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

[Oostiesalbacore]

I don’t understand the excitement for the rollback when it comes to using driver off the tee on more holes. 
 

Do you enjoy playing golf or playing driver swing? I don’t hit driver on every par 4 or even every par 5 because it’s not always the smart play. Nerfing the ball to put a driver back in my hand on more holes isn’t solving any problems for me and just means I’m probably going to end up in the rough more often.  This is going to really help out pace of play since now I get to take more time looking for my ball which happens to be my favorite part of the game. 
 

We often talk about the ego of the amateur who won’t move up a tee when they probably should but let’s also assess the ego of the courses themselves. You might say, oostie that’s nuts, a course doesn’t have an ego but I disagree. They clearly do have one since there is a way to offend a course by playing it wrong. You’re supposed to hit it over the bunker but not by THAAAT much and you’re being incredibly rude by not giving a hole filled with sand it’s proper respect.
 

So many courses are being harassed by long hitting malcontents like Rory and his ilk that the USGA and RA finally had enough. We can’t allow an arbortum to be shamed like this. Time for everybody to start showing a hole in the ground the proper respect it deserves so you make sure to hit it the correct distance in proximity to a hazard from now on so the virginity of this game remains pure. 
 

[KC4441]

The pace of play part you hit on is really one of the things I feel is getting ignored.  People already aren’t watching the PGA tour, do they think increasing the time a round takes will make that better?  MLB learned their lesson and took steps to shorten games and viewership is up.  

[Need4spd]

Caddied for a friend of mine in US Open qualifying at Southern Dunes in Maricopa, AZ last week. Feel free to look it up. A long and very legit test. They have tee boxes on several holes labeled “Tips” that are never in use, strictly for tournament play. If they want to the course can be stretched out to over 7,500+ yards. I personally play the back tees that are marked on a regular basis at around 7,300ish. Let’s call them the “normal” tips. 
 

I was very curious to see the course setup before arriving at the course that day. Bear in mind, this is in Arizona where we have some elite amateur talent. 
 

Wanna know how concerned the USGA is about distance? The “Tips” tee box was only used on one hole, #9, and on several holes they didn’t even use the “normal” tips. The tee boxes were literally moved up one box to what would be the equivalent of the blues. 
 

In other words, when I played the course myself four days prior, it played longer than what it did for US Open qualifying. So the same jackwagons who want to roll the ball back don’t even bother to stretch out a course to anywhere near its full potential for a qualifying tournament to get into their national open. 

[gvogel]

12 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Every other major sport has seen the athletes get bigger, stronger, and faster.  Every one of them has seen technology have a major impact on their sport, either in the actual game play or in the training regimen.  Every one of them has seen their sports change dramatically over the last 20 years.  And all of them have embraced the changes and the growth in their fan bases because of it.  Except golf.

 

Basketball now has wings that are 6’10”, can handle the ball like a guard, and knock down a 25 ft jumper, yet the NBA hasn’t raised the rim or moved the free throw line.  They’ve marginally moved back 3 point line, but offset that by allowing the Eurostep so players can basically walk down the lane and score.  Hockey has seen sticks go from solid wood to composite, where now most wrist shots are harder than slap shots of 20 years ago. Yet, the pucks are the same, the nets are the same, the goalie equipment is the same, the rinks are the same.  Baseball juiced the ball and fan interest exploded.  Golf’s solution is to de-juice the ball.  Golf governance is a clown show.

Football has outlawed helmet to helmet contact, and has taken other steps to try to keep quarterbacks safer.  The sport is now thinking about outlawing a certain tackle from behind.  Things change.  Hockey went to uniform rink sizes which were larger than some of the older ones in existence.  Things change.  If you don't like the proposed golf ball change, stock up in 2029.

 

Oh, and tennis changed the ball to promote longer points, better rallies.

Edited May 11 by gvogel

[gvogel]

12 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

Don't you want to see the best results for your efforts? 

 

I agree with what you are saying but... I still want the ball that will give me the best result when I make a pure strike.

Move to Denver.  Even with the rolled back ball, you will be longer than you are now.  But pray tell, don't bother playing on a cold rainy day on a soft course.

[bekgolf]

Just now, gvogel said:

Move to Denver.  Even with the rolled back ball, you will be longer than you are now.  But pray tell, don't bother playing on a cold rainy day on a soft course.

 

Those are my playing conditions for 9 months of the year, also at sea level.  Lol.

[Archimedes65]

52 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Football has outlawed helmet to helmet contact, and has taken other steps to try to keep quarterbacks safer.  The sport is now thinking about outlawing a certain tackle from behind.  Things change.  Hockey went to uniform rink sizes which were larger than some of the older ones in existence.  Things change.  If you don't like the proposed golf ball change, stock up in 2029.

 

Oh, and tennis changed the ball to promote longer points, better rallies.

 

Re: football, you’re talking safety issues.  They haven’t rolled back anything related to performance.  If anything, they’ve dramatically opened up the offenses with the way they call pass coverage now, which has led to superstars like Patrick Mahomes changing the game for the positive.  If golf ran the NFL, they’d be harping for the old days of three yards and a cloud of dust.

 

As regards hockey, the rink size has been the same for decades, save for the old Boston Garden, which was smaller but hasn’t been in operation for a long time.  The only changes that have been made to the rinks in decades have been changes in the relative size of the zones and below the goal lines (plus the trapezoid), all to INCREASE the speed and offense of the game, not to decrease it.  If golf ran the NHL, they’d want to go back to wooden sticks and clutch and grab hockey.

 

Neither of those sports resemble anything like they were when I was a kid.  Yet golf wants to.

Edited May 11 by Archimedes65

[Archimedes65]

49 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

Those are my playing conditions for 9 months of the year, also at sea level.  Lol.

 

Same.  And our club keeps the fairways soft, so you get no roll.  Your drive basically goes how ever far you can carry it in the air.  The ball marks from my drives are bigger than my approach shots.

 

What’s funny to me is the premise that pro golf needs firm fairways because it forces the players to be more precise or their ball rolls off into the rough, but then the same people argue that rough doesn’t matter anymore.  If the rough is not penal for the pros, then soften the fairways so the balls get zero roll.  That alone would knock off 10% off most drives on the pro tour.

[Archimedes65]

Forgetting the debate over this specific issue, whichever side you’re on, can we all agree that letting a small group of people who run an AMATEUR institution dictate the rules for a major PROFESSIONAL sport (and industry) is nuts?  It’s moronic.

 

What would happen if the NFL owners were told that they had to abide by rules dictated by the NCAA? “We’ve decided there’s way too much passing in the league, so we’re mandating a new ball that’s the size of a Rugby ball.  Oh and if you want your kids to play college ball, you Pop Warner and High School leagues need to get with the program and use the new ball!”

 

Edited May 11 by Archimedes65

[mgoblue83]

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Re: football, you’re talking safety issues.  They haven’t rolled back anything related to performance.  If anything, they’ve dramatically opened up the offenses with the way they call pass coverage now, which has led to superstars like Patrick Mahomes changing the game for the positive.  If golf ran the NFL, they’d be harping for the old days of three yards and a cloud of dust.

 

As regards hockey, the rink size has been the same for decades, save for the old Boston Garden, which was smaller but hasn’t been in operation for a long time.  The only changes that have been made to the rinks in decades have been changes in the relative size of the zones and below the goal lines (plus the trapezoid), all to INCREASE the speed and offense of the game, not to decrease it.  If golf ran the NHL, they’d want to go back to wooden sticks and clutch and grab hockey.

 

Neither of those sports resemble anything like they were when I was a kid.  Yet golf wants to.

Your entire argument is disingenuous.

 

None of these other sports have seen equipment change as quickly or have as big an impact as golf.

 

Examples:

Hockey pucks, footballs, basketballs haven’t changed in decades. The golf ball changes every single year. Combine that with the same improvement in sports science AND the improvements to club heads and it’s not even close.

Tennis balls and baseballs have had minor changes but absolutely nothing even close to the changes in the golf ball over the last 40 years.

 

The only comparison that is even close is composite hockey sticks but because the pucks haven’t changed it would be like using a modern driver to hit a balata golf ball. In other words not even close to the same.

 

What is actually happening in golf is what would happen if MLB decided to allow metal or composite bats AND let Rawlings design a new faster core for the baseballs. Every ballpark would be instantly obsolete because guys would be hitting 600ft homers and routine pop flies would be out of the park.

[James the Hogan Fan]

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

Forgetting the debate over this specific issue, whichever side you’re on, can we all agree that letting a small group of people who run an AMATEUR institution dictate the rules for a major PROFESSIONAL sport (and industry) is nuts?  It’s moronic.

 

What would happen if the NFL owners were told that they had to abide by rules dictated by the NCAA? “We’ve decided there’s way too much passing in the league, so we’re mandating a new ball that’s the size of a Rugby ball.  Oh and if you want your kids to play college ball, you Pop Warner and High School leagues need to get with the program and use the new ball!”

 

 

Most sports that aren't the North American big 4 have some overseeing federation that governs the sport. FIFA comes to mind for a start, but there's also World Rugby, the FIS (skiing and snowboarding), the ISU (skating), the IIHF (non-NHL ice hockey)... 

 

It's pretty common for a sport to have the rule-making body be separate from whoever is operating the professional league. The leagues then tweak or add to the common framework to suit their purposes. The PGA could certainly do that, but then (gasp) we'd have bifurcation.

[Oostiesalbacore]

Maybe they should slow the ball down, have you seen a tour event lately? It’s like a firing squad out there with multiple casualties every week. Brooks Koepka took out somebody’s eye and I think it was Rahm that took out somebody’s teeth. 
 

Make it a 2 stroke penalty to strike another person with your shot. C’mon, you’re pros, keep it in the fairway at least. If you can’t, well, don’t swing so hard or maybe tee off with something else until you’re able to play without leaving a trail of bodies behind you.
 

Every week it seems there’s a shot that should be in the rough but oh but the sweet luck of the Irish allows the ball to carom off a persons skull back into the fairway. It’s like bumper bowling but with craniums. 
 

If a pitcher was throwing with such reckless abandon, he’d get yanked so like Koepka says, maybe the tour should start “stroking guys” when it comes to taking the terms “bombing and gouging” to be a license to recreate the Somme on the back nine. 
 

If we get a rollback, let’s get a penalty for friendly fire. 

Edited May 11 by Oostiesalbacore

[Titleist99]

20 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

My response is that there isn't a problem.  However, if the powers that be want to penalize long drives then grow the rough and narrow the fairways.  Easy peasy.

 

After all, isn't that what they already do to make courses harder?

And that's my issue with this rollback. An organization that's notorious for challenging players with long rough, tight fairways and firm greens are now telling us that the only way to challenge players is to nerf the ball.

[Archimedes65]

2 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

Your entire argument is disingenuous.

 

None of these other sports have seen equipment change as quickly or have as big an impact as golf.

 

Examples:

Hockey pucks, footballs, basketballs haven’t changed in decades. The golf ball changes every single year. Combine that with the same improvement in sports science AND the improvements to club heads and it’s not even close.

Tennis balls and baseballs have had minor changes but absolutely nothing even close to the changes in the golf ball over the last 40 years.

 

The only comparison that is even close is composite hockey sticks but because the pucks haven’t changed it would be like using a modern driver to hit a balata golf ball. In other words not even close to the same.

 

What is actually happening in golf is what would happen if MLB decided to allow metal or composite bats AND let Rawlings design a new faster core for the baseballs. Every ballpark would be instantly obsolete because guys would be hitting 600ft homers and routine pop flies would be out of the park.

 

You obviously don’t play hockey…. And if you think today’s baseball is the same one we tossed around as kids, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.  And basketballs?  Are you kidding me?  The TF-1000 I play with is light years better than the ball I played with 20-30 years ago.

 

But the biggest change is in the athlete, which has had a much bigger impact on those sports due to their nature as sports, vs. golf, which is really a game.  The impact of bigger, faster, more skilled athletes has changed all those sports way more than our silly golf ball has changed golf, and yet those sports have embraced those changes.  The sport of golf is so full of itself, it just can’t see the forest for the trees.  Watching Rory and Xander bomb 340 yard drives over the doglegs this afternoon is probably the biggest reason half the audience even tunes in.  That and watching Jordan do the same thing and then miss the green by 20 yards with a sand wedge in his hand.  

Edited May 11 by Archimedes65

[Archimedes65]

2 hours ago, James the Hogan Fan said:

 

Most sports that aren't the North American big 4 have some overseeing federation that governs the sport. FIFA comes to mind for a start, but there's also World Rugby, the FIS (skiing and snowboarding), the ISU (skating), the IIHF (non-NHL ice hockey)... 

 

It's pretty common for a sport to have the rule-making body be separate from whoever is operating the professional league. The leagues then tweak or add to the common framework to suit their purposes. The PGA could certainly do that, but then (gasp) we'd have bifurcation.

 

But none of the ones you list are AMATEUR organizations that make decisions that materially impact PROFESSIONAL leagues.  The IIHF has absolutely zero control over the NHL.  Years back the international powers tried to get the NHL to adopt the international rink size and the NHL offered the larger finger next to their ring finger.

 

If golf wants to be viewed as a major professional sport, it can’t be at the mercy of a small group of amateur overlords. But golf is so full of itself, I don’t expect it’ll ever change.

[mgoblue83]

50 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

You obviously don’t play hockey…. And if you think today’s baseball is the same one we tossed around as kids, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.  And basketballs?  Are you kidding me?  The TF-1000 I play with is light years better than the ball I played with 20-30 years ago.

 

But the biggest change is in the athlete, which has had a much bigger impact on those sports due to their nature as sports, vs. golf, which is really a game.  The impact of bigger, faster, more skilled athletes has changed all those sports way more than our silly golf ball has changed golf, and yet those sports have embraced those changes.  The sport of golf is so full of itself, it just can’t see the forest for the trees.  Watching Rory and Xander bomb 340 yard drives over the doglegs this afternoon is probably the biggest reason half the audience even tunes in.  That and watching Jordan do the same thing and then miss the green by 20 yards with a sand wedge in his hand.  

 

You still don't get it. The fact that athletes are bigger/faster/stronger/better in every sport including golf does not excuse the affect equipment has on the game.

 

Golf is being impacted by 3 factors:

1. Sports science and improved athletes (same as every sport)
2. Drastically improved golf ball (literally improves and changes every year unlike any other sport)
3. Drastically improved clubs (again improves and changes every year unlike any other sport)

 

Most other sports are simply not affected in a noticeable way by changes to equipment. A "better" TF-1000 basketball does not dramatically improve shooting accuracy, shooting from distance or anything else. You keep bringing up hockey. I've played my whole life. Grew up using Montreal wood and now using the latest composites. Can I shoot faster now? Of course. Does it change the game? Not at all. I could dig them out of my parents garage and play just about as well with my old wooden sticks tomorrow. Now if I went out and played golf with some persimmon clubs and a balata ball I'd be about 80 yards shorter, significantly less accurate and would probably score 20-30 strokes higher. It's a completely different game.

[Archimedes65]

44 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

You still don't get it. The fact that athletes are bigger/faster/stronger/better in every sport including golf does not excuse the affect equipment has on the game.

 

Golf is being impacted by 3 factors:

1. Sports science and improved athletes (same as every sport)
2. Drastically improved golf ball (literally improves and changes every year unlike any other sport)
3. Drastically improved clubs (again improves and changes every year unlike any other sport)

 

Most other sports are simply not affected in a noticeable way by changes to equipment. A "better" TF-1000 basketball does not dramatically improve shooting accuracy, shooting from distance or anything else. You keep bringing up hockey. I've played my whole life. Grew up using Montreal wood and now using the latest composites. Can I shoot faster now? Of course. Does it change the game? Not at all. I could dig them out of my parents garage and play just about as well with my old wooden sticks tomorrow. Now if I went out and played golf with some persimmon clubs and a balata ball I'd be about 80 yards shorter, significantly less accurate and would probably score 20-30 strokes higher. It's a completely different game.

 

And you don’t get the fact that athleticism impacts real sports like football, basketball, and hockey, way more than it does a game like golf.  Golf is static sport.  The massive transformation of the athlete has impacted those games way more than golf, and much more than the evolution of the golf ball has impacted golf.  My point is that those games have changed massively and the powers that be have embraced that, marketed that, and made their leagues wildly successful.  Just look at the massive increases in franchise values in the last 20 years.

 

Golf’s old guard leadership on the other hand doesn’t embrace change.  They fight it, at all costs.  The timing of this roll back stupidity coinciding with the creation of LIV is pretty ironic.  Here’s a group that is fed up with golf leadership, is trying to bring golf into the 20th century (albeit in a really misguided way), and the biggest news in from the leadership of golf in America is that we’re going to pull the game back into the past.  It’s a brilliant strategy.

Edited May 12 by Archimedes65

[mgoblue83]

5 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

And you don’t get the fact that athleticism impacts real sports like football, basketball, and hockey, way more than it does a game like golf.  Golf is static sport.  The massive transformation of the athlete has impacted those games way more than golf, and much more than the evolution of the golf ball has impacted golf.  My point is that those games have changed massively and the powers that be have embraced that, marketed that, and made their leagues wildly successful.  Just look at the massive increases in franchise values in the last 20 years.

 

Golf’s old guard leadership on the other hand doesn’t embrace change.  They fight it, at all costs.  The timing of this roll back stupidity coinciding with the creation of LIV is pretty ironic.  Here’s a group that is fed up with golf leadership, is trying to bring golf into the 20th century (albeit in a really misguided way), and the biggest news in from the leadership of golf in America is that we’re going to pull the game back into the past.  It’s a brilliant strategy.

 

Just stop. Nobody is arguing the impact that increased athleticism has had on all sports but the comparisons to golf are completely disingenuous.

 

"Real" sports like football, basketball and hockey are not reliant on equipment so any changes to things like helmets, cleats, and footballs have a very minor impact. Golf on the other hand is incredibly reliant on equipment and the changes we are seeing are dramatically different than what is happening in other sports.

 

There isn't a single other mainstream sport that is as reliant on equipment AND has allowed the equipment to change so quickly and so dramatically. The most direct comparison for a sport that is reliant on equipment is baseball and guess what? MLB has limited the equipment to wooden bats and a wound ball for over a hundred years because they know how damaging it would be to allow composite bats and solid core baseballs into the pro game.

 

 

 

[bekgolf]

10 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

Just stop. Nobody is arguing the impact that increased athleticism has had on all sports but the comparisons to golf are completely disingenuous.

 

"Real" sports like football, basketball and hockey are not reliant on equipment so any changes to things like helmets, cleats, and footballs have a very minor impact. Golf on the other hand is incredibly reliant on equipment and the changes we are seeing are dramatically different than what is happening in other sports.

 

There isn't a single other mainstream sport that is as reliant on equipment AND has allowed the equipment to change so quickly and so dramatically. The most direct comparison for a sport that is reliant on equipment is baseball and guess what? MLB has limited the equipment to wooden bats and a wound ball for over a hundred years because they know how damaging it would be to allow composite bats and solid core baseballs into the pro game.

 

 

 

 

How long have limitations been in place for golf equipment?

[notsohard]

Hey, are the Callaway boys practicing/trying a rollback ball in their own time? 

[Chunkitgood]

10 hours ago, Need4spd said:

Caddied for a friend of mine in US Open qualifying at Southern Dunes in Maricopa, AZ last week. Feel free to look it up. A long and very legit test. They have tee boxes on several holes labeled “Tips” that are never in use, strictly for tournament play. If they want to the course can be stretched out to over 7,500+ yards. I personally play the back tees that are marked on a regular basis at around 7,300ish. Let’s call them the “normal” tips. 
 

I was very curious to see the course setup before arriving at the course that day. Bear in mind, this is in Arizona where we have some elite amateur talent. 
 

Wanna know how concerned the USGA is about distance? The “Tips” tee box was only used on one hole, #9, and on several holes they didn’t even use the “normal” tips. The tee boxes were literally moved up one box to what would be the equivalent of the blues. 
 

In other words, when I played the course myself four days prior, it played longer than what it did for US Open qualifying. So the same jackwagons who want to roll the ball back don’t even bother to stretch out a course to anywhere near its full potential for a qualifying tournament to get into their national open. 

They just wanted to get it over with, on the same day they started.

[Oostiesalbacore]

If the players are too athletic, the simple solution is to put a big barbell on the first tee and disallow anybody who can pick it up from teeing off. 
 

Of course you can have handicapped barbell tees; I’m not a monster. 

[Archimedes65]

2 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

Just stop. Nobody is arguing the impact that increased athleticism has had on all sports but the comparisons to golf are completely disingenuous.

 

"Real" sports like football, basketball and hockey are not reliant on equipment so any changes to things like helmets, cleats, and footballs have a very minor impact. Golf on the other hand is incredibly reliant on equipment and the changes we are seeing are dramatically different than what is happening in other sports.

 

There isn't a single other mainstream sport that is as reliant on equipment AND has allowed the equipment to change so quickly and so dramatically. The most direct comparison for a sport that is reliant on equipment is baseball and guess what? MLB has limited the equipment to wooden bats and a wound ball for over a hundred years because they know how damaging it would be to allow composite bats and solid core baseballs into the pro game.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, you’re spouting opinions when I’m providing facts.  Every other major sport in the US has embraced change and evolved with the times; and has been rewarded with growth and higher revenues.  Except golf.  They want to go in reverse, just so we can preserve the ability to play at some outdated courses.  Move on, build new courses, challenge the players in new ways.  Or be dinosaurs, piss off your prime customer, and lose fans.  Didn’t someone start a thread about declining fan interest recently?…

[Archimedes65]

5 minutes ago, Oostiesalbacore said:

If the players are too athletic, the simple solution is to put a big barbell on the first tee and disallow anybody who can pick it up from teeing off. 
 

Of course you can have handicapped barbell tees; I’m not a monster. 

 

Mandatory smoking for all players.  And not those douchey vape pens.  Filterless menthols. 

[James the Hogan Fan]

9 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

But none of the ones you list are AMATEUR organizations that make decisions that materially impact PROFESSIONAL leagues.  The IIHF has absolutely zero control over the NHL.  Years back the international powers tried to get the NHL to adopt the international rink size and the NHL offered the larger finger next to their ring finger.

 

If golf wants to be viewed as a major professional sport, it can’t be at the mercy of a small group of amateur overlords. But golf is so full of itself, I don’t expect it’ll ever change.

 

Like I said, the IIHF doesn't oversee the NHL, but their rules are used by most European leagues as far as I'm aware.

 

But are you saying FIFA and the International Football Association Board do not exercise control over the professional leagues? Or are you saying they are professional organizations? Or that soccer is not a major professional sport? 

 

Basically it sounds like you want the PGA-Tour to split off and create it's own PGA-tour ruleset. That would have a long list of pros and cons which have been repeated throughout the thread. 

[tomjas]

13 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

Your entire argument is disingenuous.

 

None of these other sports have seen equipment change as quickly or have as big an impact as golf.

 

Examples:

Hockey pucks, footballs, basketballs haven’t changed in decades. The golf ball changes every single year. Combine that with the same improvement in sports science AND the improvements to club heads and it’s not even close.

Tennis balls and baseballs have had minor changes but absolutely nothing even close to the changes in the golf ball over the last 40 years.

 

The only comparison that is even close is composite hockey sticks but because the pucks haven’t changed it would be like using a modern driver to hit a balata golf ball. In other words not even close to the same.

 

What is actually happening in golf is what would happen if MLB decided to allow metal or composite bats AND let Rawlings design a new faster core for the baseballs. Every ballpark would be instantly obsolete because guys would be hitting 600ft homers and routine pop flies would be out of the park.

Bat technology has changed considerably in cricket and that has come into play at the same time as a general decrease in the size of playing fields 

 

Marketing people have determined that more people want to see balls being hit out of the park than an even contest and you can’t argue with the financial results 

[Titleist99]

12 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

And you don’t get the fact that athleticism impacts real sports like football, basketball, and hockey, way more than it does a game like golf.  Golf is static sport.  The massive transformation of the athlete has impacted those games way more than golf, and much more than the evolution of the golf ball has impacted golf.  My point is that those games have changed massively and the powers that be have embraced that, marketed that, and made their leagues wildly successful.  Just look at the massive increases in franchise values in the last 20 years.

 

Golf’s old guard leadership on the other hand doesn’t embrace change.  They fight it, at all costs.  The timing of this roll back stupidity coinciding with the creation of LIV is pretty ironic.  Here’s a group that is fed up with golf leadership, is trying to bring golf into the 20th century (albeit in a really misguided way), and the biggest news in from the leadership of golf in America is that we’re going to pull the game back into the past.  It’s a brilliant strategy.

"Golf’s old guard leadership on the other hand doesn’t embrace change.  They fight it, at all costs.  The timing of this roll back stupidity coinciding with the creation of LIV is pretty ironic.  Here’s a group that is fed up with golf leadership, is trying to bring golf into the 20th century (albeit in a really misguided way), and the biggest news in from the leadership of golf in America is that we’re going to pull the game back into the past.  It’s a brilliant strategy."

 

This my friend is the biggest mystery of all. Why now, at the height of golf's popularity?

 

It could certainly be argued that the stupid roll back and irrational payouts by LIV are the start of golf's dramatic decline thanks to said Amateur organization. IMO

[chisag]

2 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

This my friend is the biggest mystery of all. Why now, at the height of golf's popularity?

 

It could certainly be argued that the stupid roll back and irrational payouts by LIV are the start of golf's dramatic decline thanks to said Amateur organization. IMO

 

 

... Why now? The USGA has been concerned about the distance a golf ball travels going back about 100 years and have made many ball rule changes to limit the distance a ball travels. The USGA is not some evil organization trying to ruin the current game, just some guys that love golf and trying to do what they think is best for the game. Per the Talking Heads:

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was


1931: After conducting research and testing over the course of 5 years, the USGA places new limitations on the golf ball noting that the “United States Golf Association will take whatever steps necessary to limit the power of the ball with regard to distance, should any ball of greater power be introduced. They also note that “The report of this Committee [Implements and Ball] for the year 1930 would not be complete without mention of the splendid support given by the Golf Ball Manufacturers who, during a period of substantial re-adjustment in their manufacturing equipment, have shown every co-operation and desire to serve the best interests of the game.” (Year Book of the United States Golf Association, 1931)

The weight of the ball shall be not greater the 1.55 ounces avoirdupois, and the size not less than 1.68 inches in diameter. (Rules of Golf, 1931)

 

1932: The lighter ball lasts only one year. While players found the size of the ball uniformly popular and preferable to play, the weight of the ball was found to be of insufficient to hold its course in the wind and was easily diverted by irregularities on the putting green. The USGA returns to a maximum weight of 1.62 oz and retains the minimum diameter at 1.68-in as the American ‘standard’ ball. The R&A keeps the 1.62-in and 1.62 oz. ball as the British ‘standard’ ball.
 

1937: “On June 5, 1936 the principal golf ball manufacturers and members of the Golf Ball Manufacturer’s Association, with the exception of the Penfold Company, which is not a member, were called together at Baltusrol and were told that the U.S.G.A. viewed with alarm the increasing flight of balls during the past few years. Each manufacturer present promised that he would not bring out for merchandising a ball of greater distance than those already on the market without first notifying us in writing.” (Year Book of the United States Golf Association, 1937)
 

1942: The USGA implement a velocity standard [Initial Velocity Standard (IV)] for golf balls stating: “This has the effect of “freezing” the distance qualities of the ball at the length of the 1941 ball.” (Year Book of the United States Golf Association, 1942)

 

The weight of the ball shall not be greater than 1.620 ounces avoirdupois, and the size not less than 1.680 inches in diameter. The velocity of the ball shall not be greater than 250 feet per second when measured on the U.S.G.A’s apparatus; the temperature of the ball when so tested shall be 75 degrees Fahrenheit; a maximum tolerance of 2% will be allowed on any ball in such velocity test. (Rules of Golf, 1942)
 

1956: Note added to Rule 2. The Club and the Ball reserving the right of the USGA and R&A to change the rules regarding the club and ball at any time.

Rule 2. The Club and the Ball. The United States Golf Association and the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, Scotland, reserve the right to change the Rules and the interpretations regulating clubs and balls at any time. (Rules of Golf, 1956)
 

1973: “Concerned that specific recent aerodynamic developments in ball dimpling and the introduction of the graphite shafts might render the existing distance regulations inadequate”, meetings with manufacturers leads to indoor and outdoor tests of golf balls is undertaken. (Year Book of the United States Golf Assocation, 1973)
 

1974: After significant evaluation and testing the Uniform Ball program is abandoned. The American ‘standard’ ball is adopted for the Open Championship.

The development and establishment of an Overall Distance Standard becomes a top priority.
 

1976: The USGA and R&A implement the Overall Distance Standard (ODS) for golf balls effective March 1, 1976. The goal to “limit future technological development aimed at increasing the distance a golf ball can travel.” (Year Book of the United States Golf Association, 1976).

A brand of golf ball, when tested on apparatus approved by the USGA on the outdoor range at the USGA Headquarters under the conditions set forth in the Overall Distance Standard for golf balls on file with the USGA, shall not cover an average distance in carry and roll exceeding 280 yards, plus a tolerance of 8%. (Note: The 8% tolerance will be reduced to a minimum of 4% as test techniques are improved.) (Rules of Golf, 1977)
 

1980: With the development of golf balls designed to correct, in flight, a hook or a slice, a new standard for golf balls requiring that “the ball shall be designed and manufactured to perform in general as if it were spherically symmetrical” is adopted.
 

1986: The 8% tolerance (4% test tolerance and 4% innovative tolerance) associated with the ODS is reduced to 6% (296.8 yds), reflecting a 4% innovative tolerance with a 2% test tolerance.

A brand of golf ball, when tested on apparatus approved by the USGA on the outdoor range at the USGA Headquarters under the conditions set forth in the Overall Distance Standard for golf balls on file with the USGA, shall not cover an average distance in carry and roll exceeding 280 yards plus a tolerance of 6%. Note: The 6% tolerance will be reduced to a minimum of 4% as test techniques are improved. (Rules of Golf , 1986)
 

1998: The USGA announces that is “developing and intends to implement tests for golf balls and clubs to strengthen standards designed to limit the distance that the most highly skilled players can drive a golf ball”. The press release announces the adoption of the test for the spring-like effect and the initiation of golf ball testing using the USGA Indoor Test Range (USGA Press Release, November 3, 1998)

 

[Need4spd]

Personally, I would be perfectly okay with placing a limit on the ball where it’s currently at. I’d be okay with reducing the maximum size of the driver to place more importance on the quality of strike and accuracy. 
 

There has to be a way to find a happy medium. In other words, give the guys the opportunity to hit it as far as they want (as far as they do today) but with perhaps a touch more risk involved, like there was in the day of the wound ball. 
 

If RORS can swing 125mph and center it, fly it 325 down the middle, power to him. Just make the mishit more punishing, make it so that he can’t heel bang one and still nuke it down the middle. 
 

I’ll give you a personal example of what I mean. Was playing my home course a couple months ago. #18 was playing straight downwind. I was driving it well that day but I hit what I thought was easily my worst drive of the round, low and way in on the heel. I’m looking in the rough on the left just over a fairway bunker, ball is nowhere to be found. I walk a little further, and all of a sudden I see a ball 50-60 yards of ahead and where I was standing in the left center of the fairway. 
 

I later measured the drive using 18 Birdies and I had hit it about 330 yards. Sure, it was downwind but I don’t routinely hit the ball anywhere close to that far. I’m fairly efficient but my ball speed hovers around the mid 150’s, fly it 260ish normally. 
 

Point being, downwind or not, I did not deserve that drive considering how poorly I hit it. 

Edited May 12 by Need4spd

[Pnwpingi210]

34 minutes ago, Need4spd said:

Personally, I would be perfectly okay with placing a limit on the ball where it’s currently at. I’d be okay with reducing the maximum size of the driver to place more importance on the quality of strike and accuracy. 
 

There has to be a way to find a happy medium. In other words, give the guys the opportunity to hit it as far as they want (as far as they do today) but with perhaps a touch more risk involved, like there was in the day of the wound ball. 
 

If RORS can swing 125mph and center it, fly it 325 down the middle, power to him. Just make the mishit more punishing, make it so that he can’t heel bang one and still nuke it down the middle. 
 

I’ll give you a personal example of what I mean. Was playing my home course a couple months ago. #18 was playing straight downwind. I was driving it well that day but I hit what I thought was easily my worst drive of the round, low and way in on the heel. I’m looking in the rough on the left just over a fairway bunker, ball is nowhere to be found. I walk a little further, and off of a sudden I see a ball 50-60 yards of ahead and where I was standing in the left center of the fairway. 
 

I later measured the drive using 18 Birdies and I had hit it about 330 yards. Sure, it was downwind but I don’t routinely hit the ball anywhere close to that far. I’m fairly efficient but my ball speed hovers around the mid 150’s, fly it 260ish normally. 
 

Point being, downwind or not, I did not deserve that drive considering how poorly I hit it. 

The is a valid approach.

 

the caveat to this is reducing the forgiveness of the driver in any way shape or form is going to be far more impactful to the amateur golfer than the elite amateur and professional.

 

20 years ago driver was the hardest club to hit in the bag for most, now it’s arguably the relatively easiest.  Reducing maximum distance the ball travels 4-10 yards will have less of an impact.