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

[Bonneville85308]

11 minutes ago, UncleJohn’sBand said:

 

The R&A though……every open rota course is getting SMOKED without wind. Like, the Old Course is just begging for a 59/58 to be shot on it on a calm, firm day.
 

 

I don't understand what the problem with this is. Someone shoots a 58, so what? Why must all scores at the pro level conform to a certain range?

Edited March 14, 2023 by Bonneville85308

[bekgolf]

1 minute ago, Mike412 said:

Which should be proof something has to be done.

 

Not in my mind.  Why not let the modern pro go lower?  What's the harm if a better, modern golfer with better equipment plays a course better than a golfer from the past?

[Puttersaurus Rex]

I am all for this.  The way ball variants are designed/manufactured for the tour pros specific needs are getting out of hand in my opinion.  Amateurs can play whatever they want, and the pros get some parity to see who the best is.

 

F1 races on specific tires for some parity.  I can see that working for golf as well.

[ChipStrokes]

Just now, smashdn said:

 

 

The announcers could just lie.  The graphics could just lie.  We would be none the wiser watching it on TV.  Materially, what is the difference between watching a 280 yard drive versus a 320 yard drive, until you are told how far it went in each instance?  Comparatively speaking I get there might be a draw.

it's a good point, but i think it's one that cuts both ways.

 

if there's really no difference between a 280 vs 320 drive when you watch on tv, then the viewer won't be any more impressed that these guys are hitting approaches from 180 instead of 140.  

 

golf on tv is actually pretty rough to watch if you're  not being told how far the ball goes.  

 

guy swings, 4-5 seconds of white ball against blue sky, ball lands on green grass...repeat.  

 

i think viewership will suffer if the ball goes shorter and scores go up as a result.  

[Ole3wiggle]

1 minute ago, bekgolf said:

 

Not in my mind.  Why not let the modern pro go lower?  What's the harm if a better, modern golfer with better equipment plays a course better than a golfer from the past?

Can you imagine Augusta National if they never changed the course, so no changes, not the "Tiger Proof" changes. What a boring tournament that would be right now. 

[bladehunter]

Get ready for the longer guys to see more of their advantage on display.  Guys like Gary woodland will have to worry much less about one putts.  

[bladehunter]

9 minutes ago, Ole3wiggle said:

Can you imagine Augusta National if they never changed the course, so no changes, not the "Tiger Proof" changes. What a boring tournament that would be right now. 

You’d have 8 hour rounds while everyone waited for 6 or so of the par 4 greens to clear and for all the lob wedge 2nd into the par 5s 

 

that's what we can’t get the average am to understand.  If a course won’t “ hold “ a certain distance.  It either forces continuous layups , or it causes continuous backups.   Amateurs who hit it far run into this a lot on old local courses.  We play a ton of long irons off tees - why ?  We can’t hold up the whole course waiting to drive it over blind hills , to roll up onto green.  Or wait for the group in front  to hit their 3rd shot so we can blow it over every par 5 dogleg .  The game would be better if the course could hold the longer length as intended.  

Edited March 14, 2023 by bladehunter

[tungstenplug]

3 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

Not in my mind.  Why not let the modern pro go lower?  What's the harm if a better, modern golfer with better equipment plays a course better than a golfer from the past?

 

The difference here is that the modern golfer would be going lower not because he's better at golf, but because he's simply using more advanced equipment. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Why not just have nuclear powered clubs?

 

Sport should be mostly about skill and hard work and performing well, not R&D

[CLEVELAND59]

Well Achusnet has come out clearly not at all in favor of the proposal, and the PGA tour and PGA of America have released statements that could easily infer that they have significant issues as well.

 

I think one thing that can't be ignored is the timing of this announcement.  Why the USGA and R&A come out with this proposal at a time when the sport is at an all time growth at virtually all levels of the game post COVID pandemic?  Why would they do something that could undermine another organization in a delicate time in the professional game politically?  To me its a power grab and an attempt to undermine the PGA tour.  If the tour goes along with the proposal which is absolutely ludicrious and potentially alienates a portion of their fan base, players who don't agree with it may look to the rival league as an option (should they not adopt it, which i doubt they would considering bombing the ball is part of their marketing campaign).  Should they choose to adopt it, they alienate another part of their fan base and look subservient to the whims of the USGA and R&A.  

 

To me this as much about 2 organizations who are relatively irrelevant to the game in recent years looking at the political atmosphere of the game and making a move to try to make themselves relevant again in terms of a position of power within the game.  

 

I also think its telling that the Golf Channel coverage of the situation has failed to mention Acushnet's comment on the matter, has glossed over the comments of the PGA of America and PGA tour and only mentioned Callaway's statement that was basically a "no comment".  

[mosesgolf]

Changing golf ball rules now is akin to the NBA making the basketball bigger to reign in 3pointers.  

 

Its not like we are seeing 59-61 scores every week on tour.   And when that happens its because lots of putts being made combined with a chip in or two.  

[smashdn]

 

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/pga/2022/05/09/2022-pga-championship-southern-hills-course-changes-gil-hanse-restoration/9627727002/

 

"The lengthening of the hole also means more decisions to be made off the tee." < That is design intent right there.  

 

 

This is not a good look.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pga-championship-2022-quirky-routing-southern-hills-tee-shots-over-greens

 

Hitting over greens and fairways because of adding distance (as opposed to 7 and 11 at TOC) is not a good idea.

 

[Mike412]

1 minute ago, bekgolf said:

 

Not in my mind.  Why not let the modern pro go lower?  What's the harm if a better, modern golfer with better equipment plays a course better than a golfer from the past?

I think it boils down to what do we want golf to be. Do want want the game to be about pure distance or do we want to see the players use all the clubs in the bag. I personally want a more well rounded game.

 

Brandon Matthews had some very interesting things to say about this today. He is strongly supportive of it which is interesting since he’s one of the players with the most to lose with a ball change.

[subrew]

Here is another TXG vid they did with Drew Cooper, a long drive guy.  This was the difference between two models of Bridgestone balls.  Tour B X and Tour B RXS.  That's the difference between a 94 and 65 compression rating.  So not even a "super low compression" ball.  17 yard difference in carry off the driver with a 6mph ball speed reduction at the 21-minute mark.

 

Meanwhile the softer ball actually had higher launch, lower spin, and a bit more distance off the wedge and 6-iron shots.

 

 

[kasting333]

2 minutes ago, Obee said:

 

No. That's not what he's saying -- I don't think. Affect challenge and design intent, but not par only. That's an important distinction. Some golfers will still be able to carry bunkers, but many, many more will be affected by them at the tournament level, so they become more relevant to scoring and strategy.

Look at it this way: If a golf course has 10 holes with fairway bunkers at between a 265 and 285 carry and more than half of pros carry the ball 290+, there just isn't much thinking that has to go on there -- especially for the guys who carry it 300+ For them, those bunkers don't even exist.

If you roll the ball back, you bring more "stuff" into play on many golf courses that would otherwise have to move and/or extend bunkers, which is a huge expense.

That's just a longwinded way of saying let's protect par. All that stuff leads to higher scores on these hypothetical holes. 

 

 

Also, I hate to fact check you but the numbers thrown out on pro's distances are always off...

 

290+ Carry Avg

• 2023- 18.0% (38/210 tour players)
• 2022- 27.9% (54/193)
• 2021- 19.3% (38/196)

 

300+ Carry Avg

• 2023- 2.3% (5/210)
• 2022- 6.2% (12/193)
• 2021- 3.5% (7/196)

[Obee]

2 minutes ago, kasting333 said:

That's just a longwinded way of saying let's protect par. All that stuff leads to higher scores on these hypothetical holes. 

 

 

Also, I hate to fact check you but the numbers thrown out on pro's distances are always off...

 

290+ Carry Avg

• 2023- 18.0% (38/210 tour players)
• 2022- 27.9% (54/193)
• 2021- 19.3% (38/196)

 

300+ Carry Avg

• 2023- 2.3% (5/210)
• 2022- 6.2% (12/193)
• 2021- 3.5% (7/196)

 

It's not at all because it's all of those things combined. NOT just scoring.

And the actual carry numbers are irrelevant. Do you deny that many otherwise elite courses have out of date fairway bunkering?

[smashdn]

8 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

it's a good point, but i think it's one that cuts both ways.

 

if there's really no difference between a 280 vs 320 drive when you watch on tv, then the viewer won't be any more impressed that these guys are hitting approaches from 180 instead of 140.  

 

golf on tv is actually pretty rough to watch if you're  not being told how far the ball goes.  

 

guy swings, 4-5 seconds of white ball against blue sky, ball lands on green grass...repeat.  

 

i think viewership will suffer if the ball goes shorter and scores go up as a result.  

 

Speaking of cutting both ways, if the scores go up due to cutting distance off the ball, then wouldn't the converse also be true?  Scores go down when the ball (an other equipment) go farther?

 

(I am not saying you @ChipStrokes made that argument but it was brought up numerous times in the other thread.  Usually it was in concert with a statement such as, "We don't have guys shooting 59 every week so it must not be a problem.")

 

I don't think there is a difference to the viewer until they are told or shown there is a difference.

[hollabachgt]

8 minutes ago, subrew said:

Here is another TXG vid they did with Drew Cooper, a long drive guy.  This was the difference between two models of Bridgestone balls.  Tour B X and Tour B RXS.  That's the difference between a 94 and 65 compression rating.  So not even a "super low compression" ball.  17 yard difference in carry off the driver with a 6mph ball speed reduction at the 21-minute mark.

 

Meanwhile the softer ball actually had higher launch, lower spin, and a bit more distance off the wedge and 6-iron shots.

 

 

A required maximum compression would have a graduating effect based on SS. The average guy who swings at 90mph would see little to no distance difference, while the high speed guy will see a reduction. Such a change could effectively help to compress the distance difference with minimal  impact to the majority of all players.

[bekgolf]

8 minutes ago, Mike412 said:

I think it boils down to what do we want golf to be. Do want want the game to be about pure distance or do we want to see the players use all the clubs in the bag. I personally want a more well rounded game.

 

Brandon Matthews had some very interesting things to say about this today. He is strongly supportive of it which is interesting since he’s one of the players with the most to lose with a ball change.

 

I understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree with it.  Hitting a long drive doesn't mean anything if it's in the rough, a bunker, or hazard.  It also doesn't amount to much if the golfer can't execute the next shot.

 

I see distance as being one tool of many that a golfer uses.  From my viewpoint a limited flight ball penalizes golfers who worked to have a great long game and benefits those who chose not to work on accurate distance.  The truly outstanding golfers who have all of the skills are getting one of those skills taken away from them.

[Golfnutgalen]

17 minutes ago, kasting333 said:

That's just a longwinded way of saying let's protect par. All that stuff leads to higher scores on these hypothetical holes. 

 

 

Also, I hate to fact check you but the numbers thrown out on pro's distances are always off...

 

290+ Carry Avg

• 2023- 18.0% (38/210 tour players)
• 2022- 27.9% (54/193)
• 2021- 19.3% (38/196)

 

300+ Carry Avg

• 2023- 2.3% (5/210)
• 2022- 6.2% (12/193)
• 2021- 3.5% (7/196)

 

That's more than I expected at 290+. This season is far from complete, so the best stat we have is last year's 27.9% over 290. Let's compare that to 2007 when Tiger was at his peak - and also the oldest available data:

 

290+ Carry

• 2007: 2% (4/196)
• 2022: 28% (54/193)

 

Average carry distance

• 2007: 265.7
• 2022: 282.9

Edited March 14, 2023 by Golfnutgalen

[gvogel]

32 minutes ago, UncleJohn’sBand said:

The more I think about it the more I think this is more an R&A problem than USGA. 
 

The TOUR isn’t moving courses around regularly because they’re “obsolete” due to distance. I bet most of us could almost cite the schedule/courses from memory. They’re basically the same every year, give it take a handful of courses per year (Trinity Forest/TPC Craig Ranch come to mind first) 
 

The USGA have their 10 anchor sites now, the greens are gonna be rolling 18 and hard as concrete and the garden gnomes will be taking up residence in the rough for the week. 
 

The R&A though……every open rota course is getting SMOKED without wind. Like, the Old Course is just begging for a 59/58 to be shot on it on a calm, firm day.
 

I have a feeling the R&A might’ve had a heavy hand in proposing these changes. Eventually they’ll run out of courses. Muirfield was great, but now they’re out. Turnberry is out. How many more changes can you make to Hoylake or Lytham and St. Anne’s to keep those guys from shooting 20 deep anytime they show up. I’m not sure you can. 
 

 

I'm guessing that Fred Ridley and his friends at Augusta National can't wait to implement the rule.  Who knows?  They might even be able to play 13 from the old tees occasionally, and I am guessing that the competitors would like that instead of walking all the way back to Augusta Country Club to tee off.

[gvogel]

24 minutes ago, Bonneville85308 said:

 

I don't understand what the problem with this is. Someone shoots a 58, so what? Why must all scores at the pro level conform to a certain range?

Ok, why not hold a few Tour events on par-3 courses, while you're at it.

[Mike412]

8 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

I understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree with it.  Hitting a long drive doesn't mean anything if it's in the rough, a bunker, or hazard.  It also doesn't amount to much if the golfer can't execute the next shot.

 

I see distance as being one tool of many that a golfer uses.  From my viewpoint a limited flight ball penalizes golfers who worked to have a great long game and benefits those who chose not to work on accurate distance.  The truly outstanding golfers who have all of the skills are getting one of those skills taken away from them.

 But the ones that have worked to have a great long game will still have a better long game than their competitors. The new balls won’t magically go farther for the slower players. Everyone will a % decrease in their distance.

 

It’s perfectly fine for us to disagree on the type of golf we want to see.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Mike412

[So_Cal]

3 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I'm guessing that Fred Ridley and his friends at Augusta National can't wait to implement the rule.  Who knows?  They might even be able to play 13 from the old tees occasionally, and I am guessing that the competitors would like that instead of walking all the way back to Augusta Country Club to tee off.

💯 walking back 150 yards to accommodate tech stinks.  

[Mike412]

19 minutes ago, CLEVELAND59 said:

Well Achusnet has come out clearly not at all in favor of the proposal, and the PGA tour and PGA of America have released statements that could easily infer that they have significant issues as well.

 

I think one thing that can't be ignored is the timing of this announcement.  Why the USGA and R&A come out with this proposal at a time when the sport is at an all time growth at virtually all levels of the game post COVID pandemic?  Why would they do something that could undermine another organization in a delicate time in the professional game politically?  To me its a power grab and an attempt to undermine the PGA tour.  If the tour goes along with the proposal which is absolutely ludicrious and potentially alienates a portion of their fan base, players who don't agree with it may look to the rival league as an option (should they not adopt it, which i doubt they would considering bombing the ball is part of their marketing campaign).  Should they choose to adopt it, they alienate another part of their fan base and look subservient to the whims of the USGA and R&A.  

 

To me this as much about 2 organizations who are relatively irrelevant to the game in recent years looking at the political atmosphere of the game and making a move to try to make themselves relevant again in terms of a position of power within the game.  

 

I also think its telling that the Golf Channel coverage of the situation has failed to mention Acushnet's comment on the matter, has glossed over the comments of the PGA of America and PGA tour and only mentioned Callaway's statement that was basically a "no comment".  

So they’re saying manufacturing will be different than already having 4 or 5 different models of ProV1? That’s laughable.

[Titleist99]

Average carry distance on the PGAT in 2022 was 282 yards, guess they want to bring it down to 262 yards.....LOL! 

 

If the game is popular with driver/wedge, then that's how the game has evolved. Only the older generation yearn for yesteryear. Modern day fans couldn't care less about a curved 4 iron into a green.

 

I find it odd that the USGA is rolling back golf distance when the most entertaining hole in golf is the drivable par 4's....now they'll be at 260 yards.....🙂

Edited March 14, 2023 by Titleist99

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 minute ago, Titleist99 said:

Average carry distance on the PGAT in 2022 was 282 yards, guess they want to bring it down to 262 yards.....LOL! 

 

If the game is popular with driver/wedge, then that's how the game has evolved. Only the older generation yearn for yesteryear. Modern day fans couldn't care less about a curved 4 iron into a green.

The game was declining in popularity for years. Putting the recent uptick down to distance is disingenuous.

[gvogel]

Golf - the only game I know of where I could hit the ball farther at age 60 than at 30.  And I was a 5 handicap at age 30.

[CLEVELAND59]

5 minutes ago, Mike412 said:

So they’re saying manufacturing will be different than already having 4 or 5 different models of ProV1? That’s laughable.

It's a huge difference.  This proposed ball is completely different than anything being made currently.  Sure there are multiple versions of Pro V1's currently but they are from a manufacturing and engineering point of view tweaks upon current designs that have undergone testing and validation.  Making a whole new ball to a whole new set of rules is an incredibly expensive and difficult process.  

[Ferguson]

2 minutes ago, CLEVELAND59 said:

It's a huge difference.  This proposed ball is completely different than anything being made currently.  Sure there are multiple versions of Pro V1's currently but they are from a manufacturing and engineering point of view tweaks upon current designs that have undergone testing and validation.  Making a whole new ball to a whole new set of rules is an incredibly expensive and difficult process.  

 

Expensive and difficult compared to what? 

[CLEVELAND59]

3 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

Expensive and difficult compared to what? 

Taking a current design that's been proven and validated and tweaking it versus starting out with a clean slate to a completely different standard.  We are talking millions to create a golf ball for a very very small segment of the game.  That cost will be passed along not only in terms of the cost of that ball for those who aren't at the highest levels (who likely would receive them gratis) but are mandated to use that ball but to the cost of other balls and products as well.  

Edited March 14, 2023 by CLEVELAND59