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

[PCCraig]

Brandel Chamblee has the solution—build 8,500 yard championship courses!
https://twitter.com/chambleebrandel/status/932806137858154496

Steve Flesch says the solution is to grow up the rough to challenge players.
https://twitter.com/steve_flesch/status/932802421902004224

Actually, maybe these guys are right. Just build 4 super-length “championship” courses with calf-high rough to host the majors and leave the other courses along.

Brandel and Flesch are complete morons. They are obviously very talented golfers which skews their general view of the situation, not to mention they have been paid for years by various ball manufacturers. And now they work for a cable TV station which one of the major advertisers is Titleist. Their views are on the ball are shocking 


This isn't that hard. The USGA, ANGC and R&A get together and make a new rule that all current ball specifications (velocity, etc.) are now reduced by 20%. Dustin Johnson now drives the ball 304 yards off the tee (instead of 380), but someone who hits it 200 off the tee now will hit it 160....like they used to 20 years ago.[size=78%] [/size]

[Tim Gavrich]

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.2017.html


There's a dropdown menu on the page that enables you to look at the Tour driving distance stats for any year going back to 1980.


Which year do you want to roll the ball back to?

[BHoover]

What’s the problem with bifurcation, as opposed to a full rollback across the board, which is precisely what baseball uses when it comes to the equipment used by MLB and the minor leagues versus amateur leagues? It seems to work well for baseball, so why not golf?

[Brian Finn]

What’s the problem with bifurcation, as opposed to a full rollback across the board, which is precisely what baseball uses when it comes to the equipment used by MLB and the minor leagues versus amateur leagues? It seems to work well for baseball, so why not golf?

Bifurcation clearly makes the most sense.

[Tim Gavrich]

What’s the problem with bifurcation, as opposed to a full rollback across the board, which is precisely what baseball uses when it comes to the equipment used by MLB and the minor leagues versus amateur leagues? It seems to work well for baseball, so why not golf?

Bifurcation clearly makes the most sense.

I've always thought a big part of the charm of golf is that once in a while, we mere mortals are able to hit a shot as well or better than the pros. Bifurcation would destroy that essential thrill, IMO.

[BHoover]

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.2017.html


There's a dropdown menu on the page that enables you to look at the Tour driving distance stats for any year going back to 1980.


Which year do you want to roll the ball back to?

1986 was a great year.

[BHoover]

What’s the problem with bifurcation, as opposed to a full rollback across the board, which is precisely what baseball uses when it comes to the equipment used by MLB and the minor leagues versus amateur leagues? It seems to work well for baseball, so why not golf?

Bifurcation clearly makes the most sense.

I've always thought a big part of the charm of golf is that once in a while, we mere mortals are able to hit a shot as well or better than the pros. Bifurcation would destroy that essential thrill, IMO.

Well, you could buy a rollback golf ball and see how you compare with the pros, if you really need that “essential thrill”. It’s the same as the folks who play hickories—they can see how they compare to Harry Vardon.

[Neil Davis]

I've always been against bifurcation, but am coming around on it.  But instead of a rollback of the ball, I like the idea of a professional driver--300cc or smaller. 

[Pete Lavallee]

Neil,

Have you seen how far Henrick Stenson hits his 300 cc 3 wood?

[Garland Bayley]

Things changed when the spin was taken out of the ball when struck by low lofted club. This was done by engineering the ball to respond unnaturally to club head strikes. Patents were filed and granted 17 years ago or so to protect this disruptive technology. Now is the time to put the spin back in the ball as the patents expire. If you are a player that can't handle a ball spinning excessively off of a driver, there are two piece balls that spin less off all club lofts that you can use.

[Neil Davis]

Neil,

Have you seen how far Henrick Stenson hits his 300 cc 3 wood?

I have, and it's impressive.  But I think if that was the farthest anyone could hit a golf ball with any club there'd be fewer people clamoring to roll it back. 

[Jack Carney]

What’s the problem with bifurcation, as opposed to a full rollback across the board, which is precisely what baseball uses when it comes to the equipment used by MLB and the minor leagues versus amateur leagues? It seems to work well for baseball, so why not golf?

Bifurcation clearly makes the most sense.

I've always thought a big part of the charm of golf is that once in a while, we mere mortals are able to hit a shot as well or better than the pros. Bifurcation would destroy that essential thrill, IMO.

There is the issue and I agree. However with the though of making more and more great courses obsolete without room to lengthen etc etc I think its about time. Too much money in the ball business and too much money to renovate classic courses. I think its more fun to hit the shots all the greats than keep one ball. I do like my current techno advantage however!

[MClutterbuck]

I am totally convinced the ball needs to be rolled back, and while I am not opposed to bifurcation as a matter of principal, I do think it needs to be rolled back for all players.


50 year olds are hitting it further than in their mid 20s at all levels. We have 12-16 handicappers hitting a driver 300 yards today. Of course those 300 yards are sometimes at 45% angle or worse of intended flight path. Players are hitting houses or roads deemed safe 15 years ago. Lawsuits are mounting.

[Garland Bayley]

I am totally convinced the ball needs to be rolled back, and while I am not opposed to bifurcation as a matter of principal, I do think it needs to be rolled back for all players.


50 year olds are hitting it further than in their mid 20s at all levels. We have 12-16 handicappers hitting a driver 300 yards today. Of course those 300 yards are sometimes at 45% angle or worse of intended flight path. Players are hitting houses or roads deemed safe 15 years ago. Lawsuits are mounting.

I certain did not hit it further in my 50s than in my mid 20s. You have had 12-16 handicappers and higher hitting a driver 300 yards well before the new ball introduction. I.e., Topflites. Houses and roads have not ever been safe. If they are less safe now it is because more are closer to the course than in the days before residential real estate courses.

[jeffwarne]

What’s the problem with bifurcation, as opposed to a full rollback across the board, which is precisely what baseball uses when it comes to the equipment used by MLB and the minor leagues versus amateur leagues? It seems to work well for baseball, so why not golf?

Bifurcation clearly makes the most sense.

I've always thought a big part of the charm of golf is that once in a while, we mere mortals are able to hit a shot as well or better than the pros. Bifurcation would destroy that essential thrill, IMO.

So when an amateur hits his wedge to a foot (the one that's grandfathered in due to bifurcation) is that not a thrill?
Bifurcations's been here-at least since the 2010 groove rule


Those (all both of them) who need the thrill of "hitting the same shot as the pros" can still choose to use pro equipment.


I heard a 10 handicapper on Sirius XM today talk about his average 7 iron going 190 yards in the air.
Distance/bifurcaton was not the topic, it was just a matter of fact comment like "How much do you weigh"?
The scariest part of the conversation is nobody laughed, gasped, called bull ship, or even commented on that (once upon a time) ludicrous claim.-I know todays's 7 iron is a 5 iron-it just struck me funny.

[Tim Gavrich]

What’s the problem with bifurcation, as opposed to a full rollback across the board, which is precisely what baseball uses when it comes to the equipment used by MLB and the minor leagues versus amateur leagues? It seems to work well for baseball, so why not golf?

Bifurcation clearly makes the most sense.

I've always thought a big part of the charm of golf is that once in a while, we mere mortals are able to hit a shot as well or better than the pros. Bifurcation would destroy that essential thrill, IMO.

There is the issue and I agree. However with the though of making more and more great courses obsolete without room to lengthen etc etc I think its about time.

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


If I had to guess (and please correct me if need be), I'd say this obsolescence primarily relates to the scores the PGA Tour, European Tour and maybe the Web.com Tour shoot on these courses. So we're really talking about making a massive and disruptive change to the game because of roughly 500-600 out of millions of golfers.


Would it not be more in the game's interests to simply concede that these golfers are really, really good and let them shoot whatever scores they're going to shoot, and instead focus on having them play golf courses that look interesting and produce leaderboards that include different styles of player?


The lowest winning scores to par this year have been shot by Pat Perez (-24 in Malaysia) and Austin Cook (-21 at Sea Island). Aside from the fact that these guys are relatively short hitters...


What is so wrong with these being winning scores of Tour events played at courses where conditions were mostly ideal for scoring, such that it's worth fundamentally manipulating the game for millions in order to really manipulate 500-600?

[Pete Lavallee]

Tim,

Every Club has one or two players who hit the ball the same distance as Tour Pros. At my modest muni Coronado GC our Club Champion reached the 520 yard 2cnd hole, a par 5, driver 9 iron. His opponent in the finals needed a hybrid and he is considered way longer than average. 

[Garland Bayley]

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

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

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

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

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm opposed to bifurcation, and don't really care what 0.001% of the world's golfers do. And, it's not like they're shooting 65s every week. The leading - leading - scoring average in 2017 was a whopping… 68.85. 17 years before that… it was 67.8.

Golf can't be compared to other sports. Golf essentially has one set of rules. MLB, the NFL, etc. govern only their leagues.

And stop blaming only the USGA. The R&A have an equal role in this. Blame 'em both equally if you want to blame 'em at all.

Fact of the matter is that you could give Dustin Johnson a 1997 Pinnacle and he'd still hit the ball as far as he does now. Today's players swing longer, lighter, larger drivers. They understand launch conditions. They know the benefits of distance. They swing faster and are more athletic.

And they're the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very small minority.

99.9%+ of golfers are challenged playing just about any golf course out there. And The U.S. Open was thrilling at Pinehurst #2 in 2014, and that course was pretty old. Oakmont stands up to the test. Pebble Beach. Bethpage. These aren't 20-year-old courses.

I just don't see the point. There's so much to lose in bifurcating.

P.S. Don't tell me wedge grooves are bifurcated. Ams haven't been able to buy a non-conforming wedge for like seven years now, and virtually all wedges used by any serious players are using the same conforming grooves as PGA Tour players have to use. If you're using a pre-2010 wedge… the grooves aren't giving you an advantage anyway because they're really old. 

[Garland Bayley]

,,,
Fact of the matter is that you could give Dustin Johnson a 1997 Pinnacle and he'd still hit the ball as far as he does now. ...

That's because the ProV1, et. al., were engineered to behave like a 1997 Pinnacle. Duh!

[MCirba]

I will be turning 60 next year and when I'm swinging well I drive the ball considerably further than I did in my teens and twenties and even thirties and I was pretty good back then. 


When I return to the courses I grew up on I am 20 or 30 yards beyond anywhere I was able to drive it in my younger days.


Those courses may not be obsolete but they play now much differently for me than they did then with less variety overall. 


Young guys who can bomb it can knock it 40 or so yards past me.


How do those courses of my youth play for them?

[Garland Bayley]

Mike,

I assume you fancied yourself a good player that needed to play the wound balata ball. Therefore, I can understand you getting longer with the new ball.

Now those of us that didn't fancy ourselves to be good players played the Topflite or Pinnacle and have been losing distance as we age and continue to use 2 piece balls.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Neil,

Have you seen how far Henrick Stenson hits his 300 cc 3 wood?

I have, and it's impressive.  But I think if that was the farthest anyone could hit a golf ball with any club there'd be fewer people clamoring to roll it back.

It's not just the pros.  I hit my 13.5 (adjusted to 12.75) 3W so well that my driver stays in my trunk when I play.  Basically, I hit it the same distance as my driver.  Less carry but more roll.  The only major disadvantage is on uphill holes or super wet conditions.  But I think the increased accuracy of the shorter club probably saves me a stroke per 18 regardless.  Plus I like the look of a small clubhead instead of a big frying pan, and I feel like my 3W swing is closer to an iron swing, instead of a conjured setup high tee flail.  My index is 4.0.  Stenson, I ain't.

[Sean_A]

What’s the problem with bifurcation, as opposed to a full rollback across the board, which is precisely what baseball uses when it comes to the equipment used by MLB and the minor leagues versus amateur leagues? It seems to work well for baseball, so why not golf?

Bifurcation clearly makes the most sense.

I've always thought a big part of the charm of golf is that once in a while, we mere mortals are able to hit a shot as well or better than the pros. Bifurcation would destroy that essential thrill, IMO.

There is the issue and I agree. However with the though of making more and more great courses obsolete without room to lengthen etc etc I think its about time.

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


If I had to guess (and please correct me if need be), I'd say this obsolescence primarily relates to the scores the PGA Tour, European Tour and maybe the Web.com Tour shoot on these courses. So we're really talking about making a massive and disruptive change to the game because of roughly 500-600 out of millions of golfers.


Would it not be more in the game's interests to simply concede that these golfers are really, really good and let them shoot whatever scores they're going to shoot, and instead focus on having them play golf courses that look interesting and produce leaderboards that include different styles of player?


The lowest winning scores to par this year have been shot by Pat Perez (-24 in Malaysia) and Austin Cook (-21 at Sea Island). Aside from the fact that these guys are relatively short hitters...


What is so wrong with these being winning scores of Tour events played at courses where conditions were mostly ideal for scoring, such that it's worth fundamentally manipulating the game for millions in order to really manipulate 500-600?

Tim

To me this subject is a bit whacky because practically the entire premise of the alter the equipment argument is that the powers that be on the club/ownership level cannot control themselves regarding the lengthening of their courses because of what touring pros/top ams do.  However, I begrudgingly accept that bifurcation makes sense on the off-chance that club/owners will no longer alter their courses.  Do I actually believe this will happen...not a chance in hell.  People make changes because they can...its human nature.  Mostly, folks use tour player capability and health & safety as the main excuses for doing what they want to do regardless of the truth.  But by all means, we can give bifurcation a go and see if the experiment works...its worth a try if there is a chance it will stop idiots from putting shovels into courses.

I am dead set against an across the board roll back because

1. I don't believe that shorter hitters (the majority of golfers) won't be effected.

2. I don't believe all the back tees will be abandoned so courses will simply play longer when for a signficant percentage of golfers courses are already too long.

3. I don't like the idea of making radical changes to the rules based on a small percentage of golfers.  It isn't the rule makers' job to protect golf courses...that is the job of owners and clubs. 

Ciao

[Matthew Mollica]

While I disagree with much of what you say Sean, that is one of the more coherent arguments against a roll-back I have ever read.