Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[squirrel211]

MY opinion, and you don't have to share it, is that this is a problem for a very select few "shots."  E.G. The second shot on #13 at Augusta.  Augusta wanted to maintain the same risk/reward that had been historically made that shot part of the identity of Augusta National.  With guys hitting it farther, they chose to lengthen the hole.  There are some historic courses that may need to do something similar if they wish to maintain the nostalgic element.  Ultimately, this is a problem for PGA Tour venues ONLY.  The contests are competitor vs competitor, so the fairness hasn't changed, and the spirit of the game is still very much intact. 

The thing that REALLY irritates me though, is the messaging behind it.  The USGA & R&A have made statements and given interviews where they made both of the following statements:  "This is necessary for the sustainability of golf"   "Amateurs will notice less than 5 yards difference with their drivers, and no difference below their 5 irons."  Well, which is it?  Will golf die if the ball isn't rolled back, or will we barely notice the difference?!  The R&A guy was talking about water usage and saving the planet, but at the same time touting that amateurs will mostly not be affected.

These governing bodies are acting like politicians, and I'm shocked that nobody in the media is calling them out on their BS. 

If you think there is ANY validity to the rollback, let me ask you, how many people do you see playing the tips at your local club? 

[DaveP043]

12 hours ago, storm319 said:

Actually, the USGA listed the 125 mph speed in their March 2022 area of interest notice

Thanks for correcting me, I always prefer using the real information.  To some extent, this shows that nobody should have been surprised when this test criteria is announced 18 months later as the final decision.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, Mackey said:

This is a bunch of B.S.!  They are not taking a big enough change to make the old master courses, pro viable again.   They could freeze the ball distance like they did with driver C.O.R..  Ball companies would shift to making balls softer to be straighter off the tee, longer with irons and give better feel.  They could limit compression i.e. softer is shorter.  The last few years the U.S.G.A. and R&A have lost track of who they serve.  They are not the professional golf association they need to let the tours control their events and let the rest of us enjoy our fun.  The new rules to speed up golf were great and should have gone further.  Most golfers play divots as g.u.r. and play o.b. and all hazards as a lateral hazard & cart path only days are lift clean and replace.  Give us back our square grooves and let us anchor our putters if we want to.  Golf is meant to be fun for everyone.   We don't expect to become pros we just want to have fun.  They could make the pros play smaller drivers 425c.c. should take the 5% off and leave us alone.

The old courses aren’t coming back ever. They can’t host a pga tour event because they don’t have the space for all the hospitality tents, they lack infrastructure at and around the course to support the event and the lack clubhouse space and amenities for the pros. It has nothing to do with distance. Maybe if the ruling bodies keep going with all these dumb rules for distance and take golf back to the 80s and people stop watching and going to events those courses can be used again because they won’t need as many tents, there will be plenty of parking and the locations could handle less people for the week.

COR hasn’t been used since 2004 it’s CT now and believe it or it there has been a freeze on the ball for 20 years and there has been no talk of changing it to go longer. 
 

BTW they never took away your square grooves. Unless a specific tournament has an mlr in place the square grooves are still legal because the ruling bodies haven’t given the 4 year notice and I doubt they ever will

[Jeremy26]

I'm not gonna pull any punches here. Yes, I hate it. Yes, it will make the game less enjoyable. Yes, I could see where it could make me think of quitting the game. I'd say 90% of the 40 or so guys that I regularly play with feel the same way. We've all said we're going to be stockpiling balls until this goes into effect. It's not just the distance loss that blows, it's the curvature that will come with it. I've watched analysts on the Golf Channel that talked about how the new ball will spin more and increase movement in draws and fades. That sounds terrible. Bifurcation was the answer, but like Rory said, money wins. Ball companies were never gonna agree to adding significant manufacturing costs. So, long story short. I hate everything about it.

[squirrel211]

1 hour ago, Mackey said:

This is a bunch of B.S.!  They are not taking a big enough change to make the old master courses, pro viable again.   They could freeze the ball distance like they did with driver C.O.R..  Ball companies would shift to making balls softer to be straighter off the tee, longer with irons and give better feel.  They could limit compression i.e. softer is shorter.  The last few years the U.S.G.A. and R&A have lost track of who they serve.  They are not the professional golf association they need to let the tours control their events and let the rest of us enjoy our fun.  The new rules to speed up golf were great and should have gone further.  Most golfers play divots as g.u.r. and play o.b. and all hazards as a lateral hazard & cart path only days are lift clean and replace.  Give us back our square grooves and let us anchor our putters if we want to.  Golf is meant to be fun for everyone.   We don't expect to become pros we just want to have fun.  They could make the pros play smaller drivers 425c.c. should take the 5% off and leave us alone.

The ball is already frozen.  The testing is 317 yards (with 3 yard margin = 320 yards) of distance as tested with a 120 mph club head speed, launch angle of 10 degrees, and 2,550 rpms of spin (or something like that).  Equipment has not produced faster ball speeds since 2004.  Even then, it was just a change in how the limits were measured. 

[golffun]

When you look at the expected results by swing speeds.  The maximum expected distance reduction with a driver is 15 yards and that is a one time reduction or at least it seems that way.  maybe there's more to come ??   Given the .56 yds gained per year as the PGA said has been gained over the last 30 years, they would have to do this again in 30 years to stay at the expected distance result from their suggested distance adjustment.   Who knows...   IMHO  if we just continue on with no adjustment to the ball..    and  think about going back to the club lengths and lofts (irons) of 30 years ago, would be an interesting study..  Thanks for all you do ....   jy  

[squirrel211]

1 hour ago, FmrCaddie13 said:

For pros: narrow and stop rolling/double cutting fairways. Grow rough thicker. Make accuracy a premium. As a single digit hdcp 51 y/o  playing the proper tees and still averaging  260 driving  thru gym work & speed training losing 10 yds sucks. Bad job USGA/R&A.

Been playing for 40 years so too hooked to quit the game but for newer players, especially if changes are coming to drivers as well (less hot face, smaller head size) the powers that be may severely damage efforts to grow the game.

Exactly!!!  I don't remember any instances in recent memory where my drive bounded down the fairway 30-40 yards.  It's typically about 4-5 yards past the ball mark; on soft days the ball is usually about 6" backwards from the ball mark!

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, FmrCaddie13 said:

For pros: narrow and stop rolling/double cutting fairways. Grow rough thicker. Make accuracy a premium. As a single digit hdcp 51 y/o  playing the proper tees and still averaging  260 driving  thru gym work & speed training losing 10 yds sucks. Bad job USGA/R&A.

Been playing for 40 years so too hooked to quit the game but for newer players, especially if changes are coming to drivers as well (less hot face, smaller head size) the powers that be may severely damage efforts to grow the game.

Yes those would affect distance and has been shown in a shirt study by dean snell.

the catch is the pga tour could do that if they wanted to but they don’t do it because they are selling distance as their entertainment product for pro golf. Long drives and low scores is what their audience wants. So would they change.

The ruling bodies don’t like it so they are forcing the pros to hit it shorter rather than just leaving the game itself alone.

 

1 hour ago, MacAndrews said:

It's past time they seriously addressed this. Elite players, professional and amateur, do play a different game than the rest of us. 

Please give these elite players a different ball. Restrict them from using equipment that flies the ball more than 300 yards (woods/hybrids).

Make/keep classic venues relevant again. Longer courses = longer rounds and higher costs. Isn't golf already expensive and time-consuming? 

I can't believe this reality has been punted down the road for so long.

Classic courses aren’t irrelevant because of distance. They are irrelevant on the pro circuit and the majors because of how big golf has gotten. There is a need for sponsor tents, hospitality tents, more fans equals need for more parking and infrastructure. Those classic courses can’t support that and many weren’t used in the 90s before the supposed distance problem was a thing.

A scratch golfer doesn’t play the same game as a 10 handicap. A 10 handicap doesn’t play the same game as a 20 handicap. Pros are better than a scratch by a lot that’s why they are pros. Nobody says make the nfl game different than college or high school because they play a different game. Nobody says change soccer because the best in the world are better than the average player.

Pro sports are to showcase the talent of the pros. If someone doesn’t like a product don’t buy it, don’t watch it, don’t go to the events. But businesses don’t change their successful products because a small amount of people don’t like it.

i see many say I watch the lpga because their games are more relatable. The lpga golfers including the middle of the road ones are leaps bette than amateur men golfers. I have friends that are 0-3 hdcp who occasionally play with lpga payers who are in the middle of the pack and they get beat by 10 shots without the lpga player breaking a sweat. So even these ladies don’t play the same game as the guys who hits 240-260 off the tee or my one friend who is 300 off the tee

51 minutes ago, John Marchetto said:

I would prefer a freeze to the current standard. Much of the difference now, especially at the "tour ball" level is spin rate. Everyone is talking PGA, but this is a USGA rule that affects the amateur. Also, what if LIV doesn't conform? Will there be two sets of pro equipment? Another option on the tour is to reduce the par on certain courses from 72 to 70 making par 5s into long 4s; make fairways tighter, grow rough higher for tournaments. 

There is always a freeze and has been for quite awhile so that wish is granted until 2028 when the pros get the rollback and 2030 for the rest of us.

I play a tour level ball as do many others and spin rates vary for each and everyone one of us. Many would be surprised to learn that pros like more spin compared to less. Spin is people’s friend.

The suggestions about how to change course design would impact distance to an extent but what many are forgetting is the pga doesn’t want to reduce distance.

at no point in time has the pga tour said we have a distance issue nor have they said we need to look at course setup to increase the challenge to the field. They do the opposite most weeks. They promote longer drives and lower scores.

This change is the ruling bodies wanting to change the product of the professional tours to their liking and nothing else.

its why they have chosen to ignore the data presented to them that contradicts their study and data and destroys their position on distance 

35 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

To your last point/question, no one dared mess with the goose that was laying golden eggs.  That goose was named Tiger.  Had this proposal come out in the early 2000's there would be riots in opposition.

Exactly.  The USGA is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.  Two decades plus of club, ball, and ancillary training equipment which was primarily aimed at increasing distance is suddenly an issue at the tour level... all 33 feet.

The game has indeed changed and it did not happen overnight.  The USGA and R&A should simply lock current ball distance limits down and accept the new game their inactions of the past helped create.

The knew that golfers were hitting these same distances Lon before they started their studies. They chose to ignore it. They were part of grow the game and what helped grow the game guys like Tiger who were hitting it far. They want to take 20 years of having the same distance and take it back as a redo to their mistake 

To the last paragraph they had that option by just saying based on industry feedback we are doing away with the MLR and leaving the ball where it’s at. The ruling bodies had never proposed a change that would increase how far the ball can go just like they haven’t proposed a change to CT to allow more distance. 
 

It’s not just about their inactions but also the use of launch monitors, more and better options for fitting rather than back in the day of grabbing a bunch of drivers and finding the one that works best. Then there is the Tiger effect and the move to faster, stronger golfers and the increased use of data like strokes gained.

Every sport grows and changes and golf has done the same while also being the one sport that people of any age can enjoy and play the same way the pros play with the same rules and equipment 

[bsterrett]

Imagine playing a game that takes 50% of the time it currently takes to play 18 holes, for 50% of the cost, on 50% of the land. How? Make a ball that travels 50% farther and spins like crazy. Never going to happen, but entirely possible. It would still be the same game, but with an emphasis on ball striking and controlling the ball, or using the wicked spin to your advantage.

The minimal rollback going into effect by 2030 will mean that in the next 7 years, players will be hitting 350 - 400 yd drives on 8000 yd courses. So if they roll it back, they will only hit the ball 340 - 380. I'll be 70 years old, so my 230 yd drive, will only go 225. Big deal.

[vandyland]

1 hour ago, BobBC78 said:

I'll offer the one-off set sand wedge which Dylan Frittelli had Callaway make to match his Apex irons a couple of years back.

Maverick McNealy also!

https://www.pgatour.com/article/news/equipment-report/2022/05/26/maverick-mcnealy-rare-11-iron-callaway-prototype-blades

[trike11]

I get the points on all sides but the reality is, outside of the top 1%, and I am being generous, it is probably less, the general golfing public is not hitting the ball much further, if at all, than several years ago.

I myself hit it shorter with new technology than I did when I was 25. I used to be 290 off the tee now I am 260-270 on good days. I am happy with 250+ when I play.

[twyatt700]

I just don't understand why everyone is upset- most of the people I play with or are waiting on play the wrong tees as it is. Swallow your pride move up a tee box and lets move on. If the ball goes 5 yards shorts 99% of rec golfers won't notice a difference. If it is that big of any issue then do the stack and work out, I'm sure getting your fat a$$ into shape would get you the distance back and then some.  I just don't understand why everyone is upset about this.

[vandyland]

32 minutes ago, bsterrett said:

Imagine playing a game that takes 50% of the time it currently takes to play 18 holes, for 50% of the cost, on 50% of the land. How? Make a ball that travels 50% farther and spins like crazy. Never going to happen, but entirely possible. It would still be the same game, but with an emphasis on ball striking and controlling the ball, or using the wicked spin to your advantage.

I made this point a few pages back. I think it would be a different game but I would play it. You could fit an 18 hole golf course in a 9 hole footprint (good for metro areas) and likely would carry less clubs. Would make the game

(a) more sustainable/take less land -- if a club had 18 holes they could then re-design 36 holes (that would be expensive for sure but still an option)
(b) more affordable because lower maintenance costs on golf courses
(c) more affordable because fewer golf clubs
(d) encourage more walking and less ridiculous golf carts everywhere because the holes would be much shorter
(e) might be less BRO golfers because a smoked drive would only go 170 yds now. If it somehow was limited 50% for every swing speed (might be hard to do) the gap between the bombers and shorties would be diminished (I think?)
(f) Would likely put more emphasis on putting and short game (I think, which would not be good for me) since if the ball doesn't go as far it wouldn't go as far offline. So you would potentially hit more greens but the hole is still the same size (though your proximity might be closer?)
(g) I don't quite want "wicked spin" but I agree spin should increase a bit

The more I talk about it, the more I like this idea. The 5% rollback just seems to irritate EVERYONE. It isn't enough for some people and it completely offends others that they are coming for their distance and golf balls. It is almost like the USGA managed to find a solution that no one likes. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by vandyland

[twyatt700]

On 2/2/2021 at 6:54 AM, LICC said:

Bifurcation would align with allowing recreational golfers to continue to use the maximum conforming equipment. This is similar to professional baseball using wood bats when everyone else uses metal. You may still disagree with bifurcation, but not because it hurts recreational golfers.

They did that for economical reason's. Amateur baseball players couldn't afford to replace the wooden bats as they broke more often. Metal bats keep getting regulated more and more to reduce the "pop" in an attempt to make then function more like a wood bat. When I was playing in college we had to make a switch to a new bat to help deaden the barrel for safety and fairness. Even in MLB they change the ball to keep up with changes in the game and to keep the competition fair. This is no different. The players on the tour maximized an area of the game, the governing body is reacting to that. They proposed bifurcation but the tours and manufactures threw a fit and so they decided "fine we'll just roll the whole thing back."

 

[Beakbryce]

3 hours ago, EugeGall said:

Professional golf is all about bomb it off the tee and hit a wedge in, rough or not which can pretty boring to watch. Grew up watching players having to be skilful and strategic. Other than off the tee they don’t hit longer clubs in anymore. Maybe the pros don’t like the proposal because they don’t have that skill now, although I find that hard to believe. Bifurcation already exists, we don’t really play the same tech they do, manufacturers just sell that to make us spend. Just my 2 cents worth. 

I agree. You only have to look at the lessons learned from the Luke Donald set up of the course for the Ryder Cup to realize that US pro golfers have gone too far to bomb and gouge. Widely reported the course was set up to take the wedge out of the US hands and force shots in to the green from beyond 175 yards. Predictable loss.

[RickyBobby_PR]

18 minutes ago, vandyland said:

The more I talk about it, the more I like this idea. The 5% rollback just seems to irritate EVERYONE. It isn't enough for some people and it completely offends others that they are coming for their distance and golf balls. It is almost like the USGA managed to find a solution that no one likes. 

Except they are coming for distance and they tell everyone that if people would listen to what they say. The told everyone in the last week they are already looking at the driver, when they do that they will have to make changes for the fairways and hybrids. The ball is just the first step. Its not a conspiracy theory when the ruling bodies tell you their plans.

And yes they did find a solution no one likes and it’s why they should have done nothing. But the ruling bodies can’t get out of their own way

[Beakbryce]

49 minutes ago, bsterrett said:

The minimal rollback going into effect by 2030 will mean that in the next 7 years, players will be hitting 350 - 400 yd drives on 8000 yd courses. So if they roll it back, they will only hit the ball 340 - 380. I'll be 70 years old, so my 230 yd drive, will only go 225. Big deal.

Not to be a rascal, as I am 71, I am here to tell you that if you are still hitting it 225 in 7 years...!

[Aim490]

WOW!  I had no idea this discussion went all the way back to ‘21…

I’m 68 years old, have a 95mph or so driver speed and I’m proud as hell when I “bomb” a drive 240yd in the fairway.  Don’t eff with the ball rules that will affect the average Joe golfer’s distance - even by 5yd.  I can’t stand to lose even 5yd.

IMHO, I don’t compare myself to pros or even good young amateurs who can blast a drive 350+ yds.  It’s incredibly fun to watch them bomb the ball off the tee.  If it’s all about clubhead speed, I salute anyone who can train themselves to swing a driver @ 125mph or higher and feel confident about the result.  If a pro can get over 130mph clubhead speed, they deserve a 350+ yd drive.  That’s what a pro trains endlessly for.  Anyone who can generate that kind of speed deserves whatever distance that results in that awesome bomb under current rules.  I like to see it. Repeat: I LIKE TO SEE IT!

Sorry to shout, but I DON’T WANT ANY ROLLBACK.  THE CURRENT STANDARD IS FINE FOR 99+% OF ALL GOLFERS.
 

[knotthead17]

I find it interesting how many people say they are against the rollback however, they have already voted with their dollars day in and day out by purchasing and playing conforming equipment. You can go out there today and buy a non-conforming golf ball that goes farther and straighter however, most of us don't play that, most of us play a conforming golf ball, why is that? All of the equipment that we currently play is limited, not by physics, but by regulations. I've never heard anyone complain that the limitations of their driver face is making the game less enjoyable.

Up until now I have said that I don't care, but if I had to choose a side, I would choose in favor of the rollback. If we could roll back to golf ball and shrink the size of every golf course by 25% think of the saved cost and resources, I don't think that would make the game any less enjoyable. Yeah, it would take a bit of time to recalibrate our brain from a 300 yard drive, to a 250 yard drive but at the end of the day it will all be relative and out driving our buddies will still feel the same. It could probably help reduce the number of golf balls lost as well. It's pretty hard to see exactly where your ball goes when you're hitting it beyond 320 yards. (I live in Denver, so it's not as far as it sounds. Lol.)

I can't remember the last time I've heard anyone mention how much they hate their wedges, because the grooves are slightly reduced. Do you enjoy the game less because you can't stop your wedges as fast as you did a decade ago? If you want to play with metal spikes, illegal wedge grooves, and golf balls that go farther than they are allowed by the rules of golf go for it, you're not going to hurt anyone, but that shouldn't be the default for everyone.

Rollback yes, bifurcation no. Personally, I would like to play the same equipment as the guys on tour to be able to compare myself to them. It gives me such an appreciation for what they can do and where I am at in relation to them.

[knotthead17]

31 minutes ago, Aim490 said:

WOW!  I had no idea this discussion went all the way back to ‘21…

I’m 68 years old, have a 95mph or so driver speed and I’m proud as hell when I “bomb” a drive 240yd in the fairway.  Don’t eff with the ball rules that will affect the average Joe golfer’s distance - even by 5yd.  I can’t stand to lose even 5yd.

IMHO, I don’t compare myself to pros or even good young amateurs who can blast a drive 350+ yds.  It’s incredibly fun to watch them bomb the ball off the tee.  If it’s all about clubhead speed, I salute anyone who can train themselves to swing a driver @ 125mph or higher and feel confident about the result.  If a pro can get over 130mph clubhead speed, they deserve a 350+ yd drive.  That’s what a pro trains endlessly for.  Anyone who can generate that kind of speed deserves whatever distance that results in that awesome bomb under current rules.  I like to see it. Repeat: I LIKE TO SEE IT!

Sorry to shout, but I DON’T WANT ANY ROLLBACK.  THE CURRENT STANDARD IS FINE FOR 99+% OF ALL GOLFERS.
 

I'm curious, what set of tees do you play?

[Mike13]

At age 61, I’ll be 68 in 2030. I’m a 20 hcp, and a good drive now is 200-225. I’ll be happy if I can see that far in seven years. Btw, I think most of us (new poll anyone ?) are recreational, not amateur, golfers. 
 

Golf On ‍

[knotthead17]

1 hour ago, vandyland said:

I made this point a few pages back. I think it would be a different game but I would play it. You could fit an 18 hole golf course in a 9 hole footprint (good for metro areas) and likely would carry less clubs. Would make the game

(a) more sustainable/take less land -- if a club had 18 holes they could then re-design 36 holes (that would be expensive for sure but still an option)
(b) more affordable because lower maintenance costs on golf courses
(c) more affordable because fewer golf clubs
(d) encourage more walking and less ridiculous golf carts everywhere because the holes would be much shorter
(e) might be less BRO golfers because a smoked drive would only go 170 yds now. If it somehow was limited 50% for every swing speed (might be hard to do) the gap between the bombers and shorties would be diminished (I think?)
(f) Would likely put more emphasis on putting and short game (I think, which would not be good for me) since if the ball doesn't go as far it wouldn't go as far offline. So you would potentially hit more greens but the hole is still the same size (though your proximity might be closer?)
(g) I don't quite want "wicked spin" but I agree spin should increase a bit

The more I talk about it, the more I like this idea. The 5% rollback just seems to irritate EVERYONE. It isn't enough for some people and it completely offends others that they are coming for their distance and golf balls. It is almost like the USGA managed to find a solution that no one likes. 

Well said. I also wonder how many people that are complaining about the rollback are playing from a set of tees that are probably too far back for them already. Why don't they just move up a set of tees to offset the new ball? Most people should probably be moving up a set of tees already, maybe this will help encouraging everyone to start moving up! 

I mean, I wouldn't mind playing from one set of tees for everyone, but that's not the world we live in. It's a made up game with made up rules, but if we change those rules, then we get mad? Do people think that current golf is anything like the original game? Do they think that the game will never change again?

Let's bring back goat pastures, wooden clubs, and handmade golf balls with feathers and leather. Make Golf Great Again. LOL
 

Edited December 13, 2023 by knotthead17

[RonW]

As many have said, I don't understand the pushback against bifurcation. 

Is it going to "hurt" Titleist, Callaway, Taylormade or Srixon ?? I seriously doubt that.

I'm with Chris Nickel (@GolfSpyC) when he stated in the latest podcast that the USGA and R&A are entrusted to look after the game of golf on behalf of all golfers, and this is going to negatively affect 99.9% of golfers. 

[knotthead17]

17 hours ago, Beakbryce said:

Tennis balls, like golf balls have different play abilities especially depending on the tennis surface. If you watch any of the tournaments, they sometimes discuss the different balls and how some balls would be faster or slower, bounce higher or lower off a particular surface. You are absolutely correct though that a tournament uses all the same brand balls for the length of the tournament. What they haven't done is roll back the ball. This despite the fact that players are generally scoring more Aces then 20 years ago. Sound familiar?

If you want to see something funny, watch any tournament with Tracy Austin and Chris Evert , giants of their generation, the ball speeds, and then watch Wimbledon or the US Open tennis matches this year. Night and day. 

Despite huge gains in racquet technology and player physical fitness, they haven't yet limited either ball or racquet, raised or lowered the net, or changed the size of the playing field. Makes one think, yes?

Yeah, even before this conversation, I've always found it interesting that we get to play our own ball that can have drastically different characteristics than our playing partner. Is there any other sport where you get to use your own (intentionally different) ball? Football, basketball, tennis, soccer, rugby, cricket, Jai alai…

[RickyBobby_PR]

10 minutes ago, knotthead17 said:

If we could roll back to golf ball and shrink the size of every golf course by 25% think of the saved cost and resources, I don't think that would make the game any less enjoyable

Nobody is giving land back so courses aren’t going to reduce by any percentage. Courses are already only build to 6700ish yards. 

 

11 minutes ago, knotthead17 said:

I can't remember the last time I've heard anyone mention how much they hate their wedges, because the grooves are slightly reduced. Do you enjoy the game less because you can't stop your wedges as fast as you did a decade ago? If you want to play with metal spikes, illegal wedge grooves, and golf balls that go farther than they are allowed by the rules of golf go for it, you're not going to hurt anyone, but that shouldn't be the default for everyone

The groove rule actually made things better especially for the pros. They aren’t spinning then ball of the greens like they used to and they can control the ball better.

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

6 minutes ago, knotthead17 said:

Well said. I also wonder how many people that are complaining about the rollback are playing from a set of tees that are probably too far back for them already. Why don't they just move up a set of tees to offset the new ball? Most people should probably be moving up a set of tees already, maybe this will help encouraging everyone to start moving up! 

Golf is a game of enjoyment for many. Some prefer the challenge of playing longer distances and trying to improve their scores for those distances. The USGA encouraged that too because amateurs don’t hit the ball far but guess they had a change of heart on that by forcing the regular golfer to play a slower ball.

Trying to tell golfers how they should play or how they can get enjoyment out of the game is no different than what the ruling bodies are doing to the pro tour. It’s up to the individual or organization to determine under the rules of golf how to play and enjoy

[fixyurdivot]

5 minutes ago, knotthead17 said:

Well said. I also wonder how many people that are complaining about the rollback are playing from a set of tees that are probably too far back for them already. Why don't they just move up a set of tees to offset the new ball? Most people should probably be moving up a set of tease already, maybe this will help encouraging everyone to start moving up! 

I mean, I wouldn't mind playing from one set of tease for everyone, but that's not the world we live in. It's a made up game with made up rules, but if we change those rules, then we get mad? Do people think that current golf is anything like the original game? Do they think that the game will never change again?

Let's bring back goat pastures, wooden clubs, and handmade golf balls with feathers and leather. Make Golf Great Again. LOL
 

If some courses want to remake themselves into the pickle ball version of golf as we know it today, fine, but I prefer the game as we know it today.  I still find it amazing how many are willing to accept this ridiculous ball rollback over 33 feet at tour level play.  Fix the problem where there is a problem (at least in the the ruling bodies minds), not where a problem does not exist.

[BigBoiGolf]

12 minutes ago, knotthead17 said:

Well said. I also wonder how many people that are complaining about the rollback are playing from a set of tees that are probably too far back for them already. Why don't they just move up a set of tees to offset the new ball? Most people should probably be moving up a set of tees already, maybe this will help encouraging everyone to start moving up!

Because the people who you think should move up the tees (I play the NCAA tees at Eagle Crest Resort) are not the problem people here. My disabled father who already plays at the front, can't go anywhere because those tee boxes don't exist, and it's a slap in the face from people who chime in "Well I guess he won't notice anything anyways ahyuck!".

If I move up a tee, my handicap index goes back up, because once you get to low single digit, scratch, or plus index level, you're not going from shooting 72 at 7000 yards (+3) to shooting 66 from the 69 rated tee box. It just doesn't happen. The USGA also doesn't get to decide what tee boxes I play from when I'm spending my money.

Edited December 13, 2023 by BigBoiGolf

[Aim490]

Moderator: Please delete this post - I goofed and this wasn’t mean to be posted..My reply is actually below this.

I almost always play the “men’ss tees”, meaning about 5 yd back from the “senior” tees.  I never ever play longer.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Aim490
Mistaken post

[RickyBobby_PR]

10 minutes ago, RonW said:

As many have said, I don't understand the pushback against bifurcation. 

Is it going to "hurt" Titleist, Callaway, Taylormade or Srixon ?? I seriously doubt that.

I'm with Chris Nickel (@GolfSpyC) when he stated in the latest podcast that the USGA and R&A are entrusted to look after the game of golf on behalf of all golfers, and this is going to negatively affect 99.9% of golfers. 

The rollback isn’t looking after the game. Its dictating to the tours golf should be played the way the ruling bodies say it should be played. None of the recent equipment decisions the ruling bodies made are looking after the game. The groove rule had no effect on the game. The banning of anchoring was done for options and hurt golfers at all levels who were able to enjoy the game by putting better thru the use of equipment. This decision will have no impact on the pro game as pointed out by many experts and they will be back in the same situation shortly after the change is in place.