Ball roll-back

[Schulzmc]

If the ball were flying further simply because people were swinging harder, then I get the “leave things alone” arguments. But the reality is the ball today flies farther than the balls I used when I started playing 50 years ago. In some ways that is nothing new, as the ball 50 years ago flew further than the one from 100 years ago. But we have reached a breaking point. Consider the 13 hole at my home course. It’s a par five with water in front of the green. It’s designed to force you to stay down the right with your drive, then lay up before the water with your second shot. If you really bomb your drive you have a decision to make to try and carry the water and go for the green in 2. Once you have played the hole a bit you realize the green sets up best from the left side, so if you lay up you have to take the drive you hit down the right and keep the shot left. Really fun hole. But now the long hitters at our club simply smash a drive over the trees on the left and hit it as far down the 12th fairway as they can. That leaves them a 7 iron into the green, with no water between them and the hole. Besides the fact that a good hole design becomes irrelevant, it’s dangerous. Guys on 12 have to worry about who is in that group ahead of them and be wary walking up the 12th fairway. 

 

Roll back the ball and that hole is back to being a great hole. And for guys who need to you can always move up a tee.

[sui generis]

If they changed everything to meters, then a 300 drive wouldn't offend as many.  See, they're not hitting it 330 anymore.😄

Edited March 14, 2023 by sui generis

[Hawkeye77]

Here is the actual document . . . .

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2023/Notice-Proposed-MLR-Golf-Balls-Final.pdf

[Schulzmc]

Here’s something to consider - so the ball manufacturers are going to have to invest the time, effort, and considerable $$ in developing, testing, and manufacturing a new ball… which they will give away to the best golfers and not be able to sell to the public? And the whole “play the same ball the pros play” marketing strategy will no longer work? 

 

There is no way this happens.

[davep043]

13 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Not one person has provided a single logical argument in favor of rolling back the ball or equipment, or even a cohesive reasoning as to why hitting the golf ball a long distance is bad if it occurs under equipment legal per the rules.

Have you read any of the Distance Insights reports from the last 4 years?  There are some significant impacts of greater distance.  You may not agree that decreasing distance is necessary, at any level, but there are certainly some reasonable arguments to be made.

27 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

Here’s something to consider - so the ball manufacturers are going to have to invest the time, effort, and considerable $$ in developing, testing, and manufacturing a new ball… which they will give away to the best golfers and not be able to sell to the public? And the whole “play the same ball the pros play” marketing strategy will no longer work? 

 

There is no way this happens.

Equipment companies are not run by fools, I guarantee they've been researching this since the issue first came into the public eye, sometime around the 2019 Distance Insights reports.  Equipment companies are among the "stakeholders" that have been involved in the process since that time.  No doubt, marketing will change if the MLR actual goes into effect, but that's the least of the worries.

 

If anyone is shocked or surprised by this, you simply haven't been paying attention.  The proposed Model Local Rule is completely consistent with the information presented a year ago.

[klebs01]

Pretty disappointed the reduction is only about 4%. Should have been in the 7-10% range and applied across the board. The world didn’t end the last time the ball was changed and won’t end this time. Just a cyclical thing that needs to be updated every couple years/decades. 

[limegreengent]

Great News 

 of course , - way ,way overdue and let’s hope that they do it properly- not like the bungled anchoring exercise.

[LeoLeo99]

2 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

Here’s something to consider - so the ball manufacturers are going to have to invest the time, effort, and considerable $$ in developing, testing, and manufacturing a new ball… which they will give away to the best golfers and not be able to sell to the public? And the whole “play the same ball the pros play” marketing strategy will no longer work? 

 

There is no way this happens.

Some good discussion on Golf Channel. Surprisingly. I love that Irish guy. He said it right to USGA's face, so you admit that you failed this.  Good for him.  Also, the PGATour and the ball manufacturers don't seem to be onboard with this change.  Can't have a rolled back ball if no one manufactures it.  

[davep043]

9 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

Also, the PGATour and the ball manufacturers don't seem to be onboard with this change.  Can't have a rolled back ball if no one manufactures it.  

As I read the PGA Tour press release, they're not opposing the change, they're pretty much saying they'll wait and see what happens.  Titleist issued some pretty well-reasons against bifurcation, but they're almost certainly deep into developing a ball that will fit the revised standards.  They will NOT take a chance that TaylorMade (just to pick one) will release a compliant ball and take the entire PGA Tour market away from Titleist.

[DaveLeeNC]

10 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

Some good discussion on Golf Channel. Surprisingly. I love that Irish guy. He said it right to USGA's face, so you admit that you failed this.  Good for him.  Also, the PGATour and the ball manufacturers don't seem to be onboard with this change.  Can't have a rolled back ball if no one manufactures it.  

 

While I am sure that the USGA has not ignored input from the manufacturers, it would seem from the following comment below from the president of Acushnet (Titleist), there is a lot of disagreement at this point and a VERY long way to go here. 

 

dave

 

“Playing by a unified set of rules is an essential part of the game’s allure, contributes to its global understanding and appeal, and eliminates the inconsistency and instability that would come from multiple sets of equipment standards,” said David Maher, president and CEO of Acushnet. “Unification is a powerfully positive force in the game, and we believe that equipment bifurcation would be detrimental to golf’s long-term well-being.

[DaveLeeNC]

I can see the LIV Golf marketing pitch now. 

 

"Golf, but louder and with real golf balls".

 

dave

 

ps. Note that the proposal is for a local rule, so LIV would be free to not implement it. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[davep043]

5 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

it would seem from the following comment below from the president of Acushnet (Titleist), there is a lot of disagreement at this point

I think Titleist will oppose the change for as long as possible, on the grounds that bifurcation is "bad for the game".  Much as the USGA/R&A have been fairly consistent in what they've said and in how this process has worked out, the manufacturers have been equally consistent in opposing any kind of roll-back.

[caniac6]

4 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

Here’s something to consider - so the ball manufacturers are going to have to invest the time, effort, and considerable $$ in developing, testing, and manufacturing a new ball… which they will give away to the best golfers and not be able to sell to the public? And the whole “play the same ball the pros play” marketing strategy will no longer work? 

 

There is no way this happens.

And, the costs of the Elite balls will be passed on to the consumer.

[LeoLeo99]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I can see the LIV Golf marketing pitch now. 

 

"Golf, but louder and with real golf balls".

 

dave

 

ps. Note that the proposal is for a local rule, so LIV would be free to not implement it. 

The PGATour, Masters, and PGA will also be free to not implement it.  

[LeoLeo99]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

As I read the PGA Tour press release, they're not opposing the change, they're pretty much saying they'll wait and see what happens.  Titleist issued some pretty well-reasons against bifurcation, but they're almost certainly deep into developing a ball that will fit the revised standards.  They will NOT take a chance that TaylorMade (just to pick one) will release a compliant ball and take the entire PGA Tour market away from Titleist.

The PGA Tour’s response states: “We continue to work closely with the USGA and The R&A on a range of initiatives, including the topic of distance. Regarding the Notice to Manufacturers announced today, we will continue our own extensive independent analysis of the topic and will collaborate with the USGA and The R&A, along with our membership and industry partners, to evaluate and provide feedback on this proposal. The Tour remains committed to ensuring any future solutions identified benefit the game as a whole, without negatively impacting the Tour, its players or our fans’ enjoyment of our sport.”  

 

That's a lot of corporate spin.  

[davep043]

2 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

The PGA Tour’s response states: “We continue to work closely with the USGA and The R&A on a range of initiatives, including the topic of distance. Regarding the Notice to Manufacturers announced today, we will continue our own extensive independent analysis of the topic and will collaborate with the USGA and The R&A, along with our membership and industry partners, to evaluate and provide feedback on this proposal. The Tour remains committed to ensuring any future solutions identified benefit the game as a whole, without negatively impacting the Tour, its players or our fans’ enjoyment of our sport.”  

 

That's a lot of corporate spin.  

I'd say its a lot of words that really say nothing.  Although they DO say that minimizing any negative impact on the Tour is their primary motivation.  They'll support changes that are good for the game, as long as the changes aren't negative for the Tour.  

[Schulzmc]

4 hours ago, davep043 said:

Equipment companies are not run by fools, I guarantee they've been researching this since the issue first came into the public eye, sometime around the 2019 Distance Insights reports.  Equipment companies are among the "stakeholders" that have been involved in the process since that time. 

Fair enough. But you have to admit the equipment companies will lose money on a ball that they basically will manufacture to give away. That can’t be good for business. And in the end… those of us who actually buy golf balls, but won’t use the new ball, will pay for it.

 

I’m not saying I’m against the idea. We have to do something! Distance is negatively affecting the game. I just think there are huge practical hurdles to this solution. 

 

My solution - roll back the ball for everyone. One ball standard for all.

[cval]

1 hour ago, Schulzmc said:

Fair enough. But you have to admit the equipment companies will lose money on a ball that they basically will manufacture to give away. That can’t be good for business. And in the end… those of us who actually buy golf balls, but won’t use the new ball, will pay for it.

 

I’m not saying I’m against the idea. We have to do something! Distance is negatively affecting the game. I just think there are huge practical hurdles to this solution. 

 

My solution - roll back the ball for everyone. One ball standard for all.

 

Roll the ball back for everyone and move the tee boxes up. Problem solved. 

[Mike412]

4 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I can see the LIV Golf marketing pitch now. 

 

"Golf, but louder and with real golf balls".

 

dave

 

ps. Note that the proposal is for a local rule, so LIV would be free to not implement it. 

LIV could play box groove wedges and anchored putters and no one would care. They are in their own world so they could implement anything they want to and it has no bearing on the rest of the golf world.

[grm24]

12 minutes ago, Mike412 said:

LIV could play box groove wedges 

Box groove wedges (a/k/a square grooves, U grooves) are completely legal for wedges and have been an awful long time. Box/square/U grooves were never banned with the groove rule change. Most wedges sold today still have square/box/U grooves. The groove rule change that was implemented were for the dimensional properties of the grooves only not the shape.

[Mike412]

33 minutes ago, grm24 said:

Box groove wedges (a/k/a square grooves, U grooves) are completely legal for wedges and have been an awful long time. Box/square/U grooves were never banned with the groove rule change. Most wedges sold today still have square/box/U grooves. The groove rule change that was implemented were for the dimensional properties of the grooves only not the shape.

That wasn’t really the point but fine, I’ll rephrase…. They could play non conforming wedges and no one would care…..

[IndyArcher]

So can we expect an entirely new genre of ball ads touting, “OUR SHORTEST BALL EVER. PERIOD!”???

[kasting333]

1 hour ago, IndyArcher said:

So can we expect an entirely new genre of ball ads touting, “OUR SHORTEST BALL EVER. PERIOD!”???

To this point why would there be any limit at all on Am equipment or am rules in general? 

[DaveLeeNC]

25 minutes ago, kasting333 said:

To this point why would there be any limit at all on Am equipment or am rules in general? 

 

The proposal as it stands would not apply to Am golf or equipment (unless the Committee running the event that you entered decides to implement the proposed local rule affecting the golf ball). 

 

dave

[klebs01]

29 minutes ago, kasting333 said:

To this point why would there be any limit at all on Am equipment or am rules in general? 

are there any now? Illegal balls are still available. You can get illegal drivers too. Illegal wedges and grooves. No one is down at the muni checking bags. The rules only apply the the few people that play competitively.  

[kasting333]

30 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

are there any now? Illegal balls are still available. You can get illegal drivers too. Illegal wedges and grooves. No one is down at the muni checking bags. The rules only apply the the few people that play competitively.  

Exactly, so the market for those illegal clubs should be much much bigger if ams wanted to play by bifurcated rules. 

[kasting333]

37 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

The proposal as it stands would not apply to Am golf or equipment (unless the Committee running the event that you entered decides to implement the proposed local rule affecting the golf ball). 

 

dave

How is that different than using a non conforming ball or club now under a random local rule? Clubs already have that power if there was an appetite for it. Seems like any level of am competition want to play by their best interpretation of the rules

[grm24]

4 hours ago, Mike412 said:

They are in their own world so they could implement anything they want to and it has no bearing on the rest of the golf world.

True to a point. The issue is that if any professional golf tour wants to earn OWGR points part of the approval process for that is following the ROG as defined by the USGA and R&A.

[Mike412]

4 minutes ago, grm24 said:

True to a point. The issue is that if any professional golf tour wants to earn OWGR points part of the approval process for that is following the ROG as defined by the USGA and R&A.

That ship sailed when they set their format.

[IndyArcher]

1 hour ago, kasting333 said:

To this point why would there be any limit at all on Am equipment or am rules in general? 

Good point, though what I really need from you right now is a reasonable threat that my current Vice Pro’s might disappear in a couple of years and the encouragement to go buy some more before the end of tomorrow’s sale so that I don’t run out of good long balls! It’s time to step up as the golfball wingman!