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

[clevited]

It's hilarious reading these posts.  We speak two different languages here.  One of rationality, caution, logic and thorough evaluation, and one of art, feelings, irrationality, and superiority complex.  

 

-Nothing the ruling bodies can do will make all players test their entire bag.  You simply give even more advantage to the longest hitters.  

-Parity is essentially inevitable in golf so having another Tiger or Jack won't be likely to ever happen again (it could, but not likely given today's talent pool).

-Golf courses are a game board.  You play the game but the "rules" aka design intent, are very flexible based on your own personal abilities.  Circumventing defenses on a golf course is the name of the game and a lot of that can come with maximizing distance (to a certain extent).

 

This isn't rocket science people.  If you connect the dots in the obvious and logical way, you can pretty reliably determine what is needed to make an effect you want, and you can also see how things will very likely turn out.  You roll back the ball 20%, you will have a period of Jack and Tiger again.  It will eventually come back to what we have right now regardless.  You roll it back 20% however, you will see career ending injuries increase massively.  Easy to see why that logically follows.  

 

Golf is entertaining today for the vast majority that love the sport.  It always has been and always will be as boring as possible for anyone else.  

 

You artsy rollback enthusiasts will always be the minority and your view of what golf should be is nothing but an opinion.  One that contradicts itself quite often (like the test all skills bs, NOT POSSIBLE).

 

Rant over, continue please...

Edited Wednesday at 05:35 PM by clevited

[Simpsonia]

1 hour 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.

 

Right, but the best 150 golfers in the world these days are not most golfers. I wouldn't even put the best 150 best golfers in the world from yesteryear in the same stratosphere as modern players. Hell, half those fields had day jobs as insurance salesmen. The field is just better in every possible way now. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that there is some magical requirement that the golf skills of the best 150 golfers will somehow enforces the distribution of distance across the field that you want to see. There is no such magical guarantee, as we continue to see the average tick up while the leaders stay stagnant. That is literally natural selection at work. It won't stop as long as distance creates an advantage. It merely selects those who have it over those who don't. And all of those "golden age" courses you love so dearly create that massive distance advantage. 

 

So, what happens when the entire field averages within 5-10 yards of each other? Do you keep rolling back the ball so that nobody can clear these golden age hazards? Then nobody gets to implement the strategy to interact with those hazards that you so painstakingly love and defend. Without something to counteract the extreme advantage distance gives, such more penal execution of shortgame/putting or other non-distance skills, that will be the end-state of professional golf. 

 

Though I know your answer already, we've already been down this path. You don't believe me, and if/when that happens you'll figure out something then, right? 

[cardia10]

21 hours 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/

The guy you played with obviously hits it far, but by him trying to "qualify" for a pro tournament quickly shows that distance isn't the key factor in winning majors or he should be there.

[fbjim]

Why do they lengthen golf courses? 

[cardia10]

Remember, the USGA must claim the sky is falling every 10 years so they stay relevant. The groove rule was proof positive. Guys spin the ball too much on tour, the sky is falling so 100% of am's must now change their wedges. Proximity on tour from 150 in over the last 10 years have decreased showing that rule had zero effect. Go back and read the "studies" on it. Hint....when you pay an entity to do a study, your rarely get results you don't desire. This will be another hit to the USGA. They forget that the PGA tour is it's own entity and can play by all or none of the official rules. When you fail to listen to your customer, you go out of business. The USGA has been lucky over the years that their biggest "customers" own some of the oldest most respected clubs in the country, but you can see the masses begin to care less about that history. They just want to play the game in a simple way.

[smashdn]

38 minutes ago, clevited said:

-Golf courses are a game board.  You play the game but the "rules" aka design intent, are very flexible based on your own personal abilities.  Circumventing defenses on a golf course is the name of the game and a lot of that can come with maximizing distance (to a certain extent).

 

Not a bad way to put it.  So now we either craft rules (equipment rules) to fit the game board or we change the game board to make it harder.

 

Like playing scrabble with your kids.  You can break out the dictionary and crush them or you can let them slide on some slang words.  The game fits the skill of those playing it.

[cardia10]

6 minutes ago, fbjim said:

Why do they lengthen golf courses? 

They don't. Growing the rough and allowing nature to take over a little is a lot more effective, but why not cost producers tens of millions as well as consumers in the process.

[fbjim]

First off, we already have equipment rules, there is no need to "craft" them. The USGA/R&A is not inventing the idea of regulating tournament-legal golf equipment here. In fact, the rollback is explicitly a modification to an existing rule, just one with lower measurements than now. 

 

Also, in this case, we have been changing the game board for decades, and are out of room to change it. 

[Titleist99]

20 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

Right, but the best 150 golfers in the world these days are not most golfers. I wouldn't even put the best 150 best golfers in the world from yesteryear in the same stratosphere as modern players. Hell, half those fields had day jobs as insurance salesmen. The field is just better in every possible way now

100%. One of the biggest reasons for better fields is prize money. In 1970 Lee Trivino was the leading money winner at $157K. Scheffler has made $20M plus and its only July 2024. The average PGAT player rakes in approx. $2M per year.

 

Let not even start on the fact that the Saudis are giving golfers $600M contracts.

 

***Mothers are now getting their kids into golf at one month old now...... 🤣

[Archimedes65]

15 hours 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. 

 

Absolute, total, elitist nonsense.  Everything you just said is pure opinion shared by few.

[clevited]

12 minutes ago, fbjim said:

Why do they lengthen golf courses? 

 

Because people can be dumb?

[Titleist99]

2 minutes ago, fbjim said:

First off, we already have equipment rules, there is no need to "craft" them. The USGA/R&A is not inventing the idea of regulating tournament-legal golf equipment here. In fact, the rollback is explicitly a modification to an existing rule, just one with lower measurements than now. 

 

Also, in this case, we have been changing the game board for decades, and are out of room to change it. 

We're not out of room. we can play golf on any course in the world. 

 

It's just that a few of you might not like how it looks.

 

Plain and simple. You are emotional and don't like scoring clubs into par fours.

[Archimedes65]

13 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.

 

 

The average drive on the PGA Tour last year was 297 yards.  So the BEST PLAYERS IN THE WORLD are driving the ball about 300 yards off the tee.

 

I’ve played with high school and college kids that can pound the ball out there 340-350 once in a while if there are no consequences.  Can they do it straight and in a competitive situation?  That’s another story.  Scores would say that they can’t.  And, if the NCAA Championships, which last I checked has the best collegiate golfers in the country, are any indication, the answer would be no, as those guys were not routinely bombing the ball 340-350.

 

You’re telling me that today’s high schoolers are longer than the college guys and the pros?

 

BTW, what you describe above, with one guy blitzing the rest of the field, didn’t Tiger do that in his prime?  Golf was soooo boring then. 

[ThinkingPlus]

9 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Because people can be dumb?

Can be? You are getting soft in your old age...

[fbjim]

Oh, quit talking about "emotion" as if it's irrelevant, or a negative. First off, professional sports is entertainment, and aesthetics, and emotion do matter for entertainment, or otherwise Augusta wouldn't spend the budget of a small nation on flowers.

 

Secondly, I think it's pretty clear that neither side has a monopoly on "emotion". Claiming that having your drive distance lowered by a change in regulations constitutes actual harm is an emotional argument. 

Edited Wednesday at 06:36 PM by fbjim

[smashdn]

23 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Right, but the best 150 golfers in the world these days are not most golfers. I wouldn't even put the best 150 best golfers in the world from yesteryear in the same stratosphere as modern players. Hell, half those fields had day jobs as insurance salesmen. The field is just better in every possible way now. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that there is some magical requirement that the golf skills of the best 150 golfers will somehow enforces the distribution of distance across the field that you want to see. There is no such magical guarantee, as we continue to see the average tick up while the leaders stay stagnant. That is literally natural selection at work. It won't stop as long as distance creates an advantage. It merely selects those who have it over those who don't. And all of those "golden age" courses you love so dearly create that massive distance advantage. 

 

So, what happens when the entire field averages within 5-10 yards of each other? Do you keep rolling back the ball so that nobody can clear these golden age hazards? Then nobody gets to implement the strategy to interact with those hazards that you so painstakingly love and defend. Without something to counteract the extreme advantage distance gives, such more penal execution of shortgame/putting or other non-distance skills, that will be the end-state of professional golf. 

 

Though I know your answer already, we've already been down this path. You don't believe me, and if/when that happens you'll figure out something then, right? 

 

Distribution is just stats.  There is going to be some distribution.  It might become compressed.  It isn't that I don't believe you, it is that your premise is based as much on a feeling as some of the stuff I get called out for as being anecdotal.

 

I think it incredibly unlikely that all the professional players are going to have average drives within 5-10 yards of one another.  Using the last full season (2022-2023) the longest average was 326.3 and the shortest was 271.5.  ~55 yards difference.  That is really going to have to close.  I just don't see what you are proposing happening.  Even if you wanted to throw the last guy out as an aberration, if you grabbed Aaron Baddeley, a guy with four wins and ranked 185 in average driving distance at 284.5, it is still ~42 yards difference.  I think you are always going to have guys who can win in spite of hitting it short, and physically they just won't be able to hit it far.  The data from the tour website doesn't copy paste easily or I would graph the distribution and snip it here.  I just don't think you will see standard deviation values that small in it in the future.  I will say it is likely shifted toward the high end however in chasing that distance and guys settling to a "comfortable" spot that is adequate for the courses they play currently.

 

If you really want to know what I would do, and I would do this only for professionals or as a MLR for however a committee wants to define "elite male competitions" (so bifurcation, yes), I would not only reduce the distance the ball can be hit but add spin back into the ball.  Make the outcomes of drives more varied and the risk of swinging fast a little higher.  But they didn't ask me.

[Archimedes65]

16 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

 

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.

 

 

You don’t follow baseball very closely do you?  The game changed dramatically over the last 20 years, from a base hitting, base running game, to a home run game.  Did you miss this?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/home-runs-are-slowly-killing-baseball-and-something-needs-to-be-done/2019/07/09/c0d42e06-a271-11e9-b732-41a79c2551bf_story.html

 

Sounds strangely familiar…

[Titleist99]

1 minute ago, fbjim said:

Oh, quit talking about "emotion" as if it's irrelevant, or a negative. First off, professional sports is entertainment, and aesthetics, and emotion do matter for entertainment, or otherwise Augusta wouldn't spend the budget of a small nation on flowers.

 

Secondly, I think it's pretty clear that neither side has a monopoly on "emotion". Claiming that having your drive distance lowered by a change in regulations constitutes actual harm is emotional. 

If you call being irritated that the CEO of the USGA is pissing on my leg and trying to convince me that it's raining outside is emotional then so be it.

 

Changing a popular game for the sake of change is irresponsible to any rational person. 

Golf don't need saving, let it evolve. If 300 yard drives were a threat we'd have our first long drive champion join the Tour.

 

My non-emotional opinion. 🤣 ( I kid) Hopefully this nonsense won't affect my PGAT enjoyment come Sunday 2028. 😎

[fbjim]

You can claim a lot of things about the rollback, but "for the sake of change" isn't one of them. They've been pretty clear about the rationale behind changing golf ball regulations. whether you agree with the rationale, or their methods, is a different story. 

[clevited]

7 minutes ago, fbjim said:

Oh, quit talking about "emotion" as if it's irrelevant, or a negative. First off, professional sports is entertainment, and aesthetics, and emotion do matter for entertainment, or otherwise Augusta wouldn't spend the budget of a small nation on flowers.

 

Secondly, I think it's pretty clear that neither side has a monopoly on "emotion". Claiming that having your drive distance lowered by a change in regulations constitutes actual harm is an emotional argument. 

 

That would be incorrect overall.  While some may come in here and whine about losing distance, most are of the mind that it doesn't make sense to do anything at all if it doesn't at all solve the emotionally driven "problem" in the first place.  Why fix what isn't broken?  Why introduce a negatively perceived change that does nothing to save the "obsolete" golf courses which are so often talked about?  Why introduce a negatively perceived change that does exactly the opposite of making distance less important of a thing?  Most of us take issue with stupidity trying to rule over a sport we love.  I fight against stupidity and I see a roll back, especially the one being proposed, as being absolutely moronic to the nth degree.  I can respect a roll back that fixes the supposed problem (even if I don't agree there is any problem at all), but I absolutely won't respect the half arsed poorly thought out one at hand.  There are also precedents for why I fight against this, the groove rule, the anchoring ban, the lack of foresight that lead us to this in the first place and the taking 24+ years to even attempt to do anything about it.

[gvogel]

3 hours ago, munichop said:

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

If I remember correctly, a lot of us thought that a condition of competition ball would be a fine way to deal with the "distance problem" vis a vis shorter courses.  But Titleist couldn't stand the marketing consequences of selling a shorter ball.

[fbjim]

Frankly, I just dislike the argumentation style of "your argument contains emotion, therefore it is wrong", and I particularly think it's a silly argument when we are discussing a sport - something which I think at least partially falls into the realm of aesthetics and subjective enjoyment. 

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, fbjim said:

Frankly, I just dislike the argumentation style of "your argument contains emotion, therefore it is wrong", and I particularly think it's a silly argument when we are discussing a sport - something which I think at least partially falls into the realm of aesthetics and subjective enjoyment. 

 

Emotion rarely is a good reason for change.  I can think of a lot of laws for instance that were brought on by emotion that did nothing to solve the "problem" and just made things suck more for many innocent people.  

Edited Wednesday at 06:58 PM by clevited

[ThinkingPlus]

18 minutes ago, fbjim said:

Oh, quit talking about "emotion" as if it's irrelevant, or a negative. First off, professional sports is entertainment, and aesthetics, and emotion do matter for entertainment, or otherwise Augusta wouldn't spend the budget of a small nation on flowers.

 

Secondly, I think it's pretty clear that neither side has a monopoly on "emotion". Claiming that having your drive distance lowered by a change in regulations constitutes actual harm is an emotional argument. 

I have said this before, but it bears repeating.  If the ruling bodies will step up and truly solve (reduce distance however they choose by ~20%) what they have stated as a "problem" with golf, I won't say a word.

[Titleist99]

12 hours ago, bekgolf said:

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

Not according to some.

      To some, you can go to Dick's Sporting Goods and buy yourself a 460cc driver, a box of ProV1s and your driving will magically go down the middle of the fairway 350 yards, straight as train smoke. 🤣 your mishits will be a thing of the past. (sarcasm) 

[clevited]

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I have said this before, but it bears repeating.  If the ruling bodies will step up and truly solve (reduce distance however they choose by ~20%) what they have stated as a "problem" with golf, I won't say a word.

 

I will still say they are dumb for doing anything, but with a dash of respect lol.

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, gvogel said:

If I remember correctly, a lot of us thought that a condition of competition ball would be a fine way to deal with the "distance problem" vis a vis shorter courses.  But Titleist couldn't stand the marketing consequences of selling a shorter ball.

Actually, the professional tours told the ruling bodies that they wouldn't apply the MLR to their events. I'm sure the OEMs weren't happy either, but for the RBs, there's nothing worse than being ignored.

[gvogel]

2 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

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.

Thinking, is that you or Bryson talking.  Tell Ben Crenshaw, who was an artist on the greens, that golf isn't art.  Tell Tiger Woods, who almost perfected the art of recovery, that golf is all science.

[Titleist99]

13 minutes ago, fbjim said:

You can claim a lot of things about the rollback, but "for the sake of change" isn't one of them. They've been pretty clear about the rationale behind changing golf ball regulations. whether you agree with the rationale, or their methods, is a different story. 

C'mon Man......

 

"We have to save the game for our Grandchildren"

 

~Mike Whan- CEO, USGA

 

**** I spoke to my grandchildren and told them that they were going to have to save the game for themselves and even they understood that. 🙂

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

It's hilarious reading these posts.  We speak two different languages here.  One of rationality, caution, logic and thorough evaluation, and one of art, feelings, irrationality, and superiority complex.  

 

-Nothing the ruling bodies can do will make all players test their entire bag.  You simply give even more advantage to the longest hitters.  

-Parity is essentially inevitable in golf so having another Tiger or Jack won't be likely to ever happen again (it could, but not likely given today's talent pool).

-Golf courses are a game board.  You play the game but the "rules" aka design intent, are very flexible based on your own personal abilities.  Circumventing defenses on a golf course is the name of the game and a lot of that can come with maximizing distance (to a certain extent).

 

This isn't rocket science people.  If you connect the dots in the obvious and logical way, you can pretty reliably determine what is needed to make an effect you want, and you can also see how things will very likely turn out.  You roll back the ball 20%, you will have a period of Jack and Tiger again.  It will eventually come back to what we have right now regardless.  You roll it back 20% however, you will see career ending injuries increase massively.  Easy to see why that logically follows.  

 

Golf is entertaining today for the vast majority that love the sport.  It always has been and always will be as boring as possible for anyone else.  

 

You artsy rollback enthusiasts will always be the minority and your view of what golf should be is nothing but an opinion.  One that contradicts itself quite often (like the test all skills bs, NOT POSSIBLE).

 

Rant over, continue please...

I love the way that you make broad, sweeping generalizations and ask us to take them for granted.