Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[Subdiver1]

1 hour ago, LICC said:

You are confusing different concepts. I am talking about course strategy. Pinched fairways with penal thick rough on both sides contains zero risk-reward course strategy. There is no thought or decision on how to play the hole. 
Rolling back the ball reduces the effectiveness of a grip it and rip it approach, and allows courses to have both strategic elements and challenge. 

I think we are closer to the same page and following each other.  Thanks for your patience.

That said, I go back to current layouts and design 101.  There are plenty of pinched fairway holes and doglegs on the tour and in public play that have an opportunity to fly the bottle neck or cut a corner and hope you don't go through.  If they roll back the ball it reduces guys like Rory and DeChambeau blowing it over the choke points or cutting those corners; it forces all the long guys to play, say a hybrid, and the short guys to play driver to the same spot.  You wind up with everyone playing TO the same spot in the fairway; short of existing choke points and hazards and then hop scotching from the one safe spot to the next through the round.  That takes the strategy of choosing safe, or risk-reward out.  No more going for the green a la Colin Morikawa in the 2020 PGA.  I imagine the large majority agrees that watching every player hop scotch through the course from the same point +/- 10 yards on every hole would be gouge my eyes out with a dull Dairy Queen sundae spoon boring.  I assert that rolling back ball speed/distance will result in just that + the short guys still being shorter than the long guys and struggling even more to keep up.  This is no different than forcing the guy who averages a 250 yd drive and should be playing the 6300 tees (whites?) and forcing them to skip the blue box and play from two back at the 7000 yd tourney tees.  Conversely we would have the guy who was carrying most of the off-tee hazards from those same 6300 yd tees now having to either move up to the reds, or not being able to carry those long par 4 and par 5 tee shot hazards.  

They aren't classifying what ball a player can use based on swing speed; they are saying everyone, if invoked as a local or tournament rule will play the "slower" (for lack of better terms, limited, mush... whatever) ball.  I carry my 7-iron 165-170, using a 15% reduction that means I would now have to hit a long 5-iron (190 - 15% = 162) or a 4-iron (200 - 15% = 170) into many par 3s, unless I move up a box or two.  If I move up a box or two, what are you hitting or how many boxes are you moving up to carry into the par 3s?  So, from a competitive perspective (since this doesn't look like it will impact recreational  players, until you run out of the current balls in 2028) instead of changing the course layout with rough, hazards etc. (or physically lengthening the course, which I maintain is unnecessary if you just add the trouble in strategic locations) they are A. lengthening the course by proxy of shorter flight AND B. absolutely going to force course layout changes; even if it is just adding shorter tee sets for the already shorter players.  

I summary, I hear you but respectfully disagree that this makes strategy and decision making more prevalent absent course layout changes.  It only makes it easier to "grip it and rip it" because no one can reach the trouble anymore with a reduced flight ball in play.

All good discussion though.

Cheers,

 

[GaDawg]

On 3/14/2023 at 10:41 AM, edingc said:

Ah yes, forcing ball companies to spend millions on even more R&D and tooling in the interest of "sustainability." Goodness is the USGA so incredibly out of touch.

Grow the grass and stop manicuring the bunkers. Far more "sustainable" than changing the ball.

I agree with you! Make them play in some of the same conditions that we have to play in.

1. Fairways that are not perfect
2. Bunkers that have little sand in the bottom
3. When you hit in the trees, it's not manicured
4. Slow play or maybe a five some in front of them

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

11 minutes ago, GaDawg said:

I agree with you! Make them play in some of the same conditions that we have to play in.

1. Fairways that are not perfect
2. Bunkers that have little sand in the bottom
3. When you hit in the trees, it's not manicured
4. Slow play or maybe a five some in front of them

 

Or just don’t play courses like that. I prefer to pay more for courses that are well maintained, have good enforcement of pace of play policies and don’t allow 5 somes.

[GaDawg]

2 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Or just don’t play courses like that. I prefer to pay more for courses that are well maintained, have good enforcement of pace of play policies and don’t allow 5 somes.

I agree. I was being sarcastic, but reducing the distance with the ball stinks. IMO

[GolfSpy_APH]

10 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

And how much of that is from how they mow the fairways and rough as it is from the ball or equipment. 

Don't know? Not that much? Maybe a decent amount? The longest players are still going to be the longest.

I get the cut the rough or grow it angle, but what about places that it is more difficult to do so? Golf is played all around the world on tour and one area will have different growing conditions and abilities vs others. I think there are more complications to that then just saying grow the the rough if there are courses and areas that would struggle to do so without spending stupid amounts on grasses, waters and more.

As much as it isn't great, at least the golf ball is universal. 

[Splatt]

Its such a complex and interesting topic. I'm definitely on the side of the roll back, but some of the anti arguments also make a lot of sense to me.

The NLU pod on it was fantastic and hearing direct from the USGA guy was very informative. I like the fact that he's actually taking a stand and trying to fix something that isn't necessarily an issue right now, but will be in a few years, rather than leaving it for the next guy to deal with.

It would be hard, or impossible, to come up with a solution that everybody will like. The golf ball is the most universal across all different golfing landscapes so it makes sense to me to start there

[revkev]

9 hours ago, cnosil said:

I understand;  it isn't possible to force a birdie.  Saw a review of a Tiger round where he was behind and needed birdies.  Zero change in strategy from the prior 3 rounds.  

But isn’t that something that set Tiger apart? As I recall it Jack was very similar, he had a plan and he stuck to it. 

[null]

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/why-jack-nicklaus-in-his-prime-would-dominate-modern-day-golf-too/amp

Speaking of that 1963 PGA Championship, Nicklaus won it. He often overpowered courses much in the same way today’s longest hitters do, and he did so that week. Here is Sports Illustrated’s description of the performance, one that could be copied, pasted and published in 2020 without anyone knowing how long ago it was written.

“He rarely had to take anything out of his golf bag but his driver, wedge, putter and towel. … Meanwhile, just about everybody else, including [Dick] Hart and [Shelley] Mayfield, was wilting in the heat like a yellow rose of somewhere.”

 

 

[acatalano32]

On of the things I love about watching the PGA is seeing what they do with the same equipment I have (except for for a circle T, that’s way outta my budget lol). They will all adapt to the new yardages and scores will remain pretty much the same. 

Hot take… don’t roll the ball back, just don’t make the greens roll at 13 and be so pure, let the greens roll at a 9 and have some bumps, that will be tougher on them then a ball that travels less 

[cnosil]

35 minutes ago, revkev said:

But isn’t that something that set Tiger apart? As I recall it Jack was very similar, he had a plan and he stuck to it. 

Yep, 100%. Tigers mental game is what set him apart and having the mental strength is what kept him from chasing birdies.  Most players don’t sustain that focus and hit/attempt shots they shouldn’t.   With strokes gained and systems like DECADE, the need for this mental strength is being taught to younger players and more players are focused on the things to optimize scoring.   These young players that can bomb it are now bombing it with the right decision making skills.  
 

You can see this if you pay attention to TV broadcasts when they show player/caddie discussions.  They aren’t firing at pins like the announcers try to make us believe. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Don't know? Not that much? Maybe a decent amount? The longest players are still going to be the longest.

I get the cut the rough or grow it angle, but what about places that it is more difficult to do so? Golf is played all around the world on tour and one area will have different growing conditions and abilities vs others. I think there are more complications to that then just saying grow the the rough if there are courses and areas that would struggle to do so without spending stupid amounts on grasses, waters and more.

As much as it isn't great, at least the golf ball is universal. 

While there are guys coming on tour that are faster and longer in the last couple years like a Cameron champ or in the case of Bryson who went all in on distance that probably added to the longer average distance this is kind of Cherry picking data.

There are days where some courses are dry and the ball runs out more like we have seen at the genesis that adds to the total distance and will mess with the averages.

While that is true that there are different course types and grow areas the PGA tour can easily just raise the mower height, water fairways and not cut the rough as often over the course of a tournament week.

And for the new course designs they cna

be more creative in their designs to challenge the players and put hazard, bunkers and so on in places where the longer hitters will have to decide how they want to play a hole.

This is more of the ruling bodies creating a problem than actually improving the game.

And lastly if anyone thinks this won’t have a trickle down effect to the amateur level you will be in for a big surprise 

[revkev]

13 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

While there are guys coming on tour that are faster and longer in the last couple years like a Cameron champ or in the case of Bryson who went all in on distance that probably added to the longer average distance this is kind of Cherry picking data.

There are days where some courses are dry and the ball runs out more like we have seen at the genesis that adds to the total distance and will mess with the averages.

While that is true that there are different course types and grow areas the PGA tour can easily just raise the mower height, water fairways and not cut the rough as often over the course of a tournament week.

And for the new course designs they cna

be more creative in their designs to challenge the players and put hazard, bunkers and so on in places where the longer hitters will have to decide how they want to play a hole.

This is more of the ruling bodies creating a problem than actually improving the game.

And lastly if anyone thinks this won’t have a trickle down effect to the amateur level you will be in for a big surprise 

Michael Breed this said exactly that on his Sirius program - this will have a trickle down effect.  

 

I am in favor of caping the ball - BTW it is currently capped by the rules its just that the cap isn't satisfactory to the ruling bodies.  I am not in favor or a roll back.  I hated the anchored putter and thought it should have been banned when it came out.  Allowing it for 40 years and then banning it?  That's targeting IMO.  

Cap the ball where it is now and there's no controversy.  The game is healthy, very few courses that are used for tournament play are an issue - as I mentioned earlier the only one that I can think of is the Old Course.  That's a shame but it is bound to happen at some point whether it's now or later.  Nothing lasts forever.  

[GaryF]

14 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

And how much of that is from how they mow the fairways and rough as it is from the ball or equipment. 

I think the course setup could be altered to solve the issue.  Narrow the landing areas, cut the rough longer, add some sand traps, maybe some trees or other landscape hazards.  Make the landing areas more risk/reward.  We’re talking a handful (100?) of premium courses compared to the thousands of courses.  If the amount of available land already exists, then add an additional longer tee box. Leave 5-6 holes as is to give the players some holes to air it out.  

Im curious - how is the course set up for Jack’s tournament in Dublin, OH?  Over the years, his commentary has always been to place a premium on strategy and shot making.  
 

 

[PMookie]

Here’s a thought. Different balls for different players so EVERYONE hits it the same “potential” distance. 

Zach Johnson will always be a shorter driver of the ball than Dustin Johnson, right? If we limit the distance of the ball and don’t make adjustments for the guys like Zach, well DJ will still have his 2-3 club advantage hitting into greens. BUT, if Zach got to play one ball that COULD go as far as DJ’s, and now they’re hitting second shots from the exact same distances, with the same loft in the irons, aren’t we THEN making it equal? 

Just rolling back the ball doesn’t make the competitive landscape equal or equitable, “allowing” each player to only hit the ball within a certain max range would. Make DJ play from where Zach hits, or vice-versa, if this is about leveling the playing field and making it about shotmaking!!! 
 

[fixyurdivot]

3 minutes ago, PMookie said:

Here’s a thought. Different balls for different players so EVERYONE hits it the same “potential” distance. 

Zach Johnson will always be a shorter driver of the ball than Dustin Johnson, right? If we limit the distance of the ball and don’t make adjustments for the guys like Zach, well DJ will still have his 2-3 club advantage hitting into greens. BUT, if Zach got to play one ball that COULD go as far as DJ’s, and now they’re hitting second shots from the exact same distances, with the same loft in the irons, aren’t we THEN making it equal? 

Just rolling back the ball doesn’t make the competitive landscape equal or equitable, “allowing” each player to only hit the ball within a certain max range would. Make DJ play from where Zach hits, or vice-versa, if this is about leveling the playing field and making it about shotmaking!!! 
 

Winner, winner, chicken dinner .  What do we do about hulkism; the before and after Tiger, Rory, Bryson and a slug of players who realized that helps distance and no longer look like they did when they joined the tour?  Will swing analytics and devices used to optimize ball striking and club head speed also be rolled back or frozen in time?  Until the off course equipment pieces of the distance problem are addressed, see you back here for another bi-furcation thread in 2035.

[Albatrass]

14 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

There are regulations in place for the current ball that desired it from going further. That was laid out in article and they want to change what the specs are.

The claim if 8000 yard courses has been around for a few years now yet as was pointed out a few pages back there have been more events at under 7200 yards than over in the last 2 years so where are all these supposed long courses 

According to the USGA Green Section report of 2022 there are 2,307 courses (17%) in the U.S. that can play over 7,000 yards.

[storm319]

3 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Don't know? Not that much? Maybe a decent amount? The longest players are still going to be the longest.

If you can watch this and honestly still believe that fairway conditions are not contributing, then I don’t know what to say…

As previously stated, mowing the fairways longer does not cost anything (if anything it probably reduces costs). While it is true that the USGA does not control all elite course setups and that they have no desire to regulate it with an explicit rule, they have been one of the biggest offenders given that the US Open tends to have the lowest mowed fairways. Changing their global height recommendations (currently .35-.5” and US Open setups are commonly half that) and leading by example could produce some of the results they are looking for.

[Stuka44]

I said this very early on, and agree.  They don't even have to permanently alter the course.  To the extreme, how about marking a greenside bunker OB on a drivable 4 or reachable 5.  You go in, you play it from there, but you are playing 3 or 4.   If the guy one shot behind pulls it off he can make eagle, or birdie, if the guy in front doesn't want to take the risk, or does and goes in the bunker, then par, or bogey is going to be  more likely or the best he can make. That is risk reward.

Again since sand is no longer a hazard in any sense of the word for pro's, temporarily change some of them, to green sided azalea beds, where a good lie or even being able to hit the ball, with a perfect lie is not guaranteed.

Hitting the fairway, and greens is no longer any real advantage.  2021-22 stats, birdie conversion from fairway, 22.4 %, rough 15.3 %, now I'm not saying that the rough needs to be a hayfield, but a 7% reduction in birdie conversion doesn't seem like much,   And birdie conversion for all GIR's was 30%(this likely includes conversions on drivable par 4's and 5's, the Average for scrambling for par or better when you miss the green was 58%, so how is the course set up overall really benefitting the players who hit more greens, and fairways.  They hit it as far as they can, knowing that on non drivable par 4's knowing that the conditions will be no impediment to them making par at worst. The PGA average was 2.4 bogies per round.  And if the guy who plays fairway and green, doesn't hit his approach to within 10"6, which was the one putt average distance last season, once he gets beyond 15-20, he's not going to make the one putt for birdie. 

The big question the PGA needs to ask is "where is the real risk for not hitting the fairway or missing the green.  The answer is right there in front of them in their own statistics.  Again I know I am repeating myself, but its this simple.

The chance of walking off the green with birdie, or  par, should not be almost the same, if your approach to the green(whatever shot it is), misses the green, especially if it ends up in a bunker.  Its simple there just isn't really at this point with course set up, ANY real risk to missing the fairway or the green.

The game has become play for par on all par 3's and non drivable par 4's,  And play for eagle and birdie on drivable par 4's and all par 5's.  Its not because the ball goes to far, or the holes are to short, or long, its because, except for a few tournaments, the risk for not pulling off the go for it in two, or one, shot, is simply non existent.
  

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Stuka44

[LICC]

2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

And for the new course designs they cna

be more creative in their designs to challenge the players and put hazard, bunkers and so on in places where the longer hitters will have to decide how they want to play a hole.

They have been doing that, but for existing courses, the answer shouldn't be to keep chopping up and rebuilding all these courses, just for the .01% of elite golf tournaments. Also, designers are getting limited in what they can do because no matter what hazards they put in, except water, the bombers will just keep bombing regardless. And having water cut off fairways so players hit irons off the tees all the time would be a bad result. Bifurcation is a better way to go. 

[LICC]

1 hour ago, PMookie said:

Here’s a thought. Different balls for different players so EVERYONE hits it the same “potential” distance. 

Zach Johnson will always be a shorter driver of the ball than Dustin Johnson, right? If we limit the distance of the ball and don’t make adjustments for the guys like Zach, well DJ will still have his 2-3 club advantage hitting into greens. BUT, if Zach got to play one ball that COULD go as far as DJ’s, and now they’re hitting second shots from the exact same distances, with the same loft in the irons, aren’t we THEN making it equal? 

Just rolling back the ball doesn’t make the competitive landscape equal or equitable, “allowing” each player to only hit the ball within a certain max range would. Make DJ play from where Zach hits, or vice-versa, if this is about leveling the playing field and making it about shotmaking!!! 
 

Rolling back the ball makes accuracy more important. Yes, longer hitters will still be longer than shorter hitters, but shorter hitters who are more accurate and hitting more fairways will be more competitive.

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 hours ago, revkev said:

Michael Breed this said exactly that on his Sirius program - this will have a trickle down effect.  

 

I am in favor of caping the ball - BTW it is currently capped by the rules its just that the cap isn't satisfactory to the ruling bodies.  I am not in favor or a roll back.  I hated the anchored putter and thought it should have been banned when it came out.  Allowing it for 40 years and then banning it?  That's targeting IMO.  

Cap the ball where it is now and there's no controversy.  The game is healthy, very few courses that are used for tournament play are an issue - as I mentioned earlier the only one that I can think of is the Old Course.  That's a shame but it is bound to happen at some point whether it's now or later.  Nothing lasts forever.  

There are so many things the ruling bodies could be focused on for growing the game. Put money into building more short courses for the recreational golfer for one. 
 

Exactly the number of courses affected is minimal. As for the old course and the other links courses their defense is always going to be the weather. When it’s calm the best in the world are going to go low regardless and when it’s not so great the course is going to win

2 hours ago, GaryF said:

I think the course setup could be altered to solve the issue.  Narrow the landing areas, cut the rough longer, add some sand traps, maybe some trees or other landscape hazards.  Make the landing areas more risk/reward.  We’re talking a handful (100?) of premium courses compared to the thousands of courses.  If the amount of available land already exists, then add an additional longer tee box. Leave 5-6 holes as is to give the players some holes to air it out.  

Im curious - how is the course set up for Jack’s tournament in Dublin, OH?  Over the years, his commentary has always been to place a premium on strategy and shot making.  
 

 

The alteration only has to be for a week or two. Start the process the week before to get the conditions ready and then maintain it thru tournament week. Let the course determine if or how they want to revert back. Confession kept the cut lines from the 2010 US Open in place until just recently.

Another option is to change shorter par 5s to par 4s for the week. This happens regularly on tour now.

1 hour ago, Albatrass said:

According to the USGA Green Section report of 2022 there are 2,307 courses (17%) in the U.S. that can play over 7,000 yards.

And the point is what? 
 

Still doesn’t point to there being an actual distance problem instead of a perceived one? Also the number of those courses impacted by the supposed distance is small. 

[Stuka44]

42 minutes ago, LICC said:

but shorter hitters who are more accurate and hitting more fairways will be more competitive.

I don't see how, longer hitters will still find the length of the rough no deterrent, to hitting it in there, and still be blasting at par 5's in two, unless the ball is only going to go 240 yards max.  They will still find conditions around the green no deterrent at all, they will still have no fear of greenside bunkers, in two, and will still be just as confident of making birdie just as many times, if not more as anyone hitting in from 50 yards plus.

Again the course doesn't have to be "chopped up".  Temporary changes could be made rather cheaply.  A greenside bunker lined with rubber, filled with 3" of dirt and planted with some 2'tall bushes.  Until the PGA does away with some sand, that fronts greens, with "something" else,(that brings bogey into play more than 25 % of the time) accuracy will continue to be almost meaningless.

And lastly lets(because a pro would complain) provide the players and their caddies with an exact measured chart, of where, and how far all grandstands, tv tents, hospitality suites, are from the fairway, and how far beyond the corner, and behind the green.  And how about because you're coming out of the rough and can't control spin, and your ball goes up against the grandstand, it costs you a stroke to get a swing.  How about if you hit your drive so far off line as a professional, because you are just swinging as hard as you can, because you know it will end up in a hospitality area if you miss hit it, how about you actually have a consequence for that and have to take a stroke, and the guy who hit it 290 and kept it in play, actually gets a benefit for keeping it in play.

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Stuka44

[LICC]

3 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

I don't see how, longer hitters will still find the length of the rough no deterrent, to hitting it in there,

What are you basing this on? Hitting it 190 from the rough is a much greater challenge than hitting it 160 from the rough.

[RickyBobby_PR]

20 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

Again the course doesn't have to be "chopped up".  Temporary changes could be made rather cheaply.  A greenside bunker lined with rubber, filled with 3" of dirt and planted with some 2'tall bushes.  Until the PGA does away with some sand, that fronts greens, with "something" else,(that brings bogey into play more than 25 % of the time) accuracy will continue to be almost meaningless.

Who is paying for this and then who is paying to restore the course to pre tournament conditions? This is much more expensive than growing our grass.

 

21 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

And how about because you're coming out of the rough and can't control spin, and your ball goes up against the grandstand, it costs you a stroke to get a swing.  How about if you hit your drive so far off line as a professional, because you are just swinging as hard as you can, because you know it will end up in a hospitality area if you miss hit it, how about you actually have a consequence for that and have to take a stroke, and the guy who hit it 290 and kept it in play, actually gets a benefit for keeping it in play.

This requires a rule change and you are only saying this because you don’t get that luxury on your courses and hate that your courses have these temporary immovable objects. It’s no different than you paying a tree lined course compared to someone playin one that is more open. There are always going to be differences in the the way different people in different areas will get to play a course and if you think the pros are just swinging out of their shoes because there’s a hospital out tent that’s out there if the ball goes offline you really don’t understand their approach  and that they aren’t planning to hit an errant shot

[oldguy819]

2nd reply to this topic.  All I've read and only one reference to the fairways being like the billiard table top..  When I see stats like "Carry" and Roll out", and see carry 290 or 310 or there about.  Then you see the roll outs going another 30, 60, and in some cases 100 yards.  Then you want to retard the balls so they travel less.  Why not TRY and leave the fairways say, like the current "First cut" of rough?  Balls won't roll out as far.  A little trickier into the greens.  It could EASILY be done for a couple of tourneys and check the numbers.  BEFORE you hack the industry to pieces and bankrupt manufacturers.

 

[Stuka44]

17 minutes ago, LICC said:

What are you basing this on? Hitting it 190 from the rough is a much greater challenge than hitting it 160 from the rough.

2021... GIR 175-200 54%, 150-175.. 63%..  That's 9% or 1.26 par 4's missed.  It makes no difference in making birdie from those distances.  Birdie or better 150-175.. 14.9%,   175-200..12.8%.  The numbers are pretty clear to me.  There is just insufficient detriment, not in how far the pros ball goes, but in that you can miss fairways and greens, and not suffer any real consequences as a result. And if you didn't see in my earlier post overall birdie or better from fairway 22%, from rough 15%.  For 14 non par 3 holes, that 0.98 holes per 14.  So why wouldn't you hit it into the rough, it does nothing to prevent you from making birdie just as much as the guy who hits it in the fairway.

[DaveP043]

I have just one question for everyone here.  Have any of these factors not been discussed in 2019, when the initial Distance Insights report was issued?  Or again in 2021, when the follow-up report came out?  Or maybe last March, when two specific areas of study were announced?  We've all been saying the same things, over and over, for close to 4 years now, and I don't think any of us is any closer to convincing their "opposition" to change their views.  The announcement this week should not have been a surprise to anyone.  Changing the ball in some way was the only practical way to stop or roll back driving distances through the rules.  I'm not crazy about the potential for bifurcation, I wouldn't be crazy about rolling back distances for everyone, but having read a lot of the previously released information, I think some concerns over distance are valid.

One thing I do wonder, at the end of it all, will they re-consider applying the revised testing procedures as a regular Rule, rather than an optional Local Rule?  Is it better to avoid bifurcation issues?  Consider, they're talking a 15-yard decrease for the longest players, guys who drive it 350.  That's maybe 10 yards for me, carrying the ball 220 to 230.  Depending on how the science of golf ball layers works, it might be even less loss for most players.  So we take a one-time hit, we all lose a few yards, and in a few months we'll have adjusted to it.  I know, we'll have guys saying "I remember when I was a LOT longer", but there already guys saying that.  At least now it will be something other than their fading fitness and skill to complain about.

[Stuka44]

21 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

change and you are only saying this because

No I'm saying this because they are professionals, and they are making 10's of millions of dollars partly because of those grandstands.  Maybe we should expect more of them.  Maybe they are not intending to hit a ball so far off line it ends up behind a hospitality tent, that is clearly visible, but trying to hit the ball 350 yards, because they all believe this is a huge advantage,  makes hitting it way off line, more likely.  Maybe as professionals they should be expected to control their ball sufficiently, Temporary Moveable Objects included.

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I have just one question for everyone here.  Have any of these factors not been discussed in 2019, when the initial Distance Insights report was issued?  Or again in 2021, when the follow-up report came out?  Or maybe last March, when two specific areas of study were announced?  We've all been saying the same things, over and over, for close to 4 years now, and I don't think any of us is any closer to convincing their "opposition" to change their views.  The announcement this week should not have been a surprise to anyone.  Changing the ball in some way was the only practical way to stop or roll back driving distances through the rules. 

No it’s not going to change the other sides opinion but now it gives us exactly what/how they want to do it so we can discuss it again with better understanding.

5 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Changing the ball in some way was the only practical way to stop or roll back driving distances through the rules.  I'm not crazy about the potential for bifurcation, I wouldn't be crazy about rolling back distances for everyone, but having read a lot of the previously released information, I think some concerns over distance are valid.

It’s purely a rollback, they could leave the ball where it’s at to stop driving distances.

It’s not bifurcation at the moment because it’s a MLR and I don’t see it becoming a rule for the tours only and it will eventually become the defacto ball of it does because it will eventually make its way down to club championships and the ball companies will eventually have to sell it and more than likely slow or stop production of the current balls

8 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Consider, they're talking a 15-yard decrease for the longest players, guys who drive it 350.  That's maybe 10 yards for me, carrying the ball 220 to 230.

It’s not about 350 because that’s rare a pro carries that far. Based on the info it’s between a 6.5% to 15% reduction in distance but that’s going to carry thru the bag. So if you carry 220 now your are going to be between 187-206 with driver and the rest of your bag is going to get shorter as well 

[LICC]

32 minutes ago, oldguy819 said:

2nd reply to this topic.  All I've read and only one reference to the fairways being like the billiard table top..  When I see stats like "Carry" and Roll out", and see carry 290 or 310 or there about.  Then you see the roll outs going another 30, 60, and in some cases 100 yards.  Then you want to retard the balls so they travel less.  Why not TRY and leave the fairways say, like the current "First cut" of rough?  Balls won't roll out as far.  A little trickier into the greens.  It could EASILY be done for a couple of tourneys and check the numbers.  BEFORE you hack the industry to pieces and bankrupt manufacturers.

 

I agree with this, but carry distances are still enormous. This would be a marginal improvement.