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

[Pnwpingi210]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Pretty much. Thread probably didn't need to continue once the USGA/R&A actually made their spec. For as long as it was "proposed" and in the comment period, there was a point to debate. But now it's a rule. If the USGA/R&A didn't listen to us during the comment period, I don't think they're going to change their mind now. 

 

All that's left is for the pro-RB crew to gloat while the anti-RB crew laments the future. Instead we're still continuing to litigate a decision that's already been made. 

This is a Voice of reason - good post and I appreciate it.

 

An alternative to litigating a decision.  Those who wish to drive change could organize and do some outreach to the USGA on why they believe the decision is wrong.   Put all that energy toward something potentially productive at advancing the cause.  
 

nobody in this thread made the decision to roll back the ball, and nobody in this thread is having their mind change no matter how it is debunked by data, anecdotes, or how it effects someone else personally. 

Edited March 18 by Pnwpingi210

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

This is a Voice of reason - good post and I appreciate.

 

A alternative to litigating a decision.  those who wish to drive change could organize and do some outreach to the USGA or why they believe the decision is wrong.   Put all that energy toward something potentially productive at advancing the cause.  
 

nobody in this thread made the decision to roll back the ball, and nobody in this thread is having their mind change no matter how is debunked by data, anecdotes, or how it effects someone else personally. 

"nobody in this thread made the decision to roll back the ball, and nobody in this thread is having their mind change no matter how is debunked by data, anecdotes, or how it effects someone else personally."

 

And everyone in this thread thinks that they can change someone's mind by applying their own brand of logic. 

Edited March 18 by Titleist99

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Titleist99 said:

"nobody in this thread made the decision to roll back the ball, and nobody in this thread is having their mind change no matter how is debunked by data, anecdotes, or how it effects someone else personally."

 

And everyone in this thread thinks that they can change someone's mind by applying their own brand of logic. 

Also a fair point.

[mgoblue83]

Just now, Titleist99 said:

"nobody in this thread made the decision to roll back the ball, and nobody in this thread is having their mind change no matter how is debunked by data, anecdotes, or how it effects someone else personally."

 

And everyone in this thread thinks that they can change someone's mind by applying their own brand of logic. 

 

 

When is the last time someone changed their mind on anything in this country? Logic and facts don't matter much anymore...

[bekgolf]

15 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

"nobody in this thread made the decision to roll back the ball, and nobody in this thread is having their mind change no matter how is debunked by data, anecdotes, or how it effects someone else personally."

 

And everyone in this thread thinks that they can change someone's mind by applying their own brand of logic. 

 

I can accept a different point of view and discuss differences.  By keeping an open mind I am able to change my opinion and I like it when I understand where someone is coming from even if I disagree with them.

 

With that said I'm dug in on this one.  I like how exciting the PGA Tour events are, I want more distance for myself not less.  I don't see a problem and probably never will. 

 

I'll still play golf and play by the rules.  I hope the folks who tell me it won't matter for me are correct but I still don't want the change.

[Titleist99]

10 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

I can accept a different point of view and discuss differences.  By keeping an open mind I am able to change my opinion and I like it when I understand where someone is coming from even if I disagree with them.

 

With that said I'm dug in on this one.  I like how exciting the PGA Tour events are, I want more distance for myself not less.  I don't see a problem and probably never will. 

 

I'll still play golf and play by the rules.  I hope the folks who tell me it won't matter for me are correct but I still don't want the change.

100%. You won't get any argument from me.🤣

[gvogel]

48 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

"nobody in this thread made the decision to roll back the ball, and nobody in this thread is having their mind change no matter how is debunked by data, anecdotes, or how it effects someone else personally."

 

And everyone in this thread thinks that they can change someone's mind by applying their own brand of logic. 

I'm waiting to try the new ball.  Depending upon how I like it or not, I may change my mind.

[ThinkingPlus]

Someone needs to start the COR rollback thread now so we can get our fill of that debate before the ruling bodies dial back to 0.78 (or more). Wonder if they will "grandfather in" persimmon. LOL!

[karstens_ghost]

42 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Someone needs to start the COR rollback thread now so we can get our fill of that debate before the ruling bodies dial back to 0.78 (or more). Wonder if they will "grandfather in" persimmon. LOL!

 

Don't tempt them.

 

BTW, I did change my mind based on this forum. I went into it with a thought that it might not be that bad, but I quickly understood who benefitted, how it doesn't solve the stated problems, and makes no sense.

 

That's when I proceeded to believe that it was better to leave the market and the rule alone, and force professionals to use softer balls as designated. I put in that feedback, and like everyone else, that was a black hole.

[smashdn]

What would it take to get the benefits desired then?  Just how drastic a change are we talking?  Confine that to ball alone or are you all thinking have a go at all the clubs?

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, smashdn said:

What would it take to get the benefits desired then?  Just how drastic a change are we talking?  Confine that to ball alone or are you all thinking have a go at all the clubs?

The number has been discussed ad nauseum.  It is 20%. That would likely roll back equipment to the early 20th century.

[smashdn]

20 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The number has been discussed ad nauseum.  It is 20%. That would likely roll back equipment to the early 20th century.

 

With all due respect, you did a really poor job of answering three distinct questions.

 

If you had rather not discuss on a discussion forum that is your prerogative.  Feel free to not reply.

[ThinkingPlus]

32 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

With all due respect, you did a really poor job of answering three distinct questions.

 

If you had rather not discuss on a discussion forum that is your prerogative.  Feel free to not reply.

1) 20 %

2) 20 % (You asked the same question twice)

3) Ball and all clubs (that's equipment). I suppose they could outlaw spikes on shoes, but that would become a safety issue.

 

The easy way to think about it is to realize the ruling bodies want their championships held on firm and fast golf courses not to exceed about 7200 yards. Modern players playing modern equipment can bomb and gouge that setup to death. The ruling bodies hate bomb and gouge strategy and hate that it is the optimal strategy to play golf. They have been trying to kill it since the groove debacle.

 

So in order to return to the halcyon days of fairways and greens, equipment in all forms must be dialed back to overcome improved agronomy and maintenance, better fitness and instruction, and engineered equipment. The 20% number bandied about by Jack, et. al., is about right to achieve the ruling bodies goals and desires as well as handling any future extra effort and athletic growth in the game.

[smashdn]

9 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

(You asked the same question twice)

 

Actually I was thinking some might say some form of added spin in addition to a percentage reduction.  If you confined your thoughts to a percentage reduction in distance alone it would be the same answer to two different questions.

 

Obviously I have my thoughts, and thus how I worded the three questions, but I wanted others'.  Especially those who say the current proposal doesn't go far enough for the benefit they are claiming.  

 

You think the distance reduction alone is enough to get those benefits.  How so?  (That isn't meant to be argumentative, but to foster further discussion if you are inclined.)

 

Far to say there are equipment rules we would like to see but we often talk of the proposed ones knowing that the RB's have to temper them so they are palatable?

[Ty_Webb]

47 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Actually I was thinking some might say some form of added spin in addition to a percentage reduction.  If you confined your thoughts to a percentage reduction in distance alone it would be the same answer to two different questions.

 

Obviously I have my thoughts, and thus how I worded the three questions, but I wanted others'.  Especially those who say the current proposal doesn't go far enough for the benefit they are claiming.  

 

You think the distance reduction alone is enough to get those benefits.  How so?  (That isn't meant to be argumentative, but to foster further discussion if you are inclined.)

 

Far to say there are equipment rules we would like to see but we often talk of the proposed ones knowing that the RB's have to temper them so they are palatable?

 

One thing I think would be quite interesting is to not have a concrete single limit on any particular spec for the golf ball. But you get a certain limited amount of combined stuff. Something like:

 

max spin with a wedge = 6000 8000 10000 12000

max speed with driver = 160 165 170 175 (say for a 115 mph club speed)

 

Then if you pick the 12000 spin you can only have 160 ball speed. 10000 spin you could have 160 or 165 ball speed. If you want 175 ball speed then you can only have 6000 spin. That's kind of like how it was pre 2000. The balatas wouldn't go as far, but they spun a lot more, where a pinnacle would go miles, but you got no spin with it. Then players would have to decide if they want the distance or the control. At least it would be evened out across players. 

[ThinkingPlus]

43 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Actually I was thinking some might say some form of added spin in addition to a percentage reduction.  If you confined your thoughts to a percentage reduction in distance alone it would be the same answer to two different questions.

 

Obviously I have my thoughts, and thus how I worded the three questions, but I wanted others'.  Especially those who say the current proposal doesn't go far enough for the benefit they are claiming.  

 

You think the distance reduction alone is enough to get those benefits.  How so?  (That isn't meant to be argumentative, but to foster further discussion if you are inclined.)

 

Far to say there are equipment rules we would like to see but we often talk of the proposed ones knowing that the RB's have to temper them so they are palatable?

You can't really make a spinnier ball in any significant way. It is a material limitation. The cover material largely determines max spin. Balata > urethane > ionomer.  Going back to balata is a non-starter because of durability, cost, and availability. Reducing distance is the only adjustment knob the RBs have to meet their desires. The current ball proposal is pitiful in what it will achieve, hence one of the many reasons it is stupid.

 

What does palatability have to do with it? There is no one holding the ruling bodies accountable for their actions. They dictate the ROG to the golfing world. They can do whatever they want assuming they are willing to pay the legal fees.

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

One thing I think would be quite interesting is to not have a concrete single limit on any particular spec for the golf ball. But you get a certain limited amount of combined stuff. Something like:

 

max spin with a wedge = 6000 8000 10000 12000

max speed with driver = 160 165 170 175 (say for a 115 mph club speed)

 

Then if you pick the 12000 spin you can only have 160 ball speed. 10000 spin you could have 160 or 165 ball speed. If you want 175 ball speed then you can only have 6000 spin. That's kind of like how it was pre 2000. The balatas wouldn't go as far, but they spun a lot more, where a pinnacle would go miles, but you got no spin with it. Then players would have to decide if they want the distance or the control. At least it would be evened out across players. 

 

I don't know how you regulate something like that but that is a novel idea and a new way of thinking about it.  Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

What does palatability have to do with it? There is no one holding the ruling bodies accountable for their actions. They dictate the ROG to the golfing world. They can do whatever they want assuming they are willing to pay the legal fees.

 

You just brought up one reason.  They also have to toe the line on what the public is willing to accept.  I really do not think that they can just make up any rule they want and it be abided by unconditionally.  

 

For instance, if they came out and said we are going back to persimmons and no wedge loft greater than 50*, they would have a mutiny of golfers and lose any credibility to continue to be that governing organization.  They govern in as much as we consent for our games to be governed by them.  There are great gobs of people, dare I say most, who don't play by The Rules.  If non-conforming clubs were more mainstream and provided a clear advantage over those that do conform, I would suspect we would see more people going that route.

 

We have already seen that the idea of bifurcation, though arguably less intrusive on most golfers, was not a palatable change.

[GoGoErky]

20 minutes ago, smashdn said:

For instance, if they came out and said we are going back to persimmons and no wedge loft greater than 50*, they would have a mutiny of golfers and lose any credibility to continue to be that governing organization.  They govern in as much as we consent for our games to be governed by them. 

This is just what he said. When they don’t want to deal with the legal fees they will not make a decision that will lead to that. So they aren’t governing to our consent. If they were then the rollback wouldn’t be a think because the majority of golfers don’t want it.

 

Edit: they literally said doing nothing wasn’t an option, so they were hell bent on making a change no matter what anyone said. That’s not governing to consent and only being responsible to their wishes.

 

20 minutes ago, smashdn said:

There are great gobs of people, dare I say most, who don't play by The Rules.  If non-conforming clubs were more mainstream and provided a clear advantage over those that do conform, I would suspect we would see more people going that route.

And those gobs of people still use confirming clubs. The an availability of non confirming clubs isn’t there. It’s easier for people to walk into a store and buy conforming clubs and balls than to buy non conforming. Plus most people don’t want to be labeled by their buddies as cheaters. 

Edited March 20 by GoGoErky

[ThinkingPlus]

18 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

You just brought up one reason.  They also have to toe the line on what the public is willing to accept.  I really do not think that they can just make up any rule they want and it be abided by unconditionally.  

 

For instance, if they came out and said we are going back to persimmons and no wedge loft greater than 50*, they would have a mutiny of golfers and lose any credibility to continue to be that governing organization.  They govern in as much as we consent for our games to be governed by them.  There are great gobs of people, dare I say most, who don't play by The Rules.  If non-conforming clubs were more mainstream and provided a clear advantage over those that do conform, I would suspect we would see more people going that route.

 

We have already seen that the idea of bifurcation, though arguably less intrusive on most golfers, was not a palatable change.

Remember, it is for the "good of the game". All the "little people" can't grasp the bigger picture. They (meaning us) don't matter. Only litigation could truly dissuade the ruling bodies.

[Mudguard]

On 3/17/2024 at 2:42 PM, ThinkingPlus said:

I do. If the ruling bodies roll back equipment for the pros, the same should apply to ams. Either we all feel the pain or none do.

 

I don't see why anything should apply to amateurs really. We don't have crowds lining each fairway to keep an eye on errant balls. If distance is a problem for a tiny percentage of golfers, then fix it for them. Imagine going back to small headed drivers. My father who has just turned seventy hits a modern driver maybe 180m on the fly. Giving him a Titleist PT driver and a slow ball would mean most par fours are out of reach. 

Heck this week I'm travelling for work and take my B bag, in which I've rebuilt a 905R I had when they came out. It's 460cc and I look at and still think it's small compared to my modern Ping. The irony is, I think out of the middle it goes just as far, but man, if you misshit it, it goes nowhere. 

Surely a slow ball would have been the most elegant solution for pros. The manufacturers can all fight each other for wins and if the Pro V marked with an * wins on tour, I'll still use the Pro V without the pro asterix. High level amateur events can choose which they use, I vaguely recall older friends telling my a similar thing happened with the big ball/small ball. Decent amateurs switched if they knew they needed to get used to it for serious events.  

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

I don't see why anything should apply to amateurs really. We don't have crowds lining each fairway to keep an eye on errant balls. If distance is a problem for a tiny percentage of golfers, t

Because nobody wants bifurcation 

 

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

Surely a slow ball would have been the most elegant solution for pros. The manufacturers can all fight each other for wins and if the Pro V marked with an * wins on tour, I'll still use the Pro V without the pro asterix.

This was the MLR which the tours and The PGA of America said nope not interested in it.

 

Again because nobody wants bifurcation.

 

 

Edited March 20 by GoGoErky

[bekgolf]

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

 

I don't see why anything should apply to amateurs really. We don't have crowds lining each fairway to keep an eye on errant balls. If distance is a problem for a tiny percentage of golfers, then fix it for them. Imagine going back to small headed drivers. My father who has just turned seventy hits a modern driver maybe 180m on the fly. Giving him a Titleist PT driver and a slow ball would mean most par fours are out of reach. 

Heck this week I'm travelling for work and take my B bag, in which I've rebuilt a 905R I had when they came out. It's 460cc and I look at and still think it's small compared to my modern Ping. The irony is, I think out of the middle it goes just as far, but man, if you misshit it, it goes nowhere. 

Surely a slow ball would have been the most elegant solution for pros. The manufacturers can all fight each other for wins and if the Pro V marked with an * wins on tour, I'll still use the Pro V without the pro asterix. High level amateur events can choose which they use, I vaguely recall older friends telling my a similar thing happened with the big ball/small ball. Decent amateurs switched if they knew they needed to get used to it for serious events.  

 

The ball manufacturers said they wouldn't make the ball and the PGA Tour said they wouldn't use it.  The USGA decided to put the rule on everyone even though 80% of USGA members (iirc) polled were against it.

 

IMO they did this to shift responsibility for the very unpopular rule from the USGA rule makers and on the PGA Tour.

 

The whole thing stinks.

[Mudguard]

38 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Because nobody wants bifurcation 

 

This was the MLR which the tours and The PGA of America said nope not interested in it.

 

Again because nobody wants bifurcation.

 

 

 

It's interesting in a way. I do feel the voice of your average tour pro drowns out thousands of weekend warriors. I did hear an interesting podcast that suggested manufacturers strongly encouraged their players to speak against bifurcation. 

I'm trying to think what equipment rule changes that were aimed at pros have been implemented since I started playing. 

460cc limit

COR limit

Square grooves

Anchoring

Maximum shaft length. 

 

I'd say none of these were due to your 14 handicapper having 45 points on a Saturday. 

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

 So they aren’t governing to our consent.   That’s not governing to consent and only being responsible to their wishes.

 

I said , "in as much as they consent."  You then go on to give an example of exactly the level of consent to being governed some are willing to endure.  It is question of how intrusive of a rule is one willing to abide by.

 

2 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

And those gobs of people still use confirming clubs. The an availability of non confirming clubs isn’t there. It’s easier for people to walk into a store and buy conforming clubs and balls than to buy non conforming. Plus most people don’t want to be labeled by their buddies as cheaters. 

 

Again, there are degrees of willingness to adhere to The Rules.  Equipment rules most are fine with abiding by.  Same group may "play it up,"  give inside the leather or take breakfast balls.  It is all in what is normally acceptable.

 

Do you check that your playing partners are using clubs on the conforming list?  I don't and I also occasionally play with clubs not on the list either.  Not because I gain some advantage, I just like playing with those clubs.

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Remember, it is for the "good of the game". All the "little people" can't grasp the bigger picture. They (meaning us) don't matter. Only litigation could truly dissuade the ruling bodies.

 

You know where I come down on this.  A modest step that keeps golf being able to be played safely and sustainably in it's current (or smaller) physical footprint seems a good move to me and one I will adjust to.

[GoGoErky]

29 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

 

It's interesting in a way. I do feel the voice of your average tour pro drowns out thousands of weekend warriors. I did hear an interesting podcast that suggested manufacturers strongly encouraged their players to speak against bifurcation. 

I'm trying to think what equipment rule changes that were aimed at pros have been implemented since I started playing. 

460cc limit

COR limit

Square grooves

Anchoring

Maximum shaft length. 

 

I'd say none of these were due to your 14 handicapper having 45 points on a Saturday. 

The ruling bodies have made bad decisions on almost every equipment decision and they have been about optics.

 

The 460 limit had nothing to do with the pros. They actually thought pros would never use anything that big and at the time manufacturers weren’t event close to anything that big. 
 

COR limit which has moved to CT. Not sure that was just aimed at pros but really a general move. Iirc they increased the ODS from 103 to 115 to keep up with the new speed of players. 
 

Square grooves didn’t do anything they hoped and now it’s just an mlr with nothing in sight they actually push that as an actual rule.

 

Anchoring was an optics decision that did nothing but push some pros out of golf. Just as bad a decision as the squared grooves.

 

maximum shaft length is another bad decision. Nobody but Phil and brooke

he season were over 46”. Again an optics decision and probably also so they could say look we are doing something 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

5 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

One thing I think would be quite interesting is to not have a concrete single limit on any particular spec for the golf ball. But you get a certain limited amount of combined stuff. Something like:

 

max spin with a wedge = 6000 8000 10000 12000

max speed with driver = 160 165 170 175 (say for a 115 mph club speed)

 

Then if you pick the 12000 spin you can only have 160 ball speed. 10000 spin you could have 160 or 165 ball speed. If you want 175 ball speed then you can only have 6000 spin. That's kind of like how it was pre 2000. The balatas wouldn't go as far, but they spun a lot more, where a pinnacle would go miles, but you got no spin with it. Then players would have to decide if they want the distance or the control. At least it would be evened out across players. 

 

I was thinking about something similar, something like a spin delta requirement. But you can get around such limitations with loft changes. Though forcing 6 and 7 degree drivers might hurt accuracy and lead to dialing back. 

 

 

[GoGoErky]

30 minutes ago, smashdn said:

said , "in as much as they consent."  You then go on to give an example of exactly the level of consent to being governed some are willing to endure.  It is question of how intrusive of a rule is one willing to abide by.

No you said as much as the public is willing to accept. For anyone who wants to keep a handicap they have to abide by it unconditionally and by the nature of equipment sales everyone has to abide by it because non conforming equipment isn’t as readily available.

 

quoting your words

3 hours ago, smashdn said:

You just brought up one reason.  They also have to toe the line on what the public is willing to accept.  I really do not think that they can just make up any rule they want and it be abided by unconditionally.  

 

31 minutes ago, smashdn said:

Again, there are degrees of willingness to adhere to The Rules.  Equipment rules most are fine with abiding by.  Same group may "play it up,"  give inside the leather or take breakfast balls.  It is all in what is normally acceptable.

 

Do you check that your playing partners are using clubs on the conforming list?  I don't and I also occasionally play with clubs not on the list either.  Not because I gain some advantage, I just like playing with those clubs.

Correct. Golfers even keeping handicaps will make up their own rules, but we are all pretty much at the mercy of what the ruling bodies decide if we want to keep playing golf whether recreationally or for handicap or in competitions.

If im gambling with playing partners yes im checking their bags, im counting clubs and so on. Happens even with the group of friends and former coworkers I have been playing with since I started playing with them 28 years ago
 

[smashdn]

19 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

You just brought up one reason.  They also have to toe the line on what the public is willing to accept.  I really do not think that they can just make up any rule they want and it be abided by unconditionally.  

 

For instance, if they came out and said we are going back to persimmons and no wedge loft greater than 50*, they would have a mutiny of golfers and lose any credibility to continue to be that governing organization.  They govern in as much as we consent for our games to be governed by them.  There are great gobs of people, dare I say most, who don't play by The Rules.  If non-conforming clubs were more mainstream and provided a clear advantage over those that do conform, I would suspect we would see more people going that route.

 

We have already seen that the idea of bifurcation, though arguably less intrusive on most golfers, was not a palatable change.

 

16 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

No you said as much as the public is willing to accept.

 

16 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

quoting your words

 

I'll quote my own words for you so you don't miss it this time.