Non-bifurcated rollback

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Internet surveys are worth the paper they are printed on.

Yeah. Unless they stock up on a huge supply, they're gonna be playing the rolled back ball sooner rather than later.

[Bryan Izatt]

Internet surveys are worth the paper they are printed on.

Yeah. Unless they stock up on a huge supply, they're gonna be playing the rolled back ball sooner rather than later.

Six years from now hardly seems like sooner!  By then I likely will hit a driver 150, if I'm still playing.  And, the ball and distance, old or new, will be mostly irrelevant.  With aging, I'm probably losing 5% of distance every couple of years anyway.  But, I do have a good stockpile of hot balls.


If the rollback is as advertised, it seems like a rather token restraint on distance for elite players.  There are already players whose swing speed exceeds 125 mph.  In four years most of the top guys will probably be beyond 125 mph (the top 25 are already over 120) and advances in driver materials and ball aerodynamics will likely make a 5% roll back almost unnoticeable.


It'll be interesting to see if the rolled back balls that the manufacturers come up with will actually deliver a 5% rollback across the spectrum of swing speeds.  I'm skeptical.


From an architectural point of view, it's possible it'll make more players aware of the architecture of their course as features that weren't in play now become an issue, but conversely other features may no longer be an issue.  We may also need more shorter tees for us older rolled back folks.

[Sean_A]

Internet surveys are worth the paper they are printed on.

Yeah. Unless they stock up on a huge supply, they're gonna be playing the rolled back ball sooner rather than later.

Six years from now hardly seems like sooner!  By then I likely will hit a driver 150, if I'm still playing.  And, the ball and distance, old or new, will be mostly irrelevant.  With aging, I'm probably losing 5% of distance every couple of years anyway.  But, I do have a good stockpile of hot balls.


If the rollback is as advertised, it seems like a rather token restraint on distance for elite players.  There are already players whose swing speed exceeds 125 mph.  In four years most of the top guys will probably be beyond 125 mph (the top 25 are already over 120) and advances in driver materials and ball aerodynamics will likely make a 5% roll back almost unnoticeable.


It'll be interesting to see if the rolled back balls that the manufacturers come up with will actually deliver a 5% rollback across the spectrum of swing speeds.  I'm skeptical.


From an architectural point of view, it's possible it'll make more players aware of the architecture of their course as features that weren't in play now become an issue, but conversely other features may no longer be an issue.  We may also need more shorter tees for us older rolled back folks.

I recall we had a conversation about this. I too am skeptical about an exact percentage grade rollback for all levels of golfers. That said, I don’t know how much carry I would accept losing to voluntarily use an elite ball. I would cross that bridge when needed.

Even if there was a mandated rollback, I wouldn’t stock up on hot balls.

I think the ruling bodies have mucked this up. The process has taken far too long and there should have been a specific percentage rollback announced from day 1.

Ciao

[Tony Ristola]

Internet surveys are worth the paper they are printed on.

Yeah. Unless they stock up on a huge supply, they're gonna be playing the rolled back ball sooner rather than later.

Six years from now hardly seems like sooner!  By then I likely will hit a driver 150, if I'm still playing.  And, the ball and distance, old or new, will be mostly irrelevant.  With aging, I'm probably losing 5% of distance every couple of years anyway.  But, I do have a good stockpile of hot balls.


If the rollback is as advertised, it seems like a rather token restraint on distance for elite players.  There are already players whose swing speed exceeds 125 mph.  In four years most of the top guys will probably be beyond 125 mph (the top 25 are already over 120) and advances in driver materials and ball aerodynamics will likely make a 5% roll back almost unnoticeable.


It'll be interesting to see if the rolled back balls that the manufacturers come up with will actually deliver a 5% rollback across the spectrum of swing speeds.  I'm skeptical.


From an architectural point of view, it's possible it'll make more players aware of the architecture of their course as features that weren't in play now become an issue, but conversely other features may no longer be an issue.  We may also need more shorter tees for us older rolled back folks.

I recall we had a conversation about this. I too am skeptical about an exact percentage grade rollback for all levels of golfers. That said, I don’t know how much carry I would accept losing to voluntarily use an elite ball. I would cross that bridge when needed.

Even if there was a mandated rollback, I wouldn’t stock up on hot balls.

I think the ruling bodies have mucked this up. The process has taken far too long and there should have been a specific percentage rollback announced from day 1.

Ciao

The ruling bodies slept at the wheel. This should have been addressed, latest... when the Pro V1 came out and guys started hitting it significantly further.


My guess is the rollback won't be enough. Enough will be when elite players hit long irons into 450-yard par-4's again.

[Rob Marshall]

Internet surveys are worth the paper they are printed on.

Yeah. Unless they stock up on a huge supply, they're gonna be playing the rolled back ball sooner rather than later.

IMO, there is no way in hell the ball manufacturers are not going to go down without a fight. There will be a lawsuit that will drag out for years.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Internet surveys are worth the paper they are printed on.

Yeah. Unless they stock up on a huge supply, they're gonna be playing the rolled back ball sooner rather than later.

IMO, there is no way in hell the ball manufacturers are not going to go down without a fight. There will be a lawsuit that will drag put for years.

I have no doubt that you are correct, but what’s the point in the lawsuit?  If Titleist, Bridgestone, et al, maintain their market share then why does it matter if the ball is rolled back or not?  Or will sales go down due to fewer lost balls since a shorter ball may not be lost or go in a water hazard as often?

[Thomas Dai]

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

[Rob Marshall]

Internet surveys are worth the paper they are printed on.

Yeah. Unless they stock up on a huge supply, they're gonna be playing the rolled back ball sooner rather than later.

IMO, there is no way in hell the ball manufacturers are not going to go down without a fight. There will be a lawsuit that will drag put for years.

I have no doubt that you are correct, but what’s the point in the lawsuit?  If Titleist, Bridgestone, et al, maintain their market share then why does it matter if the ball is rolled back or not?  Or will sales go down due to fewer lost balls since a shorter ball may not be lost or go in a water hazard as often?

Great point. But if nothing changes from a market share point, why would they be against it? Maybe just the cost of re-tooling the plants.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Internet surveys are worth the paper they are printed on.

Yeah. Unless they stock up on a huge supply, they're gonna be playing the rolled back ball sooner rather than later.

IMO, there is no way in hell the ball manufacturers are not going to go down without a fight. There will be a lawsuit that will drag put for years.

I have no doubt that you are correct, but what’s the point in the lawsuit?  If Titleist, Bridgestone, et al, maintain their market share then why does it matter if the ball is rolled back or not?  Or will sales go down due to fewer lost balls since a shorter ball may not be lost or go in a water hazard as often?

Great point. But if nothing changes from a market share point, why would they be against it? Maybe just the cost of re-tooling the plants.

The ball rollback has the potential to be very similar to the most recent formula change in F1. If a team/ball manufacturer gets the change wrong they could end up slipping back in the market. Mercedes got it wrong and it ended a near decade of dominance.


Everyone but Titleist should be excited by the rollback, especially Bridgestone.

[Kalen Braley]

Still don't quite understand how a private entity can make its own equipment rules to govern its game, without mandating any manufacturer be in compliance with them, then change those rules and be sued for it?  Seems to me a suit like that would be tossed on day 1 and the suit bringer assessed a fine for wasting everyone's time.

And if the pro tours feel strongly about the USGA changes, why not just have their own rules to govern equipment?

P.S.  Please don't use the counter-argument of "well then I couldn't play with a pro in casual/club match" like that is ever going to happen for 99.9% of golfers anyways.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Still don't quite understand how a private entity can make its own equipment rules to govern its game, without mandating any manufacturer be in compliance with them, then change those rules and be sued for it?  Seems to me a suit like that would be tossed on day 1 and the suit bringer assessed a fine for wasting everyone's time.

And if the pro tours feel strongly about the USGA changes, why not just have their own rules to govern equipment?

P.S.  Please don't use the counter-argument of "well then I couldn't play with a pro in casual/club match" like that is ever going to happen for 99.9% of golfers anyways.

Agree, everyone in the game has bestowed authority on the USGA and R&A to govern the game by following their lead. Nothing has stopped others from going against the ruling bodies, but the golfing world continues to seed them power. By history, inertia, or complacency parties may grumble but inevitably chose to follow.


When you think about it, it does seem somewhat surprising that at no point has the PGA Tour created their own rule book, even if it was 90% the same as the USGA.

[Thomas Dai]

The ball rollback has the potential to be very similar to the most recent formula change in F1. If a team/ball manufacturer gets the change wrong they could end up slipping back in the market. Mercedes got it wrong and it ended a near decade of dominance.
Everyone but Titleist should be excited by the rollback, especially Bridgestone.

Precisely. It's opportunity time.
Take one of your main competitors out the picture and increase your own share of the outcome.
atb

[Wayne_Kozun]

Why would Titleist and the other ball makers have to retool their plants?  Wouldn’t this just be a reformulation in the polymers, or whatever, that go into their balls?  Like they would be reverting back to the 2007 Pro V1 formula, or something similar.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I agree with the rollback but I think that this is going to be a shit-show and the R&A and USGA are going to get roasted over this issue.  You are already starting to see this on social media.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Why would Titleist and the other ball makers have to retool their plants?  Wouldn’t this just be a reformulation in the polymers, or whatever, that go into their balls?  Like they would be reverting back to the 2007 Pro V1 formula, or something similar.

The 2000 Pro V1 is barely any shorter than the 2023. The 2007 Pro V1 is NOT going to meet the new distance standard (whatever it is, which is probably what was in that Golf Digest article). The 2000 Pro V1 wouldn't pass. They can't just go back a few generations and call it good.

So, I put it this way on another site:

- Year over year, they paint a wall and sometimes replace a countertop in the kitchen.
- This will require gutting the house, knocking down some walls, maybe leaving one whole side of the house up and the foundation to satisfy the Historical Society, but then completely renovating the house.

Every part of the ball will have to be re-done. Not from the ground up, but they may have to change the core, the mantle, the cover. They may have to change the thicknesses, the materials or the composition, and they'll almost certainly have to change the dimples.

They could make a ball that meets the criteria pretty quickly: making a ball that performs GREAT across all clubs that meets the new regulations will take a lot of experimentation, a lot of new molds, a lot of testing…

Molds are expensive. Erie has a good number of plastics places, and in talking about this today, one person who was a manager at one of those said the molds for the caps of Gillette deodorant cost about $3M.

Also, unrelated to the above…

https://twitter.com/SashoMacKenzie/status/1730815668172300624

This seems like a lot for a measly 5%. Should've just gone to 10%.

[Craig Sweet]

Local rule...Play any ball you want.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I don’t buy that pros can swing harder, and will swing harder, and that their drives will have the same dispersion. If that was the case they would be swinging harder today.

[John Kavanaugh]

Local rule...Play any ball you want.

Another chapter to every boring golf story.


What tees, which ball, how quick…you doze off before how many.

[Peter Flory]

I don’t buy that pros can swing harder, and will swing harder, and that their drives will have the same dispersion. If that was the case they would be swinging harder today.

There is an interesting outcome with Brian Harmon.  He's something like 10th percentile in swing speed, but 50th percentile in driving distance.  The effect is because there are so many holes where other pros have to dial back and he's able to still hit driver on those.  Essentially, pros can't just swing fully on many holes currently because they are hitting into pinch points/ dead ends.  If that is true, then I could see them getting to the same points on many holes even with a slower ball, by pulling a Brian Harmon. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

I don’t buy that pros can swing harder, and will swing harder, and that their drives will have the same dispersion. If that was the case they would be swinging harder today.

We all know that guys on tour CAN swing it faster, but you have to ask WHY they don’t today, and thus why they would suddenly do that tomorrow?


We’ve seen Finau hit 200 mph ball speed when he’s playing for fun, but not in tournament play. If he doesn’t feel it beneficial today to swing faster, why would that change tomorrow? When the new ball is rolled out he’s still going to be one of the longer players on tour.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I don’t buy that pros can swing harder, and will swing harder, and that their drives will have the same dispersion. If that was the case they would be swinging harder today.

There is an interesting outcome with Brian Harmon.  He's something like 10th percentile in swing speed, but 50th percentile in driving distance.  The effect is because there are so many holes where other pros have to dial back and he's able to still hit driver on those.  Essentially, pros can't just swing fully on many holes currently because they are hitting into pinch points/ dead ends.  If that is true, then I could see them getting to the same points on many holes even with a slower ball, by pulling a Brian Harmon.

Is that on all drives, or the measured drive holes?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Why would Titleist and the other ball makers have to retool their plants?  Wouldn’t this just be a reformulation in the polymers, or whatever, that go into their balls?  Like they would be reverting back to the 2007 Pro V1 formula, or something similar.

The 2000 Pro V1 is barely any shorter than the 2023. The 2007 Pro V1 is NOT going to meet the new distance standard (whatever it is, which is probably what was in that Golf Digest article). The 2000 Pro V1 wouldn't pass. They can't just go back a few generations and call it good.

So, I put it this way on another site:

- Year over year, they paint a wall and sometimes replace a countertop in the kitchen.
- This will require gutting the house, knocking down some walls, maybe leaving one whole side of the house up and the foundation to satisfy the Historical Society, but then completely renovating the house.

Every part of the ball will have to be re-done. Not from the ground up, but they may have to change the core, the mantle, the cover. They may have to change the thicknesses, the materials or the composition, and they'll almost certainly have to change the dimples.

They could make a ball that meets the criteria pretty quickly: making a ball that performs GREAT across all clubs that meets the new regulations will take a lot of experimentation, a lot of new molds, a lot of testing…

Molds are expensive. Erie has a good number of plastics places, and in talking about this today, one person who was a manager at one of those said the molds for the caps of Gillette deodorant cost about $3M.

Also, unrelated to the above…

https://twitter.com/SashoMacKenzie/status/1730815668172300624

This seems like a lot for a measly 5%. Should've just gone to 10%.

Not only this, but also ultimately golf ball components will be expected to be 100% recyclable.

[Ben Hollerbach]

From Rory:

“I don't understand the anger about the golf ball roll back. It will make no difference whatsoever to the average golfer and puts golf back on a path of sustainability. It will also help bring back certain skills in the pro game that have been eradicated over the past 2 decades.

The people who are upset about this decision shouldn't be mad at the governing bodies, they should be mad at elite pros and club/ball manufacturers because they didn't want bifurcation. The governing
bodies presented us with that option earlier this year. Elite pros and ball manufacturers think bifurcation would negatively affect their bottom lines, when in reality, the game is already bifurcated. You think we play the same stuff you do? They put pressure on the governing bodies to roll it back to a lesser degree for everyone. Bifurcation was the logical answer for
everyone, but yet again in this game, money talks.”

[Thomas Dai]

From Rory:

“I don't understand the anger about the golf ball roll back. It will make no difference whatsoever to the average golfer and puts golf back on a path of sustainability. It will also help bring back certain skills in the pro game that have been eradicated over the past 2 decades.

The people who are upset about this decision shouldn't be mad at the governing bodies, they should be mad at elite pros and club/ball manufacturers because they didn't want bifurcation. The governing
bodies presented us with that option earlier this year. Elite pros and ball manufacturers think bifurcation would negatively affect their bottom lines, when in reality, the game is already bifurcated. You think we play the same stuff you do? They put pressure on the governing bodies to roll it back to a lesser degree for everyone. Bifurcation was the logical answer for
everyone, but yet again in this game, money talks.”

Wow, a high profile head with the courage to raise itself above the parapet in the face of vested interests.
Atb

[Tim Martin]

From Rory:

“I don't understand the anger about the golf ball roll back. It will make no difference whatsoever to the average golfer and puts golf back on a path of sustainability. It will also help bring back certain skills in the pro game that have been eradicated over the past 2 decades.

The people who are upset about this decision shouldn't be mad at the governing bodies, they should be mad at elite pros and club/ball manufacturers because they didn't want bifurcation. The governing
bodies presented us with that option earlier this year. Elite pros and ball manufacturers think bifurcation would negatively affect their bottom lines, when in reality, the game is already bifurcated. You think we play the same stuff you do? They put pressure on the governing bodies to roll it back to a lesser degree for everyone. Bifurcation was the logical answer for
everyone, but yet again in this game, money talks.”

Wow, a high profile head with the courage to raise itself above the parapet in the face of vested interests.
Atb

Tiger is a proponent of bifurcation. Is there a generally accepted definition of “elite amateur” by/for the USGA and R&A?