Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[Bob Pegram]

3 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

https://mygolfspy.com/labs/mygolfspy-lab-how-does-cover-damage-affect-golf-ball-flight/

Moderate scuffed caused 43 yard difference carry.... and 46 yards offline. Even a light scuff at 10 yards offline and 10 feet difference in height is pretty huge. 

What kind of course has a roll of over 30 yards?! Courses I play with normal watering have a roll of closer to 10 yards or 15 yards max. With a 248 yard carry I would have trouble getting the total distance to 265 yards.

[Bob Pegram]

On 12/27/2023 at 7:07 AM, DaveP043 said:

I think its really unlikely that the manufacturers and/or tours will choose to depart from the USGA/R&A.  What's their motivation, do they make more money if they do?  Pro golf will look virtually the same, why would they choose to make their own rules, and take the heat from every member who gets an "unfair" penalty?  Manufacturers will sell the same number of balls, they'll just have a one-time expense to adapt to the new test method.  I have to believe that they've already started looking at adapting to the new test method so they'll be ready to submit conforming balls in 4 years.  Sure, their PR flacks are telling us that they HATE the reduction, they don't want to be the bad guys in the eyes of the public (i.e their customers), but it really won't impact them significantly.  

Someone mentioned the possibility of the Saudis setting up and running their own "golfing authority".  To me that's the only possibility, because the Saudis don't need to make any money.  They could choose to set up their own golf ball brand.  Would their authority get followers, would enough people buy balls made with "blood money" to make it significant?  I don't know, but I'll be surprised if it happens.

 

Why do you assume they can adjust their machines to make the "new" balls? The specs of any new ball may not be within the tolerances of their machines. That would mean spending millions to design and have built all new machines.

[chisag]

1 hour ago, Bob Pegram said:

Why do you assume they can adjust their machines to make the "new" balls? The specs of any new ball may not be within the tolerances of their machines. That would mean spending millions to design and have built all new machines.

 

... So much angst, so little much time. I don't think it is a stretch that OEM's will vary core/mantle/cover/dimple attributes. This should not cost any more money than they are already spending on R&D to make the ball go farther/higher/lower or necessitate any new manufacturing equipment. 

Edited January 7 by chisag

[Bob Pegram]

On 12/26/2023 at 10:55 AM, storm319 said:

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. 

Narrowing the hash marks actually made pro football easier as did getting the goal post out of the way.

[Bob Pegram]

On 12/26/2023 at 7:25 PM, Another Steve said:

The problem that I see is if the manufacturers and Pros/tours/orgs do not recognize the change then it becomes a defacto coup against the USGA and the R&A…. If the USGA doesn’t back down, what then? Does a third party step in and “usurp control” over the game with the blessings of the mfg’s and the pros? Not that either would ask joe 6-pack how he felt. Could some deep pockets step in, “throw some R&D money at the mfg’s”  having already bought a lot of the pros, and complete their purchase of the control of the game? 

I hope there is a "defacto coup against the USGA and the R&A".

[GolfSpy_APH]

3 hours ago, Bob Pegram said:

What kind of course has a roll of over 30 yards?! Courses I play with normal watering have a roll of closer to 10 yards or 15 yards max. With a 248 yard carry I would have trouble getting the total distance to 265 yards.

Read the article and find out!

[Bob Pegram]

33 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Read the article and find out!

Done! It was interesting how big the effect was, especially for the minor scuffs. I can understand how a ball that ducks left is going to roll more. However, I was referring to the more than 30 yards roll on the baseline shot which, I assume, was with a new ball.

[DaveP043]

11 hours ago, Bob Pegram said:

I hope there is a "defacto coup against the USGA and the R&A".

Who do you think has the " deep pockets" @Another Steve refers to?  would you prefer golf be governed by the Saudis?   Do you think they'll fund junior golf, adaptive golf, amateur golf, fund research on turf grass and course maintenance, water resource management, develop an independent set of rules and equipment rules, etc?  

[DaveP043]

On 12/25/2023 at 9:06 AM, DaveP043 said:

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.

19 hours ago, Beakbryce said:

This discussion is not about recycled balls as they are truly not deserving.

Sorry, perhaps you should have gone back a bit further, to the gent I quoted.

On 12/24/2023 at 11:00 PM, Jeremy26 said:

All of the guys that I regularly play with (40 or so of us), have already started accumulating balls. Whether it be buying dozens upon dozens of new balls, collecting all of our found balls, or purchasing used lots from places like Lost Golf Balls. We figure we'll have more than enough between us, to never have to buy balls again after 2030.

Again, if you prefer to use the balls you find in the desert, feel free

18 hours ago, Beakbryce said:

That is a fundamental difference. It isn't their game. It's our game. Who voted them in? Do you pay dues to the USGA? I don't.

Taxation without representation is still tyranny. 

I AM a member of the USGA.  I respect all of the things they do with golf, Rules, Equipment, research in numerous areas, outreach to juniors, to golfers with various physical and mental challenges.

And Taxation, really?  What exactly do you pay to the USGA?  

Edited January 7 by DaveP043

[fixyurdivot]

19 hours ago, Beakbryce said:

This discussion is not about recycled balls as they are truly not deserving.

I have bought one dozen new golf balls in the last 10 years and that only because I was sent a Dick's gift card and there wasn't anything else to buy there. I find on the course and then use several different brands of quality balls and it doesn't seem to affect my score. I have played Titleist balls to where the Titleist almost can't be read. Trust me that if the ball was ruining my score it would get tossed.

For most people, the ball is much higher quality than their swing. 

I think MGS should hit a single ball a couple of hundred times and see exactly what the yardage and offline difference is from beginning to end. That would be a cool test and maybe put to rest this notion that a ball like the Pro V1 can't be hit a couple of hundred times without significant loss. 

I have found a couple of balls that didn't fly right, but easy to diagnose after a swing or 2 and I just tossed those. 99% still playable. 

Every found ball is like $2-5 in savings to be put towards other stuff. Like clubs, bags, green fees, and beer. It's all about priorities. 

 

Fixed it for ya .  Oh, and the other bolded statement is so spot on! 

I really like the idea of the "ball endurance" test.  I honestly have no idea to what extent or how fast a ball degrades over a lifecycle.  Maybe there are studies out there on the subject? I routinely play new and found or purchased like new balls until they incur some form of damage like cuts or bad scuffs. Up until that happens, I've never noticed any loss in distance or wonky flightpaths; not archer induced.  I played an AVX this past summer for 14 rounds before sending it to Davy's Locker.  Half of the labeling was worn off as was the luster, but it kept producing great scores and I'm one that buys into the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" tenet of life.

It would be interesting to see how the various OEM's products compare in a lab/robot endurance test, where just the stresses from repeated compression are isolated - or mostly so.  Let's face it, long life-cycle is not something we see listed on the side of the ball packaging, and would only serve to reduce ball demand/sales.

I recently purchased 5 dozen AVX in AAAA+ condition from a source on eBay.  They listed "no water, no refinished balls in the mix".  I had no idea whether that was true or bull but the price was right ($1.90/ball) and they all looked like new.  I've been playing those over the past 6 months and not had any issues.  That ~$135 savings buys alot of Coors Light ... just over 200 cans for the $19.99/30 pack sale price .

[Preeway]

I thought there was something posted regarding the effects of balls being submerged in water. Brand new balls being in water for a period of time vs. brand new balls out of the box. I thought the data showed very little variance. Again, these were new balls with no scuffs. Only variance was water submersion. I think it would be interesting to see how a ball reacted on it 1st, 50th and 100th consecutive hit with a driver. Maybe an iron too since an iron would scuff the cover more than a driver. 

[fixyurdivot]

4 minutes ago, Preeway said:

I thought there was something posted regarding the effects of balls being submerged in water. Brand new balls being in water for a period of time vs. brand new balls out of the box. I thought the data showed very little variance. Again, these were new balls with no scuffs. Only variance was water submersion. I think it would be interesting to see how a ball reacted on it 1st, 50th and 100th consecutive hit with a driver. Maybe an iron too since an iron would scuff the cover more than a driver. 

Yes, I've seen that study or one similar as it pertains to water balls.  I think it was both time exposed and depth that, after a period, they noted some minute level of water absorption.  Many course lakes/ponds get culled fairly routinely.  Many courses have contracted with recovery operators that pay for the access.  If the balls are being pulled soon after being dunked, I doubt the majority of players would ever notice a difference.  Plus, it's a form of recycling and recycling is good.

@Tony Covey MGS... are you aware of any studies on ball lifecycle/endurance tests? 

[Subdiver1]

Has anyone seen/listened to this December Kostis and McCord podcast?

apologies if someone has already cited it, I may have missed it in the 109 pages if discussion. They do a great job of breaking this topic down and provide a couple of interesting points I hadn't heard before.  The actual disucssion on the Roll Back starts at the 10 minute mark.

Cheers

 

[Subdiver1]

15 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... So much angst, so little much time. I don't think it is a stretch that OEM's will vary core/mantle/cover/dimple attributes. This should not cost any more money than they are already spending on R&D to make the ball go farther/higher/lower or necessitate any new manufacturing equipment. 

Ummm...with a background and experience in R&D and manufacturing I can tell you that ANY time you shift from one path to another, the initial cost is exponential. That gets passed onto the customer, whether it be A specific customer for A specific item and eventuallybtheri customers, or a customer base. Why do you think the cost of moving from CRT to LCD to LED and OLED to LED  initially cost so much more than the predecessor? According to your argument it should not have cost anymore since the products were all still TVs and the companies had already been making TVs. ANY change from the current model costs, and any shift from the current path costs even more. This creates a change in path and process

[fixyurdivot]

33 minutes ago, Subdiver1 said:

Has anyone seen/listened to this December Kostis and McCord podcast?

apologies if someone has already cited it, I may have missed it in the 109 pages if discussion. They do a great job of breaking this topic down and provide a couple of interesting points I hadn't heard before.  The actual disucssion on the Roll Back starts at the 10 minute mark.

Cheers

 

A very good discussion that does bring up a few points we've not touched on.  Kostis's comment that "he has zero confidence in the leaders of the golf world" is quite telling. Thanks for sharing.

[jolter1]

What I don't understand is that by the USGA's own admission through their stats, regular golfers lose distance as they age so why penalize the recreational golfer just because some of the pro's and elite players can hit the snot out of the ball.

[Beakbryce]

2 hours ago, fixyurdivot said:

Fixed it for ya .  Oh, and the other bolded statement is so spot on! 

I really like the idea of the "ball endurance" test.  I honestly have no idea to what extent or how fast a ball degrades over a lifecycle.  Maybe there are studies out there on the subject? I routinely play new and found or purchased like new balls until they incur some form of damage like cuts or bad scuffs. Up until that happens, I've never noticed any loss in distance or wonky flightpaths; not archer induced.  I played an AVX this past summer for 14 rounds before sending it to Davy's Locker.  Half of the labeling was worn off as was the luster, but it kept producing great scores and I'm one that buys into the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" tenet of life.

It would be interesting to see how the various OEM's products compare in a lab/robot endurance test, where just the stresses from repeated compression are isolated - or mostly so.  Let's face it, long life-cycle is not something we see listed on the side of the ball packaging, and would only serve to reduce ball demand/sales.

I recently purchased 5 dozen AVX in AAAA+ condition from a source on eBay.  They listed "no water, no refinished balls in the mix".  I had no idea whether that was true or bull but the price was right ($1.90/ball) and they all looked like new.  I've been playing those over the past 6 months and not had any issues.  That ~$135 savings buys alot of Coors Light ... just over 200 cans for the $19.99/30 pack sale price .

Maybe it's just being in AZ! Balls don't deteriorate here. I am pretty sure I have had some balls with 10-11 rounds on them but 14 rounds, outstanding! Apparently, MGS has done some tests with noted degradation of the ball. Maybe if we just pretend found balls work, they will!

[Another Steve]

Not to continue the side bar on the scuffed covers too far, but the test is IMHO incomplete. Yes, I understand that it was basically an add-on to the ball test….. When I have opted to continue to use a scuffed ball i always place the damage in the cup of the tee. Would like to have confirmation of the cause of the interesting ball flight I got. The ball would fly straight and slightly lower. It would then either continue straight and get good roll out , or abruptly curve right or left (like a MLB pitchers nasty curveballs) shortly after passing peak height and starting down. Would still get decent roll out but i always figured that I lost ~15yds carry when the ball banked right or left. I was still getting 270 or so total depending on how soft the fairways were so i just went with it. 

Edited January 7 by Another Steve

[Beakbryce]

20 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

https://mygolfspy.com/labs/mygolfspy-lab-how-does-cover-damage-affect-golf-ball-flight/

Moderate scuffed caused 43 yard difference carry.... and 46 yards offline. Even a light scuff at 10 yards offline and 10 feet difference in height is pretty huge. 

Ok, I read this test when it came out. This test was for "scuffed" balls and not undamaged found balls. The test indicated as a conclusion "If you’re trying to figure out if it’s time to replace your ball, a good rule of thumb is that if there’s enough damage that you can feel it when rubbing your finger over the ball, it’s probably best to toss it in the shag bag before it impacts your score".

Maybe one of the tests after the ball test this year could be testing a new ball, would it survive a couple of 100 hits without marked degradation. Couple of hundred hits would be all the clubs through the bag including chips and pitches, not just the driver. If it remains un-scuffed, would it perform? A couple of hundred hits would be about 5 rounds. My friends and I have more than 5 rounds on lots of found balls. @fixyurdivot reported 14 rounds on an AVX. Look, I know we play for fun and not competition, but if a ball is being a squirrel, we don't continue to play it.

Also would like to see the tests accomplished with both the 150ish and 125 MPH driver ball speeds with corresponding speeds for the other clubs, i.e. if the driver is 125 the 8 iron would be whatever, chips and pitches a lot less.

A lot of MGS tests are high ball speed which isn't where a lot of us are.

The light scuffed ball actual went farther. So the test could still continue with a lightly scuffed ball.

I would be in the camp of little statistical difference, particularly at the lower ball speed.

However, if the ball loses 15 yards and goes a little further offline at 150mph, the ball manufacturers could choose some mass method of whacking thousands of balls at a time 100 times and convince the USGA that is how they would give them to elite players to meet the new rule. Not like elite players buy their balls.

Then sell the unhit balls to the rest of us. We would all be using the same ball. Problem solved.

I know, sometimes I even shock myself with these ideas. 

[GolfSpy_APH]

6 minutes ago, Beakbryce said:

Ok, I read this test when it came out. This test was for "scuffed" balls and not undamaged found balls. The test indicated as a conclusion "If you’re trying to figure out if it’s time to replace your ball, a good rule of thumb is that if there’s enough damage that you can feel it when rubbing your finger over the ball, it’s probably best to toss it in the shag bag before it impacts your score".

Maybe one of the tests after the ball test this year could be testing a new ball, would it survive a couple of 100 hits without marked degradation. Couple of hundred hits would be all the clubs through the bag including chips and pitches, not just the driver. If it remains un-scuffed, would it perform? A couple of hundred hits would be about 5 rounds. My friends and I have more than 5 rounds on lots of found balls. @fixyurdivot reported 14 rounds on an AVX. Look, I know we play for fun and not competition, but if a ball is being a squirrel, we don't continue to play it.

Also would like to see the tests accomplished with both the 150ish and 125 MPH driver ball speeds with corresponding speeds for the other clubs, i.e. if the driver is 125 the 8 iron would be whatever, chips and pitches a lot less.

A lot of MGS tests are high ball speed which isn't where a lot of us are.

The light scuffed ball actual went farther. So the test could still continue with a lightly scuffed ball.

I would be in the camp of little statistical difference, particularly at the lower ball speed.

However, if the ball loses 15 yards and goes a little further offline at 150mph, the ball manufacturers could choose some mass method of whacking thousands of balls at a time 100 times and convince the USGA that is how they would give them to elite players to meet the new rule. Not like elite players buy their balls.

Then sell the unhit balls to the rest of us. We would all be using the same ball. Problem solved.

I know, sometimes I even shock myself with these ideas. 

Ball test is done every two years by the HQ staff. Won't be one next year, but the year after. 

I would also go out on a limb and say you and others are the exception to have a ball last 5 rounds. If I have one that gets through 22 holes that would be a surprise... there is a thread out there with many members feedback and most go through a couple a round. Not a couple rounds with one. 

Yes the light scuffed ball went further in total, but also further offline. That is the most important thing...

[fixyurdivot]

3 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

there is a thread out there with many members feedback and most go through a couple a round. Not a couple rounds with one.

If that's the case, there is the case for using "recycled balls" in AAAA or better condition.  

[GolfSpy_APH]

8 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

If that's the case, there is the case for using "recycled balls" in AAAA or better condition.  

Given everything MGS has done on refurbished, recycled and all those others I will stick to brands like Vice and Maxfli before dipping into those waters. That is just me though. 

[Beakbryce]

6 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

And Taxation, really?  What exactly do you pay to the USGA?  

If you believe you won't pay more for the conforming ball to make up for the companies research into producing the ball...

then you are right, there won't be a "tax".

If, you believe you won't pay more for the conforming driver you will have to play because that's coming next...

then you are right, there won't be a "tax".

It may not be paying the USGA, but they are going to influence, with this rule change, your pocketbook and not in a good way. I respect your decision to support the USGA and all they do for golf. I am not saying that funding golf initiatives and turf research isn't a good thing. If you believe in their mission you should fund them. 

What I am saying is this will be more expensive for all of us whether we chose to support them or not, whether they choose to listen to us or not. 

[funkyjudge]

26 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Given everything MGS has done on refurbished, recycled and all those others I will stick to brands like Vice and Maxfli before dipping into those waters. That is just me though. 

I'm sure that you know that it's not just you!  I, for one, will absolutely not play rerfurbished or recycled golf balls (OK, if I find a pristine premium Urethane-cover ball on the golf course, I may play it for a few holes in a non-competition round).

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 minute ago, Beakbryce said:

If you believe you won't pay more for the conforming ball to make up for the companies research into producing the ball...

then you are right, there won't be a "tax".

If, you believe you won't pay more for the conforming driver you will have to play because that's coming next...

then you are right, there won't be a "tax".

It may not be paying the USGA, but they are going to influence, with this rule change, your pocketbook and not in a good way. I respect your decision to support the USGA and all they do for golf. I am not saying that funding golf initiatives and turf research isn't a good thing. If you believe in their mission you should fund them. 

What I am saying is this will be more expensive for all of us whether we chose to support them or not, whether they choose to listen to us or not. 

Wouldn't they just be diverting current R&D to the new ball?

It's not like this is being done tomorrow and they have to hire new staff or pay OT etc. They have years to sort this out.

I'm guessing much line F1 teams there I'll be companies that decide to punt in the the next few years and ride with the current balls and shift focus to the new regs.

Callaway, TM, Bridgestone and Titleist all have new balls coming out this year. Maybe they get the results they want with these and can turn the page to the next chapter.

Simply put I wouldn't jump to the conclusion golf balls are going to be priced any higher than would have been in the first place.

Now DTC brands, that could be a new story.

[ILMgolfnut]

6 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Wouldn't they just be diverting current R&D to the new ball?

Exactly. Their R&D outlay isn't going to be any different in 2029 than it is in 2024; I'm sure the OEMs will take the ball as far as they can under the old rules (with an annual iteration to sucker us in again) before they dial back to the new rules. The goal will just be a little different at the end of the decade.

[Beakbryce]

49 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Ball test is done every two years by the HQ staff. Won't be one next year, but the year after. 

I would also go out on a limb and say you and others are the exception to have a ball last 5 rounds. If I have one that gets through 22 holes that would be a surprise... there is a thread out there with many members feedback and most go through a couple a round. Not a couple rounds with one. 

Yes the light scuffed ball went further in total, but also further offline. That is the most important thing...

In order:

1. Rats

2. Maybe me and I could be totally wrong, but in general the readership of MGS seems to be a lot of really dedicated golfers who are totally immersed in the game. Serious golfers. I agree that most forum members don't use a ball for a number of rounds. I have read that forum. However, I have extolled the virtues and outright fun of the site to most of my friends and they are kind of "meh" because the tests, forums, etc. really don't impact them like most of us with intense desire for knowledge here on the forum. I don't know anyone who only plays a ball for 22 holes unless they lost it. Just think that's the difference in who we play with and what we are hoping to accomplish. In general, we aren't that serious. We are just happy to be upright and out of the house. There is one exception. I have one friend that plays in the city and state tournaments, I will ask him and probably get at least one new ball a round. I'll let you know. The rest of us are playing for fun and 5 rounds are probably normal. My golf budget per year is pretty large as I play with my wife. To play a new ball a round at a minimum 156 rounds a year for each of us would cost an additional $1400 plus. Would that result in even one gained shot a round? I have other things that I need that money can buy.

I'm sure you have heard the Lee Trevino story about his first tournament in the PGA. It might have been at his first US Open, not sure. I don't know how that pertains but it's funny.

Maybe play 4-5 rounds with the same ball and unless, after being honest about the swing and playing conditions, if the ball goes basically where you intended you keep playing. See what your scoring average is. Look on it as just another test. You might be surprised... Not to mention playing with one ball might be like betting with no money in your pocket. Increased attention. Tin Cup moment. 

3. If pro's are using stats that show longer is better, even if the ball goes offline, is offline really the most important thing? The ball deviated 10 yards. At my swing speed, would that be 4-6 yards? I'll take it and gladly hit in one less club.

[Beakbryce]

1 hour ago, funkyjudge said:

I'm sure that you know that it's not just you!  I, for one, will absolutely not play rerfurbished or recycled golf balls (OK, if I find a pristine premium Urethane-cover ball on the golf course, I may play it for a few holes in a non-competition round).

I agree totally as well.

However, can I send you my address for the pristine premium Urethane-covered ones you throw away...

 

[Beakbryce]

1 hour ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Wouldn't they just be diverting current R&D to the new ball?

It's not like this is being done tomorrow and they have to hire new staff or pay OT etc. They have years to sort this out.

I'm guessing much line F1 teams there I'll be companies that decide to punt in the the next few years and ride with the current balls and shift focus to the new regs.

Callaway, TM, Bridgestone and Titleist all have new balls coming out this year. Maybe they get the results they want with these and can turn the page to the next chapter.

Simply put I wouldn't jump to the conclusion golf balls are going to be priced any higher than would have been in the first place.

Now DTC brands, that could be a new story.

Sure, it could just be R&D. R&D now is about modifying the current ball within given parameters. This ball will be a whole new ball. But still just R&D.

The new ball could also require major retooling. Ball centers and layers may be different sizes. The chemical composition of the layers may change. Dimples will probably change. I mean, something has to change.

As you say, we won't know for years.

The other consideration is how many are going to buy the ball between 2028 and 2030 if they don't have to. The companies are going to have to fund those 2 years. They could just offer the new ball and hope for the best in 2028. Best guess is they will produce both balls. That will have to be more expensive. Will the companies absorb the cost or pass it on?

Yes, it's a jump to assume they will be more expensive, but kind of a logical one.                                            

Edited January 7 by Beakbryce

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, Beakbryce said:

If you believe you won't pay more for the conforming ball to make up for the companies research into producing the ball...

then you are right, there won't be a "tax".

If, you believe you won't pay more for the conforming driver you will have to play because that's coming next...

then you are right, there won't be a "tax".

It may not be paying the USGA, but they are going to influence, with this rule change, your pocketbook and not in a good way. I respect your decision to support the USGA and all they do for golf. I am not saying that funding golf initiatives and turf research isn't a good thing. If you believe in their mission you should fund them. 

What I am saying is this will be more expensive for all of us whether we chose to support them or not, whether they choose to listen to us or not. 

If anyone thinks we consumers will not bear the brunt of costs associated with this (or rollback driver) ruling is operating in a very altered, naive reality.  Sure, one can argue it will be spread across so many as not to make a big dent in the wallet, but we will most definitely pay for it.

I'm already getting interest in a bifurcate league.  They'll be plenty of good used, suddenly non-conforming drivers and balls available for the balance of our playing years.  I asked one of the guys in our groups about this whole thing this week and he held up the international "read between the lines" hands sign .