USGA Rolled Back Golf Balls - What If?

JB

Follow @THPGolf on Social Media
Albatross 2024 Club
Staff member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
281,730
Reaction score
423,151
Location
THP Experiences
Over the last few years, the USGA has made some rulings that were not hugely popular to manufacturers (as well as consumers). Maxing out drivers, rolling back wedge grooves and more. A recent conversation came about this morning with a friend about "What if the USGA rolled back golf balls" and it got pretty interesting. Lets say for example 1 of these 2 things happened.

1. The USGA says "at the highest level (PGA Tour, etc), the golf ball technology is frozen right now and companies can continue to make new products for consumers, but at the tour level, they will be different?

2. The USGA says "No more urethane covers and all balls must be covered with surlyn type of material".

I had a while to think about this and I think two things come to be for me. #1, the industry (equipment industry) shakeup would be gigantic.

If the first one happened, no company could be out there saying "Play what the pros play" in terms of a golf ball, because the consumer would not be playing the same ball outside of brand. Would it matter? Would we (as consumers) still flock to certain brands, rather than worrying about whether or not its even the same product that they are marketing?

If the second scenario happened, it would be incredible to see how the marketing then changes to durability, or "spinniest surlyn" or creative names for the cover. Could pricing still be the same with a cover that costs less to manufacture? I believe, as a generalization, that price dictates quality in the game of golf more than the other way around. The golf ball fits this more than anything in my opinion.

Of course all of this is just a "what if" type of scenario and nothing has come in to THP to make us think anything like this is coming in the near future, but truth be told, it would not shock me if somewhere down the road, something of the sort happens.

What do you see happening if 1 of these 2 scenarios were to take place?
 
I think marketing and research would play an even bigger role than they already do. Like JB said, it wouldn't matter what the pros play because you can't get that.
 
Regarding the first:

I think we'd hear things like "play the brand the pros play" instead of "the ball the pros play". I also don't think there'd be a huge shift in buying habits for most people. Hell, you hear people compare high end urethane balls to a certain brands surlyn mid-range ball all the time.

Regarding the second:

We already hear it. When you put the word Tour on a surlyn ball, it suddenly becomes spinny and fantastic. It would be a shame if the prices went up, but you have to think the companies would need something to differentiate different products in their lineup. Price is the easiest way to do that.
 
Interesting thoughts sir.

Would we (as consumers) still flock to certain brands, rather than worrying about whether or not its even the same product that they are marketing?

I'd still say no....there's something to be said (good and bad) for the brand loyalty that exists out there. The marketing forces are strong out there which would be saying 'nothing new here, move along and buy more'.

Could pricing still be the same with a cover that costs less to manufacture? While the marketing would change to 'economical performance' vs. straight out 'performance'....I still think people associate higher cost with higher quality, especially with golf balls. Certain brands (I'm looking at you Titleist) could get away with charging the same price or very close to it for a ball that costs less to make because of marketing and the all iimportant brand loyalty aspects.
 
#1 wouldn't bother me as much as #2, obviously because it doesn't affect me. That being said, I don't like the idea of either.

#1 - why should we stop the sport from progressing. What would have happened had they done this 20 years ago? I just don't see it being good for the game.

#2 - see #1. Also, why would we want to make the game more difficult? It seems like limiting cover options would do just that. Again, I just don't see it being good for the game.
 
Great topic, and something I've been knocking about in my head for a while.

Option 1 - We might see (for instance) a T version and a normal version. So, maybe ProV1t and ProV1. Or would they call it the same thing, make it differently and still market it as the same'ish' because it has the same name?

Option 2 - I think we would see R&D upped for a couple of manufacturers. Lets find a way around this rule to get a competitive edge. Find us a material with more urethane-like properties and we'll market the legs off it.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #7
#1 wouldn't bother me as much as #2, obviously because it doesn't affect me. That being said, I don't like the idea of either.

#1 - why should we stop the sport from progressing. What would have happened had they done this 20 years ago? I just don't see it being good for the game.

#2 - see #1. Also, why would we want to make the game more difficult? It seems like limiting cover options would do just that. Again, I just don't see it being good for the game.

JC,
Havent we already seen this though? Look at the restrictions on drivers and wedges.
 
I think this would be an advantage for Taylormade who has a great marketing dept and would like to gain more market share. Titliest would lose some but I agree with Hawk, they will switch to play the brand the pros play and still have a loyal following. Hopefully prices would be held in check but I don't think we will be that lucky.
 
i know i wouldn't be upset if the costs went down on premium balls its almost $50 for a dozen which is ridiculous. With Balls i have always played what works best for my game not what the tour players played what so the brand name and advertising really wouldn't affect what ball i bought. plus i still buy a sleeve of almost every new ball that comes out just to give them a try and i still play what works best for me. But it would be interesting to see what would happen with such a shake up in the industry it would def prob level the playing field for almost all ball manufacturers i would think.
 
JC,
Havent we already seen this though? Look at the restrictions on drivers and wedges.

I agree, and I was going to ask about changing those restrictions based on scenario #1 but wasn't sure if this is the right place to ask. I'll go for it.

Going along with scenario #1, should we lift the restrictions on drivers and wedges for amateurs, and only restrict the pros? Would that alone make the game easier?
 
1. The USGA says "at the highest level (PGA Tour, etc), the golf ball technology is frozen right now and companies can continue to make new products for consumers, but at the tour level, they will be different? Just guessing the marketing catch phrase here would go to "Play the same BRAND the pro's play". It's interesting to think of all the direction's and market speak that would fall sort of off limits, like "Tour Level".

2. The USGA says "No more urethane covers and all balls must be covered with surlyn type of material". Just like the groove rule, a lot of the market direction would be in showing the customer how smart OUR engineers are. We created the next greatest ball by changing the dimples and guts of the ball.
 
For me personally, I don't think anything would change. I probably don't use the really good balls to their full potential anyway, so at this point, I probably wouldn't be hindered.

And as far as price goes, I'm sure they would find a way to squeak out a few more dollars per dozen some how.
 
Do USGA rules differ regarding Tour players vs. amateurs (in competition) currently? Realistically I could go out with a shaved face driver and slap some Vaseline on the face and hit long straight rockets, but as long as I'm not competing and people I play with don't care...it doesn't matter.

I think if they made Tour exclusive balls, you would see a small black market on them, but I don't think it's a commercially viable option for the industry. It is already an expensive (okay...inflated price) commodity. I can't imagine that it would be cost effective to R&D and manufacture balls for such a small user base.
 
I think if they made Tour exclusive balls, you would see a small black market on them, but I don't think it's a commercially viable option for the industry. It is already an expensive (okay...inflated price) commodity. I can't imagine that it would be cost effective to R&D and manufacture balls for such a small user base.

They do that now however. On both equipment and balls. Players are still playing golf balls from years' past (all the way back to 05) for some brands and equipment has been made differently (in certain aspects) for years. For instance, up until this year, many of the Cleveland tour staff were playing 588 wedges. These were not available to consumers.
 
I'm lead to believe, because of the discussions that take place at the PGA show meeting with the professionals, that the USGA will at some point screw with the balls, to shorten distance. This is something I'm very against. They will do this because 0.01% of the worlds golfers (pro's) hit the ball too far. This will trickle down to the rest of us (99.99%) that don't hit the ball too far. If they change the ball to take say 50 yards away from the pro's, what will it take from the rest of us?

The USGA has a history of screwing us because of what the world class players are able to do with a club and ball. I play the best ball for me with no regard to what the pro's are playing.
 
What would happen if the USGA rolled back the ballsi think in ? Rivers and seas boiling. Earthquakes, volcanos. The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together. MASS HYSTERIA.

To be honest, in either scenario, the marketing departments at the manufacturers would be the most affected. I would doubt that the publics buying tendancies would change at all. Other than the smart people here on THP, I don't know too many golfers who can explain what makes a tour ball different from a lower priced ball. Other than the price tage.
 
If #1 happened, nothing would change. People would still buy titleist balls because "Titleist is the best ball out there."

if #2 happens, I am sure that the true innovators in the industry would find a way to make the ball just as spinny.
 
They do that now however. On both equipment and balls. Players are still playing golf balls from years' past (all the way back to 05) for some brands and equipment has been made differently (in certain aspects) for years. For instance, up until this year, many of the Cleveland tour staff were playing 588 wedges. These were not available to consumers.

Well true, but those aren't really commodity items to my mind. The cast/mold/whatever already exists and so theoretically that mold could be swapped out on the production line that normally makes some other wedge. Maybe a bit more complicated than that but probably not by too much (my old man makes ball bearings so I'm familiar-ish with the process of casting). The rest could be done on the tour van.

For a change in golf balls, you're talking about batch changes in raw materials, which can be expensive and timely...unless that is done by a 3rd party and someone (ie. Bridgestone) just dumps the Tour ball gook into the manufacturing line.

All that being said, I thought the 588's that the pro's used were hoarded back when they were made. 100% assumption on my part, though.

Are "they" really currently making golf balls to 05 specs? Or are they hoarded? I genuinely have no idea and neither one makes sense to me...
 
If #1 happened, nothing would change. People would still buy titleist balls because "Titleist is the best ball out there."

if #2 happens, I am sure that the true innovators in the industry would find a way to make the ball just as spinny.
I was thinking the same thing on #2 buddy. Imagine the black market prices for "tour" balls if #1 happened. Remember back when Pro V1 first started getting used on Tour and they weren't available to consumers yet? People paid a fortune for them on eBay.
 
All that being said, I thought the 588's that the pro's used were hoarded back when they were made. 100% assumption on my part, though.

Are "they" really currently making golf balls to 05 specs? Or are they hoarded? I genuinely have no idea and neither one makes sense to me...

The 588s that the pros used were not the same. The groove rule meant that they had to have new wedges made, so they were completely different heads. Now of course they released those heads to consumers this year.

You would be surprised how many things are still manufactured.
 
1. The USGA says "at the highest level (PGA Tour, etc), the golf ball technology is frozen right now and companies can continue to make new products for consumers, but at the tour level, they will be different?

2. The USGA says "No more urethane covers and all balls must be covered with surlyn type of material".

For #1, marketing would certainly change. The idea would be to stress "we make the greatest TOUR balls, just think what these super hot / super long / mega spin / whatever balls will do". I'd almost think companies could begin to charge a premium for tour balls even if others performed better, simply because of the ego factor. We all think we'd play the ball best for us, but I suspect a LOT of people would pay to play what the pros play unless they switch to marshmallows.

That could be different if they just froze the Tour ball and let non-competition balls run wild. Keeping 2 sets of standards seems awkward somehow, and would probably drive the price of all balls up as companies try to push 2 sets of limits.

#2, I don't think the cost of the material would have any effect on price, I can't think ANY company lowers prices instead of increasing margins. The "best" ball will cost whatever they can get for it, whether it's urethane, surlyn, or leather stuffed with feathers.

Is the material actually regulated? I'd think that R&D would be coming up with "surlyns" with characteristics never envisioned by the USGA in a hurry...but of course we'd pay more for all that.
 
#2, I don't think the cost of the material would have any effect on price, I can't think ANY company lowers prices instead of increasing margins. The "best" ball will cost whatever they can get for it, whether it's urethane, surlyn, or leather stuffed with feathers.

This is very true. I remember when FJ stopped producing the leather soled US made Classics and then came out with the ICONs, which for many are an inferior product, but charged even more.
 
I'm not sure that I like the idea of either scenario, but in either case, the big effect would be on marketing and what measures companies would take to try and gain market share.
To me, the first scenario reminds me of baseball. The pros have used the same ball and wooden bats for dang near forever, but look at all the advances made in the aluminum baseball bats used by kids and such.
 
If #2 happened betting prices would magically inflate on the more popular 2 pc balls.
 
I'm fairly confident in my ability to lose a ton of whichever ball the USGA says is okay for me to play.
 
Back
Top