Non-bifurcated rollback

[Wayne_Kozun]

And hasn't Jack Nicklaus been a proponent of a rollback for decades?

[Craig Sweet]

Bifurcation and local rule...In our club championship we'll be playing the "pro ball"   OR not. 

[Tony Ristola]

Is now a good time to buy shares in ball/equipment companies or if you already own such shares would now be a good time to sell them? Opportunity time? Coin toss? Stick and see?
Atb

Sell.


A rollback means all balls will be performance balls.


Dimple patterns have a 17-year patent life. There's a ton of good ones out there. Titliest 384 anyone (early 80's)?


Titliest may remain the No. 1 Ball in Golf at the professional level, but if Lee Kim Mfg. in South Korea is pumping out the same ball for half the price, the masses won't be buying Titliest balls.


That's going to be a big revenue hit for major ball manufacturers. Maybe not right away, but at some point.


Titliest sells shoes and clubs, but my guess is the pellet is their major revenue source, as it's a repeat business, unlike their other products.

[Wayne_Kozun]

A rollback means all balls will be performance balls.

Dimple patterns have a 17-year patent life. There's a ton of good ones out there. Titliest 384 anyone (early 80's)?

Titliest may remain the No. 1 Ball in Golf at the professional level, but if Lee Kim Mfg. in South Korea is pumping out the same ball for half the price, the masses won't be buying Titliest balls.

Sure they will, they will play it because of marketing and because it is "the number one ball in golf".  There are lots of products where there is very little or no difference in product quality/performance yet consumers pay more for a brand.  I would cite vodka and beer as two examples. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

[Thomas Dai]

I see Padraig Harrington has now joined the debate with a series of comments supporting rollback - not easy to copy the text so best see his Twitter account - https://www.google.com/search?q=padraig+harrington+twitter&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari
atb

[Jason Topp]

Sasho Mackenzie made the first new argument I have seen on this issue in twenty years.


Quote from Twitter:

“

It seems that the ruling bodies believe that the average clubhead speed on the PGA Tour is NOT a function of how far the ball currently travels on existing course layouts.


Are they under estimating the potential of a small number of the world’s best golfers?


Is a 115 mph clubhead speed fast? Not really.


A clubhead speed of 160 mph is fast.  There is a lot of room for growth. Is it difficult to imagine that the top 150 golfers in the world could have an average clubhead speed of 120 mph?


Dozens of current players can easily swing faster overnight (e.g., Tony Finau). They will quickly adapt to the slower ball by increasing their clubhead speed. They will regain their current driving distance and level of dispersion in order to optimize their strokes gained off-the-tee.


Dozens of others will quickly initiate training protocols to tap into their potential (e.g., Matt Fitzpatrick) and increase their clubhead speed. 


Those that do not adapt will gradually be supplanted be new golfers with faster clubhead speeds.


99% of amateur golfers will not adapt.  Bummer.


From my perspective, a ball roll-back will result in a surge in average clubhead speed on the PGA Tour. The Tour’s average driving distance will return to current levels at about the same time amateurs start to tee-up the new ball.


I could be wrong, but this certainly appears to be a likely scenario.”


I would think players are trying to add all of the playable distance they can add now due to strokes gained statistics that demonstrate the wisdom of such an approach regardless of the distance remaining to the hole.   I assume they will continue to do so but I fail to see how for the ball flies would have an impact one way or the other.   


I hope we get a chance to see whether he is right. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sasho Mackenzie made the first new argument I have seen on this issue in twenty years.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,72452.msg1740574.html#msg1740574

Linked to it earlier. We'll see how it plays out.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Sasho Mackenzie made the first new argument I have seen on this issue in twenty years.
Dozens of current players can easily swing faster overnight (e.g., Tony Finau). They will quickly adapt to the slower ball by increasing their clubhead speed. They will regain their current driving distance and level of dispersion in order to optimize their strokes gained off-the-tee.

Can someone explain that bit to me.  These players can swing faster, without being less accurate, but choose not to do so today.  So Tony Finau could hit the ball farther without losing accuracy but decides not to.  How does that make sense?

[Craig Sweet]

Let me know when you're ready to talk about how this change is going to impact your average club member. Let me know how you plan to have your club pro make sure nobody is using a hopped up ball in your club championship.  Maybe hire some off duty TSA friskers to wand golf bags and pat down members on the first tee?


It's amazing that a bunch of old, rich, fat, white guys at Augusta and St Andrews are running the game and the bed wetters are falling place behind them.

[Peter Flory]

Sasho Mackenzie made the first new argument I have seen on this issue in twenty years.
Dozens of current players can easily swing faster overnight (e.g., Tony Finau). They will quickly adapt to the slower ball by increasing their clubhead speed. They will regain their current driving distance and level of dispersion in order to optimize their strokes gained off-the-tee.

Can someone explain that bit to me.  These players can swing faster, without being less accurate, but choose not to do so today.  So Tony Finau could hit the ball farther without losing accuracy but decides not to.  How does that make sense?

It's like saying that raising the rim in basketball to 11' would have no long term effect because NBA players would all just train harder to jump higher. 

[Garland Bayley]

Sasho Mackenzie made the first new argument I have seen on this issue in twenty years.
Dozens of current players can easily swing faster overnight (e.g., Tony Finau). They will quickly adapt to the slower ball by increasing their clubhead speed. They will regain their current driving distance and level of dispersion in order to optimize their strokes gained off-the-tee.

Can someone explain that bit to me.  These players can swing faster, without being less accurate, but choose not to do so today.  So Tony Finau could hit the ball farther without losing accuracy but decides not to.  How does that make sense?

It's like saying that raising the rim in basketball to 11' would have no long term effect because NBA players would all just train harder to jump higher.

Careful guys, you might make the Erik ignore list.

[Bryan Izatt]

Back in 2004, the USGA made a change to the ODS test procedure, increasing the test speed to 120 mph and extending the ODS to 320 yards.  They also changed the way the test was done as described below.  Interesting that each mph was only going to add to 2.2 yards to the distance (11 mph for 24 yards). In the current proposed change it is going to be 15 yards for 5 mph. I guess there was little squawking then because they said all, then current, balls would still be conforming.

I expect that the current roll back will include other test procedure changes as well, including the launch conditions.  IIRC correctly there was some talk of using the optimal launch conditions for each ball. 

"Phase II updates the USGAs ball test procedures and the resulting Overall Distance Standard (ODS).  The current ball test procedure and ODS standard were adopted in 1976 and have remained largely unchanged since that time.  The changes to the test under Phase II are as follows:
Swing speed will be increased to 120 miles per hour from 109 miles per hour;

1.  A non-branded titanium club head will replace the laminated wooden head now in use;
2.  A modern, non-branded set-up ball will replace the current set-up ball that has been in use.
3.  The ODS limit has increased from 296.8 to 320 yards

The ODS limit increase is due to the increased test swing speed and the switch to a modern titanium test club.  It does not result in any additional golf ball distance allowance.  All golf balls that currently appear on the USGAs List of Conforming Golf Balls will continue to comply with the Rules under Phase II conditions."


As for the cost of the changes to the manufacturers, I don't share Eric's cost concerns.  Titleist in particular has quite a number of balls already with different performance characteristics (including lately the left dash and left dot Pro V1).  They evidently do a lot of R&D to develop those balls with new ones coming out each year.  I expect that all that will happen is that they will continue their R&D efforts with a slightly different distance target.  They have a couple of years to get it right.  I'd also imagine that over the years that they have tried many different combinations of designs and materials, some that have succeeded and some that have failed, that would give them insight into making multiple different shorter balls for different markets.

If making these small changes is so costly then I expect that many of the smaller ball manufacturers will go bankrupt or the cost of balls will go significantly up.

[Tony Ristola]

A rollback means all balls will be performance balls.

Dimple patterns have a 17-year patent life. There's a ton of good ones out there. Titliest 384 anyone (early 80's)?

Titliest may remain the No. 1 Ball in Golf at the professional level, but if Lee Kim Mfg. in South Korea is pumping out the same ball for half the price, the masses won't be buying Titliest balls.

Sure they will, they will play it because of marketing and because it is "the number one ball in golf".  There are lots of products where there is very little or no difference in product quality/performance yet consumers pay more for a brand.  I would cite vodka and beer as two examples. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.

There is a difference between alcohol brands, but of course a lot of it is pure marketing aimed at the youth market.


[size=78%]When the masses can buy a ball every bit as good as a Titliest for less than half the price, my bet is many will. Not right away, but over time. I see it making a dent in their profits.[/size]

[JohnVDB]

Let me know when you're ready to talk about how this change is going to impact your average club member. Let me know how you plan to have your club pro make sure nobody is using a hopped up ball in your club championship.  Maybe hire some off duty TSA friskers to wand golf bags and pat down members on the first tee?


It's amazing that a bunch of old, rich, fat, white guys at Augusta and St Andrews are running the game and the bed wetters are falling place behind them.

Golf is a game of honor. The rules are based on that principle. The punishment for cheating is severe, both in the rules and in the court of public opinion.


Club pros aren’t out there checking range finders to see if slope is on and that would be much easier to hide than using an illegal golf ball that any player might see sitting on the putting green when they walk up there. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Can someone explain that bit to me.  These players can swing faster, without being less accurate, but choose not to do so today.  So Tony Finau could hit the ball farther without losing accuracy but decides not to.  How does that make sense?

Dr. MacKenzie is saying (this is me saying it, I'll ask him too) that some guys can and will, and that others who can't or won’t will be replaced by those who can and will.

Most of those who can/will undoubtedly aren't just flipping a switch, they're training specifically to do it.

Let me know when you're ready to talk about how this change is going to impact your average club member. Let me know how you plan to have your club pro make sure nobody is using a hopped up ball in your club championship.  Maybe hire some off duty TSA friskers to wand golf bags and pat down members on the first tee?

I don't understand this angle. They'll just follow the same rules as we have now: no non-conforming golf balls. The penalty is a DQ. Golf balls have different markings on them, which is how you can tell them apart. The 2023 Pro V1x looks different than the 2021.

As for the cost of the changes to the manufacturers, I don't share Eric's cost concerns.

I don't know who Eric is but I'd rather not have this conversation across a bunch of topics.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,72457.msg1740687.html#msg1740687

Producing balls under the current regulations is a well-known problem space. It's an entirely different beast to produce the best ball you can under a new set of regulations. The testing, experimentation, etc. will be costly.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Titliest is currently working on a 2 year release cycle for updates to the Pro V1 and Pro V1x. some years the changes are mild, some years the changes have been more substantial. Based on how Titleist promoted the newest Pro Vs the 2023 ball is a significantly new ball. With different material compositions, density gradients and internal dimensions. The only part of the ball that could be the same is the dimple pattern on the cover, oh and the name printed on it.

They don't speak like the development of the next Pro V1 is an ideation on the previous formula, but a new exploration into how they can beat the previous formula.

With enough runway, which the USGA/R&A are proposing, the R&D development cycle for the new ball would not be any different from their thinking 3-4 generations ahead. They've already foretasted the development of the Pro V1 mk14, mk15, & mk 16. At this point the shift in development on the mk16  is to meet a new spec for the Pro V1/2 mk1. While that may cost millions, its money they already intended to invest.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Titliest is currently working on a 2 year release cycle for updates to the Pro V1 and Pro V1x. some years the changes are mild, some years the changes have been more substantial. Based on how Titleist promoted the newest Pro Vs the 2023 ball is a significantly new ball.

And TaylorMade tells you all the time they've had a breakthrough, but the golf ball (and drivers) have been at their limits for decades now.

With enough runway, which the USGA/R&A are proposing, the R&D development cycle for the new ball would not be any different from their thinking 3-4 generations ahead. They've already foretasted the development of the Pro V1 mk14, mk15, & mk 16. At this point the shift in development on the mk16  is to meet a new spec for the Pro V1/2 mk1. While that may cost millions, it's money they already intended to invest.

No. It's not completely "back to the drawing board," but it's not just a continuation of what they've been doing, either. It's an added expense, and not a small one. Of course it's easier to just keep making variations of the same thing; within the concept of a golf ball, this is a "new" thing they have to make.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

All of this is a quote from an engineer to whom I showed this topic today:

Do they legitimately think that they have perfect simulation and modeling of all golf ball physics and potential materials/dimple patterns? Because not even our best supercomputers can fully accurately perform complex CFD like that and it still requires real world testing to verify/correlate simulation expectations. That means physically producing many prototypes.

Not to mention just the cost of retooling the assembly line, which most definitely is NOT already done.

Design and development is only a small part of the expense, manufacturing is the lion’s share of it. That one guy is hilarious if he thinks most R&D nowadays is done solely on computers. This will be a massive added expense. Also, an opportunity for big gains or losses in market share if you nail the new ball or miss it slightly.

[Charlie Goerges]

That's all fine, but I could not care less than I already do what it's going to cost the equipment companies to comply.


All that matters is what's good for the game. I agree that some form of rollback is good, but I'm open still on exactly what that form could take, bifurcation or game-wide.


That said, the manufacturers and the tour were given the "vegetables with ranch" option and they've done nothing but complain, so the governing bodies seem to be saying, "fine then, it's just vegetables for you". They've done this to themselves. They could have kept the old production lines up for at least a while, now it seems they'll be stuck with a hard crossover. They overplayed their hand. They're lucky that there even is a game for them to make money manufacturing equipment for. It's not theirs, it's ours.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

That's all fine, but I could not care less than I already do what it's going to cost the equipment companies to comply.

I don't either, which is why in this topic or the other I asked what the point of caring about it all is.

I agree that some form of rollback is good, but I'm open still on exactly what that form could take, bifurcation or game-wide.

I'm among those (in the minority it seems like) against bifurcation, but almost wish they'd have gone to 10% (we don't know what they went with as we're all just talking based on a Golf Digest article, which may or may not be accurate).

This is a lot of hassle for what seems like it will be a small (5%) change.

[Richard Hetzel]

Here is our "favorite" golf announcer chiming in...and, I agree with him except for the part where he calls us "geeks."

[Peter Flory]

The part that I just can't relate to is the "penalize" part.  Maybe the vast majority of golfers have a different mindset than me.  From my perspective, the competitive goal (and ignoring all the other reasons that I play golf) is to beat other people.  If everyone has to play a slower ball, I don't feel like it penalizes me.  Just like when it's raining or windy in a tournament, I don't view that as penalizing me.  And it's especially difficult to understand the mindset when golf has two adjustment systems- tees from different lengths, and handicaps. 

If there was a drastic change, which I'd be highly in favor of, like going back to persimmons, I could at least understand the argument that some golfers learned to play on different equipment and adjusting back will put them at a permanent disadvantage.  Maybe their swings have been grooved over the years to optimize for certain equipment and changing that muscle memory could be impossible.  Or maybe they are just athletic people without much finesse and rebalancing the game to reintroduce a broader spectrum of skills will result in them dropping from a percentile perspective. 

I think that there is just some natural psychology expressing itself here.  Each golfers has some sort of paranoia that the change will disproportionately put them at a disadvantage in their peer group. 

It seems like having a demo version of the ball would be useful to separate the speculation from the reality. 

[Charlie Goerges]

..."penalize"...

Truncating, but yes, exactly. It's not a penalty if it applies to everyone.

[Charlie Goerges]

This is a lot of hassle for what seems like it will be a small (5%) change.

I agree that it would probably be beneficial to do a bigger change now rather than what seems increasingly likely: another roll back at some point in the medium-term future. Of course there is something to be said for fine-tuning things in smaller increments, not that I think it is a large benefit in this case.

[Tim Gavrich]

To frame this as a "penalty" is to argue that the USGA and R&A are acting not out of concern for the game they administer, but rather out of vindictiveness. It is a classic bad-faith argument, which IMO can be dismissed out of hand as unserious.