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

[Ashley Schaeffer]

2 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Its on the USGA - RA list.

I wonder if they will think about having a meeting to plan to consider the possibility of taking further steps to ponder the hypothetical of moving in the direction of maybe taking action in the next 20 years.

[Shilgy]

7 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Time to shrink the driver head and make hitting the sweet spot meaningful. (I guess I have said that before.)

Finally, a logical idea in this thread I agree with.  I don’t think it would make much of a difference at all at the tour level however.

[ThinkingPlus]

14 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Finally, a logical idea in this thread I agree with.  I don’t think it would make much of a difference at all at the tour level however.

The pros will never notice and the rest of us will suffer. I like it! It's the USGA/R&A way.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

I would rather see it trend to 305 than 320, though I think the level to which things will homogenize, whatever is done with the equipment, is being overblown.

 

15 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Finally, a logical idea in this thread I agree with.  I don’t think it would make much of a difference at all at the tour level however.

 

This has been floated all through this thread. Several tour players on record saying it would, though I’d agree it would probably be marginal at best.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The pros will never notice and the rest of us will suffer. I like it! It's the USGA/R&A way.

Say it with me…bifurcation. 

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Say it with me…bifurcation. 

No one wants that...but you.

[Shilgy]

17 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

I would rather see it trend to 305 than 320, though I think the level to which things will homogenize, whatever is done with the equipment, is being overblown.

 

 

This has been floated all through this thread. Several tour players on record saying it would, though I’d agree it would probably be marginal at best.

I get it…but I do think we will see the day the leaders are about where they are now and tour average hits 305-310. Look at the list from last year and in time the guys averaging under 295 will be replaced by players hitting it 305 or so.

 

Speaking of with no rollback of course. 🤔

 

But even with the rollback with what has been bandied about as the 15-20 yard drop by the longest the tour average will likely still be in the 295 range soon.

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, Shilgy said:

The only number increasing is average…not the leaders.  I would think it shows that the average “might” continue to rise a bit until it nears the leaders number.

 

 

Edited to add…for all your self deprecating talk I think you’re a smart guy.  Smart enough certainly to answer my 305 question.  But you choose not to.

 

Hand to God, I honestly did not/do not understand what you are asking how you have it worded.  I took a stab at it anyway but I guess I still misunderstood.

 

But if you think that only the average is increasing, look again at what I graphed and the numbers.  The leader's distance is increasing as well.  Not at the rate the average is, but it is still increasing.

 

If you don't believe what I graphed (maybe you think I cherry-picked it) feel free to go to the PGAT website and see for yourself.  That is why I do my best to cite or show where I get that stuff from.  It is able to be reproduced if one is inclined.

[smashdn]

52 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Finally, a logical idea in this thread I agree with.  I don’t think it would make much of a difference at all at the tour level however.

 

We have ploughed this ground before.  

 

Just for example, how old is your current driver in your bag?  How many times in the last 5 years have you replaced it?

 

I am still gaming a Titleist 913.  I am just know contemplating getting a new one, probably a ping something or other.  I will admit, especially here on WRX, I am likely an outlier with regards to how long I have kept it in play.

 

Now, how many times have you played a different ball?  Not different model, but physically a different ball.  I am doing pretty good if I finish with the ball I started the round with.

 

$4 ball versus $400+ driver.  I think it far more palatable to change the ball than the more expensive, less often replaced clubs.  I don't even replace my wedges every year.

 

I would be on-board with reducing all the woods' sizes down.  I only carry a driver and 3W and I suck with my 3W.  I could go and grab persimmons from the garage today to replace them in my bag.  Having said that and played with persimmons regularly the last five years, the bigger difference is the ball not the woods.  The combination of a spinny ball and woods is dramatically different than the modern ball and driver though.  With the right modern ball, persimmon driver is not that bad to play with provided you hit it well.  Goes lower for me but with that comes more roll so, while it is definitely shorter as a rule, it is not stupid shorter.  Maybe 15 yards.

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 hours ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Say it with me…bifurcation. 

 

I have no ideological objection to bifurcation. If it only affects the Tour players and not me, then it's not really a problem for me. 

 

But there are really only two outcomes of bifurcation (assuming the PGAT chose to adopt the MLR, which they signaled they would not do):

 

1. The ball manufacturers now have a nerfed ball that the Tour players play, and can't reasonably market that to the average golfer because the average golfer won't play a nerfed ball, ESPECIALLY if he's gambling with his buddies and they're all playing the real ball. So they reduce their advertising budget, and I'm not sure there are enough financial services and boner pill suppliers to make up the difference. This hurts the Tour but doesn't affect me. (As I've said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm about 95% sure the reason the Tour won't adopt the MLR is that the ball manufacturers threatened to cut advertising.)
2. The ball manufacturers realize that they can't market a nerfed ball to the average golfer, so there's a trickle down effect and they pull all other balls (except for 2pc marshmallows) not meeting the MLR specs from the market, and so the only premium balls available on the market are nerfed balls. Yeah, maybe you can get real balls from DTC, but that'll get you roasted by your buddies for playing a cheater ball--which incidentally plays right into the hands of the big companies to keep people from going DTC. A trickle down hurts me just as much as what the USGA/R&A did.

I viewed the trickle down as the most likely progression of bifurcation, so I opposed bifurcation. 

[Chunkitgood]

Something like reverting to smaller or even all solid clubs would hurt ordinary golfers in exact proportion to the a degree ordinary golfers suck at golf.

 

I think it would be a good thing, people could learn to play or quit.

 

Whoever had the idea of making clubs easier to the point where people who scoop up on the ball come here and represent themselves as decent ball strikers should be called to account.

 

Golf equipment should be calibrated so that in order to break 90 you have to learn to strike the ball properly.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

37 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I have no ideological objection to bifurcation. If it only affects the Tour players and not me, then it's not really a problem for me. 

 

But there are really only two outcomes of bifurcation (assuming the PGAT chose to adopt the MLR, which they signaled they would not do):

 

1. The ball manufacturers now have a nerfed ball that the Tour players play, and can't reasonably market that to the average golfer because the average golfer won't play a nerfed ball, ESPECIALLY if he's gambling with his buddies and they're all playing the real ball. So they reduce their advertising budget, and I'm not sure there are enough financial services and boner pill suppliers to make up the difference. This hurts the Tour but doesn't affect me. (As I've said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm about 95% sure the reason the Tour won't adopt the MLR is that the ball manufacturers threatened to cut advertising.)
2. The ball manufacturers realize that they can't market a nerfed ball to the average golfer, so there's a trickle down effect and they pull all other balls (except for 2pc marshmallows) not meeting the MLR specs from the market, and so the only premium balls available on the market are nerfed balls. Yeah, maybe you can get real balls from DTC, but that'll get you roasted by your buddies for playing a cheater ball--which incidentally plays right into the hands of the big companies to keep people from going DTC. A trickle down hurts me just as much as what the USGA/R&A did.

I viewed the trickle down as the most likely progression of bifurcation, so I opposed bifurcation. 

 

Lots of tour players play clubs that can't really be marketed to the average golfer (outside a small subset).

 

This is all just a rehash of stuff discussed 100x in this thread, I can see the reasoning but think the approach would matter. But OEMs were unlikely to have ever embraced it. I think it's curious that it would be viewed as a cheater ball when you have many people saying they will stockpile current spec balls when it comes time for the new rules to go into effect. I also wonder about the precedent for further changes, if this sets the tone for any rule changes applying to all any future steps become that much more difficult. 

[maamold]

9 hours ago, smashdn said:

Respectfully disagree as there have been plenty to say and use the Hank Kuehne distances then and whomever is leading distances now to say that there has not been increases.

Additionally has been said in this thread that the ~2-3 yard increases YoY are insignificant.

 

With all of these increases in technology, has there been an influx of people into the game?  Or have two things been what has really drawn people in, Tiger and Covid?  

 

Even without a huge spike in the next 20 years, if it is only 2 yards per year, is that not significant?  That would be a huge departure from year 2000 yardages let alone 1990 yardages.  Furthermore, that would be an astronomical departure from the distances a course designed and built in 1940 would be suited for.

I'll post this again for everybody's viewing.

From 1980 to '93 there was a 4 yard gain.
From 1993 to '05 there was a 27 yard gain.
From 2005 to '23 there was a 10 yard gain.

The total average gain since 1980 is 41 yards. 
The new rule is expected to cut out 11-13 of those yards from the average tour pro. So the 2023 average of 293 would be down to ~280-282 yards. 

 

 

[maamold]

3 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Hand to God, I honestly did not/do not understand what you are asking how you have it worded.  I took a stab at it anyway but I guess I still misunderstood.

 

But if you think that only the average is increasing, look again at what I graphed and the numbers.  The leader's distance is increasing as well.  Not at the rate the average is, but it is still increasing.

 

If you don't believe what I graphed (maybe you think I cherry-picked it) feel free to go to the PGAT website and see for yourself.  That is why I do my best to cite or show where I get that stuff from.  It is able to be reproduced if one is inclined.

Here's a chart I posted awhile back showing Field and Leader numbers (similar to yours chart).

[maamold]

8 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

Hah, this is one of this "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" situations. You're cherry picking 4 data points and hitting plot line. It's not like you don't have the data available for each year. Now, you're just cherry picking to make a line plot fit your narrative. Try it again using the available data and see how that line changes. Hell, I've even done that work for you and posted the plots probably 50-100 pages ago. The tldr; is that the distance leaders have roughly plateaued. There is seasonal variance, the growth of the line for the leaders is almost completely flat. 

Edit: here's one with the actual years for you. Pattern becomes a bit more clear when you actually have all the data. Even the slight uptick since 2020 nothing to do with equipment. That's purely technique and fitness (see Bryson and Rory). 

 

 

What are the dots supposed to represent? What is the line supposed to represent? 

[GoGoErky]

11 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

Something like reverting to smaller or even all solid clubs would hurt ordinary golfers in exact proportion to the a degree ordinary golfers suck at golf.

 

I think it would be a good thing, people could learn to play or quit.

 

Whoever had the idea of making clubs easier to the point where people who scoop up on the ball come here and represent themselves as decent ball strikers should be called to account.

 

Golf equipment should be calibrated so that in order to break 90 you have to learn to strike the ball properly.

Intentionally driving people away isn’t got for any sport. 
 

 

[gvogel]

17 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

Pros aren’t having trouble finding the sweet spot even on their fairway woods. 
 

 

And we'll find out (hopefully) if that translates to a 9* driver.

[gvogel]

16 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

No one wants that...but you.

It works in baseball.

[Ty_Webb]

37 minutes ago, gvogel said:

It works in baseball.

 

How many times in baseball does someone from a local league get a chance to play against the major league players? In golf, one of the cool things is that in the US Open and the Open, anyone with a low enough handicap can have a chance to play. But sure - just throw that on the trash pile.

[Shilgy]

13 hours ago, maamold said:

Here's a chart I posted awhile back showing Field and Leader numbers (similar to yours chart).

Good chart…since 2003 the leaders are quite static.  A couple outliers but in the 215 range on average.
 It’s the depth of the tour that is raising the average.

[betarhoalphadelta]

15 hours ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Lots of tour players play clubs that can't really be marketed to the average golfer (outside a small subset).

 

This is all just a rehash of stuff discussed 100x in this thread, I can see the reasoning but think the approach would matter. But OEMs were unlikely to have ever embraced it. I think it's curious that it would be viewed as a cheater ball when you have many people saying they will stockpile current spec balls when it comes time for the new rules to go into effect. I also wonder about the precedent for further changes, if this sets the tone for any rule changes applying to all any future steps become that much more difficult. 

 

Admittedly the club stuff is as much selling a brand as a product, at least with irons. Most rational golfers know they're simply not good enough to play blades.

 

But there's BIG pressure on pro golfers to play the newest driver because they market and sell the crap out of those to the rest of us.

 

I think you can see this empirically... When you watch a golf broadcast, what do you see more, ads for irons or ads for drivers? And what do the driver ads always say? "Our longest and most forgiving ever!" OEMs market what they can most easily sell--and pros hitting a specific driver is a lot easier to sell than pros hitting blade irons because fewer players buy blades. The proof is in the broadcast--drivers have more ads. 

 

The difference with the ball is that it won't be like irons... Wanting to strike the ball as well as the pros to be able to play blade irons is aspirational. Wanting to play a nerfed ball because the pros do it is not. There's no rational argument that you should play a nerfed ball because you're "good enough" for it. The ball doesn't show off your elite ballstriking skills. All it does is fly shorter. 

 

You don't think that we'd have seen a reduction in ball ads if the MLR was adopted? That the ball ads would be more about the branding than the specific ball (ProV1/x, Chrome Tour, TP5/x), etc, because the ball is nerfed? 

[Pnwpingi210]

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

How many times in baseball does someone from a local league get a chance to play against the major league players? In golf, one of the cool things is that in the US Open and the Open, anyone with a low enough handicap can have a chance to play. But sure - just throw that on the trash pile.

Almost all mlb teams do this multiple times per year.  It’s called a fantasy camp or something of that nature. 
 

That being said, you don’t have to enter a tournament and perform well to gain access to those camps.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

42 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Admittedly the club stuff is as much selling a brand as a product, at least with irons. Most rational golfers know they're simply not good enough to play blades.

 

But there's BIG pressure on pro golfers to play the newest driver because they market and sell the crap out of those to the rest of us.

 

I think you can see this empirically... When you watch a golf broadcast, what do you see more, ads for irons or ads for drivers? And what do the driver ads always say? "Our longest and most forgiving ever!" OEMs market what they can most easily sell--and pros hitting a specific driver is a lot easier to sell than pros hitting blade irons because fewer players buy blades. The proof is in the broadcast--drivers have more ads. 

 

The difference with the ball is that it won't be like irons... Wanting to strike the ball as well as the pros to be able to play blade irons is aspirational. Wanting to play a nerfed ball because the pros do it is not. There's no rational argument that you should play a nerfed ball because you're "good enough" for it. The ball doesn't show off your elite ballstriking skills. All it does is fly shorter. 

 

You don't think that we'd have seen a reduction in ball ads if the MLR was adopted? That the ball ads would be more about the branding than the specific ball (ProV1/x, Chrome Tour, TP5/x), etc, because the ball is nerfed? 

 

I honestly do not care in the slightest. I don't play the ball I play because of pros playing it, I play it because it performs the best for me through the bag.

 

I also don't agree that it wouldn't be aspirational but that just seems like an ideological difference. I would get some persimmons if I was able to play more, but I like to compete and I'm obviously not going to compete with those so I have to maximize the benefit from the playing time I do get. 

[GoGoErky]

3 hours ago, gvogel said:

And we'll find out (hopefully) if that translates to a 9* driver.

Well some play 9° and some 7.5-8°

 

They don’t have issues finding the sweet spot. They are good enough to know when they are a groove high or low with irons, they know where the sweet spot is on clubs and will hit it very consistently 

[smashdn]

I don't think either ruling body should concern themselves with what the OEM's will or will not be able to market in the future.  They can't worry themselves with outside noise like that.

 

Marketing /= sales.  You have to buy the balls to play this game.  It might hurt the companies that always touted being the longest, but I'd bet overall sales across all brands wouldn't change.

[clevited]

20 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Finally, a logical idea in this thread I agree with.  I don’t think it would make much of a difference at all at the tour level however.

 

Lol, that one has been proposed many times so I assume sarcasm?  I miss my back and forth with Miles about this, specifically with regards to 3 wood head size and pro's being scared (actually not scared at all) to swing full berries at it still.

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Good chart…since 2003 the leaders are quite static.  A couple outliers but in the 215 range on average.
 It’s the depth of the tour that is raising the average.

But yuh don’t understand distance is 40 yards longer now than in 93 and that’s the issue, doesn’t matter matter that the limits on ball and distance has kept top end distance static and that we won’t see 20-30 yard increases in the next 20 years, it’s just that distance jumped 20 years ago and it has to go back to 1993 or earlier distance or the game is just bad (read sarcasm)

 

other than 2 number being bigger than the other it doesn’t state what issue is caused by the increase other than not liking the distance golfers hit the ball today 

Edited March 5 by GoGoErky

[smashdn]

On 3/1/2024 at 5:28 PM, GoGoErky said:

It’s not like these guys make birdie every hole and they aren’t as close to the pin as people perceive even with a wedge in hand 

 

4 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

They don’t have issues finding the sweet spot. They are good enough to know when they are a groove high or low with irons, they know where the sweet spot is on clubs and will hit it very consistently 

 

Which is it?

 

Where is the variability coming from that makes it so "they aren’t as close to the pin as people perceive even with a wedge in hand"?  Are the clubs that bad that even in the sweet spot with a wedge they cannot get it that close?

[radiman]

Just now, smashdn said:

 

 

Which is it?

 

Where is the variability coming from that makes it so "they aren’t as close to the pin as people perceive even with a wedge in hand"?  Are the clubs that bad that even in the sweet spot with a wedge they cannot get it that close?

[smashdn]

5 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

But yuh don’t understand distance is 40 yards longer now than in 93 and that’s the issue, doesn’t matter matter that the limits on ball and distance has kept top end distance static and that we won’t see 20-30 yard increases in the next 20 years, it’s just that distance jumped 20 years ago and it has to go back to 1993 or earlier distance or the game is just bad (read sarcasm)

 

Could you define what all "the game" encompasses?  That might help me better understand where you are coming from.