Non-bifurcated rollback

[Ben Hollerbach]

"However, we continue to provide feedback to the USGA and The R&A that we believe the proposed increase in test clubhead speed to 125mph is disproportional to the rate of increase we see when analyzing PGA Tour radar data on launch conditions, using the best practices for analyzing data. Therefore, we don not support today's announcement regarding the increase to 125 mph, believing a moderate adjustment is appropriate."

I wonder if they would have accepted an increase to 122 mph clubhead speed, but with also an increase in test smash factor from 1.46 to the tour average of 1.5. Either way that's a ball speed of 183 mph. Which at the end of the day isn't ball speed the more important number?

[Garland Bayley]

... 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.

Arguably these "benefits" made the game less accessible to a large swath of the golf population. After all, there was a drop in participation during the time these "benefits" were being added. Perhaps all the use of exotic material to produce said "benefits" also produced hyper inflation of golf equipment cost, thereby causing the drop in participation. Perhaps given the promotion of very expensive drivers gave the impression that golf equipment was veblen goods, thereby cause people to look elsewhere for recreation. Arguably exotic materials made golf clubs longer, thereby making them harder to use. Arguably the promotion of distance made the five iron unusable for a golfer with the same talents as his father who could hit the shorter, higher lofted very well back in the day.


...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.

Loss of participation is a golden egg? Perhaps a lead egg!

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.

I guess I missed where they said the purpose of putting a limit on the ball was to defend par. Here, I was under the misconception that maybe there were trying to lessen the distance the ladies out drive me. And, they were trying to lessen the cost of real estate necessary to establish a course, And they were trying to lessen the danger to others on and off course by balls traveling too far.

[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

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

Maybe I got it wrong. I thought the talk was about MORE sustainable, LESS use of inputs, LESS use of land, MORE architect intent being restored etc. So the roll back is just maintain status quo? If this is a toe in the water, how much effort and time will it take to put the foot in the water? I am highly disappointed, but not at all surprised. Once the correct move of additional bifurcation was taken off the table, disappointment was always in the cards.   

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

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

The Golf Digest article that David linked to on a thread with no responses says that they are going to look at drivers next.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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)?

They didn't say they're not going to abide. And the LPGA says they don't see a distance issue on their Tour but they respect the USGA/R&A's work.

[Joe Zucker]

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)?

They didn't say they're not going to abide. And the LPGA says they don't see a distance issue on their Tour but they respect the USGA/R&A's work.

There is nothing stopping any of the OEMs from making non conforming equipment that goes 20 yards farther today, but for some reason no one really has. I know there are some non conforming balls out there, but I find it puzzling that there is not a bigger market for "illegal" clubs/balls that make the game easier.  The vast majority of golfers don't play by USGA rules anyways, so if the game was really about hitting it farther, I assume a market would have developed.


This "revealed preference" of behavior indicates that most players probably won't think of the game all that differently when they lose 5-7 yards.

[Richard Hetzel]

Not so sure that Acushnet (Titleist) agrees with the USGA.


https://mediacenter.titleist.com/en-US/232764-statement-from-acushnet-ceo-david-maher-on-usga-and-r-a-golf-ball-rollback-announcement

[Mike Bodo]

They didn't say they're not going to abide. And the LPGA says they don't see a distance issue on their Tour but they respect the USGA/R&A's work.

Nor did they say they support or endorse the move either. The PGAT in their statement said they don't concurr with the USGA and R&A's methodology in determining the rollback percentage or amount. Where that goes from here is anyone's guess. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Nor did they say they support or endorse the move either. The PGAT in their statement said they don't concurr with the USGA and R&A's methodology in determining the rollback percentage or amount. Where that goes from here is anyone's guess.

I don't think it's a guess; they're gonna follow the rules. They don't agree that the USGA/R&A needed to do something, but they got their wish of non-bifurcation, so their players can still get the endorsement money for endorsing balls, etc.

I'd wager a good amount of $ that they follow/abide by the new ball regulation rules.

[Thomas Dai]

Not so sure that Acushnet (Titleist) agrees with the USGA.
https://mediacenter.titleist.com/en-US/232764-statement-from-acushnet-ceo-david-maher-on-usga-and-r-a-golf-ball-rollback-announcement

Presumably those who support rollback will no longer purchase any Titleist/Acushnet products?
Atb


PS - by the way, aren’t Titleist/Acushnet owned these days not as they once were by a US holding company (Fortune Brands) but by the Korean Fila organisation?

[Rob Marshall]

The Saudi's will buy the R&A and the USGA and rule the golfing world.............

[Tim Martin]

I know there is a lot of disagreement as to what is involved as far as time, money and R&D to bring the new ball to market. That said why the lengthy waiting period until 2030 for the change to affect the average player?

[Ben Hollerbach]

I know there is a lot of disagreement as to what is involved as far as time, money and R&D to bring the new ball to market. That said why the lengthy waiting period until 2030 for the change to affect the average player?

Mike Whan said in the Golf Channel interview yesterday that they wanted the change to be implemented by 2026, as many current balls already meet the new testing spec, but it was requested to push it back to 2028/2030 by the manufactures.

I would like to see the USGA / R&A release a list of current balls that would meet the new spec, that might cool some heads as to how the change will impact you.

[Kalen Braley]

The Saudi's will buy the R&A and the USGA and rule the golfing world.............

This is likely the closest thing to actual truth on this entire thread.

Its clear they have no issue flushing away billions to buy golfers...the R&A and USGA will be chump change comparatively.

[Rob Marshall]

The Saudi's will buy the R&A and the USGA and rule the golfing world.............

This is likely the closest thing to actual truth on this entire thread.

Its clear they have no issue flushing away billions to buy golfers...the R&A and USGA will be chump change comparatively.

It won't stop there....Pebble Beach, OTC, the list will go on from there. "Hey, Pine Valley members here is a check for a Billion dollars just sign on the dotted line".

[Pat Burke]

I know there is a lot of disagreement as to what is involved as far as time, money and R&D to bring the new ball to market. That said why the lengthy waiting period until 2030 for the change to affect the average player?

Mike Whan said in the Golf Channel interview yesterday that they wanted the change to be implemented by 2026, as many current balls already meet the new testing spec, but it was requested to push it back to 2028/2030 by the manufactures.

I would like to see the USGA / R&A release a list of current balls that would meet the new spec, that might cool some heads as to how the change will impact you.

Would probably kill the market for those balls as golf geeks run out and buy all the balls that currently go “too far”! 

[Wayne_Kozun]

Not so sure that Acushnet (Titleist) agrees with the USGA.
https://mediacenter.titleist.com/en-US/232764-statement-from-acushnet-ceo-david-maher-on-usga-and-r-a-golf-ball-rollback-announcement

Presumably those who support rollback will no longer purchase any Titleist/Acushnet products?
Atb


PS - by the way, aren’t Titleist/Acushnet owned these days not as they once were by a US holding company (Fortune Brands) but by the Korean Fila organisation?

Since 2016 it has been a publicly listed company that trades with the ticker GOLF.  Fila still owns 50.6% although they sold a chunk about a month ago and have been gradually selling down over the last few years.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I would like to see the USGA / R&A release a list of current balls that would meet the new spec, that might cool some heads as to how the change will impact you.

The manufacturers of those balls definitely don't want that.

It's basically the Wilson 50, the Maxfli SoftFLI, and balls like that. Balls designed for slower swings. They just get mushy at higher speeds.

[Ken Moum]

I would like to see the USGA / R&A release a list of current balls that would meet the new spec, that might cool some heads as to how the change will impact you.

The manufacturers of those balls definitely don't want that.

It's basically the Wilson 50, the Maxfli SoftFLI, and balls like that. Balls designed for slower swings. They just get mushy at higher speeds.

It makes a person wonder whether the experts who design balls can make a ProV 1 "S", that conforms at 125 mph swing speed, and works better at 80 mph than current ProV1s.


You know, like  TopFlite Magna.

[Sean_A]

I would like to see the USGA / R&A release a list of current balls that would meet the new spec, that might cool some heads as to how the change will impact you.

The manufacturers of those balls definitely don't want that.

It's basically the Wilson 50, the Maxfli SoftFLI, and balls like that. Balls designed for slower swings. They just get mushy at higher speeds.

It makes a person wonder whether the experts who design balls can make a ProV 1 "S", that conforms at 125 mph swing speed, and works better at 80 mph than current ProV1s.


You know, like  TopFlite Magna.

Is this a ball compression issue? I recall using lower compression balls as the temperature dropped to mitigate loss of distance.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Is this a ball compression issue?

Largely.

[Niall C]

The Saudi's will buy the R&A and the USGA and rule the golfing world.............

This is likely the closest thing to actual truth on this entire thread.

Its clear they have no issue flushing away billions to buy golfers...the R&A and USGA will be chump change comparatively.

It won't stop there....Pebble Beach, OTC, the list will go on from there. "Hey, Pine Valley members here is a check for a Billion dollars just sign on the dotted line".

Rob


Do you mean in the same way that some American billionaire tried to buy Golspie ? If the members of Golspie can turn down the money then why can't the R&A, Pine valley etc. ?


At the end of the day, the Saudi's aren't buying golf. What they are trying to do is create and (part) own the biggest professional tour in the world. Before they came along, did the PGA Tour own golf ?


Niall


Niall

[Sean_A]

Is this a ball compression issue?

Largely.

Why aren’t balls sold these days with the compression more emphasized?

Ciao

[Rob Marshall]

The Saudi's will buy the R&A and the USGA and rule the golfing world.............

This is likely the closest thing to actual truth on this entire thread.

Its clear they have no issue flushing away billions to buy golfers...the R&A and USGA will be chump change comparatively.

It won't stop there....Pebble Beach, OTC, the list will go on from there. "Hey, Pine Valley members here is a check for a Billion dollars just sign on the dotted line".

Rob


Do you mean in the same way that some American billionaire tried to buy Golspie ? If the members of Golspie can turn down the money then why can't the R&A, Pine valley etc. ?


At the end of the day, the Saudi's aren't buying golf. What they are trying to do is create and (part) own the biggest professional tour in the world. Before they came along, did the PGA Tour own golf ?


Niall


Niall

No Niall, I meant like Trump bought Turnberry………


My point was that as shown by Rahm, it appears everything is for sale and that is a huge disappointment.

[Niall C]

Rob


Turnberry is a business and always has been and like any other business has a price. I tend to think that Pine Valley (possibly), R&A (certainly) are like Golspie, albeit at a different scale and prestige, in that they are members clubs hence my comparison. My larger point however is that the Saudi's are looking to get a large slice of professional golf. To my mind that is different than saying they are buying golf or taking over the game, which they are not. For instance if they are successful in their merger/take over or alternatively usurping the PGA Tour as the top tour, then what difference is that going to make to the average club golfer ? I doubt that they are going to be pitching up at the 1st tee dressed like Lawrence of Arabia. 


Niall