The groove rule and the ball rollback

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

Nothing to do with your post...

 

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

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, Itsjustagame said:

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?

 

Hers my belief for what it’s worth.  They, the ruling bodies, spread that story to make this rollback palatable.  And to an extent they are likely correct.

 

20+ handicap players will likely lose nothing.  They do not hit it solidly enough to lose anything on average.

 

Where I expect greater losses than advertised is the older low handicap player.  You all know the ones I’m speaking of…the 60-75 year old player that still hits it in the center of the club face but doesn’t have great speed. Figure 90-105 clubhead speed.

 

They are the ones I expect to lose more than advertised as well as the plus caps that populate many clubs that work and don’t have time to keep their short game in shape.

 

We’ll see in a few years who's correct.

[Lobby]

2 hours 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.

Hi,

 

I’m playing Ping I3 irons

 

 

signed,

 

Nobody

[Itsjustagame]

20 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Where I expect greater losses than advertised is the older low handicap player.  You all know the ones I’m speaking of…the 60-75 year old player that still hits it in the center of the club face but doesn’t have great speed. Figure 90-105 clubhead speed.

Thats me (75 yo) so hope not.

[Shilgy]

45 minutes ago, Itsjustagame said:

Thats me (75 yo) so hope not.

Yeah but you’ll be 78 in three years….I’ll be turning 70.

[Schulzmc]

7 hours ago, Itsjustagame said:

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?

OK - maybe not “most golfers.” 

 

But for me - a guy in his late 60s who used to hit it further than most, and now is working his a** off in the gym to gain a yard or two after he has lost almost 40 yards on his driver in the last five years, every yard feels like a struggle.

 

Seriously, there are holes at my club that I used to hit various wedges into and now I’m thrilled to have an 8 iron in my hand. I know - it’s time to move up a tee or two. And I am not kidding when I tell you that I dedicate hours to trying to gain a yard or two on my ARCOSS driving average. When that ball changes it will feel like a kick in the teeth. 

 

And why? So Marion can have another Open? Hard to swallow.

[bcjim]

16 hours ago, Itsjustagame said:

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?

If that's what it amounts to,  agree. But,  if that's what it amounts to,  why even bother?

 

For this rollback to be meaningful,  it HAS to be more impactful than that. 

 

But,  if it IS meaningful,  and people are 15y shorter off the tee, I think OEMs might rebel and keep making and marketing today's ball. Not just to keep selling balls but to keep selling CLUBS.

 

A lot of golfers,  I predict,  will not be interested in buying $700 drivers that go 15y less (even if the ball is the actual cause).

[iacas]

2 hours ago, bcjim said:

If that's what it amounts to,  agree. But,  if that's what it amounts to,  why even bother?

 

For this rollback to be meaningful,  it HAS to be more impactful than that. 

 

But,  if it IS meaningful,  and people are 15y shorter off the tee, I think OEMs might rebel and keep making and marketing today's ball. Not just to keep selling balls but to keep selling CLUBS.

 

A lot of golfers,  I predict,  will not be interested in buying $700 drivers that go 15y less (even if the ball is the actual cause).

 

I think you're all going a bit off the deep end here.

 

1/3 of balls already conform. This wasn't much of a roll-back, because it was a bit more of a "hold" at the top end. It affects players less and less as they swing slower (many of the already conforming balls are geared toward the slower swingers - softer balls with more spin, generally).

 

I don't think the USGA/R&A are lying in saying that most golfers aren't going to notice. And… if they do, move the tee markers up four yards.

[Simpsonia]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

I think you're all going a bit off the deep end here.

 

1/3 of balls already conform. This wasn't much of a roll-back, because it was a bit more of a "hold" at the top end. It affects players less and less as they swing slower (many of the already conforming balls are geared toward the slower swingers - softer balls with more spin, generally).

 

I don't think the USGA/R&A are lying in saying that most golfers aren't going to notice. And… if they do, move the tee markers up four yards.

 

There already was a "hold" at the top end from the original ODS rules put into place in 2003. Distance of the leaders have been essentially static since then (Kuehne at 321.4 yds in 2003, Rory with 326.1 yards in 2023). What has creeped up is the field average, but that has nothing to do with the leaders' distance, which has not. The USGA just wants the appearance of doing something to appease the blue bloods that run Merion and the likes. 

 

Edit: Also the much-advertised "lesser effect on slower swing speeds" isn't fully accurate either. Yes, there is a small reduction between high and low swing speeds, but it's a pretty minimal difference. In the USGA's own ball testing there was only a 1.5% difference in the reduction between the highest swing speeds (8.5% reduction) and a low swing speed reduction (7%). There's no cheating aerodynamic physics. 

Edited January 3 by Simpsonia

[iacas]

56 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

There already was a "hold" at the top end from the original ODS rules put into place in 2003.

 

You're misunderstanding my point (and the ODS itself goes back way, way before 2003).

 

This will "hold" the top-end of the longer hitters a bit longer by scooting them back a bit. If you imagine drawing a line at some distance, this will "hold" the longest hitters on the PGA Tour just short of that for another 10 years perhaps.

 

56 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

Distance of the leaders have been essentially static since then (Kuehne at 321.4 yds in 2003, Rory with 326.1 yards in 2023). What has creeped up is the field average, but that has nothing to do with the leaders' distance, which has not.

 

I'm not getting into a stats/data/whatever argument, and I don't really care about the PGA Tour players in regards to regulation.

 

56 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

The USGA just wants the appearance of doing something to appease the blue bloods that run Merion and the likes.

 

Again, the R&A is a role in this, too… and you're welcome to think whatever you want, regardless of how accurate it is.

 

56 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

There's no cheating aerodynamic physics.

 

And someone who hits it 180 is going to lose less in terms of actual yards than someone who hits it 320.

 

We could both play numbers games (you are by using percentages), but that's not going to get us anywhere. Also, the ODS reduced the distance at the top end just under 5%, not 8.5%

[BIG STU]

On 1/2/2024 at 10:02 AM, psygolf said:

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

I sincerely hope they do

[davep043]

On 1/2/2024 at 10:02 AM, psygolf said:

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

 

12 minutes ago, BIG STU said:

I sincerely hope they do

 

On 1/2/2024 at 10:29 AM, davep043 said:

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.    

 

I posted my response to this yesterday, and so far I haven't noticed anyone respond.  If the manufacturers all decide not to comply, what then?  I don't believe this will happen, but for those who would like to see it, what do you envision as the next steps?  Anarchy, arms race, self-regulation?

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, Simpsonia said:

 

There already was a "hold" at the top end from the original ODS rules put into place in 2003. Distance of the leaders have been essentially static since then (Kuehne at 321.4 yds in 2003, Rory with 326.1 yards in 2023). What has creeped up is the field average, but that has nothing to do with the leaders' distance, which has not. The USGA just wants the appearance of doing something to appease the blue bloods that run Merion and the likes. 

 

Edit: Also the much-advertised "lesser effect on slower swing speeds" isn't fully accurate either. Yes, there is a small reduction between high and low swing speeds, but it's a pretty minimal difference. In the USGA's own ball testing there was only a 1.5% difference in the reduction between the highest swing speeds (8.5% reduction) and a low swing speed reduction (7%). There's no cheating aerodynamic physics. 

And somehow in 2013 luke list led the tour at 306 yards.

[Socrates]

3 hours ago, BIG STU said:

I sincerely hope they do

They won't.  They spend the money on R&D anyway.  Now they just go down a different avenue.  I can't imagine how many new balls they sell compared to usual sales, in the first couple of years, as players need to go out of their way to buy the conforming ball.  Same with club manufacturers who undoubtably will come up with new drivers and irons that everyone is going to have to have if they want to recoup those lost yards.

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

And somehow in 2013 luke list led the tour at 306 yards.

And one year aberration proves what exactly? That aberration statistically is nearly the same as the season Rory just had.  One was a bit lower than norm and one a bit higher.

[LeoLeo99]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

 

I think you're all going a bit off the deep end here.

 

1/3 of balls already conform. This wasn't much of a roll-back, because it was a bit more of a "hold" at the top end. It affects players less and less as they swing slower (many of the already conforming balls are geared toward the slower swingers - softer balls with more spin, generally).

 

I don't think the USGA/R&A are lying in saying that most golfers aren't going to notice. And… if they do, move the tee markers up four yards.

Which balls already conform?

[GoGoErky]

41 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

And one year aberration proves what exactly? That aberration statistically is nearly the same as the season Rory just had.  One was a bit lower than norm and one a bit higher.

Agree. Using outliers to make a point such as Rory being longer than kuehne or anyone since 2003 isn’t a trend just like list wasn’t a trend. 

[Shilgy]

7 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Agree. Using outliers to make a point such as Rory being longer than kuehne or anyone since 2003 isn’t a trend just like list wasn’t a trend. 

He wasn’t making that point at all.  He had pointed out that the tour leader has been quite static for 20 years.  Some like to point to the tour average going up as a symbol the sky is falling when all it really means is that there are more guys maxing out their distance and playing great golf.

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

Which balls already conform?

 

If you're asking for specific models, you can make some educated guesses. If you're doubting it or something, I don't think the USGA/R&A is gonna lie here, nor are they going to "out" which balls are "the short ones."

 

You can pretty much figure it out:

 

8 hours ago, iacas said:

(many of the already conforming balls are geared toward the slower swingers - softer balls with more spin, generally).

[Augster]

Unless you’re swinging it over 120mph, this is much ado about nothing. 
 

As said above, you could (accidentally) be playing a future conforming ball RIGHT NOW!!  1/3 of tested balls already conform to the new standard. So those players will see ZERO change. 
 

For your average player, players with swing speeds at 100 and South of that, they will see no noticeable change whatsoever. Add in a higher handicap, guys that don’t strike the middle of the face very often, and they won’t ever notice the change. 
 

Notice the Ruling Bodies didn’t release the names of the already conforming (inferior) balls? I’m sure the manufacturers don’t want a mass exodus from those balls. Although, we can probably guess the balls that are already conforming. Start with any ball labeled “distance”. 🙂

 

 

[bekgolf]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

 

I think you're all going a bit off the deep end here.

 

1/3 of balls already conform.

 

Which ones?  Where did you get the testing data from and can you please post it?  I would love for this to be about nothing but I won't believe it until I see it.

[ThinkingPlus]

5 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

Which ones?  Where did you get the testing data from and can you please post it?  I would love for this to be about nothing but I won't believe it until I see it.

It will be cheap ionomer covered marshmallows. It won't be any ball that someone who seriously cares about performance would play.

[st1800e]

6 hours ago, Augster said:

players with swing speeds at 100 and South of that, they will see no noticeable change whatsoever

Opinion or fact?  If fact, please provide the evidence.  

[psygolf]

On 1/2/2024 at 9:07 AM, iacas said:

 

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.

 

 

"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.

Callaway’s ERC driver still outsold a lot manufacturers’ drivers back then

[Halebopp]

4 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

Which ones?  Where did you get the testing data from and can you please post it?  I would love for this to be about nothing but I won't believe it until I see it.

 

To be precise, a significant portion of current balls are expected to conform to the new testing standards. About 30% of all the balls they've tested should conform. The suspected 70% also includes balls that don't even meet the current requirements.

 

Is there a specific reason you won't believe what the R&A and the USGA are telling us? They've certainly done testing and random sampling when coming up with the new testing standards but the actual lists of conforming balls will come over time. We don't know if the ruling bodies will require ball manufacturers to submit lists of balls they want tested or if they'll just automatically take all already-conforming balls from the past x number of years.

[BIG STU]

12 hours ago, Socrates said:

They won't.  They spend the money on R&D anyway.  Now they just go down a different avenue.  I can't imagine how many new balls they sell compared to usual sales, in the first couple of years, as players need to go out of their way to buy the conforming ball.  Same with club manufacturers who undoubtably will come up with new drivers and irons that everyone is going to have to have if they want to recoup those lost yards.

Sadly you are more than likely correct--- They will find a way to market it--- IMHO the whole deal is like a dog chasing his tail

[iacas]

8 hours ago, bekgolf said:

Which ones?  Where did you get the testing data from and can you please post it? I would love for this to be about nothing but I won't believe it until I see it.

 

The USGA/R&A have said this. They're not gonna release the names, and I'm not in the business of testing golf balls in this way, so…

 

8 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

It will be cheap ionomer covered marshmallows. It won't be any ball that someone who seriously cares about performance would play.

 

Yup. How about… the Wilson Staff 50. The Callaway SuperSoft.

 

6 hours ago, psygolf said:

Callaway’s ERC driver still outsold a lot manufacturers’ drivers back then

 

It sold, but not "well" and it caused damage to Arnie's reputation, too. The bigger point is that generally speaking, illegal equipment doesn't go over well in golf. The "Bandit" golf balls don't sell very well at all.

 

2 hours ago, Halebopp said:

The suspected 70% also includes balls that don't even meet the current requirements.

 

True, though that number is pretty small, as companies do their own testing before submitting, and it'd be a waste of time and $ and energy to develop a ball that exceeds the current rules. Titleist, TaylorMade, etc. aren't doing that.

[ThinkingPlus]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

The USGA/R&A have said this. They're not gonna release the names, and I'm not in the business of testing golf balls in this way, so…

 

 

Yup. How about… the Wilson Staff 50. The Callaway SuperSoft.

 

 

It sold, but not "well" and it caused damage to Arnie's reputation, too. The bigger point is that generally speaking, illegal equipment doesn't go over well in golf. The "Bandit" golf balls don't sell very well at all.

 

 

True, though that number is pretty small, as companies do their own testing before submitting, and it'd be a waste of time and $ and energy to develop a ball that exceeds the current rules. Titleist, TaylorMade, etc. aren't doing that.

That would be the balls. Cheap, no spin, no distance, but they feel great. Woohoo...eh, not so much.

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

The USGA/R&A have said this. They're not gonna release the names, and I'm not in the business of testing golf balls in this way, so…

 

 

Yup. How about… the Wilson Staff 50. The Callaway SuperSoft.

 

 

It sold, but not "well" and it caused damage to Arnie's reputation, too. The bigger point is that generally speaking, illegal equipment doesn't go over well in golf. The "Bandit" golf balls don't sell very well at all.

 

 

True, though that number is pretty small, as companies do their own testing before submitting, and it'd be a waste of time and $ and energy to develop a ball that exceeds the current rules. Titleist, TaylorMade, etc. aren't doing that.

Yeah, I was about to reply to the post about the ERC and its sales.  It failed miserably as most players do not wish to be known as cheaters.  So the ERC driver and Polara golf ball never sold in any real numbers.

 

And your comment about Arnie taking a hit is definitely valid as well.  Lost a ton of respect for the man promoting illegal clubs.  Not that anyone cared but because of it I didn’t buy anything Callaway for about 20 years.

[bekgolf]

6 hours ago, Halebopp said:

 

To be precise, a significant portion of current balls are expected to conform to the new testing standards. About 30% of all the balls they've tested should conform. The suspected 70% also includes balls that don't even meet the current requirements.

 

Is there a specific reason you won't believe what the R&A and the USGA are telling us? They've certainly done testing and random sampling when coming up with the new testing standards but the actual lists of conforming balls will come over time. We don't know if the ruling bodies will require ball manufacturers to submit lists of balls they want tested or if they'll just automatically take all already-conforming balls from the past x number of years.

 

Without a list it's just speculation.  I haven't read a solid statement on the subject.  I've seen terms like "believe and should" used, not very confidence inspiring.  Are they saying that based on past tests they think they know which ones will and won't conform?  The statement is too vague.

 

Why do you believe it without seeing the actual test results?