Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[LICC]

14 hours ago, Preeway said:

But is this an equipment/ball issue or just the fact that young players today have learned better biomechanics and better strength/speed training techniques? We’ve unlocked so many “secrets” about swing mechanics that even high school kids are driving the ball 300+. Yes, some of it is equipment but the teaching and training has also improved. I really don’t see how changing the ball is good for the game in the long run. 

No, it’s almost entirely the equipment. There have been pages of discussion on this with the reasons why and the counter arguments. 

[Preeway]

3 minutes ago, LICC said:

No, it’s almost entirely the equipment. There have been pages of discussion on this with the reasons why and the counter arguments. 

I too believe it’s about the equipment. But you can’t disregard the role of improved biomechanics combined with enhanced strength training. Elite players today aren’t swinging the same way elite players did back in 1980. The combination of equipment technology and biomechanics/strength training has truly changed the endgame. But the ball is an easier culprit. 

[fixyurdivot]

Lots of supposition being thrown about that a neutered ball will have no effect on sub 100 mph swing speeds.  I have not seen any data or ball mfg. experts supporting this.  If anyone has, please share.

I'd love to hear from Dean Snell and his peer group on this subject. @Tony Covey MGS... future podcast opportunity??

I was testing the G430 Max the other day and the fiter was sharing the data with me.  Reading the expression on my face on average carry distance, he quickly reminded me that the range balls were ~15% shorter.  Don't know about the rest of you, but I sure as hell don't want to pay tour ball pricing for range ball distances .

 

[EnderinAZ]

Okay since we are just talkin' and have absolutely no control over the topic of hauling back golf specs, why not propose a radically different approach? Call it the NASCAR effect. Professional race car drivers do NOT bother with state fair ovals or dirt tracks. Why not designate a course per state (yep include Alaska) and make it a Professional Venue. Make it, and keep it brutal hard. No need to dig pothole bunkers just make the sand inconsistent. One is perfect dry sand, nice and fluffy. The next is a quarter inch of powder over concrete then let the pro try to hit out of some gelatinous glop with the consistency of cold oatmeal.  Make the greens tiny and full of unfair slopes and surrounded by ankle deep rough that simply consumes your ball. 

The conditions I have listed above are the things we regular duffers face every day - I mean the Bermuda grass on the sides of my home course fairways hasn't gone dormant yet, is 2 inches deep, and will eat my ball within 3 inches of the fairway. Sandtraps here in the desert get watered along with the grass, compressing and compacting the sand, then the summer sun bakes it into concrete. 

I digress

Anyway make these Professional Venues open to the masochistic public but keep them as close to tour quality as financially possible. Let these courses set their own "equipment" rules in concert with the golf governing bodies regardless of the general masses golf stuff and move on. It would be exciting to watch - think that goofy TV show where the contestants have to navigate a maze while avoiding getting whacked with a big padded paddle and getting knocked into a pool of water combined with those strong man/woman ninja warrior shows. I would really enjoy watching the pros walk onto a tee box where the tree branches are so low it leaves only a three foot area of trashed ground to tee your ball. Then watch them figure that shot our. It would show ability, not just grip it and rip it. But, ability does not sell golf equipment. Grip it and rip it does. So it would never happen. 

[cnosil]

5 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Lots of supposition being thrown about that a neutered ball will have no effect on sub 100 mph swing speeds.  I have not seen any data or ball mfg. experts supporting this.  If anyone has, please share.

I'd love to hear from Dean Snell and his peer group on this subject. @Tony Covey MGS... future podcast opportunity??

I was testing the G430 Max the other day and the fiter was sharing the data with me.  Reading the expression on my face on average carry distance, he quickly reminded me that the range balls were ~15% shorter.  Don't know about the rest of you, but I sure as hell don't want to pay tour ball pricing for range ball distances .

 

In  my opinion it is a complete unknown at this time.  All that is "known" at this time is that they will be a change in how balls are evaluated which will in theory create some kind of rollback to ensure balls meet the spec.     How that will impact the masses is unknown as we haven't seen the new balls.   

Everyone speculates about how the different layers could be formulated to ensure slower speeds aren't penalized.  If that is true,  I would guess that they could build a layer that meets the evaluation criteria but has better performance for faster and slower speeds.  The biggest problem is building those layers and ensuring consistency.  

Right now nothing is know for certain.  

[MGoBlue100]

14 hours ago, Preeway said:

I think I’m more in the camp of wondering why courses don’t get more creative with their challenges. Distance off the tee doesn’t equate to huge advantages at the British Open. Primarily because they have pot bunkers in the fairways and around the green putting a larger premium on accuracy. I don’t see why American courses can’t go this route instead as it wouldn’t create a need for more land and wouldn’t create a huge increase in course maintenance costs. Fairway bunkers with steep faces requiring a player to pitch out is another route. And make the bunker more of a waste hazard so you aren’t trying to maintain it like a normal greenside bunker. 

Nah. USGA / R&A want everyone to play the game that Bobby Jones played. Can’t wait to buy my first box of gutta percha balls. What fun that will be.

Edited December 3, 2023 by MGoBlue100

[fixyurdivot]

4 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

I don't have an answer for all of this. I think the pros play a completely different game than we do already and have no issues with them (or any championship leading to a tour card, national championship) having to use a rolled back ball.

Agree and highlighted the "keyword".  The issue will be that the mfg's and retailers will not want to make, market, and inventory limited flight balls and current offerings.  In all likelihood this rollback is going to find its way into our bags.  I'm hopeful we see a HUGE pushback from the OEM's, tour players, and amateurs around the world.

The USGA and R&A have created a mountain out of a mole-hill.  Another example of creating tons of unnecessary churn for an issue (debateable at that) associated with <1% of the golfers worldwide... freaking ridiculous .

[Kenny B]

5 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Agree and highlighted the "keyword".  The issue will be that the mfg's and retailers will not want to make, market, and inventory limited flight balls and current offerings.  In all likelihood this rollback is going to find its way into our bags.  I'm hopeful we see a HUGE pushback from the OEM's, tour players, and amateurs around the world.

The USGA and R&A have created a mountain out of a mole-hill.  Another example of creating tons of unnecessary churn for an issue (debateable at that) associated with <1% of the golfers worldwide... freaking ridiculous .

Some USGA idiot will decide that the dimples must be modified to create less lift and not fly as straight.  But it won't matter much because the pros will figure out how to compensate, and even though the ball will only carry 280, it will roll out 50 yards on nicely mowed, firm fairways... so 330 drive.

[funkyjudge]

9 hours ago, EnderinAZ said:

Seems to me that if you look at this question of a more challenging course from a business / general public point of view, more challenge in the form of horribly deep traps, rough so thick and deep you lose your ball 6 inches from the fairway, sloping fairways with unhindered access to pond waters, and landing areas the size of a single car garage you are simply setting the course up to be well hated by the very people you try to entice into playing golf. With that type of course, well, they might as well buy radio advertisement touting the slowest play in the area.

Case in point. We haven't had more than a few drops of rain here in the east Mesa area in at least a couple of months. Thursday evening it rained and rained again yesterday morning. Rules for the course yesterday -  cart path only and play the ball down unless in casual water. 2/3rds of the Friday regulars stayed off the course, and it was a perfect golf day. Sunny, warm, and not much wind. 

One final thing, waste areas are cool and nasty in the same breath. There is a course in central Oregon, in the town of Sisters called Aspen Lakes that has these huge waste areas of red volcanic cinder. Stunning to look at along side the dark green grass. But, with no hazard designation, and a 1 inch minus cinder size, incredibly difficult to get you ball moving in the direction and speed that you would like.  

Those types of courses where you lose your ball in deep rough when you're less than a foot off the fairway and where many fairways have shaved banks that slope directly into (mostly water) hazards are exactly the types of courses that we play in many events on my winter golf tour.  I hate those courses for three reasons:

1.) It makes every round a 5:20 to 6:00 round.

2.) It's near impossible to score well (and win money) on these courses.

3.) I lose more golf balls during those rounds than on courses of average or even somewhat above-average difficulty.

Yeah, give me courses where it's going to take close to six hours to play, and where I'm going to lose 4 to 6 golf balls and I'm going to be happy ..... NEVER!

[RickyBobby_PR]

21 hours ago, Middler said:

I was surprised reading the article, would they really roll back the golf ball for everyone? I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I wouldn't think that would be a popular decision for anyone who plays golf.

I'm not much worried about ball and equipment manufacturers, their marketing teams will always find a way to sell us more. I can see the ad copy now, your existing equipment is optimized for the old ball and therefore obsolete, our new driver technology maximizes your performance with the new (inferior) ball.

The ruling bodies wanted a rollback for everyone “the big bad OEMs that poeple like to rag on” said that’s bad for the amateur game of golf and lunges back for the ruling bodies to do it as an MLR. Pretty sure they knew the pro tours would push back. Which they did along with the organaization that hosts one of the majors. I’m pretty sure Augusta whom is big in image didn’t want to be the guinea pig as the first tournament and being a major using a ball that hasn’t been tested or really in favor of by the pros, so they probably pushed back some despite wanting to find a way to reduce pro distance. So that left it at only the 2 Open championships on the pro level that would use the ball. Not a great look especially if the pros say we aren’t playing 2 tournaments with a different ball. The ruling bodies only had 2 options. Not do anything at all which based on the R&As statement of doing nothing means that option isnt really an option so their second option which was the initial one of rollback for everyone is the only option. Now will they change what the testing parameters are? Maybe

It’s quite possible that there will be some design changes in equipment to go along with the design of the new ball. It’s because manufacturers are going to find whatever way they can to get distance back for the tour payers and the amateurs. 

20 hours ago, MGoBlue100 said:

Any of the tours can adopt a local rule and use whichever ball type they prefer. If the PGAT and DPWT decide not to abide by the rollback, it’ll just be the majors. (The Masters with THEIR own ball finally?!?) I’d love to see it. Nothing wrong with professional golf or amateur golf. USGA (as usual) doing what THEY want, not what’s good for golf. “Grow the game” indeed. Fools. 

The tours would have to abandon the two ruling bodies and develop their own rules. That’s not something they want to do. Is it possible they could? Maybe. 

14 hours ago, Hook DeLoft said:

Even if all the increase in distance was from better training and faster players, something would still need to be done to stop the increase. Eventually, we would need 10000 yard golf courses and, to maintain them, greens fees far beyond the reach of the vast majority of golfers. 

There’s no data that supports distance for the top end is going to increase in the next 20-30 years. The USGA states the average distance has increased, which it has because more pro and elite golfers have grown up and trained to hit the ball father so when you have more people hitting it 300 yards the average goes up. But when you look at distance it has been steady at the same number for the last 2ish decades. There have always been outliers. John Daly, hank Kuehne who averaged 321 on tour during his short career. Outside of Rory right now 321 is the max on tour. So the USGA is manipulating the story and data to push an agenda to a problem that doesn’t exists

3 hours ago, Josh Parker said:

I don't think a roll back will do anything personally. 

Put max specs on equipment and change a few things on the courses where the pros have to think twice about hitting certain shots. (Traps, rough, etc)

Roll back will have a trickle down effect. 

Shaft manufacturers will find a new product that will produce that distance again and then they will roll back that.  

There’s no way to say because there’s been very little to no testing 

but we do have some initial testing done by Srixon and Keegan Bradley’s results.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-ra-golf-ball-rollback-players-reaction-tiger-woods-keegan-bradley-rickie-fowler

Srixon made whatever the USGA was saying, and it was 40, 50 yards [shorter] with my driver,” Bradley, 37, said Saturday at the Hero World Challenge. “I was a club or two shorter. I think that the USGA … everything that they do is reactionary. They don't think of a solution. They just think we're going to affect a hundred percent of the population that plays golf. For the amateur world to hit the ball shorter is monstrous. I can't think of anything more stupid than that. I don't think it's very smart at all, especially when golf's growing in popularity literally coming out of COVID."

If you think you won’t be affected by loss of distance while a pro loses 30-40 yards with the same conforming ball, I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale

 

lastly while there are pros who may not play the same equipment that we buy from the OEMs it has to meet the same conforming specs for the equipment we play so there is no equipment bifurcation currently. Course setups on the tour compared to someone’s local muni isn’t bifurcation.

and I have a shaft that nobody on this forum could order or that any pro could get unless PX used my build for them and have several people I went on a trip to PX with that has shafts nobody here that have shafts that are completely one of a kind. Are we bifurcated from the rest of golf. No because they conforming. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by RickyBobby_PR

[DaveP043]

12 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... So you you really think there is a big difference between my Cleveland Classics DG43 with a heavy steel dynamic gold shaft and my Stealth 2 with a 55gm Ventus Red Velocore that maximizes distance and direction on slight mishits? 

I had to laugh, I have a DG43 3-wood in my garage, along with a RC85 Driver.  Even with a shorter ball, I'll still be at least as long with my current driver than I was at age 30 with the persimmon and wound balls.  Doing my old man rant, all the dang whippersnappers are spoiled, I tell you!!

[fixyurdivot]

8 minutes ago, Kenny B said:

Some USGA idiot will decide that the dimples must be modified to create less lift and not fly as straight.  But it won't matter much because the pros will figure out how to compensate, and even though the ball will only carry 280, it will roll out 50 yards on nicely mowed, firm fairways... so 330 drive.

Someone during their "fix a problem that does not exist" brainstorm (brainfart) infinity sessions certainly had to have placed a "raise the mower decks" on a post-it note.  The amount of rollout I see on the majority of tour events is nutzballz.

Yes, I know the R&A and USGA cannot control how courses are set-up, but one would think the PGA, DP Tour, etc., could/would try some changes much less disruptive.

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Yes, I know the R&A and USGA cannot control how courses are set-up, but one would think the PGA, DP Tour, etc., could/would try some changes much less disruptive.

You would, but they've known of this study for years, and haven't done it.  They say in baseball that "chicks dig the long ball", and professional golf marketing uses the same approach.  

[LICC]

1 hour ago, Preeway said:

I too believe it’s about the equipment. But you can’t disregard the role of improved biomechanics combined with enhanced strength training. Elite players today aren’t swinging the same way elite players did back in 1980. The combination of equipment technology and biomechanics/strength training has truly changed the endgame. But the ball is an easier culprit. 

Agree to disagree. Elite golfers today swing slightly differently than years ago because of the equipment. They adjust their swings to what works best for the different type of equipment. 

[Josh Parker]

@RickyBobby_PR I'm not saying it won't change distance or affect players in general.  What I meant was that something else will change in the equipment to produce more distance and then they will "roll back" the next item.

I just don't think it's the solution.  

 

[Preeway]

12 minutes ago, LICC said:

Agree to disagree. Elite golfers today swing slightly differently than years ago because of the equipment. They adjust their swings to what works best for the different type of equipment. 

I would only disagree to the extent that I think these go hand in hand. Maybe more of a chicken and egg type debate. I think equipment tech advancements allowed for biomechanical changes to take advantage of the new tech. This led to even newer tech and so on and so on until we are here today. You definitely couldn’t swing the way your pros do today using the tech from 1990 and get the same outcomes. So I think we might actually agree more than disagree?

[Middler]

Is there anyone who watches pro golf and thinks I wish these guys wouldn't hit it so far? Somehow I seriously doubt it. When my buds and I talk over tournaments we've watched, part of the discussion is all about did you see that '340 drive on #xx' and 'Rory only had a SW left on the par 4 #X hole. No one EVER says someone should dial those guys back.

And who prefers seeing pros winning with -2 vs -22? I like to see a mix with some really tough courses but it's exciting to watch top players get hot and birdie a bunch of holes (within reason).

How about taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent further distance gains, ball, equipment, or whatever else - but not an actual rollback/degradation of anything currently approved? I do understand the arms race needs to end, so golf courses don't have to keep adapting year after year.

I know, whistling in the wind.

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by Middler

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

Someone during their "fix a problem that does not exist" brainstorm (brainfart) infinity sessions certainly had to have placed a "raise the mower decks" on a post-it note.  The amount of rollout I see on the majority of tour events is nutzballz.

Yes, I know the R&A and USGA cannot control how courses are set-up, but one would think the PGA, DP Tour, etc., could/would try some changes much less disruptive.

Why would the tour try any changes. They know distance sells. They setup their courses to produce long drives and lots of birdies. Its why the said no the MLR. Shorter balls and less distance hurt their product. 

Also who are a lot of their main advertisers. The OEMs and what do the OEMs promote in their products.

The rollback for everyone contradict their whole tee forward push that started years ago

[chisag]

11 hours ago, EnderinAZ said:

Seems to me that if you look at this question of a more challenging course from a business / general public point of view, more challenge in the form of horribly deep traps, rough so thick and deep you lose your ball 6 inches from the fairway, sloping fairways with unhindered access to pond waters, and landing areas the size of a single car garage you are simply setting the course up to be well hated by the very people you try to entice into playing golf. With that type of course, well, they might as well buy radio advertisement touting the slowest play in the area.

 

... Pete Dye built Ruffled Feathers in the Chicago burbs, a course that was going to be a private CC and the first year it was open to the public. It was being promoted as "The most difficult 18 holes you will ever play" and while that may not have been entirely true it was silly difficult and nobody wanted to join. Hole 2 was a short par 4 that doglegged right around a lake and typical Pete Dye the green was elevated and crowned with steep shaved sides that rolled off into the water. A perfect mid/short iron to the middle of the green was the only shot that didn't end up in the water. Hit a nice soft draw or fade to 10 feet from the fringe and it rolled in the water. No fun to already face a back up on the 2nd tee. Realizing their mistake that changed quite a few holes and added a bunker to the bottom of the above hole and let the rough grow enough to stop a well struck shot just rolling to the edge. But that was 2 years later and the reputation was out there so they never went private. And yea, rounds were in the 5+ hours those first 2 years. 
 

6 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

The one counter is those who have a distance advantage will still have that advantage. It won't stop them from swinging out of their shoes, in fact it may have the opposite effect because if they are loosing yardage they may be inclined to swing even harder to regain the losses they have incurred. 

 

... Other than a few like DeChambeau the Pro's know their livelihood depends on low scores and not longest drives. No doubt they all want to maximize their distance but not swing out of their shoes to do so. Mind boggling that Rory tried to go down that road with disastrous results. I see the folks on all tours doing everything they can to hit the ball as far as they can but with control. We all know there is a point of diminishing returns when you chase distance and the majority of pros know where to draw the line and I agree the longer hitters will still have the same advantage, as it should be. Perfect examples are Jack and Tiger in their prime and their length complimented the rest of their game, not define it. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

39 minutes ago, Preeway said:

I would only disagree to the extent that I think these go hand in hand. Maybe more of a chicken and egg type debate. I think equipment tech advancements allowed for biomechanical changes to take advantage of the new tech. This led to even newer tech and so on and so on until we are here today. You definitely couldn’t swing the way your pros do today using the tech from 1990 and get the same outcomes. So I think we might actually agree more than disagree?

But in the 90s Hank keuhne was averaging 321 on other. Tiger was pushing his out there 300. He didn’t change his swing tonight the equipment. He still plays x100 shafts and iron designs from years ago and gets the oem to make his irons to his specs. He played molded Nike drivers when he switched to them.

Most pros still hit slightly down on driver because they want control. Rory is one of the few outliers at 5° up.

pros could simply change a slight variable like tee height or ball position right now and gain extra yards, but they don’t because they want control. It’s why someone like Finau who can push 200 ball speed only average just over 300.

the biggest difference in todays game is the technology that has come in shaft making, head design, weight manipulation, manufacturing process, fittings and optimizing ball speed. Scottie Scheffler very much swings like Greg Norman and many of the great ball strikers from the past with today’s equipment and leads in every strokes gained category except putting. The golf swing swing hasn’t changed. What’s changed is that we now thru technology like gears can see in 3d what the best do. And they all do the samething. Rory squats a good amount in his swing. Sam Snead is the model many use for teaching leg movement. Gankas has been using Snead and jamie sadlowski as models for what he wants in a golf swing. Sadlowski got a lot of distance out of a very small build 

not to mention there’s no one golf swing. There are lots of uniqueness out there but they all do the samethings in transition and the downswing and into impact, all at varying degrees.

Edited December 3, 2023 by RickyBobby_PR

[storm319]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

You would, but they've known of this study for years, and haven't done it.  They say in baseball that "chicks dig the long ball", and professional golf marketing uses the same approach.  

but did the ruling bodies make any attempt to coordinate agronomy standards in an attempt to avoid an equipment rollback? Their findings in that section of the study admitted that modern agronomy practices have contributed to distance increases (and one could argue that the USGA has been one of the worst offenders in recent decades) but pretty much dismissed pursuing this as a potential solution to this perceived problem.

[funkyjudge]

On 11/25/2023 at 11:52 AM, chisag said:

 

... The only constant in life is change. While I certainly understand not wanting an overweight slob spilling out of their tank top and dirty jeans, I really have no issue with someone in a clean tee shirt and clean jeans. Or cargo pants. Or anything else they find comfortable. Until it becomes extinct, golf is unlike any other sport and we can't imagine a DB saying "Hey Ref, I held him on that route so go ahead and drop a yellow flag" but of course we call penalties on ourselves in golf for inadvertent infractions. It is a pure game, a game of honor and deserves a certain amount of respect. I can live with young players listening to rap at a reasonable level, fixing their ball marks, replacing their divots and respecting the tee box and greens. But far too often I see younger players that evidently think "golfing" is a party playing music loud enough to be heard several holes away, driving their carts on the fringe and sides of the tee box. And of course not having a few beers to relax but two six packs and getting hammered. 

... So the old stuffy players need to accept change is here and the new to the game golfers need to respect tradition. As always, the truth and most viable road for success lies somewhere in the middle. 

 

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The ruling bodies wanted a rollback for everyone “the big bad OEMs that poeple like to rag on” said that’s bad for the amateur game of golf and lunges back for the ruling bodies to do it as an MLR. Pretty sure they knew the pro tours would push back. Which they did along with the organaization that hosts one of the majors. I’m pretty sure Augusta whom is big in image didn’t want to be the guinea pig as the first tournament and being a major using a ball that hasn’t been tested or really in favor of by the pros, so they probably pushed back some despite wanting to find a way to reduce pro distance. So that left it at only the 2 Open championships on the pro level that would use the ball. Not a great look especially if the pros say we aren’t playing 2 tournaments with a different ball. The ruling bodies only had 2 options. Not do anything at all which based on the R&As statement of doing nothing means that option isnt really an option so their second option which was the initial one of rollback for everyone is the only option. Now will they change what the testing parameters are? Maybe

It’s quite possible that there will be some design changes in equipment to go along with the design of the new ball. It’s because manufacturers are going to find whatever way they can to get distance back for the tour payers and the amateurs. 

The tours would have to abandon the two ruling bodies and develop their own rules. That’s not something they want to do. Is it possible they could? Maybe. 

There’s no data that supports distance for the top end is going to increase in the next 20-30 years. The USGA states the average distance has increased, which it has because more pro and elite golfers have grown up and trained to hit the ball father so when you have more people hitting it 300 yards the average goes up. But when you look at distance it has been steady at the same number for the last 2ish decades. There have always been outliers. John Daly, hank Kuehne who averaged 321 on tour during his short career. Outside of Rory right now 321 is the max on tour. So the USGA is manipulating the story and data to push an agenda to a problem that doesn’t exists

There’s no way to say because there’s been very little to no testing 

but we do have some initial testing done by Srixon and Keegan Bradley’s results.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-ra-golf-ball-rollback-players-reaction-tiger-woods-keegan-bradley-rickie-fowler

Srixon made whatever the USGA was saying, and it was 40, 50 yards [shorter] with my driver,” Bradley, 37, said Saturday at the Hero World Challenge. “I was a club or two shorter. I think that the USGA … everything that they do is reactionary. They don't think of a solution. They just think we're going to affect a hundred percent of the population that plays golf. For the amateur world to hit the ball shorter is monstrous. I can't think of anything more stupid than that. I don't think it's very smart at all, especially when golf's growing in popularity literally coming out of COVID."

If you think you won’t be affected by loss of distance while a pro loses 30-40 yards with the same conforming ball, I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale

 

lastly while there are pros who may not play the same equipment that we buy from the OEMs it has to meet the same conforming specs for the equipment we play so there is no equipment bifurcation currently. Course setups on the tour compared to someone’s local muni isn’t bifurcation.

and I have a shaft that nobody on this forum could order or that any pro could get unless PX used my build for them and have several people I went on a trip to PX with that has shafts nobody here that have shafts that are completely one of a kind. Are we bifurcated from the rest of golf. No because they conforming. 

Best post that I have seen on this topic.

[chisag]

14 minutes ago, Middler said:

Is there anyone who watches pro golf and thinks I wish these guys wouldn't hit it so far? Somehow I seriously doubt it. When my buds and I talk over tournaments we've watched, part of the discussion is all about did you see that '340 drive on #xx' and 'Rory only had a SW left on the par 4 #X hole. No one EVER says someone should dial those guys back.

 

... We have different friends. All my playing pards and I say they hit it too far and have said they should dial these guys back.   I would rather watch Lydia Ko dissect a course with good drives that are far from short, laser like irons/hybrids and a killer short game than see Dechambeau bomb it over everything. We find it kinda boring and it is the main reason we stopped watching most PGA events. 

[DaveP043]

9 minutes ago, storm319 said:

but did the ruling bodies make any attempt to coordinate agronomy standards in an attempt to avoid an equipment rollback? Their findings in that section of the study admitted that modern agronomy practices have contributed to distance increases (and one could argue that the USGA has been one of the worst offenders in recent decades) but pretty much dismissed pursuing this as a potential solution to this perceived problem.

There is a long history of regulating equipment, but there has never been any regulation of course preparation.  I cant see any effective way of writing a rule to limit the speed of the fairways, or the height of the rough, or anything else that could limit distance.  I just don't think it can be done.   The only thing that the R&A and USGA can effectively regulate is the equipment, and regulating the golf ball is probably the simplest way to do it.

[pantleggs]

How many courses are really affected by increased distance? It’s not like Bryson or Rory are popping by my local muni for a round, causing the super there to say, “hey, we really need to add 100-150 yards to each hole to combat length gains.” The courses I play have largely been the same length/layout for decades. The majority of courses impacted will never be played by amateurs like ourselves. 

[bens197]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

Someone during their "fix a problem that does not exist" brainstorm (brainfart) infinity sessions certainly had to have placed a "raise the mower decks" on a post-it note.  The amount of rollout I see on the majority of tour events is nutzballz.

Yes, I know the R&A and USGA cannot control how courses are set-up, but one would think the PGA, DP Tour, etc., could/would try some changes much less disruptive.

I think this is a cop-out.  Every region of golf courses have their particular nuance however they share one commonality...fairways reward bombs.  I try to unsubscribe from black & white logic however it's difficult when raising a mower deck and then verifying grass length is not an arduous task.

[LICC]

59 minutes ago, Middler said:

Is there anyone who watches pro golf and thinks I wish these guys wouldn't hit it so far? Somehow I seriously doubt it. When my buds and I talk over tournaments we've watched, part of the discussion is all about did you see that '340 drive on #xx' and 'Rory only had a SW left on the par 4 #X hole. No one EVER says someone should dial those guys back.

And who prefers seeing pros winning with -2 vs -22? I like to see a mix with some really tough courses but it's exciting to watch top players get hot and birdie a bunch of holes (within reason).

How about taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent further distance gains, ball, equipment, or whatever else - but not an actual rollback/degradation of anything currently approved? I do understand the arms race needs to end, so golf courses don't have to keep adapting year after year.

I know, whistling in the wind.

 

I do. I enjoy watching golf more when all the par-5s do not become long par 4s. When every par 3 doesn’t have to be 200 yards or have an insanely small green. When every par-4 isn’t a short iron or wedge into the green. 

[Hook DeLoft]

59 minutes ago, Middler said:

Is there anyone who watches pro golf and thinks I wish these guys wouldn't hit it so far? Somehow I seriously doubt it. When my buds and I talk over tournaments we've watched, part of the discussion is all about did you see that '340 drive on #xx' and 'Rory only had a SW left on the par 4 #X hole. No one EVER says someone should dial those guys back.

And who prefers seeing pros winning with -2 vs -22? I like to see a mix with some really tough courses but it's exciting to watch top players get hot and birdie a bunch of holes (within reason).

How about taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent further distance gains, ball, equipment, or whatever else - but not an actual rollback/degradation of anything currently approved? I do understand the arms race needs to end, so golf courses don't have to keep adapting year after year.

I know, whistling in the wind.

 

I may be the only one, but yes I watch tournaments and wish they didn’t hit it so far. I think it is boring to watch “driver/short iron” over and over again. On tour, they have resorted to extremely fast and hard greens in an attempt to keep the scores in hand. I would much rather watch a pro hit a 5 iron into a par 4 green that is receptive to a long iron or hybrid. Oh, and get off my lawn!

[Hook DeLoft]

13 hours ago, storm319 said:

Over-exaggerations like this are a problem. There is no evidence to suggest that distances will increase to the point where 10k yardages will be the championship norm (the Tour average is nearly 3k short of that and tour averages have been growing at the same rate that they were in the 1980’s for the past two decades). Basically there was a significant bump at the turn of the century and then increases returned to their previous trend.

Additionally, courses actually saw substantially bigger increases in average playing length from 1930-1990 than they have post 1990 (and no one seemed to care). The reality is that very few courses actually have a chance of hosting an elite competition and most of those are not accessible venues for the masses. The vast majority of courses have absolutely no need to be lengthened. 

You may be right, but I look at long drive competitors and wonder how long before the highest club speed on tour is 140 mph and the average is 128. It would take great athletes with exceptional golf skills to be able to keep balls in play and score well at those speeds, but with 8.1 billion people on Earth and the continued growth of the game overseas, we will see more and more of those exceptional athletes playing golf. 

[storm319]

37 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

There is a long history of regulating equipment, but there has never been any regulation of course preparation.  I cant see any effective way of writing a rule to limit the speed of the fairways, or the height of the rough, or anything else that could limit distance.  I just don't think it can be done.   The only thing that the R&A and USGA can effectively regulate is the equipment, and regulating the golf ball is probably the simplest way to do it.

That thought that a rule change is the only recourse is the problem. Coordination with the highest elite stakeholders (predominantly the PGAs) to voluntarily agree to more sustainable agronomy practices that also reduce distance should have been attempted which would have eventually trickled down to lower levels (because most setups attempt to mirror the highest levels of competition). Could it be difficult? Sure, but I would be willing to bet that the threat of additional regulation would be an enough motivation for the stakeholders to participate (also likely less impactful to amateurs and less costly to try). The fact that the USGA didn’t even consider anything other than equipment regulation makes it clear that their decision had already been made long before the study began.

Ultimately, this proposed rollback does not address the motivation that elite players have to pursuing more distance and therefore will not solve their perceived problem.