Franc38

Yes the cost would have been spread across both balls. With an increase in price of the current ball and the new ball coming out at a higher price. But i don’t think the OEMs had any plans to actually make the balll as they knew the pga and dp world tours stance. So cost wasn’t a concern for their decision. 

The thing is, MLR or not developing a new golf ball conforming to new rules and still OK for the best players in the world (feel, spin, control, wind reaction) will cost exactly the same. This cost will be borne by us the paying customers (their tour staffers get balls for free). So ultimately this cost could have been spread between "our balls" and the "tour balls" in some way, maybe making the tour ball very expensive and progressively raising the price of the others, but with the "general rollback" the price will be here for everyone, no smoothing out progressively!
i.e. the cost paid by us will be the same but potentially would hit us more brutally. No other way around.
Again the USGA has the average golfer at heart... Or so they say.

The thing is, MLR or not developing a new golf ball conforming to new rules and still OK for the best players in the world (feel, spin, control, wind reaction) will cost exactly the same. This cost will be borne by us the paying customers (their tour staffers get balls for free). So ultimately this cost could have been spread between "our balls" and the "tour balls" in some way, maybe making the tour ball very expensive and progressively raising the price of the others, but with the "general rollback" the price will be here for everyone, no smoothing out progressively!
i.e. the cost paid by us will be the same but potentially would hit us more brutally. No other way around.
Again the USGA has the average golfer at heart... Or so they say.

I hear "don't worry that will impact tour players but not the recreational amateurs"... Well, I maintain a (French, so 100% stroke play official competitions based) 8 to 6 index with a mediocre putting, some mighty lateral dispersion with the driver BUT distances that are "middle of the road PGA tour". So I will be penalised way more than other 7 handicappers who are short but great putters, or short and very straight.
Why is that "fair" or "not a problem" when I've never "over powered" any course? (By the way, if you follow Kyle Berkshire on YouTube you'll see that even him, three times world long drive champ, 160 mph club head speed and all that jazz doesn't "overpower courses").
This is just ridiculous.

One thing I don't understand that the USGA could explain to me (or the proponents of the 'rollback').
The MLR was rejected supposedly because ball producers said the cost was going to be too high (I understand from that that the research to develop and the production of reduced flight balls isn't cheap) but now we're supposed to believe that imposing the same reduced ball to every one isn't going to be costly?
Adding new tee boxes back for the select few courses that host your events is too costly but adding forward tees to thousands of everyday courses so they Joe (average) Public can still play isn't going to be a problem? 
John Daly was driving it 317 yards in the early 2000s and courses were fine but now Rory driving it 319 or 320 threatens the integrity of the game?
 
What about charging rules every 4 years so that the guys who had played in their teens and return to the game now are totally lost with hazards, droping and so on... That would preserve the integrity of the game but having 40 guys driving it past 300 yards on tour instead of 10 guys driving it the same distance would threaten the integrity of the game?
 
There is a lot of explaining that needs to be done. And also why the USGA and the R&A instead of England Golf and the Federation Française de Golf or the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers and the Federación española de golf? Historical reasons, sure enough... But this is an historical event that could lead to a change in "golf rules stewardship"...

There is a lot of questioning here of the ruling bodies’ motives for pushing through an unpopular change.  I think they are concerned about golf’s image with the non-golfing public.  Golf courses use a lot of valuable real estate, consume a lot of water for irrigation, are likely responsible for fertilizer run-off, etc.  The RB’s need some positive PR to counteract when an Augusta buys adjacent land to extend a hole or otherwise has off-course impacts.  In an era of sustainability concerns and ESG investing, it seems every entity feels they need to show they are on board.  It seems not to matter much if the sustainability moves are substantive, they feel that they need the PR credits to show that they are on board with what society claims currently to value.  In the business I was in (now retired) there was a concept of “social license to operate”.  One had to show that they were responsive to community concerns or life would become difficult, so there was a lot of posturing and sucking up.  I suspect that is what is behind the ball roll-back rather than any real too much distance issue.
 
Some here question if the manufacturers will offer non-conforming balls after the rollback effective date.  I suspect some will.  Bear in mind that development of the pre-2028 ball will be a sunk cost.  They don’t have to do R&D or tool up to make a post-2028 non-conforming ball.  Bearing the costs of developing a non-conforming ball now would be a substantial business risk and maybe an image problem, so they don’t do it.  If old tech balls are outselling the new balls as the crossover date approaches, are they really going to abandon that line?  Titleist might.  OEM’s with smaller market share might seize the opportunity to expand their sales.  That could be the DTC brands or the likes of Srixon.
 
I intend to play non-conforming balls post-2030 as long as my supply holds out.  I’ll be in my 70’s and trying to hang on to every yard possible.  I don’t know yet how much I will stock up prior.  There’s a good chance I will be hitting them with irons not in compliance with the groove rule as well.

One thing I don't understand that the USGA could explain to me (or the proponents of the 'rollback').
The MLR was rejected supposedly because ball producers said the cost was going to be too high (I understand from that that the research to develop and the production of reduced flight balls isn't cheap) but now we're supposed to believe that imposing the same reduced ball to every one isn't going to be costly?
Adding new tee boxes back for the select few courses that host your events is too costly but adding forward tees to thousands of everyday courses so they Joe (average) Public can still play isn't going to be a problem? 
John Daly was driving it 317 yards in the early 2000s and courses were fine but now Rory driving it 319 or 320 threatens the integrity of the game?
 
What about charging rules every 4 years so that the guys who had played in their teens and return to the game now are totally lost with hazards, droping and so on... That would preserve the integrity of the game but having 40 guys driving it past 300 yards on tour instead of 10 guys driving it the same distance would threaten the integrity of the game?
 
There is a lot of explaining that needs to be done. And also why the USGA and the R&A instead of England Golf and the Federation Française de Golf or the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers and the Federación española de golf? Historical reasons, sure enough... But this is an historical event that could lead to a change in "golf rules stewardship"...

I hear "don't worry that will impact tour players but not the recreational amateurs"... Well, I maintain a (French, so 100% stroke play official competitions based) 8 to 6 index with a mediocre putting, some mighty lateral dispersion with the driver BUT distances that are "middle of the road PGA tour". So I will be penalised way more than other 7 handicappers who are short but great putters, or short and very straight.
Why is that "fair" or "not a problem" when I've never "over powered" any course? (By the way, if you follow Kyle Berkshire on YouTube you'll see that even him, three times world long drive champ, 160 mph club head speed and all that jazz doesn't "overpower courses").
This is just ridiculous.

Exactly, I am a little younger than you 57, As I witness in my two older brothers 64, & 67, and they caution me accordingly, FATHER TIME gets paid in distance, and he TAKES FROM EVERYBODY!!!!.   I don't care HOW LITTLE "they" claim it will be, I "deserve" to keep what I have obtained, due to all of my hard earned money I have put into the game.
Especially when what I am doing, can't be construed, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER TO BE HARMFUL TO THE GAME.

I too was buying into the misconception that the ~11 yards added driving distance, at tour level, which has happened over approximately 25 years, was making courses unable to "defend themselves" and thus making them unplayable for tour events.  Then came the data and the data does not support that premise in any way.   
Also keep in mind there is absolutely no issue with amateurs overpowering courses. Ever notice how pristine condition the longest tee boxes are?  Why support a ball rollback and whatever distance reduction that means to us for a problem that does not involve us... 99.5% of golfers?
We have examples of shorter courses (Riviera CC) that have tour players slamming clubs into their bags simply because the event host and staff make the appropriate changes to the course to counter their inability to simply add length.  Even TM's CEO talked about this and it being a much less disruptive remedy.
The high green fees you cite have absolutely nothing to do with excessive distance.  These are reflective of costs of operation and supply vs. demand.  Our four on-property courses now charge $125 for public play during peak season.  They are really nice courses but I still find that mind boggling. 
Golf has always been a relatively high cost sport and the headwinds its been facing the last few decades in the form of water costs/reduction, significant increases in seed, fertilizer, pesticide, insecticide, and herbicide, will likely get worse.  This solvency struggle no doubt gets weary and those absurd offers for the land very attractive. We'll no doubt see more courses go away... but that has nothing to do with 11 yards distance at the tour level.
We have many executive (small footprint) and par 3 design courses, and they have similar challenges. I personally don't like playing those, at least as a steady diet, that's not golf to me. I don't know about you, but I have no interest in evolving golf into the pickleball version of tennis. 
This is what strikes me odd by folks supporting this ball rollback. 
It's not likely going to resolve the tour problem (even if you believe there is one). It does nothing but negatively effect we amateurs, the majority of which struggle with hitting distance.  It will not reduce water, fertilizer, pesticide, etc. use/costs.  It's definitely not going to save courses from shutting down. It's not going to save the "integrity of the game" (whatever the hell that means) It must just be an intrinsic "I'll take it for the betterment of the community" thing?  Still waiting for a compelling argument/reason to support this ridiculous change.

Driving average on the pga tour has only increased 10 yards over the last 20+ years. Its not different than what the average increase doing the 80s was except ie it’s been over 20 years.
The pga tour has been playing the same distances for the last 20 years. Supeintendents association did an 18 year studies and showed courses haven’t been getting longer, and the data also shows that courses from 2010-2020 have been bold just under 300 yards shorter than they were previously.
Courses have no problem keeping up with technology. Theres not a course that is being overpowered at any level. There may be courses where people don’t like to see low scores over the course of a tournament but they aren’t being overpowered. Just look at how many aren’t having course records broken or that scoring average on the pga tour has only dropped by about 1 stroke the last 20 years.
What data do you have to say it won’t impact the vast majority of golfers. Even if we believe the words of the ruling bodies since they haven’t provided their testing data. 3-5 yards thru the bag is going to affect a lot of golfers especially those playing forward tees already. 
This is the economy not the equipment or ball forcing golf courses to close because they aren’t long enough. Go to any higher cost of living area and you will see greens fees over $100. There are very few courses that aren’t munis in The DC area that are under $100 and most are pushing $125.
Land is a big commodity and those with money to build new housing communities will pay for it and golf courses have the land these companies want. It happens in various areas of the country and has been for awhile.

It occurred to me over the last couple of weeks of seeing football games with f.g. attempts from outside of 50 yards to check the data.  
"From 1960 to 1964, the average success rate was 50 percent. Over the last five years, the average rate was 85 percent."
Well then, if success rates are up...?
Even more remarkable is that kicks are being attempted from farther away now, too. In 1960, the average kick was from 30.9 yards away; the average successful kick was from 26.2 yards out, while the average miss was from 36.0 yards away. Well, in 2016, the average kick was from 37.7 yards away; the average successful kick was from 36.2 yards out — farther than the average miss in 1960! — while the average miss was from 46.2 yards away.
So...maybe football needs to confer with the USGA about rolling the football back, since there is OBVIOUSLY a distance problem in the NFL as well. Or is it just a perception 🤔
https://www.footballperspective.com/field-goal-rates-throughout-nfl-history/

I think this is right at the root of the issue though and all of the other discussion points are based on this: are we talking about our ability to enjoy the sport (qualitative) or to maximize performance (quantitative)? There's a reason why, sometimes, people like to play with half sets or hickories or whatever. It's different and fun and helps provide a juxtaposition from your typical game. But do I want to go out and play in a tournament with a gutta percha? I do not. I've spent a lot of time, effort, and money to learn a game under a set of rules using equipment that conforms to those rules. Losing 5-10 yards because I lack skill is different from losing 5-10 yards because the actual rules of the game were changed.
Not a perfect analogy (none are) but if I've optimized my bag and my game for 14 clubs and then a tournament says I can only use 10 clubs, it's going to be frustrating.
Stopping development (i.e. stopping progress) is quite different from rolling back technology (i.e. true regression). Will I still figure out how to enjoy the game? Sure. But it's definitely going to be an adjustment. Guess I should start swapping out wedges for hybrids, too.

All of the guys that I regularly play with (40 or so of us), have already started accumulating balls. Whether it be buying dozens upon dozens of new balls, collecting all of our found balls, or purchasing used lots from places like Lost Golf Balls. We figure we'll have more than enough between us, to never have to buy balls again after 2030.

Speaking of "course set-up" and the "excessive distance issue on tour"...  problem meet solution😆.

Agree. That’s just playing the course the way it is. Now you get to play the course the way it is but longer from the same tees you normally play and for some no option to choose shorter tees.
Iys the ruling bodies trying to change the game to fit their desires and nothing else.
Still waiting for someone to provide something objective to say why pros hitting an average of 300 off the tee is bad for the game especially the pro game. Or of everyone was hitting it tha same distance as Rory now or in 5,10,15 years. 
 
The ruling bodies haven’t said what it solves either and how it makes the game better. Changes should bring a positive change 

You are correct, it is not an actual comparison.  Like pin locations, those are not permanent changes and largely done for the purpose of letting the turf re-grow.  Plus, most courses rotate these such that when a few holes play longer, a few others play shorter.
Sorry Jamie, putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change the fact that it's still a pig 😉.

This guy gets it.  He and a majority of tour players oppose the ball rollback... you know, 9+ months ago when the ruling bodies were soliciting input.  Might LIV be the genesis of a move away from the USGA and R&A as well?  The game has changed.
 
 

I doubt it. With the proposed 3-5 yard loss the ruling bodies are claiming that’s not enough to move tee boxes up to compensate for the loss. So you will more than likely be playing the course the same way as now except with longer second and third shots on par 4s and 5s and longer tee shots on par 3s

Exactly. The rollback will have the golfers who hit the ball the distance of the 80s and 90s out of the game and only those who can hit it 300+ left
Be careful the baseball changed its rules and equipment crowd will come out in support of bifurcation while ignoring that it costs a lot of money to play wood bats at the amateur level. I know I played it for awhile as an adult. It’s a coupe bats a season minimum for most players. Not to mention the mound was reduced to improve offense 
Agree. Plus they are adding in a potential for lack of integrity and have someone use a non confirming ball in tournaments 

Nice chronology of the USGA's milestone efforts to protect the integrity of the game.  At this point however, one needs to ask what integrity exactly are they trying to protect? What era of golf should the game be rolled back to? 
The pro game has changed appreciably since 1980 and specifically since Tiger entered the field.  He started a movement. The development of other technologies, that the USGA and R&A have no control over, also hit the scene and younger players realize those are everybit as important or more so than the club and ball. The vast majority seemed giddy with the new age player and the bomb and gouge strategy. Everyone was and still is making lots of money.  Who wants to change that?  Better yet, why should we?
Golf isn't the only sport that has changed over the years.  I'm sure tennis pros from the 60's and 70's are gobsmacked seeing first service speeds of todays players.  The ITF is the caretaker of tennis and their charter also contains the words "integrity of the game".  But again exactly what intergrity exactly do they protect?  Is today's pro tennis game adversely impacting the integrity? Are the higher serving and volley speeds, which effectively make the court smaller, ruining the integrity of the game?
The game of professional golf, like other sports has changed and the USGA and R&A need to change along with it.  This "protect the integrity of the game" mantra is outdated and overused... particularly when 99.5% of players are not part of the perceived or real excessive distance problem.  They are completely out of touch with those they claim to represent.
 

They already drew lines decades ago with equipment and have regulated pretty much everything that is meaningful to distance. This rollback is more akin moving the line back further. Limiting something that hasn’t been reached yet is not as big of a deal since people won’t really miss what they never had, however people tend to not like it when something is taken away from them especially when it has been the norm for so long. 
To be honest, the rbs had more justification for a ball rollback in the early 2000s (not to mention should have  adopted a more aggressive head size limit earlier), but the data over the past two decades does not support their course lengthening/sustainability claims thus making this universal decision irresponsible.

Spot on.  Also, there are many competition leagues that will likely allow use of current spec balls.  Just another 'local rule".  I suppose were the ball mfg.'s to end production of non rollback balls everyone would eventually have to change.  Could be a huge black market for pre rollback, non-neutered balls.
 
Also spot on.  Completely ignored is the significant shift in tour player physique in the last couple of decades and the technology/training employed to improve swing and ball striking performance.  Since they have no way to control this (thus far anyway 🙄), they choose to remove what amounts to be a cosmetic mole by removing an enitre appendage.
The USGA and R&A are indeed out of touch with the amateurs they represent. This is an opportune time to let them hear from us that their decision stinks.

Just going to point out that many places here in Europe golfers must have an official handicap to play. Period. There are some courses that are truly open to any, but they are few and far between. 
You get a handicap through a course, learning the rules of the game, includes some lessons and practice rounds with a pro who will then assign your starting handicap based in scores.

Sam,
I do not believe that the USGA has a "nefarious agenda"; I merely believe that they have lost touch with reality, and continue chasing so-called "problems" in the game of golf that do not in any way exist. The distances that golfers hit a golf ball are no more problematic today than they were 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago, and this is in no way rendering golf courses "obsolete".
In short, advances in golf equipment is not where the problems lie., certainly not at the amateur golfer level. The fact that the USGA and R&A to a lesser degree, continue to approach the perceived "distance problem" by placing restriction after restriction on golf equipment is where I have a deep and enduring problem with these governing bodies.