Shots Fired USGA/R&A give length “The Shaft” Classic Course Win?

[V_Halyard]

Here we go.
Is this the first shot in an official battle to defend classic golf course architecture, and keep them in pro and low amateur ROTAs?

USGA and R&A throw down a new “not a rule of golf” local rule limiting shaft length. (Not putters though). #Semantics

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2021/10/local-rule-usga-randa-limits-club-length.html

[Dan Delaney 🐮]

Thanks V


Question to the treehouse: Does anyone read this and not conclude it’s the start of bifurcation? Maybe I’m missing something.


Mike Whan, chief executive officer of the USGA, said, “We’ve worked closely with our industry partners to ensure the future for golf remains strong. Admittedly, this is not the ‘answer’ to the overall distance debate/issue, but rather a simple option for competitive events. It’s important to note that it is not a ‘Rule of Golf,’ and as such, it is not mandated for the average, recreational golfer. Rather, this is an available tool for those running competitive events.”

[JESII]

We can speculate on what this leads to but my question is, how many people actually use a driver >46”?


I’d bet more recreational players than tour players do although no clue really.

[Tom_Doak]

Thanks V


Question to the treehouse: Does anyone read this and not conclude it’s the start of bifurcation? Maybe I’m missing something.


Mike Whan, chief executive officer of the USGA, said, “We’ve worked closely with our industry partners to ensure the future for golf remains strong. Admittedly, this is not the ‘answer’ to the overall distance debate/issue, but rather a simple option for competitive events. It’s important to note that it is not a ‘Rule of Golf,’ and as such, it is not mandated for the average, recreational golfer. Rather, this is an available tool for those running competitive events.”

Yes, it's the start of bifurcation.  They are trying to establish a precedent for letting equipment rules be local rules, so they can go further with them later.


It's equally clearly an attempt to avoid "restraint of trade" lawsuits.  But why does "we didn't restrict the length of the driver you make, this tournament did," remind me so much of "we didn't require you to get vaccinated, your employer did" ?

[JESII]

Ok...I get it. While I understand the "restraint of trade" risk, this feels like kicking the can down the road.


I'm not a roll back guy or a bifurcation guy. In truth, I have opinions on both sides of the debate so am fine whatever happens on that front...but to think any individual tournament is going to implement this rule seems a stretch. I play most of my golf in the Golf Association of Philadelphia. They are a very large regional association that runs a great number of tournaments for all levels. When the laser rangefinder local rule was offered, they implemented it right away. I presume the goal of speeding up play was central. What do they have to gain by implementing this rule for any, or all, of their events?

[Tom_Doak]

Ok...I get it. While I understand the "restraint of trade" risk, this feels like kicking the can down the road.


I'm not a roll back guy or a bifurcation guy. In truth, I have opinions on both sides of the debate so am fine whatever happens on that front...but to think any individual tournament is going to implement this rule seems a stretch. I play most of my golf in the Golf Association of Philadelphia. They are a very large regional association that runs a great number of tournaments for all levels. When the laser rangefinder local rule was offered, they implemented it right away. I presume the goal of speeding up play was central. What do they have to gain by implementing this rule for any, or all, of their events?

Jim:


My guess would be that The Open and The Amateur and the U.S. Open and U.S. Amateur  [and possibly The Masters] are the first events to start implementing the Local Rules on equipment . . . which will create downward pressure on other events to do it, so that elite players aren't having to change their equipment back and forth.  That's the way the R & A got rid of the 1.62-in ball, seamlessly, over a decade.


EDIT:  Realized I neglected to include the parallel women's opens and amateurs, which will be where the rule on driver length will be more impactful.

[Jim Sherma]

The only way a reasonable number of amateurs play >46" drivers is if one of the large manufacturers have it as a stock option. I know that drivers have been getting longer and longer, but have any of the OEM's gone that long yet? I believe that the number of amateurs that are putting custom shafts into their drivers is quite small, the number putting x-long shafts in even less.

[JMEvensky]

What happens if the PGAT says no? Would the USGA make this move without an assurance they'd go along?

[Duncan Cheslett]

I’ve long thought that the key to reining in equipment was an “Augusta Ball”.


This feels like one more step along the road to that destination.

[Tom_Doak]

What happens if the PGAT says no? Would the USGA make this move without an assurance they'd go along?

They have been trying to get the PGA Tour on board with equipment rollback for 10-20 years.  No one knows if they have them or not; odds are they don't.  But by now it's clear the Tour will never move unless they are followers, when it has proven not to matter too much, and meanwhile there has been steady progress on the sentiment of "doing it anyway" for the other majors.

[Kyle Harris]

Restraint of trade?


The USGA is not preventing me from buying hot equipment anymore than MLB is preventing me from buying an aluminum bat.


If a market truly existed for the stuff, it would already be lucrative.

[JESII]

Someone on Shackelford's site posted that the standard length for some manufacturer's has steadily increased and is now 46" so this could be preemptive there, which is fine.


Someone else posted a link to a Golf Digest article saying the Tour is on board and will implement the rule January 1.

[JESII]

Kyle,


I suspect the USGA is more concerned with fighting this type of suit than with actually losing it...

[Thomas Dai]

As an individual measure it’s pretty tame in the overall context of golf and distance.
But it has the capacity to be a precedent for other such measures so tactically I can see where their coming from.
Still too late though. Moving the deckchairs on the already sinking Titanic.
Atb

[Rob Marshall]

Ok...I get it. While I understand the "restraint of trade" risk, this feels like kicking the can down the road.


I'm not a roll back guy or a bifurcation guy. In truth, I have opinions on both sides of the debate so am fine whatever happens on that front...but to think any individual tournament is going to implement this rule seems a stretch. I play most of my golf in the Golf Association of Philadelphia. They are a very large regional association that runs a great number of tournaments for all levels. When the laser rangefinder local rule was offered, they implemented it right away. I presume the goal of speeding up play was central. What do they have to gain by implementing this rule for any, or all, of their events?

Jim:


My guess would be that The Open and The Amateur and the U.S. Open and U.S. Amateur  [and possibly The Masters] are the first events to start implementing the Local Rules on equipment . . . which will create downward pressure on other events to do it, so that elite players aren't having to change their equipment back and forth.  That's the way the R & A got rid of the 1.62-in ball, seamlessly, over a decade.


EDIT:  Realized I neglected to include the parallel women's opens and amateurs, which will be where the rule on driver length will be more impactful.

Yup, Brooke Henderson is swinging a 48" driver choked up.

[Ken Moum]

What happens if the PGAT says no? Would the USGA make this move without an assurance they'd go along?

They have been trying to get the PGA Tour on board with equipment rollback for 10-20 years.  No one knows if they have them or not; odds are they don't.  But by now it's clear the Tour will never move unless they are followers, when it has proven not to matter too much, and meanwhile there has been steady progress on the sentiment of "doing it anyway" for the other majors.

The Tour has already announced that it will implement the Local Rule on Jan. 1. https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2021/10/12/usga-ra-reduce-maximum-club-length-46-inches/


So despite my feeling that this is as dumb as the anchored putter rule and latest groove rule, they're going to do it.


And it won't change a damned thing.

[Padraig Dooley]

I do a lot of testing on length of shaft and play a 48 inch driver myself. From the testing, for each extra inch in length 1 mph club head speed is gained. Going from 45 to 48, a player might see 3 mph gained which can equate to 7-7.5 yards. The length of shaft can also give more height, which can mean a lower loft can be used and a few more yards can be gained this way too.
With the longer shaft, the swingweight of the club of the club will be heavier putting the balance out. Normally weight is taken out of the head to counteract this, which leads to a little more club head speed but a little less ball speed conversion due to less mass in the momentum equation. Lighter heads are also a little less forgiving.

As most would know longer shafts are also less accurate for most but some do gain accuracy with a longer shaft. About 50% of golfers I see work best with 45 inches, about 13% work best with 46.5 inches and I can think of around 4 that are using 48 inches. In the greater scheme introducing a local rule of 46 will effect a small few but not many golfers, so I'll doubt you'll hear much chatter from anyone about this rule will destroy their golf career and enjoyment.
I find I don't really buy some of the rollback arguments, certainly don't buy the one about that's not the way the hole was meant to be played. I play with golfers who hit it 50 yards past me and also golfers who are 50 yards shorter than me, we all play the hole in a different way and that hasn't changed from 10, 20 or 30 years ago and won't change in the future either.

I don't buy the score comparison to the past either, the score really is only a valid comparison to other golfers over a given day or a given tournament, there is no real need to say that a 66 now is better than a 68 in 1965 given all the other factors such as course or weather conditions on daily scoring.
I don't buy the reports that come out every year that say that this is the year that equipment has finally gone too far, the big equipment jumps were between 1990 and 2004, since then gains in distance have been just a creep forward.

I also don't buy the players that say it's the improvement in players that's making the difference, that the players today are fitter and stronger and better coached. The best players of all eras were fit and strong and coached well and hit the ball far compared to the average of the time. Athletes like to think that it's them who are the reason why records are improving and not the equipment they use to help them, just look at the reaction to some runners to the new technology.
I am in support of a rollback because the longer the ball goes, the push will be for longer courses and as we know, more land, more resources, wider corridors, longer to play etc. A slightly more compact game by 10, 15 or 20% will not be detrimental at all and using less resources and time will only be beneficial.

A rollback and a shrinking will be a lot easier than many think and I'll give two reasons why, one it's been done already with the move from 1.62 to 1.68 and an anecdote for the second reason.
Back in the mid 90's me and two other young guys used to play with an elderly doctor on occasion in a fourball. He was a golf nut, would hit balls every day, read every book on golf, buy all the latest equipment and was very knowledgeable and insightful on the game. One day while he was out playing with us and we used to hit it 50-70 yards past him, he said I love playing with you guys, I just ignore how you play and play my own game but if I'm playing with my normal bunch on a Monday and one of them hits it 10 yards past me I'll jump all over the next tee shot to get past them and many times I hit a terrible shot.

The morale of the story is that, golfers don't experience playing with a big number of other golfers, they play mainly in a small enough circle and that's who they use to compare themselves to. It's not the total distance that matters but the comparative distance, if they all lose distance, they won't be concerned and that's why after a small bit of grumbling with a rollback at the start it will be ignored quickly enough and golfers will just get on with playing the game

[jeffwarne]

Much like the groove rule, or the one ball rule...


Why does any event or organization need the USGA's permission to implement a local rule?


Once again, if 48 inch drivers, or anchored putters, were clear advantages, EVERYONE would be using them.
But they aren't and they are only employed by a fraction of players.
Both require a certain skill and have tradeoffs to implementing the techniques.



Yet EVERY Tour player uses a face caving thin faced rebounding driver and a multi layer ball.
Therefore those ARE advantages that have clearly led to the bastardization of classic courses and increased safety concerns for golfers in general..


but crickets on the front that changed the face of golf.


I'll just never understand the head in the sand cherry picking that goes on without actually addressing what has clearly changed in golf.
I'm with Jim at this point as the ship has sailed already.

[Greg Stebbins]

20 years ago a 46" driver was extraordinarily rare and 44" was the standard with Tiger gaming a 43.5" steel shaft Titleist.


Fast forward to 2021, and while virtually no one uses anything above 46" now, the vast majority are in the 45-46" range.  Recent history suggests that driver length will continue to slowly increase as shaft technology allows.  The USGA recognizes this and makes a proactive decision before having to go back and make a reactive decision and "roll back." Isn't this what we have always wanted to see?

[V_Halyard]

Much like the groove rule, or the one ball rule...


Why does any event or organization need the USGA's permission to implement a local rule.


Once agin, if 48 inch drivers, or anchored putters, were clear advantages, EVERYONE would be using them.
But they aren't and they are only employed by a fraction of players.
Both require a certain skill and have tradeoffs to implemeting the techniques.



Yet EVERY Tour player uses a face caving thin faced rebounding driver and a multi layer ball.
Therefore those ARE advantages that have clearly led to the bastardization of classic courses and increased safety concerns for golfers in general..


but crickets on the front that changed the face of golf.


I'll just never understand the head in the sand cherry picking that goes on without actually addressing what has clearly changed in golf.
I'm with Jim at this point as the ship has sailed already.

I don't think folks "need" the USGA to implement a local rule, however and wherever this leads, if the USGA and R&A implement local rules (Not a Rule of Golf) for shaft length and perhaps an OPEN(s) ball, the optics and solidarity will be hard to circumvent. If Magnolia Lane follows suit or aligns, the PGA Championship would be Odd-Major-Out. Again, optics and solidarity without changing the blanket  Rules of Golf and containing access to the specifications within singularly governed events, organizations and tournaments. It becomes a quarantine. There could end up being an OPEN(s) ball vs. a FedxCup Sphere.  Rather crafty.

[Mike_Trenham]

I think the USGA rules hotline is not available if you are running an event not governed by USGA rules. 


This may not seem like a big deal, until you have your biggest betting event of the year and there are multiple rule situations and the golf staff needs to call the USGA for confirmation they are getting the ruling 100% right.

[Sean_A]

Someone on Shackelford's site posted that the standard length for some manufacturer's has steadily increased and is now 46" so this could be preemptive there, which is fine.

Someone else posted a link to a Golf Digest article saying the Tour is on board and will implement the rule January 1.

What about really tall dudes?

Ciao

[JESII]

Guess they better have long arms...

[Thomas Dai]

George Bayer, George Archer, Peter Oosterhuis to name just three unusually tall guys who in the era of wooden heads and steel shafts seemed to do alright. Jim Barnes and Ted Ray from an earlier period too. Not sure they used super long shafted Drivers.
And with modern adjustable hosels etc there’s likely no need for special boring of wooden heads, loft and lie machines and bending bars.

 
Atb

[jeffwarne]

I think the USGA rules hotline is not available if you are running an event not governed by USGA rules. 


This may not seem like a big deal, until you have your biggest betting event of the year and there are multiple rule situations and the golf staff needs to call the USGA for confirmation they are getting the ruling 100% right.

If I understand this post correctly,if I have an event where I sell each player a  mulligan,or play some other local rule, I can't pick up the phone to call the USGA to determine the proper rule and perhaps the outcome of an illegal(in most states) activity?


Is that what we're worried about?


There are many local rules in place in many events.
I'm pretty sure the "hotline" doesn't ask you what local rules you are playing(unless it is specific to the question) when you ask for a ruling in a situation.
That said, in 20 years as a Head Pro I've never called the USGA for a ruling(not ruling it out, just never thought of it), but I have called several top PGA rules officials/experts to confirm rulings.


I just tire of the beating around the bush and refusal to either address the real issue, or simply get out of the way, all under the cover of "more studies".


I played in a senior event yesterday-On three par 4's, all played from the tips,(where many senior events are now played on classic courses)we were hit into from the tee while putting on the green.
That never used to happen 25 years ago at this particular course, but then again we were less athletic then.
For the record, I didn't spot any 48 inch drivers.