Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[CalvinD]

11 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

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

Maybe I'm just skeptical, but I think they don't want bifurcation because their sponsors (ball manufacturers) don't want it. Changing the tee height? That solves it.

[fixyurdivot]

6 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

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

But, short of simply freezing tech/specs where they are now, this is the most seamless, less disruptive path IMO.  Yes, I know there is the issue with cost of rollback balls that will not be purchased by the masses, but if the RB's and tour gave two $^^t's about those they represent and those that pay to watch them play, it seems a reasonable compromise.

I think you are right that the tour will never go for a driver size rollback or like distance reducing changes... so if that's the case, why accept the ball rollback?  And while the tour and OEM's may not initate litigation over the ball, I'd bet a kings ransom they will on the other changes.

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

But, short of simply freezing tech/specs where they are now, this is the most seamless, less disruptive path IMO.  Yes, I know there is the issue with cost of rollback balls that will not be purchased by the masses, but if the RB's and tour gave two $^^t's about those they represent and those that pay to watch them play, it seems a reasonable compromise.

I think you are right that the tour will never go for a driver size rollback or like distance reducing changes... so if that's the case, why accept the ball rollback?  And while the tour and OEM's may not initate litigation over the ball, I'd bet a kings ransom they will on the other changes.

I don’t think it’s less disruptive. Had the mlr been used by the tour then it would have been opened to everyone and there would be confusion at the amateur level for what legs and tournaments are using the rollback, then there is the logistics of having to police the balls at the local level which these organizers and tournaments don’t have the resources to do.

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

I think you are right that the tour will never go for a driver size rollback or like distance reducing changes... so if that's the case, why accept the ball rollback?  And while the tour and OEM's may not initate litigation over the ball, I'd bet a kings ransom they will on the other changes.

It would provably be a class action suit against the ruling bodies. They don’t want another Ping type lawsuit. It there is a club rollback it’s going to be be for everyone.

And I doubt it does what they want if they do go all in

[fixyurdivot]

2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

I don’t think it’s less disruptive. Had the mlr been used by the tour then it would have been opened to everyone and there would be confusion at the amateur level for what legs and tournaments are using the rollback, then there is the logistics of having to police the balls at the local level which these organizers and tournaments don’t have the resources to do.

 

They don't have the resources to monitor conforming drivers, rangefinder settings, and other aspects anyway, so I don't see that as a big issue.  I also don't understand the confusion.  They employ other MLR's such as lift, clean, and place, sprinkler heads releif around the green, etc. without issue.  They show up for the event, get a run down on any rule modifications and play golf... we do it all the time.

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

They don't have the resources to monitor conforming drivers, rangefinder settings, and other aspects anyway, so I don't see that as a big issue.  I also don't understand the confusion.  They employ other MLR's such as lift, clean, and place, sprinkler heads releif around the green, etc. without issue.  They show up for the event, get a run down on any rule modifications and play golf... we do it all the time.

The confusion is for the juniors and other ams trying to figure out where they want to play, possibly having to change balls on a regular basis. Monitoring the use of range finders is pretty easy. Monitoring and being able to look at every ball for every golfer to make sure it’s the correct ball is nearly impossible 

[fixyurdivot]

6 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The confusion is for the juniors and other ams trying to figure out where they want to play, possibly having to change balls on a regular basis. Monitoring the use of range finders is pretty easy. Monitoring and being able to look at every ball for every golfer to make sure it’s the correct ball is nearly impossible 

It's a game based on integrity. If folks are prone to cheat the system they will no matter what rules are in place.  As such I'm inclined to give very few points for this side of the reasons not to employ the MLR approach.  The more I think about it the more I feel the PGAT did us more harm than the stupid, needless ball rollback.  

[Vertical]

68.5% of the people polled on MGS are not in favor of the rollback vs. 14% in favor. You wouldn’t know it looking at this forum. It seems the silent majority isn’t blindly obedient to the “ruling bodies”. Not surprising as golf is an individual sport. No referees on the field of play and no time clock. 

Edited February 27 by Vertical

[RickyBobby_PR]

11 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

It's a game based on integrity. If folks are prone to cheat the system they will no matter what rules are in place.  As such I'm inclined to give very few points for this side of the reasons not to employ the MLR approach.  The more I think about it the more I feel the PGAT did us more harm than the stupid, needless ball rollback.  

It’s not the pga tours fault, just like it’s not the OEMs fault. It’s the stuffy out of touch suits at the ruling bodies and the owners of exclusive courses that are pushing the agenda of distance is a problem. It wasn’t just the tours, the PGA of America and its members did as well pretty much everyone responding pushed back on bifurcation and said there should be one ball for everyone. The ruling bodies could have listened to everyone and just let the current ball be the ball, but they backed themselves into a corner when Slumbers said doing nothing wasn’t an option and Whan agreed. So they were going to make a change regardless. Also remember they were proposing the rollback for everyone in 2022, the pushback from the industry was something they didn’t like and that’s where the MLR proposal came from. They had their minds made up in 2022 that something was going to change no matter what

adding trying to monitor every ball and every piece of equipment at smaller amateur events is a problem and yes while it’s a game if integrity there is a larger than should be element that will try to take advantage and cheat the system. As someone who runs a business that hosts events for a sport that does gear check for every athlete and drug tests 10% of the athletes competing there are people that will cheat. Golf is far from perfect and immune from cheating at all levels.

We have a saying that drug tested doesn’t mean drug free.

The MLR on one had was nothing more than the ruling bodies hoping the tours would bail them out of a bad decision and on the other the ruling bodies trying to force their preference for the way golf should be played on tours. 

Edited February 27 by RickyBobby_PR

[Another Steve]

13 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The confusion is for the juniors and other ams trying to figure out where they want to play, possibly having to change balls on a regular basis. Monitoring the use of range finders is pretty easy. Monitoring and being able to look at every ball for every golfer to make sure it’s the correct ball is nearly impossible 

Actually, no it’s not.  Put an obvious conformance mark on the ball visible from several feet and add a line item rule that at any time any official can ask the player and caddie to empty all pockets and allow empty/ search of the bag… first offense is DQ second is suspension. 

[d.lama]

These guys tested with a Pinnacle Soft, supposedly it already conforms, he swings pretty fast. They saw ball speed drop with 11.4° launch and lower spin 1852rpm. They lost 11y carry but the roll made up for it so total loss was 3yards. 

 

[fixyurdivot]

5 hours ago, Another Steve said:

Actually, no it’s not.  Put an obvious conformance mark on the ball visible from several feet and add a line item rule that at any time any official can ask the player and caddie to empty all pockets and allow empty/ search of the bag… first offense is DQ second is suspension. 

That is just flat out Draconian... I like it .  I too think this could be managed and were such consequences in place, word would spread and it would work.  

 

[ILMgolfnut]

I wouldn't say I'm in favor of it. But I try not to worry about things I can't control, and I can't control the USGA or the R&A, and if the new balls cost me 3-5 yards in six years, so be it. My own swing deficiencies cost me a lot more than that, and I'm playing from the ancient flatus tees anyway. And if the new rules allow Pebble or the Old Course to remain competition venues, I'm okay with that too.

[TylorJudd]

On 2/26/2024 at 7:56 AM, chisag said:

 

... 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.


 

Preech

On 2/26/2024 at 7:56 AM, chisag said:

 

... 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.


 

Preech

[TylorJudd]

On 2/26/2024 at 7:56 AM, chisag said:

 

... 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.


 

Preech

 

On 2/26/2024 at 8:17 AM, RickyBobby_PR said:

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 

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 

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. 
 

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. 

 

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.

 

Link to this superintendents study? I play many courses per year also, and again we need to look at it from everyone who golf’s, just not one observation.

The golfer does get faster due to materials as well… Carbon fibre does get faster than titanium. Look at the TSr line up this year. They’re the only company outside of NASA and one other space exploration company to use the material they use on the face. 
 

I was fit for both, both with graphite design shafts of their time. It’s not a better fit, just better equipment. You can’t honestly sit here and say that without knowing anything about the golfer you’re speaking to. 
 

Take a look at Furry Creek and tell me that course isn’t in danger. Golf can’t become a pitch and putt for drivers. This is a world class golf course that truly suffers at the distance game being played currently.

[silver & black]

7 minutes ago, TylorJudd said:

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

I agree, I will not notice a 4 yard difference in distance. I just don't understand what the RB's are trying to achieve with this piddling amount of lost yardage. How will that "save" golf and the historic courses and preserve the integrity of the game? Again.... this is a solution looking for a problem, IMO.

What am I missing that you and others seem to be privy to?

 

[TylorJudd]

2 minutes ago, silver & black said:

I agree, I will not notice a 4 yard difference in distance. I just don't understand what the RB's are trying to achieve with this piddling amount of lost yardage. How will that "save" golf and the historic courses and preserve the integrity of the game? Again.... this is a solution looking for a problem, IMO.

What am I missing that you and others seem to be privy to?

 

You quoting me or Chisag?

[RickyBobby_PR]

37 minutes ago, TylorJudd said:

Preech

 

Link to this superintendents study? I play many courses per year also, and again we need to look at it from everyone who golf’s, just not one observation.

The golfer does get faster due to materials as well… Carbon fibre does get faster than titanium. Look at the TSr line up this year. They’re the only company outside of NASA and one other space exploration company to use the material they use on the face. 
 

I was fit for both, both with graphite design shafts of their time. It’s not a better fit, just better equipment. You can’t honestly sit here and say that without knowing anything about the golfer you’re speaking to. 
 

Take a look at Furry Creek and tell me that course isn’t in danger. Golf can’t become a pitch and putt for drivers. This is a world class golf course that truly suffers at the distance game being played currently.

All links and any other day is already  posted in the thread

 

[ILMgolfnut]

44 minutes ago, silver & black said:

What am I missing that you and others seem to be privy to?

Well, you asked...

Because Rory and Bryson and the other big pro bombers (which is just about all of them these days) will lose a lot more than 4 yards. The USGA says at the ball speeds those guys obtain (>/= 183 mph), they'll lose as much as 15 yards with the driver, which might be the difference between hitting a full 9-iron and a little 7 into the green. But by the time they get down to the 5-iron, which is a lot lower swing/ball speed even for those guys, it will be virtually identical to what they get now. But a club and a half difference on the approach shot is a big difference for those guys. But for Joe Amateur who doesn't get 120+ mph club speed with the driver, the distance loss is a lot less.

[silver & black]

16 minutes ago, ILMgolfnut said:

Well, you asked...

Because Rory and Bryson and the other big pro bombers (which is just about all of them these days) will lose a lot more than 4 yards. The USGA says at the ball speeds those guys obtain (>/= 183 mph), they'll lose as much as 15 yards with the driver, which might be the difference between hitting a full 9-iron and a little 7 into the green. But by the time they get down to the 5-iron, which is a lot lower swing/ball speed even for those guys, it will be virtually identical to what they get now. But a club and a half difference on the approach shot is a big difference for those guys. But for Joe Amateur who doesn't get 120+ mph club speed with the driver, the distance loss is a lot less.

Okay, if that is true.... does 15 yards keep courses from being over powered? Does 15 yards ensure the integrity of the game is upheld? These guys can hit any iron from 5 on down with extreme accuracy and distance control. What did/does taking 15 yards away accomplish... other than using a bit more club? I still don't understand what this is really all about.... well, I have my opinion on what it's really all about, but that isn't this discussion. 

Bottom line: 15 or even 20 yards is negligable to the pros who are really just that good. This roll back doesn't accomplish anything, other than.............................. a different discussion.

 

 

[silver & black]

1 hour ago, TylorJudd said:

You quoting me or Chisag?

I thought Chisag, but please, feel free to comment. 

[d.lama]

12 minutes ago, silver & black said:

Okay, if that is true.... does 15 yards keep courses from being over powered? Does 15 yards ensure the integrity of the game is upheld? These guys can hit any iron from 5 on down with extreme accuracy and distance control. What did/does taking 15 yards away accomplish... other than using a bit more club? I still don't understand what this is really all about.... well, I have my opinion on what it's really all about, but that isn't this discussion. 

Bottom line: 15 or even 20 yards is negligable to the pros who are really just that good. This roll back doesn't accomplish anything, other than.............................. a different discussion.

Do you think the change accomplishes nothing because you don't see the purpose, or you against the change because you don't want to see the fastest swingers lose 15 yards? If it's negligible, what do you care? Would you as bothered if every tournament venue moved the tee boxes back 15 yards in 2025? What if every tournament venue moved all their fairway bunkers 15 yards further than the existing tees? 

[chisag]

4 minutes ago, silver & black said:

Okay, if that is true.... does 15 yards keep courses from being over powered? Does 15 yards ensure the integrity of the game is upheld? These guys can hit any iron from 5 on down with extreme accuracy and distance control. What did/does taking 15 yards away accomplish... other than using a bit more club?

 

... OK I'll give it a shot. It isn't just about raw distance. There is a large bunker with a high lip guarding a dogleg left and woods on the right with a fairway that narrows the closer you get to the trouble. Pro's had the option of attacking the fairway and risking landing in the bunker or perhaps pushed into the woods OR laying back safely into the wider part of the fairway abut needing a longer club to reach the green. Long hitters could take the risk of challenging the bunker/woods and with an accurate tee shot and have a shorter club to the green. Shorter hitters that couldn't reach the bunker with a driver or strategic players might hit a fairway wood, hybrid or long iron to the safe area short of trouble but may need to use that same club again to reach the green. When the course was designed, nobody envisioned someone just flying a bunker with a 320 yd carry and taking all the trouble out of play as well as the precision of using a longer club after a strategic lay up. 

... I would compare it roughly to baseball. Let's say the ball is manufactured to go much farther. Much farther like when a wound balata became a solid ball and instantly MUCH longer. The big hitters can fly it completely out of the park with Ooooo's and Ahhhh's while the short hitters can still easily clear the fence. Again, many love watching Home Runs but if it became all HR's I would miss stealing bases, throws from deep in the hole or down the line, amazing catches and pin point throws from the outfield gunning down a speedy runner by a step. 

... At some point the USGA was gonna have to stop the distance or roll it back if they waited too long. This more than a few think has happened. Even those against the rollback at the Tour level might change their minds in 2037 if/when 400 yd drives become the norm. Some hate it happening right now and I certainly understand that. But it was gonna happen at some point. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

30 minutes ago, d.lama said:

Do you think the change accomplishes nothing because you don't see the purpose, or you against the change because you don't want to see the fastest swingers lose 15 yards? If it's negligible, what do you care? Would you as bothered if every tournament venue moved the tee boxes back 15 yards in 2025? What if every tournament venue moved all their fairway bunkers 15 yards further than the existing tees? 

The purpose is dumb. The USGA doesn’t like the current pro game. The fasted guys won’t lose 15mph and Sasho Mackenzie has already touched on this.

The pga tour sets the tee boxes and they move many of them up and don’t always have them alway the back because their goal is to entertain their audience who are wowed by long drives and moving them up can create volatility on the leaderboard with lead change and tight leaderboards. It also challenges the golfers to determine if the risk is worth it to go for it or not.

 

[fixyurdivot]

10 hours ago, silver & black said:

Okay, if that is true.... does 15 yards keep courses from being over powered? Does 15 yards ensure the integrity of the game is upheld? These guys can hit any iron from 5 on down with extreme accuracy and distance control. What did/does taking 15 yards away accomplish... other than using a bit more club? I still don't understand what this is really all about.... well, I have my opinion on what it's really all about, but that isn't this discussion. 

Bottom line: 15 or even 20 yards is negligable to the pros who are really just that good. This roll back doesn't accomplish anything, other than.............................. a different discussion.

 

 

Spot on.  Those here on the forum who are supporting the rollback and have attempted to explain and defend it have come up worefully short.  But that's not surprising when neither the USGA or R&A have been able to defend their ridiculous rule change.  "Protect the integrity of the game" is a clever word salad and reminds me of another term that has morphed when the data used to support it is shown to be questionable.

Again, even if the tour average driving distance drops 15 yards, they hit more 9i's, and average scores go up X, how does that protect the integrity of the game? 

To be clear, I'm not opposed to throttling tour level golf hitting distance.  I am opposed to a global rule change that adversely affects 99% of golfers and will not, ostensibly, solve anything.  To me this seems more a pissing, power match between the ruling bodies, tours, and OEM's in which we have become the collateral fallout and could use an umbrella.

 

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

6 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

To be clear, I'm not opposed to throttling tour level golf hitting distance.  I am opposed to a global rule change that adversely affects 99% of golfers and will not, ostensibly, solve anything.  To me this seems more a pissing, power match between the ruling bodies, tours, and OEM's in which we have become the collateral fallout and could use an umbrella.

This is the issue. They are making a rule change for the 99.9% based on the .1%
 

the percentage of golfers that have the speed to hit the ball a long way is small. The number of courses (ie Augusta) that for whatever reason they choose or chose in the past to add distance is even smaller. 
 

The perceived problem affects a very small percentage of the game. If rules are made for the 99% based on the 1% we are headed down a bad path 

[RickyBobby_PR]

The ruling bodies making decisions because some pros can carry obstacles on the course or because the pga tour sets up courses with shorter tee boxes to promote longer drives and lower scores along with trying to create a tight leaderboard on the weekends which draws viewership is a problem.

Its shows that their goal is to dictate how golf should be played.

Also zero data supports some sort of 80 yard increase in top end distance to 400 yards. The top end distance hasn’t changed in 20 years with the current specs for driver and balls.

Rolling back because some golfers can hit the ball long and shorter hitters can’t take on the same obstacle is dumb. There is no course that challenges all golfers the same.

rolling back only creates a tour where everyone is within 5 yards of each other and everyone will be long. Those who don’t like the pga tour now because it’s boring will hate it when everyone hits it the same distance 

[RickyBobby_PR]

Some interesting numbers that shows course design and conditions have a big role in distance which iirc broadie has published a study on as well saying the samething.

Sony Open on a course that was delivering big driver the leader in distance was 328, at the next few tournaments the leader was around 320, 315 or 310.

Rory has been around 310 in the tournaments he played this year and wasn’t the leader

[HikingMike]

On 2/24/2024 at 1:13 PM, silver & black said:

Golf.... the one sport where advancement in technology and athleticism is frowned on.

That said:  why not do like MLB and just keep things where they are, currently? Why is that such a bad thing? What is going to happen when the players inevitably get stronger and more athleteic with advancement in fitness technology? Will they roll the ball back some more... or just mandate that players aren't allowed to work out anymore?...lol.

This whole thing is ridiculous. Just let things be where they are now and put a lid on it.

What will equipment Manufactureres do now that distance will be outlawed? How will they market new stuff? Will everyone just keep what they play now and/or just buy used equipment because it no longer matters... or just buy new that isn't any better than the old because the old just wore out?

This is a solution looking for a problem, IMO.

Is anybody really frowning on advancement in athleticism? I haven't see any of that and it sounds ridiculous. 

As for advancement in technology, yeah, if the game changes significantly, it needs to be looked at and some rules put in place for an even playing field for pros - unless people want the game to change that way. I don't know that it's frowned upon. But the resulting change to the game is frowned upon by some people.

Baseball is an analogy that comes up a lot, and it works fairly well. Do we want like 300% more home runs? MLB has rules on equipment and they made decisions on how they wanted equipment to affect the game. You could look at car racing for a lot more rules. They are limiting the effect of tech advances for a desired output. 

I'll also add that I'm in favor of taking into account changes in equipment that occurred earlier. I'm not saying we go back to that. That would be a giant change, and that's super tough to do, maybe impossible, it would be a huge backlash, tons of costs for manufacturers, all of that. That's why they are proposing such a small change right now. It's the least inconvenient way to do this. But I'm saying it should be taken into account - because those changes in the game due to equipment were big, and they have stayed. The rules bodies probably should have done something 20 years ago or whatever. Imagine MLB allowing aluminum baseball bats for 20 years, and then what? 

[chisag]

21 hours ago, ILMgolfnut said:

I wouldn't say I'm in favor of it. But I try not to worry about things I can't control, and I can't control the USGA or the R&A, and if the new balls cost me 3-5 yards in six years, so be it. My own swing deficiencies cost me a lot more than that, and I'm playing from the ancient flatus tees anyway. And if the new rules allow Pebble or the Old Course to remain competition venues, I'm okay with that too.

 

... How many AM's go through a detailed ball fitting? My guess is very few. 3-5 yds distance loss is happening right now. According to the MGS ball test for a mid speed swing, the difference of the tee between the Chrome LS and Maxfli Tour is 5.2 yds. Add in the Kirkland V3 and it's a 10 yard loss off the tee. Most Am's playing the wrong ball for their game is pretty common.