Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[NM01]

On 2/24/2024 at 12:39 PM, d.lama said:

You are trying to dispute it every time you say, 'well athletes!'  The old equipment could not give the same speeds off the face and the ball could not react like it does now. Some examples are how fast the ball came off the face when Rory hit the old driver at the Scottish open (he said he smashed it) It came off the face 12.5mph slow than when the Rory hit his driver 1min later. Same athlete, did he suddenly become a better athlete within minutes? Later at the Emirates, multiple players teed off with old school steel/titanium drivers. Rory was only able to get the ball going 171 with a Callaway from around 1996, Tyrel got it going 172 with a smothered pull-hook into the left tree's, Højgaard got one up to 177 - his normal ball speed is 194 off his modern driver. They were all hitting modern balls, give them a tour ball from 1995 and the speeds would have been slower. 

I’ve never disputed it. I and everyone has agreed that equipment and ball changes between 2000-2003 played a role in an Increase in distance. What’s being said is since the current equipment and conforming standards have been put in place there hasn’t been an increase in distance at the top end. At one point where was a decrease in 2013 when the top end distance was only 306. That wasn’t a trend just like Rory’s 326 last year isn’t a trend.

On 2/24/2024 at 12:39 PM, d.lama said:

The issue isn't that they are going to go over 180 it's that the modern equipment has allowed the ball to come off the face at 180. 181.1 in Rory's case at the Scottish and 194 for Højgaard.

On 2/22/2024 at 10:12 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

Ok but what problem has that created?

On 2/24/2024 at 12:39 PM, d.lama said:

So what, some shorter hitters have always tried to hit it further and some shorter hitters played with their shortness and upped their other skills. What does that have to do with modern equipment being faster? 

The modem equipment has been the same for 20 years, it shows that the increase in average speed isn’t coming from the equipment anymore but the golfer developing the skill to hit it further and test it’s a skill, but distance alone doesn’t win on tour, it’s the other skills the players have that helped them win. It it was purely about distance then all The wins would come from the top 25 but it doesn’t, it’s the guys that have ball striking skills and yes they all hit more than pw and 9i into par 4s and more than mid irons into par 5s, Scottie scheffler

Is a great example he leads in all strokes gained stats except putting. If he could actually putt be would be having a Tiger like career.

On 2/24/2024 at 12:39 PM, d.lama said:

They 'are' swinging away with the modern 460cc driver, you just don't think they are. With the older equipment they would swing away on occassion; but it was a high-risk-reward situation, mishit it a bit and you were in trouble, smash it and the ball flew 168mph vs the 160mph that it did with the control swing. With modern drivers and balls, guys swing at full steam ahead all day long and it's not an issue. 

They are not swinging away with the modern driver. If they would Finau would be near 200mph ball speed rather than 180.

rory woukd be over 190 as would any of the guys that are currently in the 180 and above club. If they were swinging away there would be more unbalanced swings and they would all look like the long drive guys with their swings.

even Bryon’s on course swing isn’t all out. 
 

They are all swinging at a speed that gives them control, even cam champ has dialed his swing back. If they were swinging away swing speed wouldn’t have dropped the last two years on tour.

On 2/24/2024 at 12:39 PM, d.lama said:

Distance and ball speeds have changed from the time the USGA distance insight began the data analysis going back 40 years, you keep picking more recent times from 2000 on or 2019-2021 for your argument, why are you ignoring 1980-2000? And as far as the Champions tour guys are concerned, they are hitting it farther at old age than they did in their athletic prime from 1990, that's weir

Again nobody is disputing this. It’s a weak argument to say distance is goin to keep increasing if the current equipment and ball were left alone at the current conforming standards. We have zero data that supports that with the current equipment are going to see max distance increase in the next 20 years. We have plenty of data from 2003 til now that shows it won’t. What we know and has been stated by the USGA is that average distance has increased because of the golfer not the equipment. It has increased because of things like speed training by the shorter hitters like Fitzpatrick. Bryson played a role in it too. He was a 297ish guy when he came on tour. Then he trained hard in the gym and for speed and gained distance yet the top end distance on tour stayed the same. What we know is that average distance will go up because shorter hitters especially the guys in the upper 30s and in their 40s who don’t hit the ball far will eventually be off the tour and will be replaced by younger golfers who hit it 300 rather than 280. While that average goes up because more golfer hit it 300 the top end won’t.

With all of that said there is still no dat that says the pro golf game or elite male competition has a problem.

nobody has said what the distance problem actually is outside of things like sustainability which has been disproven by studies showing courses aren’t getting longer for public courses or on tour. Others have said that it’s because the pros hit it past challenges on fb the course, but that’s not an actual problem it’s a preference for a small minority for how they preferred the game to be played. Some have said it’s because the pro game is boring, but data that shows ratings increased in 2023, the tour is $2billion dollar business and attendance is still up show that there are more people that like the current game than those who find it boring and lastly the pga tour,  dp world tour and others aren’t the ones leading a push to rollback. If there was an issue on tour with distance they ones running the events would be front and center asking for a change.

Reply if you want but I’m over the same claims being made over and over and then showing they aren’t supported by data along with saying that because golfers are swinging faster today than the 90s or 80s she’s they are swinging away when in reality the guys who have speed have more in the tank and aren’t actually swinging away and it’s been shown by Dr Mackenzie to be the case as well and that the guys with speed will make the adjustments and get their distance back

[fixyurdivot]

3 hours ago, TylorJudd said:

Why not move up tee boxes? I’m not trying to be rude, nor inconsiderate, but as you would be approaching 70 by the time this takes effect, that would more than likely even itself out. At 3.5, you’re no slouch around the course, but the body does what the body does over time. This is something non of us have control over, and making assumptions here, won’t prevent any of us from playing this great game. If all out distance is how you enjoy this game, then maybe it’s time to find other ways to.
 

Not speaking to anyone specifically here, but if we can’t break or shoot par from the tees we’re playing, then we should move up a box. Myself sitting at a 3.5 don’t play the tips at every course because it’s insanity sometimes, or at courses I struggle with. 
 

Look at the TP5/x this year, if that actually provides the half club it claims, do we think that’s ok? Our technology advances at an exponential rate, so we have to take that into consideration. 

I certainly could Tylor but why be forced to do so for a problem that does not involve us?  You do understand that is the crux of my and many others argument regarding the rollback - right?  In what other sport are we asked to give up hard earned gains in individual performance?  Many of us could  increase our odds of earning a sub 70 badge by playing from the most forward tees... but doing so would mean nothing to me.  

Further, what benefit is there in players moving up tee's for reasons other than losing distance due to aging, injury, etc.?  We all can plainly see the black and, to a great degree, blue tees are in pristine condition at most courses.  If we all move up a tee to offset rollback, does all this already low use real estate somehow change course layouts, maintenance costs, etc.?

This rollback will do nothing in terms of changing the game for pro's and elite amateurs.  If it  lowered tour scoring averages/round so what?  The USGA and R&A are quoted as saying they are doing this "to protect the integrity of the game". The goal of the game is to score as low as possible... or at least we thought so.

The ball rollback is a solution in search of a problem... and one with a very nebulous basis at that (exactly what integrity are they protecting?).  To your last point, just freeze equipment limits where they are currently.  That will leave only player capability as the wildcard which they will never be able to control anyway.

 

[fixyurdivot]

4 hours ago, d.lama said:

Those poor 63 year old's that played the game, prior to 1993 ... how could they ever handle hitting slower equipment, how did the game survive. Also, the estimates are that you will probably lose 3-5 yards with the ball rollback, unless you swing at 120mph, not the 15 yards you think you will lose. 

If you are trying to be obtuse and confusing, you are doing a good job.  What does comparing players from many decades past have to do with this discussion?  Should we roll back to the game as it was played by Tom Morris?  Would that protect the integrity of the game?  Exactly what change do you expect to see in professional tour golf after the rollback takes effect?

Here's the bottomline for me. Performance gains at our level are hard fought. I don't want to lose even 1 yard of average distance to solve a perceived problem that I am not part of. 

[ILMgolfnut]

The Athletic took a look at (both sides of) this issue back in December. Seems like a pretty reasoned analysis. It's paywall but you may be able to get around it.

https://theathletic.com/5114481/2023/12/06/golf-ball-rollback-pga-tour-recreational/

If you can't read it, Cliffs Notes version: The three options were roll it back for everyone; bifurcate to affect the pros but not Joe Amateur; or do nothing. They didn't think nothing was an option; despite the claims of some on this thread, courses like Pebble Beach and the Old Course are on the verge of becoming obsolete for the bombers. The original plan was to bifurcate, but OEMs and Tour players screamed bloody murder at bifurcation, although why Tour players should care escapes me (unless they think it will cost them their nice little Titleist and Bridgestone ball contracts). However, Rory and Tiger are on the side of the roll back, with Rory noting (a) that there is already bifurcation; if you think your equipment/balls are the same as the pros', you're kidding yourself, and (b) that it will make essentially no difference to the average player. And if it does make a difference, play the yellow tees instead of the white tees. Rory also points out that the massive distance gains have made the pros less skillful; shots they had to hit 20 years ago aren't needed any more when they're bombing it 40 yards longer.

[NM01]

1 hour ago, ILMgolfnut said:

hey didn't think nothing was an option; despite the claims of some on this thread, courses like Pebble Beach and the Old Course are on the verge of becoming obsolete for the bombers

The isometric thing as obsolete. It’s a term people like to use to talk about long hitters being able to clear obstacles on a course that the people talking about obsolete don’t like. There is no course that challenges all golfers equally and never has been one. Longer hitters have always had an advantage over shorter hitters. Nobody was comparing a kit jack hitting to spots at Augusta that weren’t part of the intent of the designer. 
 

The old course like most link courses are at the mercy of the weather. When it’s calm scores can go low and when the weather is bad they can get high, nobody says they should stop holding the open at the old course because of high scores and bad weather.

It’s also ok if those courses were to never be used again for majors. Their history and memories at those courses won’t go away or be diminished. The Open and U.S. Open will still happen and golf will survive. But if the old course is a problem for the current game why did the USGA select it for the Walkers cup. If short courses are an issue why does the USGA use courses for their open qualifiers that are sub 7000?

1 hour ago, ILMgolfnut said:

The original plan was to bifurcate, but OEMs and Tour players screamed bloody murder at bifurcation, although why Tour players should care escapes me (unless they think it will cost them their nice little Titleist and Bridgestone ball contracts).

Incorrect. The original plan proposed in 2022 was to rollback for everyone but the manufacturers and the industry pushed back and said it was bad for golf. So the RBs proposed the MLR and the tour along with PGA of America said we aren’t going to use it. The RBs then reverted to the original decision.

Nobody wants bifurcation. Golf is the one sport that allows all levels of golfers to play by the same rules and use the same equipment and it allows all skill levels to compete against one another using handicaps.

1 hour ago, ILMgolfnut said:

However, Rory and Tiger are on the side of the roll back, with Rory noting (a) that there is already bifurcation; if you think your equipment/balls are the same as the pros', you're kidding yourself, and (b) that it will make essentially no difference to the average player.

Those in favor are doing for selfish purposes. Tiger was in favor of it as a player for the same reason Rory is and we know Rory’a reason beaches be said in an interview it gives the longer players an advantage. The longer players will have a mid iron in their hand on par 4s while the shorter players will have hybrid and woods into the same hole. We know from strokes gained attas that on longer courses the long hitters have a bigger advantage from a strokes gained perspective and a rollback is the same as lengthening a course

There is no bifurcation between the tour and the regular golfer. All their equipment matches the same specs as the retail equipment, balls match the same materials, construction and specs as the retail balls. Those who think the your guys play some kind of different equipment are looking for ways to make excuse for why the aren’t as good or why the tour players are so great. I can go to someone and have them mill me a club and as long as it meets the conforming specs despite it’s one off (no different than one offs on tour) it’s still matches what everyone else is doing.

1 hour ago, ILMgolfnut said:

Rory also points out that the massive distance gains have made the pros less skillful; shots they had to hit 20 years ago aren't needed any more when they're bombing it 40 yards longer.

There is still skill needed, it’s just different skills than pros from the 90s or before had to play. Golf is still hard even at the pro level. If it was easy there would be more people that are good at it and on tour the guys outside the top 50-75 would be winning more or playing better.

[Another Steve]

7 hours ago, cnosil said:

No one knows what the loss will be; there is only speculation.  I haven't seen any actual ball data and if you have please provide the reference.   Todays manufacturing processes are better and therefore their are smaller error tolerances which means equipment is more consistent and better.   Two clubs from the era you are referring to could perform significantly different.   Comparing a player hitting a modern club versus a random 90s era club  shows nothing as that persimmon club made today would be significantly better.  

The point people are making is that there is no reason to roll anything back.  They don't believe there is a problem with the game and equipment has already been regulated.   They also believe that once rollback starts they will continue to rollback other pieces of equipment.   The increased distance over the last 20ish years is more about the player than the equipment.  Pre 2000/current equipment regulations is  was more about the equipment.   

I vehemently disagree! I am driving the ball as far as I did in 1994…. But I am 30 years older, 150 pounds fatter, and a whole lot less flexible!!!! Yes, it IS the equipment…. I am driving it a bit shorter now than I did in 2005 with the same TM R580 so there’s evidence that father time has indeed taken his toll. So I traded up to a newer driver and am nearly back to my early 2000’s distance off the tee. 

Edited February 26 by Another Steve

[cnosil]

3 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

I vehemently disagree! I am driving the ball as far as I did in 1994…. But I am 30 years older, 150 pounds fatter, and a while lot less flexible!!!! Yes, it IS the equipment…. I am driving it a bit shorter now than I did in 2005 with the same TM R580 so there’s evidence that father time has indeed taken his toll. So I traded up to a newer driver and am nearly back to my early 2000’s distance off the tee. 

There have been charts posted that show  a large jump in distance between 1992 and 2004 because of equipment...large drivers, titanium drivers, and switch from wound ball to multipiece balls.    Since then there have been equipment limitations put in place (ball and clubs).  Pro's are not gaining significant distance since equipment regulations were put in place in 2004.  While the "center" of the face is limited, club designers have improved the performance for off center hits.   You are gaining distance because of equipment and more forgiveness.   Pro's are gaining distance because they are on average swinging faster.   

[NM01]

16 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

I vehemently disagree! I am driving the ball as far as I did in 1994…. But I am 30 years older, 150 pounds fatter, and a whole lot less flexible!!!! Yes, it IS the equipment…. I am driving it a bit shorter now than I did in 2005 with the same TM R580 so there’s evidence that father time has indeed taken his toll. So I traded up to a newer driver and am nearly back to my early 2000’s distance off the tee. 

Nobody has said that equipment didn’t lead to a distance gains after 2000 with the prov1 and then in 2003 with bigger drivers.

Hank Kuehne averaged 321 in 2003, Rory has an outlier year last year at 326, the longest person after him was at 321. Distance at the top has stayed anywhere between 306-321.

Average distance went up 10 yards over the last 20 years in tour because more golfers started training, better technology with launch monitors helped down in clubs, better manufacturing process, but as the USGA said the gains in average game from the golfer themselves.

In the 80s average distance increased using the same equipment of that era by 10 yards.

Ade you enjoying the game more now compared to back then or less?

Edited February 26 by RickyBobby_PR

[Another Steve]

Well many ARE giving the majority of the credit to golfers woking out to gain speed and distance and I feel that my fat self is the poster child to disprove that….. I don’t disagree that the pros getting fitter helped them but I still give equipment most of the credit across the board - not just the pro game. 

Wasn’t it late 90’s that Jack suggested that the  ball and equipment needed reigned in? I understood his reasoning and agreed back then just as I do now. The USGA has been unsuccessfully trying to freeze ball performance since the 1940’s. Somewhere here i gave a chronological list of what they tried and failed. I don’t care how far the pros hit the ball or if they toss weights and stretch and whatever else to get more clubhead speed…. I believe that golf is supposed to be a hard game and that the equipment improvements - balls and clubs - have lessened the skill needed to play the game.  
 

I am enjoying the game the same as I ever did. I enjoy feel of the clubhead hitting the ball. I enjoy watching the ball fly. I enjoy watching it check up on the green. I enjoy a well stuck pitch or chip. I love the sound of a ball rattling in the bottom of the cup. I love putting on greens with mounds and ridiculous breaks. If I’m 230, 250, or 280 off the tee I’m good with it cuz I have a bunch of bent sticks in my bag that I can use to whack the little white ball towards the cup. The only time I care about score is if I am somehow competing with someone and even then would prefer match vs stroke play. It’s me vs …. Well me most of the time I am on the course. 
 

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go chase some clouds off of my lawn!  

 

Edited February 26 by Another Steve
Because my iPhone causes some stuff just randomly disappeared

[NM01]

27 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

Well many ARE giving the majority of the credit to golfers woking out to gain speed and distance and I feel that my fat self is the poster child to disprove that….. I don’t disagree that the pros getting fitter helped them but I still give equipment most of the credit across the board - not just the pro game. 

When the equipment and the ball along with the confirming specs are the same for 20 years and distance goes up it’s not the equipment. Really not that hard of a concept to understand. The USGA also admits it as the reason, so not that hard to believe when the data supports it.

29 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

Wasn’t it late 90’s that Jack suggested that the  ball and equipment needed reigned in? I understood his reasoning and agreed back then just as I do now. The USGA has been unsuccessfully trying to freeze ball performance since the 1940’s. Somewhere here i gave a chronological list of what they tried and failed. I don’t care how far the pros hit the ball or if they toss weights and stretch and whatever else to get more clubhead speed…. I believe that golf is supposed to be a hard game and that the equipment improvements - balls and clubs - have lessened the skill needed to play the game.  

Jack has harped on the ball for longer than just the 90s. The USGA froze ball distance with the current ODS that has been in place for 20 years and it did what it’s supposed to do. They also changed from CoR to CT in 2004. Equipment has been frozen for 20 years another point that proves it’s the golfer not the equipment. You don’t care how far they hit and yet want them to. It hit is as far. It can’t be both. Golf is still hard. Watch the best in the world struggle every week, watch pros miss the cut, watch pros lose their playing status. Golf is hard, it’s on the golfer to find ways to make it less hard.

 

[TylorJudd]

7 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

I certainly could Tylor but why be forced to do so for a problem that does not involve us?  You do understand that is the crux of my and many others argument regarding the rollback - right?  In what other sport are we asked to give up hard earned gains in individual performance?  Many of us could  increase our odds of earning a sub 70 badge by playing from the most forward tees... but doing so would mean nothing to me.  

Further, what benefit is there in players moving up tee's for reasons other than losing distance due to aging, injury, etc.?  We all can plainly see the black and, to a great degree, blue tees are in pristine condition at most courses.  If we all move up a tee to offset rollback, does all this already low use real estate somehow change course layouts, maintenance costs, etc.?

This rollback will do nothing in terms of changing the game for pro's and elite amateurs.  If it  lowered tour scoring averages/round so what?  The USGA and R&A are quoted as saying they are doing this "to protect the integrity of the game". The goal of the game is to score as low as possible... or at least we thought so.

The ball rollback is a solution in search of a problem... and one with a very nebulous basis at that (exactly what integrity are they protecting?).  To your last point, just freeze equipment limits where they are currently.  That will leave only player capability as the wildcard which they will never be able to control anyway.

 

I don’t for a second believe this is purely based on protecting the integrity of the game, but I do believe it is becoming terribly expensive for golf courses to operate and the golf has to be foremost in our minds. You tell me where an OEM has greater margins, the equipment. They can’t enforce anything too great in this aspect without making a terribly large effect on the game, and the games largest companies. They make hand over fist more dollars on drivers and putters over the balls they manufacture.

I understand that distance is the largest crutch for most players, but what is in your control are things like tee boxes. I’m merely saying there are other options to level this back out, if you don’t want to use them, that’s your choice. Nobody can make you enjoy the game but yourself, and the ball rollback just seems like something so insignificant that should have no ability to change ones enjoyment of this game. With how technology is pacing forward, by the time we get to 2030 and the roll back,  I bet drivers are already longer enough to get us the distance we are seeing today with the new balls.

We’re also incredibly privileged to even play this sport, with many out there just happy enough to be able to hit a ball around a course regardless of how far it goes. This just doesn’t deserve this much energy, specifically in a negative connotation 

[TylorJudd]

10 hours ago, silver & black said:

I could move up to the women's tees and still not shoot even/under most times.

I quit keeping a HC a few years ago. My last HC was at 8.3.... not the best player, but certainly good enough to get around a golf course and have fun.

I think considering tee boxes by Juniors, Women’s, and Men is a problem for how we judge ourselves, but we have all certainly had the days where playing from the fronts just wouldn’t make a difference on how we’re playing that day

[NM01]

6 hours ago, TylorJudd said:

I don’t for a second believe this is purely based on protecting the integrity of the game, but I do believe it is becoming terribly expensive for golf courses to operate

Golf courses aren’t going to shrink their property either thru selling land or letting certain parts go unmaintained because of a rollback. Back tees are used less than 5% of the time so that part of the course is already being maintained and not used. It’s been shown in data courses aren’t getting longer so there really isn’t this sustainability aspect to maintain more property. 
 

6 hours ago, TylorJudd said:

I understand that distance is the largest crutch for most players, but what is in your control are things like tee boxes. I’m merely saying there are other options to level this back out, if you don’t want to use them, that’s your choice. Nobody can make you enjoy the game but yourself, and the ball rollback just seems like something so insignificant that should have no ability to change ones enjoyment of this game. With how technology is pacing forward, by the time we

What about the ones that are already playing the most forward tees? Where do they go? And you’re right nobody can make you enjoy the game and nobody should be telling people where to play from and how to enjoy the game by being closer. The ball rollback is a bad idea. It solves nothing at the pro level which is really what the ruling bodies want and it causes more issues than it fixes at the regular golfer level. This boils down to the ruling bodies wanting to protect a handful of courses for their opens. They don’t like the modern game and want to dictate how people play good which is what you are saying nobody should tell anyone how to enjoy the game

6 hours ago, TylorJudd said:

With how technology is pacing forward, by the time we get to 2030 and the roll back,  I bet drivers are already longer enough to get us the distance we are seeing today with the new balls.

If this is the case then why rollback if we are just going to be in the same spot? If distance is regained then the rollback solved nothing.

Theres no data that supports some magic large increase in distance over the next 5,10,15 years with the current equipment. Will the average go up? Sure because there are guys who hit the ball 290 or less that will eventually be replaced by guys hitting 300 so when more people do the samething the average goes up 

Edited February 26 by RickyBobby_PR

[fixyurdivot]

11 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

When the equipment and the ball along with the confirming specs are the same for 20 years and distance goes up it’s not the equipment. Really not that hard of a concept to understand. The USGA also admits it as the reason, so not that hard to believe when the data supports it.

Which begs the question "what is the real reason they are doing this?"  Is it to reduce average scoring on tour?  Will 30 feet shorter drives make Pebble Beach and the Old Course defendable?  Will it change "bomb & gouge" from driver/wedge to driver/9i?  Ultimately what really changes that will matter to either how the pro game is played, ecomomics of course operations, or otherwise?  Will new course layouts get smaller/shorter?  This whole vanilla "protect the integrity of the game" seems to be cover for something. 

If anyone has found some follow-up details from Whan and Slumbers, please share.

[NM01]

16 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Which begs the question "what is the real reason they are doing this?"  Is it to reduce average scoring on tour?  Will 30 feet shorter drives make Pebble Beach and the Old Course defendable?  Will it change "bomb & gouge" from driver/wedge to driver/9i?  Ultimately what really changes that will matter to either how the pro game is played, ecomomics of course operations, or otherwise?  Will new course layouts get smaller/shorter? 

 

I think part of it is scoring but more so in majors. It’s all about money. They have guys like Jack and Tiger along with other big name course designers who are being paid by a course owner to develop a course that can host a pga tour even and/or a major. These people feel that the only way to challenge the pro golfer is via distance. So the course owner complains more land is needed, the designers chirp in saying the same thing, rather than place a challenge at 300-320 to make the golfer think they just want longer holes.

Then there is the desire to hold onto a handful of courses for the two majors hosted by the RBs, which is where the score along with their despise for the modern golfer comes from. So they want to protect these handful of courses for their tournaments rather than doing what they have always done and find new courses. The ruling bodies and pro golf are at odds. The pga tour is selling an entertainment product while the RBs claim to be about the game of golf yet every decision they’ve made outside of the recent rule changes has been about optics. The anchored putter ban was about a couple guys winning a major despite that being a rarity they didn’t want to see that keep happening. The groove rule which they have pretty much admitted was a bad decision by not announcing the 4 year warning period. All it did was get the manufacturers to stop making the old grooves and did nothing to affect the pro game.

16 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

This whole vanilla "protect the integrity of the game" seems to be cover for something. 

If anyone has found some follow-up details from Whan and Slumbers, please share.

Based on comments on wrx on the subject it’s not the integrity of the game it’s small minority that want to see the course played as the designer intended. Yet there are golfers who can’t play it like it was designed because they don’t hit the ball far enough so they are more challenged than others. Nor can they answer the question about designed for who. Or from what tee box. If I’m a long hitter and after the rollback I move up a tee box and still can get past the challenges presented by the course what was solved.

Slumbers is retiring so we kind of know his stance. He wants nothing to do with the mess he helped create. Watching interviews with Wahn it’s easy to see he doesn’t believe everything he’s saying, has made several slips about the process and has admitted that they don’t know if they got it right. So they are just hoping and praying at this point. Their statements about doing nothing not being an option tells you the comment period was going to have no impact on their decision

[skraeling]

im just annoyed at the potential my 236yd avg drives will become 206yd average drives.  dumb, sucks, dont like it, dont want it, wont adhere to it.

[cnosil]

5 minutes ago, skraeling said:

im just annoyed at the potential my 236yd avg drives will become 206yd average drives.  dumb, sucks, dont like it, dont want it, wont adhere to it.

Where/how did you compute that your current 236 average will become 206?     Most predictions that I have seen will make your 236 average about 230.      

[skraeling]

4 minutes ago, cnosil said:

Where/how did you compute that your current 236 average will become 206?     Most predictions that I have seen will make your 236 average about 230.      

assuming worst case scenario here.  Also expecting that any reduction will hit an amateur much harder than a pro.

[NM01]

4 minutes ago, skraeling said:

assuming worst case scenario here.  Also expecting that any reduction will hit an amateur much harder than a pro.

There is data from testing that shows a 221 yard drive losing 11 yards and was downplayed by the USGA saying it will only be 3-5, yet the USGA has yet to publish any of their test data to show the world they are correct.

We shall see but I do expect that it will be more than 3-5 yards for the slow swinger. 
 

Theres test data out there that shows a 7% reduction for the fastest swinger is also a similar reduction of 5-7% for the slower swinger. 

Edited February 26 by RickyBobby_PR

[TylorJudd]

3 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Golf courses aren’t going to shrink their property either thru selling land or letting certain parts go unmaintained because of a rollback. Back tees are used less than 5% of the time so that part of the course is already being maintained and not used. It’s been shown in data courses aren’t getting longer so there really isn’t this sustainability aspect to maintain more property. 
 

What about the ones that are already playing the most forward tees? Where do they go? And you’re right nobody can make you enjoy the game and nobody should be telling people where to play from and how to enjoy the game by being closer. The ball rollback is a bad idea. It solves nothing at the pro level which is really what the ruling bodies want and it causes more issues than it fixes at the regular golfer level. This boils down to the ruling bodies wanting to protect a handful of courses for their opens. They don’t like the modern game and want to dictate how people play good which is what you are saying nobody should tell anyone how to enjoy the game

If this is the case then why rollback if we are just going to be in the same spot? If distance is regained then the rollback solved nothing.

Theres no data that supports some magic large increase in distance over the next 5,10,15 years with the current equipment. Will the average go up? Sure because there are guys who hit the ball 290 or less that will eventually be replaced by guys hitting 300 so when more people do the samething the average goes up 

Where does the 5% number come from? The back tees in my region are used by the most golfers, and thus we should take this in more of an all encompassing lens.
 

It’s not an argument of maintaining the property they currently have, yet having to find more property to make themselves longer. That also is not a sustainable model.

For those already playing from the foremost tees, it’s a tougher situation, but one would assume the larger majority that should be playing from those tees would have more room for improvement and moving up than those that should be moving down a tee. No numbers to support that, just through honest observation.

You’re completely correct about the ball more than likely doing not much more than protect some courses, but it still boils down to something we have zero control over, no more than a cell phone plan we don’t agree with, or the price of gas. The game of golf as a whole isn’t changing, it’s still an outdoor sport, with a ball and clubs with the same objective. We still have so many choices in which we can circumnavigate this. Stockpile balls from every season until then, that will buy you more seasons afterwards. Don’t play at all is another choice, bend your clubs stronger. There is absolutely no data to support how technology will improve distance in the future since we don’t have that tech yet, but we know society evolves at an exponential rate and that has numbers to support it. They have to roll something back, otherwise it’s a compounding effect, the ball and driver together have become a lethal combination for distance increases, period. I personally, as of just last season, saw increases of just over 35 yards on average going from a Callaway X2 Hot to a Paradym Triple Diamond with ProV1x. If we compound that again in 2030 we have the ability, as a community, to drive and eclipse the 400 yard mark. 
 

Golfers are getting longer, not courses. That’s true through various methods, but evolution is inevitable, and it is a braver choice to say that some advancements in technology aren’t for the greater good of this game. 

[chisag]

10 hours ago, TylorJudd said:

We’re also incredibly privileged to even play this sport, with many out there just happy enough to be able to hit a ball around a course regardless of how far it goes. This just doesn’t deserve this much energy, specifically in a negative connotation 

 

... Well said. I think it would be interesting to give a dozen reduced distance balls to most of the Make Golf Great Again conspiracy zealots on this thread without telling them they are reduced distance balls, just a new DTC ball MGS wants them to play and review. If the USGA is correct in a 3-5 yd loss my guess is none of them would even know it is a reduced distance ball. At my level of play I am pretty sure I wouldn't know the difference between a 267yd drive and a 263 yd drive on any given hole. Swing, quality of strike, face angle, path and AoA will have a much greater effect than a 4yd loss in distance. 

... But nothing we say here will reach them. I have heard far too many times "Nobody wants bifurcation" when everyone I have talked to prefers bifurcation over a universal rollback or don't really care one way or the other. Some act like the USGA will show up at their house in a trench coat and demand their non conforming balls. We certainly don't have to agree with everything the USGA does including shortening the length of a driver shaft, not anchoring a long putter and rolling back the distance a ball travels but they are doing what they think is best for the game and to think the USGA has some ulterior motive other than that is tin hat material.


 

[Another Steve]

So let’s take the discussion outside the box then and discuss other options to manage the equipment/technology race. 
 

 Just throwing this stuff out for the sake of discussion cuz I am sick of the “shorten the ball vs distance isn't a problem” debate.
 

What if i concede that distance isn’t the issue but contend that “forgiveness” is? 

1 - leave the distance specs for the ball where they are

2 - mandate a minimum ball sidespin based on club head speed, face angle at impact, and loft at 0* aoa. 

3 - fix/keep max driver volume at 460cc cuz I can hear the wailing if it were rolled back to say 400cc or so.

4 - set minimum weight for  driver/fairway/hybrid clubheads

5 - reduce moi for all clubheads (possibly freeze  current irons where they are now)

Granted, all of the above would likely bunch up folks panties a whole lot more than rolling the ball back. Would it accomplish the USGA’s “goals” without taking away everyone’s distance? Are some of these ideas part of the USGA “phase two”?

 

 

 

[NM01]

1 hour ago, TylorJudd said:

Where does the 5% number come from? The back tees in my region are used by the most golfers, and thus we should take this in more of an all encompassing le

Superintendents study. By back tees that’s referring to the tips, but just because one region may have that it’s not very common. I play lots of courses and there is never anyone on the tips and many times courses don’t even put the next tee marker all the way back on their normal spots 

1 hour ago, TylorJudd said:

It’s not an argument of maintaining the property they currently have, yet having to find more property to make themselves longer. That also is not a sustainable model

Also not a reality. The superintendents study showed that courses aren’t adding distance and that new courses have been built 274 yards shorter between 2010-2020 than they were previously so the sustainability for more area on a course isn’t something that’s an actual issue 

1 hour ago, TylorJudd said:

The game of golf as a whole isn’t changing, it’s still an outdoor sport, with a ball and clubs with the same objective. We still have so many choices in which we can circumnavigate this. Stockpile balls from every season until then, that will buy you more seasons afterwards. Don’t play at all is another choice, bend your clubs stronger.

You are asking people to make changes and be punished for a problem that doesn’t exist and are being penalized for getting better. There is never a time to penalize hard work. 
 

1 hour ago, TylorJudd said:

There is absolutely no data to support how technology will improve distance in the future since we don’t have that tech yet, but we know society evolves at an exponential rate and that has numbers to support it.

We have 20 years of data that supports that there won’t be a distance explosion under the current standards. Materials, r&d, manufacturing processes, shaft materials and improved manufacturing process, material used in balls and the manufacturing process for them have all changers and improve between 2003 and 2023 and yet top end distance has remained the same and average distance increased 10 yards based on the golfer getting faster not the equipment which the USGA has admitted is the case. So there’s nothing that going to change when CT is restricted and we have the current ODS which most golfers on tour aren’t even reaching. These are what keeps distance under control and despite whatever technology comes it wouldn’t be allowed to surpass these ratings. So distance isn’t going to just blow up out of  nowhere.

Pros and the ams that want to be pros which is really who the the ruling bodies are trying to control and dictate to how golf should be played already understand that there is a give and take and that maxing out speed isn’t going to help them. It’s why the average aoa is -1° on tour and Rory and +5 is an outlier. They want control of the flight and not worried about extra distance. Also why you see a lot of fades with driver. 

 

1 hour ago, TylorJudd said:

. They have to roll something back, otherwise it’s a compounding effect, the ball and driver together have become a lethal combination for distance increases, period. I personally, as of just last season, saw increases of just over 35 yards on average going from a Callaway X2 Hot to a Paradym Triple Diamond with ProV1x. If we compound that again in 2030 we have the ability, as

That’s just a better fit and being optimized setup. I have fit many people into big distance gains by getting them into a better fit than what they had.

The top end distance on the pga tour from the near golfers in the world hasn’t increased in 20 years so despite the claims there isn’t a distance issue.

We also know from actual data that the pros are slowing down their speeds. 2018-2021 swing speeds stayed stagnant and then dropped from 2022-2023. The top end guys with speed aren’t maximizing their speeds and in the case of Finau is giving up 20mph ball speed because going faster isn’t beneficial. The pros have found the sweet spot of distance. If it benefitted the guys making a living off golf to keep increasing distance they would be, but they don’t. There is no course in danger of being “obsolete” or being overpowered by golfers.

 

Edited February 26 by RickyBobby_PR

[NM01]

11 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

So let’s take the discussion outside the box then and discuss other options to manage the equipment/technology race. 
 

 Just throwing this stuff out for the sake of discussion cuz I am sick of the “shorten the ball vs distance isn't a problem” debate.
 

What if i concede that distance isn’t the issue but contend that “forgiveness” is? 

1 - leave the distance specs for the ball where they are

2 - mandate a minimum ball sidespin based on club head speed, face angle at impact, and loft at 0* aoa. 

3 - fix/keep max driver volume at 460cc cuz I can hear the wailing if it were rolled back to say 400cc or so.

4 - set minimum weight for  driver/fairway/hybrid clubheads

5 - reduce moi for all clubheads (possibly freeze  current irons where they are now)

Granted, all of the above would likely bunch up folks panties a whole lot more than rolling the ball back. Would it accomplish the USGA’s “goals” without taking away everyone’s distance? Are some of these ideas part of the USGA “phase two”?

 

 

 

1. The ruling bodies said this wasn’t and option

2. Currently controlled with 120mph swing speed, 10* launch and 2520 spin, been this way for 20 years

3. currently in place and nobody has suggested going bigger. but the ruling bodies are coming for the driver when they can figure out how to not make it bad for all golfers

4. Driver head weighs are pretty much already controlled. They are around 200g

5. MOi is already set at 5900, never been any talk about changing irons. The distance issue the ruling bodies have is with distance off the tee. Irons aren’t about distance but rather distance control.

 

So not really out of the box thinking since this is where we currently stand and what most golfers want to keep. The ruling bodies don’t like the long ball

[CalvinD]

I don't get why they can't just do a MLR for the PGA that says they only get a max 1.5" tee or so. Done deal. That alone takes off 20-30 yards. Then they don't have to mess with anything else.

[d.lama]

3 hours ago, skraeling said:

im just annoyed at the potential my 236yd avg drives will become 206yd average drives.  dumb, sucks, dont like it, dont want it, wont adhere to it.

Your 236 will probably become 233. What made you think you'd lose 30 yards? 

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

3. currently in place and nobody has suggested going bigger. but the ruling bodies are coming for the driver when they can figure out how to not make it bad for all golfers

And, as noted in John Baraba's excellent "Alternatives" article, they are already discussing limiting driver size on tour (basically mini drivers) and possibly fewer than 14 clubs.  Those using any modicum of critical thinking about this know that the ball rollback will not safeguard the "integrity of the game".  So to all those who abhor the thought of bifurcation, are you also okay with adopting these changes...so you can play like the pros?

[d.lama]

1 hour ago, Another Steve said:

So let’s take the discussion outside the box then and discuss other options to manage the equipment/technology race. 

 Just throwing this stuff out for the sake of discussion cuz I am sick of the “shorten the ball vs distance isn't a problem” debate.

What if i concede that distance isn’t the issue but contend that “forgiveness” is? 

1 - leave the distance specs for the ball where they are

2 - mandate a minimum ball sidespin based on club head speed, face angle at impact, and loft at 0* aoa. 

3 - fix/keep max driver volume at 460cc cuz I can hear the wailing if it were rolled back to say 400cc or so.

4 - set minimum weight for  driver/fairway/hybrid clubheads

5 - reduce moi for all clubheads (possibly freeze  current irons where they are now)

Granted, all of the above would likely bunch up folks panties a whole lot more than rolling the ball back. Would it accomplish the USGA’s “goals” without taking away everyone’s distance? Are some of these ideas part of the USGA “phase two”?

I did think that this is the direction they'd take rather than the ball first. It's far too easy to hit the extreme toe of a driver and only lose a couple yards (sometimes gain from a low spin bomber). 

I was also wondering if they may do a matrix of some sort. Want a 46" driver shaft then head must be 210g without weights. want to max out at 48" then head must be 230g without weights. Or Maybe a loft based matrix, want to play a 7° loft then the MOI = ###. Or maybe want a 48" shaft then the driver head maxes out at 430cc. All of those would add headaches for rules officials and testing though. 

[NM01]

37 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

And, as noted in John Baraba's excellent "Alternatives" article, they are already discussing limiting driver size on tour (basically mini drivers) and possibly fewer than 14 clubs.  Those using any modicum of critical thinking about this know that the ball rollback will not safeguard the "integrity of the game".  So to all those who abhor the thought of bifurcation, are you also okay with adopting these changes...so you can play like the pros?

Yeah. There’s never been a situation where someone ever said we are going to implement X to solve a problem. It’s a starting point to further restrictions.

If the RBs were actually concerned with distance they would have actually rolled it back to where it actually made a difference, but they went this route to say we tried to do something and it didn’t work and now we have to do more so then next step will be to reduce drivers, then because of technology they will have to do fairway woods and hybrids.

I doubt the tours will go for a bifurcated situation of smaller drivers and less clubs.

If the ruling bodies were so confident that the new ball was going to be better for the game they could have paid Bridgestone to make it since Bridgestone was one of the companies that said they would make a reduced distance ball. Then the RBs could have hosted a tournament with the ball and show everyone how great it is.

Or instead of saying since all the feedback wanted one ball so we are going to abandon the mlr, they could have run the two opens with a ball and all the USGA amateur events and showed everyone 

Edited February 26 by RickyBobby_PR

[NM01]

50 minutes ago, CalvinD said:

I don't get why they can't just do a MLR for the PGA that says they only get a max 1.5" tee or so. Done deal. That alone takes off 20-30 yards. Then they don't have to mess with anything else.

An MLR doesn’t get created for just the PGA tour, an MLR is applied to the rules for everyone. Then the committee of a the event determines what if any MLRs are applied ie preferred lies, out of bounds is 2 strokes and drop where crossed, one ball rule.

The PGA tour isn’t going to go for an MLR that causes bifurcation which is why they said no to the MLR for the ball