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

[TLUBulldogGolf]

13 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

My issue is my cruising speed is about 108-109. I can get up to about 112 or occasionally 113 if I really go at it, but when I do that I guess I must get steeper and my spin goes through the roof, so it goes shorter than my cruising speed. Personally I'd love it if the equipment would fix that for me, but it doesn't. That sort of thing definitely sways my opinions about this sort of thing. Aside from anything else, I'm pretty sure that the nerfed ball will spin more, which is going to make it worse for me. 

 

If anything it seems likely to spin less if current balls are a guide at all. But that would reflect a softer core as the main way to decrease distance through reduced ball speed, and we won't know for a while how the OEMs tackle the change. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

28 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Ha - that statement was my personal bias.  I took a break from golf around 2013 and picked it up again in 2016-2017.  I had the years current driver when I took a break, and the years current driver when I picked the game.  The 2016 driver was much easier to hit straight and manage spin.  This allowed me to swing much closer to my max speed.  I also watched a lot of golf.  There seems to be less spraying of the ball off the tee by all professionals today vs 2010 ish.  I could be wrong.

 

Were both your 2013 driver and your 2016 driver fit to you? I find it hard to believe a 3 year gap made that much difference based on tech rather than fit. 

 

Stats: https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/102

 

Driving accuracy leader / 5th place / Tour Avg:

1990: Calvin Peete 83.67% / David Edwards 77.57% / Avg 64.98%

2000: Fred Funk 79.75% / Larry Mize 77.96% / Avg 67.78%

2010: Omar Uresti 76.08% / Craig Bowden 72.86% / Avg 63.51%

2015-16: Colt Knost 73.36% / Zac Blair 69.86% / Avg 60.16%

2020-21: Brendan Todd 75.25 / Abraham Ancer 71.05% / Avg 60.69%

2022-23: Russell Henley 72.57% / Lucas Glover 68.86% / Avg 59.09% (included as the last complete year of stats)

2024 (to date): Aaron Rai 77.08% / Zac Blair 72.96% / Avg 59.77%

 

So at least across the 1990 to current era, finding fairways is trending down. 

 

Now, that could mean a lot of things. It could be strategy-based (SG / bomb & gouge). It could be due to distance gains meaning misses that were offline but hit the fairway at 280y are now farther enough offline at 305y to be in the rough. But it doesn't appear tour players are more accurate off the tee with these fancy new drivers and/or ball. 

[Pnwpingi210]

17 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Were both your 2013 driver and your 2016 driver fit to you? I find it hard to believe a 3 year gap made that much difference based on tech rather than fit. 

 

Stats: https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/102

 

Driving accuracy leader / 5th place / Tour Avg:

1990: Calvin Peete 83.67% / David Edwards 77.57% / Avg 64.98%

2000: Fred Funk 79.75% / Larry Mize 77.96% / Avg 67.78%

2010: Omar Uresti 76.08% / Craig Bowden 72.86% / Avg 63.51%

2015-16: Colt Knost 73.36% / Zac Blair 69.86% / Avg 60.16%

2020-21: Brendan Todd 75.25 / Abraham Ancer 71.05% / Avg 60.69%

2022-23: Russell Henley 72.57% / Lucas Glover 68.86% / Avg 59.09% (included as the last complete year of stats)

2024 (to date): Aaron Rai 77.08% / Zac Blair 72.96% / Avg 59.77%

 

So at least across the 1990 to current era, finding fairways is trending down. 

 

Now, that could mean a lot of things. It could be strategy-based (SG / bomb & gouge). It could be due to distance gains meaning misses that were offline but hit the fairway at 280y are now farther enough offline at 305y to be in the rough. But it doesn't appear tour players are more accurate off the tee with these fancy new drivers and/or ball. 

I acknowledged that was my personal bias.  

I’m certainly not a tour pro.  And yes both fitted, although I think the 2016-2017 might have been using a launch monitor, 2012-2013 was not.

 

I think what your showing is the impact of strokes gained.  Accuracy as the tour tracks is simply if the fairway hit correct?  Most pros adopted the strokes gained approach that is hit as far as you can while avoiding hazard/penalty, even if means hitting it in the rough.  Also this doesn’t account for any adjustments the tour is making(making fairways more narrow and increasing the rough)

My original comment was as it pertains to tour pros was more around less lost balls or in the trees (more penal than missing fairways).  This was unclear

 

Edited March 6 by Pnwpingi210

[m d g]

2 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

Whoever buys them up will have to warehouse them.

 

Warehouse?

 

How about a shelf or two in my garage, said shelf currently being used to 'warehouse' dry paint, rusted garden trowels, and leftover parts from the last time I fixed a running toilet.

 

How will I ever find the space? : )

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I think what your showing is the impact of strokes gained.  Accuracy as the tour tracks is simply if the fairway hit correct?  Most pros adopted the strokes gained approach that is hit as far as you can while avoiding hazard/penalty, even if means hitting it in the rough.  Also this doesn’t account for any adjustments the tour is making(making fairways more narrow and increasing the rough)

My original comment was as it pertains to your pros was more around less lost balls or in the trees (more penal than missing fairways).  

 

 

Oddly there's a "driving accuracy percentage" as well as a "fairways hit percentage", so I don't know what reflects the difference. 

 

But if the idea is that the drivers are so much more forgiving, and players are getting distance w/o consequence, it would appear that accuracy is one consequence being traded off. They can't just hit it farther AND straighter.

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Oddly there's a "driving accuracy percentage" as well as a "fairways hit percentage", so I don't know what reflects the difference. 

 

But if the idea is that the drivers are so much more forgiving, and players are getting distance w/o consequence, it would appear that accuracy is one consequence being traded off. They can't just hit it farther AND straighter.

for the tour pro, its mostly not about hitting it straighter than you are today, its about limiting the likely hood the ball goes farther offline as you increase speed.  Think of it as guard rails.  
 

lets you the driving accuracy.  It appears the accuracy is staying around 60 percent.  In 2015 the tour average distance was 290 Today it’s 299.9.   The tour is 10 yards longer (5%) with relatively little change in accuracy.  Thats not insignificant.

 

now for me the amateur.  I’m indeed longer and straighter than I was in 2013 or 2017 and certainly not any younger 🙂

[radiman]

3 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

for the tour pro, its mostly not about hitting it straighter than you are today, its about limiting the likely hood the ball goes farther offline as you increase speed.  Think of it as guard rails.  
 

lets you the driving accuracy.  It appears the accuracy is staying around 60 percent.  In 2015 the tour average distance was 290 Today it’s 299.9.   The tour is 10 yards longer (5%) with relatively little change in accuracy.  Thats not insignificant.

 

now for me the amateur.  I’m indeed longer and straighter than I was in 2013 or 2017 and certainly not any younger 🙂

Assuming then you are also faster.  And maybe the mechanics have improved?  Lower handicap?  

 

I am longer now than I have ever been at 42 years old.  But, I am also significantly faster.  But, my accuracy has definitely declined haha.  My handicap has also gone up.  I am still hunting for these fancy clubs that mask misses though.  

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, radiman said:

Assuming then you are also faster.  And maybe the mechanics have improved?  Lower handicap?  

 

I am longer now than I have ever been at 42 years old.  But, I am also significantly faster.  But, my accuracy has definitely declined haha.  My handicap has also gone up.  I am still hunting for these fancy clubs that mask misses though.  

I’m in my 40s.

 

my peak speed is definitely not what it was 10 years ago, but my ability to swing closer to my max due to equipment has increased over time.  
 

we all still have miss hit, but the mishits now stay in play most of the time .

[Ty_Webb]

Under Decade, the first part of the "can you hit driver?" question is "is there 65 yards between penalty hazards?" That's because PGA Tour players can hit it within a 65-yard window about 95% of the time with driver. 65 yards is quite wide and that's the best of the best. There are not very many people out there who can hit it 300+ and keep it within a 65-yard corridor reliably. Just throwing that out there.

[PedronNiall]

1 hour ago, m d g said:

 

Warehouse?

 

How about a shelf or two in my garage, said shelf currently being used to 'warehouse' dry paint, rusted garden trowels, and leftover parts from the last time I fixed a running toilet.

 

How will I ever find the space? : )

Somebody's gonna have to keep them in stock for the hoarders to scoop up, and they're only going to do that for so long. If there weren't holding costs associated with keeping old goods on hand then retailers would hold onto every single item until it sells, but that's not reality.

 

Even at clearance prices they aren't going to be able to move the majority of the old balls once they're illegal. All the wholesalers won't even buy them all up.

 

There's the possibility that the OEMs just draw down production drastically in the last year to save themselves from stock no one will buy, but despite that and secondary markets I'm willing to bet there will be plenty of golf balls that just end up on the trash heap. Remember as well that this won't just affect premium balls. There are lots of bargain balls that will no longer conform that don't exactly do big number now; they certainly aren't going to be a hot commodity just because they manage to do decently on distance.

 

As I said, it's all relative because all current market balls face the problem of eventually going in the trash or in the dirt while not being biodegradable, but it's still going to be a lot of wasted product.

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

for the tour pro, its mostly not about hitting it straighter than you are today, its about limiting the likely hood the ball goes farther offline as you increase speed.  Think of it as guard rails.  
 

lets you the driving accuracy.  It appears the accuracy is staying around 60 percent.  In 2015 the tour average distance was 290 Today it’s 299.9.   The tour is 10 yards longer (5%) with relatively little change in accuracy.  Thats not insignificant.

 

now for me the amateur.  I’m indeed longer and straighter than I was in 2013 or 2017 and certainly not any younger 🙂

 

The thing is there are already USGA limits on pretty much everything. MOI (ie forgiveness) has been capped since 2005. Dimensions are capped. Volume is capped, face size is capped. All the manufacturers are doing now is trying to eke out small tiny percentages of improvement while staying within all of the current equipment rules. Even then most of the pros often elect to go with lower MOI driver heads because higher MOI = higher spin = lower distance. They don't need or elect for the same forgiveness as amateurs. 

[Pnwpingi210]

15 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

The thing is there are already USGA limits on pretty much everything. MOI (ie forgiveness) has been capped since 2005. Dimensions are capped. Volume is capped, face size is capped. All the manufacturers are doing now is trying to eke out small tiny percentages of improvement while staying within all of the current equipment rules. Even then most of the pros often elect to go with lower MOI driver heads because higher MOI = higher spin = lower distance. They don't need or elect for the same forgiveness as amateurs. 

True on the limits of the components.  
 

I think what we are starting to see is lower spin, high MOI heads.  Are atleast mid spin high moi heads. Or maybe better said min/max spin managed heads that don’t dip below xxxx number or raise above xxxxx number.  

 

small percent of improvements matter over time.   

 

Edited March 6 by Pnwpingi210

[Shilgy]

22 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I'll answer:

 

1. The discussion of the leaders being static since 2003 is a point saying that it's unlikely that the distance leaders are going to be massively longer 20 years from now. Implicitly, it's a statement that the current equipment standards will prevent future distance gains. 
2. The "215 range" I'm assuming is a typo, and "315 range" was intended. I personally would have said something like "317-323 range" because it seems that's where the distance leaders hover since 2003. Some years are outliers on the low end, and one so far (2023 Rory) is an outlier on the high end. But it doesn't seem like anyone is meaningfully blasting through that ceiling that sits around 320 since the existing equipment standards have been in place. 
3. Goes back to @Simpsonia's point mentioning many times regarding the AVERAGE distance--we know via SG analysis that distance is important, and we have better understanding (fitness / speed training) of what gets distance, and more and more players are committing to it. As older (shorter) players age off tour and are replaced by those who spend the time in the gym improving speed, the average is going to creep closer and closer to the distance leaders. BUT the point about "depth of the tour" is that despite all of that increase in the average, the distance leaders still hover around that 320y ceiling. So there's no indication that future distance leaders will suddenly be 350y or that the average will suddenly be 335y. 

None of that matters to someone who thinks we need to return to 1990s distance and think 2003 distance is WAY too far. But I thought I'd clarify since you asked. 

 

23 hours ago, maamold said:

What is the intention for your statement that the leaders are static since 2003?
What is in the 215 range? 

What does depth of the tour have to do with the data shown?

 

Thank you yes…315.  FFS(fat finger syndrome)🙄

 

And yes to the depth.  There are simply more really really good players today.  And there should be!  They have had the benefit of leaning from the swings of the players of the past AND massive technology advances that help them with their game AND it is much more of a global game than it was not all that long ago.

[maamold]

5 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Yes except very few golf courses are actually obsolete.

 

Several people throughout have said that they don't mind a small handful of long players out there, but it's when all of them are doing it that it's a problem. That's a function of the athletes much more than the equipment. 

 

Also, the limits on golf ball speeds have been around for a long time. The pro v1 was not longer than the distance balls around at the time. The pro v1 was revolutionary because it was a distance ball that you could control. People could have played pinnacles back in the 90s and hit it just as far as they did the pro v1. Here's Jason Zuback with 156mph clubhead speed carrying a drive over 400 yards in 1997. That wasn't a Pro v1...

 

How far would that be going today? 500 yards? No - probably more like 400 yards.

Note that this record was set before the first USGA COR Standard was set (1999) and ball ITR/ACL (2002). It is a good possibility that his driver COR and that Pinnacle ball would not pass the current tests. 
 

[Shilgy]

4 hours ago, gvogel said:

And I would argue that if the equipment was still 1990 vintage, not as many young people would be drawn to the game, because the driver was more difficult to hit and not as many young players would stay with the game.

And yet some of you want the equipment to rollback to the 90’s.  Odd for golf lovers to say that.

[m d g]

3 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

Somebody's gonna have to keep them in stock for the hoarders to scoop up, and they're only going to do that for so long. If there weren't holding costs associated with keeping old goods on hand then retailers would hold onto every single item until it sells, but that's not reality.

 

Even at clearance prices they aren't going to be able to move the majority of the old balls once they're illegal. All the wholesalers won't even buy them all up.

 

There's the possibility that the OEMs just draw down production drastically in the last year to save themselves from stock no one will buy, but despite that and secondary markets I'm willing to bet there will be plenty of golf balls that just end up on the trash heap. Remember as well that this won't just affect premium balls. There are lots of bargain balls that will no longer conform that don't exactly do big number now; they certainly aren't going to be a hot commodity just because they manage to do decently on distance.

 

As I said, it's all relative because all current market balls face the problem of eventually going in the trash or in the dirt while not being biodegradable, but it's still going to be a lot of wasted product.

I was kidding of course...I was joking about the poster who mentioned buying them for his personal stock : )

[GoGoErky]

13 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

True on the limits of the components.  
 

I think what we are starting to see is lower spin, high MOI heads.  Are atleast mid spin high moi heads. Or maybe better said min/max spin managed heads that don’t dip below xxxx number or raise above xxxxx number.  

 

small percent of improvements matter over time.   

 

Moi has been capped at 5900 for awhile. The 10k moi you see is as Howard Jones explained in other parts if the forum is the total between the moi of the two axis. 
 

Spin is a golfers friend. Not everyone on tour is chasing lower spin. That’s marketing for the general public. PGA tour average is just under 2700 yards.

 

Pros want control, they aren’t going to go too low on spin. Iirc DJ likes his spin to be around 2600. There have been several pros from Ping who use the max version head which isn’t low spin. 

[Pnwpingi210]

22 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Moi has been capped at 5900 for awhile. The 10k moi you see is as Howard Jones explained in other parts if the forum is the total between the moi of the two axis. 
 

Spin is a golfers friend. Not everyone on tour is chasing lower spin. That’s marketing for the general public. PGA tour average is just under 2700 yards.

 

Pros want control, they aren’t going to go too low on spin. Iirc DJ likes his spin to be around 2600. There have been several pros from Ping who use the max version head which isn’t low spin. 

I agree mostly with what you said and my post you responded to aligns with that.

 

It’s about spin management (less variation between min/max) across the face on less than ideal strikes.

[Ty_Webb]

12 hours ago, maamold said:

Note that this record was set before the first USGA COR Standard was set (1999) and ball ITR/ACL (2002). It is a good possibility that his driver COR and that Pinnacle ball would not pass the current tests. 
 

 

So to clarify, the restrictions on balls and clubs now are more strict than they were in the late 90s? But distance is an equipment problem? 

[smashdn]

18 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Everyone that plays a high performance tour level ball will be impacted the same percentage under the new ball criteria coming in the future. The RBs were being disingenuous when they indicated slower swingers wouldn't be affected or less so. They basically assumed slower swinging amateurs are already playing the low compression marshmallows that currently meet the future ball criteria or very close to meeting that criteria. So they will be minimally impacted because they currently play an inferior ball.

 

Wasn't part of the reasoning also that slower swing speed players are not compressing the ball to the degree needed to "unlock" the more inner layers of the golf ball?

[smashdn]

20 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

So to clarify, the restrictions on balls and clubs now are more strict than they were in the late 90s? But distance is an equipment problem? 

 

Is it possible that the rules then were not restrictive enough?  Or that there were portions of equipment gains that were not limited by the rules?

 

Is there a rule on shaft design aside from maximum club length and that the cross section must be round?  I am not up on my clubhead design rules, but is there a weight min or max for them?

Edited March 7 by smashdn

[radiman]

32 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

So to clarify, the restrictions on balls and clubs now are more strict than they were in the late 90s? But distance is an equipment problem? 

Yep. These guys just weren’t capable of such feats with the clubs of old. The equipment was so demanding that guys wouldn’t dare awing aggressively. So had they strengthened the gear restrictions and kept guys in tiny drivers and steel shafts, we never would have seen any distance booms. Golfers would have just accepted it and stayed in their lanes...
 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CZcFqMXFp9l/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Edited March 7 by radiman

[ThinkingPlus]

8 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Wasn't part of the reasoning also that slower swing speed players are not compressing the ball to the degree needed to "unlock" the more inner layers of the golf ball?

That's marketing BS. Higher compression balls with urethane covers (i.e. tour level performance balls) provide more distance and more spin for all swing speeds per outdoor launch monitor testing.

[smashdn]

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

That's marketing BS. Higher compression balls with urethane covers (i.e. tour level performance balls) provide more distance and more spin for all swing speeds per outdoor launch monitor testing.

 

I am not saying it is or it is not true, I am asking the question, wasn't that also some of the reasoning given?

 

Higher compression has always been synonymous with a "distance ball" in my mind.  Pinnacle golds and rock flites.  You could crush them but felt like you were playing with a chunk of gravel. 

 

If what you are saying is true, why is there a market at all for softer compression balls, regardless of cover material?  Why are the ball companies "fitting" players to softer compression balls?

 

(I am not arguing, I am legitimately asking because it doesn't make sense to me to have the inferior ball aside from price point.)

[MattC555]

3 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I am not saying it is or it is not true, I am asking the question, wasn't that also some of the reasoning given?

 

Higher compression has always been synonymous with a "distance ball" in my mind.  Pinnacle golds and rock flites.  You could crush them but felt like you were playing with a chunk of gravel. 

 

If what you are saying is true, why is there a market at all for softer compression balls, regardless of cover material?  Why are the ball companies "fitting" players to softer compression balls?

 

(I am not arguing, I am legitimately asking because it doesn't make sense to me to have the inferior ball aside from price point.)

 

That was the case in the '90s, prior to the ProV1.  Premium, tour caliber balls, are better for virtually everyone now.  See the MGS ball test.  I don't want to post the link, as they compete with WRX.  I'll add this quote from said test:

 

Key Findings

1. High Compression Golf Balls Can Work for Nearly Everyone

There is a pervasive belief that lower swing speed golfers need lower-compression golf balls. The results of our test again suggest that many lower swing speed golfers would benefit from higher-compression offerings.

Even in cases where the slower swing speeds all but eliminate the speed advantage of high-compression balls off the driver, the higher spin rates provide a greater ability to hold greens.

For higher swing speed golfers, the distance advantage of firmer compression offerings is clear. For all but the highest spin golfers, lower compression leads to reduced distance off the tee.

With all of that said, if soft feel is important to you, low compression is your only option.

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I am not saying it is or it is not true, I am asking the question, wasn't that also some of the reasoning given?

 

Higher compression has always been synonymous with a "distance ball" in my mind.  Pinnacle golds and rock flites.  You could crush them but felt like you were playing with a chunk of gravel. 

 

If what you are saying is true, why is there a market at all for softer compression balls, regardless of cover material?  Why are the ball companies "fitting" players to softer compression balls?

 

(I am not arguing, I am legitimately asking because it doesn't make sense to me to have the inferior ball aside from price point.)

The core activation argument has been used as a pseudo scientific justification for slow swingers using a low compression marshmallow. However, real test data doesn't support that assertion. Even if the distance for the low compression balls gets close to the high compression balls, the soft balls won't spin as much. Even the urethane covered ones.

 

Price point primarily. People don't like to hear that they must pay top dollar for golf balls in order to get the best performance. Makes the game seem even more elitist which is bad for business. Also some folks like balls that feel soft off the club and don't care if it performs poorly. Or most people just believe the marketing and never look any deeper. 

[Pnwpingi210]

25 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

 

That was the case in the '90s, prior to the ProV1.  Premium, tour caliber balls, are better for virtually everyone now.  See the MGS ball test.  I don't want to post the link, as they compete with WRX.  I'll add this quote from said test:

 

Key Findings

1. High Compression Golf Balls Can Work for Nearly Everyone

There is a pervasive belief that lower swing speed golfers need lower-compression golf balls. The results of our test again suggest that many lower swing speed golfers would benefit from higher-compression offerings.

Even in cases where the slower swing speeds all but eliminate the speed advantage of high-compression balls off the driver, the higher spin rates provide a greater ability to hold greens.

For higher swing speed golfers, the distance advantage of firmer compression offerings is clear. For all but the highest spin golfers, lower compression leads to reduced distance off the tee.

With all of that said, if soft feel is important to you, low compression is your only option.

This is true.  Under the conditions tested. Which is using a robot with a programmed and repeatable delivery.  (This is import as it controls the launch and spin parameters).  The problem is, it’s very likely the high handicap low swing speed golfer doesn’t have delivery dynamics like their testing robot.

 

I would be interesting to see this test reproduced with golfers in the swing speed ranges they call out, of all handicap levels.  I would suspect the variation of face to path delivered by the high handicap, low swing speed golf might produce some interesting results to compare.

 

to summarize - for the low handicap, low swing speed golfer than manages face and path well  the high compression urethane balls are likely the best option for spin and distance.  For high handicap low swing speed golfers that swing 9 degrees out to in with face control issues creating a big left to right ball flight, high compression urethane balls might not be their best fit to keep the ball in play.

Edited March 7 by Pnwpingi210

[smashdn]

30 minutes ago, MattC555 said:

 

That was the case in the '90s, prior to the ProV1.  Premium, tour caliber balls, are better for virtually everyone now.  See the MGS ball test.  I don't want to post the link, as they compete with WRX.  I'll add this quote from said test:

 

Key Findings

1. High Compression Golf Balls Can Work for Nearly Everyone

There is a pervasive belief that lower swing speed golfers need lower-compression golf balls. The results of our test again suggest that many lower swing speed golfers would benefit from higher-compression offerings.

Even in cases where the slower swing speeds all but eliminate the speed advantage of high-compression balls off the driver, the higher spin rates provide a greater ability to hold greens.

For higher swing speed golfers, the distance advantage of firmer compression offerings is clear. For all but the highest spin golfers, lower compression leads to reduced distance off the tee.

With all of that said, if soft feel is important to you, low compression is your only option.

 

Isn't that bolded part the crux though?  If we start talking about urethane covers and spin we are bringing up a characteristic that as far as I know will not be changed with the ball rollback.

 

We are talking about two different aspects of golf ball performance here, distance and then holding a green.  Are we saying that a slight rollback of the distance the ball goes is also going to make it harder to hold a green (from the same distance away)?

 

---

 

And here I was digging the Chrome Softs with my persimmons.  I even was playing them with my modern clubs and wasn't hating the performance.  I could tell the distance was way different than a ProV1 or AVX.  I eventually settled on some Vice ball with a urethane cover, mainly due to availability and price.  Want to say they were like 35 bucks from walmarks and I was in there anyway for something.

Edited March 7 by smashdn

[radiman]

13 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Isn't that bolded part the crux though?  If we start talking about urethane covers and spin we are bringing up a characteristic that as far as I know will not be changed with the ball rollback.

 

We are talking about two different aspects of golf ball performance here, distance and then holding a green.  Are we saying that a slight rollback of the distance the ball goes is also going to make it harder to hold a green (from the same distance away)?

I suppose it would depend on what club you're hitting.  If you are going from a 6i to a 5i, it would be inherently more difficult to hit a green.  I suppose if you move up a bit and hit the same club with the rolled back ball, and they're able to keep all playing characteristics the same, then probably not.  

 

But, we don't even know how the restriction is going to be implemented yet.  Whether it's purely aerodynamics, compression, or spin.  

[farmer]

"But, we don't even know how the restriction is going to be implemented yet."  That sentence embodies the problem the RB's have created.  I suppose that in the interest of "growing the game", the RB's have created a vast swamp of speculation and misinformation.