[Rob Rigg]

I have a more positive take on what a roll back would represent for manufacturers and the TOUR.

Having worked for a large equipment manufacturer it's no surprise that any type of roll back or bifurcation on equipment - drivers, metalwoods, ball, etc. - is feared due to revenue risk. The number of golfers is flat to down every year, technology is at the point of marginal gains and the marketing stories get more and more ludicrous. Having PGA TOUR pros play a different
"short flight" ball would crush the OEMs so they're lobbying like energy companies facing undeniable climate change science.

Even if technology doesn't improve anymore, younger generations will continue to shorten the length of courses due to the understanding and measurement of biomechanics (through video, launch monitors, etc.) along with the ability to specifically personalize clubs, especially metalwoods, through TrackMan and head/shaft combinations to optimize launch conditions and spin. That is where the BIG gain has occurred in the last decade.

A large number of "millennial" golfers whom I worked with in the industry were taught to swing out of their shoes at a young age because of the larger faced drivers and lower spinning balls. None of them were even close to making it on TOUR, but many of them could hit the ball as long or longer than TOUR Pros because it's really all about swing speed with the driver and these guys could go really low on a good day playing "bomb and gauge."

100 vs 110 vs 120 mph driver SS provides a DRASTIC difference in distance with a properly fit club and ball. If you are swinging around 100 then you're probably driving it around 250 to 260 IF OPTIMIZED but if you are swinging around 115 to 120 (which is a normal "athletic" swing for college kids and younger pros) you can be CARRYING the ball 300+ and keeping it in play which is obviously a massive advantage.
With the ability to manipulate CT across the face with metalwoods and irons, manufacturers have created 3 woods that high swing speed golfers can now hit over 300 yards as well. Henrik Stenson's magical Diablo and Rory's M 3 wood are just two examples, and this all started with RBZ 6 years ago and most people weren't optimizing their head/shaft combination then. Jason Day was also shown in ads hitting the M2 4 iron 250+ yards.

Swing Speed + Technology + Club Fitting = Obsolete Courses for a growing number of golfers.

The ball is obviously the most obvious issue, but just having a shorter flight or higher spinning ball probably won't solve the problem.
The high handicap golfer has received the least amount of benefit from modern technology which is why I wonder if bifurcation is the optimal solution. If the USGA and R&A rolled back the rules on balls and clubs, then the equipment companies would be in the same place they are now - competing for marginal gains, and golfers would be in the same place they are now - purchasing what the pros are playing in the hopes of finding free strokes (unsuccessfully).

Manufacturer revenue would go up initially as golfers transition away from their illegal clubs and golf balls (lottery time) and then it would be back to normal business trying to eek out gains playing within the new rules.

If you go back and watch some of the old Shell Wonderful World of Golf episodes it's pretty compelling to witness some of the best pros in the world hitting absolute garbage tee shots after missing the sweet spot on their persimmon drivers and having to skillfully recover from the boondocks. Then in contrast, watching Hogan put on a total ball striking clinic hitting every fairway and green. Golf was a game of skill and all about ball control, in every facet of the game.
Tiger Woods didn't happen because of technology and he would have been even more dominant if technology hadn't evolved rapidly during the early 2000's allowing other less skilled Pros to pick up distance. Golf didn't grow in the early 2000's because of technology, it grew because of Tiger.

The increases in technology prevent golf from having more stand out stars which significantly benefits the game. Nobody cares if a no name automaton pro wins a tournament and that is happening more and more often because of how technology levels the playing field with high swing speed golfers.

The entertainment value on the PGA Tour would absolutely increase if technology was rolled back. 5 irons into greens versus Wedges - Yes please! Never mind the fact that more interesting courses could host tournaments, fewer resources would be required for course maintenance across the spectrum, etc.

I can still remember caddying at a Pro-Am where Christy O'Connor and Liam Higgins were hitting from the Medal Tees which were about 10 to 20 yards behind the Member Tees on average. The group wandered the course together having a great chat all round. Today "the tips" are in a different zip code from the members tees and for what? Nothing about golf is more interesting now than it was 20+ years ago. In fact, it's much less interesting because pros and ams are playing a different game entirely.

[JESII]

Matt - do you agree that if the major professional tours were on board with a roll back this could happen quite easily?


If so, what would you say to Jay Monahan and Keith Pelley if you had them in a room?  What's the sales pitch to guys that have their bread buttered by the growth and interest in the game?

[Dave Doxey]

Since this post has evolved (fallen?) into a discussion of the options for reducing ball flight, let me weigh in.
The ball is not going too far for 99.9% of golfers in this country.  Let's not confuse the issue by equating the ball flight of pros and elite amateurs to that of the weekend golfer.  Maybe the regular player is hitting the ball potentially a bit farther than before, but that is the allure of the game--and the game needs that to keep these golfers attracted to it.
Second, for there to be bifurcation, there needs to be a buy in from the professional tours.  It is very clear that we aren't going to get that.  In fact, the tours have seemed to indicate that they will split from the USGA/R&A if they try to limit ball distance.  So bifurcation will not work.
Why not do what earlier posters on here have recommended--let the top .1% of golfers  shoot whatever they can?  So what, if they shoot 55-60?  I, for one, could care less.  Courses in America are only hurting themselves and their members by trying to fit their courses to the game played by a very small number of extraordinary golfers.  The average golfer needs to take the game back by just ignoring what the pros and elite amateurs shoot.  Save the game by making it attractive for the regular golfers.

+1 to Jim's post.


Who cares what a pros score is?   Lengthen your course at your own risk & cost, if you choose to.   Better equipment adds to enjoyment for 99% of golfers.  Top players will always beat average players, regardless of equipment.   Equipment manufacturers will not allow or support rollback or bifurcation. They want to sell us all the same equipment that their pros play.  Golf rules bodies fear loss of control if average golfers & manufacturers decide to simply ignore rolled back equipment rules.

[John Kavanaugh]

Would bifurcation lead to less endorsement money for the pros if it meant that we no longer play the same equipment as them? Gonna be hard to get the boys to back that. Game over.

[JESII]

If everything is somehow dialed back 20%, the manufacturers will still want Rors hawking their Driver...wedge not so much!


Bifurcation would be temporary anyway.

[John Kavanaugh]

If there is a competition ball do you believe they pros will be paid as well to play it?

[JESII]

No, but I’m against split rules so I was talking about a full roll back

[John Kavanaugh]

No, but I’m against split rules so I was talking about a full roll back

That we can agree. No bifurcation.

[Rob Rigg]

I agree with Jim - Bifurcation will absolutely not work for several reasons:
1) NGF (National Golf Foundation) studies show that "active" golfers are not interested in playing products that are "illegal" which is why equipment companies that have created illegal drivers, golf balls that only fly straight, etc. are a non-factor in the industry

2) Furthermore, by and large, "active" golfers are interested in playing what the pros are playing, and obviously equipment manufacturers are VERY interested in amateur golfers playing the same equipment as professionals so their product can be endorsed
Long putters, box grooves, etc. all went by the wayside when the USGA and R&A change the rules to "protect the game." The exact same thing would happen with clubs and golf balls.

In fact, equipment companies would have a significant ramp in sales in "Year 1" of the rules change. My guess is followed by steady sales in following years as the "marginal gains" marketing game continues as it does now.
From an equipment standpoint I wonder where the right "roll back" point is though:
The combination of improved club head and shaft technology along with launch monitors make the club aspect of a roll back challenging. Heads would need to shrink but more importantly faces would need to be regulated as I assume graphite shafts could not be "outlawed" and neither would launch monitors for fittings so golfers could still get "dialed" post roll back including the pros. Having to fit pro golfers with steel shafts and smaller heads with lower CT and forgiveness across the face would make optimization more difficult for them resulting in a loss of distance and, more importantly, consistency on off center strikes.

So obviously the golf ball is the most important change and that has to do with increasing the spin rates which is the biggest factor in distance. Currently golf balls are constructed with cores, mantles and covers that benefit different parts of the game from the tee, through irons and pitching, chipping, putting. Manufacturers can create any recipe they want which is actually good for a roll back - There could be higher spinning balls similar to the old Balatas or maybe the Professional that pros and top Ams would play and less spinning models focused on average golfers that provide distance with less spin.
17/1700 is the optimal mix of launch and spin with 14 to 15 and 2,000 to 2,500 being fairly common amongst professionals and top ams hitting the ball 300+ yards off the tee.
If a rollback combination of ball and clubs occurred that set the floor on driver spin at about 3,000 RPM (data needs vetting) and also minimized CT at impact off the club face then average driving distance for pros would come down appropriately.
Amateurs would notice a much more negligible change with the roll back than pros.

Everyone would move up a set of tees or two. Or at a minimum, courses wouldn't need to be lengthened anymore.
 

[Kalen Braley]

Rob,  A few counterpoints.

#1) I don't understand this point.  Current "legal" clubs will still be allowed for 99.9% of golfers.  They will only be potentially banned for professional and top notch Am play.  This is one of the primary reasons to bifurcate.

#2) I think the average joe mostly just want to play like the pros play, and therefore buy what they play as a means to that end.  So if they want to use a limited flight ball, then so be it, but it won't be helping them.

[Thomas Dai]

Even with a rollback the manufacturers ought to still sell loads of golf balls coz we’ll still loose plenty of them! And they’ll probably figure out a way to charge more for them too.
As to clubs, if the rollback were untaken one way, ie softer more spinny balls, then the high lofted fairway metals and hybrids many have filled their bags with over the years should be semi-redundant and sales of long irons ought to go up as better player want them back in their bags once again. And a Driver size/performance rollback ought to mean lots of new sales as replacements for the 460cc flying pans that competitive players would be taking from their bags and putting in a cupboard.
Setting a small/short length for golf tees mightn’t be bad either.
Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

A shorter golf tee increases maintenance costs as tee boxes will be as tight as greens. Almost all of these roll back methods end up costing the golfer more instead of less. You guys are like a government program.

[Rob Rigg]

Kalen -
I'm suggesting that bifurcation should NOT be undertaken because it will not work and doesn't really benefit anyone.
Golfers do not want to play "illegal" clubs as proven in NGF surveys. If certain balls and clubs are not legal for professional and amateur competition then they are essentially "illegal" for everyone and the notion of bifurcating doesn't make sense.

Golfers will want to play what the pros play which means the USGA and R&A should change the rules - like they did for long putters, box groove wedges, etc. - and provide a multi-year window for implementation.

Also, bifurcation would be a massive pain in the butt for manufacturers because on one hand they have to develop this new line of clubs and balls for pros and amateur competitions, and on the other they have to keep playing within the current rules (I guess?) to advance 2019 clubs and balls for amateurs.

It's a total mess for everyone involved, not economical, nor cost effective, nor in the spirit of the game.

[Thomas Dai]

I think this is actually an opportunity for manufacturers to benefit through increased sales while significantly improving all aspects of the game for pros and ams alike.

+1. There's an opportunity here (clouds can have silver linings).
atb

[Rob Rigg]

A shorter golf tee increases maintenance costs as tee boxes will be as tight as greens. Almost all of these roll back methods end up costing the golfer more instead of less. You guys are like a government program.

John - Chasing performance gains with titanium drivers, carbon titanium drivers, white headed drivers, RocketBallzier Drivers, movable weight drivers, after market shafts, launch monitors, increased green fees to pay for increased maintenance due to too many tee boxes or irrigated land required because courses are 500 yards longer than they need to be all costs the golfer more money.

If the USGA and R&A had managed technology appropriately then we wouldn't be in this position where the pro game and amateur game are 50 to 100 yards different off the tee.

Equipment purchase cycles would likely decrease after the initial roll back, although they are stabilizing now and we are at the point where if you are buying a new driver every year to get additional distance then you've never been fit properly or you just like shiny new things (which golfers have always enjoyed and that will probably never change).

[John Kavanaugh]

No ones dues are going to go down because of a roll back. No fewer renovations will occur. If anything a roll back would be the next best new excuse to spend money chasing new members.

[Kalen Braley]

Robb,

I'm confused, you claim to be against bifurcation but then talk about the merits of the box groove wedges rule, which is a classic example of just that, (even if they will eventually be phased out for everyone).  It'll be 14 years of weekend warriors being able to use something the pros and top ams currently are unable to. If this is how the ruling bodies decide to do this, I'd be fine with that too...but don't pretend its not currently bifurcation and couldn't be done with balls or drivers....

As for manufacturers having to adapt, I have no sympathy there...every business on the planet must constantly adapt to changing conditions, external or internal.  But golfers who aspire to be better golfers will still want the next greatest thing, and will keep forking over in that pursuit, so I don't see how the economic incentives would somehow dry up even with new rules.

[John Kavanaugh]

I like using the Bandon test when evaluating anything golf. Let's put a roll back to the Bandon test.


How much money would Bandon save with a 20% roll back?


How much quicker would rounds be?


How much more would you enjoy the architecture?


How much of these savings in time and money would be beneficial for the future of the resort?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Roll back for all? No way. Not everyone plays the back tees. What about senior golfers who currently play from forward tees ( 6000y or less )  and struggle to hit driver 200y? 


Roll back for 1% ? Perhaps.

[Garland Bayley]

Roll back for all? No way. Not everyone plays the back tees. What about senior golfers who currently play from forward tees ( 6000y or less )  and struggle to hit driver 200y? 


Roll back for 1% ? Perhaps.

They'll struggle to hit driver 190y.

[Garland Bayley]

... Better equipment adds to enjoyment for 99% of golfers.  ...

What a crock! 99% of golfers spend $400 on the next great driver and cannot discern any difference in performance compared to the previous great driver.

My understanding is that scientific study has shown that when a golfer buys new equipment his belief that the equipment is better leads to better scores for a short period until the bad results that he was accustomed to with his old equipment accumulate to the point that his belief is gone and his performance has returned to what it was before he bought the new equipment. A very small percentage of these golfers end up actually continuing to play better. IMO they probably benefited more from some aspect of the clubs that was a better fit to their game than to any technological advance in the club.

The most enjoyment that players have derived from new equipment is the enjoyment that they no long regularly slice open their balata balls, and have to discard them.

[Tom_Doak]

Jesus, this is exactly like listening to Hillary Clinton run for President.  We can't agree on anything, and any action might be cast by the other side as "too expensive" or "too radical".  So the only solution is to give up trying, or cynically promise to "fight for" something you have no desire to actually see happen.


It's why I am willing to help make the argument, but I don't honestly believe anything will change.  I've just listened to people lie about trying to change it for the entire 38 years I've been in the golf business.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,


I once asked a Priest if I should sell all my worldly possessions and dedicate my life to helping the poor. He told me God puts some people on Earth to build roads and to just keep on doing exactly what God intended me to do.


You've earned fame and fortune over these last 38 years designing courses that satisfy the status quo. Have you ever considered building what you think we need instead of what golf demands? Do you need the number of that priest?

[jeffwarne]

I have a more positive take on what a roll back would represent for manufacturers and the TOUR.

Having worked for a large equipment manufacturer it's no surprise that any type of roll back or bifurcation on equipment - drivers, metalwoods, ball, etc. - is feared due to revenue risk. The number of golfers is flat to down every year, technology is at the point of marginal gains and the marketing stories get more and more ludicrous. Having PGA TOUR pros play a different
"short flight" ball would crush the OEMs so they're lobbying like energy companies facing undeniable climate change science.

Even if technology doesn't improve anymore, younger generations will continue to shorten the length of courses due to the understanding and measurement of biomechanics (through video, launch monitors, etc.) along with the ability to specifically personalize clubs, especially metalwoods, through TrackMan and head/shaft combinations to optimize launch conditions and spin. That is where the BIG gain has occurred in the last decade.

A large number of "millennial" golfers whom I worked with in the industry were taught to swing out of their shoes at a young age because of the larger faced drivers and lower spinning balls. None of them were even close to making it on TOUR, but many of them could hit the ball as long or longer than TOUR Pros because it's really all about swing speed with the driver and these guys could go really low on a good day playing "bomb and gauge."

100 vs 110 vs 120 mph driver SS provides a DRASTIC difference in distance with a properly fit club and ball. If you are swinging around 100 then you're probably driving it around 250 to 260 IF OPTIMIZED but if you are swinging around 115 to 120 (which is a normal "athletic" swing for college kids and younger pros) you can be CARRYING the ball 300+ and keeping it in play which is obviously a massive advantage.
With the ability to manipulate CT across the face with metalwoods and irons, manufacturers have created 3 woods that high swing speed golfers can now hit over 300 yards as well. Henrik Stenson's magical Diablo and Rory's M 3 wood are just two examples, and this all started with RBZ 6 years ago and most people weren't optimizing their head/shaft combination then. Jason Day was also shown in ads hitting the M2 4 iron 250+ yards.

Swing Speed + Technology + Club Fitting = Obsolete Courses for a growing number of golfers.

The ball is obviously the most obvious issue, but just having a shorter flight or higher spinning ball probably won't solve the problem.
The high handicap golfer has received the least amount of benefit from modern technology which is why I wonder if bifurcation is the optimal solution. If the USGA and R&A rolled back the rules on balls and clubs, then the equipment companies would be in the same place they are now - competing for marginal gains, and golfers would be in the same place they are now - purchasing what the pros are playing in the hopes of finding free strokes (unsuccessfully).

Manufacturer revenue would go up initially as golfers transition away from their illegal clubs and golf balls (lottery time) and then it would be back to normal business trying to eek out gains playing within the new rules.

If you go back and watch some of the old Shell Wonderful World of Golf episodes it's pretty compelling to witness some of the best pros in the world hitting absolute garbage tee shots after missing the sweet spot on their persimmon drivers and having to skillfully recover from the boondocks. Then in contrast, watching Hogan put on a total ball striking clinic hitting every fairway and green. Golf was a game of skill and all about ball control, in every facet of the game.
Tiger Woods didn't happen because of technology and he would have been even more dominant if technology hadn't evolved rapidly during the early 2000's allowing other less skilled Pros to pick up distance. Golf didn't grow in the early 2000's because of technology, it grew because of Tiger.

The increases in technology prevent golf from having more stand out stars which significantly benefits the game. Nobody cares if a no name automaton pro wins a tournament and that is happening more and more often because of how technology levels the playing field with high swing speed golfers.

The entertainment value on the PGA Tour would absolutely increase if technology was rolled back. 5 irons into greens versus Wedges - Yes please! Never mind the fact that more interesting courses could host tournaments, fewer resources would be required for course maintenance across the spectrum, etc.

I can still remember caddying at a Pro-Am where Christy O'Connor and Liam Higgins were hitting from the Medal Tees which were about 10 to 20 yards behind the Member Tees on average. The group wandered the course together having a great chat all round. Today "the tips" are in a different zip code from the members tees and for what? Nothing about golf is more interesting now than it was 20+ years ago. In fact, it's much less interesting because pros and ams are playing a different game entirely.

mic drop
outstanding post on many levels


the last paragragh says it all
Funny how golf as exploding in the 1960's and now 2/3 of PGA speak is about "growing the game" often at the expense of the game.
The problem with the "99% loving the new tech"(which I strongly dispute) is that the 99% is constantly shrinking

[Rob Rigg]

Robb,

I'm confused, you claim to be against bifurcation but then talk about the merits of the box groove wedges rule, which is a classic example of just that, (even if they will eventually be phased out for everyone).  It'll be 14 years of weekend warriors being able to use something the pros and top ams currently are unable to. If this is how the ruling bodies decide to do this, I'd be fine with that too...but don't pretend its not currently bifurcation and couldn't be done with balls or drivers....

Thanks Jeff!

Kalen - I'm not following what you are talking about with box groove wedges? They are illegal for tournaments (right?) and they aren't made anymore. I don't know anyone who is playing them. They may be technically legal if purchased X number of years ago but golfers like new equipment and wedges wear out. They are dead.

My point, which Garland just illustrated as well, is that there is no need for bifurcation. Slow swing speed golfers - i.e. the majority of Ams - are not benefiting from modern technology in a remotely similar manner as high swing speed golfers - i.e. Tour Pros and top Ams.

If 20 years of modern technology has gifted you an additional 70 yards on your drive because you swing at 120 mph, and it has gifted you 10 yards because you swing at 100 mph and 2 yards because you swing at 90 mph, then the impact of a roll back on the average golfer (the majority of the golfing population) will be inconsequential.
Hence, there is no reason to bifurcate the game. It would be wasteful and isn't in any parties best interest in the long run.

I played with two older gentlemen this weekend who had full bags of modern technology. They should have been playing 2 sets of tees forward because they couldn't hit it 150 and I could discern zero noticeable benefit that a modern club and ball was providing, especially as one gentleman switched to his 3 wood half way through the round and hit it straighter than his driver.

Modern technology hasn't made the game more fun, it's made equipment more expensive and product life cycles increase because when things look different it's easier to market progress.

It's also made courses longer and dues at clubs chasing relevance go through the roof. No wonder fewer people are playing every year and the "experiential" based Millennials are passing on golf in a greater number than any generation before them. They'd rather go to Top Golf and hit wedges at targets while hanging out and enjoying a drink. Golf is too expensive, takes too long to play, takes a bunch of practice (with or without modern technology), is less social now than ever before, etc.

It's time to save the courses, speed up the game, and reduce costs for the declining golf population. We can also make pro golf more interesting for those who enjoy watching it because shotmaking and ball striking technique will become more important. Who knows, maybe that will spark some interest like Tiger did (who won on technique vs technology).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()