Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[cnosil]

1 minute ago, Stuka44 said:

Give me a percentage that you think then!!!  Of all golf played  that follows the rules.

I'd say 30%.   That said,  you fall in the 70% and as a result can play whatever ball you want for as long as you want.  My guess is some manufacturer will continue to make balls that match todays rules just like there are manufacturers that make balls that don't meet todays rules. 

[GolfSpy_APH]

8 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

Give me a percentage that you think then!!!  Of all golf played  that follows the rules.

Not arguing one way or another but every tournament and such that I have seen or taken part of here has been Matchplay or Stableford. Surprised me, but it's the norm here. When I played back in Canada we almost always did match play.

Normal head to the course meet with ppl we play stroke play. It's different everywhere. No right or wrong by anyone as the exposure levels change in various regions.

[cnosil]

18 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

Also, the "don't care" option kind of waters down the outcome on several of the questions.

But honestly,  I answered don't care because when it comes down to it I really don't.  I have an opinion like everyone else on here.   my opinion is there is wasn't a problem to fix.  But the powers that be decided there was so I'll play whatever legal ball is available in 2030.    I also think that most golfers have no idea that this discussion is occurring or that in 2030 it will be a non issue and the average golfer will walk in a store and play whatever ball their favorite PGA pro is playing or whatever ball has the Titleist name on it simply because they think it is the best ball.  

Edited December 10, 2023 by cnosil

[Javs]

40 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

I can't argue against nonsense. 

You must be unique.  Again in leagues, and clubs etc, and organized groups maybe.  I have played with hundreds of different people(nor has anyone I know who plays) on get a tee time and show up and play on weekends,  and NOT ONCE, has any person ever met ,me on the tee and said, "we're playing match play right, or one of my buddies when I ask them if they played the last weekend ever said.  OH I had a great match play match this weekend.

We play a lot of match play here! 

[Preeway]

37 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

I can't argue against nonsense. 

You must be unique.  Again in leagues, and clubs etc, and organized groups maybe.  I have played with hundreds of different people(nor has anyone I know who plays) on get a tee time and show up and play on weekends,  and NOT ONCE, has any person ever met ,me on the tee and said, "we're playing match play right, or one of my buddies when I ask them if they played the last weekend ever said.  OH I had a great match play match this weekend.

As a caddy I can say without exception, every group I’ve looped with has integrated match play in some form. You’re right in the sense that nobody is out there strictly playing match play in the classical sense. Everyone is keeping their own score but the match play concept is also being implemented at the same time. Individual scores are kept because the players want to maintain a handicap and yes, rules are being followed. And also yes, some modifications are implemented to speed up play. Lost balls are played as a lateral hazard although some players will hit a second ball if it’s obvious that the first won’t be found. Honestly, I think I’m lost as to what the original point was. Are you convinced that less than 5% of players follow the rules are is it that less than 5% are playing tournament style golf following every rule strictly as written?

[silver & black]

Getting back to the actual topic:

I'm personally against bifurcation. Why? Because I like that I play the same rules, balls, clubs and courses (well... ) that the pros play. I don't want the option/s to play different (advantage giving) equipment that the pros don't have the option to play. I think it is cool to watch how good the pros really are... using the same equipment I have access to.

Concerning rolling back the ball: what does that actually mean? If it means less distance... and from what I've read it will be around 5 - 10 yards.... what problem does it solve? Certainly not the distance 'problem'? I'm just confused about what the two governing bodies are trying to do with a ball 'roll back'?

If whatever is going to happen/is decided on, I want all golfers to be subject to the same rules and equipment as the pros. Maybe that's a personal, selfish view on my part.

Having said that, I really have no problem with how anyone wants to play the game or what equipment anyone wants to use. I just don't see the 'need' for bifurcation, as that would separate 'us' from the pros (there is enough already ) as playing the same game that we all love. I will play the game regardless of what decision is made.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by silver & black

[RickyBobby_PR]

41 minutes ago, silver & black said:

Concerning rolling back the ball: what does that actually mean? If it means less distance... and from what I've read it will be around 5 - 10 yards.... what problem does it solve? Certainly not the distance 'problem'? I'm just confused about what the two governing bodies are trying to do with a ball 'roll back'?

Herein lies the issue. Other than “the ball goes to far” there has been no real problem statement from the ruling bodies or even many of the pro rollbackers. Their arguments are courses are being made obsolete and when you ask many what that means they can’t give an answer and it usually boils down to they don’t like that current golfers not the ball farther the jack does, or they want old classes 6500 yard courses that even the USGA wasn’t using before the “distance problem” was around. Then when you say why does it matter when lowest score wins no matter what it delves into a bunch of weak talking points. From the ruling bodies perspective it’s that too many pros hit the ball 300(basically the current pga tour avg driving distance) it’s not the fact distance that Hank keuhne was hitting on any on 2003 is the same as the the current top end avg driving darn e despite new balls and equipment. Then the USGA states that the distance gain in their data shows it’s from the player himself and not the equipment so they have already contradicted themselves. They can’t regulate how people train in the gym or with speed training systems so they went after the ball. Then there is Sasho Mackenzie who has stated that the pros will be back where they are distance wise because many have speed to spare in their current swings so the proposed 8-15 yards for various elite golfers to start with doesn’t solve the distance problem it just lists the shorter hitters at a bigger advantage and will have accomplished nothing when players regain that distance back. It’s the first step of many to come to control how the game is played. Once they figure out a way to affect distance with driver heads without making the game harder for amateurs that will be next.

They want pre Tiger golf back

Edited December 10, 2023 by RickyBobby_PR

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, Shapotomous said:

I think this is true and a bit of an issue as I believe the USGA (and R&A) should take input from their membership.  

 

2 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... Relative point for sure but to be fair I do think it is interesting that the USGA was advocating a bifurcation roll back initially but the OEMs and the Tours were vehemently against it. So I have a hard time blaming the USGA for rolling back the ball for Am's. 

 

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

Based on what I have read anyone can submit comments during the proposed change evaluation period.  

And there were several periods of reports/proposals and comment periods.  I know I responded, hopefully everyone else did as well.  That the USGA and R&A choose not to do as I suggested, or as anyone else suggested, doesn't mean they didn't listen.  

I remember a comment period in 2018 regarding the 2019 rules revision.  A number of proposed rules were revised in a way that I advocated, along with lots of others.  

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The truth is the USGA wanted a rollback for all but there was pushback across the industry on that so they decided to try and force bifurcation. The tours said no as did the PGA Of America which hosts one of the majors. So the USGA went back to their original option so yes the USGA is the one to blame. The USGA also chose to go with their own interpretation of data rather than all the data that was provided from various experts that contradicted their thoughts. The USGA also said that distance isn’t an amateur issue yet they chose to go the route of punishing the amateur for the tours and pga of America not following their approach.

Once again, let's also blame the R&A if we're going to blame the Ruling Bodies.  And as you said, without the influence of manufacturers and professional tours, we WOULD have bifurcation, and no change for most of us.

I can't say I view the change as."punishment", and more than I viewed the increased distance available with graphite shafts and huge driver heads as a "reward".  Its just a change.

[Hook DeLoft]

19 hours ago, Silver Fawkes said:

Just to add to this... I would wager anyone could go out with some friends, some tennis rackets and balls, and play tennis and have a great time. But if tennis were like golf... Imagine swinging at the ball and completely missing a third of the time. The times you do make contact it shanks off the side of the racket and flies out of the fence surrounding the court. Other times when you hit it the ball goes straight into the net or bounces up and hits you in the face. Then maybe a few times you actually hit the ball and get the ball over the net. THEN the person you hit it to has the same experience as you do. So you never really end up hitting the ball to each other at all. You're not playing tennis in any way whatsoever. 

That's what I'm getting at. That's where golf is different for me. 

Great post.  Years ago, my wife told me she didn't want to learn to play golf because she wouldn't enjoy doing something that she wouldn't be good at (excuse the grammar).  Very sensible attitude.

[funkyjudge]

1 hour ago, Javs said:

We play a lot of match play here! 

I think that you will find that a lot of serious golfers do, as well.

[silver & black]

58 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Herein lies the issue. Other than “the ball goes to far” there has been no real problem statement from the ruling bodies or even many of the pro rollbackers. Their arguments are courses are being made obsolete and when you ask many what that means they can’t give an answer and it usually boils down to they don’t like that current golfers not the ball farther the jack does, or they want old classes 6500 yard courses that even the USGA wasn’t using before the “distance problem” was around. Then when you say why does it matter when lowest score wins no matter what it delves into a bunch of weak talking points. From the ruling bodies perspective it’s that too many pros hit the ball 300(basically the current pga tour avg driving distance) it’s not the fact distance that Hank keuhne was hitting on any on 2003 is the same as the the current top end avg driving darn e despite new balls and equipment. Then the USGA states that the distance gain in their data shows it’s from the player himself and not the equipment so they have already contradicted themselves. They can’t regulate how people train in the gym or with speed training systems so they went after the ball. Then there is Sasho Mackenzie who has stated that the pros will be back where they are distance wise because many have speed to spare in their current swings so the proposed 8-15 yards for various elite golfers to start with doesn’t solve the distance problem it just lists the shorter hitters at a bigger advantage and will have accomplished nothing when players regain that distance back. It’s the first step of many to come to control how the game is played. Once they figure out a way to affect distance with driver heads without making the game harder for amateurs that will be next.

They want pre Tiger golf back

That's kinda what I figured. In other words.... there really is no problem... just a solution seeking a problem.

[chisag]

2 minutes ago, silver & black said:

That's kinda what I figured. In other words.... there really is no problem... just a solution seeking a problem.

 

... These are all just our personal opinions of course, but I do find it interesting that a few of the guys that this actually effects as far as making a living in Rory and Tiger, both think there is a problem and the ball goes too far. And you can throw in Nicklaus too. I am not positive but I think all 3 were in favor of bifurcation. 

[Beakbryce]

On 12/8/2023 at 7:45 AM, fixyurdivot said:

I'm normally the last one you would hear this from but "bring on the lawsuits and lawyers".  Good chance when this is all over the USGA and R&A will be irrelevant, outdated, disconnected entities.

would be cool but who do you think is going to litigate this issue?

Ball manufacturers? Nope. They are selling balls regardless. What they didn't want was bifurcation where they would have to produce a separate ball for the pros and wouldn't be able to market that ball using the "as used by your favorite pro" tag line.

The Tours? There is so much more going on with the Tours than a ball rollback. 

PGA of America? Probably not. Wouldn't be very sporting to have club pros trying to get members to abide by the rules while they are suing the rule makers.

It's not like the 99% of golfers that don't have balls soaring 300 yds+ have a unified voice and organization to challenge this issue.

[RockerFCC]

The could NEVER get away with it, but they probably should have went with a FAR more aggressive rollback. I know that this would upset any low HC players, but unless they come up with specific rules for the ball that only affects the tour players, this will continue to be a problem. Advances still to come with the ball, equipment, and most importantly the science of the swing are not going to make this better, restrictions are the only way to get this under control. 

[silver & black]

1 hour ago, chisag said:

 

... These are all just our personal opinions of course, but I do find it interesting that a few of the guys that this actually effects as far as making a living in Rory and Tiger, both think there is a problem and the ball goes too far. And you can throw in Nicklaus too. I am not positive but I think all 3 were in favor of bifurcation. 

As a better player, how do you feel about bifurcation?

If the distance difference is only 5-10 yards on a rolled back ball, what actual problem is being solved?

 

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by silver & black

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

 

 

And there were several periods of reports/proposals and comment periods.  I know I responded, hopefully everyone else did as well.  That the USGA and R&A choose not to do as I suggested, or as anyone else suggested, doesn't mean they didn't listen.  

I remember a comment period in 2018 regarding the 2019 rules revision.  A number of proposed rules were revised in a way that I advocated, along with lots of others.  

Once again, let's also blame the R&A if we're going to blame the Ruling Bodies.  And as you said, without the influence of manufacturers and professional tours, we WOULD have bifurcation, and no change for most of us.

I can't say I view the change as."punishment", and more than I viewed the increased distance available with graphite shafts and huge driver heads as a "reward".  Its just a change.

The ruling bodies are definitely to blame as a whole. Maybe R&A more so with slumbers saying that doing nothing wasn’t an option.

Nobody can say that people aren’t being punished and that it’s just a change with a guarante. And driver shafts and big heads aren’t a guarantee of speed and distance, the USGA equipment person said on tour it’s not the equipment that has caused the increase in distance but the golfer. So for the amateurs who aren’t working out now they at agent going to start working out to gain distance back like the pros will who already have distance to spare in their swings. Now we don’t know what the final balls will do but early testing by Srixon indicates there is significant loss for pros and amateurs. Despite what the USGA says their own testing showed an 11 yard loss for a golfer with a 221 yard drive. Combine distance loss with the driver plus distance loss with irons that golfer is now two clubs more into a green on a par 4

The ruling bodies could have said we were in the wrong with our data, etc and will leave the ball where it’s at, they could have said we will use the mlr for our championships and elite amateur events and said where that cutoff was but they went with the third option of saying because the professional ranks won’t use the mlr and bifurcafe we are going to reduce distance for everyone. Basically throwing their tee it forward program out the window 

1 hour ago, silver & black said:

That's kinda what I figured. In other words.... there really is no problem... just a solution seeking a problem.

Yup. 

[Stuka44]

3 hours ago, silver & black said:

as that would separate 'us' from the pros (there is enough already ) as playing the same game that we all love.

I don't know about you or anybody else.  But of all the courses (14 different ones) I think. I played from around 6000 yards last year, I have a chance to be able to reach ONE par 5, in 2.  That requires a perfect drive, followed by a perfect 3 wood, 2 hybrid, or 4 iron,  depending on wind.

The way the pro's play the game and clubs they have into holes, regardless of ball roll back really has no comparison to the game the vast majority of weekend players, play!

[FrogginBullfish]

1 hour ago, chisag said:

 

... These are all just our personal opinions of course, but I do find it interesting that a few of the guys that this actually effects as far as making a living in Rory and Tiger, both think there is a problem and the ball goes too far. And you can throw in Nicklaus too. I am not positive but I think all 3 were in favor of bifurcation. 

Correct. All 3 are in favour of a bifurcated pro game.

[RockerFCC]

3 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Herein lies the issue. Other than “the ball goes to far” there has been no real problem statement from the ruling bodies or even many of the pro rollbackers. Their arguments are courses are being made obsolete and when you ask many what that means they can’t give an answer and it usually boils down to they don’t like that current golfers not the ball farther the jack does, or they want old classes 6500 yard courses that even the USGA wasn’t using before the “distance problem” was around. Then when you say why does it matter when lowest score wins no matter what it delves into a bunch of weak talking points. From the ruling bodies perspective it’s that too many pros hit the ball 300(basically the current pga tour avg driving distance) it’s not the fact distance that Hank keuhne was hitting on any on 2003 is the same as the the current top end avg driving darn e despite new balls and equipment. Then the USGA states that the distance gain in their data shows it’s from the player himself and not the equipment so they have already contradicted themselves. They can’t regulate how people train in the gym or with speed training systems so they went after the ball. Then there is Sasho Mackenzie who has stated that the pros will be back where they are distance wise because many have speed to spare in their current swings so the proposed 8-15 yards for various elite golfers to start with doesn’t solve the distance problem it just lists the shorter hitters at a bigger advantage and will have accomplished nothing when players regain that distance back. It’s the first step of many to come to control how the game is played. Once they figure out a way to affect distance with driver heads without making the game harder for amateurs that will be next.

They want pre Tiger golf back

I think a real estate problem exists, and they don't know how to fix it without pissing everyone off. Even the strongest naysayers have to see that there is no more room to push things back at most of these iconic courses. And if people don't think that is a problem, I just don't know what to say. There are no good solutions to this, other than limitation, at least as far as I can see. Again, that is a REAL tough sell.

[chisag]

6 minutes ago, silver & black said:

As a better player, how do you feel about bifurcation?

If the distance difference is only 5-10 yards on a rolled back ball, what actual problem is being solved?

 

... I am probably an outlier since I am hitting the ball farther now at 70 than I did in my prime in my 30's playing balata and persimmon. 255 off the tee instead of 260 isn't gonna make much difference for me. That said, I still don't want to play a shorter ball and think most Am's feel the same way but if it happens I don't think it is going to have much effect on may game.  So I am in favor of bifurcation and I'll give you an example why.

... I played my 7089 yd course from the tips with someone playing a practice round for the Phoenix Open qualifier. I played it at 6403 and he consistently drove the ball 75-100yds longer than my drives from different tees. He hit a couple 3 iron stingers off the tee around 290. You know just to keep the ball in play . He hit several drives over 350yds and he shot 7 under on the front 9. He had a normal looking swing and was no Deshambo. While our games were similar around the green everything else was night and day different. I shot 3 under and it was abundantly clear he and I did not play the same game. Not even close. To think I play the same game he plays is comical, so using the same clubs or ball is irrelevant. 

* #17 is a short par 4 dogleg left over a lake that played 321yds with a 310 yd carry to clear the water. It calls for several different options off the tee and anything from a 9 iron to a hybrid but so many pros played it as a long par 3, they put in a new tee box at 334yds to make it only drivable by the very longest of hitters and brought strategy back into the hole. It still rewards the few with stoopid length but turned it back into a par 4, not a long par 3. Obviously none of this is an issue for 99.99% of the Ams that play my famous little muni but for the Pro's rolling back the ball 10-15 yds for the longest hitters from the 321yd tee would have accomplished the same thing as the added expense of a new tee box just for the Pro's that by the way, now interferes with long and right shots on the par 3 16th. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

7 minutes ago, RockerFCC said:

I think a real estate problem exists, and they don't know how to fix it without pissing everyone off. Even the strongest naysayers have to see that there is no more room to push things back at most of these iconic courses. And if people don't think that is a problem, I just don't know what to say. There are no good solutions to this, other than limitation, at least as far as I can see. Again, that is a REAL tough sell.

Except there isn’t a real estate issue. Read the statement from titleist and see that courses have been built at shorter distances in years compared to the 90s and course length on tour have been about the same since 2004. Tips at most courses are under 6800 yards. See that swing speeds have stayed stagnant between 2019-2022 and gone down the last two years on tour.

Then look at the actual distance data and see that distance hasn’t increased in 20+ years and that per the USGA report it’s only been the average driving distance that’s gone up which happens when you have better athletes playing who train in the gym, use speed training systems and who have optimized their equipment which wasn’t as easy in the early 2000s.

It’s the claims from course owners and designers who want to build courses to host pga tour events and majors who claim they need more land. They don’t and 7200 yards is plenty to challenge the tour professional. Then look at the USGA who chose Sf Andrews to host the walker cup. It’s 7300 yards. Guess it’s ok for them to use for elite male amateur events. 
 

Augusta has added more distance pre 2000 than that have in the last 20 years and the majority of their land buying has been to build facilities like a media center and player housing. 

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, Beakbryce said:

would be cool but who do you think is going to litigate this issue?

Ball manufacturers? Nope. They are selling balls regardless. What they didn't want was bifurcation where they would have to produce a separate ball for the pros and wouldn't be able to market that ball using the "as used by your favorite pro" tag line.

The Tours? There is so much more going on with the Tours than a ball rollback. 

PGA of America? Probably not. Wouldn't be very sporting to have club pros trying to get members to abide by the rules while they are suing the rule makers.

It's not like the 99% of golfers that don't have balls soaring 300 yds+ have a unified voice and organization to challenge this issue.

We'll see, but this guy is on record as saying "they (PGA) will not support a ball rollback"... back in July and again when the formal announcement was made this past week.  You believe him, right?  

There have also been pretty strong statements by ball mfg's. stating they do not support the rollback and point to flaws in the data and how it was collected.  That's quite a bit of consistent, negative response from the major mover and shakers in the sport.  I personally don't think these folks like the idea of the ruling bodies ignoring them and the sentiment of the vast majority of golfers worldwide, and will fight this in court if it comes to that.

Man, with all the churn and drama going on in golf, who needs hollywood .  

[RockerFCC]

37 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Except there isn’t a real estate issue. Read the statement from titleist and see that courses have been built at shorter distances in years compared to the 90s and course length on tour have been about the same since 2004. Tips at most courses are under 6800 yards. See that swing speeds have stayed stagnant between 2019-2022 and gone down the last two years on tour.

Then look at the actual distance data and see that distance hasn’t increased in 20+ years and that per the USGA report it’s only been the average driving distance that’s gone up which happens when you have better athletes playing who train in the gym, use speed training systems and who have optimized their equipment which wasn’t as easy in the early 2000s.

It’s the claims from course owners and designers who want to build courses to host pga tour events and majors who claim they need more land. They don’t and 7200 yards is plenty to challenge the tour professional. Then look at the USGA who chose Sf Andrews to host the walker cup. It’s 7300 yards. Guess it’s ok for them to use for elite male amateur events. 
 

Augusta has added more distance pre 2000 than that have in the last 20 years and the majority of their land buying has been to build facilities like a media center and player housing. 

Where will they go at Pebble? Or LOTS of courses that were built in areas with no remaining land around them to expand.  You are certainly correct that some can do this, but there are still iconic places that it isn't practical. One could argue that it should not be the primary factor in decisions like this, but there is no question that it does affect some, and not just here in the states. I suppose they can always challenge the pros in other ways, but it does seem to make sense that some limitations are part of the answer. Whether that should affect everyone, just pros, what level, all that is a reasonable question, as well as how to do that.

[silver & black]

1 hour ago, RockerFCC said:

The could NEVER get away with it, but they probably should have went with a FAR more aggressive rollback. I know that this would upset any low HC players, but unless they come up with specific rules for the ball that only affects the tour players, this will continue to be a problem. Advances still to come with the ball, equipment, and most importantly the science of the swing are not going to make this better, restrictions are the only way to get this under control. 

Get what under control? Players becoming more 'athletic'? Players figuring out 'how' to hit the ball farther? I guess I just don't understand the need to put a damper on players getting better at what they do.... to what end?

Edited December 11, 2023 by silver & black

[GaryF]

On 12/7/2023 at 7:33 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

Yet in their own testing a 221 yard drive lost 11 yards. And pagel while saying that also said but it’s really only 3-5 yards. They have no idea what the impact is. 

I’ve read a few pages and scanned a few others so maybe this has been addressed, but are all balls created equal?  I didn’t think so.  I don’t play prov1s but rather Srixon Z-Stars (2021), having switched this past year from Q-Stars. My opinion is that there will be no change to many of the balls.  Speculation, but a 66 compression Q-Star is not presently capable of achieving 317 from a 127 or 120 robot SS.  My belief is that the Q-Star and many other balls will over-compress with those SS’s.  Im not sure about the Z-Star, but the before and after Q-Star will be the same ball as will many others.

As for the pros, I really don’t care what effect it has on them.  The longest hitters will still be just that.  Golf is a game of skill and adjustments and if they can’t adjust, that’s too bad for them.   As for scratch and low handicappers, I can see the concern.  As for mid and high handicappers, there are a lot more issues with their game than this ball controversy.  A friend who is a 4-5 and can hit 300 yard drives plays lower compression AVXs which gives him better spin characteristics.  

Was playing with another friend recently who is a 19 hdcp and he was complaining about the change.  Knowing the answer, I asked him - what are you playing and what did you pay for it?  Said he plays prov1s and they are free as he fishes them out of a pond in the evenings. The other brands he gives to his wife.  I  Know many others that just play “whatever” and likely don’t play balls that fit them.   My wife plays Callaway supersofts and I know a few guys that play them - I contend that for the mass of golfers there will be no change to the ball they play.  

In the test you refer to whereby a 221 yard drive will be reduced by 11 yards may very well be true with the modified ball, but that ball likely is a poor fit for someone with a 220 yard carry (like me).   So, I see comments where the mass majority of golfers will be impacted - I just don’t believe it.  Some, definitely, but many just need to play a ball that fits them.

[Javs]

6 hours ago, Stuka44 said:

I'm OUT.  RULES ZEALOTS, have shouted down common sense!

I don’t think anyone should call @RickyBobby_PR a zealot just because his group play by the rules. Isn’t that what everyone should aspire to do? We play by the rules here. The men’s club and a couple groups adhere to some local rules in competition. However, we still play by the USGA rules. I know those that don’t and that is fine for them. I would never berate anyone for doing the right thing and following the rules. Maybe that is my Marine background…….

[Javs]

[RockerFCC]

33 minutes ago, silver & black said:

Get what under control? Players becoming more 'athletic'? Players figuring out 'how' to hit the ball farther? I guess I just don't understand the need to put a damper on players getting better at what they do.... to what end?

The end is to decrease the distance the ball is going. Nothing anyone can do about the players getting better. But equipment restrictions are likely I would think.

[storm319]

3 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... These are all just our personal opinions of course, but I do find it interesting that a few of the guys that this actually effects as far as making a living in Rory and Tiger, both think there is a problem and the ball goes too far. And you can throw in Nicklaus too. I am not positive but I think all 3 were in favor of bifurcation. 

Tiger has followed a path similar to Jack on this topic. Basically no critiques when they were dominant and amongst the longest on tour, starts complaining when in decline and getting passed up by younger players, then very vocal when their playing career is over and their focus turned to their course design business. 

Rory has been so inconsistent on this topic so much that I would take what he says with a grain of salt. Initially he was against the idea of a rollback. Then his little rant during an interview when he basically said whatever happens to the pro game, just leave the recreational game alone. Then advocating for bifurcation earlier this year and now trying to down play the expected impact  post decision all while parroting the same generic course lengthening talking point that the actual data contradicts. Will he be impacted by this? Sure, but given that he led the tour in driving average this year and will likely be near the top when this is adopted, he stands to benefit from the average falling back more so than his expected loss (he has admitted as much). 

[Silver Fawkes]

1 hour ago, RockerFCC said:

The end is to decrease the distance the ball is going. Nothing anyone can do about the players getting better. But equipment restrictions are likely I would think.

That's basically what a lot of us are complaining about. They ARE doing something about players getting better. They are altering equipment to curtail human performance gains. How do we know that? Because the equipment standards and regulations haven't changed in over 20 years, but the average driving distance on the PGA Tour has increased by 20 yards in that same time frame. That is the very definition of players getting better. Moreover, amateurs are upset because the manipulation of equipment to curtail human performance gains by the most elite players in the world is trickling down to the common person. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. 

We don't yet know how much it will affect handicap golfers, but it's just as temerarious to assume it won't affect amateurs at all as it is to assume it'll make current approach shots two clubs shorter. My opinion is that any effect is too much because the entire thing is based around a decision that has nothing to do with us at all.