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

[TLUBulldogGolf]

5 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

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. 

 

What is barely affected? I think 5 yards falls in that range. Softest and firmest ball in the data I've seen are within 3 mph ball speed for 'mid speed' players. That's around 6 yards.

 

If anything it's clear many ams weren't going to happily accept any distance loss, this thread as exhibit A. Would you rather they kept it where it was going to move when the decision was made to change it for all?  It was a concession when it became clear they couldn't bifurcate. They have never stated ams will lose nothing off the driver. Nothing off irons is likely based on assumptions around ball design and they probably shouldn't have said anything like that when a ball designed around the new standards doesn't exist, so I guess I can understand that frustration. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 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.

 

 

Ok, so you're basically in agreement that if a high speed player is losing (made up number) 5% distance on his driver OR irons, that mid speed player is probably losing at least 4%ish? It may not be perfectly linear, but mostly so? 

 

Quote

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 find this to be a terrible argument BTW. Yes, I am an inconsistent amateur with a high handicap and inconsistent contact. I know that I don't always hit the ball the same place on the face and that when I miss the center it's taking distance away. However, I know how far I hit it when I *do* hit the center. And a 4% reduction in that number is material. It will without a doubt change the clubs I play to certain distances. I may not be consistent, but I'm consistent enough to know "I can't reach that with this club any more no matter how good I hit one".

 

This makes a difference on the course. Not to get anecdotal, but on the main course I play, hole 9 is a 318y par 4. The problem is that there's a creek running across the fairway and you essentially need to TRUST that you can carry ~225 to clear it. Due to the topology you can't try to hit the ball 200 and be short of the creek--it's all downhill to the creek and you can't be sure it won't run in. And because it's downhill, if you lay up it's an easier second shot on a flat lie if you're more like 150 off the tee. It's an exec course and it's the one hole on the course that I almost always take driver--I hit it about 250 on a good strike, and I know that "risk reward" if I clear the creek I've got a little wedge in, but if I lay up, I might attack the hole 9i off the tee and leave 6i in. Clear the creek and I've got a great shot at par and likely will flirt with birdie. Lay up and I'm NOT all that confident I'll hit the green, so I'm hoping to scramble for par and I'm probably playing for bogey. The only time I won't take driver is if I'm into a stiff headwind (sometimes happens on this hole) and I don't want to chance it. 

 

You talk about engaging the architecture--it's a great hole for that. You have to play it strategically and hope you execute to have a chance at a good score, or play it defensively and hope you execute just to walk away with a clean scorecard. 

 

Now, you take 10+ yards off my good strike, and I can no longer trust I'll clear the creek. Turns it into a forced lay-up hole all day long. 

It's not that I trust I hit my driver 250 every time. It's that knowing I *can* hit my driver 250 gives me that risk-reward opportunity. Taking that down to 240 means that I don't ever want to flirt with that carry. 

 

 

Quote

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.

 

So you take the guy struggling with inconsistent contact and just trying to keep it in the fairway and assume he's got the time, money, and ability to get enough lessons and spend enough time at the range trying to get back the distance the RBs just took away from him? When you've taken enough between driver and irons that he's probably taking two extra clubs into every green on a par 4 even assuming his best strikes? 

 

That's a pretty tone-deaf thing to tell that golfer. And the rollbackers are wondering why golfers aren't just all hunky-dory with this change. "You're too crappy to notice this change, so shut up."

 

Quote

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.

 

And hopefully the discussion I said above reminds you that this affects even "spray and pray" players like us. You posted a thread in the Instruction forum about "how do I play this hole" based on strategies for best scoring. Strategies that understood you have a certain distance potential, certain clubs that have capabilities of hitting certain trajectories, etc. 

 

You seem to be a higher speed player (even if spray & pray), so assume you lose 15 yards off your "well struck" driver. You lose 12 yards off your 3 wood. You lose 6-10 yards off your longer or mid irons and a few yards off your wedges. Are you telling me you're not going to start factoring that into your strategies playing a hole, what clubs you take, etc? If you're half a club to a full club shorter throughout the bag on your good strikes, you won't notice or adjust just because you are inconsistent? 

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

What is barely affected? I think 5 yards falls in that range. Softest and firmest ball in the data I've seen are within 3 mph ball speed for 'mid speed' players. That's around 6 yards.

 

If anything it's clear many ams weren't going to happily accept any distance loss, this thread as exhibit A. Would you rather they kept it where it was going to move when the decision was made to change it for all?  It was a concession when it became clear they couldn't bifurcate. They have never stated ams will lose nothing off the driver. Nothing off irons is likely based on assumptions around ball design and they probably shouldn't have said anything like that when a ball designed around the new standards doesn't exist, so I guess I can understand that frustration. 

 

What data have you seen? If we're looking at the same data (MGS), the highest ball speed for mid swing speeds (Left Dash) and for the slowest (Wilson DUO Soft) had 8 yards of carry distance and 9 yards total distance between. The difference between the longest ball (ProV1x) and the shortest (TP5) was about 17 yards of carry distance and 18 yards total. So in both cases the differences exceed 6 yards. 

 

Now, I don't know enough to know why the DUO Soft isn't the shortest ball in the test, or why the TP5 is. But in either case, it's actually irrelevant. We don't know how the new ball will respond. 

 

What we DO know is that the testing criteria is not likely to be based on a 3 mph ball speed difference. Again assuming the testing criteria and known smash factors (1.5 on a driver), they have to mitigate what would be essentially a 7.5 mph ball speed difference if nothing is done. Maybe they do that by making the ball softer (slower)? Maybe they do that with aerodynamics? We don't really know. We don't have balls in hand. 

 

But if a 3 mph ball speed difference shows up as a 9 yard total distance difference in testing, what do you think mitigating the effective impact of a 7.5 mph ball speed difference will be, whether it's done through compression or spin (or other)? 

 

I'd put money that it's going to be >10 yards. 

[dwboston]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

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. 

 

Exactly.  I'm probably a mid swing speed guy - can swing driver close to 100 mph but no more.  I've been playing AVX and MaxFli Tour S the past couple of years, mostly because I like the softer feel.  I was lucky enough to get some Left Dot Pro V1 balls, and started playing them about a month ago, once my course dried out.  I instantly picked up at least 10 yards with driver and a few yards with my irons.  If I can't get any more Left Dots I'll just switch to Pro V1.  I have no interest in losing yards so Mike Whan can feel important at cocktail parties. 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

5 hours ago, 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.

Did you catch the Trashwood CC Sunday Couples League on ESPN yesterday?  Holy cow.  It was so interesting when Bill Kowalski (Kowalski Heating and A/C) ripped that 7-wood on #3 from 165. Made the net par, but it was all for nothing because Shirley Jenkins got that new hybrid and was a buzzsaw.  Riveting golf.  That's what keeps me tuning in.  

[chisag]

... Evidently the USGA Cabal have snakes wrapped on their arms standing on a pentagram as they institute their evil plan. I feel bad for Jack, Tiger and Rory who actually think they are doing this because the USGA thinks it will be good for the game. I do think many of us here in favor of the rollback prefer less is more. Maybe one or two want to return to balata balls and persimmon wood performance but most of us just want to see the Pro's driver yardage scaled back a little and leave the Am's alone. Or at least make the effect on Am's much less than the Pro's. I think they will address the modern driver at some point and coming from persimmon, I think the modern driver is just too long and forgiving for Professionals. But I don't think they can put the genie back in the bottle, especially for Ams. I have to admit I am enjoying my Qi10with a Dream 7 shaft  infinitely more than I ever did my M85 and DG43 with a dynamic gold steel shaft. 

... All the hand wringing, all the angst and all the references to numbers pulled out of thin air  like 99% don't want a rollback, amounts to nothing more than having a negative outlook on something they have absolutely zero control over. It is gonna happen if the USGA wants it to happen and like it or not we can either accept it, just like every other previous USGA equipment ruling, or we can kick and scream and throw a verbal temper tantrum treating the USGA like Cam Young treats a driver shaft. 

... I do find it interesting that many think the modern shafts and drivers can be engineered to do most anything with almost the same numbers when hit 1" inch a little high and toward the toe (the typical Am miss) but they can't make a golf ball with ... oh say multiple layers and some inner layers engaged by higher swing speed but not lower swing speeds producing different ball speeds. Or any number of technical adjustments to dimples, cover and inner materials specifically meant to slow down the ball more for higher swings speeds and less for lower swings speeds. Evidently they are very smart and very stupid at the same time.

... I still think the average Am that has a bag full of balls they found playing a Srixon XV and when that goes in the lake a Chrome Supersoft followed by a Nitro isn't gonna be able to tell any difference at all. Consider a test done by a robot for mgs found the longest ball for slow swing speeds hit with a driver was the Vice Pro Plus at 224.04 and the shortest was the TP5 at 210.38 and the ball loved by many high index players the Kirkland V3 at 215.57. To think any Am playing those balls could tell a potential difference of 3-5 yds with a new ball is ignoring reality. I gave a sleeve of the illegal MG Senior balls I was given at an outing to my 82 yr old long hitting senior that drives the ball 190-200 and he couldn't tell any distance difference at all from the Kirkland V3 and ProV1's he plays even though MG states:

• "Expect more distance. Astonishingly more. The MG Senior flies higher and longer, with a hotter feel off the face and a sound you aren't used to hearing anymore. And you can expect at least a club longer with your irons too!" 

... But most importantly, after 467 pages I am pretty sure I haven't seen anyone change their minds even a teeny weeny bit. 🤪
 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

27 minutes ago, chisag said:

... Evidently the USGA Cabal have snakes wrapped on their arms standing on a pentagram as they institute their evil plan. I feel bad for Jack, Tiger and Rory who actually think they are doing this because the USGA thinks it will be good for the game. I do think many of us here in favor of the rollback prefer less is more. Maybe one or two want to return to balata balls and persimmon wood performance but most of us just want to see the Pro's driver yardage scaled back a little and leave the Am's alone. Or at least make the effect on Am's much less than the Pro's. I think they will address the modern driver at some point and coming from persimmon, I think the modern driver is just too long and forgiving for Professionals. But I don't think they can put the genie back in the bottle, especially for Ams. I have to admit I am enjoying my Qi10with a Dream 7 shaft  infinitely more than I ever did my M85 and DG43 with a dynamic gold steel shaft. 
 

 

You want to see the pros dialed back. The RBs tried that. The pros said "nah". So the RBs said "cool; we'll throw this on everyone."

 

So yeah, you may WANT the driver rollback to be pros-only... But...

 

...just wait. 

 

Quote

 

... All the hand wringing, all the angst and all the references to numbers pulled out of thin air  like 99% don't want a rollback, amounts to nothing more than having a negative outlook on something they have absolutely zero control over. It is gonna happen if the USGA wants it to happen and like it or not we can either accept it, just like every other previous USGA equipment ruling, or we can kick and scream and throw a verbal temper tantrum treating the USGA like Cam Young treats a driver shaft. 

 

 

Sir, this is an internet forum.

 

We can offer opinions even if we know nobody in power gives a flying fluff what we think. However the fact that nobody in power gives a flying fluff what we think, in order to rein in the distance of a tiny tiny portion of the golfing population on a tiny tiny portion of elite private courses that they'd NEVER let rabble like us play?

 

 

We all realize it's going to be happen, against our will. But you're suggesting we should just... I can't complete that thought. It'll get me in trouble.

 

 

Quote

... I do find it interesting that many think the modern shafts and drivers can be engineered to do most anything with almost the same numbers when hit 1" inch a little high and toward the toe (the typical Am miss) but they can't make a golf ball with ... oh say multiple layers and some inner layers engaged by higher swing speed but not lower swing speeds producing different ball speeds. Or any number of technical adjustments to dimples, cover and inner materials specifically meant to slow down the ball more for higher swings speeds and less for lower swings speeds. Evidently they are very smart and very stupid at the same time.

 

First of all, we DON'T think modern shafts and drivers can be engineered to do what you suggest. The equipment regs that are currently in place seem to have halted the driving distance of distance leaders on Tour. Every OEM claims that every new release club is longer, yet Tour driving leaders have kinda been stuck in this 317-322 range for just over 20 years. If equipment keeps getting longer... Why are they not hitting it farther? 

 

Second, you have a certain bias that I'd call a "technology outsider" bias. This idea that ballmakers (or any other technology) can just magically come up with something that has unicorn properties that you want to see. But let me ask you; if it was possible to meet the current ODS while also maximizing distance and ball characteristics for lower swing speed, don't you think OEMs would ALREADY be doing it? If not, then what makes you thihk that some sort of magic engineering exists that if there is a restricted ODS, they can make it apply ONLY to the higher swing speeds but the average swingers will be the same? Hmm... Magic Ball Theory is strong...

 

Quote

... I still think the average Am that has a bag full of balls they found playing a Srixon XV and when that goes in the lake a Chrome Supersoft followed by a Nitro isn't gonna be able to tell any difference at all. Consider a test done by a robot for mgs found the longest ball for slow swing speeds hit with a driver was the Vice Pro Plus at 224.04 and the shortest was the TP5 at 210.38 and the ball loved by many high index players the Kirkland V3 at 215.57. To think any Am playing those balls could tell a potential difference of 3-5 yds with a new ball is ignoring reality. I gave a sleeve of the illegal MG Senior balls I was given at an outing to my 82 yr old long hitting senior that drives the ball 190-200 and he couldn't tell any distance difference at all from the Kirkland V3 and ProV1's he plays even though MG states:

 

Sure, some "average am" that has a bag full of randos won't know the difference. That's a slightly new variant on the condescending "well you're not skilled enough to know the difference" argument. 

 

I'm not an elite golfer. My index (in my profile) isn't what you'd call good. But I do my best to minimize variables. I play the same ball 100%. The idea behind doing that is that if there's variance in how that ball flies/reacts, I want to know it was my swing which caused it, not that I played some rando different ball because I found one in a lake. 

 

Right now I'm playing the Kirkland V3, as I ran out of Snell MTB-X that I got on bulk closeout. It might not be ideal, or the highest distance ball on the market, but it works. But given that I'm guessing that the Kirkland V4 or V5 or wherever they are come 2028 will have to conform to the new regs, I'm 100% sure it'll fly shorter than the Kirkland V3. 

 

Quote

• "Expect more distance. Astonishingly more. The MG Senior flies higher and longer, with a hotter feel off the face and a sound you aren't used to hearing anymore. And you can expect at least a club longer with your irons too!" 

... But most importantly, after 467 pages I am pretty sure I haven't seen anyone change their minds even a teeny weeny bit. 🤪

 

 

Oh, a company gave marketing copy about how the new ball or club results in more distance? Yeah... I'm gonna believe that. 

 

All that could POSSIBLY mean is that the previous version of the club/ball was not well designed for constraints that were codified over 20 years ago. If that's the case... WOW they're incompetent!

[chisag]

48 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

First of all, we DON'T think modern shafts and drivers can be engineered to do what you suggest. The equipment regs that are currently in place seem to have halted the driving distance of distance leaders on Tour. Every OEM claims that every new release club is longer, yet Tour driving leaders have kinda been stuck in this 317-322 range for just over 20 years.

you have a certain bias that I'd call a "technology outsider" bias. This idea that ballmakers (or any other technology) can just magically come up with something that has unicorn properties that you want to see. But let me ask you; if it was possible to meet the current ODS while also maximizing distance and ball characteristics for lower swing speed, don't you think OEMs would ALREADY be doing it? If not, then what makes you thihk that some sort of magic engineering exists that if there is a restricted ODS, they can make it apply ONLY to the higher swing speeds but the average swingers will be the same? Hmm... Magic Ball Theory is strong...

Sure, some "average am" that has a bag full of randos won't know the difference. That's a slightly new variant on the condescending "well you're not skilled enough to know the difference" argument.

 

 

... I switched to the Qi10 this year and have gained 10yds on high toe strikes. I can't remember a driver change that produced that kind of increase for me. I went to the PGA Show for 15 years and talked to the VP's of Engineering and what they can accomplish is pretty mind boggling. Many here laughed at the RBZ claims of 19 more yards when TaylorMade introduced the slot technology in their fairway woods. And even that figure was misleading because he showed me the data and some of the long hitters on tour were gaining up to 30yds but they didn't think that number was believable. What you call magic I call engineering. Interesting to me was the Srixon VP of Golf Ball Engineering telling me that changing the size and depth of a dimple by 3/1000th of an inch changes the flight and spin. And with all due respect to your 22 index, I play to a + index and there are days my distance off the tee varies by more than 10 yards. On my bad days much more. So I guess I am condenscending myownself:


 

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 12:23 AM by chisag

[chisag]

38 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Sir, this is an internet forum.

 

We can offer opinions even if we know nobody in power gives a flying fluff what we think. However the fact that nobody in power gives a flying fluff what we think, in order to rein in the distance of a tiny tiny portion of the golfing population on a tiny tiny portion of elite private courses that they'd NEVER let rabble like us play?

 

 

We all realize it's going to be happen, against our will. But you're suggesting we should just... I can't complete that thought. It'll get me in trouble.

 

 

... First off I am dealing with a stomach virus so I am stuck at home and bored or I wouldn't be posting here again. 🤮  All of what you stated is true of course. And everyone is free to post variations of the exact same thing 147 different ways or in some cases the same way to their hearts content. 👍 I am interested in a healthy debate as much as the next forum member and completely understand not only are there differences of opinion on this subject with at least some nuanced, I fully understand I am in the minority. I understand the anti rollback view and if the USGA changes their minds I won't lose a second of sleep. But very few anti rollback folks seem to want to understand those in favor of a rollback. Evidently according to some here Jack, Tiger and Rory are only concerned with their own selfish interests and don't care about golf if they favor a rollback. But I have to admit I find it charming you are mandated to complain about the rollback but I am not afforded the same luxury to complain about your complaining. 🤪  
 

[Titleist99]

For the condescending rollback crowd ........ the Television audience will know the difference in distance the ball travels the moment that the announcer tells us during every swing the touring pro makes, or we will read the screen for the trackman information.

 

So continue telling yourself that no one will notice.🤣 

[Pnwpingi210]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

You want to see the pros dialed back. The RBs tried that. The pros said "nah". So the RBs said "cool; we'll throw this on everyone."

 

So yeah, you may WANT the driver rollback to be pros-only... But...

 

...just wait. 

 

 

Sir, this is an internet forum.

 

We can offer opinions even if we know nobody in power gives a flying fluff what we think. However the fact that nobody in power gives a flying fluff what we think, in order to rein in the distance of a tiny tiny portion of the golfing population on a tiny tiny portion of elite private courses that they'd NEVER let rabble like us play?

 

 

We all realize it's going to be happen, against our will. But you're suggesting we should just... I can't complete that thought. It'll get me in trouble.

 

 

 

First of all, we DON'T think modern shafts and drivers can be engineered to do what you suggest. The equipment regs that are currently in place seem to have halted the driving distance of distance leaders on Tour. Every OEM claims that every new release club is longer, yet Tour driving leaders have kinda been stuck in this 317-322 range for just over 20 years. If equipment keeps getting longer... Why are they not hitting it farther? 

 

Second, you have a certain bias that I'd call a "technology outsider" bias. This idea that ballmakers (or any other technology) can just magically come up with something that has unicorn properties that you want to see. But let me ask you; if it was possible to meet the current ODS while also maximizing distance and ball characteristics for lower swing speed, don't you think OEMs would ALREADY be doing it? If not, then what makes you thihk that some sort of magic engineering exists that if there is a restricted ODS, they can make it apply ONLY to the higher swing speeds but the average swingers will be the same? Hmm... Magic Ball Theory is strong...

 

 

Sure, some "average am" that has a bag full of randos won't know the difference. That's a slightly new variant on the condescending "well you're not skilled enough to know the difference" argument. 

 

I'm not an elite golfer. My index (in my profile) isn't what you'd call good. But I do my best to minimize variables. I play the same ball 100%. The idea behind doing that is that if there's variance in how that ball flies/reacts, I want to know it was my swing which caused it, not that I played some rando different ball because I found one in a lake. 

 

Right now I'm playing the Kirkland V3, as I ran out of Snell MTB-X that I got on bulk closeout. It might not be ideal, or the highest distance ball on the market, but it works. But given that I'm guessing that the Kirkland V4 or V5 or wherever they are come 2028 will have to conform to the new regs, I'm 100% sure it'll fly shorter than the Kirkland V3. 

 

 

Oh, a company gave marketing copy about how the new ball or club results in more distance? Yeah... I'm gonna believe that. 

 

All that could POSSIBLY mean is that the previous version of the club/ball was not well designed for constraints that were codified over 20 years ago. If that's the case... WOW they're incompetent!

This is a good post.

 

One place we differ in opinion is likely on how we have an impact on the future of the game.  
 

If the folks that are opposed to the rollback would spend some time (the time they use debating in this thread) organizing and doing some outreach and engagement to the USGA or RA it’s very possible they could influence the future of this proposed rollback.  It’s very unlikely that spending time debating in this thread will have any influence on the rollback or changing anyone’s opinion. 
 

 

[bekgolf]

The hyperbole is what I really don't like.  The discussion itself is interesting, I like hearing the different points of view even if I don't agree with them.

 

Feel better chisag!  It's only temporary and you will be feeling fine in no time.

[Titleist99]

51 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

This is a good post.

 

One place we differ in opinion is likely on how we have an impact on the future of the game.  
 

If the folks that are opposed to the rollback would spend some time (the time they use debating in this thread) organizing and doing some outreach and engagement to the USGA or RA it’s very possible they could influence the future of this proposed rollback.  It’s very unlikely that spending time debating in this thread will have any influence on the rollback or changing anyone’s opinion. 
 

 

This is a discussion board. That's what we do ....... peacefully discuss.

 

Mike Whan is the only architect of this insane rollback left and once the public realizes that he's not the right CEO going forward, this action can then be reversed.

 

If not the anti-rollbackers can always say "I told you so"  😂

Edited Tuesday at 01:44 AM by Titleist99

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, Titleist99 said:

This is a discussion board. That's what we do ....... peacefully discuss.

 

Mike Whan is the only architect of this insane rollback left and once the public realizes that he's not the right CEO going forward, this action can then be reversed.

 

If not the anti-rollbackers can always say "I told you so" 

lol.  Ah yes.  Really good strategy.

[maamold]

10 hours ago, dwboston said:

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.  

So let me get this straight. The argument above is that we are at the limit of what athletes and tech can do in the form of distance - so why change anything - However, if the USGA puts the new ball test in place those "smart people" will devise ways to "beat it" <increase the distance". 

Do you folks hear yourselves? 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

7 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

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

Do what you like 👍🏻.

[Archimedes65]

23 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Do what you like 👍🏻.

 

For sure.  I think a lot of the powers that be are underestimating how many people are going to ignore this rule and play the old balls for as long as stocks exist, save for actual competition rounds.  I also think that there will likely be a tsunami of anger from consumers as we get closer to the implementation date, and it would not surprise me at all if the manufacturers continue to make the old balls for people who want to play them on a non-conforming basis.

[ThinkingPlus]

56 minutes ago, maamold said:

So let me get this straight. The argument above is that we are at the limit of what athletes and tech can do in the form of distance - so why change anything - However, if the USGA puts the new ball test in place those "smart people" will devise ways to "beat it" <increase the distance". 

Do you folks hear yourselves? 

The equipment will meet the new ball limit and drivers will still meet the current CT limit. This is no different than today except for the stricter distance standard for the ball.

 

However, the players will continue finding ways to swing faster. More may migrate to lower lofts and higher AOA assuming they can maintain a sufficient level of control. Some may also look at lighter shafts to possibly gain speed. Finally, they will continue to work on improving strength and flexibility. Maybe more time dedicated to the gym. Distance is too important for them not to explore every avenue.

 

They won't buy back all the distance lost to the rolled back ball, but they will get some (IMO). Some will chase distance right off the tour. Some will find a way.

[maamold]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The equipment will meet the new ball limit and drivers will still meet the current CT limit. This is no different than today except for the stricter distance standard for the ball.

Correct

 

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

However, the players will continue finding ways to swing faster. More may migrate to lower lofts and higher AOA assuming they can maintain a sufficient level of control. Some may also look at lighter shafts to possibly gain speed. Finally, they will continue to work on improving strength and flexibility. Maybe more time dedicated to the gym. Distance is too important for them not to explore every avenue.

 

They won't buy back all the distance lost to the rolled back ball, but they will get some (IMO). Some will chase distance right off the tour. Some will find a way.

But.... according to some here distance won't keep increasing so why change anything? Surely, it's impossible to have the current equipment go further right now, what is Mike Whan and the USGA trying to pull?  
 

/S 

[bcjim]

The usga can simply institute, as a condition of competition, a tournament ball at the next US Open. Or a few choices from among the allegedly already conforming balls.

 

This would show us all how great an idea this is. 

 

Right?

[cardia10]

On 6/29/2024 at 11:58 AM, mgoblue83 said:

 

You cannot compare this to 3 point shots in basketball or really any other evolution in sport that isn't related to equipment.

 

Teams figured out 3 pointers are the most efficient way to score and players started taking more and more of them but NOTHING else changed to make it easier to do.

 

In golf the players realized how much of an advantage distance is so they worked harder to get faster (not a problem at all) and at the same time the golf ball and equipment have made it SO MUCH EASIER to consistently keep it in play while swinging fast.

 

Absolutely nobody would have a problem with 350 yard drives using equipment that requires real skill to accomplish it (John Daly in the 90s). The problem is when literally every professional and high level amateur can drive it near 300 yards or farther without any fear of mishits.

So those professionals and high level amateurs are what, 1,000 players? Do we completely change the game for such a small percentage? 

[smashdn]

17 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

You seem to be a higher speed player (even if spray & pray), so assume you lose 15 yards off your "well struck" driver. You lose 12 yards off your 3 wood. You lose 6-10 yards off your longer or mid irons and a few yards off your wedges. Are you telling me you're not going to start factoring that into your strategies playing a hole, what clubs you take, etc? If you're half a club to a full club shorter throughout the bag on your good strikes, you won't notice or adjust just because you are inconsistent? 

 

I will probably just quit golf.

 

Of course I will just adjust.  Golf is a game of adjustments.  You don't always have your A-game (if you ever had an A-game).  Man I play about half my rounds with persimmon woods because it is fun.  Sound like I care how far I hit it?  I am nerfing my game when I do that because I can't move back any farther.  I don't want the par fours to all be driver and wedge.  Thankfully there are several where I play that are better approached with an iron off the tee to avoid some serious slopes.  That one particular hole I was asking about I played a three wood but mis-hit it and hit a low bullet under the trees so it worked out but I had 170 into the green instead of 110. 

[ThinkingPlus]

7 hours ago, maamold said:

Correct

 

But.... according to some here distance won't keep increasing so why change anything? Surely, it's impossible to have the current equipment go further right now, what is Mike Whan and the USGA trying to pull?  
 

/S 

Distance of the longest players due to club face properties or ball speed is pretty much capped by the ruling body limits. If the longest players see a need to get longer, they have a slight bit of fitness and optimization wiggle room to push their distance longer, but it would be a small amount and will certainly impact their accuracy in a detrimental way.

 

The average distance may go up a bit more due to survival of the fittest. Distance is survival in elite golf. Players that hit the ball long off the tee will reach elite status and displace players that are shorter. Short players will eventually not be considered elite. This has been explained countless times in this thread.

 

Since equipment has reached the ruling body limits, distance increases of the longest players has been driven by things the players have done (fitness, impact optimization, etc...) and the equipment has gotten better on off center strikes to help get those swings closer to the max distance limit. If the equipment was getting hotter, you would see smash factors of 1.6 or 1.7 on center strikes. This doesn't occur.

[gvogel]

12 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

For the condescending rollback crowd ........ the Television audience will know the difference in distance the ball travels the moment that the announcer tells us during every swing the touring pro makes, or we will read the screen for the trackman information.

 

So continue telling yourself that no one will notice.🤣 

But will it MATTER if all competitors are affected in the same general manner?

[cardia10]

12 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

This is a good post.

 

One place we differ in opinion is likely on how we have an impact on the future of the game.  
 

If the folks that are opposed to the rollback would spend some time (the time they use debating in this thread) organizing and doing some outreach and engagement to the USGA or RA it’s very possible they could influence the future of this proposed rollback.  It’s very unlikely that spending time debating in this thread will have any influence on the rollback or changing anyone’s opinion. 
 

 

I think through the offered USGA surveys, that has been done, but if you took the USGA distance survey, you know that saying the ball wasn't too long was not an option available to choose. Every question slanted you toward saying the ball was too long. I would say if a real intellect read the survey, they would say that it was statistically impossible to infer any real data from such a skewed survey. The USGA's intent was blatantly obvious in that anyone that took the survey must say at some level, they hit the ball too far. 99.9% of us here know that is a lie, even if we tell another story on internet forums.

[smashdn]

44 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The average distance may go up a bit more due to survival of the fittest. Distance is survival in elite golf. Players that hit the ball long off the tee will reach elite status and displace players that are shorter. Short players will eventually not be considered elite. This has been explained countless times in this thread.

 

This isn't a dig as I am genuinely interested to understand this and others feel free to weigh in, but if distance is the be-all-end-all (and I do agree it is incredibly important, why was it not the A#1 factor or drive or element in say 1980?  As an example, why didn't Nick Faldo (big guy by golf standards) hit the bajeezus out of the ball when he certainly could have crafted a swing to do so?

 

Was it that all of them were brainwashed to think accuracy first?  Deacon Palmer told Arnie to swing hard so thinking there were some out there that recognized that distance (or more accurately reducing the distance of the next shot) was also incredibly important.

 

I realize a lot has changed from club materials to agronomy to the Konica minolta swing vision camera and whatnot, but there has been a step change were distance became number 1 and all the other "golf skills" took a backseat, some of them moving from riding shotgun to the third row between car seats in the spot covered in dog fur.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

This isn't a dig as I am genuinely interested to understand this and others feel free to weigh in, but if distance is the be-all-end-all (and I do agree it is incredibly important, why was it not the A#1 factor or drive or element in say 1980?  As an example, why didn't Nick Faldo (big guy by golf standards) hit the bajeezus out of the ball when he certainly could have crafted a swing to do so?

 

Was it that all of them were brainwashed to think accuracy first?  Deacon Palmer told Arnie to swing hard so thinking there were some out there that recognized that distance (or more accurately reducing the distance of the next shot) was also incredibly important.

 

I realize a lot has changed from club materials to agronomy to the Konica minolta swing vision camera and whatnot, but there has been a step change were distance became number 1 and all the other "golf skills" took a backseat, some of them moving from riding shotgun to the third row between car seats in the spot covered in dog fur.

It is a little complicated. Because equipment wasn't designed as well and the ball was less durable, I think players were more careful about how the swung the club. Swinging harder off the tee will be less accurate.  More tee shots will go into the rough even though proximity will be better. To make bomb and gouge work, you have to be willing to gouge. Gouging a balata ball out of thick rough was hazardous. Hit one thin and you get a cut that becomes instantly unplayable. Bad for the score for sure.

 

Also, the traditional conventional thinking was fairways and greens at all costs. However, there was no objective proof that this was optimal. Since insufficient data exists to prove what was the optimal play strategy at that time, I would speculate that bomb and gouge would have still been optimal with the caveat of don't cut the ball. I think the great players have always known this.

 

As to how Faldo played (and maybe others). They wanted to have a deterministic outcome on every hole even if that meant bunting it around the course. That way of playing was mentally comfortable,  but probably not statistically optimal. It was traditional so less risky.

[Simpsonia]

2 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

It is a little complicated. Because equipment wasn't designed as well and the ball was less durable, I think players were more careful about how the swung the club. Swinging harder off the tee will be less accurate.  More tee shots will go into the rough even though proximity will be better. To make bomb and gouge work, you have to be willing to gouge. Gouging a balata ball out of thick rough was hazardous. Hit one thin and you get a cut that becomes instantly unplayable. Bad for the score for sure.

 

Also, the traditional conventional thinking was fairways and greens at all costs. However, there was no objective proof that this was optimal. Since insufficient data exists to prove what was the optimal play strategy at that time, I would speculate that bomb and gouge would have still been optimal with the caveat of don't cut the ball. I think the great players have always known this.

 

As to how Faldo played (and maybe others). They wanted to have a deterministic outcome on every hole even if that meant bunting it around the course. That way of playing was mentally comfortable,  but probably not statistically optimal. It was traditional so less risky.

 

Not even just the ball becoming unplayable, but the approach shot itself also becomes unplayable (depending on distance). A moderate scuff on a modern urethane ball can shift the spin axis by double digits and kill distance by double digit yardage (as shown by an espionage themed golf website in their How Much Does a Scuff Affect Your Golf Ball tests). Balata, being that much softer, getting an actual gouge in the cover would likely be that much worse. The gouge part of of bomb and gouge becomes far more risky on approach if you can't rely/predict on how the ball comes out of inconsistent rough/waste lies that are more common with going further offline when going for distance off the tee. 

 

 

[smashdn]

16 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

It is a little complicated. Because equipment wasn't designed as well and the ball was less durable, I think players were more careful about how the swung the club. Swinging harder off the tee will be less accurate.  More tee shots will go into the rough even though proximity will be better. To make bomb and gouge work, you have to be willing to gouge. Gouging a balata ball out of thick rough was hazardous. Hit one thin and you get a cut that becomes instantly unplayable. Bad for the score for sure.

 

Also, the traditional conventional thinking was fairways and greens at all costs. However, there was no objective proof that this was optimal. Since insufficient data exists to prove what was the optimal play strategy at that time, I would speculate that bomb and gouge would have still been optimal with the caveat of don't cut the ball. I think the great players have always known this.

 

As to how Faldo played (and maybe others). They wanted to have a deterministic outcome on every hole even if that meant bunting it around the course. That way of playing was mentally comfortable,  but probably not statistically optimal. It was traditional so less risky.

 

GIR was the "holy grail" of indicative statistics then.  It still is of the "traditional" stats.  So, I don't know that I can wholly agree that it was a change in thinking with regards to hitting greens.  Fairways, yes, to an extent.  Intuitively, and from an experience standpoint, it is easier to hit a green from the fairway, all else being equal.  That knowing of when the "scales tip" to no longer being equal was not known and is still a bit a grey area today.  It is hard to know if, and it is based upon how rough the rough is, whether being 80 in the rough is better than 110 in the fairway.

 

I pulled up an old thread on Faldo.  In it it was said he found that swinging at 80% gave him equal distance or more by virtue of a better strike on the ball than swinging "full out."  There might be an interview out there where he comments on how he would attempt to play today if he had to.  Build-wise I would think he could be a power player but he may not have the fast twitch type muscles to build real speed, I don't know.

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

GIR was the "holy grail" of indicative statistics then.  It still is of the "traditional" stats.  So, I don't know that I can wholly agree that it was a change in thinking with regards to hitting greens.  Fairways, yes, to an extent.  Intuitively, and from an experience standpoint, it is easier to hit a green from the fairway, all else being equal.  That knowing of when the "scales tip" to no longer being equal was not known and is still a bit a grey area today.  It is hard to know if, and it is based upon how rough the rough is, whether being 80 in the rough is better than 110 in the fairway.

 

I pulled up an old thread on Faldo.  In it it was said he found that swinging at 80% gave him equal distance or more by virtue of a better strike on the ball than swinging "full out."  There might be an interview out there where he comments on how he would attempt to play today if he had to.  Build-wise I would think he could be a power player but he may not have the fast twitch type muscles to build real speed, I don't know.

GIRs have always been valuable, but proximity is king. Hitting a green, but leaving the ball > 50' or 60' away is worse than 30' from the fringe cut. It was really fairways at all costs which is bad strategy as well as laying up to a good number. Assuming equal risk, closer is always better as long as you have spin control over the shot.