Rolling back the pro game

[Klimski]

Okay, so as the season winds down, I have been thinking on this, also taking into account the plans to 'update' the Old Course to keep it relevant. To me it seems that it would be good to get some control on the pro game. The combination of distance and accuracy that players are getting from the newest generation of driver is making golf less interesting to me and many others. At the same time it appears that the ball roll back won't affect this very much, whilst being detrimental to amateur golfers. So I will put up a collection of measures for debate. These measures would first apply to the professional game but then after a phasing out period to all comps, professional and amateur.

- Golf club length, maximum of 44 inches
- Golf club loft minimum of 10 degrees
- Golf club head size maximum 360cc
- Max number of clubs 10
- Max loft 58 degrees

Although this looks quite radical, especially because it would phase out 460cc drivers, I don't think this would impact amateurs as much as many would think. The growing popularity of mini-drivers implies that many amateurs would acutally benefit from a higher lofted, shorter and smaller driver head.

Any thoughts?

 

[Neilds]

Okay, so as the season winds down, I have been thinking on this, also taking into account the plans to 'update' the Old Course to keep it relevant. To me it seems that it would be good to get some control on the pro game. The combination of distance and accuracy that players are getting from the newest generation of driver is making golf less interesting to me and many others. At the same time it appears that the ball roll back won't affect this very much, whilst being detrimental to amateur golfers. So I will put up a collection of measures for debate. These measures would first apply to the professional game but then after a phasing out period to all comps, professional and amateur.

- Golf club length, maximum of 44 inches
- Golf club loft minimum of 10 degrees
- Golf club head size maximum 360cc
- Max number of clubs 10
- Max loft 58 degrees

Although this looks quite radical, especially because it would phase out 460cc drivers, I don't think this would impact amateurs as much as many would think. The growing popularity of mini-drivers implies that many amateurs would acutally benefit from a higher lofted, shorter and smaller driver head.

Any thoughts?

Really? They were a fad about 10 years ago and then disappeared as quick as they came in, and only a few brands make them now. No-one I know plays them so maybe more popular in Europe than in the UK.

As for the rest of the points, I will just get my popcorn and wait for the heated discussions

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I think that is over complicated. The simplest thing is to adapt the balls. Work out how much distance they want to take off, alter the dimple pattern or dimple numbers accordingly, job done.

It's by far the simplest way to solve the issue. Whether you do that for the pro game only or for all of golf, that's up to debate (personally, I would do the pro game and elite amateur only. The rest of us need all of the help we can get )

 

[RichA]

I think that is over complicated. The simplest thing is to adapt the balls. Work out how much distance they want to take off, alter the dimple pattern or dimple numbers accordingly, job done.

It's by far the simplest way to solve the issue. Whether you do that for the pro game only or for all of golf, that's up to debate (personally, I would do the pro game and elite amateur only. The rest of us need all of the help we can get )

Even simpler to just adapt the course set up. Require those responsible to make the fairways narrow and the rough punitive between 300 and 400 yards. Make any hole other than the one they're playing internal OoB.
No need for bifurcation or changing of equipment rules that have a cost implication on the golfing public.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

So few people watch the Pro game, apart from a couple or 3 tournements a year. Making any changes won't make a difference to that. Just let them get on with it.
We already have quite strict club & ball limits in place now, that the game that millions of us lesser mortals play won't be getting any easier. Don't ruin it by making it harder

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Even simpler to just adapt the course set up. Require those responsible to make the fairways narrow and the rough punitive between 300 and 400 yards. Make any hole other than the one they're playing internal OoB.
No need for bifurcation or changing of equipment rules that have a cost implication on the golfing public.

Exactly how I see it.
Reward accuracy and punish off line with real punishment.

 

[jim8flog]

It is simple really, stop having the same equipment rules for pros and amateurs.

However this would not go down well with pros because manufacturers would question why they are paying them so much to promote kit that they cannot then sell to amateurs. It would not go down well with the manufacturers as amateurs would stop buying kit based upon what the pros are using.

Mini drivers have been around for years - they used to be called 2 woods. Most amateurs need more wedges rather another wood option.

 

[Orikoru]

- Golf club length, maximum of 44 inches
Not sure there'd be much impact, didn't Tiger play a 44 degree driver in his hey day anyway? Along with several others.

- Golf club loft minimum of 10 degrees
Don't mind having a minimum loft but I'd make it 9°. Below that is when it gets silly.

- Golf club head size maximum 360cc
Absolutely not. Like Neilds I also reject your premise that mini-drivers are becoming popular. I've never seen anybody at my club with one. I like my driver and would not want to go back to a 90s one thanks.

- Max number of clubs 10
I don't think this would affect distance, they'd just set up the bag with 16-20 yard gaps instead of 12-15.

- Max loft 58 degrees
Not sure what difference this makes. Hardly anybody would currently have a club with any more than 60° anyway.


I'll add what I always say when this discussion comes up. Rather than dicking about with the equipment I would simply set the course up differently in pro events to put a premium on accuracy. Make the roped off areas of spectators out of bounds (added bonus of protecting the fans a little more). Make the fairway narrower after the 300-yard mark. If a player is good enough to hit it 350 carry and dead straight to hit a 20 yard fairway, then fair play to them, they deserve the advantage it brings and fans still want to see it.

 

[doublebogey7]

I wouldn't make any changes to the equipment rules beyond perhaps the maximum length of the shaft for all clubs, including putters. I would like to see ball strikers and those that can work the ball rewarded, so pro game courses should be set up to reward just that. Also I think a Local Rule for limiting the number of clubs should be available for Pro Events.

 

[Slab]

I think any changes to course set up need to be carefully thought through. Pre/Post a visit from the Tour the members/visitors still have to play the course and even with current set ups it affects the AM golfers for several months already by making the course much tougher.
If you start pinching in and growing out fairways right where a sizable group of AM players are landing their 1st & 2nd shots then courses are gonna lose their primary revenue routes

 

[Imurg]

Personally, I don't give a rat's what the Pros get up to...it's a different game so let them get on with it.
Winning scores aren't always 20+ under par and the longest hitters don't win every week.
Nothing that the Powers that be decide to do to the Pro game should filter down to Club golf though.
Elite amateurs..yeah, make them use Pro equipment but us clubbers?
If you're overpowering your home course then you need to find a longer one.
I see very few gross under par scores at my place which is under 6400 off the back tees...
It's a non issue for us and it's largely irrelevant in the Pro game.
We had a tournament a few weeks back where even Rory didn't have a driver in the bag...OK once in a while but you'll get bored seeing irons off every tee after a few weeks.

 

[bobmac]

So basically, the idea seems to be to make golf harder.
The question is should it be across the board, ams and pros?
So you have manufacturers trying to make golf easier, the ruling bodies trying to make it harder and congu trying to make it easier.
I think the choices are make the courses longer (not practical in some cases) or narrower (much easier) and maybe hide the pins more.
Making courses long hasn't seem to have worked in the passed so I would go for narrower fairways and longer rough but only for the pros.
If they want to continue making millions, make them work for it, and let amateurs have fun.

 

[Orikoru]

Personally, I don't give a rat's what the Pros get up to...it's a different game so let them get on with it.
Winning scores aren't always 20+ under par and the longest hitters don't win every week.
Nothing that the Powers that be decide to do to the Pro game should filter down to Club golf though.
Elite amateurs..yeah, make them use Pro equipment but us clubbers?
If you're overpowering your home course then you need to find a longer one.
I see very few gross under par scores at my place which is under 6400 off the back tees...
It's a non issue for us and it's largely irrelevant in the Pro game.
We had a tournament a few weeks back where even Rory didn't have a driver in the bag...OK once in a while but you'll get bored seeing irons off every tee after a few weeks.

Yeah, this is my problem with them mucking about with equipment. I don't want to see anything changed that affects me. I shouldn't be punished because pro tour golfers have become athletes that can smack it 360 - while I'm still out here happy with 240 if I'm lucky.

 

[cookelad]

For me the narrow the fairways and grow the rough argument does exactly the opposite of what it's supposed to do, they've been doing it for nearly the 30years now and players keep getting longer because it's still beneficial to be long in the rough than short in the fairway, and even if it did work it would mean taking the driver out of peoples hand and the American spectator only want to see pros hitting drivers as hard as they can.

I'd like to see the ball rolled back a little more than planned and bring the driver head size down too. We're already bifurcated anyway why not just make it official!

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Even simpler to just adapt the course set up. Require those responsible to make the fairways narrow and the rough punitive between 300 and 400 yards. Make any hole other than the one they're playing internal OoB.
No need for bifurcation or changing of equipment rules that have a cost implication on the golfing public.

I agree with @Slab post #10 on this one. The impact on courses used would be quite negative for the members etc who use the course outside of the tournament. I don't know the timescales before and after but it would be a negative

 

[bobmac]

it's still beneficial to be long in the rough than short in the fairway, and even if it did work it would mean taking the driver out of peoples hand and the American spectator only want to see pros hitting drivers as hard as they can.

Not if the pins are tucked behind a bunker.
And who cares what American spectators want

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

- Golf club length, maximum of 44 inches - The current average in tour sits at 45 inches anyway but ranges from 44.5 to 45.25 which comes in under the standard of the shel averages so would make zero difference to a tour players length or dispersion
- Golf club loft minimum of 10 degrees - Doesn't achieve the desired affect of reducing distance, Schauffle won the Open with a 10.5 degree driver and he's not short! They mostly hit up on the ball anyway so all they would need is minor tweaks to maintain dynamic loft so no sense in that change.
- Golf club head size maximum 360cc - They tend to find the middle of the face anyway so would not have the drastic impact you'd be hoping for
- Max number of clubs 10 - Why I genuinely can't see the logic in this unless you're just wanting them to be more creative, most rounds they play they won't have used all 14 clubs in the round so will just make sure they hit to the numbers required and would not impact scoring at that level
- Max loft 58 degrees - Zero significance of making a top level player use a 58 degree over a 60 degree at their level that's a negligible difference imo and would not impact greenside scoring

Although this looks quite radical, especially because it would phase out 460cc drivers, I don't think this would impact amateurs as much as many would think. The growing popularity of mini-drivers implies that many amateurs would acutally benefit from a higher lofted, shorter and smaller driver head.

Any thoughts?

The only people that would suffer with the reduced driver size is club players, the higher MOI is what keeps most people in play and would significantly impact the average golfers ability to get the ball off the tee. Personally I love a mini driver and smaller headed club, but (guessing on figures here) 85%+ of average club golfers do not generate enough club head speed to make a a mini driver viable as an option even at 13 degrees that's why they're not widely used to to then reduce the size of a normal 10.5 degree driver head back down to 360CC with a longer shaft will have a massive effect on the club player.

The average winning score of the last 10 US Open Championships is -7 to -9 under par. That alone proves you do not need to make any changes to equipment, you just need to make smarter choices on setting up courses for PGA Tour events if you want to reduce winning scores. The last 5 US masters winners lowest winning score was Rahm in 2023 at -12, you don't need to adjust equipment you just have to make the course set up right. Golf is hard enough for everyone without making unnecessary changes to impact on everyone's enjoyment of the game.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

So basically, the idea seems to be to make golf harder.
The question is should it be across the board, ams and pros?
So you have manufacturers trying to make golf easier, the ruling bodies trying to make it harder and congu trying to make it easier.
I think the choices are make the courses longer (not practical in some cases) or narrower (much easier) and maybe hide the pins more.
Making courses long hasn't seem to have worked in the passed so I would go for narrower fairways and longer rough but only for the pros.
If they want to continue making millions, make them work for it, and let amateurs have fun.

If I could like this twice I would

Sums it all up nicely, course set up has been shown to lower scores, tight the fairways, reduce the run offs and put pins in places where they can't just fire at them. Plus as you said in that last few words let people have fun its bloody hard enough as it is

 

[Neilds]

The only people that would suffer with the reduced driver size is club players, the higher MOI is what keeps most people in play and would significantly impact the average golfers ability to get the ball off the tee. Personally I love a mini driver and smaller headed club, but (guessing on figures here) 85%+ of average club golfers do not generate enough club head speed to make a a mini driver viable as an option even at 13 degrees that's why they're not widely used to to then reduce the size of a normal 10.5 degree driver head back down to 360CC with a longer shaft will have a massive effect on the club player.

The average winning score of the last 10 US Open Championships is -7 to -9 under par. That alone proves you do not need to make any changes to equipment, you just need to make smarter choices on setting up courses for PGA Tour events if you want to reduce winning scores. The last 5 US masters winners lowest winning score was Rahm in 2023 at -12, you don't need to adjust equipment you just have to make the course set up right. Golf is hard enough for everyone without making unnecessary changes to impact on everyone's enjoyment of the game.

Not sure if using the Masters as a prime example of course set up is the best - take away the joke greens and what real protection is there?

 

[Klimski]

Okay, that took off, even more than I thought it would! great debate here. I think the consensus is that the 'solution' is course setup. I personally don't really like the ball rollback idea, but it has some proponents here. As a general sentiment: I couldn't agree more that the game is hard enough for regular folks like me haha