Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[DaveP043]

6 minutes ago, revkev said:

I can't imagine spending $50 a course to maybe hole one additional putt a month - I fully understand why a pro would want this because 1 or 2 holed putts in 4 days is huge money - but for me or anyone else on the course in a casual setting this could only do more harm than good IMO.

Oy, I might have been a bit conservative, I just looked at the Strackaline website, their greens only books seem to run $97.

[LICC]

On 3/20/2021 at 2:01 PM, fixyurdivot said:

Welcome to the forum.  Some good points in your reply.  Specific to this question, cutting the grass longer through the driving landing areas will reduce rollout, which is often cited as abnormal to what we mortals typically see, costs nothing, and can be cut to normal height after the tournament. Grass cut height and limiting tee height are two changes that can be made that can be done without too much churn.

Personally, I'm not convinced there is need to do anything - although I do find the more recent bomb and wedge tour format to be a bit less interesting to me.  The USGA/R&A needs to specify what their target (acceptable) average distance is... otherwise the report is just a wheelbarrow full of interesting data.

Interesting comments by Rory this week - he is changing his swing because current equipment makes it too hard for him to hit a draw, which was his regular shot shape with driver. 

[LICC]

Interesting comments from Bryson. He is getting stronger, the strongest he has ever been, and working out but not seeing increases in distance ...

 

[LICC]

I mentioned in the PGA Championship thread but worth stating here. Phil’s amazing win combined with Tiger’s 2019 Masters victory shows that today’s players are no more athletically superior to the players of the 1990s. 

[Quigleyd]

20 hours ago, LICC said:

I mentioned in the PGA Championship thread but worth stating here. Phil’s amazing win combined with Tiger’s 2019 Masters victory shows that today’s players are no more athletically superior to the players of the 1990s. 

I am not sure I agree completely with this. There are lots of ways to measure that. Phil showed a creativity that many of todays tour pros do not have. This course for sure rewarded that creativity and athletic ability to pull it off. It punished the guys the have grooved that knuckle ball fade that has become the shot shape of choice.

 

But there are many weeks that the ability to hit the same ball repeatedly with consistency is the winning formula. I would be willing to bet that the US open at Torrey will play to a much different set of athletic ability. 

[LICC]

To the argument that athletes are superior to 30 years ago ...

https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/06/04/sticky-stuff-is-the-new-steroids-daily-cover

@Chip Strokes“I think that a good portion of the increased velocity is because guys can throw pitches at 100% all the time,” he says. “They can rear back and literally throw with everything they've got and still have a reasonable amount of control because of the sticky stuff. I think if the ball feels a little slick, your mechanics have got to be a little better; you’ve got to stay within your means a little bit more.”

Edited June 9, 2021 by LICC

[Chip Strokes]

4 hours ago, LICC said:

To the argument that athletes are superior to 30 years ago ...

https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/06/04/sticky-stuff-is-the-new-steroids-daily-cover

@Chip Strokes“I think that a good portion of the increased velocity is because guys can throw pitches at 100% all the time,” he says. “They can rear back and literally throw with everything they've got and still have a reasonable amount of control because of the sticky stuff. I think if the ball feels a little slick, your mechanics have got to be a little better; you’ve got to stay within your means a little bit more.”

we don’t agree. we won’t agree. i won’t change your mind and you won’t change mine. 

please don’t quote me anymore. i don’t have any further interest in conversing with you. 

[GolfSpy_SHARK]

16 minutes ago, Chip Strokes said:

we don’t agree. we won’t agree. i won’t change your mind and you won’t change mine. 

please don’t quote me anymore. i don’t have any further interest in conversing with you. 

You keep getting sucked in lol

[Chip Strokes]

1 minute ago, Lacassem said:

You keep getting sucked in lol

[THEZIPR23]

4 hours ago, LICC said:

To the argument that athletes are superior to 30 years ago ...

https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/06/04/sticky-stuff-is-the-new-steroids-daily-cover

@Chip Strokes“I think that a good portion of the increased velocity is because guys can throw pitches at 100% all the time,” he says. “They can rear back and literally throw with everything they've got and still have a reasonable amount of control because of the sticky stuff. I think if the ball feels a little slick, your mechanics have got to be a little better; you’ve got to stay within your means a little bit more.”

What is interesting about that quote is the fact that control has left the game. More walks & HBP than ever before. And there is plenty of evidence that says athletes are better now than ever before. 

[GolfSpy_SHARK]

8 minutes ago, THEZIPR23 said:

What is interesting about that quote is the fact that control has left the game. More walks & HBP than ever before. And there is plenty of evidence that says athletes are better now than ever before. 

It’s so tough to compare to because it’s apples and oranges. So many differences now (and in all sports). But as a whole looking strictly at fitness/Strength etc it’s pretty clear that athletes these days are far superior in that aspect.

[THEZIPR23]

10 minutes ago, Lacassem said:

It’s so tough to compare to because it’s apples and oranges. So many differences now (and in all sports). But as a whole looking strictly at fitness/Strength etc it’s pretty clear that athletes these days are far superior in that aspect.

Comparing generations is a no win situation. But to say that humans haven't evolved and gotten better is some kind of delusion. 

[LICC]

55 minutes ago, THEZIPR23 said:

What is interesting about that quote is the fact that control has left the game. More walks & HBP than ever before. And there is plenty of evidence that says athletes are better now than ever before. 

Actually no, the evidence doesn't show that at all:

 

[GolfSpy_APH]

Rather then saying yes or no they are or are not in a black and white sense I will ask this and I am not sure how much this has to do with the actual topic of bifurcation, but could it be more sport dependent? I say this because in curling (yes a more personal example) since its introduction into the olympics and with a lot more money involved players have truly become athletes. A focus on not only mental, but physical traits and ability have increased significantly and its very easy to tell the difference between curlers from early 2000's to now just in appearance.

Golf I personally believe is similar. Not say before they were not fit or capable years ago, but the build of the typical modern day player has certainly changed. Golf will always be a sport with all body types will be seen and all sorts will also have success. I do think physically fitness is more valued now then before... that or back in the 90's and such their clothing was just that bad with the baggy pants there was no way to tell who was in good shape? haha

Side note as well, many members would be surprised at the similarities between golf and curling in terms of the paths they have followed, gap in skill between elite and club members, evolution of the game, performance of equipment impacting the game and so on. 

[LICC]

@DaveP043 Mike Whan, USGA CEO, in Golf Digest last week:

For the men’s professional game, do you need to limit the distance players are hitting it?

If we’re talking about the men’s professional game, I’d be surprised if people don’t believe that some degree of reining in wouldn’t be good for the game long-term. I haven’t had those conversations with everybody yet, but I will. I’ve read the Distance Insights study, but I don’t know if the need for change really trickles down to other levels of the game. I question if we need change for the average player. I’m still trying to understand why bifurcation scares everybody as much as it does. I’m not really sure why.

Edited June 14, 2021 by LICC

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, LICC said:

@DaveP043 Mike Whan, USGA CEO, in Golf Digest last week:

For the men’s professional game, do you need to limit the distance players are hitting it?

If we’re talking about the men’s professional game, I’d be surprised if people don’t believe that some degree of reining in wouldn’t be good for the game long-term. I haven’t had those conversations with everybody yet, but I will. I’ve read the Distance Insights study, but I don’t know if the need for change really trickles down to other levels of the game. I question if we need change for the average player. I’m still trying to understand why bifurcation scares everybody as much as it does. I’m not really sure why.

Ok, and....?  

[LICC]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Ok, and....?  

And there is another tremendously important figure in the game who believes the distance gains of professionals is an issue that needs addressing.

[DaveP043]

9 minutes ago, LICC said:

And there is another tremendously important figure in the game who believes the distance gains of professionals is an issue that needs addressing.

And I don't.  But read what Whan said, "some degree of reining in".  He said nothing about decreasing distance, it sounds like "reining in" could just as likely mean an effort to limit future distance gains.  And the USGA and R&A have been very clear, they are continuing to explore MANY ways to address distance gains.  That MIGHT include formulating a Local Rule that could effectively mean bifurcation.  And of course that assumes that some organizations would actually USE the local rule, and that manufacturers would choose to make equipment for what will undoubtedly be a very limited market.  I'm happy to wait to see what they come up with.  Its still way too premature to say "bifurcation is coming", just as it was 4 months ago when this thread was started.

[LICC]

On 6/9/2021 at 5:00 PM, Lacassem said:

It’s so tough to compare to because it’s apples and oranges. So many differences now (and in all sports). But as a whole looking strictly at fitness/Strength etc it’s pretty clear that athletes these days are far superior in that aspect.

Here is more data to support my view that distance gains are predominantly from equipment technology. Here is the same person, same balls, using different drivers from different years from the same company. There are substantial distance gains from the 2004 version to the 2013 version, and again significant increase from the 2013 version to 2021. 

https://golf.com/gear/drivers/how-far-has-distance-increased-5-drivers-from-different-years/?amp=1

[fixyurdivot]

Thanks for sharing the article. Interesting test and really not that surprising results - to me anyway.  One player, one test, and one data point clearly does not establish a trend but I'd bet this same test format, repeated a dozen or so times, with near scratch players will.

No argument that physical strength gains and focused training techniques (superspeed regiment, etc.) contribute but this test certainly suggests a very healthy portion comes from equipment technology.  40+ yards carry is quite significant. 

It seems the hoopla within the USGA and R&A over the subject has subsided... perhaps just put on hold from pandemic.  At this point, I'd be surprised if any changes are made. 

[Steelman]

Actually bifurcation already exists when it comes to the ball.  There is not a single standard ball for golf like there is for baseball or football for example.  Even with different manufacturers for basketball and tennis the balls are essentially the same by rule.  In golf, we have 5 layer balls to 3 layer balls on Tour. Might even be the odd player with a 2 layer ball.  Have urethane covers and ionomer covers.  Have different dimple patterns and depths to make balls fly differently than other balls.  

In this regard, leave equipment alone and standardize the ball.  Require a certain amount of flat surface area, specify dimple number and pattern, layers, cover material, and other parameters and be done with it.  

[BostonSal]

The USGA is doing its best to achieve totally irrelevant status with the recreational player.

It got there with me a long time ago, but soon I'll have more company in my attitude.

I've always felt that they got their priorities wrong.

Rules should be geared to the recreational player foremost.

If that results in elite players constantly threatening to break sixty, I don't care.

There are a lot more of us than there are of them.  

 

I play golf to enjoy the fresh air, the amenties of our club, and the socializing with my friends.

The USGA doesn't really contribute to any of that, so to me, they can do what they want.

 

 

 

[DaveP043]

37 minutes ago, BostonSal said:

I play golf to enjoy the fresh air, the amenties of our club, and the socializing with my friends.

The USGA doesn't really contribute to any of that, so to me, they can do what they want.

The R&A and the USGA spent quite a bit of time and effort in completely re-writing the Rules so that they are more consistent and easier to understand for all of us golfers.  In many spots, the Rules were revised, or Model Local Rules developed, specifically to improve pace of play.  If you never compete with anyone else, you don't really need the Rules at all, but they've been substantially improved.  The USGA spent lots of time and effort working with Golf Associations around the world in updating the Handicap System, working towards a worldwide system.  I don't think that was a huge change for must of us, but its a step towards what I believe is an admirable goal, and it certainly affects the "recreational player".  Perhaps you're not aware, the USGA does significant research into turfgrass, both in developing new varieties and in proper care and management, a huge contribution to the playing conditions we all experience.  They're not perfect, and I've disagreed with a couple of the Rules changes, but the USGA and R&A have always had a significant positive impact on recreational golfers.

[LICC]

8 hours ago, BostonSal said:

The USGA is doing its best to achieve totally irrelevant status with the recreational player.

It got there with me a long time ago, but soon I'll have more company in my attitude.

I've always felt that they got their priorities wrong.

Rules should be geared to the recreational player foremost.

If that results in elite players constantly threatening to break sixty, I don't care.

There are a lot more of us than there are of them.  

 

I play golf to enjoy the fresh air, the amenties of our club, and the socializing with my friends.

The USGA doesn't really contribute to any of that, so to me, they can do what they want.

 

 

 

Millions of recreational golfers like to watch the elite pros as fans. As the rules affect how the game is played at the elite level and thus the fan viewing experience, the applicability of the rules at that level does affect the recreational golfer/fan's enjoyment of watching the sport. Thus the idea of bifurcation.

[LICC]

I read an interview with Robert Trent Jones II where he supported the idea of bifurcating by banning the use of tees by the pros. I think this, or a limit on tee height, is a valid idea for discussion as a means to rein in distance.

[silver & black]

12 hours ago, LICC said:

I read an interview with Robert Trent Jones II where he supported the idea of bifurcating by banning the use of tees by the pros. I think this, or a limit on tee height, is a valid idea for discussion as a means to rein in distance.

I disagree with eliminating tees and/or height. Today's drivers are not meant for no tees or lowered height of tees. You can't expect the pros to be okay with hitting the bottom of their driver when it isn't designed that way. I'm sure some would adapt, but it's kind of ridiculous to hamstring players like that.

Just let the game alone. Why does it matter if pros drive the ball 400 yards? The top players will still be the top players. Does it matter if scores drop to 50 something if all the pros have the same opportunity to do so?  It doesn't affect me in any way. That's why they are pros and I'm not... just like anything else in life.

 

 

 

 

[LICC]

2 hours ago, silver & black said:

I disagree with eliminating tees and/or height. Today's drivers are not meant for no tees or lowered height of tees. You can't expect the pros to be okay with hitting the bottom of their driver when it isn't designed that way. I'm sure some would adapt, but it's kind of ridiculous to hamstring players like that.

Just let the game alone. Why does it matter if pros drive the ball 400 yards? The top players will still be the top players. Does it matter if scores drop to 50 something if all the pros have the same opportunity to do so?  It doesn't affect me in any way. That's why they are pros and I'm not... just like anything else in life.

 

 

 

 

There are 20 pages of reasons above why it matters. 

[BostonSal]

On 1/13/2022 at 10:10 AM, DaveP043 said:

The R&A and the USGA spent quite a bit of time and effort in completely re-writing the Rules so that they are more consistent and easier to understand for all of us golfers.  In many spots, the Rules were revised, or Model Local Rules developed, specifically to improve pace of play.  If you never compete with anyone else, you don't really need the Rules at all, but they've been substantially improved.  The USGA spent lots of time and effort working with Golf Associations around the world in updating the Handicap System, working towards a worldwide system.  I don't think that was a huge change for must of us, but its a step towards what I believe is an admirable goal, and it certainly affects the "recreational player".  Perhaps you're not aware, the USGA does significant research into turfgrass, both in developing new varieties and in proper care and management, a huge contribution to the playing conditions we all experience.  They're not perfect, and I've disagreed with a couple of the Rules changes, but the USGA and R&A have always had a significant positive impact on recreational golfers.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, Dave.  You make all good points.

The USGA does not defray the cost of my golf activities, however, so things like a fifteenth club or box groove wedges don't keep me up at night.  Premium cart bags tend to be made for 15 clubs anyway.  I do adhere respectfully to the actual playing rules for whatever that's worth.

I know that many recreational players also enjoy pro golf as a specatator sport, and that would impact their feeling on the matter.    I, however, have not attended a pro tournament since the 1980s.   Today, the game is 100% recreation for me.

[silver & black]

4 hours ago, LICC said:

There are 20 pages of reasons above why it matters. 

Put it this way... it doesn't matter to me. It probably doesn't matter to most of us either.

[DaveP043]

4 hours ago, BostonSal said:

The USGA does not defray the cost of my golf activities

I'd bet that the courses that you play benefit significantly from the research that the USGA has done over the past decades.  Your playing conditions are better, and maintenance costs are lower, (so greens fees are lower) than they would be without the advances in turfgrass varieties, chemical and water requirements, and equipment.  If you play golf, your life is better at least in part because of the USGA.