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

[jeffwarne]

Apologies for the multi-quoted post. Sneaking in a little time before the festivities today.

By NOT bifurcating,  I'm afraid of losing classic courses for competition (Merion, Pebble etc.-replaced by unwalkable abominations 8-10 miles long) and others as they no longer host majors and slip into irelevancy in the eyes of paying members(Inwood, Siwanoy, Engineers etc.) and replaced by modern monstrocities.

They still host majors at Pebble. They just had one at Merion. And the Old Course, and Oakmont, and Pinehurst, and Oak Hill, and… Bethpage, and… it's a long list. I don't care that, for example, Whistling Straits hosted some majors. I'm glad it has. Not all majors need to be contested on 80+ year old courses. I think it's nice to get some new courses in there, and if some older ones fall off… so be it. In 50 years Whistling Straits may be a "classic" course.

I also miss the days when an elite professional could hit the ball farther, but play the same tees as a club champ yet showcase his skills, rather than the two being on tees 50-60 yards apart on every hole.

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. That's a 1000-yard difference.

ummmm grooves are bifurcated-you can argue all you want whether it matters or not- but pre 2010  grooves are grandfathered for most play until 2024 -yet a different  set of rules are used for most elite competitions as a condition of competition (bifurcation)

My point is that nobody's still playing those wedges. Nobody stockpiled them. Competitions among high-level amateurs have the rule in place as a Condition of Competition. The rule was effectively bifurcated for about two years after 2010. Long enough for everyone to replace their wedges with newly conforming ones.

Erik,
all logical rebuttals to my concerns about not bifurcating.
 (though I think we can agree that it wouldn't be crazy for a 48 year old club champ to play from 6700-6800 yards at Erin Hills (or  Shinny) while a Touring pro plays at 7450(SH) or 7600+ at EH-that's 800-900 yards. of course it wouldn't be 60 yards  on shorter or par 3 holes.


My question to you was what you meant by this comment.
"we have so much to lose by bifurcating"
What is it you are concerned with losing?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If declining tv viewers is an indication of how people view the game, maybe your premise is incorrect.  We won't know for sure because a large segment of golf fans have already stopped watching tv golf.  I have no proof, but my theory is that basically folks of roughly my age stopped watching and nobody filled the gap.  It is more than simply the one dimensional style of golf....it is that this single minded approach to golf severely limits the possible candidates of characters.  The swings look similar.  The clothes look similar.  The courses look similar.  These are trends that started back in the 70s and have progressed more down the one line pipe ever since.  Sport has to have something to sell and without characters it is far harder.  But with similar approaches and backgrounds, it is more difficult for characters to emerge.  These days we have faux characters that are plugged in.  Come on, Ricky Fowler etc? Even the dead boring Jack Nicklaus was more interesting...at least he won tons of tournies.  I am telling ya, tv golf is in serious trouble and needs a huge shake up.

I agree - the lack of character on the PGA Tour these days is appalling. I hate the robots that they've all become. That's why I actually root for the Patrick Reeds of the world, as few and far between as they've become.

It's odd too because if you're a character, you're marketable. But maybe it's a fine line that even characters like Bubba have a hard time walking (Paris, his car which I don't think he should have painted over in the name of political correctness), etc. Boo Weekley, Patrick Reed… fine line to walk. Rickie has done it, but all he really does is wear orange clothes. That's hardly a "character." But in today's game, sadly, that's all it takes to stand out.

Sorry. Really nothing about the ball per se there. I'll stop now.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,


We have a member of our club who has played in a couple of Masters, was once top 30 on the money list and now has his amateur status back. I enjoy an occasional round with him despite he being 10 shots a round better than me. He beat me by a stroke in our member/member one year no thanks to him. I choked like a dog. Can't you see how I will lose this pleasure if a two ball system is introduced? Isn't the pride of losing a fair match one of the joys of the game?

Agreed 100%
Anyr reason you both can't play the same ball in your "fair match" which clearly isn't fair but that's your choice.

[Tom_Doak]

The few I have talked to regarding this seem to think the biggest issue for the USGA is their precious handicap system and how an accutate handicap system could be administered with a couple of different balls...two different balls might even require different slopes...

Otherwise, I don't see the problem, as long as a player isn't switching back and forth between golf balls.  If you establish a 5 handicap with the current ball, it means you'll shoot an average of 77 and need five strokes from a scratch player.  If you establish a 5 handicap with the new ball ... same thing.

I'm not sure I follow the logic that a new slope system will be required, either.  A 15-handicap and a scratch golfer don't compress the ball anywhere near the same, but it's okay to use the slope system to handicap both of them.  I think the only thing that would really be endangered is the definition of a "scratch" golfer, and you know all of the scratch golfers are going to defend that to the death.

[John Kavanaugh]

If I am able to tie or beat a world class amateur on 2/3's of the holes we play why would I want to humiliate myself by forcing him to use inferior equipment. As anyone who has ever played with great players know anyways, it still comes down to the putting.


Truth be known, all this fuss about length comes from superior ball strikers who have lost their putting stroke.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I suspect you’re right, especially when it comes to *American* sports coverage, which for better or worse has always relied/focused on the drama the announcers tried to create, eg the untold stories, the personal narratives, the mythic themes. In golf, not only the game but the *coverage* would be more compelling if the equipment better allowed for a David and Goliath story (Woods vs Pavin) or The Impossible Dream (a club pro in the last group at the PGA Championship) or another Miracle at the Masters (with Bernhard Langer winning). Was there a more dramatic final round in the last few years than Tom Watson at the Open, Turning Back The Clock?

[jeffwarne]

The few I have talked to regarding this seem to think the biggest issue for the USGA is their precious handicap system and how an accutate handicap system could be administered with a couple of different balls...two different balls might even require different slopes...

Otherwise, I don't see the problem, as long as a player isn't switching back and forth between golf balls.  If you establish a 5 handicap with the current ball, it means you'll shoot an average of 77 and need five strokes from a scratch player.  If you establish a 5 handicap with the new ball ... same thing.

I'm not sure I follow the logic that a new slope system will be required, either.  A 15-handicap and a scratch golfer don't compress the ball anywhere near the same, but it's okay to use the slope system to handicap both of them.  I think the only thing that would really be endangered is the definition of a "scratch" golfer, and you know all of the scratch golfers are going to defend that to the death.

Your handicap index is your index-no matter what ball you play-as long as you play the same ball.
If you switch-well that becomes a negotiation-which already happens.


The idea that you need to rerate and reslope 7 sets of tees(a senior woman is going to use the tourbnament ball?) is ludicrous (but then so is the handicap system)
The handicap system should be tweaked by gamblers and net tournament players who understand the quirks and ways to game the system-not statiticians in a vacuum.

[jeffwarne]

If I am able to tie or beat a world class amateur on 2/3's of the holes we play why would I want to humiliate myself by forcing him to use inferior equipment. As anyone who has ever played with great players know anyways, it still comes down to the putting.

John, If you choose to be the mark in your singles matches with an expro, that's your choice.


But I'm not taking you as a partner against him in a money match without you (and/or me) getting either shots, tees, or different equipment-or a weak partner for him.
Many ways to make a "fair" match

[Jim Hoak]

I think that most of the comments on here about bifurcation and the USGA are missing the key point.  It's the PGA Tour--not the USGA--that needs to be convinced as to why they should accept decreased distances.  With the exception of the US Open--and other USGA events--the USGA has no control really over what tour players do.  Why does anyone assume that the PGA Tour would agree to reducing the long ball?  I think they have been pretty clear that this is an issue on which they would break with the USGA--and go their own way.  So where does that leave us?

[jeffwarne]

I think that most of the comments on here about bifurcation and the USGA are missing the key point.  It's the PGA Tour--not the USGA--that needs to be convinced as to why they should accept decreased distances.  With the exception of the US Open--and other USGA events--the USGA has no control really over what tour players do.  Why does anyone assume that the PGA Tour would agree to reducing the long ball?  I think they have been pretty clear that this is an issue on which they would break with the USGA--and go their own way.  So where does that leave us?

Spot on-to a degree.
The PGA Tour or the USGA , or any other organization could adopt a "condition of competition" mandating a certain ball specs-the same ast hey do with other forms of already in place bifurcation. (grooves, one ball rules, etc.)

[Mike_Young]

Tom and Jeff,

What you mention is the problem with the handicapping.  A guy could play rounds with each ball, especially if it comes out that one is a tournament ball. If a guy who plays many tournaments plays the tournament ball all of the time and then another plays the regular ball and is in a handicapped match play club event using a tournament ball there can be a problem...

[John Kavanaugh]

One key to happiness as a club player is the belief that everyone who wins an event is not a cheater. The two ball world makes the difficult almost impossible.

[Tom_Doak]

I think that most of the comments on here about bifurcation and the USGA are missing the key point.  It's the PGA Tour--not the USGA--that needs to be convinced as to why they should accept decreased distances.  With the exception of the US Open--and other USGA events--the USGA has no control really over what tour players do.  Why does anyone assume that the PGA Tour would agree to reducing the long ball?  I think they have been pretty clear that this is an issue on which they would break with the USGA--and go their own way.  So where does that leave us?

It leaves us nowhere, and that's why it's easy for Mike Davis to say he favors a change.  He's talking about making it all voluntary, but he knows that the Tour, which is the most important group in terms of reducing distance, is not about to volunteer to switch to a shorter ball, unless the new Commissioner feels vastly different about it than his predecessor.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

I agree - the lack of character on the PGA Tour these days is appalling. I hate the robots that they've all become. That's why I actually root for the Patrick Reeds of the world, as few and far between as they've become.

It's odd too because if you're a character, you're marketable. But maybe it's a fine line that even characters like Bubba have a hard time walking (Paris, his car which I don't think he should have painted over in the name of political correctness), etc. Boo Weekley, Patrick Reed… fine line to walk. Rickie has done it, but all he really does is wear orange clothes. That's hardly a "character." But in today's game, sadly, that's all it takes to stand out.

Erik-
Do you spend any time around the Tour?

The lack or character rests off the course--not on the course. And mainly the off the course "lack of character' is simply a generational thing happening in every sport.... Not on the course. As they say in the NHL--GATORADE AND ROOM SERVICE..


Let the companies continue bashing their heads against the wall, and BIFURCATE!!!! IT WORKS FOR EVERY OTHER GREAT SPORT!

[John Kavanaugh]

But this remains the only sport where I can compete at full speed against a professional. I recently took a tennis lesson from a Ex touring pro not far removed. I asked him to hit me a few full serves.  Wow!!! I could have lost an eye. Let's not even talk football or basketball at full speed. Let golf be golf!!!

[jeffwarne]

But this remains the only sport where I can compete at full speed against a professional. I recently took a tennis lesson from a Ex touring pro not far removed. I asked him to hit me a few full serves.  Wow!!! I could have lost an eye. Let's not even talk football or basketball at full speed. Let golf be golf!!!

So you're advocating an across the board rollback!
perfect-let's let golf be golf.

[Jerry Kluger]

The PGA by and large does not have any skin in the game in so far as venues go so if the ball goes farther and it takes much of the strategy out of the game at the pro level it is not their problem.  If they owned the courses, like baseball stadiums, etc., they would care if the courses couldn't keep up with the equipment improvements.


I think the USGA looks at the US Open and the venues they will use and they have a very hard time maintaining the character and features of the great old venues.  Do you really think that Mike Davis wants it to be that he has to set up a great course like Merion in such a way that it makes it so unattractive to try and drive a short par 4 which was meant to be drivable?  Or that they have to make the par 4s over 500 yards long to challenge the best players?  I think that is why he has tried some new venues like Chambers Bay and Erin Hills.  I don't know that the experiment of using newer golf courses was successful but that is an argument for another thread.


I could not see how today's top players could argue that somehow a dialed back ball would be bad for their game?  Wouldn't the best players still win if they were all using balls with the same limitations? Would fans really mind if players had to use a fairway wood to hit a par 5 in two?

[John Kavanaugh]

I doubt few people would enjoy watching the male game if the players were limited to the ball striking abilities of the LPGA through equipment. You would also soon see a different set of players. A more intellectual crowd as opposed to the sexy beasts of today.

[jeffwarne]

I doubt few people would enjoy watching the male game if the players were limited to the ball striking abilities of the LPGA through equipment. You would also soon see a different set of players. A more intellectual crowd as opposed to the sexy beasts of today.

I'd say the stronger , more athletic great drivers would benefit as they could actually demonstrate their driving prowess rather than hit hybrids and driving irons.
Kind've like Watson remaining relevant on links courses into his 60's by driving it when others are forced to lay up.
Parity reigns when all are forced to the same spot.
Nicklaus could dominate because he COULD hit straight and far. Others did one or the other.


Relax enjoy the ride-it's coming.
It's about time the conversation's been had by people besides us super geeks.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm not sure I follow the logic that a new slope system will be required, either.  A 15-handicap and a scratch golfer don't compress the ball anywhere near the same, but it's okay to use the slope system to handicap both of them.  I think the only thing that would really be endangered is the definition of a "scratch" golfer, and you know all of the scratch golfers are going to defend that to the death.

A new rating and slope would be needed as the definitions for Scratch and Bogey golfers would change with the different ball. A 470-yard hole now with the new ball would put the player 40 yards out with their second shot. Different areas and features of the golf course would be within range (i.e. a fairway bunker 30 yards back of the landing area for a scratch golfer would be within the 20-yard window with a reduced distance ball).

People aren't going to establish handicaps and stick with just one ball all the time, so their handicap would likely have to be able to take into account rounds played with either golf ball, from a variety of tees.

Slope is basically the slope of the line between the scratch and bogey course ratings, so that would change as well.

The idea that you need to rerate and reslope 7 sets of tees(a senior woman is going to use the tourbnament ball?) is ludicrous (but then so is the handicap system)

I don't know why you'd say that. And the handicap system does a pretty damn good job, IMO, given the complexity of both the courses and the people who play them.

And a "senior woman" may not want to play a tournament ball, but "women" might, and so tees are rated for women.

Erik-
Do you spend any time around the Tour?

Yes.

The lack or character rests off the course--not on the course. And mainly the off the course "lack of character' is simply a generational thing happening in every sport.... Not on the course. As they say in the NHL--GATORADE AND ROOM SERVICE.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm talking about people displaying emotion on the golf course, not being robots. I'm not talking about integrity, or whatever you seem to be talking about. I'm talking about entertaining behavior - Tiger reacting with fist pumps when he hits good shots, and mini temper tantrums when he doesn't.

[Tom_Doak]

A new rating and slope would be needed as the definitions for Scratch and Bogey golfers would change with the different ball. A 470-yard hole now with the new ball would put the player 40 yards out with their second shot. Different areas and features of the golf course would be within range (i.e. a fairway bunker 30 yards back of the landing area for a scratch golfer would be within the 20-yard window with a reduced distance ball).

Sorry, Erik, you are making it harder than it needs to be.


The Slope System was introduced in 1984 or '85, with equipment from that day and age ... no 460cc drivers and solid balls, no wedges to the 470-yard holes.  And they didn't bother to go back and change it all around as the equipment has changed.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sorry, Erik, you are making it harder than it needs to be.

The Slope System was introduced in 1984 or '85, with equipment from that day and age ... no 460cc drivers and solid balls, no wedges to the 470-yard holes.  And they didn't bother to go back and change it all around as the equipment has changed.

I'm not sure what's being made "harder" than it has to be. A course rating for the scratch golfer is calculated. A course rating for the bogey golfer is calculated. (Those calculations have undergone numerous changes over the last 30+ years, including changes to the corridor width, how we rate trees, how the depth of bunkers is determined and weighed, etc.). The slope of the line connecting the two course ratings determines the "slope" rating.

So any change to the definitions - like a scratch golfer hitting the ball 250 yards with his first shot and up to 220 with his second, and similar (but shorter) distances for the bogey golfer, will mean a change to BOTH ratings (and thus the slope) if a shorter ball is made available.

After all, the slope affects every round differential and thus every handicap index except for those very close to the course rating.

I think the course rating and handicap system do a remarkable job given the complexity of golf courses and golfers, and they do so pretty simply with just two numbers: scratch (course) rating and slope.

Happy Thanksgiving, all.


Edit: The World Handicap System coming soon is based on course ratings/slope from the USGA, with the possible addition of a daily modifier with enough qualified scores (similar to the daily scratch score used in the UK, etc.).

[jeffwarne]

I'm not sure I follow the logic that a new slope system will be required, either.  A 15-handicap and a scratch golfer don't compress the ball anywhere near the same, but it's okay to use the slope system to handicap both of them.  I think the only thing that would really be endangered is the definition of a "scratch" golfer, and you know all of the scratch golfers are going to defend that to the death.

A new rating and slope would be needed as the definitions for Scratch and Bogey golfers would change with the different ball. A 470-yard hole now with the new ball would put the player 40 yards out with their second shot. Different areas and features of the golf course would be within range (i.e. a fairway bunker 30 yards back of the landing area for a scratch golfer would be within the 20-yard window with a reduced distance ball).

People aren't going to establish handicaps and stick with just one ball all the time, so their handicap would likely have to be able to take into account rounds played with either golf ball, from a variety of tees.

Slope is basically the slope of the line between the scratch and bogey course ratings, so that would change as well.

The idea that you need to rerate and reslope 7 sets of tees(a senior woman is going to use the tourbnament ball?) is ludicrous (but then so is the handicap system)

I don't know why you'd say that. And the handicap system does a pretty damn good job, IMO, given the complexity of both the courses and the people who play them.

And a "senior woman" may not want to play a tournament ball, but "women" might, and so tees are rated for women.

Erik-
Do you spend any time around the Tour?

Yes.

The lack or character rests off the course--not on the course. And mainly the off the course "lack of character' is simply a generational thing happening in every sport.... Not on the course. As they say in the NHL--GATORADE AND ROOM SERVICE.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm talking about people displaying emotion on the golf course, not being robots. I'm not talking about integrity, or whatever you seem to be talking about. I'm talking about entertaining behavior - Tiger reacting with fist pumps when he hits good shots, and mini temper tantrums when he doesn't.

You really though Tiger's boorish behavior brought something positive to the game?(not his record but his uncontrollable outbursts)
That's not being a "character"-that's being a prima donna asshole.


Jimmy Demaret was a character, Sam Snead was a character, Moe Norman a character,  Ray Floyd a legendary partier-alog with many others, Chi Ch Rodriguez, Ben Crensahaw had fire-but he never had Tigerlike moments on camera.(and he was a smoker who hid it during his rounds)


I'll even argue there are characters out there now-just don't tell me Tiger's behavior was a plus. His game was.-he wasn't


So you're seriously going to rerate  tees for a woman who wants to play a tournament ball?
I think you're missing the point-remember the 99.99% argument the nonbifurcators trot out?
She's in that group.

But as Tom already pointed out, o need to rerate any tees-your handicap is your handicap as long as you don't switch balls.
If you do, switch tees or negotiate.

[Garland Bayley]

I can't really believe this discussion about the ball affecting TV watching. Until the tracker, you couldn't tell much about what was going on except for the short game. Golf tournaments are watched for the unfolding drama. A very small minority might watch for the shots, but it is the drama that holds the most interest.

Who cares what ball is used?
IMO, almost no one.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You really though Tiger's boorish behavior brought something positive to the game?(not his record but his uncontrollable outbursts)
That's not being a "character"-that's being a prima donna asshole.

Uhhh, okay. I think the level of interest Tiger earned bears this out. I dislike robots on the golf course. I don't mind someone showing their frustrations by burying a clubhead in the ground now and then, just as I liked seeing the running fist pumps when he'd hole some shot, or the club twirls when he flushed a 5-iron.

It was interesting. It showed personality. That's sorely lacking among a lot of PGA Tour players. There's a reason Rory's and Reed's Ryder Cup match stands out. They weren't even playing better than Sergio and Phil IIRC, but people remember the Rory/Reed match more so than the Phil/Sergio match.

Jimmy Demaret was a character, Sam Snead was a character, Moe Norman a character,  Ray Floyd a legendary partier-alog with many others, Chi Ch Rodriguez, Ben Crensahaw had fire-but he never had Tigerlike moments on camera.(and he was a smoker who hid it during his rounds)

Moe almost never played the PGA Tour. Chi Chi didn't win very much. Ray Floyd earned a reputation for what he did off the golf course, as on it he was mostly known for staring at people. Yawn.

I'll even argue there are characters out there now-just don't tell me Tiger's behavior was a plus. His game was.-he wasn't

Sorry, I'm gonna disagree with you there. I think his behavior (on the golf course) as a whole was a plus. I think a lot of people liked displays of emotion on the golf course.

So you're seriously going to rerate  tees for a woman who wants to play a tournament ball?
I think you're missing the point-remember the 99.99% argument the nonbifurcators trot out?
She's in that group.

Yep. She's in the 99.999%, but if there are two balls, people are going to play different balls. That includes women, some of whom are pretty damn good.

But as Tom already pointed out, o need to rerate any tees-your handicap is your handicap as long as you don't switch balls.
If you do, switch tees or negotiate.

"If you do, switch tees or negotiate"? C'mon… That's not an answer.