d.lama

My point is that based on this test (there will be others with more scientific methods) the USGA was correct to change the ball requirements. The 2004 ball test setup wasn't stringent enough and technology overcame some of the limitations they thought they put in place, so the modern ball is faster/longer than they meant for it to be in 2004 when the USGA set those first tests requirements, they made a mistake and are correcting it with the new test. There are people out there touting that the ball is only longer because athletes are better, faster, stronger. This video shows that isn't the case; same athlete, same driver, same course conditions...and the 2010 ball went shorter. The USGA guy is wrong - it IS the equipment.

Tiger Woods played this ball in 2010 The modern ball isn't any faster than in 2004 when the USGA regulated the ball The -ProV1 is 5mph faster He consistently shorter with the One Tour And....It's not the equipment that is making modern pros longer.

The only reason what you said is possible is because the NCAA slowed down the Aluminum bat. Before the NCAA rules change (i.e. the ruling body) ball speed off the bat's was measurably quicker. https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/alumwood.html

Looks like someone goofed the image. that's the average. Later in the article they give the correct info.

Do you think the change accomplishes nothing because you don't see the purpose, or you against the change because you don't want to see the fastest swingers lose 15 yards? If it's negligible, what do you care? Would you as bothered if every tournament venue moved the tee boxes back 15 yards in 2025? What if every tournament venue moved all their fairway bunkers 15 yards further than the existing tees?

These guys tested with a Pinnacle Soft, supposedly it already conforms, he swings pretty fast. They saw ball speed drop with 11.4° launch and lower spin 1852rpm. They lost 11y carry but the roll made up for it so total loss was 3yards.

I did think that this is the direction they'd take rather than the ball first. It's far too easy to hit the extreme toe of a driver and only lose a couple yards (sometimes gain from a low spin bomber). I was also wondering if they may do a matrix of some sort. Want a 46" driver shaft then head must be 210g without weights. want to max out at 48" then head must be 230g without weights. Or Maybe a loft based matrix, want to play a 7° loft then the MOI = ###. Or maybe want a 48" shaft then the driver head maxes out at 430cc. All of those would add headaches for rules officials and testing though.

Your 236 will probably become 233. What made you think you'd lose 30 yards?

I guarantee that plenty of computer modeling has been done and it's known what the new test conditions will do; perhaps this year the results will be readily available. I'm still not following why consistency is even being brought up. Persimmon clubs are still made today and they hit shorter than the super equipment put out by Callaway and Taylormade. There is a reason to rollback, you just don't agree with the reasoning. Now they have set up new regulations for the ball. Maybe. I just posted two video that show that is not the case.

I'm using Pre-1994 equipment and distances in order to point out that the 3-5 yards you and I will lose is nothing when compared to those older distances. The ruling bodies are rolling it back a small portion and people are acting like the sky is falling. Also, what does equipment consistency have to do with slowing the equipment down? They can do all the speed training they want or need to, nobody is saying they can't. Since 2000 there has been a 24.75 average gain. N. Højgaard only managed to get 177mph ball-speed from a 1999 Callaway Hawkeye driver when his normal ball speed is around 194mph. I propose that if he got that driver fit and specked for him he would probably get the ball speed up to mid 180's with his swing but he'd never hit 194 and would therefore be shorter than he is right now.

Those poor 63 year old's that played the game, prior to 1993 ... how could they ever handle hitting slower equipment, how did the game survive. Also, the estimates are that you will probably lose 3-5 yards with the ball rollback, unless you swing at 120mph, not the 15 yards you think you will lose.

Again, your so-called elite athlete with a refined swing and superior strength will, without any doubt, lose clubhead speed and ballspeed playing equipment that is pre-1994. IF it was only the athlete that mattered, they would still be playing 43.5 heavy steel shafted 190cc persimmon heads and would balata balls and they would be averaging the same distance they average with the modern super-equipment ....hint: They are not. Another question; IF the modern equipment is not the leading cause of increased distance then why do they need to play the modern equipment? It has been debated and decided that Bifurcation would not be good for the game.

You are trying to dispute it every time you say, 'well athletes!' The old equipment could not give the same speeds off the face and the ball could not react like it does now. Some examples are how fast the ball came off the face when Rory hit the old driver at the Scottish open (he said he smashed it) It came off the face 12.5mph slow than when the Rory hit his driver 1min later. Same athlete, did he suddenly become a better athlete within minutes? Later at the Emirates, multiple players teed off with old school steel/titanium drivers. Rory was only able to get the ball going 171 with a Callaway from around 1996, Tyrel got it going 172 with a smothered pull-hook into the left tree's, Højgaard got one up to 177 - his normal ball speed is 194 off his modern driver. They were all hitting modern balls, give them a tour ball from 1995 and the speeds would have been slower. The issue isn't that they are going to go over 180 it's that the modern equipment has allowed the ball to come off the face at 180. 181.1 in Rory's case at the Scottish and 194 for Højgaard. So what, some shorter hitters have always tried to hit it further and some shorter hitters played with their shortness and upped their other skills. What does that have to do with modern equipment being faster? They 'are' swinging away with the modern 460cc driver, you just don't think they are. With the older equipment they would swing away on occassion; but it was a high-risk-reward situation, mishit it a bit and you were in trouble, smash it and the ball flew 168mph vs the 160mph that it did with the control swing. With modern drivers and balls, guys swing at full steam ahead all day long and it's not an issue. Distance and ball speeds have changed from the time the USGA distance insight began the data analysis going back 40 years, you keep picking more recent times from 2000 on or 2019-2021 for your argument, why are you ignoring 1980-2000? And as far as the Champions tour guys are concerned, they are hitting it farther at old age than they did in their athletic prime from 1990, that's weird.

And most pro's rarely went over 44" (Tigers was 43.5" and he was in his prime) with the older heavier steel shafts and smaller heads. The point still stands that technology has allowed longer shafts, larger and lighter heads, and therefore more clubhead speed. They do and can swing harder than before: have you been paying attention to the numerous articles, video's and products out there for how to swing faster and speed training...I guess you have dismissed those as ether. The fact is that people are working to get faster without worrying about strike and face control, and they are doing it more often than in the past - why and how?...because the modern 460cc driver is lighter than previous generation heads and more forgiving than ever before. The USGA/RA suspect that they are not going to be able to get rid of 460cc limit, they might be able to adjust some MOI parameters to lessen the forgiveness that the massive heads allows. The low hanging fruit is the ball, so what they are doing is working to change to ball to cut down a bit of speed and adjusted spin characteristics. Hit it that far on the toe and GAIN 12 yards, hit it that far on the heel and GAIN 11 yards - Hell, I'll just swing as fast as I want now without any worry...That is what has been happening in the past 20 years and with new tech it will become even more prevalent. Technology is becoming more important than skill.

My support of the change and future support if other equipment changes are not rooted in a purist bias, it is rooted in the belief that skill should be more important than technology. In the past when you mishit the persimmon because you caught it on the toe - say you missed the middle by a full 1cm - you were given and much shorter drive and a more offline drive as well, you didn't have the skill on that one swing to 'hit it right on the screws'. With modern drivers you can miss by 2cm and still end up 270 near the fairway (heck, Callaway is touting that fact now), you didn't have the skill on that one swing and ended up fine. Technology allows you to have less skill. It's a balancing act, unfortunately the ruling bodies have realized that they allowed tech a little too much leeway and are working to bring things under control. Frank Thomas was of the belief that no pro would ever swing 460cc drivers and said so in an interview, he and the USGA/RA set that size because they wanted amateurs to be able to play a more forgiving driver - he had good intentions. However, it then became an "Oh s***" moment because elite players DID start playing the biggest drivers they could because they could put a lightweight 48" shaft in that forgiving 460cc head swing out of their shoes, miss the center and still be 300 down the fairway. Oops.

What was your fun distance in 1980 when you really crushed it? And the short game will not be changing, the ball can be engineered to behave within the specs without taking away any shortgame control.

Good. The logo looks like screws and pins in an ankle to me.

You are labeling it "kind of a joke" because you are bias towards the goal of saying that it's not the equipment. Could you work with a player to optimize a 1980 spec shaft, clubweight, swingweight, kickpoint, launch and spin - all that and that pro would still be shorter using that older club. You are also missing that players swing faster because the equipment is lighter and allows for it. Modern graphite shafts at 48" can be made extremely light (Fujikura has one that can withstand 140mph speeds at only 56g) Make a steel shaft at 48" and the thing couldn't handle 120mph speeds and make it stiff enough if were engineered lighter than 130g. Club faces are also much springier than the old woods, modern COR is around .83 and old woods are about .78. Paul Casey was able to get one carrying 291y with some low spin by hitting up on it 6.6°. Cool, but he (or any other pro) would never play a season or tournament with the older clubs, why - because the new equipment is faster, longer, straighter than the old equipment. It would be too risky for a player to do that when everyone else is playing modern super equipment. A long time meaning the last 20years? Again, that's why the study went back to 1980 showing that between 1993 and 2003 distance gained was ~25yards. That's a massive jump in 10 years, especially since the previous 13 years only had ~3.6 yards gained. The USGA isn't making a ball change to account for the last 20years, they are making the change to help account for the last 30 years.

And it was a skill with old equipment and some were longer than others and those who didn't have it worked harder to get it. That's not new. What is new is that the equipment is faster and the ball goes farther. There are plenty of video's out there showing the longest hitting pro hitting a ball with an old club and a new club and carrying the ball 60+ yards shorter...Did his skill suddenly change in the 20 seconds between swings? Jack did hold back most of the time, but he had the skill to let one fly if he needed to, and the risk was higher if he didn't get it right. A lot of players did the same it was risk reward. With modern equipment it's less risk and more reward. The guys can swing all out all the time, almost miss the face and still end up in the fairway only slightly shorter than a solid hit. Manufacturers are even touting it now "Fargivenes" and "10k" What does consistency and access to equipment have to do with the documented increased distance the new equipment sent the modern ball between 1994 and 2003? Which is why the study went back to 1980. It shows the jump that was directly caused by equipment advances between 1994 and 2003. The correlated data shows it and you can't sidestep the argument by picking data to only look post 2003... then say 'see they're athletes, that's why'

Less skill is needed - hit an old steel shafted persimmon head low on the toe or heel, then hit the exact same spot on the face with a driver from 2023. I'll tell you without any reservation that the modern driver will smash its mishit ball longer and straighter than the old club. Hitting bad shots happens, however with the older drivers and balls they'd be much shorter and may be further into the weeds than they are with modern drivers. That's why they all swing out of their shoes right now, get the ball down range as far as possible and the driver and ball tech are allowing that mentality - better to be 280 off the tee in the weeds from a modern driver and ball mishit than 220 off the tee and in the weeds off an persimon driver and balata ball mishit. Cool, see if you can get top pro who smashes the ball down the fairway in 2024 to play 1980 spec equipment for a major tournament against the other guys playing their modern equipment. Hint - they wont, because the modern equipment is the determining factor in the current distances and forgiveness. They would know that the instant they played old equipment they might as well not have played the tournament at all.

And 2028 will be then and this is now, so what is the crux of the "that was the this is now" statement? How is it regressive; sports have rules and rules change all the time. It also seems like the same ball game to me, it's still called golf. Equipment is allowing faster swings and bigger mishits for better results, the ruling bodies are working to change that. Rules have not changed yet, and when they do I'll play the ball that the rules tell me to.

It was shorter before the advent of 460cc titanium and graphite heads and solid core ProV1 era balls, and golf was fine. What has happened is that golf (all sports really) is supposed to be weighted towards skill being the determining factor not technology, with the modern equipment less skill is needed for a better result. The ball change is one thing that is being done to slow the game down a bit.

Don't tempt me with easier to get tee-times.

Then, I suggest not changing the normal course that you play - even with the current ball - because that course might be 252 yards longer (total) than your normal course. I'm not trying to be flippant, I'm trying to give context to your estimate of 7 yards lost per shot and context to actual distance lost. (10x4's = 140y, 4x3's = 28y, 4x5's = 84y). If you ever play a different course, or if you decide to play different tee's, or if the super moves the tee boxes you normally play you have yards added to the course or removed from the course. The ball rollback is the same thing, it's just a permanent change.

The horror... Seriously, the game was played when the equipment hit shorter and was less forgiving, and the ball went shorter - the game survived.