Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, vandyland said:

It remains to be seen but it seems like the way the ball is going to be designed (and again, this is like 7 years away for Ams so the ball manufacturers will get better at it as they always have) the impact will be less on slower swing speeds. So while they are estimating 10-15 yds at the top level for drivers, they are estimating less for LPGA and high level ams (7-10 yds) and then even less for slower swingers probably 5 yds or less. And that is with driver. With a mid iron it is probably like 2 yds. If true, we have spent 66 pages arguing over 5 yds give or take with the driver. 

 

Yet in their own testing a 221 yard drive lost 11 yards. And pagel while saying that also said but it’s really only 3-5 yards. They have no idea what the impact is. 

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, vandyland said:

It remains to be seen but it seems like the way the ball is going to be designed (and again, this is like 7 years away for Ams so the ball manufacturers will get better at it as they always have) the impact will be less on slower swing speeds. So while they are estimating 10-15 yds at the top level for drivers, they are estimating less for LPGA and high level ams (7-10 yds) and then even less for slower swingers probably 5 yds or less. And that is with driver. With a mid iron it is probably like 2 yds. If true, we have spent 66 pages arguing over 5 yds give or take with the driver. 

 

But even were those estimates correct, it sidesteps the fact that this is a tour not an amateur player issue.  Why should 99% of golfers take a reduction in distance (of any amount) to address a problem associated with less than 1% of the players worldwide?   And what if this rollback does not scratch their itch.. what next?

It amazes me how many are willing to capitulate to ridiculous and needless edicts from a governing body who, at least outwardly, says their primary mission is to represent us and the best interests of the game. Get off your knees folks and be heard!

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 minute ago, fixyurdivot said:

But even were those estimates correct, it sidesteps the fact that this is a tour not an amateur player issue.  Why should 99% of golfers take a reduction in distance (of any amount) to address a problem associated with less than 1% of the players worldwide?   And what if this rollback does not scratch their itch.. what next?

It amazes me how many are willing to capitulate to ridiculous and needless edicts from a governing body who, at least outwardly, says their primary mission is to represent us and the best interests of the game. Get off your knees folks and be heard!

And it’s not a problem at the pro level. It’s an optics issue. The ruling bodies hate low scores and seeing long drives on tour. They want the tour to get inline with their thinking and since they won’t they are punishing everyone. It’s a bunch of suits dictating how the game should be played. 

 

[Muckinfiddle]

2 hours ago, GolfSpy SAM said:

But...and this is a genuine question, but wouldn't more loft = less distance?  Isn't that the whole crux of their argument, that they're making a lot of these courses obsolete with the distance they're getting off the tee?  

Lower the tee, raise the loft, lower the distance, now they have an 8-iron instead of a 9/PW, etc.  

I think we're arguing two sides of the same coin here, ultimately, but I think making the ball go "less far" isn't the answer when there are easier alternatives on the table.

I don't know. It's about launch angle and speed of the club. If you change the loft but they still have the same club speed and the same launch angle it'll just be a few inches shorter from the tee. They are pros they'll figure it out.

 

[FrogginBullfish]

2 hours ago, GolfSpy SAM said:

But...and this is a genuine question, but wouldn't more loft = less distance?  Isn't that the whole crux of their argument, that they're making a lot of these courses obsolete with the distance they're getting off the tee?  

Lower the tee, raise the loft, lower the distance, now they have an 8-iron instead of a 9/PW, etc.  

I think we're arguing two sides of the same coin here, ultimately, but I think making the ball go "less far" isn't the answer when there are easier alternatives on the table.

Lowering the tee height only affects the driver but club manufacturer's can design their way out of that, unless the tee is lowered to the point that taking a divot with the driver is the only way to hit the centre of the face. But at that point driver design would just change to have a shorter face, so manufacturer's could get around it again. It might lower the distance a bit for a little while but part of the reason guys who hit down on the driver don't go as far is the clubs are being designed around hitting up on it. If they had to be hit down on, the manufacturer's would adjust to that. Some things they could do is add loft or lower the CG to counteract the hitting down by increasing launch and moving CG closer to the face to keep ball speed up and spin down. Or they get around it by making the driver face shorter so the guys can still hit up on it. 

[silver & black]

I have stayed out of this... mostly because I think the whole thing is ridiculous. If bifurcation is what they/we want, do it. Personally, I see no need for it. I'm sure I'm not alone in my feeling that 'we' get to play/use the same equipment that the pros use. 'We' can choose to practice and work as hard as we like to improve in this game. Granted, most of us can't play/practice as much as the pros... nor do we possess the God given talent to be as good as the pros. 

I'll use tennis as an example. I was an avid tennis player in my younger days. I was a very good player. I used the same rackets, balls, courts and nets that the pros used, along with the same dimensions/size of the court and net heights. I could never have come close to beating any pro player... but it was cool to see how good the pros played using exactly the same equipment and court that I played with/on. I feel the same way about golf.

Roll back the golf ball and the long hitters will still be the long hitters. They will still have the shortest clubs to the green, be it a wedge or a 9 iron. It will still be 'bomb and gouge'... only a club or two more. What has been accomplished by it?

My vote is no bifurcation or roll back of the ball.

 

 

 

[silver & black]

Yep.... so.... make the fairways so you don't get 40 yards of roll. That is a far easier and cost effective way of 'fixing' the distance 'problem'. Maybe I'm too simple? 

[RickyBobby_PR]

Just now, silver & black said:

Yep.... so.... make the fairways so you don't get 40 yards of roll. That is a far easier and cost effective way of 'fixing' the distance 'problem'. Maybe I'm too simple? 

That would be a fix if the pga tour felt distance was an issue. They don’t think there is a distance problem that’s why they pushed back on the mlr.

It’s the ruling bodies who thinks the pga tour has a problem and that professional golf needs less distance despite them letting it go on for 20 years. They were fine with it during the grow the game initiative, they didn’t think the amateur game had a problem during the tee or forward push. But since the tour and the OEMs don’t want to play their reindeer games with distance rollback so they punish all golfers 

[ParFore74x]

3 minutes ago, silver & black said:

Yep.... so.... make the fairways so you don't get 40 yards of roll. That is a far easier and cost effective way of 'fixing' the distance 'problem'. Maybe I'm too simple? 

I’ve been saying that since this whole thing started but it seems to just fall on deaf ears. The powers that be seem to be completely focused on finding solutions for nonexistent problems. 

[Subdiver1]

I watched a segment on the Golf Channel this afternoon while working.  They discussed how Kegan Bradley and Lucas Glover had done some testing and Bradley was seeing 40-50 yards off his drives ad showed an interview spot with glover where he stated that the reduction he saw was disturbing and it wold be a huge impact for amateurs.  That flies directly in the face of the 10-15 and 5-7 yard rhetoric.  What was worse was when I heard talking heads discussing how us common folk would be upset but we would just have to get over it; I had to double check as I thought I had MSLSD, not the Golf Channel (it's NBC so I guess oranges and tangerines?).

Once again, the actual testing data contradicts the narrative from the bureaucrats and their mouthpieces.

[GolfSpy_APH]

48 minutes ago, Subdiver1 said:

I watched a segment on the Golf Channel this afternoon while working.  They discussed how Kegan Bradley and Lucas Glover had done some testing and Bradley was seeing 40-50 yards off his drives ad showed an interview spot with glover where he stated that the reduction he saw was disturbing and it wold be a huge impact for amateurs.  That flies directly in the face of the 10-15 and 5-7 yard rhetoric.  What was worse was when I heard talking heads discussing how us common folk would be upset but we would just have to get over it; I had to double check as I thought I had MSLSD, not the Golf Channel (it's NBC so I guess oranges and tangerines?).

Once again, the actual testing data contradicts the narrative from the bureaucrats and their mouthpieces.

I'm sorry but how can we possibly go off what they are doing when there isn't an official ball? Not to mention they still have years to develop, improve and adjust the new golf ball to get it close the stated figures. 

Test a conforming ball now and saying it is junk is like taking an old worn wedge and saying see it doesn't spin as much as a new one!

Look up former TXG now club champion and they have a video on how the can gain you more distance than the possible rollback. 

Again I go back to if you really love golf and playing golf you still will, if this is the straw that breaks someones love for the game and they quit because of it. I'm not sure they really loved golf to begin with. 

[Subdiver1]

24 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

I'm sorry but how can we possibly go off what they are doing when there isn't an official ball? Not to mention they still have years to develop, improve and adjust the new golf ball to get it close the stated figures. 

Test a conforming ball now and saying it is junk is like taking an old worn wedge and saying see it doesn't spin as much as a new one!

Look up former TXG now club champion and they have a video on how the can gain you more distance than the possible rollback. 

Again I go back to if you really love golf and playing golf you still will, if this is the straw that breaks someones love for the game and they quit because of it. I'm not sure they really loved golf to begin with. 

I hear what you are saying.  I don't think any of us are going to quit because some bureaucrat is messing with the game.  I believe it there are a couple of things occurring: 

1. The more frustration that gets voiced, the more the bureaucrats become aware of the discontent with their meddling.  Whether Joe Bob the CEO is reading it or not, the minions are either reading it, or being told how voluminous that discontent, which will have some affect on decisions. Kind of like MGS not being a sponsored ball tester (that sounds kind of ... off, "ball tester" doesn't it?), but the testing they do having an impact on manufacturing changes.

2. The community is coming together and discussing what is happening.  People who are not "aware" are getting informed.  People who are blindly believing what the governing bodies are putting out are realizing that there is a lot more to the story than they are being told. So some will think twice in the future before "just going along."

3. People who thought, well this is just for the pros, are riding out that yes, it is just for the pros, for a couple of years, then you get it too.  

The idea that the outrage is misinformed, unfounded, or too early to tell goes back to an earlier comment about, well you'll just have to wait until it happens to find out how it affects you.  The problem is that the process will affect all of us.  Regardless of whether there is a 3 yard loss or a 30 yard loss WE are all going to end up "paying at the pump" for all the research, development, marketing etc. that ends up going into whatever comes out the other end.  And unfortunately, stuff like this is usually very much like being home for the holidays; what goes in at the holiday dinner table was great, what came out the other end is... well... not something you want to have to keep around for long.

The bottom line is that the large majority of golfers, where the $$$ come from, are not happy with having our game messed with because some bureaucrats don't like what 0.01% of the players can do with a  golf ball.  We work hard to get where we are and we don't like that a bunch of clowns sitting behind a desk somewhere want to make all that work that much harder and that much more expensive for something we already pay out the wazoo for.  Tech, training aids, gadgets, fittings, new clubs new balls, new tees, pouring over testing and articles by MGS and industry test houses to help make our game a little better gets time consuming and expensive when you are passionate about chasing par.  This entire debacle is kind of like hitting that one, go for it shot, on a par 5 that you have been playing for years just hoping one day, you'd have a chance, and finally you're watching the ball fly and you just know it is going to carry the water and give you that reachable second into the green, then an errant wind whips up and stops your ball like a brick wall and drops it 2 yards short of carrying that water. Just like getting kicked in the junk when you' just been told to pucker up for a kiss form the prom queen.  It's frustrating, it's insulting, it's irritating; we aren't going to quit, but we aren't going to take it lying down; If the folks at MGS were told you need to stop testing because USGA didn't ask you to do it and USGA didn't tell you you were allowed to would you stop testing and publishing the results, or would you turn to your audience and say, lets' call this out for what it is? 

[GolfSpy_APH]

36 minutes ago, Subdiver1 said:

I hear what you are saying.  I don't think any of us are going to quit because some bureaucrat is messing with the game.  I believe it there are a couple of things occurring: 

1. The more frustration that gets voiced, the more the bureaucrats become aware of the discontent with their meddling.  Whether Joe Bob the CEO is reading it or not, the minions are either reading it, or being told how voluminous that discontent, which will have some affect on decisions. Kind of like MGS not being a sponsored ball tester (that sounds kind of ... off, "ball tester" doesn't it?), but the testing they do having an impact on manufacturing changes.

2. The community is coming together and discussing what is happening.  People who are not "aware" are getting informed.  People who are blindly believing what the governing bodies are putting out are realizing that there is a lot more to the story than they are being told. So some will think twice in the future before "just going along."

3. People who thought, well this is just for the pros, are riding out that yes, it is just for the pros, for a couple of years, then you get it too.  

The idea that the outrage is misinformed, unfounded, or too early to tell goes back to an earlier comment about, well you'll just have to wait until it happens to find out how it affects you.  The problem is that the process will affect all of us.  Regardless of whether there is a 3 yard loss or a 30 yard loss WE are all going to end up "paying at the pump" for all the research, development, marketing etc. that ends up going into whatever comes out the other end.  And unfortunately, stuff like this is usually very much like being home for the holidays; what goes in at the holiday dinner table was great, what came out the other end is... well... not something you want to have to keep around for long.

The bottom line is that the large majority of golfers, where the $$$ come from, are not happy with having our game messed with because some bureaucrats don't like what 0.01% of the players can do with a  golf ball.  We work hard to get where we are and we don't like that a bunch of clowns sitting behind a desk somewhere want to make all that work that much harder and that much more expensive for something we already pay out the wazoo for.  Tech, training aids, gadgets, fittings, new clubs new balls, new tees, pouring over testing and articles by MGS and industry test houses to help make our game a little better gets time consuming and expensive when you are passionate about chasing par.  This entire debacle is kind of like hitting that one, go for it shot, on a par 5 that you have been playing for years just hoping one day, you'd have a chance, and finally you're watching the ball fly and you just know it is going to carry the water and give you that reachable second into the green, then an errant wind whips up and stops your ball like a brick wall and drops it 2 yards short of carrying that water. Just like getting kicked in the junk when you' just been told to pucker up for a kiss form the prom queen.  It's frustrating, it's insulting, it's irritating; we aren't going to quit, but we aren't going to take it lying down; If the folks at MGS were told you need to stop testing because USGA didn't ask you to do it and USGA didn't tell you you were allowed to would you stop testing and publishing the results, or would you turn to your audience and say, lets' call this out for what it is? 

Fair enough. 

Maybe it is due to all the other stuff in golf, but I am finding it hard to get overly worked up over any of this. If it helps golf courses save money and stay open great. Do I think a distance decrease of 3-15 yards will help that. No, if anything I believe they could have gone further or more drastic to truly help. 

While our many voices could be heard there are bigger voices pushing back. 

For me the bigger part of all of this is this is years away. Years. There is still so much unknown. We don't have a proper rollback ball to test or compare or even view to make a fuss about. We have projected data and sample results. Not to mention we don't know what added innovations companies are already working on to possible alleviate some of this loss. 

Also for the normal consumers there is nothing stopping you during your fun games to play the normal ball from now. I dunno, I still see this as being something that has many unknowns and until there even more information with independent testing (likely a year or so from now) I'm not sure I can get to the stage where I am truly upset over this. 

It could be have been a lot greater of a change, it could have been more drastic, it won't be the last time this happens and maybe just maybe this could turn out to be a good thing? I'm not someone who suffers from a lack of distance and can make up for these changes with better everything. That won't be the case for everyone and I do feel for all of those golfers. I hope that there is some way to negate any potential losses from them between now and then. 

[fixyurdivot]

5 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Fair enough. 

Maybe it is due to all the other stuff in golf, but I am finding it hard to get overly worked up over any of this. If it helps golf courses save money and stay open great. Do I think a distance decrease of 3-15 yards will help that. No, if anything I believe they could have gone further or more drastic to truly help. 

While our many voices could be heard there are bigger voices pushing back. 

For me the bigger part of all of this is this is years away. Years. There is still so much unknown. We don't have a proper rollback ball to test or compare or even view to make a fuss about. We have projected data and sample results. Not to mention we don't know what added innovations companies are already working on to possible alleviate some of this loss. 

Also for the normal consumers there is nothing stopping you during your fun games to play the normal ball from now. I dunno, I still see this as being something that has many unknowns and until there even more information with independent testing (likely a year or so from now) I'm not sure I can get to the stage where I am truly upset over this. 

It could be have been a lot greater of a change, it could have been more drastic, it won't be the last time this happens and maybe just maybe this could turn out to be a good thing? I'm not someone who suffers from a lack of distance and can make up for these changes with better everything. That won't be the case for everyone and I do feel for all of those golfers. I hope that there is some way to negate any potential losses from them between now and then. 

Jamie, a ball rollback will do absolutely nothing to help golf courses save money and stay open.  Their revenue comes from us amatuer players who are not in anyway part of the excessive distance problem.  The black tee boxes at virtually every course are in pristine condition... and readily available to throttle the 1% of players that routinely drive the ball 280+.

You are absolutely correct that we are WAY early into this change and we don't know what impact it may have on our game.  But that misses the key point in this debate... it should not be effecting us at all.  By most accounts and a survey from TM, at least 80% of players do not support any rollback to address an issue associated with tour players.  The USGA and R&A know this but still flipped us the middle finger.  Don't know about you, but that pisses me off.

The "wait and see" approach let's this keep moving forward and the fervor die down. That's a tactic played over and over by governing bodies of all types.  Like @Subdiver1said the more they hear from those they are supposed to be representing, the more chance we have at getting this ridiculous change, changed.

As an example, after our Thursday group play yesterday, someone brought this (topic) up. I was amazed how many in the group of 16 knew nothing or little about it.  By the time the discussion was over, everyone seemed in agreement that any changes in equipment or course set-up, to address tour play distance issue, should only be applicable to tour play. 

Spoiler

I may have had some influence on them but I'm a spy and that's our job! 

 

[Stuka44]

This is the bottom line.  The USGA & R&A believe they are all powerful, and don't believe in any fashion that they have any responsibility whatsoever,  to the recreational golfer (95% of all who play).  It is a power struggle, and they don't care one bit if people find the game to hard, and the rules too cumbersome and quit playing.  They want it to be elitist, and would be okay with it only being played by those who believe the game of golf is in some fashion sacred, and to not follow the rules, as the almighty has given them, is blasphemous and an affront to the higher power.

And you would have thought the R&A, and the USGA would have learned a lesson from the PGA!!!

I wonder with this announcement, and with much more in common with the recreational player, and much less stuffy, and snobbish, than the PGA appears to be, how long it will be before the LIV responds?  Perhaps with announcements of this nature!

LIV announces they are here for the recreational player, as well as their tournaments. 

LIV will not change ball!  LIV will use course set up, and other things to make their courses more challenging for their pros!

If ball manufacturers give in LIV will use it's vast resources to employ people with  prior experience  in the industry to produce golf balls which will be made available to the public.   The LIV-P, LIV-S, and the LIV-5.   Recreational golfers who enjoyed the game in 2023, will perhaps find our golf balls REMARKABLY similar, bordering on identical, to the Titlist (P)ro V, the Srixon           Z-(S)tar, and the Taylormade TP(5).

And I don't believe that I will be the only recreational golfer, who is SOOOOO FED up  with the unmitigated arrogance of the  PGA, R&A, and USGA who would purchase them.  And guess what if it really matters to the guy to beat me in our recreational game I will give him balls to play with during our round!!!!

[GolfSpy_APH]

4 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Jamie, a ball rollback will do absolutely nothing to help golf courses save money and stay open.  Their revenue comes from us amatuer players who are not in anyway part of the excessive distance problem.  The black tee boxes at virtually every course are in pristine condition... and readily available to throttle the 1% of players that routinely drive the ball 280+.

You are absolutely correct that we are WAY early into this change and we don't know what impact it may have on our game.  But that misses the key point in this debate... it should not be effecting us at all.  By most accounts and a survey from TM, at least 80% of players do not support any rollback to address an issue associated with tour players.  The USGA and R&A know this but still flipped us the middle finger.  Don't know about you, but that pisses me off.

The "wait and see" approach let's this keep moving forward and the fervor die down. That's a tactic played over and over by governing bodies of all types.  Like @Subdiver1said the more they hear from those they are supposed to be representing, the more chance we have at getting this ridiculous change, changed.

As an example, after our Thursday group play yesterday, someone brought this (topic) up. I was amazed how many in the group of 16 knew nothing or little about it.  By the time the discussion was over, everyone seemed in agreement that any changes in equipment or course set-up, to address tour play distance issue, should only be applicable to tour play. 

  Reveal hidden contents

I may have had some influence on them but I'm a spy and that's our job! 

 

Guess I'm in the 20%? 

You are right these changes aren't going to effect some course staying open or closing. They would have needed to go further. That way less land is needed, less mowing, water and all that.

Yes I do agree this isn't an issue at the Amateur Level. It's a tour issue, however again I'm not going to get overly animated or upset. It's a game, a golf ball and 5 or 10 yards again isn't going to make a difference to my enjoyment especially when there is equipment available to help me regain some of that in 6... I repeat 6 years!

[cnosil]

4 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Jamie, a ball rollback will do absolutely nothing to help golf courses save money and stay open.  Their revenue comes from us amatuer players who are not in anyway part of the excessive distance problem.  The black tee boxes at virtually every course are in pristine condition... and readily available to throttle the 1% of players that routinely drive the ball 280+.

You are absolutely correct that we are WAY early into this change and we don't know what impact it may have on our game.  But that misses the key point in this debate... it should not be effecting us at all.  By most accounts and a survey from TM, at least 80% of players do not support any rollback to address an issue associated with tour players.  The USGA and R&A know this but still flipped us the middle finger.  Don't know about you, but that pisses me off.

The "wait and see" approach let's this keep moving forward and the fervor die down. That's a tactic played over and over by governing bodies of all types.  Like @Subdiver1said the more they hear from those they are supposed to be representing, the more chance we have at getting this ridiculous change, changed.

As an example, after our Thursday group play yesterday, someone brought this (topic) up. I was amazed how many in the group of 16 knew nothing or little about it.  By the time the discussion was over, everyone seemed in agreement that any changes in equipment or course set-up, to address tour play distance issue, should only be applicable to tour play. 

  Hide contents

I may have had some influence on them but I'm a spy and that's our job! 

 

After reading your comments I was wondering if anyone has heard or seen a published summary of the comments there were submitting during the comment period.  You/we are interpreting this as a middle finger to the average golfer but if the comments from the OEMs were that bifurcation would lead to significant cost increases passed on to the consumer to cover the cost of retooling for the new ball and that most amateurs were against bifurcation because they want to play what the pros play then the decision follows what was requested.   
 

At this point there are too many differing opinions on the impact of the new ball to anyone that plays the ball.  We’ve heard upwards of 40 yards down to just a couple of yards and that no current ball meets the spec to there are balls that meet the spec.   
 

I believe just like there are illegal balls made today that some company will make a prov1 like ball in 2030 that works like the ball does today.   If you want today’s ball I believe you will still have options.   
 

personally I don’t think there was a problem but my current thinking is that  am going to play what is considered legal.  I am also not mad or upset by the decision or at the ruling bodies.  Change happens and there are always people like and dislike any change being made.  

[fixyurdivot]

6 minutes ago, Stuka44 said:

LIV announces they are here for the recreational player, as well as their tournaments. 

LIV will not change ball!  LIV will use course set up, and other things to make their courses more challenging for their pros!

Interesting... I've not heard about this.

 

4 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Guess I'm in the 20%? 

You are right these changes aren't going to effect some course staying open or closing. They would have needed to go further. That way less land is needed, less mowing, water and all that.

Yes I do agree this isn't an issue at the Amateur Level. It's a tour issue, however again I'm not going to get overly animated or upset. It's a game, a golf ball and 5 or 10 yards again isn't going to make a difference to my enjoyment especially when there is equipment available to help me regain some of that in 6... I repeat 6 years!

If you agree that it is a tour issue, why not support limiting any changes to tour play?  Why adversely effect 99% of players for an issue that does not pertain to them?  

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 minute ago, fixyurdivot said:

Interesting... I've not heard about this.

 

If you agree that it is a tour issue, why not support limiting any changes to tour play?  Why adversely effect 99% of players for an issue that does not pertain to them?  

I would be fine with bifurcation as I've started many before. However too many want to play what the pros play and feel the games beauty is that it's the same for everyone (it's not). 

That was the original proposal by USGA and R&A. Then there was push back back the "purists", tours and more leading to this outcome. 

The opportunity was there. It's been missed because many didn't want that. Now we have this and we get to deal with it... In 6 years. 

[skraeling]

6 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Fair enough. 

Maybe it is due to all the other stuff in golf, but I am finding it hard to get overly worked up over any of this. If it helps golf courses save money and stay open great. Do I think a distance decrease of 3-15 yards will help that. No, if anything I believe they could have gone further or more drastic to truly help. 

While our many voices could be heard there are bigger voices pushing back. 

For me the bigger part of all of this is this is years away. Years. There is still so much unknown. We don't have a proper rollback ball to test or compare or even view to make a fuss about. We have projected data and sample results. Not to mention we don't know what added innovations companies are already working on to possible alleviate some of this loss. 

Also for the normal consumers there is nothing stopping you during your fun games to play the normal ball from now. I dunno, I still see this as being something that has many unknowns and until there even more information with independent testing (likely a year or so from now) I'm not sure I can get to the stage where I am truly upset over this. 

It could be have been a lot greater of a change, it could have been more drastic, it won't be the last time this happens and maybe just maybe this could turn out to be a good thing? I'm not someone who suffers from a lack of distance and can make up for these changes with better everything. That won't be the case for everyone and I do feel for all of those golfers. I hope that there is some way to negate any potential losses from them between now and then. 

Plus nothing to stop makers from still making in 6 whatever years technically non conforming balls too.  As long as the pros arnt playing them would the USGA even care?  Id play one if they keep being made and not give two sh!ts what the USGA is saying the new rules are anyway.  This isnt my job I want this to be as easy as I can make it.

[fixyurdivot]

6 minutes ago, cnosil said:

After reading your comments I was wondering if anyone has heard or seen a published summary of the comments there were submitting during the comment period.  You/we are interpreting this as a middle finger to the average golfer but if the comments from the OEMs were that bifurcation would lead to significant cost increases passed on to the consumer to cover the cost of retooling for the new ball and that most amateurs were against bifurcation because they want to play what the pros play then the decision follows what was requested.   

I've not read the comments but that really doesn't drive my thinking/position on this.  It's a tour issue and should be applicable to tour play only.  If the USGA data showed that amateurs have an excessive distance problem, I could understand and grudingly support a change. I also think we are caught in the middle of a power struggle, game of poker between the USGA and R&A and the Tours and OEM's... and some of the claims from both sides are likely skewed.  

Sitting quietly on the sidelines, hoping for the best, definitely won't help get their attention. 

 

 

[Stuka44]

31 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Interesting... I've not heard about this.

This is hypothetical, but I believe LIV if no current manufacturer is willing to produce an "old" ball for recreational players who like it as it is, I believe this is just another way that LIV may try to "stick it to" the stuck up, intransigent, stuff shirts, who are presently making decisions like they speak for everyone who plays the game.

[fixyurdivot]

26 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

I would be fine with bifurcation as I've started many before. However too many want to play what the pros play and feel the games beauty is that it's the same for everyone (it's not). 

That was the original proposal by USGA and R&A. Then there was push back back the "purists", tours and more leading to this outcome. 

The opportunity was there. It's been missed because many didn't want that. Now we have this and we get to deal with it... In 6 years. 

I'm normally the last one you would hear this from but "bring on the lawsuits and lawyers".  Good chance when this is all over the USGA and R&A will be irrelevant, outdated, disconnected entities.

[cnosil]

32 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

I've not read the comments but that really doesn't drive my thinking/position on this.  It's a tour issue and should be applicable to tour play only.  If the USGA data showed that amateurs have an excessive distance problem, I could understand and grudingly support a change. I also think we are caught in the middle of a power struggle, game of poker between the USGA and R&A and the Tours and OEM's... and some of the claims from both sides are likely skewed.  

Sitting quietly on the sidelines, hoping for the best, definitely won't help get their attention. 

I personally don’t think it is a tour issue but there are people that do.   That’s why I would be interested in seeing the feedback on the proposal.   You bold indicates you believe that it is a tour issue; which is fine.   But is the overwhelming majority of the comments were that we don’t want bifurcation of the ball, what reasonable options are there to fix what you believe is an issue?  

[Preeway]

Don't mind me. Nothing to see here. 

Nothing to see here. 

[billybogey]

No!! Am comfortable where Ball is now!! Bifurcation at PGA Pro Tour level will probably make me cheering for LIV!!

& that Sport's Fans is not a good thing!!

Bill Bamber

Edmonton Alberta

 

[Golf2Much]

It's amazing how much oxygen has been sucked out of golf world with the ball rollback discussions, debates and arguments.  Jon Rahm picked a good time to jump to LIV as he would have been a major topic about him and what it means for LIV and the proposed merger ("money grabber", "good for him", "hypocrite", you can just hear both sides lining up for and against him).   Instead, emotions are still flying high about the ball rollback.  Now, Rahm's decision to move is just a footnote and he has to be ecstatic!  Rahm gets the money without the ridicule and public backlash that other traitors (I mean golfers) have faced.  

Didn't we learn anything from the R&A's decision in the 1970's about golf ball diameter change?  The initial 1970 proposal to converge on one worldwide golf ball diameter standard (from an minimum of 1.62 inches to the USGA standard of 1.68 inches) faced intense debate, professionals and everyday golfers pushed back against the proposal, it was pulled in 1973 after years of discussions.  In 1974, the R&A decided just to mandate the change and it went into effect in 1990.  This whole ordeal is a marathon people, not a sprint.  You may want to save some of that emotional energy as history had taught us this will be a long ride!

[Kenny B]

26 minutes ago, cnosil said:

You/we are interpreting this as a middle finger to the average golfer but if the comments from the OEMs were that bifurcation would lead to significant cost increases passed on to the consumer to cover the cost of retooling for the new ball and that most amateurs were against bifurcation because they want to play what the pros play then the decision follows what was requested.  

Too many IFs.  I seriously doubt most amateurs were against bifurcation (maybe elite ams), but even if many am comments were, it's likely it was because they didn't see distance at the tour level being an issue.  I guess that some with egos want to play what the pros play, but we actually don't and we certainly don't play on course conditions like the pros play!!  The additional cost to cover retooling a new ball should not be borne by the consumer who don't want it; let people that want the change pay for it.   WE get to have shorter ball flight AND we get to pay for it!!  Now that's disgusting!

39 minutes ago, cnosil said:

At this point there are too many differing opinions on the impact of the new ball to anyone that plays the ball.  We’ve heard upwards of 40 yards down to just a couple of yards and that no current ball meets the spec to there are balls that meet the spec.   

We could all go out and play with range balls next year just to gather some data on where we will be in the fairway/rough in 6 years.  

Really, it's a matter of perspective.  Sure, if you can move the ball out there, you are likely to not care so much and feel like your game will adapt.  However, if you are currently struggling to reach GIR even from the senior tees AND you are being told that you will lose yards (ANY yards) with the new ball AND knowing that you are going to lose yards anyway because you aged 6 years, you will certainly NOT be thanking the RBs when you have to pay more for golf balls.  Also, I'm waiting for OEMs to start using 10 ball packaging for the current price of a dozen... looks like it will be in 6 years.

[Stuka44]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

I've not read the comments but that really doesn't drive my thinking/position on this.  It's a tour issue and should be applicable to tour play only.  If the USGA data showed that amateurs have an excessive distance problem,

 

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

I also think we are caught in the middle of a power struggle,

100% correct.  Golf is clinging to believing that it is a BETTER, sport than any other, and that the people who play it by THEIR RULES, are the only REAL SUPPORTERS OF THE GAME.  The USGA & R&A are resisting with every fiber of their being, the fact that golf is now ACTUALLY just like any other sport, and that's the way that we the (non professional) masses, who buy 95 percent of the equipment from manufacturers,  want it to be.  We want it to be easier, and more enjoyable because we are NOT PROFESSIONALS, and believe we should have a say so in how the "official" rules we want to play by should be.

We want FLAG FOOTBALL, where their is far less risk of being injured in tackling.  I'm not asking the NFL to go to flag, they are pro's they can strictly follow the rules of the NFL.

I believe female lacrosse is OK, where there is no checking, or much less physical contact than in the men's game.

Softball was OK, I'm glad baseball didn't insist, and try to harass and goad, and threaten ball manufacturers, into not producing softballs, and insist that the ball be thrown overhand, and that I was able to enjoy a game very similar to baseball, with its own set of rules that,  quite mimic MLB but weren't exact, without having to risk being crippled by taking a 65 MPH pitch to the head.

They believe they are better, and will insist on this by ALL WHO PLAY, right up until the point they render themselves useless, and irrelevant. 

[Stuka44]

Oh and by the way, if ANYONE  on this forum believes that because the ball is reduced in length off the tee, that this will make ANYONE, set their ego aside, and speed the game up by moving up a tee box, and playing the game at a distance that they should be playing it at already, and should already be moved up to the front tee box, or the second length, 

THEN I HAVE SOME SWAMP LAND IN THE SAHARA DESERT FOR SALE, interested parties can email me for the price.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Stuka44