The Distance Debate Reignited

[GolfSpy MPR]

Duration: 00:42:44

Titleist's CNCPT irons are $500 a pop, Personal Launch Monitors are good but not great, and Bryson reignites the distance debate all on today's episode of No Putts Given.

1:11 - Titleist's new CNCPT irons.
7:12 -  Best Personal Launch Monitors of 2020
15:38 -  The distance debate, ft. Dr. Brandon Horvath
25:47 - Practical solutions without rollbacks


---------------------------------------------

Welcome to MyGolfSpy!

Over 9 million golfers a year turn to MyGolfSpy to get unbiased, tested reviews and recommendations for the best golf gear to help you improve your game.

Golfers like you turn to us because we're independent and unbiased. And, over the years, we've created the #1 resource for golfers who put cold, hard data above marketing hype.

#MYGOLFSPY #CONSUMERFIRST

Check out MyGolfSpy today! www.mygolfspy.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Used by over 9,000,000 forward-thinking golfers!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subscribe to MYGOLFSPY on YouTube: bit.ly/MGSyoutube
OUR MISSION: mygolfspy.com/our-mission/

---------------------------------------------
Check out MyGolfSpy's other channels!
--------------------------------------------

REVIEWS: bit.ly/MGSreviews
BUYERS GUIDES: mygolfspy.com/category/golf-b...
NEW RELEASES: bit.ly/MGSnewgear
PODCAST: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
DRIVER FITTING TOOL: www.truegolffit.com/

------------------------------------
MYGOLFSPY on Social Media
------------------------------------

Twitter: twitter.com/MyGolfSpy
Facebook: www.facebook.com/mygolfspycom/
Instagram: www.instagram.com/mygolfspy/

Listen Here

[fixyurdivot]

There's a distance debate? So what I found most interesting was Harry's comment about his attempt to hit out of his shoes and that after a dozen swings he was done.  It is my belief that very few pro players, even if they choose to go the hulk route, can sustain the wear and tear that Bryson is exposing himself too. I also agree with Chris about fairway conditions and the billiard table like conditions that are contributing to the too much distance discussion. The "graduated rough" approach seems like a good option.  Unlikely something we mere mortals will see on our tracks (too much added work for grounds crew), but certainly something that tour setups can accommodate.

[Middler]

I've enjoyed every episode of NPG, this one more than some others. The MGS guys, Adam at least, has said 'grow the grass and see what happens' for quite a while. It was nice to have a guest singing from the same hymnal. I didn't realize fairways were drier and mowed closer these days**, but it make perfect sense to me to at least try that before upended the industry with rolling back equipment and/or balls (bifurcation is an even dumber idea IMO). They should absolutely keep equipment/ball limits as they are, but don't go backwards. The US Open showed once again that the USGA knows how to make a course tougher to limit under par scoring. Why they only do it a couple times a year, while complaining about a distance problem, is beyond me. The majors and other premier tournaments should be real tests of ability, and the lesser tournaments can be lights out scoring events if needed.

And just change par for tournaments was an interesting idea too. If every pro can reach a hole in 2, it's not a par 5 for them. There's +4 per round, +16 per tournament almost every week. How hard was that?

** Frankly the fairways where I play, most courses, are cut too short IMO. I have a "tight lie" in the fairway about 90% of the time, it would be nice to have the ball sitting up just a little once in a while IMO. I often like the lie I get in the first cut better than the fairway.

[golfish!]

For sure grow the grass! Played a course that normally has short rough right after the covid shutdown and the rough was at US open length. Buddy and I spent so much time looking for balls!

[GBWarPig]

I liked the idea on the pod of the different progression in the rough - rather than a first/second cut based on distance from fairway, longest rough out where the bombers hit, and shorter rough where someone would have had to club down or just isn’t as long. 
 

That combined with longer grass and/or softer fairways, would help combat any ”distance problem”.  But messing with equipment innovation isn’t the way to do it. 

[storm319]

7 hours ago, Middler said:

The US Open showed once again that the USGA knows how to make a course tougher to limit under par scoring. Why they only do it a couple times a year, while complaining about a distance problem, is beyond me.

The USGA only runs the US Open from a PGA Tour event standpoint so they have no influence over the setups of any other tournaments. If they had control over the setups for every tournament year round, we would see higher average scores and also probably wouldn’t have seen the groove rollback.

Edited September 29, 2020 by storm319

[fixyurdivot]

18 hours ago, Middler said:

** Frankly the fairways where I play, most courses, are cut too short IMO. I have a "tight lie" in the fairway about 90% of the time, it would be nice to have the ball sitting up just a little once in a while IMO. I often like the lie I get in the first cut better than the fairway.

+1.  I don't think we're the only ones either.

[TR1PTIK]

18 hours ago, Middler said:

Frankly the fairways where I play, most courses, are cut too short IMO. I have a "tight lie" in the fairway about 90% of the time, it would be nice to have the ball sitting up just a little once in a while IMO. I often like the lie I get in the first cut better than the fairway.

I'd be curious to see what your fairways look like. I'm pretty happy with the length of fairway grass at most of the courses I play. Would be interested to see how they compare.

[DaveP043]

13 hours ago, GBWarPig said:

I liked the idea on the pod of the different progression in the rough - rather than a first/second cut based on distance from fairway, longest rough out where the bombers hit, and shorter rough where someone would have had to club down or just isn’t as long. 
 

That combined with longer grass and/or softer fairways, would help combat any ”distance problem”.  But messing with equipment innovation isn’t the way to do it. 

These kinds of things could certainly increase the advantage of hitting fairways, and increase the penalty for being longer and wayward.  Longer softer fairways could decrease roll.  But from a "regulation" standpoint, they're simply not something that can be regulated by the USGA/R&A.  The set-up for pretty much every PGA Tour event is under the control of the PGA Tour and the host club.  The PGA Tour has been marketing distance for a long time, as well as telling us how good these guys are.  The PGA Tour has a vested interested in long drives and low scores, that's what they advertise.  Every-week course set-ups won't change until the PGA Tour senses a decrease in viewership related to the more boring (to some people) style of play that extreme length seems to produce.  But most avid golfers will watch no matter what, so the Tour is trying to attract the fringe viewers, the occasional players and non-players.  And for a fringe viewer, what's more exciting, huge drives and lots of birdies, or chip-outs from the heavy rough and 10-footers for par?

[GBWarPig]

43 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

These kinds of things could certainly increase the advantage of hitting fairways, and increase the penalty for being longer and wayward.  Longer softer fairways could decrease roll.  But from a "regulation" standpoint, they're simply not something that can be regulated by the USGA/R&A.  The set-up for pretty much every PGA Tour event is under the control of the PGA Tour and the host club.  The PGA Tour has been marketing distance for a long time, as well as telling us how good these guys are.  The PGA Tour has a vested interested in long drives and low scores, that's what they advertise.  Every-week course set-ups won't change until the PGA Tour senses a decrease in viewership related to the more boring (to some people) style of play that extreme length seems to produce.  But most avid golfers will watch no matter what, so the Tour is trying to attract the fringe viewers, the occasional players and non-players.  And for a fringe viewer, what's more exciting, huge drives and lots of birdies, or chip-outs from the heavy rough and 10-footers for par?

I'm fully with you, I just think it's very strange that the two governing bodies appear to be at fundamental odds with each other - one wanting to dial back the distance and bring more challenge into the game, and the other wanting more distance and super low scores because, to take their slogan, "These guys are good".

I think there is a middle ground that satisfies both parties, and I wish the USGA and PGA would explore that and make it the norm. It shouldn't be 4 majors out of the year that amp up the rigor, and a bunch of other events where -15 to -20 is a top 10 score.

[DaveP043]

9 minutes ago, GBWarPig said:

I'm fully with you, I just think it's very strange that the two governing bodies appear to be at fundamental odds with each other - one wanting to dial back the distance and bring more challenge into the game, and the other wanting more distance and super low scores because, to take their slogan, "These guys are good".

I think there is a middle ground that satisfies both parties, and I wish the USGA and PGA would explore that and make it the norm. It shouldn't be 4 majors out of the year that amp up the rigor, and a bunch of other events where -15 to -20 is a top 10 score.

The PGA is not a governing body, they have specifically chosen to subordinate themselves to the USGA/R&A rules.  They certainly have a stake in whatever the USGA/R&A decide, but so does Titleist, so does the NCAA, so does the GCSAA (course superintendents), so do course owners and property developers.  From everything we can find, every one of those groups will be involved in the final decisions by the USGA/R&A.

I'm not crazy about every-week birdie-fests on the PGA Tour, but I can accept that the game has changed, that new tactics and styles of play are here for good.  If I'm bored by that style of play, I won't watch.  I have read that Bobby Jones saw Nicklaus play, and said that Jack "plays a game with which I am not familiar".  Yet Jones never called for the game to be changed, to bring Jack in line with the way Bobby had played.  A big portion of the distance debate is about a desire to bring back the style of play from the era when Jack was at his peak.   Evolution happens in this game, and it will continue to happen.

[ejgaudette]

All good points everyone and as well all know this is a "problem" only for a handful of players. I also think that yes the PGA tour likes the distance but there are a number of events a year were scoring is tough beyond the majors. The Memorial and the BMW this year both played pretty tough, and some in the Florida swing do as well. I would imagine there would be a number of tour events willing to take it up a notch to sit between a major and the lower scoring events. I agree that the solution needs to be something like growing the grass instead of the equipment given we have all seen and experienced the fact that distance is only a problem for us in the other direction.

[chisag]

... Some of us have talked about courses and tee boxes for average golfers. Almost all holes are designed to be played with specific clubs. For instance #2 at my favorite course is a 90* dogleg left with two big bunkers guarding the corner. 340 from the Blue and 315 from the White. The green has a huge deep bunker with tall grass around the edges and almost assuredly a stroke penalty if you hit into it. The green is very narrow so taking more club to take the bunker out of play can mean hitting over the green and chipping from deep rough. Clearly this hole is designed to have a short iron approach that you can fly high and stop or pull back a few feet. Landing on with a rolling long iron, hybrid or fairway wood is a recipe for bogie or worse. It is an easy hole with a good tee shot that leaves a wedge for an approach shot. But it is extremely difficult with anything longer than a mid iron. Playing the correct tees can mean the difference between birdie/par or bogie/double. 

... Obviously the pro's are much better with long irons, hybrids and woods than Am's but they are also doing the exact opposite of the Am's. If a fairway bunker guards the dogleg and calls for  a 320 yd carry, that vast majority of Pro's will not challenge that bunker. The hole is designed to have a long iron approach so the green is larger and does not have as much slope. If they have the firepower to carry that bunker, then they reap the rewards and can play a short iron. But that should include a very elite few. If that same bunker is 290 to carry and almost the entire field can fly it, the design of the hole is being circumvented and they are not playing it they way it was designed. Some courses have the ability to be stretched to 7500+ and bring the design back into its original form. But many classic courses do not have that ability. If you want to see what it is like for most Pro's,  just move up to the forward tees and you will see what it is like to play the course completely different than it was designed. Playing the hole I referenced above from the forward tees at 266, taking a direct route makes it play even shorter so instead of a long iron leaving 100-110 yds in you could drive the green and while it won't hold you will be chipping for an eagle. 


... So since Pro's have gotten so much longer, I really don't have an answer other than what others have mentioned. Grow the rough longer and penalize the bomber that misses the fairway. 

[DaveP043]

7 minutes ago, chisag said:

... Some of us have talked about courses and tee boxes for average golfers. Almost all holes are designed to be played with specific clubs. For instance #2 at my favorite course is a 90* dogleg left with two big bunkers guarding the corner. 340 from the Blue and 315 from the White. The green has a huge deep bunker with tall grass around the edges and almost assuredly a stroke penalty if you hit into it. The green is very narrow so taking more club to take the bunker out of play can mean hitting over the green and chipping from deep rough. Clearly this hole is designed to have a short iron approach that you can fly high and stop air pull back a few feet. Landing on and rolling a long iron, hybrid or fairway wood is a recipe for bogie or worse. It is an easy hole with a good tee shot that leaves a wedge for an approach shot. But it is extremely difficult with anything longer than a mid iron. Playing the correct tees can mean the difference between birds/par or bogie/double. 

... Obviously the pro's are much better with long irons, hybrids and woods than Am's but they are also doing the exact opposite of the Am's. If a fairway bunker guards the dogleg and calls for  a 320 yd carry, that vast majority of Pro's will not challenge that bunker. The hole is designed to have a long iron approach so the green is larger and does not have as much slope. If they have the firepower to carry that bunker, then they reap the rewards and can play a short iron. But that should include a very elite few. If that same bunker is 290 to carry and almost the entire field can fly it, the design of the hole is being circumvented and they are not playing it they way it was designed. Some courses have the ability to be stretched to 7500+ and bring the design back into its original form. But many classic courses do not have that ability. If you want to see what it is like for most Pro's,  just move up to the forward tees and you will see what it is like to play the course completely different than it was designed. Playing the hole I referenced above from the forward tees at 266, taking a direct route makes it play even shorter so instead of a long iron leaving 100-110 yds in you could drive the green and while it won't hold you will be chipping for an eagle. 


... So since Pro's have gotten so much longer, I really don't have an answer other than what others have mentioned. Grow the rough longer and penalize the bomber that misses the fairway. 

I have immense respect for traditional course architecture, and I love the chances I've had to play some of these classic courses.  But they were designed for a moment in time.  The best of the designers could look ahead to some extent, build in flexibility for changes they could expect to see, but its inevitable that the game will progress beyond what any designer could imagine.   Once the architect is finished, all that's left is a "puzzle", and its up to each player to determine how best to solve that puzzle using his own set of skills.  While I prefer to see the courses played as originally designed, we shouldn't expect to see current and future players locked into that same methodology.  Modern elite players have developed new or refined tools to solve problems in different ways.  Its not that the courses have become obsolete, its that the strategy of 50 or even 20 years ago is becoming obsolete.

My personal opinion, I hope that equipment regulations are tweaked, or new factors tested, to keep equipment-related distances about the same as now.  No shock to anyone's system, no loss of distance for those of us who aren't making traditional golf strategy obsolete.  I hope they don't pursue any kind of bifurcation, even the optional CoC that is discussed in the Distance Insights Conclusions.   There are just too many potential conflicts for that the be workable, in my opinion.  Let the best be the best, let them continue to evolve strategies to solve the problems they face, let's just not facilitate that by allowing it to be done with longer equipment.  And if individual events decide to revise course set-ups to encourage one tactic over another, great, its just revising the problem the elite players have to solve.

[chisag]

14 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Its not that the courses have become obsolete, its that the strategy of 50 or even 20 years ago is becoming obsolete.

 

... Dave I think you are old enough to know the difference between a 43.5" steel shafted persimmon wood with a balata ball is radically different than a 460cc Titanium head with a modern ProV1. The strategy revolves around the equipment so of course it has changed. If the Pro's were forced to play 43.5" steel shafted persimmon woods and balata balls I think next month the Masters would be a very different tournament. 

[DaveP043]

55 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... Dave I think you are old enough to know the difference between a 43.5" steel shafted persimmon wood with a balata ball is radically different than a 460cc Titanium head with a modern ProV1. The strategy revolves around the equipment so of course it has changed. If the Pro's were forced to play 43.5" steel shafted persimmon woods and balata balls I think next month the Masters would be a very different tournament. 

I didn't try to say WHY the old strategy is becoming obsolete, just that it has.  But yeah, being as old as I am, I remember balata and persimmon.  I also remember a lot of courses before wall-to-wall irrigation was as prevalent, when greens were MUCH slower.  I can't say I remember the stymie rule being in place, though.

But my point remains, courses still present a challenge, still present a puzzle.  Whether its because conditions have changed, players themselves have changed, equipment has changed, statistically-based analyses have improved understanding of optimal strategies, all of that has gone into the changes in strategy for the elite players.  The new strategy produces lower scores, everything that has changed has worked to make the old strategies obsolete.  Is the Masters a "better" competition if played with balata, persimmon, slow greens, and shorter holes, as compared with what it will be next month?  Or is it just different, and a matter of personal preference?  Is there a "right" way to solve a puzzle, and the modern elite players are solving it better, but with the "wrong" method?

[Middler]

Lots of interesting POVs in this thread. Thanks!

[null]

No matter how much courses and equipment are tweaked - better athletes with faster swing speeds are still going to dominate.

What pisses me off about this entire "debate" is that the governing bodies and the "old school" golf analysts act like speed and athleticism isn't a skill.  It absolutely is a skill and until the PGA Tour makes a rule where everyone has to swing the same MPH or get a penalty, the golfers that can swing faster will have an advantage.

Guess what

 the hitters in baseball that can swing faster have an advantage

the pitchers in baseball that can throw faster have an advantage

the players in the NBA that can run faster and jump higher have an advantage

the players in the NHL that can skate faster and shoot harder have an advantage

professional tennis players that can serve faster have an advantage

Yet golf is the only friggen sport where the "keepers of the game" try to diminish an athletic trait.  Those people, and the governing bodies, need to get over themselves. 

[null]

2 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... Dave I think you are old enough to know the difference between a 43.5" steel shafted persimmon wood with a balata ball is radically different than a 460cc Titanium head with a modern ProV1. The strategy revolves around the equipment so of course it has changed. If the Pro's were forced to play 43.5" steel shafted persimmon woods and balata balls I think next month the Masters would be a very different tournament. 

Sure, the scores would be different - but would it really impact how players would finish?  Faster players will still be faster and longer players will still be longer.  If anything, an equipment rollback would further hurt the average to below average hitters on tour.

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, jlukes said:

No matter how much courses and equipment are tweaked - better athletes with faster swing speeds are still going to dominate.

What pisses me off about this entire "debate" is that the governing bodies and the "old school" golf analysts act like speed and athleticism isn't a skill.  It absolutely is a skill and until the PGA Tour makes a rule where everyone has to swing the same MPH or get a penalty, the golfers that can swing faster will have an advantage.

. . . . . 
Yet golf is the only friggen sport where the "keepers of the game" try to diminish an athletic trait.  Those people, and the governing bodies, need to get over themselves. 

I know I've read that from individuals, but I don't read that in the official documents produced by the USGA/R&A.  They express concern that one particular skill is becoming much more important than others, as compared to the "old" balance of skills, but they don't suggest that the ability to hit it long isn't a skill.  In essence, they are saying that there is a "right" balance of skills.  I'm not sure I agree that one way is "right", but there's certainly a continuing change in the balance among the various skills.

[null]

Just now, DaveP043 said:

I know I've read that from individuals, but I don't read that in the official documents produced by the USGA/R&A.  They express concern that one particular skill is becoming much more important than others, as compared to the "old" balance of skills, but they don't suggest that the ability to hit it long isn't a skill.  In essence, they are saying that there is a "right" balance of skills.  I'm not sure I agree that one way is "right", but there's certainly a continuing change in the balance among the various skills.

But how the heck do you balance athleticism without imposing physical restrictions on the players themselves?

[DaveP043]

11 minutes ago, jlukes said:

But how the heck do you balance athleticism without imposing physical restrictions on the players themselves?

Don't ask me!  The only thing that the Ruling Bodies can regulate is equipment.  They cannot regulate physical fitness, or clubfitting, or statistical analysis, or course conditioning.  Equipment regulation is the only avenue open to the Ruling Bodies if they indeed decide that something has to be done about distance.  But they haven't determined that yet.  There's nothing new, what we have is what was released in February.  The data from the summer isn't a departure, Bryson's win isn't anything new, there's really nothing to see here.  But because Bryson is a polarizing figure, the most obvious "long ball hitter", his win has reignited the discussion.  Mike Davis' retirement remarks aren't anything new, he's been saying the same thing for a decade or longer, and the Distance Insights report largely ignored his preferences.  We'll find something out in the spring when the next step in the distance insights process is released, but until then, I'm not going to worry about the sky falling.  

[cnosil]

But how the heck do you balance athleticism without imposing physical restrictions on the players themselves?

You change the rules and incentivize other areas:

Baseball: No aluminum bats in pros.
Hockey: limit stick curvature, reduce goalie pad sizes
Basketball: add 3 point line to move shooting more outside
Football: limit how tackles can be made. Move extra point distance farther out.
Golf: limit how much energy can be transferred to the ball.

[null]

19 minutes ago, cnosil said:

You change the rules and incentivize other areas:

Baseball: No aluminum bats in pros.
Hockey: limit stick curvature, reduce goalie pad sizes
Basketball: add 3 point line to move shooting more outside
Football: limit how tackles can be made. Move extra point distance farther out.
Golf: limit how much energy can be transferred to the ball.

Yes - but this doesnt stop speed from being one of the most important skills.  Long hitters will still be long hitters.  Short hitters will still me short hitters.  

Rolling back golf equipment hurts the short hitters more than the long hitters!

[DaveP043]

6 minutes ago, jlukes said:

Yes - but this doesnt stop speed from being one of the most important skills.  Long hitters will still be long hitters.  Short hitters will still me short hitters.  

Rolling back golf equipment hurts the short hitters more than the long hitters!

Have you read the actual reports?  The concerns are overall distance, averages and peaks.  The don't seem to want to revise the balance of power on the pro tours, only to stall or possibly decrease the distance for everyone at the elite levels.  They're not trying to pick winners and losers, even though some players would certainly be affected more than others.  As you say, longer hitters will always have an advantage over shorter ones.

[cnosil]

Yes - but this doesnt stop speed from being one of the most important skills.  Long hitters will still be long hitters.  Short hitters will still me short hitters.  
Rolling back golf equipment hurts the short hitters more than the long hitters!

Not disagreeing with that. You can allow the athleticism to continue but reign in distance to make those who want the architecture live on happy.

I am fine with the current strategy. Scoring can obviously be controlled based on course setup to bring the players closer to par but people don’t like taking away the courses designed protection.

Maybe the shorter hitters need to narrow their dispersion pattern to hit more fairways to try and minimize the rough advantage.

[Quigleyd]

The problem is that the are looking at distance as the problem and their only thought is to lengthen the course or shorten the ball. Thus making distance an even bigger problem. They have to start asking different questions. If they did nothing. The whole distance arms race would settle in, and golfers would be able to think about something else. 

It has been proven time and time again that if you add restriction, golfers, manufacturers etc. will find away around them. 

1. Groove rule - How long was it till we had wedges that spun as much if not more while not destroying balls like the old box grooves. 

2. anchor ban - well now we have armlocks and they are anchoring but only by another name. 

 

You can go all the way back to the Haskell ball. I cant remember his name, but some golf "purest" made it his mission to limit the haskell ball. He convinced the ruling bodies to limit the size of the ball thinking that would stop the progression. Not a month later a new ball was out. Within the guidelines and was better. 

JUST LEAVE IT ALONE!!!

[PMookie]

Look, here’s the rub. A big deal is being made out of Bryson’s length. Did any of you read the article about how he worked with Bridgestone to figure out SPECIFICALLY what his deviation from the rough was going to be on shots hit with 8 iron-PW? No guessing on fliers, actual statistical analysis! 
Guess what?! ONE guy finished under par at the US Open. The guy who did the analysis of the affect of rough on approach shots..... He didn’t win because he bombed it by everyone! He won because he STUDIED the course and the defenses. 
 

I know, this isn’t about Bryson, but folks, scores by the bombers were STILL over par. We didn’t have the 20 under that people are scared of. By-the-way, look at the winners on Tour over the last three years. They’re not all “bombers”, and it wasn’t too long ago that a guy hitting the ball 290 off the tee was the king of the sport! Yep, Spieth screwed-up his swing and putting, but he was dominant, and NOT a long hitter. 

[Quigleyd]

20 minutes ago, PMookie said:

Look, here’s the rub. A big deal is being made out of Bryson’s length. Did any of you read the article about how he worked with Bridgestone to figure out SPECIFICALLY what his deviation from the rough was going to be on shots hit with 8 iron-PW? No guessing on fliers, actual statistical analysis! 
Guess what?! ONE guy finished under par at the US Open. The guy who did the analysis of the affect of rough on approach shots..... He didn’t win because he bombed it by everyone! He won because he STUDIED the course and the defenses. 
 

I know, this isn’t about Bryson, but folks, scores by the bombers were STILL over par. We didn’t have the 20 under that people are scared of. By-the-way, look at the winners on Tour over the last three years. They’re not all “bombers”, and it wasn’t too long ago that a guy hitting the ball 290 off the tee was the king of the sport! Yep, Spieth screwed-up his swing and putting, but he was dominant, and NOT a long hitter. 

Nobody in 2020 wants facts.. Thank you very much.. lol

[GBWarPig]

24 minutes ago, PMookie said:

Look, here’s the rub. A big deal is being made out of Bryson’s length. Did any of you read the article about how he worked with Bridgestone to figure out SPECIFICALLY what his deviation from the rough was going to be on shots hit with 8 iron-PW? No guessing on fliers, actual statistical analysis! 
Guess what?! ONE guy finished under par at the US Open. The guy who did the analysis of the affect of rough on approach shots..... He didn’t win because he bombed it by everyone! He won because he STUDIED the course and the defenses. 
 

I know, this isn’t about Bryson, but folks, scores by the bombers were STILL over par. We didn’t have the 20 under that people are scared of. By-the-way, look at the winners on Tour over the last three years. They’re not all “bombers”, and it wasn’t too long ago that a guy hitting the ball 290 off the tee was the king of the sport! Yep, Spieth screwed-up his swing and putting, but he was dominant, and NOT a long hitter. 

Yeah, but if the USGA can't force course conditions like they do at the US Open, then they are going to legislate it out in another fashion. Halting progress for the sake of halting progress seems like a bad business to be in. Embrace the athleticism that today's players have, not fight against it.