Bifurcation/Ball Roll Back Discussion

[RickyBobby_PR]

8 minutes ago, Bob Pegram said:

What is the link? It would interesting to see the argum,ents on bath sides. Thanks.

They aren’t very good, but it’s an interesting read 

[MGoBlue100]

On 11/22/2022 at 2:47 AM, Bob Pegram said:

I wonder how money the USGA is being paid by country clubs which are getting too short for top level tournament golf. Prostitutes! (and amateurs who shouldn't be in a position to regulate any part of golf, amateur or professional.) I use a 47.5 inch driver. It protects my back and makes me MORE consistent because it fits my swing. They will destroy tall golfer's backs with the 46 inch length limit. P.S. I don't hit the ball any farther than with shorter clubs, but I am way more consistent and my average drive is longer since I hit the ball better and hit more fairways where the ball rolls. The total distance isn't longer, just the average.

The USGA cares as much about “growing the game” as the NCAA does about “student athletes”. 

[CarlH]

21 minutes ago, MGoBlue100 said:

The USGA cares as much about “growing the game” as the NCAA does about “student athletes”. 

I'd really like to hear your reasoning on this statement!

[MGoBlue100]

USGA cares about protecting the game as they want it protected. Old men, old golf clubs, old bureaucracy. They don’t like technology, distance or anything else that affects their delicate sensibilities. This explains why the US Open is often a debacle. Can’t have anyone shoot -20 at their old money clubs.  IMO USGA prefers the status quo and will defend it to the end. 

[Bob Pegram]

On 11/21/2022 at 12:03 PM, korsmot said:

All the big associations (R&A, USGA, PGA of A, Tour etc) talk about "growing the game", but continue to make the rules toward the 1% of competition at the elite level, that hurt the rec player.  I am absolutly in favor of BiF, because we shouldn't be making golf more difficult or less fun for the average joe, or make them have to ignore the rules.   We can make local rules for each club, but shouldn't the tour just make rules for them instead.  

Example: it is comparitively low chance of pure "lost ball" on tour.  When you have crowds tracking your ball, marshals in the landing zone, HD cameras, including the blimp and radios connecting all together to find your ball, and them calling Feherty to tell you where to look, (https://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/video-rory-mcilroys-ball-gets-stuck-in-a-tree-still-makes-par/) that is a far cry from a recreational player losing their ball in the middle of the fairway simply because it is fall and there are lots of leaves on the ground and a group waiting behind you.  Pros vs Joes are already playing two different games.  

"Anchoring".  How many Joe players are not having nearly as much fun since the putting ban went into effect?  With bad backs and old guys and arthritis and the yips, let guys anchor in rec play.  Even on tour, it wasn'st a landslide of data showing a massive advantage to those that were anchoring.  Otherwise, the guys winning a disporportiant amount before the ban would have been the anchor guys.  From a physics perspective it would seem to have some advantage, but so does "Face-on" putting and no one on tour is doing that.  There is plenty of art to putting, even if you anchor.  Joe's are just not good enough to make it that significant.  

The "Golf Course" arguement.  The high level competition should be about risk - reward.  You don't have to lengthen the holes, just start making the fairway smaller and smaller the longer down the hole.  Grow the rough up deeper and more penal in that area.  So a pro can still hit it long, but you have to hit the fairway that is only 1/2 or 1/4 as wide as fifty yards earlier.  Put in creeks, bunkers and waste areas in the 290 to 330 landing zone.  If the pro can clear it, advantage to them!  Or if they can get on the green from 4 inch rough after missing the fairway, more power to them.  We shouldn't totally penalize guys that have more talent, or have put more work into hitting it farther.  That is like saying if your NBA vertical jump is more than 46 inches, we are going to make you wear shoes that limit your jumping and impact you more than guys that don't jump as high.  I am okay with club standards otherwise it is a tech race, not a talent race.  

BiF works for many sports and I am not sure why the major entities are so hung up on not having it (other than tradition).  We didn't ban metal drivers or cavity backs when they came out.  And why? they can sell all sorts of new tech to all the golfers.  

If your group wants to play like the pros and use Limited golfballs, feel free!  Or go traditional and hit persimmion woods and pure blade Spaulding irons from 1976.    Other golfers just shouldn't feel like they are cheating if they are just playing current regular golf.

Great conversation from everyone!

Cheers

Tigger

 

As Phil Mickelson pointed out some time ago, the 2010 groove rule actually hurts average players way more than the best players, pro or amateur.  Pros and other very good players tend to spin the ball too much on short iron shots. The groove rule doesn't affect them much. On the other hand, average players need all the spin they can get around the greens. The groove rule hurts them quite a bit. The USGA doesn't think things through very well.

[BIG STU]

On 11/22/2022 at 2:47 AM, Bob Pegram said:

I wonder how money the USGA is being paid by country clubs which are getting too short for top level tournament golf. Prostitutes! (and amateurs who shouldn't be in a position to regulate any part of golf, amateur or professional.) I use a 47.5 inch driver. It protects my back and makes me MORE consistent because it fits my swing. They will destroy tall golfer's backs with the 46 inch length limit. P.S. I don't hit the ball any farther than with shorter clubs, but I am way more consistent and my average drive is longer since I hit the ball better and hit more fairways where the ball rolls. The total distance isn't longer, just the average.

Like the broomstick putter and anchoring I absolutely see nothing wrong with it----- Yes I can relate to the back issues myself. Down here 99% of the clubs have disregarded the anchor long putter ban in league play etc because a lot of older guys have back problems and some have the shakes due to meds or medical problems. I Increased my putter length from 33" to 35" after my injury. I did putt with the broomstick in the past and I may go to it again if need be.

[Davre]

The ramifications of this are far less straightforward than a lot of people understand. Firstly, regulating distance via the ball just further penalizes the shorter hitters on tour vs the bombers. Think: if you had to dial a ball back enough for Rory to average say 275yds off the tee, that puts guys like Kisner back to 245yds. It doesn't solve the problem at all. It renders all courses unplayable for below average drivers. 

One possible alternative is to design a ball that FAVORS slower swing speeds (likely a very soft compression?). This could shrink the delta between the short and long hitters due to energy loss at high speeds. The obvious flaw to this (and any limiting of the ball) is testing and ball doping. The cost of testing every ball played on tour would be ENORMOUS. 

Last, and probably most important is the impact on revenue for the big ball makers. They literally lose the ability to market "play what the pros play". If you do not think this is a massive market mover, just look at the contracts of current players. The other elephant in the room is what would LIV do? Following suit seems to be contrary to their DNA. Plus hey could lean into "come over here and play REAL equipment!" 

[Bob Pegram]

On 11/25/2022 at 2:11 AM, BIG STU said:

Like the broomstick putter and anchoring I absolutely see nothing wrong with it----- Yes I can relate to the back issues myself. Down here 99% of the clubs have disregarded the anchor long putter ban in league play etc because a lot of older guys have back problems and some have the shakes due to meds or medical problems. I Increased my putter length from 33" to 35" after my injury. I did putt with the broomstick in the past and I may go to it again if need be.

I agree. I use a 46.5 inch putter so I can stand up straighter.

[Bob Pegram]

On 11/24/2022 at 2:24 PM, CarlH said:

I'd really like to hear your reasoning on this statement!

I think I can answer part of you question. NCAA golfers are (or were?) limited to 20 hours per week of practice. That slows down their skills development compared to others competing in non-NCAA tournaments instead of college. I don't remember if there were talks to possibly change or eliminate that limit and/or whether the limit stills exists. The USGA keeps changing ther rules when somebody figures out a non-standard method of hitting shots that works better. Back in the 1960's I almost switched to a croquet putter - face the hole and swing the putter between the legs - , but the USGA outlawed them. Sam Snead then used his regular putter between his legs with his left hand hish and his right hand closer to the head, but they outlawed that not long after. They have a long history of stopping the use of ingenuity. They rewaes conformists, not people who are smarter than they are.

[BostonSal]

On 1/16/2022 at 9:51 AM, DaveP043 said:

I don't claim to be an expert on exactly what conforms, and I certainly don't know how your "rebuilt" club will fit in the regulations.  If I read you right, you're taking a club that conforms to the 2024 rules and having it changed.  What has The Iron Factory told you about groove conformance?  If it ends up being non-conforming, I have very little sympathy.  If you're worried about it conforming, and you'll need to use it in significant competitions, you can send it to the USGA (or have The Iron Factory send it) to be evaluated.  

Non-conforming is the whole point.

It can't be non-conforming enough.

I want to be able to back up the ball on the asphalt parking lot.

I'm obviously not trying to qualify for the US Senior Amateur, but my facetiousness was clearly not sufficiently obvious either!

/

[LICC]

2 hours ago, Davre said:

The ramifications of this are far less straightforward than a lot of people understand. Firstly, regulating distance via the ball just further penalizes the shorter hitters on tour vs the bombers. Think: if you had to dial a ball back enough for Rory to average say 275yds off the tee, that puts guys like Kisner back to 245yds. It doesn't solve the problem at all. It renders all courses unplayable for below average drivers. 

One possible alternative is to design a ball that FAVORS slower swing speeds (likely a very soft compression?). This could shrink the delta between the short and long hitters due to energy loss at high speeds. The obvious flaw to this (and any limiting of the ball) is testing and ball doping. The cost of testing every ball played on tour would be ENORMOUS. 

Last, and probably most important is the impact on revenue for the big ball makers. They literally lose the ability to market "play what the pros play". If you do not think this is a massive market mover, just look at the contracts of current players. The other elephant in the room is what would LIV do? Following suit seems to be contrary to their DNA. Plus hey could lean into "come over here and play REAL equipment!" 

No one would put Rory to 275 yards. The top hitters getting to 300 would be good. Just like in the late 1990s. That would put the difference between the long and short hitters about the same as it always was. It doesn't penalize shorter hitters any more than they had been disadvantaged historically.

The ball testing issue would be no different than testing that is needed now for all equipment.

If bifurcation was made part of the USGA rules, and LIV didn't follow, then goodbye any chance at world ranking points.

[Davre]

6 minutes ago, LICC said:

No one would put Rory to 275 yards. The top hitters getting to 300 would be good. Just like in the late 1990s. That would put the difference between the long and short hitters about the same as it always was. It doesn't penalize shorter hitters any more than they had been disadvantaged historically.

The ball testing issue would be no different than testing that is needed now for all equipment.

If bifurcation was made part of the USGA rules, and LIV didn't follow, then goodbye any chance at world ranking points.

That represents a "roll back" of 7%. I'm not sure that justifies the move. 

Ball testing would be very different, as right now you are only testing 1 club per player (and even then on rare occasion). You would need to test essentially all balls that each player in the field carries. This seems like an easy thing to monitor at first, but it is far more complex. It's not a question of testing, but rather of scale. 

[BIG STU]

1 hour ago, Bob Pegram said:

I agree. I use a 46.5 inch putter so I can stand up straighter.

And I do not see anything wrong with that and I for one do not care if you anchor or not.

[BIG STU]

1 hour ago, BostonSal said:

Non-conforming is the whole point.

It can't be non-conforming enough.

I want to be able to back up the ball on the asphalt parking lot.

I'm obviously not trying to qualify for the US Senior Amateur, but my facetiousness was clearly not sufficiently obvious either!

/

Yep you are like me do not play stipulated comps anymore and do not give a damn about the USGA or anything they have to say. I was messing around in the shop the other day and found a Pure Spin 64* I forgot I had. It is one of those with diamonds on the face. Illegal as all get out. I had it up on the range today and I can not hit it maybe 30 yards but I was spinning range rocks darn near back on me. LOL had range rock cover all over the face. For me it is not practical for regular play but it is off the charts for the kicks and giggles factor which for me these days is what golf is all about

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

No one would put Rory to 275 yards. The top hitters getting to 300 would be good. Just like in the late 1990s.

The late 90s when Tiger was hitting the ball 300 and courses started Tiger proofing because 300 was too long and he was dominating. 

So why would they roll back to a time when distance was a problem.

 

[LICC]

19 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The late 90s when Tiger was hitting the ball 300 and courses started Tiger proofing because 300 was too long and he was dominating. 

So why would they roll back to a time when distance was a problem.

 

Courses on the Tour are longer today. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

22 minutes ago, LICC said:

Courses on the Tour are longer today. 

Because of the era you want them to roll back to where despite the distance increase tigers 300 still dominated including his recent masters win where 300 is pushing it for him. 

[LICC]

22 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Because of the era you want them to roll back to where despite the distance increase tigers 300 still dominated including his recent masters win where 300 is pushing it for him. 

Courses on the Tour are longer today. 
 

Tiger’s domination wasn’t just from driving distance. 

[cardia10]

17 hours ago, LICC said:

Courses on the Tour are longer today. 

Yet they will change the rule that affects me (like the groove rule) and I can't afford or don't have the connections to play tour courses. The USGA is so antiquated and keeps shooting themselves in the foot. It will eventually hit a tipping point like LIV did with the PGA.

[THEZIPR23]

18 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The late 90s when Tiger was hitting the ball 300 and courses started Tiger proofing because 300 was too long and he was dominating. 

So why would they roll back to a time when distance was a problem.

 

The best part of "Tiger Proofing" was he benefitted the most.