Webb Simpson and Bryson

[revkev]

What do these two have in common?

 

Webb developed a putting style under the rules that was partially responsible for a USGA rules change. Like any high level professional athlete he has figured out how to adapt to the new rule.

 

I wonder if that’s true for weekend warriors who were forced to toss their belly putters? It certainly hasn’t been true for a couple of my friends

 

Bryson has developed a game that takes advantage of the current rules. If you look at his career stats his average driving distance has improved each season. If equipment is rolled back in some way, he will continue to have a length advantage.

 

If it is he will adapt as will other professional golfers.

 

But what about the weekend golfer, how will he fare?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[DaveP043]

8 minutes ago, revkev said:

What do these two have in common?

Webb developed a putting style under the rules that was partially responsible for a USGA rules change. Like any high level professional athlete he has figured out how to adapt to the new rule.

I wonder if that’s true for weekend warriors who were forced to toss their belly putters? It certainly hasn’t been true for a couple of my friends

Bryson has developed a game that takes advantage of the current rules. If you look at his career stats his average driving distance has improved each season. If equipment is rolled back in some way, he will continue to have a length advantage.

If it is he will adapt as will other professional golfers.

But what about the weekend golfer, how will he fare?

I began my golf career playing with laminated wood woods, balata balls (when I had the money to afford them) and blades.  I'm guessing that you might have done the same.  That wasn't a choice, that's what was available in 1970.  The evolution of golf equipment has allowed me to retain pretty much the same driving distance as I had when I last played with wooden clubheads, allowed me to hit higher wedges, to hit the ball straighter, equipment has been a part of my improvement as a player.   If distance is somehow reduced, golf will become a little more difficult for me, and for everyone who plays the game.  But it won't be any more difficult than it was when I started playing.  We'll all adapt too.  Some will get frustrated and quit the game, but I'd bet that most of us will make the adjustment just fine.  Not without significant complaining, but we'll adapt.

[revkev]

I began my golf career playing with laminated wood woods, balata balls (when I had the money to afford them) and blades.  I'm guessing that you might have done the same.  That wasn't a choice, that's what was available in 1970.  The evolution of golf equipment has allowed me to retain pretty much the same driving distance as I had when I last played with wooden clubheads, allowed me to hit higher wedges, to hit the ball straighter, equipment has been a part of my improvement as a player.   If distance is somehow reduced, golf will become a little more difficult for me, and for everyone who plays the game.  But it won't be any more difficult than it was when I started playing.  We'll all adapt too.  Some will get frustrated and quit the game, but I'd bet that most of us will make the adjustment just fine.  Not without significant complaining, but we'll adapt.

That’s actually funny -

Personally I will stop playing by the “rules” unless I’m giving a reasonable time period to replace my equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[RickyBobby_PR]

Everyone adapts. Most weekend golfers I’ve seen either don’t carry a handicap so they could use whatever they want and play how ever they want without any impact. Those who keep a handicap will adjust. Some may take longer to deal with the change and figure out how to play and others will change more quickly.

 

[revkev]

Everyone adapts. Most weekend golfers I’ve seen either don’t carry a handicap so they could use whatever they want and play how ever they want without any impact. Those who keep a handicap will adjust. Some may take longer to deal with the change and figure out how to play and others will change more quickly.

 

 

Honestly I will probably move up half a set of tees.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[DaveP043]

20 minutes ago, revkev said:

That’s actually funny -
Personally I will stop playing by the “rules” unless I’m giving a reasonable time period to replace my equipment.

 

 

Hey, they gave the huge majority of us 14 years to conform to the "new" groove rules.  I think we'll have time.  But I still don't believe they'll actually do anything to decrease distance for us.  That's what the report summary from earlier this year said, and even with Bryson's show, I haven't seen anything that makes me think they'll reverse course.

[RickyBobby_PR]

46 minutes ago, revkev said:

 

Honestly I will probably move up half a set of tees.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

It’s something I would consider as well. When I play with the group that I started playing with way back when I started learning they have all moved up a tee box due to age and loss of distance. I’ve played with them a few times from those boxes and with current distances I hit it’s a different approach but if I had to play some sort of roll back it would be about the same type of game from my normal tee boxes

[FrogginBullfish]

It's an interesting topic but I think the governing bodies are on the wrong side of this, personally.

The anchoring ban was put in as anchoring was deemed an unfair advantage. It made it much easier for a player to create a consistent pendulum with their putting stroke.

I don't think what Bryson is doing should be considered the same. He puts in so much work to do what he's been doing now. The hard work, the talent, and the skill needed to do what he's doing off the tee is incredible. He's created an advantage through that hard work, talent, and skill. I don't think he should be penalized for that. I think that would be incredibly unfair.

Rolling back equipment just hurts the shorter guys on tour anyway. Many of them will be out of jobs with equipment rollbacks. I get that the governing bodies want to protect some of the classic venues but I don't think this is the way to do that.

I also think that putting so much focus on distance ignores the fact that nobody is winning on tour with tee shots alone. It takes a combination of skilled play across tee shots, approach shots, around the green shots, and putting to win on tour. Distance off the tee is obviously an advantage and hitting the ball further has benefits throughout the bag but it takes a lot of skill in multiple areas to win on tour. I don't think that should be ignored or forgotten.

What do these two have in common?
 
Webb developed a putting style under the rules that was partially responsible for a USGA rules change. Like any high level professional athlete he has figured out how to adapt to the new rule.
 
I wonder if that’s true for weekend warriors who were forced to toss their belly putters? It certainly hasn’t been true for a couple of my friends
 
Bryson has developed a game that takes advantage of the current rules. If you look at his career stats his average driving distance has improved each season. If equipment is rolled back in some way, he will continue to have a length advantage.
 
If it is he will adapt as will other professional golfers.
 
But what about the weekend golfer, how will he fare?
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[TeeBrain]

First, let me be perfectly clear here: I don't think there should be any change in equipment rules as a response to Tour pros hitting it farther then they ever have. I say let them continue as is. There's plenty of enough shots that aren't driver or wedge, and anybody who thinks the whole game is driver/wedge for the long hitters isn't paying attention.

That said, as an interesting thought experiment, what would be the effect if driver loft was limited to be no lower than, say, 9 degrees? What would that do to BDC's tee shots? How much of an advantage would he have then? I assume he'd adjust his technique, but to what extent could he adapt and to what extent of an advantage would he maintain?

Again, this is purely a theoretical, academic question. Though I don't like BDC's personality that much, I think he's actually provided a good reason to tune in. It's actually good for the game.

[den748]

15 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

don't think what Bryson is doing should be considered the same. He puts in so much work to do what he's been doing now. The hard work, the talent, and the skill needed to do what he's doing off the tee is incredible. He's created an advantage through that hard work, talent, and skill. I don't think he should be penalized for that. I think that would be incredibly unfair.

I tend to agree.  Where I might see a slight disagreement is that he is working so damn closely with the shaft manufacturer to build a near specialized shaft for him.  Now, with that said, I'm sure many players are but he's just better able to communicate to the engineers what he is feeling. If you've ever seen "Days of Thunder" I feel like most players are like Cole Trickle.  They know how to hit a ball (drive a car) but have no idea what it means when the middle part of the shaft is too loose and the tip is too tight (car driving loose).  But Bryson is a mechanic and can describe things perfectly and make the changes better.  Should he be penalized for being more intelligent...maybe not... but they can see that he's making changes too fast and when that trickles down to other players the tour/USGA may intervene. 

Brysons body change is just one piece of his improvement.  He's altering his equipment as well to fit his body changes.

 

15 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

also think that putting so much focus on distance ignores the fact that nobody is winning on tour with tee shots alone. It takes a combination of skilled play across tee shots, approach shots, around the green shots, and putting to win on tour. Distance off the tee is obviously an advantage and hitting the ball further has benefits throughout the bag but it takes a lot of skill in multiple areas to win on tour. I don't think that should be ignored or forgotten.

This is more relevant than anything.  He still has to 1 hit it straight and 2, putt it into the cup.  It's an advantage but it's not an end all be all. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

8 minutes ago, den748 said:

Where I might see a slight disagreement is that he is working so damn closely with the shaft manufacturer to build a near specialized shaft for him.  Now, with that said, I'm sure many players are but he's just better able to communicate to the engineers what he is feeling.

Actually there number of pros who have a specialized shaft is very small. With Bryson being part of LA golf that changes thing but in general for all the other companies the pros are playing the shocks usually in X or TX (some times only offered on tour) that are in the production line for a brand. 
 

There’s actually probably more amateur golf forum members that have one off shafts than pros to include pain jobs.

[Quigleyd]

On 7/14/2020 at 7:08 AM, revkev said:

 

What do these two have in common?

 

Webb developed a putting style under the rules that was partially responsible for a USGA rules change. Like any high level professional athlete he has figured out how to adapt to the new rule.

 

I wonder if that’s true for weekend warriors who were forced to toss their belly putters? It certainly hasn’t been true for a couple of my friends

 

Bryson has developed a game that takes advantage of the current rules. If you look at his career stats his average driving distance has improved each season. If equipment is rolled back in some way, he will continue to have a length advantage.

 

If it is he will adapt as will other professional golfers.

 

But what about the weekend golfer, how will he fare?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

 

That is the biggest issue with any roll back. It will affect someone more than someone else. What do I mean? 

If they do a linear roll back, the short hitters will be even shorter and will be at an even greater disadvantage. There is talk about a tiered ball. Not sure how that can be done, that affect the hardest swingers more than the slowest. Effectively capping distance. So it will affect the faster players more and so what is the point in trying to improve. 

 

I feel the existing limits are fine. I would think that equipment is almost completely maxed. Bryson can not really get any longer. Maybe a few more yards but this it. 

[revkev]

31 minutes ago, Quigleyd said:

That is the biggest issue with any roll back. It will affect someone more than someone else. What do I mean? 

If they do a linear roll back, the short hitters will be even shorter and will be at an even greater disadvantage. There is talk about a tiered ball. Not sure how that can be done, that affect the hardest swingers more than the slowest. Effectively capping distance. So it will affect the faster players more and so what is the point in trying to improve. 

 

I feel the existing limits are fine. I would think that equipment is almost completely maxed. Bryson can not really get any longer. Maybe a few more yards but this it. 

I don't know we recently had a blog post on the front of the website that suggested equipment isn't as maxed out as we've been led to believe.  Having written that I'm with you in regards to capping or adjusting course conditions rather than trying to roll back.

 

I hope that Dave P is right.

[DaveP043]

16 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

It's an interesting topic but I think the governing bodies are on the wrong side of this, personally.

The anchoring ban was put in as anchoring was deemed an unfair advantage. It made it much easier for a player to create a consistent pendulum with their putting stroke.

I don't think what Bryson is doing should be considered the same. He puts in so much work to do what he's been doing now. The hard work, the talent, and the skill needed to do what he's doing off the tee is incredible. He's created an advantage through that hard work, talent, and skill. I don't think he should be penalized for that. I think that would be incredibly unfair.

Rolling back equipment just hurts the shorter guys on tour anyway. Many of them will be out of jobs with equipment rollbacks. I get that the governing bodies want to protect some of the classic venues but I don't think this is the way to do that.

I also think that putting so much focus on distance ignores the fact that nobody is winning on tour with tee shots alone. It takes a combination of skilled play across tee shots, approach shots, around the green shots, and putting to win on tour. Distance off the tee is obviously an advantage and hitting the ball further has benefits throughout the bag but it takes a lot of skill in multiple areas to win on tour. I don't think that should be ignored or forgotten.

 

What have the ruling bodies done or said that you think is wrong?  They've said that they do not envision reducing distance for players across the board.  They have said that they will explore the potential for a (optional) Local Rule governing reduced distance equipment, as a subset of the general equipment rules.  Whether equipment companies choose to develop this reduced-distance equipment, and whether anyone chooses to utilize any such Local Rule, those are secondary matters.

As for changes to the Equipment Rules, maybe new ways of testing will be developed to minimize future equipment-related distance increases.  Maybe they will test balls and/or clubheads at swing speeds consistent with today's best players.  Maybe they will develop ways to test assembled clubs, rather than only clubheads.  I don't know what else might be possible, but I'm sure the list is long.  It seems possible to me that these kinds of changes could be implemented without reducing distance for you and me at all.

Again, a significant portion of the Ruling Bodies' concern is the measurable trend towards longer and longer golf courses, which increases the costs for construction, for renovations to add distance, and for maintenance.  If you've ever played with someone who says "This course is too short for me to enjoy, I'm going to play down the street on a longer course", you can understand the pressure on owners and builders to make courses longer.  It doesn't matter that we "typical" golfers don't NEED longer courses, enough people WANT longer courses to make that pressure a reality.  

I find it interesting that this topic is hot again based on an interview with Mr. Slumbers of the R&A.  He was asked a question regarding Bryson's impressive length in winning the tournament, and Mr Slumbers basically said the same thing that was stated when the Distance Insights report was issued a few months ago, that the Ruling Bodies remain concerned about distance increases in golf.  I just don't think this should have surprised anyone

[THEZIPR23]

21 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

What have the ruling bodies done or said that you think is wrong?  They've said that they do not envision reducing distance for players across the board.  They have said that they will explore the potential for a (optional) Local Rule governing reduced distance equipment, as a subset of the general equipment rules.  Whether equipment companies choose to develop this reduced-distance equipment, and whether anyone chooses to utilize any such Local Rule, those are secondary matters.

As for changes to the Equipment Rules, maybe new ways of testing will be developed to minimize future equipment-related distance increases.  Maybe they will test balls and/or clubheads at swing speeds consistent with today's best players.  Maybe they will develop ways to test assembled clubs, rather than only clubheads.  I don't know what else might be possible, but I'm sure the list is long.  It seems possible to me that these kinds of changes could be implemented without reducing distance for you and me at all.

Again, a significant portion of the Ruling Bodies' concern is the measurable trend towards longer and longer golf courses, which increases the costs for construction, for renovations to add distance, and for maintenance.  If you've ever played with someone who says "This course is too short for me to enjoy, I'm going to play down the street on a longer course", you can understand the pressure on owners and builders to make courses longer.  It doesn't matter that we "typical" golfers don't NEED longer courses, enough people WANT longer courses to make that pressure a reality.  

I find it interesting that this topic is hot again based on an interview with Mr. Slumbers of the R&A.  He was asked a question regarding Bryson's impressive length in winning the tournament, and Mr Slumbers basically said the same thing that was stated when the Distance Insights report was issued a few months ago, that the Ruling Bodies remain concerned about distance increases in golf.  I just don't think this should have surprised anyone

I didn't listen to his whole interview however the part that I did hear the ruling bodies still have the idea that hitting it long is not a skill. Slumbers said it is extraordinary what Bryson is doing but they want to bring skill back into the game. I really don't care what they do as long as the rules stay the same across the board. One of the great traditions of golf is being able to play the same game as the best in the world. 

[DaveP043]

12 minutes ago, THEZIPR23 said:

I didn't listen to his whole interview however the part that I did hear the ruling bodies still have the idea that hitting it long is not a skill. Slumbers said it is extraordinary what Bryson is doing but they want to bring skill back into the game. I really don't care what they do as long as the rules stay the same across the board. One of the great traditions of golf is being able to play the same game as the best in the world. 

The quote I can find is:

Quote

“My view is very much that golf is a game of skill. It's important to have a balance of skill and technology.”

I'm not sure, when I go back to the Distance Insights report, that they say distance isn't a skill, only that increased driving distance at the highest levels has made other skills relatively less important.  But that is just one of the reasons they are concerned with driving distance.

What I found interesting is that several of the various writers summarized Slumbers' remarks as warning Bryson, that he (Slumbers) WILL rein in distance, without actually quoting anything of the sort.  Slumbers remains concerned about distance gains, and wants to minimize future distance gains.  The Ruling Bodies absolutely cannot regulate physical training, and cannot dictate golf course set-ups, so the only avenue they have to minimize future gains is through equipment regulation.  

I do agree with you, I don't want to see separate equipment rules for the elite levels of golf, for a number of different reasons.  I think that's unlikely, but seems to be one of the things being considered.  I also wouldn't like to see driving distances reduced across the board, and it seems overall reductions are not being considered at this time.

[Quigleyd]

40 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The quote I can find is:

I'm not sure, when I go back to the Distance Insights report, that they say distance isn't a skill, only that increased driving distance at the highest levels has made other skills relatively less important.  But that is just one of the reasons they are concerned with driving distance.

What I found interesting is that several of the various writers summarized Slumbers' remarks as warning Bryson, that he (Slumbers) WILL rein in distance, without actually quoting anything of the sort.  Slumbers remains concerned about distance gains, and wants to minimize future distance gains.  The Ruling Bodies absolutely cannot regulate physical training, and cannot dictate golf course set-ups, so the only avenue they have to minimize future gains is through equipment regulation.  

I do agree with you, I don't want to see separate equipment rules for the elite levels of golf, for a number of different reasons.  I think that's unlikely, but seems to be one of the things being considered.  I also wouldn't like to see driving distances reduced across the board, and it seems overall reductions are not being considered at this time.

I will say. Watching Morikawa and Thomas play last sunday was a treat. Neither is extremely long. They are both long for sure but nothing like Bryson. The shots they were hitting were fun. You don't get that with Bryson. 

So I can for sure see both sides a touch. I just don't like the idea of bifurcated rules for tour pros vs. your rec handicap keeper. I also do not like knee jerk over reactions. The USGA does seem to be knee jerk. 

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, Quigleyd said:

The USGA does seem to be knee jerk. 

The USGA AND THE R&A have jointly published the Distance report yearly, starting in 2015.  In 2018, they jointly launched the Distance Insights project to "examine distance through a multi-pronged approach that includes global stakeholder engagement, third-party data review and primary research."  In 202 they published the results of their findings, and identified next steps to be taken in further evaluating the data, and in evaluating potential avenues for change.  I'd hardly call that long-term project "knee jerk."  In fact, you can find a noted golf course architect complaining about the Ruling Bodies dragging their feet (my words, not his) over the whole distance issue here:

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,68562.0.html

 

[Quigleyd]

5 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The USGA AND THE R&A have jointly published the Distance report yearly, starting in 2015.  In 2018, they jointly launched the Distance Insights project to "examine distance through a multi-pronged approach that includes global stakeholder engagement, third-party data review and primary research."  In 202 they published the results of their findings, and identified next steps to be taken in further evaluating the data, and in evaluating potential avenues for change.  I'd hardly call that long-term project "knee jerk."  In fact, you can find a noted golf course architect complaining about the Ruling Bodies dragging their feet (my words, not his) over the whole distance issue here:

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,68562.0.html

 

 

Sure this has been a long time coming. They have had some very questionable decisions previous. The groove rule, the anchor ban. Both terrible. 

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, Quigleyd said:

Sure this has been a long time coming. They have had some very questionable decisions previous. The groove rule, the anchor ban. Both terrible. 

Its hard to claim that a rule that allowed most players 14 years to adapt is somehow "knee jerk".  Evaluation of anchored putting  started in 2012, with a tentative rule change announced in late 2012 for review and comment.  The final rule was announced in March 2013, and took effect in 2016, almost 3 years later.  Knee jerk?  How about the 2019 Rules of golf?  Most of the changes seem well planned and reasonable, making the rules more consistent overall.  The Handicap Rules and the WHS has been in the works for at least 5 years.

Its completely fair to disagree with the decisions, but I don't think its fair to label them as "knee jerk".  

[Quigleyd]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Its hard to claim that a rule that allowed most players 14 years to adapt is somehow "knee jerk".  Evaluation of anchored putting  started in 2012, with a tentative rule change announced in late 2012 for review and comment.  The final rule was announced in March 2013, and took effect in 2016, almost 3 years later.  Knee jerk?  How about the 2019 Rules of golf?  Most of the changes seem well planned and reasonable, making the rules more consistent overall.  The Handicap Rules and the WHS has been in the works for at least 5 years.

Its completely fair to disagree with the decisions, but I don't think its fair to label them as "knee jerk".  

Fair enough.

 

Regardless of the 14 years later. A year (or so) later no legitimatee OEM was producing wedges that didnt conform to the new groove rule. And against that the USGA wanted scores neither increased and bomb and gauge did not end. Maybe instead of the grooves they should have thought about the ball all the way back then.. 

 

So their grandfather clause really had zero effect. The anchor ban was 100% due to Keegan and Web, and Scott winning some majors and people not liking how it looked. It was aesthetically unpleasing. The vast vast majority of golfers didn't belly or broom stick putters. I call that knee jerk. Regardless of how long they took. 

[DaveP043]

9 minutes ago, Quigleyd said:

The anchor ban was 100% due to Keegan and Web, and Scott winning some majors and people not liking how it looked. It was aesthetically unpleasing. The vast vast majority of golfers didn't belly or broom stick putters. I call that knee jerk. Regardless of how long they took. 

As I remember, there were a lot of younger golfers following the lead of the PGA Tour players, as younger golfers often do.  And I understand the distinction that was drawn, that anchoring the club was a substantially different stroke than was traditionally used for golf.  That particular decision is pretty similar in its reasoning to the ban on croquet-style putting, ala Sam Snead, so there was precedent in trying to maintain certain common characteristics in the golf swing.   There's no question that this type of dividing line is somewhat arbitrary, but that's what Ruling Bodies have to do, to find a place to draw certain lines.

[Quigleyd]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

As I remember, there were a lot of younger golfers following the lead of the PGA Tour players, as younger golfers often do.  And I understand the distinction that was drawn, that anchoring the club was a substantially different stroke than was traditionally used for golf.  That particular decision is pretty similar in its reasoning to the ban on croquet-style putting, ala Sam Snead, so there was precedent in trying to maintain certain common characteristics in the golf swing.   There's no question that this type of dividing line is somewhat arbitrary, but that's what Ruling Bodies have to do, to find a place to draw certain lines.

I completely agree on the last point. We can Monday morning quarterback this all we want. We can disagree or agree, it is all just fun conversation. Here is where I think we need to draw the arbitrary line though. Are we making decisions based on how we see the best 1% of the best 1% play? And do those decision affect all of golf. If the answer is yes, then we shouldn't do it. 

At least that is my arbitrary line.. haha. 

[revkev]

4 minutes ago, Quigleyd said:

I completely agree on the last point. We can Monday morning quarterback this all we want. We can disagree or agree, it is all just fun conversation. Here is where I think we need to draw the arbitrary line though. Are we making decisions based on how we see the best 1% of the best 1% play? And do those decision affect all of golf. If the answer is yes, then we shouldn't do it. 

At least that is my arbitrary line.. haha. 

I introduced this topic for fun - I'm actually more impressed by the R and D and USGA approach to the distance topic than to others - they do seem to be taking a more thoughtful approach - whether that's because I've gotten older and my perceptions have changed or a reality are two different matters.

I do believe that they are making decisions based on the top 1 of the top 1 percent of all golfers and that presents a problem.  There was no real data to suggest that any but the very top golfers were gaining any sort of advantage from square or newly "illegal" illegal grooves and although we were grandfathered for an eternity in golf parlance OEMs certainly took advantage of the situation and made it seem as if we needed to purchase new irons and wedges right away.  I actually agree with the anchor ban but in my opinion it came 40 years too late.  They already had the Sam Sneed side winding ruling, they could have done away with anchored putting in less than a year and there would have been no controversy.

 

Dave and I have a different take on Slumbers comments.  I'm reading what he has said as something will have to be done in order to restore a balance in skills.  So for him distance is a skill but it has become the dominant skill in golf and he doesn't like it.   

[Quigleyd]

59 minutes ago, revkev said:

I introduced this topic for fun - I'm actually more impressed by the R and D and USGA approach to the distance topic than to others - they do seem to be taking a more thoughtful approach - whether that's because I've gotten older and my perceptions have changed or a reality are two different matters.

I do believe that they are making decisions based on the top 1 of the top 1 percent of all golfers and that presents a problem.  There was no real data to suggest that any but the very top golfers were gaining any sort of advantage from square or newly "illegal" illegal grooves and although we were grandfathered for an eternity in golf parlance OEMs certainly took advantage of the situation and made it seem as if we needed to purchase new irons and wedges right away.  I actually agree with the anchor ban but in my opinion it came 40 years too late.  They already had the Sam Sneed side winding ruling, they could have done away with anchored putting in less than a year and there would have been no controversy.

 

Dave and I have a different take on Slumbers comments.  I'm reading what he has said as something will have to be done in order to restore a balance in skills.  So for him distance is a skill but it has become the dominant skill in golf and he doesn't like it.   

I think this week will be pretty telling. Bryson so far since the return as played relative (key word, relative, haha) powder puff courses and or set ups. This one will have a bit more teeth and I am not sure he can bomb it over everything. 

[FrogginBullfish]

11 hours ago, den748 said:

I tend to agree.  Where I might see a slight disagreement is that he is working so damn closely with the shaft manufacturer to build a near specialized shaft for him.  Now, with that said, I'm sure many players are but he's just better able to communicate to the engineers what he is feeling. If you've ever seen "Days of Thunder" I feel like most players are like Cole Trickle.  They know how to hit a ball (drive a car) but have no idea what it means when the middle part of the shaft is too loose and the tip is too tight (car driving loose).  But Bryson is a mechanic and can describe things perfectly and make the changes better.  Should he be penalized for being more intelligent...maybe not... but they can see that he's making changes too fast and when that trickles down to other players the tour/USGA may intervene. 

Brysons body change is just one piece of his improvement.  He's altering his equipment as well to fit his body changes.

 

This is more relevant than anything.  He still has to 1 hit it straight and 2, putt it into the cup.  It's an advantage but it's not an end all be all. 

Just to piggyback on your racing analogy, the F1 rivalry between Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna is a good real-life comparison. Prost was nicknamed "The Professor" for his intellectual approach to driving, whereas Senna was much more of a feel-based driver. Both were incredibly successful with their own approaches. Golf's the same way. We have "The Mad Scientist" in Bryson who wants to take a very scientifically detailed approach to the game and then you have guys like Brooks who just want to hit the ball and get it in the hole in as few shots as possible with the least amount of "thinking" possible.

I questioned a couple years ago whether, if Bryson started winning majors, would the governing bodies consider a ONE length ban. I personally don't feel like anything Bryson is doing equipment-wise should be considered against the rules, his side-saddle putting experiment aside which was deemed non-conforming due to the lie angle of his putter, but it is something that I do still think about as Bryson is becoming such a hot topic on tour. I'll admit I do have a personal interest in ONE length or variations on ONE length not being banned as I do want to experiment with a THREE length setup in the future.

[FrogginBullfish]

10 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

What have the ruling bodies done or said that you think is wrong?  They've said that they do not envision reducing distance for players across the board.  They have said that they will explore the potential for a (optional) Local Rule governing reduced distance equipment, as a subset of the general equipment rules.  Whether equipment companies choose to develop this reduced-distance equipment, and whether anyone chooses to utilize any such Local Rule, those are secondary matters.

As for changes to the Equipment Rules, maybe new ways of testing will be developed to minimize future equipment-related distance increases.  Maybe they will test balls and/or clubheads at swing speeds consistent with today's best players.  Maybe they will develop ways to test assembled clubs, rather than only clubheads.  I don't know what else might be possible, but I'm sure the list is long.  It seems possible to me that these kinds of changes could be implemented without reducing distance for you and me at all.

Again, a significant portion of the Ruling Bodies' concern is the measurable trend towards longer and longer golf courses, which increases the costs for construction, for renovations to add distance, and for maintenance.  If you've ever played with someone who says "This course is too short for me to enjoy, I'm going to play down the street on a longer course", you can understand the pressure on owners and builders to make courses longer.  It doesn't matter that we "typical" golfers don't NEED longer courses, enough people WANT longer courses to make that pressure a reality.  

I find it interesting that this topic is hot again based on an interview with Mr. Slumbers of the R&A.  He was asked a question regarding Bryson's impressive length in winning the tournament, and Mr Slumbers basically said the same thing that was stated when the Distance Insights report was issued a few months ago, that the Ruling Bodies remain concerned about distance increases in golf.  I just don't think this should have surprised anyone

My post was more looking at it from a tour perspective. Certainly not surprised by Slumbers position on the matter. However, my opinion now is the same as it was then.

I don't feel that the governing bodies are right to be concerned to the level of considering implementing bifurcation rules at the top level of golf to rein in distance. Slumbers suggests this would restore a balance of skill to the game. I don't agree. I feel there already is a balance of skill required to win at the highest level. It just happens that with the advancement of advanced metrics, we're learning more that distance off the tee can provide a considerable advantage. That doesn't mean that a player can win tournaments on tour without adequate play in the other areas of the game. Nor does it mean that players who are shorter off the tee can no longer compete. Equipment rollbacks hurts those players more anyway.

What do the governing bodies consider a balance of skill? What does a player have to do when winning a tournament for the governing bodies to consider their win one that came with a balance of skill across all areas of the game? Bryson led the field in SG: Off the Tee and SG: Putting at the Rocket Mortgage. He actually gained more strokes on the green than off the tee. Is that not a balanced way of winning a tournament? If it isn't, how is Slumbers defining a balance of skill?

[DaveP043]

11 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

My post was more looking at it from a tour perspective. Certainly not surprised by Slumbers position on the matter. However, my opinion now is the same as it was then.

I don't feel that the governing bodies are right to be concerned to the level of considering implementing bifurcation rules at the top level of golf to rein in distance. Slumbers suggests this would restore a balance of skill to the game. I don't agree. I feel there already is a balance of skill required to win at the highest level. It just happens that with the advancement of advanced metrics, we're learning more that distance off the tee can provide a considerable advantage. That doesn't mean that a player can win tournaments on tour without adequate play in the other areas of the game. Nor does it mean that players who are shorter off the tee can no longer compete. Equipment rollbacks hurts those players more anyway.

What do the governing bodies consider a balance of skill? What does a player have to do when winning a tournament for the governing bodies to consider their win one that came with a balance of skill across all areas of the game? Bryson led the field in SG: Off the Tee and SG: Putting at the Rocket Mortgage. He actually gained more strokes on the green than off the tee. Is that not a balanced way of winning a tournament? If it isn't, how is Slumbers defining a balance of skill?

I don't want to see bifurcation, but I don't think the R&A/USGA are in a position to rule it out yet.  They outline 3 basic sources of distance increase, two of which (course conditions and physical training) are beyond their ability to regulate  Equipment regulations are the only tool they have to limit distance.  They specifically note that the distance gains are greatest at the top levels of play, and that distance increases among "regular" golfers are not nearly so worrisome.  Consequently, they do not want to reduce distance across the board.  So they see two avenues to evaluate:  regulations that limit equipment-related distance increases beyond what is now possible, and regulations (via Local Rule) that decrease distance at the top level, where distance increases have been the largest and most troubling.  Its fair to look at both avenues.

But for a Local Rule to be effective, you need to have someone decide to use the local rule in the competitions it runs, and you need to have manufacturers produce equipment that complies with the Local Rule.  I think its really unlikely that many manufacturers will want to dedicate much effort for a really small market, and I think its really unlikely that professional tours will decide to voluntarily limit distance.  My best guess is that we'll see changes in the equipment regulations to try to "freeze" driving distances, but I'll be amazed if we see real bifurcation.

And going back to the original topic (remember that one?)  if we DO see distance reductions for all golfers, we'll adjust.  We won't do it happily, but we'll survive, and golf will survive.

[Quigleyd]

2 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I don't want to see bifurcation, but I don't think the R&A/USGA are in a position to rule it out yet.  They outline 3 basic sources of distance increase, two of which (course conditions and physical training) are beyond their ability to regulate  Equipment regulations are the only tool they have to limit distance.  They specifically note that the distance gains are greatest at the top levels of play, and that distance increases among "regular" golfers are not nearly so worrisome.  Consequently, they do not want to reduce distance across the board.  So they see two avenues to evaluate:  regulations that limit equipment-related distance increases beyond what is now possible, and regulations (via Local Rule) that decrease distance at the top level, where distance increases have been the largest and most troubling.  Its fair to look at both avenues.

But for a Local Rule to be effective, you need to have someone decide to use the local rule in the competitions it runs, and you need to have manufacturers produce equipment that complies with the Local Rule.  I think its really unlikely that many manufacturers will want to dedicate much effort for a really small market, and I think its really unlikely that professional tours will decide to voluntarily limit distance.  My best guess is that we'll see changes in the equipment regulations to try to "freeze" driving distances, but I'll be amazed if we see real bifurcation.

And going back to the original topic (remember that one?)  if we DO see distance reductions for all golfers, we'll adjust.  We won't do it happily, but we'll survive, and golf will survive.

Taylormade 2022 release spy pics.. hahaha

 

 

 

 

 

[revkev]

I think we are getting a lesson in how much course set up impacts play this week.

I think that set up is the answer to the distance issue plain and simple.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy