MidwayJ
No, Iām not saying itās the ball by itself ā¦ but it probably is the most easily controlled variable to their end (as I see it - no insider knowledge).
Stats (that Iām 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 canāt find it ā¦ but I believe the average age of winners has dropped as well.
So more tournaments are being won by more relatively āunknownsā. 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 ā¦. Do you think this would be better or worse for golf/the PGA tour? I donāt. I think they want star power. They want an Arnold, Hogan, Jack, or Tiger. They want a āfaceā 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.