USGA Notice to Manufacturers

[Charlie Goerges]

For a course who's main purpose is to host professional golf, end every fairway at 300 yards. Between 300-375 yards build a great hazard that players would not want to play out of. Force every player to lay back to less than 300 yards off the tee, thus removing driving skill from the game and focus play strictly on approach quality.

This is one of those truly horrific options I was thinking of (not you Ben, as I assume you aren't advocating this type of course). But yes, this is the type of thing we could probably expect if the architects were somehow put in charge of stopping distance.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tongue firmly planted in cheek on that one. But from a forecasting perspective, putting that argument out there as a potential future does help to put things in context.

It was interesting to listen to Mike Whan on the No Laying Up podcast today talking about how the USGA is looking towards the next 40 years and what may happen if some controls are not put into place today. It leads credence to the weight of the problem is not big enough currently, but the proposed change is focused on if and when things continue to progress.

Sad that they didn't have that foresight 20 years back.

[Pat Burke]

For a course who's main purpose is to host professional golf, end every fairway at 300 yards. Between 300-375 yards build a great hazard that players would not want to play out of. Force every player to lay back to less than 300 yards off the tee, thus removing driving skill from the game and focus play strictly on approach quality.

This is one of those truly horrific options I was thinking of (not you Ben, as I assume you aren't advocating this type of course). But yes, this is the type of thing we could probably expect if the architects were somehow put in charge of stopping distance.

I remember the the first time I played the Mountain Course at La Quinta. It late 1980’s and I loved playing it because of the setting.


But even being an average to slightly above average distance guy, there were a number of holes that I didn’t hit driver due to fairways ending. I wasn’t a fan of it, probably because I usually drove it well, but Ive played courses that did just this type of thing on some holes

[Charlie Goerges]

For a course who's main purpose is to host professional golf, end every fairway at 300 yards. Between 300-375 yards build a great hazard that players would not want to play out of. Force every player to lay back to less than 300 yards off the tee, thus removing driving skill from the game and focus play strictly on approach quality.

This is one of those truly horrific options I was thinking of (not you Ben, as I assume you aren't advocating this type of course). But yes, this is the type of thing we could probably expect if the architects were somehow put in charge of stopping distance.

I remember the the first time I played the Mountain Course at La Quinta. It late 1980’s and I loved playing it because of the setting.


But even being an average to slightly above average distance guy, there were a number of holes that I didn’t hit driver due to fairways ending. I wasn’t a fan of it, probably because I usually drove it well, but Ive played courses that did just this type of thing on some holes

It's perfectly fine to do occasionally, but if architects had to fight the distance fight on their own, we'd have a lot more of this type of shenanigans.

[Pat Burke]

For a course who's main purpose is to host professional golf, end every fairway at 300 yards. Between 300-375 yards build a great hazard that players would not want to play out of. Force every player to lay back to less than 300 yards off the tee, thus removing driving skill from the game and focus play strictly on approach quality.

This is one of those truly horrific options I was thinking of (not you Ben, as I assume you aren't advocating this type of course). But yes, this is the type of thing we could probably expect if the architects were somehow put in charge of stopping distance.

I remember the the first time I played the Mountain Course at La Quinta. It late 1980’s and I loved playing it because of the setting.


But even being an average to slightly above average distance guy, there were a number of holes that I didn’t hit driver due to fairways ending. I wasn’t a fan of it, probably because I usually drove it well, but Ive played courses that did just this type of thing on some holes

It's perfectly fine to do occasionally, but if architects had to fight the distance fight on their own, we'd have a lot more of this type of shenanigans.

Understood. I still wish great golf courses just said NO to the craziness of change for a small percentage of players.  Let the tournament golfers play Torrey and chambers. Stop ruining places
Or
Roll everything back if it’s really more than a small percentage

[jeffwarne]

Tongue firmly planted in cheek on that one. But from a forecasting perspective, putting that argument out there as a potential future does help to put things in context.

It was interesting to listen to Mike Whan on the No Laying Up podcast today talking about how the USGA is looking towards the next 40 years and what may happen if some controls are not put into place today. It leads credence to the weight of the problem is not big enough currently, but the proposed change is focused on if and when things continue to progress.

Sad that they didn't have that foresight 20 years back.

Not just no foresight, but downright denial.
For years they stated the annual distance gains were "statistically insignificant".


Now, they're asking an entire generation to learn a new game, one many/most NEVER played.
The ship sailed,they flat out missed it and the funny thing is they still have punted it out to 2026-lol.
25 years after the dramatic ProV 1 distance explosion(and well after the extra light/long titanium waffle race had begun 8 years before that)
For (20 plus)years I was a huge proponent of a rollback-now I've accepted it and simply think 'better late than never" no longer applies here.


While they were busy for years fighting innovations of technique(anchoring), and a nonsensical battle over grooves(under the laughable guise of combatting bomb and gauge), neither of which changed anything(besides ruining a few short games for those of us who had to park our Eye-2s for certain events as the manufacturers quickly adjusted to recapture all lost spin).....
 AN ENTIRE GENERATION of players and industry was adapting, adjusting and learning to play with new hot equipment, which has had huge negative implications in design, cost, strategy, competition,pace of play, safety, real estate etc.

So they just roll all that back now that they got their head out of their collective arses?


Reminds me of the scene in the Three Amigos where they keep adjusting "Theese is the line of death".......errr  "theese is the line of death"...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The long awaited roll back has arrived and no one here seems happy?

Could it be that a 4% rollback (and bifurcated at that, though I think the manufacturers might actually push for a full rollback) is not seen as enough?

I don't think it is. I still don't entirely think a rollback is necessary (still largely because I don't think golf should really be governed based on what a tiny percentage of the game's best do), but if they were going to rollback, then freaking roll back like 10% or something. 320 to 290 is something. 320 to 306? Why bother? Why cause such a disruption for just that little of a change?

[Anthony Butler]

It was interesting to listen to Mike Whan on the No Laying Up podcast today talking about how the USGA is looking towards the next 40 years and what may happen if some controls are not put into place today. It leads credence to the weight of the problem is not big enough currently, but the proposed change is focused on if and when things continue to progress.

There hasn't been a lot of talk about what position Augusta National has taken on this proposed ball roll back, although I'm sure they were consulted. I imagine Fred Ridley is probably holding his fire until the Tuesday of Masters week.

Having done work for both the USGA and ANGC at IBM, the people who ran things at ANGC were a lot more accepting of innovative ideas and - if interested in something - wanted to know how exactly how and when it could be executed. I eventually asked off the USGA business because some of the long-timers on the account wouldn't even present ideas to the various competition committees as they seemed to know exactly who would kill them, often for no good reason at all.

To a large degree that mindset explains 25 years of inaction from the USGA despite pleas from some of the sport's most influential figures. And now this idea,  which seems like a last gasp and not thought out at all in terms of how it will impact the various levels of competition.

The sport of tennis allowed so many advances in equipment that it has completely changed the sport at the elite level over the last 40 years. Go onto You Tube and watch a McEnroe/Borg match from the early 80s and it's barely same game played by the likes of Nadal and Alcaraz. The last element of artistry in the sport retired along with Roger Federer last year.

But much like golf's current distance conundrum with the top .01%, the toothpaste will not go back in the tube.

[James Brown]

The long awaited roll back has arrived and no one here seems happy?

Could it be that a 4% rollback (and bifurcated at that, though I think the manufacturers might actually push for a full rollback) is not seen as enough?

I don't think it is. I still don't entirely think a rollback is necessary (still largely because I don't think golf should really be governed based on what a tiny percentage of the game's best do), but if they were going to rollback, then freaking roll back like 10% or something. 320 to 290 is something. 320 to 306? Why bother? Why cause such a disruption for just that little of a change?

Ok, the real issue I am bummed about is bifurcation.  So, how will handicaps work?  I can’t imagine that there is not gonna be significant pressure to play the “real” ball that pros play in regular play. 

[Max Prokopy]

I expect local rules and clubs can handle that.




We can have a "rota" type system of ~40 courses for majors and designated events on TV.  I don't particularly like it but it seems plausible.  There will be plenty of people wanting to play those places for the name.  I see the major issue/gray area in the state opens and major Am events.  Speaking selfishly, I don't have the practice time to get ready to play a different ball in my state open. 

[jeffwarne]

The long awaited roll back has arrived and no one here seems happy?

Could it be that a 4% rollback (and bifurcated at that, though I think the manufacturers might actually push for a full rollback) is not seen as enough?

I don't think it is. I still don't entirely think a rollback is necessary (still largely because I don't think golf should really be governed based on what a tiny percentage of the game's best do), but if they were going to rollback, then freaking roll back like 10% or something. 320 to 290 is something. 320 to 306? Why bother? Why cause such a disruption for just that little of a change?

Bingo.
Because they don't care to actually do anything, but rather to be seen as doing something.
By the time all of this is implemented, we'll all have been "rolled back" ourselves, then eventually I guess we can roll over in our final resting places as we continue to watch the ineptness unfold.

[Sean_A]

Tongue firmly planted in cheek on that one. But from a forecasting perspective, putting that argument out there as a potential future does help to put things in context.

It was interesting to listen to Mike Whan on the No Laying Up podcast today talking about how the USGA is looking towards the next 40 years and what may happen if some controls are not put into place today. It leads credence to the weight of the problem is not big enough currently, but the proposed change is focused on if and when things continue to progress.

Sad that they didn't have that foresight 20 years back.

Not just no foresight, but downright denial.
For years they stated the annual distance gains were "statistically insignificant".


Now, they're asking an entire generation to learn a new game, one many/most NEVER played.
The ship sailed,they flat out missed it and the funny thing is they still have punted it out to 2026-lol.
25 years after the dramatic ProV 1 distance explosion(and well after the extra light/long titanium waffle race had begun 8 years before that)
For (20 plus)years I was a huge proponent of a rollback-now I've accepted it and simply think 'better late than never" no longer applies here.


While they were busy for years fighting innovations of technique(anchoring), and a nonsensical battle over grooves(under the laughable guise of combatting bomb and gauge), neither of which changed anything(besides ruining a few short games for those of us who had to park our Eye-2s for certain events as the manufacturers quickly adjusted to recapture all lost spin).....
 AN ENTIRE GENERATION of players and industry was adapting, adjusting and learning to play with new hot equipment, which has had huge negative implications in design, cost, strategy, competition,pace of play, safety, real estate etc.

So they just roll all that back now that they got their head out of their collective arses?


Reminds me of the scene in the Three Amigos where they keep adjusting "Theese is the line of death".......errr  "theese is the line of death"...

I don't believe it's that big a deal. Pro golfers can adjust without much grief. To me this announcement is blown way out of proportion. Pros will hit it a bit shorter. We can choose which ball to use. It's not a big deal.

Ciao

[Craig Sweet]

This will make zero difference to me. I don't swing anywhere near 120...I'll still be hitting 220-240yds. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Ok, a coupe questions:


1. Are we correct in assuming that the PGA Tour will choose to adopt this local rule?  I don’t know the extent to which the players themselves actually run the Tour, but is it possible that the players would prevent this, for better or worse?


2. IF the Tour does NOT adopt the local rule in 2026 and beyond, would happen then?


Just curious.

[Ben Hollerbach]

We know the US Open and Open Championship will adopt it. It sounds like Augusta is on board with the new ball for the Masters. No word from the PGA of America.

If the PGA tour does not officially adopt it, I do wonder if many of the players may push for the adoption, so they're not having to go back and forth on changing balls during the year. It could be a line in the sand where we find out how much / little the pros really care about the majors.

The PGA Tour has had the ability to set their own rules for 60 years and have always just differed to the USGA, I would not expect this is the hill they would chose to die on unless persuaded by Titleist, Callaway, Taylormade, Srixon, and Bridgestone.

Even then, while publicly the ball manufactures are upset, behind closed doors I doubt that is true. Based on the proposed ALC, it would seem that the new ball will end up being a lower compression version of their tour balls anyway. Which most of them already have. (i.e. Pro V1 to AVX or Tour Speed, TP5 to Tour Response, Z-Star to Q-Star Tour, X & XS to RX & RXS)

[Joe Zucker]

The long awaited roll back has arrived and no one here seems happy?

Could it be that a 4% rollback (and bifurcated at that, though I think the manufacturers might actually push for a full rollback) is not seen as enough?

I don't think it is. I still don't entirely think a rollback is necessary (still largely because I don't think golf should really be governed based on what a tiny percentage of the game's best do), but if they were going to rollback, then freaking roll back like 10% or something. 320 to 290 is something. 320 to 306? Why bother? Why cause such a disruption for just that little of a change?

Ok, the real issue I am bummed about is bifurcation.  So, how will handicaps work?  I can’t imagine that there is not gonna be significant pressure to play the “real” ball that pros play in regular play.

I could be wrong, but I don't think this is an issue.  You can keep your handicap with the old ball.  I'll keep my handicap with the new ball.  When we play our match, the handicaps should properly adjust for our respective skills as long as we are playing the same ball as we use for keeping our handicap.  I doubt a lot of players will be hopping back and forth between balls, so the system should still work.

[Ken Moum]

I doubt a lot of players will be hopping back and forth between balls, so the system should still work.

The one group I can see doing this is players whose normal game is either on Tour or in elite amateur events where they are required to use the new ball.  Some of them also play in scratch games for $$ with their friends back home where the new ball is not required.


However, based on looking at GHIN, I think a heck of a lot of them are now carrying handicaps and those games are no longer at scratch.  For instance, a while back I heard Colt Knost say on PGA Tour Radio that he was getting two a side from Max Homa in the games at Whisper Rock.Colt's index is currently +3.0 and Homa's is +9.0, so I'm guessing he's getting three a side these days.


FWIW, if we both played the white tees at my home course, I'd be getting 32 strokes, and I don't think it would be enough.

[MCirba]

The pros will bitch and moan but any sport using hundreds of acres where each full shot now goes 40 yards further than it did 40 years ago is not self-sustaining.

[MCirba]

Terrific article by Michael Bamberger boils it down to The Essentials.


https://www.golfdigest.com/story/rolling-back-the-ball-sensible-solution-long-term-health-of-golf?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=golfdigest&fbclid=IwAR0Fr5AxYNNI2etasbQ2T2hbiIonuN9cGZ63HoQfw-e4RNW2KAcp6va3Gvc

[Jeff Fortson]

Tongue firmly planted in cheek on that one. But from a forecasting perspective, putting that argument out there as a potential future does help to put things in context.

It was interesting to listen to Mike Whan on the No Laying Up podcast today talking about how the USGA is looking towards the next 40 years and what may happen if some controls are not put into place today. It leads credence to the weight of the problem is not big enough currently, but the proposed change is focused on if and when things continue to progress.

Sad that they didn't have that foresight 20 years back.

Not just no foresight, but downright denial.
For years they stated the annual distance gains were "statistically insignificant".


Now, they're asking an entire generation to learn a new game, one many/most NEVER played.
The ship sailed, they flat out missed it and the funny thing is they still have punted it out to 2026-lol.
25 years after the dramatic ProV 1 distance explosion(and well after the extra light/long titanium waffle race had begun 8 years before that)
For (20 plus)years I was a huge proponent of a rollback-now I've accepted it and simply think 'better late than never" no longer applies here.


While they were busy for years fighting innovations of technique(anchoring), and a nonsensical battle over grooves(under the laughable guise of combatting bomb and gauge), neither of which changed anything(besides ruining a few short games for those of us who had to park our Eye-2s for certain events as the manufacturers quickly adjusted to recapture all lost spin).....
 AN ENTIRE GENERATION of players and industry was adapting, adjusting and learning to play with new hot equipment, which has had huge negative implications in design, cost, strategy, competition, pace of play, safety, real estate etc.

So they just roll all that back now that they got their head out of their collective arses?


Reminds me of the scene in the Three Amigos where they keep adjusting "Theese is the line of death".......errr  "theese is the line of death"...

I agree with this almost completely.  If I could add one thing to it, I think part of the reason the USGA dropped the ball in nipping this in the bud 25 years ago is due to the scar tissue they had from the litigation with Karsten Solheim. 


While I think this solution is better than nothing, it feels flaccid and more of an attempt to look like they're fixing everything they failed to do for so long. They let Pandora's Box be opened and you can't stuff it all back in.  As you said, "the ship sailed".  My only hope is that this potential "rollback" is at the very least successful at capping distance innovation long term so that it doesn't get more ridiculous than it already is.

[Pete_Pittock]

They could have brought back the 1.62 British ball, and kept the current balls for elite competition (I still have an un-hit box of Penfolds).

[Rob Marshall]

 Justin Thomas isn't happy.........


https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/justin-thomas-sounds-off-on-proposed-ball-rollback/

[Wayne_Kozun]

I expect local rules and clubs can handle that.




We can have a "rota" type system of ~40 courses for majors and designated events on TV.  I don't particularly like it but it seems plausible.  There will be plenty of people wanting to play those places for the name.  I see the major issue/gray area in the state opens and major Am events.  Speaking selfishly, I don't have the practice time to get ready to play a different ball in my state open.

Why do you have to practice with a different ball? Nicklaus was able to go over to the UK and play with a ball that he never used, and beat all the best golfers in the world.  Same with Arnie, Trevino, etc.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Justin Thomas isn't happy.........


https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/justin-thomas-sounds-off-on-proposed-ball-rollback/

Justin's mile analogy is exactly what has been happening over the last few decades. Golf has already stretched the courses out as far as it can to preserve scoring. What the USGA is trying to do, using his analogy, is to make the running shoes heavier.

[MCirba]

Spot on Ben H. and Wayne.


I get that the USGA and R&A missed the boat for a generation and I'd like to see action sooner than 2026 but it has to stop somewhere, even if it means putting the car in reverse.