USGA/R&A Changes to the Equipment Standards?

[ChetlovesMer]

1 hour ago, Darkfrog said:

• If ball companies have to spend money developing and manufacturing a new ball, does the recreational golfer end up paying more for golf balls to offset the R&D investment?

Hmm... I can't guarantee that it will make golf balls more expensive, but I can promise you it won't make them cheaper. 

[Missouri Swede]

26 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

Hmm... I can't guarantee that it will make golf balls more expensive, but I can promise you it won't make them cheaper. 

It gets paid for somewhere.  I figure most pros aren't paying for their balls, so the money doesn't come from there.  Are the USGA/R&A giving money to the manufacturers to offset the costs so it doesn't filter down to recreational golfer?

But I figure Titleist, Bridgestone, Callaway, etc., probably do so much R&D, they probably already have a good idea what they'll do. "Yep, prototypes G217039 and G217043 that we played with two years ago will fit the bill." If so, then I suppose it's mainly just manufacturing cost.

One other thought occurs to me: "We got you these balls for your birthday--we even got you the special ones that the pros use!"

[iacas]

49 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

Are the USGA/R&A giving money to the manufacturers to offset the costs so it doesn't filter down to recreational golfer?

No, but why should they? Titleist makes like $670M from golf ball sales last year alone.

49 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

But I figure Titleist, Bridgestone, Callaway, etc., probably do so much R&D, they probably already have a good idea what they'll do. "Yep, prototypes G217039 and G217043 that we played with two years ago will fit the bill." If so, then I suppose it's mainly just manufacturing cost.

No. They spend the majority of their roughly $56M R&D budget on golf balls, and that will go up millions of dollars over the next few years just to research and develop the best ball under the proposed standard.

[GolfLug]

On 3/20/2023 at 10:01 AM, pganapathy said:

This depends entirely on where in the world you go.  In places like America and Europe, labour is expensive and hence caddie fees become prohibitive.  In places like India for example, the most we would pay for a caddie is approximately 10 to 15 dollars for a round.  Generally it is around 5 or so in the smaller cities/towns.  Admittedly salaries on average are lower, but golf is generally more affordable once clubs are purchased and you don't lose too many golf balls.  In many parts of the developing world, golfers will take a caddie because it is cheap, makes your play quicker (caddies go ahead to spot and find your ball by the time you get there and carry your bag so walking is quicker) and generally help with club suggestion, putting line, distance etc.

 

On 3/20/2023 at 6:36 AM, hunterdog said:

The issue, in my opinion, is not what amateurs and the PGAT do different but, if they wanted to, they can still play by the same rules of competition. Ams could carry and calculate yardages, wasn’t that long ago that we did that, or hire a caddie, and amateurs could play the new ball. My point is that over time we have, with local rules, bifurcated the game from what the PGAT plays and what we, as amateurs, play.

Most amateurs play different tees than the pros, use a handicap system, use equipment only similar to what the elite pros use, use carts, use lasers, and play courses that have the same layout but have different agronomy and mowing practices (for that one week a year that the Tour rolls into town). So we play similar games but certainly not the same game. And I’m okay with that.

Y'all missing the point it seems. All this stuff does not qualify as bifurcation. 

 

[DeadMan]

Rory is in favor of the MLR:

McIlroy Supports Governing Bodies' Distance Proposal

---

In an exclusive interview, Rory McIlroy explains his support of the governing bodies' proposed changes for men's professional golf.

 

[GolfLug]

43 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Rory is in favor of the MLR:

McIlroy Supports Governing Bodies' Distance Proposal

---

In an exclusive interview, Rory McIlroy explains his support of the governing bodies' proposed changes for men's professional golf.

 

With all due respect to Mr. Mcilroy, the take to keep it 'fun' for ams is a tad patronizing. Nope. I want to hit what y'all hit even if I struggle to bunt it past 225. If it needs to be more 'fun' than ams can move up a tee or hit a non-conforming driver or well, go to Topgolf. No one is stopping them. Don't need or want a hand out. 

So no roll-back or full roll-back. 

[Darkfrog]

Quote

"I think making guys hit some long irons again, and some mid irons, and being able to hit every club in your bag in a round of golf. … I can't remember the last time when I've had to do that. I don't know if this change in the ball will make us do that, but it certainly is a step closer to that.”

I like hearing Rory's takes because he doesn't seem to be regurgitating talking points. But he seems to be speculating on the outcome of the change, which is fine because it's his opinion, but not really substantiated with any data.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Darkfrog said:

I like hearing Rory's takes because he doesn't seem to be regurgitating talking points. But he seems to be speculating on the outcome of the change, which is fine because it's his opinion, but not really substantiated with any data.

I mean, it's not exactly speculation. If they lose 15-20 yards off the tee shot, and another 10 with the irons… that's potentially more mid- and long-irons.

Rory is also already pretty close to optimal launch conditions, so he's not going to gain it back.

[boogielicious]

I do like hearing different perspectives. I did not know that about tennis and Wimbledon. But I would like it to apply to all of golf. A 15 yard reduction for a 300 yard hitter is 5%. For me that’s about 10 yards less that my ball goes into the woods.😜

[DeadMan]

The tennis comparison is interesting, because I've heard complaints that the ball and surfaces have made all tennis players the same. In order to make tennis more exciting, they've made it into a baseline game. That means every good player plays the same style and you don't see the specialists succeed like you did before.

This is an old article, but I think this is what I'm remembering:

Clay, Grass, Hard Court? For Tennis's Top Players, It Doesn't Matter Anymore - The Atlantic

---

If Novak Djokovic wins the French Open, he'll be the third athlete in four years to dominate on all court surfaces.

I'm not sure how applicable that is to golf, though. Arguably, the emphasis on distance has made it so that the best golfers are all really long. But that's also been going on a while (i.e., the best players have been long hitters). I still think playing on shorter courses would allow more types of players to succeed, but I don't think that's going to happen.

[hunterdog]

11 hours ago, GolfLug said:

 

Y'all missing the point it seems. All this stuff does not qualify as bifurcation. 

 

Tell me why you don’t think recreational golfers being allowed to use carts and range finders which are not allowed on PGAT is not a bifurcation of the rules. To me, it seems that there are different rules regarding equipment being used, much like the ball. Tell me what I’m missing.

Edited March 23 by hunterdog
Grammar

[iacas]

1 hour ago, hunterdog said:

Tell me why you don’t think recreational golfers being allowed to use carts and range finders which are not allowed on PGAT is not a bifurcation of the rules. To me, it seems that there are different rules regarding equipment being used, much like the ball. Tell me what I’m missing.

It's not the same, Hunter.

This is more equivalent to saying "Hey, amateurs, you can putt to a 6-inch hole" or "ams, you get to carry 18 clubs."

Using a rangefinder (which they still allow in the PGA Championship, and which caddies use pre-tournament to make sure their yardage books are accurate), using a cart (Champions Tour, Tiger and/or Casey Martin, John Daly, ALL players at the Tournament of Champions between about six of the 18 holes…), etc. are not super fundamental to actually playing a shot. You play a shot with yourself, on the course, to a hole… with a club and a ball. None of the things you cited are involved directly in that.

The ball, the club… the size of the hole… stuff like that is directly involved.

So, again, they're not the same at all.

[GolfLug]

1 hour ago, hunterdog said:

Tell me why you don’t think recreational golfers being allowed to use carts and range finders which are not allowed on PGAT is not a bifurcation of the rules. To me, it seems that there are different rules regarding equipment being used, much like the ball. Tell me what I’m missing.

Thanks @iacas. Yeah, all that stuff is not core. Hitting the ball and how it reacts/flies is literally the game. Every shot. You are likely to shoot different scores playing a ball that flies longer/shorter like you would playing different tees. 

OTOH, you get the same differential if you ride a cart vs. walk. Same differential whether you use a rangefinder or use course markers/step it off. It's not true bifurcation. 

[hunterdog]

8 hours ago, iacas said:

It's not the same, Hunter.

This is more equivalent to saying "Hey, amateurs, you can putt to a 6-inch hole" or "ams, you get to carry 18 clubs."

Using a rangefinder (which they still allow in the PGA Championship, and which caddies use pre-tournament to make sure their yardage books are accurate), using a cart (Champions Tour, Tiger and/or Casey Martin, John Daly, ALL players at the Tournament of Champions between about six of the 18 holes…), etc. are not super fundamental to actually playing a shot. You play a shot with yourself, on the course, to a hole… with a club and a ball. None of the things you cited are involved directly in that.

The ball, the club… the size of the hole… stuff like that is directly involved.

So, again, they're not the same at all.

Iacas: I really do respect your opinions and thoughts regarding golf. And I am not trying to be overly argumentative. But I do want to souse this out a bit more.

In the Casey Martin lawsuit, the PGAT called a number of witnesses to testify that walking the course was integral to the game. Two of the witnesses were Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus. I’m not saying just because Arnie and Jack said it that must be so, just that other people knowledgeable about the game believed that waking was integral to the game. The Senior/Champions Tour use of carts was also brought forward in the trial and the PGAT argued to the court that the Senior/Champions Tour was only exhibition golf. My point is simply that the PGAT currently has equipment rules that are not the same for recreational golfers and I happen to believe that, at the highest levels, should be based upon, in part, their physical and mental fitness after walking 18 - think of Hogan after the car accident, Venturi walking 36 at the US Open, or Tiger Woods at Torrey winning the US Open. 
 

Personally, I think the ball for everyone should be rolled back. At 66 years old I hit the ball longer than I did when I was 36 years old. If the courses I typically play become to long I can move up a set of tees.

[boogielicious]

10 minutes ago, hunterdog said:

Personally, I think the ball for everyone should be rolled back. At 66 years old I hit the ball longer than I did when I was 36 years old. If the courses I typically play become to long I can move up a set of tees.

I’m leaning this way too. If they roll back the ball for everyone, the tees for we amateurs can be moved up. I’d rather that than having the Pros play a different ball.  That being said, Pros will figure out a way to hit the rolled-back ball longer. They are on average better physically than golfers a generation ago and with science have learned to optimize launch. That wasn’t available a generation ago.

[Beastie]

On 3/19/2023 at 2:03 AM, phillyk said:

Todays crop of players hitting longer is largely due to fitness and body efficiency. I can take an old persimmon wood and hit it 275+. 

How far do you hit a modern driver? I still have persimmon woods and they all hit it shorter than my modern driver( the main deficit being on off centre strikes) 

[GolfLug]

56 minutes ago, hunterdog said:

 At 66 years old I hit the ball longer than I did when I was 36 years old. 

Right, that's universal tech advancement. I prefer not but am fine with full roll back (seems like we agree on that).

But we have always played with the same ball/clubs under ROG. It is a huge part of golf's mystical draw. I would rather shoot an 'honest' 15 differential vs. an 'asterisked' 12 differential. 

Edited March 23 by GolfLug

[chspeed]

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

It is a huge part of golf's mystical draw.

Not to me. This part of the argument I never quite understood. We don't use MLB-regulation bats and balls, yet still love to play softball. We don't play soccer on a standard pitch, but still play pick-up soccer. Doesn't stop us from fantasizing about hitting a 400 ft. home run or bending it like Beckham.

IMO, the game pros play is SO different than the game average amateurs play; custom fitted clubs, private courses, incredible course conditions, supersonic swing speeds, etc. that the equipment specs are somewhat besides the point. The issue of the tiny fraction of golfers that play high-level or competitive golf is easily resolved with an MLR ball, custom-fitted clubs, and playing from the tips.

That said, I doubt bifurcation will happen because of inertia, golf politics, and fear of losing money.

 

Edited March 23 by chspeed