https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-ra-rollback-announcement-december-...
Golf sickos, what do you think?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-ra-rollback-announcement-december-...
Golf sickos, what do you think?
Comments
Back in the day when a big drive was 300yds and average tour drive was about 260, championship course lengths were 7100-7300ish. Not too much difference than today. Players had to hit a lot more long and mid-irons. I can't remember the last time I saw a pro hit a 5 iron. Today's bags have 4-5 lofts of wedges while 1980's bags had long irons 1, 2, 3's etc. It's a high loft game now, 8 irons from 190yds instead of a penetrating flighted 4 iron. Lower flights meant more sideways action, shot shaping, a real skill, much more fun to see and execute.
If they do roll the ball yardage back, I hope they do it universally. I don't like the bifurcation idea. Being able to buy and play the same gear as top players is one of golf's many positive attributes.
At some point something will have to be done to the pros, but this isn't it. There are pros that play golf like i played Tiger Woods 2003, hit the ball as far as you can and deal with the lie when you get there. The US Open tall rough doesn't phase half the golfers, the course aren't designed to force the pros to curve shots or lay up as much as they should to force pro golfers to master more shots. Playing shorter doesn't really help that.
Truly ridiculous. Nearly every premium ball on the shelves, in play, and in people's bags will be deemed illegal. My biggest issue w the rollback and kicking/screaming over distance has been "if it's such an advantage, why aren't we seeing -35 and scoring records every week?" It's a ham-handed solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I thought maybe after Harman won the Open this year they might open their eyes. But nope. Silly. Plain silly.
If you want bifurcation, feel free. And before anyone says there isn't precedent for that, just look at baseball and bat rules. This whole thing is just a bunch of old boomers mad they can't hit it out of their own shadow anymore. Screw them.
Oh, and those that are long now will continue to be long. Those that are shorter will be hurt the most.
It may be easier to get a tee time during the week. Seniors like me (about 25% of the market) will hate it; maintaining distance often determines whether we will continue to play. And financially, we keep a lot of courses afloat with weekday play. If the USGA/RA actually had to make money off the sport, they might not do it
They are trying to solve a problem that really only an elite level experiences. So narrow/un-straighten the pro tournament fairways; plant a few more trees/bushes; lengthen/thicken the rough; don't mow the fairways as tight; tighten and firm up their greens. Most of us never play a TPC/equivalent course, we don't care how difficult it is for the pros. If they want to change a standard that doesn't really impact the majority, make it harder to STOP the ball.
I think distance is a really big deal as evidenced by golf club/ball marketing. The response of the general public will be influenced by how the courses respond with tee box placement, firmness of fairways, and accessibility of the buyer to non-conforming balls. If I'm still alive and able, I'll probably play an illegal ball, play the family tees, or quit. I just played in conditions where I lost 1 and often 2 clubs on most shots (due to wind and temp) on a course with a lot of forced carries. It wasn't fun and I won't pay to do that again.
The average golfer in the U.S. is 54 (Golf Monthly 2015); seniors (65 or older) play 3X the rounds of those 18-34; and golf is/was the fastest growing sport for women. Do they really, really want to cut back on distance?
edit: don't invest in golf futures right now
Yup. Will be interesting to see how the stickler in the group plays things...like that 15 cap that has a regular group...will he require his boys that he plays 2-3 times a week with to comply w the new ball rules? And what does this do to the world handicap system? Posting scores w an "illegal" ball even though it has no advantage to the guy that hits it 225. Member guests? Will they require it? All sorts of issues that unduly make it more difficult to enter the game. Well, maybe not enter, but stay.
For my take, honestly I think it makes sense. It's a problem right now, albeit not a major one, and it's most prevalent with only elite pro players. Although many clubs and courses are struggling to figure out how to acomodate longer hitters. However, I do think equipment is only going to continue to get better (longer and more accurate) so I really do think they are thinking very long term here. It's more expensive to lengthen and maintain courses, and it's just not feasible (they can't grow forever). At the end of the day it seems like about 5% loss of distance, so if you hit it 250, you hit it 237.5. It's probably 12.5 yards to walk up to the next tee box.
For me, equipment is just about maxed out. The cor limits, the size limits, the length limits...all of that is about maxed out. Taylor made and their claims of longer on every release...we should be hitting it 87 yards linger than 6 years ago. We are not.
People change. The NFL doesn't have the same plodding guys they had before. They are more athletic. Did they change the yardage for a first down? Size of the football? Width of the field? Nah. Extra point? That's equivalent to the groove change. In golf it's about the lowest score. Period. You still have to get it in there. Hitting it further doesn't ensure lower scores. Grow some rough. Pinch fairways. There are ways to deal. But the little guy that wants to play in the club championship shouldn't be hurt in the process.
I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison. Football has changed its rules based on the changes to athletes playing. Guys are bigger, faster and strong now. They've introduced rules to account for that (e.g. targeting, more enforcement of roughing the passer).
I'm too lazy to look up any links, but hitting it father has definitely correlated to scoring lower. But I don't think rolling it back has anything to do with limiting scoring. Golf courses are simply running out of real estate, the land is the problem here, or lack thereof, and that's why they want to cap and bring back distance. Honestly, I don't think it's going to change much for anyone on the negative side of a handicap.
I had some numbers at one point (prob on WRX) but the scoring seems to have gotten better but it's not drastic like it would seem. Tom Watson shot -13 at Muirfild in 1980. Phil shot -3 in 2013. I know that's a cherry pick comparison, but in general that's what the trend shows.
I mean if you're going to make that argument know that MLB has both juiced their balls and deadened them in the last 10 years to manipulate home run rates, allegedly going so far as to swap in juiced balls during Judge's HR chase a couple years back.
To this point, they juiced to make the game more exciting. Not deadened because the ball was going too far for stadiums. They manipulated and encouraged hitting it longer.
And only for the majors. They didn't deaden the ball for the minors. Or college. Or pony league. Or little league.
They control the ball. Different batters don't get to select if they want a rawlings or Wilson or mizuno ball pitched to them.
Per MyGolfSpy (2020), 15% of golfers hit 275+; 69% of golfers drive under 250; 45% under 225. And that's % of golfers, NOT % of golfer-rounds played. The under 225's are keeping public courses and most private courses in business.
What fraction of the clientele can golf courses and manufacturers afford to lose? Distance hits the largest segment the hardest. Long hitters can club down to gain accuracy; and I've never seen one skip a par 3 or drivable par 4; short hitters are more likely stay home if they have no chance. And the more strokes you add to the foursome in front of you, the slower the pace of play.
They should focus on spin, not distance. Let the pros play on firm greens and a ball they can't back up. Let tournaments bid out what rock hard ball will be used that weekend.
All courses are going to do is move up the tee boxes. It's infinitely easier to move the boxes up than to keep moving them back, because land is the finite limiter here.
What's the big deal if you play the same course, rolled back ball, and every hole is 10 yards shorter?
What's the big deal if you play the same course, rolled back ball, and every hole is 10 yards shorter?
If the hole plays the same, it isn't. But does anyone want to pay to play a hole where the tee box design/location isn't consistent with the locations of traps, pin placement, etc?
I'm sure courses will make tee box changes if they have the money or built in flexibility; but there are many holes in this part of the world where they can't. For example, courses in peninsular Florida constructed since 1980 are typically full of water (i.e., retention ponds required by state law). If you fill in a pond to make a tee, you have to excavate somewhere else. There are several holes on every course I play with no room for a more forward tee box; that tee is already there. I think courses are more likely to move everyone up a notch within the existing tee structure (no need for earthwork, no revised irrigation, etc) and mow a family tee in the fairway or next to the cart path to resolve forced carry issues. But on some par 3's it will be like teeing off from the drop zone.
Is it a big deal for a long hitter to simply take less club? Nobody stopped watching Tiger when he hit his "stinger".
How many short hitters have to stop playing before a golf course becomes economically inviable? This is a negative and unnecessary change for 80+% of the playing public and will be about as popular as increasing taxes. I doubt if the profit margin at most courses can take much of a hit; and then non-wealthy long hitters won't have any place to play.
If the USGA/RA need to find 200 yards to accommodate a small segment of the sport, I think a much better solution is called Par 70.
I think if thats the arguments, draw the line in the sand here, where maybe it doesn't move beyond this point rather than rolling back then.
You want to talk about expense? who do you think is going to eat the cost for all of the manufacturers to R&D this new ball (and likely new clubs to try to optimize the new launch conditions), which will not be an incremental improvement? And for any serious golfer this will likely require getting new clubs/shafts/fittings. You think golf is slow today? Cant wait for amateurs to have an extra club or 2 into par 3s or long par 4s.
This whole thing is a joke. If drivers are too long, then lower the cc limit to 400ccs, lower the tee heights so spin will increase. Drivers aren't longer today, they are more forgiving. This roll back is so out of touch its not even funny.
And the guys swinging those drivers are more athletic. The argument they use about Augusta "having" to spend money to lengthen 13 is a joke. Grow some rough. Put more pine shats on the corner. And boohoo Augusta ponies up money to buy property. They weren't complaining about the new press area, or patron parking, or driving range. Its a drop in the bucket for them. Just seems like a lot to everyone else. That hole is fine. And honestly, it's not like the scoring average on that hole was 4.1 or anything. There was still teeth to it. Zach Johnson won the Master by NOT going at any of the par 5's in 2. But length is a huge problem. Sheesh.
I think OEMs have been preparing for this for years. Costs are probably already baked into some of what we're paying now.
I would have preferred bifurcation, but OEMs pushed back on that. But I'd rather something get done rather than nothing.
I mentioned it already, but I really don't think any amateur will lose all that much distance. And if they do, they can simply move the tee boxes up or play up a box.
Bifurication would be even worse in my opinion, then you really have manufacturers having to build specialized clubs for the pros that will be paid for by the consumer and not the pros who use them.
This is a solution in search of a problem. and even by your estimation of 10 yards off the tee and 10 into the green is 2 clubs. Like I mentioned, there are way better/cheaper ways to lower the distance without a "rollback". Punish mishits. I've been playing golf for 25 years and this is the worst thing I've seen proposed by the sport in my life.
You don' think the pros get special stuff now? It's already bifurcated. There are 13 approved Pro V1 or V1x balls on the approved list. You MIGHT find 3 in your proshop, the V1, V1x, and V1 left dash. And the shafts...they are way more specialized. I've had a club with a premium shaft, and hit a pro's hand-me-down with the same shaft. Well, the markings were the same. It did not perform the same. At all.
Obviously the Pros do get special stuff now, and staffs at that. But there is a big difference between picking a bunch of drivers off the line, then specing them out to meet a players ideal loft/lie/SW. etc and having to develop entirely new line to optimize launch for a different ball (i.e you fit the driver to the ball not the ball to the driver). I also think there is a difference between having a bunch of different balls for a few players to choose from (generally modifications or iterations of current balls) and having to R&D brand new balls with different compression ratios and materials and specs, while also trying to iterate on the current line as well (bifurcation).
Not only that but a huge part of the draw of golf is getting to use the same equipment as the pros. Heck, if you want to spend the money you can get Tour issued clubs, shafts, putters, and Bifurcation ruins that too. I am way more in favor of the full rollback than bifurcation, but i think both are really bad ideas.
What I'm saying is while be "believe" we are playing the same stuff, we in fact, are not. The balls are trickling to the public. Theirs shafts, no matter whom you go to (yes, club champion will fit you in a $1200 exotic shaft) but that one that is put in your club didn't pass muster for the tour pros. It's awesome, maybe not worth 4 figures, but it ain't going in their hybrid. I have hit a lower tier tour pros hybrid. That shaft looks like something that I could pay a premium for. And looks like something Spieth had in a club for years. It is light-years better than the one I can get my hands on, and slightly behind the show pony tour guy's version. We are already bifurcation by entitlement. Just a reality.
What i'm saying is I can go to Golfwrx or whatever right now and buy a Stealth 2 head that came out of the tour truck. You can do the same with shafts. The off the rack clubs/shafts are still the same as what the tour players use, their stuff is just hand picked with the tightest tolerances and best quality. Doesn't mean the average player couldn't get that stuff if they wanted to pay for it.
I hear ya, and just because it came out of the truck, doesn't mean it was deserving to be there. There's a reason it's not on the truck any longer... They are similar, but not the same.
Scottie putters might be the best example. Yup, I have a similar model to what is played on tour. But it wasn't hand picked, balanced, perfected, tested beyond everything, and stamped with Tour use only. But on the surface, it appears to be just like something in a few guy's bags. It's not. We like to believe it is. And tell people it is. And pay a premier for the story that it is. But it's just a cool story.
There is a difference between a gallery CT and a tour used CT, but you can still get both.
Another thing I don't like about the rollback, is that the loss of distance is not the same for everyone. If I've trained and practiced to be able to hit a 300 yard drive to get an advantage, why should I lose 10+ yards while someone who plays up a set of tees or 2 may hit it essentially the same distance. Seems to be biased in favor of short hitters at the amateur level.
In your example, you'll still have an advantage because you will be hitting a shorter iron that the other player even though you are even in the fairway.
I think I've gotten to the point of indifference. It's. 6 years away for amateurs and at that point my long driving days will be in the rear view mirror, quite a ways back.
My point is more for different tees. I play in a group of a lot of different ages and distances and play from different tees. They will lose minimal distance while it could affect the bombers a lot more. If you are rolling it back for the bombers, roll it back for everyone.
They are rolling it back for everyone. A dead ball won't go as far for a hacker, either. If it's different tees that upset you, if you are playing for money, have everyone play the same tee's. Done. Then you maintain your huge bombing advantage- which won't matter near as much as putting and 100 yards and in in terms of scoring anyway.
Seems to be biased in favor of short hitters at the amateur level.
The complete opposite
It's biased against those who already have to move up to reach greens in regulation and are shooting at greens with fairway woods and hybrids. They hit very very few short irons to greens.
Important to all golfers, they also pay a disproportionally high fraction of the greens fees such that the courses can remain open.
For everyone, it's about relative carry distance and the club you hit on approach. People who are already maxed out are screwed.
Unless they can make a ball that performs as well as the current ball but disintegrates when struck above 120 mph, I think the DTC market will grow and continue to make the current ball; and renegade leagues will become quite popular. Eff the USGA. We'll get bifurcation whether it's official or not.
I'm waiting for a major retailer (e.g., Dick's, Costco) to commit to continue carrying the current ball. They can market it as the "traditional ball". And the USGA might actually take notice.
Are you playing for money? A decent amount? If not, why are you envious of someone hitting the ball futher than you? Seriously why does that bother you? Because he doesn't "work" as hard as you? Is it golf or a dick measuring contest? I have seen guys never practice a day in their lives bomb it 300 yards. I've seen guys 5'05, 160 hit it 300, just as I've seen guys that beat 1000 balls a week chili dip, shank and shoot 110. Again, if these are serious money games, OK.. but don't play those with a HDCP 10 off from yours and the roll back won't affect anything.
Different strokes for different folks, i guess
Holy double entendre, batman!
Yes I am, and the rollback will certainly affect some more than others.
The first rule of a money game is don't play them with a 15 HDCP. Don't. It's golf and it is going to piss you off when they get a net birdie on a hole they hack up. Don't do it. Play money games with similar skilled players- always.
No strokes, but different tees.
Oh OK- that's a little better. Look, I hear what you are saying. I love golf and play multiple times a week if I can. I rarely play money games. And if I do, its straight up- same tee's etc. I have played in leagues that force everyone to to play from the same tee's too- however handicaps were allowed.
The tees is the best way to do it, I just know that there are some holes with forced carries off the tee or whatever and if the rollback leads to a less carry for the long hitters with minimal impact to the short hitters on the tees further up, then its unbalanced. Also, handicaps are the worst. I'm a plus handicap, so if there are any net tournaments at the club I just pack it in, because I have no chance!
If you are a plus handicap, forced carries, etc. shouldn't be a concern for you. Unless said forced carry is 340.
I wish I had that in the bag!
This is correct. I played with Kevin Kizner in a pro-am. I hit a very good drive (for me). He said- good ball- keep that tempo, then handed me his driver. He told me- make that same swing. I proceeded to duck hook it. He laughed and said- that's the difference - you need a lot more speed to hit this driver. You couldn't really notice it holding it or swinging it- it wasn't heavy, etc. But the stuff they use is very different for sure.
I hate it when my golf ball rolls back.
I dont golf but i am here for the regular usage of the word "bifurcate"
Well this will make it a lot harder for me to reach the fairway on the hole next to mine. This seems a bit extreme, I agree with those that say make the course rougher for the pro tournaments rather than change the gear.
The problem is without adding length, it's nearly impossible to do that. The pros are strong enough that the rough doesn't affect them. Most other changes are permanent and would penalize regular golfers more.
The golfer controls the length of the course based on the tees they play. The real big issue is going to be re-rating the course for the shorter ball. I suspect slopes will be affected (and that matters).
I'm all for this also. For the everyday golfer you either take the (minimal) pride hit and move up a tee or you take the challenge on and say okay I need to hit clubs a little longer or what not. The shortened distance will also help keep more balls in play because math. For the pros, they too will have to hit different types of shots we haven't seen them hit in a while. Plus the fact that courses won't have to keep pushing tees back for the pros means we can see shorter courses like Merion and pebble host more and more competitive events.
Re Merion, Justin Rose won at +1. I see no problem w that.
And Average tour driving distance has gone up 10 yards since them
Still doesn't equate to lower scores. Punting averages have gone up...has that lowered scoring, or changed scoring at all? They aren't related.
But they are adjusting all the courses to combat the longer length.
But at +1 during the long ball period...the course had its defense already. They didn't overpower it and make it obsolete. The course fought back. They set it up the same way now and I bet a similar score is posted. Fairways can be podded to make guys hit it shorter. They can meander and twist introducing grassed doglegs of sorts. Just because a few course are crying wolf and extending them further back doesn't mean it's such a problem that the entire golfing world must change. I shouldn't have to move up a tee box because some new breed golfer is hitting it 15 yards further. They are altering our game because their feelings are hurt. And that's silly.
And, so what if pros are shooting -20? The point is to go low. You still have to put the ball in the hole. So what if guys can go low. They ARE better all around now. There's a lot of collateral change in this to combat a few guys that have worked their tail off to be better and make a living at golf. A big change for what?
I think my main point is that this actually isn't a big change for the average player but will have benefits to tour scheduling/course design integrity/pro competition. If somebody can't adjust to losing 5% distance, they probably aren't playing in many events that they need to be ball compliant anyways
I don't think any of this has to do with scoring, or at least I don't think it does. That's only a symptom of the problem they are trying to solve. However, it has everything to do with golf courses becoming obsolete because there's only a finite amount of land, and players are hitting the ball longer and longer. At some point it has to be capped because they can't keep lengthening and reworking courses.
It's kind of crazy to me that architects, those who stand to gain a lot of money without a rollback, are in favor of it, whereas many people on the negative side of the handicap are against it, when it will barely effect them.
I don't understand why you're digging your heels in on this. Why is this a big deal?
Right. The architecture bit is what gets me. Courses are designed so specifically to have a long iron here or a need to play a cut here and just saying we'll add in more bunkers or narrow the fairways negates the intention of some truly great designs
Because I am around enough comps and tournaments after having played this game for decades that I shouldn't be affected. I'm confused why the bifurcation was such a non starter to those against it.
Basically I'm a stick in the mud and don't want to. I've played for a long time, I know my clubs, and the courses I play. I don't want to change because of someone else being successful at hitting it longer. I know that makes me a curmudgeon, but the little guy should not be affected w this. I wasn't part of the problem. And nobody I know or play with was. But we will have to alter the way we play, and have played for decades.
I'm with you there on bifurcation. That was a sensible solution. As Rory noted, it was all about the money.
And that the shame of it. You and I HAVE to change while th pros will work 60 hours a week during the off-season and have it dialed in in no time. We suffer. The dollar won and that's stupid.
I don't understand why you're digging your heels in on this. Why is this a big deal?
What is your average driving distance?
I worked in the public sector for over 4 decades. One of my early mentors would say, "where you stand is based upon where you sit".
Go play your regular layout with nothing longer than your 190 yard carry club. Then see if knocking 5% off that and moving up another tee box is a change you'd like to make.
I'm with you. I don't see this as a big deal. They could make the ball fly 20% shorter and I'd still go and try to hit it as far as I can. I'd still miss putts, I'd chunk chips, I'd hit miracle hole-outs from 60 yards. None of that is going to change. I'm still going to love and hate golf all at the same time in all the same ways.
Saying the golf ball is the cause of that is removing all other factors. Guys weren't in the gym, eating healthy, practicing as much as they do now in previous generations. It has gotten slightly better but that's a product of a ton of things.
Yes, but the USGA and R&A can't control everything you mentioned, they can control the golf ball though. 😃
Why the need to control it? This all started with Tiger-proofing Augusta. Why? Because some old guys couldn't do that? I just don't see it as a problem.
Just reminds me of the Cally campaign several years ago. Innovate or die. The players have innovated. If they hit it further, who is it hurting? The old guys egos? The architects inability to protect a course w dogleg, options, bunkers?
There are very few times I would lean on BC to make my point, but this kinda sums things up for me.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C0ZVH5fgGsk/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
absolutely spot on; they are ruling from the most ivory of towers
For me this rollback idea has nothing to do with pro tour scoring. It has a lot to do with limited acreage and developing more courses in denser population areas thus bringing more people into the game and reducing costs. It is also about bringing relevance to the mid/long iron game again. I'm biased because well struck 4-6 irons have always been my favorite shots.
I agree that it has nothing to do with PGA tour scoring, tho it will knock a few men and women off their respective tours. Most will be virtually unaffected
It has a lot to do with limited acreage
I think that's the sale's pitch; I don't think it's necessarily true.
There is nothing in golf that requires a certain number of par 3's, 4's and 5's. There is no rule on how many holes constitutes a round. There are tournaments most years where the members play a hole as a par 5, and the pros play it as a par 4. My first round of golf (late 1960's) was in suburban Atlanta at a course appropriately named "Par 56". Had a blast and I got hooked.
It's a sport that relatively recently has introduced the idea of risk/reward drivable par 4's. All the new courses in N FL have them.
It's a sport that is actively promoting the idea of combo tees...everyone in a group should have an opportunity to reach the green in regulation...to speed up play thereby improving enjoyment, leveling the playing field for foursomes without giving/taking strokes. No more blue/white/red...it's black/gold/blue/white/green/red and combos thereof. Now; "oh, let's reduce distance on all full swings by every golfer by 5%" to an audience where the average age is 54, the age of the average foursome likely exceeds that by several years (retirees play 3x the number of rounds of young folks). And virtually every golfer has at least one club (usually several) that they bought purely for it's improved distance.
The 2022-23 remodel of the County course here has deliberately increased the rollout on its fairways...why? To get the ball further down the fairway to speed up play.
I don't think dead golfballs will build a single new course. Maybe Nerf or others will correct me but I doubt "we'd have built one but we were 10 acres short" is much of a thing. It's more likely that they build a few less houses to have the amenity, snuggle up to the natural areas as much as possible; or both.
There are 5 courses near me that closed since 2000...Ravines (McCumber course, great layout), Ponce (was the oldest course in FL, Ross course), Baymeadows, Magnolia Point (closed 9 of 27), and St Johns (bought by County and closed 9 of 27); because of insufficient play. All 5 got converted to houses/condos.
I'm biased because well struck 4-6 irons have always been my favorite shots.
I think we'll just see more shots from hybrids rolling off the back of the green
The course around me that are struggling, or have closed, are actually the longer ones. The Nicklaus design at Baycreek in Cape Charles closed 9 holes because it was too much. (Jack is a terrible architect, hate his courses.) The private ones that are longer have actually moved tees up as well. Yes, there are some holes that have been built in the past 30 years and see they are just fill-in holes to get from one green to next next tee box. They are typically guarded by bunkering and slopey greens. Doesn't mean the course is terrible, or that the course is too short. There's 18 holes out there. Not every one is a winner.
And what's funny to me is at Carnoustie, it's par 70 for the average Joe but par 72 for the pros. Only 1 par 5 on the whole course. Old course, the originator of the game, 1 par 3 and 1 par 5 per 9. Doesn't detract from things at all.
Many of the most successful (read destination) courses around now are short courses. Why? Because everyone can play them. Sweetens Cove, The Cradle, The Preserve, Schoolhouse Nine... Maybe not THE destination, but they aren't hurting for play. And serve the entire golfing world.
What we need is a change in thought of tradition. Let's make 3 6-hole loops. One par 3 and one par 5 per 6. Par 24 on each one. Play 6 after work. Maybe 12. 18 on weekends. Need just a bit more? Play another 6.
The golf ball thing is an ivory tower ham handed approach. My caddie on Kingsbarns was telling me of a college golfer that went over there and played it from the tips. Over 7200 yards. Had wedges into many of the par 4's (while I played one up from there and was hitting 7's and 8's... Kid was a +3 cap. Shot 87. Why? Couldn't score. Hit it a mile...but couldn't get it in the hole. Its not the yardage that's an issue.
1. The preserve is so much better than the cradle its not funny. The cradle is basically a pitch and putt with good greens- I'll give it that. The Preserve is a legit par 3 course. I have played them both. No comparison. You can easily get around the cradle with a 60 degree. 2. Covid has made golf much more expensive and tee times much more difficult. It was allowed during covid and popularity boomed again post the Tiger boom. Greens fee's at premium courses are insane at the moment.
I am wondering if that was one of the Fox Creek/Legacy par 3 (with a few par 4's) in Smyrna. I loved those courses when I lived in Marietta, was just not sure if they had been there since the late 60s.
quite possibly; haven't been back there in forever and it was probably 7th grade. we moved to northern Va after that
Looks like I should stock up on juiced balls if they're gonna make the rollback across non-professoinal play too. It'll be the new number 1 most broken rule on your Tuesday league play.
I'm neither good enough nor consistent enough with any of my clubs to even notice this difference. I don't think it is that big of a deal for a vast, vast majority of golfers.
This is actually a good perspective it doesn't really matter what ball I chunk 10 yards or blade 40 yards past the green and off the tee at least I can save myself 10 yards of walking into the woods!
This is ridiculous and won't affect 99% of pro golfers - they will still bomb it and shoot 67 regularly. Thus they should have bi-furcated the ball. Reason is that I personally do not have the swing speed of a pro, but I hate most non-premium balls- I prefer a soft ball around the greens, etc- where you score anyway. So why not have a non conforming pro V available for folks that do prefer 275 carries over 260 yards? what does it hurt? By rolling back all of the premium balls, you are only hurting amateurs IMO. There is also precedent- there are non conforming drivers, wedges, putter/wedge combos sold today
I hate golf, so seeing all the golf-bros get their panties in a bunch makes me laugh.
Now down vote me to Bolivian.
Golf is easily my favorite thing to do in life. I love it. It's my hobby/my happy place. My issue is that I hate most other golfers though. So I feel you. I can't stand breakfast ball guy on the first tee, boom box guy, loud shorts shoots 105 guy, order exotic mixed drinks at the turn guy, myrtle beach cheap golf guy- in general, brutally slow 5 practice swings guy etc. Thankfully I have a group of friends that aren't total fucking rubes that I play with. But I love just playing by myself too. I feel you on many levels.
Same, I can't stand golfers that are so up tight about the course and rules that they can't let other people have a good time and also slow golfers
I am huge on reasonable gimmies and lateral hazard rules- so I'm not uptight. At all. I'll give you putts and I'll not worry about 2 stroke penalties on unmarked hazards. I also don't care if you hit a provisional when you can clearly see your ball sitting on the ladies tee. I also could not care less if you move your ball out of a divot. So I am not Mr. USGA rules official guy, and I certainly want everyone to have fun. What I don't like is paying 250 dollars to play a round of golf and have to deal with fucking boom box drunk guy. Go to a muni if you want to have a DJ and drink 10 rum and cokes. That's where I am coming from. And slow play is in fact the worst. Play ready golf, lay up as a 16 HDCP when you have 265 yards in, etc.
All fair assessments, I read your first post like no one can do that ever but yeah lack of etiquette is annoying on expensive courses
My dad has been playing since he was nine, and he has drilled into me the need to play ready golf, so I'm right there with you about slow play being the worst. I may slice a drive, blade an iron, scuff an easy chip, miss a putt, and all that on the same hole, but goddamn, I'm not going to have people waiting behind me because I'm taking fourteen practice shots.
They may be waiting because I suck, but at least I'm ready to get the next shot off as soon as I can.
Nothing better than playing by yourself at a fast pace.
Eh, nothing better than play fast with 1 or 2 of your best buddies. I find it much more enjoyable to commiserate or celebrate with friends and let the jokes roll. We are all serious golfers with with low double digit caps that don't take life too seriously.
And by fast, it's usually less than 3 hrs for 18 and if we're racing weather, we can get done in 2:15.
Agree with you on most of the above points. I like to play by myself simply because the people I know that play fall into one of two categories:
a) family member at a small suburban country club that can play well-enough but is very upright about decorum
b) friends that hack it up around the course and you can tell off the 1st tee they have no shot breaking 100
Not a golfer or particular fan but this is either a great satire .....or a very amusing autocorrect of "oblivion" LOL!
Don't want to be putting a whole country down! /s
Its a mike tyson joke
DC is correct. It's from an old Mike Tyson quote where he said something about fading away into Bolivian.
What is your favorite hobby?
I'd probably say woodworking. I also enjoy board games, brewing beer, and sometimes sitting on my ass with a cigar doing nothing. If I lived closer to the ocean, that list would include paddleboarding and surf fishing, but I only get to do those on vacation.
THEY ALL SUCK!!!!!
LOL! 100% deserved.
daveinop makes a great point about seniors though: whacking 15 yards off their game by deadening the ball is going to really affect them, those that are on the edge of juuuuust hitting it long enough to keep enjoying the game. My dad is in his mid-80s, and he might just hang it up (and become even more grumpier, if that's possible) if he's forced to use a deader ball.
So stock up on the ProV1s (or whatever the hottest ball is these days). A few years from now, you'll be able to charge black market prices for them.
A lot of Seniors I know will play the old Precept Lady (or the Laddie version which is the same ball, just with Laddie written on it instead of Lady).
I have not really played much in the last 10 years. I used to play a lot but have not found time for it in recent years. I think for most hackers like me this is really a non-issue. When you are out there playing the Top Flites because you hit so many in the woods/water then it is not going to matter.
Well, I played today for the first time since we started talking about this; and it's snowbird time here so play is sloooowww. Some observations/thoughts.
- 9 out of 10 golfers were seniors.
-there are 3 holes on the course with no room for a shorter tee box without filling in a pond or wetland. Two of those are forced carry doglegs that require a driver; the traps are designed to tighten how much you can cut off. County just spent 7 million on a remodel (2022) and they aren't going to spend another dime on a tee box or a trap.
- I think the impacted seniors fall into 2 groups: one group that makes solid contact so infrequently that they won't notice; and another that are good golfers that have lost swing speed as they aged. The first group will keep playing; they don't know any different. The second group will be faced with hard choices...(1) keep playing their current tees and seldom reach a green in regulation; or (2) move to the most forward of tees, the ones you laugh at your friends for not reaching when they top the ball; or (3) quit. I think it will be a mix but there will be good senior golfers that just quit, or play a lot less, because they can't play at the level they expect of themselves.
That's another part of the problem - tee shaming or tee pride. It shouldn't matter what tees people play and they should be willing to play the correct tees for their distance and skill level.
And no course should ever have a hole designed with a forced carry greater than 100 yards from the most forward tee. That a poor design and actually discourages shorter hitters from playing. And forced carries from forward tees should be limited to a couple holes at most.
That's another part of the problem - tee shaming or tee pride.
I think that's the problem the USGA/RA are trying to fix; just at the other end of the spectrum...the notion that a driver must be used from most every par 4 or 5. Maybe we can call it driver pride or 3 wood shaming.
The ruling bodies are doing a great thing advocating the combo tees. Our course has them but you have to ask for the card so maybe 95% of golfers don't know about them. [Other players: "What tees do you play? We play Gold (General)" Me: "The gold/green combo" Them: "What's that?"]
St Johns designates 5 tee boxes on each hole...course plays to Par 71..four par 5's, five par 3's
"Championship" is 7000 yards...I can realistically reach only one hole in regulation...I've seen one twosome, play them...this is who the proposed rule accommodates
"Match" is 6500 yards...I can reach 7 holes in regulation...half the people who play them, shouldn't
"General" is 6000 yards...I can reach all of the holes in reg...fairway wood to 4 of the 5 par 3's...driver on 11/13
"Relief" is 5400 yards...I hit driver on 7 of the 13 non par 3's, and hit irons on the par 3's...it's my version of the game we see on TV
"Nearest" is 4800 yards...the tees are elevated by a few inches and marked, but several of these tees basically blend into the fairways
A General/Relief combo is ideal for me and frankly, many, many golfers should play some type of combo. I think golf should be a range of challenges. If I'm by myself, that's what I play. But it confuses 95% of the people I get paired with who don't see it on their scorecard. So if they play General, I'll play it with them and move up on a couple of the par 3's. If they play Relief, I'll play that to avoid them having to wait for me every time. But I can outdrive 75% of the tee-pride golfers I'm paired with that play the General tees...and then we proceed to play an excruciatingly slow round.
How do you decide which tee to play on a certain hole in a combo?
The tees for each hole in a combo are marked in some way on the score. Our course circles them.
at St Johns, the card uses ink that matches the tee...green ink, play the green tee. another club near here does two tone tee markers for the combo; e.g., green/white. or gold/white.
and typically, there should be about 250 yards between levels
basically, if you can't reasonably reach/hold the green in regulation, you are on the wrong tee box; if you never use your 8 and 9 irons, you are on the wrong tee box
combo tees save me about 7 yards per non-putt; if I'm still alive and playing at age 73, the bastards at USGA will fix that.
That's basically the three) options.
-Use the original card layout, but use circles for the hybrid/combo tees. on 5 the green yardage is circled. On 6, the gold tee yardage is circled.
-Use a singular tee marker that has both gold and green on it for the combo holes. A lot of times there are only 6 holes or so that you play a different tee box, so not every tee box will have a combo marker. ON the other 12, say, there will be singular golds and singular greens. But for 6 holes there's one less set...and those playing just the green or just the gold are playing the same tee box as the combos.
-Just place the tee markers inside each other, directly side by side. So there's still 18 gold and 18 green, just on some holes they are placed side by side. If they do this, it may or may not be marked on the card since they have the ability to combine tee markers on different holes throughout the week. This holds for older courses that have long narrow tee boxes where the only difference along the entire tee box is length. Newer architecture that has amoeba shapes with different angle probably wouldn't employ this tactic.
My club has combo tees. There are courses that I wish had combo tees (looking at you Pfau Course at IU). It would be best to have course lengths spaced 200 yards apart between 6000 and 6600 yards (plus longer and shorter at whatever distances are appropriate.
As far as driver pride goes, there is a large amount of data (Arccos) that supports that you should try to hit the ball as far as you can with every shot (assuming that's not into a hazard). Every 10 yards of distance is worth 0.1 strokes. Further, the dispersion reduction for a 3W or 5W is not significantly less for most golfers to justify losing 20 yards off the tee.
Maybe the ball changes that, although I don't see how.
I'm more tuned into analytics than the average golfer, but unless you can't keep it on the planet, you should absolutely be hitting driver as much as possible. Distance is always better, even if you find yourself in the rough instead of the fairway. Penalty strokes are the only good reason to avoid hitting driver.Sorry, it's nitpicking on an otherwise great point about the issues with tee-pride and the current system.Just saw the post above me - I'll drink after work.
I get my data from the same place you get yours. Do you use Arccos?
I'd imagine 99% of people reading this thread are going to lose 1-5 yards: https://www.instagram.com/p/C0g6EWCM8DA/?img_index=1.
Those are projections on center-face strikes in a vacuum.
What happens on off-center hits? You know where 99% of this thread make contact. What happens to the spin? Will the new ball spin less into par 4's? I'm not able to get to tucked pins any longer? None of this is worked into the equation. It's just "YOU will lose 2 yards, get over it!" No! I refuse to just accept because I'm not part of the problem. There are solutions that don't affect every golfer.
And why should be forced to suffer losing ANY yardage? That's been my gripe all along. I'm not causing real estate issues. I'm not hitting into people. I'm not adversely affecting the game or the income or the enjoyment or anything. But I still must comply with the rollback and lose yardage because the ivory tower dwellers have gotten their pee pees in a knot over guys hitting it further thru innovation, strength, biometrics, workout regimes, technology. They have limits in place on the driver and the COR already (adopted in 2002.) And clubhead size (adopted in 2004.) And MOI (adopted in 2006.) And CT in more locations on the driver face than just the center (adopted in 2008.) The only way to hit it further now than 2002-2008 is speed. Guys are bigger, fitter, more flexible, and swinging harder/fast. Because they can. And you know what, they will continue to do so, maybe even more so.
The ball is limited at 317 yards now. There were 6 guys that averaged higher than the limit this year on the PGA Tour. 17 on the Korn Ferry tour. That's AVERAGE beyond the limit. They will continue to hit it longer than everyone else. This rule doesn't change it to Wii golf were there is a flat out limit to driving distance...just get up and swing, and you KNOW where the ball is going. No, you still have to hit it. And the pros will swing harder. The distance "rolled back" will continue to climb and won't alter the distance seen from the top guys. So what is the true gain at that point? Real estate won't be affected because Rory-like guys will still be hitting it Rory-like. Guys like Tiger will still be pounding the ball 370 with firm fast 10-on-the-stimp-meter fairways that are cut tight. We will be in the same exact spot with the top level guys...and meanwhile, weekend Bob is losing yardage.
My point is they want to shorten things, but it's human nature to fight against that. The younger breed (Hojgaard, Aberg, Gotterup, Coody) and those in the next generation are going to find a way to get MOAR SPEED and still pound it just as long as today. It's progression. Golf is not a static sport. Tiger brought us 4am workouts in the gym. Rory brought us speed and flexibility. Bryson brought brute swing speed and strength. That little golf ball still has to get into the hole in the fewest strokes. They will get in the lab and figure it out. The general public doesn't have that luxury, and will lose in the deal. Why? There's no reason.
I see the game as being bigger than a single individual, and it feels like we disagree on that. Not sure what else to say other than play a non-conforming ball after 2028. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm venting. I hate this. I know I'm taking it way too personally, and in 5 years it may not matter anyway given I'll be 5 years older and potentially a knee replacement/surgery into things. (the rollback doesn't help what mother nature is going to do naturally to me anyway.) I just have a hard time with their justification of it. Working in the environmental realm, I have to deal with "NO'"s and regulations all of the time. Without warning or reason. This just feels like more of that. One of the things I LOVE about golf is that I, myself, can go do it my way. I don't have to hit driver on every tee box. I can try the flop when a bump and run could work. But they are now telling me that they want to affect the way I play. Get out of my golf game. Leave me alone. Its also been a horrific month for me. And I'm dumping. Still don't care for the ruling. And please please please Joe (and others) don't take it personal. Its not. It's just venting for longer than needed, and louder than normal. If you ever saw my office space with all of the golf flags, old staff bags, old sets of clubs, trinkets from my various trips and courses I've visited and played, it might explain it a little. I'm fanatical. My two desktop wallpapers are the 18th/R&A in St Andrews and the 18th at Carnoustie. Golf has been a part of my life for over 40 years...longer than anything beside my parents, and well, that changed recently too. I'm sorry. I'm stubborn. But I do appreciate that we've been able to discuss things, even if I'm a little hardshelled over it.
And after 2028, I prob will still have V1's left that are in my closet now! So I shall play them.
You don't have to apologize for venting, it's cool. You're not changing your mind on this and it's fine. Honestly, I hope you still continue to enjoy the game as much as you do now after 2028.
Seems to me like a few people in charge of the game got annoyed that a few holes on a few courses that few people play in the grand scheme of golf across the entire USA were "too short". Equipment restrictions have been in place since 2004 I think? All recent distance gains have been either because players swing faster (stronger and more efficient), technology optimized their impact and launch, and analytics shifted the equation in favor of distance over laying up and hitting fairways.
Not sure how many people on here listen to the Hack It Out podcast, but they made an interesting point yesterday in their latest episode that I wouldn't have realized. If you roll the golf ball back 5mph, why won't the tour players just start swinging 5 mph faster and regain the distance pretty quickly? You'd think "oh but then they can't keep it on the planet".
According to the stats guy on the podcast (he's affiliated with Arccos and has access to their entire shot database), dispersion is just a function of the distance the ball goes. Most top pro golfers aren't swinging full out on driver every hole, it's a cost-benefit analysis on distance vs dispersion. Assuming the guy looking at hundreds of millions of shots is correct, they'll just train to swing faster and be right back to their pre-rollback driving distance with nearly identical dispersion.
So if it's not really going to affect the pros in the long term, and they're already trying to spin it like amateurs really aren't going to lose distance - who is the rollback actually for?
Seems like a solution searching for a problem, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some massive shakeups in the governing of golf as a result of this. The pros are at best split (the ones for it lobbied for bifurcation first), the manufacturers aren't for it, and the amateur golfers aren't for it since polls have shown a majority of golfers aren't going to abide by the rule in 2030 - Taylormade and Golf Digest have done polls on it.
Love Hack It Out. Lou Stagner is the Data Analytics leader at Arccos. I have slacked off on listening to them since outdoor season ended and I am very interested in this podcast.
I think it's about more than "a few holes on a few courses". The pro game right now is basically driver-wedge. The standard cutoff for a par 4 distance wise used to be 450 yards. We are now seeing par 4s routinely north of 500 on tour. The pros hate hitting longer clubs into greens because it's hard(er), but I think that would make the pro game more entertaining (and relatable).
The question is can materials and ball design reduce the energy transfer at higher clubhead speeds and make increasing swing speeds provide less (or no) gain in distance above a certain speed. If so, there might be some effect on the pro game. If not, Lou's right, they'll just train to swing faster and erase the distance penalty.
I've been slacking off lately too for the exact same reasons, but I tuned in yesterday for this one. Highly recommend it (as you can guess they're anti-rollback and it does devolve into a bit of a rant at points). Lou hits the numbers hard, as expected, in everything from maintenance costs to land usage trends to average PGA tour course length. Also recommend it to anybody that plays or is interested in golf: 3 guys with vast expertise across different levels of golf (analytics, teaching, and performing) and different national backgrounds talking about anything golf related.
I don't think a 10-15 yard rollback will functionally change the way pros play courses or change the perception of the game being "driver-wedge". Even assuming a proportional decrease across the bag, that means you're adding maybe 15-20 yards at most on the average par 4? So instead of driver/wedge, it's driver/9-iron?
I've never been one to find the pro game relatable; they're just entirely different beasts and the best golfers on the planet. Nor do I find artificially making the game harder to be more entertaining to be honest. I watch sports either because I have a connection to the players/teams (i.e. VT sports), or either because I want to watch the best in the world excel in their fields.
Pretty much my take and analysis of the issue. It won't "solve" anything at all.
Sidebar, as I don't see the need to clutter the site with various OT Golf threads...
I have no idea what's going on in the world of golf right now. Rahm to Liv?!
Guess this just proves how much we really don't know about the inner workings. I know we aren't owed a single thing. And as much as I love the Full Swing series, they are humans and deserve to be able to make their own decisions. But Rahm, after his rant about 3 rounds and exhibition, and shotguns, and everything, taking the bag...and on top of that, Rory saying they need to address the Ryder Cup selections because of one guy, now, a complete 180. I have no idea what is going on. I get that these guys don't want to be on the road 50 weeks of the year. And want to provide for their families for decades. I do. But this is a headscratcher. Guys say "I won't watch the majors without..." but guess what, they tuned in. And I will too, no matter who is teeing it up. Was last year's final round at the US Open a bit boring. Oh yeah. But I had it on half watching...not tuning it out completely.
End of the day, carry on. Swing your swing. Chase the ball until you can't. Enjoy this four letter word of a game.
The LIV business model is 100% not sustainable. You simply can't pay 100 guys 300 million dollars to form a tour that nobody watches and doesn't have a major TV deal. The numbers do not add up, and I don't even think the saudis like losing money. I think some of these deals are fake of course- but people will laugh and shun me. So be it. I don't think they wrote Neiman a 400 million dollar check- pardon me for not believing that. At any rate. Norman has wanted to destroy the tour for 40 years and now Phil wants to finish the job. 2 underachievers for their talents. Phil is so good that on Sunday's at US opens he hits his drivers 40 yards off line. Norman is so good he has the same amount of majors as Andy north. Fuck them both.
LIV is sustainable because they don't seek any return on money for the next 20 years. The PGA tour is no longer sustainable because it is actually dependent on a business model. PGA was already looking for private equity to provide an infusion of cash. Big corporate sponsors aren't paying for new mega purses in elevated events for half the stars. Finau and Hatton are next. It's now a rush for the exit for the B level players who make up the tour. PGA is dead in the water at this point. It's not what I want. I hate the LIV model. Shotgun start is not how competitive golf is meant to be played. Golf courses are meant to be played 1-18. Leaders are supposed to tee off last and have to hold a lead. Shotgun start turns it into a swim meet with everyone finishing at the same time and looking up at the score to see who won. Imagine Sunday at the Players championship where the players aren't playing 16-18 as a closing stretch. Leader should have to step up to 17 and hit the green with a lead. They should have to tee off 18 with water all down the left to close out the tournament. LIV is garbage. Brooks, DJ, Phil, Cam, Bryson didn't get anyone to tune in. No ones tuning in for Rahm. LIV isn't winning but they are destroying professional golf.
Yeah, I have yet to even attempt to watch a LIV tournament yet and I doubt that I ever will. Part of the reason Rahm left now (other than the money of course) is that he as locked up several years of major exemptions with his Masters win this year (and of course the lifetime exemption to the Masters).
When the PGA Tour had to fold and basically try to get on board with the Saudis that pretty much opened the door for more players to defect. Now that there seems to be a hold up with some kind of merger I agree that the PGA tour is pretty much dead in the water. It's heartbreaking to be honest, kind of the same thing with money now ruining college football.
Yep- The 2 legitimate A list guys - Smith and Rham both waited to win majors before they left. Why? Because there are no stakes in LIV- nothing to play for. Nobody could name the teams or the tourneys they play - so the wins are meaningless. And isn't it funny how everyone that jumps to LIV still wants access to the PGA tour/Ryder Cup? Why?
Major PGA tour sponsors deals were not and are not dependent on Tony Fucking Finau or Jaquin Neiman, or totally washed up Senior Tour Phil. Nope. That's bullshit. None of those guys move the corporate needle. Norman and the terrorists can say that all they want. IF that was the case, LIV would have an actual real TV deal, right? because all the stars are there? And TV lusts after Bryson DeChambeau? lol. Like everything we hear about LIV - its "just wait" CBS is about to sign for billions, etc. lol. I'm sure it will be profitable in 20 years. funny.
Wells Fargo just gave up their sponsorship so maybe I have a point. LIV wont be profitable in 20 years. The point is they don't have to be and the PGA tour does. You know what drives the needle for sponsors, viewers. You know what viewers like to watch, the stars. Golf will turn into tennis where people only watch the majors which the PGA tour doesn't own the rights to.
Well LIV has no viewers, so your point is not absolute. Their TV ratings are a joke. So perhaps people don't want to watch Phil and Pat Perez shoot 80 in shorts. You may be right about the majors. It's funny to me that after trying to destroy the PGA tour for 40 years because he didn't get free money like Jack and Arnie and never got respect because he has the same amount of majors as Lee Jansen, it took literally billions of sports washing money for Norman to make a small dent in the tour. He was going to be petty until the day he died. Sleeping with terrorists or not.
This is my point. Did you even read what I wrote? I don't like LIV. I'm not rooting for LIV. My point is that no one is winning. No one is watching LIV and the PGA tour is circling the drain. The fans of professional golf (ME) are all losing.
Amen. I am actually someone that watches the Wells, The travelers, etc. I'll go to the Wasted Open this year in person- that event crushes by orders of magnitude anything LIV does. It will draw 300,000 people on Saturday alone. If that is detroyed by Greg Fucking Norman and saudi blood money, everyone loses. Except Jon Rahm who didn't want to have to make cuts to get paid like Tiger, Jack and Arnie did. You think Lee Trevino or Tom Watson respect Rahm and Norman? lol. Trevino had to earn his money with birdies- not the terrorist investment fund
lol every time I hear Lee Jansen's name it makes me think of this scene in Tin Cup.
Not to mention the Majors are the only ones that get any real ratings, so if you are a network why would you spend any significant money on the other tournaments if you are not going to have any of the Majors. I mean honestly, when was the last time anyone really watched a round of golf before Sunday on one of the non-majors? The Masters though? I am going to watch all four rounds, same with both the U.S. and British Opens.
I watch all of the regular season golf. I enjoy the product in its entirety. I love watching the top players but I also love watching the fringe guys grind it out. There is always something at stake for a Tour player ranked 112.
Jay added in the signature events a few years ago. Meant the sponsors were ponying up bigger money for bigger purses. Problem was it didn't guarantee the strong fields. Some were opposite euro events. Some never had the draw. Wells Fargo basically doesn't want to pay top dollar for a meh field. They were hand selected and more or less told they would have to pay more to sponsor an event. That's why some sponsors are leaving. Jay has been the worst thing ever for the PGA tour.