Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[Big moose]

Are you guys still worried about something that might or might not happen 5 years from now, seriously. Nobody is going to quit golfing if they change the ball, and I told the guys I golf with and they said the same thing I said, we are going to play any ball we want because we don't play in tournaments. 

[mstuewe]

8 hours ago, Big moose said:

Are you guys still worried about something that might or might not happen 5 years from now, seriously. Nobody is going to quit golfing if they change the ball, and I told the guys I golf with and they said the same thing I said, we are going to play any ball we want because we don't play in tournaments. 

do you play an illegal ball today?  Would you care if your playing partners played with an illegal ball?  

[RickyBobby_PR]

8 hours ago, Big moose said:

Are you guys still worried about something that might or might not happen 5 years from now, seriously. Nobody is going to quit golfing if they change the ball, and I told the guys I golf with and they said the same thing I said, we are going to play any ball we want because we don't play in tournaments. 

Unless there is a lawsuit the ruling bodies are set on moving forward. They haven’t considered any of the data and input from data sources and experts so there is no reason for them to listen to the pushback from their members or any other golfer and therefore this will happen in 2028 and that means in 2027 there will be little to no production of the current ball as all testing in off of 2027 will be to the new standard. So in effect unless someone has a stash of balls people will be playing the new ball just over 2 years before the rule takes affect for amateurs 

Whether you believe polls or not 6% saying they will quit isn’t good and even if only half follow through there’s still a portion of the regular golfers who will move on. People quit golf all the time. I know a few that have quit already and content playing pickleball and not even considering picking up a club again, they aren’t going go to pick it up in 5-6 years and to play 

[Big moose]

41 minutes ago, mstuewe said:

do you play an illegal ball today?  Would you care if your playing partners played with an illegal ball?  

I play either a tour soft or a bridgestone tour brx. And I don't care what ball anyone else uses legal or otherwise. 

[pbclub]

On 3/3/2024 at 10:06 PM, Big moose said:

Are you guys still worried about something that might or might not happen 5 years from now, seriously.

Yes. Some people care. 

Edited March 5 by pbclub
Grammar

[theballdontliegolf67]

If they continue to make golf balls that don't confirm to the new restrictions, then the tour will be the only ones that make the change. The regular players will continue to use them and the courses won't enforce the new rule in their tournaments if they want anyone to play. I hope this ends up being like the new ball in the NBA or moving the 3-point line closer in the fact that they were temporary and went back to the way it was. 

[NotQuite70s]

On 3/3/2024 at 10:08 AM, cnosil said:

The 10th hole at Rivera is a great example.  Brodie's book was published in 2014.    SG was then applied to "better" course strategies like DECADE and Lowest Score Wins.  The hit is as far as possible doesn't guarantee the lowest score but maximizes the changes;  this is typically the debate presented by TV announcers.  TV announcers like to look at one player versus one player and say things like this player laid up and got par and this person hit is as far as they could and got par so it doesn't work.   They don't typically compare the field averages as a whole but we are starting to see SG images that show how the field as a whole does from various locations.     

 

Those guys who laid up short of the fairway bunker largely got a nice fairway lie.  Those who went for the green got all kinds of crap lies - bunkers, deep rough, in the trees, etc.  Which is the more impressive skill, hitting a routine wedge close from the fairway or improvising for up and down from an unpredictable lie nearer the green?  Supposedly, Viktor Hovland won the big money last fall because he had so improved his skill in the latter.  Which is better for the fans, for the game?  I for one am more impressed with the guy who can judge a chip from gnarly rough so well as to get to gimme range.  Even I as an 11 handicap can stick a wedge from the fairway (now and then).

If you are going to be long, you had better put in the time to be good playing out of all sorts of lies.  There are plenty of would-be pro bombers who cannot score despite their length.  Maybe the long driver need not be as good hitting long accurate approach shots, but wider dispersion puts pressure on other parts of the game.  Its not better or worse, just different.

[cnosil]

24 minutes ago, NotQuite70s said:

Those guys who laid up short of the fairway bunker largely got a nice fairway lie.  Those who went for the green got all kinds of crap lies - bunkers, deep rough, in the trees, etc.  Which is the more impressive skill, hitting a routine wedge close from the fairway or improvising for up and down from an unpredictable lie nearer the green?  Supposedly, Viktor Hovland won the big money last fall because he had so improved his skill in the latter.  Which is better for the fans, for the game?  I for one am more impressed with the guy who can judge a chip from gnarly rough so well as to get to gimme range.  Even I as an 11 handicap can stick a wedge from the fairway (now and then).

If you are going to be long, you had better put in the time to be good playing out of all sorts of lies.  There are plenty of would-be pro bombers who cannot score despite their length.  Maybe the long driver need not be as good hitting long accurate approach shots, but wider dispersion puts pressure on other parts of the game.  Its not better or worse, just different.

The way players (amateurs and pros) are starting to play golf is based on data analytics and probabilities.   Golf isn't measured by what you/we view as being an impressive skill but by who shoots the lowest score.  Hitting the ball 20 yards shorter doesn't significantly reduce dispersion.  Normal dispersion patterns with any club results in players having to play from different types of lies and to get better you have to improve skills in hitting a variety of shots;  that is just how this game is played.   

I don't know what is better for the fans or for the game.  I have my thoughts, everyone in this tread has thoughts, and the ruling bodies and tours have their thoughts.   The ball rollback is the  ruling bodies making changes that they feel are best for the game; some people agree and some disagree.  

[fixyurdivot]

and another thing...

[cnosil]

Haven't watched the whole thing but figured it might be of interest:

 

 

[NotQuite70s]

I just started reading Ben Hogan's book "Power Golf".  In the introduction (p xiii), he discusses the difference between pros and amateurs thus:

"The way most golf courses are trapped the 85-90 golfers have to shoot around a bunker from the tee.  We don't give the ordinary bunker a thought because we can drive over most of them with no bother at all."

So the technology of the day - this book has a copyright date of 1948 - had already rendered the strategic intent of the course design obsolete.  It's no good rolling back to 1948:  we have to go all the way back to gutta percha balls if the RBs are to be satisfied.  Or maybe they think the feathery is the only proper ball to maintain the integrity of the game.

Any folks wanting to experiment with a really rolled back ball can buy gutties here:

https://www.mcintyregolf.com/products/the-park-line-cut-gutta-percha-replica-golf-ball

At the listed price, expect the 3-minute lost ball rule to be routinely ignored.

 

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 hours ago, cnosil said:

Haven't watched the whole thing but figured it might be of interest:

 

 

Interesting video. He noticed more than the ruling bodies stated distance.

Said the same bring JT said that he would have to adjust his whole bag setup. 
 

Even with his distance he hates the rollbacked ball. 

[d.lama]

14 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Interesting video. He noticed more than the ruling bodies stated distance.

Said the same bring JT said that he would have to adjust his whole bag setup. 
 

Even with his distance he hates the rollbacked ball. 

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. 


 

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 minutes ago, d.lama said:

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. 


 

Missing your point of this reply. 

never disputed the modern ball isn’t faster than then ball in 2004. Have constantly said the ball specs are  the same for the last 20 years under the current ODs. So we agree.

Yes he gets more speed out of the left dash became the construction is better suited for his swing. Again no disagreement nor did I talk about it other than he noticed more than the 11-15 yards the ruling bodies have claimed, which also goes to the point of the Nike being shorter.

Ive stated numerous times in this thread that it’s not the equipment and that it’s the golfer, and that the USGA equipment guy said the samething. So again no disagreement. 
 

 

[d.lama]

9 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Missing your point of this reply. 

never disputed the modern ball isn’t faster than then ball in 2004. Have constantly said the ball specs are  the same for the last 20 years under the current ODs. So we agree.

Yes he gets more speed out of the left dash became the construction is better suited for his swing. Again no disagreement nor did I talk about it other than he noticed more than the 11-15 yards the ruling bodies have claimed, which also goes to the point of the Nike being shorter.

Ive stated numerous times in this thread that it’s not the equipment and that it’s the golfer, and that the USGA equipment guy said the samething. So again no disagreement. 

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. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

51 minutes ago, d.lama said:

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. 

The current ods is strong enough and it has proven since its implementation  that there isn’t the big jump in distance that as seen when the prov1 came out. It’s done its job and as you pointed out and confirmed what many of ja shave said and dd the USGA it’s not the equipment.

Technology hasn’t overcome it because  ball despite its design characteristics can’t exceed the parameters in the ODS, the ball itself is still limited to those specs as is the driver to the CT test. It doesn’t matter what technology is used in design and material construction it’s limited in its effectiveness to overcome the ods and Ct.

The modern ball isn’t longer and faster than the meant it to be. Its the same distance specs and 2004 and the ruling bodies changed the speed apsect in the odd from 103 to 115 to keep up with the swing speeds of golfers in the 2000s which also hasn’t changed.

20 years later is too late to try and put the toothpaste back in the tube because a new leadership hates the modern game and is influence by the very rich of rich of golf course owners and designers.

Bryson still hit 182 mph ball speed which is what is around normal on tour, the spin and aerodynamics are better in the new ball. Even though he gets better speed the new ball still has to beach the initial velocity transfer and ods.

So we are supposed to believe the ruling bodies about all their data and conclusion but then you say the USGA equipment guy who has evaluated all the data is wrong in his conclusion. That contradiction doesn’t work.

but despite all this tell me the specific problem that is caused by the distance the current ball goes?

Edited March 29 by RickyBobby_PR

[GolfSpy_APH]

https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/masters-announces-support-of-ball-rollback/

[ChitownM2]

I still don't understand why people are getting so upset about this still.  Why do people think that the balls that most amateurs are playing is going to disappear from the market just because the pros can't use them?  A lot of the pros are already not playing the same balls that we can buy on the retail shelf and this would just be a continuation of that.  The balls they play will continue to be the small batch "prototype" balls that manufacturers make for them and the balls rolling off the big assembly lines and ship to PGATSS will be the same. 

I suppose one could argue that there will be less innovation/updates for the mass market balls but I'm not sure that will really matter for most golf balls since we were already talking about very minor improvements to begin with and I'm sure some of the things they develop for tour balls will find their way into retail products.  It's kind of like auto racing, car manufacturers develop new tech and it gets put on race cars and eventually some version of that ends up in production cars a decade later.  When it comes down to it, I don't believe for a second that golf ball manufacturers are going to stop producing and developing balls for recreational play.  How long do you think Titleist is going to let Callaway run ads in every PGA tour event and magazine that shows their ball being 25 yards longer than ProV1 with some barely legible fine print in the corner saying it can't be used in tournament event?  No brand is going to be able to let that happen because retail sales make up 99.999% of the revenue for the manufacturers. 

Edited Sunday at 04:29 PM by ChitownM2

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 minutes ago, ChitownM2 said:

Why do people think that the balls that most amateurs are playing is going to disappear from the market just because the pros can't use them? 

So let’s see from history. When things are banned or marked no longer conforming by the ruling bodies they stopped getting made by the major OEMs. The groove rule is the perfect example. Even though the 4 year warning hasn’t been issued the major OEMs stopped making clubs with the old grooves.

now let’s look at the balls. Starting October 2027 all balls that wish to be on the conforming list have to meet the new spec. So why will manufacturers make a product that is conconforming beyond Oct 2027? They won’t. They will phase out the current spec balls in 2026 and beginning of 2027.

8 minutes ago, ChitownM2 said:

A lot of the pros are already not playing the same balls that we can buy on the retail shelf and this would just be a continuation of that. 

Incorrect. The majority of pros play the retail version of the balls. We can use the left dash as an example. Prior to it becoming a retail ball less than 10 tour pros were using it. It was even less for the left dot.

Callaway had very few pros playing anything other than the retail ball. They couldn’t even make a version of the ball that worked for Sergio so he broke his contract to play tp5 again. The balls the pros play are made of the same materials that fw retail balls are made from and they all meet the same ODS measurements and initial velocity. 
 

This notion that the pros are playing some kind of special ball isn’t true.

[chisag]

5 minutes ago, ChitownM2 said:

I still don't understand why people are getting so upset about this still. 

 

... I could make the argument, that if nothing was declared about a rollback but new balls started traveling 2-3 yds less as that is the expected distance loss for average swing speeds, 99% of those that play golf wouldn't even notice. To think any Am drives the ball like a robot so they would have exact driving distance figures is just silly. I am paired with Am's all the time that can have a 50yd difference in their best and worst drives. And that isn't counting topped/thinned or way out on the heel or toe, just the difference in normal drives that hit the center compared to a typical mishits. Better Ams will still have much more than a 2-3 yd difference in driving distances when comparing drives during a round.

... If I catch a downslope and hit a 280yd drive, would I notice a rolled back ball only went 275? If my 81 yr old playing pard hit his drive 185 instead of 187 will he cry baby there is't a more forward tee he can move up and play? Or would neither of us even notice? It would be interesting to see 18 holes played by a typical Am with a 85-90mph swing speed using both a rolled back ball and a current ball off every tee. My guess is the swing and face contact will create a much wider range of distance than the different balls. I could certainly see the rolled back ball averaging longer than the current ball with slightly better contact. 

... I also keep hearing some say nobody wants bifurcation and to the contrary, everyone I play with would prefer a rolled back ball for Pros but not Am's. But even that takes some serious discussion and an almost forced opinion because basically all my playing partners just don't care that much one way or the other. 3 of my 8 regular playing partners were not even aware of the ball roll back and greeted the news with shrugged shoulders. 

[ChitownM2]

27 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

So let’s see from history. When things are banned or marked no longer conforming by the ruling bodies they stopped getting made by the major OEMs. The groove rule is the perfect example. Even though the 4 year warning hasn’t been issued the major OEMs stopped making clubs with the old grooves.

now let’s look at the balls. Starting October 2027 all balls that wish to be on the conforming list have to meet the new spec. So why will manufacturers make a product that is conconforming beyond Oct 2027? They won’t. They will phase out the current spec balls in 2026 and beginning of 2027.

 Yes but there is a huge difference between being named non-conforming and being not eligible for high level play where a model local rule is in play.  I don't see those being the same at all.

Quote

Incorrect. The majority of pros play the retail version of the balls. We can use the left dash as an example. Prior to it becoming a retail ball less than 10 tour pros were using it. It was even less for the left dot.

Callaway had very few pros playing anything other than the retail ball. They couldn’t even make a version of the ball that worked for Sergio so he broke his contract to play tp5 again. The balls the pros play are made of the same materials that fw retail balls are made from and they all meet the same ODS measurements and initial velocity. 

This notion that the pros are playing some kind of special ball isn’t true.

The fact that left dot and left dash existed in the first place without being on retail shelves kind of proves the point that they weren't playing the same ball right?  They were making small runs of these balls just for those half dozen or so pros and now they make small batches just for custom orders since left dot still isn't in retail stores.  No reason to think they don't have the ability to continue producing a small run of balls for the pros and others competing in these events where the model local rule is in effect. 

 

23 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... I could make the argument, that if nothing was declared about a rollback but new balls started traveling 2-3 yds less as that is the expected distance loss for average swing speeds, 99% of those that play golf wouldn't even notice. To think any Am drives the ball like a robot so they would have exact driving distance figures is just silly. I am paired with Am's all the time that can have a 50yd difference in their best and worst drives. And that isn't counting topped/thinned or way out on the heel or toe, just the difference in normal drives that hit the center compared to a typical mishits. Better Ams will still have much more than a 2-3 yd difference in driving distances when comparing drives during a round.

... If I catch a downslope and hit a 280yd drive, would I notice a rolled back ball only went 275? If my 81 yr old playing pard hit his drive 185 instead of 187 will he cry baby there is't a more forward tee he can move up and play? Or would neither of us even notice? It would be interesting to see 18 holes played by a typical Am with a 85-90mph swing speed using both a rolled back ball and a current ball off every tee. My guess is the swing and face contact will create a much wider range of distance than the different balls. I could certainly see the rolled back ball averaging longer than the current ball with slightly better contact. 

... I also keep hearing some say nobody wants bifurcation and to the contrary, everyone I play with would prefer a rolled back ball for Pros but not Am's. But even that takes some serious discussion and an almost forced opinion because basically all my playing partners just don't care that much one way or the other. 3 of my 8 regular playing partners were not even aware of the ball roll back and greeted the news with shrugged shoulders.

I definitely agree that this isn't going to matter to most golfers out there, but that isn't the way advertising works.  One of these manufacturers is going to decide it's worth it to distinguish themselves by selling balls that don't meet the requirements of the model local rule and they are going to test that at the swing speed limits of the test and show the maximum possible distance advantage.  My point was that once one company decides to do that, the rest are going to be forced to follow suit because as you point out, most golfers don't care or dig deep enough to understand the nuance / trick the mfr is playing.  After seeing that TP5 is 20 yds longer than ProV1 plastered in front of their face for 12-18 months and it will start to stick with them when they are picking up a new box of balls at the store.

[RickyBobby_PR]

25 minutes ago, ChitownM2 said:

Yes but there is a huge difference between being named non-conforming and being not eligible for high level play where a model local rule is in play.  I don't see those being the same at all.

When. Rey are marked noncormfing they will be ineligible for high level play because the high level pay uses the rules of golf. So unless someone has a stash of current balls or there is stock in the store/online there is going to be a point in 2027 or 2028 where the only ball that is available for purchase is the new conforming ball because inventory will have dried up. Even though the rule doesn’t take affect til 2030 for non professional golf the balls have to meet that spec in Oct of 2027. So all new balls released in 2027 will have to conform to the rule. Titleist would have a release in Jan 2027. It’s possible they don’t release an update 

29 minutes ago, ChitownM2 said:

The fact that left dot and left dash existed in the first place without being on retail shelves kind of proves the point that they weren't playing the same ball right?  They were making small runs of these balls just for those half dozen or so pros and now they make small batches just for custom orders since left dot still isn't in retail stores.  No reason to think they don't have the ability to continue producing a small run of balls for the pros and others competing in these events where the model local rule is in effect. 

These balls were prototype balls that both led to retail version of balls, but Titleist kept them for the handful of tour players that used them. They are made from the same material as the Prov1 and prov1x, they meet all the same specs. They aren’t some special ball that’s completely different than the retail ball. The difference in spin and launch between them is equivalent to the variations regular golfer sees in 1/4-3/8” difference in contact on the driver face. 
 

Same with this notion that pros are playing clubs we don’t. They have all the same specs that we use. The manufacturer might choose to make a 8.5° head for one of their pros. It’s not a different driver than you or I have it. It’s just a sku that note offered at retail because the market isn’t there for it. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

38 minutes ago, ChitownM2 said:

definitely agree that this isn't going to matter to most golfers out there, but that isn't the way advertising works.

If there is a 7% loss of distance for the pros ther will be a 5-7% loss for amateurs. It’s not possible to have a ball lose 7% for the high speed player and only lose a couple yards for the slow swing player. It’s at most 1-2% difference between high speed players and slow swing players when it comes to distance loss. So that 5% off a 220yard drive is 11 yards. Golfers will notice that. And less say someone’s best drive is 220 and their average driver is 215ish or they know when they hit their normal miss it’s 210. Golfers know these things so while they maybe inconsistent in their distance they know their distances. They will be able to tell when they lost distance on their good and bad shots 

[fixyurdivot]

5 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

If there is a 7% loss of distance for the pros ther will be a 5-7% loss for amateurs. It’s not possible to have a ball lose 7% for the high speed player and only lose a couple yards for the slow swing player. It’s at most 1-2% difference between high speed players and slow swing players when it comes to distance loss. So that 5% off a 220yard drive is 11 yards. Golfers will notice that. And less say someone’s best drive is 220 and their average driver is 215ish or they know when they hit their normal miss it’s 210. Golfers know these things so while they maybe inconsistent in their distance they know their distances. They will be able to tell when they lost distance on their good and bad shots 

What's really lost in all this needless churn is that it will not change the professional game... where the "problem" resides. This weeks Masters would not look or play out any differently were the neutered ball in play.  It certainly will not protect the "at risk courses" or the whatever word salad line of reasoning Whan came up with regarding the games heritage.  

Breaking News Mike - the game of golf has changed and you need to change with it.

My driving average has been 229.  A 5-7% loss (using @RickyBobby_PRnumber) would change that to 213-217 yards (let's use 215).  That's a 14 yard loss in average driving distance.

But the USGA promises only 3 to 5 yards... moving my average to 224-226 yards.  Notice the chart graphics show a larger visual spread between the player groups yet the numeric spread  for each group is only 2 yards.  Anyone else a little dubious?

And keep in mind that for we amateurs it could be the difference of having to grab a much longer iron/wood than before whereas the elite players might grab an 8i vs a 9i.  This translates into a much more risky, less accurate second shot for the less skilled players.

Yup, these guys are most definitely looking out for us .

[RickyBobby_PR]

12 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Breaking News Mike - the game of golf has changed and you need to change with it.

It’s not just whan, the suits in both ruling bodies were looking at this before whan, he decided that there was no better time come over than to help push it. For someone so dedicated to growing the lpga he helped create a distance loss for them without any input from them. The MLR was only supposed to affect elite male golf. Not really anything for lpga to worry about. A few months pass and with the tours and pga of America saying take the mlr and shove it, the RBs then decided to affect the lpga and their feeder tour with a distance reduction. 
 

16 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

But the USGA promises only 3 to 5 yards... moving my average to 224-226 yards.  Notice the chart graphics show a larger visual spread between the player groups yet the numeric spread  for each group is only 2 yards.  Anyone else a little dubious?

 

Exactly. It’s the whole trust us thing, our data doesnt make sense but trust us we know what we are saying. Watch interview with whan and you can see he has a hard time believing what he’s sayin.

18 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

This weeks Masters would not look or play out any differently were the neutered ball in play.  It certainly will not protect the "at risk courses" or the whatever word salad line of reasoning Whan came up with regarding the games heritage.  

The guys at the top of the leaderboard aren’t you distance leaders.

Scotty is way down the list this year and in his career. So what is it Augusta is trying to protect? Have it so that only a handful are under par and the leader doesn’t reach 10 under par. 

[ChitownM2]

Somehow I missed the December announcement that they were scrapping the model local rule proposal from March and just rolling back the ball entirely, that makes pretty much everything I said above incorrect.  Oops