Bifurcation/Ball Roll Back Discussion

[chisag]

31 minutes ago, MaxEntropy said:

I don't know that I have a strong opinion on the proposal either way - I can see the arguments from both sides and think both have their merits.

I assume it has been brought up, but I haven't stayed totally up-to-date on this discussion. My biggest concern is the net effect on the price of a dozen balls for me. I don't see how the OEM's can recover the R&D costs associated with making balls for pros (never mind there may be more than one compliant version per manufacturer). Who is going to absorb that? My fear is that it will get passed down to us.

 

1 hour ago, Stuka44 said:

My only fear is if it does become cost ineffective for ball makers to continue to make "pro" balls, and "recreational" balls is this.  Does anyone think that current players, who for whatever their reason, are playing courses from distances that they shouldn't be, and should be playing shorter even with today's balls, and equipment, are going to realize that the easiest way to offset the shorter ball will be to move up a tee box, and not swing harder, have more bad shots, and play even slower.  I don't think so.

 

... Titleist makes 14 golf balls and they make balls available to the tour now, so adding another tour ball for production shouldn't effect cost. And IF they make the rolled back tour ball available to the public and that is a big IF, why would any recreational golfer buy a ball that flies shorter? Every marketing campaign I have ever seen is based on l-o-n-g-e-r whether it is driver, irons or even balls. Nobody is gonna market a shorter ball because as ignorant as many average golfers are about equipment, no OEM is gonna risk someone picking up the wrong ball (again IF even available) and finding it is much shorter than what they normally play. If it is the same ball they normally play and it goes much shorter they will change brands. I don't ever see golf stores having a shorter tour ball sitting on their shelves. 

[TR1PTIK]

9 minutes ago, chisag said:

And IF they make the rolled back tour ball available to the public and that is a big IF, why would any recreational golfer buy a ball that flies shorter?

I've given some thought to this and I think what you'll see is a niche market develop that wants balls like this as a sort of novelty thing like hickory clubs.

[GolfSpy BOS]

1 hour ago, TR1PTIK said:

I'm currently listening to the podcast and Mike Whan addressed this by saying that this MLR is intended to more or less lock-in distance where it is even if it doesn't look like that. I don't think we'll see any change in the tees that are used on Tour, in the majors, or even in elite amateur events. The intent is to take distance away in the short term so as to slow the inevitable creep in distance we'll likely see over the coming decades and get the players to utilize more/different skills by requiring them to hit longer clubs into greens. The sustainability portion comes into play when you look at the next generation of players.

 

I will say, I think NLU and Mike Whan have successfully changed my opinion on bifurcation and the new proposed MLR. All you have to do is look at guys like Wilco Nienbar and James Hart Du Preez to see what the future of golf could look like. Tall, muscular, athletes who simply crush it. I'm sure the argument against them will be "What tournaments have they won?..." and my answer to that is, "It doesn't matter." There will be players in the future who match the length of guys like Nienbar and Du Preez while also having great skill in the remaining areas of the game. These guys won't be long because they spent months in the gym and packed on weight (to their own detriment) like DeChambeau did, these guys will be naturally gifted with height, long arms, and athleticism. They won't suffer the way Bryson did and they'll learn how to fill in the gaps.

I'll also add that when I think about the increasing distance of elite players, matters of sustainability, and the long-term future of golf, I see a lot of simulator golf. I'd very much like to see golf evolve in a way where simulators and virtual golf are not the only options. I want the game to succeed and continue to be played outdoors in a manner that is accessible to all. I could easily see things in the US become just like we see Japan and Korea where most golf is "played" in a simulator or at a driving range and golf courses are reserved only for those with deep pockets.

Yeah that podcast was excellent and made me really think about it versus just having an emotional reaction.

I like the way the 450 yard par 4 example was used.  and how they they talked about hole design and where players are intended to hit from.  The example he used to prove that we actually all care about distance even if we don't realize it was great too.

You walk up and hit a beautiful crisp driver.  Should it go 450 yards?  No.  Should it go 50 yards? No.  The argument is that we're getting too close to the 450 yard drive. 

I just don't love the idea of recreational golfers playing a "hotter" ball.  I fully understand that we're not playing the same equipment as the pros, but we are all playing under the same caps and restrictions.  At the end of the day, I'm going to play golf with whatever is conforming.  It will either be Rory is still 30+ yards ahead of me off the tee of maybe he's only 10-15 in front and I'm playing with a built in Booster. 

In the meantime Ive got 4 dozen Pro V1x's on their way ready to get lost in the woods! 

[Albatrass]

On 3/15/2023 at 2:48 PM, Subdiver1 said:

How do you figure?  

Course design 101 is to place hazards in places where they come into play for those who are supposed to be playing from each tee set, set for the distance those players are supposed to be playing from (e.g. 190 5-iron X 36 = 6800 yd tees) so fairway bunkers, cross fairway hazards etc. would come into play somewhere around tee shot distance or where a good tee shot puts the next shot into a lay-up or 85% chance your in it situation. Narrowing fairways for tournaments and thickening the rough have been shown to absolutely BURY the players who cannot keep it in the fairway (e.g. '07 @ Oakmont, '20 Winged Foot).  

They did a GREAT job refurbishing our course in southern GA back in the 90s and in the process narrowed the fairways, that lasted about 6 weeks before the complaints go so bad they had to cut them back so guys, and gals, could keep it in the fairway.  Up here in WA there are courses where you can watch the ball go in and not find it with 42 people and 3 hunting dogs trained to find surlyn; and if you do find it in the fescue, 70% of the time or more you're probably better off taking the unplayable.  

Forcing players to play strategically because of hazard variation between course is what golf is all about.  That is why a guy who is a 2 on his home course where there is no strategy, who plays 99.5% on one or two courses, can easily be a 14 when they travel, especially when you travel to new regions with different grass, elevation etc. that you might not have on home courses.  Reducing ball flight is one-dimensional.  AND it only screws amateurs.  The big guys are still not only going to blow it by you, their accuracy AND distance advantage are still going to be there.  

For simplicity sake let's say they make a rule that drops flight 15%.  If your average drive is 250 that Adding variation in ball flight means (250*.15=37.5) your new average is 213; the guys your playing against averaged 285 (285*.15=42.5) dropping his average to 242; you're STILL 30 yards back.  if you are using the formulas for tee selection instead of ego (e.g. https://www.golfwrx.com/642381/how-to-select-the-proper-tees-to-play-from-what-tees-you-should-play-from/) were playing from the 6200-6500 yard tees (Whites?) you are now playing the Red (?) tees, and struggling to get there.  Go forbid you are one of those guys who has a 250 average drive distance, before the restriction, and thinks he should be playing from the 7200 yd tips.  On the other hand, if you narrow fairways and put hazards in the right place you open the long guy with the ego to drilling one into the hazard while you come up safe, then play smoothly down the middle.  As a relatively long player I can tell you that, from experience, my game benefits when I play new courses strategically (hybrids and irons off tees) rather than trying to blow through the course using my distance "advantage." And God help you of you are long, but crooked on those courses where water, waste areas and OB are prevalent.  Narrow fairways and penalty areas ARE the basis of course strategy; I am not sure how you can argue otherwise, but I am willing to listen to the argument.

Enjoyed reading your reasoning.

 

[TR1PTIK]

8 minutes ago, GolfSpy_BOS said:

I just don't love the idea of recreational golfers playing a "hotter" ball.  I fully understand that we're not playing the same equipment as the pros, but we are all playing under the same caps and restrictions.

Same, but Mike and the NLU guys did a good job of making me rethink this as well when speaking about the considerable differences in course length, conditions, and pin placements. Most golfers think 10-11 on the stimp is lightning, but pros often play 11+ and will occasionally see 14-15. It is indeed a different game under a different set of "rules" whether we want to believe it or not. I also enjoyed when the guys went down the list of other MLRs to further drive the point home.

[chisag]

13 minutes ago, GolfSpy_BOS said:

I just don't love the idea of recreational golfers playing a "hotter" ball. 

 

... To be fair (I know you used quotes but you won't be playing a "hotter" ball) the pros will be playing a restricted ball. Your ball will be the same as it has been. 

 

 

 

[GolfSpy BOS]

6 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Same, but Mike and the NLU guys did a good job of making me rethink this as well when speaking about the considerable differences in course length, conditions, and pin placements. Most golfers think 10-11 on the stimp is lightning, but pros often play 11+ and will occasionally see 14-15. It is indeed a different game under a different set of "rules" whether we want to believe it or not. I also enjoyed when the guys went down the list of other MLRs to further drive the point home.

For sure.  In my head I think it goes.... OK Golf says balls now need to not go as far.  Now I play from the Blue/White instead of the Black/Blue tees.  Pro's still play the WTFB tees.  But I don't see many golfers I know who would be willing to move forward... It took me years to convince my dad too.  I think I'm going to stick with their football analogy and keep comfort in that.  The high school football is smaller than the college, which is smaller than the pros because the pros are stronger and better.  Maybe it should just be as simple as that.

No, no , no.  We've got a lot of time to debate this... it can't be that simple! haha  

 

2 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... To be fair (I know you used quotes but you won't be playing a "hotter" ball) the pros will be playing a restricted ball. Your ball will be the same as it has been. 

 

 

 

Hotter in relation to the pro's future balls under the MLR.  I know you're being a prankster.... we could get in an internet argument for days over the semantics of it all... but there's enough of that going on already! haha

[chisag]

3 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Same, but Mike and the NLU guys did a good job of making me rethink this as well when speaking about the considerable differences in course length, conditions, and pin placements. Most golfers think 10-11 on the stimp is lightning, but pros often play 11+ and will occasionally see 14-15. It is indeed a different game under a different set of "rules" whether we want to believe it or not. I also enjoyed when the guys went down the list of other MLRs to further drive the point home.

 

 

... So true. We had the Phoenix Open qualifier at my local home course I play about 200 times a year. It normally stimps around a 10 and we played after the last qualifying group. It was stimping at 13 and to say the greens were radically different is an understatement. Rarely is above the hole a big problem other than a few silly pin locations, but at a 13 above the hole meant you could not even keep it on the green on several holes. On one par 3 my high index pard hit his hybrid a little thin and was on the back fringe. The green slopes a little from back to front but not severe by any means. He just put his putt in motion to a middle pin location and we all thought it would not make it to the hole, but it just kept trickling and picked up speed on the bottom half after rolling past the hole in slow motion eventually going into the deep front bunker. 

... A low index guy I occasionally play with that normally shoots in the mid to low 70's wanted to see what it was like playing along side the pros. He shot a 97 in the first round and said he never had so many 3 putts in his life, and 4 putted 2 greens. 

[chisag]

3 minutes ago, GolfSpy_BOS said:

Hotter in relation to the pro's future balls under the MLR.  I know you're being a prankster.... we could get in an internet argument for days over the semantics of it all... but there's enough of that going on already! haha

 

... Debating is always fun but irrelevant in the end. Just like the endless debate for a year or so over outlawing the anchored long putter. It was gonna ruin the game and many were gonna quit golf.  Now nobody even talks about it.

... That said and having fun with semantics ...  You May Ask Yourself how can a ball that doesn't change be called "hotter" if it is Same As It Ever Was? 

 

 

[GolfSpy BOS]

16 minutes ago, chisag said:

... That said and having fun with semantics ...  You May Ask Yourself how can a ball that doesn't change be called "hotter" if it is Same As It Ever Was? 
 

Easy... you paint it yellow!  right @Yellow Ball?! 

[SlowNLow]

5 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... Debating is always fun but irrelevant in the end. Just like the endless debate for a year or so over outlawing the anchored long putter. It was gonna ruin the game and many were gonna quit golf.  Now nobody even talks about it.

... That said and having fun with semantics ...  You May Ask Yourself how can a ball that doesn't change be called "hotter" if it is Same As It Ever Was? 

 

 

You are right, debating this issue with the people on this website won't make a bit of difference to those in USGA and R&A making the rules about equipment.   Organizing violent protests, insurrections or government coups might be a bit much as well.

Que sera, sera.

(This one will stick in your head for days.)

[Tom the Golf Nut]

Sorry if this has already been posted. I haven't been keeping up with this. Kostis and McCord's off their rocker pod cast episode three gets into this and very enlightening because the guy who builds all the robots for ball testing for the entire industry is a big part of the discussion. This segment starts about the mid-way point in the video. You can watch it on YouTube. 

 

[Chadillac15]

I think one of the things that draws the random, first timer to golf is the fact you can play the same equipment/balls as the pros. Albeit some the tour equipment is very expensive, if you want to pony up the cash to buy it, you can do it. While $54 for a dozen PROV1s isn’t by any means cheap, it’s the same ball our favorite tour players use, so it gives us that feeling of playing what the pros play. A small part of me would feel that I would be playing with a “corked bat,” if you will if the pros play with rolled back golf balls and we have the “juiced,” version. Either way change is always a hard thing especially when it is something we love so much. I hope it doesn’t happen but will still continue to love the game no matter what happens.

[MaxEntropy]

20 hours ago, chisag said:

Titleist makes 14 golf balls and they make balls available to the tour now, so adding another tour ball for production shouldn't effect cost. And IF they make the rolled back tour ball available to the public and that is a big IF, why would any recreational golfer buy a ball that flies shorter? Every marketing campaign I have ever seen is based on l-o-n-g-e-r whether it is driver, irons or even balls. Nobody is gonna market a shorter ball because as ignorant as many average golfers are about equipment, no OEM is gonna risk someone picking up the wrong ball (again IF even available) and finding it is much shorter than what they normally play. If it is the same ball they normally play and it goes much shorter they will change brands. I don't ever see golf stores having a shorter tour ball sitting on their shelves. 

Right, but there are clear markets for those 14 balls. Adding a couple "pro only" models that they likely won't sell to the public means they may have to eat the cost (or pass it on to people like us). The unknown factor to me right now is how many pros actually pay for balls? I honestly have no idea, but have always assumed not many do.

[jtowns43]

I think it is more "relatable" when you have access to all of the same equipment as the pros.  I also think they have way bigger things that they should be spending their time on than rolling back the ball.  Not being able to move your ball out of a divot or ballmark from the middle of the fairway seems like one of the worst rules in sports.  Basketball hasn't raised the hoops as players have gotten taller and more athletic.  Just make the rough taller and thicker, the greens faster, and have more trees in areas to prohibit them from taking the corners.  There are plenty of other things that should be tried first IMO

[mardukes]

1 hour ago, MaxEntropy said:

Right, but there are clear markets for those 14 balls. Adding a couple "pro only" models that they likely won't sell to the public means they may have to eat the cost (or pass it on to people like us). The unknown factor to me right now is how many pros actually pay for balls? I honestly have no idea, but have always assumed not many do.

Titleist is the only one who will make them because they are the only ones who will feel the need (afford) to do the research & development.  And should it be true that Chisag should never see them on the store shelf, he will have no problem getting them on-line.

BTW (and, again, I don't care one way or the other) I wonder if anyone saw the exciting conclusion to this match https://www.golfchannel.com/news/rory-mcilroy-hits-iconic-drive-amid-day-uncertain-outcomes-wgc-dell-match-play?utm-tags=golf1304000&mi_u=0F190760-BF14-48B5-A6F4-ADA2730EDB20&slug=news%2Frory-mcilroy-hits-iconic-drive-amid-day-uncertain-outcomes-wgc-dell-match-play

Sure is a good thing that Rory's ball was not reined in to something less than a 349-yd carry.  I would have hated to wait through the "normal" 3 or 4 shots by each of the players to decide the match.  Maybe they should outlaw those pesky short game shots.

[chisag]

1 hour ago, Chadillac15 said:

I think one of the things that draws the random, first timer to golf is the fact you can play the same equipment/balls as the pros. While $54 for a dozen PROV1s isn’t by any means cheap, it’s the same ball our favorite tour players use, so it gives us that feeling of playing what the pros play. A small part of me would feel that I would be playing with a “corked bat,” if you will if the pros play with rolled back golf balls and we have the “juiced,” version. Either way change is always a hard thing especially when it is something we love so much. I hope it doesn’t happen but will still continue to love the game no matter what happens.

 

... Interesting take and I am sure quite a few share your opinion. That said, I don't think any first time to golfers even know what anyone plays let alone wishes to play what the Pros play. If anything that comes down the road. Playing what pro's play has never entered my mind since they get everything for free and actually get paid to use equipment. If they all paid for their own balls and chose Vice, Maxfli, Snell, etc that might hold some mild interest for me but it would still always come down to what works best for my game and at what price. Having tested the Maxfli Tour and ProV1 side by side the performance was very similar for me and paying $110 for 2 dozen ProV1's and $70 for 2 dozen Maxfli Tours is an easy decision. If I got them free my decision might be different, but if I got paid for my choice that would be a no brainer. 

... We are just giving opinions and there are no wrong opinions of course   but I just don't understand the thinking behind "corked bat" or "juiced" ball.  There is illegal equipment and balls out there already that do just that. But nothing is changing for anyone that plays golf other than the elite and even then much less than .1% in the entire world. They will be using a modified ball, not the rest of us. I can reach my 489 yd par 5 in two with a good tee shot and good second shot. Miss either even a little and I am not on the green. Rolling back MY ball means I am not reaching that green ever and something I have no interest in. Otoh, Pros would reach this 477 yd par 5 in two with a short iron or even a wedge since there is a downslope they can take advantage of around 280 yds from the tee. Watching Rory and Scottie hit 420 yd drives in Match play lets us know rolling their ball back means they will still reach with a mid iron. It certainly won't hurt them other than club selection but it would be a game killer for Am's. 

[Beakbryce]

Rory came out and indicated he supports a ball rollback. He would be fine hitting it shorter. If that had already happened, we would not have had Rory's tee shot on the 18th hole in this weeks match play, a shot that may well be the shot of the year so far.

[fixyurdivot]

7 hours ago, jtowns43 said:

I think it is more "relatable" when you have access to all of the same equipment as the pros.  I also think they have way bigger things that they should be spending their time on than rolling back the ball.  Not being able to move your ball out of a divot or ballmark from the middle of the fairway seems like one of the worst rules in sports.  Basketball hasn't raised the hoops as players have gotten taller and more athletic.  Just make the rough taller and thicker, the greens faster, and have more trees in areas to prohibit them from taking the corners.  There are plenty of other things that should be tried first IMO

But they (USGA and R&A) don't have immediate control over those options.  No argument from me on trying other much less disruptive and controversial options.  To my knowledge neither of the governing bodies have advocated the tours and courses adopt changes to address "the distance problem".  Clearly the tours and their hosts love the market benefits of the long ball and don't agree that it's an issue.  

Someone mentioned that the tours can simply not adopt a limited distance ball, basically send the UGSA/R&A the "your #1 with us" salute.  If this is true, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

8 hours ago, MaxEntropy said:

Right, but there are clear markets for those 14 balls. Adding a couple "pro only" models that they likely won't sell to the public means they may have to eat the cost (or pass it on to people like us). The unknown factor to me right now is how many pros actually pay for balls? I honestly have no idea, but have always assumed not many do.

Someone else pointed this out earlier and I agree that we consumers will end up paying for all or a portion of the limited distance balls.  I'd be willing to pay the extra cost if we get the 15% added to the balls we use. 

 

 

[Yellow Ball]

On 3/23/2023 at 3:20 PM, GolfSpy_BOS said:

Easy... you paint it yellow!  right @Yellow Ball?! 

For most you are correct. For me, paint her pink. That turns me on!