USGA and R&A Announce golf ball rollback for everyone!?!?!

[storm319]

2 hours ago, larrybud said:

 

I'm not sure the number of people playing is the right metric. The right metric would be "How many actually listen to the USGA when it comes following the rules?"  That's how most view the usga, the rule makers. Hopefully this will be one more rule that people ignore, and we can speed this up and make the usga irrelevant. Obviously will need the OEM's help.

The difference with equipment is that non-conforming equipment has historically sold poorly to the point that most OEMs don’t bother (especially with balls). Maybe that will change this time around with the literal hundreds of millions of balls produced annually that will be around for years, but history says no. Ultimately the key to this will be the USGA getting the PGAs to comply and for the major OEMs to only produce balls that conform to the new regulation when it is initially enforced at the elite level (then the masses will eventually be forced to comply).

[Inexorable_Fate]

GolfWRX, where everyone swings 120 mph and drives it 300 yards, until the USGA proposes a ball roll back. 🙄

[NoCalHack]

42 minutes ago, 03trdblack said:

 

Oh really... 

 

The USGA made $206.7 million in revenue in 2022 and only employ 300 people. They use 1200+ volunteers to do all the work at their events and make the volunteers pay for all of their clothing, etc.

 

When the tickets went on sale for the 2024 US Open at Pinehurst, regular day tickets for individuals didn't go on sale for months and the only tickets available were corporate tents and hospitality tents and week long passes. Then individual tickets went on sale but only for people who had an American Express credit card account.  They purposely catered to corporate interests first before any regular fans. Wonder why that was... $$$$

 

It's amazing how much profit these "non profit" organizations seem to be making these days and the USGA is no exception. 

 

If you think they have no financial interests then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. 

 

I never said they don’t rely on money. They earn revenue from the game growing in general. 
 

But think about what you are saying. You’re implying that because they made a decision you obviously hate, they are greedy bastards. So based on all the rage from the public it seems like they made a terrible business decision then. 
 

It would’ve been in their best financial interest to do nothing. If anything they screwed themselves. 
 

[nova6868]

Really can't make up my mind on this one. I think it's a terrible idea and it probably will shrink the game, but most of the courses I play are overcrowded and booked solid, so it actually might be great to shrink the game and make it less popular. 

 

 

[Double Mocha Man]

12 minutes ago, nova6868 said:

Really can't make up my mind on this one. I think it's a terrible idea and it probably will shrink the game, but most of the courses I play are overcrowded and booked solid, so it actually might be great to shrink the game and make it less popular. 

 

 

 

Ahh, but with shrinking the game there goes the course maintenance... less funding of that.

[TheBear95]

59 minutes ago, storm319 said:

The difference with equipment is that non-conforming equipment has historically sold poorly to the point that most OEMs don’t bother (especially with balls). Maybe that will change this time around with the literal hundreds of millions of balls produced annually that will be around for years, but history says no. Ultimately the key to this will be the USGA getting the PGAs to comply and for the major OEMs to only produce balls that conform to the new regulation when it is initially enforced at the elite level (then the masses will eventually be forced to comply).

 

I have no doubt that the DTC brands will continue to make the current ball. If the market splits, they will be in a solid position to gain market share since they don't care about the professional game like the traditional OEMs.

 

Also, if the ball market does split, that easily could start to bleed over into clubs. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by TheBear95

[storm319]

41 minutes ago, TheBear95 said:

 

I have no doubt that the DTC brands will continue to make the current ball. If the market splits, they will be in a solid position to gain market share since they don't care about the professional game like the traditional OEMs.

 

Also, if the ball market does split, that easily could start to bleed over into clubs. 

If that is the case, then why don’t the majority of independent factories that source the DTCs produce models that do not conform with the existing regulations? If the DTCs don’t care about conformance, why do they even bother to submit samples for conformance testing? Ultimately they will produce what the public demands so we’ll see how much demand there is if a rollback is actually adopted. 

[DaveLeeNC]

23 hours ago, larrybud said:

 

COR of the ball is linear.

 

Deleted as redundant. dave

Edited December 3, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[TheBear95]

26 minutes ago, storm319 said:

If that is the case, then why don’t the majority of independent factories that source the DTCs produce models that do not conform with the existing regulations? If the DTCs don’t care about conformance, why do they even bother to submit samples for conformance testing? Ultimately they will produce what the public demands so we’ll see how much demand there is if a rollback is actually adopted. 

 

You answered your own question. At present, the market is not asking for that. My point is that *could* change with this rollback. 

 

I think the demand will be there. And, I believe some of the DTCs will see this as a significant opportunity.

Edited December 3, 2023 by TheBear95

[DaveLeeNC]

6 hours ago, gvogel said:

I think that you are over-reacting.  I will concede that the driver changes have benefitted Tour pros, but not so much for the rest of us.

 

I played a lot of golf in the 1960's and early 70's. Then I quit playing and did not play again until I retired in 2003. The absolutely biggest change that I encountered in technology was the big headed driver. To me that had a huge impact on my game. 

 

dave

Edited December 3, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[grochol17]

4 hours ago, larrybud said:

 

I'm not sure the number of people playing is the right metric. The right metric would be "How many actually listen to the USGA when it comes following the rules?"  That's how most view the usga, the rule makers. Hopefully this will be one more rule that people ignore, and we can speed this up and make the usga irrelevant. Obviously will need the OEM's help.

 

After the USGA announced the idea for the model local rule and pretty much everyone rejected it, I seriously doubt the USGA would then go forward with a full rollback unless they knew that everyone was on board.  I've yet to see any comments from golf ball manufacturers or an official announcement from the PGA Tour, but how they respond will be telling.

 

If I recall correctly, many of the complaints about the MLR were centered on everyone playing the same game, which is another way of saying "we don't want to make a tour ball that the average Joe won't buy."  But, if the rollback happens for everyone, Titleist can still tell you you're playing the exact same ball as the #1 ball on tour and people will load up on the conforming version of the Pro V1s.  So, my guess is that the ball manufacturers will complain, but whenever they need to they'll switch over to making only the conforming ball, just like they did with wedge grooves, driver COR, and clubhead size limits.

[grochol17]

5 hours ago, My2Dogs said:

All I know is the game was in the decline before COVID.  Now they are going to implement a rule to try and rein in around 50-100 people on earth.

 

Most course stay open due to the folks who play during the week and not the weekend players.  Most of them are older and don’t hit it as far and anything restricting them is going to hurtful.  
 

the other large group would be ladies golf.  Even taking away 5% of distance is huge for them. 
 

I’m ok.  I hit it long enough that it really won’t hit me as hard but I want the game to grow and not decrease.  I hope you’re right that this is a nothing burger and it all blows away but I think this decision might be a huge negative for the game. 
 

 

Assuming you're talking about the average woman amateur, I just don't see it being that big of a deal... according to Golf Monthly, the average woman hits the ball 177 yards off the tee.  If you roll that back by 5%, you get 168.75 yards.  Do you really think that is going to make women leave the game in droves? 

 

Admittedly, I haven't played much golf with women since I was in high school, but this summer I was randomly paired up with two women.  I'm not sure what qualifies as average, but one of the two played pretty much every hole the same way... driver off the tee, fairway wood or hybrid till she got close to the green, wedge it on, and hit some putts.  I seriously doubt she knew how far she hit anything so probably couldn't care less what ball she was playing.  The other one was more athletic and seemed to have an idea of how far different clubs should go, but her inconsistencies were pretty big, so I doubt a rolled back ball would be the biggest of her worries.  Would they quit if the USGA rolled back the ball?  I doubt they'd even know it happened.  Would they enjoy the game less?  Also doubtful since it seemed to me like they were just out to have a good time playing and didn't care a whole lot about what they shot. 

[grochol17]

4 hours ago, storm319 said:

I would not hold up much hope for average players moving up voluntarily as many players are already playing from tees that are too long.
Additionally, it is doubtful that the majority of courses will be willing to build new tee boxes to account for the rollback (keep in mind that the previous MLR proposal was estimated to result in 15-20 yard loss at the the 127 ODS condition, so the average player would likely lose much less) and simply moving every tee up a box will be way to drastic. The likely scenario will be most courses/players doing nothing.

 

Also, 6200 was short for a US Open qualifier even in the 80s given that the average for the actual open during that period was in the high 6000’s (Merion was the shortest 80s host at just under 6600 which ironically played shorter than when it hosted in 1934). The reality is that the real estate that many golf courses reside on is more valuable to society as residential housing and that trend is unlikely to change in the future regardless of what the USGA does here. 

 

I guess I'm in the minority in that, once I wasn't able to play and practice as much, I decided to move up a set of tees to have more fun on the course instead of torturing myself from the tips.  You might be right that people will be stubborn, but I'm going to hold out hope that the shorter ball will make people realize that they really need to move up a set of tees.  We can check back in with each other in 6+ years and see who was right! 

[bobfoster]

Fascinating. A couple initial reactions from this golfer:

 

1. As much as people often grumble about the USGA/R&A, I think have a nearly overwhelming dominance in the sport. People may grumble about this rules change (people grumble about almost every rules change), But I think everyone (i.e., the Tours and OEMs) will ultimately comply if they can't get a formal suspension/deletion of the rule. The pros aren't going to want variability - balls legal in some events and not others. It isn't just strokes, but course management fundamentals that would have to vary. When the wedge rule changed, a lot of them changed how they approached strategy. They aren't going to want to practice two different games - one with "new" balls, and one with the current ones. The OEMs aren't going to want to double the number of assembly lines and processes, nor try to figure out demand for USGA balls vs. non-USGA balls. 

 

The idea that some of the tours, and the OEMs, might get together and say let's jointly agree to ignore this particular rule is highly unlikely to happen. Golf works because there are nearly universal standards (which is overwhelmingly in everyone's best interest), and whether we like it or not, the USGA/R&A sets those standards. People are going to complain like crazy at first, and maybe the intensity of complaints will cause the RBs to pause, but I think whatever they ultimately decide will become the standard.

 

I mean, as much as people hate on the USGA/R&A, consider golf without them. Do we really want every pro tour, every local club, every flipping course, establishing their own RoG?

 

2. Personally, I'll always simply play conforming equipment. PGAT conforming equipment (even if they bifurcate). Not even because I play in official competitive events anymore (these days golf is just fun, with maybe a charity tourney every now and then). But just because it gives me some sort of odd pleasure to play by the same RoG I see the pros playing. Hard to explain, but the limitations, the constraints that many of the RoG impose is part of what I love about the game. I like the structure. I like needing to "play it as it lies" (and etc.), even though it so often hurts my scores.

 

This change would be something to adjust to - but in truth, I'll just adjust to it. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by bobfoster

[bobfoster]

Here's a very strange notion. We've all known some sort of distance limitation was coming down the pike. The RBs have been talking about it for a decade, and positively obsessing on it for four or five years now. What I found intriguing was the mechanism they used to impose the limitation. Increasing the robot's 317 distance swing from 120 to 125. With no instructions as to how this had to be accomplished. 

 

The big OEMs have some pretty hard core PhDs on staff. Physicists that get aerodynamics, materials people. Manufacturing geniuses. Probably the best known, most widely used ball on the market for decent golfers  is the ProV1 line. I play the ProV1 - not the ProV1x. Why? My driver SS average low 90s (I'm 66 years old and no longer have a spine of rubber). The ProV1 is a three piece ball. The ProV1x is a four piece ball, with a dual core. But it takes a SS of at least 105 - 110 to fully activate the inner core. Only the pros, and amateurs with really fast SSs can fully utilize the raw distance built into that ball. But look at the underlying principle here - they have produced a ball that acts differently off the tee at different swing speeds.

 

My point here isn't the ProV1 per se, but rather, I'm using it as an example of the incredible sophistication and control the big OEMs (that can afford the scientists and technology) have over ball design and construction. Even if the RBs don't bifurcate the rules, the OEMs themselves might very well be able to produce "functional bifurcation".

 

Track with me here ... imagine giving the Titleist (or Callaway, or TM) rocket scientists the following technical design specification (which is actually almost the inverse of the ProV1x): Give me a ball that dampens and subdues distance at 125 MPH SS and above, but has no negative effect at all at 100 MPH or less (i.e., the vast majority of amateur golfers). 

 

Should this new rule become real, not only will OEMs start thinking about this, they'll have a massive vested financial interest in doing so. And I'm pretty certain it is something they'd be able to at least partially figure out. A ball that is fully conforming on the PGAT, minor tours, and local club championships, but that also doesn't have the average weekender noticing much of a distance diminishment at all. 

 

These people have a lot of different variables they can play with. The type, number, and arrangement of dimples. The number of layers, and specific size and chemical composition of each of the layers. They've been living within the 120/317 constraint for some time, and have optimized within that limitation - and have produced a huge variety of balls suited to almost any conceivable level of golfer. 

 

All of this discussion about how the new rule will hurt the average amateur solely for the sake of limiting the distance of the pros assumes that the OEMs are just going to make universal adjustments to current balls, rather than fundamentally rethinking design to optimize within the new parameters. At less than 110 SS, the current ProV1x is really just a three piece ball, with a slight harder cover and slightly higher spin than the ProV1 - its fourth layer doesn't functionally exist until you have a fast SS, at which point it adds to distance. Not difficult to envision applying the same principle - a layer that only become active at higher SSs, but serves to inhibit rather than extend distance. 

 

This may be one of the reasons I'm less disturbed about this new rule than a lot of my friends are. Within a couple of years of implementation, I'd be willing to bet that Titleist gives me a ProV1 that doesn't go more than 317 at a 125 SS, but also has my 92 MPH SS drives going pretty much as far as they do now. That new rule only, technically, imposes a new constraint on the very fastest of the fast SSs. I wouldn't just assume that "normal" golfers are going to be proportionally affected. 

 

The global annual golf ball market is around $1.3 billion. That buys a lot of freaking R & D.

 

Just an odd, offhand thought.

Edited December 3, 2023 by bobfoster

[bekgolf]

14 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

Here's a very strange notion. We've all known some sort of distance limitation was coming down the pike. The RBs have been talking about it for a decade, and positively obsessing on it for four or five years now. What I found intriguing was the mechanism they used to impose the limitation. Increasing the robot's 317 distance swing from 120 to 125. With no instructions as to how this had to be accomplished. 

 

The big OEMs have some pretty hard core PhDs on staff. Physicists that get aerodynamics, materials people. Manufacturing geniuses. Probably the best known, most widely used ball on the market for decent golfers  is the ProV1 line. I play the ProV1 - not the ProV1x. Why? My driver SS average low 90s (I'm 66 years old and no longer have a spine of rubber). The ProV1 is a three piece ball. The ProV1x is a four piece ball, with a dual core. But it takes a SS of at least 105 - 110 to fully activate the inner core. Only the pros, and amateurs with really fast SSs can fully utilize the raw distance built into that ball. But look at the underlying principle here - they have produced a ball that acts differently off the tee at different swing speeds.

 

My point here isn't the ProV1 per se, but rather, I'm using it as an example of the incredible sophistication and control the big OEMs (that can afford the scientists and technology) have over ball design and construction. Even if the RBs don't bifurcate the rules, the OEMs themselves might very well be able to produce "functional bifurcation".

 

Track with me here ... imagine giving the Titleist (or Callaway, or TM) rocket scientists the following technical design specification (which is actually almost the inverse of the ProV1x): Give me a ball that dampens and subdues distance at 125 MPH SS and above, but has no negative effect at all at 100 MPH (or less).

 

Should this new rule become real, not only will OEMs start thinking about this, they'll have a massive vested financial interest in doing so. And I'm pretty certain it is something they'd be able to at least partially figure out. A ball that is fully conforming on the PGAT, minor tours, and local club championships, but that also doesn't have the average weekender noticing much of a distance diminishment at all. 

 

These people have a lot of different variables they can play with. The type, number, and arrangement of dimples. The number of layers, and specific size and chemical composition of each of the layers. They've been living within the 120/317 constraint for some time, and have optimized within that limitation - and have produced a huge variety of balls suited to almost any conceivable level of golfer. 

 

All of this discussion about how the new rule will hurt the average amateur solely for the sake of limiting the distance of the pros assumes that the OEMs are just going to make universal adjustments to current balls, rather than fundamentally rethinking design to optimize within the new parameters. 

 

This may be one of the reasons I'm less disturbed about this new rule than a lot of my friends are. Within a couple of years of implementation, I'd be willing to bet that Titleist gives me a ProV1 that doesn't go more than 317 at a 125 SS, but also has my 92 MPH SS drives going pretty much as far as they do now. That new rule only, technically, imposes a new constraint on the very fastest of the fast SSs. I wouldn't just assume that "normal" golfers are going to be proportionally affected. 

 

The global annual golf ball market is around $1.3 billion. That buys a lot of freaking R & D.

 

Just an odd, offhand thought.

 

That 317 at 125 will probably be 180 at 92mph from a non elevated tee box at sea level (as long as you are making things up I can too).  It's going to be shorter than it is now unless some kind of pixie dust is involved.

 

I don't get the part about "it's ok for the long hitters to lose distance as long as I don't".  There are no positive takeaways from this, the USGA is throwing a fit because the ball manufacturers, USGA members, and the PGA didn't like their idea. 

 

They don't care if they burn it down for everyone for made up reasons.  A very few individuals want to make golf harder for everyone and they have the power to do it.  I refuse to support them anymore.

[Double Mocha Man]

1 hour ago, bobfoster said:

Here's a very strange notion. We've all known some sort of distance limitation was coming down the pike. The RBs have been talking about it for a decade, and positively obsessing on it for four or five years now. What I found intriguing was the mechanism they used to impose the limitation. Increasing the robot's 317 distance swing from 120 to 125. With no instructions as to how this had to be accomplished. 

 

The big OEMs have some pretty hard core PhDs on staff. Physicists that get aerodynamics, materials people. Manufacturing geniuses. Probably the best known, most widely used ball on the market for decent golfers  is the ProV1 line. I play the ProV1 - not the ProV1x. Why? My driver SS average low 90s (I'm 66 years old and no longer have a spine of rubber). The ProV1 is a three piece ball. The ProV1x is a four piece ball, with a dual core. But it takes a SS of at least 105 - 110 to fully activate the inner core. Only the pros, and amateurs with really fast SSs can fully utilize the raw distance built into that ball. But look at the underlying principle here - they have produced a ball that acts differently off the tee at different swing speeds.

 

My point here isn't the ProV1 per se, but rather, I'm using it as an example of the incredible sophistication and control the big OEMs (that can afford the scientists and technology) have over ball design and construction. Even if the RBs don't bifurcate the rules, the OEMs themselves might very well be able to produce "functional bifurcation".

 

Track with me here ... imagine giving the Titleist (or Callaway, or TM) rocket scientists the following technical design specification (which is actually almost the inverse of the ProV1x): Give me a ball that dampens and subdues distance at 125 MPH SS and above, but has no negative effect at all at 100 MPH or less (i.e., the vast majority of amateur golfers). 

 

Should this new rule become real, not only will OEMs start thinking about this, they'll have a massive vested financial interest in doing so. And I'm pretty certain it is something they'd be able to at least partially figure out. A ball that is fully conforming on the PGAT, minor tours, and local club championships, but that also doesn't have the average weekender noticing much of a distance diminishment at all. 

 

These people have a lot of different variables they can play with. The type, number, and arrangement of dimples. The number of layers, and specific size and chemical composition of each of the layers. They've been living within the 120/317 constraint for some time, and have optimized within that limitation - and have produced a huge variety of balls suited to almost any conceivable level of golfer. 

 

All of this discussion about how the new rule will hurt the average amateur solely for the sake of limiting the distance of the pros assumes that the OEMs are just going to make universal adjustments to current balls, rather than fundamentally rethinking design to optimize within the new parameters. At less than 110 SS, the current ProV1x is really just a three piece ball, with a slight harder cover and slightly higher spin than the ProV1 - its fourth layer doesn't functionally exist until you have a fast SS, at which point it adds to distance. Not difficult to envision applying the same principle - a layer that only become active at higher SSs, but serves to inhibit rather than extend distance. 

 

This may be one of the reasons I'm less disturbed about this new rule than a lot of my friends are. Within a couple of years of implementation, I'd be willing to bet that Titleist gives me a ProV1 that doesn't go more than 317 at a 125 SS, but also has my 92 MPH SS drives going pretty much as far as they do now. That new rule only, technically, imposes a new constraint on the very fastest of the fast SSs. I wouldn't just assume that "normal" golfers are going to be proportionally affected. 

 

The global annual golf ball market is around $1.3 billion. That buys a lot of freaking R & D.

 

Just an odd, offhand thought.

 

Mr Foster, that was a good read, I followed what you were getting at and I like it. But as a devil's advocate kind of guy something occurred to me.  The swing speed for a touring pro, while it might be 120mph with a driver drops off throughout the bag. By the time the touring Pro pulls a 5 iron or a 6 iron his swing speed is now below 100. That could really mess with distance control with the ball activating for better distance. Just a thought.

[st1800e]

7 hours ago, bekgolf said:

how much does the USGA charge to rate a course?

Nothing.  

[bobfoster]

4 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

That 317 at 125 will probably be 180 at 92mph from a non elevated tee box at sea level (as long as you are making things up I can too).  It's going to be shorter than it is now unless some kind of pixie dust is involved.

 

I don't get the part about "it's ok for the long hitters to lose distance as long as I don't".  There are no positive takeaways from this, the USGA is throwing a fit because the ball manufacturers, USGA members, and the PGA didn't like their idea. 

 

They don't care if they burn it down for everyone for made up reasons.  A very few individuals want to make golf harder for everyone and they have the power to do it.  I refuse to support them anymore.

 

Um, not entirely sure what I'm "making up" here. The 317 at 125 is the actual new rule. The USGA has a robot - affectionately named Iron Byron (after Byron Nelson). Meant to produce a precise, repeatable swing. Is what they use to test conformity. Current rule is that when Iron Byron swings at exactly 120 MPH (under windless conditions, with a universal, consistent launch angle), the ball can go no farther than 317 yards. The new rule is that Iron Byron will now swing 125 MPH, and the ball can still go no further than 317. 

 

I only made a couple points, and didn't make anything up. The rule only specifies what Iron Byron does at 125 MPH. It doesn't require any limitations on any slower swing speeds. People just seem to be assuming that there will be some sort of exactly proportional diminishment (as you are). But the rule doesn't require any distance diminishment on a 100 MPH SS. OEMs are free to make a ball that keeps my distance mostly the same, but throttles down on high SSs. Doesn't take magic pixie dust - it merely takes science. Science some of the OEMs actually have, and will have a vested interest in applying.

 

And I'm totally fine with anyone saying they see no distance problem. A lot of individual golfers don't. Another perspective? One of my favorite local courses is owned by a good friend of mine. It has been around for several decades. It is a charming, interesting course. Not long, but a lot of unusual angles, and narrow fairways. He deliberately wanted it do be a "use every club in the bag" course. Over the last three years he's lengthened it by several hundred yards. Felt like he was forced to. A lot of the younger kids, with new technology are now just bombing drives (note - they aren't necessarily better, just longer). He was losing some customers. He had to buy some adjoining land, and spent a good deal of money building new tee boxes. It was expensive, time consuming, and disruptive. He also told me it was the "last damn time" he was going to do it. He thinks there is a really "positive takeaway" from this new rule. I'd guarantee you that a lot of course owners don't think the rule is for "made up" reasons.

 

I've been a USGA member (off and on) for a long time. It is one of the backbones of the sport itself. I certainly don't always agree with it, but recognize its value. As long as I've been a member, people have been trashing talking it, hating on it, and whining about it. I've got no problem with that. No one is required to join it. Play golf by whatever rules you want, with whatever damn balls you want. All sorts of people screamed at the top of their voices about the wedge rule. Then (as now) claimed "a few old men" were just making golf much harder for everyone. Turns out everyone adjusted - from players to OEMs - and in the long run it had far less effects than the people saying "the sky is falling" were asserting it would. Same thing has happened every time they've made a major rules changes. 

 

I do get that people often try to assert that it is some small, insulated cabal of elites. In my experience, the study changes for a long time before making them, and listen to a ridiculous numbers of interests. Quite often don't completely please any of them.  But they do look at the game as a whole. It development. The pipeline from the youngest kids through the pro level. They listen to everyone. I notice you mention that the OEMs and PGA didn't like what they did - but, the PGAT and OEMs never like changes. I haven't heard almost anyone in this thread talking about the opinion of (for instance) course owners. The folks who - y'know - make it possible for players to play, and OEMs to make millions. They are one of the factions that the USGA does listen to.

 

I actually am not trying to convince anyone of anything here. Most just have their minds made up. And this is the early days of the announcement, so knickers are gonna be in a bunch. Voices raised. Dramatic statements made. The sky is again falling. But I also suspect a couple of years from now people will just be playing golf within the new constraint, and while big hitters may feel a pinch, for most of us the game isn't going to be much different than it is now. 

 

 

[Port and Starboard]

 In 1983 (26 yrs old) my average length off the tee with a PowerBilt Citation persimmon 10 degree driver and the old Top Flite balls (I couldn't afford Pro Trajectory's) was about 240-245 yards. The bigger hitters that I often played with were probably 255-260ish?

 

Today (66 yrs old) my average length off the tee with a Callaway Mavrik and Vice Pro Plus ball/ProV1x is right about 255. Granted, my swing fundamentals are much better now, but the equipment has much more to do with it.  To me, it's not just about the ball.  The technology in today's balls, heads, shafts, and even the grips are just far superior in every way.

 

I doubt the roll back will affect us senior players as much as the younger crowd. 

 

80% of the guys my age and older can barely compress a ladies ball properly due to a combination of bad mechanics and age related slower swing speeds.

 

 

 

 

[Thayneil]

On 12/2/2023 at 9:17 AM, larrybud said:

Everyone will lose the same %, on ALL shots.

 

I think the solution for golf is to bifurcate from the USGA/R&A.

i can think of another name for bifuricate

[Port and Starboard]

4 hours ago, bobfoster said:

Fascinating. A couple initial reactions from this golfer:

 

1. As much as people often grumble about the USGA/R&A, I think have a nearly overwhelming dominance in the sport. People may grumble about this rules change (people grumble about almost every rules change), But I think everyone (i.e., the Tours and OEMs) will ultimately comply if they can't get a formal suspension/deletion of the rule. The pros aren't going to want variability - balls legal in some events and not others. It isn't just strokes, but course management fundamentals that would have to vary. When the wedge rule changed, a lot of them changed how they approached strategy. They aren't going to want to practice two different games - one with "new" balls, and one with the current ones. The OEMs aren't going to want to double the number of assembly lines and processes, nor try to figure out demand for USGA balls vs. non-USGA balls. 

 

The idea that some of the tours, and the OEMs, might get together and say let's jointly agree to ignore this particular rule is highly unlikely to happen. Golf works because there are nearly universal standards (which is overwhelmingly in everyone's best interest), and whether we like it or not, the USGA/R&A sets those standards. People are going to complain like crazy at first, and maybe the intensity of complaints will cause the RBs to pause, but I think whatever they ultimately decide will become the standard.

 

I mean, as much as people hate on the USGA/R&A, consider golf without them. Do we really want every pro tour, every local club, every flipping course, establishing their own RoG?

 

2. Personally, I'll always simply play conforming equipment. PGAT conforming equipment (even if they bifurcate). Not even because I play in official competitive events anymore (these days golf is just fun, with maybe a charity tourney every now and then). But just because it gives me some sort of odd pleasure to play by the same RoG I see the pros playing. Hard to explain, but the limitations, the constraints that many of the RoG impose is part of what I love about the game. I like the structure. I like needing to "play it as it lies" (and etc.), even though it so often hurts my scores.

 

This change would be something to adjust to - but in truth, I'll just adjust to it. 

 

I've done my fair share of bitching about the USGA, especially over the groove issue.  But like yourself, I prefer a set standard and the USGA/R&A will always be that standard.  

 

I don't know of a single player, at least in my circle of friends that will quit the game over a distance roll back.  There's plenty of chatter going on about it but everyone is pretty much taking it with a shrug of the shoulders.  

 

 

[JungleJimbo]

 

 

[storm319]

1 hour ago, JungleJimbo said:

 

 

Rory averaged 326 this past season. How does him losing 15-20 yards (likely less long term) suddenly solve this perceived distance problem? 

[PinkPantser]

This is great news for golf courses, stop this nonsense of taking up more space.

[Ger21]

5 hours ago, bobfoster said:

The 317 at 125 is the actual new rule.

The USGA has not yet announced what the new rule will be.

[NoCalHack]

Rory basically saying this is on the ball companies and elite pros. Which I completely agree with. It was their bottom lines it affected. Not the USGA or R and As. 

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by NoCalHack

[ebomb]

9 hours ago, bobfoster said:

Fascinating. A couple initial reactions from this golfer:

 

1. As much as people often grumble about the USGA/R&A, I think have a nearly overwhelming dominance in the sport. People may grumble about this rules change (people grumble about almost every rules change), But I think everyone (i.e., the Tours and OEMs) will ultimately comply if they can't get a formal suspension/deletion of the rule. The pros aren't going to want variability - balls legal in some events and not others. It isn't just strokes, but course management fundamentals that would have to vary. When the wedge rule changed, a lot of them changed how they approached strategy. They aren't going to want to practice two different games - one with "new" balls, and one with the current ones. The OEMs aren't going to want to double the number of assembly lines and processes, nor try to figure out demand for USGA balls vs. non-USGA balls. 

 

The idea that some of the tours, and the OEMs, might get together and say let's jointly agree to ignore this particular rule is highly unlikely to happen. Golf works because there are nearly universal standards (which is overwhelmingly in everyone's best interest), and whether we like it or not, the USGA/R&A sets those standards. People are going to complain like crazy at first, and maybe the intensity of complaints will cause the RBs to pause, but I think whatever they ultimately decide will become the standard.

 

I mean, as much as people hate on the USGA/R&A, consider golf without them. Do we really want every pro tour, every local club, every flipping course, establishing their own RoG?

 

2. Personally, I'll always simply play conforming equipment. PGAT conforming equipment (even if they bifurcate). Not even because I play in official competitive events anymore (these days golf is just fun, with maybe a charity tourney every now and then). But just because it gives me some sort of odd pleasure to play by the same RoG I see the pros playing. Hard to explain, but the limitations, the constraints that many of the RoG impose is part of what I love about the game. I like the structure. I like needing to "play it as it lies" (and etc.), even though it so often hurts my scores.

 

This change would be something to adjust to - but in truth, I'll just adjust to it. 

How are you going to feel when your buddy Bobby who hits it the same distance as you now and scores the same as you chooses not to use the rolled back ball and is now bombing it 20 yards past you and beating you every time now... And then over beers in the clubhouse keeps talking about how fun the game of golf is for him. 

[Golfinfloridaafter40]

29 minutes ago, ebomb said:

How are you going to feel when your buddy Bobby who hits it the same distance as you now and scores the same as you chooses not to use the rolled back ball and is now bombing it 20 yards past you and beating you every time now... And then over beers in the clubhouse keeps talking about how fun the game of golf is for him. 

 

Average golfers are not even going to notice the rollback if it is what they are describing.  Even if he does hit the ball 3-5 yards farther (not what I call bombing) than you because of the rollback, he still has to get the ball into the hole which is the point of golf.  Many of you guys that are outraged seem to have forgotten that.

 

Right now Bobby could be using an illegal ball and/or driver and you would never know, do you test Bobby's COR rating? Have you tested Bobby for other performance enhancers?  Even if he is using illegal equipment, he does not have to make putts or scramble out of trouble when he gets in it. His hot ball may roll too far and actually cost him strokes. 

 

What the rollback will do is triple or quadruple the amount of balls sold in the months leading up to the rollback.  A smart person would find a way to take advantage of it 

[RCGA]

38 minutes ago, ebomb said:

How are you going to feel when your buddy Bobby who hits it the same distance as you now and scores the same as you chooses not to use the rolled back ball and is now bombing it 20 yards past you and beating you every time now... And then over beers in the clubhouse keeps talking about how fun the game of golf is for him. 

 

Golf doesn't work like that. 

 

Most people have a problem with direction, not distance. To be honest, 15-20y shorter probably means I'm in play more often.