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

[jeffwarne]

... 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.   

Yep, and there's rarely a happy ending.
Bad options there.
He can not wait and kill somebody.
he can wait and then top it, or hit it OB, all while the green ahead is now claer(leading to a lot of negative commentary),
 leading him to NOT wait next time and ...kill somebody


The farther the ball goes, the more time spent waiting to hit-which is usually follwed by a spray and 4-6 more shots-further slowing the game.
All because the scale of distance for that athlete is too large for the venues-even though his golf is average.



Rarely discussed because he's not in the .001 % I keep hearing about.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

Longleaf is primarily designed to help get juniors into the game (and to reduce the stigma for guys who should be playing shorter tees than they play, and to remove the idea that there are "ladies tees"). So yeah, we'll disagree there. They don't need tee BOXES, but they can benefit from having TEES.

So you're against getting juniors into the game and onto the golf course? I find that unlikely, despite what you just said…

The fact that I am not completely alone

I am not alone either.

Lately, that seems to have changed-especially with Tiger bringing it recently to the forefront.

It may have changed here, but I don't think it's changed across golf. I think most avid golfers still don't even agree that there's a problem.

Would 10000 yards in 2060 be stretch?

Yes, absolutely. We're running against the limits of physics and what the human body can do.

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.

Could you answer my questions?

• Who was saying 30 years ago the ball was going as far as it could go?
• How far do you think the median and longest players will be hitting the ball in 2027?

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.

2 yards over the last decade isn't "adding up" very fast.

Do you really think we've added "virtually no distance" (to better players) in the past 10 years?

I don't have to "think" - I'm capable of looking at the stats on the PGA Tour site. 2 yards qualifies as "virtually no distance" to me. Yes.


Tim, +1.

[Garland Bayley]

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

Admittedly I didn't read each post carefully, but I don't recall this being a topic.


- 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.

I don't agree with this at all. Most people on this website seem to have a different experience than me.
 They claim to be hitting the ball longer now in their advanced age than they did when they were young.


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?

The clubs and their members are in conflict over this issue. Sometimes the course lengthening faction wins, sometimes the keep things static faction wins. Before there was not a conflict over this issue. When the lengthening faction wins and costs go up, members are lost to cost. When the keep static faction wins, members are lost to courses with more length. Regulating the equipment, as was done in the past, keeps the game the same and avoids such conflict.


Has the era of Big Golf Government begun?

Tim,

You might have missed post #117 which had nothing to do with "private, upscale to boot clubs".

I think this is the crux of the matter. What does "obsolete" mean, and for how many players are these courses "obsolete"?
...

Obsolete means you can't get players, because players will go to the longer (not necessarily better) newer courses.

The USGA is putting perfectly good courses out of business by letting the equipment manufacturers run all over any decent standard how the game historically has been played.

The USGA is creating a business model where building the latest newest long course will guarantee a segment of the golfing market. The new course doesn't necessarily have to compete on quality, it just has to be green.

I would add that while the good players were hitting the spinning balata balls, more were perfectly happy at the shorter courses.

[jeffwarne]

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.

Longleaf is primarily designed to help get juniors into the game (and to reduce the stigma for guys who should be playing shorter tees than they play, and to remove the idea that there are "ladies tees"). So yeah, we'll disagree there. They don't need tee BOXES, but they can benefit from having TEES.

So you're against getting juniors into the game and onto the golf course? I find that unlikely, despite what you just said…

The fact that I am not completely alone

I am not alone either.

I would say you are in the majority

Lately, that seems to have changed-especially with Tiger bringing it recently to the forefront.

It may have changed here, but I don't think it's changed across golf. I think most avid golfers still don't even agree that there's a problem.


Agreed-that's why I'm preaching

Would 10000 yards in 2060 be stretch?

Yes, absolutely. We're running against the limits of physics and what the human body can do.


Pretty sure Hary Vardon said that in 1900      (Id say we're just beginning to see what human bodies can do)

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.

Could you answer my questions?

• Who was saying 30 years ago the ball was going as far as it could go?
• How far do you think the median and longest players will be hitting the ball in 2027?

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.

2 yards over the last decade isn't "adding up" very fast.

Do you really think we've added "virtually no distance" (to better players) in the past 10 years?

I don't have to "think" - I'm capable of looking at the stats on the PGA Tour site. 2 yards qualifies as "virtually no distance" to me. Yes.



Better players(who are just now being optimised)-not PGA tour players who were optimized by then and got their big gains 2000-2007
2 yards was "virtually no distance" to the USGA for years-yet it added up


Tim, +1.

Erik, it alarms me that Freddy Couple(the gym poster child) averaged 29 more yards at age 55 than he did at age 22, and 25 more than he did at age 32.
Better technique, athleticism, natural selection, a workout program I accept-that I don't accept.
and it has a negative impact on the spectator game(and the shrines we occasionally get to play)-depending upon your preference for ANGC at 7400 vs 6900 or Chambers Bay vs. Merion.




Too many times I've heard that there are no more gains to be had.


Sorry about the freaky font

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, it alarms me that Freddy Couple(the gym poster child) averaged 29 more yards at age 55 than he did at age 22, and 25 more than he did at age 32.

It doesn't alarm me. And I like Tim's last post, that you largely seem to have ignored.

And that two yards was over the last ten years. Not two yards per year for ten years, two yards total.

You also didn't answer my two questions.

[Bob Montle]

I'll stick with the R & D guy I spent a day with, who definitely had "degrees in the sciences."
He very patiently explained to a group of us how the equipment business works ... that they get an idea, but roll it out via a series of patents, to extend the life of the idea for several years longer.  If they just released something all at once, it wouldn't be too long before their competitors started anticipating the expiration of the patent, and just flat-out copied it, knowing it would be moot by the time it got through the court system.

He also explained that their R & D is usually 2-3 years ahead of their current product cycle, so if there were going to be major changes in equipment regulation, it would only be fair to have 3 years' advance warning, so they don't waste money developing stuff they won't be allowed to sell.  I guess that was one of the main issues with the Ping "square grooves" rule, and why they wanted them grandfathered in ... so they could sell all the stuff they were already making.

My son also has several engineering degrees and is an engineering patent lawyer to boot!
He agrees 100% with what you wrote, Tom.

[Eric LeFante]

Erik, it alarms me that Freddy Couple(the gym poster child) averaged 29 more yards at age 55 than he did at age 22, and 25 more than he did at age 32.

It doesn't alarm me. And I like Tim's last post, that you largely seem to have ignored.

And that two yards was over the last ten years. Not two yards per year for ten years, two yards total.

You also didn't answer my two questions.

It's true the numbers show a small increase from 2007 to 2017, but I don't think it's relevant considering there was a 23 yard gain between 1997 and 2007. Even if you believe the gains will be minimal going forward, the horse has been out of the barn for a long time.



Andy Johnson brought up a fantastic point in his newsletter:


"In 1997, the average driving distance of the world's top 15 players was 272.23, and their average driving distance rank was 77.07. In 2016, the average driving distance of the world's top 15 players was 302.75, and their average rank in driving distance was 19.5.
[/size]
[/size]If this trend continues, golf will lose its variety in favor of homogenization. In fact, this homogenization has already begun. Today's professional game lacks an elite finesse player like Corey Pavin, Nick Faldo or Jim Furyk. And judging by the youngsters, there isn’t one coming."


I couldn't agree more with Andy.


http://www.friedegg.co/archives/the-golf-ball-debate


[/size][/color]
[/size][/color]

[Tim Gavrich]

Jeff--


I appreciate your response. I'd like to take up "The Palmetto Problem," if I might...


You lament that Palmetto GC is a "wedgefest" these days. The club hosts one of the most prestigious amateur events every summer, and I noticed that in this year's Palmetto Amateur, just seven players broke par over 72 holes on a course that played just a shade over 6,700 yards, par 70. It's pretty clear from the scorecard that the main challenge at Palmetto is not length, and it's likely that players hit more short irons and wedges than at most courses. Still, the course holds its own for reasons you touched on.


But if Palmetto is becoming obsolete, despite the not-outrageous scoring, the question is: supposing a player is going to hit 18 approach shots in a round, what is the ideal distribution of clubs for those shots?


This question is very problematic, though, because answering it is necessarily prescriptive. To answer it, you must imply that there's a shot distribution that every course should strive to produce.


But if we want to see more interesting pro golf to watch on TV, we'd need a schedule's worth of courses that exhibited a range of different lengths, wouldn't we? Otherwise, the Tour would be boring because we'd be seeing a very narrow range of tests over a season. So a formula for approach shots is not the answer.


There's another problem. Even if you did have a single course that presented a perfect assortment of approach shot demands, it would only be perfect for a player who hits the ball a certain specific distance off the tee. And that's just not how golfers are, as a set - especially elite amateurs and pros. Yes, they all hit it pretty far (since hitting it past a certain minimum distance is one of many skills required to play highest-level golf), but nevertheless some guys hit it longer and a little less accurately, while others hit it shorter and straighter. By changing the golf ball, you're committing to an arbitrary range of acceptable driving distances. That's a constricting philosophy when we should instead be promoting variety.


When you talk about Fred Couples driving it farther now than he did in his 20s, I just don't think anyone's proved that that's necessarily a bad thing. We celebrate technological advances in most parts of our lives...why must we absolutely halt all innovation in golf in order to "return" to some mythologized past whose location no one seems to agree on?


What I'm getting at is that by arguing that it's wrong that the pros hit too many short irons these days, it seems you're committing to a narrow view of how the game should be played, which to me is the polar opposite of what we should be encouraging: a stretching of the conventional boundaries of what's considered compelling golf, especially at the lower end of the course length spectrum. If we let it be OK that the pros hit wedges into most greens at some courses, then isn't it easier to tell the rank-and file that it's OK to play a 5,500-yard course sometimes, where they'll get to hit those shorter clubs all day too?


By and large, "regular" golfers are (still) playing from tees that are too long for them. I can't tell you how many recreational players I've watched wear out their hybrids and fairway woods over the course of 18 holes. I think (and maybe you'd agree) that that's a worse problem than the pros hitting more wedges than they used to on Tour courses.


Which is why most everyone agrees that teeing it forward is generally a good idea. But if we declare, by rolling back the ball, that it's wrong for pros to hit a bunch of short clubs into the holes on their courses, and it's well-documented that workaday golfers are (too) greatly influenced by the pros, then doesn't forcing the pros to hit longer clubs work directly against the tee-it-forward project and the pace-of-play savings it's encouraged in recent years?


There are SO many questions and potential pitfalls surrounding equipment reform. The worst thing that could happen is that the governing bodies decide to do something, but their solution doesn't end up addressing the problem in a way that justifies the pain of enacting it, thereby further undermining those institutions. I am not at all confident that we have exhausted our hearts-and-minds options. Then, and only then, do I think we can be justified in calling for a retrofitting of golf equipment. We are not there yet.

[Garland Bayley]

... the question is: supposing a player is going to hit 18 approach shots in a round, what is the ideal distribution of clubs for those shots?
...

Since the emphasis of this course is golf course architecture, let us hope that the course has the best 18 holes that can be fitted into the land available for the course. Given that, then the distribution of clubs is whatever the course gives you. Given that landforms are somewhat random, the holes on the course would be somewhat random. Therefore, the clubs needed would be somewhat random. However, if you let equipment continually grow how far the shots go, then you end up with a uniform wedgefest to borrow a term from Jeff.

If the land is such that it needs to be form to make a course, then TD has proposed building a course with equally graduated differences in lengths to each of the holes. The longest hole would be one that is perhaps just beyond what the longest can reach in two shots. So in effect he is proposing an equally uniform distribution of clubs used for approach shots. I don't know if he ever indicated that would be ideal, but it is such a strong concept with him that it is what he used for his Olympics golf course proposal.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Erik, it alarms me that Freddy Couple(the gym poster child) averaged 29 more yards at age 55 than he did at age 22, and 25 more than he did at age 32.

It doesn't alarm me. And I like Tim's last post, that you largely seem to have ignored.

And that two yards was over the last ten years. Not two yards per year for ten years, two yards total.

You also didn't answer my two questions.

It's true the numbers show a small increase from 2007 to 2017, but I don't think it's relevant considering there was a 23 yard gain between 1997 and 2007. Even if you believe the gains will be minimal going forward, the horse has been out of the barn for a long time.



Andy Johnson brought up a fantastic point in his newsletter:


"In 1997, the average driving distance of the world's top 15 players was 272.23, and their average driving distance rank was 77.07. In 2016, the average driving distance of the world's top 15 players was 302.75, and their average rank in driving distance was 19.5.

If this trend continues, golf will lose its variety in favor of homogenization. In fact, this homogenization has already begun. Today's professional game lacks an elite finesse player like Corey Pavin, Nick Faldo or Jim Furyk. And judging by the youngsters, there isn’t one coming."


I couldn't agree more with Andy.


http://www.friedegg.co/archives/the-golf-ball-debate

I'm a rollback guy, but Jordan Spieth is a finesse guy and THE finesse guy.  Sure 295 sounds like a lot, but that was 20 yards behind Rory and DJ on average, which means that they can put it by him by 50 or more at times.  I'm sure he would be Faldo-like in terms of distance if he were in that era.

[Eric LeFante]

What I'm getting at is that by arguing that it's wrong that the pros hit too many short irons these days, it seems you're committing to a narrow view of how the game should be played, which to me is the polar opposite of what we should be encouraging: a stretching of the conventional boundaries of what's considered compelling golf, especially at the lower end of the course length spectrum. If we let it be OK that the pros hit wedges into most greens at some courses, then isn't it easier to tell the rank-and file that it's OK to play a 5,500-yard course sometimes, where they'll get to hit those shorter clubs all day too?

Tim,


The narrow view you are referring to is the view of every great architect from the golden age. The idea that a course should test all the clubs in the bag for most golfers is not Jeff's idea or my idea or anyone in favor of a rollback; it's the idea of the architect who built the course. Donald Ross talked about the most difficult test in the game was a long iron shot. Every single architect who built a par 4 over 400 yards in the 1920s envisioned a player having a mid to long iron for their second shot. Why are you trying to make it seem like people in favor of a rollback have a narrow view and are trying to dictate to the world what club a golfer should have into a green when the architect's original intent was for players to have a variety of clubs into greens?


It's not okay that good players have wedge into every hole because the great architects said it's not okay because that isn't interesting golf and I agree with them. If they wanted golfers to have wedges into every hole they would have built all their par 4s at 350 yards and less in the 1920s.

[jeffwarne]

Erik
30 years ago you either went distance ball or spin and pros self bifurcated.
Everyone assumex you just took the tradeoff.


As far as those saying the ball was maxed out that was more an 90s thing as every year when golf digest posted touur stats rising slightly , the usga would say it was statistically insignicicant.Admittedly most of the gains were 2000 (ball) and 2001-2005ish (club-R-7)
As Tom points out the manufacturers try to keep cycles incremental.
Im


As far as 2027 I say the ball will be going about the same for elite pros AFTER a rollback in 2022 of 10%.by 2025 the manufacturers will have figured out a way around it  (as they did with grooves)and players will ne more athletic


Dean Beman had a great quote yesterxay after lamenting that if he had never retired
he would have been a strong voice bcc against the advance of technology on tour.


He said--"as far as onjections to bifurcation-Whats more bifurcating than 4 sets of tees "
So we already have many sets of rules


Tim
High scores can occur on short courses from wickex rteen speeds and slopex greens.Thats protecting par,--not providing a varied challenge--two different things


Though  59 was shot  a few years back in the event

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It's not okay that good players have wedge into every hole

They don't. At least eight times a round they have a mid- to long-iron: par threes and par fives. Tiger, despite his recent length, hit plenty of 6-irons and 7-irons the past two days. It's a lie to pretend that good players have "wedge into every hole." They don't. Eight woods/hybrids/long-/mid-irons, and then a mixture of 10 or so shots on the shorter end. One or two of those are going to be mid-irons.

30 years ago you either went distance ball or spin and pros self bifurcated.Everyone assumex you just took the tradeoff.

That's not the same as saying "the ball is maximized right now."

As Tom points out the manufacturers try to keep cycles incremental.

I don't think Tom's correct. Again, PGA Tour driving distances have increased 2-4 yards (median to top) in the last decade, while swing speeds alone account for the difference: 1-4 MPH improvements. So where have the incremental upgrades been for the past DECADE?

As far as 2027 I say the ball will be going about the same for elite pros AFTER a rollback in 2022 of 10%.by 2025 the manufacturers will have figured out a way around it  (as they did with grooves)and players will ne more athletic

Where do you think the pros will be driving it in 2027 if there's no roll-back, Jeff?

And if they're just gonna be right back where they are, how is that worth the disruption it will cause to golf? You honestly believe that, despite gaining roughly 2 yards in the last 10 years, they're going to lose 29 yards four+ years from now and then GAIN them right back in the six or fewer years that remain??

Man, get me some of what you're smoking! 

Dean Beman had a great quote yesterxay after lamenting that if he had never retiredhe would have been a strong voice bcc against the advance of technology on tour.

Dean was short in his day. And he only has himself to blame: he could have foreseen the marriage of the Tour Balata with the Pinnacle Gold.

[Eric LeFante]

It's not okay that good players have wedge into every hole

They don't. At least eight times a round they have a mid- to long-iron: par threes and par fives. Tiger, despite his recent length, hit plenty of 6-irons and 7-irons the past two days. It's a lie to pretend that good players have "wedge into every hole." They don't. Eight woods/hybrids/long-/mid-irons, and then a mixture of 10 or so shots on the shorter end. One or two of those are going to be mid-irons.

At least eight times? You are assuming every par 3 is a mid to long iron, which its not. At Augusta, 4 is a long iron, 6 is a 7 or 8 iron, 12 is a 9 iron, and 16 is an eight iron. 6 and 16 used to be mid irons, but they are not anymore. And why should par 5s play as long par 4s when that was not the architects intent? Nicklaus hit 3 iron into 13 in 1986 and 1 iron into 15 in 1975 in the final rounds. Faldo hit an incredible 2 iron in 1996 in the final round. 13 and 15 have turned into mid and short iron approaches, which is why they wants to move the tee even further back. Sergio hit 8 iron into 15 this year and the longer players routinely have less than 6 iron into 13.

Hogan and Nelson used to hit woods into 13. Why are you ignoring the architects original intent? The par 3s and par 5s were never intended to be the only time a player had to hit a 2 - 6 iron.

I get that distance has not gone up much in the last 10 years, but that only says the issue of courses not playing to the architects original intent for elite players has been going on for a long time and only now the governing bodies have decided to do something about it.

[Garland Bayley]

It's not okay that good players have wedge into every hole

They don't. At least eight times a round they have a mid- to long-iron: par threes and par fives. Tiger, despite his recent length, hit plenty of 6-irons and 7-irons the past two days. It's a lie to pretend that good players have "wedge into every hole." They don't. Eight woods/hybrids/long-/mid-irons, and then a mixture of 10 or so shots on the shorter end. One or two of those are going to be mid-irons.

At 7300 yards at sea level, no one is maintaining that is a wedgefest. 

Of course, were I to play it, I would have a wedge in to every hole.

2nd on 3s, 3rd on 4s, and 4th on 5s.

[Thomas Dai]

Didn’t Dustin Johnson say something about not hitting more than a 6-iron for his second shot on a par-4 this year?


Ponder how far you hit a driver followed by a 6-iron and then relate that to overall course yardage’s.


Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

At least eight times? You are assuming every par 3 is a mid to long iron, which its not. At Augusta, 4 is a long iron, 6 is a 7 or 8 iron, 12 is a 9 iron, and 16 is an eight iron.

And yet none of those are wedges, are they?

And players don't hit wedges into all of the par fours, either.

It's complete BS that players have "wedge into every hole." It makes your argument weak when it's easily dismissed like that. I don't care what people used to hit - that's not what you said. Players don't hit wedges into every or even "most" holes.

Didn’t Dustin Johnson say something about not hitting more than a 6-iron for his second shot on a par-4 this year?

People are also happy to point out that his 6-iron is a decades-old 4- or 3-iron.

[Garland Bayley]

It's not okay that good players have wedge into every hole

They don't. At least eight times a round they have a mid- to long-iron: par threes and par fives. Tiger, despite his recent length, hit plenty of 6-irons and 7-irons the past two days. It's a lie to pretend that good players have "wedge into every hole." They don't. Eight woods/hybrids/long-/mid-irons, and then a mixture of 10 or so shots on the shorter end. One or two of those are going to be mid-irons.
...

It would help if you quoted things in context, assuming of course that you understand the context. Eric was discussing 350 yard vs. 400 yard and change holes. You know the holes that the modern PGA Tour player does play with a driver/wedge. He was not talking about a 7300 yard course in Bermuda, nor was he talking about tournament tees at Augusta National that were built to "Tiger proof" the course.

Furthermore, your "At least eight times a round they have a mid- to long-iron: par threes and par fives." is a totally specious argument. There is no preliminary shot on a par three to set up the approach, and the par fives are reached in two, so the third shot on a three shot hole is non-existent thereby eliminating the intended approach shot.

And finally, I find that when you don't acknowledge when you have been called out on a clear and unambiguous mistake to be "incredibly rude".

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It would help if you quoted things in context, assuming of course that you understand the context. Erik was discussing 350 yard vs. 400 yard and change holes.

I don't think he was limiting it to those holes. Because what point is he making if he was? That when you design a hole that's eight clubs  or more (100+ yards) shorter than the longer holes with the same par, the game's best hit wedges into them? What's the point in talking about that? Of course they have wedges. Just as they did in the 1960s: a 350-yard hole was short then, too, even if they only hit it 250. Still leaves 100 yards. That's not a mid-iron. That's a wedge.

Furthermore, your "At least eight times a round they have a mid- to long-iron: par threes and par fives." is a totally specious argument.

The point I'd hoped to make is that their second shot on par fives are played with longer clubs. And on par-70 layouts, those par fives that become long par fours are played with longer irons, too. So we're already down to just 14 possible "wedge" holes and we only looked at the par fives.

And finally, I find that when you don't acknowledge when you have been called out on a clear and unambiguous mistake to be "incredibly rude".

I don't believe I've made a mistake here Garland. I make plenty, and my wife lets me know about most of 'em  but here I believe I simply took what he said differently than you. PGA Tour players have wedge into a minority of the 18 holes in a round and the stats bear this out.

I didn't see much of a point in talking about how PGA Tour players have wedges into short par fours. Of course they do. I'll stipulate to that. But courses are not made up of only 350-yard par fours, and PGA Tour pros in the 60s would also have wedges into those greens, too. So I saw little point in assuming he was talking about only holes of that length - it would be a silly point to make, don't you think? "Palmer would have hit wedge into this hole, but now players are hitting wedges, here, too." Particularly in light of the idea that the short par fours are often the most interesting and/or exciting to watch and the most beguiling to play. Do you attempt to drive it? Do you play short? Where? The 10th at Riviera serves as one of the better examples.

No, not all par threes are played with long irons, but I didn't say that. Length hasn't made the 12th at Augusta easier, and it would be foolish to change that hole to add length, so why bring it up? The truth is that a lot of par threes on the PGA Tour play as difficult holes. The short par three at Merion, which was an actual wedge, played difficult. Par three scoring on the PGA Tour is historically above par. Players aren't hitting many wedges into par three greens either.

So again, PGA Tour players don't hit wedge into every hole. I took that statement at face value because it doesn't make sense (to me) that Eric was talking about only 360-ish yard holes - holes into which Arnie would have hit wedge. No course is made up of only those holes, even if just for the ten par fours… and players have eight other holes where they're unlikely to hit only "driver-wedge" or "wedge." So I'll re-iterate my point: saying that today's players hit "wedge into every hole" (even if we take that to mean only 13 holes or so) weakens your argument.

PGA Tour players don't hit wedge into even a majority of the holes on golf courses. And even when they do, it's a 44-degree club, perhaps, and that used to be an 8-iron, right? 

And, at the end of the day, they're a teeny tiny portion of the game. I remain opposed to the idea that we have to modify the game to account for a tiny percentage. Golf isn't any other sport; we have one set of rules and really basically two (unified) ruling bodies.


Have a great Sunday, fellas.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think that, distilled down, the issue is this:

No roll back at the highest level and Erin Hills-8000 yards is the new normal, the accepted standard for the next generation of golfers, fans, architects, developers and club members.

The pros don’t ever have to hit it even one yard longer than they do now for this to become the reality; it already is the reality.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No roll back at the highest level and Erin Hills-8000 yards is the new normal, the accepted standard for the next generation of golfers, fans, architects, developers and club members.

The next seven U.S. Opens are at:

2018 - Shinnecock
2019 - Pebble Beach
2020 - Winged Foot
2021 - Torrey Pines
2022 - The Country Club
2023 - LACC
2024 - Pinehurst

None of those courses are a terribly recent vintage.

PGA Tour players are not "the game." They're a tiny minority.

[Jim Hoak]

I agree with Erik's comment that professional golfers are "not the game."  They are the tail on the dog, not the dog itself.  That to me is the relevant point, yet we seem to be fixated on this thread with the pros and the need to reduce the distance of golf balls because of them.
As I understand it, the average golfers in the US are not scoring any better today with the new equipment than they were 20 years ago. 
So why do we obsess over "obsoleted" courses, when it's only the very few that have the game to make them obsolete?

[Eric LeFante]

Erik and Jim,

You are right. Pro golfers are not the game. I don't think anything should be changed for 99% of golfers. If you are a recreational golfer I do not think the USGA should tell you to play a reduced distance golf ball.

I am completely for a reduced distance golf ball for competitive amateurs and professionals. I am a scratch golfer and not nearly one of the best in my area and I do not play golf courses the way the architect intended because of distance. I live in the NY metro area and am lucky to play some of the best courses in the country. I play 6600-7000 yard courses and I almost never have a long iron into a par four. I hit more mid irons into par 5s for second shots than I hit long irons into par 4s. I have average length for a competitive amateur. I am a traditionalist and I think competitive amateurs should hit clubs into greens that the architect intended. If the USGA comes up with a solution that satisfies my preference without impacting 99% of golfers, why is that a problem?

[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.

Take note Erik! You clearly did not carefully read what I wrote. It seems to me you responded based on what you expected I would write, not what I wrote.

[Garland Bayley]

It would help if you quoted things in context, assuming of course that you understand the context. Erik was discussing 350 yard vs. 400 yard and change holes.

I don't think he was limiting it to those holes. Because what point is he making if he was?

Perhaps you should quit commentary and go back and read, and reread until you can both discern that he was making a point, and what that point was. Until then you keep farting into the wind with your posts that aren't even cognizant of what is being discussed as you do below.

That when you design a hole that's eight clubs  or more (100+ yards) shorter than the longer holes with the same par, the game's best hit wedges into them? What's the point in talking about that? Of course they have wedges. Just as they did in the 1960s: a 350-yard hole was short then, too, even if they only hit it 250. Still leaves 100 yards. That's not a mid-iron. That's a wedge.

What is this gibberish about 350 yard holes in the 1960s? What does that even have in the slightest with the ongoing discussion? Nevermind! Clearly it is just a distraction from the discussion so you can make a point that wedges used to be hit to par fours too. 

...