USGA Notice to Manufacturers

[Rob Marshall]

Thanks Brian,
Here is what I found.


https://golf.com/gear/swing-speed-optimal-trackman-numbers-to-hit-your-drives-farther/

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Where's the increased advantage of length?

Let's assume it's two clubs, because the second shot will be affected too. So let's say now the guy hitting 9I has to hit 7I. The guy who previously hit 7I is hitting 5I.

Is the gap between 9I (long hitter) and 7I (short hitter) bigger than the gap between 7I (long hitter) and 5I (short hitter)?

And, if courses were set up 15 yards shorter to accommodate the rolled back ball, then wouldn't all the tour players be playing approximately the same clubs as now - depending on how the roll back affects iron distances?

Why would they do that? Why go back to "it's all driver-wedge these days…" (even though it's not)?

On the other subject of a negative AoA with the driver, where is the increased control?

AoA is simply in the downward angle, so it doesn't increase spin axis tilt. It creates a larger spin loft, which is tougher to tilt. That's why it's tough(er) to slice a wedge.

A negative AoA increases spin.  Increased spin would accentuate any lateral dispersion caused by spin axis tilt.  Increased spin would be useful for players with the skill and the desire to shape shots.  But, I assumed the mantra on tour was to hit it far and straight - low spin and positive AoA is best for that.

And yet the average is still negative for the PGA Tour driver. In part due to the above.

You can't just say "hitting down increases spin." It doesn't affect spin in all "directions" equally.

[Ben Hollerbach]

It seems to me that the result of this MRL will be to knock 15-20 yards off of everyone playing competitive professional golf more or less equally across the board and swill shift everyone into longer shots into the greens. I just don’t see how this doesn’t just shift the advantage even more to the longest hitters on tour, further emphasizing distance as the most important factor in the game.

You've got it… it will likely increase the emphasis (and advantage) of driving distance.

Not sure how it increases emphasis on distance or makes length more of an advantage.  Assuming that all the tour players lose the same 15+/- yards (which is the most likely outcome) at whatever their average swing speed and driver distance is, then they'll all be hitting one more club for their second shot.  Where's the increased advantage of length?

As approach shot distance increases from 50 yards to 200 yards, at every measured interval the scoring gap decreases. If ~60% of all par 4 approach shots are currently played from 100-180 yards, what will happen to the scoring differential if those same approach shots are moved back 15-20 additional yards? This would lead me to believe it would put a greater emphasis on mid iron and long iron approach skills.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

One of the problems with graphs like that is that you're using the quartiles or "best" and "worst" and stuff from those ranges. You're not comparing the people who are more likely to hit those shots over the other people.

You're not comparing Dustin Johnson to Zach Johnson, basically, and moving them both back 25 yards (because they'll hit a slightly longer iron in, too).

You're also not accounting for what players will DO in the situation: you assume that everyone just loses 25 yards or some fixed percentage or something.

The problem is multivariate. And not every golfer will be affected by the variables the same way, or "solve" the problem the same way, or has the same skills.

[Mark Pearce]

I am supportive of the proposed roll-back, but--


Did you see the tee shot that Rory just hit on the 18th of the Match Play?  One of the greatest shots I've ever seen in golf.  Carried it onto the 18th Green over 350 yards with the match on the line.  The announcers were saying that if the new rule would stop that, it shouldn't happen.  It was incredible.  It will be shown on replay--maybe forever.

It won’t be any less impressive if they move the tee blocks up 20 yards and he does it from 330.

This should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent human being.  I'm actually slightly depressed how many people think Rory's shot (one up, one to play, no real jeopardy round the green, only needs a half to win - it's a great shot but not even in McIlroy's best 10 shots on tour) is evidence against the roll back.

[Tom_Doak]

People are tripping over themselves to find evidence against the rollback.


Ironically, I hear that Rory is secretly one of the few players in favor of it.

[Sean_A]

People are tripping over themselves to find evidence against the rollback.

Ironically, I hear that Rory is secretly one of the few players in favor of it.

Rory is openly in favour of the rollback.

I can understand not caring, but I fail to understand why non elite players are against rollback. Boggles the mind.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Ironically, I hear that Rory is secretly one of the few players in favor of it.

It's not a secret: https://nolayingup.com/blog/mcilroy-supports-governing-bodies-distance-proposal.

I can understand not caring, but I fail to understand why non elite players are against rollback. Boggles the mind.

Because bifurcation stinks?

[Sean_A]

Ironically, I hear that Rory is secretly one of the few players in favor of it.

It's not a secret: https://nolayingup.com/blog/mcilroy-supports-governing-bodies-distance-proposal.

I can understand not caring, but I fail to understand why non elite players are against rollback. Boggles the mind.

Because bifurcation stinks?

Bifurcation stinks? I fully accept that elite players play a different game to the one I do where angles matter. 😎

Ciao

[Tim_Cronin]

Ironically, I hear that Rory is secretly one of the few players in favor of it.

It's not a secret: https://nolayingup.com/blog/mcilroy-supports-governing-bodies-distance-proposal.

I can understand not caring, but I fail to understand why non elite players are against rollback. Boggles the mind.

Because bifurcation stinks?

It’s a good idea. It will allow courses to host tournaments without spending millions to tear them up for a week of play.


It means pros will hit a club or so more in. I think they can handle it.


Those who believe tour players are using the same equipment as mortals are in fantasyland. As all the above arguments prove.


Have a nice night, all.

[Pat Burke]

Does anyone really believe the leadership of “tournament “ courses won’t want to make changes in their great courses??


They can’t help themselves

[Sean_A]

Does anyone really believe the leadership of “tournament “ courses won’t want to make changes in their great courses??

They can’t help themselves

I never bought blaming course changes on equipment. As you say, people just have to mess with stuff. It's in our nature.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It’s a good idea.

Penalizes everyone just below the line.

[Mike_Clayton]

It’s a good idea.

Penalizes everyone just below the line.

I'm not sure how relevant this is - but I won the 1978 Australian Amateur using a 1.68' ball. I was the only one in the field using it - and giving up the same likely yardage the ball will be rolled back in 2026. (15-25 yards)
Within 3 years the Aust Am was a 1.68' ball tournament.
This proposed change isn't anywhere near as significant as the switch from 1.62 to 1.68 - because every shot was different.
It just didn't create a fuss in the US because they weren't affected.
Now they are.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm not sure how relevant this is - but I won the 1978 Australian Amateur using a 1.68' ball. I was the only one in the field using it - and giving up the same likely yardage the ball will be rolled back in 2026. (15-25 yards)

Congrats, and… as you know, standardizing on the 1.68" ball ended bifurcation. This re-introduces it.

[Mike_Clayton]

And every decent amateur thinking of turning pro would adopt the pro ball and pressure tournaments to make it mandatory.
They all would within a couple of years.

[JMEvensky]

And every decent amateur thinking of turning pro would adopt the pro ball and pressure tournaments to make it mandatory.
They all would within a couple of years.

And eventually state and city amateurs, then club tournaments, etc.


This was the late/great Rich Goodale's theory of bifurcation quickly returning to unification.

[John Challenger]

Erik B. Putting the technical arguments aside, could you summarize why are you against the changes? It seems like you start with:


1. Let's have a ball that separates out the best golfers.
2. All changes favor some golfers over others.


It means all the changes over the last twenty years have favored some golfers over others too. The changes are not separating out the best golfers, but certain kinds of golfers. With every change, there is always is a new line where some are helped and some are hurt.


Later, you seem to change your mind and argue for:


1. The ball changes over the last twenty years haven't really changed much in terms of performance.
2. Whatever the ball changes, the players and equipment manufacturers will adjust and nothing will change.
3. The change is so little it won't make a difference.


I think you feel that the main problem with bifurcation is that it is bad for manufacturers of balls and equipment. Or it might be that players will have to adjust.


I think your main concern is mostly that golf will be disrupted, i.e. the status quo will change...but not much.

[Sean_A]

And every decent amateur thinking of turning pro would adopt the pro ball and pressure tournaments to make it mandatory.
They all would within a couple of years.

I think it will go deeper. Hence one reason the winnable bifurcation rollback makes sense. Experts say nothing will change for slow swingers, but I think everyone would be much more content testing the theory on the course when it isn't mandatory. It's hard to trust expert math when we have been told for 25 years that tech has maxed out. Once all is said and done, if the low skill amateurs who hit the ball far and dangerously wrong haven't been reigned in then this is a failed experiment. Pros whacking the shit out of the ball is a relatively minor problem in the big scheme of things.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And every decent amateur thinking of turning pro would adopt the pro ball…

That doesn't change the fact that either way there's going to be some level just below wherever the line is drawn.

Let's say you're at whatever level is just below the level where they play the MLR ball. Do you play the MLR ball, willingly giving up an advantage while others have that advantage, and forego what it could mean to advancing you in your current level… in the hopes that you will even get to the next level and are beginning to prepare for life "above" the MLR line?

Let's pretend the line is just above the collegiate level. If you're a good college player, do you play the MLR ball even if you know it's going to cost you and/or your team, because you think you can make it at the next level? Does your coach allow you to willfully/willingly harm you and the team? If the difference is between winning a collegiate event or finishing T3… is that worth it? Competing for a national championship or not making it to the match play rounds? Etc.

There are no guarantees in life and the game is MUCH larger and much more competitive now than in 1978.

Erik B. Putting the technical arguments aside, could you summarize why are you against the changes?

My position all along has been: https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1637782699967479809

To get back to the original stuff:

1. I don’t think "they" needed to do anything for a tiny % of the game’s players. 6500 yards is enough for ~95%.

2. If they were going to do something, they should have gone further AND done it for everyone. Complete rollback, not bifurcation.

I've also said that IF they choose to disrupt the game, and the rules, then they'd better be damn sure they understand the ramifications and the end result. For example, it would have been silly to make a rules change and disrupt the game… if manufacturers and players could work around it in short order. A rules change with no actual consequence or, worse, unintended consequences would be "bad."

1. Let's have a ball that separates out the best golfers.
2. All changes favor some golfers over others.

Are you saying that I've said these things? Also, I don't think you can "leave out the technical side of things."

It means all the changes over the last twenty years have favored some golfers over others too. The changes are not separating out the best golfers, but certain kinds of golfers. With every change, there is always is a new line where some are helped and some are hurt.

I'm sure I've said something like this, but it's nothing close to my starting point or baseline.

1. The ball changes over the last twenty years haven't really changed much in terms of performance.

This is accurate. The modern Pro V1 (or TP5 or whatever) is a Pinnacle from the 80s that spins a bit more with shorter clubs.

2. Whatever the ball changes, the players and equipment manufacturers will adjust and nothing will change.

I don't generally use absolutes like that, so no.

3. The change is so little it won't make a difference.

It won't make a difference… to what? There are many things that it could make a difference in… but to strategy? Probably not. TO who are the best players? Probably not. To golf courses? No, probably not - it seems to be about a 4% reduction, and some pros may lose even less if they're swinging less than optimally.

I think you feel that the main problem with bifurcation is that it is bad for manufacturers of balls and equipment.

No. I don't really care about Titleist having to spend an extra $20M per year for the next three to five years… seeing as how they make about $670M on balls annually.

[Rob Marshall]

They didn't "make" $670M on balls.

[Niall C]

The issue for manufacturers of balls is not just how the size of the market will be affected but more importantly how their market share might change. I suspect Titliest are the most concerned in that regard whereas others may see it as an opportunity.


Niall

[Ben Hollerbach]

The issue for manufacturers of balls is not just how the size of the market will be affected but more importantly how their market share might change. I suspect Titliest are the most concerned in that regard whereas others may see it as an opportunity.


Niall

I think that is why you saw Titleist immediately release a firm statement against the proposed change, and other ball manufactures have taken a less emphatic negative stance. That being said, does anyone think that Titleist won't produce a MLR ball that will will still be great and one of the tops in the industry?

[Jim_Coleman]

   Snell of Snell Golf Balls made an interesting point on The Fried Egg. It will cost a lot of money to produce these new balls, and manufacturers will sell none. Pros get them for free, and no one else will be buying them.  The price of the balls that are sold to the public will have go up, and not a little.

[Joe Zucker]

   Snell of Snell Golf Balls made an interesting point on The Fried Egg. It will cost a lot of money to produce these new balls, and manufacturers will sell none. Pros get them for free, and no one else will be buying them.  The price of the balls that are sold to the public will have go up, and not a little.

I believe Mike Whan said he expects the US Am to use the new ball, which means all the qualifiers will use the new ball.  That's still a pretty small market (10,000 players?), but the balls will have to be sold to the public if this is true.  Also, everyone doing US Open qualifying will switch.  If the new ball seeps into State Ams, Junior Ams, Mid Ams, etc, the market will grow. 


I would not be shocked if every "competitive" players is using the new ball by 2030 and it accounts for ~5% of the ball market.  But that all depends on who actually adopts the rules...