USGA and R&A announce proposal to limit golf ball performance for elite level competition

[gvogel]

7 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

But they have to maintain the fiction. The fiction that this rollback won't affect 99.5% of golfers, yet it is somehow absolutely necessary for the sustainability of all golf courses everywhere. If we didn't have this rollback, every golf course everywhere would have to add thousands of yards to their tee boxes, or something to that effect. 

98 players averaged over 300 yards on the PGA Tour this past year.  Not 15, not 20, but 98.  That is the salient number when it comes to the equipment, optimization, and younger, faster players.

 

The fact that we, average recreational players, are a casualty of the ball roll back is only a slight problem.  It was time to do something about equipment advances.  Besides, the roll back will hardly affect your score or mine.  There is so much more about scoring, and it's called the short game.  Reduce your three putts by one, and you won't have a change in your handicap.

[gvogel]

3 hours ago, moora said:

 

This is the R&A headquarters. It’s in St Andrews.

 

 

 

This is the R&A club house (although technically separate from the R&A rules organisation). It literally looks over the 1st tee and the 18th green on the Old Course.

 

People realise that the R&A are doing this to protect St Andrews, and their main source of income, the Open Championship?

 

The Old Course was barely playable the last time it hosted the Open in 2022, with rounds taking over 6 hours because of how far the players are driving the ball.

 

https://golf.com/news/open-rounds-st-andrews-slow-play-6-hours/

 

 

So what do the R&A do to ensure the “home of golf” hosts the Open Championship because at the current rate, it’s going to be impossible to host an Open in 10 years. Do they lengthen the course? Well, they can’t do that, there isn’t enough room, plus if there was any more room, they’d rather get more ticket buying spectators and hospitality stands in than stretch the course out to over 7,500 yards.

 

The reality is that R&A don’t care about PGA Tour courses. The R&A care about their main source of income - The Open Championship, the tradition of The Old Course being an Open Championship venue and St Andrews being the “home of golf” (not likely true, mind you, that’s probably Musselburgh, but the R&A don’t want you to know that).

 

The R&A make the rules, so they just change them to suit their goals.

 

But wait, what about the USGA? Well, the 2023 US Open didn’t exactly get glowing reviews based on the record number of low scores.

 

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/lists/2023-us-open-los-angeles-country-club-playing-too-easy/

 

 

Lovely pictures, thanks for posting them.  I thought that Martin Slumbers has an office in the R&A Clubhouse, overlooking the first tee.

[GoGoErky]

40 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

But they have to maintain the fiction. The fiction that this rollback won't affect 99.5% of golfers, yet it is somehow absolutely necessary for the sustainability of all golf courses everywhere. If we didn't have this rollback, every golf course everywhere would have to add thousands of yards to their tee boxes, or something to that effect. 

Right. So much data out there that debunks every telling point out there.

 

28 minutes ago, gvogel said:

98 players averaged over 300 yards on the PGA Tour this past year.  Not 15, not 20, but 98.  That is the salient number when it comes to the equipment, optimization, and younger, faster players.

 

The fact that we, average recreational players, are a casualty of the ball roll back is only a slight problem.  It was time to do something about equipment advances.  Besides, the roll back will hardly affect your score or mine.  There is so much more about scoring, and it's called the short game.  Reduce your three putts by one, and you won't have a change in your handicap.

That just means more people hit the ball 300 today than they did 20 years ago with the same equipment. 2003 average driving distance leader 321, 2022 average driving distance leader 321, 2023 average distance leader 326. 2003 average driving distance 289c 2023 average driving distance 299. Nothing has changed other than there are more athletes playing golf. Despite all that scoring average hasn’t changed. So all the new equipment and additions of launch monitors and fittings hasn’t done anything to increase how far the ball goes. Even the USGA admitted that it’s the golfer not the equipment. You choose to ignore that the rollback doesn’t nothing to solve the issue because 1) the pros will get their distance back including from an expert in the field such as Dr Sasho Mackenzie 2) more golfers are going to be hitting the ball 300+ because distance becomes more of an advantage and now instead of having a range of golfers that are 300-321 while the field is under 300 all the pros on tour will be over 300 and nobody will be under and you have the same issue all over again except now instead of some guys having to hit mid irons into par 4s and not being able to carry over obstacles the course designed put in, everyone will be doing it.

 

Unless there is some magic ball that only significantly impacts the faster guys on tour and no impact to the slow swingers, there is going to be an impact felt by the everyday amateur who doesn’t drive the ball more than 220 along with impacts to the rest of their bag. The USGA also admitted that as of right now there is no way to do something with the driver that doesn’t negatively affect the regular golfer, so there will either have to be a big equipment rollback that will get more pushback than the ball rollback is getting from golfers, OEMs and the tours along with pga of America. It will probably also lead to the death of ruling bodies 

 

 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

I don’t even care about the scoring but it’s dishonest to say it hasn’t changed when you use adjusted scoring. Actual average is about a shot lower than pre-ProV1. It would be expected for this to be lower with more good golfers, more money in golf, etc. even with more difficult setups so I don’t really care but it’s a hollow point to make.

Edited December 11, 2023 by TLUBulldogGolf

[gvogel]

42 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Right. So much data out there that debunks every telling point out there.

 

That just means more people hit the ball 300 today than they did 20 years ago with the same equipment. 2003 average driving distance leader 321, 2022 average driving distance leader 321, 2023 average distance leader 326. 2003 average driving distance 289c 2023 average driving distance 299. Nothing has changed other than there are more athletes playing golf. Despite all that scoring average hasn’t changed. So all the new equipment and additions of launch monitors and fittings hasn’t done anything to increase how far the ball goes. Even the USGA admitted that it’s the golfer not the equipment. You choose to ignore that the rollback doesn’t nothing to solve the issue because 1) the pros will get their distance back including from an expert in the field such as Dr Sasho Mackenzie 2) more golfers are going to be hitting the ball 300+ because distance becomes more of an advantage and now instead of having a range of golfers that are 300-321 while the field is under 300 all the pros on tour will be over 300 and nobody will be under and you have the same issue all over again except now instead of some guys having to hit mid irons into par 4s and not being able to carry over obstacles the course designed put in, everyone will be doing it.

 

Unless there is some magic ball that only significantly impacts the faster guys on tour and no impact to the slow swingers, there is going to be an impact felt by the everyday amateur who doesn’t drive the ball more than 220 along with impacts to the rest of their bag. The USGA also admitted that as of right now there is no way to do something with the driver that doesn’t negatively affect the regular golfer, so there will either have to be a big equipment rollback that will get more pushback than the ball rollback is getting from golfers, OEMs and the tours along with pga of America. It will probably also lead to the death of ruling bodies 

 

 

Guess the USGA will have to revisit the measuring parameters for the Overall Distance Standard in five years if the above facts in bold print are true.  They will also have to change the specs for the driver - hopefully just for elite players, since most of us NEED 460cc's!

 

The fact is, the courses are plenty long, and the equipment needs to constantly be right-sized to fit the courses.  But, of course, this applies to elite, fit, optimized golfers, not you and me.

[Simpsonia]

21 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Guess the USGA will have to revisit the measuring parameters for the Overall Distance Standard in five years if the above facts in bold print are true.  They will also have to change the specs for the driver - hopefully just for elite players, since most of us NEED 460cc's!

 

The fact is, the courses are plenty long, and the equipment needs to constantly be right-sized to fit the courses.  But, of course, this applies to elite, fit, optimized golfers, not you and me.

 

Which is another issue Sasho McKenzie addressed. He said that if the USGA really wanted to enact the real changes they wanted, they would need to change the standard to 135mph. However, he mentioned if the USGA did that, it would have the unintended consequence that within a few years there wouldn't be a single pro on the PGA Tour who had a club head speed of below 125mph. That's just how strong the relative shots-gained value of distance is. The more your shorten the ball, the more you punish everyone who isn't crazy long (or rather give a much larger advantage to those are crazy long). 

 

Edit: I get the feeling that the rollbackers just don't understand how important shots-gained as a statistic is, and how it explains the natural framework of golf as it is currently played. We've always known distance is an advantage, but I don't think rollbackers truly appreciate how it explains much of what we're seeing. The average distance on tour is going up precisely because players who gain their advantage through distance succeed (in the aggregate/macro sense) over those who cannot. gvogel bemoans the rise in average distance on tour without understanding exactly why it has gone up. It's not equipment, it's the fact that distance has rewarded those who have it over those who do not. If equipment truly evened the field like they claim, we'd see the Webb Simpsons and Kisners of the world on even parity with the longer guys who are at the top of the OWGR. 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Simpsonia

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, gvogel said:

Guess the USGA will have to revisit the measuring parameters for the Overall Distance Standard in five years if the above facts in bold print are true.  They will also have to change the specs for the driver - hopefully just for elite players, since most of us NEED 460cc's!

 

The fact is, the courses are plenty long, and the equipment needs to constantly be right-sized to fit the courses.  But, of course, this applies to elite, fit, optimized golfers, not you and me.

and it will be worse for the amateur golfer and the pros will continue to get faster and longer because distance becomes even more of a premium. It’s like nobody listens to Sasho Mackenzie, broadie and others who keep pointing this out.

 

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

Edit: I get the feeling that the rollbackers just don't understand how important shots-gained as a statistic is, and how it explains the natural framework of golf as it is currently played. We've always known distance is an advantage, but I don't think rollbackers truly appreciate how it explains much of what we're seeing. The average distance on tour is going up precisely because players who gain their advantage through distance succeed (in the aggregate/macro sense) over those who cannot. gvogel bemoans the rise in average distance on tour without understanding exactly why it has gone up. It's not equipment, it's the fact that distance has rewarded those who have it over those who do not. If equipment truly evened the field like they claim, we'd see the Webb Simpsons and Kisners of the world on even parity with the longer guys who are at the top of the OWGR. 

I agree 

[ThinkingPlus]

Just now, GoGoErky said:

and it will be worse for the amateur golfer and the pros will continue to get faster and longer because distance becomes even more of a premium. It’s like nobody listens to Sasho Mackenzie, broadie and others who keep pointing this out.

 

I agree 

Anti-science, anti-math flat Earth sympathizers...

[GoGoErky]

4 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Anti-science, anti-math flat Earth sympathizers...

Nothing like hard data that discredits every claim and yet the claims keep keep getting repeated as if they will become true the more times they are said

[Golfnutgalen]

3 hours ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

I don’t even care about the scoring but it’s dishonest to say it hasn’t changed when you use adjusted scoring. Actual average is about a shot lower than pre-ProV1. It would be expected for this to be lower with more good golfers, more money in golf, etc. even with more difficult setups so I don’t really care but it’s a hollow point to make.

 

Yup. I saved the figures somewhere, here's a brief look:

 

2023: 70.49

 

2022: 70.68

2020: 70.56

2018: 70.89

2016: 71.12

2014: 71.16

2012: 71.32

2010: 71.04

2008: 71.48

2006: 71.45

2004: 71.44

2002: 71.29

2000: 71.42

 

1995: 71.63

1990: 72.03

1987: 72.63 (oldest date available)

 

It isn't very linear and it's really gone low just in the past 5 years or so after being fairly stable for a decade+.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Golfnutgalen

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, GoGoErky said:

and it will be worse for the amateur golfer and the pros will continue to get faster and longer because distance becomes even more of a premium. It’s like nobody listens to Sasho Mackenzie, broadie and others who keep pointing this out.

 

I agree 

Not Clevited.  He has more speed than he chooses to use at the moment.

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Not Clevited.  He has more speed than he chooses to use at the moment.

 

When the water starts at 300 and ends at 380, you hit a 3 iron.

[Dpavs]

1 minute ago, clevited said:

 

When the water starts at 300 and ends at 380, you hit a 3 iron.

 

I have to choke down a couple inches and slow my swing a bit, but yeah... that checks. 😁

[ThinkingPlus]

8 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

When the water starts at 300 and ends at 380, you hit a 3 iron.

Same here except replace 300 with 210, 380 with 230, and 3-iron with 3 hybrid. Otherwise completely the same. 😉

[WorkItBothWays]

5 hours ago, gvogel said:

Lovely pictures, thanks for posting them.  I thought that Martin Slumbers has an office in the R&A Clubhouse, overlooking the first tee.

They are building new R&A headquarters set to be completed in 2024.

[gvogel]

4 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Same here except replace 300 with 210, 380 with 230, and 3-iron with 3 hybrid. Otherwise completely the same. 😉

5-wood for me.  Guess I would have to play from shorter tees than you, or tee it up where the fairway starts.  But I can still play and have fun, no?

[Chunkitgood]

Let me see:

 

Guy hits driver 300 yards on 450 par 4, he’s lying 150.

 

Second guy hits 280, he’s lying 170.

 

Difference is 20 yards.

 

Reduce both drives 10 %.

 

Long driver is lying 180.  Short guy is lying 198.
 

Difference is 18 yards, which last I looked is less than 20 yards.

 

Maybe Mackenzie who by the way has a huge conflict of interest could explain how this helps the longer driver hitter.

 

Seems to me it tends to put a premium on hitting clubs other than the driver (and wedge) better (and longer).

 

Feel free to correct me with your hard data.

[ThinkingPlus]

41 minutes ago, gvogel said:

5-wood for me.  Guess I would have to play from shorter tees than you, or tee it up where the fairway starts.  But I can still play and have fun, no?

I was being very conservative.  When I lay up, I really lay up. My 3h off the tee only goes 180 - 200 yards.

 

You can tee it up in the fairway, but you're not playing golf per the ROG and can't post the score. Fun would be irrelevant in this case if you are trying to maintain a handicap for playing in competitions.

 

Keep trying to put lipstick on the pig though. The USGA is counting on you.

[BigMac_Finn]

On 12/7/2023 at 4:11 PM, Shilgy said:

Of course! Guys having to hit pw instead of 9 on every hole will bring back the architects intent.  
 

 

 

Or so they say.🤣

So there is no real problem.. the fact that advanced training methods of athletes combined with advancement tech in equipment has elevated the game in which golf courses have gotten super lazy where pro golfers are now - 10-20 on the score board to win?

 

again I don’t see the problem statement other than golf courses are complaining about having to make their course more difficult. Boo who .. just fix it then or make all tour players play with hr Same ball or equipment!

 

I think I saw a few references to other sports, basketball raising the net or football changing the ball or hockey playing with same puck or tennis same ball or baseball same ball and relatively same bat..

 

there is no other sport changing the field la they play on.

 

again golf association of you want golfers to conform.. every year a golf ball company gets chosen for the year and everyone plays the same ball. Make the pros and serious competitors (pro ams etc..) conform. For all of us regular golfers, we don’t have access to the pro equipment nor training.. so don’t penalize us !! The game is already hard enough 

[maamold]

Another good discussion in this podcast

 

https://pca.st/podcast/e4827d40-c3f6-0131-27cd-723c91aeae46?utm_source=pocket_saves

[bekgolf]

39 minutes ago, Chunkitgood said:

Let me see:

 

Guy hits driver 300 yards on 450 par 4, he’s lying 150.

 

Second guy hits 280, he’s lying 170.

 

Difference is 20 yards.

 

Reduce both drives 10 %.

 

Long driver is lying 180.  Short guy is lying 198.
 

Difference is 18 yards, which last I looked is less than 20 yards.

 

Maybe Mackenzie who by the way has a huge conflict of interest could explain how this helps the longer driver hitter.

 

Seems to me it tends to put a premium on hitting clubs other than the driver (and wedge) better (and longer).

 

Feel free to correct me with your hard data.

 

Where do you play that the shortest drive is 280 in the fairway?  We need some of your players for the scramble.

[be0972]

There is an equipment angle here that I don't think can be underestimated.  So for the next 5 to 7 years do we expect ball manufacturers not put out any new product?  These guys undoubtedly have new product already in development.  Are they going to stop what they're doing and put all their focus on a new ball?  What will be the impact to their business?  How will it impact consumers?  Like everything, the consumers will be the ones paying for this.

 

As of now, you can put me in the I just won't do it camp.  I'll be in my mid 50's when this goes into effect, I play for fun with friends, I don't play tournaments, I don't know why I even need a handicap.  Our group has a quota system based on your last few rounds, we don't even use our handicaps.  I'll be taking my USGA membership for the next 7 years and adding that to my buy all the Pro V's you can fund.

[riddyl]

9 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

Let me see:

 

Guy hits driver 300 yards on 450 par 4, he’s lying 150.

 

Second guy hits 280, he’s lying 170.

 

Difference is 20 yards.

 

Reduce both drives 10 %.

 

Long driver is lying 180.  Short guy is lying 198.
 

Difference is 18 yards, which last I looked is less than 20 yards.

 

Maybe Mackenzie who by the way has a huge conflict of interest could explain how this helps the longer driver hitter.

 

Seems to me it tends to put a premium on hitting clubs other than the driver (and wedge) better (and longer).

 

Feel free to correct me with your hard data.

 

Player 1 hits 300, Player 2 hits 280. 

We reduce the ball by 10%. 

 

Player 1 is a big strong guy who has been swinging conservatively up to now as by hitting the ball further he ends up in trouble. Let's call him Mory RcIlroy

Player 2 is already maxing his body out to get that 280. Lets call him Molin Corikawa. 

 

Mory starts swinging at 125 like he already can, still hits it 300.

Molin is still swinging at 115, now hits it 270.

Molin is now at a greater disadvantage as you just made swinging harder more important. 

 

This isn't conjecture, this is based on actual research. Dr MacKenzie sells Stack system, so has a vested interest in players speed training - so he should want this rollback. That he is putting out data that harms his business interests is noteworthy. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by riddyl

[Rapidcat]

The R&A/USGA think they are preserving golf but they’re not, they are harming it.

 

Golf was better 25 years ago? Sounds like stopping the development of the automobile at say the Model T Ford because roads can’t handle vehicles with faster speeds.

 

Imagine having these dullards in charge (oh no, they are). “We’ll punish the golf world because of bifurcation push-back, that’ll show you all”. Suspect that they all wear hair shirts.

 

Just prepare event courses properly and leave the masses to maximize distances that we really enjoy.

 

Such a myopic decision. 
 

[Pastit]

6 minutes ago, Rapidcat said:

The R&A/USGA think they are preserving golf but they’re not, they are harming it.

 

Golf was better 25 years ago? Sounds like stopping the development of the automobile at say the Model T Ford because roads can’t handle vehicles with faster speeds.

 

Imagine having these dullards in charge (oh no, they are). “We’ll punish the golf world because of bifurcation push-back, that’ll show you all”. Suspect that they all wear hair shirts.

 

Just prepare event courses properly and leave the masses to maximize distances that we really enjoy.

 

Such a myopic decision. 
 

It’s inevitable I’m afraid. 
 

Looking at F1, the formula was and is changed regularly to cope with too much power in the case of the V8-3.5 ltr period, what was felt as cheating with ground effect with Lotus and Nicky Lauda’s weird fan-effect car.
 

Nothing to stop improvements in technique and club design to counter ball speed losses. Otherwise, in ten years time, par 5 ‘s would need to be 700yds to restore them to 3-shot holes. 

[gvogel]

18 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Anti-science, anti-math flat Earth sympathizers...

Driving distance is relative, not absolute.

 

Distance is relative to the length of the hole, and to the distance that your competition hits the ball.  I guarantee that if golf was played on par 3 courses, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and the ruling bodies would have no need to restrict the ball.  People would agree that good golfers should be able to hit the green in one stroke.

 

Distance is relative to the competition.  If you were the only golfer in town, and learned the game all alone, you would have no idea how short or long off the tee you were, until you finally played in competition against other golfers.

 

All the anti roll backers speak as if their distance is absolute, and they deserve their distance because of practice, fitness, optimization and skill. Great, your distance relative to your peers is a result of your practice, fitness, optimization and skill - congratulations.  But why do you DESERVE 250 yards, or 280 yards or 300 yards?  Let's say you lose 10% of your distance, but the courses that you play shrink by 10%.  Are you really worse off?

 

You pro-science, pro math, round earth folks sound pretty self-entitled.

[GoGoErky]

37 minutes ago, gvogel said:

All the anti roll backers speak as if their distance is absolute, and they deserve their distance because of practice, fitness, optimization and skill. Great, your distance relative to your peers is a result of your practice, fitness, optimization and skill - congratulations.  But why do you DESERVE 250 yards, or 280 yards or 300 yards?  Let's say you lose 10% of your distance, but the courses that you play shrink by 10%.  Are you really worse off?

 

They don’t deserve it they earned it and since they are in competition with their peers distance matters and it is absolute. 300 yards is 300 yards no matter whether you are alone or if you are playing with or against somebody. Data also shows the closer you are the bette your chances of scoring are so whether you are alone or not the farther you can hit the ball the better your chance of scoring well even if it’s just you measuring your success against yourself from round to round.

 

the last point is irrelevant because no course is going to shrink by 10% or any percentage. The courses may play shorter one day but can play longer the next based on tee marker placement. And when it plays longer having the extra distance in the bag helps. Would rather be hitting a 7i rather than a 5i or a 5i rather than a hybrid or wood into greens. 

 

[smashdn]

So as I am reading from a few of you here, with the ball rolled back, there are going to be fewer guys capable of driving it 320 or whatever, and in order to do so they are going to have to swing incredibly fast to do so.  And the guys that cannot do that will be at a disadvantage.  And another poster said that the folks who are only driving it 220 are not going to lose as much distance and likely wouldn't even notice the impact.

 

What is the issue again?

[Simpsonia]

13 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

Let me see:

 

Guy hits driver 300 yards on 450 par 4, he’s lying 150.

 

Second guy hits 280, he’s lying 170.

 

Difference is 20 yards.

 

Reduce both drives 10 %.

 

Long driver is lying 180.  Short guy is lying 198.
 

Difference is 18 yards, which last I looked is less than 20 yards.

 

Maybe Mackenzie who by the way has a huge conflict of interest could explain how this helps the longer driver hitter.

 

Seems to me it tends to put a premium on hitting clubs other than the driver (and wedge) better (and longer).

 

Feel free to correct me with your hard data.

 

It is about hard data, more specifically shots-gained. You may think that 20 yards mean nothing, but if you look at the hard data from a Moneyball perspective, it makes a large difference in the aggregate. It might not make a huge difference in the moment on one specific hole in one specific tournament, but when you look at the data across dozens (or hundreds if you include amateur) tournaments across hundreds (thousands with ams) of golfers, it becomes apparent that those advantages add up. 

 

Here is a graph plotting a theoretical shots-gained advantage for 10 extra yards at various distances to the hole. You may think that .05 strokes on each hole means nothing, but it adds up. 

 

Beyond that, the shots-gained value is non-linear. 20 yards closer is more than the sum of just 10 yards times 2. The the closer you can get if you have the ability, say 40 yards (150 to ~190) is almost .25 strokes gained, per hole. Lets say you get that 40 yards on every par 4 and 5, that could be worth 3.5 strokes over the short-hitting competitor over the course of 18 ( 14 par 4s and 5s for this thought experiment. 3.5 strokes advantage (~5% over par 72) is a massive advantage to play out in the aggregate across all golfers and all elite tournaments.

 

 

 

Lastly, strokes-gained is non-linear depending on distance to the hole. If you look at the hole holistically, distance has a much greater advantage when it comes to longer holes. The longer the hole, the greater the strokes-gained advantage to being a long-hitter is. Shortening the ball is the exact same as lengthening a hole, increasing the relative advantage to the long-hitter.

 

Counter-intuitively, short holes like a 375 yard par 4 as shown below advantage the longest hitter the least. 

 

 

 

 

Source: https://datagolf.com/how-much-is-10-yards-worth

Edited December 12, 2023 by Simpsonia

[MattC555]

34 minutes ago, smashdn said:

So as I am reading from a few of you here, with the ball rolled back, there are going to be fewer guys capable of driving it 320 or whatever, and in order to do so they are going to have to swing incredibly fast to do so.  And the guys that cannot do that will be at a disadvantage.  And another poster said that the folks who are only driving it 220 are not going to lose as much distance and likely wouldn't even notice the impact.

 

What is the issue again?

 

Unconscious bias causing blindness to the validity of our dissenting opinion. Your avatar is befitting.