USGA/R&A Changes to the Equipment Standards?

[cutchemist42]

So are they designing the ball to only result in less driver distance? Or would it apply equally to lost distance across all clubs??

 

I do support this however in theory 

[TheWiseguy]

percentage across all clubs it looks like....

[iacas]

46 minutes ago, TheWiseguy said:

percentage across all clubs it looks like....

No, not really. They're changing the distance the ball can fly when it's hit at 127 MPH clubhead speed, 11° launch, and 2220 RPM of spin.

That's not your 7I.

And… according to the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer… that's still only 315.5 yards. So…

[StuM]

I really do not like the MLR (aka bifurcation) for reasons others have stated.  My primary issue is with players transitioning from one level of play to another specifically college/amateur moving to the professional level and then to the "Elite Professional" level.  Add to that mix that different tournaments may have different rules is successive weeks.  I just do not like it.  If they really want to shorten distances for the elite pros then look back at several of prior posts and there are many ways to change the risk-reward of going long without equipment changes.  Plant a hedge next to a tee box to take away an angle.  Lengthen the rough and narrow the fairway to penalize shots off-line shots.  Understandable the elite pros are good out of the rough so it may need to be really nasty rough to be a discouragement.  

Sidenote on the rough.  One way to make it more punishing is to simply not have the marshalls put a flag by your ball.  If it goes in the rough, YOU need to find it in the time allowed.  Unfortunatley this would not be overly effective since the gallery will run to the spot & make it findable.

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, StuM said:

Plant a hedge next to a tee box to take away an angle.  Lengthen the rough and narrow the fairway to penalize shots off-line shots.  Understandable the elite pros are good out of the rough so it may need to be really nasty rough to be a discouragement.  

The Ruling Bodies simply don't have the authority to do these kinds of things, that falls to the organizers of each event, each tour.  The only realistic "tool" available to the Ruling Bodies was the equipment rules.  I'm not a big fan of bifurcation, but if the choice is made to change a rule to limit (or decrease) distance, I think its best that it doesn't impact the rank and file golfer.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm not a big fan of bifurcation, but if the choice is made to change a rule to limit (or decrease) distance, I think its best that it doesn't impact the rank and file golfer.

I'm not with you on that. I'd rather see a full rollback than bifurcation.

I also think the manufacturers would, too, and that may be their feedback to the USGA/R&A during the comment period. So, we may end up with a full roll-back.

[TheWiseguy]

52 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, not really. They're changing the distance the ball can fly when it's hit at 127 MPH clubhead speed, 11° launch, and 2220 RPM of spin.

That's not your 7I.

And… according to the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer… that's still only 315.5 yards. So…

Ok. But it has to do something with the construction of the ball, right? Which means that changes needs to affect flight, no matter the angel, ball speed etc, right? 
im not a pro on the subject, so just curious.

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, TheWiseguy said:

Ok. But it has to do something with the construction of the ball, right? Which means that changes needs to affect flight, no matter the angel, ball speed etc, right? 
im not a pro on the subject, so just curious.

I believe this is correct, the behavior of the golf ball will change for every shot played.  The change may not be at the same percentage across the full range of swing speeds and impact conditions.

[TheWiseguy]

9 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I believe this is correct, the behavior of the golf ball will change for every shot played.  The change may not be at the same percentage across the full range of swing speeds and impact conditions.

Agree, Im guessing they want impact to the most off tee (woods) but it has to make an impact on all launch angels even though much less on close range wedges. 

 

[phillyk]

7 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I believe this is correct, the behavior of the golf ball will change for every shot played.  The change may not be at the same percentage across the full range of swing speeds and impact conditions.

I guess I think of it in terms of PTR. With limited flight range balls, they held to around a 1.35, in my very limited testing. I wonder if this is trying to bring the max down from 1.52. It wouldn’t need much to achieve 15-20yds. This would also mean it wouldn’t affect many other clubs. 

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I believe this is correct, the behavior of the golf ball will change for every shot played.  The change may not be at the same percentage across the full range of swing speeds and impact conditions.

Yea, I can see it being much less spin reduction or spin increase, and just ball speed reduction. 

In the end it might be like:

Driver, 3-wood, 5-wood, hybrids: Let's say 10-15% Reduction.
Irons might be: 5-10%.
Wedges on partial shots might be <5%.

 

 

 

 

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, TheWiseguy said:

Ok. But it has to do something with the construction of the ball, right? Which means that changes needs to affect flight, no matter the angel, ball speed etc, right? 
im not a pro on the subject, so just curious.

It doesn't have to, though, at all. Different swing speeds interact with different layers of the golf ball. You won't have to hit your putts 4% harder, and you might lose like 0.5% with a 7I but lose 4% if you swing at 126 MPH with a driver.

It's not linear.

[StuM]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

The Ruling Bodies simply don't have the authority to do these kinds of things, that falls to the organizers of each event, each tour.  The only realistic "tool" available to the Ruling Bodies was the equipment rules.  I'm not a big fan of bifurcation, but if the choice is made to change a rule to limit (or decrease) distance, I think its best that it doesn't impact the rank and file golfer.

I disagree.  The "Model Local Rule" is for individual tournaments to make the decision on.  Therefore, if a specific tournament has an issue with distance, they could make changes to the course and not rely on any roll-back of the ball or equipment.  Then all players at all courses would have the same equipment requirements, just different course set-ups.

[jlbos83]

I am not fan.  First, not a fan of bifurcation.  Second, what are the ball manufacturers going to do?  Focus on balls for the pros, for advertising, or for the rest of us?  Or some confused mish-mash?  If they want to roll back the ball, just roll back the ball.  Maybe some courses will have to move a few tees up for "the rest of us", most will probably play just fine, though we might be disappointed that we shoot one or two higher on the day.

I don't really understand why it is so important to dial back the top level players?  They are only competing against other top lever players, it's a level playing field for them.  So what if they can score a bit better than they did 50 years ago?  Though that often doesn't seem to be true.  I guess I just don't get the why?

[Double Mocha Man]

39 minutes ago, jlbos83 said:

... what are the ball manufacturers going to do? 

So, from what I read, the ball restrictions for everyone except touring pros and elite golfers, will be relaxed.  Also, sweet spot on clubs will be allowed to be bigger.  Looks like we'll all be able to outdrive Rory...

[jlbos83]

1 hour ago, Double Mocha Man said:

So, from what I read, the ball restrictions for everyone except touring pros and elite golfers, will be relaxed.  Also, sweet spot on clubs will be allowed to be bigger.  Looks like we'll all be able to outdrive Rory...

Why would ball manufacturers want to build a different ball (or set of balls) for maybe 1000 players?  I just don't see it.  I could see a MLR that can't be enforced if they don't buy in.

[Double Mocha Man]

2 minutes ago, jlbos83 said:

Why would ball manufacturers want to build a different ball (or set of balls) for maybe 1000 players?  I just don't see it.  I could see a MLR that can't be enforced if they don't buy in.

Because they have to.  Can you imagine Titleist not having their ball on the Tour?  And they'll want to build balls for the other millions of us that now will go farther (under the rules).

[jlbos83]

2 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Because they have to.  Can you imagine Titleist not having their ball on the Tour?  And they'll want to build balls for the other millions of us that now will go farther (under the rules).

They only have to if one of them does.  But I suppose it isn't likely that one would, so they will all have to, if this happens.  If they want to roll it back, just do it for everyone (as much as possible focusing on the top end), and be done with it.  I just don't see the point in the whole exercise.