Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[LICC]

On 3/14/2023 at 1:31 PM, revkev said:

Actually they did last year.

 

And we still had a guy break the home run record.  Athletes are getting bigger and stronger, that's not changing.  Even if you were to roll everything back to 1990 you could still fine tune those clubs and balls to get more out of them than they got back then.  Are you going to say that guys can't use trackman to practice and fit?  How would you legislate that?  

 

To me Golf seems very health right now on all levels.  I understand that you can never stand still or you go backwards but when something is healthy radical changes aren't necessary.  We've had tournaments won with a winning score single digits under par as well is mid 20's under par thus far this season.  I don't think it's gotten too easy.  

 

I did think that the response to the press release today was a collective - "Thanks for all you do but no thanks to this one.  We'll pass."  As DaveP wrote none of this is a surprise.  It's been talked about some the 1980's.  They should have done it then when they had the chance.  If this was that big a concern at least.  Instead of this they should forward look, consider what might come next, what might be good or bad for the game and legislate that.  

Give today's players 1990 equipment and they would hit the balls roughly the same as the players in 1990. You would see minimal differences.

[LICC]

On 3/14/2023 at 2:03 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

It’s simple stop messing with the game and they can keep doing what they want in their sanctioned events. There doesn’t have to be a rule per se, they an work with the pga tour on course setup each week to make it more like the USGA events, but the pga tour isn’t going to allow that so what the usga and R&A are doing is trying to force their stance on the tour. Creating a problem because people with money want to build a course to host a pga tour event and they feel like they need more acreage instead of more creative designs.

It would suck if the ball companies said since the usga and R&A want to go this route we aren’t going to have an elite player ball and a line for the non elite golfers so we will put all money into the rollback and will only sell that ball at retail as well as have it played in elite level tournaments.

There would be a lot of ticked off golfers

Exactly. As I mentioned this is the ruing bodies trying to force their stance on the professional tours who have not worked well with them.

I hope the tours tell them to pound sand

Controlling distance through bifurcation is a far better option than narrowing fairways and growing rough to penal heights on all courses. That would detract from course strategy and design and be boring. Rolling back the ball adds to course strategy.

[LICC]

On 3/14/2023 at 2:04 PM, GolfSpy MPR said:

My hottest take on all this rollback stuff: the panic response to longer hitters was stupid and created the problem.

When guys hit it longer, you should respond by making courses *shorter*. "Tiger-proofing," lengthening the course, just gives longer hitters even more of an advantage over the shorter hitters.

I can (potentially) hang with Scottie Scheffler in a putting contest inside 5'. Every single yard we move away from the hole, his distance and skill advantage over me is exponentially magnified.

The classic courses made "obsolete" by distance gains leaned into their obsolescence by lengthening.

Don't roll back the ball. If you want to "balance" the game by making power less of a factor, shorten the courses.

That is not feasible. It would dumb down play. 7000+ yard courses are already too short for most of the Tour. There are no par-5s anymore. Par-5s are now long par-4s. Most all par-3s have to be 200 yards to be a challenge. Most par-4s are now short irons or wedges on 2nd shots. Shortening the courses would turn the courses into pitch and putts.

[Albatrass]

3 hours ago, cnosil said:

I assume that you will be switching to the elite ball?     
 

This is really the follow up to this decision.   If the tours and elite competitions choose to invoke the rule, which ball will you play?   

If that is the ball that is available to use according to "The Rules of Golf" I will be ok with it.  I will still choose the company I want.  

[fixyurdivot]

14 hours ago, MattWillGolf said:

To combat excessive iron head patina I read that the R&A has consulted with Aaron Rai to develop standards for the mandatory use iron head covers which they hope to implement by 2027.

Jamie doesn't know this yet, so keep it on the down-low, but if he should win either the MGS Pick 'Em or FTx league (low probability mind you), we're sending him a set of iron head covers.

[cnosil]

6 minutes ago, Albatrass said:

If that is the ball that is available to use according to "The Rules of Golf" I will be ok with it.  I will still choose the company I want.  

Current balls will still be acceptable under the rules of golf.  The MLR that is being discussed is like the one ball rule or not allowing rangefinders/GPS for elite competitions it will need to be made a condition of the competition.   At this point the tours haven’t even said if they are going to invoke the condition.

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, funkyjudge said:

The other factor that others have brought up is that, since “elite golfers” do not pay for their golf balls, the substantial costs incurred by golf ball manufacturers to produce balls for use in the elite competitions will most certainly be passed on to the golfing public in the form of increased golf ball prices for other golf balls.

WHAAAATTTT???  The hell you say!!  See you all at USGA HQ!!

[Albatrass]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

Not to mention that neither the course length nor driving distance differences that we are talking about here will really have a direct correlation to pace of play.

I think hunting for balls taking penalties does slow pace.  Unless you just drop one and play.  This is only my view

[Albatrass]

5 minutes ago, cnosil said:

Current balls will still be acceptable under the rules of golf.  The MLR that is being discussed is like the one ball rule or not allowing rangefinders/GPS for elite competitions it will need to be made a condition of the competition.   At this point the tours haven’t even said if they are going to invoke the condition.

I understand that.  What I am thinking about is increasing the diameter of the ball so everyone will be able to use the same ball.  The pro's will not be able to hit it as far as they do now.  Driving par fours will be a lot more risky.  If something is not done courses will not be cost effective to build and maintain.  The ones that will be built the fees will be so high the lower income and medium income families will not be able to play.  If you have plenty of income it will not matter, and you will not care how much is spent to build it or what the fees are.  I am not sure but I will bet there are more courses closing than are being built due to cost for the owners and the players.

[Subdiver1]

1 minute ago, LICC said:

Controlling distance through bifurcation is a far better option than narrowing fairways and growing rough to penal heights on all courses. That would detract from course strategy and design and be boring. Rolling back the ball adds to course strategy.

How do you figure?  

Course design 101 is to place hazards in places where they come into play for those who are supposed to be playing from each tee set, set for the distance those players are supposed to be playing from (e.g. 190 5-iron X 36 = 6800 yd tees) so fairway bunkers, cross fairway hazards etc. would come into play somewhere around tee shot distance or where a good tee shot puts the next shot into a lay-up or 85% chance your in it situation. Narrowing fairways for tournaments and thickening the rough have been shown to absolutely BURY the players who cannot keep it in the fairway (e.g. '07 @ Oakmont, '20 Winged Foot).  

They did a GREAT job refurbishing our course in southern GA back in the 90s and in the process narrowed the fairways, that lasted about 6 weeks before the complaints go so bad they had to cut them back so guys, and gals, could keep it in the fairway.  Up here in WA there are courses where you can watch the ball go in and not find it with 42 people and 3 hunting dogs trained to find surlyn; and if you do find it in the fescue, 70% of the time or more you're probably better off taking the unplayable.  

Forcing players to play strategically because of hazard variation between course is what golf is all about.  That is why a guy who is a 2 on his home course where there is no strategy, who plays 99.5% on one or two courses, can easily be a 14 when they travel, especially when you travel to new regions with different grass, elevation etc. that you might not have on home courses.  Reducing ball flight is one-dimensional.  AND it only screws amateurs.  The big guys are still not only going to blow it by you, their accuracy AND distance advantage are still going to be there.  

For simplicity sake let's say they make a rule that drops flight 15%.  If your average drive is 250 that Adding variation in ball flight means (250*.15=37.5) your new average is 213; the guys your playing against averaged 285 (285*.15=42.5) dropping his average to 242; you're STILL 30 yards back.  if you are using the formulas for tee selection instead of ego (e.g. https://www.golfwrx.com/642381/how-to-select-the-proper-tees-to-play-from-what-tees-you-should-play-from/) were playing from the 6200-6500 yard tees (Whites?) you are now playing the Red (?) tees, and struggling to get there.  Go forbid you are one of those guys who has a 250 average drive distance, before the restriction, and thinks he should be playing from the 7200 yd tips.  On the other hand, if you narrow fairways and put hazards in the right place you open the long guy with the ego to drilling one into the hazard while you come up safe, then play smoothly down the middle.  As a relatively long player I can tell you that, from experience, my game benefits when I play new courses strategically (hybrids and irons off tees) rather than trying to blow through the course using my distance "advantage." And God help you of you are long, but crooked on those courses where water, waste areas and OB are prevalent.  Narrow fairways and penalty areas ARE the basis of course strategy; I am not sure how you can argue otherwise, but I am willing to listen to the argument.

[Subdiver1]

4 hours ago, Albatrass said:

You are right. For me and I believe a lot of others I may not hit it as straight, but I will not go as deep into the rough.  Having a somewhat easier second shot is a lot better than hunting for a ball and taking penalties.  LOL  Have a great day.

If you know you are likely to be "deeper in the rough" on a given hole then play a shorter club.  That IS the epitome of strategy.  When I am not hitting my driver straight I, if I am playing smart, hit something else off the tee.  That is what drove me (pun intended) from a 4 to a 7 last year; I was too stubborn (trying to work it out on the course instead of with a few lessons) to play smart on days and in places where I should have.  my argument stands: for simplicity sake let's say they make a rule that drops flight 15%.  If your average drive is 250 that Adding variation in ball flight means (250*.15=37.5) your new average is 213; the guys your playing against averaged 285 (285*.15=42.5) dropping his average to 242; you're STILL 30 yards back.  The biggest improvement in your game and handicap will come from learning to play to your game AND the conditions, not just hoping a "shorter" flight ball will keep you from going "deeper in the rough." 

[storm319]

5 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Own opinion: The pros regardless of rules play a different game. Their skill level, crowds, money, pressure, tee boxes, pin locations and so much more are on an entirely different level. 

Yes, this would reduce their distance some, however Mike Whan had a good point. This is to stop these gains and help many in the industry over the next 10-40 years. 

The pros are still going to be on an entirely different level. 

There will be a transition period and maybe some bumps, but as this isn't till 2026 anyway if it goes through I don't think it's really that big of a deal. 

A change yes, but not something that is going to be Deal breaking or life changing. 

Also other than purist reasons (honest question) why do we care that pros play a different ball? Their gear is already tweaked and dialed to a insane level, new wedges every tournament and so much more. Why does them play a shorter Ball hurt the game or change our viewing experience?

Could this make it possible to go to better courses on tour? Could this make par more relevant for the purists? 

This (if you couldnt tell) doesn't really phase me either way. I will still watch and enjoy the game. Not like I'm going to be hitting their distances even with a normal ball. 

Also I don't think this will happen, but what if this makes our golf balls cheaper!!!

Again, the pro game may look different, but all are governed under the same set of rules (until recently). MLRs are fine for adapting to certain conditions (like weather/environmental accommodations), but the use of these to effectively create equipment bifurcation is undermining the USGA's greatest accomplishment.

I am not concerned about established pros as they will adapt and be supported by the big 5 ball OEMs. I am also not concerned about the recreational ams as there appears to be no impact other than the potential for big OEMs to pass on some of the added costs that this will bring. The demographic that will likely be challenged by this the most will be those in the middle (mid-high level ams, working/aspiring pros). The line between MLR adoption vs not will not be clean and may bring upon a lot of confusion and potentially some barriers. Given that there is likely to be low retail demand for this new MLR spec'd ball and the fact that the big OEMs have historically not been fond of offering products that don't sell, there are likely to be availability issues for these balls for players that may be forced to compete with them. Barriers to entry in these transitional gray areas could have an impact on future talent pools. 

Not only did the USGA not make a compelling argument (IMHO) that a rollback was necessary or quantify a goal (or even define "desirable" or "sustainable"), this proposal is not going to solve their perceived problems while creating new problems/barriers for the game. If sustainability was their primary concern, the proposed rollback would be much more drastic (not to mention the fact that Whan mentioned needing to act now so that they do not pass the burden into the future for all global courses even though this proposal really only impacts a fraction of a percentage of all courses in the world). Ultimately the USGA has a failed track record with respect to rolling back equipment regulations and I do not have faith that this will be any different. 

[LICC]

15 minutes ago, Subdiver1 said:

Forcing players to play strategically because of hazard variation between course

Yes, and pinching expected landing areas with tight fairways and penal rough on both sides takes out all risk-reward strategy. It defines exactly the spot to hit with no thinking or decision making. Boring.

[LICC]

1 hour ago, Ben_Howell34 said:

If you look at Augusta, the under par number has pretty much stayed the same, barring weather.

Augusta makes changes to the course every other year to keep up with the distance. They bought property behind the tee at 13 to lengthen it this year. They are always adding trees and removing trees, moving bunkers, etc. Hardly any courses can do that so often as Augusta.

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 hours ago, Albatrass said:

You are right. For me and I believe a lot of others I may not hit it as straight, but I will not go as deep into the rough.  Having a somewhat easier second shot is a lot better than hunting for a ball and taking penalties.  LOL  Have a great day.

What makes you think you won’t hit it as deep into the rough if you are doing so already and there will be increased spin with the new ball

26 minutes ago, Albatrass said:

I understand that.  What I am thinking about is increasing the diameter of the ball so everyone will be able to use the same ball.  The pro's will not be able to hit it as far as they do now.  Driving par fours will be a lot more risky.  If something is not done courses will not be cost effective to build and maintain.  The ones that will be built the fees will be so high the lower income and medium income families will not be able to play.  If you have plenty of income it will not matter, and you will not care how much is spent to build it or what the fees are.  I am not sure but I will bet there are more courses closing than are being built due to cost for the owners and the players.

So you want to penalize every golfer by having them play a ball designed to go shorter distances. Now the guy that hits it 200 off the tee especially with a slice is going to have a bigger slice and less distance. 
 

The distance issue isn’t on regular public courses; it’s a perceived issue on current courses and those looking to build new ones with the goal in mind of hosting a pga tour event.

 

[GolfSpy MPR]

Some useful context for this discussion:

EDIT, in summary: more PGA Tour rounds have been played since 2021 at less than 7200 yards than have been at 7200 or longer.

[ejgaudette]

3 minutes ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

Some useful context for this discussion:

 

Also good to point out this is not the tipped out scorecard yardage but what it played at since not every hole plays its full length each day. We often see courses that measure at 7600 say play closer to 7300 to 7200 most days in the actual tournament.

[JohnSmalls]

I can solve this wayyyy quicker than the USGA did.  All equipment stays the same.  Pros must play all shots longer than 150 yds with a headcover firmly attached.  Distance problem solved.  

[cnosil]

In the back of my head, what I think is going to happen is the rule will be invoked, players will learn how to hit the ball roughly the same distance they do today, there will be no change in how golf courses are played, and scores will remain about the same.    Net effect of this new ball: Zero.

 

[Subdiver1]

7 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Own opinion: The pros regardless of rules play a different game. Their skill level, crowds, money, pressure, tee boxes, pin locations and so much more are on an entirely different level. 

Yes, this would reduce their distance some, however Mike Whan had a good point. This is to stop these gains and help many in the industry over the next 10-40 years. 

The pros are still going to be on an entirely different level. 

There will be a transition period and maybe some bumps, but as this isn't till 2026 anyway if it goes through I don't think it's really that big of a deal. 

A change yes, but not something that is going to be Deal breaking or life changing. 

Also other than purist reasons (honest question) why do we care that pros play a different ball? Their gear is already tweaked and dialed to a insane level, new wedges every tournament and so much more. Why does them play a shorter Ball hurt the game or change our viewing experience?

Could this make it possible to go to better courses on tour? Could this make par more relevant for the purists? 

This (if you couldnt tell) doesn't really phase me either way. I will still watch and enjoy the game. Not like I'm going to be hitting their distances even with a normal ball. 

Also I don't think this will happen, but what if this makes our golf balls cheaper!!!

Dude,

Agree. 

No, disagree. Let the market dictate the industry and the game. Artificial rules only benefit the big 3 (or 5).  Magnifying the R&D requirement will destroy the DTC options that have become available over the last few years; which have drive other improvements in options and pricing.  When Snell, Maxfli, PXG etc. can bring a ball that compares to TM, Bridestone and Titleist top offerings at 2/3rd the price we have options.  If those guys go away what do you think the new "premium" ball will cost?    

Yes,

No, it will be a big deal because if you play any tournament golf you will have varying rules everywhere you go. So one place you may be playing your gamer, and another not be allowed to; or you may decide to play the same "restricted ball" everywhere, but when others you play against are not "required to" subject to local rules you are add another disadvantage; so depending on whether you are a recreational or competitive player is could very well be a big deal.  Add to that the effect sales and R&D have on what is available to us...see above. 

Probably not, but as above.

Probably not, but again, see above.  We do care, and the manufacturer cares as you can see in the marketing and the market.  Guys who play to a 22 handicap think that playing the ProV1 vs, the Toursoft will help their game.  Maybe, but if you are dumping half a dozen in the woods or the drink every round is it really smart to spent that $$ on ProVs? Or should you be saving it for lessons that will allow you to play one ball for multiple rounds?  To continue, the answer is that R&D affects our options AND again, if you are a competitive player and subject to varying rules it WILL absolutely impact you.

Par is still relevant.  You are talking about. 1% of 1% of 1% of all the players out there.  Par is judged by overall play, not 4 days a year of elite players. And did you see the average score for the field at the Players?  Only 4 holes averaged under par for the tournament (https://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/2023/the-players-championship/R2023011/course-stats)

Still good discussion.  It can be fun to drop a few points into the conversation and see what pops up from others.  Especially where certain passions are on display

Back to the earlier point on R&D cost and DTC involvement in the market.  If we want to keep prices down we need more competition from the "little" guys who are producing a quality alternative (not that I would generally classify Dicks as a "little" guy, but in comparison to TM. Titleist, Bridgestone, they are comparatively under powered in the industry)to help keep the big guys from continuing to elevate the price we feel.  Remember, the Pros aren't paying for their equipment, we are.

Cheers

[storm319]

1 hour ago, chisag said:

 

... To be fair, Augusta has the real estate to continue lengthening their course while many others do not.  in the last 20 years the AN has gone from 6,985 yards to the current 7,475 yards. The fact that the scores have stayed the same certainly indicate had they stayed at 6,985 the scores would be much lower.

... But obviously the design of the course also play a huge role. Depending on pin placements, #15 dictates a difficult option whether going for it in two or 3. Such a great hole. And #13 can reward the longest hitters if they are very accurate, yet we see so many balls in the trees/pine straw to the right, so far from a bomb and gauge hole. This year it has gone from 510 to 545 yds and it will be interesting to see how that effects scoring. 

Just to clarify, ANGC has purchased around 200 acres of adjacent land in the last two decades, but very little of it allocated to expansion of the primary course. Part of it has been for Master's logistics, some to build lodging for Master's players and non-resident members, some potentially for a 2nd full length course, and the rest to expand the buffer between the club and the rest of the city.

Ultimately, my solution to #13 is simple...move up the tee box a little and change it to a par 4 for one week per year. 

[GolfSpy_APH]

2 minutes ago, Subdiver1 said:

Dude,

Agree. 

No, disagree. Let the market dictate the industry and the game. Artificial rules only benefit the big 3 (or 5).  Magnifying the R&D requirement will destroy the DTC options that have become available over the last few years; which have drive other improvements in options and pricing.  When Snell, Maxfli, PXG etc. can bring a ball that compares to TM, Bridestone and Titleist top offerings at 2/3rd the price we have options.  If those guys go away what do you think the new "premium" ball will cost?    

Yes,

No, it will be a big deal because if you play any tournament golf you will have varying rules everywhere you go. So one place you may be playing your gamer, and another not be allowed to; or you may decide to play the same "restricted ball" everywhere, but when others you play against are not "required to" subject to local rules you are add another disadvantage; so depending on whether you are a recreational or competitive player is could very well be a big deal.  Add to that the effect sales and R&D have on what is available to us...see above. 

Probably not, but as above.

Probably not, but again, see above.  We do care, and the manufacturer cares as you can see in the marketing and the market.  Guys who play to a 22 handicap think that playing the ProV1 vs, the Toursoft will help their game.  Maybe, but if you are dumping half a dozen in the woods or the drink every round is it really smart to spent that $$ on ProVs? Or should you be saving it for lessons that will allow you to play one ball for multiple rounds?  To continue, the answer is that R&D affects our options AND again, if you are a competitive player and subject to varying rules it WILL absolutely impact you.

Par is still relevant.  You are talking about. 1% of 1% of 1% of all the players out there.  Par is judged by overall play, not 4 days a year of elite players. And did you see the average score for the field at the Players?  Only 4 holes averaged under par for the tournament (https://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/2023/the-players-championship/R2023011/course-stats)

Still good discussion.  It can be fun to drop a few points into the conversation and see what pops up from others.  Especially where certain passions are on display

Back to the earlier point on R&D cost and DTC involvement in the market.  If we want to keep prices down we need more competition from the "little" guys who are producing a quality alternative (not that I would generally classify Dicks as a "little" guy, but in comparison to TM. Titleist, Bridgestone, they are comparatively under powered in the industry)to help keep the big guys from continuing to elevate the price we feel.  Remember, the Pros aren't paying for their equipment, we are.

Cheers

I think it's important to remember this is a 2026 thing as well. If it goes through. DTC brands aren't going anywhere. Especially if we are buying their balls. It isn't like a lot of them are racing up the ball count list on tour either. Which is where this is effective. 

Maybe in making light of this. Likely because it didn't effect me and i don't see how it really will? 

Anyway been decent discussion and fun to read others varied views and opinions. 

[Subdiver1]

15 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

What makes you think you won’t hit it as deep into the rough if you are doing so already and there will be increased spin with the new ball

So you want to penalize every golfer by having them play a ball designed to go shorter distances. Now the guy that hits it 200 off the tee especially with a slice is going to have a bigger slice and less distance. 
 

The distance issue isn’t on regular public courses; it’s a perceived issue on current courses and those looking to build new ones with the goal in mind of hosting a pga tour event.

 

And we also know that the guy who says, "Gee I normally drive it longer" claiming a 300yd average is probably only averaging 250 on a good day LOL! 

[storm319]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

Give today's players 1990 equipment and they would hit the balls roughly the same as the players in 1990. You would see minimal differences.

Average swing speeds on tour are noticeably faster. Part of that is due to longer shafts and lower static weights, but part of it is definitely the player and optimization that did not exist back then. 

[Subdiver1]

28 minutes ago, LICC said:

Yes, and pinching expected landing areas with tight fairways and penal rough on both sides takes out all risk-reward strategy. It defines exactly the spot to hit with no thinking or decision making. Boring.

What???  

A. your missing 3/4 of the comment in the quote/response which provides context and meaning (I had to go back and look for what I said).

B. How does "pinching expected landing areas with tight fairways and penal rough on both sides takes out all risk-reward strategy?"  The risk is missing the short grass and getting in deep rough or a hazard when trying to "stick it" in that tight neck.  The reward is actually threading the needle and being in that perfect position.  

Your response drives (no pun intended) right back to the rest of my point; learning to play strategic golf results in the benefit of lower scores, and a more enjoyable round, for us.  If you are all about driving it long and watching "risk reward" golf then you are absolutely against this maybe/maybe not option/rule and all for removing all restrictions on ball and club design.  

As far as calling strategic golf "boring" goes, we are playing two different games.   I routinely try to thread the needle and it cost me.  I've done it in recreational and competitive play and have felt the elation and frustration from those decisions.  I also play strategic when I am being smart and the elation at banging a 400+ yard drive out at Kapalua (been there done that, left it in the fairway and in the canyon) doesn't nearly equal the elation of placing in the top 3 or winning a tournament, whether it is a field of 5, 10, or 100 players.  One lasts for the hole you did it on, the other lasts until the prize money or the trophy disappears.  But that is me.

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

Current balls will still be acceptable under the rules of golf.  The MLR that is being discussed is like the one ball rule or not allowing rangefinders/GPS for elite competitions it will need to be made a condition of the competition.   At this point the tours haven’t even said if they are going to invoke the condition.

Now that's an interesting twist.  I did not know the tours had a choice not to play whatever limited distance ball is defined and approved by the USGA and/or R&A.  Also, does anyone know what the targeted reduction in distance is?  Perhaps this has been discussed and I missed it here and other sources, but what are the current vs. target numbers?

[GolfSpy_APH]

3 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Now that's an interesting twist.  I did not know the tours had a choice not to play whatever limited distance ball is defined and approved by the USGA and/or R&A.  Also, does anyone know what the targeted reduction in distance is?  Perhaps this has been discussed and I missed it here and other sources, but what are the current vs. target numbers?

Roughly 15-20 yards. 

[Beakbryce]

3 hours ago, chisag said:

I would feel 99% sure no course designer put in bunkers, trees, water and narrowed the intended landing area on a par 5 to have a player just fly all of it and have a 7 iron second shot.

How about this on the relatively few courses the pros play compared to the number of courses out there. I don't understand why those courses can't figure out where the pros are hitting the ball, go there, provide a reasonably wide fairway, say 20-30 yards, then take the area along the fairway at that point, and dig potholes and take that earth and mound it up. For when the pros play, grow the grass on it and NEVER cut that grass. We saw the penalty of mounding around the greens at Sawgrass. Just take that same philosophy to the landing zones for the pros on par 4 and 5.That should be penal enough that a 7 iron or even a wedge to the green isn't an option.The pros would then have to decide the risk reward. This doesn't take a course designer to implement either. Just some guy with a backhoe and a wicked sense of humor. 

Those areas shouldn't affect the average Joe playing the course as they should be hitting past that with their second shot, and the grass could be mowed for when the pros aren't there.

[Albatrass]

1 hour ago, Subdiver1 said:

How do you figure?  

Course design 101 is to place hazards in places where they come into play for those who are supposed to be playing from each tee set, set for the distance those players are supposed to be playing from (e.g. 190 5-iron X 36 = 6800 yd tees) so fairway bunkers, cross fairway hazards etc. would come into play somewhere around tee shot distance or where a good tee shot puts the next shot into a lay-up or 85% chance your in it situation. Narrowing fairways for tournaments and thickening the rough have been shown to absolutely BURY the players who cannot keep it in the fairway (e.g. '07 @ Oakmont, '20 Winged Foot).  

They did a GREAT job refurbishing our course in southern GA back in the 90s and in the process narrowed the fairways, that lasted about 6 weeks before the complaints go so bad they had to cut them back so guys, and gals, could keep it in the fairway.  Up here in WA there are courses where you can watch the ball go in and not find it with 42 people and 3 hunting dogs trained to find surlyn; and if you do find it in the fescue, 70% of the time or more you're probably better off taking the unplayable.  

Forcing players to play strategically because of hazard variation between course is what golf is all about.  That is why a guy who is a 2 on his home course where there is no strategy, who plays 99.5% on one or two courses, can easily be a 14 when they travel, especially when you travel to new regions with different grass, elevation etc. that you might not have on home courses.  Reducing ball flight is one-dimensional.  AND it only screws amateurs.  The big guys are still not only going to blow it by you, their accuracy AND distance advantage are still going to be there.  

For simplicity sake let's say they make a rule that drops flight 15%.  If your average drive is 250 that Adding variation in ball flight means (250*.15=37.5) your new average is 213; the guys your playing against averaged 285 (285*.15=42.5) dropping his average to 242; you're STILL 30 yards back.  if you are using the formulas for tee selection instead of ego (e.g. https://www.golfwrx.com/642381/how-to-select-the-proper-tees-to-play-from-what-tees-you-should-play-from/) were playing from the 6200-6500 yard tees (Whites?) you are now playing the Red (?) tees, and struggling to get there.  Go forbid you are one of those guys who has a 250 average drive distance, before the restriction, and thinks he should be playing from the 7200 yd tips.  On the other hand, if you narrow fairways and put hazards in the right place you open the long guy with the ego to drilling one into the hazard while you come up safe, then play smoothly down the middle.  As a relatively long player I can tell you that, from experience, my game benefits when I play new courses strategically (hybrids and irons off tees) rather than trying to blow through the course using my distance "advantage." And God help you of you are long, but crooked on those courses where water, waste areas and OB are prevalent.  Narrow fairways and penalty areas ARE the basis of course strategy; I am not sure how you can argue otherwise, but I am willing to listen to the argument.

I whole heartly agree with you.

 

[fixyurdivot]

8 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Roughly 15-20 yards. 

Seems like an awful lot of churn for that amount.  I also think they can easily get half that via other way less impactful changes.  Oh well, pass the popcorn and please top off my Big Gulp ,