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

[smashdn]

Just now, dwboston said:

 

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

 

The golf-watching public has never really entered into my concern for why I think it needs to happen.  I could care less actually.  But will offer up this, the "golf-watching public" was watching-golf in public when the drives were not 300 yards.  And you cannot separate the multiple other variables at play for why there is or is not an increase in the amount of the golf-watching public watching public golf in public.

 

Just now, dwboston said:

Spare me the anecdotes. 

 

If a link with quotes is anecdotes...

 

Just now, dwboston said:

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.

 

The vast majority of courses aren't hosting professional and elite male amateur events either. So I ask you, 10% of what?  Ten percent of all golf courses everywhere?  Ten percent of courses that have held a professional or elite male amateur event in the last 30 years?

 

Somebody else played this game with the BMW Championship courses.

 

Just now, dwboston said:

 There's plenty of courses with historical value that can host the current game and its elite players.  

 

Why is that?

[Golfnutgalen]

The field average in the Senior Open was 268.8, the longest a shade under 300 (298.3). That's basically how golf was in 1997, so 27 years ago. Not quite the 30 or 40 mentioned earlier.

 

And that's just one event which happened to be playing particularly long with little rollout. The average distance on the Champion's tour this season is 276 which is basically PGA Tour golf in 2001. 

 

Not that long ago in my eyes. Of course that was immediately followed by the massive distance boom in 2003 with comparatively smaller gains since. That boom was almost entirely due to the bigger drivers + the prov1x.

--------------

But seriously, look at what a few of the big names did in 2002 vs 2003:

 

Phil 288.8 - 306

Ernie 281.4 - 303.3

Goosen 279.8 - 299.4

Vijay 285.6 - 301.9

Tiger 293.3 - 299.5 (remember Phil's inferior equipment comment?)

 

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

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.

You absolutely have to have quantitative performance requirements if you are writing a specification otherwise you have no idea if you will succeed. 

[smashdn]

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You absolutely have to have quantitative performance requirements if you are writing a specification otherwise you have no idea if you will succeed. 

 

And the USGA has done that and published it.

 

What I was describing was my own ideal.  And it is qualitative.  And does not need a quantitative value to satisfy its purpose.

Edited Monday at 04:27 PM by smashdn

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

And the USGA has done that and published it.

 

What I was describing was my own ideal.  And it is qualitative.  And does not need a quantitative value to satisfy its purpose.

There was no goal published. All they published which was quantitative was how much distance had increased. They have never stated a quantitative distance goal.

 

Agreed. You do not need to be quantitative. In fact I doubt you could be. Most folks can't.  

[subrew]

20 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

The field average in the Senior Open was 268.8, the longest a shade under 300 (298.3). That's basically how golf was in 1997, so 27 years ago. Not quite the 30 or 40 mentioned earlier.

 

And that's just one event which happened to be playing particularly long with little rollout. The average distance on the Champion's tour this season is 276 which is basically PGA Tour golf in 2001. 

 

Not that long ago in my eyes. Of course that was immediately followed by the massive distance boom in 2003 with comparatively smaller gains since. That boom was almost entirely due to the bigger drivers + the prov1x.

--------------

But seriously, look at what a few of the big names did in 2002 vs 2003:

 

Phil 288.8 - 306

Ernie 281.4 - 303.3

Goosen 279.8 - 299.4

Vijay 285.6 - 301.9

Tiger 293.3 - 299.5 (remember Phil's inferior equipment comment?)

 

 

It was so different watching Fujita and Bland hitting driver then 3w or 5w into a Par 4 during the playoff this morning.  Golf can still be very interesting without 330yd drives.  

[dwboston]

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

There was no goal published. All they published which was quantitative was how much distance had increased. They have never stated a quantitative distance goal.

 

Agreed. You do not need to be quantitative. In fact I doubt you could be. Most folks can't.  

 

As soon as they put a number to it, smart people will devise ways to beat it with fitness, technology, nutrition, etc.  That's why they won't commit to a number - it's a feeling, and feelings are all that matter to them.  

[dwboston]

3 minutes ago, subrew said:

 

It was so different watching Fujita and Bland hitting driver then 3w or 5w into a Par 4 during the playoff this morning.  Golf can still be very interesting without 330yd drives.  

 

Very interesting to the dozens of people who watch senior golf on TV.

 

People watch golf to see Tiger hit it 300+ in his prime, or Bryson blast it 330+.  No one watches in any measurable numbers to marvel at 50 year olds hitting fairway woods into par-4's.

Edited Monday at 04:39 PM by dwboston

[TLUBulldogGolf]

4 minutes ago, dwboston said:

 

Very interesting to the dozens of people who watch senior golf on TV.

 

People watch golf to see Tiger hit it 300+ in his prime, or Bryson blast it 330+.  No one watches in any measurable numbers to marvel at 50 year olds hitting fairway woods into par-4's.

Then they can marvel at them hitting it 5% less as we will all be playing the same ball. TV viewership is not and should not be any sort of determining factor.

[smashdn]

5 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

There was no goal published. All they published which was quantitative was how much distance had increased. They have never stated a quantitative distance goal.

 

Agreed. You do not need to be quantitative. In fact I doubt you could be. Most folks can't.  

 

I interpret this as their goal.  You may not.

 

"We’re updating the speeds used to test golf balls for the first time in 20 years. The game has evolved significantly during that time and it’s important that our testing conditions also evolve to support golf’s long-term future and sustainability."

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/advancing-the-game/distance-insights/golf-ball-revised-testing-guidelines--frequently-asked-questions.html

 

Like I said before, they are updating the testing parameters to better align with the capabilities of those at the very upper reaches of ability, "the limit," more or less, as we know it to be now, with perhaps a little extra built in to deal with some future advances, from whatever cause.

 

There is this too:

The trends are clear. If left unchecked, hitting distance will continue to increase and could take many golf courses, and the game itself, down an unsustainable path. 

 

[dwboston]

1 minute ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Then they can marvel at them hitting it 5% less as we will all be playing the same ball. TV viewership is not and should not be any sort of determining factor.

 

Never said it was.  Just pointing out that no one watches the "very interesting" version of the sport being espoused by folks here and in the Senior Open thread.  And TV does pay the bills for the professional version of the game.

 

It's also a fantasy to think that only the elite players will be affected by the change in the golf ball. That's one magical golf ball.

[gvogel]

11 minutes ago, dwboston said:

 

Very interesting to the dozens of people who watch senior golf on TV.

 

People watch golf to see Tiger hit it 300+ in his prime, or Bryson blast it 330+.  No one watches in any measurable numbers to marvel at 50 year olds hitting fairway woods into par-4's.

Not so!  I enjoyed watching the 50+ crowd play Newport, and I generally enjoy watching the ladies play, especially their majors (although they have one too many).

[TLUBulldogGolf]

Just now, dwboston said:

 

Never said it was.  Just pointing out that no one watches the "very interesting" version of the sport being espoused by folks here and in the Senior Open thread.  And TV does pay the bills for the professional version of the game.

 

It's also a fantasy to think that only the elite players will be affected by the change in the golf ball. That's one magical golf ball.

Because men’s golf is the pinnacle of the game. 

 

I don’t think anyone has said there will be no effect but I know this ‘magic ball’ line is a popular one. 

[dwboston]

5 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Not so!  I enjoyed watching the 50+ crowd play Newport, and I generally enjoy watching the ladies play, especially their majors (although they have one too many).

 

No one said you didn't or shouldn't enjoy it.  Just that ratings for senior golf and women's golf are miniscule, and ratings are what pay the bills and get the sponsors who put up the purses in the professional game.

[dwboston]

1 minute ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Because men’s golf is the pinnacle of the game. 

 If it isn't, then what is?

 

1 minute ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

I don’t think anyone has said there will be no effect but I know this ‘magic ball’ line is a popular one. 

 

The BS line from the USGA about everyday golfers being minimally affected has been parroted repeatedly in this thread.  The magic ball line is popular because it's accurate.  They can't design a golf ball that will only negatively affect distance for high swing-speed players while leaving the rest of us unharmed.  If that's wrong then refute it.

[ThinkingPlus]

33 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I interpret this as their goal.  You may not.

 

"We’re updating the speeds used to test golf balls for the first time in 20 years. The game has evolved significantly during that time and it’s important that our testing conditions also evolve to support golf’s long-term future and sustainability."

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/advancing-the-game/distance-insights/golf-ball-revised-testing-guidelines--frequently-asked-questions.html

 

Like I said before, they are updating the testing parameters to better align with the capabilities of those at the very upper reaches of ability, "the limit," more or less, as we know it to be now, with perhaps a little extra built in to deal with some future advances, from whatever cause.

 

There is this too:

The trends are clear. If left unchecked, hitting distance will continue to increase and could take many golf courses, and the game itself, down an unsustainable path. 

 

The only quantitative anything in those statements is 20 years (a number plus units). The rest is subjective fluffy stuff using ambiguous words.

[betarhoalphadelta]

35 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

You absolutely have to have quantitative performance requirements if you are writing a specification otherwise you have no idea if you will succeed. 

 

26 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

There was no goal published. All they published which was quantitative was how much distance had increased. They have never stated a quantitative distance goal.

 

Agreed. You do not need to be quantitative. In fact I doubt you could be. Most folks can't.  

 

While the RBs haven't given us their "end goal", they have given clearly quantitative testing standards and you can extrapolate from that how much of a rollback they wanted just from the ball. 

 

They went for the same distance number with 5 mph swing speed increase. With an ideal smash factor of 1.5, that would mean a 7.5 mph ball speed increase. Since we know that off driver, distance due to a 1 mph ball speed increase is about 2 yards or a little more, it suggests they wanted a 15+ yard reduction in driver distance. 

 

You're the aerospace rep here on the forum, but as one might say, "it ain't rocket science" 😉 

 

[smashdn]

25 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The only quantitative anything in those statements is 20 years (a number plus units). The rest is subjective fluffy stuff using ambiguous words.

 

No argument otherwise.

 

"Subjective fluffy" = qualitative 

[ThinkingPlus]

17 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

While the RBs haven't given us their "end goal", they have given clearly quantitative testing standards and you can extrapolate from that how much of a rollback they wanted just from the ball. 

 

They went for the same distance number with 5 mph swing speed increase. With an ideal smash factor of 1.5, that would mean a 7.5 mph ball speed increase. Since we know that off driver, distance due to a 1 mph ball speed increase is about 2 yards or a little more, it suggests they wanted a 15+ yard reduction in driver distance. 

 

You're the aerospace rep here on the forum, but as one might say, "it ain't rocket science" 😉 

 

Agreed that we can infer their intentions for distance reduction from this one change. It doesn't speak to their ultimate goals and their process is ridiculous. It's the "let's make a change and see what happens" approach. Indeterminancy at its finest.

[smashdn]

48 minutes ago, dwboston said:

 If it isn't, then what is?

 

 

The BS line from the USGA about everyday golfers being minimally affected has been parroted repeatedly in this thread.  The magic ball line is popular because it's accurate.  They can't design a golf ball that will only negatively affect distance for high swing-speed players while leaving the rest of us unharmed. 

 

These phrases and words do not mean the same thing.

 

48 minutes ago, dwboston said:

If that's wrong then refute it.

 

These phrases and words do not mean the same thing.

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Agreed that we can infer their intentions for distance reduction from this one change. It doesn't speak to their ultimate goals and their process is ridiculous. It's the "let's make a change and see what happens" approach. Indeterminancy at its finest.

 

I'd look at it a different way... It's all politics. 

 

From the political standpoint, they believe that a hard thing needs to be done. They believe that if they're up front with their final goal, people won't like it--except for a few in this thread who want us to go back to 1993. So they can't be fully up front with their intentions. 

 

It's why they probably didn't go as aggressive with the actual ball testing standard as they were going with the MLR. That was going to be based on 127 mph club speed, not 125, so it would be even more severe. They know it's going to hurt us average golfers and make us mad. It's also why they are trying to spin this as some magic ball that will barely affect us on the driver and won't on the irons. Because they're trying not to make us mad.

 

It's why we anti-RB folks in this thread think that when they say ams won't see distance reductions, it's that they are baking into it an [unstated] assumption that we're playing marshmallows that already comply. They know we'll see more distance loss than that, if we're playing Tour-style golf balls. But they don't want to say it out loud. 

 

I don't think it suggests that their ultimate goals are indeterminant. I think it suggests that they don't want to tell us what they are, preferring to slowplay it as much as possible and attack it in incremental ways. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

These phrases and words do not mean the same thing.

 

 

Ok. Let me put it clearly:

1. Do you believe that mid swing speed amateurs (say 100 mph) who currently play a Tour-style golf ball and after the change continue to play a Tour-style golf ball will be only "minimally" affected on driver and iron distance compared to higher swing speed players? Or do you think that they will be affected proportionally equally, i.e. seeing roughly the same percentage distance loss as higher swing speed players?
2. Do you believe that the ruling bodies' assertion that mid swing speed amateurs will barely notice the difference is based on the assumption that these players are playing Tour-style golf balls today for comparison to the new ball, or based on the assumption that these players are playing lower-compression golf balls than Tour-style golf balls today? 

To be honest, I personally think that if someone is playing a Cally Supersoft or the like, they probably won't notice much difference. IMHO the MGS ball test show a 14 yard total driver distance difference between that ball and a Left Dash at "fast" speeds, so it would probably already comply with the new standard or be minimally affected. 

 

I have a hard time believing that a mid speed guy playing a ProV1 today won't notice or be minimally affected, though. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 hour ago, dwboston said:

 If it isn't, then what is?

 

 

The BS line from the USGA about everyday golfers being minimally affected has been parroted repeatedly in this thread.  The magic ball line is popular because it's accurate.  They can't design a golf ball that will only negatively affect distance for high swing-speed players while leaving the rest of us unharmed.  If that's wrong then refute it.

That was just a statement. Men’s golf has the best golfers and ‘athletes’. Naturally more will be drawn to watching it.

You literally explained exactly how it will be. Minimally is not no effect. I would argue even high speed players will only be impacted minimally, which is the reason many even on anti side think there is no point to this change and those on the pro are likely to agree it’s not doing enough.

Edited Monday at 06:16 PM by TLUBulldogGolf

[ThinkingPlus]

13 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I'd look at it a different way... It's all politics. 

 

From the political standpoint, they believe that a hard thing needs to be done. They believe that if they're up front with their final goal, people won't like it--except for a few in this thread who want us to go back to 1993. So they can't be fully up front with their intentions. 

 

It's why they probably didn't go as aggressive with the actual ball testing standard as they were going with the MLR. That was going to be based on 127 mph club speed, not 125, so it would be even more severe. They know it's going to hurt us average golfers and make us mad. It's also why they are trying to spin this as some magic ball that will barely affect us on the driver and won't on the irons. Because they're trying not to make us mad.

 

It's why we anti-RB folks in this thread think that when they say ams won't see distance reductions, it's that they are baking into it an [unstated] assumption that we're playing marshmallows that already comply. They know we'll see more distance loss than that, if we're playing Tour-style golf balls. But they don't want to say it out loud. 

 

I don't think it suggests that their ultimate goals are indeterminant. I think it suggests that they don't want to tell us what they are, preferring to slowplay it as much as possible and attack it in incremental ways. 

I agree completely.  The RBs are being intentionally disingenuous because otherwise the widespread revolt of their constituency would kill the rollback and threaten their existence. Politics indeed. And some folks wonder why the RBs are so hated. Well the USGA is. The R&A seems to get a pass. The RoW is more obedient to authority, in some sense (maybe less so in other ways), than us 'mericans. LOL.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

44 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

I'd look at it a different way... It's all politics. 

 

From the political standpoint, they believe that a hard thing needs to be done. They believe that if they're up front with their final goal, people won't like it--except for a few in this thread who want us to go back to 1993. So they can't be fully up front with their intentions. 

 

It's why they probably didn't go as aggressive with the actual ball testing standard as they were going with the MLR. That was going to be based on 127 mph club speed, not 125, so it would be even more severe. They know it's going to hurt us average golfers and make us mad. It's also why they are trying to spin this as some magic ball that will barely affect us on the driver and won't on the irons. Because they're trying not to make us mad.

 

It's why we anti-RB folks in this thread think that when they say ams won't see distance reductions, it's that they are baking into it an [unstated] assumption that we're playing marshmallows that already comply. They know we'll see more distance loss than that, if we're playing Tour-style golf balls. But they don't want to say it out loud. 

 

I don't think it suggests that their ultimate goals are indeterminant. I think it suggests that they don't want to tell us what they are, preferring to slowplay it as much as possible and attack it in incremental ways. 

The speed was adjusted because the MLR was rejected and everyone is going to be playing by the same ball rules. It’s not complicated. They openly stated if they couldn’t go the MLR route they didn’t want as large of an impact.

Edited Monday at 06:52 PM by TLUBulldogGolf

[betarhoalphadelta]

20 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

The speed was adjusted because the MLR was rejected and everyone is going to be playing by the same ball rules. It’s not complicated.

 

But wait, I thought ams would barely be affected? Surely if they have a magic ball that amateurs barely notice the change, an extra 2 mph clubhead speed in the test parameters wouldn't make it any less magic, right? 

 

Man, they've got some cool tech there! 127 mph test criteria: ams will lose too much distance for them to accept, so let's dial it back slightly. 125 mph test criteria: ams might lose 3-5 yards off driver, and nothing off irons. 

[smashdn]

41 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

1. Do you believe that mid swing speed amateurs (say 100 mph) who currently play a Tour-style golf ball and after the change continue to play a Tour-style golf ball will be only "minimally" affected on driver and iron distance compared to higher swing speed players? Or do you think that they will be affected proportionally equally, i.e. seeing roughly the same percentage distance loss as higher swing speed players?

 

Yes I think they will be minimally affected and I think it may be somewhat less percentage-wise but not statistically different.  Might be 1-2% different either way depending upon who you are comparing and their swings.

 

41 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

1. Do you believe that the ruling bodies' assertion that mid swing speed amateurs will barely notice the difference is based on the assumption that these players are playing Tour-style golf balls today for comparison to the new ball, or based on the assumption that these players are playing lower-compression golf balls than Tour-style golf balls today? 

 

Potentially both and here is why I say that.  We act as though these "mid swing speed amateurs" are consistently driving the ball a known distance.  Like they are stepping up to the tee and saying, "Well that bunker is a 235 yard carry and I know my driver is always 238 right on the button," or something like that.  My mess of a game with driver is that I can hit one pure and mostly straight and get it out there and then the next swing I catch it thin and it goes 20 yards less, or I push it and lose 20 yards.  I have more "poor but functional" strikes as I do pure ones.  We use these amateur swing distances in this thread like they are sacred and written in stone for these amateurs.  My guess is that the data points for someone is likely spread across 50 yards and not across 5, SO if they lose 5% or 15% or whatever and that equates to 5 yards or 15 yards or whatever, it is going to be obfuscated within the natural spread of their driving distances anyway.  BUT when this am really gets ahold of it, it might only go 230 instead of 235 or 240 like it used to.

 

I also think there is some truth to the choice of golf ball angle as well.  I am not "fitted" to the ball I play.  I play it because I think it performs well enough for my game and I like the look of it and the price-point.  I have this feeling like I am probably giving up distance and I know I am giving up iron spin with the ball I choose.  

 

Last bit that sort of goes with the first bit of my response to your second question.  I would bet a dollar to a donut I am currently leaving distance on the table via my angle of attack and by virtue that my strike is anything but consistent.  I don't recall who said it, but if a golfer were to lose 5-15 yards, I bet most amateurs that we are so worried about, could make a few swing optimizations and get it back.  And that is ok as those guys aren't the ones at the upper end of ability the rollback is supposed to be for.

 

41 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

To be honest, I personally think that if someone is playing a Cally Supersoft or the like, they probably won't notice much difference. IMHO the MGS ball test show a 14 yard total driver distance difference between that ball and a Left Dash at "fast" speeds, so it would probably already comply with the new standard or be minimally affected. 

 

I have a hard time believing that a mid speed guy playing a ProV1 today won't notice or be minimally affected, though. 

 

I think it really depends upon the golfer.  If it is a really good "mid speed guy," who is incredibly accurate and consistent and maxed out with smash and optimized angle of attack, but he just swings slower, then he is going to be way more impacted, and he probably will notice it, than the "average amateur" (and I count myself in this camp) that is more of a spray and pray player.  I also play a driver that is nearly 12 years old.  I am probably leaving both distance and forgiveness on the table by virtue of that driver.

 

There may end up being a big old boom in driver sales if guys feel the need to jump to something else to get that distance back that they feel they may lose.

[Archimedes65]

2 hours ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Then they can marvel at them hitting it 5% less as we will all be playing the same ball.

 

Yeaaah, I might not choose to use the word ‘we’ there…

[Archimedes65]

9 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Yes I think they will be minimally affected and I think it may be somewhat less percentage-wise but not statistically different.  Might be 1-2% different either way depending upon who you are comparing and their swings.

 

 

Potentially both and here is why I say that.  We act as though these "mid swing speed amateurs" are consistently driving the ball a known distance.  Like they are stepping up to the tee and saying, "Well that bunker is a 235 yard carry and I know my driver is always 238 right on the button," or something like that.  My mess of a game with driver is that I can hit one pure and mostly straight and get it out there and then the next swing I catch it thin and it goes 20 yards less, or I push it and lose 20 yards.  I have more "poor but functional" strikes as I do pure ones.  We use these amateur swing distances in this thread like they are sacred and written in stone for these amateurs.  My guess is that the data points for someone is likely spread across 50 yards and not across 5, SO if they lose 5% or 15% or whatever and that equates to 5 yards or 15 yards or whatever, it is going to be obfuscated within the natural spread of their driving distances anyway.  BUT when this am really gets ahold of it, it might only go 230 instead of 235 or 240 like it used to.

 

I also think there is some truth to the choice of golf ball angle as well.  I am not "fitted" to the ball I play.  I play it because I think it performs well enough for my game and I like the look of it and the price-point.  I have this feeling like I am probably giving up distance and I know I am giving up iron spin with the ball I choose.  

 

Last bit that sort of goes with the first bit of my response to your second question.  I would bet a dollar to a donut I am currently leaving distance on the table via my angle of attack and by virtue that my strike is anything but consistent.  I don't recall who said it, but if a golfer were to lose 5-15 yards, I bet most amateurs that we are so worried about, could make a few swing optimizations and get it back.  And that is ok as those guys aren't the ones at the upper end of ability the rollback is supposed to be for.

 

 

I think it really depends upon the golfer.  If it is a really good "mid speed guy," who is incredibly accurate and consistent and maxed out with smash and optimized angle of attack, but he just swings slower, then he is going to be way more impacted, and he probably will notice it, than the "average amateur" (and I count myself in this camp) that is more of a spray and pray player.  I also play a driver that is nearly 12 years old.  I am probably leaving both distance and forgiveness on the table by virtue of that driver.

 

There may end up being a big old boom in driver sales if guys feel the need to jump to something else to get that distance back that they feel they may lose.

 

You do understand that basically everything you said above is that the average amateur will be able to offset the expected loss by a) spending $600 on a new driver they otherwise don’t need, and/or b) changing their swing to increase launch angle and risk losing the accuracy in the swing they’ve grooved (maybe over decades)?  All to fix a ‘problem’ that isn’t a ‘problem’ at the average amateur golfer level?  You get why this might upset people, right? 

[Titleist99]

2 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

But seriously, look at what a few of the big names did in 2002 vs 2003:

 

Phil 288.8 - 306

Ernie 281.4 - 303.3

Goosen 279.8 - 299.4

Vijay 285.6 - 301.9

Tiger 293.3 - 299.5 (remember Phil's inferior equipment comment?)

 

 

Stipulating that these numbers are true proves that the regulation that was put in place has been working for the last twenty years and a need for a rollback isn't needed, just stringently enforced.

 

There were a few outliers then as there are now.    IMO