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

[munichop]

12 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

This right here ^^^^

I agree.  I believe this could have been handled in the conditions of competition like the grooves and the one ball rule.  The distance issue really applies to such a small group of the millions who play the game that applying a change to everyone seems absurd.  Now with AI they can have a computer play millions of rounds with pros and top am specs to see where they want the initial velocity and spin limits capped.  Seems like the ruling bodies are always the last to use tech to help resolve an issue.  Frank Thomas knew just enough to be dangerous and this generation of young players are experiencing a completely different game than those in prior ones.  I prefer the previous tests the game presented vs now but that is a personal thing.   

[James the Hogan Fan]

13 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

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).

 

I don't actually think that's the case at all.

 

My scoring breakdown is simple, my watch says I hit 50% of fairways and 44% of greens. My expected strokes when I miss the green is 3. My putts per hole average is 2. That's all there is to it; I hit 8 greens a round from which I make par on average. I miss 10 greens a round from which I make a bogey on average. If I'm lucky enough to make a birdie or two, I typically make a double somewhere along the way to balance it. I shoot 80-84 a lot.

 

A 6000 yard golf course that I shoot 82 on tells you I can't hit the green with a wedge from a hundred yards. A 6800 yard golf course that I also shoot 82 on tells you I ALSO can't reliably hit the green from 100-220 yards with anything from a wedge to a 4 hybrid, and my recovery game is less than stellar.

 

But a few pages ago someone proposed a hypothetical course of 350 yard flat, straight holes with a green at the end. I've played the closest thing on earth to that, the front 9 of whatever they call the not-Mackenzie course at Haggin Oaks in Sacramento. Every hole asked for the same thing, namely a drive and a 75-130 yard approach. I'm pretty sure I shot 41 or so and was bored out of my mind. Was the course "challenging" enough? Sure, because there's enough inconsistency (badness) in my game that I can't automatically put a little ball in a 4" hole 350 yards away from me in 4 strokes. But I KNOW that. I don't need to be asked 10 times a round. 

 

If I wanted to be faced with the exact same challenge over and over again, simply because it's exposing "insufficient skill" I'd take up darts or horseshoes. 

 

 

[Dutch1008]

9 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

"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.......🤣

 

With all due respect you should read the full post. 6400 is too short and I prefer 6800+ as it allows me to play more of my bag. I have an abundance or 6400 yd options. The 6800 yd options are few and far between and most are $200+ / round or private. 

[Titleist99]

11 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

With all due respect you should read the full post. 6400 is too short and I prefer 6800+ as it allows me to play more of my bag. I have an abundance or 6400 yd options. The 6800 yd options are few and far between and most are $200+ / round or private. 

LOL! I understood. The average Joe doesn't hit 9 or 8i on every hole either.😂

[Dutch1008]

9 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

LOL! I understood. The average Joe doesn't hit 9 or 8i on every hole either.😂

 

🤣 You can't have your cake and eat it too. 

 

Dutch - "If the course is too long, move up a box"

 

Team Anti Rollback - "We'll overpower the course from the reds! A bunch of short par 3s and par 4s is boring"

 

Dutch - "I agree, I have those exact same frustrations on courses that max out around 6400"

 

Team Anti Rollback - "Deal w/ it Mr. One Percent"

[Titleist99]

Scottie Scheffler just gave an interview in which he stated that anyone in favor of a rollback of the golf ball should conduct a case study of Hilton head. You have to hit shots at a good course. That is from the #1 player in the world but WRXers think that they know better than him .... 🙂🙂

 

Golf does not have to be played at 8000 yards despite what Fred Ridley indicated.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

6 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Scottie Scheffler just gave an interview in which he stated that anyone in favor of a rollback of the golf ball should conduct a case study of Hilton head. You have to hit shots at a good course. That is from the #1 player in the world but WRXers think that they know better than him .... 🙂🙂

 

Golf does not have to be played at 8000 yards despite what Fred Ridley indicated.

 

Well I will take the example from throughout this thread and dismiss his opinion outright for "reasons". 

 

Harbour Town also plays ~400 yards longer than in it's inaugural event. 

Edited April 17 by TLUBulldogGolf

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Well I will take the example from throughout this thread and dismiss his opinion outright for "reasons". 

You have that right. His opinion is subjective as is yours.

[Chunkitgood]

Scheffler knows what’s good for him of course.  
 

No reason to think he has much expertise in what is good for golf as a whole, however you want to define it.  Nor to believe his motives are atltrusitic, which is. Not a knock on him, just human nature.  Any random club pro might have more.  This very thread demonstrates there are competing interests which most either be reconciled or chosen among by somebody.  The anti “roll backers” just deny that those competing interests exist.

[Dutch1008]

32 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

That is from the #1 player in the world but WRXers think that they know better than him .... 🙂🙂

 

I don't know better than Scottie. But Tiger might...

 

https://golf.com/gear/tiger-woods-usgas-rollback-right-wrong/

 

[StoutKing]

8 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

I don't know better than Scottie. But Tiger might...

 

https://golf.com/gear/tiger-woods-usgas-rollback-right-wrong/

 

Yeah Jack and Tiger definitely know better than Scottie.  When he gets to 15 majors and 82 PGA tour victories I will consider his input equal to Tiger's.

[Dutch1008]

45 minutes ago, Chunkitgood said:

Scheffler knows what’s good for him of course.  
 

No reason to think he has much expertise in what is good for golf as a whole, however you want to define it.  Nor to believe his motives are atltrusitic, which is. Not a knock on him, just human nature.  Any random club pro might have more.  This very thread demonstrates there are competing interests which most either be reconciled or chosen among by somebody.  The anti “roll backers” just deny that those competing interests exist.

 

I'd argue that Scottie is wrong about what's good for him and is simply defaulting to "the devil I know is better than the devil I don't". 

 

If the roll back works as intended, there will be a greater emphasis on iron play and specifically, long iron play. Guess where Scottie absolutely dusts the competition?

 

A good example... 2024 Masters, round 2, hole 11. Scottie vs Rory. Both in the fairway, Rory w/ the distance advantage, Scottie executes the shot w/ a mid iron, Rory doesn't.  

 

Edited April 17 by Dutch1008

[betarhoalphadelta]

57 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

🤣 You can't have your cake and eat it too. 

 

Dutch - "If the course is too long, move up a box"

 

Team Anti Rollback - "We'll overpower the course from the reds! A bunch of short par 3s and par 4s is boring"

 

Dutch - "I agree, I have those exact same frustrations on courses that max out around 6400"

 

Team Anti Rollback - "Deal w/ it Mr. One Percent"

 

Team anti rollback: "If the course is too short for you and not challenging enough, change your ball or start playing vintage clubs or do something to make it more interesting."

 

Dutch: "NO! I won't be satisfied unless I hamper everyone else too! I want a shorter ball and worse clubs but only if everyone else has to play a shorter ball and worse clubs too!"

 

It can cut both ways... 

[redfirebird08]

4 minutes ago, Dutch1008 said:

 

I'd argue that Scottie is wrong about what's good for him and is simply defaulting to "the devil I know is better than the devil I don't". 

 

If the roll back works as intended, there will be a greater emphasis on iron play and specifically, long iron play. Guess where Scottie absolutely dusts the competition?

 

A good example... 2024 Masters, round 2, hole 11. Scottie vs Rory. Both in the fairway, Rory w/ the distance advantage, Scottie executes the shot w/ a mid iron, Rory doesn't.  

 

 

 

Agreed, Scheffler should be rooting for the rollback. Tiger wanted everyone to play with Persimmon & Balata during his prime, but instead we saw better and better technology which helped the field close the gap on him as the years went by. Heavier emphasis on precision would give Scheffler a better situation than what he has right now, even if he can't envision that scenario. Lol

Edited April 17 by redfirebird08

[Titleist99]

53 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

Well I will take the example from throughout this thread and dismiss his opinion outright for "reasons". 

 

Harbour Town also plays ~400 yards longer than in it's inaugural event. 

I'll just put you down for being one of the WRXers who know better than SS.🤣

[TLUBulldogGolf]

2 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

I'll just put you down for being one of the WRXers who know better than SS.🤣

 

Willfully missing the point. Does Tiger know better? 🤪

Edited April 17 by TLUBulldogGolf

[Titleist99]

I do not recall Tiger or Jack calling for a rollback of the golf ball during their prime.

 

A designer of golf courses has a different perspective.

[Dutch1008]

21 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Team anti rollback: "If the course is too short for you and not challenging enough, change your ball or start playing vintage clubs or do something to make it more interesting."

 

Dutch: "NO! I won't be satisfied unless I hamper everyone else too! I want a shorter ball and worse clubs but only if everyone else has to play a shorter ball and worse clubs too!"

 

It can cut both ways... 

 

I'm on this thread pretty consistently saying I didn't care which way the ruling bodies decided to go. I'll still enjoy golf either way. It wasn't until I was inundated w/ a toddler like melt down of people thinking golf was forever ruined w/o a ProV1 that I truly leaned into the pro roll back crowd.  

 

I would like professional golf to more frequently reflect what we saw at Augusta this weekend. Unfortunately, not every course can expand to 7600+ yds, have Augusta like greens, or rely on extreme wind to challenge the players. The easiest way to accomplish that is to dumb down the equipment and hope that makes 7200 yd tracks w/ flatter greens a little more interesting. 

 

That said, like Tiger and Rory, I'm pro bifurcation. I don't think a uniform set of equipment standards is an untouchable tenant of the game.  

[redfirebird08]

8 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

I do not recall Tiger or Jack calling for a rollback of the golf ball during their prime.

 

A designer of golf courses has a different perspective.

 

Incorrect on Tiger. He said in 2005 that he would not mind a rollback because it would give him an advantage, which is absolutely true. 

 

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2005/11/13/tiger-on-a-rollback.html

 

"Hey, I am one of the guys that if they did roll the ball back, it would help me out a little bit. I would have an advantage. Any long guy who hits the ball long and high would have more of an advantage because now we're having to hit longer irons in the greens, other guys are having to hit hybrids and woods, so you have an advantage.

From a personal standpoint and competitive standpoint, I won't mind them rolling the ball back because I would have an advantage."

[clevited]

14 minutes ago, redfirebird08 said:

 

Incorrect on Tiger. He said in 2005 that he would not mind a rollback because it would give him an advantage, which is absolutely true. 

 

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2005/11/13/tiger-on-a-rollback.html

 

"Hey, I am one of the guys that if they did roll the ball back, it would help me out a little bit. I would have an advantage. Any long guy who hits the ball long and high would have more of an advantage because now we're having to hit longer irons in the greens, other guys are having to hit hybrids and woods, so you have an advantage.

From a personal standpoint and competitive standpoint, I won't mind them rolling the ball back because I would have an advantage."

 

That isn't calling for a rollback, that is being ok with one just like Rory recenting and mistakenly thinks.  The reality, players got better and these ego maniacs can't take it.

[redfirebird08]

3 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

That isn't calling for a rollback, that is being ok with one just like Rory recenting and mistakenly thinks.  The reality, players got better and these ego maniacs can't take it.

 

I mean...Tiger won 8 of 15 starts including 2 majors in 2006 right after making the comment I quoted above in the later part of 2005. The players did not get better around that time, but there was a radical change in the golf ball technology during the timespan of 2000 to 2003. Speaking of McIlroy, here's another quote from Tiger about balata golf balls and McIlroy: 

 

"By the time the rollback takes effect, I may be long gone. But last week, I was at home playing the Medalist course and I had my old Persimmon driver...and I was able to still carry the ball 290 yards. Now, when I missed it, no, it did not go very far. But the ability to hit the ball in the middle of the face was rewarded."

 

"I don't know if Rory McIlroy shared this, but yesterday I brought a couple balata balls up here with me and threw them over to him and had him hit a couple putts with them, and he said, "Oh, my God." I responded, "Yes, exactly." We're not going to roll the ball back that far, but it's kind of neat to be able to see the golf ball do different things."

[Titleist99]

8 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

That isn't calling for a rollback, that is being ok with one just like Rory recenting and mistakenly thinks.  The reality, players got better and these ego maniacs can't take it.

LOL!......RBs are so disingenuous. To post that as Tiger calling for a rollback is hilarious.

 

[maamold]

4 hours ago, radiman said:

What is the 3-5 yard number based on? 

 

"According to John Spitzer, the USGA’s director of equipment standards, the average male club player who swings his driver at 90 mph will lose 4 to 5 yards off the tee but will likely not lose any yardage when hitting hybrids, irons or wedges." - Golfweek

And...

Revised Golf Ball Testing Conditions to Take Effect in 2028 (usga.org)

 

4 hours ago, radiman said:

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? 

Zero data released ≠ Zero data. Somebody (suspect USGA/RA) knows exactly what will happen. 

 

4 hours ago, radiman said:

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? 

People played golf before 1994 and golf survived hitting it shorter. It'll be fine. 

[Pnwpingi210]

4 hours ago, knock it close said:

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 

Everybody in the Pacific Northwest 11.5 months out of the year

[maamold]

4 hours 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. 

Question - what is your home course, and what tee's do you play right now?

[Titleist99]

7 minutes ago, maamold said:

 

"According to John Spitzer, the USGA’s director of equipment standards, the average male club player who swings his driver at 90 mph will lose 4 to 5 yards off the tee but will likely not lose any yardage when hitting hybrids, irons or wedges." - Golfweek

And...

Revised Golf Ball Testing Conditions to Take Effect in 2028 (usga.org)

 

Zero data released ≠ Zero data. Somebody (suspect USGA/RA) knows exactly what will happen. 

 

People played golf before 1994 and golf survived hitting it shorter. It'll be fine. 

Is this really the logic you want to go with?

 

 

[maamold]

6 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Everybody in the Pacific Northwest 11.5 months out of the year

You're being generous with that month estimate. 

[maamold]

14 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Is this really the logic you want to go with?

It's not logic, it's the only information we (outsiders) have. I'm not going to enter a death spiral like some Anti-Rollbackers here and claim that the proposed test will "ruin everything!"

[maamold]

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

LOL!......RBs are so disingenuous. To post that as Tiger calling for a rollback is hilarious.

 

“I think this should have happened a long time ago,” Woods said at the time. “I’ve been of the position if you play in a pro event or you have a ‘P’ next to your name, you should be playing a pro ball. If you have an ‘A’ next to your name and you’re playing an amateur event, you should use an amateur ball.” --- Tiger Woods 

Edited April 18 by maamold
wording

[ThinkingPlus]

29 minutes ago, maamold said:

“I think this should have happened a long time ago,” Woods said at the time. “I’ve been of the position if you play in a pro event or you have a ‘P’ next to your name, you should be playing a pro ball. If you have an ‘A’ next to your name and you’re playing an amateur event, you should use an amateur ball.” --- Tiger Woods 

And yet, the ruling bodies don't agree with him. They believe elite amateurs (male) hit the ball too far as well.