Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[RickyBobby_PR]

5 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I think we can look at some exceptions.  Maybe the top 1% get specially made one off pieces of equipment like you mention about the shaft you made.   Some examples are that some top pros like Tiger have had one off iron sets not offered to everyone through the OEM,  one off Cameron putters like Danielle Kangs.   But as you say,  these are just one offs that still meet official equipment rules and are pieces of equipment that 99.9% of golfers should never consider playing.   I think people think that because the players have better access to fitters and the customizations not generally offered at your local golf store that they all get special equipment.  

Agree and especially with the bolded part.

Any of us with the right tools or contacts can get one off putters made too. The difference between the pros and the rest of us are the costs for the work

[SeniorGolfer]

I have been playing golf for more than 65 years - I love golf! There have been many changes to clubs, balls and agronomy/mowing) during my lifetime, some I liked, others I did not. None of these changes have altered the premise of the game for me - getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes. While I enjoy the technology that has allowed me to keep hitting the ball a long way (relative to my peers), I do not think losing 10 yards from my tee shots is going to have any impact on my scoring or my enjoyment of the game. 

[Rtracymog]

I feel like there are plenty of other things to do instead of rolling the ball back. Soften the fairways, grow the rough, narrow the fairways, use tighter doglegs with more trees, etc. The recreational golfer doesn't hit it far enough anyway. I don't think that companies will be happy with bifurcation either. That means more molds, more tech, more research at different levels and that will cost them more money.  This could end up like the wedge thing where everyone freaked out about the groove rollback and now they spin as much or more than ever. I'll play the waiting game, but I will probably stock up for a while as 2030 approaches.

[ballhawk]

Make the pro's all play this club and the distance problem will really be magnified.........

 

[Middler]

If most amateurs will lose 5 yards off the tee, it's hard to get worked up about it. And if elite pros will lose up to 15 yards off the tee, it's hard to believe it will change scoring much if at all. Rory will still be longer than his peers, so nothing really changes. Seems close to a nothing burger to me. And bifurcation is a bad idea IMO - you spend years improving your game only to graduate to an inferior ball?

This debate has gone on way too long already, do the (trivial) rollback and let's move on.

If the USGA/R&A take steps to forever limit ball distance performance to stop forcing courses to move the tips back, I'm good with that. I am sure ball manufacturers will still find a way to make us think their ball is longer.

Doesn't this mean they have to restrict golf club makers from further distance increases as well.

Will be funny if golf courses start mowing fairways even shorter, and keeping courses drier to enhance distance. I can see the ad copy "your ball will go further here at Bushwood CC."

For anyone who's not a pro, just move up a tee if you're concerned...this isn't rocket surgery.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Middler

[RickyBobby_PR]

25 minutes ago, Rtracymog said:

I feel like there are plenty of other things to do instead of rolling the ball back. Soften the fairways, grow the rough, narrow the fairways, use tighter doglegs with more trees, etc. The recreational golfer doesn't hit it far enough anyway. I don't think that companies will be happy with bifurcation either. That means more molds, more tech, more research at different levels and that will cost them more money.  This could end up like the wedge thing where everyone freaked out about the groove rollback and now they spin as much or more than ever. I'll play the waiting game, but I will probably stock up for a while as 2030 approaches.

Those things would change the distances in some cases, maybe affect the approach off the tee, the problem is that the PGA tour doesn’t want to do that. They are promoting distance with their course setups and don’t have any problems with distance. The ruling bodies don’t regulate how the PGA tour setups up their tournament courses so those type of things won’t get done. Which again gets to the point of there being a distance issue and it actually being the ruling bodies creating a solution looking for a problem

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 minutes ago, Middler said:

If the USGA/R&A take steps to forever limit ball distance performance to stop forcing courses to move the tips back, I'm good with that. For anyone who's not a pro, just move up a tee if you're concerned...this isn't rocket surgery.

This isn’t happening. Championship tees are used only 5% of the time for all of golf and the tours will move tee boxes up and not always play the tee boxes all the way back. These lengthening of courses or need for more land has been debunked in several studies by superintendent association, ngf along with data collection of course construction in the past 10 years that show courses are actually getting shorted and the distance used on tour has remained relatively unchanged in the last 20 years

[fixyurdivot]

6 hours ago, GolfWolf.com said:

I think the rollback is long overdue, too many great courses are becoming obsolete.

Interesting perspective @GolfWolf.com and welcome to the forum.  I too was buying into the statement that excessive distance on tour was making many courses "obsolete"; really meaning too easy to score on.  But as this discussion/debate has evolved over the past few years, and more data is shared from various sources, I no longer believe that is the case.  

Absolutely no doubt that players in the past couple of decades are, on average, much more athletic than decades before. Also no argument that this fact along with advances in equipment technology have resulted in more distance tee to green.  But I do not buy into the argument that an additional 33 feet off the tee (USGA's numbers not mine) is resulting in courses being over-powered and rendered defenseless.  

I'd love to see a list of these helpless, historically played tour courses and how moving drives back 11 yards is going to make these courses up-to-snuff.  

Certainly if tour and elite am's played many of the courses we amateurs play, they would overpower them - even from the longest tee.  I played a pro-am in Yuma, AZ and we watched some pros (these were senior pros on Sunbelt Tour) cutting off doglegs and reaching greens (or nearly so) that 99.9% of amatuers couldn't do on their best day/strike.  Here's the scorecard/layout.  Main tour pros would definitely overpower this course... but it was never designed for them.

You know, it may just be time to retire a few courses from the tour stops.  There are plenty (as in LOT's and LOT's) of newer, longer, beastly courses that are begging for tour interest.  Add some of these and we'll be hearing pro's whine about them being too long and too hard to score on .

So once again, this is a tour player/elite amateur issue... if one agrees that 33 feet is an issue.  It is not an issue for amateurs which represent 99+% of golfers worldwide.  Have you ever noticed how pristine the condition of the longest tee's at courses you play?  There is a reason for that.

Imposing a solution (and not a good one at that IMO) on 99% of golfers that are not part of the problem is ridiculous.

[cnosil]

We kind of touched on this topic during the forum community call yesterday.   @chisagkind of got into this when he had his friend hit different balls and measured the results.    When the ball is rolled back, let’s hypothetically say you lose 10 yards off the tee.   What is your current front to back dispersion pattern in yards for your current tee shots?  

[DaveP043]

14 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

Why would they bother too? They could use all the current rules and ignore the ball rollback.  That sounds like what LIV is planning to do.  Ultimately, that would be the best message the tours could send the USGA and R&A... "thanks for sharing, but no thanks".

It will hinge on what the manufacturers choose to do.  While their public pronouncements say "don't blame us", I don't see this being a big deal to them.  Most manufacturers come up with a "new" ball every couple of years, this will shift their R&D efforts but probably not increase those costs hugely.  They're still going to sell golf balls, and still market their balls the same way, since bifurcation isn't happening.  They'll all still have identical limits to each other, exactly as they have now.  I believe the major manufacturers will conform, which will leave the Tours with no realistic choices.  

And the Tours really won't see a change, a 310 yard drive won't look a lot different to a 330 yard drive.  Again, their complaints may be mostly PR, they don't want to be seen as the bad guy.   But their endorsement money will remain, good players will still make boatloads of money, longer players will still have an advantage.  

I said it previously, and I still believe, the PGA Tour and manufacturers HATED the potential for bifurcation, their responses in March and afterwards are the primary reason the distance reduction was extended to everyone.  A prime example is the Acushnet (i.e. Titleist) response in March:

https://mediacenter.titleist.com/en-US/224086-acushnet-response-to-usga-and-r-a-notice-comment-proposing-golf-ball-bifurcation

I read that, and don't see a objection to reduction in general, only to bifurcation.  Maybe they made those objections in private correspondence with the USGA/R&A, we'll never know.  But NOW they HATE any distance reductions:

https://golfnewsri.com/2023/12/07/titleists-parent-company-issues-lengthy-statement-on-golf-ball-rollback/

Where was this opinion, and the data to back it up, back in March?  If they were opposed to any reduction, why not say it?  That's why I suspect that these releases are as much for Public Relations with consumers as they are intended to influence the Ruling Bodies.

[Javs]

I admit I have not been keeping up with this post. However, did find a interesting article on driver creep.

https://www.golfmonthly.com/gear/what-is-driver-creeping?utm_term=CFEB69DA-8695-406A-822D-71925C4B6E39&lrh=afabd56f8788996dec1eed39e53e29756a4fe34c1aff9fa4fdfa9f254cbb042a&utm_campaign=075440B8-601C-4440-A9B1-8A7444061AA8&utm_medium=email&utm_content=429BE9B6-22C7-43C9-A1BB-8A9149B6A67D&utm_source=SmartBrief

[RickyBobby_PR]

34 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Interesting perspective @GolfWolf.com and welcome to the forum.  I too was buying into the statement that excessive distance on tour was making many courses "obsolete"; really meaning too easy to score on.  But as this discussion/debate has evolved over the past few years, and more data is shared from various sources, I no longer believe that is the case.  

Absolutely no doubt that players in the past couple of decades are, on average, much more athletic than decades before. Also no argument that this fact along with advances in equipment technology have resulted in more distance tee to green.  But I do not buy into the argument that an additional 33 feet off the tee (USGA's numbers not mine) is resulting in courses being over-powered and rendered defenseless.  

I'd love to see a list of these helpless, historically played tour courses and how moving drives back 11 yards is going to make these courses up-to-snuff.  

Certainly if tour and elite am's played many of the courses we amateurs play, they would overpower them - even from the longest tee.  I played a pro-am in Yuma, AZ and we watched some pros (these were senior pros on Sunbelt Tour) cutting off doglegs and reaching greens (or nearly so) that 99.9% of amatuers couldn't do on their best day/strike.  Here's the scorecard/layout.  Main tour pros would definitely overpower this course... but it was never designed for them.

You know, it may just be time to retire a few courses from the tour stops.  There are plenty (as in LOT's and LOT's) of newer, longer, beastly courses that are begging for tour interest.  Add some of these and we'll be hearing pro's whine about them being too long and too hard to score on .

So once again, this is a tour player/elite amateur issue... if one agrees that 33 feet is an issue.  It is not an issue for amateurs which represent 99+% of golfers worldwide.  Have you ever noticed how pristine the condition of the longest tee's at courses you play?  There is a reason for that.

Imposing a solution (and not a good one at that IMO) on 99% of golfers that are not part of the problem is ridiculous.

For the bold there isn’t a need from the pga tour perspective. But from the ruling bodies is appropriate and that’s want this is really about. They want to hold onto 4-5 courses for the two opens. Rather than let them go which they used to do all the time in the past. It’s also about the designers and owners that want to build new courses to try and get a major and their argument that the only way to challenge golfers is with more distance, yet we see places like Marion still provide a challenge to all pros.

12 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

It will hinge on what the manufacturers choose to do.  While their public pronouncements say "don't blame us", I don't see this being a big deal to them.  Most manufacturers come up with a "new" ball every couple of years, this will shift their R&D efforts but probably not increase those costs hugely.  They're still going to sell golf balls, and still market their balls the same way, since bifurcation isn't happening.  They'll all still have identical limits to each other, exactly as they have now.  I believe the major manufacturers will conform, which will leave the Tours with no realistic choices.  

And the Tours really won't see a change, a 310 yard drive won't look a lot different to a 330 yard drive.  Again, their complaints may be mostly PR, they don't want to be seen as the bad guy.   But their endorsement money will remain, good players will still make boatloads of money, longer players will still have an advantage.  

I said it previously, and I still believe, the PGA Tour and manufacturers HATED the potential for bifurcation, their responses in March and afterwards are the primary reason the distance reduction was extended to everyone.  A prime example is the Acushnet (i.e. Titleist) response in March:

https://mediacenter.titleist.com/en-US/224086-acushnet-response-to-usga-and-r-a-notice-comment-proposing-golf-ball-bifurcation

I read that, and don't see a objection to reduction in general, only to bifurcation.  Maybe they made those objections in private correspondence with the USGA/R&A, we'll never know.  But NOW they HATE any distance reductions:

https://golfnewsri.com/2023/12/07/titleists-parent-company-issues-lengthy-statement-on-golf-ball-rollback/

Where was this opinion, and the data to back it up, back in March?  If they were opposed to any reduction, why not say it?  That's why I suspect that these releases are as much for Public Relations with consumers as they are intended to influence the Ruling Bodies.

The OEMs have been providing the data. It was part of their comments back to the ruling bodies during the comment period and they have had conversations with the ruling bodies but it’s she ruling bodies that are choosing to ignore the data provide them and continue to use their own data despite the numerous times it’s been show to be cherry picked and wrong. 
 

This is all on the ruling bodies and nobody else. They want to dictate how the pro game should be played and to push it down to the amateur level to make amatiers change how they play game. Even though they said it’s all because the golfer who has gotten faster and they can’t mandate people not train in the gym, eat properly or speed train. So to get their way of playing golf they create a problem and then convince people there’s a problem and they are working to fix it

[fixyurdivot]

55 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Where was this opinion, and the data to back it up, back in March?  If they were opposed to any reduction, why not say it?

I don't know either but it's hard for me to believe the USGA and R&A did not get the general sentiment from the tours and public... that excessive distance is not an issue (at least a significant one) and that if they do anything, just freeze current ball specs.  

[fixyurdivot]

57 minutes ago, Javs said:

I admit I have not been keeping up with this post. However, did find a interesting article on driver creep.

https://www.golfmonthly.com/gear/what-is-driver-creeping?utm_term=CFEB69DA-8695-406A-822D-71925C4B6E39&lrh=afabd56f8788996dec1eed39e53e29756a4fe34c1aff9fa4fdfa9f254cbb042a&utm_campaign=075440B8-601C-4440-A9B1-8A7444061AA8&utm_medium=email&utm_content=429BE9B6-22C7-43C9-A1BB-8A9149B6A67D&utm_source=SmartBrief

Maybe they should lock/freeze all equipment technology to any further gains in performance, distance or otherwise, you know, to "protect the game"... just thinking outside the box here .  

[MCMSR]

If bifurcation means there would be 2-classes of balls (a standard offering for the amateur/recreational player & a restricted distance ball of some sort for the professional tours) — I’m totally in favor! 
 

Then, regardless of the ball, player differentiation (age, equipment, fitness, skills, strategies) shall be the determining factors — Just as it is today. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

18 minutes ago, MCMSR said:

If bifurcation means there would be 2-classes of balls (a standard offering for the amateur/recreational player & a restricted distance ball of some sort for the professional tours) — I’m totally in favor! 
 

Then, regardless of the ball, player differentiation (age, equipment, fitness, skills, strategies) shall be the determining factors — Just as it is today. 

The pros play the same ball as everyone else. And if there was a restricted ball for them the high swing speed amateurs would still be playing the balls that the slow swing players are so it does nothing to help at the amateur level. 
 

the boiled part is true with the current rules. And even with the proposed restricted ball the long hitting pros are still going to b the long hitting pros and as dr Sasho Mackenzie pointed out the pros are going to be right back at the same distances with the proposed restricted ball so nothing will be changed.

 

[Beakbryce]

1 hour ago, Middler said:

For anyone who's not a pro, just move up a tee if you're concerned...this isn't rocket surgery.

Until you run out of tees. Have a good buddy hitting from some of the forward tees already and due to health problems, still can't hit a par 4 in 2. My wife plays from the start of the fairway. Yes we are old. Doesn't mean we want to stop golfing. I will happily start some day from 150 yards if that is what it takes. But I wouldn't mind putting that off. There is a reason they don't show where the ceremonial opening drives at Augusta actually land. They aren't going all that far. Nicklaus has been going on and on for years about how long the golf ball is, but what does he hit for that ceremonial drive?

Most of the previous pages contain a lot of opinions based on where the individual is right now distance wise, maybe time to think about how everyone is doing.

The real problem is the USGA/R&A aren't stopping with the ball.

First, we only have the USGA's word that will only be 5 yards. How do they know?

Second, we won't know until the actual balls are for sale. If as some believe the change is 10-15 yards and is not just the driver, how would we all feel then? Of course, by 2030 it may be no change from what we hit now. Technology wise, if the major ball companies come up with a ball that is shorter for the pro's but longer for us, that would be too cool. Nobody knows.

Third, the cumulative effect of all the changes the USGA is going to make will make a difference at some point. 5 yards here, spinier ball there, smaller clubheads everywhere. They have already said other things, particularly the driver, are going to be looked at.

Just about every innovation has been swallowed whole by the golfing public, from featheries to gutta, to balata, to the solid ball. Bigger irons, even bigger drivers. Arguably, golf is easier with each change, but is it? If technology could solve the problem, we would all be sticks. 

I don't envy younger players who may very well be thinking back when they are 70 that they used to KILL the ball. Nostalgia, so cool. The 2028 test will use a robot that swings a driver at 125 mph, launching the ball at 183 mph ball speed, with 11 degrees of launch and 2220 rpm of spin. What if they change that to the driver ball combo can't spin less than 3500 RPM with all other factors the same? More backspin, more side spin. More height, more wind effect. Or the test driver is set at 9 degrees with a higher spinning ball. I'm sure there is some combo that makes the ball sidespin a lot.

Sure, technology could come up with good launch characteristics for any test combo off a driver, oh wait, the 400CC driver? 

The USGA/R&A have stated they want the game to change back to the way it was. To fully restore the game to what it was, the ball needs to go drastically offline unless perfectly struck. I remember those days and they sucked. I remember when Top Flight balls were a revelation. Not only cheaper than a Titleist 100 Professional, but straighter and longer. Good times. The orange ball was really something. Nostalgia!

Does anyone really want to be forced to hit at 80% of their potential to keep the ball from landing in the grandstands of the nearest NFL Stadium?

Because that's coming.

I really think the governing bodies read Sun Tzu. We may all wake up in 15 years and wonder how we let this happen. Or, maybe not. 

[GolfSpy_APH]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0wLVpVtLfW/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Enjoy

[Jim Shaw]

21 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0wLVpVtLfW/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Enjoy

send me a dozen right now....

[Rtracymog]

4 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Those things would change the distances in some cases, maybe affect the approach off the tee, the problem is that the PGA tour doesn’t want to do that. They are promoting distance with their course setups and don’t have any problems with distance. The ruling bodies don’t regulate how the PGA tour setups up their tournament courses so those type of things won’t get done. Which again gets to the point of there being a distance issue and it actually being the ruling bodies creating a solution looking for a problem

Agreed! They want to show the athleticism and power on tour, but now we want to roll that back? I don't get it. I know Tiger talked about not having enough land, but look at number 13 at Augusta as one example. You're telling me that ANGC couldn't cut some trees down or move that tee box 10 or 15 yards farther left to force a certain shot shape? and bring more problems into play? 

The courses don't want their setups to be considered too hard (minus the Memorial) because players might not come back. I feel like they haven't exhausted all their options, but they just said, "Here let's do this!"

[Preeway]

5 hours ago, cnosil said:

We kind of touched on this topic during the forum community call yesterday.   @chisagkind of got into this when he had his friend hit different balls and measured the results.    When the ball is rolled back, let’s hypothetically say you lose 10 yards off the tee.   What is your current front to back dispersion pattern in yards for your current tee shots?  

Wouldn’t this be dependent on whether or not I continue to play the same set of tees vs. moving up?

[Rob Person]

2 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0wLVpVtLfW/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Enjoy

Brilliant!

[storm319]

10 hours ago, rjacobs4 said:

I think bifurcation is the best path forward.  The Tour Pros already have access to equipment that we mere mortals will never have access to.  Never mind the customization that is done to fine tune their equipment to their games.

The Tour players are also in the best adapt to changes.  Leave the rest of us alone.  

The equipment that Tour players have available to them falls under the same regulations as retail, so not the same as bifurcating the rules.

[storm319]

3 hours ago, Rtracymog said:

Agreed! They want to show the athleticism and power on tour, but now we want to roll that back? I don't get it. I know Tiger talked about not having enough land, but look at number 13 at Augusta as one example. You're telling me that ANGC couldn't cut some trees down or move that tee box 10 or 15 yards farther left to force a certain shot shape? and bring more problems into play? 

The courses don't want their setups to be considered too hard (minus the Memorial) because players might not come back. I feel like they haven't exhausted all their options, but they just said, "Here let's do this!"

Simple solution for ANGC #13…move up a tee box and change it to a par 4 for that one week per year.

[RickyBobby_PR]

Some data debunking the game have become a pitch and putt or that more guys are having shorter clubs into greens 

as the average distance has increased

Again not a driver wedge game being played on tour 

[Ben_Howell34]

12 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Define obsolete.

Much further than who/what/when?

Equipment and ball haven’t changed in 20 years

Define relevant

also the courses having to grow or longer courses needed has been debunked by the superintendents associations study along with the data that shows courses are built at 6700ish yards in the last 5-10 years and have been built shorter than the previous 10 years of that 

That’s someone who doesn’t understand hitting the ball long and with some accuracy like the pros is a skill itself, and hit doesn’t take any skill away. Good to great golfers still need to hit good iron shots, have to be good with the wedges (see how much better dj got when he developed a wedge game compare to just bombing and then hoping he could hit the wedge the way he wanted)

did he think jacks distance took away skills? What about Tiger’s, Phil’s or Vijay’s distance. Did it take away their skills 

Brian Harmon, Colin Morikawa to name a few that aren’t that long yet have won on tour including majors. Lots of skills involved in playing good golf.

Also, on top of all of this, rolling the ball back will put even more emphasis on distance in my opinion, not less. If you look at strokes gained, distance is a bigger deal for amateurs than it is for The pros believe it or not. I tend to think that’s because they all hit it pretty dang far already, even the “short” guys. 

[BigBoiGolf]

Guys, we aren't moving up. I'm not letting a 1.7 stroke differential between the tips and the next tee up evaporate from my handicap index. Sorry, it's just not happening, especially since the odds of me shooting the same score from both tees is essentially the same at my level. Playing the tips is the fastest way to drop ones index once they're happy with their golfing ability. Especially since the USGA has indicated it has no interest in re-rating courses.

Edited December 16, 2023 by BigBoiGolf

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 hours ago, Ben_Howell34 said:

Also, on top of all of this, rolling the ball back will put even more emphasis on distance in my opinion, not less. If you look at strokes gained, distance is a bigger deal for amateurs than it is for The pros believe it or not. I tend to think that’s because they all hit it pretty dang far already, even the “short” guys. 

Agree and this is what a lot don’t understand or are overlooking. Distance becomes a bigger advantage. Broadie shows it, lou Stegner has talked about it as has Sasho Mackenzie. Pretty solid group of experts 

[Rtracymog]

4 hours ago, storm319 said:

Simple solution for ANGC #13…move up a tee box and change it to a par 4 for that one week per year.

I feel that takes away some of the risk/reward of the hole. I know most guys make 4 anyway, but there are big numbers waiting for guys that are too aggressive. Eagle is huge and 5 doesn't kill you. I think that will take a bit of mystique out of amen corner.

[storm319]

10 hours ago, Rtracymog said:

I feel that takes away some of the risk/reward of the hole. I know most guys make 4 anyway, but there are big numbers waiting for guys that are too aggressive. Eagle is huge and 5 doesn't kill you. I think that will take a bit of mystique out of amen corner.

By nature par is a relatively arbitrary reference point. If players are averaging well under par on a particular hole, then par should change.