Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[HikingMike]

25 minutes ago, Lacassem said:

I would love to say MGS forum is driving discussion, debate and is the go to spot for golf related news 

We are a self-aware forum, heh

 

[storm319]

49 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

Why rollback? Because average pro distance has increased so much. There will always be outliers, no big deal. They are outliers, and those are not so much affecting the whole of the pro game.

First we need to agree on the time period that we are evaluating. What many fail to realize is that this is not an attempt at rolling back gains from the previous century, the ruling bodies set a baseline with their 2002 joint statement so there really isn't much use bringing up what happened prior to that regardless of how one personally feels. When evaluating average tour distance increases since then, you will see that the rate of increase has been in line with what we saw in the 1980's for which we hear little to complaints about (unfortunately not much data prior to that since the PGA Tour did not track driving stats previously). Essentially the equipment limits that the ruling bodies implemented in the early 2000's have been successful in slowing the rate of increase and essentially stopped the "Tiger proofing" trend that in reality impacted an extremely minor percentage of courses (also exaggerated given that most of the classic courses that people were making a big deal about increased length by less than 5%, these also happen to be amongst the wealthiest courses in the world). Basically the last 20 years is much better point of reference to use in predicting the future than anything that happened pre-2000. 

[cnosil]

4 hours ago, Stuka44 said:

I will admit when it comes to golf, I know nothing about how they actually achieve their "driving stats", but this could possibly make quite a bit of difference.  Give me the average amongst all PGA golfers over the last 10 years on 1 almost perfectly flat hole they played on each course.  Lets eliminate the holes that "DRIVE UP" the driving average by providing 60 + yards of roll out.  Someone who hits it 300 and get 360, and someone who hits it 330 and gets 400 out of it is to a certain degree artificially driving up the "AVERAGE", again as many have said, this is a course set up, fairway width, rough length problem, not a ball problem.

 

 

The way they used to do driving distances was 2 relatively straight holes that faced opposite directions to attempt to mitigate wind and that most players used driver.   Volunteers measured the total distance of the drive and the distances were averaged to get the players driving distance.   I know the LPGA still uses this approach.

Now with Shotlink on every hole volunteers shoot the distance of the players shots.  I believe they now use all the par 4 and 5  holes to determine driving distance.  Also, most of the holes have some kind of launch monitor on each hole to capture the club and ball data. 

[fixyurdivot]

3 hours ago, ChiefMB said:

If the pros are hitting it too far, don’t penalize amateurs.  Courses should add traps where the longer hitting pros end up.  Let them make the decision to hit it as far as they can or just play safe.

Your just plain talking crazy stuff .

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 hours ago, HikingMike said:

Why rollback? Because average pro distance has increased so much. There will always be outliers, no big deal. They are outliers, and those are not so much affecting the whole of the pro game.

So much that what? What is the actual problem? 
 

3 hours ago, HikingMike said:

I'm not sure how you make the distinction. It can be both. It is subjective preference how the game should be played, and whether we should change courses or not. Whether or not distance of shots is an issue is a subjective preference. Like I said in another post, this can be demonstrated by just extending this to an extreme. 

Why do courses have to be changed? What is the issue?

3 hours ago, HikingMike said:

"Pros could hit the ball 500 yards and play par 5s like we play par 3s now, and some people would be fine with that."

"I doubt anyone would want to see driveable par 5s"

That indicates there is a certain point where more distance disagrees with your preference for how the game should be played. It's just different than my preference.

Yes. Most people are happy with where the game is at and the current restrictions will keep it where it’s at.

3 hours ago, HikingMike said:

But in other places you say, and you mention Sasho says, they can just increase their distance in reaction to a ball rollback. Why don't they increase their distance now though if strokes gained dictates that? At some point it doesn't make sense. So that's why I am skeptical of the thinking they will just increase their distance, they have more in the tank, etc. If strokes gained told them to do that, they would have already done it.

Because they don’t need to. Tony Finau has said it himself. It there was a benefit with current equipment they would, but there isn’t a benefit. When they need to step on it they do during the course of a tournament. They will just do it more often with a slower ball because it’s necessary. As has been mentioned things like decade and course management in general take into account risk so it’s not just bomb away every time. Decade is based on strokes gained. It’s not just bomb away

3 hours ago, HikingMike said:

The cat is out of the bag already though. How about this... what if the next major has all par 4s under 300 yards? By that logic, this would remove some advantage from longer hitters, right?  Should we do it? This is also a subjective preference thing. They would score lower... also subjective preference.

As we know today shorter courses lead to shorter hitters winning. Nothing new there. 
 

3 hours ago, HikingMike said:

That's good to know, but I think that glosses over the issue. And I would favor considering more than just the last 10 years, and would also want to include some of the prospective future

The future is always accounted for. The equipment is capped right now and the distances on the tour hasnt changed and doesn’t need to change.

At the everyday golf courses there isn’t a distance issue and if there really was the courses could move the tee boxes back considering the low percentage of usage of the back tees but there isn’t a problem. The average golfer is driving the ball under 250 and those over 300 is 1% of all golfers.

All your hypotheticals are debunked by actual data

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 hours ago, storm319 said:

First we need to agree on the time period that we are evaluating. What many fail to realize is that this is not an attempt at rolling back gains from the previous century, the ruling bodies set a baseline with their 2002 joint statement so there really isn't much use bringing up what happened prior to that regardless of how one personally feels. When evaluating average tour distance increases since then, you will see that the rate of increase has been in line with what we saw in the 1980's for which we hear little to complaints about (unfortunately not much data prior to that since the PGA Tour did not track driving stats previously). Essentially the equipment limits that the ruling bodies implemented in the early 2000's have been successful in slowing the rate of increase and essentially stopped the "Tiger proofing" trend that in reality impacted an extremely minor percentage of courses (also exaggerated given that most of the classic courses that people were making a big deal about increased length by less than 5%, these also happen to be amongst the wealthiest courses in the world). Basically the last 20 years is much better point of reference to use in predicting the future than anything that happened pre-2000. 

Exactly and I see the trying to compare the jump from the 90s to 2000 as the evidence a rollback is needed in multiple online media. Its guys that want golf played a certain way and thinks that todays game for every pro is driver wedge on par 4s and driver mid iron on every par 5. Yet they have looked past the data shows that’s not the case.

then they revert to how the game was played by Jack and course design, while ignoring that nobody stands on the tee and goes I can only hit it to spot x because that’s where the designer want the ball to go, when I reality good golfers and especially pros are trying to find the best line for their ball flight that lets them score

[Jim Shaw]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

The way they used to do driving distances was 2 relatively straight holes that faced opposite directions to attempt to mitigate wind and that most players used driver.   Volunteers measured the total distance of the drive and the distances were averaged to get the players driving distance.   I know the LPGA still uses this approach.

Now with Shotlink on every hole volunteers shoot the distance of the players shots.  I believe they now use all the par 4 and 5  holes to determine driving distance.  Also, most of the holes have some kind of launch monitor on each hole to capture the club and ball data. 

that sounds really archaic, how long ago did the powers that be do that system? I know they measure green speed that way "the stipmeter" 

[cnosil]

13 minutes ago, Jim Shaw said:

that sounds really archaic, how long ago did the powers that be do that system? I know they measure green speed that way "the stipmeter" 

Found it on the PGA tour site and they still use that system:

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/101

Under the info button next to the title:  The average number of yards per measured drive. These drives are measured on two holes per round. Care is taken to select two holes which face in opposite directions to counteract the effect of wind. Drives are measured to the point at which they come to rest regardless of whether they are in the fairway or not. 

[Lake Forest CC Member]

The rollback somewhat makes sense for the PGA tour. Much of the historical courses which measure under 6800 yards couldn't host an event today as scores would average in the mid 60s. Reducing the ball a 3% probably would be a good idea for the sport at a professional level.

 

However, at the average club, the majority of the membership plays a single set of tees which is almost never the tips. So there seems to be a targeting of those with a 105+ mph swing speed with this rollback. Almost as if the USGA wishes for the handicap system to hold true even when steady Eddie and his 230 yard drives has to play from the tips with someone in the 270+ yard average drive distance. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 hours ago, Lake Forest CC Member said:

The rollback somewhat makes sense for the PGA tour. Much of the historical courses which measure under 6800 yards couldn't host an event today as scores would average in the mid 60s. Reducing the ball a 3% probably would be a good idea for the sport at a professional level.

These historical courses haven’t been used because they don’t have the capabilities from a logistical standpoint to host pga tour or a major anymore. The amount of space needed for hospitality tents, parking, accommodations for the pros, staff, etc aren’t there.

whats wrong with scores in the mid 60s? Why’s ks bad when pros shoot around their handicap?

a pros handicap is +5 or better. Shooting in the mid 60s is something that they can do on a somewhat regular basis. 6800 yards is a here 200-400 yards shorter than what is played now on tour which is around 7200 yards, some  little longer and some a little less.

[ILMgolfnut]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

These historical courses haven’t been used because they don’t have the capabilities from a logistical standpoint to host pga tour or a major anymore.

Wrong. They aren't used because they can be overpowered. The only way to defend them is to grow US Open rough with fairways barely wide enough to walk down, and nobody wants to see that. Even the USGA.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, ILMgolfnut said:

Wrong. They aren't used because they can be overpowered. The only way to defend them is to grow US Open rough with fairways barely wide enough to walk down, and nobody wants to see that. Even the USGA.

What does overpowered mean? 
 

Give me examples of courses that are no longer used that you think could be used with a rollback?

[Stuka44]

15 hours ago, cnosil said:

I believe they now use all the par 4 and 5  holes

Thanks for the info, I really wasn't sure.  So if they are using all holes then this can have some effect on average.  Average is the least telling stat.  It can be skewed by outlying, extremely low, or high numbers.  The should really look at median, or mode.  

[Lake Forest CC Member]

34 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

What does overpowered mean? 
 

Give me examples of courses that are no longer used that you think could be used with a rollback?

Overpowered is essentially, driving 4 fours easily. Or laying up with long irons yet not having a mid or long in, having a wedge in. The easiest way is to look at mid and early 20th century US Open locations. Some of them have been able to add length but many have not. Obviously the logistics matter for hosting an event, but that’s a secondary issue to the course first qualifying as host based on layout.

 

1 hour ago, ILMgolfnut said:

Wrong. They aren't used because they can be overpowered. The only way to defend them is to grow US Open rough with fairways barely wide enough to walk down, and nobody wants to see that. Even the USGA.

I agree that narrow and long roughs are helpful and almost the only thing for some of these courses. The why behind the historical courses could be because of a desire to relive  history. Or it could just be a desire not to be able to relive a more current history. If the ball continued to improve, along with equipment, 330 yard drives may become the tour average. At that point most guys on a modern course can keep it well within play and would be going driver-wedge on every par 4. To an extent that watching it would become a little boring. Something, nobody wants either.

[skraeling]

10 minutes ago, Lake Forest CC Member said:

If the ball continued to improve, along with equipment, 330 yard drives may become the tour average. 

Except how can it?

[FrogginBullfish]

8 minutes ago, Lake Forest CC Member said:

Overpowered is essentially, driving 4 fours easily. Or laying up with long irons yet not having a mid or long in, having a wedge in. The easiest way is to look at mid and early 20th century US Open locations. Some of them have been able to add length but many have not. Obviously the logistics matter for hosting an event, but that’s a secondary issue to the course first qualifying as host based on layout.

 

I agree that narrow and long roughs are helpful and almost the only thing for some of these courses. The why behind the historical courses could be because of a desire to relive  history. Or it could just be a desire not to be able to relive a more current history. If the ball continued to improve, along with equipment, 330 yard drives may become the tour average. At that point most guys on a modern course can keep it well within play and would be going driver-wedge on every par 4. To an extent that watching it would become a little boring. Something, nobody wants either.

The vast majority of par 4s that are "driven easily" are driveable because the course is setup to make the hole driveable to add a scoring opportunity.

Modern strategy basically under no circumstances but the most rare of exceptions would ever suggest laying up with an long iron off the tee to leave yet another mid to long iron on approach. It doesn't happen because there would be no benefit for the players to do so. If a long iron off the tee is going to leave a mid to long iron in there'd have to be like a pond or a chasm stopping the players from hitting 50-100 yards up with driver. Pebble Beach No. 8 would be a prime example. No one on tour is ever laying up with a two iron to leave a 5 iron in on a typical hole. Maybe on a crazy windy day but that's it.

[DaveP043]

16 hours ago, cnosil said:

Now with Shotlink on every hole volunteers shoot the distance of the players shots.  I believe they now use all the par 4 and 5  holes to determine driving distance.  Also, most of the holes have some kind of launch monitor on each hole to capture the club and ball data. 

This may at least partially explain why driving distance hasn't increased a lot, counting all of these holes includes a lot of holes where driver isn't used.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

48 minutes ago, Lake Forest CC Member said:

is essentially, driving 4 fours easily. Or laying up with long irons yet not having a mid or long in, having a wedge in. The easiest way is to look at mid and early 20th century US Open locations. Some of them have been able to add length but many have not. Obviously the logistics matter for hosting an event, but that’s a secondary issue to the course first qualifying as host based on layout.

Again why is that a problem on the professional tour and not just a subjective view on how golf should be played?

Can the course no longer be played? Or is it that leads to lower scores and you don’t like to see lower scores in a tournament?

The majority of pros aren’t complaining and it distance. Other then a Rory who complains when the score are in the high teens to low 20s under par and he doesnt win. So if the pros playing the game aren’t complaining and the organizations running 99.9% of all pro events are complaining and are actually promoting distance. How is there a problem on tour.

It doesn’t change the way the winner is determined. Also the PGA tour used a 6800 yard course for one the rounds of its Q school finals. What they didn’t do was have a a full blown event with hospitality tents, the needs to accommodate tens of thousands of fans each day, the various accommodations that they make for touring pros.

The DP world tour and the PGA tour have never complained about a distance issue. Who has fine issue with distance? It’s the ruling bodies and to an extent The Masters run by Augusta National.

Between the DP world tour and the oga tour there are roughly 70 events including the majors and some point events that count for both tours. That means that there are less than 1% of events on the two biggest tours are run by the organizations that host majors. Why are they trying to dictate how the pro game should be played?

They are willing to use 7000 yard courses for the US Open qualifying. The USGA picked St Andrews Old Course for the Walker Cup which plays around 7300 so why is it ok to use that for an elite male competition but also a course that has to be protected for elite male competition, especially if it’s the upcoming young elite males that are supposedly going to be the ones adding to the distance problem?

again pick a classic course that could, should still be used that’s not anymore.

Cherry Hills wasn’t used by the USGA at all after 1978 for the US Open, long before distance was an issue.

31 minutes ago, FrogginBullfish said:

The vast majority of par 4s that are "driven easily" are driveable because the course is setup to make the hole driveable to add a scoring opportunity.

Modern strategy basically under no circumstances but the most rare of exceptions would ever suggest laying up with a long iron off the tee to leave yet another mid to long iron on approach. It doesn't happen because there would be no benefit for the players to do so. If a long iron off the tee is going to leave a mid to long iron in there'd have to be like a pond or a chasm stopping the players from hitting 50-100 yards up with driver. Pebble Beach No. 8 would be a prime example. No one on tour is ever laying up with a two iron to leave a 5 iron in on a typical hole. Maybe on a crazy windy day but that's it.

Correct the setups of holes chosen by the PGA tour are done to promote distance thus no distance issue but rather a preference by some who don’t want to see golf played that way. Thats not a problem, thats just subjective personal opinion. It’s also been proven by data that I posted in this thread that shows it’s not a driver wedge game on tour no matter how many times people want to claim it. The club choices into greens and on par 5s have been the same for the last 20 years just like distance has. The average as storm pointed out has grown at the same pace as the 80s which nobody was complaining about.

With things like strokes gained, decade, etc the pursuit of distance isn’t going to go away, the days of playing to a number because that was thought to be the best way to play golf is long gone. Any rollback will cause the pursuit of distance to increase amongst the pros 

Edited December 21, 2023 by RickyBobby_PR

[HikingMike]

17 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

All your hypotheticals are debunked by actual data

You continue saying my opinions are debunked by data. I don't get it. You agree that average pro distance has increased and will increase more. Beyond that, we have different opinions for what to do about that. And it feels like we are talking in circles at this point.

17 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

So much that what? What is the actual problem?

You believe there isn't a problem and no change is needed. I believe there is a problem and there should be a change. We differ in our preferences. I'm not sure why, but on the topic of whether or not there is a problem, and whether or not there should be a change, you insist on considering this as an objective thing dictated by the data. This causes us to talk past each other. Data is data. Data does not tell you if there should be a rules change. People decide that.

17 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Why do courses have to be changed? What is the issue?

No courses have to change. This is a preference issue. No courses had to Tiger proof 15-20 years ago. No courses had to react to distance increases over the last 150 years or whatever. Thinking hypothetically, if there were some unknown change that caused people to hit longer and every hole played like a par 3, courses still do not have to change. That's why I used the word "should". But it should be noted that a lot of courses have changed and are changing. 

17 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Yes. Most people are happy with where the game is at and the current restrictions will keep it where it’s at.

Let's hope so. But you said yourself that average pro distance will continue to increase some.

17 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Because they don’t need to. Tony Finau has said it himself. It there was a benefit with current equipment they would, but there isn’t a benefit. When they need to step on it they do during the course of a tournament. They will just do it more often with a slower ball because it’s necessary. As has been mentioned things like decade and course management in general take into account risk so it’s not just bomb away every time. Decade is based on strokes gained. It’s not just bomb away

Ok gotcha, so sometimes it helps (to step on it) and sometimes it doesn't. And with a ball rollback, sometimes it will help and sometimes it won't. That seems similar either way. But you're probably saying they will step on it more often after a rollback. It depends on the hole though and every player's distance and risk/reward calculation. It's hard to say.

18 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

As we know today shorter courses lead to shorter hitters winning. Nothing new there.

Ok. My question to you is should we make pro event courses shorter? 

18 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The future is always accounted for. The equipment is capped right now and the distances on the tour hasnt changed and doesn’t need to change.

Average distance did change after the last equipment change, and it will increase a bit more. It hasn't levelled off yet.

18 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

At the everyday golf courses there isn’t a distance issue 

I'll agree with you here. The data posted earlier in the thread did show that non-pro average distance has not increased that much over the years. There is more nuance to it I'm sure. Bifurcation might make more sense to me with that. I was on the fence on that one.

[HikingMike]

20 hours ago, storm319 said:

First we need to agree on the time period that we are evaluating. What many fail to realize is that this is not an attempt at rolling back gains from the previous century, the ruling bodies set a baseline with their 2002 joint statement so there really isn't much use bringing up what happened prior to that regardless of how one personally feels. When evaluating average tour distance increases since then, you will see that the rate of increase has been in line with what we saw in the 1980's for which we hear little to complaints about (unfortunately not much data prior to that since the PGA Tour did not track driving stats previously). Essentially the equipment limits that the ruling bodies implemented in the early 2000's have been successful in slowing the rate of increase and essentially stopped the "Tiger proofing" trend that in reality impacted an extremely minor percentage of courses (also exaggerated given that most of the classic courses that people were making a big deal about increased length by less than 5%, these also happen to be amongst the wealthiest courses in the world). Basically the last 20 years is much better point of reference to use in predicting the future than anything that happened pre-2000. 

True. Yeah I was including earlier times in some of my comments. But I believe the USGA's informal comments were to the effect that they weren't rolling back to persimmon woods, and more like they were addressing changes since the early 2000s. 

Here is a good quote from that I found here -

In May of 2002, the USGA and R&A’s Joint Statement of Principles outlined how the game’s governing bodies view the relationship between golf, technology and distance. Many critics of the increasing-distance trend have pointed to the nearly 18-year-old document, which states, “Any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game.”

I would agree with that. They are including "greater athleticism of players", and all-of-the-above. I think a lot of people here are saying the game should not react to increased distance if it comes from greater athleticism. But I think it should totally be included in consideration. The source of the increased distance is not so much the main subject. Distance affects the game regardless of the source. The main subject is how increased distance affects the game. Prior to 2004, distances had already increased by a lot. So maybe we shouldn't increase more.

[HikingMike]

On 12/19/2023 at 4:50 PM, Franc38 said:

They never had the power to regulate equipment... until they took it. They never had the power to regulate based on outcome instead of properties... until they took it.
As they are OK saying "a ball is conforming if it does this or that distance when submitted to x or y condition", they can perfectly say "a course is conforming for handicapping and competition purposes if a conforming ball landing this or that way doesn't roll more than x yards... Or "greens are conforming if the stimp is less than x and more than y". Or "no fairway should be wider than X or Y for a course to be acceptable for competition"

Would equalise some things, too. The "super long drives" they seem to cry about are way more likely to happen in high altitude during the summer than at lower altitude when it's freezing. As they don't want super long drives they should ban competitions at high altitude courses, particularly in the summer.

Tongue in cheek, we could expect, for the purpose of limiting that atrocious distance that so irks them, that it is now forbidden to play golf when the temperature is more than 15° Celsius (59 Fahrenheit) and when the last heavy rain fall is more than 2 days ago. Would be just as good for the game, and just as logical as their rules on the balls.

 

Ultimately, they never had the power to regulate distance. They just happen to try to take it, right now (well, it started, low key, before but now it's really visible and "official"). Nobody voted for that, agreed to that... And the USGA as the R&A have very little legitimacy to do stuff, except historical. I could well see national federations (or tours) branch out on ball rules, same as they had before the WHS, used very different rules for handicap calculations (and still do, to some extent).

I don't have much knowledge of this topic. But if we don't have a standards body that is designated and supported by the big stakeholders in the sport and empowered to set rules, then one should be created, or existing ones modified into that role. Ideally this would match across leagues, and it would set rules, possibly slightly different rulesets, for the leagues and amateur events, and anything that chooses to conform. That would be more coherent. It seems like more of a mixed bag how this works compared to how major pro leagues in other sports work, at least based on what people are saying.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

You continue saying my opinions are debunked by data. I don't get it. You agree that average pro distance has increased and will increase more. Beyond that, we have different opinions for what to do about that. And it feels like we are talking in circles at this poi

We disagree that max distance will increase which the data suggests it won’t and that a rollback won’t stop the average from going up. The average going up isn’t a problem, yet you think it is. It wasn’t a problem for anyone in the 80s which saw a similar increase in average distance. 

 

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

But you're probably saying they will step on it more often after a rollback. It depends on the hole though and every player's distance and risk/reward calculation. It's hard to say.

We disagree on courses expanding to deal with the distance increase. We also disagree there is a distance issue. I believe you also think it’s driver wedge game on tour which it’s not.

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

That seems similar either way. But you're probably saying they will step on it more often after a rollback. It depends on the hole though and every player's distance and risk/reward calculation. It's hard to say.

Yes because they are going to make up the average. You will see the swing speed average jump from 115 on tour to 120-125. 

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

Ok. My question to you is should we make pro event courses shorter? 

Theres no need to make courses shorter or longer. The game is just fine where the current distances are which is why over the last 20 years they have remained constant on tour.

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

Average distance did change after the last equipment change, and it will increase a bit more. It hasn't levelled off yet.

It will not increase like many claim. It’s been 10 yards over the last 20 yeara. So even if it stays at that pace which it probably won’t it will be at 310. 
 

Remember these distances aren’t carry they are total distance measured by where the ball comes to rest. That type of change isn’t a reason to rollback not make a change for all golfers at every level 

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

You believe there isn't a problem and no change is needed. I believe there is a problem and there should be a change. We differ in our preferences. I'm not sure why, but on the topic of whether or not there is a problem, and whether or not there should be a change, you insist on considering this as an objective thing dictated by the data. This causes us to talk past each other. Data is data. Data does not tell you if there should be a rules change. People decide that.

To say the ball goes to far is subjective.

you have to define too far according to who? So those that say it does are being subjective and those who say it doesn’t are also being subjective. So when the two tours say it’s fine as do most of their members, the pga of America who runs a major says it ok as do a majority of the fans, then why is it two bodies who work as or have the right to say the ball goes to far and has to be rolled back. 
 

You have to define too far compared to who and to when. So who does the ball go to far compared to. It goes to far compared to when?

Lastly why is the distance it goes on tour and issue?

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

I'll agree with you here. The data posted earlier in the thread did show that non-pro average distance has not increased that much over the years. There is more nuance to it I'm sure. Bifurcation might make more sense to me with that. I was on the fence on that one.

Bifurcation is bad for the game. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

The source of the increased distance is not so much the main subject. Distance affects the game regardless of the source. The main subject is how increased distance affects the game. Prior to 2004, distances had already increased by a lot. So maybe we shouldn't increase more.

How does it negatively affect the game in general?

how does it affect the pro game negatively?

 

Edited December 21, 2023 by RickyBobby_PR

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

I don't have much knowledge of this topic. But if we don't have a standards body that is designated and supported by the big stakeholders in the sport and empowered to set rules, then one should be created, or existing ones modified into that role. Ideally this would match across leagues, and it would set rules, possibly slightly different rulesets, for the leagues and amateur events, and anything that chooses to conform. That would be more coherent. It seems like more of a mixed bag how this works compared to how major pro leagues in other sports work, at least based on what people are saying.

This so literally the role of the USGA and R&A. Any handicap system complies with their standards and competitions fall under the rules they created, modified, deleted.

The issue is these two bodies have shown over and over they don’t have the interest of the amateur or the game as a whole in their best interests, but rather what they deem as the appropriate way to play golf. Their groove ruling backfired to the point they haven’t gave the 4 year warning that it will fully go into effect. Their long putter/anchoring ban did nothing but hurt amateurs who were using it to better enjoy golf and to hurt careers of some pros.

Some will look at their decision to allow 460cc drivers when nobody was close or their decision to not address distance after the Prov1 release as bad decisions.

[cnosil]

8 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

This may at least partially explain why driving distance hasn't increased a lot, counting all of these holes includes a lot of holes where driver isn't used.  

I added a correction in a later post.  They don't use shotlink for average driving distance; per the pga tour site it says they use the two opposite direction holes which is where players typically hit driver.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

I added a correction in a later post.  They don't use shotlink for average driving distance; per the pga tour site it says they use the two opposite direction holes which is where players typically hit driver.

Thanks for the correction. 

[Stuka44]

17 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

How does it negatively affect the game in general?

how does it affect the pro game negatively?

These are the key questions, which are only being answered with as you state a subjective ideas..  I have said it may times on this and other similar threads on this topic.

I am a pretty good golfer, many are better, many are worse, but I would consider myself above average.  I have kept scores, and stats on my game for the last 4 years to the total of 158 rounds.  I can assure you DISTANCE, and how far I am hitting the ball is not a problem for me.   

I am NOT playing the same game as the pros, and NEVER WILL BE.  Therefore to lump me in with the pro's is categorically WRONG, arrogant, and dictatorial(because they subjectively believe, they KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR ME).   Let's look at how far I am hitting the ball is making this game too easy for me!!!!!

4 year EAGLE percentage...  2020-0%,  2021-0.13%,  2022-0.13%,  2023-0%.  Now I know one from last year was a hole out from about 65-70 yards, I MAY have had one other but I don't think so.  I would also say in any of the last 4 years I have had likely, between par 4's and 5's ABSOLUTELY NO MORE THAN, 6 putts for eagle, in any one year. 

Yeah but what about birdies!!!  How far I am hitting it, is making my 2nd shot's TOO EASY. (SARCASM---  I'm hitting 70% of greens in regulation, and can PUTT ON, with my 2nd shot, or  with my 30 foot, and less chips remaining I'm a 40% Birdie machine!!, )

 NOT REALLY!                Let's look at the ACTUAL STATS.  2020-GIR 38%/Birdie 4.32%, 2021-GIR 33.9%/Birdie 4.67%,  2022-GIR 37.7%/Birdie 4.71%(killed it that year), and 2023-GIR 31.1%/4.37%..  Now if you are a weekend golfer, who does believe you are hitting the ball too far,  and the game is too easy, well CONGRATULATIONS you are in the top 1% of all weekend golfers!

The REALITY IS, the R&A, and USGA are clinging to an antiquated idea that everyone is PLAYING THE SAME GAME, and realistically(not technically speaking) this is simply not true.  They, and many others are simply unwilling to face reality. The now immaculately kept courses pro's play on, render "play it as it lies"(off of the scorched earth that is my fairway), and play out of that clear footprint in the bunker, an ACTUAL disadvantage to the weekend golfer, that pros don't actually face, AND THEY DON'T CARE.  Take a stroke for that ball lost in play, is an ACTUAL penalty to weekend golfers, that pro's never face, AND THEY DON'T CARE!  Pro's can reach a vast majority of the par 5's they play in two, I can reach 1% of all par 5's I play IN A YEAR, and that normally requires ATMOSPHERIC HELP!  This ball roll back will as a matter of fact reduce the number of par 5's I have a chance of reaching in two, AND THEY DON'T CARE!

I AM DONE, believing that I owe the game of golf ANYTHING, which is what they want us to believe!  They want us to just FALL IN LINE, AND TAKE IT! Like it is a privilege, that can be revoked at any time, even though we are spending our own money, and are the reason equipment companies, and almost every other entity, connected to the game stays in business.   For What?  So that they and all of the tournament runners, can keep making Billions of Dollars,  that they don't want to report the ACTUAL dollar figure on, so they don't have to actually change set ups, in order to ACTUALLY MAKE THE GAME HARD FOR THEIR A-LISTERS.  We the weekend players are the Z-listers.  All the elite clubs, ultra rich people, who pay elite club fees, and fees for Pro-Ams, are all above us in the pecking order.

Why did they include us the vast majority of golfers, 90% of us ranging from average to very bad, BECAUSE NOT ONLY DO THEY BELIEVE WE WILL JUST TAKE IT!!, THEY EXPECT WE WILL SAY "THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER".  Anyone who doesn't understand, that its not about how much less the ball will travel, and about the FACT that they believe they have the right to FORCE THIS ON US, is missing the point of all of this.  They should feel that they OWE US THE WEEKEND GOLFER A DEBT OF GRATITUDE, THEY DON'T!!!

Other than fees, and balls 2023 version, which I am stocking up on, to play, I will never again be a USGA member, I will not renew, any golf magazine subscriptions.  Maybe it won't make any difference in the long run, but I am done having them believe I AM,  JUST GOING TO TAKE IT!!

Maybe its just me!  

 

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Stuka44

[RickyBobby_PR]

17 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

These are the key questions, which are only being answered with as you state a subjective ideas..  I have said it may times on this and other similar threads on this topic.

Exactly or the reason is something that is contradicted by the data such as courses are getting longer, courses are obsolete yet other than saying longer hitters can carry trouble those courses aren’t getting their course records broken and they can still be played by golfers of all levels, and then when you bring this up it boils down to they don’t like seeing low scores relative to par, which is nothing but an arbitrary number and what matters in competitive to score is who has the lowest score at the end. No points are awarded for hitting more fairways, playing the course as designed.

21 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

am NOT playing the same game as the pros, and NEVER WILL BE.  Therefore to lump me in with the pro's is categorically WRONG, arrogant, and dictatorial(because they subjectively believe, they KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR ME).  

While I get the sentiment, even at the pro level not all play the same game. Zach Johnson isn’t playing the game the same was as DJ. Rickie is playing different than Scheffler. It’s what makes golf great. We all get to play the same game using the same equipment and rules and try to do our best.

Not all amateurs play the same. A 25 handicap isn’t playing the same game as a 10 who isn’t playing the same as a scratch. 
 

But I agree that implementing a rule that will negatively affect the game at a level where the regular amateur isn’t hitting it that far is crazy, all because the 1% of golfers play the game different that a bunch of suits don’t like.

The game has been played differently over its entire existence. Equipment has changed, agronomy has changed, the golfer has changed. It’s the natural part of any sport. 

[DaveP043]

22 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

How does it negatively affect the game in general?

how does it affect the pro game negatively?

4 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

But I agree that implementing a rule that will negatively affect the game

 

I think that the idea of "negatively affecting" is subjective, whether someone says that "distance increases negatively affect the pro game"  or he says "decreasing distance will negatively impact the game in general".  You can't prove either claim with data, these are opinions.  I don't know whether the roll-back will be a good thing or a bad thing, but I DO believe its not the 'end of the world catastrophe" that so many state as fact.  Golfers will play golf, and they'll enjoy playing golf.  I enjoyed playing golf with small wooded woods and blades and wound balls, I enjoy playing it with shoebox-sized drivers and GI clubs and multi-layer golf balls, and I'll enjoy playing with a slightly shorter golf ball when that happens.

[RickyBobby_PR]

10 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I think that the idea of "negatively affecting" is subjective, whether someone says that "distance increases negatively affect the pro game"  or he says "decreasing distance will negatively impact the game in general".  You can't prove either claim with data, these are opinions.  I don't know whether the roll-back will be a good thing or a bad thing, but I DO believe its not the 'end of the world catastrophe" that so many state as fact.  Golfers will play golf, and they'll enjoy playing golf.  I enjoyed playing golf with small wooded woods and blades and wound balls, I enjoy playing it with shoebox-sized drivers and GI clubs and multi-layer golf balls, and I'll enjoy playing with a slightly shorter golf ball when that happens.

If a person or organzation claims there is a problem that means there is a negative effect caused by that problem. Its on the person or organization to state and defend that negative effect if they want to others to buy into the issue and the solution.

The data debunks the claim that distance has caused courses to be lengthen, so that’s not a valid reason to rollback.

The data debunks the notion the game is now driver wedge, so that’s not a negative effect.

The data doesn’t support that if nothing is done that distance will explode similar to what happened between the 90s and 2000s, but most of it suggest there might be a small decline based on swing speeds slowing down the last 2 years after being stagnant the previous 3 years.

All the claims of why the distance the current pros hit the ball have been subjective in nature and none provide any data as to why it’s a problem.

Claims about courses being obsolete has no data to suggest that the case. Its people who want to see classic curses many which weren’t used on tour or for majors long before the current ball and equipment be used. Some want to see the game played like Jack played it. These are subjective preferences of a minority of golfers and the stuffiness of the ruling bodies.
 

The data in support of leaving the game stand under the current guidelines provides an objective view that there isn’t a problem.

The distance study started long before LIV was even a thing so we can take the current uncertainty out of the equation. The last golf TV deal indicates that the product the PGA tour is putting out is enjoyed by a large audience. The sponsors and increased purses even before LIV also indicate the current pro game is what people want to see. Advertisers paying the current prices also indicate the same. Lastly Mike Whan stated that the game is healthy. So if everything about the game is a positive, why change it.

When 6% of golfers in a national survey say they will quit the game over the new ball that’s a problem and not good for the game.