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

[clevited]

1 minute ago, bladehunter said:

It just depends on you’re idea of “ the game “. We may already be past that point.   I can list the ways. But you’ll simply explain them away as “ progress “ or “ the old ways are dying and that’s good “. 
 

which is fine. I’m cool with someone disagreeing.  I just  think  that my ideas of what’s correct should be treated the same. After all it’s all OPINION  on how a game should be played.  Progress for sake of progress is rarely correct long term. 
 

uou feel like you have the moral high ground because you’re defending the current situation.  I feel that way because  I’m advocating for a change back to FIX an issue that I have with the new game.  It’s that easy.  Neither of us are on rock solid ground , because we both have selfish agendas.  Both.  

 

You think you know my agenda.  In this case, my agenda is not primarily selfish.  My agenda is and always has been primarily that I think a change is stupid, plain and simple, stupid.  It has been too long that the ship has sailed, the amount of change in order to accomplish the "problem" would have to be very high, the people running the show have a poor track record of implementing change, the reason for change is subjective and not shared even by the majority that play the game, bifurcation causes too many issues, an outright across the board change would negatively effect too many people undeservedly so, and last but not least, a negative change isn't the smartest thing to do when the popularity of playing the game has dwindled significantly.

 

Secondarily, yeah, I don't want to hit any shorter nor do I want my friends to.  If I want to hit it shorter, I will pick one of my many old clubs that are poorly fit to my swing and speed and use that.

[bscinstnct]

2 hours ago, clevited said:

 

What is the point of trying something when the evolution of it is easily predicted.  Test it, test it throughly outside of the tour.  You won't learn anything meaningful from "testing it" a couple times on tour, I think I thoroughly debunked that several pages ago.

 

Ahhh, well, good to see you have pulled up a seat to the table!

 

Testing would be important but, as Blade said, there is quite a bit of data as a baseline to go off to get started.

 

Should I take this to mean you may favor a “rollback” to a 300 yard distance leader and 285 average drives? 

[Bubbtubbs]

28 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Lol 6 months is a rush ?  You’re back to the “ cabbage inspection “ tactic.  If you leave the cabbage on the boat at port long enough - there ain’t nothing left to inspect. Problem solved.  
 

 

if this isn’t fixed quick enough it’s pointless- the game is gone.  

Don't take this as a personal attack, BH, because you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, but why should we act like there is some kind of expiry date on the game? I'm certainly not going to stop playing if Cam Champ and BDC start hitting it 450y. I'd be willing to bet most other golfers will not.

 

If the goal is a long-term solution, I'd rather it be one that's properly thought out rather than a knee-jerk like the aforementioned changes that accomplished essentially nothing except to piss off competing Ams.

[clevited]

8 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Ahhh, well, good to see you have pulled up a seat to the table!

 

Testing would be important but, as Blade said, there is quite a bit of data as a baseline to go off to get started.

 

Should I take this to mean you may favor a “rollback” to a 300 yard distance leader and 285 average drives? 

 

Absolutely not.  I am merely sharing my thoughts on the right way to implement a change if I believed a change was needed, which I don't.

 

Edit:  Please don't read that in a snarky tone btw, not intended but after reading it I could see how it might get read that way.

 

I just believe in due diligence if any major change is to be considered for anything, whether it be rules in a game played by millions or a business decision that could have long term negative ramifications if poorly thought out.

Edited November 2, 2020 by clevited

[bladehunter]

10 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

You think you know my agenda.  In this case, my agenda is not primarily selfish.  My agenda is and always has been primarily that I think a change is stupid, plain and simple, stupid.  It has been too long that the ship has sailed, the amount of change in order to accomplish the "problem" would have to be very high, the people running the show have a poor track record of implementing change, the reason for change is subjective and not shared even by the majority that play the game, bifurcation causes too many issues, an outright across the board change would negatively effect too many people undeservedly so, and last but not least, a negative change isn't the smartest thing to do when the popularity of playing the game has dwindled significantly.

 

Secondarily, yeah, I don't want to hit any shorter nor do I want my friends to.  If I want to hit it shorter, I will pick one of my many old clubs that are poorly fit to my swing and speed and use that.

We have to be genuine if we are to discuss. Merely having any opinion is a selfish point. There is no oppressed peoples to advocate for here.  So it’s what you want vs what I want when boiled down. 

[clevited]

7 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

We have to be genuine if we are to discuss. Merely having any opinion is a selfish point. There is no oppressed peoples to advocate for here.  So it’s what you want vs what I want when boiled down. 

 

No, no it isn't.  I see it as fighting against objectively defined stupidity.  Not stupidity based on my opinions or selfish desires.  When you go and add up all of the evidence for reason to change, the amount of change needed to accomplish the goal, and play out how those would logically effect people and the game, the reasonable conclusion is that it would be stupid lol.

 

If I were in a forum about any other subject I know a reasonable amount about, I would also fight against rules or laws or whatever that I think are logically stupid. 

 

Anyways, you can boil it down whatever way you want and tell me that I am defending for selfish reasons, but my reasons, on the larger scale, are much more noble than not wanting to hit it shorter.  I am fighting and advocating for the golf population at large, and the sport itself.

 

Edit:  Mind you, I am not calling any of you stupid that want to roll back the game in some way.  I am calling a hypothetical implementation of a rule change stupid.  Not intended to insult anyone, just to convey how I logically think such a rule change would be.  It would be literally dumb to try and implement.

Edited November 2, 2020 by clevited

[bladehunter]

7 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Absolutely not.  I am merely sharing my thoughts on the right way to implement a change if I believed a change was needed, which I don't.

Right. But. The very point that you are against any idea of a change, pretty much makes your statement on how to implement the Change hard to hear.  Just being honest.  And the reason is because I know that it’s filled with spin to suit what you’d prefer.  It’s just human nature.  
 

the scientific method is fine by me. But there’s literally Isn’t a  reason to not put a timetable on it. Open ended time tables 100 % lead to slow work and excess cost for no reason.  If someone wants to study it , it can be done . And it can be done fairly fast.  

[bladehunter]

1 minute ago, clevited said:

 

No, no it isn't.  I see it as fighting against objectively defined stupidity.  Not stupidity based on my opinions or selfish desires.  When you go and add up all of the evidence for reason to change, the amount of change needed to accomplish the goal, and play out how those would logically effect people and the game, the reasonable conclusion is that it would be stupid lol.

 

If I were in a forum about any other subject I know a reasonable amount about, I would also fight against rules or laws or whatever that I think are logically stupid. 

 

Anyways, you can boil it down whatever way you want and tell me that I am defending for selfish reasons, but my reasons, on the larger scale, are much more noble than not wanting to hit it shorter.  I am fighting and advocating for the golf population at large, and the sport itself.

As am I. 

[clevited]

Just now, bladehunter said:

As am I. 

 

No.  You have admitted many times to it being for selfish reasons you want the change.  I remember many of our back and fourths.  I have always been against any roll back of any kind for reasons beyond anything simple like a selfish desire.  I have been very consistent about that.

 

Pro roll backers are a smaller population and not representative of the people that play the game regularly.  The polls out there have shown this time and time again, and I tend to believe those polls are rather representative of the larger golfing population.  I don't believe that a small group of people should be able to dictate the game for the larger mass of people due to subjective reasons.  I also don't believe in mob rule mind you, I just believe in intelligent decision making.

[nsxguy]

56 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

And leave armlock? .  Which if done correctly is locked in.  I know.  It absolutely makes for a perfect stroke on any putt monitoring machine.  Once someone perfects  their fitment etc.  which is the idea of anchoring. A repeatable stroke with no real variables.  Armlock will provide that at least closer than a long putter ever could.  

 

Any chance you have a link to the research ?

[clevited]

12 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Right. But. The very point that you are against any idea of a change, pretty much makes your statement on how to implement the Change hard to hear.  Just being honest.  And the reason is because I know that it’s filled with spin to suit what you’d prefer.  It’s just human nature.  
 

the scientific method is fine by me. But there’s literally Isn’t a  reason to not put a timetable on it. Open ended time tables 100 % lead to slow work and excess cost for no reason.  If someone wants to study it , it can be done . And it can be done fairly fast.  

 

You can put a time table on it, I don't disagree with that.  I am saying that the time table will be dictated by the task at hand.  Will it be 6 months?  Likely not.  Will it be 10 years?  Also not likely.  I would say 2 to 5 years to be a completely reasonable expectation, and that is just to determine a reasonable solution/direction, not to implement it.

[bladehunter]

13 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Any chance you have a link to the research ?

I saw it for myself.  On trackmans putting program.  But I’ll stress that most wont see it due to Fitment. You have to get the putter to fit in a way that it cradles in a forward pressed position and can’t move.  Bryson has it figured out.  His putter is a greater weapon than his driver in my opinion.  But you can’t just pick one up off the rack and see the result.  I worked on it for a month to get one built to fit me.   Then saw instance success.  

[bladehunter]

17 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

No.  You have admitted many times to it being for selfish reasons you want the change.  I remember many of our back and fourths.  I have always been against any roll back of any kind for reasons beyond anything simple like a selfish desire.  I have been very consistent about that.

 

Pro roll backers are a smaller population and not representative of the people that play the game regularly.  The polls out there have shown this time and time again, and I tend to believe those polls are rather representative of the larger golfing population.  I don't believe that a small group of people should be able to dictate the game for the larger mass of people due to subjective reasons.  I also don't believe in mob rule mind you, I just believe in intelligent decision making.

When was this vote ? 
 

ive said here several times that my wants are selfish. There’s no gotcha there. I’m admittedly selfish.  But what I’m also saying is that people don’t know what’s best for them.  More spin will help most players. A ball rollback will surely include this.  
 

a shorter smaller driver would help a lot more than you think keep it in play. Making 2 birdies a week for a 20 cap due to length doesn’t really help whne they have 8 penalty strokes for OB  at the same time due to trying to square up a 46 inch driver with a head the size of the golf cart.  
 

and lastly.  A reduction in distance will move most up a tee box or two which will surely sped up play. Sooooo many are playing the back tees and spraying it all over the map , and that’s the root cause of the 5 hour round. 
 

the only issue , and I’ll admit it is one that I don’t see a good fix for , is the current front tee players having nowhere to move up to. 

[milesgiles]

32 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

No, no it isn't.  I see it as fighting against objectively defined stupidity.  Not stupidity based on my opinions or selfish desires.  When you go and add up all of the evidence for reason to change, the amount of change needed to accomplish the goal, and play out how those would logically effect people and the game, the reasonable conclusion is that it would be stupid lol.

 

If I were in a forum about any other subject I know a reasonable amount about, I would also fight against rules or laws or whatever that I think are logically stupid. 

 

Anyways, you can boil it down whatever way you want and tell me that I am defending for selfish reasons, but my reasons, on the larger scale, are much more noble than not wanting to hit it shorter.  I am fighting and advocating for the golf population at large, and the sport itself.

 

Edit:  Mind you, I am not calling any of you stupid that want to roll back the game in some way.  I am calling a hypothetical implementation of a rule change stupid.  Not intended to insult anyone, just to convey how I logically think such a rule change would be.  It would be literally dumb to try and implement.

 

 

So so you’re not calling anyone that supports a ‘stupid’ idea stupid?

 

good to know 

[milesgiles]

7 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

So so you’re not calling anyone that supports a ‘stupid’ idea stupid?

 

good to know 

 

59 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

You think you know my agenda.  In this case, my agenda is not primarily selfish.  My agenda is and always has been primarily that I think a change is stupid, plain and simple, stupid.  It has been too long that the ship has sailed, the amount of change in order to accomplish the "problem" would have to be very high, the people running the show have a poor track record of implementing change, the reason for change is subjective and not shared even by the majority that play the game, bifurcation causes too many issues, an outright across the board change would negatively effect too many people undeservedly so, and last but not least, a negative change isn't the smartest thing to do when the popularity of playing the game has dwindled significantly.

 

Secondarily, yeah, I don't want to hit any shorter nor do I want my friends to.  If I want to hit it shorter, I will pick one of my many old clubs that are poorly fit to my swing and speed and use that.

 

It’s only a ‘negative’ change in your opinion. Your OPINION. It’s not a statement of fact is it. At least admit that, and doubly so because you don’t even want anyone to try it for one tournament. Unbelievable 

[nsxguy]

19 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I saw it for myself.  On trackmans putting program.  But I’ll stress that most wont see it due to Fitment. You have to get the putter to fit in a way that it cradles in a forward pressed position and can’t move.  Bryson has it figured out.  His putter is a greater weapon than his driver in my opinion.  But you can’t just pick one up off the rack and see the result.  I worked on it for a month to get one built to fit me.   Then saw instance success.  

 

So that's a "No" then (for the link). Thanks anyway. 👍

 

I don't know what "Trackman's putting program" is but it kinda sorta sounds to me like you tried it and are convinced - or am I mistaken ?

 

And if Tiger someone doesn't like it will it be banned ? 

[clevited]

23 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

When was this vote ? 
 

ive said here several times that my wants are selfish. There’s no gotcha there. I’m admittedly selfish.  But what I’m also saying is that people don’t know what’s best for them.  More spin will help most players. A ball rollback will surely include this.  
 

a shorter smaller driver would help a lot more than you think keep it in play. Making 2 birdies a week for a 20 cap due to length doesn’t really help whne they have 8 penalty strokes for OB  at the same time due to trying to square up a 46 inch driver with a head the size of the golf cart.  
 

and lastly.  A reduction in distance will move most up a tee box or two which will surely sped up play. Sooooo many are playing the back tees and spraying it all over the map , and that’s the root cause of the 5 hour round. 
 

the only issue , and I’ll admit it is one that I don’t see a good fix for , is the current front tee players having nowhere to move up to. 

 

Way more issues than that, and a lot of what you say isn't supported by any kind of real world evidence.  Speed up play?  By how much, and do you really think people will move up tees?  You know how human nature is, that isn't solved with such a thing.  There are way more tangible and logically obvious negatives from rolling back anything, simply because the extent needed would be large.  You also have a viewpoint that conflicts with other rollback advocates.  You just said the game gets easier with a spinnier ball, while others say that is the way to make it harder to control.  Which is it?  I know which one it is, but are you sure you do?

 

I really feel like you are firing from the hip with a lot of those thoughts.   I really do think that if you sit down, and take a measured approach at this, you might come to a different conclusion.  This is what I have done several times over as a thought experiment to come to the conclusions I have come to.  I have even pretended I can logically make it to the end of the below process just to see what I think would be the best way to achieve the "needed" change.

 

So, start with the problem statement, then determine the amount of change needed to solve the problem statement.  Then determine the effects that such a change would have both positive and negative on the various golf stakeholders.  Determine if at that point it is worth continuing on.  If it is worth it, then research the ways in which the needed amount of change could be achieved (course changes, club changes, ball changes).  Test these proposed changes thoroughly.  Determine the best solution.  Research ways to implement (ideally over time, with a slow, incremental adoption to cause the least amount of negative impact possible) and finally, implement the change.   

 

Edit:  I forgot to say that the polls have been shared several times in these  types of threads.  All of which show a heavy amount of leave things alone.

Edited November 2, 2020 by clevited

[clevited]

12 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

It’s only a ‘negative’ change in your opinion. Your OPINION. It’s not a statement of fact is it. At least admit that, and doubly so because you don’t even want anyone to try it for one tournament. Unbelievable 

 

I don't think it is worth anyone trying it for a tournament because  the information collected can't possibly provide conclusive enough evidence to determine it is the solution.  

 

It isn't merely an opinion when you state facts and logic as to why it is negative as I have an uncountable amount of times in these threads.  This can be an objective problem you realize.  There have been posted so many negatives by more than just me that are backed by facts and logic.  There has been little from the other side other than i want to see the game played a certain way and downplaying the skills of players today just because they use drivers with large heads compared to players from generations ago.  Not facts and logic, that is feeling.

[clevited]

27 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

So so you’re not calling anyone that supports a ‘stupid’ idea stupid?

 

good to know 

 

I absolutely am not calling anyone that supports a stupid idea stupid.  You can support a stupid idea, and not be stupid.  I would never say someone is stupid just because I think their idea or the idea they support is full of holes and not logically sound (aka stupid). If that is too harsh of a word for describing the idea of any kind of roll back, I can easily reword it.  How about illogical, or ill-conceived, or poorly supported, or objectively wrong?  I don't want to hurt any feelings or make anyone think I am attacking or insulting them.

[bladehunter]

12 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Way more issues than that, and a lot of what you say isn't supported by any kind of real world evidence.  Speed up play?  By how much, and do you really think people will move up tees?  You know how human nature is, that isn't solved with such a thing.  There are way more tangible and logically obvious negatives from rolling back anything, simply because the extent needed would be large.  You also have a viewpoint that conflicts with other rollback advocates.  You just said the game gets easier with a spinnier ball, while others say that is the way to make it harder to control.  Which is it?  I know which one it is, but are you sure you do?

 

I really feel like you are firing from the hip with a lot of those thoughts.   I really do think that if you sit down, and take a measured approach at this, you might come to a different conclusion.  This is what I have done several times over as a thought experiment to come to the conclusions I have come to.  I have even pretended I can logically make it to the end of the below process just to see what I think would be the best way to achieve the "needed" change.

 

So, start with the problem statement, then determine the amount of change needed to solve the problem statement.  Then determine the effects that such a change would have both positive and negative on the various golf stakeholders.  Determine if at that point it is worth continuing on.  If it is worth it, then research the ways in which the needed amount of change could be achieved (course changes, club changes, ball changes).  Test these proposed changes thoroughly.  Determine the best solution.  Research ways to implement (ideally over time, with a slow, incremental adoption to cause the least amount of negative impact possible) and finally, implement the change.   

 

Edit:  I forgot to say that the polls have been shared several times in these  types of threads.  All of which show a heavy amount of leave things alone.

Back spin helps slow players elevate the ball on approach AND to carry the ball farther with driver. 
 

what you’re bringing up is side to side dispersion.  But the rub is.  The super senior isn’t worried about that near as much as controlling the ball and spin does that.  If you don’t hit it far enough to be out of play now , you won’t hit more spin out of play later.  
 

as for pace of play.  It’s my sincere opinion that most  folks play wrong tees now than ever due to driver length.  Their driver suggests they can play back on that once a round straight one they hit.  In reality they’d score better from a forward tee with a shorter driver. Add in more spin for approaches and suddenly they’re having more fun and scoring lower. ( adjustment time assumed ). Whne that happens the round speeds up all on its own.   It’s also my theory as to why the handicaps haven't gone down. Players haven’t moved up on tees as they’ve aged. Not most of them.  And the beginners are starting too far back. So it’s negating the distance gain. And adding huge amounts of time to play.  It’s easy math.  Longer course plus same handicap equals longer time to play.  

Edited November 2, 2020 by bladehunter

[bladehunter]

15 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Way more issues than that, and a lot of what you say isn't supported by any kind of real world evidence.  Speed up play?  By how much, and do you really think people will move up tees?  You know how human nature is, that isn't solved with such a thing.  There are way more tangible and logically obvious negatives from rolling back anything, simply because the extent needed would be large.  You also have a viewpoint that conflicts with other rollback advocates.  You just said the game gets easier with a spinnier ball, while others say that is the way to make it harder to control.  Which is it?  I know which one it is, but are you sure you do?

 

I really feel like you are firing from the hip with a lot of those thoughts.   I really do think that if you sit down, and take a measured approach at this, you might come to a different conclusion.  This is what I have done several times over as a thought experiment to come to the conclusions I have come to.  I have even pretended I can logically make it to the end of the below process just to see what I think would be the best way to achieve the "needed" change.

 

So, start with the problem statement, then determine the amount of change needed to solve the problem statement.  Then determine the effects that such a change would have both positive and negative on the various golf stakeholders.  Determine if at that point it is worth continuing on.  If it is worth it, then research the ways in which the needed amount of change could be achieved (course changes, club changes, ball changes).  Test these proposed changes thoroughly.  Determine the best solution.  Research ways to implement (ideally over time, with a slow, incremental adoption to cause the least amount of negative impact possible) and finally, implement the change.   

 

Edit:  I forgot to say that the polls have been shared several times in these  types of threads.  All of which show a heavy amount of leave things alone.

On that last note I’m all in. A slow implementation is the key.  Start at the college and USga am level up to pro change that.  And let the rest happen organically.    Handicaps isn’t an issue as has been said. Most top  ams aren’t playing any net events with thoughts of winning , its already known to be a lost cause there.  You simply play and donate for the fun of it.  It’s a cynical view. But every plus handicap quietly knows this is true.  They just won’t say it out loud because of the fire it draws.  

Edited November 2, 2020 by bladehunter

[milesgiles]

14 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I don't think it is worth anyone trying it for a tournament because  the information collected can't possibly provide conclusive enough evidence to determine it is the solution.  

 

It isn't merely an opinion when you state facts and logic as to why it is negative as I have an uncountable amount of times in these threads.  This can be an objective problem you realize.  There have been posted so many negatives by more than just me that are backed by facts and logic.  There has been little from the other side other than i want to see the game played a certain way and downplaying the skills of players today just because they use drivers with large heads compared to players from generations ago.  Not facts and logic, that is feeling.

 

Perhaps you can apply facts and logic to your statement and realise how beyond conceited you sound 

[clevited]

Just now, milesgiles said:

 

Perhaps you can apply facts and logic to your statement and realise how beyond conceited you sound 

 

How many times have you applied facts and logic to your statements sir?  I have at least tried very hard to support my view points with as much evidence as possible.  I simply don't have the time to display everything I have learned and know in every single post I make, and I am certainly not going to in replies to you anymore.  You didn't even reply to my last huge effort to explain my point of view so we could have a good honest discussion.  You just slightly changed your posts to say smaller head and shorter tee now instead of just shorter tee.  Pretty factual and logically backed stuff right there sir.

[milesgiles]

21 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

How many times have you applied facts and logic to your statements sir?  I have at least tried very hard to support my view points with as much evidence as possible.  I simply don't have the time to display everything I have learned and know in every single post I make, and I am certainly not going to in replies to you anymore.  You didn't even reply to my last huge effort to explain my point of view so we could have a good honest discussion.  You just slightly changed your posts to say smaller head and shorter tee now instead of just shorter tee.  Pretty factual and logically backed stuff right there sir.

 

The scientific method is to be open minded to all results.

 

You have called the whole endeavour stupid and negative, you are the opposite of open minded. 

 

Thats logical  and factual 

[bscinstnct]

55 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Absolutely not.  I am merely sharing my thoughts on the right way to implement a change if I believed a change was needed, which I don't.

 

Edit:  Please don't read that in a snarky tone btw, not intended but after reading it I could see how it might get read that way.

 

I just believe in due diligence if any major change is to be considered for anything, whether it be rules in a game played by millions or a business decision that could have long term negative ramifications if poorly thought out.

 

I believe that a great deal of “roll back” in distance can be realized by simply reducing the size of the driver, the sweet spot, and the MOI. 
 

Guys will lose distance to imperfectly struck drives. And, this will cause them much pause before attempting higher risk/reward big carries. 
 

The “testing” could start with this.

 

Here is a graph of how MOI levels impact distance on imperfect strikes and the article. Unfortunately, I can’t find the MOI levels for say, a Titleist 975d, but the chart shows starkly how MOI provides a level of forgiveness that is not befitting for “Pros” IMO

 

https://Not allowed because of spam.com/8-intriguing-charts-from-the-distance-insights-report/

 

 

 

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

I believe that a great deal of “roll back” in distance can be realized by simply reducing the size of the driver, the sweet spot, and the MOI. 
 

Guys will lose distance to imperfectly struck drives. And, this will cause them much pause before attempting higher risk/reward big carries. 
 

The “testing” could start with this.

 

Here is a graph of how MOI levels impact distance on imperfect strikes and the article. Unfortunately, I can’t find the MOI levels for say, a Titleist 975d, but the chart shows starkly how MOI provides a level of forgiveness that is not befitting for “Pros” IMO

 

https://Not allowed because of spam.com/8-intriguing-charts-from-the-distance-insights-report/

 

 

 

 

Yeah, sure, do all that outside of the tour and test it.  If your idea is effective enough, then implement it.  It isn't as simple as you make it sound.  It is almost as if you guys don't try and think your scenarios through?  You have to test, you can't assume you know all of the variables or what will and will not cause tour players to slow down enough, or lose enough distance to meet the end goals of the RBs, or even come close to bringing the game back to what you desire to see.

 

Test your idea, determine all of the new limits that are determined to best create the desired outcome among elite players.  Make a plan to implement it.  

 

 

 

[clevited]

15 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

The scientific method is to be open minded to all results.

 

You have called the whole endeavour stupid and negative, you are the opposite of open minded. 

 

Thats logical  and factual 

 

I assure you, I have thought about every aspect, point of view, and reason for a roll back as I could and I have yet to find convincing evidence that overrules the large amounts of negative effects that a roll back would create.  Every bit of the pro roll back side is subjective and subjective thoughts are not logical or factual, they are based on feelings.  You don't make decisions based on feelings alone.  That isn't "science".

[bladehunter]

10 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Yeah, sure, do all that outside of the tour and test it.  If your idea is effective enough, then implement it.  It isn't as simple as you make it sound.  It is almost as if you guys don't try and think your scenarios through?  You have to test, you can't assume you know all of the variables or what will and will not cause tour players to slow down enough, or lose enough distance to meet the end goals of the RBs, or even come close to bringing the game back to what you desire to see.

 

Test your idea, determine all of the new limits that are determined to best create the desired outcome among elite players.  Make a plan to implement it.  

 

 

 

I still haven’t heard you explain why you can just pick a date on time in the early  90s and go back ?   We have the distance data from then.  We know how much the ball spun.  The only thing we don’t have ironed out is who and when to roll it back.  

[bscinstnct]

17 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Yeah, sure, do all that outside of the tour and test it.  If your idea is effective enough, then implement it.  It isn't as simple as you make it sound.  It is almost as if you guys don't try and think your scenarios through?  You have to test, you can't assume you know all of the variables or what will and will not cause tour players to slow down enough, or lose enough distance to meet the end goals of the RBs, or even come close to bringing the game back to what you desire to see.

 

Test your idea, determine all of the new limits that are determined to best create the desired outcome among elite players.  Make a plan to implement it.  

 

 

 

 

The elite players will be happily doing the testing.

 

Rory and all the best drivers will lead the way. I think even Bryson will come around as he realizes, given his dedication and ability, he stands to gain the most in terms of his margin of distance over the field.

 

The OEMs have an opportunity to hype and promote a TRUE “tour” Driver and hype the heck out of it and sell it to amateurs who want to play tour specs. 
 

And tour courses will absolutely be on board. 
 

Its win-win-win for all.

 

 

[Bubbtubbs]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

Way more issues than that, and a lot of what you say isn't supported by any kind of real world evidence.  Speed up play?  By how much, and do you really think people will move up tees?  You know how human nature is, that isn't solved with such a thing.  There are way more tangible and logically obvious negatives from rolling back anything, simply because the extent needed would be large.  You also have a viewpoint that conflicts with other rollback advocates.  You just said the game gets easier with a spinnier ball, while others say that is the way to make it harder to control.  Which is it?  I know which one it is, but are you sure you do?

 

I really feel like you are firing from the hip with a lot of those thoughts.   I really do think that if you sit down, and take a measured approach at this, you might come to a different conclusion.  This is what I have done several times over as a thought experiment to come to the conclusions I have come to.  I have even pretended I can logically make it to the end of the below process just to see what I think would be the best way to achieve the "needed" change.

 

So, start with the problem statement, then determine the amount of change needed to solve the problem statement.  Then determine the effects that such a change would have both positive and negative on the various golf stakeholders.  Determine if at that point it is worth continuing on.  If it is worth it, then research the ways in which the needed amount of change could be achieved (course changes, club changes, ball changes).  Test these proposed changes thoroughly.  Determine the best solution.  Research ways to implement (ideally over time, with a slow, incremental adoption to cause the least amount of negative impact possible) and finally, implement the change.   

 

Edit:  I forgot to say that the polls have been shared several times in these  types of threads.  All of which show a heavy amount of leave things alone.

I'd say the most obvious impact to amateurs (the overwhelming majority of golfers) if a change in regulated head size/CoR/MoI/ball speed would be invalidating drivers, woods and potentially driving irons and hybrids that people currently play. Contrary to what the equipment forums would have you believe, most people don't replace their whole bag every other year. A person who paid for a brand new toaster driver the previous year now has non-conforming equipment for USGA events.

 

And if they decide to push the enforcement ahead several years as they did with the groove regulations, they will be seriously crippling the equipment manufacturers. Nobody is going to buy the latest and greatest driver from their favourite OEM when the previous model outperforms it by miles and is still tournament legal for half a decade or more.

 

That leaves bifurcation, which seems pointless when you could just accept lower scores on the tour as a finality and not spend countless hours and dollars on creating artificial barriers to satisfy a certain viewing demographic.