Franc38

First we need to agree on the time period that we are evaluating. What many fail to realize is that this is not an attempt at rolling back gains from the previous century, the ruling bodies set a baseline with their 2002 joint statement so there really isn't much use bringing up what happened prior to that regardless of how one personally feels. When evaluating average tour distance increases since then, you will see that the rate of increase has been in line with what we saw in the 1980's for which we hear little to complaints about (unfortunately not much data prior to that since the PGA Tour did not track driving stats previously). Essentially the equipment limits that the ruling bodies implemented in the early 2000's have been successful in slowing the rate of increase and essentially stopped the "Tiger proofing" trend that in reality impacted an extremely minor percentage of courses (also exaggerated given that most of the classic courses that people were making a big deal about increased length by less than 5%, these also happen to be amongst the wealthiest courses in the world). Basically the last 20 years is much better point of reference to use in predicting the future than anything that happened pre-2000. 

Top end distance is the most important. If that’s not increasing then why rollback? It’s because the ruling bodies don’t like to see a lot of people hitting 300 even though it has done nothing to lower scoring average by more than a stroke in 20 years while playing the same course length over that same period. 
 
That’s not a distance issue it’s a subjective preference for how the game should be played.
Rolling back only puts more of a premium on distance as pointed out by broadie and others. Strokes gained shows that distance is key and when courses play longer it give the advantage to longer hitters. What happens when distance becomes more of a premium? You get more guys going after it and end up with more guys hitting the same distance. What does that do? it puts even less of a gap between the longer hitters and now your average is up. It also drives the shortest hitter of tour because they have less of a chance to win. Which then drives distance even more closer to the leader
Exactly where we are. If it made sense to hit the ball further than what the pros are hitting it now they would. But it’s not as beneficial. This is what Sasho was pointing out in his recent comments. These guys have more in the tank. The ones that don’t will be off the tour because they can’t keep up. So if we have reached our limit what is being protected against? Nothing. What’s being done is the ruling bodies saying we don’t like how the pros play the game and we want to change it. Which means they are either naive to strokes gained or they are ignoring.
It also shows they either don’t know how to interpret data or they are trying to limit the increase in average distance which gets back to the point about strokes gained.
That’s all settled. We can even shorten the timeframe from 2003 down to 2005 which is when the end of the big jump between the 90s and 2000s occurred which is also the year after Ct was instituted for testing. 
 
The training protocols aren’t going to change much and again the limitations of what the players and equipment are at has shown that over the course of the last 20 years average has only gone up 10 yards. 
 
The accuracy of then launch monitors isn’t going to impact anything. It’s going to be a small amount of difference in the readings of the data. The pros are pretty much optimized with their bag setups. They are lucky to squeak out a couple yards. DJ did and interview 5-7 years ago or so with meandmygolf and said he woukd be happy to get 3 yards from a new driver. The gains just aren’t there.
unless someone comes out with a new formula strokes gained is the gold standard and doubt there’s anything that’s going to say add more risk by going longer so you can get even closer to the pin. Equipment is capped, unless there’s some magic device or pill nobody knows about under the current standards there’s nothing to suggest an explosion of distance is coming
Literally been debunked multiple times in this thread by actual studies. Courses on the pga tour have remained the same for the last 20 years. Course construction has decreased by just under 400 yards from 2010-2020. Courses haven’t been getting longer despite how many times it’s repeated. You like data well it’s all over r this thread, feel free to go look at the post with titleist statement that gives you the stats about courses not growing. Go read the post I made with the 18 year study from the superintendents association and see how courses haven’t gotten longer.
Sure in the 90s there were courses that got longer, but that was happening even before the 90s and they didn’t grow in the 90s because there was a distance problem. But we can look at what happened as a result of Tiger and Tiger proofing. It causes the pros to get longer because it was an advantage. Same thing a rollback would do. Which is what strokes gained says too
 
Even if the tour got to 120 vice ~100 golfers hitting 300 it doesn’t create a problem. It doesn’t make courses obsolete, whatever that means. Nobody has provided what that means because all it ever comes back to is scores are too low yet somehow the winner is still determined by who scores the lowest. That is nothing more than a preference for how one wants to see golf played
 
a little more data for you from the titleist statement on March 14th. The average tour player is well below the current ODS. So where is the distance issue if the average is below 120 now and even further below the 125.
Average PGA TOUR clubhead speed of 114.6 mph in 2022 was well below the current 120 mph and proposed 127 mph testing conditions. The proposal of golf ballbifurcation is in many respects a solution in search of aproblem.”  
 

It’s also comparing data form different equipment eras and standards.
Of course distance had in crease from 96 to 2016. The prov1 came out in 2000 and the current equipment standards came out in 2003. This is why the pga tour players and others have called out the ruling bodies for cherry picking data.
When the data from 2003-2023 is compared there is no distance gain at the top end and only a 10 yard distance gain for the average. 
 
And this is the data many on the pro rollback side use to say there’s a distance problem by saying look at the difference between the 90s and 2000s. The ruling bodies claim if they don’t do anything distance will keep increasing, he the data for the current equipment and the current conforming standards show that’s not the case

Yeah those spikes and valleys are strange. It makes sense if they don't have much data. If they had a lot of data, things would average to a lot smoother line.
However, I do see the different lines have peaks/valleys at the same time in some places (like 2000-2006). So that could be an environmental effect that affected all the groups - like if this is data from just one golf course and the weather affected things. 
Ok... I was able to dig it out of the USGA distance report, thankfully not too deep. That is from page 16 and 17. Here is the context, and it's helpful. Let me put the whole little section in here-
So it was only done at 6 courses, and perhaps just 1 competition each year. It isn't a ton of data, so that explains it.
That second chart gives good context for why the high handicappers had such a big increase in driving distance. They are using driver a lot more than in the past. That was around the time of driver head size increases I believe. 
Really neat that they mentioned another study and Arccos data was consistent, at least for the recent data that matches time frame.
 

Dave I mentioned it somewhere in another thread.  I would not be surprised, depending on this alleged deal that is supposed to be worked out between PIF and the PGA by the end of the year, if it does not come about that LIV would do the following.  
If most or all ball manufacturers commit to not making for lack of a better expression 2023 version balls, that LIV would purchase(a factory if need be) and market, toward the "recreational player" the ability to sell 2023 version balls, with the marketing slogan
"Don't let them take your fun away"   We at LIV are here for you the "for fun player" !
Any way to subvert the status quo. I hope they see it as a possibility, because it is clear that money, and cost, and at this point return on investment,  is ABSOLUTELY NO IMPEDIMENT TO THEM. 

They are. They are 0 for 4 lately. Their only possible win is the rules update a few years back 

I hope not. But knowing them anything they don’t like from an optics perspective they will change.
They are 20 years too late and it makes no sense to do a rollback now. Its trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. They could see the changes starting in 2000 and could see it between 2003-2014, but they kept pushing the grow the game narrative. But as we see with the data nothing has changed in the last 20 years that indicates distance will blow up 
Course length hasn’t increased on the pga tour by any significant amount in the last 2 decades and speed has been consistent for that same time.
more data that contradicts everything being said in support of a rollback
From acushnet. If you want to see the whole release you can back to page 26.
”Golf is an aspirational sport, and we believe at its very best when equipment and playing regulations are unified. Golf’s health and vibrancy are at historically high levels,” said David Maher, President and Chief Executive Officer, Acushnet Company. “As we see it, existing golf ball regulations for Overall Distance and Initial Velocity are highly effective. During the past two decades, PGA TOUR average course playing length has increased by less than 100 yards and scoring average has remained virtually flat. Average PGA TOUR clubhead speed of 114.6 mph in 2022 was well below the current 120 mph and proposed 127 mph testing conditions. The proposal of golf ball bifurcation is in many respects a solution in search of a problem.”  
And page 61.
We note that the mean of the fastest 1% of measured clubhead speeds on the PGA TOUR was flat from 2019-2021 and declined in 2022 and 2023. The mean of the fastest 5%, 10%, 20% and 50% of measured clubhead speeds has been flat since 2017. We consider that the average course playing length on the 2023 PGA TOUR is less than 7,200 yards, just as it has been every year since 2004. We also note that U.S. golf courses built during the period 2010-2020 averaged 6,652 yards – 274 yards shorter than those built between 1990-2010, which is at odds with the notion that equipment has forced courses to expand.  

To be honest course conditions and even more design are the ONLY points that could limit the perpetual race for added distance.
Sure, you'll always be better off with a gap wedge in your hand than with a 6i when attacking a green... Except that's "from the fairway". If you need, in order to have a gap wedge in hand risk a 80% chance of loosing your ball, 10% chance of being in the rough, 5% chance in a bunker and 5% chance on the fairwy, you'll choose the short club from the tee and then attack with a 6i.
As already stated before, my home course is short and quirky, very narrow with OoB and deep woods where balls are effectively lost close to fairways. I could, potentially drive the green on 3 of the five par 4, and I did try this method before: my scoring average on 9 holes was 4 shots more! Then there's our long par 4, 415 yards. Even on this I tend to not use driver and prefer my 4 wood. After 230 yards  the fairway narrows down even more and becomes a strip 75 feet wide, with a sliver on rough on each side and then OoB immediately to the left and a 45° steep bank to the right with thick bushes on it (swallows balls often, if you find it you'll have the worse lie ever, ball knee high, etc.). Then the green is elongated, 25 feet wide with OoB 1 yard left and a water hasard back and left... Even for "longer hitters" it's statistically better to play it like a par 5!!! (which I do in competitions... )
I've played once a course just after the Challenge tour (the European equivalent to the Korn Ferry) had played it, and was amazed at "how long I drive it"... Well, turns out the balls were rolling for ages. At the same time, the fairways were quite wide and the rough wide as well and really not that deep (akin to a normal course fairway on days where they don't mow, I'd say). Yikes, I got my first drive past 350 yards! Not that I ever do that in real life...
 
If the R&A and USGA have the power to regulate the equipment and define things for course setup they could as well have the power (or seize it) to define things in the rules, like minimum height of grass in the fairway, maximum stimp for the fairway (or greens, for that matter... slower greens are "more difficult" for lowly amateurs, but actually slow greens are very hard for every one on longer putts since the uncertainty grows  massively). That could solve the distance problem, if there is one...  Obviously most courses and the PGA tour don't want that, just as they don't want the pros loosing balls often, teeing of with mid irons on par 4 and 5 etc. But that would penalize us way less since our daily courses already more than comply with rules for slow fairways and unkempt rough 😉

While I respect his knowledge of the golf swing, I also disagree with him on some things.  That's just life, knowledge of one thing doesn't make you an expert on other things, at least in my opinion.  I'm qualified as an expert in the Rules of Golf, but my knowledge of the golf swing, or of course maintenance, or of pro shop inventory control, (all within the job description of most club professionals) all are pretty limited.  I enjoy respectful disagreements, its a great way to learn, a great way to evaluate my own opinions.  

We have a hole like that when it gets dried out in August it basically gives you free 350+ yard drives. Honestly, the bunker placement is kinda genius because it all funnels down there. I was a league guest at a shorter, cheaper course with clay, almost every drive plugged with 0 rollout. Some even bounced backwards a few inches where they hit the lumpy ground! Made the greens super easy though since the ball stayed where it impacted.
Nobody will watch Pro golf where they get a plugged mud ball at 280 every tee shot.

I wish the survey had asked the million dollar question of will you follow the new rule in 2030.
 
I answered it as if I would but I most certainly won't.  My guess is that this will change by then but should it remain the same I simply won't play by the rules and won't maintain a handicap at that point.  
 
I play golf for fun - losing 7 or so yards off of driver and a like number off of irons is not helpful in that regard. I don't' hit the ball far enough as it is and I'm as long as or longer than many of the people whom I play with, even those younger than me.  They are taking what's not broke, in fact what is working the best that it has in decades and running the risk of ruining it.  
 
Good luck 

I will simply add non-conforming ball, to the 15th club I am going to add to my bag.  This completely arrogant decision has made it clear, that the powers that be don't care about me, and my enjoyment of the game, so I am no longer going to concern myself with them AT ALL. 

This way of thinking is gone. Strokes gained is out of the box and distance is an advantage. Many knew it but there wasn’t data to show it. Now we have it and everyone knows it. Being closer is better than being father away. That doesn’t mean tae unnecessary risks, but getting closer to the hole is better
Rory had 4400 spin with the club he hit. It also looks like he tried to just fireaway at it. 169 ball speed with a club not optimized to him is still pretty good.
The bolded part goes against what the pga tour is trying to do. 
 
This is where the problem/disconnect is happening.
The ruling bodies can’t get out of their own way. There is no distance issue at the regular golfing ranks, they said so with the tee it forward program. They use the PGA tour as their main data for distance and claim there is a problem. They tell everyone there is a problem and a small subset of the golfing public buy it. Yet the PGA tour where this supposed issue of distance exists have yet to state there is a problem, nor have they attempted to change their course setups each week to curb it if there was. So where is the problem? There isn’t one. The problem is the suits at the ruling bodies don’t like the the modern athletic golfer who has worked out, used the technology available like launch monitors and fittings to fine tune their setups. They admit it’s the average distance that has increased while never admitting max distance is pretty much stagnant for 20 years. The stage distance has been on the rise for the last 20,30,40 years. We’ll no duh Sherlock. The ball, technology, materials and manufacturing processes have all improved. Not to mention a guy named Tiger came into the scene and was fit and worked out hard (maybe too hard) and it showed people that being fit and strong is possible And great golf can be played that way. DL3 did an interview where he said he as going to go home and saw guys like Rickie heading to the gym so he switched heads grabbed his workout clothes and went to the gym.
Then add in strokes gained, speed training and the way the game is played has changed and isn’t going back to lay up to a number off the tee.
So people are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist on the pro tour.
 

Rory seems to have a big dropoff when going back to a persimmon driver compared to DJ.  Maybe DJs swing is more optimized for an old driver than Rory.

I am a data guy.  Love data.  It bugs me when people leave data out to try and twist it like we see happening in some of the articles and postings out there on this topic.  I've pulled some of the same data and when Amateur distance has essentially not changed while we have access to the same equipment something really smells funny.  I find it ironic that you mention the green speeds at Augusta as I played a tournament last year or so where the greens on each course were in the 12-14 range; I had trouble getting the ball to the hole on the faster greens because I was so scared of them.  
Your point on the club lofts makes sense to me.  I pulled the data on my old Titleist irons earlier in the year and played a tournament with them just for fun.  Everything was about 2 clubs off (e.g. old 3I was carrying new 5I distance).  There are so many points going into this that one can pick and chose one or more to try and show support for one side or another, but in aggregate, I agree with you that there is no "distance problem."  Especially when you go back and show how little Amateur distance has changed.  I'll include the relevant part of my post from Dec 4th:
In March 2022 the USGA and R&A released "a wide-ranging and detailed look at distance in the game of golf" providing a picture of how amateur performance has  changed over the years form 1996 to 2019 (https://golf.com/instruction/driving/driving-distance-average-golfers-new-report/).  The report shows that, despite access to the same (or very similar) equipment and fitting that the Pros have access to and showing ~30 yards for the elite players, driving distance has stayed pretty stable (~10 yards gained across handicaps over 25 years for us lowly amateur/recreational players).  How come we have't gained 30 yards as well if it is all equipment driven?  I wonder what would happen to that stat if all of us played on tour conditioned fairways that were set up to roll, and roll, and roll, and roll, and roll...  Which goes back to the fact that changes in course grooming and design is also a factor that needs to be considered when trying to determine the Root Cause of this horrendous problem of herculean distance 🙄 

It's not so much loft these days, Pros tend to play offset values. The player irons they usually have are at the 7 iron around 2mm - 2.5mm in offset. These days that's gonna nab you 34 degrees of loft on a 7. They already optimize everything, for example, I made this smash factor Google Sheet for you to cross reference what your expected smash factor for your club's loft

Yes how the game should be played is subjective. I doubt anyone would want to see driveable par 5s not that it would ever be a reality with the current equipment, but when you compare data like the distances balls went in the 80s or 90s compared to today it’s not a good comparison. It’s apples to oranges just like comparing 90s golf distances to 80s or 70 golf distance 
1) back tees are used 5% of the time, courses still maintain those areas despite little to no usage. The rollback if you believe what the ruling bodies say will have 3-5 yards impact on regular golfers and 8-15 yards on the high speed golfers. That’s not enough for a course to change what tees they use and to stop maintaining tee boxes.
Courses aren’t getting longer. The data has been posted in this thread that shows the opposite. Again as I mentioned acushnet showed the data and the superintendents association also have an 18 year study that shows they aren’t getting longer and are actually getting shorter 
 

The data says the opposite.
Distance has remained the same for the last 20 years. Only thing that’s changed is more people are hitting close to 300 which is what the average has gone up, which is exactly what the USGA report says.
Courses have been getting shorter. Data posted by Acushnet in their statement shows courses are just under 300 yards shorter now than they were before 2013. Data from the superintendents association over the course of 18’yeara shows the samething.
that’s the problem they aren’t hitting them less and it’s not a driver and wedge game. I posted that exact thing 2 pages back
 
This is preference. Some people don’t like the modern game played by the pros (it’s a small percentage of people) and that small percentage wants to change the game for everyone because the pros are doing what the pros do 
 
Rory is saying that because he knows a rollback benefits the longer player and as a longer player he still has an easier time getting a mid/long iron to the green than a shorter player will a wood or hybrid. There are a lot more golfers against it than for it including longer players like JT.
 
Tiger is in favor of it as a course designer, yes he pushed for bifurcation of the ball and equipment when he was playing. Why? Because as one of the longest at the time of benefited him. 

I haven’t renewed mine for going in 6-7 years now. I know from reading posts from other forums and groups that there will be less memberships being renewed from those that still have them.

Can't say that a model based on a ball launched by a machine over 70 feet is a standardized and repeatable way of testing balls that should be HIT by drivers and fly 900 feet. Sure, it's at least repeatable (if you know the machine specs, the tunnel specs, the air and so on).
Now I did contact the R&A to tell them that I feel their approach to regulating distance is idiotic... That was last summer when they started talking about bifurcation. I offered some ideas... and I'm still waiting for any reply (my ideas dealt with the regulation of course conditions for tournament play, and respectfully leveraging the idea that the regulation of the equipment should be limited to its basic observable characteristics and never deal with "outcomes" as we all know that golf is not a game of perfect or even well defined randomness... )
 
You're still have the right to be happy with their way of setting rules; but you'll have to be happy too when the price of balls rise and the tour pros continue hitting it the same distance or further, while the short hitters with limited technique and time scramble more and more since they can't reach greens in regulation, which is a probable consequence of the proposed rules evolution. Now, I'll be happy if that doesn't happen, if we don't see much reduction for the "mere mortals" and price don't change... albeit, I have speeds akin to a "middle of the pack pga tour guy" so I'll be affected more, but if its by the margins they say, fine. I just don't believe that (else why do it?)

As Martin Borgmeier as pointed out, the roll back proposed doesn't make any sense even from a rules point of view, unless the way of testing is standardized and repeatable. A robot with a club head speed of 125mph hits a ball with a certain spin and a certain angle and then depending of the surface the ball lands on, the density of the air, the temperature of the ball, the ball will travel very very different distances (a reason I've recently discovered as to why while I do hit my irons about the same distance as the average PGA tour pro, my driver and woods are quite a bit shorter... Their shots roll on for miles while mine pitch and bounce once if I'm lucky then stay in the mud.) You might also have balls with aerodynamics designed to counteract the "roll back", leaving the leading pro playing this or that ball keep (or increase) their distance while the ball still conforms, but the average slower speed am would loose boatloads of distance. The likely result would be the polar opposite of what the R&A and USGA say they want: more distance for the pros and top ams, less for the slower ams a significant increase in the cost of practising golf (the R&D needed for the new conforming balls that would not penalize the top pros that I mentioned above is clearly not free, and will be borne by average joe buying his balls at the local pro shop, not by the pros (don't pay their balls) or top ams (using one ball per 36 holes is quite a bit cheaper than 6 to 9 balls per 18 holes as I've discovered when I play well 😉 )
All of that for "solving" a problem that visibly only exists in Jack's and some of the higher ups at the USGA and R&A's heads... Plus the sheep that have been convinced by the repeated screaming of said people in the media.

There's no point in explaining this to people. I and other players way beyond my skill level have flat out stated this isn't going to affect us in the way they think it will. We will still practice to chase that outcome and we're right back to square one.

Unforgiving drivers? We'll just hit in on the screws, as if we weren't doing that already. I was at the range at 45* weather hitting a 44* 9 iron 150 yards carry with those crappy Callaway TopTracer range balls. You know how many regular players I saw out there in the cold working on their games? 0. The only people there were people working in the offseason having rust in the center of their faces.
The USGA and R&A are under the mistaken belief they can regulate dedicated people out of the game, and they're willing to throw all the recreational golfers under the bus to do so.

Can't say that a model based on a ball launched by a machine over 70 feet is a standardized and repeatable way of testing balls that should be HIT by drivers and fly 900 feet. Sure, it's at least repeatable (if you know the machine specs, the tunnel specs, the air and so on).
Now I did contact the R&A to tell them that I feel their approach to regulating distance is idiotic... That was last summer when they started talking about bifurcation. I offered some ideas... and I'm still waiting for any reply (my ideas dealt with the regulation of course conditions for tournament play, and respectfully leveraging the idea that the regulation of the equipment should be limited to its basic observable characteristics and never deal with "outcomes" as we all know that golf is not a game of perfect or even well defined randomness... )
 
You're still have the right to be happy with their way of setting rules; but you'll have to be happy too when the price of balls rise and the tour pros continue hitting it the same distance or further, while the short hitters with limited technique and time scramble more and more since they can't reach greens in regulation, which is a probable consequence of the proposed rules evolution. Now, I'll be happy if that doesn't happen, if we don't see much reduction for the "mere mortals" and price don't change... albeit, I have speeds akin to a "middle of the pack pga tour guy" so I'll be affected more, but if its by the margins they say, fine. I just don't believe that (else why do it?)

Can't say that a model based on a ball launched by a machine over 70 feet is a standardized and repeatable way of testing balls that should be HIT by drivers and fly 900 feet. Sure, it's at least repeatable (if you know the machine specs, the tunnel specs, the air and so on).
Now I did contact the R&A to tell them that I feel their approach to regulating distance is idiotic... That was last summer when they started talking about bifurcation. I offered some ideas... and I'm still waiting for any reply (my ideas dealt with the regulation of course conditions for tournament play, and respectfully leveraging the idea that the regulation of the equipment should be limited to its basic observable characteristics and never deal with "outcomes" as we all know that golf is not a game of perfect or even well defined randomness... )
 
You're still have the right to be happy with their way of setting rules; but you'll have to be happy too when the price of balls rise and the tour pros continue hitting it the same distance or further, while the short hitters with limited technique and time scramble more and more since they can't reach greens in regulation, which is a probable consequence of the proposed rules evolution. Now, I'll be happy if that doesn't happen, if we don't see much reduction for the "mere mortals" and price don't change... albeit, I have speeds akin to a "middle of the pack pga tour guy" so I'll be affected more, but if its by the margins they say, fine. I just don't believe that (else why do it?)

Their handicap are +5 or better. They are going to score under par on or 5s. 
 
Again who cares what they shoot on par 5s or any other hole. The winner is determined by the golfer who scores the lowest score for the tournament.
Also why does it matter what pros shoot in a PGA tournament event?
 
How does them having an under par score score on average affect anyone other than the golfers they are competing against?  
 
Average means guys are shooting par, some under and some at par. Its not like everyone is scoring under par.