Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

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.

You said lower levels don’t use them because if costs. But IMO, the manufacturing amount shows that people below the pros are using wooden bats. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 hours ago, cnosil said:

You said lower levels don’t use them because if costs. But IMO, the manufacturing amount shows that people below the pros are using wooden bats. 

Of course they are, just walk into a dicks and you can use them. You have independent leagues that use them, them, recreational leagues filled with working adults.

They aren’t used on a wide scale at little league, high schools, summer leagues because the cost per season is significantly higher than buying a few aluminum bars that will last more than a year. Parents don’t want to spend hundreds of dollars to replace broken bats each year for their kids when they can spend that one time and get multiple years out of it. Not to mention the occasional one that breaks in practice.

As i mentored I’ve played wood bat leagues. There would be 2-3 bats per team that broke each game. We only played a 12-15 game schedule. Imagine a kid that’s in little league who plays their regular summer league, has travel league, all star game, road to the little league World Series. That’s a lot of games and replacing bats gets quite expensive. 

[sman3115]

10 hours 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.  

I'm confused, isn't that the current system? What does bifurcation have to do with how the manufacturers and pros handle gear deals in relation to consumer retail prices? They already get paid to play gear, prices are set at what the market will bear within the price elasticity range.  They will set the price based on the margin and market share they want. The cost of the across the board rollback in R&S, tooling, capital, etc is way more disruptive than having to add a separate, but new line of competitive balls for elite play.  For example, it would cost Callaway a lot more to figure out how to retool every single ball to meet new conformity requirements than to develop a new Chromesoft Tour/Tour X and leave the rest of their lineup alone.

The ball was bifurcated within our lifetimes already as they were allowed smaller balls in Europe. This isn't as huge a deal as the ball manf. want to make it.

I don't necessarily think that's the main reason why wood bats aren't used at lower levels. I think weight and durability have more to do with it, but that's a whole different subject.

[sman3115]

6 hours ago, storm319 said:

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). 

That's kind of the point as to why the MLR was a better solution than what was done. The whole issue is now everyone has to play a new ball because of a problem with too much distance of the top .01% in the world.  Having a slower ball that would only affect certain tournaments at certain courses only on the tours was a much simpler solution.  And we wouldn't ever have to have this conversation.  

I still have 0 idea what you are talking about as an interactive element between players. It's not complicated to have different rules for different levels of competition.  How many penalties do we keep reading about with different rulings about with distance measuring devices or notes in yardage books etc, especially between like the Korn Ferry tour and PGA. 

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

6 minutes ago, sman3115 said:

I'm confused, isn't that the current system? What does bifurcation have to do with how the manufacturers and pros handle gear deals in relation to consumer retail prices?

If clubs were bifrucfafed the manufacturers would have to build two clubs to different compliance specs rather than the single one they have today. So the cost to r&d and produce the tour only equipment will get passed on to the consumer to cover the costs since pros don’t pay for their equipment.

So when there’s at 200cc driver as an example on tour (most have been throwing out 195-230cc for what the pros use) and the current driver only available to the amateurs the OEMs are going to have all of us pay for those 200cc drivers the pros are using.

10 minutes ago, sman3115 said:

The ball was bifurcated within our lifetimes already as they were allowed smaller balls in Europe. This isn't as huge a deal as the ball manf. want to make it

And there was a time when the ruling bodies werent in sync so you had bifurcation between the ruling bodies. Now they act as one and we have a single testing protocol for all balls. Theres no need to go backwards in the game. 
 

12 minutes ago, sman3115 said:

I don't necessarily think that's the main reason why wood bats aren't used at lower levels. I think weight and durability have more to do with it, but that's a whole different subject.

What happens to a bat that’s not durable? It breaks. It’s why some pros have switched away from ash bats and use other type of woods. So yes when you can’t make a bat that can be used at lower levels without breaking and needing replacing it’s a cost thing, but having come from the baseball world adults hate replacing wood bats even when they can afford them. 

[sman3115]

5 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

If clubs were bifrucfafed the manufacturers would have to build two clubs to different compliance specs rather than the single one they have today. So the cost to r&d and produce the tour only equipment will get passed on to the consumer to cover the costs since pros don’t pay for their equipment.

So when there’s at 200cc driver as an example on tour (most have been throwing out 195-230cc for what the pros use) and the current driver only available to the amateurs the OEMs are going to have all of us pay for those 200cc drivers the pros are using.

And there was a time when the ruling bodies werent in sync so you had bifurcation between the ruling bodies. Now they act as one and we have a single testing protocol for all balls. Theres no need to go backwards in the game. 
 

What happens to a bat that’s not durable? It breaks. It’s why some pros have switched away from ash bats and use other type of woods. So yes when you can’t make a bat that can be used at lower levels without breaking and needing replacing it’s a cost thing, but having come from the baseball world adults hate replacing wood bats even when they can afford them. 

Hey man, thanks for helping me get my participation grades up. I wish I had this much interest when we had to do discussion boards in school.

First, the bat thing. Yes replacement costs for broken bats is expensive but that's not a cost thing. The unit cost isn't the issue, the issue is the bats break and have to be replaced.  That's a durability issue that drives the cost. 

Second, I think your interpretation of the economic situation is inverted.  The gear manfs make money selling to the general public. The R&D spending is going to go where the profit is which is the general public. All the R&D now is done to make clubs to sell to the public where the profit is.  The sponsorship of Pros is to build brand equity, no one is really expecting Johnny Hackerson to play Johnny Rahm's clubs, but you can see he's a Callaway guy and buy a Paradym Max off the rack.  They may play clubs that are similar to what we can buy but they aren't the same. Just like NASCAR uses stock cars, but they aren't really the same as if you drive one off the dealer's lot.  

The price of R&D and marketing is all baked into the operating costs of the manufacturers, but there really is only so much they can pass onto consumers before they seek alternatives.  They set prices to maximize margins and maintain a certain market share.  That's why most drivers all now cost $699 and all premium balls cost $60/dz.  It's not because a Titleist and Callaway spent the same amount on ball R&D, that's what the market will bear as a price right now.  I think PXG is a shining example of this, they started as a premium brand with crazy prices because they were going for a certain segment of the market but then switched strategies and now sell sweet clubs and lower costs than the other brands, that's not because of their R&D budget. That's marketing.

My ultimate point, which I think we are losing the thread on is, there is a problem at the highest level of competition with distance.  The solution the governing bodies came up with was to roll the ball back on a case by case basis using a MLR. The PGA tour threw a hissy fit and blew the whole thing up so now the 100% has to suffer the rollback because of a problem with the top .01% of golfers.  That's just a bad solution and saying it's confusing to have a different rule for such vastly separate populations as a reason to do it, is such a bad faith argument.

 

 

[storm319]

32 minutes ago, sman3115 said:

My ultimate point, which I think we are losing the thread on is, there is a problem at the highest level of competition with distance.  The solution the governing bodies came up with was to roll the ball back on a case by case basis using a MLR. The PGA tour threw a hissy fit and blew the whole thing up so now the 100% has to suffer the rollback because of a problem with the top .01% of golfers.  That's just a bad solution and saying it's confusing to have a different rule for such vastly separate populations as a reason to do it, is such a bad faith argument.

 

In addition to the professional tours, there was doubt as to whether the NCAA and many local/state organizations that host elite amateur competitions were going to adopt the MLR which would have resulted in inconsistent regulation at the intended level. 

Given that the ruling bodies would not  have had full control on where/when the MLR would be adopted (and it ultimately not been adopted in all scenarios that they intended it to be), a universal change was simpler long term (and preferred by the majority of the biggest stakeholders vs permanent bifurcation). 

[Subdiver1]

2 hours ago, sman3115 said:

Hey man, thanks for helping me get my participation grades up. I wish I had this much interest when we had to do discussion boards in school.

I too recall those days with less than fond memories.  Discussion boards or class were mostly an exercise of how little can one get away with; here it's, "Oh man, where did the last hour go?"

[Beakbryce]

Ok. I was going to just read this thread for a while because I have said everything I wanted to say and all of us seem to be set in our path. Plus the wife suggested that by 2030 comments now are pretty mute. Ok, but what fun is that? I love the discussion.

Today I heard all the brew ha ha about 10K INERTIA. It's like the club manufactures are daring the USGA to come after MOI. 

I'm done. For now. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

35 minutes ago, Beakbryce said:

Ok. I was going to just read this thread for a while because I have said everything I wanted to say and all of us seem to be set in our path. Plus the wife suggested that by 2030 comments now are pretty mute. Ok, but what fun is that? I love the discussion.

Today I heard all the brew ha ha about 10K INERTIA. It's like the club manufactures are daring the USGA to come after MOI. 

I'm done. For now. 

It’s still within the parameters of the moi specifications for compliance. 
 

There are 2 axis on the club. Heel to toe and face to rich. So the 10k is what you get when you add the 2 axis together.

If it was actually over the 5900 it wouldn’t make the compliance list

[Another Steve]

Doesn’t leave much room to move weights around for adjustment or fine tuning, does it?

 

Back onto the ball discussion: Since we talked about the old R&A “small ball”…. Any thoughts on maybe increasing the ball diameter across the board to add drag?

[RickyBobby_PR]

56 minutes ago, Another Steve said:

Doesn’t leave much room to move weights around for adjustment or fine tuning, does it?

 

Back onto the ball discussion: Since we talked about the old R&A “small ball”…. Any thoughts on maybe increasing the ball diameter across the board to add drag?

The ruling bodies didn’t propose any size changes. Only the ODS standard.

Iirc it was Callaway who had a larger ball in the not too distant past that performed terribly.

but again why does any change need to be made? What issue exists by the current distance that needs to be solved?

[Another Steve]

Just thinking outside the box for other ways to roll the ball back. 
 

I’m beyond the should they or shouldn’t they…. Im thinking about “how they might do  it“. Just cuz it’s an interesting discussion in and of itself. 

Edited January 12 by Another Steve

[sman3115]

3 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

 

but again why does any change need to be made? What issue exists by the current distance that needs to be solved?

Just the distance at the very elite pro level at certain courses. That's why the MLR would've been better. The R&A could've used it to protect all the old Open courses, Augusta could use it to stop having to build new tee boxes, the USGA could use it to find new US Open courses and everyone could ignore it. The local committee could implement it for their tournament or not.  95% of pro tournaments probably would be unaffected and it probably wouldn't have been used at any amateur event.  Why make 100% of the industry roll equipment back for a 0.01% problem?

[RickyBobby_PR]

20 minutes ago, sman3115 said:

Just the distance at the very elite pro level at certain courses. That's why the MLR would've been better. The R&A could've used it to protect all the old Open courses, Augusta could use it to stop having to build new tee boxes, the USGA could use it to find new US Open courses and everyone could ignore it. The local committee could implement it for their tournament or not.  95% of pro tournaments probably would be unaffected and it probably wouldn't have been used at any amateur event.  Why make 100% of the industry roll equipment back for a 0.01% problem?

What specific problem or problems is/are created by the distance elite pros hit it?

what does protect the course mean?

btw the ruling bodies didn’t have to abandon the mlr and could have kept it for the two opens and Augusta could have chosen to use it too. They decided to listen to everyone for keeping one ball but refused to listen to the same people saying not to do anything because the data down at support their stance

ps the USGA had no problems with protecting at Andrews for an elite amateur male event last year when the walker club was played there 

Edited January 12 by RickyBobby_PR

[sman3115]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

What specific problem or problems is/are created by the distance elite pros hit it?

what does protect the course mean?

btw the ruling bodies didn’t have to abandon the mlr and could have kept it for the two opens and Augusta could have chosen to use it too. They decided to listen to everyone for keeping one ball but refused to listen to the same people saying not to do anything because the data down at support their stance

ps the USGA had no problems with protecting at Andrews for an elite amateur male event last year when the walker club was played there 

Exactly. I am in agreement with you 100% they should have kept the local model rule and the local tournament committee could have implemented it at their discretion or not just like any matter of local ground rules.  We don't need to shake up the entire universe for an issue with only a handful of professional tournaments.

As for the arguments the distance issue/course protection comes down to protecting the way the architect intended ie the same way they implement internal out of bounds some holes.  

The other is sustainability. When you have to keep lengthening courses to keep up with distances you need more grass. More grass, more water, more fertilizer, etc.  that's a cost and sustainability thing especially when these events happen at most once per calendar year.  

That's why I am 100% in favor of the MLR.  The local tournament can choose what type of event they want and how much to let them bomb it around for a shootout or tighten it up for a higher challenge.  Then it is in the rule book like all other MLRs and we still have one set of rules for all those who for some reason think we all need to play by the same rules as the PGA tour. And all the general public/weekend duffers can go around unaffected. 

They should have just put it in place and the PGA was more than welcome to ignore it 100% but the majors could use it as they intended. Or not!

 

 

 

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, sman3115 said:

As for the arguments the distance issue/course protection comes down to protecting the way the architect intended ie the same way they implement internal out of bounds some holes.  

We don’t agree. I think the MLR was a bad proposal. I think the USGA played chicken with the tours and lost. I wouldn’t be surprised if Augusta told them they weren’t going to be the first tournament of the year in 2028 using a new ball.

The protect the course, protect par are subjective views. Its also not something the majority of golfers care about and the pga tour caters to their fans
 

1 hour ago, sman3115 said:

The other is sustainability. When you have to keep lengthening courses to keep up with distances you need more grass. More grass, more water, more fertilizer, etc.  that's a cost and sustainability thing especially when these events happen at most once per calendar year.  

This isn’t supported by data. Courses haven’t gotten longer and have shrunk between 2010 and 2020. read then statement posted by titleist and the superintendents association debunking this. Then look at the fact the pga tour has kept course length between 7000-7200 for the last 20 years so even the courses they play aren’t getting longer. The courses that choose to add length aren’t forced to add that. It’s their choice and they do it because they don’t like low scores by the best in the game.

also a reduction in distance of the ball isn’t going to 1) have courses sell or donate land 2) stop using their existing tee boxes of which are only used 5% of the time.

so sustainably isn’t an actual issue or one that’s being solved by the current rollback

also the data doesn’t support that there is going to be an increase in the top end distance. So if we have 100 golfers already hitting ball 300-321 why is 150 doing a problem in 20 years while the top end isnt goin past 32ish

1 hour ago, sman3115 said:

That's why I am 100% in favor of the MLR.  The local tournament can choose what type of event they want and how much to let them bomb it around for a shootout or tighten it up for a higher challenge.  Then it is in the rule book like all other MLRs and we still have one set of rules for all those who for some reason think we all need to play by the same rules as the PGA tour. And all the general public/weekend duffers can go around unaffected. 

The problem with the MLR is nobody wants two different balls. Even the ruling bodies by their choice to abandon the MLR doesn’t want one, they also don’t want something that they can’t predict how often or who will use it.  They want control.

They could have left things exactly where they are and nothing would have changed now or in 20 years. 
 

All these reasons are purely subjective views about how golf should be played and not actual objective issues with data that support them

Edited January 13 by RickyBobby_PR

[Big moose]

I just wanted to ask you people, is anyone going to quit golfing if 6 years from now ( if God wants to I will still be here) they implement this change, and anyone who doesn't golf in PGA Tournaments going to throw away perfectly good golf balls to buy these new ones. I'm not. 

[SlowNLow]

19 hours ago, Big moose said:

I just wanted to ask you people, is anyone going to quit golfing if 6 years from now ( if God wants to I will still be here) they implement this change, and anyone who doesn't golf in PGA Tournaments going to throw away perfectly good golf balls to buy these new ones. I'm not. 

 I agree with you 100% but when all of this kicks in, there will be those who will question about what golf ball everybody is using.   I'm thinking of one guy in particular who spent 5 years complaining about people using long putters.  To him, anybody who whose upper hand was touching their shirt was anchoring.   And nobody has to cheat to beat this guy, he is terrible,  but I think we all know a guy like this.  

So the first time you bomb one after the rollback takes affect , a guy like this will start bitching that your golf ball isn't legal.  Doesn't matter that his drive went 40 yds forward and 80 yds. right and nearly killed a small dog who was hanging out in the backyard.      Some people won't care,  but some will.     

I just want peace and quiet.

[Big moose]

4 hours ago, SlowNLow said:

 I agree with you 100% but when all of this kicks in, there will be those who will question about what golf ball everybody is using.   I'm thinking of one guy in particular who spent 5 years complaining about people using long putters.  To him, anybody who whose upper hand was touching their shirt was anchoring.   And nobody has to cheat to beat this guy, he is terrible,  but I think we all know a guy like this.  

So the first time you bomb one after the rollback takes affect , a guy like this will start bitching that your golf ball isn't legal.  Doesn't matter that his drive went 40 yds forward and 80 yds. right and nearly killed a small dog who was hanging out in the backyard.      Some people won't care,  but some will.     

I just want peace and quiet.

And he can ****** all he wants because I am playing any ball I want to. I don't pay attention to what other people are doing I have a hard enough time keeping track of what I am doing playing this crazy game. 

[sman3115]

On 1/12/2024 at 7:54 PM, RickyBobby_PR said:

They could have left things exactly where they are and nothing would have changed now or in 2 years. 

 

All these reasons are purely subjective views about how golf should be played and not actual objective issues with data that support them

On 1/8/2024 at 9:46 PM, storm319 said:

 

I'm not say that I am in favor of any of this just because, but the ruling bodies have it in their heads that the distance at elite pro events is a problem. I don't give a damn, but if they are hell bent on reigning that in, then I much rather they do something with the ball than clubs. And if they are going to do something with the ball I prefer they only do it for those they think have the problem. Hence the choice of MLR over full rollback.

I don't really give a damn about if they all start hitting it 350 off the tee. It should be up to the local committee to determine how tough they want their event and they could invoke the MLR or not. We shouldn't all have to roll back our equipment for something that if it is a problem, only affects about 150 people on the planet. I would prefer there was no change but the governing bodies made that decision, my arguments are based on that fact that they decided something was definitely rolling back already.

It would be nice though if they could bring some different courses into the rotation that just wouldn't ever be considered because they can be so easily overpowered. Rather than playing the same events on the same courses in the same towns every year.  That's more of an issue for the pro game than distance IMO. They should hit more various parts of the country more often to reach more people and spread the wealth, and they should do more different formats. More match play, more team events, etc.  That's a change I'd love to see, not a return of balata balls 

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

19 hours ago, sman3115 said:

I'm not say that I am in favor of any of this just because, but the ruling bodies have it in their heads that the distance at elite pro events is a problem. I don't give a damn, but if they are hell bent on reigning that in, then I much rather they do something with the ball than clubs. And if they are going to do something with the ball I prefer they only do it for those they think have the problem. Hence the choice of MLR over full rollback.

 

They are coming for the clubs. They already said so in their statements when they announced the rollback.

They only went after the elite male because OEMs and others told them it was a bad idea in 2022 to rollback for everyone. Their goal from the beginning was everyone. To them it’s not just the pros, it’s elite amateurs as well but they couldn’t decide where the cutoff point was in their sanctioned amateur events and didnt spell it out in the MLR proposal. That also would have opened the door for other amateur organizations to use it, and not identifying what elite amateur meant that opened doors of uncertainty. But there is no issue at the pro level. The PGA Tour and the other tours they run and the DP world tour aren’t asking for a rollback or claiming courses are being made obsolete. 
 

19 hours ago, sman3115 said:

I don't really give a damn about if they all start hitting it 350 off the tee. It should be up to the local committee to determine how tough they want their event and they could invoke the MLR or not. We shouldn't all have to roll back our equipment for something that if it is a problem, only affects about 150 people on the planet. I would prefer there was no change but the governing bodies made that decision, my arguments are based on that fact that they decided something was definitely rolling back already.

And herein lies the problem. The tours are setting up their tournament how they like. The ruling bodies don’t like it, so they want to dictate how good should be played. By them it affects more than 150 people. And see above about coming after everyone’s equipment. The rollback is just the first step.

19 hours ago, sman3115 said:

It would be nice though if they could bring some different courses into the rotation that just wouldn't ever be considered because they can be so easily overpowered.

Courses aren’t being overpowered. They use courses that can handle the needs of running a professional tour. That’s space for hospitality tents, media trucks, the staff, amenities for the tour players, parking, infrastructure around the course that can handle the added traffic. Courses that can’t handle that aren’t even considered. The goal of golf is to score the lowest possible and for tournament golf the person who does it over the course of the tournament wins. Theres no bonus points for playing the course as designed or for hitting fairways. To this day there’s not a course that can’t support that on tour nor has the person with the lowest score not won.

 

19 hours ago, sman3115 said:

They should hit more various parts of the country more often to reach more people and spread the wealth, and they should do more different formats. More match play, more team events, etc.  That's a change I'd love to see, not a return of balata balls 

March play doesn’t guarantee the best players are playing the weekend. It’s bad business. That’s why the one match play event was changed to be pool play. People  don’t want to watch team events(see LIV ratings) so the one team event they have is plenty for the year

[d.lama]

On 12/3/2023 at 8:37 AM, Middler said:

Is there anyone who watches pro golf and thinks I wish these guys wouldn't hit it so far? Somehow I seriously doubt it. When my buds and I talk over tournaments we've watched, part of the discussion is all about did you see that '340 drive on #xx' and 'Rory only had a SW left on the par 4 #X hole. No one EVER says someone should dial those guys back.

And who prefers seeing pros winning with -2 vs -22? I like to see a mix with some really tough courses but it's exciting to watch top players get hot and birdie a bunch of holes (within reason).

How about taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent further distance gains, ball, equipment, or whatever else - but not an actual rollback/degradation of anything currently approved? I do understand the arms race needs to end, so golf courses don't have to keep adapting year after year.

I know, whistling in the wind.

 

I do.

Usually when I see super low scores it's because the pro's are putting the ball so close to greens and flipping wedges up close, kinda boring.

The USGA/RA realized the made a mistake back in 1995, and again in 2004, by not setting the proper boundaries, they are trying to reverse that mistake which is fine by me.

 

[d.lama]

On 12/11/2023 at 7:17 PM, BigBoiGolf said:

Drivers being too "forgiving", generally when people say this they think MOI, is meaningless to pros who hit it out of the center of the face or within a half inch on either side. Blame the current size dimensional limits on the driver. Only way to reduce forgiveness is to make the heads smaller

https://ralphmaltby.com/how-moment-of-inertia-moi-affects-driver-playability/

 

Edit: Most MOI on drivers these days is 4000 - 4700, clubs like the Nike SQ Sumo Squared 5900 hit the max limit. Generally past 4k the forgiveness aspect has massive diminishing returns.

The USGA made the shortsighted mistake back in the mid-90's and the guy snoozing at the wheel was Frank Thomas. He was so shortsighted he thought that there was no way Pro's would be caught dead swinging big-headed drivers. Except as soon as the pro's figured out that allowed them to swing out of their shoes with little risk they all switched. 

Just now Ping and Taylormade have figured out how to break that 10k MOI barrier while keeping spin slow. With Tour players using them they'll be able to lash out even harder at the ball, hit it farther and straighter.

Hopefully the USGA/RA are trying to get ahead of that curve.

[d.lama]

On 12/12/2023 at 8:32 AM, RickyBobby_PR said:

The ball isn’t going further. That’s been debunked over and over by the data that max distance is already maxed out.

Debunked?

https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/golf-ball-test-modern-balata-robot/

[DaveP043]

On 1/12/2024 at 8:13 PM, Big moose said:

I just wanted to ask you people, is anyone going to quit golfing if 6 years from now ( if God wants to I will still be here) they implement this change, and anyone who doesn't golf in PGA Tournaments going to throw away perfectly good golf balls to buy these new ones. I'm not. 

First, I've said all along, I'll keep playing, and I'll have fun doing it.  

As for throwing away golf balls, my best guess is that current "hot" balls will no longer be made after the regulations change in 2028.  I don't see manufacturers keeping additional manufacturing lines open to make both new and old versions of golf balls, if they wanted to do that they'd have supported the bifurcation (MLR) plan.  I'll certainly use up any stockpile of "old" balls over the span of two years, and be consistently playing the new "short" balls by the time the regulation goes into effect for all of us.  I don't expect anyone to throw away perfectly good "hot" balls when 2030 comes around, I just hope they have the integrity not to use them when competing.

[RickyBobby_PR]

7 hours ago, d.lama said:

Debunked?

https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/golf-ball-test-modern-balata-robot/

It’s not that the ball nots going farther than balatas or balls prior to the prov1, everyone has said the current ball is going farther than those balls along with the new equipment led to gains between the mid 90s and 2003.

When you look at the data from 2003-2023 the current ball isn’t going further now than it did in 2003 and top in distance isn’t increasing. The average distance is what’s increasing and that comes from better fit golfers who can swing faster and get the ball to a total of 300 yards compared to the early 2000s. In the 80s the samething happened with an increase in average distance from the beginning of the 80s to the end of the 80s and the same for the 90s.

As shorter golfers age out on tour and get replaced with longer hitters the average will go up because more people are hitting it around 300. 
 

btw the USGA equipment guy admitted the distance gains per their data are coming from the golfer not the equipment or balls. So again no data with the current equipment and balls supports the notion the average distance increase claims the USGA is making is true. 

Edited January 15 by RickyBobby_PR

[Big moose]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

First, I've said all along, I'll keep playing, and I'll have fun doing it.  

As for throwing away golf balls, my best guess is that current "hot" balls will no longer be made after the regulations change in 2028.  I don't see manufacturers keeping additional manufacturing lines open to make both new and old versions of golf balls, if they wanted to do that they'd have supported the bifurcation (MLR) plan.  I'll certainly use up any stockpile of "old" balls over the span of two years, and be consistently playing the new "short" balls by the time the regulation goes into effect for all of us.  I don't expect anyone to throw away perfectly good "hot" balls when 2030 comes around, I just hope they have the integrity not to use them when competing.

First of all I don't play competitive golf, I play every day with the same guys and none of us is going to worry about what ball the other guys are using. Secondly I buy my balls from lostgolfballs.com and I don't think they are going to stop selling the balls I like until they are all gone, so I will buy 10 dozen and be set for a long time. 

[d.lama]

3 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

It’s not that the ball nots going farther than balatas or balls prior to the prov1, everyone has said the current ball is going farther than those balls along with the new equipment led to gains between the mid 90s and 2003.

When you look at the data from 2003-2023 the current ball isn’t going further now than it did in 2003 and top in distance isn’t increasing. The average distance is what’s increasing and that comes from better fit golfers who can swing faster and get the ball to a total of 300 yards compared to the early 2000s. In the 80s the samething happened with an increase in average distance from the beginning of the 80s to the end of the 80s and the same for the 90s.

As shorter golfers age out on tour and get replaced with longer hitters the average will go up because more people are hitting it around 300.

btw the USGA equipment guy admitted the distance gains per their data are coming from the golfer not the equipment or balls. So again no data with the current equipment and balls supports the notion the average distance increase claims the USGA is making is true. 

Everyone has said the ball is going farther than the pre-prov1 era, you have constrained your argument in order to show that post 2004 not much distance was gained from equipment - which is correct...for those past 18 years.

The USGA and R&A did not consider the last 18 years to be the biggest issue -that is why their distance report studied data going back 44 years to 1980. From 1994 to 2005 total distanced jumped and average of 2.4 yards per year for a total of 28.5 yards in 12 years. Before 1994 the average was .25 yards per year for a total of 3.5 yards (14years) after 2005 the average was .46 yards for a total of 8.3 yards (18 years)

When the USGA equipment guy discussed those gains the context was that he was talking the past 18 years since the USGA/R&A set the previous testing rules. Now the ruling bodies have come together and decided those rules put in place in 2004 were a bit lax and they need to account for that massive leap that equipment caused. Their ball testing change halves that 28.5y jump for the fastest speed swingers so that they leave the other 50% up to "player advancement" rather than equipment.

[RickyBobby_PR]

37 minutes ago, d.lama said:

Everyone has said the ball is going farther than the pre-prov1 era, you have constrained your argument in order to show that post 2004 not much distance was gained from equipment - which is correct...for those past 18 years.

Well when the ruling bodies or anyone in support of the rollback claim distance is increasing and that it’s going to be similar too the 1993 to 2003 jump or that we are going to see 350 yards drives from anyon you need to look at the numbers with the equipment in use. Theres been an increase of 10 yards in average distance over the last 20ish years yet the top end distance hasn’t changed. So to claim that there’s going to be an explosion in distance in 20 years if nothing is done and that distance is going to be bad for the game is not an accurate statement. The average distance has gone up not because of the equipment or ball, but because the equipment can be optimized by fittings, the golfer has gotten faster thru speed training and gym work. The shorter guys are leaving the tour and younger guys who hit the ball 300 are coming on the tour. That’s going to  continue to happen because stories gained tells us closer is better. When we look at course playing length over the last 20 years that’s been consistent between 7000-7200 yards(also defeats the argument that courses need to lengthen) the top end distance is unchanged and swing speed is actually down the last 2 years after being stagnant for the 3 years before that. So to expect top end distance to just somehow go up isn’t realistic.

will average distance creep closer to the top end? Sure but that doesn’t mean that distance is actually going up just to that more people that can do it. So if there’s 100 golfers now that can hit it 300 and 150 do it in 20 years, nothing has changed, it’s just more people would be in similar spots off the tee and not further down the hole. But we could say that distance exploded between the 80s and late 90s and yet nobody was upset with that and actually more people came to the game and prize money went up.

37 minutes ago, d.lama said:

The USGA and R&A did not consider the last 18 years to be the biggest issue -that is why their distance report studied data going back 44 years to 1980. From 1994 to 2005 total distanced jumped and average of 2.4 yards per year for a total of 28.5 yards in 12 years. Before 1994 the average was .25 yards per year for a total of 3.5 yards (14years) after 2005 the average was .46 yards for a total of 8.3 yards (18 years)

It’s the cherry picked data to say see there’s a problem we have to fix and it’s why everyone in the industry from superintendents associations, OEMs, the tours and tour pros and experts like Sasho Mackenzie have pointed out the flaws in their data and conclusion. 
 

If the issue is average distance that’s also a flawed argument that distance is a problem because it’s it causing any actual issues for sustainability on tour or on the vast majority of golf courses. The less than 1% of courses that claim it is are exclusive clubs that have chosen to add distance because they don’t like the low scores that can be had during a pro tour event. 
 

Do you think that the average is going to keep goin up forever at a pace of .45-.55 yards a year forever? I doubt it. 
 

37 minutes ago, d.lama said:

When the USGA equipment guy discussed those gains the context was that he was talking the past 18 years since the USGA/R&A set the previous testing rules. Now the ruling bodies have come together and decided those rules put in place in 2004 were a bit lax and they need to account for that massive leap that equipment caused. Their ball testing change halves that 28.5y jump for the fastest speed swingers so that they leave the other 50% up to "player advancement" rather than equipment.

Ye she was because that’s the equipment and standards the game is using and that it’s not the equipment that’s lead to the average going up. Yes it played a role in the initial jump from 1993 but it has remained constant at the top end and again it’s not the ball or the equipment that’s leading to the average going up. It’s guys like Zach Johnson who averaged 280-290 leaving the tour and guys who hit it 300 coming on. As more people hit it 300 the average is going to go up. 
 

The rollback will have the opposite effect on distance than what people think. Strokes gained shows distance is an advantage and those who can hit it far will remain on tour and those who can’t will be gone and you end up right back where they are now except everyone on tour will be close to the top end rather than a few guys.