the Distance Debate - should the authorities act

[sunshine]

I actually think that will favour the bombers more.

Bottom line is all of these guys are trying to hit the ball hard. Even the shorter hitters are still missing 30% of the fairways. Golf is difficult.

Example I'd use is the PGA at Bethpage black last year. Narrow fairways and thick rough.

Ultimately the leaderboard was all big power / muscle guys. Apart from Jordan Spieth who putted his socks off all week.

The reason being is if a bomber misses the fairway at 320 yards and a normal guy misses it at 290... bomber might have 120 yards to the green, but 150 yards for a weaker player is a huge difference. Big guy can get more loft and has more power to hit the ball out and hold the green. Shorter hitter has distance, less loft and less power going against him.

Now I appreciate mostly everyone can lift weights and get stronger, but in terms of your point... thick rough / heather around the fairways isn't going to have the imapct you imagine it will. In many cases the opposite impact.

In this scenario, the "bomber" is just a better player. Bomber misses 30% of fairways, short hitter misses 30% of fairways. Better ball striker is rewarded. Bombing it 320 is a skill.

 

[Grant85]

In this scenario, the "bomber" is just a better player. Bomber misses 30% of fairways, short hitter misses 30% of fairways. Better ball striker is rewarded. Bombing it 320 is a skill.

Nobody is denying it's a skill. The bombers will miss more fairways, but not enough to make a difference. Especially as they can gouge it on from short range and still put a score together.

The whole point is that it's looking increasingly likely that it's the dominant skill that all successful golfers will have to have.

If you think that's a good thing, then carry on. If you'd rather see a more equal emphasis on other golfing skills, then there has to be some changes made.

 

[sunshine]

I'd be interested to know how much further a modern ball travels compared to one from say 20 years ago. When hit by a pro, a bomber, but also an average bogey golfer.

I think the way golfers have evolved their strength, conditioning and technique to hit further should be rewarded. I don't mind if equipment manufacturers' R&D is helping with distance (within sensible regulations) because equipment advances have always been a part of the game, even a hundred years ago. It doesn't sit well with me if the distance gain is largely down to the ball.

 

[harpo_72]

I'd be interested to know how much further a modern ball travels compared to one from say 20 years ago. When hit by a pro, a bomber, but also an average bogey golfer.

I think the way golfers have evolved their strength, conditioning and technique to hit further should be rewarded. I don't mind if equipment manufacturers' R&D is helping with distance (within sensible regulations) because equipment advances have always been a part of the game, even a hundred years ago. It doesn't sit well with me if the distance gain is largely down to the ball.

Rick shiels compared current or 2018 pro v vs professional 90.. spin rates were similar off the driver but the distance was not stand out different (10 yards, but this is lost if your strike is inconsistent) the ball speed deficit explains the yardage loss. It suggests the cores have improved and how they transfer the energy.

 

[harpo_72]

at the time I preferred the 100 compression balata... this was okay

 

[Grant85]

I'd be interested to know how much further a modern ball travels compared to one from say 20 years ago. When hit by a pro, a bomber, but also an average bogey golfer.

I think the way golfers have evolved their strength, conditioning and technique to hit further should be rewarded. I don't mind if equipment manufacturers' R&D is helping with distance (within sensible regulations) because equipment advances have always been a part of the game, even a hundred years ago. It doesn't sit well with me if the distance gain is largely down to the ball.

I think this is 2 fold.

One is that the modern ball spins less and travels further - massively so at higher swing speeds - but also the modern clubs, especially Driver, are more forgiving. So players can swing harder and not worry as much that the mishits will turn into big miss.

For elite players, they obviously have the skills and know how to up their swing speed, as well as the tech to dial in their equipment for optimum spin / launch / distance.

I worry that the authorities are going to concentrate largely on regulating the ball when there's actually a number of marginal gains from other areas of the equipment that has led to the significant distance gains in the past few years.

 

[Grant85]

Reading the conclusions of the USGA distance report, it seems very likely they are going to make changes.

USGA

I think the USGA are always very aware that 99.9% of golf is played recreationally and there has been a long standing convention that everyone plays the same rules. From an equipment point of view they are often careful not to 'ban' equipment that Joe Public might have just saved up for 2 years to buy.

Were that not the case, we would likely have seen significant changes and maybe even annual tinkering in terms of what the pros can use on a similar scale to what is seen in F1. Clearly it's not a barrier to a pro if they HAVE to change equipment every year or two. Most of them do that anyway.

It seems the 'local rule' option that tournament committees would have the choice to stipulate 'rolled back' equipment is likely to be the way round this. Effectively it will mean bifurcation. Obviously it will be interesting to see if all tournaments adopt it - I'd imagine the Open, Masters and US Open will certainly adopt it but I think the PGA Tour will be less keen.

 

[harpo_72]

I think this is 2 fold.

One is that the modern ball spins less and travels further - massively so at higher swing speeds - but also the modern clubs, especially Driver, are more forgiving. So players can swing harder and not worry as much that the mishits will turn into big miss.

For elite players, they obviously have the skills and know how to up their swing speed, as well as the tech to dial in their equipment for optimum spin / launch / distance.

I worry that the authorities are going to concentrate largely on regulating the ball when there's actually a number of marginal gains from other areas of the equipment that has led to the significant distance gains in the past few years.

See the videos..
Solution is to minimise driver heads and set a compression tolerance on the ball. That ball will have a peak distance and a particular speed... these boys will find it and the driver distance will max out. They could match it closely with the equipment and really penalise they thrashers and benefit the pure strikers .. which is what I would do.

 

[harpo_72]

Reading the conclusions of the USGA distance report, it seems very likely they are going to make changes.

USGA

I think the USGA are always very aware that 99.9% of golf is played recreationally and there has been a long standing convention that everyone plays the same rules. From an equipment point of view they are often careful not to 'ban' equipment that Joe Public might have just saved up for 2 years to buy.

Were that not the case, we would likely have seen significant changes and maybe even annual tinkering in terms of what the pros can use on a similar scale to what is seen in F1. Clearly it's not a barrier to a pro if they HAVE to change equipment every year or two. Most of them do that anyway.

It seems the 'local rule' option that tournament committees would have the choice to stipulate 'rolled back' equipment is likely to be the way round this. Effectively it will mean bifurcation. Obviously it will be interesting to see if all tournaments adopt it - I'd imagine the Open, Masters and US Open will certainly adopt it but I think the PGA Tour will be less keen.

Bifurcation doesn’t need to happen .. drop the head sizes and change the ball ... for all .. if people cannot manage I am sure there are plenty of jobs that can be done around the house. Or develop Your game that allows you to manage if this is your situation..

 

[Grant85]

See the videos..
Solution is to minimise driver heads and set a compression tolerance on the ball. That ball will have a peak distance and a particular speed... these boys will find it and the driver distance will max out. They could match it closely with the equipment and really penalise they thrashers and benefit the pure strikers .. which is what I would do.

I'd tend to agree but I think it will be difficult to sell a big roll back in Driver heads to the recreational world. 460cc currently is the limit... a 3 wood might be 170cc (for context). Does a 250cc or 350cc Driver a) make a difference to the pros and b) justify the expense and perceived loss to a recreational player?

It would be a huge and radical change if they did restrict Drivers in that way for all golf. Long term, I think courses move the tees up a few yards on 30% to 50% of the holes and there's no real impact for most golfers.

You can just imagine the classic club golfer blaming the USGA every time they hit a poor drive. And not to mention millions of Drivers becoming obsolete & worthless over night.

Bifurcation doesn’t need to happen .. drop the head sizes and change the ball ... for all .. if people cannot manage I am sure there are plenty of jobs that can be done around the house. Or develop Your game that allows you to manage if this is your situation..

My feeling is that the driver change would be too much of a challenge to the idea of making golf accessible, that the USGA will be reluctant to impose that, at least at 1st. So the local rule / bifurcation looks like the most palatable option. Maybe once these 'restricted' clubs exist and people see it's not as big a change, it might happen.

Personally feel a smaller driver around a slightly shorter course actually makes golf more accessible.

 

[harpo_72]

When you look at 3 woods they are creeping up in size, but reign that back make the change gradual. I think a lot of golfers will go smaller if the pros are, as they want to be like them ( it’s the football kit fraternity ?) .
But if you asked people how well they hit the 5 wood (as that is still a small head) and then think about that as their go to tee box club .. I wonder what the answer would be? I would as I don’t feel a massive yardage loss, and I pick up the ability to shape as well .. which big drivers have designed out of them. It’s interesting because you have the recreational golfer who may possibly resist but if you asked do they ride a bike with stabilisers I wonder what they would say ... I know I am controversial but if you don’t explore the extreme end you won’t have a full answer

 

[Jimaroid]

Reading the conclusions of the USGA distance report, it seems very likely they are going to make changes.

It's the same report I referenced earlier in the thread but no matter, the outcomes have been pretty clear for months - tacit admission that equipment will change because courses cannot. I just don't think they've had all the data to support their desired direction until the last year or so. When the project started five years (from memory, it might be more but it was discussed on this forum at the time) ago the data at that time implied that distance had plateaued which didn't align with perception - since then the data is showing rate of change has increased dramatically in the last 3 years so they can't not act again.

I think they can do a ball change along with a landmark recycling programme. That fits the principals of governance and sustainability that are priorities for the R&A and by association the USGA.

 

[Grant85]

It's the same report I referenced earlier in the thread but no matter, the outcomes have been pretty clear for months - tacit admission that equipment will change because courses cannot. I just don't think they've had all the data to support their desired direction until the last year or so. When the project started five years (from memory, it might be more but it was discussed on this forum at the time) ago the data at that time implied that distance had plateaued which didn't align with perception - since then the data is showing rate of change has increased dramatically in the last 3 years so they can't not act again.

I think they can do a ball change along with a landmark recycling programme. That fits the principals of governance and sustainability that are priorities for the R&A and by association the USGA.

Recycling programme in terms of balls or clubs (or both). A club recycling programme would / could cost crazy amounts of money surely?

As I said, without some kind of bifurcation, I feel making pretty much every Driver made in the past 25 years non-conforming - even with a 3 to 5 year lead in time - is going to be a tough one to sell to golfers and courses trying to encourage more play.

Sure, there's folk who think nothing of going out and spending £400+ on a new driver every year or two, but there's also a lot of people whose entire bag didn't cost that and they basically rely on second hand market and hand me downs from friends / family.

Perhaps there's a solution whereby you use ball A with conforming equipment or use ball B with non-conforming equipment for a grand fathering period. But adds additional confusion and will be difficult to police in amateur ranks. Also reliant on manufacturers making and labelling said balls (which I'm sure they will, but might have a good moan about it 1st).

 

[USER1999]

Any changes would have to mean bifurcation, which I am in favour of anyway.

 

[Jimaroid]

Recycling programme in terms of balls or clubs (or both). A club recycling programme would / could cost crazy amounts of money surely?

I only wrote ball for a reason.

 

[CountLippe]

Increase the number of par 3's. This reduces the number wedge Par 4's, and round time.

 

[Orikoru]

Just as an aside, if they did change the ball for everyone, wouldn't they be in danger of losing a huge amount of sponsorship from Titleist ProV1 etc? Surely this will be a factor making them less likely to do it. On the PGA leaderboards on their website it tells you who's playing Titleist balls etc. They must be getting paid a decent whack for all that.

 

[clubchamp98]

Just as an aside, if they did change the ball forever, wouldn't they be in danger of losing a huge amount of sponsorship from Titleist ProV1 etc? Surely this will be a factor making them less likely to do it. On the PGA leaderboards on their website it tells you who's playing Titleist balls etc. They must be getting paid a decent whack for all that.

Can’t see how it would affect sponsorship as the players who play Titleist would still play them if all balls were slowed down!
The ball has been changed before from 1.62 to the modern size.
ProV1 would still exist just a shorter version.
But most balls are sold with distance claims, they will have to be adjusted to “ The longest new conforming balls”.
Only problem I can see is I have 8 dozen in my garage so will need time to lose them first.
If they want to do it they can. But can see the lawyers sharpening their pencils.
I am just imaginings the first round with the new balls, people thinking their ball has split because they are 20yds shorter, “bring it on I say”

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Can’t see how it would affect sponsorship as the players who play Titleist would still play them if all balls were slowed down!
The ball has been changed before from 1.62 to the modern size.
ProV1 would still exist just a shorter version.
But most balls are sold with distance claims, they will have to be adjusted to “ The longest new conforming balls”.
Only problem I can see is I have 8 dozen in my garage so will need time to lose them first.
If they want to do it they can. But can see the lawyers sharpening their pencils.
I am just imaginings the first round with the new balls, people thinking their ball has split because they are 20yds shorter, “bring it on I say”

Could be worth revisiting the grooves again.

Wedges are spinning more than they ever did, it was supposed to be a game changer last time, penalising players finding the rough but thats not the case now.

Only players getting penalised are those that can't carry it 300+ through the air.

 

[Orikoru]

Can’t see how it would affect sponsorship as the players who play Titleist would still play them if all balls were slowed down!
The ball has been changed before from 1.62 to the modern size.
ProV1 would still exist just a shorter version.
But most balls are sold with distance claims, they will have to be adjusted to “ The longest new conforming balls”.
Only problem I can see is I have 8 dozen in my garage so will need time to lose them first.
If they want to do it they can. But can see the lawyers sharpening their pencils.
I am just imaginings the first round with the new balls, people thinking their ball has split because they are 20yds shorter, “bring it on I say”

I don't know enough about the actual logistics of doing it. I was thinking of it as one ball would be made and given to everyone. (Probably by Titleist now that you mention it, yeah.) But I suppose each manufacturer would insist on making their own to keep their sponsorship deals. So there would have to just be a lost of tolerances in terms of what they are made of that limits the distance, I guess? And somehow all the new 'pro balls' will need testing to make sure they conform to the new standard.

I don't see it ever being extended to amateur level as well. There's just no way on your average weekend Stableford that clubs are going to be able to verify that everyone has bought the new conforming golf balls. People who have stocked up with six boxes of ProV1s are not just going to chuck them in the bin and buy new limited golf balls. It's completely unenforceable. It has to be just for the pros or not at all.