Roll Back Discussion

[Backsticks]

After listening and reading a variety of commentators on this now, there is a strong case of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" from the sellers of golf improvement, coaching, speed chase, and elite level golfers and associations. (a lopsided perspective being given due to the golf level profile of all of them being dramatically skewed to the high skilled end of the spectrum. Not many 21 HI golfer have a platform for their views).

Along the lines of :

- it will make the game harder
- it will be less fun
- every one is just going to get longer ao its pointless
- everyone is going to move to speed and strength training, and some are going to do it the wrong way or too fast, and get injured
- the manufacturers will find technologies to give us back tge length even with the spec change so its pointless
- lots of amateurs dont have the skill or time to put into training to recover the distance they will lose
- golf is already difficult enough as we lose distance with age anyway, so why accelerate this
- amateurs will be hitting an extra iron into a greens, and thats baaaaad
- people who cant recover the lost length will leave the game

ALL of them missing the point that 99% of those playing golf are not obsessed with speed ! They dont go to the gym. The fun of golf for them hitting their approach shot from 164 instead of 169 does not change a whit. The challenge for ams is not 5 yard distance margins : its hitting a reasonably clean shot in the general direction and distance of the green AT ALL. Most golfers already enjoy the game perfectly never hitting a driver beyond 220 yards. The challenge and enjoyment of the game was no less for those who played it only 30 years ago with wooden drivers and short balls and 200 yards was a big drive.

In short, their perspective is a very particular one. But out of sync with the bulk of golfers. And drmatically over represented in the media commentary.

 

[harpo_72]

After listening and reading a variety of commentators on this now, there is a strong case of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" from the sellers of golf improvement, coaching, speed chase, and elite level golfers and associations. (a lopsided perspective being given due to the golf level profile of all of them being dramatically skewed to the high skilled end of the spectrum. Not many 21 HI golfer have a platform for their views).

Along the lines of :

- it will make the game harder
- it will be less fun
- every one is just going to get longer ao its pointless
- everyone is going to move to speed and strength training, and some are going to do it the wrong way or too fast, and get injured
- the manufacturers will find technologies to give us back tge length even with the spec change so its pointless
- lots of amateurs dont have the skill or time to put into training to recover the distance they will lose
- golf is already difficult enough as we lose distance with age anyway, so why accelerate this
- amateurs will be hitting an extra iron into a greens, and thats baaaaad
- people who cant recover the lost length will leave the game

ALL of them missing the point that 99% of those playing golf are not obsessed with speed ! They dont go to the gym. The fun of golf for them hitting their approach shot from 164 instead of 169 does not change a whit. The challenge for ams is not 5 yard distance margins : its hitting a reasonably clean shot in the general direction and distance of the green AT ALL. Most golfers already enjoy the game perfectly never hitting a driver beyond 220 yards. The challenge and enjoyment of the game was no less for those who played it only 30 years ago with wooden drivers and short balls and 200 yards was a big drive.

In short, their perspective is a very particular one. But out of sync with the bulk of golfers. And drmatically over represented in the media commentary.

Totally agree it’s just media and marketing… if I were environmentally inclined I would be asking about material consumption and disposal .. pretty sure the product renewal rate is responsible for a lot of landfill.

 

[Jigger]

Not sure about 500yds.
You can’t have tee markers more than 10 yds from the measured marker up to a max of 100yds total.

prepared to be proved wrong.

You’ve been proved right!

I was just recalling a conversation about winter tees many years ago so must've changed. Doesn’t take away my point about getting the course remeasured if clubs move further forward though. What I was getting at in my original post is that our tees have moved back over the years and presumably remeasured, so there’s plenty of room for us to move forward……if needed

 

[clubchamp98]

You’ve been proved right!

I was just recalling a conversation about winter tees many years ago so must've changed. Doesn’t take away my point about getting the course remeasured if clubs move further forward though. What I was getting at in my original post is that our tees have moved back over the years and presumably remeasured, so there’s plenty of room for us to move forward……if needed

Yes good debate.

But for your comps to be qualifying the course would need remeasuring.

Why not just put another set of markers at say 500yds shorter than your back tees.
That would give you more choice instead of White/ Yellow and Red maybe stick a Blue tee in for a slightly shorter course.
would spread the wear and tear on tees as well.

Regards.

Ps we have Green winter tees that are rated for comps.

 

[Imurg]

Talking of ratings/Slope....
Assuming the rollback does happen in 2030 and the reduction of distance is a round that predicted....
A Model Scratch golfer will only be able to hit 240 yards and not 250...
Is this going to mean courses need to be re-rated?

 

[Jigger]

Yes good debate.

But for your comps to be qualifying the course would need remeasuring.

Why not just put another set of markers at say 500yds shorter than your back tees.
That would give you more choice instead of White/ Yellow and Red maybe stick a Blue tee in for a slightly shorter course.
would spread the wear and tear on tees as well.

Regards.

Ps we have Green winter tees that are rated for comps.

On our longer course we used to have orange in front of reds. I’m a big advocate of getting rid of standard colours and having handicap recommended tees for general play. The game is supposed to be fun and more people should play it imo.

I keep trying to persuade the lads to play off the reds at our place as a one off as they provide a completely different layout to the standard tees but they have some sort of extreme phobia about them being ladies tees

 

[clubchamp98]

On our longer course we used to have orange in front of reds. I’m a big advocate of getting rid of standard colours and having handicap recommended tees for general play. The game is supposed to be fun and more people should play it imo.

I keep trying to persuade the lads to play off the reds at our place as a one off as they provide a completely different layout to the standard tees but they have some sort of extreme phobia about them being ladies tees

Do a charity comp and make them wear a dress.

 

[Backache]

. Most golfers already enjoy the game perfectly never hitting a driver beyond 220 yards.

In terms of male golfers the majority of club golfers almost certainly do hit drives beyond 220 yds.

 

[Backsticks]

In terms of male golfers the majority of club golfers almost certainly do hit drives beyond 220 yds.

No, 215yds according to the R&A.

 

[Backache]

No, 215yds according to the R&A.

No that is the average drive of golfers, everyone has a dispersion around an average If you are averaging 215 yds for every 200 yd miss hit you have to hit a 230 yd shot to make up for it. (Obviously you can hit 15 216 yd shots but that is unlikely though there is probably a skew but with a mode shot significantly over 215 yds and almost certainly many shots over 220.) Someone averaging 215 yds will hit quite a large number of drives over 220 yds.

 

[Wilson]

I’ve not read the entire thread, so apologies if I’m repeating whats already been said, but I’m baffled about why they are reducing the distance by so little. i can’t see the top Pro’s being concerned about losing 15yds off a drive, make it 50yds and it’s a different conversation. Add in that the young kids coming through are hitting it further again, and I’m not sure they’ve solved the problem?

 

[wjemather]

Talking of ratings/Slope....
Assuming the rollback does happen in 2030 and the reduction of distance is a round that predicted....
A Model Scratch golfer will only be able to hit 240 yards and not 250...
Is this going to mean courses need to be re-rated?

No, the model scratch golfer will not change - 230 carry plus 20 yards roll.

 

[Voyager EMH]

On our longer course we used to have orange in front of reds. I’m a big advocate of getting rid of standard colours and having handicap recommended tees for general play. The game is supposed to be fun and more people should play it imo.

I keep trying to persuade the lads to play off the reds at our place as a one off as they provide a completely different layout to the standard tees but they have some sort of extreme phobia about them being ladies tees

We've recently had our red tees rated for males.
I'm not sure if we were even allowed to play from the reds up to now. Fairly certain some of the ladies would not welcome increased foot fall on their much smaller teeing areas.

I've been giving the card some study. Course is reduced by an average 48 yards per hole compared with the white tees. Par is reduced by two shots producing two very long par 4s.
White tees Par 70, CR 70.8 and SR 132.
Red tees Par 68, CR 66.7 and SR 121.

Off the whites, a score of 76 gives me a SD of 4.5. That is a target score for me. Close to my HI, but most likely giving me a cut.
Off the reds, I need to be about four and a half shots better to achieve the same thing.
Quite a challenge. Looking forward to giving it a go. Make fewer bogeys and make more birdies - that will be my challenge.

For the stableford thinkers it will appear very tough.
Subtract 1.3 (rather than add 0.8) from Course Handicap which is already a bit lower due to SR=121 and two of the par 5s become long par 4s. (446 and an uphill 439 yards)
"Get 3 shots fewer" and two of the holes are one shot harder.

I might try to explain my way of thinking that the difference is about four and a half shots, but I'll probably just save my breath.

 

[harpo_72]

We've recently had our red tees rated for males.
I'm not sure if we were even allowed to play from the reds up to now. Fairly certain some of the ladies would not welcome increased foot fall on their much smaller teeing areas.

I've been giving the card some study. Course is reduced by an average 48 yards per hole compared with the white tees. Par is reduced by two shots producing two very long par 4s.
White tees Par 70, CR 70.8 and SR 132.
Red tees Par 68, CR 66.7 and SR 121.

Off the whites, a score of 76 gives me a SD of 4.5. That is a target score for me. Close to my HI, but most likely giving me a cut.
Off the reds, I need to be about four and a half shots better to achieve the same thing.
Quite a challenge. Looking forward to giving it a go. Make fewer bogeys and make more birdies - that will be my challenge.

For the stableford thinkers it will appear very tough.
Subtract 1.3 (rather than add 0.8) from Course Handicap which is already a bit lower due to SR=121 and two of the par 5s become long par 4s. (446 and an uphill 439 yards)
"Get 3 shots fewer" and two of the holes are a shot harder.

I might try to explain my way of thinking that the difference is about four and a half shots, but I'll probably just save my breath.

I suppose it’s course management but then you will not see massive opportunities if you are one club less into greens but there will always be a total yardage which will be a challenge.

 

[Jigger]

We've recently had our red tees rated for males.
I'm not sure if we were even allowed to play from the reds up to now. Fairly certain some of the ladies would not welcome increased foot fall on their much smaller teeing areas.

I've been giving the card some study. Course is reduced by an average 48 yards per hole compared with the white tees. Par is reduced by two shots producing two very long par 4s.
White tees Par 70, CR 70.8 and SR 132.
Red tees Par 68, CR 66.7 and SR 121.

Off the whites, a score of 76 gives me a SD of 4.5. That is a target score for me. Close to my HI, but most likely giving me a cut.
Off the reds, I need to be about four and a half shots better to achieve the same thing.
Quite a challenge. Looking forward to giving it a go. Make fewer bogeys and make more birdies - that will be my challenge.

For the stableford thinkers it will appear very tough.
Subtract 1.3 (rather than add 0.8) from Course Handicap which is already a bit lower due to SR=121 and two of the par 5s become long par 4s. (446 and an uphill 439 yards)
"Get 3 shots fewer" and two of the holes are a shot harder.

I might try to explain my way of thinking that the difference is about four and a half shots, but I'll probably just save my breath.

I’m always amazed by the detail you get into fella

 

[jim8flog]

We've recently had our red tees rated for males.
Fairly certain some of the ladies would not welcome increased foot fall on their much smaller teeing areas.

A comment often heard from the ladies where I play.

Having asked a few very short hitters where I play none of them wanted to play off the reds.

I welcome the change in one respect very young juniors will now be able to play off the reds and put in cards for handicap.

 

[Imurg]

On my solo rounds I'll often play some holes from the reds..
Although CR and Slope are lower than our yellows or whites, some of the tee shot angles make certain holes much trickier than when playing from the other tees
Most of thenLadies don't hit the ball far enough to bring these angles into play for them but 200+ drivers need to think a lot more about their 1st shots.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Now there's an idea. I might sneak a whole round on my own off the reds to make an assessment. Won't be for a few weeks or even months given the state of the course.

 

[Slab]

Yes good debate.

But for your comps to be qualifying the course would need remeasuring.

Why not just put another set of markers at say 500yds shorter than your back tees.
That would give you more choice instead of White/ Yellow and Red maybe stick a Blue tee in for a slightly shorter course.
would spread the wear and tear on tees as well.

Regards.

Ps we have Green winter tees that are rated for comps.

Yeah, we have 5 tee markers for players to choose from, with roughly 400/500 yard increments between them from 5,400 up to 7,100
Par and SI remain constant on any tee and are the same par/SI for men & women and all are rated for both, so loads of choice & options

I pick between two for my social golf depending on the days wind/weather but weirdly comp organisers never seem to stray from the traditional ‘template tees’ for men/women/seniors etc irrespective of conditions/environment

edit:
From my current 15.4 index, my course handicap would be as low as 6 and up to 20, solely based on the course length

 

[Red scorpion]

In what way has the game been harmed for handicap golfers?