[Jerry Kluger]

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/we-dont-need-rollback-heres-how-you-combat-distance-pga-tour


Brandel Chamblee makes the argument that pro golfers are becoming better and stronger athletes which is a primary reason for their increase in length.  He demonstrates that by increasing the height of fairways, rough and greens you will be able to deal with their increased distance with longer fairway heights limited roll, rough heights limiting accuracy and he also encourages greens higher and slower but that last part doesn't quite make sense although he does make the point that slower greens will make for faster rounds.  I agree with his premise but I don't see that the culmination will significantly raise scores at the highest level.  I believe that the US Open result was due to Bryson's strength allowing him to be more accurate out of the rough as opposed to it simply being his length.

[archie_struthers]

 


Wouldn't his cure just accentuate the bomb and gauge strategy currently being employed by most touring pro's.

[Jurrian van der Vaart]

It would turn the sport at the highest level into even more of a dart-throwing contest.

Slower fairways means they are easier to hit, slower greens usually also means that they will be more receptive. It would make everything even more one-dimensional than it already is; whereas the wonder and appeal of the sport in my opinion lies in the different dimensions one has to grasp and master to excel at it.

[Bruce Katona]

Slower greens does not necessarily mean soft and receptive; cutting height can be raised to get the greens to roll at 8-10 on the stimp meter, bringing potentially non-pinnable cup positions (due to slope) into consideration.

[Thomas Dai]

BC needs a salary, needs a job and equipment company advertising and ratings etc ultimately pay this. Turkeys don’t usually favour Christmas. If he were to take a pro equipment rollback stance his income generating potential would decline.
Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I like statistics, but this article had so many “bad” uses of them that I can’t get behind it at all.

Distance increased 15% but scoring decreased “only” 2.7%? It’s not like everything else was held constant, Brandel.

And Tour players hit “only” 2.4 more greens per round!? Umm, there are only 18 holes in a round. Hitting 2.4 more of them is 13%. That’s not a small number.

His suggestions boil down to:

• Taller rough
• Taller fairways
• Slower greens

Meh.

I still think I’d love to see golf courses played much firmer. I’m way behind on listening to the Fried Egg podcast, but I’m listening to one now and the guy maintained the courts at Wimbledon for a year, and he said they were like concrete. We obviously don’t need to get to anything near that firm, but firmer courses like at the Presidents Cup will lead to more interesting golf with less emphasis on distance.

The problem (not that problem) with this is similar to the same thing the rollback fans want: the PGA Tour wouldn’t go for it (firm, fast conditions). And the weather may or may not cooperate for much of the PGA Tour’s schedule, as the soils in many of the more northern courses have a tough time playing firm.

[Dan_Callahan]

What does it matter? The odds of anyone changing anything are slim to none. I enjoy watching pro tournaments, but not nearly as much as I enjoy getting out there and playing. And for the most part, the courses I played in 2020 were maintained with what I thought was just the right balance of fast but not scary greens, firm but not concrete fairways, and tricky but not brutal rough. If the PGA doesn't want to do anything to make the game more challenging for the top .005% of golfers, so be it. Been talked about for way too long. The issue is obvious, so not doing anything is simply a choice. Chamblee is entertaining, but he's also a blowhard know-it-all.

[Jurrian van der Vaart]

Slower greens does not necessarily mean soft and receptive; cutting height can be raised to get the greens to roll at 8-10 on the stimp meter, bringing potentially non-pinnable cup positions (due to slope) into consideration.

Agreed with your point, there are many ways to slow down greens and fairway. To slow the fairways and greens down for just a Tour-event (which I believe he is talking about) could be done by raising cutting heights and doing nothing else, esp if the membership wants their usual setup back.

Pins on Tour are already 2-3 steps from the edges and cut into slopes, not sure many currently "unusable" locations would become interesting positions when the stimp is 9 instead of 11.

My broader point is that the distance the ball flies wouldn't change a bit, and the game would still be reduce to a drive/wedge combo. Having slower greens (firm or soft) would make players even more aggressive going for pins, as the penalty of missing a green is even smaller.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I like statistics, but this article had so many “bad” uses of them that I can’t get behind it at all.


And Tour players hit “only” 2.4 more greens per round!? Umm, there are only 18 holes in a round. Hitting 2.4 more of them is 13%. That’s not a small number.

From the article: "players now hit just 2.4 more greens over the course of 72 holes than they did in 1980"


C'mon Erik, if you're going to nit-pic get your stats right.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

From the article: "players now hit just 2.4 more greens over the course of 72 holes than they did in 1980"

C'mon Erik, if you're going to nit-pic get your stats right.

Bah, frick.

Thanks for the correction. I was so annoyed by the other bad uses of stats and that they were per-round that I didn’t even register that he switched to per-event.

Thank you.

P.S. I don’t think it’s nit-picking to call his use of statistics “bad.” Scoring for example can’t really be measured by percentage, particularly given how many other things changed in golf course setup, conditions, equipment, etc. Comparing scoring to Usain Bolt doesn’t really cut it, in my book.

I don’t like when pro-rollback people use statistics badly, and I probably almost might like it even less when anti-rollback people use statistics badly.

[Kalen Braley]

Put todays players on course setups from 1980 at 6400 yards and that number would be a helluva lot bigger.  These guys would be driving half of the par 4s, have wedge into the other half, and making a complete mockery of the par 5s.

If BC is gonna talk GIRs it needs to be apples to apples...

[Ben Hollerbach]

Put todays players on course setups from 1980 at 6400 yards and that number would be a helluva lot bigger.  These guys would be driving half of the par 4s, have wedge into the other half, and making a complete mockery of the par 5s.

If BC is gonna talk GIRs it needs to be apples to apples...

you talking with todays equipment or 1980's equipment?

[Kalen Braley]

Put todays players on course setups from 1980 at 6400 yards and that number would be a helluva lot bigger.  These guys would be driving half of the par 4s, have wedge into the other half, and making a complete mockery of the par 5s.

If BC is gonna talk GIRs it needs to be apples to apples...

you talking with todays equipment or 1980's equipment?

Todays equipment...give them the shitty stuff from 1980 and then it would be apples to apples.

P.S.  Yes, I attribute very little to distance gains to player fitness.  The Senior Tour being Exhibit A, where most of those guys are longer now than they were 30 years ago, when they were in thier physical prime.

[Mark Smolens]

"The problem (not that problem) with this is similar to the same thing the rollback fans want: the PGA Tour wouldn’t go for it (firm, fast conditions). "
[/size][/color]

I'm not so certain that's the case. Back when the Western Open was at Cog Hill in the summer, they basically stopped watering the fairways two weeks before the tournament, and the course played firmer and faster during the two weekends prior to the event (when it was open only to the permanent tee times on Saturday and Sunday) than it did the entire year. Bunkers that I couldn't generally reach from the blue tees were now in play.

And the rough? Brandel thinks that's the solution? Sure, everybody loves watching pros trying to hit shots from grass over their shoes. In my Cog Hill example, above, for the retail customers, Western Open rough was at best hack out with a wedge. Boy that's a fun

[Niall C]

Fair play to him for thinking about it even if I don't agree with his ideas. Firstly, I think it would be better if there was more run as then there would be emphasis on control. The two JW's, Jon Wigget and Jeff Warne, both of whom are professionals advocate slowing the greens to make it harder however I'm not so sure of the logic of that.

However at the end of the day the main concern seems to be regulating scores. I understand that some folk are offended by players hitting approach shots with wedges when back in the day they used to use a 3 iron or whatever, but by and large it's the scores that seem to cause the most consternation. These guys are very very good so let them shoot low sixties if they are capable.

One thing I do agree with him on is that a re large part of distance gains is down to players as a whole being bigger, stronger and more athetlic.

Niall

[Peter Flory]

I blame the governing bodies.  It makes sense that equipment manufacturers want constant inflation.  And it makes sense that paid shills back them up.  It also makes sense that players (both pros and ams) are out to get any advantage that they can get over their competition (and even for the thrill of improvement).  The only thing that doesn't make sense is why the USGA has been allowing it to happen. 


And technically, you're not even allowed to play with traditional clubs as they are no longer on the USGA's approved list of equipment.  You can't enter a tournament with the clubs that Bobby Jones used to win the Grand Slam. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I blame the governing bodies.  It makes sense that equipment manufacturers want constant inflation.  And it makes sense that paid shills back them up.  It also makes sense that players (both pros and ams) are out to get any advantage that they can get over their competition (and even for the thrill of improvement).  The only thing that doesn't make sense is why the USGA has been allowing it to happen.

What have they “allowed” to happen? The ODS was established in 1976. The limits on the club length and driver head size and MOI were made long ago. Ditto for CoR.

Maybe you’re just saying they should have set lower limits for some of those things, hence “rollback” (for drivers, maybe - as applied to the ball I don’t think that’s a very apt term).

Not starting another distance debate here (though I guess this topic is that, so…), but… it’s not like manufacturers are just making things unchecked, with no regulations.

[Jurrian van der Vaart]

I blame the governing bodies.  It makes sense that equipment manufacturers want constant inflation.  And it makes sense that paid shills back them up.  It also makes sense that players (both pros and ams) are out to get any advantage that they can get over their competition (and even for the thrill of improvement).  The only thing that doesn't make sense is why the USGA has been allowing it to happen.

What have they “allowed” to happen? The ODS was established in 1976. The limits on the club length and driver head size and MOI were made long ago. Ditto for CoR.

Maybe you’re just saying they should have set lower limits for some of those things, hence “rollback” (for drivers, maybe - as applied to the ball I don’t think that’s a very apt term).

Not starting another distance debate here (though I guess this topic is that, so…), but… it’s not like manufacturers are just making things unchecked, with no regulations.

There is loads of regulation, more than people probably know. Changing the grooves on the wedges did change a bit (mostly balls weren't spinning back off the green).

But the introduction of Trackman, combined with the low-spinning but stable golf ball has changed the landscape. The upward hitting of the golfball renders all defense of a golf course obsolete, as the balls now fly both futher and straighter because of it. Not that in the before-times guys weren't trying it long, but hitting a ball "up" meant a knuckle-snap-hook that would be devastating. Not taking a divot with a three-wood was considered ballsy.

Also, my current shaft weighs 48 grams, so my swing speed has increased from 108 mph to 119 mph in just 10 years. No regulation for that I think. Clubheads are regulated, the ball somewhat, the shafts aren't.

[Thomas Dai]

Rollback isn’t just about golf.

There’s a much bigger picture to consider including land and water use, population, crops, housing, safety etc etc. All aspects that BC and Co don’t seem to either appreciate or for whatever reason don’t seem to want to appreciate.

Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But the introduction of Trackman, combined with the low-spinning but stable golf ball has changed the landscape. The upward hitting of the golfball renders all defense of a golf course obsolete, as the balls now fly both futher and straighter because of it. Not that in the before-times guys weren't trying it long, but hitting a ball "up" meant a knuckle-snap-hook that would be devastating. Not taking a divot with a three-wood was considered ballsy.

FWIW, hitting up and reducing the spin axis size and keeping other things the same will make the ball curve more. The PGA Tour average is still slightly down - guys are willingly giving up yards to better control their tee shots.

There’s a much bigger picture to consider including land and water use, population, crops, housing, safety etc etc. All aspects that BC and Co don’t seem to either appreciate or for whatever reason don’t seem to want to appreciate.

That’s the one pro-rollback argument I’d go with, if I was pro-rollback. I’m not, in large part because I don’t think the 0.01% should dictate to the rest of golf. And that the PGA Tour doesn’t want to rollback, and they sure as heck don’t want to bifurcate.

[John Emerson]

Does anyone really listen to what comes out of this dude’s pie hole?  I don’t.

[Jerry Kluger]

The fact is that equipment advances today for other than the top .1% mean very little so why not bifurcate - the answer is the manufacturers have too much influence over the game.  Players are paid big dollars to play a particular line of clubs, balls, etc. so they would not be happy if equipment offered to consumers was different than what they play so they couldn't credibly endorse it.  Does anyone who is a dedicated golfer really believe that they will see some meaningful improvement by using a new club or ball, of course not, but they buy them anyway.  Many of us know this but we go ahead and spend the money because Phil or Tiger or DJ says we should and we hope that it will help us get better. I sometimes compare golf to baseball and point out that Major League Baseball won't allow for better bats because they own the stadiums and they would have to build new ones.  What is interesting is basketball where they recognized that players are getting bigger, faster and stronger but they made the game easier for them by implementing a defensive 3 second rule and not enforcing the rules concerning traveling.   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Does anyone who is a dedicated golfer really believe that they will see some meaningful improvement by using a new club or ball, of course not, but they buy them anyway.

Yes, it can happen. And does.

And if you don’t think a dedicated golfer can’t get help why do you seem to think a Tour player does?

[Rob Marshall]

I blame the governing bodies.  It makes sense that equipment manufacturers want constant inflation.  And it makes sense that paid shills back them up.  It also makes sense that players (both pros and ams) are out to get any advantage that they can get over their competition (and even for the thrill of improvement).  The only thing that doesn't make sense is why the USGA has been allowing it to happen.

What have they “allowed” to happen? The ODS was established in 1976. The limits on the club length and driver head size and MOI were made long ago. Ditto for CoR.

Maybe you’re just saying they should have set lower limits for some of those things, hence “rollback” (for drivers, maybe - as applied to the ball I don’t think that’s a very apt term).

Not starting another distance debate here (though I guess this topic is that, so…), but… it’s not like manufacturers are just making things unchecked, with no regulations.

There is loads of regulation, more than people probably know. Changing the grooves on the wedges did change a bit (mostly balls weren't spinning back off the green).

But the introduction of Trackman, combined with the low-spinning but stable golf ball has changed the landscape. The upward hitting of the golfball renders all defense of a golf course obsolete, as the balls now fly both futher and straighter because of it. Not that in the before-times guys weren't trying it long, but hitting a ball "up" meant a knuckle-snap-hook that would be devastating. Not taking a divot with a three-wood was considered ballsy.

Also, my current shaft weighs 48 grams, so my swing speed has increased from 108 mph to 119 mph in just 10 years. No regulation for that I think. Clubheads are regulated, the ball somewhat, the shafts aren't.

You’re swinging a 48 gram driver shaft?

[Peter Flory]

What have they “allowed” to happen? The ODS was established in 1976. The limits on the club length and driver head size and MOI were made long ago. Ditto for CoR.

They ignored their own rule that said that clubs had to be traditional and customary in form and make and that clubheads had to be plain in shape. 


That was the only rule that they ever needed and could have just rejected anything that they wanted.  It wasn't that long ago that pros were playing persimmon drivers.  Tiger played tournaments on the PGA tour where other players still were voluntarily using persimmon clubs. 


The USGA should have just been a protector of the game and had no relationship with manufacturers. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()