Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 minute ago, fixyurdivot said:

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 ,

Something that Mike Whan said that stuck out to me was this. Driving distance on average increases about 1 yard per year. So this could help for the next 15 or so years. Potentially more. 

The other thing he mentioned was they could easily have made these changes less impactful, but in a sense this is a potential ripping of the band aid. Doing something less impactful would mean more changes like this 3 or 4 years down the road and then again another 3 or 4 after that. So this while a larger scale change should help lessen the need for that and allow golfers a longer period to get use to these changes and be able to learn how to play under them. 

Again I dunno, F1 cars change year over year with new regs ever so often and they make it work. It is hard to compare sport to sport because they are all so different though. 

For reference they did also look at reducing the impact of drivers and making them harder to hit etc, but the grading for that would have made them super small and that would have resulted in needing to then look at fairways and even hybrids so they axed that for now pretty quick. 

I appreciate the answers he gave, I appreciate the insight behind all of this and while I am sure there are other things that could be done or varying methods to reducing the impact on distance I don't see this as being deal breaking or something that will be awful for the sport long term. Again just my thoughts. I know I seem to be on one side and many others on the other and again enjoy hearing those thoughts and discussion points. I don't know everything by any means and with each post learn a little bit more which helps solidify my feelings towards it one way or another. 

[Albatrass]

59 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.  You must not care how much it costs to have a course build so it can host one PGA tour event a year.  I would rather have a shorter course and be able to play more often because the green fees have to justify the extra cost for the added length.. 

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.

 

I barely hit a great drive 200 yds.  So no I would not hit it that far left or right.  Maybe I will score the same with my buddies if they have to hit it farther than me but they stay in the deeper rough.   There are several PGA events that are played on public courses.  You may be able to afford to play on public, semi-private or private courses but the vast majority of those playing golf can only afford public courses.  If they add must keep adding length to accommodate longer balls more will close due to higher green fees due to increased taxes by the owners and increased operating costs.  Just my viewpoint.  There are probably more out there.  Enjoyed talking to you.

 

[storm319]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

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.

Not all courses are equal and distance is not the only way to challenge players.

 

Here are a few relatively recent examples of a "short" major venue challenging pros:

2010 US Open - Pebble Beach - 7040 - Winner: Graeme McDowell (E)

2012 US Open - Olympic Club - 7170 yards - Winner: Webb Simpson (+1)

2013 US Open - Merion - 6996 yards - Winner:  Justin Rose (+1) 

 

...and just for fun, here is the longest course in US Open history (prime example of what I think @GolfSpy MPR was getting at):

2017 US Open - Erin Hills - 7,741 yards - Winner:  Brooks Koepka (-16)

[Beakbryce]

6 hours ago, Albatrass said:

I value your opinion, but I believe if you decrease the distance a ball goes the more times you will hit the fairway and produce a quicker round of golf and enjoy it more.

Before I say anything, I know that most golfers aren't affected by this rule. But if you decided to play with the new ball then:

I agree that you might hit the fairway more, but would you hit the green more? If you are shorter, you are hitting more club into the green. More club then you would have usually hit from there as well. In general, current analytics highlight that the closer you are to the green, the more likely you are to hit it. This is a chicken and egg thing. The cool thing about golf is to know your own analytics and apply them to each hole. So how I play may not be how you play. Since I don't play to record a handicap, I might hit driver way more often because today's score doesn't matter to me. I only need one or two exceptional scores a month to be having fun. Heck, one or two exceptional shots a day keeps me happy.

Second, we don't know if forced ball reduction will actually mean more fairways hit. A shorter ball may create more spin and therefore be not as straight, the original hazards may actually now be more in the landing area, and shorter doesn't fix crappy swings. Out of those three, I am betting that the ball manufacturers will still make a reasonably straight ball. We just won't know until the rule is implemented and balls are produced.

I may take out a 3 wood to avoid hazards that are in range of my driver, but that doesn't mean I am any straighter with the 3 wood then I am with the driver. In fact, most days, since I hit the driver a heck of a lot more than my 3 wood, I feel straighter with the driver. It's a known quantity.

[Beakbryce]

11 hours ago, storm319 said:

1. I am willing to bet that there has been less direct dialog with the manufacturers than you think (likely just submitted comments as the process dictates which few would not consider to be an active participant in the process). It is clear that the USGA has been aiming to rollback for a while and this whole “process” has seemed more about due diligence to reduce legal exposure than an honest attempt at deciding whether it was necessary (keep in mind that they had a pilot tourney with a limited flight ball in 2010).

2.  There is no need to add rules to regulate course conditioning. What they should have been doing for years was lead by example at the US Open which has been more of a model for unsustainable conditioning (especially with respect to fairway heights which Mike Davis had been called out on before). Set a good example and then work with the relatively small number of stakeholders to agree on best practices to avoid rule changes in other areas to compensate.

3.  This MLR approach is going to be a mess for the transition stages between recreational and elite competition. Comparisons to other sports really aren’t relevant given the fact there is generally a clear delineation between different levels of play that golf does not always have (ex mixed events with both pros and amateurs). There will likely be little retail demand for a shorter ball which will give OEMs little incentive to produce much more than what is needed to support the pro tours, so this will likely create a barrier for amateurs looking to transition or low level/aspiring pros which will likely impact future talent pools. Basically, they are creating several new problems for the game but this proposal is unlikely to solve the perceived problems that they believe distance increases pose.

Total agreement. Can't wait for the ball manufacturers to say they just aren't going to do it!

[fixyurdivot]

17 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Something that Mike Whan said that stuck out to me was this. Driving distance on average increases about 1 yard per year. So this could help for the next 15 or so years. Potentially more. 

The other thing he mentioned was they could easily have made these changes less impactful, but in a sense this is a potential ripping of the band aid. Doing something less impactful would mean more changes like this 3 or 4 years down the road and then again another 3 or 4 after that. So this while a larger scale change should help lessen the need for that and allow golfers a longer period to get use to these changes and be able to learn how to play under them. 

Again I dunno, F1 cars change year over year with new regs ever so often and they make it work. It is hard to compare sport to sport because they are all so different though. 

For reference they did also look at reducing the impact of drivers and making them harder to hit etc, but the grading for that would have made them super small and that would have resulted in needing to then look at fairways and even hybrids so they axed that for now pretty quick. 

I appreciate the answers he gave, I appreciate the insight behind all of this and while I am sure there are other things that could be done or varying methods to reducing the impact on distance I don't see this as being deal breaking or something that will be awful for the sport long term. Again just my thoughts. I know I seem to be on one side and many others on the other and again enjoy hearing those thoughts and discussion points. I don't know everything by any means and with each post learn a little bit more which helps solidify my feelings towards it one way or another. 

Well, I guess if they think the ~1 yard gain/year will continue, then perhaps making a limited flight ball for tour play makes sense.  But with a portion of that gain having nothing to do with ball or club technology, some of us may live long enough to see the second generation of limited flight tour balls hit the market.

I have to believe the equipment mfg.'s are none too happy about this proposed change.  But, if as @cnosilsuggests, the tours have the option to invoke the change or not, perhaps this will be a big nuttin burger.

[storm319]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

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.

and no course (including ANGC) needs to do this, they choose to rather than simply changing par for a single week per year. 

[LICC]

1 hour ago, Subdiver1 said:

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.

You are lacking understanding of risk reward and strategic golf. There is risk reward and strategy if there are multiple ways of playing a shot, and the more risky shot can lead to an easier second shot while the safer first shot will lead to a more difficult second shot. Having just one way to play a shot- hit the fairway or be in the thick rough- is boring. 

[revkev]

3 hours 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.

Interesting - so golf is different from other sports then?  

 

Of course I disagree with you.  If you gave them 90's equipment but they had modern workout methods, diet and also launch monitors they would be able to maximize 90's equipment, along with their own technique to get more out of it than players in the 90's did just as every other sport is able to get more using similar equipment to back then.  I have little doubt that if you could some how transport 90's players to today and give them the same benefits they would be able to do more as well - so it's not as if I think that modern players are better than the players then.  Each generation learns to do the best with what it has to offer.  

 

Thank you though, you've made me realize how ridiculous attempts to roll the ball back are.  Just put a stop to what we have today and be done with it.  A roll back is decidedly unfair to all of the players who have worked so hard to maximize what they have had.  The ruling bodies need only look in the mirror and recognize that they have created the monster by not anticipating it or failing to step in and stop it when they could.  

 

The game is healthy - the only course that I see that is regularly used that really is beyond repair in regards to keeping up its defenses for modern pros is the Old Course.  That's a shame but one golf course should not cause the entire sport to change.   

 

It's not as if there aren't enough courses to play the Opens, the PGA, the Masters and regular tour events out there around the world at this time.  There are - just shut it down now before there aren't.  It shouldn't be this difficult or controversial.  

[LICC]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

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. 

It is almost entirely due to equipment advances. Give today’s players old equipment and they hit it the same way players did back in the past. It’s been attempted multiple times. 

[storm319]

1 hour ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Something that Mike Whan said that stuck out to me was this. Driving distance on average increases about 1 yard per year. So this could help for the next 15 or so years. Potentially more. 

The other thing he mentioned was they could easily have made these changes less impactful, but in a sense this is a potential ripping of the band aid. Doing something less impactful would mean more changes like this 3 or 4 years down the road and then again another 3 or 4 after that. So this while a larger scale change should help lessen the need for that and allow golfers a longer period to get use to these changes and be able to learn how to play under them. 

Again I dunno, F1 cars change year over year with new regs ever so often and they make it work. It is hard to compare sport to sport because they are all so different though. 

For reference they did also look at reducing the impact of drivers and making them harder to hit etc, but the grading for that would have made them super small and that would have resulted in needing to then look at fairways and even hybrids so they axed that for now pretty quick. 

I appreciate the answers he gave, I appreciate the insight behind all of this and while I am sure there are other things that could be done or varying methods to reducing the impact on distance I don't see this as being deal breaking or something that will be awful for the sport long term. Again just my thoughts. I know I seem to be on one side and many others on the other and again enjoy hearing those thoughts and discussion points. I don't know everything by any means and with each post learn a little bit more which helps solidify my feelings towards it one way or another. 

This is more like moving the starting line back 5m in the 100m. Ripping off the bandaid off would be a far greater rollback than this proposal. Most that support a rollback want a permanent solution, not a moving target that will result in the exact same argument 15-20 years from now (granted the argument continuing is inevitable).  

[LICC]

27 minutes ago, storm319 said:

and no course (including ANGC) needs to do this, they choose to rather than simply changing par for a single week per year. 

They need to do it to maintain the challenge of the course and to not turn the Masters into a pitch and putt

[Albatrass]

45 minutes ago, Beakbryce said:

Before I say anything, I know that most golfers aren't affected by this rule. But if you decided to play with the new ball then:

I agree that you might hit the fairway more, but would you hit the green more? If you are shorter, you are hitting more club into the green. More club then you would have usually hit from there as well. In general, current analytics highlight that the closer you are to the green, the more likely you are to hit it. This is a chicken and egg thing. The cool thing about golf is to know your own analytics and apply them to each hole. So how I play may not be how you play. Since I don't play to record a handicap, I might hit driver way more often because today's score doesn't matter to me. I only need one or two exceptional scores a month to be having fun. Heck, one or two exceptional shots a day keeps me happy.

Second, we don't know if forced ball reduction will actually mean more fairways hit. A shorter ball may create more spin and therefore be not as straight, the original hazards may actually now be more in the landing area, and shorter doesn't fix crappy swings. Out of those three, I am betting that the ball manufacturers will still make a reasonably straight ball. We just won't know until the rule is implemented and balls are produced.

I may take out a 3 wood to avoid hazards that are in range of my driver, but that doesn't mean I am any straighter with the 3 wood then I am with the driver. In fact, most days, since I hit the driver a heck of a lot more than my 3 wood, I feel straighter with the driver. It's a known quantity.

I liked reading your comment.  But, I am looking at it through the eyes of owners, staff and players.  To accommodate longer balls courses must be made longer.  This requires more land at additional costs.  The construction of the course will need more materials to make the holes there will also be a need for additional cost to maintain the course and the equipment plus more maintenance crew.  All of this require higher green fees which will eventually cause a lot of courses to close due to lake of play.  Everyone needs to look at both sides not just the golfer's desire to hit long balls.  I am also not agreeing or disagreeing with the new rule.  I am just suggesting another way to attack the need to reduce golf costs.  Have a great day 

[revkev]

51 minutes ago, Beakbryce said:

Before I say anything, I know that most golfers aren't affected by this rule. But if you decided to play with the new ball then:

I agree that you might hit the fairway more, but would you hit the green more? If you are shorter, you are hitting more club into the green. More club then you would have usually hit from there as well. In general, current analytics highlight that the closer you are to the green, the more likely you are to hit it. This is a chicken and egg thing. The cool thing about golf is to know your own analytics and apply them to each hole. So how I play may not be how you play. Since I don't play to record a handicap, I might hit driver way more often because today's score doesn't matter to me. I only need one or two exceptional scores a month to be having fun. Heck, one or two exceptional shots a day keeps me happy.

Second, we don't know if forced ball reduction will actually mean more fairways hit. A shorter ball may create more spin and therefore be not as straight, the original hazards may actually now be more in the landing area, and shorter doesn't fix crappy swings. Out of those three, I am betting that the ball manufacturers will still make a reasonably straight ball. We just won't know until the rule is implemented and balls are produced.

I may take out a 3 wood to avoid hazards that are in range of my driver, but that doesn't mean I am any straighter with the 3 wood then I am with the driver. In fact, most days, since I hit the driver a heck of a lot more than my 3 wood, I feel straighter with the driver. It's a known quantity.

Fully agreed 

The modified ball does not apply to us though.  I would quit playing anything but recreational golf if they made a rule that curtailed the distance that I hit the ball.  I'm loosing distance as I age, it has negatively impacted my ability to score.  I have fun at golf by playing with friends or by playing competitively.  Take away more distance and I will have no fun playing competitively so I will stick to playing with friends with my current equipment.  That would be a shame though. 

[storm319]

1 hour ago, Albatrass said:

I barely hit a great drive 200 yds.  So no I would not hit it that far left or right.  Maybe I will score the same with my buddies if they have to hit it farther than me but they stay in the deeper rough.   There are several PGA events that are played on public courses.  You may be able to afford to play on public, semi-private or private courses but the vast majority of those playing golf can only afford public courses.  If they add must keep adding length to accommodate longer balls more will close due to higher green fees due to increased taxes by the owners and increased operating costs.  Just my viewpoint.  There are probably more out there.  Enjoyed talking to you.

 

I think you are overexaggerating the problem. There are over 30,000 courses world wide. There are maybe 100-200 courses that host men's professional events and few of these are at risk financially. The need to lengthen to keep up with distance increases is simply not a reality for the vast majority of courses. 

[LICC]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

Not all courses are equal and distance is not the only way to challenge players.

 

Here are a few relatively recent examples of a "short" major venue challenging pros:

2010 US Open - Pebble Beach - 7040 - Winner: Graeme McDowell (E)

2012 US Open - Olympic Club - 7170 yards - Winner: Webb Simpson (+1)

2013 US Open - Merion - 6996 yards - Winner:  Justin Rose (+1) 

 

...and just for fun, here is the longest course in US Open history (prime example of what I think @GolfSpy MPR was getting at):

2017 US Open - Erin Hills - 7,741 yards - Winner:  Brooks Koepka (-16)

It would be awful to set up every PGA Tour event to be as penal and one dimensional as the US Open

[storm319]

9 minutes ago, revkev said:

The game is healthy - the only course that I see that is regularly used that really is beyond repair in regards to keeping up its defenses for modern pros is the Old Course.  That's a shame but one golf course should not cause the entire sport to change.   

Pretty good run considering that it is nearly 500 years old!

What is ironic is that the R&A had no problem cutting Prestwick from the rota even though it was the original host for the first 11 Open Championships. Why did they drop it? Not enough room for the gallery. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, Albatrass said:

barely hit a great drive 200 yds.  So no I would not hit it that far left or right.  Maybe I will score the same with my buddies if they have to hit it farther than me but they stay in the deeper rough. 

Your buddies will be hitting it shorter and still in the rough and you will be hitting it shorter and your mishits will be more penal with the proposed change in the ball

1 hour ago, Albatrass said:

There are several PGA events that are played on public courses.  You may be able to afford to play on public, semi-private or private courses but the vast majority of those playing golf can only afford public courses.  If they add must keep adding length to accommodate longer balls more will close due to higher green fees due to increased taxes by the owners and increased operating costs.  Just my viewpoint.  There are probably more out there.  Enjoyed talking to you.

The price of a round has zero to do with my point. I was saying that there isn’t a distance issue on courses that aren’t used at pga events because most people hit the ball the distance you do or slightly longer so these courses have no need to spend money to expand the holes for some perceived distance issue. The perceived issue is on the pga tour and it’s a made up issue that the usga created to provide a solution for

[Beakbryce]

28 minutes ago, Albatrass said:

I liked reading your comment.  But, I am looking at it through the eyes of owners, staff and players.  To accommodate longer balls courses must be made longer.  This requires more land at additional costs.  The construction of the course will need more materials to make the holes there will also be a need for additional cost to maintain the course and the equipment plus more maintenance crew.  All of this require higher green fees which will eventually cause a lot of courses to close due to lake of play.  Everyone needs to look at both sides not just the golfer's desire to hit long balls.  I am also not agreeing or disagreeing with the new rule.  I am just suggesting another way to attack the need to reduce golf costs.  Have a great day 

This is the fundamental difference that needs exploring. I am also considering owners, staff, and players.

A lot of people don't think you need longer courses to accommodate longer hitters. This is the pivotal point. This really the discussion.

many people feel that courses just need sufficient hazards to make the pro think twice about hitting it long. Mounding, water, trees, traps, might this not be the answer? People then say you are taking the driver out of the hands of the golfer. No, you aren't, the pro is taking the driver out of his own hands. If he needs a birdie, he is going to have to risk it. That's what golf is, decision after decision, and the ability to pull it off.

I have read other posts that say they don't want to see Rory hitting 5 irons on every hole. We can't know what Rory would hit until a tournament is set up with hazards in the driver landing area on every hole. Then if he hit 5 iron on every hole, shucks, I would agree. Boring. But would he really?

Take the 18th at Pebble Beach. One tree in the landing area makes the drive problematic. Then, for the second shot, if you go for the green or lay up, you have a long sand trap and water to the left, the green side tree on the right, and trap in front.

Same with the 16th at Sawgrass. Most everyone hits driver and whether you go for the green or layup, the shot has to take in account one huge tree on the left, mounding on the left past the tree, trap in front, and water to the right.

Simple course designs. I haven't heard any discussion that either hole should be longer.

And maybe, just maybe, hard and fast is not needed. The USGA and the R&A want this for their tournaments, its their philosophy, their DNA. But what if they are wrong? They have caused the problem that no other courses have and now they want a solution that doesn't make a lot of sense because they are stubborn. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Beakbryce

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Something that Mike Whan said that stuck out to me was this. Driving distance on average increases about 1 yard per year. So this could help for the next 15 or so years. Potentially more. 

And how much of that is from how they mow the fairways and rough as it is from the ball or equipment. 

[Albatrass]

22 minutes ago, storm319 said:

I think you are overexaggerating the problem. There are over 30,000 courses world wide. There are maybe 100-200 courses that host men's professional events and few of these are at risk financially. The need to lengthen to keep up with distance increases is simply not a reality for the vast majority of courses. 

I agree with you.  But if we allow to let ball manufactures to keep increasing distance more and more courses will be forced to close.  It was rare to see courses over 7,000 yards from the tips now there are hundreds.  If the balls are made slightly larger for everyone even the elite players than everyone will still be playing the same only courses will not need to be 8,000 yards.  Just my view of what I see happening.   Have a nice evening.

 

[Albatrass]

10 minutes ago, Beakbryce said:

This is the fundamental difference that needs exploring. I am also considering owners, staff, and players.

A lot of people don't think you need longer courses to accommodate longer hitters. This is the pivotal point. This really the discussion.

many people feel that courses just need sufficient hazards to make the pro think twice about hitting it long. Mounding, water, trees, traps, might this not be the answer? People then say you are taking the driver out of the hands of the golfer. No, you aren't, the pro is taking the driver out of his own hands. If he needs a birdie, he is going to have to risk it. That's what golf is, decision after decision, and the ability to pull it off.

I have read other posts that say they don't want to see Rory hitting 5 irons on every hole. We can't know what Rory would hit until a tournament is set up with hazards in the driver landing area on every hole. Then if he hit 5 iron on every hole, shucks, I would agree. Boring. But would he really?

Take the 18th at Pebble Beach. One tree in the landing area makes the drive problematic. Then, for the second shot, if you go for the green or lay up, you have a long sand trap and water to the left, the green side tree on the right, and trap in front.

Same with the 16th at Sawgrass. Most everyone hits driver and whether you go for the green or layup, the shot has to take in account one huge tree on the left, mounding on the left past the tree, trap in front, and water to the right.

Simple course designs. I haven't heard any discussion that either hole should be longer.

And maybe, just maybe, hard and fast is not needed. The USGA and the R&A want this for their tournaments, its their philosophy, their DNA. But what if they are wrong? They have caused the problem that no other courses have and now they want a solution that doesn't make a lot of sense because they are stubborn. 

Thats great for the pros who play the course for one week How about the other golfers that play the other weeks.

[Subdiver1]

13 minutes ago, LICC said:

You are lacking understanding of risk reward and strategic golf. There is risk reward and strategy if there are multiple ways of playing a shot, and the more risky shot can lead to an easier second shot while the safer first shot will lead to a more difficult second shot. Having just one way to play a shot- hit the fairway or be in the thick rough- is boring. 

Either I am oblivious to what you are getting at, or you completely miss that you contradict your assertions with your own statements.  

The statement, "There is risk reward and strategy if there are multiple ways of playing a shot, and the more risky shot can lead to an easier second shot while the safer first shot will lead to a more difficult second shot." is the very definition of strategy.  Strategy encompasses looking at options, evaluating (WEIGHING the "Risk Reward" of each) and exercising the best option, in golf we base that on performance, course conditions, environment, score differential (am I up, am I losing, do I have breathing room).   You SEEM to be referring to "Risk Reward" golf as the anti-thesis of Strategy, but it is a component of a strategy.  

Saying that creating bottle necks and adding hazards leads to a single-shot, hit the fairway, boring, repetitive "strategy" is completely contradictory to reality.  The "Grip it and Rip it" approach brought on by wide open fairways and a lack of danger is in itself myopic, one type shot, smash the ball as hard as you can approach. That won't change by shortening ball flight, it will actually lead to more of it, just not as far.  And if we all have to play the same ball then the guys who are already longer than we are will STILL BE longer than we are; we will all just be shorter than we were.   The one shot fits all "strategy" of Grip It and Rip It and hope you clear the crud and end up with a second shot can only be defeated BY adding those bottlenecks and hazards in strategic positions CAUSING players to employ a multifaceted approach of choosing and making different types of shots; to use a single word "strategy."  BTW, grip it and rip it IS still a strategy, just a short sighted, myopic one.  Fully aware that I am repeating myself here; strategic play INCLUDES risk reward options, but also includes, "Darn!  I cannot seem to stop my 90 degree slice today. Maybe I should hit hybrid instead of HOPING this next tee shot will be straight."  

I fully understand strategic golf, AND I understand risk reward; risk reward is a component strategic decision.  I employ the risk reward approach, many times when I should NOT, some times it works out, sometimes it doesn't.  Your separation of risk reward into an element unto itself demonstrates either a misunderstanding of "strategy," or is an unclear attempt to communicate that you prefer to see guys try to bomb drives over everything in favor of a shorter approach shot; which is actually another contradiction to your assertion that you think, "Having just one way to play a shot- hit the fairway or be in the thick rough- is boring." since it is literally just one way to play.  If that is what you are looking for that is fine.  But don't you not see the contradiction in separating risk reward from strategy and how narrow fairway areas and hazards contribute to, not take away from, dynamic play?

Cheers 

[RickyBobby_PR]

47 minutes ago, Albatrass said:

I agree with you.  But if we allow to let ball manufactures to keep increasing distance more and more courses will be forced to close.  It was rare to see courses over 7,000 yards from the tips now there are hundreds.  If the balls are made slightly larger for everyone even the elite players than everyone will still be playing the same only courses will not need to be 8,000 yards.  Just my view of what I see happening.   Have a nice evening.

 

There are regulations in place for the current ball that desired it from going further. That was laid out in article and they want to change what the specs are.

The claim if 8000 yard courses has been around for a few years now yet as was pointed out a few pages back there have been more events at under 7200 yards than over in the last 2 years so where are all these supposed long courses 

[cnosil]

52 minutes ago, Beakbryce said:

 If he needs a birdie, he is going to have to risk it. That's what golf is, decision after decision, and the ability to pull it off.

This isn't current golf strategy.  Professional golf has become very analytical and players seldom chase birdie and typically  play the same strategy every round.  All players at the professional level have the ability to pull off a shot;  unfortunately, they also have wide dispersion patterns. They mathematically calculate specific targets. 

People are assuming that this new ball will change how players play;  I don't think it will.  Players will hit driver off the tee to hit is as far as possible, play the next club to get it as close to the green as possible, then finish the hole and repeat that pattern for all 18 holes. 

[Beakbryce]

35 minutes ago, Albatrass said:

Thats great for the pros who play the course for one week How about the other golfers that play the other weeks.

Not sure what you are asking. I would think that people playing the courses that host PGA events are already playing for the challenge. Most of them are private courses so I would guess they are all in on however the course is set up. So whats worse, some hazards at 300-350 yards or courses that are 7700+ yards for those players? Please don't say they can play an appropriate tee no matter the yardage, because mostly they don't. I mean what's the point of joining a private club that hosts the pros unless you are going to challenge yourself? As for the public courses that host events, most golfers are going to play the tips for the sheer thrill of doling out hundreds of dollars to play once, so they aren't hitting from the forward tees.

I may be reading more into your question, but are we contemplating a major change that will bifurcate the game for a handful of players, both pros and the other golfers, playing a limited number of courses, as opposed to the other, literally, millions of golfers and tens of thousands golf courses being played today? The numbers aren't just staggering, they are overwhelming.

Isn't that kinda like the Stump Pulling Association of America (SPAOA) saying you can no longer use a truck in stump pulling contests because it has to much horsepower?

OK, I literally just made that up, but it kinda gets the point across.

[Beakbryce]

40 minutes ago, cnosil said:

This isn't current golf strategy.  Professional golf has become very analytical and players seldom chase birdie and typically  play the same strategy every round.  All players at the professional level have the ability to pull off a shot;  unfortunately, they also have wide dispersion patterns. They mathematically calculate specific targets. 

Please note my original post was when they NEED a birdie. To win, to make a cut, to be third alone rather than tied 4th with ten other players, that kind of thing.

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Beakbryce

[LICC]

1 hour ago, Subdiver1 said:

Either I am oblivious to what you are getting at, or you completely miss that you contradict your assertions with your own statements.  

The statement, "There is risk reward and strategy if there are multiple ways of playing a shot, and the more risky shot can lead to an easier second shot while the safer first shot will lead to a more difficult second shot." is the very definition of strategy.  Strategy encompasses looking at options, evaluating (WEIGHING the "Risk Reward" of each) and exercising the best option, in golf we base that on performance, course conditions, environment, score differential (am I up, am I losing, do I have breathing room).   You SEEM to be referring to "Risk Reward" golf as the anti-thesis of Strategy, but it is a component of a strategy.  

Saying that creating bottle necks and adding hazards leads to a single-shot, hit the fairway, boring, repetitive "strategy" is completely contradictory to reality.  The "Grip it and Rip it" approach brought on by wide open fairways and a lack of danger is in itself myopic, one type shot, smash the ball as hard as you can approach. That won't change by shortening ball flight, it will actually lead to more of it, just not as far.  And if we all have to play the same ball then the guys who are already longer than we are will STILL BE longer than we are; we will all just be shorter than we were.   The one shot fits all "strategy" of Grip It and Rip It and hope you clear the crud and end up with a second shot can only be defeated BY adding those bottlenecks and hazards in strategic positions CAUSING players to employ a multifaceted approach of choosing and making different types of shots; to use a single word "strategy."  BTW, grip it and rip it IS still a strategy, just a short sighted, myopic one.  Fully aware that I am repeating myself here; strategic play INCLUDES risk reward options, but also includes, "Darn!  I cannot seem to stop my 90 degree slice today. Maybe I should hit hybrid instead of HOPING this next tee shot will be straight."  

I fully understand strategic golf, AND I understand risk reward; risk reward is a component strategic decision.  I employ the risk reward approach, many times when I should NOT, some times it works out, sometimes it doesn't.  Your separation of risk reward into an element unto itself demonstrates either a misunderstanding of "strategy," or is an unclear attempt to communicate that you prefer to see guys try to bomb drives over everything in favor of a shorter approach shot; which is actually another contradiction to your assertion that you think, "Having just one way to play a shot- hit the fairway or be in the thick rough- is boring." since it is literally just one way to play.  If that is what you are looking for that is fine.  But don't you not see the contradiction in separating risk reward from strategy and how narrow fairway areas and hazards contribute to, not take away from, dynamic play?

Cheers 

You are confusing different concepts. I am talking about course strategy. Pinched fairways with penal thick rough on both sides contains zero risk-reward course strategy. There is no thought or decision on how to play the hole. 
Rolling back the ball reduces the effectiveness of a grip it and rip it approach, and allows courses to have both strategic elements and challenge. 

[revkev]

2 hours ago, LICC said:

It would be awful to set up every PGA Tour event to be as penal and one dimensional as the US Open

I completely agree with this. For the most part the tour has a nice balance of courses - a couple of tough ones each year are great but too many would get boring really quickly 

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, Beakbryce said:

Please note my original post was when they NEED a birdie. To win, to make a cut, to be third alone rather than tied 4th with ten other players, that kind of thing.

I understand;  it isn't possible to force a birdie.  Saw a review of a Tiger round where he was behind and needed birdies.  Zero change in strategy from the prior 3 rounds.