We know Bryson DeChambeau does things differently, but every now and then he reveals a nugget of information that serves as a reminder of just how different.

During the US Open at Pinehurst No.2, a member of the media asked him about floating his golf balls in Epsom salt before putting them in play. Here was his response:

The post Bryson DeChambeau floats his golf balls in Epsom salt. Here’s why appeared first on Australian Golf Digest.

In our robot testing, conducted by the independent clubfitting chain Cool Clubs, golf balls with urethane covers preferred by tour pros averaged 30 to 50 percent more spin on a 40-metre pitch shot than balls with non-urethane covers. In distance terms, that could mean as much as 13 more feet of rollout with a non-urethane ball, affecting your ability to stop the ball near the hole.

What does less check on a pitch shot really mean for an average golfer? When we reference that 13-foot difference, we’re basing this on a flat green, using the simulation software created by Foresight Sports, manufacturer of the GCQuad launch monitors. If a green has some slope on it, missing that ideal landing spot for a chip shot with a non-urethane cover ball could lead to misses of even more. Conversely, if a golfer doesn’t own a certain deftness to his or her short game, or if the stock short-game shot is almost always a bump-and-run shot, then a ball with a non-urethane cover might provide sufficient performance.

Do average golfers know the difference between a urethane and non-urethane golf ball cover?

We put a group of 25 random golfers to the test: https://t.co/OCdJJZGZRC pic.twitter.com/hR9DysRjti

— Golf Digest (@GolfDigest) July 27, 2021

When Golf Digest ran a test with average golfers, less than half could tell the difference between a non-urethane cover ball and a urethane cover ball. Still, 93 percent of the better players (lower than a 5-handicap), saw the spin advantage of urethane-cover balls, and many said they had to change their shot type to get the non-urethane balls to stop close to the hole. Urethane covers have the capacity to check thanks to a generally softer material that the grooves on your wedge can grab compared to an ionomer or Surlyn cover material that leads to the ball sliding up the face. A ball with a urethane cover allows for a more aggressive chipping or pitching motion on shorter shots to produce the spin that gets the ball to check.

That same kind of shot with a non-urethane cover ball will produce a higher, faster flight, and the ball will tend to bounce forward rather than spin. Of course, it’s also true that a player could control non-urethane cover balls by hitting a different type of shot, but as many of the low-handicap golfers that participate in our testing have told us, it’s simply harder to hit those shots and calculate the unpredictable rollout of some non-urethane cover balls.

Cover story : Urethane balls help make greenside shots more precise

Now, do all non-urethane cover balls woefully underperform compared to urethane cover balls? No. In our testing, some non-urethane cover balls might have 5 to 10 percent less spin than the lowest-spinning urethane cover balls. We even saw instances of a non-urethane ball producing marginally more spin than a urethane ball. But here’s the thing: the vast majority of the time, non-urethane balls had a standard deviation in spin that was on average 50 percent higher than that of the urethane balls, and in some cases was double or triple. In other words, the best non-urethane balls could generate spin but not the highest and not consistently.

In the end, we still think the advantages of urethane cover balls are consistent, reliable and proven. Regardless of your ability, urethane cover balls provide the greatest opportunity to max out the performance potential of any short-game shot, all without sacrificing the kind of distance any player would notice.

The post Urethane versus non-urethane golf balls: What our robot test revealed appeared first on Australian Golf Digest.

[PHOTO: Darren Carroll/PGA of America]

PGA of America president John Lindert said the quiet part out loud when it comes to the golf ball rollback that the R&A and USGA have slated to take effect in 2028: namely, that average golfers might not abide by it. At least initially.

Speaking beside chief executive Seth Waugh and director of championships Kerry Haigh on Wednesday (Kentucky time) at the PGA Championship during the PGA of America’s pre-tournament press conference, Lindert laid out his prediction for what he believes will happen during the early stages of a new standard that could rollback golf ball performance at the elite level by 15 yards. Under the plan, the rollback standard would apply to all balls on the conforming list in 2028, although there would be a grace period where previously conforming balls would be grandfathered until 2030 but only for recreational, non-elite level play. That led Lindert to predict a run on the old golf balls in 2028.

“From my perspective, I have said this kind of half-heartedly and half-jokingly, but from my perspective, as somebody that owns a golf shop, I’m probably going to sell a boatload of golf balls in 2028, and my members are going to store them until 2036, and they’re going to continue to play them,” said Lindert, the director of golf at the Country Club of Lansing in Michigan. “I know my membership. I know what they will do.”

Lindert’s voice highlighted the potential, and as-yet-unaddressed, uncertainty surrounding the rollback. The R&A and USGA have been resolute in analysing the role distance has continued to play in the elite men’s game and firm in announcing the rule change late last year. That announcement was especially noteworthy for adopting a universal rule rather than a bifurcated set of standards for elite and recreational golfers after hearing objections from several constituencies, including the PGA of America. Essentially the change in the robot conformance standards to a faster club head speed (from 120 to 125 miles per hour) would result in a 15-yard/14-metre distance loss for the fastest swing speeds.

PGA Championship 2024: PGA of America CEO on the ‘messy’ state of pro golf: ‘It’s doing damage to the game’

That decision, however, set in motion was a staggered implementation between 2028 and 2030. In addition to all new balls having to meet the new standard starting in 2028, elite events would be contested with a rolled back ball. Meanwhile, previously conforming balls would still be acceptable for recreational play through 2030.

That puts club pros in many cases the arbiters in deciding what balls will be OK at their courses between 2028 and 2030 – and, based on Lindert’s comments, well beyond that date. It’s not a situation that Waugh wants the men and women in his association to have to resolve, but they may not have a choice.

“We were pretty public at the time and continue to be that we didn’t want to do anything that would disrupt the momentum we have in the recreational game,” Waugh said, indicating that he was happy that the test speed was reduced from 127 to 125 and that the implementation was delayed several years. “We totally understand what the USGA and R&A are trying to do, which is protect the game for the next 50 years, and respect that. We also don’t always have to totally agree on everything. We are very thankful that they went from bifurcation, which we thought would be a disaster. It would have created chaos, and our 30,000 members would have been on the frontline of trying to police that, which is, you know, a very tough position. You don’t want your head pro to be checking people’s balls on the first tee. It’s just not a very pleasant thing to have to do, right? We are thankful that they went to one rule for all, which we agree with.

“Are there still conversations going on within the industry? Yeah. It’s a hard issue. Nobody really knows if we are reaching human limits at this point or not, or whether we are reaching technology limits or not. But our perspective was anything that would make the game harder and less fun is probably not something we are for, while we are finally having the moment of growth that we have begged for forever.”

With a shorter golf ball likely, the golf industry is worried about its long game

Lindert’s assertion, though, certainly raises the possibility that manufacturers are going to have to choose a strategy about how to break down their business once the rule changes. Will some or all of them continue to develop balls that adhere to the old standard, setting in motion a scenario where non-conforming golf balls become a standard product in pro shops? If major manufacturers decide to only make balls that conform to the new standard, will smaller manufacturers look to undercut them by making and selling the old-rule balls?

That scenario of non-conforming products selling equally with conforming products is anathema to the way the game has existed for much of its modern existence. The two-year grace period could just as likely fuel the instability as resolve it. And while Masters chairman Fred Ridley was just as clear that his tournament would embrace the rolled-back ball, the PGA Tour has yet to take a similar stand.

Of course, it’s also worth noting the USGA maintains that the effect on the recreational golfer’s driving distance will be minimal, perhaps only a few yards/metres.

All of that global instability of the rollback rule means the court of local opinion could be the most heated. Of course, the judges of that jurisdiction are the PGA of America members Waugh is most concerned about. For his part, he remained hopeful that the rollback will not hurt the game more than it helps it.

“It’s far enough out where I’m not sure that we will know, and I do think that players will adapt,” he said. “The very best will figure out this new ball and figure out how to hit it further than I certainly do. Again, I think our biggest fear is for that part of the game that is growing, are you going to sort of disrupt that, for one-half of one-half of 1 percent that are out there, right? We are glad that it’s one rule, and the game is going to be bigger than any of this. We can all argue about it, but the game is going to be fine, you know, both recreational and I think professionally, as well.”

MORE GOLF DIGEST PGA CHAMPIONSHIP COVERAGE

The post PGA of America president says rollback could lead to run on golf balls set to become non-conforming appeared first on Australian Golf Digest.

[PHOTO: Julio Aguilar]

A cynic might say that golf could always use a little more colour, and, accordingly, Peter Malnati, the winner of the Valspar Championship today, prevailed using a yellow golf ball for the right reason.

“Well, I started using it in Minnesota at the 3M Championship last [July],” he said. “And the reason I switched to it is because my, at the time, 3-year-old, who is now 4, liked them. And so, he’s kind of over it now, but it still makes me think of him, and that’s worth a smile or two, which is worth a lot out there for me.”

The clubs Peter Malnati used to win the 2024 Valspar Championship

Malnati, 36, closed with a four-under 67 to win by two strokes over Cameron Young at Innisbrook Resort’s Copperhead course in Palm Harbor, Florida. The victory was the second of his PGA Tour career, the first coming at the Sanderson Farms Championship in 2015.

Incidentally, he isn’t the first to win on the PGA Tour using a coloured golf ball. Jerry Pate began using orange golf balls in 1980 and won three times with one, including the Players Championship (then called the Tournament Players Championship) in ’82. Wayne Levi, meanwhile, also won with a yellow ball.

The post The heartwarming reason why Valspar Championship winner Peter Malnati uses a yellow ball appeared first on Australian Golf Digest.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: TaylorMade rolls out the new SpeedSoft golf ball, a two-piece design that features the company’s first foray into sub-50, low-compression technology. Almost as intriguing as its soft inside is its aggressive outside. While available in both white and yellow options, the company’s proven commitment to visual and aesthetic enhancements to golf ball looks will now add SpeedSoft Ink to the lineup. It features an array of splash pattern colour options on top of the two-piece, low-compression SpeedSoft technology.

PRICE & AVAILABILITY: SpeedSoft and SpeedSoft Yellow golf balls are available at retail across Australia from today for $34.99 per dozen. SpeedSoft Ink is also available from today, for $39.99 per dozen.

3 COOL THINGS

1. Soft touch. The data on lower compression golf balls and average golfer preferences is clear: softer wins. A recent survey of avid golfers by Golf Datatech showed that two-thirds were interested in playing a low-compression or soft-compression golf ball, and the player group most likely to benefit from more from value-priced, low-compression golf balls is also the most interested in playing them. The Golf Datatech surveys shows about 80 percent of those with handicaps of 15 or higher expressed interest in playing softer compression golf balls. Enter SpeedSoft, the first TaylorMade ball with a compression under 50. For perspective, while there are other balls on the market with compressions lower than 50, SpeedSoft’s compression rating is about 25 percent lower than TaylorMade’s softer tour-level urethane ball, the TP5, and also would be lower than the company’s most recent ionomer entry, the three-piece Soft Response.

2. Power play. Making a golf ball with a lower compression seems no more complicated than deciding to manufacture a softer mattress over a firmer mattress. For certain players, most golfers in fact, prefer a softer feeling golf ball. But the hazard of reducing compression is losing the resiliency in the core. A Nerf ball is soft but you’re not going to hit it very far. The challenge in a golf ball is to take the softer compression, which satisfies the feel preference of most average golfers, and engineer it to rebound like a firmer core. SpeedSoft uses what the company is calling “PWRCORE” to make that happen.

“PWRCORE is an extra-large, super-low compression core that allows us to create incredible feel and also maximise the velocity,” said Mike Fox, TaylorMade’s senior global category director for golf balls.

3. Inked up. TaylorMade has been pushing the boundaries of visual technology and aesthetic customisation in its golf balls since the introduction of the Pix alignment feature in its TP5 balls five years ago. There have been a steady stream of new Pix versions and next-level novel customisation programs like MySymbol ever since, and while TaylorMade also has produced yellow versions of its popular models in the past, SpeedSoft will offer a dramatic departure. The SpeedSoft Ink uses a modern-art style splatter of colour (red, blue, green, pink) to jump off the white base. Fox believes in the mission of non-traditional looks, particularly to appeal to the growing number of newer and younger golfers.

“We’re spending millions of dollars because we feel that it’s worth it as a way to allow golfers to do something they haven’t had abilities to do before,” Fox said, noting the extreme investment TaylorMade has made in the colour, optics and customisation manufacturing technologies. “We like that it’s a difficult challenge. But this is finding new ways to change the marketplace, and it’s not always going to be the easiest path because if it was the easiest path, the leader probably already would have done it. You have to kind of find something that has some market interest, be able to find that space and then grow that space. And that’s really what what this is.”

The post TaylorMade SpeedSoft, SpeedSoft Ink golf balls: What you need to know appeared first on Australian Golf Digest.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: The TaylorMade TP5 and TP5x tour-preferred multilayer urethane-cover balls use a new rubber formulation in the core to create more speed with a better sound and feel. The revised five-layer construction now creates a greater separation between the softness of the core and the firmness of the outer mantle. Designers say that difference is crucial to yielding a better combination of low driver spin with high wedge spin.

PRICE & AVAILABILITY: $84.99 per dozen, in white and yellow. Also offered in an updated Pix visual graphic technology version for both TP5 and TP5x. Available at retail across Australia now.

3 COOL THINGS

1. The feel of speed. There’s a reason you never hear long-drive guys talk about the feel of a golf ball. They’re only interested in golf ball designs that emphasise speed to the exclusion of all other aspects. That’s generally a problem when you’re designing a golf ball for real golfers because the more resilience (speed) you put into the rubber core of the golf ball, the more it feels like, well, a rock. That’s where the TP5 and TP5x are looking to do something different. The cores utilise a new formulation (in simple terms, it’s less dense but just as energetic) the company is calling “Speed Wrap” that was developed with Dow Chemical. The result is the two designs can give the target players for each ball a new perception, what the company is calling “decoupling” speed and feel.

“We have a chemistry polymers group who’s looking at new rubber compounds and mixing different compounds together, different ingredients, and sometimes you find something that comes out of it like, ‘Oh, wow, this is kind of interesting, something’s happening here,’” said Josh Dipert, TaylorMade’s director of golf ball research and development, who compared the Speed Wrap’s function to that of the Speed Foam in the company’s P•790 irons. Dipert said just as the fill in the hollow iron allowed the faster-flexing face to feel better, so too does the Speed Wrap layer on the new TP5 and TP5x golf balls.

“Typically the ‘5’ guy is always going to focus on feel first and the ‘X’ guy is always going to focus on speed first, but with this technology it gave us the opportunity to increase the speed for the ‘5’ guy and maintain the feel, while the ‘X’ guy is going to get better feel than we were able to get him in the past when we were just pushing for more speed.

“Ultimately, what we’re doing is getting closer and closer to a ball that, depending on what attribute you make a priority, doesn’t have to compromise.”

2. Separate ways. TaylorMade’s golf balls for the past 15 years have taken up a unique position with their five-layer construction. Those layers are designed to optimise performance throughout the bag, activating differently based on the degree of impact ranging from the extreme of a driver to that of a mid-iron to the way the cover reacts with the firmest outer mantle for short-game spin.

In the new TP5 and TP5x, those layers are distinctly different compared to past versions and feature a new level of progressive firmnesses to create a larger gap, or separation, between the stiffness of the core and the stiffness of the outermost mantle layer. The greater that difference, the theory goes, the greater range can be created between lower spin off the driver and higher spin off the wedges.

“They go from a core compression of 5 to a firmness level in the 90s,” said Michael Fox, TaylorMade’s senior director of product creation for golf balls. “What happens when you have that large a speed gradient is these layers are now truly performing like completely different products.”

3. Dealer’s choice. While there are two primary offerings in the line-up, the TP5 and TP5x come in an array of visual offerings that is nearly limitless, including the company’s alignment format known as Pix, as well as yellow and personalised options through TaylorMade’s MySymbol program.

The TP5 is the softer of the two models, with the TP5x flying higher but with a flatter trajectory and spinning less on tee shots while offering the most ball speed off the driver and irons. The TP5 will offer less spin off the tee than in previous versions but remains the higher spinning around the green of the two models.

The Pix alignment graphic now features a diamond shape and a longer centreline to further facilitate aiming. TaylorMade’s groundbreaking customisation options through MySymbol include a USA palette, 22 collegiate logos and 20 retail-exclusive designs.

The post TaylorMade TP5, TP5x golf balls for 2024: What you need to know appeared first on Australian Golf Digest.

As he makes his 2024 season debut at this week’s Genesis Invitational (his first official PGA Tour start since ankle surgery last April), all things Tiger Woods will be the primary topic of discussion. That includes his equipment, which will include his first go in competition with Bridgestone’s latest version of its Tour B X golf ball.

Golf Digest equipment editor E. Michael Johnson had the opportunity to ask Woods about his ball-testing process, how he mimics tournament conditions when practising at his home in Florida and where amateurs are missing the mark with their ball choice. Here’s what Woods had to say.

We’ve discussed your golf-ball preferences in the past and you’ve said you pretty much want all the spin you can get and it’s your job to take it off. The Tour B X, however, is not the ‘spinniest’ ball in the Bridgestone line. What’s changed or what trait does the X give you that the XS did not?

It’s important to get fit for a golf ball and to continue to check your fit as your situation changes. In the past, I wasn’t as concerned with [driver] distance as I was with short-game spin. But these days, I want some extra pop off the tee, and the X provides eight to 10 more yards at times. The new Tour B X also spins quite a bit more on short shots than past models.

You’ve spoken in the past about how important it is to you that the ball be in a very specific window when you look up from a shot. Does the X fit that window or have you had to adapt to what you like to see?

When we talk about this, what we are talking about is a consistent ball flight and a trajectory that accomplishes the style of play I want to use. With the Tour B X, the launch is a touch lower, however with the higher ball speed the overall change of the apex of the shot or window is very negligible, which is nice because this was a contributing factor to a easy transition.

With a shorter golf ball likely, the golf industry is worried about its long game

What is the level of importance in your process for evaluating a ball: driving, iron play, shot-making, short game, putting?

When going through the ball-fitting and transition to the Tour B X, the ball speed and driver performance are what initially got my attention. Then it was time to put the ball through the paces with the other clubs. What Bridgestone has done, coupling distance off the tee with greenside control, is really remarkable. I find that we aren’t sacrificing one area for the other as much as we used to.

Do you miss the ball you played in the mid-1990s? If so, why, and have you gone back and tried any old balls?

It’s such an interesting conversation, and yes, the equipment has changed but so much else has also. You look at athleticism, player conditioning, course setup and equipment advances, it’s such a different game now than when I was coming up. More forgiving equipment options have become available over the years, but depending on how you want to set up your bag, shot-making and workability are still a big part of the equation. I have all of my old gear and will occasionally mess around with it at the house for nostalgia, but what you see me putting in play any given week is what I know is the best setup for my game at that moment.

What’s your process for testing golf balls and how much involves a launch monitor versus what you see/feel and how has that changed over time, if at all?

Before launch monitors it was all about feel and using your eyes to gauge how the ball was performing. Now, I use my Full Swing launch monitor for dialling in distances and getting an accurate picture of how a ball performs on longer shots. For approach shots and shots around the green, it’s still much more about feel and using your eyes than a launch monitor. What works out great for my testing is while I am personally relying on feel and my historical preferences, Bridgestone is there getting data to benchmark and double-check what I am seeing.

Once I’ve completed my range work the final check is to see how the ball performs on course, particularly on scoring shots and around the greens. It can be tough to mimic tournament conditions at home but that’s what we have done in Jupiter. We have a nice group that we can play with to get the adrenalin flowing to really see how new gear is working when put through a real stress test. Once we get the reps in at home and know the ball not only performs but performs consistently then I know it’s ready for tournament play.

Your launch angle has changed over the years – you launch it higher now. Does that affect what you’re looking for in a ball off the tee?

We’re all trying to get the ball in the air with low spin to maximise distance, and the Tour B X is designed to work exceptionally well with that type of launch. It’s a different game than when I was coming up and the balls are different. We used to launch it low because the spin of those balata balls would cause them to climb so much. What Bridgestone has done with the dimples and manufacturing has allowed us to design a ball that has a great trajectory but also doesn’t balloon or get away from us, especially in the wind.

Bridgestone Tour B golf balls: What you need to know

Have you tried the Mindset version of the Tour B X? If so, what are your thoughts?

Mindset is a really interesting marking and concept for all players. It’s a technique that Jason Day has found success with, but for me I think the bigger lesson is all players can benefit from a more purposeful approach to executing shots on the course. The best players in the world all have solid pre-shot routines since it’s almost impossible to compete under pressure without one. Amateurs almost never have a good pre-shot routine, so Mindset will help them quite a bit, if they use it consistently by clearing thoughts and distractions and letting the inner athlete make the swing.

You’ve played in countless pro-ams. What’s the biggest mistake everyday players make in their ball choice?

Amateurs tend to think they’re better than they are, swing faster than they do and assume they hit it longer than is realistic. With clubs they use too little loft, shafts that are too stiff and are less forgiving than they need. When it comes to the golf ball, they don’t take fitting seriously and often just pick the model their favourite player likes. They would be better off with a more forgiving golf ball with a softer compression that fits their swing speed. Forgiveness is your friend, use it to your advantage.

The post How Tiger Woods tests golf balls – and the big mistake amateurs make finding the right ball appeared first on Australian Golf Digest.

[PHOTO: Getty Images]

As a piece of information that makes me as uncomfortable as proud, more than half the years of my life has included a week at the PGA Show. The annual industry convention in Orlando, Florida, the last week in January has forever been a hallmark event in the insiders’ golf calendar, and while it has hiccupped a little during the past decade as manufacturers tried to figure out various cost-benefit analyses of why the show works or doesn’t work from a business standpoint, last month’s event seemed as buzzy and busy as it has been in years.

Maybe that was just the fulsome show-floor chit-chat that comes from the industry’s realisation that golf’s pandemic bump has not receded. Rounds played were up again in 2023, and while equipment sales revenue tapered somewhat in 2023, the overall numbers are still well above pre-pandemic levels. Or maybe it was the enthusiasm that reached near fever-pitch for simulator golf. The data isn’t entirely clear but some in that corner of the sport are saying more rounds in the US were played indoors than outdoors for the first time in history. True or not, navigating your way around the booths of Golfzon or Uneekor or Rapsodo or Skytrak or Foresight Sports or TrackMan were reminiscent of the funnel cake stand at a state fair.

Or maybe something else was at work, more electric, more foreboding. With the R&A and USGA making it clear that the golf ball will be rolled back in 2028 for elite golf and in 2030 for all other golf by means of an increase in the golf ball testing speed to 125 miles per hour, manufacturers’ excitement with their new lines seemed oddly mixed with a simmering uncertainty over the future of innovation – and, of course, the monetisation thereof. While the ruling bodies’ position on rollback seems set in stone, equipment companies seem to be standing on a promontory less secure. When I walked up on one old golf ball R&D wizard, he was extolling how long it took to develop what would be this year’s elite tour-played models. “This was a good four-year process,” he said as I nodded and then mouthed what he probably already was immediately thinking. “So, I guess that means you need to be starting on that ball tour players will need for 2028 about now.” His gulp was audible, tinged with what sounded to me like equal parts realisation, resignation and defiance.

That’s right, there is still a sense in the golf industry that the new rule for golf balls is not yet a done deal. Or at least not settled law, to borrow a phrase from jurisprudence, which of course may play some role in the rollback at some future date. You see, for all the enthusiasm the golf industry feels right now, there is always the anxiety that something will come along and knock golf back into 2008, or some other stretch of economic malaise. The rollback is no psychotic episode. This panic attack is real. It was Topic A in a closed-door meeting of manufacturers held the week of the show, where the very valid point was raised that a stipulated shorter golf ball, just like all equipment rules, is not exactly a mandate. Any manufacturer, large or small, can do whatever it wants, even if in the past, non-conforming clubs and balls were a non-starter. When Callaway, the game’s most talked-about brand at the turn of the 21st century, decided to break with the rules and introduce non-conforming drivers (the ERC and ERC II), it proved to be a failure that some argue took the company a decade to dig itself out of.

Will everyone go along with a rollback?

Two decades later, we are in a different time, and golf balls are a different category. As manufacturers met, the opinion was clear that even if all the major ball market leaders chose to make only balls that conform to the new rules, some other manufacturer would decide there would be a very legitimate business opportunity to make non-conforming balls. In other words, once someone continues to push balls that don’t go shorter, all manufacturers are going to have to go there. Those trading publicly seemingly would have a fiduciary responsibility to do so.

Golf Ball Rollback: Reverse Engineering

Lawsuits might be one avenue, of course. But that is messy and the law frankly might not be on the side of equipment companies. Even so, some of the smaller major manufacturers might be just fine with a ball rollback, thinking that it might present an opportunity to reset the marketplace. Those at the very top have seemingly everything to lose and not all that much, if anything, to gain. (Of course, an equal case can be made that the most played balls will still be the most played balls because for all their love of tinkering, uncertainty is generally not a constructive mode of operation for elite players. And why a leader in both sales and technology would feel threatened by any technical recalibration is understandable but, one would think, readily solvable.)

Still, there presents a third alternative beyond acquiescence and litigation, one that some leading manufacturers are pushing privately but stridently.

The R&A and USGA may make a rule, Augusta National may even decide to abide by it, as well, but there is no reason the PGA Tour would have to follow it. Hitting it shorter is hard to market. As one insider said, if the PGA Tour opted to play the rolled-back ball, it would immediately cede the appeal of the long ball to the rival LIV Golf league. Framework agreement or not, that’s not a sustainable choice in a sports/entertainment industry. It would be like if the NBA banned dunking and college basketball didn’t. From the standpoint of manufacturers, who seem rightly chuffed and emboldened by the new normal of successful numbers of the past few years, soliciting the PGA Tour to fight its fight with the ruling bodies seems a shrewder move. Maybe the PGA Tour can blow up the power of the R&A and USGA, or at least recast it. In a world where players and not bureaucrats carry the most power, a world where players are paid by equipment companies, couldn’t the PGA Tour be the biggest voice in the room and shut down a rollback?

Moreover, the PGA Tour could make a different (better?) case than the ruling bodies about where the data of distance is trending. It could point to how distance increases aren’t about the speed of the ball as much as they are the speed of the swings. For example, there are about twice as many players averaging clubhead speeds of more than 118 miles per hour today than a decade ago, and 49 players recorded speeds over 125 miles per hour last year, a six-fold increase from a decade ago. At the same time, given its new partnership with Arccos, the tour could cite much more definitive data than what the R&A and USGA have been reporting on where driving distance is trending for average golfers. (Spoiler alert: it is trending precisely nowhere.)

A pro game in flux has its own problems

Problem is, of course, the PGA Tour has its own messes to solve with the challenges of the framework agreement with PIF and how exactly it navigates the way forward with tournament sponsors, the Official World Golf Ranking and, well, the majors. And yes, the tour could choose to follow the lead of the majors and play the shorter ball. It would be a step towards more legitimacy that LIV would never take, making that tour even more pretend than it already is. But I’m not sure the PGA Tour makes decisions based on integrity anymore. Money has changed everything exponentially. At the same time, the PGA Tour must think about its audience. Not only might they not want to play shorter golf, they likely might not want to watch it all that much either. Conversely, if the tour decides that shorter golf is in the best interest of the game, perhaps they lead and all of golf will follow.

The point is, Jay Monahan, (read: Tiger Woods) is the tone-setter in the rollback debate. For now, the PGA Tour simply has only released a statement that some manufacturers say is a bit tepid – and of course, the ruling bodies would say is a bit soul-less. Instead, manufacturers would like the PGA Tour to throw its considerable weight around, rather than simply saying “we do not support the increase to 125mph, believing a more moderate adjustment is appropriate”.

The ruling bodies seem crystal clear in previous statements that there will not be a more moderate adjustment. (There might even be more severe adjustments in terms of model local rules restricting driver performance characteristics at some point in the future, but that’s a maelstrom for another day.) And of course, it goes without saying that golf doesn’t need another civil war, given the handful it’s already fighting that only seem to be leading to disinterest and oblivion.

Meanwhile, manufacturers, despite all their current enthusiasm, seem caught between what is and what will be. That success was fuelled largely by an event (the pandemic) it had no authority over. Its future success seems amazingly (disconcertingly?) even more outside of its own hands.

The post With a shorter golf ball likely, the golf industry is worried about its long game appeared first on Australian Golf Digest.

Lexi Thompson is one of the most compelling figures in golf. A 13-year veteran of the LPGA Tour, Thompson has won 11 LPGA Tour titles including the 2014 Kraft Nabisco Championship and 2018 CME Group Tour Championship. Starting in 2024, Thompson has signed an exclusive arrangement with Maxfli to play its ball, a move sure to raise some eyebrows as the 28-year-old LPGA star can clearly play any ball she chooses. In this exclusive interview with Golf Digest equipment editor, E. Michael Johnson, Thompson discusses her reasons for the switch, her process for testing and the biggest mistakes amateurs make when it comes to their golf ball selection.

Golf Digest: This is a really big switch, and obviously you could play any golf ball that you want. How long have you been testing the Maxfli ball?

Lexi Thompson: I’ve been practising and testing with it for the past few months. I was just looking for a change in my game, and I’ve always known about Maxfli and the quality of product they make and the performance behind it.

GD: What was the primary impetus for making the change?

LT: I was like, You know what, I’ll give it a try. And it just exceeded my expectations. I’ve seen my game around the greens improve and definitely some extra distance off the tee. I’ll take both those things.

GD: What’s your process for testing golf balls? Do you rely on launch-monitor data or is it more what you see and feel on the course?

LT: Definitely a combination of both. I’ve gotten on the launch monitor just to see the spin numbers. I saw improvement there as I’ve dropped down in spin, but it’s gained me a little extra ball speed. That’s a pretty good combo and that’s really what I was looking for. As far as ball testing, I usually love to test in 30 mile-per-hour winds, which you can get in Florida and elsewhere on tour. It’s important for me to see how the ball reacts, especially in the wind if it’s going to move as much as I feel that it should when hitting a solid shot. And the Maxfli ball reacts the way I expect a shot to. That’s big. Once I see that, then there’s the feel around the greens. It reacts and feels just how I expect it would when hitting a pure chip.

GD: I’ve written a couple of pieces with Tiger Woods about his equipment and on golf balls, he’s always told me his final sanity check is the trajectory on chip shots, which I find remarkable. Do you have kind of a final sanity check before you say, “I’m good to go with this”?

LT: The chip shot is a big thing because you want it coming out in the window that you feel that you’re hitting the chip on. You want it to react on the green the way you expect it to when hitting a nip chip. But I would have to say how it reacts in the wind, that’s definitely the most important aspect of a ball for me.

GD: Maxfli has multiple models in its Tour series, with the Tour, Tour S and Tour X. Did you test all the models and if so, what were some of the noticeable differences you saw?

LT: I tested the Tour and the Tour S. I didn’t see too much of a difference. A little difference in spin and the Tour S came off a touch higher around the greens, so I settled on the Tour model. They were both very good, but the Tour lessened my spin off the tee and gave me a few extra yards.

GD: Are you a player who likes to know all about the technology of a product or do you simply focus more on how it performs?

LT: Honestly, I can’t say I get too involved with that. Of course, I like to know the performance behind the golf ball and just how it’s very trusted with the technology that’s involved with it. It’s always nice to have that in the back of my mind. So while I’m not super into all the technology behind it, it’s very important to have that trust.

GD: Have you made any equipment changes during this period?

LT: I haven’t as of now, but I am in the transition of changing into the Cobra Darkspeed driver. It’s super important to test if you change to a new driver, especially change to a new driver and new ball. The driver might have a little less spin off the face, and I need to see if that matches up with the new ball, too. So, I did test that as well and it was still good off the new driver.

GD: You say you’ve gained a few extra yards. Have you had to recalibrate any of your distances or make any other adjustment?

LT: The yards off the tee you just take, but I also have to be aware I’m one or two yards longer with the irons as well. It’s also a little bit of a lower ball flight, which I really like. It not only behaves better in the win but comes out in a better window for me.

GD: You play in a lot of pro-ams. What’s one of the biggest mistakes you see everyday players make with their golf ball choice?

LT: It depends on the player. A pretty decent golfer, I feel like some of them don’t get the spin numbers matched up with their swing speeds and launch conditions, which is super-important. I feel like a lot of people don’t take that into account and they should. You might feel like you hit a good shot and it doesn’t go the distance that you think it should or it moves a lot in the wind and that could just be a matter of a too high spinning golf ball. People don’t realise how important the golf ball is in golf.

The post Why Lexi Thompson is switching to a Maxfli golf ball and what amateurs overlook in choosing a ball appeared first on Australian Golf Digest.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: Bridgestone’s latest version of its Tour B line of golf balls offers four versions: the X, XS, RX and RXS. The X and XS target players with driver speeds faster than 105 miles per hour, and the RX and RXS aim for those swinging slower than that. Each uses what the company refers to as “Reactiv X”, which combines impact modifiers the company refers to as “Reactiv iQ” with a denser mid-layer to alter the performance attributes of each ball.

AVAILABILITY & PRICE: The new Bridgestone Tour B line will be in stores from February 16. Stay tuned for Australian pricing.

3 COOL THINGS

1. Add the XCLRNT. In its last iteration of its Tour B line of golf balls, Bridgestone revamped its use of impact modifiers with what it referred to as Reactiv iQ.

Now that technology adds a denser “XCLRNT” mid-layer that acts as a backboard at impact to create even more spin around the greens. “This layer provides greatly improved resilience,” says Elliot Mellow, marketing manager for Bridgestone Golf. “That leads to more repulsion off the tee with the longer clubs but produces plenty of spin on the short shots. We’re optimising for each of the four individual models.”

Mellow likes to talk about the new balls in the sense of “contact science” – a concept borrowed from the tyre division. “Tyres are performance products and so are golf balls,” Mellow says. “It’s all about how we can get the most from the moment of impact on each shot.”

2. R&D from multiple sources. Bridgestone is part of a company that has 900 engineers and specialises in rubber products. Having a guy named Tiger Woods chiming in, however, doesn’t hurt, either.

“Any time you have Tiger Woods contributing to a golf ball design you’ve got a major advantage over the competition,” said Mellow. “Tiger’s insights give our engineers feedback that allows them to push the design envelope beyond what we originally thought was possible.”

According to Bridgestone, Woods played a significant role in developing the new Tour B balls, particularly the Tour B X, which he switched to from the XS model after ongoing sessions with Bridgestone ball fitters. His desire for a bit more distance off the tee led him to make the permanent switch.

3. Balls made for mere mortals. Sure, a lot of folks want to play the same ball as Tiger Woods. But you’re not Tiger Woods. While the Tour B XS and the Tour B X are for players with swings faster than 105mph, Bridgestone continues its heritage of also offering a pair of balls for those who swing at a little more leisurely speed.

The RX is designed to for distance with more than enough greenside control, while the RXS offers more greenside control with a quieter sound and perceived softer feel.

The post Bridgestone Tour B golf balls: What you need to know appeared first on Australian Golf Digest.