Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[funkyjudge]

38 minutes ago, Beakbryce said:

I agree totally as well.

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

 

I don't throw them away; I use them as practice balls or if it is a brand and model that I usually play, I take them with me to the SIM, put a reflective stripe on the side and play them into the simulator screen until I finally split the cover of the ball.

[fixyurdivot]

2 hours ago, ILMgolfnut said:

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.

Except that they'll be doing both in parallel for a period of time... and you and I will see those costs covered at the checkout counter, basket, or cart.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

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

They will need to have r&d money for both ball. There are between 2 and 4 releases for companies between this year and 2027, potentially 5 if a company decides to release a ball in 2027 even though starting in Oct of 2027 they will be testing only for the new ODS.

They will not only be releasing updates to the current ball but will have to test, redesign, tests and so on over the next 3 years to get the new ball ready for use.

Not mention potentially r&d money for tweaking clubs to perform better with the new ball.

3 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

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.

They don’t have years. They aren’t going to start testing and making the new ball in 2026/2027. They will be starting all that work now so that when 2028 hits they will have the best version of the ball ready. It’s just like with clubs. The driver coming out on 2027 is already in r&d

3 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

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.

These balls all have been in development for years to meet the current specs they aren’t just going to get lucky that it now meets the new ODS. If that’s the case they the USGA wouldn’t have needed to change the specs they could have said the balls released in 2024 are the new standard.

3 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

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.

You don’t know that. You don’t know what materials will be needed to design the ball, what inflation will have done to prices for materials, labor and transportation and how that gets passed on to the consumer. We saw an increase with the last release

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, fixyurdivot said:

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 .

Kostis hit on it in the video a little bit. 

[ZackS]

I doubt a test hitting a ball a couple hundred times would show much. I am sure there is point of degradation but I would bet it’s the cover aerodynamics before the other layers of the ball 99% of the time. I could not give you exact #’s but back in college when I was a scratch player I would play the same ball for months playing 2 to 4 rounds a week without issues. The only thing was really just a bad scuff usually from a cart path that would get me to toss the ball. And we are talking about 17 years ago so the materials used have only got better. 

[Another Steve]

When I was taught how to play, my mentor told me to put 3 balls in my pocket (at least one that was new) at the start of the round. The new one to putt with and two to play tee to green. This way you would always be putting with a good ball (remember wound balatas) and have a spare if needed. As much as possible I play the same ball tee to green for the entire round with the second as a backup. If a ball makes it 18 holes it goes into the shag ball pocket where it might be pulled out for another round, or have the opportunity to drown on a water hole or be free on a hole with high chance of getting lost.. 

[Hlaj78]

If the USGA wants to roll back distance for those with high velocity swings, why don’t they reduce the maximum hardness of any layer of the ball to around 85? Then, only the golfers who take advantage of the harder, faster balls will be affected. Remember, according to MGS’s own studies, harder balls are faster and softer ones are slower.

[storm319]

10 hours 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

 

Sounded more like two old guys doing an improvised podcast not having done any prior research or paid any attention to the topic over the past 5 years. 

[storm319]

10 hours ago, Subdiver1 said:

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

Your TV example is not a good analogy given that those were technological paradigm shifts which is not the case with golf balls (btw, LCD and LED tvs are the same basic display technology, the main difference is CCFLs vs LEDs for the backlight). 

While OEMs will likely see increased R&D costs initially due to having parallel targets for a few years (which should level out by the time this is universally adopted), the basic construction/assembly methods will be the same as what we have seen for the past 2+ decades. Basically it shouldn’t be hard to make a ball that conforms to the new test conditions (some balls currently sold at retail would probably pass today), what will be difficult will be maximizing distance for other conditions but that is not much different than what OEMs attempt today. 

[storm319]

5 hours ago, Beakbryce said:

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.                                            

I think you are over exaggerating. The big OEMs are already producing several different models today and the white label factories are constantly shifting production lines to accommodate different customer models (granted they generally maintain a limited number of dimple patterns) and they are able to handle it. 

R&D targeting on the 2004 ODS revision will likely end sometime in 2027 since the ruling bodies plan to end conformance testing using that methodology in the Fall of 2027 (basically the December 2027 conforming list will remain up until 2030 for recreational play but that will effectively be it within the rules of golf for anything that exceeds the 2028 ODS conditions). 

As for retooling, unlikely that much will change that doesn’t already change with each new cycle today (most likely molds but keep in mind that those are constantly being replaced). Heck, prior to Callaway’s recent major renovation at their Chicopee plant, they had production equipment that dated back decades that was acquired by Spalding. Again, the majority of their production methods will not change, the goal is just making a less efficient ball (which btw every one of the major OEMs has done in the past). 

 

[storm319]

1 hour ago, Hlaj78 said:

If the USGA wants to roll back distance for those with high velocity swings, why don’t they reduce the maximum hardness of any layer of the ball to around 85? Then, only the golfers who take advantage of the harder, faster balls will be affected. Remember, according to MGS’s own studies, harder balls are faster and softer ones are slower.

Softer = slower, but not necessarily shorter. I would be willing to bet that most of the major OEM multilayer models above 80 compression would not pass the new test conditions.

Additionally, limiting the effect of the ball helps to protect against future advancements that could circumvent the goal of the regulation. Ultimately, if a compression limit were an effective solution for limiting distance, the ruling bodies never would have introduced the ODS and maintained it for the past nearly 50 years. 

[Big moose]

I don't care what the usga does in 2030 I have enough balls to last me for years, none of the guys I play with plays competitive golf we just play for the fun of it. None of us in 2030 is going to call somebody out for using a ball from 2029, we are going to play with whatever we want. If you think I am throwing away  12 dozen balls it's not happening, sorry. 

[Zebhead]

Not sure why the USGA and R&A feels the need to solve a potential issue that affects about .001 of the golfing population. The challenges/difficulty of many courses have nothing to do with distance and some even require less than driver shots. Most of the top players succeed because of their short game, not bombing the ball 300+ yards. Distance actually creates a problem because the mis hit of .5 degree gets magnified the further the ball flies. PGA pros actually hit the fairway about 47% of the time. Their shorter driving LPGA counterparts hit the fairway about 70% of the time. On average the pros hit the green in regulation about 68% of the time. An amateur 5 handicap will hit about 8 greens in regulation and a 15 about 4-5. Drive for show, but putt for dough still holds true. 

[DaveP043]

15 hours 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".

We've already paid for a lot of the golf ball research, I guarantee that the major manufacturers started looking at some type of distance reduction 3 years ago, when the first Distance Report was released.  They have 2 decades of research history, different material formulations, different layer thicknesses and combinations, they have records from lots of old "failed experiments" that could be just perfect under the new regulations.  This isn't going from wound balls to solid, this is just a small variation on the multi-layer solid balls we've been using for a good long while.  

And we've been paying for continual research drivers as well, forever.  Every single person who buys clubs is paying for the research, its a never-ending operation for the clubmakers, a small change to the criteria doesn't mean they have to start from ground zero.

[Big moose]

8 minutes ago, Zebhead said:

Not sure why the USGA and R&A feels the need to solve a potential issue that affects about .001 of the golfing population. The challenges/difficulty of many courses have nothing to do with distance and some even require less than driver shots. Most of the top players succeed because of their short game, not bombing the ball 300+ yards. Distance actually creates a problem because the mis hit of .5 degree gets magnified the further the ball flies. PGA pros actually hit the fairway about 47% of the time. Their shorter driving LPGA counterparts hit the fairway about 70% of the time. On average the pros hit the green in regulation about 68% of the time. An amateur 5 handicap will hit about 8 greens in regulation and a 15 about 4-5. Drive for show, but putt for dough still holds true. 

I agree with you, when I was in my 30s and hitting my drives 280 I had guys in their 60s that couldn't hit a drive 200 yards beating me because of their short game and putting. The game is still 100 yards and in.

[DaveP043]

3 hours ago, Big moose said:

The game is still 100 yards and in.

That's not what current statistics tell us.  Every part of the game is important, and "mastery" of some parts can overcome deficiencies in other aspects, but in general full-swing ability (driving and iron play) differentiates better players from poorer players.

[sman3115]

On 2/2/2021 at 9:54 AM, LICC said:

Bifurcation would align with allowing recreational golfers to continue to use the maximum conforming equipment. This is similar to professional baseball using wood bats when everyone else uses metal. You may still disagree with bifurcation, but not because it hurts recreational golfers.

100% play the equipment the pros play, give me a break we already don't really! Play what fits your swing not what Scottie does.

Plus beyond the bat comparison, the NCAA basketball and footballs are smaller, the NCAA three point line is closer, NCAA hockey players have to wear facemasks, you only need one foot down in college football for a reception. These are all bifurcated rules that don't ruin the game. No one is out there threatening to quit basketball because the ball is smaller. Get over it dude, you lose more distance from the weather than you will from this rollback let's chill.

[storm319]

2 hours ago, sman3115 said:

100% play the equipment the pros play, give me a break we already don't really! Play what fits your swing not what Scottie does.

Plus beyond the bat comparison, the NCAA basketball and footballs are smaller, the NCAA three point line is closer, NCAA hockey players have to wear facemasks, you only need one foot down in college football for a reception. These are all bifurcated rules that don't ruin the game. No one is out there threatening to quit basketball because the ball is smaller. Get over it dude, you lose more distance from the weather than you will from this rollback let's chill.

Again, these are all interactive team sports so not really comparable (golf has no direct player interaction and the ball is always stationary when struck).

As for baseball bats, it is possible to produce a bat from metal or composite materials that performs similarly to wood (COR limits in baseball are also for safety purposes given the proximity of the pitcher and batter). The reason that the MLB requires wood is for tradition/aesthetics (mainly sound). 

[sman3115]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

Again, these are all interactive team sports so not really comparable (golf has no direct player interaction and the ball is always stationary when struck).

As for baseball bats, it is possible to produce a bat from metal or composite materials that performs similarly to wood (COR limits in baseball are also for safety purposes given the proximity of the pitcher and batter). The reason that the MLB requires wood is for tradition/aesthetics (mainly sound). 

Not really seeing your point as to why being an individual vs a team sport has anything to do with requiring professionals and amateurs to play by the exact same rules.  My point was, most every other sport has variations on the rules based on the level of competition and it doesn't ruin the sport. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

5 hours ago, sman3115 said:

Not really seeing your point as to why being an individual vs a team sport has anything to do with requiring professionals and amateurs to play by the exact same rules.  My point was, most every other sport has variations on the rules based on the level of competition and it doesn't ruin the sport. 

 If golf bifurcated who do you think is going to pay the cost for manufacturers providing free clubs and balls to their sponsored golfers? Thar would be the consumer. So your cost to play the sport will go up.

Wood bats aren’t used at lower levels because of costs.  

[GolfSpy_APH]

59 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

 If golf bifurcated who do you think is going to pay the cost for manufacturers providing free clubs and balls to their sponsored golfers? Thar would be the consumer. So your cost to play the sport will go up.

Wood bats aren’t used at lower levels because of costs.  

Still going to be plenty of DTC or companies like Maxfli that make good quality golf balls to fit all golfers that will perform well at a good cost. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Still going to be plenty of DTC or companies like Maxfli that make good quality golf balls to fit all golfers that will perform well at a good cost. 

The cost will be higher. They too now have to spend money on r&d. Dicks sporting goods owns maxfli. Do you think they are going to invest money into r&d for the new ball and not pass that cost onto the consumer?

But I’m not just talking about balls. People want to see pros play smaller drivers and woods. If bifurcation went to that level your clubs are going to cost more money.

It’s amazing how people look past the cost of doing business when they propose different ideas in this thread or others about changing professional golf and are ok with giving up distance because somebody in a suit says there’s. Yet nobody has stated what problem exists and how it’s solved by a rollback.

What issue is caused by 115 pros hitting the ball 300 yards plus? 

Or what problem is caused if 150 golfers are doing that in 20 years from now?

Edited January 9 by RickyBobby_PR

[skraeling]

23 hours ago, Zebhead said:

Not sure why the USGA and R&A feels the need to solve a potential issue that affects about .001 of the golfing population. The challenges/difficulty of many courses have nothing to do with distance and some even require less than driver shots. Most of the top players succeed because of their short game, not bombing the ball 300+ yards. Distance actually creates a problem because the mis hit of .5 degree gets magnified the further the ball flies. PGA pros actually hit the fairway about 47% of the time. Their shorter driving LPGA counterparts hit the fairway about 70% of the time. On average the pros hit the green in regulation about 68% of the time. An amateur 5 handicap will hit about 8 greens in regulation and a 15 about 4-5. Drive for show, but putt for dough still holds true. 

 

23 hours ago, Big moose said:

I agree with you, when I was in my 30s and hitting my drives 280 I had guys in their 60s that couldn't hit a drive 200 yards beating me because of their short game and putting. The game is still 100 yards and in.

 

20 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

That's not what current statistics tell us.  Every part of the game is important, and "mastery" of some parts can overcome deficiencies in other aspects, but in general full-swing ability (driving and iron play) differentiates better players from poorer players.

Its not entirely true.  Being farther down the course is an advantage.  Can you make up for not being farther down?   Sure.

But my dad whos regularly shorter on drives than me at this point just cant keep up with my scoring and he is a FAR better putter and short game guy than I am.

But I have easier shots into greens.

Edited January 9 by skraeling

[cnosil]

2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Wood bats aren’t used at lower levels because of costs.  

I toured the Louisville slugger factory a few months ago and they make a staggering amount of wooden bats per day that “aren’t used at lower levels”. About 3000 a day in off-season or about 1.8 million per year if we want to give numbers.  

[skraeling]

3 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Wood bats aren’t used at lower levels because of costs.  

Bought a composite one lately?  Way more expensive than even the nicest wood bat.

[RickyBobby_PR]

33 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I toured the Louisville slugger factory a few months ago and they make a staggering amount of wooden bats per day that “aren’t used at lower levels”. About 3000 a day in off-season or about 1.8 million per year if we want to give numbers.  

Not talking costs to make them.

It’s the costs to colleges, high schools, athletes who use the wood bars and have to replace them on a regular basis. I played in a wood bar league for two years and in other leagues where some guys for whatever reason liked to use them. It gets expensive buying several bats in a season just in an individual basis not do that for 12+ players on every team. Especially in areas where there’s not a lot of money for athletics.

Edited January 9 by RickyBobby_PR

[storm319]

9 hours ago, sman3115 said:

Not really seeing your point as to why being an individual vs a team sport has anything to do with requiring professionals and amateurs to play by the exact same rules.  My point was, most every other sport has variations on the rules based on the level of competition and it doesn't ruin the sport. 

Not the team sport element, but the interactive element between players makes the comparison to golf pointless.

No one is saying that golf would cease to exist if the ruling bodies were to bifurcate, but IMHO it would be worse off without a uniform set of regulations (and most sports would be better off with a global set of regulations at least at adult levels). 

Also, the other non-interactive sports have much clearer lines of separation between different levels of play whereas those lines are blurred in the game of golf (how often do you see amateurs competing in random games in any of the professional sports you mentioned?). Bifurcation adds complexity/cost to an already complex/expensive game and the game is better off under a uniform set of rules (the ruling bodies making changes like this definitely threatens that). 

[fixyurdivot]

1 hour ago, skraeling said:

Its not entirely true.  Being farther down the course is an advantage.  Can you make up for not being farther down?   Sure.

But my dad whos regularly shorter on drives than me at this point just cant keep up with my scoring and he is a FAR better putter and short game guy than I am.

But I have easier shots into greens.

This is my experience as well.  My scorecards having both an F and G in the top left and right corners of the box are my lowest rounds 90% of the time.  Hitting into the greens with high lofted irons is more accurate more often than not. 

The modest distance gains I've made over the last year+ have most definitely helped my scoring.  It afforded me the option to play more rounds on the blue/white combo tee as my driving distance now fits that "recommended" course length.

So for that effort on my part, the USGA and R&A says that's an issue and handicaps me .

[RickyBobby_PR]

39 minutes ago, skraeling said:

Bought a composite one lately?  Way more expensive than even the nicest wood bat.

I played with composite when they first came out. Definitely not cheap.

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

So for that effort on my part, the USGA and R&A says that's an issue and handicaps me .

Yep all because less than 1% of golfers hit the ball 300 yards and if that percentage some are on tv and it ruins the optics of golf. A bunch of corporate types who are out of touch with the game don’t like pros hitting it 300 yards on courses that are 7000-7200 yards on the professional tour.

Them along with a small minority of golfers don’t like to see the best golfers in the world shoot 5-7 under par in a round and do that over the course of 4 days.