Rolling back the ball

[rangersgoalie]

Let's say bifurcation for top level golf balls only

 

That is a group that hasn't paid for a ball in 50 years

 

Does it make sense for any company to make limited runs of a shorter ball, when the people who actually PAY for stuff will buy the current versions?

 

Titleist for example bases huge amounts of marketing on what the tour guys play. Once that becomes irrelevant, what is the impact on endorsements, and the oem presence on tour?

 

Accepting that some don't care about any potential financial implications for tour pros or equipment companies, keep in mind part of any change in this rule is the PGA tour making a decision to play by bifurcated rules, there is nothing that demands that.

 

For the record, with Rory and others stemming to support a rollback,mmaynebthe companies don't care

 

[storm319]

Studies were done a couple years after the groove rule change. It showed no discernible difference in how Tour players played off the tee or their scoring when playing with wedges from the rough.

 

The rule changed forced everyone to (eventually) get new, conforming wedges and it failed totally at affecting wedge play among elite players, which was the justification.

 

At the time, the blowhards at USGA proclaimed that it would combat "Bomb and Gouge" by forcing players to pay a price for missing fairways or missing greens. They would be less able to count on controlling the ball out of the rough and would therefore place a greater premium on "accuracy" over distance.

 

As most of us could have predicted, it had no such effect.

 

I am not aware of such studies. I do recall at the time, there being some thinking that the groove rule was a backdoor "ball rollback" rule. You are saying that studies show that the groove rule did not change player behavior/strategy, and so because it did not change behavior in a measurable way, it was a "failure." I'm not sure I agree. The idea was to get wedges to spin less and thereby provide less technology to get up and down from heavy rough. I think those mechanics are still true.

 

The manufacturers of wedges and balls very quickly adjusted to the new groove rules and came up with combinations that very nearly replicate the performance of the previous wedges with the previous models of ball. You might still think it's a good idea but I assure you in the end it made no significant difference at all. Much ado (and expense) about nothing.

 

15th Club, changing player behavior was the exact point of the groove rollback. As North Butte previously stated, the USGA was attempting to discourage the "Bomb and Gouge" style of play. They themselves say that they wanted to "restore challenge" of playing shots from the rough, but the reality is shots from the typical PGA Tour venue rough did not get any more challenging. The reality is that growing the rough out more would have been far more effective, but the USGA only has control over the course conditions of one PGA Tour venue per year (US Open) and thus they resorted to the only thing they do have control of which are the rules.

 

Basically, if the end result is a negligent or non-existent difference, why even make the change in the first place? "Let's see what happens" or "I don't see a reason not to" are not legitimate justifications to change anything.

[jwb10]

You’d think there would have been a thread or two (three, four) on this already. Go figure.

Sorry it was long, but there is a lot to parse. As for other threads, I didn't see and I hope I had a little different take. if not I owe you 15 seconds when you're 83. Call me then

[storm319]

Another thought. Could the course lengthening trend actually be a cause for distance gains on tour? Are courses being lengthened to keep up with players or are players doing whatever they can to increase distance so that they can keep up with lengthening courses? (kind of a "chicken or egg" argument)

 

It would be interesting to compile driving stats for the last 15 US Opens and compare the stats of the shorter setups to the longer. My guess is that the average drive at Merion in 2013 (6869-6966,+8 cut) was shorter than the average at Erin Hills in 2017 (7721-7845,+1 cut) that played 800-900 yards longer.

[thug the bunny]

Sorry jwb, but yes there are already 3 threads on this. Yes you had an individual take on the topic, but just add it to one of the 3 threads and ask the mods to merge this one.

[jwb10]

Did not see them and , please, merge

[thug the bunny]

Did not see them and , please, merge

 

No prob jw, I sent the mods a request. BTW I did like your rant and totally agree :fan_1:

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Some people think they are arbiters of what constitutes real golf, and want a rollback.

Some others think the best in the world are de facto arbiters of what real golf is, and don't care who hits what over which set of trees.

 

The two will never see eye to eye.

[North Butte]

Some people think they are arbiters of what constitutes real golf, and want a rollback.

Some others think the best in the world are de facto arbiters of what real golf is, and don't care who hits what over which set of trees.

 

The two will never see eye to eye.

 

And some of us just want them to pick a set of Rules at whatever arbitrary level they like and then leave the game and the equipment to evolve on its own within those Rules. Don’t be changing the Rules we all play under unless absolutely necessary is a good, general principle.

 

And some people choosing to get butt-hurt because they don’t like what they see on TV is not absolute necessity!

[Sean2]

A good read regarding this problem from the guys at No Laying Up (not sure if we're allowed to mention them now that they set up The Refuge which is basically their version of WRX)

 

https://nolayingup.c...istance-debate/

 

I think pretty much everyone that wants a rollback is really for bifurcation but they don't really want to say or admit that.

 

Not me. I’ve said it many times that it will drive up the price of balls.

 

This may be true. OEM's will have to retool to manufacture the rolled-back golf ball. Plus, they wouldn't derive much income from that ball as Tour players get their golf balls free, and only a small percentage of amateurs would play such a ball.

[Sean2]

Studies were done a couple years after the groove rule change. It showed no discernible difference in how Tour players played off the tee or their scoring when playing with wedges from the rough.

 

The rule changed forced everyone to (eventually) get new, conforming wedges and it failed totally at affecting wedge play among elite players, which was the justification.

 

At the time, the blowhards at USGA proclaimed that it would combat "Bomb and Gouge" by forcing players to pay a price for missing fairways or missing greens. They would be less able to count on controlling the ball out of the rough and would therefore place a greater premium on "accuracy" over distance.

 

As most of us could have predicted, it had no such effect.

 

I am not aware of such studies. I do recall at the time, there being some thinking that the groove rule was a backdoor "ball rollback" rule. You are saying that studies show that the groove rule did not change player behavior/strategy, and so because it did not change behavior in a measurable way, it was a "failure." I'm not sure I agree. The idea was to get wedges to spin less and thereby provide less technology to get up and down from heavy rough. I think those mechanics are still true.

 

The manufacturers of wedges and balls very quickly adjusted to the new groove rules and came up with combinations that very nearly replicate the performance of the previous wedges with the previous models of ball. You might still think it's a good idea but I assure you in the end it made no significant difference at all. Much ado (and expense) about nothing.

 

15th Club, changing player behavior was the exact point of the groove rollback. As North Butte previously stated, the USGA was attempting to discourage the "Bomb and Gouge" style of play. They themselves say that they wanted to "restore challenge" of playing shots from the rough, but the reality is shots from the typical PGA Tour venue rough did not get any more challenging. The reality is that growing the rough out more would have been far more effective, but the USGA only has control over the course conditions of one PGA Tour venue per year (US Open) and thus they resorted to the only thing they do have control of which are the rules.

 

Basically, if the end result is a negligent or non-existent difference, why even make the change in the first place? "Let's see what happens" or "I don't see a reason not to" are not legitimate justifications to change anything.

 

And, the reality is the groove rule only affected the amateur, who had enough trouble spinning the ball as it was. With the groove rule the USGA simply made it that much more difficult. The ruling affected the touring professional not one iota.

 

Brilliant.

[ssites]

They are talking about it again on PGA tour live. I think it is a horrible idea. They are concerned about long hitters, but this would only favor long hitters because they are still going to be longer, but they will also have more room for error.

 

What do you think the actual chances for this happening are? Equipment is about maxed out now (and has been for over a decade), why not just let everything adjust for a bit?

 

Even if the USGA/RA mandates a ball rollback, can't the manufacturers still make a longer ball that doesn't comply for sanctioned events, but we as recreational players can use? It's not illegal FFS. I don't understand why are we as recreational players even give one rat's #@s what the USGA says. My foursome for 30 years has our own "rules" (split tees, roll the ball, gimmees etc) that are against the USGA rules. Why is this any different? At my local courses I sure don't see any USGA officials waiting to arrest me for breaking the rules lol.

[tnord]

 

And, the reality is the groove rule only affected the amateur, who had enough trouble spinning the ball as it was. With the groove rule the USGA simply made it that much more difficult. The ruling affected the touring professional not one iota.

 

Brilliant.

 

so if we brought back a ball that spun more that must be a good thing.

[North Butte]

No they simply made the ball spin more off the new wedges from rough. Not spin more on driver and long iron shots.

 

The industry employs a lot of really bright engineers to figure this stuff out, you know.

[clevited]

They are talking about it again on PGA tour live. I think it is a horrible idea. They are concerned about long hitters, but this would only favor long hitters because they are still going to be longer, but they will also have more room for error.

 

What do you think the actual chances for this happening are? Equipment is about maxed out now (and has been for over a decade), why not just let everything adjust for a bit?

 

Even if the USGA/RA mandates a ball rollback, can't the manufacturers still make a longer ball that doesn't comply for sanctioned events, but we as recreational players can use? It's not illegal FFS. I don't understand why are we as recreational players even give one rat's #@s what the USGA says. My foursome for 30 years has our own "rules" (split tees, roll the ball, gimmees etc) that are against the USGA rules. Why is this any different? At my local courses I sure don't see any USGA officials waiting to arrest me for breaking the rules lol.

 

Do you regularily use a non-conforming driver to get an edge? Spray lubricant on the driver to lower spin? No. Most everyone I know does not want to have illegal equipment in the bag as it is a dead ringer for cheating. For some reason, that is where many draw the line, including myself. I know personally I will "want" to play the same ball standard that pro's do so nobody can ever down play my score. I won't like what I feel therefore as being "forced" to play it, because I think its stupid to nerf the ball. The USGA needs to do more research instead of freaking out about out of context data.

[golfer07840]

Some people think they are arbiters of what constitutes real golf, and want a rollback.

Some others think the best in the world are de facto arbiters of what real golf is, and don't care who hits what over which set of trees.

 

The two will never see eye to eye.

You should chime in more often. You're the voice of reason on this topic, IMO

[clevited]

There is only one situation where I will be ok with rolling back the ball, but I still think it is laughable. The tours can roll it back only for when certain courses are played. The standard ball for actual handicap stays the same for all golfers, but this ball would just be used to basically give a pacifier to those that are crying that their precious courses are obsolete. I would imagine one or two events a year for each tour. I would however say that they can only modify the COR, not the spin. Keep the ball spinning the same (if at all possible), just change the COR so that ball speeds are lower. That way there is less adjustment to spin for players, and just a straight up yardage change for them (which is the primary complaint, and again, this is assuming its even possible to achieve technology wise). This way, manufactuers don't have to mass produce so many free balls for pros, there is no confusion across the different levels of golf. There is no handicap with or without nerfed ball, its simply used when the venue (thinks they) require it. It would also be easy to throw away driving stats, ball speeds etc, that would skew the stat records being kept now if its only used in a couple events.

 

If its only a couple events, and it totally flops as far as what the pro's think, or it failed to add any more perceived excitement or challenge to the course, then it will phase itself out as a failure, but at least it won't be disruptive.

 

I do however fear this will be the stepping stone to adopting it across the board (basically forcing it) which would not be ok with me.

 

Seriously though, this is the only concession I would be willing to make, and I would make it reluctantly. It is however a meet in the middle idea.

[ssites]

They are talking about it again on PGA tour live. I think it is a horrible idea. They are concerned about long hitters, but this would only favor long hitters because they are still going to be longer, but they will also have more room for error.

 

What do you think the actual chances for this happening are? Equipment is about maxed out now (and has been for over a decade), why not just let everything adjust for a bit?

 

Even if the USGA/RA mandates a ball rollback, can't the manufacturers still make a longer ball that doesn't comply for sanctioned events, but we as recreational players can use? It's not illegal FFS. I don't understand why are we as recreational players even give one rat's #@s what the USGA says. My foursome for 30 years has our own "rules" (split tees, roll the ball, gimmees etc) that are against the USGA rules. Why is this any different? At my local courses I sure don't see any USGA officials waiting to arrest me for breaking the rules lol.

 

Do you regularily use a non-conforming driver to get an edge? Spray lubricant on the driver to lower spin? No. Most everyone I know does not want to have illegal equipment in the bag as it is a dead ringer for cheating. For some reason, that is where many draw the line, including myself. I know personally I will "want" to play the same ball standard that pro's do so nobody can ever down play my score. I won't like what I feel therefore as being "forced" to play it, because I think its stupid to nerf the ball. The USGA needs to do more research instead of freaking out about out of context data.

 

No of course not. I am just saying this shouldn't be that much of an issue. There can easily be a tournament conforming ball and one for non tournament play for the average Joe who is paying $75 to play and want's to enjoy it.

 

My father is 78 and has Parkinsons. If he anchors his putter to help him enjoy the game, is that cheating if none of our group cares?

[nix]

Some people think they are arbiters of what constitutes real golf, and want a rollback.

Some others think the best in the world are de facto arbiters of what real golf is, and don't care who hits what over which set of trees.

 

The two will never see eye to eye.

 

so those who think the best in the world are the de facto arbiters then are ok with using a ball which could travel 500 yds? Do they favor ANY restrictions on equipment?

[AceCatKY]

And too be fair pros aren't even destroying all these shorter courses. Last week in Mexico at a sub 7000 yard course, with a stacked field, there was a diverse leaderboard including guys who aren't "bombers" and a respectable -16 winning score for a 4 day event.

 

this is true. Scores are not going down.

Right because courses keep getting lengthened, narrowed, the rough grown, and the greens firmed up and running at 12+. I don't understand that argument, if the courses weren't constantly being toughened fine but that's not the case.

 

Why is that a problem? Superintendents/tourney directors can use the technology available to them (agronomy, design, etc.) to "combat" tech advances in balls and cubs available to the players.

[clevited]

They are talking about it again on PGA tour live. I think it is a horrible idea. They are concerned about long hitters, but this would only favor long hitters because they are still going to be longer, but they will also have more room for error.

 

What do you think the actual chances for this happening are? Equipment is about maxed out now (and has been for over a decade), why not just let everything adjust for a bit?

 

Even if the USGA/RA mandates a ball rollback, can't the manufacturers still make a longer ball that doesn't comply for sanctioned events, but we as recreational players can use? It's not illegal FFS. I don't understand why are we as recreational players even give one rat's #@s what the USGA says. My foursome for 30 years has our own "rules" (split tees, roll the ball, gimmees etc) that are against the USGA rules. Why is this any different? At my local courses I sure don't see any USGA officials waiting to arrest me for breaking the rules lol.

 

Do you regularily use a non-conforming driver to get an edge? Spray lubricant on the driver to lower spin? No. Most everyone I know does not want to have illegal equipment in the bag as it is a dead ringer for cheating. For some reason, that is where many draw the line, including myself. I know personally I will "want" to play the same ball standard that pro's do so nobody can ever down play my score. I won't like what I feel therefore as being "forced" to play it, because I think its stupid to nerf the ball. The USGA needs to do more research instead of freaking out about out of context data.

 

No of course not. I am just saying this shouldn't be that much of an issue. There can easily be a tournament conforming ball and one for non tournament play for the average Joe who is paying $75 to play and want's to enjoy it.

 

My father is 78 and has Parkinsons. If he anchors his putter to help him enjoy the game, is that cheating if none of our group cares?

 

No, but if your buddy is using a shaved driver and you are using a standard one, you might feel annoyed. I know I would. Distance is a larger deal than an anchored putter, having 15 clubs in your bag, or even one of those chipping clubs. In an outing like that, no big deal, use whatever you want, but if you are keeping a handicap like many, many golfers do, you are going to want to have the ball the pro's conform to in order to be legit. That is human nature I feel. The ball change is absolutely unecessary, honestly, I feel extremely strongly (due to lots of thought from all angles), that it would be completely stupid and spaztic to ever enforce a ball change like what has been proposed. The ball is currently limited. Its not going further at any kind of troubling rate as perceived, and any driving stats will eventually plateau not much higher than they are now. I am confident in that.

 

If they need to make certain courses playable again in their eyes, use the "course ball" I eluded to in a previous post.

[ssites]

They are talking about it again on PGA tour live. I think it is a horrible idea. They are concerned about long hitters, but this would only favor long hitters because they are still going to be longer, but they will also have more room for error.

 

What do you think the actual chances for this happening are? Equipment is about maxed out now (and has been for over a decade), why not just let everything adjust for a bit?

 

Even if the USGA/RA mandates a ball rollback, can't the manufacturers still make a longer ball that doesn't comply for sanctioned events, but we as recreational players can use? It's not illegal FFS. I don't understand why are we as recreational players even give one rat's #@s what the USGA says. My foursome for 30 years has our own "rules" (split tees, roll the ball, gimmees etc) that are against the USGA rules. Why is this any different? At my local courses I sure don't see any USGA officials waiting to arrest me for breaking the rules lol.

 

Do you regularily use a non-conforming driver to get an edge? Spray lubricant on the driver to lower spin? No. Most everyone I know does not want to have illegal equipment in the bag as it is a dead ringer for cheating. For some reason, that is where many draw the line, including myself. I know personally I will "want" to play the same ball standard that pro's do so nobody can ever down play my score. I won't like what I feel therefore as being "forced" to play it, because I think its stupid to nerf the ball. The USGA needs to do more research instead of freaking out about out of context data.

 

No of course not. I am just saying this shouldn't be that much of an issue. There can easily be a tournament conforming ball and one for non tournament play for the average Joe who is paying $75 to play and want's to enjoy it.

 

My father is 78 and has Parkinsons. If he anchors his putter to help him enjoy the game, is that cheating if none of our group cares?

 

No, but if your buddy is using a shaved driver and you are using a standard one, you might feel annoyed. I know I would. Distance is a larger deal than an anchored putter, having 15 clubs in your bag, or even one of those chipping clubs. In an outing like that, no big deal, use whatever you want, but if you are keeping a handicap like many, many golfers do, you are going to want to have the ball the pro's conform to in order to be legit. That is human nature I feel. The ball change is absolutely unecessary, honestly, I feel extremely strongly (due to lots of thought from all angles), that it would be completely stupid and spaztic to ever enforce a ball change like what has been proposed. The ball is currently limited. Its not going further at any kind of troubling rate as perceived, and any driving stats will eventually plateau not much higher than they are now. I am confident in that.

 

If they need to make certain courses playable again in their eyes, use the "course ball" I eluded to in a previous post.

 

Yep good points. I agree...15 clubs etc I would be annoyed as well. I just hate to see us get punished across the board when I can't reach half the par 4's with less than a hybrid. That's why we play half white half gold in our group. I guess it sucks getting old!

[QMany]

I wonder how bifurcation would affect PGA Tour viewership. After knowing DJ averages 315 off the tee, are more people going to enjoy watching him hit it only 283 (10% rollback) and then 7i instead of 9i or PW?

[clevited]

I wonder how bifurcation would affect PGA Tour viewership. After knowing DJ averages 315 off the tee, are more people going to enjoy watching him hit it only 283 (10% rollback) and then 7i instead of 9i or PW?

 

20% is what has been discussed. So make that 252.

[Bye]

I wonder how bifurcation would affect PGA Tour viewership. After knowing DJ averages 315 off the tee, are more people going to enjoy watching him hit it only 283 (10% rollback) and then 7i instead of 9i or PW?

 

20% is what has been discussed. So make that 252.

 

10% would take things back to around 1996. 20% is a non starter.

 

In answer to the question, the only way we know how far it has gone is by the commentators telling us. Anything is better than driver-wedge on most holes.

[nix]

I wonder how bifurcation would affect PGA Tour viewership. After knowing DJ averages 315 off the tee, are more people going to enjoy watching him hit it only 283 (10% rollback) and then 7i instead of 9i or PW?

 

20% is what has been discussed. So make that 252.

Almost NOBODY is for a 20% rollback. In fact the 20% rollback is almost exclusively discussed as "too much rollback".

 

Who tunes in to see golf just so they can a number on the screen that shows 315 vs some other number? I've never heard of someone tuning it because they want to see the ball travel far, not once.

[15th Club]

I wonder how bifurcation would affect PGA Tour viewership. After knowing DJ averages 315 off the tee, are more people going to enjoy watching him hit it only 283 (10% rollback) and then 7i instead of 9i or PW?

 

I have a different question. Would more people like seeing tournaments played at TPC courses, or would they be more interested in seeing tournaments at historic old courses?

 

It's a bit of a rhetorical question, here at GolfWRX, where I expect that the demographic dictates that 80% or so don't care much about the difference between TPC Scottsdale and Riviera; or the difference between Liberty National and Shinnecock Hills.

 

For my part, I would love watching rolled-back Tour golf. For the same reason that I get such a kick out of watching LPGA events. I understand their game better. I am better attuned to their distances, than men's tour distances. I relate better, to the courses they are on, than new courses designed with Tour events in mind.

 

I'll say; I don't wish for bifurcation. And it is the only thing in this debate where I'll agree with the suits at Titleist. They don't want a bifurcation either. They want to keep their vast market share, and continue to sell balls to the public that so many elite players use, at top-of-market prices. "Aspirational," as Wally Uihlein would say.

[fairways4life]

Just kicking around an idea here...

 

What if no changes were made to the golf ball on the professional level, and everything just stayed as is. But at the recreational level, the governing bodies loosened the restrictions and non-conforming distance balls (like the Bandit or the Condor) became "legal" for amateurs.

 

This would create bifurcation (which I actually would not like to see happen), but it would allow recreational players to gain some distance without breaking any kind of rules (of course, that's assuming these non-conforming balls do in fact fly farther; I've never used one so I don't know).

 

There's no rollback of the golf ball, only a "roll forward." The pro game is not affected and us weekend hacks get to smack it a little further while remaining rule-abiding.

 

Yay? Nay?

[North Butte]

I wonder how bifurcation would affect PGA Tour viewership. After knowing DJ averages 315 off the tee, are more people going to enjoy watching him hit it only 283 (10% rollback) and then 7i instead of 9i or PW?

 

If the PGA Tour thought so, they would have done a 10% rollback already. They are very, very good at understand what people want to see and giving it to them. It is their profession and reason for existence.

[nix]

And too be fair pros aren't even destroying all these shorter courses. Last week in Mexico at a sub 7000 yard course, with a stacked field, there was a diverse leaderboard including guys who aren't "bombers" and a respectable -16 winning score for a 4 day event.

 

this is true. Scores are not going down.

Right because courses keep getting lengthened, narrowed, the rough grown, and the greens firmed up and running at 12+. I don't understand that argument, if the courses weren't constantly being toughened fine but that's not the case.

 

Why is that a problem? Superintendents/tourney directors can use the technology available to them (agronomy, design, etc.) to "combat" tech advances in balls and cubs available to the players.

 

Because it makes courses harder for 99.9% of golfers in order to combat the .1 percent of golfers. I know that the argument is that regular courses don't need to do that because they don't host tournaments, but they do it any way.

 

Additionally, this isn't about making the courses HARDER for pros or making the game HARDER for pros. Nobody arguing a rollback as far as I know cares what the scores the pros are shooting. This is the big disconnect. Those against the rollback are suggesting this is to make the game harder for pros, but it's not that. It's to watch the pros play the game in a similar way to the way...nevermidnd, it's been explained 10,000 times. People just ignore it anyway.