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.

                            A lot of energy being expended on this topic that doesn't impact us amateurs for another 7 years.

                            I'll be 69 and who knows if I will be playing golf , or even alive at that time ( which is probably true for most of this Prune Juice membership)

                            By then, expect to be as cynical and crotchety as you old fcks are now so won't give a flying F what the USGA says......them sumbitches can just stay off my lawn

                              Weirfan expect to be as cynical and crotchety as you old fcks are now

                              This is just the incentive I needed to live til at least 80.
                              Just so I can harass you young whippersnappers still. And call you an old f'k at 71. 🤣

                                  Par4QC

                                  139 players have earned over $1,000,000 and the average tour earnings is over 2.36 million. Before endorsements. Sure, not as much as major pro sports - but better than tennis which is even more top heavy.

                                    It’s such a big contradiction. TV coverage only shows the good shots. That’s why when you see the proximity to the hole and putting stats we are all shocked that the numbers aren’t better… we don’t see the average shots, the missed putts. The PGA Tour knows ok you are going to get viewers by showing them exciting shots….
                                    But now they want less exciting shots…🤷

                                    Par4QC This is just the incentive I needed to live til at least 80.

                                    I thought you were on your late hundreds.

                                      Stu1961 Imagine how many more known name winners there would have been if they didn't have to play in Tiger's group on Sunday.

                                        Weirfan A lot of energy being expended on this topic that doesn't impact us amateurs for another 7 years.

                                        The impact on amateurs isn't what's being discussed. I hope you make the last 7 years of your life count. 😉