Bifurcation/Ball Roll Back Discussion

[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 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.  

[Subdiver1]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

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. 

I think we are closer to the same page and following each other.  Thanks for your patience.

That said, I go back to current layouts and design 101.  There are plenty of pinched fairway holes and doglegs on the tour and in public play that have an opportunity to fly the bottle neck or cut a corner and hope you don't go through.  If they roll back the ball it reduces guys like Rory and DeChambeau blowing it over the choke points or cutting those corners; it forces all the long guys to play, say a hybrid, and the short guys to play driver to the same spot.  You wind up with everyone playing TO the same spot in the fairway; short of existing choke points and hazards and then hop scotching from the one safe spot to the next through the round.  That takes the strategy of choosing safe, or risk-reward out.  No more going for the green a la Colin Morikawa in the 2020 PGA.  I imagine the large majority agrees that watching every player hop scotch through the course from the same point +/- 10 yards on every hole would be gouge my eyes out with a dull Dairy Queen sundae spoon boring.  I assert that rolling back ball speed/distance will result in just that + the short guys still being shorter than the long guys and struggling even more to keep up.  This is no different than forcing the guy who averages a 250 yd drive and should be playing the 6300 tees (whites?) and forcing them to skip the blue box and play from two back at the 7000 yd tourney tees.  Conversely we would have the guy who was carrying most of the off-tee hazards from those same 6300 yd tees now having to either move up to the reds, or not being able to carry those long par 4 and par 5 tee shot hazards.  

They aren't classifying what ball a player can use based on swing speed; they are saying everyone, if invoked as a local or tournament rule will play the "slower" (for lack of better terms, limited, mush... whatever) ball.  I carry my 7-iron 165-170, using a 15% reduction that means I would now have to hit a long 5-iron (190 - 15% = 162) or a 4-iron (200 - 15% = 170) into many par 3s, unless I move up a box or two.  If I move up a box or two, what are you hitting or how many boxes are you moving up to carry into the par 3s?  So, from a competitive perspective (since this doesn't look like it will impact recreational  players, until you run out of the current balls in 2028) instead of changing the course layout with rough, hazards etc. (or physically lengthening the course, which I maintain is unnecessary if you just add the trouble in strategic locations) they are A. lengthening the course by proxy of shorter flight AND B. absolutely going to force course layout changes; even if it is just adding shorter tee sets for the already shorter players.  

I summary, I hear you but respectfully disagree that this makes strategy and decision making more prevalent absent course layout changes.  It only makes it easier to "grip it and rip it" because no one can reach the trouble anymore with a reduced flight ball in play.

All good discussion though.

Cheers,

 

[GaDawg]

On 3/14/2023 at 10:41 AM, edingc said:

Ah yes, forcing ball companies to spend millions on even more R&D and tooling in the interest of "sustainability." Goodness is the USGA so incredibly out of touch.

Grow the grass and stop manicuring the bunkers. Far more "sustainable" than changing the ball.

I agree with you! Make them play in some of the same conditions that we have to play in.

1. Fairways that are not perfect
2. Bunkers that have little sand in the bottom
3. When you hit in the trees, it's not manicured
4. Slow play or maybe a five some in front of them

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

11 minutes ago, GaDawg said:

I agree with you! Make them play in some of the same conditions that we have to play in.

1. Fairways that are not perfect
2. Bunkers that have little sand in the bottom
3. When you hit in the trees, it's not manicured
4. Slow play or maybe a five some in front of them

 

Or just don’t play courses like that. I prefer to pay more for courses that are well maintained, have good enforcement of pace of play policies and don’t allow 5 somes.

[GaDawg]

2 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Or just don’t play courses like that. I prefer to pay more for courses that are well maintained, have good enforcement of pace of play policies and don’t allow 5 somes.

I agree. I was being sarcastic, but reducing the distance with the ball stinks. IMO

[GolfSpy_APH]

10 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

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

Don't know? Not that much? Maybe a decent amount? The longest players are still going to be the longest.

I get the cut the rough or grow it angle, but what about places that it is more difficult to do so? Golf is played all around the world on tour and one area will have different growing conditions and abilities vs others. I think there are more complications to that then just saying grow the the rough if there are courses and areas that would struggle to do so without spending stupid amounts on grasses, waters and more.

As much as it isn't great, at least the golf ball is universal. 

[Splatt]

Its such a complex and interesting topic. I'm definitely on the side of the roll back, but some of the anti arguments also make a lot of sense to me.

The NLU pod on it was fantastic and hearing direct from the USGA guy was very informative. I like the fact that he's actually taking a stand and trying to fix something that isn't necessarily an issue right now, but will be in a few years, rather than leaving it for the next guy to deal with.

It would be hard, or impossible, to come up with a solution that everybody will like. The golf ball is the most universal across all different golfing landscapes so it makes sense to me to start there

[revkev]

9 hours ago, cnosil said:

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.  

But isn’t that something that set Tiger apart? As I recall it Jack was very similar, he had a plan and he stuck to it. 

[null]

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/why-jack-nicklaus-in-his-prime-would-dominate-modern-day-golf-too/amp

Speaking of that 1963 PGA Championship, Nicklaus won it. He often overpowered courses much in the same way today’s longest hitters do, and he did so that week. Here is Sports Illustrated’s description of the performance, one that could be copied, pasted and published in 2020 without anyone knowing how long ago it was written.

“He rarely had to take anything out of his golf bag but his driver, wedge, putter and towel. … Meanwhile, just about everybody else, including [Dick] Hart and [Shelley] Mayfield, was wilting in the heat like a yellow rose of somewhere.”

 

 

[acatalano32]

On of the things I love about watching the PGA is seeing what they do with the same equipment I have (except for for a circle T, that’s way outta my budget lol). They will all adapt to the new yardages and scores will remain pretty much the same. 

Hot take… don’t roll the ball back, just don’t make the greens roll at 13 and be so pure, let the greens roll at a 9 and have some bumps, that will be tougher on them then a ball that travels less 

[cnosil]

35 minutes ago, revkev said:

But isn’t that something that set Tiger apart? As I recall it Jack was very similar, he had a plan and he stuck to it. 

Yep, 100%. Tigers mental game is what set him apart and having the mental strength is what kept him from chasing birdies.  Most players don’t sustain that focus and hit/attempt shots they shouldn’t.   With strokes gained and systems like DECADE, the need for this mental strength is being taught to younger players and more players are focused on the things to optimize scoring.   These young players that can bomb it are now bombing it with the right decision making skills.  
 

You can see this if you pay attention to TV broadcasts when they show player/caddie discussions.  They aren’t firing at pins like the announcers try to make us believe.