Changes coming to golf balls for elite tours

[dmcdam]

USGA and the R&A jointly announced coming changes that will impact golf balls for "elite" golf competition. If I understand it correctly, the current conformity test is a robot driver swing of 120mph, and the ball cannot exceed 320 yards of distance (assuming carry?). Under the proposal, that robot swing speed will increase to 127mph, but there will be no corresponding increase for allowable distance. Every 1mph swing speed equates to roughly 3 yards in distance, so the new rule would result in roughly a 20 yard reduction in allowable distance. No comments from the ball manufacturers yet.

[Weirfan]

Not unexpected and overdue, IMO.

The change will only impact a very, very small segment of golfer population.

[dmcdam]

Not unexpected and overdue, IMO.

The change will only impact a very, very small segment of golfer population.

I guess ball manufacturers will have to do limited runs of these "elite competition" balls. Would amateurs eventually migrate to these balls because they're, "what the pros play"? I think we already see a bit of this with non-conforming clubs which the public could play, but generally shy away from.

[ZachOly]

I'm pro rollback. They should have done something 20 years ago when drivers started to max out in size.

But I'm also pro growing out and watering the fairways. These guys on tour getting 50y of roll is alarming.

[dmcdam]

Something I saw on Twitter that I'm borrowing here. It's a valid point unless they can migrate amateur consumers to switch to the "elite" balls.

"Manufacturers have to spend millions on developing a golf ball they give away for free to Tour players: to recover those losses they increase the price of balls they sell to consumers. Hope everyone who thinks this is a good idea is cool with paying $90 a dozen."

[ZachOly]

I guess ball manufacturers will have to do limited runs of these "elite competition" balls. Would amateurs eventually migrate to these balls because they're, "what the pros play"? I think we already see a bit of this with non-conforming clubs which the public could play, but generally shy away from.

I'll play a tour ball when I have spotters on every hole and can take TIO relief. It's time to acknowledge the game the pros play is just different than what we're playing on a Tuesday morning.

[Bellyhungry]

Here's the announcement:

[Bellyhungry]

I can imagine new marketing concept for new drivers:

'New technology that makes your tour-approved golf ball to travel as far as the non-sanctioned golf balls."

[dmcdam]

I'll play a tour ball when I have spotters on every hole and can take TIO relief. It's time to acknowledge the game the pros play is just different than what we're playing on a Tuesday morning.

And yet so many still gravitate to the same clubs and balls the pros play.

[Bosco]

How would this work under amateur comps - can I use either or?

[dmcdam]

How would this work under amateur comps - can I use either or?

The new rule is only for "elite" competitions so I assume you'd be free to play whatever ball you want so long as it complies to all the other rules.

Not that you aren't "elite" in other ways

[Ignatius Reilly]

Close, but I don't like it.

I'm all for rolling the ball back because most pro courses weren't really designed for modern equipment. It's just wrong to see a pro going for the green on a par 5 with a 6i. There's supposed to be some risk in going for it - there's not much risk in a 6i for a pro.

I think it's a mistake to complicate everything with bifurcation and a separate class of balls for "elite" competition and there's no need for it.

Given my swing speed (and inconsistency) it's unlikely I'd notice much of a difference. Even if I were to lose 15 yds, so what? So does everyone else. Kinda like when they maxed out COR, we all hit a new wall together.

If it means I'm hitting too short an iron into too many greens I can move up a tee. That to me is much better than courses having to buy more land and move tees back as everyone gets longer and longer.

People are also getting longer due to strength and hard work on the range and that's fine and nothing to be done about it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't address the thing that we can control, which is the ball.

[dmcdam]

Close, but I don't like it.

I'm all for rolling the ball back because most pro courses weren't really designed for modern equipment. It's just wrong to see a pro going for the green on a par 5 with a 6i. There's supposed to be some risk in going for it - there's not much risk in a 6i for a pro.

I think it's a mistake to complicate everything with bifurcation and a separate class of balls for "elite" competition and there's no need for it.

Given my swing speed (and inconsistency) it's unlikely I'd notice much of a difference. Even if I were to lose 15 yds, so what? So does everyone else. Kinda like when they maxed out COR, we all hit a new wall together.

If it means I'm hitting too short an iron into too many greens I can move up a tee. That to me is much better than courses having to buy more land and move tees back as everyone gets longer and longer.

People are also getting longer due to strength and hard work on the range and that's fine and nothing to be done about it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't address the thing that we can control, which is the ball.

I think the bifurcation idea stems from the stats which have shown huge distance gains for pros, but little for amateurs over the last decade or two. The 2017 USGA study showed average driving distance for amateurs was about 208 yards. I think it's also safe to assume any distance gains for ams has more to do with larger sweet spots than it does the ball.

[Weirfan]

People are also getting longer due to strength and hard work on the range and that's fine and nothing to be done about it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't address the thing that we can control, which is the ball.

Phil agrees with you, or at least he did with this statement from a couple years back.

"I also don't feel that you should punish the athletes for getting better,” he said. “I don't think that we have had massive equipment changes. We have just had athletes that have been able to take advantage of the equipment, more so than in the past. And I hate to see that discouraged. “You look at what Bryson [DeChambeau] has done getting in the gym, getting after it, lifting weights, and hitting bombs . . . and now you're talking about trying to roll it back, because he has made himself a better athlete? So, I don't know if I agree with that.”

I guess one has to examine the reason(s) the powers that be have decided to limit the ball. If protecting some golf courses from being rendered extinct, they probably have a point. ANGC is running out of land to extend holes.

Improvements in equipment that make the ball go further aren't going to stop nor are advancements in Sports Physiology to make athletes bigger, faster and stronger. Something has to give.

one could say that courses could be redesigned .....planting trees, moving hazards, narrowing fairways and growing grass longer but is that feasible and does it not take away from the courses intended design and strategy. Look how hole 13 at ANGC has had to be continually changed to try and keep up. The hole is 50+ yards longer now.

Does anyone feel that a max limit of 320 yards carry for a golf ball is not enough ?

the changes won't impact me personally so I guess the opinions that matter are those of the Pros that have to use the new ball standard and the golf Courses that have had to continue to modify their layouts in order to remain relevant to elite level distance game

[Jeffc]

The other thing is with the advent of launch monitors, pros can get their equipment dialed in to maximize their carry based on the right combo of driver head, shaft and ball. The vast majority of amateurs haven't done this.