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

[caniac6]

8 hours ago, tippethor said:

It’s time for golfers to say goodbye to the Usga and  r&a. 
The time of old white men telling people what to do must come to an end!

I think the PGA of America should be the leading authority in American golf. PGA pros operate almost every golf course, and know what the vast majority of golfers are dealing with. I feel like the USGA is not in touch with the average player. Most guys I know need more distance not less. Country clubs and public courses are supported Monday through Friday by retired guys and women. They certainly don’t need to hit it shorter.

[DoughBack18]

I’m slowly aging here like everyone else and I’m going to be honest and say i’m really not too worried about it. Club manufacturers will keep working to squeeze out every last yard, courses will  move tees up a few yards and I think that for the vast majority of people they won’t really even notice the change. The elite amateurs and touring pros will notice it, but at that level they will make the adjustments and I don’t think you’ll see any dramatic changes in scoring.
 

What I think it does is allow courses to not have to stretch those extra yards, change angles, etc… in order to keep hazards and playing lines in place. And that to me is a good thing. 
 

Obviously no right or wrong, but thats my $.02 anyway. Thanks and make lots of birdies!

[bomberman]

The problem is this roll back or pause should have been implemented about 20 years ago, the governing bodies dropped the "ball" and should have seen the big games from development of solid core balls. They allowed for the increases due to a number of factors, mostly better ways of measuring and pushing stuff, it's really about optimization. 

 

If this makes golf less fun for me I will play less and spend less as would others which isn't what golf wants. Hopefully it turns into a new equipment race for manufacturers and it will minimize damage to amateurs like myself.

 

I am quick for an Am and would be on the low end for tour guys (112-115 mph driver speed) and if my drives go from 295 average to 280 I wouldn't like it much, though it would be give me a bigger edge on my 6800 yard course as the 100-105 guys (we have alot of sub 5 caps at my club in that speed), they would have to move up or hit a lot of hybrids/woods into par 4s which would mean less people from the back tees and less people in the club C. Now that I think about it this puts more pressure on AMs if there is a 5% reduction in distance. Say you average 250 on the drive, a 450 par 4 is already tough leaving a hybrid or wood in, if you knock off 12 yards it's a layup or maybe a 3/4 wood in, where the 290 guy now goes from an 8 iron to maybe a 6 iron in. 

[klebs01]

2 hours ago, larrybud said:

Sorry guys, can't have it both ways. Either the general public is hitting it too long, or they aren't. If they aren't (which the "play it forward" marketing implies they aren't), then there's no problem. If they are hitting it too far, then the rollback will obviously be aimed at a linear reduction across the board.

The problem with your simplistic view is that both are true. Yeah old folks and this that are unathletic and picked up the game don’t hit it far and should move up. On the other hand, those under 50 or so that picked it up young, and especial the younger players today hit it WAY too far. Now it’s not uncommon for a 300 yard drive to be a short ball in a group. 620 yard par 5s are easily reached. The current game is unsustainable. 
 

one of the benefits of the roll back is that it rolls back the long hitters more than the short hitters so it compresses the difference in distance between players. That should

be viewed as a good thing. 

[SlothofDespond]

11 minutes ago, bomberman said:

If this makes golf less fun for me I will play less and spend less as would others which isn't what golf wants. Hopefully it turns into a new equipment race for manufacturers and it will minimize damage to amateurs like myself.

 

I'm confident in the ability of the engineering geniuses in R&D to find a way to increase distance dramatically again in ways that will cost golfer's a fortune to put into play.

[ChaosTheory]

I’m pretty sure that some current soft 2 piece balls already meet the new standard.  Not that this would matter on GolfWRX. 😀

[iknowbagu]

Distance has become the biggest red herring in golf. Distance is not now, nor ever has been, the problem. 

 

The biggest issue with golf today is course design and layout. Remember when golf used to be about strategically getting your ball from A to B? What happened to actual shot making? Now the game is simply hit it as hard as you can from A regardless of what's out there on the way to B. There's little to no penalty for wayward shots. 

 

Stop designing / laying out courses to promote "bomb and gouge".

Tighten up the fairways. 

Make the rough rough. (Stop over seeding, stop watering, stop mowing so much.)

Make hazards hazardous. (How many of us now almost aim at greenside bunkers as a bail out? I know I do. With as manicured as they are these days it's a much more predictable lie than the rough a lot of the time. While we're at it, get rid of rakes, foot smooth only.) 

Remember dog legs? Especially dog legs where it's less than driver to the bend? Yeah, me either. 

Remember trees? Tree lined fairways even? (Straw poll - In recent memory, how many of your home courses have removed trees vs planted new trees? I'm willing to bet 10:1, at least)

 

Best part about making these types of changes to the course is there is zero cost involved. OEMs don't have to put money into R&D. Consumers don't have to buy new equipment. And with as valuable and limited as land is becoming, you won't need to build courses at 8000 yards. All the architects have to do is just make them challenging and interesting at 6000 instead. 

 

And I'm not even going to get into the hypocrisy of telling us all to move up a set of tees for the last 10+ years just to try and nerf the ball.

 

/rant

[klebs01]

10 minutes ago, iknowbagu said:

Distance has become the biggest red herring in golf. Distance is not now, nor ever has been, the problem. 

 

The biggest issue with golf today is course design and layout. Remember when golf used to be about strategically getting your ball from A to B? What happened to actual shot making? Now the game is simply hit it as hard as you can from A regardless of what's out there on the way to B. There's little to no penalty for wayward shots. 

 

Stop designing / laying out courses to promote "bomb and gouge".

Tighten up the fairways. 

Make the rough rough. (Stop over seeding, stop watering, stop mowing so much.)

Make hazards hazardous. (How many of us now almost aim at greenside bunkers as a bail out? I know I do. With as manicured as they are these days it's a much more predictable lie than the rough a lot of the time. While we're at it, get rid of rakes, foot smooth only.) 

Remember dog legs? Especially dog legs where it's less than driver to the bend? Yeah, me either. 

Remember trees? Tree lined fairways even? (Straw poll - In recent memory, how many of your home courses have removed trees vs planted new trees? I'm willing to bet 10:1, at least)

 

Best part about making these types of changes to the course is there is zero cost involved. OEMs don't have to put money into R&D. Consumers don't have to buy new equipment. And with as valuable and limited as land is becoming, you won't need to build courses at 8000 yards. All the architects have to do is just make them challenging and interesting at 6000 instead. 

 

And I'm not even going to get into the hypocrisy of telling us all to move up a set of tees for the last 10+ years just to try and nerf the ball.

 

/rant

terrible ideas. Most actually promote bomb and gouge.  Trees are expensive to grow and maintain and compete with grass for resources. Not a good option. 

[Double Mocha Man]

1 hour ago, Greenie said:

I was hoping they would come out with a senior ball. A ball that goes farther for us distance challenged people

 

You would have to show proof of age ID at the counter to buy a dozen of those.

[Double Mocha Man]

54 minutes ago, bomberman said:

If there is a 5% reduction in distance. Say you average 250 on the drive, a 450 par 4 is already tough leaving a hybrid or wood in, if you knock off 12 yards it's a layup or maybe a 3/4 wood in, where the 290 guy now goes from an 8 iron to maybe a 6 iron in. 

 

Just think of all the new instruction articles and YouTube videos we'll get! Like "How to hit a 3-wood approach shot into the green".

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Double Mocha Man

[caniac6]

Well, sounds like it’s a done deal, so there is really no point arguing about it. I’ve been a USGA member since the 80s, but I can’t support them anymore. That’s really the only way I can show my dislike for this decision.

 

[iknowbagu]

28 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

Most actually promote bomb and gouge.

 

Um, I know, and that was my point. Stop promoting bomb and gouge. Design challenging 375 yard par 4s with character instead of boring, cookie cutter 450 yard par 4s.

[grochol17]

57 minutes ago, Louis_Posture said:

Distance is not a problem.

What difference does it make if Dustin Johnson is hitting a wedge into a hole that 60 years ago Byron Nelson hit a 5-iron?

What difference does it make if players shoot 58 instead of 68?

The USGA and R&A are trying to find a problem where there is none.

 

There are a lot of different problems that you can solve with a ball roll back.  Personally I find bomb and gouge boring to watch.  But, there are three reasons as a golfer why I'm good with the ball being rolled back...

 

1) Hopefully this will make golf cheaper or at least keep the prices cheaper than they would be otherwise.  Rolling the ball back means that a golf course needs less space to keep the same level of challenge so there's less to maintain which should save money on equipment and man hours for course work.  An additional benefit is that more golf courses might become financially viable so there won't be as many course closings and more choice is better for the golfer.

 

2) Shorter courses and/or people playing from shorter tees to accommodate the "new" ball will hopefully make the game faster to play.  Plus, a ball that doesn't go as far overall won't go as far offline, so there might be less time spent looking for lost balls.

 

3) Courses that can't expand won't become obsolete (or will become fun to play again).  The course I grew up playing on is a short par 70 golf course, maxing out at 6000 yards.  Since pretty much every hole is surrounded by streets or houses, there's no room to expand.  When I was in high school hitting balata balls and the great big bertha driver, the course could be challenging.  I went back and played it about 10 years later using a pro v1 and a Titleist 983E and it was kinda boring... it basically played as a par 66 (or less) since both par 5s became reachable with with driver/mid-iron and on multiple pars 4s it was possible to easily hit it past all the trouble and have a short pitch into the green.  As I've moved around to different areas, when I look for new courses I generally stay away from playing a course that maxes out less than 6500 because that means to make it interesting and hit a variety of clubs for my approach shots, I'll probably never hit driver (like I said, I find bomb and gouge boring).  A shorter ball means that courses that are currently too short for me will become more fun to play, so I'll have more options.

[ANimz]

57 minutes ago, Snowman9000 said:

I’m pretty sure that some current soft 2 piece balls already meet the new standard.  Not that this would matter on GolfWRX. 😀

My thought exactly.  Are the roll back balls going to be worse than Supersofts?  I would think it hits the bombers worse.  It is nothing I don't adjust to every winter.  

[klebs01]

10 minutes ago, iknowbagu said:

 

Um, I know, and that was my point. Stop promoting bomb and gouge. Design challenging 375 yard par 4s with character instead of boring, cookie cutter 450 yard par 4s.

your ideas on how to fix things promote bomb and gouge. 

[iknowbagu]

1 minute ago, klebs01 said:

your ideas on how to fix things promote bomb and gouge. 

 

OK, my misunderstanding then. I thought your "most" meant courses, not my ideas. 

 

But now I'll ask, how so? If you make the punishment worse for being off target, wouldn't the premium then become being on target rather than just bombing away? 

[hammergolf]

2 hours ago, dgarland said:

Here's the article: https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-ra-rollback-announcement-december-2023

 

Making the ball shorter will do more to shrink the game than anything they could possibly do.  This is absolute lunacy.  If you read the article there is a part that says this isn't for recrational golfers but if that's the case I have no idea whe the word "universal" is used in the headline.  Thoughts?

Wouldn’t be surprised. The bow ties at the usga have been ruining the recreational game for decades. Hopefully someone with an ounce of intelligence in NJ realizes that the answer has been there the whole time. Condition of competition has been on the books for decades. It’s simple, have different equipment rules for professionals and elite amateurs than recreational players. They are just hardheaded and refusing to enact bifurcation. 

[klebs01]

10 minutes ago, iknowbagu said:

 

OK, my misunderstanding then. I thought your "most" meant courses, not my ideas. 

 

But now I'll ask, how so? If you make the punishment worse for being off target, wouldn't the premium then become being on target rather than just bombing away? 

if you line the fairways with trees or narrow the fairways, then there really isn’t a point to laying up. Golfers are sufficiently more accurate with shorter clubs to offset the increase in distance for their approach shots. I was a member at a course like that for a while. Tried different things and mapped out the course.  The best option really was bomb and gouge and then just take your medicine when in the trees. 

[Ger21]

21 minutes ago, grochol17 said:

1) Hopefully this will make golf cheaper or at least keep the prices cheaper than they would be otherwise.

Distance has nothing to do with the price of golf. This past year, all my local courses raised their prices 10%-15%. Because the cost of everything has gone up.

Costs at the big golf resorts are through the roof, due to supply and demand. A lot of people would need to stop playing golf for prices to change.

 

Quote

2) Shorter courses and/or people playing from shorter tees to accommodate the "new" ball will hopefully make the game faster to play. 

Nobody will be moving up a tee when the "new ball" arrives. And even if they did, do you really think hitting 1-2 clubs less into a green will speed up someone that normally takes 5 hours to play?

 

Quote

3) Courses that can't expand won't become obsolete (or will become fun to play again). 

I've been playing 40 years, and have yet to see a course become obsolete. And I've never seen a course near me (50+ courses within an hour) expand, unless they are hosting high level tournaments.

 

Quote

A shorter ball means that courses that are currently too short for me will become more fun to play, so I'll have more options.

98% of the golfing public does not have this "problem".

[Louis_Posture]

34 minutes ago, grochol17 said:

 

.  As I've moved around to different areas, when I look for new courses I generally stay away from playing a course that maxes out less than 6500 because that means to make it interesting and hit a variety of clubs for my approach shots

At shorter length courses (or a long course from the forward tee boxes)  I find playing fairway woods , hybrids, or irons off the par 4 and par 5 tee boxes makes approach shots more interesting and fun to play.

[PedronNiall]

2 hours ago, dgarland said:

If you were charged with devising a plan to destroy the game of golf... you couldn't come up with anything better than this.  Great job governing bodies of golf.  You all should be banished to the far reaches of the earth.  

It certainly isn't a great follow-up to the still ongoing drama of the LIV/PIF issues.

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

2 hours ago, klebs01 said:

Now it’s not uncommon for a 300 yard drive to be a short ball in a group. 620 yard par 5s are easily reached. The current game is unsustainable

Lol no.  Maybe for your group.

 

But every statistical analysis of amateur golfers, using data from Arccos, Grint, Shotscope, whatever, shows that most golfers just don't hit it that far.  Average driving distance for scratch is in the 250s, not 350s

 

620 par 5 easily reached...  So, how was Q School?

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

This is a Pro problem, for some Pro courses. Make them find a solution or stop getting butthurt that Touring Pros can abuse St. Andrews these days. 

 

But asking 99.9999% of the rest of golfers to suffer because your Tour/Club/Regulatory Body is too cheap to subsidize a special ball for those few courses and tournaments, is garbage.

[iknowbagu]

37 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

if you line the fairways with trees or narrow the fairways, then there really isn’t a point to laying up. Golfers are sufficiently more accurate with shorter clubs to offset the increase in distance for their approach shots. I was a member at a course like that for a while. Tried different things and mapped out the course.  The best option really was bomb and gouge and then just take your medicine when in the trees. 

 

Fair, and agreed, as courses are presently laid out.

 

But what if (and I'm just pulling arbitrary numbers here) instead of the rough/trees/hazards resulting in +0.25 or +0.33 shots per missed fairway/green, they resulted in +0.50 or +0.67? Wouldn't shot selection (and execution, of course) ultimately become more valuable as the punishment goes up on misses?

 

Obviously that tipping point would be different for everyone, but regardless of the exact point, moving it would achieve the desired result without a rollback. And I'd argue that version of the game would be significantly more interesting. Skill and course management would begin to outweigh pure power. 

[The Pearl]

JFC, just keep the ball as is and create a tour ball for the tours and whatever amateur events the clown show governing bodies decide. That way the precious upper crust of private golf course memberships can stop building extra tee blocks.

 

This is insane.

 

 

[Double Mocha Man]

12 minutes ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

But asking 99.9999% of the rest of golfers to suffer because your Tour/Club/Regulatory Body is too cheap to subsidize a special ball for those few courses and tournaments, is garbage.

 

Now that would be the best solution.

[Golfinfloridaafter40]

2 hours ago, iknowbagu said:

Distance has become the biggest red herring in golf. Distance is not now, nor ever has been, the problem. 

 

The biggest issue with golf today is course design and layout. Remember when golf used to be about strategically getting your ball from A to B? What happened to actual shot making? Now the game is simply hit it as hard as you can from A regardless of what's out there on the way to B. There's little to no penalty for wayward shots. 

 

Stop designing / laying out courses to promote "bomb and gouge".

Tighten up the fairways. 

Make the rough rough. (Stop over seeding, stop watering, stop mowing so much.)

Make hazards hazardous. (How many of us now almost aim at greenside bunkers as a bail out? I know I do. With as manicured as they are these days it's a much more predictable lie than the rough a lot of the time. While we're at it, get rid of rakes, foot smooth only.) 

Remember dog legs? Especially dog legs where it's less than driver to the bend? Yeah, me either. 

Remember trees? Tree lined fairways even? (Straw poll - In recent memory, how many of your home courses have removed trees vs planted new trees? I'm willing to bet 10:1, at least)

 

Best part about making these types of changes to the course is there is zero cost involved. OEMs don't have to put money into R&D. Consumers don't have to buy new equipment. And with as valuable and limited as land is becoming, you won't need to build courses at 8000 yards. All the architects have to do is just make them challenging and interesting at 6000 instead. 

 

And I'm not even going to get into the hypocrisy of telling us all to move up a set of tees for the last 10+ years just to try and nerf the ball.

 

/rant

I could not agree with your post more than I do!

 

I miss the style of golf that I grew up playing, with tree-lined fairways that turned once or even twice before opening up to a shot at the green, a two feet wide section of first cut and everything beyond that is brutal to hit out of.  You were penalized for making bad decisions or failing to execute when you were aggressive.  I miss hitting 2 iron off of a tight par 5 to make sure I didn't run through the open area that allowed for a shot at laying up to the 100 yard marker.  Having to execute three great shots to have a chance at birdie. 

 

A couple of years ago, my family and I moved to Florida and although I love having 2000 golf courses and sunshine 10 months a year, I absolutely hate that every course is a resort style course that is completely flat and no penalty at all for swinging as hard as you can off of every tee box.

 

Bring back rolling hills, trees, rough, reasonable sized fairways, and fast greens.  Checkers will never be as fun as chess for anyone capable of critical thinking

Edited December 2, 2023 by Golfinfloridaafter40

[LeoLeo99]

25 minutes ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

This is a Pro problem, for some Pro courses. Make them find a solution or stop getting butthurt that Touring Pros can abuse St. Andrews these days. 

 

But asking 99.9999% of the rest of golfers to suffer because your Tour/Club/Regulatory Body is too cheap to subsidize a special ball for those few courses and tournaments, is garbage.

 

The USGA/RA proposed a local rule saying the PGAtour and other pro tours could use the shorter ball and the Tour said no way.  We're not going to use the short ball.  So, the USGA/RA said fine, we'll roll it back for everyone.  

[klebs01]

30 minutes ago, iknowbagu said:

 

Fair, and agreed, as courses are presently laid out.

 

But what if (and I'm just pulling arbitrary numbers here) instead of the rough/trees/hazards resulting in +0.25 or +0.33 shots per missed fairway/green, they resulted in +0.50 or +0.67? Wouldn't shot selection (and execution, of course) ultimately become more valuable as the punishment goes up on misses?

 

Obviously that tipping point would be different for everyone, but regardless of the exact point, moving it would achieve the desired result without a rollback. And I'd argue that version of the game would be significantly more interesting. Skill and course management would begin to outweigh pure power. 

I agree with the bunker proposal. Those should be more penal. Trees and narrow fairways just make driving distance more important. Wider, wilder fairways, strategic bunkers, and firmer more sloped greens and surrounds making angles matter are all good options. Lot more expensive than changing the ball and still requires more than a wedge coming in to really matter. 

[TheBear95]

1 hour ago, Ger21 said:

Distance has nothing to do with the price of golf. This past year, all my local courses raised their prices 10%-15%. Because the cost of everything has gone up.

Costs at the big golf resorts are through the roof, due to supply and demand. A lot of people would need to stop playing golf for prices to change.

 

Nobody will be moving up a tee when the "new ball" arrives. And even if they did, do you really think hitting 1-2 clubs less into a green will speed up someone that normally takes 5 hours to play?

 

I've been playing 40 years, and have yet to see a course become obsolete. And I've never seen a course near me (50+ courses within an hour) expand, unless they are hosting high level tournaments.

 

98% of the golfing public does not have this "problem".

 

Absolutely spot on!