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

[clevited]

7 hours ago, maamold said:

You seem unsure...

Could it be that it's the tech not the golfer?

 

No, I am actually pretty sure, but the conditions need to be right just like they were the days he did it.  You can still get pretty optimal max carry numbers from the old stuff you know.  Need low loft, very rigid steel shaft and hardest compression balata ball.  Checking for ball roundness would be wise too before using it in a tournament.

 

Edit: This assumes a brand new, not 20+ year old balata ball btw, they degrade something fierce.  Also, it would require a high AoA with the low lofted persimmon and balata ball. So tee it high and let it fly.

Edited April 24 by clevited

[smashdn]

17 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Well, it's more the fact that it is not yet today. The field average will continue to converge on the leaders.

 

Was hoping someone would pick up on that.  It will happen with current rules as well, it just has not.

 

17 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

There's no stopping that trend with the current golf courses in the rotation. A rollback, however, does accelerate that trend, though we don't know (and likely disagree on) the degree to which that will happen. 

 

I say "with the current golf courses in the rotation", because as much as you love your golden age of design golf courses, they all have one thing in common baked into their DNA, and that is distance is very much a disproportionate advantage over any other golf skill. Since the current rotation of courses disproportionately advantages distance, that only creates further incentive for the field to pursue distance (either training for it, or replacing those who don't). That's just natural selection. I don't think you'd disagree that natural selection over time will trend towards the avenue with the largest advantage, right? 

 

But, that's not true of every course in the same way. Courses like TPS Sawgrass, Royal Melbourne, and Harbor Town have different reward systems in-place, and it has been shown (and statistically validated) that distance is not nearly as advantaged at these courses.

 

Think about it this way, with human behavior, competitors will always pursue the advantage. So long as distance remains a disproportionate advantage, that will be the primary avenue pursued by competitors. The only way to break any human cycle is to change the incentive program. De-emphasize the advantage distance confers, and you will reduce the rate at which it is pursued. 

 

I know you hate the so-called "penal school of design", but do you actually disagree with my assessments (and those of Mark Broadie in his distance paper) that distance is a disproportionate advantage when compared to other golf skills with the current courses we have in the professional rotation? If so, why? And, if distance is a disproportionate advantage, do you disagree that there will be a natural selection trend towards distance over time by competitors, since it is one of the highest rewarded golf skills (as shown and validated by shots gained stats)? 

 

I would put Royal Melbourne in with the Golden Age courses myself.

 

I don't disagree with your overall premise.  I disagree with the tone it sets in that it reads as though there is something inherently wrong with the courses themselves.  Some were perfectly adequate and by some measures extraordinary for 50, 70 maybe 100 years.  Only recently (last 30 years) have they really had issues that couldn't be overcome by small tweaks.

 

I disagree with your stance where you mention "baked into their dna."  Aside from a course that is somehow artificially and intentionally designed to take driver out of a player's hands, distance is always an advantage.  I don't think I have ever said it is not.  I fully understand why they chase that distance. And I disagree with how golf as a whole has thus far addressed that fact (Tiger proofing, lengthening).  But I am also pretty realistic, and I read and listen to the current guys who are attempting to build courses to challenge the pros, that there is not much that they can do that they cannot overcome, that will not result in a golf course that is wholly unsuitable for everyday play the rest of the time it is sitting there.

 

I had rather see a broad spectrum of distances, talents and skill sets capable of winning week to week but maybe the "rest of the pack" converging on the distance leaders is not a bad thing from a challenge via set-up and design standpoint.  If all your tee shots are going to reliably land within a 20-30 yard span, it makes it pretty easy to identify where you want that design feature to be.  That said, getting that design feature in that "sweet spot" might not be feasible on an existing course.

 

I don't hate the Penal School.  The majority of followers of golf course architecture don't care for it because it largely ignores aesthetics and lacks that natural look and feel.  That "walk in nature" or "conquering nature" innate aspect of golf is diminished when the course is so obviously contrived.  That said, if your only aim of a course is to challenge execution, a penal design is probably well suited to that aim.

 

 

[smashdn]

25 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Speaking personally, the R&A is a lot more like the Masters committee. They're members of the R&A and they're basically trying to defend their home course (TOC). They're doing it slightly differently from the Masters, but at the end of the day, they don't answer to you and me. At all (except possibly I guess to the extent that we are willingly governed by them and that could be changed if enough people wanted it to). The USGA on the other hand I'm a member of. I would say they owe me just as much as they owe the members at Merion or LACC or any other of those blue blood country clubs. So I'd say they should reflect my opinion to the same extent that they do yours or Mr. head honcho somewhere. But they don't. 

 

The R&A answers to its members. The USGA apparently does not. That's the difference.

 

That is a very democratic way of looking at the USGA.  I just do not think it was originally designed to be that.  I don't have it in front of me, but I would be interested to see when they first started selling individual memberships.  Also, you can purchase different levels of membership.  If I purchase the "Eagle Club" membership, aside form the extra swag, am I entitled to more votes than you or more weight on my opinions? 

 

The USGA started as an organization to organize golf tournaments being held by and at the blueblood clubs.  Low gravy is in one summer you had two clubs holding the national amateur championship.  There was an agreement to organize amongst those clubs to hold one, universally recognized event of it's type.

 

Now you can sell a membership, get some stationary and a hat or bag tag and you are a member.  I pay for handicapping service through my club.  I get no hat or bag tag and aside from the free note pads trying to get me to send more money, I get nothing else save for a handicap.  Am I USGA member?

 

___

 

I think the USGA is making a hard decision that they think in the long run is a step in the correct direction.  No doubt they get it is unpopular.  But that doesn't mean it is wrong.  

I hated the thought of dad making me save my money and mom making me eat my vegetables.  Now with the benefit of hindsight and little wisdom of age, I see they were right.  The USGA has not motivation to destroy the game,  They aren't infallible however.

[Simpsonia]

36 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Was hoping someone would pick up on that.  It will happen with current rules as well, it just has not.

 

 

I would put Royal Melbourne in with the Golden Age courses myself.

 

I don't disagree with your overall premise.  I disagree with the tone it sets in that it reads as though there is something inherently wrong with the courses themselves.  Some were perfectly adequate and by some measures extraordinary for 50, 70 maybe 100 years.  Only recently (last 30 years) have they really had issues that couldn't be overcome by small tweaks.

 

 

I think we're finally getting somewhere closer to a common ground. Which is progress! Though I think we will probably continue to disagree on the avenue required. 

 

36 minutes ago, smashdn said:

I disagree with your stance where you mention "baked into their dna."  Aside from a course that is somehow artificially and intentionally designed to take driver out of a player's hands, distance is always an advantage.  I don't think I have ever said it is not.  I fully understand why they chase that distance. And I disagree with how golf as a whole has thus far addressed that fact (Tiger proofing, lengthening).  But I am also pretty realistic, and I read and listen to the current guys who are attempting to build courses to challenge the pros, that there is not much that they can do that they cannot overcome, that will not result in a golf course that is wholly unsuitable for everyday play the rest of the time it is sitting there.

 

I had rather see a broad spectrum of distances, talents and skill sets capable of winning week to week but maybe the "rest of the pack" converging on the distance leaders is not a bad thing from a challenge via set-up and design standpoint.  If all your tee shots are going to reliably land within a 20-30 yard span, it makes it pretty easy to identify where you want that design feature to be.  That said, getting that design feature in that "sweet spot" might not be feasible on an existing course.

 

I don't hate the Penal School.  The majority of followers of golf course architecture don't care for it because it largely ignores aesthetics and lacks that natural look and feel.  That "walk in nature" or "conquering nature" innate aspect of golf is diminished when the course is so obviously contrived.  That said, if your only aim of a course is to challenge execution, a penal design is probably well suited to that aim.

 

In my eyes, it's not necessarily that there's something wrong with these classic courses, especially when viewed from the lens of the non-professional golfer. I just think that the a few things have changed since the "days of yore", and the biggest one is money. Money creates unheard of incentives to maximize advantages. Back when Jack and Arnie were playing and half the field had a day job as an insurance salesman, there wasn't quite the same level of monetary incentives for professional golfers to seek all the advantages that were always present (though also not likely as understood with the lack of real statistics). 

 

In my view, it's not about forcing professional golf into the same old mold of these old courses. That just makes golf static in the long term. It's about adapting the challenges presented and the inherent incentives therein to present a diverse sport for the future. The old courses just due to their inherent design, disproportionately advantage distance. That's not a failing on their part when they were originally designed, it was a scope problem. The architects didn't have the data to foresee the rise of modern golf (and I don't mean just equipment) and all that comes with the money in modern golf. Distance always rose over time, even before titanium or solid-core balls. That's just due to the distance incentives baked into the courses. 

 

To create a sport with diverse skillsets for the future, we need to think outside the box and examine the incentives presented in course features and design. If you want to de-emphasize distance and emphasize a diversity of golfer skill, you need to create different challenges. Make that layup shot as strategically enticing as carrying the hazard, but with co-equal challenges. This also doesn't necessarily need to require new courses. It just would require more creativity and flexibility in tournament setup (with things like internal OB, faux hazards, etc). 

 

 

Edit: Just to boil down my philosophy as I'm trying to convey it, I think the carrot is better than the stick at changing behaviors. If we want to change behavior of professional golfers to not maximize distance at the cost of other golf skills, change the incentives (carrot). A rollback is the stick, and it's my belief that the stick is a subpar (or even fully ineffective) way of ultimately changing desired behavior. 

 

Edited April 24 by Simpsonia

[stevesteven1]

4 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

I think we're finally getting somewhere closer to a common ground. Which is progress! Though I think we will probably continue to disagree on the avenue required. 

 

 

In my eyes, it's not necessarily that there's something wrong with these classic courses, especially when viewed from the lens of the non-professional golfer. I just think that the a few things have changed since the "days of yore", and the biggest one is money. Money creates unheard of incentives to maximize advantages. Back when Jack and Arnie were playing and half the field had a day job as an insurance salesman, there wasn't quite the same level of monetary incentives for professional golfers to seek all the advantages that were always present (though also not likely as understood with the lack of real statistics). 

 

In my view, it's not about forcing professional golf into the same old mold of these old courses. That just makes golf static in the long term. It's about adapting the challenges presented and the inherent incentives therein to present a diverse sport for the future. The old courses just due to their inherent design, disproportionately advantage distance. That's not a failing on their part when they were originally designed, it was a scope problem. The architects didn't have the data to foresee the rise of modern golf (and I don't mean just equipment) and all that comes with the money in modern golf. Distance always rose over time, even before titanium or solid-core balls. That's just due to the distance incentives baked into the courses. 

 

To create a sport with diverse skillsets for the future, we need to think outside the box and examine the incentives presented in course features and design. If you want to de-emphasize distance and emphasize a diversity of golfer skill, you need to create different challenges. Make that layup shot as strategically enticing as carrying the hazard, but with co-equal challenges. This also doesn't necessarily need to require new courses. It just would require more creativity and flexibility in tournament setup (with things like internal OB, faux hazards, etc). 

 

 

Edit: Just to boil down my philosophy as I'm trying to convey it, I think the carrot is better than the stick at changing behaviors. If we want to change behavior of professional golfers to not maximize distance at the cost of other golf skills, change the incentives (carrot). A rollback is the stick, and it's my belief that the stick is a subpar (or even fully ineffective) way of ultimately changing desired behavior. 

 

do something that costs tens of millions per golf course

 

or grandfather a $500 club that everyone swaps every year or two anyway

 

Let me have a think 

[Dpavs]

I think this thread has become like a river.

It meanders a lot, one side will never reach the other but it just keeps flowing! 😉

[bekgolf]

2 hours ago, stevesteven1 said:

do something that costs tens of millions per golf course

 

or grandfather a $500 club that everyone swaps every year or two anyway

 

Let me have a think 

 

How about let it be as is since there isn't a problem?  I don't buy into the precept that there is a distance problem.  I really like professional golf as it is, why dumb it down and put further restrictions on distance?  Just so that scores are higher? 

 

None of it makes any sense, it's a solution in search of a problem.

[maamold]

12 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Speaking personally, the R&A is a lot more like the Masters committee. They're members of the R&A and they're basically trying to defend their home course (TOC). They're doing it slightly differently from the Masters, but at the end of the day, they don't answer to you and me. At all (except possibly I guess to the extent that we are willingly governed by them and that could be changed if enough people wanted it to). The USGA on the other hand I'm a member of. I would say they owe me just as much as they owe the members at Merion or LACC or any other of those blue blood country clubs. So I'd say they should reflect my opinion to the same extent that they do yours or Mr. head honcho somewhere. But they don't. 

 

The R&A answers to its members. The USGA apparently does not. That's the difference.

The "answers to its members" R&A is in agreement with the new ball test.

[stevesteven1]

8 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

How about let it be as is since there isn't a problem?  I don't buy into the precept that there is a distance problem.  I really like professional golf as it is, why dumb it down and put further restrictions on distance?  Just so that scores are higher? 

 

None of it makes any sense, it's a solution in search of a problem.

you, personally, yourself, don’t think there is a problem. A lot of us here agree with the ruling bodies that there is. 
 

Your opinion is not an immutable fact and neither is mine. Let’s at least recognize that 

[Ty_Webb]

9 hours ago, maamold said:

The "answers to its members" R&A is in agreement with the new ball test.

 

Correct, but "its members" is about 1000 people. The USGA membership must be in the millions. The question was why does the USGA catch so much flak for the rollback, but the R&A doesn't. The answer is that the R&A is in line with its membership, while the USGA is not. Because the rollback is popular with people who belong to a club that's at risk of obsolescence, but pretty unpopular with everyone else. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

On 4/24/2024 at 7:23 AM, smashdn said:

 

Was hoping someone would pick up on that.  It will happen with current rules as well, it just has not.

 

 

Actually, that's what the anti-RB folks have been saying all along. Including @Simpsonia. The nature of the game, with increased analytics, strokes gained analysis, launch monitor / clubfitting optimizations, have given professional golfers knowledge and capability that they didn't have before, despite the driver and ball equipment regulations being static for the last 20 years. 

 

The equipment regs and the course designs (i.e. point of diminishing returns) basically have capped distance for the leaders. 

 

But it has led to chasing distance overall. It has led to the PGAT distance average or the 100th on the driving distance list moving closer and closer to the leaders. 

 

But that takes time. It takes players seeing this often at younger ages and optimizing for it, attracting golfers who have more of this inherent ability, and the "aging out" of older golfers still doing it the old way. Not everyone can be a Paddy Harrington and make giant distance strides late in life. Looking at him today, it's probable that he could have been a real bomber back in his youth if he'd optimized for it then. But now HS and college golfers already know that you have to be long, and so at those levels they're already working towards gaining length. 

 

Now, "everyone hitting it the same distance" has and always will be an exaggeration. There will still be a bell curve. There will still be guys like Morikawa who maybe will never hit it 320, but has such precision that he can succeed despite his lack of distance. But what we're saying is that over time, the analytics / SG / optimization / training/athleticism / age demographics will collapse that bell curve to a much tighter range than where it was 20-30 years ago. 

 

Where @Simpsonia has expanded beyond this is stating that reducing equipment distance makes distance even MORE of an advantage, so it will become even MORE of a focus, so the push towards that collapse of the bell curve would happen more quickly or will converge more tightly in distribution. I'm not sure 100% whether I agree with him on how meaningfully it would affect the pace. But at ANY ball distance, if distance is an advantage, you're going to see players chasing distance. And players chasing distance will mean that over time, those who can't catch it won't be around any more and replaced by those who can. 

[gvogel]

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Correct, but "its members" is about 1000 people. The USGA membership must be in the millions. The question was why does the USGA catch so much flak for the rollback, but the R&A doesn't. The answer is that the R&A is in line with its membership, while the USGA is not. Because the rollback is popular with people who belong to a club that's at risk of obsolescence, but pretty unpopular with everyone else. 

So are suggesting different balls for different courses?

 

That was actually something that Mike Davis proposed a long time ago.

[Ty_Webb]

2 hours ago, gvogel said:

So are suggesting different balls for different courses?

 

That was actually something that Mike Davis proposed a long time ago.

 

No. My suggestion would be to leave it as it is and if someone wins at -23 at St Andrews, then fair play to them. If the wind blows, it's going to be more like -8. I see no issue with that at all. If I was an R&A member and didn't want to have to listen to people saying it's too easy, then I might want that not to happen, but I'm not, so I don't.

[smashdn]

17 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

No. My suggestion would be to leave it as it is and if someone wins at -23 at St Andrews, then fair play to them. If the wind blows, it's going to be more like -8. I see no issue with that at all. If I was an R&A member and didn't want to have to listen to people saying it's too easy, then I might want that not to happen, but I'm not, so I don't.

 

Driving 1 ,7, 9, 10, 12, and 18 fine?

[Ty_Webb]

Who's driving 1? 9, 10, 12 have been drivable for a long time and didn't Jack Nicklaus bounce one off the clubhouse steps on 18? 7 is a bit more of a stretch, but maybe some are able to get it close downwind? I don't know. But TOC has only 2 par 3s on it and 2 par 5s. I don't think it's that much of a problem if there's really 2 3s, 4 3.5s, 6 4s, 4 4.5s and 2 5s. That seems like a pretty good spread of holes to me. And if the wind blows then many of those holes won't be drivable. 7, 9, 10, and 12 all being drivable on the same day sounds unlikely to me.

[ThinkingPlus]

47 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Driving 1 ,7, 9, 10, 12, and 18 fine?

Sure. Why not. Still doesn't guarantee birdie. Also hit it in a pot bunker and make a 5 or worse.

[Chunkitgood]

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

No. My suggestion would be to leave it as it is and if someone wins at -23 at St Andrews, then fair play to them. If the wind blows, it's going to be more like -8. I see no issue with that at all. If I was an R&A member and didn't want to have to listen to people saying it's too easy, then I might want that not to happen, but I'm not, so I don't.

The only problem with playing the British Open at St. Andrew’s “as is” is that the people who put on the tournament and seem to have interlocking interests with the people who own St. Andrews don’t want that to happen and apparently are going to stop it from happening…and they are not interested in your suggestion.

 

Does anybody here know how the USGA is run?   Does it have elections?  Who gets to vote?  I would guess that whoever that is the policy of he USGA is in line with their wishes.

[Ty_Webb]

55 minutes ago, Chunkitgood said:

The only problem with playing the British Open at St. Andrew’s “as is” is that the people who put on the tournament and seem to have interlocking interests with the people who own St. Andrews don’t want that to happen and apparently are going to stop it from happening…and they are not interested in your suggestion.

 

Does anybody here know how the USGA is run?   Does it have elections?  Who gets to vote?  I would guess that whoever that is the policy of he USGA is in line with their wishes.

 

The R&A runs the tournament and TOC is their home course, although I think the St Andrews Links Trust actually owns and runs the course itself. I know they're not interested in my suggestion and I get that. For whatever reason the R&A runs golf in the rest of the world and it's pretty much theirs to do with as they will. The USGA I too don't know how they're run, but given that they sell memberships to all and sundry, I'd think they owe at least some kind of nod towards their members. They don't act like that though. I'm sure they think it's benign dictatorship, but I'm not sure I would concur with that.

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Sure. Why not. Still doesn't guarantee birdie. Also hit it in a pot bunker and make a 5 or worse.

 

Why don't they just play it at scorecard length of ~6600 yards then?

 

I mean, they have to have a compelling reason to bother with adding tees on adjoining courses and adding ~650 yards to the total length.

[ThinkingPlus]

40 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Why don't they just play it at scorecard length of ~6600 yards then?

 

I mean, they have to have a compelling reason to bother with adding tees on adjoining courses and adding ~650 yards to the total length.

You should ask them. Probably alot of fluffy comments about shot values. It will make you feel good.

[maamold]

4 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Sure. Why not. Still doesn't guarantee birdie. Also hit it in a pot bunker and make a 5 or worse.

Is it easier to make a birdie from the center of the green rather than the pot bunker?

[ThinkingPlus]

23 minutes ago, maamold said:

Is it easier to make a birdie from the center of the green rather than the pot bunker?

Depends on how many shots it took to get to those positions, proximity to the hole from the center of the green, what kind of lie you have in the bunker, etc... .

[maamold]

28 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Depends on how many shots it took to get to those positions, proximity to the hole from the center of the green, what kind of lie you have in the bunker, etc... .

The next shot would be for birdie, so not sure why the number of previous shots is even thought about.

Why would the proximity and lie matter?

Edited April 26 by maamold

[ThinkingPlus]

12 minutes ago, maamold said:

The next shot would be for birdie, so not sure why the number of previous shots is even thought about.

Why would the proximity and lie matter?

It might be easier to get up and down from a greenside bunker if you were lying one in the bunker than lying 2 on the green 80' from the hole.

 

Regardless, in your scenario it is obvious that making any birdie putt from the green is easier than holing out from the bunker.

[maamold]

7 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

It might be easier to get up and down from a greenside bunker if you were lying one in the bunker than lying 2 on the green 80' from the hole.

 

Regardless, in your scenario it is obvious that making any birdie putt from the green is easier than holing out from the bunker.

So there is value in having a shot from the green vs the bunker. And there was value in being able to put the previous shot closer to the hole on the green. There was lost value in being in that bunker. And there was a value from a course design perspective to place a bunker where it would catch a missed-shot.

Got it.

[ThinkingPlus]

13 minutes ago, maamold said:

So there is value in having a shot from the green vs the bunker. And there was value in being able to put the previous shot closer to the hole on the green. There was lost value in being in that bunker. And there was a value from a course design perspective to place a bunker where it would catch a missed-shot.

Got it.

There is also lost value being OB, in a PA, or in a shrub. 

[maamold]

6 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

There is also lost value being OB, in a PA, or in a shrub. 

But there is a value, and that is the point.

[ThinkingPlus]

13 minutes ago, maamold said:

But there is a value, and that is the point.

Good. Then we get a couple bulldozers and add a few pot bunkers in front of the par 4s getting driven at TOC. No need for a ball rollback or more yardage. 

[smashdn]

12 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Good. Then we get a couple bulldozers and add a few pot bunkers in front of the par 4s getting driven at TOC. No need for a ball rollback or more yardage. 

 

Good idea.  Take away the run up option.  That will be awesome when there is wind.

 

The more time I spend in this thread the more I am convinced there is not only a wealth of benign lack of understanding of golf course design but perhaps willful contempt for it, the designers, and those that can assess it and appreciate it.

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Good idea.  Take away the run up option.  That will be awesome when there is wind.

 

The more time I spend in this thread the more I am convinced there is not only a wealth of benign lack of understanding of golf course design but perhaps willful contempt for it, the designers, and those that can assess it and appreciate it.

 

Course design is completely subjective though.  One persons green protection with pot bunkers is another persons "tricked up".