R&A/USGA report on equipment standards

[Imurg]

Ordinary golfers can barely hit a 400 yard par 4 in 2 and will struggle to hit a 350 yard par 4 if they rollback.
Ordinary golfers will be hitting Drivers or 3 woods into par 3s. Almost every time.
Unless clubs spend thousands moving tee boxes 50 yards further up the hole.
I believe, if the Pros weren't hitting 200+ yard 7 irons this discussion wouldn't be happening.
It's a Pro problem..

 

[Deleted member 15344]

When I first typed the course length I had 6,200 instead of 6,500 but I thought that might scare a few people.
Many club players overpower courses, it's just happened gradually so you've not noticed.
I agree that almost no club players will agree with me, that's because they've got used to hitting a certain length but, in my view, that length has become far too long.
It's a problem for most golfers and it isn't going away.

Really?

I don’t think that’s true and it’s certainly not something I have witnessed playing club golf and indeed county comps - I don’t see club golfers overpowering any golf course. You only also have to witness the scores at singles opens to see that club golfers aren’t overpowering the golf course in any stretch

Any time you do hear of good scores it 9/10 - Stableford and from a high handicap who has a handicap not reflective of his ability

There maybe some professional golfers that are overpowering a golf course but even then it’s not a regular occurrence- the tours etc are coming with ways to counter the bigger hitters but if they want to add in some restrictions to the pros then it’s not going to change much

Add it into the Amateur game and it’s going to have a bigger affect on peoples enjoyment because courses aren’t suddenly going to get shorter

Golf is a hard game to play , but with equipent designed to help it encourages people to stick at it

The talk is that this is to “protect” the game - maybe they should change that to “protect “ the top 1% because it’s certainly not protecting the game below

 

[rulefan]

Most courses in this country were probably built 100 years or more ago and because of land constraints their length will have hardly changed. Reining in the length achieved by modern equipment will mean they will play to their original design length. How many amateurs regularly play 6800+ courses?
450+ yards don't have to be par 4s. Using the Course Rating formulae, only scratch players would be making 4 on such a length.

 

[Jimaroid]

The talk is that this is to “protect” the game - maybe they should change that to “protect “ the top 1% because it’s certainly not protecting the game below

I agree the framing is misrepresentative but I think they are in the same bucket of problems. Golf as a whole has to come to terms with whether pros and amateurs play on the same courses. The only thing that is going to keep that 1% and 99% playing on the same courses is controlling the equipment. And yeah, I feel a bit funny about the 1% being used as a reason to change things for the 99%.

So what's worse, do we think? Different equipment or different courses?

 

[hovis]

I agree the framing is misrepresentative but I think they are in the same bucket of problems. Golf as a whole has to come to terms with whether pros and amateurs play on the same courses. The only thing that is going to keep that 1% and 99% playing on the same courses is controlling the equipment. And yeah, I feel a bit funny about the 1% being used as a reason to change things for the 99%.

So what's worse, do we think? Different equipment or different courses?

Why does it have to be different courses? 99% of golf courses in the UK would not be a suitable test for a tour pro event anyway. So let's talk about the 1% that are. I play the brabazon regularly. I can play it at 7160 if I choose or I can play it at 5600. The belfry give you the choice.
Exactly the same with the forest of arden, celtic manor and gleneagles

 

[Imurg]

One question that needs to be asked is...who holds the most power?
USGA/R&A or the PGA Tour/ET/AT etc..?
Should the governing bodies decide to rollback certain aspects of the equipment can’t the Tours just turn around and say..
"Yeah .. And? We're going to play our game, you can play yours....what are you going to do about it?"
What happens then?

 

[Jimaroid]

So let's talk about the 1% that are. I play the brabazon regularly. I can play it at 7160 if I choose or I can play it at 5600. The belfry give you the choice.
Exactly the same with the forest of arden, celtic manor and gleneagles

Yes but, remind me, when was the last time the best in the world competed on these courses?

The courses they are working to protect are the ones that cannot be extended much further and it's already been conceded in the USGA/R&A distance insights project that forever extending courses is unsustainable.

 

[hovis]

Yes but, remind me, when was the last time the best in the world competed on these courses?

The courses they are working to protect are the ones that cannot be extended much further and it's already been conceded in the USGA/R&A distance insights project that forever extending courses is unsustainable.

Your post was about the 1% of pro golfers playing on the same courses as us. What I'm saying is we don't play the same courses. When we do they play them further back so why change our equipment to suit a situation we're never going to be in?
The courses I've mentioned continues to host tour events so they are not irrelevant yet and if they draw a line in the sand now (in reference with equipment) they will never be irrelevant

 

[Jimaroid]

When we do they play them further back so why change our equipment to suit a situation we're never going to be in?

Who is "our equipment" in reference to here? I'm suggesting they change the equipment for the 1% (the pros) not the 99% (us amatuers) so that we can all continue to play golf on reasonably equivalent courses.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I agree the framing is misrepresentative but I think they are in the same bucket of problems. Golf as a whole has to come to terms with whether pros and amateurs play on the same courses. The only thing that is going to keep that 1% and 99% playing on the same courses is controlling the equipment. And yeah, I feel a bit funny about the 1% being used as a reason to change things for the 99%.

So what's worse, do we think? Different equipment or different courses?

Overall I don’t have an issue with the pros using something different - different ball etc , let them crack on, their game is million miles away from ours anyway.

Wouldn’t want to see two level of courses for us mere mortals and the walking gods ?

The only stumbling block I see is the manufacturers have to look to bring in two levels of equipment , ball mainly as opposed to equipment as most of their clubs are miles from what we get off the shelves

 

[hovis]

Who is "our equipment" in reference to here? I'm suggesting they change the equipment for the 1% (the pros) not the 99% (us amatuers) so that we can all continue to play golf on reasonably equivalent courses.

Oh. We're arguing about the same thing then ?

 

[Imurg]

Oh. We're arguing about the same thing then ?

Yeah, that never happens on here..

 

[Golfnut1957]

One question that needs to be asked is...who holds the most power?
USGA/R&A or the PGA Tour/ET/AT etc..?
Should the governing bodies decide to rollback certain aspects of the equipment can’t the Tours just turn around and say..
"Yeah .. And? We're going to play our game, you can play yours....what are you going to do about it?"
What happens then?

The only problem that I can see is majors.
When it comes to playing the two Opens the powers that be could insist that the participants participate with conforming clubs and balls.
That would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

 

[Jimaroid]

Oh. We're arguing about the same thing then ?

Hooray!

 

[USER1999]

The only problem that I can see is majors.
When it comes to playing the two Opens the powers that be could insist that the participants participate with conforming clubs and balls.
That would put the cat amongst the pigeons.

The Open used to use the small ball, the US based majors used the large. It wasn't a problem then, it won't be now.

Tennis players use a tournament ball. It is specified by the tournament, and they are all different. Chuck in a different surface, and it still works. They just practice before competing.

 

[nickjdavis]

Changing the ball is they way to go. Ball manufacturers have huge resources dedicated to R&D and it wouldn't be at all difficult for them to produce say three different grades of ball for use in pro-golf....say a 10/15/20% distance reduction categories. Tours or organisers of individual events can then specify which category of ball has to be used.

Its not even something that would be difficult to experiment with....hold a test event where they all have to use range balls and see what the results are.

Doesn't need a long introduction period either as all the millions of balls lurking at the bottom of amateurs golf bags can still be used by them, so no need to give amateurs a grace period in which to change their equipment.

 

[Jimaroid]

This might sound crazy but thinking aloud.

Let's say Pros do use their own ball. Let's go a bit further and say they have a range of balls with differing characteristics. Tours etc. could stipulate which balls are available for each competition and the Pros can choose which they use from the offering each round. Is it then similar to tyre choice in motor racing? Would it liven up the strategies and discourse in professional golf?

It's the kind of narrative that the media loves to make a meal of, "It's a bad ball choice Bob, he should be using the C ball with the way this wind is blowing and that decision has cost him a shot now"

Thinking along those lines, I think it would be something the PGA Tour etc. can capitalise on rather than it be seen as wholly negative.

 

[Golfnut1957]

The Open used to use the small ball, the US based majors used the large. It wasn't a problem then, it won't be now.

Tennis players use a tournament ball. It is specified by the tournament, and they are all different. Chuck in a different surface, and it still works. They just practice before competing.

It's not just the ball though, it is COR and shaft length of the driver. So now when you turn up at an Open you have to play with a different driver and different ball.

No big deal you say, but you may or may not remember the rumpus when Rory went from Nike, who had never produced a ball that Rory felt comfortable with, to TaylorMade who also, at first, couldn't produce a ball that he was comfortable with, and so had to let continue with the ProV1 until they had manufactured a ball he felt he could put into play.

So I don't see him being happy at having to play a Dunlop 65 anytime soon.

 

[rulefan]

It's not just the ball though, it is COR and shaft length of the driver. So now when you turn up at an Open you have to play with a different driver and different ball.

No big deal you say, but you may or may not remember the rumpus when Rory went from Nike, who had never produced a ball that Rory felt comfortable with, to TaylorMade who also, at first, couldn't produce a ball that he was comfortable with, and so had to let continue with the ProV1 until they had manufactured a ball he felt he could put into play.

So I don't see him being happy at having to play a Dunlop 65 anytime soon.

Would he be more or less happy if all players were playing a ball with exactly the same specification ball as him.

 

[rulefan]

One question that needs to be asked is...who holds the most power?
USGA/R&A or the PGA Tour/ET/AT etc..?
Should the governing bodies decide to rollback certain aspects of the equipment can’t the Tours just turn around and say..
"Yeah .. And? We're going to play our game, you can play yours....what are you going to do about it?"
What happens then?

It would seem that the 'owners' of the majors (Open, US Open, Masters & PGA) together with the European Tour are expected to be receptive to the idea. The reaction of the PGA Tour will be interesting. IMO they can't afford to be out of step with majors.