Rolling the Ball Back For Good?
I hate this for so many reasons, but not the least of which being it it basically punishing modern golfers for being too athletic. God forbid this actually be a sport!
I guess I can learn to adapt if the ball goes 20 yards shorter, as long as (1) nothing else changes as far as performance and (2) tees all get re rated so I'm not just worse by design. But doesn't this cause a lot of new courses to be kinda unplayable? I think this was intended to make older, shorter courses more relevant, which I kinda get (though this isn't the way to do it IMO), but doesn't it therefore make newer, longer courses LESS relevant?
This just feels like a hell of a lot of spending because a couple old dudes are feeling inadequate now that guys are driving it 300+ on the reg.
I guess I can learn to adapt if the ball goes 20 yards shorter, as long as (1) nothing else changes as far as performance and (2) tees all get re rated so I'm not just worse by design. But doesn't this cause a lot of new courses to be kinda unplayable? I think this was intended to make older, shorter courses more relevant, which I kinda get (though this isn't the way to do it IMO), but doesn't it therefore make newer, longer courses LESS relevant?
This just feels like a hell of a lot of spending because a couple old dudes are feeling inadequate now that guys are driving it 300+ on the reg.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #453
Again that doesn’t change more costs and creating a bifurcation doesn’t recoup. Rolling back, impossible to say if recoup is possible. Time will tell if we get that far.
I don’t understand how the downplaying of cost increase is a thing. Every single consumer good, cost goes up, price goes up. Literally watching record setting inflation on consumer goods and here is another aspect where the possibility exists of more burden across the board.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2016
- Messages
- 2,106
- Reaction score
- 2,012
- Handicap
- True
I‘d be curious why he thinks that. What evidence is he citing? Do they already have some secret ball that penalizes pros by 10% but leaves am distance unchanged? If so maybe lead with that, otherwise at this point he’s just pulling fantasy out of his backside.
Having an OEM make special equipment for a specific pro (that still conforms to the rules we all play under) isn’t bifurcation.
This just sounds like more “Rory the Shill” to me.
Your point is a very good philosophical, substantive one. The idea that a player can go from beginner to elite and an arbitrary line would have to be drawn is real. The biggest place where it could be thorny is at the state am championships, where you have elite amateurs, who play at the collegiate level, who likely would play the limited ball, as well as teenagers, who likely would have been playing the ball that all of us hackers would play.
However, I am not sure that it is as difficult to habituate for an elite golfer as you might be suggesting. I have to do it when I go from my elevation to sea level. There are some Tour stops that play at elevation and they adjust for that week.
As far as equipment that would have to fall on both sides of the line, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. The only equipment that will be that much different on each side would be the ball. As has been pointed out in the thread, manufacturers already offer many different lines of balls. Some offer 7 or more different balls. I have a hard time accepting that it would double the cost to create a Tour ball that is limited flight. However, you might have access to information that I don’t.
I don’t think the actual clubs would have to change at all. An elite, high speed player is still going to play player cavity or blade irons. They will just optimize a driver for the ball that they play. What I think will change is the type of equipment chosen by we duffers. I currently play a forged player cavity splitting into a player distance. I would move immediately into the hollow body irons to get more ball speed.
I am advocating for the recreational golfers, who I think will be most negatively impacted. There certainly are other issues, such as the ones you have identified. Obviously, somebody is going to be left unhappy. I am just glad that it is a 6 or 7 year phase in.
I think they will have to get rid of one to make room for another, because the new ball will have to be manufactured. It is either that, or increase capacity. However, the new ball will be mandated, so by necessity, it will eat into the demand for other balls.
I have never been to a ball manufacturing facility, so I don’t know if they have to have two different sets of equipment for, say, a ChromeSoft vs. a ChromeSoft X. However, the overall capacity doesn’t need to increase, just the possibility of one more ball type.
I don’t think anybody is arguing that costs won’t go up. The question is whether those increased costs are more forced by the roll back itself, or by a bifurcation.
You don’t understand the downplaying of costs. I don’t understand your statement that “every single consumer good, cost goes up, price goes up.” That literally has nothing to do with an analysis of bifurcation costs. It is just a general statement about inflation. Some of us actually do understand inflation. Try building homes in the inflationary climate in which we have been operating. However, inflationary pressures are there, regardless of whether you are creating a high speed ball or a low speed ball. Most of the materials are the same.
jnordwell
Active member
I for one like that I can play the same stuff as the pros however I will never be able to match them with my mid 40's broken body.. here is a thought keep the ball where it is for pros make them without demples it would be like knuckleballs.. start right and then just fall out of the sky.. us normal people had to deal with the anchor ban, driver length, putter size. Etc...
Maybe a smaller ball or a smaller hole.. the few will ruin it for the many...
Maybe a smaller ball or a smaller hole.. the few will ruin it for the many...
I really have no argument either way about the ball as I just wanna play golf. But I found this funny.
I am not sure it changes ball R&D costs. They are making balls all the time. I think that one stay basically flat.So let’s try to break this down a little.
R&D costs:
Build maintain new shorter tee boxes:
Re-rating courses:
Pace of play:
Frustration:
Number of golfers:
Cool. I’m so glad that an already expensive sport is going to get more expensive because of this. Way to kill the golf boom USGARA
So you don’t think the equipment would change much?
Manufacturers won’t work to retool the driver and other clubs to maximize potential of a new ball?
there would be significant R&D costs to doing so. I would think Manufacturers would work on products on both sides to make up for any distance loss?
Ball R&D costs will absolutely change. New parameters would create new challenges, which would ask R&D for new results.
But the biggest change could be not in ball, but in club. You think manufacturers wouldn’t try to change the club to optimize a new ball?
BigLeftyinAZ
Well-known member
In general, I feel it's good.
In all honesty, should a 54 yr old man hit the ball farther than his younger 30 yr old self ?
In all honesty, should a 54 yr old man hit the ball farther than his younger 30 yr old self ?
ger21
Active member
If he was using the same clubs, would he?
BigLeftyinAZ
Well-known member
My irons are basically the same. Blades don't have much advanced technology in them . Iron differential is 10-15 yards . Driver is about 25 yards different
I wouldn’t be surprised if the OEMs have not already been preparing for this. In any event, I view the R&D as perhaps being refocused, rather than suddenly becoming a much larger budget. But, my biggest point, and it is becoming so repetitive that I don’t have anything new to add is that they already are going to have to focus on a completely new parameter, a limited flight ball, but that is not brought on by bifurcation. It seems that you are focusing much of the analysis on the impact of the new ball, but then blaming it on bifurcation.
Bifurcation isn’t happening anyway, so it’s pretty much a moot point.
Of course they’ve been preparing for this.
And I’m not talking strictly for bifurcation.
Let’s take any manufacturer. They have new parameters for a max distance golf ball. Sure they have an idea for what that will take, but have they put their full weight of things into it yet? No.
but they will in the next 7 or so years. But until then they have to continue down the current parameters. So for this next period, they will both be exploring how to maximize the golf ball under current parameters, and under future parameters.
And not just that, but they’ll be testing clubs with both golf balls, and I would bet that there could be differences in club design to maximize for each ball.
And that’s only if they do 1 ball of each.
Not to mention multiple lines, possible new materials, etc etc. the tooling for each, manufacturing for each, training on each.
This isn’t a simple flip the switch. This is going to take years and LOTS OF MONEY for manufacturers, who will inevitably find a way for pros not to lose distance. And then we can all pay ProV1 prices for NXTTour balls.
The problem is the USGA won’t stop here. 5% doesn’t change the way Rory or Rahm will dominate a course. Rory now hits 315 off the tee, and a 7 iron 195, not that he needs to with the drives he hits. The next generation player and driver will go as far as today.
They will continue to roll back the ball over time and crush the average player. Meanwhile the PGA tour will continue with short, fast fairways, with bunkers than the players can all fly - you know, those the members can reach.
They will continue to roll back the ball over time and crush the average player. Meanwhile the PGA tour will continue with short, fast fairways, with bunkers than the players can all fly - you know, those the members can reach.
my thought is they are already doing that. It will just be under new guidelines.
Now if they said “you can’t use urethane” then maybe there is a big bump in R&D.
But otherwise they just continue doing what they are doing but with a new rule book.
Edit
I don’t pretend to know the ins and out. I am
Just speculating.
But for the next few years they are going to be doing it under both the new and current rules. The budget and costs HAVE to go up to do that effectively right?
Yeah maybe. I don’t know.
So according to Rory, 5-10 yards shorter isn’t going to make much of a difference to the average golfer.
So for example if a new driver is going to add 5-10 yards to your game off the tee, no need to buy it because that additional distance is immaterial.
And yes, having to hit a 7 iron into a green vs an 8 may make a difference to some and impact scores as well.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2023
- Messages
- 666
- Reaction score
- 478
Maybe, but if they are run like a dozen other industries that I am very familiar with, it will mostly be reallocation of existing resources (people and money). As I brought up earlier, these companies are re-engineering and repackaging balls every 12 months already.
It may not be zero, but I don't think it is significant.
i posted this in another thread but....
Ya know how the Post Office does......"forever stamps"
Apply that logic to the golf ball for 3-4 years.......if ya have it in hand you can play it in perpetuity
Ya know how the Post Office does......"forever stamps"
Apply that logic to the golf ball for 3-4 years.......if ya have it in hand you can play it in perpetuity