Distance Regulation

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 03-02-2021 5:45am #1

The USGA and R&A are currently working on a joint venture referred to as the "Distance Insights" project.

An announcement was made yesterday highlighting
two specific Areas of Interest:

1. The potential use of a Local Rule that would specify the use of clubs and/or balls intended to result in shorter hitting distances.
This would enable committees conducting competitions to stipulate whether such equipment should be used. It could be available at all levels of play and would also allow golfers playing outside of competition to choose for themselves.

2. A review of the overall conformance specifications for both clubs and balls, including specifications that both directly and indirectly affect hitting distances.
This review would consider whether any existing specifications should be adjusted or any new specifications created to help mitigate continuing distance increases.
It would not consider revising the overall specifications to produce substantial reductions in hitting distances at all levels of the sport. A list of club and ball specifications to be reviewed can be found in the official notice.

Further to that, the following proposals are being presented to manufacturers for discussion

Proposal 1: Club length – reduction to 46 inches available as Model Local Rule (MLR) (Original proposal delivered in 2016 and paused in 2017 due to the Distance Insights project). Comment period ends on 4 March 2021.

Proposal 2: Update on testing method for golf balls. Comment period ends on 2 August 2021.

Proposal 3: Change to testing tolerance – Characteristic Time. Comment period ends on 2 August 2021.

https://www.randa.org/en/news/2021/02/distance-update-2021

https://www.rte.ie/sport/golf/2021/0202/1194610-proposed-rules-change-could-limit-dechambeaus-length/

I see this as less a discussion on the merits of driving distance but rather is this something we are all happy to see?

The immediate argument regarding 48 to 46 inches is that most players on tour do not exceed 46 inches so a restriction is largely irrelevant.

Manufacturers generally release drivers stock at 45.5 inches which is something that has increased over recent years so ceiling will be closer.

If this decision was invoked, I see it more as setting a precedent that distance limitation is on the radar of the governing bodies.

They can't roll back current tech but interesting to see if we are close to the limit now on distance-centric technology.

dan_ep82 · 03-02-2021 8:56am

Still think it's mental. The average drive is still between 200 and 220 for amateurs. We do not need the ball to go shorter.

The 1% should be able to do things the other 99% cannot so I cannot see why a few hundred on the Tours hitting it too far on a course built a century ago should affect the many millions playing it.

If they wanted to keep courses entertaining and in the rota that are made less so by the extreme long hitters then the local rule to limit distance on that course could work. Perhaps the courses in question either don't have the room to change or are iconic in layout but it should not be limited just because.

tommyombomb · 03-02-2021 9:05am

dan_ep82 wrote: »

Still think it's mental. The average drive is still between 200 and 220 for amateurs. We do not need the ball to go shorter.
.

The point above is key. I hit a little more than the average mentioned but lot shorter than my peers for my age. If i was limited i would be struggling to reach the fairway.

I do feel however as a tv sport, the game is gone a bit boring. Feel some pros could play a round of golf with 6 or 7 clubs as they hit the ball so far,

redzerdrog · 03-02-2021 9:23am

As I posted in other thread

I think there is a bit of future proofing going on here. If someone like Bryson could get a 48 inch driver under control he could end up hitting ridiculous distances and that is before the next 6ft 7 genetic freak comes along and grows up hitting 48 inch drivers.

I think it is a good move

GreeBo · 03-02-2021 10:14am

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

If this decision was invoked, I see it more as setting a precedent that distance limitation is on the radar of the governing bodies.

I agree with this, if it starts to become acceptable to people then it becomes easier to roll out more aggressive changes.

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

They can't roll back current tech but interesting to see if we are close to the limit now on distance-centric technology.

This I dont agree with, they changed COR and the grooves on wedges, which is equivalent to rolling back current tech.

Dont see why they cant change the rules for golf balls and render the current specs illegal after, say 2025 or something. (I'll have to get playing ASAP as I have about 300 new balls sitting in the garage!)

GreeBo · 03-02-2021 10:17am

dan_ep82 wrote: »

Still think it's mental. The average drive is still between 200 and 220 for amateurs. We do not need the ball to go shorter.

The 1% should be able to do things the other 99% cannot so I cannot see why a few hundred on the Tours hitting it too far on a course built a century ago should affect the many millions playing it.

If they wanted to keep courses entertaining and in the rota that are made less so by the extreme long hitters then the local rule to limit distance on that course could work. Perhaps the courses in question either don't have the room to change or are iconic in layout but it should not be limited just because.

Any changes they make will be at worst proportional, e.g. its not going to take 50 yards off everyone, it will take 10% off the ball flight so the average drive loses 20 yards but the guys at the top lose 30-40.

Depending on the actual change introduced it might not even be a linear impact, so the average might lose 3 yards and the pros lose 30 yards.

ForeRight · 03-02-2021 10:42am

Why not just leave it as it is and put a high premium on hitting fairways. Make the fairways much narrower and grow up the rough.
I’m not talking to US open level toughness but they can adjust these courses as they please it seems.
More so than just huge drives being the issue to me it’s more than that. It’s a skill to hit the ball that far but you shouldn’t be able to launch a wedge into the sky and land soft from the rough.

Punish a missed fairway severely. If you can drive it 320yds and split the fairway you deserve your reward with that skill imo.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 03-02-2021 10:43am

redzerdrog wrote: »

As I posted in other thread

I think there is a bit of future proofing going on here. If someone like Bryson could get a 48 inch driver under control he could end up hitting ridiculous distances and that is before the next 6ft 7 genetic freak comes along and grows up hitting 48 inch drivers.

I think it is a good move

You put it more succinctly than I did, you’re right it’s future proofing. It’s more about setting a precedent around willingness to step on the toes of manufacturers.

It’s interesting because the driver length will be addressed before the Masters, perhaps Bryson will share an opinion on it.

Matt Fitzpatrick obv delighted

Russman · 03-02-2021 11:23am

I think its a good, but very limited move. Its not going to effect anything we're seeing now.

I've read and seen it mentioned on various platforms that apparently you only get the real massive distance benefit out of the modern ball when you swing over about 113mph. I know Denis Pugh has definitely said it a number of times on Sky Sports.
I wonder could any roll back of the ball be done in such a way as that Joe Amateur didn't really notice it or notice it as much as the tour guys ?

Honestly, in a way, I'm not sure about the argument that club golfers don't want to hit it shorter - of course nobody wants to hit it shorter, but I think it could be argued that for club golfers, its their quality of strike that determines how far their shot goes, most of the time. I'm not sure enough of us "middle it" often enough to notice if the ball was rolled back 5%. Purely an opinion.

death1234567 · 03-02-2021 11:27am

dan_ep82 wrote: »

Still think it's mental. The average drive is still between 200 and 220 for amateurs. We do not need the ball to go shorter.

This average distance will increase over time. If you ever play golf with any junior golfers you'll see how far they hit the ball. When the "aul lads" all die off the average driving distance will increase for amateurs too. Also "Senior" tees might not be a bad idea either but that's a separate point.

It's obviously a good thing to restrict shaft lengths to 46", otherwise 48" would eventually become the standard for pros, however the ball also needs to be changed too. Ideally you do something to reduce the distance it travels for high swing speeds without affecting slower swing speeds as much. Whether that's making it spin more so it has more sidespin/backspin or whatever. I am sure a golf ball manufacturer can suggest solutions. Even if new balls reduce distances across the board by 10% its no harm. Amateur tees can just be moved forward to compensate and this has the added advantage of speeding up the game.

For the equipment companies changes to the rules should be exactly what they want. It's clear the latest technology is not any better than the technology that was out 3 or 4 years ago. It has plateaued. Changes to the equipment would give everyone a reason to go out and buy more gear.

I am against bi-furcation. I like playing with the same equipment that pros use, if they are playing with a ball that's different to mine it will feel like I'm playing a different game. Just give me the same ball and let me play off an amateur tee box, not off the black's at the back.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 03-02-2021 11:41am

death1234567 wrote: »

This average distance will increase over time. If you ever play golf with any junior golfers you'll see how far they hit the ball. When the "aul lads" all die off the average driving distance will increase for amateurs too. Also "Senior" tees might not be a bad idea either but that's a separate point.

It's obviously a good thing to restrict shaft lengths to 46", otherwise 48" would eventually become the standard for pros, however the ball also needs to be changed too. Ideally you do something to reduce the distance it travels for high swing speeds without affecting slower swing speeds as much. Whether that's making it spin more so it has more sidespin/backspin or whatever. I am sure a golf ball manufacturer can suggest solutions. Even if new balls reduce distances across the board by 10% its no harm. Amateur tees can just be moved forward to compensate and this has the added advantage of speeding up the game.

For the equipment companies changes to the rules should be exactly what they want. It's clear the latest technology is not any better than the technology that was out 3 or 4 years ago. It has plateaued. Changes to the equipment would give everyone a reason to go out and buy more gear.

I am against bi-furcation. I like playing with the same equipment that pros use, if they are playing with a ball that's different to mine it will feel like I'm playing a different game. Just give me the same ball and let me play off an amateur tee box, not off the black's at the back.

I'm not quite sure that if left alone, 48 inch would become the norm. The trend on tour for quite a while has been shorter shafts in light of better tech & better athletes.
Tour average is shorter than stock shafts and I'd hazard a guess that the average height of a pro golfer is above that of the average amateur buying the stock shaft.
Bryson has changed certain elements but the additional distance he has captured includes a myriad of factors arguably least of all due to shaft length.

The tech has largely plateaued and the improvements are incremental which I'm sure is by design. The tech for the SIM4 already exists but we're being fed the differences piecemeal so people feel marginal improvements will matter.

Bi-furcation already exists, perhaps not in golf balls but the clubs you purchase are not the same as those used on tour which is why you can pay an additional premium for tour models.
Similar to a different ball, you may not feel the difference but it does exist.

GreeBo · 03-02-2021 11:59am

ForeRight wrote: »

Why not just leave it as it is and put a high premium on hitting fairways. Make the fairways much narrower and grow up the rough.
I’m not talking to US open level toughness but they can adjust these courses as they please it seems.
More so than just huge drives being the issue to me it’s more than that. It’s a skill to hit the ball that far but you shouldn’t be able to launch a wedge into the sky and land soft from the rough.

Punish a missed fairway severely. If you can drive it 320yds and split the fairway you deserve your reward with that skill imo.

I don't think you can do that on existing courses though, if I can hit it 420 and leave myself 50 yards to the green, I either wont care that Im in the rough, or, I'll just hit it down another fairway and lob it over.

If they knock 50 yards off the top guys, its still the same skill for them to hit it further than everyone else, I dont see that skill being eroded?

GreeBo · 03-02-2021 12:01pm

Russman wrote: »

I wonder could any roll back of the ball be done in such a way as that Joe Amateur didn't really notice it or notice it as much as the tour guys ?

Anything they do that reduces the ball flight by a percentage will already do that though right?

For example if they limit the number of dimples on the ball then it will fly comparatively less based on the ball speed, so the guy poking it 150 today won't really notice any difference (maybe a yard or something equally irrelevant IMO)

GreeBo · 03-02-2021 12:08pm

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I'm not quite sure that if left alone, 48 inch would become the norm. The trend on tour for quite a while has been shorter shafts in light of better tech & better athletes.
Tour average is shorter than stock shafts and I'd hazard a guess that the average height of a pro golfer is above that of the average amateur buying the stock shaft.
Bryson has changed certain elements but the additional distance he has captured includes a myriad of factors arguably least of all due to shaft length.

The tech has largely plateaued and the improvements are incremental which I'm sure is by design. The tech for the SIM4 already exists but we're being fed the differences piecemeal so people feel marginal improvements will matter.

Bi-furcation already exists, perhaps not in golf balls but the clubs you purchase are not the same as those used on tour which is why you can pay an additional premium for tour models.
Similar to a different ball, you may not feel the difference but it does exist.

Bifurcation by availability or cost is one thing, but I would be strongly against it at a rules level. (if it was temporary to allow products to gracefully expire then Im fine with it, a-la grooves and COR)

Russman · 03-02-2021 12:17pm

I think the other thing that is sometimes missed is that the PGA Tour is an entertainment business. Rightly or wrongly the broad US TV audience wants to see birdies and eagles. Hence the annual criticism come US Open time.

If they want to put a premium on accuracy is the short term while they wait for an equipment rule to come into play, just don't water the greens on tour, problem solved.

GreeBo · 03-02-2021 12:27pm

Russman wrote: »

I think the other thing that is sometimes missed is that the PGA Tour is an entertainment business. Rightly or wrongly the broad US TV audience wants to see birdies and eagles. Hence the annual criticism come US Open time.

If they want to put a premium on accuracy is the short term while they wait for an equipment rule to come into play, just don't water the greens on tour, problem solved.

But you can still have lots of birdies and eagles and entertainment, you just move the tees up correspondingly.

The problem I think they need to address is not the distance itself, its the impact the distance has on the playability and suitability of courses.

Could you imagine holding the Irish Open in Woodbrook again for example?
Older courses are being left behind with no option to lengthen them.
Even my own course suffers from this, lads driving par 4s that would have been unthinkable only 10 years ago, people taking angles off the tees and cutting doglegs is actually getting dangerous and defeating the design of the course.

Russman · 03-02-2021 1:08pm

GreeBo wrote: »

But you can still have lots of birdies and eagles and entertainment, you just move the tees up correspondingly.

The problem I think they need to address is not the distance itself, its the impact the distance has on the playability and suitability of courses.

Could you imagine holding the Irish Open in Woodbrook again for example?
Older courses are being left behind with no option to lengthen them.
Even my own course suffers from this, lads driving par 4s that would have been unthinkable only 10 years ago, people taking angles off the tees and cutting doglegs is actually getting dangerous and defeating the design of the course.

Ohh I agree. As you mentioned earlier, its all just faffing around the issue of having to deal with the ball.

Although I did read an interesting article, think on Golfwrx, mentioning things like regulating the CoG on clubheads so that more spin was produced the faster you swing, thus limiting distance, and I saw an interview with Poulter recently where he suggested a minimum loft on drivers, which would, again, produce more spin, and prevent the likes of a DeChambeau using a 5 degree driver to get his optimal launch.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 03-02-2021 1:19pm

Russman wrote: »

I saw an interview with Poulter recently where he suggested a minimum loft on drivers, which would, again, produce more spin, and prevent the likes of a DeChambeau using a 5 degree driver to get his optimal launch.

I think it's hard to make a case for this because it seems like a genuine skill advantage but as a mean of limiting distance it works.

TheEconomist covered it a few months ago, if you have a sub or don't you it regularly you should still be able to view an article but you can see the difference distance due to speed and launch angle

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/11/21/how-new-swing-techniques-are-revolutionising-golf

Russman · 03-02-2021 1:54pm

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I think it's hard to make a case for this because it seems like a genuine skill advantage but as a mean of limiting distance it works.

TheEconomist covered it a few months ago, if you have a sub or don't you it regularly you should still be able to view an article but you can see the difference distance due to speed and launch angle

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/11/21/how-new-swing-techniques-are-revolutionising-golf

Maybe so. But realistically, almost any change could be argued to be impacting player x more than player y. A guy who's able to use a 48 inch driver shaft accurately could complain that limiting it to 46 inches is taking away his skill advantage. Finding where to draw that line is hard tbh.

Just watched interviews with Webb Simpson and Zach Johnson, two of the shorter hitters on tour, about it (now, I know they're not going to sh1t on their work colleagues), and Simpson was arguing that course design is the issue to be tackled, while Johnson was saying, quite reasonably, that changes should be for the good of the game, not the 0.1% of the 0.1% of those who play it, ie the PGA Tour.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 03-02-2021 2:04pm

Russman wrote: »

Maybe so. But realistically, almost any change could be argued to be impacting player x more than player y. A guy who's able to use a 48 inch driver shaft accurately could complain that limiting it to 46 inches is taking away his skill advantage. Finding where to draw that line is hard tbh.

I totally agree, i'm not really in favour of limiting shaft length, it's an arbitrary line and if people can utilise it, they should be allowd to do that.

Similarly, why can't someone 6ft 7in use a driver shaft of say 48 inch if that's proportionally better suited to their frame.

This change doesn't address fundamental change, it needs to be ball, overall tech etc, if a change is even required

GreeBo · 03-02-2021 2:05pm

Russman wrote: »

Maybe so. But realistically, almost any change could be argued to be impacting player x more than player y. A guy who's able to use a 48 inch driver shaft accurately could complain that limiting it to 46 inches is taking away his skill advantage. Finding where to draw that line is hard tbh.

Just watched interviews with Webb Simpson and Zach Johnson, two of the shorter hitters on tour, about it (now, I know they're not going to sh1t on their work colleagues), and Simpson was arguing that course design is the issue to be tackled, while Johnson was saying, quite reasonably, that changes should be for the good of the game, not the 0.1% of the 0.1% of those who play it, ie the PGA Tour.

Exactly, the square grooves is a perfect example, Paddy always said that impacted him more than many others.

Russman · 03-02-2021 3:42pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Exactly, the square grooves is a perfect example, Paddy always said that impacted him more than many others.

Absolutely.
Its a fine line in a way though, what if someone has a "skill advantage" that doesn't sit with how the ruling bodies see the game being played ? Should they still be allowed keep it ?

I know its not the same, but like the anchor ban which effectively banned long putters (I know the rule was about how they were used rather than the clubs themselves), it took away the skill advantage some players had. Arguably it even stopped some guys from playing - what's the name of the little lad who won The Players and he couldn't hold the putter normally because of something with his wrists ? or Carl Petterson, he was never the same player after the ban. Paddy I think once said they never touched the long putter in the 80s/90s because it would have ended Langer's career.

I think they have to take a stand and say XYZ is the rule and that's it. Maybe they give it til 2026 or something, like with the grooves, to come into force and ideally do it in collaboration with the manufacturers if possible.

No matter what they do, someone is going to be impacted more than someone else.

GreeBo · 03-02-2021 5:46pm

Russman wrote: »

No matter what they do, someone is going to be impacted more than someone else.

Too true, if they ban Creatine shakes poor Bryson will be heavily impacted, but I reckon Poulter will be ok!

Luckycharm · 03-02-2021 6:39pm

This Stat really surprised me especially given all the claims re new Drivers and how much longer they hit.

In addition, while no new data was gathered on recreational golfers during 2020, the report indicates that average golfer distance has decreased one yard since 2005 to 216 yards. So any rule that would mean less yardage for recreational golfers will be an especially hard pill to swallow for some—and perhaps an easy (albeit ironic) argument for equipment manufacturers to use against the governing bodies.

ForeRight · 03-02-2021 6:58pm

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't think you can do that on existing courses though, if I can hit it 420 and leave myself 50 yards to the green, I either wont care that Im in the rough, or, I'll just hit it down another fairway and lob it over.

If they knock 50 yards off the top guys, its still the same skill for them to hit it further than everyone else, I dont see that skill being eroded?

How about growing the rough up to extreme levels the further you carry the ball off the tee. If you bomb it wild you get crucified. If you’re accurate you’re rewarded.
I just fight like the idea of limiting the capabilities of lads. You don’t need to be a huge man to be up there with the biggest bombers out there. It’s a skill and deserves rewarding if accurate imo.

GreeBo · 03-02-2021 7:31pm

ForeRight wrote: »

How about growing the rough up to extreme levels the further you carry the ball off the tee. If you bomb it wild you get crucified. If you’re accurate you’re rewarded.

Because on all but the newest of Professional championship courses, if you are more than 15 yards offline, you are probably in the middle of the next fairway

And even on those newer courses, the penal area will be where the people are all standing so it will either be free relief of ok lies anyway.

ForeRight wrote: »

I just fight like the idea of limiting the capabilities of lads. You don’t need to be a huge man to be up there with the biggest bombers out there. It’s a skill and deserves rewarding if accurate imo.

They already have and do limit though, the size of the ball, COR, volume of driver head, etc, etc.

We used to play with a smaller ball, they could go bigger and change nothing else and it would drop distances and put a premium on short game.

A more severe version of what your idea about the rough would be internal OOB on every hole if you are "off the hole layout". So imagine a line that defines the boundary of each hole, go outside that and you are OOB.
That would put the bombers back in their box, but they would still have their distance advantage over everyone else.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 04-02-2021 8:38am

McIlroy weighing in on the subject:

“I think the R&A and USGA are looking at the game of golf through such a tiny little lens,” McIlroy said at TPC Scottsdale.

“What they are trying to do is change something that pertains to 0.1pc of the golfing community. 99.9pc of the people that play this game, play it for enjoyment. They play it for entertainment. They don’t need to be told what ball or clubs to use.

"We have to make the game as easy and as approachable as possible for the majority of golfers.

“Honestly, I think this Distance Insights Report has been a huge waste of time and a huge waste of money because that money could have been way better distributed to getting people into the game, introducing people to the game, introducing minorities to the game.”

Obviously he’s got SITG but I don’t think there’s any pressure from TM to speak on it plus he’s not wrong.

That said, given he has addressed it, one would wonder if it’s something that is in fact gaining some traction.

GreeBo · 04-02-2021 10:56am

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

McIlroy weighing in on the subject:
“I think the R&A and USGA are looking at the game of golf through such a tiny little lens,” McIlroy said at TPC Scottsdale.

“What they are trying to do is change something that pertains to 0.1pc of the golfing community. 99.9pc of the people that play this game, play it for enjoyment. They play it for entertainment. They don’t need to be told what ball or clubs to use.

"We have to make the game as easy and as approachable as possible for the majority of golfers.

“Honestly, I think this Distance Insights Report has been a huge waste of time and a huge waste of money because that money could have been way better distributed to getting people into the game, introducing people to the game, introducing minorities to the game.”

Obviously he’s got SITG but I don’t think there’s any pressure from TM to speak on it plus he’s not wrong.

That said, given he has addressed it, one would wonder if it’s something that is in fact gaining some traction.

Guy who relies on hitting it far is against distance controls shocker!

I dont agree with his arguments, to say that distance is only a problem at the elite level is incorrect IMO.

Pdoghue · 04-02-2021 12:59pm

Rory seemed to be all over the shop in his press conference comments.

After his initial comments about the waste of money on the report, etc. he then went on to say:

"McIlroy did concede a difference in regulations between professionals and amateurs might be sensible. “I would be all for that,” he added. “If they want to try to make the game more difficult for us or try to incorporate more skill to the game, I would be all for that because I think it only benefits the better player, which I feel like I am."

So it seems like he might be in favour of bifurcation of some sort?

tyivpc5qjx0f2b · 04-02-2021 1:40pm

Pdoghue wrote: »

Rory seemed to be all over the shop in his press conference comments.

After his initial comments about the waste of money on the report, etc. he then went on to say:

"McIlroy did concede a difference in regulations between professionals and amateurs might be sensible. “I would be all for that,” he added. “If they want to try to make the game more difficult for us or try to incorporate more skill to the game, I would be all for that because I think it only benefits the better player, which I feel like I am."

So it seems like he might be in favour of bifurcation of some sort?

I wouldn’t read that as all over the place. If anything it’s consistent, he never said he was against any sort of bifurcation earlier in the interview?

I read it as being in favour of
“Not taking a decision to impact distance as it is something everyone wants and a blanket rule will affect 100% of people”.

“Rather take a decision that will only impact the 0.1%”

dan_ep82 · 04-02-2021 1:55pm

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont agree with his arguments, to say that distance is only a problem at the elite level is incorrect IMO.

Where do you see the problem in amateur golf ?

Distance Regulation

Comments