Bifurcation/Ball Roll Back Discussion

[storm319]

17 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

The manufacturers have supposedly been a part of this process for the last several years.

Simple?  Tell me, how are the R&A or the USGA going to write a Rule that defines how long the grass must be?  The ONLY thing they can do to address distance concerns is to limit the equipment in some way.  I'm not saying I think its necessary, but its the only avenue they have.

It will be interesting to see how far the Model Local Rule gets used.  Professional Tours, probably, national amateur championships, probably, but I'm not sure even State-level amateurs will use it.  If its that few events, played primarily by players who don't need to or care to keep a handicap, I'm not sure it will have much impact.

For anyone who's surprised, you simply haven't been paying attention.  You can see the releases which have come out over the last 3 or 4 years here: 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/advancing-the-game/distance-insights.html

The proposed MLR is pretty consistent with the information presented a year ago, March 2022.

1. I am willing to bet that there has been less direct dialog with the manufacturers than you think (likely just submitted comments as the process dictates which few would not consider to be an active participant in the process). It is clear that the USGA has been aiming to rollback for a while and this whole “process” has seemed more about due diligence to reduce legal exposure than an honest attempt at deciding whether it was necessary (keep in mind that they had a pilot tourney with a limited flight ball in 2010).

2.  There is no need to add rules to regulate course conditioning. What they should have been doing for years was lead by example at the US Open which has been more of a model for unsustainable conditioning (especially with respect to fairway heights which Mike Davis had been called out on before). Set a good example and then work with the relatively small number of stakeholders to agree on best practices to avoid rule changes in other areas to compensate.

3.  This MLR approach is going to be a mess for the transition stages between recreational and elite competition. Comparisons to other sports really aren’t relevant given the fact there is generally a clear delineation between different levels of play that golf does not always have (ex mixed events with both pros and amateurs). There will likely be little retail demand for a shorter ball which will give OEMs little incentive to produce much more than what is needed to support the pro tours, so this will likely create a barrier for amateurs looking to transition or low level/aspiring pros which will likely impact future talent pools. Basically, they are creating several new problems for the game but this proposal is unlikely to solve the perceived problems that they believe distance increases pose.

[storm319]

17 hours ago, joedeausen said:

I put together this commentary on bifurcation back in early 2018.  Here are some considerations:

Re: Comment on Bifurcation of Rules (specifically, the golf ball)

As to the bifurcation of the rules of golf, many folks would agree that technology must be reined in.  Most people would agree with this premise. But, the real question which needs to be addressed is, where does the professional level begin at which technology is reined in?

Let's assume that the golf ball manufacturers eventually agree to make a ball that goes somewhere between 15-20% less distance than it currently does.  Who would be in charge of making sure that professionals adhere to this rule?  Is it the pro golfer? USGA? R&A? PGA Tour? How would testing be applied in pro golf tournaments to ensure that this is the case?  

Second, we address the question of what level to apply the rules of a new reduced distance golf ball. 

Excerpts from Wikipedia:

"Golf is one of the more lucrative sports in the world for both men and women, but has a very different structure from other sports. Almost all (at least 95%) professional golfers make their primary income as club or teaching professionals rather than competition. "Touring professionals", also known as "Tournament golfers" or "Pro golfers", who make their income from prize money and endorsements are a small elite within the profession."

Would a new reduced golf ball be required for the following tours?  And, consider that some of these tours help golfers qualify for a PGA Tour event.

Web.com Tour 

Challenge Tour (second tier tour to European Tour)

Asian Developmental Tour

Japan Challenge Tour

PGA Tour of China

PGA Tour of India

There are also third and fourth level tours, which are independently offered and may affect qualification for the 2nd level tours, like Web.com and Challenge Tour.  Will these professional events also require use of the new ball?

How about the US Open?  The U.S. Open is open to any professional, or to any amateur with an up-to-date men's USGA Handicap Index not exceeding 1.4.    Obviously, potential participants in the US Open trying to qualify have to use the new "reduced" golf ball.  Who will be in charge of ensuring that these potential qualifiers are using the correct ball?  How about amateurs qualifying for PGA Tour events thru sponsor exemptions?  PGA professionals for the PGA Championship?

Soo, if only PGA Tour players have access to this new "reduced distance golf ball", wouldn't anyone else not using this ball have a competitive disadvantage by not having access to it?  Also, if you don't have access to the ball, how can players determine its performance in the short game?  Again, another competitive disadvantage if only select players have access to this ball.

The Masters golf tournament would not have to abide by the reduced golf ball, if they chose not to.  But, wouldn't they be asked for input into the eventual decision?

Personally, I'm in agreement that the golf ball needs to have some distance roll back.  If the golf ball manufacturers agree to the roll back (which is not an insignificant hurdle), bigger questions remain as to how the golf ball distance roll back would be implemented.

1.  At what levels do the new ball apply? And, how far down the ladder of professional golf, does the new ball apply?

2. How would the use of the reduced ball be monitored and implemented?

I understand the reluctance of the PGA Tour in making a decision to roll back the golf ball.  Even if they said, yes, let's do it.  How would they do it?  And, who would it impact?

1.  If you have been paying attention to these discussions over the years, no not everyone agrees that equipment needs to be “reigned in”. Universal gains due to equipment were effectively limited by the time the USGA/R&A released their joint statement on distance in 2002. Since then, gains due to equipment since have been based on optimization. As for the golf ball, all balls have been subject to the same regulations since 1976. Basically, equipment already was reigned in long ago, some simply disagree with where the limits were set. 

2.  Enforcement of the new rule will be no different than it is today. The new MLR will likely be similar to the one ball condition simply pointing to a 2nd conforming list and models will be identified based on the side stamp. The MLR will likely lead to inconsistent implementation/usage of the rule (while not intended, there is nothing preventing a local club from applying the rule which happened at my cousin’s club championship when they adopted the new groove condition). Btw, Web.com?! What rock have you been living under?

3.  The transition areas of competition is where this is going to be messy. At least with the groove rollback, the ultimate intent was global adoption and the RBs got cooperation from the OEMs to effectively stop production of the old groove spec by 2010 so availability was less of a barrier than I expect ball availability to be with this bifurcated approach. The mixed competitions are likely to apply the MLR and those pros without consistent OEM support will be at a disadvantage which will likely hurt future talent pools (granted not really a problem for established pros today). What will be interesting will be how the PGA Tour handles events like the PB Pro Am if they adopt this (which given their challenged position with LIV I am sure they will to garner support from the RBs). 

4.  ANGC has been begging the RBs for this for years so they will undoubtably adopt this for the 2026 Masters.

[storm319]

15 hours ago, Stuka44 said:

THIS IS ALL ABOUT TITLEIST' COMMENT NOT THE POSTER!

I appreciate Titleist and their comments.  BUT PLEASE SAME RULES !! And I don't want to turn this into a discussion about rules, and the elite PGA game, or what THE PRO'S DESERVE BECAUSE THEY ARE PROS.  But Can Titleist or the PGA, or the R&A, provide spotters so I won't lose any more balls in play.  Can they flip the bill for some tarps to be erected, along holes and behind holes to simulate crowds knocking the ball down before it bounds into the forest, or so I can error on the side of hitting too much club,  to avoid water in front and then if I misjudge it hits the tarp representing a grandstand that will knock it down and keep it out of the head high brush behind the green.  Oh and I've seen the PGA play ball in hand under conditions that represent what I play most of the year.

That is such self serving, and insulting comment  to suggest in any way that the conditions, and circumstance under which the PGA plays in any way resembles what we weekend hackers play.   

None of what you mention are part of the rules of golf. Condition differences that exist outside of the rules of golf are completely separate.

The greatest accomplishment of the USGA has been the unification of the game under one set of rules and now they are choosing to effectively throw that away and great several new problems for this proposal that won’t even solve their perceived problems. 

[storm319]

16 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

And this seems to me to be a quite reasonable position for them to take, some of the most logical reasons to oppose bifurcation.  Its also reasonably self-serving, Titleist is the most popular ball on Tour, leading to huge sales numbers, and they don't want to lose any of that.  But do any of us believe that Titleist hasn't been preparing for this type of change for at least the last 4 or 5 years?  They're just waiting for the final testing parameters to come out so they can fine-tune whatever they have in the development pipeline.

I think you are greatly underestimating the effort and investment that will be needed from an R&D perspective (while I don’t doubt that the big 5 have been anticipating this, I am sure they have been limited on what they can do to this point without a definitive target). Also, this is not going to be a rush to spit something out in the next couple of years and then they are done. The big OEMs are going to be investing in dual R&D workstreams for the foreseeable future. OEMs are constantly optimizing designs under the current ODS conditions and those have been consistent for nearly 20 years! 

[storm319]

16 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I've read most of the Distance Insights reports, and there really ARE impacts based on increasing distance.  There's no question many of them are based on imaging and marketing considerations, very very few courses are played by those really long hitters, but they still want the image of a "championship" length course.  So courses get longer across the board, increasing the cost of building, and the cost of maintenance.  Sure, an owner or manager could buck the trend, market differently, change maintenance practices, but on an industry-wide basis the cost for a "golf course" has increased at least in part due to increasing distance.

I find it interesting that people (not you particularly) talk about how greedy and/or ego-driven the USGA and R&A are being here.  These are non-profit operations, taking serious flak because they're trying to do what they believe is the right thing.  The professional tours and the manufacturers who oppose the changes each have a very significant financial interest in maintaining the status quo.  That's where "greed" comes in.  I don't necessarily agree that distances should be decreased, or that bifurcation is the right way to do it, but I do believe that the Ruling Bodies aren't doing it for selfish reasons.

Intent is really irrelevant to the end result. Also, tax implications (or lack their of) drive NPO status more than anything and does not absolve an organization of financial motivations (every major US professional sports league is also an NPO and I don’t think anyone would argue that they are not financially motivated).

As for course lengthening trends, the USGA report showed that the vast majority of course lengthening occurs between 1930 and 1990. The 90th percentile average increase since 1990 has been ~100 yards. The reality is that it is a relatively small percentage of courses that are have lengthened in recent years and even then it hasn’t been a drastic as some people are making it out to be. Also, maintenance costs do not necessarily scale with the playing length of the course.

Ultimately, I agree with @GolfSpy MPR in that lengthening the course simply challenges the player to hit it longer which just exacerbates the problem. Many pain points for courses have been self-inflicted.

[berkeleybob]

6 hours ago, MattWillGolf said:

To combat excessive iron head patina I read that the R&A has consulted with Aaron Rai to develop standards for the mandatory use iron head covers which they hope to implement by 2027.

All my lobbying has finally paid off!

I’ll be honest. When I think about other sports, part of me wonders, why can’t a golf ball just be a ball? I’m novice with these sorts of things, but why can’t a tournament/course event just decide what ball everyone has to play with, instead of mandating change every ball maker has to align to? I mean, “Sign up, here are your balls, have good round … next!”

[storm319]

14 hours ago, Albatrass said:

I believe that back in the seventies the USGA and the R&A increased the minimum diameter of a golf ball from 1.62 to 1.68 inches since the smaller diameter ball was straighter and longer.  I would imagine the golf ball manufactures and professional golfers were not too pleased, but they adjusted.  Golf is expensive now and large part due to building courses that are long enough to accommodate longer distances.  Builders and owners need more land which require more construction, maintenance and taxes.  Maybe the minimum diameter should be increased again.  Initially increase it to around 1.70 inches and see how this affects distance prior to changing the "Rules of Golf".  I think this would be fair to everyone and bring more strategic play back to the game.  Maybe courses would not need to be lengthened more yards than they are now.  Golfers can use any tees they want to have fun.  The "Rules of Golf" do not indicate what are considered pro tees, regular tee, women's tees or senior tees.  A golfer can for any set of tees.  This will also reduce the amount of time it takes to play.  An example of reducing distance is baseball.  If there was not limit on how far the ball could be hit, the defensive part of the game would be diminished, and it would turn into an even longer game.  Only my viewpoint.  I am sure there will be many more.

The USGA increased the diameter minimum and max weight in the early 1930’s and the reverted the weight back the the previous restriction due to public outcry. The R&A didn’t adopt the rule for their tournaments until the 1976 joint rules venture and globally until 1990. 

While increased diameter does increase drag on the ball, it also has the unintended consequences of being more impacted by wind and raising the CG which can make it easier for a player to hit. Since the advent of the ODS, the USGA no longer needs to regulate any physical properties of the ball, they simply regulate the end result which effectively is a catch all. 

[itsjustagame]

A solution looking for a problem.  

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

None of what you mention are part of the rules of golf. Condition differences that exist outside of the rules of golf are completely separate.

The greatest accomplishment of the USGA has been the unification of the game under one set of rules and now they are choosing to effectively throw that away and great several new problems for this proposal that won’t even solve their perceived problems. 

Own opinion: The pros regardless of rules play a different game. Their skill level, crowds, money, pressure, tee boxes, pin locations and so much more are on an entirely different level. 

Yes, this would reduce their distance some, however Mike Whan had a good point. This is to stop these gains and help many in the industry over the next 10-40 years. 

The pros are still going to be on an entirely different level. 

There will be a transition period and maybe some bumps, but as this isn't till 2026 anyway if it goes through I don't think it's really that big of a deal. 

A change yes, but not something that is going to be Deal breaking or life changing. 

Also other than purist reasons (honest question) why do we care that pros play a different ball? Their gear is already tweaked and dialed to a insane level, new wedges every tournament and so much more. Why does them play a shorter Ball hurt the game or change our viewing experience?

Could this make it possible to go to better courses on tour? Could this make par more relevant for the purists? 

This (if you couldnt tell) doesn't really phase me either way. I will still watch and enjoy the game. Not like I'm going to be hitting their distances even with a normal ball. 

Also I don't think this will happen, but what if this makes our golf balls cheaper!!!

[Beakbryce]

All this to protect the 100 or so old courses the ruling bodies can't live without for their "elite level" staging of events. My regular courses fairways look like the first cut of rough at tour courses. I play in the morning so the course is usually soaked. The ball goes nowhere. I don't understand the USGA need for dried out hard and fast course setups to determine the best golfer. They want drama, let me set up the course. 4-6 inch soaked ruff won't allow even the strongest pro's to hit anything even near the green. Anyway, as I see it:

two groups need to be convinced. First, the PGA Tour. If they don't accept the local rule, it is going to be tough to make it work. It would be the opposite of baseball bat situation. College amateurs would be playing with a reduced ball, and upon qualifying for the tour, suddenly hitting the longer ball. Wahoo!

More important however, is the ball manufacturers. What if all the major brands just said "NO". What is the response from the ruling bodies, sue them for collusion? What else could they do? Maybe contract one of the independent ball plants or DTC brands to produce a run of balls? Seems impractical to me. 

If they want to get the average golfer on board, maybe they change the current rule to allow balls that go farther for everyday play. Compromise. That works for me!

[joedeausen]

2 hours ago, storm319 said:

1.  If you have been paying attention to these discussions over the years, no not everyone agrees that equipment needs to be “reigned in”. Universal gains due to equipment were effectively limited by the time the USGA/R&A released their joint statement on distance in 2002. Since then, gains due to equipment since have been based on optimization. As for the golf ball, all balls have been subject to the same regulations since 1976. Basically, equipment already was reigned in long ago, some simply disagree with where the limits were set. 

2.  Enforcement of the new rule will be no different than it is today. The new MLR will likely be similar to the one ball condition simply pointing to a 2nd conforming list and models will be identified based on the side stamp. The MLR will likely lead to inconsistent implementation/usage of the rule (while not intended, there is nothing preventing a local club from applying the rule which happened at my cousin’s club championship when they adopted the new groove condition). Btw, Web.com?! What rock have you been living under?

3.  The transition areas of competition is where this is going to be messy. At least with the groove rollback, the ultimate intent was global adoption and the RBs got cooperation from the OEMs to effectively stop production of the old groove spec by 2010 so availability was less of a barrier than I expect ball availability to be with this bifurcated approach. The mixed competitions are likely to apply the MLR and those pros without consistent OEM support will be at a disadvantage which will likely hurt future talent pools (granted not really a problem for established pros today). What will be interesting will be how the PGA Tour handles events like the PB Pro Am if they adopt this (which given their challenged position with LIV I am sure they will to garner support from the RBs). 

4.  ANGC has been begging the RBs for this for years so they will undoubtably adopt this for the 2026 Masters.

Storm319....   I did say at the beginning of the post, "I put together this commentary on bifurcation back in early 2018"

Korn Ferry Tour started in 2019    https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2019/06/24/golf-korn-ferry-web-dot-com-tour/

[joedeausen]

2 hours ago, berkeleybob said:

All my lobbying has finally paid off!

I’ll be honest. When I think about other sports, part of me wonders, why can’t a golf ball just be a ball? I’m novice with these sorts of things, but why can’t a tournament/course event just decide what ball everyone has to play with, instead of mandating change every ball maker has to align to? I mean, “Sign up, here are your balls, have good round … next!”

$$  big money in golf balls.  At this point, golf tours need to court/consider the industry manufacturers' concerns.  Lots of people would lose jobs if 1 manufacturer wins the 1 ball contract.  Players would revolt.  Lots of players have spent years honing their craft their golf ball.  

[berkeleybob]

18 minutes ago, joedeausen said:

$$  big money in golf balls.  At this point, golf tours need to court/consider the industry manufacturers' concerns.  Lots of people would lose jobs if 1 manufacturer wins the 1 ball contract.  Players would revolt.  Lots of players have spent years honing their craft their golf ball.  

I understand that aspect. I suppose I was trying to come up with a sort of compromise. There was a comment about how perhaps some courses need to expand to fit today’s pro golfers. Golf is one of the things where tradition matters as much as innovation, so perhaps by limiting ball specs on an older course, it’ll keep ball innovation rolling while at the same time keeping those courses relevant.

[GolfSpy_APH]

18 minutes ago, joedeausen said:

$$  big money in golf balls.  At this point, golf tours need to court/consider the industry manufacturers' concerns.  Lots of people would lose jobs if 1 manufacturer wins the 1 ball contract.  Players would revolt.  Lots of players have spent years honing their craft their golf ball.  

I doubt that one ball will be for all. Or one company. Various companies will make balls that meet the new standards. Still will have different characteristics, spin windows and more. 

Agree unfair for one company to make all of them.

[CaptStang]

Stock up on current inventory! The pro rules will not impact the recreational golfer but the selection (if they implement) may!

[Albatrass]

3 hours ago, storm319 said:

The USGA increased the diameter minimum and max weight in the early 1930’s and the reverted the weight back the the previous restriction due to public outcry. The R&A didn’t adopt the rule for their tournaments until the 1976 joint rules venture and globally until 1990. 

While increased diameter does increase drag on the ball, it also has the unintended consequences of being more impacted by wind and raising the CG which can make it easier for a player to hit. Since the advent of the ODS, the USGA no longer needs to regulate any physical properties of the ball, they simply regulate the end result which effectively is a catch all. 

I value your opinion, but I believe if you decrease the distance a ball goes the more times you will hit the fairway and produce a quicker round of golf and enjoy it more.

[Gopokes14]

This whole subject looks like a solution in search of a problem. Saying that the best players in the world are dominating golf courses with distance increases is not solid thinking. The data shows that while some guys have gained distance that they can use to get to some par 5s in 2 and some can hit certain par 4s in 1, it's rare to see anyone shooting record rounds in the 50s or anything like that. So, what's the real problem that they are seeking to fix? The long guys will still be longer than the short guys. So, when you pull them back with a muted distance ball, you pull them all back. The longer guys will still have an advantage. I really don't see this happening in any other sports. NBA raising the rim because there's too much dunking going on? Guys are too tall today? 3 point lines being moved back because guys have gotten too good at hitting 3s? Baseball using softer baseballs to limit homeruns, etc...? If a guy gains an advantage by improving their distance, he has gained an advantage, period. The real issues, hidden in most discussions I hear, revolve around golf course architecture complaints. "Guys are dominating our course and we have to lengthen it, at a big expense, to make it attractive to play a PGA tour event here". This seems like the only "problem" to fit this solution. So, in baseball parks with reachable homerun distances, will they use softer baseballs so we don't have to move the warning track and homerun fence back? Of course not. This issue does not affect me as a player, but I don't want to watch a tournament where the longest hitters are handicapped because they have become too good at hitting long drives. No more than I want to watch a basketball game where the 3 point line or freethrow line has been moved in certain "high profile games" or "certain arenas". Sounds goofy when you talk about doing in this in other sports doesn't it?   

Edited March 15 by Gopokes14
typos

[ChuckZ]

I think they need to work on something more important and that is slow play at all levels.  Baseball has addressed the issue with speeding up the game with success this year.  UGGA and R&A, lets work on this at all levels (especially at the PGA level, because they influence the amateurs watching them on TV.  If they take 30 seconds to putt, then most ams feel they should also.). 

People are hitting the balls longer because they are better conditioned athletes.  Look at their swing speeds.  Yes the equipment is somewhat better and the distances for some is insane. PGA Tour Player - Driver 285 - 321 yds (Tour Average: 299.8 yds).  It is a science to get less spin from the drivers and balls which is increasing the distances, with the players swing speed and the ball speed. So much for just grip it and hit it.      

[RickyBobby_PR]

22 minutes ago, Albatrass said:

I value your opinion, but I believe if you decrease the distance a ball goes the more times you will hit the fairway and produce a quicker round of golf and enjoy it more.

The ball is going to be more spinnier and that is going to increase the movement sideways so no shorter doesn’t mean straighter 

[Albatrass]

You are so right.  But for me I will not hit the ball as far and therefore not as deep into the rough.  A major victory.  LOL