USGA Distance Rollback and the Future of Golf?

[molecularman]

It seems a little silly to me. Bryson didn't "destroy" the course.  He shot 6 under while making some very good putts. I could understand if he shot 20 under and made it look like a normal tour stop, but Bryson was hitting the driver well AND putting well. That's hard to beat. 

I think there are plenty of ways to make a course play tougher that doesn't include adding length, but it would change the course. Instead of a perfect 400 yards of fairway,  create landing zones. You either have to scale back and keep it under 280, or take a risk and fly it 320 to get to the next zone.. Add more trees closer to the fairway.  Heck - make X distance off the fairway out of bounds - that'll make it really tough. 

I think more than clubs and balls - it's the ability to precisely target the right combination to maximize distance. You know that X combo with Y ball has been exhaustively tested to maximize your launch conditions and give you the most distance you can possibly get.  You couldn't do that 20-30 years ago.  Perhaps the USGA could set a minimum spin standard off the driver,  but I'm not sure how they could really achieve that. 

[maamold]

3 hours ago, mahonie said:

Exactly, if everyone is hitting it long and crooked, fairways don’t really matter...or rough...depending on which way you look at it.

Yep, it used to be that on a risk/reward hole of 470yard Par 4 hole their normal swing would hit the ball 240y+30y roll and they did that to hit a fairway and had 200y in. If they had to step on it the ball went 270y+30y roll and they did that when they needed to risk it. However, even that 300y drive was still back where hacking out of the rough with a 6i was not going to get you to the green. 

Now the guys with the super-equipment fly it 330 into the rough and only have a 140y PW wedge to the green, so the rough means nothing, 

[Soloman1]

This is nothing that couldn't be remedied by widening and moving back some fairway bunkers, then injecting some Botox into them to puff those front lips up like weather balloons. Make them penal and not a nuisance.

 

Maybe letting sleeping dogs lie is best. Don't change the Tour courses. Just call 400-420 yard holes Par 3's.

 

Note: I rescind my analogy about no aluminum bats in baseball. It really isn't about reducing distance, it's a safety issue for pitchers since the high COR would release balls at ludicrous speed in MLB. Plus, thrown bats travel faster farther from the light weight and are more dangerous. There's a wide gulf between college and MLB speeds.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, b.helts said:

You counter my post with a mouthbreather argument you don’t agree with. So you’re either trolling or you assumed I’m a mouth breathing rollbacker.

 

That’s nice. 

I am simply telling you the truth as I know it.  Numbers have been kicked around in the previous threads on this topic.  Folks pointed to some of Jack's quotes as well as some of the golf architecture aficionados.  The consensus in those threads was that given the firm and fast conditions everyone wanted for major events, the necessary rollback needed to be roughly 20%.  If the goal isn't to keep places like the Old Course and Merion viable for major championships then you can come up with another number.

[maamold]

1 hour ago, Lincoln_Arcadia said:

If you mean old equipment being inferior due to lack of quality control and ball to ball variations that would stop a modern production line down, then I agree. Let’s roll back to the days when everything was unpredictable and imprecisely manufactured. Haha!

You lost me, why would quality control issues happen? 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, blueonblack said:

I feel like this is more a pro "Bryson" response. I'm not against the guy at all. Especially if he's clean and doing things the right way. His all-around game was stellar before all this distance madness, and its sad that gets lost in all of this. It is funny that your "long hitters" list from 2019 looks like a "who's who" of those being left behind in the distance race. Thinking Day and Rors are suddenly short is mind boggling. But its where we're at.

I'm not a huge "stats" guy admittedly, but I just figure guys are on tour for a reason, and they have to make up ground somewhere if they have a distance gap to make up for, that's all. It seems perfectly logical, so I'm sticking to it. I like logic anyway.

 

My overall purview of the game has been guys at the top look more like linebackers than golfers all the time. I would like to see venues/equipment somehow include a multitude of talents out there competing for the title, without negating any natural god-given or hard worked for gifts, talents, and efforts.

That's hard.

Actually I was saying Rory and Day are long AND good putters. In fact better putters than the guy you used as an example how the short hitter copes.

 

Perhaps back in the day most long hitters were “just” bombers. The top players today, as always, are longer than average AND posses stellar short game, putting,  and approach skills. You are correct in that a ZachJohnson type of player needs to figure out a way to be relevant without long drive skills. But make no mistake, length is a vitally important skill to possess in professional golf. To me the best proof that a top putter cannot make up for other deficiencies is Aaron Baddeley.  It seems year in and year out he is in the top 5 or 10 putters on tour and scrapes to keep his card. 

[b.helts]

38 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I am simply telling you the truth as I know it.  Numbers have been kicked around in the previous threads on this topic.  Folks pointed to some of Jack's quotes as well as some of the golf architecture aficionados.  The consensus in those threads was that given the firm and fast conditions everyone wanted for major events, the necessary rollback needed to be roughly 20%.  If the goal isn't to keep places like the Old Course and Merion viable for major championships then you can come up with another number.

Facts!!??

 

You don’t even agree with them....... bah I won’t try to keep up with you making things up and playing devil’s advocate and claiming Facts.  
 

Have a great rest of your day. 

[Shilgy]

54 minutes ago, b.helts said:

You counter my post with a mouthbreather argument you don’t agree with. So you’re either trolling or you assumed I’m a mouth breathing rollbacker.

 

That’s nice. 

She was replying to the many posts that claimed a 20% rollback was imminent. Why are you being an @$$ to someone that always has well reasoned posts?

 

edited to add...not that ThinkingPlus needs my defense but why can’t some folks read their posts before they hit submit? #akindergolfwrx

Edited September 27, 2020 by Shilgy

[b.helts]

1 minute ago, Shilgy said:

She was replying to the many posts that claimed a 20% rollback was imminent. Why are you being an @$$ to someone that always has well reasoned posts?

I expect people to respond to the things I post. Not the things other people post or assumptions about what they think I mean. 
 

I post clearly what I’m trying to convey. I like ThinkingPlus and agree with her on a lot of things. But in this case she’s attributed arguments and thoughts to me and my posts that I haven’t made and then kept plodding forward when questioned about the meaning of her posts. 
 

That is either trolling or simply making things up to save face or deflect or... I don’t know. I have no trouble calling that kind of posting out. Regardless of a user’s history or “typical” posting style. 

[blueonblack]

15 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Actually I was saying Rory and Day are long AND good putters. In fact better putters than the guy you used as an example how the short hitter copes.

 

Perhaps back in the day most long hitters were “just” bombers. The top players today, as always, are longer than average AND posses stellar short game, putting,  and approach skills. You are correct in that a ZachJohnson type of player needs to figure out a way to be relevant without long drive skills. But make no mistake, length is a vitally important skill to possess in professional golf. To me the best proof that a top putter cannot make up for other deficiencies is Aaron Baddeley.  It seems year in and year out he is in the top 5 or 10 putters on tour and scrapes to keep his card. 

Badds. Good example. He was always "Badds" off the tee with that stack and tilt he was doing. Putter kept him around.

I don't want all these guys to have to be Bryson sized to compete. Even in football, there are huge guys and smaller players. Golf shouldn't become all muscle bound linebacker types is what I hope to be imploring here. What Bryson is doing all around is impressive, no doubt. Just don't cater competitive golf to one player. They tried before. We're still having these same convos.

[milesgiles]

3 hours ago, Shilgy said:

How many of those have room for the throngs of fans, bleachers, hospitality tents, media trucks that come with a modern event?

 

All of them. I've watched golf there and played them. That's not the reason. Woburn now play a tour event on a different course on the same property! With the exception of Moor Park they were all tournament venues not much more than 20 years ago, all very capable of hosting tens of thousands of spectators.

 

Thats not the reason.

[caniac6]

There have been so much talk about distance rollbacks, and nothing has happened. I'm not going to worry about it, and if it happens, I'll deal with it.

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

All of them. I've watched golf there and played them. That's not the reason. Woburn now play a tour event on a different course on the same property! With the exception of Moor Park they were all tournament venues not much more than 20 years ago, all very capable of hosting tens of thousands of spectators.

 

Thats not the reason.

What is the length of them. I looked up Sunningdale and it was stated to be 6629 yards. Is that correct? That would have been short by 1970 standards. Playable but short.

[milesgiles]

48 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

What is the length of them. I looked up Sunningdale and it was stated to be 6629 yards. Is that correct? That would have been short by 1970 standards. Playable but short.

 

The new is longer and a par 70. 

 

You're beating a dead horse here. Jack, and many others of the games greats, all say the same thing. So do the architects. I'll take their word for it

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

The new is longer and a par 70. 

 

You're beating a dead horse here. Jack, and many others of the games greats, all say the same thing. So do the architects. I'll take their word for it

Not beating a horse at all...dead or alive. Just curious. If I am incorrect I sure you will be pointing it out but it appears it has not held a proper men’s tournament since 1992. It has held Senior Opens(twice), the Womens British Open(4 times) since . Any idea why they quit holding the European Open there? Did he club not want the bother? Seems unlikely to have been the equipment issue then.

My only point is that many fine courses were deemed no longer challenge enough for professionals even before the new equipment . Not an issue of it being a fine course revered by Jack and other esteemed players and architects. On your side of the water Prestwick is the first to come to my mind. I grew up in Minnesota and Interlachen Club-where Bobby Jones won the 1930 USOpen on the way to his slam- is a wonderful Donald Ross course but is no longer able to hold events, primarily because of a lack of space and a bit short, 6981 yards and par 73.

[milesgiles]

6 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Not beating a horse at all...dead or alive. Just curious. If I am incorrect I sure you will be pointing it out but it appears it has not held a proper men’s tournament since 1992. It has held Senior Opens(twice), the Womens British Open(4 times) since . Any idea why they quit holding the European Open there? Did he club not want the bother? Seems unlikely to have been the equipment issue then.

My only point is that many fine courses were deemed no longer challenge enough for professionals even before the new equipment . Not an issue of it being a fine course revered by Jack and other esteemed players and architects. On your side of the water Prestwick is the first to come to my mind. I grew up in Minnesota and Interlachen Club-where Bobby Jones won the 1930 USOpen on the way to his slam- is a wonderful Donald Ross course but is no longer able to hold events, primarily because of a lack of space and a bit short, 6981 yards and par 73.

 

Whatever the reason then, the distance issue ensures they won’t go back.

 

completely tangential to my argument anyway

[ThinkingPlus]

6 hours ago, b.helts said:

I expect people to respond to the things I post. Not the things other people post or assumptions about what they think I mean. 
 

I post clearly what I’m trying to convey. I like ThinkingPlus and agree with her on a lot of things. But in this case she’s attributed arguments and thoughts to me and my posts that I haven’t made and then kept plodding forward when questioned about the meaning of her posts. 
 

That is either trolling or simply making things up to save face or deflect or... I don’t know. I have no trouble calling that kind of posting out. Regardless of a user’s history or “typical” posting style. 

Sorry man.  I apparently misunderstood what you were saying.  My bad.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

18 hours ago, maamold said:

You lost me, why would quality control issues happen? 

Unit to unit variation was much higher with old equipment and balls. Modern quality control and design are the main reasons why new equipment is better.

 

That consistency and higher levels of fitness are what are allowing people to hit farther.

[Golf10]

3 hours ago, Lincoln_Arcadia said:

Unit to unit variation was much higher with old equipment and balls. Modern quality control and design are the main reasons why new equipment is better.

 

That consistency and higher levels of fitness are what are allowing people to hit farther.

 

Americans and Europeans are fatter than ever before.  Yes a lot of tour guys are very fit.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Golf10

[Soloman1]

Higher levels of fitness? You're kidding, right?

In the 1970's, school kids ran a mile 90 seconds faster on average than today. Obesity has tripled in the US in the past 50 years. 71.6% of Americans are overweight or obese.

 

People can barely swing a golf club around their stomachs and I don't think there is a "higher level of fitness."

 

It's the ball and the 460cc cryogenically cured, super quasi-metals derived from recovered alien spacecraft stored at Area 51. Don't you read the real newspapers at the supermarket checkout stands?

[maamold]

5 hours ago, Lincoln_Arcadia said:

Unit to unit variation was much higher with old equipment and balls. Modern quality control and design are the main reasons why new equipment is better.

 

So what does that have to do with rolling back the equipment using modern machinery and quality control?

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

20 minutes ago, maamold said:

 

So what does that have to do with rolling back the equipment using modern machinery and quality control?

It means there is no such thing as a rollback without adding that uncertainty back into the balls and equipment. That’s almost certainly not going to happen.

 

Look, I play old equipment that was fitted for me through years of trial and error. My strategy is a little different, but not night and day? There’s nothing wrong with old equipment.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

2 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

Higher levels of fitness? You're kidding, right?

In the 1970's, school kids ran a mile 90 seconds faster on average than today. Obesity has tripled in the US in the past 50 years. 71.6% of Americans are overweight or obese.

 

People can barely swing a golf club around their stomachs and I don't think there is a "higher level of fitness."

 

It's the ball and the 460cc cryogenically cured, super quasi-metals derived from recovered alien spacecraft stored at Area 51. Don't you read the real newspapers at the supermarket checkout stands?

Those who are fit, are much fitter. Better nutrition, better training programs, better fundamental understanding of peak power and performance.

 

I’m pretty old, and most people’s idea of a power drink was a pint back in the 70s and 80s. Hahaha!

 

Your comparison is certainly invalid when it comes to athletes.

[mahonie]

6 hours ago, Lincoln_Arcadia said:

Unit to unit variation was much higher with old equipment and balls. Modern quality control and design are the main reasons why new equipment is better.

 

That consistency and higher levels of fitness are what are allowing people to hit farther.

You’ve obviously not had multiple driver heads cave in or shaft tips breaking or Scotty Cameron putter heads coming loose.

[maamold]

1 hour ago, Lincoln_Arcadia said:

It means there is no such thing as a rollback without adding that uncertainty back into the balls and equipment.

I think you are confusing actual old equipment with the argument that equipment characteristics should be rolled back. 

Clubs can be manufactured with COR and CT matching 1985 equipment without compromising quality. 

Shafts can be manufactured to be shorter without compromising quality

Balls can me manufactured to have less speed off the face and different spin characteristics without compromising quality. 

[maamold]

1 hour ago, Lincoln_Arcadia said:

Those who are fit, are much fitter. Better nutrition, better training programs, better fundamental understanding of peak power and performance.
 

Your comparison is certainly invalid when it comes to athletes.

For the third time in this post I'll bring up that if you gave the most powerful golfers in the world equipment that matched the characteristics of equipment from 1985 their athleticism would not get them near where they hit it today with modern equipment. 

[storm319]

2 minutes ago, maamold said:

I think you are confusing actual old equipment with the argument that equipment characteristics should be rolled back. 

Clubs can be manufactured with COR and CT matching 1985 equipment without compromising quality. 

Shafts can be manufactured to be shorter without compromising quality

Balls can me manufactured to have less speed off the face and different spin characteristics without compromising quality. 

 

I guess it depends on your perspective. I do agree that it is possible to rollback to a point where certain metrics can consistently match a past result. However, part of the result that some people want roll back to was due to the equipment inconsistency of the time. 

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

 

However, part of the result that some people want roll back to was due to the equipment inconsistency of the time. 

Exactly, the arguments for rollback are mostly from people who idolized the greats from the “Golden Era” the definition of which is also under contest. Haha!

[mahonie]

6 minutes ago, Lincoln_Arcadia said:

Exactly, the arguments for rollback are mostly from people who idolized the greats from the “Golden Era” the definition of which is also under contest. Haha!

 

Do you think the real argument for the anti-rollback brigade is that they will find the challenge of golf too hard if distance is reined in? 

[chippa13]

I check into this topic and I see Ritchie Cunningham driving a speedboat.