the old ones come back into play. [After a significant rollback as posited by Nicklaus, Montgomerie, et al.]”

It’s the one thing that Gary got right in the interview! Yes, Gary, the rollback is all about keeping “the old ones” in play!

The rest of the interview seemed devoted to a frankly weird notion; that the PGA Tour would act on its own, apart from golf’s traditional rule making bodies, to impose a bifurcated ball or other equipment rules. That’s nuts. Nobody is talking about that. The Tour isn’t begging for a ball rollback (although I have personally heard at least one noted Tour rules official proclaim the need). More than anything, for exactly the reason that McCord suggests (litigation, costs, administrative headaches, etc., etc.), the Tour wants NOTHING to do with Rules at all! Not equipment rules; not any other rules. Let the USGA do it, they say. Titleist can sue to USGA; the Tour just goes by the USGA’s Rules.

I swear; there is more news, more exacting language, and more information in one paragraph of Geoff Shackleford than 30 minutes of a Gary McCord podcast.

[Titleist84]

These companies advertise everywhere, I would imagine the governing bodies recieve advertising dollars during the tournaments they host (US Open, US Amateur, etc...).

I was speaking about both ball and club rollbacks. Ping sued before when their grooves were deemed illegal.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Sure, and I’m sure there were as many John Daly fans as anyone else save Tiger.

Some like watching pure power while others enjoy watching the best players make decisions while mostly mirroring their own games at s “pro” level.

[carrier street]

So are you in favor of an across the board rollback or a bifurcation set up? Not trying to argue, just legitimately curious.

[Catty]

Anything off the tee then wedge isn't really that exciting to watch even when they spray the wedge or driver. I liked the 14th at RBC where they had to play a shot over the water and they were using 8 irons and 7 irons. Taking a risk going for the pin and dunking it. Or playing safe but 3 putting back. Good stuff. Anyway wasn't score to par just invented to make it easier for the viewer to understand? Its not really relevant in tournament golf. The winner just needs to be one stroke better then the first loser after 72 holes.

[15th Club]

I’m in favor of a rollback and I oppose bifurcation. I hope — and indeed I now expect — that there will be a technical solution which will result in a ball that effectively reduces distances produced by elite-level players but with which lesser recreational players will not notice notice much if any difference.

My friend Geoff Shackelford has resigned himself to the need for bifurcation. Reluctantly on Geoff’s part, I expect. If I was forced to choose between “bifurcation” and “do nothing,” I’ll choose bifurcation but it will be much more of a force for me than for Geoff. I hate the idea of bifurcation.

As I have often mentioned in the past, my opposition to bifurcation puts me in good stead with what are the essentially opposing/interested parties. The USGA, the R&A, Titleist, the other manufacturers, the PGA Tour, the various national PGA’s; not one of them wants anything like bifurcation. All for their own, differing reasons of course. Me too.

[Titleist99]

What's even more insane is that anyone would believe that you can change the golf ball and not get sued and lose advertising dollars from the ball and club manufactures......LOL!

[Titleist99]

I totally agree....I think that some golf fans have a deep rooted jealousy of touring pros ability to hit a golf ball a long way.

[mokedaddy]

Just about everyone I have talked to in the industry seems to think some kind of bifurcation is coming if they do anything at all.

[OrangeGravy]

The only argument I will make regarding bifurcation, is that it's really an argument against whether or not to openly acknowledge bifurcation. It exists and has done for decades with clubs and probably more frequently with golf balls. All one needs to do is peruse the USGA conforming list for "tour" level golf balls from each OEM and note the various pole markings for each version. Make an available for retail column and tour only column to see how many balls are NOT available for retail that tour players have access to. Then you can move to all the clubs that tour players use and have used over the years that carry the "proto" moniker and are never available at retail.

A vote against bifurcation is purely a vote to uphold the vale that OEM's hide behind when they tell us to play what the pros play. The thing that isn't bifurcated is the actual playing rules. The equipment ship has sailed years ago, if it ever was in port to begin with. And I use semi legitimate because most golfers don't play by the complete rules as they are written anyway.

[bscinstnct]

 

The PGA Tour will ultimately do what the players want to do. They * are the tour.

 

They are the ones bringing in all the interest, fans, media, and money. And I doubt, besides a small minority, any of them want to mess with their equipment, especially the ball. They have spent their lives learning the game with the current ball. And the big names? Rory, Bk, JT, all of them really, would shut down any move to change the ball.

 

If you want to change the ball, you’d have to basically implement the new ball with young junior golfers. They could learn the game with it, play it through HS, college, then pro, and that could work. It would take a decade or more, but that’s the only way you’ll see the PGA Tour not playing the current ball.

 

Otherwise, it’s not going to happen.

[Rebbutt]

I like the suggestion above about tightening fairways and lengthening rough. McCord made interesting points recently about golf companies litigating the tour if they went to a 80% flighted ball. So, yah, probably not gonna happen. Sir Nick Faldo also had a suggestion ... eliminate tees, which conceivably would force players to use 2 or 3 woods off the tee and reduce carry to 285-ish. Yet another idea is to hold a few PGA events each year where players have to use 20-30 year old woods, irons, balls, and shoes... maybe Nicklaus could throw his weight around and make this a requirement at Muirfield. Going retro for a few tournaments would draw interest, and give commentators plenty of content to work with. Currently I think the best idea is to raise the reward-to-risk ratio by tightening the fairways and growing the rough. If a player has the strength and skill to go deep, let him or her grip it and rip it.

[carrier street]

I get what your saying, but I just don’t see it. The ball you are describing would make it harder to improve as a recreational player, as the game gets more difficult as you get better. I don’t see how that “grows the game”, which is what the USGA and R&A exist to do, at least theoretically.

I think it’s time for everyone to just reach acceptance. This is what the game is now. Golf has always evolved, and this is where it’s at. It’s not the ball, or the clubs, or fitness, or launch monitors, or turf maintenance, it’s ALL of it.

[mahonie]

If you think that is a real issue again I am afraid the game is lost to you already. I play with plus handicap players who can carry a driving iron past where my driver finishes (270 yards) and it is awesome to watch. One of these guys hits driver 330 yards regularly but will only get his driver out when there is a 100 yard wide window. Put him on a tight short course and he hates it because he can’t use his length advantage...he can’t move the ball left to right either. The result is that he doesn’t play anything less than 6800 yards because for him it’s all about winning. His plus handicap only works on long, wide open courses, like a lot of the younger players I see coming through.

He has become the one-dimensional golfer that the PGA Tour is promoting. His ability to create speed in his swing far outweighs his ability to play golf shots. If that’s what you think golf is about, fair enough. It’s not my idea of what golf is or has ever been.