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

[Pat Burke]

we're starting to see colors!!!!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Garland, man, I'm not sure what you want. You said I took "It's not okay that good players have wedge into every hole" out of context. Then said the context was 350 and 400 yard holes… or something? I think you're misreading things, you think I'm misreading things.

Whatever point you're trying to make, I'll just concede. You win that one, whatever it is… Cheers.

[jeffwarne]

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.

So to summarize.
Allow continued tech gains....... ,build more and more new back tees......
And tee it forward ....


I

[John Kavanaugh]

In the 50 years I have been playing golf I have seen 3 up tees built for every back tee. If you don't believe me just take a look at the scorecards at Bandon. https://www.bandondunesgolf.com/golf/golf-courses


If only my Mother had lived long enough to enjoy modern resort golf. 3920 yd tees...where is the outrage?!?!

[Pete Lavallee]

Erik, 


Can you name any golf course that’s considered great to good where the intent of the architect was to have players hit wedge to half the par 4’s, less than 6 iron to the rest of the par 4’s, reach 3 par 5’s with irons and reach the other with a wood? Because that’s where we are at now at the highest levels of golf. Didn’t designers always take that class of player into account and try to make the game somewhat similar to the one everyone else plays?

[Tim Gavrich]

So to summarize.
Allow continued tech gains....... ,

Sure, even though that's a misleading interpretation of the position opposing your own.

The side in favor of creating a major disturbance to the game has yet to prove that tech gains will continue ad infinitum. That's going to be very difficult to do in the face of all the data that points to a leveling-off, plus the obvious increases in injury to elite players.

build more and more new back tees......


NO...because we mortal golfers don't need to keep up with the Woodses. We may *think* we do because of a tendency to ascribe common-golfer meaning to the activities of the pros, but we really don't.

And tee it forward ....

YES...though your inclination to artificially toughen the game for the pros relative to the common golfer threatens to undo the gains that this concept has made.

[Eric LeFante]

Erik, 


Can you name any golf course that’s considered great to good where the intent of the architect was to have players hit wedge to half the par 4’s, less than 6 iron to the rest of the par 4’s, reach 3 par 5’s with irons and reach the other with a wood? Because that’s where we are at now at the highest levels of golf. Didn’t designers always take that class of player into account and try to make the game somewhat similar to the one everyone else plays?

+1


We are there now with competitive juniors and amateurs, not just professionals. The last couple US Mid Amateurs each had a 500 yard par 4! This tournament is for middle aged working stiffs, not college players. Nothing wrong with making these guys play a reduced distance ball and let the other 99% enjoy the current golf ball. Other sports have differences between levels (wood bats vs aluminum, 3 point line for college vs NBA).

[Pat Burke]

Erik, 


Can you name any golf course that’s considered great to good where the intent of the architect was to have players hit wedge to half the par 4’s, less than 6 iron to the rest of the par 4’s, reach 3 par 5’s with irons and reach the other with a wood? Because that’s where we are at now at the highest levels of golf. Didn’t designers always take that class of player into account and try to make the game somewhat similar to the one everyone else plays?

We are there now with competitive juniors and amateurs, not just professionals. The last couple US Mid Amateurs each had a 500 yard par 4! This tournament is for middle aged working stiffs, not college players. Nothing wrong with making these guys play a reduced distance ball and let the other 99% enjoy the current golf ball. Other sports have differences between levels (wood bats vs aluminum, 3 point line for college vs NBA).

A clean proposal and thought....


But I just don't like telling a segment of the game that they must change THEIR game, equipment and approach so everyone else is happy.....
I'm ok with an overall rollback fwiw

[Peter Pallotta]

Equipment & apparel companies spend millions in endorsements based on the belief that amateurs want to emulate the pros, ie that what we see on television influences not only our buying habits but our tastes and expectations.

I can’t see how the golf courses the pros play wouldn’t have some of the same influence on our tastes, expectations and (sooner or later) buying habits.

Erin Hills was exceedingly long; vintage courses hosting the US Open, especially if they can’t be further lengthened, will have lightening-fast greens. The game in the broadest sense is not well served, IMO, by emulating either quality.

A course I play built in the 30s is 6100 yards from the very back; the one from the 70s is 6500 yards; the one from the mid 90s is 7100 yards; and TW’s recently completed Bluejack National is, I believe, 7500+ from the back (about the same as Mr. Nicklaus' Ocean Course in Cabo). 

TW and JN know better than most that only the tiniest % of Bluejack’s members or Cabo's guests can/will ever play that yardage; and yet there it is — because of the changing tastes and expectations of the average golfer. 

Peter

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Can you name any golf course that’s considered great to good where the intent of the architect was to have players hit wedge to half the par 4’s, less than 6 iron to the rest of the par 4’s, reach 3 par 5’s with irons and reach the other with a wood? Because that’s where we are at now at the highest levels of golf.

Again, I do not really care about the game's best 0.0001%, and I think far too many people worry too much about what they're doing.

The game's best have gotten a lot better.

I will take the opportunity, since you asked, to point out that some of the game's best holes are actually the short holes. The third at Augusta National (which could stand to be a bit shorter), 10 at Riviera…, etc.

95% of golfers are likely perfectly well challenged from 6500 or less… and don't have wedge into half of the par fours, etc.

The side in favor of creating a major disturbance to the game has yet to prove that tech gains will continue ad infinitum. That's going to be very difficult to do in the face of all the data that points to a leveling-off, plus the obvious increases in injury to elite players.

Right. If distance and technology are just going to keep increasing… where's the distance increase the last ten years? It's low single digits, and fully explained by a very modest increase in swing speeds. The data supports that we've reached a peak again, a post-solid-ball peak. Physics and the rules are acting as limiters.

As before, +1 to Tim's post(s).

[Matthew Mollica]

Were physics and rules limiters in 1998?


MacKenzie wrote "there is no limit to science" more than 80 years ago.


The notion we have hit the limit of ball technology is foolhardy.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The notion we have hit the limit of ball technology is foolhardy.

And yet… with millions or billions of dollars at stake, for a decade now, we've seen no advances.

[John Kavanaugh]

Why is it acceptable to have 4 sets of tees for the occasional hobbyists or those who never cared to excel at the game and not two sets for the most talented or hardest working players who take the game seriously? My friends and I love to play the tips at our championship course when the conditions warrant. i.e...Fast and firm like the pros play every week. I've never heard even the most selfish good player complain about the cost of maintaining the up tees for beginners.  Isn't anyone unwilling to pay a bit extra so people who enjoy the game at a different level than their own being selfish and short sighted?


Speaking of .001%...who do you think goes all the way to Bandon and plays the sub 4000 yd tees at that cost?

[Sean_A]

JakaB

I have no issue per se with your tips philosophy.  Its your club and your money.  However, I am not convinced golf as a business (but of course golf isn't a business on the club level) needs this approach of spending money for the very small majority of players on so many courses. Back in the day if you wanted to bash the ball you looked for a club with more yardage.  There wasn't the expectation that most clubs would offer the latitude of smash mouth golf.  I guess 7000 yard tees is progress. 

Ciao

[JESII]

Erik,


Do you have any stats around the clubs chosen from the tee that represent driving stats?


There is speculation that guys are using 3-wood well more than they used to.

[Eric LeFante]

Erik,


Do you have any stats around the clubs chosen from the tee that represent driving stats?


There is speculation that guys are using 3-wood well more than they used to.

Jim,


I think your statement is right. Erik keeps talking about how the average distance has only gone up a few yards over the past 10 years, which is correct.


But it seems to me that guys are hitting it much longer than they did 10 years ago. I can't recall anyone carrying their drives over 300 yards 10 years ago and now there are a bunch of guys that can.


I think the reason the average drive hasn't gone up much is because guys are hitting less club off the tee and bringing their average down. There is another stat that may prove this to be correct; % of drives over 300 yards.


In 2017 Rory hit 82% of his drives over 300 yards (1st place). Second place was 73% and third place was 72%. In 2007, Bubba was first with 72%. Second and third were 68%.


For average driving distance, Erik brought up median so lets look at 63rd place. In 2017, 63rd place hit his drive over 300 yards 46% of the time. This compares to only 36% of the time in 2007.


I think this stat tells a different story than average distance. A 10 point difference is pretty big and points to larger distance gains over the past 10 years than the average distance stat does.

[Stephen Davis]

Erik,


Do you have any stats around the clubs chosen from the tee that represent driving stats?


There is speculation that guys are using 3-wood well more than they used to.

Jim,


I think your statement is right. Erik keeps talking about how the average distance has only gone up a few yards over the past 10 years, which is correct.


But it seems to me that guys are hitting it much longer than they did 10 years ago. I can't recall anyone carrying their drives over 300 yards 10 years ago and now there are a bunch of guys that can.


I think the reason the average drive hasn't gone up much is because guys are hitting less club off the tee and bringing their average down. There is another stat that may prove this to be correct; % of drives over 300 yards.


In 2017 Rory hit 82% of his drives over 300 yards (1st place). Second place was 73% and third place was 72%. In 2007, Bubba was first with 72%. Second and third were 68%.


For average driving distance, Erik brought up median so lets look at 63rd place. In 2017, 63rd place hit his drive over 300 yards 46% of the time. This compares to only 36% of the time in 2007.


I think this stat tells a different story than average distance. A 10 point difference is pretty big and points to larger distance gains over the past 10 years than the average distance stat does.

Eric,


Great job! I agree that this is far more compelling than average driving distance. Thanks for posting this!

[Tim Gavrich]

Erik,


Do you have any stats around the clubs chosen from the tee that represent driving stats?


There is speculation that guys are using 3-wood well more than they used to.

Jim,


I think your statement is right. Erik keeps talking about how the average distance has only gone up a few yards over the past 10 years, which is correct.


But it seems to me that guys are hitting it much longer than they did 10 years ago. I can't recall anyone carrying their drives over 300 yards 10 years ago and now there are a bunch of guys that can.


I think the reason the average drive hasn't gone up much is because guys are hitting less club off the tee and bringing their average down. There is another stat that may prove this to be correct; % of drives over 300 yards.


In 2017 Rory hit 82% of his drives over 300 yards (1st place). Second place was 73% and third place was 72%. In 2007, Bubba was first with 72%. Second and third were 68%.


For average driving distance, Erik brought up median so lets look at 63rd place. In 2017, 63rd place hit his drive over 300 yards 46% of the time. This compares to only 36% of the time in 2007.


I think this stat tells a different story than average distance. A 10 point difference is pretty big and points to larger distance gains over the past 10 years than the average distance stat does.

Eric--


You've demonstrated that more PGA Tour players hit lots of 300+ yard drives than did a decade ago. I assume you believe this is simply because the golf ball goes farther with 2017 technology than 2007 technology.


The reality is more complicated than that. In 2007, we were in the middle of the prime Tiger Era, when he was so feared that PGA Tour golf was still easy to see as a two-class system: Tiger and everyone else. The "everyone else" consisted largely of entrenched players who were still older and still playing more of a control-based brand of golf.


10 years later, the circa-2007 teenagers on whom Tiger's style of play and brand of golf domination had an indelible impact are fully-formed humans who modeled their own games on Tiger's. Given that, is it any wonder that there are more bombers in golf now?


Once again, we're seeing the golf ball blamed for a trend in elite golf on which the ball has had little to no effect. So I'll repeat the point I've been making: if you look at the evidence of what has gone on in the last decade or so in golf technology, the case for rollback and/or bifurcation just isn't that strong.

[JESII]

Tim,


Do you think the decade before that would justify a roll back?

[John Kavanaugh]

The increase in endorsement money is also a factor. Do you think Taylormade is throwing money at a guy who can't hit it 300? The marginal players know this and crank it up when then are being measured. With all the money at stake don't kid yourselves if you don't believe every factor towards that long ball isn't being fudged. Slope, firmness, wind direction, etc...etc...


With three negatives I don't even know what I'm saying..but that's my point. Everything is presented to us to make us want to buy more.

[Peter Pallotta]

But Tim: you and Erik keep referencing 'the last 10 years', as if that's the key point in the argument. But is it, really? (I mean, what's special about the last 10 years as opposed to, say, the last 20?) And even if I grant you the point, the implication/subtext seems to be that there's no use in a roll-back *now*, since distance gains at the highest levels have tapered off. Maybe they have - though clearly not before an almost 8,000 yard course was designed and built and hosted a US Open, and not before TW designed and built a 7500+ yard private course solely for members play. Which is to say: the dramatic distance gains over the last 20 years (perhaps, I'd guess, equal to or greater than all the gains achieved in the 50-60 years before that combined) have already impacted/influenced both the professional and amateur games, and will continue to do so. So the key point, it seems to me, is this: do we all accept this as the new normal (especially for golfers your age and younger)? Or do we instead listen to golfer-architects like Tiger and Jack when they say that the distance the pros are currently hitting it is (negatively) influencing all levels of the game by fostering the design/re-design of golf courses that are too long and too expensive to maintain and that require too much time to walk/play and too many inputs?
Peter       
PS - just noticed that, as usual, Jim can say in one line what I did in 10!

[Pete Lavallee]

Can you name any golf course that’s considered great to good where the intent of the architect was to have players hit wedge to half the par 4’s, less than 6 iron to the rest of the par 4’s, reach 3 par 5’s with irons and reach the other with a wood? Because that’s where we are at now at the highest levels of golf.

Again, I do not really care about the game's best 0.0001%, and I think far too many people worry too much about what they're doing.

I will take your lack of an answer to mean you do agree that the architects who designed the courses the PGA Tour play on did not intend for them to have it quite so easy!

The game's best have gotten a lot better.

As the NRA would say they are not better, just better armed!

I will take the opportunity, since you asked, to point out that some of the game's best holes are actually the short holes. The third at Augusta National (which could stand to be a bit shorter), 10 at Riviera…, etc.

Many of these holes are disappearing from modern courses in an attempt to get the overall yardage into the 7500 yard sweet spot! If it weren't for principled architects like Doak and C&C we might never see good short holes on newer courses; not every architect had the balls to tell the owner that they are not interested in building 7500 courses that will receive little or no play from the back tees.

The trickle down effect is real, newer courses are effected by how far elite golfers hit the ball. This limits options for enjoyment for regular golfers. 7500 yard courses are just not as fun to play from the 6200 yard tees as ones designed in the 6800 yard range. I'm open to examples of 7500 yard courses that are really fun to play from the white tees; feel free to list some. To argue otherwise is a bit myopic.

[jeffwarne]

.

[Matthew Mollica]

I'd go further than the last 20 years Peter. Consider the last 100.
The notion that distance gains have hit a ceiling because some dubious statistic hints at that through the last decade is simply naive at best.
One could have said distance gains had been maximised ten years after the introduction of the Haskell, only to see the entire game change later. Erik and Tim's position could have been adopted some time between 1970 & 1990 - again erroneously.
The distance many many players hit the golf ball in this  day and age is simply too great. This has been a concern for a long time, and distance advancements have continued at a marked rate when we take a long range view.
Geoff Ogilvy suggested a fortnight back that golf has outgrown its stadiums. He is right. And this phenomenon does not just affect the pro game. Some of the greatest minds in the game expressed the same concern well before WWII. Behr, MacKenzie, Darwin, Jones, Thomas, Longhurst. The list goes on. Yet some here would have you believe they know better. I find it astonishing.

[JESII]

Pete,


I live in the Philadelphia suburbs and cannot think of a 7,500 yard course within 100 miles of here. I'm sure there's one, but I think you set up a false hypothetical.