Franc38

Agreed! They want to show the athleticism and power on tour, but now we want to roll that back? I don't get it. I know Tiger talked about not having enough land, but look at number 13 at Augusta as one example. You're telling me that ANGC couldn't cut some trees down or move that tee box 10 or 15 yards farther left to force a certain shot shape? and bring more problems into play? 
The courses don't want their setups to be considered too hard (minus the Memorial) because players might not come back. I feel like they haven't exhausted all their options, but they just said, "Here let's do this!"

Why would they bother too? They could use all the current rules and ignore the ball rollback.  That sounds like what LIV is planning to do.  Ultimately, that would be the best message the tours could send the USGA and R&A... "thanks for sharing, but no thanks". 👍

I don't know either but it's hard for me to believe the USGA and R&A did not get the general sentiment from the tours and public... that excessive distance is not an issue (at least a significant one) and that if they do anything, just freeze current ball specs.  

Interesting perspective @GolfWolf.com and welcome to the forum.  I too was buying into the statement that excessive distance on tour was making many courses "obsolete"; really meaning too easy to score on.  But as this discussion/debate has evolved over the past few years, and more data is shared from various sources, I no longer believe that is the case.  
Absolutely no doubt that players in the past couple of decades are, on average, much more athletic than decades before. Also no argument that this fact along with advances in equipment technology have resulted in more distance tee to green.  But I do not buy into the argument that an additional 33 feet off the tee (USGA's numbers not mine) is resulting in courses being over-powered and rendered defenseless.  
I'd love to see a list of these helpless, historically played tour courses and how moving drives back 11 yards is going to make these courses up-to-snuff.  
Certainly if tour and elite am's played many of the courses we amateurs play, they would overpower them - even from the longest tee.  I played a pro-am in Yuma, AZ and we watched some pros (these were senior pros on Sunbelt Tour) cutting off doglegs and reaching greens (or nearly so) that 99.9% of amatuers couldn't do on their best day/strike.  Here's the scorecard/layout.  Main tour pros would definitely overpower this course... but it was never designed for them.
You know, it may just be time to retire a few courses from the tour stops.  There are plenty (as in LOT's and LOT's) of newer, longer, beastly courses that are begging for tour interest.  Add some of these and we'll be hearing pro's whine about them being too long and too hard to score on 😆.
So once again, this is a tour player/elite amateur issue... if one agrees that 33 feet is an issue.  It is not an issue for amateurs which represent 99+% of golfers worldwide.  Have you ever noticed how pristine the condition of the longest tee's at courses you play?  There is a reason for that.
Imposing a solution (and not a good one at that IMO) on 99% of golfers that are not part of the problem is ridiculous.

This isn’t happening. Championship tees are used only 5% of the time for all of golf and the tours will move tee boxes up and not always play the tee boxes all the way back. These lengthening of courses or need for more land has been debunked in several studies by superintendent association, ngf along with data collection of course construction in the past 10 years that show courses are actually getting shorted and the distance used on tour has remained relatively unchanged in the last 20 years

Those things would change the distances in some cases, maybe affect the approach off the tee, the problem is that the PGA tour doesn’t want to do that. They are promoting distance with their course setups and don’t have any problems with distance. The ruling bodies don’t regulate how the PGA tour setups up their tournament courses so those type of things won’t get done. Which again gets to the point of there being a distance issue and it actually being the ruling bodies creating a solution looking for a problem

Yep. It’s just an arbitrary number. People get hung up on pros shooting X under par and that’s too low. Yet at the end of the day it didn’t matter what the actual score is, the winner is the one that has the lowest score unless playing stabbleford or match play.
 

Their equipment meets the same specs that your equipment does and may cases the faces on drivers are slower than the ones at retail so that they don’t run the risk of having a conforming face because it’s too hot.
their balls meets the same ods specs as the balls you play. They don’t have hotter clubs or longer balls.
You can get a lot of the same optimizations they do like hot melt and shafts that match their swing by doing a fitting and getting a club builder to do the added work. Yes it will cost you. Samething if you prefer to have shafts flo’d or pured. You can get a grinder and create your own grinds on wedges if you want or get someone that knows what they are doing to do it.
i have a shaft that is a one of a kind. Doesn’t change anything about anything. 
 
Good players whether pro or not can adapt, those who aren’t as good can learn to that’s how most people that were high or mid handicaps got to low handicaps, scratch or better. They adapted and improved. Anyone can do that with hard work, proper practice and spending time honing their skills throughout the bag. The difference is most amateurs don’t do any of that or only part of it. Many who “practice” don’t practice the right way and it’s why they don’t see progress despite the effort.
The pros are the best because of their actual skills not the equipment. It’s why a KJ Choi can go buy clubs at a golf store and win. It’s why some have walked in bought a used putter at a golf shop and won on tour. 

and the simple solution if people see that as a problem is to lower par. 

Define obsolete.
Much further than who/what/when?
Equipment and ball haven’t changed in 20 years
Define relevant
also the courses having to grow or longer courses needed has been debunked by the superintendents associations study along with the data that shows courses are built at 6700ish yards in the last 5-10 years and have been built shorter than the previous 10 years of that 
That’s someone who doesn’t understand hitting the ball long and with some accuracy like the pros is a skill itself, and hit doesn’t take any skill away. Good to great golfers still need to hit good iron shots, have to be good with the wedges (see how much better dj got when he developed a wedge game compare to just bombing and then hoping he could hit the wedge the way he wanted)
did he think jacks distance took away skills? What about Tiger’s, Phil’s or Vijay’s distance. Did it take away their skills 
Brian Harmon, Colin Morikawa to name a few that aren’t that long yet have won on tour including majors. Lots of skills involved in playing good golf.

I’m much more in favor of reducing the amount of my money I give to the USGA than I am reducing the distance my golf ball travels. 

Very true.
Distance is not necessarily related to score (there's some correlation, obviously, an open, wide, flat greened par 4 of 250 yards is an "easy birdy", while an open wide, flat greened par 4 of 510 yards is a "hard bogey", but no one said your short holes have to be wide, with a large and  flat green).
One way to see that is the scoring average on par 3s which is rather quite high, even for very short ones (Postage Stamp at Troon, anyone? I remember Rory taking 7 -seven- shots to get out of the "coffin bunker" in a practice round... )
But no, it's got to be the distance... and the distance has got to be from the equipment... Just give Kyle Berkshire a balata and a persimmon to see what's happening!

Very true.
Distance is not necessarily related to score (there's some correlation, obviously, an open, wide, flat greened par 4 of 250 yards is an "easy birdy", while an open wide, flat greened par 4 of 510 yards is a "hard bogey", but no one said your short holes have to be wide, with a large and  flat green).
One way to see that is the scoring average on par 3s which is rather quite high, even for very short ones (Postage Stamp at Troon, anyone? I remember Rory taking 7 -seven- shots to get out of the "coffin bunker" in a practice round... )
But no, it's got to be the distance... and the distance has got to be from the equipment... Just give Kyle Berkshire a balata and a persimmon to see what's happening!

I don't think so.  The driveable par 4 at Riviera (#10?) routinely baits them into over par scoring? And there are plenty of others at various courses the tours play.  I think #12 at St. Andrews OC often has players slamming clubs in the bag.  These are great risk/reward decisions and masterful craft by the course designers.  
Someone just recently posted that the USGA and R&A are getting dated and out of touch with the younger generation players.  The game has changed, particularly in distance and agrressive, go for it play, and they really need to accept it.  

How could rules for a game be copyrighted? Many predate the USGA as does the game of golf (by centuries). In addition, rules seem like they would be public domain by definition. If I want to play any game I can use any rules I want to use whether with permission or not. The fact that many tournaments, professional and amateur, use the same rules without remuneration to the USGA nor R and A seems to indicate they are, in effect, in the public domain. The USGA and R and A can certainly require adherance by affiliated organizations, but have no power over independent organizations who can make alterations such as local rules not included in the USGA rules. A local golf club could be formed with many, but not all, rules the same as USGA rules. What could the USGA do and why would they bother? Their legal fees are already killing them. In addition, it makes no sense for a bunch of amateurs to make the rules for professional golf.

I don't think most people are disputing the graph that tour players are hitting it longer. Stats are stats. What they are disputing is whether that has made a material difference in the actual scoring and is the increase due to other than technology, i.e. course setup and better athletes. There are actual numbers to look at and scoring is not subjective. Course records, strokes gained, cut line, etc, aren't varying that much over the 20-25 years of increased distance the USGA is using for their one stat. If it was a problem, course records, winning totals, etc, should follow the same progression along the same trend line as the distance. How many new course records were made last year? Looked up the course record for pros at Pebble Beach and Tom Kite set the record in the mid 80's. It has been matched but not broken. The course record by a non pro was set in 2017 and who knows what the setup was for that round. The R&A have made a big deal that the Old Course now has a number of drivable par 4 holes yet the course record was set in 2015. 
Really a problem?

8 drives today within 2 yards of the wet muddy gouge in the fairway. Missed one fairway. Nothing rolled much. I would love to hit on courses where 30 yards of rollout is the norm. I would go back to the back tees. 😎

This is bringing me out of retirement for this post.  I don’t get it… you don’t see Porsche, Tesla, F1, etc. making their cars slower because they are setting records.
 
Huge mistake by the “Governing Bodies”
 
Much like the CFP comity leaving FSU out of the playoffs, and I am in no way a FSU fan in the slightest.  It just doesn’t make sense.

My opinion is courses are already at the lengths they are and golf is still interesting.  Not opposed to the USGA trying to freeze today’s distances.  Just think going backwards will not bring them any popularity and right now with new leagues already taking key tour players there’s no need to further alienate younger golfers.  Since let’s face it, newer golfer like my son and his HS golf team friends, look at LIV as the fun, cool tour and the PGA as the stuffy tour with too many rules.  LIV has music playing, pros in shorts and pros interacting with spectators.  PGA has golfer’s roped way back, only signing areas for little kids, no music and constant quiet signs.  The game is different for these younger adults and teens than it was for myself or my father.  And both of us are ok with that.  I  would personally just like to see the USGA and PGA as the important groups they were for upcoming adults of the future.  These kids and young adults worship the distance these pros hit and have no reason to look at the USGA like I do.  And recently I also have less faith in the USGA and their motives, save golf or save personal records?  Certainly not saving historical golf courses since none are 6,000 yards anymore like in 1901.  And if they’re claiming historical is their lifetime and not the USGA’s that’s personal then.  
I would love to see the USGA try to freeze distances to preserve what’s current, since land is now at a premium.  But stepping backwards will create a divide and based on tour surveys and general public the USGA will lose support.  And there’s a new league waiting with open arms and deep pockets. 

Yet the course ratings haven’t changed despite the increased in distance and the probably won’t change with the rollback.
The standard for scratch is still 250 yards. 
 

Scoring average has dropped by 2 strokes in that time and less than 1 in the last 20 years.  Not an issue

That clearly states distance isn’t an issue. It’s not subjective. What’s subjective is saying the pros hit the ball too far or that the ball goes too far or that courses are being made obsolete by the pros.
The ball goes as far as golfer is capable of hitting and has a limit on it. The pros hit it to far in relation to what? Years prior? Not in the last 20 years of the same specs. Father than the pros in the 90s? Yeah different ball, different clubs, different type of golfer. But the ball went father in the 90s than the 80, the 70s and so on. Courses aren’t obsolete, that’s a preference for some people that don’t like seeing lower scores than previous eras, that don’t like seeing pros who spend their whole lives working hard on their game be able to take advantage of the skill of hitting far. Not liking the modern game is just an opinion and nothing more. 
 
 

It doesn't work like this and I'm tired of explaining it. YOU guys are saying there is a distance problem. YOU need to prove it's a problem objectively and not based on your hunch. Because YOU want to FORCE private entities to spend untold thousands to possibly millions of dollars, thousands of man hours in work to acquise to these demands, and all of this is going to end up not affecting people better than myself because we have to keep providing the math that states that.
The scoring average has barely dropped 1.5 shots in almost 40 years on the PGA Tour with EVERY technical, nutritional, and training advancement and statistical analysis known to man being thrown at it. It's a literal joke. The Tours have stated there is no problem. The manufacturers have stated there is no problem. The vast majority of players have stated there is no problem, and the vast golf public has stated there is no problem.
 
What else do you want us to tell you?
 

The only change I can see that would make drivers (and other long clubs) way harder to hit competently, without affecting their size, would be to remove bulge and roll completely and make their faces flat.
I'm going to be quite frank, this "debate" is 1 side providing technical and mathematical analysis on the issue, and the other side is just crossing their fingers hoping this magically will be solved by 2028. Oh, and that side admits this won't ever be solved, because it's a poorly defined objective with vague requirements. Man, sounds almost like the unrealistic coworkers at my job!
Sorry guys, the real world doesn't work that way. Corn doesn't just sprout out of the ground and walk itself to the grocery display at Walmart eagerly awaiting you to pick it up, go through the magic scanner that knows just how much money to take out of your account, and ride along with you home in your magical car that magically gets gasoline from the pump.
Also, it's just way too hard to rewrite the rules based on a rulebook I can order off Amazon, it's too hard to for professional tours to maybe consider forming an equipment committee that's staffed by the pro tours and the equipment manufacturers themselves, in order to develop standards. Man, almost sounds like IEEE.
Oh well! Never been tried before! See you in 2030!

Data isn’t an opinion. Denying the data because you don’t like what is says is an opinion without merit.