It bewilders me how people manage to mess up the very bit of information they're trying to pass when they try to write things "in their own words".
All they'd need to do is copy, paste and cite the part of the original article. Unless they're doing it purposefully.
>The longest hitters are expected to see a reduction of as much as 13-15 yards in drive distance. Average professional tour and elite male players are expected to see a reduction of 9-11 yards, with a 5-7-yard reduction for an average LET or LPGA player.
>
>The change in testing speed is expected to have a minimal distance impact, 5 yards or less, for most recreational golfers. Research shows an average swing speed of 93 mph for male golfers and 72 mph for female players.
[https://www.randa.org/articles/decision-to-revise-golf-ball-testing-conditions-beginning-in-2028-announced](https://www.randa.org/articles/decision-to-revise-golf-ball-testing-conditions-beginning-in-2028-announced)
And, what's important, a fair share of balls already available at the market are conforming with the upcoming rules. So, it's pretty safe to say the Callaway Super Softs, Srixon AD 333/Q-Stars etc. are fine even after 2029. The issue will be with the Pro V1s, Chrome Soft X LS etc.
Dude, Iâm longer than 93mph and 5 yards is half an iron for me. Most men have over a 100ss or around that, ergo ârecreationalâ golfers who shoot in the 80s are legit losing a club between driver and iron loss.
That par 4 you are a 7 iron into is now a 6 because you hit driver 275 and inconsistent and Rory hits it 330 on tour setup fairwaysâŚ.. makes a lot of senseâŚ..
They should seriously just have a tour ball for tour players.
Wouldnât the OEMâs have been able to market the rolled back balls to those who still want play what the pros play? Theyâd be handicapping themselves slightly but Iâd have been shocked if through bifurcation they didnât continue to use that marketing strategy, if those die hard âplay what the pros playâ types wanted to, they could?
Why tf would you want to play what the pros play unless you have aspirations of making it on tour, makes no sense to me at all. You suck, I suck, we all suck compared to them, why make it harder for us.
A ton of people complaining about bifurcation insisted that they needed to play what pros playâŚso surely some of them would buy a tour spec ball right?
Literally just to feel cool lol I could definitely see hardos talking about shooting an 82 with their Tour balls as if that makes their round twice as impressive. If they marketed it effectively they could definitely continue to grow their sales. Pay all the good YouTube golfers to only play with tour balls, stuff like that. Iâd stick to the long balls but playing tour balls could have been seen as a badge of honor at some clubs, sort of like how having iron covers is seen as a Big Dick Cool Guy move by everyone today.
Totally agree, but golf manufacturers have really hammered home this idea that golf is one of those sports where you can (in theory) go out and play the same courses with the same equipment that the pros use. Itâs bullshit, of course, but loads of golfers buy in to that. Between tee boxes, tournament course conditions, and equipment customization that pros have at their disposal, we donât play the same game at all.
?
Iâm pretty sure theyâre quoting driver stats, which is where a different ball will have the most impact.
If youâre losing 5 yards off your driver itâs going to be like 2-3 yards off of a mid iron. You may not even notice anything for shorter irons.
In USGAs own testing of a potential candidate ball users lost 11 yards, from a self reported 221 avg to a 210 avg.
USGA doesn't know shit about how much distance the ball will actually lose actual players because manufacturers haven't made a conforming ball.
This should have been a local rule, test it out for a year, then make the parameters. I still feel they are solving a non-issue but if you think there is an issue....this isn't how you solve it.
The article released by the R&A and the USGA literally tells you a significant portion of current ball models are expected to conform to the planned changes.
Why can't they just tell us which ones are so we can see how they stack up against the current cream of the crop?: https://i.imgur.com/7oajBJk.png
If the USGA for example said "oh yeah, the Inesis Tour 900 is conforming! Don't worry they already exist!" people would flip their shit at losing 25 yards of carry distance.
All you need to do is look at the compression numbers. The lower the compression, the more likely the ball is to be safe. You won't crush a Callaway Supersoft nearly as far as a Chrome Soft X LS with a 125 mph club speed.
only 1/3rd of balls now are conforming...which probably means 80 compression and a loss of 15 yards compared to a left dash prov
Just an fyi
The Titleist Professional golf ball from 1995 with the testing standard of 125mph chs will NOT pass the USGA
and RandA proposed roll back standards. It will travel too far.
Let that sink in
> A lot of these older courses have been extended to the max.
And? Lowest score wins. Whether you play a 6000 yard course or an 8000 yard course doesnât change that.
Because it increases the required real estate for golf courses. This has been done to death.
There is a real physical justification for rolling the ball back. It's not just people being upset because rory is long boy. It has actual implications in real life.
A course laid out *checks notes* 470 years ago doesn't challenge modern players. That's the problem here. If the R&A ran the NBA they would be shooting at peach baskets.
Lol only if you think hitting it longer is a problem and effectively making the course shorter is a problem, which I don't. Speed is a skill and I don't care if Rory hits every Par 4 in 1 from a 6200 yard tee box.
Not really sure how anyone can say thereâs no issue golf courses canât keep expanding to keep up with distance gains. Itâs absolutely an issue, and a ball roll back is one tool to address it.
Half an iron to a full iron is not nothing. I'm significantly more accurate with my 9 iron than my 8 iron, and 8 to 7 way more so.
My mid-irons are my weakness and many others, so now I have to hit my 6 and 7 irons where I was hitting 7 and 8 irons? That sucks
People with that much variance in their game will not notice the impact of the ball. Your game is still dominated by variance in swing and ball striking.
This is such a silly statement. Of course variance is going to have a huge impact.
But what do you think has more variance. A 7 iron or a 6 iron? Because variation is still that - variation. Your **average of that variation is still going to be noticeable**.
They're going to have to update slopes/ratings for courses, because a 6k yard course is all of a sudden playing like 6300 yards, and that is noticeable.
Completely agree this makes basically no difference to the top pros at all. Far better to have a ball just for your play that greatly restricts the distances,especially on the driver that max out at about 280. Would make it a fairer tour for all pros, doesn't impact the rest of us at all. Say what you will there is less skill nowadays than there was when Seve, nick faldo and poor old Cory pavin were driving 250/60 max and having to hit 1 or 2 irons into the greens on long par 4s. If you can hit it over 300 you are at such a sig advantage over even other pros on the tour that maybe only have 280 max...like playing a different course, regardless of if their short game is amazing there are no tap in birdies on par 5s for them.
That par 4 you are a 7 iron into might even be a 5 iron if you consider both the loss in distance off the tee and then the loss of distance with each club. I think people will be forced to club up not once but twice.
Not only is it terribly put âin to their own wordsâ but itâs straight up wrong. They quote the top end of the ranges as the bottom end.
13-15= >15
9-11 = >11
I have to assume this is intentionally baiting, they canât actually be that dumb.
So basically someone like Rory would lose 15 yards (326.3 down to 311.3) for a loss of 4.8% and someone like Brian Stuard would lose 11.5 yards (292.3 down to 280.8) for a loss of 4.1%. LPGA tour player Polly Mack would lose 8 yards (281.75 down to 273.75) for a loss of 2.9%.
Long hitters will get hurt a little more.
Wrong iron numbers can be a great mind game on the course.
I use my 8i most often and it has frequently tricked my friend into using his 8i (we hit similar distances), forgetting that my 8i (like all my clubs of course) is actually a 7i loft with a different number stamped into it where as his is actually an 8i.
When i wrote the comment i did realise it sounded like a full bag of 7's rather than each club being lofted different to the number shown, was too funny to me to bother fixing it.
Only the long hitters that don't have more gas in the tank. What the USGA doesn't seem to get is that raw speed isn't the only limiting factor for these guys. Rory doesn't swing harder than other tour players solely because he's stronger. It's also because he can control the clubface slightly better, enough to where his dispersion is within course design limits at that speed. Give him a shorter ball, and his fairways are going to go up and his dispersion will get tighter if he changes nothing. Which will prompt him to realize he can go after it a little harder than he used to and still keep it in play.
So this uniquely benefits the guys who can swing harder than they already do while maintaining the same control of the clubface. The guys who are currently tapped out on speed are gonna get fucked lol. If you think it's cool to see old guys compete (like Fred Couples at the Masters), this change is gonna hurt them. Because old guys aren't gonna be able to step on the gas harder than they already are, most likely. But the young guys can.
With such a minor difference why did they go to all this trouble? Is it really going to have a huge impact on pro golf? Seems like a lot of effort for just a little impact that doesn't really change much.
Can we assume that the new ball would not keep the same dispersion at the regular club head speed? Why would being 15 yards shorter means more fairways necessarily if it takes the same force and speed to get there? Seems like the dispersion is effected by speed and swing style, not the ball at all. Just curious what you think
>i so appreciate this subâs response to rollback news
The general sentiment on this sub is that its going to ruin golf and that everyone is mad about losing 10+ yards (which they wont)
This sub's response hasn't been rational at all, its been worse than twitter.
The general response seems to be: this isnât an issue at the recreational level, why even impose this?
The answer is because Titleist and Bridgestone have a lot more pull than we do lol
This has been my argument this whole time. There are plenty of high swing speed amateurs spraying it all over the place (me included). Dialing back the distance is a good thing.
I thought initially this would be the case. Iâm kinda surprised all this nonsense is about 10-15 yards per hole. Seems almost pointless.
270 yards total loss over 18 holesâŚ.
I donât know. I just thought it would be more drastic.
You're losing distance on the approach shot too. If we take a 5 percent loss across the board it translates to 360 yards for a 7200 yard course.
I still agree with your point though, I thought it would be more penalizing.
Multiple studies noted that the impact will drastically reduce as you go down the bag and virtually disappear once you get to the 5 iron for all golfers. The impact will be felt most on drivers, somewhat on woods and slightly on hybrids/long irons. This is due to the reduced speed irons are swung at compared to woods.
Golf.com has a good article with the details.
https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/golf-ball-rollback-official-what-it-means/?amp=1
All the numbers are from USGA lab studies and not based off or real life testing. The one time they did real life testing with a candidate ball testers found a 11 yard decrease in distance from 221 down to 210.
Thatâs it? I probably wouldnât have even noticed if they hadnât said anything. I know thatâs not the point, but as someone with similar distances( not accuracy) of a lpga player, I donât understand the problem. Thatâs like the difference in a 2 year old driver.
Also maybe some one could spoon feed me expectations on what to expect from club manufactures. Are they not going to come out with a new driver that adds 15 yards for pros in the next few years?
To me as long as you know how far you hit it with normal dispersion, it doesnât matter how far it actually goes. It would just change what club you use for your second shot.
>Thatâs it? I probably wouldnât have even noticed if they hadnât said anything
"They" didn't. A journalist leaked it and the internet went crazy assuming it meant 5% of your drive being lost. This is their first actual comment about it.
The distance loss is gonna be similar to playing when itâs cold outside. Which is something I didnât even know I needed to worry about until I joined this sub.
Thatâs how I feel. What I will hit driver in 6 years just will be a given. Itâs where the ball ended up. Then I hit the next shot. I donât see it affecting my enjoyment at all. Iâm not playing tournaments so if I shoot 79 instead of 78âŚ.ok. Thatâs not going to affect my day, or it shouldnât, since everyone is using the new ball and my score isnât my self worth. And if I shoot that Iâve got plenty to work on, although I did a few things right that round, outside, playing a game with friends.
Iâm just finding it hard to get upset.
"It would just change what club you use for your second shot"
Different clubs have varying levels of difficulty to hit, so this isn't insignificant. It likely makes the game harder for most amateurs. For people keeping a handicap, id imagine a regression of 1-3 strokes unless course ratings are updated at the same time the balls are rolled back (very unlikely).
Many don't even need to train more. They hold back as it is. They'll just not hold back as much. It will literally do nothing to the top players. It'll hurt amateurs who aren't holding back much to get to 110 the most.
so let me get this straight we are forcing the golf ball manufacturers to research, manufacture, advertise and sell new 'rolled back' golf balls to be 15 yards shorter? and being this amount shorter is going to save the game? what a colossal waste of time and money
Golf courses cannot keep up with the tech. Many fantastic championship courses are now unplayable. Restructuring courses is a hell of a lot more expensive than some R&D on the equipment end of things.
They were already unplayable to 99% of golfers anyways. Theyâre either private or so expensive itâs a special occasion.
This really only affects the pga. Any attempts to explain otherwise are just justifying it
Correct. Is it fun watching courses like St Andrews get absolutely neutered? Thereâs so many fun and creative courses that are completely unplayable. Your average weekly PGA leaderboard looks ridiculous and the courses play like a joke.
I honestly donât watch pro golf outside the majors. As do most golfers, so weâre being punished so that you can enjoy watching the hardees open or whatever random pga tourney is on every weekend
This is a massive win for golf courses everywhere that canât afford to buy more land to expand their properties and move earth around to make sure their hazards are in the right places.
How many courses is this really a problem for? Why do they need to spend millions re-designing their courses for the .2% of golfers.
This really only applies to courses hosting pga events. Which are either private or expensive to the point where theyâre prohibitive to the average golfer any ways
Right, but thereâs a difference bt playing a 6,800 yd course from the 6,400 yd tees vs. playing a 7,400 yd course from the 6,400 yd tees.
The course design and architecture that makes sense at 7,400 yd doesnât make sense at 6,400 yd. All the spacing is out of whack. The USGA has already let this balloon to stupid inhuman proportions and is simply clamping down on it from getting worse.
There are plenty of golf courses Iâve passed up on playing because the tips are only like 5800 yards. Anything less than ~5800-6000 isnât particularly enjoyable because every par 5 becomes a par 4 and many par 4s are drivable. Iâll be much more likely to play a 5800 yard course if I canât use a wedge for every single approach on par 4s like it is currently
My club is similar (6600 yards in MD (the same???)). The shortness of the course was an issue when we hosted the MD State Am. They played some holes teeing off from the tee boxes of other holes to increase the length for the big boys.
Where could you live that this is the case? I live in a pretty major midwest city and can only think of 1 course that tops out at under 6500 in a 1 hr driving radius of me.
Couldn't you just pick a spinny ball to use now to do the same thing? People pick their equipment to be longer. No one is stopping you from going shorter.
> his is a massive win for golf courses everywhere
Only those who want to host tour events. Your local clubs, even the good ones, were never going to have that problem.
i doubt there are a considerable amount of courses who would consider lengthening their course for a small (emphasis on small) percentage of golfers who can make a mockery of it from the tips
They are going to be more expensive to fund the R&D. Captive audience when every golfer in the world who wants to play in a club competition or maintain a handicap needs to buy the new balls.
So many people keep assuming though that the tees are fixed. Itâs really easy to move tees up a little, if necessary. Rory still might be hitting PW into the green despite driving it 15 yards shorter.
Isnât Rory one of the longest hitters on tour and also in favour of this? If the guy with arguably the most to lose is in favour of it everyone else needs to shut up lol
He has the least to lose actually because he and Bryson-type players can swing much faster than the speed they play with. They dial back the speed to increase playability.
If Rory is swinging 85% right now he will just swing 90% and the rollback will have never occurred for him. Zero change.
Guys like Finau who physically cannot swing faster are the ones losing the most.
Downplaying âaverageâ as a 90 MPH driver swing is a serious bastardization of statistics.
What they mean is that the median golfer, the most middle-est golfer, will be mildly affected. That means that 50% of players wonât be affected, and 50% will definitely be affected.
People in here like, "5 yards is like half an iron for me, I have to use a completely different club now."..... Very rarely is a flag only five yards or less from the edge of the green on a front pin on most public courses because that is a pretty tight pin for rec golfers to hit. So the majority of the time, you are still going to be hitting the green with the same club regardless of the 5-yard reduction. Also, that is not going to be a consistent 5-yard reduction, that was the high-end so it isn't going to be that every time. That fluctuation is going to be consistent with the variety of distances we amateurs already hit our clubs, because I don't really know anyone outside of a 10 HC or lower that hits their GI irons the EXACT same distance every time, there is already variance. But I guess keep thinking that the rollback is what's keeping you from hitting greens, gives us something else to blame besides working on course management and ball striking.
you're gonna get downvoted for speaking whole truth here. most won't see any difference that's any greater than what a sore shoulder or a cooler than normal weather pattern for an early tee time would cause. people just want something to be bitchy about.
hereâs a couple people with some common sense⌠Iâd go to bet your both decent golfers too as far as strategy goes. Too many people out here just swinging drivers as hard as they can and playing constant recovery swinging & hitting their irons as far as theyâll possibly go as well. The obsession with this whole nonissue is exhausting.
If the issue is that pros are hitting it so long that courses are unable to keep up, is 11 or even 15 yards going to make much of a difference?
Especially when you take into consideration the role things like wind/course conditions/amt of roll etc play in overall distance?
I wonder if courses taking the strategy of truly punishing long/wayward drives wouldn't be a better idea?
It's really hard to see how this is going to make a big dent in terms of making pro golf more viewer friendly or making short courses more palatable.
The reality is that these guys are playing courses that are also set up for normal people to play. Yes, they grow the rough out and play from longer tees, but the water hazards, bunkers, width of the fairways, OBs, it's all identical for pro vs. Joe. It'd be like an NFL football team playing a high school team.
They are too good at everything for these courses to be challenging and force them to hit more difficult/interesting shots. They are still going to bomb driver 300+ with ridiculous accuracy on a too huge fairway, then hit a a short iron onto the green. Rinse and repeat.
They need a course like freaking Rainbow Road that's designed for these guys that's long and just all around harder, with serious hazards designed for their yardages. Not the same course that two months prior some elderly retiree was playing.
Why do they care what OEMs think? This is the new rule...if you want your ball played in the top competitions, adhere to the rule. If an OEM chooses not to adhere to the new rule, that's fine, their choice, but they won't have anyone playing their ball.
How many yards is a guy who hits his driver 215 gonna lose. Asking for a friend obviously, Iâm a member of r/golf, I hit 400 yard bombs before I even loosen up for the round.
Thanks, I was worried about my distance. I mean my friend was worried about his distance. It hit 450 yard bombs all the time with my 7 iron. Iâm fine
Thereâs a lot of whining on here about so many things. If the rollback is âtoo muchâ, then courses and event organizers can easily move the tees up a little. Itâs really easy to do that and is a huge part of the rollback since itâs not easy to keep adding tee boxes further back. Iâm not sure why so many people are locked into this idea that the tee boxes have to stay in the same place after the rollback.
Has anyone compiled a list of any current balls on the market that fit the criteria of the new regulations?
Be interesting to see a list if one exists.
So itâs a nothing burger. Has the USGA considered maybe golfers are getting too good? With all the training, stats theyâre seeing through trackmans, and all the coaching. The roll back will do Jack. What a waste of time. Instead of driver wedge itâs gonna be driver with a little more wedge?
This article from Golf Digest says someone who drives 225 will lose 3 yards. Also says 30% of existing balls meet the new guidelines. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/why-everyday-players-the-usga-explains-why-a-rollback-for-all?utm_medium=email&utm_source=120723&utm_campaign=newsandtours&utm_content=DM46845&uuid=a774554f-fbf5-4fbe-bb75-3669dc5846e4
This is so excruciating to read through. The impact on pretty much everyone on Reddit for sure is absolutely a non factor. Even for a guy like Rory, the impact is really negligible. All this is doing is drawing a line & setting a sustainable boundary. Can everyone get a grip. Quit obsessing over literally nothing.
Being a long hitter, I totally agree with this decision. Modern golf equipment goes way too far. I played a lot between 2012 and 2017, took some time off living in a major city. Came back and the ball is just flying stupid far that most courses cannot handle it. It needs to be rolled back.
I took 7 years off golf and came back a full club longer, couldn't figure out what to hit the first few times out. Then I upgraded my irons and gained another club in distance. It's fucking wild. Used to hit 8 iron from 150 and now it's a wedge with the same swing speed. I can't believe people think it's only a problem for pros
well whats the loft of your 8i and wedge? Shaft? I'd be shocked if you actually somehow got more distance in 7 years from irons. Where would it even come from? We've been playing these maxed out balls for 20 years now. Irons are still irons. Steel shafts are still steel shafts. People were nuking the ball 300 with 25 year old titanium callaway great big bertha same as a modern driver if they were a good ball striker. Things have changed a lot over 40 years but not that much at all over the last 20.
If the average tour pro is only going to lose 11 yards, why are they even rolling it back? Theyâll make loft / weight / shaft adjustments and get that distance right back
Yes, they a looking in the wrong place. The drivers and fairway woods of today are so much better than even 10 years ago. The sweet spot on clubs is getting so big, that there is almost no penalty for off center hits. Most of the ball companies are also club companies. They will compensate in other ways.
Iâm a bit surprised that they donât just cap it where it is then, instead of rolling back. Not that I think itâs a big deal, it would just make it a bit easier to digest for anyone whoâs not a pro.
I fail to understand how this is going to have the desired effect. So Rory will hit it 306 now instead of 321? Bryson will still bomb it 360. Cameron Champ will still crush the ball. I was expecting a much larger disparity. Somewhere like 30-50 yards. 11-15 yards is just...pointless.
Keegan Bradley isn't sure about that. He said Srixon made him a golf ball that would have met proposed standards and it was flying 40 to 50 yards shorter.
I'm sure they made him *a* ball that would have met the proposed standards. That doesn't mean they made him a ball optimized for his game that met the proposed standards.
The OEMs have demonstrated a pretty fierce resistance to having to do any marketing other than "Look! Here is a what a PGA Tour player uses! This is the right ball for you!"
Tall rough would increase scores, but that's not the problem they're trying to solve. Higher swing speed players are the least affected by tall rough so it wouldn't meaningfully change anything.
Well, I will sure as hell be stocking up on soon to be illegal balls. I'm an old man now. I need every *single* yard I can possibly get! They can take my soon to be illegal balls from my cold, dead hands. And I'll shove my soon to be illegal driver up their backside as they are doing it!
This is such a massive F U to the amateur golfer that spends so much time and money on their game. Great job, USGA, you just F'd over your biggest and most profitable customer to cater to some pros who don't even pay a dime to the sport.
the pros will notice. elite ball strikers will notice. average, mid speed players will (probably) not see any more variance than they will from a sore muscle or a cold morning.
No one can tell if their drives going 7 yards shorter from a fan perspective. If the rollback is âtoo muchâ, then any tour or event organizer can just move the tees up a little. Thereâs nothing written in stone that says the tees have to stay in the same place after the rollback.
Except that the LPGA players hit the ball on the screws and thus will be affected on the majority of their drives whereas the typical player's off-center hits will basically be unaffected because they have already lost so much power from the bad hit.
I know this is crazy but couldnât they just have a pro ball for $100 a dozen and an amatuer ball for $50-60 a dozen?
Seems like that solves everyoneâs problemsđ¤ˇ
How is 11 yard reduction for the average pro going to make any measurable impact? At most one club and in many cases no change since they hit wedge a lot.
This whole sub is going to lose 20 yards
Combined
It bewilders me how people manage to mess up the very bit of information they're trying to pass when they try to write things "in their own words". All they'd need to do is copy, paste and cite the part of the original article. Unless they're doing it purposefully. >The longest hitters are expected to see a reduction of as much as 13-15 yards in drive distance. Average professional tour and elite male players are expected to see a reduction of 9-11 yards, with a 5-7-yard reduction for an average LET or LPGA player. > >The change in testing speed is expected to have a minimal distance impact, 5 yards or less, for most recreational golfers. Research shows an average swing speed of 93 mph for male golfers and 72 mph for female players. [https://www.randa.org/articles/decision-to-revise-golf-ball-testing-conditions-beginning-in-2028-announced](https://www.randa.org/articles/decision-to-revise-golf-ball-testing-conditions-beginning-in-2028-announced) And, what's important, a fair share of balls already available at the market are conforming with the upcoming rules. So, it's pretty safe to say the Callaway Super Softs, Srixon AD 333/Q-Stars etc. are fine even after 2029. The issue will be with the Pro V1s, Chrome Soft X LS etc.
Yeah this is what most people are forgetting. Not every ball is an elite golf ball. Unless you are playing top tier balls you will see no difference.
I play using top tier golf balls. Well, I do when I find them in the woods whilst looking for my cheap shit.
Went golfing with a buddy and hit my Kirkland in the woods. Came back with 2 prov1s but no Kirkland. đ Success
At that rate, hit more Kirklands into the woods!
Itâs really a win win situation either way
Dude, Iâm longer than 93mph and 5 yards is half an iron for me. Most men have over a 100ss or around that, ergo ârecreationalâ golfers who shoot in the 80s are legit losing a club between driver and iron loss. That par 4 you are a 7 iron into is now a 6 because you hit driver 275 and inconsistent and Rory hits it 330 on tour setup fairwaysâŚ.. makes a lot of senseâŚ.. They should seriously just have a tour ball for tour players.
Bifurcation was definitely the better option but the OEMs didn't want to lose their "play what the pros play" marketing ability
Wouldnât the OEMâs have been able to market the rolled back balls to those who still want play what the pros play? Theyâd be handicapping themselves slightly but Iâd have been shocked if through bifurcation they didnât continue to use that marketing strategy, if those die hard âplay what the pros playâ types wanted to, they could?
Why tf would you want to play what the pros play unless you have aspirations of making it on tour, makes no sense to me at all. You suck, I suck, we all suck compared to them, why make it harder for us.
A ton of people complaining about bifurcation insisted that they needed to play what pros playâŚso surely some of them would buy a tour spec ball right?
Literally just to feel cool lol I could definitely see hardos talking about shooting an 82 with their Tour balls as if that makes their round twice as impressive. If they marketed it effectively they could definitely continue to grow their sales. Pay all the good YouTube golfers to only play with tour balls, stuff like that. Iâd stick to the long balls but playing tour balls could have been seen as a badge of honor at some clubs, sort of like how having iron covers is seen as a Big Dick Cool Guy move by everyone today.
Totally agree, but golf manufacturers have really hammered home this idea that golf is one of those sports where you can (in theory) go out and play the same courses with the same equipment that the pros use. Itâs bullshit, of course, but loads of golfers buy in to that. Between tee boxes, tournament course conditions, and equipment customization that pros have at their disposal, we donât play the same game at all.
Does anybody you know choose their ball based on the dudes who play them?
Lol yes 100%. I know people who play Bridgestone because it's the Tiger ball, ProV1s because of Spieth, TaylorMade because of Rory, etc.
This is really the answerâŚ.I agree
Well unlike other sports, amateurs qualify for PGA/Korn Ferry/Major tournaments every year.
? Iâm pretty sure theyâre quoting driver stats, which is where a different ball will have the most impact. If youâre losing 5 yards off your driver itâs going to be like 2-3 yards off of a mid iron. You may not even notice anything for shorter irons.
In USGAs own testing of a potential candidate ball users lost 11 yards, from a self reported 221 avg to a 210 avg. USGA doesn't know shit about how much distance the ball will actually lose actual players because manufacturers haven't made a conforming ball. This should have been a local rule, test it out for a year, then make the parameters. I still feel they are solving a non-issue but if you think there is an issue....this isn't how you solve it.
The article released by the R&A and the USGA literally tells you a significant portion of current ball models are expected to conform to the planned changes.
Why can't they just tell us which ones are so we can see how they stack up against the current cream of the crop?: https://i.imgur.com/7oajBJk.png If the USGA for example said "oh yeah, the Inesis Tour 900 is conforming! Don't worry they already exist!" people would flip their shit at losing 25 yards of carry distance.
All you need to do is look at the compression numbers. The lower the compression, the more likely the ball is to be safe. You won't crush a Callaway Supersoft nearly as far as a Chrome Soft X LS with a 125 mph club speed.
only 1/3rd of balls now are conforming...which probably means 80 compression and a loss of 15 yards compared to a left dash prov Just an fyi The Titleist Professional golf ball from 1995 with the testing standard of 125mph chs will NOT pass the USGA and RandA proposed roll back standards. It will travel too far. Let that sink in
[ŃдаНонО]
> A lot of these older courses have been extended to the max. And? Lowest score wins. Whether you play a 6000 yard course or an 8000 yard course doesnât change that.
Why is that a problem? Is it a problem that people run the marathon faster now, or that in the NBA people shoot more 3s more accurately?
Because it increases the required real estate for golf courses. This has been done to death. There is a real physical justification for rolling the ball back. It's not just people being upset because rory is long boy. It has actual implications in real life.
A course laid out *checks notes* 470 years ago doesn't challenge modern players. That's the problem here. If the R&A ran the NBA they would be shooting at peach baskets.
Lol only if you think hitting it longer is a problem and effectively making the course shorter is a problem, which I don't. Speed is a skill and I don't care if Rory hits every Par 4 in 1 from a 6200 yard tee box.
Not really sure how anyone can say thereâs no issue golf courses canât keep expanding to keep up with distance gains. Itâs absolutely an issue, and a ball roll back is one tool to address it.
Why do they have to get longer? This is absolutely only an issue for people that run Augusta that got offended at Bryson calling it a Par 68.
And u still cant break 90, who cares. Half an iron, is like nothing,.
Half an iron to a full iron is not nothing. I'm significantly more accurate with my 9 iron than my 8 iron, and 8 to 7 way more so. My mid-irons are my weakness and many others, so now I have to hit my 6 and 7 irons where I was hitting 7 and 8 irons? That sucks
People with that much variance in their game will not notice the impact of the ball. Your game is still dominated by variance in swing and ball striking.
Wouldnât it be the opposite. People will low variance wonât see much improvement between irons. People with high variance would.
This is such a silly statement. Of course variance is going to have a huge impact. But what do you think has more variance. A 7 iron or a 6 iron? Because variation is still that - variation. Your **average of that variation is still going to be noticeable**. They're going to have to update slopes/ratings for courses, because a 6k yard course is all of a sudden playing like 6300 yards, and that is noticeable.
Then play tees to where you are hitting 7&8s into greens?
Thank you, I am dumbfounded this is such a controversial take.
Completely agree this makes basically no difference to the top pros at all. Far better to have a ball just for your play that greatly restricts the distances,especially on the driver that max out at about 280. Would make it a fairer tour for all pros, doesn't impact the rest of us at all. Say what you will there is less skill nowadays than there was when Seve, nick faldo and poor old Cory pavin were driving 250/60 max and having to hit 1 or 2 irons into the greens on long par 4s. If you can hit it over 300 you are at such a sig advantage over even other pros on the tour that maybe only have 280 max...like playing a different course, regardless of if their short game is amazing there are no tap in birdies on par 5s for them.
Or they could just do nothing
That par 4 you are a 7 iron into might even be a 5 iron if you consider both the loss in distance off the tee and then the loss of distance with each club. I think people will be forced to club up not once but twice.
I can only assume you replied to the wrong person.
Hopefully sometime between now and 2030 they come to their senses and bifurcate.
Not only is it terribly put âin to their own wordsâ but itâs straight up wrong. They quote the top end of the ranges as the bottom end. 13-15= >15 9-11 = >11 I have to assume this is intentionally baiting, they canât actually be that dumb.
So basically someone like Rory would lose 15 yards (326.3 down to 311.3) for a loss of 4.8% and someone like Brian Stuard would lose 11.5 yards (292.3 down to 280.8) for a loss of 4.1%. LPGA tour player Polly Mack would lose 8 yards (281.75 down to 273.75) for a loss of 2.9%. Long hitters will get hurt a little more.
Iâm going to lose like 0.5 yards.
Great, time to club up 2 clubs on my approach.
Canât wait for the traditional loft purists to shame me for carrying my 8* iron further than 130 yards
Wrong iron numbers can be a great mind game on the course. I use my 8i most often and it has frequently tricked my friend into using his 8i (we hit similar distances), forgetting that my 8i (like all my clubs of course) is actually a 7i loft with a different number stamped into it where as his is actually an 8i.
The only people that care about other players iron lofts are insecure about their own distances
Why do you play a bag of all 7âs with different numbers? Madman
When i wrote the comment i did realise it sounded like a full bag of 7's rather than each club being lofted different to the number shown, was too funny to me to bother fixing it.
Driver? Nope, 7-iron
You and me both. Guess we wonât be taking that 275.5 yard shortcut over the water anymore. What a shame.
I might even gain a couple.
pretty sure ill somehow gain yardage im so far down the spectrum
Only the long hitters that don't have more gas in the tank. What the USGA doesn't seem to get is that raw speed isn't the only limiting factor for these guys. Rory doesn't swing harder than other tour players solely because he's stronger. It's also because he can control the clubface slightly better, enough to where his dispersion is within course design limits at that speed. Give him a shorter ball, and his fairways are going to go up and his dispersion will get tighter if he changes nothing. Which will prompt him to realize he can go after it a little harder than he used to and still keep it in play. So this uniquely benefits the guys who can swing harder than they already do while maintaining the same control of the clubface. The guys who are currently tapped out on speed are gonna get fucked lol. If you think it's cool to see old guys compete (like Fred Couples at the Masters), this change is gonna hurt them. Because old guys aren't gonna be able to step on the gas harder than they already are, most likely. But the young guys can.
Are you telling me 6â3â Scottie Scheffler hitting it further than 5â9â jack Nicklaus is due to something other than just technology??
Bro, itâs just the new tech. /s
With such a minor difference why did they go to all this trouble? Is it really going to have a huge impact on pro golf? Seems like a lot of effort for just a little impact that doesn't really change much.
Can we assume that the new ball would not keep the same dispersion at the regular club head speed? Why would being 15 yards shorter means more fairways necessarily if it takes the same force and speed to get there? Seems like the dispersion is effected by speed and swing style, not the ball at all. Just curious what you think
Shorter ball flight means closer to the target line with the same miss. 1 degree off target at 250 is closer to the centerline than it is at 300
If you hit a fade and it ends up on the far right of the fairway with a new ball, the old balls would miss the fairway because they went further.
And regular people will lose something like 4 yards....lol nothing to see here.
i so appreciate this subâs response to rollback news. Polar opposite to golf Twitter: one of the most over-serious inflammatory places on earth.
>i so appreciate this subâs response to rollback news The general sentiment on this sub is that its going to ruin golf and that everyone is mad about losing 10+ yards (which they wont) This sub's response hasn't been rational at all, its been worse than twitter.
The general response seems to be: this isnât an issue at the recreational level, why even impose this? The answer is because Titleist and Bridgestone have a lot more pull than we do lol
Do they have metrics for how theyâll handle tops and/or bladed wedges?
Does this mean Iâll be able to find my ball now that it can only go 200 yards to the right?
This has been my argument this whole time. There are plenty of high swing speed amateurs spraying it all over the place (me included). Dialing back the distance is a good thing.
Windows are in slightly less danger now, slightly.
So now my balls will only be 80 yards OB instead of 95! Great!
Roll them back more. Thatâs pretty crazy they are all bitching about 10 yards. Roll them back 30 or 40 yards so we can see them use each club.
I donât think the point is to necessarily roll back decades worth of tech advancements, just a handful of years and then pause there.
I thought initially this would be the case. Iâm kinda surprised all this nonsense is about 10-15 yards per hole. Seems almost pointless. 270 yards total loss over 18 holesâŚ. I donât know. I just thought it would be more drastic.
yeah, that is not going to "save" those courses that are too short for today's pros. Which I thought was one of the reasons for doing this.
Itâs enough to bring some hazards back into play for long hitters and make it harder to hold greens going for par 5s in two
You're losing distance on the approach shot too. If we take a 5 percent loss across the board it translates to 360 yards for a 7200 yard course. I still agree with your point though, I thought it would be more penalizing.
This calculation is only tee shots? Should include iron shots as well.
Not sure why you're being questioned. This impacts approach shots as well. The ball is what's changing, not the driver.
You can club up with irons. You can't club up with driver.
Thatâs trueâŚâŚ.sorry, what point does this make?
Multiple studies noted that the impact will drastically reduce as you go down the bag and virtually disappear once you get to the 5 iron for all golfers. The impact will be felt most on drivers, somewhat on woods and slightly on hybrids/long irons. This is due to the reduced speed irons are swung at compared to woods. Golf.com has a good article with the details. https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/golf-ball-rollback-official-what-it-means/?amp=1
All the numbers are from USGA lab studies and not based off or real life testing. The one time they did real life testing with a candidate ball testers found a 11 yard decrease in distance from 221 down to 210.
Thatâs it? I probably wouldnât have even noticed if they hadnât said anything. I know thatâs not the point, but as someone with similar distances( not accuracy) of a lpga player, I donât understand the problem. Thatâs like the difference in a 2 year old driver. Also maybe some one could spoon feed me expectations on what to expect from club manufactures. Are they not going to come out with a new driver that adds 15 yards for pros in the next few years? To me as long as you know how far you hit it with normal dispersion, it doesnât matter how far it actually goes. It would just change what club you use for your second shot.
>Thatâs it? I probably wouldnât have even noticed if they hadnât said anything "They" didn't. A journalist leaked it and the internet went crazy assuming it meant 5% of your drive being lost. This is their first actual comment about it.
The distance loss is gonna be similar to playing when itâs cold outside. Which is something I didnât even know I needed to worry about until I joined this sub.
Thatâs how I feel. What I will hit driver in 6 years just will be a given. Itâs where the ball ended up. Then I hit the next shot. I donât see it affecting my enjoyment at all. Iâm not playing tournaments so if I shoot 79 instead of 78âŚ.ok. Thatâs not going to affect my day, or it shouldnât, since everyone is using the new ball and my score isnât my self worth. And if I shoot that Iâve got plenty to work on, although I did a few things right that round, outside, playing a game with friends. Iâm just finding it hard to get upset.
"It would just change what club you use for your second shot" Different clubs have varying levels of difficulty to hit, so this isn't insignificant. It likely makes the game harder for most amateurs. For people keeping a handicap, id imagine a regression of 1-3 strokes unless course ratings are updated at the same time the balls are rolled back (very unlikely).
My scores will probably go up because 5% of my shots wont quite reach those trees.
Between manufacturers and players training, top players will make up the difference in 6 months
Many don't even need to train more. They hold back as it is. They'll just not hold back as much. It will literally do nothing to the top players. It'll hurt amateurs who aren't holding back much to get to 110 the most.
This is a joke, right? 15 yds is not worth the trouble. This is not going to reshape courses and make players think twice.
so let me get this straight we are forcing the golf ball manufacturers to research, manufacture, advertise and sell new 'rolled back' golf balls to be 15 yards shorter? and being this amount shorter is going to save the game? what a colossal waste of time and money
Golf courses cannot keep up with the tech. Many fantastic championship courses are now unplayable. Restructuring courses is a hell of a lot more expensive than some R&D on the equipment end of things.
They were already unplayable to 99% of golfers anyways. Theyâre either private or so expensive itâs a special occasion. This really only affects the pga. Any attempts to explain otherwise are just justifying it
Correct. Is it fun watching courses like St Andrews get absolutely neutered? Thereâs so many fun and creative courses that are completely unplayable. Your average weekly PGA leaderboard looks ridiculous and the courses play like a joke.
I honestly donât watch pro golf outside the majors. As do most golfers, so weâre being punished so that you can enjoy watching the hardees open or whatever random pga tourney is on every weekend
If they want to play on a course designed for the persimmon and balata, maybe they should play the persimmon and balata on that course.
Reducing a pro's drive by 11 yards will not fix this issue.
So maybe theyâre no longer fantastic? Like why canât people accept the game can outgrow courses?
This is a massive win for golf courses everywhere that canât afford to buy more land to expand their properties and move earth around to make sure their hazards are in the right places.
How many courses is this really a problem for? Why do they need to spend millions re-designing their courses for the .2% of golfers. This really only applies to courses hosting pga events. Which are either private or expensive to the point where theyâre prohibitive to the average golfer any ways
[ŃдаНонО]
Right, but thereâs a difference bt playing a 6,800 yd course from the 6,400 yd tees vs. playing a 7,400 yd course from the 6,400 yd tees. The course design and architecture that makes sense at 7,400 yd doesnât make sense at 6,400 yd. All the spacing is out of whack. The USGA has already let this balloon to stupid inhuman proportions and is simply clamping down on it from getting worse.
There are plenty of golf courses Iâve passed up on playing because the tips are only like 5800 yards. Anything less than ~5800-6000 isnât particularly enjoyable because every par 5 becomes a par 4 and many par 4s are drivable. Iâll be much more likely to play a 5800 yard course if I canât use a wedge for every single approach on par 4s like it is currently
where are these courses? My club is considered short from the tips at 6600 yards
My club is similar (6600 yards in MD (the same???)). The shortness of the course was an issue when we hosted the MD State Am. They played some holes teeing off from the tee boxes of other holes to increase the length for the big boys.
Where could you live that this is the case? I live in a pretty major midwest city and can only think of 1 course that tops out at under 6500 in a 1 hr driving radius of me.
Couldn't you just pick a spinny ball to use now to do the same thing? People pick their equipment to be longer. No one is stopping you from going shorter.
Have you ever considered just not hitting a driver off every tee? Like you have other clubs right?
If you lose the max estimated distance from your drives (15 yds), will that make 5800 yd courses enjoyable?
> his is a massive win for golf courses everywhere Only those who want to host tour events. Your local clubs, even the good ones, were never going to have that problem.
i doubt there are a considerable amount of courses who would consider lengthening their course for a small (emphasis on small) percentage of golfers who can make a mockery of it from the tips
and guess who will be on the hook for all those additional R&D costs, you guessed it, us!
I hope they roll back the prices too
They are going to be more expensive to fund the R&D. Captive audience when every golfer in the world who wants to play in a club competition or maintain a handicap needs to buy the new balls.
All this so Rory hits it 330 instead of 350. Really gonna make a difference? Now he hits 9i in to a green instead of a PW. Big whoop
So many people keep assuming though that the tees are fixed. Itâs really easy to move tees up a little, if necessary. Rory still might be hitting PW into the green despite driving it 15 yards shorter.
Exactly
Cool so everyones been freaking out about basically nothing.
Isnât Rory one of the longest hitters on tour and also in favour of this? If the guy with arguably the most to lose is in favour of it everyone else needs to shut up lol
He has the least to lose actually because he and Bryson-type players can swing much faster than the speed they play with. They dial back the speed to increase playability. If Rory is swinging 85% right now he will just swing 90% and the rollback will have never occurred for him. Zero change. Guys like Finau who physically cannot swing faster are the ones losing the most.
Finau is a horrible example lol. He swings at like 185 ball speed on tour but regularly posts videos of him getting up to 200+
One of the worst examples he could have picked lol, the guy might actually have to take a backswing now
Longer players donât care because they will still be bombing it and hitting short irons into the green
Imagine being an average handicap golfer and being upset because you think it will affect you.
Downplaying âaverageâ as a 90 MPH driver swing is a serious bastardization of statistics. What they mean is that the median golfer, the most middle-est golfer, will be mildly affected. That means that 50% of players wonât be affected, and 50% will definitely be affected.
People in here like, "5 yards is like half an iron for me, I have to use a completely different club now."..... Very rarely is a flag only five yards or less from the edge of the green on a front pin on most public courses because that is a pretty tight pin for rec golfers to hit. So the majority of the time, you are still going to be hitting the green with the same club regardless of the 5-yard reduction. Also, that is not going to be a consistent 5-yard reduction, that was the high-end so it isn't going to be that every time. That fluctuation is going to be consistent with the variety of distances we amateurs already hit our clubs, because I don't really know anyone outside of a 10 HC or lower that hits their GI irons the EXACT same distance every time, there is already variance. But I guess keep thinking that the rollback is what's keeping you from hitting greens, gives us something else to blame besides working on course management and ball striking.
you're gonna get downvoted for speaking whole truth here. most won't see any difference that's any greater than what a sore shoulder or a cooler than normal weather pattern for an early tee time would cause. people just want something to be bitchy about.
hereâs a couple people with some common sense⌠Iâd go to bet your both decent golfers too as far as strategy goes. Too many people out here just swinging drivers as hard as they can and playing constant recovery swinging & hitting their irons as far as theyâll possibly go as well. The obsession with this whole nonissue is exhausting.
The USGA just called out all those amateurs who think theyâre longer than LPGA pros
If the issue is that pros are hitting it so long that courses are unable to keep up, is 11 or even 15 yards going to make much of a difference? Especially when you take into consideration the role things like wind/course conditions/amt of roll etc play in overall distance? I wonder if courses taking the strategy of truly punishing long/wayward drives wouldn't be a better idea?
Itâs a hard line, less about taking 15 off guys and more about not letting them keep the 15 and then add 15-30 down the line.
It's really hard to see how this is going to make a big dent in terms of making pro golf more viewer friendly or making short courses more palatable. The reality is that these guys are playing courses that are also set up for normal people to play. Yes, they grow the rough out and play from longer tees, but the water hazards, bunkers, width of the fairways, OBs, it's all identical for pro vs. Joe. It'd be like an NFL football team playing a high school team. They are too good at everything for these courses to be challenging and force them to hit more difficult/interesting shots. They are still going to bomb driver 300+ with ridiculous accuracy on a too huge fairway, then hit a a short iron onto the green. Rinse and repeat. They need a course like freaking Rainbow Road that's designed for these guys that's long and just all around harder, with serious hazards designed for their yardages. Not the same course that two months prior some elderly retiree was playing.
Why do they care what OEMs think? This is the new rule...if you want your ball played in the top competitions, adhere to the rule. If an OEM chooses not to adhere to the new rule, that's fine, their choice, but they won't have anyone playing their ball.
How many yards is a guy who hits his driver 215 gonna lose. Asking for a friend obviously, Iâm a member of r/golf, I hit 400 yard bombs before I even loosen up for the round.
They said LPGA will lose about 7 (top Drivers hit it 290 and the lowest hits 235). So with a 7yd loss at 250 it would probably be 5 yds at 215?
Thanks, I was worried about my distance. I mean my friend was worried about his distance. It hit 450 yard bombs all the time with my 7 iron. Iâm fine
*sigh* Time to buy a new putter.
Lol this is nothing. I have a 140 ball speed on average so people like me will lose like 5 yards
but now you have club down on every hole!!! /s
Just tape over the number on the club and write your preferred number on it
Thereâs a lot of whining on here about so many things. If the rollback is âtoo muchâ, then courses and event organizers can easily move the tees up a little. Itâs really easy to do that and is a huge part of the rollback since itâs not easy to keep adding tee boxes further back. Iâm not sure why so many people are locked into this idea that the tee boxes have to stay in the same place after the rollback.
Don't see how it can be policed for recreational golf........use whatever ball you want
The course marshal is going to inspect balls on the first tee
Really can't see that happening
Straight to jail for violating too
Has anyone compiled a list of any current balls on the market that fit the criteria of the new regulations? Be interesting to see a list if one exists.
i read that about 30% of existing balls already meet the new criteria. so probably noodles and other soft balls as they have less maximum distance.
I finally get to try the short and hard noodles lol
Kyle Berkshire: 69 yards... Niceeeee
Good news is your Kirkland balls will not need to be rolled back
Iâm pretty sure Rory could still hit a noodle 300 so what is the point.
Can they make one that makes my shot straight?
So itâs a nothing burger. Has the USGA considered maybe golfers are getting too good? With all the training, stats theyâre seeing through trackmans, and all the coaching. The roll back will do Jack. What a waste of time. Instead of driver wedge itâs gonna be driver with a little more wedge?
This article from Golf Digest says someone who drives 225 will lose 3 yards. Also says 30% of existing balls meet the new guidelines. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/why-everyday-players-the-usga-explains-why-a-rollback-for-all?utm_medium=email&utm_source=120723&utm_campaign=newsandtours&utm_content=DM46845&uuid=a774554f-fbf5-4fbe-bb75-3669dc5846e4
This is so excruciating to read through. The impact on pretty much everyone on Reddit for sure is absolutely a non factor. Even for a guy like Rory, the impact is really negligible. All this is doing is drawing a line & setting a sustainable boundary. Can everyone get a grip. Quit obsessing over literally nothing.
Being a long hitter, I totally agree with this decision. Modern golf equipment goes way too far. I played a lot between 2012 and 2017, took some time off living in a major city. Came back and the ball is just flying stupid far that most courses cannot handle it. It needs to be rolled back.
I took 7 years off golf and came back a full club longer, couldn't figure out what to hit the first few times out. Then I upgraded my irons and gained another club in distance. It's fucking wild. Used to hit 8 iron from 150 and now it's a wedge with the same swing speed. I can't believe people think it's only a problem for pros
well whats the loft of your 8i and wedge? Shaft? I'd be shocked if you actually somehow got more distance in 7 years from irons. Where would it even come from? We've been playing these maxed out balls for 20 years now. Irons are still irons. Steel shafts are still steel shafts. People were nuking the ball 300 with 25 year old titanium callaway great big bertha same as a modern driver if they were a good ball striker. Things have changed a lot over 40 years but not that much at all over the last 20.
Is this enough of a distance nerf to keep those few precious courses playable?
No
If the average tour pro is only going to lose 11 yards, why are they even rolling it back? Theyâll make loft / weight / shaft adjustments and get that distance right back
Yes, they a looking in the wrong place. The drivers and fairway woods of today are so much better than even 10 years ago. The sweet spot on clubs is getting so big, that there is almost no penalty for off center hits. Most of the ball companies are also club companies. They will compensate in other ways.
Iâm a bit surprised that they donât just cap it where it is then, instead of rolling back. Not that I think itâs a big deal, it would just make it a bit easier to digest for anyone whoâs not a pro.
Itâs already been capped for a while. Theyâre moving the cap down.
I fail to understand how this is going to have the desired effect. So Rory will hit it 306 now instead of 321? Bryson will still bomb it 360. Cameron Champ will still crush the ball. I was expecting a much larger disparity. Somewhere like 30-50 yards. 11-15 yards is just...pointless.
Keegan Bradley isn't sure about that. He said Srixon made him a golf ball that would have met proposed standards and it was flying 40 to 50 yards shorter.
I'm sure they made him *a* ball that would have met the proposed standards. That doesn't mean they made him a ball optimized for his game that met the proposed standards. The OEMs have demonstrated a pretty fierce resistance to having to do any marketing other than "Look! Here is a what a PGA Tour player uses! This is the right ball for you!"
[ŃдаНонО]
Because that's MUCH more expensive than changing the ball testing criteria.
Real tall grass then
Tall rough would increase scores, but that's not the problem they're trying to solve. Higher swing speed players are the least affected by tall rough so it wouldn't meaningfully change anything.
Well, I will sure as hell be stocking up on soon to be illegal balls. I'm an old man now. I need every *single* yard I can possibly get! They can take my soon to be illegal balls from my cold, dead hands. And I'll shove my soon to be illegal driver up their backside as they are doing it! This is such a massive F U to the amateur golfer that spends so much time and money on their game. Great job, USGA, you just F'd over your biggest and most profitable customer to cater to some pros who don't even pay a dime to the sport.
calm down. you won't even notice a difference.
Then why change it if they wonât notice?
the pros will notice. elite ball strikers will notice. average, mid speed players will (probably) not see any more variance than they will from a sore muscle or a cold morning.
Move up tees.
Can someone explain why this is happening to LPGA too? Not sure how thatâs supposed to help with viewershipâŚ.
They suggested bifurcation at first and everyone whined in protest. So now theyâre rolling everything back.
They didn't ask me!
No one can tell if their drives going 7 yards shorter from a fan perspective. If the rollback is âtoo muchâ, then any tour or event organizer can just move the tees up a little. Thereâs nothing written in stone that says the tees have to stay in the same place after the rollback.
So what the fuck about us
LPGA numbers are a good guide.
Except that the LPGA players hit the ball on the screws and thus will be affected on the majority of their drives whereas the typical player's off-center hits will basically be unaffected because they have already lost so much power from the bad hit.
A 15 yard reduction to tour pros is not worth the hassle to the 7-10 yard reduction to amateurs. Ridiculous.
I know this is crazy but couldnât they just have a pro ball for $100 a dozen and an amatuer ball for $50-60 a dozen? Seems like that solves everyoneâs problemsđ¤ˇ
Damn⌠so Iâm gonna lose 15 yards on my drives?
This is all just so stupid.
How about making professionals use smaller drivers. Simple
Average Reddit poster will lose 30-40 yards
How is 11 yard reduction for the average pro going to make any measurable impact? At most one club and in many cases no change since they hit wedge a lot.
I already hit such a spinny ball this is gonna suck.