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

[Greenie]

7 hours ago, bobfoster said:

So then - you're saying that, um, the USGA is in some sort of secret collusion with ball manufacturers to ... what? Deliberately render everyone's "stash" of balls obsolete to force them to buy new ones? (How many golfers do you know with a stash of golf balls that will last for four years?)

 

Bob I think you underestimate the number of golfers that have a stash of golf balls that will last them four years. I would bet as we get closer to the rollback that number will increase even more. 

 

From what I gather from golfers I know and players I pair up with, about the rollback, they laugh and say they will be playing the balls they already have. IMO there will be more players disconnected from the rules of golf than there already are by playing a non conforming ball. They are not going to throw away balls they already have that have become non conforming.

Edited March 16 by Greenie

[LeoLeo99]

@bobfoster

 

To avoid quoting your long post...

 

Thank you for the explanation. 

 

I'm not implying there is ball collusion.  I'm saying this moderate rollback will do very little to help your friend's 6400 yd course remain relevant while inconveniencing rule abiding golfers in their wallet.  It will also creates a ton of golfers using pre 2028 balls after 2028.

 

It is too much change for too little benefit.  In general, people don't like change.  

 

 

[hollabachgt]

7 hours ago, Greenie said:

Bob I think you underestimate the number of golfers that have a stash of golf balls that will last them four years. I would bet as we get closer to the rollback that number will increase even more. 

I’m sure the few thousand GolfWRX members all have a healthy stockpile of ammunition.

 

but of the 67 million players worldwide, it would be shocking if more than 5% had 2 dozen balls at home.

[Pnwpingi210]

3 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

I’m sure the few thousand GolfWRX members all have a healthy stockpile of ammunition.

 

but of the 67 million players worldwide, it would be shocking if more than 5% had 2 dozen balls at home.

And how many of the 67 million play a ball they are fitted to or is optimized for their game vs whatever they find in the course/woods/close to edge in water?  I get we have a very vocal crew here, but golf wrx or any golf forum membership is a very specific subset of golfers and not representative of the majority.

 

This does not make the decision to roll back the ball correct, but it likely is much less impactful to the health of golf than is represented here.

[bekgolf]

8 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

I’m sure the few thousand GolfWRX members all have a healthy stockpile of ammunition.

 

but of the 67 million players worldwide, it would be shocking if more than 5% had 2 dozen balls at home.

 

It doesn't matter.  There is no way I'm knowingly violating the USGA rules of golf.  I have to follow the rules to keep my index.  No way I'm cheating by using a ball or any other equipment that doesn't meet specs.

 

I currently have over 55 dozen premium balls I've purchased at significant discount over the years.  I have a problem, lol.

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

It doesn't matter.  There is no way I'm knowingly violating the USGA rules of golf.  I have to follow the rules to keep my index.  No way I'm cheating by using a ball or any other equipment that doesn't meet specs.

 

I currently have over 55 dozen premium balls I've purchased at significant discount over the years.  I have a problem, lol.

That is….unreal.  
 

I go through about 5-6 dozen per year playing roughly 40 rounds.  I guess it’s not as unreal as I thought 

Edited March 16 by Pnwpingi210

[Double Mocha Man]

9 hours ago, bekgolf said:

No way I'm cheating by using a ball or any other equipment that doesn't meet specs.

 

Aw man, but don't you want to instantly start outdriving the guys in your foursome by 10 yards by playing your old balls?

[Shilgy]

On 3/15/2024 at 10:32 PM, bobfoster said:

So then - you're saying that, um, the USGA is in some sort of secret collusion with ball manufacturers to ... what? Deliberately render everyone's "stash" of balls obsolete to force them to buy new ones? (How many golfers do you know with a stash of golf balls that will last for four years?)

 

You want the stats? You could find them yourself, but I'll try to help you. I was approximating off the top on my head in my post - the specific differences (since you asked) are a bit greater.

 

The USGA/R&A have been imposing standards on balls for a long time. (First ball rule dates to 1952.) There's not anything new going on here. Updated once or twice a decade ever since. First time "Iron Byron" (the testing robot they use) was mentioned was in 2002. The standard was:

 

The USGA and R&A implement Phase l of indoor ball testing using the USGA Indoor Test Range (ITR) and Actual Launch Conditions (ALC) from Iron Byron for testing golf balls for conformance to the ODS effective March 1, 2002. The test uses the same set up on the mechanical golfer (10°, 42 revs/s backspin and 235 ft/s ball speed) and sets a limit of 291.2 yards with a 5.6 yard test tolerance. (Notice to Manufacturers, December 19, 2001).

 

The new rule:

 

The revised ball testing conditions will be as follows: 125-mph clubhead speed (equivalent to 183 mph ball speed); spin rate of 2200 rpm and launch angle of 11 degrees. The current conditions, which were established 20 years ago, are set at 120 mph (equivalent to 176 mph ball speed), 2520 rpm with a 10-degree launch angle.

The revised conditions are based on analysis of data from the worldwide tours and the game over several years and are intended to ensure that the ODS (whose limit will remain unchanged at 317 yards with a 3-yard tolerance) continues to represent the ability of the game’s longest hitters. An analysis of ball speeds among golf’s longest hitters in 2023 shows that the fastest 10 players had an average ball speed of 186 mph, while the average ball speed of the fastest 25 was 183.4 mph (the very fastest averaged 190 mph).

The longest hitters are expected to see a reduction of as much as 13-15 yards in drive distance. Average professional tour and elite male players are expected to see a reduction of 9-11 yards, with a 5-7-yard reduction for an average LPGA or Ladies European Tour (LET) player.

 

In 2002, the drive of the average PGAT pro was 279 yards. In 2023, it was around 296. A difference of 17 yards. And that's just the average. The long hitters are even more extreme. I think Rory was the first one to hit an average of 320. Can you even imagine what it means to average 320 yards?) In the 2021 Arnold Palmer (playing this week) Bryson hit a 370 yard drive. That's right around the current length of the average par 4 on US golf courses. 

 

So then - the new ball rule cuts the longest hitters by 14 (three less than the actual increases we've seen since 2002). Average PGAT pros by 10 yards. And maybe four or five yards for us amateur golfers. We'll barely notice. And that's the change with driver distances. Shorter clubs will see a commensurately shorter differential. Your average PW distance will likely be a yard or two. 

 

I actually thought this was pretty clever. The USGA didn't "bifurcate" (though there was much discussion about it). But actually (functionally) kinda did - came up with a rule that put real limits on the gigantic distances the elites (both pro and amateur) are now reaching, while affecting the average amateur at barely noticeable levels, and giving amateurs (and OEMs) plenty of time to clear out their old balls.

 

As I said, I long ago gave up trying to convince anyone set in their perspective to adopt anything different. If you want to believe this is just a lot of hullabaloo instituted for some frivolous reason, go for it. But course owners certainly will notice, and likely almost universally applaud the decision. 

 

I'd simply ask you to be a bit open to an alternative point of view. The USGA had compelling reasons to think distance was becoming a problem (initially driven largely by course owners and managers) - it is in the raw stats I've mentioned. And they did a multi-year study on both the issue, and the possible approaches to address it. A lot of ideas were tossed around. 

 

I actually think they came up with a pretty inventive solution. Many will disagree (in fact, many will disagree with everything the USGA does). But this thread was started by someone asking "why is everyone eerily silent about this"? Good question. When they changed the wedge rule (over a decade ago now), there was huge controversy that went on for months. Not the case here. There was maybe a month of the (predictable) complaints and trash talking - from the OEMs, PGAT pros, and good amateurs. But it subsided really quickly, probably because 

for most of us, it isn't that big of a change (except to the biggest bombers, and course owners). 

 

Hope you'll read this with an open mind. 

 

 

Here’s my issue with your post.  You’re quoting USGA ideas as if they’re gospel.

 

Rory was not the first to average over 320.  Hank Kuehne did it in 2003!  Since then the distance leader has bounced back and forth a bit and so far this year it appears the Rory number was an outlier.

 

Second…yes the average pro distance average has gone up. Substantially.  That happens when you lose players like Furyk and add a Åberg. Repeatedly.

 

Funny how it becomes the equipments fault though.  Seems like the suits would be happier if players just went to the bar after their round, like in the good old days, rather than going to the gym and training.

[bobfoster]

4 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Here’s my issue with your post.  You’re quoting USGA ideas as if they’re gospel.

 

Rory was not the first to average over 320.  Hank Kuehne did it in 2003!  Since then the distance leader has bounced back and forth a bit and so far this year it appears the Rory number was an outlier.

 

Second…yes the average pro distance average has gone up. Substantially.  That happens when you lose players like Furyk and add a Åberg. Repeatedly.

 

Funny how it becomes the equipments fault though.  Seems like the suits would be happier if players just went to the bar after their round, like in the good old days, rather than going to the gym and training.

Yes - then again, Kuehne was a freak of nature (I actually got to watch him live once - at the time it was roughly like what it would look like today in Kyle Berkshire teed it up on the PGAT). But I shouldn't have mentioned the longest driver on tour (that was just to make a minor point). At the time, he blew people away. But he was actually the outlier - in 2003, his average was 321, but the PGAT average was 286 ... a differential of 35 yards. Rory was longest in 2023 at 326, but the PGAT average was 297 ... difference between the longest and the average had shrunk from 35 to 29. It is not just the outlier bombers, the entire tour (and in fact even amateurs) are all getting longer. 

 

And don't think this has to do simply with old shorter hitters retiring, and longer guys getting on tour - the numbers aren't coming about merely because of a statistical variance.  Nor do "the suits" think players should hit the bar instead of the range, nor do they in any way "blame" equipment.

 

And I wasn't quoting USGA ideas as though they were gospel. If you read what I wrote, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything, I was just explaining the perspective folks working there have - mostly to counter a lot of the garbage I hear spoken about them as though it is the truth. You are free to frame them as "suits" who think "equipment is at fault". Won't try to convince you otherwise. 

 

But from my experience and conversations with some of them (and a lot of their published research), they don't think significantly increasing average distances are something any particular thing is to "blame" for. The increasing distance comes from a wide variety of factors. Equipment, including balls, clubs, and shafts. New very specialized fitting technology that lets players optimize clubs/shafts/balls to their swings. Better training technology, and the coaches capable of making use of it to perfect swings. A lot more time in the gym - in the 70s and 80s it was not uncommon to see players strolling down the fairway smoking cigarettes (Ben Hogan was actually sponsored by Chesterfield for years) - these days some of these guys work out with professional trainers every bit as much as pro MLB players do. 

 

No one at the USGA thinks golf balls are "the problem". What they do know is that they were facing a very distinct issue: The combination of all of those factors was starting to cause concern amongst course owners and managers all over the US. Many were either lengthening, or feeling like they should lengthen their courses - at a time when running courses is not only becoming increasingly expensive, but when many are coming under growing environmental scrutiny. They use a lot of resources, and are not always environmentally friendly. Lengthening courses  - causing additional costs and environmental impacts - is an issue for the sport, whether individual golfers want to recognize it or not. It may not be a big deal to individual golfers (it is more course owners), but environmentalism and sustainability is becoming a big deal. Many course owners are facing pressure from local and even national organizations. [You probably haven't even heard about it, but the USGA has a significant Green Initiative going on ... https://www.usga.org/advancing-the-game/golf-sustainability.html].

 

Please understand this. The USGA considers everything - including even the social milieu the sport is operating within. Even existing golf courses are coming under scrutiny as being environmentally "unfriendly" (https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/golf/climate-change-sustainability-spt-intl-cmd/index.html) - this is not the greatest time to be talking about adding distance to them. I'll bet almost no one complaining about the new ball rule even remotely considers that. The USGA does. 

 

Increasing distance is an issue. It just is. No, the USGA did not even remotely think the ball was the sole cause of that issue - but if you do have to address it as an issue, what are your options? Behavioral? Stop players from hitting the gym as much? Don't allow them to use modern swing training technology? (Obviously silly.) Or equipment? Place limits on clubheads? Maybe (for instance) crank back from 460cc to 420cc or less? Mostly trivial (these guys are so now that it is mostly just loft that matters - I saw a couple guys hit 3FW hit balls close to 300 off the deck at Valspar today). Shafts? No. If you have to address distance as a real issue, limitations on the ball is about all you can do that would be universally applicable. Across courses, playing conditions, and skills levels. 

 

The health of the sport in the US depends upon the OEMs (making our equipment), the 26 million golfers (who play the game and watch the pros), and the 15,000+ course owners and managers (without whom our sports doesn't exist) all having their interests taken into account. 

 

I am a fan of the USGA, because I kinda get the nearly impossible job they have of attempting to balance the needs of all of those (often very conflicting) constituencies. Almost always doing it very carefully, with a lot of research and consideration (if you really want to dig into the data, this is the final results of the distance study, released in 2023 but the USGA/R&A - it is exhaustive: https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/2023-Distance-Report-final-310124.pdf), and almost always knowing they'll be accused of being nothing more than arrogant "suits" only doing what they are doing because they're old white control freaks who take great delight in making you, personally, take a half a club extra from 160 out. 

 

Please try to see it from their perspective before you frame them incorrectly. As the old saying goes, "Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Why not? Even if after that you don't agree, you'll be a mile away. And you'll have his shoes." 🤣

 

PS. not being antagonistic here @Shilgy. We both been on WRX awhile. I respect you. hope you'll give an honest consideration of this perspective. You may not agree with the solutions the USGA comes up with (in fact I don't always agree with them), but I do not doubt their intentions. For the most part, they really are out for the good of the game, the total game, in a way that no individual constituency (including the OEMs and PGAT) is. 

 

Edited March 23 by bobfoster

[hollabachgt]

3 hours ago, Shilgy said:

 

Second…yes the average pro distance average has gone up. Substantially.  That happens when you lose players like Furyk and add a Åberg. Repeatedly.

 

And what happened when a Brendon Todd , Zac Blair, or Kevin Kisner replaces a Davis Love III. Fred Couples, or John Daly?

 

 

 

 

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, bobfoster said:

Yes - then again, Kuehne was a freak of nature (I actually got to watch him live once). But I shouldn't have mentioned the longest driver on tour (that was just to make a point). At the time, he blew people away. But he was actually the outlier - in 2003, his average was 321, but the PGAT average was 286 ... a differential of 35 yards. Rory was longest in 2023 at 326, but the PGAT average was 297 ... difference between the longest and the average had shrunk from 35 to 29. It is not just the outlier bombers, the entire tour (and in fact even amateurs) are all getting longer. 

 

And don't think this has to do simply with old shorter hitters retiring, and longer guys getting on tour - the numbers aren't coming about merely because of a statistical variance.  Nor do "the suits" think players should hit the bar instead of the range, nor do they in any way "blame" equipment.

 

And I wasn't quoting USGA ideas as though they were gospel. If you read what I wrote, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything, I was just explaining the perspective folks working there have - mostly to counter a lot of the garbage I hear spoken about them as though it is the truth. You are free to frame them as "suits" who think "equipment is at fault". Won't try to convince you otherwise. 

 

But from my experience and conversations with some of them (and a lot of their published research), they don't think significantly increasing average distances are something any particular thing is to "blame" for. The increasing distance comes from a wide variety of factors. Equipment, including balls, clubs, and shafts. New very specialized fitting technology that lets players optimize clubs/shafts/balls to their swings. Better training technology, and the coaches capable of making use of it to perfect swings. A lot more time in the gym - in the 70s and 80s it was not uncommon to see players strolling down the fairway smoking cigarettes (Ben Hogan was actually sponsored by Chesterfield for years) - these days some of these guys work out with professional trainers every bit as much as pro MLB players do. 

 

No one at the USGA thinks golf balls are "the problem". What they do know is that they were facing a very distinct issue: The combination of all of those factors was starting to cause concern amongst course owners and managers all over the US. Many were either lengthening, or feeling like they should lengthen their courses - at a time when running courses is not only becoming increasingly expensive, but when many are coming under growing environmental scrutiny. They use a lot of resources, and are not always environmentally friendly. Lengthening courses  - causing additional costs and environmental impacts - is an issue for the sport, whether individual golfers want to recognize it or not. It may not be a big deal to individual golfers (it is more course owners), but environmentalism and sustainability is becoming a big deal. Many course owners are facing pressure from local and even national organizations. [You probably haven't even heard about it, but the USGA has a significant Green Initiative going on ... https://www.usga.org/advancing-the-game/golf-sustainability.html].

 

Please understand this. The USGA considers everything - including even the social milieu the sport is operating within. Even existing golf courses are coming under scrutiny as being environmentally "unfriendly" (https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/golf/climate-change-sustainability-spt-intl-cmd/index.html) - this is not the greatest time to be talking about adding distance to them. I'll bet almost no one complaining about the new ball rule even remotely considers that. The USGA does. 

 

Increasing distance is an issue. It just is. No, the USGA did not even remotely think the ball was the sole cause of that issue - but if you do have to address it as an issue, what are your options? Behavioral? Stop players from hitting the gym as much? Don't allow them to use modern swing training technology? (Obviously silly.) Or equipment? Place limits on clubheads? Maybe (for instance) crank back from 460cc to 420cc or less? Mostly trivial (these guys are so now that it is mostly just loft that matters - I saw a couple guys hit 3FW hit balls close to 300 off the deck at Valspar today). Shafts? No. If you have to address distance as a real issue, limitations on the ball is about all you can do that would be universally applicable. Across courses, playing conditions, and skills levels. 

 

The health of the sport in the US depends upon the OEMs (making our equipment), the 26 million golfers (who play the game and watch the pros), and the 15,000+ course owners and managers (without whom our sports doesn't exist) all having their interests taken into account. 

 

I am a fan of the USGA, because I kinda get the nearly impossible job they have of attempting to balance the needs of all of those (often very conflicting) constituencies. Almost always doing it very carefully, with a lot of research and consideration, and almost always knowing they'll be accused of being nothing more than arrogant "suits" only doing what they are doing because they're old white control freaks who take great delight in making you, personally, take a half a club extra from 160 out. 

 

Please try to see it from their perspective before you frame them incorrectly. As the old saying goes, "Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Why not? Even if after that you don't agree, you'll be a mile away. And you'll have his shoes." 🤣

 

PS. not being antagonistic here @Shilgy. We both been on WRX awhile. I respect you. hope you'll give an honest consideration of this perspective. You may not agree with the solutions the USGA comes up with (in fact I don't always agree with them), but I do not doubt their intentions. For the most part, they really are out for the good of the game, the total game, in a way that no individual constituency (including the OEMs and PGAT) is. 

 

You’re missing the point. Or the USGA is.  The game is not being played differently than it was in 2003 when Kuehne and Tiger and Daly were the longest because the longest hasn’t changed.  What has changed is there are more of them.

Take a large pool of players. Say 1000 players.  They all have exactly equal skills with iron and short game and putting and accuracy and mental.

EXACTLY.

But…200 of them average 300 off the tee and the other 800 average just 275.  Do those hitting it 275 on average have a chance to compete week in week out?  No, they’ll be selling insurance or be club pros.

 Just a few years ago Matt Fitzpatrick was one of the shorter hitters on tour.  He had the same other skills as the best players but was shorter.  At the time he claimed he would never do speed training because he didn’t consider it a golf skill.  Lucky for him someone convinced him otherwise…he gained needed yardage and is now a USGA champion.

 

All that is a long way of saying Tour average is a meaningless number.  It does not mean the ball or equipment is getting longer. It does mean there are more long really good players that are beating us older guys over the head with the new way to best play this game and there is nothing you can do the eliminate the advantage distance gives.

 

So go ahead…roll back the ball and make it more difficult for amateurs but the way pros play the game will not change.  So back to your earlier post where you you claimed we wouldn’t notice the change and I had replied then why change.

 

Now I ask…if this rollback doesn’t do as intended why do it?  The suits infra Hills still will not like the professional game and the old course they’re trying to save will still not be relevant for major events.

[bobfoster]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

You’re missing the point. Or the USGA is.  The game is not being played differently than it was in 2003 when Kuehne and Tiger and Daly were the longest because the longest hasn’t changed.  What has changed is there are more of them.

Take a large pool of players. Say 1000 players.  They all have exactly equal skills with iron and short game and putting and accuracy and mental.

EXACTLY.

But…200 of them average 300 off the tee and the other 800 average just 275.  Do those hitting it 275 on average have a chance to compete week in week out?  No, they’ll be selling insurance or be club pros.

 Just a few years ago Matt Fitzpatrick was one of the shorter hitters on tour.  He had the same other skills as the best players but was shorter.  At the time he claimed he would never do speed training because he didn’t consider it a golf skill.  Lucky for him someone convinced him otherwise…he gained needed yardage and is now a USGA champion.

 

All that is a long way of saying Tour average is a meaningless number.  It does not mean the ball or equipment is getting longer. It does mean there are more long really good players that are beating us older guys over the head with the new way to best play this game and there is nothing you can do the eliminate the advantage distance gives.

 

So go ahead…roll back the ball and make it more difficult for amateurs but the way pros play the game will not change.  So back to your earlier post where you you claimed we wouldn’t notice the change and I had replied then why change.

 

Now I ask…if this rollback doesn’t do as intended why do it?  The suits infra Hills still will not like the professional game and the old course they’re trying to save will still not be relevant for major events.

I'm totally fine with anyone that wants to complain about the new rule - and give a thousand different reasons, backed by a thousand different factoids, for doing so. USGA is fine with it too. 
In fact, they assume it will happen with every rule change (no matter how minor) they do. Go for it!

 

What I do know is this. The USGA/R&A are the standard setting bodies for our sport. And are universally acknowledged as such. They just are. Everything they do is going to be complained about. By the OEMs. By players. They are the parent that establishes boundaries. They aren't supposed to be liked by the kids. They never will be. 

 

And - here's the thing. You, personally, are under absolutely no obligation to pay any attention to them at all. They have no authority over you at all. Play any ball you want to. Play any wedge you want to. Think playing out of divots is unfair? Kick your ball out of the divot. Think you should get a Mulligan off the tee if a course doesn't have a driving range? Do it! This is just a game. The RoG the USGA sets are entirely voluntary. Yeah, if you want to keep a formal USGA cap you gotta comply, but all of 3 million out of the US 26 million golfers bother to keep a formal cap. 

 

I, personally am old school. I play (mostly) by the strict RoG, as defined by the USGA, because it gives me a lot of pleasure to par a course playing by those rules. But I have no problem with anyone else saying "I don't recognize the USGA, I think they are wrong". Don't like the ball rule? Ignore it! You've got three or four years to buy enough current balls to last the rest of your life. 

 

What I do know is that while the pros, and OEMs, and some amateurs (really, just some, the average casual weekender isn't going to care much) will complain a bit at first about the new ball rule, for most they'll just adjust their games. The OEMs are already working on new balls that will comply. The rule got changed. Its a done deal. You, personally, can go with it, or not. 

 

I was merely trying to explain the reasoning behind it, from the perspective of the USGA. Completely fine if you don't accept it at all, and think they are all idiots, and come up with a hundred reasons why they are wrong. You are free to choose to play by the strict RoG (which I happen to like, and the pros are required to play by), the partial RoG (which, in practice, is what most amateurs play by), or to pick and choose and play by some and completely ignore others. 

 

Bottom line? None of your arguments matter. They were all made during the open comment period (and it is extensive) that precedes every final rule. I've tried to explain the USGA reasoning behind the rule, and you can accept it or not. But the final new rule has been issued. The arguments about it's purpose or efficacy are yesterday's news. It's a done deal. 

 

As always, however, you are under no obligation to play by it, or even acknowledge it when you tee off tomorrow, or four years from now. This was (IMO) a minor, but understandably necessary adjustment to the formal RoG. I'll adapt to it - and I have almost four years to adapt - because it adds to my pleasure to play by the RoG. 

 

But really? Tempest in a Teapot. Play any damn ball you want, by any rules you want. "Live your best life" (as GenZ says) ... 🤣

 

 

 

[cardia10]

On 3/22/2024 at 10:09 PM, bobfoster said:

Yes - then again, Kuehne was a freak of nature (I actually got to watch him live once - at the time it was roughly like what it would look like today in Kyle Berkshire teed it up on the PGAT). But I shouldn't have mentioned the longest driver on tour (that was just to make a minor point). At the time, he blew people away. But he was actually the outlier - in 2003, his average was 321, but the PGAT average was 286 ... a differential of 35 yards. Rory was longest in 2023 at 326, but the PGAT average was 297 ... difference between the longest and the average had shrunk from 35 to 29. It is not just the outlier bombers, the entire tour (and in fact even amateurs) are all getting longer. 

 

And don't think this has to do simply with old shorter hitters retiring, and longer guys getting on tour - the numbers aren't coming about merely because of a statistical variance.  Nor do "the suits" think players should hit the bar instead of the range, nor do they in any way "blame" equipment.

 

And I wasn't quoting USGA ideas as though they were gospel. If you read what I wrote, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything, I was just explaining the perspective folks working there have - mostly to counter a lot of the garbage I hear spoken about them as though it is the truth. You are free to frame them as "suits" who think "equipment is at fault". Won't try to convince you otherwise. 

 

But from my experience and conversations with some of them (and a lot of their published research), they don't think significantly increasing average distances are something any particular thing is to "blame" for. The increasing distance comes from a wide variety of factors. Equipment, including balls, clubs, and shafts. New very specialized fitting technology that lets players optimize clubs/shafts/balls to their swings. Better training technology, and the coaches capable of making use of it to perfect swings. A lot more time in the gym - in the 70s and 80s it was not uncommon to see players strolling down the fairway smoking cigarettes (Ben Hogan was actually sponsored by Chesterfield for years) - these days some of these guys work out with professional trainers every bit as much as pro MLB players do. 

 

No one at the USGA thinks golf balls are "the problem". What they do know is that they were facing a very distinct issue: The combination of all of those factors was starting to cause concern amongst course owners and managers all over the US. Many were either lengthening, or feeling like they should lengthen their courses - at a time when running courses is not only becoming increasingly expensive, but when many are coming under growing environmental scrutiny. They use a lot of resources, and are not always environmentally friendly. Lengthening courses  - causing additional costs and environmental impacts - is an issue for the sport, whether individual golfers want to recognize it or not. It may not be a big deal to individual golfers (it is more course owners), but environmentalism and sustainability is becoming a big deal. Many course owners are facing pressure from local and even national organizations. [You probably haven't even heard about it, but the USGA has a significant Green Initiative going on ... https://www.usga.org/advancing-the-game/golf-sustainability.html].

 

Please understand this. The USGA considers everything - including even the social milieu the sport is operating within. Even existing golf courses are coming under scrutiny as being environmentally "unfriendly" (https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/golf/climate-change-sustainability-spt-intl-cmd/index.html) - this is not the greatest time to be talking about adding distance to them. I'll bet almost no one complaining about the new ball rule even remotely considers that. The USGA does. 

 

Increasing distance is an issue. It just is. No, the USGA did not even remotely think the ball was the sole cause of that issue - but if you do have to address it as an issue, what are your options? Behavioral? Stop players from hitting the gym as much? Don't allow them to use modern swing training technology? (Obviously silly.) Or equipment? Place limits on clubheads? Maybe (for instance) crank back from 460cc to 420cc or less? Mostly trivial (these guys are so now that it is mostly just loft that matters - I saw a couple guys hit 3FW hit balls close to 300 off the deck at Valspar today). Shafts? No. If you have to address distance as a real issue, limitations on the ball is about all you can do that would be universally applicable. Across courses, playing conditions, and skills levels. 

 

The health of the sport in the US depends upon the OEMs (making our equipment), the 26 million golfers (who play the game and watch the pros), and the 15,000+ course owners and managers (without whom our sports doesn't exist) all having their interests taken into account. 

 

I am a fan of the USGA, because I kinda get the nearly impossible job they have of attempting to balance the needs of all of those (often very conflicting) constituencies. Almost always doing it very carefully, with a lot of research and consideration (if you really want to dig into the data, this is the final results of the distance study, released in 2023 but the USGA/R&A - it is exhaustive: https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/2023-Distance-Report-final-310124.pdf), and almost always knowing they'll be accused of being nothing more than arrogant "suits" only doing what they are doing because they're old white control freaks who take great delight in making you, personally, take a half a club extra from 160 out. 

 

Please try to see it from their perspective before you frame them incorrectly. As the old saying goes, "Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Why not? Even if after that you don't agree, you'll be a mile away. And you'll have his shoes." 🤣

 

PS. not being antagonistic here @Shilgy. We both been on WRX awhile. I respect you. hope you'll give an honest consideration of this perspective. You may not agree with the solutions the USGA comes up with (in fact I don't always agree with them), but I do not doubt their intentions. For the most part, they really are out for the good of the game, the total game, in a way that no individual constituency (including the OEMs and PGAT) is. 

 

In saying all that, then why is the USGA still intent on changing the game for 99.9% of golfers who don't hit the ball too far while a few statistical oddities on the PGA Tour, many of whom aren't perennial winners, they just hurt the feelings of antiquated courses? It is actions like this by the USGA that is quickly sending them the way of the NCAA.

Edited March 25 by cardia10

[hollabachgt]

21 hours ago, cardia10 said:

In saying all that, then why is the USGA still intent on changing the game for 99.9% of golfers who don't hit the ball too far while a few statistical oddities on the PGA Tour, many of whom aren't perennial winners, they just hurt the feelings of antiquated courses? It is actions like this by the USGA that is quickly sending them the way of the NCAA.

Remember, the USGA didn’t want to change the game for the 99.9%, thus why they proposed the MLR ball that would only impact high level competition. 
 

it was rejected, with a large outcry from the 99.9% saying they did not want bifurcation.

 

The USGA also said some sort of change was required, but it seems like too many didn’t realize they were serious.

 

this is starting to feel like Brexit, with a lot of buyer’s remorse. But I suspect when the new ball is here it will end up being a lot of crying over spilled milk.

[cardia10]

50 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

Remember, the USGA didn’t want to change the game for the 99.9%, thus why they proposed the MLR ball that would only impact high level competition. 
 

it was rejected, with a large outcry from the 99.9% saying they did not want bifurcation.

 

The USGA also said some sort of change was required, but it seems like too many didn’t realize they were serious.

 

this is starting to feel like Brexit, with a lot of buyer’s remorse. But I suspect when the new ball is here it will end up being a lot of crying over spilled milk.

Seems like such an expensive and unnecessary solution for a problem that could be solved with less mowing which would save courses money. I think the "course outcry" argument is a poor excuse as there are significant ways to cut costs and make the courses play longer at the same time, but the USGA seems to always to have the solution in search of a problem.

[hollabachgt]

2 hours ago, cardia10 said:

Seems like such an expensive and unnecessary solution for a problem that could be solved with less mowing which would save courses money.

The bulk of distance is not occurring due to roll along the ground. Carry accounts for 95% of total driving distance. It's an aerial game and has been for sometime.

[cardia10]

1 hour ago, hollabachgt said:

The bulk of distance is not occurring due to roll along the ground. Carry accounts for 95% of total driving distance. It's an aerial game and has been for sometime.

With an average carry distance of 223-238 yards, 99.9% of the golfing population would say that carrying the ball too far is not an issue. The USGA is making rules for ALL golfers, not just the handful that play for millions. They keep forgetting that fact and they will end up the way of the dinosaur. 

[wantacigar]

On 3/26/2024 at 10:24 AM, cardia10 said:

With an average carry distance of 223-238 yards, 99.9% of the golfing population would say that carrying the ball too far is not an issue. The USGA is making rules for ALL golfers, not just the handful that play for millions. They keep forgetting that fact and they will end up the way of the dinosaur. 

Exactly.  This will disproportionately affect the average golfer.  I watched rolls of 50 - 60 yards this weekend on drives.  Cut the fairways to the length Jack and Arnie played on.  Replace the 10's of thousands of trees that were removed that allowed golfers to "cut the corners" more aggressively.  When a tournament is played grow the rough to a penalizing thickness like Bethpage Black!  The vast majority of golfers are playing 5,900-6,500 yard courses from the white tees.  Not 7,000-7,500 yards the pros are playing and yet 50% of these average golfers are breaking 100.  At 57 years old I carry my drives ABOVE the national average for golfers my age at 220-225 yards at sea level on the east coast on a 70 degree day.  That's an average with some going 200 and some going 230 depending upon wind and strike.  

I would GUESTIMATE that maybe 1 out of every 200 golfers can carry 250 or above IF THAT.  This rollback would force the average golfer to hit 3 and 4 woods on approach shots on a 365 yard par 4.  Just like the average golfer is tuning out of watching golf due to the LIV - PGAT rift, many golfers are going to look to other hobbies in their spare time that is MUCH LESS frustrating to do like fishing, pickleball, hiking or whatever rather than see their scores go from low 90's to 100's because their drives can't go more than 200 yards.

 

A more common sense approach (something we've lost in recent times) would be to freeze the tolerances where they are for the ball as they've done for equipment like the driver and implement some course management and design that penalizes distance over accuracy (tree placement, rough and fairway length, hazard placement, etc)

[hollabachgt]

On 4/9/2024 at 8:44 AM, wantacigar said:

Exactly.  This will disproportionately affect the average golfer.  I watched rolls of 50 - 60 yards this weekend on drives.  Cut the fairways to the length Jack and Arnie played on.  Replace the 10's of thousands of trees that were removed that allowed golfers to "cut the corners" more aggressively.  When a tournament is played grow the rough to a penalizing thickness like Bethpage Black!  The vast majority of golfers are playing 5,900-6,500 yard courses from the white tees.  Not 7,000-7,500 yards the pros are playing and yet 50% of these average golfers are breaking 100.  At 57 years old I carry my drives ABOVE the national average for golfers my age at 220-225 yards at sea level on the east coast on a 70 degree day.  That's an average with some going 200 and some going 230 depending upon wind and strike.  

I would GUESTIMATE that maybe 1 out of every 200 golfers can carry 250 or above IF THAT.  This rollback would force the average golfer to hit 3 and 4 woods on approach shots on a 365 yard par 4.  Just like the average golfer is tuning out of watching golf due to the LIV - PGAT rift, many golfers are going to look to other hobbies in their spare time that is MUCH LESS frustrating to do like fishing, pickleball, hiking or whatever rather than see their scores go from low 90's to 100's because their drives can't go more than 200 yards.

 

A more common sense approach (something we've lost in recent times) would be to freeze the tolerances where they are for the ball as they've done for equipment like the driver and implement some course management and design that penalizes distance over accuracy (tree placement, rough and fairway length, hazard placement, etc)

I'm not saying you didn't see some drives roll out 50-60 yards this weekend, but the average rollout in San Antonio  was just 16.5 yards. Of the 6 players who were longest in carry this week, 5 of them had an average rollout of less than 10 yards. Believing that PGA tour players are being dis-proportionally rewarded by firm short fairways just isn't true. The touring professional, especially the longest touring professionals, do not rely on roll in maximizing their distance.

Based on the USGA, the average male player hits their driver ~217 yards, their 3 wood ~205 yards, and their 5 wood ~195 yards. So a drive and 5 wood should be sufficient for the average player to reach a hole of less than ~412 yards in length. To minimize the average players distance such that an average player would require a driver and fw wood to reach a 365 yards hole would be a reduction of 13-16%, or a rollback of 3-4x greater than the UGGA's expectation for such a player.

 

Is it possible the USGA's expectation is wrong, yes, but the USGA is basing their number on significant testing they've conducted over the past decade with reduced flight balls and average players. I'm more inclined to believe their estimate is closer to the truth than your gut.

[wantacigar]

12 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

I'm not saying you didn't see some drives roll out 50-60 yards this weekend, but the average rollout in San Antonio  was just 16.5 yards. Of the 6 players who were longest in carry this week, 5 of them had an average rollout of less than 10 yards. Believing that PGA tour players are being dis-proportionally rewarded by firm short fairways just isn't true. The touring professional, especially the longest touring professionals, do not rely on roll in maximizing their distance.

Based on the USGA, the average male player hits their driver ~217 yards, their 3 wood ~205 yards, and their 5 wood ~195 yards. So a drive and 5 wood should be sufficient for the average player to reach a hole of less than ~412 yards in length. To minimize the average players distance such that an average player would require a driver and fw wood to reach a 365 yards hole would be a reduction of 13-16%, or a rollback of 3-4x greater than the UGGA's expectation for such a player.

 

Is it possible the USGA's expectation is wrong, yes, but the USGA is basing their number on significant testing they've conducted over the past decade with reduced flight balls and average players. I'm more inclined to believe their estimate is closer to the truth than your gut.

You're right, I went with gut but that's what 95%-99% of golfers will be going by.  We here on Glfwrx are the extreme minority of golf nuts 😆

The roll back would reduce distance around 5% across the board.  Taking the national average of 217 yards, that player will lose 10-11 yards, so lets say 10.  That puts him at 158 yards out on a 365 yard par 4.  If that same player hits his 4W or 5W 185 yards off the deck that would put him now at 176 yard 4W.  So now that person is hitting a 4H into a green instead of 6 iron.  On a 380 yard par 4 it would put them into a 4W territory into a green with a good drive.

Just saying.  The rollback will disproportionately affect 80%-90% of average golfers utilizing that same 5%.  That 17 yard loss for the professional is the difference between a sand wedge and a 52* wedge.  The difference in the average golfer is a mid iron or hybrid/FW.  That's all I'm saying.  

How will it affect me personally?  Not much.  I already play layup golf with Kirkland balls.  I've already started practicing for the roll back.

🤣🤣

[hollabachgt]

36 minutes ago, wantacigar said:

You're right, I went with gut but that's what 95%-99% of golfers will be going by.  We here on Glfwrx are the extreme minority of golf nuts 😆

The roll back would reduce distance around 5% across the board.  Taking the national average of 217 yards, that player will lose 10-11 yards, so lets say 10.  That puts him at 158 yards out on a 365 yard par 4.  If that same player hits his 4W or 5W 185 yards off the deck that would put him now at 176 yard 4W.  So now that person is hitting a 4H into a green instead of 6 iron.  On a 380 yard par 4 it would put them into a 4W territory into a green with a good drive.

Just saying.  The rollback will disproportionately affect 80%-90% of average golfers utilizing that same 5%.  That 17 yard loss for the professional is the difference between a sand wedge and a 52* wedge.  The difference in the average golfer is a mid iron or hybrid/FW.  That's all I'm saying.  

How will it affect me personally?  Not much.  I already play layup golf with Kirkland balls.  I've already started practicing for the roll back.

🤣🤣

This is inaccurate based on the USGA's own published information.

 

For the average player who already are playing a fairly soft ball the expectation is they would lose 0-3 yards, while an average player playing a firmer ball could lose 3-5 yards. That's only a rollback of 2.4% at 5 yards of loss. The faster swinging amateurs would expect to see 7-11 yards of rollback, which is a max of a 4% loss.

 

So the average player's approach distance would increase by ~1/2 a club while the faster players approach would increase by a full club. The rollback, if anything, will disproportionately impact the faster swinging player more than the slower swinging player.

[DaveLeeNC]

21 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

This is inaccurate based on the USGA's own published information.

 

For the average player who already are playing a fairly soft ball the expectation is they would lose 0-3 yards, while an average player playing a firmer ball could lose 3-5 yards. That's only a rollback of 2.4% at 5 yards of loss. The faster swinging amateurs would expect to see 7-11 yards of rollback, which is a max of a 4% loss.

 

So the average player's approach distance would increase by ~1/2 a club while the faster players approach would increase by a full club. The rollback, if anything, will disproportionately impact the faster swinging player more than the slower swinging player.

 

IMHO we have no idea how this is going to play out. All that I have seen is that (at some point in time) one or more manufacturers built a couple of balls that met (or tried to meet) the new specs. This is not anything like how the manufacturers will respond once they actually have to market conforming balls and they have done some serious R&D to try to optimize to these new parameters. 

 

I would expect that the net impact to the bottom half (in distance) of the golfers in the world to be smaller than what has happened with this very limited data that is available so far. But we really just don't know. 

 

dave 

[hollabachgt]

8 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

IMHO we have no idea how this is going to play out. All that I have seen is that (at some point in time) one or more manufacturers built a couple of balls that met (or tried to meet) the new specs. This is not anything like how the manufacturers will respond once they actually have to market conforming balls and they have done some serious R&D to try to optimize to these new parameters. 

 

I would expect that the net impact to the bottom half (in distance) of the golfers in the world to be smaller than what has happened with this very limited data that is available so far. But we really just don't know. 

 

dave 

We have some idea of how this could play out. The USGA has made at least 2 reduced flight balls (NP-301 & NP-500) that they used extensively for testing over the last decade. The data and impressions from these balls is what the USGA is using when speaking of the expected impact across the game.

 

Now, you are correct, what we don't know is if these balls are going to be similar to what the manufactures come out with. But these balls don't perfectly align with the new testing spec that the USGA announced, so there is some evolutionary factors there as well.

 

As I mentioned before, its possible the estimations published by the USGA are inaccurate, but I do expect they are closer than many of the wild assumptions you'd read on this forum.

[wantacigar]

1 hour ago, hollabachgt said:

This is inaccurate based on the USGA's own published information.

 

For the average player who already are playing a fairly soft ball the expectation is they would lose 0-3 yards, while an average player playing a firmer ball could lose 3-5 yards. That's only a rollback of 2.4% at 5 yards of loss. The faster swinging amateurs would expect to see 7-11 yards of rollback, which is a max of a 4% loss.

 

So the average player's approach distance would increase by ~1/2 a club while the faster players approach would increase by a full club. The rollback, if anything, will disproportionately impact the faster swinging player more than the slower swinging player.

I'm going by some articles I've read and any anecdotal numbers based on what I've read.  In the end I'm still playing golf.  I may move up to the Gold Tees if the loss in distance is significant or stay at the white if they're not.  It's 2024.  I have about 10 dozen golf balls.  I'll replenish what I lose and stop buying in 2028.  By the time 2030 comes around I'll restock on the conforming balls.  Save a dozen or two to reminisce over when I'm old and telling my grandkids about the "Good Ole Days" when grandpa used to hit driver - 9 iron into a 370 yard par 4.  By then the 9 iron lofts will be jacked to 36 degrees for some extra distance. LOL.  😁 😆

[new2g0lf]

On 4/10/2024 at 11:39 AM, DaveLeeNC said:

 

IMHO we have no idea how this is going to play out. All that I have seen is that (at some point in time) one or more manufacturers built a couple of balls that met (or tried to meet) the new specs. This is not anything like how the manufacturers will respond once they actually have to market conforming balls and they have done some serious R&D to try to optimize to these new parameters. 

 

I would expect that the net impact to the bottom half (in distance) of the golfers in the world to be smaller than what has happened with this very limited data that is available so far. But we really just don't know. 

 

dave 

We also don't know what will happen will pro golfers start bombing the new conforming golf balls as far as the old ones.  The USGA is trying to fix a problem they will always lag behind on, just like virus software.  Produce a ball that goes shorter and golfers will focus on how to get more distance with it to gain an advantage.  Let's produce a football that can't be thrown more than 50 yards or running shoes that limit how fast a runner can go, it's stupid and a waste of time and money.