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

[phizzy30]

1 hour ago, RCGA said:

 

What difference does it make if your 7i goes 150y with the current ball or 143y with the rollback ball if you can't even make good contact? A 10hcp probably has a 20y dispersion window; they're not even going to notice. 

Buy some loft jacked irons if it really bothers you.

I'm pretty sure you're in the minority here who wants the rollback to happen.  Also, that 7 yard gap could mean the difference of being on the green putting for birdie or being in the bunker looking at a fried egg and increasing the chances of bogey or worse.  Not all of us want jacked lofts.

Edited December 3, 2023 by phizzy30

[phizzy30]

Just now, NRJyzr said:

 

Instead of the ball, they should have looked at the clubs, pro only.  Reduce driver MOI cap by 50% at minimum.

 

Remember how almost no one used the SLDR on tour, because they couldn't control it?  MOI was under in the low to mid 3000s.

 

Clubhead size could be a thing also, but I think attacking MOI at the pro level could be a bit more effective.  With no data to support it, of course; the best kind of theory.    LOL

 

I agree.  I don't have a real issue with the rollback whether ball or equipment being imposed on the pros.  Don't punish us ams as the game is hard enough as it is. 

[hammergolf]

2 hours ago, dgarland said:

Rollbacks give the longer hitters a bigger advantage.  Don't belive me, think about this...

 

Player A drives it 330 and has 170 in to a 500 yard hole.  If you drive it 330 you're probably hitting 8 iron or so from 170.  Player B dives it 300 and has 200 yards into the same hole.  That's likely a 5 iron or so if he has 200 left.  

 

Now let's reduce both of them by 10%

 

Player A now drives it 297 and has 203 left.  WIth this new ball he's probably got 4 or 5 iron from 200 out.  Player B now hits it 270 and has 230 in.  That's gonna be a fairway wood of some sort.  

 

That means that it used to be a 5 iron vs and 8 iron on the approach.  After the rollback it's a fairway wood vs a 4 or 5 iron.  You're not going to keep up hitting fairway woods vs mid and long irons.  

In conclusion...   there is no distance problem.  Some players are going to hit it farther than others.  Leave the game alone.  

You’re exactly correct. This is only going to give longer hitters an even bigger advantage. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by hammergolf

[PuffyC]

OEMs sell clubs to ams almost primarily based on distance so to say distance doesn’t matter is just not reality. It’s the whole reason we have 36 degree 9 irons but carry 4 different wedges. If they can design a magic ball that takes X% off every pro swing but leaves ams unchanged then that’s awesome, otherwise everyone who isn’t a male pro golfer will suffer and that’s very much not good for the game.

[hammergolf]

3 minutes ago, phizzy30 said:

I agree.  I don't have a real issue with the rollback whether ball or equipment being imposed on the pros.  Don't punish us ams as the game is hard enough as it is. 

Exactly, just regulate the pros and elite amateurs. However, the ignorance that is the usga makes another bonehead decision by punishing 98% of golfers for what 2% of golfers can do. 

[Double Mocha Man]

4 hours ago, HeadCovered said:

Leave the ball alone!!!

So much easier to GROW the GRASS everywhere, FFS.

Stop cutting the fairways like the greens. Make the rough 3 inches after the 2nd cut, and make that the Rule. 

Also, bring back more OBs and Hazards. It would quicken the pace when players know they can't just go walk into the woods looking for their balls when it's OB, they will hit their Provisional, make a quick look and move on, as opposed to finding the ball, in play, and then deciding for ever to decide to play it and trying to hit it and hacking it out 4 times just to get it back out

Simples! 

 

I'm with you on the ball.  But you just made a 5 hour muni round a 6 hour muni round.

[Double Mocha Man]

3 hours ago, hammergolf said:

Exactly, just regulate the pros and elite amateurs. However, the ignorance that is the usga makes another bonehead decision by punishing 98% of golfers for what 2% of golfers can do. 

 

Someone, much earlier, suggested the "rollback" ball for pro tournaments on short courses.  Seems unfair but if a pro knows he's playing in that tournament then get in some practice with the short ball and gain an advantage.

[2bGood]

4 hours ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

Letting your customers think they can easily carry on without your services, USGA, is playing with fire as a business.  No reason the Tour itself, or the PGA of America, couldn't take on the regulatory mantle if they wanted to.  They don't want to because currently, it's expensive, the USGA is good enough, so why mess with it?  That can change.

 

The interesting thing is the ROG's are more unified now then it ever has been, so it is the R&A and the USGA in on this one. Zero change the PGA of America takes this on. The Tour's could, but I don't realistically see that happening any time soon. 

 

3 hours ago, hammergolf said:

The rollback is 15%, not 5%…..

 

Everything I have read says 5%. Where are you getting 15% from?

 

3 hours ago, PuffyC said:

 If they can design a magic ball that takes X% off every pro swing but leaves ams unchanged then that’s awesome, otherwise everyone who isn’t a male pro golfer will suffer and that’s very much not good for the game.

They can do this. I am really not sure why this would not be the solution. 

[jvincent]

6 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I played around with the software 'Trajectoware' . Dave Tutleman seems to be kind of the 'keeper' of this software. Its input is launch conditions of either the clubhead or the ball and it calculates/estimates carry distance, etc. 

 

So I took some 'typical' (from what I know) big hitter numbers of 180 mph ballspeed, 10 degree launch angle, and 2500 rpm speed and then reduced the ball speed 5%. The loss of distance is 6.1% (carry) per this software. 301 yard carry -> 283 yards.

 

Then I took some 'old man numbers' of 120 mph ball speed, 12 degree launch angle, and 3000 rpm spin (I know lots of old, former single digit handicap guys who cannot achieve even this ballspeed). These guys would lose 8.8% in carry distance with a 5% ballspeed reduction. 178 yard carry -> 162 yards. 

 

That 16 yard loss is going to hit the short guys WAY more than the 18 yards lost by the big guys. 

 

dave

 

The current, and presumably new, ball tests do NOT regulate ball speed. They regulate distance based on the drag/lift of the ball when hit with a driver at a specific speed.

 

Trajectoware, and all the other estimators, use a "typical" aerodynamic model for the ball so the only thing you can adjust is speed/spin/launch.

 

Assuming the new rules don't put a limit on ball speed off the driver then the lower ball speed guys will not see a greater distance loss than the high speed guys. That's not how drag physics work.

[PuffyC]

10 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

They can do this. I am really not sure why this would not be the solution. 

Rory has already chimed in by saying the average am would lose 5-10 yards on their tee shot and that those 5-10 yards didn’t matter. Guess time will tell who’s right.

[jvincent]

7 minutes ago, jvincent said:

 

The current, and presumably new, ball tests do NOT regulate ball speed. They regulate distance based on the drag/lift of the ball when hit with a driver at a specific speed.

 

Trajectoware, and all the other estimators, use a "typical" aerodynamic model for the ball so the only thing you can adjust is speed/spin/launch.

 

Assuming the new rules don't put a limit on ball speed off the driver then the lower ball speed guys will not see a greater distance loss than the high speed guys. That's not how drag physics work.

 

Quoting myself, but assuming I didn't mess up my couch-math, a 15% increase in drag for a 180 mph ball speed translates to an 8% increase in drag for a 150 mph ball speed.

 

And the slow speed percentage drops the slower you get.

Edited December 4, 2023 by jvincent

[DLiver]

So if I'm reading this correctly, I'd be looking at a 5% reduction in distance. That doesn't sound like much, however on a 400 yard hole, I'd be looking at 2 extra clubs (400x5%=20 yards). Which means a 400 yard hole after the rollback would play like a 420 yard hole now. And I would see this kind of distance adjustment on every hole on the course. That's a big deal to me, which is not going to make the game more enjoyable for me.

[bekgolf]

1 minute ago, PuffyC said:

Rory has already chimed in by saying the average am would lose 5-10 yards on their tee shot and that those 5-10 yards didn’t matter. Guess time will tell who’s right.

 

How would anyone know?  We are all guessing and hoping for the best outcome.

 

I really wish there was test data with a 125mph robot on current balls.  It's been mentioned before and if the data was available we might be able to see that there are already conforming balls out there.  If so then we could extrapolate our predictions a little better and from the same page.

[RCGA]

28 minutes ago, DLiver said:

So if I'm reading this correctly, I'd be looking at a 5% reduction in distance. That doesn't sound like much, however on a 400 yard hole, I'd be looking at 2 extra clubs (400x5%=20 yards). Which means a 400 yard hole after the rollback would play like a 420 yard hole now. And I would see this kind of distance adjustment on every hole on the course. That's a big deal to me, which is not going to make the game more enjoyable for me.

 

• Move up a tee
• Spend the next 5 years speed training and working on your fitness
• Buy loft jack irons
• Use lighter shafts 
• Take lessons 

[HeadCovered]

1 hour ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

I'm with you on the ball.  But you just made a 5 hour muni round a 6 hour muni round.

Never used to be a problem 30 years ago. So I don’t see why it would be a problem now. 
The ball manufacturers would be happy as they would sell more balls 😂 

[ECgolf]

12 minutes ago, PuffyC said:

Rory has already chimed in by saying the average am would lose 5-10 yards on their tee shot and that those 5-10 yards didn’t matter. Guess time will tell who’s right.

Rory’s claim that amateur’s losing 10 yards on average wouldn’t matter is patently ridiculous. First of all, I’m pretty sure a significant percentage of amateurs who help sustain many courses (especially Monday through Friday) are seniors. They are already at the forward tees, so the “move up a box” claim doesn’t work for them. And for all of those claiming courses are going to create new tee boxes for seniors and ladies who are real short, or move their boxes up I am highly skeptical of that. Courses for years have not had adequate tee boxes for some ladies and seniors. Many of them are not gonna spend the money required to add more short tees. So, they will be out of luck if they lose 10 yards. My father in law is a decent senior. He knows how far he hits his clubs when he hits them well and struggles already to reach some par 4s in two from the forward tees hitting long hybrids or fairway woods. He will certainly notice 10 yards shorter. 
 

Second, for folks like me 10 handicap, carry my 7 iron around 150 on a good swing, hitting a 6 iron instead from 150 or a 5 iron from 160 will surely be noticeable. On some courses I can move up a tee and that is fine. But on some older courses I play there are only 3 sets of tees. Front, middle and back. I’ve always played middle tees on some (Tilden Park in Berkeley comes to mind). The front tees will be too short for me on many holes 5399 yards vs 5823), leaving the options as lose length and score worse from the whites or move up to reds which will make some holes feel shorter than they probably should be. And, there’s no way all these older munis are changing their tee boxes or adding more in between. 
 

Third, unlike me who is willing to move up a tee where it makes sense (I can think of a few courses I play with 5 tee boxes where moving up one likely would make them play the same for me), years of the mostly unsuccessful “play it forward” campaign shows that most men will not move forward to an appropriate length for them. That will undoubtedly lead to longer rounds because hitting one club longer into greens (or two) means less greens hit, which means more pitching, chipping and bunker shots to get onto greens that the player otherwise would have hit. That takes more time. 
 

And for those who argue that amateurs are too inconsistent to notice 10 yards, that is b.s. Sure we have a wide range off the tee or even with irons. I think many regular playing amateurs will notice when they catch one good but are still too far out to be comfortable (for me being 170 out is a whole different animal than being 160 out right now for example). Moreover, even if they don’t “notice” their drives are slightly shorter, they will notice that they are scoring consistently a bit higher. 
 

The bottom line here is that unless they are able to create a ball that is reduced distance for high swing speeds but flies the same for everyone else, they are creating a problem for most golfers with their “solution” to a problem for the likely less than 1% of elite in speed and ball striking. I fear that most regular rounds will be slower. The truth is there was a solution that avoids this problem with bifurcation. And the only reason they didn’t go that route is because the moneyed interests (manufacturers and tour pros) didn’t want it. They chose to make the game worse for the rest of us rather than say tough to the money train. Rory claiming we won’t notice is insulting and laughably wrong. Ok. Rant done. 

[ECgolf]

10 minutes ago, RCGA said:

 

• Move up a tee
• Spend the next 5 years speed training and working on your fitness
• Buy loft jack irons
• Use lighter shafts 
• Take lessons 

Other than move up a tee, the rest of these require additional investment of time or money at least one of which (if not both) are already challenges for most golfers. I already spend as much time as I can on the game and can’t sacrifice other things in my life to gain back what they want to take away. I will move up a tee where it makes sense if needed and feel fortunate to have that as an option unlike those already playing the front tees like my father in law, dad, and woman colleague who are already up there.

[Double Mocha Man]

49 minutes ago, PuffyC said:

Rory has already chimed in by saying the average am would lose 5-10 yards on their tee shot and that those 5-10 yards didn’t matter. Guess time will tell who’s right.

 

Hoping I'll be around to see Rory turn 70... and eat his words...

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

34 minutes ago, RCGA said:

 

• Move up a tee
• Spend the next 5 years speed training and working on your fitness
• Buy loft jack irons
• Use lighter shafts 
• Take lessons 

Exactly Grandpa and Susan.  Oh wait, you're already up at the closest tee.  See you on the squat rack, Gramps!

 

I don't normally respond in these pages with this kind of vitriol or ridicule.  I am tired of people though thoughtlessly making excuses to help the boards of 40 or so golf courses that host professional or elite amateur tournaments with the distance "problem" they uniquely suffer.  While completely glossing over that the latest solution will screw both their most reliable, faithful customers (senior men) as well as women.  Usually doing so in a condescending and, frankly, clueless manner.  

 

(This is not in the quote I cited, but I've read it here recently)  "5%?!  They won't even notice."  BS.  You would be, and so would I, angry as can be if you suddenly lost 5% off all your clubs' carry distance. I'd notice it immediately.  But these other people wouldn’t?  Give these people the courtesy of thinking they take their hobby as seriously as you do.

 

If distance is a problem, it's a pro problem.  It needs to be a pro solution.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Jayjay_theweim_guy

[RCGA]

10 minutes ago, ECgolf said:

Other than move up a tee, the rest of these require additional investment of time or money at least one of which (if not both) are already challenges for most golfers. I already spend as much time as I can on the game and can’t sacrifice other things in my life to gain back what they want to take away. 

 

That's amateur sports in a nutshell. 

 

I'm a middle aged guy with a family. But I'm not making those lame excuses when I have to compete against D1 college guys who golf every day with coaches, tackmans, custom equipment, and training facilities. 

[bekgolf]

27 minutes ago, RCGA said:

 

• Move up a tee
• Spend the next 5 years speed training and working on your fitness
• Buy loft jack irons
• Use lighter shafts 
• Take lessons 

 

Maybe you are correct, golf is just too easy as it is.  Golfers should work harder at it.  /sarcasm

 

It is very presumptuous of you to assume that those who would be affected by this rule aren't already working at their game. 

[RCGA]

1 minute ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

Exactly Grandpa and Susan.  Oh wait, you're already up at the closest tee.  See you on the squat rack, Gramps!

 

 

Grampa and Susan, who already struggle to drive it 175y, aren't going to notice any difference. Sorry. 

[DLiver]

35 minutes ago, RCGA said:

 

• Move up a tee
• Spend the next 5 years speed training and working on your fitness
• Buy loft jack irons
• Use lighter shafts 
• Take lessons 

Thanks Jackhole. I'm 68, have done speed training for at least ten years, have taken prolly over 100 lessons (mostly from "top 100 pros), play "players distance" irons, have made the transitions to lightweight shafts, and have a <2 index. I work hard to be able to hit it 240-250 off the tee, and I really don't want to see that number be 225. I don't care to play tees where I'm 150 yards from the nearest fairway bunker. I like the game where it is right now and just don't see the need to change my game significantly because the pros hit it so far.

 

Next time I want you to run my life, I will let you know. Thanks for the help. 👍

[gvogel]

44 minutes ago, RCGA said:

 

• Move up a tee
• Spend the next 5 years speed training and working on your fitness
• Buy loft jack irons
• Use lighter shafts 
• Take lessons 

And use more hybrids.

[PigPyle]

Admittedly I haven’t read through the entire thread but Adam Scott has the best take on the length issues at the elite level: roll back the driver.

 

That’s the biggest advent in equipment that has created a disproportionate advantage in the last ~20 years and is stretching out golf courses, creating sustainability concerns, and limiting classic courses from being viable tournament options. Tour players already use tour-issue driver heads to a large extent; why not regulate a smaller head size/less forgiving threshold for those higher level tournament scenarios and leave the ball alone?

Edited December 4, 2023 by PigPyle
Typo

[ebomb]

2 minutes ago, DLiver said:

Thanks Jackhole. I'm 68, have done speed training for at least ten years, have taken prolly over 100 lessons (mostly from "top 100 pros), play "players distance" irons, have made the transitions to lightweight shafts, and have a <2 index. I work hard to be able to hit it 240-250 off the tee, and I really don't want to see that number be 225. I don't care to play tees where I'm 150 yards from the nearest fairway bunker. I like the game where it is right now and just don't see the need to change my game significantly because the pros hit it so far.

 

Next time I want you to run my life, I will let you know. Thanks for the help. 👍

Well said. Especially the jackhole part 

[sweetswingin]

If you hit it over 300 yards use the shorter ball, if not, nothing changes. Problem solved! 
 

[RCGA]

8 minutes ago, DLiver said:

Thanks Jackhole. I'm 68, have done speed training for at least ten years, have taken prolly over 100 lessons (mostly from "top 100 pros), play "players distance" irons, have made the transitions to lightweight shafts, and have a <2 index. I work hard to be able to hit it 240-250 off the tee, and I really don't want to see that number be 225. I don't care to play tees where I'm 150 yards from the nearest fairway bunker. I like the game where it is right now and just don't see the need to change my game significantly because the pros hit it so far.

 

Next time I want you to run my life, I will let you know. Thanks for the help. 👍

 

Then don't switch balls? The change won't happen for at least another 7 years when you'll be 74. 

[North Butte]

44 minutes ago, sweetswingin said:

If you hit it over 300 yards use the shorter ball, if not, nothing changes. Problem solved! 
 

Local rule on the PGA Tour. Any shot that goes more than 300 yards, one stroke penalty. Second shot in a round over 300 yards, two shots. Third time, DQ.

 

Problem solved.

 

P.S. In the name of full disclosure and honesty, I did not come up with the above idea. I read it somewhere 5-10 years ago. The hand-wringing over "Distance is destroying the game" has been going on a long time.

Edited December 4, 2023 by North Butte

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, jvincent said:

The current, and presumably new, ball tests do NOT regulate ball speed. They regulate distance based on the drag/lift of the ball when hit with a driver at a specific speed.

 

Trajectoware, and all the other estimators, use a "typical" aerodynamic model for the ball so the only thing you can adjust is speed/spin/launch.

 

Assuming the new rules don't put a limit on ball speed off the driver then the lower ball speed guys will not see a greater distance loss than the high speed guys. That's not how drag physics work.

 

1 hour ago, jvincent said:

Quoting myself, but assuming I didn't mess up my couch-math, a 15% increase in drag for a 180 mph ball speed translates to an 8% increase in drag for a 150 mph ball speed.

 

And the slow speed percentage drops the slower you get.

 

There is a WHOLE BUNCH of stuff going on WRT a golf ball flying through the air. First the spin of the ball creates lift which dramatically changes how far the ball carries. Then the ball slows down a whole bunch during flight and you almost certainly hit the point at which drag becomes linear rather than quadratic (the basis for your calculation, I assume). And that will have a larger affect on the lower SS guys as they are starting closer to that point. Also the final velocity of a ball starting out at 180 mph is surprisingly close to the final velocity of a ball starting out at about 110 mph. 

 

I don't know how you draw any conclusions about relative losses given all this. If they achieve this slowdown by reduced ball speed only, I think the Trajectoware analysis holds. If they do something else, then it depends on what they do. I just don't know what else there is to be done. 

 

dave

 

ps. FWIW, if there was a way to make a golf ball that went meaningfully further (5% is meaningful) for golfers hitting the ball 180 but did not go any further for golfers hitting it 317 yards, I would expect to see that ball on the market. I am not aware of such a thing existing.