USGA/R&A Changes to the Equipment Standards?

[chspeed]

11 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

How often do you think a guy that is 43 years old is going to want to move up to the senior or ladies tees?  We have the Tips, a Blue, a White(men's), Senior, Ladies.  We usually play white's. 

I get that. If they're hitting it 230 and can't reach in 2, then the par 4s they are playing must be about 420+. That's either a relatively difficult course from the whites or maybe only happens a couple of times a round?

13 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

the overall impact of the game and the revenue(and likely more golf course closings) that will result from this.  

I doubt that. Really, someone who is hitting it 230 will only lose a yard or two. I doubt they'll even notice. Certainly not enough to quit golf IMO.

[ChetlovesMer]

21 minutes ago, chspeed said:

They're likely playing from the wrong tees.

I agree with you on this. BUT, it can be tough to get people to move up. There's a guy in our league. He's like mid-30's. I've played with him. His average tee shot can't be over 180. The league plays the yellow tees (which is the middle set at this course). He should move up. But the league plays the whites, so what's he going to do. Plus, what's it do to the guy's ego having to move up a set of tees when a guy 20 or more years older than you can play a teebox or even two further back then you? 

But playing the wrong tees isn't really the topic here. 

37 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Hey man, I totally agree with you.  Rolling back distances is not a good idea.  ... They are making rule changes for the elite players that we will never be.   I spend 100 bucks to go play golf and the last thing I want is to be rolling the ball back.  

I'm with you on this. I've said a few times "Tell me the sport that got more fun by removing offense." 

However, I've soften on this topic a bunch. When I read that report stating that as many as 1/3 of the balls sold today already comply... I'm not sure I'm going to notice as much as I thought. 

I might suggest the golf powers that be are in a tough spot here. They are under pressure from a lot of groups to "do something". They are under pressure from other groups to "do nothing". The last thing any of us want is bifurcation. So, they kind of have to walk the line. Make it look like you did something to please people. Maybe don't do that much so that you please other people. 

[iacas]

43 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Most players including a lot of my age 40+ friends can't hit the ball 230.

And now they'll hit it like 224.

43 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

This seems like a fun sponge of a ruling and will likely hurt the overall game for the older folks and recreational golfers.

Counterpoint: 1/3 of approved balls already conform.

43 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

every single one of my friends and acquaintances would do anything for 10 more yards off the tee.

Except, you know, practice, speed train, take lessons, get on a launch monitor to check launch conditions… etc.?

43 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

99% of the golfers I play with aren't hitting it "too far" - they are barely able to even attempt to get on GIR.

Then they are playing the wrong tees, or they just stink. Tops and chunks will still go just as far. Slices won't go quite as far into the trees.

28 minutes ago, chspeed said:

They're likely playing from the wrong tees.

Yep.

23 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

How often do you think a guy that is 43 years old is going to want to move up to the senior or ladies tees?

Why do you call them the "senior" or "ladies" tees? That's antiquated in and of itself.

23 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Again, I feel like everyone is just thinking about themselves and not the overall impact of the game and the revenue(and likely more golf course closings) that will result from this.  

I would say the same to you.

[Nutsmacker]

19 hours ago, iacas said:

And now they'll hit it like 224.

Counterpoint: 1/3 of approved balls already conform.

Except, you know, practice, speed train, take lessons, get on a launch monitor to check launch conditions… etc.?

Then they are playing the wrong tees, or they just stink. Tops and chunks will still go just as far. Slices won't go quite as far into the trees.

Yep.

Why do you call them the "senior" or "ladies" tees? That's antiquated in and of itself.

I would say the same to you.

Great, so they will hit it shorter.  That's awesome! 

What balls conform?  This sounds like a sales pitch in congress for a new tax.  "It only effects this group"

Of course people would be better if they bought launch monitors, take lessons, practice everyday etc, but let's be realistic...most people don't have the time for that.  Recreational weekend golfers are what keeps courses open(at least where I live) if that player is no longer enjoying themselves, we will likely revisit 2010-2016 when less people play and more courses close.  Where I live, which is very busy, we lost at least 5 public courses in that time frame when golf was dying a slow death.  There have been zero new golf courses constructed in my state for over 20 years with multiple courses that are permanently gone.  Please explain how making the game less fun for the weekend player is going to improve the cash flow at a golf course?

Playing the wrong tees and naming them.  - I didn't name them, the golf course did.  Take it up with the local government, not someone pointing out the issue.  And yes, many player do "stink" - Again, not everyone can spend their entire week practicing golf.  I really feel this is completely out of touch with reality to mention all of this.  

And finally, I am going to keep playing...I love the game of golf.  I also recognize that most people that play don't share the same enthusiasm I have for the game.  However, my fear is less enthusiasm to play, which leads to less investment in building and/or maintaining public courses, which leads to less options to play golf.   So, yes, I am thinking about myself.  I am thinking that I want to have more than a couple of public courses to play.  One day I will spring for a CC membership but I don't have the means to do so at the moment.  I don't think this helps the game grow at the recreational level.  In fact, I can't find a single point that you made that makes the game more desirable to play from this rule change for the average person.   

[iacas]

50 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Great, so they will hit it shorter.

Maybe a little. But not much.

50 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

What balls conform?  This sounds like a sales pitch in congress for a new tax.  "It only effects this group"

I know of some, and they're not exactly no-name balls. Think about the "soft" balls designed for those with slower swing speeds. Not sales pitch — just a fact. The rolled back balls have been living amongst us for years…

50 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Of course people would be better if they bought launch monitors, take lessons, practice everyday etc,

Dude, you literally said "would do anything for 10 more yards off the tee."

Just concede that you were wrong and move on. Take the L you so clearly earned.

50 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

if that player is no longer enjoying themselves

Roughly zero people will quit over this. The players who are good enough to notice much are too far in, and the poor players won't notice at all. And, if you care that much, stockpile some balls in 2029 and have at it.

50 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Please explain how making the game less fun for the weekend player is going to improve the cash flow at a golf course?

The game was fun when I took it up in 1993.

50 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

Playing the wrong tees and naming them

Again, take the "L."

50 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

I really feel this is completely out of touch with reality to mention all of this.

No, the reality is that most golfers kinda stink, and won't notice this at all.

50 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

I also recognize that most people that play don't share the same enthusiasm I have for the game.

This isn't going to change that.

50 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

 However, my fear is less enthusiasm to play

The ball going six yards shorter off the tee is about 47th on the list of why people would quit. Several other things matter more, and will play a much more significant role in whether a player keeps playing or quits.

50 minutes ago, Nutsmacker said:

In fact, I can't find a single point that you made that makes the game more desirable to play from this rule change for the average person.   

That's not the reason for the rules change.

[DeadMan]

This is an interesting article - it seems like the PGA Tour is going to come out against the rollback:

PGA Tour quietly testing golf ball rollback: What do players think?

---

The PGA of America isn’t the only governing body that may be in opposition to the USGA and R&A’s plan for a golf ball rollback.

Brian Harman has some interesting and smart quotes in there that mirror what rollback-skeptic people have been saying.

But I want to dunk on Lucas Glover:

Quote

They are breaking the world record in the 100 meter, they don’t make it 110. Guys are shooting three-pointers better, they don’t move the line back. They haven’t made the goal posts narrower when field goal kickers got better.

The NBA moved the 3 point line twice in the 90s. The NCAA moved the 3 point line twice in the past 20 years (the last time was for the 2019-20 season). College football narrowed the goal posts in 1991. And the NFL pushed back the extra point in 2015 because kickers weren't missing extra points.

Beyond those specific points, sports make rule changes all the time to make the sport better. Baseball is an obvious, recent example. Hockey did things like eliminate the two line pass fairly recently. Soccer had a huge change in 1992 when it eliminated the back pass.

So that's pretty ignorant and stupid.

But this is even worse:

Quote

It would be nice if somebody took a stand for us for a change. Maybe this could be the opportunity for the Tour to do that.

Are you f***ing kidding me? You make millions for hitting a tiny ball in on a grass field. Boo f***ing who.

[iacas]

I'll be pretty quick in saying that I was against the roll-back when they were talking about 20% or even 10%. I didn't think it was necessary to regulate the entire game based on the top 0.1%. I was also (and remain) against bifurcation, as it harms everyone just below the line striving to get to the point above the line.

But this is like a 4% rollback, and it relieves some stress from courses and people and finances… without really affecting 95% of golfers much at all… so yeah, shut up. It's fine. People watching aren't able to tell the difference between a 330-yard tee shot and a 315-yard tee shot.

[saevel25]

40 minutes ago, iacas said:

But this is like a 4% rollback, and it relieves some stress from courses and people and finances… without really affecting 95% of golfers much at all… so yeah, shut up. It's fine. People watching aren't able to tell the difference between a 330-yard tee shot and a 315-yard tee shot.

Yea, I think something like 5% to start out with is good. See how that works out. 

Majority of people are not playing PGA tour courses, so I doubt they will feel bad for clubbing up one club on their approach shots. 

[ChetlovesMer]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I'll be pretty quick in saying that I was against the roll-back when they were talking about 20% or even 10%. I didn't think it was necessary to regulate the entire game based on the top 0.1%. I was also (and remain) against bifurcation, as it harms everyone just below the line striving to get to the point above the line.

But this is like a 4% rollback, and it relieves some stress from courses and people and finances… without really affecting 95% of golfers much at all… so yeah, shut up. It's fine. People watching aren't able to tell the difference between a 330-yard tee shot and a 315-yard tee shot.

But what about the guys on that other forum who are all hitting it like 405? .... For them that's going to take 20 yards! 🤣

Seriously though, I heard like most of the balls sold today are already compliant. So, if you are using one of those (as I think I am), there will very literally be no difference.