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

[Dutch1008]

On 4/15/2024 at 4:22 PM, betarhoalphadelta said:

It's a course where knowing the course and having the precision to attack it can really separate the best golfers from the less capable. (And of course I argue that it does this not based on distance, but based on course architecture, but that's an aside.)

 

That was a very good post.

 

But I will quibble w/ the above. Augusta was "forced" to add distance because hitting the appropriate shelf/section/etc is much harder w/ a 4i than a 7i. The architecture and distance work hand in hand. You wouldn't design a 250+ yd Par 3 w/ a ridiculously complex green. The tee shot is already a challenge. Alternatively, a 140 yd Par 3 w/ flat greens is dull and not a challenge at all to a pro.

 

All these things should work together to challenge decision making and allow precision to separate from the pack.  

[radiman]

18 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Ask yourselves, what are the repercussions to either of these lines of thinking?  What is the natural outcome of one path versus the other and compare them.

Have we not been doing that for 405 pages?

[betarhoalphadelta]

15 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Ask yourselves, what are the repercussions to either of these lines of thinking?  What is the natural outcome of one path versus the other and compare them.

 

I get where you're going with this. It's essentially that we have to roll back now to avoid future harm. 

 

Which basically means that average Joes like me get punished for the possible future problem that elite male golfers will be hitting the ball too far at some unknown undetermined point in the future. I get to take more club on approaches because we think there's some 15-year-old future Tour player that's going to be able to control his 140 mph CHS a decade from now. 

 

Lucky me. 

[smashdn]

6 minutes ago, radiman said:

Have we not been doing that for 405 pages?

 

I would say not objectively.

 

3 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I get where you're going with this. It's essentially that we have to roll back now to avoid future harm. 

 

I only asked to think through the potential repercussions of either mindset.  What you stated is, to me anyway, certainly a possibility.  I was trying my best not to intrude my own take into it, but it seems pretty easy to look around and see the results of the status quo when it comes to the impact on the courses themselves.

 

3 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Which basically means that average Joes like me get punished for the possible future problem that elite male golfers will be hitting the ball too far at some unknown undetermined point in the future. I get to take more club on approaches because we think there's some 15-year-old future Tour player that's going to be able to control his 140 mph CHS a decade from now. 

 

Lucky me. 

 

And that too is a valid concern.  I have never shied away from recognizing that there is a very real concern that golfers, especially those already hampered by a lack of distance in their games or near the bare minimum requisite ability distance-wise to play the game, are going to be impacted with a roll-back.  With or without a roll-back, imo, there is already a need to make courses more accessible (read flexible) for more golfers (if we continue with the paradigm of "growing the game").  The good news about adding shorter tees is that, if you use the flat yardage plates in your fairway, you can put in those options and get them rated with a minimum of added cost.  The opposite spectrum is where things get potentially logistically muddy and costly.

 

Letting the chips fall where they may is a little less appetizing than the rollback to me.  It is close.  From a pure personal impact standpoint I would probably come out better with status quo.  My desire to see golf stay healthy now and into the future leads me to believe we would be slightly better off to swallow the bitter pill.

 

It isn't head and shoulders above the other for me certainly.

[betarhoalphadelta]

9 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

That was a very good post.

 

But I will quibble w/ the above. Augusta was "forced" to add distance because hitting the appropriate shelf/section/etc is much harder w/ a 4i than a 7i. The architecture and distance work hand in hand. You wouldn't design a 250+ yd Par 3 w/ a ridiculously complex green. The tee shot is already a challenge. Alternatively, a 140 yd Par 3 w/ flat greens is dull and not a challenge at all to a pro.

 

All these things should work together to challenge decision making and allow precision to separate from the pack.  

 

As we've all discussed, the transition to metal woods and the modern ball caused a large jump in distance between roughly 1990, and 2003. It was at that time that specific equipment rules were put in place to limit driver technology and ball distance. Augusta increased their distance significantly (~500 yards) between 2001 and 2006, probably as a response to this change. There has been a total of 75 yards added since 2006, basically tweaking at the margins. 

 

There is little evidence that these equipment rules aren't effective at capping distance, and thus little evidence that golf courses that are capable of hosting pro tournaments today with current distances will cease to be capable in the future. 

[redfirebird08]

12 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I get where you're going with this. It's essentially that we have to roll back now to avoid future harm. 

 

Which basically means that average Joes like me get punished for the possible future problem that elite male golfers will be hitting the ball too far at some unknown undetermined point in the future. I get to take more club on approaches because we think there's some 15-year-old future Tour player that's going to be able to control his 140 mph CHS a decade from now. 

 

Lucky me. 

Just need separate rules for the elite level of the game compared to everyone else. 

 

 

[knock it close]

22 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I get where you're going with this. It's essentially that we have to roll back now to avoid future harm. 

 

Which basically means that average Joes like me get punished for the possible future problem that elite male golfers will be hitting the ball too far at some unknown undetermined point in the future. I get to take more club on approaches because we think there's some 15-year-old future Tour player that's going to be able to control his 140 mph CHS a decade from now. 

 

Lucky me. 

Oh nooooooo, if only there were another set of tees you could play, don't play in the cold either you might lose 4% of your distance, that would be tragic. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

5 minutes ago, redfirebird08 said:

Just need separate rules for the elite level of the game compared to everyone else. 

 

 

I have no philosophical issue with bifurcation. If the "problem" (albeit I don't agree there's a problem) exists with elite male golf, maybe the solution should only affect elite male golf. 

 

My worries about bifurcation are twofold:

1. Non-personally, I would feel bad for any golfer who "straddles the line" between events using the new ball and events using the old ball. Obviously if the ball has characteristics in play that are significant enough to reduce the performance enough to solve the "problem" of golfers hitting it too far, that means that they have to tailor their game to those characteristics. It's fine if you're a pro and you 100% play the pro ball, or if you're a weekender like me and you 100% play the amateur ball, but if you're a high-level golfer and you have to play the pro ball when you enter a state amateur championship tournament (or attempt to qualify as an am for the US Open / Open Championship, or attempt to Monday qualify for a Tour event) but you're putting yourself at a disadvantage if you play that ball all the rest of the time, i.e. perhaps for your home club championship, where you're now giving up distance. 
2. Personally, that the ball OEMs would respond to bifurcation by simply making all of their "premium" offerings conform to the bifurcated distance limits, for economic reasons. Essentially that although the bifurcation would be there in the rulebook, the actual effect would be a trickle down of the shorter ball to guys like me. 

For those reasons I don't think bifurcation would end up being a good solution in practice.

 

 

[Dutch1008]

6 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Which basically means that average Joes like me get punished

 

Why should the game be easier for you than it was for your father? Why is my generation or any future generation entitled to an easier game? 

 

That's the crux of the disagreement. I think your problem is really easy to solve. Play shorter courses. Move up a tee box. Do some speed training. 

Edited April 18 by Dutch1008

[radiman]

2 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

Why should the game be easier for you than it was for your father? Why is my generation or any future generation entitled to an easier game? 

 

That the crux of the disagreement. I think your problem is really easy to solve. Play shorter courses. Move up a tee box. Do some speed training. 

This did not happen overnight.  The game has been played with current equipment standards for decades.  What if there are no other tee boxes to move up to?  What if there are no shorter courses?  

 

The game of our fathers is long gone.  That time is past.  Entitlement?  Please.  Asking that the game remain as it has for 20 years is not the absurd request that people are trying to make it out to be. 

 

Why do you feel entitled to touch the game of every golfer to turn the clock back 20+ years? 

[ThinkingPlus]

33 minutes ago, knock it close said:

Oh nooooooo, if only there were another set of tees you could play, don't play in the cold either you might lose 4% of your distance, that would be tragic. 

Oh, you mean the tees forward of the current forward tees that don't exist and never would. You mean those tees?

[Dutch1008]

24 minutes ago, radiman said:

What if there are no other tee boxes to move up to?  What if there are no shorter courses?  

 

Where exactly is this mythical course? 

 

People that struggle with distance from the forward tees don't compress the ball enough to be affected by this roll back. Grandma and Grandpa ain't going to lose 20 yds. 

 

Looking at your club specs, like me, you also play TX or X shafts. We will lose a little distance. The difference is, I don't care. I enjoyed playing golf in 2000 and I'll enjoy playing golf in 2026. Perhaps they'll come after my 460cc TSi3 next? Again, I wont care. I enjoyed golf just fine w/ a 250cc Big Bertha. 

 

I may even enjoy golf a little more. Like @James the Hogan Fan mentioned above, most of the courses around me tip out around 6400-6800 yds. I rarely have the opportunity to pull anything but short irons into par 4s. My 6i and 7i may actually get a little work. 

Edited April 17 by Dutch1008

[knock it close]

6 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Oh, you mean the tees forward of the current forward tees that don't exist and never would. You mean those tees?

If you're so short there are no tees further forward the roll back is going to change absolutely nothing to you. The 60 compression ball you play probably conforms already anyway. 

Edited April 17 by knock it close

[radiman]

2 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

Where exactly is this mythical course? 

 

People that struggle with distance from the forward tees don't compress the ball enough to be affected by this roll back. Grandma and Grandpa ain't going to lose 20 yds. 

 

Looking at your club specs, like me, you also play TX or X shafts. We will lose a little distance. The difference is, I don't care. I enjoyed playing golf in 2000 and I'll enjoy playing golf in 2026. Perhaps they'll come after my 460cc TSi3. Again, I wont care. I enjoyed golf just fine w/ a 250cc Big Bertha. 

 

I may even enjoy golf a little more. Like @James the Hogan Fan mentioned above, most of the courses around me tip out around 6400-6800 yds. I rarely have the opportunity to pull anything but short irons into par 4s. My 6i and 7i may actually get a little work. 

Mythical course?  There are plenty of courses that don't have enough shorter tees.  Goes from white all the way up to red.  Used to be mens and womens tees.  And it's a significant drop off in distance.  So, cut a bit of distance to make the whites too unplayable for them.  But from the reds they would overpower most holes.  90 yard par 3's, 280 yard par 4's.  

I play on that course pretty consistently.  And I rarely play the whites.  But, I know a lot of people who do and would 100% fall in this category.  

 

And FWIW, if the magic ball the USGA is proposing that will effect the longest hitters more than the average player, as golfers with tour level speed, we stand to lose the largest percentage of distance compared to our amateur brethren.  And congrats that you don't care?  That totally invalidates the opposing view.  You got me there. 

[radiman]

2 minutes ago, knock it close said:

I've heard pickleball is fun.

Ah yes, there we go.  Take our non conforming ball and go home.  Shrink the players base.  Increase costs.  Shrink the game.  Lol, that sounds like it aligns with the health of the game. 

[maamold]

57 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Which basically means that average Joes like me get punished for the possible future problem that elite male golfers will be hitting the ball too far at some unknown undetermined point in the future. I get to take more club on approaches because we think there's some 15-year-old future Tour player that's going to be able to control his 140 mph CHS a decade from now. 

 

Lucky me. 

3-5 yards is punished? Wow, how did the game survive all those 100+ prior to 2000. 

[knock it close]

2 minutes ago, radiman said:

Ah yes, there we go.  Take our non conforming ball and go home.  Shrink the players base.  Increase costs.  Shrink the game.  Lol, that sounds like it aligns with the health of the game. 

Play the non conforming ball, I don't care, I'm not the one crying about a situation 4 years in the future that we have zero idea of the actual impacts will be at each level, but yes please continue talking about how an insignificant yardage drop at slow swing speeds will cripple the game. 

[knock it close]

1 minute ago, maamold said:

3-5 yards is punished? Wow, how did the game survive all those 100+ prior to 2000. 

I played at sea level in like 50* weather last week and lost far more distance than the roll back would be at home, immediately listed my clubs for sale. Who could play golf like that 

[ThinkingPlus]

5 hours ago, knock it close said:

If you're so short there are no tees further forward the roll back is going to change absolutely nothing to you. The 60 compression ball you play probably conforms already anyway. 

First of all, I play ProV1X because it is the best ball for my game and balls of that performance level are pretty much optimal for everyone. Second I can play longer tees so it won't impact me much personally. However, the women in the group I play with from the forward tees will be affected. It doesn't matter how much. The point I'm making is that you and the ruling bodies don't care what impact the rollback has on the majority of golfers including my women's group. It is that disregard which illustrates the pervasive elitist and arrogant attitudes that have no place in golf.

Edited April 18 by ThinkingPlus
Grammer...

[radiman]

Just now, knock it close said:

Play the non conforming ball, I don't care, I'm not the one crying about a situation 4 years in the future that we have zero idea of the actual impacts will be at each level, but yes please continue talking about how an insignificant yardage drop at slow swing speeds will cripple the game. 

Cripple the game?  Is that what anyone has been saying??  Or, is it simply an opposing viewpoint?  

You make a good point though.  There is zero idea what the impact will be.  Sounds like something that should have been studied and taken into account before cramming the change down everyone's throats.  

[Dutch1008]

2 minutes ago, radiman said:

Mythical course?  There are plenty of courses that don't have enough shorter tees.  Goes from white all the way up to red.  Used to be mens and womens tees.  And it's a significant drop off in distance.  So, cut a bit of distance to make the whites too unplayable for them.  But from the reds they would overpower most holes.  90 yard par 3's, 280 yard par 4's.  

 

Not that hard to put a tee box between the whites and red. Certainly easier than expanding a hole on a landlocked course. 

 

7 minutes ago, radiman said:

And FWIW, if the magic ball the USGA is proposing that will effect the longest hitters more than the average player, as golfers with tour level speed, we stand to lose the largest percentage of distance compared to our amateur brethren.  And congrats that you don't care?  That totally invalidates the opposing view.  You got me there. 

 

Ok, so me and you are going to lose 10-15 yds and our amateur brethren are going to lose 5-10. A net 5 loss, big whoop. Guess I'll just have to learn to hit more fairways and work on my approach play to get my advantage back. Always good to have goals. 

[radiman]

3 minutes ago, maamold said:

3-5 yards is punished? Wow, how did the game survive all those 100+ prior to 2000. 

What is the 3-5 yard number based on? 

 

I mean, I can definitely concede that we do not know the actual impact across the masses that this will have.  I mean, how could we, there has been zero tested data released.  So, if it's so short sighted to assume the worst, would it not be equally short sighted to assume that it is a non issue? 

 

Is there no validity to the idea that this will have a negative impact on at least some segment of the golf population?  Or are they just that unimportant to the shot value on private courses? 

[radiman]

3 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

Not that hard to put a tee box between the whites and red. Certainly easier than expanding a hole on a landlocked course. 

I for one do not know of any courses, at least locally, where the average golfer plays that is at an impasse because they're desperate to add distance.  I do know of a lot of city owned courses that run on such a shoestring budget that they won't be doing a damn thing to accommodate.  

 

Golf exists outside of the private and high end courses too. 

[James the Hogan Fan]

3 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

First of all, I play ProV1X because it is the best ball for my game a balls of that performance level is pretty much optimal for everyone. Second I can play longer tees so it won't impact me much personally. However, the women in the group I play with from the forward tees will be affected. It doesn't matter how much. The point I'm making is that you and the ruling bodies don't care what impact the rollback has on the majority of golfers including my women's group. It is that disregard which illustrates the pervasive elitist and arrogant attitudes that have no place in golf.

 

I think criticizing elitist and arrogant attitudes in a sport that worships Augusta National and the Masters is a bit ironic. I don't like it but elite snobbery is a cornerstone of this game.

 

Suppose a course was built in 1970 and has tees at 5700, 6100, and 6500 yards. That might be too long for some of the people you play with, and it is perhaps too short for me and some of the people I play with. Supposing that course wants to attract more golfers it's most likely simpler for them to flatten out a chunk of fairway here and there and create a forward tee than it is for them to try and cram in a new back tee. But if you take some of my distance away, so that 6500 is the new 6800 they don't need to do anything and I find their course more fun again, and it doesn't really cost me anything.

 

 

 

[Dutch1008]

2 minutes ago, radiman said:

I for one do not know of any courses, at least locally, where the average golfer plays that is at an impasse because they're desperate to add distance.  I do know of a lot of city owned courses that run on such a shoestring budget that they won't be doing a damn thing to accommodate.  

 

Golf exists outside of the private and high end courses too. 

 

Dude, I live in Southern California. Where land costs are so high, environmental restrictions so tight, and housing supply so constrained, that there probably wont be another golf course built in my lifetime. We're stuck w/ what we have, which is mostly a bunch of 6400 yd courses w/ zero ability to ever expand. 

 

I play those courses because that is what is available to me. I'd prefer to play from 6800+ because I actually enjoy playing my whole bag. Driver wedge into every Par 4 is pretty damn boring. Regardless, it is far less costly to add more forward tees than it is to expand. 

 

The options to make golf easier still exist. Moving up a box. Adding hybrid to the bag. Getting loft jacked irons. It's far more complicated and costly to go the other way. 

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, James the Hogan Fan said:

 

I think criticizing elitist and arrogant attitudes in a sport that worships Augusta National and the Masters is a bit ironic. I don't like it but elite snobbery is a cornerstone of this game.

 

Suppose a course was built in 1970 and has tees at 5700, 6100, and 6500 yards. That might be too long for some of the people you play with, and it is perhaps too short for me and some of the people I play with. Supposing that course wants to attract more golfers it's most likely simpler for them to flatten out a chunk of fairway here and there and create a forward tee than it is for them to try and cram in a new back tee. But if you take some of my distance away, so that 6500 is the new 6800 they don't need to do anything and I find their course more fun again, and it doesn't really cost me anything.

 

 

 

Unless you are shooting low 70s or better, no course is too short or presenting insufficient challenge. It may present a challenge you don't like or appreciate, but it is still exposing insufficient skill somewhere.

 

Also, not all of us find ANGC to be the most wonderful place since sliced bread. It is a pretty golf course for a couple months a year. The greens are clownish and there really aren't enough effective penalty areas (hence the clownish greens).

[betarhoalphadelta]

28 minutes ago, maamold said:

3-5 yards is punished? Wow, how did the game survive all those 100+ prior to 2000. 

 

Oh, you've got the empirical test data from newly designed balls that conform to the proposed rule that actually confirms how much loss will be seen by those with various swing speeds? I wasn't aware that's been released yet. Got a link?

[Titleist99]

54 minutes ago, radiman said:

Cripple the game?  Is that what anyone has been saying??  Or, is it simply an opposing viewpoint?  

You make a good point though.  There is zero idea what the impact will be.  Sounds like something that should have been studied and taken into account before cramming the change down everyone's throats.  

This right here ^^^^

[Puttersaurus Rex]

If people find golf boring depending on the layout or length, there are a) other courses or b) other hobbies.  
 

Still I am all for bifurcation of tour balls for tour events.  Like F1 tires where there are select, specific balls for each tournament.  One week it could be a pro v1 for everyone.  The next week a chrome tour x.  Masters will have everyone play a top flite.  Ams play whatever they want...everyone is happy (except ball manufacturers, and who cares about them?  They will still sell balls.).

[Titleist99]

51 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

Dude, I live in Southern California. Where land costs are so high, environmental restrictions so tight, and housing supply so constrained, that there probably wont be another golf course built in my lifetime. We're stuck w/ what we have, which is mostly a bunch of 6400 yd courses w/ zero ability to ever expand. 

 

I play those courses because that is what is available to me. I'd prefer to play from 6800+ because I actually enjoy playing my whole bag. Driver wedge into every Par 4 is pretty damn boring. Regardless, it is far less costly to add more forward tees than it is to expand. 

 

The options to make golf easier still exist. Moving up a box. Adding hybrid to the bag. Getting loft jacked irons. It's far more complicated and costly to go the other way. 

"I play those courses because that is what is available to me. I'd prefer to play from 6800+ because I actually enjoy playing my whole bag. Driver wedge into every Par 4 is pretty damn boring. Regardless, it is far less costly to add more forward tees than it is to expand". 

 

With all due respect, you have to be pretty tone deaf. If 6800 yard courses are too short for you, that would mean you are part of the 1%. The other 99% don't hit driver/wedge every hole. I'm sure most find it offensive that you would advocate changing the game because you hit it too far. 🙂

 

But, it really doesn't matter now, seeing as how it's a done deal.......🤣

Edited April 17 by Titleist99