We've launched the new forums! Read more here

NEWS The USGA Distance Insights Project

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
 
Tighten the fairways and grow the grass an extra 1/8 of an inch in the fairway. I read that would reduce drives by about 4 yards and make the pro's consider using driver on every hole if the rough was thicker. Seems a simple fix to me.
 
Dr. Double said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
radiman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dr. Double said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
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
 
Canadan said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mark_UK said:
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
Click to expand...
This isnt the whole story, take a look at Freddy Couples driving distances throughout the years
1581445267300.png
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?
 
Dr. Double said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dr. Double said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

My biggest fear is that this study is a knee jerk reaction to young players out there bombing and gouging on tour, whereas everywhere else, it's just not a thing. The guys who are crazy long playing local are wayward more than they are in the fairway. It's already a solid neutralizer.
 
mjkladis said:
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.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be the end of anything. For those tournaments, the bifurcated equipment limitations would apply to anyone playing.
 
Mark_UK said:
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
Click to expand...
Strength training has almost no effect on distance at the Tour level. It's the equipment that has led to distance gains.
 
Dr. Double said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
LICC said:
Strength training has almost no effect on distance at the Tour level. It's the equipment that has led to distance gains.
Click to expand...
Lol, so you are saying this based on what?
 
LICC said:
Strength training has almost no effect on distance at the Tour level. It's the equipment that has led to distance gains.
Click to expand...
Tell Phil that, he attributes his bombs to training more.
 
LICC said:
It wouldn't be the end of anything. For those tournaments, the bifurcated equipment limitations would apply to anyone playing.
Click to expand...

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".
 
LICC said:
Strength training has almost no effect on distance at the Tour level. It's the equipment that has led to distance gains.
Click to expand...

Training most definitely has helped increase distances at the Tour level.
Everyone remembers Jack's size during his younger days, that's almost every guy on the Korn Ferry tour.

The equipment has helped as well but that's from years of learning about real ball flight laws, launch monitors, and much better manufacturing.

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.
 
MWard said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you think Fred Couples did not know how to hit his driver in 1992, but now he does?
 
mjkladis said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
LICC said:
Do you think Fred Couples did not know how to hit his driver in 1992, but now he does?
Click to expand...

I think when people were teaching hit down on it, vs now where we're told to hit up on it.. Yeah. I'm sure he made an adjustment, or his equipment sure did.
 
LICC said:
He substantially changed his swing to add distance.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and you had said it's all equipment and not training that has caused the distance gains.
 
I haven't read through every word of the report but have scanned it. Here's a question:

Does USGA say distance is currently an issue or are they saying the trend is such that it will become a problem if thy don't take action soon than later? I'm not clear on this distinction. Have we crossed the threshold or are we moving toward some problematic distance threshold (for some male tour players)? This is important because if the trend is the issue, trying to find current problem examples is a waste of time. Debating what a possible future threshold of issue might be is a more meaningful debate topic.

I also see a couple of points that I believe are important in the debate:
  • The issue is with some male tour players. Distance is not an issue for all other golfers.
  • Bifurcation as part of a solution seems like a terrible mistake. The fact that amateur and tour players can use the same equipment and play the same game is strength of golf. Please don't change that USGA.
  • Setup changes for tour events does not have to impact amateur golfers and can likely go a long ways toward moderating the trend with male tour players. This comes up over and over.
  • New equipment limitations should be a last resort, or at least phased in over significant periods of time, if necessary.
 
mjkladis said:
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".
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top