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

[bcjim]

On 12/13/2023 at 11:29 PM, new2g0lf said:

John Spitzer, the USGA's managing director of equipment 

 

"It's five yards at most and likely limited to your driver," Pagel said. "I don't want to minimize people's feelings or concerns about losing even a yard. We all have those concerns. We all want that extra yard or two. But just put this in the practical senses of this would mean, you know, 222 yards instead of 225. And you do have the ability to move tees up. You do have the ability to play forward tees. I would just say trust in the process. Over the next six years, I think we'll find that the sky hasn't fallen, the game is still going to be healthy.”

These guys are talking out of their necks.

 

"It's going to save the game. "

 

"Your drives will only go 3yd less."

 

Ok, pal.

Edited December 18, 2023 by bcjim
Autocorrect gone mad

[ZAS]

On 12/15/2023 at 1:06 PM, cardia10 said:

If you are hitting it 220 off the tee, i'd imagine there aren't many more tees for you to move up. Pagel is quick to say five yards, but no one has been quick to release true unbiased data showing that.

 

what if they just left it alone?...no controversy...move along...

[NRJyzr]

Amusingly, the easiest fix here could be to drop the core compression to something akin to Wilson Staff Duo Professional levels.   It's been shown by many ball tests to be slower for the upper tier swingspeeds, while having little effect on slower speeds.

 

They are even faster at partial wedge speeds, which means our slowest speeds would see zero effect.

 

Apologies if this has already been mentioned.  I've not read the whole thread...

 

[grm24]

2 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

Amusingly, the easiest fix here could be to drop the core compression to something akin to Wilson Staff Duo Professional levels.   It's been shown by many ball tests to be slower for the upper tier swingspeeds, while having little effect on slower speeds.

 

They are even faster at partial wedge speeds, which means our slowest speeds would see zero effect.

 

Apologies if this has already been mentioned.  I've not read the whole thread...

 

With no industry standards for measuring golf ball compression (let alone anything else) wouldn't this be another exercise in futility?

Edited December 18, 2023 by grm24

[NRJyzr]

2 minutes ago, grm24 said:

With no industry standards for measuring golf compression (let alone anything else) wouldn't this be another exercise in futility?

 

Not necessarily.  I'm not talking about an imposed compression limit that they would all argue about, just that reducing the compression is the easiest way to make the ball shorter for the top players, while punishing the slower speeds less, if at all.

 

[storm3]

5 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Not necessarily.  I'm not talking about an imposed compression limit that they would all argue about, just that reducing the compression is the easiest way to make the ball shorter for the top players, while punishing the slower speeds less, if at all.

 

Until a more efficient core material is developed that doesn’t have as much off drop off. Keep in mind that the ATTI compression tester was an attempt at creating a portable alternative to the velocity canon test, but ultimately did not correlate well enough (and likely correlates even weaker with modern multilayer balls).
 

There really is no physical attribute for the ball that can effectively limit future advancements.

[JungleJimbo]

 

 

[Double Mocha Man]

4 hours ago, JungleJimbo said:

 

 

 

Mike Whan's been wrong before. He's just protecting a position.

[L29]

18 hours ago, storm319 said:

There really is no physical attribute for the ball that can effectively limit future advancements.

Back to rubber bands baby…lol

[AmazinBlue]

The fix is simple. Leave the ball alone. Make the maximum length of the tee for professionals 1.5" They won't be able to hit up on the ball with a driver and the distance drops.  Leave everything alone for the recreational game and all will be good.

[Louis_Posture]

On 12/15/2023 at 1:06 PM, cardia10 said:

If you are hitting it 220 off the tee, i'd imagine there aren't many more tees for you to move up. 

With a  220 yard average driving distance John Mahaffey won 10 Tour events, including a PGA Championship at Oakmont CC.

[Louis_Posture]

On 12/19/2023 at 8:18 AM, Double Mocha Man said:

 

Mike Whan's been wrong before. He's just protecting a position.

I listened but did not hear what is supposedly the problem?

As a player and spectator I do not understand why players hitting longer shots, using less club to reach greens and or, shooting lower scores is considered a problem?

[Double Mocha Man]

12 minutes ago, Louis_Posture said:

I listened but did not hear what is supposedly the problem?

As a player and spectator I do not understand why players hitting longer shots, using less club to reach greens and or, shooting lower scores is considered a problem?

 

They say distance will antiquate some courses, St. Andrews for example.  I say, for those courses, let the pros play a shorter ball.  Don't push the problem onto the rest of us.

 

But that's not how Mike Whan sees it...

[DaveLeeNC]

34 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

They say distance will antiquate some courses, St. Andrews for example.  I say, for those courses, let the pros play a shorter ball.  Don't push the problem onto the rest of us.

 

But that's not how Mike Whan sees it...

 

It was not all that long ago that a Model Local Rule was proposed that would achieve exactly what you are suggesting. It was NOT well received and considered DOA. 

 

dave

[NRJyzr]

On 12/19/2023 at 1:46 PM, L29 said:

Back to rubber bands baby…lol

 

Wouldn't fix the problem.  The wound balls could be made hot enough to actually be non conforming (per Dean Snell, not me).

 

The only possible way it could do something would be tee game spin.  I expect that could be mitigated through the clubheads.

 

IMHO the problem is the driver.  Saw a graphic on a telecast that showed avg ball speed and clubhead speed now, vs 10 or so years ago.  There was a slight increase in that avg swingspeed (such as memory serves), but the ballspeed was up 10 or so.  Hmmmm...

 

[bekgolf]

4 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Wouldn't fix the problem.  The wound balls could be made hot enough to actually be non conforming (per Dean Snell, not me).

 

The only possible way it could do something would be tee game spin.  I expect that could be mitigated through the clubheads.

 

IMHO the problem is the driver.  Saw a graphic on a telecast that showed avg ball speed and clubhead speed now, vs 10 or so years ago.  There was a slight increase in that avg swingspeed (such as memory serves), but the ballspeed was up 10 or so.  Hmmmm...

 

 

The problem is there isn't a problem.  Most amateur's don't think there is a problem, most golf fans don't think there is a problem, the PGA doesn't think there is a problem.

 

A few of the rules making folks think it's a problem when a modern day pro shoots a low score at one of their tricked up courses employing shenanigans greens and rough. 

 

In their limited view it means that everyone needs to be nerfed back.  Are they thinking this stuff up on their own or are they being told to do it with a smile? 

 

I can't imagine an amateur rule making body thinking that golf is just too darn easy, it needs to be harder.  They aren't representing their members.

[Louis_Posture]

1 hour ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

They say distance will antiquate some courses, St. Andrews for example.  I say, for those courses, let the pros play a shorter ball.  Don't push the problem onto the rest of us.

 

But that's not how Mike Whan sees it...

I disagree about any course becoming 'antiquated'. For example if on the same St. Andrews par 4 hole Sam Snead hit a 5 iron and 30 years after that Jack Nicklaus hit an 8-iron and 30 years after that Tiger Woods hit a wedge this does not matter. If 80 years ago Sam Snead's winning score at St. Andrews was 290 and 40 years ago the winning score was 280 and 40 years from now the winning score is 260 this does not matter. St. Andrews is still a great golf course no matter which clubs players use or scores they shoot.

[Double Mocha Man]

44 minutes ago, Louis_Posture said:

I disagree about any course becoming 'antiquated'. For example if on the same St. Andrews par 4 hole Sam Snead hit a 5 iron and 30 years after that Jack Nicklaus hit an 8-iron and 30 years after that Tiger Woods hit a wedge this does not matter. If 80 years ago Sam Snead's winning score at St. Andrews was 290 and 40 years ago the winning score was 280 and 40 years from now the winning score is 260 this does not matter. St. Andrews is still a great golf course no matter which clubs players use or scores they shoot.

 

Totally agree. But that is not how the USGA and the R&A see it.  Hopefully they'll come to their senses.

[bekgolf]

I can't imagine any casual golf fans tuning in to see a nerf ball tournament, I can't imagine any sponsors wanting to sponsor something that makes the longest shorter and the shorter relevant.

 

How does this help golf for the rest of us who are USGA members? 

[Double Mocha Man]

17 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

I can't imagine any casual golf fans tuning in to see a nerf ball tournament, I can't imagine any sponsors wanting to sponsor something that makes the longest shorter and the shorter relevant.

 

How does this help golf for the rest of us who are USGA members? 

 

Good point. In baseball home runs are exciting and they put butts in the seats. Pro golf is no different, we want to see the long ball.

[bekgolf]

12 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

Good point. In baseball home runs are exciting and they put butts in the seats. Pro golf is no different, we want to see the long ball.

 

More to the point I don't want to see it (PGA Golf) change from what we have now.  Probably the most condescending thing that's been posted is "you won't know the difference".

Edited December 21, 2023 by bekgolf

[JohnKHawk]

I have a hard time making sense out of the proposed golf ball rollback. They're actually changing the game for the entire golfing world based on what .001% (guesstimate) of golfers can do. It just seems to be the least creative problem solving solution they could think of.

[cardia10]

18 hours ago, Louis_Posture said:

With a  220 yard average driving distance John Mahaffey won 10 Tour events, including a PGA Championship at Oakmont CC.

His average distances in the mid to late 1980s were nearer to 270 but he was also known to rarely use driver off the tee. Accuracy based on rough height and lack of fairway rollout used to be at a premium. Courses say distance is killing them yet widen fairways, make fairways play rock hard with 30-50 yards roll for tournaments and try to be aesthetically pleasing instead of difficult. Remember, the USGA themselves control and supervise set up and conditioning for their events so they are 100% to blame, not the player. No one cares how green Oakmont is, none of us are being asked to join. Make it play tough and let the grass grow for more than a day and distance will no longer be an issue. A solution in search of a problem, that is the USGA.

Edited December 21, 2023 by cardia10

[cardia10]

16 hours ago, Louis_Posture said:

I disagree about any course becoming 'antiquated'. For example if on the same St. Andrews par 4 hole Sam Snead hit a 5 iron and 30 years after that Jack Nicklaus hit an 8-iron and 30 years after that Tiger Woods hit a wedge this does not matter. If 80 years ago Sam Snead's winning score at St. Andrews was 290 and 40 years ago the winning score was 280 and 40 years from now the winning score is 260 this does not matter. St. Andrews is still a great golf course no matter which clubs players use or scores they shoot.

100%, the lowest score still wins. The conditions and a player's mental game equate more to the results than the tools used. The USGA is looking for the easy solution as always.

[Louis_Posture]

4 hours ago, cardia10 said:

. The USGA is looking for the easy solution as always.

In general I've always liked and respected the USGA, especially decades ago when its leadership made smart sense decisions without influence from outside sources.

However, recent USGA President's and CEO's listen too much to criticism or questions from the media (and other outside sources) which has resulted in questionable decisions and policies.

For example, the late great former USGA President Sandy Tatum I expect would have told people " the game is fine and distance is not a problem" , instead of recent regimes which seem to keep trying to find a problem where there is not one.

[DaveLeeNC]

23 hours ago, Louis_Posture said:

I disagree about any course becoming 'antiquated'. For example if on the same St. Andrews par 4 hole Sam Snead hit a 5 iron and 30 years after that Jack Nicklaus hit an 8-iron and 30 years after that Tiger Woods hit a wedge this does not matter. If 80 years ago Sam Snead's winning score at St. Andrews was 290 and 40 years ago the winning score was 280 and 40 years from now the winning score is 260 this does not matter. St. Andrews is still a great golf course no matter which clubs players use or scores they shoot.

 

What makes a course like St. Andrews 'great' is kind of nebulous. And if all that was going on was that par 4's that used to be driver/49 are now driver/9i then so be it. But there is more going on here. 

 

Bunkers that used to define tee shots basically no longer exist (for the PGA Tour) in many cases. Doglegs suddenly become straight holes. Par 4's that used to be defined by how you picked your landing spot off the tee are now defined by how the ball lands around the green (off your tee shot). On some holes, not all - obviously. 

 

Take Pinehurst No. 2 (US Open next year). They ended up making the par 5 hole #4 a par 4 and the long par 4 hole #5 is now a par 5 (by using property that used to have the Golf Hall of Fame). They did this because they thought that there was a problem to be solved.

 

Maybe the golf world should just let this play out and allow courses to become (for PGA Tour players) whatever they become. I have mixed feelings about this, but it is not nothing and not a stupid thing to be concerned about (IMHO). 

 

dave

[AmazinBlue]

This whole argument comes down to one thing...The Old Course. They can't stretch it any more and thet distant ti see someone shoot 59 or -30 at St Andrews.

[Double Mocha Man]

52 minutes ago, AmazinBlue said:

This whole argument comes down to one thing...The Old Course. They can't stretch it any more and thet distant ti see someone shoot 59 or -30 at St Andrews.

 

It would be a testament to the quality of players today and to the equipment. St. Andrews and other shorter courses should not feel insulted. 

 

If the ruling bodies want to make it tougher to score they should change the size of the hole to 1.67 inches. 😁

[bekgolf]

6 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

 

It would be a testament to the quality of players today and to the equipment. St. Andrews and other shorter courses should not feel insulted. 

 

If the ruling bodies want to make it tougher to score they should change the size of the hole to 1.67 inches. 😁

 

They could have an open or other major at Sahalee.  It wouldn't fit the ball is too long narrative but it would reward skilled players.

[cardia10]

9 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

What makes a course like St. Andrews 'great' is kind of nebulous. And if all that was going on was that par 4's that used to be driver/49 are now driver/9i then so be it. But there is more going on here. 

 

Bunkers that used to define tee shots basically no longer exist (for the PGA Tour) in many cases. Doglegs suddenly become straight holes. Par 4's that used to be defined by how you picked your landing spot off the tee are now defined by how the ball lands around the green (off your tee shot). On some holes, not all - obviously. 

 

Take Pinehurst No. 2 (US Open next year). They ended up making the par 5 hole #4 a par 4 and the long par 4 hole #5 is now a par 5 (by using property that used to have the Golf Hall of Fame). They did this because they thought that there was a problem to be solved.

 

Maybe the golf world should just let this play out and allow courses to become (for PGA Tour players) whatever they become. I have mixed feelings about this, but it is not nothing and not a stupid thing to be concerned about (IMHO). 

 

dave

The PGA players only play courses like St Andrews and Pinehurst every 5-10 years. There is the exact issue. Am's pley those courses 99% of the time, yet rules are created and imposed on all for that 1% of golfers.