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

[clevited]

30 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

Your opinion matters, but it’s not the only voice. I play with a lot of players that over power courses. Some people don’t see those players. Others do. Not sure people that don’t see it have a full view. Also, not sure someone who barely plays should be weighted the same as someone who plays 4x a week. 

 

This sounds suspiciously like jealousy more than anything.  

[klebs01]

Just now, clevited said:

 

This sounds suspiciously like jealousy more than anything.  

Who’s jealous of who?

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, klebs01 said:

Not sure what the pga tour has to do with what I said. I simply said not all players should be counted the same. I couldn’t care less what the pga tour does. They can afford to build 7500-8000 yard boring tpc courses. The issue is at the amateur level and that the game doesn’t fit properly on a ton of courses. A lot of the better courses in fact. That a lot of people aren’t exposed to how prevalent 300 yard drives are is important to the discussion as well as who is actually driving the spend in golf. This isn’t a 0.001% issue. It’s much larger than that. 

The number of people that are overpowering and making courses obsolete is zero. No course is obsolete.

 

no course needs to add distance for the regular amateur golfer. We have had a former tour pro who had a group if very skilled golfers who are above the 115 mph club head speed say they play 6400 yards iirc and dont find the courses to short and even at their speed don’t have a desire to play back which is the case for pretty much every golfer. So the problem isn’t the golfing public, it’s rhat the ruling bodies don’t like the distances the best of the best hit it, so the problem is optics of the elite male game which is pretty much professional tours.

 

So the problem therefore professional golf which the pro rollback crowd doesn’t watch so those opinions on the distance debate don’t matter just like you said the opinions of those who don’t play much golf don’t matter compared to the ones who do. This is using your logic, which means in this thread neither sides opinion matters.

 

i play multiple courses across my area and with random strangers. The number of people on a course at any given time

tnat hit the ball 300 yards can be counted on one hand and in many cases there are none. The number of people golfing that have that distance is around 1%. You don’t change the game for the 1%.

 

 

[GoGoErky]

8 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

This sounds suspiciously like jealousy more than anything.  

At this point the nonsense in this thread is reaching the point it should be shutdown. 

[klebs01]

1 minute ago, GoGoErky said:

The number of people that are overpowering and making courses obsolete is zero. No course is obsolete.

 

no course needs to add distance for the regular amateur golfer. We have had a former tour pro who had a group if very skilled golfers who are above the 115 mph club head speed say they play 6400 yards iirc and dont find the courses to short and even at their speed don’t have a desire to play back which is the case for pretty much every golfer. So the problem isn’t the golfing public, it’s rhat the ruling bodies don’t like the distances the best of the best hit it, so the problem is optics of the elite male game which is pretty much professional tours.

 

So the problem therefore professional golf which the pro rollback crowd doesn’t watch so those opinions on the distance debate don’t matter just like you said the opinions of those who don’t play much golf don’t matter compared to the ones who do. This is using your logic, which means in this thread neither sides opinion matters.

 

i play multiple courses across my area and with random strangers. The number of people on a course at any given time

tnat hit the ball 300 yards can be counted on one hand and in many cases there are none. The number of people golfing that have that distance is around 1%. You don’t change the game for the 1%.

 

 

your statistically significant sample size of 2 is magnificent. 115 mph isn’t uncommon these days. 6400 is a wedge on every hole gets old. 

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, GoGoErky said:

The number of people that are overpowering and making courses obsolete is zero. No course is obsolete.

 

no course needs to add distance for the regular amateur golfer. We have had a former tour pro who had a group if very skilled golfers who are above the 115 mph club head speed say they play 6400 yards iirc and dont find the courses to short and even at their speed don’t have a desire to play back which is the case for pretty much every golfer. So the problem isn’t the golfing public, it’s rhat the ruling bodies don’t like the distances the best of the best hit it, so the problem is optics of the elite male game which is pretty much professional tours.

 

So the problem therefore professional golf which the pro rollback crowd doesn’t watch so those opinions on the distance debate don’t matter just like you said the opinions of those who don’t play much golf don’t matter compared to the ones who do. This is using your logic, which means in this thread neither sides opinion matters.

 

i play multiple courses across my area and with random strangers. The number of people on a course at any given time

tnat hit the ball 300 yards can be counted on one hand and in many cases there are none. The number of people golfing that have that distance is around 1%. You don’t change the game for the 1%.

 

 

To the point you made earlier, these are all opinions.  They are valid from you perspective and the others that have shared them with you.  Others have opinions that conflict with those, and they are equally valid.

 

so how do you move forward without saying I’m right and you are wrong, or saying my option matters more than yours??

 

[GoGoErky]

Just now, Pnwpingi210 said:

To the point you made earlier, these are all opinions.  They are valid from you perspective and the others that have shared them with you.  Others have opinions that conflict with those, and they are equally valid.

 

so how do you move forward without saying I’m right and you are wrong, or saying my option matters more than yours??

 

There’s no moving forward. One side comes in with statements that people who don’t meet their criteria for amount of playing times opinions are less worth than someone who pays more often, that same side drops cheap shots at people on the regular and are pretty disingenuous with their replies. While the other side constantly present data for their stances. You can’t have a debate in that type of situation.

 

Theres also no mcving forward because you have one side that wants to take the game backwards to be able to compare one era to another which is never anything more than an endless and useless sports debate which happens in every sport while the other side which is the majority of golfers want the game to be left alone.

 

 This thread has reached a point for multiple reasons that it should be shutdown.
 

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I could be one of those people whose opinion doesn't matter as much as others' do, but I think it's pretty cool when I get paired with someone who overpowers a golf course.  It's fun to watch.  I guess the fact that I can't do it doesn't bother me that much.

Edited May 14 by Ashley Schaeffer

[GoGoErky]

9 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

your statistically significant sample size of 2 is magnificent. 115 mph isn’t uncommon these days. 6400 is a wedge on every hole gets old. 

I forgot their opinions and how they play don’t matter because they are a minority despite the fact that the back tee boxes on the courses are rarely used. They don’t seem to find it boring, but then again it’s only their minority opinion.

 

So then don’t hit driver on every hole if you want more than wedge in rather than try to change the game for the vast majority of golfers.

 

Even the USGA doesn’t use the back tees and sets up their qualfying events for their biggest tournament of the year to pay shorter than the course maximum and also uses courses under 7000 yards. So where is this distance issue again

[klebs01]

2 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

I forgot their opinions and how they play don’t matter because they are a minority despite the fact that the back tee boxes on the courses are rarely used. They don’t seem to find it boring, but then again it’s only their minority opinion.

 

So then don’t hit driver on every hole if you want more than wedge in rather than try to change the game for the vast majority of golfers.

 

Even the USGA doesn’t use the back tees and sets up their qualfying events for their biggest tournament of the year to pay shorter than the course maximum and also uses courses under 7000 yards. So where is this distance issue again

never said they don’t count but need to be weighted properly. Calling out two people and saying that’s enough evidence is nuts. 
 

ah. The old put your self at a competitive disadvantage just because line. 
 

when was the last event played at 6200 yards? 6400?  Most other sports have to adjust equipment to keep the game sustainable on the playing fields. Golf has done this before. Time to do it again. 

[Pnwpingi210]

7 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

There’s no moving forward. One side comes in with statements that people who don’t meet their criteria for amount of playing times opinions are less worth than someone who pays more often, that same side drops cheap shots at people on the regular and are pretty disingenuous with their replies. While the other side constantly present data for their stances. You can’t have a debate in that type of situation.

 

Theres also no mcving forward because you have one side that wants to take the game backwards to be able to compare one era to another which is never anything more than an endless and useless sports debate which happens in every sport while the other side which is the majority of golfers want the game to be left alone.

 

 This thread has reached a point for multiple reasons that it should be shutdown.
 

 

I agree with most of what you are saying. 
 

I don’t believe that we all couldn’t find a path forward to find something that works for all.

[klebs01]

5 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I agree with most of what you are saying. 
 

I don’t believe that we all couldn’t find a path forward to find something that works for all.

It’s tough when one side doesn’t think long hitters exist outside the pga tour. When they think all courses tip out over 7000y. When they don’t think any courses are adding tees and trying to cram more distance into landlocked layouts. Etc. 

[klebs01]

Welp. My flight landed. Enjoy the conversation for a few day. I can’t wait to see what progress has been made. 

[Archimedes65]

1 hour ago, klebs01 said:

your statistically significant sample size of 2 is magnificent. 115 mph isn’t uncommon these days. 6400 is a wedge on every hole gets old. 

 

No, it’s a wedge for 1/10th of 1 percent of the total golf population.  I get you that it’s still a lot of people in total, but it’s a tiny fraction of all golfers and a very small percentage at ANY club.

 

And honestly, any course that tips out at 6,500 yards or less?  That’s a them problem.  They didn’t have enough foresight when they built their course to leave room for expansion.  Too bad, so sad.  Make it a park or call Al Czervik and build some condos on it.  Time moves on and some things get left behind or replaced.  Or…or….or, just manufacture two versions of the leading balls, one as current and one restricted distance.  And then if courses want to, they can have a MLR that requires use of that ball, while the rest of golf world can use the current ball.  Or just hit a five wood off the tee if you really want to have a 7 iron in instead of a wedge. The idea that the entire golf world should bend over backwards just so a tiny fraction of players playing at a few old country clubs can hit driver all day is beyond stupid.

 

And people who think this is a 5-7 yard difference are being disengenious.  The players who’ve tested it have said it’s gonna be a lot more than that.  If it really was only 5-7 yards shorter, it wouldn’t even begin to solve the problem, as you’d only be effectively adding at most 200 yards to a given course. 

 

By the way, you do know that you can go down to your local Golf Mart today and buy a lower compression ball that will go way shorter than the Pro V/TP5x/Chrome Tour that you’re currently using, right?

Edited May 14 by Archimedes65

[klebs01]

5 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

No, it’s a wedge for 1/10th of 1 percent of the total golf population.  I get you that it’s still a lot of people in total, but it’s a tiny fraction of all golfers and a very small percentage at ANY club.

 

And honestly, any course that tips out at 6,500 yards or less?  That’s a them problem.  They didn’t have enough foresight when they built their course to leave room for expansion.  Too bad, so sad.  Make it a park or call Al Czervik and build some condos on it.  Time moves on and some things get left behind or replaced.  Or…or….or, just manufacture two versions of the leading balls, one as current and one restricted distance.  And then if courses want to do, they can have a MLR that requires use of that ball, while the rest of golf world can use the current ball.

 

And people who think this is a 5-7 yard difference are being disengenious.  The players who’ve tested it have said it’s gonna be a lot more than that.  If it really was only 5-7 yards shorter, it wouldn’t even begin to solve the problem, as you’d only be effectively adding at most 200 yards to a given course. 

about 10% at the clubs I’ve been at. Not that tiny. 
 

damn drawn back in as I’m waiting for gate staff. Yeah. Not sure folks in 1916 should have planned for the changes in the game. The are thousands of courses built pre ww2 and in population centers that according to you should just stop being golf courses. Not sure how any could think that most of the pre-ww2 courses closing would be a better solution thank a ball rollback. 

Edited May 14 by klebs01

[Archimedes65]

What’s going on is that you have a small group of elitist golf brain trust, the USGA, who spend most of their time running events for the elite amateurs who are the best of the best non-pros in the country.  Collectively, this group has a problem.  And their solution to their problem is to negatively affect the game of the entire golfing world, 99% of which have no problem with golf the way it is. 

[GoGoErky]

48 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

It’s tough when one side doesn’t think long hitters exist outside the pga tour. When they think all courses tip out over 7000y. When they don’t think any courses are adding tees and trying to cram more distance into landlocked layouts. Etc. 

the number of courses adding distance is very small and most those that have haven’t done so recently and studies show courses at being built shorter in the last 10 years than the previous so-20. 
 
also perfect example of disingenuous post and misrepresentation of what’s been said.

 

Pro events including those hosted by the ruling bodies play between 7000-7300 in the score card yet don’t always max out that distance and the same organization saying we need to rollback uses other options like longer rough and fast greens to challenge golfers over distance. If the best in the world on a week in and week out basis can hold tournaments at 7000-7300 yards there’s no reason any course needs to go beyond that for regular amateurs even the 300 hitters 

[Archimedes65]

2 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

about 10% at the clubs I’ve been at. Not that tiny. 
 

damn drawn back in as I’m waiting for gate staff. Yeah. Not sure folks in 1916 should have planned for the changes in the game. The are thousands of courses built pre ww2 and in population centers that according to you should just stop being golf courses. Not sure how any could think that most of the pre-ww2 courses closing would be a better solution thank a ball rollback. 

 

But at those clubs, it’s less than 10% of the members that have a problem with 6,500 yards being too short.  Small percentage at a small percentage of clubs.

 

And you’re making my point regarding older clubs.  Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that a golf course that was designed in 1916 would be obsolete in 2024 and maybe we shouldn’t be just assuming that it’s a problem that requires fixing.  Do you not see the arrogance of making decisions based on the situation at a small number of old time country clubs?

 

Every other sport moves on from their old venues and builds new ones.  Why is golf the only one that can’t seem to let go?  Every old hockey barn is gone.  Old Yankee Stadium is gone.  The Boston Garden is gone.  Candlestick is gone.  Ebbetts Field, the Polo Grounds, all gone.  Life moves on.

[Oostiesalbacore]

Just make it illegal to hit a driver immediately followed by a wedge. Boom problem solved, no more bomb and gouge.  

[Pnwpingi210]

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

But at those clubs, it’s less than 10% of the members that have a problem with 6,500 yards being too short.  Small percentage at a small percentage of clubs.

 

And you’re making my point regarding older clubs.  Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that a golf course that was designed in 1916 would be obsolete in 2024 and maybe we shouldn’t be just assuming that it’s a problem that requires fixing.  Do you not see the arrogance of making decisions based on the situation at a small number of old time country clubs?

 

Every other sport moves on from their old venues and builds new ones.  Why is golf the only one that can’t seem to let go?  Every old hockey barn is gone.  Old Yankee Stadium is gone.  The Boston Garden is gone.  Candlestick is gone.  Ebbetts Field, the Polo Grounds, all gone.  Life moves on.

Again discounting people as if they don’t matter since they aren’t the majority.  
 

this is no different than saying the majority of the 26 million US golfers aren’t consistent enough in their strike for them to notice 4-12 yard reduction distance ball.

 

neither are good ways to acknowledge peoples perspectives.

Edited May 15 by Pnwpingi210

[Archimedes65]

46 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Again discounting people as if they don’t matter since they aren’t the majority.  
 

this is no different than saying the majority of the 26 million US golfers aren’t consistent enough in their strike for them to notice 4-12 yard reduction distance ball.

 

neither are good ways to acknowledge peoples perspectives.

 

Not just not the majority, but a teeny tiny minority. It’s not the tail wagging the dog, it’s a flea on the dog’s tail wagging the dog.

 

And the inconsistent strike argument is irrelevant.  Just because the average golfer has a wide dispersion of carries, doesn’t mean they won’t notice a loss of 10 yards.  They’ll still have varied drives, they’ll just all be 10 yard shorter varied drives.  Their best drivers will be shorter, their average drives will be shorter, and their shortest drives will be shorter.  Why does the fact that they have disparity in carry difference mean they won’t notice the ball going shorter?  You don’t think people are smart enough to notice that the ball is overall going shorter after they play a round or two and hit a variety of drives?

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Archimedes65 said:

 

Not just not the majority, but a teeny tiny minority. It’s not the tail wagging the dog, it’s a flea on the dog’s tail wagging the dog.

 

And the inconsistent strike argument is irrelevant.  Just because the average golfer has a wide dispersion of carries, doesn’t mean they won’t notice a loss of 10 yards.  They’ll still have varied drives, they’ll just all be 10 yard shorter varied drives.  Their best drivers will be shorter, their average drives will be shorter, and their shortest drives will be shorter.  Why does the fact that they have disparity in carry difference mean they won’t notice the ball going shorter?  You don’t think people are smart enough to notice that the ball is overall going shorter after they play a round or two and hit a variety of drives?

I’m saying it’s not productive to say somebody or a group of people’s experience is irrelevant.  

[DrunkCaddy]

nm

Edited May 15 by DrunkCaddy

[clevited]

13 hours ago, klebs01 said:

Who’s jealous of who?

 

People that talk like you did, (guys I play with overpowering golf courses), I find are typically the jealous type.  That is what I was referring to.  I think a lot of this is jealousy driven.  Even with todays' "toasters on a stick", driving it long takes a lot of skill.

[stinger_gc]

20 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

Weird that both Homa and Tiger commented that they were having to hit long irons and five woods into the greens at Valhalla and that you can’t score out of the rough there.  It’s almost as if they were saying that a course could be set up to penalize the guys who bomb and gouge.  Very strange.

That style of golf is boring and super one dimensional. It plays right into the hands of big hitters. I thought winged foot in 2020 and Oak Hill last year were super boring for this exact reason.
Augusta gets it right because the penalty for missing a drive in the wrong spot is a “bad angle” to the green.  Looking forward to Pinehurst this year as well since it’s not just narrow fairways and thick rough 

[Simpsonia]

15 hours ago, klebs01 said:

your statistically significant sample size of 2 is magnificent. 115 mph isn’t uncommon these days. 6400 is a wedge on every hole gets old. 

 

You ridicule the notion that long-hitters are a tiny fraction of golfers, both anecdote and data. You say that 115mph isn't uncommon. Where is the data to support your assertion? 

 

The data that we do have from Arccos shows that the total population of roughly 115mph or higher is about 0.5-1.5% of the population of all golfers. 

https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/arccos-2021-distance-report/

 

Shotscope (in 2020) estimates 4% of its users in that highest speed bracket. Though I'd argue that the demographic of Shotscope users in 2020 skews much more towards the golf enthusiast/low handicap population than the general golfer population, so probably isn't wholly representative of the overall general golf population. 

https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/shot-scope-case-study-distribution-of-driver-distance/

 

Now where's your data to back up your assertion that "115mph isn't uncommon". What does uncommon even mean to you? Do you think it's 5% of all golfers, 10%?

 

What percentage of high swing speed players is an acceptable threshold to police every golfer in the world? If high swing speed players were truly 5% of all golfers, is that an acceptable threshold? 10%? 1%? 

 

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

People that talk like you did, (guys I play with overpowering golf courses), I find are typically the jealous type.  That is what I was referring to.  I think a lot of this is jealousy driven.  Even with todays' "toasters on a stick", driving it long takes a lot of skill.

If so many people were overpowering golf courses why aren’t course records being set and tied every weekend. If all these big hitters are driver wedge then they should all be breaking course records when they play or tying the record they sent.

 

we would be seeing a bunch of sub 60 rounds too right?

[gvogel]

13 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

If so many people were overpowering golf courses why aren’t course records being set and tied every weekend. If all these big hitters are driver wedge then they should all be breaking course records when they play or tying the record they sent.

 

we would be seeing a bunch of sub 60 rounds too right?

I thought that you said that this thread should be shut down.  So why do you continue to post?

[GoGoErky]

2 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I thought that you said that this thread should be shut down.  So why do you continue to post?

Because I’m free to as long as it’s open and there is something I care to spend my energy replying to.

 

interesting that you haven’t asked another member who said they see going to stop posting when the thread got to 300 or 350 pages yet still posts. So why only ask one person 

[Pnwpingi210]

22 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

If so many people were overpowering golf courses why aren’t course records being set and tied every weekend. If all these big hitters are driver wedge then they should all be breaking course records when they play or tying the record they sent.

 

we would be seeing a bunch of sub 60 rounds too right?

How do you know we haven’t seen an increase in sub 60 or course records?   Im nerding out collecting data sets posted in this thread.

 

i have seen a data set that says thats the scoring average hasnt changed much, but nothing about low scores.  

Edited May 15 by Pnwpingi210