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

[Ferguson]

24 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

This is a meaningless phrase used to infer the person resisting change (that another person wants), is somehow in the wrong. The phrase of course is not really true at all - no person alive accepts all change or resists all change. 

 

Resisting change is not necessary a bad thing - it is often protecting something you and others value. Lots of dramatic examples you can point to. For instance, I remember there was a guy with a funny moustache trying to change Europe a few years back, I tend to think it was good people resisted that.

 

From different perspectives sometimes change is good or bad and should be accepted or resisted. 

 

What does this have to do with golf and this conversation? Some people value elements of the game and do not want to see them change - they want to preserve the game.  I am sure everyone who values this game has some element they would resist being changed and some changes they would embrace. This is a discussion about what we value and what we don't.

 

 

Re: What does this have to do with golf and this conversation?

I think the swimmer's husband brought it up?   

 

 

Re: Some people value elements of the game and do not want to see them change - they want to preserve the game.  

I'm a golfer who values many of the traditional elements.   I just don't want to be forced into change by "marketing driven by feedback ratings."

example: 4.5 stars vs. 4.0 stars does not constitute a buying decision for me 

 

  

 

 

[davep043]

46 minutes ago, mvhoffman said:

Same feeling here, that's why I started the thread.  I think Mike Davis is going to drop a bomb and walk away from the carnage 

As far as I know, Mike Davis was involved through the entire Distance Insights process.  He has said through the entire thing that he believes that distance should be reduced.  Yet the report says that distance will NOT be reduced across the board.  Do you think that a lame-duck Mike Davis will have more influence than he did before his retirement was announced?

[BlackDiamondPar5]

1 hour ago, Sean2 said:

I already play the senior tees, not really anywhere for me to move up to, lol. 

Gotcha.  If they dial back the ball I think it would impact the higher end more so than the lower end so you'd (and the rest of use) would be safe ?

 

Of course the other option could be to leave us alone (99.99+% of golfers) and deal with what's happening on the pro tour if they feel a need.

 

Interesting article I found testing the old vs modern ball...

https://golf.com/gear/robot-testing-modern-equipment-balata-ball-results/

 

 

[jons1]

Smoking Gun... 

The distance was just too darn easy.

 

[storm319]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  You mis-read what I typed.  Somehow you turned "driving distance" into "longer courses."  Pump the brakes and absorb what you are reading please.

 

Driving distance creates more waiting.  Waiting attributed to having to wait for driveable par fours and reachable par five holes to clear.  This creates the pacing issue, which in turn creates a time to play issue.  Pace and time to play are different things.

 

Slide 32/35 in this > https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/images/pace of play/pace-of-play-at-pinehurst-no-2-during-the-us-open.pdf

 

More instances of driveable par fours and reachable par fives (3 more holes for the women in the 2014 US Opens at Pinehurst) resulted in 97 more instances delays attributed to waiting for a green to clear to hit.  They experienced more delays despite playing a course that was about 1100 yards shorter.

 

A cardinal sin in course design is to begin a course with a par five and follow it with a driveable four or par three.  That is a pacing issue which turns into a time to play issue, or more accurately, it becomes a perceived time to play issue.  Another finding of Bill Yates was that golf consumers aren't as affected by length of the round as they are the flow of the round.  A round that takes 4:30 to play is tolerable if you never wait.  A round that takes 4:05 is unbearable if you are constantly waiting on the group in front of you.

 

Please, what are you saying I am exaggerating the impact of?  Is it pace of play, round times or increased delays due to waiting?  Then I would say that it isn't so much that I am exaggerating the impact but I was just relating the results found out by Bill Yates' work.  I'd say take it up with him but he has unfortunately passed.

 

That is limited to a couple of elite annual events. Keep in mind that this was a study on the differences in championship pace of play between genders for which much of that is not applicable to 99% of the general golfing population (especially delays due to waiting at drivable par 4s). 

[QuigleyDU]

55 minutes ago, davep043 said:

As far as I know, Mike Davis was involved through the entire Distance Insights process.  He has said through the entire thing that he believes that distance should be reduced.  Yet the report says that distance will NOT be reduced across the board.  Do you think that a lame-duck Mike Davis will have more influence than he did before his retirement was announced?

You also have to ask. how a ruling, on either side will affect his future career in course design and job opportunities with that. 

 

My thinking is, he drags his feet and slows things down until he is done. 

Edited September 25, 2020 by QuigleyDU

[davep043]

5 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

May thinking is, he drags his feet and slows things down until he is done. 

I really don't know, I just anticipate that his influence will gradually diminish as his retirement date gets closer.  The potential actions discussed in the Distance Insights report were significantly different than what Davis has advocated for years.  If his influence wasn't reflected in the report, its hard to believe that it will be reflected any more significantly in the final plan of action.

[Tasals]

On 9/23/2020 at 1:20 PM, HappyGilmoresBoots said:

I was feverishly typing a response to one of these threads a few days ago, when my wife came in and asked what had me so worked up.  I spent the entire 20 minutes walking our dog, telling her about Bryson and all the angry keyboard warriors on this site debating on how to change golf.

 

Her question was "Why not just lean into it?"

 

Sports evolve.  Her sport (swimming) has come leaps and bounds from where it was when she was competitively swimming...Her best time as a varsity swimmer wouldn't get her a spot on the competitive team she's coaching right now.  Yet, swimming has not mandated that all swimmers wear board shorts or carry parachutes behind them.  She echoed the sentiment in that other thread about either changing the par ratings or doing away with par ratings altogether at the professional level.

 

Fact is, 59 million of those 60 million golfers just want to have fun.  They want explosive distance, and they want to see shots that look really, really good at their work outings, church scrambles, or weekend beer leagues.  That's what has driven loft jacking in irons:  Bob bought some new Taylor Mades, and now his 7 iron goes as far as my 6 iron...I better buy some new Clevelands, so I can hit my 7 iron as far as Bob, even though my new 7 iron is lofted identically to my old 6 iron.

 

Funnily enough, swimming did ban specific materials for the body suits some teams were using. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-body-swimsuit-now-banned-professional-swimmers/story?id=9437780

 

Though the swimming governing bodies acted extremely quickly, the suits were introduced in 2008 and after a mass amount of recrods were broken they were banned before 2009 in the US and 2010 internationally.

 

That said, Bryson is still going to have his advantage. Hes bulked up, will figure out how to legally reduce spin and everything else to get optimal launch and spin conditions and he will still muscle it out of the rough. I dont think this is an issue either, these are tour pros, look how much training and work bryson had to put in to get to here. If everyone wants to work out and figure out how to increases accuracy and bomb the ball 320 more power to them. But weve seen bryson both dominate the field, get blown out, and contend, hes not winning everything. There were 6 guys ahead of bryson in driving distance at the US open.

[QuigleyDU]

Just now, davep043 said:

I really don't know, I just anticipate that his influence will gradually diminish as his retirement date gets closer.  The potential actions discussed in the Distance Insights report were significantly different than what Davis has advocated for years.  If his influence wasn't reflected in the report, its hard to believe that it will be reflected any more significantly in the final plan of action.

I think I agree with you. Whether that diminishing is intentional on his part or organic as a result of his decision really does not matter. The real question is, who will replace him, and what will their position be?

[Soloman1]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

This is a meaningless phrase used to infer the person resisting change (that another person wants), is somehow in the wrong. The phrase of course is not really true at all - no person alive accepts all change or resists all change. 

 

Resisting change is not necessary a bad thing - it is often protecting something you and others value. Lots of dramatic examples you can point to. For instance, I remember there was a guy with a funny moustache trying to change Europe a few years back, I tend to think it was good people resisted that.

 

From different perspectives sometimes change is good or bad and should be accepted or resisted. 

 

What does this have to do with golf and this conversation? Some people value elements of the game and do not want to see them change - they want to preserve the game.  I am sure everyone who values this game has some element they would resist being changed and some changes they would embrace. This is a discussion about what we value and what we don't.

 

I inferred nothing and assigned no subjective values of right or wrong. You took the leap to infer something. In any circumstance where there is change afoot, some will embrace it and some will resist it.

 

And now Godwin's Law and the Dunning-Kruger Effect in one thread?

[storm319]

44 minutes ago, davep043 said:

As far as I know, Mike Davis was involved through the entire Distance Insights process.  He has said through the entire thing that he believes that distance should be reduced.  Yet the report says that distance will NOT be reduced across the board.  Do you think that a lame-duck Mike Davis will have more influence than he did before his retirement was announced?

 

To be fair, the report said they do not "intend" on reducing distance across the board, so it is understandable that some are apprehensive about changes that could carry unintended consequences for amateurs (even more so given the USGAs recent track record with equipment related regulation). 

[HappyGilmoresBoots]

27 minutes ago, Tasals said:

 

Funnily enough, swimming did ban specific materials for the body suits some teams were using. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-body-swimsuit-now-banned-professional-swimmers/story?id=9437780

 

Though the swimming governing bodies acted extremely quickly, the suits were introduced in 2008 and after a mass amount of recrods were broken they were banned before 2009 in the US and 2010 internationally.

 

That said, Bryson is still going to have his advantage. Hes bulked up, will figure out how to legally reduce spin and everything else to get optimal launch and spin conditions and he will still muscle it out of the rough. I dont think this is an issue either, these are tour pros, look how much training and work bryson had to put in to get to here. If everyone wants to work out and figure out how to increases accuracy and bomb the ball 320 more power to them. But weve seen bryson both dominate the field, get blown out, and contend, hes not winning everything. There were 6 guys ahead of bryson in driving distance at the US open.

Yes, and in the subsequent decade, all of those swimming records have been broken by swimmers in normal suits.  It was a bad analogy, and I apologize for making it.  It would be a valid comparison if Bryson made his performance last weekend with a persimmon driver and a set of 1960's Hogan irons.

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

Blade, have you seen something specific recently that has made you change your mind?  I understand that Bryson's performance in the US Open has triggered a fresh "sky is falling" response for many people, but I don't see that anything really different has happened that wasn't happening a year or two back.  

Well.  I was going to try not to kick the hornets nest. But. You asked.  
 

im in a unique spot on the game. Kind of an in between worlds.  I’m playing as many events as I can , which are made of mostly college age kids with some mid ams mixed in.  On a mix of courses , conditions etc. so I’m able to see how today’s game at the higher am level is played on non lengthened courses.    
 

what I see is every single kid coming out who swings all out and hits driver anywhere it possibly can .   Where I’m hitting 3 iron off a tee on short par 4s to a good pw number they hit driver .... and you’ll say “ that’s the best way “. Maybe so.  But. It causes pace of play issues waiting on the tee then looking for their balls in the rough etc.   I can show you a 6700 yard course that on calm days they’ll hit pw into two par 5s because of doglegs you can fly.  
 

I’ll just cut it short and say.  I’ve not seen a par 4 I’d hit more than 7 iron into in several years.  And a par 5 that requires 3 wood onto is reallly rare.  And that includes the USga setup on a mid am qualifier last year that was 7450 and had rained 6 inches the previous 3 days.  I’ve had to go that route too.  So driver has been a focus.  I’m still finding carry yardage.  And I’m 40.  Point being , that competition I’m trying to play in doesn’t play anywhere near how the courses are designed. It’s all played above the trees.  not  between them.  The pros get stretched out courses , but you don’t see that locally. You see a lot of short par 4s being gone at and par 5s being long par 4s basically.   It’s livable now.  ( it hasn’t killed me ) But I don’t think it’s sustainable.  

 

maybe I’m wrong and they say “ nothing to see here “   I just don’t think you can deny the obvious for ever.  

 

[QuigleyDU]

23 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 

I inferred nothing and assigned no subjective values of right or wrong. You took the leap to infer something. In any circumstance where there is change afoot, some will embrace it and some will resist it.

 

And now Godwin's Law and the Dunning-Kruger Effect in one thread?

 

Thank you. I learned something today!! No sarcasm. Never heard of either of those. 

[smashdn]

55 minutes ago, storm319 said:

 

That is limited to a couple of elite annual events. Keep in mind that this was a study on the differences in championship pace of play between genders for which much of that is not applicable to 99% of the general golfing population (especially delays due to waiting at drivable par 4s). 

 

This was one powerpoint from one study at two tournaments among his full scope of work regarding pace of play that was evidence of what you said I was exaggerating.  I again contend I am not exaggerating something but rather indicating what Yates' findings over the years reveal.

 

A driveable par four creates a waiting scenario as compared to a "normal" par four.  A reachable par five creates a waiting scenario as compared to a three-shot par five.  Driving distance in particular and increased distances hit in general bring more of the latter type of holes into the realm of the former for all players capable of that distance.

 

There is not a par five on the local public that is not a reachable par five.  The longest par five is 573 yards on flat ground.  Driver, 3 wood or driver 3i depending upon the wind and firmness of the ground.  No bunkers.  There is no reason not to go for it.

[smashdn]

22 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Well.  I was going to try not to kick the hornets nest. But. You asked.  
 

im in a unique spot on the game. Kind of an in between worlds.  I’m playing as many events as I can , which are made of mostly college age kids with some mid ams mixed in.  On a mix of courses , conditions etc. so I’m able to see how today’s game at the higher am level is played on non lengthened courses.    
 

what I see is every single kid coming out who swings all out and hits driver anywhere it possibly can .   Where I’m hitting 3 iron off a tee on short par 4s to a good pw number they hit driver .... and you’ll say “ that’s the best way “. Maybe so.  But. It causes pace of play issues waiting on the tee then looking for their balls in the rough etc.   I can show you a 6700 yard course that on calm days they’ll hit pw into two par 5s because of doglegs you can fly.  
 

I’ll just cut it short and say.  I’ve not seen a par 4 I’d hit more than 7 iron into in several years.  And a par 5 that requires 3 wood onto is reallly rare.  And that includes the USga setup on a mid am qualifier last year that was 7450 and had rained 6 inches the previous 3 days.  I’ve had to go that route too.  So driver has been a focus.  I’m still finding carry yardage.  And I’m 40.  Point being , that competition I’m trying to play in doesn’t play anywhere near how the courses are designed. It’s all played above the trees.  not  between them.  The pros get stretched out courses , but you don’t see that locally. You see a lot of short par 4s being gone at and par 5s being long par 4s basically.   It’s livable now.  ( it hasn’t killed me ) But I don’t think it’s sustainable.  

 

maybe I’m wrong and they say “ nothing to see here “   I just don’t think you can deny the obvious for ever.  

 

 

There you go.  I'm not good by any stretch.  I can hit it a decently long way though.  Not tour long or flat-belly college kid long but long in most places and most courses.  I hit driver-7i into a par five the other day.  Missed the eagle putt but hit the kick in birdie.  535 yards.  When driver is straight I score fair, when it is all over the map, I scramble for bogeys and doubles.

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Gotcha.  If they dial back the ball I think it would impact the higher end more so than the lower end so you'd (and the rest of use) would be safe ?

 

Of course the other option could be to leave us alone (99.99+% of golfers) and deal with what's happening on the pro tour if they feel a need.

 

Interesting article I found testing the old vs modern ball...

https://golf.com/gear/robot-testing-modern-equipment-balata-ball-results/

 

 

Pretty sure the balata lost more than the 1-2% in 25 or so years quoted there. The modern ball stores well. The balata did not. I know to much of the crowd here this will sound like poppycock...but so be it. In many ways the old equipment was easier, not harder. I found it much easier to control a 43” steel shafted persimmon driver than the 460cc 45” drivers of today. Easier to center hit as well. Was I a bit shorter? Probably not on average but on best yes. If we are doing a rollback will it be complete? Shaggier  fairways and greens,  softer greens. With those conditions and the wound balata ball the short game was infinitely easier than using today’s ball and firm fast greens.

 

There was a post a short while ago that said long par 3’s were the only long iron test today.  You forgot the second shot on par 5’s. If the pros never hit long irons they would not carry them.

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, HappyGilmoresBoots said:

Yes, and in the subsequent decade, all of those swimming records have been broken by swimmers in normal suits.  It was a bad analogy, and I apologize for making it.  It would be a valid comparison if Bryson made his performance last weekend with a persimmon driver and a set of 1960's Hogan irons.

 Thanks for bringing it up as it did make the conversation more interesting. 

 

If I recall swimming made the ban in part because swimmer had un-equal access to the technology given the costs associated with the suits. It would be like if there was $10K driver that well outperformed the current offerings. At the pro level I guess that would not be an issue, but at other levels I could see that creating a challenge.

[davep043]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Well.  I was going to try not to kick the hornets nest. But. You asked.  
 

im in a unique spot on the game. Kind of an in between worlds.  I’m playing as many events as I can , which are made of mostly college age kids with some mid ams mixed in.  On a mix of courses , conditions etc. so I’m able to see how today’s game at the higher am level is played on non lengthened courses.    
 

what I see is every single kid coming out who swings all out and hits driver anywhere it possibly can .   Where I’m hitting 3 iron off a tee on short par 4s to a good pw number they hit driver .... and you’ll say “ that’s the best way “. Maybe so.  But. It causes pace of play issues waiting on the tee then looking for their balls in the rough etc.   I can show you a 6700 yard course that on calm days they’ll hit pw into two par 5s because of doglegs you can fly.  
 

I’ll just cut it short and say.  I’ve not seen a par 4 I’d hit more than 7 iron into in several years.  And a par 5 that requires 3 wood onto is reallly rare.  And that includes the USga setup on a mid am qualifier last year that was 7450 and had rained 6 inches the previous 3 days.  I’ve had to go that route too.  So driver has been a focus.  I’m still finding carry yardage.  And I’m 40.  Point being , that competition I’m trying to play in doesn’t play anywhere near how the courses are designed. It’s all played above the trees.  not  between them.  The pros get stretched out courses , but you don’t see that locally. You see a lot of short par 4s being gone at and par 5s being long par 4s basically.   It’s livable now.  ( it hasn’t killed me ) But I don’t think it’s sustainable.  

 

maybe I’m wrong and they say “ nothing to see here “   I just don’t think you can deny the obvious for ever.  

 

At your level, you're in the top 0.1% of all players, or something like it.  And congratulations for getting to that level!  But when I read what has been published, that type of driver distance at "elite levels" was understood when the Distance Insight report was written.  In spite of that, the stated intention going forward  was not to decrease distance across the board.  None of us know what will happen, but what you've seen in those tournaments isn't something new or different in the last year.

[storm319]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

This was one powerpoint from one study at two tournaments among his full scope of work regarding pace of play that was evidence of what you said I was exaggerating.  I again contend I am not exaggerating something but rather indicating what Yates' findings over the years reveal.

 

A driveable par four creates a waiting scenario as compared to a "normal" par four.  A reachable par five creates a waiting scenario as compared to a three-shot par five.  Driving distance in particular and increased distances hit in general bring more of the latter type of holes into the realm of the former for all players capable of that distance.

 

There is not a par five on the local public that is not a reachable par five.  The longest par five is 573 yards on flat ground.  Driver, 3 wood or driver 3i depending upon the wind and firmness of the ground.  No bunkers.  There is no reason not to go for it.

 

Considering that the average drive for an amateur is ~215, it is fair to say that most par 5s still require 3 shots for the vast majority of the golfing public. Now if you want to argue that a fair amount of "vanity waiting" still occurs in these situations, I would lump that under player behavior more than anything since stats support that being an unrealistic shot for the average player. 

[mvhoffman]

4 hours ago, davep043 said:

As far as I know, Mike Davis was involved through the entire Distance Insights process.  He has said through the entire thing that he believes that distance should be reduced.  Yet the report says that distance will NOT be reduced across the board.  Do you think that a lame-duck Mike Davis will have more influence than he did before his retirement was announced?

Honestly Dave, The R&A already called out the issue with a warning about "something coming" months ago.  With Mike Davis retiring after 2021 season, and how he was directly involved in the anchor ban, I believe if he is not the one dropping the bomb, he will fold to whatever the R&A says to keep good with them only to secure work for his future plans of golf course design.

 

Its a slippery slope, but I think there will be a bomb dropping pending the Masters and Bryson.  If he were to win and over power the course with the bomb and gouge then I think the bomb will drop with a very short fuse.  I am betting that is a reason why all of the equipment companies are hitting the list with all of their new equipment.

[mokedaddy]

https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/29946107/mike-davis-retire-ceo-usga-build-golf-courses

 

“His one regret was not seeing through the conclusion of the "Distance Insights Project." A summary in February suggested it was time to stop increases in distance at all levels, highlighting an average gain of 25 yards over the past 30 years for elite players. The feedback process and next step have been delayed by the pandemic.

"I think something is going to happen," Davis said. "When is it going to be done? How is it going to be done? How will we introduce it? It's a multiyear process. I'd have to stay many years to see this thing through. I'm just happy that for the first in over 100 years, we're finally doing something. I pushed at it with the R&A, I pushed it with our own group.”

 

It going to be years before anything is done about distance.

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by mokedaddy

[OrangeGravy]

15 hours ago, Sean2 said:

I play a lot of golf. I have yet to see this "explosive" distance being bandied about either from me or those I play golf with. If anything, people could use more distance, lol. Dialing back anything would hurt the amateur golfer, and bifurcation is a non-starter. 

It's already bifurcated. Why hold onto something that exists in name only? 

[Sean2]

11 minutes ago, OrangeGravy said:

It's already bifurcated. Why hold onto something that exists in name only? 

I wasn't aware there were separate equipment rules already in place, or am I missing something? 

[ThinkingPlus]

Just now, Sean2 said:

I wasn't aware there were separate equipment rules already in place, or am I missing something? 

No, you are correct.

[OrangeGravy]

9 hours ago, caniac6 said:

I hope it’s bifurcation. The pros might hit it too far, but none of the guys I play with have ever complained that they hit it too far.

but bifurcation is evil. Players will quit in droves if they can't play the pro game that they already don't play in any meaningful way

[OrangeGravy]

7 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Gotcha.  If they dial back the ball I think it would impact the higher end more so than the lower end so you'd (and the rest of use) would be safe ?

 

Of course the other option could be to leave us alone (99.99+% of golfers) and deal with what's happening on the pro tour if they feel a need.

 

Interesting article I found testing the old vs modern ball...

https://golf.com/gear/robot-testing-modern-equipment-balata-ball-results/

 

 

Not to mention that if you're already playing the most forward tees, what's to stop you from playing a distance ball? What would everyone do if all the oem's stopped making tour balls available for retail? Would they quit golf or soldier on with whatever balls they could get and adapt to those? 

 

 

[OrangeGravy]

7 hours ago, storm319 said:

 

To be fair, the report said they do not "intend" on reducing distance across the board, so it is understandable that some are apprehensive about changes that could carry unintended consequences for amateurs (even more so given the USGAs recent track record with equipment related regulation). 

I've never given the USGA one penny, so I don't really care what they do, but what changes have they made that had any bearing on amateurs? Amateurs always have been and always will be able to use whatever they want. High level Am golfers are Am's in name only and they constitute a small % of Am golfers

[OrangeGravy]

3 hours ago, mvhoffman said:

Honestly Dave, The R&A already called out the issue with a warning about "something coming" months ago.  With Mike Davis retiring after 2021 season, and how he was directly involved in the anchor ban, I believe if he is not the one dropping the bomb, he will fold to whatever the R&A says to keep good with them only to secure work for his future plans of golf course design.

 

Its a slippery slope, but I think there will be a bomb dropping pending the Masters and Bryson.  If he were to win and over power the course with the bomb and gouge then I think the bomb will drop with a very short fuse.  I am betting that is a reason why all of the equipment companies are hitting the list with all of their new equipment.

I don't even think he has to win. If the other players like TF, Champ, etc... with exceptional length take the same all out approach that Bryson has at Augusta and perform well compared to their peers, then the cries will grow louder. 

[OrangeGravy]

33 minutes ago, Sean2 said:

I wasn't aware there were separate equipment rules already in place, or am I missing something? 

Other than regulations, what about the pro game and the everyone else is similar. Even the equipment is altered from retail in a lot of cases. The trickle of tour gear out to the masses and a couple of companies like Ping that don't really "tour" stuff are the only things keeping us mere mortals in the same zip code for equipment.