Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[chisag]

6 minutes ago, jolter1 said:

Honestly, bifurcation of golf rules should have happened a long time ago. Professional and top amatuer competition should have more substantial rules as opposed to the recreational golfer. But then again, the horse left the barn years ago when the powers that be let technology get out of hand and since then, unsuccessfully, have tried to real it in.

 

... Right there with you. Pretty delusional to think we play the same equipment and game the Pro's play. Hole #17 at my home course calls for a 280yd uphill carry from the mens tees to clear a lake with deep bunkers and roll offs on 2 sides. 295yds from the tips. It is a lay up hole and provides lots of options from a mid iron to a hybrid or fairway wood. Obviously some shorter hitters lay up with a driver because very few Ams can carry it 280 with laser accuracy. But a Phoenix Open qualifier is held at my course and they had to build a new tee box that now calls for a 310 carry because most of the Pro's were driving it easily. It isn't the same game at all. 

[jolter1]

11 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... Amen. Combating ignorance evidently takes time and maybe an outside influence. I talked my 81 yr of pard into moving up to the forward tees on all par 4's and he is enjoying his rounds much more and has moved up to the forward tees on all holes and regularly shoots his age or close to it now. I had tried talking my other mid 60's pard into moving top to the (senior) tees with no luck. I will suggest from time to time but I am not gonna push. After coming down with inoperable throat cancer and Cheno/radiation this summer (he is now cancer free ) he was still pretty weak when he returned in late October and I convinced him to move up ... you know until he regains his full strength.   He is pretty much back to normal and has no plans to go back to the mens tees as he has enjoyed his rounds much more than playing the mens tees. 

... I tried to tell them if they can't reach several par 4's with a normal drive and a normal 2nd shot, they are playing the wrong tees. I think both felt like with a really good drive and a really good 2nd shot they could reach, but that only happened about once in every 10 tries. 90% failure is no way to play golf imo. So two intelligent guys that trust me when it comes to equipment and how to play just didn't wanna admit they needed to move up. Until they did. It really is a battle.  
 

Speaking from personal experience, I know how hard it was for me to move forward to the senior tees due to ego. Up until this past year, I played from the white tees exclusively with frustrating results as my second shot was getting longer and longer. As I hit my present age of 70, playing from the senior tees has been much more fun as now I have the option again of not using a driver on every par 4 and can have a short iron again into most greens. Father Time has a way of deflating one's ego.

[fixyurdivot]

8 minutes ago, jolter1 said:

Speaking from personal experience, I know how hard it was for me to move forward to the senior tees due to ego. Up until this past year, I played from the white tees exclusively with frustrating results as my second shot was getting longer and longer. As I hit my present age of 70, playing from the senior tees has been much more fun as now I have the option again of not using a driver on every par 4 and can have a short iron again into most greens. Father Time has a way of deflating one's ego.

Seeing lots of guys here moving up a set or the combo.  That's absolutely the right thing to do and we'll all likely get there before we're done.  But, any move based on average driving distance should not be a result of a rollback on ball distance at the amateur level.  #keepthisatourlevelissue

[Preeway]

16 minutes ago, chisag said:

But a Phoenix Open qualifier is held at my course and they had to build a new tee box that now calls for a 310 carry because most of the Pro's were driving it easily. It isn't the same game at all. 

But is this an equipment/ball issue or just the fact that young players today have learned better biomechanics and better strength/speed training techniques? We’ve unlocked so many “secrets” about swing mechanics that even high school kids are driving the ball 300+. Yes, some of it is equipment but the teaching and training has also improved. I really don’t see how changing the ball is good for the game in the long run. 

[Shapotomous]

8 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I know this was discussed somewhere back in this thread, but I'll ask again.  Where do you draw the line, what level of events requires the "short" ball?  High school?  College?  USGA amateur events?  State am championships?  Club championships?  Only pro events?  What level of Pro events, all the way down to local or regional PGA events for club pros?  Some players would inevitably have to switch back and forth. And smaller ball manufacturers will be strained to run two separate research and development lines, with you and I finding both.  I think its a bigger deal than you suggest.

You and I don't have to draw the line, the tour / event / organizing group can draw the line where they want to.  As long as everyone in the event or 'tour' is using the 'short' or 'long' ball then it is equitable.  

Bifurcation is not a big deal IMO.  This happens in most all sports.  The NFL uses a larger ball than college, Olympic Basketball has different rules than the NBA which has different rules than college, bats are different in college & MLB, rules are different from minor league baseball versus MLB and even from minor league to minor league as MLB uses some minor leagues as testing ground for new rules.  Those sports have survived the supposed chaos of bifurcation.  

I believe ball mfg's are smart enough to handle the R&D / marketing of a tour level ball design given they all have multiple ball designs they are currently juggling.

[Hook DeLoft]

37 minutes ago, Preeway said:

But is this an equipment/ball issue or just the fact that young players today have learned better biomechanics and better strength/speed training techniques? We’ve unlocked so many “secrets” about swing mechanics that even high school kids are driving the ball 300+. Yes, some of it is equipment but the teaching and training has also improved. I really don’t see how changing the ball is good for the game in the long run. 

Even if all the increase in distance was from better training and faster players, something would still need to be done to stop the increase. Eventually, we would need 10000 yard golf courses and, to maintain them, greens fees far beyond the reach of the vast majority of golfers. 

[Preeway]

I think I’m more in the camp of wondering why courses don’t get more creative with their challenges. Distance off the tee doesn’t equate to huge advantages at the British Open. Primarily because they have pot bunkers in the fairways and around the green putting a larger premium on accuracy. I don’t see why American courses can’t go this route instead as it wouldn’t create a need for more land and wouldn’t create a huge increase in course maintenance costs. Fairway bunkers with steep faces requiring a player to pitch out is another route. And make the bunker more of a waste hazard so you aren’t trying to maintain it like a normal greenside bunker. 

[chisag]

1 hour ago, jolter1 said:

Speaking from personal experience, I know how hard it was for me to move forward to the senior tees due to ego. Up until this past year, I played from the white tees exclusively with frustrating results as my second shot was getting longer and longer. As I hit my present age of 70, playing from the senior tees has been much more fun as now I have the option again of not using a driver on every par 4 and can have a short iron again into most greens. Father Time has a way of deflating one's ego.

 

... If you play for fun and the purity of just playing the game, there is no need to be tied to any tees. Right now I am playing a combo with 9 holes from the sr tees and 9 holes from the tips. It is about 70yds longer than just the mens tees. Our 3 longest oar 4's are all uphill and after overfeeding and getting no roll at all, I moved up to the sr tees. I also moved up on all the par 5's and they are much more fun. Equally fun is playing the tips on all the par 3's and one of them can play 230 with a back pin. I think most should just move around when needed, even if that is only one or two holes. 

... By making my own combo tee I am using all the clubs in my bag, something I didn't do from the mens tees. Now the course is a nice combination of 6 easy holes, 6 medium holes and 6 difficult holes. It works for me. My normal group of 6 now plays a myriad of different tees and the pace of play is exactly the same because we all play ready golf and understand we need to be at our appropriate tees to start every hole. 

Tips
9 tips/9Sr
Mens tees (but joins me in my combo 1/2 the time) 
Sr tees
Forward tees (2)
 

[Siamese Moose]

I think that I would like to see the ball rolled back, but at the same time eliminate COR restrictions. From what I understand, a really high COR driver is too fragile for higher swing speeds, but would mitigate some of the distance loss for us mere mortals. Maybe too simplistic an idea, but it seems to me to achieve what is wanted for the elites without hurting the masses too much. It would please club manufacturers, as they get to market a whole new angle on driver engineering. Throw the manufacturers a bone.

[chisag]

3 minutes ago, Preeway said:

I think I’m more in the camp of wondering why courses don’t get more creative with their challenges. Distance off the tee doesn’t equate to huge advantages at the British Open. Primarily because they have pot bunkers in the fairways and around the green putting a larger premium on accuracy. I don’t see why American courses can’t go this route instead as it wouldn’t create a need for more land and wouldn’t create a huge increase in course maintenance costs. Fairway bunkers with steep faces requiring a player to pitch out is another route. And make the bunker more of a waste hazard so you aren’t trying to maintain it like a normal greenside bunker. 

 

... There is a course in Orlando now called Evermore Resort that pays homage to St Andrews with several replica holes and the rest of the course links style. They have the steep faced pot bunkers you mentioned but they are surrounded by about 1 yd of rough to stop a ball from rolling in them. When they first opened without the strip of rough, rounds were taking well over 5 hours as the pot bunkers were too penal for average golfers. Not only were they taking multiple strokes to get out, they were tearing up the revetted walls. Sadly 'Muricans aren't ready for steep faced bunkers. 

[Shapotomous]

3 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... If you play for fun and the purity of just playing the game, there is no need to be tied to any tees. Right now I am playing a combo with 9 holes from the sr tees and 9 holes from the tips. ......
 

Have fun?!?!?!?  Oh the Horror of such an approach!!!       How will you ever post a score for handicap purposes if you are making up your own set of tees???!!!  You have personally bifurcated the course rating and slope system!   I bet you are so bold as to even give a putt here and there so not everything is holed out in your groups!   

(I looked for a sarcasm font but didnt find one, so just to be clear, I was being sarcastic/humorous which I hope the bookend laughing emojis indicated)  

I do the same thing at the course we play just so it brings a variety of clubs into play.

[Preeway]

10 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... There is a course in Orlando now called Evermore Resort that pays homage to St Andrews with several replica holes and the rest of the course links style. They have the steep faced pot bunkers you mentioned but they are surrounded by about 1 yd of rough to stop a ball from rolling in them. When they first opened without the strip of rough, rounds were taking well over 5 hours as the pot bunkers were too penal for average golfers. Not only were they taking multiple strokes to get out, they were tearing up the revetted walls. Sadly 'Muricans aren't ready for steep faced bunkers. 

I could totally see that and there isn’t a way to make them “normal” per se or widely used. But occasionally putting them out around 290-310 is a better way to address the length off the tee problem IMO. Same with nasty fairway bunkers in strategic locations. Honestly I think a lot of this is moot as it feels more like a solution in search of a problem. 

[Preeway]

36 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... If you play for fun and the purity of just playing the game, there is no need to be tied to any tees. Right now I am playing a combo with 9 holes from the sr tees and 9 holes from the tips. It is about 70yds longer than just the mens tees. Our 3 longest oar 4's are all uphill and after overfeeding and getting no roll at all, I moved up to the sr tees. I also moved up on all the par 5's and they are much more fun. Equally fun is playing the tips on all the par 3's and one of them can play 230 with a back pin. I think most should just move around when needed, even if that is only one or two holes. 

... By making my own combo tee I am using all the clubs in my bag, something I didn't do from the mens tees. Now the course is a nice combination of 6 easy holes, 6 medium holes and 6 difficult holes. It works for me. My normal group of 6 now plays a myriad of different tees and the pace of play is exactly the same because we all play ready golf and understand we need to be at our appropriate tees to start every hole. 

Tips
9 tips/9Sr
Mens tees (but joins me in my combo 1/2 the time) 
Sr tees
Forward tees (2)
 

I’m seeing more courses do this lately. Both courses I caddy at have 4 or 5 tees but like 7 options with different combos. They essentially take some of the harder or longer holes and move the tees up on those only as an example. Makes way more sense to do that but the course has to also enter those combo tees into the GHIN in order for a player to post their score. 

[chisag]

8 minutes ago, Preeway said:

I could totally see that and there isn’t a way to make them “normal” per se or widely used. But occasionally putting them out around 290-310 is a better way to address the length off the tee problem IMO. Same with nasty fairway bunkers in strategic locations. Honestly I think a lot of this is moot as it feels more like a solution in search of a problem. 

 

... Evidently you underestimate the sheer determination of a 24 index. It wouldn't matter where those bunkers are, they will find them.   I also think a rollback will have almost zero effect on most average gofers that rarely hit the sweet spot with the same swing so rolling back the distance a few yards isn't gonna make any difference to an over the top, cut across the ball, open faced slice hit 1.5" out on the toe.

... I think they should roll back the ball for the Pro's and not Am's. Worst case scenario is the stop the balls distance where it is now. Some and evidently those that count think they should roll the ball back for everyone. Others like you with an equally valid opinion think they should just leave technology alone. In the end it is all just a bunch a guys jawin' because those in charge of protecting the integrity of the game will make the decisions and as much as they like to say they care about you and I, our opinions are irrelevant to them. 




 

[Preeway]

My only angry man yelling at clouds rant is directed at clubs becoming easier to hit pure. It seems like it was a technology advancement aimed solely at allowing companies to make more money rather than something done for the betterment of the game. I get the “invention” of players distance irons to allow players with lower swing speeds to still play the game in a similar manner as other people but making clubs more forgiving to the point where it’s almost impossible to hit really bad shots does leave me scratching my head. Not that I want to hit my driver from 1993 again but I was pretty proud of my ability to hit the early generation Burner driver 270 yards when my friends couldn’t. Have to say that after buying a modern driver there is no way I’ll ever go back, . 

[Hook DeLoft]

27 minutes ago, Preeway said:

My only angry man yelling at clouds rant is directed at clubs becoming easier to hit pure. It seems like it was a technology advancement aimed solely at allowing companies to make more money rather than something done for the betterment of the game. I get the “invention” of players distance irons to allow players with lower swing speeds to still play the game in a similar manner as other people but making clubs more forgiving to the point where it’s almost impossible to hit really bad shots does leave me scratching my head. Not that I want to hit my driver from 1993 again but I was pretty proud of my ability to hit the early generation Burner driver 270 yards when my friends couldn’t. Have to say that after buying a modern driver there is no way I’ll ever go back, . 

Adam Scott suggested making the driver more difficult to hit by making the size limit much smaller. 

[chisag]

16 minutes ago, Preeway said:

My only angry man yelling at clouds rant is directed at clubs becoming easier to hit pure. It seems like it was a technology advancement aimed solely at allowing companies to make more money rather than something done for the betterment of the game. Not that I want to hit my driver from 1993 again but I was pretty proud of my ability to hit the early generation Burner driver 270 yards when my friends couldn’t. Have to say that after buying a modern driver there is no way I’ll ever go back, . 

 

... So you you really think there is a big difference between my Cleveland Classics DG43 with a heavy steel dynamic gold shaft and my Stealth 2 with a 55gm Ventus Red Velocore that maximizes distance and direction on slight mishits? 

[Preeway]

15 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... So you you really think there is a big difference between my Cleveland Classics DG43 with a heavy steel dynamic gold shaft and my Stealth 2 with a 55gm Ventus Red Velocore that maximizes distance and direction on slight mishits? 

I’ll have to post a pic of my persimmon, my OG Burner and my PXG all side by side. I remember when it was considered oversized and now it looks more like a 3-wood. 

17 minutes ago, Hook DeLoft said:

Adam Scott suggested making the driver more difficult to hit by making the size limit much smaller. 

I don’t know if much smaller is necessary but it wouldn’t hurt. 

[FrogginBullfish]

Between the whole LIV golf saga and the decision to rollback the golf ball, I'm just left with this deep feeling of sadness watching the game I love so dearly imploding itself in front of my eyes. I honestly don't even want to bother putting the effort of putting my full feelings into words right now cause frankly I just don't have the energy or desire to do so. Just so disappointed with this all. At least Tiger's playing again. My one silver lining...  

[Preeway]

I get you. That’s why I’m just gonna keep playing and not really worry about any of this. I’m gonna play how I play and if I need to love up a teen then so be it. Problem solved. 

[storm319]

4 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... Right there with you. Pretty delusional to think we play the same equipment and game the Pro's play. Hole #17 at my home course calls for a 280yd uphill carry from the mens tees to clear a lake with deep bunkers and roll offs on 2 sides. 295yds from the tips. It is a lay up hole and provides lots of options from a mid iron to a hybrid or fairway wood. Obviously some shorter hitters lay up with a driver because very few Ams can carry it 280 with laser accuracy. But a Phoenix Open qualifier is held at my course and they had to build a new tee box that now calls for a 310 carry because most of the Pro's were driving it easily. It isn't the same game at all. 

The point is that pretty much the whole world falls under the same set of regulations (tour issued equipment still falls under the same limits and there are no regulations for course setup/agronomy so those don’t count as bifurcation). However, the USGA has been headed down the wrong path with the recent MLRs that have effectively resulted in limited bifurcation, but none of those are as impactful as the ODS MLR that was proposed earlier this year.

[storm319]

3 hours ago, Hook DeLoft said:

Even if all the increase in distance was from better training and faster players, something would still need to be done to stop the increase. Eventually, we would need 10000 yard golf courses and, to maintain them, greens fees far beyond the reach of the vast majority of golfers. 

Over-exaggerations like this are a problem. There is no evidence to suggest that distances will increase to the point where 10k yardages will be the championship norm (the Tour average is nearly 3k short of that and tour averages have been growing at the same rate that they were in the 1980’s for the past two decades). Basically there was a significant bump at the turn of the century and then increases returned to their previous trend.

Additionally, courses actually saw substantially bigger increases in average playing length from 1930-1990 than they have post 1990 (and no one seemed to care). The reality is that very few courses actually have a chance of hosting an elite competition and most of those are not accessible venues for the masses. The vast majority of courses have absolutely no need to be lengthened. 

[EnderinAZ]

3 hours ago, Preeway said:

I think I’m more in the camp of wondering why courses don’t get more creative with their challenges. Distance off the tee doesn’t equate to huge advantages at the British Open. Primarily because they have pot bunkers in the fairways and around the green putting a larger premium on accuracy. I don’t see why American courses can’t go this route instead as it wouldn’t create a need for more land and wouldn’t create a huge increase in course maintenance costs. Fairway bunkers with steep faces requiring a player to pitch out is another route. And make the bunker more of a waste hazard so you aren’t trying to maintain it like a normal greenside bunker. 

Seems to me that if you look at this question of a more challenging course from a business / general public point of view, more challenge in the form of horribly deep traps, rough so thick and deep you lose your ball 6 inches from the fairway, sloping fairways with unhindered access to pond waters, and landing areas the size of a single car garage you are simply setting the course up to be well hated by the very people you try to entice into playing golf. With that type of course, well, they might as well buy radio advertisement touting the slowest play in the area.

Case in point. We haven't had more than a few drops of rain here in the east Mesa area in at least a couple of months. Thursday evening it rained and rained again yesterday morning. Rules for the course yesterday -  cart path only and play the ball down unless in casual water. 2/3rds of the Friday regulars stayed off the course, and it was a perfect golf day. Sunny, warm, and not much wind. 

One final thing, waste areas are cool and nasty in the same breath. There is a course in central Oregon, in the town of Sisters called Aspen Lakes that has these huge waste areas of red volcanic cinder. Stunning to look at along side the dark green grass. But, with no hazard designation, and a 1 inch minus cinder size, incredibly difficult to get you ball moving in the direction and speed that you would like.  

[Preeway]

2 minutes ago, EnderinAZ said:

Seems to me that if you look at this question of a more challenging course from a business / general public point of view, more challenge in the form of horribly deep traps, rough so thick and deep you lose your ball 6 inches from the fairway, sloping fairways with unhindered access to pond waters, and landing areas the size of a single car garage you are simply setting the course up to be well hated by the very people you try to entice into playing golf. With that type of course, well, they might as well buy radio advertisement touting the slowest play in the area.

Case in point. We haven't had more than a few drops of rain here in the east Mesa area in at least a couple of months. Thursday evening it rained and rained again yesterday morning. Rules for the course yesterday -  cart path only and play the ball down unless in casual water. 2/3rds of the Friday regulars stayed off the course, and it was a perfect golf day. Sunny, warm, and not much wind. 

One final thing, waste areas are cool and nasty in the same breath. There is a course in central Oregon, in the town of Sisters called Aspen Lakes that has these huge waste areas of red volcanic cinder. Stunning to look at along side the dark green grass. But, with no hazard designation, and a 1 inch minus cinder size, incredibly difficult to get you ball moving in the direction and speed that you would like.  

My point was less about making courses more penalizing for the sake of difficulty and rather about using these types of hazards as a deterrent for the grip it and rip it mentality and trying to hit every drive 300+. Nobody wants rounds of golf to get even slower than they are already. But speaking in hypotheticals, I’d rather courses modify to make me play more strategically than change the ball/equipment to make me hit the ball shorter. 

[Ding-dong]

Quite interesting reading the views from the U.K. and US. There is a similarity, some think they will be affected and others feel it’s only at the top of the game.

For me I think a sub 110mph swing speed will pretty much be unaffected. These balls are so sophisticated with their multiple compression layers and aero performance. 
In fact I would prefer to see the top golfers have longer careers, meaning they are stressing their bodies to achieve the distances, take that away and they play within themselves and we get to enjoy them longer.

The other week I played with a young man who was driving 340 yard greens with 3 wood. Although impressive, he didn’t play to his 0 handicap as his ability to manipulate his flight or shape was non existent.. his game was purely about over powering the course. 
My course is a bit poorly laid out probably being a 100 yrs old and a famous designer, the fairway bunkers are deep, 5-7ft lips, at 200-230 yards and leaving 150-190 yards to narrow greens.

So landing in a bunker leaves you chipping out ( clubs don’t maintain bunkers to the level tour courses!) . My view on these is drop the lips or move the bunkers up to 250-280 yards and remove playable lies at 100 yards in, force these guys not to bypass the challenges. What we are seeing is the margilising of good golfers with distance…30yrs ago if I had these current balls instead of the 100 compression balatas I would have been smashing it beyond these traps , would never have carried 3,4,5,6 irons , definitely no hybrids required etc .. would have been walking around with a -5 hcp average and ironically most tee shots would have been played with my Mizuno T-zoid 3S and the 8 deg GBB would only come out on the par 5s or par 4s that could be bullied 

So for me the ball change won’t affect me, it will stop hopefully these vanity hcps, it will re-introduce some talent as opposed to swing out your shoes…

By the way I do play clubs of from the late 80s early 90s and persimmon woods on occasion and with a Srixon AD333 ball .. I lose a little yardage but it’s not significant enough to make me score worse than modern ones… and I put that down to the ball.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Ding-dong

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 hour ago, Ding-dong said:

Quite interesting reading the views from the U.K. and US. There is a similarity, some think they will be affected and others feel it’s only at the top of the game.

For me I think a sub 110mph swing speed will pretty much be unaffected. These balls are so sophisticated with their multiple compression layers and aero performance. 
In fact I would prefer to see the top golfers have longer careers, meaning they are stressing their bodies to achieve the distances, take that away and they play within themselves and we get to enjoy them longer.

The other week I played with a young man who was driving 340 yard greens with 3 wood. Although impressive, he didn’t play to his 0 handicap as his ability to manipulate his flight or shape was non existent.. his game was purely about over powering the course. 
My course is a bit poorly laid out probably being a 100 yrs old and a famous designer, the fairway bunkers are deep, 5-7ft lips, at 200-230 yards and leaving 150-190 yards to narrow greens.

So landing in a bunker leaves you chipping out ( clubs don’t maintain bunkers to the level tour courses!) . My view on these is drop the lips or move the bunkers up to 250-280 yards and remove playable lies at 100 yards in, force these guys not to bypass the challenges. What we are seeing is the margilising of good golfers with distance…30yrs ago if I had these current balls instead of the 100 compression balatas I would have been smashing it beyond these traps , would never have carried 3,4,5,6 irons , definitely no hybrids required etc .. would have been walking around with a -5 hcp average and ironically most tee shots would have been played with my Mizuno T-zoid 3S and the 8 deg GBB would only come out on the par 5s or par 4s that could be bullied 

So for me the ball change won’t affect me, it will stop hopefully these vanity hcps, it will re-introduce some talent as opposed to swing out your shoes…

By the way I do play clubs of from the late 80s early 90s and persimmon woods on occasion and with a Srixon AD333 ball .. I lose a little yardage but it’s not significant enough to make me score worse than modern ones… and I put that down to the ball.

The one counter is those who have a distance advantage will still have that advantage. It won't stop them from swinging out of their shoes, in fact it may have the opposite effect because if they are loosing yardage they may be inclined to swing even harder to regain the losses they have incurred. 

I don't have an answer for all of this. I think the pros play a completely different game than we do already and have no issues with them (or any championship leading to a tour card, national championship) having to use a rolled back ball. 

[Josh Parker]

I don't think a roll back will do anything personally. 

Put max specs on equipment and change a few things on the courses where the pros have to think twice about hitting certain shots. (Traps, rough, etc)

Roll back will have a trickle down effect. 

Shaft manufacturers will find a new product that will produce that distance again and then they will roll back that.  

[Golf2Much]

I'm sure I responded to this thread back in March-ish timeframe when this issue first reared its head, but I don't have the patience to search for it over the 47 pages.  The passion on this topic is interesting, but not unprecedented.  The golfing world has been here before with balls and unifying standards.  I'm sure this has brought up but when the USGA, R&A and other golf governing bodies around the world wanted to converge on a golf ball diameter no less than 1.68 inches in diameter in the early 1970's there was major push back by guess who:  professional golfers and ball manufacturers.   The pros liked the 1.62-inch ball because it...wait for it...flew farther and straighter.   U.S. professionals would often switch to the smaller ball in overseas competitions.  Obviously, the ball manufacturers were against it because they didn't want to have to retool their ball molds.   

The after three years of debate, the ruling bodies withdrew the ball standard proposal in 1974.  I still have one or two of those smaller diameter golf balls tucked away somewhere in my golf stuff.  The world played with two different sized golf balls until 1990 when the R&A outlawed the smaller diameter golf ball and adopted the no less than 1.68-inch diameter standard.  

So, what can we learn from this earlier golf ball precedence?  There were very passionate arguments from both sides for making or preventing the change.  Professional golfers and golf ball manufacturers led the push against the change.  Their arguments led to postponing the new standard, but ultimately, the change was made anyway.   I would add that those average golfers impacted by the size change probably can't remember what it was like playing the small diameter ball.  

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, Josh Parker said:

I don't think a roll back will do anything personally. 

Put max specs on equipment and change a few things on the courses where the pros have to think twice about hitting certain shots. (Traps, rough, etc)

I agree that the rollback won't have the effect that people believe it will have.  Kind of like the groove rule for wedges.   Players will use technology to figure out how to optimize the ball flights and continue to increase their swing speeds. 

IMO,  the current strategies that define how to play golf won't change.  I see posts from people thinking that golf will return to the "golden era" where players worked the balls into holes and had some thought of risk/reward;  I don't see it happening.   It will still be a hit the ball as far as possible to locate your ball as close to the hole as possible type game.  Knowledgeable players did this before Mark Brodie stats were released and because this strategy is more widely publicized more and more players do it today.  Professional players that don't perform well will be replace by players that do perform well and that performance will be driven by who hits the ball the farthest. 

[storm319]

39 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I agree that the rollback won't have the effect that people believe it will have.  Kind of like the groove rule for wedges.   Players will use technology to figure out how to optimize the ball flights and continue to increase their swing speeds. 

IMO,  the current strategies that define how to play golf won't change.  I see posts from people thinking that golf will return to the "golden era" where players worked the balls into holes and had some thought of risk/reward;  I don't see it happening.   It will still be a hit the ball as far as possible to locate your ball as close to the hole as possible type game.  Knowledgeable players did this before Mark Brodie stats were released and because this strategy is more widely publicized more and more players do it today.  Professional players that don't perform well will be replace by players that do perform well and that performance will be driven by who hits the ball the farthest. 

Exactly. It’s not like the average tour pro is going to be like “I drive it 280 instead of 300, guess I better work on my long irons more”. Most are likely to continue the recent speed trend that (likely even more so to make up for the loss) because there is a stronger correlation between scoring average and proximity to the hole compared to scoring average and fairway percentage (the forthcoming rollback proposal is not going to change this, it is really just moving the starting line back slightly which is what course lengthening has largely done).