Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?

[jeffwarne]

Garland

Very true. In the UK length of the course is the most important factor for determining course rating.  A lot of clubs will look for some extra yards to reach the limit so another shot can be added to the rating or a shot added to par.  Many golfers will not take a course seriously if it has a par or rating below 70 or if there is a big spread between par and the rating. Kington did this very thing and ruined a hole chasing yards and a stroke on par.  This is also another case of low cappers pushing decision-making.  It is very hard for low cappers (anything under 3 really) to maintain their handicap on a course with a a few shots below par.  They are often forced to break par merely to get into buffer zone.  Mostof the time length is not an issue for these guys so its easier for them to maintain a low cap on a 6800-7000 yard par 72/73, rating 73-75 rather than on a par 71 rating 69 course. 

Ciao

That in a nutshell sums up exactly why we need a rollback(or bifurcation).
We can argue all day about whether who or why gets to make that decision, but those are the decisions made-with the USGA and R&A as the poster children of course lengthening, course bastardization, and lately choosing BIG modern monstrocities as fields of competition..
Not easy to change human nature, especially when the those that should know better-don't.


The tired excuses of
"handicaps haven't gone down for years"
"95% of golfers need,,,,,"
"the average guys just wants to have fun"
don't change at at all if the ball is shortened(or bifurcated)-lack of length (that isn't impacted on a mishit anyway)isn't why that player shoots high scores.


The reality is what HAS changed-and has driven the expensive and fun/time sucking lengthening of courses-
is that elite and very good players hit the ball farther than they ever have.(regardless of why)
and while they might be "5%", they play more rounds than others, and more importantly they wield the most influence at clubs.


The solution to that is to reduce the distance the ball travels-via ball, club, whatever (though the ball is simplest one stop shopping)


We can A.restore the length of the equipment to fit the course(a 4$ ball),
 or we can B. expand the scale and footprint of the course to fit the equipment.(thousands to hundreds of thousands $)


I won't say the bad phrase Erik, but option A makes a lot more sense to me-and lately, multiple high profile others, as well as anecdotal casual golfers I speak to.

[Sean_A]

Jeff


With due respect (sincerely), there are factors at play which are troublesome with a rollback. 


1. Will clubs shorten their courses? 


2. Will clubs look for other ways to toughen their courses once distance is not on the table?


3. Will clubs stop mucking with their courses?  It is assumed that most course changes are due to length issues...I seriously question this premise and believe clubs will always find reasons to alter courses and at present length is the scapegoat.  We are alos seeing H&S used as an excuse an awful lot these days as well.


I am much for a toe dipping exercise (bifurcation) rather than completely ploughing a new and unknown road.  As some have suggested, I agree that with bifurcation will come a period of sorting issues out toward a reunification of the rules.


Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Jeff


With due respect (sincerely), there are factors at play which are troublesome with a rollback. 


1. Will clubs shorten their courses? 


2. Will clubs look for other ways to toughen their courses once distance is not on the table?


3. Will clubs stop mucking with their courses?  It is assumed that most course changes are due to length issues...I seriously question this premise and believe clubs will always find reasons to alter courses and at present length is the scapegoat.  We are alos seeing H&S used as an excuse an awful lot these days as well.


I am much for a toe dipping exercise (bifurcation) rather than completely ploughing a new and unknown road.  As some have suggested, I agree that with bifurcation will come a period of sorting issues out toward a reunification of the rules.


Ciao

Good points, and I suggest bifurcation as well.
Could also see a voluntary trickle down effect from that as well.
Not dissimilar to the hickory movement or the way many 10 handicappers clung to their blades even when they knew they'd do better with cavity backs.


Will clubs stop doing stupid things? no


will they lengthen less? I would think so -especially if the kids who were hitting driver 7 iron to par 5's are suddenly having hybrid or 3 iron in.


Will clubs shorten? I would hope not as that's expensive too.
I would think anyone who wanted to shorten could by simply going up a set of tees.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

You can't have it both ways!  If it costs money to maintain the "extra" bits of the course for the long ball than it must do so when the long ball is rolled back...unless the course is somehow changed. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Well, post roll-back, maybe we can at least assume that with new course constructions, architects like Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods would be less inclined (and/or pressured) to build 7500+ back tees -- even if only to avoid looking like hypocrites.

Mr. N is nearing the end of his career, but TW may only be getting started. I think the choices he makes would help set the tone for other architects (and for would-be course developers).   

As for current (and already lengthened) courses, couldn't a set or two of back tees simply be allowed to 'go fallow'?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff

You can't have it both ways!  If it costs money to maintain the "extra" bits of the course for the long ball than it must do so when the long ball is rolled back...unless the course is somehow changed. 

Ciao

Misunderstood-if the ball was shortened, sure crazy back tees should be abandoned- I was thinking you meant adding MORE forward tees because course was short

[Erik J. Barzeski]

That in a nutshell sums up exactly why we need a rollback(or bifurcation).
We can argue all day about whether who or why gets to make that decision, but those are the decisions made-with the USGA and R&A as the poster children of course lengthening, course bastardization, and lately choosing BIG modern monstrocities as fields of competition..
Not easy to change human nature, especially when the those that should know better-don't.

I still haven't seen any credible data on:
a) how many courses are being "lengthened"
b) how often new courses are being built at 7500+

Not to mention the cost associated. One course nearby - out of about 25 - has lengthened their tees in the last decade. They lengthened onto existing land and rolled the cost into a tee renovation project they needed anyway (some tees had gotten a bit smaller and/or too domed). Extra cost for about 220 yards: $0 (per the superintendent, a friend of mine). Total course length now? 6883 with a 73.1 rating. Still well under 7000 yards.

Maybe I'm in a weird area. Maybe some of you have different experiences. Maybe some of you are in areas where 50% of the courses have lengthened their tees at a real expense.

The Loop (Forest Dunes) tops out at 6800 and 6700 yards, so we don't even know what the stats are on the % of new courses being asked to top 7500 yards.

The tired excuses of
"handicaps haven't gone down for years"

FWIW, handicaps have gone down.

I won't say the bad phrase Erik, but option A makes a lot more sense to me-and lately, multiple high profile others, as well as anecdotal casual golfers I speak to.

The thing is… you've convinced yourself there's a clear "problem" that needs to be addressed. I don't agree that there's a problem. I have a poll on my site and about 75% of the people who voted there disagree that there's a "problem" either.

Also FWIW, Sean_A, courses have to be lengthened about 182 yards to add a full stroke to the course rating. Average of 10 yards a hole.


Despite how it might seem, I'm not "stuck" here. I just haven't seen numbers, and my experiences aren't the same as yours and don't point toward a need to do anything, either.

[Garland Bayley]

...
One course nearby - out of about 25 - has lengthened their tees in the last decade. They lengthened onto existing land and rolled the cost into a tee renovation project they needed anyway (some tees had gotten a bit smaller and/or too domed). Extra cost for about 220 yards: $0 (per the superintendent, a friend of mine). Total course length now? 6883 with a 73.1 rating. Still well under 7000 yards.
...

The costs you seem to be ignoring are what was left undone while they built new tee(s). The cost of added maintenance for the new tees. The cost of added maintenance between the new tees and the rest of the course. And, perhaps other things that don't come to mind.

[Garland Bayley]

...I have a poll on my site and about 75% of the people who voted there disagree that there's a "problem" either.
...

How many of your poll participants are the people who have dropped out of the game, or are intimidated by the ever rising cost of the game?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The costs you seem to be ignoring are what was left undone while they built new tee(s). The cost of added maintenance for the new tees. The cost of added maintenance between the new tees and the rest of the course. And, perhaps other things that don't come to mind.

No, I didn't.

There's no "cost of added maintenance for the new tees." They have the same number of tee boxes.

And there's no "cost of added maintenance between the new tees and the rest of the course." They were already mowing it with the rough-height mower. Literally nothing changed except whether they mowed behind the tees a bit, or in front of the tees a bit.

How many of your poll participants are the people who have dropped out of the game, or are intimidated by the ever rising cost of the game?

Right, because the "ever rising cost of the game" is mostly attributable to the distance the game's best hit the ball. C'mon Garland. Facts, please. That's how you convince someone. Or me, at least.

[Pat Burke]

So, in a perfect world.....
an overall roll back positives would be.  I'm really not interested in negatives for the purpose of this post.


Keeping older, shorter courses' architectural intent for the longest hitting portion of players relevant
Curtail the need/desire for ever longer courses, whether new or old
Ideally shorter courses and less (off line), misses for average players
time savings for shorter walks, less offline chasing when applicable...some courses the walk will not change
Assuming less acreage maintained, lower costs, less use of resources, particularly water
If everything were rolled back, a contraction in the spread of distances from top to bottom
Big plus would be less bitching about how far guys are hitting it on tv




Bifurcation positives would be
Guys on tv hitting it shorter, to bring the classic golf courses' architecture more inline with their games and testing their games
through the bag more
Ideally, no more reaction to the tv golf by committees, owners, and others to keep their course relevant
The current canvas would basically stay the same, distances would consistent (both on and off line) for the golfing public
A slow down of overhauling courses due to reacting to absurd distances watched on tv (of course, we still have to see the weekly attempt at perfect conditions and green is keen on tv)


I absolutely understand there are more, including an entire category of what happens if we do nothing, but we can watch that daily.


would like to see more from either group

[Garland Bayley]

The costs you seem to be ignoring are what was left undone while they built new tee(s). The cost of added maintenance for the new tees. The cost of added maintenance between the new tees and the rest of the course. And, perhaps other things that don't come to mind.

No, I didn't.

Well you still haven't addressed what got left undone while the new tees were built at "no cost" and the obsoleted tees were obsoleted at "no cost". At a minimum there were players that were bitching about what wasn't being done as a sacrifice to the time and effort to do the new tees.


There's no "cost of added maintenance for the new tees." They have the same number of tee boxes.

So are we talking about a course that already has excess land and what would be considered a full set of tees by most? I thought we were talking about old courses that have limited land and a limited set of tees that are currently perceived as being inadequate by modern standards for length and the added flexibility to accommodate longer hitters.

And there's no "cost of added maintenance between the new tees and the rest of the course." They were already mowing it with the rough-height mower. Literally nothing changed except whether they mowed behind the tees a bit, or in front of the tees a bit.

Nothing changed except what did!? There were no cart paths that were extended? The golfers are satisfied to walk to and from the new tees in grass rough-height? Push their carts through the tall grass?

How many of your poll participants are the people who have dropped out of the game, or are intimidated by the ever rising cost of the game?

Right, because the "ever rising cost of the game" is mostly attributable to the distance the game's best hit the ball. C'mon Garland. Facts, please. That's how you convince someone. Or me, at least.

Sorry for being a skeptic, but it sounded like you were saying that you have an unscientific poll that you are using to justify your conclusions with.

The "ever rising cost of the game" is attributable to a lot of things, which of course you know. Taking a stand against the things that raise the cost of the game is laudable IMO.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Also FWIW, Sean_A, courses have to be lengthened about 182 yards to add a full stroke to the course rating. Average of 10 yards a hole.
...

In Sean's neighborhood, such lengthening is done by extending a hole to cross-over another hole with the possibility of adding that 182 yards to just one hole. Probably the cheapest way to extend a course, but of course it has its own drawbacks.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Well you still haven't addressed what got left undone while the new tees were built at "no cost" and the obsoleted tees were obsoleted at "no cost". At a minimum there were players that were bitching about what wasn't being done as a sacrifice to the time and effort to do the new tees.

As I said, the club rebuilt all the tees because they'd become domed or too small. They were going to do it anyway. They were able to add a little length at the same time, and this remains the only club to do so in the last decade.

They made the decision to re-do the tees either way. Yes, they didn't do something else at the time (though the course doesn't really have much else going on that needs work). The tees, the membership-owned club decided, did need the work.

So are we talking about a course that already has excess land and what would be considered a full set of tees by most? I thought we were talking about old courses that have limited land and a limited set of tees that are currently perceived as being inadequate by modern standards for length and the added flexibility to accommodate longer hitters.

The course is still under 7000 yards.

Sorry for being a skeptic, but it sounded like you were saying that you have an unscientific poll that you are using to justify your conclusions with.

It's one of many data points that support the idea that there's nothing "wrong" with golf right now. That's all. I don't give it that much weight. But it speaks to the idea that this isn't a widespread idea, even among dedicated golfers (dedicated enough to join a forum and post to it, and vote in a poll).

The "ever rising cost of the game" is attributable to a lot of things, which of course you know. Taking a stand against the things that raise the cost of the game is laudable IMO.

Is it laudable if you're ignoring 20 other things that are more responsible?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland

...  This is also another case of low cappers pushing decision-making.  ...

Ciao

One of my favorite parts of Dr. Mac's book is where he tells about building a course and having low cappers drive changes to it to help their games and ruining the course. So AM build another course next door, and most of the membership left the first course to join the second one.

...
The reality is what HAS changed-and has driven the expensive and fun/time sucking lengthening of courses-
is that elite and very good players hit the ball farther than they ever have.(regardless of why)
and while they might be "5%", they play more rounds than others, and more importantly they wield the most influence at clubs.

....

Yes unfortunately they do wield the most influence at clubs. How being able to swing a golf club better than another person remotely qualifies you decide how the golf course should be made up is beyond me.

That is not to say that the high capper has any monopoly on knowledge about how to make up a proper golf course. Just to say that nonexpert golfers can do pretty good at making up a golf course. E.g., Alister MacKenzie, Tom Doak.

[Garland Bayley]

...

The "ever rising cost of the game" is attributable to a lot of things, which of course you know. Taking a stand against the things that raise the cost of the game is laudable IMO.

Is it laudable if you're ignoring 20 other things that are more responsible?

I did write things. As you can see.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

You can't have it both ways!  If it costs money to maintain the "extra" bits of the course for the long ball than it must do so when the long ball is rolled back...unless the course is somehow changed. 

Ciao

Misunderstood-if the ball was shortened, sure crazy back tees should be abandoned- I was thinking you meant adding MORE forward tees because course was short

Jeff

Gotcha. 

Garland

I agree wth you.  There can be no question that longer courses cost more to maintain.  They are far more likely to follow the trend of mega tee sets (often 5+)....a trend I despise.  You don't see many 6000 yard courses with more than three sets of tees and often there is essentially one teeing area with three blocks on it. Courses must be wider as well to accomodate the long ball....and what happens with that space between holes...trees....they cost money.  Even if there are no trees, just the extra acerage costs money eventually.  I don't know if the extra costs related to the long ball are enough to push golf into the category of "unsustainable", but it sure can't help except in some cases where clubs actually make a profit hosting touring pros...probably Augusta being the best example of this.  But the club would have made the money without the long ball so my argument would be the long ball has actually reduced profit in their case. 

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

This just in.


The poll on my website indicates 100% of respondents think golf would be more fun if
 the walks to tees were shorter
courses took less time to walk
less sets of tees were required
maintenence costs were lower
they didn't have to wait for the green to clear on a 320 yard par 4 while their 10 handicap athletic son waited because he could drive it or kill the players as they walk towards their trolleys
Most players of a similar handicap could all play the same set of tees
the courses they watched on TV WEREN'T 7600 yards or embracing every course bastardizing measure known to "protect" par against the wedge attack.


Which would make this more possible?
10% more distance for athletic golfers....?(give it 10 years-though for 30 years we've been told there's no more to come)


.....or 10% less




Erik,
I applaud your area for resisting adding length.
That's very, very unusual in my experience.
I played Gailes links in a Final Open qualifier and the back tees(which I never knew existed) added 5-600 yards.AND required a walk back of 40-100 yards every hole (many of the member tees required walks back as well from earlier lengthening)


Anecdotally, I can't think of one course in our area that hasn't added at LEAST 10 back tees-if not more.
Admittedly an affluent area on Eastern Long island-
but for comparison, in a less affluent area-the courses I'm familiar with in Aiken/Augusta share the same lengthening (Augusta CC +400, Palmetto +350, ANGC +500, Goshen +400, Forest Hills +400


and modern courses, because they stretch to 7400 yards feel compelled to have 5 or 6 sets.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,


Please do not include me in the "less sets of tees were required" camp. As a simple country club player I enjoy the ability to mix up how our holes play from day to day. We have up to 9 sets of tees on every hole and even just this year I have played every one of them.


I think you may be spoiled if the firmness of your fairways is consistent. Or the temps, wind and your general health issues. Every day just can't be a 6500 yds from the right side of the fairway day.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,


Please do not include me in the "less sets of tees were required" camp. As a simple country club player I enjoy the ability to mix up how our holes play from day to day. We have up to 9 sets of tees on every hole and even just this year I have played every one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB2di69FmhE


"6 sets of tees?"
"We have 9 sets"
"Unless of course if someone comes up with 10 sets"
"NOOOoo no no-not 10 sets nobody's coming up with that"

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This just in.

The poll on my website indicates 100% of respondents think golf would be more fun if

Jeff, it'd be a lot easier to take your arguments seriously if you didn't behave like this, man. My site has thousands of active members and several hundred thousand unique visitors per month. My poll has a little bit of weight. Not a lot, but it's a data point, and the results are the opposite of what you suggest: that the tide has turned. I'm not giving it a lot of weight, but it gets more than your sarcastic poll of 1.

10% more distance for athletic golfers....?(give it 10 years-though for 30 years we've been told there's no more to come)

Jeff, serious question: how far do you think the median and top PGA Tour players will be hitting the ball in 10 years?

We haven't been told "there's no more to come" for 30 years. Give me a break. In the last ten years we've added virtually no distance.

I applaud your area for resisting adding length.
That's very, very unusual in my experience.

I don't think that it's that unusual. I think people over-estimate how many courses are being lengthened, or how many more are being lengthened. Courses have been lengthened since they were built. Courses were being lengthened in the 1950s. The 1960s. The 1970s. The 1980s.

I played Gailes links in a Final Open qualifier and the back tees(which I never knew existed) added 5-600 yards.AND required a walk back of 40-100 yards every hole (many of the member tees required walks back as well from earlier lengthening)

That stinks, but that's also a set of tees that affect a tiny portion of the game's players. I'm not willing to change the entire game for 0.001% of golfers.

and modern courses, because they stretch to 7400 yards feel compelled to have 5 or 6 sets.

And the Longleaf Tee System says courses should have seven or eight.

I'm not saying anything I haven't already said, so this is getting old, fast. Jeff, if you and others stop quoting and responding to me, I've got little to nothing more to say on this. What we discuss here will not affect what the USGA/R&A do or don't do at all.

[Tim Gavrich]

Jeff and others--


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like some core underpinnings of the argument in favor of rolling back the golf ball involve trying to mitigate such factors as:


- The fact that (often private, and upscale to boot) club golfers place too much importance on their course serving up a Tour-quality challenge for pros and elite amateurs, even when their course doesn't (and almost definitely never will) host Tour events


- The fact that low-handicap players wield a disproportionate amount of influence at these clubs


- The frustration some golfers express at being outdriven considerably by stronger and more skilled golfers than themselves


- The expense of adding new back tees as a reaction to how far an admittedly infinitesimal portion of the golfing public can hit the ball.


A common thread through these factors is that they are symptoms of a view of golf that we might say is a little off-kilter. It seems that intelligence, experience and deep thought about golf that informs the cogent arguments you and others make in favor of rollback and bifurcation could also be deployed to try and convince influential golfers and golf clubs that a continued obsession with reacting to what the pros do is making the game less enjoyable for the people paying the green fees and the dues.


Why is it necessary that the OEMs and the governing bodies must pay for the excesses of the keeping-up-with-the-Woodses clubs and their members by creating a years-long disturbance in the game?


Are you implying that these clubs and their members are too far gone, philosophically, to be reasoned with? And Mike Davis and the OEMs need to swoop in on their white steeds to save these golfers and golf courses from themselves?


Has the era of Big Golf Government begun?

[jeffwarne]

This just in.

The poll on my website indicates 100% of respondents think golf would be more fun if

Jeff, it'd be a lot easier to take your arguments seriously if you didn't behave like this, man. My site has thousands of active members and several hundred thousand unique visitors per month. My poll has a little bit of weight. Not a lot, but it's a data point, and the results are the opposite of what you suggest: that the tide has turned. I'm not giving it a lot of weight, but it gets more than your sarcastic poll of 1.

10% more distance for athletic golfers....?(give it 10 years-though for 30 years we've been told there's no more to come)

Jeff, serious question: how far do you think the median and top PGA Tour players will be hitting the ball in 10 years?

We haven't been told "there's no more to come" for 30 years. Give me a break. In the last ten years we've added virtually no distance.

I applaud your area for resisting adding length.
That's very, very unusual in my experience.

I don't think that it's that unusual. I think people over-estimate how many courses are being lengthened, or how many more are being lengthened. Courses have been lengthened since they were built. Courses were being lengthened in the 1950s. The 1960s. The 1970s. The 1980s.

I played Gailes links in a Final Open qualifier and the back tees(which I never knew existed) added 5-600 yards.AND required a walk back of 40-100 yards every hole (many of the member tees required walks back as well from earlier lengthening)

That stinks, but that's also a set of tees that affect a tiny portion of the game's players. I'm not willing to change the entire game for 0.001% of golfers.

and modern courses, because they stretch to 7400 yards feel compelled to have 5 or 6 sets.

And the Longleaf Tee System says courses should have seven or eight.

I'm not saying anything I haven't already said, so this is getting old, fast. Jeff, if you and others stop quoting and responding to me, I've got little to nothing more to say on this. What we discuss here will not affect what the USGA/R&A do or don't do at all.

Erik,
I would not understimate the value of these discussions(here and elsewhere), even though we disagree.Discussions on this very board by many industry experts (and not so expert) have led to significant changes in the evaluation and rating of courses, and have at least poularised classic design trends.Many of the so called quirky  ideas espoused here are now the mantra of former "signature" architects.
As course ratings have been affected, so has ensung architecture. Many GCA's have chimed in over the years and there are loads of connected industry lurkers, so I believe it is a good of place as any to discuss topics which affect the game and the architecture of courses.


And I can assure you we definitely disagree if you think a course having 7-8 tees per hole is a good idea, but that's a discussion for another thread even if related to how far the ball travels/course length.




The fact that I am not completely alone in my admittedly Quixotic quest to see scale restored by equipment rather than venue enlargement tells me some are reading/listening here and in other places, or coming to their own conclusions about the continued increases in distance.
I've been ranting the same thing for as long as I can remember and was decidely in the minority, even on this site-and especially with better players and pros.
Lately, that seems to have changed-especially with Tiger bringing it recently to the forefront.
I have no idea how many people agree with me and if I'm still in the minority, but that doesn't mean I'll be any less passionate about preserving the game from commercial factors that I believe devalue the game and could make it unsustainable in time. (if they haven't already).


New Championship Golf courses were 4500 yards in 1895.
They were 7000 yards in 1985.
They are 7500-7800 and as long as 8000 yards now.


Would 10000 yards in 2060 be stretch?


I can't tell you how many times I've heard there are no more gains to be had, then Freddy Couples gains another 3 yards (an exclusive couch workout I'm sure)and I get a nod and wink from my engineer friends at Callaway


I see a trend ....and for years, the USGA told us there was no statistical difference in the gains Tour players were making-but they were always forward-which add up.


Do you really think we've added "virtually no distance" (to better players) in the past 10 years? Simple better optimization would dispute that.

[Jason Topp]

... could also be deployed to try and convince influential golfers and golf clubs that a continued obsession with reacting to what the pros do is making the game less enjoyable for the people paying the green fees and the dues.

I think the argument for a rollback is more compelling with respect to the distance amateurs hit the ball rather than pros.  A couple of years ago, I was playing in evening 9 hole beer league and one guy in the group who was approximately 4 over par through six holes announced he was going to wait for the green to clear on a 350 yard par 4.  Mind you, this event is a very crowded shotgun with groups of 5 so 9 holes was taking 3 hours.  I was irritated with him, but he waited for the green to clear.  He then launched his drive to the back fringe.  I am glad he waited.   

[jeffwarne]

Jeff and others--


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like some core underpinnings of the argument in favor of rolling back the golf ball involve trying to mitigate such factors as:


- The fact that (often private, and upscale to boot) club golfers place too much importance on their course serving up a Tour-quality challenge for pros and elite amateurs, even when their course doesn't (and almost definitely never will) host Tour events


- The fact that low-handicap players wield a disproportionate amount of influence at these clubs


- The frustration some golfers express at being outdriven considerably by stronger and more skilled golfers than themselves


- The expense of adding new back tees as a reaction to how far an admittedly infinitesimal portion of the golfing public can hit the ball.


A common thread through these factors is that they are symptoms of a view of golf that we might say is a little off-kilter. It seems that intelligence, experience and deep thought about golf that informs the cogent arguments you and others make in favor of rollback and bifurcation could also be deployed to try and convince influential golfers and golf clubs that a continued obsession with reacting to what the pros do is making the game less enjoyable for the people paying the green fees and the dues.


Why is it necessary that the OEMs and the governing bodies must pay for the excesses of the keeping-up-with-the-Woodses clubs and their members by creating a years-long disturbance in the game?


Are you implying that these clubs and their members are too far gone, philosophically, to be reasoned with? And Mike Davis and the OEMs need to swoop in on their white steeds to save these golfers and golf courses from themselves?


Has the era of Big Golf Government begun?

Good post Tim,
The USGA is supposed to regulate the game-so yes big government.
They've just failed.
The governing bodies "thought" they were regulating the ball and equipment.
They just got outspent and were too stubborn to admit it until it was out of hand.
Now they are scared of losing their $300 million warchest.


While clubs have admittedly overreacted in cases, to preserve a similar challenge (a reasonable goal) for their better club and visiting players they chose to enlarge to fit the scale of where the ball was going.The best changes in my opinion are where they lengthen a select few holes by a lot which is cheaper and has impact.


To see Palmetto become a wedgefest in my lifetime has been disturbing and while its short game character and spicy green speeds render it still very challenging(seems we are transferiing the challenge to around the greens which impacts all players), there is no doubt a much less diverse and interesting challenge tee to green. And a nearly unfair challenge on and around the green for many players. So while the scores may remain the same (or even worse) the challenge changed.


The OEMs created the situation and there may be a reshuffling, but there's one every few years anyway. The idea that the business plan is that we all need a $500 driver ever year sickens me anyway.


The USGA admitted there was a distance problem when they went after grooves.
a stupid conclusion followed by a stupid solution and the manufacturers reclaimed the same spin within two years.
So I hold no confidence they will get it right on bifurcation and/or rollback.