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

[Chunkitgood]

2 hours ago, isaacbm said:

Rant alert:

 

If I was a scientist/mathematician/problem solver,  how would I approach this problem?
Number one, I would determine if there was a problem. I would need to come up with a clear definition of what the problem is.

Number two, assuming I could define a problem, I would need to determine whether the problem was significant enough that it was worth solving.

How many people does the problem affect? Is it the majority of people? Like 60% or more? Is it the minority of people like 20 to 40%? Or as in this case, is it .00175%? 
Not 10%, not 1%, not even .01%! But basically a rounding error. 

OK, so let’s assume .00175% is enough for me to concentrate on this “problem.”

 

Am I to actually make the assumption that everybody else also believes that this is a worthy problem to address?

 

Im an ex tour pro. I play 95% of my golf with golf professionals, plus handicaps, and single digits under three handicap. I have nearly 100 players in my contact list in my phone that are 2 handicap or lower. I would say the average swing speed in our group is usually 107-115. Sometimes as high as 130 though… 

    At least 50% of the time we don’t play the back box.  Lots of guys just simply don’t like playing from 72-7600 yards. It’s just not as fun. It’s more fun to shoot par and enter a zero in the computer than it is to shoot 76 and enter zero.

Also, the opportunity to shoot in the 60s is very real from certain tee boxes and not so much from others.  
    So if me and 100 of my contacts are perfectly happy  not playing the back Teebox all of the time, who exactly is this problem affecting? 
    700 or so of the top male players in the world? 

 

GOLF has three major problems.

It’s too hard, it’s too expensive, and it takes too long. 

 

Making it harder, will make it take longer. Changing the equipment will make it more expensive.  All we need now is for the USGA to make the game even slower somehow As well? 

 

If the PGA Tour thinks that the ball is going too far, then leave it to them to come up with their own ball for their players. (No chance)
   The governing bodies have overstepped to an unbelievable degree on this one.

Leave me and my game alone. GOLF for the masses is doing just fine.
    

 

 

 

If you were a scientist or mathematician…well, just as well you’re a golfer.

[Simpsonia]

8 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

If you were a scientist or mathematician…well, just as well you’re a golfer.

 

Well if you're going to be throwing stones, well glass houses and all. If you're going to be criticizing someone's background, pray tell what is your professional background that makes your opinions more valid than the poster you were replying to? 

[airjammer]

12 hours ago, isaacbm said:

Rant alert:

 

If I was a scientist/mathematician/problem solver,  how would I approach this problem?
Number one, I would determine if there was a problem. I would need to come up with a clear definition of what the problem is.

Number two, assuming I could define a problem, I would need to determine whether the problem was significant enough that it was worth solving.

How many people does the problem affect? Is it the majority of people? Like 60% or more? Is it the minority of people like 20 to 40%? Or as in this case, is it .00175%? 
Not 10%, not 1%, not even .01%! But basically a rounding error. 

OK, so let’s assume .00175% is enough for me to concentrate on this “problem.”

 

Am I to actually make the assumption that everybody else also believes that this is a worthy problem to address?

 

Im an ex tour pro. I play 95% of my golf with golf professionals, plus handicaps, and single digits under three handicap. I have nearly 100 players in my contact list in my phone that are 2 handicap or lower. I would say the average swing speed in our group is usually 107-115. Sometimes as high as 130 though… 

    At least 50% of the time we don’t play the back box.  Lots of guys just simply don’t like playing from 72-7600 yards. It’s just not as fun. It’s more fun to shoot par and enter a zero in the computer than it is to shoot 76 and enter zero.

Also, the opportunity to shoot in the 60s is very real from certain tee boxes and not so much from others.  
    So if me and 100 of my contacts are perfectly happy  not playing the back Teebox all of the time, who exactly is this problem affecting? 
    700 or so of the top male players in the world? 

 

GOLF has three major problems.

It’s too hard, it’s too expensive, and it takes too long. 

 

Making it harder, will make it take longer. Changing the equipment will make it more expensive.  All we need now is for the USGA to make the game even slower somehow As well? 

 

If the PGA Tour thinks that the ball is going too far, then leave it to them to come up with their own ball for their players. (No chance)
   The governing bodies have overstepped to an unbelievable degree on this one.

Leave me and my game alone. GOLF for the masses is doing just fine.
    

 

 

 

You are in the small percentage of golfers that actually has a 7,000+ yard golf course that you can actually play on a regular basis…most do not. 
 

Last weekend I played at a land locked local country club course that was built in 1950 for a two man scramble at 6400 yards from the back tees. All 10 par 4’s are less than 400 yards so it’s basically a pitch and putt for the most part. The greens are sloped and the par 3’s are long but the club has to get the greens treacherously fast just to make it interesting. 
 

The course you play perfectly illustrates the point the people who want to roll the ball back have been saying all this time. Essentially you can plant a tee anywhere on the forward tee boxes or anywhere in front of the most forward tees you can get a clean strike on the ball and make the course as easy as you want it to be if that is what you want to do. However, you cannot do the reverse and plant a tee behind existing tee boxes without either being in someone’s yard or in danger of getting hit by shots being hit to the green that is close proximity to the teeing grounds. 
 

 

I’m sure their is a psychological term for a person that still puts the same value on  what they view as an accomplishment even though the accomplishment has been made easier by some outside influences such as technology rather than an increase in proficiency at that task.

 

After 413 pages, I still haven’t found a valid reason for why not, besides it’s hurt people’s egos🤷🏼‍♂️

 

[MrDC]

This call is probably coming from two fronts - one is the legacy pros who are getting distanced out of the game, they worked all their lives, they can hang with the longest hitters with their irons, wedges and putter, but just can't gain the advantage off the tee and feel it's not fair for them to lose their career and income, maybe they're right, maybe not, I've always supported adapt or die but this is a tough one.

The second is the legacy courses that are becoming too short for the best, should they be retired from the PGAT now? that's a long list of long time Tour support and staff and members who have been part of this game who are affected, and they've tried to adapt the courses to make up for the distance but there's only so much that can be done, and they were designed by the greatest so how much can you really take away from them? and who would want to?

I think knowing this the roll back may not be such a bad idea, make new golf balls for everyone that plays with a little less distance, it only hurts amateurs and that does stink, but I think we can deal with it.

Edited April 30 by MrDC

[smashdn]

14 hours ago, isaacbm said:

GOLF has three major problems.

It’s too hard, it’s too expensive, and it takes too long. 

 

And yet, despite these problems, it has been played starting somewhere before the 1700's until today.

 

(Reigning in the distance the golf ball flies will address the second and third "problems".  A straighter, but shorter flying ball would address problem one.)

[clevited]

17 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

And yet, despite these problems, it has been played starting somewhere before the 1700's until today.

 

(Reigning in the distance the golf ball flies will address the second and third "problems".  A straighter, but shorter flying ball would address problem one.)

 

No and No.

Edited April 30 by clevited

[GoGoErky]

6 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

No and No.

Bingo 

[farmer]

Well said, Isaac.  A solution in search of a problem.

[isaacbm]

2 hours ago, airjammer said:

You are in the small percentage of golfers that actually has a 7,000+ yard golf course that you can actually play on a regular basis…most do not. 
 

Last weekend I played at a land locked local country club course that was built in 1950 for a two man scramble at 6400 yards from the back tees. All 10 par 4’s are less than 400 yards so it’s basically a pitch and putt for the most part. The greens are sloped and the par 3’s are long but the club has to get the greens treacherously fast just to make it interesting. 
 

The course you play perfectly illustrates the point the people who want to roll the ball back have been saying all this time. Essentially you can plant a tee anywhere on the forward tee boxes or anywhere in front of the most forward tees you can get a clean strike on the ball and make the course as easy as you want it to be if that is what you want to do. However, you cannot do the reverse and plant a tee behind existing tee boxes without either being in someone’s yard or in danger of getting hit by shots being hit to the green that is close proximity to the teeing grounds. 
 

 

I’m sure their is a psychological term for a person that still puts the same value on  what they view as an accomplishment even though the accomplishment has been made easier by some outside influences such as technology rather than an increase in proficiency at that task.

 

After 413 pages, I still haven’t found a valid reason for why not, besides it’s hurt people’s egos🤷🏼‍♂️

 

Our sweet spot is often 6500 yards. basically the yardage where the course rating is close to even par .

Nearly every golf course in our area has tee boxes that are longer than that. A few of the newer courses are almost 7800. Literally no interest in playing from there at all. 
   I do see your point of view. I still think the only real answer if this even is a problem is biurification. Make one ball that is a Nerf ball and anybody can use that at any time and then simply re rate the golf courses based on the new distance.  Every course would have two ratings based on which ball you use. Needs to be 20% minimum. 
 

This  way, you’re actually creating options for people instead of taking them away.

Edited April 30 by isaacbm

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, airjammer said:

You are in the small percentage of golfers that actually has a 7,000+ yard golf course that you can actually play on a regular basis…most do not. 
 

Last weekend I played at a land locked local country club course that was built in 1950 for a two man scramble at 6400 yards from the back tees. All 10 par 4’s are less than 400 yards so it’s basically a pitch and putt for the most part. The greens are sloped and the par 3’s are long but the club has to get the greens treacherously fast just to make it interesting. 
 

The course you play perfectly illustrates the point the people who want to roll the ball back have been saying all this time. Essentially you can plant a tee anywhere on the forward tee boxes or anywhere in front of the most forward tees you can get a clean strike on the ball and make the course as easy as you want it to be if that is what you want to do. However, you cannot do the reverse and plant a tee behind existing tee boxes without either being in someone’s yard or in danger of getting hit by shots being hit to the green that is close proximity to the teeing grounds. 
 

 

I’m sure their is a psychological term for a person that still puts the same value on  what they view as an accomplishment even though the accomplishment has been made easier by some outside influences such as technology rather than an increase in proficiency at that task.

 

After 413 pages, I still haven’t found a valid reason for why not, besides it’s hurt people’s egos🤷🏼‍♂️

 

 

 

Is your argument that this 6400 yard course should be eligible for elite male golf tournaments? Because, I have bad news for you, it would have been short as far as tip distances go by the 1950s. If not, is the argument then that the rollback is for non-elite male golf tournaments? Because, if you're not in the top 1% distance wise, the rollbackers keep telling us that nobody outside of that top 1% are even going to notice a difference. If those non-elite golfers who won't notice a difference are playing in these scrambles at 6400 yards, how will affect anything as it pertains to this course being too short at 6400 yards? 

[isaacbm]

2 hours ago, airjammer said:

You are in the small percentage of golfers that actually has a 7,000+ yard golf course that you can actually play on a regular basis…most do not. 
 

Last weekend I played at a land locked local country club course that was built in 1950 for a two man scramble at 6400 yards from the back tees. All 10 par 4’s are less than 400 yards so it’s basically a pitch and putt for the most part. The greens are sloped and the par 3’s are long but the club has to get the greens treacherously fast just to make it interesting. 
 

The course you play perfectly illustrates the point the people who want to roll the ball back have been saying all this time. Essentially you can plant a tee anywhere on the forward tee boxes or anywhere in front of the most forward tees you can get a clean strike on the ball and make the course as easy as you want it to be if that is what you want to do. However, you cannot do the reverse and plant a tee behind existing tee boxes without either being in someone’s yard or in danger of getting hit by shots being hit to the green that is close proximity to the teeing grounds. 
 

 

I’m sure their is a psychological term for a person that still puts the same value on  what they view as an accomplishment even though the accomplishment has been made easier by some outside influences such as technology rather than an increase in proficiency at that task.

 

After 413 pages, I still haven’t found a valid reason for why not, besides it’s hurt people’s egos🤷🏼‍♂️

 

The reason why they are very few golf courses over 7000 yards is because there are very few people who need them.  For every one of you that thinks golf courses are too short, there are literally 1500 people that would never even consider that a thing. 
   My (very anecdotal) remarks were simply that almost everyone I know that has a very high swing speed and are very low handicap players don’t think golf courses are too short. 

[Shilgy]

5 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

Our sweet spot is often 6500 yards. basically the yardage where the course rating is close to even par .

Nearly every golf course in our area has tee boxes that are longer than that. A few of the newer courses are almost 7800. Literally no interest in playing from there at all. 
   I do see your point of view. I still think the only real answer if this even is a problem is biurification. Make one ball that is a Nerf ball and anybody can use that at any time and then simply re rate the golf courses based on the new distance.  Every course would have two ratings based on which ball you use. Needs to be 20% minimum. 
 

This  way, you’re actually creating options for people instead of taking them away.

They won’t need o re-rate the courses.  They have been using the same 250 yards off the tee scratch amateur golf since balata days.

[maamold]

18 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

The reason why they are very few golf courses over 7000 yards is because there are very few people who need them.
 

For every one of you that thinks golf courses are too short, there are literally 1500 people that would never even consider that a thing. 
   My (very anecdotal) remarks were simply that almost everyone I know that has a very high swing speed and are very low handicap players don’t think golf courses are too short. 

Opposite take; ~7000 yard courses should be the maximum a course should be. And in order for that to be the norm equipment needs to slow down.

Edited April 30 by maamold
Hit enter too early.

[Pnwpingi210]

21 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

Is your argument that this 6400 yard course should be eligible for elite male golf tournaments? Because, I have bad news for you, it would have been short as far as tip distances go by the 1950s. If not, is the argument then that the rollback is for non-elite male golf tournaments? Because, if you're not in the top 1% distance wise, the rollbackers keep telling us that nobody outside of that top 1% are even going to notice a difference. If those non-elite golfers who won't notice a difference are playing in these scrambles at 6400 yards, how will affect anything as it pertains to this course being too short at 6400 yards? 

I agree with most of this.

 

Recreational golf needs no rollback or equipment changes.

 

I’ll try to clarify what I believe the point some are trying to make around “people won’t notice”.  It’s is a fact that a rolled back ball will fly less far than a non roll backed ball on every shot, no debating it. The point that people are trying to make is that it’s likely the most vast majority of the golfers (let’s use the 26 million golfers in the US) aren’t consistent enough in their strike, equipment choices, and ability to control their golf ball over influence of other variables (wind, temp, lie, how their body feels) for the loss of the estimated 4-10 yards to be realized or impactful on their overall experience.  

Edited April 30 by Pnwpingi210

[GoGoErky]

3 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

of other variables (wind, temp, lie, how their body feels) for the loss of the estimated 4-10 yards to be realized or impactful on their overall experience.  

Yes. Take 10 yards away from them

on good or bad shots and they will notice a change in score. The ones rhat already played forward tees and have to still play approach shots into par 4s and rely on the ball to land and roll on the green are going to not be able to do that, not they have to chip or pitch on and hope they can get that as close as their first putt would be from the current ball. 4 yards can also make that land and roll no longer an option.

 

 

[GoGoErky]

27 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

My (very anecdotal) remarks were simply that almost everyone I know that has a very high swing speed and are very low handicap players don’t think golf courses are too short. 

This is the key right here

[Titleist99]

2 hours ago, airjammer said:

You are in the small percentage of golfers that actually has a 7,000+ yard golf course that you can actually play on a regular basis…most do not. 
 

Last weekend I played at a land locked local country club course that was built in 1950 for a two man scramble at 6400 yards from the back tees. All 10 par 4’s are less than 400 yards so it’s basically a pitch and putt for the most part. The greens are sloped and the par 3’s are long but the club has to get the greens treacherously fast just to make it interesting. 
 

The course you play perfectly illustrates the point the people who want to roll the ball back have been saying all this time. Essentially you can plant a tee anywhere on the forward tee boxes or anywhere in front of the most forward tees you can get a clean strike on the ball and make the course as easy as you want it to be if that is what you want to do. However, you cannot do the reverse and plant a tee behind existing tee boxes without either being in someone’s yard or in danger of getting hit by shots being hit to the green that is close proximity to the teeing grounds. 
 

 

I’m sure their is a psychological term for a person that still puts the same value on  what they view as an accomplishment even though the accomplishment has been made easier by some outside influences such as technology rather than an increase in proficiency at that task.

 

After 413 pages, I still haven’t found a valid reason for why not, besides it’s hurt people’s egos🤷🏼‍♂️

 

Your example is for a two-man scramble I do believe. If possible please post some scores on this 6400-yard short track. If the scores are commonly in the low sixties by most golfers, then the course is too short. If not, the course is just fine. 

 

I'll wait for your attested scorecards.

[TiScape]

4 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Well if you're going to be throwing stones, well glass houses and all. If you're going to be criticizing someone's background, pray tell what is your professional background that makes your opinions more valid than the poster you were replying to? 

I’m goin’ with engineer. 

Edited April 30 by TiScape

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, GoGoErky said:

Yes. Take 10 yards away from them

on good or bad shots and they will notice a change in score. The ones rhat already played forward tees and have to still play approach shots into par 4s and rely on the ball to land and roll on the green are going to not be able to do that, not they have to chip or pitch on and hope they can get that as close as their first putt would be from the current ball. 4 yards can also make that land and roll no longer an option.

 

 

Fair- Lots of stuff going on in this post.  
 

I guess we have different ideas of the vast majority of golfers.  My idea is what I anecdotally encounter while playing public courses and corporate tournaments.  The golfers I get randomly paired up with this via those two avenues are out to have fun and generally don’t care what they shoot.

 

Now I would say the other group is my core group of friends, people who track handicaps, and the Internet forum golfers.  This is a relatively small number (2-4 million) of the overall golfing population (26 million) in the US.  

[TroyB123]

For those who still think bi-furcation was the right way to go, I'm curious as to where you'd draw the line of what is elite or not.   Which of the following would be considered elite and subject to it?

PGA Tour (and qualifiers and pre-qualifiers)

KF

Other PGA tour affiliated tours

Majors

US Amateur (and qualifiers)

NCAA 

PGA Professional championship (and qualifiers)

US Mid Am (and qualifiers)

US Jr Am (and qualifiers)

State Opens/State Amateurs

High level Amateur events

AJGA

Other Junior tours

Club Championships

High School

 

 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

3 minutes ago, TroyB123 said:

For those who still think bi-furcation was the right way to go, I'm curious as to where you'd draw the line of what is elite or not.   Which of the following would be considered elite and subject to it?

PGA Tour (and qualifiers and pre-qualifiers)

KF

Other PGA tour affiliated tours

Majors

US Amateur (and qualifiers)

NCAA 

PGA Professional championship (and qualifiers)

US Mid Am (and qualifiers)

US Jr Am (and qualifiers)

State Opens/State Amateurs

High level Amateur events

AJGA

Other Junior tours

Club Championships

High School

 

 

 

Interesting question.

 

An ideas would be anything that is either a pga tour event or could lead to qualifying to a pga tour event?  Throwing it out to keep the discussion going on this topic.

[bekgolf]

The PGA Tour already said they aren't interested in a shorter ball.  IIRC that's what brought about a shorter ball for everyone, because the USGA wants to limit distance on the PGA Tour.

 

Very few are in favor of this.  The USGA is showing how out of touch they are with the golfers they are supposed to represent and support.

[airjammer]

25 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Your example is for a two-man scramble I do believe. If possible please post some scores on this 6400-yard short track. If the scores are commonly in the low sixties by most golfers, then the course is too short. If not, the course is just fine. 

 

I'll wait for your attested scorecards.

Top 2 flights with 15+ winds both days. Are those low enough for you?

[gvogel]

29 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Yes. Take 10 yards away from them

on good or bad shots and they will notice a change in score. The ones rhat already played forward tees and have to still play approach shots into par 4s and rely on the ball to land and roll on the green are going to not be able to do that, not they have to chip or pitch on and hope they can get that as close as their first putt would be from the current ball. 4 yards can also make that land and roll no longer an option.

 

 

Yes, and move the tee markers up 15 yards to compensate.  It would be a move toward shorter courses, which would be a good thing.

[gvogel]

10 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

The PGA Tour already said they aren't interested in a shorter ball.  IIRC that's what brought about a shorter ball for everyone, because the USGA wants to limit distance on the PGA Tour.

 

Very few are in favor of this.  The USGA is showing how out of touch they are with the golfers they are supposed to represent and support.

So the PGA Tour can elect to play with balls made under the current spec.  They will surely be available, and if the Tour continues to use current spec balls then a majority of recreational players will probably do the same.

 

So then you will have the two Opens and the Masters and a few other tournaments  played with the USGA spec ball.  Fine, golf will be played a few years with a schism between the two.  After a few years, I bet a consensus will emerge - and my money is on the USGA spec ball.

[bekgolf]

1 minute ago, gvogel said:

So the PGA Tour can elect to play with balls made under the current spec.  They will surely be available, and if the Tour continues to use current spec balls then a majority of recreational players will probably do the same.

 

So then you will have the two Opens and the Masters and a few other tournaments  played with the USGA spec ball.  Fine, golf will be played a few years with a schism between the two.  After a few years, I bet a consensus will emerge - and my money is on the USGA spec ball.

 

I think that would be a great way to judge the reaction to it.  Ease it in for trial and see how it goes.

[TroyB123]

19 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Interesting question.

 

An ideas would be anything that is either a pga tour event or could lead to qualifying to a pga tour event?  Throwing it out to keep the discussion going on this topic.

That would include NCAA and even AJGA gets you into one event.   If you include ability to qualify into a major, then you get everything above the state open line in my list.   

 

Bi-furcation was never as neat and tidy as it sounded.   Competitive players are all going to play a mix of different lines on that list, and to have to play different balls for different events every week is not really ideal.   Once you start to include all the levels of competitive golf, it's more like 10s or 100s of thousands of people affected.

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

I think that would be a great way to judge the reaction to it.  Ease it in for trial and see how it goes.

Unless you are a professional and your livelihood depends on it.  2 of the events of the 20 ish you play a year you have to use and adapt to a different ball.  
 

Maybe use it for all events for a couple of years as a trail before rolling out as permanent?

[TroyB123]

20 minutes ago, gvogel said:

So the PGA Tour can elect to play with balls made under the current spec.  They will surely be available, and if the Tour continues to use current spec balls then a majority of recreational players will probably do the same.

 

So then you will have the two Opens and the Masters and a few other tournaments  played with the USGA spec ball.  Fine, golf will be played a few years with a schism between the two.  After a few years, I bet a consensus will emerge - and my money is on the USGA spec ball.

I don't see any reason to believe that the PGA tour is willing to go outside of the rules of golf for their tournaments.

[Ty_Webb]

Or, why not have a nerfed ball and a model local rule that requires the use of the nerfed ball and then every event that wants to be played with the nerfed ball can do so and everyone else can carry on their merry way.