Non-bifurcated rollback

[MCirba]

Some good factual data here.


https://golf.com/instruction/how-many-yards-lose-rollback-usga/?amp=1

[Ben Hollerbach]

The announcement is out from the USGA

Revised Golf Ball Testing Conditions to Take Effect in 2028
"The revised ball testing conditions will be as follows: 125-mph clubhead speed (equivalent to 183 mph ball speed); spin rate of 2200 rpm and launch angle of 11 degrees. The current conditions, which were established 20 years ago, are set at 120 mph (equivalent to 176 mph ball speed), 2520 rpm with a 10-degree launch angle."

[Ben Hollerbach]

Interesting they are presuming a smash factor of 1.46, while the PGA Tour average is 1.50.

Using the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer, under the current spec (176mph, 10*, 2520rpm) the carry/roll would be 285.8/295.1 . At a 1.5 smash factor, 180 ball speed, the carry would be 293.3/302.6. To reach 317 yards under the current spec FlightScope would expect a ball speed of 188.4, or a smash factor of 1.57.

Under the new spec (183mph, 11*, 2220rpm) the carry/roll would be 302.1/311.4. To reach 317 yards, FlightScope would expect a ball speed of 186.3, or a smash factor of 1.49.

[Garland Bayley]

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?

The old Pinnacle was limited by the initial velocity standard just like the ProV is. The initial discontinuous gains were due to the reduction in spin. The next set of discontinuous gains were due to learning how to optimize club setup to take advantage of the change in spin. These are regularly recognized as true. I believe that further gains came about by players increasing their swing speed because they recognized loss of spin kept the ball flight from dispersing as much as it used to. Just imagine how much harder they could swing at a Polara (flight correcting) ball made with modern technology.

I have long advocated putting some spin back in the ball to make them use a more controlled swing.

[Rob Marshall]

Based on the numbers being kicked around that various golfers will lose it seems to me to be more of a freeze than a rollback.

[Wayne_Kozun]

For example, for those who know who he is, Damian McKenzie can fly his driver in excess of 300 yards with little problem.

What's his pre-shot routine?  Does he have that evil smile before he hits the ball?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Based on the numbers being kicked around that various golfers will lose it seems to me to be more of a freeze than a rollback.

I don't have the direct quote in front of me, but I recall Whan and Slumber back in March describing it as a psudo reset + freeze.

[BHoover]

From Will Knights at The Fried Egg on Twitter:

“Until the rollback prevents you from playing a round with your buddies, being outside, hitting a long-iron close, sneaking in an emergency nine before sunset, or having a cold beer on the clubhouse patio, spare me the idea that it’s going to make golf less enjoyable.”

I could not have said it better myself.

[Rob Marshall]

From Will Knights at The Fried Egg on Twitter:

“Until the rollback prevents you from playing a round with your buddies, being outside, hitting a long-iron close, sneaking in an emergency nine before sunset, or having a cold beer on the clubhouse patio, spare me the idea that it’s going to make golf less enjoyable.”

I could not have said it better myself.

Yeah, I don't see it as a big deal, even for the pros.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Disruption for almost nothing.

:sigh:

[Jim Hoak]

USGA head Mike Whan said that people would break down as thinking either this action was too much or too little, arguably the definition of a good result.  I would come down with Erik on the side that it doesn't really do much at all.  A non-event.  After a lot of arguing and angst.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

USGA head Mike Whan said that people would break down as thinking either this action was too much or too little, maybe the definition of a good result.  I would come down with Erik on the side that it doesn't do much either way.  A non-event.

I thought this part of his explanation was good:

https://twitter.com/fried_egg_golf/status/1732456582980714838

[Carl Johnson]

First heard of this today.  Not a big deal, not a game changer.

[Jim Sherma]

USGA head Mike Whan said that people would break down as thinking either this action was too much or too little, arguably the definition of a good result.  I would come down with Erik on the side that it doesn't really do much at all.  A non-event.  After a lot of arguing and angst.

Not a big deal, but potentially a big precedent.

[Garland Bayley]

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

What Brandel forgets to tell the people about the ball roll back when he talks to them to gather his copious amount of scientific data is that they will be less embarrassed by how far the ladies on tour out drive them. It will be a painless way to catch up some with them. No hours on the range to endure. No lessons from Erik to endure. They can continue riding their carts and drinking beer while catching up at least a little with the ladies.

[Mike_Clayton]

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.

I played with Christy O'Connor in a mid-1980s Irish Open at Royal Dublin. 1985 probably.
He could really play and used a Top Flite and seemed to have no trouble spinning it.
My guess is if players now, with all the current data on the importance of distance, had a choice between a 1980s balata ball and a 1980s Top Flite or Pinnacle a lot more would be doing what Christy did and play the solid ball.

[Sean_A]

On one hand the rollback in theory is so minimal that folks shouldn’t worry. On the other hand I don’t see how this minor rollback achieves any rollbacker goals. I can only hope the plan isn’t to go through all this nonsense every so often.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

2028 yet alone 2030 is still a long, long way away.
Circumstances change.
Agenda's change.
Those currently in positions of power and influence depart the scene.
Others take over.
atb

[MCirba]

Can someone explain how hitting a golf ball across 2.38 football fields vs 2.5 football fields is "taking the fun out of the game"?

Now, limits on driver lengths, head size, and composition would solidify the constraints for the betterment of the game

[Mike Bodo]

Can someone explain how hitting a golf ball across 2.38 football fields vs 2.5 football fields is "taking the fun out of the game"?

Now, limits on driver lengths, head size, and composition would solidify the constraints for the betterment of the game

Because we've all been conditioned through marketing and advertising from the ball and equipment manufacturers that longer is better. It's been this way for decades, but really ramped up when Tiger arrived on the scene because he was so much longer than everyone else on tour at the time, save for John Daly. So, after decades of promotiong length, forgiveness, accuracy, consistency, etc. - benefits that arguably made the game more accessible to a large swath of the golfing population that may not have otherwise taken it up - let's dumb things down, regress and go backwards as opposed to continuing on the path of progress we've been on and advancing the sport by making it more enjoyable for the average recreational golfer. What will the equipment and ball companies push and sell to consumers when the ball rollback goes into effect, when all of today's commercials promote said driver as being the longest, straightest and most forgiving and or a ball being longest and straightest. Distance is and has been the driving force in equipment and ball sales and has benefitted everyone at all levels of the sport - including architects. But the stewards of the sport are now going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg and enriched them the past 40 years. Makes absolutely no sense and rest-assured, all the gains the sport made during the pandemic in attracting new golfers after years of attrition will revert back alll because Rory, Rahm, Finau, Cam Young and others hit the ball too far. Have the arbiters of the sport given any thought to redifining the value par has in today's era? Why don't we just eliminate par altogether as opposed to rolling back equipment all in the name of defending par, because that's what this is really all about - especially the elite clubs with strong influence at the USGA and R&A.

[Tim Martin]

Can someone explain how hitting a golf ball across 2.38 football fields vs 2.5 football fields is "taking the fun out of the game"?

Now, limits on driver lengths, head size, and composition would solidify the constraints for the betterment of the game

What will the equipment and ball companies push and sell to consumers when the ball rollback goes into effect, when all of today's commercials promote said driver as being the longest, straightest and most forgiving and or a ball being longest and straightest.

Mike-They will continue to promote the same thing they always have. What else is there but “longest, straightest and most forgiving? The caveat will be “under the new rules.”

[Mike Bodo]

Can someone explain how hitting a golf ball across 2.38 football fields vs 2.5 football fields is "taking the fun out of the game"?

Now, limits on driver lengths, head size, and composition would solidify the constraints for the betterment of the game

What will the equipment and ball companies push and sell to consumers when the ball rollback goes into effect, when all of today's commercials promote said driver as being the longest, straightest and most forgiving and or a ball being longest and straightest.

Mike-They will continue to promote the same thing they always have. What else is there but “longest, straightest and most forgiving? The caveat will be “under the new rules.”

When the ball rollback occurs rest-assured the big driver manufacturers will promise no loss in distance if using their latest $600.00 driver. Heck, I suspect the price will be $700.00 by 2030.

[Niall C]

On one hand the rollback in theory is so minimal that folks shouldn’t worry. On the other hand I don’t see how this minor rollback achieves any rollbacker goals. I can only hope the plan isn’t to go through all this nonsense every so often.

Ciao

Sean


I haven't paid too much attention to the science involved in all this but assume what they are trying to do is to draw a line in the sand to stop any future distance gains ? I also tend to think, as someone else said, that this move is perhaps a toe in the water in terms of seeing how everyone (manufacturers, tours, players both am and pro) reacts with a view to introducing something more far reaching.


Niall

[Mike Bodo]

The PGA Tour has officially weighed in on the subject and they are not in support of the ball rollback based on the 125 mph swing speed criteria set, which is a bridge too far for them.


https://twitter.com/NoLayingUp/status/1732395150041649407


With none of the major golf tours in support of the proposed ball rollback, does the USGA, R&A and PGA of America expect ball manufcturers to oblige them for four tournaments a year (yes, there are others, but I'm talking the four majors)?

[David Kelly]

Makes absolutely no sense and rest-assured, all the gains the sport made during the pandemic in attracting new golfers after years of attrition will revert back alll because Rory, Rahm, Finau, Cam Young and others hit the ball too far.

If golf's so-called gains are so fragile that it won't survive its (relatively small TV audience) watching, Rory, Rahm, Finau, Cam Young hit their drives 15 yards shorter, then the game is in more trouble than I thought.

Somehow, in 1995, when, to hear people tell it, we couldn't even get the ball airborne with the antiquated equipment we used, 9.2% of the US population participated in golf and now during the "boom", 7.6% of the population participates.