The groove rule and the ball rollback

[davep043]

1 minute ago, bekgolf said:

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

I have to believe that the data from every ball tested has been retained.  Some will have been right near the maximum allowable distance, some will be substantially below it.  Its reasonable to estimate (yes, not certain, but estimate) which of those balls are likely to remain within acceptable distance levels with the revised test procedures.  I don't need to see the old test results, or see test results from the new procedures, to accept that there can be a reasonable estimate of which balls will pas with the revised procedures.  

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

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?

 

Because the USGA/R&A aren't lying? You're effectively calling them liars.

 

Plus what @davep043 said.

[bekgolf]

2 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I have to believe that the data from every ball tested has been retained.  Some will have been right near the maximum allowable distance, some will be substantially below it.  Its reasonable to estimate (yes, not certain, but estimate) which of those balls are likely to remain within acceptable distance levels with the revised test procedures.  I don't need to see the old test results, or see test results from the new procedures, to accept that there can be a reasonable estimate of which balls will pas with the revised procedures.  

 

It's easy to guess which balls would pass a 125mph test, I get that and have my own guesses.  I still want to see the testing, I believe they are guessing based on old data. 

 

1 minute ago, iacas said:

 

Because the USGA/R&A aren't lying? You're effectively calling them liars.

 

Plus what @davep043 said.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth.  I am skeptical and will remain so until they release the list.  I believe they are extrapolating based on old testing. 

[davep043]

2 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

I still want to see the testing, I believe they are guessing based on old data. 

They are estimating based on previous data, I bet.  Estimating based on data is different from guessing.  But you're not going to see the data, they're not going to tell you that ball-X went 4 yards further than ball Y and 8 yards further than Ball C.  And really, none of those old values will matter, for a ball to be on the 2028 Conforming List it will have to be tested using the revised method.  And they won't publish THAT data either, just a list of conforming balls.  I'm not sure when testing using the new parameters will begin, but after October 2027 all testing will be done ONLY with the revised protocol.  

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

It's easy to guess which balls would pass a 125mph test, I get that and have my own guesses.  I still want to see the testing, I believe they are guessing based on old data.

 

It's not "guessing." Some balls are optimized for people who swing their drivers at 90 MPH, or who want other characteristics from their golf ball.

 

4 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

I am skeptical and will remain so until they release the list.  I believe they are extrapolating based on old testing. 

 

They're not going to release a list. It's not their place to do so, and manufacturers would have a legitimate beef if they did.

 

I've talked to ball engineers, etc. and won't be releasing my own list, either… but it's been stated more than a few times what types of balls you should look at if you want to understand what types of balls already conform.

 

Consider that aerodynamically you can have a ball performance (with respect to distance) "fall off" a bit more than linearly. Some balls will be closer to linear than others, and a ball that performs well at lower speeds might fall off a bit more at higher speeds.

 

Consider that you could have two balls that perform like this, where the blue one is better for higher clubhead speeds (X axis), and the green one is better for lower clubhead speeds.

[Newby]

Extracts from:

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2023/12/revised-golf-ball-testing-conditions-to-take-effect-in-2028.html

 

The revised conditions are based on analysis of data from the worldwide tours and the game over several years

 

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.

[rogolf]

14 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 has the data. You can contact them through USGA.org and ask them for it, then post it here. 🙂

[Halebopp]

2 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

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?

 

I have no reason to not believe the R&A and the USGA.

 

As other have stated, the people involved in equipment testing in both organizations are more than capable of making informed estimates regarding their own field of expertise.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

7 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

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?

If you look at the methodology that the USGA uses and understand it, you will realize that it is wholly dependent on the USGA being able to accurately predict how small changes in launch parameters affect ballflight. They do NOT have a 317 yard long field that they can maintain at 75 degrees F with some kind of calibrated rollout characteristics. So yes - if the USGA was interested in evaluating which balls they would expect to pass using the new launch standards they would be able to do that without running a bunch of tests. 

 

dave

Edited January 5 by DaveLeeNC

[Augster]

Wow. Do you have all the data from the currently conforming list of balls? I’d guess not. 
 

As Newby posted the quote, 30% of currently conforming balls will conform to the new standards. Meaning, crappy balls now will still be conforming and crappy in the future.

[bekgolf]

15 minutes ago, Augster said:

Wow. Do you have all the data from the currently conforming list of balls? I’d guess not. 
 

As Newby posted the quote, 30% of currently conforming balls will conform to the new standards. Meaning, crappy balls now will still be conforming and crappy in the future.

 

I think you were addressing me.  This is what I'm referring to:

 

https://www.usga.org/ConformingGolfBall/gball_list.pdf

 

The list of conforming balls.  It is available to everyone. 

[storm319]

On 1/2/2024 at 7:33 AM, iacas said:

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).

More than likely the USGA will begin offering ODS v3 testing services in parallel with v2 sometime 2027. A separate v3 conformance list is introduced and the last v2 list will be published in December 2027 (will remain on the site as a reference through December 2029). The USGA will likely stop offering testing services for v2 in November or December 2027 and only continue with v3. 
 

At that point, it is unlikely that the OEMs will continue R&D efforts targeting the v2 test condition so we will likely see an effective “freeze” although we could see prior product cycles extend as they phase in the new v3 target product. They will likely have multilayer urethane offerings that conform to the new v3 conditions available at retail prior to the 2028 enforcement to as there will be high level amateur competition that will  adopt the temporary MLR that will be introduced for the initial implementation. 
 

Ultimately all of the criticisms of the previous bifurcation proposal will be realized during this 2 year period. 
 

 

Edited January 5 by storm319

[storm319]

On 1/2/2024 at 8:19 AM, 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 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.

I don’t believe that the ruling bodies prefer bifurcation, however the previous MLR proposal would have allowed them to a) be more aggressive with the elite level rollback while b) avoiding impact at the recreational level (which is wildly unpopular). 

[storm319]

On 1/2/2024 at 9:35 AM, bluedot said:

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. 

I am not sure why you believe that the USGA prefers bifurcation vs a universal rollback. The original area of interest pointed to a universal rollback and the comment period resulted in a strong desire to avoid impact at the recreational level which resulted in the more aggressive bifurcated proposal that was ultimately abandoned. 
 

Also, this decision was different from the groove rollback because the universal adoption of the new ODS conditions were included in the decision (universal adoption was never officially part of the 2010 groove rollback decision, all that was provided was the earliest date that it would take place and a promise to provide 4 years notice prior to adoption). 
 

Keep in mind that this ODS change is a decision, not a proposal and the USGA has historically followed through with implementing rule change decisions (not impossible that they change course, but unlikely). Also, the whole reason that they abandoned the MLR proposal was due to the PGA Tour/PGA of America’s intention to not apply the MLR for their competitions if the proposal was adopted. If the ruling bodies were to pull a bait and switch, the PGAs could immediately discontinue use of the MLR which is counter to the USGAs intent for this change. 
 

Lastly, I wouldn’t count out the universal adoption of the groove rule. More than likely they are trying focus on this ball rollback and avoid attracting any more criticism by even acknowledging the groove rollback. If I were in their position I would let this quiet down and give notice for the universal adoption of the groove rollback in late 2025 so that both would be universally adopted effective 1/1/2030 (note that I have been against both of these rollbacks from the start). 

[storm319]

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

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.

If you look at equipment regulation historically, the USGA has been the driver with the R&A even deviating for a period of time in multiple examples (ball diameter rollback in the 1930s and COR limit proposal which the R&A initially disagreed with only to fall in line later). Additionally, the USGA is the organization that performs all of the equipment conformance testing, so it is easy to see why people perceive the R&A as simply being along for the ride rather than an equal participant.

Edited January 5 by storm319

[Halebopp]

5 hours ago, storm319 said:

If you look at equipment regulation historically, the USGA has been the driver with the R&A even deviating for a period of time in multiple examples (ball diameter rollback in the 1930s and COR limit proposal which the R&A initially disagreed with only to fall in line later). Additionally, the USGA is the organization that performs all of the equipment conformance testing, so it is easy to see why people perceive the R&A as simply being along for the ride rather than an equal participant.

 

The equipment testing staff at the R&A might disagree with your take on conformance testing. According to thm they get around 900 different models of golf balls for testing annually. For other pieces of equiment the number wis over a thousand.

[Halebopp]

21 hours ago, iacas said:

 

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.

 

I didn't suggest they'd develop illegal balls. But a batch of balls intended to meet the requirements can fail due to variances in manufacturing, or for other reasons. Especially when they're working right on the limit with certain models.

 

Wilson, for example, submitted a driver that failed to meet the COR restrictions in one specific setting some years ago. While not a perfectly comparable example, I don't think all the big companies have a perfect approval rating for their submissions.

 

But to clarify the point of my original comment. I'd expect the expressed "significant number" of currently conforming balls to be greater than the 30% mentioned regarding all balls submitted to them.

[Newby]

56 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

I'd expect the expressed "significant number" of currently conforming balls to be greater than the 30% mentioned regarding all balls submitted to them.

Why?

[Halebopp]

4 minutes ago, Newby said:

Why?

 

For the aforementioned reason of the 70% of all balls tested including balls that failed even the current requirements. And, unless I'm mistaken, the share of lower-compression balls, which I assume to be more likely to meet the new requirements, on the market today is higher than what it used to be 20-30 years ago.

[storm319]

1 hour ago, Halebopp said:

 

The equipment testing staff at the R&A might disagree with your take on conformance testing. According to thm they get around 900 different models of golf balls for testing annually. For other pieces of equiment the number wis over a thousand.

They do have a testing center at St Andrews, but that appears to be a swing robot hitting out on to an open range, there does not appear to be an ITR as outlined in the testing procedure (if you have evidence to the contrary, please share). The equipment database on their site appears to be the same content as the USGA (granted with better pictures, granted the USGA may just be publishing the way that they have for years) and the rules/documentation refers to one list which is identical on both sites. 

[davep043]

11 hours ago, storm319 said:

The USGA will likely stop offering testing services for v2 in November or December 2027 and only continue with v3. 

Its a little earlier than that, this is from the December 5 notice to manufacturers:

". In other words, all balls received by the USGA/R&A during or after October 2027 will be evaluated in accordance with the new test conditions ONLY."

 

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/ES-Notices-final-12-5-23-USGA-RA-Official.pdf

Edited January 5 by davep043

[Maine Golfer]

I buy the critical thinking that is very likely say Pinnacle Rush's or Supersofts pass the new test.  Im looking forward to the data when it comes out and I think its gonna calm a lot of people down that 80-95 mph folks with the right ball will see no change.  

 

Ether way lets make some birdie putts this season with current balls, maybe a eagle if we are lucky or great 🙂 

 

 

[Augster]

13 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

I think you were addressing me.  This is what I'm referring to:

 

https://www.usga.org/ConformingGolfBall/gball_list.pdf

 

The list of conforming balls.  It is available to everyone. 

That’s a list of conforming balls. It’s not performance data within that list to find out which balls perform better or worse than others. 
 

When the new standards come out, there will also be a conforming list. And many of the balls on this list will move to non-conforming at that time. But not all of them. 

[Halebopp]

2 hours ago, storm319 said:

They do have a testing center at St Andrews, but that appears to be a swing robot hitting out on to an open range, there does not appear to be an ITR as outlined in the testing procedure (if you have evidence to the contrary, please share). The equipment database on their site appears to be the same content as the USGA (granted with better pictures, granted the USGA may just be publishing the way that they have for years) and the rules/documentation refers to one list which is identical on both sites. 

 

I don't have precise knowledge of the equipment the R&A has but the R&A material I have does show a "gate setup" similar to what the USGA seems to have for what would be the cannon test for ball flight measurements. Hence I'd feel safe in assuming they're fully capable of doing all the necessary testing for balls.

 

Never mind testing all the other equipment for conformance. I have no reason to believe they'd lie about it.

[Halebopp]

1 hour ago, Maine Golfer said:

I buy the critical thinking that is very likely say Pinnacle Rush's or Supersofts pass the new test.  Im looking forward to the data when it comes out and I think its gonna calm a lot of people down that 80-95 mph folks with the right ball will see no change.  

 

Ether way lets make some birdie putts this season with current balls, maybe a eagle if we are lucky or great 🙂 

 

 

 

And players who shouldn't be playing Pro V1s, or other similar balls, might even gain some distance when they're forced to switch to a more suitable ball.

 

(Although I remember some test result claiming the high-compression balls to be the longest for most swing speeds.)

[rogolf]

5 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

Never mind testing all the other equipment for conformance. I have no reason to believe they'd lie about it.

Nor do I, the USGA and R&A work closely together to ensure that golf Rules and equipment are the same around the world.

But conspiracy theories seem to be commonplace.

[ThinkingPlus]

28 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

And players who shouldn't be playing Pro V1s, or other similar balls, might even gain some distance when they're forced to switch to a more suitable ball.

 

(Although I remember some test result claiming the high-compression balls to be the longest for most swing speeds.)

That's for all swing speeds if you actually want irons to spin as well. In a world where cost isn't  an issue, everyone, except the "must have a soft feeling ball" players, would use tour balls. At least that is what the test data pretty much shows.

[storm319]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

Its a little earlier than that, this is from the December 5 notice to manufacturers:

". In other words, all balls received by the USGA/R&A during or after October 2027 will be evaluated in accordance with the new test conditions ONLY."

 

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/ES-Notices-final-12-5-23-USGA-RA-Official.pdf

Thanks for sharing, I skipped over the OEM notice and just read the primary decision which didn’t include the 2027 timeline. Good to see that this confirms my assumption that the current ODS testing will be discontinued in the fall of 2027 and thus eliminate OEMs ability to validate conformance under the 2004 ODS condition that also exceeds the 2028 ODS condition. 

[storm319]

41 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

I don't have precise knowledge of the equipment the R&A has but the R&A material I have does show a "gate setup" similar to what the USGA seems to have for what would be the cannon test for ball flight measurements. Hence I'd feel safe in assuming they're fully capable of doing all the necessary testing for balls.

 

Never mind testing all the other equipment for conformance. I have no reason to believe they'd lie about it.

Not saying they are lying about it, but they also are not clear if the testing that they perform ends up on the official conformance lists (whereas there are videos of the USGA performing the actual ITR/ALC tests). 

[betarhoalphadelta]

On 1/4/2024 at 3:04 AM, Halebopp said:

 

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.

 

 

Because they apparently have come up with a magic ball that will take 9-11 yards off driver for high speed players, only 4 yards off driver for average speed players, and magically not take any yards off irons for average speed players. Not sure how that works that distance loss isn't proportional and somehow only affects driver, not irons.

 

This is despite the fact that there is no mention anywhere that a ball manufacturer has submitted a premium ball meeting the new standard to the USGA/R&A for testing. If the balls which currently conform are 2 pc marshmallows with poor spin characteristics and THESE are the balls they used for testing, the testing is irrelevant, as they aren't representative of what premium balls meeting the new standard will look like. 

 

In short, the USGA/R&A have made a lot of statements about what these new balls will look like and have provided NO evidence justifying those statements. It's just been "trust us". The whole thing gives off a vibe that they made the decision to roll back the ball and they're reasoning back from that to try to assuage average golfers that this won't affect them. Then in 2028-30 when it does? "Sorry, but them's the breaks. The rule is already in place."