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

[Titleist99]

20 hours ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

It can be more difficult to get a consistent break on putts inside of say 5ft., but, as someone who grew up playing a muni designed by the esteemed architect duo of Bill and Randy (who were the only ones who had access to heavy equipment because they dug basements for new homes), I can tell you, on slow greens like they used to play in the 70s, it's MUCH easier to (a) not three-putt, and (b) get up and down.  If you're short-sided, would you rather have the green be rolling at 7 or 13?  It took way less skill to be good around the greens back when the greens rolled at dog track speeds on championship courses.  

Absolutely. That's why eras can't be compared. The game evolves and no one can drag it back to the seventies. None of the old courses was designed with greens running 13 on the stimpmeter.

[Archimedes65]

4 hours ago, gvogel said:

There is so much more to good or bad golf than the 5 to 10 yards that you might lose off the tee, that I doubt your index will move much at all.

 

Don’t know, don’t care.  I’d only post scores if I felt that my golf game had improved or deteriorated significantly and my index was inaccurate.  Absent that, my index would just be whatever it was at the rollback date for the rest of my golfing days.  Again, it would only matter if I’m playing in net tournaments, as I’d just keep my own index for personal games.

 

90% of golfers don’t even carry an index, so most could care less if they’re playing a conforming or non-conforming ball.  I imagine that population of golfers will be stocking up on the old balls as well. 

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

Absolutely. That's why eras can't be compared. The game evolves and no one can drag it back to the seventies. None of the old courses was designed with greens running 13 on the stimpmeter.

Era debates in any sport are almost pointless because of the changes in rules, athletes and so on. They are nothing more than a sports bar consideration that goes nowhere.

 

Can’t compare brady to Montana and so on. 

Edited Saturday at 07:03 PM by GoGoErky

[munichop]

12 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Nope. STEM degree plus working more than 30 years in aerospace/defense. However, I have always tried to understand the technical aspects of golf, both equipment and swing, in order to play better. Occupational hazard. It also means all the fluffy, subjective arguments are largely incomprehensible to me.

Perhaps dimple design could be made less efficient to create more drag at higher speeds. You would know more about that than me. The last time I had to think about turbulence and laminar flows was in my fluids lab.

[ThinkingPlus]

11 minutes ago, munichop said:

Perhaps dimple design could be made less efficient to create more drag at higher speeds. You would know more about that than me. The last time I had to think about turbulence and laminar flows was in my fluids lab.

You could design bad aero, but I'm not sure the RBs could provide a specification limit that would be unambiguous. Spin is such a big part of how the dimples work and spin varies a considerable amount across players of all skill levels. Likely just make a big mess.

 

Also, a lot of ball OEMs have patents and IP on aero. Trying to regulate that would be a legal minefield. Put in a limit which tramples some IP, but not all equally and the lawsuits would fly.

[Simpsonia]

12 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You could design bad aero, but I'm not sure the RBs could provide a specification limit that would be unambiguous. Spin is such a big part of how the dimples work and spin varies a considerable amount across players of all skill levels. Likely just make a big mess.

 

Also, a lot of ball OEMs have patents and IP on aero. Trying to regulate that would be a legal minefield. Put in a limit which tramples some IP, but not all equally and the lawsuits would fly.

 

Also my guess is that given spin rate decays it would drastically change ball flight profiles for everyone playing golf. Pros would hit them hard and then they would just fall out of the sky with a much steeper descent angle than now. Amateurs, especially low swing speed/low spin ams, would really struggle to keep their balls in the air at all. It would be an absolute mess all around. Since it's all non-linear, they'd almost have to create different aero rules for different core compressions, so that those hitting marshmallow balls get better aero so they can hit the ball more than 100 yards. 

Edited Sunday at 02:36 PM by Simpsonia

[ThinkingPlus]

7 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Also my guess is that given spin rate decays it would drastically change ball flight profiles for everyone playing golf. Pros would hit them hard and then they would just fall out of the sky with a much steeper descent angle than now. Amateurs, especially low swing speed/low spin ams, would really struggle to keep their balls in the air at all. It would be an absolute mess all around. Since it's all non-linear, they'd almost have to create different aero rules for different core compressions, so that those hitting marshmallow balls get better aero so they can hit the ball more than 100 yards. 

Yep. Very complex phenomenology to regulate. 

[Soloman1]

5 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

phenomenology

 

now you have opened ze gates to ze die Finsternis.

[AZBRONCFAN]

On 6/29/2024 at 9:50 AM, bekgolf said:

 

It goes back to the era when Jack was the supreme golf being.  Memberberries.

Wasn't Jack more like 50 years ago? Or are you saying pre TW?

[TLUBulldogGolf]

18 hours ago, munichop said:

Perhaps dimple design could be made less efficient to create more drag at higher speeds. You would know more about that than me. The last time I had to think about turbulence and laminar flows was in my fluids lab.

 

There is always more drag at higher speeds. Best to stick to what has been done and set minimal limits and let the OEMs figure it out from there. 

[ThinkingPlus]

33 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 

now you have opened ze gates to ze die Finsternis.

Actually everybody got a break. I was going to talk about Navier-Stokes...

[bekgolf]

11 minutes ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

Wasn't Jack more like 50 years ago? Or are you saying pre TW?

 

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, everything is just my opinion in a friendly discussion, ok?

 

IMO many of the roll back crowd want the current generation of golfers to prove themselves with the same type of equipment Jack used.  Once again in my opinion I believe they think golf is just too easy with all of the technological advances.

 

I think that professional golf is the most exciting it's ever been and I don't want to see it changed.  I also don't want to give anything up. 

 

[Soloman1]

25 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Actually everybody got a break. I was going to talk about Navier-Stokes...

 

hey, air is a fluid, why not?

 

fun factoid for the folks: the average golf ball diameter is now greater than the minimum usga limit of 2.68”. the magic potion of larger size with dimple designs now makes for better aerodynamics.

 

i’m increasing my diameter and adding dimples to my clothing for more efficiency.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 09:01 PM by Soloman1

[ThinkingPlus]

3 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

 

hey, air is a fluid, why not?

 

fun factoid for the folks: the average golf ball diameter is now greater than the minimum usga limit of 2.68”. the magic potion of larger size with dimple designs now makes for better aerodynamics.

 

i’m increasing my diameter and adding dimples to my clothing for more efficiency.

 

 

Actually, Navier-Stokes is the holy grail. That's why it is one of the millennium prizes.

 

From Wikipedia,

 

"The Navier–Stokes equations are useful because they describe the physics of many phenomena of scientific and engineering interest. They may be used to model the weather, ocean currents, water flow in a pipe and air flow around a wing. The Navier–Stokes equations, in their full and simplified forms, help with the design of aircraft and cars, the study of blood flow, the design of power stations, the analysis of pollution, and many other problems. Coupled with Maxwell's equations, they can be used to model and study magnetohydrodynamics."

 

And it is useful making golf balls more aerodynamically efficient.

[gvogel]

17 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, everything is just my opinion in a friendly discussion, ok?

 

IMO many of the roll back crowd want the current generation of golfers to prove themselves with the same type of equipment Jack used.  Once again in my opinion I believe they think golf is just too easy with all of the technological advances.

 

I think that professional golf is the most exciting it's ever been and I don't want to see it changed.  I also don't want to give anything up. 

 

I want to see golf played on smaller footprints with smaller drivers.  I don't want to see wood used again since metal can be reproduced for more uniformity.  I don't want to remove graphite shafts from the game.  In my view we can give something up and play shorter courses, which will be better for the game in the long run.

[Soloman1]

found some old, good condition balls pre-prov1 and played them one round a couple of months ago.

 

all i can say is that i won’t be playing them again. it was depressing. golf can be depressing enough some days.

[dwboston]

52 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I want to see golf played on smaller footprints with smaller drivers.  I don't want to see wood used again since metal can be reproduced for more uniformity.  I don't want to remove graphite shafts from the game.  In my view we can give something up and play shorter courses, which will be better for the game in the long run.

 

It's like saying basketball would be better if we went back to using peach baskets for hoops and having a jump ball after every made basket.  You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, without wasting the toothpaste and creating a huge mess.  Very few people care whether Merion can host a US Open anymore.  There's a reason they don't play baseball at the Polo Grounds or Ebbets Field anymore. Time and progress move forward.

 

(For the US Open) Grow the rough, narrow the fairways, maybe slow down the greens, and let the scores fall where they may.  Leave the rest of the game alone.  The USGA will destroy the sport (or itself) in its misguided quest to keep overly-romanticized 100+ year old venues "relevant".

 

 

[smashdn]

The 100+ year old Newport Country Club seems to be relevant at less than 7000 yards and par 70.  But it has guys playing it that aren't hitting it 330.

 

[Titleist99]

7 minutes ago, dwboston said:

 

It's like saying basketball would be better if we went back to using peach baskets for hoops and having a jump ball after every made basket.  You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, without wasting the toothpaste and creating a huge mess.  Very few people care whether Merion can host a US Open anymore.  There's a reason they don't play baseball at the Polo Grounds or Ebbets Field anymore. Time and progress move forward.

 

(For the US Open) Grow the rough, narrow the fairways, maybe slow down the greens, and let the scores fall where they may.  Leave the rest of the game alone.  The USGA will destroy the sport (or itself) in its misguided quest to keep overly-romanticized 100+ year old venues "relevant".

 

 

Absolutely correct. 90% of fans of the game agree as well.

 

The USGA is the biggest threat to the game, not the golf ball. 

[dwboston]

Just now, smashdn said:

The 100+ year old Newport Country Club seems to be relevant at less than 7000 yards and par 70.  But it has guys playing it that aren't hitting it 330.

 

 

The guys not hitting it 330 still shot -13.  Newport CC is probably the closest thing the US has to an Open Championship-type venue.  They only irrigate the tee boxes and greens, the fairways are not watered, except by rainfall.  Its only defenses are wind and weather.  It's a fine venue for a senior/women's event.  There's a reason (beyond ability to have the tournament infrastructure there) it doesn't host a US Open. Time has passed it by.

[smashdn]

5 minutes ago, dwboston said:

The guys not hitting it 330 still shot -13.  Newport CC is probably the closest thing the US has to an Open Championship-type venue.  They only irrigate the tee boxes and greens, the fairways are not watered, except by rainfall.  Its only defenses are wind and weather.  It's a fine venue for a senior/women's event.  There's a reason (beyond ability to have the tournament infrastructure there) it doesn't host a US Open. Time has passed it by.

 

Two guys across four days at -13 is not a bad score.  And for a course where, as you say, the rough is not irrigated, the USGA has done a pretty good job at providing a test without that ability.  But these guys are all averaging less than 300 yards off the tee for all four rounds.  Longest guy for the four rounds is 298.3.

 

Whatever percentage they need to make the ball rule to get to, a 300 yard drive being a "long drive" is a pretty good place for golf to be at.  That doesn't mean "cap it" at 300.  That means that 300 is a good spot for the longest of the long guys to hover around. Where in a round of professional male event you may have two to three 300+ yard drives (conditions not withstanding).

 

TO ME that seems like a really good spot for golf to be in.  You still have guys that can punish one and get it out there 315 and it would truly be a "long drive".  It would probably halt the lengthening or at least slow it so only those courses that have not lengthened can do what they need to do and then it stops.

 

I am just not going to have many conversations with folks who don't see the value of playing golf on architecturally interesting and historic courses.  You guys can rattle me off the list of "modern major venues" and discuss the merits of those over the "historic" venues.  I don't think one would come out on the good side of that discussion doing so.  There is a reason both the PGAofA and the USGA and R&A go where they go, not only for the men's majors but all the other championships that are hosted as well.

[dwboston]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Two guys across four days at -13 is not a bad score.  And for a course where, as you say, the rough is not irrigated, the USGA has done a pretty good job at providing a test without that ability.  But these guys are all averaging less than 300 yards off the tee for all four rounds.  Longest guy for the four rounds is 298.3.

 

Whatever percentage they need to make the ball rule to get to, a 300 yard drive being a "long drive" is a pretty good place for golf to be at.  That doesn't mean "cap it" at 300.  That means that 300 is a good spot for the longest of the long guys to hover around. Where in a round of professional male event you may have two to three 300+ yard drives (conditions not withstanding).

 

TO ME that seems like a really good spot for golf to be in.  You still have guys that can punish one and get it out there 315 and it would truly be a "long drive".  It would probably halt the lengthening or at least slow it so only those courses that have not lengthened can do what they need to do and then it stops.

 

I am just not going to have many conversations with folks who don't see the value of playing golf on architecturally interesting and historic courses.  You guys can rattle me off the list of "modern major venues" and discuss the merits of those over the "historic" venues.  I don't think one would come out on the good side of that discussion doing so.  There is a reason both the PGAofA and the USGA and R&A go where they go, not only for the men's majors but all the other championships that are hosted as well.

 

"Two or three drives total at 300 yards" in a professional round is an utterly ludicrous standard that takes the game back 30-40 years.  You are in the absolute minority of golf spectators in advocating for that. And there is no wave of courses lengthening around the country.  

 

None of which matters, since you are unwilling to have conversations with people who refuse to accept your idolatry of old golf courses.

[GoGoErky]

1 minute ago, dwboston said:

 

"Two or three drives total at 300 yards" in a professional round is an utterly ludicrous standard that takes the game back 30-40 years.  You are in the absolute minority of golf spectators in advocating for that. And there is no wave of courses lengthening around the country.  

 

None of which matters, since you are unwilling to have conversations with people who refuse to accept your idolatry of old golf courses.

Get ready for the anecdotal posts of courses that added length

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Two guys across four days at -13 is not a bad score.  And for a course where, as you say, the rough is not irrigated, the USGA has done a pretty good job at providing a test without that ability.  But these guys are all averaging less than 300 yards off the tee for all four rounds.  Longest guy for the four rounds is 298.3.

 

Whatever percentage they need to make the ball rule to get to, a 300 yard drive being a "long drive" is a pretty good place for golf to be at.  That doesn't mean "cap it" at 300.  That means that 300 is a good spot for the longest of the long guys to hover around. Where in a round of professional male event you may have two to three 300+ yard drives (conditions not withstanding).

 

TO ME that seems like a really good spot for golf to be in.  You still have guys that can punish one and get it out there 315 and it would truly be a "long drive".  It would probably halt the lengthening or at least slow it so only those courses that have not lengthened can do what they need to do and then it stops.

 

I am just not going to have many conversations with folks who don't see the value of playing golf on architecturally interesting and historic courses.  You guys can rattle me off the list of "modern major venues" and discuss the merits of those over the "historic" venues.  I don't think one would come out on the good side of that discussion doing so.  There is a reason both the PGAofA and the USGA and R&A go where they go, not only for the men's majors but all the other championships that are hosted as well.

So then what is the number? What percentage rollback? How do the RBs get it? The newly proposed ball limit won't do it. Your stated goal above is at least an attempt at formulating a measurable goal which the RBs have never done.

[farmer]

IF distance was rolled back to the point where the the longest players were touching three hundred a few times in a round, the posts would be:  "All these guys hit is driver and a 6 or 7 iron.  Man, we gotta do something."

[gvogel]

44 minutes ago, dwboston said:

 

It's like saying basketball would be better if we went back to using peach baskets for hoops and having a jump ball after every made basket.  You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, without wasting the toothpaste and creating a huge mess.  Very few people care whether Merion can host a US Open anymore.  There's a reason they don't play baseball at the Polo Grounds or Ebbets Field anymore. Time and progress move forward.

 

(For the US Open) Grow the rough, narrow the fairways, maybe slow down the greens, and let the scores fall where they may.  Leave the rest of the game alone.  The USGA will destroy the sport (or itself) in its misguided quest to keep overly-romanticized 100+ year old venues "relevant".

 

 

No, I am not saying go back to persimmon.  When basketball players got bigger, stronger and better at shooting, they put in a 3-point line.  That encouraged more long shots, but longer shots are more challenging.  More challenging means that the best can stand out.  That's why I say smaller driver heads, maybe a decrease in Cor, but still titanium, will enable better players to stand out.

[smashdn]

37 minutes ago, dwboston said:

"Two or three drives total at 300 yards" in a professional round is an utterly ludicrous standard that takes the game back 30-40 years.

 

Yeah.  That is sort of the point of the rollback.

 

37 minutes ago, dwboston said:

  You are in the absolute minority of golf spectators in advocating for that. And there is no wave of courses lengthening around the country.  

 

This "no course lengthening" again.  I don't want to have to go search them all out again.  I bet I have linked multitudes of courses to this point in this thread.  Major Venues, college venues, municipal courses, resort courses, retirement courses.  There are examples galore of courses adding length.

 

I even take the time to include the quotes from the articles.  More often than not it says something to the effect, "to adapt to distances," or "to modernize," or "to cope with driving distances."

 

37 minutes ago, dwboston said:

None of which matters, since you are unwilling to have conversations with people who refuse to accept your idolatry of old golf courses.

 

If you don't agree on the basic premise that the courses are worth playing it is going to be hard to find common ground on much of the reasoning I have for advocating for a rollback.

[smashdn]

31 minutes ago, farmer said:

IF distance was rolled back to the point where the the longest players were touching three hundred a few times in a round, the posts would be:  "All these guys hit is driver and a 6 or 7 iron.  Man, we gotta do something."

 

Probably do something radical like moving them up a tee box when appropriate.

[dwboston]

1 minute ago, smashdn said:

 

Yeah.  That is sort of the point of the rollback.

 

I know.  And it's an utter fantasy to think it will be accepted by the players or the golf-watching public. 

 

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

This "no course lengthening" again.  I don't want to have to go search them all out again.  I bet I have linked multitudes of courses to this point in this thread.  Major Venues, college venues, municipal courses, resort courses, retirement courses.  There are examples galore of courses adding length.

 

Spare me the anecdotes.  The vast majority of courses are not lengthening.  I'll bet the number of courses that have added length does not even approach 10%.  It's just not a common thing.

 

4 minutes ago, smashdn said:

If you don't agree on the basic premise that the courses are worth playing it is going to be hard to find common ground on much of the reasoning I have for advocating for a rollback.

 

Not every old course is worth playing in 2024.  I'm not living in the past, you are.  There's plenty of courses with historical value that can host the current game and its elite players.  The others can continue to be exclusive playgrounds for their members and the USGA elites who slobber over them.

[smashdn]

41 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

So then what is the number? What percentage rollback? How do the RBs get it? The newly proposed ball limit won't do it. Your stated goal above is at least an attempt at formulating a measurable goal which the RBs have never done.

 

What I described is a qualitative objective (and my own opinion), why the need for a quantitative proposal save to satisfy some's desire for one?

 

The USGA has already proposed the rollback criteria.  It has already been discussed why, and as evidenced by the current gnashing of teeth, they would not go further with it.

 

If you need a goal, the goal was to make the ball distance test parameters more representative of the current capabilities of the longest professional and elite amateur men.  The permissible distance did not change.