Bryson DeChambeau

Matmania

Just watching highlights of his driving last week just off the charts. Put on muscle but also had increased his ball speed and using a five and a half degree driver. He was hitting on average 345 i think. Ball speed was 190 miles per hour. These numbers are unreal.

He's obviously looked at the science. He's well known for his scientific approach to the game. All clubs the same length etc. So on the driving he's looked at what limits he can hit the ball long while not effecting accuracy to much. This is a game changer. Many golfer commented on it. Even Rory was shocked by it. He looks so much bigger. Fair play to him for upping his game. He has a unique approach to the game but will golfers coming up see this and think this is the way forward. Exciting and also worrying times ahead. As if the game go's towards a 340 plus average drive it may kill the game.

Golf is my Game

Dont think there much science behind him, thats just a lazy thing the commentators like to latch onto. If he really believes the science stuff and its giving him something, then he is a dimmer bulb than he knows or they suggest he is. But he is jacked. 5° driver ? Brysonproofing ? Keopka has huge arms and shoulders as well since he hit the big time anyways. Dont think Bobby Locke was into pumping iron. Its the way it should be. Maybe they need to bring in some like maximum musclemass thing, or ban steriods or something.

slave1

These guys are the best of the best, they should be hitting it further and further, they are the elite.
Bryson's alterations will have zero impact on the likes of us so his distance not an issue

callaway92

Yeh it’s definitely not science and it’s embarrassing when people call it as such.

It’s just a better approach to analytics and playing percentages.

Golf in fairness is a mile behind sports like Soccer, Rugby, Baseball, American Football and Basketball in it.

blue note

The bryson the science guy stuff is massively overblown. That said, when you think of how far the long drive guys hit it, there's definitely room for growth for the pros there. Bulking up could be a part of that.

Mantis Toboggan

6 protein shakes a day!!!

GreeBo

blue note wrote: »

The bryson the science guy stuff is massively overblown. That said, when you think of how far the long drive guys hit it, there's definitely room for growth for the pros there. Bulking up could be a part of that.

The long drive guys dont have the accuracy or consistency needed for golf though. They are at the extreme end of a particular wedge.

GreeBo

slave1 wrote: »

These guys are the best of the best, they should be hitting it further and further, they are the elite.
Bryson's alterations will have zero impact on the likes of us so his distance not an issue

Ever increasing distance is an issue for the game though, many players including McIlroy have said its a problem.
Note there is no issue with some being longer than others, the problem is when they are making a mockery of golf courses..."whats a dogleg"?

the.red.baron

callaway92 wrote: »

Yeh it’s definitely not science and it’s embarrassing when people call it as such.

It’s just a better approach to analytics and playing percentages.

Golf in fairness is a mile behind sports like Soccer, Rugby, Baseball, American Football and Basketball in it.

golf is beyond any of those sports, not sure where you are getting from



it is science in the very definition of the word


He experiments and you can see the improvements


if they can hit it longer, who cares, i play with people who can hit it 50 longer than me, big advantage for them, and rightly so


some people can run faster than other no different really, in fact the gap in something like running is miles beyond what it would be in golf

GreeBo

the.red.baron wrote: »

in fact the gap in something like running is miles beyond what it would be in golf

Its not the gap thats the problem though, its what the maximum distance means for the future of the game.

blue note

GreeBo wrote: »

The long drive guys dont have the accuracy or consistency needed for golf though. They are at the extreme end of a particular wedge.

No, and I don't see the pros ever competing with long drive guys in terms of distance either. One of the reasons being the importance of accuracy in real golf.

However, when you can see lads carrying the ball 400 yards, I think it's fair to say that the pros haven't maxed out their driving distance. If it's muscles, or lifting the left foot on the back swing or whatever that gets the long drive guys more distance, I can see the pros looking at it to see how they can get more swing speed in a controlled manner.

the.red.baron

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not the gap thats the problem though, its what the maximum distance means for the future of the game.

it means lower scores for those who can hit further if just as accurate as the shorter hitter


same as always


you can also get fitter and stronger if you wish to keep up with the big hitters


if they can go long and straight in the fairway, they should have an advantage to this difficult skill

GreeBo

the.red.baron wrote: »

it means lower scores for those who can hit further if just as accurate as the shorter hitter


same as always


you can also get fitter and stronger if you wish to keep up with the big hitters


if they can go long and straight in the fairway, they should have an advantage to this difficult skill

You are missing the point I have made already.
There is *zero* issue with some people being longer than others, the problem is that what longer means keep increasing and its no viable for courses to keep up.

It means more expensive alterations to golf courses to make them viable for the pros to play on.
It means much more expensive (money and environmentally) courses to maintain
It means longer and longer time needed to play a round of golf


If you could kick a GAA ball over the bar from your own goal line, do you not thing changes would be brought in, for the good of the game?

its the same problem in golf, skill is being eroded in favour of distance, because distance, right now, trumps everything else.

GreeBo

blue note wrote: »

No, and I don't see the pros ever competing with long drive guys in terms of distance either. One of the reasons being the importance of accuracy in real golf.

However, when you can see lads carrying the ball 400 yards, I think it's fair to say that the pros haven't maxed out their driving distance. If it's muscles, or lifting the left foot on the back swing or whatever that gets the long drive guys more distance, I can see the pros looking at it to see how they can get more swing speed in a controlled manner.

Oh agreed, there is more in there for lots of them, which is why I think the game needs to take steps to dial it back but maintain an advantage for longer hitters.

Limiting the number of dimples on the ball would be one way, it would also reward accuracy over distance (painful hitting a ball with fewer dimples out of the rough)

OEP

I'd say steroids were a big help too

willabur

The main problem is that the penalty for not hitting the fairway is far too low. 20 yards into the rough these guys are getting lies that are far too playable

Bryson was 27th last week in fairways hit, not in the top 100 season to date. If the rough was a proper length then he and others would need find a better solution than bomb and gouge

the.red.baron

GreeBo wrote: »

You are missing the point I have made already.
There is *zero* issue with some people being longer than others, the problem is that what longer means keep increasing and its no viable for courses to keep up.

It means more expensive alterations to golf courses to make them viable for the pros to play on.
It means much more expensive (money and environmentally) courses to maintain
It means longer and longer time needed to play a round of golf


If you could kick a GAA ball over the bar from your own goal line, do you not thing changes would be brought in, for the good of the game?

its the same problem in golf, skill is being eroded in favour of distance, because distance, right now, trumps everything else.

no, you don't need to make them longer, they just score lower, possibly



you aren't making any point


he hit it longer last weekend and still didn't win,



funny that


so someones short game and putting beat him out, but he still probably payed better than he would have, in his own game



hitting it long and straight is a skill just as difficult as any other, so why penalize that skill

Iang87

GreeBo wrote: »

Ever increasing distance is an issue for the game though, many players including McIlroy have said its a problem.
Note there is no issue with some being longer than others, the problem is when they are making a mockery of golf courses..."whats a dogleg"?

Can this not be fixed with better course design. Listened to a new podcasts recently, particularly Peter Kostis and he views distance as a skill so why punish it.

Maybe better design. Let him hit the ball 360 but if he doesn't land in a fairway he should be struggling in rough but unfortunately thats not the case. I think that is more problematic than the distance. Great design beats distance.

Smaller example would be last weeks course had a 215 yard par 3. Wide green with a bunker front left. Pointless in my view. Think the players all week smashed 5 iron up there and tried to two putt. Why not have it 120 with a disgusting run off area where you dare not go left/right etc.

Anyway i'm rambling and definitely don't mean to be having a go at you. I just think the distance is a problem argument is wrong

NIMAN

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

6 protein steroid shakes a day!!!

fyp

blue note

GreeBo wrote: »

You are missing the point I have made already.
There is *zero* issue with some people being longer than others, the problem is that what longer means keep increasing and its no viable for courses to keep up.

It means more expensive alterations to golf courses to make them viable for the pros to play on.
It means much more expensive (money and environmentally) courses to maintain
It means longer and longer time needed to play a round of golf


If you could kick a GAA ball over the bar from your own goal line, do you not thing changes would be brought in, for the good of the game?

its the same problem in golf, skill is being eroded in favour of distance, because distance, right now, trumps everything else.

I basically agree when this. On a side note, it's often spoken about in GAA how much further the sliotar now travels. Back in the day 65s were difficult. Now you'd expect them to be put over in an u14s match. In hurling this is a great thing. If not you could pack the defence and just defend inside your own 65. The fact that guys can put it over from their own 65 given a bit of space forces teams to spread out around the pitch more. It makes it a far more open and exciting game.

But back to the golf - limitations on the ball in the professional game definitely seems the way to go. The problem with distance at the moment is that it's disproportionately rewarded. If you're not hitting the ball 300 yards it pretty much rules you out of half the tournaments every year. It's a shame that lads like like Donald can't compete anymore.

If the ball was altered and took 10% of the distance off players, the bigger hitters would still have a huge advantage. But maybe other guys would be able to compete against them because they're a brilliant putter or iron player.

GreeBo

the.red.baron wrote: »

no, you don't need to make them longer, they just score lower, possibly



you aren't making any point


he hit it longer last weekend and still didn't win,



funny that


so someones short game and putting beat him out, but he still probably payed better than he would have, in his own game



hitting it long and straight is a skill just as difficult as any other, so why penalize that skill

Ok you are not reading my posts.
I'm not penalizing that skill, I'm trying to reign everyone back equally, so the game can still be played on all courses.

GreeBo

Iang87 wrote: »

Can this not be fixed with better course design. Listened to a new podcasts recently, particularly Peter Kostis and he views distance as a skill so why punish it.

Not at all trying to punish it, the long guys will still be long but they dont need to be as long as they are now.
What does "better course design" mean for all the existing courses? They all would have to undergo massive capital and operating expense.

Iang87 wrote: »

Maybe better design. Let him hit the ball 360 but if he doesn't land in a fairway he should be struggling in rough but unfortunately thats not the case. I think that is more problematic than the distance. Great design beats distance.

I don't think that addresses the underlying issue, if you keep hitting the ball further, you keep having to lengthen courses, which is not feasible.

Iang87 wrote: »

Smaller example would be last weeks course had a 215 yard par 3. Wide green with a bunker front left. Pointless in my view. Think the players all week smashed 5 iron up there and tried to two putt. Why not have it 120 with a disgusting run off area where you dare not go left/right etc.

While I dont necessarily disagree, I think you need to have them hitting more than SW/LW, they are just too good.

Iang87 wrote: »

Anyway i'm rambling and definitely don't mean to be having a go at you. I just think the distance is a problem argument is wrong

So what about the associated cost and waste, environmental impact and the forced obsolescence of many courses?
I dont care about how far the ball goes, I care about the impact that has.

callaway92

the.red.baron wrote: »

golf is beyond any of those sports, not sure where you are getting from

Just going from my own experience. I work in Sports Analytics, focusing on Soccer, Rugby (Union and League), Golf, Tennis, Cricket and the Major League Sports, and the least money invested in it comes from Golf easily.

Granted, for Golf, individual players aren't clients of mine, but Media companies, Betting companies, Fantasy Sports companies and Coaches are.

the.red.baron

callaway92 wrote: »

Just going from my own experience. I work in Sports Analytics, focusing on Soccer, Rugby (Union and League), Golf, Tennis, Cricket and the Major League Sports, and the least money invested in it comes from Golf easily.

Granted, for Golf, individual players aren't clients of mine, but Media companies, Betting companies, Fantasy Sports companies and Coaches are.

Golf is niche on a professional level, versus soccer the nfl etc, it's comparable to Tennis, the numbers who watch it and the revenue is tiny in comparison



but the golf manufacturers pump plenty of money and the sports itself is statstastic


you have average golfers using GPS devices and lasers to track them and get range slope etc


No average person in the these other sports use much if any technology



the manufacture of the clubs gets plenty of money pumped into it, and you can analyse the golf swing in a way those sports only dream of

the.red.baron

GreeBo wrote: »

Ok you are not reading my posts.
I'm not penalizing that skill, I'm trying to reign everyone back equally, so the game can still be played on all courses.

its a 2 page thread of course i have


you haven't explained the problem with long hitting at all


making a mockery of a course, is that it? they are pros, they make things look easy, some of the time



they already have limits on the technology, this is players making themselves better, they all have access to the same clubs

callaway92

the.red.baron wrote: »

Golf is niche on a professional level, versus soccer the nfl etc, it's comparable to Tennis, the numbers who watch it and the revenue is tiny in comparison



but the golf manufacturers pump plenty of money and the sports itself is statstastic


you have average golfers using GPS devices and lasers to track them and get range slope etc


No average person in the these other sports use much if any technology



the manufacture of the clubs gets plenty of money pumped into it, and you can analyse the golf swing in a way those sports only dream of

From the tech and data involved in all of the Sports I've listed, bar Tennis, pound-for-pound Golf is so far behind them it's crazy.

Why are you bringing average people into this? We were speaking about Bryson DeChambeau - At the top-level, Golf is so far behind the other Sports. It's my favourite Sport and that might be one of the reasons why; because it's not fully down to a tee yet (which players constantly try to perfect).

GreeBo

the.red.baron wrote: »

its a 2 page thread of course i have


you haven't explained the problem with long hitting at all


making a mockery of a course, is that it? they are pros, they make things look easy, some of the time



they already have limits on the technology, this is players making themselves better, they all have access to the same clubs

I haven't explained it?!
Ohhhhkaaaay.

Iang87

GreeBo wrote: »

Not at all trying to punish it, the long guys will still be long but they dont need to be as long as they are now.
What does "better course design" mean for all the existing courses? They all would have to undergo massive capital and operating expense.


I don't think that addresses the underlying issue, if you keep hitting the ball further, you keep having to lengthen courses, which is not feasible.


While I dont necessarily disagree, I think you need to have them hitting more than SW/LW, they are just too good.



So what about the associated cost and waste, environmental impact and the forced obsolescence of many courses?
I dont care about how far the ball goes, I care about the impact that has.

I just think lengthening the course is the easy option and the most boring from a spectator view.

Squeeze the fairways tighter in the landing areas. Put a few mature trees in areas of the course where if you go to close you'e to come under or whip around but if you're far enough back you can go over. Put a few deep bunkers in landing areas. These are relatively simple things

On the par 3 point, I think you can have them hitting LW and GW into them. 12th at Augusta, 17th at Sawgrass, 8th at Troon, 7th at Pebble. All relatively short holes that absolutely punish. I'd rather see that than milling a 5 iron 220 yards into a green/bunker. I understand those holes can't be on every course because a few have natural features that can't really be replicated.

GreeBo

Iang87 wrote: »

I just think lengthening the course is the easy option and the most boring from a spectator view.

Squeeze the fairways tighter in the landing areas. Put a few mature trees in areas of the course where if you go to close you'e to come under or whip around but if you're far enough back you can go over. Put a few deep bunkers in landing areas. These are relatively simple things

On the par 3 point, I think you can have them hitting LW and GW into them. 12th at Augusta, 17th at Sawgrass, 8th at Troon, 7th at Pebble. All relatively short holes that absolutely punish. I'd rather see that than milling a 5 iron 220 yards into a green/bunker. I understand those holes can't be on every course because a few have natural features that can't really be replicated.

I think you have to keep lengthening the course if players keep hitting it further and further, unless you bring in internal OOB, guys will just cut corners of doglegs, who cares if you are in the rough if you are hitting a LW compared to the rest of them hitting a 7i?

Sure you can add one off short par 3's but you cant put 3-4 of them on a course realistically.

OEP

GreeBo wrote: »

I think you have to keep lengthening the course if players keep hitting it further and further, unless you bring in internal OOB, guys will just cut corners of doglegs, who cares if you are in the rough if you are hitting a LW compared to the rest of them hitting a 7i?

Sure you can add one off short par 3's but you cant put 3-4 of them on a course realistically.

Couldn't they make they rough deeper? Like in Paris for the Ryder Cup. It doesn't have to be that extreme but that showed one way of penalising missing the fairways

GreeBo

OEP wrote: »

Couldn't they make they rough deeper? Like in Paris for the Ryder Cup. It doesn't have to be that extreme but that showed one way of penalising missing the fairways

Yeah they can, but I'd worry about slowing down play even further!

willabur

GreeBo wrote: »

Yeah they can, but I'd worry about slowing down play even further!

They should enforce the 3 minute rule for searching for balls and put players on the clock if they are not playing holes at a proper pace.

The very last thing they should be doing is having a different ball for pros than they have for amateurs.

GreeBo

willabur wrote: »

The very last thing they should be doing is having a different ball for pros than they have for amateurs.

Who says it needs to be different?
Also, there are examples of where the rules for pros are/were different than for am's.
COR, groves, same ball, etc

Matmania

They just can't making golf course's longer etc. Cost of land etc. The way the game is going they guys are getting bigger and the technology is always improving. Langer hitting if further now at 62 that when he started on tour. Jack has said putting limits on the ball. Wimbledon done it in the tennis and it improved the game. I know Byrson didn't win but up and coming golfer's may look at this and think it's the way to go. There is defo skills in the long hitting but on most course's the punishment is not severe enough for missing the fairway. Distance can be a massive advantage on certain course's as you have a more lofted club for the second shot. I think professional golf should test all part's of a player's game but some weeks most clubs used for the second shot are short irons or wedges. I liked to see them do something with the ball. However the companies won't be happy so it may be a long road before something happens. Jack and Player are backing a limit on the ball so it may happen. We shall see.

Golf is my Game

willabur wrote: »

The very last thing they should be doing is having a different ball for pros than they have for amateurs.

This is true. A shorter ball for everyone has all the positives and no disadvantages. It has to happen.

Golf is my Game

GreeBo wrote: »

Who says it needs to be different?
Also, there are examples of where the rules for pros are/were different than for am's.
COR, groves, same ball, etc

COR and grooves, were transitional things where joe soap was given time not be be out of pocket with his gear, but the pros could change for no cost. And as with the same ball thing, they didnt have a real effect on the shot of effectively all golfers.
But shortening the ball would be a clear difference seen on every shot and be two different games then.
But yes, it doesnt need to be different. Shorten it for all. People everywhere would love it. And still keep the big forgiving driver. If anything, the benefit of the big driver - supposed to make the game more playable for the less skilled lads - is lost because of the distance gain given by the modern club and ball. So no real gain really. Whereas the average 15 handicapper, with his driver of today, if he could maxing out at 200yards with roll, would find the game more playable and enjoyable. The high lad, would have a much better change if he wasnt hitting it as far too.

DuckSlice

Golf is my Game wrote: »

This is true. A shorter ball for everyone has all the positives and no disadvantages. It has to happen.

A ball that goes shorter? Well that just gives the long hitters an even bigger advantage no?

thegolfer

etxp wrote: »

A ball that goes shorter? Well that just gives the long hitters an even bigger advantage no?

I don't understand your logic?

The golfers playing the lower compression ball hit it shorter in the same proportion as every else i.e. 10% shorter say or 15% if that is the number.

Long hitters have advantage over short hitters in that they hit it long, but long hitters don't always win.

The art, style, and shot shaping of golf is not present like it was say 20 years ago with the balata balls, or persimmon woods.

Fortunately I have played quite a number of years and miss the shot shaping, it is actually a lost art these days.

Guys who bomb it, great, but it's very one dimensional. Strange how all the commentary still refers to the great strikers, Hogan, Floyd, Nicklaus, Ballesteros, Olazabal.

Bring back the short ball for the pros, more playability in the ball and watch them have to play golf, rather than wonder how trackman can fix it. Even Harmon referenced that these days with the young guys rocking up with their data wondering what's wrong with their game.

The likes of Pine Valley bringing back scrubland into the course, you'll see the traditionalist scale back the equipment at some point too.

PARlance

etxp wrote: »

A ball that goes shorter? Well that just gives the long hitters an even bigger advantage no?

No, if they developed a ball that was 20% less shorter
Player A: 320 drive turns into 256
Player B: 250 drive turns into 200

A has gone from being 70 yards ahead to only being 56 yards ahead of B.

But the reality is that it won't make a huge difference in a long vs short hitter scenario. I've used extreme examples in terms of the ball % and gap between the drives of the 2 players... and it still only narrowed the gap by 14 yards.

Where it would make a big difference is to how Player A would have to play the course and would bring in a lot of danger (fairway bunkers, doglegs etc, originally designed to be a trap for even long hitters) that the modern player just flys over these days.

Golf is my Game

PARlance wrote: »

No, if they developed a ball that was 20% less shorter
Player A: 320 drive turns into 256
Player B: 250 drive turns into 200

A has gone from being 70 yards ahead to only being 56 yards ahead of B.

But the reality is that it won't make a huge difference in a long vs short hitter scenario. I've used extreme examples in terms of the ball % and gap between the drives of the 2 players... and it still only narrowed the gap by 14 yards.

It's not as simple as above, and can be done. You are assuming that theirs a linear reduction in length. But that doesn't have to be. You can make a ball where the 320 yard drive turns into a 250, and the 250 drive turns into a 220. Or whatever. So the long lad still has his deserved advantage, but the advantage is less. Its to do with the golf ball matterial, compression, energy and stuff where extra club speed translates into less and less ball speed. It can be tuned to any curve of club speed/distance you want almost.
Id be all for the longest tour lads topping out at 280, and a typical fiveteen hcer hitting it 200-210.
The shorter tour lads would then be 260. Just a club or so different. And the same would apply to the irons. So the nonsense of a 450yd par 4 being a drive and a wedge for them would be gone. Itd be a drive and a 6 iron or so. And routinely carrying fairway bunkers and stuff like they aren't there would be gone too.

DuckSlice

Is it not good logic to think no matter what the composition of the ball is, that current players who hit it long are still going to hit the ball longer than the shorter players?

You are then giving the longer hitters better chances at making eagles etc, when the shorter ones can no longer make the green in two.

Maybe im missing something here?

If players can hit it long and straight then fair play to them, they have obviously got a very high skill set.

Matmania

The longer hitters are not hitting in long and straight. The course setup most weeks doesn't punish shots that miss the fairways in general as the ruff is minimal. So the bombers can just lash it and still have a shot in. That's the problem. Decreasing the distance the ball go's stops course's having to get longer and longer. It also makes golfer's hit more clubs and actually play golf. The average drive has gone up so much over the year's where does it end. Dechambeau has looked at this and said it's worth the risk. Up coming golfer's may do the same so the average drive could go to 330 - 340 so most second shot's be wedges short irons on alot of course's. Accurate driving should be rewarded as well as wayward but it's not. Look most weeks there is little ruff and it's just target golf. As i said Jack Player been saying the same and i think i'd respect what they say. The RA/USPGA are looking at this seriously at the moment and i'd expect some changes to happen. I think it would be for the good of the game as technology in clubs and the ball have made alot of courses little pitch and putt course's to the pro's. Be interesting to see how Dechambeau get's on in the masters as i feel this is why he has made the changes. Masters fairways are very wide little rough. The winner of the masters us usually the one who can score on the par fives. I'm having a few quid on him anyway.

GreeBo

etxp wrote: »

A ball that goes shorter? Well that just gives the long hitters an even bigger advantage no?

I dont think anyone is trying to stop longer hitters from having an advantage?
They (well me anyway!) want to dial everyone back for the good of the game.

GreeBo

etxp wrote: »

Is it not good logic to think no matter what the composition of the ball is, that current players who hit it long are still going to hit the ball longer than the shorter players?

You are then giving the longer hitters better chances at making eagles etc, when the shorter ones can no longer make the green in two.

Maybe im missing something here?

Huh?
Longer hitters always have an advantage over shorter hitters when it comes to length. A ball that goes 20% shorter doesnt alter that in the slightest.

If it means the long guys are now hitting a 3W and the shorter guys cant reach then that is really no different than the longer guys hitting 7i and the shorter guys hitting 2I.

etxp wrote: »

If players can hit it long and straight then fair play to them, they have obviously got a very high skill set.

Indeed, so it would be unfair to disproportionally punish them, which is why no one is suggesting that.

thegolfer

etxp wrote: »

Is it not good logic to think no matter what the composition of the ball is, that current players who hit it long are still going to hit the ball longer than the shorter players?

You are then giving the longer hitters better chances at making eagles etc, when the shorter ones can no longer make the green in two.

Maybe im missing something here?

If players can hit it long and straight then fair play to them, they have obviously got a very high skill set.

Just on the high skill set you mention, they don't have it.

The ball is designed to fly straight and less deviation these days. Combine with a driver translates to straight long shots.

Benicetomonty

To be honest, when course set ups take the approach of growing rough to counteract long hitting, you've already got bifurcation in a sense, because those courses become utterly unplayable for an amateur player.

Forget the fact that pros, through a combination of skill, good decision making and, yes, strength, will be able to extricate themselves from such rough far more efficiently, the real difference relates to actually being able to locate your ball to begin with.

When the idea of golf tournaments behind closed doors was first floated, Brooks Koepka was the first to point out that course conditions would have to be modified because he knew that without fans, pros would start losing golf balls if they strayed from the fairways. It's not week in, week out but the only way the rough can be made to be an actual factor in combatting distance at a tour event is to make it stupidly thick.

We all had a good laugh at the USA complaining about the rough at the last Ryder Cup. We wouldnt have laughed if we'd played it under the same conditions the next day because, without the benefit of spectators, every missed fairway would equate to a lost ball, which is no way to play the game imo. It also puts massive pressure on whomever is tasked with setting up a course to get the rough at the optimum length. Sometimes they get it right (Winged Foot in 2006), sometimes they get it wrong (Merion 2013) and sometimes it's an out and out calamity (Carnoustie 1999). In all 3 cases, a player of any level would probably run out of balls trying to finish unless they had spotters on every hole; a 10 handicapper would walk in after 6 or 7 holes.

Some courses seem to able to keep scoring in check without resorting to insane rough and distance. Valderamma in Spain comes to mind, although it's a love/hate course amongst the pros owing to the countless cork trees, relentless doglegs and tiny, slopey greens. The sand belt in Australia is universally respected but its unique climate makes its courses impossible to replicate anywhere else.

With all that in mind, Id like to see something done with the ball for all golfers, pro and amateur. I dont want bifurcation but if I cant see myself breaking 80 or even 90 off a 3 hc around a US Open set up golf course, that tells me Im already not really playing the same game as the pros are. Bringing back balatas means less distance and more spin. Ball is more vulnerable to the wind but also more scope for shaping shots and short game magic coming to the fore. As with any equipment variation, vast majority of amateurs will barely notice any difference. But the pros will. Immediately.

Matmania

I think for the good of the game distance will have to be looked at. If it keeps going the way it is. 8000 yard plus golf courses will be needed and that's not right. Average handicapper's just won't be able to play courses that long. Maintenance cost's go up as well as land cost's etc. I think the ball is the way to go. As its the easiest think to limit. With clubs there are to many variables to look at.

Golf is my Game

etxp wrote: »

Is it not good logic to think no matter what the composition of the ball is, that current players who hit it long are still going to hit the ball longer than the shorter players?

You are then giving the longer hitters better chances at making eagles etc, when the shorter ones can no longer make the green in two.

Maybe im missing something here?

If players can hit it long and straight then fair play to them, they have obviously got a very high skill set.

With respect, I think you are missing something. And a few others as well. It's not that the longer hitters won't always have an advantage, but it the amount of that advantage, that is controlled by the specs of the equipment, that we think should be reduced. The 'stretch' between long and short is too great, and the distance advantage is outweighing the acxuracy/skill/shot making side. And that à shorter ball would bring that back to a better balance to the better of the game for all.

Golf is my Game

GreeBo wrote: »

Huh?
Longer hitters always have an advantage over shorter hitters when it comes to length. A ball that goes 20% shorter doesnt alter that in the slightest.

It certainly does. Theres a big difference in the level of advantage once drives become so long that all par 4s become drive and wedge holes, and there no such thing as a tru par 5 anymore.
There a big difference between the advantage I. The past where a long lad was hitting a 7 iron into a green, and the shorter lad had to take a 5. That's fair enough. But when it becomes a long lad getting inside 100 yards, and the shorter guy still hitting a full 8 iron, then that has changed the game. His advantage isn't just a club or two. It's a flip of a pitch versus a full shot. With a much bigger difference in probable outcome than the 7iron v 5 iron scenario used to give.

PARlance

Bryson has had a good start to the resumption of the PGA Tour.

coolshannagh28

PARlance wrote: »

Bryson has had a good start to the resumption of the PGA Tour.

He deserves it , he has moved the game forward substantially with his ideas and generated interest and colour .