Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[DaveP043]

9 hours ago, Jeremy26 said:

collecting all of our found balls, or purchasing used lots from places like Lost Golf Balls.

I don't know, I'll accept the relative consistency of conforming balls, as compared to the much more random behaviors of found and recycled balls.  But you be you, good luck.

 

13 hours ago, Another Steve said:

Side note since someone else brought up the PGA splitting from the USGA…. I seem to vaguely remember that almost happening 20 or so years ago. Was that over square grooves or some other change?

The thing that comes to mind is the formation of the PGA Tour, as a separate entity from the PGA of America, but that was back in the Palmer and Nicklaus era.  Occasionally I hear a Tour pro complaining about the rules, even saying "we should have our own rules", but I don't think the Tour has ever seriously looked at doing that.

[Another Steve]

Now I'm getting perturbed at my C.R.S. I might need to do some research…… 

 

never mind. Web searches suck these days and the only stuff that come up is LIV related. 

Edited December 25, 2023 by Another Steve

[chisag]

USGA/R&A Holiday Greetings!  

[GregGarner]

23 hours ago, Preeway said:

But all the data being used to determine how much distance will be lost is also based on a robot hitting the exact same drive every time. If I hit driver 12-14 times per round, I might make perfect contact on the perfect line like 3-4 times. The rest will vary anywhere from very good to “oh crap”. Which means even with the current ball I will lose 5-10 yards just based on missing the center of the face. So, like you say, moving the tees back or a slight miss can lead to similar outcomes. And it’s never detracted from my enjoyment of the game. 

I think this is right at the root of the issue though and all of the other discussion points are based on this: are we talking about our ability to enjoy the sport (qualitative) or to maximize performance (quantitative)? There's a reason why, sometimes, people like to play with half sets or hickories or whatever. It's different and fun and helps provide a juxtaposition from your typical game. But do I want to go out and play in a tournament with a gutta percha? I do not. I've spent a lot of time, effort, and money to learn a game under a set of rules using equipment that conforms to those rules. Losing 5-10 yards because I lack skill is different from losing 5-10 yards because the actual rules of the game were changed.

Not a perfect analogy (none are) but if I've optimized my bag and my game for 14 clubs and then a tournament says I can only use 10 clubs, it's going to be frustrating.

Stopping development (i.e. stopping progress) is quite different from rolling back technology (i.e. true regression). Will I still figure out how to enjoy the game? Sure. But it's definitely going to be an adjustment. Guess I should start swapping out wedges for hybrids, too.

[Subdiver1]

It occurred to me over the last couple of weeks of seeing football games with f.g. attempts from outside of 50 yards to check the data.  

"From 1960 to 1964, the average success rate was 50 percent. Over the last five years, the average rate was 85 percent."

Well then, if success rates are up...?

Even more remarkable is that kicks are being attempted from farther away now, too. In 1960, the average kick was from 30.9 yards away; the average successful kick was from 26.2 yards out, while the average miss was from 36.0 yards away. Well, in 2016, the average kick was from 37.7 yards away; the average successful kick was from 36.2 yards out — farther than the average miss in 1960! — while the average miss was from 46.2 yards away.

So...maybe football needs to confer with the USGA about rolling the football back, since there is OBVIOUSLY a distance problem in the NFL as well. Or is it just a perception

https://www.footballperspective.com/field-goal-rates-throughout-nfl-history/

[FallenSaber]

I don't have an issue with the golf ball roll back. It won't impact the vast majority of players and golf courses cannot keep up with technology. The Pros have been gaining an average of 20 yards on their drives every 10ish years. Golf courses have their set boundaries and cannot accommodate these advancements. Would you rather have longer courses or more courses to play? Several golf courses in Southern California have closed and been sold for housing developments. There simply isn't enough money in high cost of living areas to accommodate large courses at a reasonable rate. You'll struggle to find a standard length 18 hole course for under $100 here. Something has to give. I have no problem with rolling back technology. Especially for the pros. They're professionals and should be challenged. It's their job to be the best in the most challenging circumstances.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, FallenSaber said:

The Pros have been gaining an average of 20 yards on their drives every 10ish years

Driving average on the pga tour has only increased 10 yards over the last 20+ years. Its not different than what the average increase doing the 80s was except ie it’s been over 20 years.

1 hour ago, FallenSaber said:

I don't have an issue with the golf ball roll back. It won't impact the vast majority of players and golf courses cannot keep up with technology.

The pga tour has been playing the same distances for the last 20 years. Supeintendents association did an 18 year studies and showed courses haven’t been getting longer, and the data also shows that courses from 2010-2020 have been bold just under 300 yards shorter than they were previously.

Courses have no problem keeping up with technology. Theres not a course that is being overpowered at any level. There may be courses where people don’t like to see low scores over the course of a tournament but they aren’t being overpowered. Just look at how many aren’t having course records broken or that scoring average on the pga tour has only dropped by about 1 stroke the last 20 years.

What data do you have to say it won’t impact the vast majority of golfers. Even if we believe the words of the ruling bodies since they haven’t provided their testing data. 3-5 yards thru the bag is going to affect a lot of golfers especially those playing forward tees already. 

1 hour ago, FallenSaber said:

There simply isn't enough money in high cost of living areas to accommodate large courses at a reasonable rate. You'll struggle to find a standard length 18 hole course for under $100 here.

This is the economy not the equipment or ball forcing golf courses to close because they aren’t long enough. Go to any higher cost of living area and you will see greens fees over $100. There are very few courses that aren’t munis in The DC area that are under $100 and most are pushing $125.

Land is a big commodity and those with money to build new housing communities will pay for it and golf courses have the land these companies want. It happens in various areas of the country and has been for awhile.

Edited December 26, 2023 by RickyBobby_PR

[Josh Parker]

3 hours ago, FallenSaber said:

I don't have an issue with the golf ball roll back. It won't impact the vast majority of players and golf courses cannot keep up with technology. The Pros have been gaining an average of 20 yards on their drives every 10ish years. Golf courses have their set boundaries and cannot accommodate these advancements. Would you rather have longer courses or more courses to play? Several golf courses in Southern California have closed and been sold for housing developments. There simply isn't enough money in high cost of living areas to accommodate large courses at a reasonable rate. You'll struggle to find a standard length 18 hole course for under $100 here. Something has to give. I have no problem with rolling back technology. Especially for the pros. They're professionals and should be challenged. It's their job to be the best in the most challenging circumstances.

Not to rock the boat, but saying courses are closing due to distance and also saying the rollback isn't going to affect anyone contradicts each other.  I don't think courses are closing because of distance at all.  

When you have so many courses in a smallish area, it becomes a competition on either price or quality.  Some golfers will always choose price and some will always go with condition of the course.  I know a ton of golfers that just enjoy getting out and playing and it doesn't matter what the course looks like or how the greens respond. I know plenty that go the other direction.

My home course is crap and they still charge $55 a round on the weekend.  Cost have dramatically gone up during covid times and so has the cost to run it.  Our course should be no more than $25 in its current condition and that's being generous but they would still lose money every year.  Muni courses are hard pressed to make a profit most of the time.

[fixyurdivot]

3 hours ago, FallenSaber said:

I don't have an issue with the golf ball roll back. It won't impact the vast majority of players and golf courses cannot keep up with technology. The Pros have been gaining an average of 20 yards on their drives every 10ish years. Golf courses have their set boundaries and cannot accommodate these advancements. Would you rather have longer courses or more courses to play? Several golf courses in Southern California have closed and been sold for housing developments. There simply isn't enough money in high cost of living areas to accommodate large courses at a reasonable rate. You'll struggle to find a standard length 18 hole course for under $100 here. Something has to give. I have no problem with rolling back technology. Especially for the pros. They're professionals and should be challenged. It's their job to be the best in the most challenging circumstances.

I too was buying into the misconception that the ~11 yards added driving distance, at tour level, which has happened over approximately 25 years, was making courses unable to "defend themselves" and thus making them unplayable for tour events.  Then came the data and the data does not support that premise in any way.   

Also keep in mind there is absolutely no issue with amateurs overpowering courses. Ever notice how pristine condition the longest tee boxes are?  Why support a ball rollback and whatever distance reduction that means to us for a problem that does not involve us... 99.5% of golfers?

We have examples of shorter courses (Riviera CC) that have tour players slamming clubs into their bags simply because the event host and staff make the appropriate changes to the course to counter their inability to simply add length.  Even TM's CEO talked about this and it being a much less disruptive remedy.

The high green fees you cite have absolutely nothing to do with excessive distance.  These are reflective of costs of operation and supply vs. demand.  Our four on-property courses now charge $125 for public play during peak season.  They are really nice courses but I still find that mind boggling. 

Golf has always been a relatively high cost sport and the headwinds its been facing the last few decades in the form of water costs/reduction, significant increases in seed, fertilizer, pesticide, insecticide, and herbicide, will likely get worse.  This solvency struggle no doubt gets weary and those absurd offers for the land very attractive. We'll no doubt see more courses go away... but that has nothing to do with 11 yards distance at the tour level.

We have many executive (small footprint) and par 3 design courses, and they have similar challenges. I personally don't like playing those, at least as a steady diet, that's not golf to me. I don't know about you, but I have no interest in evolving golf into the pickleball version of tennis. 

This is what strikes me odd by folks supporting this ball rollback. 

• It's not likely going to resolve the tour problem (even if you believe there is one).
• It does nothing but negatively effect we amateurs, the majority of which struggle with hitting distance. 
• It will not reduce water, fertilizer, pesticide, etc. use/costs. 
• It's definitely not going to save courses from shutting down.
• It's not going to save the "integrity of the game" (whatever the hell that means)

It must just be an intrinsic "I'll take it for the betterment of the community" thing?  Still waiting for a compelling argument/reason to support this ridiculous change.

[Stuka44]

On 12/22/2023 at 8:29 PM, fixyurdivot said:

I'm not interested in losing any distance for a problem that I'm not a part of...

Exactly, I am a little younger than you 57, As I witness in my two older brothers 64, & 67, and they caution me accordingly, FATHER TIME gets paid in distance, and he TAKES FROM EVERYBODY!!!!.   I don't care HOW LITTLE "they" claim it will be, I "deserve" to keep what I have obtained, due to all of my hard earned money I have put into the game.

Especially when what I am doing, can't be construed, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER TO BE HARMFUL TO THE GAME.

[Franc38]

One thing I don't understand that the USGA could explain to me (or the proponents of the 'rollback').

The MLR was rejected supposedly because ball producers said the cost was going to be too high (I understand from that that the research to develop and the production of reduced flight balls isn't cheap) but now we're supposed to believe that imposing the same reduced ball to every one isn't going to be costly?

Adding new tee boxes back for the select few courses that host your events is too costly but adding forward tees to thousands of everyday courses so they Joe (average) Public can still play isn't going to be a problem? 

John Daly was driving it 317 yards in the early 2000s and courses were fine but now Rory driving it 319 or 320 threatens the integrity of the game?

 

What about charging rules every 4 years so that the guys who had played in their teens and return to the game now are totally lost with hazards, droping and so on... That would preserve the integrity of the game but having 40 guys driving it past 300 yards on tour instead of 10 guys driving it the same distance would threaten the integrity of the game?

 

There is a lot of explaining that needs to be done. And also why the USGA and the R&A instead of England Golf and the Federation Française de Golf or the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers and the Federación española de golf? Historical reasons, sure enough... But this is an historical event that could lead to a change in "golf rules stewardship"...

[Franc38]

I hear "don't worry that will impact tour players but not the recreational amateurs"... Well, I maintain a (French, so 100% stroke play official competitions based) 8 to 6 index with a mediocre putting, some mighty lateral dispersion with the driver BUT distances that are "middle of the road PGA tour". So I will be penalised way more than other 7 handicappers who are short but great putters, or short and very straight.

Why is that "fair" or "not a problem" when I've never "over powered" any course? (By the way, if you follow Kyle Berkshire on YouTube you'll see that even him, three times world long drive champ, 160 mph club head speed and all that jazz doesn't "overpower courses").

This is just ridiculous.

[RickyBobby_PR]

29 minutes ago, Franc38 said:

The MLR was rejected supposedly because ball producers said the cost was going to be too high (I understand from that that the research to develop and the production of reduced flight balls isn't cheap) but now we're supposed to believe that imposing the same reduced ball to every one isn't going to be costly?

The MLR was rejected by the tours and the PGA of America which is what sealed its fate. They weren’t going to use it so why would a manufacturer spend money on developing one.

I’m not aware of any details of how much the costs will be to go from prototype to finished product, but with a ball that is for everyone those costs get factored into the retail price. That wouldn’t have happened if it was an MLR so until the OEMs started offering the MLR ball at retail for those who needed it for amateur tournaments where the MLR would be used they would be eating the cost. However the retail cost for a limited supply ball would be high until it became more mainstream then you may see a small drop in price. So as a non MLR it will cost the same to develop but the costs will be recouped thru larger retail sales like the current ball does, which is why eventually if there was an MLR the current ball would eventually change or now where it’s a ball for everyone the production of the current balls will stop

29 minutes ago, Franc38 said:

John Daly was driving it 317 yards in the early 2000s and courses were fine but now Rory driving it 319 or 320 threatens the integrity of the game?

And this is where the data doesn’t support a rollback. For context daly never had that type of distance. He maxed out around 307 in 201. But in 2003 Hank Kuehne averaged 321. An outlier but so was Luke list who averaged 306 in 2013. Similar to Rory being outlier at 326 this past season.

but the premise is correct that these distances on the same overall course distance wasn’t an issue then for golfers on tour or golf fans and the amateur golfer. The average went from just under 288 in 2003 to just under 300 in 2023. All because the golfers got faster and things like launch monitors and better fitting options allowed golfers to optimize their swings and ball flights.

 

[Another Steve]

17 hours ago, Subdiver1 said:

It occurred to me over the last couple of weeks of seeing football games with f.g. attempts from outside of 50 yards to check the data.  

"From 1960 to 1964, the average success rate was 50 percent. Over the last five years, the average rate was 85 percent."

Well then, if success rates are up...?

Even more remarkable is that kicks are being attempted from farther away now, too. In 1960, the average kick was from 30.9 yards away; the average successful kick was from 26.2 yards out, while the average miss was from 36.0 yards away. Well, in 2016, the average kick was from 37.7 yards away; the average successful kick was from 36.2 yards out — farther than the average miss in 1960! — while the average miss was from 46.2 yards away.

So...maybe football needs to confer with the USGA about rolling the football back, since there is OBVIOUSLY a distance problem in the NFL as well. Or is it just a perception

https://www.footballperspective.com/field-goal-rates-throughout-nfl-history/

The NFL moved the goal posts - literally - 10 yards back (to the back edge of the end zone, IIRC they then narrowed the goal post and corresponding hash mark spacing. 
The football has gotten a bit more streamlined over the years, and if yiu wanna talk about “nerfing the football” (pun intended) then you gotta talk to the 1970’s raiders or Brady and the Patriots. 

[chisag]

... As the linebacker in high school that hit me too many times when wearing my yellow jersey said in my yearbook "I had a great time knocking you down. It have been fun. But fun have to come to a end." I get the feeling more than a few posting here would complain about winning a dozen ProV1's because they are the wrong color.   

... I am reading the same comments over and over and over and over again. After 106 pages I doubt anyone has changed their minds about this issue. Nobody wants a roll back for Ams. Nobody. Yet some of us realize if it happens we will adjust and life goes on. Or ignore the new rule and play whatever ball they choose. Fwiw I have been playing a "rolled back ball" for over a year now and I can honesty say it has improved my game. 

[NotQuite70s]

There is a lot of questioning here of the ruling bodies’ motives for pushing through an unpopular change.  I think they are concerned about golf’s image with the non-golfing public.  Golf courses use a lot of valuable real estate, consume a lot of water for irrigation, are likely responsible for fertilizer run-off, etc.  The RB’s need some positive PR to counteract when an Augusta buys adjacent land to extend a hole or otherwise has off-course impacts.  In an era of sustainability concerns and ESG investing, it seems every entity feels they need to show they are on board.  It seems not to matter much if the sustainability moves are substantive, they feel that they need the PR credits to show that they are on board with what society claims currently to value.  In the business I was in (now retired) there was a concept of “social license to operate”.  One had to show that they were responsive to community concerns or life would become difficult, so there was a lot of posturing and sucking up.  I suspect that is what is behind the ball roll-back rather than any real too much distance issue.

 

Some here question if the manufacturers will offer non-conforming balls after the rollback effective date.  I suspect some will.  Bear in mind that development of the pre-2028 ball will be a sunk cost.  They don’t have to do R&D or tool up to make a post-2028 non-conforming ball.  Bearing the costs of developing a non-conforming ball now would be a substantial business risk and maybe an image problem, so they don’t do it.  If old tech balls are outselling the new balls as the crossover date approaches, are they really going to abandon that line?  Titleist might.  OEM’s with smaller market share might seize the opportunity to expand their sales.  That could be the DTC brands or the likes of Srixon.

 

I intend to play non-conforming balls post-2030 as long as my supply holds out.  I’ll be in my 70’s and trying to hang on to every yard possible.  I don’t know yet how much I will stock up prior.  There’s a good chance I will be hitting them with irons not in compliance with the groove rule as well.

[Franc38]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

I’m not aware of any details of how much the costs will be to go from prototype to finished product, but with a ball that is for everyone those costs get factored into the retail price. That wouldn’t have happened if it was an MLR so until the OEMs started offering the MLR ball at retail for those who needed it for amateur tournaments where the MLR would be used they would be eating the cost. However the retail cost for a limited supply ball would be high until it became more mainstream then you may see a small drop in price. So as a non MLR it will cost the same to develop but the costs will be recouped thru larger retail sales like the current ball does, which is why eventually if there was an MLR the current ball would eventually change or now where it’s a ball for everyone the production of the current balls will stop

The thing is, MLR or not developing a new golf ball conforming to new rules and still OK for the best players in the world (feel, spin, control, wind reaction) will cost exactly the same. This cost will be borne by us the paying customers (their tour staffers get balls for free). So ultimately this cost could have been spread between "our balls" and the "tour balls" in some way, maybe making the tour ball very expensive and progressively raising the price of the others, but with the "general rollback" the price will be here for everyone, no smoothing out progressively!

i.e. the cost paid by us will be the same but potentially would hit us more brutally. No other way around.

Again the USGA has the average golfer at heart... Or so they say.

[RickyBobby_PR]

8 minutes ago, NotQuite70s said:

The RB’s need some positive PR to counteract when an Augusta buys adjacent land to extend a hole or otherwise has off-course impacts

Augusta has beeen buying land to expand facilities on the grounds and not to constantly expand the course. They built a large media center. They’ve build on property housing. The argument that courses are expanding is already been shown to be false in this thread with actual data. 
 

if you think the rollback is positive PR there’s enough survey data to suggest it’s not accomplishing that especially on the professional level.

8 minutes ago, NotQuite70s said:

Some here question if the manufacturers will offer non-conforming balls after the rollback effective date.  I suspect some will. 

Name a large manufacturer that is currently offering the old grooves on their clubs that are still legal at all levels unless a local rule is in place 

8 minutes ago, NotQuite70s said:

They don’t have to do R&D or tool up to make a post-2028 non-conforming ball.  Bearing the costs of developing a non-conforming ball now would be a substantial business risk and maybe an image problem, so they don’t do it. 

Thats not how it works. They will have to start working on the new ball long before 2028 and even before 2027. The balls will go thru multiple iterations of design, testing, pro feedback over the years til it’s ready for final production run. This is the same way it works now. More money will be diverted to the new balls and less to the current ones since there will be ending timeframe for when the current balls will be used so there’s no need for making many changes to the current ball. Currently Titleist has two year releases cycles on the odd years. For example they would have their last release in 2027 as it would make no sense for a 2029 release when everyone has to play the ball in 2030

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 minutes ago, Franc38 said:

So ultimately this cost could have been spread between "our balls" and the "tour balls" in some way, maybe making the tour ball very expensive and progressively raising the price of the others, but with the "general rollback" the price will be here for everyone, no smoothing out progressively!

Yes the cost would have been spread across both balls. With an increase in price of the current ball and the new ball coming out at a higher price. But i don’t think the OEMs had any plans to actually make the balll as they knew the pga and dp world tours stance. So cost wasn’t a concern for their decision. 

[Franc38]

Just now, RickyBobby_PR said:

Yes the cost would have been spread across both balls. With an increase in price of the current ball and the new ball coming out at a higher price. But i don’t think the OEMs had any plans to actually make the balll as they knew the pga and dp world tours stance. So cost wasn’t a concern for their decision. 

Meaning that if PGA and DP announce, along with LIV that they'll keep using the old balls, and amateurs seem to generally favour doing so as well... the OEMs are not going to produce the "conforming balls". Or would do so very reluctantly.

That's James Robinson's take.. And he thinks that, for that reason, the roll back will not really happen.

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 minutes ago, Franc38 said:

Meaning that if PGA and DP announce, along with LIV that they'll keep using the old balls, and amateurs seem to generally favour doing so as well... the OEMs are not going to produce the "conforming balls". Or would do so very reluctantly.

That's James Robinson's take.. And he thinks that, for that reason, the roll back will not really happen.

At the moment they have no choice but to make them. However based on public sentiment, pro feedback and the tours, there is a very small chance that it won’t take place. I would put that at about 5% chance of happening.

Martin Slumbers said doing nothing wasn’t an option so it would be very unlikely they would change their minds and leave it as is. There’s a chance they could do like the groove rule and decide to postpone the change at the amateur level for 2030 and it be something the pros do in 2028 according to the rule, but I would think that if the decision for 2030 gets postponed then the pro tours and the OEMs will tell the ruling bodies to buzz off

[funkyjudge]

John Daly was driving it 317 yards in the early 2000s and courses were fine but now Rory driving it 319 or 320 threatens the integrity of the game?

And in the 1990s/early 2000s, on what is now the Korn Ferry Tour, Victor Schwamkrug was AVERAGING 339 yards with his driver.  I also seem to recall Hank Kuehne averaging more than 325 yards off the tee in his brief stint on the PGA Tour.

 

[storm319]

1 hour ago, Another Steve said:

The NFL moved the goal posts - literally - 10 yards back (to the back edge of the end zone, IIRC they then narrowed the goal post and corresponding hash mark spacing. 
The football has gotten a bit more streamlined over the years, and if yiu wanna talk about “nerfing the football” (pun intended) then you gotta talk to the 1970’s raiders or Brady and the Patriots. 

Moving the goal post doesn’t effect the stats he shared (an attempt from the 50 yard line to a front goal post and an attempt from the 40 to a back goal post are both 50 yards in length). Ultimately the goal post move had the following effects 1) less field goal attempts from certain parts of the field (granted this has not held up long term) 2) reduction in potential injury from players running into the goals posts 3) opened up red zone passing as the goal post was no longer an obstacle.

The parallel we have in golf is that adding distance is only a short term solution that ultimately entices players to attempt to hit it farther (just as what we have seen with longer field goal attempts in recent years in the NFL). Ultimately adding length is not a long term solution to the perceived problem. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

42 minutes ago, funkyjudge said:

John Daly was driving it 317 yards in the early 2000s and courses were fine but now Rory driving it 319 or 320 threatens the integrity of the game?

And in the 1990s/early 2000s, on what is now the Korn Ferry Tour, Victor Schwamkrug was AVERAGING 339 yards with his driver.  I also seem to recall Hank Kuehne averaging more than 325 yards off the tee in his brief stint on the PGA Tour.

 

I’m still trying to figure out what the integrity of the game means.

The goal of the game is to score as low as possible when playing and in competitive golf it’s to be the lowest when the competition ends. Not sure how it affects that. Especially when you consider pga tour professionals have a +5 or better handicap, they are going to make a bunch of birdies over the course of 4 rounds and not going to make many big numbers 

[Rob Person]

As an entry level golfer, I'm going to go with the lower to middle cost ball. Until such time that I am confident that I can be consistent, invest in new fitted equipment,  and perform at a level that dictates me paying the price for premium balls.

I don't believe anyone in here would argue FOR price increases on any facet of golf.

However most here DO go out and spend XX amount of $$$ on just that,(clubs, shafts, fittings, balls, clothes, etc. therefor I think that most WILL ultimately go out and pay for that new ball.

Ultimately it will create a divide in golf, along the lines of "if you don't play this new conforming ball, you're not really a true golfer" ( as example was mentioned  earlier with it affecting handicaps)

In the end, I'm still playing golf, for fun, for myself, and that's it.

 

 

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

I’m still trying to figure out what the integrity of the game means.

The goal of the game is to score as low as possible when playing and in competitive golf it’s to be the lowest when the competition ends. Not sure how it affects that. Especially when you consider pga tour professionals have a +5 or better handicap, they are going to make a bunch of birdies over the course of 4 rounds and not going to make many big numbers 

I don't think the USGA or the R&A know what their fluffy word salad means either.  These type generic statements have little to no substance but provide plenty of cover.

This straight from the USGA.  I don't see anything about hitting the ball too far.

Perhaps they meant "protect the heritage of the game".  In that context, they might be saying they want hitting average distances of the 1920's, 1950's or whatever era that meets their definition of acceptance/sweet spot in its heritage?  

Then we also have Wahn referring to "long term sustainability" of the game.  How does reducing the 11 yards change sustainability?  Will they suddenly be able to remove the black tee's?  Will that reduce water comsumption and other recurring use of products and costs, suddenly making the game sustainable?

I'd be more impressed if he said, we need to start shrinking the footprint of golf and forsee a future where 2900 yard courses are the new norm.  

Won't Tony be shocked when these start rolling into the lab for test 

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

5 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Perhaps they meant "protect the heritage of the game".  In that context, they might be saying they want hitting average distances of the 1920's, 1950's or whatever era that meets their definition of acceptance/sweet spot in its heritage?  

I would bet this is closer to what they mean and what the pro rollback crowd wants. They want the eras of Jack, Arnie, Snead, hogan to be what golf is and to ignore what Tiger did for the game. I still see guys in the summer dressed in black Nike pants and red Nike or TW shirts playing weekend rounds. The change he brought with being more fit and athletic. That changed the game and they don’t like it. 
 

8 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Then we also have Wahn referring to "long term sustainability" of the game.  How does reducing the 11 yards change sustainability?  Will they suddenly be able to remove the black tee's?  Will that reduce water comsumption and other recurring use of products and costs, suddenly making the game sustainable?

This is the pet that makes no sense. What they did isn’t going to solve any problems and they were too scared to roll it further back to what they actually want so they pulled this change out to make it seem like they are doing something. They would rather nickel and dime changes to reduce distance because they can get people to buy into. Like right now with people saying they don’t mind giving up a few yards. Then in 2032 it will be a few more and so on til hold is back to the 80s and people aren’t interested in the game anymore because the more they work the more gets taken away

[Another Steve]

39 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

I’m still trying to figure out what the integrity of the game means.

The goal of the game is to score as low as possible when playing and in competitive golf it’s to be the lowest when the competition ends. Not sure how it affects that. Especially when you consider pga tour professionals have a +5 or better handicap, they are going to make a bunch of birdies over the course of 4 rounds and not going to make many big numbers 

Know that to a great  extent I’m arguing here for the sake of arguing… I freely admit that I am not gonna change your mind and you cannot change mine. I am just not that concerned about the proposed changes. I accept that we all will lose yardage. But then, I’ve already played the game with balata n blades when everything was shorter….. and harder. Been there, and am ok going back there as long as we all go back there together.   

To answer your question - IMHO the USGA defines integrity of the game as - the game being played in accordance with the current rules, with the the equipment proscribed by those rules, in the manner that those who make the rules (the USGA) have determined the game is supposed to be played. (That last part is the real point of contention as it is Not necessarily how (some of ?) the masses want to play the game).

Doesn't really matter why the USGA feels the need to make the change. It’s their prerogative to make any changes they see fit.

In  short - It is their game and their rules. We can choose to play by them or not. If we choose not, (then) it is guaranteed that the game will be forever fundamentally changed….  If not damaged into obscurity landing right next to bowling.

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

27 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

In  short - It is their game and their rules. We can choose to play by them or not. If we choose not, (then) it is guaranteed that the game will be forever fundamentally changed….  If not damaged into obscurity landing right next to bowling.

Only those choosing to play on any USGA sanctioned event or in any tournament using handicaps like league play or friendly competitions with friends need to follow the rules. Everyone else is free to A play golf how they choose. That option doesn’t fundamentally change the game. There are more golfers in the U.S. without a handicap than with one. Almost 25 million golfers yet only about 2.5 million have a handicap

[Franc38]

56 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

Doesn't really matter why the USGA feels the need to make the change. It’s their prerogative to make any changes they see fit.

 

That might be true, with many caveats, of the RandA, certainly not of the USGA, at least outside of the US 

They have not invented or standardised the game and have no real authority outside of the US, as the name says it Being in France I don't care a bit for them. 

So far I adhere to the rules coming from the join efforts of them and the RandA... because they're somewhat sensible, and because of the RandA historical relevance, but I can see many other national federations, which have the same 'rank' as the USGA say they won't follow anymore (for example, the Federation Française de Golf, if it wants to keep me as a paying member...)

 

 

 

 

Edit

Plus, they're supposedly in the business of 'preserving' golf, so "making changes" should really not be their "prerogative".

Edited December 26, 2023 by Franc38