Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[Stuka44]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

Sometimes the "right thing" isn't the most popular thing.  Good decisions aren't always popular when announced.  Not one of us knows whether this decision will be positive or negative in the long run, but I do trust it was made with good motivations.  Of all of the entities involved, the USGA and R&A have the least financial interest, and have already come under tremendous criticism for a choice that won't put anything in their pockets.  It might end up being foolish, or it might end up being brave.

Well said and I agree.  Prior to LIV I would believe that they would have almost nothing to worry about, and everyone would just fall in line, and other than the unorganized masses, there would be nobody to take up a protest banner so to speak.  Now I am not so sure! Regardless of ones feelings on LIV itself, I believe the signs are out there they are willing to,  for lack of a better word undermine the game of golf, especially what they perceive to be, old and antiquated parts of it.  Even though verbally they deny this, and "it's to grow the game".

[Bang60]

As in the difference makes no difference to me, I play at a club as most do wherein we Tee off with any ball we like and nobody is going to have a Policeman watching everytime I and You hit a ball to check it complied with the rules

We've been hoodwinked by all this B's and it's just Dumb imho I refuse to give it a second thought.....

[BigBoiGolf]

2 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Of all of the entities involved, the USGA and R&A have the least financial interest, and have already come under tremendous criticism for a choice that won't put anything in their pockets.  It might end up being foolish, or it might end up being brave.

Which is why they shouldn't be making the decision to cause economic turmoil to private entities, the same entities anyone can invest their money in, especially one made based on their opinion that golf isn't "challenging enough". The courses complaining about space are interested in that land primarily for spectators attending tournament events. Not golf. Their distance reports are great reads and all, but they fall apart real quick when they're doing all of this at the elite level for 10 yards. Sorry, that's the difference of a fart in the wind as far as I'm concerned. No skin in the game = no care for their opinions as far as I'm concerned.

I for one hope OEMs sue the USGA/R&A into oblivion so they can stop ruining the US Open and quit acting like the related attached picture. While I will not bring up politics, this decision is entirely political because it's centered around the mistaken belief that golf is somehow being ruined and the poor little golf ball is what broke the camel's back.

[DaveP043]

13 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

No skin in the game = no care for their opinions as far as I'm concerned.

The flip side is that we should allow the manufacturers to make the rules which affect each of us.  But which manufacturers?  Maybe the folks who make Vice balls should write the golf ball rules this time.  Or Topflite.  Personally, I'd rather those rules be written by someone with NO skin in the game.

[BigBoiGolf]

What is to stop the PGAT or any pro tour from simply copying and pasting the USGA's rules of golf and then adding their own local rules? Nothing. The rules only matter to those that put on the tournaments, which the PGA is already implementing their own rules. The manufacturers can exist to create the best product on the market, period, without limitation. The consumers can vote with their wallet on who to support in that matter.

[Preeway]

28 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

What is to stop the PGAT or any pro tour from simply copying and pasting the USGA's rules of golf and then adding their own local rules? Nothing. The rules only matter to those that put on the tournaments, which the PGA is already implementing their own rules. The manufacturers can exist to create the best product on the market, period, without limitation. The consumers can vote with their wallet on who to support in that matter.

Pretty sure the current rules of golf, as written, or trademarked or otherwise protected as owned by the USGA and R&A. They wouldn’t have to change a lot, but you couldn’t just cut and paste and call them your own. 

[DaveP043]

56 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

What is to stop the PGAT or any pro tour from simply copying and pasting the USGA's rules of golf and then adding their own local rules?

They don't want the responsibility.  Its so much better when they can put the "blame" on someone else when a ruling seems unfair.  

57 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

which the PGA is already implementing their own rules

No, they only utilize Local Rules as approved by the R&A/USGA.  The don't just randomly write local rules without approval.

58 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

The manufacturers can exist to create the best product on the market, period, without limitation.

So at the amateur level, the club level, the player with the most money wins?  Its certainly a part of the game now, being able to afford top-line equipment, but if equipment wasn't regulated you really would be able to buy success.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, BigBoiGolf said:

What is to stop the PGAT or any pro tour from simply copying and pasting the USGA's rules of golf and then adding their own local rules? Nothing. The rules only matter to those that put on the tournaments, which the PGA is already implementing their own rules. The manufacturers can exist to create the best product on the market, period, without limitation. The consumers can vote with their wallet on who to support in that matter.

The tours have no rules they use outside of the official rules of golf. They use some of the mlrs already on the rule book

[Ben_Howell34]

On 2/2/2021 at 9:07 AM, Shapotomous said:

I never really understood the distress over bifurcation. 

Most sports have rules & equipment differences between professional and non professional ranks, between mens and womens leagues of the same sport and rules differences between USA leagues and international play for some sports as well.  Whatever level you want to play at just use the approved equipment and play by the rules established for that competition.  

 

Also the notion that we play the same ball as the pros is really a fallacy. They all get their equipment tweaked and changed to their preferences. And right now there are limits on the golf ball. So I just don’t get the fuss on this. 

[BigBoiGolf]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

So at the amateur level, the club level, the player with the most money wins?  Its certainly a part of the game now, being able to afford top-line equipment, but if equipment wasn't regulated you really would be able to buy success.

What do you guys think the pros or rich country club clowns do? Do you think they aren't buying success when they can buy the best coaching advice, top of the line nutritionists, game planners, GEARS, and own custom tour-only heads and CPOs like what Left Dash was? Do you think you aren't buying success when you go get a custom fitting and are playing against someone with a used off-the-rack banged up club with a stock shaft?

And none of that will give you the win anyways. You still have to hit the ball and putt out at the end of the day. If Taylormade can make a better ball than Titleist because the best and brightest engineers are hired by them in a competitive market, why do I care? And more importantly, why does the USGA need to feel like they need to protect the sanctity of the game from performance when every OEM is releasing performance-pushing products every season? Do you think people like me play Left Dash instead of a Noodle because it's fun to blow money away? Why do member tests on this website exist again, so we all know which golf clubs suck and we can all race out to buy them up to make us play golf worse? I swear

Edited December 11, 2023 by BigBoiGolf

[Josh Parker]

13 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

What do you guys think the pros or rich country club clowns do? Do you think they aren't buying success when they can buy the best coaching advice, top of the line nutritionists, game planners, GEARS, and own custom tour-only heads and CPOs like what Left Dash was? Do you think you aren't buying success when you go get a custom fitting and are playing against someone with a used off-the-rack banged up club with a stock shaft?

And none of that will give you the win anyways. You still have to hit the ball and putt out at the end of the day. If Taylormade can make a better ball than Titleist because the best and brightest engineers are hired by them in a competitive market, why do I care? And more importantly, why does the USGA need to feel like they need to protect the sanctity of the game from performance when every OEM is releasing performance-pushing products every season? Do you think people like me play Left Dash instead of a Noodle because it's fun to blow money away? Why do member tests on this website exist again, so we all know which golf clubs suck and we can all race out to buy them up to make us play golf worse? I swear

Why wouldn't you want equipment to be maxed out at a point?

I'm not for the rollback or bifurcation but I don't mind limits on equipment to help level the playing field to a certain degree.

Yes, the ones that can afford lessons, nutritionists, etc have an advantage, but look at just about any sport and they have certain limitations that they all have to follow.  

 

[BigBoiGolf]

2 minutes ago, Josh Parker said:

Why wouldn't you want equipment to be maxed out at a point?

I'm not for the rollback or bifurcation but I don't mind limits on equipment to help level the playing field to a certain degree.

Yes, the ones that can afford lessons, nutritionists, etc have an advantage, but look at just about any sport and they have certain limitations that they all have to follow.  

 

There are physical limitations with EVERY single engineering construction that involves a tradeoff at some point or another, and even then, people will choose worse performing products as long as they satisfy some other desire they find is more worthwhile, such as people who prefer softer (generally slower ball speed) golf balls.

But to your point, we already have that, we've been at the limit for a while, the sky isn't falling anywhere these ruling bodies say it is, and then they use the data as a cudgel to force their personal opinions on a game that cost everyone else money except them.

But more to my point, all those other competing sports work together to agree with the rules instead of coming to an impasse and having everything forced on them. When the NFL changed the rules on head-first tackling, the reasoning behind it was based on repeatable science from health experts not even connected to the sport and player safety and the player's association voted together to adopt that change.

But, let's say that some equipment did have some rulings dropped except some general guidelines such as head size, weight, ball size, whatever. To make a better ball, you need better materials engineering. It still needs to spin not too much and not too little for proper aerodynamic flight, and whatever spin profile you use, will directly translate into performance around the green and on approach. That doesn't even still make it my preferred choice as a golfer, because it could spin too much for me, feel too 'clicky' or not flight or roll around the green that I like. Everyone already does that, so who cares.

[Josh Parker]

2 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

There are physical limitations with EVERY single engineering construction that involves a tradeoff at some point or another, and even then, people will choose worse performing products as long as they satisfy some other desire they find is more worthwhile, such as people who prefer softer (generally slower ball speed) golf balls.

But to your point, we already have that, we've been at the limit for a while, the sky isn't falling anywhere these ruling bodies say it is, and then they use the data as a cudgel to force their personal opinions on a game that cost everyone else money except them.

But more to my point, all those other competing sports work together to agree with the rules instead of coming to an impasse and having everything forced on them. When the NFL changed the rules on head-first tackling, the reasoning behind it was based on repeatable science from health experts not even connected to the sport and player safety and the player's association voted together to adopt that change.

But, let's say that some equipment did have some rulings dropped except some general guidelines such as head size, weight, ball size, whatever. To make a better ball, you need better materials engineering. It still needs to spin not too much and not too little for proper aerodynamic flight, and whatever spin profile you use, will directly translate into performance around the green and on approach. That doesn't even still make it my preferred choice as a golfer, because it could spin too much for me, feel too 'clicky' or not flight or roll around the green that I like. Everyone already does that, so who cares.

I don't disagree.  The rollback is "solving" a non issue in my opinion. 

I think just about everyone can agree on that and for the most part in the 80 pages has sorted out. 

At this point it may or may not happen and the manufacturers may/may not sue and a lot of unknowns.  

What I do know, is for the next 6 years I'm going to play golf with the ability that I have/can and enjoy it.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

51 minutes ago, Ben_Howell34 said:

Also the notion that we play the same ball as the pros is really a fallacy. They all get their equipment tweaked and changed to their preferences. And right now there are limits on the golf ball. So I just don’t get the fuss on this. 

Again this is just wrong. The balls the pros play are to the same specs that the retail balls are. They are the same makeup and have to meet the conforming specs per the ODS. You can see that on the conforming list of equipment. Pro’s aren’t getting some magic ball. The prototypes they play lead to what comes in future releases of retail balls. See the articles about left dash and left dot prov1 line.

 

18 minutes ago, Josh Parker said:

Why wouldn't you want equipment to be maxed out at a point?

I'm not for the rollback or bifurcation but I don't mind limits on equipment to help level the playing field to a certain degree.

Yes, the ones that can afford lessons, nutritionists, etc have an advantage, but look at just about any sport and they have certain limitations that they all have to follow.  

 

We have limits on what the equipment can do, its size, weight, etc. what’s not capped is how they get there, whether it’s the use of AI, materials used in aerospace, the manufacturing process.

Just like there isn’t one ball on the market there isn’t one club either. It’s why some people get along with one brand and not another. The designs are different enough that they perform differently for each golfer. 

[Josh Parker]

1 minute ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

We have limits on what the equipment can do, its size, weight, etc. what’s not capped is how they get there, whether it’s the use of AI, materials used in aerospace, the manufacturing process.

Just like there isn’t one ball on the market there isn’t one club either. It’s why some people get along with one brand and not another. The designs are different enough that they perform differently for each golfer. 

Oh I understand that and all for it. 

[fixyurdivot]

46 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

But to your point, we already have that, we've been at the limit for a while, the sky isn't falling anywhere these ruling bodies say it is, and then they use the data as a cudgel to force their personal opinions on a game that cost everyone else money except them.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

You know, maybe the USGA and the OEM's are in collusion.  One taketh away and the other offers the latest technology to get it back.

[BigBoiGolf]

9 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

You know, maybe the USGA and the OEM's are in collusion.  One taketh away and the other offers the latest technology to get it back.

In the factories of Acushnet, in the moulds of Ball Plant 3, the Dark Lord Dean Snell forged in secret a master Ball, to control all others. And into this Ball he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all golf tournaments. One Ball to rule them all.

[HikingMike]

I just came across this thread and poll. I'll wade in cautiously with my 2 cents. I have not read all 76 pages, just the last 5 or 6. Don't bite my head off please, lol. I know this is one of those topics that can lead to some intensity.

I am in favor of reducing distance a bit due to the effect on how the game is played, and so that pro events (and to a lesser extent we all) don't have to modify courses more or build all new courses. 

I've heard that come up a lot with people saying we should build new courses. But to me, dumping most of the existing courses would be a huge reduction in value for the game and the pro events. No way they want to just wipe away that value. By the way it may just be newer and younger players saying that, I'm not sure. But I've definitely heard "why do we need to account for the 2 courses that were built hundreds of years ago?". Well it's definitely not just 2 courses with name recognition that would need to be modified, and have been modified. I've also heard something like "we should make new stadium type courses that are built specifically with pros in mind and they can play a circuit tournaments at those". I'm not a fan of that.

It's interesting if the data shows courses have not actually been lengthened. They probably should be if average driving distance is increased and there is no equipment change. So which is it? Has average driving distance increased or not? And if pro events are trying to get more roll-out on drives hitting the fairway - hmm, great, that's not helping then. 

I have heard some people worried about this distance issue just getting bigger and bigger long into the future. But I think there is a human limit there so we don't have to worry too much about that. The average may still increase for a while but there is a human limit to individual golfers. The next factor there would just be people getting taller. That is happening, but much more slowly, haha.

I'm hearing these very diverse opinions on Reddit, btw. I imagine this MGS forum is more well informed, but there are certainly all kinds of people there.

Let me also add that it's important to play the right tee and to have the right choice of tees at the courses. I know some courses that need to make an adjustment there for sure.

Now there is an argument that the game is changing/changed and to just go with it. Nothing wrong with that stance, but I just would prefer to limit the change. I know it has already changed a ton going back 100 years or 50 years or something, and that other sports change over time too. But I think we really lose something with increased distance off the tee, the big difference tee to green, and I don't like it. That's my opinion of course. I would prefer people, pros, myself use more clubs and skills than the driver and wedges. 

For the question about how to reduce distance... I don't know, but the ball is probably the best way to go about it. I think it's crazy we have 460cc driver heads. When I played in high school, I think my Lynx driver was less than 250cc. I know the Big Bertha Warbird I played at some point was 250cc. But rolling back clubs would not be easy.

I will say that I would prefer in this change that shorter hitters notice less distance loss. The longest hitters will stay the longest hitters, but they will be a little closer to the shorter hitters. And the longer hitters will be less likely to hit over/through obstacles than before and have slightly longer second shots than before. 

I actually haven't watched golf hardly at all in a long time. But I do still care about pro golf. So that covers my answer to the second poll question.

As for bifurcation - I don't know. I'm ok with either I guess. I don't feel the need to have the same equipment. It is neat though. I see both sides and really don't know which I prefer. I definitely know which the big equipment manufacturers prefer.

There was some talk about competition and who is playing match play or whatever. I think I played match play a couple times while in high school, and I liked it as a change. But since then, I haven't played match play at all. I also haven't known any other local league to play match play. They may be out there though. Everything is team stroke play league and fundraising scramble tournaments basically.

[Ben_Howell34]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Again this is just wrong. The balls the pros play are to the same specs that the retail balls are. They are the same makeup and have to meet the conforming specs per the ODS. You can see that on the conforming list of equipment. Pro’s aren’t getting some magic ball. The prototypes they play lead to what comes in future releases of retail balls. See the articles about left dash and left dot prov1 line.

 

We have limits on what the equipment can do, its size, weight, etc. what’s not capped is how they get there, whether it’s the use of AI, materials used in aerospace, the manufacturing process.

Just like there isn’t one ball on the market there isn’t one club either. It’s why some people get along with one brand and not another. The designs are different enough that they perform differently for each golfer. 

Yeah, so they aren’t playing the same ball as us because those were not out yet. We eventually have access to those but they are on the cutting edge all the time. They also have unlimited supply to brand new balls without being in X condition, etc. I guess I should not have said tweak as they don’t just get to say “take X off and add Y” but they do have some say in the ball as I understand it (could be wrong). 
 

Again, I just don’t understand the issue here. Sports change equipment all the time based on how the sport has changed. Think lowering the mound in 1969. There will not be a large % of the golfing population quit because they lost 7 yards off their drives. I’m not saying this will “make golf great again” (I personally love the game now) but if they don’t change something I do think it will get out of hand on the pro level. By the time this supposedly goes into effect these pros will probably be hitting these drives to the same distance they are now with the slower ball. 

[cksurfdude]

On 12/7/2023 at 6:58 PM, MattWillGolf said:

On the Fried Eggs Golf Podcast the they interviewed Mike Whan and Thomas Pagel from the USGA. They commented that they looked at clubs but it was too problematic. They feared the driver would lead to 3 woods, then hybrids etc. They don’t want to go down that road.

 

That's curious.

The USGA official announcement on Dec 6 included the following, that I quote from verbatim...

...

"In addition to the new ball-testing conditions, the governing bodies will:

• Expand the testing approach to better detect ‘Driver Creep,’ which can result in drivers exceeding the limits set out in the Equipment Rules. This is a change in the testing methodology for submitted drivers, to identify and proactively address driver models that are within current tolerance levels and have Characteristic Time (CT) values that are more likely to exceed the limit through regular use.

• Continue to monitor drivers and explore possible additional options related to distance. Specifically, we will research the forgiveness of drivers and how they perform with off-center hits. This is an ongoing review and we will seek input from and continue to work with the industry, including manufacturers, to identify driver design features that can be regulated as a means to reward center impact position hits versus mis-hits."

https://mediacenter.usga.org/press-releases?item=123053

(*highlighted emphasis mine)

...

So. The way I read this ...

1. Drivers that have been hit enough times may later become non-conforming??? 

2. Driver faces may become deemed too forgiving??? 

So. While the USGA states...

"Impact on recreational game kept to an absolute minimum"

..yet they still plan on...

1 taking away .. let's just call it for now .. 5 yards from your drives;

PLUS

2. they're also considering making your driver face LESS forgiving (ie. on off center hits which is most of the time for most of us mere morals)

Hmmm.

 

[GaDawg]

On 12/6/2023 at 1:59 PM, Bosox04 said:

I hear the USGA is pushing hard for the return of Sans a Belt slacks, too.

[storm319]

7 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

More testing with “elite” golfers and a prototype ball from the USGA. Now I don’t know who made the ball or how long they’ve been working on it, my guess would be Bridgestone based on them saying they would make a rolled back ball if there was a decision to go that way. My guess would be that they have been working on it since either the mlr proposal or before that to have been able to make tweaks to make it efficient and keep the distance loss to the 8-15 yards for the 115+ swing speeds. 2-3 clubs shorter isn’t quite the 8-15 yards and if we push that down to the amateur it’s going to be more than the 5-7 yards for lpga/let and 3-5 for your regular amateur male golfer.

unfortunately we don’t have any input on feel and sound which play a role in ball choice 

https://scoregolf.com/news-story/canadian-tour-players-serve-as-lab-rats/

 

Here is the actual blog post from Geoff Shackelford that the link was referencing (keep in mind that this pilot was in 2010).

https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2010/8/19/feedback-from-usgas-prototype-ball-testing-event.html

“The unmarked ball, described by both sources as having a shallow, odd dimple pattern with "a lot of flat surfacing," typically went about 20 yards shorter with the best hit drives.”

“The ball did not spin much and flew unusually straight, as well as on a lower trajectory according to both sources.”

“The players who enjoyed their experience said their irons flew about one club shorter, which, combined with the distance off the tee lost, meant 2-3 clubs more into greens.”

“One player reported that the ball was made by Bridgestone.”

“The younger player who spoke to his peers said one reported that if he had to play such a ball he'd "probably quit golf."”

Edited December 12, 2023 by storm319

[Preeway]

2 minutes ago, storm319 said:

“The younger player who spoke to his peers said one reported that if he had to play such a ball he'd "probably quit golf."”

That's an easy statement to make in the heat of the moment. And if the train of thought was being forced to play the crappy balls instead of the btter balls that are available to everyone else, then yeah, I might consider quitting too. 

[ZackS]

I am going to stay out of my opinions on if there is a distance problem, what #’s are the real ones, bifurcation, etc. As even if I had something I thought new to add pretty sure there is nothing I could say that wouldn’t send this thread in the same circles it’s been in. All the above mentioned aside. My main thing and what I think has thrown gas on this fire is if you are going to do it. Just cap it where it’s at and don’t take what is already there. 

Edited December 12, 2023 by ZackS

[storm319]

7 minutes ago, Preeway said:

That's an easy statement to make in the heat of the moment. And if the train of thought was being forced to play the crappy balls instead of the btter balls that are available to everyone else, then yeah, I might consider quitting too. 

Agreed that talk is cheap, but if the change was relatively minimal, would that person have made that comment? Maybe, maybe not. But this begs the question, are the potential benefits of this specific rollback decision worth the potential risks for the ruling bodies?

[Preeway]

Just now, storm319 said:

Agreed that talk is cheap, but if the change was relatively minimal, would that person have made that comment? Maybe, maybe not. But this begs the question, are the potential benefits of this specific rollback decision worth the potential risks for the ruling bodies?

I go back to the context. That was a huge change and the kid knew there were better options still on the table. I expect ball makers to slowly change their balls to eventually become conforming rather than make a rapid change overnight. A gradual reduction of maybe 2 yards each year for 3-5 years would be much more palatable and marketable. Plus, they will have to go through a lot of trial and error in the R&D process anyway. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

I am in favor of reducing distance a bit due to the effect on how the game is played, and so that pro events (and to a lesser extent we all) don't have to modify courses more or build all new courses.

You should go back further because this talking point has been debunked.

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

It's interesting if the data shows courses have not actually been lengthened. They probably should be if average driving distance is increased and there is no equipment change. So which is it? Has average driving distance increased or not? And if pro events are trying to get more roll-out on drives hitting the fairway - hmm, great, that's not helping then. 

Average driving distance has gone up from 289 to 299 in the last 20 years because access to launch monitors helped optimize ball flight rather than relying on the eye test. Golfers are more athletic now and train better in the gym. You don’t have to lengthen. Courses because more people hit to 300 while the top end of distance hasn’t changed. People don’t like more pros hitting it further than their idols. Also the pga tour has chosen to keep the courses around the same length over the last 20 years because on the pro tour there isn’t a distance problem. It’s a problem created by the ruling bodies.

 

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

Now there is an argument that the game is changing/changed and to just go with it. Nothing wrong with that stance, but I just would prefer to limit the change. I know it has already changed a ton going back 100 years or 50 years or something, and that other sports change over time too. But I think we really lose something with increased distance off the tee, the big difference tee to green, and I don't like it. That's my opinion of course. I would prefer people, pros, myself use more clubs and skills than the driver and wedges. 

The strokes gained cat is out of the bag and it’s not going back in. Distance will always be a premium going forward and the further they lengthen courses or reduce distance the faster the pros will get. The ones that can’t will be off the tour. Sasho Mackenzie has explained this and the ruling bodies have chosen not to talk with him about it. Go check out the data, pros use more than a wedge or mid irons when they play. If they didn’t then they are just punishing their caddies by making them carry a full bag

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

I will say that I would prefer in this change that shorter hitters notice less distance loss. The longest hitters will stay the longest hitters, but they will be a little closer to the shorter hitters. And the longer hitters will be less likely to hit over/through obstacles than before and have slightly longer second shots than before. 

 Nope. Broadie has published data on this when the ball is shortened or thru a club change that reduce distance it’s the same as lengthening courses and it gives the longer hitter the strokes gained advantage and what it does is create more golfers who hit farther because distance is now a bigger advantage 

1 hour ago, Ben_Howell34 said:

Yeah, so they aren’t playing the same ball as us because those were not out yet. We eventually have access to those but they are on the cutting edge all the time. They also have unlimited supply to brand new balls without being in X condition, etc. I guess I should not have said tweak as they don’t just get to say “take X off and add Y” but they do have some say in the ball as I understand it (could be wrong). 
 

Again, I just don’t understand the issue here. Sports change equipment all the time based on how the sport has changed. Think lowering the mound in 1969. There will not be a large % of the golfing population quit because they lost 7 yards off their drives. I’m not saying this will “make golf great again” (I personally love the game now) but if they don’t change something I do think it will get out of hand on the pro level. By the time this supposedly goes into effect these pros will probably be hitting these drives to the same distance they are now with the slower ball. 

It’s the same ball makeup as what’s at retail that you and the rest of us can. Hy, they match the same specs. There is no difference. 
 

In a poll after the announcement 6% of golfers said they would quit. That is a lot and not good for the sport. The sport is in a great place and you don’t change the game and risk making it worse.

baseball lowered the mound because of dominant pitchers and to give the hitters a chance and to increase the offense.

golf hasn’t gotten out of hand at the pro level. Max distance is the same as it was in 2003 and average distance is up only 10 yards in the last 20 years. Scoring Verage is basically unchanged in that time.

So far the USGA hasn’t proved that 7 yards will be the distance loss. Their own testing shows an 11 yard loss on a 221 yard drive. Srixon testing shows 30+ yards for their pros and the non pros weren’t happy with the results either 

Edited December 12, 2023 by RickyBobby_PR

[GaDawg]

On 12/7/2023 at 6:37 PM, Fred Mitchell said:

Not being a smart ass but seriously have you ever met a redneck? People that have never worked out or practiced in their life will become machines so they can make the most noise.

I resent you talking about me.

Edited December 12, 2023 by GaDawg

[racingdaly]

36 minutes ago, cksurfdude said:

So. The way I read this ...

1. Drivers that have been hit enough times may later become non-conforming??? 

Correct, the face gets thinner over time and the CT can exceed the legal limit, particularly when equipment is designed to the absolute limit and doesn't have far to go to become non-conforming. This additional testing they said was at the request of OEMs and players, who were concerned about unknowingly having a now non-conforming driver in the bag during an on-site test and having to swap out their driver on the Tuesday of a tournament week. Rory talked about it earlier this year saying he had to switch drivers because he was concerned his old one was getting "too hot."  There will be some additional scrutiny on equipment that comes in over the legal limit but within the margin of error (so technically legal but at the very edge) and studies done on the effect of striking the ball on CT over time.

 

36 minutes ago, cksurfdude said:

2. Driver faces may become deemed too forgiving??? 

They have been.  There's basically no distance penalty for pros on off-center hits. The whole premise is that skill (such as hitting the center of the face) should be rewarded. As is (as strokes gained data shows) there's no risk in the risk-reward of just swinging out of your shoes. Hit it as far as possible and figure it out later.  They could accomplish this with super narrow fairways and crazy rough but then you're talking about changing tons of courses and that would screw amateurs over far more than anything else.  They also would be looking to do this as an MLR so it only limits equipment for elite players/pros and has no impact on us average players. Still, they tried that with the ball, and the players and OEMs bitched and moaned about it and said they wouldn't adopt it so they were left with no choice but to roll back for all.

I haven't listened to their Fried Egg interview but they were also on No Laying Up and I'm sure covered many of the same points. The interview is well worth a listen to better understand what actual impact will be expected (for instance a large % of balls currently on the market already conform to the new standards so AMs would see no change), why distance is a problem, and what they're trying to do.

[BigBoiGolf]

14 minutes ago, racingdaly said:

Correct, the face gets thinner over time and the CT can exceed the legal limit, particularly when equipment is designed to the absolute limit and doesn't have far to go to become non-conforming. This additional testing they said was at the request of OEMs and players, who were concerned about unknowingly having a now non-conforming driver in the bag during an on-site test and having to swap out their driver on the Tuesday of a tournament week. Rory talked about it earlier this year saying he had to switch drivers because he was concerned his old one was getting "too hot."  There will be some additional scrutiny on equipment that comes in over the legal limit but within the margin of error (so technically legal but at the very edge) and studies done on the effect of striking the ball on CT over time.

 

They have been.  There's basically no distance penalty for pros on off-center hits. The whole premise is that skill (such as hitting the center of the face) should be rewarded. As is (as strokes gained data shows) there's no risk in the risk-reward of just swinging out of your shoes. Hit it as far as possible and figure it out later.  They could accomplish this with super narrow fairways and crazy rough but then you're talking about changing tons of courses and that would screw amateurs over far more than anything else.  They also would be looking to do this as an MLR so it only limits equipment for elite players/pros and has no impact on us average players. Still, they tried that with the ball, and the players and OEMs bitched and moaned about it and said they wouldn't adopt it so they were left with no choice but to roll back for all.

I haven't listened to their Fried Egg interview but they were also on No Laying Up and I'm sure covered many of the same points. The interview is well worth a listen to better understand what actual impact will be expected (for instance a large % of balls currently on the market already conform to the new standards so AMs would see no change), why distance is a problem, and what they're trying to do.

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.

Edited December 12, 2023 by BigBoiGolf