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

[fixyurdivot]

3 minutes ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

Yeah, you're right on both accounts. It's really long, and I don't have a definite conclusion on the distance debate itself. My main point was to just remind everyone involved that we're trying to figure out the best rules for a game. That means there's no definitive right and wrong here. I think that reminder applies more to the rollback/bifurcation side of the debate, who sometimes frame their arguments hyperbolically: that the modern game is a travesty, etc.

I don't want to discount the real logistics issues: length increases maintenance, etc. But what we're arguing about, chiefly, is our taste in the kind of golf we want to watch.

Maybe we could frame it this way: laying aside personality and just focusing on style of play, would you rather watch

• A Zach Johnson or Jim Furyk plot their way around the course, laying up on par 5s to get birdies with stellar wedge play, or
• A Rory McIlory or Jon Rahm hit mammoth drives and laser approach shots, or
• A Bubba Watson or Phil Mickelson, hitting huge drives and hitting heroic recovery shots with imagination?

To be sure, it is good for the Tour if there's room for all of these guys. Variety is part of what makes the game interesting. But it's likely that one kind of player will be predominate. Which archetype should the Tour seek to have as the most common player?

Honestly, I'd rather watch the Bubba/Phil guys. In my judgment, they are the most entertaining and provide the most "Did you see that?!" moments per round. But it's impossible to make those guys the majority, not only because (I suspect) that style of play isn't something you can really teach, but because it just isn't the most prudent style of play for most guys if they want to have a sustainable Tour career.

Watching a ZJ or Furyk play is absolutely fascinating, but (for me) I can't imagine that having a Tour filled with those guys would be more fun to watch than a Tour filled with Rory/Rahm clones. The ZJ/Furyk types are interesting for two reasons: they're more relatable than the others, and they provide a contrast.

So on balance, it seems to me that the Tour would be making itself less interesting, on balance, if it made changes to favor a Tour filled with ZJ/Furyk types.

That's as close as I get to an answer

I like watching them all and all type players you mention win on any given Sunday.  It may (to some already has) become mundane watching the bomb & gouge show. My guess is that we'll see a hard cap placed on balls and equipment design.  We'll also see some changes to course conditions that further penalizes long, offline drives.  Someone mentioned adding deep pothole bunkers in those long, offline landing areas - ones that require a layup 90% of the time.  Sand is eco-friendly and easy to maintain.  Watching Cam disappear into a 10 foot deep crater, a puff of smoke emerge, and him reappearing will add some fun.

Even with these changes, the player profile in the year 2060 may have physically evolved to the point that average swat speeds are regularly approaching 200 mph. The USGA may need to add a new section to their regulations - "swole limits" (love that term) . 

[GolfSpy MPR]

24 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

I like watching them all and all type players you mention win on any given Sunday.  It may (to some already has) become mundane watching the bomb & gouge show. My guess is that we'll see a hard cap placed on balls and equipment design.  We'll also see some changes to course conditions that further penalizes long, offline drives.  Someone mentioned adding deep pothole bunkers in those long, offline landing areas - ones that require a layup 90% of the time.  Sand is eco-friendly and easy to maintain.  Watching Cam disappear into a 10 foot deep crater, a puff of smoke emerge, and him reappearing will add some fun.

Even with these changes, the player profile in the year 2060 may have physically evolved to the point that average swat speeds are regularly approaching 200 mph. The USGA may need to add a new section to their regulations - "swole limits" (love that term) . 

Definitely agree both 1) that the governing bodies need to cap equipment distance where it is and that 2) through conditioning and launch monitors, upcoming Tour pros are going to continue to add (significant) distance in the next few decades.

I also agree that having a variety of styles in play makes watching golf better. Unfortunately, the impact of science on sport tends toward uniformity. When there's a breakthrough novelty (the Fosbury Flop), it's only novel until it's proven to be better, at which point every single competitor adopts it.

(As a side observation: I think it is very likely that the move from the video-based coaching generation to the launch-monitor-based coaching generation will have the side effect of bringing back a lot of variety in swing styles. Video, by the very nature of the tool, focuses on the visual conformity to a pattern. Because LMs don't care how you swing it, so long as you're hitting your numbers, you have an increased likelihood of getting a Wolff or even a DeChambeau.)

The Mark Broadie/Scott Fawcett/Lou Stagners of the world are showing (using hard data) that hitting the ball far is unquestionably the best way to score low. As a result, I think we'll see the same thing we've seen in other sports that have been strongly influenced by analytics. Guys trying to make a career shooting midrange jumpers or as traditional big men are having a hard go of it. I don't think we're even going to see a Rickey Henderson/Vince Coleman 100-base stealer ever again.

Should those losses make us nostalgic? Yeah, I think so, especially if you grew up with a connection to a team or player that was of that model. And it's great when an "old-school" guy like that can make it work in the modern game.

But even talking about appreciating the short hitters now on Tour is kinda silly. Zach Johnson averaged 287.5 off the tee last season. While he's 30 yards shorter than Cameron Champ, 287.5 is not short. Short is obviously relative on Tour, and there will always be guys 30+ yards shorter than the longest guys, and so that variety will always exist.

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

So on balance, it seems to me that the Tour would be making itself less interesting, on balance, if it made changes to favor a Tour filled with ZJ/Furyk types.

In my opinion, there will always be long hitters and shorter hitters, and distance off the tee will always be a substantial advantage.  That won't change if distance is decreased, length will remain as an advantage.  What a distance reduction COULD do is to bring most hazards back into play for most of the players.  As it is, the Zacks and Jims have to navigate around bunkers, while the Dustins and Rorys just hit the ball over the bunkers.

I agree with another thing you said, this is all opinion-based.  We can all have opinions as to what the proper balance of required skills is.  The USGA report says that the distance increases in elite golf have swung the balance too far towards length, so that some of the other skills matter less.  Its their opinion that the trend is undesirable, is harmful to golf for a number of reasons.  We can disagree, many of us might enjoy long hitters and not care that accuracy has diminished importance, I can respect that side of the discussion, even if I don't agree.  

I agree with the USGA/R&A on one thing, that the only aspect contributing to the distance increases that they have the potential to regulate is the equipment.  Its impossible to regulate training, strength, coaching, techniques.  Its impossible to regulate how a golf course prepares the grounds for an elite competition.  The only thing left is equipment regulation.  

Personally, I'd hate to see bifurcation of equipment rules.  I have a hard time thinking that the PGA Tour would accept a "local rule" that requires them to play different equipment from the stuff their sponsors are trying to sell to the general public.  I see a lot of issues with transitioning from "normal" equipment growing up to "reduced distance" equipment at some point, is it college, or elite junior events, is it only the Pro Tours?  I believe that one set of rules for all golfers is the best way to go.

I'd prefer that distance not be reduced for everyone.  As many have said, distance is really only an issue at the very top levels, most of us need all we can get.  But really, if we all lose a few yards due to equipment regulation, we're not going to quit golf.  Of course a few people would, and many more would be screaming bloody murder for years, but we'd adjust.  My preference would be to freeze distance where it is now.  I'd also support new regulations and testing, perhaps a maximum distance for fully assembled clubs, under a variety of swing speed and angle of attack scenarios.

Edited February 12, 2020 by DaveP043

[fixyurdivot]

14 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

As it is, the Zacks and Jims have to navigate around bunkers, while the Dustins and Rorys just hit the ball over the bunkers.

I think you've nailed it... and why some fairly low cost course changes are needed to once again bring those poor shot penalties back into play for them.  Think deep craters with past 180 degree ball grabbing lips .  

[DaveP043]

29 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

I think you've nailed it... and why some fairly low cost course changes are needed to once again bring those poor shot penalties back into play for them.  Think deep craters with past 180 degree ball grabbing lips .  

But again, this is completely beyond the ability of the USGA/R&A to regulate.  I do think that a report like this might "encourage" the PGA Tour (and the other tours) to reconsider some of the course set-ups, maybe to work with the host course to find ways to reward accuracy (or penalize inaccuracy) more than they have in the past.  I think there's enough money available at the top levels to help the courses make changes.  The problems come when "everyman" courses feel pressure from the golfing public to do the same types of renovations.  Everyday golfers don't need additional bunkers or heavier rough to be appropriately challenged, but we want to play the clubs the pros play, and many want to play courses just like the pros play.

[THEZIPR23]

42 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

I think you've nailed it... and why some fairly low cost course changes are needed to once again bring those poor shot penalties back into play for them.  Think deep craters with past 180 degree ball grabbing lips .  

Growing the grass or watering it more will not fix this. Long hitters will still hit it over bunkers that the short hitter have to navigate. 

[THEZIPR23]

8 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

But again, this is completely beyond the ability of the USGA/R&A to regulate.  I do think that a report like this might "encourage" the PGA Tour (and the other tours) to reconsider some of the course set-ups, maybe to work with the host course to find ways to reward accuracy (or penalize inaccuracy) more than they have in the past.  I think there's enough money available at the top levels to help the courses make changes.  The problems come when "everyman" courses feel pressure from the golfing public to do the same types of renovations.  Everyday golfers don't need additional bunkers or heavier rough to be appropriately challenged, but we want to play the clubs the pros play, and many want to play courses just like the pros play.

One of the best things that the game of golf offers is exactly this. I can play the same course with the same equipment, with slight differences, as the pros. 

[TwoCoatsOfWax]

Personally, I don't have an issue with bifurcation of the rules.  I'm still going to play and watch golf if that's put in place.  Different rules/equipment at various levels of other sports don't seem to affect their popularity.  Yes, golf is unique with its equipment rules as is, but changes appear necessary at this point.

I think standardizing the ball would be a no brainer whether its rolled-back or held at current status quo.  For example, watch a Formula 1 race and the teams/drivers have choice of 3 different tire compounds:  soft, medium, and hard.  Have a standard range of golf balls that are lower, medium, and higher spinning.  Maybe even design a range of 5 or 6 balls all with different characteristics so players still have choices.  It might help drive the cost of balls down too.  

[Kenny B]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

But again, this is completely beyond the ability of the USGA/R&A to regulate.  I do think that a report like this might "encourage" the PGA Tour (and the other tours) to reconsider some of the course set-ups, maybe to work with the host course to find ways to reward accuracy (or penalize inaccuracy) more than they have in the past.  I think there's enough money available at the top levels to help the courses make changes.  The problems come when "everyman" courses feel pressure from the golfing public to do the same types of renovations.  Everyday golfers don't need additional bunkers or heavier rough to be appropriately challenged, but we want to play the clubs the pros play, and many want to play courses just like the pros play.

It will be what the PGA Tour will decide to do.  Personally, I think the USGA/R&A will eventually adopt "local rules" for The Open and US Open, and I also think the Augusta National will follow along at the Masters.  That leaves the PGA the decide whether to acquiesce for the PGA Championship.  All other tournaments will go with the majors because I don't think the players want two sets of equipment to manage.

After the initial change, the public won't know the difference.  We will still watch.  The pros will still hit the ball further than most of use, so their game will still be nothing like ours.  It's a shame really... I wanted to see a 54 before I die.

[DaveP043]

41 minutes ago, Kenny B said:

It will be what the PGA Tour will decide to do.  Personally, I think the USGA/R&A will eventually adopt "local rules" for The Open and US Open, and I also think the Augusta National will follow along at the Masters.  That leaves the PGA the decide whether to acquiesce for the PGA Championship.  All other tournaments will go with the majors because I don't think the players want two sets of equipment to manage.

After the initial change, the public won't know the difference.  We will still watch.  The pros will still hit the ball further than most of use, so their game will still be nothing like ours.  It's a shame really... I wanted to see a 54 before I die.

Remember, the PGA Championship is run by the PGA of America, not the PGA Tour.  The Tour runs the Players Championship at Sawgrass (i.e. the fifth Major).

I do wonder whether the "local rule" will fly.  From the manufacturers' side, its not a real money-maker to develop clubs and/or balls that will be used by well under 1% of all golfers.  Without cooperation from manufacturers, the USGA/R&A won't really have the choice of mandating the use of distance-limited equipment in the tournaments they run, the players can't play if there's no equipment available.  Another question concerns advertising, will Titleist and Calloway and TaylorMade spend the same amount of money if they're not selling us the same ball as the tour pros use?  If not, that's money out of the pockets of the players and the networks.  The last question for local rule use is when will it be applied?  All USGA national championships?  USGA Junior championships, college, maybe AJGC?  Will top level amateurs need two sets of equipment, one for big-time state and national championships, one for local play?  A buddy of mine played in both the Virginia Senior and in the USGA Senior Championships, could they be held with different equipment requirements in the future?  I just think that bifurcation has a lot of potential complications to work through.

I'm with you on the last point, we golf addicts will watch, even of the pros are forced to play with hickory shafts and featheries.  THAT level of roll-back we'd definitely notice.

[fixyurdivot]

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Everyday golfers don't need additional bunkers or heavier rough to be appropriately challenged, but we want to play the clubs the pros play, and many want to play courses just like the pros play.

Since excessive distance gains are not an issue at the amatuer level, I wouldn't expect the vast majority of golfers would want these additional challenges.  Heck, most could add significant challenge by simply moving back a tee or two.

 

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

But again, this is completely beyond the ability of the USGA/R&A to regulate.

I was under the impression they have input on putting greens?  If that's the case doesn't their input carry any weight with the course designers on other attributes?

[fixyurdivot]

5 hours ago, THEZIPR23 said:

Growing the grass or watering it more will not fix this. Long hitters will still hit it over bunkers that the short hitter have to navigate. 

I don't think anyone is suggesting growing grass will fix it but rather it will reduce distance off the tee.  That coupled with narrowing landing areas and new, difficult bunkers, strategically placed where errant bombs land, will certainly force some different strategy.  Current rough conditions don't adversely affect the long hitters - they demonstrate that every week.  The errant shots cost them almost nothing - change that outcome and you change their game plan. Both of these options relatively cheap to implement and stay clear of much more controversial changes.

[THEZIPR23]

10 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

I don't think anyone is suggesting growing grass will fix it but rather it will reduce distance off the tee. 

I agree that this is part of the solution.

11 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

new, difficult bunkers, strategically placed where errant bombs land, will certainly force some different strategy. 

This is what they have been doing for years. This is why golf courses stretch to 7500 yards. Add more tee boxes to bring hazards back into play. It is much cheaper that way. It has been effective to a point, yes scores aren't lower, but courses keep getting longer, which is a big part of the problem. 

[DaveP043]

52 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Since excessive distance gains are not an issue at the amatuer level, I wouldn't expect the vast majority of golfers would want these additional challenges.  Heck, most could add significant challenge by simply moving back a tee or two.

 

I was under the impression they have input on putting greens?  If that's the case doesn't their input carry any weight with the course designers on other attributes?

For that matter, most golfers would be better off playing a tee more forward, but for most of us (I have to include myself much of the time) play longer tees than we really need to.  In fact, if we were to move forward more often that, we'd be experiencing the course in way that's closer to what the tour pro experiences.  But instead of carrying the bunkers, hitting flip wedges into many greens, we play too far back, and hit long irons and hybrids to the greens.  

I think the USGA has suggested specifications for building greens, primarily intended to help promote healthy grass and good drainage.  They also have guidelines (not regulations) about where you should locate the hole, in terms of proximity to edges, and slopes.  But I was really talking about the way existing courses are set up for PGA Tour stops.  For those, the USGA has no control at all over length of fairway or rough, width of fairway, location of tees (forward or back), the PGA Tour makes most of those decisions, working with the course's own crew.  And that's an area that the PGA Tour could change the perception a bit, by increasing the "punishment" for inaccurate drives.  I think that's what really bugs the folks at the USGA/R&A, that players don't seem to value accuracy, they act as if they can get up and down from anywhere if they hit it far enough.  So make it substantially worse to miss a fairway, make accuracy valuable again, and the Ruling Bodies may revise their opinions.  

[storm319]

On 2/6/2020 at 2:06 PM, 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.

I don't doubt that it is possible in some capacity, but I doubt that it would be possible to make a large enough reduction at the high end of the spectrum to appease those calling for a rollback to finally put this argument to rest and avoid a repeat of this argument in 20 years. With that said, I would much prefer something like this over official bifurcation or pseudo bifurcation via a local rule.  

[storm319]

On 2/5/2020 at 8:55 AM, DaveP043 said:

There is absolutely no evidence that this is the "goal" of the Ruling Bodies, and in fact the report says just the opposite. 

I'm certain that there are people within the organization who would prefer to reduce distance, but they don't have complete control.  The idea of a local rule allowing different equipment limits for certain events is almost certainly not going to be acceptable.  None of the professional tours will use it, because as a group their customers (you and I) love to see big hitters. I do think that they'll look at testing and limiting more aspects of the equipment than they currently do, in order to limit further equipment-related gains in distance.  I actually don't have a problem with finding ways to limit the equipment part of the equation, as long as they don't try to roll back distances, as long as they do what their documents says.  There are going to be further improvements in techniques, in training, and in fitting, that's unavoidable.  

I have limited sympathy for golf course ownership complaints, because their marketing strategies have put them in the position of "needing" to make courses longer.  They market "championship" courses, and to be a championship course it needs to be long.  The agronomy practices seen for PGA Tour events have contributed to the problems, now the golfing public expects to play on fast greens (even if the greens are too fast for their skill level), they want their drives to roll 50 yards, and they want to play the back tees, to "play the whole golf course".  All of that is completely unnecessary, golf was great when fast greens rolled at 10, when players worried about flyer lies in the fairways.

 

I agree that the local rule approach is dumb as few outside of the USGA, R&A, and ANGC would use it (the PGA Tour and PGA of America responded in opposition when this study was initially announced 2 years ago). Depending on the severity of any rollback the USGA always runs the risk of the PGA Tour simply saying no and creating their own set of rules which could severely threaten the USGA's authority. 

The big reason that the USGA has reverted to equipment regulation is because that is truly all that they have control over. Changes to course setups are not a valid solution for their perceived problem because they only control one elite event per year (three if you consider that the R&A and ANGC will follow suit). This is the reason why they handled the groove rollback the way that they did given that the simple solution was just to let the rough grow out. 

As for the concern around courses increasing in length, this has been greatly overstated in recent years based on a very small number of highly visible courses making changes. According to the USGA's own data, the most drastic course distance increases happened between the 1930s and the mid 1990s. Since the mid 1990s, the average course length ranges and 90th percentiles have only increased by 100 yards. The reality is that most courses have not changed much recently and few new courses are being built in the US anyways due to the decrease in value associated with golf courses attached with new housing developments following the great recession. Ultimately I have little sympathy for places like ANGC where money is no object, if they really cared about maintenance costs or water usage they wouldn't have payed millions for the additional land from the local country club to slightly expand their real estate boundary and slightly extend #13. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by storm319

[HardcoreLooper]

5 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I think that's what really bugs the folks at the USGA/R&A, that players don't seem to value accuracy, they act as if they can get up and down from anywhere if they hit it far enough.  So make it substantially worse to miss a fairway, make accuracy valuable again, and the Ruling Bodies may revise their opinions.

Tour players don't just act as if they can get up and down from anywhere, they know they can.  The data, in conjunction with course setups, support this.  If the quality of the lie mattered more and if the angle in to the pin mattered more, Tour players would adjust their games accordingly.  Getting more aggressive with the rough can help this, and so can getting more aggressive with hole locations.

Getting back to MPR's post about the different kinds of Tour players, I want to see more players that can hit a variety of shots.  High, low, left, right, everything.  The way Phil used to play when he could hit irons, the way Tiger still plays when he's on.  The President's Cup was compelling to watch because players needed to hit a variety of shots to play well.  Tiger put on a masterclass out there.  The Internationals did a great job of embracing strategy over bomb and gouge and got off to a great start.  American players started the event trying to overpower the course, and they were exposed.  But lo and behold, the best players in the world quickly figured out how best to get around that golf course, started playing like the best players in the world again, and took home the cup.  And the golf was still great to watch.

Not every course they play on tour is the quality of Royal Melbourne, but there are many ways to reward the golfer that's in the correct position and punish the golfer that's out of position.

[revkev]

Yeah, you're right on both accounts. It's really long, and I don't have a definite conclusion on the distance debate itself. My main point was to just remind everyone involved that we're trying to figure out the best rules for a game. That means there's no definitive right and wrong here. I think that reminder applies more to the rollback/bifurcation side of the debate, who sometimes frame their arguments hyperbolically: that the modern game is a travesty, etc.
I don't want to discount the real logistics issues: length increases maintenance, etc. But what we're arguing about, chiefly, is our taste in the kind of golf we want to watch.
Maybe we could frame it this way: laying aside personality and just focusing on style of play, would you rather watch

• A Zach Johnson or Jim Furyk plot their way around the course, laying up on par 5s to get birdies with stellar wedge play, or
• A Rory McIlory or Jon Rahm hit mammoth drives and laser approach shots, or
• A Bubba Watson or Phil Mickelson, hitting huge drives and hitting heroic recovery shots with imagination?

To be sure, it is good for the Tour if there's room for all of these guys. Variety is part of what makes the game interesting. But it's likely that one kind of player will be predominate. Which archetype should the Tour seek to have as the most common player?
Honestly, I'd rather watch the Bubba/Phil guys. In my judgment, they are the most entertaining and provide the most "Did you see that?!" moments per round. But it's impossible to make those guys the majority, not only because (I suspect) that style of play isn't something you can really teach, but because it just isn't the most prudent style of play for most guys if they want to have a sustainable Tour career.
Watching a ZJ or Furyk play is absolutely fascinating, but (for me) I can't imagine that having a Tour filled with those guys would be more fun to watch than a Tour filled with Rory/Rahm clones. The ZJ/Furyk types are interesting for two reasons: they're more relatable than the others, and they provide a contrast.
So on balance, it seems to me that the Tour would be making itself less interesting, on balance, if it made changes to favor a Tour filled with ZJ/Furyk types.
That's as close as I get to an answer

I think the USGA wants to keep the game at or returning to a place where all of the above have a chance - they see the pendulum swinging towards the ZJ/Furyk group being left out.

The difficult issue for them will be how to reign it in or roll it back without impacting everyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Shankster]

This is where the premier league comes in. Must maintain a 410+ drive.

[GolfSpy MPR]

4 hours ago, revkev said:

 

I think the USGA wants to keep the game at or returning to a place where all of the above have a chance - they see the pendulum swinging towards the ZJ/Furyk group being left out.

The difficult issue for them will be how to reign it in or roll it back without impacting everyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

 

Right now, the ZJ/Furyk guys are finding it hard to win. ZJ is, on average, nearly 30 yards back of Champ.

He's also, on average, driving the ball 285 yards! If he's in almost any four man scramble, he's your anchor driver. The difference between him and the "bomber" in your scramble isn't distance; it's that ZJ is hitting all those shots down the center.

The only place he's short is relative to the even bigger hitters on Tour.

Is the professional game broken because there's literally no place at all for a guy averaging 250 off the tee? Or 235?

We recognize that there's always going to be a guy on Tour who's the shortest on Tour. There will always be a group of guys 30-35 yards behind the longest hitters.

In 30 years, the "short" guys will be averaging 300.

[Kenny B]

10 minutes ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

Right now, the ZJ/Furyk guys are finding it hard to win. ZJ is, on average, nearly 30 yards back of Champ.

He's also, on average, driving the ball 285 yards! If he's in almost any four man scramble, he's your anchor driver. The difference between him and the "bomber" in your scramble isn't distance; it's that ZJ is hitting all those shots down the center.

The only place he's short is relative to the even bigger hitters on Tour.

Is the professional game broken because there's literally no place at all for a guy averaging 250 off the tee? Or 235?

We recognize that there's always going to be a guy on Tour who's the shortest on Tour. There will always be a group of guys 30-35 yards behind the longest hitters.

In 30 years, the "short" guys will be averaging 300.

The professional game isn't broken; just changed.   You will not see many short hitters on tour in the future; there are just too many good long hitters.  Sure, talented young players ala Furyk/ZJ and Luke Donald will try because of the money, but there are so many players coming up that that hit the ball far that the short hitter will not be able to compete week in - week out.  The short hitters will drop out, and the rest of the field will be bunched up.  There will always be the Cameron Champs in the field, but everyone else won't be that far behind.  This is the main reason we are seeing a spike in the average driving distance today.

It's always fun to watch players hit the ball a long way, but I really miss the players that worked the ball.  Corey Pavin was awesome!

[revkev]

13 hours ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

Right now, the ZJ/Furyk guys are finding it hard to win. ZJ is, on average, nearly 30 yards back of Champ.

He's also, on average, driving the ball 285 yards! If he's in almost any four man scramble, he's your anchor driver. The difference between him and the "bomber" in your scramble isn't distance; it's that ZJ is hitting all those shots down the center.

The only place he's short is relative to the even bigger hitters on Tour.

Is the professional game broken because there's literally no place at all for a guy averaging 250 off the tee? Or 235?

We recognize that there's always going to be a guy on Tour who's the shortest on Tour. There will always be a group of guys 30-35 yards behind the longest hitters.

In 30 years, the "short" guys will be averaging 300.

There is a point where distance disqualifies you because there will be forced carry holes on courses - I'm not exactly sure of what that yardage is probably around 260 on tour.  For me it's 200 - I can carry driver around 210 with all things being equal so anything more than 200 and I'm not trying it - if I have a forced carry that long I'm in big trouble.

The USGA has made it clear that they are wanting to elevate skills other than distance - they believe the game is out of balance.  It's certainly not out of balance for any of us - I can negate distance advantages among the guys that I play with by being better at other things - that's not happening with any touring pro - with them distance is where it starts and it continues through the bag.

[HardcoreLooper]

14 hours ago, Kenny B said:

Corey Pavin was awesome!

You don't see the "quail-high" fade much these days from the guys, but some of the women will still hit it.

[MaxEntropy]

Personally, I don't think I am opposed to some form of bifurcation, if that's what they think they need to do. Baseball does it once at the professional level with bats. Granted, I doubt there is much $ pumped into R&D on a piece of wood, but maybe I'm wrong.

If they choose to bifurcate with the ball, perhaps the USGA and R&A could learn from racing - almost every top level professional series has a spec tire where interested manufacturers bid for the right to provide tires periodically. They could maybe even go the F1 route where there are 3 different specs to choose from on any given weekend. I could imagine something like a low, medium, and high spin or compression option that players get to chose from depending on the course and/or conditions and what they are trying to accomplish. I suppose they could develop a spec that could include any and all manufacturers (sort of like the NASCAR "car of tomorrow" that was a mandated body shape with Toyota, Chevy, or Ford stickers on them) so they don't burn any bridges with current manufacturers.

[Smellis745]

3 hours ago, MaxEntropy said:

Personally, I don't think I am opposed to some form of bifurcation, if that's what they think they need to do. Baseball does it once at the professional level with bats. Granted, I doubt there is much $ pumped into R&D on a piece of wood, but maybe I'm wrong.

If they choose to bifurcate with the ball, perhaps the USGA and R&A could learn from racing - almost every top level professional series has a spec tire where interested manufacturers bid for the right to provide tires periodically. They could maybe even go the F1 route where there are 3 different specs to choose from on any given weekend. I could imagine something like a low, medium, and high spin or compression option that players get to chose from depending on the course and/or conditions and what they are trying to accomplish. I suppose they could develop a spec that could include any and all manufacturers (sort of like the NASCAR "car of tomorrow" that was a mandated body shape with Toyota, Chevy, or Ford stickers on them) so they don't burn any bridges with current manufacturers.

I like your comparison to what F1 does and think it could be applied here.  The problem is still that the long guys will be long and short guys will be short.  You've either got speed or you don't.  Sure, there are things each individual can do to increase speed to an extent, but some just have different body physiques/compositions that allow for a faster base than others can even obtain as a peak.

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 hours ago, MaxEntropy said:

Personally, I don't think I am opposed to some form of bifurcation, if that's what they think they need to do. Baseball does it once at the professional level with bats. Granted, I doubt there is much $ pumped into R&D on a piece of wood, but maybe I'm wrong.

If they choose to bifurcate with the ball, perhaps the USGA and R&A could learn from racing - almost every top level professional series has a spec tire where interested manufacturers bid for the right to provide tires periodically. They could maybe even go the F1 route where there are 3 different specs to choose from on any given weekend. I could imagine something like a low, medium, and high spin or compression option that players get to chose from depending on the course and/or conditions and what they are trying to accomplish. I suppose they could develop a spec that could include any and all manufacturers (sort of like the NASCAR "car of tomorrow" that was a mandated body shape with Toyota, Chevy, or Ford stickers on them) so they don't burn any bridges with current manufacturers.

The problem imo with mandating a shape is you put brands who sell consumer goods into a cookie cutter maker. Ford, Toyota and Chevy aren’t trying to sell the nascar body at retail.

The ability to design and tweak shape, face, materials is how each brand separates themselves from each other. TS3 with a longer head shape, mavrik with different head shapes for each type of driver. 

[DaveP043]

4 hours ago, MaxEntropy said:

Personally, I don't think I am opposed to some form of bifurcation, if that's what they think they need to do. Baseball does it once at the professional level with bats. Granted, I doubt there is much $ pumped into R&D on a piece of wood, but maybe I'm wrong.

If they choose to bifurcate with the ball, perhaps the USGA and R&A could learn from racing - almost every top level professional series has a spec tire where interested manufacturers bid for the right to provide tires periodically. They could maybe even go the F1 route where there are 3 different specs to choose from on any given weekend. I could imagine something like a low, medium, and high spin or compression option that players get to chose from depending on the course and/or conditions and what they are trying to accomplish. I suppose they could develop a spec that could include any and all manufacturers (sort of like the NASCAR "car of tomorrow" that was a mandated body shape with Toyota, Chevy, or Ford stickers on them) so they don't burn any bridges with current manufacturers.

I can't see this as a viable option.  First, from a player's standpoint, each guy has a little different idea of what he wants from a ball, and chooses what he plays accordingly.  A standard tour ball eliminates that choice.  The only viable option that I could see would be to lower speed limits or increase minimum spin levels across the board, allowing every manufacturer the option to manufacture a conforming ball.  

But the obstacles to bifurcation are too many to be overcome, in my opinion.  As a group, we want to have the choice of playing the same ball and the same driver that the pros do.  Bifurcation eliminates that.  We don't want to buy two sets of equipment for improving juniors, one standard set for most play, and a reduced distance set for top competitive play.  We don't want to have to learn to use two distinctly different golf balls, one for normal play, one for the random time we qualify for the State Amateur.  The pros will fight the potential loss of sponsorship revenue.  If I can't play the same Titleist ball is Joe GOAT does, why do I care that Joe plays Titleist, and why should Titleist pay Joe a bucketload of cash to play Titleist?  We don't want to have to pay more for our golf balls, but you know they're giving the balls to the players, we're the ones who are going to subsidize the R&D and new plants needed for the reduced-distance balls.  

I'm not particularly opposed to bifurcation, I just don't think it will happen.  My expectation is that equipment-related distance gains will be minimized to the maximum extent possible, possibly with new facets of equipment being tested and limited.

[MaxEntropy]

31 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The problem imo with mandating a shape is you put brands who sell consumer goods into a cookie cutter maker. Ford, Toyota and Chevy aren’t trying to sell the nascar body at retail.

Which is one of the things that always confused me when NASCAR went the way of the template. I couldn't understand why the manufacturers stuck around when "their" car was not what was on the track so people couldn't go buy what looked just like the Thunderbird that won the Daytona 500.

17 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The ability to design and tweak shape, face, materials is how each brand separates themselves from each other. TS3 with a longer head shape, mavrik with different head shapes for each type of driver.

I didn't mean drivers fitting a template, I was more talking about a ball "template" of some sort. I'm sure they could develop a spec that would reduce distance but still give the manufacturers some leeway to try to differentiate themselves if they wanted to keep multiple manufacturers involved. Spec tires haven't really ruined racing, so I would suggest if a spec ball were done properly, it could work here, too.

46 minutes ago, Smellis745 said:

The problem is still that the long guys will be long and short guys will be short.

I would argue that has always been the case. I recall seeing a chart somewhere (maybe even in this thread?) that shows the distance difference shortest to longest on tour has held pretty steady over the last few decades. Who knows, I may be imaging it, though.

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 minutes ago, MaxEntropy said:

Which is one of the things that always confused me when NASCAR went the way of the template. I couldn't understand why the manufacturers stuck around when "their" car was not what was on the track so people couldn't go buy what looked just like the Thunderbird that won the Daytona 500.

I didn't mean drivers fitting a template, I was more talking about a ball "template" of some sort. I'm sure they could develop a spec that would reduce distance but still give the manufacturers some leeway to try to differentiate themselves if they wanted to keep multiple manufacturers involved. Spec tires haven't really ruined racing, so I would suggest if a spec ball were done properly, it could work here, too.

I would argue that has always been the case. I recall seeing a chart somewhere (maybe even in this thread?) that shows the distance difference shortest to longest on tour has held pretty steady over the last few decades. Who knows, I may be imaging it, though.

There already is a template for balls right. They have specifications for the design. Each manufacturer has tour balls out that are 3-5 pieces with different layer sizes and different dimple patterns. This is probably closest to nascar mandating frame/chassis. Let the individual teams build their “engine” how they want to fit in that chassis to get the most out of it

 

 

 

 

[MaxEntropy]

17 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

But the obstacles to bifurcation are too many to be overcome, in my opinion.  As a group, we want to have the choice of playing the same ball and the same driver that the pros do.  Bifurcation eliminates that.  We don't want to buy two sets of equipment for improving juniors, one standard set for most play, and a reduced distance set for top competitive play.  We don't want to have to learn to use two distinctly different golf balls, one for normal play, one for the random time we qualify for the State Amateur.  The pros will fight the potential loss of sponsorship revenue.  If I can't play the same Titleist ball is Joe GOAT does, why do I care that Joe plays Titleist, and why should Titleist pay Joe a bucketload of cash to play Titleist?  We don't want to have to pay more for our golf balls, but you know they're giving the balls to the players, we're the ones who are going to subsidize the R&D and new plants needed for the reduced-distance balls.  

I don't necessarily disagree with you, especially since golfers are a different breed, but to continue the racing analogy, Pirelli clearly sees value in supplying tires to F1, which has to mean it effects their sales positively. Those tires are most certainly not available to the weekend warriors who like to take their sports cars to track days (besides, who would want to put 13" wheels on their Porsche?), but I'm willing to bet there are people buying Pirelli's because of their involvement in F1.

Personally, I see no need for bifurcation in golf until you hit the professional ranks. How often do amateur baseball players own or practice with wooden bats prior to getting drafted? I honestly don't know, but I would be surprised if it happened too often just because the skill required to hit a baseball is not sufficiently changed by the bat they are using.