LICC

I agree with this, but carry distances are still enormous. This would be a marginal improvement.

What are you basing this on? Hitting it 190 from the rough is a much greater challenge than hitting it 160 from the rough.

Rolling back the ball makes accuracy more important. Yes, longer hitters will still be longer than shorter hitters, but shorter hitters who are more accurate and hitting more fairways will be more competitive.

They have been doing that, but for existing courses, the answer shouldn't be to keep chopping up and rebuilding all these courses, just for the .01% of elite golf tournaments. Also, designers are getting limited in what they can do because no matter what hazards they put in, except water, the bombers will just keep bombing regardless. And having water cut off fairways so players hit irons off the tees all the time would be a bad result. Bifurcation is a better way to go.

You are confusing different concepts. I am talking about course strategy. Pinched fairways with penal thick rough on both sides contains zero risk-reward course strategy. There is no thought or decision on how to play the hole. Rolling back the ball reduces the effectiveness of a grip it and rip it approach, and allows courses to have both strategic elements and challenge.

It would be awful to set up every PGA Tour event to be as penal and one dimensional as the US Open

They need to do it to maintain the challenge of the course and to not turn the Masters into a pitch and putt

It is almost entirely due to equipment advances. Give today’s players old equipment and they hit it the same way players did back in the past. It’s been attempted multiple times.

You are lacking understanding of risk reward and strategic golf. There is risk reward and strategy if there are multiple ways of playing a shot, and the more risky shot can lead to an easier second shot while the safer first shot will lead to a more difficult second shot. Having just one way to play a shot- hit the fairway or be in the thick rough- is boring.

Augusta makes changes to the course every other year to keep up with the distance. They bought property behind the tee at 13 to lengthen it this year. They are always adding trees and removing trees, moving bunkers, etc. Hardly any courses can do that so often as Augusta.

Yes, and pinching expected landing areas with tight fairways and penal rough on both sides takes out all risk-reward strategy. It defines exactly the spot to hit with no thinking or decision making. Boring.

That is not feasible. It would dumb down play. 7000+ yard courses are already too short for most of the Tour. There are no par-5s anymore. Par-5s are now long par-4s. Most all par-3s have to be 200 yards to be a challenge. Most par-4s are now short irons or wedges on 2nd shots. Shortening the courses would turn the courses into pitch and putts.

Controlling distance through bifurcation is a far better option than narrowing fairways and growing rough to penal heights on all courses. That would detract from course strategy and design and be boring. Rolling back the ball adds to course strategy.

Give today's players 1990 equipment and they would hit the balls roughly the same as the players in 1990. You would see minimal differences.

The USGA and R&A have convened a news conference for Tuesday at which, GOLF.com has learned, they’ll introduce a proposal that includes a Model Local Rule that — for tours and championships that adopt it — would effectively mean rolling back the golf ball and introducing bifurcation, i.e., creating a different set of rules for professionals and top amateurs vs. the rest of the golf world. According to an industry source, equipment manufacturers were informed of the proposed changes Monday morning, which center around the clubhead speed used to evaluate balls for the Overall Distance Standard (ODS). In short, if the governing bodies have their way, professionals and elite amateurs on tours and in tournaments that adopt the rule will hit the ball shorter distances. Rules for everyday golfers aren’t expected to change.

Maybe it some aspects. The criticism of LIV isn’t about having more tournaments where more of the top players are playing together. The criticisms are of shotgun starts, 54 holes, no cuts and no qualifying to get into the tournaments, among other things. I do think the Tour is making a small mistake not having any cut on these events, but it’s not that big of a deal given that players still have to qualify to play them.

He was ranked 44th coming into the API, so I would think so.

Most of the below 100 ranked players have no effect on the main tournaments anyway. The Tour needed to update its model which is still based on a 1940s world. The top players are the draw so they need to get them together more often in more high-profile events. This is how you do it.

Overall as a viewer the no-cut on a limited field event doesn't make much of a difference. It just seems like a bad move in it gives LIV more credibility. The Tour could still have a small cut (even bottom-10), pay out some prize money to those who missed the cut, and kept LIV from getting a small win on the issue.

The elevated events is a good idea, but having no cuts is a blunder. The Tour is giving ammo to LIV unnecessarily.

From Alan Shipnuck: In the quest to build a more self-sustaining business, LIV has off-loaded all of the travel costs to each team, though, recognizing the tour is still in its early days, it did supply a stipend for this season. (The plan is to abolish the stipend beginning in 2024.) Players still keep the individual money they win—in Howell’s case, that was a tidy $4 million—but the $3 million for the team victory goes into the Crusher coffers, not the players’ pockets. Each player is paid an annual salary by the team, and at year’s end bonuses and/or profit-sharing is a possibility. But that depends on how much the team earns and how much it spends, which has brought class wars to LIV. Every team has to decide what it will cover for players, families and caddies. One player, who requested anonymity, said, “There is already tension. This week some caddies flew economy and are staying at a motor inn, while [the loopers from Brooks Koepka’s Smash] flew business class and are staying at the [swank] Rosewood.” The Smash is giving team members a set amount that can be spent however they want, but if a player burns through this allowance, he is on the hook for his expenses for the rest of the season. ... Clearly, the season ahead will bring more off-the-course headlines and controversy, though LIV is attempting to rein in Norman (above), who did not speak with reporters at Mayakoba. As one LIV executive recently put it, “Every reporter wants Greg to escalate things and he always takes the bait. It turns into, ‘[****] me? No, [****] you!’ He almost can’t have a conversation without returning fire. Does this escalation behoove us? Clearly not. We’re trying to turn down the temperature.”

Oh, so you were the one … The controversial, Saudi-backed LIV Golf returned for its second season over the weekend — and according to the TV ratings, no one noticed. LIV kicked off its 2023 season in Mayakoba, Mexico, on Friday, which was not only the tour’s first event of the season but also the first one under its recently signed television deal with The CW network. It was a questionable fit for the rebel golf tour, but perhaps no one could have imagined ratings as bad as this. Saturday’s overnight ratings for LIV Golf Mayakoba came in at 0.2 — an absolutely disastrous figure that indicated only 0.2 percent of households surveyed tuned in. If that doesn’t properly convey how little people cared about the weekend event, consider this: “World’s Funniest Animals,” which also aired on The CW later in the day, attracted more viewers, according to Golf Digest.

I read comments from a LIV fan who was very disappointed in this opening tournament. I didn't watch, but he said the play was really bad, other than Howell. That he hasn't sniffed winning anything on the PGA Tour in 5 years but won the LIV event going away may tell you something. The lack of competitive necessity for LIV events may be resulting in a loss of sharpness and decline in play of the top players. He also called out the "grow the game" nonsense (which we all know is a lie from Norman, Mickelson, etc.)- Mayakoba is a resort in a sparsely populated area. If growing the game was really a consideration at all, they would have played in Mexico City.

So what? The big sponsors will pay the bigger money for the elevated events.

Yes and no. But either way, you can’t judge that the business survived when it is in massive losses.