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

[jvincent]

6 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

 

There is a WHOLE BUNCH of stuff going on WRT a golf ball flying through the air. First the spin of the ball creates lift which dramatically changes how far the ball carries. Then the ball slows down a whole bunch during flight and you almost certainly hit the point at which drag becomes linear rather than quadratic (the basis for your calculation, I assume). And that will have a larger affect on the lower SS guys as they are starting closer to that point. Also the final velocity of a ball starting out at 180 mph is surprisingly close to the final velocity of a ball starting out at about 110 mph. 

 

I don't know how you draw any conclusions about relative losses given all this. If they achieve this slowdown by reduced ball speed only, I think the Trajectoware analysis holds. If they do something else, then it depends on what they do. I just don't know what else there is to be done. 

 

dave

 

ps. FWIW, if there was a way to make a golf ball that went meaningfully further (5% is meaningful) for golfers hitting the ball 180 but did not go any further for golfers hitting it 317 yards, I would expect to see that ball on the market. I am not aware of such a thing existing. 

 

 

Drag is always a function of velocity^2.

 

As you point out, the total picture (lift, drag, spin decay, etc) makes for a very complicated model. For example, the Reynolds number varies as a function of spin, dimple pattern, and speed. 

 

Either way, my point was that the current test does not explicitly limit ball speed and it's unlikely that the new one will. In which case it becomes an aerodynamics exercise.

[North Butte]

11 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

ps. FWIW, if there was a way to make a golf ball that went meaningfully further (5% is meaningful) for golfers hitting the ball 180 but did not go any further for golfers hitting it 317 yards, I would expect to see that ball on the market. I am not aware of such a thing existing. 

 

Exactly. Anyone who designed a ball that could game the test like that would be raking in money from all the less-than-elite-ballspeed golfers out there.

[DaveLeeNC]

24 minutes ago, jvincent said:

 

Drag is always a function of velocity^2.

 

As you point out, the total picture (lift, drag, spin decay, etc) makes for a very complicated model. For example, the Reynolds number varies as a function of spin, dimple pattern, and speed. 

 

Either way, my point was that the current test does not explicitly limit ball speed and it's unlikely that the new one will. In which case it becomes an aerodynamics exercise.

 

Re: Drag and V**2 ... look up Stokes law 

 

The question is not whether the new rule will directly limit ball speed. The question is will the manufacturers have to create a 'lower than it is now' ball speed to comply with the new ODS. 

 

dave

[puttingmatt]

19 hours ago, bobfoster said:

 

Um, not entirely sure what I'm "making up" here. The 317 at 125 is the actual new rule. The USGA has a robot - affectionately named Iron Byron (after Byron Nelson). Meant to produce a precise, repeatable swing. Is what they use to test conformity. Current rule is that when Iron Byron swings at exactly 120 MPH (under windless conditions, with a universal, consistent launch angle), the ball can go no farther than 317 yards. The new rule is that Iron Byron will now swing 125 MPH, and the ball can still go no further than 317. 

 

I only made a couple points, and didn't make anything up. The rule only specifies what Iron Byron does at 125 MPH. It doesn't require any limitations on any slower swing speeds. People just seem to be assuming that there will be some sort of exactly proportional diminishment (as you are). But the rule doesn't require any distance diminishment on a 100 MPH SS. OEMs are free to make a ball that keeps my distance mostly the same, but throttles down on high SSs. Doesn't take magic pixie dust - it merely takes science. Science some of the OEMs actually have, and will have a vested interest in applying.

 

And I'm totally fine with anyone saying they see no distance problem. A lot of individual golfers don't. Another perspective? One of my favorite local courses is owned by a good friend of mine. It has been around for several decades. It is a charming, interesting course. Not long, but a lot of unusual angles, and narrow fairways. He deliberately wanted it do be a "use every club in the bag" course. Over the last three years he's lengthened it by several hundred yards. Felt like he was forced to. A lot of the younger kids, with new technology are now just bombing drives (note - they aren't necessarily better, just longer). He was losing some customers. He had to buy some adjoining land, and spent a good deal of money building new tee boxes. It was expensive, time consuming, and disruptive. He also told me it was the "last damn time" he was going to do it. He thinks there is a really "positive takeaway" from this new rule. I'd guarantee you that a lot of course owners don't think the rule is for "made up" reasons.

 

I've been a USGA member (off and on) for a long time. It is one of the backbones of the sport itself. I certainly don't always agree with it, but recognize its value. As long as I've been a member, people have been trashing talking it, hating on it, and whining about it. I've got no problem with that. No one is required to join it. Play golf by whatever rules you want, with whatever damn balls you want. All sorts of people screamed at the top of their voices about the wedge rule. Then (as now) claimed "a few old men" were just making golf much harder for everyone. Turns out everyone adjusted - from players to OEMs - and in the long run it had far less effects than the people saying "the sky is falling" were asserting it would. Same thing has happened every time they've made a major rules changes. 

 

I do get that people often try to assert that it is some small, insulated cabal of elites. In my experience, the study changes for a long time before making them, and listen to a ridiculous numbers of interests. Quite often don't completely please any of them.  But they do look at the game as a whole. It development. The pipeline from the youngest kids through the pro level. They listen to everyone. I notice you mention that the OEMs and PGA didn't like what they did - but, the PGAT and OEMs never like changes. I haven't heard almost anyone in this thread talking about the opinion of (for instance) course owners. The folks who - y'know - make it possible for players to play, and OEMs to make millions. They are one of the factions that the USGA does listen to.

 

I actually am not trying to convince anyone of anything here. Most just have their minds made up. And this is the early days of the announcement, so knickers are gonna be in a bunch. Voices raised. Dramatic statements made. The sky is again falling. But I also suspect a couple of years from now people will just be playing golf within the new constraint, and while big hitters may feel a pinch, for most of us the game isn't going to be much different than it is now. 

 

 

I hope you are right Bob,  I know that We have at least 6 years before  new rules are implemented.

But as an aging player losing distance to father time,  really starting to consider learning pickleball.  Will see how this shakes out, but any  future golf related  purchases are being put on hold, including those overpriced golf courses. Time to impose my own limits on the game of  golf.

[DaveLeeNC]

1 minute ago, puttingmatt said:

But as an aging player losing distance to father time,  really starting to consider learning pickleball. 

I am aging and losing distance. But there is no way on earth that I can play Pickleball.  But I can still play golf. I guess it depends on your personal aging parameters. 

 

dave

[jvincent]

20 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Re: Drag and V**2 ... look up Stokes law 

 

The question is not whether the new rule will directly limit ball speed. The question is will the manufacturers have to create a 'lower than it is now' ball speed to comply with the new ODS. 

 

dave

 

Stokes law applies to small Reynolds numbers and laminar flow.

 

Golf balls at typical speeds have Reynolds numbers in the 30,000 to 100,000 range. And the dimples are there specifically to make it isn't laminar flow over the ball.

 

There are lots of papers on golf ball aerodynamics that cover this.

Edited December 4, 2023 by jvincent

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, PuffyC said:

Rory has already chimed in by saying the average am would lose 5-10 yards on their tee shot and that those 5-10 yards didn’t matter. Guess time will tell who’s right.

 

Big scheme of things, it really doesn't I am way shorter than I was 20 years ago, but yet shoot better scores. I also don't play the back tees anymore, when I do, my scores are still better, but no need to. 

 

2 hours ago, DLiver said:

So if I'm reading this correctly, I'd be looking at a 5% reduction in distance. That doesn't sound like much, however on a 400 yard hole, I'd be looking at 2 extra clubs (400x5%=20 yards). Which means a 400 yard hole after the rollback would play like a 420 yard hole now. And I would see this kind of distance adjustment on every hole on the course. That's a big deal to me, which is not going to make the game more enjoyable for me.

 

The funny thing is no one is forcing us to to play from that tee box. Course kept getting longer as the ball went further. Course could now get shorter, or at least player can move up.

[bekgolf]

19 hours ago, bobfoster said:

 

Um, not entirely sure what I'm "making up" here. The 317 at 125 is the actual new rule. The USGA has a robot - affectionately named Iron Byron (after Byron Nelson). Meant to produce a precise, repeatable swing. Is what they use to test conformity. Current rule is that when Iron Byron swings at exactly 120 MPH (under windless conditions, with a universal, consistent launch angle), the ball can go no farther than 317 yards. The new rule is that Iron Byron will now swing 125 MPH, and the ball can still go no further than 317. 

 

I only made a couple points, and didn't make anything up. The rule only specifies what Iron Byron does at 125 MPH. It doesn't require any limitations on any slower swing speeds. People just seem to be assuming that there will be some sort of exactly proportional diminishment (as you are). But the rule doesn't require any distance diminishment on a 100 MPH SS. OEMs are free to make a ball that keeps my distance mostly the same, but throttles down on high SSs. Doesn't take magic pixie dust - it merely takes science. Science some of the OEMs actually have, and will have a vested interest in applying.

 

And I'm totally fine with anyone saying they see no distance problem. A lot of individual golfers don't. Another perspective? One of my favorite local courses is owned by a good friend of mine. It has been around for several decades. It is a charming, interesting course. Not long, but a lot of unusual angles, and narrow fairways. He deliberately wanted it do be a "use every club in the bag" course. Over the last three years he's lengthened it by several hundred yards. Felt like he was forced to. A lot of the younger kids, with new technology are now just bombing drives (note - they aren't necessarily better, just longer). He was losing some customers. He had to buy some adjoining land, and spent a good deal of money building new tee boxes. It was expensive, time consuming, and disruptive. He also told me it was the "last damn time" he was going to do it. He thinks there is a really "positive takeaway" from this new rule. I'd guarantee you that a lot of course owners don't think the rule is for "made up" reasons.

 

I've been a USGA member (off and on) for a long time. It is one of the backbones of the sport itself. I certainly don't always agree with it, but recognize its value. As long as I've been a member, people have been trashing talking it, hating on it, and whining about it. I've got no problem with that. No one is required to join it. Play golf by whatever rules you want, with whatever damn balls you want. All sorts of people screamed at the top of their voices about the wedge rule. Then (as now) claimed "a few old men" were just making golf much harder for everyone. Turns out everyone adjusted - from players to OEMs - and in the long run it had far less effects than the people saying "the sky is falling" were asserting it would. Same thing has happened every time they've made a major rules changes. 

 

I do get that people often try to assert that it is some small, insulated cabal of elites. In my experience, the study changes for a long time before making them, and listen to a ridiculous numbers of interests. Quite often don't completely please any of them.  But they do look at the game as a whole. It development. The pipeline from the youngest kids through the pro level. They listen to everyone. I notice you mention that the OEMs and PGA didn't like what they did - but, the PGAT and OEMs never like changes. I haven't heard almost anyone in this thread talking about the opinion of (for instance) course owners. The folks who - y'know - make it possible for players to play, and OEMs to make millions. They are one of the factions that the USGA does listen to.

 

I actually am not trying to convince anyone of anything here. Most just have their minds made up. And this is the early days of the announcement, so knickers are gonna be in a bunch. Voices raised. Dramatic statements made. The sky is again falling. But I also suspect a couple of years from now people will just be playing golf within the new constraint, and while big hitters may feel a pinch, for most of us the game isn't going to be much different than it is now. 

 

 

 

Hi Bob,

Making up might be a bit harsh, I should of indicated that you are guessing at what a new ball made under the new rule parameters will do.

 

I hope you are correct in the thought that they will be able to make a ball that only affects swing speeds above a certain level.  I'll need to see it to believe it. 

 

I don't like the idea of throttling the pros back.  The way I see it they are being punished for working hard to be better, it just doesn't seem fair nor does it sit right with me.

 

Limit things to where they are now is fine but punishing the pros for working hard makes no sense.  It will also make the PGA product less interesting.  All the pros now hitting the ball about the same distance sounds like punishment for the guys who made the mistake of training to be better.

[PuffyC]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

Local rule on the PGA Tour. Any shot that goes more than 300 yards, one stroke penalty.

That’s an idea too far outside the box to ever be implemented but I kinda like the concept. Stake off a line 300 yards from the tee (the PGAT avg) and any tee shot past that is treated as OB. It’s cheap, easy, works for any course, and doesn’t impact OEMs or ams. The strategy and skill of ‘how close can you get’ would add an interesting competitive level as well. But yeah, they’d never go for it.

[darsony]

1 hour ago, DLiver said:

Thanks Jackhole. I'm 68, have done speed training for at least ten years, have taken prolly over 100 lessons (mostly from "top 100 pros), play "players distance" irons, have made the transitions to lightweight shafts, and have a <2 index. I work hard to be able to hit it 240-250 off the tee, and I really don't want to see that number be 225. I don't care to play tees where I'm 150 yards from the nearest fairway bunker. I like the game where it is right now and just don't see the need to change my game significantly because the pros hit it so far.

 

Next time I want you to run my life, I will let you know. Thanks for the help. 👍

I agree.  As a 65yo senior I find it embarrassing to have to move up tee boxes.  It is frustrating as can be to lose distance.  Losing any more and I question continuing to play golf.  I've played thousands of rounds of golf in my life so I've certainly played enough. 

 

The other day I played with a rated amateur.  He hit it like a tour pro and it was fun to watch.  Everyone wants to see a long ball hit. 

 

Sure, having distance makes it easier to be in a position to score.  But you don't need longer good courses to stop low scores. You need tighter fairways, well place hazard and small, fast greens.  Too many courses are simply driving ranges with a green at the end of them. 

 

The groove role didn't change anything as manufacturers innovated.  They will probably do so if the ball becomes restricted.  I hope!

[jvincent]

21 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Re: Drag and V**2 ... look up Stokes law 

 

The question is not whether the new rule will directly limit ball speed. The question is will the manufacturers have to create a 'lower than it is now' ball speed to comply with the new ODS. 

 

dave

 

This paper is one of the better ones since it also talks about spin and lift. Look at the equations labelled (1).

 

https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/2/6/238

 

[tatertot]

8 minutes ago, darsony said:

I agree.  As a 65yo senior I find it embarrassing to have to move up tee boxes.  It is frustrating as can be to lose distance.  Losing any more and I question continuing to play golf.  I've played thousands of rounds of golf in my life so I've certainly played enough. 

 

The other day I played with a rated amateur.  He hit it like a tour pro and it was fun to watch.  Everyone wants to see a long ball hit. 

 

Sure, having distance makes it easier to be in a position to score.  But you don't need longer good courses to stop low scores. You need tighter fairways, well place hazard and small, fast greens.  Too many courses are simply driving ranges with a green at the end of them. 

 

The groove role didn't change anything as manufacturers innovated.  They will probably do so if the ball becomes restricted.  I hope!

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

[DaveLeeNC]

8 minutes ago, jvincent said:

 

This paper is one of the better ones since it also talks about spin and lift. Look at the equations labelled (1).

 

https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/2/6/238

 

Thanks - that actually looks pretty interesting. dave

[ECgolf]

2 hours ago, RCGA said:

 

That's amateur sports in a nutshell. 

 

I'm a middle aged guy with a family. But I'm not making those lame excuses when I have to compete against D1 college guys who golf every day with coaches, tackmans, custom equipment, and training facilities. 

What are you talking about? My only point is USGA made a rule change that makes casual golfers have to spend time or money to get back to where they were before this change to solve a problem that didn’t exist on their backs. Has zero to do with your “excuses” for you not being able to compete with D1 college guys. That is not an issue for most of us. You are projecting (and ironically, actually responding to me with your lame excuses for failing to compete with D1 guys as you do). I’m not sure why you are trying so damn hard to defend USGA and these elite golf courses. They are making golf harder for regular folks for no good reason, it’s ok to acknowledge that. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by ECgolf

[Pens #1 fan]

I’m so confused why is this possibly happening? If the PGA Tour is against it then what courses and people are complaining about money and not having enough to keep making courses longer. I didn’t know the longest guy on tour won  last 1,849 tournaments. I’m guessing this some kinda of money thing with OEM not want to do it,  but come on they all have money. A couple things why can’t it just be for PGA tour? There’s what 125 officially on the PGA tour correct, that is how many have there card from this past 2023 season. The how many Korn Ferry guys. Why can’t the OEM make drivers for those let’s say 200 players. Done there the yardage issue is fixed. They do t have to come out with a new driver every year then for tour pros since it doesn’t need to be sold to the public. You can still make the current and future equipment for everyone else. Elite Amateurs or whatever you wanna say, again I didn’t know someone was winning all these events and shooting 59 and below. I didn’t even know if that was happening that it was causing this economic shift in the world. Another way is to make courses harder. You can do that any number of ways. The pros rip courses all the time for setups, just like all the other changes they announce that will happen in year xyz. Hey in 2028 our courses we play on the PGA tour will progressively get harder going forward with setups. That is the easiest and least amount of money spent is to grow rough firm greens or slow bumping greens. Time will tell but I most certainly would give up the game if it just wasn’t fun anymore. I’m 99% of amateur golfers out there can’t hit balls for 12 hours a day to get better. So just make it harder for PGA if you absolutely have too. 
 

 

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

4 hours ago, RCGA said:

 

Grampa and Susan, who already struggle to drive it 175y, aren't going to notice any difference. Sorry. 

Yes, they are. They've said so.  Repeatedly.  There are no further tees up for them to go to.

 

You simply don't give a sh#&, that's all.  Fair, neither does the USGA.  But USGA, don't lie to me then about caring for all golfers, when it's manifestly clear through their actions who they do care about, and it's not about me.

 

They care about wealthy guys who have equity interests in courses that host PGA Tour or elite USGA/R&A events, whose egos are smudged because Min Woo Lee and his peers can now kick the s#*t out of their golf course because they fly it 330, and who are tired of spending $$$ to try to fight it.  And who don't want to take the hit to their ego or value if they responded by no longer holding this cash cow tournament on their property.

 

It is a Pro-only problem.  It needs to be a Pro-only solution.  Stop asking the golfing public at large to subsidize solving your individual problem.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Jayjay_theweim_guy

[2bGood]

17 minutes ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

Yes, they are. They've said so.  Repeatedly.  There are no further tees up for them to go to.

 

You simply don't give a sh#&, that's all.  Fair, neither does the USGA.  But USGA, don't lie to me then about caring for all golfers, when it's manifestly clear through their actions who they do care about, and it's not about me.

 

You are refer to the extreme ends. Comparing someone who drives it 175 (160 carry) to the pro's carrying it 300 is the wrong thing to look at. The person that can only carry the ball 160 will still be able to find a ball that maximises what they have after the roll back as the ball they need has very different properties than someone hitting it 300. 

 

And not to be too grim, but the hypothetical "grammy and grandpa" you refer don't need to worry about this rule change at all. It is now 15 years since the groove rule came in and it is still not in place for the club golfer. I am taking a guess that we may have 10 years until the ball change hits the club golfer. 

[st1800e]

18 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

The person that can only carry the ball 160 will still be able to find a ball that maximises what they have after the rollback

But not the distance they had before the rollback.  
and a Prov1x and similar balls are generally the longest balls for everyone.  
And BTW, I’m not a hypothetical grandpa.  

[RCGA]

How do you guys manage to play golf in the cold? 

 

A 252y drive at 80* is a 244y drive at 40*

 

How do guys in Colorado play in New York? A 280y drive in CO is a 250y drive in NY

[DaveLeeNC]

35 minutes ago, RCGA said:

How do you guys manage to play golf in the cold? 

 

A 252y drive at 80* is a 244y drive at 40*

 

How do guys in Colorado play in New York? A 280y drive in CO is a 250y drive in NY

Loss of distance in the winter is a real downer in my mind/experience.  dave

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, RCGA said:

How do you guys manage to play golf in the cold? 

 

A 252y drive at 80* is a 244y drive at 40*

 

How do guys in Colorado play in New York? A 280y drive in CO is a 250y drive in NY

So is USGA only going to specify the new ball in hot weather? 

[The Pearl]

Folks,

 

This is only about one thing, reducing the cost for the USGA and the upper crust private courses from consistently spending money to "distance" proof their courses. 

 

The rest of the justifications are a cover.  "Sustainability" the modern buzzword that means nothing is comical. The number of courses nationwide that are lengthening their courses for casual play close to zero.  Your local muni/city owned courses are not distance proofing their courses. the number isn't zero, but the number is low.

 

Golf has surged since COVID. Courses have made almost zero improvements. Most improvements I have encountered have zero to do with the courses. Courses are simply shoving people out there and covering their eyes and ears. 

 

Furthermore, the USGA could give a dog's rear end about pace of play. The thought that a shorter ball is going to speed up rounds is absurd. Pace of play is what counts, not time to play. I play several short courses in my area and they often the slowest because they attract poor players and beginners. I am thankful they are there as they give folks a place to learn and enjoy the game but to pretend this is the wave of the future is insane. 

 

I would also challenge the assertion that "playing" the back tees is rampant. There are very few golfer's who play the back tees on a regular basis that don't belong there.  Most of the "play the right tees" violations occur by golfer's playing the "regular tees" that should move up one. This is a human behavior issue, not a ball issue. A shorter ball ain't gonna change this. 

 

We all know what the current issues with "regular" player golf is and the USGA has zero interest in any of these issues. 

 

[puttingmatt]

 I consider the whole ball rollback a bunch of B.S.  If a club is too  long on any hole, then choose from the other 13 that are available.  The ball rollback  looks to be about saving a driver's spot in the golf bag. Also, since a very high percentage of golfers CAN NOT sniff 300 yard drives, why is it a concern ?

[BigtimeHC]

The golf ball is not the problem. Less than 5% of rounds at private clubs are from the "championship tees". These are generally around 7000 yards and long enough to test collegiate and aspiring tour professionals. Your average player tees it up from 6000-6500 and could use an additional 10-15 yards to enjoy the game more.

 

For the PGA Tour the solution is simple:

• Grow the rough higher. Easy to do and cost effective i.e. not spending $$$ on manpower and equipment to mow as often.
• INCREASE THE MOW HEIGHT on the fairways. Cut them at .5 inches or .7 inches, not the super low, tight lengths they do now. 
• STOP DRYING OUT THE FAIRWAYS, put a little water on them during the tournament. Way too many times we see balls that look like they are landing on a parking lot and bound down the fairway an additional 40-50 yards. This does not happen in the United States at your average golf course. 

This is 100% not an equipment or golf ball issue, it's an agronomy issue that could easily be tweaked with no significant additional monetary or environmental cost. 

[2bGood]

9 hours ago, st1800e said:

But not the distance they had before the rollback.  
and a Prov1x and similar balls are generally the longest balls for everyone.  
And BTW, I’m not a hypothetical grandpa.  

I don' t believe that. Admittedly lots of information I don't know. But I believe the roll back will effect the maximum distance a ball flies and have little effect for those only hitting it half the distance. 

[cval]

13 hours ago, 2bGood said:

 

Big scheme of things, it really doesn't I am way shorter than I was 20 years ago, but yet shoot better scores. I also don't play the back tees anymore, when I do, my scores are still better, but no need to. 

 

 

The funny thing is no one is forcing us to to play from that tee box. Course kept getting longer as the ball went further. Course could now get shorter, or at least player can move up.

 

Golf course moves the color tees you play up and all is good. Nothing will change with amateur golf except the length of the course you play 

[cval]

4 hours ago, RCGA said:

How do you guys manage to play golf in the cold? 

 

A 252y drive at 80* is a 244y drive at 40*

 

How do guys in Colorado play in New York? A 280y drive in CO is a 250y drive in NY

They must have quit the game. 

 

[cval]

9 hours ago, st1800e said:

But not the distance they had before the rollback.  
and a Prov1x and similar balls are generally the longest balls for everyone.  
And BTW, I’m not a hypothetical grandpa.  

They will not even notice the difference. 

[cval]

14 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

I don' t believe that. Admittedly lots of information I don't know. But I believe the roll back will effect the maximum distance a ball flies and have little effect for those only hitting it half the distance. 

 

I agree with this. The ball being nerfed for everyone no matter swing speed makes no sense to me, there to much technology. You might have to make choices again for distance and spin like the old days.  I would still like to see the science.

[puttingmatt]

2 minutes ago, cval said:

 

Golf course moves the color tees you play up and all is good. Nothing will change with amateur golf except the length of the course you play 

And the length you hit all your clubs from the shorter distance holes you moved up to. There is no upside to playing a shorter distance imposed ball,

Unless, your goal is always  performing less than optimal.