[Erik J. Barzeski]

Why do you have to practice with a different ball? Nicklaus was able to go over to the UK and play with a ball that he never used, and beat all the best golfers in the world.  Same with Arnie, Trevino, etc.

Golfers are, overall, much better now than then. So are the tolerances in manufacturing, etc.

[Jason Topp]

While in a vacuum I would prefer a more aggressive rollback, this seems like a sensible approach to me.  It is not going to make a huge difference but should at least hold the line for the next 15-20 years.   

The rollback only works if the relevant stakeholders choose to comply.  The more aggressive the action by the ruling bodies, the more risk there is that a tour or a championship will choose not to comply.

I somewhat hope LIV chooses not to adopt the local rule.  I doubt the fact the players hit the ball a few extra yards on that tour will in any way improve their product.   

[MCirba]

I somewhat hope LIV chooses not to adopt the local rule.  I doubt the fact the players hit the ball a few extra yards on that tour will in any way improve their product.   

Agreed.


That tour seems headed for an inevitable WWE-like clownshow, no offense to wrestling fans intended.

[Thomas Dai]

The pros will bitch and moan but any sport using hundreds of acres where each full shot now goes 40 yards further than it did 40 years ago is not self-sustaining.

I go along with this.
Whilst I’d prefer a ball rollback more in the 15-20% range, and for all too, what’s been put on the table so far is better than no rollback at all.
It has also raised the profile of the issue outwith the usual golf community however, which is worth bearing in mind in relation to Mikes point above.
Best golf changes it’s playing criteria itself rather than have a bunch of no-knowledge, self promoting outside agencies, vested interests, politicians, the media etc interfere and really screw the game up.
Atb

[Garland Bayley]

Justin Thomas isn't happy.........


https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/justin-thomas-sounds-off-on-proposed-ball-rollback/

If he is unhappy, then perhaps a new ball will expose weaknesses in his game. I see he ranks 76th in ball striking, But, his world ranking is 10. It would seem a real reason for him being unhappy is that he will be going down. Whereas, Scottie will solidify his position, and Colin will leave Justin in the distance.

[Bryan Izatt]

From Golf Digest interview with USGA technical chief a brief explanation of the "rollback" amount:

Can you explain where the 14-15 yards figure is from? We've seen some simulations that show more like 20-25 yards.

SPITZER: Going from 120 to 127 [the proposed new swing speed for the golf ball test for elite competitions] is a little more than a 5.8 percent increase. 20-25 yards would be more like 6.3-7.9 percent, which doesn’t agree with our research. For players with swing speeds that are near or above where we currently test, we estimate the effect to be 18 yards (which is about the same 5.8 percent). Remember, that you need to consider that golf balls have diminishing returns the harder that they are struck because the coefficient of restitution decreases at higher speeds [Note: Coefficient of Restitution or COR usually refers to the springiness of driver faces, but it also applies to the resilience of golf balls. A super ball has a high COR, a Nerf ball has a low COR.] Players closer to the average swing speed (approximately 115 miles per hour) lose slightly less; 14-15 yards.

This is pretty rudimentary arithmetic.  We won't really know how the MLR impacts different swing speeds until some prototype balls are developed and tested and that comply with the new ODS testing protocol and standard.   

The USGA has an algorithm that estimates distance based on measurements gathered in their ITR to determine if balls comply with the ODS. Flightscope has a similar algorithm that produces the following results for the tour average speed, 120 mph and 127 mph respectively - 292.5, 306.1 and 323.4 yards.  The USGA algorithm would presumably show 317 yards for the current balls at 120 mph. Perhaps their algorithm assumes harder ground and more rollout.  In any event the Flightscope shows a 17 yard difference between the 120 and 127 mph swing speeds - in the same ballpark as the USGA's numbers.

Anyway, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth seems a little premature and a lot over the top.  The new ball may be shorter for the elite players but I doubt that it would perform substantially different in any other way.  The USGA has dipped it's toe in the distance rollback water and the water is hot, albeit heated for different reasons from different pro and anti rollback and bifurcation camps.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This is pretty rudimentary arithmetic.  We won't really know how the MLR impacts different swing speeds until some prototype balls are developed and tested and that comply with the new ODS testing protocol and standard.

The ball could be designed to go farther with Tour average swing speed. So long as it "ramps down" as they approach the single point on the curve that the USGA/R&A have established (or are talking about establishing)…

https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1636693963485634561

Perhaps their algorithm assumes harder ground and more rollout.

I think it's carry yardage only.

The new ball may be shorter for the elite players but I doubt that it would perform substantially different in any other way.

It might be longer.

[JohnVDB]

The Donald doesn’t like the proposed roll-back:


https://politizoom.com/trump-goes-on-rage-filled-rant-about-the-united-states-golf-association-golf-balls/

[MCirba]

*

[Jim_Coleman]

   That settles it. Make it mandatory, not local rule.

[Tim Gavrich]

Now I'm kind of rooting for the grey line from Erik's chart to be closest to the reality. Flattening the marginal distance gains for each extra mile per hour of swing speed should be applauded because it would permit the best golfers in the world to shift their priorities away the relentless pursuit of distance they've been on in recent years. A pursuit, I might add, that is causing injuries among elite golfers to increase to the point where it will curtail career longevity and, likely, decrease quality of life in golfers' later years.


I used to sit near a former NFL player at basketball games who had had more than 20 back surgeries in his life. He could barely walk up and down the stairs to his seat. I feel like it's not controversial to say that part of the governing bodies' responsibility to the game involves keeping the equipment from crippling players.

[Sean_A]

Really? Equipment cripples golfers? That is a leap way beyond the skis.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Really? Equipment cripples golfers? That is a leap way beyond the skis.

Ciao

This.


Doesn't matter what the rules say, or the equipment does.  If modern Tour pros (or a small subset of them) are suffering potential crippling injury, it's not down to the equipment, it's down to the insane pursuit of a few extra yards and modern coaching.  It's insane to pin it at the door of the equipment.  I'm also entirely unconvinced it's an issue.  Except for idiots like BdC.

[Tim Martin]

Really? Equipment cripples golfers? That is a leap way beyond the skis.

Ciao

This.


Doesn't matter what the rules say, or the equipment does.  If modern Tour pros (or a small subset of them) are suffering potential crippling injury, it's not down to the equipment, it's down to the insane pursuit of a few extra yards and modern coaching.  It's insane to pin it at the door of the equipment.  I'm also entirely unconvinced it's an issue.  Except for idiots like BdC.

Seems like BCD’s comments are focused strictly upon how it will affect him personally and he is quoted as saying “it’s a great handicap for us guys that have worked really hard to learn how to hit it farther.” From a separation standpoint from the more average hitters I thought I read it would end up being an advantage against the field? Other players including Justin Thomas seemed to focus more on the effects on the game itself with an emphasis on amateurs.

[Bryan Izatt]

This is pretty rudimentary arithmetic.  We won't really know how the MLR impacts different swing speeds until some prototype balls are developed and tested and that comply with the new ODS testing protocol and standard.

The ball could be designed to go farther with Tour average swing speed. So long as it "ramps down" as they approach the single point on the curve that the USGA/R&A have established (or are talking about establishing)…

Designing and manufacturing a ball that performed as per your red line would be an engineering marvel.  If the ball manufacturers could devise a ball with the red line distance vs swing speed profile why haven't they done it in the last 20 years.  It would have been a sales and marketing blockbuster - you too can hit it as far as Justin or Bryson despite the fact their swing speed is 20% faster than yours.  It hasn't happened in the last 20 years because it would defy the laws of physics.  Not to mention that Justin and Bryson et al would have a legitimate beef that their ability to generate enormous club head speed is being penalized unfairly.

https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1636693963485634561

Perhaps their algorithm assumes harder ground and more rollout.

I think it's carry yardage only.

The ODS is carry plus bounce and roll - see the USGA's Test Protocol section 3.1 b:

"b. Use the aerodynamic parameters, as well as the launch conditions determined in section 2.1 to determine the total distance (including bounce and roll) for each orientation"

The new ball may be shorter for the elite players but I doubt that it would perform substantially different in any other way.

It might be longer.

Longer than what?  My point was that a ball that conforms to the MLR will likely perform not unlike the current ball in all ways except for distance and for distance it would be shorter for all.  This would be the conforming balls used by all participants in any event that utilizes the MLR.  It will most likely look like your green line with slightly more tail off at the high end speeds.  It's already clear that there is a tail off in distance even at the 120 mph speed.  It will be slightly more tail off again at the 127 mph level.

[Craig Sweet]

All the golf magazines, all the pros, all the lessons that are given, all the manufacturers, have been pushing "hit it further" for the last three decades.  No wonder we have a distance problem.

[Tom_Doak]

All the golf magazines, all the pros, all the lessons that are given, all the manufacturers, have been pushing "hit it further" for the last three decades.  No wonder we have a distance problem.

Well, all the golf magazines, all the Touring pros, and all the club pros giving lessons, all get paid by the equipment manufacturers to promote "hitting it further".  Follow the money!

[Tom_Doak]

Other players including Justin Thomas seemed to focus more on the effects on the game itself with an emphasis on amateurs.

Do you really think JT gives a crap about the perils of average golfers or the integrity of the game?  That is just an equipment company talking point to try and get amateurs riled up that the blue coats are conspiring to "take away our guns distance".  [I included the strike through in case you didn't know where that talking point has been proven effective.]

[Bryan Izatt]

Yes, the game plan seems familiar.  Get in the media and raise the outrage index - slam, fume, rant ...   Create false narratives - it'll ruin the game; they'll take away your long ball.  Claim victimhood.  Transfer that victimhood to golfers at large.  It's worked elsewhere.

[Bryan Izatt]

It's a surprise that no ball manufacturer has yet seized the opportunity here.  You know we'll be the greatest innovators to create an optimal ball under the new rule for the 0.1% of players for the Opens.  We'll continue to bring the best long balls for the 99.9% of golfers.  And we'll make enough Open balls so you can use them if you'd like to be like the pros - there might be a slight premium for those balls.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom and Bryan,

Spot on in your assessments!

I guess we'll find out in the next couple of years if the PGA Tour really belongs to the players.  Seems like they could band together and demand their own set of rules or a line item veto of sorts be applied to the USGA rules...

P.S.  I'm trying to recall if there was much pissing and moaning from the pros when they implemented the wedge face rule.  Other than Phil I don't recall much, but perhaps their was...and we all know how much of a nothing-burger that turned out to be.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom and Bryan,

Spot on in your assessments!

I guess we'll find out in the next couple of years if the PGA Tour really belongs to the players.  Seems like they could band together and demand their own set of rules or a line item veto of sorts be applied to the USGA rules...

P.S.  I'm trying to recall if there was much pissing and moaning from the pros when they implemented the wedge face rule.  Other than Phil I don't recall much, but perhaps their was...and we all know how much of a nothing-burger that turned out to be.

The PGA Tour doesn’t need a “line item veto” for this, does it?  This is going to be a local rule option, which the Tour could simply NOT adopt.

[Tim Martin]

Other players including Justin Thomas seemed to focus more on the effects on the game itself with an emphasis on amateurs.

Do you really think JT gives a crap about the perils of average golfers or the integrity of the game?  That is just an equipment company talking point to try and get amateurs riled up that the blue coats are conspiring to "take away our guns distance".  [I included the strike through in case you didn't know where that talking point has been proven effective.]

Tom-To be honest I don’t really think JT gives a crap about the perils of average golfers or the integrity of the game. I was just struck at the contrast between the two statements.

[A.G._Crockett]

It's a surprise that no ball manufacturer has yet seized the opportunity here.  You know we'll be the greatest innovators to create an optimal ball under the new rule for the 0.1% of players for the Opens.  We'll continue to bring the best long balls for the 99.9% of golfers.  And we'll make enough Open balls so you can use them if you'd like to be like the pros - there might be a slight premium for those balls.

The “opportunity” doesn’t come until 2026; right now, there’s absolutely no market for a shorter golf ball.  Zero…


Tough situation for the ball manufacturers, I think.  I would assume they will have significant R&D expense for what will likely be a pretty limited market, at least compared to their current business model.  From a pure business perspective, this can’t be exciting news.

[A.G._Crockett]

Other players including Justin Thomas seemed to focus more on the effects on the game itself with an emphasis on amateurs.

Do you really think JT gives a crap about the perils of average golfers or the integrity of the game?  That is just an equipment company talking point to try and get amateurs riled up that the blue coats are conspiring to "take away our guns distance".  [I included the strike through in case you didn't know where that talking point has been proven effective.]

Tom-To be honest I don’t really think JT gives a crap about the perils of average golfers or the integrity of the game. I was just struck at the contrast between the two statements.

I’m willing to give Justin Thomas the same credit for sincerity and thoughtfulness that each of us would like to be afforded.  I don’t know anything about him to make e think otherwise, and given that his dad and grandfather were/are PGA pros, I think it’s possible that he MIGHT be thinking about the good of the game beyond his own personal bubble.


I didn’t read it carefully, but I believe I saw a story earlier in the week in which JT said he thought the new rule would help him relative to his competitors.


I think both things could be true.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()