Currrent Golf Balls

[hgb]

Is it possible that certain golf balls already comply with the proposed rules.    Since some balls claim to be the longest, others better for slow swing speeds, etc.   it crossed my mind that it is possible that the ball I used may already comply.  

 

Any thoughts on this?

[radiman]

1 minute ago, hgb said:

Is it possible that certain golf balls already comply with the proposed rules.    Since some balls claim to be the longest, others better for slow swing speeds, etc.   it crossed my mind that it is possible that the ball I used may already comply.  

 

Any thoughts on this?

I bet there are a few.  I think you're right on with the balls optimized for slower speeds.  I could be wrong. But, I would guess the Callaway supersofts, the Pinnacle Soft or Rush, or any other one of the surlyn low cost balls.  

[awtryau89]

The Spy site stated that the Pinnacle Soft was supposedly the only golf ball in the Acushnet line up that would qualify. I'm sure they'll dig in and find others from more mfgs.

[scott_Donald]

they estimated 1/3 of the balls you can buy today. what they are I have no idea.

[Poor Mans Ty Webb]

Some golf balls don't generate the proper amount of compression necessary at elite swing speeds to really go all that far.  They tend to be softer balls with ionomer rather than urethane covers, and they are designed for lower swing speeds.

 

I'm not naming names because I know something others don't, but some examples of two-piece, low compression ionomer balls include the Titleist TruFeel, the Callaway Supersoft, the Bridgestone e6, etc.  Those types of balls are the ones probably more likely to conform under the new rule.

[hollabachgt]

10 minutes ago, scott_Donald said:

they estimated 1/3 of the balls you can buy today. what they are I have no idea.

A significant portion of golf ball models that are currently in the market – and more than 30 percent of all golf ball models submitted for conformance across the game – are expected to remain conforming after these changes are applied.

 

I would like to see the USGA release a list of the models that meet the new testing standard. It might go a long way to help the average joe understand the impact to them "The noodle still qualifies? Well I already play that ball so I guess I'm good then"

[PuffyC]

I'd love to see this magic list of conforming balls too but they don't seem to be into the whole transparency thing.

[cardigan]

USGA/R&A "estimate" that 30+% of the balls on the conforming list would still conform to the new standards but unless they actually test all of the balls, there isn't any real way to know which exact balls would pass.  I highly doubt that they will actually formally test and release details to the public for a multitude of reasons.  Costs, logistics of testing 1200+ balls under the new test while also handling the regular current testing of balls being submitted/resubmitted, fairness to companies whose balls would fall of the list. etc.

 

The conforming list doesn't represent all balls that are available on the market, it's just the balls that have been submitted/resubmitted for testing and passed the tests within the last 12 months.  Balls have to be resubmitted yearly or they fall off of the list.

 

A ball being on the list doesn't necessarily mean it's readily available for everyone in every market.  If you live in North America, balls like the Corteo Muziik or the Docus Neo probably aren't convenient options for you.  There are also tour only balls on the list and older generation balls that are very difficult to find.

 

Different color balls have to be submitted separately for conformance testing and are listed as separate entries on the conforming list.  "Assuming" that most of the balls that would still conform are 2pc surlyn balls, you'll very likely to find that a good amount of those 30+% balls are different colors of a model since they are typically more likely to come in multiple colors (besides white and yellow) than 3pc or 4pc urethane balls.  30+% of "balls" on the list is very different that 30+% of "models" on the list.  I don't know what balls would still conform but here just a few examples of 2pc surlyn balls on the list that come in many colors (I may be slightly of on some of the counts):

• Callaway Supersoft 6 colors
• Chromax M5 8 colors
• Kasco Kira Star 7 colors
• Maxfli Softfli 9 colors
• Wilson 50 Elite 5 colors

While I'm not concerned at all about the new conformance rules, I don't think that the 30+% of balls estimate really gives anyone any concrete information. I see why they felt saying it would ease some fears, it really doesn't say much.

 

[Greenie]

The balls I play are the Supersoft, Soft-fli, 50 Elite, and Soft Feel. I'm guessing I won't lose much distance overall with a new ball that will  probably be similar to what I already play. I find all of these balls with the Supersoft being the longest to give me great distance and still play well around the greens. Shorter balls for me have been Kirkland and ProV. 

 

Even though a list of conforming balls that already make the grade would be nice I doubt we will see it. Once people see the list and the ball they play happens to be on it will they feel the need to play something different because they are already playing a rolled back ball?

 

I am older. I have plenty of balls to use way past the roll back and I plan on using them as do all the guys I play with. 

 

 

[hollabachgt]

11 hours ago, PuffyC said:

I'd love to see this magic list of conforming balls too but they don't seem to be into the whole transparency thing.

the USGA has been more than transparent. 12 years ago they laid out a plan and followed it nearly to a T. They’ve published reports and research studies along the way describing the background they’ve put into this decision. The distance report was a comprehensive document that detailed the what and why behind their concern. They announced a potential change, asked for feedback, and then showed everyone how they used that feedback to adjust their decision. 
 

Short of gift wrapping all their research and dropping it on your doorstep, I’m not sure what else they could have done.

[Greenie]

14 minutes ago, hollabachgt said:

the USGA has been more than transparent. 12 years ago they laid out a plan and followed it nearly to a T. They’ve published reports and research studies along the way describing the background they’ve put into this decision. The distance report was a comprehensive document that detailed the what and why behind their concern. They announced a potential change, asked for feedback, and then showed everyone how they used that feedback to adjust their decision. 
 

Short of gift wrapping all their research and dropping it on your doorstep, I’m not sure what else they could have done.

 

So where can I find the list of balls that already conform to the roll back. I'm having a hard time finding it. Any help would be appreciated.

[grm24]

14 minutes ago, Greenie said:

 

So where can I find the list of balls that already conform to the roll back. I'm having a hard time finding it. Any help would be appreciated.

There isn't one and the USGA/R&A won't publish one. It's the same reason why the ruling bodies don't publish what the longest ball is. Per the USGA equipment FAQ on their website.... "That information is confidential."

Edited December 9, 2023 by grm24

[scottishexpat]

There's not a current ball in my bag that will still be there in 2030 😀

[Ger21]

On 12/8/2023 at 11:05 PM, Greenie said:

So where can I find the list of balls that already conform to the roll back. I'm having a hard time finding it. Any help would be appreciated.

I don't think that any manufacturer would want that list published. Who would then buy those balls that are already "rolled back"?

[bcjim]

"Someone else" publishes this data.  Despite that,  people still buy them.  In fact,  supersoft is one of the better selling balls on the market I understand.

[bobfoster]

On 12/8/2023 at 10:15 PM, Greenie said:

I am older. I have plenty of balls to use way past the roll back and I plan on using them as do all the guys I play with. 

 

I've been a bit puzzled by the folks that have been saying things like this (there's been a few in the various threads about the rollback). You, and your friends, already have so many balls that what you currently have will not only last the six years until the new rule will apply to you, but way past that? I mean, really? 

 

I generally buy a couple dozen at the beginning of every season, so I get buying a few in advance (rather than having just what is required for a given weekend), but why in the world would I buy enough balls to last six years? Especially because most of the large OEMs are continually refining their products, and release new balls or new versions of existing balls every couple years (the ProV I played this season is certainly not the same ProV I was playing in 2017).

 

Not being snarky here, I seriously don't get it. Some equipment I understand. I'm a fanatic, I won't have the same sticks in my bag in 2030 (hell, I won't even have the same bag). But I have plenty of friends that are casual golfers that just play for fun a handful of times a year, that don't care much about equipment, and have clubs that are over six years old. But the "disposable" side of the game is different - balls, tees, gloves. I simply don't understand why anyone would have a 6+ year supply of any of those. 

[jvincent]

On 12/8/2023 at 11:05 PM, Greenie said:

 

So where can I find the list of balls that already conform to the roll back. I'm having a hard time finding it. Any help would be appreciated.

 

Manufacturers will probably start submitting balls to be tested against the new standard sometime in 2026. Whether they submit any/all of their existing models will be up to them.

[Maine Golfer]

im not gonna think about this until one can test a 2028 ball, has no impact on my life up to that point. 

[Greenie]

2 hours ago, bobfoster said:

 

I've been a bit puzzled by the folks that have been saying things like this (there's been a few in the various threads about the rollback). You, and your friends, already have so many balls that what you currently have will not only last the six years until the new rule will apply to you, but way past that? I mean, really? 

 

@bobfoster        From one of my previous posts.........

 

"I have 40+ dozen new balls and I don't have a sim room. I'll stock up on a ball if the price is right. Last year Chrome soft (practice) $15 a dozen=14 dozen. Wilson Zip double dozen $15=10=20 dozen. Maxfli Soft Fli $12 a dozen=12 dozen. I also bought 4 dozen Supersofts and 4 dozen chromesofts at discount prices. A few years ago I bought 12 dozen Wilson Elite 50 balls for $10 a dozen. I'm not sure how many dozen of those I have left.

 

I probably have another 40 dozen in found balls. And this is after I gave away a thousand found balls earlier this year. I play 3 times a week. I might lose one ball or two balls a round. Usually zero. I usually find 6-10 balls a round. And that's without really looking for lost balls. A few guys I play with end up in the bushes a few times a round and I find balls when helping them look for their balls. Lets say I am finding two dozen balls a week. It adds up."

 

 

Bob there are many reasons why I have so much golf stuff including balls. I am one that buys stuff when the price is right because one thing I know for sure the next time I want to buy it the cost has gone up. I still have plenty of golf gloves I bought back in 2010 to use up. 

 

I retired last year and already knowing my main vice is golf I stocked up on plenty of balls at great prices. I wanted my costs golf related going forward to be greens fees and golf trips only so I planned ahead. A lot of my friends took the same approach as we all retired about the same time.

 

I was always cautious about buying to many golf balls because when the newest ball came out that I liked better I knew I would want to play it. In recent years I haven't felt that way. I don't feel that the newest is always better anymore when talking balls or golf equipment. So I stocked up and look at me. The newest won't be better moving forward.

 

[bobfoster]

3 hours ago, Greenie said:

@bobfoster        From one of my previous posts.........

 

"I have 40+ dozen new balls and I don't have a sim room. I'll stock up on a ball if the price is right. Last year Chrome soft (practice) $15 a dozen=14 dozen. Wilson Zip double dozen $15=10=20 dozen. Maxfli Soft Fli $12 a dozen=12 dozen. I also bought 4 dozen Supersofts and 4 dozen chromesofts at discount prices. A few years ago I bought 12 dozen Wilson Elite 50 balls for $10 a dozen. I'm not sure how many dozen of those I have left.

 

I probably have another 40 dozen in found balls. And this is after I gave away a thousand found balls earlier this year. I play 3 times a week. I might lose one ball or two balls a round. Usually zero. I usually find 6-10 balls a round. And that's without really looking for lost balls. A few guys I play with end up in the bushes a few times a round and I find balls when helping them look for their balls. Lets say I am finding two dozen balls a week. It adds up."

 

 

Bob there are many reasons why I have so much golf stuff including balls. I am one that buys stuff when the price is right because one thing I know for sure the next time I want to buy it the cost has gone up. I still have plenty of golf gloves I bought back in 2010 to use up. 

 

I retired last year and already knowing my main vice is golf I stocked up on plenty of balls at great prices. I wanted my costs golf related going forward to be greens fees and golf trips only so I planned ahead. A lot of my friends took the same approach as we all retired about the same time.

 

I was always cautious about buying to many golf balls because when the newest ball came out that I liked better I knew I would want to play it. In recent years I haven't felt that way. I don't feel that the newest is always better anymore when talking balls or golf equipment. So I stocked up and look at me. The newest won't be better moving forward.

 

I did read your post (found it interesting), but with all due respect, aren't you rather unique? I mean, for every one of you with more balls than you can count, there's probably a thousand guys that buy a couple sleeves at the pro shop ... because they worry they literally don't have enough to get through that day's round (there's a reason why minimalist pro shops that don't even carry clubs or hats at the very least have balls). 

 

The USGA looks at governing a game played by more than 25 million people in the US alone. They look at the broad norms - not really at the statistical outliers at the extreme ends of the bell curve. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the golfing world doesn't currently own the balls they'll be teeing off with in 2030, no? I get your approach to stocking up with the long view in mind as you hit retirement. But wouldn't you say that the percentage of golfers with a 10 year supply of balls - and in your case, apparently even a 10 year supply of gloves - is pretty miniscule?

[bcjim]

I'd think ball makers will happily keep making non conforming balls for the huge fraction of golfers that don't care a bit about USGA rules or handicaps.  No need to hoard is my guess.

 

I do have a question on the testing. How do they control the spin and launch to do the evaluation? IOW, how will they force the ball to launch at 11 and 2200? If you optimize the launch (via loft?) does the ball fail it spins less than 2200? (Or more?).

[jvincent]

52 minutes ago, bcjim said:

I'd think ball makers will happily keep making non conforming balls for the huge fraction of golfers that don't care a bit about USGA rules or handicaps.  No need to hoard is my guess.

 

I do have a question on the testing. How do they control the spin and launch to do the evaluation? IOW, how will they force the ball to launch at 11 and 2200? If you optimize the launch (via loft?) does the ball fail it spins less than 2200? (Or more?).

 

The test driver is made specifically for the USGA to its specs. FWIW, it's a 360CC head with 9* of loft. Full specs are on the USGA website.

 

There is an acceptable range for launch and spin. I assume that they can adjust the "robot golfer" to get the launch conditions to fall in the acceptable range. If they can't get it into range, the ball is non-conforming.

[bobfoster]

1 hour ago, bcjim said:

I'd think ball makers will happily keep making non conforming balls for the huge fraction of golfers that don't care a bit about USGA rules or handicaps.  No need to hoard is my guess.

Extremely unlikely. Just not how the industry works. Large OEMs will comply with USGA rules. They'll complain a bit, but they'll comply. They just will. 

 

Remember, this new rule doesn't establish conformance standards, it merely is making an adjustment (and a relatively mild one) to existing standards. Are there non-conforming balls currently being made? Yeppers. All sorts. (Start here if you wish: https://www.golfsidekick.com/balls/best-illegal-golf-balls/). But they are all DTC, and sales are miniscule - it's a tiny, niche market. No major OEM messes with them, and no big box sells them. 

 

While, as you say, a lot of golfers likely don't care much about the nuances and finer points of the RoG (there's heated discussion here, but WRX is a very unusual place), the overwhelming assumption is that when you buy a Titleist or Callaway ball, at a Dick's or Golf Galaxy, it is going to be conforming (even if you have no clue what "Iron Byron" is).

 

Same thing happened with wedges. OEMs did initially grumble loudly. In fact the pushback here is far more subdued (relatively speaking) than the wedge rule firestorm. Ping actually sued about that one. But ultimately, while a "large fraction of golfers don't care a bit about USGA rules or handicaps", you won't find any non-conforming wedge being produced by a major OEM, nor sold by any chain retailers. 

 

I mean, what would OEMs and retailers do? Their legal departments would insist that non-conforming balls be identified (as they should be - imagine someone buying a dozen Srixons at Golf Galaxy, only to be told when they got to their club that they had unknowingly bought illegal balls). So Titleist is going to put a big red "non-conforming" sticker on some balls? Dick's is going to have "Conforming" and "Non-conforming" shelves? Really, not gonna happen.

 

The OEM R&D departments (IMO) are likely now already figuring out how to optimize balls to get the greatest performance for the largest number of golfers while still conforming to the new standards. Wouldn't make any financial sense to do otherwise. 

[bcjim]

@bobfoster

 

I think it definitely could happen. Some OEM(s) will, if this all goes to script, look to sell balls to people that are off-put by the USGA.  And golfers are now accustomed to what they are accustomed to. And will keep buying what they are accustomed to. 

 

Nobody was ever playing any whacky niche distance ball that was previously legal. And I doubt those things available today really go any further anyway. Or they go a little further at the cost of control/feel/etc. They're the equivalent of the Hammer X. If there was an actual ball that went 25 (or 50 yd) further today...I think we'd see it on course. Hell, I'd trot it out now and then.

 

Now, if all this really boils down to 5y on a driver swing at 100mph, sure nobody will bother. And the whole thing will be pointless and accomplish nothing.

Edited December 11, 2023 by bcjim

[Greenie]

1 hour ago, bobfoster said:

I did read your post (found it interesting), but with all due respect, aren't you rather unique? I mean, for every one of you with more balls than you can count, there's probably a thousand guys that buy a couple sleeves at the pro shop ... because they worry they literally don't have enough to get through that day's round (there's a reason why minimalist pro shops that don't even carry clubs or hats at the very least have balls). 

 

The USGA looks at governing a game played by more than 25 million people in the US alone. They look at the broad norms - not really at the statistical outliers at the extreme ends of the bell curve. I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the golfing world doesn't currently own the balls they'll be teeing off with in 2030, no? I get your approach to stocking up with the long view in mind as you hit retirement. But wouldn't you say that the percentage of golfers with a 10 year supply of balls - and in your case, apparently even a 10 year supply of gloves - is pretty miniscule?

 

Sure Bob I am rather unique. Aren't we all in our own way?

 

I used to be that guy that would buy multiple sets of irons every year. I couldn't wait for that new model driver to come out to buy. I haven't been that way in 13 yrs. You can get away without new equipment but you are always going to need the accessories. Balls, gloves, shoes, clothes,etc. Yes I may go overboard but only because the price is right.

 

There is a Academy Sports Callaway Chrome Soft (practice ball) thread about the the ball deal they had last year. Look in there and see how many people bought 10-20 dozen. People buy large quantities of balls on super sale all the time. Look at the ball deals this year. Do you see any that would make you buy a large quantity? Maybe the Srixon 2 get one free? Not many this year.

 

I play with a bunch of guys that all have clubs bought before 2010. Their recurring cost is balls. The stock up on the super ball deals all the time and grab buckets full of used balls that a friend of ours find on the two courses he works. They may not have the amount of new balls I have but they have a lot more.

 

And yes Bob we have the guy that plays with us sometimes that shows up at the course, buys a dozen ProV's in the clubhouse before his round and stops by after nine holes and buys another dozen.

 

Bob you are bringing in the rollback and the ruling. I'm sure a lot of people will be out of balls by them but not everyone. How many people will go out and buy balls at crazy prices to stock up before they become non conforming.? Certainly not me. I am a bargain shopper.

 

I'm not happy about the roll back. If they think people are going to toss their non conforming balls and buy new ones is a bit much. But as you say their thinking is people will be out of those balls by then. I doubt that! I figure it will be another 5-10 years to filter the non conforming balls out of the used ball market unless they become worthless. Time will tell.

[bobfoster]

57 minutes ago, bcjim said:

@bobfoster

 

I think it definitely could happen. Some OEM(s) will, if this all goes to script, look to sell balls to people that are off-put by the USGA.  And golfers are now accustomed to what they are accustomed to. And will keep buying what they are accustomed to. 

 

Nobody was ever playing any whacky niche distance ball that was previously legal. And I doubt those things available today really go any further anyway. Or they go a little further at the cost of control/feel/etc. They're the equivalent of the Hammer X. If there was an actual ball that went 25 (or 50 yd) further today...I think we'd see it on course. Hell, I'd trot it out now and then.

 

Now, if all this really boils down to 5y on a driver swing at 100mph, sure nobody will bother. And the whole thing will be pointless and accomplish nothing.

Well, time will tell, but most of the major OEMs have already issued initial statements. They are all grumbling a bit (to be expected - but the grumbling is actually far milder than the wedge rule grumbling). But so far as I am aware, none of them have even hinted that they are going to explore non-conformance. If the USGA isn't going to bifurcate, the OEMs aren't going to take it upon themselves to do so in defiance of the USGA. 

 

I mean, why? Do you really think the OEMs are going to make some dramatic stand against the rules bodies over what, functionally, is such a trivial change for the vast majority of golfers? And who would you market non-conforming balls to that would make it worth it?

 

The golfers that do care about handicaps - about 3 million out of 25 million US golfers even bother to keep  formal handicap indexes - are going to have to conform. Not much choice - the same rules body that set the ball standard also manages the handicap system itself. But for that large number of casual weekenders that don't care much - well, losing an average of 3 - 5 yards on their drives is going to make zero difference. Most likely won't even notice (just as people happy not to chunk or blade their wedges could care less about U vs. V grooves). 

 

If the OEMs thought they could sell a lot of non-conforming balls, I have no doubt they'd do so in a heartbeat. But the size of the potential market simply doesn't remotely seem worth the logistical trouble. I mean, instead of selling a ProV1, Titleist is going to sell a "conforming" Prov1 and a "non-conforming" Prov1? Do you really see that happening?

[jordan2240]

Based on my driving distances, I'm pretty sure every ball I play complies.

[oiler45]

On 12/10/2023 at 8:10 PM, bobfoster said:

Well, time will tell, but most of the major OEMs have already issued initial statements. They are all grumbling a bit (to be expected - but the grumbling is actually far milder than the wedge rule grumbling). But so far as I am aware, none of them have even hinted that they are going to explore non-conformance. If the USGA isn't going to bifurcate, the OEMs aren't going to take it upon themselves to do so in defiance of the USGA. 

 

I mean, why? Do you really think the OEMs are going to make some dramatic stand against the rules bodies over what, functionally, is such a trivial change for the vast majority of golfers? And who would you market non-conforming balls to that would make it worth it?

 

The golfers that do care about handicaps - about 3 million out of 25 million US golfers even bother to keep  formal handicap indexes - are going to have to conform. Not much choice - the same rules body that set the ball standard also manages the handicap system itself. But for that large number of casual weekenders that don't care much - well, losing an average of 3 - 5 yards on their drives is going to make zero difference. Most likely won't even notice (just as people happy not to chunk or blade their wedges could care less about U vs. V grooves). 

 

If the OEMs thought they could sell a lot of non-conforming balls, I have no doubt they'd do so in a heartbeat. But the size of the potential market simply doesn't remotely seem worth the logistical trouble. I mean, instead of selling a ProV1, Titleist is going to sell a "conforming" Prov1 and a "non-conforming" Prov1? Do you really see that happening?

Ah - no Bobfoster. Do you really think (referring to the bolded sentence above) everyone who keeps a handicap plays by the strict rules of golf ? The league I'm in makes us put a piece of tape on our putters about 2 feet up the shaft to settle the "gimmee" standard - funny I don't see that on Tiger or Rory's putter. You think everyone who takes a mulligan, rolls his ball over in the fairway, moves his ball out of a divot or a footprint in a sandtrap etc et etc does NOT still enter his score in the handicap system? C'mon - recreational hackers are going to use non-conforming balls post-2030 whether the RB's roll back the ball or not. And hey - if it really isn't going to make a difference to us slow swingers like they maintain - who cares right? 

This proposal is silly on so many fronts - if they want to harness the distance on the top .01% of golfers in the world - so be it. Leave the rest of us alone. And if the major OEM's think the DTC golf ball manufacturers won't build a pre-rollback specs urethane ball post 2030 - yeah right. Once again the USGA et al shows just how out of touch with the real world they truly are.

[cardigan]

3 hours ago, oiler45 said:

Ah - no Bobfoster. Do you really think (referring to the bolded sentence above) everyone who keeps a handicap plays by the strict rules of golf ? The league I'm in makes us put a piece of tape on our putters about 2 feet up the shaft to settle the "gimmee" standard - funny I don't see that on Tiger or Rory's putter. You think everyone who takes a mulligan, rolls his ball over in the fairway, moves his ball out of a divot or a footprint in a sandtrap etc et etc does NOT still enter his score in the handicap system? C'mon - recreational hackers are going to use non-conforming balls post-2030 whether the RB's roll back the ball or not. And hey - if it really isn't going to make a difference to us slow swingers like they maintain - who cares right? 

This proposal is silly on so many fronts - if they want to harness the distance on the top .01% of golfers in the world - so be it. Leave the rest of us alone. And if the major OEM's think the DTC golf ball manufacturers won't build a pre-rollback specs urethane ball post 2030 - yeah right. Once again the USGA et al shows just how out of touch with the real world they truly are.

I don't think most golfers, recreational or not, are going to go out of their way to try to hoard old balls as we come closer to the transition or try to track down prior generation balls after we get to the new rules.   I think we'll probably continue to have most golfers not having 10+ dozen balls on hand at all times that they've been saving for years and not actively seeking out non-conforming balls. 

[bobfoster]

6 hours ago, oiler45 said:

Ah - no Bobfoster. Do you really think (referring to the bolded sentence above) everyone who keeps a handicap plays by the strict rules of golf ? The league I'm in makes us put a piece of tape on our putters about 2 feet up the shaft to settle the "gimmee" standard - funny I don't see that on Tiger or Rory's putter. You think everyone who takes a mulligan, rolls his ball over in the fairway, moves his ball out of a divot or a footprint in a sandtrap etc et etc does NOT still enter his score in the handicap system? C'mon - recreational hackers are going to use non-conforming balls post-2030 whether the RB's roll back the ball or not. And hey - if it really isn't going to make a difference to us slow swingers like they maintain - who cares right? 

This proposal is silly on so many fronts - if they want to harness the distance on the top .01% of golfers in the world - so be it. Leave the rest of us alone. And if the major OEM's think the DTC golf ball manufacturers won't build a pre-rollback specs urethane ball post 2030 - yeah right. Once again the USGA et al shows just how out of touch with the real world they truly are.

 Some are certainly of the opinion that the rule is silly. In fact, pretty much any change at all the USGA makes to any rule is considered silly by some. In fact people consider a lot of the current rules silly (if you read the Rules & Etiquette forum now and then it can get to be a riot). As soon as anyone sets a rule of any sort, someone else will complain about it. It's sort of a tradition in our species.

 

The minute Zog scratched a line in the dirt with a stick and grunted that the firewood should be there, Ugg started hooting that the line should be longer, Thorg that it should be shorter, Ork gestured that there should be no line at all, and Drag took a dump on the firewood (by way of indicating his extreme displeasure - though it was hard to discern what, exactly, he was displeased about). Is just sorta how we are. We mostly love the structure rules bring to chaos, but simultaneously derive immense enjoyment from complaining about those rules. We're teapots with self-creating tempests. We're fun. Aliens would totally wanna party with us. (Though they'd likely slightly prefer dolphins, who are just as smart but take things a bit less seriously.)

 

And of course a lot of people with handicaps don't always play by the strict RoG - and the OEMs are fully aware that DTCs will sell non-conforming balls. But this is virtually meaningless. This new rule is just a tweak of an existing rule. There's already all sorts of quirky DTCs selling non-conforming balls right now (here's some great ones: https://www.golfsidekick.com/balls/best-illegal-golf-balls/). They have been for years. Many with positively hilarious branding. But these are largely novelties. The major OEMs don't give a flying crap - because it is an incredibly miniscule slice of the market. 

 

Truth is, the vast majority of the approximately 1.2 billion golf balls manufactured every year are produced by the big OEMs, sold by major online retailers, big box stores, and course pro shops all over the world, and are overwhelming conforming. There's no reason to think this will in any way change. There are, and always will be non-conforming balls on the market, but you have to go out of the way to find them, and ... why? Probably 98% of golfers, in 2030, are going to (as they do now) buy a dozen Callaways or TMs (or whatever) at Golf Galaxy, or click Buy on TGW, or grab a sleeve at the course, and those balls will be conforming (as they are now). Just as every driver or wedge made by OEMs and sold by major retailers is conforming. That's just the business of golf. 

 

While people have been speculating this week (as expected), I have yet to hear any indication from any of the OEMs that they intend to defy the new rule. In fact, what little I've heard is that they are complaining a little (also expected), but are just going about figuring out how to tweak their balls to optimize within the new rules. It just isn't a fight financially worth having. The change (silly or not) is minor for the vast majority of golfers. Its not like the USGA outlawed drivers. The cost/benefit for the OEMs to fight it just ain't there. Not by a long shot. 

 

If anyone has heard anything different, I'd love to hear it (I'm totally into industry gossip) ... but I'm pretty sure in 2030 the firwood is going to be where Zog drew the line ... 😎

Edited December 13, 2023 by bobfoster