Roll Back Discussion

The uninformed (or sponsored) speculation doesn’t help the debate - do we know when we will get some proper facts and the usual sources will be able to do some independent tests and give us real world data as to how this will affect different swing speeds and amateur strikes?
So far I am hearing for ‘normal‘ golfers a spectrum from nothing at all to 10% and everything in between. Very difficult to form an opinion until we have proper information, the sooner, the better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjw
rksquire said:
Most sports try to move forward, Golf it seems is intent on taking backward steps. Course sustainability could be addressed by design, par amendments (a par 72 for mortals can be a par 69 for the elite), etc. Manufacturers have sold us all on the issue of distance, so hopefully there'll massive reductions on balls (& equipment) given most R&D will have surpassed future requirements. Even at our level ego plays a part - doesn't matter that a modern 7i is really an old school 6i or 5i, the perception is you hit that low lofted 7i a mile. If some reports are suggesting 5-10 yards shorter on every club, then I can see some at our club no longer being competitive - when you're taking a driver on some par 3s you can't really club up. When you're hitting a 3 wood over water on a par 5 to try and get a GIR, you'll likely be playing a minimum of 4 to get to the green. Rolling the ball back will prematurely age me by about 3 years!
Click to expand...
Forwards/backwards is borderline meaningless and an unhelpful simplification in this discussion.

The issue whether golf will be better or worse in the future, as a result of this change. Roll'back' is distracting to some who see back, as degradation. It is not necessarily the same. The R&A is adjudging back to be better. They are probably correct.
 
Backsticks said:
Forwards/backwards is borderline meaningless and an unhelpful simplification in this discussion.

The issue whether golf will be better or worse in the future, as a result of this change. Roll'back' is distracting to some who see back, as degradation. It is not necessarily the same. The R&A is adjudging back to be better. They are probably correct.
Click to expand...
Define better?

What are they supposed to be protecting?
 
D-S said:
The uninformed (or sponsored) speculation doesn’t help the debate - do we know when we will get some proper facts and the usual sources will be able to do some independent tests and give us real world data as to how this will affect different swing speeds and amateur strikes?
So far I am hearing for ‘normal‘ golfers a spectrum from nothing at all to 10% and everything in between. Very difficult to form an opinion until we have proper information, the sooner, the better.
Click to expand...
Very true. However, all the high-end estimates of potential distance loss are based on brand new premium tour balls - so not really applicable to most amateur golfers, and utterly irrelevant to anyone who plays whatever random old ball comes out of their bag.
 
BiMGuy said:
Define better?

What are they supposed to be protecting?
Click to expand...
You will find the definition in a dictionary.

My point is that some are over simplistically equating change to an unprecedented status as imorpvement, yet change to former status as backwards and disimprovement. This is not the case. Change to the distance characteristic of 1995 can indeed be improvement and a positive development. One can debate the last two points. But one cannot dismiss as reversion to a prior formula as by definition not advancement or not improvement. Many in this discussion are making that false connection.
 
wjemather said:
Very true. However, all the high-end estimates of potential distance loss are based on brand new premium tour balls - so not really applicable to most amateur golfers, and utterly irrelevant to anyone who plays whatever random old ball comes out of their bag.
Click to expand...
I take your point, although, perhaps for a multitude of reasons, I have not seen ‘normal’ amateurs gain appreciable amounts of distance using ‘brand new premium tour balls’ versus whatever they use normally. Players often cite better spin or ‘feel’ as to why they use ‘brand new premium tour balls’, getting 5 or 10% extra yardage versus ‘everyday’ balls doesn’t seem to happen.
 
D-S said:
I take your point, although, perhaps for a multitude of reasons, I have not seen ‘normal’ amateurs gain appreciable amounts of distance using ‘brand new premium tour balls’ versus whatever they use normally. Players often cite better spin or ‘feel’ as to why they use ‘brand new premium tour balls’, getting 5 or 10% extra yardage versus ‘everyday’ balls doesn’t seem to happen.
Click to expand...
When I've seen tests distance is not usually a major distinguishing factor between different balls, though there are some that are a bit shorter. Condition does seem to affect balls though it is generally heavily scuffed rather than lightly marked balls that suffer from it.
 
Orikoru said:
Sure - I've got my fingers crossed that it's simply a limit on maximum compression or something that genuinely won't affect us. I just find it baffling how many times I see people saying a loss of 10% of distance won't affect us as golfers when it quite plainly would. Even saw McIlroy saying it won't affect anyone's enjoyment to lose that much distance - what the hell would he know? Won't affect him of course but he's completely out of touch with the weekend golfer.
Click to expand...
Yes on an average 400 yd hole we would lose 40yds.
Thats four club lengths possibly five with the 10% loss to most of us.

But don’t forget there are 54 handicaps now to fall back on.😳
I can see the average going up quite a lot.
 
D-S said:
The uninformed (or sponsored) speculation doesn’t help the debate - do we know when we will get some proper facts and the usual sources will be able to do some independent tests and give us real world data as to how this will affect different swing speeds and amateur strikes?
So far I am hearing for ‘normal‘ golfers a spectrum from nothing at all to 10% and everything in between. Very difficult to form an opinion until we have proper information, the sooner, the better.
Click to expand...

The full announcement from R&A is expected tomorrow...we won't actually know full figures, I expect, until an actual ball is produced that meets the standards
 
clubchamp98 said:
Yes on an average 400 yd hole we would lose 40yds.
Thats four club lengths possibly five with the 10% loss to most of us.

But don’t forget there are 54 handicaps now to fall back on.😳
I can see the average going up quite a lot.
Click to expand...
Average distance loss genuinely attributable to a rollback ball on a 400 yard hole would probably be significantly under 10 yards given the ball people use now and how most people hit it.
The vast majority of golfers are losing a lot more than 40 yards just by using any random old ball, missing the fairway most of the time and mis-hitting at least one of their first 2 strokes.
 
I think I might set up a poll to see what type of golf balls people in this forum use. There seems to be a feeling by some that the vast majority of golfers hit any random old golf ball.
 
wjemather said:
Average distance loss genuinely attributable to a rollback ball on a 400 yard hole would probably be significantly under 10 yards given the ball people use now and how most people hit it.
The vast majority of golfers are losing a lot more than 40 yards just by using any random old ball, missing the fairway most of the time and mis-hitting at least one of their first 2 strokes.
Click to expand...
Is there any source for the information about the average distance loss?
Average drives for the Average golfer is significantly over 200 yds from R&A sources as this is the average it includes mishits etc.
Many keen golfers on this forum are better than average, many will use decent balls when appropriate.

I hope the R&A provide better information than this which appears somewhat patronising.
 
wjemather said:
Average distance loss genuinely attributable to a rollback ball on a 400 yard hole would probably be significantly under 10 yards given the ball people use now and how most people hit it.
The vast majority of golfers are losing a lot more than 40 yards just by using any random old ball, missing the fairway most of the time and mis-hitting at least one of their first 2 strokes.
Click to expand...
If your going to lose 10% it’s 40yds
I always assume the shots are hit properly.

But will it be 10% of a misshit ?
now were really guessing.
If your miss hitting badly it’s not going to matter what ball you use!
Truth is we don’t know yet.
it might be another secret and they won’t tell us, that would be funny.🤣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HomerJSimpson
Roll Up Group Handicaps
31 32 33
Replies
646
Views
33K
HomerJSimpson
HomerJSimpson
B
Spain (Murcia) October 2025 Trip Report
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Burnsey
B
Klimski
Honma TW XP-1 driver
Replies
7
Views
633
Orikoru
Orikoru
C
The difficulties in arranging golf holidays for groups. Spain or Portugal or somewhere else. Everyone has different opinions on the golf courses...
2 3
Replies
40
Views
7K
gopher99
G
MarkT
Limiting club length to 46 inches
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Crow
Crow
Top