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

[maamold]

4 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

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

Safe bet is that Tiger was thinking of weekend hackers that can barely break 90 when he said amateurs, rather than 'elite amateurs'; but you keep playing with words and semantics if it makes you feel better. 

[radiman]

1 hour ago, maamold said:

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

City has two courses it owns. I play from 6700 yards on one course and like 6850 on the other. 
 

i had a membership to a more affordable country club up until last year. It was 6600 and one of the hardest courses I’ve been a regular at. 
 

 

[bobfoster]

I've been following this Dueling Banjos thread since it started (I still think it needs more cowbell). Pretty sure I made some contributions that were undoubtedly significant and profound (🤣) two or three hundred pages ago. Pop in now and then to see if any new perspectives have appeared. Alas.

 

Not a criticism - as I have none of my own. At this point, the only service I thought I might be able to provide that might be helpful would be to succinctly summarize the the situation as it currently stands, so as to allow the arguments on either side to become more focused:

 

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

34 minutes ago, maamold said:

Safe bet is that Tiger was thinking of weekend hackers that can barely break 90 when he said amateurs, rather than 'elite amateurs'; but you keep playing with words and semantics if it makes you feel better. 

Not playing with words. The ruling bodies and others have specifically called out elite amateur distance. It makes sense. The ruling bodies only conduct 1 open event each with elite males playing. They conduct several more each for elite male ams.

[bekgolf]

1 hour ago, bobfoster said:

I've been following this Dueling Banjos thread since it started (I still think it needs more cowbell). Pretty sure I made some contributions that were undoubtedly significant and profound (🤣) two or three hundred pages ago. Pop in now and then to see if any new perspectives have appeared. Alas.

 

Not a criticism - as I have none of my own. At this point, the only service I thought I might be able to provide that might be helpful would be to succinctly summarize the the situation as it currently stands, so as to allow the arguments on either side to become more focused:

 

 

 

 

Bob, have you been foraging mushrooms again?

[bobfoster]

21 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

Bob, have you been foraging mushrooms again?

[Simpsonia]

One thing I love about the rollbackers is how on one hand they can argue about how we should all believe Tiger when he says there needs to be a rollback, but then completely dismiss the other part of the statement. Both Tiger and Rory have stated that a rollback would give them more a comparative advantage given their distances. Yet the rollbackers fight tooth and nail the argument that a rollback would create a comparative shots gained advantage for longer players, such that it would probably incentivize further distance gains in the field. How can they acknowledge in one breath that a rollback creates an advantage for those with distance, but then in the same breath deny that a rollback would incentivize further distance gains from the field.  

[Titleist99]

10 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

One thing I love about the rollbackers is how on one hand they can argue about how we should all believe Tiger when he says there needs to be a rollback, but then completely dismiss the other part of the statement. Both Tiger and Rory have stated that a rollback would give them more a comparative advantage given their distances. Yet the rollbackers fight tooth and nail the argument that a rollback would create a comparative shots gained advantage for longer players, such that it would probably incentivize further distance gains in the field. How can they acknowledge in one breath that a rollback creates an advantage for those with distance, but then in the same breath deny that a rollback would incentivize further distance gains from the field.  

Yep, that's almost as ridiculous as changing to a nerfed golf ball without conducting not one elite tournament.🙂

 

Almost as ridiculous as people saying that courses are too short at 6800-7000 yards when Pro tournaments and qualifiers are contested on the same length 6800-7000 yd. courses.🙂

[GoGoErky]

3 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Yep, that's almost as ridiculous as changing to a nerfed golf ball without conducting not one elite tournament.🙂

 

Almost as ridiculous as people saying that courses are too short at 6800-7000 yards when Pro tournaments and qualifiers are contested on the same length 6800-7000 yd. courses.🙂

And this saying that aren’t breaking par at those distances. Some arent breaking 80

[gvogel]

18 hours 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.  

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. 

There are a lot of guys that I know that should be playing senior tees (which sometimes where I play are right next to the red (ladies) tees.  They don't want to move up from the whites because their friends play there.  The whites are 6,400 yards, and the fairways are often soft from rain.  6,400 is particularly difficult in cold weather.  Hopefully, the ball roll back, as small as it will be for these players, will encourage more use of the gold senior tees.

[Titleist99]

19 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

And this saying that aren’t breaking par at those distances. Some arent breaking 80

100%. The next WRXer that claims that 6800 yd courses are too short for them I will direct them to Pasatiempo Golf Course where the elite college kids just played at 6600 Yards. It was a stern test.

 

May have to have them post a scorecard with it being attested.🙂

[gvogel]

17 hours 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.

I am glad that the Tour only plays a course like Hilton Head or Colonial once or twice a year.  Hilton head effective takes driver out of the bag for longer players.  Looks like McIlroy will be using a BRNR (2-wood) quite a bit.  There is nothing like compressing driver distance by making a course narrow and forcing players to play to very distinct places in the fairway. 

 

So, if you like watching the tournament at Hilton Head, you like tricked up short courses.  Vive la difference!

[gvogel]

16 hours 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.

Throughout the long history of golf, hitting the ball off the tee with a driver has been a big part of the game.

 

This week the players will rarely use driver off the tee.  I guess that's OK for one week of the year.

[gvogel]

15 hours 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.

Jack didn't need to call for a roll back during his prime.  He has stated that with the equipment available at the time, he could play an exhibition at a course and play the same tees as the host professional.  He said that is not possible today.

[radiman]

28 minutes ago, gvogel said:

There are a lot of guys that I know that should be playing senior tees (which sometimes where I play are right next to the red (ladies) tees.  They don't want to move up from the whites because their friends play there.  The whites are 6,400 yards, and the fairways are often soft from rain.  6,400 is particularly difficult in cold weather.  Hopefully, the ball roll back, as small as it will be for these players, will encourage more use of the gold senior tees.

The difference between the white and red at my main course is 1,000 yards. I don’t think the city would care enough to spend the money on a whole new set of tees. 
 

I hope they do. Because no amount of arguing in this thread is going to change the RB’s minds. It’s happening and I just hope it isn’t too damaging to the people who really don’t need their distance dialed back. 

[Titleist99]

18 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I am glad that the Tour only plays a course like Hilton Head or Colonial once or twice a year.  Hilton head effective takes driver out of the bag for longer players.  Looks like McIlroy will be using a BRNR (2-wood) quite a bit.  There is nothing like compressing driver distance by making a course narrow and forcing players to play to very distinct places in the fairway. 

 

So, if you like watching the tournament at Hilton Head, you like tricked up short courses.  Vive la difference!

What's this nonsense about taking the driver out of someone's hands? A player can hit driver whenever he pleases. Didn't stroke gained say to bang the driver out there as far as you can and go find it?

[munichop]

13 minutes ago, radiman said:

The difference between the white and red at my main course is 1,000 yards. I don’t think the city would care enough to spend the money on a whole new set of tees. 
 

I hope they do. Because no amount of arguing in this thread is going to change the RB’s minds. It’s happening and I just hope it isn’t too damaging to the people who really don’t need their distance dialed back. 

My casual group plays hybrid tees a lot when the course has too big of a gap. Sometimes it is specific holes other times they will move up on par 3 and 5’s and play par 4s back. 
my competitive leagues only use tournament rounds for hcp so it doesn’t affect that. People will adjust. 
used golf balls will be around awhile to soothe the transition 

[ThinkingPlus]

24 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

What's this nonsense about taking the driver out of someone's hands? A player can hit driver whenever he pleases. Didn't stroke gained say to bang the driver out there as far as you can and go find it?

No it doesn't.  Optimal strategy is a bit more nuanced than that, but we all understand that nuance isn't your superpower.

[Pnwpingi210]

2 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

One thing I love about the rollbackers is how on one hand they can argue about how we should all believe Tiger when he says there needs to be a rollback, but then completely dismiss the other part of the statement. Both Tiger and Rory have stated that a rollback would give them more a comparative advantage given their distances. Yet the rollbackers fight tooth and nail the argument that a rollback would create a comparative shots gained advantage for longer players, such that it would probably incentivize further distance gains in the field. How can they acknowledge in one breath that a rollback creates an advantage for those with distance, but then in the same breath deny that a rollback would incentivize further distance gains from the field.  

I agree with you on this.  
 

Longer players always have had, and will have a competitive advantage.  
 

Professional golf is evolving into a sport of exceptional athleticism and skill.    The hank kuehnes and Jamie sadlowskis were anomalies and exceptions to the rule.  Now there are numerous people on tour that can hit 190 ball speed during tournaments if they choose.  Chandler Phillips comes to mind as one of the few younger players joining the tour that isn’t consistent upper 170s to low 180s guy.    

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

No it doesn't.  Optimal strategy is a bit more nuanced than that, but we all understand that nuance isn't your superpower.

Agree with this.  This rise of 2 woods on tour is proof of this.  Players want a club that goes less than driver off the tee on some holes.  Not because they need something more forgiving, but because they want something that goes less distance and gives them a better angle into greens.

[Simpsonia]

52 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Throughout the long history of golf, hitting the ball off the tee with a driver has been a big part of the game.

 

This week the players will rarely use driver off the tee.  I guess that's OK for one week of the year.

 

 

Rollbackers: "I want to see a test of all clubs in the bag, especially the long irons. Today's game is just driver/wedge."

Also Rollbackers: "I only want to see driver off the tee." 

 

I will absolutely cop that this a flippant reply, but also kind of accurate given what we've seen in here. 

[smashdn]

20 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

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.

 

If the impact is "negligible"  then by definition they wouldn't/shouldn't care or consider it in their decision making.

 

 

The actual change:

 

The revised ball testing conditions will be as follows: 125-mph clubhead speed (equivalent to 183 mph ball speed); spin rate of 2200 rpm and launch angle of 11 degrees. The current conditions, which were established 20 years ago, are set at 120 mph (equivalent to 176 mph ball speed), 2520 rpm with a 10-degree launch angle.

 

The revised conditions are based on analysis of data from the worldwide tours and the game over several years and are intended to ensure that the ODS (whose limit will remain unchanged at 317 yards with a 3-yard tolerance) continues to represent the ability of the game’s longest hitters.

 

So our heartburn is that the USGA and R&A are changing the test to better replicate what is actually going on in the world, at the upper end of golf swing speeds, where the test was founded to begin with.

 

[clevited]

16 hours ago, redfirebird08 said:

 

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."

 

Just a note about old wound balls for the millionth time, they are too old to glean any actual performance information from.   Your bolded quote is meaningless.  Rory and Tiger seem to be too dumb to realize this.

 

Also, Tiger saw guys creeping up distance wise, or even over taking him.  They got more efficient with the new ball while he stayed stubborn and inefficient with his driving for quite a long time.  Rory added speed and distance when Bryson did because of his ego.  I am willing to bet a lot of money on that.  These guys are human, not super human.  They are subject to the same silly ego inflating and ego damaging stuff any typical male golfer is.

Edited April 18 by clevited

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Agree with this.  This rise of 2 woods on tour is proof of this.  Players want a club that goes less than driver off the tee on some holes.  Not because they need something more forgiving, but because they want something that goes less distance and gives them a better angle into greens.

Each hole at a golf course has a distance where a pro with their angular dispersion can play a tee shot while minimizing the likelihood of an effective penalty shot. They will find the right club and swing to produce that shot. Sometimes it is driver, sometimes 3w, or something else. If they find that adding a different club to their 14 fits better to the tee shots on the course, they swap it in. They are pros and lower scores fill their bank accounts. They choose the best 14 each week.

[clevited]

6 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Each hole at a golf course has a distance where a pro with their angular dispersion can play a tee shot while minimizing the likelihood of an effective penalty shot. They will find the right club and swing to produce that shot. Sometimes it is driver, sometimes 3w, or something else. If they find that adding a different club to their 14 fits better to the tee shots on the course, they swap it in. They are pros and lower scores fill their bank accounts. They choose the best 14 each week.

 

I am no pro but I have a 3hb, 3i, 5w, 3w (effectively a 2w), soon a mini driver, that I will swap in and out all to cater to whatever course I am playing.  Being long off the tee isn't what everyone seems to think.  Driver off the tee is not always the smart move no matter how good you are with it.  Wind, miss room, hazard distance, rough length etc etc, all things that a longer player has to contemplate.  You can't really control where a driver stops, but you can control where a higher spinning club stops.

Edited April 18 by clevited

[Pnwpingi210]

3 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Each hole at a golf course has a distance where a pro with their angular dispersion can play a tee shot while minimizing the likelihood of an effective penalty shot. They will find the right club and swing to produce that shot. Sometimes it is driver, sometimes 3w, or something else. If they find that adding a different club to their 14 fits better to the tee shots on the course, they swap it in. They are pros and lower scores fill their bank accounts. They choose the best 14 each week.

Agree.  
 

At Hilton head it is less about dispersion off the tee leading to penalty strokes and more about leaving the ball in a place you can have a peek at the green.  I’ve had the privilege of playing that course and it’s seems to have by far the most angle dependent approaches on a course I’ve ever played.  
 

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

10 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

If the impact is "negligible"  then by definition they wouldn't/shouldn't care or consider it in their decision making.

 

 

The actual change:

 

The revised ball testing conditions will be as follows: 125-mph clubhead speed (equivalent to 183 mph ball speed); spin rate of 2200 rpm and launch angle of 11 degrees. The current conditions, which were established 20 years ago, are set at 120 mph (equivalent to 176 mph ball speed), 2520 rpm with a 10-degree launch angle.

 

The revised conditions are based on analysis of data from the worldwide tours and the game over several years and are intended to ensure that the ODS (whose limit will remain unchanged at 317 yards with a 3-yard tolerance) continues to represent the ability of the game’s longest hitters.

 

So our heartburn is that the USGA and R&A are changing the test to better replicate what is actually going on in the world, at the upper end of golf swing speeds, where the test was founded to begin with.

 

The heartburn is a 3% - 4% reduction in distance for everybody with no objective reason to do so. Also this is likely just the beginning. Most folks expect COR to be dialed back as well.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Agree.  
 

At Hilton head it is less about dispersion off the tee leading to penalty strokes and more about leaving the ball in a place you can have a peek at the green.  I’ve had the privilege of playing that course and it’s seems to have by far the most angle dependent approaches on a course I’ve ever played.  
 

 

 

That's why I said "effective" penalty. Being blocked out by trees adds fractional strokes that begins to exceed any strokes gained due to shorter distance to the hole.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

44 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

Rollbackers: "I want to see a test of all clubs in the bag, especially the long irons. Today's game is just driver/wedge."

Also Rollbackers: "I only want to see driver off the tee." 

 

I will absolutely cop that this a flippant reply, but also kind of accurate given what we've seen in here. 

 

As a counter, you are arguing for the game to essentially become driver wedge so long hitters don't have (as much of) an advantage. 

 

What do you think a tournament at a non-lengthened Augusta for example looks like? (not talking about score here)

Edited April 18 by TLUBulldogGolf

[smashdn]

9 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The heartburn is a 3% - 4% reduction in distance for everybody with no objective reason to do so. 

 

Firstly, you don't know that to be true.

Secondly, what would you offer as an objective reason?  Give me an example of an objective reason that they could supply.