distance debate

[MattC555]

Is there an official USGA release regarding the June update?  I can't find it. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

3 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

A few pages back people in favor of rolling back distance were stating that 300 yard CARRY was not a big hit anymore.  Now 300 total is the standard bearer or distance reduction? 

 

As an FYI for all those trying to keep track - the USGA proposals from March are interested in adopting higher speed ball testing for everyone and and limiting MOI for elite golfers:

 

"This AoI communication serves to narrow the focus of the research topics presented in the 1
February 2021 AoI. Specifically, we are exploring an increase in the clubhead speed used within the
Overall Distance Standard and, in the context of potential Model Local Rules, we are investigating
the reduction of the spring-like effect and the MOI limit for drivers.
The research topics discussed in this AoI communication are strictly areas of interest. No decisions
have been made about possible solutions and no proposals are being made at this time. Any
proposals for Rule changes that might result from this research will be communicated in accordance
with the Equipment Rulemaking Procedures.
Comments regarding this Area of Interest communication are due by 2 September 2022."

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to to go back and comb through all the comments, I guess I started the argument though. I was speaking about 300 total being a big hit, obviously this will vary with conditions but averaged out over the year. I think 300 is still a pretty big carry in normal circumstances. I don't think fairways being dartboards is how professional golf should be setup though. I'm amenable to a higher cut of grass though.

Edited July 6, 2022 by TLUBulldogGolf

[MattC555]

13 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

I'm not going to to go back and comb through all the comments, I guess I started the argument though. I was speaking about 300 total being a big hit, obviously this will vary with conditions but averaged out over the year. I think 300 is still a pretty big carry in normal circumstances. I don't think fairways being dartboards is how professional golf should be setup though. I'm amenable to a higher cut of grass though.

 

I recall So_Cal and 340 yard youngsters.  Regardless, 300 total is "not a big hit".  And as such Nard's numbers are flawed.  We are looking at a more severe reduction for elite players. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 minute ago, MattC555 said:

 

I recall So_Cal and 340 yard youngsters.  Regardless, 300 total is "not a big hit".  And as such Nard's numbers are flawed.  We are looking at a more severe reduction for elite players. 

 

That was my initial argument yes, it's no longer a bit hit for elite players and my (admittedly overly) vague goal would be to make it a big hit again. I would agree 5% doesn't do it. I think 10% overall gets to a much better spot though.

[Nard_S]

20 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

I assume you mean the proposal discussed here? https://www.golfdigest.com/story/new-distance-rollback-proposals-get-more-aggressive

 

 

Nothing in the below at all discusses dispersion at all. It discusses that current balls would be non-conforming, but only due to initial ball speed tests and nothing at all to do with dispersion.

 

You were the one who asserted that the USGA was concerned about dispersion, it's on you to provide a source. Otherwise I'll just go ahead and assert that the USGA plans to require little tiny rocket engines in the back of drivers to boost driver speed for amateurs. Oh you want a source on that? What am I your librarian? Find it yourself. 

 

 

 

From:

https://golf.com/gear/drivers/equipment-rules-changes-usga-ra-testing/

 

Snip:

 

“One of the things [the governing bodies] have thrown out is increasing the spin rate on the golf ball,” said Fully Equipped co-host Gene Parente on this week’s podcast. “By increasing the spin rate on the ball, you lower the initial ball velocity. But you also create a ball that’s more similar to the balata.”

 

How does that not effect dispersion?

 

The RB's also specifically mention aerodynamics which again effect dispersion.

[MattC555]

Nard, the USGA document I read said they were no longer interested in spin.  Maybe 'thrown out' meant they were no longer considering changing it.  Or maybe they changed there minds from March to June.  Either way, MOI changes would affect dispersion. 

[Simpsonia]

4 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

From:

https://golf.com/gear/drivers/equipment-rules-changes-usga-ra-testing/

 

Snip:

 

“One of the things [the governing bodies] have thrown out is increasing the spin rate on the golf ball,” said Fully Equipped co-host Gene Parente on this week’s podcast. “By increasing the spin rate on the ball, you lower the initial ball velocity. But you also create a ball that’s more similar to the balata.”

 

How does that not effect dispersion?

 

The RB's also specifically mention aerodynamics which again effect dispersion.

 

So essentially hearsay quoted by the host of a podcast discussing potential changes, and not an actual quote of anyone from the USGA or R&A. 

 

But it's funny that the article discusses exactly what I mentioned, changes would have disproportionate impacts on players depending on their swing-type. Creating a change that disproportionately affects one type of player over another is 100% not going to happen on tour. It would degrade the integrity of the game too much. 

 

Quote

“What we found was if you were a mid-to-high spin player — 2,600 to 2,800 RPMs — or maybe someone who’s consistently playing the power fade, you lost 32.4 yards in distance when going from the solid-core to a wound ball.”

Golfers with an inside-outside path on the lower end of the spin spectrum (sub-2,400 RPMs spin), however, lost 20 yards.

“That’s a delta of almost 13 yards between two swing types,” Parente continued. “What was fascinating to me was this completely opens up a can of worms, where if you’re swinging inside-out at plus-four on the attack angle and playing that high, low-spinning draw, you stand to gain a club in distance over players playing the power fade with the exact same golf ball. You’re now aiding one swing segment of the PGA Tour while penalizing another one.

 

[Nard_S]

2 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

Nard, the USGA document I read said they were no longer interested in spin.  Maybe 'thrown out' meant they were no longer considering changing it.  Or maybe they changed there minds from March to June.  Either way, MOI changes would affect dispersion. 

The article I' posted is from May of this year. They laid out a proposal to OEM's around same time. I'm basing it off of that.

[Nard_S]

People are mad at the clouds because otherwise there's nothing to be mad about.

2 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

So essentially hearsay quoted by the host of a podcast discussing potential changes, and not an actual quote of anyone from the USGA or R&A. 

 

But it's funny that the article discusses exactly what I mentioned, changes would have disproportionate impacts on players depending on their swing-type. Creating a change that disproportionately affects one type of player over another is 100% not going to happen on tour. It would degrade the integrity of the game too much. 

 

 

OMG asking a PGA tour player to manage his ball spin! Heaven to Betsy, what will we ever do?

[Simpsonia]

7 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

People are mad at the clouds because otherwise there's nothing to be mad about.

OMG asking a PGA tour player to manage his ball spin! Heaven to Betsy, what will we ever do?

No, it's a distinct advantage to one type of swing over another. Fades produce higher spin than draws do given the same path and angle of attack, it's just physics. Currently fade players can manage this via the ball. If they prevented from doing that by the rules requiring only high-spin balls, that distinctly advantages draw players over fade players. It will never happen given the inherent fairness issues.

 

Beyond that increases in ball spin will have drastically more effect on amateurs than tour pros. The governing bodies are dedicated to growing the game, not shrinking it by making it even harder for your everyday hackers to play. Hence why I also think the proposals to shrink driver MOI down to the level of irons is also never going to happen, it will absolutely destroy amateurs, in comparison to the moderate effect it would have on tour pros. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

Just now, Simpsonia said:

No, it's a distinct advantage to one type of swing over another. Fades produce higher spin than draws do given the same path and angle of attack, it's just physics. Currently fade players can manage this via the ball. If they prevented from doing that by the rules requiring only high-spin balls, that distinctly advantages draw players over fade players. It will never happen given the inherent fairness issues.

 

Beyond that increases in ball spin will have drastically more effect on amateurs than tour pros. The governing bodies are dedicated to growing the game, not shrinking it by making it even harder for your everyday hackers to play. Hence why I also think the proposals to shrink driver MOI down to the level of irons is also never going to happen, it will absolutely destroy amateurs, in comparison to the moderate effect it would have on tour pros. 

 

The physics would say it doesn't matter which way the axis is tilted as far as how much spin will be on the ball. And I would say most manage it via the head...

 

[Nard_S]

3 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

No, it's a distinct advantage to one type of swing over another. Fades produce higher spin than draws do given the same path and angle of attack, it's just physics. Currently fade players can manage this via the ball. If they prevented from doing that by the rules requiring only high-spin balls, that distinctly advantages draw players over fade players. It will never happen given the inherent fairness issues.

 

Beyond that increases in ball spin will have drastically more effect on amateurs than tour pros. The governing bodies are dedicated to growing the game, not shrinking it by making it even harder for your everyday hackers to play. Hence why I also think the proposals to shrink driver MOI down to the level of irons is also never going to happen, it will absolutely destroy amateurs, in comparison to the moderate effect it would have on tour pros. 

The reality of draw vs fade and spin involved was something, Hogan, Jack, Arnie, Watson, Trevino, Price, Faldo, Norman and hundreds of other PGA players had to live with. Suck it up buttercup.

 

Updated ball test actually frees up OEM's to make balls that go farther for duffers. 

 

Also, local rule would be used for any MOI/COR restrictions, meaning amateurs don't need to pay mind.

[munichop]

I can see any changes being done under the conditions of competition rules so they can let current ball and driver technology remain for all but the most elite competitions. Both of my mens clubs do not enforce a one ball rule, or the groove rules.  At varying times during the year we have lift clean and place because the fairways aren’t consistent. It will be bifurcation using the c of c approach.

[ThinkingPlus]

5 hours ago, Nard_S said:

That's not what the RB's are suggesting at all. They never have yet, everybody's screaming the sky is falling.

 

And no amateurs don't have to play by that. They explicitly said as much, if anything they will open standards for enthusiasts. 

 

5% adds two clubs into a green on a par 4. Run the math. Most holes I play require a 220 tee shot, 5% is 11 yards that's a club, then if old approach club is 150, it's now a 142 yards, so 19 yards net added to hole. That's 2 clubs.

 

A PGA  par 4 is 475. Driver(300) /7i (175). 5% is driver 285 leavaing 195 approach, with 5% less that's a 5i for them, so two clubs too. 

 

20% is chicken little rhetorical garbage.

@MattC555Here are the two most recent articles interviewing USGA and R&A folks.

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-signals-a-significant-step-toward-curtailing-distance

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/new-distance-rollback-proposals-get-more-aggressive

 

In the first article (March 2022 timeframe) the RBs discuss raising the speed at which maximum distance (320 yards) is limited from 120 mph to 125 mph.  Per the article, this change would result in a tour player losing 4%, a 90 mph swinger losing 3%, and an 80 mph swinger losing 2%.  This change would apply to all balls played by both ams and pros. 

 

The 2nd article from June 8th refines upon the March proposals, increasing the clubhead speed used for the 320 yard ball distance limit from 125 mph to as much as 127 mph (additional distance for ams and pros would be lost above the 2% - 4% mentioned in the March article).  Also, ball spin, tee height, rough length, etc... were specifically called out as avenues to limit distance/technological impact to the game that the RBs are no longer pursuing.

 

In both articles, modifications of COR and MOI for drivers (fairway woods?) would be imposed on pro and high level amateur competitions via MLRs (Model Local Rules).  The RBs are soliciting feedback on the current proposals until Sept. 2nd.

 

[smashdn]

4 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

No, it's a distinct advantage to one type of swing over another. Fades produce higher spin than draws do given the same path and angle of attack, it's just physics. Currently fade players can manage this via the ball. If they prevented from doing that by the rules requiring only high-spin balls, that distinctly advantages draw players over fade players. It will never happen given the inherent fairness issues.

Pre- ProV1 it was an advantage to hit a running draw for distance.  But it was also an advantage to be able to hit it a long way with a more controllable fade.

 

The ruling bodies caring whether a spinnier ball is harder on faders versus drawers is hogwash.

 

The ball is the ball.  How you choose to hit it and what happens when you put that type swing on it is on you.

 

 

[kasting333]

3 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

@MattC555Here are the two most recent articles interviewing USGA and R&A folks.

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-signals-a-significant-step-toward-curtailing-distance

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/new-distance-rollback-proposals-get-more-aggressive

 

In the first article (March 2022 timeframe) the RBs discuss raising the speed at which maximum distance (320 yards) is limited from 120 mph to 125 mph.  Per the article, this change would result in a tour player losing 4%, a 90 mph swinger losing 3%, and an 80 mph swinger losing 2%.  This change would apply to all balls played by both ams and pros. 

 

The 2nd article from June 8th refines upon the March proposals, increasing the clubhead speed used for the 320 yard ball distance limit from 125 mph to as much as 127 mph (additional distance for ams and pros would be lost above the 2% - 4% mentioned in the March article).  Also, ball spin, tee height, rough length, etc... were specifically called out as avenues to limit distance/technological impact to the game that the RBs are no longer pursuing.

 

In both articles, modifications of COR and MOI for drivers (fairway woods?) would be imposed on pro and high level amateur competitions via MLRs (Model Local Rules).  The RBs are soliciting feedback on the current proposals until Sept. 2nd.

 

The USGA is truly a hindrance to the game. We have a huge golf boom and this is their focus? 
 

To these USGA execs it is all about preserving the ultra elite private clubs in the northeastern US and getting a cushy landing spot after they leave the USGA. No focus on munis or effort on speeding up golf. It’s just the opposite. Golf courses are packed and slower than ever. Rules are more confusing than ever before. No more pub links championship which is ridiculous. Qualifier fees and ticket prices are all ridiculously overpriced. 
 

It’s a poorly run organization and should not have input on the rules. 

[smashdn]

Tee it Forward?

Play Nine?

The whole Greens Section?

They've created an APP for the rules with the interpretations and diagrams.

 

They aren't flawless but they're often doing more good than not.

 

The elite clubs in the northeast as you put it are the historically significant ones from an architectural standpoint and from a history of competitive golf standpoint as well. It is that way because that was where the population centers were and where the money was that built the courses.

 

That's sort of like complaining that the US Yachting Association doesn't pay enough attention to the state of Arizona.

[farmer]

I assume the patents for the old Spalding Tour Edition still exist.  So the RB's, including the PGA Tour, can have a jillion of them made and tell players, "this is the ball you will be using in our comps", everybody else, play what you like.  That way, the elite players can adapt their game and I will be left alone.  I can tell you, that was one spinning SOB. The upside for the pros is that a skilled player can damn near do magic with one around the green.

[Pastit]

17 hours ago, kasting333 said:

The USGA is truly a hindrance to the game. We have a huge golf boom and this is their focus? 
 

To these USGA execs it is all about preserving the ultra elite private clubs in the northeastern US and getting a cushy landing spot after they leave the USGA. No focus on munis or effort on speeding up golf. It’s just the opposite. Golf courses are packed and slower than ever. Rules are more confusing than ever before. No more pub links championship which is ridiculous. Qualifier fees and ticket prices are all ridiculously overpriced. 
 

It’s a poorly run organization and should not have input on the rules. 

Unfortunately the “ blue blazers “ have been allowed to turn a wonderfully simple game into a shambles. 

[gvogel]

17 hours ago, kasting333 said:

The USGA is truly a hindrance to the game. We have a huge golf boom and this is their focus? 
 

To these USGA execs it is all about preserving the ultra elite private clubs in the northeastern US and getting a cushy landing spot after they leave the USGA. No focus on munis or effort on speeding up golf. It’s just the opposite. Golf courses are packed and slower than ever. Rules are more confusing than ever before. No more pub links championship which is ridiculous. Qualifier fees and ticket prices are all ridiculously overpriced. 
 

It’s a poorly run organization and should not have input on the rules. 

"Golf courses are packed and slower than ever."

 

So, who cares about growing the game?

 

By the way, both of my 30-something children are starting to play golf, after not caring for it growing up.  Why?  Because of Tiger Woods? Nope.  Because of USGA and other efforts to grow the game? Nope.

 

It seems that their friends are playing, and it is a fun way to spend an afternoon.  They couldn't care less about the Pro Tours; they might watch a little of the Masters on Masters Sunday.  Sadly, they will never score as well as their father, or their mother for that matter.  But they think it's fun.  Maybe a beer or two helps with that, I don't know.  They don't take the game seriously; they can both hit the ball pretty well off the tee, and around the green proficiency drops off.

 

If the ball is changed, they won't know the difference.  And they won't have to play with condition of competition drivers.

[Simpsonia]

18 hours ago, kasting333 said:

The USGA is truly a hindrance to the game. We have a huge golf boom and this is their focus? 
 

To these USGA execs it is all about preserving the ultra elite private clubs in the northeastern US and getting a cushy landing spot after they leave the USGA. No focus on munis or effort on speeding up golf. It’s just the opposite. Golf courses are packed and slower than ever. Rules are more confusing than ever before. No more pub links championship which is ridiculous. Qualifier fees and ticket prices are all ridiculously overpriced. 
 

It’s a poorly run organization and should not have input on the rules. 

 

Does anyone actually think that the end proposals that are actually adopted by the USGA are going to be enough for the rollbackers? My guess is that they will adopt one or two of the half dozen or more proposals discussed, rollback total distance by ~3-5%, roll out the Mission Accomplished sign. So it will be A) not enough for the rollbackers (especially the toaster on a stick crowd); B) not enough to actually put a dent in bomb and gouge; C) also piss off the non-rollbackers, because what the hell was the point then. I mean that sounds about right with their track record, right? 

 

From ThinkingPlus' posts, it sounds like they've already abandoned a handful of the ideas that had been studying.   

Edited July 7, 2022 by Simpsonia

[clevited]

14 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Does anyone actually think that the end proposals that are actually adopted by the USGA are going to be enough for the rollbackers? My guess is that they will adopt one or two of the half dozen or more proposals discussed, rollback total distance by ~3-5%, roll out the Mission Accomplished sign. So it will be A) not enough for the rollbackers (especially the toaster on a stick crowd); B) not enough to actually put a dent in bomb and gouge; C) also piss off the non-rollbackers, because what the hell was the point then. I mean that sounds about right with their track record, right? 

 

From ThinkingPlus' posts, it sounds like they've already abandoned a handful of the ideas that had been studying.   

 

That is my prediction.

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, Pastit said:

Unfortunately the “ blue blazers “ have been allowed to turn a wonderfully simple game into a shambles. 

By what actions?

[Htk084]

Is there a chance they’ll change the ball to a spinner ball and NOTHING else?

 

Is that on the table?  

[bekgolf]

23 minutes ago, Htk084 said:

Is there a chance they’ll change the ball to a spinner ball and NOTHING else?

 

Is that on the table?  

I'm thinking a giant super ball from a 1978 vending machine would equalize everything.

[ThinkingPlus]

53 minutes ago, Htk084 said:

Is there a chance they’ll change the ball to a spinner ball and NOTHING else?

 

Is that on the table?  

No.

[Pastit]

11 hours ago, smashdn said:

By what actions?

Look around you.  Huge club admin changes and costs, world handicap system etc. Illogical rules taking years to correct, broomshank putters, groove rule changes making no difference and ruling out pre-2010 irons etc Is that enough ?

Edited July 8, 2022 by Pastit

[gvogel]

After reading this thread, I am glad that the USGA/R&A are studying the distance issue.  I support the primary suggestions they have determined for regulating distance in the coming years - changing the overall distance measurement for balls using higher swing speed, rolling back the spring face for drivers (and fairway woods, I hope), and rolling back driver MOI.

 

I just wish they had instituted these changes 10 years ago, when I first wrote a letter to the USGA expressing that driving distance had become a problem.  But, better late than never.

[gvogel]

This just in: Jordan Spieth thinks that The Old Course will be too easy unless the wind blows and the course gets really firm.  Just a wedge contest, he said.

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, gvogel said:

This just in: Jordan Spieth thinks that The Old Course will be too easy unless the wind blows and the course gets really firm.  Just a wedge contest, he said.

 

And Bryson said that Augusta was a par 67 for him. How did that turn out again?