USGA and R&A announce proposal to limit golf ball performance for elite level competition

[TLUBulldogGolf]

9 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

I did say I was not going to post in this thread but I have a thought based on talking to people deep in R&D at a few different OEMs I feel is worth fleshing out. 

 

My thought is, you narrow the lane for these brilliant minds and I think they get better. By the time this rule takes effect. They will have figured out a way to both pass the tests implemented by the USGA and have zero limits or hindrances on actual performance.. 

 

Are they going to pull a VW and trick the test or something? I'm not denying the knowledge these OEMs have but it's pretty cut and dry that the ball needs to fly shorter when hit harder. It's possible they could find a way to design it to drop off at the test speed I suppose, but that would be to the detriment of the fastest guys out here. 

 

35 minutes ago, CLEVELAND59 said:

To me some of that is purely vanity money.  Of the examples you cited Torrey, Augusta National and Colonial are the only ones who host tour events annually.  The rest host major professional or amateur events every few years and quite frankly I question whether or not those courses actually needed to make significant changes or if it was more of the membership saying "omg that guy shot 15 under on our course and that's unacceptable and we need to make a championship set of tees that makes me feel better about the even par I shoot every week from the member tees", because that's a reality too.  And the other point I'd like to make is that a lot of the money spent on these refurbs wasn't spent on the course itself, much of it was in the areas of infrastructure, ranging from irrigation systems, sub air systems and the like, regrading areas to allow for more tournament infrastructure such as hospitality tents, spectator viewing.  These are choices these clubs are making out of some sense that these are changes they need to make in order to be able to continue to be part of the picture to host events going forward and I'm not sold that's the case at all at least in the terms of the physical course design itself....the work done to increase the infrastructure in terms of hospitality tents, spectator viewing options etc. may be more true.  

 

As for places you cite like Agusta spending $25 million, not really a fair example due to the circumstances regarding the purchase of that land.  The land they purchased had a background bidding war and some other considerations that drove the price well beyond what it was expected to be.  Harding Park spending $24 million on its face looks enormous but then you have to subtract from that number all the costs in that project that had nothing to do with the course itself but to the further development of the course for public use that had no relation to the actual physical golf course itself so far as its design or layout for tournament play.

 

I'll give you an example of a course that just went through a complete redo and that is Oak Hill East, which will host the PGA Championship this year.  They didn't go the route of making the course as long as they could stretch it, building new tees to increase the length, etc.  Instead they went for a restoration of the original Ross design from when it was built.  It actually removed some of the tees that had been added, rebuilt all the greens, restored bunkers, returned to its traditional routing.  And having seen it first hand I can tell you this course will give a tremendous test of golf this May without having to be tricked up, tricked up, elongated, and turned into an unrecognizable course.  

 

https://www.rochesterfirst.com/pga-championship/restoration-of-oak-hills-east-course-is-complete/

 

True enough they didn't stretch it length wise but it's clear they made additions to be prepared for the professional/high level am game. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by TLUBulldogGolf

[hollabachgt]

21 minutes ago, CLEVELAND59 said:

To me some of that is purely vanity money.  Of the examples you cited Torrey, Augusta National and Colonial are the only ones who host tour events annually.  The rest host major professional or amateur events every few years and quite frankly I question whether or not those courses actually needed to make significant changes or if it was more of the membership saying "omg that guy shot 15 under on our course and that's unacceptable and we need to make a championship set of tees that makes me feel better about the even par I shoot every week from the member tees", because that's a reality too.  And the other point I'd like to make is that a lot of the money spent on these refurbs wasn't spent on the course itself, much of it was in the areas of infrastructure, ranging from irrigation systems, sub air systems and the like, regrading areas to allow for more tournament infrastructure such as hospitality tents, spectator viewing.  These are choices these clubs are making out of some sense that these are changes they need to make in order to be able to continue to be part of the picture to host events going forward and I'm not sold that's the case at all at least in the terms of the physical course design itself....the work done to increase the infrastructure in terms of hospitality tents, spectator viewing options etc. may be more true.  

 

As for places you cite like Agusta spending $25 million, not really a fair example due to the circumstances regarding the purchase of that land.  The land they purchased had a background bidding war and some other considerations that drove the price well beyond what it was expected to be.  Harding Park spending $24 million on its face looks enormous but then you have to subtract from that number all the costs in that project that had nothing to do with the course itself but to the further development of the course for public use that had no relation to the actual physical golf course itself so far as its design or layout for tournament play.

 

I'll give you an example of a course that just went through a complete redo and that is Oak Hill East, which will host the PGA Championship this year.  They didn't go the route of making the course as long as they could stretch it, building new tees to increase the length, etc.  Instead they went for a restoration of the original Ross design from when it was built.  It actually removed some of the tees that had been added, rebuilt all the greens, restored bunkers, returned to its traditional routing.  And having seen it first hand I can tell you this course will give a tremendous test of golf this May without having to be tricked up, tricked up, elongated, and turned into an unrecognizable course.  

Souther, Hills, Oakland Hills, Winged Foot, Baltusrol, LACC, all completed restorations, Nothing different than Oak Hill.

 

But if they were true restorations, they'd all have gotten much shorter. Architects would argue that they restore the courses to play the same way they did originally, but that's a lot like restoring a 1952 corvette with an LT5 under the hood. Instead Oak Hill will play 200 yards longer than it did for the 2013 PGA Championship.

[QuigleyDU]

1 minute ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Are they going to pull a VW and trick the test or something? I'm not denying the knowledge these OEMs have but it's pretty cut and dry that the ball needs to fly shorter when hit harder. It's possible they design it to drop off at the speed I suppose, but that would be to the detriment of the fastest guys out here. 

I have no clue. I am not that smart. But it is a test. They will figure what the test is and work around it or use it to their advantage.. 

[rope_hook]

One thing I haven't read yet is an explanation as to why professionals hitting it further is bad thing? Because country clubs full of millionaires have to spend some millions on their course? They didn't raise the basket in the NBA because players can jump higher, did they? Is scoring significantly lower in the majors? Even if it is, is that bad for golf? 

[elwhippy]

Would it not be easier to make driver heads smaller? And who gets to design the new Tour ball? 

[Ferguson]

1 hour ago, CLEVELAND59 said:

Taking a current design that's been proven and validated and tweaking it versus starting out with a clean slate to a completely different standard.  We are talking millions to create a golf ball for a very very small segment of the game.  That cost will be passed along not only in terms of the cost of that ball for those who aren't at the highest levels (who likely would receive them gratis) but are mandated to use that ball but to the cost of other balls and products as well.  

 

It's a golf ball.  The makers have the equipment, it's just a shift in materials.  

[CLEVELAND59]

2 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Are they going to pull a VW and trick the test or something? I'm not denying the knowledge these OEMs have but it's pretty cut and dry that the ball needs to fly shorter when hit harder. It's possible they design it to drop off at the speed I suppose, but that would be to the detriment of the fastest guys out here. 

 

 

https://www.rochesterfirst.com/pga-championship/restoration-of-oak-hills-east-course-is-complete/

 

True enough they didn't stretch it length wise but it's clear they made additions to be prepared for the professional/high level am game. 

which is sort of my point.  The restoration took it back to its original design and origins, which will provide a good hard but fair test of golf without it being 9 miles long.  I think some of these changes we've seen with adding length only drives the game into the hands of the longest drivers of the ball.  If you make the course so long that eliminate every other club in the bag on 14 holes of the course what's the point?

[James the Hogan Fan]

It is a pity back when the ProV1 appeared, the powers that be did not, could not, nip it right away. Prior to the that era, the game had a 'governor' so to speak in that one could (oversimplification) play a soft cover wound ball that spun like crazy, or a hard 2 piece ball that would go farther but come in hot. 

 

The golf ball tech explosion changed all that. I consider myself a reasonably competent golfer, who can obtain 240-50 carry with a Srixon Z785. If I hit an old Durable Titleist with a persimmon driver, (or a ProV, or a duosoft) I am overjoyed to see it fly 210-220, keeping it on planet earth being a nice bonus. 

 

Golf didn't have issues from 1950-1985/90 when equipment was effectively stagnant. Tour pros played the same drivers without issue for a decade or more. 

 

Does reigning in distance really hurt the players? Does it hurt you and me? Is it that bad that with a nerfed ball I'll have to shoot my 84 from the whites instead of the blues? 

[Creedo77]

An opinion that matters, from an Instagram page 

 

 

[Hitn18]

From a business perspective this will cost Golf Ball manufactures millions of dollars.  How many people buy balls because of what the Pros play, (Even though there is no way they can execute the same shots) and why would companies like Titleist/TM/Callaway/Bridgestone continue to spend $$$$ on top of line ball RD when they know the non pro will not buy that ball anymore.  Everyone looses in this deal.  Participation, equipment sales, course construction all up and as usual the USGA does it’s part to weaken the increase in golf across the board.  Once again the USGA proves it’s being run by a bunch of idiots.  Grow the rough!!!!

Edited March 14, 2023 by Hitn18

[elwhippy]

Just a thought. How about making the Pros go back to say a 2005 versions of tour balls? 

[jdl]

2 hours ago, Mike412 said:

I think it boils down to what do we want golf to be. Do want want the game to be about pure distance or do we want to see the players use all the clubs in the bag. I personally want a more well rounded game.

 

Brandon Matthews had some very interesting things to say about this today. He is strongly supportive of it which is interesting since he’s one of the players with the most to lose with a ball change.

 

 

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, Mike412 said:

I have been around a lot of manufacturing in different industries, mostly building and modifying lines for different models, and I would be surprised if this is a big deal. Titleist manufactures a catalogue of balls from soft to hard with different covers, cores, layers, etc.. Once the balls are designed, manufacturing just isn’t a big deal.

 

If what they have been saying in their marketing all these years is true they should be able to dial back up the recipe for the original ProV1 and be pretty close to the performance characteristics that they are wanting to impose.

 

In other words, should be rather easy to retrograde the performance.

[smashdn]

4 minutes ago, Creedo77 said:

An opinion that matters, from an Instagram page 

 

Matters no more than any other stakeholder's.  Different stakeholders have different perspectives.  This person's is but one among many.

[Golfnutgalen]

18 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

The first part I wholeheartedly agree with…..but driver size? What do you think that would accomplish?  They’re not hitting it all over the face so a reduced size would mean nothing imo.

 

They average distance has gone up mostly because there are more good players on tour.  And they are good AND long.  So the average goes up.  30 years ago a Daly, Couples or Love were 20-30 yards longer than the average player. Last year there were only 2 players as much as 20 yards longer than the average. Simply because they are all long.  
  The average in the last 15 years or so has gone up less because of equipment changes than that simple fact that there are just more good long players.  And when you take two players of equal skill in all aspects of the game but one is 20 yards longer the long player is effectively “better”.  Nothing you can do to alleviate that fact.

 

I pointed out driver size because it seemed to correlate better than anything else with the distance boom in 2003. And I don't agree with the assumption that all the players hit the ball in the middle of the face, Tiger, Jack, sure. But the modern player who has never had to hit a 200 cc driver full speed? If they can all power to them. They've done studies which seem to point out that the modern tour player is more accurate with their driver than their 3 wood.

 

Like I said earlier, I have no problem with saying the last 15 years of distance increases are due to faster players and better understanding of launch conditions, but before that? It's almost entirely the driver size and graphite shaft technology with the rest of it being the prov1 and then prov1x.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by Golfnutgalen

[bekgolf]

What if the golf ball companies don't make the proposed ball?  Just tell the USGA to make their own ball to their own specs in their own factory? 

 

USGA doesn't have a factory of course.  How can they mandate a golf ball company to manufacture a ball at a loss?  They can't can they.  Don't make the ball and see what happens.

[caniac6]

I have played Titleist Pro V1x for a long time, and currently have a pretty good supply. I would guess the price of these will go up significantly at some point. Snell makes a darn good ball, but they are not played on Tour. This could be very beneficial to companies like Snell that don’t have to spend big R&D money to develop a new ball.

[James the Hogan Fan]

15 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

The first part I wholeheartedly agree with…..but driver size? What do you think that would accomplish?  They’re not hitting it all over the face so a reduced size would mean nothing imo.

 

They average distance has gone up mostly because there are more good players on tour.  And they are good AND long.  So the average goes up.  30 years ago a Daly, Couples or Love were 20-30 yards longer than the average player. Last year there were only 2 players as much as 20 yards longer than the average. Simply because they are all long.  
  The average in the last 15 years or so has gone up less because of equipment changes than that simple fact that there are just more good long players.  And when you take two players of equal skill in all aspects of the game but one is 20 yards longer the long player is effectively “better”.  Nothing you can do to alleviate that fact.

 

One could argue that equipment making it easier to hit the ball longer (ie hitting it longer has less of a potential accuracy penalty than it once did) allows a larger population of less skilled players to compete on distance alone.

 

[gvogel]

18 minutes ago, Creedo77 said:

An opinion that matters, from an Instagram page 

 

 

If the Tour made their own rules, the top players would be driving it 375 and the players would say, yeah, OK.  They would never get around to changing anything, or they might not have any limits.  They enjoy hitting driver, wedge.  Some fans do too, but a majority are getting sick of it.

Edited March 14, 2023 by gvogel
spelling

[Golfnutgalen]

Just now, James the Hogan Fan said:

 

One could argue that equipment making it easier to hit the ball longer (ie hitting it longer has less of a potential accuracy penalty than it once did) allows a larger population of less skilled players to compete on distance alone.

 

 Yep. Check out Tiger and Phil's swings in the 90s. Way smoother and also more accurate. 

[smashdn]

14 minutes ago, rope_hook said:

One thing I haven't read yet is an explanation as to why professionals hitting it further is bad thing? Because country clubs full of millionaires have to spend some millions on their course? They didn't raise the basket in the NBA because players can jump higher, did they? Is scoring significantly lower in the majors? Even if it is, is that bad for golf? 

 

What percentage of tournaments are held at "country clubs full of millionaires" compared to public access courses?

 

Would you like to run down the 2022/2023 PGA Tour schedule and see?

 

Do the other players on the course actively defend against players making shots?

 

Using scoring as a barometer is short-sided thinking.

[kasting333]

31 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

I wouldn't attribute those gains to the golf ball either. From 2007 until now it's probably due to optimizing launch angles and spin rates first combined with even stronger faster players and In the elephant in the room low spinning forgiving drivers. 

 

If they really wanted a rollback to prior standards they would limit the driver size, but I can understand why they aren't going there because it's much simpler to just focus on the ball. 

The modern low spin ball combined with the larger, less workable drivers have inherently benefited the players with a natural fade or players that shape the ball less in general. 
 

The scary part is the USGA is not going to be doing a true rollback. They will come up with new standards for manufacturers to create a new tour ball without fully knowing the impact at the Tour level or more importantly what bifurcation will do to the game. Just look out how they are researching this stuff. It’s ridiculously flawed. 
 

The risk is far greater than the reward and neither side of the argument will come out satisfied in the end. 

[m d g]

20 minutes ago, Hitn18 said:

From a business perspective this will cost Golf Ball manufactures millions of dollars.  How many people buy balls because of what the Pros play

Well, only in the sense that there are only so many golf ball manufacturers.

 

I don't give a damn what the pros play (any of their equipment) because I don't have their games.

 

I've been playing Titleist AVX for a while now because it seems to go noticeably further off the driver for me with a fairly moderate swing speed. And it has plenty of spin around the greens.

 

I could play the ProV1x at the same price and have the satisfaction that the 'big boys' play that ball, but why would I if it doesn't perform as well for me?

 

I also laugh at the equipment threads of amateurs (even scratch) who can't wait to get their hands on the same setups that Tiger (or whoever) has. Dude, I don't care who you are. Unless you're a professional golfer or a very high-ranking amateur, what Tiger hits will NOT be the best choice for you. Ever.

[PowderedToastMan]

To all those who've commented that think manufacturers will make a tour ball and a separate ball that doesn't conform in pro events-when was the last time an OEM made an amateur-conforming box groove wedge? 

[Dutch1008]

17 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

I have played Titleist Pro V1x for a long time, and currently have a pretty good supply. I would guess the price of these will go up significantly at some point. Snell makes a darn good ball, but they are not played on Tour. This could be very beneficial to companies like Snell that don’t have to spend big R&D money to develop a new ball.

I don't think it will really effect the manufacturers. Titleist already produces limited run balls like the left dash and left dot that they don't advertise to the masses. The PV1 and PV1x can stay the same while they produce a left dash or left dot version for the tour that is restricted.  

[rope_hook]

The only thing that matters in professional golf is score. That's entirely the point. As for clubs full of millionaires I can list several right off the top of my head. Quail Hollow, Augusta, Colonial, Muirfield, Firestone, Riveria.....where should I stop? 

[bladehunter]

35 minutes ago, rope_hook said:

One thing I haven't read yet is an explanation as to why professionals hitting it further is bad thing? Because country clubs full of millionaires have to spend some millions on their course? They didn't raise the basket in the NBA because players can jump higher, did they? Is scoring significantly lower in the majors? Even if it is, is that bad for golf? 

NBA players don’t jump higher. Chicken McNuggets just makes them grow taller.  They actually jump less.  Because they’re taller on average.  

[munichop]

I expect one of the tipping points in this work had to do with the way the OLD Course was played last year by most of the players.  Many of the famous bunkers were no longer relevant to the holes as a lot of players just hit over them.  Couple that with ANGC and its multiple renovations including the lengthening of 13 and 15 again and you can understand the reasons  behind the new restrictions.  @ things have transformed golf more in the last 20 years than any ball though- trackman and strokes gained data.  Those two elements have allowed players to optimize their equipment faster and adjust their strategy (bomb and gouge) in ways that didn't exist years ago.

There are a few less expensive conditions of competition that could be used to dial back distance like reduced tee height or no tee at all, higher fairway cuts etc. Sadly most of today's golfers do not remember previous versions of the game when few par 5's could be reached in 2 and you were lucky to have 9 iron or less into only a handful of greens during the round. 

Remember these changes are for the top players.  You and I will not be affected much if at all. BTW the notion of comparing a golf course to basketball makes no sense as a golf course's defenses are passive and basketball has players defending.  The only comparison would be free throws as the shot has been the same all along and no one can defend you.  

[bladehunter]

3 minutes ago, PowderedToastMan said:

To all those who've commented that think manufacturers will make a tour ball and a separate ball that doesn't conform in pro events-when was the last time an OEM made an amateur-conforming box groove wedge? 

Ahh.  Somebody agrees with something I said a millennia ago.  Lol. That this won’t end as bifurcation.  It’s going to end as a ball rollback.   For all.   

[Golfnutgalen]

To my point earlier, the only year Tiger had a significant increase in his distance off the tee was 2005 when he finally  switched to a longer graphite shafted driver with a 410 cc clubhead (up from 260 cc for his 975 D). The rest of the tour saw similar gains when they switched about 2 years earlier. 

 

I don't know why the tour refuses to slow down their fairways either. The players would hit more fairways and hit longer clubs into the greens a win-win situation if you want to bring golf back to how it used to be played. 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by Golfnutgalen