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

[smashdn]

19 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

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). 

 

In a way they do already.  The harder you swing, the more force is impacted on the ball, the more it deflects, the more the inner layers are engaged.

 

Don't get hung up in the minutea of the numbers I used, I thought I made it clear I was estimating/guesstimating.  It stands to reason if you lose distance on drives, the fastest swinging guys would lose some on full iron shots as well.  The point being if it is 15 yards loss on drives, it is going to be some (remember I said, "five, eight, ten yards?") depending upon the iron as well.

 

I apologize that I didn't make it clear that a 3/4 wedge may not be impacted. /s  (I also don't have Rory's distances committed to memory.  It is sometimes more than I can do to club myself at times.)

[Pnwpingi210]

7 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

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 sustainable. 

 

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. 

 

 

I’m aware of all that.  There are different levers (core, cover, and aero package) that influence how a ball heaves wince struck.

 

I don’t think we can’t confidently say what’s going to happen, since ball manufactures aren’t  incentivized to research and develop a ball the conforms to any other spec than what exists today.  

[Simpsonia]

11 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I’m aware of all that.  There are different levers (core, cover, and aero package) that influence how a ball heaves wince struck.

 

I don’t think we can’t confidently say what’s going to happen, since ball manufactures aren’t  incentivized to research and develop a ball the conforms to any other spec than what exists today.  

 

God this is frustrating. We've explained exactly how the levers work and how they often work opposite each other. Harder core = higher spin = more energy transfer = more distance from driver. Lower compression core = lower spin = more distance on lofted clubs. You can't make a magic ball that reduces Rory's distances (on both lofted clubs and driver) greatly and doesn't affect amateur short hitters. The only way short-hitting ams don't lose significant distance is if they are ALREADY losing significant distance by using a sub-optimal marshmallow ball. 

 

Yall are delusional if you think that Rory is going to lose 10 yards off his 7i which cruises at the same ball speed as an amateur's driver (who apparently isn't going to lose distance at all). /s

Edited Thursday at 03:23 PM by Simpsonia

[GoGoErky]

42 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

but I just get so frustrated with how much the rollback side misunderstands basic physics when it comes to this ball rollback). 

Blind trust in the ruling bodies information. See it while browsing other forums and some other social media groups.

 

The “USGA guys are smart, they know what they are doing” type comments is what I see. No questioning the data or methods used to determine these numbers.

[Pnwpingi210]

12 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

God this is frustrating. We've explained exactly how the levers work and how they often work opposite each other. Harder core = higher spin = more energy transfer = more distance. Lower compression core = lower spin. You can't make a magic ball that reduces Rory's distances greatly and doesn't affect amateur short hitters. The only way short-hitting ams don't lose significant distance is if they are ALREADY losing significant distance by using a sub-optimal marshmallow ball. 

 

Yall are delusional if you think that Rory is going to lose 10 yards off his 7i which cruises at the same ball speed as an amateur's driver (who apparently isn't going to lose distance at all). /s

There’s a lot going on in this post so I’m not going to respond to every point or comment.

 

in general I think talking about distance in percentage vs actual yardage is more helpful.  Rory hits it farther than most 80 yr olds.  They will likely both lose 5% yardage via a rollback assuming they are both using a ball 100% optimized for distance their swing today, under todays specs.

 

We have no idea how many amateurs are using a ball optimized for distance today. We know it’s not 100% and we know it’s not 0%.  Your personal opinion on what that number is is dependent on the demographics of golfers you play with and anecdotally observe.  It does not make it right or wrong.

 

Are golf ball manufactures limited to using current materials for the cover (urethane, surely, heck balata?). Or could a new material be developed as long as it conforms?

 

In theory I agree with most of what you are saying.  The application and absoluteness of which you speak of the impacts is where we disagree.  

Edited Thursday at 03:34 PM by Pnwpingi210

[AZBRONCFAN]

43 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

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. 

 

 

Yep pros will adjust their equipment and optimize and won't be affected that much. This whole argument reminds me of the groove ruling of how big of a difference it will make. Players adjusted and that was about the most worthless equipment change 

[munichop]

5 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

There’s a lot going on in this post so I’m not going to respond to every point or comment.

 

in general I think talking about distance in percentage vs actual yardage is more helpful.  Rory hits it farther than most 80 yr olds.  They will likely both lose 5% yardage via a rollback assuming they are both using a ball 100% optimized for distance their swing today, under todays specs.

 

We have no idea how many amateurs are using a ball optimized for distance today. We know it’s not 100% and we know it’s not 0%.  Your personal opinion on what that number is is dependent on the demographics of golfers you play with and anecdotally observe.  It does not make it right or wrong.

 

Are golf ball manufactures limited to using current materials for the cover (urethane, surely, heck balata?). Or could a new material be developed as long as it conforms?

 

In theory I agree with most of what you are saying.  The application and absoluteness of which you speak of the impacts is where we disagree.  

I agree on this.  I use lower compression surlyn balls and have for years.   Are they optimized for distance for me vs higher compression ones? No.  Just like the fact I know they have less greenside spin than tour balls.   But my bogey free 67 in heavy wind last March with a supersoft told me I have made the right choice for me and my limitations when my three titleist friends in my fooursome struggled because their balls were not as consistent in the wind as mine.  

As I said before the USGA blew this 30 years ago and this proposed correction is a joke just like long putters and grooves.   For the current courses to offer an every club in the bag challenge they need to reduce distance WAY more than is proposed.  So a top player hits wedge into a par 4 instead of gap wedge.  Big deal.

[mgoblue83]

2 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

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? 

 

I understand all of those sticking points but you have to start somewhere.

 

Step 1:

All PGA Tour, DP World Tour, Korn Ferry Tour and Major championships must be played with a rolled back golf ball that will be provided by the tour and events.

All other mini-tours and all amateur competitions can be played with any ball (on the conforming list).

 

Step 2:

Other organizations like the NCAA and USGA may decide to require rolled back golf balls at some point in the future. Or not. Doesn't really matter.

[mgoblue83]

29 minutes ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

Yep pros will adjust their equipment and optimize and won't be affected that much. This whole argument reminds me of the groove ruling of how big of a difference it will make. Players adjusted and that was about the most worthless equipment change 

 

This is why the golf ball should be continually evaluated and adjusted going forward. It could even change on an event by event basis as some courses need a drastically rolled back golf ball to stay relevant while others don't. It would increase the skill level required of the players because they would need to be able to adjust to different golf balls more often.

[Simpsonia]

33 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

There’s a lot going on in this post so I’m not going to respond to every point or comment.

 

in general I think talking about distance in percentage vs actual yardage is more helpful.  Rory hits it farther than most 80 yr olds.  They will likely both lose 5% yardage via a rollback assuming they are both using a ball 100% optimized for distance their swing today, under todays specs.

 

We have no idea how many amateurs are using a ball optimized for distance today. We know it’s not 100% and we know it’s not 0%.  Your personal opinion on what that number is is dependent on the demographics of golfers you play with and anecdotally observe.  It does not make it right or wrong.

 

Are golf ball manufactures limited to using current materials for the cover (urethane, surely, heck balata?). Or could a new material be developed as long as it conforms?

 

In theory I agree with most of what you are saying.  The application and absoluteness of which you speak of the impacts is where we disagree.  

 

I completely agree about percentages. It's just really frustrating when others say "Oh Rory will lose his ~16yds (~5% of 320yds) but that 200yd driving amateur is only going to lose 2 yards (or 1%)". That's where I'm coming from when I say magic ball. Even if it is technically non-linear, it will likely be effectively linear in that Rory may lose 5.2% and the short hitter may lose 4.9%. Technically non-linear, but effectively linear. 

 

As for materials, @ThinkingPlus kind of covered this a while back. OEMs don't have the budgets to research new materials like DuPont or 3M does. They aren't in the materials game. They reuse the best commercially available and economical materials that exist, but Acushnet isn't DuPont or 3M. Balata is a non-starter as it needs to be harvested from Balata trees in the rainforest, it's just not sustainable, and would likely be 10x more expensive. 

[bekgolf]

Just now, mgoblue83 said:

 

I understand all of those sticking points but you have to start somewhere.

 

Step 1:

All PGA Tour, DP World Tour, Korn Ferry Tour and Major championships must be played with a rolled back golf ball that will be provided by the tour and events.

All other mini-tours and all amateur competitions can be played with any ball (on the conforming list).

 

Step 2:

Other organizations like the NCAA and USGA may decide to require rolled back golf balls at some point in the future. Or not. Doesn't really matter.

 

The professional tournaments don't have to abide by what the USGA says.  They do it but don't have to. 

 

The PGA already told the USGA that they weren't going to follow the MLR, the result was a pouting USGA applied the rule so that everyone suffers and then they blame the PGA Tour for the inconvenience to amateurs. 

 

What if the PGA says we aren't applying the rule and we no longer abide by USGA rules, we now make the rules for our competitions?  If that happened it would be possible that another amateur golf organization would use the new PGA rules and provide handicapping services for golf clubs all over America.  The USGA would be regulated to "not needed" status.

 

I realize it's a stretch but it is possible that the USGA regulates themselves out of business by being so out of touch with their membership.

[Pnwpingi210]

3 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

I completely agree about percentages. It's just really frustrating when others say "Oh Rory will lose his ~16yds (~5% of 320yds) but that 200yd driving amateur is only going to lose 2 yards (or 1%)". That's where I'm coming from when I say magic ball. Even if it is technically non-linear, it will likely be effectively linear in that Rory may lose 5.2% and the short hitter may lose 4.9%. Technically non-linear, but effectively linear. 

 

As for materials, @ThinkingPlus kind of covered this a while back. OEMs don't have the budgets to research new materials like DuPont or 3M does. They aren't in the materials game. They reuse the best commercially available and economical materials that exist, but Acushnet isn't DuPont or 3M. Balata is a non-starter as it needs to be harvested from Balata trees in the rainforest, it's just not sustainable, and would likely be 10x more expensive. 

I guess my point is ball manufactures aren’t limited to the materials we use today, so it’s conceivable that a new material may be introduced that behaves differently than urethane or surlyn.  
 

Nobody thought titleist would bring a plastic headed driver to market, but here we are….

 

 

[AZBRONCFAN]

9 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

This is why the golf ball should be continually evaluated and adjusted going forward. It could even change on an event by event basis as some courses need a drastically rolled back golf ball to stay relevant while others don't. It would increase the skill level required of the players because they would need to be able to adjust to different golf balls more often.

It doesn't need to be changed because the guys who get paid make the gane too easy. The everyday golfers scores haven't improved much even though everyone is a scrtach handicap and hits a 300 yard baby fade everytime on the internet.

[mgoblue83]

3 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

The professional tournaments don't have to abide by what the USGA says.  They do it but don't have to. 

 

The PGA already told the USGA that they weren't going to follow the MLR, the result was a pouting USGA applied the rule so that everyone suffers and then they blame the PGA Tour for the inconvenience to amateurs. 

 

What if the PGA says we aren't applying the rule and we no longer abide by USGA rules, we now make the rules for our competitions?  If that happened it would be possible that another amateur golf organization would use the new PGA rules and provide handicapping services for golf clubs all over America.  The USGA would be regulated to "not needed" status.

 

I realize it's a stretch but it is possible that the USGA regulates themselves out of business by being so out of touch with their membership.

 

Certainly possible. Same thing the NCAA is doing to itself with football.

 

The thing is the PGA Tour is under so much financial pressure that they are being forced into decisions based on their bottom line and not health of the game. I'm sure the vast majority of tour players and administrators are in favor or at least understand why a rolled back ball is needed.

[mgoblue83]

1 minute ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

It doesn't need to be changed because the guys who get paid make the gane too easy. The everyday golfers scores haven't improved much even though everyone is a scrtach handicap and hits a 300 yard baby fade everytime on the internet.

 

BIFURCATION

[AZBRONCFAN]

2 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

BIFURCATION

Sure. I'd  just do what USGA does with USO that most people fall for. Make the course a par 68. Fixes the scores that everyone is hung up by.

[mgoblue83]

Just now, AZBRONCFAN said:

Sure. I'd  just do what USGA does with USO that most people fall for. Make the course a par 68. Fixes the scores that everyone is hung up by.

 

 

This whole discussion has almost nothing to do with scores. Is an average tour event winning score of -20 ridiculous? Of course, but that is a very small part of the issue.

 

1. Thousands of courses are becoming obsolete because they don't have enough space on property to lengthen the course.

2. Elite players are able to ignore most course architecture and hit driver/wedge or 3w/wedge on almost every hole.

3. Elite players are not required to be shot makers anymore. Their entire bag is not tested at all. Long irons and even mid-irons are hardly ever used.

4. Elite golf is not as entertaining to watch when it's just a wedge and putting contest.

 

[GoGoErky]

23 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

 

This whole discussion has almost nothing to do with scores. Is an average tour event winning score of -20 ridiculous? Of course, but that is a very small part of the issue.

 

1. Thousands of courses are becoming obsolete because they don't have enough space on property to lengthen the course.

2. Elite players are able to ignore most course architecture and hit driver/wedge or 3w/wedge on almost every hole.

3. Elite players are not required to be shot makers anymore. Their entire bag is not tested at all. Long irons and even mid-irons are hardly ever used.

4. Elite golf is not as entertaining to watch when it's just a wedge and putting contest.

 

And yet they can be played everyday by regular golfers and somehow pro tournaments still happen on 7000-7300 yard courses every week and they don’t even pay that long. Also somehow the USGA is ok using 6800-7000 yard courses for their open qualifying.

 

Courses aren’t becoming obsolete and there’s nothing in the rules that say courses have to be played as designed and on top of that not everyone plays the course the same way because of length.

 

all silly arguments 

[mgoblue83]

23 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

And yet they can be played everyday by regular golfers and somehow pro tournaments still happen on 7000-7300 yard courses every week and they don’t even pay that long. Also somehow the USGA is ok using 6800-7000 yard courses for their open qualifying.

 

Courses aren’t becoming obsolete and there’s nothing in the rules that say courses have to be played as designed and on top of that not everyone plays the course the same way because of length.

 

all silly arguments 

 

Do you actually believe that?

 

We get it. You don't want to lose distance. Doesn't mean that you have to be purposely obtuse to real problems and solutions.

[Chunkitgood]

Here’s the USGA study from which Golf Digest cherry picked the quote about the NP-500 and the loss of 4.9 percent.

 

As far as I can see it has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion.  The Golf Digest writer is either an idiot or has an agenda in quoting it.  The 4.9 percent is for loss of “perceived distance”  from self reported prior distance from people who were told to expect less distance, all using balls that we have no reason to presume will be the same as those produced under the new standards.  The NP-500 is explicitly biased to more loss at slower speeds than other alternatives.

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/Equipment Specifications Research.pdf

 

If I am wrong feel free to explain why.

[maamold]

On 6/26/2024 at 10:18 AM, AZBRONCFAN said:

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 is a skill regardless of the ball or equipment.

I'm genuinely perplexed that you think that the skill of hitting it further than the other guy will suddenly vanish, and everyone will start hitting it the exact same distance starting 2028.

[GoGoErky]

3 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

Do you actually believe that?

 

We get it. You don't want to lose distance. Doesn't mean that you have to be purposely obtuse to real problems and solutions.

Yes because there is no course that cant be played with the current equipment as evident by every pro tour and elite am event.

 

Just because you don’t like how the pros and long hitters play a course doesn’t mean it’s obsolete.

 

Point me to a rule or anything that says golf has to be played the way the course architect designed it. I’ll wait.

 

We have already shown that courses aren’t adding length and that new courses are being build shorter now that before.

Edited Thursday at 09:23 PM by GoGoErky

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, Chunkitgood said:

Here’s the USGA study from which Golf Digest cherry picked the quote about the NP-500 and the loss of 4.9 percent.

 

As far as I can see it has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion.  The Golf Digest writer is either an idiot or has an agenda in quoting it.  The 4.9 percent is for loss of “perceived distance”  from self reported prior distance from people who were told to expect less distance, all using balls that we have no reason to presume will be the same as those produced under the new standards.  The NP-500 is explicitly biased to more loss at slower speeds than other alternatives.

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/Equipment Specifications Research.pdf

 

If I am wrong feel free to explain why.

Its already been explained in a

post using that but we know you don’t really understand what’s posted and like to troll so explaining it to you makes no sense nor will you actually come back and have a discussion on it

[AZBRONCFAN]

1 hour ago, maamold said:

Distance is a skill regardless of the ball or equipment.

I'm genuinely perplexed that you think that the skill of hitting it further than the other guy will suddenly vanish, and everyone will start hitting it the exact same distance starting 2028.

I know that will happen and only give the guys who are long now even more of an advantage. I don't see why people think the short hitters will all of the sudden be able to compete. Reminds me of the grow the roughbup crowd thinking that helps short straight hitters 

Edited Thursday at 07:55 PM by AZBRONCFAN

[AZBRONCFAN]

3 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

 

This whole discussion has almost nothing to do with scores. Is an average tour event winning score of -20 ridiculous? Of course, but that is a very small part of the issue.

 

1. Thousands of courses are becoming obsolete because they don't have enough space on property to lengthen the course.

2. Elite players are able to ignore most course architecture and hit driver/wedge or 3w/wedge on almost every hole.

3. Elite players are not required to be shot makers anymore. Their entire bag is not tested at all. Long irons and even mid-irons are hardly ever used.

4. Elite golf is not as entertaining to watch when it's just a wedge and putting contest.

 

You are talking .01 percent of the golfing population but keep repeating that 

[maamold]

10 minutes ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

I know that will happen and only give the guys who are long now even more of an advantage. I don't see why people think the short hitters will all of the sudden be able to compete. Reminds me of the grow the roughbup crowd thinking that helps short straight hitters 

What we estimate is that McIlroy and Baddley will both be ~15 yards shorter than they are now; that's it. Point two is that the ball (and any future equipment changes) are not about the players, they are about the course. 

Grow the rough up is what pro-super-uber-distance proponents said needed to be done when they realized that players were hitting it too far, it was an attempt to make the "bombers" stop bombing because they thought that if the rough were more penalizing guys like Bryson would stop swinging hitting the ball too far.  That idea didn't work, so here we are with the ruling bodies finally starting to propose changes to the equipment. The ball goes too far and modern drivers are way too easy to hit straight, changing the courses can't be done easily so it's the equipment that needs the regulation. 

[StoutKing]

22 minutes ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

You are talking .01 percent of the golfing population but keep repeating that 

Another bifurcation fan.  Me too

[Golferpaul]

On 6/25/2024 at 12:05 PM, ThinkingPlus said:

I will probably regret this. Why should a golf course play as the "designer" intended?

Exactly.  99% of all golfers don't know or care what the designer intended.  Only here on this board do people care.

 

 

[Golferpaul]

On 6/25/2024 at 1:51 PM, GoGoErky said:

I could care less if they shoot -20 or -50 if the tournament is exciting which the last several have been.

 

Enjoy watching pros play the game.

 

Whats brutal is watching the lpga majors and the pros struggling.

I agree.  Watching the best players in the world putt off a green is not fun.  I can watch bad golf every day at my club.

[Golferpaul]

On 6/25/2024 at 2:17 PM, smashdn said:

 

You ever played chess moving the pieces as you would in checkers?  It isn't chess any longer.  Just checkers with game pieces that are funny shapes at that point.

 

I am not saying you individually should intentionally lay-up to keep the architectural features in play, but when the distances get out of whack, and the course changes to keep those features in play (moving tees back or moving the feature (if it can be moved)), that shouldn't come as a surprise, given the course was designed to present certain challenges to the golfer.  Those challenges were put there when the "norm" for a highly accomplished player was much lower.  That isn't a design problem.  That is a relational perspective problem.  When designed the lauded courses were built to challenge the best's best.  We moved that through technology, fitness, etc.

 

We adapt the old courses at a cost or we scrap them for top level play and build new, longer courses to replace them.

Or we do nothing and enjoy the modern golf world as the pros play it.