What's coming next from the USGA and R&A...

[davep043]

3 minutes ago, mvhoffman said:

So with all of this "reduced spec" talk and everything else, what will this account for with manufacturers?  Nobody has really addressed the fact that all of these companies would lose MILLIONS/BILLIONS in the long run.  If they regulate drivers, balls, you are looking at R&D money going out of the window.  I personally think that there will be something released and the lawsuits will start.  I think that all of these companies know something is coming and they are going to push the limits to the max while they can.  

Again, the manufacturers will be involved with the entire process.  They won't lose money, it will be passed along to the consumers, but we're already paying for all of their R&D already, I doubt the prices will change very much.  If the groove rule is any indication (enacted in 2010, not in effect for most of us until 2024), I'll be dead well before any distance reduction becomes official for the entire golfing world.  But based on the releases so far, there will be NO DISTANCE REDUCTION ACROSS THE BOARD.

[Titleist99]

I can't wait to see how the USGA & RA shake up the game because 200 touring pros hit the ball over 300 yards.... Never mind about the millions that hit it 210 off the tee at every muni across the nation every day....LOL!

 

[mahonie]

1 hour ago, mvhoffman said:

So with all of this "reduced spec" talk and everything else, what will this account for with manufacturers?  Nobody has really addressed the fact that all of these companies would lose MILLIONS/BILLIONS in the long run.  If they regulate drivers, balls, you are looking at R&D money going out of the window.  I personally think that there will be something released and the lawsuits will start.  I think that all of these companies know something is coming and they are going to push the limits to the max while they can.  

It just needs one company to say: ‘We’re fine with that, just give us 12 months to develop a new product line,’ and I think the others would have no choice but to follow suit. Just imagine the new marketing opportunities the OEMs would have!

 

At the end of the day, the rules are the rules and as the rule makers and guardians of the game, the USGA/R&A would have a strong legal argument for changing the rules to protect the integrity of the game.

 

Reading between the lines, and it’s pure speculation on my part, it appears that the USGA/R&A already have the ear of Bridgestone.

[Golfnutgalen]

On 10/1/2020 at 12:12 PM, jons1 said:

Bryson wasn't the longest hitter in the field.  I think he was ranked 7th in driving distance.  He won the US Open because he was the best around and on the greens.  And further, the winning score was only -6.  Why are people freaking out?

 

The PGA Tour measures driving distance off of just 2 holes each round, and based on those holes Bryson averaged 325.6 and Dustin who was first averaged 333.6. That's not the whole story. If you measure the drive length on every par 4 and par 5 then Bryson averaged 314 and DJ 295.7. And remember that includes plenty of irons, 5 woods, and 3 woods. Still, I do agree that I would have expected the number to be higher.

 

 

[bscinstnct]

Be funny if the new “Premier Golf League” which is trying to entire PGA pros to join will

 

 

Totally take off restrictions on ball distance and even COR (whatever that is) and let players, manufacturers just go nuts developing the longest gear they can!

 

They go to Bryson like,

 

 

 

Distance! All you want ; )

 

 

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

Be funny if the new “Premier Golf League” which is trying to entire PGA pros to join will

 

 

Totally take off restrictions on ball distance and even COR (whatever that is) and let players, manufacturers just go nuts developing the longest gear they can!

 

They go to Bryson like,

 

 

 

Distance! All you want ; )

 

 

And one of them is betting a buck that Bryson's arm fall off.....LOL!

[OrangeGravy]

11 hours ago, mvhoffman said:

So with all of this "reduced spec" talk and everything else, what will this account for with manufacturers?  Nobody has really addressed the fact that all of these companies would lose MILLIONS/BILLIONS in the long run.  If they regulate drivers, balls, you are looking at R&D money going out of the window.  I personally think that there will be something released and the lawsuits will start.  I think that all of these companies know something is coming and they are going to push the limits to the max while they can.  

Who cares about the equipment companies? If they want to stop making equipment, someone else will. They aren't some institution of the game of golf that needs to be protected

[Mudguard]

1 hour ago, OrangeGravy said:

Who cares about the equipment companies? If they want to stop making equipment, someone else will. They aren't some institution of the game of golf that needs to be protected

Exactly. I wonder how much cheaper equipment would be if they didn't pay anyone to use it!

[gvogel]

7 hours ago, Mudguard said:

Exactly. I wonder how much cheaper equipment would be if they didn't pay anyone to use it!

If the USGA/R&A were to roll back driver size to 230 cc for elite players, I'm guessing that the OEMs would only charge a little more than they charge for 3-woods now.  Not $500.

[jons1]

I think the big reason nothing changes is the financial impact to manufactures to roll anything back, and the impact on the average golfer for what is the elite few in the game, but there is a solution imo.

 

A few simple rules changes... no driver longer than 45", no loft less than 9.5*, and maintain all of the existing limits (460cc, .83 COR).  You would effectively stop the super long ball for the elite players and there would be little financial impact for almost everyone involved, including makers of equipment.  Most amateurs wouldn't even feel the impact in terms of distance or make their existing equipment obsolete.

 

When you loft down to something closer to 4-6* and hit up on the ball 6-8*, you max out distance at high club head speeds (high launch without spin).  That simple change in the rules, lowest loft of non-putters, would cause players to change their driving technique and it would take a considerable amount of distance away from elite players.  In fact, players would likely prefer to swing more in control because the higher club head speeds would only produce excessive spin and more errant shots.

 

I'm not saying we're ever going back to 280 yards being a long drive, the golf ball has all but assured that, but it would stop the regular 350+ yard drives.  In addition, it would make the game more competitive bringing the field closer together.  It seems like the only logical next step for USGA and R&A without creating two sets of rules or rollbacks which no one really wants.

 

The whole campaign to get players to loft up was either disinformation or poorly applied physics imo.  Long drivers have known for a long time now that loft has the biggest impact on spin, and spin kills distance.  You increase launch through technique and hitting up on the ball, not adding more loft to the club.  Even little guys like Chi Chi would tee it up ridiculously high to hit up on the ball to get more distance, long before launch monitors.  Honestly, nothing is new here... stop that technique with a minimum loft rule, and you stop all of it.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by jons1

[davep043]

19 minutes ago, gvogel said:

If the USGA/R&A were to roll back driver size to 230 cc for elite players, I'm guessing that the OEMs would only charge a little more than they charge for 3-woods now.  Not $500.

The OEMs will charge whatever the market will bear.  If its only elite players who are governed by the rule change, my guess is that most of those elite players will pay whatever it takes (at least the ones who actually pay for their clubs).  A bifurcated rule requires manufacturers to establish additional facilities to make the "elite" clubs or balls, significant expense to cater to a pretty small population.

[ThinkingPlus]

5 hours ago, davep043 said:

The OEMs will charge whatever the market will bear.  If its only elite players who are governed by the rule change, my guess is that most of those elite players will pay whatever it takes (at least the ones who actually pay for their clubs).  A bifurcated rule requires manufacturers to establish additional facilities to make the "elite" clubs or balls, significant expense to cater to a pretty small population.

Fortunately they will pass that extra cost on to consumers. 😉

[davep043]

9 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Fortunately they will pass that extra cost on to consumers. 😉

That's what all successful businesses do.  But I do agree, the financial impact on ball and club manufacturers isn't a barrier to any changes that might be made.  

[Titleist99]

15 hours ago, OrangeGravy said:

Who cares about the equipment companies? If they want to stop making equipment, someone else will. They aren't some institution of the game of golf that needs to be protected

The equipment companies sponsor all of golf.....have you not been watching the commercials....

Titleist and Taylormade is the main sponsors.....just look at the logos on the players shirts.....LOL!

[davep043]

6 hours ago, jons1 said:

The whole campaign to get players to loft up was either disinformation or poorly applied physics imo.

That campaign wasn't aimed at top players, but at the rank and file, the guys who buy almost all of the golf equipment sold.  For most non-elite players, the best distance is achieved with relatively high launch angles and relatively low backspin.  Those players don't have the clubhead speed or technique to use really low loft drivers effectively, they need a little help from the equipment.

[jons1]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

That campaign wasn't aimed at top players, but at the rank and file, the guys who buy almost all of the golf equipment sold.  For most non-elite players, the best distance is achieved with relatively high launch angles and relatively low backspin.  Those players don't have the clubhead speed or technique to use really low loft drivers effectively, they need a little help from the equipment.

 

Yup, makes sense.  But even lower speed swingers are finding lower lofts are actually beneficial when they use the right technique.  Here's an article about it

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/golf-equipment-truths-why-you-should-rethink-your-driver-loft

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by jons1

[davep043]

35 minutes ago, jons1 said:

 

Yup, makes sense.  But even lower speed swingers are finding lower lofts are actually beneficial when they use the right technique.  Here's an article about it

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/golf-equipment-truths-why-you-should-rethink-your-driver-loft

 

Yeah, that all makes sense too, its the right combination of launch and spin for a particular speed, and lots of things go into both factors.  But the article also talks about players using launch monitors to learn the right angle of attack.  The vast majority aren't going to change their swing to improve the angle of attack, they're going to buy a new driver.  They're going to get fit at Dick's, not at Club Champion. And that driver needs a bit of loft to get them close to what they need.

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

Yeah, that all makes sense too, its the right combination of launch and spin for a particular speed, and lots of things go into both factors.  But the article also talks about players using launch monitors to learn the right angle of attack.  The vast majority aren't going to change their swing to improve the angle of attack, they're going to buy a new driver.  They're going to get fit at Dick's, not at Club Champion. And that driver needs a bit of loft to get them close to what they need.

Must be why DJ uses a 10.5* driver. 😎

 

Thats really not directed at you...that is more at the minimum loft suggestion of 9.5*. 
 

A ball rollback would affect everyone. And more or less equally.** The idea of length requirements and loft requirements would affect some players not at all.

 

**not that I think a rollback is necessary.

[OrangeGravy]

20 hours ago, davep043 said:

The OEMs will charge whatever the market will bear.  If its only elite players who are governed by the rule change, my guess is that most of those elite players will pay whatever it takes (at least the ones who actually pay for their clubs).  A bifurcated rule requires manufacturers to establish additional facilities to make the "elite" clubs or balls, significant expense to cater to a pretty small population.

I don't get why people are such slaves to OEMs. Why does anyone need to have a driver right as it comes out at full bloated retail price? Who cares what they charge when you can wait a cycle and get the dame thing for dirt cheap, still new! It doesn't make anyone better. If it did, they wouldn't be right back at it again when the next new club comes out. You can say some people just "want" the new driver or 3 wood or whatever, but people buying to fill a "want" shouldn't care what it costs. It's the want not the need that drives prices up. Any other reason is just an excuse to satisfy wanting it. 

[OrangeGravy]

13 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

The equipment companies sponsor all of golf.....have you not been watching the commercials....

Titleist and Taylormade is the main sponsors.....just look at the logos on the players shirts.....LOL!

They don't sponsor all of golf. They sponsor the tour so in hopes of making more money off the 99% of golfers that aren't on tour. If they sponsored all of golf we'd all be playing with free equipment and fancy free threads. They aren't doing anything out of the goodness of their heart. If they stopped operating tomorrow, golf would continue on. 

[smashdn]

4 hours ago, OrangeGravy said:

I don't get why people are such slaves to OEMs. Why does anyone need to have a driver right as it comes out at full bloated retail price? Who cares what they charge when you can wait a cycle and get the dame thing for dirt cheap, still new! It doesn't make anyone better. If it did, they wouldn't be right back at it again when the next new club comes out. You can say some people just "want" the new driver or 3 wood or whatever, but people buying to fill a "want" shouldn't care what it costs. It's the want not the need that drives prices up. Any other reason is just an excuse to satisfy wanting it. 

 

Evenly and consistently filling yardage gaps is not sexy nor sells clubs.  Really boil it down and the only club that matters how much farther it can go is a driver.  Say you whack your driver 300 yards.  Now you got a span of about 100 yards on the short end for a full-swing, highest lofted wedge shot to 300 yards with your driver that you need to cover, a 200 yard span.  You have 12 clubs to do it with.  Pick the 12 clubs that  allow you to do that best.  With that in mind it ceases to matter whether the club with the 7 stamped on the bottom of it goes 180 yards or 140 yards as long as you have a club that you can use to hit that given distance range.

[davep043]

4 hours ago, OrangeGravy said:

I don't get why people are such slaves to OEMs. Why does anyone need to have a driver right as it comes out at full bloated retail price? Who cares what they charge when you can wait a cycle and get the dame thing for dirt cheap, still new! It doesn't make anyone better. If it did, they wouldn't be right back at it again when the next new club comes out. You can say some people just "want" the new driver or 3 wood or whatever, but people buying to fill a "want" shouldn't care what it costs. It's the want not the need that drives prices up. Any other reason is just an excuse to satisfy wanting it. 

I'm not sure that the relative logic of the buying habits of the public are really important in the discussion of the Equipment Rules, and potential changes to them.  

[tgoodspe1991]

What happened to a time when people could win on the Tour and be celebrated instead of having their entire game ripped apart and analyzed for what "unfair methods" they use.

 

Tiger won by 15-shots in the US Open at Pebble Beach and everyone thought it was the greatest thing in the world. Bryson won by 6-shots in the US Open at Winged Foot and the world outrages that there's something wrong with the game.

 

 

[davep043]

25 minutes ago, tgoodspe1991 said:

What happened to a time when people could win on the Tour and be celebrated instead of having their entire game ripped apart and analyzed for what "unfair methods" they use.

 

Tiger won by 15-shots in the US Open at Pebble Beach and everyone thought it was the greatest thing in the world. Bryson won by 6-shots in the US Open at Winged Foot and the world outrages that there's something wrong with the game.

Tiger was a bit more likeable, but his length advantage got people to try to "tiger-proof" courses.  Bryson isn't quite so likeable, and has broken with the "old way" of gaining distance with his massive strength gain, so he's looked at differently.  As a separate factor, social media didn't have nearly the reach in 1997, when Tiger won his first major, as it does now.  

[jons1]

Tiger also had a different approach.  He hit 2 irons, 3 woods, stringers, etc.  Bryson is literally cocking back and swinging as hard as he can to the upper deck with a putter lofted driver on every hole no matter what.  That offends people.  That's only been done in long drive competitions... now it's the pga tour.

 

He figured... most of the field is missing these narrow fairways anyway.... I may as well miss them with a wedge than a 7 iron... and can you argue with the results?

 

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by jons1

[Titleist99]

6 hours ago, OrangeGravy said:

They don't sponsor all of golf. They sponsor the tour so in hopes of making more money off the 99% of golfers that aren't on tour. If they sponsored all of golf we'd all be playing with free equipment and fancy free threads. They aren't doing anything out of the goodness of their heart. If they stopped operating tomorrow, golf would continue on. 

You're Picking nits now.....okay, the Manufacturers sponsor the majority of televised golf in the states along with Nike which is a major golf apparel manufacturer with tentacles around the world. Golf will survive but at what level of tv viewing is the question.

Edited October 16, 2020 by Titleist99

[smashdn]

27 minutes ago, jons1 said:

Tiger also had a different approach.  He hit 2 irons, 3 woods, stringers, etc.  Bryson is literally cocking back and swing as hard as he can to the upper deck with a putter lofted driver on every hole no matter what.  That offends people.  That's only been done in long drive competitions... now it's the pga tour.

 

He figured... most of the field is missing these narrow fairways anyway.... I may as well miss them with a wedge than a 7 iron... and can you argue with the results?

 

 

 

That last thought sums it up nicely.

 

Being in the fairway with 4-5-6 iron yields roughly the same (or worse) results as being in the rough with a short iron or wedge.

 

This, imo, is a direct result from a new found understanding, analysis and application of strokes gained.

Edited October 16, 2020 by smashdn

[gvogel]

8 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Your Picking nits now.....okay, the Manufacturers sponsor the majority of televised golf in the states along with Nike which is a major golf apparel manufacturer with tentacles around the world. Golf will survive but at what level of tv viewing is the question.

TV broadcasters can sell advertisements for beer, whiskey, cars, trucks, insurance, brokerage firms and others, and tv viewership will remain the same.

 

I suspect that golf magazines would be hurt the most.  Pity.

[mahonie]

1 hour ago, gvogel said:

TV broadcasters can sell advertisements for beer, whiskey, cars, trucks, insurance, brokerage firms and others, and tv viewership will remain the same.

 

I suspect that golf magazines would be hurt the most.  Pity.

...you still have golf magazines? I stopped reading them when every other page was an advertisement for some or other golf product. 

[OrangeGravy]

6 hours ago, davep043 said:

I'm not sure that the relative logic of the buying habits of the public are really important in the discussion of the Equipment Rules, and potential changes to them.  

I'm just asking why people jump to the defense so quickly of OEMs when talking about potentially changing the equipment rules in golf. I understand they will put financially pressure on the decision, but they shouldn't be part of the equation at all.