USGA Distance Rollback and the Future of Golf?

[chippa13]

4 hours ago, mahonie said:

 

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!!).

The overwhelming majority of US public courses have 3 sets of tees. Where you may get more are the desrination courses where you could get a wider variety level of player and they want to maintain the enjoyment level and pace for said variety

[ThinkingPlus]

6 hours ago, maamold said:

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.

You mentioned that there were shorter tees that folks could move forward too if the RBs rolled back to crap equipment.  If a player is already playing the most forward tees, then what shorter tees could they play?  The "just move forward" rhetoric doesn't work for those folks already playing the shortest tees available.  Everyone in that camp is more than willing to punish women and senior men just so a select few don't make the likes of Merion, et. al., obsolete for elite male tournaments.  That is pathetic.

[ThinkingPlus]

5 hours ago, mahonie said:

 

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!!).

Most places a long time ago just tended to have 3 tees.  However, just 3 tees can rarely offer both casual and tournament distance for juniors, men, women, senior men, and senior men.  Clubs that wished to hold events that covered the full competition spectrum and provide a more inclusive experience for all their clientele moved to 4, 5, or 6 tees.  Resort courses also saw benefit to providing more teeing options.  Family friendly inclusiveness keeps the resorts full which translates to bigger profits.  I personally like fewer tees, but rate appropriate combos for play.  Best of both worlds so to speak.

[The Pearl]

9 hours ago, maamold said:

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. 

The rollback will not bring the "short-hitter" back into contention.  Short hitters can't compete today not because of the equipment, but because they are physically behind the "mean" of the average tour player.  

[The Pearl]

9 hours 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.
 

Not the issue as to why some might give up the game with a rollback.

[Fairway14]

9 hours ago, maamold said:

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

 

Golf courses are the place for a player to test his/her skills against the course. Par for the course is the number used to reveal a players skill level.

[Shilgy]

11 hours ago, maamold said:

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. 

We still have that. Your list covered 40 years or so. In the last ten years alone we have Zach Johnson, Graeme McDowell, Darren Clarke and Francisco Molinari. All are the same 20-30 yards shorter than the longest players of their era. 

[Soloman1]

The PGA Tour players and the Tour itself, the golf ball manufacturers, the club manufacturers, the TV advertisers, the tournament sponsors all have no incentive whatsoever to change anything, unless the change is going to make them more money.

 

The first obligation of the PGA Tour is to make as much money as possible for the Tour pension fund and Tour player perks. That comes from TV revenue, tournament purses, profits from the ghastly TPC courses and anywhere else they can scoop up every nickel and dime.

 

Money will determine whether Mike Davis, the USGA and the R&A get their wish. The Tour couldn't care less about your golf course.

[milesgiles]

4 hours ago, Shilgy said:

We still have that. Your list covered 40 years or so. In the last ten years alone we have Zach Johnson, Graeme McDowell, Darren Clarke and Francisco Molinari. All are the same 20-30 yards shorter than the longest players of their era. 

 

Dont think Clarkey would appreciate that, he was amongst the longest when first on tour

[CMCSGolf]

8 hours ago, chippa13 said:

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. 

Protecting the little guy may not have explicitly been the goal, but it was part of the output.  Yes, these changes did increase offense, but they also made the game more balanced, which I think was the goal.  In basketball the game was centered in the paint and jump shots were not as prevalent.  The 3 expanded the court and made it possible for smaller players who had a different skill from the bigger guys to use their comparative advantage.  Steph Curry would not have had the career he has if it were not for the 3.

 

Baseball increased offense by lowering the mound because they thought pitchers were becoming too dominant.  The game was more fun when the matchup between pitchers and hitters was more even.  Golf rolling back the ball would be more fun if the balance in skills required to win were more varied in my opinion.  I think the balance favors power too much.  As noted, there are a couple relatively short hitters that survive, but I don't think that means nothing needs to be done.  The fact that the average drive on tour has gone up so much shows that shorter players aren't even getting there.

[maamold]

7 hours ago, Shilgy said:

We still have that. Your list covered 40 years or so. In the last ten years alone we have Zach Johnson, Graeme McDowell, Darren Clarke and Francisco Molinari. All are the same 20-30 yards shorter than the longest players of their era. 

Difference between Longest and Shortest, YTD through the final tournament that year -

1980: 35.6y
1985: 36.5y
1990: 35.4y
1995: 42.4y
2000: 50.1y
2005: 60.2y
2010: 49.1y
2015: 47.7y
2020: 44.2y

So the shorter hitters have lost distance from the longer hitters since 1980. 

[maamold]

9 hours ago, The Pearl said:

The rollback will not bring the "short-hitter" back into contention.  Short hitters can't compete today not because of the equipment, but because they are physically behind the "mean" of the average tour player.  

So let's prove it.  Give the top longest hitters for 2020 1985 level 43.5" Persimmons and Balata balls and the bottom shortest hitters from 2020 modern equipment - My bet is that distance gap will close and, very possibly, the long hitters will find themselves in the bottom of the list in "short hitter" territory. 

[maamold]

11 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You mentioned that there were shorter tees that folks could move forward too if the RBs rolled back to crap equipment.  If a player is already playing the most forward tees, then what shorter tees could they play?  The "just move forward" rhetoric doesn't work for those folks already playing the shortest tees available.  Everyone in that camp is more than willing to punish women and senior men just so a select few don't make the likes of Merion, et. al., obsolete for elite male tournaments.  That is pathetic.

I gave a list of course from a wide range of styles and the longest forward tee's were ~5300y If a golfer can't play a course at that short (average hole length 294y) there are other issues going on. Again, it didn't seem to bother golfers, seniors or ladies in 1985 that played the courses with "Crap equipment". 

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, maamold said:

I gave a list of course from a wide range of styles and the longest forward tee's were ~5300y If a golfer can't play a course at that short (average hole length 294y) there are other issues going on. Again, it didn't seem to bother golfers, seniors or ladies in 1985 that played the courses with "Crap equipment". 

That is because they didn't know any better and couldn't get any better equipment.  BTW, 5300 yards is considered longish for ladies and would have a course rating of around 72.  That would be roughly equivalent to a 6700 yard course for men.

[maamold]

34 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

That is because they didn't know any better and couldn't get any better equipment.  BTW, 5300 yards is considered longish for ladies and would have a course rating of around 72.  That would be roughly equivalent to a 6700 yard course for men.

Yes, that 5327 the toughest course on my list so it will be long for the ladies, that's the point of it being the tough. But as your argument states and then I pointed out there are the tee's that people can move up to. Women and Seniors have played golf for years with the slower equipment and forward tee's it wasn't that big of a deal then and it wouldn't be if equipment was rolled back. 

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, maamold said:

Difference between Longest and Shortest, YTD through the final tournament that year -

1980: 35.6y
1985: 36.5y
1990: 35.4y
1995: 42.4y
2000: 50.1y
2005: 60.2y
2010: 49.1y
2015: 47.7y
2020: 44.2y

So the shorter hitters have lost distance from the longer hitters since 1980. 

So by percentage about the same? And both 2020 and 1980 the last place on the driving distance chart was 18 yards below the average. Yes players are about 40 yards longer. Both top and bottom. Put another way. If you are playing a 450 yard par 4 and are that bottom guy in distance would you rather be hitting you second shot from 212 or 172?  

[ThinkingPlus]

7 minutes ago, maamold said:

Yes, that 5327 the toughest course on my list so it will be long for the ladies, that's the point of it being the tough. But as your argument states and then I pointed out there are the tee's that people can move up to. Women and Seniors have played golf for years with the slower equipment and forward tee's it wasn't that big of a deal then and it wouldn't be if equipment was rolled back. 

Any time you take an advantage away it is a big deal especially for those who have nothing to give.  Many of the ladies I play with can only reach a handful of holes in regulation.  Some have never played the old equipment.  So what you are saying is it is appropriate to make the game harder for them, take away any chance they have for reaching any holes in regulation other than the odd par 3 just so the pros will have to play golf like it was played in 1970.  That is stupid and pathetic on so many levels.  We will just have to agree to disagree.

[Golf10]

5 hours ago, CMCSGolf said:

Protecting the little guy may not have explicitly been the goal, but it was part of the output.  Yes, these changes did increase offense, but they also made the game more balanced, which I think was the goal.  In basketball the game was centered in the paint and jump shots were not as prevalent.  The 3 expanded the court and made it possible for smaller players who had a different skill from the bigger guys to use their comparative advantage.  Steph Curry would not have had the career he has if it were not for the 3.

 

Baseball increased offense by lowering the mound because they thought pitchers were becoming too dominant.  The game was more fun when the matchup between pitchers and hitters was more even.  Golf rolling back the ball would be more fun if the balance in skills required to win were more varied in my opinion.  I think the balance favors power too much.  As noted, there are a couple relatively short hitters that survive, but I don't think that means nothing needs to be done.  The fact that the average drive on tour has gone up so much shows that shorter players aren't even getting there.

 

One of the best golf books I ever read was "The Architectural Side of Golf."  Simpson wrote a chapter called - Attack and Defense.  It is a great read on the mental matchup between player and course.  There is a time for attack and a time for defense.  

 

No longer does a player have to fully use all his faculties, it is now attack all the time.  The question is what is the appropriate ball rollback for the professional level - 10, 15%?  It's an interesting question.

[storm319]

9 minutes ago, Golf10 said:

 

One of the best golf books I ever read was "The Architectural Side of Golf."  Simpson wrote a chapter called - Attack and Defense.  It is a great read on the mental matchup between player and course.  There is a time for attack and a time for defense.  

 

No longer does a player have to fully use all his faculties, it is now attack all the time.  The question is what is the appropriate ball rollback for the professional level - 10, 15%?  It's an interesting question.

No amount of rollback will change the bomb & gouge mentality on tour. There is no going back to the way golf was played 50+ years ago. 

[Golf10]

3 minutes ago, storm319 said:

No amount of rollback will change the bomb & gouge mentality on tour. There is no going back to the way golf was played 50+ years ago. 

 

Maybe someone is advocating going back 50 years, not me.  I'm advocating bringing back intelligence and strategy to the game.  Tiger had it in spades.  He needed to to win his majors.  Not so much with current ball tech.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

1 minute ago, storm319 said:

No amount of rollback will change the bomb & gouge mentality on tour. There is no going back to the way golf was played 50+ years ago. 

Pretty much.

 

Just played with a some pros. They don’t “bomb and gouge” the way it seems to be being implicated here? I have no idea where that even comes from? 224 yard par 3 do not require “finesse”. You just have to hit long and drop it accurately.

 

3 minutes ago, Golf10 said:

 

Maybe someone is advocating going back 50 years, not me.  I'm advocating bringing back intelligence and strategy to the game.  Tiger had it in spades.  He needed to to win his majors.  Not so much with current ball tech.

 

I’d really enjoy watching some of these roll back folks play 508 yard par 4 and 660 yard par 5 with 10% less distances than they possess now? Even playing 6400 yards for us amateurs would suddenly become the equivalent of a 7000+ yard course.

 

The average player should be playing from 5500 yards as it is. Rollback would require most to play from the fairway.

 

Let’s not get started on bifurcation. Hahaha.

[storm319]

3 minutes ago, Golf10 said:

 

Maybe someone is advocating going back 50 years, not me.  I'm advocating bringing back intelligence and strategy to the game.  Tiger had it in spades.  He needed to to win his majors.  Not so much with current ball tech.

You do realize that all of Tiger’s major wins with exception of the first two were with a solid core, multilayer urethane ball? (first two were with a Titleist Professional which while wound was the first cast thermoset urethane cover and basically the catalyst for that started this era of rollback debates).

[Golf10]

9 minutes ago, Lincoln_Arcadia said:

Pretty much.

 

Just played with a some pros. They don’t “bomb and gouge” the way it seems to be being implicated here? I have no idea where that even comes from? 224 yard par 3 do not require “finesse”. You just have to hit long and drop it accurately.

 

 

I’d really enjoy watching some of these roll back folks play 508 yard par 4 and 660 yard par 5 with 10% less distances than they possess now? Even playing 6400 yards for us amateurs would suddenly become the equivalent of a 7000+ yard course.

 

The average player should be playing from 5500 yards as it is. Rollback would require most to play from the fairway.

 

Let’s not get started on bifurcation. Hahaha.

 

My post above says for the professionals.  Okay a 508 yard par 4 becomes a driver 8 iron, or a driver 9 iron instead of a driver flip wedge.  A player may even lay back to have a fairway lie and hit a 7 iron.  Guess what, the strategy of the hole is back in play.  Win!  In any case it's much more interested golf, and the player has to use his brain instead of mindlessly pulling driver every time.  Hell, many of the guys were hitting driver, flip-wedge to a 560 yard par 5 at WF.  Boring!

 

Regarding hackers - they can keep the tech, they need it.

[Golf10]

3 hours ago, maamold said:

So let's prove it.  Give the top longest hitters for 2020 1985 level 43.5" Persimmons and Balata balls and the bottom shortest hitters from 2020 modern equipment - My bet is that distance gap will close and, very possibly, the long hitters will find themselves in the bottom of the list in "short hitter" territory. 

 

This post proves it all.  Let's see the data.  Maamold is 100% correct.

[Shilgy]

53 minutes ago, Golf10 said:

 

This post proves it all.  Let's see the data.  Maamold is 100% correct.

By giving the shorter hitter an advantage it somehow proves that the equipment is what holds them back? Say what? Lol. Long hitters have always had the advantage. That does not mean they win every week but they have a  large advantage. There is no law that says the shorter hitter is magically a better putter or short game player or ballstriker. He is just shorter. 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, Golf10 said:

 

My post above says for the professionals.  Okay a 508 yard par 4 becomes a driver 8 iron, or a driver 9 iron instead of a driver flip wedge.  A player may even lay back to have a fairway lie and hit a 7 iron.  Guess what, the strategy of the hole is back in play.  Win!  In any case it's much more interested golf, and the player has to use his brain instead of mindlessly pulling driver every time.  Hell, many of the guys were hitting driver, flip-wedge to a 560 yard par 5 at WF.  Boring!

 

Regarding hackers - they can keep the tech, they need it.

How does that work? Rolling back the equipment but playing the same length holes will somehow make them “mindlessly pull driver” less often? 

[blueonblack]

12 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

By giving the shorter hitter an advantage it somehow proves that the equipment is what holds them back? Say what? Lol. Long hitters have always had the advantage. That does not mean they win every week but they have a  large advantage. There is no law that says the shorter hitter is magically a better putter or short game player or ballstriker. He is just shorter. 

At least on the tour, if they want to stay there, that short hitter I bet is a great putter and short gamer/ballstriker. Zach Johnson?

[Shilgy]

1 minute ago, blueonblack said:

At least on the tour, if they want to stay there, that short hitter I bet is a great putter and short gamer/ballstriker. Zach Johnson?

And on the tour guess what? The long hitter needs to be a great putter and short game/ballstriker as well. Exhibit A...Bryson was one of the longest at Winged Foot. He was also the best putter, and approach and...and...and...

The tour junk pile is filled with long hitters that did not have the rest of the game to compete.

[maamold]

1 minute ago, Shilgy said:

By giving the shorter hitter an advantage it somehow proves that the equipment is what holds them back? 

 

So...modern equipment is the advantage. Great, now that we've agreed on that let's discuss how to resolve the fact that equipment is giving that advantage and changing the game of golf, removing older courses from hosting pro tournaments and driving up maintenance costs and the general cost of golf. 
 

I'm confused how you interpreted that an experiment where the current shorter hitters play their modern equipment and the longer hitters play 1985 era equipment holds shorter hitters back? What the experiment could show is that DJ with a 1985 era driver and would balata ball is now the same shorter distance as the Zach Johnson at US Open 289.5y with Zach playing the modern equipment. If DJ still hits it 333.8y then we know it's all speed and athleticism and not the equipment. 

[blueonblack]

4 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

And on the tour guess what? The long hitter needs to be a great putter and short game/ballstriker as well. Exhibit A...Bryson was one of the longest at Winged Foot. He was also the best putter, and approach and...and...and...

The tour junk pile is filled with long hitters that did not have the rest of the game to compete.

I do realize I came in at the end or middle of something, I just read this part:

"There is no law that says the shorter hitter is magically a better putter or short game player or ballstriker. He is just shorter."

If they are shorter, they have to make up for it somewhere. It's maddening in match play as a long hitter to play that short steady guy sometimes.

I get concerned that the "junk pile" grows quicker all the time? Stop making them hit it 300 carry every hole at least.

Bryson is just ruffling all kinds of feathers right now. My comments weren't about him at all, but he's got everyone's eyes and ears right now, so more power to him.