USGA and R&A Announce golf ball rollback for everyone!?!?!

[NoCalHack]

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-ra-rollback-announcement-december-2023
 

 

Shocking. This is honestly what I thought should happen all along. I’m amazed they did it. 

[ChaosTheory]

As a short hitter, I hope balls will be developed which meet the standard but aren’t any shorter at say 90 mph swing speed.

[larrybud]

37 minutes ago, Snowman9000 said:

As a short hitter, I hope balls will be developed which meet the standard but aren’t any shorter at say 90 mph swing speed.

Everyone will lose the same %, on ALL shots.

 

I think the solution for golf is to bifurcate from the USGA/R&A.

[jvincent]

10 minutes ago, larrybud said:

Everyone will lose the same %, on ALL shots.

 

I think the solution for golf is to bifurcate from the USGA/R&A.

 

No. That is not how the physics of drag work. Drag is proportional to the square of speed, i.e. the faster a ball travels the more drag it experiences.

 

Long hitters will lose more, as a percentage, of their distance.

[My2Dogs]

14 minutes ago, larrybud said:

Everyone will lose the same %, on ALL shots.

 

I think the solution for golf is to bifurcate from the USGA/R&A.

I think bifurcation is the way to go.  The older players are really going to be hurt moving forward.  I played with a guy over the weekend 66 yo.  I can’t imagine him losing another 20 yards off the tee and even then his next shot will be longer as he won’t be able to use the same club.  He was already hitting woods into par 4’s playing from the whites.  

[larrybud]

1 minute ago, jvincent said:

 

No. That is not how the physics of drag work. Drag is proportional to the square of speed, i.e. the faster a ball travels the more drag it experiences.

 

Long hitters will lose more, as a percentage, of their distance.

Quote

The effect on distance for recreational players will likely be less, but could be proportional. So that if a tour player loses five percent (or 15 yards on a 300-yard drive), then a recreational player might lose that same five percent on a 225-yard drive (or roughly 11 yards). And the same golfer likely would lose a similar percentage on his or her approach shots.

 

COR of the ball is linear.

 

[larrybud]

2 minutes ago, My2Dogs said:

I think bifurcation is the way to go.  The older players are really going to be hurt moving forward.  I played with a guy over the weekend 66 yo.  I can’t imagine him losing another 20 yards off the tee and even then his next shot will be longer as he won’t be able to use the same club.  He was already hitting woods into par 4’s playing from the whites.  

 

No, I don't mean bifurcation of pros and ams. I mean to ditch the USGA altogether. I would require manufacturers to get together and form their own set of rules. Tell them to pound sand. The PGA Tour and likes can make their own rules. Why exactly do we need the usga/r&a?

[My2Dogs]

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

 

No, I don't mean bifurcation of pros and ams. I mean to ditch the USGA altogether. I would require manufacturers to get together and form their own set of rules. Tell them to pound sand. The PGA Tour and likes can make their own rules. Why exactly do we need the usga/r&a?

Problem will be that ball manufacturers and club OEM’s will make balls and equipment that meet the USGA and R&A standards.  They aren’t going to make illegal clubs.  You can see it now will the groove rule.  Only small companies make these “illegal” clubs and it’s a very small market.  I don’t think any of the big companies will go rogue. 

Edited December 2, 2023 by My2Dogs

[jvincent]

7 minutes ago, larrybud said:

COR of the ball is linear.

 

 

The Golf Digest article/quote simply wrong.

 

Drag is what limits distance for a given launch velocity, ignoring the secondary influences of spin/lift for now.

 

Golf ball compression influences initial velocity. And in most cases high speed players lose more distance with softer golf balls as well due to over compression.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by jvincent

[larrybud]

16 minutes ago, jvincent said:

 

The Golf Digest article/quote simply wrong.

 

Drag is what limits distance for a given launch velocity, ignoring the secondary influences of spin/lift for now.

 

Golf ball compression influences initial velocity. And in most cases high speed players lose more distance with softer golf balls as well due to over compression.

 

The roll back affects initial ball velocity. If initial ball velocity is down 5% due to the rollback, the distance the ball goes is nearly linearly reduced. True, it might be 5% less at 180 mph ball speed and 4.5% less at 150 ball speed, but in these cases, the effect of drag as a percent of distance reduction is negligible.  You can prove that to yourself with the flightscope shot optimizer.

For example, typical numbers, 180mph ball speed vs 171mph ball speed (5% reduction) has a carry distance decrease of 6%.

For 150 mph ball speed vs 143 mph, it's 6.4% decrease in carry distance.  I'm sure those can be tweaked with a bit of launch angle and spin changes, but for the most part, the distance change is linear.
 

Edited December 2, 2023 by larrybud

[jvincent]

6 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

The roll back affects initial ball velocity. If initial ball velocity is down 5% due to the rollback, the distance the ball goes is nearly linearly reduced. True, it might be 5% less at 180 mph ball speed and 4.5% less at 150 ball speed, but in these cases, the effect of drag as a percent of distance reduction is negligible.  You can prove that to yourself with the flightscope shot optimizer.

For example, typical numbers, 180mph ball speed vs 171mph ball speed (5% reduction) has a carry distance decrease of 6%.

For 150 mph ball speed vs 143 mph, it's 6.4% decrease in carry distance.  I'm sure those can be tweaked with a bit of launch angle and spin changes, but for the most part, the distance change is linear.
 

 

First off, they haven't published what the actual new test procedure will be yet. It's all still speculation.

 

The Flightscope numbers are based on the current drag parameters of the ball.

 

The original MLR proposal did not alter the initial launch velocity of the ball. It was 100% based on altering the drag properties so it's a pretty good guess that whatever the new procedure is, it will be drag based.

[AmateurAmateur]

Wrx should be the new governing body of the game. Git rid of all the equipment restrictions. Let's see how low we really can go.

[TheBiles]

Yeah, let’s punish all golfers to solve a make-believe problem that effects maybe 500 professionals. Woo!

[NoCalHack]

I think it’s overblown how much it affects the average amateur. The courses will play a bit longer. Tees will just move up.  The game will fundamentally stay the same. 
 

I have no issue with them rolling it back for pros and elite amateurs only. But ball companies and PGA were the ones who revolted here and kept that from happening.  PGA tours big issue was always with bifurcation not the fact the ball is shorter. It affects all pros proportionally. Pros are understandably nervous but most understand that. But bifurcation would kill money invested into the game. Kill endorsements and advertising. Essentially decimate a big part of the golf industry and golf economy. Titleist and callaway have little incentive to pay players to endorse their product if they can’t sell the same ball to the consumer. You can’t claim to be the number 1 ball on tour and sell another ball. Once the bifurcation thing was dropped the PGA tour folded.

 

The USGA and R and A have no financial interest in this at all. Agree with them or not, they are doing what they think is better for the game. 
 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by NoCalHack

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

3 hours ago, jvincent said:

 

No. That is not how the physics of drag work. Drag is proportional to the square of speed, i.e. the faster a ball travels the more drag it experiences.

 

Long hitters will lose more, as a percentage, of their distance.

True.  But going from 120 to 127, (right?) Isn't going to do a damn thing beyond irritate OEM ball manufacturers.  It's not going to change the driver-wedge fest that currently exists on Tour, and it's not going to safeguard any courses.

 

LOL, did we not just see Fitzy go 380 at the Hero on a par-4?

[Edaw68]

Based on the survey, any ball manufacturer that simply disregards the USGA would probably have a profitable market share. Which could easily lead to other manufacturers also disregarding the USGA. 
 

I think a pretty large majority of casual non -WRX players likely don’t know or care if their ball is conforming. Even if the PGA of America goes along and non conforming balls aren’t stocked at on course pro shops, how about Walmart, Dicks, whatever? 
 

If they USGA insists on pushing a rule no one follows, they will no longer be the rule makers.

[Double Mocha Man]

I just placed my order for three decades worth of today's Pro V-1's.  

[PJE]

2 hours ago, NoCalHack said:

 

The USGA and R and A have no financial interest in this at all. Agree with them or not, they are doing what they think is better for the game. 
 

 

F’ em. 2030 is a long time. I hope this is the death knell of these self appointed governors of the game 

[elwhippy]

This is down to money and pressure from CLUB makers. The correct option would be to reduce the size of driver heads. Go back to 350cc. Perfectly playable and more workable for the better player. But, club makers would need to spend far more re-tooling and redesigning clubs than making changes to the ball. Can you imagine the marketing...New TM 350....harder to hit, less accurate and guaranteed not to improve your game. Plus how would they get all the multi material and moveable weight guffage into a smaller driver. The ball is the easy option. 

[larrybud]

After telling everybody for the last 20 years to "play it forward" and move up a tee box, they just effectively moved everybody back a tee box. Great idea.

 

To those who think this doesn't affect amateurs, I say bullocks. The whole mantra of the rollback has been that distance is affecting courses EVERYWHERE because they are pressured to lengthen. The USGA even says this in their proposal:

 

Quote

"The findings of extensive research by the governing bodies into distance (along with the supporting research and data) were set out within the Distance Insights report into the Implications of Hitting Distance in February 2020 under two key themes: the pressure on courses to continue to lengthen and ensuring that distance did not become predominant in the balance of skills required in golf.

The report also found that the overall trend of golf courses becoming longer has adverse consequences, including by increasing the cost and time to play, limiting the advancement of sustainability efforts and reducing the challenge of courses – in some cases creating a risk of them becoming obsolete."

 

Sorry guys, can't have it both ways. Either the general public is hitting it too long, or they aren't. If they aren't (which the "play it forward" marketing implies they aren't), then there's no problem. If they are hitting it too far, then the rollback will obviously be aimed at a linear reduction across the board.

Edited December 2, 2023 by larrybud

[caniac6]

10 hours ago, My2Dogs said:

I think bifurcation is the way to go.  The older players are really going to be hurt moving forward.  I played with a guy over the weekend 66 yo.  I can’t imagine him losing another 20 yards off the tee and even then his next shot will be longer as he won’t be able to use the same club.  He was already hitting woods into par 4’s playing from the whites.  

He’ll have to move to the golds or reds to keep enjoying the game. I know that sounds harsh but the usga doesn’t really care about him as long as pros can still play courses that were built hundreds of years ago in Scotland. I hope Ford brings back the model T so we can drive 35 on the interstate.

[Edsland]

The best roll back is father time, every year the throttle slows a bit. Im 69 and I dont need an organization to speed up the inevitable. 

[jvincent]

8 hours ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

True.  But going from 120 to 127, (right?) Isn't going to do a damn thing beyond irritate OEM ball manufacturers.  It's not going to change the driver-wedge fest that currently exists on Tour, and it's not going to safeguard any courses.

 

LOL, did we not just see Fitzy go 380 at the Hero on a par-4?

 

I guess we'll have to wait and see what they come up with.

 

I've been saying for many years that the USGA/R&A could have taken a lot less heat if when they changed the test conditions that they also increased the max distance from what it is today.

 

While it would have still been a rollback in practical terms the PR battle would have been a lot easier because they could have said that they were actually increasing the maximum distance.

 

[caniac6]

50 minutes ago, Edsland said:

The best roll back is father time, every year the throttle slows a bit. Im 69 and I dont need an organization to speed up the inevitable. 

I, and the guys I play with are in the same boat. 

[dgarland]

Here's the article: https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-ra-rollback-announcement-december-2023

 

Making the ball shorter will do more to shrink the game than anything they could possibly do.  This is absolute lunacy.  If you read the article there is a part that says this isn't for recrational golfers but if that's the case I have no idea whe the word "universal" is used in the headline.  Thoughts?

Edited December 2, 2023 by dgarland

[Louis_Posture]

Distance is not a problem.

What difference does it make if Dustin Johnson is hitting a wedge into a hole that 60 years ago Byron Nelson hit a 5-iron?

What difference does it make if players shoot 58 instead of 68?

The USGA and R&A are trying to find a problem where there is none.

[Greenie]

7 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I just placed my order for three decades worth of today's Pro V-1's.  

 

 lol...I was thinking about that. I already probably have enough balls to last me my lifetime. The only reason I don't have more is my thinking I don't want to stock up to much because I know when that new model comes out and I hit it a little farther I going to want to play it. That thought keeps me in check to a degree. Now that new model will be not as long?

 

How is this going to affect the new and used ball market before the changeover. Are people going to stock up before the changeover pushing the prices to crazy highs? Or are the prices going to become dirt cheap because no one will want the longer balls because they want to play by the rules..Yea right!

 

I am going to find it hard to want to by a new model that doesn't go as far. Especially with the amount of balls I already have.

[dgarland]

If you were charged with devising a plan to destroy the game of golf... you couldn't come up with anything better than this.  Great job governing bodies of golf.  You all should be banished to the far reaches of the earth.  

[Greenie]

1 hour ago, Edsland said:

The best roll back is father time, every year the throttle slows a bit. Im 69 and I dont need an organization to speed up the inevitable. 

 

I agree with you.

 

I was hoping they would come out with a senior ball. A ball that goes farther for us distance challenged people.

 

The best thing my group did was to move up to the senior tees. It brought fun back into the game. I can see a tipping point where being distance challenged may take the fun out of it. When we played the whites one of our guys had to hit driver on the par 3's and on some of them he had no chance of getting on.. The funny thing was he was the hold out on moving up. When I get to I'm hitting a driver on the par 3's golf may not be fun for me anymore.

[dgarland]

If you think rolling back the golf ball is dumb (which it is) let the governing bodies know about it.  Below are links so you can voice your concerns.

 

USGA Equipment Standards: testcenter@usga.org

 

R & A Comments Page:  https://shop.randa.org/contactus