The groove rule and the ball rollback

[bluedot]

So if I understand correctly, the groove ban for ”the rest of us” is not going into effect after all.  Effectively, I think this means that there is a bifurcated structure in place now, since pros and elite ams have been under the “new” groove rule for a number of years.

 

Am I the only one who suspects that this will be a template for what will happen with the golf ball?  The USGA wanted to bifurcate, but got a hugely negative response to that during the comment period.  So when the rollback happens for elite ams (and pros if the Tour goes along?) is it possible that over the two intervening years the USGA will abandon the change for the rest of us.  
 

In other words, a back door to bifurcation?

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, bluedot said:

So if I understand correctly, the groove ban for ”the rest of us” is not going into effect after all.  Effectively, I think this means that there is a bifurcated structure in place now, since pros and elite ams have been under the “new” groove rule for a number of years.

 

It may as well be in effect, because nobody's been selling (or allowed to create/sell) the "old" wedges since like 2010 or whatever.

 

7 minutes ago, bluedot said:

Am I the only one who suspects that this will be a template for what will happen with the golf ball? The USGA wanted to bifurcate, but got a hugely negative response to that during the comment period.  So when the rollback happens for elite ams (and pros if the Tour goes along?) is it possible that over the two intervening years the USGA will abandon the change for the rest of us.

 

No. Ball manufacturers may not even produce the "different" balls in 2028 and 2029. They might just sell their old stock (which they might ramp up in 2027).

[bluedot]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

It may as well be in effect, because nobody's been selling (or allowed to create/sell) the "old" wedges since like 2010 or whatever.

 

 

No. Ball manufacturers may not even produce the "different" balls in 2028 and 2029. They might just sell their old stock (which they might ramp up in 2027).

I agree, of course, about the production of clubs since 2010, and the likelihood of running across somebody playing competitive golf even at the club level with clubs older than that is remote, to say the least.  But any irons produced before that will still be "legal", despite all the attention given to the groove rule at the time.  I'm not a fan of the USGA, but they may have learned something from this.

 

You might be right about what the ball companies will do in 2028 and 2029; I have no idea what Titleist, for instance, keeps on hand as inventory at any given moment, much less what they'll decide to do with inventory in the two-year interim period. 

 

But it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to imagine the big companies continuing to produce large quantities of the "old" ball during 2028 and 2029, while also producing small numbers of the shorter ball.  Were that to be the case, it wouldn't be difficult to see 2030 coming and going with a de facto bifurcated golf ball in place.

 

 

[GoGoErky]

35 minutes ago, bluedot said:

So when the rollback happens for elite ams (and pros if the Tour goes along?) is it possible that over the two intervening years the USGA will abandon the change for the rest of us.  

If there is any indication from the RBs this will happen will there be pushback before hand from the OEMs and torus and they tell the RBs to buzz off?

 

[davep043]

8 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

If there is any indication from the RBs this will happen will there be pushback before hand from the OEMs and torus and they tell the RBs to buzz off?

Just my guess, but I believe that by 2029 proportion of non-compliant balls produced will be similar to the proportion of non-compliant wedges produced in 2011.  There isn't a significant financial reward for maintaining additional production lines for those players who will choose not to play conforming equipment.  The manufacturers may publicly decry any distance reduction, but they HATED the idea of making balls to two different standards, they're not going to do it voluntarily.  The pro tours may say the same thing, but they HATED the idea that the public would not be playing the "same equipment the pros play."  

[bluedot]

13 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

If there is any indication from the RBs this will happen will there be pushback before hand from the OEMs and torus and they tell the RBs to buzz off?

 

There's already pushback from the OEMs; I don't see how being told that they can continue to produce and sell the "old" ball and that it would be conforming for non-elite amateur play would add to that.

 

I think the USGA lives in legitimate fear of the day when OEMs and the general public tell them to buzz off.  I don't agree with bifurcation AT ALL, but given that bifurcation is what the USGA originally wanted to do, I'm wondering if this path is the USGA's escape hatch.

 

Just wondering...

[GoGoErky]

4 minutes ago, bluedot said:

There's already pushback from the OEMs; I don't see how being told that they can continue to produce and sell the "old" ball and that it would be conforming for non-elite amateur play would add to that.

 

I think the USGA lives in legitimate fear of the day when OEMs and the general public tell them to buzz off.  I don't agree with bifurcation AT ALL, but given that bifurcation is what the USGA originally wanted to do, I'm wondering if this path is the USGA's escape hatch.

 

Just wondering...

I was saying if it appears that the RBs are going to go with a backdoor rollback does tour tell them we aren’t going to have a different ball and the OEMs say we aren’t making a ball for the pros and one for everyone else.

 

But as was mentioned we know the OEMs stopped making the old grooves, would they decide to not make anymore of the current balls at some point if the RBs did a backdoor bifurcation?

 

Will be interesting times in the next 4 years or so

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, bluedot said:

I agree, of course, about the production of clubs since 2010, and the likelihood of running across somebody playing competitive golf even at the club level with clubs older than that is remote, to say the least.  But any irons produced before that will still be "legal", despite all the attention given to the groove rule at the time.

 

No, not all iron sets had "illegal" grooves prior to 2010. Some conformed, just as about 1/3 of golf balls already conform to the 2028 ODS.

 

6 minutes ago, bluedot said:

I think the USGA lives in legitimate fear of the day when OEMs and the general public tell them to buzz off.

 

I don't. It didn't go all that well for the ERC II.

[psygolf]

42 minutes ago, bluedot said:

There's already pushback from the OEMs; I don't see how being told that they can continue to produce and sell the "old" ball and that it would be conforming for non-elite amateur play would add to that.

 

I think the USGA lives in legitimate fear of the day when OEMs and the general public tell them to buzz off.  I don't agree with bifurcation AT ALL, but given that bifurcation is what the USGA originally wanted to do, I'm wondering if this path is the USGA's escape hatch.

 

Just wondering...

It would be great if all ball manufacturers collectively told the USGA to go ahead and start their own ball company.

[psygolf]

34 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

No, not all iron sets had "illegal" grooves prior to 2010. Some conformed, just as about 1/3 of golf balls already conform to the 2028 ODS.

 

 

I don't. It didn't go all that well for the ERC II.

I had no issues selling the ERC in my area back then

[iacas]

1 minute ago, psygolf said:

It would be great if all ball manufacturers collectively told the USGA to go ahead and start their own ball company.

 

Huh? Why?

 

Also, I love how quickly the R&A's place in this is forgotten. It's not just the USGA driving the ship. It was and has always been a joint decision, a joint push.

 

1 minute ago, psygolf said:

I had no issues selling the ERC in my area back then

 

"Yet, Callaway spokesman Larry Dorman said the company believes the USGA went too far when it banned the ERC II. Dorman said the company believes the ban has hurt sales of the ERC II and by the company's estimates, sales would be nearly twice as high as they are now if the USGA had not declared it nonconforming."

 

It didn't sell well, Arnie's legacy took a hit with his endorsement of it, etc.

 

There are illegal balls out there now. They, too, don't sell very well.

[davep043]

13 minutes ago, psygolf said:

It would be great if all ball manufacturers collectively told the USGA to go ahead and start their own ball company.

Look at the market right now, how big a share do non-conforming "hot" balls have right now?  In spite of how vocal the opposition is right now, in the end I believe most golfers want to play by the rules most of the time.  The manufacturers' PR teams will claim to be against the reductions, of course, they don't want to be the seen as the "bad guys", but they're probably rejoicing that the USGA and R&A did exactly as the manufacturers asked back in March, they chose not to have two different golf ball standards. 

I'm trying to imagine what WOULD happen if "all ball manufacturers" chose not to make the shorter ball.  Would there be ANY standards?  Would the manufacturers feel free to make balls as hot as they wanted?  Or would they come together (even though they compete with each other) establish and fund their own standard-making organization, and take responsibility to govern themselves?  Lots of people/organizations hate certain regulations, but almost none want the responsibility to make and enforce similar regulations on themselves.    

[bluedot]

46 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

No, not all iron sets had "illegal" grooves prior to 2010. Some conformed, just as about 1/3 of golf balls already conform to the 2028 ODS.

 

 

I don't. It didn't go all that well for the ERC II.

I'm not sure what we disagree about vis a vis the 2010 groove rule. 

 

I don't think that either the fact that there were grooves being produced prior to that which were conforming, or whether or not there are still non-conforming grooves still in play would be the point of a comparison to the coming golf ball situation.  My only point in this is that there was a change announced and scheduled that apparently is never going to happen for non-elite play, and my only question here is to wonder if this isn't a template of sorts for the USGA accomplishing bifurcation, which was their goal in the first place.  That's all.

 

As to the ERC II, I have no idea how to assess that.  I don't know Callaway's sales figures for that driver compared to other companies or even other Callaway drivers, or how long Callaway produced the ERC II relative to other Callaway drivers.  But I don't think any of that really matters, or makes for an analogy to the ball anyway; I'm not saying the recreational golfers will choose to use non-conforming golf balls.  I'm just WONDERING if the groove rule has provided a way forward for the USGA (and, of course, the R&A), to NOT roll back the ball for recreational and non-elite competitive play, and to achieve their original goal of a bifurcated golf ball. 

 

I had zero interest in the ERC II, just as I will have zero interest in playing a non-conforming golf ball, even in casual play.  That's not the question I'm asking. 

[bluedot]

While I realize that an OP doesn't control the direction of discussion once they start a topic, I didn't intend to ask whether or not non-elite ams would play non-conforming golf balls after 2030.  And in that regard, neither the ERC II 20+ years ago, or the presence of non-conforming "hot" golf balls now, are pertinent to my original question. 

 

I didn't and don't have any interest in non-conforming golf equipment, just like I hold myself to a standard of playing even my casual rounds fully under The Rules, if only because that's what I'll be doing when I play in a tournament.  I just included how to play out of divot in a recent lesson with my pro; I can't move the ball in a tournament, so I don't move the ball in a non-tournament round.  That's just where I'm coming from here.

 

(To be clear, I don't support a rollback of the distance standard, or bifurcation, or playing non-conforming equipment.  If I'm still playing golf in 2030, I'll do exactly what I've always done; I'll use conforming equipment, including the golf ball.  And not only do I suspect that the guys I'm playing with will be the same, but I'd be pretty shocked if my club were EVER to sell non-conforming equipment, including the golf ball.  I'm just curious to see if what is conforming now will or will not actually be non-conforming in 2030.)

 

I simply wondered if perhaps the USGA and R&A MIGHT see the path they've taken with the groove rule to be a POSSIBLE method of achieving bifurcation come 2030, which is what they wanted in the first place, no? 

 

 

[Socrates]

3 minutes ago, bluedot said:

I'm just WONDERING if the groove rule has provided a way forward for the USGA (and, of course, the R&A), to NOT roll back the ball for recreational and non-elite competitive play, and to achieve their original goal of a bifurcated golf ball. 

The Groove Rule is still in effect at all levels of golf.  I'm sure that they view the 2010 Rule as superseding the "Ping Rule."  At the recreational level, it is policed by the individual player (or even a Hcp Committee).  At the professional or high level amateur level, the Conditions of the Competition are administrating the Rule.  So there it no bifurcation of the Rule.  There always be those that don't want to play by the Rules, but it by no means, means that the Ruling Bodies are advocating or giving the appearance of advocating bifurcation.

 

By late 2027 all the major OEM's will produce only the legal ball and by 2028 will only sell the new ball.  There will always be a grey-market in the old ball.  Much the same way you can still purchase balata balls from 30 years ago.

 

 

[Socrates]

2 minutes ago, bluedot said:

I simply wondered if perhaps the USGA and R&A MIGHT see the path they've taken with the groove rule to be a POSSIBLE method of achieving bifurcation come 2030, which is what they wanted in the first place, no? 

 

 

You are try to imply that something is fact when it is only a supposition by you (and a few others), that there is some devious plan by the Ruling Bodies to create Bifurcation.  At no time in the present or the past, have I been aware of the Ruling Bodies being in favour of that.  It has always been, play what is legal and Pro's and Amateurs play the same equipment.

[GoGoErky]

1 minute ago, Socrates said:

You are try to imply that something is fact when it is only a supposition by you (and a few others), that there is some devious plan by the Ruling Bodies to create Bifurcation.  At no time in the present or the past, have I been aware of the Ruling Bodies being in favour of that.  It has always been, play what is legal and Pro's and Amateurs play the same equipment.

Their goal of the MLR was exactly that. They wanted the men’s tours to adopt the rule. When they said no they could have gone with the rule anyways and use it for their 2 majors and possibly The Masters. They weren’t happy when the tours and the pga of America said no.

[Socrates]

17 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Their goal of the MLR was exactly that. They wanted the men’s tours to adopt the rule. When they said no they could have gone with the rule anyways and use it for their 2 majors and possibly The Masters. They weren’t happy when the tours and the pga of America said no.

The MLR was only a proposal to make the ball modification more palatable to the public.  The result of consultation was a no to that.  It's not that it was a desired thing, but one that might have made it more acceptable.  They moved forward with the original plan which is in keeping with what the Rules have been all about for centuries.  No different than any other meeting where ideas are bandied about before a plan is developed.  Doesn't mean it was some secret plan to bifurcate the Rules. 

[GoGoErky]

24 minutes ago, Socrates said:

The MLR was only a proposal to make the ball modification more palatable to the public.  The result of consultation was a no to that.  It's not that it was a desired thing, but one that might have made it more acceptable.  They moved forward with the original plan which is in keeping with what the Rules have been all about for centuries.  No different than any other meeting where ideas are bandied about before a plan is developed.  Doesn't mean it was some secret plan to bifurcate the Rules. 

The original plan was to have a reduced ball for everyone. The OEMs said that’s bad for the game. They proposed an MLR for elite men’s golf not for anything to do with the public. The proposal was to not have the MLR apply to the LPGA or LET and the regular amateur golfer.

 

The rejection of the proposal was by the professional tours and the pga of Americans because they weren’t going to create the bifurcation the MLR would have created. The RBs thought they were going to get buy in from Augusta and PGA of America which would force the tours to use it so that there wasn’t a different ball on the pro tours and the 4 majors. 
 

The current golf ball and equipment rules are palatable to the public. Golf is healthy as stated by Mike Whan and the PGA tour was doing just fine before the proposal. The majority wanted no change 

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

 

It may as well be in effect, because nobody's been selling (or allowed to create/sell) the "old" wedges since like 2010 or whatever.

 

 

No. Ball manufacturers may not even produce the "different" balls in 2028 and 2029. They might just sell their old stock (which they might ramp up in 2027).

I don’t see Titleist ramping up stock.  In the last couple years they have gone months with zero Left Dash Pro V1X in stock…and months of short supplies even of Pro V1.  
 

If they ramp up production, even if they can, what happens to that stock if the public embraces the new ball?   They have always struck me as a “just in time” supplier that prefers to err on the short side.

[davep043]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

The Groove Rule is still in effect at all levels of golf.  I'm sure that they view the 2010 Rule as superseding the "Ping Rule."  At the recreational level, it is policed by the individual player (or even a Hcp Committee).  At the professional or high level amateur level, the Conditions of the Competition are administrating the Rule.  So there it no bifurcation of the Rule.  There always be those that don't want to play by the Rules, but it by no means, means that the Ruling Bodies are advocating or giving the appearance of advocating bifurcation.

 

By late 2027 all the major OEM's will produce only the legal ball and by 2028 will only sell the new ball.  There will always be a grey-market in the old ball.  Much the same way you can still purchase balata balls from 30 years ago.

Perhaps I misunderstand the underlined bit.  The 2010 groove rules are not in play for all golf, they are in effect only when Model Local Rule G-2 is in place.  Otherwise I'm with you, I simply don't believe the major manufacturers will choose to continue making non-compliant golf balls.

 

2 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

If they ramp up production, even if they can, what happens to that stock if the public embraces the new ball?   They have always struck me as a “just in time” supplier that prefers to err on the short side.

Yeah, having stock sitting in a warehouse somewhere only costs money, it doesn't make money.  

[st1800e]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

The 2010 groove rules are not in play for all golf, they are in effect only when Model Local Rule G-2 is in place. 

Correct, but there are other groove rules that apply to all clubs.

[Pepperturbo]

I don't think once the roll-back products are in place, a great deal of people, including me and others on this board, will be tormented by the difference, not unless you play the same courses and are faced with the debilitating thought of how much further you used to hit the ball; what 5 feet??  LOL   

 

The question is will recall of how much further you used to hit the ball have an effect on whether you cheat using a nonconforming ball or yield like the rest of us. 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, bluedot said:

I don't think that either the fact that there were grooves being produced prior to that which were conforming, or whether or not there are still non-conforming grooves still in play would be the point of a comparison to the coming golf ball situation.  My only point in this is that there was a change announced and scheduled that apparently is never going to happen for non-elite play, and my only question here is to wonder if this isn't a template of sorts for the USGA accomplishing bifurcation, which was their goal in the first place.  That's all.

 

The ball rule isn't the same as the groove rule.

 

In the groove situation, they said "we'll provide notice in like a decade if it still applies." They didn't have to, because nobody is still playing golf with infringing clubs, so it's a moot point, because nobody's manufacturing illegal clubs.

 

That's not the same as the ball situation.

[Socrates]

3 hours ago, davep043 said:

Perhaps I misunderstand the underlined bit.  The 2010 groove rules are not in play for all golf, they are in effect only when Model Local Rule G-2 is in place.  Otherwise I'm with you, I simply don't believe the major manufacturers will choose to continue making non-compliant golf balls.

 

Yeah, having stock sitting in a warehouse somewhere only costs money, it doesn't make money.  

While it says that the MLR G-2 needs to be in place, I don't doubt that there would be a 10 page thread on someone, somewhere winning a local club event using non-compliant wedges and the horror expressed. 😉  Especially in the UK where I think they still pillory people for using illegal equipment (just kidding... maybe).

 

OEM's aren't going to run or warehouse a secondary line of balls.  There isn't the capacity or the $$$ to do that.  Plus R & D will have their hands full getting all the various lines up to speed with the new mandates.  I'm sure that someone will produce old balls, but it won't be a major OEM.   FWIW, within days of the fire in Taiwan, we received notification that certain lines of balls from Srixon would no longer be available.  So supply lines are pretty JIT.

[bluedot]

4 hours ago, Socrates said:

You are try to imply that something is fact when it is only a supposition by you (and a few others), that there is some devious plan by the Ruling Bodies to create Bifurcation.  At no time in the present or the past, have I been aware of the Ruling Bodies being in favour of that.  It has always been, play what is legal and Pro's and Amateurs play the same equipment.

Ok.

[Socrates]

35 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

The ball rule isn't the same as the groove rule.

 

In the groove situation, they said "we'll provide notice in like a decade if it still applies." They didn't have to, because nobody is still playing golf with infringing clubs, so it's a moot point, because nobody's manufacturing illegal clubs.

 

That's not the same as the ball situation.

Nothing to do with your post...

 

I just noticed "I don't deal in magic grits" at the bottom of your Signature.  😄😅

[bluedot]

39 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

The ball rule isn't the same as the groove rule.

 

In the groove situation, they said "we'll provide notice in like a decade if it still applies." They didn't have to, because nobody is still playing golf with infringing clubs, so it's a moot point, because nobody's manufacturing illegal clubs.

 

That's not the same as the ball situation.

Ok.

[Itsjustagame]

Why would this even be a big deal for most golfers? Driver distance 5 yards less, and iron distance unchanged seems to be the projection?

[Maine Golfer]

7 hours ago, davep043 said:

Just my guess, but I believe that by 2029 proportion of non-compliant balls produced will be similar to the proportion of non-compliant wedges produced in 2011.  There isn't a significant financial reward for maintaining additional production lines for those players who will choose not to play conforming equipment.  The manufacturers may publicly decry any distance reduction, but they HATED the idea of making balls to two different standards, they're not going to do it voluntarily.  The pro tours may say the same thing, but they HATED the idea that the public would not be playing the "same equipment the pros play."  

you nailed it.  A big brand isn't risking such for a small time market. It will just me like today with a few odd ball brands selling 450 YARD BALLS.