Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Course rating procedures suggest that 300 yards should add about 1.3 strokes in "scratch player difficulty", which suggests that the scoring improvement may actually be close to double your 1.5 strokes, when "difficulty" is considered.  Increased driving distance is without question part of that 3 stroke improvement.  Again, whether that's a "problem" is subjective.

Yet the course ratings haven’t changed despite the increased in distance and the probably won’t change with the rollback.

The standard for scratch is still 250 yards. 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by RickyBobby_PR

[Pkc]

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

Great points. Maybe this kind of thing should've been done a long time ago. We would be using less materials, equipment, and labor on golf courses. Costs would be a lot lower. Maybe more people would be golfing. But there's definitely a fun factor in hitting longer. If everybody in the game and standards bodies would have been considering this thoughtfully and continuously throughout the years, everyone would have to figure out where they want the balance. 

Right now people have more concern about sustainability. Water shortages, droughts, restrictions happen a lot more often in western US states than before. People care about land usage more as humanity now uses way more land. The one good thing is that golf courses are "natural-ish" land. And inequality, at least in the US, is a lot higher than it was in the past - and this is where costs factor in. I know your question was probably rhetorical there, but I'm throwing out ideas.

You said courses are 1,000 yards longer. What is that in area? 1,000 yards by say 100 yards = 100,000 square yards = 20.7 acres. That's a lot! Thought experiment - imagine in urban areas, we could have a 20 acre park next to every golf course with the same area. Or a golf course that has a house development around it could have a ton more house lots on the same property, like 40 or something, which would mean serious $$$. Or a country club could potentially have a pool, tennis courts, all kinds of extra stuff in the same area it would with only a golf course at the longer course yardage. New golf courses could fit places that they can't currently. There are lots of ways to think about that. 

My opinion is courses are already at the lengths they are and golf is still interesting.  Not opposed to the USGA trying to freeze today’s distances.  Just think going backwards will not bring them any popularity and right now with new leagues already taking key tour players there’s no need to further alienate younger golfers.  Since let’s face it, newer golfer like my son and his HS golf team friends, look at LIV as the fun, cool tour and the PGA as the stuffy tour with too many rules.  LIV has music playing, pros in shorts and pros interacting with spectators.  PGA has golfer’s roped way back, only signing areas for little kids, no music and constant quiet signs.  The game is different for these younger adults and teens than it was for myself or my father.  And both of us are ok with that.  I  would personally just like to see the USGA and PGA as the important groups they were for upcoming adults of the future.  These kids and young adults worship the distance these pros hit and have no reason to look at the USGA like I do.  And recently I also have less faith in the USGA and their motives, save golf or save personal records?  Certainly not saving historical golf courses since none are 6,000 yards anymore like in 1901.  And if they’re claiming historical is their lifetime and not the USGA’s that’s personal then.  
I would love to see the USGA try to freeze distances to preserve what’s current, since land is now at a premium.  But stepping backwards will create a divide and based on tour surveys and general public the USGA will lose support.  And there’s a new league waiting with open arms and deep pockets. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by Pkc

[Bob Pegram]

11 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

Uh yeah, because 300 / 18 is 16 yards, or for the pros 1 club. 1 club isn't going to have some disastorous effect on the best golfers to ever walk the planet.

But to counter your point, green speeds have also tremendously gone up, Augusta in 77 was ~8 and today is 12 and sometimes can reach as high as 15, but hey I guess I need to point that out otherwise that's "misleading". Iron lofts have also gone down. The 52 PW and 40 7 iron is no more. Turns out physics doesn't actually change in 50 years, so lower loft hits the ball farther.

Don't worry, I'll go fetch even more data, don't wanna be "misleading" people here.

The lower lofts on irons has a detrimental effect if it causes more half shots at the wedge end of the bag. Those shots are more difficult due to trying to get the distance right. In reality, most golfers, including many tour pros, have ditched the longest iron and added a wedge. In effect the only change is the numbers on the clubs being off by one from years ago.

[DaveP043]

4 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Yet the course ratings haven’t changed despite the increased in distance and the probably won’t change with the rollback.

The standard for scratch is still 250 yards. 

You tell me, adding one to two clubs (17 yards) to every hole, doesn't that add something like a tenth of a stroke to the scoring?  Strokes Gained data seems to support that.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

You tell me, adding one to two clubs (17 yards) to every hole, doesn't that add something like a tenth of a stroke to the scoring?  Strokes Gained data seems to support that.  

Being further away will add difficulty from a strokes gained perspective however the course rating is based on distance of the hole and from what k recall not distance after the driver and some other things not based on strokes gained. 250 yard drive has been the standard length for identifying a scratch golfer and iirc 220 or 225 for bogey. 

[DaveP043]

7 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Being further away will add difficulty from a strokes gained perspective however the course rating is based on distance of the hole and from what k recall not distance after the driver and some other things not based on strokes gained. 250 yard drive has been the standard length for identifying a scratch golfer and iirc 220 or 225 for bogey. 

We're going down a rabbit hole with this, all I'm saying is that longer courses play tougher, in general, so the increased course length must be considered along with lower scoring.  Course rating procedures and strokes gained are independent from each other, yet both suggest the same thing, increasing length should be expected to produce higher scores.

[Shankster]

This is bringing me out of retirement for this post.  I don’t get it… you don’t see Porsche, Tesla, F1, etc. making their cars slower because they are setting records.

 

Huge mistake by the “Governing Bodies”

 

Much like the CFP comity leaving FSU out of the playoffs, and I am in no way a FSU fan in the slightest.  It just doesn’t make sense.

[silver & black]

33 minutes ago, Shankster said:

This is bringing me out of retirement for this post.  I don’t get it… you don’t see Porsche, Tesla, F1, etc. making their cars slower because they are setting records.

 

Huge mistake by the “Governing Bodies”

 

Much like the CFP comity leaving FSU out of the playoffs, and I am in no way a FSU fan in the slightest.  It just doesn’t make sense.

Good to see you here!

[Beakbryce]

23 hours ago, HikingMike said:

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.

8 drives today within 2 yards of the wet muddy gouge in the fairway. Missed one fairway. Nothing rolled much. I would love to hit on courses where 30 yards of rollout is the norm. I would go back to the back tees. 

[fixyurdivot]

46 minutes ago, Shankster said:

This is bringing me out of retirement for this post.  I don’t get it… you don’t see Porsche, Tesla, F1, etc. making their cars slower because they are setting records.

 

Huge mistake by the “Governing Bodies”

 

Much like the CFP comity leaving FSU out of the playoffs, and I am in no way a FSU fan in the slightest.  It just doesn’t make sense.

Well, we've now heard from Alan and that pretty much settles the debate.   Good to hear from you and good luck in the playoff.  Oh, and yes, the FSU decision rivals this rollback - both are in the running for the dumbest decision in sports for 2023 .

[Pkc]

2 hours ago, Bob Pegram said:

The lower lofts on irons has a detrimental effect if it causes more half shots at the wedge end of the bag. Those shots are more difficult due to trying to get the distance right. In reality, most golfers, including many tour pros, have ditched the longest iron and added a wedge. In effect the only change is the numbers on the clubs being off by one from years ago.

All lower lofts do, is allow golfers to state I hit a 9 iron instead of a 8 or 7 iron.  Lofts are still lofts whether the club states 7 iron or 9 iron it really shouldn’t matter.  It just fools some people into thinking everyone is hitting their irons further and now no one uses a 3 iron since it would be like hitting a 1 or 2 iron.  And now many golfers have an extra wedge instead.  Stupid marketing trick by club manufacturers. 

[Beakbryce]

16 hours ago, wely324 said:

Leave the ball alone, roll the driver back.

That's next.

[Beakbryce]

3 hours ago, HikingMike said:

My opinion - there is a distance problem. Now how does the data refute that? It doesn't. It is subjective. You and plenty of other people disagree, and that is an equally valid position. How long do we want people to hit golf balls? Is there a right and wrong answer? No there isn't. Your comments are very absolute, black-and-white, when as a whole this is a subjective topic.

I don't think most people are disputing the graph that tour players are hitting it longer. Stats are stats. What they are disputing is whether that has made a material difference in the actual scoring and is the increase due to other than technology, i.e. course setup and better athletes. There are actual numbers to look at and scoring is not subjective. Course records, strokes gained, cut line, etc, aren't varying that much over the 20-25 years of increased distance the USGA is using for their one stat. If it was a problem, course records, winning totals, etc, should follow the same progression along the same trend line as the distance. How many new course records were made last year? Looked up the course record for pros at Pebble Beach and Tom Kite set the record in the mid 80's. It has been matched but not broken. The course record by a non pro was set in 2017 and who knows what the setup was for that round. The R&A have made a big deal that the Old Course now has a number of drivable par 4 holes yet the course record was set in 2015. 

Really a problem?

[Bob Pegram]

8 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Do you imagine that the USGA and R&A have no copyright issues if someone else decides to simply copy those rules?  No, whoever wants to have different rules will need to write their own, starting from scratch, and they do NOT want to do that.  

How could rules for a game be copyrighted? Many predate the USGA as does the game of golf (by centuries). In addition, rules seem like they would be public domain by definition. If I want to play any game I can use any rules I want to use whether with permission or not. The fact that many tournaments, professional and amateur, use the same rules without remuneration to the USGA nor R and A seems to indicate they are, in effect, in the public domain. The USGA and R and A can certainly require adherance by affiliated organizations, but have no power over independent organizations who can make alterations such as local rules not included in the USGA rules. A local golf club could be formed with many, but not all, rules the same as USGA rules. What could the USGA do and why would they bother? Their legal fees are already killing them. In addition, it makes no sense for a bunch of amateurs to make the rules for professional golf.

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, Bob Pegram said:

How could rules for a game be copyrighted? Many predate the USGA as does the game of golf (by centuries). In addition, rules seem like they would be public domain by definition. If I want to play any game I can use any rules I want to use whether with permission or not. The fact that many tournaments, professional and amateur, use the same rules without remuneration to the USGA nor R and A seems to indicate they are, in effect, in the public domain. The USGA and R and A can certainly require adherance by affiliated organizations, but have no power over independent organizations who can make alterations such as local rules not included in the USGA rules. A local golf club could be formed with many, but not all, rules the same as USGA rules. What could the USGA do and why would they bother? Their legal fees are already killing them. In addition, it makes no sense for a bunch of amateurs to make the rules for professional golf.

Groups certainly can use whatever rules they want.  As I understand it, what they cannot do is reproduce the wording of the copyrighted document.  That wording has been very carefully considered, rewriting the same rules with different language would likely create huge issues.  I'd be really amused to read what the geniuses of the PGA Tour decided to produce, if they chose to take it out of the hands of the professional rules  staff at the USGA and R&A.

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, Beakbryce said:

Really a problem?

I don't think so.  The driveable par 4 at Riviera (#10?) routinely baits them into over par scoring? And there are plenty of others at various courses the tours play.  I think #12 at St. Andrews OC often has players slamming clubs in the bag.  These are great risk/reward decisions and masterful craft by the course designers.  

Someone just recently posted that the USGA and R&A are getting dated and out of touch with the younger generation players.  The game has changed, particularly in distance and agrressive, go for it play, and they really need to accept it.  

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

Groups certainly can use whatever rules they want.  As I understand it, what they cannot do is reproduce the wording of the copyrighted document.  That wording has been very carefully considered, rewriting the same rules with different language would likely create huge issues.  I'd be really amused to read what the geniuses of the PGA Tour decided to produce, if they chose to take it out of the hands of the professional rules  staff at the USGA and R&A.

Why would they bother too? They could use all the current rules and ignore the ball rollback.  That sounds like what LIV is planning to do.  Ultimately, that would be the best message the tours could send the USGA and R&A... "thanks for sharing, but no thanks". 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

I don't think so.  The driveable par 4 at Riviera (#10?) routinely baits them into over par scoring? And there are plenty of others at various courses the tours play.  I think #12 at St. Andrews OC often has players slamming clubs in the bag.  These are great risk/reward decisions and masterful craft by the course designers.  

Someone just recently posted that the USGA and R&A are getting dated and out of touch with the younger generation players.  The game has changed, particularly in distance and agrressive, go for it play, and they really need to accept it.  

The benefits of risk/reward shots. Some are going to get penalized for doing it, some will reap the benefits and some will just shoot par like those who took the non aggressive approach. One of the things that makes golf fun

[Franc38]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

I don't think so.  The driveable par 4 at Riviera (#10?) routinely baits them into over par scoring? And there are plenty of others at various courses the tours play.  I think #12 at St. Andrews OC often has players slamming clubs in the bag.  These are great risk/reward decisions and masterful craft by the course designers.  

Someone just recently posted that the USGA and R&A are getting dated and out of touch with the younger generation players.  The game has changed, particularly in distance and agrressive, go for it play, and they really need to accept it.  

Very true.
Distance is not necessarily related to score (there's some correlation, obviously, an open, wide, flat greened par 4 of 250 yards is an "easy birdy", while an open wide, flat greened par 4 of 510 yards is a "hard bogey", but no one said your short holes have to be wide, with a large and  flat green).
One way to see that is the scoring average on par 3s which is rather quite high, even for very short ones (Postage Stamp at Troon, anyone? I remember Rory taking 7 -seven- shots to get out of the "coffin bunker" in a practice round... )

But no, it's got to be the distance... and the distance has got to be from the equipment... Just give Kyle Berkshire a balata and a persimmon to see what's happening!

[Jeremy26]

On 12/13/2023 at 10:15 AM, vandyland said:

I made this point a few pages back. I think it would be a different game but I would play it. You could fit an 18 hole golf course in a 9 hole footprint (good for metro areas) and likely would carry less clubs. Would make the game

(a) more sustainable/take less land -- if a club had 18 holes they could then re-design 36 holes (that would be expensive for sure but still an option)
(b) more affordable because lower maintenance costs on golf courses
(c) more affordable because fewer golf clubs
(d) encourage more walking and less ridiculous golf carts everywhere because the holes would be much shorter
(e) might be less BRO golfers because a smoked drive would only go 170 yds now. If it somehow was limited 50% for every swing speed (might be hard to do) the gap between the bombers and shorties would be diminished (I think?)
(f) Would likely put more emphasis on putting and short game (I think, which would not be good for me) since if the ball doesn't go as far it wouldn't go as far offline. So you would potentially hit more greens but the hole is still the same size (though your proximity might be closer?)
(g) I don't quite want "wicked spin" but I agree spin should increase a bit

The more I talk about it, the more I like this idea. The 5% rollback just seems to irritate EVERYONE. It isn't enough for some people and it completely offends others that they are coming for their distance and golf balls. It is almost like the USGA managed to find a solution that no one likes. 

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I love playing courses that are 7,000 yards. I'm not interested at all in playing short courses. Also a huge fan of courses where everyone rides. Some of the courses that my group plays regularly require carts and it's awesome.

[Shankster]

5 hours ago, silver & black said:

Good to see you here!

Glad to be here.  Probably see a lot more of me again starting around mid June next year.  🏌

5 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

Well, we've now heard from Alan and that pretty much settles the debate.   Good to hear from you and good luck in the playoff.  Oh, and yes, the FSU decision rivals this rollback - both are in the running for the dumbest decision in sports for 2023 .

Yeah, hopefully Stallions got the Bama signs before he “resigned”… ‍kidding of course, I really hope no one that matters in the hierarchy knew about that garbage.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Shankster

[RoverRick]

I’m much more in favor of reducing the amount of my money I give to the USGA than I am reducing the distance my golf ball travels. 

[GolfWolf.com]

Since I don't have the time to read 92 pages I might be repeating something someone else said, but:

I think the rollback is long overdue, too many great courses are becoming obsolete. The players of today are truly athletes and hit the ball so much further... I took an over ten year break from golf and was shocked to see that my distance barely took a hit. Going from a fit late twenty year old, who was a true bomber by hitting it well over 300 meters (about 330 yards), to a 40 year old who can hit it 300 yards, I can easily say that the equipment is miles ahead... If things keep up at this rate soon only courses with enough surrounding real estate will stay relevant. On top of that, something an old golf coach of mine used to say: "The long ball is taking skill out of the game." I used to think that he was crazy or jealous (maybe he really was both), but today I understand the sentiment, putting, short game, approach shots, creativity are being lost.

I can honestly say that the reason I made it back to a single digit handicapper so fast was my skill level, that I attained, not my length. Like in all sports the basics make you good and the roll back will hopefully force that train of thought. 

Don't get me wrong, I am the first to boast about a striped 300 yarder, but if it results in the dreaded 3-putt bogey, it was all for naught. So hopefully the rollback can combat the race for arms distance-wise and turn golf back into a skill game.

Long post, sorry, and hopefully not redundant. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

5 hours ago, GolfWolf.com said:

I think the rollback is long overdue, too many great courses are becoming obsolete

Define obsolete.

5 hours ago, GolfWolf.com said:

The players of today are truly athletes and hit the ball so much further

Much further than who/what/when?

5 hours ago, GolfWolf.com said:

I can easily say that the equipment is miles ahead... If

Equipment and ball haven’t changed in 20 years

5 hours ago, GolfWolf.com said:

If things keep up at this rate soon only courses with enough surrounding real estate will stay relevan

Define relevant

also the courses having to grow or longer courses needed has been debunked by the superintendents associations study along with the data that shows courses are built at 6700ish yards in the last 5-10 years and have been built shorter than the previous 10 years of that 

5 hours ago, GolfWolf.com said:

The long ball is taking skill out of the game." I used to think that he was crazy or jealous (maybe he really was both), but today I understand the sentiment, putting, short game, approach shots, creativity are being lost.

That’s someone who doesn’t understand hitting the ball long and with some accuracy like the pros is a skill itself, and hit doesn’t take any skill away. Good to great golfers still need to hit good iron shots, have to be good with the wedges (see how much better dj got when he developed a wedge game compare to just bombing and then hoping he could hit the wedge the way he wanted)

did he think jacks distance took away skills? What about Tiger’s, Phil’s or Vijay’s distance. Did it take away their skills 

5 hours ago, GolfWolf.com said:

I can honestly say that the reason I made it back to a single digit handicapper so fast was my skill level, that I attained, not my length. Like in all sports the basics make you good and the roll back will hopefully force that train of thought.

Brian Harmon, Colin Morikawa to name a few that aren’t that long yet have won on tour including majors. Lots of skills involved in playing good golf.

Edited December 15, 2023 by RickyBobby_PR

[rjacobs4]

I think bifurcation is the best path forward.  The Tour Pros already have access to equipment that we mere mortals will never have access to.  Never mind the customization that is done to fine tune their equipment to their games.

The Tour players are also in the best adapt to changes.  Leave the rest of us alone.  

[storm319]

18 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Scoring average has dropped by 2 strokes in that time and less than 1 in the last 20 years.  Not an issue

and the simple solution if people see that as a problem is to lower par. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

23 minutes ago, rjacobs4 said:

I think bifurcation is the best path forward.  The Tour Pros already have access to equipment that we mere mortals will never have access to.  Never mind the customization that is done to fine tune their equipment to their games.

The Tour players are also in the best adapt to changes.  Leave the rest of us alone.  

Their equipment meets the same specs that your equipment does and may cases the faces on drivers are slower than the ones at retail so that they don’t run the risk of having a conforming face because it’s too hot.

their balls meets the same ods specs as the balls you play. They don’t have hotter clubs or longer balls.

You can get a lot of the same optimizations they do like hot melt and shafts that match their swing by doing a fitting and getting a club builder to do the added work. Yes it will cost you. Samething if you prefer to have shafts flo’d or pured. You can get a grinder and create your own grinds on wedges if you want or get someone that knows what they are doing to do it.

i have a shaft that is a one of a kind. Doesn’t change anything about anything. 
 

Good players whether pro or not can adapt, those who aren’t as good can learn to that’s how most people that were high or mid handicaps got to low handicaps, scratch or better. They adapted and improved. Anyone can do that with hard work, proper practice and spending time honing their skills throughout the bag. The difference is most amateurs don’t do any of that or only part of it. Many who “practice” don’t practice the right way and it’s why they don’t see progress despite the effort.

The pros are the best because of their actual skills not the equipment. It’s why a KJ Choi can go buy clubs at a golf store and win. It’s why some have walked in bought a used putter at a golf shop and won on tour. 

[Jeremy26]

6 hours ago, GolfWolf.com said:

Since I don't have the time to read 92 pages I might be repeating something someone else said, but:

I think the rollback is long overdue, too many great courses are becoming obsolete. The players of today are truly athletes and hit the ball so much further... I took an over ten year break from golf and was shocked to see that my distance barely took a hit. Going from a fit late twenty year old, who was a true bomber by hitting it well over 300 meters (about 330 yards), to a 40 year old who can hit it 300 yards, I can easily say that the equipment is miles ahead... If things keep up at this rate soon only courses with enough surrounding real estate will stay relevant. On top of that, something an old golf coach of mine used to say: "The long ball is taking skill out of the game." I used to think that he was crazy or jealous (maybe he really was both), but today I understand the sentiment, putting, short game, approach shots, creativity are being lost.

I can honestly say that the reason I made it back to a single digit handicapper so fast was my skill level, that I attained, not my length. Like in all sports the basics make you good and the roll back will hopefully force that train of thought. 

Don't get me wrong, I am the first to boast about a striped 300 yarder, but if it results in the dreaded 3-putt bogey, it was all for naught. So hopefully the rollback can combat the race for arms distance-wise and turn golf back into a skill game.

Long post, sorry, and hopefully not redundant. 

After 92 pages of comments, every post will be redundant. Long story short, some people like it, some don't care, and some hate it.

[RickyBobby_PR]

45 minutes ago, storm319 said:

and the simple solution if people see that as a problem is to lower par. 

Yep. It’s just an arbitrary number. People get hung up on pros shooting X under par and that’s too low. Yet at the end of the day it didn’t matter what the actual score is, the winner is the one that has the lowest score unless playing stabbleford or match play.

 

[cnosil]

15 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Their equipment meets the same specs that your equipment does and may cases the faces on drivers are slower than the ones at retail so that they don’t run the risk of having a conforming face because it’s too hot.

i have a shaft that is a one of a kind. Doesn’t change anything about anything. 
 

I think we can look at some exceptions.  Maybe the top 1% get specially made one off pieces of equipment like you mention about the shaft you made.   Some examples are that some top pros like Tiger have had one off iron sets not offered to everyone through the OEM,  one off Cameron putters like Danielle Kangs.   But as you say,  these are just one offs that still meet official equipment rules and are pieces of equipment that 99.9% of golfers should never consider playing.   I think people think that because the players have better access to fitters and the customizations not generally offered at your local golf store that they all get special equipment.