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

[storm319]

On 12/8/2023 at 9:48 AM, 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."

 

 

No way that the ruling bodies offered to find R&D for this change with the MLR approach as there would be an indefinite increase in costs with that approach (not to mention the ruling bodies just make the rules, the OEMs really have flexibility to meet those regulations). Also, continued R&D is a choice, not a requirement (heck I am sure that the ruling bodies would prefer that the OEMs stop innovating as it would reduce costs for all stakeholders). 
 

The MLR proposal would have essentially resulted in two targets for OEMs which would absolutely resulted in higher long term R&D costs (not likely by as much as some are implying). The universal decision results in two targets in the short term, but ultimately one in the long term so while the big 5 are likely to see short term increases leading up to 2028, it should level off in the years following. 

[bunta]

 

 

 

this cant happen soon enough 😂 its going to be hilarious

 

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by bunta

[storm319]

On 12/7/2023 at 3:44 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 first thing to understand about the ODS test condition is that it is performed 100% indoors (at least since the last major revision in 2004). This is made up of two tests, mechanical swing and the ITR canon.
 

With the mechanical swing, the target launch conditions (initial launch angle of 10*, spin rate of 2520, and ball speed of 175) are calibration targets using a 2-piece ionomer control ball produced by Bridgestone. These targets are only for that control ball to ensure proper calibration of club delivery by the swing robot. After calibration, the test the ball submission and measure the launch angle, spin rate, and ball speed to be used in distance calculations (yes, everything else is calculated). 
 

With the ITR test, they launch a the ball out of a canon (similar to the velocity and COR tests), and measure launch conditions and a sample distance traveled for additional calculations (aerodynamics have a bigger impact on this test).

 

Results of both tests need to fall below the 317 yard ODS limit (+3 yard tolerance). The new decision will follow the same protocol with only the calibration targets changing. 
 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/equipment-standards/TPX3006 Overall Distance and Symmetry Test Protocol.pdf

 

 

[jammer13]

2 hours ago, storm319 said:

The first thing to understand about the ODS test condition is that it is performed 100% indoors (at least since the last major revision in 2004). This is made up of two tests, mechanical swing and the ITR canon.
 

With the mechanical swing, the target launch conditions (initial launch angle of 10*, spin rate of 2520, and ball speed of 175) are calibration targets using a 2-piece ionomer control ball produced by Bridgestone. These targets are only for that control ball to ensure proper calibration of club delivery by the swing robot. After calibration, the test the ball submission and measure the launch angle, spin rate, and ball speed to be used in distance calculations (yes, everything else is calculated). 
 

With the ITR test, they launch a the ball out of a canon (similar to the velocity and COR tests), and measure launch conditions and a sample distance traveled for additional calculations (aerodynamics have a bigger impact on this test).

 

Results of both tests need to fall below the 317 yard ODS limit (+3 yard tolerance). The new decision will follow the same protocol with only the calibration targets changing. 
 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/equipment-standards/TPX3006 Overall Distance and Symmetry Test Protocol.pdf

 

 

Thanks! Both the document and video are super interesting.  For one, I didn't know the spec was for total distance rather than carry and also that the test conditions off the test driver are for the control ball (which is interestingly a 2-piece ball).  So, a few questions come to mind which are maybe more academic than anything else but could influence the way manufacturers try to conform to the new requirements.

 

1. I wonder how the typical modern high performance ball (ProV1 etc) performs off the driver vs the control ball(launch angle, spin, speed).

2. The Indoor Test Range (ITR) wasn't described in too much detail but implied that it is very long and they measure the total distance in that facility.  It looked kind of short in the video, I may have to look at that again.  The landing surface in the ITR must be standardized in some way to control the total rollout.  I wonder how much rollout a typical ball gets in this test (difference between total and carry).

3. It would really be interesting to know how different manufacturers' balls fair in terms of repeatability since that is part of this test.  I would not be surprised if some brands are better than others. Of course, I'm sure the USGA wants to keep that information very much private for obvious reasons.

4. Bottom line - there appears to be a good amount of wiggle room between materials and dimple/cover designs that manufactures could use different approaches to meet this new requirement. 

 

edit: After reading the document again and rewatching the video, I'm not sure that the ITR is actually a full-length range or is just long enough to enable determination of the aerodynamic properties of the ball which is then input into some sort of software simulation to determine total distance(which is what @storm319 said above).  So it's probably the latter, which brings up another question on how  well their flight dynamics simulation software represents actual flight.

Edited December 10, 2023 by jammer13

[jammer13]

2 hours ago, bunta said:

 

 

 

this cant happen soon enough 😂 its going to be hilarious

 

 

It will be really telling how this goes when the pros start testing ball conforming to the new requirements, but it does seem kind of early for that now given that it's somewhat doubtful that any ball manufacturer has spent a big R&D effort already designing and making a new ball that will be anything close to what is available in 2028.

[elwhippy]

Discussed the rollback with our Pro yesterday. He has serious concerns. First one. Revised ball will spin more. That means it will hook and slice more for less skilled players. Makes game more difficult and could lead to more lost balls (good for sales, but not player morale). Two. Virtually every player he teaches, from beginner up to plus hcp level wants to hit the ball further, to make the game more enjoyable. The drop off in distance will have a negative impact on many players ability to shoot lower scores and improve. Three. Who the hell is going to police this when the changes come in? We still have players using non conforming drivers that the committee don't challenge. Four. How many million balls are going to be scrapped as illegal? You could use them as practice ammo but the playing characteristics will be markedly different.  Five. Marketing. How do you promote a product that will perform worse? Six. We have some elite amateur members. Which ball will they use in clubs comps and matches? The 2028 spec ball that they use in big comps, or the current spec ball in club and friendly games? 

[jvincent]

5 hours ago, elwhippy said:

Discussed the rollback with our Pro yesterday. He has serious concerns. First one. Revised ball will spin more. 

 

Why does he think it's going to spin more?

 

If you look at the new test it's going to have to spin LESS off the driver. And in order to be shorter it's going to have to have MORE drag.

 

I'm not sure if more drag is going to affect total distance offline since lower initial spin + increased drag might mean less distance offline.

[storm319]

5 hours ago, elwhippy said:

Discussed the rollback with our Pro yesterday. He has serious concerns. First one. Revised ball will spin more. That means it will hook and slice more for less skilled players. Makes game more difficult and could lead to more lost balls (good for sales, but not player morale). Two. Virtually every player he teaches, from beginner up to plus hcp level wants to hit the ball further, to make the game more enjoyable. The drop off in distance will have a negative impact on many players ability to shoot lower scores and improve. Three. Who the hell is going to police this when the changes come in? We still have players using non conforming drivers that the committee don't challenge. Four. How many million balls are going to be scrapped as illegal? You could use them as practice ammo but the playing characteristics will be markedly different.  Five. Marketing. How do you promote a product that will perform worse? Six. We have some elite amateur members. Which ball will they use in clubs comps and matches? The 2028 spec ball that they use in big comps, or the current spec ball in club and friendly games? 

I will preface this by saying that I am against any regulation that make previously conforming, widely adopted equipment non-conforming (I have no problem with adding reasonable regulations for anything that has not yet been reached).

1) Not necessarily. The OEMs task is essentially designing less efficiency in one or more areas (likely spin, ball speed, and/or aerodynamics). Some offerings may be noticeably higher spin, others not much different than what we see today. 
 

2) This rollback will essentially moving the starting line back. If anything, I would imagine instructors will see an increase in demand from players looking to make up for some of the distance loss. 
 

3) This problem is really no different than today. Given that it appears likely that the USGA plans to stop testing under the current conditions in late 2027 and the historically low demand for non-conforming equipment at retail, there is a good chance that there will be few choices that will not conform to the new standard post 2030. 
 

4) I have voiced this concern in recent years during these rollback debates and the longer implementation period is likely intended to ease this a bit. The likely increase in waste seems counter to the ruling bodies claimed

environmental responsibility goals (granted the current volume of balls produced annually isn’t great either).

5) Given that this is essentially moving the starting line back, marketing does not really change following the full implementation of this. Marketing claims will simply be based on a new baseline and the big OEMs will be able  to slowly optimize as time goes on. 
 

6) The USGAs decision notice simply states “competitive” but does not clearly define this or how it will be adopted during the two year bifurcation period (likely a temp MLR). For at least two years the game will experience all of the challenges that ultimately killed the MLR approach (including the possibility of certain competitions that they intended this for not adopting the rule until 2030). Additionally, what happens if the USGA delays the universal adoption similarly to what they have done with the groove rule (which as of today still has no end in sight). 

[new2g0lf]

The reality is the majority of amateur golfers will see little or no impact to the rolback.  On average we're talking 7-12 yards which is far less than playing in the wind or on a wet fairway or just the variation of swing speed for most amateurs.  The other reality is this will do little to nothing to stop golf courses the pro's play on from needing to expand their golf courses.  Old courses that haven't lengthened their courses in the last 10 years are likely still too short for the pro's.  Golfers will continue to get stronger and more athletic and push the boundaries much like Bryson did.  

 

From a marketing perspective, this is a joke, 2028 golf ball ads will tout the distance of their golf balls knowing they are shorter than the previous years.  Ball testing results will look ridiculous as new ball distances plot shorter than the previous versions.  It all seems like a lot of noise and banter for something that will likely not achieve the supposed goal the USGA / R&A are trying to achieve.  

[Shilgy]

On 12/10/2023 at 9:26 AM, jvincent said:

 

Why does he think it's going to spin more?

 

If you look at the new test it's going to have to spin LESS off the driver. And in order to be shorter it's going to have to have MORE drag.

 

I'm not sure if more drag is going to affect total distance offline since lower initial spin + increased drag might mean less distance offline.

I could be mistake…likely am…but isn’t the spin rate part of the launch and speed criteria ?  Meaning at this spin rate and this launch angle and this speed it cannot exceed 317 yards +3.  So a ball can spin more and pass as long as it’s short enough.

 

 

Correct experts?

[bekgolf]

51 minutes ago, new2g0lf said:

The reality is the majority of amateur golfers will see little or no impact to the rolback.  On average we're talking 7-12 yards which is far less than playing in the wind or on a wet fairway or just the variation of swing speed for most amateurs.  The other reality is this will do little to nothing to stop golf courses the pro's play on from needing to expand their golf courses.  Old courses that haven't lengthened their courses in the last 10 years are likely still too short for the pro's.  Golfers will continue to get stronger and more athletic and push the boundaries much like Bryson did.  

 

From a marketing perspective, this is a joke, 2028 golf ball ads will tout the distance of their golf balls knowing they are shorter than the previous years.  Ball testing results will look ridiculous as new ball distances plot shorter than the previous versions.  It all seems like a lot of noise and banter for something that will likely not achieve the supposed goal the USGA / R&A are trying to achieve.  

 

What ball have you been hitting?  Please show the data you have from testing the new ball vs what we now have.

 

If you don't have the data you claim then please STFU!

[cardia10]

10 hours ago, new2g0lf said:

The reality is the majority of amateur golfers will see little or no impact to the rolback.  On average we're talking 7-12 yards which is far less than playing in the wind or on a wet fairway or just the variation of swing speed for most amateurs.  The other reality is this will do little to nothing to stop golf courses the pro's play on from needing to expand their golf courses.  Old courses that haven't lengthened their courses in the last 10 years are likely still too short for the pro's.  Golfers will continue to get stronger and more athletic and push the boundaries much like Bryson did.  

 

From a marketing perspective, this is a joke, 2028 golf ball ads will tout the distance of their golf balls knowing they are shorter than the previous years.  Ball testing results will look ridiculous as new ball distances plot shorter than the previous versions.  It all seems like a lot of noise and banter for something that will likely not achieve the supposed goal the USGA / R&A are trying to achieve.  

How do we know the average of what Am's will see? Because the USGA says so? The USGA has yet to publish any data or testing parameters other than a chart. Their tested speed was 125 mph. If they wanted to scale back the ball for the PGA golfer, why not use the average PGA swing speed?  I think if they were true in what they were telling us, the data would have went out when they made the ruling. The issue here is people actually believe what the USGA is saying. Their reliability is tainted and has been for years....see the groove rule.

Edited December 13, 2023 by cardia10

[jammer13]

19 hours ago, Shilgy said:

I could be mistake…likely am…but isn’t the spin rate part of the launch and speed criteria ?  Meaning at this spin rate and this launch angle and this speed it cannot exceed 317 yards +3.  So a ball can spin more and pass as long as it’s short enough.

 

 

Correct experts?

Not an expert, but just read the ODS testing protocol included earlier in this thread. The spin and launch are set by a "calibration ball" with a "calibration driver" using their robot.  The actual launch and spin achieved by the ball under test could vary quite a bit from that.  Interestingly, the calibration ball is a two-piece ball.  This whole test requirement hasn't been well communicated by the USGA I don't think - maybe they think it's TMI for the average golfer.

[new2g0lf]

22 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

What ball have you been hitting?  Please show the data you have from testing the new ball vs what we now have.

 

If you don't have the data you claim then please STFU!

John Spitzer, the USGA's managing director of equipment standards, said approximately one-third of balls currently on the conforming list would still be conforming under the new protocol, primarily two- and-three piece balls with ionomer covers.

 

"It's five yards at most and likely limited to your driver," Pagel said. "I don't want to minimize people's feelings or concerns about losing even a yard. We all have those concerns. We all want that extra yard or two. But just put this in the practical senses of this would mean, you know, 222 yards instead of 225. And you do have the ability to move tees up. You do have the ability to play forward tees. I would just say trust in the process. Over the next six years, I think we'll find that the sky hasn't fallen, the game is still going to be healthy.”

[bekgolf]

2 minutes ago, new2g0lf said:

John Spitzer, the USGA's managing director of equipment standards, said approximately one-third of balls currently on the conforming list would still be conforming under the new protocol, primarily two- and-three piece balls with ionomer covers.

 

"It's five yards at most and likely limited to your driver," Pagel said. "I don't want to minimize people's feelings or concerns about losing even a yard. We all have those concerns. We all want that extra yard or two. But just put this in the practical senses of this would mean, you know, 222 yards instead of 225. And you do have the ability to move tees up. You do have the ability to play forward tees. I would just say trust in the process. Over the next six years, I think we'll find that the sky hasn't fallen, the game is still going to be healthy.”

 

I wish they would of published the list of those that conform.  It would certainly ease anxiety over the widely varying reports.

[st1800e]

4 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

I wish they would have published the list of those that conform.  It would certainly ease anxiety over the widely varying reports.

 Can imagine the lashback from the ball companies if they did reveal what are the short balls today.  

[bekgolf]

6 minutes ago, st1800e said:

 Can imagine the lashback from the ball companies if they did reveal what are the short balls today.  

 

I feel a whole lot better when facts and data are available to me.  I'm really hoping that a group with a robot will approximate the specifications we know about (125mph swing speed and 11* launch) with today's balls.

 

If the 1/3 balls conform statement is true then I have my guesses as to which balls they would be.  However, my guess is worth nothing in this and by the time 2030 rolls around I'll be in my mid sixties.  I already golf with players who really started losing swing speed from mid 50's to mid 60's.  It would be unfair to penalize them more (probably me in 2030).

[st1800e]

10 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

I already golf with players who really started losing swing speed from mid 50's to mid 60's

When you hit 70, you’ll really know what “losing swing speed” is.  

[Pastit]

4 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

I feel a whole lot better when facts and data are available to me.  I'm really hoping that a group with a robot will approximate the specifications we know about (125mph swing speed and 11* launch) with today's balls.

 

If the 1/3 balls conform statement is true then I have my guesses as to which balls they would be.  However, my guess is worth nothing in this and by the time 2030 rolls around I'll be in my mid sixties.  I already golf with players who really started losing swing speed from mid 50's to mid 60's.  It would be unfair to penalize them more (probably me in 2030).

I’ve been through this distance-loss period ( now 76YOA ) and have just lost interest in playing regularly, mainly as other hobbies are now more interesting.

 

I first lost some of my competitive advantage ( 8 HCP then ) when the persimmon era ended and every Tom, Dick and Harry could wack the new ball miles with 460cc drivers. Fortunately, I was able stay competitive and avoid senior golf until I was c 65YOA ( 10 HCP ) despite picking up a host of injuries from various accidents. Being very competitive at senior golf unless I found myself against former Cat 1 handicappers. 

The relevance being, and to your point, I find it fascinating to watch progress of new entrants to the Champions Tour and regression of abilities as the same group ages. Irwin and Langer stand out for longevity but the latter is now fading away and being faced with with newer entrants like Stricker and Harrington. None of my heroes like Watson play competitively now so 65YOA seems near the upper age-limit.

 

It’s also interesting to see former journeyman on main tours, such as Broadhurst and Chapman, graduate at 50YOA to the Champions’ Tour and win a couple of majors immediately before fading away rapidly. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Pastit

[HGLucky13]

Different balls are already optimized for different swing speeds. Based on the makeup of the core/cover. Why would anyone not think that the manufacturers will just optimize to the new standard? I have little doubt that once this happens that I will be able to buy a ball that will give me the same characteristics (such as distance) as the ball I currently have.  It might take a few years, but I would put my money on the manufacturers making up the distance (likely improving on) all across the board. They will be able to game the system, just as they are currently. Hopefully they use these next few years getting ready for it, and not wait till the time is up to start testing.

 

Either way I see no significant upheaval in my game. My 100 +/- mph swing speed gives me anywhere from 220-280 yards on any given day depending on way too many factors other than the ball i'm using... My iron accuracy, short game and putting matter way more than if I hit 220 or 280 off the tee. 

 

I think this rollback is stupid, and it seems there are alot of better ways to go about WHAT THEY SAY THEIR GOAL IS other than changing the ball. They are creating drama towards themselves that is unnecessary. But I don't believe it will matter to me at all in the long run.

Edited December 14, 2023 by HGLucky13

[new2g0lf]

6 hours ago, HGLucky13 said:

I think this rollback is stupid, and it seems there are alot of better ways to go about WHAT THEY SAY THEIR GOAL IS other than changing the ball. They are creating drama towards themselves that is unnecessary. But I don't believe it will matter to me at all in the long run.

I agree the rollback is stupid, it doesn't come close to accomplishing their desired goal or making classic old courses relevant again if distance is the main factor.  I also don't believe the average mid-handicap or higher golfer has such control over their driver that they could tell in a blind test which golf balls are rollbacks and which ones aren't.   Golf ball companies are going to play marketing games but in the end we now know 1/3 of the balls on the market currently are already conforming and no one seemed to care.   The emphasis will change from distance to spin, we might even see the old SLDR driver and lower lofted drivers become more popular again since the robot will be launching at 11*.  

[AmazinBlue]

I am completely against the roll back, but I think the ball goes too far based on the distances that pros hit the ball with the driver or irons.  They are bigger and stronger and can dial in the exact ways to get the most out of their equipment.  I think the main reason for all this is because they can't make the Old Course any longer.  The best players in the world hit too far for the old course. If that's true THEN MAKE A BALL FOR THAT COURSE ONLY! Back in the day they used to have a special ball for the Open Championship anyway due to wind.  The special ball was slightly smaller, but it was never publicized. 

Dean Snell, who worked for Taylormade for a long time and now produces his own line of balls said the solution is simple and would cost nothing...Limit the pros to using a tee that is no longer than 1 or 1.5" It takes away the pros ability to hit up on the ball with a driver and it will limit the distance by 15-30 yards and the problem is solved.  Nick faldo said the same thing while he was at CBS.  Any arguing against bifurcatrion needs to just stop, we don't play the same equipment the pros do anyway, including the golf balls.  It's a silly notion for the tradition of the game.  Maybe stop making the fairways rock hard so they don't get 50 yards of roll. We only get 15.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, AmazinBlue said:

Back in the day they used to have a special ball for the Open Championship anyway due to wind.  The special ball was slightly smaller, but it was never publicized.

 

Ummmmm,,,,,,,,, special ball for the Open Championship ?

 

Never heard that one before.

 

Or are you talking about the English/Euro ball that was THE ball in play on that side of the pond,,,,,,,,,, while the larger American ball played was played here in the States ?

[AmazinBlue]

13 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Ummmmm,,,,,,,,, special ball for the Open Championship ?

 

Never heard that one before.

 

Or are you talking about the English/Euro ball that was THE ball in play on that side of the pond,,,,,,,,,, while the larger American ball played was played here in the States ?

Yes, the Euro ball, not just an Open Championship ball. The basic point is that that was the beginning of bifurcation. So if the Old Course is the main reason the USGA and R&A are hellbent on this roillback, then just have a Open Championship ball for THAT course alone.

[Double Mocha Man]

1 minute ago, AmazinBlue said:

Yes, the Euro ball, not just an Open Championship ball. The basic point is that that was the beginning of bifurcation. So if the Old Course is the main reason the USGA and R&A are hellbent on this roillback, then just have a Open Championship ball for THAT course alone.

 

Merion is a U.S. course that is short, as well.

[cardia10]

On 12/13/2023 at 11:29 PM, new2g0lf said:

John Spitzer, the USGA's managing director of equipment standards, said approximately one-third of balls currently on the conforming list would still be conforming under the new protocol, primarily two- and-three piece balls with ionomer covers.

 

"It's five yards at most and likely limited to your driver," Pagel said. "I don't want to minimize people's feelings or concerns about losing even a yard. We all have those concerns. We all want that extra yard or two. But just put this in the practical senses of this would mean, you know, 222 yards instead of 225. And you do have the ability to move tees up. You do have the ability to play forward tees. I would just say trust in the process. Over the next six years, I think we'll find that the sky hasn't fallen, the game is still going to be healthy.”

If you are hitting it 220 off the tee, i'd imagine there aren't many more tees for you to move up. Pagel is quick to say five yards, but no one has been quick to release true unbiased data showing that.

[cardia10]

22 hours ago, new2g0lf said:

I agree the rollback is stupid, it doesn't come close to accomplishing their desired goal or making classic old courses relevant again if distance is the main factor.  I also don't believe the average mid-handicap or higher golfer has such control over their driver that they could tell in a blind test which golf balls are rollbacks and which ones aren't.   Golf ball companies are going to play marketing games but in the end we now know 1/3 of the balls on the market currently are already conforming and no one seemed to care.   The emphasis will change from distance to spin, we might even see the old SLDR driver and lower lofted drivers become more popular again since the robot will be launching at 11*.  

The best part is the USGA is trying to save classic courses but those courses refuse to condition, mow and keep green speeds what they were 30 years ago. They want 100% of golfers adapt because they refuse to. Let the mowing go a little longer course wide to save money.

[storm319]

7 hours ago, AmazinBlue said:

Yes, the Euro ball, not just an Open Championship ball. The basic point is that that was the beginning of bifurcation. So if the Old Course is the main reason the USGA and R&A are hellbent on this roillback, then just have an Open Championship ball for THAT course alone.

I think you are referring to the R&A not following the USGA when they rolled back the max weight and minimum diameter regulations around 1930 (the USGA reverted back to the original weight max a few years later). The R&A then stuck with the original minimum diameter regulation until they aligned with the USGA for the Open Championship in 1976 and universally in 1990, but for over 40 years many US pros would switch to the balls that met the R&A regulation but exceeded the USGA regulation for the Open Championship (and vice versa for the few European pros that played in US events).

[storm319]

7 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

Merion is a U.S. course that is short, as well.

and not a single player shot under par at the 2013 US Open despite Merion playing under 7000 yards. On the other hand, the winning score at the 2017 US Open was -16 at a nearly 7800 yard long Erin Hills.
 

[storm319]

On 12/14/2023 at 9:44 AM, HGLucky13 said:

Different balls are already optimized for different swing speeds. Based on the makeup of the core/cover. Why would anyone not think that the manufacturers will just optimize to the new standard? I have little doubt that once this happens that I will be able to buy a ball that will give me the same characteristics (such as distance) as the ball I currently have.  It might take a few years, but I would put my money on the manufacturers making up the distance (likely improving on) all across the board. They will be able to game the system, just as they are currently. Hopefully they use these next few years getting ready for it, and not wait till the time is up to start testing.

 

Either way I see no significant upheaval in my game. My 100 +/- mph swing speed gives me anywhere from 220-280 yards on any given day depending on way too many factors other than the ball i'm using... My iron accuracy, short game and putting matter way more than if I hit 220 or 280 off the tee. 

 

I think this rollback is stupid, and it seems there are alot of better ways to go about WHAT THEY SAY THEIR GOAL IS other than changing the ball. They are creating drama towards themselves that is unnecessary. But I don't believe it will matter to me at all in the long run.

Spin/launch optimization won’t be able to make up for the roughly 8 mph loss in ballspeed for the new ODS condition, so the total loss will not be able to be offset without swinging the club faster.