USGA/R&A Changes to the Equipment Standards?

[ChetlovesMer]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I’ve only ever really had four positions on this whole thing:

• I don’t think ruling bodies need to base any change on 0.1% or even 1% of the world’s golfers. 6500 yards is enough for 95% of the golfers in the world, and there are enough 7000-yard courses for the other 5% to play. I don’t care what PGA Tour players shoot. The lowest score still wins.
• The sustainability/resource usage angle was the best one to use in favor of a rollback. Not the “wedges are boring” or “that’s not how the course was designed to be played” or "we need to preserve old courses" stuff. For most of that stuff, see the first bullet.
• If the ruling bodies do rollback, I want them to know exactly what they’ll get. I didn’t want a massive disruption to the game only to have the PGA Tour players and equipment manufacturers work around the new regulations in six months and get almost all the distance back. For example, I didn’t want a lighter ball or a “spinnier ball” pushed through without a full understanding of how that would affect the game (a lighter ball would narrow the gap in putting skill, a spinny ball would be worked around in no time, and not yield even much in the way of short-term changes).
• I didn’t want bifurcation. Roll it back for everyone if you’re gonna do it. Bifurcation harms everyone just below the cut-off line.

So, if they’re going to roll it back (it appears so), I hope the third and fourth points hold. It sounds like the fourth will. I just hope the third does as well, whatever route they choose.

I have to agree with all four of these bullet points. 

I would like to add onto the second bullet point. Yes, the sustainability/resource usage angle IS the best argument for a roll-back. But I believe there are at least a few BETTER ways to address the sustainability/resource usage than with a rollback. 

I truly feel there is no good reason for a roll-back. Lock it down where it is now and let's go. 

[iacas]

Here’s a question: “If the ball rolls back for all… do courses get re-rated?”

Blue tees at Whispering Woods are 6475 yards, 72.2/141. 14 * 25 (let’s ignore distance loss on approach shots, but say 14 tee shots go 25 yards shorter) = 350.

This course also has tees at 6804, or 329 yards longer. The course rating from those tees is 74.0/145.

That’s ~1.8 shots different.

That’s the difference between easily qualifying for the U.S. Am or U.S. Open and being well outside the handicap requirement.

Even 5% longer on all shots is almost the same difference: 6475 → 6,799.

[ChetlovesMer]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Here’s a question: “If the ball rolls back for all… do courses get re-rated?”

Blue tees at Whispering Woods are 6475 yards, 72.2/141. 14 * 25 (let’s ignore distance loss on approach shots, but say 14 tee shots go 25 yards shorter) = 350.

This course also has tees at 6804, or 329 yards longer. The course rating from those tees is 74.0/145.

That’s ~1.8 shots different.

That’s the difference between easily qualifying for the U.S. Am or U.S. Open and being well outside the handicap requirement.

Even 5% longer on all shots is almost the same difference: 6475 → 6,799.

Just one of the many reasons I hate the idea of a roll-back. 

[Missouri Swede]

22 hours ago, bkuehn1952 said:

My aging has already accomplished the USGA/R&A goal of a distance rollback. 😉

Same here. I'd like to get back to where I was 5 years ago.

On SiriusXM PGATour radio one of the shows discussed the possibility that the average golfer who doesn't keep a handicap might go ahead and load up on the current generation of golf balls and play those, in essence creating a bifurcation.

[ChetlovesMer]

21 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

On SiriusXM PGATour radio one of the shows discussed the possibility that the average golfer who doesn't keep a handicap might go ahead and load up on the current generation of golf balls and play those, in essence creating a bifurcation.

That's funny cuz I hear a lot of folks saying that same thing. 

I won't be doing that. 

Firstly, I like to play at least one, but sometimes a couple tournaments each year. So of course I'd like to practice with the ball I play. 

Secondly, I like to play by the rules. All of them. Obviously we could all order a 0.87 C.O.R. driver head of the web and fit it up with a shaft and get more distance that way. But I wouldn't do that either. 

Of course, I know at least one guy who plays with a non-conforming ball already. He also has a non-conforming driver. (It's a 0.87 COR Taylormade R7 head) He also has a level and puts that down on the green to help "read the green". He also fluffs his ball in the rough. Doesn't count "all" of his shots. Says things like, "Well, if that stream wasn't there, I could go over there and hit that ball, so I won't take a stroke here." or "If that tree wasn't there..." You get the idea. Some folks don't play by the rules. That's fine. But I think you are disqualified from bragging about your round if you don't play by the rules. 👍

[dsc123]

22 hours ago, iacas said:

Here’s a question: “If the ball rolls back for all… do courses get re-rated?”

Blue tees at Whispering Woods are 6475 yards, 72.2/141. 14 * 25 (let’s ignore distance loss on approach shots, but say 14 tee shots go 25 yards shorter) = 350.

This course also has tees at 6804, or 329 yards longer. The course rating from those tees is 74.0/145.

That’s ~1.8 shots different.

That’s the difference between easily qualifying for the U.S. Am or U.S. Open and being well outside the handicap requirement.

Even 5% longer on all shots is almost the same difference: 6475 → 6,799.

They must re-rate, I’d think.
 

If they do, can they just apply a % increase based on the increased length, or would they have to walk the course?  

 

Imagine if they bifurcated.  Would we have 2 sets of course ratings or a third course handicap calculation input to account for what ball you’re using? 

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

They must re-rate, I’d think.

If they do, can they just apply a % increase based on the increased length, or would they have to walk the course?

Imagine if they bifurcated.  Would we have 2 sets of course ratings or a third course handicap calculation input to account for what ball you’re using? 

I don't think they'd bifurcate at a point where people cared much about the course rating. PGA Tour players don't really care about the rating, you know?

To your first question, I imagine they might just add 5% or something they deduce to be "the right number" to all course ratings, and then re-rate on a slightly faster scale than they do now.

[DeadMan]

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-ra-rollback-announcement-december-2023

Welp. 

[iacas]

Some quotes from the article:

The USGA and R&A are expected to announce early next week that they will be changing the rules to roll back distance in golf—and not just for elite players. The expected decision likely would make nearly every popular golf ball played both professionally and recreationally non-conforming. The news comes from multiple industry sources with direct knowledge of the plans of golf’s governing bodies, speaking on background.

and

That decision apparently will mean a period of bifurcated rules starting in 2028, when the elite professionals use a shorter golf ball than recreational players. But starting two years later, all balls that conform to the Rules of Golf will apparently be 15 or more yards shorter at the elite level. The effect on distance for recreational players will likely be less, but could be proportional. So that if a tour player loses five percent (or 15 yards on a 300-yard drive), then a recreational player might lose that same five percent on a 225-yard drive (or roughly 11 yards). And the same golfer likely would lose a similar percentage on his or her approach shots.

and

In a Golf Digest internet survey this week that was open to all golfers, with more than 600 people responding, a significant majority (64.6 percent) said they would not abide by rules that reduce ball distance. They felt nearly the same about distance limitations at the elite level, with 60.4 percent not wanting to see pros and top amateurs have their length pushed back.

---

To the last one, I mean… c'mon. They're not going to have a choice unless they stockpile a TON of the previous model of golf ball. Sounds like a bunch of people talking tough but… in four to six years, they're going to be playing mostly the "new" balls. What are they going to do: hit their old distance balls shorter so they can try not to lose them? 😄

[JetFan1983]

I like how they're giving us six years to come to terms with this new reality. I guess 11 to 15 yards less isn't the worst thing ever. 

[boogielicious]

I’ll be 68 then. @Bob M and I will just drive up the fairway a bit and tee off from there like some of the old ladies do at North Kingstown.😜

[billchao]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

To the last one, I mean… c'mon. They're not going to have a choice unless they stockpile a TON of the previous model of golf ball. Sounds like a bunch of people talking tough but… in four to six years, they're going to be playing mostly the "new" balls. What are they going to do: hit their old distance balls shorter so they can try not to lose them? 😄

I plan on strategically hiding my current balls in various places on the courses I play 😜

[DeadMan]

I think this is right:

[WillieT]

Makes me wonder - with all the leaps in understanding better golf swing physics, will a simple ball roll back really reign in the distance?  Will they also need to deaden club faces as well?  Just curious where the end goal really is? 

[phillyk]

3 minutes ago, WillieT said:

Makes me wonder - with all the leaps in understanding better golf swing physics, will a simple ball roll back really reign in the distance?  Will they also need to deaden club faces as well?  Just curious where the end goal really is? 

The end goal is the USGA doesn’t like Tiger hitting a drive 376yds in the Bahamas. They blame the ball. 

[WillieT]

4 hours ago, phillyk said:

The end goal is the USGA doesn’t like Tiger hitting a drive 376yds in the Bahamas. They blame the ball. 

The ball is what we used to call “low hanging fruit”, an easy fix.  The truth  remains - people are faster, stronger, bigger…they will hit the ball farther and farther.  Is there is place of diminishing returns?  A place where the body breaks continuously?  Is the ball roll back going to force the elite athlete to go there?  Is this really a cry from the old guard to “protect the game”?  

[Bob M]

10 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I’ll be 68 then. @Bob M and I will just drive up the fairway a bit and tee off from there like some of the old ladies do at North Kingstown.😜

.... which means I'll be like 72; chip drive here we come!

[iacas]

The ball is the easiest thing to change. Everyone buys new balls all the time.