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

[oikos1]

33 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

Perhaps just on the PGA Tour or PGA type courses. A couple of years back G-Mac did a piece on the Sky Cart at the Irish Open where they discussed the shots he needed for the coming tournament. His response was that he was practising 9 different shots to fit in with the wind and course architecture with most irons from high-draw, low-draw, high-fade, low-fade and everything in-between. When asked why he didn’t practise those shots all the time, his response was that he didn’t need to when playing on the PGA Tour. He worked out the distance left to the pin and tried to hit the nearest club to that number. That is his strategy...that’s it...work out the number and hit it to that.

 

 

There's just as much general inference there to support his opinion as there is for you to purposefully ignore to support yours. 

Ok, let's play this out.  Two golfers are preparing for a tournament.  Golfer A practices 9 different shots with a variety of clubs for three hours before teeing off.  Player B practices with only his driver for three hours before teeing off.  While on the course, both players consider wind, turf conditions, pin placements, approach angles, slope of green, receptiveness of approach shots, etc. 

 

Who has "more" strategy? 

[Dr. Block]

10 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Ok, let's play this out.  Two golfers are preparing for a tournament.  Golfer A practices 9 different shots with a variety of clubs for three hours before teeing off.  Player B practices with only his driver for three hours before teeing off.  While on the course, both players consider wind, turf conditions, pin placements, approach angles, slope of green, receptiveness of approach shots, etc. 

 

Who has "more" strategy? 

The one with the better dinner plans that evening. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Dr. Block

[mahonie]

18 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Ok, let's play this out.  Two golfers are preparing for a tournament.  Golfer A practices 9 different shots with a variety of clubs for three hours before teeing off.  Player B practices with only his driver for three hours before teeing off.  While on the course, both players consider wind, turf conditions, pin placements, approach angles, slope of green, receptiveness of approach shots, etc. 

 

Who has "more" strategy? 

The one who is hitting his number better on the second shot...it’s that simple.

[disco111]

If player B is DeShampo then with the new 48" driver he's driving greens, so all he needs is the putter and perhaps a little taste of the bubbly in his protein drinks.....🍺

[oikos1]

37 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

The one with the better dinner plans that evening. 

Fair enough.  Enjoy your evening.

[Dr. Block]

1 hour ago, oikos1 said:

Fair enough.  Enjoy your evening.

Thank you.  You as well. 

[storm319]

7 hours ago, Dr. Block said:

I see you're coming at me. That's fine.  I was stating my opinion.  Care to refute on the points I made?  Here's a condensed version: Modern ball requires less strategy in windy conditions because it is far less effected, hence the older game with the wound ball required more strategy in high winds.   Modern ball flies so far that most par fours are reduced to a bomb and gauge, also less strategic.  A wedge from any lie can be placed where one wants it much easier then a mid iron, especially on firm greens - point and shoot versus point, shoot, bounce and run.  

 

Now let's hear your side...  

 

I would attribute shots today being less impacted by the wind today mostly due to a) higher ball speeds mainly due to players swinging faster and b) more efficient aerodynamics. If the wind is really blowing, the strategy is the same today as it was back then (high wind = hit the ball lower).
 

Also, how is cutting the corner on a dogleg with a wedge into the green any less strategic than hitting it down the middle of the fairway with mid iron into the green? If anything, the former is more efficient and higher from a risk reward perspective (with far more money on the line today, taking these risks is more necessary).
 

I think by strategy you were really observing in the past were simply less consistent and mishit more often which put players into more reactionary positions (less than perfect turf conditions also had an impact).

[storm319]

5 hours ago, mahonie said:

The one who is hitting his number better on the second shot...it’s that simple.

The answer is the one who gets the ball in the whole in the fewest number of strokes regardless of how it looks because that is the goal of the game.

[Dr. Block]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

 

I would attribute shots today being less impacted by the wind today mostly due to a) higher ball speeds mainly due to players swinging faster and b) more efficient aerodynamics. If the wind is really blowing, the strategy is the same today as it was back then (high wind = hit the ball lower).
 

Also, how is cutting the corner on a dogleg with a wedge into the green any less strategic than hitting it down the middle of the fairway with mid iron into the green? If anything, the former is more efficient and higher from a risk reward perspective (with far more money on the line today, taking these risks is more necessary).
 

I think by strategy you were really observing in the past were simply less consistent and mishit more often which put players into more reactionary positions (less than perfect turf conditions also had an impact).

Read the rest of the thread.  I’ve provided my opinion on the points you’ve made.

 

I’m not really interested in going round and round on it.  Seems redundant 

 

I do agree that the modern ball is more aerodynamic. That was what I was getting at in my posts.  It’s stability makes it much more reliable when flighting in the wind, making strategy simpler in the sense that you don’t have to account and plan for the possibility of considerable variance such as clubbing way up to ensure you didn’t get one of the unexplainable monster balloon balls you could get randomly with the balata. In turn effecting the shape or angle to get at the necessary part of the green complex with that much lower lofted shot , which would in turn effect the strategy of positioning the tee shot. I also think the modern ball is more predictable when working it into or on the wind with approaches - also making strategy easier.  
 

In my opinion, all are connected, and all are made easier with the more stable ball.  Of course all those things exist with any equipment. My opinion is they exist to a different and reduced extent with the remarkable stability of the modern ball.    
 

Players having more ball speed would make sense on the longest clubs, I don’t see how it would make much of an impact on mid to short approach distances.  Those have flown at relatively similar speeds for quite a long time.  The lofts on the clubs have changed, I don’t think the ball speeds have much, I could be wrong.

 

I can’t make sense of your last paragraph.  I don’t think it reads as you intended it to. 
 

Anyhow, thanks for bringing up the wind. Now that I’ve gotten that novel off my chest I can leave this thread to the next round of contestants 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Dr. Block

[Dr. Block]

21 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Dr. Block

[mahonie]

4 hours ago, storm319 said:

The answer is the one who gets the ball in the whole in the fewest number of strokes regardless of how it looks because that is the goal of the game.

Your statement shows that you have either lost the essence of the game or never understood it. That’s the whole issue.

 

‘An enduring foundation of golf is that success in getting a ball from the tee to the hole in the fewest strokes should depend on using many different skills and judgments, rather than be dominated by only one or a few.’

[Sean2]

Some of the shorter hitters may have to think their way around the course a bit more than the long hitters, who in many cases, simply hit the ball as far as they can fairway bunkers, doglegs, etc., be damned. 

[smashdn]

14 hours ago, Shilgy said:

So there’s more strategy, not less?
 

I agree with you that the preshot routines of many are getting ridiculously long.  But that is not the caddie discussion.

 

 

There is the same amount.  How could there be more or less, they are playing the same courses?

 

If I was inclined to make an argument one way or the other I would say less just due to their being fewer variables to contend with now than say 30-40 years ago.  The conditions are more consistent, the game more a driver and wedge affair as opposed to tacking it around the course.

 

Re: Caddies - perhaps the argument can be made that players spend more time talking with caddies now that they are professional caddies and not just a guy that they picked for that particular tournament.  My belief is that the pro golfer relies more upon and expects more of his caddie now.  Seems that would inevitably lead to more and longer conversations with him as opposed to just "gimme the seven."

 

[bladehunter]

8 hours ago, storm319 said:

The answer is the one who gets the ball in the whole in the fewest number of strokes regardless of how it looks because that is the goal of the game.

Yes.  But.  That is achieved inside a set of equipment rules. Right ?  Rules that have been changed many times. Right ?  Ok.  All that’s being Said here is that some would like to see another change.  There is clear precedent for it.  It now comes down to the ruling bodies vote on yes or no and if yes how much .  

[storm319]

3 hours ago, mahonie said:

Your statement shows that you have either lost the essence of the game or never understood it. That’s the whole issue.

 

‘An enduring foundation of golf is that success in getting a ball from the tee to the hole in the fewest strokes should depend on using many different skills and judgments, rather than be dominated by only one or a few.’

I think that the originator of that quote is over complicating this with their own bias. If “different skills and judgements” are the “essence” of the game, why are there no explicit rules mandating that the game be played a specific way? Answer: the essence of the game is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible within the confines of the rules regardless of the approach.

[smashdn]

7 minutes ago, storm319 said:

I think that the originator of that quote is over complicating this with their own bias. If “different skills and judgements” are the “essence” of the game, why are there no explicit rules mandating that the game be played a specific way? Answer: the essence of the game is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible within the confines of the rules regardless of the approach.

 

I have no idea who originated the quote.  I am going to assume some long dead Scotsman.  That being my assumption I will also assume he was talking about links golf where you need those different skills and judgments to a much greater extent than an overwatered parkland course in the US.

 

Golf is not a terribly hard game to play if you know how far and where your shots are going to go and how they are going to react when they land.  Throw in an average putting performance and you are likely playing much better than the "average" golfer.  (I think the professionals have, to a great extent, the first part of that down pat.)

[storm319]

9 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Yes.  But.  That is achieved inside a set of equipment rules. Right ?  Rules that have been changed many times. Right ?  Ok.  All that’s being Said here is that some would like to see another change.  There is clear precedent for it.  It now comes down to the ruling bodies vote on yes or no and if yes how much .  

The vast majority of golfers do not want the change that is being proposed by some here. If you want to discuss precedent, there are plenty of examples of rules changes that have been made without explicit goals or supporting data that have failed to impact the way the game was played as intended. 
 

Change for the sake of change without any explicit, quantified metrics  and without considering the possible negative effects is simply irresponsible. 

[bladehunter]

3 minutes ago, storm319 said:

The vast majority of golfers do not want the change that is being proposed by some here. If you want to discuss precedent, there are plenty of examples of rules changes that have been made without explicit goals or supporting data that have failed to impact the way the game was played as intended. 
 

Change for the sake of change without any explicit, quantified metrics  and without considering the possible negative effects is simply irresponsible. 

I missed the referendum vote on that I guess.  
 

id say the metrics can easily be quantified by simply citing stats from years past when the rollback is determined.   In other words when they decide how far to rollback , go to that year and view the stats. 

[mvhoffman]

So what do we roll back to?  The year 2000: Original ProV1, Callaway Rule 35?  The 2003 era: ProV1, ProV1x, Strata Tour Ace?  Or do we go pre 2000?   

[storm319]

41 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I missed the referendum vote on that I guess.  
 

id say the metrics can easily be quantified by simply citing stats from years past when the rollback is determined.   In other words when they decide how far to rollback , go to that year and view the stats. 

What you just described is searching for a problem to fit a decided solution.

[smashdn]

8 minutes ago, mvhoffman said:

So what do we roll back to?  The year 2000: Original ProV1, Callaway Rule 35?  The 2003 era: ProV1, ProV1x, Strata Tour Ace?  Or do we go pre 2000?   

 

Performance of persimmon, steel shafts and wound balls.  That would be my preference.  You could then mimic the playing characteristics of the longest period of technology stagnation in golf.  Basically, the time from the widespread use of steel shafts until the advent of steel headed woods and graphite shafts, roughly 1930 to 1990.

 

It would also allow you to most easily compare the playing performance of today's professionals to those pre-1990.  It would give you the stats comparison similar to what baseball has.

[ThinkingPlus]

10 minutes ago, mvhoffman said:

So what do we roll back to?  The year 2000: Original ProV1, Callaway Rule 35?  The 2003 era: ProV1, ProV1x, Strata Tour Ace?  Or do we go pre 2000?   

The number that has been kicked around in the many threads and recommended by Jack et. al. is 20%.  The 20% number is somewhat loosely based on keeping courses like Merion and the Old Course available for elite golf tournaments as well as a bit of margin for future distance increases.  Since factors like better fitness, club fitting, and better agronomy are not really available to contribute to a rule based rollback, you only have ball and/or clubs to affect.  You will have to go back quite a ways in time to get 20% from just clubs and balls.

[bladehunter]

13 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The number that has been kicked around in the many threads and recommended by Jack et. al. is 20%.  The 20% number is somewhat loosely based on keeping courses like Merion and the Old Course available for elite golf tournaments as well as a bit of margin for future distance increases.  Since factors like better fitness, club fitting, and better agronomy are not really available to contribute to a rule based rollback, you only have ball and/or clubs to affect.  You will have to go back quite a ways in time to get 20% from just clubs and balls.

I’d say to the spring of 1982  just before the eye 2 came out.  ( Ducks and runs for cover ). 
 

 

don’t worry.  I don’t believe for a second they’ll roll anything back 20 %.  The oem lawyers won’t allow it.  

Edited October 20, 2020 by bladehunter

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I’d say to the spring of 1982  just before the eye 2 came out.  ( Ducks and runs for cover ). 
 

 

don’t worry.  I don’t believe for a second they’ll roll anything back 20 %.  The oem lawyers won’t allow it.  

Which would beg the question of what is the stated goal of a rollback if not to preserve use of classic courses in elite events?  If 20% is necessary and the RBs only mandate a change that gets 10%, then what issue do they think has been resolved?

[bladehunter]

27 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Which would beg the question of what is the stated goal of a rollback if not to preserve use of classic courses in elite events?  If 20% is necessary and the RBs only mandate a change that gets 10%, then what issue do they think has been resolved?

Oh I agree.  It’s the common case of people in power not being willing to do what is needed.  They’ll do just enough to appease.  Which is how we go here to begin with.  

[disco111]

We have to understand that the USGA lost it's back bone when Ping (Karsten) took them to court and that let the genie out of the bottle. The OEM's took control at that point and the USGA offered a modicum of lip service and the proliferation of equipment advances went through the roof. As far as the tools of the trade go, everybody marveled at how far Boom Boom - (bad back) Fred Couples hit his irons........he had them bent to stronger lofts and apparently the OEM's took notice and now we have 27/28* 7 irons. Now contrary to popular opinions, it's not the physical conditioning of players (there are lots of tour pro's overweight and underweight that hit the ball 300 plus) it's the equipment that the USGA allowed that is/has transformed the game and given birth to the distance debate now underway. Granted, we're talking about the pro tour, but if they (USGA) should happen to do anything, it will impact the am's, which are the lifeblood of the game and it will have a negitive outcome on the game. Now I seriously doubt that anything will transpire in regards to a rollback, but! and this is a big BUT!..........where do we go from here? Does equipment keep getting better and allow longer distance or is here and now the stopping point for the USGA to regain control?    

[Dr. Block]

36 minutes ago, disco111 said:

We have to understand that the USGA lost it's back bone when Ping (Karsten) took them to court and that let the genie out of the bottle. The OEM's took control at that point and the USGA offered a modicum of lip service and the proliferation of equipment advances went through the roof. As far as the tools of the trade go, everybody marveled at how far Boom Boom - (bad back) Fred Couples hit his irons........he had them bent to stronger lofts and apparently the OEM's took notice and now we have 27/28* 7 irons. Now contrary to popular opinions, it's not the physical conditioning of players (there are lots of tour pro's overweight and underweight that hit the ball 300 plus) it's the equipment that the USGA allowed that is/has transformed the game and given birth to the distance debate now underway. Granted, we're talking about the pro tour, but if they (USGA) should happen to do anything, it will impact the am's, which are the lifeblood of the game and it will have a negitive outcome on the game. Now I seriously doubt that anything will transpire in regards to a rollback, but! and this is a big BUT!..........where do we go from here? Does equipment keep getting better and allow longer distance or is here and now the stopping point for the USGA to regain control?    

I think we've hit the limiter on golf technology advances. The tour-type balls and the driver heads are maxed.  Players forged irons might continue to gain more forgiveness, and new shaft technology break-throughs will come along, but I can't see anything that will be even nearly the factor that the science of sport has been, and that's not unique to golf.  For those reasons, I sincerely doubt any rule changes will happen soon or ever. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Dr. Block

[Long Shot]

I am not a fan of rolling the ball or clubs back, but there is a reason why the do not allow aluminum bats in Major/most Minor League professional baseball.

[storm319]

14 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Performance of persimmon, steel shafts and wound balls.  That would be my preference.  You could then mimic the playing characteristics of the longest period of technology stagnation in golf.  Basically, the time from the widespread use of steel shafts until the advent of steel headed woods and graphite shafts, roughly 1930 to 1990.

 

It would also allow you to most easily compare the playing performance of today's professionals to those pre-1990.  It would give you the stats comparison similar to what baseball has.

Why is comparing eras even a factor? Comments like this support the protecting legacies argument that so many deny as a primary motivation for rolling back equipment. 
 

Also, would the distance of the average course in let’s say 1990 be ideal given the environmental/sustainability cost challenges present today and in the future? My guess is no and that it would take a very drastic scaling back in order to meet that optimum range (probably to the point of half of the current average footprint for future viability). The fact that the USGA is not doing proper due diligence is clear that the sustainability points are not the primary concern.  

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, disco111 said:

We have to understand that the USGA lost it's back bone when Ping (Karsten) took them to court and that let the genie out of the bottle. The OEM's took control at that point and the USGA offered a modicum of lip service and the proliferation of equipment advances went through the roof. As far as the tools of the trade go, everybody marveled at how far Boom Boom - (bad back) Fred Couples hit his irons........he had them bent to stronger lofts and apparently the OEM's took notice and now we have 27/28* 7 irons. Now contrary to popular opinions, it's not the physical conditioning of players (there are lots of tour pro's overweight and underweight that hit the ball 300 plus) it's the equipment that the USGA allowed that is/has transformed the game and given birth to the distance debate now underway. Granted, we're talking about the pro tour, but if they (USGA) should happen to do anything, it will impact the am's, which are the lifeblood of the game and it will have a negitive outcome on the game. Now I seriously doubt that anything will transpire in regards to a rollback, but! and this is a big BUT!..........where do we go from here? Does equipment keep getting better and allow longer distance or is here and now the stopping point for the USGA to regain control?    

Exactly.   The compromises of the past now come home to roost.