The USGA and R&A announced changes Wednesday to its golf-ball testing that will impact, to varying degrees, everyone from world No. 1 Scottie Scheffler to the weekend hacker.
The universal ball rollback, designed to help curb distance gains at the elite level and make the game more sustainable long term, will begin in 2028, with the recreational game following suit two years later.
The sport’s distance crackdown is a polarizing issue, especially with more Americans playing golf than ever before, according to a study by the American Golf Industry Coalition.
So, let’s dive into what, exactly, governing bodies are doing – and most importantly, why:
What are the USGA and R&A announcing here?
Technically, they’re changing the way they test golf balls. The current overall distance standard testing calls for 120 mph clubhead speed (which translates to a 176 mph ball speed), 10 degrees of launch angle and 2520 rpm. That is set to change, with the USGA pointing to its data that shows the top 25 players on the PGA Tour average 183 mph ball speed.
And so, that will be the new standard for testing purposes, beginning in 2028: 183 mph ball speed, 125 mph clubhead speed, 11 degrees of launch and 2200 rpm.
The USGA estimates about 30% of golf balls used today would conform to this new standard in 2028, but none that are used at the highest level. That means that the most popular equipment manufacturers’ current models would be deemed nonconforming by the new rules.
OK, so what’s that mean for the Scotties and Rorys and Rahms of the world?
That in four years, they’re going to be playing a golf ball designed to travel shorter.
The USGA estimates that the fastest-swinging players – such as the players mentioned in the question – will be impacted 13 to 15 yards.
For the average elite male (the Tour average is 115 mph), it could be closer to a 9-to-11-yard reduction in distance.
Because so much depends on swing speeds, there will be incremental decreases in yardages as shorter clubs are used. But there should be no impact from the 5-iron down, even at the highest level, the USGA said.
And what about for the Nellys and Lexis of the world?
The USGA estimates a 5-to-7-yard loss off the tee for the average LPGA or LET player.
Only three players on the LPGA this season averaged more than 275 yards in driving distance.
But we’ve gotta get pinched, too?
The USGA said the impacts at the recreational level should be minimal.
Their estimates call for a 1-to-5-yard loss in distance, depending on a player’s equipment and swing speed (the average swing speed is 93 mph for male golfers and 72 mph for females).
Their argument is, essentially: Would you really be able to tell the difference between a 240-yard drive and one that goes 237?
Still, this seems silly. Golf is booming. Why even do anything now?
Well, for starters, it’s been in the works for a while – even before this recent surge in participation.
The last time the governing bodies addressed distance was 2003, and a closer examination into the golf ball has been ongoing for nearly six years through research, proposals, comments and revisions. It hasn’t exactly snuck up on anyone.
But USGA chief executive Mike Whan has made clear, on several occasions, that doing nothing was not an option; over the past 20 years, their research found that hitting distance has increased, on average, about 1 yard per year. Continued distance gains, Whan said, would become a significant issue for the next generation if not addressed soon – that the long-term trend of increased hitting distances and course lengthening threatens sustainability and reduces some of the game’s inherent skills.
But this seems like an issue for just the very, very small percentage of elite, Tour-level players, no?
Indeed, which is why, in March, the governing bodies initially proposed a Model Local Rule (MLR) that would give elite competition organizers the option to use a rolled-back ball. Masters chairman Fred Ridley expressed his support for the proposal, but the USGA and R&A received significant blowback from the PGA Tour and PGA of America, among others, with both signaling that they had no intention of implementing the MLR. Tour commissioner Jay Monahan said that the MLR was “not in the best interest of the game.”
Could the governing bodies have forged ahead and potentially used the rolled-back ball in at least three of the majors, while not in every-week tour competition?
Sure.
But at a time when the elite game is more fractured than ever, that wasn’t an appealing option for them.
What’s the Tour saying now?
They don’t support the rule change, again.
In a statement, Monahan said that the increase in testing conditions to 125 mph is “disproportional to the rate of increase we see when analyzing PGA Tour radar data on launch conditions, using best practices for analyzing data.” He said a “more moderate adjustment is appropriate,” and that they’ll continue to share feedback with the governing bodies. Whan, however, said there was little desire to make more changes, more often – it’s unfair (i.e. more expensive) to manufacturers to keep moving the goalposts with ball testing.
The Tour reiterated that course setup, design and other competitive characteristics can “help mitigate the effects of distance while also providing the opportunity for a diverse skill set to succeed at the highest level.”
And so, now, EVERYONE is getting punished with shorter hitting distances?
During its six-month comment period, the governing bodies continuously received feedback that unification through a single set of equipment standards and rules was important – that players, manufacturers, recreational golfers all liked the idea of playing the same set of equipment as opposed to bifurcation.
The MLR, as written, also created a series of complications, the lines blurred between the events that would and wouldn’t use a rolled-back ball: In U.S. Open qualifiers? College events? At the AJGA level? All of a sudden, it became messy to regulate.
A uniform rollback was simpler to understand and implement. And, the USGA suggests, the effect will be minimal to recreational players.
Why target the golf ball at all? Why not scale back those behemoth driver heads?
This was a consideration early on, but the governing bodies pivoted to the ball instead.
The reason why the driver head wasn’t further explored had to do more with the recreational golfer than the elite professional.
Pros hit the center of the clubface far more frequently than a recreational player, and any change that makes it even harder to find the sweet spot increases the likelihood that an MLR would be needed – and that’s exactly what the golfing public just told the governing bodies they didn’t want.
Buried in the Wednesday announcement, the governing bodies said they will continue to look at the forgiveness of driver heads, particularly at the elite level, and how to better reward center strikes versus mis-hits. But they’re also cognizant of not making it more difficult for the everyday golfer.
“That is absolutely something we would not want to put in the recreational game,” said R&A chief executive Martin Slumbers, “because that would generally make the game much harder.”
What do the manufacturers think?
They don’t agree with the ultimate decision, but they accept it. The four-year window before implementation provides them adequate time to make the appropriate infrastructure, R&D and production creation changes necessary. Many have been testing rolled-back ball models for the past few years.
Their main beef?
That they don’t think it’s necessary – not right now, with the game so healthy, and not when other options could have mitigated the impact of increased distance.
“Over the course of the past couple years, we’ve seen more golfers come into this game than ever before, the energy around our sport is at an all-time high, participation rates are surging,” said TaylorMade president and CEO David Abeles, “and starting to move into a direction where we start to pull back on technical advancements and performance advancements, against the well-wishes of most golfers, to us is a difficult thing, and that’s why we sit on the other side of this debate.”
This feels like more of a golf-course architecture issue than equipment. Why not just make some course-setup tweaks?
If the solution is to grow the rough, pinch the fairways and plant more trees at every course … doesn’t that impact a recreational golfer’s enjoyment more than – at most – a five-yard loss in distance off the tee?
Won’t the elite player just find a way to make up any sort of lost distance?
Probably, and the governing bodies are expecting that. Counting on it, even. The top-tier players are optimized machines; through TrackMan, fitness, nutrition and swing theory they should be able to recover any marginal distance losses.
Keep in mind this change doesn’t take effect for four more years – that’s practically an eternity in golf, and they’ll continue to innovate, to get bigger, stronger, faster.
“I agree that in the next 15 or 20 years we’re probably going to be right back to the same distance we are today,” Whan said on Golf Channel. “But that’ll be considered a huge success and a win for the game. The difference to that, in doing nothing, is that in 15, 20 or 25 years from now, we’re another 20 to 25 yards longer and creating a problem we really can’t fix in a short or longer term.”
They said they’re trying to curb the distance boom – not kill it.
English
French
German
Italian
Japanese
Spanish