USGA and R&A say distance needs to be reigned back in

[RickyBobby_PR]

13 minutes ago, revkev said:

With all due respect I think you guys are assuming that the fast firm fairways are of a benefit to tour players - its the opposite - they will hit tons more fairways under softer conditions - If you carry driver 280-300 little to no roll out is not that big a deal - it is when you carry it 200-215 though.  If you want to limit the distance keep it fast and firm and then pinch the fairways with thick, gnarly rough, hazards and trees.

I'm pretty busy with work - so far what I've read in the actual report is not all bad - there's no talk of rollbacks now - there's a concern to figure out how to limit distance going forward.  This is much more sensible than the anchor ban or the groove thing IMO.

I don’t think anyone is saying fast firm fairways are a benefit to the players but rather result in the added distance from the rollout and thus the “problem” the usga is looking to address. Reducing the speed of the fairways as well as penalty for missing them is an option to address the distance problem. 

[cjeffs12]

14 minutes ago, revkev said:

With all due respect I think you guys are assuming that the fast firm fairways are of a benefit to tour players - its the opposite - they will hit tons more fairways under softer conditions - If you carry driver 280-300 little to no roll out is not that big a deal - it is when you carry it 200-215 though.  If you want to limit the distance keep it fast and firm and then pinch the fairways with thick, gnarly rough, hazards and trees.

I'm pretty busy with work - so far what I've read in the actual report is not all bad - there's no talk of rollbacks now - there's a concern to figure out how to limit distance going forward.  This is much more sensible than the anchor ban or the groove thing IMO.

Same I have been busy as well, and I would hope it wouldn’t be all bad. It’s us regular people who fund the game, and I don’t think many people would pay to hit it shorter. That’s a great point of how they would tear up a soft course, and making it narrower sounds like an excellent idea. I’m glad to hear it may not rollback. 

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

I don’t think anyone is saying fast firm fairways are a benefit to the players but rather result in the added distance from the rollout and thus the “problem” the usga is looking to address. Reducing the speed of the fairways as well as penalty for missing them is an option to address the distance problem. 

I'll claim that firm fast fairways are a benefit.  At that level, they'd rather be 30 yards closer on most holes, and accept that they'll be in the rough 10% more of the time, and that's what the fast fairways do for them.  This is just the kind of trade-off that Strokes Gained evaluations support. In fact, I wondered if at least some of the distance increases noted between 2014 and now are at least partly due to changing attitudes.  The advantage of driving longer has been statistically quantified, so players are using driver more often.  Every Shot Counts was released in 2014.

[revkev]

2 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I'll claim that firm fast fairways are a benefit.  At that level, they'd rather be 30 yards closer on most holes, and accept that they'll be in the rough 10% more of the time, and that's what the fast fairways do for them.  This is just the kind of trade-off that Strokes Gained evaluations support. In fact, I wondered if at least some of the distance increases noted between 2014 and now are at least partly due to changing attitudes.  The advantage of driving longer has been statistically quantified, so players are using driver more often.  Every Shot Counts was released in 2014.

Could be - that is why I added pinch them with heavy, and I mean truly heavy penal rough, hazards and trees - normal tour rough is not enough to stop guys from bombing driver - I totally understand that.

[PMookie]

I agree with this but the problem becomes water in general. It is becoming more scarce and expensive everyday. I work and live in AG country and water is the #1 concern without fail. 

Dang “Californians”!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[PMookie]

I agree with this but the problem becomes water in general. It is becoming more scarce and expensive everyday. I work and live in AG country and water is the #1 concern without fail. 

Dang “Californians”!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[PMookie]

I agree with this but the problem becomes water in general. It is becoming more scarce and expensive everyday. I work and live in AG country and water is the #1 concern without fail. 

Dang “Californians”!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sixcat]

I'm sure I'm in the minority with my opinions of the game in relation to distance.  Especially distance at the elite levels of the game.  The opinion of the best 1% of golfers on the planet is irrelevant to me!  I'm old enough and have been around the game long enough to remember the uproar of PGA Tour players when Soft Spikes were introduced.  As more and more clubs began to ban traditional spikes, PGA Tour players lost their minds!  To hear them ****** about it, one would think it was going to be the ruination of the game.  Now, many of us play without even Soft Spikes, including Touring professionals.  It was never as big a deal as the elite players made it out to be.

Technology is at a point where OEM's can limit the flight of the golf ball for elite swing speeds without penalizing moderate swing speeds.  Give them a year or two to come up with solutions however they see fit as long as the results fall within reasonable parameters.  It's simply not as big a deal as it's being made out to be! 

That's my takeaway after reading through the release. 

[TR1PTIK]

I'll try to keep my points on this discussion simple and brief.

1) Distance seems to only be a real issue on the professional tours.

2) Rolling back equipment from its current state would merely reduce the enjoyment of golf by amateurs.

3) Reducing the amount of roll out on tour courses would go a long way toward curbing distance.

4) The USGA and R&A care far more about optics than they do about growing the game.

[RickyBobby_PR]

10 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

I'll try to keep my points on this discussion simple and brief.

1) Distance seems to only be a real issue on the professional tours.

2) Rolling back equipment from its current state would merely reduce the enjoyment of golf by amateurs.

3) Reducing the amount of roll out on tour courses would go a long way toward curbing distance.

4) The USGA and R&A care far more about optics than they do about growing the game.

agree with 2-4. For 1 is it really a problem or a perceived problem by the powers to be running the tours and the governing bodies who are being somewhat influenced by course architects of new courses trying to host events and/or the owners/superintendents at curren tour stops?

I know there’s a segment of golfers who watch the pros and hate the bomb and gouge mentality but that’s as much about course setup as it is distance. 
 

Everyone tried to tiger pro off courses and he still won 82 times,  now it’s trying to distance proof all elite athletes with more yardage that may or may not be available to courses. If they looked at course setup like you mention in 3 and has been mentioned by myself and others they could avoid the problem. Fans like seeing the long ball

[TR1PTIK]

18 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

agree with 2-4. For 1 is it really a problem or a perceived problem by the powers to be running the tours and the governing bodies who are being somewhat influenced by course architects of new courses trying to host events and/or the owners/superintendents at curren tour stops?

I know there’s a segment of golfers who watch the pros and hate the bomb and gouge mentality but that’s as much about course setup as it is distance. 
 

Everyone tried to tiger pro off courses and he still won 82 times,  now it’s trying to distance proof all elite athletes with more yardage that may or may not be available to courses. If they looked at course setup like you mention in 3 and has been mentioned by myself and others they could avoid the problem. Fans like seeing the long ball

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy watching the pros drive the ball - it's what most amateurs envision themselves doing in their wildest dreams. What's wrong with seeing that come to life? However, it does present an issue for courses as they try to figure out how to lure pro events and maintain the integrity of the course. I think the idea to simply add length to a course is just that - a simple idea. It's "easy". It isn't overly thought provoking, and it doesn't always require significant redesigns. We have seen and will continue to see a small handful of "short" courses on tour and in the major rota that present a fair challenge for all players. Those courses should become the model instead of the current tiger-proofing model as you suggested. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy watching the pros drive the ball - it's what most amateurs envision themselves doing in their wildest dreams. What's wrong with seeing that come to life? However, it does present an issue for courses as they try to figure out how to lure pro events and maintain the integrity of the course. I think the idea to simply add length to a course is just that - a simple idea. It's "easy". It isn't overly thought provoking, and it doesn't always require significant redesigns. We have seen and will continue to see a small handful of "short" courses on tour and in the major rota that present a fair challenge for all players. Those courses should become the model instead of the current tiger-proofing model as you suggested. 

Agree. Adding bunkers or other things to cause course management off the tee is a cheaper option. 

[TR1PTIK]

I think #10 at Riviera is a good example. It's short at only 302 yards and 67% of all scores come in at par or worse because it presents a unique challenge. For starters, there are bunkers and deep rough long and short, the green doesn't have much depth when approached on a straight line from the tee, and the fairway slopes right-to-left away from the green on the left-side which makes threading that needle more difficult. Basically, unless you hit the perfect shot, you won't find the green or get close enough in the fairway for an easy birdie.

The other thing that comes to mind when looking at this hole is that it is probably one of the smallest greens on tour - I'm sure there are smaller, but I'm not familiar enough with all the tour courses to provide a better example. How many tour setups offer large greens where playing from the rough is even less penal?

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, TR1PTIK said:

I'll try to keep my points on this discussion simple and brief.

1) Distance seems to only be a real issue on the professional tours.

2) Rolling back equipment from its current state would merely reduce the enjoyment of golf by amateurs.

3) Reducing the amount of roll out on tour courses would go a long way toward curbing distance.

4) The USGA and R&A care far more about optics than they do about growing the game.

I can agree with the first three, but not the last.  Yes, the optics are a concern.  But there are very real implications for owners and builders of golf courses.  When they lengthen a course, or install new longer tees, or even add bunkers, they're doing that based on a perceived demand for longer golf courses.  All of those things increase costs, which ends up being paid by the individual golfers, and increases consumption of resources, like water, chemicals, fuel for equipment.  That is and should be a very real consideration.  It doesn't matter that for 99% of us those back tees will never be used, its the mindset of the public that demands greater length.  So yes, the Ruling Bodies care about the optics, but they also care about the real impacts of distance.

 

1 hour ago, sixcat said:

Technology is at a point where OEM's can limit the flight of the golf ball for elite swing speeds without penalizing moderate swing speeds.  Give them a year or two to come up with solutions however they see fit as long as the results fall within reasonable parameters.  It's simply not as big a deal as it's being made out to be! 

I have no doubt that manufacturers can design a balls and clubs that will decrease distance.  I think that would be a horrible idea to enforce for all golfers, there really hasn't been a huge distance increase for most of us.  Sure, they're going to evaluate the use of a Local Rule to require "shorter" equipment for certain events or tours, but I can't believe it will ever be used.  As far as I've read, the Pro tours don't see an issue, why would they choose to force their players to use different equipment?  A major selling point for much equipment is that we can buy the same clubs as our favorite pro plays (or at least something dang close).  The players make money for endorsements, the tour gets money for advertisements, the manufacturers happily shell out those dollars in order to sell us new drivers and golf balls.  If we're not going to play the same thing the pros use, that whole system gets tipped on its head.

[Reesedw]

I see it like @revkev, Everything evolves and changes, ALL other major sports have Playing fields/courts that have not changed... For the most part, I do realize each baseball field can have variations of lenghth for the outfield, but for golf, every course is different. If every course was the same then there would be an issue IMO. But they are not, the course I play or Courses I should say Are not maintained to the level of the level of the tour courses. I think the focus should be on setting equipment limits as well as establishing course condition specifications.. I am not saying that they all have to be 7200-7300 yds with 150 bunkers and 3 ponds.. More like the fairways will be mowed to "X" height, and rough will be "X" ( 1st cut mowed to "X" height, 2nd cut will be "X"),  the greens will roll "X" in the stimpmeter, and everything will get 1" of water per night, not counting rain. as an example..  Then we can accurately dissect what the concerns should be. Is it with equipment, course length, or are the players are just that much better physically.. Until everything is on a level playing field there will be no diffinative answer to an abatrary issue.

[RickyBobby_PR]

22 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I can agree with the first three, but not the last.  Yes, the optics are a concern.  But there are very real implications for owners and builders of golf courses.  When they lengthen a course, or install new longer tees, or even add bunkers, they're doing that based on a perceived demand for longer golf courses.  All of those things increase costs, which ends up being paid by the individual golfers, and increases consumption of resources, like water, chemicals, fuel for equipment.  That is and should be a very real consideration.  It doesn't matter that for 99% of us those back tees will never be used, its the mindset of the public that demands greater length.  So yes, the Ruling Bodies care about the optics, but they also care about the real impacts of distance.

 

I have no doubt that manufacturers can design a balls and clubs that will decrease distance.  I think that would be a horrible idea to enforce for all golfers, there really hasn't been a huge distance increase for most of us.  Sure, they're going to evaluate the use of a Local Rule to require "shorter" equipment for certain events or tours, but I can't believe it will ever be used.  As far as I've read, the Pro tours don't see an issue, why would they choose to force their players to use different equipment?  A major selling point for much equipment is that we can buy the same clubs as our favorite pro plays (or at least something dang close).  The players make money for endorsements, the tour gets money for advertisements, the manufacturers happily shell out those dollars in order to sell us new drivers and golf balls.  If we're not going to play the same thing the pros use, that whole system gets tipped on its head.

The course architects and owners are the ones who are making this more of an issue than it really is. Courses are being constructed with the hopes of hosting a high level tour event or amateur event. As a result they feel like they need length to get that rather than utilizing a design that challenges the best in the world to be accurate and or change their approach from bomb and gouge. The reason they feel his way is the tour has lots of courses that the rough isn’t penal enough, the hazards off the tee aren’t an issue for the elite of the elite. 
 

Penalizing the top players for wanting to get stronger, faster and therefore longer to separate themselves from the rest of the competition.

As Chamblee mentioned the other day the game has grown organically and the ruling bodies are stunting it via mandate

[THEZIPR23]

Problem solved.

Create balls that have speed limits. Max ball speed of 170 for example no matter who hits it or what club is used to do so. Limits the 1%, doesn't affect slower swing players and limits distance. 

[sixcat]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

I have no doubt that manufacturers can design a balls and clubs that will decrease distance.  I think that would be a horrible idea to enforce for all golfers, there really hasn't been a huge distance increase for most of us. 

Completely not what I said!  OEM's have the technology to limit the flight of the golf ball for elite swing speeds without affecting the rest of us at all.  Nobody in the thread is swinging the driver at DJ or Rory speeds!  If they claim they can, they need to be over on WRX!

[DaveP043]

36 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Penalizing the top players for wanting to get stronger, faster and therefore longer to separate themselves from the rest of the competition.

As Chamblee mentioned the other day the game has grown organically and the ruling bodies are stunting it via mandate

I'm not sure what that first sentence fragment is intended to convey, cold you explain it? 

In what way does the current report intend to "stunt the game", given that there's no intention to roll back the distances for the huge majority of players?  In what way did the WHS or the 2019 Rules of Golf "stunt the game"?  I didn't hear Chamblee, but I accept that you quoted him accurately.  It kind of sounds pithy and wise, but I don't see much wisdom behind it.

27 minutes ago, THEZIPR23 said:

Problem solved.

Create balls that have speed limits. Max ball speed of 170 for example no matter who hits it or what club is used to do so. Limits the 1%, doesn't affect slower swing players and limits distance. 

And how would you test this?  Part of making a rule about ball speed is determining exactly how you're going to test the ball speed.   You'd need to have a standard clubhead and clubhead speed, I believe, but clubhead speed may continue to increase with better mechanics and fitness, making the old standard test obsolete.

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, sixcat said:

Completely not what I said!  OEM's have the technology to limit the flight of the golf ball for elite swing speeds without affecting the rest of us at all.  Nobody in the thread is swinging the driver at DJ or Rory speeds!  If they claim they can, they need to be over on WRX!

My apologies that I misunderstood.  I honestly don't care if the elite players have to play with reduced flight balls, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.  I just don't believe they'll ever accept that voluntarily, for reasons I mentioned in that previous post, and I don't believe the USGA/R&A would ever choose to develop mandatory bifurcation.  

[revkev]

I found some interesting things on the blog today.  One got me thinking.  What about if instead of rolling back distance they were to decrease MOI of drivers as a condition of play for tour level events? 

 

Just a rough draft thought but this could put a greater premium on ball striking which seems to be what they are getting at while still allowing for the distance that so many love, best of both worlds.  We all know we aren't using the same driver as Tiger right now - we just want the same brand with the same name on it - that could easily be the case here.

 

Thoughts?

[THEZIPR23]

18 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm not sure what that first sentence fragment is intended to convey, cold you explain it? 

In what way does the current report intend to "stunt the game", given that there's no intention to roll back the distances for the huge majority of players?  In what way did the WHS or the 2019 Rules of Golf "stunt the game"?  I didn't hear Chamblee, but I accept that you quoted him accurately.  It kind of sounds pithy and wise, but I don't see much wisdom behind it.

And how would you test this?  Part of making a rule about ball speed is determining exactly how you're going to test the ball speed.   You'd need to have a standard clubhead and clubhead speed, I believe, but clubhead speed may continue to increase with better mechanics and fitness, making the old standard test obsolete.

I have no idea. Way past my intelligence. But you are correct in the fact that CHS will continue to increase. Sasho Mckenzie believes that 140 mph is about what the max CHS for a tour player will become. If that is indeed the case that is roughly 24 mph higher than what it is currently average on tour. 60+ yards longer than now. That is a problem. No it's not a problem for 99% of golfers but it is a problem. I stand firmly against bifurcation but believe that there is something that will need to be done moving forward. 

[THEZIPR23]

9 minutes ago, revkev said:

I found some interesting things on the blog today.  One got me thinking.  What about if instead of rolling back distance they were to decrease MOI of drivers as a condition of play for tour level events? 

 

Just a rough draft thought but this could put a greater premium on ball striking which seems to be what they are getting at while still allowing for the distance that so many love, best of both worlds.  We all know we aren't using the same driver as Tiger right now - we just want the same brand with the same name on it - that could easily be the case here.

 

Thoughts?

Not a bad idea, I just think that at that level it wouldn't change enough. I am not a fan of the USGA but I do not envy the position they are in. Yes they, did it to themselves but there are so many factors to accomplish what needs to be done that it is mind boggling. Even just saying we are rolling everything back. Which year do you pick to roll it back to?

[PMookie]

Silly report

[golfinnut]

Not sure why this should have an influence on us general hackers.  I've always said the Pro's should have a different set of rules than the general golfing public.  All this is going to do is drive away more people from the game.  OEM"s are not going to manufacture different clubs.  "Yeah I'm looking for that club that hits it about 20 yards shorter?"  Not sure what they are thinking here.  Just make the fairways narrower, more rough, not so rock hard so they get 75 yards of roll, etc.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

52 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm not sure what that first sentence fragment is intended to convey, cold you explain it? 

In what way does the current report intend to "stunt the game", given that there's no intention to roll back the distances for the huge majority of players?  In what way did the WHS or the 2019 Rules of Golf "stunt the game"?  I didn't hear Chamblee, but I accept that you quoted him accurately.  It kind of sounds pithy and wise, but I don't see much wisdom behind it.

And how would you test this?  Part of making a rule about ball speed is determining exactly how you're going to test the ball speed.   You'd need to have a standard clubhead and clubhead speed, I believe, but clubhead speed may continue to increase with better mechanics and fitness, making the old standard test obsolete.

Pro golfers are training in the gym to be the best they can be and separate themselves from their competitors by being faster and thus longer. By making changes to limit distance they are penalizing guys for trying to get better. 
 

As Brandel was saying they are putting in rules that will artificially change the game despite its growth being organic their technology, equipment, training and so on. It get back to the point of minimizing and penalizing the work these athletes are doing.

 

[sixcat]

58 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

My apologies that I misunderstood.  I honestly don't care if the elite players have to play with reduced flight balls, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.  I just don't believe they'll ever accept that voluntarily, for reasons I mentioned in that previous post, and I don't believe the USGA/R&A would ever choose to develop mandatory bifurcation.  

How is it bifurcation if Tour pros and amateurs are playing the exact same golf ball?  OEM's have the ability to make balls that reduce the distance elite swing speeds produce without reducing the distance average swing speeds produce from the same golf ball.

Andy Johnson and Geoff Shackleford went into some detail about this on The Fried Egg this morning.  Say what you will about Shackleford but he predicted this "report" and its "findings" in his book 15 years ago!  Almost verbatim!

[DaveP043]

18 minutes ago, sixcat said:

How is it bifurcation if Tour pros and amateurs are playing the exact same golf ball?  OEM's have the ability to make balls that reduce the distance elite swing speeds produce without reducing the distance average swing speeds produce from the same golf ball.

Andy Johnson and Geoff Shackleford went into some detail about this on The Fried Egg this morning.  Say what you will about Shackleford but he predicted this "report" and its "findings" in his book 15 years ago!  Almost verbatim!

AAhhh, a "non-linear" golf ball, nonlinear meaning an increase at say 80 mph clubhead speed would produce a significantly greater "reward" than the same increase at 120 mph.  I wouldn't doubt that this can be done, and could have the potential to address the distance issue at elite levels without hurting us mortals.  Do you have a suggestion of how to structure the specification?  You'd have to decide where the break point(s) in the reaction curve would be, and find a way to test the ball at multiple clubhead speeds, but it does seem like a feasible option.  Makes me wonder if Dean Snell would be willing to provide some insight.

35 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Pro golfers are training in the gym to be the best they can be and separate themselves from their competitors by being faster and thus longer. By making changes to limit distance they are penalizing guys for trying to get better. 
As Brandel was saying they are putting in rules that will artificially change the game despite its growth being organic their technology, equipment, training and so on. It get back to the point of minimizing and penalizing the work these athletes are doing.

 There will always be an advantage to hitting the ball longer.  But yes, decreasing distance, especially in the way that @sixcat finally got me to understand, would decrease the amount of advantage gained by a specific increase in swing speed.  To my mind that's not penalizing them, its just reducing the reward.  But this is part of what the Ruling Bodies dislike, what seems like a disproportionate advantage distance brings at the highest levels of the game, as compared to some of the other skills a golfer can have.  It may influence the way players prepare, less gym and weight room time, but I don't look at any of this as penalizing anyone.  

In a way, this reminds me of some of the rules changes in hockey, football, and basketball.  Most of the rules changes have had the effect of increasing offense, and making it more difficult for defenses to succeed.  They're basically adjusting the relative value of different facets of the game.  Any changes that influence distance at the elite level will do the same kind of thing, adjust the value of one facet of the game relative to some other facets.  I didn't find golf any less interesting to watch in the days when Nicklaus booming it 270 was big, as compared to watching Dustin hit it 330.  That wouldn't change if Dustin could only hit it 300, it would be just as much fun to watch.  To me, that limitation would not "stunt the game".  

[sixcat]

10 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

AAhhh, a "non-linear" golf ball, nonlinear meaning an increase at say 80 mph clubhead speed would produce a significantly greater "reward" than the same increase at 120 mph.  I wouldn't doubt that this can be done, and could have the potential to address the distance issue at elite levels without hurting us mortals.  Do you have a suggestion of how to structure the specification?  You'd have to decide where the break point(s) in the reaction curve would be, and find a way to test the ball at multiple clubhead speeds, but it does seem like a feasible option.  Makes me wonder if Dean Snell would be willing to provide some insight.

That's the difficulty in my mind.  Where is that line of demarcation?  I could foresee an instance where someone like Jordan Spieth reaped benefits while a Jon Rahm didn't.  They are only about a yard or two different in the driving statistics year in and year out.  I guess my lack of understanding is in whether it's a hard line of demarcation or a gradual progression.

I'm still not convinced this will be as big a deal as it's being made out to be.  We will see, I'm sure.

[Peaksy68]

Another thought I had (a thought that pre dates this report) Pros should have to look for their ball in the same manner amateurs do. Only their group and caddies. No spotters, crowds not allowed to help, difficult to enforce, but we don't get any help, why should they! The increased chance of losing balls would be likely to change the bomb and gouge approach.