[Kalen Braley]

Tom,


Thanks for the insight, sounds like its a good ole game of chicken.  I think the execs would win and the players would get on board, but would probably cost thier job...

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - no doubt Jack and Tiger have their (personal and perhaps even selfish) reasons; but I wouldn't automatically discount the validity of their views because of that. I raised their names simply to suggest that bifurcation isn't as implausible/unrealistic as Erik and others seem to believe; since, however Jack and Tiger might personally benefit from bifurcation, I don't think they'd be raising the topic if they thought it wholly foolish and foolhardy.   

Erik - I have no stake in the billion dollar industry; I think we're talking about a change in golf ball specs that would leave manufacturers in that industry as free to produce, compete, and make profits as they are today; and leave average golfers as free to play whatever golf ball they want as they are today. Again: you seem certain that a massive (and unnecessary/unhelpful) shift will be the result; others (smarter than me, and with a stake in the game) disagree.  There's no need to 'tell me' anything; we just have differing views.

[jeffwarne]

Erik,

Do teaching pros get money from the equipment companies?  I don't know the answer to this.  Architects don't, but there are lots of architects who are happy to keep charging fees to update courses to deal with all the equipment changes.

yes-but sometimes one has to put principles over $$

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Do teaching pros get money from the equipment companies?  I don't know the answer to this.  Architects don't, but there are lots of architects who are happy to keep charging fees to update courses to deal with all the equipment changes.

I do not. Almost none do. Some are on "advisory boards" or things like that, but… it's rare.

I fit and thus sell custom Edel putters and wedges, because I believe in them, but beyond that, no. I don't even have an equipment deal with anyone (nor do I want one - I want to play what I want, and review what I want).

[Thomas Dai]

How are viewer ratings for TV golf these days? Up, down, stable?
Can’t imagine that boring golf on TV aids ratings and advertising and money usually want ratings (although I appreciate that what some of us herein consider boring isn’t necessarily boring for others out there).

Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - no doubt Jack and Tiger have their (personal and perhaps even selfish) reasons; but I wouldn't automatically discount the validity of their views because of that. I raised their names simply to suggest that bifurcation isn't as implausible/unrealistic as Erik and others seem to believe; since, however Jack and Tiger might personally benefit from bifurcation, I don't think they'd be raising the topic if they thought it wholly foolish and foolhardy.   

Peter:  I agree.  I only pointed it out to show that unlike most other Tour pros, Tiger is actually free of conflict of interest with his sponsors, and Jack is his own sponsor, so he is free to say whatever he likes.

[Kalen Braley]

Do teaching pros get money from the equipment companies?  I don't know the answer to this.  Architects don't, but there are lots of architects who are happy to keep charging fees to update courses to deal with all the equipment changes.

I do not. Almost none do. Some are on "advisory boards" or things like that, but… it's rare.

I fit and thus sell custom Edel putters and wedges, because I believe in them, but beyond that, no. I don't even have an equipment deal with anyone (nor do I want one - I want to play what I want, and review what I want).

Erik,


I at least understand your conflict of interest in this thing now....I've never had an instructor so didn't get the connection.


P.S. I will agree it seems massively hypocritical for the USGA to market the game as one with values and principles, but then be so swayed by the $$$ side. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I at least understand your conflict of interest in this thing now....I've never had an instructor so didn't get the connection.

I don't have a conflict of interest. My opinions are entirely my own. Not bought or paid for, or even swayed, by any equipment makers, etc.

[Sean_A]

I don't understand the call to bifurcate.  It appears in response to top golfers, who represent a very small percentage of players. Keep courses as they are and let the pros shoot whatever that can.  It's just a number. The majority of golfers will still enjoy the game and those that appreciate architecture will continue to do so.  I judge architecture on how it impacts the way I play a hole, not how Dustin Johnson might play it.

I agree in principle, but in reality if we can give the powers that be one less reason to change classic courses it is worth a shot.  In the end though, I fear people will do what people will do...change stuff...it seems hard wired into our DNA.  In the long run I think the best we can hope for is clubs hire good archies who are sympathetic to clasic courses.  Afterall, #2 is a huge improvement so it can be done.

Ciao

What is the need to change courses?  Let the pros score whatever they will.  It's just a number.  For the majority of golfers, classic courses will play fine, as they always did.  Perhaps better.

Dave

Perception is a reality for some folks.  I am with you...why change courses...let the tours figure out how to sell their product without clubs and owners rolling over.  But I am not one of the club members or owners and many of this lot are willing to alter courses for the kudos of holding pro events. This is a story that has been ongoing for over 100 years...nothing new. 

As I think the concept of one rule for all rollback is a folly, I opt for bifurcation.  Without actually putting a hold on equipment with measures like the ball cannot fly further than x amount of yards per loft, I don't believe the rules will ever keep pace with equipment makers.  I have over 100 years of evidence to this fact as all the talk of rollback has really been happening since the Haskell.  Some of the very best golfers who ever lived would likely think this discussion is nuts...arguing if a drive should be allowed to fly 330, 300 or 285 yards 

But to reiterate...I don't believe in the slightest that bifurcation and/or rollback will stop the alteration of classic courses.  This issue is to a very large degree separate from the pro game....its just that the pro game is used as the excuse to carry out the work.  If the pros hit the ball 285 clubs would still find reasons to alter their courses....always have...always will...we see this all the time with courses which never have pros step on the 1st tee.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Without actually putting a hold on equipment with measures like the ball cannot fly further than x amount of yards per loft

I'm having a hard time understanding what that could even look like, or best case, how that's different than what we have now.

We have an Overall Distance Standard. It limits the distance the ball can fly based on, basically, the ball speed. Driver CoR regulations limit what the smash factor (i.e. ball speed / clubhead speed) can be. So, given optimal launch conditions, the ball is already limited. Change the loft and you're getting away from optimal launch conditions. So the ball is already limited in how far it can fly.

The long drive guys swing faster. You've probably seen Jamie Sadlowski drive a putter 300+ yards. So I'm having a hard time understanding what you'd do to cap his driver loft (let's say 6.5°)? Dustin Johnson swings faster. You can't legislate actual swing speed… and we already have an ODS.

, I don't believe the rules will ever keep pace with equipment makers.  I have over 100 years of evidence to this fact

You seem to believe that distance can continue to increase via technology. I don't think it can - we have an ODS, and physics still applies on planet Earth.

Your "evidence" is not a "fact." The ODS was first created in the mid-70s, and balls were immediately pushed out to that distance. They were the Pinnacles of the time. Pros continued to play balata, because they needed the control, but the only thing that happened was that the technology allowed manufacturers to put a balata-like skin (urethane) and softer outer layers on a firmer core, getting a bit of "best of both worlds."

The ODS was modified, too, to add another standard for higher swing speeds, in the early 2000s or so IIRC. Have you read this:
https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/TPX3006-overall-distance-and-symmetry-test-procedure.pdf ?

Technology goes through jumps. We saw technology go through many of these over the 100+ years you're talking about. But, only recently did the USGA/R&A regulate this: we have an ODS, we have a limit on club length, we have a limit on CoR, we have limits on all kinds of things.

Yes, if you remove those limits, we'd see PGA Tour golfers hitting the ball 400 yards with regularity. But we don't, because we have those standards and limits in place.

It's not a fact that technology can keep advancing… given the artificial limits placed on it by the ruling bodies already.

[Pete Lavallee]

Erik,

The one sided parameters of the OSD Test are why optimization works! If all golfers had to use the same club the OSD test uses then we could be assured of no more distance gains. But switching all the other factors could lead to increased distance in the real world by changing ball, club, spin and launch parameters.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The one sided parameters of the OSD Test are why optimization works! If all golfers had to use the same club the OSD test uses then we could be assured of no more distance gains. But switching all the other factors could lead to increased distance in the real world by changing ball, club, spin and launch parameters.

A few feet. Maybe even a few yards. But… generally, no, manipulating these things is not a way to gain any substantial distance gains. Clubfaces can only have 0.83 CoR. Balls can only travel so far when traveling with an initial launch velocity of about 180 MPH… etc.

The fact remains that technology alone can't just keep increasing yardage, because we've put artificial (i.e. rules, not physics) limits on them. Those artificial limits create physical limits, then: a ball launched with those conditions can't travel 400 yards due to the dimple design or weight distribution or whatever because that would bump up against the limits.

Some people seem to think that 400 yard drives will become commonplace in 20 years. Unless PGA Tour players start swinging 150 MPH or they replace the fairways with concrete… it's not going to happen.

Pete, where have the distance gains been the last 15 years? Virtually non-existent. Not once you normalize for swing speeds (which you can't really legislate).

[jeffwarne]

You're both right.
Optimization does work.
The USGA never in their wildest dreams thought the ball wuld go this far under the standards they wrote.
and as Erik states only by a few yards, or feet every year.
and that's how we got here..
Throw in athleticism and natural selection and we have courses that don't fit players.


For those such as Erik who only want to see majors played on big scale modern courses-no worries.
for those who want to emulate the pros and play at their venues-enjoy the 6 hour round.


Rather than equipment bifurcation, we have course bifurcation compounded by tee bifurcation.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The USGA never in their wildest dreams thought the ball wuld go this far under the standards they wrote.

Again, you don't know that. And the evidence says otherwise. The ratios in the ODS weren't "lengthened." In 1976 or whatever year they created it, balls were going about as far as they are now (controlling for swing speed). They added a higher swing speed measurement in the early 2000s IIRC to help ensure nobody could actually build in a "boost" level, but the "ratio" between clubhead speed and distance basically stayed the same.

and as Erik states only by a few yards, or feet every year.

I never said PER YEAR. I meant in total.

For those such as Erik who only want to see majors played on big scale modern courses-no worries.

I've also never said that either, Jeff. I've pointed out that we're still hosting majors with relatively high scores on courses like Oakmont, which aren't exactly "new" courses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()