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

[Simpsonia]

14 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I believe they have the tested last years models and this years models.  You can see some improvements YoY on some models if you compare.  And I believe one of those sites posted an hour long video they speak to it what they are seeing in year over year improvement is forgiveness (ball speed retention and accuracy of shot across the face)

 

You can choose to believe their data and testing protocols or not.  

 

 

There is nothing in the rules that prohibits you from posting the findings of club tests on other websites. The only thing the rules prohibits is linking or encouraging people to go to other golf sites' forums or chats. I'm not going to spend my time doing your research for you. You made the claim, back it up. 

 

Previously you demanded data from the anti-rollback side on numerous occasions, we more often than not obliged you. You could at least return the courtesy and debate in good faith. 

[Nard_S]

10 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

There is nothing in the rules that prohibits you from posting the findings of club tests on other websites.

I've had posts moderated that only had C&P stuff dropped in. So, in my experience that is not correct.

[mgoblue83]

56 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

So here's my turn to do what you often do, and demand the data to back up your claim. Do you have data that can quantify the claimed increase in forgiveness? I'm not talking about all that combined 10k MOI marketing BS. Do you have anything other than marketing speak to quantify this claimed increase in forgiveness? Are we talking a 3% increase in forgiveness, 10%? As far as I know, nobody has done any sort of qualitative or quantitative tests on 'forgiveness', ie a 5mm off-center strike of this new driver retains 15% more ballspeed compared to this 10 year old driver. Without some sort of quantification, just saying there's an increase in forgiveness is meaningless.

 

No, I have not seen data directly comparing clubs from 2005 and 2024 but there is data on a yearly basis that compares "last year" to "this year" and there is a clear trend toward more forgiving drivers year after year. While data matters the lack of data in this case does not disqualify the fact that drivers are indeed significantly more forgiving. 

 

I know this thread is focused on the ball but better solution would have been to reduce driver size to 250 or 300cc in addition to making the ball spin a little more like it used to in the 90s. 

 

With the current equipment we just aren't going to see anyone separate themselves like the superstars of the past were able to. Everyone looks pretty much the same and it's a big reason why ratings are down.

 

Someone like John Daly was an absolute superstar because he was 50+ yards longer than his nearest competitor. If his career started right now he might still be the longest player but it would only be by 5-10 yards and he would not be anywhere near as popular as he was. 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

7 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

There is nothing in the rules that prohibits you from posting the findings of club tests on other websites. The only thing the rules prohibits is linking or encouraging people to go to other golf sites' forums or chats. I'm not going to spend my time doing your research for you. You made the claim, back it up. 

 

Previously you demanded data from the anti-rollback side on numerous occasions, we more often than not obliged you. You could at least return the courtesy and debate in good faith. 

I’m not debating.  I provided the sources for the data which is what you asked for, data is what you asked for.

 

You can review it and decided if the source, data, and testing protocols meet your thresholds.

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

I've had posts moderated that only had C&P stuff dropped in. So, in my experience that is not correct.

Anecdotally I have seen this as well.

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

Without some sort of quantification, just saying there's an increase in forgiveness is meaningless.

 

Do we need to quantify it to agree that it exists to an extent?  

 

Is anyone denying that a Taylor Made Qi10 is more forgiving than a R580?

 

I feel like we don't need to quantify something to support a generally accepted truth such as, more forgiveness in the face (or maybe more accurately less waywardness on mishits or less punishing mishits) gives one some freedom to swing harder/faster.

[Simpsonia]

34 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Do we need to quantify it to agree that it exists to an extent?  

 

Is anyone denying that a Taylor Made Qi10 is more forgiving than a R580?

 

I feel like we don't need to quantify something to support a generally accepted truth such as, more forgiveness in the face (or maybe more accurately less waywardness on mishits or less punishing mishits) gives one some freedom to swing harder/faster.

 

You absolutely need quantification. For example, if a 5mm offcenter strike with the Qi10 retains 98.7% ball speed (numbers made up), then you need to contextualize that. Because if the R580 retains 97.9% ball speed on the same 5mm offcenter strike, well then yes the Qi10 is more forgiving, but in real world numbers that 1 yard of distance, well... *wanking motion*. 

 

  

45 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I’m not debating.  I provided the sources for the data which is what you asked for, data is what you asked for.

 

You can review it and decided if the source, data, and testing protocols meet your thresholds.

You provided a vague name on one, but you didn't provide anything else ("Another site" doesn't exactly count as providing sources). If you're so worried about it, just PM me. All this dancing around actually providing the data that you're assuring me exists does not engender confidence in your position. 

 

Edited April 5 by Simpsonia

[Pnwpingi210]

18 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

You absolutely need quantification. For example, if a 5mm offcenter strike with the Qi10 retains 98.7% ball speed (numbers made up), then you need to contextualize that. Because if the R580 retains 97.9% ball speed on the same 5mm offcenter strike, well then yes the Qi10 is more forgiving, but in real world numbers that 1 yard of distance, well... *wanking motion*. 

 

  

You provided a vague name on one, but you didn't provide anything else ("Another site" doesn't exactly count as providing sources). If you're so worried about it, just PM me. All this dancing around actually providing the data that you're assuring me exists does not engender confidence in your position. 

 

If that’s how you feel about it, then ok.

[Ty_Webb]

2 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

No, I have not seen data directly comparing clubs from 2005 and 2024 but there is data on a yearly basis that compares "last year" to "this year" and there is a clear trend toward more forgiving drivers year after year. While data matters the lack of data in this case does not disqualify the fact that drivers are indeed significantly more forgiving. 

 

I know this thread is focused on the ball but better solution would have been to reduce driver size to 250 or 300cc in addition to making the ball spin a little more like it used to in the 90s. 

 

With the current equipment we just aren't going to see anyone separate themselves like the superstars of the past were able to. Everyone looks pretty much the same and it's a big reason why ratings are down.

 

Someone like John Daly was an absolute superstar because he was 50+ yards longer than his nearest competitor. If his career started right now he might still be the longest player but it would only be by 5-10 yards and he would not be anywhere near as popular as he was. 

 

 

John Daly was not 50 yards longer than his nearest competitor. He was not more than 35 yards longer than the average (most years he was less than 30 yards longer than average). 

 

You know, people said that no one would differentiate themselves again in the early 90s. Then Tiger came along. Granted he's a once in a generation talent, but I think it's still possible to do that. His length didn't hurt, but it wasn't that that made the biggest difference.

[Ty_Webb]

15 minutes ago, stevesteven1 said:

who has differntiated themselves in 25 years?

 

Seriously? Er, Tiger?

[Simpsonia]

2 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

If that’s how you feel about it, then ok.

 

Ah the old I'm gonna take my ball and go home approach. Seriously, you guys make demand after demand on our side for data and support and question everything. The second we ask for any bit of support for your assertions you dip dive duck and dodge your way around it.

 

I was actually legitimately interested in the level of change of forgiveness, because I have no idea how much forgiveness has changed over the years. Your side can't just say "forgiveness lets everyone swing out of their shoes, trust me bro." Do you do the same for us when we make assertions? No, you do the exact same thing and demand data and links, and studies, and we oblige. 

 

But this thread is a thoroughly dead horse, nobody is actually interested in real discussion. I think the mods should just lock this one down. 

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Simpsonia said:

 

Ah the old I'm gonna take my ball and go home approach. Seriously, you guys make demand after demand on our side for data and support and question everything. The second we ask for any bit of support for your assertions you dip dive duck and dodge your way around it.

 

I was actually legitimately interested in the level of change of forgiveness, because I have no idea how much forgiveness has changed over the years. Your side can't just say "forgiveness lets everyone swing out of their shoes, trust me bro." Do you do the same for us when we make assertions? No, you do the exact same thing and demand data and links, and studies, and we oblige. 

 

But this thread is a thoroughly dead horse, nobody is actually interested in real discussion. I think the mods should just lock this one down. 

I provided the sources.  Its there.  Other posters have commented they have seen the same data.  You can go review the data if you're genuine about being curious.    

Not packaging up the information in the way you would like me to is a completely different scenario then refusal to provide.

[hollabachgt]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Ah the old I'm gonna take my ball and go home approach. Seriously, you guys make demand after demand on our side for data and support and question everything. The second we ask for any bit of support for your assertions you dip dive duck and dodge your way around it.

 

I was actually legitimately interested in the level of change of forgiveness, because I have no idea how much forgiveness has changed over the years. Your side can't just say "forgiveness lets everyone swing out of their shoes, trust me bro." Do you do the same for us when we make assertions? No, you do the exact same thing and demand data and links, and studies, and we oblige. 

 

But this thread is a thoroughly dead horse, nobody is actually interested in real discussion. I think the mods should just lock this one down. 

Search on YouTube for “new vs old driver” and you’ll find more than a dozen practical launch monitor tests comparing drivers over the past 20-30 years. 

[maamold]

13 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Okay - I'll bite. What equipment changes have happened over the past 10-15 years that have made bomb and gouge more appealing? 

[maamold]

9 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

So here's my turn to do what you often do, and demand the data to back up your claim. Do you have data that can quantify the claimed increase in forgiveness? I'm not talking about all that combined 10k MOI marketing BS. Do you have anything other than marketing speak to quantify this claimed increase in forgiveness? Are we talking a 3% increase in forgiveness, 10%? As far as I know, nobody has done any sort of qualitative or quantitative tests on 'forgiveness', ie a 5mm off-center strike of this new driver retains 15% more ballspeed compared to this 10 year old driver. Without some sort of quantification, just saying there's an increase in forgiveness is meaningless.

 

Cool, here you go. 

 

 

[maamold]

8 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Do we need to quantify it to agree that it exists to an extent?  

No matter what proof you give their answer will always be "Na-uh" 

 

8 hours ago, smashdn said:

Is anyone denying that a Taylor Made Qi10 is more forgiving than a R580?

Well, I count a couple of people here that think the R580 is no different than the Qi10 in any measurable way. 
 

8 hours ago, smashdn said:

I feel like we don't need to quantify something to support a generally accepted truth such as, more forgiveness in the face (or maybe more accurately less waywardness on mishits or less punishing mishits) gives one some freedom to swing harder/faster.

 

Nope, and the earth is the center of the universe, and is also flat. 

[bobfoster]

[bobfoster]

2 hours ago, maamold said:

No matter what proof you give their answer will always be "Na-uh" 

 

Well, I count a couple of people here that think the R580 is no different than the Qi10 in any measurable way. 
 

 

Nope, and the earth is the center of the universe, and is also flat. 

🤣

 

[Simpsonia]

13 hours ago, maamold said:

 

Cool, here you go. 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I saw that. I also acknowledged that it was cool. What I asked for was quantification on the increased forgiveness on new clubs. To be able to measure that that increase requires similar tests on old clubs. Can't measure the delta without two data points. One data point proves nothing. 

 

The only thing that I could find doing any sort of real comparison was this Crossfield video from 2021. The TLDR was that the new driver on average (including all the mishits) was 5 yards longer, but also 5 yards more offline (due to increased gear effect), with a far larger dispersion. They did acknowledge that there was a shaft length difference though that could have also contributed to the ball speed/distance differential. Actual distance differential if normalizing for shaft length would probably be less than 5 yards. My biggest takeaway was that the new driver very much reduced the few odd very low carry shots, and that the increased forgiveness is really a tradeoff with a very moderate increase in total distance, but with a bigger dispersion leading to less fairways. The comparison was the G425 vs the 253cc Great Big Bertha Warbird (so not far off of what some of the rollbackers would like to see with head sizes). 

 

 

Edited April 6 by Simpsonia

[farmer]

I have said many times, and still maintain:  OEM's are not going to agree to shrink drivers back to 235cc or 300cc or whatever number seems appropriate.  Like it or not, 460cc is the sweet spot for marketing and sales.  No one wants to drive a 1990 Caddy, and rolling back back club size is asking the public to make that jump.  Never happen.

[Pnwpingi210]

in summary this was their anecdotal findings.

 

Edited April 6 by Pnwpingi210

[StoutKing]

19 minutes ago, farmer said:

I have said many times, and still maintain:  OEM's are not going to agree to shrink drivers back to 235cc or 300cc or whatever number seems appropriate.  Like it or not, 460cc is the sweet spot for marketing and sales.  No one wants to drive a 1990 Caddy, and rolling back back club size is asking the public to make that jump.  Never happen.

Bifurcation was always the answer.  The little guys should be untouched.  Elite players should be elite.

 

BTW, as we approach 400 pages I want to award the top posters:

 

Gold - 815 posts - smashdn

Silver - 690 posts - GoGoErky

Brozne - 665 posts - clevited

Just missed - 607 posts - gvogel

 

Good luck and I will present awards again at 500 pages.

[radiman]

3 minutes ago, StoutKing said:

Bifurcation was always the answer.  The little guys should be untouched.  Elite players should be elite.

 

BTW, as we approach 400 pages I want to award the top posters:

 

Gold - 815 posts - smashdn

Silver - 690 posts - GoGoErky

Brozne - 665 posts - clevited

Just missed - 607 posts - gvogel

 

Good luck and I will present awards again at 500 pages.

The answer to a non issue. They could always just let it be 😉 

[Ty_Webb]

12 hours ago, stevesteven1 said:

Tiger 1.0, 24 years ago and counting. Which is why I asked. No current player in the all time top 20.

This is the same issue as Tiger v Jack. You're comparing Scheffler early in his career with those "all time" guys at the end of theirs. Apples and oranges. Almost as far off as suggesting that JD was 50 yards longer than his nearest competitor...

[Ty_Webb]

18 hours ago, maamold said:

Nope, and the earth is the center of the universe, and is also flat. 

 

Per relativity, the earth is actually the center of the universe. At least as far as we are concerned. In fact, everywhere is, if you're there. 

[munichop]

Just checked the scorecard lengths for the ANWA today and they played it 92.2 percent of the distance the men did when Jack won his 6th green jacket- 6365 vs 6905.  The winner had 125 into 18 to the front left pin.  Imagine if the women played the course proportionately to the mens length based on clubhead speed now.  Just using LPGA numbers -avg 94 mph vs 115 mph for PGA players. it would be over 100 yards shorter.   When are the men going to play courses the proper length for their club head speed? 

[bobfoster]

Just FYI - from an interview with Mike Whan (CEO of the USGA) published today in the WSJ. Actually addresses a couple points being made here (in fact, a couple I've mentioned):

 

WSJ: Your predecessor, Mike Davis, hated the term “rollback.” However, in December 2023, the U.S. Golf Association announced just that—a rollback on the distance golf balls can travel by changing the testing requirements that golf balls must go through to be considered conforming within your rules. Pushback was fierce from leading equipment companies, PGA Tour professionals and others. Why did you take the action you did?

WHAN: We could see the future. With young kids being trained to swing faster and faster, we realized that many of our venues would be obsolete, no longer sufficiently challenging for the next generation. To do nothing would be irresponsible on the part of the governing bodies, whose responsibility it is to make sure the game is at least as good in the future as it is today.

We knew when we started that if we made any changes to try to protect the game long-term, we’d have negative feedback. But that’s governance. Some have argued that we didn’t do enough. I think controlling the pace at which this is happening was probably as important as doing anything.

WSJ: What do you say to the average golfer who wants to hit the ball a little farther and who believes that rollback is bad?

WHAN: If you’re really the average person, if you’re a 20-handicap player and you’re swinging the club 80 mph, you’ll virtually be able to go to 2030 with no change. Again, if you’re playing the right ball for your clubhead speed and your ball-speed capacity, I feel quite certain that if you see any difference, it will be well less than 5 yards.

WSJ: Now that everybody’s had a chance to exhale and evaluate the ball rollback, are you going to do something about the driver?

WHAN: Whatever changes we looked at for the driver that would actually make a difference in the long-term health of the game were going to be much more dramatically negative for the average golfer. On the ball side, only the guys who generate a lot of ball speed will see a real difference. On the club side, I was seeing just the opposite: The most impact was always the more recreational golfer. We just didn’t want to go there. 

[ThinkingPlus]

9 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

Just FYI - from an interview with Mike Whan (CEO of the USGA) published today in the WSJ. Actually addresses a couple points being made here (in fact, a couple I've mentioned):

 

WSJ: Your predecessor, Mike Davis, hated the term “rollback.” However, in December 2023, the U.S. Golf Association announced just that—a rollback on the distance golf balls can travel by changing the testing requirements that golf balls must go through to be considered conforming within your rules. Pushback was fierce from leading equipment companies, PGA Tour professionals and others. Why did you take the action you did?

WHAN: We could see the future. With young kids being trained to swing faster and faster, we realized that many of our venues would be obsolete, no longer sufficiently challenging for the next generation. To do nothing would be irresponsible on the part of the governing bodies, whose responsibility it is to make sure the game is at least as good in the future as it is today.

We knew when we started that if we made any changes to try to protect the game long-term, we’d have negative feedback. But that’s governance. Some have argued that we didn’t do enough. I think controlling the pace at which this is happening was probably as important as doing anything.

WSJ: What do you say to the average golfer who wants to hit the ball a little farther and who believes that rollback is bad?

WHAN: If you’re really the average person, if you’re a 20-handicap player and you’re swinging the club 80 mph, you’ll virtually be able to go to 2030 with no change. Again, if you’re playing the right ball for your clubhead speed and your ball-speed capacity, I feel quite certain that if you see any difference, it will be well less than 5 yards.

WSJ: Now that everybody’s had a chance to exhale and evaluate the ball rollback, are you going to do something about the driver?

WHAN: Whatever changes we looked at for the driver that would actually make a difference in the long-term health of the game were going to be much more dramatically negative for the average golfer. On the ball side, only the guys who generate a lot of ball speed will see a real difference. On the club side, I was seeing just the opposite: The most impact was always the more recreational golfer. We just didn’t want to go there. 

Peddling the same misleading information. Selling snake oil to the clueless.

[bobfoster]

8 hours ago, StoutKing said:

Bifurcation was always the answer.  The little guys should be untouched.  Elite players should be elite.

 

BTW, as we approach 400 pages I want to award the top posters:

 

Gold - 815 posts - smashdn

Silver - 690 posts - GoGoErky

Brozne - 665 posts - clevited

Just missed - 607 posts - gvogel

 

Good luck and I will present awards again at 500 pages.

🤣🤣🤣

 

Yeah, and I just realized I was dumb enough to post again. Knowing full well that when a WRX thread starts approaching the 400 page mark, absolutely everyone's mind is already made up, and there will be neither any new information, or anyone's mind changed. Positions are taken. Heels dug in. 

 

At this point the thread be like ...

Edited April 7 by bobfoster

[Chunkitgood]

One might not learn much about golf from this sort of thing, but can learn much about people.

 

I am astounded at the number of people who essentially insist that golf to be easy while at the same time deluding themselves that they are better at it than they are.

 

You learn the sort of things the guys at Titleist know that enables them to sell balls most people have no use for but insist on buying even if they can’t really afford it.