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

[smashdn]

5:07

 

You can't [easily] move topography on a hole to keep the challenges in play.  Your best bet is to move the tee back.  When you cannot do that, you are hoo-dooed.  

 

Bad design?

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

18 minutes ago, smashdn said:

@betarhoalphadelta and @MattC555 I shot you pm's with what I was looking at.

 

 

FYI haven't seen it come through. 

 

Either way, it's just fantastical to think that basically every major ball manufacture found a 3% to 6.6% gain in distance in two years. And these are commercial balls. Have *you* seen it in your own game? Assuming 5.5%, if you can hit a drive 250 you'd now be driving 263. If your previous 170 club was a 7i, that's now your 180 club and you're probably hitting 6i from 170. 

 

I'm pretty sure even without looking at PGA data you can see that it invalidates the idea that you can use the MGS data for such a comparison. 

 

[radiman]

14 minutes ago, smashdn said:

5:07

 

You can't [easily] move topography on a hole to keep the challenges in play.  Your best bet is to move the tee back.  When you cannot do that, you are hoo-dooed.  

 

Bad design?

 

Ha, I don't know.  If I ever get an invite to play that private club, maybe I will find out some day.  

[GoGoErky]

43 minutes ago, smashdn said:

@betarhoalphadelta and @MattC555 I shot you pm's with what I was looking at.

 

Hard for me to say whether PGAT data would be indicative of a ball distance jump aside from true paradigm shifts such as to the ProV1 ca October 2000.  Some of those guys are hoarding old versions and using non-retail versions of balls.

 

I wouldn't use the absence or presence in the PGAT data as the smoking gun one way or the other.

 

I must be the weird outlier who likes the AVX.  Or at least I liked an older version of it.  Data may show otherwise, but I felt it to be longer than a regular prov and less spinning as well.  Less spinning seemed to help me keep it straighter off the tee which also helped me distance-wise.  I can't spin my irons for spit anyway so I just adjusted for a hair bit of roll out on the greens.

All version spin lower than the prov1 and fly lower. If you are creating too much spin with driver then I can see the avx spinning less and helping you. Too much spin and not enough spin are both bad for distance.

 

The crew i played with from the time i started til before covid hit had a couple guys that hit high spinning driver shots. One switched from prov1 to chrome soft and saw less spin and not as much left to right movement which added distance since it wasn’t going as far offline. The other one switch to the Q star and had similar experience 

[Shilgy]

6 hours ago, MattC555 said:

 

This comparison is worth watching, 2000 vs 2020 Pro V1.  It includes using the balls outside and hitting on a monitor, as well as cutting the balls in half to see the visual differences in construction.

 

 

But I think @smashdn said is was 19 yards…not 2!  
OOPS, SORRY SMASH…I MISREAD YOUR POST EARLIER. SKIP THE LINE ABOVE.
 

Must be the players…..Nah!

Then it’s gotta be the shaft…or driver heads….or fairway cut(oops, can’t blame that ruling heads want it firm and fast…but shorter.

 

Where’s Robin Williams when we need him?  He could do a great bit on this fiasco.

 

 

Edited March 7 by Shilgy

[Pnwpingi210]

43 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

All version spin lower than the prov1 and fly lower. If you are creating too much spin with driver then I can see the avx spinning less and helping you. Too much spin and not enough spin are both bad for distance.

 

The crew i played with from the time i started til before covid hit had a couple guys that hit high spinning driver shots. One switched from prov1 to chrome soft and saw less spin and not as much left to right movement which added distance since it wasn’t going as far offline. The other one switch to the Q star and had similar experience 

This is the scenario I described on the last page of this thread when I said a high compression urethane ball isn’t the longest ball for all golfers and all swing speeds.

 

pro v1 is mid to upper 80s compression, qstar and chrome soft are mid to low 70s compression.  

[Shilgy]

7 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

This is the scenario I described on the last page of this thread when I said a high compression urethane ball isn’t the longest ball for all golfers and all swing speeds.

 

pro v1 is mid to upper 80s compression, qstar and chrome soft are mid to low 70s compression.  

No wonder I couldn’t stand the Chrome Soft! Mushy.🤬

[TLUBulldogGolf]

13 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

This is the scenario I described on the last page of this thread when I said a high compression urethane ball isn’t the longest ball for all golfers and all swing speeds.

 

pro v1 is mid to upper 80s compression, qstar and chrome soft are mid to low 70s compression.  

At slower swings the results are close, the premium balls still win out on ball speed I believe but softer balls do tend to spin less. I prefer to look at ball speed because you can just fit your driver to the ball you prefer (assuming it works through the rest of the bag).

Edited March 7 by TLUBulldogGolf

[Pnwpingi210]

7 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

At slower swings the results are close, the premium balls still win out on ball speed I believe but softer balls do tend to spin less. I prefer to look at ball speed because you can just fit your driver to the ball you prefer (assuming it works through the rest of the bag).

I don’t disagree with this.  But there are golfers that struggle with spin due path/face relationships that can’t fully be managed with a head.  
 

for the slow speed golfer than can create a relatively neutral spin axis, high compression probably works best.  

Edited March 7 by Pnwpingi210

[smashdn]

15 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

FYI haven't seen it come through. 

 

 

Because I am a dummy and meant to tag someone else.

[maamold]

On 3/7/2024 at 6:03 AM, Ty_Webb said:

So to clarify, the restrictions on balls and clubs now are more strict than they were in the late 90s? But distance is an equipment problem? 

Just pointing out that using this single example as "see it's not the equipment!" is probably not the best argument since, in this case, it was the wind. 

Zuback won in 1996 with 351, then again in 1998 with 361, 1999 with 376, and 2006 at 368. None were anywhere near 412y. 

[Ty_Webb]

4 minutes ago, maamold said:

Just pointing out that using this single example as "see it's not the equipment!" is probably not the best argument since, in this case, it was the wind. 

Zuback won in 1996 with 351, then again in 1998 with 361, 1999 with 376, and 2006 at 368. None were anywhere near 412y. 

I did think about the wind when I linked the video, but there can't have been much of it - I couldn't see any pants flapping or anything like that. Maybe it was at altitude, but given that 1999 was longer than 2006, that would tend to back up my point about the ball distances not really changing as a result of the pro v1 when looking at purely distance balls

[maamold]

17 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I did think about the wind when I linked the video, but there can't have been much of it - I couldn't see any pants flapping or anything like that. Maybe it was at altitude, but given that 1999 was longer than 2006, that would tend to back up my point about the ball distances not really changing as a result of the pro v1 when looking at purely distance balls

The tree's behind the competitors were moving in the wind. The bushes in front of the competitors are really moving around. The flag at the end of the range at ground level was waving decently. You could see the big Re/Max balloon at the end of the range moving around from the wind.

 

 

Edited March 8 by maamold
Video

[bcjim]

I'll get back to you in 6 months or so when I finish reading all that. 

[MattC555]

Has Miles returned????

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

Has Miles returned????

 

Reads exactly how he would post imo.

[Ty_Webb]

Wow - so much time and effort put into that and no one is going to read much past the first 2 or 3 points. But those were not particularly well argued and the conclusion was a giant leap, so why would they read more?

[GoGoErky]

19 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Wow - so much time and effort put into that and no one is going to read much past the first 2 or 3 points. But those were not particularly well argued and the conclusion was a giant leap, so why would they read more?

I glanced thru some of it and none of what I read was well argued and done didn’t even represent the points that were made.

 

gotta love first post coming out like that 

[gvogel]

8 hours ago, stevesteven1 said:

summary of 389 pages.. so the next time someone says ‘just grow the rough’ refer them to this post..
 

Claim 1: Courses aren’t getting longer

Three near me (that I know about) have done . They have three things in common. They hold decent level pro or am tournaments, they have money, and they have the space. 
I’m sure it’s the case that most courses aren’t getting longer.. because none of those criteria apply. And in the uk in particular even if they wanted to, they couldn’t, because the course is landlocked.

Verdict on claim 1: wrong

Claim 2: pros always hit the middle of the clubface 

Yes. That’s why they are pro’s. They do overwhelmingly hit the sweetspot, so a much smaller club head won’t make much difference. 
EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE UNDER PRESSURE. This is the bit that is missing from the argument. You can watch a hundred YouTube videos of a modern pro hitting a persimmon well on a range. It’s meaningless. What counts is those back nine Sunday tee shots with the tournament on the line

Masters Champion Jon Rahm's Final Round | Every Single Shot | The Masters
Best player in the world.. 11.30.. nearly misses the ball. Want to bet what happens with a persimmon in his hand there?

Verdict: wrong when it counts 

Claim 3 just narrow fairways etc 

Advocates for this seem to think increasing risk reward for the longer hitters is a perfectly sensible and reasonable ‘answer’ to bomb and gouge
No, it isn’t. First off, other people play these courses the rest of the year. No club committee is tricking up their course such that the average golfer can’t enjoy it. It’s also completely arbitrary and unfair. Nobody is against long straight hitting. The best players SHOULD be able to separate themselves with that skill. The bigger the club head, the bigger the sweetspot, the harder it is for anyone to stand out with long, straight driving, and a historical, valued skill is lost from the game. Is this why there is a different winner every week, and only one currently active player in the all time top 20 major winners?


Verdict: shouldn’t happen 

Claim 4 they are just better athletes now..

Yeah, sure. This has almost become a running joke given the space age tech now in use. But for the record, yes I’m sure golfers are fitter, stronger, faster as a collective than they were in the past.. precisely because huge sweetspots have enabled more athletic players to swing harder and fear a big miss less. Would they still swing as hard with a 200cc club? On a back nine on Sunday ?? 
Maybe there are still people who genuinely, in their heart, feel it would make no difference. As much as I might think that goes against all logic and common sense, and decades of playing with and watching top level golf and golfers.. yes perhaps, just perhaps, you are right.
IN WHICH CASE WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT. Just roll back the size of the clubhead, you’re happy(because it makes no difference) I’m happy (because I think it does ) and the world will keep turning..

Verdict: irrelevant 



Claim 5 low score wins

What does this even mean? Very few of us rollbackers ever even mention the score. The usga/r and a certainly haven’t. But again, if low score wins, why do you care if they drive it 250,300 or 350? Why do you care if the score is level or -30? We don’t. But we care about how the game is played, about a full test of every club, about shaping the ball around hazards rather than just bombing it over the top of any trouble. That was fun when a Daly, a Seve or a Jack did it, but when half the field can do it? Miss me with that 

Verdict: nonsensical 

Claim 6 the game shouldn’t bifurcate 

What ido you think handicap golf is if not bifurcation from the pro game? That’s the sensible point to enforce a traditional size club head. Gross amateur competitions or pro events, 200cc max. Anyone else use what you like (including the ball frankly.. most hcap ams bags don’t comply anyway so nothing is lost)
The game should be easy, accessible, enjoyable for hcap amateurs. Nowhere, anywhere does any ruling body want to make the game harder for the average recreational player. Read the report. Any and all rollbacks are to restore shot values for good players on historical courses and to retard the expanding footprints of those courses in particular. It makes economic and environmental sense, and for those of us who felt there was little wrong with the professional game before the 460cc era, perhaps we can persuade new golf fans that sometimes, just something, things really were better in the old days. 

Verdict: we are bifurcated. The average hcap amateur has absolutely nothing in common with a tournament professional, and never has done. 

Claim 7 just slow the fairways

Firmer faster courses are harder for pro’s. The trouble with a long lush fairway is that you make it effectively wider and therefore encourage a fuller faster swing. The real issue with the 460, and what I’m sure wasn’t appreciated at the time, is how easy it has become to tee it up and get immense carry. The CARRY is the problem, not the roll. For those of us who can remember golf from back when, teeing the ball up was a risk. Very easy even for a pro to roof it, hence very few did it. Now? Tee it high let it fly, yawn, snooze..

Verdict: won’t work as intended 

Claim 8 it’s a non problem as it effects so few players 

If you think this only affects pro’s and members of historic courses, you definitely need to get out more. Just about every half decent single figure hcap under 40 is well over 100mph ss these days. Many are way quicker. Sure, the guys like me who learnt fairways and greens many moons ago aren’t generally making a 6500 yard course look silly, but the generation who grew up with sg and supersize me clubs see it all very differently. Par 5s and short par 4s get horribly backed up in a way that your typical 240 hitting am from a previous generation didn’t have to worry about. What happens in a few short years when the majority know nothing other than whaling away off the tee.?

Verdict unless you have a course to yourself, we are all increasingly affected by out of control tech 

Claim 9 confusing for people who play gross and net events 

My suggestion is mandating a small driver for gross comps pro or am. Are you at a disadvantage in a concurrent net comp? Yes. Do you actually care? I’m not sure. If you are good enough to be playing in a gross comp I’d bet that is your focus ie your typical club championship. 
But if you go back to playing your 460 the week after? Mmm. Personally I can’t get too excited one way or the other, but I can’t speak for everyone..

Verdict: maybe? 

Claim 10 equipment will get more expensive 

If a mini driver was mandated that’s a new product line to throw r and d at certainly. But would it be all that different tech wise to a modern 3 wood? And how much of that $500 is really the cost of the club and not just marketing and endorsements?

Verdict: equipment is already expensive. If you are prepared to pay 5 bills for a club is 6 or 7 going to ruin you? 

Claim 11 scoring hasn’t improved/scoring has improved

The antis are a bit all over the place on this one. If it has improved, it’s ‘talent pool, bro’. If it hasn’t, then that is somehow proof that the ball isn’t going too far..

Verdict. Can’t argue with that sort of circular logic, give them that one 

Claim 12 long hitters aren’t dominating 

Actually true. Total driving matters, not just length. Approach play is the most statistically important part of the game. But what seems to escape recognition by the antis is that a) you have to be long enough to get on the tour in the first place(how many below 170mph average have established themselves recently?) and secondly no rollbackers are trying to diminish the importance of long hitting anyway. It’s the opposite, because when everyone is long, no one is long. Long and straight should be an exceptional skill, not something half the field can do

Verdict : a non argument 


Claim 13 it’s exciting watching guys hit it 3 bills

Do you know it’s three bills if the announcer doesn’t say it? I’d counter that’s it’s exciting watching an exceptional player hitting it that far without equipment doing a lot of the heavy lifting. Daly was always the guy the fans would make a beeline for because no one else could do what he did, year in year out. We haven’t had a truly generational driving talent since Tiger 1.0 25 years ago and I truly fear we will never see one again. In fact if you actually go to a tournament (many antis sound like they never have) you will struggle to visually tell the difference between Rory and any average hitter.  

Verdict. Exceptional is exciting. Common place, less so. 

Claim 14 it’s a deeper talent pool so more winners, it’s not equipment leveling out the field 

I’d have time for this argument if it was true in other sports, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be. We’ve just had three of the greatest men’s tennis players in history, and two of the greatest soccer players. And the fastest man on the planet by miles. How did they separate themselves against their ever deeper talent pool of competition? Possibly because their opponents weren’t all turning up with these?

Verdict no evidence at all for that 

Claim 15 game is at peak popularity 

Is it? More courses shutting than opening. Viewing down, even in majors. I know this is arguable but I counted about 200 people around the green for Dunlaps historic amateur win at pga west. But whether the game is growing or not, relax. Nobody wants to take the frying pan off the average golfer anyway. Read the report.

Verdict maybe. Who knows. But it has little to nothing to do with equipment changes at the top end

Claim 16 there is a sweetspot for driving distance 

SG says this is bunkum. We know with an extremely high degree of certainty you are better off closer to the green. It’s been measured endlessly. There is no reason for any player to hold back IF they can hit it straight. No one has shown they can swing at a genuine 100% effort and be just as straight as at 80 or 90% of flat out. Not on a range, a course, a simulator or anything else.

Verdict no evidence at all for that 

Claim 17 distances won’t continue to rise 

An incredibly dangerous assumption. Shafts can get lighter. New materials more available. New aerodynamics not thought of before. Driver heads are only getting more forgiving over time and that isn’t stopping. Yes the distance leader hasn’t changed much but the average certainly has and if you understand anything at all about the debate you’ll realize that’s a bad thing 

Verdict ask Frank Thomas 

Claim 18 no one is stopping you from using hickory and featheries 

True. Sort of. But personally I like to play competitively and there is no league I’m aware of for historic equipment. Many decent ams in gross comps would just like a smaller driver sweetspot such that you can’t just whale away hit it anywhere on the face and still be in play. That’s not how golf was played for 200 years and doesn’t have to be now 

Verdict technically yes. Practically.. just no

Claim 19 distances are mostly down to optimization 

Fine. If you don’t think an expanded sweetspot helps you’d better let Tiger, Sandy, Nick, Adam and a few other multiple major winners know, because they all say the same thing. Driver is too easy to swing hard. Even Rory has finally realized he might have won something in the last 8 years if he was able to separate himself from the competition by dint of harder to hit clubs.
Optimization has helped plenty, but no one is taking about outlawing it anyway. It’s always existed with whatever tech was available at the time (which meant feel and real world results)

Verdict it’s not all or mostly optimization. Nobody credible thinks that (ie anyone who knows what it takes to win at the highest level)

Claim 20 must roll it back 20% 

This doesn’t add up at all. This week the average par 4 is 440. Roll back an average 300 yard drive 20% it’s now 240, so 200 in.. but that is now 20% longer as well so a 240y approach.. just an average hole for an average tour pro. So a below average hitter now can’t reach the majority of par 4’s. Even an average hitter won’t reach half of them. And in reality it’s even less because they only hit about 2/3 fairways at most 

Verdict exaggerating to make a point is not sensible 

Claim 21 manufacturers don’t want to make two sets of equipment as they can’t sell tour spec stuff to the average golfer in a bifurcated game 

How many golfers actually know what is any pro’s bag? At most the overwhelming majority know who sponsors a handful of players, but that’s about it. Not to mention the player may very well not have a single club or ball made by his sponsors anyway.
Why do manufacturers enter motor sport at vast expense? What they race in any series can’t even remotely be bought by anyone. But it gets the brand out there, and if the vehicle wins sales rise by association.
Golf is the same. Rory hits every fairway one week on tour, Joe Sausage goes out and buys that brand driver. It won’t have the same shaft, grip, loft or weighting. 

Verdict unlikely to be true 

Claim 22 any rollback of anything will trickle down to amateurs at all levels 

Never heard any rollbacker want to interfere with the fun any hcap player gets out of the game. Personally I’d be happy to make the game even easier at that level, a bigger club/ball whatever. No serious golfer could care less about losing to a 12 hcap who should be off 6, it’s the same thing.
And yes the RBs have a history of mucking things up, but one thing they absolutely do not have a history of is making the game harder for the average golfer. More like the total opposite.
Besides which, if it really matters to you as a hcap amateur, if you want to play rolled back equipment the same as the pro’s, who is stopping you? 

Verdict.. maybe? But unlikely 

Claim 23 it’s all just to protect a small handful of historic courses 

Maybe 20 years ago you might have got away with that but any semi decent level of golf requires substantially more than the typical uk 6500 yards. Lower division scratch leagues are full of younger guys I’ve never seen one much under 110mph. That is drive wedge basically everywhere, and that isn’t identifying the best all round golfer in any reality.
You can think of most of the uk as a giant metro area.. Almost all courses are effectively landlocked, so even if you had the money, you aren’t stretching them anyway. Goes without saying there is little space for gigantic new 7500y courses I can only think of one in the entire southeast built in the last few years (Centurion, where they have had LIV last couple years )
Long story short, it definitely isn’t just 4 or 5 historic Open courses that are complaining. IT’s anywhere that holds any event for youngish moderate single figure players or better

Verdict It’s actually a very large handful of courses and that number is growing every year as new players enter the game who have been brought up on the swing for the fences mentality 

Claim 24 architectural integrity doesn’t matter 

I’d say it’s a shame if you can’t appreciate a mckenzie, a Colt or a Ross. But no matter.. some like Bergman, some like Michael Bay. I’ll just point out that when tourists come to London and throw in some golf, I don’t see them at Centurion or the Grove. They head for Walton Heath, the Berkshire, St Georges. But if you really couldn’t care less whether the tour plays at pga Colorado or Hilton Head I guess that’s your prerogative 

Verdict matter of opinion nothing more or less

Claim 24 have to retool the bag 

The same as everyone retooled when going from hickory to steel? From persimmon to metal? Solid balls, square grooves, etc etc.. any ‘innovation’ has had the same effect. And if Tiger or Jack had to do it you know what ? They’d lick their chops and anticipate other guys not adapting mentally as well as they would, and they’d win even more 

Verdict boo hoo diddums

Claim 25 only the longest will be able to compete 

Which is to completely misunderstand what the rollbackers are arguing. The tech has equalized all or most of the players out (witness the average drive getting longer but the longest not doing so). Tech does way, way too much for the best players and no one can stand out on tee shots the way a Nicklaus or Norman used to, when a driver was considerably harder to hit long and straight.

Verdict that’s a benefit not a negative 

Claim 26 would need to slow and soften greens 

Soften yes, for longer approaches, but slow? Why? Perfectly possible to get greens running over 10 on the stump whilst receptive to pretty much anything. I know, I’ve played them. 

Verdict nope 

Claim 27 fans don’t want the ball to go less far they don’t want to watch corey pavin 

Faldo had more people watching him in this country than the rest of the course put together. Loads watched Trevino, I enjoyed watching Pavin at the Open years ago. Shorter hitting players, or those who could work the ball, showed there were many ways to skin a cat. We might have variety of players now but it’s only variety within the subset of those who can swing well over 110mph comfortably. 
No one really stands out on a course now for distance anyway. Bryson maybe, but there are a handful of guys close to him and some have been longer here and there. Daly got massive crowds because he was on a totally different level distance wise to the rest of the field.

Verdict it’s about variety. Or used to be. 

Claim 28 should have acted 20 years ago too late now 

Certainly should have seen what was obvious 20 years ago. Enough people said as much. I’d say it’s too late NOT to act now though.

Verdict can’t agree there 

Claim 29 jack/tiger didn’t complain when they were winning 

Yet again a total misunderstanding. What they have both said many times in many ways is that the Average of the field is too long. That’s the point. If it was one person hitting it like they did in their primes they wouldn’t say a word. No one would. But when half the field can carry a bunker without breaking sweat? 
Incidentally this ties into the claim that they just want their records to stand forever. Well, if that’s what they want, the current trajectory of golf guarantees it. No truly great player since Tiger 1.0 25 years ago. A different nobody winning every week on tour. Take skill out of the game, the hot putter wins every week.

Verdict they were both actually complaining when winning anyway. Rory is now, but late to the party 

Claim 30 no courses have been obsoleted 

Fulford, Queens Bournemouth, Dukes Woburn, St Pierre, Lindrick, Moor Park, and, most egregiously, Sunningdale.. plenty more have had top level pro events but won’t again on the regular tour. St Mellion isn’t even very old but is only listed at 6300y. Had one of the biggest events on the euro tour for years.. want to bet it ever returns?

Claim 31 no course HAS to lengthen 

Augusta could indeed have stayed at 6800y forever. But with wide open fairways that is driver wedge for most of the field on most of the holes. It’s still the Masters, yes. But it’s not a test of anything other than driver, wedge, and putter. That’s certainly not what McKenzie and Jones wanted. As that tournament remains by far and away the most popular of the year, I’d suggest they are doing something right.

Verdict true. But they did. Riddle me that..

Lord, I wish I could have written that post.  Great summary of some 390 pages.

[bcjim]

43 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Lord, I wish I could have written that post.  Great summary of some 390 pages.

You did write it except it was published in 596 chapters.😂

Edited March 12 by bcjim

[Pnwpingi210]

What are the opinions on Sawgrass and the distance debate?  Seems to be one of the few courses the challenge the golfer off the tee should they try to drive it 300-330.  Lots of lateral hazards in those zones.

 

interesting some of the longer hitters have been testing 2 woods earlier in the week.

[mgoblue83]

On 3/12/2024 at 3:44 AM, stevesteven1 said:

summary of 389 pages.. so the next time someone says ‘just grow the rough’ refer them to this post..
 

Claim 1: Courses aren’t getting longer

Three near me (that I know about) have done . They have three things in common. They hold decent level pro or am tournaments, they have money, and they have the space. 
I’m sure it’s the case that most courses aren’t getting longer.. because none of those criteria apply. And in the uk in particular even if they wanted to, they couldn’t, because the course is landlocked.

Verdict on claim 1: wrong

Claim 2: pros always hit the middle of the clubface 

Yes. That’s why they are pro’s. They do overwhelmingly hit the sweetspot, so a much smaller club head won’t make much difference. 
EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE UNDER PRESSURE. This is the bit that is missing from the argument. You can watch a hundred YouTube videos of a modern pro hitting a persimmon well on a range. It’s meaningless. What counts is those back nine Sunday tee shots with the tournament on the line

Masters Champion Jon Rahm's Final Round | Every Single Shot | The Masters
Best player in the world.. 11.30.. nearly misses the ball. Want to bet what happens with a persimmon in his hand there?

Verdict: wrong when it counts 

Claim 3 just narrow fairways etc 

Advocates for this seem to think increasing risk reward for the longer hitters is a perfectly sensible and reasonable ‘answer’ to bomb and gouge
No, it isn’t. First off, other people play these courses the rest of the year. No club committee is tricking up their course such that the average golfer can’t enjoy it. It’s also completely arbitrary and unfair. Nobody is against long straight hitting. The best players SHOULD be able to separate themselves with that skill. The bigger the club head, the bigger the sweetspot, the harder it is for anyone to stand out with long, straight driving, and a historical, valued skill is lost from the game. Is this why there is a different winner every week, and only one currently active player in the all time top 20 major winners?


Verdict: shouldn’t happen 

Claim 4 they are just better athletes now..

Yeah, sure. This has almost become a running joke given the space age tech now in use. But for the record, yes I’m sure golfers are fitter, stronger, faster as a collective than they were in the past.. precisely because huge sweetspots have enabled more athletic players to swing harder and fear a big miss less. Would they still swing as hard with a 200cc club? On a back nine on Sunday ?? 
Maybe there are still people who genuinely, in their heart, feel it would make no difference. As much as I might think that goes against all logic and common sense, and decades of playing with and watching top level golf and golfers.. yes perhaps, just perhaps, you are right.
IN WHICH CASE WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT. Just roll back the size of the clubhead, you’re happy(because it makes no difference) I’m happy (because I think it does ) and the world will keep turning..

Verdict: irrelevant 



Claim 5 low score wins

What does this even mean? Very few of us rollbackers ever even mention the score. The usga/r and a certainly haven’t. But again, if low score wins, why do you care if they drive it 250,300 or 350? Why do you care if the score is level or -30? We don’t. But we care about how the game is played, about a full test of every club, about shaping the ball around hazards rather than just bombing it over the top of any trouble. That was fun when a Daly, a Seve or a Jack did it, but when half the field can do it? Miss me with that 

Verdict: nonsensical 

Claim 6 the game shouldn’t bifurcate 

What ido you think handicap golf is if not bifurcation from the pro game? That’s the sensible point to enforce a traditional size club head. Gross amateur competitions or pro events, 200cc max. Anyone else use what you like (including the ball frankly.. most hcap ams bags don’t comply anyway so nothing is lost)
The game should be easy, accessible, enjoyable for hcap amateurs. Nowhere, anywhere does any ruling body want to make the game harder for the average recreational player. Read the report. Any and all rollbacks are to restore shot values for good players on historical courses and to retard the expanding footprints of those courses in particular. It makes economic and environmental sense, and for those of us who felt there was little wrong with the professional game before the 460cc era, perhaps we can persuade new golf fans that sometimes, just something, things really were better in the old days. 

Verdict: we are bifurcated. The average hcap amateur has absolutely nothing in common with a tournament professional, and never has done. 

Claim 7 just slow the fairways

Firmer faster courses are harder for pro’s. The trouble with a long lush fairway is that you make it effectively wider and therefore encourage a fuller faster swing. The real issue with the 460, and what I’m sure wasn’t appreciated at the time, is how easy it has become to tee it up and get immense carry. The CARRY is the problem, not the roll. For those of us who can remember golf from back when, teeing the ball up was a risk. Very easy even for a pro to roof it, hence very few did it. Now? Tee it high let it fly, yawn, snooze..

Verdict: won’t work as intended 

Claim 8 it’s a non problem as it effects so few players 

If you think this only affects pro’s and members of historic courses, you definitely need to get out more. Just about every half decent single figure hcap under 40 is well over 100mph ss these days. Many are way quicker. Sure, the guys like me who learnt fairways and greens many moons ago aren’t generally making a 6500 yard course look silly, but the generation who grew up with sg and supersize me clubs see it all very differently. Par 5s and short par 4s get horribly backed up in a way that your typical 240 hitting am from a previous generation didn’t have to worry about. What happens in a few short years when the majority know nothing other than whaling away off the tee.?

Verdict unless you have a course to yourself, we are all increasingly affected by out of control tech 

Claim 9 confusing for people who play gross and net events 

My suggestion is mandating a small driver for gross comps pro or am. Are you at a disadvantage in a concurrent net comp? Yes. Do you actually care? I’m not sure. If you are good enough to be playing in a gross comp I’d bet that is your focus ie your typical club championship. 
But if you go back to playing your 460 the week after? Mmm. Personally I can’t get too excited one way or the other, but I can’t speak for everyone..

Verdict: maybe? 

Claim 10 equipment will get more expensive 

If a mini driver was mandated that’s a new product line to throw r and d at certainly. But would it be all that different tech wise to a modern 3 wood? And how much of that $500 is really the cost of the club and not just marketing and endorsements?

Verdict: equipment is already expensive. If you are prepared to pay 5 bills for a club is 6 or 7 going to ruin you? 

Claim 11 scoring hasn’t improved/scoring has improved

The antis are a bit all over the place on this one. If it has improved, it’s ‘talent pool, bro’. If it hasn’t, then that is somehow proof that the ball isn’t going too far..

Verdict. Can’t argue with that sort of circular logic, give them that one 

Claim 12 long hitters aren’t dominating 

Actually true. Total driving matters, not just length. Approach play is the most statistically important part of the game. But what seems to escape recognition by the antis is that a) you have to be long enough to get on the tour in the first place(how many below 170mph average have established themselves recently?) and secondly no rollbackers are trying to diminish the importance of long hitting anyway. It’s the opposite, because when everyone is long, no one is long. Long and straight should be an exceptional skill, not something half the field can do

Verdict : a non argument 


Claim 13 it’s exciting watching guys hit it 3 bills

Do you know it’s three bills if the announcer doesn’t say it? I’d counter that’s it’s exciting watching an exceptional player hitting it that far without equipment doing a lot of the heavy lifting. Daly was always the guy the fans would make a beeline for because no one else could do what he did, year in year out. We haven’t had a truly generational driving talent since Tiger 1.0 25 years ago and I truly fear we will never see one again. In fact if you actually go to a tournament (many antis sound like they never have) you will struggle to visually tell the difference between Rory and any average hitter.  

Verdict. Exceptional is exciting. Common place, less so. 

Claim 14 it’s a deeper talent pool so more winners, it’s not equipment leveling out the field 

I’d have time for this argument if it was true in other sports, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be. We’ve just had three of the greatest men’s tennis players in history, and two of the greatest soccer players. And the fastest man on the planet by miles. How did they separate themselves against their ever deeper talent pool of competition? Possibly because their opponents weren’t all turning up with these?

Verdict no evidence at all for that 

Claim 15 game is at peak popularity 

Is it? More courses shutting than opening. Viewing down, even in majors. I know this is arguable but I counted about 200 people around the green for Dunlaps historic amateur win at pga west. But whether the game is growing or not, relax. Nobody wants to take the frying pan off the average golfer anyway. Read the report.

Verdict maybe. Who knows. But it has little to nothing to do with equipment changes at the top end

Claim 16 there is a sweetspot for driving distance 

SG says this is bunkum. We know with an extremely high degree of certainty you are better off closer to the green. It’s been measured endlessly. There is no reason for any player to hold back IF they can hit it straight. No one has shown they can swing at a genuine 100% effort and be just as straight as at 80 or 90% of flat out. Not on a range, a course, a simulator or anything else.

Verdict no evidence at all for that 

Claim 17 distances won’t continue to rise 

An incredibly dangerous assumption. Shafts can get lighter. New materials more available. New aerodynamics not thought of before. Driver heads are only getting more forgiving over time and that isn’t stopping. Yes the distance leader hasn’t changed much but the average certainly has and if you understand anything at all about the debate you’ll realize that’s a bad thing 

Verdict ask Frank Thomas 

Claim 18 no one is stopping you from using hickory and featheries 

True. Sort of. But personally I like to play competitively and there is no league I’m aware of for historic equipment. Many decent ams in gross comps would just like a smaller driver sweetspot such that you can’t just whale away hit it anywhere on the face and still be in play. That’s not how golf was played for 200 years and doesn’t have to be now 

Verdict technically yes. Practically.. just no

Claim 19 distances are mostly down to optimization 

Fine. If you don’t think an expanded sweetspot helps you’d better let Tiger, Sandy, Nick, Adam and a few other multiple major winners know, because they all say the same thing. Driver is too easy to swing hard. Even Rory has finally realized he might have won something in the last 8 years if he was able to separate himself from the competition by dint of harder to hit clubs.
Optimization has helped plenty, but no one is taking about outlawing it anyway. It’s always existed with whatever tech was available at the time (which meant feel and real world results)

Verdict it’s not all or mostly optimization. Nobody credible thinks that (ie anyone who knows what it takes to win at the highest level)

Claim 20 must roll it back 20% 

This doesn’t add up at all. This week the average par 4 is 440. Roll back an average 300 yard drive 20% it’s now 240, so 200 in.. but that is now 20% longer as well so a 240y approach.. just an average hole for an average tour pro. So a below average hitter now can’t reach the majority of par 4’s. Even an average hitter won’t reach half of them. And in reality it’s even less because they only hit about 2/3 fairways at most 

Verdict exaggerating to make a point is not sensible 

Claim 21 manufacturers don’t want to make two sets of equipment as they can’t sell tour spec stuff to the average golfer in a bifurcated game 

How many golfers actually know what is any pro’s bag? At most the overwhelming majority know who sponsors a handful of players, but that’s about it. Not to mention the player may very well not have a single club or ball made by his sponsors anyway.
Why do manufacturers enter motor sport at vast expense? What they race in any series can’t even remotely be bought by anyone. But it gets the brand out there, and if the vehicle wins sales rise by association.
Golf is the same. Rory hits every fairway one week on tour, Joe Sausage goes out and buys that brand driver. It won’t have the same shaft, grip, loft or weighting. 

Verdict unlikely to be true 

Claim 22 any rollback of anything will trickle down to amateurs at all levels 

Never heard any rollbacker want to interfere with the fun any hcap player gets out of the game. Personally I’d be happy to make the game even easier at that level, a bigger club/ball whatever. No serious golfer could care less about losing to a 12 hcap who should be off 6, it’s the same thing.
And yes the RBs have a history of mucking things up, but one thing they absolutely do not have a history of is making the game harder for the average golfer. More like the total opposite.
Besides which, if it really matters to you as a hcap amateur, if you want to play rolled back equipment the same as the pro’s, who is stopping you? 

Verdict.. maybe? But unlikely 

Claim 23 it’s all just to protect a small handful of historic courses 

Maybe 20 years ago you might have got away with that but any semi decent level of golf requires substantially more than the typical uk 6500 yards. Lower division scratch leagues are full of younger guys I’ve never seen one much under 110mph. That is drive wedge basically everywhere, and that isn’t identifying the best all round golfer in any reality.
You can think of most of the uk as a giant metro area.. Almost all courses are effectively landlocked, so even if you had the money, you aren’t stretching them anyway. Goes without saying there is little space for gigantic new 7500y courses I can only think of one in the entire southeast built in the last few years (Centurion, where they have had LIV last couple years )
Long story short, it definitely isn’t just 4 or 5 historic Open courses that are complaining. IT’s anywhere that holds any event for youngish moderate single figure players or better

Verdict It’s actually a very large handful of courses and that number is growing every year as new players enter the game who have been brought up on the swing for the fences mentality 

Claim 24 architectural integrity doesn’t matter 

I’d say it’s a shame if you can’t appreciate a mckenzie, a Colt or a Ross. But no matter.. some like Bergman, some like Michael Bay. I’ll just point out that when tourists come to London and throw in some golf, I don’t see them at Centurion or the Grove. They head for Walton Heath, the Berkshire, St Georges. But if you really couldn’t care less whether the tour plays at pga Colorado or Hilton Head I guess that’s your prerogative 

Verdict matter of opinion nothing more or less

Claim 24 have to retool the bag 

The same as everyone retooled when going from hickory to steel? From persimmon to metal? Solid balls, square grooves, etc etc.. any ‘innovation’ has had the same effect. And if Tiger or Jack had to do it you know what ? They’d lick their chops and anticipate other guys not adapting mentally as well as they would, and they’d win even more 

Verdict boo hoo diddums

Claim 25 only the longest will be able to compete 

Which is to completely misunderstand what the rollbackers are arguing. The tech has equalized all or most of the players out (witness the average drive getting longer but the longest not doing so). Tech does way, way too much for the best players and no one can stand out on tee shots the way a Nicklaus or Norman used to, when a driver was considerably harder to hit long and straight.

Verdict that’s a benefit not a negative 

Claim 26 would need to slow and soften greens 

Soften yes, for longer approaches, but slow? Why? Perfectly possible to get greens running over 10 on the stump whilst receptive to pretty much anything. I know, I’ve played them. 

Verdict nope 

Claim 27 fans don’t want the ball to go less far they don’t want to watch corey pavin 

Faldo had more people watching him in this country than the rest of the course put together. Loads watched Trevino, I enjoyed watching Pavin at the Open years ago. Shorter hitting players, or those who could work the ball, showed there were many ways to skin a cat. We might have variety of players now but it’s only variety within the subset of those who can swing well over 110mph comfortably. 
No one really stands out on a course now for distance anyway. Bryson maybe, but there are a handful of guys close to him and some have been longer here and there. Daly got massive crowds because he was on a totally different level distance wise to the rest of the field.

Verdict it’s about variety. Or used to be. 

Claim 28 should have acted 20 years ago too late now 

Certainly should have seen what was obvious 20 years ago. Enough people said as much. I’d say it’s too late NOT to act now though.

Verdict can’t agree there 

Claim 29 jack/tiger didn’t complain when they were winning 

Yet again a total misunderstanding. What they have both said many times in many ways is that the Average of the field is too long. That’s the point. If it was one person hitting it like they did in their primes they wouldn’t say a word. No one would. But when half the field can carry a bunker without breaking sweat? 
Incidentally this ties into the claim that they just want their records to stand forever. Well, if that’s what they want, the current trajectory of golf guarantees it. No truly great player since Tiger 1.0 25 years ago. A different nobody winning every week on tour. Take skill out of the game, the hot putter wins every week.

Verdict they were both actually complaining when winning anyway. Rory is now, but late to the party 

Claim 30 no courses have been obsoleted 

Fulford, Queens Bournemouth, Dukes Woburn, St Pierre, Lindrick, Moor Park, and, most egregiously, Sunningdale.. plenty more have had top level pro events but won’t again on the regular tour. St Mellion isn’t even very old but is only listed at 6300y. Had one of the biggest events on the euro tour for years.. want to bet it ever returns?

Claim 31 no course HAS to lengthen 

Augusta could indeed have stayed at 6800y forever. But with wide open fairways that is driver wedge for most of the field on most of the holes. It’s still the Masters, yes. But it’s not a test of anything other than driver, wedge, and putter. That’s certainly not what McKenzie and Jones wanted. As that tournament remains by far and away the most popular of the year, I’d suggest they are doing something right.

Verdict true. But they did. Riddle me that..

 

This is a fantastic post.

 

Agree with everything you wrote and it's a real shame that the anti-rollbackers won't take the time to read it or just dismiss it without any logical thought.

 

Thank you.

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

What are the opinions on Sawgrass and the distance debate?  Seems to be one of the few courses the challenge the golfer off the tee should they try to drive it 300-330.  Lots of lateral hazards in those zones.

 

interesting some of the longer hitters have been testing 2 woods earlier in the week.

I consider it a tricked up course with lots of water to take driver out of the hands of players, unless they have supreme confidence in the driver.  Lots of 3-wood use off the tee.

 

If that is your cup of tea, good for you.  I prefer to see players hit driver, as they did last week at Bay Hill.  So, I don't think that a course like Sawgrass solves the distance debate.

[Pnwpingi210]

10 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I consider it a tricked up course with lots of water to take driver out of the hands of players, unless they have supreme confidence in the driver.  Lots of 3-wood use off the tee.

 

If that is your cup of tea, good for you.  I prefer to see players hit driver, as they did last week at Bay Hill.  So, I don't think that a course like Sawgrass solves the distance debate.

Interesting.  Thanks for sharing

[GoGoErky]

27 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

This is a fantastic post.

 

Agree with everything you wrote and it's a real shame that the anti-rollbackers won't take the time to read it or just dismiss it without any logical thought.

 

Thank you.

What’s there to talk about. We have said that the PGA tour that has a wide variety of courses and layouts and there’s different challenges every week.

 

The course when played all the way back is just under 7300 yards. Falls within the range of course length that’s been used for the last 20 years on the tour.

 

Strokes gained tells us it’s going to favor the longer hitter and decade shows that driver may not be the best play every time and there could be risk for going for it in two but the players are going to find a club this allows them to take the risk when it’s present because again strokes gained tells us closest to the hole is better. 
 

It’s a great course and a great tournament and at the end of 4 days the golfer who tackles the challenges the best will be deemed the winner.

 

Tiger win a major without hitting driver. ZJ win a major without going for any par 5 in two. Theres a lot of different strategies to play and win. 

Edited March 14 by GoGoErky

[bekgolf]

24 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I consider it a tricked up course with lots of water to take driver out of the hands of players, unless they have supreme confidence in the driver.  Lots of 3-wood use off the tee.

 

If that is your cup of tea, good for you.  I prefer to see players hit driver, as they did last week at Bay Hill.  So, I don't think that a course like Sawgrass solves the distance debate.

 

You are hard to please!  Lol.

 

Love watching the Players.

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

You are hard to please!  Lol.

 

Love watching the Players.

I agree with this.

 

its fun watching the best in the world have to balance risk/reward of a shot.  Somebody probably has some data to debunk this statement, but in my opinion there’s not a course the tour regularly plays that does it better than the players.

[clevited]

1 hour ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

This is a fantastic post.

 

Agree with everything you wrote and it's a real shame that the anti-rollbackers won't take the time to read it or just dismiss it without any logical thought.

 

Thank you.

 

Reasons....

 

1) The person that posted this is very likely a previously banned member that has been toxic to this and other discussions.

2) This person very obviously misrepresents almost every point against a rollback, bifurcation etc, or dismisses things himself without evidence.

3) Due to points 1 and 2, it doesn't warrant any reply or discussion.

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, gvogel said:

I consider it a tricked up course with lots of water to take driver out of the hands of players, unless they have supreme confidence in the driver.  Lots of 3-wood use off the tee.

 

If that is your cup of tea, good for you.  I prefer to see players hit driver, as they did last week at Bay Hill.  So, I don't think that a course like Sawgrass solves the distance debate.

 

 

So you want to see lots of driver, but you don't want to see them drive it too far. You say you want the pros to use a 190cc driver, but you don't want to see the pros use their 190cc 3-wood too much. 

 

Cool, cool, cool, I guess that makes complete sense... The rollbackers want to see pros challenged by their equipment, not the course. The anti-rollbackers want to see pros challenged by the course, not the equipment. 

Edited March 14 by Simpsonia

[gvogel]

18 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

So you want to see lots of driver, but you don't want to see them drive it too far. You say you want the pros to use a 190cc driver, but you don't want to see the pros use their 190cc 3-wood too much. 

 

Cool, cool, cool, I guess that makes complete sense... The rollbackers want to see pros challenged by their equipment, not the course. The anti-rollbackers want to see pros challenged by the course, not the equipment. 

That is simplistic, and I think that you know it.  I want to see players hit driver it as far as they can, but with more limited equipment.  I think that more limited equipment, particularly driver, would help identify those who really have great skills in putting the ball in play.  I want to see players tested by the course, but using drivers that are more difficult to use.  And I think that 190cc drivers would be too restrictive; 230 would be about right.