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

[storm319]

1 minute ago, davep043 said:

We will disagree, this private club made the equipment requirements for in-house competitions more stringent than the US Amateur (mens and womens), the US Junior Amateur (boys and girls), the US Mid-Amateur (men's and womens), the US Senior Amateur (mens and womens), US Publinks, etc.  The USGA had the good sense NOT to apply the groove rule in those events, the club didn't have similar good sense.  That's just stupid.

 

The USGA wrote the rule in a way that left it up to the local committee to make the ultimate decision which makes this partially their fault (they could have written it to reference a competition list maintained by them so that they had more control of the application of the condition). Not absolving the local committee in this example, but letting the ultimate rule maker off the hook that created this situation in the first place is silly.

 

Ultimately any regulation that does not meet its intended goal is a failure for which this qualifies. I am greatly concerned that any further rollback will follow suit especially considering that the USGA appears to be moving forward to the solution stage without first defining the "problem".

[davep043]

5 minutes ago, storm319 said:

Ultimately any regulation that does not meet its intended goal is a failure for which this qualifies. I am greatly concerned that any further rollback will follow suit especially considering that the USGA appears to be moving forward to the solution stage without first defining the "problem".

To be clear, the last message from the Ruling Bodies (including the R&A) says they have no plans to roll back distance at all levels of the game.  The report discusses potential measures that they are continuing to evaluate.  The August 10 update indicates that the list of equipment research topics won't be announced until March 2021.  To me, this doesn't sound like "moving forward to the solution stage", at least not in any kind of a hurry.  But they HAVE defined the problem, the discussions of the data and of the specific concerns have been available for about 8 months.

[storm319]

3 minutes ago, davep043 said:

To be clear, the last message from the Ruling Bodies (including the R&A) says they have no plans to roll back distance at all levels of the game.  The report discusses potential measures that they are continuing to evaluate.  The August 10 update indicates that the list of equipment research topics won't be announced until March 2021.  To me, this doesn't sound like "moving forward to the solution stage", at least not in any kind of a hurry.  But they HAVE defined the problem, the discussions of the data and of the specific concerns have been available for about 8 months.

 

I am genuinely curious, what do you perceive to be the "problem" that they have defined?

 

The only thing I have seen stated is that distance increases are "undesirable". What does that mean? What distance or course length is desirable? What is the peak drive that is still within a sustainable range from a maintenance/environmental standpoint? (and then provide the data to back that claim up). The Distance Insights report did not go into detail to quantify what the optimal course length would be from a sustainability standpoint (all they concluded is longer = high cost which did not require a 2 year study to conclude). There were also points that they conclude that will not be solved by a rollback only at the elite level (why even look at distance increases for the average course if the average course has no chance of hosting an elite event?), so those points seem a bit disingenuous. Overall, the report read like a study without a focus or hypothesis. 

[mahonie]

29 minutes ago, storm319 said:

 

I am genuinely curious, what do you perceive to be the "problem" that they have defined?

 

The only thing I have seen stated is that distance increases are "undesirable". What does that mean? What distance or course length is desirable? What is the peak drive that is still within a sustainable range from a maintenance/environmental standpoint? (and then provide the data to back that claim up). The Distance Insights report did not go into detail to quantify what the optimal course length would be from a sustainability standpoint (all they concluded is longer = high cost which did not require a 2 year study to conclude). There were also points that they conclude that will not be solved by a rollback only at the elite level (why even look at distance increases for the average course if the average course has no chance of hosting an elite event?), so those points seem a bit disingenuous. Overall, the report read like a study without a focus or hypothesis. 

 

Seems pretty clear to me why increasing distance is undesirable and it seems pretty clear to the RBs (taken from the conclusions to the Distance Insights Project):

 

Summary of Conclusions
The research in the Distance Insights Report shows that hitting distances and the lengths of golf courses have been increasing for more than 100 years. We believe that this continuing cycle of increases is undesirable and detrimental to golf’s long-term future, for two main reasons:
First, the inherent strategic challenge presented by many golf courses can be compromised, especially when those courses have not or cannot become long enough to keep up with increases in the hitting distances of the golfers who play from their longest tees:
• Increased hitting distance can lead to a reduction in the variety, length and creativity of shot types needed on such courses and to holes more often being overpowered by distance, as well as to an increased emphasis on the importance of distance at the expense of accuracy and other skills.
• This can begin to undermine the core principle that the challenge of golf is about using a broad range of skills and making risk/reward judgments during a round.
• The result is also that an increasing number of such courses, both widely renowned and less well-known, are at risk of becoming less challenging or ultimately obsolete for those who play from their longest tees – a serious loss for the game.
Second, the overall trend of golf courses becoming longer has its own adverse consequences that ultimately affect golfers at all levels and the game as a whole:
• Expanding existing courses and building longer new ones often requires significant capital investment and higher annual operating costs.
• Overall, the trend towards longer courses puts golf at odds with the growing societal concerns about the use of water, chemicals and other resources, the pressures for development restrictions and alternative land use, and the need to mitigate the long-term effects of a changing climate and natural environment.
In our view, these continuing trends have also helped create an unnecessary degree of emphasis on distance, with a seeming expectation that each new generation of golfers will hit a golf ball farther than before. We believe that a golfer’s hitting distance is fundamentally relative to hole length and the distance of those he or she competes against; golf’s essential character and skill challenge do not depend on the absolute length of a golf shot or a golf course, and golf does not become a better game each time distances and course lengths increase.
This concept of relative distance has other implications at non-elite levels of play. We believe that many recreational golfers are playing from longer tees than is necessary, which in turn increases the time it takes to play. We have a particular concern that the forward tees at many courses are very long for the hitting distances of many of the golfers who play from them.

In summary, we believe that golf will best thrive over the next decades and beyond if this continuing cycle of ever-increasing hitting distances and golf course lengths is brought to an end. Longer distances, longer courses, playing from longer tees and longer times to play are taking golf in the wrong direction and are not necessary to make golf challenging, enjoyable or sustainable in the future. In reaching this conclusion, our focus is forward-looking with a goal of building on the strengths of the game today while taking steps to alter the direction and impacts of hitting distances in the best interests of its long-term future.’

[davep043]

I agree with @mahonie, the concerns are spelled out pretty clearly.  There's a lot of discussion in other threads dating back to February, and there's certainly room to disagree with the conclusions.  There's room to disagree with any potential actions, or lack of action if that turns out to be the path chosen.  But to the discussion of the moment, what is the next step, we have nothing new since that February report.  The only "new" information is that the report originally scheduled to be released this past spring is now scheduled to be released NEXT spring.  Bryson's win was dramatic, but the US Open as a whole didn't show any new trends, just more the same stuff that's been going on for a good long while.  Davis' retirement announcement isn't new either, he's been saying the same thing for a decade or more, yet the Distance Insights report took a direction substantially different from Davis' preferred solutions.  It seems unlikely that his influence will somehow increase as he gets closer to being out the door.  Nothing has changed, nothing is imminent.

[storm319]

54 minutes ago, mahonie said:

 

Seems pretty clear to me why increasing distance is undesirable and it seems pretty clear to the RBs (taken from the conclusions to the Distance Insights Project):

 

Summary of Conclusions
The research in the Distance Insights Report shows that hitting distances and the lengths of golf courses have been increasing for more than 100 years. We believe that this continuing cycle of increases is undesirable and detrimental to golf’s long-term future, for two main reasons:
First, the inherent strategic challenge presented by many golf courses can be compromised, especially when those courses have not or cannot become long enough to keep up with increases in the hitting distances of the golfers who play from their longest tees:
• Increased hitting distance can lead to a reduction in the variety, length and creativity of shot types needed on such courses and to holes more often being overpowered by distance, as well as to an increased emphasis on the importance of distance at the expense of accuracy and other skills.
• This can begin to undermine the core principle that the challenge of golf is about using a broad range of skills and making risk/reward judgments during a round.
• The result is also that an increasing number of such courses, both widely renowned and less well-known, are at risk of becoming less challenging or ultimately obsolete for those who play from their longest tees – a serious loss for the game.
Second, the overall trend of golf courses becoming longer has its own adverse consequences that ultimately affect golfers at all levels and the game as a whole:
• Expanding existing courses and building longer new ones often requires significant capital investment and higher annual operating costs.
• Overall, the trend towards longer courses puts golf at odds with the growing societal concerns about the use of water, chemicals and other resources, the pressures for development restrictions and alternative land use, and the need to mitigate the long-term effects of a changing climate and natural environment.
In our view, these continuing trends have also helped create an unnecessary degree of emphasis on distance, with a seeming expectation that each new generation of golfers will hit a golf ball farther than before. We believe that a golfer’s hitting distance is fundamentally relative to hole length and the distance of those he or she competes against; golf’s essential character and skill challenge do not depend on the absolute length of a golf shot or a golf course, and golf does not become a better game each time distances and course lengths increase.
This concept of relative distance has other implications at non-elite levels of play. We believe that many recreational golfers are playing from longer tees than is necessary, which in turn increases the time it takes to play. We have a particular concern that the forward tees at many courses are very long for the hitting distances of many of the golfers who play from them.

In summary, we believe that golf will best thrive over the next decades and beyond if this continuing cycle of ever-increasing hitting distances and golf course lengths is brought to an end. Longer distances, longer courses, playing from longer tees and longer times to play are taking golf in the wrong direction and are not necessary to make golf challenging, enjoyable or sustainable in the future. In reaching this conclusion, our focus is forward-looking with a goal of building on the strengths of the game today while taking steps to alter the direction and impacts of hitting distances in the best interests of its long-term future.’

 

Again, qualitative and ambiguous is not helpful. They need to quantify the problem and the goals before any solutioning starts. 

[davep043]

49 minutes ago, storm319 said:

 

Again, qualitative and ambiguous is not helpful. They need to quantify the problem and the goals before any solutioning starts. 

There are no definitive "numbers" in this, only shades of gray.  Even so the stated goal, no additional distance gains from equipment, seems pretty cut and dried to me.

[mahonie]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

 

Again, qualitative and ambiguous is not helpful. They need to quantify the problem and the goals before any solutioning starts. 

 

 

‘Increased hitting distance can lead to a reduction in the variety, length and creativity of shot types’. I don’t see any ambiguity there.

 

‘Undermining the core principle that the challenge of golf is about using a broad range of skills and making risk/reward judgements.’ Again, pretty clear cut.

 

The problem has been quantified and the goal has been set..getting to the goal is going to be the hard part and I don’t think anyone knows what the solution is yet. It might be an interesting journey for all of us.

 

 

[storm319]

1 hour ago, mahonie said:

 

 

‘Increased hitting distance can lead to a reduction in the variety, length and creativity of shot types’. I don’t see any ambiguity there.

 

‘Undermining the core principle that the challenge of golf is about using a broad range of skills and making risk/reward judgements.’ Again, pretty clear cut.

 

The problem has been quantified and the goal has been set..getting to the goal is going to be the hard part and I don’t think anyone knows what the solution is yet. It might be an interesting journey for all of us.

 

 

Quantitative = numbers

Qualitative = descriptions

 

None of those statements include any numbers. Words like “increased” are ambiguous because it fails to specify the volume and impact (1 yard and 1000 yards increases in a courses playing length both a qualify as an increase but both have a very different impacts on the outcome of a round).

 

Also, when did risk/reward judgements stop happening at the highest level? 

Edited September 29, 2020 by storm319

[Shilgy]

4 minutes ago, storm319 said:

Quantitative = numbers

Qualitative = descriptions

 

None of those statements include any numbers. Words like “increased” are ambiguous because it fails to specify the volume and impact (1 yard and 1000 yards increases in a courses playing length both a qualify as an increase but both have a very different impacts on the outcome of a round).

 

Also, when did risk/reward judgements stop happening at the highest level? 

Yep, and when did length cease being a skill? They could just admit they want to rollback because they want the game of golf to be played with a certain style and grace. Like figure skating without the athletic jumps....

[ThinkingPlus]

9 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Yep, and when did length cease being a skill? They could just admit they want to rollback because they want the game of golf to be played with a certain style and grace. Like figure skating without the athletic jumps....

Golf is going to be like ice dancing?  Awesome!

[2bGood]

17 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Yep, and when did length cease being a skill? They could just admit they want to rollback because they want the game of golf to be played with a certain style and grace. Like figure skating without the athletic jumps....

 

Joking aside the ISU has done allot in recent years to try to rebalance the sport as athleticism (the jumps) was dominating the sport over artistry - for instance the base value of all quads and triples axels have been lowered.

 

Golf is not the only sport dealing with trying to preserve what some think the sport should be.

Edited September 29, 2020 by 2bGood

[2bGood]

.

Edited September 29, 2020 by 2bGood

[Shilgy]

8 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 

Joking aside the ISU has done allot in recent years to try rebalance the sport as athleticism (the jumps) was dominating the sport over artistry - for instance the base value of all quads and triples axel has been lowered.

 

Golf is not the only sport dealing with trying to preserve what some think the sport should be.

And yet they want to be in the Olympics as a sport. Most sports reward speed and strength as well as artistry.  Just seems odd to me to attempt to throttle that in any sport. I would guess it is mostly done in sports with no offense-defense type of balance.  

[bladehunter]

5 hours ago, storm319 said:

 

Again, qualitative and ambiguous is not helpful. They need to quantify the problem and the goals before any solutioning starts. 

Can’t that be done from the other direction though ?  
By quantifying the cause in equipment that is contributing most to increases at the pro level and then setting the dial back on those parameters.... but let the outcome in performance fall where it will. Instead of trying to quantify the entire and  uncontrollable outcome , you control the controllable inputs  to the point that you effect the outcome , not control it completely.  Which will let athleticism still shine though , but make the 320 carry a real rarity.  
 

it’s not as difficult as you’re making it  sound in my opinion.   There’s literally data from years gone by to reference and dial back to.  

[storm319]

2 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Can’t that be done from the other direction though ?  
By quantifying the cause in equipment that is contributing most to increases at the pro level and then setting the dial back on those parameters.... but let the outcome in performance fall where it will. Instead of trying to quantify the entire and  uncontrollable outcome , you control the controllable inputs  to the point that you effect the outcome , not control it completely.  Which will let athleticism still shine though , but make the 320 carry a real rarity.  
 

it’s not as difficult as you’re making it  sound in my opinion.   There’s literally data from years gone by to reference and dial back to.  

No, problems solving does not start at the solution and then work backwards into justifying a problem to fit. Ultimately if there is no goal, then what is the point in changing anything? Just leave everything alone and let it “fall where it will”.

[2bGood]

15 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

And yet they want to be in the Olympics as a sport. Most sports reward speed and strength as well as artistry.  Just seems odd to me to attempt to throttle that in any sport. I would guess it is mostly done in sports with no offense-defense type of balance.  

Let's keep in mind they are an original winter Olympic sport and one of the more popular winter Olympic sports, so they seem to be doing something right.

 

I guess the concern is they don't want the sport to devolve into only athletic moves. To use a golf analogy - they don't just want a long drive contest, they also want to see finesse shots and good putting win.

[bladehunter]

13 minutes ago, storm319 said:

No, problems solving does not start at the solution and then work backwards into justifying a problem to fit. Ultimately if there is no goal, then what is the point in changing anything? Just leave everything alone and let it “fall where it will”.

I’m not saying there isnt a problem. I’m saying the problem is broader than the pin point indictment youre asking for.  
 

we know what’s causing the game to be played with mostly 6 clubs.  ( 3 wedges a putter driver and 3 wood). It’s the big driver coupled with the lower spin ball.   You simply are “straw Manning”  this with a filibuster asking for exact limits  for driver carry etc.  when you know that there never has been any want to pin point That.  
 

just because it’s hard to plot  doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist.  

[Shilgy]

8 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I’m not saying there isnt a problem. I’m saying the problem is broader than the pin point indictment youre asking for.  
 

we know what’s causing the game to be played with mostly 6 clubs.  ( 3 wedges a putter driver and 3 wood). It’s the big driver coupled with the lower spin ball.   You simply are “straw Manning”  this with a filibuster asking for exact limits  for driver carry etc.  when you know that there never has been any want to pin point That.  
 

just because it’s hard to plot  doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist.  

Just give the pros a different d@mn ball then. Because that is not the way 99.99% of us. I am a 4 handicap from 6600 yards and use all clubs. OR..you just gave me an idea. If what you say is true about just needing six clubs that should be the pro limit. And you as well apparently. Either that or the “mostly” part goes out the window. 
 

 

On second thought you’re correct for pretty much every decent player. But then it has not changed for about a century has it? Driver or three wood off the tee on 14 holes. 1.7 putts per hole so 30 per round, maybe more for you lol..... That is 44 shots without using the wedges at all. Pretty much covers your mostly. 

[mahonie]

6 hours ago, storm319 said:

Quantitative = numbers

Qualitative = descriptions

 

None of those statements include any numbers. Words like “increased” are ambiguous because it fails to specify the volume and impact (1 yard and 1000 yards increases in a courses playing length both a qualify as an increase but both have a very different impacts on the outcome of a round).

 

Also, when did risk/reward judgements stop happening at the highest level? 

You wanted numbers.

 

From the Report:

‘As an example of what is possible, competitors in long-drive contests are able, with today’s conforming equipment, to generate swing speeds in excess of 145 mph, ball speeds in excess of 215 mph and driving distances in excess of 400 yards.’

 

The Report also admits that there is scope within the existing Equipment Rules for further distance development.

 

If you can hit a drive 70 yards off your intended line and still have a shot into the green, there is no risk/reward. You can turn your brain off and smack it as hard as you can with no fear of losing a shot. Yes part of that is poor course design and the modern TPC courses are the worst of that, but the low spinning ball/460cc driver just takes the risk away. That totally undermines the core principles of the challenge of the game. The RBs, as the custodians of the game, are trying to maintain the essence of what has sustained the game for centuries. Granted, they messed up big time with allowing the 460cc head in the first place and if they’d restricted clubhead size back in the day, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

I’ve said it elsewhere, I do wonder what the anti-rollbackers think they’re going to lose if distance is reined in for everyone. Is it that the challenge becomes too hard?

[Soloman1]

We're missing something important. Someone tried to make a gerund out of the word "solution." English teachers must be pounding their heads against a wall.

 

This is analogous to the topic. Ruling bodies can make rules for spelling, grammar or golf, but peoples gonna due wat they wanna doo.

[bladehunter]

6 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Just give the pros a different d@mn ball then. Because that is not the way 99.99% of us. I am a 4 handicap from 6600 yards and use all clubs. OR..you just gave me an idea. If what you say is true about just needing six clubs that should be the pro limit. And you as well apparently. Either that or the “mostly” part goes out the window. 
 

 

On second thought you’re correct for pretty much every decent player. But then it has not changed for about a century has it? Driver or three wood off the tee on 14 holes. 1.7 putts per hole so 30 per round, maybe more for you lol..... That is 44 shots without using the wedges at all. Pretty much covers your mostly. 

I’m talking the top guys. I’ve been for bifurcation that whole time.  I’m not for taking away anything from “joe “.   
 

and look. I’m aging everyday like everyone else.  Sitting out currently with an elbow strain.  Pondering my whole setup . But I still know that regardless of my aging the game is better off at the pro level not turning into 400 yard carries 

 

anyway.  Doesn’t matter. I’ll say again. They aren’t going to go back far enough .... but I do smell them doing something that’s considered drastic.  I’d wager a ball rollback is coming.  Anyway.  It’s a heated topic.  And I apologize for getting heated With it.   It’s just hard to read folks acting as of the “ cats out of the bag “ ( it is ) and at the same time denying that the cat exists. The game has changed.   It’s just a question of whether you see it as a problem or not.  

[storm319]

4 hours ago, mahonie said:

You wanted numbers.

 

From the Report:

‘As an example of what is possible, competitors in long-drive contests are able, with today’s conforming equipment, to generate swing speeds in excess of 145 mph, ball speeds in excess of 215 mph and driving distances in excess of 400 yards.’

 

The Report also admits that there is scope within the existing Equipment Rules for further distance development.

 

If you can hit a drive 70 yards off your intended line and still have a shot into the green, there is no risk/reward. You can turn your brain off and smack it as hard as you can with no fear of losing a shot. Yes part of that is poor course design and the modern TPC courses are the worst of that, but the low spinning ball/460cc driver just takes the risk away. That totally undermines the core principles of the challenge of the game. The RBs, as the custodians of the game, are trying to maintain the essence of what has sustained the game for centuries. Granted, they messed up big time with allowing the 460cc head in the first place and if they’d restricted clubhead size back in the day, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

I’ve said it elsewhere, I do wonder what the anti-rollbackers think they’re going to lose if distance is reined in for everyone. Is it that the challenge becomes too hard?

Those numbers just say this is possible out of the context of a course. There is no attempt to correlate how this level of distance impacts the game nor have they provided any numbers to backup the outcomes that they feel are favorable for the future.

 

What do you hope to gain from a ball rollback? The USGA mentioned a greater emphasis on distance at the expense of accuracy as a problem. How are you expecting Pros to react when their drives shorten by 10-20-30%? They are going to put even more effort in making up that difference so it is not solving that perceived problem, it will make it worse. Also variety of shots?! So instead of driver-wedge it becomes driver-8 iron? Will that look much different or really change the outcomes that much?

Edited September 29, 2020 by storm319

[gvogel]

My own prediction is that the USGA/R&A will set conditions of competition for a slower ball and reduced size drivers that can be played in certain instances, and for certain courses.  They would hold the national championships under those conditions.  I would expect the Masters to also be played with those conditions.

 

It would then be up to individual tournament committees to determine which equipment specs would be used.  For example, the PGA might determine that today's equipment would be used for their championship.

 

Over a period of time, the world of golf might coalesce around one set of conditions, or it might not.  If not, the sport might end up sort of like motor racing - Indy cars, Nascar, and Formula 1.

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, gvogel said:

My own prediction is that the USGA/R&A will set conditions of competition for a slower ball and reduced size drivers that can be played in certain instances, and for certain courses.  They would hold the national championships under those conditions.  I would expect the Masters to also be played with those conditions.

 

It would then be up to individual tournament committees to determine which equipment specs would be used.  For example, the PGA might determine that today's equipment would be used for their championship.

 

Over a period of time, the world of golf might coalesce around one set of conditions, or it might not.  If not, the sport might end up sort of like motor racing - Indy cars, Nascar, and Formula 1.

I hope you’re wrong. The idea of players needing to adapt to, essentially, a Cayman ball on a week to week basis is very unappealing to me. I want to see the best play their best every week. Because what would be next? One week a 90% ball? The next week a 70%? Ludicrous.  
At the club level what to do? If they bifurcate nothing. But if they roll back the ball? Oy! How long before the new ball is mandatory? Sandbaggers rejoice during the interim period. Create your handicap with the new ball and play events with the old long ball. For the typical 15 handicap the extra length would be more of a benefit than the bit of short game difference. The pros are so exact the idea of switching balls on a weekly basis is ridiculous.

[blueonblack]

I'm reading certain players might become certain "specialists" with play styles where all-out distance isn't the top objective. The different classes of race cars that @gvogel laid out is very possible, I believe. And the opportunities for multiple new equipment manufacturers would be present as well.

Using the correct tee box for whatever style of equipment you are playing. It would just give options, and you could form leagues and everything for those newer/older styles of play/equipment. Heck, maybe even a bigger ball that's easier to hit for the masses.

 

Just so long as we protect our courses, so no matter which equip we choose to play, there is at least a venue to do so still. I don't like at all the more exclusive golf world attempting to be created using this distance narrative.

 

Even the Titleist drivers e-mail I got today. "Sign up for your limited access fitting."

Everything is becoming more exclusive, unfortunately. Money talks in all of this. Bifurcation would grow the game like mad and they know it. The Covid surge cannot last.

[farmer]

At the professional level, the simplest solution would be that no player can use a club longer than 43" and no less loft than 13*.  That leaves everyone else alone, cuts down on professional distance, but does wreck the marketing campaign for OEM's.

[blueonblack]

Just now, farmer said:

At the professional level, the simplest solution would be that no player can use a club longer than 43" and no less loft than 13*.  That leaves everyone else alone, cuts down on professional distance, but does wreck the marketing campaign for OEM's.

The pros heard you and just put their 14º SLDR back in their bag in response. Now what? ha!

43" won't slow these guys down a bit. It's the ball. No need to make it into strict Nascar type world with the clubs, when its the ball.

[mahonie]

5 hours ago, storm319 said:

Those numbers just say this is possible out of the context of a course. There is no attempt to correlate how this level of distance impacts the game nor have they provided any numbers to backup the outcomes that they feel are favorable for the future.

 

What do you hope to gain from a ball rollback? The USGA mentioned a greater emphasis on distance at the expense of accuracy as a problem. How are you expecting Pros to react when their drives shorten by 10-20-30%? They are going to put even more effort in making up that difference so it is not solving that perceived problem, it will make it worse. Also variety of shots?! So instead of driver-wedge it becomes driver-8 iron? Will that look much different or really change the outcomes that much?

 

If you cannot see what 400 yard carries would do to the game I don’t really know what to say.

 

I am quite happy to tell you what I would like to see from reining in the distance even if you won’t answer my question. You get proper strategy back in the game. You get to see the whole array of skills of the top players. You get to see all 14 clubs used with proper shot-making.

 

If outright distance does not have the impact that it does on scoring now, the pros won’t need to chase it, they will have to focus on control and ball-positioning instead. Long and straight will still be a massive advantage, long and crooked should and would get punished by not being able to get wedge on every ball in the rough.

 

I can understand the anxiety of some players who think the challenge of less distance will make the game too difficult for them. But a decent player with a Pro V1 and 460cc driver should be a decent player with anything even if it is shorter. It seems like the desire for the RBs to introduce something to make the game shorter is very strong and it will be coming soon so I would get used to the idea.

 

 

[caniac6]

I wish Bryson had won the US Open with an over par score. Then we wouldn't have seven pages of discussion about what kind of knee jerk reaction the USGA and R&A are going to make.