Golf Ball Rollback: Justified or not?

Is there a distance crisis in golf? Should there be intervention or not? If so, how should it be done? The distance ‘creep’ that has haunted golf’s ruling bodies for the past couple of decades, finally received some push back in 2023. And it’s called the golf ball rollback. For professionals, it will take effect January 2028.

 

 

The countdown is on.

 

 

Post Golf Ball Rollback: Justified or not?

 

In 2024, for the first time in history the average driving distance on the PGA Tour broke the 300-yard mark with a tour average of 301 yards. Leading the way was Cameron Champ who averaged over 323 yards per drive, with Rory McIlroy at 320 yards. Golf’s authorities have acted. They have given their reasons, but how does this stand up to evidence. This article goes through six arguments made by the governing bodies why the golf-ball rollback is the right path to take.

 

Firstly, what is the golf ball rollback?

 

In March 2023, the USGA and R&A floated the idea of implementing a Model Local Rule ball for professionals and elite amateurs. Following strong opposition to the proposal, the governing bodies announced in December 2023 that the ball testing conditions would be revised for all golfers. The changes will go into effect for professional golfers in January 2028 and for amateurs in January 2030.

 

 

The testing procedures will be altered in order to roll back the golf ball. With a testing swing speed of 120 mph, a spin rate of 2520 rpm, and a launch angle of 10 degrees, golf balls are currently limited to a maximum distance of 317 yards (plus a 3-yard tolerance). For testing starting in 2028, the total distance will stay the same, but the swing speed will be increased to 125 mph with a higher launch angle of 11 degrees and a lower spin rate of 2220 rpm.

 

What does this mean?

 

Firstly, it means golf’s “bifurcation” – requiring professional and amateur players to use different equipment – will not proceed as initially planned. Manufacturers and the PGA Tour opposed the proposed changes. Secondly, it means driving distances (for the professionals at least) will revert to distances that were hit about 15 years ago.

 

 

Six Reasons for the Golf-Ball Rollback

 

The six reasons given by golf’s authorities for the golf-ball rollback are: protecting the integrity of the game; a sustainable future for golf; a one-game ethos; meeting environmental responsibilities; ensuring skill is the dominate element of success; and a minimal impact on recreational golfers.

 

There is no prioritisation or order of importance and each will now be addressed in isolation.

 

 

 

Golf ball Rollback Reason 1:

One-Game ethos

 

In 2023, Martin Slumbers, the then R&A chief executive, stated, “The measure we are taking has been carefully considered and calibrated while maintaining the ‘one game’ ethos deemed to be so important to the golf industry.” What does this ‘one game’ ethos actually mean? Firstly, all golfers, regardless of skill level, are currently subject to the same set of rules, which are overseen by groups like the USGA and R&A. Secondly, all golfers can play the same courses and use the same equipment as the professionals (though significant barriers do exist in gaining access to some course, for example, cost and playing ability).

 

The one-game ethos is deemed by the golfing authorities to be extremely important. However, were golf’s rule makers right to U-turn on the bifurcation? The goal of bifurcation was to modify the rules to accommodate the various requirements and difficulties that golfers of different skill levels encounter. Finding the right balance between adapting to the evolving needs of elite competition and the core of the game was the issue.

 

As already noted, significant barriers exist in accessing golf courses (just try booking a tee time at Augusta – let me know how you get on). Even if an amateur golfer plays the same course, they do not play from the same tees, so the course is not the same. But amateurs can use the same equipment as professionals? Rory McIlroy, who opposed the U-turn said and was in favour of bifurcation remarked, “Elite pros and ball manufacturers think bifurcation would negatively affect their bottom lines, when in reality, the game is already bifurcated… You think we play the same stuff you do?”

 

Whilst there’s an outside chance equipment could be the same, the best players in the world tend to play with customised shafts and club head characteristics tailored to the player’s unique swing. Therefore, courses and equipment are different between professionals and amateurs. Staying on equipment, that leaves one thing: the golf ball, which is a serious talking point. In recent tests, driving distances were not achievable using modern equipment and a 1980s golf ball but when 1980s equipment and a modern golf ball were tested little difference was found.

 

So, would a different golf ball for professionals really break the one-game ethos?

Interestingly, there is already an American sport that shows the answer to be No. The aluminium bat is permitted in all levels of competitive baseball. This isn’t the case in Major League Baseball (MLB), where traditional wooden bats are required. Wood is used for MLB baseball bats for several reasons, rooted in tradition, performance, and safety. Despite professionals playing a different bat and playing on different pitches (i.e., stadiums) than amateurs, it does not make baseball less of a one-game sport than golf.

 

The justification for a golf-ball rollback in order to preserve the one-game ethos seems to hinge on Theory vs Reality. Golf’s governing bodies are pinning the reason that golfers “could” play the same courses and “could” play the same equipment so in theory amateurs and professionals play the same game. In reality though, few golfers play the same courses (certainly not from the back tees) or play with the same equipment. Finally, there is growing discourse that believe a golf ball could be made to have a greater diminishing return for golfers with higher ball speeds (as they kind of do already). Overall, the one-game ethos reason is flaky at best.

 

 

Golf ball Rollback Reason 2:

Minimal impact on recreational golfers

 

This reason, or justification, for golf-ball rollback is relatively straight forward. The impact on driving distances from the new ball will vary depending on the skill level of the golfer. The average male touring professional is anticipated to lose 9-11 yards, the average female professional by 5-7 yards, whilst the longest hitters will lose 13-15 yards. The governing bodies say the impact on regular golfers will be “kept to an absolute minimum” and that recreational golfers will lose “5 yards or less.”

 

 

Given that the 5 yards or less figure is predicated on a swing speed of 93 mph for males and 72 mph for females, it stands to reason that slower swingers will lose less distance, and faster swingers will lose more. But why is it such a small impact on the ‘typical’ golfer? Perhaps, because the distance crisis only really exists at the very top end of the game. So, have golf’s governing bodies turned a small problem into a larger problem?

 

It is true that the golf-ball rollback is likely to have a minimal impact on recreational golfers. Golf is a hard game and should the average golfer be paying the price (i.e., loss of distance) because elite golfers hit the ball phenomenal distances. It appears this reason of a minimal impact on recreational golfers, is more a defence / justification for the proposal.

 

 

Golf Ball Rollback Reason 3:

Ensuring skill is the dominate element of success

 

This is a tricky – and interesting – one. Firstly, because golf’s governing bodies do not explicitly explain what skill(s) they are referring to and we are left to work it out for ourselves. (That’s if they know themselves.) Golf is commonly referred to a game of skill, luck and game management. Well, luck pretty much rides for free in all sport, and game management can fall under a “skill” too. Thus, golf is a game of skill. But what skills?

 

The skill to make a 6ft putt? The skill to read a green? The skill to hit the fairway? To make the most birdies? To hit the required shot under pressure? To hit a low, chasing hook around a tree from the rough? There are near endless skills needed to play golf. Now, to help narrow this down, skill in golf is to hit the ball accurately, consistently and with some gusto. Can this be narrowed even further to ensure that skill is the dominate element of success? Yes, it can.

 

Golf is a game that, typically, requires a player to get a ball around ‘x’ amount of holes in the lowest score possible. Logically, a more-skilled golfer will take fewer shots, and the most skilled golfer would take the fewest. Thus, the current, past and future skill of taking the fewest shots is not just the dominate skill but the only skill for success. Clearly, an oversimplification, but an important point remains: the word skill is used a lot in the golf-ball rollback debate, yet no specific skills are ever mentioned.

 

So, are golfers getting more skilled (at hitting fewer shots)? In the last 30 years, up to 2020 when the new handicap system came into effect, the average USGA handicaps for men improved from 16.3 to 14.4 ,with women improving from 29.7 to 26.1. The are so many reasons why handicaps might have decreased such as improved equipment, less and more serious golfers playing, the improved maintenance of courses etc. For professionals, the 1991 PGA Tour scoring average was 71.50, improving to 71.12 in 2016. Overall, are golfers getting more skilful? Hard to say from this.

 

Diving a little deeper into what golf’s governing bodies mean by “ensuring skill is the dominate element for success”, reveals perhaps a bit more. The table on left shows the correlation between the Top 100 players on the PGA Tour in 2024 scoring average and certain metrics (skills as such). For example, the skill of winning a tournament has the strongest [negative] correlation of -0.539. Meaning that the lower the average score of a golfer, the more likely they are to win a tournament (makes sense).

 

Data analysed from here.

 

In terms of golf specific skills, the skill of making birdies has the third highest [absolute] correlation, i.e., the more birdies a player makes, the lower their score is likely to be. Coming back to golf-ball rollback, let’s look how influential the driver skills are with scoring average. Driver distance has a very weak [negative] correlation (-0.175) with scoring average, thus the further a PGA Tour player hits it, a very small improvement in scoring average is likely. The skill of driving the ball straight (driver accuracy) has no correlation with scoring average, meaning that a player’s ability to hit a fairway has little, or no, influence on scoring average.

 

What probably hurts golf’s governing bodies is that in the nine skills listed above, driver accuracy is at the bottom for both its correlation with scoring average and the money list (another measure of success). Whilst this may seem surprising for some, remember that professionals and amateurs hole about twice as few putts (relative to themselves) when putting from 5ft to 10ft. Thus, the further away from the hole a golfer is, the less impact it has on the holes score. This can be extended all the way back to the tee box.

 

To try to find the most dominant skill in golf, strokes gained statistics give a more in-depth level of understanding of the game (read How Good is The Strokes Gained Metric?). Since the start of strokes gained data in 2004, Lou Stagner of Decade Golf has provided insight into the performance of winners in the four main strokes gained statistics: off the tee, approach, around the green, and putting. He analysed 464 individual stroke play events (with cuts) from 2004 to 2021.

 

And what was the most-dominant skill? The two best measures of success were iron play and putting. The results showed that 38.8% of winners were ranked in the top 5 in approach play in the week that they won the tournament. Similarly, 38.1% of winners ranked in the top 5 of strokes gained putting. Whilst strokes gained off the tee was not the lowest ranked skill needed to win, it was nevertheless only found to be roughly 34% as important as the putting and approach skills.

 

Image taken from @LouStagner post on X

 

Another way to measure success would be winning major championships. From 2017 to 2022, twenty-two major winners have been crowned. In SG: Putting, only two have placed in the top 20, and only one placed in the top 10 at the end of the season (Brooks Koepka, 2017). You can actually win a major even if you are not highly skilled at putting. In the last five years, four of the major winners have finished outside the top 150 for the season, and seven of them have won while ranked outside the top 100 in SG: Putting. So, the most dominant element of success is to be a very average putter…?

 

Secondly, that skill and speed are not well understood. What is even a skill? A skill is the ability to do something well or to perform a particular task. To run the 100 metres is a skill. To run it in 12 seconds is another skill. To run the 100 metres in 10 seconds is another skill. To run it in 9.8 seconds is (yes you guessed it) another skill. Doing a task at a different speed is a different skill. Someone running the 100 metres faster than someone else has another skill. Thus, in the sporting world we attribute the faster runner being more skilled.

 

Similarly in golf, if all else is equal, then a player who swings the club faster is a more skilful golfer. The point is that speed is a skill and speed in sport is very important. Athletes who are quicker, tend to be the better athletes. However, speed is misunderstood, especially in golf. Using the tables above, there is a moderate correlation (-0.592) between distance and accuracy on the PGA Tour in 2024. Thus, a player who hits it further is more likely to miss the fairway.

 

Nothing new there. Someone hitting the ball harder is likely to hit it less accurately. Movement variability is strongly influenced by speed. Increased speed puts more strain on the system, requiring more resources to achieve the primary task objective. The speed accuracy trade-off (SAT) theory describes how a person performing a skill will forgo speed for accuracy or vice versa. SAT theory suggests that increased movement speeds typically result in decreased movement accuracy.

 

When both accuracy (time or location) and speed (e.g., hitting a golf ball) are needed for the same task, it’s one of the more intriguing scenarios. According to new research (find link), moving with a speed emphasis in these circumstances improves a variety of movement characteristics, such as pattern, consistency, timing, and even location accuracy (depending on the skill). In actuality, studies have demonstrated that speeding up does not necessarily equate to loss of accuracy for a wide range of real-world skills. It might even make it better.

 

The golf-ball rollback appears on the surface to be trying to reduce the impact of the skill of driving the ball long. Yes, all players will be affected but the ones who hit it furthest will be affected the most, thus the advantage to hit the ball far is being diminished. Hitting the ball far, usually as a result of a faster swing speed, requires greater skill. Not only that, but the skill of calculating the risk and reward of an aggressive drive is also evident.

 

In another study, looking at sporting activities where more forceful movements offer greater rewards (such as a driver) but are more variable due to the risk involved. The study proposed that in risky conditions as opposed to less risky ones, people who are risk-averse should move more slowly, while those who are risk-seeking should move more quickly. The findings imply that movement results from a combination of the subjects’ risk sensitivity and speed-accuracy trade-offs. Thus, two golfers with a similar speed accuracy trade-off but different risk-taking attitudes will swing at different speeds of their maximum due to the risk and reward. Thus, the risk-seeking golfer may swing at 95% of their maximum speed whereas the risk-adverse golfer may swing at 85% of their maximum speed, even when both golfers loss accuracy at the same rate with their maximum speed.

 

Golf’s ruling bodies certainly failed to explicitly say which skill(s) they want to either maintain, or bring back, in order to be the dominant part of golfing success. This is further exacerbated when players like Rory McIlroy are also vague about which skill, “It will also help bring back certain skills in the pro game that have been eradicated over the past 2 decades”. Again what skill?

 

From the findings above, it appears that the skill of ‘finding the fairway’ is what golf authorities want to be more prominent in success. However, as shown, accuracy off the tee alone is not an important factor in scoring average. Strokes gained from tee to green are important (clearly, moving the ball hundreds of yards to a closer proximity to the hole than your competitions would certainly give you an advantage). Furthermore, the fact that equipment has played a significant role in players hitting shots from the rough must be highlighted.

 

The golf-ball rollback also appears, in isolation, not to be giving enough credit to skill level required to hit the ball long (and straightish) as well as the risk that is involved in taking on these shots. The constant risk and reward praise seems to fall on deaf ears. The reason for ensuring skill is the dominant element in success is wishy-washy. Crushing the ball off the tee is a skill and is not being given the credit it deserves.

 

There are so many skills in golf. Having a ‘hot’ putter for a tournament can often be the difference maker for a professional, yet as shown, to win a major recently on the men’s tour you don’t need to be a good putter for that year. So is that skill?

 

 

Golf Ball Rollback Reason 4:

Sustainable future for golf

 

Another reason for the golf-ball rollback is the sustainable future of golf. This reason is a little more explicit than the last, namely to reduce the impact of increased hitting distances. So, is there a driving distance problem?

 

Average Driving Distance on the Major Tours

Image taken from 2023 Distance Report.

 

Comparing the major professional tours—both men’s and women’s—shows that, from 2003 to the end of the 2023 season, the average driving distance for all the tours increased by about 4.0%. In 2023, the longest recorded averages were found on the Ladies European Tour and the PGA TOUR. As mentioned in the introduction, the 2024 season on the PGA Tour saw the tour average break the 300-yard mark for the first time at 301 yards, with Cameron Champ averaging just over 323 yards per stroke.

 

The Korn Ferry Tour – which is generally the “Premier pathway to the PGA TOUR” – boosts number one spot in terms of driving distance. Thus, the PGA Tour’s trend is even more likely to continue as new longer-hitting graduates progress onto it from the Korn Ferry Tour. There is no doubt that driving distances across all tours is trending to greater distances being achieved in the future. Something in the professional game does warrant action. Are these trends found in amateurs?

 

In their annual Driver Distance Report, Arccos reported the average golfer’s distance hasn’t changed much over the years, according to the data. Regardless of age or disability, the typical male today is driving the ball about 225 yards. The average female’s yardage is approximately 178 yards.

 

It is evident that there is a significant disparity between professionals and recreational amateurs when it comes to driving distance. Furthermore, contrary to what we frequently hear from manufacturers when they introduce new equipment, recreational golfers do not seem to be gaining distance year on year. The discrepancy is probably caused in part by how well-fitting golfers are to their equipment. A pro once said, if I truly gained 10 to 15 yards every time I got a new driver, I should be hitting it 700 yards by now.

 

The golf-ball rollback reason for a sustainable future by reducing the distances hit seems to tackle the elite game but disadvantages the recreational golfer as the latter does not hit it far enough nor are they experiencing a distance ‘creep.

 

 

Golf Ball Rollback Reason 5:

Meeting environmental responsibilities

 

The fifth reason for golf-ball rollback is that is enables golf to meet its environmental responsibilities. Again, without going onto explain specific responsibilities, it becomes a little vague once again as the term environmental responsibilities casts a huge net over such things as water, decarbonization, pesticides and organic golf, biodiversity, and multifunctionality.

 

One often cited argument is that golf courses are becoming longer and longer, and we don’t have the space to keep extending golf course length. Longer golf courses have been linked to various long-term effects, including the need for more water, the rising cost of remodelling or relocating features like bunkers and tees, and other issues. Taken at face value, it seems reasonable. So, are golf courses getting longer? In short, yes. As shown in figure below, over the last 130 years, golf courses globally have increased in length about 8.5 yards per year.

 

Global Golf Course Length

Image taken from here.

 

Over the long run, golf courses are getting longer. However, it must be pointed out that golf course length is measured from the back tees. And who plays from the back tees? Yes, you guessed it, mostly professionals. Sustainability is closely linked with efficiency and the back tees are barely played by recreational golfers. In was highlighted in the 2021 Arccos Distance Report for amateur golfers that ‘In general, golfers are not playing many long courses, but many golfers are still playing courses that are too long given their median driver distance.”

 

As discussed earlier, the trend of greater driving distances in the professional game is not found in the amateur game. Furthermore, amateurs play golf courses that are too long for how far they hit it. In order to encourage players to play from a set of tees that are most appropriate for their driving distance, the USGA and the PGA of America launched the Tee It Forward initiative (add link). Teeing it forward can be one of the most crucial things golfers do to increase the pace of play for all players, in addition to positioning players for more successful rounds (which is always more enjoyable). The knock-on effects for the environment are many.

 

Chart taken from 2021 Arccos Distance Report for amateur golfers.

 

The typical argument of golf courses needing to be over 7000 yards these days is misleading. From the chart above, the Arccos Distance Report shows that only 10% of golf rounds played by amateurs is over 6600 yards. Sustainability and efficiency are closed linked and this certainly questions the use of the whole golf course. Remember that a typical male today is driving the ball about 225 yards. The average female’s yardage is approximately 178 yards.

 

This equates to 47% of rounds played over 6200 yards for players with a median driver distance of 200 to 219 yards. Players with an average tee shot distance of 225 yards are advised by the USGA to play courses that range in length from 5800 to 6000 yards. Players who hit between 200 and 220 yards, however, are playing almost half of their rounds over 6200 yards.

 

In the Opportunity for Sustainability in Golf, written by Olivia White, each one of the above categories addresses a subject that is particularly pertinent to the sustainability conversation as it relates to golf, especially as it relates to golf course management and land use, but they are by no means exhaustive or mutually exclusive.

 

 

The reason of “meeting environmental needs” feels like the environmental card is just being played to justify the golf-ball rollback. Pretty much any decision made nowadays has an environmental element. Or certainly is advocated as green, though remember, negative impacts of decisions will rarely be advertised. In this case, golf courses have grown bigger, but that doesn’t necessarily mean more land needing to be purchased or watered. They are other alternatives, for example, start manicuring the fairway further away from the tee box. Ensuring golfers play from more suitable tee boxes would be a good start.

 

 

Golf Ball Rollback Reason 6:

Protecting the integrity of the game

 

The sixth and final reason for the golf-ball rollback is to protect the integrity of the game. R&A CEO Martin Slumbers (who left the role in 2024), had been far more clear at what the golf-ball rollback is for. He explained: “We’ve crossed the Rubicon with regards to where hitting distance is but more importantly where it is trending, and it’s our responsibility as governing bodies to propose change to protect the long-term integrity of our sport.”

 

The rollback will help protect the integrity of the game on two fronts. Firstly, that the longest drivers today will still be the longest drivers. Secondly, to make sure golf courses will still be in play in the next 20 to 40 years. USGA CEO Mike Whan added that, “The goal isn’t to set us back, but to slow the pace by which we’re obsoleting courses from hosting championships and qualifiers. This is governance in action.” Whan goes on to add that he is worried that the distance impact the rollback will have will only last 12 to 15 years before we’re back where we are now.

 

In his comments, Whan points to protecting ‘courses from hosting championships and qualifiers’. These competitions are for professionals and elite amateurs. There is no doubt that golf’s steep history of competitions being played at the same venues is a great tradition. So again, is this distance problem just a professional problem that bifurcation would have resolved?

 

 

Conclusion: how do you rate the golf-ball rollback?

 

The golf-ball rollback will introduce a new golf ball for professionals in 2028 and with amateurs following in 2030. Golf’s governing bodies have continually given six reasons as to why the rollback was needed: to maintain the one-game ethos; a minimal impact on recreational golfers; to protect the integrity of the game (by limiting driving distances); to meet golf’s sustainability needs; meeting environmental responsibilities; and ensuring skill is the most dominant element of success.

Golf ball rollback for amateurs countdown clock:

 

 

The Stat Squabbler says:

 

• The are clear differences between elite level golfers and recreational golfers. Distances hit are vastly different with only elite players’ driving distance improving consistently over the years. The real problem seems to be a relatively small number of top pros that hit the ball a mile.
• By ditching bifurcation, golf’s rule makers have seemingly spread the distance issue impacting elite golfers to all golfers, yet the problem doesn’t exist for recreational golfers.
• There are so many alternatives to making driving accuracy more relevant such as narrower fairways, longer rough, tougher pin positions, more danger by landing distances, smaller tees, softer/harder fairways etc.

 

The golf-ball rollback: do you think it was the right decision? Or would bifurcation have been better? Or another option…

 

Comment below.