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

[Garydean]

I hate hitting it far so I play with these from the range

[Ashley Schaeffer]

8 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

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.

 

Damn.  But since we don't know for sure because the RBs won't tell us, there's still hope.

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour 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 suspect that the distance gains will be roughly proportional, on a percentage basis, across swing speeds and clubs. Obviously that means longer hitters will lose more absolute distance, but I don't think it's likely they'll lose a significantly higher percentage of distance. 

 

Likewise driver will lose more absolute distance than irons, but I don't think it's likely driver will lose a significantly higher percentage of distance than irons. 

 

Granted, this is MY speculation. I don't have test data confirming this. The ruling bodies say it'll be a magic ball that I'll barely notice on driver and won't lose anything on irons. They may have test data confirming this; if so they haven't shown it to anyone. 

 

58 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

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.

 

If the marshmallows are the balls today that conform, it gives us zero information how any new "Tour" ball which conforms to the new standard will behave. 

 

And as you point out most studies show average-speed players would benefit from a "Tour" type ball, so if the ruling bodies are basing the assertion that I won't lose distance because they think I fall for the marketing BS and play a marshmallow now despite not having tour speed, well that's a little deceptive, innit?

[Chunkitgood]

I’ve never seen any data that any “advance” or tech since say 2005 has been such as to meaningfully help the normal golfer in the real world.  The same applies to the expensive ball.  In theory they might produce more distance but in reality 95 % plus of golfers add loft to their irons, which means among other bad things for their game that there is no consistency.  Any slight incremental increase (or decrease for that matter) is distance will be undetectable in the midst of the greater variance caused by poor play.

 

Imagine programming your robot to hit bad fat shots in a different way with each iteration.

[maamold]

On 5/17/2024 at 10:50 AM, Ashley Schaeffer said:

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

Score matters in Match play?

[Archimedes65]

6 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

I’ve never seen any data that any “advance” or tech since say 2005 has been such as to meaningfully help the normal golfer in the real world.  The same applies to the expensive ball.  In theory they might produce more distance but in reality 95 % plus of golfers add loft to their irons, which means among other bad things for their game that there is no consistency.  Any slight incremental increase (or decrease for that matter) is distance will be undetectable in the midst of the greater variance caused by poor play.

 

Imagine programming your robot to hit bad fat shots in a different way with each iteration.

 

IMO, driver size and forgiveness is the single biggest difference in the last 20 years.  Much more impactful than the ball.  I used to play a Titleist 983K.  Had major back surgery, walked away from golf.  Came back 10 years later, bought an TM M6 and then moved to a SiMax, when the M6 snapped.  Massive difference in every way.  I can control my driver better than my 3 or 5 woods, and I haven’t truly sliced a ball in 15 years.  I would have to try really hard to get a slice out of my driver.

 

[bekgolf]

7 hours ago, maamold said:

Score matters in Match play?

 

Every hole!

[Titleist99]

3 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

Every hole!

Correct. 3 beats 4.🙂

[maamold]

10 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

Every hole!

No, what matters is you took less strokes than your opponent. Taking 20 strokes when your opponent takes 21 means you win, score in match play is meaningless.

[Golfnutgalen]

17 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

IMO, driver size and forgiveness is the single biggest difference in the last 20 years.  Much more impactful than the ball.  I used to play a Titleist 983K.  Had major back surgery, walked away from golf.  Came back 10 years later, bought an TM M6 and then moved to a SiMax, when the M6 snapped.  Massive difference in every way.  I can control my driver better than my 3 or 5 woods, and I haven’t truly sliced a ball in 15 years.  I would have to try really hard to get a slice out of my driver.

 

 

Yep.

 

Adam Scott said it best, driver used to be the hardest club to hit now it's the easiest. 

 

The distance boom correlates with the rise of 400+ CC drivers more than it does with the advent of the Prov. Tiger didn't have a noticeable distance gain until he switched to that Ignite Driver from his old trusty 975D. 

 

And modern drivers are way easier to hit than that Ignite. I know, I have one. 

Edited May 19 by Golfnutgalen

[GoGoErky]

21 minutes ago, maamold said:

No, what matters is you took less strokes than your opponent. Taking 20 strokes when your opponent takes 21 means you win, score in match play is meaningless.

Isn’t a stroke a score? So score still matters. Just not the total score for all 18 holes, but rather the score on a hole by hole basis

[GoGoErky]

12 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

Yep.

 

Adam Scott said it best, driver used to be the hardest club to hit now it's the easiest. 

 

The distance boom correlates with the rise of 400+ CC drivers more than it does with the advent of the Prov. Tiger didn't have a noticeable distance gain until he switched to that Ignite Driver from his old trusty 975D. 

 

And modern drivers are way easier to hit than that Ignite. I know, I have one. 

Did it? I’m pretty sure nobody on tour was using a 400+ cc head on 2003 when Hank Kuehne led the tour with 321 yard average, which happens to be about the same as it has been since 2000 with the 400+ cc heads and 15 yards more than in 20013 when the leader was at 306

[Pnwpingi210]

32 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Did it? I’m pretty sure nobody on tour was using a 400+ cc head on 2003 when Hank Kuehne led the tour with 321 yard average, which happens to be about the same as it has been since 2000 with the 400+ cc heads and 15 yards more than in 20013 when the leader was at 306

Which would you prefer?

 

2003 driver with modern ball, no rollback.

 

2024 driver with modern, rolled back ball

 

2024 driver with 2004 ball

[Golfnutgalen]

33 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Did it? I’m pretty sure nobody on tour was using a 400+ cc head on 2003 when Hank Kuehne led the tour with 321 yard average, which happens to be about the same as it has been since 2000 with the 400+ cc heads and 15 yards more than in 20013 when the leader was at 306

 

Hank Kuehne was using a 440cc driver that season from what I could find. 

 

He was still long pre 2003 by the way, 328.9 in the few events he played in 2002. In 2001 he was 324.8 on the Nationwide tour.

 

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Which would you prefer?

 

2003 driver with modern ball, no rollback.

 

2024 driver with modern, rolled back ball

 

2024 driver with 2004 ball

You already know my stance 

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

Hank Kuehne was using a 440cc driver that season from what I could find. 

 

He was still long pre 2003 by the way, 328.9 in the few events he played in 2002. In 2001 he was 324.8 on the Nationwide tour.

 

So basically he was long before the modern ball and equipment and in some cases longer than players at the top end using modern ball and equipment today.

 

basically what we have been saying all along that the top end distance hasn’t changed since 2003 

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

So basically he was long before the modern ball and equipment and in some cases longer than players at the top end using modern ball and equipment today.

 

basically what we have been saying all along that the top end distance hasn’t changed since 2003 

Pretty sure two players drive 350 yard greens today.  One was an island green. That didn’t happen in 2003

[bekgolf]

6 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Pretty sure two players drive 350 yard greens today.  One was an island green. That didn’t happen in 2003

 

The island green was a huge reward for the huge risk taken.

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, bekgolf said:

 

The island green was a huge reward for the huge risk taken.

I don’t disagree with that.  But modern equipment has provided the opportunity to do that with far less risk today than in 2003.   

[GoGoErky]

4 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I don’t disagree with that.  But modern equipment has provided the opportunity to do that with far less risk today than in 2003.   

Has it though? The risk is still there and the same swing speed back then and today results in a big miss. It’s beyond biggest complaint about the modern driver and that a miss is pretty penal and even more so all over the face. 

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, GoGoErky said:

Has it though? The risk is still there and the same swing speed back then and today results in a big miss. It’s beyond biggest complaint about the modern driver and that a miss is pretty penal and even more so all over the face. 

I don’t know where you are getting any of that man.

[gvogel]

Seems as though some people do care about the quality of the challenge offered by a golf course.  This snippet from THAT OTHER SITE:

 

"And on a note more specific to the golf itself, this is no longer a major championship golf course.

While the leaderboards at Valhalla’s four PGA Championships have induced drama, the golf shots themselves are rarely interesting. It’s a badly designed layout with strings of indistinguishable holes. The greens are flat and simple. The fairways are easy to hit. Consequences for missing in the wrong spot are minimal.

 

"I don’t mind the low scoring on its own, but it needs to come with meaningful punishment for poor golf shots. We consistently saw bad shots end up in totally fine places, and that isn’t major championship golf."

 

Not my words, it comes from another place that is all about golf equipment.

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, gvogel said:

Seems as though some people do care about the quality of the challenge offered by a golf course.  This snippet from THAT OTHER SITE:

 

"And on a note more specific to the golf itself, this is no longer a major championship golf course.

While the leaderboards at Valhalla’s four PGA Championships have induced drama, the golf shots themselves are rarely interesting. It’s a badly designed layout with strings of indistinguishable holes. The greens are flat and simple. The fairways are easy to hit. Consequences for missing in the wrong spot are minimal.

 

"I don’t mind the low scoring on its own, but it needs to come with meaningful punishment for poor golf shots. We consistently saw bad shots end up in totally fine places, and that isn’t major championship golf."

 

Not my words, it comes from another place that is all about golf equipment.

So basically just another person on the internet’s opinion and preference. Doesn’t matter what site it comes from, it’s no different than the differences in opinions of people in this thread and how they prefer golf to be played, or what gives them enjoyment. No data, etc in that just an opinion especially if you took that from the forum and not some article/study from the main site. The forum there like here is just that a forum for talking and tht hq staff sent involved in the forum like the ones at the paradise site are

Edited May 20 by GoGoErky

[Pnwpingi210]

Speaking of data - does anyone have a link that shows what holes they select for measuring driving distance stats?  
 

I’m struggling to make sense of the data golf data.  Dechambeu average 312 off the tee per data golf in the 4th round of the pga.  
 

Edit - I think I figured it out.  The 312 average was average for a tee shot on anything other than a par 3.  So many less than driver shots included in that average.  Cool stat, but would love to see a driver usage only average.  Much more meaning full to a his discussion than including 3 woods and 5 iron tee shots.

Edited May 20 by Pnwpingi210

[TLUBulldogGolf]

34 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Speaking of data - does anyone have a link that shows what holes they select for measuring driving distance stats?  
 

I’m struggling to make sense of the data golf data.  Dechambeu average 312 off the tee per data golf in the 4th round of the pga.  
 

Edit - I think I figured it out.  The 312 average was average for a tee shot on anything other than a par 3.  So many less than driver shots included in that average.  Cool stat, but would love to see a driver usage only average.  Much more meaning full to a his discussion than including 3 woods and 5 iron tee shots.

Datagolf includes all tee shots, correct. I was able to match that 312 number with the shot data off the Tour site. Going off memory I come up with 330 for driver shots. I included it because I thought he did but not sure if he hit driver off 7, I remember it was a spinny cut and the shot data had it at 267.

Edited May 20 by TLUBulldogGolf

[Simpsonia]

2 hours ago, gvogel said:

Seems as though some people do care about the quality of the challenge offered by a golf course.  This snippet from THAT OTHER SITE:

 

"And on a note more specific to the golf itself, this is no longer a major championship golf course.

While the leaderboards at Valhalla’s four PGA Championships have induced drama, the golf shots themselves are rarely interesting. It’s a badly designed layout with strings of indistinguishable holes. The greens are flat and simple. The fairways are easy to hit. Consequences for missing in the wrong spot are minimal.

 

"I don’t mind the low scoring on its own, but it needs to come with meaningful punishment for poor golf shots. We consistently saw bad shots end up in totally fine places, and that isn’t major championship golf."

 

Not my words, it comes from another place that is all about golf equipment.

 

To me, this really just sounds more like a critique of the overall Nicklaus design and tournament setup at Valhalla than anything equipment related. 

[gvogel]

56 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

To me, this really just sounds more like a critique of the overall Nicklaus design and tournament setup at Valhalla than anything equipment related. 

I posted it in reaction to those who say scores count and course challenge does not.

[bekgolf]

3 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Speaking of data - does anyone have a link that shows what holes they select for measuring driving distance stats?  
 

I’m struggling to make sense of the data golf data.  Dechambeu average 312 off the tee per data golf in the 4th round of the pga.  
 

Edit - I think I figured it out.  The 312 average was average for a tee shot on anything other than a par 3.  So many less than driver shots included in that average.  Cool stat, but would love to see a driver usage only average.  Much more meaning full to a his discussion than including 3 woods and 5 iron tee shots.

 

Are drives that don't land in the fairway used?  I'm fairly certain they must remain in the fairway to be part of the data. 

[Pnwpingi210]

5 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

Are drives that don't land in the fairway used?  I'm fairly certain they must remain in the fairway to be part of the data. 

That just plain sillly.  Modern strategy even for tour pros is generally hit it farther even if it’s in the first cut.

 

In going to do some digging on it this years driving stats.  PGA tour reported stat vs average drive using driver.  I’ll pick Rory, somebody that hits it around your average, and the somebody in the bottom 5%.  See how they compare.  

[bekgolf]

11 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

That just plain sillly.  Modern strategy even for tour pros is generally hit it farther even if it’s in the first cut.

 

In going to do some digging on it this years driving stats.  PGA tour reported stat vs average drive using driver.  I’ll pick Rory, somebody that hits it around your average, and the somebody in the bottom 5%.  See how they compare.  

 

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/detail/101