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

[gvogel]

1 minute ago, GoGoErky said:

Because I’m free to as long as it’s open and there is something I care to spend my energy replying to.

 

interesting that you haven’t asked another member who said they see going to stop posting when the thread got to 300 or 350 pages yet still posts. So why only ask one person 

I asked you because you recently said to lock it down.  I also asked because we have 430 pages of opinion and projections, without any knowledge of what will actually happen.

[Oostiesalbacore]

If the ball makers have to make a nerfed ball, they should go all out and make a super ball for us hackers and duffers who aren’t playing in tournaments anyway. 

[Pnwpingi210]

11 minutes ago, Oostiesalbacore said:

If the ball makers have to make a nerfed ball, they should go all out and make a super ball for us hackers and duffers who aren’t playing in tournaments anyway. 

I honestly think this is a great idea!  
 

then develop a formula that figures out how many strokes that super ball gains you and apply those similar to handicap and strokes if you want to compete with friends who are using the nerfed ball.

 

example.

 

handicap 6

strokes gained from super ball - 2 

handicap strokes - 3 per side

strokes gained from super ball - minus 1 each side.

in has his example  the 6 handicap golfer would get a net of two strokes per side if they were using the super ball vs the 3 strokes per side if they were using a nerfed ball.

 

a solution for all!

Everybody gets to use the ball they want that maximizes their experience, scoring, and fun and nobody is “punished” for using a ball that flys farther or less far!

Edited May 15 by Pnwpingi210

[betarhoalphadelta]

On 5/13/2024 at 4:20 PM, maamold said:

 

I'm not policing or controlling anything, I'm saying that if the ruling bodies have decided to change equipment rules based on studies and observations then I'll follow their rules.

 

Okay, nice Motte & Bailey argument there. "I'm just saying that if golf's ruling bodies make a rule, I'll follow it."

 

No. You and I are the same in that. If nothing about this rule change is rescinded before 2030, I will start playing conforming balls in 2030 (or whenever my supply runs out, although I don't plan to "hoard" balls). And I say that as an anti-rollbacker. 

 

You're not just "following their rules", you've been pro-rollback pretty much the entire time. You've not been arguing in favor of being a rule-follower; you've been arguing that the rollback is necessary and you think it's just the first step and should go MUCH farther to limit equipment. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

17 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I agree with most of what you are saying. 
 

I don’t believe that we all couldn’t find a path forward to find something that works for all.

 

We can't. In a rollback, someone gets shafted. 

 

Bifurcation via MLR ball is the best answer for the most golfers. Limit the solution to the very narrow group that is the "problem". However bifurcation shafts the ballmakers. It's an economic loser for the ballmakers. For that reason, the PGA Tour (the group the ruling bodies basically think is the problem, and is beholden to the ballmakers for advertising revenue) said they won't implement it, so the ruling bodies said it wouldn't do what they wanted done. 

 

A universal rollback shafts everyone. Which is why the ruling bodies have been trying to claim that the new ball will be magic and that the only people who notice the difference will be the high swing speed players. They are trying to deflect criticism of the rollback from guys like me who have mortal swing speeds (~100 mph driver) and below trying to say we won't notice. I think it's absolute BS and it's a claim being made without them giving us any data justifying it--because the new ball doesn't exist. 

 

The real answer is that no solution works for all. 

 

----------------

 

BTW I did offer a solution. Make an MLR that no club other than putter with less than 15* static loft can be used. It won't be across the board; it will be used only for certain events where it is desired to limit distance off the tee so a course is not "obsolete". It's not bifurcation as it won't require the redesign of any club or ball, so the economic impact on manufacturers is nil. 

 

Heck, it could even be implemented on certain groups. I.e. @smashdn apparently plays on a shortish (6350) course, with some bombers for members. So maybe in the club championship or other club tournaments, the championship flight has the MLR applied but the rest of the members in the lower flights (who can't bomb it 300+) can keep the driver in play. 

 

Seems to me like a solution that works for all and doesn't shaft anyone. 

Edited May 15 by betarhoalphadelta

[Pnwpingi210]

7 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

We can't. In a rollback, someone gets shafted. 

 

Bifurcation via MLR ball is the best answer for the most golfers. Limit the solution to the very narrow group that is the "problem". However bifurcation shafts the ballmakers. It's an economic loser for the ballmakers. For that reason, the PGA Tour (the group the ruling bodies basically think is the problem, and is beholden to the ballmakers for advertising revenue) said they won't implement it, so the ruling bodies said it wouldn't do what they wanted done. 

 

A universal rollback shafts everyone. Which is why the ruling bodies have been trying to claim that the new ball will be magic and that the only people who notice the difference will be the high swing speed players. They are trying to deflect criticism of the rollback from guys like me who have mortal swing speeds (~100 mph driver) and below trying to say we won't notice. I think it's absolute BS and it's a claim being made without them giving us any data justifying it--because the new ball doesn't exist. 

 

The real answer is that no solution works for all. 

 

----------------

 

BTW I did offer a solution. Make an MLR that no club with less than 15* static loft can be used. It won't be across the board; it will be used only for certain events where it is desired to limit distance off the tee so a course is not "obsolete". It's not bifurcation as it won't require the redesign of any club or ball, so the economic impact on manufacturers is nil. 

 

Heck, it could even be implemented on certain groups. I.e. @smashdn apparently plays on a shortish (6350) course, with some bombers for members. So maybe in the club championship or other club tournaments, the championship flight has the MLR applied but the rest of the members in the lower flights (who can't bomb it 300+) can keep the driver in play. 

 

Seems to me like a solution that works for all and doesn't shaft anyone. 

What about the solution about 3 posts above this one where you allow folks to play the current spec ball ( playfully called super ball) and a reduced distance ball (playfully called nerfed ball).   You make adjustments via a deemed strokes gained formula for the ball you play (example - current ball is no adjustment, nerfed ball gets something like 2 strokes ( we know from data that 20 yards gets you something like 1.8 strokes gained so you round up.)

 

seems fair for all and lets you play the ball the suits the game you want to play, while not punishing anyone.

Edited May 15 by Pnwpingi210

[munichop]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I honestly think this is a great idea!  
 

then develop a formula that figures out how many strokes that super ball gains you and apply those similar to handicap and strokes if you want to compete with friends who are using the nerfed ball.

 

example.

 

handicap 6

strokes gained from super ball - 2 

handicap strokes - 3 per side

strokes gained from super ball - minus 1 each side.

in has his example  the 6 handicap golfer would get a net of two strokes per side if they were using the super ball vs the 3 strokes per side if they were using a nerfed ball.

 

a solution for all!

Everybody gets to use the ball they want that maximizes their experience, scoring, and fun and nobody is “punished” for using a ball that flys farther or less far!

Or anyone can buy current balls on the used market and play them just like non conforming clubs with square grooves.

[betarhoalphadelta]

19 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

What about the solution about 3 posts above this one where you allow folks to play the current spec ball ( playfully called super ball) and a reduced distance ball (playfully called nerfed ball).   You make adjustments via a deemed strokes gained formula for the ball you play (example - current ball is no adjustment, nerfed ball gets something like 2 strokes ( we know from data that 20 yards gets you something like 1.8 strokes gained so you round up.)

 

seems fair for all and lets you play the ball the suits the game you want to play, while not punishing anyone.

 

The ruling bodies are not going to do that. And IMHO shouldn't. The MLR ball was sort of an attempt at this, although it wasn't marketed as a "super ball", it was just balls that conform to the current spec left alone and new balls that would conform to a limited spec for elite male events. But it certainly wasn't something that was going to be used to allow for players to allocate strokes in lower-level play based on which ball they were playing.  

 

Golf is a game of honor. Ultimately, players will play conforming golf balls. If a player is playing a non-conforming golf ball, I'm not going to engage in any sort of betting game with them, because by their nature I then have to wonder what other rules they don't follow. If someone hosts a tournament (even a flighted net tournament), they're not going to allow the use of non-conforming golf balls, nor try to divide up handicap strokes based on ball used. 

 

While he's on the anti-rollback side like I am, @Oostiesalbacore has been throwing out ridiculous and unserious "solutions" in this thread that can mostly be ignored. The "super ball" already exists; a google search for "nonconforming golf balls" has the first link being a review of four existing models that are designed to go straighter, or longer, or both, than conforming balls. 

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

The ruling bodies are not going to do that. And IMHO shouldn't. The MLR ball was sort of an attempt at this, although it wasn't marketed as a "super ball", it was just balls that conform to the current spec left alone and new balls that would conform to a limited spec for elite male events. But it certainly wasn't something that was going to be used to allow for players to allocate strokes in lower-level play based on which ball they were playing.  

 

Golf is a game of honor. Ultimately, players will play conforming golf balls. If a player is playing a non-conforming golf ball, I'm not going to engage in any sort of betting game with them, because by their nature I then have to wonder what other rules they don't follow. If someone hosts a tournament (even a flighted net tournament), they're not going to allow the use of non-conforming golf balls, nor try to divide up handicap strokes based on ball used. 

 

While he's on the anti-rollback side like I am, @Oostiesalbacore has been throwing out ridiculous and unserious "solutions" in this thread that can mostly be ignored. The "super ball" already exists; a google search for "nonconforming golf balls" has the first link being a review of four existing models that are designed to go straighter, or longer, or both, than conforming balls. 

Right.  
 

I guess I was being more playful in my description and pragmatic in my solution.

 

So for clarity- two balls both conform

Ball A confirms to current specs.  Is continues to be legal for play.  No adjustments to score
Ball B is the limited distance ball.  This ball also conforms to the “limited distance ball” spec and is legal for play.  You get a pre determined amount of strokes based on data for playing this ball.  The example I used was anyone that uses this ball gets 2 strokes since data shows hitting the ball further off the tee amounts to about 2 strokes gained (this is an estimate based on arrcos data and the 20 yard reduced flight from 2028 ball specs.  It would need more though and analysis but that not the point)

 

we already do something similar to allow golfers to play different tees and still be competive, why not the ball?

 

seems fair for all and allows them the choice to play the game they want to play, within the legal rules of golf, all while not be punished.

 

[Simpsonia]

11 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Right.  
 

I guess I was being more playful in my description and pragmatic in my solution.

 

So for clarity- two balls both conform

Ball A confirms to current specs.  Is continues to be legal for play.  No adjustments to score
Ball B is the limited distance ball.  This ball also conforms to the “limited distance ball” spec and is legal for play.  You get a pre determined amount of strokes based on data for playing this ball.  The example I used was anyone that uses this ball gets 2 strokes since data shows hitting the ball further off the tee amounts to about 2 strokes gained (this is an estimate based on arrcos data and the 20 yard reduced flight from 2028 ball specs.  It would need more though and analysis but that not the point)

 

we already do something similar to allow golfers to play different tees and still be competive, why not the ball?

 

seems fair for all and allows them the choice to play the game they want to play, within the legal rules of golf, all while not be punished.

 

 

This would require a wholesale restructuring of the equipment rules. Currently the rules are binary. Equipment is either conforming or it is not conforming. This proposal seems like it would create an in-between tier of conforming. Under this proposal there would be conforming, non-conforming for elite tournaments but conforming with a penalty otherwise, and fully non-conforming. It's essentially bifurcation under a new name with additional rule complexities. 

 

I like the outside the box thinking, I really do, this just isn't landing for me though as I think equipment rules need to really be brightline binary rules for simplicity of enforcement. 

[maamold]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Okay, nice Motte & Bailey argument there. "I'm just saying that if golf's ruling bodies make a rule, I'll follow it."

It's not an argument, it's a statement. I play by the USGA rules and if a rule is changed I'll follow the new rule. I can also believe they are correct and that in the 90's-2000's the USGA was short sighted in not setting proper head size specs (No pro would ever hit a 460cc driver, really Frank?) less speed off the face for drivers (spring-like effect anyone?).

The thread started about the MLR, then when the USGA announced the new plan for 'one ball change for everyone' the root argument became is that rollback good or bad for the game. It has twisted and turned from day one. I hold firm that rolling all equipment back a bit is good.
 

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

No. You and I are the same in that. If nothing about this rule change is rescinded before 2030, I will start playing conforming balls in 2030 (or whenever my supply runs out, although I don't plan to "hoard" balls). And I say that as an anti-rollbacker. 

Ok
 

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

You're not just "following their rules", you've been pro-rollback pretty much the entire time. You've not been arguing in favor of being a rule-follower; you've been arguing that the rollback is necessary and you think it's just the first step and should go MUCH farther to limit equipment. 

Right, because I can also read the data in their report and read the data based on per year leader average distance and per year field averages. The Leaders are 30+ yards longer than they were in 1980 and the Field is 40+ yards longer than they were in 1980. I see the issue, and I saw the issue happening before the USGA/RA opened their own eyes.

I firmly believe that equipment shouldn't be the driving force for distance gains, you want to work out and get faster good, do that, get longer and faster. But don't rely on your equipment to give you that extra 5mph ball speed - what kind of sport is that where we allow equipment to be more important than the player?

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Simpsonia said:

 

This would require a wholesale restructuring of the equipment rules. Currently the rules are binary. Equipment is either conforming or it is not conforming. This proposal seems like it would create an in-between tier of conforming. Under this proposal there would be conforming, non-conforming for elite tournaments but conforming with a penalty otherwise, and fully non-conforming. It's essentially bifurcation under a new name with additional rule complexities. 

 

I like the outside the box thinking, I really do, this just isn't landing for me though as I think equipment rules need to really be brightline binary rules for simplicity of enforcement. 

Its bifurcation - but non penal

 

we do it for tees, why not balls?

 

It doesn’t need to be complex.

 

 

you have a standard conforming ball 

you have a tournament conforming ball with reduced distance.

 

if you choose to play a tournament conforming ball full time in a friendly match or for non competitive, but handicap tracking rounds you get the strokes back you lose due to the reduction of distance so you aren’t punished against vs using a standard conforming ball.
 

Nobody is punished, nobody is penalized, everyone has a choice, and everybody is still conforming to the rules.

 

 

[gvogel]

14 minutes ago, maamold said:

It's not an argument, it's a statement. I play by the USGA rules and if a rule is changed I'll follow the new rule. I can also believe they are correct and that in the 90's-2000's the USGA was short sighted in not setting proper head size specs (No pro would ever hit a 460cc driver, really Frank?) less speed off the face for drivers (spring-like effect anyone?).

The thread started about the MLR, then when the USGA announced the new plan for 'one ball change for everyone' the root argument became is that rollback good or bad for the game. It has twisted and turned from day one. I hold firm that rolling all equipment back a bit is good.
 

Ok
 

Right, because I can also read the data in their report and read the data based on per year leader average distance and per year field averages. The Leaders are 30+ yards longer than they were in 1980 and the Field is 40+ yards longer than they were in 1980. I see the issue, and I saw the issue happening before the USGA/RA opened their own eyes.

I firmly believe that equipment shouldn't be the driving force for distance gains, you want to work out and get faster good, do that, get longer and faster. But don't rely on your equipment to give you that extra 5mph ball speed - what kind of sport is that where we allow equipment to be more important than the player?

Sailing.

[Oostiesalbacore]

It’s ridiculous and unserious to post alternatives to the rollback which is intended to preserve the dignity of a field poked with holes. 

[smashdn]

35 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

This would require a wholesale restructuring of the equipment rules. Currently the rules are binary. Equipment is either conforming or it is not conforming. This proposal seems like it would create an in-between tier of conforming. Under this proposal there would be conforming, non-conforming for elite tournaments but conforming with a penalty otherwise, and fully non-conforming. It's essentially bifurcation under a new name with additional rule complexities. 

 

I like the outside the box thinking, I really do, this just isn't landing for me though as I think equipment rules need to really be brightline binary rules for simplicity of enforcement. 

 

When I first read it I thought it was hogwash but honestly after I thought on it more it is not terrible, especially with the commentary regarding sets of tees.

 

There is essentially bifurcation within the rules now.  Range finders, one ball rule.  Tournaments and organizations that put on tournaments elect to use or not use several model local rules.  LCP fundamentally changes golf when it is in effect but I get why they do it (most of the time). 

 

That is just examples within the rules.  Throw in spectators, temporary immovable obstructions, spotters and marshals and that group plays a very different game than most of us.

[GoGoErky]

3 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

When I first read it I thought it was hogwash but honestly after I thought on it more it is not terrible, especially with the commentary regarding sets of tees.

 

There is essentially bifurcation within the rules now.  Range finders, one ball rule.  Tournaments and organizations that put on tournaments elect to use or not use several model local rules.  LCP fundamentally changes golf when it is in effect but I get why they do it (most of the time). 

 

That is just examples within the rules.  Throw in spectators, temporary immovable obstructions, spotters and marshals and that group plays a very different game than most of us.

None of that is “essentially bifurcation” all of the rules including MLR can be instituted in regular play amongst a group if they choose. Choosing not to doest create bifurcation.
 

My old group used lcp after heavy rains, even sometimes several days after because parts of the courses didn’t dry as well as others. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

38 minutes ago, maamold said:

It's not an argument, it's a statement. I play by the USGA rules and if a rule is changed I'll follow the new rule. I can also believe they are correct and that in the 90's-2000's the USGA was short sighted in not setting proper head size specs (No pro would ever hit a 460cc driver, really Frank?) less speed off the face for drivers (spring-like effect anyone?).

The thread started about the MLR, then when the USGA announced the new plan for 'one ball change for everyone' the root argument became is that rollback good or bad for the game. It has twisted and turned from day one. I hold firm that rolling all equipment back a bit is good.
 

Ok
 

Right, because I can also read the data in their report and read the data based on per year leader average distance and per year field averages. The Leaders are 30+ yards longer than they were in 1980 and the Field is 40+ yards longer than they were in 1980. I see the issue, and I saw the issue happening before the USGA/RA opened their own eyes.

I firmly believe that equipment shouldn't be the driving force for distance gains, you want to work out and get faster good, do that, get longer and faster. But don't rely on your equipment to give you that extra 5mph ball speed - what kind of sport is that where we allow equipment to be more important than the player?

 

Right, but the context that you were replying to was a statement where you say controlling equipment is ok, and when pushed you said you were "not policing or controlling anything", and saying that the ruling bodies are the ones; you're just following the rules. 

 

Whereas here you're saying that you saw the issue happening before the USGA/R&A and that "rolling all equipment back is good". 

 

I.e. I would say that you are QUITE clearly in the realm that you're interested in policing or controlling equipment rules, i.e. changing them. 

[smashdn]

2 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

None of that is “essentially bifurcation” all of the rules including MLR can be instituted in regular play amongst a group if they choose. Choosing not to doest create bifurcation.
 

My old group used lcp after heavy rains, even sometimes several days after because parts of the courses didn’t dry as well as others. 

 

Fair to say, as a given, the PGAT elects to use certain MLR's always and the rest of us, not use those rules when we play?  Do you and your group use the no range finders or the one ball rule every time you play?

[betarhoalphadelta]

44 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Its bifurcation - but non penal

 

we do it for tees, why not balls?

 

It doesn’t need to be complex.

 

 

you have a standard conforming ball 

you have a tournament conforming ball with reduced distance.

 

if you choose to play a tournament conforming ball full time in a friendly match or for non competitive, but handicap tracking rounds you get the strokes back you lose due to the reduction of distance so you aren’t punished against vs using a standard conforming ball.
 

Nobody is punished, nobody is penalized, everyone has a choice, and everybody is still conforming to the rules.

 

 

Seems needlessly complex. It's the MLR but with additional handicapping guidance for mixed-ball matches. I guess the only real advantage to this idea would be those people who "straddle the line" between events that require the MLR ball and those that don't (including normal play / friendly matches), so that they have an equitable handicap and aren't penalized by having to switch back and forth between balls all the time. 

 

But it still requires two completely different balls to be produced to two completely different standards. All the arguments against the MLR ball basically being bifurcation continue to exist, with possibly softening the impact for those people who straddle the line. 

[Pnwpingi210]

6 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Seems needlessly complex. It's the MLR but with additional handicapping guidance for mixed-ball matches. I guess the only real advantage to this idea would be those people who "straddle the line" between events that require the MLR ball and those that don't (including normal play / friendly matches), so that they have an equitable handicap and aren't penalized by having to switch back and forth between balls all the time. 

 

But it still requires two completely different balls to be produced to two completely different standards. All the arguments against the MLR ball basically being bifurcation continue to exist, with possibly softening the impact for those people who straddle the line. 

How is it different than the system we have in place for tees? 
 

You have two ball specs you rate them in a similar fashion to tees, likely only adjusting for stokes gained or lost, depending on what your position is.  The best part is, if you don’t want to change, you don’t change!  And you aren’t penalized by the new rule in any shape or form. 

 

it probably seemed needlessly complex when they first started rating courses and all of their multiple, legal tee options .  Now it’s just the golf we know.

[GoGoErky]

49 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Fair to say, as a given, the PGAT elects to use certain MLR's always and the rest of us, not use those rules when we play?  Do you and your group use the no range finders or the one ball rule every time you play?

No but we have the option to use those if we choose. That’s the purpose of the MLR, they can be used if a committee chooses to use them. Just because you or you group chooses not to doesn’t create any bifurcation, it’s just a choice made. 
 

We could easily say one ball rule in effect for this round and everyone would have to abide by it. Which wouldn’t be a problem in the group because the majority use the same ball for all their shots. Theres maybe two people who play whatever ball they have in the bag, everyone else is prov1, some version of the chromsoft or the q star. Same as rangefinder rule if we wanted to change things up especially since the group plays the same courses routinely. These are choices that can be made or not made and it as simple as that.

 

Dont be made or jealous that an organization chooses to implement MLRs in accordance with the ROG.

 

Is the PGA championship bifurcated because they allow range finders?

Edited May 15 by GoGoErky

[Archimedes65]

Seth Waugh’s comments this morning, basically ‘are we doing the right thing for the growth of the game to be bending for 1/2 of 1% of the golfers out there?’

 

John Lindert, PGA Pro’s comments:  ‘I know I’m going to be selling a ton of golf balls to my members in 2028 and they’ll be playing them until 2036…’. (Which is exactly what I intend to do.)

 

Interestingly, he also mentioned that the manufacturers design all their clubs around the ball, so there will be a redesign of all the clubs, from drivers to wedges, to deal with the new ball.  That sounds inexpensive…

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

No but we have the option to use those if we choose. That’s the purpose of the MLR, they can be used if a committee chooses to use them. Just because you or you group chooses not to doesn’t create any bifurcation, it’s just a choice made. 
 

We could easily say one ball rule in effect for this round and everyone would have to abide by it. Same as rangefinder rule if we wanted to change things up especially since the group plays the same courses routinely. These are choices that can be made or not made and it as simple as that.

 

Dont be made or jealous that an organization chooses to implement MLRs in accordance with the ROG.

 

Is the PGA championship bifurcated because they allow range finders?

Regardless of what we classify it as (MLR or bifurcation), what about the solution itself doesn’t work?  

[GoGoErky]

6 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Regardless of what we classify it as (MLR or bifurcation), what about the solution itself doesn’t work?  

What solution? I was replying purely to the notion we have some sort of bifurcation because an organization implements certain MLRs for its competition. Choosing not to implement them when a person or group plays doesn’t create bifurcation.

 

i wasn’t responding to any comment about a solution.

Edited May 15 by GoGoErky

[Pnwpingi210]

10 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

What solution? 

 

So for clarity- two balls, both conform

Ball A conforms to current specs.  It continues to be legal for play.  No adjustments to score
Ball B is the limited distance ball, tournament ball.  This ball also conforms to the “limited distance ball” spec and is legal for play.  You get a pre determined amount of strokes based on data for playing this ball.  The example I used was anyone that uses this ball gets 2 strokes since data shows hitting the ball further off the tee amounts to about 2 strokes gained (this is an estimate based on arrcos data and the 20 yard reduced flight from 2028 ball specs.  It would need more thorough analysis but that nots the point).  This would allow a player to play the tournament ball in daily play for handicap tracking purposes and for friendly competive matches but not be penalized for reduced distance (since the data posted in this very thread tells us they would be vs the standard spec ball)

 

we already do something similar to allow golfers to play different tees and still be competive, why not the ball?

 

seems fair for all and allows them the choice to play the game they want to play, within the legal rules of golf, all while not be punished.

The majority of golfers that don’t want a change don’t have to do anything different that they do today.  Those that do make that change won’t be punished in friendly daily play when using the tournament ball.

 

Another benefit is there will be a market l, albeit small of paying customers for this tournament ball.  

Edited May 15 by Pnwpingi210

[gvogel]

22 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

Seth Waugh’s comments this morning, basically ‘are we doing the right thing for the growth of the game to be bending for 1/2 of 1% of the golfers out there?’

 

John Lindert, PGA Pro’s comments:  ‘I know I’m going to be selling a ton of golf balls to my members in 2028 and they’ll be playing them until 2036…’. (Which is exactly what I intend to do.)

 

Interestingly, he also mentioned that the manufacturers design all their clubs around the ball, so there will be a redesign of all the clubs, from drivers to wedges, to deal with the new ball.  That sounds inexpensive…

I'd sure like to hear a real equipment technician discuss what they can possibly do that they are not already doing to equipment.  Do they not already make irons and drivers that perform at different ball speeds? 

[chisag]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Bifurcation via MLR ball is the best answer for the most golfers. Limit the solution to the very narrow group that is the "problem". However bifurcation shafts the ballmakers. It's an economic loser for the ballmakers. For that reason, the PGA Tour (the group the ruling bodies basically think is the problem, and is beholden to the ballmakers for advertising revenue) said they won't implement it, so the ruling bodies said it wouldn't do what they wanted done. 

 

 

... Of course the OEMs want everyone to believe that. They already do an exhaustive amount of R&D. Titleist alone offers a ProV1, ProV1x, ProV1 left dash, ProV1 left dot, AVX, Tour Soft, TruFeel and Velocity. If they were to bifurcate two balls in a reduced distance ball and a currently performing ball, they wouldn't even need to make multiple balls for each offering. No need for a reduced distance Velocity, Trufeel or Tour Soft. And once they get the distance limits dialed in, which will most likely be a core change only, they would still use the same mantle layer(s) and cover.

... What Titleist wants you to believe is you play the same ball as the Pro's and that is their major selling point. They certainly don't want a ProV1 that the Pro's play but Hackers play a different ProV1. Just my opinion of course but bifurcation certainly makes the most sense.  We have beat the dead horse with examples from other sports where bifurcation is standard procedure. In the end if you wanna play the exact same ball and equipment as the guys on Tour that carry the ball over 300yds, you can. But as an average Am that carries it 220 or less, you can play a ball that gives you a little more distance. Imo that is the best of both worlds. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

The majority of golfers that don’t want a change don’t have to do anything different that they do today.  Those that do make that change won’t be punished in friendly daily play when using the tournament ball.

 

Another benefit is there will be a market l, albeit small of paying customers for this tournament ball.  

 

Honestly, you're just presenting the MLR in different words. And there would have been a (small) market for the MLR ball as well, in lower-level but still "elite male" tournaments that chose to implement the MLR, because those players aren't getting sponsored and getting free balls. 

 

The issue with the MLR wasn't a matter of equity in friendly daily play. It was a nightmare for economics and marketing (for the ballmakers). It's also been discussed in this thread that policing it in lower-level "elite male" tournaments would also be very difficult, which makes life harder on any tournament that doesn't want to adopt it. And the PGA Tour said they wouldn't adopt it. 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Honestly, you're just presenting the MLR in different words. And there would have been a (small) market for the MLR ball as well, in lower-level but still "elite male" tournaments that chose to implement the MLR, because those players aren't getting sponsored and getting free balls. 

 

The issue with the MLR wasn't a matter of equity in friendly daily play. It was a nightmare for economics and marketing (for the ballmakers). It's also been discussed in this thread that policing it in lower-level "elite male" tournaments would also be very difficult, which makes life harder on any tournament that doesn't want to adopt it. And the PGA Tour said they wouldn't adopt it. 

 

I don’t complete disagree with you, but what it starts to do is offer compromises that make the transition less painful.

 

sounds like change is coming, so either we can accept it as is and make that the new normal or we can try to influence what that change looks like to be more agreeable to all the participate and support the sport.

 

im personally fine either way.  But it seems like in this thread there are a bunch of people unhappy with the current change.

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 minute ago, chisag said:

... Of course the OEMs want everyone to believe that. They already do an exhaustive amount of R&D. Titleist alone offers a ProV1, ProV1x, ProV1 left dash, ProV1 left dot, AVX, Tour Soft, TruFeel and Velocity. If they were to bifurcate two balls in a reduced distance ball and a currently performing ball, they wouldn't even need to make multiple balls for each offering. No need for a reduced distance Velocity, Trufeel or Tour Soft. And once they get the distance limits dialed in, which will most likely be a core change only, they would still use the same mantle layer(s) and cover.

... What Titleist wants you to believe is you play the same ball as the Pro's and that is their major selling point. They certainly don't want a ProV1 that the Pro's play but Hackers play a different ProV1. Just my opinion of course but bifurcation certainly makes the most sense.  We have beat the dead horse with examples from other sports where bifurcation is standard procedure. In the end if you wanna play the exact same ball and equipment as the guys on Tour that carry the ball over 300yds, you can. But as an average Am that carries it 220 or less, you can play a ball that gives you a little more distance. Imo that is the best of both worlds. 

 

Agreed. And with regards to the bolded part, I've made that same point, but with a slightly different tactic. They know they have value in marketing the #1 ball on Tour, but they also know that marketing value is reduced if the version played on tour is nerfed. And they buy a LOT of advertising on golf broadcasts that would diminish in value. 

 

So my "conspiracy theory" is that the major ballmakers told the PGA Tour that if they adopted the MLR, the ballmakers would drastically reduce their ad buys. And there might not be enough boner pill or financial services ads to make up the difference, so the PGA Tour shouldn't adopt the MLR. And they probably told many of their sponsored players that if the Tour adopts the MLR, it no longer makes financial sense to sponsor some of these players with lucrative contracts to play a ball that the average consumer won't buy. And that those players should tell the Tour not to adopt the MLR. 

 

And thus, the Tour didn't adopt the MLR.