Non-bifurcated rollback

[Craig Sweet]

Tim, take a poll at your local golf course. Ask the players if THEIR golf ball should travel 10% less than it does today.  They will frame this as a penalty and you know it. They could care less how far Rory hits his ball, but they DO CARE how far their ball goes.

[Bryan Izatt]

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.

Here it's an added expense but not a small one; in the below quote it's aa "massive" cost.  The latter seems overblown.

Re the "new" thing - changing from the wound ball to the solid core ball would be the definition of a new thing.  This change is just a variation on a theme. 

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.

I'd agree with the above, although the recent mantra is that AI will bypass human endeavor.

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

Don't they retool the assembly line every year anyway as they tweak the composition of the ball and the dimpling.  The only difference here is that the changes to the ball will be trying to achieve a different target for distance.

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. 

Not sure how 'slightly" missing will affect market share.  There are slight differences to all the conforming balls today.  People buy brands, with Titleist being the premium brand at a premium price.

[Bryan Izatt]

Over the last couple of years the USGA has doing research on the distance issue.  There are two papers that describe the results.

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/R22-02%20Laboratory%20and%20player%20testing%20with%20a%20limited%20distance%20golf%20ball.pdf

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/Equipment%20Specifications%20Research.pdf

The research areas of interest were:

2.2  Reduction in the limit within the overall distance standard[/size]
2.3  Other ball specifications (size, mass)
2.4  Reduction in the performance of drivers: club length* and clubhead dimensions (including volume)
2.4  Changes in the clubhead specifications on spring-like effect and moment of inertia, also considering the utilization
        of radius of gyration limitations
2.5  Production of spin from all clubs from all areas of the course

There is a lot of information in the two articles.  You can't accuse the USGA of not doing their homework.

They concluded that there were a number of areas not worth pursuing:

"Based on this work, the following are not anticipated to be areas of further research at this time.

a. Equipment factors influencing the level of difficulty of shots from the rough.
Statistical analysis of PGA TOUR performance, driving range tests with elite amateur golfers on
driving range, post-round interviews after equipment modifications, and strategy optimization did
not show support for the hypothesis that increased penalty from the rough would lead to shorter
drive distance.

b. The effects of teeing height.
There were some situations, especially in robot testing, where significantly reducing teeing
height led to substantial distance reductions. However, ball and club design or selection has
been shown to mitigate this, and effects were not consistent across all golfers in testing.

c. Minimum spin specifications for golf balls.
It has been shown that golf balls with different aerodynamic designs can mitigate for
construction characterized by increased spin, and that golfers who naturally have higher spin
(due to their clubhead presentation) are disproportionately affected.

d. Alternative size and weight specifications for golf balls.
Though some golfers may benefit from using golf balls with lower weight or larger diameter,
advantages were not identified for significant changes to size or weight specifications, and some
effects (including trajectory height and wind response) may be undesirable."

But, they did a lot of testing on two balls that limited distance across different test groups, both male and female and pro and recreational.  The two balls are described as follows:

The NP-301 and NP-500 are solid-core golf balls produced in response to a request to golf ball
manufacturers from the USGA and The R&A for an experimental limited-distance golf ball
initiated in 2005 (6). The NP-301 ball represents an 8.5% change in drive distance at Overall
Distance Standard conditions compared to golf balls used in elite competition at the time of
testing. Tests were conducted with recreational and professional golfers through 2012. The NP-
500 golf ball represents a 4.5% distance change under the same conditions and was tested
under the February 2021 AoI with recreational golfers.

"The NP-301 design was based on the construction of an existing, higher-spin consumer model,
with slightly lower initial ball speed than balls typical of those used in elite competition but
modified with a significantly different dimple pattern resulting increased drag, resulting in shorter
distance"

"The NP-500 golf ball has similar aerodynamic performance compared to contemporary golf balls
used in elite competition. That is, under identical conditions of speed, angle, and spin, these
balls would achieve similar distance. However, this ball exhibits higher than usual spin and,
more importantly, a significantly lower coefficient of restitution, resulting in decreased ball
speed."

It seems that there were manufacturers who made these balls for the USGA.  There's no mention of huge costs in their manufacture.

The papers contain a lot of information about the performance of the balls in the various test groups.  And, interestingly the perception of their performance.  There were some in the recreational golfer category who thought they were longer balls, even though they were told they weren't.  Anyway, interesting reading if you haven't seen them. And, informative regarding whatever announcement comes out this week.

As to bifurcation or not, you can draw your own conclusions from the research.

[Wayne_Kozun]

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.

Unserious - like the Roy family.  As Logan Roy said to his children "You're not serious people."

[Pat Burke]

Funny moment for me I thought some would like.
I’m teaching at a new place (private,equity club). Pretty busy and active club, lots of walkers.


It’s a low key start for teaching (members only), and I’m not too busy.
Had 4 lessons past weekend, 3 first timers, one female, two males.  All probably 14-18 handicaps.
First lessons for all the adults, so a lot of questions on their goal(s) for the lesson.


All three said the same thing first. “ I need to hit it further”    Took a lot of control not to laugh and think of this thread!!


The fourth student was a pretty good 9 year old….he wanted to hit it higher !


Obviously a huge sample size 


But it is likely to be a pretty representative feeling among many regular golfers.


I wanted no part of bifurcation, but I’ve also believed the solutions could cause a nightmare.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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

Geeks isn't the pejorative it once was.

Here it's an added expense but not a small one; in the below quote it's aa "massive" cost.  The latter seems overblown.

I know you this, but "massive" and "not small" are saying the same thing differently. "Not small" is in response to people claiming it will be a small or "not additional" expense. Most of your post seems to want to argue over different degrees of a word… What's "massive" to you? Is eight figures of additional spending "massive"? It is to me. It's also "not small."

I'm not going to argue about this much anymore. Given the conversations I've had with people both recently and over the last 20 years, I consider it fact.

Don't they retool the assembly line every year anyway as they tweak the composition of the ball and the dimpling.  The only difference here is that the changes to the ball will be trying to achieve a different target for distance.

Not like this. It's a new problem space. They could make a ball that goes 5% shorter (or 5% longer) tomorrow, but what if it goes 6% shorter? What if it balloons too much? What if it spins badly with a 9I, or is horrible in the wind, or sounds bad when putting?

Not sure how 'slightly" missing will affect market share.  There are slight differences to all the conforming balls today.  People buy brands, with Titleist being the premium brand at a premium price.

If company X's ball flies 5.9% shorter and everyone else's only flies 4.8% shorter, then… that's a "slight" miss that may be exposed and could result in golfers buying different balls. The companies seemingly will have four years, so I don't think this'll happen, but it's not a low-$ business and mistakes could be costly. Any time the regulations change, there's a chance for a market shake-up. It's not "business (and tech) as usual."

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The NP-301 ball represents an 8.5% change in drive distance at Overall Distance Standard conditions compared to golf balls used in elite competition at the time of testing. Tests were conducted with recreational and professional golfers through 2012. The NP-500 golf ball represents a 4.5% distance change under the same conditions and was tested under the February 2021 AoI with recreational golfers.

One of the survey question they asked was: "How did you feel that [the ball] affected your round?"

For the ball that went 8.5% shorter, 68% answered that it "hurt" their round in some capacity.
For the ball that went 4.5% shorter, 49% answered that it "hurt" their round in some capacity.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1731345135038812427

Just FWIW. I've always been anti-rollback and think they should have gone to 8-10%. I think even calling this 5% is a stretch: generally 1 MPH = 2.5 yards, so 5 MPH = 12.5 yards off a drive going 317 (IIRC). That's about 4%.

[Rob Marshall]

Couple of things from the radio today. Lou Stagner said that there are 56 sub reports to the USGA distance report. He's read all of them. He said the conclusion you would reach reading all the reports says NOT to roll the ball back. One point was that rolling the ball back decreases the pass of play.


Brad Faxon said that 60% of the distance increase comes from the driver and 40% from the ball.

[Ben Hollerbach]

"The NP-301 design was based on the construction of an existing, higher-spin consumer model,
with slightly lower initial ball speed than balls typical of those used in elite competition but
modified with a significantly different dimple pattern resulting increased drag, resulting in shorter
distance"

"The NP-500 golf ball has similar aerodynamic performance compared to contemporary golf balls
used in elite competition. That is, under identical conditions of speed, angle, and spin, these
balls would achieve similar distance. However, this ball exhibits higher than usual spin and,
more importantly, a significantly lower coefficient of restitution, resulting in decreased ball
speed."

It seems that there were manufacturers who made these balls for the USGA.  There's no mention of huge costs in their manufacture.

I asked this question in another thread. While I understand that the NP-301 nor NP-500 might be perfectly optimized, its clear that the ball manufactures could make both relatively easily and at a low enough cost for the USGA to test. I don't know if the USGA's financials are published but it would be interesting to know what the expense was. 

[Charlie Goerges]

"The NP-301 design was based on the construction of an existing, higher-spin consumer model,
with slightly lower initial ball speed than balls typical of those used in elite competition but
modified with a significantly different dimple pattern resulting increased drag, resulting in shorter
distance"

"The NP-500 golf ball has similar aerodynamic performance compared to contemporary golf balls
used in elite competition. That is, under identical conditions of speed, angle, and spin, these
balls would achieve similar distance. However, this ball exhibits higher than usual spin and,
more importantly, a significantly lower coefficient of restitution, resulting in decreased ball
speed."

It seems that there were manufacturers who made these balls for the USGA.  There's no mention of huge costs in their manufacture.

I asked this question in another thread. While I understand that the NP-301 nor NP-500 might be perfectly optimized, its clear that the ball manufactures could make both relatively easily and at a low enough cost for the USGA to test. I don't know if the USGA's financials are published but it would be interesting to know what the expense was.

I feel like those in favor of action are better off not engaging the manufacturers in this way over costs or opportunities or anything else. It puts the focus exactly where it shouldn't be...their profitability rather than the good of the game.

[Bruce Katona]

Pat Burke:

I've typed this one before but it's worth a repeat after reading your weekend work as a golf coach - teaching professional at a private club.


Back when I was much more involved in the business, many times I'd go visit one of our facilities on the weekend, where we were doing capital improvements I was involved with; since I couldn't get there during the work week to see progress made or troubleshoot any issues.  Many times after my work visit I'd hit balls on the range, since I was there - very rarely did I play on a weekend unless it was at the end of the day for 9 holes with my wife or daughter - weekends were for members and I didn't want to take up a weekend tee time.


I got to know the teaching professionals very well, since they'd see me often. I'm a friendly guy and talk with anyone.  I usually asked the professionals how their day or week was going, how the coaching business was going etc.  The greatest line ever told to me by one of our seasoned professionals was " Bruce - I've been pretty busy providing lessons. See those guys over on the 1st tee, they're all middle handicap players. I've been working with each of them. My goal is to get each one of them to hit 3-4 good shots every round.  If I can succeed in doing that, I have a student for the entire season."   

[Michael Felton]

I feel like those in favor of action are better off not engaging the manufacturers in this way over costs or opportunities or anything else. It puts the focus exactly where it shouldn't be...their profitability rather than the good of the game.

What happens when the price of balls goes up 10%? Is that good for the game?


Incidentally - I read on Twitter today that a 1995 Titleist Professional is too fast and will not meet the new standards that they are talking about. So we're basically going back to balatas. That's a pretty big difference. And it's going to change everything - iron distances, driving distances, wedge distances, chipping and putting. All of those are going to be tough for the occasional golfer to figure out with any reliability. But sure, Rory hits it too far, so everyone has to suffer. Great.

[Pat Burke]

Pat Burke:

I've typed this one before but it's worth a repeat after reading your weekend work as a golf coach - teaching professional at a private club.


Back when I was much more involved in the business, many times I'd go visit one of our facilities on the weekend, where we were doing capital improvements I was involved with; since I couldn't get there during the work week to see progress made or troubleshoot any issues.  Many times after my work visit I'd hit balls on the range, since I was there - very rarely did I play on a weekend unless it was at the end of the day for 9 holes with my wife or daughter - weekends were for members and I didn't want to take up a weekend tee time.


I got to know the teaching professionals very well, since they'd see me often. I'm a friendly guy and talk with anyone.  I usually asked the professionals how their day or week was going, how the coaching business was going etc.  The greatest line ever told to me by one of our seasoned professionals was " Bruce - I've been pretty busy providing lessons. See those guys over on the 1st tee, they're all middle handicap players. I've been working with each of them. My goal is to get each one of them to hit 3-4 good shots every round.  If I can succeed in doing that, I have a student for the entire season."

Funny just finished a lesson with another “new” student.


We worked on fundamental stuff, mostly to get rid of his right miss a bit


We also worked on the mentality of cutting disaster holes fro 4-5 per round to 3.


Little improvements make students happy!!


Btw. Just with the setup and start of swing adjustment he picked up 8 yards and about 25 feet of height with his eight iron, so he thinks I’m a magician!

[Daryl David]

Pat Burke:

I've typed this one before but it's worth a repeat after reading your weekend work as a golf coach - teaching professional at a private club.


Back when I was much more involved in the business, many times I'd go visit one of our facilities on the weekend, where we were doing capital improvements I was involved with; since I couldn't get there during the work week to see progress made or troubleshoot any issues.  Many times after my work visit I'd hit balls on the range, since I was there - very rarely did I play on a weekend unless it was at the end of the day for 9 holes with my wife or daughter - weekends were for members and I didn't want to take up a weekend tee time.


I got to know the teaching professionals very well, since they'd see me often. I'm a friendly guy and talk with anyone.  I usually asked the professionals how their day or week was going, how the coaching business was going etc.  The greatest line ever told to me by one of our seasoned professionals was " Bruce - I've been pretty busy providing lessons. See those guys over on the 1st tee, they're all middle handicap players. I've been working with each of them. My goal is to get each one of them to hit 3-4 good shots every round.  If I can succeed in doing that, I have a student for the entire season."

Funny just finished a lesson with another “new” student.


We worked on fundamental stuff, mostly to get rid of his right miss a bit


We also worked on the mentality of cutting disaster holes fro 4-5 per round to 3.


Little improvements make students happy!!


Btw. Just with the setup and start of swing adjustment he picked up 8 yards and about 25 feet of height with his eight iron, so he thinks I’m a magician!

Sounds like you are a magician!  Keep it up. 

[Pat Burke]

Pat Burke:

I've typed this one before but it's worth a repeat after reading your weekend work as a golf coach - teaching professional at a private club.


Back when I was much more involved in the business, many times I'd go visit one of our facilities on the weekend, where we were doing capital improvements I was involved with; since I couldn't get there during the work week to see progress made or troubleshoot any issues.  Many times after my work visit I'd hit balls on the range, since I was there - very rarely did I play on a weekend unless it was at the end of the day for 9 holes with my wife or daughter - weekends were for members and I didn't want to take up a weekend tee time.


I got to know the teaching professionals very well, since they'd see me often. I'm a friendly guy and talk with anyone.  I usually asked the professionals how their day or week was going, how the coaching business was going etc.  The greatest line ever told to me by one of our seasoned professionals was " Bruce - I've been pretty busy providing lessons. See those guys over on the 1st tee, they're all middle handicap players. I've been working with each of them. My goal is to get each one of them to hit 3-4 good shots every round.  If I can succeed in doing that, I have a student for the entire season."

Funny just finished a lesson with another “new” student.


We worked on fundamental stuff, mostly to get rid of his right miss a bit


We also worked on the mentality of cutting disaster holes fro 4-5 per round to 3.


Little improvements make students happy!!


Btw. Just with the setup and start of swing adjustment he picked up 8 yards and about 25 feet of height with his eight iron, so he thinks I’m a magician!

Sounds like you are a magician!  Keep it up. 

Ahh first lesson!!


Him playing well and seeing improvement in the next one(s) are the test!!

[Mike_Clayton]

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

Brandel conveniently fails to add there are a handful of LPGA players statistically longer than mid-1980s Greg Norman.
It's not because they are better athletes.

[Grant Saunders]

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.

I find the questioning about the ability for people to train to swing faster interesting


Where I work, we have  a number of high profile NZ athletes play their golf. For those outside of the USA, and familiar with the sport of rugby, I refer to the All Blacks.


Watching these guys play golf, when they specifically train in areas of speed and explosiveness for their chosen sport, is simply quite something to behold. For example, for those who know who he is, Damian McKenzie can fly his driver in excess of 300 yards with little problem. Please remember that this is a player who simply "plays" golf and doesnt specifically practice the game or train with it as his goal. He is utilising physical qualities he has developed in another sport with a focus on speed

[Grant Saunders]

Just curious if there is any clear evidence that the modern multi layer ball goes further than the 2 piece surlyn balls of the 90's.


Essentially, bifurcation existed then because elite players chose to trade distance for control and feel. Wasnt the Pro V basically just a pinnacle that could spin?

[BCrosby]

"Brandel conveniently fails to add there are a handful of LPGA players statistically longer than mid-1980s Greg Norman.
It's not because they are better athletes."

Ditto for a handful of players on the Senior Tour.

[Mike Bodo]

Just curious if there is any clear evidence that the modern multi layer ball goes further than the 2 piece surlyn balls of the 90's.


Essentially, bifurcation existed then because elite players chose to trade distance for control and feel. Wasnt the Pro V basically just a pinnacle that could spin?

I'd be curious to know how much longer a Pro V1 goes vs. an 80's Top Flite or Pinnacle as solid core gofl ball technology has been around since the 70's. Problem was, they were hard as rocks and felt like a rock coming off the club face. While they were great for use on the driving range, no respectable player used them on the course until Lee Trevino started endorsing Top Flite in the 80's. This made perfect sense with Trevino having the rep of being a short ball hitter and the added length he got from playing the Top Flite ball, which appealed to many consumers. There were obvious distance gains to be had using a solid core Top Flite vs. a balata wound Titleist, but because they didn't spin like a balata or feel close to a balata in terms of softness there was no widespread adoption of the ball on the PGA Tour. It wasn't until the original Pro V was introduced where all that changed. However, were you to perform a robotic driving test of a solid core ball from the 80's to today's Pro V1 at say 115 MPH swing speed, I'm willing to guess there wouldn't be a huge disparity in carry distance betwen the two given how low-spin Pinnacle's and Top Flites were back then. Improvements in dimple pattern, aerodynamics and core tecnology over the years give today's multi-layer, solid core balls an advantage, but I'm willing to guess the distance improvement isn't more than 10% max. It would be a great case study to perform, as it could potentially refocus the debate of distance rollback on equipment, which is where it should have been placed all along IMO.

[Charlie Goerges]

I feel like those in favor of action are better off not engaging the manufacturers in this way over costs or opportunities or anything else. It puts the focus exactly where it shouldn't be...their profitability rather than the good of the game.

What happens when the price of balls goes up 10%? Is that good for the game?

It's not ideal, but the easiest place for me to absorb a 10% price hike would be in the purchase of golf balls. Any other part of the game and it might be prohibitive. Additionally, I have the option of buying a cheaper level of ball than I currently do in order to absorb the difference. It's tougher to absorb a 10% hike in greenfees or other areas. That said, I don't expect that large an increase, they can re-direct their R&D in a more fruitful way to plan for it. It sounds like they have 5 years to figure it out!

[MCirba]

I was excited to read about the golf ball rollback until I saw that it won't happen for professionals until 2028 and for amateurs in 2030.

So, at age 72 in my case, God willing.   Egads.

I'll likely have moved up a set to something around 6,000 yards by then so it should be a wash.  Since we normally try to play around 6,300 to 6,500 today I may even benefit. 

A good strike is a good strike and I'm sure I'll enjoy those just as much by then.

[Tim Martin]

I was excited to read about the golf ball rollback until I saw that it won't happen for professionals until 2028 and for amateurs in 2030.

So, at age 72 in my case, God willing.   Egads.

I'll likely have moved up a set to something around 6,000 yards by then so it should be a wash.  A good strike is a good strike and I'm sure I'll enjoy those just as much by then.

Mike-It won’t be a wash on the approach.

[MCirba]

I was excited to read about the golf ball rollback until I saw that it won't happen for professionals until 2028 and for amateurs in 2030.

So, at age 72 in my case, God willing.   Egads.

I'll likely have moved up a set to something around 6,000 yards by then so it should be a wash.  A good strike is a good strike and I'm sure I'll enjoy those just as much by then.

Mike-It won’t be a wash on the approach.

Tim,


True, but it will be fun to use my mid and long irons again. 


Am I the only dinosaur still using a 3-iron?  Would love to put the 2-iron back in the bag as well, but finding I need 3 wedges these days.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'd be curious to know how much longer a Pro V1 goes vs. an 80's Top Flite or Pinnacle as solid core gofl ball technology has been around since the 70's. Problem was, they were hard as rocks and felt like a rock coming off the club face.

Not much. I've been pointing this out for awhile now: the Pro V1 is just a Pinnacle that spins around the greens.

And, though the costs will still be additive, and still be in the eight figures (molds alone to test additional prototypes are a bulk of that added cost), it's not going to be mid-8 figures or high-8 figures… because they changed so little that:

A significant portion of golf ball models that are currently in the market – and more than 30 percent of all golf ball models submitted for conformance across the game – are expected to remain conforming after these changes are applied.

A ball engineer I texted with this morning said they had been envisioning something approaching a 10% rollback (I hadn't talked to them since the Friday leak).

What's even the point?

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2023/12/revised-golf-ball-testing-conditions-to-take-effect-in-2028.html