46 Inch + Drivers on Tour

[Fairway14]

1 hour ago, gvogel said:

Cost of land, cost of water, cost of maintenance off the top of my mind.

 

But the answer also has something to do with the nature of competition - man against the golf course.  With current equipment and current course lengths, most of the time the game becomes a drive it long and make putts deal.  If you like 600 yard par 5's that can be reached in two shots, I guess that's your game.  The USGA is in charge of maintaining the integrity of golf.  Driver, 9-iron on the 13th at Augusta isn't much of a challenge at the moment.  As a sportsman, why shouldn't the competitor embrace a more difficult game from tee to green?

 

 

What difference does it make if players shoot 58 instead of 68 , or hit a 400 yard drive instead of a 250 yard drive ? All games/sports evolve with time , so why should golf be any different ? I don't believe longer drives or lower scoring has anything to do with the "integrity of the game".

[bobfoster]

1 hour ago, gvogel said:

Cost of land, cost of water, cost of maintenance off the top of my mind.

 

But the answer also has something to do with the nature of competition - man against the golf course.  With current equipment and current course lengths, most of the time the game becomes a drive it long and make putts deal.  If you like 600 yard par 5's that can be reached in two shots, I guess that's your game.  The USGA is in charge of maintaining the integrity of golf.  Driver, 9-iron on the 13th at Augusta isn't much of a challenge at the moment.  As a sportsman, why shouldn't the competitor embrace a more difficult game from tee to green?

Except, you don't really need to dramatically lengthen courses. Almost no one is talking about doing anything other than fiddling with a few holes on a few courses. As I attempted to point out, there isn't some stampede of golfers going to a 46+ shaft - many have tried them, but ultimately a rare few actually decided to use them, and even they don't use them all the time. They are just too hard to control. 

 

There was a big jump in distance in the 'aughts, when everyone was trying to Tiger-proof courses, and a lot of golfers got really serious about conditioning. Average driving distance increased by over 14 yards between 2000 and 2010. But most of that has settled down. Average driving distance in 2010 was 287. In this past year, 295, i.e., in the entire past decade the average driving distance has only increased by eight yards.

 

Most courses (even those on the PGA Tour) aren't exactly worrying about dramatic increases in the "cost of land, cost of water, cost of maintenance". There's not many golfers even at the highest level that can reach a 600 yard par 5 in two. Some courses might have a drivable par 4 now and then, or an unusually short par 5, but generally, at best, only one. Players use a lot of their irons every round. Golf is not even remotely just a driver and putter. You are painting a picture of the game that just isn't real.

 

There is no dark apocalypse of distance threatening the very integrity of the game. Nor any evidence one is coming. 13 might not tickle your fancy at Augusta - but find me a pro, of any age or era, that has ever said "I don't think Augusta is difficult enough". 

 

And as a "sportsman", my primary goal isn't to figure out how to make any sport harder for goodness sake (if yours is, I guess that's your game). Sports are entertainment. Changes to rules, IMO, should have one of two main purposes: Make the sport more fun to play for amateurs, and more exciting to watch when you see the pros. 

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

 

What difference does it make if players shoot 58 instead of 68 , or hit a 400 yard drive instead of a 250 yard drive ? All games/sports evolve with time , so why should golf be any different ? I don't believe longer drives or lower scoring has anything to do with the "integrity of the game".

If it doesn’t make any difference than rolling it back won’t hurt a thing, yes ? 
 

 

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, bobfoster said:

Except, you don't really need to dramatically lengthen courses. Almost no one is talking about doing anything other than fiddling with a few holes on a few courses. As I attempted to point out, there isn't some stampede of golfers going to a 46+ shaft - many have tried them, but ultimately a rare few actually decided to use them, and even they don't use them all the time. They are just too hard to control. 

 

There was a big jump in distance in the 'aughts, when everyone was trying to Tiger-proof courses, and a lot of golfers got really serious about conditioning. Average driving distance increased by over 14 yards between 2000 and 2010. But most of that has settled down. Average driving distance in 2010 was 287. In this past year, 295, i.e., in the entire past decade the average driving distance has only increased by eight yards.

 

Most courses (even those on the PGA Tour) aren't exactly worrying about dramatic increases in the "cost of land, cost of water, cost of maintenance". There's not many golfers even at the highest level that can reach a 600 yard par 5 in two. Some courses might have a drivable par 4 now and then, or an unusually short par 5, but generally, at best, only one. Players use a lot of their irons every round. Golf is not even remotely just a driver and putter. You are painting a picture of the game that just isn't real.

 

There is no dark apocalypse of distance threatening the very integrity of the game. Nor any evidence one is coming. 13 might not tickle your fancy at Augusta - but find me a pro, of any age or era, that has ever said "I don't think Augusta is difficult enough". 

 

And as a "sportsman", my primary goal isn't to figure out how to make any sport harder for goodness sake (if yours is, I guess that's your game). Sports are entertainment. Changes to rules, IMO, should have one of two main purposes: Make the sport more fun to play for amateurs, and more exciting to watch when you see the pros. 

I’d like to disagree with the “ sports are entertainment “ idea.   
 

pro sports have become entertainment.  But sports as a whole minus TV are not played by people for the amusement of the crowd.  It’s a form of civilized war.  Competition is the point.  Be it against others or yourself.  
 

this bowing to the $ to skew it more toward entertainment is only good for the investors.  We will eventually  have something unwatchable like the NBA in its current form and MLB.    They lost me whne they turned it into a home run derby.  Around 94 after the lockout.    Now it’s 14 pitchers a night . Neither of those are an organic way to play the game.  I’d rather not see golf turn onto long drive ( too late ) nor do I want to see a shut out because the course is setup as a Mickey Mouse course to combat the bombers.  

Edited October 14, 2021 by bladehunter

[b.helts]

9 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

If it doesn’t make any difference than rolling it back won’t hurt a thing, yes ? 
 

 

Exactly blade!

 

This is, in my opinion, a dip of the toe into the distance waters to see how people will react. It’s a litmus test and I think we’ll see a request-for-comment to a formal ball policy in the next 6-12 months. 
 

Agree with it or not, the USGA has its sight set on the ball.

[bekgolf]

5 minutes ago, b.helts said:

Exactly blade!

 

This is, in my opinion, a dip of the toe into the distance waters to see how people will react. It’s a litmus test and I think we’ll see a request-for-comment to a formal ball policy in the next 6-12 months. 
 

Agree with it or not, the USGA has its sight set on the ball.

 

Is the goal to make all pros hit close to the same distance? 

 

Punishing someone for putting in the work to be better does not make any sense to me.

[b.helts]

1 minute ago, bekgolf said:

 

Is the goal to make all pros hit close to the same distance? 

 

Punishing someone for putting in the work to be better does not make any sense to me.

No. That’s not the goal at all. I’m certain you didn’t hear that from the USGA, so why would you think that?

 

I’ve heard this before, of course. But I simply don’t understand it. I have trouble even imagining where it comes from. 

[bekgolf]

1 minute ago, b.helts said:

No. That’s not the goal at all. I’m certain you didn’t hear that from the USGA, so why would you think that?

 

I’ve heard this before, of course. But I simply don’t understand it. I have trouble even imagining where it comes from. 

 

Enlighten me please.

 

A distance limited ball is what my answer was for.  In my mind a distance limited ball limits distance.  This is going to affect a long hitter more than a short hitter imo.

[b.helts]

1 minute ago, bekgolf said:

 

Enlighten me please.

 

A distance limited ball is what my answer was for.  In my mind a distance limited ball limits distance.  This is going to affect a long hitter more than a short hitter imo.

Do you mean like if they cut the ball by 75% and a 300 yard hitter would hit it 75 yards and a 200 yard hitter would hit it 50 yards and 25 is less than 100 bringing the two players closer together in yardage?

 

Its an extreme example, of course, but I’m just using it to attempt to understand where you’re coming from. 

[Fairway14]

36 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

If it doesn’t make any difference than rolling it back won’t hurt a thing, yes ? 
 

 

 

Yes, I don't believe rolling back and, or, limiting equipment will hurt anything. But I also don't believe permitting equipment do do whatever the companies are able to produce will hurt anything. Basically, if everybody has access to the same equipment and is playing the same course (s), then it's a level playing field.

I don't understand why people think reaching par 5's in two with a short iron or driving par 4 greens , or shooting a 58 is a problem. It's just the natural evolution of the game, something which happens to all sports/games. But if the USGA or PGA Tour wants to curtail distance or increase scoring averages, and limiting clubs or balls is the way to do it, that's fine. What matters is that everybody plays by the same Rules.

[bekgolf]

1 minute ago, b.helts said:

Do you mean like if they cut the ball by 75% and a 300 yard hitter would hit it 75 yards and a 200 yard hitter would hit it 50 yards and 25 is less than 100 bringing the two players closer together in yardage?

 

Its an extreme example, of course, but I’m just using it to attempt to understand where you’re coming from. 

 

Something like that.

 

I'm someone who doesn't see the need to limit anything.  All the golfers are playing the same course with the same equipment.  Some of them put in a whole lot of time to be better.  

 

The way I think is to let them be better.  Let them hit it farther, let them score lower on longer courses than the golfers of the past.  What does it hurt?  It surely makes the tv experience more exciting.  IMO all of this "we have to limit things" started when Tiger decimated the field almost every time he played.  

 

Watching Bryson drive a par 4 and sink the long eagle putt on the opening hole of the last day of the Ryder Cup was exciting.   

 

[b.helts]

1 minute ago, bekgolf said:

 

Something like that.

 

I'm someone who doesn't see the need to limit anything.  All the golfers are playing the same course with the same equipment.  Some of them put in a whole lot of time to be better.  

 

The way I think is to let them be better.  Let them hit it farther, let them score lower on longer courses than the golfers of the past.  What does it hurt?  It surely makes the tv experience more exciting.  IMO all of this "we have to limit things" started when Tiger decimated the field almost every time he played.  

 

Watching Bryson drive a par 4 and sink the long eagle putt on the opening hole of the last day of the Ryder Cup was exciting.   

 

Why does any of that change if they roll back the ball?

Arnold Palmer drove the first at Cherry Hills 40 some-odd years ago. 

 

In my opinion the problem isn’t really just distance. There have always been balls that go a long ways. Pinnacle, Top Flite etc. But now you have a ball that goes far and is playable, at the highest level, around the green and out of the rough. So players today have the best of both worlds; a Pinnacle off the tee and a balata around the greens. It takes less skill to hit a top flite far and it takes less skill to chip a balata close than it would if the balls were reversed. 
 

So what we end up with are tournaments that test fewer skills. I would like to see tournaments that test more skills.

 

It is my contention that when the ball is changed, we’ll see a ball speed to spin ratio regulation where you can choose a fast ball or a spinny ball but you can no longer have both. And in the sternest tests, when the rough is up and the greens are firm, we’ll see the skills required to win expand from the player who bombs and gauges most effectively to the player who excels at more facets at the game. 

[bekgolf]

2 minutes ago, b.helts said:

Why does any of that change if they roll back the ball?

Arnold Palmer drove the first at Cherry Hills 40 some-odd years ago. 

 

In my opinion the problem isn’t really just distance. There have always been balls that go a long ways. Pinnacle, Top Flite etc. But now you have a ball that goes far and is playable, at the highest level, around the green and out of the rough. So players today have the best of both worlds; a Pinnacle off the tee and a balata around the greens. It takes less skill to hit a top flite far and it takes less skill to chip a balata close than it would if the balls were reversed. 
 

So what we end up with are tournaments that test fewer skills. I would like to see tournaments that test more skills.

 

It is my contention that when the ball is changed, we’ll see a ball speed to spin ratio regulation where you can choose a fast ball or a spinny ball but you can no longer have both. And in the sternest tests, when the rough is up and the greens are firm, we’ll see the skills required to win expand from the player who bombs and gauges most effectively to the player who excels at more facets at the game. 

 

Maybe they should all play with Top Flight?  Lol. 

 

I get your point but I just don't see things the same way.  I would like to see narrower fairways and thicker rough.  IMO that would put a premium on accuracy and severely punish most bomb and gouge players.  The risk/reward ratio would be huge. 

 

[Fairway14]

31 minutes ago, b.helts said:

 

So what we end up with are tournaments that test fewer skills. I would like to see tournaments that test more skills.

 

 

You introduce a separate subject here but for sure playing consistently good shots with steel shafts, persimmon heads, and balata balls took significantly more skill than today's equipment requires. Modern equipment is why there are so many more low shooting Tour pros than ever before.

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, b.helts said:

Exactly blade!

 

This is, in my opinion, a dip of the toe into the distance waters to see how people will react. It’s a litmus test and I think we’ll see a request-for-comment to a formal ball policy in the next 6-12 months. 
 

Agree with it or not, the USGA has its sight set on the ball.

I agree.  This is clear bifurcation in my eyes.  And for whatever reason the people who argued here against it seem to love this change.  Well.  It’s clearly heading to a split in rules.  

[bobfoster]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

I’d like to disagree with the “ sports are entertainment “ idea.   
 

pro sports have become entertainment.  But sports as a whole minus TV are not played by people for the amusement of the crowd.  It’s a form of civilized war.  Competition is the point.  Be it against others or yourself.  
 

this bowing to the $ to skew it more toward entertainment is only good for the investors.  We will eventually  have something unwatchable like the NBA in its current form and MLB.    They lost me whne they turned it into a home run derby.  Around 94 after the lockout.    Now it’s 14 pitchers a night . Neither of those are an organic way to play the game.  I’d rather not see golf turn onto long drive ( too late ) nor do I want to see a shut out because the course is setup as a Mickey Mouse course to combat the bombers.  

 

I understand your sentiments, but just don't fully agree. 

 

Sports pros aren't rocket scientists. They don't cure cancer or create great software or take care of people with Covid or put out house fires. The only way they make a living is by entertaining. The prize and endorsement money comes from the eyeballs that watch them. In my mind, they are in the same category as actors, or musicians. This is not to cast aspersions on them - I love music, watching movies and sports. Competition is what they do to entertain, but the point is to make money. 

 

All sports have changed, gotten (over the years) longer, higher, faster, whatever. I happen to love hockey (for instance). Played for a decade when I was a kid (the era of Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe if there are any old guys here). It is now so incredibly fast, the guys are doing things on skates I would never have dreamed of, and the puck is almost lethal at the speeds it is hit. But messing with equipment to try to take it back to some bygone era is just a fruitless endeavor.

 

I guess I don't really think golf has turned into "long drive". Average driving distance on the PGA Tour has never even hit 300. Which (relatively speaking) isn't that much longer than good amateurs. There's a lot of people on WRX that can drive it 250 - 275 fairly consistently (I can't anymore, because I'm getting old, but I play with teenagers that can bomb it - played with a 16 year old a couple of weeks ago ... beat him easily ... his drives were easily 275, a couple 300, but he was on the fairway, like, twice in the entire round). I still think the game is from 100 yards in - just wedges and the putter - is what wins at golf. Being the longest off the tee gives you a bit of a leg up, but doesn't win tournaments. 

 

I guess I just think golf is, to me, perfectly fine right now. I love to play it, love to watch it. I think the USGA has an unhealthy and unnecessary fixation on distance. What I believe they should be obsessing on is PoP. The curse of golfers everywhere - by far the sport's biggest problem. They are obsessing on an inch of driver shaft length? When people on Saturdays and Sundays are playing 5 hour rounds all across the country? The USGA actually have a "Distance Insights Project". But they don't have a "Pace of Play Project"? Are those old guys even awake to what actually matter to golfers?

 

 

[grm24]

10 hours ago, MountainKing said:

There's a lot of profit tied into distance, and as a fan it's fun seeing some of the shots getting played.  As far as not being able to play some old classic courses, Merion in 2013 played under 7k and had a winning score over par. 

While all of that's correct the USGA over manipulated and completely bastardized Merion to get that result. If the USGA simply let the rough grow at Merion and not move fairway lines 20 plus yards as they did in 2013 the pro's would have lit up Merion.

 

https://www.golfchannel.com/article/rex-hoggard/merion-again-yes-without-severe-setup

[bekgolf]

No matter what the lowest score wins.

[b.helts]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I agree.  This is clear bifurcation in my eyes.  And for whatever reason the people who argued here against it seem to love this change.  Well.  It’s clearly heading to a split in rules.  

I don’t see it as bifurcation, but that’s a buzzword and it doesnt much matter how you or I characterize it. The one-ball rule is a Model Local Rule and I don’t think anyone has ever called that bifurcation, but again, it doesn’t matter. 
 

I’m more or less agnostic on the rules. I love the game and I respect what the USGA and R&A have done for golf around the world. It’s truly remarkable the number of courses we have available to play and that no matter where we go, the rules are the same. I love to play golf and to compete with other golfers. I’ll continue to play by whatever rules I have to. If that means a shorter driver (it doesn’t, not for me anyway) or the same ball all the way around, or a *gasp* new ball or *double gasp* a ‘competition ball’, put me in coach. I’m ready to play. 

[bladehunter]

6 hours ago, b.helts said:

I don’t see it as bifurcation, but that’s a buzzword and it doesnt much matter how you or I characterize it. The one-ball rule is a Model Local Rule and I don’t think anyone has ever called that bifurcation, but again, it doesn’t matter. 
 

I’m more or less agnostic on the rules. I love the game and I respect what the USGA and R&A have done for golf around the world. It’s truly remarkable the number of courses we have available to play and that no matter where we go, the rules are the same. I love to play golf and to compete with other golfers. I’ll continue to play by whatever rules I have to. If that means a shorter driver (it doesn’t, not for me anyway) or the same ball all the way around, or a *gasp* new ball or *double gasp* a ‘competition ball’, put me in coach. I’m ready to play. 

Mostly agree there.  And  yes. It is a buzzword. But it has some roots in reality.  
 

but I agree. I’m ready to play whatever.  Shorter they make it.  Then more it benefits me. lol.  

[bladehunter]

10 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Yes, I don't believe rolling back and, or, limiting equipment will hurt anything. But I also don't believe permitting equipment do do whatever the companies are able to produce will hurt anything. Basically, if everybody has access to the same equipment and is playing the same course (s), then it's a level playing field.

I don't understand why people think reaching par 5's in two with a short iron or driving par 4 greens , or shooting a 58 is a problem. It's just the natural evolution of the game, something which happens to all sports/games. But if the USGA or PGA Tour wants to curtail distance or increase scoring averages, and limiting clubs or balls is the way to do it, that's fine. What matters is that everybody plays by the same Rules.

In all seriousness, to agree with @bobfoster

pace of play is why.  I try ( and fail often ) to compete in state and usga level events.  What I have seen over the last 4 years is this. There are tons of guys who can pound driver.  You’ll see guys standing on par 4 tee boxes waiting for guys to get on a green because they’re going at a bunker or dogleg thats 320 out.  You’d be surprised at how many can get there.  So waiting is the play for safety.  But of course a large percentage then hit a foul ball and then a search is needed etc.   you’ll see it 2/3 times a round at least.  Same for -any par 5.  You’re not seeing any layups.  I’m talking 7200 yard courses. It’s not always total pace of play times.  The flow of a round matters a lot too. 
 

im just reporting what I see , today’s length doesn’t fit a lot of courses.  Long guys do one of two things. 1. Dont hit many drivers 2. Wait for play to clear a lot so they can try to hit driver.  And fail to hit it in play about 50 % of the time on a bad day.   Out of play being in the woods , hazard or OB.  Alll slowing the pace down. I firmly believe that in days gone by these better players hit more balls in play  and  played much faster . Today everyone goes for broke.  You’re either shooting 3/5 under or 74-75.   Even par is a guy who played too conservative. 
 

at any rate.  They’re implementing changes that will make you vs pros a different set of rules. If you can play a 48 inch driver but Phil can’t. That’s not the same rules.   Slowly but surely .  The ball will be next.  

[clevited]

Lets think through this together.

 

-USGA wants to limit distance

-USGA doesn't want bifurcation

 

-USGA implements rule that doesn't make any kind of significant impact on distance at the professional or elite level

-USGA implements rule that only effects the tours and elite golfing tournaments

 

-USGA therefore Implements Bifurcation

-USGA therefore didn't accomplish anything but optics, make taller players and those that did use longer drivers like Phil (and perhaps more) pissed off, and have also more than likely made it so this rule will eventually filter across the entirety of golf (think about it, it will become as such through peer adoption at your leagues and local tourneys in the future).  

 

This rule change is idiotic, and for nothing other than to say "looky, looky what we did, see all you small percentage of golf distance whiners, we did something!!"  "See we do stuff with your money!!"

 

-Meanwhile, the two highest profile players that have used or threatened to use such a club length are a 50 year old Phil that can't keep it in play no matter the length of the driver and Bryson whom has tried it and still can't condone its use on the tour due to consistency issues.  How about USGA just make it so 48 inch driver would be too heavy to be that useful.  This allows for it to be used by golfers that want it for comfort of swing or to slow their tempo, or whatever reason, while also limiting the raw distance benefit it can have.  Doesn't seem like much critical thought ever goes on at the USGA.

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by clevited

[RCGA]

Rolling the ball back just means Bryson spends 2 weeks working with Cobra engineers trying to re-optimize his launch conditions. In the end, he's maybe 10y shorter with the driver. 

 

Meanwhile everyone who doesn't have a brand rep on speed dial is totally screwed - at least initially. Not many will be able to afford a complete bag overhaul.  

[clevited]

22 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

In all seriousness, to agree with @bobfoster

pace of play is why.  I try ( and fail often ) to compete in state and usga level events.  What I have seen over the last 4 years is this. There are tons of guys who can pound driver.  You’ll see guys standing on par 4 tee boxes waiting for guys to get on a green because they’re going at a bunker or dogleg thats 320 out.  You’d be surprised at how many can get there.  So waiting is the play for safety.  But of course a large percentage then hit a foul ball and then a search is needed etc.   you’ll see it 2/3 times a round at least.  Same for -any par 5.  You’re not seeing any layups.  I’m talking 7200 yard courses. It’s not always total pace of play times.  The flow of a round matters a lot too. 
 

im just reporting what I see , today’s length doesn’t fit a lot of courses.  Long guys do one of two things. 1. Dont hit many drivers 2. Wait for play to clear a lot so they can try to hit driver.  And fail to hit it in play about 50 % of the time on a bad day.   Out of play being in the woods , hazard or OB.  Alll slowing the pace down. I firmly believe that in days gone by these better players hit more balls in play  and  played much faster . Today everyone goes for broke.  You’re either shooting 3/5 under or 74-75.   Even par is a guy who played too conservative. 
 

at any rate.  They’re implementing changes that will make you vs pros a different set of rules. If you can play a 48 inch driver but Phil can’t. That’s not the same rules.   Slowly but surely .  The ball will be next.  

 

I would think pace of play is WAY more effected by players own silly habits than any long bombers waiting to hit and losing a ball.  One, there is a time limit to looking for your lost ball, and two they should have hit a provisional in play.

[MtlJeff]

It's hard for me to get super passionate about this rule since i've never used a 47+ inch driver. Lengths creeped up for a while on stock shafts, i think the longest being a TMAG burner that got to 46.5. But they've since regressed a bit with mostly the longest ones being 45.75 or maybe 46.

 

This probably impacts 0.001% of golfers.

 

Again, it's just another rule designed to limit distance because they don't like what Bryson is doing because it doesn't fit their view of golf optics. Say what you want about Bryson but he trained to play golf a different way, within the rules.

 

I've said it countless times but i don't like the USGA, i think most of their premise for all of this stuff is a lie and they've mostly decided their job is pros and not amateurs .

 

But at the end of the day, this doesn't affect me

[clevited]

8 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

It's hard for me to get super passionate about this rule since i've never used a 47+ inch driver. Lengths creeped up for a while on stock shafts, i think the longest being a TMAG burner that got to 46.5. But they've since regressed a bit with mostly the longest ones being 45.75 or maybe 46.

 

This probably impacts 0.001% of golfers.

 

Again, it's just another rule designed to limit distance because they don't like what Bryson is doing because it doesn't fit their view of golf optics. Say what you want about Bryson but he trained to play golf a different way, within the rules.

 

I've said it countless times but i don't like the USGA, i think most of their premise for all of this stuff is a lie and they've mostly decided their job is pros and not amateurs .

 

But at the end of the day, this doesn't affect me

 

I hear ya.  I get passionate about it because it is a sport I am absolutely obsessed with and I despise beyond anything, objective stupidity infecting the game.  Pretty sure I can prove beyond a doubt that the USGA is objectively stupid and said stupidity is infecting the game.

Edited October 14, 2021 by clevited

[smashdn]

15 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

All games/sports evolve with time , so why should golf be any different ? 

 

And the rules evolve as well.

 

Baseball, a sport I am most familiar with, will alter the ball, mound height, etc. to change and maintain the game (and balance) to be played as they want it to be.

 

IMO the USGA and R&A have done a very poor job of regulating the equipment.  They have unintentionally set a precedent of doing nothing.  When they do attempt to do something it appears earth-shattering on the surface but they are so timid in their attempts it does not even come close to the results they are after.

 

Maybe if they can somehow cap distance gains from equipment to where it is now the courses will catch up and we will have another 50-80 years where the game stabilizes.

 

I don't see them ever being able to go backwards without a giant fight.  Though I wish they would.

[MountainKing]

8 hours ago, grm24 said:

While all of that's correct the USGA over manipulated and completely bastardized Merion to get that result. If the USGA simply let the rough grow at Merion and not move fairway lines 20 plus yards as they did in 2013 the pro's would have lit up Merion.

 

https://www.golfchannel.com/article/rex-hoggard/merion-again-yes-without-severe-setup

 

How is that any different than them putting these guys on courses that extend nearly 8000 yards?  At some point it's all manipulation to try and get a winning score around even par, at Merion they were able to accomplish it. 

[bladehunter]

34 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I would think pace of play is WAY more effected by players own silly habits than any long bombers waiting to hit and losing a ball.  One, there is a time limit to looking for your lost ball, and two they should have hit a provisional in play.

So hitting 2 off every other tee and then a 3 minute search a couple times a round is quicker than fairways and greens ?  Come on man. You know what I’m saying is true.  You can think it’s an ok issue to put up with , but it’s impossible to argue that it’s not slowing the game down.  

[Uncle_Buck2]

On 10/12/2021 at 11:01 AM, bobfoster said:

The USGA has way too much time on its hands. Why create a rule that at best affects a mere handful of people? What's the purpose?

 

Plus - if someone actually wants to play a shaft that long - good luck to them. I tried a 47.5 a few years ago (have a friend who is about 6'6" - he just uses a shaft that is comfortable to him). I did, indeed, hit it longer. One drive probably went 325 yards in the air. Problem was that the 325 was 250 yards straight, and 75 yards to the right. It did land on the fairway, just not the fairway I was teeing off on. Never could wrestle that beast under control.

 

Phil does hit his drives fairly long for an old guy, but his accuracy leaves something to be desired. It is a trade-off. But if it is a trade-off he wants to make, I don't get why the USGA would want to stop him (or anyone else). 

I second this. People are acting like a 48'' driver is an automatic fairway bomber. This isn't true AT ALL. I play a 48" driver right now and my dispersion is significantly larger than it is with a 46". It's much hard to sequence your swing with a longer club. Such a stupid rule.