USGA Notice to Manufacturers

[Jim_Coleman]

    No one was probably hyperbole. But it will be a very small share of the market.

[Ben Hollerbach]

   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 don't buy this argument. Since day 1 of the Pro V1 Titleist has built a multitude of tour only balls that initially were not sold to the public. By my count, Titleist has made the following tour only golf balls with no direct or very limited initial public sale:

• Pro V1x
• -Pro V1x
• .Pro V1
• Pro V1.
• Pro V1<>
• Pro V1*
• Pro V1+

Granted, the Pro V1x, and recently the -Pro V1x are now widely available, but the didn't start out that way.

If there is a concern on spending money to build a ball that would not be sold to the general public, then why have all the major ball manufactures been doing just that for years?

[Tim_Cronin]

Exactly, Ben. It’s all PR BS.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I don’t think the general public believed that the Pro V1’s they were buying were appreciably different than the balls the pros played. I certainly didn’t. They were marketed as the same.  But if the ball companies have had to spend serious money to make the balls that only go to the pros for free, then Snell’s argument seems specious.

[Tim Martin]

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.

Erik-You are conflating gross sales(670M) with how much they “make” or net profit. Achushnet across all product lines “made”(net profit) less than $200 million in 2022.

[A.G._Crockett]

   I don’t think the general public believed that the Pro V1’s they were buying were appreciably different than the balls the pros played. I certainly didn’t. They were marketed as the same.  But if the ball companies have had to spend serious money to make the balls that only go to the pros for free, then Snell’s argument seems specious.

I wouldn’t think Dean Snell is going to be producing these balls anytime soon, if ever; it’s not his market at all. I take his comments to be about the “major” ball producers, and I doubt there are many people alive that have a better understanding of the production costs AND the marketplace for golf balls than Dean Snell. Snell didn’t offer a yellow ball, for instance, for quite some time after the company began, and there’s a Q&A video in which Snell explains that producing yellow golf balls is more difficult and more expensive, at least at the outset.


Long way of saying that I’d lean toward taking him at his word.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Snell was quite clear that the change will have little impact on his sales. He doesn’t compete against the $4 balls, other to to offer a very good ball at half the price.  If anything, this could work to his advantage.

[Rob Marshall]

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.

Erik-You are conflating gross sales(670M) with how much they “make” or net profit. Achushnet across all product lines “made”(net profit) less than $200 million in 2022.

Tim, Can't be, Erik has never been wrong.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don't buy this argument. Since day 1 of the Pro V1 Titleist has built a multitude of tour only balls that initially were not sold to the public.

Those are also only small variations from the main versions. Slightly different formulations, or whatever. Not an entirely separate production line and design limitations, etc.

Erik-You are conflating gross sales(670M) with how much they “make” or net profit. Achushnet across all product lines “made”(net profit) less than $200 million in 2022.

I didn't conflate the two. I used "make" to mean "revenue." Ball sales were about $670M in the one year I looked and over $1.1B over two years.

The word "make" is probably better used to say "profit" and not "revenue," I'll grant you that, but it's used to describe both. On Friday, the bakery in our building "made" the most they'd ever "made" in a day, and while I won't tell you what the figure was, the owner wasn't deducting all expenses (rent, cost of ingredients and labor and insurance, etc.) in telling me that number. 

[Daryl David]

I don't buy this argument. Since day 1 of the Pro V1 Titleist has built a multitude of tour only balls that initially were not sold to the public.

Those are also only small variations from the main versions. Slightly different formulations, or whatever. Not an entirely separate production line and design limitations, etc.

Erik-You are conflating gross sales(670M) with how much they “make” or net profit. Achushnet across all product lines “made”(net profit) less than $200 million in 2022.

I didn't conflate the two. I used "make" to mean "revenue." Ball sales were about $670M in the one year I looked and over $1.1B over two years.

The word "make" is probably better used to say "profit" and not "revenue," I'll grant you that, but it's used to describe both. On Friday, the bakery in our building "made" the most they'd ever "made" in a day, and while I won't tell you what the figure was, the owner wasn't deducting all expenses (rent, cost of ingredients and labor and insurance, etc.) in telling me that number. 

Like Rob said.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Like Rob said.

Way to further the conversation.

[Daryl David]

Like Rob said.

Way to further the conversation.

Thanks!

[Rob Marshall]

Truly amazing.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Truly amazing.

How little you offer to the discussion while constantly trolling? I agree. I've been wrong plenty, Rob (just ask my wife  ), and will admit as much when I am. But on matters of opinion, there's no right/wrong. There's just… a difference of opinion.

I generally stick to the topics, you generally engage in personal commentary. Cool beans, man, and whatever floats your boat. Just make sure, when someone asks you what you make a year, that you deduct taxes, standard deductions, dependents… whatever.    Cuz that number only ever means "profit," apparently. Or, at least only ever does when I use it to clearly mean revenue.

=========

To the actual topic:

https://mygolfspy.com/dean-snell-on-usga-ra-the-proposed-golf-ball-rollback/

“It’s gone from stagnant and a little bland to a lot more interesting,” he says. “The same guys don’t win every week. One week it’s an athletic guy who wins with his distance, the next week, it’s a guy with his putting and wedge play. Doesn’t change our game when we go out and play, but for me, it’s entertaining and more fun to watch.”

Not sure I agree there, but okay.

“It could be,” Snell shrugs. “I appreciate architectural people saying a shorter ball brings back angles and maybe how a designer intended a course to play, but that doesn’t show well on television. Players are the product; courses are the arenas.”

Uh oh! 

That said, he still considers the MLR “bifurcation” even if thinly disguised as a choice rather than a mandate. “I’ll always believe one set of rules is best for the game,” he says.

Bifurcation stinks. Roll it back for everyone or leave it the same for everyone.

“Sounds simple to say, hey, let’s go make balls 15-20 yards shorter, but it’s not,” Snell says. “There’s a trickle-down of build problems that require step-by-step, layer-by-layer solutions for R&D. All of the things you put into the design of a golf ball don’t only relate to the driver. They relate to total performance tee to green. Every aspect of the game changes.”

It's not as simple as "oh, just re-make that ball" or "oh, you probably already have a design to do this, so just do that."

“Every company will have to look at different core designs, changing mantle layers, different covers that create more spin or designing to solve the problem with dimple pattern. Doing this strictly on an aerodynamic basis would be tough. You’d have to design some crazy dimples to get to the speed and spin rate they want to test at,” he adds.
…
“The golf ball hasn’t gotten faster,” he contends. “Back in 1990, 160 mph was tour ball speed with Tour Balata. Now it’s 185 -190 mph. Some guys can get it to 200. Any distance issue is a combination of player, driver, shorter, harder fairways, and ball flight being higher. That’s the reality.”

[Rob Marshall]

All I did was point out your post was wrong. Tim also pointed it out. Simple as that. Have a great day Erik.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

All I did was point out your post was wrong. Tim also pointed it out. Simple as that. Have a great day Erik.

I was wrong… to engage with you. My ignore list started with you, IIRC, and though I wish it worked properly, it doesn't. Typically, I use the little text above your posts as a reminder to do as it says and ignore you. I will double my efforts on that front. Thank you for reminding me, and for saving me all that time in the future.

[Tim Martin]

All I did was point out your post was wrong. Tim also pointed it out. Simple as that. Have a great day Erik.

I was wrong… to engage with you. My ignore list started with you, IIRC, and though I wish it worked properly, it doesn't. Typically, I use the little text above your posts as a reminder to do as it says and ignore you. I will double my efforts on that front. Thank you for reminding me, and for saving me all that time in the future.

Erik-Let’s be honest. It’s not in your DNA to ignore comments that come your way or let anyone have the last word EVER. What’s the name of your website? It’s the Snark Trap right?

[Pat Burke]

All I did was point out your post was wrong. Tim also pointed it out. Simple as that. Have a great day Erik.

I was wrong… to engage with you. My ignore list started with you, IIRC, and though I wish it worked properly, it doesn't. Typically, I use the little text above your posts as a reminder to do as it says and ignore you. I will double my efforts on that front. Thank you for reminding me, and for saving me all that time in the future.

Wow Erik


I thought I was good at pissing people off haha


For what it’s worth
Spot on on the various pro v1 approved balls. A lot of them are previous years’ models that guys are hesitant to change from due to small changes making huge impacts on some players throughout the bag.


And I “make” $150 per lesson. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Wow Erik

I thought I was good at pissing people off haha

You won't ever piss me off, nor have they, Pat. This stuff is just golf. Even though I spend 80-100 hours a week on it… it's just golf.     Disagreement isn't anger. You can like vanilla while I like chocolate marshmallow.

For what it’s worth - Spot on on the various pro v1 approved balls. A lot of them are previous years’ models that guys are hesitant to change from due to small changes making huge impacts on some players throughout the bag.

And I “make” $150 per lesson. 

It's crazy how sensitive guys are to stuff. I don't think he still is, but I know last year one guy was still playing the 2017 version of a ball… because he "liked" it.

I read an article about Tiger testing out some Bridgestones, and he could tell the difference on short game shots in a little bit of spin here and there.

The idea that guys will/can fully adjust to a "new ball" in a few days is pure folly. They spend weeks in the off-season getting used to a new ball, or testing various ball models, etc.

I hope the disruption this will cause is "worth it." I'd have rather seen them, as I've said, go a bit farther (maybe 8%) and not make it bifurcation.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Spot on on the various pro v1 approved balls. A lot of them are previous years’ models that guys are hesitant to change from due to small changes making huge impacts on some players throughout the bag.

None of the Pro V1 variants I listed were re-badged previous years models, but unique variants created to fill a suspected need among the tour staff. Read up on the Pro V1 Star for example, The profile of that ball is very unique and an extreme for the Pro V1 line up. Titleist still stocks quite a few previous year versions for their tour staff but they just badge them based on the year (i.e. "2017 Pro V1")

I suppose that if you believe that the Pro V1 is just a Pinnacle with a soft cover, it makes sense to believe all variants of the Pro V1 are just small changes. When you take a look "under the hood" there are noticeable differences between the layers that suggest the changes from ball to ball are more significant.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I suppose that if you believe that the Pro V1 is just a Pinnacle with a soft cover

That's a mischaracterization of what I've said. The point of that is to say that we've always had balls that go far; pros just didn't play with them until they figured out how to make them spin with the short irons.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I'm surprised to have not seen any commentary on Mark Broadie's most recent white paper Impact of Distance Changes in Professional Golf, With a Focus on the ShotLink Era
A few bullet points from the study, but the TLDR:

While the importance of every other category has fallen, the importance of driving has increased over the last two decades



Scoring and breakdown by shot category over the period 2006-2022

Round score and course yardage trends
• Round scores declined at a rate of 0.43 strokes per decade
• Average actual yardage increased at a rate of 40 yards per decade
• Yardage increase slowed round score decrease by 0.17 strokes per decade
• Round scores at the same yardage would have declined 0.60 strokes per decade
Decomposition of constant-yardage score trends by shot category
• Round scores: −0.60 strokes per decade
• Driving: −0.26 strokes per decade
• Non-driving shots: −0.34 strokes per decade (approach: −0.18 strokes per decade; short game: 0.02 strokes per decade; putting: −0.18 strokes per decade)

Scoring advantage of top players by shot category over the period 2006-2022

Top 40 SG total players scoring advantage over the period 2006-2022
• Driving accounts for 28% of the scoring advantage of the top players
• Approach shot accounts for 36% of the scoring advantage of the top players
• Short game and putting accounts for 36% of the scoring advantage of the top players
• Round scores at the same yardage would have declined 0.60 strokes per decade

Trends in the scoring advantage of the top 40 SG total players
• The scoring advantage due to driving has increased by 4.5% per decade (and is statistically significant)
• The scoring advantage due to approach shots has decreased by 2.4% per decade (and is statistically significant)
• The scoring advantage due to short game and putting has decreased slightly (and neither is statistically significant)

[Ben Hollerbach]

I suppose that if you believe that the Pro V1 is just a Pinnacle with a soft cover

That's a mischaracterization of what I've said. The point of that is to say that we've always had balls that go far; pros just didn't play with them until they figured out how to make them spin with the short irons.

My apologies, let me provide the quote so you can better clarify you position.

they put a soft cover on a Pinnacle (solid) core. That was the breakthrough in the Pro V1

[Ben Hollerbach]

Rory made some interesting comments in response to the MLR, I am most intrigued by his comment about the potential for split adoption of the ball between the majors and the PGA Tour, From a blog post at No Laying Up

“I think my opinion differs from my peers, and probably the PGA Tour as a whole,” McIlroy said. “And obviously, look, this is just my opinion and I'm only one voice. But honestly, if I'm taking my PGA Tour hat off here, the major championships are already such a big deal in the game of golf, and if the major championships somehow adopt this ball change, and the PGA Tour doesn't, I think it widens that gap between PGA Tour golf and major championship golf. Which, if anything, the PGA Tour is trying to make up some sort of market share, or trying to get a little closer to the major championships in terms of the interest that we create within our tournaments.”

“Honestly, for me, the major championships are the biggest deal, so if the PGA Tour doesn't implement it, I might still play the Model Local Rule ball, because I know that that'll give me the best chance and the best preparation leading into the major championships,” McIlroy said. “And again, this is personal preference and personal opinion at this stage of my career. I know that I'm gonna be defined by the amount of major championships that I hopefully will win from now until the end of my career. And that's the most important thing for me."

“If that gives me the best chance to succeed at the major championships and feel as prepared as I possibly can be, then that's what I would do.”

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My apologies, let me provide the quote so you can better clarify you position.

I already did. And have been saying this for like 20 years. You can probably go find a post on Geoff Shackelford's site where I've been saying the longer versions of this… which I've since reduced to the shorthand version.

The ball has always (legally) gone a long way. Prior to 1999 or so, pros played balata or Professionals (etc.) because they wanted the spin. The Pro V1 (and its ilk) was basically just the companies figuring out how to make a Pinnacle spin the way the pros wanted.

The ball has always (legally) gone pretty far.