Bifurcation/Ball Roll Back Discussion

[LICC]

On 3/31/2023 at 2:22 PM, DerekBee said:

I'm not a fan of the rollback; I think the equipment ex-driver is going to be able to overcome most of it.  If the rollback is through the generation of spin, they will have to follow closely behind this with some kind of an equipment ban/limit that is in addition to all the existing restrictions.  Players could just jack lofts and start playing low spinning bombers to bring the spin back down and up the carry and descent angle, no?

It makes more sense to me to make the course more punishing for inaccuracy; Scores haven't dropped that much over the last 30 years - hell, Tiger's SG against the field for driver was higher in his day than the top guys are now, so why is this suddenly an issue?  Up the risk/reward for long bombing it and you'll see a lot of guys just pull 3 wood and put the ball out there to last generations' carry, anyway, unless they are chasing - in which case that just adds to the excitement.

Tighten landing areas to force long hitters to lay up. Yawn ...

[LICC]

George Bamberger:

While we’re at it, let’s bury this pretentious word going around golf: bifurcation, splitting something into two parts. Golf, as the best players play it, is a cousin, but that is all, to the game the rest of us play. We use whatever ball that comes out of our bag. We change brands midround without a second thought. You pick up after making a triple. You pick up after your third putt. You’re playing match play. We mark and clean and aim-point in some sort of monkey-see, monkey-do fantasy. Our game is not their game. Please. We need to get over ourselves. ...

Also, nobody is coming after your golf ball. Not in your club championship. Not in your after-work league. Not in your Sunday game. Not in NCAA play. The USGA and the R&A need to do a much better job of selling what this is: course preservation. The preservation of the par 5. A dose of humility for a game and world that needs it.

[jaskanski]

Let's put the whole ball roll back into perspective - how many actual pros fall into the category of 'they're just too darn long' ? Maybe 80-90 at best? Lest's say above average Rory McIlroy needs his average 326 yards rolled back to 300 yards to 'protect' courses. That means a ball that will (on average) travel 26 yards less - which is around 8%.. Another pro who hits on average 300 yards, now has their disatnce cut down to 276 yards (the same 8%) - so who still has an adavatage? Yup - Rory. The whole ball roll back is a total nonsense that doesn't create a level playing field - it just creates a new relative bias. And it's the same relative bias that existed 50 years ago. You hit it longer than the next guy - you have an  advantage (provided you can keep it in play). Simple solution - make it more difficult to keep it in play (without adding excess course length) by using strategic run off areas of rough, ditches, hazards, whatever, to mean there is no advantage whatsoever to hitting in excess of 320 yards, because you'll either be OOB, in rough (and I mean rough), in water, in a bunch of trees, or in a hazard which is no easy escape. It's totally doable (with the possible exception of ANGC) because it's how courses used to be before everyone on tour got some sort of sense of entitlement that courses need to look like contender for a beauty pageant. They don't - but all you hear about is pros whining about how difficult it is to break par on a course with an element of difficulty beyond it's length. Welcome to our world pro buddy, welcome.  Just use the same ball and suck it up. That's the whole original point of golf rules right?

[chisag]

1 minute ago, jaskanski said:

Lest's say above average Rory McIlroy needs his average 326 yards rolled back to 300 yards to 'protect' courses. That means a ball that will (on average) travel 26 yards less - which is around 8%.. Another pro who hits on average 300 yards, now has their disatnce cut down to 276 yards (the same 8%) - so who still has an adavatage? Yup - Rory. The whole ball roll back is a total nonsense that doesn't create a level playing field - it just creates a new relative bias.

 

... To be fair the rule has nothing to do with leveling the playing field. Golfers that hit the ball farther should have an advantage! Just like golfers that putt well have an advantage on Tour speed greens. It has nothing to do with "relative bias" and everything to do with protecting many of the old established curses as well as courses that will be built in the future. 

[jaskanski]

2 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... To be fair the rule has nothing to do with leveling the playing field. Golfers that hit the ball farther should have an advantage! Just like golfers that putt well have an advantage on Tour speed greens. It has nothing to do with "relative bias" and everything to do with protecting many of the old established curses as well as courses that will be built in the future. 

Correct - that's essentially what I said. If the longer hitter has an advantage anyway, then why roll the back distance to whatever limit - they still have an advantage!

Like I said - if you want to protect courses, then do something about courses - without adding length naturally...

 

[chisag]

8 minutes ago, jaskanski said:

Correct - that's essentially what I said. If the longer hitter has an advantage anyway, then why roll the back distance to whatever limit - they still have an advantage!

Like I said - if you want to protect courses, then do something about courses - without adding length naturally...

 

 

... We are not on the same page at all and that's fine as these are just opinions. Par 5's are designed to be reached in 3 shots and those with the length to reach in two should have an advantage. But when the entire field can reach easily and the long hitters have short irons, the design of the hole has been completely compromised. Personally I want to see every golfer faced with a tough decision at Augusta on #13 and #15. When virtually every player can reach those two greens with their 2nd shot you have completely changed the design of those holes. A long hitter on #15 with a great drive may have a 5 iron compared to a shorter hitter using a fairway wood and they may elect to lay up putting a premium on their short game and to me that is compelling golf. Lots of players using different techniques suited to their strengths to play a hole, not just bomb a driver with everyone on in two with at worst a hybrid. Obviously ymmv's ... 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 minute ago, chisag said:

But when the entire field can reach easily and the long hitters have short irons,

But the whole field doesn’t have the capability to reach in two. Anyone who is around Zach Johnson’s length isn’t getting home in 2 on most par 5s week to week. It’s. A perception that everyone is hitting wedges into par 4s and reaching par 5s in two. There was a chart posted in the wrx thread that out that notion to rest 

[LICC]

21 minutes ago, jaskanski said:

Correct - that's essentially what I said. If the longer hitter has an advantage anyway, then why roll the back distance to whatever limit - they still have an advantage!

Like I said - if you want to protect courses, then do something about courses - without adding length naturally...

 

So more woods and irons off the tee... boring. This is about keeping strategy and challenge in the game. Not about leveling the field.

[LICC]

3 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

But the whole field doesn’t have the capability to reach in two. Anyone who is around Zach Johnson’s length isn’t getting home in 2 on most par 5s week to week. It’s. A perception that everyone is hitting wedges into par 4s and reaching par 5s in two. There was a chart posted in the wrx thread that out that notion to rest 

When 90 players in any given tournament can reach most of the par 5s in two, that is all of the relevant field.

[jaskanski]

2 minutes ago, LICC said:

So more woods and irons off the tee... boring. This is about keeping strategy and challenge in the game. Not about leveling the field.

There has always been strategy and challenge in the game. The trouble is, in the professionall game, the way that courses have been set up with slick fairways and little real protection of any note, the driver bomb and gouge tactic has become a dumb reach no brainer. Take that option off the table, no matter what ball you're using you have more strategic options.

 

[LICC]

1 minute ago, jaskanski said:

There has always been strategy and challenge in the game. The trouble is, in the professionall game, the way that courses have been set up with slick fairways and little real protection of any note, the driver bomb and gouge tactic has become a dumb reach no brainer. Take that option off the table, no matter what ball you're using you have more strategic options.

 

Was Winged Foot set up that way in 2020? 

There is no strategy in targeting a small landing area. Hit the one available spot you're good, miss and you're not. That is not strategy.

Edited April 3 by LICC

[jaskanski]

6 minutes ago, LICC said:

Was Winged Foot set up that way in 2020? 

There is no strategy in targeting a small landing area. Hit the one available spot you're good, miss and you're not. That is not strategy.

Was the Masters set up that way in 1976 when Ray Floyd posted 271? Or Jack in 1965? Was St Andrews set up that way when Curtis Srange shot a 62 in 1987?

I'm sorry, but your reasoning has no relevance or logic. Dechabeau's strategy other than bombing everything he can is what exactly? Did it work out for him at the Masters with his 'strategy'?

[cnosil]

2 hours ago, chisag said:

Personally I want to see every golfer faced with a tough decision at Augusta on #13 and #15. When virtually every player can reach those two greens with their 2nd shot you have completely changed the design of those holes. A long hitter on #15 with a great drive may have a 5 iron compared to a shorter hitter using a fairway wood and they may elect to lay up putting a premium on their short game and to me that is compelling golf. 

Players have been reaching the greens in 2 for a long time;  it isn't just because of the increase ability to hit the ball farther.   

From Lou Stagner:  

15th hole. Greg Norman hits 7 iron from 195 yards just over the green. No wind. 22:51 point in the video

Ben Crenshaw has 185 yards to hole on 13th hole.  Sandy Lyle has 150 yards to hole on 13th hole. 1:25:55 mark

Seve hits 4 iron from 220 over the 15th green. Stadler has 210 yards to hole on 15. 1:36:01 mark

 

13th hole:

15:33 Hubert Green was ~210 to front edge

16:16 Miller ~190 front edge

1:06:40 Watson ~165 front edge

1:07:30 Norman ~150 front edge

Green was 157th out of 167 in driving distance in 1981

[LICC]

18 hours ago, jaskanski said:

Was the Masters set up that way in 1976 when Ray Floyd posted 271? Or Jack in 1965? Was St Andrews set up that way when Curtis Srange shot a 62 in 1987?

I'm sorry, but your reasoning has no relevance or logic. Dechabeau's strategy other than bombing everything he can is what exactly? Did it work out for him at the Masters with his 'strategy'?

What point are you trying to make, bringing up tournaments when the courses were 700 yards shorter and the setups were not as you described that you want to see?

[jaskanski]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

What point are you trying to make, bringing up tournaments when the courses were 700 yards shorter and the setups were not as you described that you want to see?

The point is - there is no point in rolling back the ball which is the topic of this discussion. Any player has the ability on their day to demolish any course if allowed to. The ball has nothing to do with it.

Maybe we should roll back the players? Like maybe make Bryson to wear a lead glove and an eye patch?

[fritzychacho]

Unpopular opinion but I definitely see the merits of bifurcation. I think it'll make the tour a lot more interesting seeing more mid irons into greens on par 4s and three shot par 5s. I'm in favor of making tour players having to be able to hit all of the clubs in their bags. It also is beneficial on the conservation and sustainability side of things, which I doubt many people would be against. And it may allow for more interesting courses that were previously too short a chance to show up on tour.

Having said that, if they had a rolled back ball this past Saturday at the masters, it would've been a nightmare for those guys in those conditions. I see the arguments on both sides but ultimately I agree it's a good first start with the way equipment and athletes are evolving.

[RickyBobby_PR]

17 minutes ago, fritzychacho said:

mid irons into greens on par 4s and three shot par 5s. I'm in favor of making tour players having to be able to hit all of the clubs in their bags. It also is beneficial on the conservation and sustainability side of things, which I doubt many people would be against. And it may allow for more interesting courses that were previously too short a chance to show up on tour.

Mid irons are already pretty common into these holes. I’m not going to dig back into the thread on wrx for a chart that shows clubs used on approach shots but it’s a lot more of mid irons than short irons 

Many of the shirt courses aren’t in the rotation because they don’t have the infrastructure to support a pga event and not because of distance not to mention the majority of current tour courses are in the 7000-7200 range