It’s funny that they want to show these beautifully manicured places now. I know back then we had wooden heads, balata balls. But we also had guys out there smoking cigarettes and still drunk from the night before. Nobody ever thought of a weight room. I’d rather see them try dialing back the course conditions first. Have them play the same shit assed conditions we play in. Let them play out unraked bunkers, lumpy greens, crabgrass and weed infested fairways. They’ll still play well, just not “as well”.

    Typhoon....... Let them play out unraked bunkers,

    LOL.... do you remember the uprising and crying when Nicklaus did furrowed bunkers with special rakes
    at the Memorial ? The Pros went berserk and lost their minds. 🤣

        Eguller 😂😂Yes I do and I was thinking of that as I was typing it!! Pros standing there with their hands on their hips like they were asked to solve a word problem.

          Eguller LOL.... do you remember the uprising and crying when Nicklaus did furrowed bunkers with special rakes
          at the Memorial ? The Pros went berserk and lost their minds. 🤣

          No player should hit a poor shot and want their ball to end up in a bunker, as happens at the moment - in most cases, it's an easier shot than a chip or pitch from around the green (or an approach shot from the rough) because the sand is consistent and smooth. Bunkers are hazards, and there should be a penalty for hitting into one.

          (Part of this is course design, though - fairway bunkers with minimal lips that allow the player to go for the green with their next shot aren't really hazards.)

            Eguller If you played pre ‘99 in the balata, slower course and smaller driver era, you understand how much the balance of the game has changed from more of a skills contest to a power/entertainment show.

            Yeah, for the top 1% of golfers. The other 99% have always struggled with the game no matter what era.
            The USGA should just admit that they don’t give a shit about the (99%) weekend warrior.

            Again, at the elite level of professional golf the longest hitters will still be the longest hitters no matter what ball they play.

            It’s beyond arrogance toying with a problem that does not exist for all but 1% of golfers. If they were serious they’d go back to balata balls and wooden head drivers.

            But no, they flex their out of touch arrogant authority and act like this is going to save the game. Hint you arrogant assholes.

            Because of a pandemic the game of golf reversed course and instead of a steady decline it’s risen from that decline and is seeing unprecedented growth.

            Yeah, but still we want to kick a gift horse in the mouth just the same. How else do we remain relevant.🙄

                Sneakylong The joke is on them. At the end of every round, at the end of every tournament, the lowest score will still be at the top.
                I'll brag about my 91, when everyone else is struggling to break 100. And Pros will cash their checks the same as they do now.

                If they really want to make a diff in the game, make it where the Pros can/have to play, in under 4 hours!!
                Instead, they are adding time to the TV game.
                So, this must be a change the sponsors want/need. More commercial time.

                    Stu1961 Perhaps the fields only look deeper because the equipment has leveled the playing field?

                    Well yes that's the point you've been making, and I'm not sure I agree. 🙂

                      Spuzz Having said that, the ball is the biggest reason there was a huge jump in distance (around year 2000, coinciding with the ProV acceptance on tour)

                      I understand that. I'm just skeptical that the distance increase by itself has made it more difficult for the stars of the game to shine brighter than the rest of the field.

                          Stu1961 equipment has leveled the playing field?

                          Against what?

                          Are you referring to shotmaking, working the ball, getting around the golf course, etc?

                            Stu1961 because the equipment has leveled the playing field?

                            The fields have been leveled since Beem and Micheel won the PGA, back in '02 & '03. Let's not forget Craig Perks either, winning the Players. Absolute skill.

                            😄

                              MidwayJ
                              No, I’m not saying it’s the ball by itself … but it probably is the most easily controlled variable to their end (as I see it - no insider knowledge).

                              Stats (that I’m sure the USGA are aware of)

                              Decade Scoring Avg. First Time Winner %
                              1960s 275.0 16.82%
                              1970s 274.3 18.33%
                              1980s 273.1 19.95%
                              1990s 271.4 19.64%
                              2000s 269.9 22.95%
                              2010s 269.8 28.43%

                              I can’t find it … but I believe the average age of winners has dropped as well.

                              So more tournaments are being won by more relatively “unknowns”. This, IMO only (as far as I know), is a primary driver in the rollback - not just overall scores. An occasional first time winner is fine, it makes for an interesting story - especially if they go on to win many more events in the future. But, take it to the extreme: 46 tournaments with 46 different winners - none of whom had ever won before, year after year after year …. Do you think this would be better or worse for golf/the PGA tour? I don’t. I think they want star power. They want an Arnold, Hogan, Jack, or Tiger. They want a “face” to the tour (or group of faces within an easily identifiable risen cream). That is what I believe this is all about, and the ball, at this time, is all they feel they can change to attempt a course reversal.

                                  Stu1961 I think if you would take the time...a lot of time...checking the wins of those 'unknowns/younger, 1st time winners', you'd find the 'cream' of every season to be missing from those tournaments. Meaning, someone, has to win it when the top dogs are at home, or in a opposite field 'gods of golf' event. A lot of tournaments will have maybe just 1 player from the top 50 sometimes. And it is the younger players that will be playing nearly every tournament in order to get that 1st win.

                                  And no, I personally, do not want to see anyone winning all the time. It might have been OK & good back when TW and Annika did it, but with the $$ in today's game, and the way they have it set up 'fixed', that $$ needs spread around to as many as can 'take' it.

                                  Stu1961 46 tournaments with 46 different winners - none of whom had ever won before,

                                        Stu1961 Yeah I get what the USGA is trying to do, but those stats on first time winners also correlate with the "Tiger effect" as athletes seeing what Woods was doing on tour were motivated to consider golf as their sport. And @Par4QC makes a good point about how the better players of today skip the "minor" tournaments, opening the door for more "unknown" winners in those events.

                                            Par4QC

                                            That’s an interesting counterpoint. In some portion of tour fields, the field has been leveled, not through bottom depth, but from top/cream absence. Further exacerbated by LIV defections. I can see that (and have, at times not even being sure it wasn’t a Korn Ferry event). Now I wonder if the timing of the rollback wasn’t tied into this? Lol

                                            Note: I was not meaning to ask if you personally wanted to see new winners each week … I was thinking which would be better for the health/popularity/growth of golf. Personally, what would peak my own interest, would be two player’s separating themselves from the field - winning six to eight tournaments each. That’s only about 30%. Plenty of cash to still go around

                                                MidwayJ
                                                Imagine how many more first time winners there would have been without Tiger winning so often!

                                                    Stu1961 winning six to eight tournaments each. That’s only about 30%. Plenty of cash to still go around

                                                    Not really, with the purse structure they have. Wayyyy too top heavy. The last man standing should still be able to make a living having made the cut. And they cannot.
                                                    Look at Scottie the past 2 years, ?56m total, while many players will disappear. Maybe forever. And they are damn good players deserving of a lot more money.