DaveP043

Much like fines for behavior, the PGA Tour probably chooses to keep those details out of the public eye.

I'm guessing you didn't read far enough back, what I'd support is essentially freezing equipment-related distance gains where they are now. To me, that's "no change", to stop things where they are now..

As far as I'm aware, we're talking in this thread about distance, mainly driving distance, and revising equipment rules to decrease it. To me, that would be a poor choice, whether its across the board or through bifurcation. I'm not sure what other kinds of changes are possible, but I'm willing to listen.

Bryson is just the current face of distance gains based on his win in the US Open. Bryson isn't an outlier, other than the route he chose to get that distance. A fair number of guys are just about as long, and if they're not using the same strategy, they'll give it a try pretty soon.

The USGA and R&A, Jeff Shackleford, Jack Nicklaus, Golf Course Architects, any many of us old guys (including me) who would love to see a return to the playing strategies of old. And while I'd love to see it at some level, I'm against the types of changes that would make it happen.

If you go to the Snell website, you can hear Dean commenting on the seam. All balls are tested now, distance with the seam in line versus perpendicular to the line have to be within a certain percent variation. The original ProV1 wouldn't have passed that test. All balls have seams, its apparently impossible to manufacture them without using a two-piece mold, its just that on some balls the dimple pattern "interlocks" along the seam.

I find this interesting, and I'm not sure that the "right" path for the USGA should have been. They are routinely vilified for acting moderately quickly on other equipment-related issues, particularly the groove rule and long putters. I know anchoring was changed via a RoG chance, but it was still related to equipment. At the same time, the USGA is vilified for taking a longer-term data driven approach, acting too slowly on distance. If they HAD acted as quickly as many suggest (with the gift of hindsight) they should have, NONE of us would have the distance advantages that club and ball improvements have allowed. We don't want that distance rolled back, taken away from us, but if the USGA had acted, we'd never have had it in the first place. I don't think its quite fair. As for advances in the agronomy, certainly the USGA's turfgrass research has had a significant role. But what's also had a role, looking at this from a historical perspective, are the introduction of irrigation systems and better mowing equipment. But I agree, improvements in course preparation have definitely allowed courses to mow grass tighter and use less water, leading to significant increases in roll-out. My conclusion is the same as yours, though. I hope they Ruling Bodies find ways to limit future distance gains from equipment. I can accept that the best players in the world will continue to improve, and will continue to explore strategies to score lower, and that those strategies will have less and less in common with the strategies of the past. I wouldn't encourage any type of bifurcation, I just think that there are too many potential complications for that to work well. And as with almost all changes, I'm certain that there would be complications that none of us would anticipate, in addition to the ones we can see right now.

I agree, Bryson's win wasn't "news" for the distance debate, its just more of the same data points that they've been compiling. But because Bryson is REALLY visible, and because its been 8 months since the Distance Insight Report was issued, and its likely to be 6 more months until the next one comes out, AND because we're in the part of the PGA season where really nobody cares, all the talking heads are making a big deal of it. And we're following suit, me included. So to some extent, the current discussion is completely about Bryson. The Ruling Bodies (including the R&A) could rein in equipment related distance increases and still embrace athleticism. Its not necessarily an either/or choice.

Have you read the actual reports? The concerns are overall distance, averages and peaks. The don't seem to want to revise the balance of power on the pro tours, only to stall or possibly decrease the distance for everyone at the elite levels. They're not trying to pick winners and losers, even though some players would certainly be affected more than others. As you say, longer hitters will always have an advantage over shorter ones.

Don't ask me! The only thing that the Ruling Bodies can regulate is equipment. They cannot regulate physical fitness, or clubfitting, or statistical analysis, or course conditioning. Equipment regulation is the only avenue open to the Ruling Bodies if they indeed decide that something has to be done about distance. But they haven't determined that yet. There's nothing new, what we have is what was released in February. The data from the summer isn't a departure, Bryson's win isn't anything new, there's really nothing to see here. But because Bryson is a polarizing figure, the most obvious "long ball hitter", his win has reignited the discussion. Mike Davis' retirement remarks aren't anything new, he's been saying the same thing for a decade or longer, and the Distance Insights report largely ignored his preferences. We'll find something out in the spring when the next step in the distance insights process is released, but until then, I'm not going to worry about the sky falling.

I know I've read that from individuals, but I don't read that in the official documents produced by the USGA/R&A. They express concern that one particular skill is becoming much more important than others, as compared to the "old" balance of skills, but they don't suggest that the ability to hit it long isn't a skill. In essence, they are saying that there is a "right" balance of skills. I'm not sure I agree that one way is "right", but there's certainly a continuing change in the balance among the various skills.

Welcome to MyGolfSpy!! One of the most common is underclubbing. "One time 4 years ago I hit my 7-iron 175 yards, so that's that I'm hitting from 175 today."

I didn't try to say WHY the old strategy is becoming obsolete, just that it has. But yeah, being as old as I am, I remember balata and persimmon. I also remember a lot of courses before wall-to-wall irrigation was as prevalent, when greens were MUCH slower. I can't say I remember the stymie rule being in place, though. But my point remains, courses still present a challenge, still present a puzzle. Whether its because conditions have changed, players themselves have changed, equipment has changed, statistically-based analyses have improved understanding of optimal strategies, all of that has gone into the changes in strategy for the elite players. The new strategy produces lower scores, everything that has changed has worked to make the old strategies obsolete. Is the Masters a "better" competition if played with balata, persimmon, slow greens, and shorter holes, as compared with what it will be next month? Or is it just different, and a matter of personal preference? Is there a "right" way to solve a puzzle, and the modern elite players are solving it better, but with the "wrong" method?

I have immense respect for traditional course architecture, and I love the chances I've had to play some of these classic courses. But they were designed for a moment in time. The best of the designers could look ahead to some extent, build in flexibility for changes they could expect to see, but its inevitable that the game will progress beyond what any designer could imagine. Once the architect is finished, all that's left is a "puzzle", and its up to each player to determine how best to solve that puzzle using his own set of skills. While I prefer to see the courses played as originally designed, we shouldn't expect to see current and future players locked into that same methodology. Modern elite players have developed new or refined tools to solve problems in different ways. Its not that the courses have become obsolete, its that the strategy of 50 or even 20 years ago is becoming obsolete. My personal opinion, I hope that equipment regulations are tweaked, or new factors tested, to keep equipment-related distances about the same as now. No shock to anyone's system, no loss of distance for those of us who aren't making traditional golf strategy obsolete. I hope they don't pursue any kind of bifurcation, even the optional CoC that is discussed in the Distance Insights Conclusions. There are just too many potential conflicts for that the be workable, in my opinion. Let the best be the best, let them continue to evolve strategies to solve the problems they face, let's just not facilitate that by allowing it to be done with longer equipment. And if individual events decide to revise course set-ups to encourage one tactic over another, great, its just revising the problem the elite players have to solve.

The PGA is not a governing body, they have specifically chosen to subordinate themselves to the USGA/R&A rules. They certainly have a stake in whatever the USGA/R&A decide, but so does Titleist, so does the NCAA, so does the GCSAA (course superintendents), so do course owners and property developers. From everything we can find, every one of those groups will be involved in the final decisions by the USGA/R&A. I'm not crazy about every-week birdie-fests on the PGA Tour, but I can accept that the game has changed, that new tactics and styles of play are here for good. If I'm bored by that style of play, I won't watch. I have read that Bobby Jones saw Nicklaus play, and said that Jack "plays a game with which I am not familiar". Yet Jones never called for the game to be changed, to bring Jack in line with the way Bobby had played. A big portion of the distance debate is about a desire to bring back the style of play from the era when Jack was at his peak. Evolution happens in this game, and it will continue to happen.

These kinds of things could certainly increase the advantage of hitting fairways, and increase the penalty for being longer and wayward. Longer softer fairways could decrease roll. But from a "regulation" standpoint, they're simply not something that can be regulated by the USGA/R&A. The set-up for pretty much every PGA Tour event is under the control of the PGA Tour and the host club. The PGA Tour has been marketing distance for a long time, as well as telling us how good these guys are. The PGA Tour has a vested interested in long drives and low scores, that's what they advertise. Every-week course set-ups won't change until the PGA Tour senses a decrease in viewership related to the more boring (to some people) style of play that extreme length seems to produce. But most avid golfers will watch no matter what, so the Tour is trying to attract the fringe viewers, the occasional players and non-players. And for a fringe viewer, what's more exciting, huge drives and lots of birdies, or chip-outs from the heavy rough and 10-footers for par?

I'm laughing, I didn't look to see where Wakefield is. I went to Michigan Tech, so now I understand completely. I think the closest I ever got to Wakefield was on a couple of excursions to Ontonogan.

Even if you're not posting for an official handicap, the policy of the Golf Association of Michigan would be one reasonable guideline, and that official season is April 1 to October 31. I understand your position, you don't want a handicap that is unreasonably low.. As long as you're not in a formal competition, where you want to score as good as you possibly can, you don't HAVE to take any kind of relief under the preferred lies rule. Would that amount to intentionally circumventing the Handicap Rules to gain an unfair advantage? I'm a bit on the fence with that. Does it mean you're NOT trying to make the best score possible on each hole? Again, I'm on the fence. Your club's committee can decide that scores on specific days should not be posted, but they're discouraged from doing that on a blanket basis. Personally, I'd play the ball down whenever reasonably possible, but take relief for mud-balls and a few other extreme seasonal issues, and do it with a clear conscience.

Players struggle with longer clubs, in general, so its no surprise that they struggle most with a 3-wood, the longest club that we routinely hit off the ground. Driver falls into a separate category, because the clubhead and available hitting area is so large, and the ball is teed up.

I'm not so sure they actually know the rules. The spend every minute of their lives learning to hit the ball, and 5 minutes learning the rules.

I have only one thing to add to the other answers. Please please please learn how to find the rules online, download the app for your phone, and learn how to find things in the rules.

I agree with this completely. Willie Park won the first Open Championship with a score of 174. The tournament was played going 3 times around the 12 holes at Prestwick, 3800 yards. That corresponds to about 5700 yards for 18 holes, and an average 18-hole score of 87. What do you think Willie Park would have thought to see Bobby Jones play? And Jones was astonished at Nicklaus playing a "game with which I am not familiar". And Nicklaus thinks the same about Dustin and Bryson. Part of it has been equipment, part has been conditioning of the players, part has been changes in the courses, and part has been tactical changes. Golf is going to continue to change, we can't turn back the clock. I agree with @revkev:

This is one of the difficulties of rating courses, the same factors impact different players differently. An increase of 600 yards would mean having no chance of reaching 4 or 5 or 6 greens in regulation for a shorter player, but might have a much smaller impact on someone who hits it longer. I think the current rating system works OK in general, but I know there are some "inconsistencies" for many individuals. I don't know that there's a significantly better way to do things, to make it more "right" for more players.

I'll add one more question to ask. You probably don't want to be playing by yourself all the time, so you should try to find out how new members are assimilated into the membership as a whole. At my home club, we have a few groups (not foursomes, but larger bunches) that set up regular tee times most weekends, and a few on weekdays as well. My primary group has at least 30 people on the mailing list, and they take 4 tee times each Saturday and Sunday. Most of the groups are very welcoming to new members, and playing with 12 or 16 guys regularly is a great way to get to know people. You may also want to understand the "gambling culture" of any of these groups. My main group is pretty small potatoes, its nearly impossible to lose $20 in a day, and my best day I didn't win $30, I don't think. some groups don't gamble at all. Other clubs do have some higher-money games, to the point that I wouldn't enjoy them, or couldn't afford to play in them. Last thing, how easy is it to get tee times in your normally desired time slot? I know of clubs near me that run a lottery each week for morning tee times, the demand is that high. They run off of 1 and 10, with a crossover time, so the entire morning gets completely booked. At my own club, the regular groups tend to fill the tee sheet in the early morning, but after about 9:30 things open up, so its not too bad.

You can read about calculation of Score Differential and Handicap Index in Section 5.1 here: https://www.usga.org/handicapping/roh/2020-rules-of-handicapping.html The equation is Score Differential = (113 ÷Slope Rating) x (adjusted gross score – Course Rating – PCC adjustment) Your Handicap Index is the average of the best 8 Differentials from the most recent 20.