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

[Peter Pallotta]

Matthew -
not to minimize the nuance & details in various posts from all involved, but I think your last lines point to the essential difference in opinion/approach in this debate:

One side is saying: "The greatest minds in the game past and present have been expressing this same concern for decades - it's time we finally do something about it...especially at the pro level because of its real and multi-faceted influence on the rest of us"

The other side is saying: "The greatest minds in the game past and present have been expressing this same concern for decades - and yet golf continues to flourish and is now better than ever...especially for the average player who comprises 99.99% of all golfers" 

Perhaps a difference in approach that simply can't be broached, or at least (judging from 16 pages of post) resolved on the basis of reason alone

Peter     

Jim: perhaps I did, I'm not sure - but with the class of vintage courses in the Philly area that might not be a good example either; and I did go and check the yardages at some of JN's recent resort courses in Cabo and of TW's Bluejacket course, as I thought these two 'types' of courses would be good barometers for what the public has come to expect (or at least what developers think they've come to expect): both of them over 7500 yards. That's a heck of a long golf course...   

[JESII]

Peter, I was referring to Pete Lavallee with his question about playing a 7,500 yard course from 6,200. My answer they're no fun because there are none.


"None" is obviously a stretch. None that have stood the test of time as a going business concern? Perhaps...

[jeffwarne]

I'd go further than the last 20 years Peter. Consider the last 100.
The notion that distance gains have hit a ceiling because some dubious statistic hints at that through the last decade is simply naive at best.
One could have said distance gains had been maximised ten years after the introduction of the Haskell, only to see the entire game change later. Erik and Tim's position could have been adopted some time between 1970 & 1990 - again erroneously.
The distance many many players hit the golf ball in this  day and age is simply too great. This has been a concern for a long time, and distance advancements have continued at a marked rate when we take a long range view.
Geoff Ogilvy suggested a fortnight back that golf has outgrown its stadiums. He is right. And this phenomenon does not just affect the pro game. Some of the greatest minds in the game expressed the same concern well before WWII. Behr, MacKenzie, Darwin, Jones, Thomas, Longhurst. The list goes on. Yet some here would have you believe they know better. I find it astonishing.

+1
a simple look at a graph of course length (both championship and new/renovated)
would demonstrate a constant push longer (regardless of your opinion that we shouldn't be pandering to the .001%-we already are)


and then there's this...
https://mygolfspy.com/blue-oceans-balls-the-story-of-oncore-golf/


and Tim, the notion that human athletes have neared their limits is an equally curious position
Let's suppose that football becomes verbotem due to concussions (a real possibility) and Tiger's comeback is crazy good-inspiring many.
Suddenly we have elite and large(would be) linebackers, defensive ends, running backs, quarterbacks from all over the country starting golf at age 6.


Puny Ricky and Rory flying it 330 will seem like child's play for the elite that emerge based purely on current equipment from an early age and a better, bigger and larger pool of athletes choosing golf.


and finally, the notion that "my side" would be "creating a major disturbance in the game"

Haven't we already had that with more expensive equipment, bastardized courses. new 7500-8000 yard courses, constant new building and renovations-all while participation has been falling rapidly for 15 years?


Moving up a tee or two and stopping the land grabs to expand/build more doesn't seem like a "major disturbance". We already had that.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

A lot of replies, many asking me questions or responding to me, so I apologize again for how I tend to "multi-quote." It's just how I have always used forums, and I think it beats posting more frequently to respond to things individually. I've tried to limit it to some main points.

Do you have any stats around the clubs chosen from the tee that represent driving stats?

The PGA Tour chooses holes on which the vast majority of players hit driver. And PGA Tour players hit more drivers than ever these days, so it's not too difficult. But they pick long par fives or par fours where players are almost certainly hitting drivers.

But it seems to me that guys are hitting it much longer than they did 10 years ago.

Unfortunately, how something "seems" to you is not a fact nor a convincing argument.

I think the reason the average drive hasn't gone up much is because guys are hitting less club off the tee and bringing their average down. There is another stat that may prove this to be correct; % of drives over 300 yards.

Not on the measured holes. Do the longer players occasionally hit 3W on these holes? Sometimes (still rarely). But the median player basically doesn't. They're hitting driver more often. They understand now more than ever the added value of being a few yards closer to the green than they can get with their 3W.

For average driving distance, Erik brought up median so lets look at 63rd place. In 2017, 63rd place hit his drive over 300 yards 46% of the time. This compares to only 36% of the time in 2007.

Median is 95th as there were 190 qualifying players. Jason Dufner is 95th with 35.14%.

I could make the case that these stats, combined with driving distance, speak to the idea that players are hitting more drivers than ever, and hit 3W more frequently in 2007 than they do now. That also backs up the experience I have in working with some of the guys on Tour, or talking with the instructors of other guys. They understand more now than ever the value of getting closer to the hole.

The reality is more complicated than that. In 2007, we were in the middle of the prime Tiger Era, when he was so feared that PGA Tour golf was still easy to see as a two-class system: Tiger and everyone else. The "everyone else" consisted largely of entrenched players who were still older and still playing more of a control-based brand of golf.

Exactly. The modern player is more aware than ever of the value of hitting it far.

Once again, we're seeing the golf ball blamed for a trend in elite golf on which the ball has had little to no effect. So I'll repeat the point I've been making: if you look at the evidence of what has gone on in the last decade or so in golf technology, the case for rollback and/or bifurcation just isn't that strong.

It's not a strong case, I agree. We get arguments like how it "seems" to people, not very many actual facts.

But Tim: you and Erik keep referencing 'the last 10 years', as if that's the key point in the argument. But is it, really? (I mean, what's special about the last 10 years as opposed to, say, the last 20?)

It's just the point in time I chose. Going back to 1907 seems a bit ridiculous, right? 1917, 1927… 1937… all kinda silly, right? So any point chosen is somewhat arbitrary. In 2007, my memory is that those calling for a roll-back were much smaller in number… yet that number has grown since then. Yet players aren't hitting it farther than 2007.

Practically speaking, I like 2007 over 1997 because the "genie" of solid balls was out of the bottle. I think putting it back in would prove nearly impossible. So, I pick a time year after about 2002, and a decade is a nice round number.

Maybe they have - though clearly not before an almost 8,000 yard course was designed and built and hosted a US Open, and not before TW designed and built a 7500+ yard private course solely for members play.

What percentage of golfers need to play the 7500+ tees at either of the courses to get a good challenge?

Which is to say: the dramatic distance gains over the last 20 years (perhaps, I'd guess, equal to or greater than all the gains achieved in the 50-60 years before that combined) have already impacted/influenced both the professional and amateur games

I don't really agree that it's affected "the amateur game." One set of tees at a TW course that virtually nobody will play doesn't mean much. Avalon Lakes in Ohio is 7551 yards, used to host an LPGA Tour stop (not from 7551!)… and almost nobody plays those tees, ever. Our conference championship was at about 6700 yards.

and will continue to do so.

If they want to spend their money doing that, what's it to us? 90%+ of the golfing public is probably served with 6500 yards or less.

Tim said it better a few times already: if a club tries to "keep up with the Woodses," that's their business.

Or do we instead listen to golfer-architects like Tiger and Jack when they say that the distance the pros are currently hitting it is (negatively) influencing all levels of the game by fostering the design/re-design of golf courses that are too long and too expensive to maintain and that require too much time to walk/play and too many inputs?

Who anointed either of those guys the spokesman for "all levels of the game"? Who says Tiger knows what play is like at "all levels of the game." His exposure to "all levels" might be limited to roughly 15 pro-am rounds with rich CEOs per year. You likely give their opinions more weight because they agree with yours.

I will take your lack of an answer to mean you do agree that the architects who designed the courses the PGA Tour play on did not intend for them to have it quite so easy!

I didn't answer because I don't really care about the 0.001% of the golfers. But if you need an answer… how about Oakmont? The average U.S. Open contestant doesn't hit wedges into half of the par fours there, even though several of the holes were designed to be short: 10, 2, 14, 17. And I didn't even have to leave my state… just a quick drive down I-79.

As the NRA would say they are not better, just better armed!

No, the game's best have gotten better. It's foolish to think otherwise. In every other sport, athletes have gotten bigger, faster, stronger. The same is true in golf.

The notion that distance gains have hit a ceiling because some dubious statistic hints at that through the last decade is simply naive at best.

Funny how the stat is great when it supports your arguments, but "dubious" when it does not. It's a measure of driving distance. It's a pretty good stat.

One could have said distance gains had been maximised ten years after the introduction of the Haskell, only to see the entire game change later. Erik and Tim's position could have been adopted some time between 1970 & 1990 - again erroneously.

No. They couldn't have.

There was no ODS when the Haskell was around. There were no limits on CoR in 1970. It didn't take much imagination - at all - to imagine that longer, lighter drivers could hit the ball farther. That optimizing launch conditions could launch the ball further. That a PGA Tour pro playing a Pinnacle could launch the ball further. Actually, what did the Long Drivers hit back then? They weren't balatas.

Rocky Thompson used, what, a 50" driver, right?

Conditions are different now. We understand how to maximize launch conditions. We have the ODS and CoR rules. We have a rule governing the length of clubs. Materials will probably get a bit lighter (but lighter clubs lead to tougher to control clubs, so the tradeoff likely won't wander too far from where we are now - the lightweight drivers aren't at all popular on the PGA Tour). But we can't do much more to optimize launch conditions. Driver faces can't get bigger. The ball can't travel faster.

Will we look back in hindsight and say "oh man we missed that?" Maybe. But I'd suggest not, because the conditions are not at all the same as they were in 1910, 1940, 1970, or 1990. Neither are the rules. Physics and the rules are effectively capping things.

Why hasn't driving distance increased in the last 10 years, despite our increased knowledge of materials, equipment, launch, fitness, the importance of distance to making millions of dollars for 0.0001% of golfers, etc.? Why?

The distance many many players hit the golf ball in this  day and age is simply too great.

Matthew, as you know, that's only your opinion. Mine's different. I disagree with not only your definition of "too great" but also your definition of "many players."

I live in the Philadelphia suburbs and cannot think of a 7,500 yard course within 100 miles of here. I'm sure there's one, but I think you set up a false hypothetical.

Because 99% of golfers don't need 7500 yards, and those courses realize that.

Jim: perhaps I did, I'm not sure - but with the class of vintage courses in the Philly area that might not be a good example either; and I did go and check the yardages at some of JN's recent resort courses in Cabo and of TW's Bluejacket course, as I thought these two 'types' of courses would be good barometers for what the public has come to expect (or at least what developers think they've come to expect): both of them over 7500 yards. That's a heck of a long golf course...   

You're talking about one or two courses. And those tees were made because they had the land, and they wanted to build them.

Nobody has given any evidence to show that a majority or even a large minority of courses in the U.S. are expanding to even 7000 yards, let alone 7500.

and then there's this...https://mygolfspy.com/blue-oceans-balls-the-story-of-oncore-golf/

What about that, Jeff? The OnCore balls - at about 2x the cost of a Pro V1, and 3-4x the cost of a Snell, Vice, etc. - don't go any further. They're just another premium golf ball.

Let's suppose that football becomes verbotem due to concussions (a real possibility) and Tiger's comeback is crazy good-inspiring many.
Suddenly we have elite and large(would be) linebackers, defensive ends, running backs, quarterbacks from all over the country starting golf at age 6.

We already have that. Tiger already inspired a bunch of those players, and your plan not only hinges on the NFL going away, but also on the fact that "stronger" = "faster" which it does not. Jamie Sadlowski won long drive contests because he was FAST, not because he was 230 and could bench 500 pounds (or whatever).

Again, apologies for the long post. I'll gladly drop out of the conversation if y'all wish. I've not really said anything new, and Tim is saying similar things far better than I have. If you'd like me to drop out, please, just stop quoting me or asking me questions.   If you're okay with me replying, keep doing those things.

I too care about golf. I just disagree that the massive disruption and change of bifurcation OR a roll-back - each with as yet unknown and unintended consequences - is at all worth it.

[jeffwarne]

A lot of replies, many asking me questions or responding to me, so I apologize again for how I tend to "multi-quote." It's just how I have always used forums, and I think it beats posting more frequently to respond to things individually. I've tried to limit it to some main points.

Do you have any stats around the clubs chosen from the tee that represent driving stats?

The PGA Tour chooses holes on which the vast majority of players hit driver. And PGA Tour players hit more drivers than ever these days, so it's not too difficult. But they pick long par fives or par fours where players are almost certainly hitting drivers.

But it seems to me that guys are hitting it much longer than they did 10 years ago.

Unfortunately, how something "seems" to you is not a fact nor a convincing argument.

I think the reason the average drive hasn't gone up much is because guys are hitting less club off the tee and bringing their average down. There is another stat that may prove this to be correct; % of drives over 300 yards.

Not on the measured holes. Do the longer players occasionally hit 3W on these holes? Sometimes (still rarely). But the median player basically doesn't. They're hitting driver more often. They understand now more than ever the added value of being a few yards closer to the green than they can get with their 3W.

For average driving distance, Erik brought up median so lets look at 63rd place. In 2017, 63rd place hit his drive over 300 yards 46% of the time. This compares to only 36% of the time in 2007.

Median is 95th as there were 190 qualifying players. Jason Dufner is 95th with 35.14%.

I could make the case that these stats, combined with driving distance, speak to the idea that players are hitting more drivers than ever, and hit 3W more frequently in 2007 than they do now. That also backs up the experience I have in working with some of the guys on Tour, or talking with the instructors of other guys. They understand more now than ever the value of getting closer to the hole.

The reality is more complicated than that. In 2007, we were in the middle of the prime Tiger Era, when he was so feared that PGA Tour golf was still easy to see as a two-class system: Tiger and everyone else. The "everyone else" consisted largely of entrenched players who were still older and still playing more of a control-based brand of golf.

Exactly. The modern player is more aware than ever of the value of hitting it far.

Once again, we're seeing the golf ball blamed for a trend in elite golf on which the ball has had little to no effect. So I'll repeat the point I've been making: if you look at the evidence of what has gone on in the last decade or so in golf technology, the case for rollback and/or bifurcation just isn't that strong.

It's not a strong case, I agree. We get arguments like how it "seems" to people, not very many actual facts.

But Tim: you and Erik keep referencing 'the last 10 years', as if that's the key point in the argument. But is it, really? (I mean, what's special about the last 10 years as opposed to, say, the last 20?)

It's just the point in time I chose. Going back to 1907 seems a bit ridiculous, right? 1917, 1927… 1937… all kinda silly, right? So any point chosen is somewhat arbitrary. In 2007, my memory is that those calling for a roll-back were much smaller in number… yet that number has grown since then. Yet players aren't hitting it farther than 2007.

Practically speaking, I like 2007 over 1997 because the "genie" of solid balls was out of the bottle. I think putting it back in would prove nearly impossible. So, I pick a time year after about 2002, and a decade is a nice round number.

Maybe they have - though clearly not before an almost 8,000 yard course was designed and built and hosted a US Open, and not before TW designed and built a 7500+ yard private course solely for members play.

What percentage of golfers need to play the 7500+ tees at either of the courses to get a good challenge?

Which is to say: the dramatic distance gains over the last 20 years (perhaps, I'd guess, equal to or greater than all the gains achieved in the 50-60 years before that combined) have already impacted/influenced both the professional and amateur games

I don't really agree that it's affected "the amateur game." One set of tees at a TW course that virtually nobody will play doesn't mean much. Avalon Lakes in Ohio is 7551 yards, used to host an LPGA Tour stop (not from 7551!)… and almost nobody plays those tees, ever. Our conference championship was at about 6700 yards.

and will continue to do so.

If they want to spend their money doing that, what's it to us? 90%+ of the golfing public is probably served with 6500 yards or less.

Tim said it better a few times already: if a club tries to "keep up with the Woodses," that's their business.

Or do we instead listen to golfer-architects like Tiger and Jack when they say that the distance the pros are currently hitting it is (negatively) influencing all levels of the game by fostering the design/re-design of golf courses that are too long and too expensive to maintain and that require too much time to walk/play and too many inputs?

Who anointed either of those guys the spokesman for "all levels of the game"? Who says Tiger knows what play is like at "all levels of the game." His exposure to "all levels" might be limited to roughly 15 pro-am rounds with rich CEOs per year. You likely give their opinions more weight because they agree with yours.

I will take your lack of an answer to mean you do agree that the architects who designed the courses the PGA Tour play on did not intend for them to have it quite so easy!

I didn't answer because I don't really care about the 0.001% of the golfers. But if you need an answer… how about Oakmont? The average U.S. Open contestant doesn't hit wedges into half of the par fours there, even though several of the holes were designed to be short: 10, 2, 14, 17. And I didn't even have to leave my state… just a quick drive down I-79.

As the NRA would say they are not better, just better armed!

No, the game's best have gotten better. It's foolish to think otherwise. In every other sport, athletes have gotten bigger, faster, stronger. The same is true in golf.

The notion that distance gains have hit a ceiling because some dubious statistic hints at that through the last decade is simply naive at best.

Funny how the stat is great when it supports your arguments, but "dubious" when it does not. It's a measure of driving distance. It's a pretty good stat.

One could have said distance gains had been maximised ten years after the introduction of the Haskell, only to see the entire game change later. Erik and Tim's position could have been adopted some time between 1970 & 1990 - again erroneously.

No. They couldn't have.

There was no ODS when the Haskell was around. There were no limits on CoR in 1970. It didn't take much imagination - at all - to imagine that longer, lighter drivers could hit the ball farther. That optimizing launch conditions could launch the ball further. That a PGA Tour pro playing a Pinnacle could launch the ball further. Actually, what did the Long Drivers hit back then? They weren't balatas.

Rocky Thompson used, what, a 50" driver, right?

Conditions are different now. We understand how to maximize launch conditions. We have the ODS and CoR rules. We have a rule governing the length of clubs. Materials will probably get a bit lighter (but lighter clubs lead to tougher to control clubs, so the tradeoff likely won't wander too far from where we are now - the lightweight drivers aren't at all popular on the PGA Tour). But we can't do much more to optimize launch conditions. Driver faces can't get bigger. The ball can't travel faster.

Will we look back in hindsight and say "oh man we missed that?" Maybe. But I'd suggest not, because the conditions are not at all the same as they were in 1910, 1940, 1970, or 1990. Neither are the rules. Physics and the rules are effectively capping things.

Why hasn't driving distance increased in the last 10 years, despite our increased knowledge of materials, equipment, launch, fitness, the importance of distance to making millions of dollars for 0.0001% of golfers, etc.? Why?

The distance many many players hit the golf ball in this  day and age is simply too great.

Matthew, as you know, that's only your opinion. Mine's different. I disagree with not only your definition of "too great" but also your definition of "many players."

I live in the Philadelphia suburbs and cannot think of a 7,500 yard course within 100 miles of here. I'm sure there's one, but I think you set up a false hypothetical.

Because 99% of golfers don't need 7500 yards, and those courses realize that.

Jim: perhaps I did, I'm not sure - but with the class of vintage courses in the Philly area that might not be a good example either; and I did go and check the yardages at some of JN's recent resort courses in Cabo and of TW's Bluejacket course, as I thought these two 'types' of courses would be good barometers for what the public has come to expect (or at least what developers think they've come to expect): both of them over 7500 yards. That's a heck of a long golf course...   

You're talking about one or two courses. And those tees were made because they had the land, and they wanted to build them.

Nobody has given any evidence to show that a majority or even a large minority of courses in the U.S. are expanding to even 7000 yards, let alone 7500.

and then there's this...https://mygolfspy.com/blue-oceans-balls-the-story-of-oncore-golf/

What about that, Jeff? The OnCore balls - at about 2x the cost of a Pro V1, and 3-4x the cost of a Snell, Vice, etc. - don't go any further. They're just another premium golf ball.

Let's suppose that football becomes verbotem due to concussions (a real possibility) and Tiger's comeback is crazy good-inspiring many.
Suddenly we have elite and large(would be) linebackers, defensive ends, running backs, quarterbacks from all over the country starting golf at age 6.

We already have that. Tiger already inspired a bunch of those players, and your plan not only hinges on the NFL going away, but also on the fact that "stronger" = "faster" which it does not. Jamie Sadlowski won long drive contests because he was FAST, not because he was 230 and could bench 500 pounds (or whatever).

Again, apologies for the long post. I'll gladly drop out of the conversation if y'all wish. I've not really said anything new, and Tim is saying similar things far better than I have. If you'd like me to drop out, please, just stop quoting me or asking me questions.   If you're okay with me replying, keep doing those things.

I too care about golf. I just disagree that the massive disruption and change of bifurcation OR a roll-back - each with as yet unknown and unintended consequences - is at all worth it.

Erik,
Tiger taking Ricky away from Motocross is hardly a huge/fast athlete taking up golf.just fast.
DJ maybe, but golf still is a second or third choice amongst real athletes that can star at the college level and beyond.
Surely you would agree that the long drive guys are bigger than tour pros(Sadlowski notwithstanding-of course you could always argue that hockey made him fast and that it was a better background than golf for speed).
Eventually(especially if other sports decline) that will be the tour norm, just like baseball has gone to bigger athletes.
But good on them if they do.

[John Kavanaugh]

Everyone is so scared that someone else might enjoy the game a way they don't and they're  going to have to subsidize it. The game was never built for selfish people.

[Rick Lane]

Instead of "rolling back" the ball or bifurcating, is there a way to "limit" the current ball technology, like they did with COR?    Just stop here how far a ball can rebound?   And have the ball mfrs compete on spin, aerodynamics, feel, given that limitation?   Is that even possible? 

[jeffwarne]

Instead of "rolling back" the ball or bifurcating, is there a way to "limit" the current ball technology, like they did with COR?    Just stop here how far a ball can rebound?   And have the ball mfrs compete on spin, aerodynamics, feel, given that limitation?   Is that even possible?

Rick, there are limits.
But the people writing the rules aren't as well funded as those improving tech within those rules.

[Peter Pallotta]

Everyone is so scared that someone else might enjoy the game a way they don't and they're  going to have to subsidize it. The game was never built for selfish people.

You might be right; I’ll have to think about that possibility.
But there is also the principle: don’t build what you don’t need.
Peter

[Pete Lavallee]

Pete,


I live in the Philadelphia suburbs and cannot think of a 7,500 yard course within 100 miles of here. I'm sure there's one, but I think you set up a false hypothetical.

Jim,

A quick search provided this:

Ace Club   7500
Trump National   7409
Aronomink   7190
Pine Valley   7190
Commonwealth   7100

So there is one! I would suspect Aronomink and PV could find a few extra yards if needed.TN is quite close!

[Mike_Clayton]

Erik,


Would the 'massive disruption' of bifurcation (or just going back to a reduced distance ball for all) equate to the disruption the US inflicted on the rest of the world (not Canada or South America) when we all had to switch to the 1.68'" ball in the early 80s?


With the stroke of a pen everybody in theory lost 20-25 yards and manufacturers of balls had to retool factories.
It was a good decision but surely one more disruptive that what we are talking about. And for some years the game was bifurcated as top amateur events mandated the big ball a few years before the change and the 'foreign' tours had players using both sized balls.

[John Kavanaugh]

Everyone is so scared that someone else might enjoy the game a way they don't and they're  going to have to subsidize it. The game was never built for selfish people.

You might be right; I’ll have to think about that possibility.
But there is also the principle: don’t build what you don’t need.
Peter

I was lucky enough to play Whisper Rock a few years back and was in the group behind Phil Mickelson. I kept watching him leave the green we were approaching and walking out into the desert. It made no sense until I realized he was playing a set of back tees that he enjoyed. Didn't do a damn thing to hurt me or the member that subsidized those tees. I also doubt that Phil cares that his dues went to maintain the tees I enjoyed.


On another note, I'm Freddie's age and he hit the ball further than me when we were kids and hits it even further than me now. I'm happy for him. I figure I have and still do enjoy quite a few more meals in private at great restaurants than he...so lets call it even.


While you say "don't build what you don't need"...I prefer, "If you only build what you need you will soon find yourself sleeping in your car"

[Eric LeFante]

… how about Oakmont? The average U.S. Open contestant doesn't hit wedges into half of the par fours there, even though several of the holes were designed to be short: 10, 2, 14, 17. And I didn't even have to leave my state… just a quick drive down I-79.



It's ironic that you are picking a course that over the last couple decades added 300 yards and reduced par by 1 because of technology. We watched Dustin Johnson have a LW into the 1st green in the 4th round 2016 and Angel Cabrera have a PW into 18 in 2007 in the 4th round.

Below are the clubs Johnny Miller used to shoot 63 in the final round in 1973.


1. 469 yards, par 4 Driver, 3-iron to 5 feet, birdie
2. 343 yards, par 4 Driver, 9-iron to 1 foot, birdie
3. 425 yards, par 4 Driver, 5-iron to 25 feet, birdie
4. 549 yards, par 5 Driver, 3-wood, bunker shot to 6 inches, birdie
5. 379 yards, par 4 Driver, 6-iron to 25 feet, 2 putts, par
6. 195 yards, par 3 3-iron to 25 feet, 2 putts, par
7. 395 yards, par 4 Driver, 9-iron to 6 feet, 2 putts, par
8. 244 yards, par 4 4-wood to 30 feet, 3 putts, bogey
9. 480 yards, par 5 Driver, 2-iron to 40 feet, 2 putts, birdie
10. 462 yards, par 4 Driver, 5-iron to 25 feet, 2 putts, par
11. 371 yards, par 4 Driver, wedge to 14 feet, birdie
12. 603 yards, par 5 Driver, 7-iron, 4-iron to 15 feet, birdie
13. 185 yards, par 3 4-iron to 5 feet, birdie
14. 360 yards, par 4 Driver, wedge to 12 feet, 2 putts, par
15. 453 yards, par 4 Driver, 4-iron to 10 feet, birdie
16. 230 yards, par 3 2-iron to 45 feet, 2 putts, par
17. 322 yards, par 4 1-iron, wedge to 10 feet, 2 putts, par
18. 456 yards, par 4 Driver, 5-iron to 20 feet, 2 putts, par

The skill that Miller displayed shooting 63 at Oakmont using the clubs that he did for his approach shots is no longer required for any competitive golfer, not just professional. I am a competitive golfer and I've never had to hit clubs like this into greens even though the architect intended for me to do so.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Jeff, man, I get off the train when the counter-argument involves crazy hypotheticals like most other sports failing, and the athletes who liked those other very, very different sports taking up golf instead.

Instead of "rolling back" the ball or bifurcating, is there a way to "limit" the current ball technology, like they did with COR?    Just stop here how far a ball can rebound?   And have the ball mfrs compete on spin, aerodynamics, feel, given that limitation?   Is that even possible?

We're already there, and those limits are already in place. Remove them and Titleist could probably release a ball that goes 50 yards farther in a year. The ODS, club rules, etc. all govern this stuff.

Would the 'massive disruption' of bifurcation (or just going back to a reduced distance ball for all) equate to the disruption the US inflicted on the rest of the world (not Canada or South America) when we all had to switch to the 1.68'" ball in the early 80s?

Don't know. Wasn't really paying attention to golf in the early 80s. It was a different time. The game was still relatively small back then, especially abroad. In the U.S., most players were using the 1.68 already, no?

The disruption would be bigger now. Much bigger. More players. More of a "voice" (forums, social media, etc.). More money involved.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I am a competitive golfer and I've never had to hit clubs like this into greens even though the architect intended for me to do so.

Good for you.    Really.

Would you change 2 at Oakmont to add length so players didn't hit wedge into it? Does it bother you that Johnny Miller had what would be a modern-day wedge (by loft) in 1973? You wouldn't, because it would screw up the hole. So okay, if you wouldn't modify that green, then you agree that using "wedge into that hole" is hardly a foolproof way of determining whether a hole is good or not. There are great holes out there that are driver-wedge.

I don't care much about 0.01 or 0.001% of golfers. I don't think it's worth it - at all - to disrupt the game to cater to or care about them.

Sorry. I just don't, and rather than come with facts, you continue to make some sort of argument like it should just be obvious or something that I'm on the wrong side of this one.

[Thomas Dai]

Below are the clubs Johnny Miller used to shoot 63 in the final round in 1973.

1. 469 yards, par 4 Driver, 3-iron to 5 feet, birdie
2. 343 yards, par 4 Driver, 9-iron to 1 foot, birdie
3. 425 yards, par 4 Driver, 5-iron to 25 feet, birdie
4. 549 yards, par 5 Driver, 3-wood, bunker shot to 6 inches, birdie
5. 379 yards, par 4 Driver, 6-iron to 25 feet, 2 putts, par
6. 195 yards, par 3 3-iron to 25 feet, 2 putts, par
7. 395 yards, par 4 Driver, 9-iron to 6 feet, 2 putts, par
8. 244 yards, par 4 4-wood to 30 feet, 3 putts, bogey
9. 480 yards, par 5 Driver, 2-iron to 40 feet, 2 putts, birdie
10. 462 yards, par 4 Driver, 5-iron to 25 feet, 2 putts, par
11. 371 yards, par 4 Driver, wedge to 14 feet, birdie
12. 603 yards, par 5 Driver, 7-iron, 4-iron to 15 feet, birdie
13. 185 yards, par 3 4-iron to 5 feet, birdie
14. 360 yards, par 4 Driver, wedge to 12 feet, 2 putts, par
15. 453 yards, par 4 Driver, 4-iron to 10 feet, birdie
16. 230 yards, par 3 2-iron to 45 feet, 2 putts, par
17. 322 yards, par 4 1-iron, wedge to 10 feet, 2 putts, par
18. 456 yards, par 4 Driver, 5-iron to 20 feet, 2 putts, par

Thanks for posting this Eric. I vaguely recall the event on TV although not much, other than the odd putt, of JM as he finished pretty early. I’ve sometimes wondered when the subject of JM’s 63 comes under discussion what clubs he hit so it’s nice to see them tabulated.
When I look at the yardage’s, clubs hit etc above, and take about 80 yds off the length of each hole it kind of equates to the clubs numerous folk I play with these days hit on holes, but then again JM was decidedly good and despite improvements in equipment and changes in iron lofts over the decades the folks I usually play with are the opposite of young and powerful!
Atb

[Eric LeFante]

I am a competitive golfer and I've never had to hit clubs like this into greens even though the architect intended for me to do so.

Good for you.    Really.

Would you change 2 at Oakmont to add length so players didn't hit wedge into it? Does it bother you that Johnny Miller had what would be a modern-day wedge (by loft) in 1973? You wouldn't, because it would screw up the hole. So okay, if you wouldn't modify that green, then you agree that using "wedge into that hole" is hardly a foolproof way of determining whether a hole is good or not. There are great holes out there that are driver-wedge.

I don't care much about 0.01 or 0.001% of golfers. I don't think it's worth it - at all - to disrupt the game to cater to or care about them.

Sorry. I just don't, and rather than come with facts, you continue to make some sort of argument like it should just be obvious or something that I'm on the wrong side of this one.

Erik, I am coming to you with facts. It's a fact that Johnny Miller hit the clubs above in the final round of the 1973 US Open. I'm willing to bet that Ben Hogan won having to hit similar clubs in 1953, and the same goes for Jack and Arnie in 1962 and Larry Nelson in 1983. The point is that golf courses were designed to test a certain skill (mid and long irons) that is not being tested like it once was.

Obviously I wouldn't change the 2nd hole at Oakmont because it was the ARCHITECT'S INTENT for players to have a wedge into the green. I completely agree with you that some of the best holes in the world are designed for players to have wedges into greens (you picked 3 at Augusta and 10 at Riviera, which i completely agree with). The problem is you need variety and if you have 5 holes that were designed to be drivable par 4s on one course that would get boring and those great holes wouldn't be as special for the same reason why the Masters wouldn't be special if you played it 4 times per year. You need variety.

You continue to say you don't care about the pros and I only bring up my own game because this isn't just about pros. I sit at a desk all day, don't work out, and technology has allowed me to never have a long iron into a par 4. Even when you include amateurs you are right that its still a very small percentage. I don't see how making this small percentage play a different ball than the other 99% disrupt the game in any way. It hasn't affected baseball or the NBA.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It's a fact that Johnny Miller hit the clubs above in the final round of the 1973 US Open. I'm willing to bet that Ben Hogan won having to hit similar clubs in 1953, and the same goes for Jack and Arnie in 1962 and Larry Nelson in 1983. The point is that golf courses were designed to test a certain skill (mid and long irons) that is not being tested like it once was.

I'm not debating those facts. They are facts. Cool. What you're doing though is using those facts to form your opinion that golf is somehow in a "bad way" right now because of how a tiny percentage of golfers play the game.

I don't really care what clubs Johnny Miller OR Dustin Johnson hit into the holes. The best golfer won that week, and had the USGA official done his job on the sixth, it would have been a thrilling U.S. Open. I do care, when I play Oakmont, how it plays for me. And how it plays for Dave, who was top ten in driving distance on the Web.com Tour one year (when it was the Nike Tour), against whom I'm usually playing.

The problem is you need variety and if you have 5 holes that were designed to be drivable par 4s on one course that would get boring and those great holes wouldn't be as special for the same reason why the Masters wouldn't be special if you played it 4 times per year. You need variety.

I agree you need variety, but I'm not aware of a course played by the tiny fraction of players at the top which has five drivable par fours. Or even really three.


And I'm not aware of a course played by that tiny minority of holes that are wedges the majority of the time. And even if there are a few… see above: I simply don't care that much about that tiny minority.

You continue to say you don't care about the pros and I only bring up my own game because this isn't just about pros. I sit at a desk all day, don't work out, and technology has allowed me to never have a long iron into a par 4.

I hit the ball pretty far too, and I've had hybrid into some par fours I've played. #10 at Whispering Woods here in Erie plays about 485 yards. I regularly have between a 4-iron and a 6-iron into #1: it plays uphill, the fairway is soft, it's into the predominant wind (455 yards or so). The course has you hit nearly every club in the bag and plays to 6750 yards or so.

Even when you include amateurs you are right that its still a very small percentage. I don't see how making this small percentage play a different ball than the other 99% disrupt the game in any way. It hasn't affected baseball or the NBA.

Again… it wouldn't be limited to just the small percentage. It would keep bleeding down. In no time it would be the "ball that real golfers use." You'd have 9 handicappers playing it because if they use the "cheater ball" their manhood is questioned.

Maybe? Yeah, it's a hypothetical, and I hate those… but the point is that neither you nor I can really predict what would actually happen by some magical "roll-back" or bifurcation. It has the potential to really screw things up for a lot of people, and a long time. So the juice had better be worth the squeeze, and I just don't think it is.

[Matthew Mollica]

Would it matter to you Erik if the US Open field of 156 players fought for the trophy over four days at TopGolf? I mean, the best golfer would win, after all...

[Eric LeFante]

… but the point is that neither you nor I can really predict what would actually happen by some magical "roll-back" or bifurcation. It has the potential to really screw things up for a lot of people, and a long time. So the juice had better be worth the squeeze, and I just don't think it is.

I think we found some common ground....we really don't know how it will play out.

How do you think things could get really screwed up and who could lose in bifurcation?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

TopGolf isn't golf, Matthew.

And Eric, you seem to have missed the "neither you nor I can really predict" part.

I've said all I can say that's original several pages ago. Good luck, everyone.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff, man, I get off the train when the counter-argument involves crazy hypotheticals like most other sports failing, and the athletes who liked those other very, very different sports taking up golf instead.

Instead of "rolling back" the ball or bifurcating, is there a way to "limit" the current ball technology, like they did with COR?    Just stop here how far a ball can rebound?   And have the ball mfrs compete on spin, aerodynamics, feel, given that limitation?   Is that even possible?

We're already there, and those limits are already in place. Remove them and Titleist could probably release a ball that goes 50 yards farther in a year. The ODS, club rules, etc. all govern this stuff.

Would the 'massive disruption' of bifurcation (or just going back to a reduced distance ball for all) equate to the disruption the US inflicted on the rest of the world (not Canada or South America) when we all had to switch to the 1.68'" ball in the early 80s?

Don't know. Wasn't really paying attention to golf in the early 80s. It was a different time. The game was still relatively small back then, especially abroad. In the U.S., most players were using the 1.68 already, no?

The disruption would be bigger now. Much bigger. More players. More of a "voice" (forums, social media, etc.). More money involved.

Erik,
"Crazy hypotheticals?
If you think football isn't in trouble, you haven't been paying attention at all. Participation is down 19 plus % for ages 6-13, and down 26% for ages 13-17.
Those athletes will gravitate to something, and my guess is golf will pick up more than a few outstanding athletes, especially where football is biggest-in warm weather states.
Not sure where you think NFL players come from but in case you haven't noticed, that's shrinking fast too.


The disruption from bifurcation "would be much bigger?" hmmm...
More money is completely relative-I can assure you that money mattered just as much to affected players in the 80's, if not more--and changing the size of the ball and the ballflight took some serious getting used to, and some players never made the adjustment.To say that "golf is bigger now" is quite naive, especially in the home of golf, where they didn't need the wave of Tiger inspired "golf is cool" boom to fill their many, many courses that are far over a hundred years old.Knuckleheads tweeting about it doesn't make it bigger than the the throngs who came out and witnessed and followed the results of golf events dating back to at least the turn of the 20th century.


You keep going back to not caring about the .0001% and how their games are impacted.
So why would bifurcation be a problem?-if it would just be the .0001% affected.


I actually do care about the ".0001%", both for the entertainment value of watching them compete and display skills, and for the fact that they absolutely drive policy at nearly ALL courses (whether we think that's correct or not)
So I care deeply about the ".0001 %" and am confident that bifuraction would be a non event to them in a few weeks(just like adjusting to altitude or cold weather) while promoting sustainability and responsibility in our game, and promoting actual physical skill development rather than simply speed and technology.


And history rejects your argument that technology and human performance are capped-even if you cherry pick a short recent time period and chooice of recent stats, there are still ongoing gains-to say nothing of weekly anecdotal examples of unprecedented length displays-especially on courses players are allowed to display their power and not be hemmed in by deep rough or cross hazards.


Good discussion though and I've heard some interesting points.It is interesting to see how many voices with a vested interest in the golf business (golf professionals and especially architects who could benefit from more course renovations) drawing a line in the sand-especially lately.No doubt we'll see those with more money in the game (Titleist etc) fight it, but there are always shifts in that landscape, and they may need to get ahead of it, rather than fight what could eventually be an unpopular battle were they to get nasty. (Those of us on the other side haven't really enjoyed the "disruption"and change of a game we care about either.)

[Mike_Clayton]

Don't know. Wasn't really paying attention to golf in the early 80s. It was a different time. The game was still relatively small back then, especially abroad. In the U.S., most players were using the 1.68 already, no?

Erik

It was a different time - but to suggest the game was 'relatively small - especially abroad' is a massive misinterpretation of the game outside of America.Arguably it was a bigger game then than now in Australia,New Zealand and Britain.Everybody was using the 1.68' ball in the US - but not a single amateur (aside from a few top players) outside of the US  was using it.They all - millions of them - gave up 25 yards overnight almost without complaint. American's would be more liable to complain because they tend (generalisation) to be more bothered about distance than players from elsewhere. It's because they have had 'distance' jammed down their throats by manufacturers for ever.

[JESII]

Mike,


I don't know what the underlying justification for migrating to the big ball was as opposed to the small ball but the concepts are completely reversed. You've indicated it was non-issue to consolidate...fine. But that's really polar opposite from the proposal here. Here, the suggestion is to break apart, to fracture, one of the key synergies of the game, that of playing the same rules / equipment / courses.


That's why some of us can recognize/acknowledge the statistics about driving distance and sustainability and architectural intent and still think bifurcation would be a mistake and a full roll back, while less bad, might still be unnecessary. Emphasis on 'might'...I wouldn't oppose a roll back, just think it's unlikely to have the desired effect.

[Jim Hoak]

Jeff and others--Many people on this thread keep talking about bifurcation, implying that it would be as simple as the USGA setting new equipment rules for the .0001%.  The PGA Tour has said that they will not go along with any roll-back of the ball.  They almost didn't go along with the long putter rule.  Granted, the USGA can set equipment rules for its tournaments--but what happens in all the other non-USGA tournaments?  Thinking that bifurcation can actually happen is a dream.