Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[Big moose]

23 minutes ago, RetiredBoomer said:

My post on the subject has been deleted so I'll try again.

The USGA has succeeded in making itself totally irrelevant to me.

My gang plays everything as a lateral.  We don't want to slow up play.
We take preferred lies as we play mostly scrambles lately.
Many of us have groove sharpening tools which eventually gouge the grooves out of conformity.
I have enough current model Pro V1s to last me until I die.
And, to put a cherry on top, I have a fifteen slot cart bag.

The USGA and R&A, the latter assuming the role of lapdog since giving up the 1.62" ball,
are the recognized sanctioning bodies; I suppose nothing will change that.

They don't pay our golf expenses, though,  so they're not going to diminish my enjoyment of the game.

 

 

I totally agree with you, I am also retired and so are most of the guys I play with. I don't care what ball my friends are playing just like they don't care what I'm playing, I also have enough balls to last me until I can't play anymore or die. We also play prefered lies. Golf is supposed to be fun for us hackers so why do they want to take the fun out of the game. 

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, RetiredBoomer said:

The USGA has succeeded in making itself totally irrelevant to me.

Do you play any golf courses that have benefited from the USGA's turf management and water conservation research?  Do you care whether your grandchildren take up the game, maybe benefit from the First Tee program?

[GolfSpy_APH]

2 hours ago, RetiredBoomer said:

My post on the subject has been deleted so I'll try again.

The USGA has succeeded in making itself totally irrelevant to me.

My gang plays everything as a lateral.  We don't want to slow up play.
We take preferred lies as we play mostly scrambles lately.
Many of us have groove sharpening tools which eventually gouge the grooves out of conformity.
I have enough current model Pro V1s to last me until I die.
And, to put a cherry on top, I have a fifteen slot cart bag.

The USGA and R&A, the latter assuming the role of lapdog since giving up the 1.62" ball,
are the recognized sanctioning bodies; I suppose nothing will change that.

They don't pay our golf expenses, though,  so they're not going to diminish my enjoyment of the game.

 

 

Your new thread was taken down as there is already this thread about the subject. We don't want duplicates of the same controversial threads. 

Before making a new thread we advice using the search function to see if there is an existing thread so posting can take in a central location.

[RetiredBoomer]

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Do you play any golf courses that have benefited from the USGA's turf management and water conservation research?  Do you care whether your grandchildren take up the game, maybe benefit from the First Tee program?

 

Fair questions, Dave, but I don't have grandchildren and my adult children don't play.

I'm sure the USGA has its place in the game.
They're not going to diminish my enjoyment of it, however.

They seem to care about Bryson more than me, so we can each continue to do our own thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chisag]

14 minutes ago, RetiredBoomer said:

I'm sure the USGA has its place in the game.
They're not going to diminish my enjoyment of it, however.

we can each continue to do our own thing.

 

... Hasn't it always been like that? I rarely get paired up with anyone playing 100% by the rules. Breakfast ball, moving out of a divot, rolling the ball in the fairway and or rough, illegal grooves/driver faces/balls, cleaning mud off a ball that lands in a wet sprinkler area, switching balls on the green and a myriad of other rules ignored by those just looking to enjoy playing 18 holes for fun, without keeping a handicap or playing competitively. Some play by the rules but many more do not, so I just don't see how the new ball rule will be any different. 

 

[RetiredBoomer]

2 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

I rarely get paired up with anyone playing 100% by the rules. 

 

At our club, we get to make our own pairings while eating breakfast.
I think I'd get shell shocked if I had to play at a busy course with only pre-arranged tee times.
I suppose the weekends are like that, but we're weekday players.

Sometimes, if conditions look too challenging, we say screw it and play cards instead.  

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, RetiredBoomer said:

They're not going to diminish my enjoyment of it, however.

I speak only for myself, but losing a couple of yards due to changes in the ball won't ruin my enjoyment any more than losing 10s of yards as I get older.  

[RetiredBoomer]

6 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I speak only for myself, but losing a couple of yards due to changes in the ball won't ruin my enjoyment any more than losing 10s of yards as I get older.  

 

It's not the two or three yards, Dave.

It's using the one hundredth of one percent of the people who play as the standard to determine the rules.
My position is that the elite players should play under the rules established for recreational players, not the other way around.

It won't bother everybody, obviously, but it rubs me wrong.
Just as the grooves rule changes rubbed me wrong.
Just as eliminating the old R&A standard 1.62" ball rubs me wrong.

I'm just sharing my opinion as others have done.

 

 

 

[cnosil]

9 hours ago, RetiredBoomer said:

It's using the one hundredth of one percent of the people who play as the standard to determine the rules.
My position is that the elite players should play under the rules established for recreational players, not the other way around.

Most sports rules are defined by the performance of the elite and not the recreational player.   
 

recreational players are most often the ones that adapt the rules to how they want to play.  While some play as the rules read there are many others; like yourself, that see the game as a social activity and do what they want.   For those that do what they want why do the published rules even matter if you have no intention of following the ones you don’t like? 

[pbclub]

On 8/1/2024 at 7:59 AM, Big moose said:

I totally agree with you, I am also retired and so are most of the guys I play with. I don't care what ball my friends are playing just like they don't care what I'm playing, I also have enough balls to last me until I can't play anymore or die. We also play prefered lies. Golf is supposed to be fun for us hackers so why do they want to take the fun out of the game. 

Agree 1000% here. We also have a mulligan a side and play ready golf. 

[pbclub]

On 8/1/2024 at 1:42 PM, RetiredBoomer said:

Sometimes, if conditions look too challenging, we say screw it and play cards instead.  

Its really great to have friends to do that stuff with. All on the same page. True blessing. 

[pbclub]

On 8/1/2024 at 1:35 PM, chisag said:

 

... Hasn't it always been like that? I rarely get paired up with anyone playing 100% by the rules. Breakfast ball, moving out of a divot, rolling the ball in the fairway and or rough, illegal grooves/driver faces/balls, cleaning mud off a ball that lands in a wet sprinkler area, switching balls on the green and a myriad of other rules ignored by those just looking to enjoy playing 18 holes for fun, without keeping a handicap or playing competitively. Some play by the rules but many more do not, so I just don't see how the new ball rule will be any different. 

 

You are correct. This has been my experience as well.  I guess it will only problematic is if there are no non conforming balls for sale. Otherwise it will be what it is. 

[MissionMan]

I agree that they are out of touch with the average golfer. If I take our course, I am fortunate enough to be a longer hitter, we're not talking anything like the pros, I'm in the 260 - 280 camp.

The average golfer on our course is in a very different position. A large percentage of the par 4’s are unreachable in two for them. The par 5’s are tough for them to reach in 3, so I think it's going to be a little soul destroying for them if they are hitting a driver into our longest par 3 and are still going to be short.

[chisag]

5 hours ago, MissionMan said:

I agree that they are out of touch with the average golfer. If I take our course, I am fortunate enough to be a longer hitter, we're not talking anything like the pros, I'm in the 260 - 280 camp.

The average golfer on our course is in a very different position. A large percentage of the par 4’s are unreachable in two for them. The par 5’s are tough for them to reach in 3, so I think it's going to be a little soul destroying for them if they are hitting a driver into our longest par 3 and are still going to be short.

 

... Again, maybe fun to debate but I think we need to wait and see how the roll back ball performs. I will be shocked if an average Am in the 90mph and below swing speed can tell any difference at all in distance. And those in the 90-100mph swing speed may only experience a slight difference with their longest drives hit dead center. I know I am beating a dead horse but quality of swing and strike will still have a much larger effect on distance than the speed of the roll back ball. Guys on Tour and Elite Ams that hit the center most of the time and drive the ball consistently will feel the effect although by how much remains the big question. But those that can't reach a par 5 in three probably won't be able to tell any difference at all. 

... Here are a few balls in the MGS test last year and you can see at least a 10-14yd difference right now for slower swing speeds. So in theory a rolled back Maxfli Tour X losing even the maximum 3-5yds (which remains to be seen) will still be longer than a non conforming TP5. 



 

[MissionMan]

3 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... Again, maybe fun to debate but I think we need to wait and see how the roll back ball performs. I will be shocked if an average Am in the 90mph and below swing speed can tell any difference at all in distance. And those in the 90-100mph swing speed may only experience a slight difference with their longest drives hit dead center. I know I am beating a dead horse but quality of swing and strike will still have a much larger effect on distance than the speed of the roll back ball. Guys on Tour and Elite Ams that hit the center most of the time and drive the ball consistently will feel the effect although by how much remains the big question. But those that can't reach a par 5 in three probably won't be able to tell any difference at all. 

... Here are a few balls in the MGS test last year and you can see at least a 10-14yd difference right now for slower swing speeds. So in theory a rolled back Maxfli Tour X losing even the maximum 3-5yds (which remains to be seen) will still be longer than a non conforming TP5. 



 

For someone hitting their driver under 180, 5 yards is a big difference. It’s also 5 yards on two or three clubs on a hole, so a par 5 is going to play 15-20 yards longer. That’s a big difference for some people. 

[chisag]

3 hours ago, MissionMan said:

For someone hitting their driver under 180, 5 yards is a big difference. It’s also 5 yards on two or three clubs on a hole, so a par 5 is going to play 15-20 yards longer. That’s a big difference for some people. 

 

... Oh I agree with you MM, and of course if it were anywhere near 5 yds that would be a very big difference for someone driving the ball 180. But according to the USGA it will be 2yds on average with a driver. And again, that is only balls hit dead center with their best swings. Missing the center a little distance there should be no difference at all. And irons will lose less yards than driver so maybe with 3 well struck shots a slow swinger may lose 3-5 yds total for all 3 shots if hit near perfectly. As I posted earlier, the difference in golf balls available right now can be 14yds for a slow swing speed. Heck 15yds would be a huge disadvantage for me as a + index because I can reach two of the par 5's with good drives and losing 15 yds would make them much more difficult for me. 

... I just think we know very little until we finally get rolled back balls in our hands and play them. Will someone that slices/hooks lose zero yards? What about higher or lower trajectories? Will increasing/decreasing driver loft make up for the 1-3yd difference? Will dimple designs reduce spin and some actually gain yardage? There is just so much we don't know other than those with the highest swing speeds will lose measurable yardage. 9-11yds is very different than 1-3yds. 

Edited August 4 by chisag

[MissionMan]

3 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... Oh I agree with you MM, and of course if it were anywhere near 5 yds that would be a very big difference for someone driving the ball 180. But according to the USGA it will be 2yds on average with a driver. And again, that is only balls hit dead center with their best swings. Missing the center a little distance there should be no difference at all. And irons will lose less yards than driver so maybe with 3 well struck shots a slow swinger may lose 3-5 yds total for all 3 shots if hit near perfectly. As I posted earlier, the difference in golf balls available right now can be 14yds for a slow swing speed. Heck 15yds would be a huge disadvantage for me as a + index because I can reach two of the par 5's with good drives and losing 15 yds would make them much more difficult for me. 

... I just think we know very little until we finally get rolled back balls in our hands and play them. Will someone that slices/hooks lose zero yards? What about higher or lower trajectories? Will increasing/decreasing driver loft make up for the 1-3yd difference? Will dimple designs reduce spin and some actually gain yardage? There is just so much we don't know other than those with the highest swing speeds will lose measurable yardage. 9-11yds is very different than 1-3yds. 

Agree. Worth waiting. I do think it's not going to have the desired effect though. Its a problem that will impact 99% of golfers and the 1% who hit over 300 won't really be impacted much anyway. You think Bryson is going to care much if his 340 yard drive goes 330 yards?

To me, the way to solve those problems is making some changes on the course that make it a risk vs reward approach for the golfers. If you can hit a 300+ drive accurately, then there should be a reward because we (as spectactors) want to see these kinds of players and shots. But the punishment for failing should make the player taking the shot question whether the smart play is to have a wedge in. You could make the rough thicker, put in additional water etc.

Edited August 5 by MissionMan

[NM01]

26 minutes ago, MissionMan said:

Agree. Worth waiting. I do think it's not going to have the desired effect though. Its a problem that will impact 99% of golfers and the 1% who hit over 300 won't really be impacted much anyway. You think Bryson is going to care much if his 340 yard drive goes 330 yards?

To me, the way to solve those problems is making some changes on the course that make it a risk vs reward approach for the golfers. If you can hit a 300+ drive accurately, then there should be a reward because we (as spectactors) want to see these kinds of players and shots. But the punishment for failing should make the player taking the shot question whether the smart play is to have a wedge in. You could make the rough thicker, put in additional water etc.

Agree it’s. It goin to have the deposited effect. Dr. Sasho McKenzie has said the same as have some other experts.

to your last paragraph the pga tour doesn’t care about that. They want longer drives and lower scores. It’s what sells on tv and draws the viewers. If the pga tour was concerned about distance and challenging the golfers they would put more tees all the way to the back, grow the rough and slow the fairways. But that’s not what their fan base wants to see

[RetiredBoomer]

Frankly, I blame the OEMs, although they know more about marketing than I do,
and that must be what impacts their decision.

I would like them to be a bit more defiant of the USGA and make high quality, brand name equipment non-compliant with USGA equipment rules.   

Hot ball, 1.62" diameter "wind ball," high cor faces, cover shredding grooves, anything that recreational players might enjoy playing.

However, if they thought that would sell, I'm sure that they'd be doing it already.
The companies that do make that stuff are not exactly elite craftsmen in the Mizuno / Titleist class.

It's not that the complaint equipment isn't great, but it irks me that the USGA doesn't put the recreational player first when coming up with these equipment restriction.    

 

[BIG STU]

 On the deal of overpowering golf courses I could care less. Frankly I like to see the guys hit 350+ drives. As far as balls themselves there are billions and billions of balls out there conforming to todays standards. I for one will not buy reduced distance balls.   An old crippled up fart like me needs all the distance I can get.

I know the final verdict is not in with regards to specs etc. But unless the USGA or the PGAT supplements the manufacturers then I do not seeing it much into reality. After all on the broad spectrum of things less than 2% of all people playing this game play on an professional level or stipulated events

[cksurfdude]

Not sure yet but .. if I'm still around .. and if I'm still able to golf .. I'll probably opt for conforming equipment.

The thing that bugs me a little is consider the tremendous, years long R&D efforts that are going into designing, engineering, formulating and manufacturing these new rollback golf balls -- then consider who pays for all of that. Not the pros who are sponsored .. it's we the recreational consumer who does.....

[BIG STU]

6 hours ago, cksurfdude said:

Not sure yet but .. if I'm still around .. and if I'm still able to golf .. I'll probably opt for conforming equipment.

The thing that bugs me a little is consider the tremendous, years long R&D efforts that are going into designing, engineering, formulating and manufacturing these new rollback golf balls -- then consider who pays for all of that. Not the pros who are sponsored .. it's we the recreational consumer who does.....

Does anyone really know how they propose to roll back the ball? I know a lot of balls these days use aerodynamical tricks for distance and flight and then I know there are tricks with the core and cover layers.

There is also a debate these day on both sides about compression. I know for me with a slower SS the ball seems to compress more with a soft cover and reduced compression and for me it helps distance. I do know some say this day in time with the modern ball compression does not make any difference

[BIG STU]

On 8/1/2024 at 2:12 PM, RetiredBoomer said:

 

Fair questions, Dave, but I don't have grandchildren and my adult children don't play.

I'm sure the USGA has its place in the game.
They're not going to diminish my enjoyment of it, however.

They seem to care about Bryson more than me, so we can each continue to do our own thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like your attitude on doing your own thing--- I am the exact same way

[d.lama]

5 hours ago, BIG STU said:

Does anyone really know how they propose to roll back the ball? I know a lot of balls these days use aerodynamical tricks for distance and flight and then I know there are tricks with the core and cover layers.

There is also a debate these day on both sides about compression. I know for me with a slower SS the ball seems to compress more with a soft cover and reduced compression and for me it helps distance. I do know some say this day in time with the modern ball compression does not make any difference

It's a testing change of ball. If I read it correctly ... The new test hits the ball harder and the new ball must launch higher and spin less

Old: 120 mph (equivalent to 176 mph ball speed), 2520 rpm with a 10-degree launch angle.
New: 125-mph clubhead speed (equivalent to 183 mph ball speed); spin rate of 2200 rpm and launch angle of 11 degrees.

[d.lama]

14 hours ago, BIG STU said:

 On the deal of overpowering golf courses I could care less. Frankly I like to see the guys hit 350+ drives. As far as balls themselves there are billions and billions of balls out there conforming to todays standards. I for one will not buy reduced distance balls.   An old crippled up fart like me needs all the distance I can get.

I know the final verdict is not in with regards to specs etc. But unless the USGA or the PGAT supplements the manufacturers then I do not seeing it much into reality. After all on the broad spectrum of things less than 2% of all people playing this game play on an professional level or stipulated events

If these guys want to tune their body to hit the crap out of the ball and have the skill to hit 350+ yard drives, they can go for it. The USGA (and I agree) believe that it shouldn't be the ball to that makes that happen, so they are changing the ball test.

I bet the next step will be to reign in the trampoline and MOI effect that modern clubs exhibit.

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, d.lama said:

It's a testing change of ball. If I read it correctly ... The new test hits the ball harder and the new ball must launch higher and spin less

Old: 120 mph (equivalent to 176 mph ball speed), 2520 rpm with a 10-degree launch angle.
New: 125-mph clubhead speed (equivalent to 183 mph ball speed); spin rate of 2200 rpm and launch angle of 11 degrees.

From my reading of the test the ball is setup to a specific spin and launch condition then the ball tested can only go a specific distance.  

[ILMgolfnut]

1 hour ago, d.lama said:

I bet the next step will be to reign in the trampoline and MOI effect that modern clubs exhibit.

Those things are already limited. The 10K MOI that a couple of the OEMs are touting is that limit, and coefficient of restitution (which quantifies the trampoline effect) has been limited for quite a few years. Will they dial it back some more? That probably depends on whether the golf ball rollback is effective.

Somebody told me that the rules also limit smash factor to 1.50 (i.e., clubhead speed of 120 producing ball speed of 180), but in reading through the rulebook of both the USGA and R&A I find nothing about that. Maybe the intent of the COR and MOI limits is to curb smash factor, but it's not explicitly stated that I can find.

Edited August 8 by ILMgolfnut

[cnosil]

4 minutes ago, ILMgolfnut said:

 

Somebody told me that the rules also limit smash factor to 1.50 (i.e., clubhead speed of 120 producing ball speed of 180), but in reading through the rulebook of both the USGA and R&A I find nothing about that. Maybe the intent of the COR and MOI limits is to curb smash factor, but it's not explicitly stated that I can find.

I have seen nothing that limits smash factor specifically.  The limitation is the CT measurement which essentially translates to smash factor and the trampoline effect.  

[ILMgolfnut]

6 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I have seen nothing that limits smash factor specifically.  The limitation is the CT measurement which essentially translates to smash factor and the trampoline effect.  

Right. I couldn't think of CT (because "characteristic time" is such a weird description). CT is limited to 257 microseconds for the driver including a ~7% tolerance. They still check COR on fairway woods though. Could they dial back CT some more? Hide and watch.

Edited August 8 by ILMgolfnut

[MBernGolfs]

Personally, I’m in favor of keeping the golf balls as they are and maintaining a level playing field for everyone.

Golfing is a sport that has always been about tradition, and part of that tradition is the skill required to master it.  I like that I have the same chance and same set of equipment (albeit older) as the professionals to get par on each hole.  It makes sense that advancements in technology have made it possible for pros to hit the ball farther than ever, but I believe the cornerstone of the game lies in the balance of power and strategy.