Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, RockerFCC said:

Where will they go at Pebble? Or LOTS of courses that were built in areas with no remaining land around them to expand.  You are certainly correct that some can do this, but there are still iconic places that it isn't practical. One could argue that it should not be the primary factor in decisions like this, but there is no question that it does affect some, and not just here in the states. I suppose they can always challenge the pros in other ways, but it does seem to make sense that some limitations are part of the answer. Whether that should affect everyone, just pros, what level, all that is a reasonable question, as well as how to do that.

They don’t have to expand. Pebble held up just fine in 2019 for the US Open. Again the ball doesn’t go to far. The data says the opposite as does the USGAs own equipment person when he states the distance increase in the last 20 years comes from the golfer himself. Hank kuehne averaged 321 in 2003 and in 2023 Rory had an exceptional year at 327 but second place is 321. Rory was at 320 in 2022 and the leader Champ was 321. Top end distance is pretty much maxed out and has been under the current ball and equipment standards.

Also speed has slowed down the last 2 years. Also the narrative of course have to add distance has been debunked by the data including an 18 year study by the superintendents association.

The only reason that courses have added distance is to control the score. They don’t like seeing the best players go low 

 

1 hour ago, GaryF said:

I’ve read a few pages and scanned a few others so maybe this has been addressed, but are all balls created equal?  I didn’t think so.  I don’t play prov1s but rather Srixon Z-Stars (2021), having switched this past year from Q-Stars. My opinion is that there will be no change to many of the balls.  Speculation, but a 66 compression Q-Star is not presently capable of achieving 317 from a 127 or 120 robot SS.  My belief is that the Q-Star and many other balls will over-compress with those SS’s.  Im not sure about the Z-Star, but the before and after Q-Star will be the same ball as will many others.

As for the pros, I really don’t care what effect it has on them.  The longest hitters will still be just that.  Golf is a game of skill and adjustments and if they can’t adjust, that’s too bad for them.   As for scratch and low handicappers, I can see the concern.  As for mid and high handicappers, there are a lot more issues with their game than this ball controversy.  A friend who is a 4-5 and can hit 300 yard drives plays lower compression AVXs which gives him better spin characteristics.  

Was playing with another friend recently who is a 19 hdcp and he was complaining about the change.  Knowing the answer, I asked him - what are you playing and what did you pay for it?  Said he plays prov1s and they are free as he fishes them out of a pond in the evenings. The other brands he gives to his wife.  I  Know many others that just play “whatever” and likely don’t play balls that fit them.   My wife plays Callaway supersofts and I know a few guys that play them - I contend that for the mass of golfers there will be no change to the ball they play.  

In the test you refer to whereby a 221 yard drive will be reduced by 11 yards may very well be true with the modified ball, but that ball likely is a poor fit for someone with a 220 yard carry (like me).   So, I see comments where the mass majority of golfers will be impacted - I just don’t believe it.  Some, definitely, but many just need to play a ball that fits them.

All balls are made to the same specs of the ods. There are balls that are made to better standards or have better designs that allow them to perform better for some golfers while not as good for others. Rahm played titleist for a long time and then found that the tp5 was a better fit in the wind when he was with tm. He struggled for awhile with the Callaway ball after switching contracts. Sergio couldn’t get along with the Callaway ball and broke his contract with Callaway to go back to TP5 balls.

The q star will cost the higher swing speed players a lot more than the 8-15 yards the USGA claims the new standards will result in. The q star for me at around 105 is more than 10 yards off the tee and around a club throughout the bag. I know guys with slower swing speeds than me that tried the q star and one hated it the other was fine with it for the cost but did have some distance loss mostly with irons.

softer balls are goin to perform worse for higher swing speeds as we know from mgs testing and from OEMs soft is slow.

as for the pros when the ball is rollbacked it gives a greater advantage in stroked gained to the longer hitter per a study by broadie. It does nothing to solve whatever problem the ruling bodies are trying to fix. It makes distance more of a premium and will cause more longer hitters on tour and will remove the shorter hitter from being able to make it on tour creating a product more boring than what some claim the current pro game is. This is because everyone will be long and it will be the same shots for everyone. Those who don’t watch pro golf probably don’t care but it will ruin tv experience for the current fans. So if the issue isn’t solved because more long hitters will be on your and as Sasho Mackenzie points out the distance loss will be made up quickly then why do anything. The answer is the ruling bodies are asserting their power and showing the tour who is in charge.

Do you think there will be some magic ball that gets produced for the slow swinger that helps them and one that also doesn’t hurt the faster swings? I doubt it. OEMs are going to have alot less options at that point then there are now. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, RockerFCC said:

The end is to decrease the distance the ball is going. Nothing anyone can do about the players getting better. But equipment restrictions are likely I would think.

They are making a change solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Since they can’t stop golfers from working out and swinging fast(keep in mind tour average is 115 mph) so they go after the equipment that they said isn’t the issue. Distance has been stagnant for 20 years and course length on tour has been relatively the same as well over that period of time.

These arguments about the ball going to far, courses adding distance and so on have all been debunked by the experts. The ruling bodies have ignored them to tell their narrative and convince people there is a problem using cherry picked data that they have been called out on by OEMs, course design and superintendents and other experts in various fields within golf. There was a podcast with Sasho Mackenzie and two others posted that covered all this and they showed how wrong the ruling bodies are.

12 minutes ago, Silver Fawkes said:

That's basically what a lot of us are complaining about. They ARE doing something about players getting better. They are altering equipment to curtail human performance gains. How do we know that? Because the equipment standards and regulations haven't changed in over 20 years, but the average driving distance on the PGA Tour has increased by 20 yards in that same time frame. That is the very definition of players getting better. Moreover, amateurs are upset because the manipulation of equipment to curtail human performance gains by the most elite players in the world is trickling down to the common person. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. 

We don't yet know how much it will affect handicap golfers, but it's just as temerarious to assume it won't affect amateurs at all as it is to assume it'll make current approach shots two clubs shorter. My opinion is that any effect is too much because the entire thing is based around a decision that has nothing to do with us at all.

Exactly and btw it’s actually only 10 yards from 289 to 299. Replace older and slower swingers on tour with younger guys over time and the average is going to go up. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, Javs said:

I don’t think anyone should call @RickyBobby_PR a zealot just because his group play by the rules. Isn’t that what everyone should aspire to do? We play by the rules here. The men’s club and a couple groups adhere to some local rules in competition. However, we still play by the USGA rules. I know those that don’t and that is fine for them. I would never berate anyone for doing the right thing and following the rules. Maybe that is my Marine background…….

I don’t think it was so much that my group plays by the rules as it was having it pointed out that lots of golfers play match play and that those golfers use the rules for their matches, along with the fact that not all handicap carrying golfers play competitive golf. Amongst a couple other things. It’s not the first time he had a hot take on a subject tho that didn’t hold water over time

[funkyjudge]

9 hours ago, Stuka44 said:

 

 

Why is everyone afraid to answer my question! We are all smart guys, can observe, and watch what is going on, and have played at a public course, and can make a reasonable guess, on what you think the number is.  I understand that perhaps in your individual groups, and circles, you all play by the rules, and that is what matters to you. 

My point is I believe these thoughts place you in the vast minority.  And for a weekend game rules, and a rollback of a well performing ball is NOT NECESSARY..  If you actually think that a vast majority of ALL players care then say so.  If not then I would ask that you refrain from using your belief that golf is somehow intrinsically harmed  by ALL players not following a set of rules.  This is just not factually correct!  It is an antiquated idea, that relics are clinging to, for a sense of superiority over others, by applying sanctioned competition rules to non competition play.

I want someone to find out who produces the softball we used in a summer  community softball tournament.   It was literally a "rubber ball"(like you once could buy at a drug store or K-Mart) the size of a softball, wrapped in leather like a real softball(it goes nowhere, and is basically a sponge).   They need to stop producing it.  We should be banned from playing with anything but a hard softball, and risk someone taking a line drive to the face, and being injured, in order to have fun playing anything that resembles, the official rules of baseball.

The argument that the RULES, and not the PEOPLE are what make the NON COMPETITION, ,  game is superiority based.  Golf will survive, but I hope in my lifetime to see the end of the R&A, and USGA, and less so the PGA for being the snobby, elitist, condescending, we know what's best for you thinking, IDIOTS they are.

Have to keep saying it!   "You will kneel before Zod!   It is NOT about what is best for the game, IT IS ABOUT POWER, AND SUPERIORITY! 

I don’t care a damn if golfers playing casual rounds or for fun/practice play by any set of rules. The only ones that I want to see adhering to ALL of the Rules of Golf are the ones who are playing in the competitions (leagues, tournaments, club championships, etc.) in which I am also playing. Since this comprises the vast majority of the rounds of golf that I play, that means that I generally expect that the golfers with whom I am playing and/or competing are strictly adhering to ALL of the rules.

Edited December 11, 2023 by funkyjudge

[Javs]

7 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

I don’t think it was so much that my group plays by the rules as it was having it pointed out that lots of golfers play match play and that those golfers use the rules for their matches, along with the fact that not all handicap carrying golfers play competitive golf. Amongst a couple other things. It’s not the first time he had a hot take on a subject tho that didn’t hold water over time

I think it doesn’t matter if it is match play or stroke play, the game is played by the rules in competition or a local group bet. Something has to be used to keep everyone on the same playing field. I fully understand there are conceded putts in match play. Additionally, some clubs, competitions (VGA) or courses have local rules. However, everyone is still playing under the same rules. 

[silver & black]

2 hours ago, RockerFCC said:

The end is to decrease the distance the ball is going. Nothing anyone can do about the players getting better. But equipment restrictions are likely I would think.

Isn't there already equipment restrictions? Driver COR? Wedge grooves? Putter anchoring? I still don't get what problem is being solved with the ball roll back... if there is only a 5-10 yard decrease in distance, what 'problem' is actually being solved/fixed?

[cnosil]

1 minute ago, silver & black said:

Isn't there already equipment restrictions? Driver COR? Wedge grooves? Putter anchoring? I still don't get what problem is being solved with the ball roll back... if there is only a 5-10 yard decrease in distance, what 'problem' is actually being solved/fixed?

 It is about future proofing and changing the testing protocol to better reflect how todays players hit the ball than the current testing protocol.   From the FAQ

Why change the testing conditions?

To reflect how the longest hitters play the game. The ODS was originally created in 1976 as a ball test to measure the farthest distance golf balls could travel using a mechanical golfer, based on how the longest hitters play the game today. The testing conditions are outdated and need to be updated.

We’re also changing them to reduce the impacts distance will continue to have on the game, long-term. Two of the most important factors are to protect the integrity of golf courses, including their overall length, and to ensure that a variety of skills are needed to play them and achieve success. Both of these aspects have been negatively impacted by increased hitting distance and will continue to be impacted if nothing is done to address these trends.

[RockerFCC]

43 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

They are making a change solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Since they can’t stop golfers from working out and swinging fast(keep in mind tour average is 115 mph) so they go after the equipment that they said isn’t the issue. Distance has been stagnant for 20 years and course length on tour has been relatively the same as well over that period of time.

These arguments about the ball going to far, courses adding distance and so on have all been debunked by the experts. The ruling bodies have ignored them to tell their narrative and convince people there is a problem using cherry picked data that they have been called out on by OEMs, course design and superintendents and other experts in various fields within golf. There was a podcast with Sasho Mackenzie and two others posted that covered all this and they showed how wrong the ruling bodies are.

Exactly and btw it’s actually only 10 yards from 289 to 299. Replace older and slower swingers on tour with younger guys over time and the average is going to go up. 

You can throw stats and say experts this and that all you want. My eyeballs and what my common sense tells me doesn't agree. Players don't even hit mid to long irons ever, almost none of them, especially the big names. Even when Tiger was redefining golf, they were still doing that. Drives are WAY further. That isn't all physical improvement. This is cutting edge design, and that includes the ball. So I don't really get your argument. Now, I am going from a perspective of as far back as the 90's. But I do feel the courses are going to run out of room for these guys in the next 10-20 years. Should they do nothing? The ruling bodies, which I have no love lost for, can just do that till it's all 9 irons to lob wedges on every second shot on par 4's, and god only knows what on 5's, but I don't think they will. And I don't really mind if they do. Not even in respect to my game. I get that a 10 or below player might not like that, I do. Just my perspective.

[RockerFCC]

6 minutes ago, silver & black said:

Isn't there already equipment restrictions? Driver COR? Wedge grooves? Putter anchoring? I still don't get what problem is being solved with the ball roll back... if there is only a 5-10 yard decrease in distance, what 'problem' is actually being solved/fixed?

If you don't think there is a problem, there is no point in debating this, is there? If you DO think there is a problem, what would you do other than restricting equipment? And I don't disagree with you that the whole ball thing essentially did nothing.  I am just saying if real changes to the distance the ball can be hit are what they think are needed, the only real option is equipment changes. It's not like they can do anything about the players getting better with all the science they have access to.

[RockerFCC]

1 hour ago, Silver Fawkes said:

That's basically what a lot of us are complaining about. They ARE doing something about players getting better. They are altering equipment to curtail human performance gains. How do we know that? Because the equipment standards and regulations haven't changed in over 20 years, but the average driving distance on the PGA Tour has increased by 20 yards in that same time frame. That is the very definition of players getting better. Moreover, amateurs are upset because the manipulation of equipment to curtail human performance gains by the most elite players in the world is trickling down to the common person. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. 

We don't yet know how much it will affect handicap golfers, but it's just as temerarious to assume it won't affect amateurs at all as it is to assume it'll make current approach shots two clubs shorter. My opinion is that any effect is too much because the entire thing is based around a decision that has nothing to do with us at all.

I don't think anything you are saying is wrong. None of it bothers me personally, but I get it. I do think the highest levels need to be curtailed. How you do that without affecting everyone, I have no idea.

[Alan Scalzi]

9 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Not arguing one way or another but every tournament and such that I have seen or taken part of here has been Matchplay or Stableford. Surprised me, but it's the norm here. When I played back in Canada we almost always did match play.

Normal head to the course meet with ppl we play stroke play. It's different everywhere. No right or wrong by anyone as the exposure levels change in various regions.

Just have all the professionals use the same ball! End of story 

[silver & black]

10 minutes ago, RockerFCC said:

If you don't think there is a problem, there is no point in debating this, is there? If you DO think there is a problem, what would you do other than restricting equipment? And I don't disagree with you that the whole ball thing essentially did nothing.  I am just saying if real changes to the distance the ball can be hit are what they think are needed, the only real option is equipment changes. It's not like they can do anything about the players getting better with all the science they have access to.

Exactly. What more can be done? There is already standards to equipment (clubs/putters). The ball itself... maybe not. Why not just impose a standard for where the ball is at this moment in time? If the decrease in distance from a roll back is only going to be 5 - 10 yards, I fail to see what is actually being accomplished?

[silver & black]

1 minute ago, Alan Scalzi said:

Just have all the professionals use the same ball! End of story 

I would argue that they all do use the same ball.... just a different maker/name.

[Alan Scalzi]

1 minute ago, silver & black said:

I would argue that they all do use the same ball.... just a different maker/name.

That's not the same ball then!

[silver & black]

1 minute ago, Alan Scalzi said:

That's not the same ball then!

So.... we are arguing semantics? Pro V1 is basically not the same ball as a TP5... or other premium urethane balls? Okay..... not exactly the same, but undiscernable from each other by 99.9% of golfers? I would argue they are all so close as to not make a difference.

[GolfSpy_APH]

40 minutes ago, silver & black said:

So.... we are arguing semantics? Pro V1 is basically not the same ball as a TP5... or other premium urethane balls? Okay..... not exactly the same, but undiscernable from each other by 99.9% of golfers? I would argue they are all so close as to not make a difference.

I think that is a whole other topic and one that would certainly be considered a hot take.

[Subdiver1]

12 hours ago, Preeway said:

I would have to pretty strongly disagree with this sentiment. The rules are absolutely what make the game what it is

Hence Rule 1.

Rules are what make everything, from games to cultures to society, what they are. I'll leave that one there

[Subdiver1]

5 hours ago, Javs said:

I don’t think anyone should call @RickyBobby_PR a zealot just because his group play by the rules. Isn’t that what everyone should aspire to do? We play by the rules here. The men’s club and a couple groups adhere to some local rules in competition. However, we still play by the USGA rules. I know those that don’t and that is fine for them. I would never berate anyone for doing the right thing and following the rules. Maybe that is my Marine background…….

Concur.  This and a couple others show that the discussion is degrading into maelstrom.

[GolfSpy_APH]

43 minutes ago, Subdiver1 said:

Concur.  This and a couple others show that the discussion is degrading into maelstrom.

And just think we get to continue this conversation for another 6 years! ... ugh haha

[Subdiver1]

21 hours ago, chisag said:

 

 

... You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. We have seen more than a few on this thread state unequivocally NOBODY wants bifurcation. Yet they only make up 30% of the votes with 44% for and the rest don't care. It is the most vocal and outraged, and I am guessing those that wanna make golf great again that seem to think their opinions are shared by everyone or certainly should be. 

... My group of 6 play by the rules. 4 of them may break a rule unknowingly but usually ask the two of us if they are unsure. We are not zealots but simply wish to play by the rules. Even the ones we think are stupid. And when someone in the group does inadvertently break a rule those of us that know better  don't mention it or care. We play for the joy of competition, mostly with the course and ourselves, the camaraderie and the fresh air and sunshine. Nobody in our group drinks on the course and several of us don't drink away from the course either. I am the only one that plays music and my pards enjoy it but can only hear it if they are within 6-10 feet of my ZIP cart. None of us can hear it on the tee or the greens, just while we are walking between shots. And all of us walk. We have never bet on golf though we have occasionally played as twosomes competing with our handicaps simply for pride. 

... It would be easy for me to extrapolate my personal info to everyone that plays golf. But in the summer 2 of my pards go back to Canada and 1 back to Chicago and I am paired up with plenty of strangers so I know from personal experience how people play golf, what rules they play by and how series they are is all over the map. Although thankfully a group of Bro's drinking heavily and playing music far too loud seems to be relegated to their individual foursome and I have only been paired up with a 3some that lost their 4th once and it was one of the few unpleasant days I ever spent on a golf course. I truly appreciate this poll which certainly shows those outraged and ready to march on the USGA headquarters with tiki torches that they are in the minority. Some even objected to "don't care" as an answer even though most really just don't care one way or the other, so it really was the best option. Not they don't have an opinion because most certainly do but in the end they know ranting on social media about an obscure 1st world problem... repeatedly, is simply a waste of their time. 

... But the bottom line is personally I really don't care and I have learned when there are things in life I have absolutely no control over, I don't worry about them. In the end my opinion means less than nothing and the USGA will do what they want to do. Then I can abide by their rules or choose not to, just like millions of golfers rolling their ball in the fairway, moving it out of a divot or taking mulligans which is fine by me too. 

There quite a bit of contradiction in the survey.  But, quite a bit that lend more to the numbers against bifurcation and against any change:

- Correlation (Q1, Q4): 58.2% were NOT in favor of the roll back. AND The majority WHO CARE, want to play the same equipment.  (31% vs. 27%) So a majority there also are not in favor of a roll back.

- Contradiction (Q5, Q6): A larger portion feel that they will NOT be "dramatically" affected (45% - 29%) but a larger percentage (39 - 29) fee that any loss of distance will "significantly" take away from their enjoyment. 

- Contradiction (Q4, Q8): A majority want to play the same equipment as the pros (31% of those who care), another majority are in favor of "bifurcation" (41%), but 26% didn't care; Why? A majority cannot be for both of these, the logic doesn't work.

- Yes, (Q8) the majority in that question "prefer" bifurcation; WHO and As Opposed to what, since the majority were NOT in favor of the rollback AND the majority want to play the same equipment.  Again, one cannot have majority on both sides of two contradicting conditions.

On the closing of your initial paragraph, THIS is where civil discourse devolves into shouting and name calling.  

A. You obviously DO care since you are continuing to "contribute."  

B.  Sometimes the "most vocal and outraged" are the ones who we actually DO need to listen to.  The rest of the group can ignore the loud guy or maybe listen and discuss.  Failing to listen to everyone is where Groupthink occurs.  Maybe the most "vocal and outraged" have seen what GroupTHink result in elsewhere.  It is GOOD to have dissenting voice.  If no one is willing to speak up, then the volume can never grow to a point that the common man gets heard over the din of the bureaucracy.

OR Maybe, just maybe some people don't like being lied to and will get their hackles up and challenge something when they know, or realize they are being lied to. Doesn't matter if it is the local dog catcher, the librarian, the guy begging for change at the exit who gets caught driving off later in a Mercedes; when you lie to change something there is a hidden agenda there and THAT will get a lot of normal people pi$$ed off and up in arms.  When you are a governing body, Student Council or rules makers of a game, something is wrong when you feel like you have to lie to people to justify your actions.  And THAT absolutely deserves push back, NOT "rollover."

C. It is sad that you feel that your voice means nothing to the and some bureaucracy will do what they want and you'll just roll over and accept that.  This is OUR game, NOT theirs.  When we stop speaking, then we stop mattering.  MGS is a great example of this.  MGS could have sought sponsors or "felt" that they would have no voice unless they went along with traditional testing and reporting (e.g. GD  Top XYZ of the year), wooing sponsors and echoing the party line, instead, they started and remain independent.  Kudos to them and this is why many of us are here, and why we come back and consume the content.

I hope you have a good day and I hope someday you can overcome your bitterness at the rest of us discussing something we share a passion for.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Subdiver1
Spousal unit interruption of thought flow.

[Bang60]

15 metres makes little to NO difference to a golf Professional, in all likelihood it'll make bugger all difference to me as well. They will hit 7 instead of 8 iron into the green, people like Rory who can hit 380 yards will not be happy and not happening for another 7ish years

[Rob Person]

Forgetting about the pros for a moment (albeit what is the core of this discussion)

From a true beginners perspective.

You play a couple rounds or whack some range balls with friends and think, hmmm... I might like this. So you decide to just start playing golf.

Buy some clubs, move up to a fitting, go with some shaft changes, and a few lessons, you find a ball that suits your abilities over the run of following months, maybe even get fitted for that.  Then add dozens of practice sessions. You start to really improve your game. You have dialed in your shots. You are enjoying this game!

You probably invest in different clubs and equipment to maximize your gains.

The caviat is that your ability has limits (due to whatever physicsl ailments) 

now comes along the implementation of "the pros hit too far,  so we need to knock them down a notch"

now... the time and money YOU invested (as a novice golfer) to get where you are, while not for nothing,  has just taken a serious blow. 

maybe you are right, maybe it won't affect the pros negatively. And to be frank I hope it doesn't. But where this is going to be the biggest loss, is on the consumer.

equipment manufacturers are not going to stop producing or creating newer stuff, but what beginner wants to go out and replace that $400 + driver after only playing well with it after a year, or invest in new clubs when you've barely broken in the ones you have?

same applies to the balls imo. While their will not be an immediate notice of loss of revenue,  eventually those costs will have to go up. The pros are already sponsored on their equipment (90% anyway), so it won't affect them the same way it affects JQP.

 

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

9 hours ago, cnosil said:

 It is about future proofing and changing the testing protocol to better reflect how todays players hit the ball than the current testing protocol.   From the FAQ

Why change the testing conditions?

To reflect how the longest hitters play the game. The ODS was originally created in 1976 as a ball test to measure the farthest distance golf balls could travel using a mechanical golfer, based on how the longest hitters play the game today. The testing conditions are outdated and need to be updated.

We’re also changing them to reduce the impacts distance will continue to have on the game, long-term. Two of the most important factors are to protect the integrity of golf courses, including their overall length, and to ensure that a variety of skills are needed to play them and achieve success. Both of these aspects have been negatively impacted by increased hitting distance and will continue to be impacted if nothing is done to address these trends.

There is no need to future proof. The current standard already take care of that. Top end distance hasn’t gone up in 20 years, average distance due to launch monitors and better athletes have increased the average driving distance by 10 yards. Pros have more speed in the tank but choose not to use it because if the added risk (see Tony Finau statements about why he doesn’t hit it farther). Read Sasho Mackenzie’s X/Twitter post saying the same and that if the ball rollbacks these golfers will get the distance back.

The integrity of the course just means we don’t like lower scores, but nobody wants to watch pros hit drives 280-290 yards. It’s why the pga tour sets up courses to allow for rollout and longer total drives. Their TV deal tends to agree with that approach and what people want. Despite the average driving distance going up by 10 yards scoring average hasn’t dropped so it’s not as if all of a sudden pros are scoring better from the added average distance.

We know that speed has stayed the same (2019-2021) and declined (2022-2023) so there’s nothing to future proof or protect. The chances in the next 5,10,15 years that someone is going to come along with the current equipment and start blowing up the top end of distance with the current standards is very low.

9 hours ago, RockerFCC said:

You can throw stats and say experts this and that all you want. My eyeballs and what my common sense tells me doesn't agree. Players don't even hit mid to long irons ever, almost none of them, especially the big names. Even when Tiger was redefining golf, they were still doing that. Drives are WAY further. That isn't all physical improvement. This is cutting edge design, and that includes the ball. So I don't really get your argument. Now, I am going from a perspective of as far back as the 90's. But I do feel the courses are going to run out of room for these guys in the next 10-20 years. Should they do nothing? The ruling bodies, which I have no love lost for, can just do that till it's all 9 irons to lob wedges on every second shot on par 4's, and god only knows what on 5's, but I don't think they will. And I don't really mind if they do. Not even in respect to my game. I get that a 10 or below player might not like that, I do. Just my perspective.

Stats are what makes decisions. If you haven’t been to a tour event and seen that there are more golfers not hitting wedges and 9 irons into greens and only basing it on the shots seen on tv which are just a handful of players in contention of which some are on the longer side then yeah your eyes will tell you want you want to see.  By that measure pros make almost all their putts from 10’ and in because that’s what you see on tv, but that stats tell you it’s not even close to that and that it’s 50% from 8-10’.

Numbers are the story and debating on emotions or perceptions is a weak way of going about things. Data > feelings.

There is not cutting edge design. Rory with the latest and greatest ball, fitted equipment (and as he and some on forums like to say playing with equipment that we amateurs can’t get), using launch monitor to optimize his ball flight and with the best coaches, trainers and nutritionist available to him if he wants them he is hitting the ball the same distance as Hank keuhne did in 2003. So if there was all this cutting edge equipment why isn’t Rory hitting much farther than Hank. Or even someone like a cam champ who has the highest ball speed on tour?

9 hours ago, RockerFCC said:

If you don't think there is a problem, there is no point in debating this, is there? If you DO think there is a problem, what would you do other than restricting equipment? And I don't disagree with you that the whole ball thing essentially did nothing.  I am just saying if real changes to the distance the ball can be hit are what they think are needed, the only real option is equipment changes. It's not like they can do anything about the players getting better with all the science they have access to.

There isn’t a problem. This is the ruling bodies trying to dictate how the pros on the pga tour and dp world tour should play golf. The PGA tour isn’t complaining about distance being an issue but rather are promoting it with their setups. They even move tee boxes up throughout the week. If they felt there was a distance problem and it was impacting their business they would either make a change to course setup or would have been leading the charge for a ball rollback or some other equipment change. They would have adopted the MLR ball for all their events. Instead they pushed back on it.

People may not like the “bomb and gouge” approach to golf but that doesn’t mean there is a problem. When the people producing a product ie the pga tour don’t feel there is a problem then an outside org telling them one is just that org creating a solution looking for a problem

And while I know that they are trying to protect a handful of courses for both opens their actions contradict their words. If St Andrews was in danger of being irrelevant for the elite male golfer why did they choose it for the walker cup this year. They could have picked another course anywhere in europe.

[DaveP043]

6 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

And just think we get to continue this conversation for another 6 years! ... ugh haha

Nah, this will die down in a short time, just as it did when the first Distance Research Project report was issued, just as it did this Spring when the proposed bifurcated reduction was announced.  It'll come back to a full boil in a few years when the limitations are enforced at the top level, and then people will realize that golf on TV looks unchanged.  Then we'll again hear the caterwauling when all of us lose a bit of distance, and that will die down pretty quickly too.

[fixyurdivot]

13 hours ago, RockerFCC said:

Where will they go at Pebble? Or LOTS of courses that were built in areas with no remaining land around them to expand.  You are certainly correct that some can do this, but there are still iconic places that it isn't practical. One could argue that it should not be the primary factor in decisions like this, but there is no question that it does affect some, and not just here in the states. I suppose they can always challenge the pros in other ways, but it does seem to make sense that some limitations are part of the answer. Whether that should affect everyone, just pros, what level, all that is a reasonable question, as well as how to do that.

I'm reading your responses as you agree there is a distance problem on tour - is that correct?  Presuming this rollback or bifurcation eventually takes place, what difference do you expect to see watching tour events?  Were this to change the average subpar scores by a stroke or two, so what?  Do you think you will notice players grabbing the next wedge down in loft or that they'll suddenly be missing GIR's.  Even if they get the entire average 11 yards back from the field off the tee, the game will not change.  As such, there is no issue with the vast majority of courses they play.  The few that are on the short side, with no more room to lengthen, can (and some do) just make up for it on course set-up.

The USGA and R&A are creating a pile of churn for nothing.  I get that some folks are all about change for change sake - don't undertsand it but it is what it is.  I can/do support change that actually does something positive.  This does not.

[RickyBobby_PR]

8 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

I'm reading your responses as you agree there is a distance problem on tour - is that correct?  Presuming this rollback or bifurcation eventually takes place, what difference do you expect to see watching tour events?  Were this to change the average subpar scores by a stroke or two, so what?  Do you think you will notice players grabbing the next wedge down in loft or that they'll suddenly be missing GIR's.  Even if they get the entire average 11 yards back from the field off the tee, the game will not change.  As such, there is no issue with the vast majority of courses they play.  The few that are on the short side, with no more room to lengthen, can (and some do) just make up for it on course set-up.

The USGA and R&A are creating a pile of churn for nothing.  I get that some folks are all about change for change sake - don't undertsand it but it is what it is.  I can/do support change that actually does something positive.  This does not.

This is where the problem comes in. What the ruling bodies did does nothing to fix whatever problem they are trying to claim exists. The long hitters are still going to be long. The ones that people claim fly the trouble with a 8-15 yard reduction are still going to fly these various trouble area whether it’s cutting a corner, flying a bunker, etc. then as Sasho points out they will get the distance back and we are in the same spot as today with the “ball going to far” problem even though just like now it’s not the ball but the golfer.

So what then? It will be another rollback and more harm to the amateur golfer. If this isn’t the breaking point for people being done with the ruling bodies will the next one be. This rollback doesn’t bring back shorter courses on tour or in the majors. It won’t affect scores and it wont have golf courses not maintaining their current tee boxes and using them so when the tee boxes are at the same place as now but amateur golfers are shorter off tee the game becomes harder because they need to hit a longer club than before the rollback. Some will say move up but there are lots of golfers that want to be challenged on the course and enjoy playing further back to see how good they can score. 

[RockerFCC]

As I said, if you don't think there is a problem, there is no point in debating this. I can give you stats for anything you like that support one side or the other. I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Not going to argue about somethign that people are set on. It's all good, Cheers

[RickyBobby_PR]

35 minutes ago, RockerFCC said:

As I said, if you don't think there is a problem, there is no point in debating this. I can give you stats for anything you like that support one side or the other. I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Not going to argue about somethign that people are set on. It's all good, Cheers

kind of goes both ways and even the ruling bodies are choosing to ignore the actual data and have chosen to make their own facts with cherry picked data that they have been called out on by pretty much everyone and they are choosing to not engage with others like Sasho Mackenze. 

[chisag]

7 hours ago, Subdiver1 said:

I hope you have a good day and I hope someday you can overcome your bitterness at the rest of us discussing something we share a passion for.

 

... I guess this is where the written word without expression or context can fail us. I have no bitterness at all for anyone that loves the game and has an opinion different than mine. I don't even disagree with them, I just have a different opinion. 

[CB Lobo 4 Life]

Look, there is so much to this can of worms that already things are getting ugly and heated. To each their own, sure, I am okay with that. However, I still hate that a bureaucratic regime can now control my enjoyment of a game that I am deeply passionate about. I hate it. I feel like becoming my ancestors and dumping their stupid less distance golf balls into the ocean like a new-age Boston Tea Party. Because here is my issue, and mark my words: "It will not stop with the golf ball." Soon once they figure out that they can impose their will on the ball, it will be the driver, fairway woods, hybrids, and who knows what else. I agree there should be limitations to things but I was pretty sure that golf was in a good place. Now, I am not so sure...

Again this is just my very passionate opinion that I can't help but finally let out!