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

[nikeblades00]

This is dumb especially for golfers living in cold weather places. Half the year were playing golf in 50 and 60 degree Temps. Were losing enough distance during those months. Here's an idea let the pros play Oakland Hills in October or April, I guarantee you there will be no talk of bifurcation. 

[hollabachgt]

Being upset over bifurcation is laughable. Especially in a place like GolfWRX where it seems every other thread is gushing over the latest and greatest tour only ball, wood, iron, wedge, or putter. Clubs that the grand majority of equipment junkies can't get their hands on, to say noting of the average weekend warrior.

[MtlJeff]

1 hour ago, FriedEgg said:

IMHO - a lot of people (USGA, R&A) inventing problems to justify their existence.

 

I do think a lot of it just comes down to this unfortunately. When the USGA spoke about issues with distance etc, they made it seem like all these courses in the US had to be lengthened even for amateurs (which was nonsense of course) and this had cost "billions" and they had to fix this etc...

 

This new rule basically contradicts that or at least forgets it. Because 99% of courses won't be affected by it. And i really don't believe even a 20yd drop in carry for fastest SS guys on tour will affect new course design all that much

 

I'm not advocating for stronger rollback, i think all of this is dumb---But as with the groove rule, they have managed to create a rule that doesn't solve a problem they say exists, and manages to annoy many people and cost companies millions in new R&D

 

I mean, these are not really good organizations IMO

[00steven]

Why does this sport hate itself? Here’s an idea, make the rough longer and greens more firm instead of placating the pros so they don’t embarrass themselves. I thought the USGA was done being stupid.

[smashdn]

13 hours ago, bekgolf said:

Growing up the rough, narrowing fairways, and planting trees just doesn't occur to these guys. 

 

Glad it doesn't since reining in the ball for them has far less effect on the average golfer than what you mentioned.

[smashdn]

13 hours ago, Dutch1008 said:

Seems like the trend in course design / renovation these days is to remove excess trees. 

 

But I get your point. This seems pointless. The 2013 US Open at Merion proved you could bulk up a classic course w/o pushing it to 7,750 yds. 

 

Unless the point is not to have to "bulk up a classic course." 

[dcmidnight]

4 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

I'm not advocating for stronger rollback, i think all of this is dumb---But as with the groove rule, they have managed to create a rule that doesn't solve a problem they say exists, and manages to annoy many people and cost companies millions in new R&D

 

I mean, these are not really good organizations IMO

 

I mean I'm supposed to get amped up because Rahm plays Augusta every year or the Old Course once every five years? I've played the Old Course and I watched members and tourists alike hit balls off the first tee for hours...the OC is doing JUST fine. 

 

All your courses are just fine and will continue to do just fine. These "meh meh they are making courses obsolete" is the very definition of a red herring.

Edited March 14, 2023 by dcmidnight

[jvincent]

I knew that the USGA/R&A would screw this up.

 

All they had to do was change the launch conditions to the higher speed/lower spin profile like they are doing in the new proposal AND increase the new limit by 10 yards and then nobody would be claiming they are making the ball shorter. They could just point to the numbers and say, "See, we INCREASED the allowed distance.".

 

The problem now is that all of the above average guys on tour have better launch conditions than what is in the old standard.

 

What a bunch of dummies.

[smashdn]

11 hours ago, Ghost of Snead said:

I'm here for the new Titleist Pro ball. 

 

It is a DT Wound 90.  

[LegendJeff]

1 hour ago, rope_hook said:

While they're at it, let's go ahead and ban hybrids, eliminate the 60 degree wedge, outlaw athletic looking apparel, and everything else that makes the game more fun to watch and play. That'll fix golf. 

Agreed, if they would ban Joggers and Hoodies that'd be great. 

[dono]

5 minutes ago, 00steven said:

I thought the USGA was done being stupid.

They prove their stupidity every US Open. 

[snagy2000]

This is the USGA's and R&A's "bending the knee" to the ESG initiative being thrust upon companies/organizations by the holders of the purse strings. Always more than meets the eye and people need to look behind the curtain to see what's really going on. 

[ChipStrokes]

2 hours ago, So_Cal said:

Played with a few guys lately that are hitting driver gap wedge into 540 yard par 5s in USGA competition.

i love the mythical characters that pop up in these distance threads. 

 

Rory McIlroy’s stock yardages 

Driver: 320 yards
3-wood: 297 yards*
5-wood: 275 yards
3-iron: 255 yards*
4-iron: 240 yards
5-iron: 225 yards*
6-iron: 210 yards
7-iron: 195 yards*
8-iron: 180 yards
9-iron: 165 yards*
46° pitching wedge: 150 yards
54° sand wedge: 125 yards*
58° lob wedge: 105 yards

 

so you play with “a few guys” who drive it 60 yards further than rory does, and then hit a gap wedge the same distance as he hits his 9i. and do both well enough to be on the green in two?

 

makes you wonder why they’re playing with you and not with rory. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by ChipStrokes

[kasting333]

27 minutes ago, snagy2000 said:

This is the USGA's and R&A's "bending the knee" to the ESG initiative being thrust upon companies/organizations by the holders of the purse strings. Always more than meets the eye and people need to look behind the curtain to see what's really going on. 

But Rory pays hippies to plants trees so we can live guilt free

[EagleAteBirdie]

13 hours ago, golfinbrad said:

This should be interesting.  Strictly making a ball go shorter will really penalize the shorter players.  Bring back the high spinning balata.  

 

It doesn't have to.  The technology exists to produce a ball with diminishing returns on ball speed.  Compression (i.e. lower), core design etc will be able to produce a ball that could take 10-20% off the fastest ball speeds but probably much less on a moderate swing/ball speed.

 

Minimum spin rates with the driver and similar long clubs would also be an option.

[Ferguson]

Bring back the Kro-Flite!

 

[nichho]

1 hour ago, Anser3 said:

This is a stupid proposal.  However, if they are intent on making changes, going after the ball makes the most sense (and the most cost effective  for golfers).  At least they aren't going after clubs again  (i.e. groove rule changes in the 1980's  and 2010).

 

I don't understand what is so difficult for them to figure out regarding landscaping.  Grow the rough, add trees, narrow the fairway, increase the length of the second cut, even make bunkers a little deeper, etc. are all better  ideas  (and make far more sense) than going after equipment again.

This has always been the answer and is one of the reasons certain players are reluctant to tee it up at certain courses.

 

The problem with this of course is that the USGA and R&A have no remit to mandate this, how each course is presented to the players is down to the course and the respective tour. It would appear that the Tours themselves are happy with bomb and gouge and have no desire to rein in distance.

[jdl]

 

[ThaPebblePlaya]

USGA are clowns on a clown boat, nobody wants to see pros play with nerfed equipment, not the pros, not the fans, not the viewers, nobody!

 

Did TM write a big check to move the spotlight from the driver to the ball? Looks like Titleist needs to up its game.

[hollabachgt]

1 hour ago, Anser3 said:

This is a stupid proposal.  However, if they are intent on making changes, going after the ball makes the most sense (and the most cost effective  for golfers).  At least they aren't going after clubs again  (i.e. groove rule changes in the 1980's  and 2010).

 

I don't understand what is so difficult for them to figure out regarding landscaping.  Grow the rough, add trees, narrow the fairway, increase the length of the second cut, even make bunkers a little deeper, etc. are all better  ideas  (and make far more sense) than going after equipment again.

 

18 minutes ago, nichho said:

This has always been the answer and is one of the reasons certain players are reluctant to tee it up at certain courses.

 

The problem with this of course is that the USGA and R&A have no remit to mandate this, how each course is presented to the players is down to the course and the respective tour. It would appear that the Tours themselves are happy with bomb and gouge and have no desire to rein in distance.

 

Changes to the golf course has been the standard tool to combat distance for 30+ years. It's expensive, short sided, and at time can become irreversible when it goes very wrong. It also is very one dimensional on its impact towards play, trying to make the course more challenging for the tour pro virtually always makes the course significantly harder for the average player. And it has failed to achieve its goals, often time widening the distance gap to a greater degree.

 

Equipment, on the other hand, is a cyclical commodity. At some point in the next 5-10 years virtually every player will replace virtually every club or ball they currently play with. Trying to influence a change in play through equipment is more economical and less drastic than trying to change the field of play.

Edited March 14, 2023 by hollabachgt
added context

[Mike412]

It’s funny how many people are suggesting redesigning almost 200 acres of land per course vs reducing distance by 20 yds.

[kasting333]

5 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

 

 

Changes to the golf course has been the standard tool to combat distance for 30+ years. It's expensive, short sided, and at time can become irreversible when it goes very wrong. It also is very one dimensional on its impact towards play, trying to make the course more challenging for the tour pro virtually always makes the course significantly harder for the average player. And it has failed to achieve its goals, often time widening the distance gap to a greater degree.

 

Equipment, on the other hand, is a cyclical commodity. At some point in the next 5-10 years virtually every player will replace virtually every club or ball they currently play with. Trying to influence a change in play through equipment is more economical and less drastic than trying to change the field of play.

But changes to equipment standards are reversible? 

[Anser3]

1 minute ago, hollabachgt said:

 

 

Changes to the golf course has been the standard tool to combat distance for 30+ years. It's expensive, short sided, and at time can become irreversible when it goes very wrong. It also is very one dimensional on its impact towards play, trying to make the course more challenging for the tour pro virtually always makes the course significantly harder for the average player.

 

Equipment, on the other hand, is a cyclical commodity. At some point in the next 5-10 years virtually every player will replace virtually every club or ball they currently play with. Trying to influence a change in play through equipment is more economical and less drastic than trying to change the field of play.

 

 

I understand your point.  But,  if they are insistent on going after equipment, the ball makes the most sense as opposed to further restrictions on clubs...especially irons and wedges (I know they aren't talking about changes to irons--at least not any that I know of).  They have been down the club enforcement road before with dubious results.  Tom Wishon has been very critical of the USGA/R&A's  seemingly baseless  and arbitrary restrictions on  COR, groove regulations,club length,  etc.  I know John K. Solheim was also very vocal about the groove changes in 2010,pointing out the previous changes didn't have a desired effect either and such changes were going down a rabbit hole.   It makes more sense to make changes to the ball--which is, by far, the most consumable piece of equipment in golf. 

[Titleist99]

I say go back to the gutta percha ball and the hickory shaft. Jack and Tiger advocate a roll back, why not make their records meaningless.....🙂

 

Golf has never been more popular, business is booming why screw it by reducing the main draw....distance. 

[TheDominator273]

So the new test for a conforming ball is it needs to be less than 320 yards carry based on 127 mph club head speed and 11° launch and 2,220 rpm spin.

 

1.5 smash on 127 mph club speed is 190.5 ball speed, which at 11° launch and 2,220 spin is 315.5 yards of carry on the Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer

 

[Titleist99]

15 minutes ago, Mike412 said:

It’s funny how many people are suggesting redesigning almost 200 acres of land per course vs reducing distance by 20 yds.

If the viewer wanted to see touring pros hit their driver 275 yards off the tee, they'd simply turn on "Shell's Wonderful World Of Golf."

[hollabachgt]

1 minute ago, Titleist99 said:

If the viewer wanted to see touring pros hit their driver 275 yards off the tee, they'd simply turn on "Shell's Wonderful World Of Golf."

Sounds perfect to me!

[PracticeSwinger]

7 minutes ago, TheDominator273 said:

So the new test for a conforming ball is it needs to be less than 320 yards carry based on 127 mph club head speed and 11° launch and 2,220 rpm spin.

 

1.5 smash on 127 mph club speed is 190.5 ball speed, which at 11° launch and 2,220 spin is 315.5 yards of carry on the Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer

 

So… don’t change much - just make sure the landing area is soaking wet so it plugs… then you have to allow lift clean and place… how can it go wrong

 

edit to add - the test is on carry alone… so nothing to change then?… makes you wonder how the guys carry it 310 with 180ish ball speed

Edited March 14, 2023 by MtlJayMan

[hollabachgt]

20 minutes ago, kasting333 said:

But changes to equipment standards are reversible? 

The USGA has done it in the past with the ball.

[gvogel]

10 hours ago, PJE said:

One of the cool things about men’s professional golf is how far those guys hit it. So much for that, I guess. 

ARe you kidding me?  They roll the ball back 15 yards and they are still going to be very long.

 

The USGA didn't go far enough.  Game is a better game when the players have to hit more clubs in the bag.