Bifurcation/Ball Roll Back Discussion

[PMookie]

Well, folks, the folks at the R&A and USGA are dead-set on limiting distance now. Bifurcation is coming.

These folks are SO out-of-touch with the recreational golfer, the 99% of golfers they SUPPOSEDLY serve!

 
https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/news/r-and-a-bifurcation-in-golf-reduce-hitting-distances/

[LICC]

Bifurcation would align with allowing recreational golfers to continue to use the maximum conforming equipment. This is similar to professional baseball using wood bats when everyone else uses metal. You may still disagree with bifurcation, but not because it hurts recreational golfers.

Edited February 2, 2021 by LICC

[Shapotomous]

I never really understood the distress over bifurcation. 

Most sports have rules & equipment differences between professional and non professional ranks, between mens and womens leagues of the same sport and rules differences between USA leagues and international play for some sports as well.  Whatever level you want to play at just use the approved equipment and play by the rules established for that competition.  

 

[revkev]

I'm sure we will hear all about the evil's of bifurcation shortly but I'm not in that camp.  I played baseball in High School and College at a very interesting time.  My senior year of High School was 1974, the first year that I ever saw an aluminum bat.  Of course I didn't use it but you would have thought all of us would because we had a guy go from hitting .260 his junior year to .420 his senior year - duh.....  In college the coach required us to use aluminum bats - I hit right around .300 just as I had in High School against far inferior pitch - duh.....  I never thought that we weren't playing baseball whether we were using wood or aluminum, 7 innings or 9, DH or no (designated runners for the catchers in college, too) BTW.

 

Likewise with golf - bifurcation exists already - certainly you have the option to play a back set of tees if you tee it up where a tour event is played I supposed you could perhaps be playing from the same set as used in a tournament - but certainly not under the same course conditions, with the same pin placements - all that stuff makes a dramatic difference in the game - rest assured that the scores at the US Open this summer will be higher than they were this past week at Torey Pines.  It will be the same course but it won't.  

True this will be another step in that direction but its that or making a very challenging game more challenging still for the rest of us - I've busted my you know what to recapture 15 or so yards.  There is certainly no issue with me hitting the ball too far and I'm a fairly skilled golfer for an amateur.  If for some reason the ruling bodies and tours think that they need to create local rules to change the balance of value per skill in the game - so be it - just leave us alone please.

[ejgaudette]

I agree with those hear as well, that bifurcation does both me. They are playing the game at a level I can only dream of so they want to make the distance aspect a bit harder, that's fine. The courses could obviously be changed a bit with some longer grass, but if there ball is a bit slower, or their drivers need to be a bit slower that is fine by me. I think golf can get a bit too hung up on making sure everyone is playing by the exact same set of rules sometimes, when the round played at your local course is more like a pick up hockey game than the NHL. You still are playing and having fun and that is what matters. Let the amateurs play what they have and just limit the tour if that is really what they feel needs to be done.

[FrogginBullfish]

For me it's less about the actual bifurcation than it is that I just flat-out disagree with the reasoning they're pushing for implementing it. I don't think distance is an issue, but rather people are making it an issue by refusing to adapt to the way the modern game is played. When you have architects who are unwilling to adapt their so-called design intent, which is another rabbit hole I don't wish to go down at this point, but would instead just rather take the hard earned distance advantage away from someone like Bryson so they feel better about the number on the bottom of the club he hit into a green, it's not something I can get behind.

Golf is a game built around getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible. How you get there shouldn't matter. There's a lot of ways to shoot the same score in golf. But it still takes a complete game to win on tour. Time and time again we see this reflected in the player hoisting the trophy at the end of the week.

This is just my opinion of course and I've gotten involved in far too many Twitter discussions on the topic in the past that have basically gone nowhere. I don't expect my take to sway any opinions here either on this topic but I'm sharing it anyway.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[THEZIPR23]

Bifurcation will go down as the worst thing to ever happen to this game. 

[cnosil]

I am in the wait and see corner on this. We already have some bifurcation within golf...one ball local rule, rangefinder usage, and tee boxes to name a couple.

The biggest issue is that there really isn’t a good problem statement. Just saying distance or that courses are becoming obsolete really isn’t defining a problem. If you limit distance like we have already done with COR rules you will still have people that hit it farther than others. If we look at major course setups we can control scoring, if that defines “obsolete”. We don’t see players scoring in the 50s with any regularity.

I’d like to know what they expect to see with these changes.

[Middler]

I assumed bifurcation meant there would be two classes of balls, todays standard and a restricted distance ball of some sort for pros. It never occurred to me they might require two classes of equipment for professional competition - that seems ridiculous to me.

And I wonder when a developing aspiring pro switches balls or equipment in their career. e.g. you get to use whatever you want in junior golf, high school golf, college golf - and then you turn pro and use balls and/or equipment that sets you back substantially? Huh? Imagine working for years to develop the skills to drive the ball 320 yards, and then being forced to hit 250 yards off the tee thereafter - sound good?

[DiscipleofPenick]

This is great! I thought they messed up big time a few years ago when they didn't do it. Let the .5% of guys on tour do one thing, leave the rest of us - especially public golfers - alone

Take Dead Aim

[PMookie]

39 minutes ago, Middler said:

I assumed bifurcation meant there would be two classes of balls, todays standard and a restricted distance ball of some sort for pros. It never occurred to me they might require two classes of equipment for professional competition - that seems ridiculous to me.

And I wonder when a developing aspiring pro switches balls or equipment in their career. e.g. you get to use whatever you want in junior golf, high school golf, college golf - and then you turn pro and use balls and/or equipment that sets you back substantially? Huh? Imagine working for years to develop the skills to drive the ball 320 yards, and then being forced to hit 250 yards off the tee thereafter - sound good?

My thoughts exactly. 

[PMookie]

45 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I am in the wait and see corner on this. We already have some bifurcation within golf...one ball local rule, rangefinder usage, and tee boxes to name a couple.

The biggest issue is that there really isn’t a good problem statement. Just saying distance or that courses are becoming obsolete really isn’t defining a problem. If you limit distance like we have already done with COR rules you will still have people that hit it farther than others. If we look at major course setups we can control scoring, if that defines “obsolete”. We don’t see players scoring in the 50s with any regularity.

I’d like to know what they expect to see with these changes.

Zach Johnson will still be 30-40 yards behind DJ.... Yep. Same in wondering what they expect to see.

[Hook DeLoft]

I have never been opposed to bifurcation.  I just don't see how it is harmful to me or other amateurs.  If it happens and you want to see how you stack up against the best, then buy the equipment they use and find out.  If you think the game is too hard as it is, move up a set of tees.  If you are an outstanding junior golfer hoping to make the PGA tour some day, then I have no doubt there will be opportunities for you to play in tournaments with the rolled back equipment, just as there are now wooden bat leagues for young baseball players.  I used to play a lot of half court basketball at the YMCA and I don't remember being tempted to quit because no one wanted to play full court.  Of course, I do have something of a laissez-faire attitude toward the rules.  If I am playing in a game against someone, as long as both of us are playing by the same rules, I don't care:  if you want us to play strictly by the rules of golf (which the tour doesn't BTW), that's ok with me; if you want us to improve our lies everywhere, that's ok with me. 

Most of us think hitting the ball farther and using more forgiving clubs have made the game either more fun or easier, but the handicap of the average golfer has stayed nearly the same for a very long time.

Another thing.  25 years ago, I was a member at a course that was opened around 1920.  Most par 4's from the regular tees were between 300 and 350 yards.  One was about 230 yards steeply uphill.  The longest par 3 was about 170 yards.  Now equipment allows me to hit the ball off the tee as far as I did back then, but I play a longer course.  Playing that shorter course with balata balls and persimmon drivers would be just as fun today as it was then.  And the guys who hit the ball a lot farther than me then would still have the advantage of added length.

[LICC]

1 hour ago, FrogginBullfish said:

For me it's less about the actual bifurcation than it is that I just flat-out disagree with the reasoning they're pushing for implementing it. I don't think distance is an issue, but rather people are making it an issue by refusing to adapt to the way the modern game is played. When you have architects who are unwilling to adapt their so-called design intent, which is another rabbit hole I don't wish to go down at this point, but would instead just rather take the hard earned distance advantage away from someone like Bryson so they feel better about the number on the bottom of the club he hit into a green, it's not something I can get behind.

Golf is a game built around getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible. How you get there shouldn't matter. There's a lot of ways to shoot the same score in golf. But it still takes a complete game to win on tour. Time and time again we see this reflected in the player hoisting the trophy at the end of the week.

This is just my opinion of course and I've gotten involved in far too many Twitter discussions on the topic in the past that have basically gone nowhere. I don't expect my take to sway any opinions here either on this topic but I'm sharing it anyway.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

For the Tour, distance has become a major issue. The game has changed substantially from prior to the equipment advances of 20+ years ago. Courses have been lengthened yet still, today there really is no such thing as a par-5, Par-4s have become mostly driver and wedge or a forced layup off the tee, and most all par-3s have to be 210+ yards. The strategy of the game has become boring at the Tour level, which affects fans who enjoy watching Tour golf. I would love it if a 300-yard drive was meaningful again, meaning less than 10% of the Tour had the distance to consistently get there.

Edited February 2, 2021 by LICC

[Hook DeLoft]

5 minutes ago, PMookie said:

Zach Johnson will still be 30-40 yards behind DJ.... Yep. Same in wondering what they expect to see.

With major championships, they have to find a way to make older courses more difficult by making it much harder to score with a wedge in your hands.  That has led to the ridiculous setups of so many U.S. Open courses.  Remember the last time at Shinnecock when only shots that landed in a 5 foot circle were not punished?  At some point the pro game will be like watching a combo of a long drive contest and the national miniature golf championship. Without bifurcation, we will see 350 yard par 3's and no par 5's, there won't be room.  I recognize that there are others who will find that entertaining but count me out.

[FrogginBullfish]

Like I said in my post, I'm of the opinion that distance is not an issue at any level. I've heard the arguments you make countless times and none of them do anything to sway me, and frankly some of them are just flat out inaccurate. I don't care how someone shoots 68 and nor do I care what club a player hits into a green. They still have to play a complete game to win on Tour.

For the Tour, distance has become a major issue. The game has changed substantially from prior to the equipment advances of 20+ years ago. Courses have been lengthened yet still, today there really is no such thing as a par-5, Par-4s have become mostly driver and wedge or a forced layup off the tee, and most all par-3s have to be 210+ yards. The strategy of the game has become boring at the Tour level, which affects fans who enjoy watching Tour golf. I would love it if a 300-yard drive was meaningful again, meaning less than 10% of the Tour had the distance to consistently get there.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Thin2win]

Course setup is a easy enough fix. They just currently go about it the exact opposite way. Instead of lengthening courses to try to get Driver/7i into par 4s. They just need to shorten the course so that driving it 50 yards further isn't as statistically relevant. I.e. being 180 out instead of 230 out is a much bigger benefit that 110 vs 160 in strokes gained. Make the courses shorter, mow the fairways 1/8" taller for less tour roll, make the greens much smaller, make the rough around the greens much deeper. That is it. No more land needed and less mowing. 

That said, on topic. I have no issue with tour players using different equipment. Many of them use shafts/balls/clubs that we can't get or use anyway. The callaway tour ball isn't the callaway store ball, titleist has the x number of variants that players can use. They already spend the $$ developing different tech for the tour. I don't think it is the right way to go, but I don't think it is the end of my golfing days. 

[LICC]

59 minutes ago, FrogginBullfish said:

Like I said in my post, I'm of the opinion that distance is not an issue at any level. I've heard the arguments you make countless times and none of them do anything to sway me, and frankly some of them are just flat out inaccurate. I don't care how someone shoots 68 and nor do I care what club a player hits into a green. They still have to play a complete game to win on Tour.

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

 

Just because you don't care if Tour golf no longer has strategy and whether someone is hitting a wedge or a long-iron, doesn't mean there isn't a problem. It just means that you don't value the strategies and nuances of watching Tour golf. Very many golf fans do, and that is where there is a problem with the equipment-fueled distance explosion of the last 20+ years.

[LICC]

1 hour ago, Thin2win said:

Course setup is a easy enough fix. They just currently go about it the exact opposite way. Instead of lengthening courses to try to get Driver/7i into par 4s. They just need to shorten the course so that driving it 50 yards further isn't as statistically relevant. I.e. being 180 out instead of 230 out is a much bigger benefit that 110 vs 160 in strokes gained. Make the courses shorter, mow the fairways 1/8" taller for less tour roll, make the greens much smaller, make the rough around the greens much deeper. That is it. No more land needed and less mowing. 

That said, on topic. I have no issue with tour players using different equipment. Many of them use shafts/balls/clubs that we can't get or use anyway. The callaway tour ball isn't the callaway store ball, titleist has the x number of variants that players can use. They already spend the $$ developing different tech for the tour. I don't think it is the right way to go, but I don't think it is the end of my golfing days. 

Making the courses shorter would just lead to more fairway woods and irons off the tees. That isn't the ideal result.

[FrogginBullfish]

Actually I do value the strategies and nuances of Tour golf. The reason Bryson went down his path of hitting it longer is precisely because the modern strategy system he uses (DECADE) and Strokes Gained metrics demonstrated to him that that would be the best way for him to win major championships. Winning the US Open at Winged Foot only validated that.

Tour golf always has, and will always have strategy involved. It's not gone away cause Bryson can hit it 350 yards regularly. There's still strategy involved in playing golf that way. Your failure to see that, and the failure of others in your position, is to me, a much bigger problem than any perceived problems of distance at the Tour level.

That being said, I have no interest in rehashing this discussion for the umpteenth time. I merely wanted to offer my position for posterity in this thread. I did not want to engage in another pointless argument on the subject so I will not be responding to any further arguments from you.

Just because you don't care if Tour golf no longer has strategy and whether someone is hitting a wedge or a long-iron, doesn't mean there isn't a problem. It just means that you don't value the strategies and nuances of watching Tour golf. Very many golf fans do, and that is where there is a problem with the equipment-fueled distance explosion of the last 20+ years.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app