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

[Ty_Webb]

20 minutes ago, maamold said:

I guess what I'm getting at is that pure distance doesn't equal skill or entertainment.

 

Personally, I find it more interesting that the ball off the driver moved more depending on the strike. It was fun that he had more club into the greens and there were different bounces because the club was coming in lower. It was interesting that when he was around the greens he needed to focus a little bit more on getting the chips working. 

 

 

I think what a lot of that stuff does is back up the argument that bifurcation would be awful for anyone straddling the split point.

 

Pure distance doesn't equal skill. Gotta keep it in play too. When Bryson won at Winged Foot, he hit more than average number of fairways despite leading the driving distance by miles. Helped him win by quite a few if memory serves.

Edited March 29 by Ty_Webb

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, maamold said:

So despite everything you just wrote ...it's the equipment.

Nope because top end distance hasn’t changed with the current equipment standards since they were put in place.

 

There were softer balls like the ball that Tiger preferred and there was still the prov1 that wasn’t as soft.

 

 

i know you don’t like that stat but it’s the truth and the only distance increase is because instead of a few golfers hitting 300 there are more doing so the average has gone up. That’s not a distance increase. 
 

Edited March 29 by GoGoErky

[StoutKing]

21 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

What makes it more exciting?

 

If that type of golf is more exciting then why isn’t the viewership way up for rh LPGA where it’s long irons and hybrids into greens and shorter drives? The LPGA game is something that many on the internet refer to as more relatable than the pga tour because of the distance the ladies hit the ball?

 

 

So you think if men lose 3-5% on their shots they will become women.  HAHAHAHAHA

[GoGoErky]

4 hours ago, StoutKing said:

So you think if men lose 3-5% on their shots they will become women.  HAHAHAHAHA

If that’s your actual takeaway from that any real discussion about it with you is pointless 

[jdl]

 

[maamold]

On 3/30/2024 at 9:05 AM, jdl said:

 

I was thinking the same thing as Will when watching. 

 

by Will Knights...
Ever since Bryson DeChambeau made the decision to play for LIV Golf, he’s largely been able to avoid any negative spotlight. There is very little press with LIV, and what is done has to be approved by the league. That has helped the formerly thick one largely avoid any unwanted attention and, more importantly for those of us in the content business, removed his highly entertaining brain from the greater golf consciousness.

 
That run has ended.

 
On Thursday, Bryson released a video on his YouTube channel in which he plays nine holes with what could be an example of the technology we’ll see in a rolled back golf ball. He uses the Nike One Tour, a golf ball originally released in 2009, and one that everyone would agree is inferior to the technology of today’s golf ball.

 
The video is filmed on the front nine at Dallas National Golf Club, which measures in at 3,635 yards from the “Texas” tees. As a player outspoken against the rollback, Bryson is clearly hoping this video will demonstrate why the rollback should not happen. Instead, over the course of nine holes, Bryson unwittingly but thoroughly shows exactly why the rollback is a good idea. It’s also filled with incessant complaints about the golf ball and non-stop bitching about its performance. And he makes it clear that he may not always know what he’s talking about when it comes to equipment and performance.

 
A running diary of his round:

 
On the second hole, Bryson seems to advocate for lesser technology after hitting a pull that still winds up in the fairway. “Normally hit on the heel with my other golf ball would not miss that far left,” he says. “Wth my other golf ball that would have flown dead straight. That ball started left and went left. There is definitely something to say with the golf ball compression.” Again, I’m not sure he understands what compression means.

 
Playing the downhill, 172-yard par-3 third hole, he says “I’m going to play a 160-yard shot here. This thing is probably only going to go like 150 so I’m playing this thing 20 yards downwind.” The ball flies 152 yards according to his launch monitor and he says “Oh that ball is flying so weird.”

After hitting driver-wedge into the first hole, going long of the par-5 second hole in two shots, and making a bad bogey on No. 3 because of a poor chip, Bryson is even par on the par-5 fourth hole. “I know I can shoot under par today, that shouldn’t be too difficult,” he says. This may come as a shock to some of you, but professional golfers did indeed make birdies with old equipment and technology. I mean, Tiger Woods won six times in 2009 with the Nike One Tour. But let’s get back to Bryson.

 
Still on No. 4, DeChambeau delivers a monologue on compression: “Because the ball is going shorter, and it’s softer, it’s not compressing or it’s compressing too much, the ball is not curving as much consequently as well,” he starts. “So I’m used to the ball flying a certain distance with a certain amount of curve to it. When it’s going shorter, it’s just not curving as much. [Points to drive] So normally that ball would be going farther and curving more which would bring it back to the center so I’m having to adjust to this golf ball from a curvature perspective as well. This is wild.” Two things from this quote. One, a ball that spins more will curve more. That’s just basic physics. Two, he highlights a huge selling point of the rollback: a ball that goes shorter distances will stay closer to the center, which could help high-handicappers mitigate distance losses. Eureka! He ends the fourth hole by saying “I’m hitting it not that bad but the ball is going way off my line compared to what normal curvature should be with the ball I’m currently playing with.” Again, contradictory, but let him cook.

 
On the sixth tee, a 452-yard par 4, he says “I can make birdie on this hole if I hit a good drive. I’ll have a wedge into this hole.” Indeed he does. He hits the Nike with 182 mph ball speed that carries 320 yards in the air, leaving him 133 yards into the green. Again, this hole is 452 yards. When his wedge rolls off the back, he offers for my money the quote of the day: “This thing rolled 30 yards. It’s 15-mph downwind with a wedge shot out of the first cut. That’s completely uncontrollable.” Reminder: Tiger Woods won six times in one season with this golf ball.

 
Bryson hits two drives off the seventh tee, one with the Nike One Tour and one with the Titleist Pro V1x Left Dash, the ball most agree is the lowest spinning ball in 2024. He hits the Nike perfectly and the Titleist low off the face.

 
The numbers:

 
Nike One Tour
187 mph ball speed
315 yard carry

 
Titleist ProV1x Left Dash
192 mph ball speed
331 yard carry

 
“I hit that first ball perfectly, right on the screws. The left dash, I actually thinned it pretty poorly. It had 5 mph more ball speed and less spin and flew that much farther.” The USGA should clip this portion of the video and plaster it everywhere they can. This is all the evidence you need to support a rollback.

 

[Tumadre1337]

On 3/29/2024 at 11:07 AM, GoGoErky said:

He doesn’t know if that meets the criteria, he basically states that it some of the balls that supposedly does.

 

One of the comments that stuck out to me is that he would have to redo his whole setup to play that ball. Which some here denied pros would have to do.

 

he hates the “rollbakced ball” during the video 

 

 

It’s extremely ignorant to think pros wouldn’t have to adjust their bag in some way to deal with new balls, and after watching this video their technique as well for draw/fades 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

I'm not sure why Bryson acts surprised by the loss in speed every drive. Also passing it off as a "rolled-back ball" when it's just an old ball that supposedly would have passed. And yet still makes a great case for it despite trying so hard to do the opposite.

[gvogel]

15 hours ago, stevesteven1 said:

 

Which sport were you thinking of where the seniors and ladies divisions are more popular than the men’s?

 

(claim 33 btw)

Women's beach volleyball?

[radiman]

10 hours ago, maamold said:

I was thinking the same thing as Will when watching. 

 

by Will Knights...
Ever since Bryson DeChambeau made the decision to play for LIV Golf, he’s largely been able to avoid any negative spotlight. There is very little press with LIV, and what is done has to be approved by the league. That has helped the formerly thick one largely avoid any unwanted attention and, more importantly for those of us in the content business, removed his highly entertaining brain from the greater golf consciousness.

 
That run has ended.

 
On Thursday, Bryson released a video on his YouTube channel in which he plays nine holes with what could be an example of the technology we’ll see in a rolled back golf ball. He uses the Nike One Tour, a golf ball originally released in 2009, and one that everyone would agree is inferior to the technology of today’s golf ball.

 
The video is filmed on the front nine at Dallas National Golf Club, which measures in at 3,635 yards from the “Texas” tees. As a player outspoken against the rollback, Bryson is clearly hoping this video will demonstrate why the rollback should not happen. Instead, over the course of nine holes, Bryson unwittingly but thoroughly shows exactly why the rollback is a good idea. It’s also filled with incessant complaints about the golf ball and non-stop bitching about its performance. And he makes it clear that he may not always know what he’s talking about when it comes to equipment and performance.

 
A running diary of his round:

 
On the second hole, Bryson seems to advocate for lesser technology after hitting a pull that still winds up in the fairway. “Normally hit on the heel with my other golf ball would not miss that far left,” he says. “Wth my other golf ball that would have flown dead straight. That ball started left and went left. There is definitely something to say with the golf ball compression.” Again, I’m not sure he understands what compression means.

 
Playing the downhill, 172-yard par-3 third hole, he says “I’m going to play a 160-yard shot here. This thing is probably only going to go like 150 so I’m playing this thing 20 yards downwind.” The ball flies 152 yards according to his launch monitor and he says “Oh that ball is flying so weird.”

After hitting driver-wedge into the first hole, going long of the par-5 second hole in two shots, and making a bad bogey on No. 3 because of a poor chip, Bryson is even par on the par-5 fourth hole. “I know I can shoot under par today, that shouldn’t be too difficult,” he says. This may come as a shock to some of you, but professional golfers did indeed make birdies with old equipment and technology. I mean, Tiger Woods won six times in 2009 with the Nike One Tour. But let’s get back to Bryson.

 
Still on No. 4, DeChambeau delivers a monologue on compression: “Because the ball is going shorter, and it’s softer, it’s not compressing or it’s compressing too much, the ball is not curving as much consequently as well,” he starts. “So I’m used to the ball flying a certain distance with a certain amount of curve to it. When it’s going shorter, it’s just not curving as much. [Points to drive] So normally that ball would be going farther and curving more which would bring it back to the center so I’m having to adjust to this golf ball from a curvature perspective as well. This is wild.” Two things from this quote. One, a ball that spins more will curve more. That’s just basic physics. Two, he highlights a huge selling point of the rollback: a ball that goes shorter distances will stay closer to the center, which could help high-handicappers mitigate distance losses. Eureka! He ends the fourth hole by saying “I’m hitting it not that bad but the ball is going way off my line compared to what normal curvature should be with the ball I’m currently playing with.” Again, contradictory, but let him cook.

 
On the sixth tee, a 452-yard par 4, he says “I can make birdie on this hole if I hit a good drive. I’ll have a wedge into this hole.” Indeed he does. He hits the Nike with 182 mph ball speed that carries 320 yards in the air, leaving him 133 yards into the green. Again, this hole is 452 yards. When his wedge rolls off the back, he offers for my money the quote of the day: “This thing rolled 30 yards. It’s 15-mph downwind with a wedge shot out of the first cut. That’s completely uncontrollable.” Reminder: Tiger Woods won six times in one season with this golf ball.

 
Bryson hits two drives off the seventh tee, one with the Nike One Tour and one with the Titleist Pro V1x Left Dash, the ball most agree is the lowest spinning ball in 2024. He hits the Nike perfectly and the Titleist low off the face.

 
The numbers:

 
Nike One Tour
187 mph ball speed
315 yard carry

 
Titleist ProV1x Left Dash
192 mph ball speed
331 yard carry

 
“I hit that first ball perfectly, right on the screws. The left dash, I actually thinned it pretty poorly. It had 5 mph more ball speed and less spin and flew that much farther.” The USGA should clip this portion of the video and plaster it everywhere they can. This is all the evidence you need to support a rollback.

 

I am firmly anti-rollback.  But, I think I am equal parts anti-Bryson lol.  I watched a bit of this video and I just couldn't deal with him.  On one shot, he hit it left.  Claimed that the ball curved so much more than normal because of it "flying off the face weird" or something along those lines.  Then, a few holes later, he's proclaiming that the ball doesn't curve as much and he totally normally would have been in the fairway.  

I didn't get much out of the video other than Bryson likes to listen to himself talk.  And, he was trying to drum up some fear mongering BS.  I am still anti rollback.  And I feel like his video was a big waste of time. 

[GoGoErky]

3 hours ago, Tumadre1337 said:

It’s extremely ignorant to think pros wouldn’t have to adjust their bag in some way to deal with new balls, and after watching this video their technique as well for draw/fades 

I agree I’m not sure why some of the pro rollback people in here doubted JT when he made the claim. They claimed pros would be able to adjust quickly too. 

Edited April 1 by GoGoErky

[GoGoErky]

21 minutes ago, radiman said:

I am firmly anti-rollback.  But, I think I am equal parts anti-Bryson lol.  I watched a bit of this video and I just couldn't deal with him.  On one shot, he hit it left.  Claimed that the ball curved so much more than normal because of it "flying off the face weird" or something along those lines.  Then, a few holes later, he's proclaiming that the ball doesn't curve as much and he totally normally would have been in the fairway.  

I didn't get much out of the video other than Bryson likes to listen to himself talk.  And, he was trying to drum up some fear mongering BS.  I am still anti rollback.  And I feel like his video was a big waste of time. 

Yeah I’m not a Bryson fan and he rambled a bit in the video. Not really seeing a pro rollback proof in the video. All it showed is what the two ball studies done by the other guys showed. For those who like watching longer irons into greens they agree it supports their preference for how golf should be played. 

[Tumadre1337]

10 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

I agree I’m not sure why some of the pro rollback people in here doubted JT when he made the claim

Armchair pros vs actual pros.

[clevited]

Bryson's test is moot regardless of what he demonstrated.  The ball is old and no doubt, not representative of a freshly produced ball.  It probably shrunk a bit, and was no longer perfectly round.  It also could play much more inconsistent due to deterioration.  He should do the test again with a currently produced ball that supposedly would meet the new standard.  That might give a little better representation of what effect it will have.

[subrew]

I would love to see the USGA work with a pro and do some testing with unmarked balls.  Most of the OEMs knee jerk reactions (literally press releases were published 30 minutes later) claimed none of their balls would meet the new proposed rule.  Turns out, some will.  It would be great if the USGA could grab a select few that do, remove the print/logo info on the ball and replaced with "test A" and "test B."

 

Have one ball be a super high spinner like the previous gen Kirkland.  That sucker was high spin when hit at 120mph, 127mph would be crazy.  Have another be a super soft compression core ball like a Callaway Supersoft or Wilson DuoSoft that are losing 5-7mph of ball speed at 120mph, 127mph could be a solid 8-10mph ball speed loss.  Then have a ProV.  Show the extremes of soft compression, or high spin, versus the standard when hit by pros.  Then show the differences on 7-iron approach shots, and 50-degree wedge shots.  

 

The USGA has the info.  They have tested balls under the proposed new rules.  They know what balls would still be legal.  Let's get a really fast male Pro, average speed male pro, and an average LPGA pro.  Driver speeds from 100-130mph.  People who are consistent with ball striking, so the data means something.

Edited April 1 by subrew

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, GoGoErky said:

I agree I’m not sure why some of the pro rollback people in here doubted JT when he made the claim. They claimed pros would be able to adjust quickly too. 

 

Is it a problem if they quickly adjust to the new ball?

 

I mean the pros of yesteryear were able to manage with a ball that both flew shorter distances and spun more (and that is without any comment regarding the clubs that were arguably also inferior).  But they managed that equipment mash-up with more controlled swings which resulted in a game played overall shorter club to club.

 

---

 

Regarding the Bryson vid and brutal commentary, would anyone really have a problem if he was one of the longer professional players at around 315 instead of 330-340?  Driving it 315 he still was driver-wedge into some of the par fours.

[smashdn]

4 minutes ago, subrew said:

I would love to see the USGA work with a pro and do some testing with unmarked balls.  Most of the OEMs knee jerk reactions (literally press releases were published 30 minutes later) claimed none of their balls would meet the new proposed rule.  Turns out, some will.  It would be great if the USGA could grab a select few that do, remove the print/logo info on the ball and replaced with "test A" and "test B."

 

Have one ball be a super high spinner like the previous gen Kirkland.  That sucker was high spin when hit at 120mph, 127mph would be crazy.  Have another be a super soft compression core ball like a Callaway Supersoft or Wilson DuoSoft that are losing 5-7mph of ball speed at 120mph, 127mph could be a solid 8-10mph ball speed loss.  Then have a ProV.  Show the extremes of soft compression, or high spin, versus the standard when hit by pros.  Then show the differences on 7-iron approach shots, and 50-degree wedge shots.  

 

The USGA has the info.  They have tested balls under the proposed new rules.  They know what balls would still be legal.  Let's get a really fast male Pro, average speed male pro, and an average LPGA pro.  Driver speeds from 100-130mph.  People who are consistent with ball striking, so the data means something.

 

I agree but don't think you would get a pro to sign up to do this.  

 

My first thought was what if the pro was a "Titleist Player" and it turned out that a Taylor Made or Callaway ball performed better for them or the pro gushed over how good that "other" ball felt and performed.  Wouldn't be a good look for them.

 

Still, though, I would like to see it.

 

I also stand by one of my points that the ball OEMs know exactly how to make a conforming ball and a non-conforming ball if they were inclined.  They know how to make it so it spins more with different clubs struck at different speeds.  It would be manufacturing malpractice if you didn't have enough catalogued statistical process control data to not have a firm understanding of what happens when a mantle layer is changed or the durometer of a layer is increased or decreased or the thickness of the outer layer changes.

[maamold]

On 3/29/2024 at 2:29 PM, GoGoErky said:

Nope because top end distance hasn’t changed with the current equipment standards since they were put in place.

First, I don't know what you're getting at. The video SHOWS that a player with top end distance was shorter and needs more skill to control that ball.
 

On 3/29/2024 at 2:29 PM, GoGoErky said:

There were softer balls like the ball that Tiger preferred and there was still the prov1 that wasn’t as soft.

...and?

 

On 3/29/2024 at 2:29 PM, GoGoErky said:

i know you don’t like that stat but it’s the truth and the only distance increase is because instead of a few golfers hitting 300 there are more doing so the average has gone up. That’s not a distance increase. 

You keep going back to that argument to further your argument goal. Your argument has nothing to do with the video that Bryson made showing his distance drop (reminder, which isn't part of your "average")

 

The graph below also shows the years leaders grow at the same rate as the average - so your 'average' has nothing to do with your argument. 

[Titleist99]

20 hours ago, stevesteven1 said:

 

Which sport were you thinking of where the seniors and ladies divisions are more popular than the men’s?

 

(claim 33 btw)

None. That my point.....so why take the men's golf game there?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I wonder what the USGA (read: several private clubs) would do if the nerf actually produced lower scores on the classic layouts in ten or so years.  Imagine if in 2038: The courses weren't "forced" to expand because the players "interacted" with the clubs' favorite fairway bunkers, etc., so their stated rollback goals were achieved.  But, if scores actually got lower because players got better, I wonder what they'd do.  Would they finally admit this is all about score? 

[Titleist99]

17 minutes ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

I wonder what the USGA (read: several private clubs) would do if the nerf actually produced lower scores on the classic layouts in ten or so years.  Imagine if in 2038: The courses weren't "forced" to expand because the players "interacted" with the clubs' favorite fairway bunkers, etc., so their stated rollback goals were achieved.  But, if scores actually got lower because players got better, I wonder what they'd do.  Would they finally admit this is all about score? 

At that time in the future, they'll do what they should do now which is encourage all golf courses to add defense to the tracks. i.e. tougher pin placements, internal out of bounds, actual penal rough, more water hazards, adding trees instead of removing them, etc....

 

It's sort of like the NBA now, where no one plays defense because most fans want to see scoring. IMO The usga does not like that kind of golf.

Edited April 1 by Titleist99

[GoGoErky]

4 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Is it a problem if they quickly adjust to the new ball?

 

I mean the pros of yesteryear were able to manage with a ball that both flew shorter distances and spun more (and that is without any comment regarding the clubs that were arguably also inferior).  But they managed that equipment mash-up with more controlled swings which resulted in a game played overall shorter club to club.

 

---

 

Regarding the Bryson vid and brutal commentary, would anyone really have a problem if he was one of the longer professional players at around 315 instead of 330-340?  Driving it 315 he still was driver-wedge into some of the par fours.

It wouldn’t be a problem if they adjusted quick the issue is so many thing changing ball, distances, the amount it moves, how it reacts in different conditions and on different grasses is going to happen overnight or in a week. It’s not the case.

 

The pros of yesteryear like the price of today spend time honing their game over time. 
 

I don’t get why people have a problem with a pro hitting ball the current distances. It has no negative impact. Those who claim pro golf is boring now and that we need separation will be complaining when there are only Bryson type golfers on tour and there’s no separation and they are all hitting past the “challenges of the course”

[GoGoErky]

3 hours ago, maamold said:

First, I don't know what you're getting at. The video SHOWS that a player with top end distance was shorter and needs more skill to control that b

They currently have skill. The longer players have the advantage and can hit a 6i pretty well. Shorter golfers will have bigger disadvantage than they do now and will have to hit hybrids and woods into par 4s. It’s the whole reason Rory is in support of the rollback. He can hit his 6i with no issues and will be able to maintain his advantage. All the rollback does is create more Rory’s. The guys on tour now have plenty of skill for my entertainment. 
 

3 hours ago, maamold said:

The graph below also shows the years leaders grow at the same rate as the average - so your 'average' has nothing to do with your argument. 

You keep acting like that graph is going to go on for eternity and there will be no stopping the top end distance which we already know isn’t true. Sure the gap between the long hitters and the average will get smaller but the top end under current regulations is already capped out. 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

@TLUBulldogGolf I'm not sure what confused you.  If I can put it another way to avoid confusion, I'll try:  If the nerf ball accomplishes all of the stated goals re: "shot values", environmental impact/course expansion, "interacting" with architectural features, etc., will the RBs be cool with it if scores still go down over time?  I predict no.  

[TLUBulldogGolf]

28 minutes ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

@TLUBulldogGolf I'm not sure what confused you.  If I can put it another way to avoid confusion, I'll try:  If the nerf ball accomplishes all of the stated goals re: "shot values", environmental impact/course expansion, "interacting" with architectural features, etc., will the RBs be cool with it if scores still go down over time?  I predict no.  

 

Just your logic. But I get it RBs = bad. Not really worth much discussion beyond that at this point. 

[smashdn]

20 hours ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

@TLUBulldogGolf I'm not sure what confused you.  If I can put it another way to avoid confusion, I'll try:  If the nerf ball accomplishes all of the stated goals re: "shot values", environmental impact/course expansion, "interacting" with architectural features, etc., will the RBs be cool with it if scores still go down over time?  I predict no.  

 

You didn't direct your question/comment at me but in reading it prompted this question in my mind, if the ball distance is reduced, the "shot values" are increased, they end up interacting (contending/contemplating over) more with architectural features, how can the scores also still go down?  (Unless the set-ups get easier as well.)

 

If you subscribe to the SG data stuff, just the ball not going as far alone will make the course play harder all else being equal.

[Dutch1008]

21 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

All the rollback does is create more Rory’s.

🤣 As if that is easy!! Rory isn't a one trick pony. He's an all time driver of the ball, a world class iron player, has a way better than tour average short game, and has more years as a positive strokes gained putter than negative. Guys with Rory's skill set have always dominated golf. That is the makeup of Arnie, Jack, Norman, and Tiger. It's why Rahm is a stick and Scheffler is a stud. Its why Johnny Miller dominated until he forget how to putt. Those dudes aren't rolled off an assembly line. They are the generationally exceptional.   

 

If you think the roll back is going to create an Army of Bryson's, players who've pushed all their chips in on distance, his video was a bullet hole through that argument. Good luck swinging out of your shoes when a slight mishit spins off the planet.   

 

22 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

You keep acting like that graph is going to go on for eternity and there will be no stopping the top end distance which we already know isn’t true. Sure the gap between the long hitters and the average will get smaller but the top end under current regulations is already capped out. 

 

If I'm not mistaken, you or perhaps others on Team Long Drive have pointed out on numerous occasions that Sasho MacKenzie is anti-rollback. While I don't fully agree w/ his take, he does make some good points. However, another one of Sasho's beliefs is that we're nowhere close to the maximum capacity of what golfers can do. So are you going to stand by the gospel of Sasho and state that the roll back is unnecessary and that distance will continue to climb, or are you going to simply cherry pick the beliefs that fit your narrative?

[clevited]

19 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

🤣 As if that is easy!! Rory isn't a one trick pony. He's an all time driver of the ball, a world class iron player, has a way better than tour average short game, and has more years as a positive strokes gained putter than negative. Guys with Rory's skill set have always dominated golf. That is the makeup of Arnie, Jack, Norman, and Tiger. It's why Rahm is a stick and Scheffler is a stud. Its why Johnny Miller dominated until he forget how to putt. Those dudes aren't rolled off an assembly line. They are the generationally exceptional.   

 

If you think the roll back is going to create an Army of Bryson's, players who've pushed all their chips in on distance, his video was a bullet hole through that argument. Good luck swinging out of your shoes when a slight mishit spins off the planet.   

 

 

If I'm not mistaken, you or perhaps others on Team Long Drive have pointed out on numerous occasions that Sasho MacKenzie is anti-rollback. While I don't fully agree w/ his take, he does make some good points. However, another one of Sasho's beliefs is that we're nowhere close to the maximum capacity of what golfers can do. So are you going to stand by the gospel of Sasho and state that the roll back is unnecessary and that distance will continue to climb, or are you going to simply cherry pick the beliefs that fit your narrative?

 

The bolded completely ignores a well established point that has been made many times.  Distance is largely limited by the courses themselves.  You see the longest of the long averaging 315-320 year after year.  At any time, there could be a dozen or more players averaging that or more on tour right now but they don't because it isn't the smart move.  Given the longer you hit it, the more the ball can move with the wind, and in general, the longer the distance you hit, the more dispersion you will have, It self limits.  The human max is on display on the long drive tour and most of those guys aren't hitting 400 or more without help from wind, elevation and or massive roll out.  They also aren't striping 400 in general such that it would have reliable use on a tour level course.  They would, just like everyone else, have to dial it back if they want to win.

 

Edited April 2 by clevited

[Dutch1008]

1 minute ago, clevited said:

Distance is largely limited by the courses themselves.

 

I would say that distance is sometimes limited by course architecture. There is no universal design where every hole doglegs at 320, where a lake sits at 330. Rory literally drove a green at the API from 360 last month. The hole was designed to block that line to the green w/ tall trees. Rory just blew it over them. 

 

Regardless, there are plenty of dead straight par 4s and 5s where the course isn't limiting the player in anyway. Retief Goosen's solution is to ban the 60 degree wedge. He believes making the short pitch shot harder would force guys to lay back further. 

 

[clevited]

14 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

I would say that distance is sometimes limited by course architecture. There is no universal design where every hole doglegs at 320, where a lake sits at 330. Rory literally drove a green at the API from 360 last month. The hole was designed to block that line to the green w/ tall trees. Rory just blew it over them. 

 

Regardless, there are plenty of dead straight par 4s and 5s where the course isn't limiting the player in anyway. Retief Goosen's solution is to ban the 60 degree wedge. He believes making the short pitch shot harder would force guys to lay back further. 

 

 

and....the players will just start opening up a 56 and largely achieve the same thing.

Edited April 2 by clevited