Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[BIG STU]

On 1/14/2022 at 1:07 PM, BostonSal said:

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, Dave.  You make all good points.

The USGA does not defray the cost of my golf activities, however, so things like a fifteenth club or box groove wedges don't keep me up at night.  Premium cart bags tend to be made for 15 clubs anyway.  I do adhere respectfully to the actual playing rules for whatever that's worth.

I know that many recreational players also enjoy pro golf as a specatator sport, and that would impact their feeling on the matter.    I, however, have not attended a pro tournament since the 1980s.   Today, the game is 100% recreation for me.

LOL I think the 15th slot is for a ball retriever

[BIG STU]

On 1/15/2022 at 6:04 PM, DaveP043 said:

You still have just about 2 full seasons of golf before that rule takes effect for most of us.  If you haven't replaced your wedges in 14 years, you don't fit in with the club hoes here at MGS. 

Well I did keep the same old 588s for darn near 20 years. Ended up with 2 Vokeys with the plastic still on them that I liked so I went to them

[BIG STU]

2 hours ago, Buckle said:

Bifurcation has been here since 2019.  The USGA allows courses to put a drop zone on the green side of a PA with no adjustment to handicap and the same penalty as if the zone was where the USGA said "It should be."  The USGA/AGA would NEVER run a tournament and put a drop zone on the green side of a Penalty area.  

Sorry if this has been mentioned in the previous 21 pages, I didn't read them all.

 

It can loosely come under "Local Rules"---- 99% of the courses here in this Tourist themed area do that to speed up play. And like one owner stated " He does not give 2 damns what the USGA or anyone else says that he owns and runs the course and the USGA does not contribute one dime to his operation" Also the reason why most courses here chose to ignore the anchor ban in league play.

Far as I am concerned I do not play stipulated events or keep a legimate handicap any more so I basically play what clubs I want to USGA be dammed. No one I play with gives 2 rips what anyone plays

[korsmot]

All the big associations (R&A, USGA, PGA of A, Tour etc) talk about "growing the game", but continue to make the rules toward the 1% of competition at the elite level, that hurt the rec player.  I am absolutly in favor of BiF, because we shouldn't be making golf more difficult or less fun for the average joe, or make them have to ignore the rules.   We can make local rules for each club, but shouldn't the tour just make rules for them instead.  

Example: it is comparitively low chance of pure "lost ball" on tour.  When you have crowds tracking your ball, marshals in the landing zone, HD cameras, including the blimp and radios connecting all together to find your ball, and them calling Feherty to tell you where to look, (https://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/video-rory-mcilroys-ball-gets-stuck-in-a-tree-still-makes-par/) that is a far cry from a recreational player losing their ball in the middle of the fairway simply because it is fall and there are lots of leaves on the ground and a group waiting behind you.  Pros vs Joes are already playing two different games.  

"Anchoring".  How many Joe players are not having nearly as much fun since the putting ban went into effect?  With bad backs and old guys and arthritis and the yips, let guys anchor in rec play.  Even on tour, it wasn'st a landslide of data showing a massive advantage to those that were anchoring.  Otherwise, the guys winning a disporportiant amount before the ban would have been the anchor guys.  From a physics perspective it would seem to have some advantage, but so does "Face-on" putting and no one on tour is doing that.  There is plenty of art to putting, even if you anchor.  Joe's are just not good enough to make it that significant.  

The "Golf Course" arguement.  The high level competition should be about risk - reward.  You don't have to lengthen the holes, just start making the fairway smaller and smaller the longer down the hole.  Grow the rough up deeper and more penal in that area.  So a pro can still hit it long, but you have to hit the fairway that is only 1/2 or 1/4 as wide as fifty yards earlier.  Put in creeks, bunkers and waste areas in the 290 to 330 landing zone.  If the pro can clear it, advantage to them!  Or if they can get on the green from 4 inch rough after missing the fairway, more power to them.  We shouldn't totally penalize guys that have more talent, or have put more work into hitting it farther.  That is like saying if your NBA vertical jump is more than 46 inches, we are going to make you wear shoes that limit your jumping and impact you more than guys that don't jump as high.  I am okay with club standards otherwise it is a tech race, not a talent race.  

BiF works for many sports and I am not sure why the major entities are so hung up on not having it (other than tradition).  We didn't ban metal drivers or cavity backs when they came out.  And why? they can sell all sorts of new tech to all the golfers.  

If your group wants to play like the pros and use Limited golfballs, feel free!  Or go traditional and hit persimmion woods and pure blade Spaulding irons from 1976.    Other golfers just shouldn't feel like they are cheating if they are just playing current regular golf.

Great conversation from everyone!

Cheers

Tigger

 

[DaveP043]

3 hours ago, BIG STU said:

Well I did keep the same old 588s for darn near 20 years. Ended up with 2 Vokeys with the plastic still on them that I liked so I went to them

@BIG STU, I'll stand by my thought, you of all people are definitely not one of the club ho's 

[BIG STU]

1 minute ago, DaveP043 said:

@BIG STU, I'll stand by my thought, you of all people are definitely not one of the club ho's 

Well to a certain extend I can be a ho especially on the vintage side. No telling what you will see from me on those rounds. Now in the Shootouts etc the signature set is what you will see. I am a hopeless club ho with like 50 persimmon drivers and 100 or so vintage putters plus like 12 sets of Macgregor bladess ranging from 1940 to like 1986. My most "modern" set of irons is a set of 2014 TM TP CBs with graphite. They are put back to the time I can not swing the steel shafted blades

[silver & black]

On 1/14/2022 at 8:59 AM, LICC said:

There are 20 pages of reasons above why it matters. 

I'm not about to read 20 pages of why it matters....... because it doesn't. 

[Bob Pegram]

On 2/2/2021 at 6:24 AM, PMookie said:

Well, folks, the folks at the R&A and USGA are dead-set on limiting distance now. Bifurcation is coming.

These folks are SO out-of-touch with the recreational golfer, the 99% of golfers they SUPPOSEDLY serve!

 
https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/news/r-and-a-bifurcation-in-golf-reduce-hitting-distances/

I wonder how money the USGA is being paid by country clubs which are getting too short for top level tournament golf. Prostitutes! (and amateurs who shouldn't be in a position to regulate any part of golf, amateur or professional.) I use a 47.5 inch driver. It protects my back and makes me MORE consistent because it fits my swing. They will destroy tall golfer's backs with the 46 inch length limit. P.S. I don't hit the ball any farther than with shorter clubs, but I am way more consistent and my average drive is longer since I hit the ball better and hit more fairways where the ball rolls. The total distance isn't longer, just the average.

[Bob Pegram]

11 hours ago, korsmot said:

All the big associations (R&A, USGA, PGA of A, Tour etc) talk about "growing the game", but continue to make the rules toward the 1% of competition at the elite level, that hurt the rec player.  I am absolutly in favor of BiF, because we shouldn't be making golf more difficult or less fun for the average joe, or make them have to ignore the rules.   We can make local rules for each club, but shouldn't the tour just make rules for them instead.  

Example: it is comparitively low chance of pure "lost ball" on tour.  When you have crowds tracking your ball, marshals in the landing zone, HD cameras, including the blimp and radios connecting all together to find your ball, and them calling Feherty to tell you where to look, (https://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/video-rory-mcilroys-ball-gets-stuck-in-a-tree-still-makes-par/) that is a far cry from a recreational player losing their ball in the middle of the fairway simply because it is fall and there are lots of leaves on the ground and a group waiting behind you.  Pros vs Joes are already playing two different games.  

"Anchoring".  How many Joe players are not having nearly as much fun since the putting ban went into effect?  With bad backs and old guys and arthritis and the yips, let guys anchor in rec play.  Even on tour, it wasn'st a landslide of data showing a massive advantage to those that were anchoring.  Otherwise, the guys winning a disporportiant amount before the ban would have been the anchor guys.  From a physics perspective it would seem to have some advantage, but so does "Face-on" putting and no one on tour is doing that.  There is plenty of art to putting, even if you anchor.  Joe's are just not good enough to make it that significant.  

The "Golf Course" arguement.  The high level competition should be about risk - reward.  You don't have to lengthen the holes, just start making the fairway smaller and smaller the longer down the hole.  Grow the rough up deeper and more penal in that area.  So a pro can still hit it long, but you have to hit the fairway that is only 1/2 or 1/4 as wide as fifty yards earlier.  Put in creeks, bunkers and waste areas in the 290 to 330 landing zone.  If the pro can clear it, advantage to them!  Or if they can get on the green from 4 inch rough after missing the fairway, more power to them.  We shouldn't totally penalize guys that have more talent, or have put more work into hitting it farther.  That is like saying if your NBA vertical jump is more than 46 inches, we are going to make you wear shoes that limit your jumping and impact you more than guys that don't jump as high.  I am okay with club standards otherwise it is a tech race, not a talent race.  

BiF works for many sports and I am not sure why the major entities are so hung up on not having it (other than tradition).  We didn't ban metal drivers or cavity backs when they came out.  And why? they can sell all sorts of new tech to all the golfers.  

If your group wants to play like the pros and use Limited golfballs, feel free!  Or go traditional and hit persimmion woods and pure blade Spaulding irons from 1976.    Other golfers just shouldn't feel like they are cheating if they are just playing current regular golf.

Great conversation from everyone!

Cheers

Tigger

 

Agree on making courses tougher to limit the long hitting advantage unless the golfer is extremely accurate. Disagree on BiF.

[Bob Pegram]

On 2/2/2021 at 9:45 AM, PMookie said:

Zach Johnson will still be 30-40 yards behind DJ.... Yep. Same in wondering what they expect to see.

Can you imagine what the Masters would be like if they go to a shorter distance ball? All of the lengthened holes will be obsolete because they would then be too long.

[Bob Pegram]

On 2/2/2021 at 9:51 AM, LICC said:

For the Tour, distance has become a major issue. The game has changed substantially from prior to the equipment advances of 20+ years ago. Courses have been lengthened yet still, today there really is no such thing as a par-5, Par-4s have become mostly driver and wedge or a forced layup off the tee, and most all par-3s have to be 210+ yards. The strategy of the game has become boring at the Tour level, which affects fans who enjoy watching Tour golf. I would love it if a 300-yard drive was meaningful again, meaning less than 10% of the Tour had the distance to consistently get there.

The average drive length of a tour pro hasn't changed much in the last 20-25 years for the vast majority. It is just a small percentage at the top who are bigger, stronger, willing to experiment and work harder than years ago. Penalizing pros (or anybody else) for working harder and succeeding stinks. The PGA did that to Phil Mickelson. He experimented and practiced with an almost 48 inch driver, learned to hit it straight and won the PGA Championship. Then the PGA Tour stabbed him in the back. Members of the players advisory board at the time said most pros had no problem with 48 inch drivers. Their story is now changing becuase the PGA Tour is run by dictators who don't want the players to have a say unless the PGA Tour agrees with the Players' suggestions ahead of time.

[Bob Pegram]

On 2/2/2021 at 12:06 PM, Middler said:

While I’m not keen on bifurcation, the very least they could do is halt further (distance) improvements in balls or equipment. They sat on their hands for decades while distances for pros increased. It’s not like they couldn’t have slowed the trend long ago if they were smart, how did they think this would end? Kickin’ the can down the road, a short sighted facet of life in many areas...

Looks like the last big jump was from going to solid balls from wound balls.

[Bob Pegram]

On 2/2/2021 at 12:45 PM, THEZIPR23 said:

 

I'll leave this here.  

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong! Launch monitors have shown that about 80 percent of the initial ball direction is from face angle and about 20 percent is from swing path direction. Before launch monitors the opposite was taught. The launch monitor data shows why, for example. if you aim down the right edge pf a fairway that curves gently to the right and hit with a square face you will stay just left of the trees, but if you open the face to hit a fade without adjusting your initial aim so it is to the left of your original line, you will hit it in the trees every time. I saw that happen in my foursome in the PGA Player Ability test last year. I was the only one who hit the fairway. My swing wasn't better. My knowledge let me aim cirrectly.

[LICC]

5 hours ago, Bob Pegram said:

The average drive length of a tour pro hasn't changed much in the last 20-25 years for the vast majority. It is just a small percentage at the top who are bigger, stronger, willing to experiment and work harder than years ago.

This is an amazingly inaccurate statement.

The median driving distance on the PGA Tour in 1997 was 267 yards, In 2022 it was 300 yards. 

In 1997, the 10th longest driver on Tour (Vijay Singh) averaged 281 yards. In 2022, 191 out of 193 players averaged over 281 yards.

"Bigger" and "stronger" have nothing to do with it. Distances are massively higher now compared to then because of equipment technology.

[Bob Pegram]

4 hours ago, LICC said:

This is an amazingly inaccurate statement.

The median driving distance on the PGA Tour in 1997 was 267 yards, In 2022 it was 300 yards. 

In 1997, the 10th longest driver on Tour (Vijay Singh) averaged 281 yards. In 2022, 191 out of 193 players averaged over 281 yards.

"Bigger" and "stronger" have nothing to do with it. Distances are massively higher now compared to then because of equipment technology.

1997 is too far back. When Titleist came out with the first solid ProV1 (as opposed to wound balls) the distance went up and, other than the longest hitters who do hit it farther, the typical drive distance has not gone up a lot. It has gone up a little. I am basing this on a Golf Digest article a couple of years ago (from memory).

[LICC]

53 minutes ago, Bob Pegram said:

1997 is too far back. When Titleist came out with the first solid ProV1 (as opposed to wound balls) the distance went up and, other than the longest hitters who do hit it farther, the typical drive distance has not gone up a lot. It has gone up a little. I am basing this on a Golf Digest article a couple of years ago (from memory).

You had said 25 years. But ok, let's compare to 2004.

Median 2004 driving distance- 287. Median 2022 driving distance- 300. That is significant

In 2004, 15 players averaged 300 or more on drives. In 2022, 98 players averaged 300 or more on drives.

[Bob Pegram]

On 11/22/2022 at 6:22 AM, LICC said:

This is an amazingly inaccurate statement.

The median driving distance on the PGA Tour in 1997 was 267 yards, In 2022 it was 300 yards. 

In 1997, the 10th longest driver on Tour (Vijay Singh) averaged 281 yards. In 2022, 191 out of 193 players averaged over 281 yards.

"Bigger" and "stronger" have nothing to do with it. Distances are massively higher now compared to then because of equipment technology.

How do you know "bigger and stronger" has nothing to do with it? A bigger percentage of PGA Tour Pros work out than in the past. That would at least affect strength. It would interesting to find out what the median and average heights and weights are compared to 20 years ago. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if the heights are more. In addition, launch monitors have helped improve technique which is another non-golf club and non-ball factor. Admittedly launch monitors are equipment of a sort.

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 minute ago, Bob Pegram said:

How do you know "bigger and stronger" has nothing to do with it? A bigger percentage of PGA Tour Pros work out than in the past. That would at least affect strength. It would interesting to find out what the median and average heights and weights are compared to 20 years ago. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if the heights are more. In addition, launch monitors have helped improve technique which is another non-golf club and non-ball factor. Admittedly launch monitors are equipment of a sort.

I would encourage us to not go down this argument again as it has been discussed (argued) at length in prior threads which have had to be locked. If you really want to see the argument I will be more than happy to send you the link to the thread. 

I agree that addition of LM and more data centric technology has also aided in distance gains. I won't add in my thoughts about if golfers are more fit or stronger now than they were prior, as again it has been discussed and there are some who are very passionate about their sides. 

[Bob Pegram]

8 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

I would encourage us to not go down this argument again as it has been discussed (argued) at length in prior threads which have had to be locked. If you really want to see the argument I will be more than happy to send you the link to the thread. 

I agree that addition of LM and more data centric technology has also aided in distance gains. I won't add in my thoughts about if golfers are more fit or stronger now than they were prior, as again it has been discussed and there are some who are very passionate about their sides. 

What is the link? It would interesting to see the argum,ents on bath sides. Thanks.

[GolfSpy_APH]

6 minutes ago, Bob Pegram said:

What is the link? It would interesting to see the argum,ents on bath sides. Thanks.

I actually have to apologize. It is this thread just earlier on. Could have sworn it was another one. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

8 minutes ago, Bob Pegram said:

What is the link? It would interesting to see the argum,ents on bath sides. Thanks.

They aren’t very good, but it’s an interesting read 

[MGoBlue100]

On 11/22/2022 at 2:47 AM, Bob Pegram said:

I wonder how money the USGA is being paid by country clubs which are getting too short for top level tournament golf. Prostitutes! (and amateurs who shouldn't be in a position to regulate any part of golf, amateur or professional.) I use a 47.5 inch driver. It protects my back and makes me MORE consistent because it fits my swing. They will destroy tall golfer's backs with the 46 inch length limit. P.S. I don't hit the ball any farther than with shorter clubs, but I am way more consistent and my average drive is longer since I hit the ball better and hit more fairways where the ball rolls. The total distance isn't longer, just the average.

The USGA cares as much about “growing the game” as the NCAA does about “student athletes”. 

[CarlH]

21 minutes ago, MGoBlue100 said:

The USGA cares as much about “growing the game” as the NCAA does about “student athletes”. 

I'd really like to hear your reasoning on this statement!

[MGoBlue100]

USGA cares about protecting the game as they want it protected. Old men, old golf clubs, old bureaucracy. They don’t like technology, distance or anything else that affects their delicate sensibilities. This explains why the US Open is often a debacle. Can’t have anyone shoot -20 at their old money clubs.  IMO USGA prefers the status quo and will defend it to the end. 

[Bob Pegram]

On 11/21/2022 at 12:03 PM, korsmot said:

All the big associations (R&A, USGA, PGA of A, Tour etc) talk about "growing the game", but continue to make the rules toward the 1% of competition at the elite level, that hurt the rec player.  I am absolutly in favor of BiF, because we shouldn't be making golf more difficult or less fun for the average joe, or make them have to ignore the rules.   We can make local rules for each club, but shouldn't the tour just make rules for them instead.  

Example: it is comparitively low chance of pure "lost ball" on tour.  When you have crowds tracking your ball, marshals in the landing zone, HD cameras, including the blimp and radios connecting all together to find your ball, and them calling Feherty to tell you where to look, (https://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/video-rory-mcilroys-ball-gets-stuck-in-a-tree-still-makes-par/) that is a far cry from a recreational player losing their ball in the middle of the fairway simply because it is fall and there are lots of leaves on the ground and a group waiting behind you.  Pros vs Joes are already playing two different games.  

"Anchoring".  How many Joe players are not having nearly as much fun since the putting ban went into effect?  With bad backs and old guys and arthritis and the yips, let guys anchor in rec play.  Even on tour, it wasn'st a landslide of data showing a massive advantage to those that were anchoring.  Otherwise, the guys winning a disporportiant amount before the ban would have been the anchor guys.  From a physics perspective it would seem to have some advantage, but so does "Face-on" putting and no one on tour is doing that.  There is plenty of art to putting, even if you anchor.  Joe's are just not good enough to make it that significant.  

The "Golf Course" arguement.  The high level competition should be about risk - reward.  You don't have to lengthen the holes, just start making the fairway smaller and smaller the longer down the hole.  Grow the rough up deeper and more penal in that area.  So a pro can still hit it long, but you have to hit the fairway that is only 1/2 or 1/4 as wide as fifty yards earlier.  Put in creeks, bunkers and waste areas in the 290 to 330 landing zone.  If the pro can clear it, advantage to them!  Or if they can get on the green from 4 inch rough after missing the fairway, more power to them.  We shouldn't totally penalize guys that have more talent, or have put more work into hitting it farther.  That is like saying if your NBA vertical jump is more than 46 inches, we are going to make you wear shoes that limit your jumping and impact you more than guys that don't jump as high.  I am okay with club standards otherwise it is a tech race, not a talent race.  

BiF works for many sports and I am not sure why the major entities are so hung up on not having it (other than tradition).  We didn't ban metal drivers or cavity backs when they came out.  And why? they can sell all sorts of new tech to all the golfers.  

If your group wants to play like the pros and use Limited golfballs, feel free!  Or go traditional and hit persimmion woods and pure blade Spaulding irons from 1976.    Other golfers just shouldn't feel like they are cheating if they are just playing current regular golf.

Great conversation from everyone!

Cheers

Tigger

 

As Phil Mickelson pointed out some time ago, the 2010 groove rule actually hurts average players way more than the best players, pro or amateur.  Pros and other very good players tend to spin the ball too much on short iron shots. The groove rule doesn't affect them much. On the other hand, average players need all the spin they can get around the greens. The groove rule hurts them quite a bit. The USGA doesn't think things through very well.

[BIG STU]

On 11/22/2022 at 2:47 AM, Bob Pegram said:

I wonder how money the USGA is being paid by country clubs which are getting too short for top level tournament golf. Prostitutes! (and amateurs who shouldn't be in a position to regulate any part of golf, amateur or professional.) I use a 47.5 inch driver. It protects my back and makes me MORE consistent because it fits my swing. They will destroy tall golfer's backs with the 46 inch length limit. P.S. I don't hit the ball any farther than with shorter clubs, but I am way more consistent and my average drive is longer since I hit the ball better and hit more fairways where the ball rolls. The total distance isn't longer, just the average.

Like the broomstick putter and anchoring I absolutely see nothing wrong with it----- Yes I can relate to the back issues myself. Down here 99% of the clubs have disregarded the anchor long putter ban in league play etc because a lot of older guys have back problems and some have the shakes due to meds or medical problems. I Increased my putter length from 33" to 35" after my injury. I did putt with the broomstick in the past and I may go to it again if need be.

[Davre]

The ramifications of this are far less straightforward than a lot of people understand. Firstly, regulating distance via the ball just further penalizes the shorter hitters on tour vs the bombers. Think: if you had to dial a ball back enough for Rory to average say 275yds off the tee, that puts guys like Kisner back to 245yds. It doesn't solve the problem at all. It renders all courses unplayable for below average drivers. 

One possible alternative is to design a ball that FAVORS slower swing speeds (likely a very soft compression?). This could shrink the delta between the short and long hitters due to energy loss at high speeds. The obvious flaw to this (and any limiting of the ball) is testing and ball doping. The cost of testing every ball played on tour would be ENORMOUS. 

Last, and probably most important is the impact on revenue for the big ball makers. They literally lose the ability to market "play what the pros play". If you do not think this is a massive market mover, just look at the contracts of current players. The other elephant in the room is what would LIV do? Following suit seems to be contrary to their DNA. Plus hey could lean into "come over here and play REAL equipment!" 

[Bob Pegram]

On 11/25/2022 at 2:11 AM, BIG STU said:

Like the broomstick putter and anchoring I absolutely see nothing wrong with it----- Yes I can relate to the back issues myself. Down here 99% of the clubs have disregarded the anchor long putter ban in league play etc because a lot of older guys have back problems and some have the shakes due to meds or medical problems. I Increased my putter length from 33" to 35" after my injury. I did putt with the broomstick in the past and I may go to it again if need be.

I agree. I use a 46.5 inch putter so I can stand up straighter.

[Bob Pegram]

On 11/24/2022 at 2:24 PM, CarlH said:

I'd really like to hear your reasoning on this statement!

I think I can answer part of you question. NCAA golfers are (or were?) limited to 20 hours per week of practice. That slows down their skills development compared to others competing in non-NCAA tournaments instead of college. I don't remember if there were talks to possibly change or eliminate that limit and/or whether the limit stills exists. The USGA keeps changing ther rules when somebody figures out a non-standard method of hitting shots that works better. Back in the 1960's I almost switched to a croquet putter - face the hole and swing the putter between the legs - , but the USGA outlawed them. Sam Snead then used his regular putter between his legs with his left hand hish and his right hand closer to the head, but they outlawed that not long after. They have a long history of stopping the use of ingenuity. They rewaes conformists, not people who are smarter than they are.

[BostonSal]

On 1/16/2022 at 9:51 AM, DaveP043 said:

I don't claim to be an expert on exactly what conforms, and I certainly don't know how your "rebuilt" club will fit in the regulations.  If I read you right, you're taking a club that conforms to the 2024 rules and having it changed.  What has The Iron Factory told you about groove conformance?  If it ends up being non-conforming, I have very little sympathy.  If you're worried about it conforming, and you'll need to use it in significant competitions, you can send it to the USGA (or have The Iron Factory send it) to be evaluated.  

Non-conforming is the whole point.

It can't be non-conforming enough.

I want to be able to back up the ball on the asphalt parking lot.

I'm obviously not trying to qualify for the US Senior Amateur, but my facetiousness was clearly not sufficiently obvious either!

/