How much distance will the golf ball rollback rule cost you? We tested it

Controversy and posturing have surrounded the USGA and R&A’s announcement that golf balls are expected to be rolled back in 2030 via a change in the distance test. It’s been the conjecture of some that average golfers would be unnecessarily penalized back to the days of balata balls and Sansabelt slacks. Others have no less lustfully suggested distance is the root of all evil and limiting equipment is long overdue. There has been scant middle ground.

The PGA of America and certain manufacturers are adamantly against the idea, suggesting as David Maher, CEO of Titleist, has put it, “existing golf ball regulation is effective, and rollback is unnecessary, and not in the best interest of golfers.” Philosophy aside, the rule isn’t so simple, he says. “We know and we’ll keep sharing this: High-speed players, high-launch players are affected one way, low-speed, low-launch, low-spin players are affected another way.”

Meanwhile, USGA CEO Mike Whan has been out pounding the streets to tell everyone that although the rollback will directly impact the distance elite professional male golfers hit the ball, average recreational players might not notice it at all, calling it “a nothing-burger.”

Of course, every one of these hot takes or reasoned theories about the ball rollback’s effects have revolved around a largely undocumented quantity, namely these theoretical rollback balls themselves. But for rare exceptions, these models have only existed in the R&D hubs of golf ball manufacturers. The PGA Tour has been quietly testing what a rollback might do to its competitive landscape as well as its entertainment proposition. It’s been non-committal and finds itself in a tough spot, realizing that a ball that makes its players shorter opens the door for the rival LIV league to market its product now as “longer than the PGA Tour.” While largely disagreeing with the need for a rule change to the ball’s overall distance standard (distance hasn’t impacted scoring average on tour at all, for example), manufacturers also have been trying to find the right recipe for a shorter ball that’s not too short. That challenge has shifted ball development in the opposite direction of the last century and designers have been secretive about possible innovations. Golf Digest obtained samples of two balls from a manufacturer late in 2025 that conform to the new rules. Over six months, we ran a battery of tests simulating how golfers from Cameron Young to your grandmother swing their drivers. Is the sky about to fall?

The short answer: It appears everyone will be losing distance, and in some cases, more than the USGA has been asserting. Still, in other cases, it might be less. Our data, admittedly on a limited sample, suggests the rollback’s effect will be much in line with what the ruling bodies have proposed: To regulate where elite driving distance is going (perhaps temporarily) while having marginal effect, if any, on the slowest swingers. Of course, all rollback designs are works in progress.

We used robot testing by industry research leader and Golf Digest partner Golf Laboratories across a range of swing speeds. We tested drivers, 7-irons and wedges. We supplemented the robot numbers with player testing across three levels to get personal and emotional assessments.

Our launch conditions were optimized for the various swing speeds in our test, so it can be said that our results in some sense may be a best-case scenario. Could bad swings or certain swing types be more severely penalized? Sure. Could drives and approach shots into the wind be more adversely affected? Also likely. Are there other new balls that might be developed that further mitigate these losses for tour players as well as average hacks? We very much think so. What’s also true is that there are several balls in the marketplace now that would not need to change to pass the new rollback standards (but none of those balls are played on any professional tour). Still, our test of a prototype tour ball represents at the very least a reasonable baseline assessment of what the rollback might look like.

In our robot testing at tour speeds, one prototype ball lost 17-22 yards versus a currently conforming ball. A second prototype, which seems a more likely version to make it to 2030, lost 11-14 yards. As this “better” prototype would appear most viable, we included only its data in the accompanying chart.

When we ran tests at driver swings under 100 miles per hour, speeds where most average golfers reside, the results showed as little as a two-yard loss at 75 miles per hour and three to five yards at 85 and 95 miles per hour. What our testing seems to suggest is that balls that are designed with less efficient aerodynamics, as opposed to a deader core, might offer the best mix of elite golfer penalty with relatively manageable average golfer pain.

We conducted on-course tests with an average golfer, a low-handicapper and a former player on the Korn Ferry and PGA Tour. In each case, the differences detected between a current ball and the better of the two prototypes was largely inconsequential. The ex-tour player said the top prototype “performed in all facets exactly how I wanted it to,” while the average player said, “My experience is that distance Armageddon is not in store for the masses, and you can post a reasonable—even very good—score with a rolled-back sphere.”

Our intention is not to weigh in on whether there is a distance “problem,” merely to show in the clearest terms available what a “shorter” ball really might mean. If implemented—and there is still debate as to whether the PGA Tour will implement a rollback—it seems the change would have some effect. How significant and how lasting are both questions with answers that, at least after this test, seem closer to inconvenient than catastrophic.

A PGA Tour Case Study

We also tested with the robot using two very different tour-level swings. We essentially had the robot mirror the high-speed, high-launch, low-spin swing of Rory McIlroy and the relatively lower speed, lower launch low-spin conditions of Russell Henley. In our test of two prototypes, the McIlroy swing lost 12 and 13 yards, or approximately 3.6-4.1 percent of the total distance. The Henley swing lost 9.5 and 22 yards with the two prototypes. That would be a 3.3 percent loss of his total distance with one prototype, but an almost 8 percent loss of total distance with the second prototype. That appears to be a different effect on the Henley type of swing, but the argument also could be made that a Henley type of swing would never choose to play a ball that caused him to lose that kind of yardage.