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

[clevited]

6 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Yeah I’m not sure the USGA or RA used all those arguments.  Some if not most of those have come from people speculating in this thread.  

 

They specify the below points in their distance insights report.  To me, those look like things they aim to correct or limit effectively.  They did not come close to doing anything of the sort.

 

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, subrew said:

I'm looking forward to see which of the balls on the market now, fall in the "30% will pass the update test as-is."  Perhaps the OEMs will just slap a small "2028 Conforming" print on the ball packaging quietly, not wanting to admit they over-exaggerated in the spring when they cried foul. 

This!

 

theres a clip with drew cooper who swings around 130-135mph.  He lost 5 mph ball speed using a lower compression ball bs high compression (brxs vs bx). We already have ball optimized for high and low swing speeds, me thinks lots of the low swing speed balls will be unimpacted.

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, subrew said:

I'm looking forward to see which of the balls on the market now, fall in the "30% will pass the update test as-is."  Perhaps the OEMs will just slap a small "2028 Conforming" print on the ball packaging quietly, not wanting to admit they over-exaggerated in the spring when they cried foul. 

It will be some of the cheap, low spinning marshmallows.

[subrew]

9 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

This!

 

theres a clip with drew cooper who swings around 130-135mph.  He lost 5 mph ball speed using a lower compression ball bs high compression (brxs vs bx). We already have ball optimized for high and low swing speeds, me thinks lots of the low swing speed balls will be unimpacted.

 

Exactly.

 

You can find another TXG video if you search for their Duo Soft review.  They compare it to a ProV1 at both higher Matty swing speeds, then 93-94mph swing speeds.

 

The Duosoft lost something like 7mph of ball speed at Matt's speed, which was still under the 125mph value.  But the Duosoft was either the same length or longer (because of low spin) than the ProV1 at 94mph.  

 

A lot of us soft ball players aren't going to notice any difference.

[Pnwpingi210]

3 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

They specify the below points in their distance insights report.  To me, those look like things they aim to correct or limit effectively.  They did not come close to doing anything of the sort.

 

Agree to disagree that reducing the distance off the tee will address any of those

[clevited]

5 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Agree to disagree that reducing the distance off the tee will address any of those

 

Can you explain that further?  Are you saying you think their solution announced today does or doesn't effectively address any of those "problems"?

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, clevited said:

 

Can you explain that further?  Are you saying you think their solution announced today does or doesn't effectively address any of those "problems"?

I can, but I’m choosing not to.  You have your beliefs and I have mine.  
 

it’s not like debating things on the internet that we aren’t intimately informed on is going to change somebody’s mind once they have already established their position.

[gvogel]

32 minutes ago, jvincent said:

I'm waiting for that other golf site to fire up the robot and hit all the balls in the test matrix under the new conditions to see some actual data.

 

Given that it's a seven year time frame, I have lots of time to adapt.

The other guys have come to the conclusion that we will all be playing shorter, higher launching, lower spinning golf balls.

 

That is just not true.  When the USGA tests a certain ball, they will try to achieve a higher launch angle and less spin than in the former test.  But they can change angle of impact (up or down) and loft of the driver to try to obtain those launch conditions.  Which means that a higher spinning ball hit more on the upswing with less loft in the test, could be approved.  But it would still be higher spinning.  And a little shorter.

 

Let's all remember that the sky is not falling.  And the ball will be shorter by a little, which is the objective of the rule.  Stay tuned.

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, gvogel said:

The other guys have come to the conclusion that we will all be playing shorter, higher launching, lower spinning golf balls.

 

That is just not true.  When the USGA tests a certain ball, they will try to achieve a higher launch angle and less spin than in the former test.  But they can change angle of impact (up or down) and loft of the driver to try to obtain those launch conditions.  Which means that a higher spinning ball hit more on the upswing with less loft in the test, could be approved.  But it would still be higher spinning.  And a little shorter.

 

Let's all remember that the sky is not falling.  And the ball will be shorter by a little, which is the objective of the rule.  Stay tuned.

I’m more curious to see how this impacts irons.  The modern ball and players irons rewards very steep angles of attack with lots of shaft lean.  

[gvogel]

22 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

What's next, a golf attire rollback?

 

 

 

I heard that Harry Vardon was a pretty good ball striker.

[maamold]

4 hours ago, clevited said:

Just for fun.  Mr. Snell on this issue.

 

He had a talk on Youtube and said similar. What was interesting was that he says the new balls aren't faster than the old balls. Does he mean that he had some brand new balata balls made to 1990 spec and had modern players hit them with modern equipment? Where they using pre-1990 clubs or were they using modern high COR drivers with 45" graphite shafts. Was their a dispersion difference (did they measure that)

[clevited]

7 minutes ago, maamold said:

He had a talk on Youtube and said similar. What was interesting was that he says the new balls aren't faster than the old balls. Does he mean that he had some brand new balata balls made to 1990 spec and had modern players hit them with modern equipment? Where they using pre-1990 clubs or were they using modern high COR drivers with 45" graphite shafts. Was their a dispersion difference (did they measure that)

 

I believe he is saying that the initial velocity test has remained unchanged.  I posted a picture a while back of a Titleist Tour Balata ball complete with its specs from Titleist.  It had shown the same initial velocity that we have long been held to, meaning, they built it to that same velocity limit.

 

They also note spin off driver and 8i both of which didn't specify loft.

Edit: Found it

Edited December 6, 2023 by clevited

[DamianD]

The increased distance should be celebrated (not rolled back.) It makes the game exciting, requires more precision.

 

Protecting the game? The R&A en USGA mention the evolution over the past 100 years, well nobody would be playing without that evolution. It's a different world today with many more exiting alternatives to the golf of the past.

[jvincent]

6 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I believe he is saying that the initial velocity test has remained unchanged. 

 

They dropped the initial velocity test a while ago. It's not explicitly constrained anymore but in practice it will fall into a pretty narrow window give the other conditions which are explicitly constrained.

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, jvincent said:

 

They dropped the initial velocity test a while ago. It's not explicitly constrained anymore but in practice it will fall into a pretty narrow window give the other conditions which are explicitly constrained.

 

How long ago did they do that?  Maybe they did so to allow ball speed itself to be lowered as a means for manufacturers to comply to future changes, aka this current change?

[maamold]

This is my favorite....

- Hey, The sky is falling and the ball will go shorter ... What do you do? -

 

71% of people that responded ... "Meh"

[clevited]

1 minute ago, maamold said:

This is my favorite....

- Hey, The sky is falling and the ball will go shorter ... What do you do? -

 

71% of people that responded ... "Meh"

 

Yeah but 6% said they would play less golf.  That is objectively bad, bad bad.

[mitchl]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I can, but I’m choosing not to.  You have your beliefs and I have mine.  
 

it’s not like debating things on the internet that we aren’t intimately informed on is going to change somebody’s mind once they have already established their position.

Awesome.   I am at least going to cut and paste this for later.   I need some picture behind it, it could be the meme of the year.

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, mitchl said:

Awesome.   I am at least going to cut and paste this for later.   I need some picture behind it, it could be the meme of the year.

🤣. I try to be helpful 

[jvincent]

24 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

How long ago did they do that?  Maybe they did so to allow ball speed itself to be lowered as a means for manufacturers to comply to future changes, aka this current change?

 

I'm looking for it, and I can't find a date. Maybe they didn't drop it? It's definitely NOT part of the ODS test.

EDIT: I stand corrected. The Initial Velocity test still exists. But like I said it's not part of the ODS test procedure.

Edited December 6, 2023 by jvincent

[PoolPond]

I would have thought after the USGA completely botched their attempt to control the game with putters, they would have learned a lesson.  I guess not.  These guys have their heads so far up the lower part of their anatomy that they don't have a clue.  My only hope is that by 2030, I am completely done with this game and these fools that write the rules. 

[mitchl]

21 minutes ago, maamold said:

This is my favorite....

- Hey, The sky is falling and the ball will go shorter ... What do you do? -

 

71% of people that responded ... "Meh"

The consensus in my group this past weekend was stock up over the last couple years before the switch.

[cardia10]

2 hours ago, Swisher said:

The pros play there every year. Dunhill. 

And the winning scores range from even par to 20 under. It is condition, lot length, dependent. The USGA has a history of bungling equipment changes and this will be no different and could really allow a new "ruling body" to enter the picture." When your own survey shows there is no issue, then you create a solution to "no issue" you have alienated 90% of your membership by telling them we asked but your opinion is of no value to us.

Edited December 6, 2023 by cardia10

[Pnwpingi210]

I know this thread is about balls, but I did see an interview with morning with the USGA and RA.  Their third announcement is they are looking to make drivers less forgiving for elite players.  I’m paraphrasing, but basically make elite players hit the true center of the face to get max distance and have substantial drop offs for not hitting the center.  So far all the proposed solution have had too many negatives.

[mitchl]

Just now, PoolPond said:

I would have thought after the USGA completely botched their attempt to control the game with putters, they would have learned a lesson.  I guess not.  These guys have their heads so far up the lower part of their anatomy that they don't have a clue.  My only hope is that by 2030, I am completely done with this game and these fools that write the rules. 

 

IMO, they have made 4 significant changes in the past 15 years : grooves, putters, handicap, and now balls.     The handicap was a good thing, specifically - faster change and that there is no longer an adjustment for different tees (it's built into the course handicap now)

The other 3 were bad, and more of a punishment of recreational golfers than the fraction of 1% they were saying they needed to address.   Especially belly putters - anyone who wanted to play them could choose to do that, and if it was a benefit, why were more pros not gaming them?   It was fair since it was allowed for everyone.    

I  suspect that when they say they will continue to look at this and may go to drivers next, then you're going to get a significant change - probably in COR, but maybe even reducing driver size.    Anything they can do to kill the game.   

I used to be a USGA member, but I just don't think they are working in the interest of 99% of the golfers - so not anymore.

[bekgolf]

12 minutes ago, mitchl said:

 

IMO, they have made 4 significant changes in the past 15 years : grooves, putters, handicap, and now balls.     The handicap was a good thing, specifically - faster change and that there is no longer an adjustment for different tees (it's built into the course handicap now)

The other 3 were bad, and more of a punishment of recreational golfers than the fraction of 1% they were saying they needed to address.   Especially belly putters - anyone who wanted to play them could choose to do that, and if it was a benefit, why were more pros not gaming them?   It was fair since it was allowed for everyone.    

I  suspect that when they say they will continue to look at this and may go to drivers next, then you're going to get a significant change - probably in COR, but maybe even reducing driver size.    Anything they can do to kill the game.   

I used to be a USGA member, but I just don't think they are working in the interest of 99% of the golfers - so not anymore.

 

Driver moi of 2000 max was floated around, I wish I could remember where.

[Pnwpingi210]

31 minutes ago, mitchl said:

 

IMO, they have made 4 significant changes in the past 15 years : grooves, putters, handicap, and now balls.     The handicap was a good thing, specifically - faster change and that there is no longer an adjustment for different tees (it's built into the course handicap now)

The other 3 were bad, and more of a punishment of recreational golfers than the fraction of 1% they were saying they needed to address.   Especially belly putters - anyone who wanted to play them could choose to do that, and if it was a benefit, why were more pros not gaming them?   It was fair since it was allowed for everyone.    

I  suspect that when they say they will continue to look at this and may go to drivers next, then you're going to get a significant change - probably in COR, but maybe even reducing driver size.    Anything they can do to kill the game.   

I used to be a USGA member, but I just don't think they are working in the interest of 99% of the golfers - so not anymore.

They (USGA and R&A) confirmed they are looking at drivers for two angles:

 

increased/better testing on driver ct so they can determine when a driver exceeds the ct threshold after it’s been in play and loosened up.

 

The other, and this is tougher to articulate, is making drivers rewarding on center face contact and much less rewarding for off center strikes for elite players.  They acknowledge this is complex and they haven’t figured out how to do it without unwanted negative effects.

[bladehunter]

Place me in the camp of “ they didn’t do enough “.      Without a driver shrink , I wish they’d just left  it alone.  This turned into 3 ring circus with toothless tigers.  

[clevited]

Just now, bladehunter said:

Place me in the camp of “ they didn’t do enough “.      Without a driver shrink , I wish they’d just left  it alone.  This turned into 3 ring circus with toothless tigers.  

 

You got opposite of what you wanted.  You are affected close to the most, while the shorter guys are effected almost nil LOL.  They just crept closer to you.

[idrive]

Reading that the current ball will probably, possibly be conforming when the roll back comes to fruition four- five years from now?

 

Why not just stop anymore advancements with the ball? Just freeze it as it is now.

 

Much like when the max COR for the driver was established.

 

Manufactures aren't going to lose money if this happens. People still have to buy golf balls.