USGA/R&A Distance Insight Project

[Tim Martin]

Also, I am sick of hearing how many "average" golfers will quit the game.


Man up, how many of YOU will quit the game? How much of a loss will the quitters actually be? How much room will be created for new participants?


"Man, I was going to take up golf, but the bloody USGA dialed the ball back, so I won't be able to dream of hitting 340 yard bombs off the tee anymore. Guess I'll go bowling, instead."


Stop creating a lazy rhetorical construct in the platonic ideal to advance a weak position.

Anything that makes the game harder for average golfers has the potential to drive them from the game. I don’t think the membership of this board is synonymous with the average golfer.

[Kyle Harris]

Also, I am sick of hearing how many "average" golfers will quit the game.


Man up, how many of YOU will quit the game? How much of a loss will the quitters actually be? How much room will be created for new participants?


"Man, I was going to take up golf, but the bloody USGA dialed the ball back, so I won't be able to dream of hitting 340 yard bombs off the tee anymore. Guess I'll go bowling, instead."


Stop creating a lazy rhetorical construct in the platonic ideal to advance a weak position.

Anything that makes the game harder for average golfers has the potential to drive them from the game. I don’t think the membership of this board is synonymous with the average golfer.

Golf participants are much too diverse to draw a meaningful average. It's like talking about the average depth of the world's oceans.

[Tim Martin]

Also, I am sick of hearing how many "average" golfers will quit the game.


Man up, how many of YOU will quit the game? How much of a loss will the quitters actually be? How much room will be created for new participants?


"Man, I was going to take up golf, but the bloody USGA dialed the ball back, so I won't be able to dream of hitting 340 yard bombs off the tee anymore. Guess I'll go bowling, instead."


Stop creating a lazy rhetorical construct in the platonic ideal to advance a weak position.

Anything that makes the game harder for average golfers has the potential to drive them from the game. I don’t think the membership of this board is synonymous with the average golfer.

Golf participants are much too diverse to draw a meaningful average. It's like talking about the average depth of the world's oceans.

If you take someone new to tennis that is only used to playing with a racquet head bigger than a $20 pizza and tell them they have to use a Davis racquet from the 1970’s you will lose some players. I don’t know what percentage or number that would correlate to but there will be a cause and effect. I think it’s the same for golf. I’m not condoning bifurcation but merely making an observation.

[Thomas Dai]

There used to be a 1:62” ball and a 1:68” ball.
The 1:62” went further but the 1:68” US spec ball eventually became the standard size and has been so now for several decades.
I don’t recall folks giving up the game when the longer 1:62” was phased out and replaced by the shorter 1:68”.
Funny old world.
Atb

[Michael Felton]

Couple of thoughts. I remember when the Pro V1 first came out Phil Mickelson was saying he was 40 yards longer with it. I doubt that's actually true, but he said it wasn't so much that the ball went further, but that the lower spin meant he could hit it harder without fear of it flying offline. It's that the ball has the control of a balata, but the distance of a Pinnacle. If you really want to rein them in, then make them play a spinnier ball. There is a regulation about ball speed under certain test circumstances (or there used to be anyway - I think they may have changed how that worked). Why not have a regulation that the ball has to spin at least 3,000 rpm when hit by a driver by a robot at some set of circumstances and make that set of circumstances as optimized as currently possible for low spin?


The issue I have with the length pros are playing and the courses they play is not what score they shoot. I don't really care if they're -20 or -2 at the top of the leaderboard. What I don't want is to have the courses reduced to hitting wedges on every hole. I like seeing them hitting a 4 iron from 220. I occasionally (very occasionally these days) play by hitting something really short off the tee so I can hit long clubs into holes. If a hole is 350 yards, it's fun sometimes to play it by hitting a wedge off the tee and a three wood to the green rather than hitting three wood and then wedge. I'd like to see the pros playing where they have to hit long irons and woods to par 4s. Those don't exist now. That would also make angles matter a little more methinks.

[David Harshbarger]

Anything that makes the game harder for average golfers has the potential to drive them from the game. I don’t think the membership of this board is synonymous with the average golfer.

As someone who aspires to reach average, and who is a romantic enough to play hickories in every day rounds, I can tell you how much more confident I am and enjoyment I get day-to-day hitting my giant Callaway driver and my shot-improvement Adams hybrid-irons.  For me, a victorious golf shot is one that goes straight, and it's no given that's going to happen. 


For reference, I hit drives in the 230 range and a 7-iron 145. 


As much as I like the idea of playing retro equipment, and I really do, my 17 index is the best I've ever carried with all the modern equipment benefits I've mustered, and that's pretty damn not yet average. 


For me, keeping big headed drivers and springy balls takes some frustration out of that game, which has to be a good thing for people who have similar skillsets.  And I don't know why the leadership of the game would want to make the game harder for me, I think I've amply demonstrated that it's plenty hard enough.


For the master golfers, however, that same equipment (or its equivalent for the highly skilled) appears to have changed the nature of the championship game.  If the governing bodies want to rein that in, then I hope they do it without making me play small-headed, fickle clubs again. 


Maybe that means bifurcation.  IMO there are already little bifurcations in the rules.  For example, I understand that during stipulated rounds like pro tournaments players have to declare the make and model of ball they play and stick to it during the round.  However, in all other rounds, players can use a different type of ball from hole to hole, choosing, say, I high spin ball for short par-3's and a long low spin ball for longer holes.  That sounds like a bifurcation of rules designed to address equipment-enabled competitive imbalances. 


If that's what bifurcation actually means, then I'm for it.

[Kyle Harris]

Anything that makes the game harder for average golfers has the potential to drive them from the game. I don’t think the membership of this board is synonymous with the average golfer.

As someone who aspires to reach average, and who is a romantic enough to play hickories in every day rounds, I can tell you how much more confident I am and enjoyment I get day-to-day hitting my giant Callaway driver and my shot-improvement Adams hybrid-irons.  For me, a victorious golf shot is one that goes straight, and it's no given that's going to happen. 


For reference, I hit drives in the 230 range and a 7-iron 145. 


As much as I like the idea of playing retro equipment, and I really do, my 17 index is the best I've ever carried with all the modern equipment benefits I've mustered, and that's pretty damn not yet average. 


For me, keeping big headed drivers and springy balls takes some frustration out of that game, which has to be a good thing for people who have similar skillsets.  And I don't know why the leadership of the game would want to make the game harder for me, I think I've amply demonstrated that it's plenty hard enough.


For the master golfers, however, that same equipment (or its equivalent for the highly skilled) appears to have changed the nature of the championship game.  If the governing bodies want to rein that in, then I hope they do it without making me play small-headed, fickle clubs again. 


Maybe that means bifurcation.  IMO there are already little bifurcations in the rules.  For example, I understand that during stipulated rounds like pro tournaments players have to declare the make and model of ball they play and stick to it during the round.  However, in all other rounds, players can use a different type of ball from hole to hole, choosing, say, I high spin ball for short par-3's and a long low spin ball for longer holes.  That sounds like a bifurcation of rules designed to address equipment-enabled competitive imbalances. 


If that's what bifurcation actually means, then I'm for it.

It's not bifurcation - the one-ball rule has been an optional local rule for decades. Any committee may choose to implement it. You might as well call marking the golf course "bifurcation" because a Tour Event or USGA Championship will be far more well-marked than your every day golf course.

What makes you think a dialed-back ball is going to influence your current numbers significantly enough to change your enjoyment?


And let's be clear about another thing - this isn't "retro" equipment. You won't be replacing a cut balata ball every three holes because you knocked it on the forehead with your 4-iron 6-iron.

[Joe Hancock]

It’s interesting to hear arguments about how “if” we make the game more difficult than it currently is(and it’s never been easier), we might lose players.


A) What are the motivations to not lose any players? Does the game of golf benefit from having as many participants as possible, considering some of the attitudes that come with? I’d advocate for growing the game, with the target audience being folks who appreciate the opportunity to enjoy the game for its’ challenges rather than bloating the game with people who want to make it easier. If golf wasn’t a good enough game to promote back when it was difficult, why is it desirable to do so now?


B) Golf, as a physical endeavor, is difficult. It takes time and effort to improve. Instead of bemoaning the idea that the game “might” be more difficult if your drives are 4 yards shorter, embrace the idea that it isn’t just you that is affected. Whatever reason you are drawn to the game still exists....


C) The idea of making golf easier takes away an inherent ability that is part of the game....intellect. The easier the game is on the whole, the less advantage the smarter player has in a match. I’m not sure why otherwise smart people who golf, don’t understand this. (This adage applies to perfectly manicured, homogenous bunkers and the like, as well)


D) I wonder if my position is generational and out of date.

[David Harshbarger]

What makes you think a dialed-back ball is going to influence your current numbers significantly enough to change your enjoyment?


And let's be clear about another thing - this isn't "retro" equipment. You won't be replacing a cut balata ball every three holes because you knocked it on the forehead with your 4-iron 6-iron.

That's a good point re: would my game be different with a dialed-back ball. 


I took the position a few years ago that I should at least play a single make of ball, I chose the Bridgestone E-6, to take a variable out of my game.  With all of the noise introduced by an unpredictable swing, I don't think it mattered.  And if it's just the ball that's dialed back I don't think that would matter to me. 

[Kyle Harris]

What makes you think a dialed-back ball is going to influence your current numbers significantly enough to change your enjoyment?


And let's be clear about another thing - this isn't "retro" equipment. You won't be replacing a cut balata ball every three holes because you knocked it on the forehead with your 4-iron 6-iron.

That's a good point re: would my game be different with a dialed-back ball. 


I took the position a few years ago that I should at least play a single make of ball, I chose the Bridgestone E-6, to take a variable out of my game.  With all of the noise introduced by an unpredictable swing, I don't think it mattered.  And if it's just the ball that's dialed back I don't think that would matter to me.

I'm not sure that ball is even red-lining the specs currently.

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe -
I don't know if it's generationally out of date, but it may be temperamentally much less common these days.
And yet, I don't think any rules/equipment change will have much impact at all on participation rates.
Those who temperamentally want -- and have always wanted -- to play what the pros play, and/or to adhere strictly to the rules, and/or to embrace the inherent challenge of the game will be able to continue doing that.   
And those who temperamentally have always been fine with playing the equipment that best suits the game and/or don't mind taking mulligans and improving their lies with a little nudge of their foot, and/or who play golf most of all to be with their friends and don't particularly want to make the game any harder, well, they will also be able to keep playing the game exactly the way they want.
(And architects who want to design with the new rules/equipment in mind can find their niche there, while those who want to market themselves differently are free to do that too.)
I now think much of the kerfuffle about this comes from those who have a professional mandate to care and/or who are paid to add to the kerfuffle, e.g. officials with the governing bodies, lawyers with the equipment companies, magazine writers, past and current golf pros etc.
I think for the vast majority of the rest of us (and, as Kyle says, trying to determine who is/isn't 'average' is misguided), the phrase 'this too shall pass' comes to mind -- and it will 'pass', IMO, much more quickly and easily than most imagine.     

[Kyle Harris]

Peter,


Bingo.


The ball is the easiest fix because it is the most replaced piece of equipment in the game. Every major ball manufacturer still puts other equipment out so you're not losing the "Longest Driver" marketing edge, either.

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,


Bingo.


The ball is the easiest fix because it is the most replaced piece of equipment in the game. Every major ball manufacturer still puts other equipment out so you're not losing the "Longest Driver" marketing edge, either.

Wait....this is all about money? Can’t be....

[David Harshbarger]

Peter,


Bingo.


The ball is the easiest fix because it is the most replaced piece of equipment in the game. Every major ball manufacturer still puts other equipment out so you're not losing the "Longest Driver" marketing edge, either.

Wait....this is all about money? Can’t be....

Shocked!


This is the key to understanding any resistance from the manufacturers.  While it doesn't matter in the abstract what spec the manufacturer's build to, in reality, each manufacturer's market position is highly dependent on how well they've positioned themself relative to the existing standards.  Every manufacturer has to be concerned about how a change in the standards might negatively impact their market position relative to their competitors.

[JESII]

Tom Doak,


We agree on the error in making wholesale golf course decisions and changes specific to such a limited proportion of players/rounds. Obviously some projects, like your recent one in Texas, are a project specifically for that reason but a course like Stonewall is not.


I only used Stonewall as an example of your courses that's close to home, not that they've gone down this rabbit hole...although if they added 250 yards for the US Mid Am, they're not immune. We played the Philadelphia Amateur there last summer and the course doesn't strike one as long (and I'm not) for that local level of competition...to your point. I shot 83 so your second point is also safe here.


My overriding reaction to the roll back debate in here is that its bullshit. People say the ball has to be rolled back because courses are either obsolete (BS) or now too big/expensive/slow etc...(also BS). Those are individual club decisions made for the wrong reasons 95+% of the time.


The Tour circus is the measuring stick for obsolescence and the best thing for 99.99% of clubs is to have the Circus stay away...






Maybe you could expand on your statement that great players should have to hit more great shots.

[jeffwarne]

It’s interesting to hear arguments about how “if” we make the game more difficult than it currently is(and it’s never been easier), we might lose players.


A) What are the motivations to not lose any players? Does the game of golf benefit from having as many participants as possible, considering some of the attitudes that come with? I’d advocate for growing the game, with the target audience being folks who appreciate the opportunity to enjoy the game for its’ challenges rather than bloating the game with people who want to make it easier. If golf wasn’t a good enough game to promote back when it was difficult, why is it desirable to do so now?


B) Golf, as a physical endeavor, is difficult. It takes time and effort to improve. Instead of bemoaning the idea that the game “might” be more difficult if your drives are 4 yards shorter, embrace the idea that it isn’t just you that is affected. Whatever reason you are drawn to the game still exists....


C) The idea of making golf easier takes away an inherent ability that is part of the game....intellect. The easier the game is on the whole, the less advantage the smarter player has in a match. I’m not sure why otherwise smart people who golf, don’t understand this. (This adage applies to perfectly manicured, homogenous bunkers and the like, as well)


D) I wonder if my position is generational and out of date.

Bingo-we're worried about losing players with a never ending list of demands.
The attraction of golf is that it can never be mastered-some of us enjoy spectating golf nearly as much as we enjoy playing it and tire of watching world class classic courses where now the strategy being which of 4 wedges to pull, or whether a fairway undulation is unfair because of a sidehill lie on a 7 iron approach to a par 5.
So we lose the two players who actually notice they lost 4 yards...I'd say 95% of the amateurs I play with overestimate how far they drive it by 20-50 yards, so what exactly is a four yard  or even a 10 yard loss when you tell me you drive it 280 but actually hit it 240 and now it's 234.
It's always interesting when we get to my drive that's gone 258 and they remark that it was over 300 because I'm 30-40 ahead of them.Which really brings into question what they think when my assistant joins us who actually has hit it 320.


And if you really are affected, wouldn't it be nice to walk forward to the tee instead of walking backwards to every tee on a classic course?
While we're on that... when did 20 handicaps earn the right to have short irons into every green with their own set of tees(that's what the handicap shot is for).
30-60 years ago golf was growing in leaps in bounds with people who played either the reds(women) or the whites(men) and very few who played the blues(pro) Now we've got a tee for everyone and yet we're whining that people are leaving the game.


When we play in the winter the balls goes easily 10% shorter-we adjust-nobody tallks about quitting.
While we're on the topic, I've seen people quit-not because they were short off the tee-they just didn't have the patience, attention span or work ethic to improve. That happens but let's not continue to alter our game to retain an entitled trust fund millenial who never learned the mentioned life skills.


I will give the caveat though that the USGA waited so long that fewer and fewer have a clue what I'm ranting about, the normalization of have it your way golf (right as they all started leaving coincidentally)


Rant over(perhaps punctuated by the fact that I've been confined to the floor on ice for four full days with another inflammation episode of my herniated disks...)

[Kalen Braley]

In many ways, golf is already bifurcated, along with most other professional sports, so I don't understand the argument that the ball as well can't be different either:

1)  Spectators lining the fairways and greens
2)  Spotters to find balls that in many cases would be lost.
3)  Super quick greens rolling 2-3 higher on the stimp that normal play
4)  Tucked pins 2-3 yards from the edge of the greens
5)  Bunkers in pristine condition, 100% of the time.
6)  Every player with a caddy providing details and info to the nth degree
7)  Using the way back tees
   Rules officials at your beckon call to make rulings and enforcement of walks of shame, etc.
9)  Equipment manufactures on premises to make last minute tweaks as needed.
10)  Scoring trailers at the end of each round ensuring accuracy and protocol.
11) Designated drop areas and clearly marked aka spray painted hazard lines
etc, etc, etc.

The game is already bifurcated, whether one admits it or not.  Having a tour ball, would just be one more thing to add to the ever growing list.  Even the latest set of rules has exceptions for lost balls, OB, etc between normal and tournament play.

[Dave Doxey]

Rollback will never happen and restrictions will all have loopholes.  Equipment manufacturers need to be able to market improvements that obsolete equipment and drive replacement purchases.  If distance and scoring improvements are stopped, there will be no reason to buy new clubs. If all balls are subject to the same technical restrictions, the ball becomes a commodity, and a price war ensues.


Follow the money.  Selling dreams and “growing the game” are the manufacturer’s only way to grow. Governing bodies will not dare to take them on.

[Kalen Braley]

Rollback will never happen and restrictions will all have loopholes.  Equipment manufacturers need to be able to market improvements that obsolete equipment and drive replacement purchases.  If distance and scoring improvements are stopped, there will be no reason to buy new clubs. If all balls are subject to the same technical restrictions, the ball becomes a commodity, and a price war ensues.


Follow the money.  Selling dreams and “growing the game” are the manufacturer’s only way to grow. Governing bodies will not dare to take them on.

Yet every other sport somehow does it and survives....

[JESII]

What would be the benefit to any single individual if the Tour ball were rolled back?


Keep in mind, the Tour already plays forward from the back tees on a great number of holes every week...

[Dave Doxey]

Rollback will never happen and restrictions will all have loopholes.  Equipment manufacturers need to be able to market improvements that obsolete equipment and drive replacement purchases.  If distance and scoring improvements are stopped, there will be no reason to buy new clubs. If all balls are subject to the same technical restrictions, the ball becomes a commodity, and a price war ensues.


Follow the money.  Selling dreams and “growing the game” are the manufacturer’s only way to grow. Governing bodies will not dare to take them on.

Yet every other sport somehow does it and survives....

I can't think of any sport that has capped or rolled back equipment and has significant markets for equipment on the scale of golf.  Sports markets where equipment is reduced to a commodity tend to be very limited in revenue growth.

[Kyle Harris]

In many ways, golf is already bifurcated, along with most other professional sports, so I don't understand the argument that the ball as well can't be different either:

1)  Spectators lining the fairways and greens
2)  Spotters to find balls that in many cases would be lost.
3)  Super quick greens rolling 2-3 higher on the stimp that normal play
4)  Tucked pins 2-3 yards from the edge of the greens
5)  Bunkers in pristine condition, 100% of the time.
6)  Every player with a caddy providing details and info to the nth degree
7)  Using the way back tees
   Rules officials at your beckon call to make rulings and enforcement of walks of shame, etc.
9)  Equipment manufactures on premises to make last minute tweaks as needed.
10)  Scoring trailers at the end of each round ensuring accuracy and protocol.
11) Designated drop areas and clearly marked aka spray painted hazard lines
etc, etc, etc.

The game is already bifurcated, whether one admits it or not.  Having a tour ball, would just be one more thing to add to the ever growing list.  Even the latest set of rules has exceptions for lost balls, OB, etc between normal and tournament play.

Similar differences exist between Public Municipal courses and Private Country Club courses. Should a Country Club ball exist, as well?


This isn't bifurcation. It's gentrification.

[Joe Hancock]

Rollback will never happen and restrictions will all have loopholes.  Equipment manufacturers need to be able to market improvements that obsolete equipment and drive replacement purchases.  If distance and scoring improvements are stopped, there will be no reason to buy new clubs. If all balls are subject to the same technical restrictions, the ball becomes a commodity, and a price war ensues.


Follow the money.  Selling dreams and “growing the game” are the manufacturer’s only way to grow. Governing bodies will not dare to take them on.

Yet every other sport somehow does it and survives....

Survival without remaining true to oneself is merely survival.

[Kalen Braley]

Dave,

Baseball has approx 15 million players in the US.
Football, Hockey, Basketball, Softball are also each in the millions.

They're all buying bats, pads, helmets, gloves, cleets, sticks, sneakers, balls, etc, etc.  And they've all figured out how to regulate their sports at not only the top levels, but lower levels.

But golf is somehow exempt and the only ones beholden to manufactures?

[jeffwarne]

Dave,

Baseball has approx 15 million players in the US.
Football, Hockey, Basketball, Softball are also each in the millions.

They're all buying bats, pads, helmets, gloves, cleets, sticks, sneakers, balls, etc, etc.  And they've all figured out how to regulate their sports at not only the top levels, but lower levels.

But golf is somehow exempt and the only ones beholden to manufactures?

The disadvantages of having a 300 million dollar war chest
You're afraid someone will take it if you do the right thing (ask any of them privately and will tell you what they'd like to do)
How ffffing ironic