So when companies talk about data driven innovation. Testing. Player performance data. Etc. All of it. And you talk seriously about changing the balls all of its been done with .. I seriously get chest pains. I can't even.
Rolling the Ball Back For Good?
ger21
Active member
The PGA Tour did tell them that they wouldn't use a shorter "tour only" ball. And they can play by any rules they want. It's their tour.
I’ll be curious to see what they actually do before feigning outrage.
that said if it does happen, the decision is likely less about what is happening today and more about not letting it become a bigger problem 15+ years from now.
that said if it does happen, the decision is likely less about what is happening today and more about not letting it become a bigger problem 15+ years from now.
Non legal balls exist in the marketplace now. Why aren’t more amateurs using them?
Because it does nothing but cause problems.
- Staff
- #83
Because the current legal ones are fine, and most of those are ROCKS or cost 50 bucks a ball.
But, make the “legal” balls shorter and you now have a whole industry who already knows how to make a non conforming golf ball that performs, without having to go to extremes or re-work their manufacturing processes.
TxAggie2018
Well-known member
Go tee it up on a Saturday at any public course in America. Excess distance is NOT a problem at the amateur level.
also, losing 5% of their distance will not change Joe public’s game one bit.
Hell most people out there just put whatever ball they find in the woods in play and that varies a whole lot more than whatever hypothetical roll back is that is coming.
Hurts the ball industry a bit, no argument on that.
Unbelievably idiotic. Might be playing a lot more disc golf and tennis if they do this 
- Staff
- #88
It hurts golfers, forget about the industry.
TxAggie2018
Well-known member
5% would be an enormous difference. That makes a 6000 yard course play like a 6300 yard course... it's almost like moving all the golfers on the white tees back to the blues.
This is so dumb and a lazy response. For all the reasons mentioned above, these courses could be set up very easily ahead of time to play longer but the governing bodies let them play on concrete with minimal rough, etc..
If this does go ahead, I could still see the manufacturers creating an amateur ball which would be 95% of the balls they would sell. I honestly do not care for recreational golf what kind of ball my playing companion uses.
If this does go ahead, I could still see the manufacturers creating an amateur ball which would be 95% of the balls they would sell. I honestly do not care for recreational golf what kind of ball my playing companion uses.
The absolute worst thing they could do is roll the ball back
Then even more than the current few manufacturers who do so will start making non conforming balls.
The public will become comfortable with playing non-conforming equipment.
Then will Start the arms race take to make balls considerably longer than they are currently.because,people have been jaded to the rules.
Then even more than the current few manufacturers who do so will start making non conforming balls.
The public will become comfortable with playing non-conforming equipment.
Then will Start the arms race take to make balls considerably longer than they are currently.because,people have been jaded to the rules.
The quickest way for any government to become irrelevant is to enact stupid laws people don't like or won't follow. People need to have a bit of faith in their governing bodies.
The USGA is already well down the path to irrelevancy with the ever changing rules on putting styles. The Ping groove debacle, and the current handicap debacle.
The USGA rolling back the ball any amount for the recreational golfer will ensure their decline into irrelevancy.
The USGA is already well down the path to irrelevancy with the ever changing rules on putting styles. The Ping groove debacle, and the current handicap debacle.
The USGA rolling back the ball any amount for the recreational golfer will ensure their decline into irrelevancy.
Last edited:
I’m clearly in the minority here, but in my mind if the ball gets rolled back simply move up a set of tees and move on.
What will be fascinating to me is if OEM’s give the middle finger and continue to keep an “illegal” ball (Or balls) in their line.
What will be fascinating to me is if OEM’s give the middle finger and continue to keep an “illegal” ball (Or balls) in their line.
I’m all in with you.
Callaway already makes a Magna.
Play it and get used to being shorter.
Just do a tournament spec ball like F-1 does with tires and be done with it. Manufacturers can charge twice the price for a ball that flys shorter and golfers will buy them out of curiosity and ego. We buy a lot of stupid **** anyway. Then there will be even more to argue about. Jacked lofts and unjacked balls. Just imagine the guy that wins the member guest with an unjacked ball. Heck, it might not even make a different at the average Joe level. Now you got that guy saying he broke 100 with a Pro ball.
ger21
Active member
For the vast majority of courses I play, that have 3 tees, moving up a tee would shave 2000 yards off a course.
Last year we got paired with a female high school player, who played from the front tees at 4500 yards vs the 6300 yard middle tees we play. She was 50 yards or less from every par 4 green, and hitting 8 iron 2nd shots into par 5's. That's not the type of golf I want to play. (She was practicing for a tournament that was played from those tees)
But would each course have that big of gap between tees?
I’d argue that’s a course design problem. What happens when someone’s speed is changing such as the example you gave? A kid growing into the game will have such a challenge jumping from 4500 to 6300 and conversely adults will try to cling too long to 6300 before dropping.
I am amazed at the hatred espoused in this thread. Golf has a governing body, much like all of our governing bodies....choke,choke....maybe they are out of touch at times. But this is my game. I love golf. Don't really care how/why they restrict/limit a golf ball. I'm gonna play this game till I die and love it.
I think my issue is not so much the idea that the ball might get rolled back but the mechanics of how will have outsized impact on certain subsets of golfers far more than others. If the USGA forces a ball that spins more, for example, the longest hitting pros won't be impacted nearly as much by a shorter hitting pro. There's a ton of ways to hypothetically change the ball where Rory goes from hitting it 330 to hitting it 300 (a ~10% loss in distance) but a guy who currently hits it 300 ends up only hitting it 260, even though they're both playing the same ball. I'm not picking on Rory here, but he leads the PGA in driving distance, so he is notionally the guy the USGA would look at as trying to dial back the most.
The best pros out there aren't pros because they hit the ball really far. They're the best because they can adapt their swing to the innumerable circumstances that cause amateurs like you and me to miss short, long, left, and right, with any club off of any lie. Forced regression won't impact them very much. My worry is how forced regression impacts the average amateur if it makes the golf ball more difficult to control, especially off the tee.
The best pros out there aren't pros because they hit the ball really far. They're the best because they can adapt their swing to the innumerable circumstances that cause amateurs like you and me to miss short, long, left, and right, with any club off of any lie. Forced regression won't impact them very much. My worry is how forced regression impacts the average amateur if it makes the golf ball more difficult to control, especially off the tee.
Our whites are 5838. If you move forward to the greens, it's 4823. A 1,015 yard difference. Sure, courses could put in new tee boxes to bridge the gaps, but it would cost them a lot of money and what's the benefit to them?