2020 PGA Tour

[markTHEblake]

Only if Beef is playing

I wouldnt think of Beef as a birdie, but hey, everything is Ok now.

[PerryGroves]

PGA Tour is the 1% of the 1%.

I’ve decided WHO THE F*** CARES how far they hit it. No one in the governing body cares, equipment manufacturers don’t care.

People argue and throw daggers at guys like Bryson for figuring out a method to get the ball in the hole the quickest.

The ONLY reason for restricting distance is to preserve the great and historical courses of the past for Tour play but you know what - Winged foot did that and it wasn’t tricked up or baked out or any of that other bullshit nonsense the USGA tries to pull.

The Old Course on the other hand, that old girl is cooked.

Pretty well sums me up as well Bushy.

The PGATour doesnt hold the interest for me it once did, nor do a number of other sports, but golf is my thing and I'm turning off. The Tour wont care unless there is a movement to turn off which I suspect isnt really there.

On Bryson........well done, he was given a set of circumstances and has figured out how to win repeatedly. He's also a young bloke so I will cut him some slack.

[BUSHY]

But how would we get excited about birdies?

[3Puttpete]

That’d get the viewers in

[BUSHY]

That’d get the viewers in

Commish@PGATour.com

Get your input in OzGolfers!!!

[markTHEblake]

here is a thought, perhaps the way to Bryson proof the course is to widen the fairways.
He said something like "nobody is going to hit fairways here, so its better to miss them long"

[hippo10]

I genuinely don't know what the desired effect of rolling it back is and I don't think anyone calling for a roll back does either. Is the end result forcing pros to hit 2 irons into any par 4 longer than 400m rather than a wedge? If so, what's a 2 iron? Any iron with a 2 on the bottom or does it have to be a certain loft to hit into that green? Do they have to make them with the same metal and manufacturing methods and design they used 50 years ago?

If that's the ultimate target, more power to you but until it's specified the whole discussion is stupid. Once the target is decided on we can start talking about how to achieve it and what might go wrong along the way.

At the moment it's all vague notions of things being better in the old days with little thought actually being put into it.

I think that there are at least 2 separate objectives that people who suggest a rollback are trying to achieve.
The first is to stop the continual lengthening of courses. Ever increasing course length contributes to a multitude of issues, slow play, increased maintenance costs, increased water usage, decline in relevance for classic courses etc. As pointed out by others, an equipment rollback isn't the only way to stop the lengthening of courses, we could just stop lengthening them... The problem being that the golf community has an idea of what constitutes the game of golf and a part of that is having holes of different lengths that require a different number of shots to reach the green. This idea is rooted in the history of the game and I think many would agree that it is part of what makes golf on a 'normal' course more appealing than say a par 3 course. Already on the pga tour there are very few par 5's that require 3 shots for the pros. If distances keep increasing and courses aren't to be lengthened then we'll be rapidly approaching the point where a number of courses are effectively 14 Par 3's and a couple of par 4's. Some might enjoy watching that, but I prefer watching when there is increased variety in the holes and the ways that scoring well can be achieved.

The second objective is to restore more balance between the skills of power, accuracy, trajectory management, finesse. I don't think anyone wants to see the situation where power and length isn't an advantage, it should be rewarded but in a more proportionate manner. Your example of the 2-iron is perhaps too simplistic. The idea of requiring a longer club into a green is not about what specific club is used but is rather about the inherent difficulties in hitting a longer club. They are (at least traditionally), harder to control and generally result in lower trajectories that make holding a green more difficult. If someone is able to hit a high, straight 2 iron into a green then great! That is a difficult shot and one that should be rewarded.

Personally I don't really mind how those objectives are achieved, but the current attempts to control it by changing courses and course conditions are proving ineffective and are also very expensive. I also don't really understand the vehement opposition to increased equipment regulation. It is something that almost every sport has done to preserve some characteristics of the game (tennis, baseball, cricket to name a few). Golf has also had multiple equipment regulation changes (ball size, COR, grooves, club lengths) throughout it's history. I can't see how the rollbacks that are being proposed will lessen anyone's enjoyment of the game, in fact it may be the opposite, quicker rounds, fewer lost balls, no real change to scores.

[3Puttpete]

I think that there are at least 2 separate objectives that people who suggest a rollback are trying to achieve.
The first is to stop the continual lengthening of courses. Ever increasing course length contributes to a multitude of issues, slow play, increased maintenance costs, increased water usage, decline in relevance for classic courses etc. As pointed out by others, an equipment rollback isn't the only way to stop the lengthening of courses, we could just stop lengthening them... The problem being that the golf community has an idea of what constitutes the game of golf and a part of that is having holes of different lengths that require a different number of shots to reach the green. This idea is rooted in the history of the game and I think many would agree that it is part of what makes golf on a 'normal' course more appealing than say a par 3 course. Already on the pga tour there are very few par 5's that require 3 shots for the pros. If distances keep increasing and courses aren't to be lengthened then we'll be rapidly approaching the point where a number of courses are effectively 14 Par 3's and a couple of par 4's. Some might enjoy watching that, but I prefer watching when there is increased variety in the holes and the ways that scoring well can be achieved.

The second objective is to restore more balance between the skills of power, accuracy, trajectory management, finesse. I don't think anyone wants to see the situation where power and length isn't an advantage, it should be rewarded but in a more proportionate manner. Your example of the 2-iron is perhaps too simplistic. The idea of requiring a longer club into a green is not about what specific club is used but is rather about the inherent difficulties in hitting a longer club. They are (at least traditionally), harder to control and generally result in lower trajectories that make holding a green more difficult. If someone is able to hit a high, straight 2 iron into a green then great! That is a difficult shot and one that should be rewarded.

Personally I don't really mind how those objectives are achieved, but the current attempts to control it by changing courses and course conditions are proving ineffective and are also very expensive. I also don't really understand the vehement opposition to increased equipment regulation. It is something that almost every sport has done to preserve some characteristics of the game (tennis, baseball, cricket to name a few). Golf has also had multiple equipment regulation changes (ball size, COR, grooves, club lengths) throughout it's history. I can't see how the rollbacks that are being proposed will lessen anyone's enjoyment of the game, in fact it may be the opposite, quicker rounds, fewer lost balls, no real change to scores.

My main problem with the whole discussion is there are no specific roll backs being proposed. They hit it too far seems to be the refrain but that's as far as anyone gets.

You can roll back as much as you want as far as you want but people are bigger and stronger than they were 150 years ago. It might take 5 or 15 years to catch up but ultimately they'll hit the ball as far as they do now. And doing this will only increase the gap between the short and long hitters.

I maintain if you want to see longer shots hit into greens you do this by designating starting points for approach shots, not by limiting the finishing points of tee shots.

The funny thing is the only way to achieve what you want might be with a course of 16 par 3s of between 100 and 250m and and 2 par 4s of 500+ metres. Then what do you do about cavity backs and hybrids etc? They won't be hitting the wafer thin blades of yesteryear.

[Ron Burgundy]

My main problem with the whole discussion is there are no specific roll backs being proposed. They hit it too far seems to be the refrain but that's as far as anyone gets. You can roll back as much as you want as far as you want but people are bigger and stronger than they were 150 years ago. It might take 5 or 15 years to catch up but ultimately they'll hit the ball as far as they do now. And doing this will only increase the gap between the short and long hitters.I maintain if you want to see longer shots hit into greens you do this by designating starting points for approach shots, not by limiting the finishing points of tee shots. The funny thing is the only way to achieve what you want might be with a course of 16 par 3s of between 100 and 250m and and 2 par 4s of 500+ metres. Then what do you do about cavity backs and hybrids etc? They won't be hitting the wafer thin blades of yesteryear.

FWIW I proposed specifically having a control ball that spins much more, lowering the cc of driver and lowering the COR/CT. I agree it’s all a bit ‘the vibe’ generally, but is that worse than having our head in the sand and having pro golf continue to evolve into driver-wedge every hole. The whole ‘chicks dig the long ball’ thing is bollocks. If driving was the most entertaining part of the game long drive contests would draw bigger ratings than the masters and they’d put the grandstands around the tees instead of the greens.

[3Puttpete]

FWIW I proposed specifically having a control ball that spins much more, lowering the cc of driver and lowering the COR/CT. I agree it’s all a bit ‘the vibe’ generally, but is that worse than having our head in the sand and having pro golf continue to evolve into driver-wedge every hole. The whole ‘chicks dig the long ball’ thing is bollocks. If driving was the most entertaining part of the game long drive contests would draw bigger ratings than the masters and they’d put the grandstands around the tees instead of the greens.

Fair point, you did say that. You want them to miss it by more than they miss it now. I still haven’t worked out what that will achieve.

[markTHEblake]

All of the above have merit, but they all have negatives too. Very difficult position for ruling bodies to be in.

Personally i would love to see maximum club length to be 44.50"

[Ron Burgundy]

Fair point, you did say that. You want them to miss it by more than they miss it now. I still haven’t worked out what that will achieve.

It turns driving back into a skill and rebalances risk/reward. It’s not to make everyone miss by more, only reducing the margin for error and separating the good drivers from those being propped up by technology.

[3Puttpete]

It turns driving back into a skill and rebalances risk/reward. It’s not to make everyone miss by more, only reducing the margin for error and separating the good drivers from those being propped up by technology.

Unless they all use identical crooked sticks and rocks isn’t someone being propped up by technology?

[markTHEblake]

One day someone is going to win a major by hitting their 2nd shots from the car park. Twitter will overload.

[damoocow]

One day someone is going to win a major by hitting their 2nd shots from the car park. Twitter will overload.

RIP Seve... 1979 was a good year.

[Ron Burgundy]

Unless they all use identical crooked sticks and rocks isn’t someone being propped up by technology?

Propped up relative to their peers. Pretty sure no one is advocating rolling all the way back to the 15th century. That’s too hipster, even for me.

[wazamac]

Watch the Euro tour. Problem solved

[Chilled]

One day someone is going to win a major by hitting their 2nd shots from the car park. Twitter will overload.

Close enough. https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gol...drop-1.3165136

[markTHEblake]

Close enough. https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gol...drop-1.3165136

But Seve aimed for the car park

[3Puttpete]

That’s too hipster, even for me.

A couple of craft beer tasting boards and I reckon you could be convinced

[Ron Burgundy]

A couple of craft beer tasting boards and I reckon you could be convinced

Only if I could still use an expensive single strap bag and Seamus came out with a limited run of bespoke crooked stick covers.

[BUSHY]

Ogilvy is pretty spot on from about 17 minutes.

Pretty much saying using length to “Tiger Proof” courses back in 98 was the wrong way to go.

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcas...0-f78f3a5e4200

[3Puttpete]

Ogilvy is pretty spot on from about 17 minutes. Pretty much saying using length to “Tiger Proof” courses back in 98 was the wrong way to go. https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcas...0-f78f3a5e4200

That’s an interesting point of view and makes sense

[BUSHY]

That’s an interesting point of view and makes sense

So simple.

[3Puttpete]

So simple.

I liked his comment about the 100m too.

I reckon I’ve made a similar point on here somewhere