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

[Rippy_72]

They have four choices as I see.  #4 is the most likely while #2 has potential.

1. Dial the ball back for everyone.  Unfair to us hackers.

2.  Create a technical standard applicable to tour balls only.  Fair to us hackers.  Fair to the ball manufacturers as they can still market off tour results.  Fair to the old curmudgeons, armchair architects, and others lamenting the great old courses being torn apart.

3.  Create one tour ball that everyone plays on tour.  I can't see this as feasible.

4.  Do nothing.  Keep the status quo.  Only the armchair architects and members of places like Somerset Hills, Merion, National, Old course, etc. cry foul.  

My opinion is pretty lame but want to share it.  I was never much better than scratch but I was very, very long even in the 70's with persimmon and balata, I used to break the face and the actual wood all the time.  I am saying this not to brag but to share a perspective that few people have.  I played a completely different game than other players and I know how much of an advantage length is.  I was not polished at all but the length is a huge advantage allowing one to totally avoid trouble often.   I have gone eagle eagle and plenty more but that is just length, not ability.  Driver 8 iron to 564 yards and 3 wood to 1 inch on 334 yard hole.  Someone who hits it 260-270 off the tee is not going eagle eagle ever.  I would just blow it over all of the trouble, so, I can kind of see where the amateur architects are coming from.  Is it a huge loss to fans if Shinnecock or the Old Course eventually can't host a Major? For me?  Yes.  I like to see the professionals play the old historic courses that I know.  So, I would like to see a technical standard for the golf ball dialing it back about 10%.  Make 290 a really good drive and make something 260 an average tour drive.  Very unpopular opinion but that is how I feel.  Just don't take my B330 from this 61 year old.  LOL

[iacas]

33 minutes ago, Rippy_72 said:

Fair to the ball manufacturers as they can still market off tour results.

Not really. "We make this ball for you, but we also make this other ball that he didn't use to win the Masters…" That's not the same.

[Rippy_72]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

Not really. "We make this ball for you, but we also make this other ball that he didn't use to win the Masters…" That's not the same.

Not to be too negative, I don't think most people are so astute.  Tiger played a Nike, so, golfers say, "I'm playing a Nike".  I was too cheap.  I went with the B330.  Same ball.  Bridgestone.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Rippy_72

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Rippy_72 said:

Not to be too negative, I don't think most people are so astute.  Tiger played a Nike, so, golfers say, "I'm playing a Nike".  I was too cheap.  I went with the B330.  Same ball.  Bridgestone.

My point still stands.

Now they can say “he plays this ball.” They couldn’t in your scenario.

[billchao]

6 hours ago, lastings said:

Long is a comparative term.  When you’re watching on TV, 325 isn’t all that entertaining when it lands in the middle of 30 divots from earlier that day.   It was more sexy when Daly would hit it 310 and it would be 25 yards out in front of the group of divots.

But if they dial back the ball and a long drive becomes 285, it’s still going to be landing in the middle of 30 other divots. Players’ length relative to each other isn’t likely to change, only the club in their hands for the next shot.

[Rippy_72]

Of course your point stands, your opinion is just as valid as mine.  

I don't think the average Joe cares that much or knows enough to make such a fine distinction.  Let's say there is a Titleist Pro V1 and Pro V1-T.  The T version is the tournament ball that looks the same as today's Pro V1 but goes 10% less distance, I really don't think the average 100 shooter will care.  People on forums like this are not the average Joes, they know a lot.  I am not saying nobody here would not notice, I am just saying the majority of golfers would neither notice nor care.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Rippy_72 said:

People on forums like this are not the average Joes, they know a lot.  I am not saying nobody here would not notice, I am just saying the majority of golfers would neither notice nor care.

Right… the average Joe isn't buying Pro V1s very much, either. They're buying cheaper balls, often. So those that "know" and are more serious, would also know they weren't buying the same ball.

[lastings]

13 minutes ago, iacas said:

Right… the average Joe isn't buying Pro V1s very much, either. They're buying cheaper balls, often. So those that "know" and are more serious, would also know they weren't buying the same ball.

huh?  Titleist has been the #1 selling golf ball for 70 straight years, with the ProV1 being by far their best selling model. 

Gonna be impossible for that to happen without a very large percentage of average Joe's buying ProV1's.  

 

 

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, lastings said:

huh?  Titleist has been the #1 selling golf ball for 70 straight years, with the ProV1 being by far their best selling model. 

Gonna be impossible for that to happen without a very large percentage of average Joe's buying ProV1's.

Avid golfers buy a lot more balls.

Let’s keep this focused please. Ball manufacturers could not advertise as they do now if those changes were made.

[lastings]

24 minutes ago, iacas said:

Let’s keep this focused please. Ball manufacturers could not advertise as they do now if those changes were made.

I believe that they absolutely could.   It would just be a bit of a different marketing strategy.

Callaway and Taylor made have no problem advertising their super game improvement irons, which are the highest selling irons in golf.   Even though they don't resemble the irons the pros play at all.   They market them by telling you that these irons will make golf easier for you.      Titleist would sell their ProV1-T to an elite level of tournament participants and blade using golf hardos, and they would market the regular ProV1 as the ball the makes the game easier for you.  

All of these big brands have proven they possess some pretty astute marketing teams.   I imagine they would continue to find a way to keep moving balls.  As a matter of fact, they may be able to utilize this new category to move more balls. 

 

[Missouri Swede]

Just now, lastings said:

I believe that they absolutely could.   It would just be a bit of a different marketing strategy.

Callaway and Taylor made have no problem advertising their super game improvement irons, which are the highest selling irons in golf.   Even though they don't resemble the irons the pros play at all.   They market them by telling you that these irons will make golf easier for you.      Titleist would sell their ProV1-T to an elite level of tournament participants and blade using golf hardos, and they would market the regular ProV1 as the ball the makes the game easier for you.  

All of these big brands have proven they possess some pretty astute marketing teams.   I imagine they would continue to find a way to keep moving balls.  As a matter of fact, they may be able to utilize this new category to move more balls. 

 

Akin to having Tiger and DeChambeau advertising the Bridgestone e12, even though they play the Tour B series?

 

[phillyk]

2 minutes ago, lastings said:

I believe that they absolutely could.   It would just be a bit of a different marketing strategy.

Callaway and Taylor made have no problem advertising their super game improvement irons, which are the highest selling irons in golf.   Even though they don't resemble the irons the pros play at all.   They market them by telling you that these irons will make golf easier for you.      Titleist would sell their ProV1-T to an elite level of tournament participants and blade using golf hardos, and they would market the regular ProV1 as the ball the makes the game easier for you.  

All of these big brands have proven they possess some pretty astute marketing teams.   I imagine they would continue to find a way to keep moving balls.  As a matter of fact, they may be able to utilize this new category to move more balls. 

 

They mostly market the ProV1 as being the most popular ball on tour, so therefore it must be good for everyone.  Trying to advertise a blade in the same way will not work, because amateurs look for forgiveness and distance, of which blades are typically not the best at.  I'd guess ProV1's would see a drop in sales if pros were to switch to something different.  Eg. TW came out with Bridgestone BXS, and that ball saw a significant increase in sales purely because TW played it.

If the ball does change, obviously the marketing of balls would have to change. But I'd guess high performance balls will see a drop in sales.

[lastings]

5 minutes ago, phillyk said:

If the ball does change, obviously the marketing of balls would have to change. But I'd guess high performance balls will see a drop in sales.

I would actually guess the opposite.   Marketing Strategy would be along the lines of, "The ProV1 makes golf so easy, they won't let the Pros use it on tour.    but, you can"  

Maybe the ProV1-Tour would take a small portion of the ProV1s market share, but of course thats why they price those as 54.99 rather than $47.99 or whatever.  

 

 

already making me want to go out and buy a new box of ProVs, actually.

[mvmac]

6 hours ago, lastings said:

Callaway and Taylor made have no problem advertising their super game improvement irons, which are the highest selling irons in golf.   Even though they don't resemble the irons the pros play at all.   They market them by telling you that these irons will make golf easier for you.      Titleist would sell their ProV1-T to an elite level of tournament participants and blade using golf hardos, and they would market the regular ProV1 as the ball the makes the game easier for you.  

All of these big brands have proven they possess some pretty astute marketing teams.   I imagine they would continue to find a way to keep moving balls.  As a matter of fact, they may be able to utilize this new category to move more balls. 

It's simple, golfers want to play what the pros play, reason they pay them to use their clubs/balls.

If the strategy didn't work they wouldn't sign players.

To get back to @iacas's "keep it focused", this is kinda off topic, thread is about the distance insights from the USGA.

[iacas]

6 hours ago, lastings said:

I believe that they absolutely could. It would just be a bit of a different marketing strategy.

You just said “they could do the same it would just be different.”

7 minutes ago, mvmac said:

To get back to @iacas's "keep it focused", this is kinda off topic, thread is about the distance insights from the USGA.

Yes please. Final request.

[iacas]

Discussing the potential marketing of a potential situation is so far into the fringe it’s pointless.

Discuss the topic. Not stuff miles from the topic even if you can take a few dirt roads to get there.

[iacas]

I have a few thoughts on the distance debate in golf. Except for the first, they're in no particular order. I'll try to be brief, but we all know how that tends to go…

1. I don't care about the 0.01% of golfers that this affects. Even if that number is as large as 1%, I don't care. Distance *may be* an issue on the PGA Tour (and other pro tours), and for a few college kids at the best college programs. I am almost fundamentally against changing golf just because of a tiny fraction of golfers.

2. I still believe that 6500 yards is enough (or more than enough) for 95% of golfers, and 7000 is enough (or more) for 99%+. While Rory might hit wedge to a 450-yard hole, for almost everyone else, that's a 6-iron or more. And if the membership at some clubs are chasing distance and expanding their golf course, that's their call. They're spending their own money.

3. I'm tired of hearing about the PGA Tour can't go play these awesome courses. Here are some of the outstanding works of art played in 1990: La Costa, TPC StarPass, Indian Wells, TPC Scottsdale, Waialae, Torrey Pines, Riviera, Doral, TPC Eagle Trace, TPC Sawgrass, Bay Hill, TPC Woodlands, Hattiesburg CC, Harbour Town, Forest Oaks CC, English Turn G&CC, TPC Las Colinas, Muirfield Village, Colonial, Atlanta CC, TPC Avenel, Butler National, Medinah CC, Westchester CC, TPC ConnecticutKingsmill CC, Pleasant Valley CC, St. Andrews, Warwick Hills, TPC Southwind, Shoal Creek, Castle Pines, Valleybrook, Firestone, Tuckaway CC, Oakwood CC… I give up, mostly because I'm tired of typing "TPC." Which of the courses that no longer host PGA Tour events are we truly "missing out on"? When the question is posed about what great courses can no longer host the PGA Tour due *only* to distance (and not the other infrastructure needed, lack of member desire to turn their course over for a month, etc.), the list is always *very, very* short.

4. I really don't care if the British Open can no longer be played at the Old Course some day, or if they continue to play it there and when it's not windy, the winner shoots -30. Will that guy have not done the best job of getting his ball from 72 teeing areas to 72 holes better than anyone else that week? Is the junior tournament my daughter won by shooting 30 on a par-33 course "less than" because most of the holes were par threes or driver-wedge par fours?

5. A universal roll-back WOULD affect the amateurs, especially if it's done with driver head size. If it's done with the ball, across the board, then amateurs are still going to be affected. I've heard people say "oh if you drive it 250 you'll probably drive it 247, but Rory will go from 330 (he doesn't average 330) to 300 maybe. No, that's generally not how this stuff works.

6. Speaking of driver head size… PGA Tour players go at their 3W pretty hard too. They're not swinging their drivers at 100% and then backing off with their 3W to 80% or something. PGA Tour players are better these days than they were in the 80s, on average. Would we see the occasional wild shot? Yeah, most likely by a guy that's going to miss the cut or who isn't playing on TV on the weekend. I suspect we'd almost fail to notice. When's the last time you saw someone other than Tiger Woods (he did it pretty frequently for being the GOAT) pop up a 3W? Limiting driver head sizes to small sizes would punish amateurs far more than PGA Tour pros.

7. Go find a trajectory optimizer or something and put -20° spin axis tilt and try 2250 RPM of spin and then try 4500, which is more than even balata balls spun during the 90s. Even the 4500 RPM ball won't curve that much. Why? My hunch is actually the aerodynamics. The dimple pattern. It's not simply the increased amount of spin people *think* they'll get from "balata" — it's that we've learned more about the aerodynamics.

8. People talk nostalgically about the "shotmaking" that players had in the 80s and 90s… but it's bullshit. Corey Pavin was a shotmaker, just as Bubba Watson is now. Tiger is a bigger shotmaker than most credit him for, and it serves him well. Lee Trevino? Jack Nicklaus? They pretty much — like modern day players — played one shot shape. Better to be a master of one than a jack of all trades (unless your brain just doesn't work that way, like Bubba, or unless you're so skilled, like Tiger). Billy Casper played a huge draw and won 51 times or whatever. It's nostalgia, and little else, to think that players were "shotmakers" in the past and aren't now. If there was something to be gained by doing it, with the money in the game today, players would do it. They'd figure it out, or a coach or a numbers guy would have.

9. Knowledge — like that it's better to play your one shot shape, with little curve, because it reacts the most consistently — isn't going to go anywhere. Since the 80s or 90s or whenever your "heyday" was, we've learned about optimal launch conditions. We've learned more about how moving the CG of a driver affects things. We've learned more about building shafts, and aerodynamics of dimples, and ball construction. We've learned more about how to swing. We've learned a LOT, and none of that knowledge is going anywhere.

10. On a podcast someone gave this example, and I think it's a lousy one every time it's brought up: "College baseball players use metal bats, and when they get to the pros, they have to switch to wood." This analogy falls flat on its face in several ways. First, the information is old. College metal bats were put under even more regulations in 2011 or so (including COR testing) to ensure that they didn't hit the ball much harder than wooden bats. They're a bit lighter, still, so players can swing faster, but the bats themselves aren't really much "hotter." That was done for player safety. Second, it costs a lot of money to replace a bunch of wooden bats, and they break. Colleges opt for metal or composite so they don't have to incur the ongoing costs of replacing bats. Not every college baseball team has a huge budget. Third, college baseball and the MLB system aren't under the same ruling body. Golf is effectively, around the entire world, governed by one set of rules and two ruling bodies who are in lock step with one another, so effectively one ruling body. Finally, college players making the transition to the pros have months or years to make the adjustment. College baseball players aren't called up to play game five of the World Series, but *we see this in golf every year.* Amateurs qualify for and play in major championships *every year.* If they're playing their "regular ball" or their "metal bats" in college so as not to be at a disadvantage, then they're going to be at one when they have to switch to try to qualify for a U.S. Open.

11. It takes quite awhile for players to adjust to a new ball. Yes, the players will say they've "adjusted" for the Mexico event, but what they're really saying is that they "made adjustments" because they have to, but they're really not 100% certain of anything. Watch the event and you'll see guys mystified at why they flew a green by 20 yards every 30 minutes or so. Attend it and you'll see even more. The course effectively plays 6600 yards at that elevation, so scoring is still relatively good. Guys who switch ball companies will take months over their off-season to truly dial in all of the types of shots they expect to hit, particularly around the greens. Guys in Ryder Cups do their best, and even try to pair with guys who play a similar ball. Guys may "adjust" but there's a big gap between "let's hit a few on Trackman and see how far *the same ball* goes at this altitude" and "this is an entirely new ball." Look at how many guys hit old-model-year golf balls… because they're so reluctant to change. Because they feel it will hurt their game. Because they know it will be difficult to adjust.

12. "Other sports have a common ball, why can't golf?" In all other sports, players are allowed to have their own *personal* equipment. The balls in most other sports are not personal, but shared equipment. Other players use them, too. In tennis, players get to use their own sneakers and rackets. In baseball, bats, helmets, and gloves are personal. In bowling, there's also not one common ball… because it's not shared. It's personal. Golf is the same. The opponents don't have to or get to play with "your" golf ball.

13. Going back a step, others have said "if the Masters puts out a tournament ball, you can bet they'd all play it." Sure, everyone *might* still show up and play it… I don't think many would actually boycott the Masters… but there'd be a helluva lot of grumbling about it. Such a tournament should have an asterisk, as we'd see virtually nobody playing at their best. The players who happened to adjust the fastest, or be given a ball that's already closest to their current ball in terms of short game spin and other things, would have the "advantage" that week over players who had the toughest time adjusting or whose ball was most different from the "Masters ball." At any rate, it would be a compromised tournament — we would *not* be seeing the players at their best.

14. Finally, "tournament golf is so boring?" Give me a break, that's because of distance? We know for a fact that if players have to hit a 6-iron to a green, that it's not going to get as close, on average, as when they have to hit a 9I. So what's more exciting: a player hitting a shot to 35 feet or a player hitting a shot to 12 feet? Sure, hitting a 6I to 20 feet might take more skill than hitting a shot to 12 feet with a 9I, but what do we see on TV? We see a guy, he hits the ball, we see it in the air, we see it landing on the green. If someone told you it was a 6-iron instead of a 9-iron, but the visuals were exactly the same… how would that make golf more exciting? If the same exact shots were hit? No. And if worse shots were hit, as they would be if they *actually* had to hit three clubs more? It'd be even less exciting. Go back and watch events from the 80s and 90s. They weren't all that exciting either… and most of what's changed, I think, is simply the coverage. We see too many putts, too many ad reads, too much pre-shot routine, too many tap-ins, etc. Golf coverage isn't boring because the ball goes too far. The two are almost entirely unlinked, and where they do meet, distance might lead to more excitement. Eagles are exciting. Birdies are exciting. Guys not being able to reach par fives… is more entertaining?

Okay, that's all I've got for now.

[billchao]

Weren’t people saying that Merion GC was too short to host a US Open back in 2013? Justin Rose won at +1. There are ways to make golf courses challenging that aren’t based solely on distance.