The only way there is any roll back is based on tour play only. No way no how will the governing bodies mess with the everyday player who might walk away. The game is not strong enough to deal with that...IMO
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I can understand that side of it. But, in regards to the older courses, I may not be a sentimental guy. But, most of these courses are inaccessible to me due to many reasons. A large number of them being private and just closed off to me in general, or just way to expensive for the average golfer to play. They are still available at normal yardages for their members. If they choose to lengthen to accommodate a professional tournament, that's a decision their membership can make. Or, there can be other means of increasing the difficulty.These are very valid points and I do agree that part of the game's charm is measuring yourself against the best, even though they already play a significantly different game than the average golfer, I see your point. The main reason that I am in favor of bifurcation is I think that pro golf tournaments have become boring because the only way you can win is bombing drivers then hitting a short iron or wedge close. With the exception of Bubba, no one shapes the ball anymore, everyone hits it over the trouble because it's a safer shot, everyone smashes driver because there is little to no penalty for a miss-hit because the ball doesn't spin, the art of the towering long iron is gone. I personally want there to be more than one type of golfer at the top.
I also think that some historic courses will be lost because of distance or they will be lengthened and lose their charm. Par is absolutely a relative number, but I don't think that should be part of the conversation. It's about the type of shots you can play and the increased creativity the pro's will have to use. I just think that would make the product of golf more enjoyable.
Totally valid point. As I mentioned in my other post, one reason I want bifurcation is that I want to be able to enjoy seeing some of the historic courses even if I'm not able to play them. Some places simply cannot get longer and thus are taken out of the circuit, but that is obviously a personal preference and I understand where you are coming from also.I can understand that side of it. But, in regards to the older courses, I may not be a sentimental guy. But, most of these courses are inaccessible to me due to many reasons. A large number of them being private and just closed off to me in general, or just way to expensive for the average golfer to play. They are still available at normal yardages for their members. If they choose to lengthen to accommodate a professional tournament, that's a decision their membership can make. Or, there can be other means of increasing the difficulty.
To me, a unified set of rules is more important than maintaining some courses relevance to the professional circuit.
We're talking about distance reduction in balls. The "benefit" would be in reference to golfers who hit the ball too far to enjoy golf courses.This really depends on your definition of benefit. If by the benefit you mean shoot lower scores on the exact same course, then no I can't think of anyone. However if your definition of benefit is shorter rounds, faster play, less ball lost, less walking, then I think those are great benefits. Also, I think the scores for an average golfer would be the same if they played the appropriate tees for the new ball. I still don't understand why people are so against playing forward tee's.
Then by your definition of benefit (which I want to point out is totally valid and I agree with) a flight restricted ball doesn't benefit anyone. They could move up to the appropriate tee and solve that disadvantage but that's another discussion. I was just trying to point out that there are lots of benefits to a flight restricted ball.We're talking about distance reduction in balls. The "benefit" would be in reference to golfers who hit the ball too far to enjoy golf courses.
My point was that I don't know anyone locally who needs a rollback on product to enjoy all local courses. Was asking if you did (or anyone in the thread for that matter).
This isnt the whole story, take a look at Freddy Couples driving distances throughout the yearsTiger hitting the nail on the head right now in his presser. When he started, he was the only one hitting the gym. Now everyone is doing it. Players have become fitter, stronger and faster!!!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Golf is unlike many sports though, right? In other sports, you're in top physical conditioning by the time you're in your third year, whereas in golf, guys in Couples' era were not exactly on fitness or diet regimens. For those guys, it was more about maximizing swing potential with what they had.This isnt the whole story, take a look at Freddy Couples driving distances throughout the years
View attachment 8927485
This is the exact opposite of the standard bell curve you see with elite athletes in every other sport. Typically you peak in things such as strength, speed, agility in your late 20's early 30's. Not your early 50's. Are you really trying to say that Freddy Couples, a golfer with the worst back of any pro golfer ever, is driving it farther than ever and it has nothing to do with equipment and everything to do with getting max gainz in the gym?
I think a flight restricted ball would 'benefit' tour locations based on their current design (fast and firm). That is about the extent of it, which is mostly my point.Then by your definition of benefit (which I want to point out is totally valid and I agree with) a flight restricted ball doesn't benefit anyone. They could move up to the appropriate tee and solve that disadvantage but that's another discussion. I was just trying to point out that there are lots of benefits to a flight restricted ball.
It wouldn't be the end of anything. For those tournaments, the bifurcated equipment limitations would apply to anyone playing.Bifurcation would spell the end of a true US Open, British Open or any professional Open tournament where AMs and Pros play at the same time. A +4 golfer can play a longer ball because he has an amateur status? Pretty ridiculous.
Strength training has almost no effect on distance at the Tour level. It's the equipment that has led to distance gains.Tiger hitting the nail on the head right now in his presser. When he started, he was the only one hitting the gym. Now everyone is doing it. Players have become fitter, stronger and faster!!!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This isnt the whole story, take a look at Freddy Couples driving distances throughout the years
View attachment 8927485
This is the exact opposite of the standard bell curve you see with elite athletes in every other sport. Typically you peak in things such as strength, speed, agility in your late 20's early 30's. Not your early 50's. Are you really trying to say that Freddy Couples, a golfer with the worst back of any pro golfer ever, is driving it farther than ever and it has nothing to do with equipment and everything to do with getting max gainz in the gym?
Lol, so you are saying this based on what?Strength training has almost no effect on distance at the Tour level. It's the equipment that has led to distance gains.
Tell Phil that, he attributes his bombs to training more.Strength training has almost no effect on distance at the Tour level. It's the equipment that has led to distance gains.
It wouldn't be the end of anything. For those tournaments, the bifurcated equipment limitations would apply to anyone playing.
Strength training has almost no effect on distance at the Tour level. It's the equipment that has led to distance gains.
Do you think Fred Couples did not know how to hit his driver in 1992, but now he does?Changes in agronomy, technology, and even the way we hit the ball have changed since 1992. We very much do not hit or try not to hit down on the golf ball to maximize our distance. Even then, tech has allowed golfers who do hit down on the ball even the slightest amount to optimize their equipment in order to still maximize distance.
Driving distance data. Examples like Scott Stallings, Fred Couples, etc.Lol, so you are saying this based on what?
He substantially changed his swing to add distance.Tell Phil that, he attributes his bombs to training more.
What I'm getting from it so far is that the USGA is leaning toward taking the same tone deaf, ham-fisted approach they did to wedge grooves and anchored putters - making decisions that affect the entire golfing population based upon an issue that's relevant to about 0.00000001% of the actual golfers.All I've learned from this USGA report is that they aren't happy that technology and golf education/fitness has gotten much better in recent years.
Do you think Fred Couples did not know how to hit his driver in 1992, but now he does?
Exactly, and you had said it's all equipment and not training that has caused the distance gains.He substantially changed his swing to add distance.
Sure- if you play in a qualifier, you use the required conforming equipment. Whether it be conforming balls or a conforming sized driver or whatever else.So if one was to go to a qualifier, you have to get these balls somehow to play with the correct equipment.
Do tour trucks show up to every qual or do pro shops stock Tour and Amatuer balls?
Bifurcated equipment sounds easy but starts to fall apart once you start diving into it.
If anything, USGA could just set limits to the equipment that ends where it's all currently at today.
No need for a second ball, no need for new clubs to legally play in a tournament.
OEMs can figure out from there how to sell new clubs but it won't force people to buy a whole new set to "keep the integrity of the game intact".