Bryson's Rollback Video

[iacas]

Watch that. Then discuss.

Briefly:

The Bryson video doesn’t make much sense to me.

1. Who says the Nike One Tour is the “rolled back” ball, or even close? It was developed under the same Rules-n-Regs as the other balls, including the Pro V1 of that same year.
2. A GCQuad measures launch conditions and extrapolates from there. It doesn’t know what the dimple pattern is, it doesn’t know how far the ball actually flew.
3. “I don’t like it” said 12x… we get it. And yet… you still hit it pretty darn far, my man.
4. Bryson doesn’t seem to understand what causes a golf ball to fly the way it does. Compression was blamed for the start line and curve?

I don’t think Bryson is a moron. I think he’s just smart enough to think he’s really smart, and he’s been surrounded by enablers of all of this for a number of years at this point.

Also…

Bryson DeChambeau's latest video may have just ended the rollback debate ... but not the way he intended | Golf Equipment: Clubs, Balls, Bags | GolfDigest.com

Oy.

[klineka]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Who says the Nike One Tour is the “rolled back” ball, or even close? It was developed under the same Rules-n-Regs as the other balls, including the Pro V1 of that same year.

That was my first thought too. Unless he's been informed (not sure by who) that the Nike One Tour is going to perform very similar to the proposed rolled back ball. 

 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

“I don’t like it” said 12x… we get it. And yet… you still hit it pretty darn far, my man.

He said he didn't like it but also said how it doesn't go as far offline as he was expecting. So he would still be one of the longest hitters but not have the ball go as far offline? Seems like a positive thing.

Yes it spun less around the green and was softer with chips and pitches, but even he said he could adjust his equipment to account for some of that. And with practice I'm sure he would get used to how far each club rolled out, it's just different than what he's used to right now.

I was surprised to hear how against it he was. It's not like he would be forced to use that ball while everyone else got to keep using their current ball. 

 

[StuM]

A lot can impact distance including weather.  The fact that "a certain ball went X Yards on a certain day on a certain course" is not comparable to anything. 

If we assume that the ball he used is the "New Rolled Back" conforming ball then a better test have been to hit 10 drives with it and 10 drives with his current ball, throw out the outliers and compare the averages?  That might actually mean something.

 

[ChetlovesMer]

Bryson. ... Buddy. You are the least scientific mad scientist ever. 

[dennyjones]

Maybe I'm way out in left field but my take from the video is that the new ball and new equipment have almost equalized the players from the top down.   It (ball and clubs) has helped lengthen drives and reduced spin.   It would be interesting to see the current pros play the clubs of Tiger's earlier era, '95... 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, klineka said:

That was my first thought too. Unless he's been informed (not sure by who) that the Nike One Tour is going to perform very similar to the proposed rolled back ball.

Thing is… that ball was engineered under the old ODS (current ODS, still), and so I have my doubts about whether it actually meets the new (future) requirements, too. And I also have doubts about how well maintained a ball from 15 years ago was maintained, and I also know the Nike balls tended to spin more because Tiger always liked a spinny golf ball. So it's not surprising he didn't get more spin on everything…

But also, even if the ball speed and so on of the Nike One meet the future requirements… they're gonna be able to optimize it for those regulations. The Nike One was most surely NOT optimized for the future regs.

Also, he reached all par fives in two, hit par fours with at most a partial 8I, and hit a 7I on a 225-yard par three. He drove a 340-yard par four.

1 hour ago, StuM said:

If we assume that the ball he used is the "New Rolled Back" conforming ball then a better test have been to hit 10 drives with it and 10 drives with his current ball, throw out the outliers and compare the averages?  That might actually mean something.

We can't assume that at all… because it's a 15-year-old ball. It's not whatever they will create in 2028.

[StuM]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

We can't assume that at all… because it's a 15-year-old ball. It's not whatever they will create in 2028.

Agreed, but my point was his "test" meant nothing since it was not comparable to anything.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, StuM said:

Agreed, but my point was his "test" meant nothing since it was not comparable to anything.

I mean… I don't completely disagree, but he knows his numbers. So he's comparing it to the ball he plays day in and day out. And he directly hit two shots (three if you count the second Nike he hit) from the same tee with his driver.

[Ty_Webb]

Regarding whether the ball is conforming to the new rules, didn't the USGA come out and say that around a third of the balls on the market are already conforming? I imagine that he would be more likely than the rest of us to get an answer if he asked which ones are. I do trust that he knows how fast his ball is going to be for a given swing, so if he's saying it's 6-7 mph difference, I buy that. Isn't the new regulation about a 5mph difference? His on course swing speed is right around where the test is, so he ought to be close to that. The 6-7 mph difference would suggest it is conforming and perhaps more so than needed.

Other than the difference in distance and his comments on curvature (which I imagine is that it feels different and so the feel he's getting doesn't match the outcome rather than that the ball actually does or doesn't curve as much), most of his complaints are I think about not knowing how far he's going to hit it and it not reacting around the greens how he's used to. His distances he can learn fairly easily. I also would imagine that Titleist will come out with a ball that feels and reacts similarly to his left dash while meeting the speed requirements. So I'm not sure I give much weight to that. 

What I do think his video does is demonstrate how awful of an idea bifurcation would have been. My issue with that is that no matter where you draw the line (unless it's everyone or no one and therefore isn't bifurcation at all) someone is going to wind up straddling it. Changing your ball week to week based on which rule set you're playing under would be a dreadful experience. You'd be hamstrung in both. No fun.

I would also add that I think the rollback is really really dumb. It's a solution in search of a problem that just doesn't exist anywhere except in the minds of a handful of private club members who don't like the pros shredding their golf course. If they want to limit distance what I think they should do is limit clubhead size. Set that somewhere around 190cc or so - back what driver heads were 30 years ago. Would sort out the men from the boys too. Leave the ball alone.  

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Regarding whether the ball is conforming to the new rules, didn't the USGA come out and say that around a third of the balls on the market are already conforming? I imagine that he would be more likely than the rest of us to get an answer if he asked which ones are.

It may, but it was also based on the (current) regulations, without any optimization for the future ones.

13 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I do trust that he knows how fast his ball is going to be for a given swing, so if he's saying it's 6-7 mph difference, I buy that. Isn't the new regulation about a 5mph difference?

In clubhead speed. 120 -> 125 MPH, but the distance cap remains the same. Ball speed will likely be roughly 1.5x that.

13 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

What I do think his video does is demonstrate how awful of an idea bifurcation would have been. My issue with that is that no matter where you draw the line (unless it's everyone or no one and therefore isn't bifurcation at all) someone is going to wind up straddling it.

Indeed. That's what I've always said and why I've always been anti-bifurcation. You can probably find a post here from 2003 or something where I talk about it.

13 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I would also add that I think the rollback is really really dumb. It's a solution in search of a problem that just doesn't exist anywhere except in the minds of a handful of private club members who don't like the pros shredding their golf course.

Eh. I'm not really sure I agree with that. They didn't even really roll the ball back… they just kind of established a stopping point at how far the ball goes now.

13 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

If they want to limit distance what I think they should do is limit clubhead size.

Tour players flush their 3Ws, too. That would punish amateurs FAR more than Tour players. This does the opposite: affect Tour players more than ams.

[Ty_Webb]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

Eh. I'm not really sure I agree with that. They didn't even really roll the ball back… they just kind of established a stopping point at how far the ball goes now.

Tour players flush their 3Ws, too. That would punish amateurs FAR more than Tour players. This does the opposite: affect Tour players more than ams.

The ball is already limited to where it is now isn't it? That's what the 120mph rule does. Making that 125mph pulls things back (by a little bit).

And yes - they do - what the smaller clubhead would do is increase the difference between players of differing ability. Even within the upper echelons of the game, there are differences between players. Differences that have been minimized by driver clubhead sizes. If the ruling bodies believe that the ball goes too far, I'd rather they fixed it this way than making you play a blancmange instead. Players can still hit it hard if they want to, but the margin for error would be lower and I think they'd naturally slow down to keep the ball in play more. Obviously all speculation. The ball change they're making is so milquetoast as to be pointless.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Ty_Webb said:

The ball is already limited to where it is now isn't it? That's what the 120mph rule does. Making that 125mph pulls things back (by a little bit).

Again… they didn't really roll it back, and if they did… it's like 5% and only for the longest hitters with drivers. Irons will still likely go about the same distance, depending on how the PhDs solve the problem. People won't really be hitting it much shorter in 2030. They've just drawn the line in the sand… knowing that people will keep pushing forward.

Most people won't notice a difference. They didn't roll it back 20% or even 10%. Heck, 120-125 is barely 4%.

1 minute ago, Ty_Webb said:

And yes - they do - what the smaller clubhead would do is increase the difference between players of differing ability.

Yes, the 5 handicappers and the Tour players… ha ha. PGA Tour players aren't going to be "separated" much by making smaller drivers. You hate bifurcation, then support a rule that would harm the bogey golfer FAR more than a scratch or PGA Tour player.

1 minute ago, Ty_Webb said:

Even within the upper echelons of the game, there are differences between players.

Tiny, and that wouldn't result in a rollback or a "hold" at all. They'd still swing hard.

1 minute ago, Ty_Webb said:

If the ruling bodies believe that the ball goes too far, I'd rather they fixed it this way than making you play a blancmange instead.

Not sure what you were trying to say there, but again… no. It'd punish poorer players FAR more than PGA Tour players.

1 minute ago, Ty_Webb said:

Players can still hit it hard if they want to

Almost all still would, resulting in not much of a change. It's not like they don't go after their 3Ws.

1 minute ago, Ty_Webb said:

The ball change they're making is so milquetoast as to be pointless.

It nudges the line in the sand.

[billchao]

I'm struggling to follow his analysis. On 2, he said the ball went farther left than his normal ball, then on 4 he said it doesn't curve as much as his normal ball. He's got the carry numbers down perfectly but the ball isn't ending up exactly the distances he's expecting. It seems to me like that's more about him misjudging the effects of wind more than anything. For example, on 1 he was calling for the ball to fly (nailed the carry distance) and it was pin high or slightly past it, but on 3 he predicted the carry distance again and came up short. It seems to me that he's just trying very hard to blame the golf ball for a mediocre round of golf. So what's the scoop here? Pro golfer doesn't score as well with a completely different golf ball he's not used to playing with. Stop the presses!

Yea, it's not as long as his current ball. That's kind of the point of the whole thing. I do commend him for hitting another one on 9 because he mis-hit the ball in play to get a more accurate comparison with his current ball instead of being all, "OMG look how short and right the Nike ball is." 

As for his question in the video, do I think they should roll the golf ball back? It's too late for that, not that what I think matters anyway. What I do think is this change won't solve any of the problems that they intended to and pros are going to adjust to it as easily as they did to the groove change. Do I care if Bryson or Rory or any of the guys on tour/s lose 5% ball speed? No, not really.

[boogielicious]

I put Bryson in the same camp as Elon Musk. Someone told them they were geniuses once when in reality they are just a guy with extraordinary athletic ability and a rich guy who hires really smart people. Enablers keep them going. 

[klineka]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

I put Bryson in the same camp as Elon Musk. Someone told them they were geniuses once when in reality they are just a guy with extraordinary athletic ability and a rich guy who hires really smart people. Enablers keep them going. 

I knew Bryson was rich but I didn't know Elon had extraordinary athletic ability 

[StuM]

8 minutes ago, klineka said:

I knew Bryson was rich but I didn't know Elon had extraordinary athletic ability 

Isn't Elon a Martial Arts Fighter?  I think he challenged Zuckerburg.

[Ty_Webb]

14 hours ago, iacas said:

Again… they didn't really roll it back, and if they did… it's like 5% and only for the longest hitters with drivers. Irons will still likely go about the same distance, depending on how the PhDs solve the problem. People won't really be hitting it much shorter in 2030. They've just drawn the line in the sand… knowing that people will keep pushing forward.

But as you say they've barely done anything. All this hullabaloo and virtually no benefit to it. Ball companies are going to have to spend a bunch more on new R&D and that cost is going to get passed on to us. And any stock that we have when the change comes through is going to be useless. It's pretty unlikely that I'm going to lose my last non-conforming ball in my last round before the rule change. 

 

14 hours ago, iacas said:

Yes, the 5 handicappers and the Tour players… ha ha. PGA Tour players aren't going to be "separated" much by making smaller drivers. You hate bifurcation, then support a rule that would harm the bogey golfer FAR more than a scratch or PGA Tour player.

Every little helps. Bryson spent a decent amount of time complaining that hitting it out of the toe didn't result in as much movement as he would expect. Maybe he was trying to hit it out of the toe a little, but it seems that his strike point moves around on driver. Doubtful he could do that without the MOI that his driver has.

I hate bifurcation because some people are going to have to try to be proficient with both balls and that's not fair on them when the people they compete against don't have to do that. The driver change would not be bifurcation - but even if it was, it wouldn't affect anything other than driver. You'd still be playing the same 3 wood, irons, wedges, putter, and ball, so little adaptation to handle. Just driver, which would be more like a 3 wood anyway, so really not much of a chore. The driver would affect me more than the pros, that's true, but I'm fine with that - It's more fun to play a more challenging club. I'm not going to do it unless everyone does though. I still want to be as competitive as possible. 

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Ball companies are going to have to spend a bunch more on new R&D and that cost is going to get passed on to us.

I'd be surprised if there's a significant impact on R&D costs.  They're continually researching for the next ball, they're just going to have to begin using the new testing requirements within the next year or two in preparation for the 2028 releases.

6 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

And any stock that we have when the change comes through is going to be useless. It's pretty unlikely that I'm going to lose my last non-conforming ball in my last round before the rule change. 

Time will tell, but my guess is that most manufacturers will stop making "old" balls when they're no longer acceptable for the top levels.  Most of us amateurs won't keep a 2-year supply of "old" balls in our basements, so we'll begin using the "short" balls well before the actually deadline for us arrives.  Again, these are guesses on my part, but I don't really believe the sky is falling.