Ball roll-back

[Schulzmc]

3 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

We have old guys in our club that already play from the red tees, and some even play from some youth tees in the fairway. Should those guys just quit? 

Based on everything I am reading the new ball standards would not affect them more than a yard or two. They just don’t compress the ball enough at their swing speeds to make a difference. They would be fine where they are.

[Hawkeye77]

16 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

There seem to me to be 3 options here. 

 

1. Do  not implement the proposed Local Rule and keep playing to the existing equipment standards
2. Implement the LR as stated (with bifurcation) 
3. Implement the LR across the board (it would no longer be a LR but a change to the conforming list) 

I can't imagine them doing #3. But if they did I would expect some kind of algorithm to be applied to existing slopes/ratings to adjust for the 'virtual extra yardage'. Then over time they could use the new ball performance as part on ongoing ratings changes. All this being MHO, of course. 

 

dave

 

Why does implementing the local rule require bifurcation?  Doesn't seem necessary at all, just implement the local rule.

[Hawkeye77]

49 minutes ago, RCGA said:

The easiest solution for amateurs is to have a special handicap rider if you're playing the pro ball vs the am ball. Base in on some strokes gained math. 

 

 

Just don't allow it for purposes of posting a valid round. Hard to believe it would become an option for real sandbagging, lol, but the solution seems easy enough.

[Schulzmc]

Let’s say for a moment they decide to roll the ball back for everyone. What happens to the huge used ball market? All those balls they pull out of ponds and refurbish would be illegal… at least for a while. Hmmmmm

[RCGA]

3 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

Let’s say for a moment they decide to roll the ball back for everyone. What happens to the huge used ball market? All those balls they pull out of ponds and refurbish would be illegal… at least for a while. Hmmmmm

 

They couldn't do it all at once (in 2026). Too much inventory to move and too much stock to create. 

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Why does implementing the local rule require bifurcation?  Doesn't seem necessary at all, just implement the local rule.

 

I am not sure that I know what "just implement the local rule" means. But if it means that everyone playing under the applicable RoG must be playing the MLR compliant ball, then it becomes option #3.

 

dave

Edited March 16, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[cval]

3 hours ago, caniac6 said:

We have old guys in our club that already play from the red tees, and some even play from some youth tees in the fairway. Should those guys just quit? 

 

Did old guys not play when the ball was traveling 4% shorter? 

[caniac6]

42 minutes ago, cval said:

 

Did old guys not play when the ball was traveling 4% shorter? 

Not these old guys.

[Schulzmc]

Here’s a quote from a USGA rep:

 

”Our research indicates that high swing speed players would lose about 18 yards, the average tour player would lose 14-15 yards, and slower swing speed tour players would lose 10-12 yards.”

 

The highest driver swing speeds on the tour average ~125mph. The tour average is ~115mph. The slower guys on the tour are ~105mph. That equates to a reduction in yards lost of 3.5 yds per 10mph of swing speed. That means for the rest of us we could anticipate the following:

 

95mph driver swing speed: 7.5 yds. lost

85mph driver swing speed: 4 yds. lost

75mph driver swing speed: .5 yds lost

 

One article I saw said the average 70 year old male has a driver swing speed of 70mph. He wouldn’t even notice the ball is different.

 

[cval]

45 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

Not these old guys.

they will not even notice the difference

[caniac6]

Just about every product in golf promises longer distance. Even shoes are being marketed as adding distance. This is because the vast majority of players don’t hit the ball very long. Longer drives means shorter clubs into greens, which adds up to better scoring opportunities. It’s a hard game, and maybe it needs to be harder for the top players, but it’s probably in the best place it’s ever been at the club level. If they want to cap it, fine, but don’t go backwards.

[TheDominator273]

21 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

Just about every product in golf promises longer distance. Even shoes are being marketed as adding distance. This is because the vast majority of players don’t hit the ball very long. Longer drives means shorter clubs into greens, which adds up to better scoring opportunities. It’s a hard game, and maybe it needs to be harder for the top players, but it’s probably in the best place it’s ever been at the club level. If they want to cap it, fine, but don’t go backwards.

That's part of the issue, it's already been capped, they just decided their cap was no good after manufacturers got better and players got stronger with more understanding of how to maximize distance.

[storm319]

On 3/15/2023 at 7:26 AM, davep043 said:

They'll be able to compete just as they're able now.  Right now, they compete against some really long hitters, and the long hitters have an advantage.  If the MLR is adapted, they'll lose a little distance, the really long hitters will lose a little more distance, but the relative length of the various players won't change.  

Assuming the balls will be readily available…

[storm319]

On 3/15/2023 at 3:58 PM, jvincent said:

 

Based on the pushback I'm hearing so far I think the probabilities are as follows:

 

1. 75%

2. 20%

3. 5%

 

If 2. comes to pass then the question becomes what tours/competitions adopt it?

 

If it's only the USGA/R&A events what happens if no ball manufacturers sign up to manufacture that ball? Is the USGA/R&A going to retest every ball on the market to see which, if any, are in compliance? Unlikely. That means they would have to pay to have a "competition ball" designed and manufactured. The billable hours that would rack up if they did that would be gigantic.

With all due respect, you are delusional if you think there is a 75% chance of this proposal not being adopted. The USGA has clearly made up their mind otherwise they would not have submitted the notice (I don’t think they have ever submitted an equipment related proposal that was not adopted). Now, there is a chance that they adjust the parameters before, but a change to the ODS test results in a rollback is certain.

 

The USGA already has a mechanism in place for manufacturers to submit samples for conformance testing, this is simply a 2nd set of swing calibration  parameters. Bridgestone already made a ball for a 2010 USGA pilot event and they have either been publicly in favor or coy with their responses (they benefit from a potential market disruption).

[storm319]

23 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Why does implementing the local rule require bifurcation?  Doesn't seem necessary at all, just implement the local rule.

Most local rules are accommodations for specific conditions and several are optional to the player when that scenario happens on the course (most have a relatively minor impact). This is flat out introducing a separate equipment rule that creates a coercive barrier to entry for any event that adopts it. It is absolutely bifurcation (as is the club length rule but that does not impact many players and clubs can easily be modified in that regard).

[storm319]

20 hours ago, cval said:

 

Did old guys not play when the ball was traveling 4% shorter? 

You don’t miss what you never had. Taking away a widely adopted paradigm is way more difficult than preventing the adoption in the first place. There would have been far less consternation if the USGA had actually done something 25 years ago.

 

Either way, I don’t agree with those that think this MLR will eventually be adopted globally. High level will adapt, low level won’t be impacted, but the middle is going to be messy.

 

 

[storm319]

23 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

Let’s say for a moment they decide to roll the ball back for everyone. What happens to the huge used ball market? All those balls they pull out of ponds and refurbish would be illegal… at least for a while. Hmmmmm

Most of the refurbished water balls are already non-conforming to the existing rules since they tend to exceed the USGA weight limit. 

[Hawkeye77]

33 minutes ago, storm319 said:

Most local rules are accommodations for specific conditions and several are optional to the player when that scenario happens on the course (most have a relatively minor impact). This is flat out introducing a separate equipment rule that creates a coercive barrier to entry for any event that adopts it. It is absolutely bifurcation (as is the club length rule but that does not impact many players and clubs can easily be modified in that regard).

 

You don't understand "bifurcation" and don't understand local rules.  Bifurcation is a separate set of rules for class(es) of players vs. others.  The ROG are the ROG and will remain so if the proposed local rule is adopted as an option, not a requirement.  Whether it has a "coercive" effect, lol, has nothing to do with whether it is "bifurcation".

 

Local Rule E-5 is specific to players who are not pros or involved in elite amateur competitions, where is your outrage? Where adopted some of your friends can avoid playing like the pros.  That rule has more real impact on the game for ordinary golfers than the proposed rule on the ball will ever have - the fact you and probably most (I don't, it was just a populist cop out by the ruling bodies) view that as a positive vs. a negative is a value judgment, but it's not "bifurcation".

Edited March 17, 2023 by Hawkeye77

[Hawkeye77]

28 minutes ago, storm319 said:

With all due respect, you are delusional if you think there is a 75% chance of this proposal not being adopted. The USGA has clearly made up their mind otherwise they would not have submitted the notice (I don’t think they have ever submitted an equipment related proposal that was not adopted). Now, there is a chance that they adjust the parameters before, but a change to the ODS test results in a rollback is certain.

 

 

 

I suggest calling someone's opinion, which is no less valid than yours, "delusional" is the antithesis of "due respect".  My equally valid speculation is 80% this Model Local Rule will not be adopted, and I think most would agree it will not.  What ends up being adopted, if anything, who knows, but won't be this, IMO, and handwriting on the wall is already starting to show up.  

 

The USGA and R&A provided the notice for discussion and comment, so no, they haven't made up their minds, only signaled what may (or may not) be their actual intent.  

 

There is nothing "certain", only speculation at this point.  

 

The PGA of America, the PGA Tour, DP World Tour, LPGA, Augusta National, OEMs are all going to have plenty to say about this.  The USGA operates in far less of a vacuum than it did 50, 30 and even 10 years ago and its imprimatur of authority is nowhere near what it used to be.  

 

 

[storm319]

10 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

 

I suggest calling someone's opinion, which is no less valid than yours, "delusional" is the antithesis of "due respect".  My equally valid speculation is 80% this Model Local Rule will not be adopted, and I think most would agree it will not.  What ends up being adopted, if anything, who knows, but won't be this, IMO, and handwriting on the wall is already starting to show up.  

 

The USGA and R&A provided the notice for discussion and comment, so no, they haven't made up their minds, only signaled what may (or may not) be their actual intent.  

 

There is nothing "certain", only speculation at this point.  

 

The PGA of America, the PGA Tour, DP World Tour, LPGA, Augusta National, OEMs are all going to have plenty to say about this.  The USGA operates in far less of a vacuum than it did 50, 30 and even 10 years ago and its imprimatur of authority is nowhere near what it used to be.  

 

 

Look at the history of their rule making proposals. Every equipment related proposal has been adopted in the past 30 years. When it gets to this stage, adoption is just a formality. The USGA has been broadcasting a ball rollback for the past 5 years. The revised areas or interest from 2021 included this proposal and they already had a comment period for that (without the exact calibration conditions).
 

While I do agree that USGAs influence/confidence has waned in recent years (botched equipment rollbacks have been a factor), all of the stake holders you mentioned have been applying every intended USGA rule in their competitions for decades if not since their inception (including optional conditions and MLRs). This proposal just isn’t impactful enough for them to break that trend (LIV withstanding since it is new and this would be a differentiator if the PGAT adopts).

[storm319]

42 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

You don't understand "bifurcation" and don't understand local rules.  Bifurcation is a separate set of rules for class(es) of players vs. others.  The ROG are the ROG and will remain so if the proposed local rule is adopted as an option, not a requirement.  Whether it has a "coercive" effect, lol, has nothing to do with whether it is "bifurcation".

 

Local Rule E-5 is specific to players who are not pros or involved in elite amateur competitions, where is your outrage? Where adopted some of your friends can avoid playing like the pros.  That rule has more real impact on the game for ordinary golfers than the proposed rule on the ball will ever have - the fact you and probably most (I don't, it was just a populist cop out by the ruling bodies) view that as a positive vs. a negative is a value judgment, but it's not "bifurcation".

Technically Rule E-5 is bifurcation as well (I disagreed with its adoption as well, they should have just made this the global rule), but the negligible outrage is due to the fact that it is an adaptable condition that only impacts those that find themselves in that scenario. It does not require special equipment or create a potential barrier to entry for the competition (any player should be able to easily adapt to that condition).

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, storm319 said:

Technically Rule E-5 is bifurcation as well (I disagreed with its adoption as well, they should have just made this the global rule), but the negligible outrage is due to the fact that it is an adaptable condition that only impacts those that find themselves in that scenario. It does not require special equipment or create a potential barrier to entry for the competition (any player should be able to easily adapt to that condition).

 

It is not a separate set of rules, it's part of the ROG that apply to all.

 

"Bifurcation" has become a buzz word and improperly used and, IMO, leads to a lot of drawing lines in the sand that have little impact on most of us or anyone we play golf with.

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

3 hours ago, storm319 said:

Look at the history of their rule making proposals. Every equipment related proposal has been adopted in the past 30 years. When it gets to this stage, adoption is just a formality. The USGA has been broadcasting a ball rollback for the past 5 years. The revised areas or interest from 2021 included this proposal and they already had a comment period for that (without the exact calibration conditions).
 

While I do agree that USGAs influence/confidence has waned in recent years (botched equipment rollbacks have been a factor), all of the stake holders you mentioned have been applying every intended USGA rule in their competitions for decades if not since their inception (including optional conditions and MLRs). This proposal just isn’t impactful enough for them to break that trend (LIV withstanding since it is new and this would be a differentiator if the PGAT adopts).

 

You are incorrect.

 

The comment period leading up to this release closed last September and this release is the result and natural evolution of that per their procedures, you aren't accurately putting forth how these things evolve.  It's a continuation, not a resurrection of some dead initiative, which is what you seem to suggest, so no, it is far from a formality.  They have't reached the "final" release of the rule.

 

No different at this point than the new ROG put out for discussion and comment in 2017, then changed and clarified, and a final out in 2018 and effective in 2019.

 

 

[caniac6]

Titleist, just one example, puts out new balls on a two year cycle. 2026 will be right in the middle of their next ball cycle. I sure wouldn’t want to be the guy in charge of projecting sales and inventory.

[LeoLeo99]

58 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

It is not a separate set of rules, it's part of the ROG that apply to all.

 

"Bifurcation" has become a buzz word and improperly used and, IMO, leads to a lot of drawing lines in the sand that have little impact on most of us or anyone we play golf with.

 

 

I disagree with you about "bifurcation" semantics but there are some interesting aspects to this.

 

Will people want to play the shorter ball so that they are playing the same rules as the pros on TV?

When will up and coming elite players make the switch from the long ball to the short ball?  There will be people caught between the two balls.  I'm scratch with the long ball so I switched to the short ball and now I'm a 2 handicap.  Do I qualify for USGA opens?

I don't think 3 years is enough time.  The club manufacturers have optimized their equipment on the long ball.  It will take a while to develop a short ball and then time to optimize equipment on the short ball.

Might make more sense to just make the change to the short ball the rule and eliminate the long ball in 10 years.

The Tour players seem to like the long ball. What incentive the PGATour have to switch to the short ball? 

USGA/RA have created a hot mess.  

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, LeoLeo99 said:

I disagree with you about "bifurcation" semantics but there are some interesting aspects to this.

 

Will people want to play the shorter ball so that they are playing the same rules as the pros on TV?

When will up and coming elite players make the switch from the long ball to the short ball?  There will be people caught between the two balls.  I'm scratch with the long ball so I switched to the short ball and now I'm a 2 handicap.  Do I qualify for USGA opens?

I don't think 3 years is enough time.  The club manufacturers have optimized their equipment on the long ball.  It will take a while to develop a short ball and then time to optimize equipment on the short ball.

Might make more sense to just make the change to the short ball the rule and eliminate the long ball in 10 years.

The Tour players seem to like the long ball. What incentive the PGATour have to switch to the short ball? 

USGA/RA have created a hot mess.  

 

I know opinions vary, but bifurcation has a pretty specific meaning in the context of the rules.  I don't think anyone really wants bifurcation, but this is still just a Model Local Rule (with a lot of implications).

 

Totally agree it will be a PR mess and only guessing it will be discussed vigorously behind the scenes - wouldn't be surprised if the USGA and R&A delay the move to a "final" version and the timetable by the time the August date rolls around.  Handicap calculation and rules for posting I think would be a pretty big challenge.  But I'm sure getting a consensus for "buy in" will be the bigger obstacle in the context of professional golf in particular.  

 

I think the ruling bodies, particularly USGA, have a lot less leverage on this issue than many years ago.  The ruling bodies, Augusta National, PGA of America, LPGA, DP World Tour have so many cooperative and official joint initiatives that I still won't be surprised if nothing happens that is all that significant, but I'll bet meetings will be lively the next few months (and maybe the time during the heat of the seasons won't prove to allow enough time for consensus, if it can be reached).  I don't think much will happen right away and Ridley's state of the game presser at the Masters may be interesting and maybe the next real look into where things are at, but that isn't all that far away.

 

ALL IMO!

[rogolf]

I wonder if the Ruling Bodies just considered reducing the weight of the ball (for everyone) instead of just the elite tours/events/players.

[mark m]

When the USGA changed the ball in 1930 to 1.68 (from 1.62) inches, it first had a weight of 1.55 ounces. It was derogatorily called the “balloon ball” and was hated by the public. It was bad in the wind. They adjusted it to 1.62 ounces in 1931. 
 

As you probably know, the smaller “British” ball was used in the Open until 1974. And it was actually used by the US team at the Ryder Cup in 1967 on home turf at Champions in Houston.

[storm319]

6 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

You are incorrect.

 

The comment period leading up to this release closed last September and this release is the result and natural evolution of that per their procedures, you aren't accurately putting forth how these things evolve.  It's a continuation, not a resurrection of some dead initiative, which is what you seem to suggest, so no, it is far from a formality.  They have't reached the "final" release of the rule.

 

No different at this point than the new ROG put out for discussion and comment in 2017, then changed and clarified, and a final out in 2018 and effective in 2019.

 

 

Re-read my post. I said that they have adopted all past EQUIPMENT related proposals. I’d have do some digging to find the quote that I posted in a prior thread, but it mentioned that they only propose changes that they intend to adopt. In this case, it is clear that they have made up their mind and I doubt anything from the comment period will change that (unless maybe every major stake holder other than ANGC states that they do not intend on implementing the MLR for any of their events).

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

Re-read my post. I said that they have adopted all past EQUIPMENT related proposals. I’d have do some digging to find the quote that I posted in a prior thread, but it mentioned that they only propose changes that they intend to adopt. In this case, it is clear that they have made up their mind and I doubt anything from the comment period will change that (unless maybe every major stake holder other than ANGC states that they do not intend on implementing the MLR for any of their events).

Then that’s it then.