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

[bcjim]

3 hours 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.

True. But that is a non issue. 99.9% of golfers need not bend the knee for 0.1% of golf courses that are old, and rich and want to host tournaments with 0.01% of golfers who can hit the ball 330+ yards.

 

The USGA simply needs to authorize the OPTION, (not mandate) that tournaments can specify a "tournament ball" or selection of balls.

 

Let's see how many do and what the outcome is.

[Archimedes65]

3 minutes ago, bcjim said:

True. But that is a non issue. 99.9% of golfers need not bend the knee for 0.1% of golf courses that are old, and rich and want to host tournaments with 0.01% of golfers who can hit the ball 330+ yards.

 

The USGA simply needs to authorize the OPTION, (not mandate) that tournaments can specify a "tournament ball" or selection of balls.

 

Let's see how many do and what the outcome is.

 

This 1000%.  This is the joke in all this.  If the pro tours mandated a nerfed ball and then the USGA gave tournaments/local associations/clubs the option to mandate said ball for their events, many of them would not choose to do it.  The PGA Tour doesn’t want this.  The PGA of America doesn’t want this.  It’s being shoved down everyone’s throats by the USGA and the R&A, the self ordained ‘stewaahds of the game’.  “Winston, we’re out of Grey Poupon!!!”

[fbjim]

43 minutes ago, bcjim said:

True. But that is a non issue. 99.9% of golfers need not bend the knee for 0.1% of golf courses that are old, and rich and want to host tournaments with 0.01% of golfers who can hit the ball 330+ yards.

 

The USGA simply needs to authorize the OPTION, (not mandate) that tournaments can specify a "tournament ball" or selection of balls.

 

Let's see how many do and what the outcome is.

I think the majority of pro-rollback people also don't mind the idea of bifurcation. 

 

Especially because bifurcation would mean they would be freer to impose harsher restrictions on tour/majors that don't apply to amateurs, rather than have to balance something out between both of them. 

 

Also I think the courses do matter. People do care when the US Open is at Pebble, or when the Open is at St. Andrews. 

 

And the idea that we should simply build new courses raises the question - what's easier, building new golf courses, or changing a regulation on legal golf balls? 

[mgoblue83]

4 hours 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. 

 

Did you even read my post?

… I literally said that baseball players have been getting bigger, stronger and faster and have optimized their games with the help of technology just like golf and every other sport.

 

The point I’m trying to make is that the game of baseball has not changed drastically in anyway due to improved athletes and optimization. Velocity is up a little, spin rates are up on pitches. That’s about it.

 

Why hasn’t the game changed as much as golf? Because baseball has had strict limits on equipment for a hundred years. 

Give those same athletically superior and optimized players the same tech that golf has over the last 30 years and it’s not even the same game. Every stadium would need to be rebuilt just like golf courses needing to expand or be obsolete. 

[mgoblue83]

4 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

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.

Nobody cares about score. Stop making the same immature and tired argument in every single one of your posts. You are contributing nothing to this thread and your replies scream of desperation to keep your 225yd drives.

 

This is not about score. It’s not about right now. It’s about saving the future of golf so that in 30 years your favorite course is still playable with your full bag and isn’t a glorified executive course. 

Edited Wednesday at 02:35 AM by mgoblue83

[bekgolf]

1 hour ago, mgoblue83 said:

Nobody cares about score. Stop making the same immature and tired argument in every single one of your posts. You are contributing nothing to this thread and your replies scream of desperation to keep your 225yd drives.

 

This is not about score. It’s not about right now. It’s about saving the future of golf so that in 30 years your favorite course is still playable with your full bag and isn’t a glorified executive course. 

 

 

Would you would be alright with a -30 winning score for an open after the ball rollback or would it prove that more needed to be done?  Score is the ultimate decision maker, lowest score wins, there are no points for style of play.

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, mgoblue83 said:

Nobody cares about score. Stop making the same immature and tired argument in every single one of your posts. You are contributing nothing to this thread and your replies scream of desperation to keep your 225yd drives.

 

This is not about score. It’s not about right now. It’s about saving the future of golf so that in 30 years your favorite course is still playable with your full bag and isn’t a glorified executive course. 

Your comments are totally illogical. Golf is a game, nothing more. Golf is all about the score. Not many care about what happens to golf 30 years from now.....especially if no one is playing it then.

[munichop]

6 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

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.

Detroit got a lot of rain so little rollout. If you haven’t watched top h.s. Golf events you are not aware of the approach the players take. Distance is king. 
I have played in events where I was 40-70 yards behind the kids. They play a different course. I got 2nd one year in a city tournament and was 16 shots behind the winner. He ended up on one of the big break shows. He the routinely was 60 yards by me. 
Top golf has devolved into mastering fewer skills than were once required.

Look at DJ. He became no 1 by driving well and wedging well. If he putted better than average he won. 
todays game is completely different than before track man and metal drivers. 
the rollback won’t change that.

 

[bekgolf]

1 hour ago, munichop said:

Detroit got a lot of rain so little rollout. If you haven’t watched top h.s. Golf events you are not aware of the approach the players take. Distance is king. 
I have played in events where I was 40-70 yards behind the kids. They play a different course. I got 2nd one year in a city tournament and was 16 shots behind the winner. He ended up on one of the big break shows. He the routinely was 60 yards by me. 
Top golf has devolved into mastering fewer skills than were once required.

Look at DJ. He became no 1 by driving well and wedging well. If he putted better than average he won. 
todays game is completely different than before track man and metal drivers. 
the rollback won’t change that.

 

 

Driving the ball off the tee is a skill that any champion needs to have. 

[smashdn]

16 hours 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. 

 

You have to look at their design with the perspective of the equipment in play when they were designed.  Distance was a much greater risk when most were designed.  And a much greater feat to accomplish.  I would also counter that there are very, very few "good" hazards that just have to be carried, that would actually be a penal design element and, by-and-large most designs from the penal design school are not well thought of and not courses that have stood the test of time.

 

However, those of the strategic design school where there are more risk-reward choices are the courses that we look upon as the great designs and mirror even today's designs on those.  In that time, angles were a huge consideration.  Today, less so bordering on not a consideration of the pros at all excepting in extreme set-up situations.

 

I would be happy to hear your suggestions on how you would design the hazards to accomplish what you espouse.

[smashdn]

9 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

 

Would you would be alright with a -30 winning score for an open after the ball rollback or would it prove that more needed to be done?  Score is the ultimate decision maker, lowest score wins, there are no points for style of play.

 

Score is an indication of the difficulty/test.  Score in relation to the field is what matters not the ultimate score.  A lack of difficulty in the design or set-up necessitates an overly aggressive playing style (there is certainly a time to be aggressive) and diminishes strategy.  If you read Rory's quotes when he was lamenting the "easy" set-ups he touches on this.

 

It is not about score, but score is a good indicator of what the golf course provided and whether the challenge was commensurate the skill level of the field of golfers.

[gvogel]

14 hours 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.

It is plain to see that the anti-roll backers want 15 yard wide fairways and heavy rough.  Unraked bunkers.  Waste areas that are truly waste.

[gvogel]

6 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

Driving the ball off the tee is a skill that any champion needs to have. 

Driving the ball well off the tee would be an even better skill if accomplished with a 200 cc driver head.

[ThinkingPlus]

34 minutes ago, gvogel said:

It is plain to see that the anti-roll backers want 15 yard wide fairways and heavy rough.  Unraked bunkers.  Waste areas that are truly waste.

Want, no. It is what we typically play though more often than not.

 

I have never played a strategic design. At least I couldn't recognize it as such from the tees I played. Played lots of penal designs. Some more so that others. I would guess most women would say the same and a large majority of men.

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

You have to look at their design with the perspective of the equipment in play when they were designed.  Distance was a much greater risk when most were designed.  And a much greater feat to accomplish.  I would also counter that there are very, very few "good" hazards that just have to be carried, that would actually be a penal design element and, by-and-large most designs from the penal design school are not well thought of and not courses that have stood the test of time.

 

However, those of the strategic design school where there are more risk-reward choices are the courses that we look upon as the great designs and mirror even today's designs on those.  In that time, angles were a huge consideration.  Today, less so bordering on not a consideration of the pros at all excepting in extreme set-up situations.

 

I would be happy to hear your suggestions on how you would design the hazards to accomplish what you espouse.

 

I get that you worship the "golden age" of design, and generally hate what you call penal course design. You've said over and over that "history has not looked kindly on penal design", but you've never explained why. And don't tell me to go read 6 books on golf architecture. Summarize your own opinion on penal design, and remember we're talking in the context of the best 150 players in the world, not amateurs. 

 

Have you never played a course that called for "target golf"? Isn't that penal design? I regularly play "target golf" courses and I would never expect to be able to hit driver on every par 4 and 5, but that almost seems to be the expectation with all of these "golden courses" (and what gvogel definitively wants as evidence by his hatred of pros using 3w off the tees at Harbor Town). At one of my local tracks, I've usually tee off with a 7 or 6i on a par 4 due to some extreme multiple doglegs because I don't have the confidence to hit a blind drive into a super narrow strip with OB on each side. I generally quite enjoy that hole, though it is quite challenging. 

 

Is a penal design not also a risk-reward situation? Say the Sunday pin position at Sawgrass 17 (Sam Ryder went for it and paid the price https://x.com/GolfDigest/status/1768392530704437715 when he very easily could have shot for the middle of the green.) You've said previously that you don't care for the tests of 'execution', but my question then is why not? Why should we not expect the utmost of execution out of the best players in the world?  

Edited Wednesday at 02:08 PM by Simpsonia

[Soloman1]

2 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

Why should we not expect the utmost of execution out of the best players in the world?

 

the stands at nascar tracks are full of people hoping to see the most massive crash ever.

probably millions of people watching golf are hoping to see a ball in the water, a shank or a missed 3 footer. those are what get covered by media and social media.

it’s entertainment.

 

their job is to hit a ball with a stick and their expectation for you is to either pay to go see them or watch ads and buy stuff. 🙂

 

 

 

[smashdn]

11 hours ago, fbjim said:

And the idea that we should simply build new courses raises the question - what's easier, building new golf courses, or changing a regulation on legal golf balls? 

 

Or imagine going to the non-golfing public and telling them something to the effect, "We need to build new courses because we didn't control equipment well enough and the old ones are not fit for purpose for professional events any longer."

 

Go find you some untouched linksland and build a new St. Andrews now.  In my area finding golf suitable ground for less than 10K an acre is going to be a challenge.  Not only the cost but finding something relatively contiguous so you actually have space for the course.

[munichop]

13 hours ago, bcjim said:

True. But that is a non issue. 99.9% of golfers need not bend the knee for 0.1% of golf courses that are old, and rich and want to host tournaments with 0.01% of golfers who can hit the ball 330+ yards.

 

The USGA simply needs to authorize the OPTION, (not mandate) that tournaments can specify a "tournament ball" or selection of balls.

 

Let's see how many do and what the outcome is.

If a nerfed ball were developed for the top players and competitions I would rather see it as a condition of competition like the groove rule.  As I  have said before I believe bifurcation already exists with agronomy and free drops from stands after terrible approach shots etc. Just add the nerf ball to the list.  Likewise they could add smaller driver sizes too but doubt that would fly.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, munichop said:

If a nerfed ball were developed for the top players and competitions I would rather see it as a condition of competition like the groove rule.  As I  have said before I believe bifurcation already exists with agronomy and free drops from stands after terrible approach shots etc. Just add the nerf ball to the list.  Likewise they could add smaller driver sizes too but doubt that would fly.

The ruling bodies can do that anytime they want. 

[munichop]

To me a cc ball is a better alternative than what they have proposed.

[smashdn]

30 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

I get that you worship the "golden age" of design, and generally hate what you call penal course design. You've said over and over that "history has not looked kindly on penal design", but you've never explained why. And don't tell me to go read 6 books on golf architecture. Summarize your own opinion on penal design, and remember we're talking in the context of the best 150 players in the world, not amateurs.

 

Why has history not looked well upon it?  In short, very short at your request, because a better idea came along.  That idea was the strategic school.

 

And it isn't that I worship it or anything like that, the guys who actually take the time to study it and write articles and books on it, really dive into, are mostly in agreement on it. 

 

I wanted to be better at golf and was looking for any kind of edge or advantage I could get so I started taking the time to understand why and how courses are built to better understand the common template holes with a common strategy to playing them.  It was a selfish reason that ultimately helped open up a whole new avenue to appreciating the game beyond playing it.  Some people love equipment.  Some people chase lowering their handicaps.   I like golf course architecture.

 

---

 

Longer answer regarding strategic school: those architects (and at this time most were truly architects not just course professionals or players) went at golf course design with a different mindset.  Not just to challenge a player's execution but also their decision making abilities and ability to plan a shot or two ahead.  By virtue of a lack of large scale earth moving equipment those guys had to largely make due with the existing topography and fold that design onto what was there.  That particular aspect is what fuels the current trend of minimalism.  That "school" is oft misunderstood to mean "not moving dirt."  In actuality it is moving what you need to move but making it look like you moved nothing.  Quite a feat actually.

 

You went from courses designed more as obstacle courses to ones designed more in the mindset of clever puzzle where your previous action dictates to a degree your options for your next action.  Penal designs are more one dimensional in their "asks" of the golfer.  "Hit it here or be punished."  Strategic design school courses have more layers.  "How do I best attack this hole but where are the hazards?  How close can I skirt this hazard to have a better shot at the green?  How much am I willing to risk versus the perceived reward?  What if the designer actually is hiding the better/best angle of approach?"

 

---

 

With regard to the best 150 players in the world, in today's game, the way it is boiled down to execution and not really decision making, if you want to test them you just make the course and obstacles stupid hard.  Penal design would work.  Cross water hazards, cross bunkers, deep pits for greenside bunkers, greens as hard as rocks rolling 16, pins tucked.  The US Open for years did this on courses with set-up.  

 

Here is one synopsis on the schools, much less than six books, though reading books never really hurt anyone.  https://golf.com/travel/3-schools-golf-course-architecture/

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Why has history not looked well upon it?  In short, very short at your request, because a better idea came along.  That idea was the strategic school.

 

And it isn't that I worship it or anything like that, the guys who actually take the time to study it and write articles and books on it, really dive into, are mostly in agreement on it. 

 

I wanted to be better at golf and was looking for any kind of edge or advantage I could get so I started taking the time to understand why and how courses are built to better understand the common template holes with a common strategy to playing them.  It was a selfish reason that ultimately helped open up a whole new avenue to appreciating the game beyond playing it.  Some people love equipment.  Some people chase lowering their handicaps.   I like golf course architecture.

 

---

 

Longer answer regarding strategic school: those architects (and at this time most were truly architects not just course professionals or players) went at golf course design with a different mindset.  Not just to challenge a player's execution but also their decision making abilities and ability to plan a shot or two ahead.  By virtue of a lack of large scale earth moving equipment those guys had to largely make due with the existing topography and fold that design onto what was there.  That particular aspect is what fuels the current trend of minimalism.  That "school" is oft misunderstood to mean "not moving dirt."  In actuality it is moving what you need to move but making it look like you moved nothing.  Quite a feat actually.

 

You went from courses designed more as obstacle courses to ones designed more in the mindset of clever puzzle where your previous action dictates to a degree your options for your next action.  Penal designs are more one dimensional in their "asks" of the golfer.  "Hit it here or be punished."  Strategic design school courses have more layers.  "How do I best attack this hole but where are the hazards?  How close can I skirt this hazard to have a better shot at the green?  How much am I willing to risk versus the perceived reward?  What if the designer actually is hiding the better/best angle of approach?"

 

---

 

With regard to the best 150 players in the world, in today's game, the way it is boiled down to execution and not really decision making, if you want to test them you just make the course and obstacles stupid hard.  Penal design would work.  Cross water hazards, cross bunkers, deep pits for greenside bunkers, greens as hard as rocks rolling 16, pins tucked.  The US Open for years did this on courses with set-up.  

 

Here is one synopsis on the schools, much less than six books, though reading books never really hurt anyone.  https://golf.com/travel/3-schools-golf-course-architecture/

Well you aren't a unicorn, but your herd is awfully small.

[smashdn]

Slow down.  You are editing and adding faster than I can answer.

 

55 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

Have you never played a course that called for "target golf"? Isn't that penal design? I regularly play "target golf" courses and I would never expect to be able to hit driver on every par 4 and 5, but that almost seems to be the expectation with all of these "golden courses" (and what gvogel definitively wants as evidence by his hatred of pros using 3w off the tees at Harbor Town). At one of my local tracks, I've usually tee off with a 7 or 6i on a par 4 due to some extreme multiple doglegs because I don't have the confidence to hit a blind drive into a super narrow strip with OB on each side. I generally quite enjoy that hole, though it is quite challenging. 

 

I have played a course that required target golf.  It was a club that let trees encroach, imo too much, into the playing corridors.  Talking to the point where canopies overhung the fairway cut on both sides of the hole, on multiple holes.  I don't think that is necessarily indicative of any design school however.

 

My course has two holes where I find it better to tee off with an iron.  I would still call them risk reward holes however as there is a trade-off for laying back.  I give up proximity to the green/hole in favor of a much flatter lie and avoiding the potential of entering water hazard (err penalty area) on one hole.  There is still another hole where I probably should tee off with something other than driver as it is just a short hole and being in fairway seems a better play than potentially blocked out by trees if I push my driver.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

Is a penal design not also a risk-reward situation? Say the Sunday pin position at Sawgrass 17 (Sam Ryder went for it and paid the price https://x.com/GolfDigest/status/1768392530704437715 when he very easily could have shot for the middle of the green.) You've said previously that you don't care for the tests of 'execution', but my question then is why not? Why should we not expect the utmost of execution out of the best players in the world?  

 

No.  And you can have penal elements or penal holes on a course and it not be built in the penal design school.  In that golf.com link I put in the other reply they briefly address 17 at Sawgrass.

 

I don't care for only tests of execution.  What do you think is a more involved and engaging game, one where you very obviously see what needs to be done and now must either succeed or fail at doing so or a game where you must evaluate levels of risk, opportunity, advantage and develop a strategy to do that based upon your abilities and then execute?  One school simply has more asks, layers and is more nuanced than the other.

 

I have read it said that a good hazard is not one that a player absolutely avoids at all costs.  A good hazard is one located where a golfer is tempted to play nearer and nearer the hazard to gain the advantage until at one point hew gets too close and gets burned by it.  Now has a respectful fear of it.  A true penal hazard is not creating that temptation.

 

Speaking strictly to the pros, sure, give them obstacle course golf.  Rarely do any of the designs tempt them or prompt them to employ different strategies now.  Riviera #10 was once (and mostly still is) talked of as one of the greatest short par fours in all of golf.  There was debate on how to play it.  For a golfer seeing it for the first time is not immediately drawn to the "better" (then) play out to the left but instead was drawn to the more straightforward play right down the center towards the green.  For all the reasons we have talked about here regarding distance and SG analysis, that poor hole has lost it's guile and the play is unequivocally to go for the green and if not successful deal with it as best you can.

 

The one hole I can think of off the top of my head that caused guys fits on how best to play it (and I lay unfamiliarity as the reason for a good deal of that) is LACC North #6.  The lure of the green and short pitch on for a birdie was in near perfect balance to the perceived risk of the fronting bunker and rough and to the potential for the relatively easy "safer" play to the wide fairway and wedge to the green.  The slope of the green and the hole locations caused "the play" to change from day to day as well, shifting the minute differences in probability for scoring from one strategy to the other.  330 yard par four and it had the best wringing their hands with not only hitting the shot but also what shot to even try to hit.

 

The problem with giving the pros an obstacle course to negotiate, is that we, the amateurs, aren't going to want to subject ourselves to that course 50 other weeks out of the year.  That is why those very early truly penal designs were redesigned or abandoned.

 

"The penal school can be summed up simply: There is a right way to play a hole. Hit the required shots, which are typically straight down the middle, and get rewarded. Errant shots are punished proportionate to the degree of err. Fun golf for Professionals perhaps, but not terribly inspiring to the public."

https://thefriedegg.com/three-schools-of-golf-course-design/

 

 

[smashdn]

56 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Well you aren't a unicorn, but your herd is awfully small.

 

Comparatively small when viewed against retail golfers for sure.  There aren't many art critics in the world or people buying original art either but that doesn't diminish what the artists are doing nor negate the collective opinions of those who take time to view it in more than a passing moment.

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

 

You went from courses designed more as obstacle courses to ones designed more in the mindset of clever puzzle where your previous action dictates to a degree your options for your next action.  Penal designs are more one dimensional in their "asks" of the golfer.  "Hit it here or be punished."  Strategic design school courses have more layers.  "How do I best attack this hole but where are the hazards?  How close can I skirt this hazard to have a better shot at the green?  How much am I willing to risk versus the perceived reward?  What if the designer actually is hiding the better/best angle of approach?"

 

 

What if, and just hear me out, what if there is a flaw in these "subtle, layered" designs where all of that subtlety, and all of those layers can be defeated by merely hitting your tee shot 15 yards farther? What if, what if, they don't test the second shot execution of the best of the best enough? 

 

We know that agronomy and course strategy (even fully discounting equipment changes over the years) have changed the game in ways that these original designers could never have imagined (your subsequent point of Riv#10 points to this). Remember, all of these long dead designers envisioned accepting greens with shag carpets to catch the balls. They never imagined a mower that could get greens running as pure as they are today, or as fast. Maybe, just maybe, other aspects of the game should be tested other than just the tee shot. Maybe, even removing all distance aspects in the intervening decades, the game has changed enough that penal aspects are required to fully test the best of the best.

 

Maybe if distance wasn't so artificially advantaged, we'd have seen 4-time major winner Steve Stricker. 

Edited Wednesday at 04:14 PM by Simpsonia

[Titleist99]

11 hours ago, munichop said:

Detroit got a lot of rain so little rollout. If you haven’t watched top h.s. Golf events you are not aware of the approach the players take. Distance is king. 
I have played in events where I was 40-70 yards behind the kids. They play a different course. I got 2nd one year in a city tournament and was 16 shots behind the winner. He ended up on one of the big break shows. He the routinely was 60 yards by me. 
Top golf has devolved into mastering fewer skills than were once required.

Look at DJ. He became no 1 by driving well and wedging well. If he putted better than average he won. 
todays game is completely different than before track man and metal drivers. 
the rollback won’t change that.

 

So, the answer is to return the game to where the youngster will not want to watch or play it.

 

Golf needs  a CEO that's smart enough to innovate.

[smashdn]

7 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

What if, and just hear me out, what if there is a flaw in these "subtle, layered" designs where all of that subtlety, and all of those layers can be defeated by merely hitting your tee shot 15 yards farther? What if, what if, they don't test the second shot execution of the best of the best enough? 

 

We know that agronomy and course strategy (even fully discounting equipment changes over the years) have changed the game in ways that these original designers could never have imagined (your subsequent point of Riv#10 points to this). Remember, all of these long dead designers envisioned accepting greens with shag carpets to catch the balls. They never imagined a mower that could get greens running as pure as they are today, or as fast. Maybe, just maybe, other aspects of the game should be tested other than just the tee shot. Maybe, even removing all distance aspects in the intervening decades, the game has changed enough that penal aspects are required to fully test the best of the best.

 

Maybe if distance wasn't so artificially advantaged, we'd have seen 4-time major winner Steve Stricker. 

 

So a course like ANGC?  A "second shot course."  Generally thought to be a pretty decent design.  But also one where they have felt the need to add distance to keep the approach shots played to th greens a requisite length to preserve that difficulty.

 

So the "flaw" is not putting features 350 off the tee in 1930 when the longest drivers in the world were right around 270 on a good day?  I have spoken on this before but you put the hazard/feature in a spot where the most golfers have to interact with it.  Some will not have the distance to ever reach it, some will go over it, some are on the cusp of both and must contend with, some it is going to be right in their damn way.

 

ANGC #13 was never meant for no one to be able to reach the green in two, neither was it meant for every golfer to have to worry with hitting through the fairway.  The balance is what is important.  Depending upon the scale of the feature 15 yards is a big difference.

[Titleist99]

14 hours ago, bcjim said:

True. But that is a non issue. 99.9% of golfers need not bend the knee for 0.1% of golf courses that are old, and rich and want to host tournaments with 0.01% of golfers who can hit the ball 330+ yards.

 

The USGA simply needs to authorize the OPTION, (not mandate) that tournaments can specify a "tournament ball" or selection of balls.

 

Let's see how many do and what the outcome is.

"Let's see how many do and what the outcome is."   Roll the dice and see what happens.

 

Strangely enough.....this is the USGAs game and business plan. 🤣🤣

[ThinkingPlus]

39 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Comparatively small when viewed against retail golfers for sure.  There aren't many art critics in the world or people buying original art either but that doesn't diminish what the artists are doing nor negate the collective opinions of those who take time to view it in more than a passing moment.

Retail? LOL. Golf isn't art. It's science. That's what this whole debate boils down to. Unfortunately the ruling bodies are populated by artists so we get subjective, random rule changes that don't work as intended (assuming you can figure out an intention), make the games worse or less inclusive, or just different with no real advantages or disadvantages.

[chisag]

7 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

So a course like ANGC?  A "second shot course."  Generally thought to be a pretty decent design.  But also one where they have felt the need to add distance to keep the approach shots played to th greens a requisite length to preserve that difficulty.

 

So the "flaw" is not putting features 350 off the tee in 1930 when the longest drivers in the world were right around 270 on a good day?  I have spoken on this before but you put the hazard/feature in a spot where the most golfers have to interact with it.  Some will not have the distance to ever reach it, some will go over it, some are on the cusp of both and must contend with, some it is going to be right in their damn way.

 

ANGC #13 was never meant for no one to be able to reach the green in two, neither was it meant for every golfer to have to worry with hitting through the fairway.  The balance is what is important.  Depending upon the scale of the feature 15 yards is a big difference.

 

 

... I don't know why this is so hard for some to comprehend. Over simplified golf should test all player skills at the highest level. Those skills should include the mental side of the game. Do I lay up or challenge the bunker? Laying up poorly with a bad angle can do a number on your psyche, as can hitting a big drive just left or right of a bunker designed to protect the hole and having a mid iron to the green instead of a long iron or hybrid for the guy laying up. Yet a few here think that is irrelevant and mind boggling comments like young people won't play or watch golf because a strategically designed bunker is back in play? They can't just stand on every tee and bomb a driver but have to think their way around the course and execute shots with all their clubs, not just driver and short irons. Some have even stated course design is irrelevant and evidently bunkers and trees should be there simply for aesthetics and the entire field should be able to just drive over them. 

... Some of us that say we pretty much only watch the Majors and not everyday PGA TOUR stops get to see the strategy and use of all clubs. Especially the Open that has very penal bunkers in play for even the longest hitters. I used to watch every PGA event but am bored to tears with long drives, wedges onto greens and more putts than golf shots, soooooooooo many putts. Commercials then I counted 12 putts in a row and back to commercials at a routine tour stop. 🫣 Like Soloman1 said about nascar and fans wanting to see a crash (pretty morbid but sadly true) I don't want to see shanks, balls in the water or drives into a deep bunker with a high lip guarding a dogleg as much as I want to see how they respond to those poor shots. A great recovery can be very exciting and can make or break a round. 

 

47 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

What if, and just hear me out, what if there is a flaw in these "subtle, layered" designs where all of that subtlety, and all of those layers can be defeated by merely hitting your tee shot 15 yards farther? What if, what if, they don't test the second shot execution of the best of the best enough? 

 

... That's the issue isn't it? So if rolling back the ball 15 yds brings those layers an subtlety back into play and tests 2nd shots,  why are some so against it.