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

[maamold]

2 hours ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

 

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.  

Because...

[maamold]

2 hours ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

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".  

Because you can't see past score. That's on you.

[Oostiesalbacore]

3 hours ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

that the environment will be harmed because all courses will have to add new tees to be "relevant",

Nothing hurts the environment more than trees except beavers. 

[chisag]

17 minutes ago, Oostiesalbacore said:

Nothing hurts the environment more than trees except beavers. 

 

 

 

[Oostiesalbacore]

5 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

 

The beaver paratroopers were pretty slick. 

[ThinkingPlus]

3 hours 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 

Their issue is that the rollback they think they need requires a slower ball than the old balatas and a lower COR driver than persimmon. That's a tough sell even for organizations that don't care much what their membership thinks.

[Archimedes65]

Post round press conference Schauffele commented that being in the rough is penal and that it’s better to be 300 in the fairway than it is to be 325 in the rough.  He’s hitting fairways and leading, while the guys missing are trailing by a lot.  Weird.  It’s almost as having grown the rough is defending the golf course.  Crazy talk, I know.

 

 

Edited May 17 by Archimedes65

[Simpsonia]

14 hours 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.  

 

 

Interesting that you think moving ahead blindly is the best answer though, you're usually so data driven otherwise. Personally, I think moving ahead blindly when there's the potential for so many unintended consequences is a mistake. Typically, when there is a large potential for those unintended consequences that calls for much more study, and more importantly, testing to examine the scope and potential impact of those consequences. This is especially true when there is the potential for the entire change to be entirely mitigated by those unintended consequences (players focusing on regaining lost distance due to the increased value of it). 

[Pnwpingi210]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Interesting that you think moving ahead blindly is the best answer though, you're usually so data driven otherwise. Personally, I think moving ahead blindly when there's the potential for so many unintended consequences is a mistake. Typically, when there is a large potential for those unintended consequences that calls for much more study, and more importantly, testing to examine the scope and potential impact of those consequences. This is especially true when there is the potential for the entire change to be entirely mitigated by those unintended consequences (players focusing on regaining lost distance due to the increased value of it). 

They were working on this decision for 5 years, and we are still 4 years away from implementation.  It’s likely they have done much more analysis than they have released to the public.  They proposed multiple solutions before landing in this one.

 

  Assuming they haven’t done any of the things you mention just because you don’t have access to them doesn’t mean they didn’t occur.

Edited May 17 by Pnwpingi210

[Simpsonia]

42 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

They were working on this decision for 5 years, and we are still 4 years away from implementation.  It’s likely they have done much more analysis than they have released to the public.  They proposed multiple solutions before landing in this one.

 

  Assuming they haven’t done any of the things you mention just because you don’t have access to them doesn’t mean they didn’t occur.

 

I mean, you know what they say about assumptions... The USGA is a public organization that manages the rules of golf for the good of the public (golfers). This isn't some cloak and dagger trade secret corporate s***. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to not publish data of testing done or to hide planned testing. 

 

What's more likely however, given that the USGA has published their reports on distance and very small ball testing, is that they just haven't or won't be doing further data gathering or testing. I actually almost see this as the complement to Hanlon's Razor. I think it's a fallacy to attribute extreme competence (all this secret hidden study, testing, and data gathering) when the most likely explanation is that they just haven't or won't do that level of study and testing. 

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Simpsonia said:

 

I mean, you know what they say about assumptions... The USGA is a public organization that manages the rules of golf for the good of the public (golfers). This isn't some cloak and dagger trade secret corporate s***. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to not publish data of testing done or to hide planned testing. 

 

What's more likely however, given that the USGA has published their reports on distance and very small ball testing, is that they just haven't or won't be doing further data gathering or testing. I actually almost see this as the complement to Hanlon's Razor. I think it's a fallacy to attribute extreme competence (all this secret hidden study, testing, and data gathering) when the most likely explanation is that they just haven't or won't do that level of study and testing. 

Thats all fine.  It’s your opinion and it’s valid.

 

I can’t prove or disprove what you think or feel about something. 
 

My personal opinion is we have 4 years for them to do what you are feel hasn’t occurred.

 

 I would be more inclined to feel like you do if a ball change was happening Monday, May 20th, 2024 and we had the same information we have now.  However it’s not, thankfully.

[cardia10]

14 hours ago, maamold said:

Because...

Or is course footprint size tied more to the inclusion of housing on every hole taking up space that classic courses use to just utilize for golf. Until the profit factor got involved, no one was buy8ing that extra hundred acres to stick houses all over it.

[smashdn]

9 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

Post round press conference Schauffele commented that being in the rough is penal and that it’s better to be 300 in the fairway than it is to be 325 in the rough.  He’s hitting fairways and leading, while the guys missing are trailing by a lot.  Weird.  It’s almost as having grown the rough is defending the golf course.  Crazy talk, I know.

 

Then let's play on 6600 yards with shin deep rough instead of 7600 yards.

 

Weird, the rollback has nothing to do with defending the golf course or defending par or even score at all.  It is about attempting to better fit the equipment to the course to prevent 7600+ yard courses from becoming the norm/needed.

 

The fact you have a pro, I am assuming the intimation here is that he is "throttling back" to only a 300 yard drive, able to "throttle back" to 300 yard drives, is a pretty good example of how far out of whack things have gotten with regard to distance.

 

Again, I will say to you and others who missed it or chose to ignore it the last time I posted this, it is not hard to make a golf course play hard.  They have the recipe.  Narrow the fairways, grow the rough out to a depth where you are taking 2+ clubs more to get out or only have a pitch out as an option, bake out the greens so they don't accept or hold shots unless the approach has enough spin, and move the tees back so the course playing long already is even longer.  (Bonus points if you add in an extra par three on the course as par threes typically play right around par or a little more as compared to a par four, ie more birdies on a par four than a par three.) If you want to impact score, there it is.

 

Take one of those extra par threes at Valhalla and add 200 yards to it to come more in line with what the rest of the par fours are.  You are now looking at a 7800 yard par 72 course.  

 

In 1987 the PGA was held at a 7000 yard par 72 course.  The winning score (since we care about score) was -1, for four rounds.

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, cardia10 said:

Or is course footprint size tied more to the inclusion of housing on every hole taking up space that classic courses use to just utilize for golf. Until the profit factor got involved, no one was buy8ing that extra hundred acres to stick houses all over it.

 

And liability.

 

Let's say that a par four of average length and width takes 5 acres of ground.  Another average par four would be the same.  That five acres includes all the actual golf hole but also some of the peripheral area as well.  You wouldn't include the actual ground the house sets upon but you do need to include the area of the "safety set back" that you need from the hole.  Used to you measured from the centerline of the hole to determine your needed corridors.  Then it changed to using a cone of dispersion (not dissimilar to some the Decade thought processes).  

 

If say you need 30 yards (90 foot) off the edge of your fairway before a ball went off course property, on a single par four you would have that space all around.  On a "down and back" hole you can "share" the safety space between the two holes.  This is why two adjoining, average par fours do not take double the acreage of a single average par four.

 

The other caveat is that you don't need 30 yards behind a tee for safety space.  You don't (read: shouldn't) need 30 yards 100 yards off the tee either.  But somewhere out in the "driving zone" you need that full allotment.  Where was the driving zone 30 years ago?  Where would it be today?

 

The fairway area to fairway area comparison should be apples to apples regardless of housing inclusion or not.  More managed grass means more expense.  More distance between stuff needing mowing means more fuel burned traveling to and from.  Even the carts.  They travel further, use more fuel, tires wear faster in fewer rounds.  A longer course is more expensive to maintain for a myriad of reasons.

[Titleist99]

2 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

They were working on this decision for 5 years, and we are still 4 years away from implementation.  It’s likely they have done much more analysis than they have released to the public.  They proposed multiple solutions before landing in this one.

 

  Assuming they haven’t done any of the things you mention just because you don’t have access to them doesn’t mean they didn’t occur.

LOL!>>>>Right, the USGA has done secret testing. 🤣🤣

[Pnwpingi210]

3 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

LOL!>>>>Right, the USGA has done secret testing. 🤣🤣

Did I say they conducted secret testing?

 

you should ask them if they’ve done additional testing.  Have you?  Or are you assuming they haven’t just because you haven’t seen it or found it?  

[Pnwpingi210]

18 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

LOL!>>>>Right, the USGA has done secret testing. 🤣🤣

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/equipment-standards/technical-library-for-equipment/research-links/supplemental-reports.html
 

if you don’t find what you are looking for, why not suggest they test/study it?

[Archimedes65]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

Then let's play on 6600 yards with shin deep rough instead of 7600 yards.

 

Weird, the rollback has nothing to do with defending the golf course or defending par or even score at all.  It is about attempting to better fit the equipment to the course to prevent 7600+ yard courses from becoming the norm/needed.

 

But you don’t need 7,600 yards if you set up the course in a way that penalizes you for pulling driver out on every hole.  Force the players to use multiple clubs off the tee on par 4/5s.  Ever played Spanish Bay?  I’d challenge you to go out there and rip driver 300+ off every non Par 3 hole and see how that works out for you.

 

The idea that the goal of golf should be to allow the longest hitters to hit driver all day is stupid.  Nerfing the ball will reduce the distance of drives.  Taking the driver out of their hands on certain holes and/or forcing them to throttle back would achieve the exact same thing.  If driving it in the rough isn’t a penalty, why are the GIRs from the rough half or less what they are from the fairway at any tournament where they really grow the rough?

[smashdn]

20 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

The idea that the goal of golf should be to allow the longest hitters to hit driver all day is stupid.  

 

Where did you read that was a goal of a rollback?

 

20 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

Nerfing the ball will reduce the distance of drives.  

 

And every other shot to some degree.  Last I checked the ball was used for every shot (aside from penalties), which is why (among other reasons), imo, the ball is where a rollback of equipment should be targeted.

 

20 minutes ago, Archimedes65 said:

Taking the driver out of their hands on certain holes and/or forcing them to throttle back would achieve the exact same thing.  

 

If driving it in the rough isn’t a penalty, why are the GIRs from the rough half or less what they are from the fairway at any tournament where they really grow the rough?

 

Is high rough forcing driver out of their hands an option on all courses?  Does that method always work with the architecture and the course design or would it at times be a negative? 

 

Who is arguing with you that driving it in the rough is not a penalty (in the sense it costs you shots not a true penalization under The Rules)?

 

On a course like Augusta, would it be more detrimental to have your ball hang up in the rough just off the fairway, or if there was no rough, your ball continue to run into the pines or creek or further into a bad angle?

[Archimedes65]

Yet, the pros are not overpowering Augusta today, so why do we need to do anything more than freeze the equipment where we are today?  The pros aren’t overpowering many courses on Tour today, even with all the hand wringing, and I don’t hear any of the pros or the fans clamoring for a roll back of the ball at the pro level.

 

This is being driven by the USGA and is mostly about preserving a bunch of old line country clubs that didn’t have the foresight to leave room for growth and have now become obsolete to the 1% of golfers.  Tail wagging dog. Only in golf, because golf is the only major sport with all powerful amateur overlords who know better than everyone else.

 

And please, this is 95% about the driver.

 

Edited May 17 by Archimedes65

[Ashley Schaeffer]

17 hours ago, maamold said:

Because you can't see past score. That's on you.

 

Yeah, I really do tend to focus on the one metric that determines who wins. 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

Nerfing the ball will reduce the distance of drives.

 

47 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

And every other shot to some degree.  Last I checked the ball was used for every shot (aside from penalties)

 

 

Wait, I was assured that the magic ball wouldn't affect me on irons. 

[chisag]

... What I find particularly amusing is, even though we live in a divisive time with sooooo many conspiracy theories, thinking the USGA is out to hurt the game is near the top of that list. Or they make arbitrary rules because they are out of touch with golfers and a myriad of other reasons to bash the folks that are in charge of our game. I certainly don't agree with everything the USGA does but I have always felt they were at least trying to do their best to protect the game for all of us. Amazing how someone on a golf forum just completely ignore Jack and Tiger with 155 tour wins between them, are in favor of a roll back.

... But like a bunch of Agent 86's some here are evidently smarter than Woods/Nicklaus and will continue to entertain us in their fight against the evil KAOS. 

[smashdn]

25 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Wait, I was assured that the magic ball wouldn't affect me on irons. 

 

I don't know you.  Speaking for myself and my game, I anticipate the impact on irons to be negligible.  Maybe 5 yards in the most extreme example I could put myself into.

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

Yet, the pros are not overpowering Augusta today, so why do we need to do anything more than freeze the equipment where we are today?  The pros aren’t overpowering many courses on Tour today, even with all the hand wringing, and I don’t hear any of the pros or the fans clamoring for a roll back of the ball at the pro level.

 

This is being driven by the USGA and is mostly about preserving a bunch of old line country clubs that didn’t have the foresight to leave room for growth and have now become obsolete to the 1% of golfers.  Tail wagging dog. Only in golf, because golf is the only major sport with all powerful amateur overlords who know better than everyone else.

 

And please, this is 95% about the driver.

 

Looks to me as though the pros are overpowering Valhalla.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

4 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I don't know you.  Speaking for myself and my game, I anticipate the impact on irons to be negligible.  Maybe 5 yards in the most extreme example I could put myself into.

 

I anticipate that it will be -32 yards in normal conditions, +14 on punchouts, and -12 or 12.3 on 74-yard wedge shots. We have no clue because it doesn't exist. I guess we will find out when we all have to use it starting at midnight on a date uncertain.

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

Yet, the pros are not overpowering Augusta today, so why do we need to do anything more than freeze the equipment where we are today?  The pros aren’t overpowering many courses on Tour today

 

Dude where you been?  How much yardage has ANGC added in the last 30 years?  They literally added length to two holes in particular to attempt to keep those holes playing in a manner that preserved the original difficulties of the tee shots.  (2,13)

 

See the post where I showed all of the length adds by venues used as the BMW Championship as another example.  Or the added length to Southern Hills (particularly hole 13, but also 6 and 18th).

 

They aren't adding length to make the course harder per se, but rather to keep some of the original design challenge intact.  You don't hang oyur hat as a club on the fact you are the custodian or a Ross or Maxwell or Flynn design and then allow the impact of the features that they designed into the course to be curtailed by distance (pick your reason behind the distance at will, but the impacts are the same).

 

1 hour ago, Archimedes65 said:

, even with all the hand wringing, and I don’t hear any of the pros or the fans clamoring for a roll back of the ball at the pro level.

 

On the one hand you have a group with an agenda, on the other hand a group with likely a very limited understanding of or appreciation for the course in general let alone the more nuanced architectural features of it.  (Read up on why Southern Hills #13 was designed as it was and what the intent of that design is supposed to provide for the golfer.)

[smashdn]

16 minutes ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

 

I anticipate that it will be -32 yards in normal conditions, +14 on punchouts, and -12 or 12.3 on 74-yard wedge shots. We have no clue because it doesn't exist. I guess we will find out when we all have to use it starting at midnight on a date uncertain.

 

What doesn't exist?  The new ball?  USGA has said there are already balls that conform.  They aren't going to say which because that is essentially "outing" manufacturers producing what could be seen as an inferior product.

 

The only thing that is changing is the test parameters.  

 

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

 

A five mile an hour increase in clubhead speed, 320 less rpm and 1* flatter launch, to more closely mimic how the elite players strike the ball.  A more representative test than current.

 

So if you wanted to sort of extrapolate what that is going to mean to you, there are some numbers to start with.  Assume your current ball is at the ragged edge of conforming and work back.  I bet there is a "Trackman Simulator" type thing where it can apply some multi-variable algebra and figure out if you are driving it 327 yards with the current testing parameters, what they will look like.

 

Lookee here > https://trajectory.flightscope.com/

 

ETA - Fiddling with that thing the difference between old test spec and new test spec is: 

old - 293.3y carry, 9.3y roll, 302.6 Total

new - 310.3y carry, 9.1y roll, 319.3 Total

*I assumed ball speed calculation of 1.5 times swing speed for both.

 

So if your current ball is right on the edge of conformance, you are looking at about a 17 yard reduction in total drive yardage with the new ball on drives.

 

I don't know how the 5 mph difference in swing speed with driver manifests itself with irons.  My hunch is it is less than 5mph difference with irons though.

 

Edited May 17 by smashdn

[Ashley Schaeffer]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

What doesn't exist?  The new ball?  USGA has said there are already balls that conform.  They aren't going to say which because that is essentially "outing" manufacturers producing what could be seen as an inferior product.

 

The only thing that is changing is the test parameters.  

 

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

 

A five mile an hour increase in clubhead speed, 320 less rpm and 1* flatter launch, to more closely mimic how the elite players strike the ball.  A more representative test than current.

 

So if you wanted to sort of extrapolate what that is going to mean to you, there are some numbers to start with.  Assume your current ball is at the ragged edge of conforming and work back.  I bet there is a "Trackman Simulator" type thing where it can apply some multi-variable algebra and figure out if you are driving it 327 yards with the current testing parameters, what they will look like.

 

Lookee here > https://trajectory.flightscope.com/

 

So, we don't know which existing balls would conform, correct?  It's a secret?  I hope it's the current ProV1x, but we'll have to wait and see.

[smashdn]

9 minutes ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

 

So, we don't know which existing balls would conform, correct?  It's a secret?  I hope it's the current ProV1x, but we'll have to wait and see.

 

I would imagine not given that it, it's variants, and many other "tour" balls are consistently at the top of the distance rankings in the ball tests.  

 

Soft compression golf balls give up distance.  The ProV1 family are quite firm.  

 

So if you are already in a Wilson Soft Duo, Callaway Super Soft, Titleist Tour Soft, or the like (balls marketed* to slower swing speed players) you won't notice as much difference.  

 

*Pretty much every ball test out there has found that most anyone not playing a "tour" type ball could benefit from one.