[Mike Bodo]

That’s a big “if”.  I’m pretty sure the math(s) isn’t correct.

Interesting that no one, including the two major governing bodies, has provided empirical statistical evidence to support justification of the ball rollback and who the most and least affected will be. That would have been the easiest thing to do given how long they've been studying this and possibly would have quashed much of the dissent.

[Mike Bodo]

I don’t think even one player will boycott a U.S. or British Open for the reason stated above.

I never thought LIV would become a reality after Mickelson made a public ass out of himself in Feb. 2022., but what do I know?

[Tim Martin]

I don’t think even one player will boycott a U.S. or British Open for the reason stated above.

I never thought LIV would become a reality after Mickelson made a public ass out of himself in Feb. 2022., but what do I know?

Mike-Players will adapt to win a major IMO.

[Mike Bodo]

Mike-Players will adapt to win a major IMO.

I'd like to think so, but Tour players can be a fickle lot at times. If you force them to play a ball they don't practice with two tournaments a year some may take umbrage with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe all eligible PGA Tour players take part in the Open Championship each year. They may have last year for the 150th, but I don't believe it's always the case. The same may be true for the U.S. Open as far as foreigners eligible to play that aren't interested in making the trip.

[Ken Moum]

So the longest hitters lose, say, 2% and the (relatively) shorter hitters lose 10%+?!  i can’t see how that can be correct.

It's not. I'm not sure what he's talking about.

Matt says, "By my calculations." and "...based on physics."


Whatinhell is he talking about?  How is it even possible to make a "calculation" that has any validity with so little data to input to the calculations.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

According to the physics and math, that was Matt Adams take on it. It sounds plausible if the math is correct. I've yet to see anyone disprove this.

Matt is wrong. And 4:25 in the video is still the USGA duo talking, so… I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you provide an accurate timestamp?

[Mike Bodo]

4:25 in the video is still the USGA duo talking, so… I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you provide an accurate timestamp?

Sorry, Erik. Try 4:52. My dyslexia was as work originally. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sorry, Erik. Try 4:52. My dyslexia was as work originally. 

So it's actually around 8:45.

I don't know what Matt was doing. I don't think he understood it. He was saying that you'd lose 16.1 yards because you'd be going from 127 to 120 yards, and 7 * 2.3 = 16.1 yards.

Then, and I'm guessing a bit here because his logic is as illogical as it gets, he's saying that because 115 MPH is 12 MPH less than 127… that they'll lose 12 * 2.3 = 27.6 yards.



That's some BAD math there.

[Mike Bodo]

Sorry, Erik. Try 4:52. My dyslexia was as work originally. 

So it's actually around 8:45.

I don't know what Matt was doing. I don't think he understood it. He was saying that you'd lose 16.1 yards because you'd be going from 127 to 120 yards, and 7 * 2.3 = 16.1 yards.

Then, and I'm guessing a bit here because his logic is as illogical as it gets, he's saying that because 115 MPH is 12 MPH less than 127… that they'll lose 12 * 2.3 = 27.6 yards.



That's some BAD math there.

I'll be curious to see if he corrects himself tomorrow or the days to come or if there are those who concurr with his analysis.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'll be curious to see if he corrects himself tomorrow or the days to come or if there are those who concurr with his analysis.

That'd be like "concurring" that 2 + 2 = a red panda, the math is so bad.

I genuinely don't even understand what he's talking about. He doesn't seem to understand this proposed change at all.

[Tom_Doak]

Here's the best explanation I've heard regarding the reasons for the two large governinng bodies reigning in the golf ball vs. equipment and who will be impacted the most. It isn't the longest of the long ball hitters, but the average and lower club head speed players who stand to be most negatively affected.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmmXiaY3iAw&t=1950s


Start at the 4:25 mark in the video and listen to the debate between Fairways of Life host, Matt Adams (Golf Channel journo) and his producer, Dominic.


There are only a handful of guys on the tour that swing the driver at 127 mph, which is the speed robotic testing will be peformed at going forward from the current speed of 120 mph. The average PGA Tour player driver club head speed is 115 mph and has been around this mark several years. This means there are a lot of players whose club head speed is in the mid 100's. In mathematical terms, the guys at the upper end of the club head speed spectrum will lose 5 - 9 yds. from their current driving distance average with the ball rollback, whereas players such as Joel Dhamen, Tom Hoge and Brendan Todd, who whose club head speed ranges from 105 - 110 mph stand to lose 30 - 40 yds. It makes absolutely no sense - especially if your average driving distance is 280 yds., as the distance gap between the fastest to the slower swingers is going to grow disproportionately larger.


I watched Cam Young play a different TPC Sawgrass course from Max Homa and Jordan Spieth Sat. morning with his drives flying beyond theirs in the air and finishing 30 - 40 yds. further. I was blown away. That gap is only going to get worse, not better, with the ball rollback.



None of the professional tours are going to go along with this. There are too many sponorship and ad dollars at stake. If the R&A and USGA are adamant in implementing the rolled back ball in their prized championships they risk a lot of the best professional players boycotting their tournaments out of protest.

They have been talking about this with the manufacturers for two or three years, and I think what's been announced is the compromise where they can appear to be "doing something" that the manufacturers will agree to because it won't change the status quo too much.


That's how big business works nowadays, you know?  It's all about politics and protecting your nest egg.


Maybe your data is right and the manufacturers are going along because they believe the general public won't switch balls.  Or maybe your data is wrong, but they're going along because they can stop paying pros so much to "represent" them.  Who knows? 


The one thing I am certain of is that it won't change the game back to how it used to be.  That would have changed the status quo too much.

[Mike Bodo]

They have been talking about this with the manufacturers for two or three years, and I think what's been announced is the compromise where they can appear to be "doing something" that the manufacturers will agree to because it won't change the status quo too much.


That's how big business works nowadays, you know?  It's all about politics and protecting your nest egg.


Maybe your data is right and the manufacturers are going along because they believe the general public won't switch balls.  Or maybe your data is wrong, but they're going along because they can stop paying pros so much to "represent" them.  Who knows? 


The one thing I am certain of is that it won't change the game back to how it used to be.  That would have changed the status quo too much.

I agree with pretty much everything written above. Interestingly, there's been little said from any tour players regarding this. Makes me wonder if their ball sponsors gave them marching orders not to say a damn thing until the time is right? Certainly, the question will come up at player press confernces on both the PGA and LIV tours. It'll be interesting to see the talking points they're given from their sponsors, as I suspect you'll hear a lot of the same answers.

[Sean_A]

The number of people on social media saying in lieu of ball rollback, we should just narrow fairways and grow higher rough is staggering. This whole thing has gone past ludicrous and into plaid. The governing bodies waited way way too long.

It's like they weren't paying attention for the last 25+ years when Tiger Proofing was the "solution". Equipment is a commodity that people change on a fairly regular basis and is a much more economical avenue for influence vs. changing the courses.

Right.

And based on that notion here’s my prediction, bifurcation won’t last. I think that whatever the MLR ball is will become what people want to play.

I agree. Eventually everyone will shift to the same equipment. I just hope this is phase one of the rollback. Jeff is right, this will only halt even more distance. A 17ish% reduction is what will really attack the problem.

Ciao

[Sean_A]

If the R&A and USGA are adamant in implementing the rolled back ball in their prized championships they risk a lot of the best professional players boycotting their tournaments out of protest.

I don’t think even one player will boycott a U.S. or British Open for the reason stated above.

I agree.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

So the longest hitters lose, say, 2% and the (relatively) shorter hitters lose 10%+?!  i can’t see how that can be correct.

It's not. I'm not sure what he's talking about.

No it's not, is it.  In fact, it's what I think we in the UK call "utter bollocks".

[JohnVDB]

If the R&A and USGA are adamant in implementing the rolled back ball in their prized championships they risk a lot of the best professional players boycotting their tournaments out of protest.

I don’t think even one player will boycott a U.S. or British Open for the reason stated above.

I agree.

Ciao

If any do, that is fine, there are plenty more good players out there who will be happy to play.


Let’s not forget Augusta who probably will go along with it.

[Charlie Ray]

Table Tennis has changed the ball twice in the past 25 years.  (There are 5 times more table tennis players worldwide than golfers).  First in 2000 the ball went from 38mm to 40mm.  This was done to ‘slow down’ the ball and make for longer rallies.  At the elite level, the game had been dominated by the serve and return, making for boring/short matches.  Then the construction (material of the ball) changed from celluloid to a poly plastic ball in 2014.  This was proposed because celluloid has toxic properties but secondarily the new poly ball is a bit slower.  The ‘debate’ about the proposed changes were highly charged, but today Table Tennis has benefited from these changes at both the elite level and the recreational level. 
For those not familiar, Table Tennis equipment is highly expansive.  A single manufacture/brand offers 5 or 6 dozen blades (the wooden part) and nearly a hundred different rubbers.  The manufactures were the most vocal about the changes because they had to reformulate/engineer their equipment offerings.  But after the ITTF made the rule changes, the manufactures profited greatly.  Thus, I don’t understand why golf equipment brands are so reluctant to change; imagine the advertisements “Big Betsie, Designed to maximize the ‘New Ball.’”
From an Architectural viewpoint, I don’t know why anyone would boo-hoo bifurcation.  I found myself playing a couple of rounds this month at Hot Spring Village, Arkansas.  I played with a couple that registered 300+ rounds last year.  They didn’t bother to play 2 holes on their ‘home’ course because they couldn’t reach the fairway, nor the green from the end of the fairway.  Golf Architecture had failed them.  The designers (Ault, Clark, and Associates) were more concern with other things than the enjoyment of their clients.  (I asked the pro how many rounds played from the tips 7100 yards, he laughed and said less than one percent play from the 6200 yard tees)  Would having an elite ball prevent this kind of malpractice?  Probably not, but I do believe it could continue to dissuade penal architecture and 7500 yard courses… which I would consider both positives. 

[James Brown]

The long awaited roll back has arrived and no one here seems happy? 

[Peter Flory]

I agree with you that it's too late to roll the driver back to something completely different.  The elite players won't accept a rule that renders some of them non-elite.  Half the younger guys would be unable to compete if the equipment changed that much.

This is why I've warmed to the fringe proposal that calls for the removal of the actual golf tees.  It will never happen, but I like the simplicity of the solution and the self limiting nature of it.  Say that on each tee, you drop the ball from knee height and then play it as it lies until you reach the green (i.e. you can't manipulate the ground to create a grass ramp). 

Downsides are that 2nd tier courses and below would have really rough teeing grounds.  A local rule could allow for the placing of the golf ball without manipulating the ground. 

Driver tech would no doubt evolve to have lower CoG and 2 woods would probably make a comeback.  But trying to destroy a ball that is on the ground brings a lot of risk back to the tee shot.  The breaking point for me was when I heard the quote from a tour player that they were so nervous on the first tee of the Ryder Cup that they pulled out the driver since it was the easiest club to hit. 


My personal preference would be for a full rollback to something like 1982 tech, but that would be very alienating for modern players.  With the no-tee rule, it wouldn't be picking on anyone.  They could use their same equipment and golf balls.  And every good modern player who can hit a driver well can also hit 3Ws well. 

[Kalen Braley]

Pros have already started to jump in.  Nothing new thou...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/it-s-so-bad-for-the-game-justin-thomas-doesn-t-hold-back-when-it-comes-to-new-golf-ball-rollback-proposal-that-would-limit-distance/ar-AA18Foew?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=959977aebd4748bcac828135068be5fe&ei=10

[Mark Pearce]

  Thus, I don’t understand why golf equipment brands are so reluctant to change; imagine the advertisements “Big Betsie, Designed to maximize the ‘New Ball.’”

I don't honestly believe they are reluctant to change.  However, if they come out and say "This is great, those huge advances in distance we keep on advertising have been bad for the game and need rolling back" it would look odd.  So they'll argue that they're defending the benefits they've brought to the recreational game, whilst their R&D teams start work on the developments that their marketing teams will promote in just the same way as they always have "best wiffle ball for the pro AND the amateur, brought to you with Supersonic technology".  Titleist, perhaps, will be slightly miffed that the Pro V1 will lose its supremacy, but I'm sure their Wiffle V1 will prove just as dominant.

[Jim Hoak]

Bringing this back to the golf course architecture focus of this site, I saw the mention this morning that--if the PGA Tour rejects the new USGA model local rule--the problem of the length of the ball and the obsoleting of golf courses, may fall on golf course architects to solve.  Any speculation of what kind of things will need to be done?  I know the obvious minor tweaks--length of rough, firmness of greens, etc.--but are there any mega-trends or major solutions that you see?

[Charlie Goerges]

Bringing this back to the golf course architecture focus of this site, I saw the mention this morning that--if the PGA Tour rejects the new USGA model local rule--the problem of the length of the ball and the obsoleting of golf courses, may fall on golf course architects to solve.  Any speculation of what kind of things will need to be done?  I know the obvious minor tweaks--length of rough, firmness of greens, etc.--but are there any mega-trends or major solutions that you see?

I think trying to somehow combat distance through architectural or maintenance means would not be a good thing. It would be like having doctors develop weapons. Most of them wouldn't be interested, and the few who went along would develop truly horrific things.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Bringing this back to the golf course architecture focus of this site, I saw the mention this morning that--if the PGA Tour rejects the new USGA model local rule--the problem of the length of the ball and the obsoleting of golf courses, may fall on golf course architects to solve.  Any speculation of what kind of things will need to be done?  I know the obvious minor tweaks--length of rough, firmness of greens, etc.--but are there any mega-trends or major solutions that you see?

For a course who's main purpose is to host professional golf, end every fairway at 300 yards. Between 300-375 yards build a great hazard that players would not want to play out of. Force every player to lay back to less than 300 yards off the tee, thus removing driving skill from the game and focus play strictly on approach quality.

[Pat Burke]

Still seems like a have your cake and eat it too solution.
Arguments for roll back have largely been golf course protections as well as challenging the high level players and counterpoints also brought up the distance missed shots are going by the avg golfer creating safety issues both in and off the course.


Some random line in the sand for a level that should play a short ball creates confusion as well as division in a game that has some momentum with people joining the game.


I e always been against bifurcation in the argument.
And still believe there should either be a rollback across the board or not

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()