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

[gvogel]

3 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

"Golf is played against two opponents.  The course is one opponent.  Fellow competitors is the other component."

 

The USGA just created another opponent in our golfing life ....... (Pre-rollback  equipment) we will always compare ourselves to game that we used to have.

 

"When the distance decreases in 2028 or 2030, playing against the course will be more difficult.  But that difficulty can be mitigated by playing the course at a shorter distance (move up a set of tees, or setting up the course at a shorter distance).  Or stock up on today's balls and play the same course."

 

This is the miscalculation of the USGA...... Ego will not allow an average golfer to move up a tee PERIOD. Golf courses will not setup for shorter distances, that will require building new tee boxes.

Total lack of wisdom and judgment on the USGAs part.  IMO

 

"Playing against fellow competitors should not change under the new ball specs, as long players will still be long and short players short."

 

That, plus everyone will be shorter unless there's a ball check on the first tee.

The great thing is that you will have two years to evaluate the new ball until it is mandated for USGA play in 2030.  If you don't like the new ball, stock up on your ball of choice in 2028,

[mgoblue83]

49 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Even with a rollback, the distribution of distance across the field is still going to compress and the average will continue to rise closer and closer to the distance leaders.

 

Distance (regardless of any amount of rollbacks) is an advantage, as Shots Gained shows, and I don't think you'd deny, right? It has been demonstrably shown, given existing shots-gained data compiled by Mark Broadie, that player driving distance becomes more important the longer the course. Rolling back the ball is analogous to lengthening every course, which may have the unintended consequence of incentivizing player distance even more than it currently is. So, while the ball will be harder to hit further, it creates a larger advantage to do so. So over time, long-hitting kids continue to replace the shorter hitters. This leads to the average continuing to rise, while the distance leaders continues to stay static. This is distance compression. 

 

Honestly, this is just the natural end-point of professional golf. Eventually, (like in 40 years) it's likely that everyone in the field will likely hit it within 10-15 yards of each other as every possible advantage is sought after. Though, it is arguable that rollbacks (and lengthening of courses) will only accelerate this trend. Just like you don't see hardly any sub-six foot tall NBA players these days, you won't see any PGA Tour players who drive the ball 40 yards shorter than the distance leader. 

 

So, what number is it you care about? The 300 yd marker, or the distribution of the driving distance band of the field? It's quite easy to make it so that only one or two can hit it over 300 yards, but you can't stop the rest of the field from hitting it 295. 

 

 

It's not about a specific number or anything like that.

 

It's about increasing the skill required to hit it long and straight and bringing more courses and hazards back into play.

 

There are very few bunkers or hazards in play with how far guys are hitting it and it sure would be good for the game and enjoyable to watch if they had to at least consider a risk/reward scenario. The Open championship is always the most entertaining tournament to watch (for me) and the reason is that there are almost always options and risk/reward with all of the pot bunkers and everything else. The normal tour events are just so boring to watch when every single hole is driver/3w over all bunkers followed by a wedge to 15ft by every player in the field.

[chisag]

15 minutes ago, gvogel said:

That is my experience as well, particularly for older players.  Where I play a couple of guys moved to the gold tees.  They reported that they had more fun.  Soon more players their age started playing from the gold tees...and having more fun.

 

 

... And you don't have to be locked into one tee box when playing for fun. I play from the golds on the par 5's at 492, 477, 466 and 490. I play from the tips on the par 3's at 201, 190, 138 (crazy tough green) and 212. We have four par 4's well over 400yds from the mens tees  at 439, 412, 430 and 426 and all but the 430yd hole plays uphill off the tee. I move up a box and play them at 403, 393, 408 and 403 so I can get to the flat over the uphill part of the hole and actually see the green. Much more enjoyable. 

... Ironic you mention older players as my last round I was playing my combo's and the two young guys in their late 20's were playing the tips. I average around 260-270 on hard desert fairways and many of my drives from a tee in front of them were 40-70yds past them. Playing with them I was longer on every hole but one where the kid had a perfect storm and hit it 290 saying "that's what I should be doing every hole!"  I eagled #9 playing 503 for me with a great drive and 7 wood while they played from 526 and both had bogies, they told me I should be playing with them because the tees I was playing were respectfully for "old men" 🤣  Nice young guys so I didn't have the heart to tell them THEY were the ones playing the wrong tees. 

[AZBRONCFAN]

16 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

 

It's not about a specific number or anything like that.

 

It's about increasing the skill required to hit it long and straight and bringing more courses and hazards back into play.

 

There are very few bunkers or hazards in play with how far guys are hitting it and it sure would be good for the game and enjoyable to watch if they had to at least consider a risk/reward scenario. The Open championship is always the most entertaining tournament to watch (for me) and the reason is that there are almost always options and risk/reward with all of the pot bunkers and everything else. The normal tour events are just so boring to watch when every single hole is driver/3w over all bunkers followed by a wedge to 15ft by every player in the field.

The bunkers and hazards are in play. You are using a couple hundred people out of 61 million to make a change to the game. Golf needs people playing the game, not people worrying about what they want to see on TV.

[Simpsonia]

38 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

 

It's not about a specific number or anything like that.

 

It's about increasing the skill required to hit it long and straight and bringing more courses and hazards back into play.

 

There are very few bunkers or hazards in play with how far guys are hitting it and it sure would be good for the game and enjoyable to watch if they had to at least consider a risk/reward scenario. The Open championship is always the most entertaining tournament to watch (for me) and the reason is that there are almost always options and risk/reward with all of the pot bunkers and everything else. The normal tour events are just so boring to watch when every single hole is driver/3w over all bunkers followed by a wedge to 15ft by every player in the field.

 

Neither you nor @chisag actually addressed the issue in the question I posed, but I'll expand on it. You said your number one issue was that the field on average hits it too far. As competitive professional sports evolve to the extreme, there is always homogenization through fitness, technique optimization, etc. That means that the average distance will almost certainly continue to rise towards the distance leader, regardless of any rollback or not. It's just simple natural selection, given the inherent advantages in certain techniques/strategies. Distance is a skill that can be learned (when young), and those young long-hitters will continue to replace the short guys until there are no short guys left and everyone hits on tour hits it within 5-10 yards of each other on average. 

 

My hypothesis is that all of these golden age golf courses that you guys love so dearly are flawed in their design. They reward distance too much. Evidence of this is born out in existing shots-gained data. This distance advantage will be maximized and capitalized upon until full homogenization. The only way to counteract this is with new golf course design that does NOT advantage distance, but advantages other aspects of the game such as accuracy, short game, and putting to a degree higher than distance. Certain existing courses do this to a small degree such as TPC Sawgrass, Royal Melbourne, Pinehurst #2's greens, etc, but many of those other historical courses do not offer the same challenges outside of distance. Basically ask any current tour player what courses they hate playing or are too difficult, and those are the ones that have features we should be designing into future elite competitive golf courses. 

 

So unless you want a tour where eventually everyone hits it the same distance, we need to rethink how we challenge elite competitive golfers. 

[chisag]

5 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

Neither you nor @chisag actually addressed the issue in the question I posed, but I'll expand on it. You said your number one issue was that the field on average hits it too far. As competitive professional sports evolve to the extreme, there is always homogenization through fitness, technique optimization, etc. That means that the average distance will almost certainly continue to rise towards the distance leader, regardless of any rollback or not. It's just simple natural selection, given the inherent advantages in certain techniques/strategies. Distance is a skill that can be learned (when young), and those young long-hitters will continue to replace the short guys until there are no short guys left and everyone hits on tour hits it within 5-10 yards of each other on average. 

 

My hypothesis is that all of these golden age golf courses that you guys love so dearly are flawed in their design.

 

 

... I am not about protecting the golden age courses as much as every golf course. Aguila GC, my home winter course hosts Phoenix Open qualifiers, State High School Championships, State Am's and quite a few other big tournaments. They recently added yet another tee box on the 334 yd dogleg 17th par 4 with a lake guarding the front but about 15yds between the water and start of the green. The new tee box is 345 and right next to the par 3 16th which is somewhat of an eye sore. Too many easily carried the water. I played with a guy that has won twice on the mini tours practicing for the Phoenix Open qualifier and he averaged around 350 off the tee. Some even longer. He drove it just short and rolled on with a 3 wood from 334. This is a Phoenix City Course and many courses don't have the option of building new tee boxes. Every hole has 4 tee boxes and the 17th now has 6. 

... There are 11 holes with fairway bunkers that are in play for anyone not carrying the ball 280-300yds. His name is Jamie Hall and he flew all of them. Rolling back the ball 15 yds means maybe half of those bunkers are back in play for him. If you think the course built in 1999 is flawed at 7089 (7101 with the new par 3 tee) we just have very different opinions about golf courses. 

 

 

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/aug/02/jamie-hall-drives-off-with-lilac-title/

[mgoblue83]

40 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Neither you nor @chisag actually addressed the issue in the question I posed, but I'll expand on it. You said your number one issue was that the field on average hits it too far. As competitive professional sports evolve to the extreme, there is always homogenization through fitness, technique optimization, etc. That means that the average distance will almost certainly continue to rise towards the distance leader, regardless of any rollback or not. It's just simple natural selection, given the inherent advantages in certain techniques/strategies. Distance is a skill that can be learned (when young), and those young long-hitters will continue to replace the short guys until there are no short guys left and everyone hits on tour hits it within 5-10 yards of each other on average. 

 

My hypothesis is that all of these golden age golf courses that you guys love so dearly are flawed in their design. They reward distance too much. Evidence of this is born out in existing shots-gained data. This distance advantage will be maximized and capitalized upon until full homogenization. The only way to counteract this is with new golf course design that does NOT advantage distance, but advantages other aspects of the game such as accuracy, short game, and putting to a degree higher than distance. Certain existing courses do this to a small degree such as TPC Sawgrass, Royal Melbourne, Pinehurst #2's greens, etc, but many of those other historical courses do not offer the same challenges outside of distance. Basically ask any current tour player what courses they hate playing or are too difficult, and those are the ones that have features we should be designing into future elite competitive golf courses. 

 

So unless you want a tour where eventually everyone hits it the same distance, we need to rethink how we challenge elite competitive golfers. 

 

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but again the issue here is equipment and golf courses not golfers working harder to get longer. You are already being shown to be correct in distance numbers bunching up closer to the longest hitters. It's been trending for the last 20-25 years and the reason for it is changes to the equipment have made it drastically easier to swing fast and keep the ball in play. You would not see the bunching up if equipment had been static during that time because it takes so much more skill and ability to hit it far with equipment from the mid to late 90s and early 2000s.

 

I know everyone keeps saying asinine things like we are "living in the past" but the point we are trying to make is that the governing bodies are 25 years late to the party. Equipment should have been capped and kept static long ago like most other sports. I've used the example of baseball a few times already but for whatever reason nobody even wants to acknowledge how they have handled things infinitely better than golf has.

 

Baseball players have been getting bigger/stronger/faster for decades (like every sport including golf). They are also optimizing everything using technology (Trackman) just like golf. The difference is the ball and wooden bat have barely changed in 100+ years so while you still have some outliers hitting a lot of home runs (individual skill) you are not seeing the entire league hit home runs at a historic rate like we are with distance in golf. Additionally, MLB stadium setups have been pretty much the same the entire time. You don't see anyone moving the fences back or arguing to increase the height of the infield grass to slow down ground balls like golf courses are forced to do just to stay "relevant".

 

Do you have any idea what a nightmare it would be if baseball had allowed changes to the ball (solid core) and bats (metal/composite) at the same time golf did? Every stadium would be obsolete, outfield fences would need to be 600+ ft and they would probably have to implement drastic safety measures for pitchers and infielders with how much exit velocity would increase. You can guarantee there would be a huge percentage of people making the same request we are. Roll everything back to a reasonable level and let's get back to playing the game we all know and love.

 

 

[mgoblue83]

1 hour ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

The bunkers and hazards are in play. You are using a couple hundred people out of 61 million to make a change to the game. Golf needs people playing the game, not people worrying about what they want to see on TV.

 

Stop trying to make this argument.

 

Have you ever watched a recent high school tournament? College? Regional amateur event? Mini tour? There is a very large and ever increasing number of players who are hitting the ball over every bunker and hazard on most courses. Just because you and the guys you play with can't hit it very far does not mean there isn't a problem with the game as a whole. The reality is that none of us are even concerned with the here and now. We want things rolled back to protect the FUTURE of the game. There are 10-12 year olds right now carrying it 250+. Do you have any idea what it's going to look like in 20 years if nothing is done now?

Edited Tuesday at 09:25 PM by mgoblue83

[Archimedes65]

7 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

Stop trying to make this argument.

 

Have you ever watched a recent high school tournament? College? Regional amateur event? Mini tour? There is a very large and ever increasing number of players who are hitting the ball over every bunker and hazard on most courses. Just because you and the guys you play with can't hit it very far does not mean there isn't a problem with the game as a whole. The reality is that none of us are even concerned with the here and now. We want things rolled back to protect the FUTURE of the game. There are 10-12 year olds right now carrying it 250+. Do you have any idea what it's going to look like in 20 years if nothing is done now?

 

And rolling the ball back 5 percent is going to solve this ‘problem’?  Forever?

 

Also, average driving distance on the PGA Tour isn’t shooting up right now.  The very best players in the world are not increasing their distances significantly at this point.  Why not just freeze the ball and drivers where they are currently?

 

Finally, again you guys fail to acknowledge that, even if you take every single high school, college, elite competitive amateur, and mini tour player in the U.S., you still have only a miniscule, tiny percentage of golfers.  Tiny.  There is no way to argue that this is protecting the ‘game’ in the broader sense.  It’s protecting the competitive game at the highest levels at each age group.  And dragging along the remaining 99% of the golfing world for one reason and one reason only:  the USGA and the R&A have way too much power over golf.  No other sport would do this to their fans and amateur participants because no other sport has this type of rule making structure.

 

Non-USGA sponsored amateur golf should deviate from the USGA and adopt rules exceptions for the average golfer.  And please don’t tell me the manufacturers couldn’t support it.  They already have the ball designs and they could easily continue manufacturing them as is today, with no additional R&D spend.  They would likely generate more revenue and the R&D spend on the nerfed ball would be the same either way. 

[Archimedes65]

4 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

We don't want a rollback because a handful of people can drive it far. That's talent and outliers are good for the game. The issue is when the entire professional field and most single digit amateurs are able to drive it 300+ without much fear of a big miss.

 

 

Sorry, that’s just comedy gold right there.  Thanks for the laugh.  😂

[Titleist99]

19 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

rolled back to protect the FUTURE of the game. There are 10-12 year olds right now carrying it 250+. Do you have any idea what it's going to look like in 20 years if nothing is done now?

In fact, I do..... the same as it has looked for the last twenty years. We have the regulations in place now and they've worked since 2004.

[chisag]

19 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

Have you ever watched a recent high school tournament? College? Regional amateur event? Mini tour? There is a very large and ever increasing number of players who are hitting the ball over every bunker and hazard on most courses.

 

 

... One of my playing pards qualified for the AZ State Am. He is 36 and drives the ball around 280. He said most of the "kids" in the tournament were 50 yds past him, and a few longer than that. The winner was a high school kid that just blistered the field in the 2 day stroke play part of the tournament, then did the same in match play. Phoenix Country club plays 6763 yds and he over powered the course. Every fairway bunker was not in play for him. High school.

[mgoblue83]

4 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

In fact, I do..... the same as it has looked for the last twenty years. We have the regulations in place now and they've worked since 2004.

 

This is false advertising man.

 

The limitations put in place in 2004 capped head size at 460cc and limited COR to .830.

 

Sounds great until you realize that OEM's have continued to make drivers within those limits that are not only increasingly more forgiving but also ever more optimized for current golf ball technology. Drivers and balls today are NOTHING like they were in 2005 so please stop saying nonsense like that.

 

[mgoblue83]

3 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... One of my playing pards qualified for the AZ State Am. He is 36 and drives the ball around 280. He said most of the "kids" in the tournament were 50 yds past him, and a few longer than that. The winner was a high school kid that just blistered the field in the 2 day stroke play part of the tournament, then did the same in match play. Phoenix Country club plays 6763 yds and he over powered the course. Every fairway bunker was not in play for him. High school.

 

 

Yep I see it all the time coaching high school golf. The game is just not sustainable the way it's going. Last years state finals had a 610yd par 5 and one of my players got home with a 4i from 255ish. He was 16 at the time.

[Archimedes65]

3 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... One of my playing pards qualified for the AZ State Am. He is 36 and drives the ball around 280. He said most of the "kids" in the tournament were 50 yds past him, and a few longer than that. The winner was a high school kid that just blistered the field in the 2 day stroke play part of the tournament, then did the same in match play. Phoenix Country club plays 6763 yds and he over powered the course. Every fairway bunker was not in play for him. High school.

 

So in the entire State Amateur field you had seven players that broke par, and one that bombed the ball over hazards and shot 5 under each round on a relatively short course, and you think that’s evidence that the sky is falling?

 

That leaderboard above tells me that most of the field still found the course a challenge.

[munichop]

45 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... I am not about protecting the golden age courses as much as every golf course. Aguila GC, my home winter course hosts Phoenix Open qualifiers, State High School Championships, State Am's and quite a few other big tournaments. They recently added yet another tee box on the 334 yd dogleg 17th par 4 with a lake guarding the front but about 15yds between the water and start of the green. The new tee box is 345 and right next to the par 3 16th which is somewhat of an eye sore. Too many easily carried the water. I played with a guy that has won twice on the mini tours practicing for the Phoenix Open qualifier and he averaged around 350 off the tee. Some even longer. He drove it just short and rolled on with a 3 wood from 334. This is a Phoenix City Course and many courses don't have the option of building new tee boxes. Every hole has 4 tee boxes and the 17th now has 6. 

... There are 11 holes with fairway bunkers that are in play for anyone not carrying the ball 280-300yds. His name is Jamie Hall and he flew all of them. Rolling back the ball 15 yds means maybe half of those bunkers are back in play for him. If you think the course built in 1999 is flawed at 7089 (7101 with the new par 3 tee) we just have very different opinions about golf courses. 

 

 

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/aug/02/jamie-hall-drives-off-with-lilac-title/

I have shot 62 twice on that course from the silver tees, once in 2015 then 7 years later.  One with a gamer soft one with a supersoft.  My best score from the back tees which has about 3 rating points higher is 69 or 68(been awhile since I played back there).  Why the big difference in scoring?  Because I could fly all the trouble Gary Panks designed into the course from the siver tees.  Plus you generally land on a down slope and get more roll from a larger landing area.  This course is a perfect example of architecture being overwhelmed by brute force.  When it opened everyone still played mostly wound balls that were hard to control.   Only really long guys could take on the forced carrys.  Then the solid balls  and larger titanium drivers let guys bomb over all the hazards with short irons on most holes.  

All that being said the USGA is fooling themselves if they think the proposed reduction will change the metrics of bomb and gouge.  Every young players works on smashing the ball as far as possible and repeating that to make as many birdies as they can.  Arhitectural remodels then just make the green complexes mini golf to force a higher score thru goofey golf.  Look at La Casta for the NCAAs this year.  Half those greens wouldn't accept a wedge.   If the rollback's purpose is to create more risk reward balance the proposed amount won't do it.

[Archimedes65]

1 minute ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

 

Yep I see it all the time coaching high school golf. The game is just not sustainable the way it's going. Last years state finals had a 610yd par 5 and one of my players got home with a 4i from 255ish. He was 16 at the time.

 

Which Tour is he playing on next year?  I mean if he’s driving the ball 355 and hitting 4 irons 255, he must be pro level talent, right?  Or is there more to golf than that?  Just curious.

 

On a related note, a 15 year old that actually played in a PGA Tour event last week averaged 290 off the tee, with a long of 314. Even the top am in the tournament, who is a bomber, only averaged 316 off the tee, with only one drive over 340.  But there’s a sea of high schoolers routinely driving it 350+, with accuracy?  Very strange.

[mgoblue83]

3 minutes ago, munichop said:

I have shot 62 twice on that course from the silver tees, once in 2015 then 7 years later.  One with a gamer soft one with a supersoft.  My best score from the back tees which has about 3 rating points higher is 69 or 68(been awhile since I played back there).  Why the big difference in scoring?  Because I could fly all the trouble Gary Panks designed into the course from the siver tees.  Plus you generally land on a down slope and get more roll from a larger landing area.  This course is a perfect example of architecture being overwhelmed by brute force.  When it opened everyone still played mostly wound balls that were hard to control.   Only really long guys could take on the forced carrys.  Then the solid balls  and larger titanium drivers let guys bomb over all the hazards with short irons on most holes.  

All that being said the USGA is fooling themselves if they think the proposed reduction will change the metrics of bomb and gouge.  Every young players works on smashing the ball as far as possible and repeating that to make as many birdies as they can.  Arhitectural remodels then just make the green complexes mini golf to force a higher score thru goofey golf.  Look at La Casta for the NCAAs this year.  Half those greens wouldn't accept a wedge.   If the rollback's purpose is to create more risk reward balance the proposed amount won't do it.

 

 

Completely agree. More drastic roll back of the ball and clubs is needed. Something like 15-20% on the golf ball and drivers back under 200cc.

[munichop]

19 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... One of my playing pards qualified for the AZ State Am. He is 36 and drives the ball around 280. He said most of the "kids" in the tournament were 50 yds past him, and a few longer than that. The winner was a high school kid that just blistered the field in the 2 day stroke play part of the tournament, then did the same in match play. Phoenix Country club plays 6763 yds and he over powered the course. Every fairway bunker was not in play for him. High school.

For those not familiar with this course it hosts the Shwab cup championship for the Champions tour.  They cut the greens to over 13 on the stimp and those guys still rip it to shreads.   Phil destroyed it the year he won the tourney mostly by flying all the trouble.

[dwboston]

7 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

 

Completely agree. More drastic roll back of the ball and clubs is needed. Something like 15-20% on the golf ball and drivers back under 200cc.

 

You're smoking crack if you think anyone would accept that.  That would be the end of the USGA as a ruling body.

[Simpsonia]

51 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but again the issue here is equipment and golf courses not golfers working harder to get longer. You are already being shown to be correct in distance numbers bunching up closer to the longest hitters. It's been trending for the last 20-25 years and the reason for it is changes to the equipment have made it drastically easier to swing fast and keep the ball in play. You would not see the bunching up if equipment had been static during that time because it takes so much more skill and ability to hit it far with equipment from the mid to late 90s and early 2000s.

 

I know everyone keeps saying asinine things like we are "living in the past" but the point we are trying to make is that the governing bodies are 25 years late to the party. Equipment should have been capped and kept static long ago like most other sports. I've used the example of baseball a few times already but for whatever reason nobody even wants to acknowledge how they have handled things infinitely better than golf has.

 

Baseball players have been getting bigger/stronger/faster for decades (like every sport including golf). They are also optimizing everything using technology (Trackman) just like golf. The difference is the ball and wooden bat have barely changed in 100+ years so while you still have some outliers hitting a lot of home runs (individual skill) you are not seeing the entire league hit home runs at a historic rate like we are with distance in golf. Additionally, MLB stadium setups have been pretty much the same the entire time. You don't see anyone moving the fences back or arguing to increase the height of the infield grass to slow down ground balls like golf courses are forced to do just to stay "relevant".

 

Do you have any idea what a nightmare it would be if baseball had allowed changes to the ball (solid core) and bats (metal/composite) at the same time golf did? Every stadium would be obsolete, outfield fences would need to be 600+ ft and they would probably have to implement drastic safety measures for pitchers and infielders with how much exit velocity would increase. You can guarantee there would be a huge percentage of people making the same request we are. Roll everything back to a reasonable level and let's get back to playing the game we all know and love.

 

 

 

So you're attributing 100% of all distance gains in golf over the last 30 years solely to equipment and absolutely nothing else? That is to say that there is no portion of those gains to attribute to fitness, equipment optimization (ie fit the club to the swing to optimize launch/spin etc), or changes in course strategy? 

 

Baseball isn't quite the apples to apples comparison either. There has absolutely been changes in fitness and technique over the years in baseball. Just look at the average pitch speed for fastballs, sliders, etc over the last 20+ years. In the late 90's, average fastball speed was high 80s mph. Now it's just shy of 95mph. That's the biggest reason you don't keep seeing more homeruns and why batting average has remained mostly constant, because there's an active defense that is getting just as strong and fast as the offense. 

 

Golf has no active defense for the changes in fitness/strategy of the players who are going faster and further in the quest for performance. Now you see this as a reason to keep adding handicaps to those players. I see it as a reason to evolve the challenge we present to the golfer. 

[munichop]

Just now, dwboston said:

 

You're smoking crack if you think anyone would accept that.  That would be the end of the USGA as a ruling body.

I think that is the point.  The proposed rollback is a nothing burger to resolve isssues a generation in the making.  It is the grooves debacle all over again.

[AZBRONCFAN]

32 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... One of my playing pards qualified for the AZ State Am. He is 36 and drives the ball around 280. He said most of the "kids" in the tournament were 50 yds past him, and a few longer than that. The winner was a high school kid that just blistered the field in the 2 day stroke play part of the tournament, then did the same in match play. Phoenix Country club plays 6763 yds and he over powered the course. Every fairway bunker was not in play for him. High school.

Phoenix CC isn't very long and it plays like it is at 4500 to 5000 feet of elevation this time of year. 

[munichop]

2 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

So you're attributing 100% of all distance gains in golf over the last 30 years solely to equipment and absolutely nothing else? That is to say that there is no portion of those gains to attribute to fitness, equipment optimization (ie fit the club to the swing to optimize launch/spin etc), or changes in course strategy? 

 

Baseball isn't quite the apples to apples comparison either. There has absolutely been changes in fitness and technique over the years in baseball. Just look at the average pitch speed for fastballs, sliders, etc over the last 20+ years. In the late 90's, average fastball speed was high 80s mph. Now it's just shy of 95mph. That's the biggest reason you don't keep seeing more homeruns and why batting average has remained mostly constant, because there's an active defense that is getting just as strong and fast as the offense. 

 

Golf has no active defense for the changes in fitness/strategy of the players who are going faster and further in the quest for performance. Now you see this as a reason to keep adding handicaps to those players. I see it as a reason to evolve the challenge we present to the golfer. 

How exactly do the challenges "evolve" when the distance to a hazard that used to be in play is rendered obsolete by longer driver carries? unless you move the hazard which has been done on all these courses you can't maintain the same risk reward balance.   Eventually you run out of land.  The nerfing of the ball tries to reverse thus but the amount they are talking about won't change a thing.  The game before trackman and titanium is gone to the hisory books.

[AZBRONCFAN]

1 hour ago, chisag said:

 

 

... I am not about protecting the golden age courses as much as every golf course. Aguila GC, my home winter course hosts Phoenix Open qualifiers, State High School Championships, State Am's and quite a few other big tournaments. They recently added yet another tee box on the 334 yd dogleg 17th par 4 with a lake guarding the front but about 15yds between the water and start of the green. The new tee box is 345 and right next to the par 3 16th which is somewhat of an eye sore. Too many easily carried the water. I played with a guy that has won twice on the mini tours practicing for the Phoenix Open qualifier and he averaged around 350 off the tee. Some even longer. He drove it just short and rolled on with a 3 wood from 334. This is a Phoenix City Course and many courses don't have the option of building new tee boxes. Every hole has 4 tee boxes and the 17th now has 6. 

... There are 11 holes with fairway bunkers that are in play for anyone not carrying the ball 280-300yds. His name is Jamie Hall and he flew all of them. Rolling back the ball 15 yds means maybe half of those bunkers are back in play for him. If you think the course built in 1999 is flawed at 7089 (7101 with the new par 3 tee) we just have very different opinions about golf courses. 

 

 

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/aug/02/jamie-hall-drives-off-with-lilac-title/

17 at Aguila is designed to be a driveable par 4 with a tough layup. The distance on that hole is measured with the dog leg bit straight line. 7k yards plays short half of the year with the ball flying like it does.

[chisag]

1 minute ago, munichop said:

How exactly do the challenges "evolve" when the distance to a hazard that used to be in play is rendered obsolete by longer driver carries? unless you move the hazard which has been done on all these courses you can't maintain the same risk reward balance.   Eventually you run out of land.  The nerfing of the ball tries to reverse thus but the amount they are talking about won't change a thing.  The game before trackman and titanium is gone to the hisory books.

 

 

... What I have seen the announcers are constantly questioning whether a drive from the middle of the pack guys will fly the bunker and often it just barely clears and occasionally it does not. I don't see how rolling it back 15 yds won't bring those bunkers back in play for most of the field. The really long hitters will still clear them as it should be, but it seems the average PGA player won't. I keep reading where the USGA is trying to penalize length and this seems the opposite. The longest players will still be able to fly hazards but the bell curve players will not. I do think length is and should be an advantage but isn't when everyone can fly hazards. 

 

[chisag]

2 minutes ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

17 at Aguila is designed to be a driveable par 4 with a tough layup. The distance on that hole is measured with the dog leg bit straight line. 7k yards plays short half of the year with the ball flying like it does.

 

 

... Agree, designed to be drivable with a driver, not a fairway wood or even a hybrid like many were doing. I am sure you know Aguila is basically a ghost course after May and until over seeding is complete. I live near the course and when I drive by on my way to Raven (tons of trees and shade) down Dobbins and up 35th, I very rarely see anyone on Aguila. I'm not a morning person so perhaps the crack of dawn has players out there, but afternoons are empty. The only thing I see on the course are the sprinklers running. 🤪

[KC4441]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

 

So you're attributing 100% of all distance gains in golf over the last 30 years solely to equipment and absolutely nothing else? That is to say that there is no portion of those gains to attribute to fitness, equipment optimization (ie fit the club to the swing to optimize launch/spin etc), or changes in course strategy? 

 

Baseball isn't quite the apples to apples comparison either. There has absolutely been changes in fitness and technique over the years in baseball. Just look at the average pitch speed for fastballs, sliders, etc over the last 20+ years. In the late 90's, average fastball speed was high 80s mph. Now it's just shy of 95mph. That's the biggest reason you don't keep seeing more homeruns and why batting average has remained mostly constant, because there's an active defense that is getting just as strong and fast as the offense. 

 

Golf has no active defense for the changes in fitness/strategy of the players who are going faster and further in the quest for performance. Now you see this as a reason to keep adding handicaps to those players. I see it as a reason to evolve the challenge we present to the golfer. 

Thank you for debunking the baseball comparisons.  It’s absolutely not relevant as you stated both sides of the field are getting better and it’s not even debatable.  The times where it got uneven is when steroids were involved.  Baseball has actually done a great job listening to the fans and shortening games and making them more action packed with stealing up etc.  Seems to be golf will slow down with longer approach shots and more time around greens.  With 5-6 hour rounds already causing viewers to turn away, this could make that much worse.  

[AZBRONCFAN]

2 hours ago, chisag said:

 

 

... Agree, designed to be drivable with a driver, not a fairway wood or even a hybrid like many were doing. I am sure you know Aguila is basically a ghost course after May and until over seeding is complete. I live near the course and when I drive by on my way to Raven (tons of trees and shade) down Dobbins and up 35th, I very rarely see anyone on Aguila. I'm not a morning person so perhaps the crack of dawn has players out there, but afternoons are empty. The only thing I see on the course are the sprinklers running. 🤪

Yeah I never play it this time of year. I live by and play Grayhawk this time of year. I love the track but it 60 miles round trip for me to play it. A lot of courses I pass!

[chisag]

10 minutes ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

Yeah I never play it this time of year. I live by and play Grayhawk this time of year. I love the track but it 60 miles round trip for me to play it. A lot of courses I pass!

 

... This place has it's own craziness with courses charging $250 to $350 in the winter and too hot to play without shade in the summer. I live 4.2 miles from Aguila just off the 202 so we play there 4 - 5 times week all winter, taking turns waking up at midnight to grab a time. $34 with a sr city card to walk at twilite. But two of my pards go back to Canada in late April and one goes back to Chicago in late May. My oldest pard at 82 won't play when it gets above 105* which of course is virtually everyday from June through September. And my youngest is literally building his pwn home so just me going Raven with Arcis for the summer and venturing out to some of the nicer courses while they are affordable.

... I'm sure you know this summer just set a heat record for the month of June 🥵 and normally with the Arcis card you get a free after 3pm round but pay $39 for the cart. Since the course is pretty empty, they moved the time this summer to anytime after 12noon Mon-Friday. But I like playing the last few holes as the sun is setting and it is cooling off, not getting hotter so I stick with 3pm.