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

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 minute ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

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.

 

Well honestly the ruling bodies have basically shown that they don't care what we think. They rammed this through, and we're just going to have to take it. I don't think they're now interested in revisiting it.

 

Besides, they claim that average players won't notice it. Because, ya know, it's a magic ball that only flies shorter for higher speed swingers. 

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Well honestly the ruling bodies have basically shown that they don't care what we think. They rammed this through, and we're just going to have to take it. I don't think they're now interested in revisiting it.

 

Besides, they claim that average players won't notice it. Because, ya know, it's a magic ball that only flies shorter for higher speed swingers. 

Gotcha.  Well carry on debating on who opinion is right, who’s opinion is wrong 🙂

[smashdn]

41 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

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

 

Don't worry, I won't.

 

41 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Is the PGA championship bifurcated because they allow range finders?

 

Are they playing by a different set of rules than the PGAT?  Yes.  The conditions of the competition are different.  It is two different "sets" of rules.  

 

I'm not made (sic) or jealous, just pointing it out.  There are significant differences in how a PGAT event is played versus another.  Differences of rules are but one example.  With that as a backdrop, another MLR is not unpalatable.

[betarhoalphadelta]

9 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Gotcha.  Well carry on debating on who opinion is right, who’s opinion is wrong 🙂

 

Yeah. I think we all know it's happening and that there's nothing we can do about it. It's just a matter of where we are...

 

I'm still at anger...

 

[GoGoErky]

38 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

 

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.  

I haven’t responded that solution because it’s silly and didn’t warrant any energy. But since you bring it no in a reply that want addressing it I agree with the other who have pointed out the issues with it an why it’s silly.

 

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Yeah. I think we all know it's happening and that there's nothing we can do about it. It's just a matter of where we are...

 

I'm still at anger...

 

Very very familiar with that chart and I know while you can inform, listen, support and guide people through the curve, effective change management doesn’t force people through the curve.  
 

Cheers!

 

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, GoGoErky said:

I haven’t responded that solution because it’s silly and didn’t warrant any energy. But since you bring it no in a reply that want addressing it I agree with the other who have pointed out the issues with it an why it’s silly.

 

Cool.  Your opinion is valid.
 

 I’ll let you get back to debating who’s opinion is right and wrong.

[ThinkingPlus]

8 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Cool.  Your opinion is valid.
 

 I’ll let you get back to debating who’s opinion is right and wrong.

We are only debating opinion because a measurable, quantifiable problem has never been formulated.

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

We are only debating opinion because a measurable, quantifiable problem has never been formulated.

This I mostly agree with this.

 

 However nobody in this thread worked for the USGA or RA on this project so I’m not sure what we accomplish by debating their thought process?

 

What we do know that as of today, a ball change is coming for all of us in 2028.

 

 I was trying to take the objections, pain points, and challenges based on this threads user opinions on that change and discuss solutions to those.  Seems there isn’t an appetite for that discussion.  So the debate can go back to people firmly telling each other why their opinion is right and those that agree with them are right, and all others are wrong and irrelevant.  That applies to both pro and anti 2028 changes.

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

20 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

This I mostly agree with this.

 

 However nobody in this thread worked for the USGA or RA on this project so I’m not sure what we accomplish by debating their thought process?

 

What we do know that as of today, a ball change is coming for all of us in 2028.

 

 I was trying to take the objections, pain points, and challenges based on this threads user opinions on that change and discuss solutions to those.  Seems there isn’t an appetite for that discussion.  So the debate can go back to people firmly telling each other why their opinion is right and those that agree with them are right, and all others are wrong and irrelevant.  That applies to both pro and anti 2028 changes.

 

 

Understood. Part of the reason you've gotten the reaction that you've gotten is that your postulated solution is unlikely to be addressed in any way by the USGA/R&A. Another part of the reaction is that your postulated solution is only a minor bandaid on one of the issues with the MLR, and the MLR route was already rejected. 

 

That said, I also like the outside of the box thinking. Having an actual two-ball solution creates an issue for those who "straddle the line" between playing a nerfed ball in some events and a non-nerfed ball in other events. People have said they'd be harmed competitively by playing the nerfed ball in events that don't require it, but that it would be hard to adjust to playing the nerfed ball in events that require it if they don't get enough practice with it outside of events. It's a fair criticism (and one of the reasons the MLR failed). I do appreciate that you have a solution to that. I simply personally think it would end up being very complex, and it doesn't solve enough of the problems with the two-ball model to bring a two-ball model back. 

[Archimedes65]

54 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Yeah. I think we all know it's happening and that there's nothing we can do about it. It's just a matter of where we are...

 

I'm still at anger...

 

 

Somewhere between Depression and Acceptance, you need to insert, buy 500-1,000 Pro V1s in 2028 and stick em in the garage…

[Archimedes65]

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the probability that at least some of the manufacturers continue to produce a non-conforming ball is greater than zero.  If not Accushnet/Taylor Made/Callaway, it’ll be Vice or OnCore, etc.

 

I also believe that, if the timeline is kept, the manufacturers will product 4-5x the normal number of balls in 2028, knowing full well what many people are going to do.

Edited May 15 by Archimedes65

[Pnwpingi210]

10 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Understood. Part of the reason you've gotten the reaction that you've gotten is that your postulated solution is unlikely to be addressed in any way by the USGA/R&A. Another part of the reaction is that your postulated solution is only a minor bandaid on one of the issues with the MLR, and the MLR route was already rejected. 

 

That said, I also like the outside of the box thinking. Having an actual two-ball solution creates an issue for those who "straddle the line" between playing a nerfed ball in some events and a non-nerfed ball in other events. People have said they'd be harmed competitively by playing the nerfed ball in events that don't require it, but that it would be hard to adjust to playing the nerfed ball in events that require it if they don't get enough practice with it outside of events. It's a fair criticism (and one of the reasons the MLR failed). I do appreciate that you have a solution to that. I simply personally think it would end up being very complex, and it doesn't solve enough of the problems with the two-ball model to bring a two-ball model back. 

These are fair points.  
 
Beginning to discuss postulated solutions amongst a group of impacted people is always where good solutions start.

 

I understand that the initial proposal I responded to was meant to be absurd and almost a parody and it was.  But it sparked some thought in an area I hadnt considered before. 
 

I also think if people spent the passion and energy that they use in this thread to influence the governing bodies in the right way they could make a difference.  

Edited May 15 by Pnwpingi210

[maamold]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

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. 

They are, I am not.

 

not that abstract of a concept.

 

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

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. 

 

Setting rules for a sport is different from policing or controlling.  I am not forcing you to play by the USGA/RA rules, you can do whatever you want; just as I never forced anyone to play by what I thought should happen before any changes were made or after they are announced.

I am saying that I agree with there rules and I will play by those rules.

[maamold]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

We are only debating opinion because a measurable, quantifiable problem has never been formulated.

Nope, not measurable at all /s

 

Oh, unless you just ignore the measurements...

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, maamold said:

Nope, not measurable at all /s

 

Oh, unless you just ignore the measurements...

 

 

Don't care. That isn't a problem or problem statement. Players today hit the ball further. This is a fact. 

 

They do this because of better equipment design, materials  and production. Also agronomy is better so fairways are cut tighter and play firmer allowing more rollout. Players are fitter and do exercises to increase clubhead speed while maintaining body control. Finally, instruction and knowledge about the swing and optimal scoring strategies are greatly improved where making use of the latest analysis, video, and measurement technologies has been key.

 

All of the above contributes to longer and better players on average and score is still the only measurable that matters. Low score still wins.

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the probability that at least some of the manufacturers continue to produce a non-conforming ball is greater than zero.  If not Accushnet/Taylor Made/Callaway, it’ll be Vice or OnCore, etc.

 

I also believe that, if the timeline is kept, the manufacturers will product 4-5x the normal number of balls in 2028, knowing full well what many people are going to do.

They don’t make any non conforming equipment now, what makes you think they will make a non conforming ball?

[maamold]

23 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

They don’t make any non conforming equipment now, what makes you think they will make a non conforming ball?

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/nearly-10-percent-of-japanese

 

if companies don't make it how can 10% play it in Japan

[Archimedes65]

39 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

They don’t make any non conforming equipment now, what makes you think they will make a non conforming ball?

 

Because the USGA has never done a roll back before.  This is uncharted territory and there will absolutely be push back by the majority of everyday golfers out there.  Remember, only about 12% of golfers actually carry a handicap anyway.  So right off the bat, almost 90% of the golfers out there probably don’t currently strictly adhere to USGA rules anyway and why would they want to play a shorter ball than they do today?  Even many of the ones that do maintain a handicap and currently adhere to USGA rules aren’t happy about it and don’t intend to follow the rules, as long as we can get the old balls.  When the head PGA Pro says that his club members are just going to buy eight years of balls in 2028, would you agree that there would be an opportunity for someone to just keep making a non-conforming ball?  The only reason they wouldn’t IMO is that they’ll get pressure from the USGA and the Tour.  But there are some companies out there making decent balls that don’t have any stake in those entities or their tournaments.

[GoGoErky]

42 minutes ago, maamold said:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/nearly-10-percent-of-japanese

 

if companies don't make it how can 10% play it in Japan

If you actually read what I replied to it was referring to the companies listed in the post which are the mainstream companies and some dtc brands of which none of them are making non conforming products.

 

nice try on the gotcha post 

[GoGoErky]

22 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

Because the USGA has never done a roll back before.  This is uncharted territory and there will absolutely be push back by the majority of everyday golfers out there.  Remember, only about 12% of golfers actually carry a handicap anyway.  So right off the bat, almost 90% of the golfers out there probably don’t currently strictly adhere to USGA rules anyway and why would they want to play a shorter ball than they do today?  Even many of the ones that do maintain a handicap and currently adhere to USGA rules aren’t happy about it and don’t intend to follow the rules, as long as we can get the old balls.  When the head PGA Pro says that his club members are just going to buy eight years of balls in 2028, would you agree that there would be an opportunity for someone to just keep making a non-conforming ball?  The only reason they wouldn’t IMO is that they’ll get pressure from the USGA and the Tour.  But there are some companies out there making decent balls that don’t have any stake in those entities or their tournaments.

The USGA groove rule is the perfect example. Once it was announced the brands stopped making clubs with the old grooves even though the USGA still hasn’t announced the 4 year warning.

 

The big names aren’t going to spend money on clubs or balls that don’t conform. They like to keep the number of SKUs low. It’s what a few years back when Callaway had something like 13 different faces/clubs for their driver using AI they didnt release every one of them. 

[Oostiesalbacore]

Instead of a nerfed ball, why not give the PIP money to the player with the shortest average driving distance?

This way allows somebody besides Tiger to win it, too. 

[Oostiesalbacore]

If modern athletes are overpowering courses, doesn’t this feed into the negative perception of golf as being a sport played by fat old dudes? I include myself btw so don’t get salty or feel called out.
 

The whole argument of “players are in too good of shape” might hold water if you look at cough Steroid cough Woods arms or big bubba Bryson on his steak binges a few years back or maybe even Brooksy when he gives a crud. However, it doesn’t hold water when you consider the rest of the field. There’s maybe 10 or 20 guys that would be accepted by most as “big yoked muscle dudes” when the rest of the field looks like Matt Kuchar or his accountant. If you saw Matt Fitzpatrick on the street, would you stop to contemplate his one rep max? Probably not. 
 

Miraculous athletes made of 100% pure AAA prime beefcake muscles like Harry Higgs, Keegan Bradley, or Will Zalatoris hang these courses upside down and shake out their lunch money isn’t what I see on the rare occasion I still watch the pro game so I’m confused about what game everybody else is watching.
 

Unless of course, we want to entertain the notion that the previous generations weren’t even really athletes. It was illegal back then to practice and lift weights so it’s understandable but still.
 

If the players now are say twice as athletic as they were in 1980, then why should the 1980 US Open winner be proud of winning at all? He was just playing against a bunch of plumbers who never practiced or stayed in shape. No wonder the course gave them so much trouble. A modern player doesn’t have such problems because the modern player is actually a professional who takes it seriously by practicing and staying in shape rather than the 70’s golfers who showed up for the shoe shines. 

[smashdn]

14 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Don't care. That isn't a problem or problem statement. Players today hit the ball further. This is a fact. 

 

Last bullet point below the graph.

[GoGoErky]

37 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Last bullet point below the graph.

And now that we have had distance limitations for the last 20 years there isn’t any need to increase course length and as has been shown by the superintendents study the at in the last 10 years courses are being built shorter than they were the previous decade. So if there was some issue they new courses disagree that they need to be longer when built.

[gvogel]

15 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Don't care. That isn't a problem or problem statement. Players today hit the ball further. This is a fact. 

 

They do this because of better equipment design, materials  and production. Also agronomy is better so fairways are cut tighter and play firmer allowing more rollout. Players are fitter and do exercises to increase clubhead speed while maintaining body control. Finally, instruction and knowledge about the swing and optimal scoring strategies are greatly improved where making use of the latest analysis, video, and measurement technologies has been key.

 

All of the above contributes to longer and better players on average and score is still the only measurable that matters. Low score still wins.

As I have said before, they might as well hold major championships on par 3 courses.  Low score still wins.

 

Except, no one wants to see a great game come to that end.

[betarhoalphadelta]

18 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the probability that at least some of the manufacturers continue to produce a non-conforming ball is greater than zero.  If not Accushnet/Taylor Made/Callaway, it’ll be Vice or OnCore, etc.

 

I also believe that, if the timeline is kept, the manufacturers will product 4-5x the normal number of balls in 2028, knowing full well what many people are going to do.

 

I don't think anyone but some fringe ballmaker will make and sell a non-conforming product. Consumers won't keep track of what ball model is conforming or not, so anyone playing a ball from a company known for producing both conforming and non-conforming balls will be suspect. 

 

Imagine Vice does it. I'm on the first tee and someone I'm paired with is playing a Vice ball. I'm immediately going to wonder whether they're playing Vice because it's a good, reasonably priced, DTC ball, or if they're playing a "juiced" non-conforming ball. 

 

Any mainstream ballmaker, including DTC, will know that producing even a single nonconforming ball model carries massive reputational risk. 

 

They're not going to do it IMHO. 

[Pnwpingi210]

6 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I don't think anyone but some fringe ballmaker will make and sell a non-conforming product. Consumers won't keep track of what ball model is conforming or not, so anyone playing a ball from a company known for producing both conforming and non-conforming balls will be suspect. 

 

Imagine Vice does it. I'm on the first tee and someone I'm paired with is playing a Vice ball. I'm immediately going to wonder whether they're playing Vice because it's a good, reasonably priced, DTC ball, or if they're playing a "juiced" non-conforming ball. 

 

Any mainstream ballmaker, including DTC, will know that producing even a single nonconforming ball model carries massive reputational risk. 

 

They're not going to do it IMHO. 

Most consumers don’t track what they play today i suspect.  Only about 10 percent of golfers track a handicap and there’s a subset of even those golfers that play what they find with little regard to what brand or type of ball it is, or condition.
 

yes the difference will be that now they are at risk of playing a non conforming ball, but outside of the handicap tracking golfers there isn’t an issue (if it’s important enough for them to play by the strict rules of golf, then they will pay attention). Play what you want to play.

[GoGoErky]

6 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Most consumers don’t track what they play today i suspect.  Only about 10 percent of golfers track a handicap and there’s a subset of even those golfers that play what they find with little regard to what brand or type of ball it is, or condition.
 

yes the difference will be that now they are at risk of playing a non conforming ball, but outside of the handicap tracking golfers there isn’t an issue (if it’s important enough for them to play by the strict rules of golf, then they will pay attention). Play what you want to play.

Consumers today buy products that are on the conforming list. If there was an actual market for non conforming clubs you would see it in bars, but you don’t. They buy the big name brands or in case of balls and some clubs from a Dec that sells conforming equipment.

 

They don’t have to check because all the places they buy from don’t sell nonconforming equipment 

[betarhoalphadelta]

10 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Most consumers don’t track what they play today i suspect.  Only about 10 percent of golfers track a handicap and there’s a subset of even those golfers that play what they find with little regard to what brand or type of ball it is, or condition.
 

yes the difference will be that now they are at risk of playing a non conforming ball, but outside of the handicap tracking golfers there isn’t an issue (if it’s important enough for them to play by the strict rules of golf, then they will pay attention). Play what you want to play.

 

As Erky mentions, mainstream (incl. DTC) ball and club companies don't produce or sell nonconforming equipment. Today if you want to find a non-conforming ball, you have to seek such a thing out and they're only made by companies almost nobody has ever heard of. 

 

Admittedly someone who randomly finds one on the course and is the type of player who merely plays the random strays they pick up, they're at risk of playing a non-conforming ball. But I'm not sure I've ever seen one lost in the wild and picked it up myself, so I'd consider that a rare problem. 

 

If I'm wrong about the reputational incentives against producing them and suddenly major companies or even the DTC start producing non-conforming balls, then it'll be a bigger issue. But I don't think the companies will do it.