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

[Pnwpingi210]

41 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Has longer modern equipment made people play faster? Your slash s would seem to indicate not..

I think  yes it should have.

 

whats likey offset that is other device distractions.   

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

If it makes them hit it further and straighter (which it apparently should do), then yes people will play faster. Hitting it further means hitting it fewer times and hitting it straighter means less times looking for the ball, both of which take less time. 

 

Further means further offline, but I think pace is a flimsy argument in either direction. 

 

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I think  yes it should have.

 

whats likey offset that is other device distractions.   

 

Not reflected in any data I can find or in my personal experience, but see above. People are just slow, the most recent person I played with I would call slow hit it decently far but all over the place and was driving all over to hit shots. I'm not going to make the argument that a shorter ball is going to make him much faster though. He was slow on every shot. 

Edited May 1 by TLUBulldogGolf

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Further means further offline, but I think pace is a flimsy argument in either direction. 

 

 

Not reflected in any data I can find or in my personal experience, but see above. People are just slow, the most recent person I played with hit it decently far but all over the place and was driving all over to hit shots. I'm not going to make the argument that a shorter ball is going to make him much faster though. 

I guess you should ask the question would that golfer be shorter and more all over the place with a taylormade burner bubble and set of 1990 mcgregor blades resulting in more shots?

 

Theres always going to be anecdotes and and extremes that conflict with what the majority of the impact as.

 

 

people are likely playing slower cause they are overthinking details that don’t matter to their game or are distracted by other devices.  

[farmer]

To expand on Ty's point, our course has eight elevated tees.  Tee blocks cannot be placed on the severe slopes at the front of the tees, and moving down onto the flat completely changes the character of the holes.  In my area, a new tee would have to be built from scratch, including watering and then maintained, adding at least some to overall expenses.

[munichop]

People play slow because they can.  I am in 2 mens clubs.  One has a time clock with a penalty if you don't play the front 9 and 18 within the alotted time.  The other has no clock.  The one with the clock has rounds 45 minutes shorter than the other.  Both groups used to have clocks.  One voted it out.  The rounds went up by 30 minutes immediately after the clock was removed.  

Course length has little impact.  The LPGA plays the shortest tracks and has the longest rounds.  And they get to use range finders.

 

[Pnwpingi210]

17 minutes ago, farmer said:

To expand on Ty's point, our course has eight elevated tees.  Tee blocks cannot be placed on the severe slopes at the front of the tees, and moving down onto the flat completely changes the character of the holes.  In my area, a new tee would have to be built from scratch, including watering and then maintained, adding at least some to overall expenses.

Thats fair.  How many people do you think play from the two most forward tee box’s that are they currently?  Like what percentage of golfers?  5, 10, 20, 50%?

[smashdn]

20 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

I think the PGA Tour is against it because it will make their product less appealing to us, the consumers that advertising is sold to.  Fewer viewers would mean fewer ad monies coming in.  Like you I've been posting this thought several times, lol.

 

It could potentially make it less appealing.  I find myself thinking, how do I know how far a player hits the ball to be impressed by it unless I am being told.  And no doubt they very rarely miss the opportunity to tell the viewer how far a drive goes or how little club they have for the approach distance.

 

20 hours ago, bekgolf said:

To me it's akin to the NFL changing to flag football.  Almost everything is still the same but tackles are now verboten and replaced with taking a flag.  They would lose viewers and advertising money.  This is my first sports analogy in this thread and will be my last. 

 

Going to say that that is a bit of stretch of an analogy.  Maybe making the football heavier so it can't be throw as far would be better?  I think the ball change for golf will be a bit less perceptible than changing from tackle to flag football in the most popular and richest sports league in the world.

 

20 hours ago, bekgolf said:

A reduced distance ball makes golf almost the same as it is now except it takes out the risk of going for it because the ball just won't go far enough.  IMO that would result in all players playing it safe all the time.  Always playing it safe would be fairly boring. 

 

What of the guys and hazards that are today easily cleared?  Would they then not be brought back to a point where they must be considered?

 

"Playing it safe" takes many shapes and forms.  Could be playing away from a feature to avoid it.  Could be playing well short of it.  The fact that more golfers would have to make a choice related to that feature is sort of the goal of having the feature out there in the first place and why they kept moving the tees back all those years.  Very rarely was it ever about just making a hole longer for the sake of making it longer, it was to keep the same questions and challenges from the tee as were intended and designed into the holes.

 

20 hours ago, bekgolf said:

Maybe they will move bunkers and other hazards to be in play with a reduced distance ball to bring back the excitement of a player taking a big risk for a big reward?  Who knows? 

 

I like it just the way it is and don't want to see this change.  Golf is very exciting with the equipment rules that are already in place.

 

 

Why would they have to do that?  They could continue to use the existing tee locations or even move up if they wanted.  Then you aren't moving bunkers and other hazards (+cost).  One of the big selling points of the rollback is you aren't continuing to construct further back tee boxes(+cost) (where you have the luxury to be able to do so) or moving stuff that is expensive to do so.

 

You got a field of players, any level of players really, and you have a pretty good idea that there drives fall within say 200 to 250 (say it is a lady's club championship).  When you are deciding which tees they should play and where the tees will be for that day, do you arbitrarily pick a set or would you be better served to take the time to see where the tee should be that gets the most of them interacting with the most of your course features?  I would think you would want to do your best to provide instances where 25% or so could clear them, instances where very few could clear them but always keeping in mind (if your goal is to provide challenge) that your apex of the bell curve of driving distance is right about where the feature is located (a water hazard being another animal that requires, at least to me, a different set of considerations).

 

A hazard/feature that you can never reach is as useless as a hazard/feature that you can always clear.

[Simpsonia]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

You got a field of players, any level of players really, and you have a pretty good idea that there drives fall within say 200 to 250 (say it is a lady's club championship).  When you are deciding which tees they should play and where the tees will be for that day, do you arbitrarily pick a set or would you be better served to take the time to see where the tee should be that gets the most of them interacting with the most of your course features?  I would think you would want to do your best to provide instances where 25% or so could clear them, instances where very few could clear them but always keeping in mind (if your goal is to provide challenge) that your apex of the bell curve of driving distance is right about where the feature is located (a water hazard being another animal that requires, at least to me, a different set of considerations).

 

A hazard/feature that you can never reach is as useless as a hazard/feature that you can always clear.

 

So here's one thing I'm curious about. We've all mentioned that the LPGA is much closer to the distances that the rollbackers would like to see. They claim that this is the optimal distance for challenge. But, is it the optimal distance for a product? Like it or not, professional golf is a product. All the challenge in the world won't matter if it doesn't sell. Right now, it seems that the invisible hand of the free market has answered (at least in part), and that answer is 'probably not'. Here's an entire article about how many many experts think that the LPGA is being held back by it's strict adherence to the current distances that make scoring incredibly difficult, if not impossible for many on the tour. Now true that some of the lack of LPGA popularity is likely pure old-fashioned sexism, but I think there's generally some merit to the lack of scoring holding it back in many ways. 

 

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2021/03/16/lpga-golf-course-setups-womens-golf-pga-tour/

 

So, for the sake of a thought experiment, if we take this premise as accurate that lack of scoring opportunities due to distance is generally unpopular and could reduce golf's viewership and have other knock-on effects as a product, does that move the needle at all for rollbackers? 

 

 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

5 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

So here's one thing I'm curious about. We've all mentioned that the LPGA is much closer to the distances that the rollbackers would like to see. They claim that this is the optimal distance for challenge. But, is it the optimal distance for a product? Like it or not, professional golf is a product. All the challenge in the world won't matter if it doesn't sell. Right now, it seems that the invisible hand of the free market has answered (at least in part), and that answer is 'probably not'. Here's an entire article about how many many experts think that the LPGA is being held back by it's strict adherence to the current distances that make scoring incredibly difficult, if not impossible for many on the tour. Now true that some of the lack of LPGA popularity is likely pure old-fashioned sexism, but I think there's generally some merit to the lack of scoring holding it back in many ways. 

 

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2021/03/16/lpga-golf-course-setups-womens-golf-pga-tour/

 

So, for the sake of a thought experiment, if we take this premise as accurate that lack of scoring opportunities due to distance is generally unpopular and could reduce golf's viewership and have other knock-on effects as a product, does that move the needle at all for rollbackers? 

 

 

 

Are the most viewed PGA events generally harder or easier setups?

[Titleist99]

16 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

So here's one thing I'm curious about. We've all mentioned that the LPGA is much closer to the distances that the rollbackers would like to see. They claim that this is the optimal distance for challenge. But, is it the optimal distance for a product? Like it or not, professional golf is a product. All the challenge in the world won't matter if it doesn't sell. Right now, it seems that the invisible hand of the free market has answered (at least in part), and that answer is 'probably not'. Here's an entire article about how many many experts think that the LPGA is being held back by it's strict adherence to the current distances that make scoring incredibly difficult, if not impossible for many on the tour. Now true that some of the lack of LPGA popularity is likely pure old-fashioned sexism, but I think there's generally some merit to the lack of scoring holding it back in many ways. 

 

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2021/03/16/lpga-golf-course-setups-womens-golf-pga-tour/

 

So, for the sake of a thought experiment, if we take this premise as accurate that lack of scoring opportunities due to distance is generally unpopular and could reduce golf's viewership and have other knock-on effects as a product, does that move the needle at all for rollbackers? 

 

 

Rollbackers couldn't care less about the needle and the television product. Most yearn for the game that Jack Nicklaus played. Most would be happy if the viewership dropped, golf was televised on Sundays only and purses went back to 1962 levels.

 

Rest assured, one irons into par fours and three shot par fives is a recipe for failure as far as TV goes.

 

To the RBs that's best for the game.

[Titleist99]

13 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Are the most viewed PGA events generally harder or easier setups?

There's a reason that most PGAT events are birdie fests. People like to see birdies and eagles, not pars and bogeys. IMO

[Pnwpingi210]

52 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

So here's one thing I'm curious about. We've all mentioned that the LPGA is much closer to the distances that the rollbackers would like to see. They claim that this is the optimal distance for challenge. But, is it the optimal distance for a product? Like it or not, professional golf is a product. All the challenge in the world won't matter if it doesn't sell. Right now, it seems that the invisible hand of the free market has answered (at least in part), and that answer is 'probably not'. Here's an entire article about how many many experts think that the LPGA is being held back by it's strict adherence to the current distances that make scoring incredibly difficult, if not impossible for many on the tour. Now true that some of the lack of LPGA popularity is likely pure old-fashioned sexism, but I think there's generally some merit to the lack of scoring holding it back in many ways. 

 

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2021/03/16/lpga-golf-course-setups-womens-golf-pga-tour/

 

So, for the sake of a thought experiment, if we take this premise as accurate that lack of scoring opportunities due to distance is generally unpopular and could reduce golf's viewership and have other knock-on effects as a product, does that move the needle at all for rollbackers? 

 

 

 

LPGA leader is about 285-290.  LPGA average is 255.

 

Pga tour is 325 leader. Tour average is 295.  
 

The rollback is estimated to cut that by 12-20 yards (estimations) .  That would put the pga tour at leader at 305, and tour average at 275 assuming they don’t gain anything back as the demographics of the professional golfer change.  Still about 20yards ahead of the lpga leader and average.    Essentially this cuts the distance gap in half, resulting in a product that is equally as close to the non rollbacked product as it is to the current lpga product.  
 

 

tough to say if that would have an impact on the product.  It seems viewership is going down while your average distance is going up.  I’m not certain it truly is as much as people are consuming it differently now.

 

[Pnwpingi210]

39 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

There's a reason that most PGAT events are birdie fests. People like to see birdies and eagles, not pars and bogeys. IMO

What are the most watched events?  What’s the average score of those events?

[TLUBulldogGolf]

49 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

There's a reason that most PGAT events are birdie fests. People like to see birdies and eagles, not pars and bogeys. IMO

I noticed you didn’t answer the question.

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Are the most viewed PGA events generally harder or easier setups?

 

 

Too many other factors to make a straight correlation without significant normalization needed. Majors have a huge amount of history that bring automatic viewership, same with some of the other tournaments. Largely viewership seems to follow tournament history more than anything else. Non-majors that are the most popular are ones like Genesis, Waste Management Open, Arnold Palmer Invitational, Players, etc. The other aspect that viewership seems to follow is the strength of the field, which has more to do with purses than setup. 

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

So here's one thing I'm curious about. We've all mentioned that the LPGA is much closer to the distances that the rollbackers would like to see.

 

And to go ahead and answer, from my perspective anyway, why that is, has little to nothing to do with "optimal distance" or challenge.

 

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

They claim that this is the optimal distance for challenge.

 

Who and when or where?

 

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

But, is it the optimal distance for a product? Like it or not, professional golf is a product.

 

1) Probably not.

2) That is probably a concern for an organization that is almost solely focused on "selling" it's product, ie PGAT, DPWT, LIV, etc.  I, personally, would not include USGA or R&A in that lot because A) if they are truly selling a professional golf product, they are only bringing one or maybe could be argued two of those events (respectively) to market (US Open and US Women's Open and the R&A versions) and B) both orgs put on events that, if looked at solely from a marketing/profitability standpoint, would have been shelved long ago ie US Amateur Four Ball, US Adaptive Open, etc.

 

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

All the challenge in the world won't matter if it doesn't sell. Right now, it seems that the invisible hand of the free market has answered (at least in part), and that answer is 'probably not'. Here's an entire article about how many many experts think that the LPGA is being held back by it's strict adherence to the current distances that make scoring incredibly difficult, if not impossible for many on the tour. Now true that some of the lack of LPGA popularity is likely pure old-fashioned sexism, but I think there's generally some merit to the lack of scoring holding it back in many ways. 

 

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2021/03/16/lpga-golf-course-setups-womens-golf-pga-tour/

 

So, for the sake of a thought experiment, if we take this premise as accurate that lack of scoring opportunities due to distance is generally unpopular and could reduce golf's viewership and have other knock-on effects as a product, does that move the needle at all for rollbackers? 

 

Going to admit I am not sure what you are actually asking here.  If I accept that lack of scoring is unpopular and would therefore reduce viewership, does that (are you asking) satisfy my wants?

 

If that is what you are asking then no.  I am certainly not coming at this from the standpoint that I want to make golf more dull to watch.  I also don't think that if you altered the equipment rules in such a way to suddenly give ladies the ability to hit drives 350 that that will add much interest.  Similarly, if the PGAT average went up 30 yards and the longest player's average did as well, would that bump interest?  It is all relative to me I suppose.  At one point in my golf viewing career a 300 yard drive was a feat to behold.  Now I don't give it a second thought.

 

So to sum it all up, I think you are off-base in what, at least this proponent of a roll back is after.  I advocate for a change only to stop the altering of courses via added length for numerous reasons.  None of which have anything to do with score (directly) or difficulty.  Those are just ancillary topics that have come up in the 400+ pages.

 

I don't agree that the organizations that are asking for the change are doing so to either benefit or hurt professional golf.  They don't have enough skin in the professional golf game to really have to have that care for that reason.  Because of that, they can approach the subject more altruistically, though admittedly not without the views of the member clubs in perspective. 

 

I agree that there are likely all sorts of changes that could be made to professional golf as a product to make it more interesting.  Some are likely doable, others may undermine what Golf really is at it's core.  My analogy is that there are certain changes to MLB that would draw in more fans, but if you make too many or too drastic a change, it ceases to be what the sport is at it's core.  Professional baseball is not men's slow pitch softball though one could argue that there are aspects of the latter that would make the former more popular.  There has to be some sort of check on integrity to a degree and whether a product is popular or attractive might not always be the best barometer.

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

I noticed you didn’t answer the question.

Do your own research...... you wouldn't believe me if it didn't agree with your narrative.

Edited May 1 by Titleist99

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

So to sum it all up, I think you are off-base in what, at least this proponent of a roll back is after.  I advocate for a change only to stop the altering of courses via added length for numerous reasons.  None of which have anything to do with score (directly) or difficulty.  Those are just ancillary topics that have come up in the 400+ pages.

And in those 400 pages it is been pointed out that courses adding distance isn’t happening at the level it’s claimed to be and that per an actual study courses have been built shorter in the last 10 years.

 

its the ultra private, courses with excessive amounts of money that have chosen to add length and even then that has slowed down. So the notion that something that isn’t actually happening needs to be stopped is incorrect 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

19 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Do your own research...... you wouldn't believe me if it didn't agree with your narrative.

My research says the majors are most viewed and tend to have harder setups. I don’t know what your tangent had to do with what I asked. I’m glad you enjoy -30 fests but those aren’t the big ratings winners.
 

Edited May 1 by TLUBulldogGolf

[Titleist99]

15 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

My research says the majors are most viewed and tend to have harder setups. I don’t know what your tangent had to do with what I asked. I’m glad you enjoy -30 fests but those aren’t the big ratings winners.
 

Sorry for the tangent. Please accept my apology but the Majors has nothing to do with the PGAT. The Tour love birdie fest as long as there's a shootout and drama and excitement at the end. Sure they have some tougher setups but mostly birdie fest. The only tour that's worse than the PGAT is the KFT.

 

The LPGA players are complaining that their setups are too hard and should be relaxed so the par fives can be reached in two and the par fours can be driven and not approached with fairway woods.

 

Again, sorry for my foolishness.

[maamold]

3 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

2) That is probably a concern for an organization that is almost solely focused on "selling" it's product, ie PGAT, DPWT, LIV, etc.  I, personally, would not include USGA or R&A in that lot because A) if they are truly selling a professional golf product, they are only bringing one or maybe could be argued two of those events (respectively) to market (US Open and US Women's Open and the R&A versions) and B) both orgs put on events that, if looked at solely from a marketing/profitability standpoint, would have been shelved long ago ie US Amateur Four Ball, US Adaptive Open, etc.

No, No, No Smashdn. You MUST demonize the USGA/RA because... "Product"

[North Butte]

It's sad that so many people suffer the delusion that televised golf entertainment is the actual game that matters and the game played by the other millions of us every day is an afterthought. There were hackers playing the game for fun long before millionaires started doing it on TV and there will be hackers playing for fun long after televised golf crawls up its own backside and dies. 

[IndyArcher]

10 hours ago, North Butte said:

It's sad that so many people suffer the delusion that televised golf entertainment is the actual game that matters and the game played by the other millions of us every day is an afterthought. There were hackers playing the game for fun long before millionaires started doing it on TV and there will be hackers playing for fun long after televised golf crawls up its own backside and dies. 

I don’t think it’s an either/or. Most of us trace our golf interest back to those televised golf events. We see equipment used, new product exposure and name recognition. In the same way that the Cincinnati Reds created an interest in baseball that carried me through high school and well into adulthood via softball, PGAT golf forged my initial interest in the sport of golf. 
 

“The game played by the other millions of us every day” is highly dependent upon ‘televised golf entertainment’ IMO.  I’d suggest they are largely inseparable. If the latter suffers, so eventually will the former. 

Edited May 2 by IndyArcher

[North Butte]

58 minutes ago, stevesteven1 said:

The antis that apparently sincerely believe it’s easier to redesign golf courses than grandfather out disposable equipment really need to get themselves looked at 

What about the realists who know there's no need to redesign golf courses or nerf the golf ball? 

 

[smashdn]

14 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

its the ultra private, courses with excessive amounts of money that have chosen to add length and even then that has slowed down. So the notion that something that isn’t actually happening needs to be stopped is incorrect 

 

Ahh, so like, courses that are typically those looked at for majors then?  (Southern Hills, Oakland Hills, Interlachen, etc.)

 

In these same 400 pages I have linked numerous examples of courses (linked articles), ranging anywhere from blue blood US Open venues to retirement community courses to daily fee and municipal courses, that have added length.  I have also taken pains that when I provide those links that a good deal of them specifically mention phrases such as "modern game" or detail as to why those running those courses decided to add length.

 

 

"That was the first of six U.S. Opens the club hosted, but none since 1996. Oakland Hills was the site of the 2004 Ryder Cup and Padraig Harrington’s victory at the 2008 PGA Championship, but it is one of the worst-kept secrets in golf that this latest renovation was green-lit with the objective of being awarded a seventh U.S. Open and with ambitions of becoming the USGA’s Midwest rota choice for years to come.

 

When Oakland Hills hosted the 2002 U.S. Amateur – won by Ricky Barnes in a flowery Hawaiian-print shirt that hangs in the clubhouse – technology advances to the driver and golf ball had given players the upper hand. Bill Haas shot a 29 in match play and members were none too happy to read headlines in the local papers proclaiming, “The Monster has lost it teeth.”

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2021/10/18/oakland-hills-gil-hanse-golf-course-restoration/

 

 

"The course is more prepared now for the modern era of golf to remain a viable championship host. It also more closely resembles Maxwell’s original design, from the bunkers to the greens and the hole layouts."

 

"The 7th has drastic changes. First, the green was moved back about 40 yards and to the right, with its right edge hugging a creek. There are also two bunkers left, placing a premium on a strong approach shot. 

 

The lengthening of the hole also means more decisions to be made off the tee. Now at roughly 440 yards, players can no longer hit a wood or long iron off the tee and have a shot iron or wedge into the green. Any shots on the left side of the fairway will be on an uneven lie, with the ball wanting to go toward the water on approach. 

Any tee shot to the right, though it will leave an easier approach shot, it could find trouble with the creek or trees.

 

The course will also play more than 300 yards longer than it did in 2007, coming it at nearly 7,500 yards." 

 https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/pga/2022/05/09/2022-pga-championship-southern-hills-course-changes-gil-hanse-restoration/9627727002/

 

 

"Another factor at play with Merion is the course's length: just 6,996 yards when all back tees are used, making it 680 yards shorter than 2021 host Torrey Pines played in the final round of this year's championship. Yes, Merion does boast three par 3s that can play more than 250 yards, but with a half-dozen par 4s that top out below 400 yards, it primarily used fearsome greens and slimmed-down fairways to defend par in 2013 when pre-tournament rains caused soggy conditions.

 

With its next turn hosting the U.S. Open nine years away, it is possible that the equipment the field uses could be a little less potent. With the USGA looking at its equipment regulations, it could turn out that the East Course will have a bit more teeth in 2030, much to the delight of those in favor of equipment rollbacks."

https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/articles/u-s-open-merion-golf-club-2030-oakmont-anchor-site

 

 

If you don't believe it is happening, and why, where the most grueling men's professional golf tournaments are attempting to be held, then you have your head in the sand at this point.  

[Ty_Webb]

6 minutes ago, smashdn said:

Bill Haas shot a 29 in match play and members were none too happy to read headlines in the local papers proclaiming, “The Monster has lost it teeth.”

 

So because the members were upset that someone played well on their course they made it longer. And because we can't have those members being upset, we have to upheave the entire game? This entire thing is about the pride of a handful of members at clubs that want to hold majors. They don't need to lengthen them. They're choosing to for vanity. 

[Oostiesalbacore]

Instead of a roll back, allow different sized balls to be played as long as they’re within some range. Some players will use smaller ones for spinnier shots and some will use larger ones for more carry. Could be interesting to see how different strategies would play out. Do you want a spinnier ball or a longer ball at Augusta? Guess we could find out in real time. Maybe at a US Open with penal rough, it’s better to play a big ball so you can get it out easier but maybe the small ball is better so you can actually stop it on the green from the rough. Be cool to see that play out. 
 

Also, we would get hilarious clips of players talking about loving the big balls or how maybe their balls were too big that week. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 minute ago, Oostiesalbacore said:

Instead of a roll back, allow different sized balls to be played as long as they’re within some range. Some players will use smaller ones for spinnier shots and some will use larger ones for more carry. Could be interesting to see how different strategies would play out. Do you want a spinnier ball or a longer ball at Augusta? Guess we could find out in real time. Maybe at a US Open with penal rough, it’s better to play a big ball so you can get it out easier but maybe the small ball is better so you can actually stop it on the green from the rough. Be cool to see that play out. 
 

Also, we would get hilarious clips of players talking about loving the big balls or how maybe their balls were too big that week. 

 

There is no upper restriction on the size of the ball. Obviously with the weight limit it ends up not making sense for it to be larger, not to mention it adds wind resistance. 

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

So because the members were upset that someone played well on their course they made it longer. And because we can't have those members being upset, we have to upheave the entire game? This entire thing is about the pride of a handful of members at clubs that want to hold majors. They don't need to lengthen them. They're choosing to for vanity. 

 

Then almost all of them are of the same mindset, public, private, municipal, in the US and in GB.  Vanity is certainly a powerful force but I don't think it has quite that level of unifying effect.  Maybe we should find a way to harness it's power?

[CDM]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

So because the members were upset that someone played well on their course they made it longer. And because we can't have those members being upset, we have to upheave the entire game? This entire thing is about the pride of a handful of members at clubs that want to hold majors. They don't need to lengthen them. They're choosing to for vanity. 

 

Vanity plays true. What is funny is they add distance and yet NONE of them play it from that location as they can barely play the current tees they have.  Some people just need to get along with the voices in their head.  😁

 

Ludvig Aberg lit up a course I play while in college and while the other players did not, nor did prior players in prior events we had some members who did not like Aberg scored so well.  Personally I thought it was cool to see just how good he really is...! There was a lot of hype about him and he backed it up.   Prior to Aberg over par (maybe par) was the norm for the event.  We saw it at the Masters this year the hype is real on him...! 

 

Even playing a tee or two up I can barely get to spots he did from BACK....!