Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[WiTerp50]

45 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

 

Known for the past 4 years as Competition Scores.

First, the Ruling Bodies cannot control fitting, they cannot control physical training, they can't control golf course set-up, all they CAN control is the equipment.  The golf ball is a factor that can be controlled comparatively easily, as compared with trying to control driver head and shaft factors.  The golf ball is also MUCH less expensive to change for the consumer, dozens of dollars investment as compared to $500 and up for modern drivers.

That’s an easy out.  The issue is pro’s using driver - wedge at places like Marion for par 5’s as well as 4’s. Driver head speeds are around 115 today with. some in the mid 120's. In 10 years, the better players will all be over 125, even they only last 7-10 years due to the physical strain. Meanwhile, my 87 will at 80 or less. Why should I should I pay for what they can do?  We only need 50 or so courses to handle the attack of the super athletes.  Drop Marion and the other century old courses or just ban drivers on those courses. Drivers and balls i can access that the pro's access w/o limitations that impact 99.5% of golfers worldwide. There is a reason old ball parks for football and baseball are abandoned. We also need new courses with better grandstands for these super athletes to perform. But let me play my muni with the best equipment available today.  This will all blow over like the Europeans adopting the larger US diameter ball 30 years ago, but doesn't make this choice right. What will happen in 10 years when the pro's are using driver-wedge at Marion again?  Blame the ball again?  Sadly, the USGA caters to the money (viewing rights) than to the average golfer. 

[hoppman]

The ball/equipment manufacturers don't want bifurcation because they want the non pros to pay for the costs of their pro sponsorships without them knowing about it. Now the excuse is that they will have to raise the price of the balls for the non pros to pay for the pro only ball, what a load of crap. Non pros already pay for the pros it just isn't as obvious. This is purely about profit, they know creating the pro only ball will cut into their profit since they will have to do additional R and D and have additional manufacturing processes. No way Pro V's should be as expensive as they are, but non pros playing them are just helping Titleist pay for their pro sponsorships. 

[Franc38]

5 hours ago, Beakbryce said:

I agree. You only have to look at the lessons learned from the Luke Donald set up of the course for the Ryder Cup to realize that US pro golfers have gone too far to bomb and gouge. Widely reported the course was set up to take the wedge out of the US hands and force shots in to the green from beyond 175 yards. Predictable loss.

Yeah.
That definitely proved that the "problem" (that only exists in the mind of Augusta and a few select old glories that don't want to change nor to see the scores go down) isn't solved by change of equipment but by change of course set up.
On top of that, having thicker rough, smaller fairways and greens, slower fairways with taller grass as well, and the spectators behind the rope be always "out of bounds" would promote less expanses in green keeping and less risks for spectators as hitting among them would be costly in terms of score.

The ball... well, does very little, costs a loooooot (be ready to buy your 12 reduced flight proV1s at close to $80) forces to obsolescence a shitload of perfectly fine balls, just to not solve the problem that doesn't exist and that the R&A and USGA are hell-bent on solving badly and irritating everyone!

[JerryK]

It is obvious that the decision not to have bifurcation was done as a compromise with the ball manufacturers.  If there are two different balls then it will be very difficult for ball manufacturers to induce golfers to play a particular ball if it is not being used by the pros. 

[DaveP043]

24 minutes ago, WiTerp50 said:

That’s an easy out.

He asked why they chose to limit the ball, as opposed to any other option.  I believe my explanation is accurate.  I wasn't claiming the reduction to driving distance is the right thing to do, only that limiting the ball is probably the best option the USGA and R&A had to do it.  

[Beakbryce]

3 hours ago, HikingMike said:

The link to where I found it is right there in the comment. Here's a link back to that post.

I totally agree with most of that, great points. The bigger driver heads have had a huge impact. Everyone is swinging barn doors now. People could hit as far in the past, but the problem was inconsistency if you swung harder with the smaller head. When the inconsistency was removed, the risk was removed, and people had much less reason to not swing hard. It is less of a risk/reward situation. Driver shafts got longer then too. I know my driver was both shorter, and smaller head when I played in high school. It may have had similar weight though, I'm not sure. I just checked (with a measurement on satellite view of my old course!) and I'm actually not hitting too much longer now than I did then, at least on my best drives at the time because it varied quite a lot. The ball definitely isn't the sole factor. Like you said, there were balls that went much farther than the tour balatas. But the pros used the tour balatas for other reasons. The game has had a big change regarding distance due to many factors.

The PGA shows the average driving distance in 2000 was 273 yards, and in 2023 it's 297. So that's a little more of a change than your numbers, 24 yards instead of 11. If you go back to the early 90s, it's more like a 34-37 yard change.

I found data here: https://www.pga.com/story/how-driving-distance-has-changed-over-the-past-40-years-on-the-pga-tour

And I made this line graph so it was easier to digest.

My thing is - regardless of the reasons for the change, and regardless of how a very modest rollback is achieved... I would prefer the average way golf courses are being played to not change this much. And we know the game is in for more change in the future if something isn't adjusted.

This is the question though, does the change have to be a technological change or a course setup and design change? From my point of view, I don't care if there are sufficient hazards to take the driver out of a pro's hand but leaves plenty of space for me to whale away. The pro has 14 clubs, let him use the driver at peril or one of the other 13. I am not advocating nor would I like it either if that was all the driving holes, but the Ryder Cup setup duplicated during more PGA events would suit me just fine. The TV producers pick and choose what holes to show, if they don't want to show holes where the driver isn't the automatic choice off the tee they don't have to. People talk about returning to shot value and more than a wedge in to the green, easier and better to do it with course setup than draconian measures that affect 99% of golfers who haven't caused the problem. I guarantee I could set up a PGA Tour course that would be just as interesting on TV and make long hitters pay if they aren't strategic. Something as simple as growing the fairway to the first cut of rough height past 300 yards, like I play everyday, and wet to boot, would be godawful easy. Grass just needs to be long enough so flyers are the norm. 

[ZoonORama]

52 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The USGA admitted in an interview the data they gathered shows it’s the golfer himself that had led to the increase. That is it plain and simple. All of the data for the last 20 years shows that top end distance has been stagnant. 2003 driving distance leader 321 yards. 2022 driving distance leader 320, 2023 driving distance leader 326.

The average has gone up 10 yards, that’s the change and it’s because more golfers hit to 300 yards which is the current average on tour. 
 

Most pros don’t tee it that high. It’s no the which has a limit on length already of 4” and pros aren’t using that high of a tee or even all of that length.

 

The other sports done have average adults playing the sport. Most adults move on for various reasons from basketball, football, baseball and soccer in then 30s and 40s. Golf is a unique sport that gives everyone the chance to play the same equipment under the same rules and conditions

if anyone other than the ruling bodies thought bifurcation was a good idea it would have happened already. 

That wasn’t at all a serious post. It was in jest. I was making the point that anything could contribute depending on perspective. Sorry for any confusion.

[ZoonORama]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

I hope this is in jest.  Tees have been limited to no more than 4 inches long for a good long time.  

Yes, this was in jest. I clarified that on my post just now. Just poking fun at how you can make the case that anything, besides the big, strong, athletes, cause unusual distance gains. Sorry for any confusion.

[HikingMike]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

First, the Ruling Bodies cannot control fitting, they cannot control physical training, they can't control golf course set-up, all they CAN control is the equipment.  The golf ball is a factor that can be controlled comparatively easily, as compared with trying to control driver head and shaft factors.  The golf ball is also MUCH less expensive to change for the consumer, dozens of dollars investment as compared to $500 and up for modern drivers.

This is a big difference compared to other sports. Golf doesn't have a standard playing field across all events, and standards bodies don't control the playing field. I think the USGA has recommended hole lengths for each par 3, 4, 5. The recommendation for par 3s is up to 260 yards. It's only a recommendation, and is that the only thing like that? Actually there could be more standards put in place for pro event golf courses. But that seems like a difficult path as well. The other difference is that in other sports, often the pro league itself is the one that sets the rules for that pro league, sometimes in cooperation with a players union.

[Jim Shaw]

47 minutes ago, cnosil said:

think about it this way.  It is about performance improvement achieved compared to the work put in. The closer you are to the hole the less separation there is between different players performance.  Working on 1 foot and in putts probably isn’t high on your priority list becuase you probably make a most 100% of them.   I’ll assume you have a fairly solid putting stroke,  how much effort will it take to make 5% more 8 footers?  Probably more beneficial to work on 25+ foot putts to avoid 3 putts or even green reading in general.  You are far more likely to start separating yourself from the field with driving, approach shots, and course management/mental focus than any other areas in the game.  
 

@BigBoiGolf mentioned it in his post and have mentioned it before and you have indicated you don’t know what DECADE is.  I would advise you to at least give it a look; and Lou Stagner as well, it would give you a  better understanding what @BigBoiGolfis talking about.  

Thanks, I will take a look at DECADE

[HikingMike]

14 minutes ago, Beakbryce said:

This is the question though, does the change have to be a technological change or a course setup and design change? From my point of view, I don't care if there are sufficient hazards to take the driver out of a pro's hand but leaves plenty of space for me to whale away. The pro has 14 clubs, let him use the driver at peril or one of the other 13. I am not advocating nor would I like it either if that was all the driving holes, but the Ryder Cup setup duplicated during more PGA events would suit me just fine. The TV producers pick and choose what holes to show, if they don't want to show holes where the driver isn't the automatic choice off the tee they don't have to. People talk about returning to shot value and more than a wedge in to the green, easier and better to do it with course setup than draconian measures that affect 99% of golfers who haven't caused the problem. I guarantee I could set up a PGA Tour course that would be just as interesting on TV and make long hitters pay if they aren't strategic. Something as simple as growing the fairway to the first cut of rough height past 300 yards, like I play everyday, and wet to boot, would be godawful easy. Grass just needs to be long enough so flyers are the norm. 

For me, the specific method of adjustment isn't that important (as long as it's not something crazy awkward). So I like your thinking and that would work, or some middle combination of the two, course setup and ball adjustment. Throw in a club head reduction to 440cc that occurs in 25 years or something

Now would this course setup adjustment happen? People are arguing in here that they see no need to change the courses, the PGA Tour has no problem selling its product and they actually want the huge rollout on drives. Speaking of that, yeah, my drives often don't roll - sometimes I can see the ball mark nearby! Though other times the ground is rock hard and I have to hope I don't go to the side where it will just roll like crazy and go OB.

But that would be a good solution for everyone to still use the same equipment as the pros. People would just know that the courses they are playing are set up much more difficult. And sure we can have variation - some courses could be known for having long rollout on drives, and others shorter rollout.

[HikingMike]

1 hour ago, hoppman said:

The ball/equipment manufacturers don't want bifurcation because they want the non pros to pay for the costs of their pro sponsorships without them knowing about it. Now the excuse is that they will have to raise the price of the balls for the non pros to pay for the pro only ball, what a load of crap. Non pros already pay for the pros it just isn't as obvious. This is purely about profit, they know creating the pro only ball will cut into their profit since they will have to do additional R and D and have additional manufacturing processes. No way Pro V's should be as expensive as they are, but non pros playing them are just helping Titleist pay for their pro sponsorships. 

Good point. For other sports, they have bifurcation often and people aren't using the same equipment (or same equipment conforming requirements). There are pro sponsorships from equipment makers, but they aren't exactly saying you can play the same equipment. Of course team sports are even more different with sponsorships - you don't have each player out there wearing different brand logos and playing with their own ball. It's kind of a unique environment that is rich for advertising a specific way. Tennis may be the other big individual sport. Regular Joes only have to buy a tennis racket and some balls to play that, and lots of places have no-cost public tennis courts. And probably people don't play tennis into their 80s as much  Or even their 50s and 60s, likely when people have more money. It ends up probably a lot less money than the golf industry.

This is likely a case of entrenched interests. The big names have the most well known brands, the most pros on sponsorships, the factories and other manufacturing resources, intellectual property, etc. There are barriers to entry for newcomers. We've seen with Direct-to-Consumer golf companies, that has been chipped away a little lately. Now this bifurcation would maybe create more of an opening for the newcomers as their pro sponsorships might mean a little less. "My favorite pro plays a Titleist ball, and all these cool guys wear Titleist hats, but I know it's not the same ball I'm playing... so there is less holding me back from trying the DTC ball." The big names naturally decide to push back against that. Personally I don't care if the pros play the ball I play (darn copycats), but I guess lots of people do. 

[Sainters]

Something needed to be done straight away, but unfortunately, this does not go far enough, quickly enough !!!

Of more concern is clubs in general, but most importantly the Driver. The sooner it is made that the Driver is the hardest club to hit (not the easiest), the better.

[Franc38]

34 minutes ago, Sainters said:

Something needed to be done straight away, but unfortunately, this does not go far enough, quickly enough !!!

Of more concern is clubs in general, but most importantly the Driver. The sooner it is made that the Driver is the hardest club to hit (not the easiest), the better.

Why do you think that something needed to be done? Because the USGA keeps saying it? If something really needed to be done at the pro level, the tours would have started addressing the issue, or the courses. Or even the pros themselves.
Reality is, everybody is fairly happy with things the way they are. Bombing it 330 ? Great for TV and marketing ("these guys are good"... euh, long... ). Low scores ? That attracts the fans... Long courses, well that might be costly but that means more fans on the course, more space for grand stands and hospitality tents; so that's lovely.

No, the only people not happy are, in order

- Jack and other ancient players who would have liked scores and distance to remain what they were when they played (like if Carl Lewis was lobbying for the 100m dash to be lengthened so that his times remain at the top of the board)

-Augusta and the Old Course (plus a few other old courses) as they want to remain a challenge without changing anything in the way they set the courses, or anything, except maybe adding backest back tees to the back tees (you don't want to disturb the members... who happen to count a number of the guys at the first point)

-The USGA and R&A who, like pure politicians that they are, create a problem for the sole purpose of "solving it" and therefore show that they are important, useful and so on... Keeping their well paid and prestigious jobs in the process.

By the way, is there any other sport where the rules change every 4 years? Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for no reason (changing the name of lateral water hazard to "lateral penalty area" did help the game tremendously... )

 

The risk is that some guys somewhere (maybe the "collective tours fusion" of PGA tour, DP World Tour and LIV that is shaping) decide that "OK, we take the rules as they were in 2019, keep everything as is for the foreseeable future, and will now do the conforming tests ourselves... and as a present to whoever wants to now follow our thing, there's free relief for balls landing in divots in the shortly mowed areas!"

Edited December 13, 2023 by Franc38

[BigBoiGolf]

46 minutes ago, Sainters said:

Something needed to be done straight away, but unfortunately, this does not go far enough, quickly enough !!!

Of more concern is clubs in general, but most importantly the Driver. The sooner it is made that the Driver is the hardest club to hit (not the easiest), the better.

The Driver is already the hardest club to hit in the bag. It doesn't matter if you guys want to make drivers "less forgiving" which is really actually a reduction in head size because of the nature of how moment of inertia works.

But, and I'm going to give you the fun engineering spoilers, it's not going to work because here's why:

Moment of Inertia being lowered isn't going to take a general soft draw and turn it into a hook. It just doesn't work like that. If you're a pro and you're coming in +2 AOA with a F2P of 0, you're hitting a straight shot, and if you hit half inch to the toe or heel or whatever, you're not going to be skulling a shot off the box sailing well into OB. I'm sorry but the physics behind how collisions works isn't some magical light switch that can be flipped on and off. The whole reason pros love adjustable drivers with weights and hosels is because it lets them adjust to their feel preference.

You guys think Touring Pros who earn millions of dollars with the best coaching and fitting are having impact patterns like the first picture, when they're actually the second picture. You can screw with MOI as much as you want, if you hit relatively close to the Center of Mass of a driver, the concept of forgiveness is irrelevant. It's the same with putting, people freak out about blade low moi putters but who cares because when you hit it on the screws it's as pure as the driven snow.

Who is going to get hurt by forgiveness and MOI going down on driver heads? It ain't the pros, it's everyone else who can't hit driver to save their life.

 

[Golfer58]

Anybody who voted in favor of any of the questions that were pro rollback are either complete morons or guys who think they are better than they are and are complete golf snobs which also makes you a moron so either way all morons. 

[theBogeyman]

We are at a cross road. I feel like this is a multi level problem. All the things talked about have contributed to distance gains. Maybe the ball needs to be rolled back but will it really have that much affect. Formula 1 seems to keep gaining lower lap times with engine restrictions. I think Lee Trevino said it best when he said the biggest affect on golf has been the lawn mower. Maybe keeping the grass long like they use to and being more creative on course design may help. Take the driver out of their hands more often by shortening the course with more turns and making them be more creative on shot making. Idk. But progress will always happen and people will find a way. 

[dlygrisse]

Why?

 

[chisag]

... I did a fun little experiment today. I had my 81 yr old pard hit 2 shots off every tee that he used a driver. One ball was a Kirkland V3, the ball he normally plays. The other ball was an illegal Yellow MG Senior ball that exceeds the initial velocity standard. According to MG "Hit it Past Your Buddies! Start Enjoying Golf Again with the MG Senior Ball." I thought Chris would be a great sample because he plays from the forward tees, is usually very accurate and shoots his age regularly. Ball #1 is the Kirkland and Ball #2 is the illegal MG. 

#1 +10yds

#2 + 1yd

#2 +15yds

#1 +5yds

#1 and #2 side by side

#1 +20

#1 +15

#2 +2

#1 +1

#2 +5

#1 +7

#1 +3

... As unscientific and anecdotal as it gets but for the average Am that hits the ball 180-200 off the tee the results were much more dependent on quality of swing/strike than which ball is technically "longer". You could certainly make the argument that the differences between his longer and shorter drives would be outliers but I would counter with, isn't that they way most Am's hit their drivers during any given round? It did seem like only one hole where the drives looked like the same trajectory and were hit in the same spot and they both traveled the same distance and were almost touching. 187yds.

... I do not post this as proof of anything other than a fun little experiment about the effect of a rolled back ball on Am's that may lose 5yds when hit by a robot. 

[ChitownM2]

Not a fan of the rollback.  I don't care how much it will affect me personally, losing distance even if it's just a few yards is dumb for 99% of golfers.  I also could care less about the pro game and whatever perceived distance problem they have as it pertains to sustainability.  The entire idea of golf being sustainable is completely ridiculous.  Golf courses are inherently not sustainable and the idea that lengthening a few dozen private or outrageously priced public courses 700 yards is going to have any negative impact is laughable.  If golf wants to be sustainable then it should ban irrigation and watering of courses. 

I'm curious as to how far the manufacturer's and pros really want to take this.  I don't think it's totally out of the question that the major brands get together and just say, "we're not going to make conforming balls".  Pros don't want them and neither do amateurs.  the PGA tour and/or the PGA can just create their own identical rules sans the ball roll back and that can be adopted by all amateur/junior/etc tours and organizations.  The only real net effect would be the US open and "The Open" would have to figure out what they wanted to do, either find someone to make balls for use in their tournament or relent

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 hours ago, JerryK said:

It is obvious that the decision not to have bifurcation was done as a compromise with the ball manufacturers.  If there are two different balls then it will be very difficult for ball manufacturers to induce golfers to play a particular ball if it is not being used by the pros. 

Doubt it was done as a compromise with the ball manufactures. The pro tours don’t think there’s a distance issue. They don’t want anything done that will reduce distance and impact their product. But on top of that the data doesn’t support there’s a problem and it contradicts the ruling bodies data and position. 
 

[TylorJudd]

As many have said, I believe pros should be held to a different standard but I am also a longer hitter and can understand both sides

[storm319]

12 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

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.

Without searching, could you name 5 ball models off the top of your head that do not conform to the current ODS? That is kind of the point. You can’t walk into the typical big box sporting good or golf specialty retailer and find options that intend to not conform to the current limits (although I’m willing to bet that many refinished balls would fail conformance testing mainly for weight). Beyond the occasional outlier 2-piece ionomer offering (these tend to violate the weight and/or minimum diameter  regulations), you probably won’t be able to find a multilayer urethane option that does is intentionally non-conforming. Time will tell with this change, but given that the USGA is likely to stop testing under the old protocol in late 2027 and if history is any indication, we will all more or less be forced to comply eventually due to lack of alternatives.

[storm319]

12 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Thanks for correcting me, I always prefer using the real information.  To some extent, this shows that nobody should have been surprised when this test criteria is announced 18 months later as the final decision.  

Not surprising, but doesn’t mean we have to like or agree with it. 

[storm319]

10 hours ago, knotthead17 said:

Yeah, even before this conversation, I've always found it interesting that we get to play our own ball that can have drastically different characteristics than our playing partner. Is there any other sport where you get to use your own (intentionally different) ball? Football, basketball, tennis, soccer, rugby, cricket, Jai alai…

Golf is an individual sport where there is no direct interaction between players in the field of play. None of the ball sports that you mentioned are like golf in that respect given that the ball is shared amongst competitors. Bowling may be a better comparison and player specific balls are allowed.  

[Preeway]

2 hours ago, chisag said:

... I did a fun little experiment today. I had my 81 yr old pard hit 2 shots off every tee that he used a driver. One ball was a Kirkland V3, the ball he normally plays. The other ball was an illegal Yellow MG Senior ball that exceeds the initial velocity standard. According to MG "Hit it Past Your Buddies! Start Enjoying Golf Again with the MG Senior Ball." I thought Chris would be a great sample because he plays from the forward tees, is usually very accurate and shoots his age regularly. Ball #1 is the Kirkland and Ball #2 is the illegal MG. 

#1 +10yds

#2 + 1yd

#2 +15yds

#1 +5yds

#1 and #2 side by side

#1 +20

#1 +15

#2 +2

#1 +1

#2 +5

#1 +7

#1 +3

... As unscientific and anecdotal as it gets but for the average Am that hits the ball 180-200 off the tee the results were much more dependent on quality of swing/strike than which ball is technically "longer". You could certainly make the argument that the differences between his longer and shorter drives would be outliers but I would counter with, isn't that they way most Am's hit their drivers during any given round? It did seem like only one hole where the drives looked like the same trajectory and were hit in the same spot and they both traveled the same distance and were almost touching. 187yds.

... I do not post this as proof of anything other than a fun little experiment about the effect of a rolled back ball on Am's that may lose 5yds when hit by a robot. 

This unscientific, and very anecdotal "test", is precisely why I am more in the Don't Care camp currently. My drives already vary by 30-50 yards from hole to hole depending on strike and other uncontrollable factors such as lie and slope of the fairway or even a sudden change in wind after you hit the ball. You could give me 5 different balls and with 5 different tee shots I couldn't with any certainty tell you which ball was which based on its distance. 

[wely324]

Leave the ball alone, roll the driver back.

[Bob Pegram]

3 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Doubt it was done as a compromise with the ball manufactures. The pro tours don’t think there’s a distance issue. They don’t want anything done that will reduce distance and impact their product. But on top of that the data doesn’t support there’s a problem and it contradicts the ruling bodies data and position. 
 

The equipment manufacturers, ball manufacturers, pro tours and anybody else interested need to get together and adopt their own set of rules, most likely the current USGA rules, but without the new ball, and possibly without the optional 46 inch club length limit. Drivers longer than 48 inches tend to spray the ball so badly that even that limit could be abolished. In real golf (not long drive competitions) drivers over 48 inches are more of a liability. They would work only for extremely tall golfers - 6'6" or more.

[GolfSpy_APH]

Thank you to the near 500 members who participated in the poll. The forum staff are working and finalizing an article which will go out on the main site (with quotes from some of you here) December 20th.

[silver & black]

13 hours ago, Sainters said:

Something needed to be done straight away, but unfortunately, this does not go far enough, quickly enough !!!

Of more concern is clubs in general, but most importantly the Driver. The sooner it is made that the Driver is the hardest club to hit (not the easiest), the better.

 You must have some reason/thoughts for your post. Can you give some clarification on why you feel this way?