Bifurcation/Ball Roll Back Discussion

[mardukes]

2 hours ago, Dog Faced Pony Soldier said:

This is why the promise that only elite competitors will be impacted is poppycock. 

It's a "local rule".  If only the US Open and British Open adopt it, it only impacts elites.  That doesn't even consider the fact that should your local muni adopt the rule, you will ignore it ANYWAY!  Just like you did with your long putter and the no-anchoring rule change.

[silver & black]

4 hours ago, Andrew75 said:

If they roll it back it should be for everyone. I'm a short hitter who plays usga senior type events. Distance has been overprivileged in golf for too long. Hitting it arrow straight should have it's day now.  The ball companies will likely sue. 

Why can't you hit the ball arrow straight with the current ball/s?

[Dog Faced Pony Soldier]

44 minutes ago, mardukes said:

How many of them do now?!!!

Several years back a friend's father passed away.  In cleaning out the house, he gave me a trunk full of golf balls.  I threw most all of them away keeping only 2 dozen "The Hot One" balls as collectors' items.  Then there is the guy we all have played with that is constantly running that groove scoring tool on his irons.  Ya' think those clubs are conforming?  We are not pros.  Most of this stuff doesn't matter.  We play by stupid rules that say a provisional ball is useful when out of bounds but, not when unplayable and you're worrying about juiced drivers?

Notice my quote didn’t include any estimate of how much non conforming equipment is in play now. Instead I predicted that bifurcation will result in non conforming equipment will become much more common. Right now I don’t know anyone who admits to going out and purchasing non conforming equipment, but I think bifurcation will make the practice much more accepted. Non conforming equipment actually might even help the game build popularity. 

[silver & black]

 

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

If you think someone wont notice a 10 year loss in distance especially when it goes from 200 to 190 you are fooling yourself. Everyone can tell when they have lost distance for whatever reason especially those who play the same course week in and week out. When they have to take an extra club on approach shots compared to what they are used to it’s very noticeable.

I can personally attest to this being a fact.

Edited March 17 by silver & black

[RickyBobby_PR]

48 minutes ago, Albatrossx3 said:

 Apparently you know nothing about the rules,  There IS NO CAP on the ball, there is a standard and it is based upon certain conditions.  Previously the ODS was something like 289 yds at a certain swing speed,   that was changed to the current ODS of 317 yds at 120 mph swing speed, exceed that swing speed and the ball goes farther.  All you need to do is look at the WLD and see how far they hit it, and understand that will be tour pros as the keep getting stronger, larger and better unless something is done to reign the ball in.     The USGA has determined that biomechanics has a limit of around 145 mph, whether anyone can reach that is debatable but come on 130 is definitely in reach, 

The ODS is what all golf balls have to conform so that is the standard Amit shaft the new MLR is changing. So yes the ball is capped to what the ODS is.

The WLD guys have to only get one ball in the grid they don’t have to worry about making a score with their shots. There is also a reason the long drive guys don’t make it on tour, they don’t have the requisite skill set to score so no there won’t be guys hitting the ball 400 yards on a consistent basis on the tour in 10,20,40 years. The current drivers don’t work well with balls that go the speed of elite level long drive competitors. It’s why Bryson is constantly trying to find a driver that works. At those speeds when the ball misses the sweet spot it’s hard to control.

49 minutes ago, Albatrossx3 said:

Again are you going to quit if the ball goes a little shorter, or are you going to learn how to hit it better.  

As of right now there won’t be a need to switch because it’s a MLR and there will still be the current balls to play for recreational golfers and more than likely if the manufacturers may not even make it and force the usga and R&A to find their own solution for providing the ball.

 Whether one adjusts to less distance or not has nothing to do with me telling you that when you say a 20 hdcp who hits the ball 200 yards right now will notice a 10 yard loss of distance and that anyone who plays notices a 10 yard loss of distance regardless of how far they hit it. 
 

Adjusting to the loss of distance is different than noticing loss of distance 

46 minutes ago, Albatrossx3 said:

I played Firestone S about 2 weeks before the WSOG around 1990  the rough was 6 inches and took weeks to grow, it does not happen in 2 weeks.   I caddied one year at the WSOG the average golfer could not hit it out of the rough, is that what you want on your vacation to a tour stop resort like this week at Copperhead.  

Outside of a U.S. Open very rarely is rough that thick for any PGA tour event and in most cases is the very opposite and let’s not compare 1990 to 2023.

instead of the PGA cutting the fairways low and not watering them as much or cutting the rough down all they need to do is keep the fairways either at the length they normally play for the members/public or somewhere in between and then 20+ yards of roll out will be gone. Same with the rough, don’t cut it down and let it stay the same length it is all year round and it changes the distance off the tee and the lack of challenge coming out of the rough 

[RickyBobby_PR]

49 minutes ago, mardukes said:

It's a "local rule".  If only the US Open and British Open adopt it, it only impacts elites.  That doesn't even consider the fact that should your local muni adopt the rule, you will ignore it ANYWAY!  Just like you did with your long putter and the no-anchoring rule change.

It will trickle down from the professional tour to top level amateur events and then down to top level junior events which btw ajga is rumored to be onboard with the mlr so there’s already indication it’s going to be used at the junior level.

And if it’s a mixed bag of events at junior and amateur level is creates more chaos because you have different events using different balls and those involved will be switching balls and probably equipment and constantly adjusting.

When all that happens then it makes it’s way into club championships and trickles down to it becoming the ball everyone will be using. 
 

 

[storm319]

6 hours ago, LICC said:

It would be within 2-3% probably. Strength training does little to increase distance on any given swing. The equipment is the predominant factor. There have been several examples of today's players trying older equipment, and they all basically hit the balls the same distance as players did back when the equipment was being used. You can also look at the Champions tour and how much massively farther those same players hit it now compared to 25-30 years ago. They don't gain physical strength and speed in their 50s compared to their 20s.

Bryson?! He went from averaging 291 to 310 (lead the tour that year) over a single off season by adding nearly 50 lbs and bulking up. I wonder what equipment innovation that happened in 2020 that saw only him add 20 yards to his average? Hmmmm

BTW, all of those examples of having current pros hit a handful of shots with old equipment vs past results from HOF golfers who were tuned in with that equipment is not a realistic comparison. Give the new guys time to adapt and the results will be very different. 

[WiTerp50]

2 hours ago, Albatrossx3 said:

Again are you going to quit if the ball goes a little shorter, or are you going to learn how to hit it better.  

Quit, no. But I’m running out of tee boxes to move up to at 73  Averaging just under 200 yards, 10 less yards takes a 350 yard hole out of play. 370 is already a 3 stroke to the green. Already working hard to keep what I have/had. 

[LICC]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

Bryson?! He went from averaging 291 to 310 (lead the tour that year) over a single off season by adding nearly 50 lbs and bulking up. I wonder what equipment innovation that happened in 2020 that saw only him add 20 yards to his average? Hmmmm

BTW, all of those examples of having current pros hit a handful of shots with old equipment vs past results from HOF golfers who were tuned in with that equipment is not a realistic comparison. Give the new guys time to adapt and the results will be very different. 

Bryson gained distance from changing his swing. He kept bulking and didn’t gain any further distance. Then he slimmed down because he wasn’t healthy and still hit long distances. 

[silver & black]

2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

As of right now there won’t be a need to switch because it’s a MLR and there will still be the current balls to play for recreational golfers

Recreational golfers: read that.... 99% of ALL golfers in the world. Without all of us recreational golfers, the sport/game would not exist. All of this nonsense over rolling back the ball and whatever else nonsense the "powers that be" come up with for 1% of golfers in the world is just complete nonsense.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

Bryson?! He went from averaging 291 to 310 (lead the tour that year) over a single off season by adding nearly 50 lbs and bulking up. I wonder what equipment innovation that happened in 2020 that saw only him add 20 yards to his average? Hmmmm

BTW, all of those examples of having current pros hit a handful of shots with old equipment vs past results from HOF golfers who were tuned in with that equipment is not a realistic comparison. Give the new guys time to adapt and the results will be very different. 

Like it was mentioned by a mod, this debate has been hashed out on here and wrx with him. It’s not worth the energy. 

[IzakFouche]

5 hours ago, Albatrossx3 said:

If you have a greens keeping background, you would know how silly your ideas are.  Takes weeks to grow out the rough, more water, and chemicals,  Making a course unplayable for anyone else, all to get to one week a year.   Making smaller greens is not about just letting the edges grow in bunkers need moved etc.  The issue is not today, but 5 or 10 years from now, when there may be players who can fly it 400, what do you do when players are hitting it that far and chipping to anything less than 500 yds as a par 4, you fix the ball then?   The ball should have been fixed decades ago, the USGA changed the swing speed but did little to fix the overall distance standard that was the new limit..   

I dont believe in the end the manufactures will go for this, no ball no rule, but I do believe the USGA/RA are serious about protecting the game, keeping it sustainable and affordable, longer courses deeper rough are not sustainable solutions and not good for the game for the rest of us.  I think the push back from the MFC's will force them to reign it ALL legal balls, but come on what 20 hdcp will notice his or her 200yd bunt goes 10 yds shorter, most players dont hit it solid enough often enough to know.  Are you gonna quit or just move up a few yards  

ROLF you must think you are super special and the only person in the world that knows golf.   I completely get how greenkeeping works and course prep work for amateurs like yourself and professionals.  So what you are saying golf course architect like Stanley Thompson designs is stupid and had no idea how to design courses correct?  Because he used smaller greens with more undulations.  You don't have to narrow the entire golf course but just the landing areas from the tips and tee boxes the tour earmark to be used.  PS most greens are moved between 2.5 - 3 for tournaments.  If you let greens grown out in two weeks its will be long enough for a 1st cut or apron.  You don't have to narrow the greens around the bunkers, but growing it out will make a huge difference.  LOL so you are saying they are doing it to keep the golf courses sustainable and affordable, lets talk how much golf course architect charge for their designs, how much soil they move (very costly) but you should know this because you know everything about greenkeeping and construction of golf courses. Modern architect want to make it so long the normal amateur that cant hit the ball out of his shadow wants to play from the tips. Maybe if you want to be better take a lesson or two and learn how to play the game better.  Like certain people that ski can only go on certain slopes.

[TitleistMike]

11 hours ago, cnosil said:

This conformance is only require for competitions where the model local rule is invoked.  If the competition doesn’t invoke the MRL current balls are conforming and will remain conforming.  
 

it does add to the existing bifurcation because it is enforcing different rules at different levels.   Does your group invoke the one ball rule and the rule that prohibits distance measuring devices? 

Non conforming balls will be called cheater balls. EVERY major will impose the local rule. Every PGA premier Level 1 event will impose MLR. You can see it coming, otherwise why make the rule ?

Yes, I play one ball.

No, I don't use rangefinder or slope. 

No, I don't play winter rules or roll ball over and neither do my friends. 

We do take mulligan.

We won't do stroke distance on a unexpected lost ball.

And we won't play with cheater balls. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

44 minutes ago, TitleistMike said:

Non conforming balls will be called cheater balls. EVERY major will impose the local rule. Every PGA premier Level 1 event will impose MLR. You can see it coming, otherwise why make the rule ?

It’s not a rule yet and it’s only an MLR so it’s optional. There is a review and comment period that it has to go thru that’s why it’s not going to be impellers til 2026.

The PGA tour isn’t going to use it for some events and not others. The members aren’t going to go for that and having to change ball and equipment. Everytime they go out. Also whether the PGA tour chooses to use it will be based on what their members say aka the players on the tour.

[Andrew75]

5 hours ago, silver & black said:

Why can't you hit the ball arrow straight with the current ball/s?

Exactly, I see tour pros who make a good living frequently 15 feet wide of their target with a wedge. That's unbelievable and unfair.  I rarely miss my driving target by 15 feet, much less a fairway 30 yards wide. If I miss my line and my window by more than 3 feet with a wedge it's a very poor shot for me. 

If I could play courses 6100 yards with 10 yard wide fairways, punitive rough, and small greens that would be an equalizer. We'd see who could win. Golf would be more like ballet. 

[TitleistMike]

21 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

It’s not a rule yet and it’s only an MLR so it’s optional. There is a review and comment period that it has to go thru that’s why it’s not going to be impellers til 2026.

The PGA tour isn’t going to use it for some events and not others. The members aren’t going to go for that and having to change ball and equipment. Everytime they go out. Also whether the PGA tour chooses to use it will be based on what their members say aka the players on the tour.

Players have no say other than joining LIV.

Players do NOT run PGA. Laughable to think they do. The players council has ALWAYS been a smoke and mirrors exposition.

Back to the main point....it is coming. And because Players will not be able to sway back and forth, the new criteria will be the universal criteria as all PGA events apply the MLR.

Once in place, non conforming balls will be called cheater balls.

[Subdiver1]

10 hours ago, LICC said:

It would be within 2-3% probably. Strength training does little to increase distance on any given swing. The equipment is the predominant factor. There have been several examples of today's players trying older equipment, and they all basically hit the balls the same distance as players did back when the equipment was being used. You can also look at the Champions tour and how much massively farther those same players hit it now compared to 25-30 years ago. They don't gain physical strength and speed in their 50s compared to their 20s.

"Strength training does little to increase distance on any given swing."  Are you FLIPPIN kidding me?!?!?!  Please provide your background in personal training and sports physiology including all of the studies and tests you have coordinated, designed, observed or read.  Let me help you: 

"The results of this study demonstrate that power is significantly correlated with CHS in PGA professional golfers, confirming previously established relationships observed in amateur golfers (Lewis, Adam L.1; Ward, Nick2; Bishop, Chris3; Maloney, Sean4; Turner, Anthony N.3. Determinants of Club Head Speed in PGA Professional Golfers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 30(8):p 2266-2270, August 2016. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001362).  

Oh here is one from 2020, "Eight Weeks of Strength and Power Training Improves Club Head Speed in Collegiate Golfers," (Oranchuk DJ, Mannerberg JM, Robinson TL, Nelson MC. Eight Weeks of Strength and Power Training Improves Club Head Speed in Collegiate Golfers. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Aug;34(8):2205-2213. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002505. PMID: 29461422).

But it isn't just brute strength that results in distance, flexibility and the ability to create tempo is HUGE.  The ability to FEEL the swing apex and TRANSITION fluidly will generate more speed than some muscle head who can bench 650 trying to muscle a driver on the range.  It is the same reason why a 4'2" 92lb woman can toss a 360lb man across the mats like a rag doll.  But I digress.  

Equipment has ABSOLUTELY improved.  Ball speed off a metal head (or carbon fiber) driver is definitely hotter than off a persimmon wood head.  Lighter materials and shafts lead to increased club head speed.  But all of that aside I can still outdrive a couch potato with a Stealth 2, G425 or a Ti4 using my 1980s Wilson 1200GE woods or out distance comparative iron shots using my 1980s Titleist blades because of my level of fitness, which contributes to club head speed AND the ability to consistently generate that speed comfortably for a full round.  Kind of like an unfit guy still being able to run 4 second 40, but not being able to hold under 15 minutes for a full mile and a fit guy only being able to run a 6 second 40, but maintain under 6 minutes for the full mile or more.  Fitness = Performance.  Equipment only enhances fitness.  And if I had the flexibility I had before back surgery I'd blow it by you with a 4-year old's plastic kiddie club.

Need more examples of fitness over equipment?  From 1979 - 1985 Jack Nicklaus averaged from 264 to 269 yards off the tee.  What equipment advantage did he have over the other players???  NONE!  He played basketball, baseball and tennis in high school throughout his childhood and school years.  He had strength and athleticism that other players didn't at the time.  According to IBM recorded driving distance data at 11 PGA Tour events in 1968 the top 10 players averaged 270.2 yards, the average was 264.0 yards and Nicklaus led the Tour at 276.0 yards.   Fred Couples was a linebacker, he averaged 268 yards in 1982.  Davis Love III holds the second longest officially recorded drive in competitive play history, 476 yards at the 2004 Mercedes Championships (now the Hyundai ToC) at Kapalua. He drive was 39 yards short of the 515 yard record set by Mike Austin's in 1974.  1974!!!!!  NOT 2014, NOT 2024, 1974!  So, if the equipment is the problem why hasn't somebody beaten a record from 1974???  Sure, those guys would most likely be hitting the ball longer with today's equipment than they were then.  BUT, they were longer than the other guys and would STILL BE longer than the other guys.  So changing the equipment for everyone does NOTHING to bring the big guys down to our level.  If anything it handicaps the recreational player ever further because the advancements in technology that have led to improved clubbed speed, consistency of shaft flex and performance, improved ball speed and quality control benefit them; it doesn't penalize them.  And giving a beat up old Salt a bit of equipment to help him/her off-set all the wear and tear sure helps across the board, taking it away only penalizes all of us.  If they want to halt potential progress in distance to where it is, then do the testing using current balls and the new swing speed criteria and set the requirements right where the X-Y axes cross today.  That saves all of us recreational golfers from having to pay for manufacturers trying to figure out regression.  It saves all of us from having to return to the drawing board to figure out how far X, Y, and Z clubs are carrying and trying to figure out how to carry the pond on a 185 yard par 3.  It saves the problem of competitive amateurs having to figure out what ball they will be allowed to play at what tournaments and what the resultant club choices will have to, maybe, be.

I am going to try to put the ball factor to some level of rest by doing a "field test" tomorrow comparing my OLD 1980 model Titlest blades to my current P790 irons, 3 thru PW.  I'll post the comparative iron specs and results using current model range balls and a Swing Caddie SC300.

"Strength training does little to increase distance on any given swing."  You kill me dude. 

[Andrew75]

14 minutes ago, Subdiver1 said:

"Strength training does little to increase distance on any given swing."  Are you FLIPPIN kidding me?!?!?!  Please provide your background in personal training and sports physiology including all of the studies and tests you have coordinated, designed, observed or read.  Let me help you: 

"The results of this study demonstrate that power is significantly correlated with CHS in PGA professional golfers, confirming previously established relationships observed in amateur golfers (Lewis, Adam L.1; Ward, Nick2; Bishop, Chris3; Maloney, Sean4; Turner, Anthony N.3. Determinants of Club Head Speed in PGA Professional Golfers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 30(8):p 2266-2270, August 2016. | DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001362).  

Oh here is one from 2020, "Eight Weeks of Strength and Power Training Improves Club Head Speed in Collegiate Golfers," (Oranchuk DJ, Mannerberg JM, Robinson TL, Nelson MC. Eight Weeks of Strength and Power Training Improves Club Head Speed in Collegiate Golfers. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Aug;34(8):2205-2213. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002505. PMID: 29461422).

But it isn't just brute strength that results in distance, flexibility and the ability to create tempo is HUGE.  The ability to FEEL the swing apex and TRANSITION fluidly will generate more speed than some muscle head who can bench 650 trying to muscle a driver on the range.  It is the same reason why a 4'2" 92lb woman can toss a 360lb man across the mats like a rag doll.  But I digress.  

Equipment has ABSOLUTELY improved.  Ball speed off a metal head (or carbon fiber) driver is definitely hotter than off a persimmon wood head.  Lighter materials and shafts lead to increased club head speed.  But all of that aside I can still outdrive a couch potato with a Stealth 2, G425 or a Ti4 using my 1980s Wilson 1200GE woods or out distance comparative iron shots using my 1980s Titleist blades because of my level of fitness, which contributes to club head speed AND the ability to consistently generate that speed comfortably for a full round.  Kind of like an unfit guy still being able to run 4 second 40, but not being able to hold under 15 minutes for a full mile and a fit guy only being able to run a 6 second 40, but maintain under 6 minutes for the full mile or more.  Fitness = Performance.  Equipment only enhances fitness.  And if I had the flexibility I had before back surgery I'd blow it by you with a 4-year old's plastic kiddie club.

Need more examples of fitness over equipment?  From 1979 - 1985 Jack Nicklaus averaged from 264 to 269 yards off the tee.  What equipment advantage did he have over the other players???  NONE!  He played basketball, baseball and tennis in high school throughout his childhood and school years.  He had strength and athleticism that other players didn't at the time.  According to IBM recorded driving distance data at 11 PGA Tour events in 1968 the top 10 players averaged 270.2 yards, the average was 264.0 yards and Nicklaus led the Tour at 276.0 yards.   Fred Couples was a linebacker, he averaged 268 yards in 1982.  Davis Love III holds the second longest officially recorded drive in competitive play history, 476 yards at the 2004 Mercedes Championships (now the Hyundai ToC) at Kapalua. He drive was 39 yards short of the 515 yard record set by Mike Austin's in 1974.  1974!!!!!  NOT 2014, NOT 2024, 1974!  So, if the equipment is the problem why hasn't somebody beaten a record from 1974???  Sure, those guys would most likely be hitting the ball longer with today's equipment than they were then.  BUT, they were longer than the other guys and would STILL BE longer than the other guys.  So changing the equipment for everyone does NOTHING to bring the big guys down to our level.  If anything it handicaps the recreational player ever further because the advancements in technology that have led to improved clubbed speed, consistency of shaft flex and performance, improved ball speed and quality control benefit them; it doesn't penalize them.  And giving a beat up old Salt a bit of equipment to help him/her off-set all the wear and tear sure helps across the board, taking it away only penalizes all of us.  If they want to halt potential progress in distance to where it is, then do the testing using current balls and the new swing speed criteria and set the requirements right where the X-Y axes cross today.  That saves all of us recreational golfers from having to pay for manufacturers trying to figure out regression.  It saves all of us from having to return to the drawing board to figure out how far X, Y, and Z clubs are carrying and trying to figure out how to carry the pond on a 185 yard par 3.  It saves the problem of competitive amateurs having to figure out what ball they will be allowed to play at what tournaments and what the resultant club choices will have to, maybe, be.

I am going to try to put the ball factor to some level of rest by doing a "field test" tomorrow comparing my OLD 1980 model Titlest blades to my current P790 irons, 3 thru PW.  I'll post the comparative iron specs and results using current model range balls and a Swing Caddie SC300.

"Strength training does little to increase distance on any given swing."  You kill me dude. 

Calvin Peete

[Subdiver1]

Here is a point of consideration I have't seen yet.  HOW in frickin' heck is handicap going to be calculated and fully comparative using different equipment?  

Scenario A: Golfer 1 plays "regular" balls in his region in recreational and competitive play and thus for reporting scores for his handicap.  Golfer 1 then had to travel to a region that requires the "new" ball for tournament play.

How do you compensate for giving Golfer 1 a new ball to play against others who have handicaps based on using that ball?

Scenario B: Golfer 2 plays in a region where some places require the "new" ball and some the old "regular" ball.  His handicap is based on scores reported using both balls.  HOW IN THE  **** can you calculate a baseline using different equipment???  Adding variables ADDS variables which throws the average off; it is like playing against the 8 handicap golfer who ONLY REPORTS his scores above +8 when he regularly shoots +4.  If Golfer 2 plays against Golfer 1 in either scenario their handicaps CANNOT be equivalent because the restrictions contribute to another differential that is NOT INCLUDED in the equation.  And it can't be because not everyone will remember to, or "check the right box" even if there was one.  And WHAT frickin' algorithm would account for a difference in ball performance?  How many variables would have to be in that calculation to make it even seem like it works out?  Are there any astrophysicist out there reading this that can help? 

Scenario C': Similar to scenario A, but opposite, Golfer 3 plays the "new" ball all the time so they don't have to worry about "possible" rule changes, but find himself playing against others who choose to use the "regular" ball because there is no rule requiring the new ball.  HOW do you calculate the literal handicap golfer 3 faces into the handicapping system and play under those circumstances?  Yes, it is a choice, but it is a choice where his, or her, handicap is calculated based on consistent equipment.  The opponents handicaps are an unknown because they may or may not be calculated using the same "new" ball, the "regular" ball all the time, or some combination.

The handicaps system cannot be viable and comparative when player 1 is using the "regular" ball, player 2 is using both and player 3 is using only the "new" ball for computation.  The inconsistency here is like arbitrarily and out of the blue taking a different club out of each players bag every round and still requiring them to record their score for handicap. Today I am pulling your sand wedge and Bob's 6-iron. Tomorrow maybe your 8-iron and Bob's putter. Next week no driver for you and Bob loses his wedge.  Would your handicap be viable if that were the case?

In all reality we are all here venting frustrations, either way, like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. The people making the decisions aren't reading through our gripes and groans and they don't give a rat's pink tailed derriere wether we like it or not. It's nice to think that the people actually paying the bill for all of their jobs and prestige would be at least payed a little lip service, but let's get real here.  Until your pounding the ball down the middle 65% of the time and carrying a +6 handicap getting paid to play in front of the big crowds you matter to them about as much as your $40 Nassau matters to the gust of wind getting ready to balloon your next tee shot short into the hazard you THOUGHT you could carry.

Cheers all.  Enjoy the game for the companions and laughs it offers.

[Subdiver1]

I read some really..."interesting" new comments and as I reviewed others it occurred to me that there is a much simpler approach to this whole discussion than has been proposed by the "governing bodies."  Maybe I missed it, but in case it just hasn't been broached I'll go ahead and open myself up to the "already stated" criticism.  

Test the current batch of balls that are conforming and in play with the proposed testing criteria and from those results create a no greater than requirement.  This means that manufacturers can either keep the current designs etc. or conduct new R&D to change without completely changing "life as we know it."  I think what really bothers me about this entire topic is just that.  Instead of pausing at the current status we now are facing a press to change something which has a ripple effect.

It may sound cynical but to me this all means somebody is getting something (benefitting in big $$$) to force this change.  I understand the perspective some have that the DTCs aren't going anywhere even with this change, but the big names are feeling it a bit from the growth of DTCs and they (the big guys) will suffer the least form the change.  The small guy always feels the hit more than the big guy does.  Is the push for this coming quietly from that arena (quiet pressure form this big board rooms whispering in the ears of the rules committees)?  Or maybe somebody in those big board rooms pissed off the rule makers by holding back some expected/traditional kick-backs/pay-offs and the plan is to get back at them by costing them millions, up front, in R&D and retooling etc.?  That may sound cynical, but