Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[storm319]

8 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Flip that question. Do nothing ever? Just let the ball continue to go further and further. The testing protocols they are using are from 20 years ago. I think it's fair for them to update them given how the game has changed the last 20 years.

Golf is about all parts of the game and the core issue is that right now too much of that emphasis is on distance off the tee. This will hopefully help bring a few of the other parts of the game and skill back to the elite levels.

We can keep going around and around for the next 6 years making all the same arguments on both sides. In the end it's going to happen in some form or fashion and at least now golfers have years to prepare for it.

Scaling the testing protocol to better reflect the peak is one thing, but this rollback is not that. When they updated the testing protocol in 2004 (the previous protocol was from 1976), the scaled the distance limit with it. The 2004 update didn’t result in the majority of the balls on the list being deemed non-conforming.

This is not going to change the way that the game is played at the elite level, this is simply moving the starting line back a bit and essentially goading the players to put more emphasis on swinging faster to make up for the loss. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, Jmikecpa said:

A little late to this as I have been catching up on the press statements over the last few days. The reason for no bifurcation is that local clubs and state Ams could not figure out how to apply a local rule. I have to be missing something or this is dumber than I thought it was. Every sport has some form of bifurcation between the elite level and recreational level. Baseball is a great example and I played my entire life and was never confused in what rules applied for each level. Also never had an issue adapting to rules at the next level as I moved up. Maybe I am an overachiever but I was not even confused between wooden bat leagues and aluminum bat leagues, figured it out pretty quickly. When this rule hits I will be in my mid 50’s and then get to lose distance. Way to grow the game. 

I’m not aware of any club issues and state ams that would be confused because it would be stated what the ball would be, just. Like if they chose to use any other mlrs.

but with the mlr any league/competition could use it. So now you would have amateurs not sure what tournaments might use it or not use it and having to switch between balls and possibly clubs.

But with that said the ruling bodies never identified to what level they would apply the mlr to. Would it be down to a state am or lower than that. All they said was elite male and everyone ran with it just affecting for pros. But what the ruling bodies wanted was for the tours to adopt the rule which they say nope not happening.

The great thing about golf is that amateurs get to play with the same equipment and same rules as the pros along with possibly being able to play with them and have handicap even out the competition. Not possible in any other sport. Nobody but the ruling bodies and some who have these misperceptions about the equipment pros use or those who don’t like that there are more pros hitting the ball 300 yards and want the pros to play golf like in the 70s and 80s are pushing for bifurcation all so they can compare their idols to the current players. Some want courses that haven’t been used on tour or the majors since the mid 80s to come back.

Bifurcation for golf is just bad

[storm319]

9 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Before I take these as any kind of "proof", I'd like to understand just how these balls were tested.  The 125 mph test speed only came out a short while ago, does anyone know how much effort Srixon put into this ball?  I agree than 10 or 11 yards loss from 221 yard drive is more than the initial published estimates, but I'll wait to see how the final ball designs work.  

Yeah, stop helping other local golfers, that's the way to show your disdain for the USGA.  Who do you think you'll really end up punishing?

Actually, the USGA listed the 125 mph speed in their March 2022 area of interest notice and the launch/spin conditions remained the same from the MLR proposal from earlier this year (and Whan mentioned the MLR approach allowed them to to be more aggressive on speed), so it wasn’t particularly difficult to predict what was coming. 

To be fair, the ODS is exactly that, a limit. There are plenty of balls on the list today that fall way short of the limit, so to think that every ball will right up to the limit under this new protocol initially is not realistic. We also have no idea what Srixon did with this prototype to fall within the limit under the new conditions (could have very well increased spin and used a less efficient dimple pattern that was a poor fit for Bradley and Glover). Ultimately this will redefine optimal launch conditions and players/OEMs will simply have new targets.

[storm319]

6 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Not to mention these:

https://www.golfsidekick.com/balls/best-illegal-golf-balls/

The irony of a rules advocate now advocating for people that don’t like this rule change to break the rules…

[Bob Pegram]

It's time for the ball manufacturers, club manufacturers, the PGA and other tours to tell the USGA where to go. They should adopt the USGA rules, but exclude the ball distance reduction as well as the 46 inch optional club limit while they are at it. I don't know of any other sport where amateurs control the rules for the professionals.

[storm319]

6 hours ago, cnosil said:

Wait, there are companies that make golf balls that don’t meet USGA rules and people buy them?   I guess in 2030, there will be options for those that don’t want to play the balls that meet the new spec.

These are outliers. There are very few options on the market that do not conform (mainly due to low demand) and there is little reason to think that this will change. 

[cnosil]

9 minutes ago, storm319 said:

These are outliers. There are very few options on the market that do not conform (mainly due to low demand) and there is little reason to think that this will change. 

Sarcasm,  but there are options and if people don't like the new ball perhaps the market for illegal balls will grow.  

[storm319]

11 minutes ago, Bob Pegram said:

It's time for the ball manufacturers, club manufacturers, the PGA and other tours to tell the USGA where to go. They should adopt the USGA rules, but exclude the ball distance reduction as well as the 46 inch optional club limit while they are at it. I don't know of any other sport where amateurs control the rules for the professionals.

Easier said than done. Do you think that they want to manage testing new product submissions under the existing test protocols to maintain the status quo? I think it is less about the field of play rules at this point and more about none of these organizations wanting to take on regulating equipment. 

[racingdaly]

23 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

So far the USGA hasn’t proved that 7 yards will be the distance loss. Their own testing shows an 11 yard loss on a 221 yard drive. Srixon testing shows 30+ yards for their pros and the non pros weren’t happy with the results either 

Can you share a link to the Srixon study that showed a 30+ yard loss?  I'd love to look at the data, and it could very well change my opinion on this whole thing.

As a high (mid 20s) hdcp player, I can drive it 300 (on occasion), and I can also pop it straight up 195 (on more than one occasion), or I can send in anywhere from 240-265 as per usual, all in the same round.  So the 5 to even 10-yard impact for someone like me isn't likely to register at all as it's well within the normal variance for my inconsistent game. If actual data is showing a 30-yard reduction, then I'd take notice.

But the only thing I could find that seems to match up to your Srixon number is Keegan Bradley griping about it.  If we're going to consider "player perception" as data then we should also consider the "player perception" from the USGA Study you mentioned that "shows an 11-yard loss on a 221-yard drive." Namely, 29% of the respondents in that study claimed they felt the reduced distance ball (Np-500) flew "Longer or Much Longer" than their current ball.  

You earlier referenced that NP-500 ball.  The one study I could find that referenced it was part of a report from 2022 (linked above) about how to address distance and included everything including multiple ball (size, aero, cor) and equipment changes. The USGA requested OEMs to produce a ball that would distance by 4.5%. The NP-500 was the result and used COR to accomplish that.  In testing the actual reduction was 4.9%. (The NP-300 was an 8.5% reduction through aerodynamics per spec).  For 4.9% to equal 30 yards (the low of the Srixon numbers you cite) you'd have to be averaging 612 yards off the tee.

One other problem with pointing to that study is that while an 11-yard reduction from a 221-yard drive is indeed more than we're being told to expect, that study was using data from 2012:

To believe numbers of an exploratory ball from 2012 are in any way relatable to numbers for on-market balls from 2023, let alone 2030 when this takes effect and OEMs have had 6 years to optimize seems misguided. Add to that that 1/3 of the balls on the market already conform to the new standard and I have a hard time believing this is going to have much impact on the average amateur. 

That said if you can share this Srixon study and I can evaluate the actual data, or show me that the USGA study you're citing is different than the one that I could find, I'm more than willing to review it and change my mind if the data warrants.

 

[BigBoiGolf]

Do we even know if the USGA's numbers are based on ACTUAL robotic data, estimations, or real player testing? The only data I care about is genuine, repeatable robotic testing. I don't care about player perceptions, I want the actual results so that people are free to run their own math analysis on it.

I really just wish they'd release the supposed list of golf balls they say are conforming to this standard, unless I'm mistaken and this is another one of their fantastic estimates/guesses.

If they don't even have that list ready to go, it's the most irresponsible handling of this situation as far as I'm concerned.

Edited December 13, 2023 by BigBoiGolf

[GolfSpy_APH]

5 hours ago, cnosil said:

Sarcasm,  but there are options and if people don't like the new ball perhaps the market for illegal balls will grow.  

There will most definitely be companies that continue to make the balls as is. Just like you can still get clubs with non conforming grooves. That isnt just going to go away. 

I kinda would like a company to do a non conforming unrestricted ball to show how far they can push the limits of technology and how far they can really make a ball go. 

[wbn]

Leave the golf ball alone. Make fairways more narrow and the rough more penalizing.

[Golfzilla70]

well, i used to be quite a bit longer off the tee than i am now (shoulder injuries and age have taken their toll).  Having said that, i've also lived through the days of persimmon / laminated woods, right on up to the equipment that's out there now.  I've seen how golf has changed.

I know the game people play today is different than 30 years ago.  The real question is, i suppose, what do you consider to be golf?  Up until about the 80's or 90's, hitting it long was a bonus, but was absolutely NO good to you if you couldn't hit a fairway.  Today (it happened right about 2000), the equipment made it so the pros were more concerned about hitting it long than hitting it straight.  All of a sudden, they could decide to either hit a wedge out of the rough or an 8 iron out of the fairway.  There were always behemoths able to move the clubhead at ridiculous speeds, but not without penalty if they didn't hit it in the fairway.  It was a no-brainer.  The huge heads on the drivers, with their wider area of sweet spot (no the sweet spot isn't bigger BUT the mis-hits don't hurt nearly as much) made it so that accuracy could still be somewhat there, but you could swing like John Henry on the train rails at it and still make decent contact with the ball. 

And the ball itself went from the high-spin balata (the pros could choose a 2-piece ball if they wished, but no way it would stop on those firm fast greens they played) to a ball that spins just a little less but is long like the 2-piece balls.  All of a sudden you've got Rock Flite performance with the driver and haven't lost much spin control with the wedge.

All i'm saying is that i support a rollback because the game is rewarding a smaller segment of golfer that can move a driver at ridiculous speeds without much worry of the consequences of misdirection.  I love to see the long ball, and i'd love to see it continue.  BUT i want to see these guys do it with accuracy.  Don't give them a way out if they miss the fairway.  Today they can hit 350-yard bombs, and if the miss the fairway, they've probably missed it so badly that they're getting free drops because the TV people have made grandstands all over the golf course and they get crazy free drops.  It happens all the time.  This is NOT a situation you see in regular golf from regular people, ONLY the tour guys.  And thus, i believe ONLY the tour guys should have to suffer the rollback.

[EugeGall]

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

[Pkc]

     I played on the Nike tour/Buy.com tour back twenty something years ago.  And today as a reinstated amateur who hits the ball less distance than then and has played and watched the sport over the years.  I personally think rolling back the golf ball isn’t the right move.  Yes they can roll back a few yards for the tour pros, they are good enough players where they can adapt to clubs that are an inch longer and still within regulation.  They can train themselves like Bryson did to swing a little harder to make up the difference.  What they can’t do is magically become more accurate while gaining distance.  
        I think golf courses unfortunately need to adjust to today’s stronger faster swinging tour players.  This doesn’t mean adding distance to the courses.  Since they’ve already added some 400-600 yards to courses over the last 30-40 years.  The courses need to give the players more risk at over 300 yards off the tee to level the playing field.  Whether the fairway become extremely narrow with bunkers, waste traps, longer rough, tree placement, bushes, brush, etc, something to make the players play with more strategy over just hitting long.  Until that happens there are too many work around for the golf ball to magically solve the USGA’s perceived issue.  Personally I find the long hitters on tour fascinating and it’s a reason myself and son are willing to watch tour players in person.  Not sure if tour players were forced too far back the game may become too mundane to bother watching in person for younger golfers.  Young golfers all seem obsessed with how far tour players hit the ball. And with up and coming tours like LIV who I doubt will bother enforcing this rule might make historic tours obsolete.  USGA really needs to listen to its audience and youth and not worry about what they personally don’t like seeing because it’s different then what they grew up with.  I understand a bunch of old legends would like to protect their records.  Unfortunately for them now a days younger adults like to be entertained, showmanship over just watching a golfer play well.  It’s very easy to see by who has the biggest crowds following and who has more social media followers.  
      This will affect golf business as well, what if Titleist as they’ve already become vocal about the roll back, decides to pulls their funding from USGA and even the PGA if the PGA decides to accept this rule and gives their funding to LIV?  That’s just one major funding for these groups what if others follow suit?  And I wouldn’t blame Titleist since this will definitely hurt their sales, why buy Titleist over another brand if every ball needs to be essentially the same in the general public’s eyes?  Will this hurt the golf ball industry, yes, whether in sales or whether in additional production costs of a new rolled back golf ball and keeping their old ball.  Will this mean less testing and research to develop better future golf balls?  Will golf ball manufacturers now focus on more accuracy over distance?  Will club manufacturers now focus on gaining distance through shafts since they’re less regulated?  Will they come up with a better driver material to make drives longer while still adhering to cor rules?  
     Unfortunately the USGA can’t stop progress and rolling it back isn’t the answer.  Maybe slowing it down to allow the courses to catch up is but rolling back I think is a bad move.  This leaves too many doors open for change when the PGA tour is already losing great players to LIV and who knows maybe sponsors in the future as well.  

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Pkc

[mackdaddy]

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

[FmrCaddie13]

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

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

[TR21X]

I only play golf with some buddies and my local golf club not any golf tournaments.  I'll just stock up current balls then once they run out I'll probably look to buy some non-conforming balls.  I'm sure some manufacture will make a ball that works better for a guy like me that will be 62 years old in 2030.

[gman8966]

Coming from the manufacturing industry, having to make a new ball or even two different balls would cause the manufacturers to be forced to purchase new equipment, supplies, R&D, etc., which in turn would raise the price of golf balls. Prices are already through the roof as it is.

[MacAndrews]

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

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

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

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

[cmart0219]

no

[Franc38]

The whole thing smells very very fishy...

If they want the courses that are short to be "relevant again" by making the ball shorter, that's not by taking 8 or 9 yards away that they'll achieve that. Proper training, driver and swing optimisation allows to gain more than that... For the tour pros. For random Joe, that's probably making a number of par 3 unreachable unless they use the drive and have a lucky bounce, some par 4 into par 5 -or 6...

However, course can be made narrower, the help from public being on the side of the rough can be supressed by making all the "behind the ropes" areas OoB, and so on. My little par 32, 9-holes home course which is 2300 yards long has, a long time ago, hosted an event with European tour players... Well, the best one shot 4 under. When the fairway is 25 yards wide, when you then have penalty areas or OoB on the side, when the greens are small and fast, when you have trees, sharp dog legs, and so on, you just don't gain from being longer, you gain from being accurately long, which is hard... Sure half of the par 4 greens are "drivable" for a tour level distance player. But miss the 16 yards wide green by 3 yards and you loose your ball. Do you hit driver? I don't! Having an "tour average" length ball, I very often tee up with a 4 iron, or even a 7 iron, because having the right club to attack the green in paramount, and deviating a bit when you attack them kills your card.

Why not offer, for the courses that are short, yet wide, or historic or whatever, the possibility to have a local rule that imposes a "reduced flight" ball from their own choosing ("monotype") to all players. That is, if they want to keep doing what they've "always done"...  But clearly making courses shorter is a better answer than making them longer and then trying to shorten the ball.

[BobBC78]

20 hours ago, vandyland said:

Yes the same specs as in it conforms.

But let's frame this argument a little bit. See below. I will just pop over to Taylormade and start my 6 month project with them. This doesn't increase distance but come on, this is wild. Nevermind all the prototypes that Bryson went through at Cobra. 

Depends on your view of something like this -- https://www.pgatour.com/article/news/equipment-report/2023/05/03/rory-mcilroy-on-his-new-frankenstein-like-wedges-and-putter-setup-in-charlotte

Well said @vandyland!  While in theory us amateurs can play the exact same clubs as the pros because they are "all conforming" in reality such a thing is unlikely. As exhibit "B" (to @vandyland's exhibit "A") I'll offer the one-off set sand wedge which Dylan Frittelli had Callaway make to match his Apex irons a couple of years back. Every estimate which I read at the time suggested that this wedge probably cost around $2,000.00 to custom make. It strikes me as highly unlikely that even with a lot of money, any of us could get Callaway's attention on a project similar project. 

[Pkc]

17 hours ago, HikingMike said:

Here is some robot testing done with modern clubs that put 1990s "tour level" balata balls vs. a modern urethane ball - https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/golf-ball-test-modern-balata-robot/

1. Amateur Driver Speed (92 mph)
Modern urethane ball: 232.4 yds at 2,768.8 RPMs
Tour-level balata ball: 210.2 yds at 3,346.8 RPMs
Difference: -22.2 yards | +578 RPMs | Ball speed decreased by 4.5 mph

2. Tour Driver Mid (103 mph)
Tour-level balata ball: 265.8 yds at 3,343.8 RPMs
Modern urethane ball: 288.3 yds at 2,382.2 RPMs
Difference: -22.5 yards | +961.6 RPMs | -4.3 mph

3. Tour Driver Mid-High (113 mph)
Modern urethane ball: 294.9 yds at 2,822.2 RPMs
Tour-level balata ball: 262.5 yds at 3,785.8 RPMs
Difference: -32.4 yards | +963.6 RPMs | -4.2 mph

4. Tour Driver High (132 mph)
Modern urethane ball: 356.9 yds at 2,631 RPMs
Tour-level balata ball: 324 yds at 3,472 RPMs
Difference: -32.9 yards | +841 RPMs | -6 mph

5. Tour 6-iron (91 mph)
Modern urethane ball: 197.3 yds at 5,687 RPMs
Tour-level balata ball: 186.5 yds at 6,458 RPMs
Difference: -10.8 yards | +771 RPMs | -3.6 mph

Keep in mind, this is just the ball being isolated. The swing is by a robot and the club is the same. The change in the fitness of the golfer would add more on top of that (by average), not to mention the driver head size/forgiveness.

Where did you find this info?  I played in the late 1990’s into the early 2000’s on the Nike/Buy.com tour.  My driving average at that time was with a Titleist Professional at 291 yards and Tiger at that time was around 301.  Player on tour have become more physically fit, stronger, plus technology with perfect fitting has drastically changed.  Driving distance average on tour at that time from today isn’t drastically different, today it’s 296, then 285.  Players like Bubba and Hank changed the game when larger driver came out around the year 2000 with having 320 yard driving averages.  Over twenty years later and the longest hitter on tour still have a similar driving average.  Drivers have changed, players physically have changed and this has made the difference between the shortest hitter on tour verse the longest grow further apart.  And rolling back the golf ball will not help that.  I think golf has become a more physically fit game today over back in the day when out of shape golfers were able to win.  Golf has become like other sports all about training yourself physically.  I played the tour balata as well as the professional, the tour balata in warm weather would be longer for myself.  The tour balata cover was just too soft for myself with a full wedge or short iron.  Players did not focus on distance until larger driver heads and graphite shafts were put into play.  Otherwise you could have just played a harder covered golf ball, hell precept or Wilson golf balls back then went much further for myself, just preferred the distance consistency of a Titleist at the time.

       Big distance change came from the use of titanium in drivers, larger head, larger sweat spot, you can swing harder, miss a little and still drive further.  And this is what started players training to become stronger since swinging harder no longer had as severe of a penalty.  Golf swings used to be about timing and hitting the sweet spot on a club, now the sweet spot is the size of a softball instead of a golf ball.  Which encouraged players to swing harder, the golf ball didn’t encourage this.

[John Marchetto]

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

[DaveP043]

11 hours ago, storm319 said:

The irony of a rules advocate now advocating for people that don’t like this rule change to break the rules…

My post was meant to be tongue in cheek, and to let folks know that "illegal" balls have been, are, and will be available for those who don't want to be limited by the Rules.  I advocate playing by the Rules, but I can't pretend to believe that everyone does that.

11 hours ago, Bob Pegram said:

It's time for the ball manufacturers, club manufacturers, the PGA and other tours to tell the USGA where to go. They should adopt the USGA rules, but exclude the ball distance reduction as well as the 46 inch optional club limit while they are at it. I don't know of any other sport where amateurs control the rules for the professionals.

The "professionals" have always had the right to determine their own rules, they simply have no interest in doing it.  Writing rules isn't easy, and whatever you write is certain t be "wrong" to a sizeable portion of the audience.  I challenge anyone to write a set of Rules for Golf that covers enough of the potential issues, and doesn't violate the copyright owned by the USGA and R&A.

[Franc38]

For all you guys liking the idea of new equipment rules and new balls... I hope you'll pay the extortionary price the new ball will cost (hey, development isn't free and you won't be able to buy second hand at the beginning) plus you'll do things to offset the pollution caused by billions of balls suddenly made illegal and that most players will have to replace "just because"... 3% of the top players on the top tours hit it "too far" (read, farther than the guy writing about that).

This is ridiculous: making a very very costly decision because the sport has moved forward is like changing all the stadiums in the world to make the tracks 420m long instead of the current 400m because sprinters (well the best 10 in the world anyway) nowadays go "too fast" and races are lasting enough time...

[RickyBobby_PR]

10 hours ago, racingdaly said:

Can you share a link to the Srixon study that showed a 30+ yard loss?  I'd love to look at the data, and it could very well change my opinion on this whole thing.

As a high (mid 20s) hdcp player, I can drive it 300 (on occasion), and I can also pop it straight up 195 (on more than one occasion), or I can send in anywhere from 240-265 as per usual, all in the same round.  So the 5 to even 10-yard impact for someone like me isn't likely to register at all as it's well within the normal variance for my inconsistent game. If actual data is showing a 30-yard reduction, then I'd take notice.

But the only thing I could find that seems to match up to your Srixon number is Keegan Bradley griping about it.  If we're going to consider "player perception" as data then we should also consider the "player perception" from the USGA Study you mentioned that "shows an 11-yard loss on a 221-yard drive." Namely, 29% of the respondents in that study claimed they felt the reduced distance ball (Np-500) flew "Longer or Much Longer" than their current ball.  

You earlier referenced that NP-500 ball.  The one study I could find that referenced it was part of a report from 2022 (linked above) about how to address distance and included everything including multiple ball (size, aero, cor) and equipment changes. The USGA requested OEMs to produce a ball that would distance by 4.5%. The NP-500 was the result and used COR to accomplish that.  In testing the actual reduction was 4.9%. (The NP-300 was an 8.5% reduction through aerodynamics per spec).  For 4.9% to equal 30 yards (the low of the Srixon numbers you cite) you'd have to be averaging 612 yards off the tee.

One other problem with pointing to that study is that while an 11-yard reduction from a 221-yard drive is indeed more than we're being told to expect, that study was using data from 2012:

To believe numbers of an exploratory ball from 2012 are in any way relatable to numbers for on-market balls from 2023, let alone 2030 when this takes effect and OEMs have had 6 years to optimize seems misguided. Add to that that 1/3 of the balls on the market already conform to the new standard and I have a hard time believing this is going to have much impact on the average amateur. 

That said if you can share this Srixon study and I can evaluate the actual data, or show me that the USGA study you're citing is different than the one that I could find, I'm more than willing to review it and change my mind if the data warrants.

 

There is no study data from srixon it is the interview that Keegan did which is what I posted earlier in the thread.

Same for the np500 distance was from an interview with golf digest or golf.com also posted earlier in the thread.

same with the interview from the USGA equipment guy saying it’s the golfer not the equipment. Anything I reference will have post previously made by me or will usually reference whoever posted it if I didnt

[fixyurdivot]

24 minutes ago, MacAndrews said:

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

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

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

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

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

1 hour ago, Pkc said:

USGA really needs to listen to its audience and youth and not worry about what they personally don’t like seeing because it’s different then what they grew up with.

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

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

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, EugeGall said:

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

The game has always been about distance. The difference now is that guys have learned how important it is, they have better fitted equipment that can hold up to their swings and to say these guys don’t have skills is laughable. If it was purely about distance then the longest hitters were dominating the tour and they aren’t. Most of the top 25 in distance and speed hasn’t  won or has very few wins in tour. Its the guys who have at the top of strokes gained tee to green, strokes gained approach, strokes gained around the green. 
 

Go watch a pro event in person and see what their skills are like and not base it off the few shots shown on tv.