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

[SlothofDespond]

1 minute ago, maamold said:

The article uses golfers' perception, so you posted it. But what the experts say is biased. Again, brilliant. 

 

“In testing with the NP-500 ... participants reported a perceived distance reduction of about 4.9 percent (210 yards compared to a 221-yard self-reported average). This is consistent with expectations based on laboratory testing.”

 

I went ahead and highlighted that last sentence for you. You're welcome.

[chisag]

11 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

But it won't put long irons back in the hands of tour pros... 15yards is basically a one club difference to Rory. Any tour pro it does put a difficult to hit long iron into their hands, say a Brian Harman or a Webb Simpson, just won't last on tour very long and will replaced by a long-hitting kid like Gordon Sargent. 

 

 

... I think you are talking about outliers with Rory and Sargent. And again, I think prodigious distance by a few is exciting. It is the middle of the bell curve I want to see playing all the shots. And having watched golf when Jack was bombing it past everyone with 117 wins, Cory Pavin still won 28 times hitting long irons and fairway woods into greens. I am not saying Brian Harman (290.9) should be on equal footing with Rory (318.9) but of course Harman just won the Open Championship driving the ball 30 yds shorter and just having him challenge a long hitter is interesting for many that appreciate variety over bomb and gouge. 

[chisag]

1 hour ago, GoGoErky said:

Of course he said that. They are try to sell the rollback and want everyone to ignore the data in this test and that they are only guessing what the rollback would. They have no ball to do actual testing with and if it was only a couple yards for the slower swinger they would actually show their test data.

 

 

... I'm just curious, but you think they are purposefully lying and in 2028 will have to come out and say "We were very wrong and the ball will travel far less for our average USGA member. So sorry folks" ? 

[maamold]

3 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

Also, your side does the same whenever we quote other (actually neutral) experts in the field such as Mark Broadie, inventor of Shots Gained stats. 

Because you post a single screenshot from his report so that your argument is supported to push your agenda. 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID4392691_code695.pdf?abstractid=4386390&mirid=1&type=2 

Good paper, but needs some fine tuning and peer review. 

[ThinkingPlus]

15 hours ago, maamold said:

Why shouldn't it?

 

Players determine the way to play a course such that they shoot the lowest score. I can honestly say I never think about how the designer intended a hole to play. Don't really care and doubt many "designers" put much thought into it either. They design courses to please their customer and put food on the table. These days they mostly try to make golf courses pretty which I find irrelevant.

[GoGoErky]

3 hours ago, chisag said:

... So much consternation over something when we don't know how it will play out. To be sure, if the ball rollback for the average golfer hits their best and worst drives 15yds shorter nobody will be happy about that and it will be a big USGA fail. If it is reduced 3-5 yds I still think all but the most consistent + index Am's won't notice. My average drive is around 250-260 and I hit a huge drive for me Monday of 290yds that hit a downslope in the 111* heat but if I got to my ball and found it only went 285 I absolutely wouldn't notice any distance loss.  

... As far as a ball magically performing different for high and low swing speed players, just look at the Kirkland V3 that given the same AOA will spin well over 3500 for the fast swing speed player and 2500 or less for the low swing speed player. I found the V3 to be quite a bit shorter while my 82 yr old playing pard that shoots his age and drove the ball in the 180 range gained a good 10 yards and some around 200 because he needs the spin to keep his drives in the air longer. Magic? No, but to think balls don't react very differently for high and low swing speeds is just a head scratcher. 

 

The USGA put themselves in and spot unless it was done on purpose to slowly introduce more rollback little by little.

 

if it changes nothing then everyone will be like was it done. If it is a bigger rollback than they claim everyone will call them out for lying. They are on the border of putting themselves out of the rules business.

 

Most people with a clue don’t disagree with this but many seem to think that there’s a magic ball that will cause a huge loss of distance for the high swing speed golfers and have no impact for anyone else while at the same time The lpga mebmbers who have similar swing speeds as many in the 85-90 range are going to lose 5-7 yards.

 

It’s a dumb decision by the ruling bodies unless as I said it’s step 1 in their end game. This won’t have any effect. All the pro rollbackers will complain it did nothing. The talking heads at the RBs will say the same, then it will be we need to do more. They will implement another rollback and probably with equipment. The same pro rollbackers will be like finally. Then there will be another until it gets to the point where people stop playing it the RBs are no longer in charge.

[chisag]

4 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Players determine the way to play a course such that they shoot the lowest score. I can honestly say I never think about how the designer intended a hole to play. Don't really care and doubt many "designers" put much thought into it either. They design courses to please their customer and put food on the table. These days they mostly try to make golf courses pretty which I find irrelevant.

 

 

... Wow, just wow. Based on the course design, which tees you choose to play can be huge. I love a great course design and appreciate the designer. Things like #9 has a lake on the tight and that same lake is on 18. Both are long holes and to even things out Gary Parks designed 10 foot banks on the side away from the water. When the wind is blowing into the lake it is the smart play to hit into the banks and away from the water. If it sticks in the rough you have a decent chip and if it comes off the bank you are putting. Great design and tough but fun holes. 

... Same for 2 risk reward holes that are drivable par 4's over water. The first is 277 and the water is longer on the right side and will gobble up a fade or slice and the 2nd is 294 and the water is longer on the left and swallows draws and hooks. Great design and playing the correct tees either allows you to go for the green. If you aren't long enough how far to play your layup will depend on pin location. Every hole has a design feature that can dictate how to play the hole from various tees based on how the architect designed the hole. 

 

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, chisag said:

 

 

... I'm just curious, but you think they are purposefully lying and in 2028 will have to come out and say "We were very wrong and the ball will travel far less for our average USGA member. So sorry folks" ? 

They are and they won’t have to say it’s everyone will know and they will find themselves out of the rules business not

long after that

[ThinkingPlus]

52 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... Wow, just wow. Based on the course design, which tees you choose to play can be huge. I love a great course design and appreciate the designer. Things like #9 has a lake on the tight and that same lake is on 18. Both are long holes and to even things out Gary Parks designed 10 foot banks on the side away from the water. When the wind is blowing into the lake it is the smart play to hit into the banks and away from the water. If it sticks in the rough you have a decent chip and if it comes off the bank you are putting. Great design and tough but fun holes. 

... Same for 2 risk reward holes that are drivable par 4's over water. The first is 277 and the water is longer on the right side and will gobble up a fade or slice and the 2nd is 294 and the water is longer on the left and swallows draws and hooks. Great design and playing the correct tees either allows you to go for the green. If you aren't long enough how far to play your layup will depend on pin location. Every hole has a design feature that can dictate how to play the hole from various tees based on how the architect designed the hole. 

 

Meh.

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, GoGoErky said:

The USGA put themselves in and spot unless it was done on purpose to slowly introduce more rollback little by little.

 

if it changes nothing then everyone will be like was it done. If it is a bigger rollback than they claim everyone will call them out for lying. They are on the border of putting themselves out of the rules business.

 

Most people with a clue don’t disagree with this but many seem to think that there’s a magic ball that will cause a huge loss of distance for the high swing speed golfers and have no impact for anyone else while at the same time The lpga mebmbers who have similar swing speeds as many in the 85-90 range are going to lose 5-7 yards.

 

It’s a dumb decision by the ruling bodies unless as I said it’s step 1 in their end game. This won’t have any effect. All the pro rollbackers will complain it did nothing. The talking heads at the RBs will say the same, then it will be we need to do more. They will implement another rollback and probably with equipment. The same pro rollbackers will be like finally. Then there will be another until it gets to the point where people stop playing it the RBs are no longer in charge.

Hopefully, Mike Whan will be gone before this abomination takes effect.

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Players determine the way to play a course such that they shoot the lowest score. I can honestly say I never think about how the designer intended a hole to play. Don't really care and doubt many "designers" put much thought into it either. They design courses to please their customer and put food on the table. These days they mostly try to make golf courses pretty which I find irrelevant.

 

You are leaving shots out there then.

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, smashdn said:

 

You are leaving shots out there then.

Not likely. I primarily play the afterthought tees these days. The biggest challenge for most courses I play is overcoming the horrible course conditions. The nuances you guys gush about are so far in the noise for most of the courses I have ever played that it is laughable. That's the reality for the majority of golfers in this country.

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Hopefully, Mike Whan will be gone before this abomination takes effect.

Would be nice. Pull a Slumbers and roll out before the damage hits. He said he took the job during the distance issue. He accomplished at least part of the goal. Only reason he stays is to change the driver too

[ThinkingPlus]

14 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Would be nice. Pull a Slumbers and roll out before the damage hits. He said he took the job during the distance issue. He accomplished at least part of the goal. Only reason he stays is to change the driver too

You think they'll try to go weaker than persimmon with the driver (COR < 0.78)?

[GoGoErky]

58 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You think they'll try to go weaker than persimmon with the driver (COR < 0.78)?

Maybe. They say they don’t want to affect the regular golfer. We know nobody wants bifurcation so it can’t be. 330cc driver (example) for the pros and leave the current r driver alone for ams or even reduce it to 400. So it’s going to have to be a punishment for all.

 

They said they are looking at the driver so it’s only a matter of time before they do something. But I can’t see them only touching driver, they would have to do something to the fairway woods and maybe even hybrid at the same time.

 

I think if the rollback isn’t the death of them touching driver and fairway woods would be the death of the USGA. 

[ThinkingPlus]

19 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Maybe. They say they don’t want to affect the regular golfer. We know nobody wants bifurcation so it can’t be. 330cc driver (example) for the pros and leave the current r driver alone for ams or even reduce it to 400. So it’s going to have to be a punishment for all.

 

They said they are looking at the driver so it’s only a matter of time before they do something. But I can’t see them only touching driver, they would have to do something to the fairway woods and maybe even hybrid at the same time.

 

I think if the rollback isn’t the death of them touching driver and fairway woods would be the death of the USGA. 

I think they return COR to 0.78 (all clubs) and shrink max head volume to ~300 cc. I wonder if they will be smart enough to limit face area? Ooops...

[mgoblue83]

9 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

Again, bifurcation is a great, perhaps even ideal, solution from a technical perspective. Of course elite male golf is "the problem", if you accept there's a problem. My 250y drives aren't. And yes, I'd like to keep them.

 

But as I've said several times, bifurcation has marketing/economic problems. It's the reason why the PGAT said they wouldn't adopt the MLR--and I personally believe they did that at the behest of the ball OEMs. The ball OEMs recognize that not being able to capitalize in ball sales on the balls that the professionals use will impact their market. So they fought it, and the PGAT (and likely prominent sponsored players) carried their water. 

 

If you can find a way to get the ball OEMs on board with bifurcation, get the PGAT on board with bifurcation, and do so in a way that doesn't result in trickle-down of the nerfed ball to us non-elite golfers, I'm all for it. 

 

 

All  reasonable but this isn't an issue with any other sport that has bifurcation and there is really no logical reason for it to be an issue with golf either.

 

In baseball do OEMs have any problem selling composite bats to amateurs even though pros use wood? Nope.

 

What would happen in golf is the PGA tour would partner with one or more OEMs to produce a "professional" ball that could be adjusted on a yearly or even per tournament basis. The tour would subsidize the development and production cost while the OEMs would still produce and sell millions of their highest performing balls to amateurs just like today.

 

The result would be a learning curve for amateurs transitioning to the pro ranks (already occurs in many other sports including baseball) but everyone benefits long term. Amateurs don't lose any distance and can play whatever performs the best while the professional game is able to go back to classic courses and will be way more entertaining to watch as the skill level and shot making increases to offset the distance loss.

 

[GoGoErky]

6 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I think they return COR to 0.78 (all clubs) and shrink max head volume to ~300 cc. I wonder if they will be smart enough to limit face area? Ooops...

I could see it.

 

i could see some legal battles coming from any proposed equipment change too 

[fbjim]

7 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

 

All  reasonable but this isn't an issue with any other sport that has bifurcation and there is really no logical reason for it to be an issue with golf either.

 

In baseball do OEMs have any problem selling composite bats to amateurs even though pros use wood? Nope.

 

The baseball bat industry is not a multi-billion dollar industry like golf. 

 

I would frankly love bifurcation and see the pros have to use harder equipment than amateurs, but the comparison between golf and baseball isn't perfect. 

[GoGoErky]

Nobody in the industry wants bifurcation. Its the whole reason the MLR for the ball died.

 

It’s a small fraction of golfers that want it. Having the same equipment standards and rules for all golfers regardless of level of play is what makes golf a great sport. It’s the one sport where all levels of participants can play together at the same time on the same “field”

 

[GoGoErky]

Nobody in the industry wants bifurcation. Its the whole reason the MLR for the ball died.

 

It’s a small fraction of golfers that want it. Having the same equipment standards and rules for all golfers regardless of level of play is what makes golf a great sport. It’s the one sport where all levels of participants can play together at the same time on the same “field”

 

[gvogel]

19 hours ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

I didn't say anything about the new ball. I was commenting on the reference to rolling it back 30 years. Distance is a skill and why are we punishing that? Seems typical these days that when someone can do something that certain individuals can't, we default to wanting to limit that certain group. 

Distance relative to peers, or distance relative to playing competitors is what really matters.  If the equipment were rolled back 30 years, long players would still be long players.  And courses would be set up shorter.

[Simpsonia]

8 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

 

All  reasonable but this isn't an issue with any other sport that has bifurcation and there is really no logical reason for it to be an issue with golf either.

 

In baseball do OEMs have any problem selling composite bats to amateurs even though pros use wood? Nope.

 

What would happen in golf is the PGA tour would partner with one or more OEMs to produce a "professional" ball that could be adjusted on a yearly or even per tournament basis. The tour would subsidize the development and production cost while the OEMs would still produce and sell millions of their highest performing balls to amateurs just like today.

 

The result would be a learning curve for amateurs transitioning to the pro ranks (already occurs in many other sports including baseball) but everyone benefits long term. Amateurs don't lose any distance and can play whatever performs the best while the professional game is able to go back to classic courses and will be way more entertaining to watch as the skill level and shot making increases to offset the distance loss.

 

 

Mike Whan already said that bifurcation was more complex than they originally thought when introduced. They received a ton of feedback not just from the PGA Tour, but every single state, local, collegiate tournaments as well. Golf is a unique sport in which the lines that define "elite male competition" is much more blurred than say baseball where you have very distinct lines drawn between the various levels such as collegiate, professional feeder leagues (A, AA, AAA), and the MLB.

 

Would we define the US Amateur as not being an "elite male competition", I certainly do yet it is purely amateurs playing? What about the US Jr Am, or the US Mid Am? What about developmental mini-tours underneath the Korn Ferry such at the GPro Tour, IGT Tour. Then you have state/local tours. Those tours and state/local comps are full of these kids you guys rail about for hitting it 300+. Bifurcation just isn't cut and dried in golf because the lines are so much more fuzzy. Then you start getting into enforcement issues. All of these mini-tours are technically professional tours, but none of them have the resources to actually enforce the MLR. 

 

You guys keep saying bifurcation is the solution but don't actually offer any solutions to the issues bifurcation actually brings. The USGA abandoned it because they thought it would be too hard. If you guys are so deferential to the USGA, what makes you think your solutions are better than what they could come up with? 

[betarhoalphadelta]

9 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

All  reasonable but this isn't an issue with any other sport that has bifurcation and there is really no logical reason for it to be an issue with golf either.

 

In baseball do OEMs have any problem selling composite bats to amateurs even though pros use wood? Nope.

 

 

How many Louisville Slugger commercials do you seen on an MLB broadcast? How many Riddell helmet commercials do you see on NFL broadcasts? Seems sports equipment companies don't make any money advertising on their own sport's television broadcasts. I'd argue that's more because very few adults play either sport, but either way it means that it's not even remotely comparable to golf. 

 

In golf, you have commercials for financial/corporate services, boner pills, and golf equipment. What happens if Titleist drops their advertising budget by 80% because of bifurcation? Will Bibigo make up the shortfall? Can our sanity survive if they do?

[betarhoalphadelta]

8 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Mike Whan already said that bifurcation was more complex than they originally thought when introduced.  

 

I don't always trust what people say publicly. I.e. I personally believe that the PGA Tour isn't against the MLR--but their stakeholders (broadcasters selling ads to ball OEMs with big advertising budgets, and the players sponsored by those ball OEMs) were. So they said they wouldn't adopt it. 

 

I'm sure the USGA had thought about enforcement at various levels. But then the PGAT killed the MLR. Can he go into an interview and say "yeah, we were 100% all in on the MLR, but once the PGA Tour, which is the people we really were trying to regulate, said they weren't going to do it, we knew it was dead." No, he would look foolish. 

 

Let me ask you this: if all of those lower-level tours had given the exact same feedback saying it was going to be an enforcement problem, but the PGA Tour had said they would use the MLR, do you think the USGA would still have gone the way they did to roll back for everyone? I personally think if the PGA Tour adopted the MLR, we'd have the MLR and not a rollback for everyone. 

[GoGoErky]

22 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I don't always trust what people say publicly. I.e. I personally believe that the PGA Tour isn't against the MLR--but their stakeholders (broadcasters selling ads to ball OEMs with big advertising budgets, and the players sponsored by those ball OEMs) were. So they said they wouldn't adopt it. 

The PGA tour is selling a products they don’t want to see shorter drives and potentially not seeing more birdies made. It affects viewership.

 

Is there some influence in their decisions from their advertisers? Sure but that goes for news media as well and anyone selling advertisements.

 

24 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I'm sure the USGA had thought about enforcement at various levels. But then the PGAT killed the MLR. Can he go into an interview and say "yeah, we were 100% all in on the MLR, but once the PGA Tour, which is the people we really were trying to regulate, said they weren't going to do it, we knew it was dead." No, he would look foolish. 

If you listen to the interviews Whan has done he says they were all in but it was not only the pga tour but the pga of America who also said our members want nothing to do with it and they weren’t going to use it at the pga championship. There was pushback from everyone.
 

He also said enforcement or knowing where or who would use it and not use was a problem.

the USGA was rest to implement it at all their events.

 

28 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Let me ask you this: if all of those lower-level tours had given the exact same feedback saying it was going to be an enforcement problem, but the PGA Tour had said they would use the MLR, do you think the USGA would still have gone the way they did to roll back for everyone? I personally think if the PGA Tour adopted the MLR, we'd have the MLR and not a rollback for everyone. 

Again it wasn’t just the pga tour that said no. One of the majors said no. So there would still be the chaos of knowing who would have adopted or not. Having one major say no was huge. The USA was banking on The Masters, PGA of America and the PGA tour and DPWT saying yes. 

[smashdn]

18 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

But it won't put long irons back in the hands of tour pros... 15yards is basically a one club difference to Rory. Any tour pro it does put a difficult to hit long iron into their hands, say a Brian Harman or a Webb Simpson, just won't last on tour very long and will replaced by a long-hitting kid like Gordon Sargent. 

 

Fifteen yards on the drive and then too the loss on whatever club they pull next would be.  Five, eight, ten yards?  I don't know as it depends on the club.  But, just my guess, it would be two clubs at minimum.

 

450 yard hole and Rory drives it 330.  Has 120 left in currently.  Thinking that is probably driver and then pitching wedge or gap wedge for him.  450 yard hole and a 315 drive leaves 135, so might end up being a nine but not quite an eight iron then.

 

Personally, I don't think it does enough if you view it from the perspective that the reason you are doing it is you want to get certain clubs or distances back for the pros.  I think it may slow the lengthening of courses to a degree.  That is my concern.  It will certainly not eliminate it as there are courses currently that are "behind" in adding length that "need" it with the current paradigm.

[Simpsonia]

32 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Fifteen yards on the drive and then too the loss on whatever club they pull next would be.  Five, eight, ten yards?  I don't know as it depends on the club.  But, just my guess, it would be two clubs at minimum.

 

450 yard hole and Rory drives it 330.  Has 120 left in currently.  Thinking that is probably driver and then pitching wedge or gap wedge for him.  450 yard hole and a 315 drive leaves 135, so might end up being a nine but not quite an eight iron then.

 

 

This doesn't make any sense if you're listening to the USGA's proclamations. Rory's club in that situation would be a PW (current PW stock yardage 148yds). Ball speed with a PW to 148yds would be right about ~118mph. We were told that slow hitting amateurs will lose next to no distance from their drives (a 200yd driver will have 130mph ball speed). So how is Rory going to lose 8-10 yards off a 118mph PW, but an amateur is going to lose virtually no distance on a 130 mph 200yd drive? Talk about magic balls, apparently they can sense what club you're using! (Ok that was a bit much on the snark-scale, but I just get so frustrated with how much the rollback side misunderstands basic physics when it comes to this ball rollback). 

 

So either Rory loses next no distance on his irons, because they are similar ball speed to short hitting amateur drivers. Or, Amateur drivers are actually going to lose significant distance. 

Edited Thursday at 02:45 PM by Simpsonia

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

This doesn't make any sense if you're listening to the USGA's proclamations. Rory's club in that situation would be a PW (current PW stock yardage 148yds). Ball speed with a PW to 148yds would be right about ~118mph. We were told that slow hitting amateurs will lose next to no distance from their drives (a 200yd driver will have 130mph ball speed). So how is Rory going to lose 8-10 yards off a 118mph PW, but an amateur is going to lose virtually no distance on a 130 mph 200yd drive? Talk about magic balls, apparently they can sense what club you're using! (Ok that was a bit much on the snark-scale, but I just get so frustrated with how much the rollback side misunderstands basic physics when it comes to this ball rollback). 

 

So either Rory loses next no distance on his irons, because they are similar ball speed to short hitting amateur drivers. Or, Amateur drivers are actually going to lose significant distance. 

Spin?

 

one spins at 8-10k and one spins at 2-3k

Edited Thursday at 02:48 PM by Pnwpingi210

[Simpsonia]

19 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Spin?

 

one spins at 8-10k and one spins at 2-3k

 

Spin doesn't work like that. You can't get high spin with a high lofted club and maintain low driver spin without doing exactly what the ProV1 already does, which is softish (urethane) cover and high compression core. People point to the Kirkland's spin but it has a higher compression core than the ProV1 to offset the softer (cheaper) cast urethane cover. That's how the ProV1x gets higher spin than the ProV1, through a higher compression core. Higher compression core means more distance from the driver (though somewhat offset by the spin). Also, softer covers = less durability = less sustainable, and durability is one of the big complaints about the Kirkland (after high spin). 

 

If you lower core compression you lower spin across the board, which means irons and wedges now go further than they used to. 

 

If you amp up driver spin, it's going to kill short hitting amateurs just as much as long hitters. There is no such thing as a magic ball. 

 

Edit: actually raising driver spin to reduce distance would probably hit amateurs comparatively harder than pros since they generally have higher spin with driver than pros. Also bigger banana slices for those ams. 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 03:07 PM by Simpsonia