Jump to content

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


elwhippy

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

I don't want more studies though. I can use my eyes to see that there isn't a problem that needs fixing.

 

I don't need studies either. Just facts.

 

The fact that Tiger is just as long now as he was in 2000 and is significantly longer than he was when winning Amateurs in the mid 90's with a Balata golf ball says there is a problem. 

 

The fact that a huge amount of young players (college and pro) have ball speeds approaching 190+ mph (including the winner last week) says there is a problem.

 

The fact that so many former major venues are too short to host anything in the future says there is a problem.

 

The fact that so many current major venues constantly have to add new tees to increase distance says there is a problem.

 

 

I could go on and on but there is a definitely a problem. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ty_Webb said:

 

Mine obviously 🙂

 

Golf has been fine for 20 years and ball speed rules have been in place for 20 years.

 

That is an opinion, as valid as one to the contrary is.

 

Many equipment rules have been in place for a long time.  The technology to approach or exceed those limits has not always existed.  Nor have the rules been crafted in such a way as to anticipate all of the ways that previously unknown technologies would challenge the intent of those rules.  Corrections seem appropriate to me.

 

Just now, Ty_Webb said:

People are working on speed now, so more people are faster, but so what? 

 

The more people aspect doesn't bother me so much.  How they arrive at the distance they hit it is also not a chief concern of mine but I do feel to a degree that "buying" speed and accuracy cheapens it.  The impacts of increased distance are where I have the most heartburn.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

I don't need studies either. Just facts.

 

The fact that Tiger is just as long now as he was in 2000 and is significantly longer than he was when winning Amateurs in the mid 90's with a Balata golf ball says there is a problem. 

 

The fact that a huge amount of young players (college and pro) have ball speeds approaching 190+ mph (including the winner last week) says there is a problem.

 

The fact that so many former major venues are too short to host anything in the future says there is a problem.

 

The fact that so many current major venues constantly have to add new tees to increase distance says there is a problem.

 

 

I could go on and on but there is a definitely a problem. 

 

 

 

 

Those things say there have been changes, not problems. Over time in just about every endeavour people have got stronger and faster. The same is true in golf sure. That's not a problem though. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Ping G430 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 C-taper S+

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

That is an opinion, as valid as one to the contrary is.

 

Many equipment rules have been in place for a long time.  The technology to approach or exceed those limits has not always existed.  Nor have the rules been crafted in such a way as to anticipate all of the ways that previously unknown technologies would challenge the intent of those rules.  Corrections seem appropriate to me.

 

 

The more people aspect doesn't bother me so much.  How they arrive at the distance they hit it is also not a chief concern of mine but I do feel to a degree that "buying" speed and accuracy cheapens it.  The impacts of increased distance are where I have the most heartburn.

 

 

But this heartburn - why? How is your life worse because some people hit it further than they used to?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Ping G430 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 C-taper S+

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Those things say there have been changes, not problems. Over time in just about every endeavour people have got stronger and faster. The same is true in golf sure. That's not a problem though. 

 

Sure, people get bigger, stronger and faster but the equipment in almost every other sport has been relatively constant and certainly hasn't changed as much as golf.

 

Examples:

Baseball - same wooden bats for 100+ years with very minor changes to the ball

Basketball - same size and weight for 70+ years

Football - same size and weight for 70+ years

Hockey - Puck has been the same for 100+ years - the stick has changed a lot (lighter composites) but shot speeds haven't changed much so no big deal

 

On and on...

 

Golf is probably the only sport that has been changed SO much by technology and while you can claim that "everything is fine and nothing to see here" the reality is that if the current trends continue almost every course is going to become obsolete. That just isn't sustainable. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

But this heartburn - why? How is your life worse because some people hit it further than they used to?

 

My life isn't worse.  That is a rather myopic way to view the issue, any issue.  It doesn't have to impact me personally to have an opinion and a concern about it.  It impacts golf.  I love golf.  Therefore I have a concern.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those other examples are balanced by a defensive aspect that is more or less equally benefitting from advances.

 

53 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

On and on...

 

Golf is probably the only sport that has been changed SO much by technology and while you can claim that "everything is fine and nothing to see here" the reality is that if the current trends continue almost every course is going to become obsolete. That just isn't sustainable. 

 

Golf on the other hand, the defensive aspect, if you will, is the course for stroke play.  The features of the course (bunkers, water, but also blindness, angles, slopes, etc.) are the defense and the interest.  It is impractical to but bunkers down an entire length of a hole to accommodate all golfers of all lengths, so they get put in one or two or a clump and then the length to them from the golfer is adjusted via the tee box.  Some courses have run out of room for adjustment as the top end of golfers hit the ball farther and more of them are at the top end.

 

Outside of playability, (and I am going to butcher this quote and fail to attribute it to who said it) "a game that takes up more and more space and more and more resources in a world with a finite amount of both is going to be met with increasing scrutiny."  Golf courses are already up against it when it comes decision time between maintaining a golf course or turning the course into park or letting it revert to greenspace with some trails through it.  Similarly when the property the course sits upon is more valuable than the course itself.  Letting the equipment get out of hand to the point it starts to impact safety, pace of play, challenge, interest seems like a bad play when it is well within our control to reign it in to something more befitting courses "pre-tiger proofing."  Not saying there needs to be a hard and fast cap on courses ever but I think (certainly my opinion feel free to disagree) a game where "championship tees" are perfectly normal and provide even the very best in the game requisite challenge at around 6700-6800 yards is perfectly acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

a game where "championship tees" are perfectly normal and provide even the very best in the game requisite challenge at around 6700-6800 yards is perfectly acceptable.

 

That can be done with better course design and setup.

 

I dont think changing the ball works, or wil work and will be the final change. 

 

I read why they want to do it, main aspect was to bring in courses they feel are not useable now back into the fold.  

 

Sorry I call BS on that.  All of us I am sure play/have played a number of courses that are in 6800-7000 range that will and has challenged the best in the game.  The design is the KEY...!   

 

We all understand the top pro's length today and that shorter courses are to "easy" but for some odd reason they play on courses where there is little to much angle off the tee and it allows all the top hitters to bomb it.  Not put them in a spot to not hit driver or at least second guess it.   

 

Look at LACC last year, all if not almost all just bombed it all day long with driver.  The one par 4 90% of the field went for it off the tee as the areas around the green were worth doing as the risk was not great.  

 

Augusta is a great example though a different animal. They dont have rough so they try to protect it by adding length to the hole but look at the changes..!? Almost no angle changes for the tee shot.  They stated they only do it to enusre the approach shot might be a 6 iron vs 8-9 iron becuase Augusta has tough greens.  Yet many players it might not be a 6 Iron, they might be hitting a 5-4-hybrid.

 

The point is there is nothing in golf that says "everyone" (elite level or not) should be hitting roughly the same approach shot from a "specfic" distance.  Sure could be different clubs per each player but that difference is what makes the game individual.   

 

You think Corey Pavin liked hitting 5 wood or 3 wood into greens when others were hitting 4 Irons?  I doubt he cared....!  That was his game, he knew it and it worked for him...... all golfers dont have to be hitting from the same spot or near the same spot.   

Edited by CDM
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

Sure, people get bigger, stronger and faster but the equipment in almost every other sport has been relatively constant and certainly hasn't changed as much as golf.

 

Examples:

Baseball - same wooden bats for 100+ years with very minor changes to the ball

Basketball - same size and weight for 70+ years

Football - same size and weight for 70+ years

Hockey - Puck has been the same for 100+ years - the stick has changed a lot (lighter composites) but shot speeds haven't changed much so no big deal

 

On and on...

 

Golf is probably the only sport that has been changed SO much by technology and while you can claim that "everything is fine and nothing to see here" the reality is that if the current trends continue almost every course is going to become obsolete. That just isn't sustainable. 

The equipment has been consistent in golf for 20 years. The ball specs, the ods, 460cc size, CT all the same since 2003/2004

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

The equipment has been consistent in golf for 20 years. The ball specs, the ods, 460cc size, CT all the same since 2003/2004

 

The specs are the same but the equipment is far from it. Would you operate within equipment specs better after 0 years or 20 years? Hell they said they would need 4 for this spec change.

Titleist TSi3 10* TPO 1K 60-TX
Titleist 917F3 15* VA Composite Drago 75-X (Ai Smoke TD otw)
Titleist T200 3 UB Thump 90-X / TSr3 19* Ventus Black 10-TX
Mizuno MP-20 4-9 PX 6.5

Mizuno T20 47-07 PX 6.5

Mizuno T22 52-09 56-10 PX 6.5

Vokey SM9 60-04T PX Wedge 6.5
Special Select Squareback 2 w/ SuperStroke Pistol GT 1.0

ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GoGoErky said:

The equipment has been consistent in golf for 20 years. The ball specs, the ods, 460cc size, CT all the same since 2003/2004

 

False and irrelevant. The 2004 ProV1 is measurably worse in every way than the 2024. Is it a huge difference? Not really. Probably 3-4mph and 10-15 yards but the point is that it continues to improve every year with no end in sight.

 

The bigger issue is that the problems that need addressing go back at least 40-50 years. Not 20.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

False and irrelevant. The 2004 ProV1 is measurably worse in every way than the 2024. Is it a huge difference? Not really. Probably 3-4mph and 10-15 yards but the point is that it continues to improve every year with no end in sight.

 

The bigger issue is that the problems that need addressing go back at least 40-50 years. Not 20.

 

You go from certainty (false and irrelevant) to not certainty (probably 3-4 mph). Speeds are already restricted. They can't get faster from where they are now, so there very much is an end in sight and we're already there.

  • Like 1

Ping G430 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 C-taper S+

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CDM said:

 

That can be done with better course design and setup.

 

How do you address courses that are already designed and the guy who designed them died 80 years ago?

 

Specifically, I am happy to have an architecture discussion with you.

 

1 hour ago, CDM said:

I dont agree changing the ball works, or wil work and will be the final change. 

 

Why not?  Why would equipment more akin in performance to equipment ca 1985 not produce similar results today as then?

 

1 hour ago, CDM said:

I read why they want to do it, main aspect was to bring in courses they feel are not useable now.   

 

Sorry I call BS on that.  All of us I am sure play/have played a number of courses that are in 6800-7000 range that will and has challenged the best in the game.  The design is the KEY...!

 

Again, what is your response to courses that had historically had that pedigree (great design, championship design, whatever the moniker) that are now deemed no longer suitable?

Even more germane to the discussion, what of courses that were in the yardage range, and hosted majors but have stretched closer to 7700-7800?  Was there something inherent in the original design were they have been made better by adding length?

 

I just did a quick glance so could have missed a course but the last time I found the PGA Championship to be played on a course less than 7000 yards was in 1995 at Riviera (par 71) and the US Open at Merion (par 70) in 2013.

 

1 hour ago, CDM said:

We all understand the top pro's length today and that shorter courses are to "easy" but for some odd reason they play on courses where there is little to much angle off the teee and it allows all the top hitter to bomb it. Not put them in a spot to not hit driver.   Look at LACC last year, all almost all just bombed it all day long with driver.  The one par 4 90% of the field went for it off the tee as the areas around it were worth doing as the risk was not great.  

 

Augusta is a great example though a different animal. They dont have rough so they to protect it they add length to the hole but look at the changes, ther is almost no angle changes.  They do it so to enusre the approach shot might be a 6 iron vs 8-9 iron becuase it has tough greens.  Yet many players it might not be a 6 Iron so they will be hitting maybe a hybrid.

 

The point is there is nothing in golf that says "everyone" (elite level or not) should be hitting roughly the same approach shot from a "specfic" distance.  

 

You think Corey Pavin liked hitting 5 wood or 3 wood into greens when others were hitting 4 Irons?  I doubt he cared....!  That was his game, he knew it and it worked for him...... all golfers dont have to be the same, hitting from the same spot or near the same spot.    

 

Where are the Corey Pavins of today?  If they existed then, and some excelled, why is their recipe not one that can be replicated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

False and irrelevant. The 2004 ProV1 is measurably worse in every way than the 2024. Is it a huge difference? Not really. Probably 3-4mph and 10-15 yards but the point is that it continues to improve every year with no end in sight.

 

The bigger issue is that the problems that need addressing go back at least 40-50 years. Not 20.

 

I might be the minority on this but there is SO many options in balls currently that every player can find a ball that gives them distance. 

 

I switched to the Zstar Diamond from the ProV1 and I did gain distance off the tee. Not that my swing is different at all. It is just provided better ball flight, angle of decent and spin for my game that made all the difference. 

 

A friend switched to the Chrome Soft and gained over Bridgestone.   I tried the CS and good ball but was not as good for my game but was for him. 

 

I think that is the aspect that gets ignored.  They can make a ball to fit any swing now and pretty much they are out there.  Adding they can match shaft, head, etc. with the ball to maximize every swing now,

 

So if they come up with a limiting ball, 100% we all know the pro's will get fit with equipement to maximize everything they can for that ball.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PedronNiall said:

Football spikes have changed allowing for better grip, along with other parts of shoe design allowing players to cut harder and pull off moves that literally wouldn't have been possible due to traction loss. That's not even mentioning how turf consistency has increased. Gloves were allowed to be improved to the point that so long as a player is agile enough to get their fingers on the ball they can reel it in one handed with only the tips.  Many of the catches made today were literally impossible in the past. Sports equipment in many arenas has improved to allow the very best players to get the very best possible results. I fail to see why golf should be any different. 

 

Head size, MOI, face responsiveness, and ball characteristics have been capped for over two decades now. Better understanding of what can be done with those limits alongside vastly improved fitness standards, more golfers above average height--often being those who might have played other sports in the past--and much, much better capture & analysis of what's happening in the swing have now allowed better performance while still respecting the limits of the equipment. If that bothers you, too bad, so sad. The majority of those tuning into pro & amateur golf as well as the majority of those playing it have no issue with what's going on and are excited to see what comes next. 

 

It's entirely fine to have an opinion that things should be different but don't let that lead to hyperbole or ignoring the realities of how much performance in all sports has continued to improve though better tech even when their are confines as to the specs of the equipment. 


Once again I hate the tortured analogies to other sports but there are plenty examples of equipment being banned that went ‘too far.’ It’s been conceded the USGA was asleep at the wheel and should have acted long ago. They are dialing the ball back slightly while keeping the litany of other advances. If that bothers you, too bad, so sad.

Edited by TLUBulldogGolf

Titleist TSi3 10* TPO 1K 60-TX
Titleist 917F3 15* VA Composite Drago 75-X (Ai Smoke TD otw)
Titleist T200 3 UB Thump 90-X / TSr3 19* Ventus Black 10-TX
Mizuno MP-20 4-9 PX 6.5

Mizuno T20 47-07 PX 6.5

Mizuno T22 52-09 56-10 PX 6.5

Vokey SM9 60-04T PX Wedge 6.5
Special Select Squareback 2 w/ SuperStroke Pistol GT 1.0

ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

False and irrelevant. The 2004 ProV1 is measurably worse in every way than the 2024. Is it a huge difference? Not really. Probably 3-4mph and 10-15 yards but the point is that it continues to improve every year with no end in sight.

 

The bigger issue is that the problems that need addressing go back at least 40-50 years. Not 20.

Equipment and ball have changed since 40-50 years ago and the game 40-50 years ago wa different than it was before that.


There are restrictions in place that will prevent the jumps that occurred from

the 90s to 2003. The data shows there’s no big jump going.


Even with the balls improvement top end distance on tour with the best players hasn’t changed and the USGA themselves have said the distance gains with the current equipment came from the players not the ball and equipment 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

How do you address courses that are already designed and the guy who designed them died 80 years ago?

 

Specifically, I am happy to have an architecture discussion with you.

 

 

Why not?  Why would equipment more akin in performance to equipment ca 1985 not produce similar results today as then?

 

 

Again, what is your response to courses that had historically had that pedigree (great design, championship design, whatever the moniker) that are now deemed no longer suitable?

Even more germane to the discussion, what of courses that were in the yardage range, and hosted majors but have stretched closer to 7700-7800?  Was there something inherent in the original design were they have been made better by adding length?

 

I just did a quick glance so could have missed a course but the last time I found the PGA Championship to be played on a course less than 7000 yards was in 1995 at Riviera (par 71) and the US Open at Merion (par 70) in 2013.

 

 

Where are the Corey Pavins of today?  If they existed then, and some excelled, why is their recipe not one that can be replicated?

 

All good points.

 

"How do you address courses that are already designed and the guy who designed them died 80 years ago?

 

Specifically, I am happy to have an architecture discussion with you."

 

I play a course that the architect did die 80 years ago so funny timing. 

 

I get your point, I actually do.  The classics are not in the game anymore because of distance.  That said Jack played the course in his prime and at 6600 yards and he never broke par. He played a number of times too.  Snead, Arnnie, etc all did.  YES all using older equipement but as a pretty short yardage too.   The design, greens and hazard aspects all factor in as a "total" of the course.   I think max the course can play is right at 7100 (maybe.... if that, card says 7068) and is tough...! Scratch golfer is expected to shoot 6 over... and if the elements are up which they typically are it can be down right brutal.     Takes 100% of your game at all times.

 

Why not?  Why would equipment more akin in performance to equipment ca 1985 not produce similar results today as then?

 

Again we agree on thought maybe not principal. Reason I point out design and noted above the best in the day using the old ball and equpiement.  This seems to be "then vs now" for some add reason.  Jack, Arnnie, etc.  played courses at 6400-6700 yards vs today at 7300-7400 range now.  So yes one could argue the difference in course length is based on the ball and equipement changes over the year.   That is why I dont think this will end with just the ball.  IF that does not hit what they hope for, I could see them rolling back drivers again.   

 

Again, what is your response to courses that had historically had that pedigree (great design, championship design, whatever the moniker) that are now deemed no longer suitable?

 

That is tough to say which courses as USGA / RA never really stated any specifcally that I recall?.

 

I do know that Erin Hills in 2017 was the eye opener for the USGA and how all this ball discussion started with the RA.  It played at 7,845 yards...!  Almost 8000 yards., 

 

I can be wrong since it is just my opinion but Erin Hills is a BOMB it course.  There is 3 holes that have decent bend to them yet the fairways tilt to help the angle, not against.   I also acknowlege it is a "resort" course so aspects of the design are for "pace of play" as we know so fairly "in front of you"    

 

It might surprise may to find out that the 2018 US Open at Shinnecock Hills played at 7,445 yards.....and then learn the 1896 US Open was held at Shinnecock played 4,423 yards.  

 

Where are the Corey Pavins of today?  If they existed then, and some excelled, why is their recipe not one that can be replicated?

 

Well that is relative to year of course.  One could argue that Brian Harmon is the player and he won the OPEN last year.  Has few wins like Pavin did on tour.

 

He is not the longest hitter, but not short by us WRX members standards but as it relates to the tour he is 25-30 yards shorter then the top hittters. He always hits more club into greens, but has great short game to make up for it if he misses.  

 

I agree and understand the logic that the longest hitters do "excel" but I stand by my statement.  You put them on a course that is LONG but straight out in front of them they will just bomb it all day long and that is why the courses are longer.   

 

If they are standing on the tee box and at 275 yards or so out, the middle of a dog leg and the fairways slopes away from the dog leg and just a slight miss puts them in the rough they might pull out 3 wood and lay back.

IE: Having a longer shot / club into the green which is what they are trying to do as we all know it is easier to hit an 8 iron vs a 5 or 6 iron into firm green. 

 

I can not think of any major other then a few that are not bomb it off the tee and hope your not in the rough over that last few years.   *Augusta being a diffferent case granted 

Edited by CDM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoGoErky said:

Equipment and ball have changed since 40-50 years ago and the game 40-50 years ago wa different than it was before that.


There are restrictions in place that will prevent the jumps that occurred from

the 90s to 2003. The data shows there’s no big jump going.


Even with the balls improvement top end distance on tour with the best players hasn’t changed and the USGA themselves have said the distance gains with the current equipment came from the players not the ball and equipment 

 

I get it, you don't think there is a problem and I'm sure on your course with your friends everything is fine. All we ask is to look at this issue with an open mind (instead of selfishly not wanting to give up distance).

 

Here are the arguments people like you keep making against the rollback:

"tour average distance hasn't changed much from the early 2000s"

"the data shows there's no big jump"

"just make the courses tighter"

"it's a course design issue not a distance issue"

 

These are all asinine arguments man.

 

The tour averages that people keep quoting as gospel are meaningless. Guys like KJ Choi at 150 ball speed and 60? years old are included in those averages.  The reality is that it's extremely rare for anyone on tour to be competitive on a week to week basis with less than 170mph ball speed and almost all of the best players are 180+.

 

The other thing that I really wish you guys would consider is that this isn't even about the current pros. Have you seen how fast the competitive college, amateur and mini tour or KFT players are? We are talking balls speeds of 180+ just to be competitive with many of them 190+. Last weeks PGA winner was sending it 190+ every hole. Hell, at the Michigan high school state finals almost every one of the competitive players were 170mph+ and hitting it 300+. These are 16-18 year olds. It's just a completely different game than it even was 20 years ago, let alone 40.

 

The other thing everyone keeps arguing is that all of these distance and speed gains are coming from training, nutrition and sports science and not the equipment. While there is no doubt those things are a major factor you could give Kyle Berkshire a wound balata from the 90s and he's going to be 100 yards shorter off the tee. He might still be the longest hitter in the world (well deserved and no issue at all) but at least he will be able to use something longer than a 7i on the golf course.

Edited by mgoblue83
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

I get it, you don't think there is a problem and I'm sure on your course with your friends everything is fine. All we ask is to look at this issue with an open mind (instead of selfishly not wanting to give up distance).

 

Here are the arguments people like you keep making against the rollback:

"tour average distance hasn't changed much from the early 2000s"

"the data shows there's no big jump"

"just make the courses tighter"

"it's a course design issue not a distance issue"

 

These are all asinine arguments man.

 

The tour averages that people keep quoting as gospel are meaningless. Guys like KJ Choi at 150 ball speed and 60? years old are included in those averages.  The reality is that it's extremely rare for anyone on tour to be competitive on a week to week basis with less than 170mph ball speed and almost all of the best players are 180+.

 

The other thing that I really wish you guys would consider is that this isn't even about the current pros. Have you seen how fast the competitive college, amateur and mini tour or KFT players are? We are talking balls speeds of 180+ just to be competitive with many of them 190+. Last weeks PGA winner was sending it 190+ every hole. Hell, at the Michigan high school state finals almost every one of the competitive players were 170mph+ and hitting it 300+. These are 16-18 year olds. It's just a completely different game than it even was 20 years ago, let alone 40.

 

The other thing everyone keeps arguing is that all of these distance and speed gains are coming from training, nutrition and sports science and not the equipment. While there is no doubt those things are a major factor you could give Kyle Berkshire a wound balata from the 90s and he's going to be 100 yards shorter off the tee. He might still be the longest hitter in the world (well deserved and no issue at all) but at least he will be able to use something longer than a 7i on the golf course.

 

And you could give him a pinnacle from the 90s and he'd hit it just as far as he does now. 

 

Do you play hickories? Do you think the pros should? Then we could make the courses 5500 yards and save so much space. Or would that be boring to watch? I enjoy watching the players hit it over things. It's fun. I don't want to watch everyone hitting irons off the tee to lay up to some bunker somewhere. I want to watch them lash it and have it land the other side of some trouble that would be a problem for me.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Ping G430 LST 9° Diamana white 63x
Ping G410 LST 3 wood Diamana Thump x
Srixon ZX Utility 19 C-taper S+

Srixon ZX7 4-AW C-taper S+

Vokey SM9 54F and 58C

Odyssey Eleven Tour-Lined Slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

I get it, you don't think there is a problem and I'm sure on your course with your friends everything is fine. All we ask is to look at this issue with an open mind (instead of selfishly not wanting to give up distance).

It’s pretty much every course that has no issue at the amateur level. I’m guessing you are shooting course records at the course you play because they don’t require anything longer than a short iron and it’s boring golf bland you aren’t playing on tour because it would be too easy and you prefer a challenge.

 

I am looking at it with an open mind and using data provided by the superintendents study that shows courses are getting smaller not longer and that there isn’t an actual distance problem anywhere for the 99% of golfers. 
 

Not to mention the people hosting professional tournaments aren’t complaining so on tour there is no distance issue. 
 

3 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

Here are the arguments people like you keep making against the rollback:

"tour average distance hasn't changed much from the early 2000s"

"the data shows there's no big jump"

"just make the courses tighter"

"it's a course design issue not a distance issue"

 

These are all asinine arguments man.

 

The tour averages that people keep quoting as gospel are meaningless. Guys like KJ Choi at 150 ball speed and 60? years old are included in those averages.  The reality is that it's extremely rare for anyone on tour to be competitive on a week to week basis with less than 170mph ball speed and almost all of the best players are 180+.

They show that all the arguments being made for the rollback are asinine and that the problem the ruling bodies claim is or will happen won’t.

 

Course length on the pga tour hasn’t changed in 20 years, distance hasn’t changed and the current limitations on balls and drivers indicates that to be the case. If the technology of clubs and balls were adding distance like everyone claims then we would have seen top end distance increase but we haven’t. What we’ve seen is that more guys hit it 300 now than 5 years ago, 10 years ago and even 20 all using the same limitations on

equipment. The KJ Choi’s were replaced by the guys that are not driving the ball 300 total yards. There are more guys doing that which raises the average thats it. At some point the average may creep closer to the top end but the top end isn’t going to increase 

 

3 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

The other thing that I really wish you guys would consider is that this isn't even about the current pros. Have you seen how fast the competitive college, amateur and mini tour or KFT players are? We are talking balls speeds of 180+ just to be competitive with many of them 190+. Last weeks PGA winner was sending it 190+ every hole. Hell, at the Michigan high school state finals almost every one of the competitive players were 170mph+ and hitting it 300+. These are 16-18 year olds. It's just a completely different game than it even was 20 years ago, let alone 40.

There comes a time when there is too much distance which is what guys like Finau have said. Finau can be 200 but doesn’t because it’s not needed.

And we do see it, but we also see that it’s not the fastest guys on tour winning, if it was all about speed and distance then more guys in the top 25 would be winning. Cam champ is at 190, how’s that working out? Theres nothing wrong with more guys doin that on tv, it will draw the fans, there will still be tournaments held every week during the season and a winner will be declared at the end.

 

A rollback is only going to make for a tour of guys who are faster and longer because distance will be more of advantage. If you study strokes gained you will see that longer courses or rolbacked balls benefit the longer hitter. So who is going to survive on tour the longer guys, then you get everyone e that is within a few yards of the top rather than 10+ away.

 

These guys you talk about are trying to get to the tour, what does the tour do? They setup courses to play fast and long and to be a birdie fest. Why?  Because that’s what their audience wants.

 

Complaining about some guys on tour being able to carry the supposed challenges isn’t a problem, it’s a preference for how golf should be played or to not be entertained. 
 

Changing rules for the majority because of a small minority isn’t how things should be done.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

And you could give him a pinnacle from the 90s and he'd hit it just as far as he does now. 

 

Do you play hickories? Do you think the pros should? Then we could make the courses 5500 yards and save so much space. Or would that be boring to watch? I enjoy watching the players hit it over things. It's fun. I don't want to watch everyone hitting irons off the tee to lay up to some bunker somewhere. I want to watch them lash it and have it land the other side of some trouble that would be a problem for me.

100%. Basically, RBs  want to play a game of yesteryear and anti-RBs like the progressive game that is played right now. Today's viewers like today's optics and the RBs don't.

 

Every generation should play a game which the previous generation is not familiar with.  Those are words from a long line of past great players.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

100%. Basically, RBs  want to play a game of yesteryear and anti-RBs like the progressive game that is played right now. Today's viewers like today's optics and the RBs don't.

 

Every generation should play a game which the previous generation is not familiar with.  Those are words from a long line of past great players.

 

I think the PGA Tour would be much more popular with more superstars.  It's hard to do that when equipment helps the less talented player.  We currently have too much parity and too few stars.  The tour desperately needs a roll back much bigger than the one coming (drivers too) but they can't see it.  It would mean higher ratings for sure.  Just my opinion.

Edited by StoutKing
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StoutKing said:

I think the PGA Tour would be much more popular with more superstars.  It's hard to do that when equipment helps the less talented player.  We currently have too much parity and too few stars.  The tour desperately needs a roll back much bigger than the one coming (drivers too) but they can't see it.  It would mean higher ratings for sure.  Just my opinion.

I think the complete opposite. Golf will go back to being a niche game instead of a real sport. Athletes will return back to baseball, hockey, etc.... Golf will lose many of its TV media deals and tournaments will be shown only on Sundays like it was in the past.

 

So, yeah, let us take the game back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I'd long ago read two former pros (one from the PGAT) say that the consensus opinion among all the best golfers they knew was that Tiger Woods would've won many *more* majors if the equipment/technology hadn't changed from what was used in the 70s and 80s and early 90s, i.e., so superior was his ball-striking and short game and thinking that, with driver heads not so large and forgiving and responsive and golf balls not so finely-tuned to spin a lot around the greens and very little off the tee, the gap between him and everyone else would've proven even larger and more apparent than the one we all witnessed (in real-time/actual history). In other words, the then-new technology basically 'leveled the playing field', allowing many more top golfers into the championship mix by masking their, say, less than stellar ball striking or short game finesse, relative to Tiger's game and abilities. (FYI, those same tour pros said that Greg Norman -- recognized among them as the best driver of the golf ball they'd ever seen in the persimmon era -- was also hurt by the late 90s-early2000s technological leap, as suddenly a lot more golfers with less swing speed and precise technique than Norman had could hit it just as far and farther than he could, and at the same time retain enough accuracy to keep the ball somewhere in the fairway, at least enough of the time to factor in late on Sundays in the majors.) All of which is to say: if we love golf and we want to see the greatest golfers and we hope that the very best among these great golfers will be duly identified and rewarded, then there is a case to be made for finding ways -- at the Tour level -- to limit the artificial advantages accrued to lesser lights because of the technology. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by PeterJP
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

I think the complete opposite. Golf will go back to being a niche game instead of a real sport. Athletes will return back to baseball, hockey, etc.... Golf will lose many of its TV media deals and tournaments will be shown only on Sundays like it was in the past.

 

So, yeah, let us take the game back.

Agree. I like seeing more than 1-2 people having the chance to win.


We get to see guys with different approaches to getting around the course have a chance to win every week. It would be boring if the same 4-5 people were the only ones competing at the end of tournament every week.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

I get it, you don't think there is a problem and I'm sure on your course with your friends everything is fine. All we ask is to look at this issue with an open mind (instead of selfishly not wanting to give up distance).

 

Here are the arguments people like you keep making against the rollback:

"tour average distance hasn't changed much from the early 2000s"

"the data shows there's no big jump"

"just make the courses tighter"

"it's a course design issue not a distance issue"

 

These are all asinine arguments man.

 

 

Rollbackers:

"Keep an open mind"

 

Also rollbackers: "your arguments are assinine"

 

😂

Edited by bcjim
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Zurich Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Zurich Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Zurich Classic - Monday #2
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Alex Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Zurich Classic
      Austin Cook - WITB - 2024 Zurich Classic
      Alejandro Tosti - WITB - 2024 Zurich Classic
      Davis Riley - WITB - 2024 Zurich Classic
      MJ Daffue - WITB - 2024 Zurich Classic
      Nate Lashley - WITB - 2024 Zurich Classic
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      MJ Daffue's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Zurich Classic
      Cameron putters - 2024 Zurich Classic
      Swag covers ( a few custom for Nick Hardy) - 2024 Zurich Classic
      Custom Bettinardi covers for Matt and Alex Fitzpatrick - 2024 Zurich Classic
       
       
       
      • 1 reply
    • 2024 RBC Heritage - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 RBC Heritage - Monday #1
      2024 RBC Heritage - Monday #2
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Justin Thomas - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Justin Rose - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Chandler Phillips - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Nick Dunlap - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Thomas Detry - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Austin Eckroat - WITB - 2024 RBC Heritage
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Wyndham Clark's Odyssey putter - 2024 RBC Heritage
      JT's new Cameron putter - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Justin Thomas testing new Titleist 2 wood - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Cameron putters - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Odyssey putter with triple track alignment aid - 2024 RBC Heritage
      Scotty Cameron The Blk Box putting alignment aid/training aid - 2024 RBC Heritage
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 7 replies
    • 2024 Masters - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Huge shoutout to our member Stinger2irons for taking and posting photos from Augusta
       
       
      Tuesday
       
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 1
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 2
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 3
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 4
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 5
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 6
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 7
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 8
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 9
      The Masters 2024 – Pt. 10
       
       
       
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 14 replies
    • Rory McIlroy testing a new TaylorMade "PROTO" 4-iron – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rory McIlroy testing a new TaylorMade "PROTO" 4-iron – 2024 Valero Texas Open
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 93 replies
    • 2024 Valero Texas Open - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Valero Texas Open - Monday #1
      2024 Valero Texas Open - Tuesday #1
       
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Ben Taylor - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Paul Barjon - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Joe Sullivan - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Wilson Furr - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Ben Willman - SoTex PGA Section Champ - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Jimmy Stanger - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rickie Fowler - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Harrison Endycott - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Vince Whaley - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Kevin Chappell - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Christian Bezuidenhout - WITB (mini) - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Scott Gutschewski - WITB - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Michael S. Kim WITB – 2024 Valero Texas Open
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Ben Taylor with new Titleist TRS 2 wood - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Swag cover - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Greyson Sigg's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Davis Riley's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Josh Teater's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Hzrdus T1100 is back - - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Mark Hubbard testing ported Titleist irons – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Tyson Alexander testing new Titleist TRS 2 wood - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Hideki Matsuyama's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Cobra putters - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Joel Dahmen WITB – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Axis 1 broomstick putter - 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rory McIlroy testing a new TaylorMade "PROTO" 4-iron – 2024 Valero Texas Open
      Rory McIlroy's Trackman numbers w/ driver on the range – 2024 Valero Texas Open
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 4 replies

×
×
  • Create New...