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

[Nard_S]

If they maxed or capped driver tech at what the R510 was, even that would be meaningful. Steep & cheap does not work on that club, needs a great pass to go bomber.

 

Not all big Ti heads are super max forgiving, there's little reasoning why the tour cannot impose some Min's & Max's for specifications and we all get on with our 207 yard tee ball.

 

[smashdn]

Rory seems to want harder courses.  It makes sense for the guys that can shape it, understand architecture, can read greens well etc.  Anything that you can do better than the average guy is a chance where you can differentiate yourself with that ability.

 

A guy that can drive it a mile, wants a long course.  A guy that hits a high cut wants holes that naturally shape that way.  Guys that are lights out irons players want those shots.

 

If I had my way I would put a ton more back on the golfer himself to really examine and test these "golf skills" that have largely been taken out of the golfer's hands with the modern game.  Distances for example.  Club selection, shot selection, reading the green themselves (without the help of a caddy or book), etc.

[bscinstnct]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

Rory seems to want harder courses.  It makes sense for the guys that can shape it, understand architecture, can read greens well etc.  Anything that you can do better than the average guy is a chance where you can differentiate yourself with that ability.

 

A guy that can drive it a mile, wants a long course.  A guy that hits a high cut wants holes that naturally shape that way.  Guys that are lights out irons players want those shots.

 

If I had my way I would put a ton more back on the golfer himself to really examine and test these "golf skills" that have largely been taken out of the golfer's hands with the modern game.  Distances for example.  Club selection, shot selection, reading the green themselves (without the help of a caddy or book), etc.

 

This is it. Adam Scott said similar.

 

Scott actually said,

 

“They haven’t figured out yet that long means nothing to us – you can’t build it long enough,” Scott said on Saturday evening.

“I’m not surprised to see low scores out here. If a golf course is soft we are just going to tear it apart.”

“I’m not challenging officials and course designers to build long courses, I’m challenging them to build smarter golf courses.”

 

So, I guess some will chime in and say,

 

”oh yeah?! Well if it’s so easy...why doesn’t he win more? Huh huh huh?!”

 

And perhaps they have a point.But, gotta factor his opinion to some extent.

 

Im actually hung up on the fact that the same guys who use basically the same exact blades that Jack used 50 years ago dont have more pride about using 

 

A giant toaster!

 

I mean, they kind of look like this, right? ; )

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

3 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

This is it. Adam Scott said similar.

 

Scott actually said,

 

“They haven’t figured out yet that long means nothing to us – you can’t build it long enough,” Scott said on Saturday evening.

“I’m not surprised to see low scores out here. If a golf course is soft we are just going to tear it apart.”

“I’m not challenging officials and course designers to build long courses, I’m challenging them to build smarter golf courses.”

 

So, I guess some will chime in and say,

 

”oh yeah?! Well if it’s so easy...why doesn’t he win more? Huh huh huh?!”

 

And perhaps they have a point.But, gotta factor his opinion to some extent.

 

Im actually hung up on the fact that the same guys who use basically the same exact blades that Jack used 50 years ago dont have more pride about using 

 

A giant toaster!

 

I mean, they kind of look like this, right? ; )

 

 

 

 

 

 

He’s absolutely correct.  340 plus 312 is 652.....so mathematically it would take minimum 700 yards and no wind to make a par 5 unreachable.  

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

This is it. Adam Scott said similar.

 

Scott actually said,

 

“They haven’t figured out yet that long means nothing to us – you can’t build it long enough,” Scott said on Saturday evening.

“I’m not surprised to see low scores out here. If a golf course is soft we are just going to tear it apart.”

“I’m not challenging officials and course designers to build long courses, I’m challenging them to build smarter golf courses.”

 

So, I guess some will chime in and say,

 

”oh yeah?! Well if it’s so easy...why doesn’t he win more? Huh huh huh?!”

 

And perhaps they have a point.But, gotta factor his opinion to some extent.

 

Im actually hung up on the fact that the same guys who use basically the same exact blades that Jack used 50 years ago dont have more pride about using 

 

A giant toaster!

 

I mean, they kind of look like this, right? ; )

 

 

 

 

 

 

And so Adam provided the answer.  Golf architects need to step up their game and the Tours need to choose more wisely.

[Soloman1]

3 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

And so Adam provided the answer.  Golf architects need to step up their game and the Tours need to choose more wisely.

Neither of which have any desire to do anything unless it makes them more money. It's moot.

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, Soloman1 said:

Neither of which have any desire to do anything unless it makes them more money. It's moot.

I agree.  Modern architects are whiny babies as far as I can tell.  They want to build pretty, artistic courses and be paid lots to do it.  Then they get upset the first time the tour or elite ams shreds the place. 

 

The Tour likes status quo because they are rollin in the dough.  Nothing changes unless folks stop watching.

[bscinstnct]

6 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

And so Adam provided the answer.  Golf architects need to step up their game and the Tours need to choose more wisely.

 

Ahh, but how? I know very little about golf architecture but how do you alter a course built in a different era of gear to accommodate totally new weapons.

 

Augusta 13 is the benchmark. Once upon a time, as Gary Player said, 

 

“There's a great quote from Bobby Jones dealing specifically with the 13th hole, which has been lengthened over time. He said the decision to go for the green in two should be a momentous one.”

 

Now, it’s not the new kids that started driver/9 iron into 13, Tiger and that era started that. But how do you get 13 or other old courses back to planning as intended.

 

Or, do you just throw up your arms and start anew? Build courses where the trees, bunkers, doglegs, fairways, are designed to defend 320+ yard carries?

 

And who pays? 
 

This is why a simple measure (reduce COR limit on drivers for pros) seems something to try out. Least impact on the existing club design, no impact on the ball, or the rest of the bag. 
 

In fact, I’m curious, let’s say Augusta wanted to implement that (COR limit)  as a rule for the Masters. Could they? Like, can a golf course create arbitrary rules not necessarily confirming with the USGA/RA? Just curious. 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Ahh, but how? I know very little about golf architecture but how do you alter a course built in a different era of gear to accommodate totally new weapons.

 

Augusta 13 is the benchmark. Once upon a time, as Gary Player said, 

 

“There's a great quote from Bobby Jones dealing specifically with the 13th hole, which has been lengthened over time. He said the decision to go for the green in two should be a momentous one.”

 

Now, it’s not the new kids that started driver/9 iron into 13, Tiger and that era started that. But how do you get 13 or other old courses back to planning as intended.

 

Or, do you just throw up your arms and start anew? Build courses where the trees, bunkers, doglegs, fairways, are designed to defend 320+ yard carries?

 

And who pays? 
 

This is why a simple measure (reduce COR limit on drivers for pros) seems something to try out. Least impact on the existing club design, no impact on the ball, or the rest of the bag. 
 

In fact, I’m curious, let’s say Augusta wanted to implement that (COR limit)  as a rule for the Masters. Could they? Like, can a golf course create arbitrary rules not necessarily confirming with the USGA/RA? Just curious. 

 

What's your rollback COR?

[Soloman1]

Augusta National can make 13 a par 4 if they want. Lowest score wins, regardless of "par." Maybe par is also moot since we can't compare scoring records anymore since the game has changed?

[bscinstnct]

16 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

Augusta National can make 13 a par 4 if they want. Lowest score wins, regardless of "par." Maybe par is also moot since we can't compare scoring records anymore since the game has changed?

 

That’s where things are going.

 

But, I happen to value the approach shot on a great par-5 as the coolest shot in golf. 
 

Especially if it’s a long iron or 5 wood that can actually hold the green for a big opportunity on Sunday. Like those Eagles TW made in 2008 at the US Open

 

Its the equivalent of a 50 yard bomb in football for a TD. And it’s not like a long drive off the tee because the approach on a par 5 is to score!

 

The anticipation, the crack of the club, the silence, the roar!

 

Thats what it’s about ; )

 

Now it seems it’s either driver then short iron or, if it’s a massive long Par 5, it’s a bomb and then a 3 wood into the bunker. Lame. 

Edited October 26, 2020 by bscinstnct

[bladehunter]

2 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

That’s where things are going.

 

But, I happen to value the approach shot on a great par-5 as the coolest shot in golf. 
 

Especially if it’s a long iron or 5 wood that can actually hold the green for a big opportunity on Sunday. Like those Eagles TW made in 2008 at the US Open

 

Its the equivalent of a 50 yard bomb in football for a TD. And it’s not like a long drive off the tee because the approach on a par 5 is to score!

 

The anticipation, the crack of the club, the silence, the roar!

 

Thats what it’s about ; )

 

Now it seems it’s either driver then short iron or, if it’s a massive long Par 5, it’s a bomb and then a 3 wood into the bunker. Lame. 

Peach brother basic , preach.    I’ll just read and agree.  
 

that is the essence of 13 at Augusta.  Think of a the great approaches we’ve seen there.  

[Nard_S]

11 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

That’s where things are going.

 

But, I happen to value the approach shot on a great par-5 as the coolest shot in golf. 
 

Especially if it’s a long iron or 5 wood that can actually hold the green for a big opportunity on Sunday. Like those Eagles TW made in 2008 at the US Open

 

Its the equivalent of a 50 yard bomb in football for a TD. And it’s not like a long drive off the tee because the approach on a par 5 is to score!

 

The anticipation, the crack of the club, the silence, the roar!

 

Thats what it’s about ; )

 

Now it seems it’s either driver then short iron or, if it’s a massive long Par 5, it’s a bomb and then a 3 wood into the bunker. Lame. 

Agree, same can be said for 15 too. On Amen Corner, wind cheater ball has dulled the teeth of wind. Overtime folks forgot. Tiger remembered that's why he aimed away from flag on 12 and won. "We need better architects", SMTH! We need better management of the Pro game.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Nard_S

[smashdn]

 

13 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Im actually hung up on the fact that the same guys who use basically the same exact blades that Jack used 50 years ago dont have more pride about using 

 

A giant toaster!

 

It's not about pride.  It is a job at this point, how they put food on the table.  Hyperbolic?  Yes.  None of them are going hungry but I don't begrudge any one of them for doing whatever within the rules to score the lowest.

 

13 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

And so Adam provided the answer.  Golf architects need to step up their game and the Tours need to choose more wisely.

 

Golf architects rarely design a course for the sole purpose of hosting a tour event.  Sawgrass maybe?  Even still there are way more rounds played there by average hacks than tournament rounds.

 

13 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

Neither of which have any desire to do anything unless it makes them more money. It's moot.

 

Archies get paid by people to build them a course most often that will make them money.  Something designed to keep PGA Tour players around par (if that is he desire) would be unplayable by the people footing the bill.  There aren't enough masochist golfers to keep those courses afloat.

[ThinkingPlus]

@smashdn how about Oakmont, Royal Melbourne, and Carnoustie (just a few that seem to challenge pros, but not grind ams to dust).  They seem to get a bit of play year round when the pros aren't in town.  If an architect designs for the average CC or public play then playability is most important, but if someone wants a tour challenging venue then the architect needs to ramp things up, but still keep it reasonable for ams.  Never said it was easy, but they do get paid pretty well.

 

Off to a tournament.  See you guys later!

[physasst]

26 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

@smashdn how about Oakmont, Royal Melbourne, and Carnoustie (just a few that seem to challenge pros, but not grind ams to dust).  They seem to get a bit of play year round when the pros aren't in town.  If an architect designs for the average CC or public play then playability is most important, but if someone wants a tour challenging venue then the architect needs to ramp things up, but still keep it reasonable for ams.  Never said it was easy, but they do get paid pretty well.

 

Off to a tournament.  See you guys later!

 

Agreed, there's no reason they can't do both. Put a creek at 225-235 for the ams, and have another from 310-330..Have patchy fairways. I could have sworn the tournament this past weekend had several holes like that.

 

M

[NRJyzr]

33 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

@smashdn how about Oakmont, Royal Melbourne, and Carnoustie (just a few that seem to challenge pros, but not grind ams to dust).  They seem to get a bit of play year round when the pros aren't in town.  If an architect designs for the average CC or public play then playability is most important, but if someone wants a tour challenging venue then the architect needs to ramp things up, but still keep it reasonable for ams.  Never said it was easy, but they do get paid pretty well.

 

Off to a tournament.  See you guys later!

 

Hope you kick maximum a** at the tourney  🙂

 

[bladehunter]

3 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Hope you kick maximum a** at the tourney  🙂

 

Second that. @ThinkingPlus  Good luck.  

Edited October 27, 2020 by bladehunter

[Bad9]

On 10/15/2020 at 9:19 AM, 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.

Actually they will claim extra R&D expenses, tooling costs, etc to develop the smaller club heads and charge as much or more than current drivers. Has changing accepted norms and standards ever lead to a cheaper product? There might be cases but I can't recall any.

[Soloman1]

1 hour ago, Bad9 said:

Actually they will claim extra R&D expenses, tooling costs, etc to develop the smaller club heads and charge as much or more than current drivers. Has changing accepted norms and standards ever lead to a cheaper product? There might be cases but I can't recall any.

Yet somehow they can relentlessly bring out new clubs all the time and amortize those costs . . .

[bogeysallday]

Not sure whether it's been discussed throughout the previous 30 pages of this thread, but why not force pros to look for their own ball, with only caddy assistance? If they can't find it within an allotted timeframe (say 2 or 3 minutes?), then they have to take a 2-stroke penalty and play from the general vicinity of where the ball was lost (so as to prevent slow pace and players walking back to previous spot to re-hit for a 2nd time). So this results in a risk/reward scenario where they may feel confident in risking a 2-stroke penalty to walk up and find their ball. Versus, if they hit a conservative shot and know they will find it.

 

I bring this up because seeing Brooks Koepka at Shadow Creek with his huge search party drove me bonkers. If playing the latest stroke-and-distance 2-stroke penalty like my groups do, Brooks would've been chipping for his 4th stroke. Not his 2nd. So instead of him carding a birdie, he would've carded a single bogey on that hole. I think this is a bigger factor affecting pro scores versus amateur scores than people appreciate, especially considering the number of drop penalties I see scratch-level players take each weekend due to errant bombs that are lost in the trees, deep rough, behind blind doglegs, etc.

 

I'm sure there's a better set of comprehensive rules than what I came up with above, but I think the general approach would work at curtailing this "bombs-away" trend with no care for accuracy.

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, bogeysallday said:

Not sure whether it's been discussed throughout the previous 30 pages of this thread, but why not force pros to look for their own ball, with only caddy assistance? If they can't find it within an allotted timeframe (say 2 or 3 minutes?), then they have to take a 2-stroke penalty and play from the general vicinity of where the ball was lost (so as to prevent slow pace and players walking back to previous spot to re-hit for a 2nd time). So this results in a risk/reward scenario where they may feel confident in risking a 2-stroke penalty to walk up and find their ball. Versus, if they hit a conservative shot and know they will find it.

 

I bring this up because seeing Brooks Koepka at Shadow Creek with his huge search party drove me bonkers. If playing the latest stroke-and-distance 2-stroke penalty like my groups do, Brooks would've been chipping for his 4th stroke. Not his 2nd. So instead of him carding a birdie, he would've carded a single bogey on that hole. I think this is a bigger factor affecting pro scores versus amateur scores than people appreciate, especially considering the number of drop penalties I see scratch-level players take each weekend due to errant bombs that are lost in the trees, deep rough, behind blind doglegs, etc.

 

I'm sure there's a better set of comprehensive rules than what I came up with above, but I think the general approach would work at curtailing this "bombs-away" trend with no care for accuracy.

 

Honestly, I don't even like caddie's helping a player in any way shape or form.  This is a solo sport.  I don't have a caddie when I go golfing.  I have nobody to help me read putts, nobody to help me find a ball unless I am with a group.  I have nobody to help me judge distance or wind or slope.  Get rid of caddie help all together I say but that might not be a popular thing (which I don't care if it is or not).  I think you are absolutely right though.  At the very least, it brings back more risk to the tee shot which I don't think anyone really minds no matter what your position on a roll back is.

[bogeysallday]

17 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Honestly, I don't even like caddie's helping a player in any way shape or form.  This is a solo sport.  I don't have a caddie when I go golfing.  I have nobody to help me read putts, nobody to help me find a ball unless I am with a group.  I have nobody to help me judge distance or wind or slope.  Get rid of caddie help all together I say but that might not be a popular thing (which I don't care if it is or not).  I think you are absolutely right though.  At the very least, it brings back more risk to the tee shot which I don't think anyone really minds no matter what your position on a roll back is.

 

I agree, though getting rid of caddies altogether will likely be too tough of a sell for purists and the governing bodies, like you said. At the very least, I think a lot people would agree that making players find their own balls, or risk penalty, is reasonable. But you're right, I think making players either carry or push/pull-cart their own bags would also go a long way in solidifying golf more as a "sport" to younger generations as we move forward and wish to maintain the sport's popularity.

 

Since being inspired by that Brooks Koepka hole, I would love for someone to look at a whole tournament and calculate how the total number of gallery/caddy-assists to find lost balls affected scores if a proposed 2-stroke penalty was enforced. Has anyone seen any analysis or articles having done exactly that for a recent tournament?

[Bad9]

If we got rid of pro caddies does that make the modern pros better than those in the past because they have to do more in a round of golf?

[Bad9]

41 minutes ago, bogeysallday said:

 

I agree, though getting rid of caddies altogether will likely be too tough of a sell for purists and the governing bodies, like you said. At the very least, I think a lot people would agree that making players find their own balls, or risk penalty, is reasonable. But you're right, I think making players either carry or push/pull-cart their own bags would also go a long way in solidifying golf more as a "sport" to younger generations as we move forward and wish to maintain the sport's popularity.

 

Since being inspired by that Brooks Koepka hole, I would love for someone to look at a whole tournament and calculate how the total number of gallery/caddy-assists to find lost balls affected scores if a proposed 2-stroke penalty was enforced. Has anyone seen any analysis or articles having done exactly that for a recent tournament?

How many times in a pro tournament do you think a player has hit it so far offline that he needs the gallery to assist? How far off the fairway would this rule start being applicable?

[oikos1]

Maybe someone can clarify, but isn't the "ball searching" issue and use of a caddie independent of the USGA.  Meaning, that's a PGA Tour issue and it seems they are quite happy with their bottom line these days (sans covid, of course). 

 

Otherwise, the USGA would have to change the rules in regards to searching for a ball (which currently, good or bad for you, your opponent can search for your ball) and also eliminate caddies for all golfers. 

[Sean2]

20 hours ago, smashdn said:

Rory seems to want harder courses.  It makes sense for the guys that can shape it, understand architecture, can read greens well etc.  Anything that you can do better than the average guy is a chance where you can differentiate yourself with that ability.

 

A guy that can drive it a mile, wants a long course.  A guy that hits a high cut wants holes that naturally shape that way.  Guys that are lights out irons players want those shots.

 

If I had my way I would put a ton more back on the golfer himself to really examine and test these "golf skills" that have largely been taken out of the golfer's hands with the modern game.  Distances for example.  Club selection, shot selection, reading the green themselves (without the help of a caddy or book), etc.

That has been my contention. For the most part, bomb and gouge golf doesn't require the finesse and shot making skills we have seen in the past. 

[gvogel]

3 hours ago, Bad9 said:

Actually they will claim extra R&D expenses, tooling costs, etc to develop the smaller club heads and charge as much or more than current drivers. Has changing accepted norms and standards ever lead to a cheaper product? There might be cases but I can't recall any.

Every two years the OEMs bring out new 3-woods.  They charge what, $200 - $300 for those?

[Bad9]

3 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Every two years the OEMs bring out new 3-woods.  They charge what, $200 - $300 for those?

Because they are not drivers. Golfers have proven time and again they will pay more for a driver than any other club(exception for collectible putters). They can, will and always have charged more for a driver than fairway woods.

[bogeysallday]

59 minutes ago, Bad9 said:

If we got rid of pro caddies does that make the modern pros better than those in the past because they have to do more in a round of golf?

 

It's an interesting question to debate. I suppose the quick answer would be "yes"? I also think that sports become too beholden to historical reference when comparing records, and therefore the sport stagnates with regards to updating rules, equipment, and so forth. The NBA comes to mind on this topic with recent debate over 3-pointers versus 2-pointers, and potentially moving the 3-point line or changing scoring from 2 and 3 point shots to 3 and 4 point shots. But then all historical scoring records and whatnot become more complicated to compare.

 

57 minutes ago, Bad9 said:

How many times in a pro tournament do you think a player has hit it so far offline that he needs the gallery to assist? How far off the fairway would this rule start being applicable?

 

I don't know, and that's what I would like to find out! I've never seen anyone track such a stat across all players and all 4 rounds of a given tournament. Perhaps I should clarify that I mean any and all caddie/gallery/spotter assists to find players' shots. By "gallery" I was thinking more so of the spotters right now with there being no spectators in attendance, but used the wrong word. Oops!

 

As for when the 2-stroke penalty should be applicable, I say anywhere on the course, be it fairway, rough, the next fairway over, etc. Again, the idea being to re-introduce risk/reward when it comes to aggressive shots that right now have no real downside if less accurate, such as with the crazy tee shots that attempt to clear an entire dogleg over the trees, or cut straight to the green on a par 4. There's no disincentive (i.e. risk) to go for that shot when the probability of finding your ball is so high due to spotter/spectator help. If you introduce the 2-stroke penalty, I think it would make these successful bombs by DeChambeau and others feel more deserved knowing that they could very well cost themselves 3 strokes with a single tee shot! The stakes would be higher with each tee shot, and perhaps some players would dial back distance to achieve greater accuracy and prevent any possibility of a 2-stroke penalty due to a "lost" ball.