Rollback and the Old Course

[Niall C]

David


Why does any benchmark have to have historical relevance ?


Niall

[Ben Hollerbach]

David


Why does any benchmark have to have historical relevance ?


Niall

Niall,
Interesting question, but when does a benchmark not have historical relevance? That would seem to be an inherent quality around the existence of benchmarks, a reference to something that has come or been before.

[V. Kmetz]

Whether Breed is a carny barker for his own brand ("only" reason) or whether rollback is truly in the wind for the many reasons, the fact is the last Open was a limited exhibition of broad golf skills...a pitch and putt contest, with nearly the entire stretch of 6-12 very nearly 7 one shot holes in a row, where nearly every competitor could get to within 80-100 feet, or closer, of the hole in a single blow.


I'm not demeaning the competition per se... I was following closely; it was lively, bunched and had great players in contention.  Still, it was largely a pitching and putting affair ...and if lesser names were at the top. it would've more clearly id'ed as such.


I have no way of knowing but I suspect the powers that be observed something similar; even if Breed is conjuring a brick out of straw, it's valid straw... I said last year, that after such a showing, they should semi-retire the Ol Girl from the rota...only hold it there for special occasions.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The carry from the back of the Open Championship tee on the 18th at TOC to Grannie Clark’s Wynd is by my measurement via Googleearth 235 yds, wider if the shot is played more to left.
…
However, if someone would like to propose another reference point or marker that could be used as a benchmark and has historical relevance within the game then I’d be delighted to hear their suggestion.

Would you be okay with a relevant benchmark that was somewhat realistic within the last 80 years, or do you think the 235-yard carry is appropriate?  If Bobby Jones drove the 18th at the Old Course, do we have to go back to the 1800s for a benchmark?

Also, why should our benchmark be related to 1% or less of the golfers who play the game?

[Adam Lawrence]

The carry from the back of the Open Championship tee on the 18th at TOC to Grannie Clark’s Wynd is by my measurement via Googleearth 235 yds, wider if the shot is played more to left.
…
However, if someone would like to propose another reference point or marker that could be used as a benchmark and has historical relevance within the game then I’d be delighted to hear their suggestion.

Would you be okay with a relevant benchmark that was somewhat realistic within the last 80 years, or do you think the 235-yard carry is appropriate?  If Bobby Jones drove the 18th at the Old Course, do we have to go back to the 1800s for a benchmark?

Also, why should our benchmark be related to 1% or less of the golfers who play the game?

Carry and overall distance are in no way the same thing. When links turf is hard, the ball runs A LOT. It is perfectly conceivable that one could drive the green without carrying the Wynd.

[Thomas Dai]

However, if someone would like to propose another reference point or marker that could be used as a benchmark and has historical relevance within the game then I’d be delighted to hear their suggestion.
Atb

Always easy to be negative or critical.
Someone like to put their head above the parapet and actually propose something?
Atb

[Sean_A]

The carry from the back of the Open Championship tee on the 18th at TOC to Grannie Clark’s Wynd is by my measurement via Googleearth 235 yds, wider if the shot is played more to left.
…
However, if someone would like to propose another reference point or marker that could be used as a benchmark and has historical relevance within the game then I’d be delighted to hear their suggestion.

Would you be okay with a relevant benchmark that was somewhat realistic within the last 80 years, or do you think the 235-yard carry is appropriate?  If Bobby Jones drove the 18th at the Old Course, do we have to go back to the 1800s for a benchmark?

Also, why should our benchmark be related to 1% or less of the golfers who play the game?

Carry and overall distance are in no way the same thing. When links turf is hard, the ball runs A LOT. It is perfectly conceivable that one could drive the green without carrying the Wynd.

Plus, so far as I know, GCW has never been a benchmark so we don’t really know who and when was carrying it. Besides, a carry benchmark isn’t the proper way to look at the issue. The benchmark is the equipment. How golfers perform with that equipment is a separate issue. WW, a few proposals have come forward, hence the debate. But the proposals aren’t about a physical carry benchmark.

Ciao

[John Chilver-Stainer]

The current unchanged "benchmark" since the 90's for a drive length by an average scratch player, as defined by the USGA for rating golf courses, is 250 yards made up of 230 yards carry and 20 yards run out.


It doesn't need to be changed after a roll back as it will be closer to reality than it is at present.

[Niall C]

However, if someone would like to propose another reference point or marker that could be used as a benchmark and has historical relevance within the game then I’d be delighted to hear their suggestion.
Atb

Always easy to be negative or critical.
Someone like to put their head above the parapet and actually propose something?
Atb

David


It is for those that are proposing change to come up with the alternative. Personally I'm relatively OK with the status quo and certainly don't want to go back to the hickory era. I'm quite happy if others want to play hickory golf but having learned the game as a kid with cut down hickories I have no desire to join them.


Neither do I care that much if the pro's are routinely going round in the 60's. Good on them.


What I would say is that if I was minded to do something about distance, and I'm not, I think it would probably be more productive to greatly reduce the size of club heads and specifically driver club heads back to the size they were maybe 30 years ago. I think that would likely rein in a lot of the bombers and put more of an emphasis on ball striking.


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Carry and overall distance are in no way the same thing. When links turf is hard, the ball runs A LOT. It is perfectly conceivable that one could drive the green without carrying the Wynd.

I know. But even still, Bobby Jones could carry the ball 235. So I'm asking how far back do we have to go, and whether we have to consider the best players in the world.    In other words, that benchmark is silly, as would be most any benchmark.

The current unchanged "benchmark" since the 90's for a drive length by an average scratch player, as defined by the USGA for rating golf courses, is 250 yards made up of 230 yards carry and 20 yards run out.It doesn't need to be changed after a roll back as it will be closer to reality than it is at present.

https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/arccos-driving-distance-report-2023/ - It's not as far off as many seem to think. The average driving distance of a scratch golfer is about 250 yards. There are a lot of older people factoring in there, as you can see a scratch 25-year-old is likely NOT hitting it 250.

What I would say is that if I was minded to do something about distance, and I'm not, I think it would probably be more productive to greatly reduce the size of club heads and specifically driver club heads back to the size they were maybe 30 years ago. I think that would likely rein in a lot of the bombers and put more of an emphasis on ball striking.

ONly two problems with that:
a) pros still mash their 3Ws.
b) smaller club heads punish 14 handicappers FAR more than Tour players.

Smaller club heads would be counterproductive. It'd have almost no effect on the best players while severely punishing the worse players.

[Niall C]

What I would say is that if I was minded to do something about distance, and I'm not, I think it would probably be more productive to greatly reduce the size of club heads and specifically driver club heads back to the size they were maybe 30 years ago. I think that would likely rein in a lot of the bombers and put more of an emphasis on ball striking.

ONly two problems with that:
a) pros still mash their 3Ws.
b) smaller club heads punish 14 handicappers FAR more than Tour players.

Smaller club heads would be counterproductive. It'd have almost no effect on the best players while severely punishing the worse players.



Oh I'm sure there are more than 2 problems with that if you think about it long enough. Truth is no one is likely to come up with an idea that affects every golfer, irrespective of their ability, the same. And that would include mucking about with the golf ball.


Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.


Niall

[Rob Marshall]

What I would say is that if I was minded to do something about distance, and I'm not, I think it would probably be more productive to greatly reduce the size of club heads and specifically driver club heads back to the size they were maybe 30 years ago. I think that would likely rein in a lot of the bombers and put more of an emphasis on ball striking.

ONly two problems with that:
a) pros still mash their 3Ws.
b) smaller club heads punish 14 handicappers FAR more than Tour players.

Smaller club heads would be counterproductive. It'd have almost no effect on the best players while severely punishing the worse players.



Oh I'm sure there are more than 2 problems with that if you think about it long enough. Truth is no one is likely to come up with an idea that affects every golfer, irrespective of their ability, the same. And that would include mucking about with the golf ball.


Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.


Niall

That's what Adam Scott said but what does he know right..............

[Adam Lawrence]

Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.

Niall

I don't think there can be any doubt that that would work, but I suspect it would be too big a change for most golfers to stomach. Most every golfer of my age (early fifties) can remember just how hard it was to hit those drivers. They certainly separated the men from the boys, but a very large proportion of golfers fell into the latter category. Many, many amateurs simply never hit driver in those days because they couldn't do so with any degree of confidence. The big headed driver has made the game more fun for untold thousands, even millions of golfers. I know there is a degree of frustration among some, generally very good, players that, from being the hardest club to hit consistently, the driver has become almost the easiest, but I suspect that almost every long handicapper would say it has been a good thing that it has.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I don't think there can be any doubt that that would work, but I suspect it would be too big a change for most golfers to stomach. Most every golfer of my age (early fifties) can remember just how hard it was to hit those drivers. They certainly separated the men from the boys, but a very large proportion of golfers fell into the latter category. Many, many amateurs simply never hit driver in those days because they couldn't do so with any degree of confidence. The big headed driver has made the game more fun for untold thousands, even millions of golfers. I know there is a degree of frustration among some, generally very good, players that, from being the hardest club to hit consistently, the driver has become almost the easiest, but I suspect that almost every long handicapper would say it has been a good thing that it has.

The answer to the bold text may be found in the modern "Mini Driver". When the Big Bertha was first released in 1991  it was nearly the same size as the traditional persimmon driver at 190cc. But the profile of the driver different, optically giving it a larger footprint. The Great Big Bertha expanded on that in 1995 to 250cc, which incidentally was the same size as the Wilson Whale released in the 80s.

When Mini drivers first became popular a decade ago 2 of the most successful were the Callaway X2hot 2Deep at 210 cc and the Taylormade SLDR Mini at 260cc.

A decade later, only Taylormade has continued to make Mini Drivers by name, but almost all of the big companies have entered the space. Whether it was with clubs like the Ping Rapture & G400 Stretch, Titleist's line of FD fairway woods, or Cobra's line of Big Tour fairway woods, its become common to find these lower lofted, larger headed, FW/Driver hybrids in peoples bags.

If a regulation was put in place capping driver wood size to something like 250cc, The industry would just simply ramp up production of these clubs to fulfill the gap.

[Pat Burke]

What I would say is that if I was minded to do something about distance, and I'm not, I think it would probably be more productive to greatly reduce the size of club heads and specifically driver club heads back to the size they were maybe 30 years ago. I think that would likely rein in a lot of the bombers and put more of an emphasis on ball striking.

ONly two problems with that:
a) pros still mash their 3Ws.
b) smaller club heads punish 14 handicappers FAR more than Tour players.

Smaller club heads would be counterproductive. It'd have almost no effect on the best players while severely punishing the worse players.



Oh I'm sure there are more than 2 problems with that if you think about it long enough. Truth is no one is likely to come up with an idea that affects every golfer, irrespective of their ability, the same. And that would include mucking about with the golf ball.


Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.


Niall

Sorry, but the “smaller headed” they’re still pretty big) fairway clubs are a “go to” for accuracy for top players. The size of those clubs has little to no impact and the distance vs loft Is still bigger than any rollback proponent would hope for imo.


The efficiency numbers of top players is honestly pretty impressive, which means they are hitting the center very effectively.


But…..always a but, any big miss will be uglier. But the guys playing well, rarely miss the sweet spot area. 

[Tony Ristola]

Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.

Niall

I don't think there can be any doubt that that would work, but I suspect it would be too big a change for most golfers to stomach. Most every golfer of my age (early fifties) can remember just how hard it was to hit those drivers. They certainly separated the men from the boys, but a very large proportion of golfers fell into the latter category. Many, many amateurs simply never hit driver in those days because they couldn't do so with any degree of confidence. The big headed driver has made the game more fun for untold thousands, even millions of golfers. I know there is a degree of frustration among some, generally very good, players that, from being the hardest club to hit consistently, the driver has become almost the easiest, but I suspect that almost every long handicapper would say it has been a good thing that it has.

Don't reduce the size of the driver for the reasons you noted.


Reduce the ball flight back to the Titliest 384 era (early 80's) and the numbers of clubs to 9. That would eliminate bomb & gauge, as well as the four wedge scenario. You'd have Trevino and Pavin-like golfers contending regularly again, as the pro's would have to create shots due to the larger gaps between the irons. You'd find out who the Champion Golfers really are.


Manufacturers would sell more clubs, not fewer, with a 9-clum maximum.


Interesting story from Mike Clayton, about Geoff O.... but not surprising. Should every ball become a competition ball due to a roll-back, Titliest is going to lose a ton of money as other manufacturers will be able to enter the market, produce optimized balls and sell them for a fraction. It could send Titliest down the road of Ram and MacGregor in decades to come.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.

Again, pros aren't mis-hitting the hell out of their 3W. They still hit those on the button.

But…..always a but, any big miss will be uglier. But the guys playing well, rarely miss the sweet spot area.

Yup.

Reduce the ball flight back to the Titliest 384 era (early 80's)

A Pinnacle or Top-Flite from that era still went pretty far. Almost as far as a Pro V1. They just didn't have short game spin so pros didn't play them. There's no magical way to do what you're suggesting.

[Tony Ristola]

Reducing the driver head to about the size of a 3 wood or a bit bigger might affect some and even most amateurs more than say some professionals but even on Tour, which seems to be the real benchmark that most folk tend to use, such a move would help separate the men from the boys in terms of ball striking. Its more difficult to hit it as hard with the smaller clubhead.

Again, pros aren't mis-hitting the hell out of their 3W. They still hit those on the button.

But…..always a but, any big miss will be uglier. But the guys playing well, rarely miss the sweet spot area.

Yup.

Reduce the ball flight back to the Titliest 384 era (early 80's)

A Pinnacle or Top-Flite from that era still went pretty far. Almost as far as a Pro V1. They just didn't have short game spin so pros didn't play them. There's no magical way to do what you're suggesting.

Pro's did use 2-piece balls back in the 70's to early 80's. They did so on par-5's they couldn't reach with balata/wound balls. That's why the USGA instituted the One-Ball Rule.


Today the rule is mute, as urethane balls travel as far as the rocks.

[Rob Marshall]

You are correct Tony.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1979/06/10/open-to-use-same-ball-rule/85172161-1250-4743-add0-01c5961c880c/

[JohnVDB]

Pro's did use 2-piece balls back in the 70's to early 80's. They did so on par-5's they couldn't reach with balata/wound balls. That's why the USGA instituted the One-Ball Rule.


Today the rule is mute, as urethane balls travel as far as the rocks.

The rule isn’t moot today. If the one-ball rule wasn’t in effect, manufacturers could make balls with different characteristics that good players might choose to use on different holes.


That being said, the PGA hasn’t used the one-ball Rule in the PGA Championship or their other events for at least 5 years. No player has taken advantage of it to my knowledge.


I’d like to see it removed from USGA Amateur events. I’m sure it is accidentally broken at events like the Junior every year. Players don’t realize that Pro-V1s with arrows vs. ones with stars are different balls under the rule. We even had a player at a Women’s Am who wanted to switch between yellow and orange balls during her round which are classified as different.

[Tony Ristola]

Pro's did use 2-piece balls back in the 70's to early 80's. They did so on par-5's they couldn't reach with balata/wound balls. That's why the USGA instituted the One-Ball Rule.


Today the rule is mute, as urethane balls travel as far as the rocks.

The rule isn’t moot today. If the one-ball rule wasn’t in effect, manufacturers could make balls with different characteristics that good players might choose to use on different holes.


That being said, the PGA hasn’t used the one-ball Rule in the PGA Championship or their other events for at least 5 years. No player has taken advantage of it to my knowledge.


I’d like to see it removed from USGA Amateur events. I’m sure it is accidentally broken at events like the Junior every year. Players don’t realize that Pro-V1s with arrows vs. ones with stars are different balls under the rule. We even had a player at a Women’s Am who wanted to switch between yellow and orange balls during her round which are classified as different.

You're right about pro's still switching balls. They'll rightly exploit any advantage, but distance really isn't the reason to switch today. It would be other factors as you noted.

[V_Halyard]

Interestingly B. Shamblee was ranting and calling out GCA's and Golf Geeks.  Seems we matter... Does beating up on old courses matter?   
In media, absolutely. They are arenas that resonate visually and iconically.
And the fact is, appreciation of golf architecture has penetrated into the consumer lexicon and viewer mainstream, and is not retreating. Do most consumer folks care? Probably not. Does the most coveted demographic sought by advertisers care.  Absolutely.

Golf industry businesses arguing against bifurcation is lunacy. There was no downside.  The Local Rule (Bifurcation) was the perfect solution. A ball for elite use in an elite setting. Top amateur or other highly athletic oriented events had the OPTION of invoking an MLRule for their specific tournament. From a business perspective, Joe public would have bought the “Pro” ball to vociferously claim “I play the pro ball”. From a business perspective, killing it reduces the manufacturer’s potential to generate incremental revenue.

Let’s be clear, the ball companies are chock full of talented physics engineers and scientists. Their math associated with the manufacture of a “Tournament Ball” likely has dust on it. It would take 10 minutes to update the subroutine. An argument that there are significant additional R&D costs is nonsense. In reality, there are probably currently 30-40 different PRO V composites in play across the tours that a consumer will never touch.

And the pros and elite amateurs are truly are different animals, and could score with a Nitro or a Noodle if they had to. So why would a pro would really care, other than their sponsor told them to whine. There is “Pro” equipment in every sports business sector, “Pro” model irons and Blades,”Pro” level skis, professional baseball bats, I assume cricket has “Pro” level gear, “Pro” level soccer/futbol shoes, pro bikes.

On this, golf industry seems bent on shrinking their potential sales portfolio, which I find fascinating in an industry that introduces a new driver when the waxes or wanes. Manufacturers will have one less SKU to pedal which seems counter intuitive to earning per share… They may have botched the takeaway with this one.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Interestingly B. Shamblee was ranting and calling out GCA's and Golf Geeks.  Seems we matter... Does beating up on old courses matter?

No, still a tiny portion of the game's viewing audience. Most people judge a golf course by the conditioning, not the architecture. Also, it's Chamblee.

Does the most coveted demographic sought by advertisers care.  Absolutely.

No, they do not care either. Not in significant numbers.

Golf industry businesses arguing against bifurcation is lunacy. There was no downside.

Hard disagree there.

It would take 10 minutes to update the subroutine.

Wow, no. You're incredibly far off base.

An argument that there are significant additional R&D costs is nonsense.

Tell me you don't know anything about all of this without telling me you don't know anything about this.

[Niall C]

Interestingly B. Shamblee was ranting and calling out GCA's and Golf Geeks.  Seems we matter... Does beating up on old courses matter?   
In media, absolutely. They are arenas that resonate visually and iconically.
And the fact is, appreciation of golf architecture has penetrated into the consumer lexicon and viewer mainstream, and is not retreating. Do most consumer folks care? Probably not. Does the most coveted demographic sought by advertisers care.  Absolutely.

Golf industry businesses arguing against bifurcation is lunacy. There was no downside.  The Local Rule (Bifurcation) was the perfect solution. A ball for elite use in an elite setting. Top amateur or other highly athletic oriented events had the OPTION of invoking an MLRule for their specific tournament. From a business perspective, Joe public would have bought the “Pro” ball to vociferously claim “I play the pro ball”. From a business perspective, killing it reduces the manufacturer’s potential to generate incremental revenue.

Let’s be clear, the ball companies are chock full of talented physics engineers and scientists. Their math associated with the manufacture of a “Tournament Ball” likely has dust on it. It would take 10 minutes to update the subroutine. An argument that there are significant additional R&D costs is nonsense. In reality, there are probably currently 30-40 different PRO V composites in play across the tours that a consumer will never touch.

And the pros and elite amateurs are truly are different animals, and could score with a Nitro or a Noodle if they had to. So why would a pro would really care, other than their sponsor told them to whine. There is “Pro” equipment in every sports business sector, “Pro” model irons and Blades,”Pro” level skis, professional baseball bats, I assume cricket has “Pro” level gear, “Pro” level soccer/futbol shoes, pro bikes.

On this, golf industry seems bent on shrinking their potential sales portfolio, which I find fascinating in an industry that introduces a new driver when the waxes or wanes. Manufacturers will have one less SKU to pedal which seems counter intuitive to earning per share… They may have botched the takeaway with this one.

Let me ask, what's the cost of producing a Pro V versus say a NXT ? Is it so much more ? And does that account for the difference in retail price ? I suspect not. The price of Pro V's is partly set because they are viewed as being the premium ball because that is what tour pros play. Ordinary hackers like me will still buy them even if it is only really good players who will get the full benefit of their characteristics.


How many ordinary club golfers are going to pay the same price as they currently do for a Pro V for a ball that is only used by ordinary golfers ? If I was a golf ball manufacturer I wouldn't be too happy at bifurcation taking away one of my main selling points.


Niall

[V_Halyard]

Interestingly B. Shamblee was ranting and calling out GCA's and Golf Geeks.  Seems we matter... Does beating up on old courses matter?

No, still a tiny portion of the game's viewing audience. Most people judge a golf course by the conditioning, not the architecture. Also, it's Chamblee.

Does the most coveted demographic sought by advertisers care.  Absolutely.

No, they do not care either. Not in significant numbers.

Golf industry businesses arguing against bifurcation is lunacy. There was no downside.

Hard disagree there.

It would take 10 minutes to update the subroutine.

Wow, no. You're incredibly far off base.

An argument that there are significant additional R&D costs is nonsense.

Tell me you don't know anything about all of this without telling me you don't know anything about this.

Sure, I have only worked my day job in media for ESPN/Disney/Fox Sports for decades and have produced a ton of golf and documentaries on golf, ski, science, F1, Blue Angels and aerospace and sports technology for a decade but that's fine.
Tell me you don't know shit about my background without telling me you don't know as much as you think you do about media marketing demographics.
I don't comment on golf instruction because I am a hack.
In media, I suggest you stay in your lane so you don't bang into the guard rail.