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

[mgoblue83]

6 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

That doesn't address any of the issues I've raised though. MLB rules are handed down by the MLB itself. If you're playing, you're playing under their rules. With golf, the PGAT is only loosely affiliated with the USGA, and there's no direct enforcement abilities whatsoever. The PGAT already spoke out against the MLR, likely leading to a situation where the PGAT tells the USGA to pound sand and will keep using whatever balls they want, regardless of the MLR. How does the USGA tell the PGAT that they and only they will be abiding by a new rule that they have already said they don't want to adopt? Again, this all goes back to buy-in from stakeholders. 

 

The most dangerous thing a governing body can do is something that causes it to be ignored, as it will soon be ignored by more and more and more until they are completely irrelevant. 

 

Second, if you exempt amateur tournaments, are you exempting the USGA's own flagship tournaments from the MLR ball rules, such as the US Open (open to amateurs), or the US Am, US Mid-Am, US Jr Am? Are those not elite male competitions? 

 

It's about compromise and foresight. Most of the top players are in favor of the rollback and bifurcation (Tiger, Rory and others). I'm also sure the PGA tour would be thrilled to have more courses suitable for tournaments which would bring in new sponsors.

 

All of the issues you mentioned can be solved and by themselves are not enough of a reason to let things stay the way they are. 

 

The way I see it there are 3 options moving forward:

1. Do nothing
2. Small general rollback (current plan)
3. Bifurcate and do nothing to the amateur game and roll back the pro game significantly more than proposed

Small general rollback was chosen as the middle ground but it's a waste of time. Short hitters are upset (see this thread) and the rollback isn't significant enough to change anything for the pros. 

[Simpsonia]

3 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

 

All of the issues you mentioned can be solved and by themselves are not enough of a reason to let things stay the way they are. 

 

 

 

 

Clearly the problems could not be solved though or else the USGA would have proceeded with the original MLR approach. Or are we [once again] questioning the USGA's competency? 

[mgoblue83]

2 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

Clearly the problems could not be solved though or else the USGA would have proceeded with the original MLR approach. Or are we [once again] questioning the USGA's competency? 

 

I appreciate where you are coming from but everything is solvable. Nobody knows the details of previous discussions between the USGA and PGA Tour and given the current situation the tour finds itself in I would expect them to be very open to any changes that bring in more venues, sponsors and more competitive leaderboards. 

[smashdn]

40 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

That doesn't address any of the issues I've raised though. MLB rules are handed down by the MLB itself. If you're playing, you're playing under their rules. With golf, the PGAT is only loosely affiliated with the USGA, and there's no direct enforcement abilities whatsoever.

 

FIFA

 

They are the example.  FIFA makes The Laws of the Game.  Leagues, clubs, states, etc. are able to amend specific laws as needed to fit the level of play.

 

They also host men's and women's tournaments at different levels of play very similar to the USGA and R&A

[Simpsonia]

28 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

FIFA

 

They are the example.  FIFA makes The Laws of the Game.  Leagues, clubs, states, etc. are able to amend specific laws as needed to fit the level of play.

 

They also host men's and women's tournaments at different levels of play very similar to the USGA and R&A

 

Huge difference is that FIFA is a governing organization for all the individual national associations that the various national and international leagues are members of. It's enforced via contracts essentially. There is absolutely zero of that framework in place between the PGAT and the USGA/R&A. Any attempt by the USGA the implement it would almost certainly be laughed at by the current PGAT ie why would they agree the subject themselves to further rules when they've already grown to this point without the structure of an overall FIFA-like organizing body? 

 

I see the parallels, but nothing currently in existence makes it possible or realistic. The USGA has absolutely zero leverage outside of "unification" of the rules of the game between amateur and professional, and their flagship tournament, the USO. 

[Chunkitgood]

The members of the USGA own all (well at least the vast majority as I understand it) of the golf courses in the United States.

 

That’s why the USGA makes the rules.  If all the owners were replaced tomorrow by different people, they would have the same interests and tend to make the same rules.  If the PGATour decided to flout the rules and approached a course about playing a “non-golf” tournament, what would happen?

 

Who knows, but you have to remember it seems to be the prestige courses that are in favor of the announced change in testing conditions.

[smashdn]

16 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

The members of the USGA own all (well at least the vast majority as I understand it) of the golf courses in the United States.

 

That’s why the USGA makes the rules.  If all the owners were replaced tomorrow by different people, they would have the same interests and tend to make the same rules.  If the PGATour decided to flout the rules and approached a course about playing a “non-golf” tournament, what would happen?

 

Who knows, but you have to remember it seems to be the prestige courses that are in favor of the announced change in testing conditions.

 

Do what now?

 

The USGA makes the rules because way back in the early days of golf in the US there were multiple clubs having "national championships."   A few of the individual courses decided that was not a good idea and they wanted some organization to the tournament, and to only have one true national championship.  The USGA standardized the rules so competitors from different clubs and parts of the country were playing the same game.

 

The members (who form the course committees and "management" at the courses) have a desire (pick a reason, prestige, history, notoriety, drive membership demand, etc.) to hold these tournaments.  My impression is, at some places, this is not always an easy sell to the members due to how much upheaval it causes for the members.  Couple that with additional "asks" such as building new tees, adding bunkers, changing mowing lines - things that either cost money or further booger up your course, then you have a recipe for people having a desire to keep the golf ball from going any further to not be asked to do some of that every few years when the circus comes to town.

 

The "prestige" courses are the ones holding the different US Open's and US Ams.  The USGA wants to take those events to nice courses.  I suspect the players in those events want to play at those courses and not a random resort course or municipal.

 

The who and why makes perfect sense when you stop and think about it, both in the current time and with historical perspective. 

 

I suspect there is a lot of input to the USGA given by the PGAT over the years.  Really take a look at some of the MLR's that are available and the ones that the PGAT adopts as givens.

[ThinkingPlus]

26 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Do what now?

 

The USGA makes the rules because way back in the early days of golf in the US there were multiple clubs having "national championships."   A few of the individual courses decided that was not a good idea and they wanted some organization to the tournament, and to only have one true national championship.  The USGA standardized the rules so competitors from different clubs and parts of the country were playing the same game.

 

The members (who form the course committees and "management" at the courses) have a desire (pick a reason, prestige, history, notoriety, drive membership demand, etc.) to hold these tournaments.  My impression is, at some places, this is not always an easy sell to the members due to how much upheaval it causes for the members.  Couple that with additional "asks" such as building new tees, adding bunkers, changing mowing lines - things that either cost money or further booger up your course, then you have a recipe for people having a desire to keep the golf ball from going any further to not be asked to do some of that every few years when the circus comes to town.

 

The "prestige" courses are the ones holding the different US Open's and US Ams.  The USGA wants to take those events to nice courses.  I suspect the players in those events want to play at those courses and not a random resort course or municipal.

 

The who and why makes perfect sense when you stop and think about it, both in the current time and with historical perspective. 

 

I suspect there is a lot of input to the USGA given by the PGAT over the years.  Really take a look at some of the MLR's that are available and the ones that the PGAT adopts as givens.

He's a troll. Posts almost never make sense. Just an annoyance.

[smashdn]

From the main landing page for the website.  Article about the pros reaction to new Titleist drivers.

 

 

“I think this is the most that we’ve been begging [Titleist] to put it in our hands as fast as we can. We first tested it I think in early December. I think the part that’s really cool about it is it’s just kind of plug-and-play. I have the exact same shaft, the exact same setting. And immediately I’m picking up 1.5 mph ball speed, and that equates to about another 6.5-7 yards of carry. I think the thing that I really noticed when you compare it from my old one, from the TSR to the GT, I think the mishits just get brought in that much more; 4-5 yards out here on Tour in dispersion could be the difference of you being in the fairway and having another birdie look … you miss a fairway and now you’re laying up trying to make par the hard way.

“The feel is amazing. That’s probably the biggest thing that I’ve really picked up from the first time I hit it, it was just this like euphoric, really solid, really fast off the face. I always like the kind of dampened sound and so, I immediately was just like, it felt like an absolute missile. It’s been fun. I’ve had a lot of guys ask me, ‘When you switch clubs, how much testing do you do?’ And literally I’m just like, ‘I took my old shaft, put it in the new head, and saw another 7 yards of carry and 4 yards better left and right.’

“You check the ball speed, my spin stayed the exact same, launch stayed the exact same, but I’m just carrying it farther and it’s straighter. It’s kind of a utopian setup.

“A lot of us out here, there’s only so much that we can do when it comes to (picking up) distance. But a lot of it is when you look at your average distance, it’s not so much about what’s your top end, it’s about how much farther your mishits going and how much straighter are they going.”

 

ETA

 

I saw there was another article not long after I posted about Wyndham Clark making a driver switch.

 

"On Wednesday, GolfWRX.com caught up with Clark to get his take on the new GT2 driver, and why he’s switching so quickly.

“It’s faster (than my previous TSR3),” Clark said. “I felt like I got 2-3 mph more ball speed, which is amazing. And it has really consistent spin, which is obviously huge for what we do out here.”

"

 

"1 mph of ball speed equates to 2 yards of distance with the driver."

https://blog.trackmangolf.com/ball-speed-trackman-university/

 

Willy Z may have exaggerated his distance gain in relation to his ball speed gain it seems.  But either way, my point in posting this, guys grab a new model driver and drive it further and have less dispersion.

 

 

Edited June 7 by smashdn

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

From the main landing page for the website.  Article about the pros reaction to new Titleist drivers.

 

 

“I think this is the most that we’ve been begging [Titleist] to put it in our hands as fast as we can. We first tested it I think in early December. I think the part that’s really cool about it is it’s just kind of plug-and-play. I have the exact same shaft, the exact same setting. And immediately I’m picking up 1.5 mph ball speed, and that equates to about another 6.5-7 yards of carry. I think the thing that I really noticed when you compare it from my old one, from the TSR to the GT, I think the mishits just get brought in that much more; 4-5 yards out here on Tour in dispersion could be the difference of you being in the fairway and having another birdie look … you miss a fairway and now you’re laying up trying to make par the hard way.

“The feel is amazing. That’s probably the biggest thing that I’ve really picked up from the first time I hit it, it was just this like euphoric, really solid, really fast off the face. I always like the kind of dampened sound and so, I immediately was just like, it felt like an absolute missile. It’s been fun. I’ve had a lot of guys ask me, ‘When you switch clubs, how much testing do you do?’ And literally I’m just like, ‘I took my old shaft, put it in the new head, and saw another 7 yards of carry and 4 yards better left and right.’

“You check the ball speed, my spin stayed the exact same, launch stayed the exact same, but I’m just carrying it farther and it’s straighter. It’s kind of a utopian setup.

“A lot of us out here, there’s only so much that we can do when it comes to (picking up) distance. But a lot of it is when you look at your average distance, it’s not so much about what’s your top end, it’s about how much farther your mishits going and how much straighter are they going.”

 

ETA

 

I saw there was another article not long after I posted about Wyndham Clark making a driver switch.

 

"On Wednesday, GolfWRX.com caught up with Clark to get his take on the new GT2 driver, and why he’s switching so quickly.

“It’s faster (than my previous TSR3),” Clark said. “I felt like I got 2-3 mph more ball speed, which is amazing. And it has really consistent spin, which is obviously huge for what we do out here.”

"

 

"1 mph of ball speed equates to 2 yards of distance with the driver."

https://blog.trackmangolf.com/ball-speed-trackman-university/

 

Willy Z may have exaggerated his distance gain in relation to his ball speed gain it seems.  But either way, my point in posting this, guys grab a new model driver and drive it further and have less dispersion.

 

 

We'll see. Supposedly the TSR was a similar improvement over the TSi line.

 

https://www.titleist.com.my/teamtitleist/team-titleist/f/the-clubhouse/58497/new-titleist-tsr-drivers-continue-to-find-success-on-the-pga-tour/311631#311631

https://www.pgatour.com/article/news/equipment-report/2022/06/21/player-reaction-to-the-new-titleist-tsr-drivers-and-fairway-woods-golf-clubs-equipment-tour

 

Higher ball speed. Less dispersion. 

 

I'll bet I could find the exact same quotes about the TSi introduction if I took the time to google it. Higher ball speed. Less dispersion. 

 

Makes you wonder if it's true or just marketing copy that is rehashed every time a new club is released with a new name put it... 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Oh, and I looked up JT Poston, who supposedly gained 2 mph of ball speed when switching to the TSR3. The timing of the linked article above was Aug 2022, so just about the end of the 2021-22 season, although they said he put it into play at TPC River Highlands (late June). 

 

• In the 2020-21 season he was 62nd on the driving distance list at 299.9 yards. 
• In the 2021-22 season he was 107th on the driving distance list at 298.2 yards.
• In the 2022-23 he was 129th on the driving distance list at 297.0 yards.

 

Just one example, but for someone who supposedly gained 2 mph of ball speed in mid 2022 just from his driver, it caused him to be shorter relative to his peers. He's almost 3 yards shorter overall as well, but to an extent that could be influenced by conditions, so I think the relative position on the driving distance list is the more important part. And he's currently 31, so you can't blame Father Time for his distance loss. 

[Pnwpingi210]

13 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

We'll see. Supposedly the TSR was a similar improvement over the TSi line.

 

https://www.titleist.com.my/teamtitleist/team-titleist/f/the-clubhouse/58497/new-titleist-tsr-drivers-continue-to-find-success-on-the-pga-tour/311631#311631

https://www.pgatour.com/article/news/equipment-report/2022/06/21/player-reaction-to-the-new-titleist-tsr-drivers-and-fairway-woods-golf-clubs-equipment-tour

 

Higher ball speed. Less dispersion. 

 

I'll bet I could find the exact same quotes about the TSi introduction if I took the time to google it. Higher ball speed. Less dispersion. 

 

Makes you wonder if it's true or just marketing copy that is rehashed every time a new club is released with a new name put it... 

The marketing collateral will tell you maximum retention of ball speed is increasing on off center strikes.  We know that ct has been maxed out for some time in centered strikes.  What they’ve been doing innovating on the face design so you still get max ct, further away from the center.  This likely increases overall average ball speed when looking at a number of drives.  Tour pros are better than most at hitting the center of the face, however they still do miss the center.

there is a club testing site quantifies this.  It’s a competitor if this site so I won’t line them directly.  It’s pretty cool .

 

[Pnwpingi210]

15 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Oh, and I looked up JT Poston, who supposedly gained 2 mph of ball speed when switching to the TSR3. The timing of the linked article above was Aug 2022, so just about the end of the 2021-22 season, although they said he put it into play at TPC River Highlands (late June). 

 

• In the 2020-21 season he was 62nd on the driving distance list at 299.9 yards. 
• In the 2021-22 season he was 107th on the driving distance list at 298.2 yards.
• In the 2022-23 he was 129th on the driving distance list at 297.0 yards.

 

Just one example, but for someone who supposedly gained 2 mph of ball speed in mid 2022 just from his driver, it caused him to be shorter relative to his peers. He's almost 3 yards shorter overall as well, but to an extent that could be influenced by conditions, so I think the relative position on the driving distance list is the more important part. And he's currently 31, so you can't blame Father Time for his distance loss. 

There could be lots of things that prevent jt poston from gaining ground relative to his peers, while still seeing the average increases you mentioned.

 

here are a few reasons.  We wouldn’t be able to pinpoint why with out talking more with jt.

*it’s likely that most of his peers are upgrading to the same technology he is, giving him no relative advantage to his peers

*we know that many golfers train for speed, do we know if jt piston is doing club head speed training?  If not, and a subset of his peers are, they will become faster than him and hit it further all things being equal.

*has jt had any injuries in limiting his ability to swing the club?

Edited June 7 by Pnwpingi210

[Simpsonia]

 

6 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

The marketing collateral will tell you maximum retention of ball speed is increasing on off center strikes.  We know that ct has been maxed out for some time in centered strikes.  What they’ve been doing innovating on the face design so you still get max ct, further away from the center.  This likely increases overall average ball speed when looking at a number of drives.  Tour pros are better than most at hitting the center of the face, however they still do miss the center.

there is a club testing site quantifies this.  It’s a competitor if this site so I won’t line them directly.  It’s pretty cool .

 

 

They only just started doing this though so there isn't much robot testing on historical clubs, but I agree it's pretty cool especially because they show mishits as well. I'll post some of the images because that's just pure data and I don't think that is against the rules. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7 by Simpsonia

[Pnwpingi210]

17 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

They only just started doing this though so there isn't much robot testing on historical clubs, but I agree it's pretty cool especially because they show mishits as well. I'll post some of the images because that's just pure data and I don't think that is against the rules. 

 

 

 

 

There are some 2022 releases, most 2023 releases, and they mentioned the 2024 releases are coming soon.  I also recall a YoY comparisons being mentioned.  I’ve seen it for select models but not for all.

Edited June 7 by Pnwpingi210

[StoutKing]

Finally got around to watching the 1999 Open.  Man it was fun for me to watch when the equipment better matched the course.  There were long, mid and short irons into par 4s.  Drives were pretty short (275ish), with guys playing smaller drivers and no ProV1s.  I even saw Phil hit 4 iron from 200.  Anyway, I realize we won't go back that far on distance, but to make great drives 300 again would equalize the battle between players and course.  I found this old Open a lot of fun.  If Windham Clark last year was using one of those small headed drivers, he wouldn't have found his tee ball on #18.  That much I can tell you.  Here's to a great 2024 US Open.

 

 

 

[Archimedes65]

On 6/6/2024 at 1:04 PM, Chunkitgood said:

The members of the USGA own all (well at least the vast majority as I understand it) of the golf courses in the United States.

 

 

I’m sorry, wut?!  😂

 

Dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this forum.  And that’s saying something, because I read my own posts…

[Chunkitgood]

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

I’m sorry, wut?!  😂

 

Dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this forum.  And that’s saying something, because I read my own posts…

IIRC USGA club membership includes over 10,000 courses.  I doubt any the Tour would want to play on don’t belong, or any I am likely to play in for that matter, but I guess it’s possible.

 

The United States Golf Association (USGA) is the United States national association of golf courses, clubs and facilities….  
 

 

 

[bekgolf]

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

I’m sorry, wut?!  😂

 

Dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this forum.  And that’s saying something, because I read my own posts…

 

Refer to this post for clarity:

 

15 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

He's a troll. Posts almost never make sense. Just an annoyance.

 

Thanks again TP.

[GoGoErky]

6 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

IIRC USGA club membership includes over 10,000 courses.  I doubt any the Tour would want to play on don’t belong, or any I am likely to play in for that matter, but I guess it’s possible.

 

The United States Golf Association (USGA) is the United States national association of golf courses, clubs and facilities….  
 

 

 

That doesn’t mean they own them. Instead of making random, rambling posts that make zero sense do some additional reading and research.

[Golferpaul]

9 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

IIRC USGA club membership includes over 10,000 courses.  I doubt any the Tour would want to play on don’t belong, or any I am likely to play in for that matter, but I guess it’s possible.

 

The United States Golf Association (USGA) is the United States national association of golf courses, clubs and facilities….  
 

 

 

But they don't own golf courses.

[smashdn]

On 6/7/2024 at 11:59 AM, Simpsonia said:

 

 

They only just started doing this though so there isn't much robot testing on historical clubs, but I agree it's pretty cool especially because they show mishits as well. I'll post some of the images because that's just pure data and I don't think that is against the rules. 

 

Moral of that story is don't hit it low on the face.  I am guilty of that as that is my miss unfortunately.  The low screamer is all fine and good on a dried out course.  Unfortunately we are living in a tropical rain forest here at the moment.

 

I think it stands to reason that the less punishing the mishits are, the faster and harder these guys can go at it.  I am sure it is not full-on scramble mentality on tour but for some events I bet they feel that they simply cannot take their foot off the gas or risk going backward, especially on the par fives.

[Chunkitgood]

On 6/8/2024 at 8:59 AM, Golferpaul said:

But they don't own golf courses.

When Wikipedia says the USGA is an association of golf courses, clubs, and facilities, what does that mean if not an association of the owners of the golf courses, clubs, and facilities?

 

Leaving aside historical accident, the people who own property control what happens on the property.  In this case, acting through their association.

 

So you guys tell me:

 

Who runs the USGA?  Does it have a voting membership or other group which has a say in how it is operates? Of whom is it comprised?  What qualifies them to participate if not owning a golf course?

 

 

Edited June 11 by Chunkitgood

[GoGoErky]

5 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

When Wikipedia says the USGA is an association of golf courses, clubs, and facilities, what does that mean if not an association of the owners of the golf courses, clubs, and facilities?

 

Leaving aside historical accident, the people who own property control what happens on the property.  In this case, acting through their association.

 

So you guys tell me:

 

Who runs the USGA?  Does it have a voting membership or other group which has a say in how it is operates? Of whom is it comprised?  What qualifies them to participate if not owning a golf course?

 

 

Have you read anything on the USGA’s website?

 

Theres plenty of information about that they do and nothing about owning golf courses.

 

 

[Golferpaul]

14 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

When Wikipedia says the USGA is an association of golf courses, clubs, and facilities, what does that mean if not an association of the owners of the golf courses, clubs, and facilities?

 

The answer is in your post.  It's an "association".  The USGA does not own courses.  Their primary function is to hold golf tournaments, govern the rules, and provide a handicap system. They also do turf research.

 

Anybody can be a USGA member for $36 per year.  Any golf course with nine holes or more can be a member of the USGA.

 

Reading further in Wiki helps to understand what the USGA does.  "The USGA also provides a national handicap system for golfers, conducts 14 national championships, including the U.S. Open, U.S. Women's Open and U.S. Senior Open, and tests golf equipment for conformity with regulations. "

[Archimedes65]

19 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

When Wikipedia says the USGA is an association of golf courses, clubs, and facilities, what does that mean if not an association of the owners of the golf courses, clubs, and facilities?

 

Leaving aside historical accident, the people who own property control what happens on the property.  In this case, acting through their association.

 

So you guys tell me:

 

Who runs the USGA?  Does it have a voting membership or other group which has a say in how it is operates? Of whom is it comprised?  What qualifies them to participate if not owning a golf course?

 

 

 

The USGA governs and runs amateur golf in the United States.  Nothing more.  They set the rules for amateur golf in the U.S. and then run a variety of amateur tournaments on a national level.  Courses can join the USGA as members, just like individuals can.  The USGA does not own any courses.

[gvogel]

12 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

The USGA governs and runs amateur golf in the United States.  Nothing more.  They set the rules for amateur golf in the U.S. and then run a variety of amateur tournaments on a national level.  Courses can join the USGA as members, just like individuals can.  The USGA does not own any courses.

With the tacit approval of the PGA of America and the PGA Tour, the USGA also sets the rules for professional golf in the US.

[Golferpaul]

13 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

The USGA governs and runs amateur golf in the United States.  Nothing more.  

Yes, more. They run the three US Opens (Sr, ladies, men).

[smashdn]

13 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

The USGA governs and runs amateur golf in the United States.  Nothing more.  They set the rules for amateur golf in the U.S. and then run a variety of amateur tournaments on a national level.  Courses can join the USGA as members, just like individuals can.  The USGA does not own any courses.

 

Somehow they provide for the creation of state golf associations within the national charter or bylaws.

 

I am assuming it is similar to how the EPA and OSHA will allow states to have their own versions of those entities and promulgate their own laws and regulations at the state level provided they are as or more stringent than the federal regulations.

[cardia10]

On 6/11/2024 at 12:41 AM, Chunkitgood said:

When Wikipedia says the USGA is an association of golf courses, clubs, and facilities, what does that mean if not an association of the owners of the golf courses, clubs, and facilities?

 

Leaving aside historical accident, the people who own property control what happens on the property.  In this case, acting through their association.

 

So you guys tell me:

 

Who runs the USGA?  Does it have a voting membership or other group which has a say in how it is operates? Of whom is it comprised?  What qualifies them to participate if not owning a golf course?

 

 

The USGA website tells, but digging on the individuals tell more. The USGA fails to mention what courses they hold membership at, but a quick search shows them competing in "historic" clubs tournaments and at numerous club events. Most are financially secure and affluent with Ivy League backgrounds with a few individuals thrown in for a splash of diversity and inclusion. The USGA used to represent the 99.9% of participants in the game of golf but that has been long gone for a few years in favor of ruling the professional game. They are reactionary and slow to adapt and when rule changes fail (groove rule) they claim a full success and skim over any true statistics that show otherwise. I'm sorry, but rolling back a ball that even the USGA says for 99.9% of the population will equate to 10 yards or less will in no way save golf or golf courses. Some courses are short and some are long. There is a reason why MLB players use wooden bats while everyone else plays with metal. They play a different game than 99.9% of the players. Very much like golf...Until the USGA recognizes and adapts rules that only affects the top golfers in the world, they will be missing the target for the majority of their audience. 

Edited June 12 by cardia10