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

[Cliffy2020]

For all the nay sayers - I’ll concede you all out drive the average LPGA professional.

 

Proposed imaginary ball nerfs your drives a whopping 8 yards.

Your course now plays an extra 96 total yards.  

 

Ok, ok…. You’re a long baller.  Back tee kinda guy.  That XXXyd  par 4 now plays 10 yards longer.  So?

 

Theres more variance in 5mph breeze, 20* temp change, or whether the sprinklers ran this morning.  Dirty ball, tree scuff, cart path scratch, or maybe you skulled that new ProV on hole 2 and don’t want to throw away that $5 ball.  Maybe you ordered a double Tito’s at the turn when a single would suffice.

 

Fact is, this roll back only affects the top .01% You're not in that group.  You’re not going to be in the next 5-7years.  And if you were you wouldn’t be worried about it!  You Ain’t Bryson 🤣

No patronization or condescension intended.  Just a little perspective.

 

(be back in 5yrs.  No point in further arguing about imaginary balls until then)

[Double Mocha Man]

1 hour ago, Cliffy2020 said:

 

Proposed imaginary ball nerfs your drives a whopping 8 yards.

Your course now plays an extra 96 total yards.  

 

Cliffy2020... you either conveniently or unintentionally overlooked that 96 yards isn't all we are up against. There are 14 to 18 other shots, approach shots, that we will lose yardage on, as well. 

 

We will all lose yardage across the board. Period. As humans we don't want to lose things, we want to gain things. That is why this new rule is so universally disliked.

 

I am curious as to why you are so hardcore in favor of the rule. Would you tell us?

[st1800e]

16 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

As humans we don't want to lose things

Newtons 3rd law.  Somewhat adapted…

 

The only way humans have figured out how to get somewhere is to leave something behind.  

Edited December 8, 2023 by st1800e

[Cliffy2020]

1 hour ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

Cliffy2020... you either conveniently or unintentionally overlooked that 96 yards isn't all we are up against. There are 14 to 18 other shots, approach shots, that we will lose yardage on, as well. 

 

We will all lose yardage across the board. Period. As humans we don't want to lose things, we want to gain things. That is why this new rule is so universally disliked.

 

I am curious as to why you are so hardcore in favor of the rule. Would you tell us?

(Just randomly lost my entire retort - thanks iPad)

 

In a nutshell:  Pros lose ~10yrds, lady pros ~6yrds, AM’s ~5yrds or less from the tee.  Distance loss with new ball becomes negligible at 5iron.  Basically, they want to bring back the 350yrd guys to 320, the 300yrd guys to 290 and the 270yrd guys to 264.  If you can robotically hit your 5i 200yrds it will get knocked down to 198 or 199 in a vacuum. Anything less than that is essentially unaffected.

 

They just want to put a governor on all the Ferraris out there.  Cap the top end.

 

Im not hardcore for the rule at all.  I’m more in the “It ain’t that bad” camp.  If it ever even comes to fruition. 

 

 

[ej002]

6 hours ago, Cliffy2020 said:

(Just randomly lost my entire retort - thanks iPad)

 

In a nutshell:  Pros lose ~10yrds, lady pros ~6yrds, AM’s ~5yrds or less from the tee.  Distance loss with new ball becomes negligible at 5iron.  Basically, they want to bring back the 350yrd guys to 320, the 300yrd guys to 290 and the 270yrd guys to 264.  If you can robotically hit your 5i 200yrds it will get knocked down to 198 or 199 in a vacuum. Anything less than that is essentially unaffected.

 

They just want to put a governor on all the Ferraris out there.  Cap the top end.

 

Im not hardcore for the rule at all.  I’m more in the “It ain’t that bad” camp.  If it ever even comes to fruition. 

 

 

THis is according to the USGA, who actually has no data on this.  This is what they think based on speculation.   Apparently they actually did a focus group with two different types of limited balls and the amateurs actually lost more yards on average.    

Bryson keeps coming up, but that is because he put in the work.  The ball has been locked down for almost 20 years.  Gains have come from our understanding of launch conditions and the fact that the average swing on tour has increased by 2 mph.   Back to Bryon.  He can swing it 150 mph at his absolute max.   The 5 mph that tour is taking away from him, is easily gained back.   People like Padraig and Phil are swinging the fastest of their lives (in their 50s) because we now understand biomechanics and neurology better.   So rolling the ball back saves 5mph for the USGA, that 5mph will be gained back in a a few years time by the pros, while you are "5 yds" shorter.   It is not well thought out and it really only hurts amateurs and the manufacturers' business.  BTW, I definitely expect a lawsuit. 

[LoopySwing13]

8 hours ago, st1800e said:

Newtons 3rd law.  Somewhat adapted…

 

The only way humans have figured out how to get somewhere is to leave something behind.  

[Double Mocha Man]

7 hours ago, Cliffy2020 said:

(Just randomly lost my entire retort - thanks iPad)

 

In a nutshell:  Pros lose ~10yrds, lady pros ~6yrds, AM’s ~5yrds or less from the tee.  Distance loss with new ball becomes negligible at 5iron.  Basically, they want to bring back the 350yrd guys to 320, the 300yrd guys to 290 and the 270yrd guys to 264.  If you can robotically hit your 5i 200yrds it will get knocked down to 198 or 199 in a vacuum. Anything less than that is essentially unaffected.

 

They just want to put a governor on all the Ferraris out there.  Cap the top end.

 

Im not hardcore for the rule at all.  I’m more in the “It ain’t that bad” camp.  If it ever even comes to fruition. 

 

 

 

Sorry about your iPad doing that to you, I hate it when that happens.

 

Do you somehow have a financial stake in all of this? Do you have a connection with one of the ruling bodies? You can't like this rollback any more than any of the rest of us.

 

I've never had anybody try so hard to sell me less, rather than more.

[Double Mocha Man]

Will the price of the golf ball come down 5 to 15%? Or will it cost even more for the additional R&D?  If I'm getting less I'd like to pay less.

[LoopySwing13]

4 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Will the price of the golf ball come down 5 to 15%? Or will it cost even more for the additional R&D?  If I'm getting less I'd like to pay less.

I doubt it will get cheaper or even stay flat. I thought that’s why the OEMs are even semi on board is that they now get to pass on the costs of R&D to us. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by LoopySwing13

[Double Mocha Man]

6 minutes ago, LoopySwing13 said:

I doubt it will get cheaper or even stay flat. I thought that’s why the OEMs are even semi on board is that they now get to pass on the costs of R&D to us. 

 

Wow! A ball that doesn't go as far, and you have to pay more for it.

 

I'm getting ready to buy a new car, this is good preparation for it. 😁

[st1800e]

26 minutes ago, LoopySwing13 said:

they now get to pass on the costs of R&D to us.

What do you think they’ve been doing up until now? 

[LoopySwing13]

5 minutes ago, st1800e said:

What do you think they’ve been doing up until now? 

Charging us more for improved technology? But no one minds paying for innovation. The OEM was against the roll back because until now, they weren’t able to pass costs along to us unless the roll back impacts public golf. Why would they spend 200M for a ball they can’t sell. 

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

21 minutes ago, LoopySwing13 said:

Charging us more for improved technology? But no one minds paying for innovation. The OEM was against the roll back because until now, they weren’t able to pass costs along to us unless the roll back impacts public golf. Why would they spend 200M for a ball they can’t sell. 

On this point, for the bifurcation discussion, did the USGA/R&A offer to pay the OEMs to develop this pro-only ball?  Or did they tell the OEMs to make it?

 

For the former, I don't see why an OEM would care.  They make, in the case of Titleist, something like 17 different models already.  What's one more?  Even if the Tours later put their foot down and say No, Titleist already got their money.  Oh well.

 

For the latter, if the R&D costs would be extensive...and a market wasn't guaranteed for this inferior product, I can see Titleist, etc...saying, "Thanks, but no thanks."

 

 

[ej002]

12 minutes ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

On this point, for the bifurcation discussion, did the USGA/R&A offer to pay the OEMs to develop this pro-only ball?  Or did they tell the OEMs to make it?

 

For the former, I don't see why an OEM would care.  They make, in the case of Titleist, something like 17 different models already.  What's one more?  Even if the Tours later put their foot down and say No, Titleist already got their money.  Oh well.

 

For the latter, if the R&D costs would be extensive...and a market wasn't guaranteed for this inferior product, I can see Titleist, etc...saying, "Thanks, but no thanks."

 

 

I sure hope you don't operate a business. 

 

What's one more.... research and development cost, sourcing costs, manufacturing costs, shipping, testing and verification, all for a ball that nobody wants..  Then you need to figure out whether the product will actually sell.  And nobody wants thing.   Great business plan.   

 

[Mike GolfNerd]

The best part of this announcement is that it doesn’t go into effect for several years.  Since I only play casual rounds, that means I’ve got several years to build up my lifetime supply of illegal balls!

[Cliffy2020]

1 hour ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

Sorry about your iPad doing that to you, I hate it when that happens.

 

Do you somehow have a financial stake in all of this? Do you have a connection with one of the ruling bodies? You can't like this rollback any more than any of the rest of us.

 

I've never had anybody try so hard to sell me less, rather than more.

No skin in the game.  Just a retired medical professional, stay at home dad, golf junkie/coach pissing my wife off one putter purchase at a time.

 

I hated the idea of the rollback initially.  But once I learned how minuscule the distance loss is and who is going to be affected the most along with the time frame of implementation and the reasoning behind it, I flipped.

 

I ignorantly thought this would be forced on us in ‘24 or ‘25, my 300 yard drives will only go 250 now and my 6i would be my new 150 club.  I’d hate that.
 

Turns out, the new ball will only affect me by 1/2 a club per hole at the most.  Slower player even less.  I’ll still have my eagle chances from time to time and still get to complain about my 3-putt pars 😉

[ej002]

We don't know that the distance loss is miniscule.  That is what the USGA is saying, based on their hopes and dreams.  There is no concrete data that shows this.  The manufactures might know this, but they are going to keep their info close to the vest because it would be proprietary.   They probably have no plan on how to develop and market new balls against their competitors yet.   

 

You say you are a medical professional.  Would you just take the word of some generic association before reading actual studies and the data behind it?  

 

Maybe it is nothing, but for us longer guys that are at or close to the Tour average in swing speed, this sucks bigly. 

 

[jammer13]

19 hours ago, jammer13 said:

I'm kind of interested in the physics of the new golf ball test.  Supposedly, they are only holding three variables constant for the test - Clubhead speed (125 mph), Launch Angle (11 degrees), and spin rate (2250rpm).  They don't specify ball speed interestingly.  So, how is the test done?  It seems like they would have to adjust AoA and Dynamic Loft to meet the launch conditions and then they limit the carry distance.  Does that mean that ball speed will remain pretty similar to now, but that aerodynamic drag is increased to meet the standard?  Or is there an expectation that new ball materials will need to be developed to slow the ball down?  Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard anything specific in the information the USGA has posted so far.

Just a followup to this.  Martin Borgmeier posted this a couple of hours ago with these similar questions and interesting insights into how the Long Drive guys look at golf balls.

 

[Double Mocha Man]

The long-drive guys are already using the Bridgestone E9 ball.  I wouldn't think they'd have to change balls.... but...

[caniac6]

I wonder how this changes manufacturers plans on future releases? The normal cycle for Titleist would mean a release of the ProV series in 2025. Will they release a ball that conforms to today’s standard, and then release a shorter ball in 26, and will they keep producing an amateur version of the ProV until 2030? It sure raises a lot of issues for the ball manufacturers.

[Pastit]

52 minutes ago, ej002 said:

We don't know that the distance loss is miniscule.  That is what the USGA is saying, based on their hopes and dreams.  There is no concrete data that shows this.  The manufactures might know this, but they are going to keep their info close to the vest because it would be proprietary.   They probably have no plan on how to develop and market new balls against their competitors yet.   

 

You say you are a medical professional.  Would you just take the word of some generic association before reading actual studies and the data behind it?  

 

Maybe it is nothing, but for us longer guys that are at or close to the Tour average in swing speed, this sucks bigly. 

 

 

But if you’re playing with your peer group mostly then presumably the nett effect will be nil. 

[GooseHook]

A part of me thinks this could eventually go the way of the much-maligned CoC rule for wedges a little over a decade ago. Everyone cried about the groove rule and within a few years the R&D departments figured out other ways to get things back to normal. We might see more drivers like the SLDR come back into the fold trying to get the most extreme benefits out of launch conditions. 

 

Either way we will be paying more for all this s***, which is why I hate it. The rulemaking bodies just issued a blanket mandate and we're all going to be paying $75 a dozen to hit drives with our $800 drivers. 

[Spinozist]

5 hours ago, Pastit said:

 

But if you’re playing with your peer group mostly then presumably the nett effect will be nil. 

No, we will all score worse. Most amateurs are not making a lot of birdies as it is...

[Spinozist]

9 hours ago, ej002 said:

THis is according to the USGA, who actually has no data on this.  This is what they think based on speculation.   Apparently they actually did a focus group with two different types of limited balls and the amateurs actually lost more yards on average.    

Bryson keeps coming up, but that is because he put in the work.  The ball has been locked down for almost 20 years.  Gains have come from our understanding of launch conditions and the fact that the average swing on tour has increased by 2 mph.   Back to Bryon.  He can swing it 150 mph at his absolute max.   The 5 mph that tour is taking away from him, is easily gained back.   People like Padraig and Phil are swinging the fastest of their lives (in their 50s) because we now understand biomechanics and neurology better.   So rolling the ball back saves 5mph for the USGA, that 5mph will be gained back in a a few years time by the pros, while you are "5 yds" shorter.   It is not well thought out and it really only hurts amateurs and the manufacturers' business.  BTW, I definitely expect a lawsuit. 

Exactly, why didn't they release some samples if they're so confident it won't be a big deal? 

And also notice what happened to Bryson: he started getting injured, and at any rate I think a big part of why he was successful at that one US Open was because he was probably training harder than most others during covid, due to the extremity of his transformation.

They already smoothed out the grooves on wedges, and shortened the maximum driver length. That is plenty. They need to think of another approach to the "problem" that is really not our problem at all...

 

[PowerCobra98]

Not happy about ball rollback.  Golf gets harder each year I age.  In 6 years from now I’ll already be shorter all around…ball rollback knocks another few years off my life.  

[Roejye]

On 12/7/2023 at 9:44 AM, Shilgy said:

How will you be affected the most? 240average guys, they claim, will be affected very little.

When I first heard it, it was going to be a 12% or whatever it was across all clubs, leading to every club being basically a club shorter, at all swing speeds. That would have been very big for me and bring some obstacles into play at my home course in particular. I don't play the tips, and a lot of courses I play, there isn't much room on some holes to move tees.

 

I know the USGA is saying that guys with my speed won't be affected at all, I don't trust them. I do however trust the experts that the oem's have employed and the 7 years they have to reach this objective. Plus, who knows, what's going to happen to me in 7 years anyways. Like everything else in my life, I'll deal with it as it comes.

[Pastit]

9 hours ago, Spinozist said:

No, we will all score worse. Most amateurs are not making a lot of birdies as it is...

Yes, thanks, but you miss my point, I meant the NETT effect with any games within your peer group and between the whole field. Unless someone slips in an old ball of course. 

[jvincent]

On 12/7/2023 at 4:44 PM, jammer13 said:

I'm kind of interested in the physics of the new golf ball test.  Supposedly, they are only holding three variables constant for the test - Clubhead speed (125 mph), Launch Angle (11 degrees), and spin rate (2250rpm).  They don't specify ball speed interestingly.  So, how is the test done?  It seems like they would have to adjust AoA and Dynamic Loft to meet the launch conditions and then they limit the carry distance.  Does that mean that ball speed will remain pretty similar to now, but that aerodynamic drag is increased to meet the standard?  Or is there an expectation that new ball materials will need to be developed to slow the ball down?  Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't heard anything specific in the information the USGA has posted so far.

 

The ODS test (you can find the test procedure on the USGA website) involves hitting the balls with a driver made specifically for the USGA.

 

The ball speed on impact is not specified, but the physics of impact dictate that it will fall within a certain range. What is specified are LA and spin, which have to fall with a defined range.

 

They also use a ball cannon, and high speed cameras to measure/calculate Reynolds number and lift/drag coefficients of the ball.

 

If either the measured (from the driver test) or calculated (from the aerodynamics test) distances are greater than 317 yards the ball is non conforming.

 

So, in practical terms, you are correct, they will almost certainly adjust the aero of the ball to pass.

Edited December 9, 2023 by jvincent

[hammergolf]

One thing that’s not being discussed is a recreational player not just losing distance on the driver. Their fwy wood shots will also go shorter, as will their hybrid and iron shots. The data is there with shots gained. They will miss more greens with a 6 iron than they would on 7 iron. If they have to hit a hybrid instead of an iron, or a wood instead of a hybrid the game will be harder. This just shows how out of touch the governing bodies are from the game. Not to mention, now there will be precedent to make even further changes to the ball in the future. This could have been settled a decade ago if they would have only adjusted the equipment rules for professionals and elite amateurs. It’s their hardheaded behavior and reluctance to do the right thing that brings us here. 

[bunta]

delete

Edited December 9, 2023 by bunta