In march the USGA suggested a “Model Local Rule” (MLR) that could be used to address the distance issue in golf; specifically male pro golfers overpowering golf courses. Now the USGA has come out with a statement that the golf ball roll back will not be an MLR specifically used for elite tournament golf but instead they will require all golf balls conform to new specifications. All golf balls are measured to meet specific standards with a set swing speed, spin, and launch angle so the new specifications are designed to limit the distance a ball travels.

Side Bar: Did you know the USGA tests golf balls after they have been used in a tournament to make sure they are conforming. They will randomly ask Pros for the balls after a round and test them. I know this because I have seen the rows and rows of cabinets storing the balls in the test center at USGA headquarters.

According to articles I have read the reason for this move away from the MLR to a new conforming ball specification for all balls is because of the push back from the PGA Tour. In other words, the tour would not implement a ball MLR. If that is true, then in my opinion, the USGA and R&A’s new conforming ball strategy is not really about “protecting the future of the game” but it is about protecting the historic venues that the USGA and R&A want to continue to use for championships.

The USGA states that amateur golfers will only lose a few yards (based on studies on swing speed). They also state that approximately thirty percent of 2023 golf balls would pass the tests in 2030 (examples I found in other articles mention balls like the Callaway Supersoft – basically balls designed for lower swing speeds). Below is the chart the USGA has shared and you can read their formal announcement on the USGA Website.

This chart only shows the few yards lost on a drive but a ball roll back will impact every club in the bag (expect the putter) so on every shot distance is less which means it’s really more than 3 yards.

If you want to see statistics that counter the USGA data follow an analyst from Arccos, on twitter, named Lou Stagner He has multiple Tweets on this issue.

This change will take place for Professional/Elite competition golf before it impacts the recreational amateur golfer in 2030. I have seen some funny comments on social media from golfers saying now is the time to hoard balls. The best comment was that the average golfer will just play non-conforming balls because golfers really don’t do what the governing bodies tell them to do anyway.

My thought on this is that the USGA and R&A should have stayed with the plan to use a Model Local Rule and if the Tour does not want to implement it for their events that’s there choice. Of course, the USGA and R&A could implement a specific ball for the majors. Given how important the majors are to the Pros, they would probably start playing the “major approved ball” all the time to get use to it – problem solved. :-)

The issue is also impacted by The USGA’s position that golfers don’t want “bifurcation” and that amateurs want to play the same equipment and game as the professionals. But the reality is golf already has “bifurcation” based on the simple facts that (1) amateurs don’t play the same equipment because the Pros have so many “tweaks” made to their equipment that their clubs are a far cry from the “off-the-shelf” standard club offerings; and even if amateurs get a custom clubs fitting it is nothing like what a pro might have with special grinds for bounce, etc.. (2) There is a “category” of golf balls called “Custom Performance” which includes a ProV1 left dot, a ProV1 left dash and other balls played by the Pros that are not readily available to the average golfer via retail markets. (3) the courses that the professionals play are on a different level when it comes to setup – fairways so manicured that it’s like carpet, greens that are lightening fast. The majority of amateurs will never play on the same quality “playing field” as pros because even if you do a “bucket list trip to Pebble Beach or Pinehurst” they are not “setup” for a major; and (4) the tours already implement MLRs in their tournaments that most amateurs aren’t even aware of in their recreational play. Plus golf courses can implement MLRs that elite competitions would never use. For example, MLR: E-5 “Alternative to Stroke and Distance for Lost Ball or Ball Out of Bounds” which basically gives the player the option to take relief in the fairway and take a two-stroke penalty rather than going back to the tee (or where they last played the ball). This local rule was designed to address slow play.

Only time will tell if these new standards in 2030 for conforming golf balls will actually negatively impact the regular amateur golfer but just the fact that the USGA and R&A are so blind to the impact this policy has on the perception of the governing bodies is disconcerting. The majority of comments I have read online are filled with complete disrespect for the governing bodies. Basically, golfers express a view that the USGA and R&A are a bunch of “old guys stuck in another era.” It is interesting that even Tiger Woods has stated that he believes bifurcation is the way to go (and he gives the example of different bats used in professional baseball).

My reaction to the announcement was disappointment. I want to respect the governing bodies but time and time again they take actions that reinforce a lack of awareness of how golfers feel about the sport they love. On a strictly personal level, the idea that there might be the slightest possibility that I will lose distance in the future due to manufacturing limitations is very annoying. I am already losing distance as an “aging” golfer and need all the help I can get from forgiving equipment and golf balls made to travel far.

Now that I have had a few days to get over my gut reaction, I just hope that it really will be a non-issue for amateur golfers in 2030. For now, I’m not going to follow any more stories on rolling back the ball and I’m just going to focus on my game and get ready for the 2024 golf season.