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

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

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 

I don’t disagree with the caveat that non conforming equipment is easily accessible via Amazon.  If seen it show up in a few corporate tournaments 

 

im assuming there will be something on the balls themselves that designates it’s conforming with the new rule.  Look at the ball, make sure it has the mark.  Is that too difficult? 
 

now if they don’t put a mark on the ball, then  i agree it becomes more challenging to know.

[maamold]

17 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. 

 

Yeah, we know you don't care, and that is exactly what I said AR's would say - Ignore the measurement and ignore what you don't want the believe.

 

17 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

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.

You are conflating better materials and production as equal to speed and distance.  With all the other statements about agronomy, fitness, instruction...etc. Have Bryson take a 1980's tech driver and ball, and ask him to hit the same distance that he does now over 72 holes --- Oh, he couldn't? Weird...
 

17 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

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.

 

It's the only measurement that you choose to believe matters, that does not mean it is the only measurement.

[GoGoErky]

34 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I don’t disagree with the caveat that non conforming equipment is easily accessible via Amazon.  If seen it show up in a few corporate tournaments 

 

im assuming there will be something on the balls themselves that designates it’s conforming with the new rule.  Look at the ball, make sure it has the mark.  Is that too difficult? 
 

now if they don’t put a mark on the ball, then  i agree it becomes more challenging to know.

Well for the ball I am guessing that the manufacturers are going to continue to put conforms to USGA and R&A rules on the boxes. Unless one looks at the conforming list to see what the approved balls are which I I believe also shows the logo other markings like the arrows on the Prov there’s nothing on the ball itself that shows it’s conforming or not. Which gets to the point that several of us as made about the capability of smaller organizations or tournaments to check every ball.

 

But to answer you question yes it’s difficult because how many people remember what marking on the ball falls on the conforming list or not.

 

Every so often you will see posts on golf forums or other social media platforms that have a group style chat asking what year a certain ball was. 

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, GoGoErky said:

Well for the ball I am guessing that the manufacturers are going to continue to put conforms to USGA and R&A rules on the boxes. Unless one looks at the conforming list to see what the approved balls are which I I believe also shows the logo other markings like the arrows on the Prov there’s nothing on the ball itself that shows it’s conforming or not. Which gets to the point that several of us as made about the capability of smaller organizations or tournaments to check every ball.

 

But to answer you question yes it’s difficult because how many people remember what marking on the ball falls on the conforming list or not.

 

Every so often you will see posts on golf forums or other social media platforms that have a group style chat asking what year a certain ball was. 

Agree with all this.

 

but due to your valid points it would only make sense if manufactures but a small mark on the ball itself to identify it conforms to 2028.  Stranger things have happened, albeit not often, but I would be shocked if all balls didn’t have a little symbol on them that is not distracting but easily identifiable in 2028 and beyond.
 

We haven’t new conforming specs in the modern era that made older balls non conforming so they haven’t had to do this, and putting it on the box l, and as a brand not having any non conforming balls in the wild was sufficient.

 

[StoutKing]

On the PGA broadcast they said Valhalla has about 1.5 miles of walk backs from green to tee...per round!  If that's what you like to see then have at at.  It's a waste of time IMO.  Make the equipment fit the design.

[betarhoalphadelta]

4 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Agree with all this.

 

but due to your valid points it would only make sense if manufactures but a small mark on the ball itself to identify it conforms to 2028.  Stranger things have happened, albeit not often, but I would be shocked if all balls didn’t have a little symbol on them that is not distracting but easily identifiable in 2028 and beyond.
 

We haven’t new conforming specs in the modern era that made older balls non conforming so they haven’t had to do this, and putting it on the box l, and as a brand not having any non conforming balls in the wild was sufficient.

 

 

They didn't do that when they changed the ODS in 2003. Pretty sure that much like that transition, new balls must conform by Jan 2028, and with the 2-year window between the balls being available (and mandated for professional competition), non-conforming balls will be lost in ponds or trees or OOB by amateurs by the time they are mandated to have transitioned (Jan 2030). 

 

So if you buy balls in 2028-2029, they'll conform to the new standard. And by 2030, everyone should be using conforming balls except perhaps people who find strays, buy used balls from the secondhand "lost ball" web sites, etc. 

 

The only people who will be using new production non-conforming balls after Jan 2030 would be those who hoarded them in 2027 and are deliberately trying to cheat. 

[Pnwpingi210]

8 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

They didn't do that when they changed the ODS in 2003. Pretty sure that much like that transition, new balls must conform by Jan 2028, and with the 2-year window between the balls being available (and mandated for professional competition), non-conforming balls will be lost in ponds or trees or OOB by amateurs by the time they are mandated to have transitioned (Jan 2030). 

 

So if you buy balls in 2028-2029, they'll conform to the new standard. And by 2030, everyone should be using conforming balls except perhaps people who find strays, buy used balls from the secondhand "lost ball" web sites, etc. 

 

The only people who will be using new production non-conforming balls after Jan 2030 would be those who hoarded them in 2027 and are deliberately trying to cheat. 

Yup.

 

i just don’t see somebody who cares, unknowingly using a non conforming ball.  Non issue.  
 

these are all good topics to call out when given the chance to the ruling bodies to make sure they account for it, but nothing to prevent the change.

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

They didn't do that when they changed the ODS in 2003. Pretty sure that much like that transition, new balls must conform by Jan 2028, and with the 2-year window between the balls being available (and mandated for professional competition), non-conforming balls will be lost in ponds or trees or OOB by amateurs by the time they are mandated to have transitioned (Jan 2030). 

 

So if you buy balls in 2028-2029, they'll conform to the new standard. And by 2030, everyone should be using conforming balls except perhaps people who find strays, buy used balls from the secondhand "lost ball" web sites, etc. 

 

The only people who will be using new production non-conforming balls after Jan 2030 would be those who hoarded them in 2027 and are deliberately trying to cheat. 

Oct 2027 all balls sent to the ruling bodies must meet the new specs. Wonder if titleist releases prov in jan2027 as the last of the old ball release 

[ThinkingPlus]

5 hours ago, gvogel said:

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.

Fine with me. Very few players will break par. Par 3s are the toughest holes most of the time.

[Archimedes65]

5 hours 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. 

 

If you’re playing them in a competition, you just ask to see their ball.  If it’s just a friendly round, I don’t see why you’d say anything or care, nor that they would care what you think.  If they cared, they wouldn’t be playing a non-conforming ball.

 

Riddle me this Batman, in 2029 how are you going to know that said guy on the first tee isn’t playing an old non conforming Pro V or TPX?  Are the manufacturers going dramatically change their logos so that you can tell from 10 feet away or are you going to have to check their ball anyway?  The Pro V I play today looks pretty much the same as the one I played five years ago.

 

Edited May 16 by Archimedes65

[Ashley Schaeffer]

4 hours ago, StoutKing said:

On the PGA broadcast they said Valhalla has about 1.5 miles of walk backs from green to tee...per round!  If that's what you like to see then have at at.  It's a waste of time IMO.  Make the equipment fit the design.

Or just make everyone hit it shorter and keep the courses the same length.  That will accomplish the unstated ultimate goal of making better players shoot higher scores.

[Archimedes65]

Or just leave the game alone and live with the fact that it’s changing.  The NBA used to be all about driving layups, elbow jumpers, and low post turnarounds.  Now it’s mostly about flying dunks and three point shots.  Life.  Moves.  On.

 

And if you want to call golf a ‘sport’, then you can’t be upset if players that are bigger/stronger/faster have a competitive advantage.  The idea that the game of golf should change the rules to limit the value of speed and power and allow the smaller, weaker player to remain competitive is such a quintessentially elitist concept.  What other sport does that?

 

[chisag]

4 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

The only people who will be using new production non-conforming balls after Jan 2030 would be those who hoarded them in 2027 and are deliberately trying to cheat. 

 

 

... Visit any local muni and if you see a group not taking a mulligan, not moving a ball out of a divot, not rolling it in the fairway or even the rough, not playing multiple balls on one hole if they hit one in the water or lose one going from a Noodle to a found Z Star XV, inadvertently teeing off in front of the tees by an inch or a myriad of other rules infractions I doubt you would find a sympathetic ear when you told them they are all deliberately trying to cheat with their pre 2028 golf ball. Most golfers worldwide do not play by the rules because many don't know the rules. Just ask someone playing an old Ping wedge if his grooves are confirming and enjoy the look of "I have no idea what you are talking about". 

... As much as Henry Penny forum members want to declare the sky is falling, we are a very minor group of golfers compared to most that play this game. I could certainly be wrong but I think if we revisit this subject 10 years from now in 2034 not a single person (with maybe the exception of Archimedes65 😉)  will have anything to say about their rolled back golf ball. I play with a group of 7 players and two of us play Mon-Fri for 5 days and others play 3 days a week and other than 1 of them (he and I the only players that follow the rules) the rest weren't even aware of a ball rollback.  

[Pnwpingi210]

10 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

Or just leave the game alone and live with the fact that it’s changing.  The NBA used to be all about driving layups, elbow jumpers, and low post turnarounds.  Now it’s mostly about flying dunks and three point shots.  Life.  Moves.  On.

 

And if you want to call golf a ‘sport’, then you can’t be upset if players that are bigger/stronger/faster have a competitive advantage.  The idea that the game of golf should change the rules to limit the value of speed and power and allow the smaller, weaker player to remain competitive is such a quintessentially elitist concept.  What other sport does that?

 

Sure.

 

And major league baseball requires the use of wood bats and has reduced the size of the mound since athletes got bigger, stronger, faster and more dominate at their craft. Apples and oranges

 

one could also argue that the limited distance would reward the longer player, or atleast those that can become longer.    Some argue that the distance is limited by the courses themselves (hitting it farther is not worth the risk for the longest players).  If you reduce the distance everybody hits it 20 yards, the finaus, Clarks, McIlroys likely have a path to get it back.  The Webb Simpson, Brian Harmons and the like probably will have a more difficult time getting the 20 yards back. 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

17 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... Visit any local muni and if you see a group not taking a mulligan, not moving a ball out of a divot, not rolling it in the fairway or even the rough, not playing multiple balls on one hole if they hit one in the water or lose one going from a Noodle to a found Z Star XV, inadvertently teeing off in front of the tees by an inch or a myriad of other rules infractions I doubt you would find a sympathetic ear when you told them they are all deliberately trying to cheat with their pre 2028 golf ball. Most golfers worldwide do not play by the rules because many don't know the rules. Just ask someone playing an old Ping wedge if his grooves are confirming and enjoy the look of "I have no idea what you are talking about". 

... As much as Henry Penny forum members want to declare the sky is falling, we are a very minor group of golfers compared to most that play this game. I could certainly be wrong but I think if we revisit this subject 10 years from now in 2034 not a single person (with maybe the exception of Archimedes65 😉)  will have anything to say about their rolled back golf ball. I play with a group of 7 players and two of us play Mon-Fri for 5 days and others play 3 days a week and other than 1 of them (he and I the only players that follow the rules) the rest weren't even aware of a ball rollback.  

This is likely an accurate depiction of the real world.

 

This thread has 10k plus post, with probably less than 50 unique posters.  A couple posters are over 500 post.  I’m not sure how big the golf wrx community is but I’m sure it’s in the 1000’s.  It’s good people share the perspectives cause it helps us navigate the change.  But this (rollback) isnt going to be a change that impacts golf habits or growth in a measurable way.

Edited May 16 by Pnwpingi210

[Ashley Schaeffer]

5 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

This is likely an accurate deprivation of the real world.

 

This thread has 10k plus post, with probably less than 50 unique posters.  A couple posters are over 500 post.  I’m not sure how big the golf wrx community is but I’m sure it’s in the 1000’s.  It’s good people share the perspectives cause it helps us navigate the change.  But this (rollback) isnt going to be a change that impacts golf habits or growth in a measurable way.

 

So, why do it?

[Pnwpingi210]

6 minutes ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

 

So, why do it?

I should have said casual golf (the group most impacted is casual golfers that already play the most forward tees.  They currently won’t have any place to go)

 

it will impact competitive golf.

 

i don’t care one way or the other so im not going to argue for or against.  But there is no need to fearmonger.

Edited May 16 by Pnwpingi210

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

If you’re playing them in a competition, you just ask to see their ball.  If it’s just a friendly round, I don’t see why you’d say anything or care, nor that they would care what you think.  If they cared, they wouldn’t be playing a non-conforming ball.

 

Riddle me this Batman, in 2029 how are you going to know that said guy on the first tee isn’t playing an old non conforming Pro V or TPX?  Are the manufacturers going dramatically change their logos so that you can tell from 10 feet away or are you going to have to check their ball anyway?  The Pro V I play today looks pretty much the same as the one I played five years ago.

 

 

I actually don't care. I don't play strangers for money, and I don't play friends for enough money to care as long as they're not rocking a Polara or something. Pretty sure some of my normal skins game opponents might have 16-17 clubs in their bag. Doesn't seem to help them win 😉 

 

My point, though, is that from a manufacturer perspective you don't want buyers of your golf ball being suspected of cheating by their playing partners. So there's very little incentive to produce a non-conforming ball after 2028, which people in this thread keep saying might happen. I'm saying it won't happen, because it looks bad for any manufacturer that does it. 

 

Or put it another way. I've played DTC balls (Snell). I'm currently running out and will be playing Kirkland shortly, but I like and respect Snell as a company and might go back to them in the future. If Snell offered both conforming and non-conforming balls, I would stop playing them. I don't want someone I'm playing with wondering if I'm a cheater just because I'm playing Snell. I care about integrity and perceived integrity. It's for that reason that I don't think DTC companies like Snell will offer non-conforming balls. It will hurt their sales to do so because I think there are more people like me out there than people who want a cheater ball. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

37 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... Visit any local muni and if you see a group not taking a mulligan, not moving a ball out of a divot, not rolling it in the fairway or even the rough, not playing multiple balls on one hole if they hit one in the water or lose one going from a Noodle to a found Z Star XV, inadvertently teeing off in front of the tees by an inch or a myriad of other rules infractions I doubt you would find a sympathetic ear when you told them they are all deliberately trying to cheat with their pre 2028 golf ball. Most golfers worldwide do not play by the rules because many don't know the rules. Just ask someone playing an old Ping wedge if his grooves are confirming and enjoy the look of "I have no idea what you are talking about". 
  

 

Agree with you. Someone who plays whatever ball they find isn't trying to cheat if they found a pre-2028 ball in the woods in 2030 and starts playing with it. And if they are, playing a ball that might have been there for months or years, they're hurting themselves because they don't know what sort of environment that ball has been subjected to. Heck, it might be a water ball that sat in a pond for 6 months, was retrieved by a diver, sold in a big batch to a lost ball retailer, hacked into the woods, spent 3 months there in god knows what environment, and now they're playing. I *want* my opponents playing balls like that; they have no idea what the ball will do lol.

 

It's why I very specifically used the term "new production non-conforming balls after Jan 2030", with "new production" being the key term. Because almost all of those of those who are doing so will be doing so because they hoarded in 2027 so they'd have boxes of non-conforming balls available to them in 2030. There are probably some who just have huge ball stashes, or some who play so infrequently that bought a couple boxes in 2027 and just haven't played enough rounds to lose them. But I think the vast majority will be those who hoarded with the intent of NOT complying with the new equipment standards. 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

29 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I should have said casual golf (the group most impacted is casual golfers that already play the most forward tees.  They currently won’t have any place to go)

 

it will impact competitive golf.

 

i don’t care one way or the other so im not going to argue for or against.  But there is no need to fearmonger.

 

Definitely no need to fearmonger.  I don't know why people are so worried about how far elite players hit it.  Maybe they could embrace changes in a sport that used to be about as popular as bowling in their perceived golden era.  Afraid that more players can hit it better now, I guess? 

 

I'm old enough to remember when the more athletic players started replacing the old guard on tour in the 1990s.  There was an article in GD with a title like "He hit a 7-iron How Far?"  I think it was written by Jenkins, and it was all about how it isn't a relevant comparison to Hogan due to lofts (and how Hogan could hit the ball over Mt. Everest in his eyes).  Same stuff going on now, IMO.  

Edited May 16 by Ashley Schaeffer

[Titleist99]

26 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I should have said casual golf (the group most impacted is casual golfers that already play the most forward tees.  They currently won’t have any place to go)

 

it will impact competitive golf.

 

i don’t care one way or the other so im not going to argue for or against.  But there is no need to fearmonger.

LOL!...... It's called peaceful protesting. 😆

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

LOL!...... It's called peaceful protesting. 😆

I like the ideas of people sharing their thoughts with the USGA and R&A.  I appreciate the passion, but exaggerated claims to induce fear are a bit much.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

3 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I like the ideas of people sharing their thoughts with the USGA and R&A.  I appreciate the passion, but exaggerated claims to induce fear are a bit much.

 

I totally agree.  When people get so bent out of shape that they start saying elite players will have driver-wedge into every hole and stuff, that the environment will be harmed because all courses will have to add new tees to be "relevant", classic layouts that can't add distance will fall by the wayside, modern elite players won't have to develop skills, etc., it gets a bit much.  I would have much more respect for their position if they just admitted they were worried about score in the end.  No need for all the secondary and tertiary "reasons".  

[Pnwpingi210]

5 minutes ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

 

I totally agree.  When people get so bent out of shape that they start saying elite players will have driver-wedge into every hole and stuff, that the environment will be harmed because all courses will have to add new tees to be "relevant", classic layouts that can't add distance will fall by the wayside, modern elite players won't have to develop skills, etc., it gets a bit much.  I would have much more respect for their position if they just admitted they were worried about score in the end.  No need for all the secondary and tertiary "reasons".  

Agree.  In the end it’s mostly about protecting a score (either their own or historical) for both sides.

 

 

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Sure.

 

And major league baseball requires the use of wood bats and has reduced the size of the mound since athletes got bigger, stronger, faster and more dominate at their craft. Apples and oranges

 

one could also argue that the limited distance would reward the longer player, or atleast those that can become longer.    Some argue that the distance is limited by the courses themselves (hitting it farther is not worth the risk for the longest players).  If you reduce the distance everybody hits it 20 yards, the finaus, Clarks, McIlroys likely have a path to get it back.  The Webb Simpson, Brian Harmons and the like probably will have a more difficult time getting the 20 yards back. 

 

 

So if the Finaus, Clarks, and Rory's gain back the lost distance, and the Simpsons and Harmons are replaced by kids who do have the distance and the field average distance gets back to pre-rollback averages almost immediately (or potentially higher as is the possibility with all unintended consequences), what then? Does the USGA do another round of rollbacks in 2032? Another 3rd set of rollbacks in 2036? 

 

And if there are further rollbacks, do they apply for everyone for further rounds of those rollbacks? It seems to be the USGA's MO at this point, they gave up on bifurcation awfully easily. Does the ball end up rolled back by 15-20% for every golfer eventually? That doesn't seem to be healthy for the overall game of golf. If bifurcation does become necessary so-as not to kill the game via further rollbacks, then why skip it for this round? Why not stick to their guns and fully bifurcate the ball to head off future issues? 

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

So if the Finaus, Clarks, and Rory's gain back the lost distance, and the Simpsons and Harmons are replaced by kids who do have the distance and the field average distance gets back to pre-rollback averages almost immediately (or potentially higher as is the possibility with all unintended consequences), what then? Does the USGA do another round of rollbacks in 2032? Another 3rd set of rollbacks in 2036? 

 

And if there are further rollbacks, do they apply for everyone for further rounds of those rollbacks? It seems to be the USGA's MO at this point, they gave up on bifurcation awfully easily. Does the ball end up rolled back by 15-20% for every golfer eventually? That doesn't seem to be healthy for the overall game of golf. If bifurcation does become necessary so-as not to kill the game via further rollbacks, then why skip it for this round? Why not stick to their guns and fully bifurcate the ball to head off future issues? 

I do not have a crystal ball so I can’t fully answer that. It is an interesting question and we will have to cross the bridge when we get there.

 

sometime you just have to pick a path based on what you know today and will help you achieve the best outcome, move forward, and adjust as you learn more.  

 

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I should have said casual golf (the group most impacted is casual golfers that already play the most forward tees.  They currently won’t have any place to go)

 

it will impact competitive golf.

 

i don’t care one way or the other so im not going to argue for or against.  But there is no need to fearmonger.

Yet pretty much all of your posts are in the rollback camp so you are arguing one way while trying to claim you are more neutral.

[GoGoErky]

20 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I do not have a crystal ball so I can’t fully answer that. It is an interesting question and we will have to cross the bridge when we get there.

 

sometime you just have to pick a path based on what you know today and will help you achieve the best outcome, move forward, and adjust as you learn more.  

 

Well we know they want distance rollbacked more. They said so when they rated they are looking at the driver but they can’t go there because of the impact to regular golfers. Logis would say that if they can’t go after the driver now hit would be hard to do it in the future, but with the ruling bodies they don’t use logic. So another ball and a club rollback are both likely coming. 
 

Just like now with the doing nothing isn’t an option. This initial rollback is just the start 

Edited May 16 by GoGoErky

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Yet pretty much all of your posts are in the rollback camp so you are arguing one way while trying to claim you are more neutral.

Where have I said I want the rollback?  Pointing out fallacy when it occurs or playing devils advocate does not indicate one’s position.

 

It shouldn’t be an either your for us or against us conversation.  

[Pnwpingi210]

23 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Well we know they want distance rollbacked more. They said so when they rated they are looking at the driver but they can’t go there because of the impact to regular golfers. Logis would say that if they can’t go after the driver now hit would be hard to do it in the future, but with the ruling bodies they don’t use logic. So another ball and a club rollback are both likely coming. 
 

Just like now with the doing nothing isn’t an option. This initial rollback is just the start 

Agree they want more and they are going after an adjustment to the club, as they publicly indicated they are.  
 

Nothing else said makes me think they want more from the ball at this time so I haven’t read what you have read.

Edited May 16 by Pnwpingi210