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

[QuigleyDU]

6 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Yep.  But they’ll tell you that “ anybody now can fly it 320 with that ..... we just don’t want them to and ruin the club markets “.  Lol. 
 

this fitness idea really blows my mind.  I don’t think half the ones claiming it’s fitness have ever been in the same room with a real natural athlete.  A pga tour pickup basketball league would  show you who’s who inside 20 minutes.  Meanwhile I’m watching guys like Brian Harmon and Kevin Na fly it 3 bills.  All I can say , facepalm to the max dude .... 

Lots of different ways to be athletic.. I am the epitome of the the white guy that can't jump. 6'2" and cant touch the rim. Slow at running etc. But I was a D1 college wrestler and know how use torque and leverage, and take a beating.. 

[Dr. Block]

8 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Yep.  But they’ll tell you that “ anybody now can fly it 320 with that ..... we just don’t want them to and ruin the club markets “.  Lol. 
 

this fitness idea really blows my mind.  I don’t think half the ones claiming it’s fitness have ever been in the same room with a real natural athlete.  A pga tour pickup basketball league would  show you who’s who inside 20 minutes.  Meanwhile I’m watching guys like Brian Harmon and Kevin Na fly it 3 bills.  All I can say , facepalm to the max dude .... 

Bryson would be the chucker

 

[bscinstnct]

8 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Yep.  But they’ll tell you that “ anybody now can fly it 320 with that ..... we just don’t want them to and ruin the club markets “.  Lol. 
 

this fitness idea really blows my mind.  I don’t think half the ones claiming it’s fitness have ever been in the same room with a real natural athlete.  A pga tour pickup basketball league would  show you who’s who inside 20 minutes.  Meanwhile I’m watching guys like Brian Harmon and Kevin Na fly it 3 bills.  All I can say , facepalm to the max dude .... 

 

 

Lol, here is TW driver swing in 2000. 
 

He led the tour in average distance at 298 yards.

 

 

 

 

Last year, his back fused, 43 year old mess of a body averaged

 

299!

 

 

Only one conclusion to be drawn,

 

Tiger is in far better shape now than he was 20 years ago ; )

[bscinstnct]

9 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

Lots of different ways to be athletic.. I am the epitome of the the white guy that can't jump. 6'2" and cant touch the rim. Slow at running etc. But I was a D1 college wrestler and know how use torque and leverage, and take a beating.. 

 

 

We had a kid on our team, legit 6’8

 

Couldn’t dunk, lol

 

But your point well taken. By most his own account, Lance Armstrong stunk at every sport in school...til he got on a bike.

 

I agree BD and a lot of these top drivers are excellent athletes as it applies to golf.

 

But, they would all be averaging 300 yards if they used TWs old set up. Actually, BD would probably be out there at like 307 ; )

[bubbagump]

53 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

300 yard carry should be the exception.  Shorter guys on tour shouldn’t  be Averaging 295-300 plus. 320 carry for the long guys should be a big hit and a big risk dispersion wise.  That’s why the ball has to be included in the rollback in my opinion.  We have guys like  Russel Henley hitting 280 carry 3 woods off the tee. Nothing about him says big hitter.  I’m seeing Wolff carrying 3 wood 300 plus. One confirmed 312 that plugged whne  it hit.  Short tee height and adding spin to the ball will accomplish it easy.  
 

bit you don’t want to hear how.  You don’t want to see it.  Lol.  The how isn’t the hard part. The how much can we bite back on and survive the lawsuits is the real question.  

 

"Short guys" on tour avg 295-300 arent really that short imo, true short knockers don't really exist on Tour when were talking about "short" at like 270.  At that length, given course conditions even the "short guys" will routinely see 300+ drives.      

 

Also, the evidence of how somebody looks = to distance, is ridiculous lol.  Using that point, nothing visually says big hitter about JT, Rory, Rickie, Neiman or probs 75% of the tour.  Natural speed, physical ability is simply God given not courtesy of Taylormade.  

Edited October 22, 2020 by bubbagump

[QuigleyDU]

2 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

 

Lol, here is TW driver swing in 2000. 
 

He led the tour in average distance at 298 yards.

 

 

 

 

Last year, his back fused, 43 year old mess of a body averaged

 

299!

 

 

Only one conclusion to be drawn,

 

Tiger is in far better shape now than he was 20 years ago ; )

I dont think anyone is arguing equipment has not had its hand in the progress. From 2000 to 2020. The tour average ( the best golfers in the world!!) Went from 272. to 296. So we are talking about 30 yards over 20 years.. Plus if you look, there was a huge tour average jump to 285 in 2003 which is the year everyone went to solid core balls. So of course we have to thank equipment. 

From that year. 2003  to 2020. We are looking at about 10 yards total increase on average. I am not seeing the freak out progression. I am also thinking we are really really close to seeing driver distances level off. 

[QuigleyDU]

11 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

 

We had a kid on our team, legit 6’8

 

Couldn’t dunk, lol

 

But your point well taken. By most his own account, Lance Armstrong stunk at every sport in school...til he got on a bike.

 

I agree BD and a lot of these top drivers are excellent athletes as it applies to golf.

 

But, they would all be averaging 300 yards if they used TWs old set up. Actually, BD would probably be out there at like 307 ; )

 

I wonder what BO Jackson looks like golfing. Remember "Bo Knows". haha at one time considered the greatest natural athlete to ever live.. 

 

Honestly, Bo's move is not to shabby for an old dude with a bad hip.. Also, this video makes me laugh at the Brooks linebaker comments. Could you imagine Brooks trying to tackle Bo??

 

t

Also like at Chuck.. He was one of the greatest basketball players ever. Golf.. not even the Haney project could fix him.. haha. 

[bscinstnct]

6 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

 

I wonder what BO Jackson looks like golfing. Remember "Bo Knows". haha at one time considered the greatest natural athlete to ever live.. 

 

Honestly, Bo's move is not to shabby for an old dude with a bad hip.. Also, this video makes me laugh at the Brooks linebaker comments. Could you imagine Brooks trying to tackle Bo??

 

t

Also like at Chuck.. He was one of the greatest basketball players ever. Golf.. not even the Haney project could fix him.. haha. 

 

BK tackling Bo would look like this only worse

 

 

Do I remember Bo?! Bo was at Auburn when I was in Uncle Rico HS football. Used to watch him run for like 200 yards a game on the 13” B&W Zenith, lol

 

Bo didn’t even lift apparently. Thing about football players who make it to that level is that, unlike golfers and other mere mortals, they are naturally heavy with muscle and build muscle very easy.

 

 

[Dr. Block]

I’ve been enjoying this thread, and I should probably apologize for dropping one too many thread-distracting, nonsense jokes.  
 

The long drive lab guys seem to want to prove with launch monitor stats that a reduced tee height wouldn’t make any difference.  Sure, it probably wouldn’t dial things back much, but it could cap where things are going to continue to go.  I think that’s the point of its suggestion. 
 

Also, we should stop trying to convince them on the merits of an artistry type renaissance for golf.  That’s not how they enjoy playing, so they’re never going to see any value in that perspective. 
 

And before they flame me for furthering the role-back agenda.  I want to re-iterate that I don’t care either way.  I’m just the rare golfer on here who enjoys playing both versions of the game.

 

I just read an interesting article on Tiger’s thoughts on the distance arms race and the probability of a rule change.  He thinks no changes will ever be made.  I think he’s right.
 

I’m off to play a round with my persimmons using the high tee. It will be a miracle if I don’t dummy mark one of them.  I’ll look forward to reading the posts when I get back

 

Best to you my wrx guys and gals.    

Edited October 22, 2020 by Dr. Block

[QuigleyDU]

2 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

BK tackling Bo would look like this only worse

 

 

Do I remember Bo?! Bo was at Auburn when I was in Uncle Rico HS football. Used to watch him run for like 200 yards a game on the 13” B&W Zenith, lol

 

Bo didn’t even lift apparently. Thing about football players who make it to that level is that, unlike golfers and other mere mortals, they are naturally heavy with muscle and build muscle very easy.

 

 

The Bo Jackson 30 for 30 was the best.. I was 10 or 11 at that time. He was like a real life super hero.. 

[clevited]

52 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Just make em use this.

 

Small steel head, 43 inch steel shaft.

 

TW was hitting that 300+ so I’m sure Bryson and the Uber fit crew will have no problem either ; )

 

Far more skill and power/speed required to lean on that to get it out there 300+ than just swinging out of their shoes with a toaster on 46’ graphite shaft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't even think that would be enough long term given what Kyle Berkshire can do with one swing.  I still think that if you roll back a ball, or anything equipment wise, or some combo of the two, it will need to equate to roughly 20% reduction to have the long term effects desired.  It will also cause an even greater divide among pro and amateur golfers.  I say that because right now we can't believe how far they hit it,  just think about the guys down the road should things be rolled back to what they would need to be.  Even greater divide.  Heck, I dare say there is a good chance you lower the interest in the sport just because of that alone.  Kids will grow up realizing that ever becoming a great will be even more impossible unless they are built like a brick sh!t house, or are blessed with abnormal amounts of fast twitch muscles and a frame that can handle the speeds long term.

[bscinstnct]

19 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

The Bo Jackson 30 for 30 was the best.. I was 10 or 11 at that time. He was like a real life super hero.. 

 

 

Literally a super hero, like he looks like a comic book.

 

I mean, talk about “capped delts”. Bodybuilders take steroids and lift for a decade doing millions of side raises and never get delts like this

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

5 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

 

Literally a super hero, like he looks like a comic book.

 

I mean, talk about “capped delts”. Bodybuilders take steroids and lift for a decade doing millions of side raises and never get delts like this

 

 

Just no laser eyes and could not fly.. haha. 

[milesgiles]

As far as Clevited (is that a word) goes, he either 

 

doesn’t understand the problem 

doesnt think there is a problem 

doesnt think there is a solution to the problem 

 

or or a combination of all 3. Im past caring. Im sure he’s a practised troll I normally spot them a lot quicker.

 

as for everyone else who is contributing intelligently, and doesn’t keep bringing up utterly irrelevant examples of what Sadlowski or Berkshire can do..

 

If the ball is give or take the same, distance wise, as it’s been for decades (I think there’s good evidence for this but I’m not an expert), then yes the CoR needs to change.. I just wonder why it hasn’t been done? My ‘first step’ with the tee is just that.. I’m positive it would lead to tee shots in dramatically different positions initially, then when players and manufacturers optimise a smaller headed lower CoG club.. who knows? Nobody knows, not the pros, not the manufacturers, not the ruling bodies.. it’s educated speculation at best. To claim we would in short order be right back to where we are now with basically everyone at or about a 300 plus carry.. completely asinine. The two finest long ball strikers in the modern game are Rory and Henrik, I’ve watched them both, many times on Toptracer and they aren’t near that with a strong 3 wood, more like 280-290 total. 

[smashdn]

The Kyle Berkshires of the world are not taking over the Tour.  Wouldn't they have already done it if they could?

 

I went back and graphed the driving distance info from 1980 to 1990 cause I'm a nerd.  Eleven years worth of data points.  Longest average driver in that time period was at 285.7 (1986).  Longest, shortest average driver was 246.2 yards in 1988.  The longest mid point and longest tour average for drives was also in 1988, 263.4 and 262.9 respectively.

 

For more grins I charted the years 2000, 2010 and 2019 just to compare.  The shortest hitter on Tour in 2019 would have been the fourth longest in 1980.  The average of the average longest drives from the 1980-1990 time frame was 279.7.  The Tour Average (currently) for 2021 is more than 300 yards.  

 

BDC leads average driving distance at 344 (currently).  The driving distance leader in 1986 averaged 285.7.  About a 60 yard difference.  You guys wondering still why the optics of the game has changed?  If you assume 10 yard iron gaps a guy that hit a drive and had a 5 iron into the green would now have a driver and 9i or pitching wedge.  Not taking into account jacked lofts on irons and increased distances seen with those.  What would have been a pretty stout hole requiring a mid iron approach is now a full wedge.  A "drive and pitch par 4" is now a 3 wood and putt.

 

I wish I had the distance data from the 1950's and on.

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

18 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

As far as Clevited (is that a word) goes, he either 

 

doesn’t understand the problem 

doesnt think there is a problem 

doesnt think there is a solution to the problem 

 

or or a combination of all 3. Im past caring. Im sure he’s a practised troll I normally spot them a lot quicker.

 

as for everyone else who is contributing intelligently, and doesn’t keep bringing up utterly irrelevant examples of what Sadlowski or Berkshire can do..

 

If the ball is give or take the same, distance wise, as it’s been for decades (I think there’s good evidence for this but I’m not an expert), then yes the CoR needs to change.. I just wonder why it hasn’t been done? My ‘first step’ with the tee is just that.. I’m positive it would lead to tee shots in dramatically different positions initially, then when players and manufacturers optimise a smaller headed lower CoG club.. who knows? Nobody knows, not the pros, not the manufacturers, not the ruling bodies.. it’s educated speculation at best. To claim we would in short order be right back to where we are now with basically everyone at or about a 300 plus carry.. completely asinine. The two finest long ball strikers in the modern game are Rory and Henrik, I’ve watched them both, many times on Toptracer and they aren’t near that with a strong 3 wood, more like 280-290 total. 

I would fall into one or maybe more of those categories as well. I am not sure there is a problem and we are searching for something that really has no answer. Or if we are really asking the wrong question. 

 

Here is a thought. If you present these top level golfers with a situation where the only answer is more distance. "Lets make the courses long and narrow". 

 

Then the natural response will be, "I need to get longer to compete against long and narrow". But, If you ask them something different, put a premium on iron play and accuracy into greens. I think the arms race fizzles a bit. As it becomes less of an advantage. The answer is not shorten the ball, or lengthen the course. Both of those do the exact some thing. Golfers will try to get longer. 

 

I think last week at Shadow Creek showed this pretty well. Lots of Provisionals hit, lots of searching for balls. Lots of ball literally off the course. You could not bomb and gouge there. Yes, that course is a bit of a one off. So is Rivera. One of the shorter courses on the PGA tour but holds up soo very well. You have to think what questions do those courses ask. Then ask that of golfers more often. 

 

Rolling the ball back just asks the same question as lengthening the course. "how do I get longer"..

Edited October 22, 2020 by QuigleyDU

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

As far as Clevited (is that a word) goes, he either 

 

doesn’t understand the problem 

doesnt think there is a problem 

doesnt think there is a solution to the problem 

 

or or a combination of all 3. Im past caring. Im sure he’s a practised troll I normally spot them a lot quicker.

 

as for everyone else who is contributing intelligently, and doesn’t keep bringing up utterly irrelevant examples of what Sadlowski or Berkshire can do..

 

If the ball is give or take the same, distance wise, as it’s been for decades (I think there’s good evidence for this but I’m not an expert), then yes the CoR needs to change.. I just wonder why it hasn’t been done? My ‘first step’ with the tee is just that.. I’m positive it would lead to tee shots in dramatically different positions initially, then when players and manufacturers optimise a smaller headed lower CoG club.. who knows? Nobody knows, not the pros, not the manufacturers, not the ruling bodies.. it’s educated speculation at best. To claim we would in short order be right back to where we are now with basically everyone at or about a 300 plus carry.. completely asinine. The two finest long ball strikers in the modern game are Rory and Henrik, I’ve watched them both, many times on Toptracer and they aren’t near that with a strong 3 wood, more like 280-290 total. 

 

Sir, are you really going to do this?  Now you are calling me a troll?  I have been doing my best to take the high road with you.  I normally don't have the patience for people like you but I am trying to control my passion for this subject as best I can and not get too defenses or condescending in here.  

 

I assure you, I am no troll.  If I antagonize you, it is not from intent.  I disagree with you, and that is ok.  I don't see what is wrong with me disagreeing with you.  I am not sure how my posts have trolled you or anyone else.  If someone can tell me or show me, I will happily do my best to change course and be better.

 

- I also assure you, I understand completely the "problem" as defined by the USGA and R&A. 

- I definitely don't believe it is actually a problem beyond a subjective perception of how the game should be played, and subjective perception that isn't shared by the majority of the stake holders of the game.  

- I think there are many potential solutions to the "problem", I don't believe that your solution is one.  Maybe combined with other things it could become one though.

 

Regarding the other things you mention about Rory and such with a 3 wood.  I agreed that short term, everyone would hit 3 wood off of the 3/4 inch tee.  3 woods are often much shorter, much heavier, and higher spinning that a typical driver.  I gave an example of a very good golfer (also happens to be a former long drive pro) that shows you what is possible down the road.  I believe strongly you have to consider that top end possible player when addressing an issue that is supposed to solve the "problem" and not just be another half arsed rule change.

 

i don't doubt for one minute that Rory wouldn't hit really close to what he can do with his driver today, with a mini driver off of a 3/4 inch tee in the future.  I think @QuigleyDU will be able to at least shed a little light on how much your suggestion could impact the game short term.  He is going to try a very strong 3 wood, off a 3/4 inch tee with a 45 inch shaft.  I am sure like me, you will be interested to see what he does with it, regardless of who's points it bolsters.

[mahonie]

14 minutes ago, smashdn said:

The Kyle Berkshires of the world are not taking over the Tour.  Wouldn't they have already done it if they could?

 

I went back and graphed the driving distance info from 1980 to 1990 cause I'm a nerd.  Eleven years worth of data points.  Longest average driver in that time period was at 285.7 (1986).  Longest, shortest average driver was 246.2 yards in 1988.  The longest mid point and longest tour average for drives was also in 1988, 263.4 and 262.9 respectively.

 

For more grins I charted the years 2000, 2010 and 2019 just to compare.  The shortest hitter on Tour in 2019 would have been the fourth longest in 1980.  The average of the average longest drives from the 1980-1990 time frame was 279.7.  The Tour Average (currently) for 2021 is more than 300 yards.  

 

BDC leads average driving distance at 344 (currently).  The driving distance leader in 1986 averaged 285.7.  About a 60 yard difference.  You guys wondering still why the optics of the game has changed?  If you assume 10 yard iron gaps a guy that hit a drive and had a 5 iron into the green would now have a driver and 9i or pitching wedge.  Not taking into account jacked lofts on irons and increased distances seen with those.  What would have been a pretty stout hole requiring a mid iron approach is now a full wedge.  A "drive and pitch par 4" is now a 3 wood and putt.

 

I wish I had the distance data from the 1950's and on.

 

 

Very interesting post. In 1988 I was 18 and pretty near my physical peak and driving about 230 yards with the 1.62” UK ball. Move on to the present day and I am far past my physical peak, with dodgy Achilles, hip and back and I can drive it 260 yards...so I am as long, or thereabouts, as the longest back in 1988.

 

That is just insane when you think about it.

[clevited]

@smashdn

The Kyle Berkshires of the world are not taking over the Tour.  Wouldn't they have already done it if they could?

 

No, simply because currently, there is a limit to what length is helpful on the course mix played on tour.  If you look at the longest drivers for the past 15 to 20 years, I think at or around 315 total average distance is the highest for a player.  This is over the course of an entire season, so I won't be counting 2020 for sure.  

 

The way I view it, currently there is a ceiling regarding how much distance translates to lower scores.  If you roll back the ball the 20% I think it would need to be, then you open up the taps for the longer players and they don't hold back as often.  Guys like Finau, Bubba, Rory, Holmes, Woodland etc, will be showing what they can really do more often I am positive of this.  Bryson is going against conventional wisdom and hitting it harder than is typically necessary to score well.   I will be interested to see where he goes with this long term but that is another subject.  

 

If we pretend the ball is rolled back,  I believe strongly that down the road, X many years, we will see pro's with Jamie and Kyle like length be more and more common because there will be an even larger premium on distance off the tee.  It wasn't long ago that players with 180s+ ball speed were much less common, there are more and more on tour today.  That 180ish ball speed to me, from the research and observations I have been able to do, seems to be the sweet spot regarding length and reward on tour (with the current exception of Bryson). 

 

You have been around in these threads for a while, I would have thought you remembered why I mentioned these long drive guys.  I have said the above point in quite a few threads in the past couple years.

[smashdn]

23 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

I would fall into one or maybe more of those categories as well. I am not sure there is a problem and we are searching for something that really has no answer. Or if we are really asking the wrong question. 

 

Here is a thought. If you present these top level golfers with a situation where the only answer is more distance. "Lets make the courses long and narrow". 

 

Then the natural response will be, "I need to get longer to compete against long and narrow". But, If you ask them something different, put a premium on iron play and accuracy into greens. I think the arms race fizzles a bit. As it becomes less of an advantage. The answer is not shorten the ball, or lengthen the course. Both of those do the exact some thing. Golfers will try to get longer. 

 

I think last week at Shadow Creek showed this pretty well. Lots of Provisionals hit, lots of searching for balls. Lots of ball literally off the course. You could not bomb and gouge there. Yes, that course is a bit of a one off. So is Rivera. One of the shorter courses on the PGA tour but holds up soo very well. You have to think what questions do those courses ask. Then ask that of golfers more often. 

 

Rolling the ball back just asks the same question as lengthening the course. "how do I get longer"..

 

I agree with your premise.  And I agree with the mindset and the way you have framed this.  But there is one aspect I find fault with and it is more of an omission or incorrect line of thinking.

 

"But, If you ask them something different, put a premium on iron play and accuracy into greens."

 

The single best way to be more accurate into greens is to have a shorter shot.  The single best way to ensure you have a shorter shot into the green is to hit the previous shot farther.

 

How do you put a premium on iron play?  Firstly you can take the driver out of their hands.  (Harbour Town does to an extent, I'd venture a few links courses do provided there is wind to contend with.)

 

But other than that what do you do that would not be perceived as overly contrived or tricked up?  Narrow fairways and deep rough doesn't work.  Someone already said (paraphrase), "when the field is missing the fairway and leaving themselves a 6-7-8 iron, why not drive it far and chance missing the fairway but leave yourself a wedge instead?"

 

 

I've thrown this anecdote out a few times but when Tom Doak was working with Brooks Koepka on a design project he related this tale.  Doak asked BK what would cause a pro an issue from an architectural standpoint.  The answer was basically nothing.  There is nothing from an architectural standpoint that will cause these guys not to be super aggressive. 

 

So you are left with set-up.   What kind of set-up do you give them?  Narrow fairways and tall rough doesn't halt or balance the driving advantage.  An Augusta-like set up doesn't do it (unless you factor in the zack johhnson weather years).

 

I don't know but I wish I did.  

 

[mahonie]

13 minutes ago, clevited said:

@smashdn

The Kyle Berkshires of the world are not taking over the Tour.  Wouldn't they have already done it if they could?

 

No, simply because currently, there is a limit to what length is helpful on the course mix played on tour.  If you look at the longest drivers for the past 15 to 20 years, I think at or around 315 total average distance is the highest for a player.  This is over the course of an entire season, so I won't be counting 2020 for sure.  

 

The way I view it, currently there is a ceiling regarding how much distance translates to lower scores.  If you roll back the ball the 20% I think it would need to be, then you open up the taps for the longer players and they don't hold back as often.  Guys like Finau, Bubba, Rory, Holmes, Woodland etc, will be showing what they can really do more often I am positive of this.  Bryson is going against conventional wisdom and hitting it harder than is typically necessary to score well.   I will be interested to see where he goes with this long term but that is another subject.  

 

If we pretend the ball is rolled back,  I believe strongly that down the road, X many years, we will see pro's with Jamie and Kyle like length be more and more common because there will be an even larger premium on distance off the tee.  It wasn't long ago that players with 180s+ ball speed were much less common, there are more and more on tour today.  That 180ish ball speed to me, from the research and observations I have been able to do, seems to be the sweet spot regarding length and reward on tour (with the current exception of Bryson). 

 

You have been around in these threads for a while, I would have thought you remembered why I mentioned these long drive guys.  I have said the above point in quite a few threads in the past couple years.

What you’re forgetting about rolling back is that the ball was not as straight as it is now. Factor in the level of skill that was required to keep the d*** thing straight as well as long and you get to the crux of the issue. When talking about rolling back the ball, you have to consider just how difficult the ball used to be to keep straight in comparison. Some of the guys on the PGA Tour wouldn’t be anywhere near scratch and the long drive guys wouldn’t even consider picking a golf club up in the first place...that’s how different the game is now.

[QuigleyDU]

16 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I agree with your premise.  And I agree with the mindset and the way you have framed this.  But there is one aspect I find fault with and it is more of an omission or incorrect line of thinking.

 

"But, If you ask them something different, put a premium on iron play and accuracy into greens."

 

The single best way to be more accurate into greens is to have a shorter shot.  The single best way to ensure you have a shorter shot into the green is to hit the previous shot farther.

 

How do you put a premium on iron play?  Firstly you can take the driver out of their hands.  (Harbour Town does to an extent, I'd venture a few links courses do provided there is wind to contend with.)

 

But other than that what do you do that would not be perceived as overly contrived or tricked up?  Narrow fairways and deep rough doesn't work.  Someone already said (paraphrase), "when the field is missing the fairway and leaving themselves a 6-7-8 iron, why not drive it far and chance missing the fairway but leave yourself a wedge instead?"

 

 

I've thrown this anecdote out a few times but when Tom Doak was working with Brooks Koepka on a design project he related this tale.  Doak asked BK what would cause a pro an issue from an architectural standpoint.  The answer was basically nothing.  There is nothing from an architectural standpoint that will cause these guys not to be super aggressive. 

 

So you are left with set-up.   What kind of set-up do you give them?  Narrow fairways and tall rough doesn't halt or balance the driving advantage.  An Augusta-like set up doesn't do it (unless you factor in the zack johhnson weather years).

 

I don't know but I wish I did.  

 

You are correct. I think the answer is actually simple but it requires an answer to a different question that is related but unrelated at the same time. What is the goal of course set up? What are we (by we I mean those that love the game) wanting that set up to do? Is it to protect par? It is to provide entertainment for viewers? Or is it something else? 

 

We answer that question as a group and we can actually start to get some where. If it is to protect par. That is an easy one. Change the par of the course from 72 to 70 and so one. If it is entertainment, leave it as is. If it an an equal challenge were all golfers with different skills and attributes can compete, then you have to set up so they all have a chance. I would argue that shortening the course is the answer not lengthening it. Widening fairways is the answer not narrowing. That takes away the advantage of the long hitter.. because it does not really do him any good. Firm, fast, and wide should be the mantra.. 

There is one way, and one way only to challenge a tour pro. Create uncertainty. i am not talking about making things unfair with wild bounces either. These guys are really really good. Out of thick rough they know what is going to happen. No uncertainty not challenge. Out of medium rough they look at it and think " oh... this may jump or it may not".. 

 

I also think you can do more around the greens, but I am far from an expert on course set up. I think if the greens were all shaved around them and there were no back boards you will see guys being more conservative into greens again, because of uncertainty. 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by QuigleyDU

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, mahonie said:

What you’re forgetting about rolling back is that the ball was not as straight as it is now. Factor in the level of skill that was required to keep the d*** thing straight as well as long and you get to the crux of the issue. When talking about rolling back the ball, you have to consider just how difficult the ball used to be to keep straight in comparison. Some of the guys on the PGA Tour wouldn’t be anywhere near scratch and the long drive guys wouldn’t even consider picking a golf club up in the first place...that’s how different the game is now.

 

Yeah.  That is another way to do things.  You could somehow make the ball super hard to control off the tee.  My problem with that though, is the same as it is with a massive roll back of straight distance and that is, how disproportionately it would negatively effect the average golfer.  This then brings in again the talk of bifurcation which USGA has made clear they don't want to or intend to do last I read.  All this goes back to my position that there is no reason to do anything, nothing at all.  The majority of golfers don't believe there is a problem, or don't believe anything other than maintaining equipment limits as they are today is necessary.

[smashdn]

17 minutes ago, clevited said:

If we pretend the ball is rolled back,  I believe strongly that down the road, X many years, we will see pro's with Jamie and Kyle like length be more and more common because there will be an even larger premium on distance off the tee.  It wasn't long ago that players with 180s+ ball speed were much less common, there are more and more on tour today.  That 180ish ball speed to me, from the research and observations I have been able to do, seems to be the sweet spot regarding length and reward on tour (with the current exception of Bryson). 

 

 

How do you reconcile that 30 years ago, at around this hypothetical rolled back distance, you didn't see guys attempting this 180 ball speed proposition?  If guys throttled back then, and they are, as you state, throttling back now, why would they not do that in the future with equipment that would get them roughly the same driving distances as 30 years ago?

 

That gets back around to the argument that some make that distance is paramount now.  With shorter equipment it would be even more important they contend.  But with the benefit of hindsight that wasn't that case?  I don't see how that aspect of reality can be ignored.

 

If you are saying we are closer to the point of diminishing returns I might can get on board with that.  I might even agree, provided that there is a mechanism that the SGA and R&A can employ to counter if there were to be some new tech that does add distance, the distance gains have plateaued and nothing need be done.  If we were stagnant for say 50 years that would give courses a chance to add yardage (spit) to compensate.  That would address the playability side of things but would do nothing and in fact be worse from a sustainability standpoint.

[mahonie]

8 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Yeah.  That is another way to do things.  You could somehow make the ball super hard to control off the tee.  My problem with that though, is the same as it is with a massive roll back of straight distance and that is, how disproportionately it would negatively effect the average golfer.  This then brings in again the talk of bifurcation which USGA has made clear they don't want to or intend to do last I read.  All this goes back to my position that there is no reason to do anything, nothing at all.  The majority of golfers don't believe there is a problem, or don't believe anything other than maintaining equipment limits as they are today is necessary.

When talking about the majority of golfers what you are forgetting is that the majority of golfers would like the game to be dumbed down to a level where they could shoot par or better...that’s not what the game is about.

[QuigleyDU]

You know what is interesting?? If taken in aggregate, all golfers, everywhere. I 100% guarantee you the average drive distance drops significantly this year... If the data could be collected. 

[mahonie]

1 minute ago, QuigleyDU said:

You know what is interesting?? If taken in aggregate, all golfers, everywhere. I 100% guarantee you the average drive distance drops significantly this year... If the data could be collected. 

You’re not saying that the PGA Tour is fixing it by any chance?

[milesgiles]

NOBODY IS TRYING TO REIGN IN THE LONGEST HITTERS IT IS ABOUT REIGNING IN THE FIELD AVERAGE SUCH THAT ACCURACY IS REWARDED OFF THE TEE AND A GREATER VARIETY OF CLUBS ARE USED FOR APPROACH SHOTS.

 

(since so many seem to still be confused by the issue)

 

my contension is let’s start with the absolute simplest idea first.. the tee. If the field average is still too high (eg fairway bunkers not in play, not enough mid/long iron approaches etc.. then the next simplest thing would probably be CoR limits. Way down my list would be course setup which would be endlessly expensive and complicated. I don’t think I’d roll back the ball at all, to avoid bifurcation.

[QuigleyDU]

1 minute ago, mahonie said:

You’re not saying that the PGA Tour is fixing it by any chance?

I am not.. I honestly do not think they or the USGA "can" actually fix it. Tiger's most recent comments gave me the impression that he was backing away from a roll back stance. Maybe seeing that it is really not an option.. 

[smashdn]

15 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

There is one way, and one way only to challenge a tour pro. Create uncertainty. These guys are really really good. Out of thick rough they know what is going to happen. No uncertainty not challenge. Out of medium rough they look at it and think " oh... this may jump or it may not".. 

 

 

 

 

The "Jim Furyk Olympic Club 16th" approach.  How do you create that day after day and on more than a few holes?  How about Forest Dunes?