Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[RickyBobby_PR]

26 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

Yes that is an interesting take But I am more concerned about how the holes are played tee to green and variety of shots than what the scores are so I would not favor making the hole smaller.

Theres no value added to the scorecard for playing a hole a certain way. The only thing that matters in competition is the score. The guys that cbs circumvent the course the best over the length of the tournament win. Its always been that way and unless they change how scoring works will always be that way.

To change how the pro game is played on tv which is purely for entertainment of the fans because a small minority of people don’t like how the pros play is kind of silly. Those that don’t like basketball and the way the rules have change to basically allow guys to not have to dribble once and take 3-4 steps don’t watch the game anymore. They don’t try and force the league to change and the league wouldn’t change when they are seeing high revenues. The same with golf. The pga tour has a large tv deal which indicates it’s doing pretty well with its audience. The sponsors would agree as works the advertisers. If the game wasn’t good the money wouldn’t be there

[RickyBobby_PR]

22 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

This will literally NEVER change. It is ALWAYS advantageous to take your approach shot closer to the hole than further away. Rolling the ball back to where only the driver is affected and not the irons will be a wet fart as far as the math goes. This is the reality of optimized sports guys, the math ALWAYS figures out the most advantageous positions regarding all possible outcomes, it's why we're able to build AI that can defeat Grand Masters in Chess, it's why we have literal bots trading Forex, and it's why the NBA shoots more 3 pointers than ever before.

There is NO possible way to force the game of golf on a 430 yard hole to make a Pro player who would beat us opposite-handed silly, to go from taking a Sand Wedge on approach to a 6 iron with ONLY 10 proposed yards on the driver and none on the irons. I've attached Lou Stagner's charts that everyone should be familiar with, and we are literally having this debate over whether all of this is worth the +- 2% change in hitting a green from some yardage.

There is NO way possible with these proposed changes that a Pro 1 in a billion player is EVER going to go from hitting a SW to a 6, and once they master their 6 irons, because they're the most competent golfers to ever walk the Earth, the USGA and R&A will get upset AGAIN that talented players are winning.

It has always been about irrational envy and a self-centered perceived political idea of what golf ought to be. We cannot appease the USGA and R&A because they are irrational.

This is where I don’t think many understand that distance and strokes gained are what has changed the game. Sure some knew it before it all came to light. Now that it’s outs there distance isn’t going away as the major emphasis in how golf is played. What did Tiger proofing do. It made courses longer and gave the longer hitter the advantage. That created golfers who trained more in the gym, who worked to get longer off the tee. 

[HikingMike]

15 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Average driving distance has gone up from 289 to 299 in the last 20 years because access to launch monitors helped optimize ball flight rather than relying on the eye test. Golfers are more athletic now and train better in the gym. You don’t have to lengthen. Courses because more people hit to 300 while the top end of distance hasn’t changed. People don’t like more pros hitting it further than their idols. Also the pga tour has chosen to keep the courses around the same length over the last 20 years because on the pro tour there isn’t a distance problem. It’s a problem created by the ruling bodies.

That still seems like a reason to lengthen courses or nerf the ball slightly. I may disagree with the PGA Tour judging by the other comments that are saying they purposely lengthen rollout on drives. By doing that, they are increasing distance dispersion between short and long hitters. If you don't want short hitters pushed out of pro events, then they should change that.

Quote

Go check out the data, pros use more than a wedge or mid irons when they play. If they didn’t then they are just punishing their caddies by making them carry a full bag

Probably their equipment sponsors are doing that But that's good to know. I would prefer they continue using a variety of shots and clubs.

Quote

The strokes gained cat is out of the bag and it’s not going back in. Distance will always be a premium going forward and the further they lengthen courses or reduce distance the faster the pros will get. The ones that can’t will be off the tour. Sasho Mackenzie has explained this and the ruling bodies have chosen not to talk with him about it. Go check out the data, pros use more than a wedge or mid irons when they play. If they didn’t then they are just punishing their caddies by making them carry a full bag

If distance is rewarded already and everybody knows it now, then isn’t this going to happen over time whether or not a change is made? The cat is out of the bag. There will be more players in that mold joining the pro ranks regardless. I know people in other threads have said that teachers teach kids starting out nowadays to swing as hard as comfortable or as hard as they can. This could be seen as a point in favor of the change. The player change is happening either way, so might as well keep them playing the courses somewhat like they have been played.

You've mentioned the pros will just decide to swing faster and make up that difference immediately. Well my prediction is they will become more erratic if they do. It definitely depends on the hole, but erratic driving is normally punished, right? I wonder what data we can find on left-right dispersion vs. scoring. I hit 300 yards occasionally and my left-right driving definitely removes any advantage from my driving length, lol. But not only that... they can't swing faster forever. Like I said in my other post, there is a human limit to be reached at some point.

[BigBoiGolf]

3 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

This is where I don’t think many understand that distance and strokes gained are what has changed the game. Sure some knew it before it all came to light. Now that it’s outs there distance isn’t going away as the major emphasis in how golf is played. What did Tiger proofing do. It made courses longer and gave the longer hitter the advantage. That created golfers who trained more in the gym, who worked to get longer off the tee. 

No joke when I play leagues and guys ask how I shoot par or the occassional 1 or 2 under, the answer is always the same: I try to hit the ball as far as I can on a line that's completely predictable, just so I have the opportunity to stuff a wedge on the follow up shot at a yardage I know how to hit 99% of the time. I'm not playing perfect, I'm playing the numbers and letting the dice roll along the way. Same reason why I practice only 10 feet and in on putting, sorry that's just what the math points at.

[HikingMike]

15 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Theres no value added to the scorecard for playing a hole a certain way. The only thing that matters in competition is the score. The guys that cbs circumvent the course the best over the length of the tournament win. Its always been that way and unless they change how scoring works will always be that way.

To change how the pro game is played on tv which is purely for entertainment of the fans because a small minority of people don’t like how the pros play is kind of silly. Those that don’t like basketball and the way the rules have change to basically allow guys to not have to dribble once and take 3-4 steps don’t watch the game anymore. They don’t try and force the league to change and the league wouldn’t change when they are seeing high revenues. The same with golf. The pga tour has a large tv deal which indicates it’s doing pretty well with its audience. The sponsors would agree as works the advertisers. If the game wasn’t good the money wouldn’t be there

They did crack down on PEDs in baseball after Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa's crazy year. People loved their home run race, loved having new records set all the time. But they still made the change. Maybe Congress forced their hand, it's been a while. But if not, everyone would be taking steroids, andro, HGH or whatever and it would be going down to little leagues.

I am in favor of less circumvention of the course. There will be some circumvention, totally fine and exciting, but better to have a similar mix of circumvention and not-circumvention to what we had in the game before the big change, closer to what the golf courses were designed for. This is just my opinion of course. 

[HikingMike]

Here is some robot testing done with modern clubs that put 1990s "tour level" balata balls vs. a modern urethane ball - https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/golf-ball-test-modern-balata-robot/

1. Amateur Driver Speed (92 mph)
Modern urethane ball: 232.4 yds at 2,768.8 RPMs
Tour-level balata ball: 210.2 yds at 3,346.8 RPMs
Difference: -22.2 yards | +578 RPMs | Ball speed decreased by 4.5 mph

2. Tour Driver Mid (103 mph)
Tour-level balata ball: 265.8 yds at 3,343.8 RPMs
Modern urethane ball: 288.3 yds at 2,382.2 RPMs
Difference: -22.5 yards | +961.6 RPMs | -4.3 mph

3. Tour Driver Mid-High (113 mph)
Modern urethane ball: 294.9 yds at 2,822.2 RPMs
Tour-level balata ball: 262.5 yds at 3,785.8 RPMs
Difference: -32.4 yards | +963.6 RPMs | -4.2 mph

4. Tour Driver High (132 mph)
Modern urethane ball: 356.9 yds at 2,631 RPMs
Tour-level balata ball: 324 yds at 3,472 RPMs
Difference: -32.9 yards | +841 RPMs | -6 mph

5. Tour 6-iron (91 mph)
Modern urethane ball: 197.3 yds at 5,687 RPMs
Tour-level balata ball: 186.5 yds at 6,458 RPMs
Difference: -10.8 yards | +771 RPMs | -3.6 mph

Keep in mind, this is just the ball being isolated. The swing is by a robot and the club is the same. The change in the fitness of the golfer would add more on top of that (by average), not to mention the driver head size/forgiveness.

Edited December 12, 2023 by HikingMike

[BigBoiGolf]

4 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

Here is some robot testing done with modern clubs that put 1990s "tour level" balata balls vs. a modern urethane ball - https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/golf-ball-test-modern-balata-robot/

1. Amateur Driver Speed (92 mph)
Modern urethane ball: 232.4 yds at 2,768.8 RPMs
Tour-level balata ball: 210.2 yds at 3,346.8 RPMs
Difference: -22.2 yards | +578 RPMs | Ball speed decreased by 4.5 mph

2. Tour Driver Mid (103 mph)
Tour-level balata ball: 265.8 yds at 3,343.8 RPMs
Modern urethane ball: 288.3 yds at 2,382.2 RPMs
Difference: -22.5 yards | +961.6 RPMs | -4.3 mph

3. Tour Driver Mid-High (113 mph)
Modern urethane ball: 294.9 yds at 2,822.2 RPMs
Tour-level balata ball: 262.5 yds at 3,785.8 RPMs
Difference: -32.4 yards | +963.6 RPMs | -4.2 mph

4. Tour Driver High (132 mph)
Modern urethane ball: 356.9 yds at 2,631 RPMs
Tour-level balata ball: 324 yds at 3,472 RPMs
Difference: -32.9 yards | +841 RPMs | -6 mph

5. Tour 6-iron (91 mph)
Modern urethane ball: 197.3 yds at 5,687 RPMs
Tour-level balata ball: 186.5 yds at 6,458 RPMs
Difference: -10.8 yards | +771 RPMs | -3.6 mph

Keep in mind, this is just the ball being isolated. The swing is by a robot and the club is the same. The change in the fitness of the golfer would add more on top of that (by average), not to mention the driver head size/forgiveness.

Added the one picture in the article. Main difference in balatas is both ball speed and backspin.

Keep in mind, when balatas were around, plastics engineering and knowledge was in its infancy. It would be interesting to see a modern balata with modern polymer engineering.

[BigBoiGolf]

I just noticed this in that Golf.com article:

Man, if only there was something available on the market for irons that game improvement irons have ruined the last 15 years that could help low speed amateurs hit the ball higher with more backspin to increase their land angle to hold greens. What a real mystery there.

[chisag]

... For all those either quitting the game or disavowing the USGA or buying a brand new Get Off My Lawn sign for their front yard because of a potential 5 yard loss for Ams that may or may not happen 6 years down the road ... problem solved. 

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, BigBoiGolf said:

You let me know when you show up to a job to work for free for a company that doesn't value you. I can choose to punish organizations by not supporting them just like I punish my former jobs by choosing to take my well paid talents elsewhere.

Actually, I volunteer as a Rules Official.  Some of it is for the Virginia State Golf Association, for events like State Open and Amateur, Senior events, and a few junior events.  I volunteer for Middle Atlantic PGA events, both for PGA of America professionals and for Junior events.  I volunteer for high school golf events.  So who would I hurt if I decided to withhold my "talents" and expertise?  Local golf professionals, local high-school kids, local amateurs.  I'm sure none of them had a big impact on the USGA and R&A in making their choices.

I'm not sure where you've volunteered in the past, or even what part of the world you inhabit, but removing your volunteer services from a local AGA or PGA section isn't going to impact the USGA or R&A.  Of course removing your name from the USGA Handicap system will certainly take $5 or $6 from the USGA, the rest you'll be withholding from the coffers of your local Allied Golf Association.

[Tom the Golf Nut]

10 minutes ago, chisag said:

... For all those either quitting the game or disavowing the USGA or buying a brand new Get Off My Lawn sign for their front yard because of a potential 5 yard loss for Ams that may or may not happen 6 years down the road ... problem solved. 

Sam, we can always count on you to save the day. I’ll feel so much better about gaining those 4 yards back. But I’ll also be   6 years older. What if I double up the tees? What if I start using those tees now.

Oh such decisions we golfers have to make.

[DaveP043]

17 minutes ago, chisag said:

... For all those either quitting the game or disavowing the USGA or buying a brand new Get Off My Lawn sign for their front yard because of a potential 5 yard loss for Ams that may or may not happen 6 years down the road ... problem solved. 

Not to mention these:

https://www.golfsidekick.com/balls/best-illegal-golf-balls/

[GolfSpy AFG]

@chisagGet Off My Lawn signs…I take offense to that.  I fail to see how this is my fault.

[cnosil]

9 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Not to mention these:

https://www.golfsidekick.com/balls/best-illegal-golf-balls/

Wait, there are companies that make golf balls that don’t meet USGA rules and people buy them?   I guess in 2030, there will be options for those that don’t want to play the balls that meet the new spec.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

That still seems like a reason to lengthen courses or nerf the ball slightly. I may disagree with the PGA Tour judging by the other comments that are saying they purposely lengthen rollout on drives. By doing that, they are increasing distance dispersion between short and long hitters. If you don't want short hitters pushed out of pro events, then they should change that.

The lengthening of courses gives the longer hitter more advantage. Strokes gained shows this. The difficulty of approach shots goes up as the distance from the green gets further back. There’s no debating this, the data actually shows that. By going from 160 to 180 out decreases the percentage by 10% whereas going from 120 to 140 is under 5% decrease.

Theres no need to lengthen the course or change the setup by the tour. They have a successful product with their current business model. Not going to get into the liv talk, that is irrelevant to the discussion. The tour is happy with how the  pro game is played. They aren’t asking for a reduction in distance or to have courses play longer. They will actually move tees up as it gives more risk/reward and can cause some volatility on the leaderboard which creates excitement on a Sunday as guys are battling for the win. The issue is the ruling bodies are trying to hold onto 4-5 courses for their championship and they are looking after their buddies who want to build courses for tour and/or major events that claim they can’t build a championship course without it being 8000 yards. There is no problem in the pro game. People make not like it but there is a large portion that do.

you don’t change a successful product for a minority. 

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

If distance is rewarded already and everybody knows it now, then isn’t this going to happen over time whether or not a change is made? The cat is out of the bag. There will be more players in that mold joining the pro ranks regardless. I know people in other threads have said that teachers teach kids starting out nowadays to swing as hard as comfortable or as hard as they can. This could be seen as a point in favor of the change. The player change is happening either way, so might as well keep them playing the courses somewhat like they have been played.

There isn’t going to be a change. As the course gets longer distance becomes a priority. Those who can hit it far are going to be more succesful than those who can’t and that will limit who can and can’t make it on tour and the tour will be filled with only long hitters . Sasho Mackenzie talks about this as does broadie. Distance is always going to be a premium and closer to the hole is better than further away even if further away is in the fairway.

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

You've mentioned the pros will just decide to swing faster and make up that difference immediately. Well my prediction is they will become more erratic if they do. It definitely depends on the hole, but erratic driving is normally punished, right? I wonder what data we can find on left-right dispersion vs. scoring. I hit 300 yards occasionally and my left-right driving definitely removes any advantage from my driving length, lol. But not only that... they can't swing faster forever. Like I said in my other post, there is a human limit to be reached at some point.

They won’t be because they will have the equipment optimized to minimize the added dispersion. Again Sasho Mackenzie is well versed in all this. It’s probably why the ruling bodies are choosing to not talk to him because he would show them how dumb their approach is. If you want to see his comments I posted his social media last several pages back or search for it on X/twitter.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

They did crack down on PEDs in baseball after Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa's crazy year. People loved their home run race, loved having new records set all the time. But they still made the change. Maybe Congress forced their hand, it's been a while. But if not, everyone would be taking steroids, andro, HGH or whatever and it would be going down to little leagues.

I am in favor of less circumvention of the course. There will be some circumvention, totally fine and exciting, but better to have a similar mix of circumvention and not-circumvention to what we had in the game before the big change, closer to what the golf courses were designed for. This is just my opinion of course. 

This was done because of optics. People don’t want to know their heroes are on the juice. 
 

The PGA tour has plenty of diversity between the courses they play and there are some courses that suit certain players over others. It’s why you see some of the shorter guys have success like a Brian Harmon. 

[fixyurdivot]

3 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Flip that question. Do nothing ever? Just let the ball continue to go further and further. The testing protocols they are using are from 20 years ago. I think it's fair for them to update them given how the game has changed the last 20 years.

Golf is about all parts of the game and the core issue is that right now too much of that emphasis is on distance off the tee. This will hopefully help bring a few of the other parts of the game and skill back to the elite levels.

We can keep going around and around for the next 6 years making all the same arguments on both sides. In the end it's going to happen in some form or fashion and at least now golfers have years to prepare for it.

Nice dodge . I haven't heard anyone on this thread suggest we should let the ball technology continue to add distance beyond current conformance limits.  Certainly if there is a distance issue at tour level, freezing current limits would be doing something... and, based on what I'm seeing and hearing, the right thing to do.

Distance from the tee to the green, for as long as I've been playing this game, has always reigned supreme; and it's my guess it will continue to do so.  It's not only chicks that dig the long ball. Like speed and acceleration, it sells. Even if they get all 11 of their precious yards back, we will see no cosmic shift in how tour level golf is played.  Whatever difference in the "other parts of the game" you think will be required to offset are on the right side of the decimal.

I'll be playing current spec balls through the remainder of my playing days and each time I swat one it will be a middle finger "you're #1 with me" to the USGA and R&A. 

[BigBoiGolf]

26 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The lengthening of courses gives the longer hitter more advantage. Strokes gained shows this. The difficulty of approach shots goes up as the distance from the green gets further back. There’s no debating this, the data actually shows that. By going from 160 to 180 out decreases the percentage by 10% whereas going from 120 to 140 is under 5% decrease.

Which is why to me, I think they should shorten courses to where the figurative "brick wall" comes into play with drivers. If strokes gained shows us how longer approaches decide more winners, then we need to shorten their approaches to change the focus to increased GIR% with proximity to hole, and putting.

Does anyone have the strokes stats for those 220 - 290 yard Par 3s?

Edited December 12, 2023 by BigBoiGolf

[fixyurdivot]

2 hours ago, BigBoiGolf said:

This will literally NEVER change. It is ALWAYS advantageous to take your approach shot closer to the hole than further away. Rolling the ball back to where only the driver is affected and not the irons will be a wet fart as far as the math goes. This is the reality of optimized sports guys, the math ALWAYS figures out the most advantageous positions regarding all possible outcomes, it's why we're able to build AI that can defeat Grand Masters in Chess, it's why we have literal bots trading Forex, and it's why the NBA shoots more 3 pointers than ever before.

There is NO possible way to force the game of golf on a 430 yard hole to make a Pro player who would beat us opposite-handed silly, to go from taking a Sand Wedge on approach to a 6 iron with ONLY 10 proposed yards on the driver and none on the irons. I've attached Lou Stagner's charts that everyone should be familiar with, and we are literally having this debate over whether all of this is worth the +- 2% change in hitting a green from some yardage.

There is NO way possible with these proposed changes that a Pro 1 in a billion player is EVER going to go from hitting a SW to a 6, and once they master their 6 irons, because they're the most competent golfers to ever walk the Earth, the USGA and R&A will get upset AGAIN that talented players are winning.

It has always been about irrational envy and a self-centered perceived political idea of what golf ought to be. We cannot appease the USGA and R&A because they are irrational.

It works with "new math" though .  It's funny how near biblic the works of Stanger, Fawcett, Sasho, etc. are to many until they run in opposition to this debate.

I've been searching this forum and others for threads on "I want to decrease my distance"... nothing yet.  Lock current ball specs, raise the mower decks, problem solved.

[cnosil]

42 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

Does anyone have the strokes stats for those 220 - 290 yard Par 3s?

This should give you an idea of score relative to par on approach shots from > 200 yards.    The numbers are from teh fairway or tee on a par 3. 

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/480

If you want something closer to your numbers here is 225-250

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/02377

250-275

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/02374

>275

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/02375

[Fred Mitchell]

18 hours ago, GaDawg said:

I resent you talking about me.

War Eagle. 

[Beakbryce]

6 hours ago, vandyland said:

In fairness to anyone I am trying to peacefully debate with, I am even on board with a very radical idea that will probably get me laughed off the board. 

A version of the golf ball (if possible????) that still spins and feels like a normal golf ball but a driver flies like 25-30% less than current. So a driver now goes (for me reducing 260 yd carry by 30%) 185-195 yds. You could build a much smaller golf course in a metro area. Also you could play with less clubs. That, to me, would grow the game but 99.9% of people would never go for that. But, if you could suspend your disbelief, a par 4 could be "Driver + 7 iron" and only have to be about 300 yds. A par 3 could be 100 yds and still be challenging. A par 5 could be 400 yds and be difficult to reach in 2. 

No one is going to go along with this but this seems more fun to me than "popstroke".

I'm 71 so forgive me if I don't remember the exact circumstances, but I think a ball was invented some time ago exactly as you describe. I think it was in a Golf or Golf Digest magazine. You're right, it didn't take off. Still, this idea would bring walking the course back for a lot of people and wouldn't take 4 hours. Hopefully!

It would be awesome for a lot of the par 62ish courses already out there.

[FrogginBullfish]

4 hours ago, HikingMike said:

They did crack down on PEDs in baseball after Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa's crazy year. People loved their home run race, loved having new records set all the time. But they still made the change. Maybe Congress forced their hand, it's been a while. But if not, everyone would be taking steroids, andro, HGH or whatever and it would be going down to little leagues.

I am in favor of less circumvention of the course. There will be some circumvention, totally fine and exciting, but better to have a similar mix of circumvention and not-circumvention to what we had in the game before the big change, closer to what the golf courses were designed for. This is just my opinion of course. 

I do agree with the bottom point to a certain extent. I don't think players should be able to intentionally play shots onto other holes because it gives them a shorter shot or better angle into a green. But much of the complaints about circumvention of course architecture is just that some guys are cutting doglegs/corners or carrying bunkers too easily. That part is silly imo

[Beakbryce]

3 hours ago, chisag said:

... For all those either quitting the game or disavowing the USGA or buying a brand new Get Off My Lawn sign for their front yard because of a potential 5 yard loss for Ams that may or may not happen 6 years down the road ... problem solved. 

Leave us not forget Squarz shoes and that new sock product guaranteed for more yards. Seems like buying a game though. Wait, what?

Besides, I already use that tee. Bummer! Maybe they will find new tee technology by 2030. 

[Beakbryce]

6 hours ago, vandyland said:

Would just be simple if everyone played one golf ball like there is one tennis ball (as far I know). 

Tennis balls, like golf balls have different play abilities especially depending on the tennis surface. If you watch any of the tournaments, they sometimes discuss the different balls and how some balls would be faster or slower, bounce higher or lower off a particular surface. You are absolutely correct though that a tournament uses all the same brand balls for the length of the tournament. What they haven't done is roll back the ball. This despite the fact that players are generally scoring more Aces then 20 years ago. Sound familiar?

If you want to see something funny, watch any tournament with Tracy Austin and Chris Evert , giants of their generation, the ball speeds, and then watch Wimbledon or the US Open tennis matches this year. Night and day. 

Despite huge gains in racquet technology and player physical fitness, they haven't yet limited either ball or racquet, raised or lowered the net, or changed the size of the playing field. Makes one think, yes?

[ballhawk]

"ATTENTION"............News Flash!!!.................The so-called problem has been solved.........

The USGA and the R&A can oversee their tournaments (The Opens and Am's) and then furnish the dictated roll back balls to all who enter. As far as the rest of the golfing world, Pro Tours and everyday golfers, we'll play what we have been playing, thank you very much!! 

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 hours ago, BigBoiGolf said:

Which is why to me, I think they should shorten courses to where the figurative "brick wall" comes into play with drivers. If strokes gained shows us how longer approaches decide more winners, then we need to shorten their approaches to change the focus to increased GIR% with proximity to hole, and putting.

Does anyone have the strokes stats for those 220 - 290 yard Par 3s?

Longer players win on longer courses. Shorter course favor shorter players. It’s all broken down in broadie’s report. 
 

At 250 yards proximity to the hole is around 50’.

[RickyBobby_PR]

11 minutes ago, ballhawk said:

"ATTENTION"............News Flash!!!.................The so-called problem has been solved.........

The USGA and the R&A can oversee their tournaments (The Opens and Am's) and then furnish the dictated roll back balls to all who enter. As far as the rest of the golfing world, Pro Tours and everyday golfers, we'll play what we have been playing, thank you very much!! 

This is the option they had when the tours and pga of America said no to the mlr and players stated they would consider not playing in tne opens if the mlr ball was used.

Guess they weren’t so committed to the mlr for their events as they let everyone believe

[GaDawg]

1 hour ago, Fred Mitchell said:

War Eagle. 

Now that's not funny.

 

[Jmikecpa]

A little late to this as I have been catching up on the press statements over the last few days. The reason for no bifurcation is that local clubs and state Ams could not figure out how to apply a local rule. I have to be missing something or this is dumber than I thought it was. Every sport has some form of bifurcation between the elite level and recreational level. Baseball is a great example and I played my entire life and was never confused in what rules applied for each level. Also never had an issue adapting to rules at the next level as I moved up. Maybe I am an overachiever but I was not even confused between wooden bat leagues and aluminum bat leagues, figured it out pretty quickly. When this rule hits I will be in my mid 50’s and then get to lose distance. Way to grow the game.