Impact Tour Scoring: 10% Rollback or Unraked Bunkers?

[Wanzo]

A teaching pro I know posed this question that I thought was interesting.  

[Vinsk]

I voted rolling the ball back. It seems, imo, your instructor may feel that the short game is where all the scoring occurs? Anyway, first...the bunkers not being raked wouldn’t affect everyone playing, only those who land in one. Second, rolling the ball back would affect more than just distance. It would affect trajectories. We’d still have the issue of long hitters having an advantage over the short hitters...which I don’t think is an issue at all. That’s just sports. Let them play.

[Wanzo]

13 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

 

I voted rolling the ball back

 

That’s my first instinct as well.  Knocking 30 yards off their drives and 10% off their approach affecting choice of club would have a bigger impact.  

 

13 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Anyway, first...the bunkers not being raked wouldn’t affect everyone playing, only those who land in one.

Agree, except they would start respecting them more and play away from them and avoid short siding possibly without a lob wedge?

15 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

We’d still have the issue of long hitters having an advantage over the short hitters...

Sure, but just asking which affects scoring more. Not which gives certain players advantage.  

[iacas]

The answer is clearly the 10%. It affects everyone, not just someone who hits it into a bunker. Pros don't hit it into bunkers very often. They hit the ball (and thus lose 10%) about 30 times per round.

(Distance doesn't matter much on putts, or short game shots where they're not trying to hit it like they are with a full swing.)

[Patch]

I went with the 10% ball roll back, although I would like to see bunkers not manicured so they would be more of a hazard as intended.

A 10% ball flight limitation would not hurt the long knockers on tour as much as the shorter hitters. It would effect all players, but it's effect would not be the same for all players. 

Do we assume all player lose 10% of their drives? If so, a 300 yard hitter would have to deal with 270 yards, while the 270 hitter would now be hitting 243....hypothetically. 243 off the tee would put that player at an extreme disadvantage compared to the 270 yard hitter. 

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Patch said:

A 10% ball flight limitation would not hurt the long knockers on tour as much as the shorter hitters. It would effect all players, but it's effect would not be the same for all players. 

Do we assume all player lose 10% of their drives? If so, a 300 yard hitter would have to deal with 270 yards, while the 270 hitter would now be hitting 243....hypothetically. 243 off the tee would put that player at an extreme disadvantage compared to the 270 yard hitter. 

Can make a compelling case that it's the exact opposite: it would hurt them more.

Imagine a 50% roll-back. Your 300-hitter is now hitting his driver 150, while your 270 guy is only hitting it 135. They're 15 yards apart, which is going to make their dispersion tighter, and their approach shots play more similarly than they do now.

The gap narrows. Since the scale of the rest of the golf course likely doesn't reduce itself 10% (like green sizes, bunker sizes, etc.) then the closer you make the gap, the more the lower player benefits. Just like how technology has "hurt" the likes of Tiger, Rory, etc.'s ability to separate themselves.

[skydog]

I’m all for no bunker raking, no yardage books, no green books, and an enforced shot clock, but yea, rolling the ball back would have the largest impact. 

[Patch]

On 9/13/2019 at 11:52 AM, iacas said:

Can make a compelling case that it's the exact opposite: it would hurt them more.

Imagine a 50% roll-back. Your 300-hitter is now hitting his driver 150, while your 270 guy is only hitting it 135. They're 15 yards apart, which is going to make their dispersion tighter, and their approach shots play more similarly than they do now.

The gap narrows. Since the scale of the rest of the golf course likely doesn't reduce itself 10% (like green sizes, bunker sizes, etc.) then the closer you make the gap, the more the lower player benefits. Just like how technology has "hurt" the likes of Tiger, Rory, etc.'s ability to separate themselves.

I am imagining a 10% roll back in the ball flight. 

[The Flush]

On 9/15/2019 at 3:31 PM, skydog said:

I’m all for no bunker raking, no yardage books, no green books, and an enforced shot clock, but yea, rolling the ball back would have the largest impact. 

Eliminate caddies too and make them carry their own bag.