USGA/R&A Distance Insights Project (Updated Feb. 2021)

[iacas]

2 hours ago, lastings said:

I believe that the comparison from baseball bats to golfers switching to a different golf ball is not as easily dismissed as some of the comments in this thread are suggesting.  

You don't seem to have read my longer post re: bats, either.

I never said they were "the same" or that they didn't require a change. I acknowledged that they do.

But unlike in golf, we don't have people being "called up" from the amateur ranks several times a year to play in the World Series.

And again, a big part of why college programs have composite and metal bats is simply cost: wood bats break and thus cost quite a bit more, long term.

[lastings]

30 minutes ago, iacas said:

You don't seem to have read my longer post re: bats, either.

I never said they were "the same" or that they didn't require a change. I acknowledged that they do.

But unlike in golf, we don't have people being "called up" from the amateur ranks several times a year to play in the World Series.

And again, a big part of why college programs have composite and metal bats is simply cost: wood bats break and thus cost quite a bit more, long term.

No, I understand both your points regarding bats.   but, in more than one post you have dismissed the wood/metal bat argument, by solely entering the BBCor argument.   which is the least significant difference between wood and metal bats.  The fact that metal bats produce greater exit velocity (or, did) is not the reason players are forced to change their approach with wood bats.   

This is also a pretty false statement regarding cost.   First off, wood bats are about $100.  Composite bats are about $400.    Breaking 4 wood bats over the course of a college season would be pretty unlikely.  Also, it's not entirely out of the question that players are using 2 or even 3 composite bats over the course of the year. (in highschool, I didn't use my game bat for practice, because they break down in time).    lets just go ahead and omit D1 schools, since most of their equipment is provided by sponsors to begin with (certainly the top teams).   But, at DIII schools, most players are buying their own bat(s).   usually at a discounted price or even at cost through the team's sponsored catalog.   I would imagine this works in a similar way for golf, but I don't really know.  

The only real argument I can really get behind is the fact that players transition from amateur to Pro to Amateur in Golf.   but, I don't give it as much weight as you do.   

 

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by lastings

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, lastings said:

No, I understand both your points regarding bats.   but, in more than one post you have dismissed the wood/metal bat argument, by solely entering the BBCor argument.

This is not accurate.

Most of your post is a fabrication, and no further posts from you on this are warranted, as you're clearly misreading what I've said.

[cutchemist42]

I dont like the bat argument.

If there going to be any comparison maybe the full body suits for swimming from the Olympics years ago is the closest. Every swimmer had access to it....everyone's lap times increased but FINA banned them simply because people were too fast with the new tech.

[iacas]

Titleist (Acushnet) has issued a statement:

Quote

…we believe the conclusions drawn in this Report undervalue the skill and athleticism of the game’s very best players and focus far too much on the top of the men’s professional game and project this on golf and golfers as a whole.

Furthermore, we believe that existing equipment regulations effectively govern the prospects of any significant increases in hitting distance by the game’s longest hitters.

There's more. It's a 686-word statement. Link below.

---

Distance Insights Perspective | Titleist

---

 

https://www.titleist.com/distance-insights-perspective

[ChetlovesMer]

This article summarizes what I've been saying for a while now. GROW THE DAMNED GRASS LONGER! 
I can remember when they'd only roll the greens before a tournament. I was watching a program on preparing the course for a tournament in Dubai and the heads groundkeeper was saying they want to get the greens rolled at least a dozen times before the tournament and the at least 7 to 10 times getting the FAIRWAYS rolled. 

 

We don't need a rollback; here's how you combat distance on the PGA Tour

---

The distance debate will reignite quickly in 2021. But we don't need a rollback of equipment; it's a 'rising up' that we need.

The fact that the committee is meeting again in March to "decide what needs to be done" makes me think that sooner or later they will get enough "rollbackers" on the committee to decide to roll the ball back. I really hope I'm wrong, but it seems like this issue just won't go away. Again, I personally do NOT want them to roll back the equipment, I just think they will. 

 

[WillieT]

10 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

This article summarizes what I've been saying for a while now. GROW THE DAMNED GRASS LONGER! 
I can remember when they'd only roll the greens before a tournament. I was watching a program on preparing the course for a tournament in Dubai and the heads groundkeeper was saying they want to get the greens rolled at least a dozen times before the tournament and the at least 7 to 10 times getting the FAIRWAYS rolled. 

 

We don't need a rollback; here's how you combat distance on the PGA Tour

---

The distance debate will reignite quickly in 2021. But we don't need a rollback of equipment; it's a 'rising up' that we need.

The fact that the committee is meeting again in March to "decide what needs to be done" makes me think that sooner or later they will get enough "rollbackers" on the committee to decide to roll the ball back. I really hope I'm wrong, but it seems like this issue just won't go away. Again, I personally do NOT want them to roll back the equipment, I just think they will. 

 

I really like the article's points.  Funny thing was this summer my niece's husband, they live in the Radford Va area, spoke of the fairways in Eastern NC and how the "rough" here was their fairways there.  As I have thought more on this, it makes great sense, Mr Chamblee's thoughts are a good way to make the game more challenging.  I was watching the Golf Channel's replay of events 2020 and I was intrigued by their comments on the length of the rough on one course.  Also I watched the the balls rolled and rolled and rolled down the well groomed fairways I thought to myself they don't roll that way here no matter how well groomed.  All that to say all the rules changes will do is force the manufacturers of balls and clubs dig harder to find that extra distance.  The outcry will be what do we do now with all these "illegal" balls and clubs?  I am thinking about the groove rule and how many "illegal" clubs are still in play and how much Covid brought those old clubs back out.  The USGA and the R&A have to be careful - are they willing to kill the renaissance the sport is enjoying for the sake of a few grumpy old golfers by rolling things back?  

[DaveP043]

The March meeting isn't something new, its just been delayed by almost a year due to the COVID issues.  And the results of the March meeting will be an enumeration of specific possible actions which will be studied further.  A list of the likely topics for further study was included in the Conclusions of the Distance Insight Project released back in February.  But when we talk about things that the USGA/R&A have the ability to regulate, course set up isn't one of them.  Maybe the PGA Tour voluntarily will take action to decrease the motivation for the USGA/R&A to change equipment rules, but I doubt it.   I still take the Ruling Bodies at their word, there are no current plans to change equipment rules in a way that would decrease distance for all players.

And when we talk about the "groove rule", let's remember that those old clubs are legal for three more years in pretty much every situation.

[Vinsk]

I think it’s all nonsense. The old Scotsmen would laugh and bitch at the difficulties of this game hundreds of years ago with feather balls and wooden sticks. Here we are today with golf still considered one of the most difficult sports to become good at with titanium clubs, graphite shafts, 4 piece balls, and launch monitors.

Yet there’s concern the game is becoming too easy. Asinine. Shut up and play. 

[ChetlovesMer]

3 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Yet there’s concern the game is becoming too easy. Asinine. Shut up and play. 

[Double Mocha Man]

22 minutes ago, WillieT said:

The USGA and the R&A have to be careful - are they willing to kill the renaissance the sport is enjoying for the sake of a few grumpy old golfers by rolling things back?  

Are you calling Jack grumpy?  Probably comes with the age and wanting to protect records.  I don't know... but if Jack wants to talk about it over beers I'm up for it.

[WillieT]

13 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

And when we talk about the "groove rule", let's remember that those old clubs are legal for three more years in pretty much every situation.

Yep and I am pretty sure they will be used around courses for a number of years after as well.  Back to the roll back - the courses can make things harder for sure - change some shorter 4's to 3's maybe?  Change the short 5's to 4's?  Is there a hard fast rule that a course has to be par 70-71-72?  It would be interesting to see what those who originally envisioned the game would say today about it today.  

[DaveP043]

Just now, WillieT said:

Yep and I am pretty sure they will be used around courses for a number of years after as well.  Back to the roll back - the courses can make things harder for sure - change some shorter 4's to 3's maybe?  Change the short 5's to 4's?  Is there a hard fast rule that a course has to be par 70-71-72?  It would be interesting to see what those who originally envisioned the game would say today about it today.  

For comparison, the 1860 Open was played over 36 holes, about 11,400 yards total (5700 for 18, basically)  The winning score was 174 (so averaging 77 for 18 holes).  The original "standard" score was "bogey", basically what it is now, one higher than what we call "par".  

[WillieT]

16 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Are you calling Jack grumpy?  Probably comes with the age and wanting to protect records.  I don't know... but if Jack wants to talk about it over beers I'm up for it.

He probably is and it may be about protecting the glory days.  Yes I love good banter but also understand that records will come and go we all know that.  I recall my dad talking about growing up in the Great Depression and how tough it was and how his dad grew up in the turn of the century rural NC and how much tougher it was then.  The game is evolving, just as all sports have - it is funny how no matter how much the equipment improves it still comes down to a person taking a club and swinging it to hit a ball into the distance.  The more things change the more they stay the same - even the arguments over whether they should roll the equipment back or make the courses tougher or both.    

[DaveP043]

4 minutes ago, WillieT said:

He probably is and it may be about protecting the glory days.  Yes I love good banter but also understand that records will come and go we all know that.  I recall my dad talking about growing up in the Great Depression and how tough it was and how his dad grew up in the turn of the century rural NC and how much tougher it was then.  The game is evolving, just as all sports have - it is funny how no matter how much the equipment improves it still comes down to a person taking a club and swinging it to hit a ball into the distance.  The more things change the more they stay the same - even the arguments over whether they should roll the equipment back or make the courses tougher or both.    

I remember reading that Bobby Jones said Nicklaus played "a game with which I am not familiar".  (I hope I have that quote right).  Jack sees guys playing a game with which HE isn't familiar.  Only one of those two has said that the equipment can't be allowed to advance, that it should be rolled back.

[Double Mocha Man]

29 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I remember reading that Bobby Jones said Nicklaus played "a game with which I am not familiar".  (I hope I have that quote right).  Jack sees guys playing a game with which HE isn't familiar.  Only one of those two has said that the equipment can't be allowed to advance, that it should be rolled back.

Good correlation.  Jack can't have it both ways...

[iacas]

No rollback; here's how you combat distance

---

The distance debate will reignite quickly in 2021. But we don't need a rollback of equipment; it's a 'rising up' that we need.

Brandel weighs in (again).

[boogielicious]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

No rollback; here's how you combat distance

---

The distance debate will reignite quickly in 2021. But we don't need a rollback of equipment; it's a 'rising up' that we need.

Brandel weighs in (again).

He makes some sense. These are some of the points posters have made in this thread.