We've launched the new forums! Read more here

NEWS The USGA Distance Insights Project

The Milk Man said:
Would it? What do you do with high school and college players? What equipment do they play or do they have to play two different sets? What about the 46 year old HR manager who likes to try and qualify for state and USGA events? Does that person now need one set for tournaments and one for matches at the club to not be at a disadvantage in club matches? Golf is already expensive enough. Is creating extra cost for certain groups of players?



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
If bifurcated rules only applied to pro tournaments, then college and high schoolers would not be affected.
 
MonroeBob1955 said:
Actually that would depend on how the bifurcation rules are written. If an amateur attempts to qualify for the US Open, then would the bifurcation rules apply to them? Probably so. What about the US Amateur and regionals.

If it is as you suggest, only for pro golfers then an amateur playing in a pro event would be deemed to have an unfair advantage. So in my mind it wouldn’t only apply to pros, but upper level amateurs as well. If that be the case, where is the line drawn.

If it’s a PGA adoption, then are the four majors excluded from those bifurcation rules since they are not PGA Tour sponsored events?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It would apply to pro tournaments. This isn't too complex to apply.
 
LICC said:
I'm not seeing the logic in your posts. If they bifurcate rules that only apply to pro tournaments, and you don't care at all about pro tournaments, then why would you take a position against it? Because you think the USGA would be distracted from making better rules for amateurs?
Click to expand...

I don't want the USGA to be making rules with the pros in my mind.
It's disrespectful, in my mind, to the recreational players who keep the game afloat.

If the Tour has the balls to make their own rules, I'm fine with that.
In fact, I wish that they would so the USGA realizes the pro game doesn't belong to them.
If the pros want to play in the US Open, the US Senior Open, or the US Woman's Open, then they can abide by the USGA rules for just those events.

But that's just my opinion, LICC. Nothing more. We're all entitled to an opinion.
 
LICC said:
It would apply to pro tournaments. This isn't too complex to apply.
Click to expand...

No. Except for amateur participation in such events which would then place a financial burden on amateur participation potentially based on the new rules.

One reason you may have not seen a bifurcation application to this point IS that it’s more complex than everyone thinks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
MonroeBob1955 said:
No. Except for amateur participation in such events which would then place a financial burden on amateur participation potentially based on the new rules.

One reason you may have not seen a bifurcation application to this point IS that it’s more complex than everyone thinks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
We also have to look at the kind of changes that would be part of this bifurcation. I know that it's been part of the argument through the last few years that courses are not able to host elite amateur events anymore either due to length. Also, at what point do the amateurs change to the pro equipment? They've grown up their entire life playing current gear. When do they make the change and have to relearn their entire game? Do they go from D1 college hitting 300 yard drives and then hit the pro tours losing distance across the bag? Does the new gear spin more? Just travel slower? Do they have to relearn how to control their fades and draws?

It is not as simple as just having a separate set of equipment rules and calling it a day.
 
I think things would be a lot less complicated if instead of any governing body having bifurcated rules, the USGA/R&A and the PGA Tour had separate rules if they choose to.

The PGA of America could choose which rules they want to apply at their own events like the PGA Championship, qualifying events for it, and regional club pro tournaments. Since the clubs that they represent are affiliated with the USGA, not the Tour, I suspect they'd use USGA rules.
 
LICC said:
If bifurcated rules only applied to pro tournaments, then college and high schoolers would not be affected.
Click to expand...
If they only apply to pro game I would agree. However the talk has always included the elite am.

If you bifurcated the rules for only the pro game. Would you lose guys coming straight out college and having sucess? One of the biggest stories in golf last year was Hovland, Wolff, and Morakowa. Having to learn all new equipment before turning pro. IMO would eliminate stories like that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
I kinda get a kick out of how the USGA just seems annoyed that OEMs have outsmarted the limits already in place through innovation. LMs have also made the players smarter, allowing them to maximize their swing potential. Leave it to the grumpy ol’ USGA, though, to attempt to curtail innovation and advancement—including that of the human body.
 
radiman said:
We also have to look at the kind of changes that would be part of this bifurcation. I know that it's been part of the argument through the last few years that courses are not able to host elite amateur events anymore either due to length.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you that it's a big concern for the USGA that some its old-time member clubs aren't going to be able to host events - threatened to become obsolete - because of distance issues. And I think it's more than just a fear that they can't host elite amateur events; I think it may be that elite players won't want to play there period.
 
LICC said:
It would apply to pro tournaments. This isn't too complex to apply.
Click to expand...
But much MUCH MUCH more complex than simply modifying mowing/watering strategies for the brief time the Tour is in town. There isn't a NEED for bifurcation or roll back, those are simply options they're trying to push as viable in an effort to get our acceptance of an agenda a few designers are pushing.
 
Bernoulli said:
Yes, I agree with you that it's a big concern for the USGA that some its old-time member clubs aren't going to be able to host events - threatened to become obsolete - because of distance issues. And I think it's more than just a fear that they can't host elite amateur events; I think it may be that elite players won't want to play there period.
Click to expand...
This is part of the issue in my eyes. Those courses are not obsolete for the members. Often times, the tee boxes that are used for big tournaments aren't available to play for the regular Joe's. Those guys can still pay their outlandish prices for private club membership and still play their course even it it's not hosting a PGA event. And frankly, it doesn't bother me in the least that a course that is unavailable to me either has to add some tee boxes or just not host an event.
 
In all the distance talk I haven’t seen specifics about increases in swing speed over the years as a significant factor. After tiger bulked up to gain power/distance, a significant portion of the tour saw the results and eventually followed suit to be competitive.
So the USGA is going to attempt to back legislate fitness from the game? :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
MonroeBob1955 said:
No. Except for amateur participation in such events which would then place a financial burden on amateur participation potentially based on the new rules.

One reason you may have not seen a bifurcation application to this point IS that it’s more complex than everyone thinks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's really not. If an amateur plays in a pro event, he or she must use the qualifying equipment under bifurcation rules.
 
RetiredBoomer said:
I don't want the USGA to be making rules with the pros in my mind.
It's disrespectful, in my mind, to the recreational players who keep the game afloat.

If the Tour has the balls to make their own rules, I'm fine with that.
In fact, I wish that they would so the USGA realizes the pro game doesn't belong to them.
If the pros want to play in the US Open, the US Senior Open, or the US Woman's Open, then they can abide by the USGA rules for just those events.

But that's just my opinion, LICC. Nothing more. We're all entitled to an opinion.
Click to expand...
But the USGA rules do apply to the pros. That has been the case since the beginning.
 
radiman said:
We also have to look at the kind of changes that would be part of this bifurcation. I know that it's been part of the argument through the last few years that courses are not able to host elite amateur events anymore either due to length. Also, at what point do the amateurs change to the pro equipment? They've grown up their entire life playing current gear. When do they make the change and have to relearn their entire game? Do they go from D1 college hitting 300 yard drives and then hit the pro tours losing distance across the bag? Does the new gear spin more? Just travel slower? Do they have to relearn how to control their fades and draws?

It is not as simple as just having a separate set of equipment rules and calling it a day.
Click to expand...
At what point do baseball players have to learn to swing with wooden bats? At what point do basketball players have to learn to shoot three-pointers from farther distances?

And you are talking about a miniscule percentage of total golfers. Supremely talented golfers. If bifurcated rules limited clubhead size for pros, these golfers would adjust fairly quickly.
 
Last edited:
MonroeBob1955 said:
In all the distance talk I haven’t seen specifics about increases in swing speed over the years as a significant factor. After tiger bulked up to gain power/distance, a significant portion of the tour saw the results and eventually followed suit to be competitive.
So the USGA is going to attempt to back legislate fitness from the game? :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Fitness isn't causing substantial gains in driving distance. It's the equipment. Tiger hit it less far after he muscled up.
 
I heard NASCAR and Formula 1 are concerned that the sport is getting away from them with cars going too fast and with the environmental impact of big raceways that are only used a couple of times a year so they are going to lobby governments around the world to put regulators on all motor vehicles to make them go slower. Oh wait, I didn’t hear that because it would be absurd.
 
The Milk Man said:
Would it? What do you do with high school and college players? What equipment do they play or do they have to play two different sets? What about the 46 year old HR manager who likes to try and qualify for state and USGA events? Does that person now need one set for tournaments and one for matches at the club to not be at a disadvantage in club matches? Golf is already expensive enough. Is creating extra cost for certain groups of players?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It could only be the ball. And if is clubs too then it sucks to be one of the very few 46 year old people in the world who wants to qualify for an elite event. To paraphrase Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
 
LICC said:
At what point to baseball players have to learn to swing with wooden bats? At what point do basketball players have to learn to shoot three-pointers from farther distances?

And you are talking about a miniscule percentage of total golfers. Supremely talented golfers. If bifurcated rules limited clubhead size for pros, these golfers would adjust fairly quickly.
Click to expand...
Who ever mentioned limiting clubhead size? The only thing I've heard get brought up is changing the golf ball.

This isn't baseball. This isn't basketball. This is a sport that requires the ball flight to be manipulated with their swing. To limit the golf ball, which is far and away the #1 talked about point of rollback, you'd have to change certain characteristics. Will it spin more, will it fly higher, lower?

Then, who's going to part to develop this ball? Why would an OEM do it if they're not going to make money off it? No amateur would be buying this ball if the game is bifurcated. What incentive would Titleist have to retool machinery, pay engineers to come up with a design, R&D, and all of that other very expensive stuff, if they can't monetize on it?
 
radiman said:
Who ever mentioned limiting clubhead size? The only thing I've heard get brought up is changing the golf ball.

This isn't baseball. This isn't basketball. This is a sport that requires the ball flight to be manipulated with their swing. To limit the golf ball, which is far and away the #1 talked about point of rollback, you'd have to change certain characteristics. Will it spin more, will it fly higher, lower?

Then, who's going to part to develop this ball? Why would an OEM do it if they're not going to make money off it? No amateur would be buying this ball if the game is bifurcated. What incentive would Titleist have to retool machinery, pay engineers to come up with a design, R&D, and all of that other very expensive stuff, if they can't monetize on it?
Click to expand...
Which is why they should do it just by limiting clubhead size.
 
LICC said:
Which is why they should do it just by limiting clubhead size.
Click to expand...
I will give you that. If I had no other option but to see something get rolled back, I would much rather see that than the golf ball. That way, great shots are still rewarded by a lot of distance. But, there would be a lot less forgiveness built in. But, I haven't seen that really discussed anywhere. All of the talking heads seem to be more concerned with just dropping distance across the board, which they say the golf ball is the easiest.
 
tequila4kapp said:
I heard NASCAR and Formula 1 are concerned that the sport is getting away from them with cars going too fast and with the environmental impact of big raceways that are only used a couple of times a year so they are going to lobby governments around the world to put regulators on all motor vehicles to make them go slower. Oh wait, I didn’t hear that because it would be absurd.
Click to expand...
Nascar has been mandating restrictor plates for years to slow the cars down. Meanwhile car manufacturers have been jumping up horsepower every year. USGA just needs to get in talks with the PGA and leave us poor Hackers the freak alone!:mad:
 
LICC said:
But the USGA rules do apply to the pros. That has been the case since the beginning.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
And that's the problem.
And it's a big problem.
The pros play under USGA rules, and then the USGA thus tweaks their rules to suit the elite pros instead of the recreational players about whom they should be most concerned.
If rules made to be appropriate for the millions of recreational players that the USGA should be representing are not suitable for the pros, let the pros play under new PGA Tour rules.
Don't bifurcate the USGA rules.
The USGA gives the pros far too much respect.
It wasn't formed with pros in mind, but it's strayed from its mission pandering to the pro game.
 
I saw this graphic today. I am also feeling a little squirrely, so I decided to revive this discussion :)

For those who think physical fitness doesn't impact distance and speed.

1591892156216.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top