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

[TourSpoon]

I am not a fan of this decision. Well into my 50s I can hit it farther than when I was in my 20s because of the advances in tech. I just don't see how this really changes anything meaningful.  The people that really pay the bills in this industry are older than me and they aren't getting any younger. Time is the equalizer there and they don't need a rollback as we are continually moving the tees up at my club. 

 

Now, with a hint of sarcasm, I will say that I leave enough putts short. If I change balls that will mean I will just leave them shorter! 🤣

[Double Mocha Man]

5 minutes ago, remlap13 said:

 

Then it's just your ego getting in the way of enjoying the game of golf. Sorry. 

 

I wouldn't say "ego".  More like "pleasure" .

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

16 minutes ago, NoCalHack said:

 

 

I get that.  But do you really care that much about a number?  Your score?

 

If you were lucky enough to play LACC or Winged Foot from the tips, would go really get upset that you aren't shooting your normal score?  Or if you are playing Pebble Beach in January (FYI- you will hit it 20 yards shorter than you are used to)?

 

A score is just a number.  If you want to shoot the same number you are used to, move up a tee or find an easier course.  I think most of us can assess how well or how poorly we played without just taking into account the number.  Btw, the handicap indexes will adjust I'm sure. Your course handicap will go up accordingly.  

 

 

If "a score is just a number," we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Because the owners of Augusta, St. Andrews, and other courses wouldn't be getting bent out of shape that current Pros are scoring better on their course than Jack or Arnie, and demanding a technologically based rule to handicap everyone including Harrison Bergeron. 

 

Clearly, scores matter to people in golf beyond it just being a number.

[Double Mocha Man]

5 minutes ago, TourSpoon said:

Now, with a hint of sarcasm, I will say that I leave enough putts short. If I change balls that will mean I will just leave them shorter! 🤣

 

By 5 to 15%! 😁

[bekgolf]

1 minute ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

If "a score is just a number," we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Because the owners of Augusta, St. Andrews, and other courses wouldn't be getting bent out of shape that current Pros are scoring better on their course than Jack or Arnie, and demanding a technologically based rule to handicap everyone including Harrison Bergeron. 

 

Clearly, scores matter to people in golf beyond it just being a number.

 

It's a shame that all of this is just to protect an arbitrary number.  Protect par against the best in the world, screw the little people, they don't matter.

[NoCalHack]

2 minutes ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

If "a score is just a number," we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Because the owners of Augusta, St. Andrews, and other courses wouldn't be getting bent out of shape that current Pros are scoring better on their course than Jack or Arnie, and demanding a technologically based rule to handicap everyone including Harrison Bergeron. 

 

Clearly, scores matter to people in golf beyond it just being a number.

 

 

I'm not referring to top pros who have nearly rendered the home of golf, St. Andrews, obsolete.  Yes, of course that is one of the motivations from the USGA and R and A.  Traditionally great courses are too short for top pros.

 

I'm talking about amateurs. This is where everyone is claiming the sky is falling.  If amateurs really care if they are shooting 86 or 83, they can move up a tee.   

 

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

2 hours ago, NoCalHack said:

From some of the reactions online you’d think  that some people feel the USGA will be limiting the ball for them only and not their playing partners. 

This is bitterly funny, the implication that people against this ball decision lack empathy for their fellow golfers, not realizing it will handicap those golfers too, when the pro-rollback side mindlessly parrots, "Just move up!" to groups of people who are already playing the forward-most tees. 

 

That these same groups are either the golf industry's best customers (senior, retired men) or a demographic that golf has been falling all over itself the last decade to court, badly, (women) is even more ironic.

 

Me personally, this isn't going to change much.  I hit it OK for WRX.  I'm not going on tour, but I'm still able to get it around even if you lop 10% off my carries.  Let's look at a senior, who is at the forward tees already.  Maybe uses driver/hybrid/iron to get in on a Par-4?  (We've all played with those guys.)  Probably plays 4-6 rounds a week, buys lots of things that promise 10 more yards.  Yeah, let's kick that guy in the d$*$k, by taking distance off him (Or her.) "He probably won't even notice."

 

And you think we're the side that isn't concerned about anyone but ourselves?!

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

7 minutes ago, NoCalHack said:

 

 

I'm not referring to top pros who have nearly rendered the home of golf, St. Andrews, obsolete.  Yes, of course that is one of the motivations from the USGA and R and A.  Traditionally great courses are too short for top pros.

 

I'm talking about amateurs. This is where everyone is claiming the sky is falling.  If amateurs really care if they are shooting 86 or 83, they can move up a tee.   

 

One of the motivations!?  It's the only motivation.

 

Every statistical database on amateur golfers you want to name says that we don’t hit it that far, and that we've barely improved as a whole since they started keeping data.  Even scratches.  We are not making, e.g., Westward Ho obsolete.  Pros are.  

 

Increased distance is not a problem for anyone except maybe professional golfers and elite amateurs.  It's not a "sustainability" issue---leave it to golf industry public relations to come up with a stupider catchphrase than "sportswashing/doing business with Saudia", when they were already in bed with China---for any group of golfers beyond elite amateurs.  It's not a heritage of the game issue for any group of golfers beyond elite amateurs.

 

So why make the solution everyone's problem?

 

[NoCalHack]

4 minutes ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

This is bitterly funny, the implication that people against this ball decision lack empathy for their fellow golfers, not realizing it will handicap those golfers too, when the pro-rollback side mindlessly parrots, "Just move up!" to groups of people who are already playing the forward-most tees. 

 

That these same groups are either the golf industry's best customers (senior, retired men) or a demographic that golf has been falling all over itself the last decade to court, badly, (women) is even more ironic.

 

Me personally, this isn't going to change much.  I hit it OK for WRX.  I'm not going on tour, but I'm still able to get it around even if you lop 10% off my carries.  Let's look at a senior, who is at the forward tees already.  Maybe uses driver/hybrid/iron to get in on a Par-4?  (We've all played with those guys.)  Probably plays 4-6 rounds a week, buys lots of things that promise 10 more yards.  Yeah, let's kick that guy in the d$*$k, by taking distance off him (Or her.) "He probably won't even notice."

 

And you think we're the side that isn't concerned about anyone but ourselves?!

 

 

I've been playing golf for years.  When I was a kid I played top flites and balatas I pulled out of the water.  Balls probably went 40 yards shorter than balls now.  I remember when I hit my 8 iron 120.   It had nothing to do with the enjoyment of the game.

 

I can guarantee you that nobody who hits it 180 on the driving range would notice if their drives started going 170.  If they flush the ball, they are going to be happy.  If they mishit it, which most amateurs do regularly, it will effect them even less.

 

 

 

 

 

[NoCalHack]

3 minutes ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

One of the motivations!?  It's the only motivation.

 

Every statistical database on amateur golfers you want to name says that we don’t hit it that far, and that we've barely improved as a whole since they started keeping data.  Even scratches.  We are not making, e.g., Westward Ho obsolete.  Pros are.  

 

Increased distance is not a problem for anyone except maybe professional golfers and elite amateurs.  It's not a "sustainability" issue---leave it to golf industry public relations to come up with a stupider catchphrase than "sportswashing/doing business with Saudia", when they were already in bed with China---for any group of golfers beyond elite amateurs.  It's not a heritage of the game issue for any group of golfers beyond elite amateurs.

 

So why make the solution everyone's problem?

 

 

 

I get that point.  Why are we changing it for everyone rather than just the elite golfers.  And the point I made at the beginning of this thread was that it was the ball companies and pros that revolted.  Rory seems to agree with me.  

 

But I do also kind of buy the idea that golf course footprints are getting bigger and that's not necessarily a good thing.  Kind of buy that idea.

[Double Mocha Man]

20 minutes ago, NoCalHack said:

 

I'm talking about amateurs. This is where everyone is claiming the sky is falling.  If amateurs really care if they are shooting 86 or 83, they can move up a tee.   

 

 

How 'bout I just choose a 73 before teeing off on the first hole? And then go out and have fun and camaraderie.

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

5 minutes ago, NoCalHack said:

I can guarantee you that nobody who hits it 180 on the driving range would notice if their drives started going 170.

If that's the case, then why are women coming forward, saying this will screw them?  It compounds their---IMHO, valid---perception that golf as a whole largely treats women as an afterthought, as ladies' tees placement often shows.  

 

As I've written in other posts on this, please give other people the courtesy that they are taking their hobbies as seriously as you do, even if they aren't as accomplished as you are.  I would notice a 5-10% drop.  We all would. 

 

It's not going to change my enjoyment much, though it will be annoying.  I can move up if needed.  They can't.

 

There is no reason this has to be a solution for everyone, when it is a problem affecting maybe 20,000 golfers out of several tens of millions.

[Double Mocha Man]

8 minutes ago, NoCalHack said:

But I do also kind of buy the idea that golf course footprints are getting bigger and that's not necessarily a good thing.  Kind of buy that idea.

 

Guess I'd rather have a lush, green tee box there with a few trees surrounding it, than another boring condo. As long as no chemical usage was involved.

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Double Mocha Man

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

8 minutes ago, NoCalHack said:

 

 

I get that point.  Why are we changing it for everyone rather than just the elite golfers.  And the point I made at the beginning of this thread was that it was the ball companies and pros that revolted.  Rory seems to agree with me.  

 

But I do also kind of buy the idea that golf course footprints are getting bigger and that's not necessarily a good thing.  Kind of buy that idea.

As I understand it, and there are enough insiders here to give the skinny on what's really happening, the PGA Tour doesn't think there's a problem.  The vast majority of playing pros don't see a problem, except for Tiger, Jack, a few others.  TV doesn't think it's a problem. 

 

The ball companies didn't care one way or the other, except that they did not want to be on the hook for extensive development of an inferior product that potentially wouldn't have a market.  Titleist did not want to spend, say, 50 million of their own money developing a nerf ball, only for the USGA to potentially later say No, we're not interested.  Am I wrong on that?  Were the USGA and R&A going to pay OEMs to develop this, and also provide a guaranteed market?

 

O.K., if the above groups don't have a problem with the status quo, who does then?  Owners of golf courses that host or would like to host a professional tournament or significant amateur tournament, but feel their course will now be embarrassed.  The USGA who gets annoyed when a US Open winner gets well below par.  The R&A, vicariously embarrassed about St. Andrews and a few others.

 

Anyone else?

 

Is that group of people, and the magnitude of their harm, sufficient to mandate interfering with how everyone else on the planet plays this game?  Or would it be better for a solution to their issues be narrowly tailored to only affect the people causing the problem?

[TourSpoon]

17 minutes ago, NoCalHack said:

I've been playing golf for years.  When I was a kid I played top flites and balatas I pulled out of the water.  Balls probably went 40 yards shorter than balls now.  I remember when I hit my 8 iron 120.   It had nothing to do with the enjoyment of the game.

If we had stuck with balatas or balls from the 90s we wouldn't have been spoiled with progress and technology. And besides that 8 iron you hit is now called a pitching wedge but that's another topic! 🤣

 

Moving into my 60s will be all the rollback I want to handle. 

[Flip4000]

On 12/3/2023 at 9:05 PM, 2bGood said:

 

Big scheme of things, it really doesn't I am way shorter than I was 20 years ago, but yet shoot better scores. I also don't play the back tees anymore, when I do, my scores are still better, but no need to. 

 

 

The funny thing is no one is forcing us to to play from that tee box. Course kept getting longer as the ball went further. Course could now get shorter, or at least player can move up.

The interesting thing about rory's statement, is that taylormade spends a ton of money each year convincing customers that 4-5 yards makes a huge difference. 

[phil75070]

`Rolling the ball back doesn't make the game easier, less expensive, nor more accessible. So, my question is, how does rolling the ball back "grow the game"?

 

 

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

This seems like kind of a big deal, admitting though, that none of us really know the specifics at this point:  https://x.com/MichaelBreed/status/1731801712028012867?s=20

 

At the tweet:  Just an fyi The

@Titleist

Professional golf ball from 1995 with the testing standard of 125mph chs will NOT pass the

@USGA

and

@RandA

proposed roll back standards. It will travel too far. Let that sink in

Edited December 5, 2023 by Jayjay_theweim_guy

[TheBear95]

2 minutes ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

This seems like kind of a big deal, admitting though, that none of us really know the specifics at this point:  https://x.com/MichaelBreed/status/1731801712028012867?s=20

 

At the tweet:  Just an fyi The

@Titleist

Professional golf ball from 1995 with the testing standard of 125mph chs will NOT pass the

@USGA

and

@RandA

proposed roll back standards. It will travel too far. Let that sink in

 

I'm getting a good laugh here at the all the guys saying this will be no big deal without knowing the details of the rollback.

[TheBear95]

1 hour ago, Flip4000 said:

The interesting thing about rory's statement, is that taylormade spends a ton of money each year convincing customers that 4-5 yards makes a huge difference. 

 

Rory talks too much. I'm sure he will have another statement next week.

 

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, TheBear95 said:

 

I'm getting a good laugh here at the all the guys saying this will be no big deal without knowing the details of the rollback.

Or all the guys saying it will be a big deal without the details....

Edited December 5, 2023 by 2bGood

[ECgolf]

3 hours ago, NoCalHack said:

 

 

I've been playing golf for years.  When I was a kid I played top flites and balatas I pulled out of the water.  Balls probably went 40 yards shorter than balls now.  I remember when I hit my 8 iron 120.   It had nothing to do with the enjoyment of the game.

 

I can guarantee you that nobody who hits it 180 on the driving range would notice if their drives started going 170.  If they flush the ball, they are going to be happy.  If they mishit it, which most amateurs do regularly, it will effect them even less.

 

 

 

 

 

The claim that “nobody” who hit it 180 will notice a 10 yard loss is a ridiculous claim. Many of those folks are seniors who play several times a week on the same freaking course. In fact the biggest demographic of 180 yard hitters may well be recreational seniors and women who play regularly. You think they don’t know where their ball ends up on those holes when they catch it good? Of course they do. Claiming people who aren’t bombers won’t notice 10 yards makes you look completely out of touch with a large segment of golfers. Have you ever been to a muni on a weekday morning? Full of short hitting seniors and women (often also seniors) who play the course all the time. Even folks with significant variability in distance can tell when they hit it good if they play enough. I get it, the 10 yards is no big deal to you and you feel like it shouldn’t be to them either. You are good with the USGA stealing 10 yards from these folks to appease Augusta rather than honestly deal with the actual purported problem. But claiming these folks won’t notice is either ignorant or an intentional lie to fit your narrative. Just stop with that. 

[cardigan]

Looking at the latest MGS test and seeing the SuperSoft and Chrome Soft at less than 1 yd total distance difference from a ProV1x at slow speeds but 11 and 7 yds shorter at high swing speeds is a pretty clear indicator that design decisions can have different impacts at different swing speeds.  It's really selling the ball OEM's short to say that they are not capable of modeling balls based on rule changes to have a bigger percentage drop off at higher speeds than lower speeds.  They likely already have the software were they only have to put in a few numbers to get a good starting point for several prototypes.

[NoCalHack]

39 minutes ago, ECgolf said:

The claim that “nobody” who hit it 180 will notice a 10 yard loss is a ridiculous claim. Many of those folks are seniors who play several times a week on the same freaking course. In fact the biggest demographic of 180 yard hitters may well be recreational seniors and women who play regularly. You think they don’t know where their ball ends up on those holes when they catch it good? Of course they do. Claiming people who aren’t bombers won’t notice 10 yards makes you look completely out of touch with a large segment of golfers. Have you ever been to a muni on a weekday morning? Full of short hitting seniors and women (often also seniors) who play the course all the time. Even folks with significant variability in distance can tell when they hit it good if they play enough. I get it, the 10 yards is no big deal to you and you feel like it shouldn’t be to them either. You are good with the USGA stealing 10 yards from these folks to appease Augusta rather than honestly deal with the actual purported problem. But claiming these folks won’t notice is either ignorant or an intentional lie to fit your narrative. Just stop with that. 

 

 

OK fine.  So I can't speak for high handicappers that hit it 180.  You have a 9 handicap, so can you speak for the seniors and ladies and know how much it will hurt them?

[autronicdsm]

On 12/1/2023 at 10:44 PM, NoCalHack said:

I think it’s overblown how much it affects the average amateur. The courses will play a bit longer. Tees will just move up.  The game will fundamentally stay the same. 
 

I have no issue with them rolling it back for pros and elite amateurs only. But ball companies and PGA were the ones who revolted here and kept that from happening.  PGA tours big issue was always with bifurcation not the fact the ball is shorter. It affects all pros proportionally. Pros are understandably nervous but most understand that. But bifurcation would kill money invested into the game. Kill endorsements and advertising. Essentially decimate a big part of the golf industry and golf economy. Titleist and callaway have little incentive to pay players to endorse their product if they can’t sell the same ball to the consumer. You can’t claim to be the number 1 ball on tour and sell another ball. Once the bifurcation thing was dropped the PGA tour folded.

 

The USGA and R and A have no financial interest in this at all. Agree with them or not, they are doing what they think is better for the game. 
 

 

 

bullxxxx... Titleist can still advertise ProV1 and sell it everyone as the best ball in the game. Nothing changes. Most golfers don't follow equipment anyways.

[autronicdsm]

On 12/2/2023 at 1:17 PM, klebs01 said:

The short courses that haven’t expanded are the only ones closing.  They are obsolete. Almost every course I’ve played around me within an hour are expanding and adding new tees to stay economically viable. 

 

Quit trolling.

[grm24]

5 hours ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

This seems like kind of a big deal, admitting though, that none of us really know the specifics at this point:  https://x.com/MichaelBreed/status/1731801712028012867?s=20

 

At the tweet:  Just an fyi The

@Titleist

Professional golf ball from 1995 with the testing standard of 125mph chs will NOT pass the

@USGA

and

@RandA

proposed roll back standards. It will travel too far. Let that sink in

 

The specifics of it are pretty simple. In 1995 (and until 2004) when the ODS was modernized) the ODS for the golf ball then was a ball couldn't go more than 296.8 yards total (280 yards plus 6% tolerance, starting in 1986, prior to 1986 it was 280 yards with an 8% tolerance) with a clubhead speed of 109 mph. So 2.73 yards per mph of clubhead speed. The current ODS of today allows for 320 yards (317 yards plus 3 yards tolerance) at 120 mph which comes out to 2.67 yards per mph of club head speed.  Yes the current ODS of today is slightly shorter than it was in both 2004 and 1995 and actually going back to 1976. 

 

Plug the 2.73 or 2.67 yardage per mph of CHS numbers into the proposed ODS of 320 at 125 (2.56 yards per CHS mph) and the 1995 ball and any ball today would be illegal under the new proposed criteria.

 

Note - ODS numbers old, current and proposed are directly from the USGA.

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/History of Equipment Rules.pdf

Edited December 5, 2023 by grm24

[Mike_C]

2 hours ago, cardigan said:

Looking at the latest MGS test and seeing the SuperSoft and Chrome Soft at less than 1 yd total distance difference from a ProV1x at slow speeds but 11 and 7 yds shorter at high swing speeds is a pretty clear indicator that design decisions can have different impacts at different swing speeds.  It's really selling the ball OEM's short to say that they are not capable of modeling balls based on rule changes to have a bigger percentage drop off at higher speeds than lower speeds.  They likely already have the software were they only have to put in a few numbers to get a good starting point for several prototypes.

I noticed this quite a bit this year.  I got a dozen Chrome softs free in the spring, I wouldn't normally play them but I gave them a try. What I really noticed was that I just couldn't hit them out there as far as my regular ball off the tee, but they actually seemed to go further off my irons.  Can't say it was lower spin, they spun and checked great, and felt nice around the greens, they just didn't go that extra bit off the tee. 

 

My first thought when they announced the new rule was to decrease the compression of the ball; it hurts the fastest swings, much less so for slower swings.   

 

It is another reason why your average golfer should really consider lower-compression balls too, IMO. 

[2bGood]

35 minutes ago, Mike_C said:

I noticed this quite a bit this year.  I got a dozen Chrome softs free in the spring, I wouldn't normally play them but I gave them a try. What I really noticed was that I just couldn't hit them out there as far as my regular ball off the tee, but they actually seemed to go further off my irons.  Can't say it was lower spin, they spun and checked great, and felt nice around the greens, they just didn't go that extra bit off the tee. 

 

My first thought when they announced the new rule was to decrease the compression of the ball; it hurts the fastest swings, much less so for slower swings.   

 

It is another reason why your average golfer should really consider lower-compression balls too, IMO. 

Funny thing, is I have the same deal with this ball. I have played around with it as winter ball. Super hot of the irons, but goes no where off the driver (for me).

 

I truly hope I am correct, but I would like to believe the requirements they come out with would not have linear reduction across swing speeds, but rather cause a progressive reduction in distance the fast they are hit.

[NoCalHack]

2 hours ago, autronicdsm said:

 

bullxxxx... Titleist can still advertise ProV1 and sell it everyone as the best ball in the game. Nothing changes. Most golfers don't follow equipment anyways.

 

Couldn’t disagree more. And never mind what I think. Ask Titleist what they think. 
 

Look at F1. Mercedes and Honda make engines for F1. It certainly helps their brand but nobody is buying their cars thinking they are remotely similar to what Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen are driving. In fact Honda doesn’t even feel it’s worthwhile and is leaving the sport. Do 99% of people who buy a Honda even know they produced the world championship car several years running? No. Because they don’t even advertise it. 
 

This is very different to what Titleist does, which is sell the exact same ball to the consumer.  Everyone knows it’s the #1 ball in golf and it’s plastered over all their advertisements. If Titleist couldn’t do that, they would benefit from pro usage, sure. But not in the same way. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by NoCalHack