Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[LICC]

6 minutes ago, Lacassem said:

Yea gonna disagree there. Can kind of sim it up better from this article. Last paragraph on putting in championship conditions. I would be willing to bet if a local course claimed “these conditions are like (insert any professional course) come down and play” we would all go down and play.....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/golf.com/travel/5-key-golf-course-design-features-pros-amateurs/amp/

That quote doesn’t align with your view. I can list dozens of the lauded, high profile courses of the last 20 or so years that were not designed for the Tour-type model. You probably can’t name 5 in the same regard that were built for Tour-level difficulty. Maybe Erin Hills but even that has very wide fairways and was deemed a non-success for its US Open partly for that reason. 

Edited February 14, 2021 by LICC

[GolfSpy BOS]

Yea gonna disagree there. Can kind of sim it up better from this article. Last paragraph on putting in championship conditions. I would be willing to bet if a local course claimed “these conditions are like (insert any professional course) come down and play” we would all go down and play.....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/golf.com/travel/5-key-golf-course-design-features-pros-amateurs/amp/

I would love to play a course in tourny conditions. Just to see the challenge and really appreciate how good those guys are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GolfSpy_SHARK]

5 minutes ago, LICC said:

That quote doesn’t align with your view. I can list dozens of the lauded, high profile courses of the last 20 or so years that were not designed for the Tour-type model. You probably can’t name 5 in the same regard that were built for Tour-level difficulty. Maybe Erin Hills but even that has very wide fairways and was deemed a non-success for its US Open partly for that reason. 

How is against my statement? My statement is that most amateurs want to play courses with those conditions. That’s what the paragraph also states. Where you argued that it was because most golfers don’t want to play that style (which you edited)

I would argue that your statement to the wide-fairways etc etc is because of cost to maintain. Tree lined fairways. Tight cut rough, water features so on and so on are extremely expensive to maintain long term which then increases cost to play which most amateurs do not want to fork over that kind of money.

but I have read your back fortis so just gonna leave this one at this because it doesn’t go anywhere 

[LICC]

12 minutes ago, Lacassem said:

How is against my statement? My statement is that most amateurs want to play courses with those conditions. That’s what the paragraph also states. Where you argued that it was because most golfers don’t want to play that style (which you edited)

I would argue that your statement to the wide-fairways etc etc is because of cost to maintain. Tree lined fairways. Tight cut rough, water features so on and so on are extremely expensive to maintain long term which then increases cost to play which most amateurs do not want to fork over that kind of money.

but I have read your back fortis so just gonna leave this one at this because it doesn’t go anywhere 

My earlier point was to a comment that designers can change courses to deal with distance. I said that would lead to bad boring courses. @DaveP043 commented that people prefer the tough Tour type courses. I pointed out that hasn’t been the case in new course design in over 20 years. You then brought up conditioning and highly contoured greens. Not the same discussion, but to your point, highly contoured greens are featured more on the new naturalist courses and the older pre-WWII courses than on the courses built later for Tour championship setups. 

[DaveP043]

9 minutes ago, LICC said:

My earlier point was to a comment that designers can change courses to deal with distance. I said that would lead to bad boring courses. @DaveP043 commented that people prefer the tough Tour type courses. I pointed out that hasn’t been the case in new course design in over 20 years. You then brought up conditioning and highly contoured greens. Not the same discussion, but to your point, highly contoured greens are featured more on the new naturalist courses and the older pre-WWII courses than on the courses built later for Tour championship setups. 

https://digitalarchives.usga.org/app/api/request/index.html#!/contents/9e1e8737c4734c2d962b1d8025c9a29d/name/Distance Insights Library

You might want to review the actual statistics on course length.

[LICC]

Just now, DaveP043 said:

https://digitalarchives.usga.org/app/api/request/index.html#!/contents/9e1e8737c4734c2d962b1d8025c9a29d/name/Distance Insights Library

You might want to review the actual statistics on course length.

My comment wasn’t about length, it was about style. 

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, LICC said:

My comment wasn’t about length, it was about style. 

You're right.  But the reality is that courses are getting longer.  Longer courses take more resources.  That's a valid reason for a certain amount of concern, no matter the cause of the trend.

[FrogginBullfish]

So let me get this straight, last week you were complaining everyone was out to disagree with you and then someone comes in and agrees with something I've said and you jump down their throats with another argument.

Give it a rest.

Architects changing course design to deal with only the .001% of Tour golfers would lead to an even worse result than when Trent Jones started doing just that years ago- boring one-dimensional courses. Having courses with strategic choices, risk-reward decisions, choices on angles, etc is preferable to penal, one target setups. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[BIG STU]

19 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Architects are changing course designs to make the new courses marketable to consumers like us.  Too many golfers don't want to visit or join a course unless its "championship caliber", and a big part of that judgement is based on length from the tips.  It doesn't matter that players will never play the tips, they want a championship experience.

And also the reputation of being a "hard course" can give credit to their horrible scores even if they shoot them from the forward tees. 

[BIG STU]

19 hours ago, Lacassem said:

Yea gonna disagree there. Can kind of sim it up better from this article. Last paragraph on putting in championship conditions. I would be willing to bet if a local course claimed “these conditions are like (insert any professional course) come down and play” we would all go down and play.....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/golf.com/travel/5-key-golf-course-design-features-pros-amateurs/amp/

Oh trust me you are 100% correct. A lot of the courses here in season post what the stimp reading is for that day. 

[GolfSpy BOS]

Oh trust me you are 100% correct. A lot of the courses here in season post what the stimp reading is for that day. 

I would love it if courses did that more
Often! The course where I played at most this ma past summer has fast greens, but most people (even the members) will tell you they roll at a 12-13, well I know the guy who rolls the greens, and they’re around an 11. Everyone wants to say they play greens as fast as the pros.

I think the harder part is when the greens are firm and you need spin/steep landing angles to keep the ball from rolling out too far. I played up in NH right after a course has a big amateur tournament and the greens were firm. I was hitting some PW shots that were rolling out 15 feet, but they weren’t too fast putting.

[Chip Strokes]

oh, awesome.  someone re-lit this dumpster fire. 

 

[LICC]

55 minutes ago, B.Boston said:

I would love it if courses did that more
Often! The course where I played at most this ma past summer has fast greens, but most people (even the members) will tell you they roll at a 12-13, well I know the guy who rolls the greens, and they’re around an 11. Everyone wants to say they play greens as fast as the pros.

I think the harder part is when the greens are firm and you need spin/steep landing angles to keep the ball from rolling out too far. I played up in NH right after a course has a big amateur tournament and the greens were firm. I was hitting some PW shots that were rolling out 15 feet, but they weren’t too fast putting.

I agree on both points. Most people think greens are higher stump readings than they really are. And when they are very high (I play at a club that once or twice a year pushes them to 14), the bigger challenge is holding the greens on your approach shots. Even wedges will run off on even the slightest slope. 

[LICC]

16 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

So let me get this straight, last week you were complaining everyone was out to disagree with you and then someone comes in and agrees with something I've said and you jump down their throats with another argument.

Give it a rest.

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

 

 

I noted my opinion that differs from yours, and gave substantive on point reasons. I didn’t know you were so special that I can’t disagree with your opinion. 

[FrogginBullfish]

All I can say is wow...

I've stated my opinion on this topic multiple times in this thread and you've disagreed. I've not taken exception with it, though I disagree with pretty much everything you've said in disagreement to my opinion on the topic.

What I do take exception with is you complaining to another forum member that everyone is out to disagree with you and then when someone comes in and says a simple phrase in agreement with a post I've made and you immediately jump down their throat with another argument. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, I don't know what to tell you.

It really doesn't matter to me that you disagree with me on this subject. I said in my first post I doubt I'll sway anyone on the subject and you've done nothing to sway me in the other way either.

I noted my opinion that differs from yours, and gave substantive on point reasons. I didn’t know you were so special that I can’t disagree with your opinion. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[revkev]

Getting back on topic it seems to me that you can’t have it both ways. We often lament loft jacking and then fail to take into account that a guy hitting 5 iron is very similar to a guy hitting 3 iron or at 4 iron in days past. So claiming that a 475 yard hole is being played with a driver/short iron isn’t an apples to apples comparison by any stretch.

I’m not entirely convinced that golf has a distance or strategy problem any more than I am that baseball does. The strategy has changed in both sports beyond a doubt. It’s up to the viewer as to whether or not he appreciates the new nuisances.

I understand that some may not just like some wish for a return to the days of the bunt, only a few hitters being able to hit dingers. I’ve adjusted to the changes in both sports and suspect that there will be more coming over time.

Clearly the USGA disagrees with the majority here unless the Whan hiring signals a shift.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[fixyurdivot]

36 minutes ago, revkev said:

Getting back on topic it seems to me that you can’t have it both ways. We often lament loft jacking and then fail to take into account that a guy hitting 5 iron is very similar to a guy hitting 3 iron or at 4 iron in days past. So claiming that a 475 yard hole is being played with a driver/short iron isn’t an apples to apples comparison by any stretch.

I’m not entirely convinced that golf has a distance or strategy problem any more than I am that baseball does. The strategy has changed in both sports beyond a doubt. It’s up to the viewer as to whether or not he appreciates the new nuisances.

I understand that some may not just like some wish for a return to the days of the bunt, only a few hitters being able to hit dingers. I’ve adjusted to the changes in both sports and suspect that there will be more coming over time.

Clearly the USGA disagrees with the majority here unless the Whan hiring signals a shift.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Some are thinking the Wahn hiring will indeed signal a shift... back to it being less of an issue and little or nothing happening, at least in equipment changes.  

[DaveP043]

13 hours ago, revkev said:

Clearly the USGA disagrees with the majority here unless the Whan hiring signals a shift.

I'm not so sure they disagree.  They've decided to study the issue, and have seen a number of specific concerns due to increasing distance.  To me, it makes perfect sense to study things like this, to collect data and evaluate potential changes.  One of the most common complaints about the USGA is that they waited too long to take some of the past actions, I won't criticize them for staying on top of changes within the game.  The one distance-related concern that makes the most sense to me is over the observed trend towards longer courses, and the increased consumption of money and resources that longer courses generally require.

It seems most of us would disapprove of any reduction in distance for the bulk of players, and the USGA has specifically said that they do not intend to reduce distance for the bulk of players.  The idea of bifurcation seems logical to explore, and I've read at least a few posts here that seem accepting of that option.  Personally, I think there are too many obstacles to overcome to make bifurcation a real possibility.

[revkev]

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm not so sure they disagree.  They've decided to study the issue, and have seen a number of specific concerns due to increasing distance.  To me, it makes perfect sense to study things like this, to collect data and evaluate potential changes.  One of the most common complaints about the USGA is that they waited too long to take some of the past actions, I won't criticize them for staying on top of changes within the game.  The one distance-related concern that makes the most sense to me is over the observed trend towards longer courses, and the increased consumption of money and resources that longer courses generally require.

It seems most of us would disapprove of any reduction in distance for the bulk of players, and the USGA has specifically said that they do not intend to reduce distance for the bulk of players.  The idea of bifurcation seems logical to explore, and I've read at least a few posts here that seem accepting of that option.  Personally, I think there are too many obstacles to overcome to make bifurcation a real possibility.

I might have been better writing, it appears as if they may disagree.  My language was a bit too strong so thanks for calling me on it.

I have no trouble with the study in and of itself, it's their job to know what's going on in the game, my concern was/is that they appear to have had preconceived assumptions that they had a number of issues and that distance was the culprit.  I could be wrong.  I hope that I am.

I wonder if bifurcation is as big an issue as we are assuming.  I think that if you were to tell golfers its this or a loss of distance for everyone they'd take, this.  Perhaps I'm wrong but that would be my hunch.

[LeftyRM7]

I agree 100% with Rory. It’s great to do all of this research but if your goal is to strengthen the future of the game, surely there are much better ways to spend that money. Especially considering years later we sit here with nothing but ideas like 46” drivers, local rules, and tighter tolerances. I feel like after all of the hype, this proposal is honestly laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FrogginBullfish]

To be fair, tighter tolerances is a good idea. The CT test they do on driver faces has a laughable tolerance limit of +7.5%. It may not result in more than a yard or maybe two in the grand scheme of things but no one is building their drivers to 239 if they have 18 extra CT points to play with. I'm all for tightening that up, and I have been for years, but I'm not on board with any of the other proposals.

I agree 100% with Rory. It’s great to do all of this research but if your goal is to strengthen the future of the game, surely there are much better ways to spend that money. Especially considering years later we sit here with nothing but ideas like 46” drivers, local rules, and tighter tolerances. I feel like after all of the hype, this proposal is honestly laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[LeftyRM7]

To be fair, tighter tolerances is a good idea. The CT test they do on driver faces has a laughable tolerance limit of +7.5%. It may not result in more than a yard or maybe two in the grand scheme of things but no one is building their drivers to 239 if they have 18 extra CT points to play with. I'm all for tightening that up, and I have been for years, but I'm not on board with any of the other proposals.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

Agreed, but in the context of solving a “distance problem” it’s really not a measurable change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaveP043]

16 hours ago, revkev said:

I wonder if bifurcation is as big an issue as we are assuming.  I think that if you were to tell golfers its this or a loss of distance for everyone they'd take, this.  Perhaps I'm wrong but that would be my hunch.

Bifurcation will affect a really small percentage of golfers, so if it gets put to a vote, I'm sure most will say "Sure, make HIM lose distance, as long as mine is unchanged".  But it also will require manufacturers to produce more different clubs if they want to cater to both the high-level players and to the masses.  And the transition from regular player to elite will be difficult.  High school phenoms may be playing regular equipment this weekend in a high school match, and the reduced distance next weekend in a State Amateur.  The same would probably hold true throughout the age groups, club golfers using regular equipment in club competitions, and reduced equipment when they play state or national events.  I know that's not a lot of players, but it should be considered.

1 hour ago, LeftyRM7 said:

Agreed, but in the context of solving a “distance problem” it’s really not a measurable change.

Again, if you read the goals, they're not trying to reduce distance across the board.  They're trying to minimize future equipment-related distance gains.

[fixyurdivot]

All of our discourse keeps bringing me back to the question why they don't first  look at implementing course layout and condition changes? I mean this approach has its challenges too but they pale in comparison to what is certain to be a mess on the equipment side of things (as @DaveP043points out).  

Simply changing fairway cut height has been mentioned numerous times - and costs nothing.  What is the hesitancy to pull those levers first?  At the end of the day, no matter what they do, especially on the equipment side, the average long drivers are still going to be 30-35 yards past the average short hitters.  At least with course changes, things like cut height, etc. can be tailored to penalize the trouble making bombers. 

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

27 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

All of our discourse keeps bringing me back to the question why they don't first  look at implementing course layout and condition changes? I mean this approach has its challenges too but they pale in comparison to what is certain to be a mess on the equipment side of things (as @DaveP043points out).  

Simply changing fairway cut height has been mentioned numerous times - and costs nothing.  What is the hesitancy to pull those levers first?  At the end of the day, no matter what they do, especially on the equipment side, the average long drivers are still going to be 30-35 yards past the average short hitters.  At least with course changes, things like cut height, etc. can be tailored to penalize the trouble making bombers. 

 

IMO that’s because the USGA outside of their tournaments don’t have much say in the setup of pro tourneys. The pga knows what sells on tv for most viewers and setup the courses that way. I think the biggest fight will be with the tours against the ruling bodies. The tours have a product that they need to sell and will make decisions that bests help them do that. 

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

All of our discourse keeps bringing me back to the question why they don't first  look at implementing course layout and condition changes?

I think @RickyBobby_PR has it exactly right, the USGA and R&A have authority over course conditions for very very few events, only the events that they run themselves.  

[LeftyRM7]

My question for the bifurcation crowd would be where do you draw the line? I think many think of the Bryson’s and DJs of the world when talking about this distance debate but even on tour those guys are the 1% of the 1% of golfers. The same arguments that are being made for amateurs vs pros can be made for shorter hitting pros. I mean nobody believes LPGA or Champions Tour pros are overpowering golf courses. Do we really need to tell 5’ 4” Brooke Henderson she can’t use her driver anymore? So then you say it could be a PGA tour only bifurcation but then you alienate the guys that play multiple tours. Do we really want to push guys like Furyk, Stricker, and Mickelson off the PGA sooner than they’d like to because they can’t compete? There are so many issues to deal with and wherever you draw that line of bifurcation, there will be a group of golfers that end up with the short end of the stick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fixyurdivot]

Just now, DaveP043 said:

I think @RickyBobby_PR has it exactly right, the USGA and R&A have authority over course conditions for very very few events, only the events that they run themselves.  

Fair enough. So how about they test adjusted conditions on those few courses they do control, and use the data as a reference point?   Sure, it could be that, regardless what such tests yield in addressing the "distance issue", the PGA Tour may choose not to employ, but it would be great info to have and replace speculation with facts.  

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Fair enough. So how about they test adjusted conditions on those few courses they do control, and use the data as a reference point?   Sure, it could be that, regardless what such tests yield in addressing the "distance issue", the PGA Tour may choose not to employ, but it would be great info to have and replace speculation with facts.  

 

The USGA kind of has that/does it already. The US Open. US women’s open and their amateur events. 
 

On the tour one could look at courses like Riviera and Muirfield as a couple examples of how course design impacts the distance and course strategy.  
 

[fixyurdivot]

Am I the only one who thinks this has all the makings of a 60 minute game, between Team PGA and Team USGA, that will set a record in both total offensive and penalty yards, and end in a tie?