Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[GolfWolf.com]

Does anyone know how they plan to achieve the rollback? Higher spinning balls? More compression? Dimple pattern?

[storm319]

5 minutes ago, GolfWolf.com said:

Does anyone know how they plan to achieve the rollback? Higher spinning balls? More compression? Dimple pattern?

Likely a combination of reduced efficiency from a ballspeed and aerodynamic perspective (possibly also higher spin).

[cnosil]

22 minutes ago, GolfWolf.com said:

Does anyone know how they plan to achieve the rollback? Higher spinning balls? More compression? Dimple pattern?

Will probably be ball specific like todays balls and how they keep them within the current limitations.  Some spin more, some spin less, vary ball speed, vary aerodynamics, etc..  Every player has different needs from the ball so there will be a variety of options.   Look at the data from the MGS 2023 Ball test and you will see that all the balls perform differently.  

[Franc38]

As Martin Borgmeier as pointed out, the roll back proposed doesn't make any sense even from a rules point of view, unless the way of testing is standardized and repeatable. A robot with a club head speed of 125mph hits a ball with a certain spin and a certain angle and then depending of the surface the ball lands on, the density of the air, the temperature of the ball, the ball will travel very very different distances (a reason I've recently discovered as to why while I do hit my irons about the same distance as the average PGA tour pro, my driver and woods are quite a bit shorter... Their shots roll on for miles while mine pitch and bounce once if I'm lucky then stay in the mud.) You might also have balls with aerodynamics designed to counteract the "roll back", leaving the leading pro playing this or that ball keep (or increase) their distance while the ball still conforms, but the average slower speed am would loose boatloads of distance. The likely result would be the polar opposite of what the R&A and USGA say they want: more distance for the pros and top ams, less for the slower ams a significant increase in the cost of practising golf (the R&D needed for the new conforming balls that would not penalize the top pros that I mentioned above is clearly not free, and will be borne by average joe buying his balls at the local pro shop, not by the pros (don't pay their balls) or top ams (using one ball per 36 holes is quite a bit cheaper than 6 to 9 balls per 18 holes as I've discovered when I play well )

All of that for "solving" a problem that visibly only exists in Jack's and some of the higher ups at the USGA and R&A's heads... Plus the sheep that have been convinced by the repeated screaming of said people in the media.

[DaveP043]

20 minutes ago, Franc38 said:

unless the way of testing is standardized and repeatable.

12 seconds of searching got me this:

"We then use our Indoor Test Range (ITR) to precisely determine how each ball flies. The Indoor Test Range is a 70-foot long "tunnel" through which the balls are launched using a golf ball launcher that is similar to a pitching machine. The ITR allows the USGA to accurately measure the aerodynamics of a golf ball in flight. This information is used in a sophisticated computer program to accurately calculate driving distance of an actual drive. This "virtual" distance data is highly repeatable and not subject to weather variations."

https://www.usga.org/equipment-standards/research-and-test-center-primer.html

23 minutes ago, Franc38 said:

the R&D needed for the new conforming balls that would not penalize the top pros that I mentioned above is clearly not free

Manufacturers are continually developing "new" balls, now they'll do the same research using a slightly different test method.  There will probably be only one more submission under the existing test method, assuming a 2-year cycle.  Testing for 2024 is done, the balls have already been submitted, testing for 2026 is certainly underway, development for submission beginning October 2027 will begin shortly.  We already bear the cost for developing golf balls, I don't see this as a huge new cost.

[Beakbryce]

On 12/14/2023 at 11:49 AM, 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.

Course rating procedures were developed by who again?

Trained raters visit courses and evaluate them using specific guidelines provided by the USGA. Subjectively, it appears the guidelines are based largely on yardage instead of agronomy. They do not take into account todays agronomy, course conditions being what they are now on even the least kept up courses as opposed to general condition of courses back when.

Additionally, pro golfers are not scratch players. Apples and oranges.

The only way this comment works is if the trained raters went back and rated the courses as they played agronomically, not just yardage, in whatever year you want to compare. Have to believe that shot values back when would include fairway cuts and green speeds that would make the courses harder which would negate the distance difference and the strokes number. 

Since this isn't going to happen we are as you say, being subjective. However, logic has to intrude somewhere in this discussion. If you don't think it was difficult to play golf in the 70's or 80's, hitting to shaggy fairways and putting greens at 6-8 on the stimp meter, you aren't going to believe the course rating of today is pretty mystical in comparison. Clearly you won't believe that the runways pros hit into today are responsible for the additional 17 yards to correspond with the additional 300 yards of course length and your 1.3 stroke difference. Again logically, many of us believe the USGA has brought this on themselves by killing golf courses for the US Open to obtain hard and fast playing fields which exacerbates and skews the distance "problem".

[Beakbryce]

15 hours ago, BigBoiGolf said:

Guys, we aren't moving up. I'm not letting a 1.7 stroke differential between the tips and the next tee up evaporate from my handicap index. Sorry, it's just not happening, especially since the odds of me shooting the same score from both tees is essentially the same at my level. Playing the tips is the fastest way to drop ones index once they're happy with their golfing ability. Especially since the USGA has indicated it has no interest in re-rating courses.

Just an aside. Love this scorecard with pace of play. 

[storm319]

5 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

12 seconds of searching got me this:

"We then use our Indoor Test Range (ITR) to precisely determine how each ball flies. The Indoor Test Range is a 70-foot long "tunnel" through which the balls are launched using a golf ball launcher that is similar to a pitching machine. The ITR allows the USGA to accurately measure the aerodynamics of a golf ball in flight. This information is used in a sophisticated computer program to accurately calculate driving distance of an actual drive. This "virtual" distance data is highly repeatable and not subject to weather variations."

https://www.usga.org/equipment-standards/research-and-test-center-primer.html

Here is a good video outlining the current ODS test protocol: 

 

[Rtracymog]

13 hours ago, storm319 said:

By nature par is a relatively arbitrary reference point. If players are averaging well under par on a particular hole, then par should change. 

True, but what's the cutoff? Across the entire PGA tour season for 2022, the average scoring on par 5s was 4.83. The top 50 guys were averaging under 4.5 strokes for all par 5s. The average at #13 last year was 4.85 after the addition of length. The lowest it's ever been has been 4.47. 

[Subdiver1]

On 12/15/2023 at 12:56 PM, Rob Person said:

Brilliant!

I haven't been keeping up the last couple of say so.... What?? What was that even about?  I think I am REALLY missing something here?  Sarcasm?  Come on guys I REALLY have to be missing some inside joke right?  "Rolled back into the drink"?  HUH?  What did I miss?

IF I am out of X-club range of clearing a hazard I play short.  If I think I can clear the hazard, the club I play isn't going to "roll back" into a pond/stream if I am going long over it.  This video made NO sense at all.  WHAT AM I MISSING here" HELP!!! 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Subdiver1
Clarify confusion vs. challenge

[FrogginBullfish]

11 minutes ago, Subdiver1 said:

What?? What was that even about?  "Rolled back into the drink"?  HUH?  What did I miss?

IF I am out of X-club range of clearing a hazard I play short.  If I think I can clear the hazard, the club I play isn't going to "roll back" into a pond/stream if I am going long over it.  This video made NO sense at all.  

r/whoooosh

It's a joke. Nothing serious about it.

[Subdiver1]

On 12/15/2023 at 7:23 AM, Javs said:

I admit I have not been keeping up with this post. However, did find a interesting article on driver creep.

https://www.golfmonthly.com/gear/what-is-driver-creeping?utm_term=CFEB69DA-8695-406A-822D-71925C4B6E39&lrh=afabd56f8788996dec1eed39e53e29756a4fe34c1aff9fa4fdfa9f254cbb042a&utm_campaign=075440B8-601C-4440-A9B1-8A7444061AA8&utm_medium=email&utm_content=429BE9B6-22C7-43C9-A1BB-8A9149B6A67D&utm_source=SmartBrief

Now this is an interesting article.  I haven't been keeping up either, I have a side project I am trying to complete to send you guys, but catching up this evening I saw this and some other... interesting  posts.  This one is interesting for several reasons.  From an engineering perspective, some folks already know, when you build an engine (car) there is a break-in period.  Depending on how you break that engine in, you will influence long-term performance.  Similar with other materials, there is always a break in period; take something like blue jeans, companies (Levis) started years ago going with finding ways to "break in" jeans so that you could buy them looking dark blue, stiff and brand new, or lighter colored, flexing and worn in.  Jeans and that club face are probably a good comparison, thought granted one should last a bit longer than the other, but going from dark blue, stiff and almost unwearable, thru lighter blue and comfortable to threadbare and worn is not all that different from a piece of metal that gets hammered on going from very stiff, to sweet spot pliable, to failure on impact.  Airplane frames go through the same wear process as do the metal hull of submersibles that are put through contact flexion and pressure changes; eventually what was pliable becomes brittle and cracks under pressure, or contact.

Nice find!  Thanks for sharing!

[Subdiver1]

On 12/15/2023 at 9:21 AM, Beakbryce said:

I really think the governing bodies read Sun Tzu.

I don't think the "governing bodies" even know who Tzu was, let alone the concepts.  Why would you think they were even aware of his writings?  (This may lead to a philosophical tangent to this thread)

[GolfSpy_APH]

Once again thanks all for your participation in this thread. The different view points, suggestions and discussion I think has been beneficial for all. Even when on opposite sides.

Our forum staff articles from will be published December 20th on the main site.

[Franc38]

16 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

12 seconds of searching got me this:

"We then use our Indoor Test Range (ITR) to precisely determine how each ball flies. The Indoor Test Range is a 70-foot long "tunnel" through which the balls are launched using a golf ball launcher that is similar to a pitching machine. The ITR allows the USGA to accurately measure the aerodynamics of a golf ball in flight. This information is used in a sophisticated computer program to accurately calculate driving distance of an actual drive. This "virtual" distance data is highly repeatable and not subject to weather variations."

https://www.usga.org/equipment-standards/research-and-test-center-primer.html

Manufacturers are continually developing "new" balls, now they'll do the same research using a slightly different test method.  There will probably be only one more submission under the existing test method, assuming a 2-year cycle.  Testing for 2024 is done, the balls have already been submitted, testing for 2026 is certainly underway, development for submission beginning October 2027 will begin shortly.  We already bear the cost for developing golf balls, I don't see this as a huge new cost.

Ok, so it's modelled and therefore bull#;t .. and the reason why today we have tons of balls that go way further than the norm when we play them and other that are "already conforming", supposedly to the new rules. And I say that as a guy who's doing and teaching modelling...

Regarding r&d the difference between incremental improvement and change in "nature" is quite large, plus it's a "good excuse" to ramp up prices even if not really justified. We'll see but I'd bet some money on 10% price increase for the "new shorter balls" when they become the norm 

[RickyBobby_PR]

10 hours ago, Rtracymog said:

True, but what's the cutoff? Across the entire PGA tour season for 2022, the average scoring on par 5s was 4.83. The top 50 guys were averaging under 4.5 strokes for all par 5s. The average at #13 last year was 4.85 after the addition of length. The lowest it's ever been has been 4.47. 

Their handicap are +5 or better. They are going to score under par on or 5s. 
 

Again who cares what they shoot on par 5s or any other hole. The winner is determined by the golfer who scores the lowest score for the tournament.

Also why does it matter what pros shoot in a PGA tournament event?
 

How does them having an under par score score on average affect anyone other than the golfers they are competing against?  
 

Average means guys are shooting par, some under and some at par. Its not like everyone is scoring under par.

[DaveP043]

3 hours ago, Franc38 said:

Ok, so it's modelled and therefore bull#;t

Interesting, you say the testing needs to be "standardized and repeatable".  When you see that the testing is indeed standardized and repeatable, you say its BS.  To me the data collection is pretty significant, after watching the video linked by @storm319, so the modelling is likely to be reasonably accurate.  If you have a better method, you should probably contact the USGA or R&A.  If you just prefer to call it all BS, that's fine too.

[Franc38]

2 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Interesting, you say the testing needs to be "standardized and repeatable".  When you see that the testing is indeed standardized and repeatable, you say its BS.  To me the data collection is pretty significant, after watching the video linked by @storm319, so the modelling is likely to be reasonably accurate.  If you have a better method, you should probably contact the USGA or R&A.  If you just prefer to call it all BS, that's fine too.

Can't say that a model based on a ball launched by a machine over 70 feet is a standardized and repeatable way of testing balls that should be HIT by drivers and fly 900 feet. Sure, it's at least repeatable (if you know the machine specs, the tunnel specs, the air and so on).

Now I did contact the R&A to tell them that I feel their approach to regulating distance is idiotic... That was last summer when they started talking about bifurcation. I offered some ideas... and I'm still waiting for any reply (my ideas dealt with the regulation of course conditions for tournament play, and respectfully leveraging the idea that the regulation of the equipment should be limited to its basic observable characteristics and never deal with "outcomes" as we all know that golf is not a game of perfect or even well defined randomness... )

 

You're still have the right to be happy with their way of setting rules; but you'll have to be happy too when the price of balls rise and the tour pros continue hitting it the same distance or further, while the short hitters with limited technique and time scramble more and more since they can't reach greens in regulation, which is a probable consequence of the proposed rules evolution. Now, I'll be happy if that doesn't happen, if we don't see much reduction for the "mere mortals" and price don't change... albeit, I have speeds akin to a "middle of the pack pga tour guy" so I'll be affected more, but if its by the margins they say, fine. I just don't believe that (else why do it?)

Edited December 17, 2023 by Franc38

[BigBoiGolf]

2 hours ago, Franc38 said:

Can't say that a model based on a ball launched by a machine over 70 feet is a standardized and repeatable way of testing balls that should be HIT by drivers and fly 900 feet. Sure, it's at least repeatable (if you know the machine specs, the tunnel specs, the air and so on).

Now I did contact the R&A to tell them that I feel their approach to regulating distance is idiotic... That was last summer when they started talking about bifurcation. I offered some ideas... and I'm still waiting for any reply (my ideas dealt with the regulation of course conditions for tournament play, and respectfully leveraging the idea that the regulation of the equipment should be limited to its basic observable characteristics and never deal with "outcomes" as we all know that golf is not a game of perfect or even well defined randomness... )

 

You're still have the right to be happy with their way of setting rules; but you'll have to be happy too when the price of balls rise and the tour pros continue hitting it the same distance or further, while the short hitters with limited technique and time scramble more and more since they can't reach greens in regulation, which is a probable consequence of the proposed rules evolution. Now, I'll be happy if that doesn't happen, if we don't see much reduction for the "mere mortals" and price don't change... albeit, I have speeds akin to a "middle of the pack pga tour guy" so I'll be affected more, but if its by the margins they say, fine. I just don't believe that (else why do it?)

There's no point in explaining this to people. I and other players way beyond my skill level have flat out stated this isn't going to affect us in the way they think it will. We will still practice to chase that outcome and we're right back to square one.

Unforgiving drivers? We'll just hit in on the screws, as if we weren't doing that already. I was at the range at 45* weather hitting a 44* 9 iron 150 yards carry with those crappy Callaway TopTracer range balls. You know how many regular players I saw out there in the cold working on their games? 0. The only people there were people working in the offseason having rust in the center of their faces.

The USGA and R&A are under the mistaken belief they can regulate dedicated people out of the game, and they're willing to throw all the recreational golfers under the bus to do so.

[fixyurdivot]

21 hours ago, storm319 said:

Here is a good video outlining the current ODS test protocol: 

 

Interesting video.  I had to chuckle at their robot driver pedigree though .  No doubt they can use just about any make/model and make adjustments to achieve the target ball speed and launch angle, but I can't find any info on this relic.

[storm319]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

Interesting video.  I had to chuckle at their robot driver pedigree though .  No doubt they can use just about any make/model and make adjustments to achieve the target ball speed and launch angle, but I can't find any info on this relic.

I believe the USGA commissioned the test driver. Specs are listed in their test protocol and I found an archived notice mentioning that OEMs can purchase the driver and calibration ball through them.

Implementation notice:  https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/Archived-Notices/7-2-03 Indoor Ball Test-Phase II Implementation.pdf

Current test protocol:  https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/equipment-standards/TPX3006 Overall Distance and Symmetry Test Protocol.pdf

 

 

[storm319]

7 hours ago, Franc38 said:

Can't say that a model based on a ball launched by a machine over 70 feet is a standardized and repeatable way of testing balls that should be HIT by drivers and fly 900 feet. Sure, it's at least repeatable (if you know the machine specs, the tunnel specs, the air and so on).

Now I did contact the R&A to tell them that I feel their approach to regulating distance is idiotic... That was last summer when they started talking about bifurcation. I offered some ideas... and I'm still waiting for any reply (my ideas dealt with the regulation of course conditions for tournament play, and respectfully leveraging the idea that the regulation of the equipment should be limited to its basic observable characteristics and never deal with "outcomes" as we all know that golf is not a game of perfect or even well defined randomness... )

 

You're still have the right to be happy with their way of setting rules; but you'll have to be happy too when the price of balls rise and the tour pros continue hitting it the same distance or further, while the short hitters with limited technique and time scramble more and more since they can't reach greens in regulation, which is a probable consequence of the proposed rules evolution. Now, I'll be happy if that doesn't happen, if we don't see much reduction for the "mere mortals" and price don't change... albeit, I have speeds akin to a "middle of the pack pga tour guy" so I'll be affected more, but if its by the margins they say, fine. I just don't believe that (else why do it?)

You clearly didn’t read the test protocol or watch the video. There are two tests that make up the ITR: robotics swing and canon. The robotic swing is performed similarly to any other robotic test and only initial ball speed, launch angle, and spin are taken (my guess is so that the calculation can remain consistent and not rely on the launch monitor OEMs calcs). The canon test is more focused on aerodynamics given that those are basically not in play for the robotic swing test. 

Would it be ideal to track the full flight of the ball when testing? Sure, but it is not practical given the volume that the USGA has to test annually (currently around 1200 submissions on the current list and I’d imagine that there are some submissions that fail). Keep in mind that the choice to test fully indoors is an attempt at controlling the environmental variables that ultimately make testing outdoors difficult (potential for the environmental conditions to potentially cause an otherwise non-conforming to pass or vice versa which may be unfair to some submitters). Ultimately the best ideal environment would be testing in a massive hangar where the full flight could be tracked in a consistently controlled environment, but that really wouldn’t be plausible. 

I don’t disagree with your desire to regulate only physical properties of a piece of equipment, but there really is no way to evaluate things like ball speed or aerodynamic efficiency by measuring a simple physical property (the physical properties that strongly influence distance have already been limited). Ultimately the USGA has been regulating reactionary outcomes of equipment for over 80 years (first introduced with the 1942 ball velocity limitation), so unless you have any new ideas that the the various stakeholder engineers haven’t already thought of that would have the same end result, I doubt this will change.

[Beakbryce]

18 hours ago, Subdiver1 said:

I don't think the "governing bodies" even know who Tzu was, let alone the concepts.  Why would you think they were even aware of his writings?  (This may lead to a philosophical tangent to this thread)

Required reading in the Marines when I was in. Have to believe there is at least one Marine in the USGA hierarchy. It has way more applicability to business than say "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" and other required reading for MBA students. Just saying.

The USGA learned they didn't have the War Chest they needed when Solheim came after them over square grooves. Taking the long approach they now have loads of money and scads of media attention over the new ball test. Just the fact that this thread appears to be one of the longest in MGS history shows they have accomplished a good part of their goal, meaning buy in and capitulation from the people that matter even though the consensus seems to be most of us peasants don't want it. Classic Tzu. I think they have already won this battle without taking any kind of hit, leaving them to enact other stuff sooner rather than later.

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

I would be curious how many dues paying members of the USGA don't renew. My guess is not a lot. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by Beakbryce

[RickyBobby_PR]

10 hours ago, Beakbryce said:

Required reading in the Marines when I was in. Have to believe there is at least one Marine in the USGA hierarchy. It has way more applicability to business than say "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" and other required reading for MBA students. Just saying.

The USGA learned they didn't have the War Chest they needed when Solheim came after them over square grooves. Taking the long approach they now have loads of money and scads of media attention over the new ball test. Just the fact that this thread appears to be one of the longest in MGS history shows they have accomplished a good part of their goal, meaning buy in and capitulation from the people that matter even though the consensus seems to be most of us peasants don't want it. Classic Tzu. I think they have already won this battle without taking any kind of hit, leaving them to enact other stuff sooner rather than later.

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

I would be curious how many dues paying members of the USGA don't renew. My guess is not a lot. 

I haven’t renewed mine for going in 6-7 years now. I know from reading posts from other forums and groups that there will be less memberships being renewed from those that still have them.

[HikingMike]

On 12/14/2023 at 12:01 PM, BigBoiGolf said:

It doesn't work like this and I'm tired of explaining it. YOU guys are saying there is a distance problem. YOU need to prove it's a problem objectively and not based on your hunch.

Well it all depends on how we want the game to be played. 

From elsewhere in this thread and in the USGA's report, the data supports that the average tour player is hitting it longer. The data supports that golf courses have been getting longer. I would love to see data that players are hitting mid irons, long irons, and woods much less than in the past (excluding tee shots), and are hitting short irons and wedges more. But I don't know if that data is out there.

If a person doesn't mind this, then there is no problem. If a person would prefer the game not evolve in this direction, then there is a problem.

I feel like I am saying "I like ice cream", then you are saying "no, you don't like ice cream, you didn't prove it, and here's the 'math' to show why you don't like ice cream".

On 12/14/2023 at 12:01 PM, BigBoiGolf said:

Because YOU want to FORCE private entities to spend untold thousands to possibly millions of dollars, thousands of man hours in work to acquise to these demands, and all of this is going to end up not affecting people better than myself because we have to keep providing the math that states that.

I'm just a regular person here with an opinion. Don't get angry and defensive. If you're not, disregard, but the capital letters and italics give that impression. 

Someone could argue that the increased money spent by golf courses, and the increased costs passed on to millions of amateur golfers around the world could outweigh the cost incurred by everyone with changes to golf ball requirements. When new golf courses are bigger and longer, they have more initial fixed costs. And when both new golf courses and modified existing courses are bigger and longer, they have more recurring costs. I also don't have data on that and can't directly compare them, but I did check and the cost of greens fees has outpaced inflation from 2006 until now.

Changes to golf ball requirements will have costs, but those costs will not recur indefinitely like golf course maintenance costs do. It will be more like them developing a new golf ball model. If the new balls happen to be more expensive to make by unit-cost, only then would the extra costs recur. And I doubt that will be the case.

There is also a loss of value if the pros stop playing famous golf courses. I believe the name recognition of a course does have an effect for the viewership for an event. And I would hate to have lots of famous courses with history, heritage, and personality be replaced by faceless new stadium courses (my opinion).

On 12/14/2023 at 12:01 PM, BigBoiGolf said:

The scoring average has barely dropped 1.5 shots in almost 40 years on the PGA Tour with EVERY technical, nutritional, and training advancement and statistical analysis known to man being thrown at it.

Personally I don't have any concern about the scoring average. It's good it hasn't changed much. But that's good to know, thanks for that stat. Longer hitting and longer courses, and scores have improved only slightly. I have only glanced at the USGA report, but it also doesn't talk about the scoring average at all in the overview. It seems like this isn't really part of the conversation.

From the USGA report's overview-

Quote

What have been and might be the key impacts of increased hitting distance on the game? In particular, what are the impacts on:

• how the game is played
• golf courses

Like I've said in my other posts, my concern is how the game is played from tee to green, and the variety of shots that are played. Like Rory's quote: "It will also help bring back certain skills in the pro game that have been eradicated over the past 2 decades".

On 12/14/2023 at 12:01 PM, BigBoiGolf said:

The Tours have stated there is no problem. The manufacturers have stated there is no problem. The vast majority of players have stated there is no problem, and the vast golf public has stated there is no problem.

Those are valid opinions. I heard Tiger and Rory were in favor of the rollback. It sounds like Padraig Harrington and Lee Westwood are good with it. Do you have info on other pro golfers? I wonder if someone has built up a tally somewhere.

[HikingMike]

On 12/14/2023 at 12:13 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

That clearly states distance isn’t an issue. It’s not subjective. What’s subjective is saying the pros hit the ball too far or that the ball goes too far or that courses are being made obsolete by the pros.

The ball goes as far as golfer is capable of hitting and has a limit on it. The pros hit it to far in relation to what? Years prior? Not in the last 20 years of the same specs. Father than the pros in the 90s? Yeah different ball, different clubs, different type of golfer. But the ball went father in the 90s than the 80, the 70s and so on. Courses aren’t obsolete, that’s a preference for some people that don’t like seeing lower scores than previous eras, that don’t like seeing pros who spend their whole lives working hard on their game be able to take advantage of the skill of hitting far. Not liking the modern game is just an opinion and nothing more. 

Preference, opinion, subjective, whatever you want to call it. Pros could hit the ball 500 yards and play par 5s like we play par 3s now, and some people would be fine with that. Which part isn't subjective?

On 12/14/2023 at 12:15 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

Courses aren’t going to shrink because the ruling bodies roll the ball back. Land is a commodity and the property owners will keep it and they will maintain it.

I was using my imagination and thinking abstractly there to consider what a different amount of land usage would mean. I also don't think golf courses will shrink and sell off land unless something more drastic were to happen. It is possible they will not water, mow, fertilize, aerate as much though if there is land that isn't needed for golf. Keep in mind, courses are getting longer, and likely will into the future. So this is also about courses not getting bigger rather than shrinking, and new golf courses using up more land than old ones did - and that's part of the sustainability topic.

On 12/14/2023 at 12:17 PM, 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

The USGA distance report really wasn't talking about scoring average. Me neither.

[HikingMike]

On 12/14/2023 at 12:41 PM, BigBoiGolf said:

That's cool about the clubs and lofts. It looks like my set is in between your 2000s and 2010s data.

Do you think there is any data out there about what clubs or what loft of club and frequency of use by the pros? I'd be curious to know how often they used their 6 iron or equivalent in the different periods for example.

[RickyBobby_PR]

29 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

From elsewhere in this thread and in the USGA's report, the data supports that the average tour player is hitting it longer. The data supports that golf courses have been getting longer. I would love to see data that players are hitting mid irons, long irons, and woods much less than in the past (excluding tee shots), and are hitting short irons and wedges more. But I don't know if that data is out there

The data says the opposite.

Distance has remained the same for the last 20 years. Only thing that’s changed is more people are hitting close to 300 which is what the average has gone up, which is exactly what the USGA report says.

Courses have been getting shorter. Data posted by Acushnet in their statement shows courses are just under 300 yards shorter now than they were before 2013. Data from the superintendents association over the course of 18’yeara shows the samething.

32 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

I would love to see data that players are hitting mid irons, long irons, and woods much less than in the past (excluding tee shots), and are hitting short irons and wedges more. But I don't know if that data is out

that’s the problem they aren’t hitting them less and it’s not a driver and wedge game. I posted that exact thing 2 pages back

 

36 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

If a person doesn't mind this, then there is no problem. If a person would prefer the game not evolve in this direction, then there is a problem.

I feel like I am saying "I like ice cream", then you are saying "no, you don't like ice cream, you didn't prove it, and here's the 'math' to show why you don't like ice cream".

This is preference. Some people don’t like the modern game played by the pros (it’s a small percentage of people) and that small percentage wants to change the game for everyone because the pros are doing what the pros do 

 

38 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

Like I've said in my other posts, my concern is how the game is played from tee to green, and the variety of shots that are played. Like Rory's quote: "It will also help bring back certain skills in the pro game that have been eradicated over the past 2 decades".

Rory is saying that because he knows a rollback benefits the longer player and as a longer player he still has an easier time getting a mid/long iron to the green than a shorter player will a wood or hybrid. There are a lot more golfers against it than for it including longer players like JT.

 

40 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

Those are valid opinions. I heard Tiger and Rory were in favor of the rollback. It sounds like Padraig Harrington and Lee Westwood are good with it. Do you have info on other pro golfers? I wonder if someone has built up a tally somewhere.

Tiger is in favor of it as a course designer, yes he pushed for bifurcation of the ball and equipment when he was playing. Why? Because as one of the longest at the time of benefited him. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

11 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

Preference, opinion, subjective, whatever you want to call it. Pros could hit the ball 500 yards and play par 5s like we play par 3s now, and some people would be fine with that. Which part isn't subjective?

Yes how the game should be played is subjective. I doubt anyone would want to see driveable par 5s not that it would ever be a reality with the current equipment, but when you compare data like the distances balls went in the 80s or 90s compared to today it’s not a good comparison. It’s apples to oranges just like comparing 90s golf distances to 80s or 70 golf distance 

14 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

It is possible they will not water, mow, fertilize, aerate as much though if there is land that isn't needed for golf. Keep in mind, courses are getting longer, and likely will into the future. So this is also about courses not getting bigger rather than shrinking, and new golf courses using up more land than old ones did - and that's part of the sustainability topic.

1) back tees are used 5% of the time, courses still maintain those areas despite little to no usage. The rollback if you believe what the ruling bodies say will have 3-5 yards impact on regular golfers and 8-15 yards on the high speed golfers. That’s not enough for a course to change what tees they use and to stop maintaining tee boxes.

Courses aren’t getting longer. The data has been posted in this thread that shows the opposite. Again as I mentioned acushnet showed the data and the superintendents association also have an 18 year study that shows they aren’t getting longer and are actually getting shorter 

 

[BigBoiGolf]

12 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

That's cool about the clubs and lofts. It looks like my set is in between your 2000s and 2010s data.

Do you think there is any data out there about what clubs or what loft of club and frequency of use by the pros? I'd be curious to know how often they used their 6 iron or equivalent in the different periods for example.

It's not so much loft these days, Pros tend to play offset values. The player irons they usually have are at the 7 iron around 2mm - 2.5mm in offset. These days that's gonna nab you 34 degrees of loft on a 7. They already optimize everything, for example, I made this smash factor Google Sheet for you to cross reference what your expected smash factor for your club's loft