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

[Double Mocha Man]

10 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

They could have an open or other major at Sahalee.  It wouldn't fit the ball is too long narrative but it would reward skilled players.

 

I have played there, yes, a fairly tight course. And they have already had some majors played there.

[AmazinBlue]

15 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

It would be a testament to the quality of players today and to the equipment. St. Andrews and other shorter courses should not feel insulted. 

 

If the ruling bodies want to make it tougher to score they should change the size of the hole to 1.67 inches. 😁

Actually, limiting the length of the tee that pros use to 1.5" would solve all the issues that the USGA and R&A want solved. It would shorten the distance the pros can hit it the driver and keep older courses from becoming obsolete.

[DaveLeeNC]

12 hours ago, cardia10 said:

The PGA players only play courses like St Andrews and Pinehurst every 5-10 years. There is the exact issue. Am's pley those courses 99% of the time, yet rules are created and imposed on all for that 1% of golfers. 

 

A Model Local Rule was proposed this year to address your concern. It was extremely unpopular. Distance Proposal Includes Model Local Rule for Elite Competitions (usga.org) . Hmm, I wonder if this most recent proposal is a way to get the world to reconsider the linked proposal on 'elite event golf balls'. 

 

dave

 

ps. The characteristics that I mentioned are not unique to Pinehurst and/or St. Andrews. The new distances making alterations to how a course plays (beyond just hitting shorter approach shots) can and does happen on pretty much all PGA Tour venues. 

[cardia10]

11 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

A Model Local Rule was proposed this year to address your concern. It was extremely unpopular. Distance Proposal Includes Model Local Rule for Elite Competitions (usga.org) . Hmm, I wonder if this most recent proposal is a way to get the world to reconsider the linked proposal on 'elite event golf balls'. 

 

dave

 

ps. The characteristics that I mentioned are not unique to Pinehurst and/or St. Andrews. The new distances making alterations to how a course plays (beyond just hitting shorter approach shots) can and does happen on pretty much all PGA Tour venues. 

I totally agree with you but those venues are not set up for PGA play 52 weeks out of the year so we are creating a year round 100% of golfer solution for a problem that only the top guys at the USGA see. Even their own survey to all golfers was ignored. They have blinders on and it may end up like the PGA/LIV situation. When organizations stop listening to their members, their members find other solutions. 

[Shilgy]

On 12/15/2023 at 5:42 PM, storm319 said:

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. 

However…what if the 30% of current balls that conform to the new rest protocol are the “soft” balls…the low compression balls for slow swing speeds?  
 That would make the slow player unaffected but the fast swings take a hit.

 

I’m not a fast swinger at my age(66) and am against this rollback. By all accounts it accomplishes nothing.  If you want to make sub 7000 yard classic courses relevant again you need more than 15 yards taken away.

[mstuewe]

11 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

However…what if the 30% of current balls that conform to the new rest protocol are the “soft” balls…the low compression balls for slow swing speeds?  
 That would make the slow player unaffected but the fast swings take a hit.

 

I’m not a fast swinger at my age(66) and am against this rollback. By all accounts it accomplishes nothing.  If you want to make sub 7000 yard classic courses relevant again you need more than 15 yards taken away.

low compression (soft) balls are short for all players, regardless of how slow they swing.  Slow swing speed players should play high compression if they want distance.

[Shilgy]

Just now, mstuewe said:

low compression (soft) balls are short for all players, regardless of how slow they swing.  Slow swing speed players should play high compression if they want distance.

Quite possibly correct.  But that wasn’t the question or my comment.

 

Would the low compression balls pass the new test was the gist of my post.

[Pnwpingi210]

30 minutes ago, mstuewe said:

low compression (soft) balls are short for all players, regardless of how slow they swing.  Slow swing speed players should play high compression if they want distance.

This is a false dilemma.

 

a higher compression ball is longer, assuming you are able to achieve optimized launch and spin with your equipment and delivery

A lower compression can and does fly longer if it optimizes launch and spin for your equipment and delivery. 
 

 

[st1800e]

46 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Would the low compression balls pass the new test was the gist of my post.

Apparently the USGA has tested and has stated that about 30 % of balls available today would meet the new standard.  Many have concluded that these would be some of the lower compression balls as they generally are shorter distance for most players ( there are a few that have a different view)

 USGA has not revealed specifically which balls are included in

that 30 %, and I doubt they will, imagine the lashback from the manufacturers if they did.   
 

 

 

[mstuewe]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Quite possibly correct.  But that wasn’t the question or my comment.

 

Would the low compression balls pass the new test was the gist of my post.

 

They’ll likely pass because they are slower and fly shorter. But why would someone want to play them in the first place?

[NRJyzr]

2 hours ago, mstuewe said:

low compression (soft) balls are short for all players, regardless of how slow they swing.  Slow swing speed players should play high compression if they want distance.

 

Not true.  There *is* a point where the lower compression balls actually produce more ballspeed than those in the "normal " compression zone.

 

Admittedly, it's at a rather slow point in the speed curve, but it *is* there.

 

Edited December 25, 2023 by NRJyzr
due to fat finger syndrome

[Pnwpingi210]

6 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Not true.  There *is* a point where the lower compression balls actually produce more ballspeed than those in the "normal " compression zone.

 

Admittedly, it's at a rather slow point in the speed curve, but it *is* there.

 

This is true.

 

Also spin is a factor.  Not everyone swings like iron Byron does in the ball data test.  For those that have spin issues, a lower compression ball ( brx for example) fly farther, particularly with irons, than an ill fit higher compression ball.

 

Yes, higher compression balls generally fly farther than lower compression balls for the annual iron Byron ball data test (they even state “under our test conditions”).  Would be interesting to see if they did the same test with out to in, and different face angles (open or closed) to path.

[2over]

The only group the rollback hurts, relatively speaking is the 1% with 120 mph+ clubhead speed. They lose the most, then the 113-115 crowd, a bigger group but they lose 5 yards less than the 120+. When you get down to the better ams in the 100-108 range we're picking up 12 yards relative to the biggest bombers and 6-8 on the normal bombers.

 

I say what's not to like? Performance is a relative thing and the big bombers hit it plenty far enough. Reigning them in a smidge is no bad thing for the vast majority, even for tournament level and ex-college ams.

[JohnB92]

The reason the rollback is stupid has nothing to do with how the change will or will not affect any golfer of any skill level. It's stupid because its yet another sign that the USGA has absolutely zero ability to understand what has changed in top level golf and why. The USGA still makes rules as though Bob Burbon and his playing partner Charlie pack o' Camels out on a Sunday Funday round are playing the same sport as guys on the PGA Tour. They aren't. If the USGA really wanted to limit driving distance so much to "protect historical courses", they could do something actually radical like implement a new kind of hazard. Call it a "non-eligible driving area", outline it with a purple line. The rule? "When hitting a ball from the tee, the ball may not come to rest any closer to the hole than the purple marker". Then you put the purple line across the hole at 310 yards. Done! No equipment changes, no different rules for different people but now the PGA Pros have to "play the course as designed". Would people still hate it? Of course. Because the problem isn't the driving distances, it's that the USGA can't accept that the new professional golfer is actually a professional athlete.

 

PGA Tour players (as well as mini-Tour and high-level amateurs) do crazy, insane things like lift weights, use high speed cameras and radar to perfectly fit their equipment to their game. They use actually relevant statistics like proximity to the hole, instead of stupid stats like "fairways hit" to inform their strategy. They no longer believe ideas like "a draw goes farther because it has overspin" which I still hear from 12 handicap guys with a 230-driving distance. The only way this is resolved is by the USGA accepting that people like Bryson will be the average Tour player in the next generation. Guys who push their body and equipment to truly professional standards. That change in the make-up of the average PGA Tour pro is going to have far more impact on driving distances than any reasonable equipment change ever will. By the time we get to 2030, players will have gained all the yardage back that the golf ball will take away. The USGA and PGA have to stop relying on simply making courses longer or the ball fly slower as their only option for making them more difficult. 

The other factor that nobody wants to discuss is the real reason the USGA is worried about this has nothing to do with "storied courses of history". It has much more to do with their standing within their own social environment. People who work at the USGA aren't playing golf at random public or suburban semi-private club. These are people with connections inside the golf industry. They play at high-end private clubs that have a large amount of money invested in the clubs' history. Imagine you're a guy working on this rule proposal, do you really want to go into your golf club and say to the other members (your friends) "yeah sorry guys but our beautiful club here was built 100 years ago and we maxxed out the property with all these multi-million-dollar homes BEFORE golf became a truly professional sport. So, we will just have to accept the PGA won't be able to play events here anymore." Of course, you can't say that! The social pressure on these guys to protect this small number of very old, expensive and exclusive clubs is enormous. They don't want to move PGA events to more recently constructed venues because that's not where they are personally invested (socially as much as financially).
 

Edited December 29, 2023 by JohnB92
clarity

[Double Mocha Man]

32 minutes ago, JohnB92 said:

The reason the rollback is stupid has nothing to do with how the change will or will not affect any golfer of any skill level. It's stupid because its yet another sign that the USGA has absolutely zero ability to understand what has changed in top level golf and why. The USGA still makes rules as though Bob Burbon and his playing partner Charlie pack o' Camels out on a Sunday Funday round are playing the same sport as guys on the PGA Tour. They aren't. If the USGA really wanted to limit driving distance so much to "protect historical courses", they could do something actually radical like implement a new kind of hazard. Call it a "non-eligible driving area", outline it with a purple line. The rule? "When hitting a ball from the tee, the ball may not come to rest any closer to the hole than the purple marker". Then you put the purple line across the hole at 310 yards. Done! No equipment changes, no different rules for different people but now the PGA Pros have to "play the course as designed". Would people still hate it? Of course. Because the problem isn't the driving distances, it's that the USGA can't accept that the new professional golfer is actually a professional athlete.

 

PGA Tour players (as well as mini-Tour and high-level amateurs) do crazy, insane things like lift weights, use high speed cameras and radar to perfectly fit their equipment to their game. They use actually relevant statistics like proximity to the hole, instead of stupid stats like "fairways hit" to inform their strategy. They no longer believe ideas like "a draw goes farther because it has overspin" which I still hear from 12 handicap guys with a 230-driving distance. The only way this is resolved is by the USGA accepting that people like Bryson will be the average Tour player in the next generation. Guys who push their body and equipment to truly professional standards. That change in the make-up of the average PGA Tour pro is going to have far more impact on driving distances than any reasonable equipment change ever will. By the time we get to 2030, players will have gained all the yardage back that the golf ball will take away. The USGA and PGA have to stop relying on simply making courses longer or the ball fly slower as their only option for making them more difficult. 

The other factor that nobody wants to discuss is the real reason the USGA is worried about this has nothing to do with "storied courses of history". It has much more to do with their standing within their own social environment. People who work at the USGA aren't playing golf at random public or suburban semi-private club. These are people with connections inside the golf industry. They play at high-end private clubs that have a large amount of money invested in the clubs' history. Imagine you're a guy working on this rule proposal, do you really want to go into your golf club and say to the other members (your friends) "yeah sorry guys but our beautiful club here was built 100 years ago and we maxxed out the property with all these multi-million-dollar homes BEFORE golf became a truly professional sport. So, we will just have to accept the PGA won't be able to play events here anymore." Of course, you can't say that! The social pressure on these guys to protect this small number of very old, expensive and exclusive clubs is enormous. They don't want to move PGA events to more recently constructed venues because that's not where they are personally invested (socially as much as financially).
 

 

A lot of good thoughts. About the purple line across the fairway, is there a penalty stroke if you drive beyond it or do you just pick up the ball and bring it back to the purple line? If there's a penalty what about the poor guy who hits five wood off the tee and hits a sprinkler head or a hard spot in the fairway and rolls forever, rolling over the purple line?

[new2g0lf]

USGA / R&A are getting pressure from the courses to do something to keep their courses relevant.  When the pros go 15-20 under, the course owners and members are embarrassed, they'd rather see the ball rolled back than spend a ton of money to lengthen their course.  

[the.landshark]

On 12/22/2023 at 5:40 PM, AmazinBlue said:

Actually, limiting the length of the tee that pros use to 1.5" would solve all the issues that the USGA and R&A want solved. It would shorten the distance the pros can hit it the driver and keep older courses from becoming obsolete.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

A shorter maximum length tee would make an immediate impact on limiting driver distance. 

[phil75070]

20 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

A lot of good thoughts. About the purple line across the fairway, is there a penalty stroke if you drive beyond it or do you just pick up the ball and bring it back to the purple line? If there's a penalty what about the poor guy who hits five wood off the tee and hits a sprinkler head or a hard spot in the fairway and rolls forever, rolling over the purple line?

Although I don't necessarily agree with the "purple line" as the solution, that five-wood result would be no different than ending up in a divot in the fairway, or hitting the flag stick on the fly and having the ball bounce off the green into a water hazard. Rub of the green.

[DaveLeeNC]

I am the only person seeing the irony is the same post stating that the ball rollback is stupid and then suggesting that we draw a purple line on the PGA Tour level courses that define a non-eligible driving area?

 

dave

[JohnB92]

23 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

A lot of good thoughts. About the purple line across the fairway, is there a penalty stroke if you drive beyond it or do you just pick up the ball and bring it back to the purple line? If there's a penalty what about the poor guy who hits five wood off the tee and hits a sprinkler head or a hard spot in the fairway and rolls forever, rolling over the purple line?

 

2 hours ago, phil75070 said:

Although I don't necessarily agree with the "purple line" as the solution, that five-wood result would be no different than ending up in a divot in the fairway, or hitting the flag stick on the fly and having the ball bounce off the green into a water hazard. Rub of the green.

I don't know, never thought through it that far. The point is just that the USGA keeps making all these small changes that will not accomplish the stated objective in the long run; while also annoying all the amateurs that are involved enough in golf to notice.

The USGA's primary concern should be the needs of players who play golf at least 30 rounds a year, of any skill level. Those are the people who keep all the courses full, they buy the most equipment, they introduce new people to the game. They buy concessions at the clubhouse and drink a few beers after. They keep all the people who allow the club to run employed. Instead, the USGA is far more concerned with ensuring that a small number of private clubs, that will always have waitlists and $250K+ initiations get to maintain their spots as PGA Tour Event hosts. Not only do they have the wrong concerns, but they also don't fundamentally understand WHY this "distance problem" hasn't been solved with all their other technology rules over the last 25 years. The USGA keeps trying to make the equipment worse, but the players keep getting better. They genuine are professional athletes for the first time and they act like it. It's the same reason why even offensive lineman in the NFL can run 5.3 second 40 dashes now.

[JohnB92]

38 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I am the only person seeing the irony is the same post stating that the ball rollback is stupid and then suggesting that we draw a purple line on the PGA Tour level courses that define a non-eligible driving area?

 

dave

Missing the point, the point was the USGA is making rule changes to equipment that in the long run will not accomplish their stated goal. Players will still hit the ball farther in 2030 than they do today, even with the rollback. It's dumb because it wont actually do what they say it will and they aren't willing to think outside the box enough to find something that would accomplish their goal. It's just old men shouting at clouds about "kids and their newfangled technology these days".

Edited December 30, 2023 by JohnB92
Typo

[bekgolf]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I am the only person seeing the irony is the same post stating that the ball rollback is stupid and then suggesting that we draw a purple line on the PGA Tour level courses that define a non-eligible driving area?

 

dave

 

You might be, lol.  Both are solutions seeking problems.  One of them doesn't affect most golfers, the other will be felt by every golfer.

[Double Mocha Man]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I am the only person seeing the irony is the same post stating that the ball rollback is stupid and then suggesting that we draw a purple line on the PGA Tour level courses that define a non-eligible driving area?

 

dave

 

I think he was fighting stupid with stupid.

[cardia10]

On 12/28/2023 at 4:13 PM, 2over said:

The only group the rollback hurts, relatively speaking is the 1% with 120 mph+ clubhead speed. They lose the most, then the 113-115 crowd, a bigger group but they lose 5 yards less than the 120+. When you get down to the better ams in the 100-108 range we're picking up 12 yards relative to the biggest bombers and 6-8 on the normal bombers.

 

I say what's not to like? Performance is a relative thing and the big bombers hit it plenty far enough. Reigning them in a smidge is no bad thing for the vast majority, even for tournament level and ex-college ams.

So if you are a great putter, should you be required to putt with a smaller less forgiving head, because it just isn't right that I 3 putt every green and you don't. I mean, we are all about each of us shooting dead even par and no better here right, equity and all...

[darsony]

On 12/3/2023 at 10:21 PM, tatertot said:

Why is it embarrassing? You've earned the right, brother.

I just don't like playing from a shorter tee. Golf courses are designed to play from the back tee and although they try to make it so playing from a shorter tee is a comparable experience, in my opinion it has not been so.  

 

Anyway, I keep trying to add distance to my shots but all that happens is I keep losing hair 🙂

[brucedeuce]

2nd Thoughts? or creeping in unnoticed?  Seems the longer hitters and retired guys cheering on the most, while the have fun guys don't want to give up distance or just move up a box. Will the OEM's run two lines??  What if LIV lets them play pre-'28 balls??  Interesting Times.

[baseballfrk8998]

I’ll be 40 in ‘28 and will continue to play the pre-rollback balls because I’ll need every yard I can get!

 

And I don’t play competitively. 

[Ger21]

It's 4 years from now.........

[phizzy30]

9 hours ago, baseballfrk8998 said:

I’ll be 40 in ‘28 and will continue to play the pre-rollback balls because I’ll need every yard I can get!

 

And I don’t play competitively. 

Amen brother.  I'll be 48 by then and while I still make 175 ball speed, I'll be using the current balls in the future.  I'll get some roll back balls because I'll be playing tournaments once or twice a year like I do now because I'll be forced to. 

[bekgolf]

There are already threads on this subject.