The groove rule and the ball rollback

[bekgolf]

23 minutes ago, CDLgolf said:

 

How do they know this ? Have they manufactured  the new balls or are they just speculating.

 

That question has been a sub topic of it's own. 

 

Nobody knows.  Group consensus is that they are extrapolating based on older data.

[Socrates]

34 minutes ago, CDLgolf said:

 

How do they know this ? Have they manufactured  the new balls or are they just speculating.

This is all speculation.  There might be a few prototype balls out there that some tour players have hit, but there are no confirmed numbers or anyone really producing any data.  A lot of ruffled feathers about something we really know nothing about and we are likely years away from seeing a real ball.

[LeoLeo99]

3 minutes ago, Socrates said:

This is all speculation.  There might be a few prototype balls out there that some tour players have hit, but there are no confirmed numbers or anyone really producing any data.  A lot of ruffled feathers about something we really know nothing about and we are likely years away from seeing a real ball.

How do you know there's no data?  It's a fear of the unknown with USGA making a lot of statements with no published data to support their statements.  USGA must have data to say 30% of the current balls will conform to the new criteria. They have math formulas that they're using.  They are not being transparent.  They could easily blind the balls and share the data and math formulas that they're using.   The USGA is a non-profit organization that advances, serves and celebrates the game of golf.  Why the secrecy? 

 

 

[rogolf]

16 minutes ago, Socrates said:

This is all speculation.  There might be a few prototype balls out there that some tour players have hit, but there are no confirmed numbers or anyone really producing any data.  A lot of ruffled feathers about something we really know nothing about and we are likely years away from seeing a real ball.

Agree with the section in bold.  Time for the feathers to settle.

Maybe some besserwisser involved that needs to be taken with a pinch of caution or not rising so quickly to the bait?

Edited January 7 by rogolf

[CDLgolf]

31 minutes ago, Socrates said:

This is all speculation.  There might be a few prototype balls out there that some tour players have hit, but there are no confirmed numbers or anyone really producing any data.  A lot of ruffled feathers about something we really know nothing about and we are likely years away from seeing a real ball.

 

This is what I've thought.  The pro v1 came out in 2000 and they've had a new model every odd year since 2003.  I wonder if any would pass the new tests or are they rolling the ball back to before the pro v1 release.

[bekgolf]

1 hour ago, CDLgolf said:

 

This is what I've thought.  The pro v1 came out in 2000 and they've had a new model every odd year since 2003.  I wonder if any would pass the new tests or are they rolling the ball back to before the pro v1 release.

 

A few hundred posts ago someone had a link that stated an old school wound ball wouldn't pass.

[storm319]

9 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

A few hundred posts ago someone had a link that stated an old school wound ball wouldn't pass.

I believe that was an estimation for the Titleist Professional (not sure if it was the 90 or 100) and was under the proposed MLR conditions which had a 2 mph faster club head speed than this decision.

[Socrates]

13 hours ago, LeoLeo99 said:

How do you know there's no data?  It's a fear of the unknown with USGA making a lot of statements with no published data to support their statements.  USGA must have data to say 30% of the current balls will conform to the new criteria. They have math formulas that they're using.  They are not being transparent.  They could easily blind the balls and share the data and math formulas that they're using.   The USGA is a non-profit organization that advances, serves and celebrates the game of golf.  Why the secrecy? 

 

 

Producing any data that we have seen.  Didn't mean to imply that there was none.

 

To come up with a percentage of balls that might already conform, it wouldn't be hard to extrapolate information that they have on existing balls and using computer modelling, hypothesize how many might pass.  This would all be projections and not real world testing.  Real testing and getting hard data with the new criteria will take time.  I'm sure once they have it, they will let us know.  Right after they inform the ball OEM's.  I'm sure their main concern is satisfying the keyboard jockeys on WRX to avert a calamity of epic proportions.

[Socrates]

And FWIW, this ball rollback bugs me as much as the next guy.  I'm already losing distance to age.  I don't need anyone helping that loss.   

I'm just not going to get my knickers in a bunch before 2028.

[DaveLeeNC]

A USGA statement regarding ball conformance between 12/2027 and 1/2030 was 

 

“Existing balls approved for conformance in 2027 may continue to be used by recreational golfers until January 2030.”

 

Is this referring to 'golf ball designs' that were approved for play in 2027?  Or does it refer to balls that (as they stated) actually existed (as in were manufactured on/before 12/2027)? I was assuming that it is the former but I can imagine the OEM's requesting a clean cut-over date. 

 

Thanks.

 

dave

[LeoLeo99]

21 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Producing any data that we have seen.  Didn't mean to imply that there was none.

 

To come up with a percentage of balls that might already conform, it wouldn't be hard to extrapolate information that they have on existing balls and using computer modelling, hypothesize how many might pass.  This would all be projections and not real world testing.  Real testing and getting hard data with the new criteria will take time.  I'm sure once they have it, they will let us know.  Right after they inform the ball OEM's.  I'm sure their main concern is satisfying the keyboard jockeys on WRX to avert a calamity of epic proportions.

USGA serves all golfers.  Claims without data to support them cause skepticism.  Trust but verify.  

[LeoLeo99]

2 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

A USGA statement regarding ball conformance between 12/2027 and 1/2030 was 

 

“Existing balls approved for conformance in 2027 may continue to be used by recreational golfers until January 2030.”

 

Is this referring to 'golf ball designs' that were approved for play in 2027?  Or does it refer to balls that (as they stated) actually existed (as in were manufactured on/before 12/2027)? I was assuming that it is the former but I can imagine the OEM's requesting a clean cut-over date. 

 

Thanks.

 

dave

I assume the former, also.  Any ball legal for use in 2027 stays legal until 2030.

[Newby]

19 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

I assume the former, also.  Any ball legal for use in 2027 stays legal until 2030.

" ....approved for conformance in ..." is the qualification.

[DaveLeeNC]

2 minutes ago, Newby said:

" ....approved for conformance in ..." is the qualification.

Thanks, Newby. I saw that and then wondered why did they use the qualification "existing". Only balls that exist in 2027 can be approved in 2027. The RB's tend to be careful with wording so why did they just not say “Balls approved for conformance in 2027 may continue to be used by recreational golfers until January 2030.”

 

dave

[Socrates]

54 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

Thanks, Newby. I saw that and then wondered why did they use the qualification "existing". Only balls that exist in 2027 can be approved in 2027. The RB's tend to be careful with wording so why did they just not say “Balls approved for conformance in 2027 may continue to be used by recreational golfers until January 2030.”

 

dave

Still applies only to recreational golfers.  Anything else will need a new conforming ball.

[storm319]

On 1/7/2024 at 10:12 AM, DaveLeeNC said:

A USGA statement regarding ball conformance between 12/2027 and 1/2030 was 

 

“Existing balls approved for conformance in 2027 may continue to be used by recreational golfers until January 2030.”

 

Is this referring to 'golf ball designs' that were approved for play in 2027?  Or does it refer to balls that (as they stated) actually existed (as in were manufactured on/before 12/2027)? I was assuming that it is the former but I can imagine the OEM's requesting a clean cut-over date. 

 

Thanks.

 

dave

It means the particular submission designated by the side stamp and color. While the December 2027 list will essentially freeze (nothing new added but will remain published for 2 years), OEMs should be able to continue producing that particular model in 2028/2029.

[st1800e]

41 minutes ago, storm319 said:

OEMs should be able to continue producing that particular model in 2028/2029.

They have analysts working on that right now.   

[davep043]

11 hours ago, storm319 said:

OEMs should be able to continue producing that particular model in 2028/2029.

I agree, I've read nothing that says those "hot" balls may no longer be produced, which is not what the "groove rule" said in 2010.   At that time, the manufacturers were not allowed (or maybe agreed not to) produce non-compliant clubs after the date, even though older grooves were still allowed to be used. I'll be surprised if any major manufacturers choose to keep additional manufacturing lines running, producing both conforming (short) balls and "hot" balls.  That's only my guess, of course.

[cardia10]

On 1/7/2024 at 11:13 AM, LeoLeo99 said:

USGA serves all golfers.  Claims without data to support them cause skepticism.  Trust but verify.  

I would clarify that the USGA represents all golfers but serve a much smaller select group.

[rogolf]

2 hours ago, cardia10 said:

I would clarify that the USGA represents all golfers but serve a much smaller select group.

USGA represents golfers in the US and Mexico; R&A represents the rest of the world.  They do many things jointly - Rules, Equipment, Handicapping....

Edited January 24 by rogolf

[rogolf]

Just now, rogolf said:

duplicate