USGA Distance Rollback and the Future of Golf?

[Soloman1]

I vote practice swings as the biggest cause of slow play. Practice swings seem to be inversely proportional to score. How may times do you see someone who shoots 95 take 3 practice swings, divots and all? That's 380 swings per round. No wonder they're exhausted.

 

I can't remember ever seeing Jack Nicklaus take a practice swing, except maybe before a chip or pitch shot and a few lazy back and forth motions on the first tee.

I think I'm right, but hey, maybe someone will prove me wrong.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Soloman1

[farmer]

Sorry, Solo and 10, slow play is caused by bad play more than anything else.  A foursome taking 400 shots, looking for balls, etc. takes a lot of time.  Practice swings take some time, but mostly it's the attendant problems with being bad.

[Golf10]

28 minutes ago, farmer said:

Sorry, Solo and 10, slow play is caused by bad play more than anything else.  A foursome taking 400 shots, looking for balls, etc. takes a lot of time.  Practice swings take some time, but mostly it's the attendant problems with being bad.

 

You can play bad and fast, but you have to be self aware.  Now if you're shooting 100 with three practice swings and walking slow, that is a huge problem.

[Blaiser]

Didn't read most if the comments, but this just needs to stop.

 

Golf is the only sport where athletes become bigger, stronger, faster and people get worried that the weaker, less athletic people can't compete anymore. 

 

Would you want to see an under 6ft tall basketball league? Because they would play the game the way it was originally meant to be?

 

Who cares if scores get lower? Whoever wins is relative to the competition -- not the course.

 

Dynamic athletes have finally taken interest in the sport the last 20 years or so. That's a good thing. Let the game evolve. Golf already has too much of a "boring old person" stigma. The young crowd gets excited about golfers hitting bombs, probably in the same way fans of every other sport get excited when an athlete comes along that can do things never seen before.

 

Let's not nerf the game because a bunch of 60 year old dudes are sour because their slow and controlled style golf game is getting blown away by some serious athleticism.

 

 

 

 

[Golf10]

1 hour ago, Blaiser said:

Didn't read most if the comments, but this just needs to stop.

 

Golf is the only sport where athletes become bigger, stronger, faster and people get worried that the weaker, less athletic people can't compete anymore. 

 

Would you want to see an under 6ft tall basketball league? Because they would play the game the way it was originally meant to be?

 

Who cares if scores get lower? Whoever wins is relative to the competition -- not the course.

 

Dynamic athletes have finally taken interest in the sport the last 20 years or so. That's a good thing. Let the game evolve. Golf already has too much of a "boring old person" stigma. The young crowd gets excited about golfers hitting bombs, probably in the same way fans of every other sport get excited when an athlete comes along that can do things never seen before.

 

Let's not nerf the game because a bunch of 60 year old dudes are sour because their slow and controlled style golf game is getting blown away by some serious athleticism.

 

 

 

 

 

How much do you want to bet that Bryson can't dunk a basketball one handed, let alone two handed?  He can't run a 4.7 forty.  It's mostly ball tech, simple as that.  Pre-Pro V1 is fine.

[bigeasy]

Is this why he is leaving, wants to change the game and then haul a**?

[storm319]

12 hours ago, Golf10 said:

Long courses are the cause of slow play, not to mention the expense!

According to the USGAs report, they found that on average every additional 100 yards adds 1-1.5 minutes which is negligible when you consider the fairly small average increases that we have seen for the majority of US courses over the past 40 years. Based on my own anecdotal observations, the biggest contributors to slow play occur on and around the greens which can only be solved by eliminating holes.

Edited September 25, 2020 by storm319

[storm319]

8 hours ago, Golf10 said:

 

How much do you want to bet that Bryson can't dunk a basketball one handed, let alone two handed?  He can't run a 4.7 forty.  It's mostly ball tech, simple as that.  Pre-Pro V1 is fine.

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are among the greatest QBs in history yet I doubt either of them could run a sub-5 forty nor dunk even though they are near the NBA average height. Attempting to use these as a barometer for general athletic ability is unrealistic. 

If distance is mostly equipment, then anyone on tour should be able to do what Bryson is doing. 
 

Also, you do realize that the modern solid core, multilayer balls have been subject to the same USGA regulations as the previous wound era, right? Last major regulation was the introduction of the overall distance standard in the 1970s.

Edited September 25, 2020 by storm319

[The Pearl]

14 hours ago, PJE said:

What do you mean?

 

The USGA believes that distance is increasing their cost of holding their tournaments. The host courses foot most of the bill. Who do you think is pressuring the USGA about the cost of hosting?  It is all under the charade of "making the old courses relevant again".  

Edited September 25, 2020 by The Pearl

[CMCSGolf]

9 hours ago, Blaiser said:

Didn't read most if the comments, but this just needs to stop.

 

Golf is the only sport where athletes become bigger, stronger, faster and people get worried that the weaker, less athletic people can't compete anymore. 

 

Would you want to see an under 6ft tall basketball league? Because they would play the game the way it was originally meant to be?

 

Who cares if scores get lower? Whoever wins is relative to the competition -- not the course.

 

Dynamic athletes have finally taken interest in the sport the last 20 years or so. That's a good thing. Let the game evolve. Golf already has too much of a "boring old person" stigma. The young crowd gets excited about golfers hitting bombs, probably in the same way fans of every other sport get excited when an athlete comes along that can do things never seen before.

 

Let's not nerf the game because a bunch of 60 year old dudes are sour because their slow and controlled style golf game is getting blown away by some serious athleticism.

 

 

 

 

It's definitely true that golfers are much better athletes on average. And this will lead to distance gains even if the ball were truly static. But that doesn't mean nothing should be done at the pro level.  When athletes evolved in basketball, they added the three point line to bring more smaller players back into the game.  When pitching became too dominant with Bob Gibson, they lowered the height of the mound.

 

The point of the changes was to restore balance to the game.  Adjusting the ball in golf is the same theory, there should be some balance in the skills required to succeed.  Rollbackers are arguing that the skill balance to win in pro golf is too skewed to distance, which seems clear to me.  I would like to see more skills needed to succeed in gold.  Nicklaus was long for his age, but he is also known for being one of the best long iron players ever.  That balance is what I like to see.

[Golf10]

2 hours ago, storm319 said:

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are among the greatest QBs in history yet I doubt either of them could run a sub-5 forty nor dunk even though they are near the NBA average height. Attempting to use these as a barometer for general athletic ability is unrealistic. 

If distance is mostly equipment, then anyone on tour should be able to do what Bryson is doing. 
 

Also, you do realize that the modern solid core, multilayer balls have been subject to the same USGA regulations as the previous wound era, right? Last major regulation was the introduction of the overall distance standard in the 1970s.

 

Comparing golfers to Tom Brady and Peyton is laughable.  They are leagues better than any golfer.  Bryson couldn't sniff QB at even college level.

 

As I've said before, it's not about Bryson.  The regulating bodies made it a joke decades ago.  

[PJE]

2 hours ago, The Pearl said:

 

The USGA believes that distance is increasing their cost of holding their tournaments. The host courses foot most of the bill. Who do you think is pressuring the USGA about the cost of hosting?  It is all under the charade of "making the old courses relevant again".  

That's very interesting. Thanks, I hadn't thought about that aspect of this issue. 

[storm319]

2 minutes ago, Golf10 said:

 

Comparing golfers to Tom Brady and Peyton is laughable.  They are leagues better than any golfer.  Bryson couldn't sniff QB at even college level.

 

As I've said before, it's not about Bryson.  The regulating bodies made it a joke decades ago.  

 

I was not comparing them to Bryson, merely pointing out that using metrics like 40 time for for athletes that whose success is not tied to running in a straight line is ridiculous. 

[davep043]

1 hour ago, PJE said:

That's very interesting. Thanks, I hadn't thought about that aspect of this issue. 

I know that the Distance Insights report talked about the increased costs associated with making courses longer, but they talked about this on a scale much larger than the very small number of events run by the USGA.  I wonder if this is @The Pearl making guesses, or if there is actually some documentation on the USGA concerns for their own events.  

[blueonblack]

Rather than be reactionary to the "governing bodies" in my response, I'll just cut through the mess they created and get to the point.

 

1.) Bifurcate already. "Fun" equipment for ams, if they so choose. You can still have equipment standards if you wish to play at a different level of competition.

Whatever that may be. I don't drive a Nascar to the grocery. (But hey....)

How fun is it to have "Hot Ball/Club" tourneys? Or "Rollback Events?" Or even bring back a ball that plays like balata and move up a couple tees and and work the ball like you never may have experienced before? Get sciency already and make that polymer science happen. Think of all the opportunity for manufacturers small and large. If you let that happen. Don't be so damn GREEDY.

Opportunities for different league types for longer/shorter hitters/equipment types. Think about all of this! Wow!!! Cool!!!

The inclusion angle in the game just grew EXPONENTIALLY. Once again, IF the USGA will "allow it."

 

2) The USGA has painted equipment manufacturers into multiple corners, on multiple fronts, with distance, grooves, etc. which has benefited only the largest equipment companies, of course. Duh.....

 

3) Stop attacking my short-ish community golf course opportunities with your distance narrative already. You are not fooling anyone.

Joe Average still needs a place to play. Leave the courses alone and build your townhomes and retail developments elsewhere, thank you.

Does anyone get anything for their tax dollars anymore? Do the peons still need recreation too? It's getting to the point of INSULT.

 

When you start to beg, do you just walk away and say "forget you" and just do what you want like an adult human being??

Edited September 25, 2020 by blueonblack

[mahonie]

5 hours ago, The Pearl said:

 

The USGA believes that distance is increasing their cost of holding their tournaments. The host courses foot most of the bill. Who do you think is pressuring the USGA about the cost of hosting?  It is all under the charade of "making the old courses relevant again".  

 

It was my understanding that the USGA only hosts the US Open...near everything else comes under the PGA Tour who own most of the TPC courses anyway to ensure that all of the revenue finds its way back into their pocket? Apologies if I’ve got that wrong.

[blueonblack]

1 minute ago, mahonie said:

 

It was my understanding that the USGA only hosts the US Open...near everything else comes under the PGA Tour who own most of the TPC courses anyway to ensure that all of the revenue finds its way back into their pocket? Apologies if I’ve got that wrong.

In light of recent Covid events and decisions, moving forward, the venue "requirements" for fans have changed dramatically, suddenly.

Will there even be such a need? Wild times for golf and everything right now. I want off the Covid ride.

[mahonie]

8 minutes ago, blueonblack said:

In light of recent Covid events and decisions, moving forward, the venue "requirements" for fans have changed dramatically, suddenly.

Will there even be such a need? Wild times for golf and everything right now. I want off the Covid ride.

 

I hear you...Euro Tour has taken the opportunity to play some courses not usually used these days for Tour events as they no longer have the infrastructure to accommodate fans and it’s been quite refreshing to see. I cannot see it long-term though.

[blueonblack]

1 minute ago, mahonie said:

 

I hear you...Euro Tour has taken the opportunity to play some courses not usually used these days for Tour events as they no longer have the infrastructure to accommodate fans and it’s been quite refreshing to see. I cannot see it long-term though.

The economies everywhere, it seems some people can still afford things at inane prices though? I think many clubs don't want to host, and that is just the polite "out" too. Ya know? If they wanted limited crowds and charge a fortune for a ticket at ever more "exclusive" Open and other venues? Same revenues with less people. Dangerous times for Joe Average.

[mahonie]

11 minutes ago, blueonblack said:

The economies everywhere, it seems some people can still afford things at inane prices though? I think many clubs don't want to host, and that is just the polite "out" too. Ya know? If they wanted limited crowds and charge a fortune for a ticket at ever more "exclusive" Open and other venues? Same revenues with less people. Dangerous times for Joe Average.

 

A bit off topic here but there comes a point of diminishing returns that needs Joe Public to be in attendance...someone has to pay for the grandstands and corporate facility infrastructure that’s needed to make the revenue back.

[The Pearl]

6 hours ago, davep043 said:

I know that the Distance Insights report talked about the increased costs associated with making courses longer, but they talked about this on a scale much larger than the very small number of events run by the USGA.  I wonder if this is @The Pearl making guesses, or if there is actually some documentation on the USGA concerns for their own events.  

A total theory.  I have little proof other than what you accurately cite in your post.

 

I don't think it is complicated.  The USGA is no different than any other bureaucracy in that it's primary goal is to maintain the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is maintained through funding. Funding is how the bureaucracy maintains power.  The US Open generates 75% of the USGA's revenue.  Every other USGA event loses money.  The US Open cost about 90 million to operate. I have read that a large part of this expense is paid by the hosting course.  I could be wrong here, but either way, the cost is borne by the host course and the USGA.  The proportion is really irrelevant.  Constantly "distance proofing" U.S. Open venues cut into operating profits/margins. Either the hosting course or the USGA absorbs the cost. I would make a small wager that the USGA gets significant blow back from host courses.  Despite what most think, rich people do not like shelling out tons of money, just like the rest of us.  Winged Foot is a classic example. They must have spent a small fortune redoing their greens to their original design.  Original green designs, tall rough, huge trees. And along comes BD and tears the place apart. 

 

Think about it.  Where is the "distance" hue and cry coming from?  It isn't the PGA tour. Heck, they don't even care about slow play. It isn't from the daily fee golfer who is the backbone of this game.  It is not from the LPGA or the NCAA. 

 

It is coming from a small bunch of propeller heads with their main funding and connections coming from one tournament and a handful of elite, rich private courses. (Bethpage, Pebble, etc. excluded but somebody has to pay at these courses)

 

And what better cover than to spin tales of nostalgia by threatening that some beloved classic golf course will never hold a US Open again?  Let the Geoff Shackelford's and the Jack Nicklaus's of the world carry your water.

 

I am not sure what their long game is here.  I suspect that the current moment they really don't want to do anything about it or they would have done so already. It is pretty easy to solve. By doing nothing they win.  They stay relevant by the threat of doing something. They keep the "elite" courses at bay with the promise of doing something.  They keep the anit-bifurcators at arms' length.  Finally, and most importantly they don't have to own any decision like they do the groove and anchoring decisions.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by The Pearl

[Soloman1]

The baseball analogy is still appropriate.

 

If you are in the camp that believes advanced technology in ball and club design is fine, you should support aluminum bats and "hotter' ball introduced into MLB.

The stadiums will have to be rebuilt. Is that OK? You're going to pay for it.

 

Almost 90% of MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL stadiums are subsidized by taxpayers at the rate of over $2.3 billion per year.

Why shouldn't PGA Tour venues be subsidized by taxpayers?

 

These are all questions that are appropriate for this discussion.

[maamold]

On 9/23/2020 at 3:04 AM, Fairway14 said:

 

It's only a problem if it's made to be a problem. I don't see why Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Pebble Beach, Oakmont, or any of the traditional courses can't be used to host US Open tournaments. If the winning score is way under par what's wrong with that ?

It's not about Par, it's about shot value and Risk Reward.

[maamold]

On 9/23/2020 at 7:31 AM, dlygrisse said:

 Make the ball spin more at high compression, the inner core when struck with a driver. Prior to the ProV1 you had wound balls that spun and distance balls that didn’t. Pick your poison. Now you have the best of both worlds. 

 

if high speed players were spinning it at 3000 rpm’s they would have to play tee shots with more control and finesse. Amateurs could pick a distance ball or deal with a little more spin which may actually help some low speed players. 
 

 

 

THIS...

 

I'm also bothered by the argument about how short hitters will be punished and never win again if we roll back to 1980's equipment styles, screaming that it wil ruin the game! ... My answer is Paul Runyan, corey Pavin, David Toms managed and the game did just fine. 

[maamold]

On 9/24/2020 at 9:16 AM, CMCSGolf said:

This is a straw man.  No one is seriously considering taking 40 yards off a 25 handicaper's drive.  Those players have gained very little with the new ball and likely wouldn't lose much with a new ball. 

Yep. And even if the ball does go 20-40yards shorter for that 25cappers 200 yard drive you know what the local courses will do? They'll move the normal tee-box's forward to where they were in 1985 when Persimmon and Balata were played, there were 25cappers back then and they did just fine from there.
 

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, maamold said:

Yep. And even if the ball does go 20-40yards shorter for that 25cappers 200 yard drive you know what the local courses will do? They'll move the normal tee-box's forward to where they were in 1985 when Persimmon and Balata were played, there were 25cappers back then and they did just fine from there.
 

And what non-existent tee boxes will the folks already playing as far forward as they can move to?

[maamold]

19 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

And what non-existent tee boxes will the folks already playing as far forward as they can move to?

The longest course in the US has tee's at 5191, the toughest US course has tee's at 5327. The two top courses in my area have tee's at 5111 and 4190. The top 3 courses in my state have tee's at 5105, 5278 (A US Open Venue) and 4920. Are there course that do not have forward tee's Yes, Winged Foot, Pine Valley and Augusta come to mind but those are super exclusive outliers...which have had the same tee's and distances when Persimmon and Balata was played by people who had no problem with the distances then.

[maamold]

On 9/24/2020 at 9:27 PM, Blaiser said:

Golf is the only sport where athletes become bigger, stronger, faster and people get worried that the weaker, less athletic people can't compete anymore. 

Give those Bigger, Stronger, Faster athletes 43.5" Persimmon's and Liquid-filled Wound Balata's for a year. If they can match the distances and score they get with their modern superdrivers and ProV1 then we can agree that it's not the equipment.

[mahonie]

2 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

And what non-existent tee boxes will the folks already playing as far forward as they can move to?

 

This is what I can’t get my head around with US courses, the different sets of tee boxes...it’s just bizarre. In the UK we typically have 3 sets of tees: red tees for ladies, yellow tees for daily play and white tees for competitions - that’s it. Occasionally you might find a course with black tees that are usually at the extremities of the course or a set of blue tees for juniors but in my experience they are very rare. There’s no space for one thing.

 

It just sounds like lazy design to me if you have to design in lots of tee boxes to challenge different levels of golfer. I’m guessing that it was driven in part by the increasing driving distances and fuelled by the plethora of housing-led golf course developments perhaps? (I blame Greg Norman for that!!).

[chippa13]

22 hours ago, CMCSGolf said:

It's definitely true that golfers are much better athletes on average. And this will lead to distance gains even if the ball were truly static. But that doesn't mean nothing should be done at the pro level.  When athletes evolved in basketball, they added the three point line to bring more smaller players back into the game.  When pitching became too dominant with Bob Gibson, they lowered the height of the mound.

 

The point of the changes was to restore balance to the game.  Adjusting the ball in golf is the same theory, there should be some balance in the skills required to succeed.  Rollbackers are arguing that the skill balance to win in pro golf is too skewed to distance, which seems clear to me.  I would like to see more skills needed to succeed in gold.  Nicklaus was long for his age, but he is also known for being one of the best long iron players ever.  That balance is what I like to see.

The NBA added the 3 point line to increase scoring. Baseball lowered the mound to increase scoring. Football has made its rule changes to increase scoring. The NHL has done the same. None of these sports changed rules with the intent to protect the little guy. They did it to increase offense.