Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[DaveP043]

Just now, RickyBobby_PR said:

If a person or organzation claims there is a problem that means there is a negative effect caused by that problem. Its on the person or organization to state and defend that negative effect if they want to others to buy into the issue and the solution.

The data debunks the claim that distance has caused courses to be lengthen, so that’s not a valid reason to rollback.

The data debunks the notion the game is now driver wedge, so that’s not a negative effect.

The data doesn’t support that if nothing is done that distance will explode similar to what happened between the 90s and 2000s, but most of it suggest there might be a small decline based on swing speeds slowing down the last 2 years after being stagnant the previous 3 years.

All the claims of why the distance the current pros hit the ball have been subjective in nature and none provide any data as to why it’s a problem.

Claims about courses being obsolete has no data to suggest that the case. Its people who want to see classic curses many which weren’t used on tour or for majors long before the current ball and equipment be used. Some want to see the game played like Jack played it. These are subjective preferences of a minority of golfers and the stuffiness of the ruling bodies.
 

The data in support of leaving the game stand under the current guidelines provides an objective view that there isn’t a problem.

The distance study started long before LIV was even a thing so we can take the current uncertainty out of the equation. The last golf TV deal indicates that the product the PGA tour is putting out is enjoyed by a large audience. The sponsors and increased purses even before LIV also indicate the current pro game is what people want to see. Advertisers paying the current prices also indicate the same. Lastly Mike Whan stated that the game is healthy. So if everything about the game is a positive, why change it.

When 6% of golfers in a national survey say they will quit the game over the new ball that’s a problem and not good for the game.

You want data to back up the "opposition" view that distance has a negative impact.  You continue claiming that requiring a "shorter" ball will negatively impact the game, but can show no data because "negative impact" is an opinion, not a provable fact.  Simply saying that the game is fine now does NOT mean that a shorter ball will worsen it.  It will change it, and whether that change is positive or negative will be a matter of opinion.

As for that 6%, I'd love to find a way to get their names and check back with them in 2030 to see if they're still playing.  My guess is that the vast majority of them will still be playing.  

[Bob Pegram]

5 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Exactly or the reason is something that is contradicted by the data such as courses are getting longer, courses are obsolete yet other than saying longer hitters can carry trouble those courses aren’t getting their course records broken and they can still be played by golfers of all levels, and then when you bring this up it boils down to they don’t like seeing low scores relative to par, which is nothing but an arbitrary number and what matters in competitive to score is who has the lowest score at the end. No points are awarded for hitting more fairways, playing the course as designed.

While I get the sentiment, even at the pro level not all play the same game. Zach Johnson isn’t playing the game the same was as DJ. Rickie is playing different than Scheffler. It’s what makes golf great. We all get to play the same game using the same equipment and rules and try to do our best.

Not all amateurs play the same. A 25 handicap isn’t playing the same game as a 10 who isn’t playing the same as a scratch. 
 

But I agree that implementing a rule that will negatively affect the game at a level where the regular amateur isn’t hitting it that far is crazy, all because the 1% of golfers play the game different that a bunch of suits don’t like.

The game has been played differently over its entire existence. Equipment has changed, agronomy has changed, the golfer has changed. It’s the natural part of any sport. 

I am against the new ball, but, for clarity, it should be pointed out that the new ball is supposed to lose decreasing percentages of distance with less powerful swings. In other words, a golfer who now hits his drives about 200 yards will not only lose way less distance than the pros or other long hitters, but will lose a smaller percentage of his distance. The amount of distance he loses will be negligible. Long hitters will lose quite a bit of distance. I am 74, 6 feet tall, use a 46 inch driver and can hit the ball 270 to 280 on good days. I swing a very heavy leaded club 40 or 50 times every day for strength and flexibility. I will be penalized more for my work to stay in good condition and to stay strong than an average golfer will. That is what we get when amateurs make the rules for the pros (and everybody else) - penalties for hard work.

[HikingMike]

11 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

You want data to back up the "opposition" view that distance has a negative impact.  You continue claiming that requiring a "shorter" ball will negatively impact the game, but can show no data because "negative impact" is an opinion, not a provable fact.  Simply saying that the game is fine now does NOT mean that a shorter ball will worsen it.  It will change it, and whether that change is positive or negative will be a matter of opinion.

As for that 6%, I'd love to find a way to get their names and check back with them in 2030 to see if they're still playing.  My guess is that the vast majority of them will still be playing.  

Thanks for some logical reasoning  I also think the 6% will mostly still be playing.

To follow on to this...

If a person says that a shorter ball will negatively impact the game, does that mean that golf prior to the distance increases was negatively impacted and suboptimal? Where was it best? Was it before the Pro V1? Was it before large driver heads? Was it before more and more pros became more athletic? Is it right now? This is just a line of thinking that shows this is subjective.

And if someone disagrees with distance being any kind of concern at all, then I'm skeptical for that. People don't want to see pros driving par 5s generally.

Everybody can have a different opinion. It just doesn't make sense when someone says their opinion to a subjective topic is the correct one due to the facts.

[chisag]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

You want data to back up the "opposition" view that distance has a negative impact.  You continue claiming that requiring a "shorter" ball will negatively impact the game, but can show no data because "negative impact" is an opinion, not a provable fact.  Simply saying that the game is fine now does NOT mean that a shorter ball will worsen it.  It will change it, and whether that change is positive or negative will be a matter of opinion.

 

4 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

Everybody can have a different opinion. It just doesn't make sense when someone says their opinion to a subjective topic is the correct one due to the facts.

 

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don't argue with RB

[HikingMike]

On 12/21/2023 at 3:56 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

We disagree that max distance will increase which the data suggests it won’t and that a rollback won’t stop the average from going up.

I think max distance won't increase much or at all, and it will just fluctuate a bit, so maybe we agree there. The concern for me is average distance (or median)... basically the larger mass of the pro field. No big deal if there are one or five golfers at the top in distance. There is always one at the top in driving distance. They will be exciting, but that small number is less of an impact to the overall pro game. 

On 12/21/2023 at 3:56 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

It wasn’t a problem for anyone in the 80s which saw a similar increase in average distance.

Yeah I'm a bit surprised that with the drastic changes in distance over the years that not much was done to counteract that. I'm not a golf historian though. There are plenty of arguments around that topic and it's a whole different ball of wax. Someone could say equipment was primitive compared to today, and now at this point, equipment and tech has matured and will not have as many gains left. So perhaps we are better off with metal woods, certain size woods, and solid core balls of the current era.

If you're ok to bring the 80s into this, then I'll say golf course distances increased significantly since then, and even more before that. I don't believe there wasn't any actual rule of what distance courses had to be, but they increased.

On 12/21/2023 at 3:56 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

I believe you also think it’s driver wedge game on tour which it’s not.

I thought it was moving that direction. However I've also found data from the USGA report stating there are more short par 4s lately, so now I'm not sure.

On 12/21/2023 at 3:56 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

Theres no need to make courses shorter or longer. The game is just fine where the current distances are which is why over the last 20 years they have remained constant on tour.

On 12/21/2023 at 3:56 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

It will not increase like many claim. It’s been 10 yards over the last 20 yeara. So even if it stays at that pace which it probably won’t it will be at 310. 

So to me it seems reasonable to make a change that shortens pro drives by 10-15 yards then.

On 12/21/2023 at 3:56 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

To say the ball goes to far is subjective.

you have to define too far according to who? So those that say it does are being subjective and those who say it doesn’t are also being subjective.

Yes, now we aren't talking past each other so much.

On 12/21/2023 at 3:56 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

Bifurcation is bad for the game.

Acknowledged. It could be. I'm sure it would lead to less money in marketing golf equipment.

[HikingMike]

5 minutes ago, chisag said:

And you don't argue with RB

I know now, haha!  

Well... we did make it to 100 pages. Content is king, and MGS benefits with the gains in search ranking. MGS, just keep this in mind for more testing opportunities next season. 

[BigBoiGolf]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

You want data to back up the "opposition" view that distance has a negative impact.  You continue claiming that requiring a "shorter" ball will negatively impact the game, but can show no data because "negative impact" is an opinion, not a provable fact.  Simply saying that the game is fine now does NOT mean that a shorter ball will worsen it.  It will change it, and whether that change is positive or negative will be a matter of opinion.

As for that 6%, I'd love to find a way to get their names and check back with them in 2030 to see if they're still playing.  My guess is that the vast majority of them will still be playing.  

You guys keep making these "it's just my opinion man!" comments saying it's not based on data, even though the USGA and R&A are the ones who are trying to portray their data in such a way to support their pre-conceived bias in how the game ought to be played. Then, when people disagree with you, you say things that are based on data, like "A shorter ball won't ruin the game!"

How do you know that? You're just as much in the dark as the USGA and R&A is.

Once again I'm going to point out that the USGA is estimating that a certain percentage of current production balls would meet their new standards. They didn't test balls against their standards, they don't even have a list. They're just talking out of their ass like any other person on this topic sharing their "opinion" and trying dress it up as though it were factual.

No, sorry, I don't believe in making policy based on opinions, especially when this policy costs people resources, effort, and money.

But, since we're so adamant about sharing "opinions" here, since because sharing facts gets us nowhere, in my opinion I think rollback enthusiasts should work on their games instead of pretending targeting those of us who are better than them at golf isn't a big deal because it's not going to personally affect them that bad, if at all. Why? Because in their mind, they confess that they're terrible golfers.

[Franc38]

27 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

If a person says that a shorter ball will negatively impact the game, does that mean that golf prior to the distance increases was negatively impacted and suboptimal? Where was it best? Was it before the Pro V1? Was it before large driver heads? Was it before more and more pros became more athletic? Is it right now? This is just a line of thinking that shows this is subjective

And if someone disagrees with distance being any kind of concern at all, then I'm skeptical for that. People don't want to see pros driving par 5s generally.

Well, for the newcomers, indeed a shorter ball will not be a problem, they will not loose anything.

For me, having worked to gain distance over the last 6 to 7 years, despite being almost 50 and having kids and a rather busy life, getting back to my former distance not because of age but because of some guys decisions, that will be a bummer.
That will be a bummer even more because I play more often than not with gentlemen who drive the ball shorter than my 7 iron and already struggle with the "pars" as they are, and don't have the choice to "tee it forward" (as, rather ironically, the same people who say that distance is a problem, shout about all the time... Maybe they really think that distance is a problem as players are hitting too short?).

 

Now strokes gained has shown (and logic also indicates that) that if the course is (relatively to distances people can hit the ball) long, then the longer hitters are advantaged. That makes sense if you think of it: on a 500 yards par 4 the guy who drives it 300 yards and hits his 5 iron 200 yards can be there in regulation and even if he sprays it a bit, he'll be around the green in two. The guy who hits it 250 yards and will likely hit his 5 iron 180 yards... what happens to him? well after two perfectly hit and straight shots he is 70 yards from the green. He'll have to up and down from that distance for the par, while the other guy simply has to up and down from a few yards if he missed the green and two putt if not. On average, the long guy wins, easy. Think now of a 300 yards par 4. First guy may drive it but that puts in play the bunkers and water hazards and the bumps and... around the green. Second guy is 50 yards away, in the fairway. 50 yards from the fairway vs. deep bunker and chance of penalty or a funky lie in the rough... The difference is probably still in favour of Mr 300 but by quite a bit less. And probably more because Mr 300 will hit his 3 wood to 270 to avoid the risk (and probably be more accurate with it than Mr 250 with his driver, a bit) then have only 30 yards in, instead of 50.

As pointed out sometimes on the forum, the tougher holes on tour are not massive par 4 or par 5s... Not even the long par 3, but typically the well defended short par 3. Think "postage stamp" at Troon, or the 7 at Pebble...

So when the pros start driving par 5s (which would have never happened, even the long drive guys do not have the distance, despite their amazing speed) just make these holes shorter, put deeper bunkers (even in the middle of the green, to really put the onus on accuracy) and the benefit of being longer will be reduced.

 

Finally, if people don't like seeing something (like guys bombing it) they don't buy the product in question, which then adapts. So if distance was a problem on the tour level (we have already seen it wasn't for recreational amateurs and everybody agreed, sort of) then we would expect the tours to address the "issue". They don't. So that show rather clearly that we are in front of a cabal of minority elitists who want to impose on others their view of the problem (because it's the right way, obviously) against the will of the majority.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Franc38

[chisag]

2 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

But, since we're so adamant about sharing "opinions" here, since because sharing facts gets us nowhere, in my opinion I think rollback enthusiasts should work on their games instead of pretending targeting those of us who are better than them at golf isn't a big deal because it's not going to personally affect them that bad, if at all. Why? Because in their mind, they confess that they're terrible golfers.

... You just joined this month and have been insulting long time members or anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion. Certainly not what MGS is about. There are no "rollback enthusiasts" for Am's. Unless I missed one here, I don't think they exist. But there are those that while they don't like it, will accept a USGA rule if and when it happens, just like all the other USGA rules.

... You have now reached ignored status faster than anyone I have experienced in the 13 years I have been a member here. Congrats. 

[BigBoiGolf]

Oh yeah, I forgot to include, ONCE AGAIN the USGA and R&A is STATING that this will not end at the ball rollback. People who think it will end at the ball are just playing themselves at this point.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2023/12/revised-golf-ball-testing-conditions-to-take-effect-in-2028.html

Quote

In addition to the new ball-testing conditions, the governing bodies will:

Expand the testing approach to better detect ‘Driver Creep,’ which can result in drivers exceeding the limits set out in the Equipment Rules. This is a change in the testing methodology for submitted drivers, to identify and proactively address driver models that are within current tolerance levels and have Characteristic Time (CT) values that are more likely to exceed the limit through regular use. 
 

Continue to monitor drivers and explore possible additional options related to distance. Specifically, we will research the forgiveness of drivers and how they perform with off-center hits. This is an ongoing review and we will seek input from and continue to work with the industry, including manufacturers, to identify driver design features that can be regulated as a means to reward center impact position hits versus mis-hits.

The R&A and the USGA are guided by an overarching principle to continue to preserve the fundamental elements of golf – protecting the integrity of golf courses, including their overall length, and ensuring that a variety of skills are needed to be successful. 

Who is going to be affected by off-center hits on drivers people? It aint the tour pros that the USGA was trying to target with the ball rollback.

Edited December 22, 2023 by BigBoiGolf

[Franc38]

By the way... People complaining that now tour pros hit driver then a short or mid iron, like a 8 or 7 onto par 4, keep in mind that the tour average 7 iron in 37" and 33 degrees plus some change, while "in the golden age" of "good golf" the same club was called a 5 iron... plus, the guys on TV tend to lie on what club the PGA tour pros hit. I vividly remember a time they were saying "Ah, and now for 185 yards, he'll hit a controlled 7 iron" and on the next image you could see the club and it was written 6 on it!

[HikingMike]

17 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

But, since we're so adamant about sharing "opinions" here, since because sharing facts gets us nowhere, in my opinion I think rollback enthusiasts should work on their games instead of pretending targeting those of us who are better than them at golf isn't a big deal because it's not going to personally affect them that bad, if at all. Why? Because in their mind, they confess that they're terrible golfers.

[BigBoiGolf]

24 minutes ago, chisag said:

... You just joined this month and have been insulting long time members or anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion. Certainly not what MGS is about. There are no "rollback enthusiasts" for Am's. Unless I missed one here, I don't think they exist. But there are those that while they don't like it, will accept a USGA rule if and when it happens, just like all the other USGA rules.

... You have now reached ignored status faster than anyone I have experienced in the 13 years I have been a member here. Congrats. 

I'm not trying to insult people, but it is incredibly frustrating how the same replies keep coming up in this discussion, namely the chief one is "It's not going to affect me and I don't care if it affects you".

That's great, I don't care that people have opinions on these topics. Everyone can choose to have an opinion on it or not. I don't think it's fair to say I'm insulting people, and then turn around say "Actually, I'm glad it's only affecting you and players like you" and expect us to take it on the chin and not be insulted by it. And then to put the cherry on top, wrap this all up in a Think of the game of Golf! so that when we disagree, because we will, it's pointed back at us as though Well, actually we care about golf, don't you care about golf?

Yeah sorry if I came off too hot, this whole topic has been pretty annoying to be honest, it's almost as bad as LIV vs PGAT, and none of us have the power to actually change anything.

[DaveP043]

46 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

But, since we're so adamant about sharing "opinions" here, since because sharing facts gets us nowhere, in my opinion I think rollback enthusiasts should work on their games instead of pretending targeting those of us who are better than them at golf isn't a big deal because it's not going to personally affect them that bad, if at all. Why? Because in their mind, they confess that they're terrible golfers

Do I see a bit of elitism here, claiming you're better than the rest of us?  "You're not as good as me, so STFU." 

[chisag]

11 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Do I see a bit of elitism here, claiming you're better than the rest of us?  "You're not as good as me, so STFU." 

 

... The very foundation of the amateur game that makes it different than any other sport is a +2 can play with a 22 and have a great day. I stopped playing travel tennis for this very reason. If you love the game, index is irrelevant. Until my shoulder started effecting my swing this summer I was playing to a +1 and my group consists of another scratch player, a 10, 12 and 16 along with a wife that is probably around a 20. I just put together a Cobra LTD driver for her guiding her to a 12* LTDx head and a really nice Sr flex $250 shaft originally for $23. She is giddy with excitement to put it in play Sunday. I am just as giddy to watch her! We all love playing, enjoy each others company, walking together in the sunshine and attempting to shoot as low a score as possible. Nobody in our group disagrees with each other    but if we did it would be with respect for the person, not their index. 

... Interestingly we are all between 65 and 81 yrs of age with the exception of Graham the other scratch player that is only 36. He hits it around 280 off the tee and plays the tips. Moved here from California and didn't know anyone and he joined us one day as a single and we hit it off immediately. Awesome young man. He still plays in tournaments and could not care less about the potential rollback as in his words "if we all play the same rolled back ball it won't make any difference to me". I am still hoping the USGA changes their minds and at least does not roll back the ball for Am's, but if they follow through I will echo Grahams sentiments. Others mmv and of course that's cool too.






 

[ZackS]

1 hour ago, Bob Pegram said:

I am against the new ball, but, for clarity, it should be pointed out that the new ball is supposed to lose decreasing percentages of distance with less powerful swings. In other words, a golfer who now hits his drives about 200 yards will not only lose way less distance than the pros or other long hitters, but will lose a smaller percentage of his distance. The amount of distance he loses will be negligible. Long hitters will lose quite a bit of distance. I am 74, 6 feet tall, use a 46 inch driver and can hit the ball 270 to 280 on good days. I swing a very heavy leaded club 40 or 50 times every day for strength and flexibility. I will be penalized more for my work to stay in good condition and to stay strong than an average golfer will. That is what we get when amateurs make the rules for the pros (and everybody else) - penalties for hard work.

I guess never say never. But I just don’t see how is possible to have less effect percentage wise on slower swing speeds. How can they even say this when there is not a ball made to meet the regulations to test to prove it. This is just them trying to make it sound better. 

[fixyurdivot]

Some seem born to be ruled and not take issue with outwardly dumb decisions from "authority", others not so much.  When the USGA starts paying for my golf rounds and equipment, I'll start really giving two $***'s about their distance rollback changes.  Until then, this is mere entertainment.

[Shapotomous]

9 hours ago, Stuka44 said:

These are the key questions, which are only being answered with as you state a subjective ideas..  I have said it may times on this and other similar threads on this topic.

I am a pretty good golfer, many are better, many are worse, but I would consider myself above average.  I have kept scores, and stats on my game for the last 4 years to the total of 158 rounds.  I can assure you DISTANCE, and how far I am hitting the ball is not a problem for me.   

I am NOT playing the same game as the pros, and NEVER WILL BE.  Therefore to lump me in with the pro's is categorically WRONG, arrogant, and dictatorial(because they subjectively believe, they KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR ME).   Let's look at how far I am hitting the ball is making this game too easy for me!!!!!

4 year EAGLE percentage...  2020-0%,  2021-0.13%,  2022-0.13%,  2023-0%.  Now I know one from last year was a hole out from about 65-70 yards, I MAY have had one other but I don't think so.  I would also say in any of the last 4 years I have had likely, between par 4's and 5's ABSOLUTELY NO MORE THAN, 6 putts for eagle, in any one year. 

Yeah but what about birdies!!!  How far I am hitting it, is making my 2nd shot's TOO EASY. (SARCASM---  I'm hitting 70% of greens in regulation, and can PUTT ON, with my 2nd shot, or  with my 30 foot, and less chips remaining I'm a 40% Birdie machine!!, )

 NOT REALLY!                Let's look at the ACTUAL STATS.  2020-GIR 38%/Birdie 4.32%, 2021-GIR 33.9%/Birdie 4.67%,  2022-GIR 37.7%/Birdie 4.71%(killed it that year), and 2023-GIR 31.1%/4.37%..  Now if you are a weekend golfer, who does believe you are hitting the ball too far,  and the game is too easy, well CONGRATULATIONS you are in the top 1% of all weekend golfers!

The REALITY IS, the R&A, and USGA are clinging to an antiquated idea that everyone is PLAYING THE SAME GAME, and realistically(not technically speaking) this is simply not true.  They, and many others are simply unwilling to face reality. The now immaculately kept courses pro's play on, render "play it as it lies"(off of the scorched earth that is my fairway), and play out of that clear footprint in the bunker, an ACTUAL disadvantage to the weekend golfer, that pros don't actually face, AND THEY DON'T CARE.  Take a stroke for that ball lost in play, is an ACTUAL penalty to weekend golfers, that pro's never face, AND THEY DON'T CARE!  Pro's can reach a vast majority of the par 5's they play in two, I can reach 1% of all par 5's I play IN A YEAR, and that normally requires ATMOSPHERIC HELP!  This ball roll back will as a matter of fact reduce the number of par 5's I have a chance of reaching in two, AND THEY DON'T CARE!

I AM DONE, believing that I owe the game of golf ANYTHING, which is what they want us to believe!  They want us to just FALL IN LINE, AND TAKE IT! Like it is a privilege, that can be revoked at any time, even though we are spending our own money, and are the reason equipment companies, and almost every other entity, connected to the game stays in business.   For What?  So that they and all of the tournament runners, can keep making Billions of Dollars,  that they don't want to report the ACTUAL dollar figure on, so they don't have to actually change set ups, in order to ACTUALLY MAKE THE GAME HARD FOR THEIR A-LISTERS.  We the weekend players are the Z-listers.  All the elite clubs, ultra rich people, who pay elite club fees, and fees for Pro-Ams, are all above us in the pecking order.

Why did they include us the vast majority of golfers, 90% of us ranging from average to very bad, BECAUSE NOT ONLY DO THEY BELIEVE WE WILL JUST TAKE IT!!, THEY EXPECT WE WILL SAY "THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER".  Anyone who doesn't understand, that its not about how much less the ball will travel, and about the FACT that they believe they have the right to FORCE THIS ON US, is missing the point of all of this.  They should feel that they OWE US THE WEEKEND GOLFER A DEBT OF GRATITUDE, THEY DON'T!!!

Other than fees, and balls 2023 version, which I am stocking up on, to play, I will never again be a USGA member, I will not renew, any golf magazine subscriptions.  Maybe it won't make any difference in the long run, but I am done having them believe I AM,  JUST GOING TO TAKE IT!!

Maybe its just me!  

 

 

Very Well Said!

 

And just yesterday I received a letter from the USGA patting themselves on the back and asking for a donation.   A donation...not a membership fee!!!   It didn't take long for that to hit the trash bin.

[fixyurdivot]

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I think that the idea of "negatively affecting" is subjective, whether someone says that "distance increases negatively affect the pro game"  or he says "decreasing distance will negatively impact the game in general".  You can't prove either claim with data, these are opinions.  I don't know whether the roll-back will be a good thing or a bad thing, but I DO believe its not the 'end of the world catastrophe" that so many state as fact.  Golfers will play golf, and they'll enjoy playing golf.  I enjoyed playing golf with small wooded woods and blades and wound balls, I enjoy playing it with shoebox-sized drivers and GI clubs and multi-layer golf balls, and I'll enjoy playing with a slightly shorter golf ball when that happens.

Dave, I'm curious why you would be willing to give up any distance at all as part of a solution to an issue that does not pertain to you, me, and 99.5% of golfers worldwide?  I have worked hard the last couple of years to gain distance off the tee and through the bag.  Part of this through better fitted equipment and part through refining my swing.  At 63, my days of gaining more distance is unlikely. I'm not interested in losing any distance for a problem that I'm not a part of... but it seems that you and a few others find this acceptable... which I find kind of odd.

If somehow they come up with a magic bean ball that only effects pro level, high swing speeds, with no downside to us mere mortals in distance, spin, ballflight, etc., cool, but the skeptic in me doesn't believe that will be the outcome.

[RickyBobby_PR]

5 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

You want data to back up the "opposition" view that distance has a negative impact.  You continue claiming that requiring a "shorter" ball will negatively impact the game, but can show no data because "negative impact" is an opinion, not a provable fact.  Simply saying that the game is fine now does NOT mean that a shorter ball will worsen it.  It will change it, and whether that change is positive or negative will be a matter of opinion.

As for that 6%, I'd love to find a way to get their names and check back with them in 2030 to see if they're still playing.  My guess is that the vast majority of them will still be playing.  

Taking distance away from the average golfer who doesn’t hit that far on start with is a negative. We haven’t seen data from the USGA about irons but there is going to be some distance loss the thru the bag, so at a minimum the average golfer is one club more into the green. There’s no evidence that courses will move tee boxes up so that distance loss isn’t going to be made up from that. And the concept of moving up a tee box doesn’t work for golfers already at the front tee box.

As for the tour it will do the opposite of what they are accomplishing. We have data from strokes gained that shows when courses play longer which is the equivalent of a shorter ball that the longer hitter has the advantage. This will cause more players to work on getting longer and you will see more pros closer to the distance leader than know. It just creates the alleged problem all over again. So yes we have objective data that 1) it will harm the amateur golfer and 2) won’t achieve what they want for the pro game and will actually do the opposite

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 hours ago, Bob Pegram said:

I am against the new ball, but, for clarity, it should be pointed out that the new ball is supposed to lose decreasing percentages of distance with less powerful swings. In other words, a golfer who now hits his drives about 200 yards will not only lose way less distance than the pros or other long hitters, but will lose a smaller percentage of his distance. The amount of distance he loses will be negligible. Long hitters will lose quite a bit of distance. I am 74, 6 feet tall, use a 46 inch driver and can hit the ball 270 to 280 on good days. I swing a very heavy leaded club 40 or 50 times every day for strength and flexibility. I will be penalized more for my work to stay in good condition and to stay strong than an average golfer will. That is what we get when amateurs make the rules for the pros (and everybody else) - penalties for hard work.

Correct you will be punished for your hardwork as will the pros. It’s not just a distance loss with the driver, it will be a distance loss thru the bag and we don’t know how bad that will be, but we do have info directly from the USGA that shows it’s double the distance loss compared to what they state it will be

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 hours ago, HikingMike said:

I think max distance won't increase much or at all, and it will just fluctuate a bit, so maybe we agree there. The concern for me is average distance (or median)... basically the larger mass of the pro field. No big deal if there are one or five golfers at the top in distance. There is always one at the top in driving distance. They will be exciting, but that small number is less of an impact to the overall pro game

Median and average are two different things. It’s the an average that will increase which is nothing new. The median is the middle. 

What does it matter if all the golfers hit it 320 or only 5-10 do? How does that have any negative impact on the pro game

you keep making these statements but have ye to provide the actual problem of the distance pros hit the ball.

4 hours ago, HikingMike said:

Yeah I'm a bit surprised that with the drastic changes in distance over the years that not much was done to counteract that. I'm not a golf historian though. There are plenty of arguments around that topic and it's a whole different ball of wax. Someone could say equipment was primitive compared to today, and now at this point, equipment and tech has matured and will not have as many gains left. So perhaps we are better off with metal woods, certain size woods, and solid core balls of the current era.

If you're ok to bring the 80s into this, then I'll say golf course distances increased significantly since then, and even more before that. I don't believe there wasn't any actual rule of what distance courses had to be, but they increased.

In the 80s average distance increased with the equipment they had at the time. It increased at the same rate over a longer period of time with the equipment used in today’s game. Archaic or any other term for equipment has nothing to do with other. Fields got deeper, golfers got better thus and increase in the average.

Courses have been getting longer over the life of golf. Then they stopped getting longer in 2010 and have shrunk a little. 

4 hours ago, HikingMike said:

I thought it was moving that direction. However I've also found data from the USGA report stating there are more short par 4s lately, so now I'm not sure.

The tour sets up courses to have driveable  Par 4s and shorter par 5s. They give a risk vs reward option that can cause a swing in the leaderboard which generates views from the drama of leaderboard chances especially on a Sunday.

At no time though was it moving in that direction. It’s shown in a graph i posted showing how the club selection into greens has remained constant for the last 2 decades. It’s a perception based on the shots shown on tv that makes people think this. Just like there’s a perception pros make all their 8-10’,  but it’s just that tv shows more of the made ones compared to the ones not made.

4 hours ago, HikingMike said:

So to me it seems reasonable to make a change that shortens pro drives by 10-15 yards then.

Why?

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 hours ago, ZackS said:

I guess never say never. But I just don’t see how is possible to have less effect percentage wise on slower swing speeds. How can they even say this when there is not a ball made to meet the regulations to test to prove it. This is just them trying to make it sound better. 

Exactly. Their testing showed it was more than 3-5 yards for the 221 yard driving golfer and the USGA rep right after saying they saw that says but really it’s only going to be less than 5 yards.

to many trust authority and accept what they say as gospel despite being presented with actual data.

 

[chisag]

4 hours ago, HikingMike said:

I know now, haha!  

 

[storm319]

6 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

As for that 6%, I'd love to find a way to get their names and check back with them in 2030 to see if they're still playing.  My guess is that the vast majority of them will still be playing.  

Realistic best case scenario is that no one quits over this and participation remains more or less unchanged. Worst case scenario is a noticeable drop in participation.

Is the risk really worth a negligible rollback at the elite level? 

[GolfSpy_APH]

As I have got a few notifications about this thread getting a little contentious. A few things please for all to remember, this is at least 6 years away from happening. While a passionate topic and debate point, try not to burn yourself out in the first few months. There is only speculative data and there will be a lot more information to come in the coming months and years. 

While there has been speculation about other parts of golf being changed, it is just that speculation and lets keep the pitchforks in the garage until there is official word. 

Finally its the holidays, enjoy them, be happy for the high flying long distance golf balls you have under the tree or in a stocking and enjoy the time with friends, family, alone or whatever suits you. The rollback discussion will be here for years to come, enjoy this time of year and hopefully for many you can get out to the course or sim for some good fun!

[Franc38]

At the moment on tour some guys hit it 300 in the air, and they are only a few. That's barely more than what Tiger or Daly did back in the days, but since it was then only one or two guys and the rest at 270 and now it's 40 guys at 300 and the rest at 270, the average has increased. And will continue, slowly as more long hitters replace retiring short hitters.

Strokes gained and logic are showing that longer courses (or shorter balls) give a bigger statistical advantage to the long hitters, so if you introduce a ball that reduces the distance in the air from 300 to 290 for the big dogs, the 270 crew (now 261-ish) will be at a bigger disadvantage. Provided that distance is the key with courses the way they are, the shorter hitters will very soon either hit it further or be replaced by younger, further hitting, new pros. So now the top distance is 293 (yeah, even the top guys work out, improve and optimise their equipment and the tour set up courses to get even more distance as that sells) and 90% of the tour players hit it 290+. What happened to the average? Well, it's increased!

Meanwhile the average Joe, who doesn't optimise or train anymore and can't count on the tour to set up faster fairways, has lost 7 yards on his drives, 4 on his long irons and can't find new more forward tees... And if courses have to create these new tees that's a lot of money and environmental impact, way more than the occasional hole made longer at Augusta 

Well done USGA, you have created a problem for short hitters while increasing the "problem" (which only existed in your mind and that of the people listening to you) you said you wanted to solve without really explaining why!

I'd say you well deserve that a competing new organisation organising the game emerged and puts you out of business (I don't know if it will happen but I certainly hope so).

Edited December 23, 2023 by Franc38

[Franc38]

8 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

While there has been speculation about other parts of golf being changed, it is just that speculation and lets keep the pitchforks in the garage until there is official word.

Sorry to put it this way, but we have had "official word" and that's what reignited so fiercely the thread...

Sure they can back pedal but that's hardly the USGA way. They tend to see they were wrong, not admit it and double down!

[GolfSpy_APH]

2 hours ago, Franc38 said:

Sorry to put it this way, but we have had "official word" and that's what reignited so fiercely the thread...

Sure they can back pedal but that's hardly the USGA way. They tend to see they were wrong, not admit it and double down!

I have yet to see a press release on official changing equipment in terms of drivers, club head size and more. 

Mike Whan has said much more of the opposite during interviews saying it would have a longer term snowball effect on every other club making it essentially a non starter.

The rest is speculative.

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

While there has been speculation about other parts of golf being changed, it is just that speculation and let’s keep the pitchforks in the garage until there is official word.

Speculation? The ruling bodies said they are rolling the ball back in 2028 for pros and 2030 for everyone else.

they have said that there will be distance loss for everyone, some more than others. They made a decision with no input from the lpga or any other female golf organization because the MLR was only for elite males. They are taking away 5-7 yards from the professional female who finest hit that far to start with. Many who aren’t much longer than the average male amateur golfer.