Three player accounts of test driving a rolled-back golf ball

As part of our examination of how a rolled-back golf ball will affect golfers, we had several players of differing abilities test these rollback balls. That includes a faster swinging amateur, a former Korn Ferry Tour winner and an average swing speed avid golfer. Their results suggest the rollback will be a bit like what the USGA’s Mike Whan said at the USGA’s annual meeting in February. “If you did a history of rules and equipment changes in American golf, you would have to say every time: tough decision, followed by huge anxiety and pushback, followed by implementation, followed by ‘Really, that's all it was?’ I think when people see the actual impact here, or quite frankly the lack of impact for 99 percent of the game, it'll be another one of those, ‘Why did you scream about it for eight years?’”

Here are their thoughts:

Ex-Korn Ferry Tour winner

Our tour-level golfer (Conrad Shindler) played elite golf professionally for more than a decade (including a win on the Korn Ferry Tour) and still hits it today at competitive PGA Tour driver speeds (116 mile per hour clubhead speed). He tested our two prototype rollback balls and found very different results.

“Playing professionally for 13 years, testing many variations of brands and versions of golf balls, I can quickly gauge in the first five shots if something is going to work with my game.

“Starting with Proto A, I did not see any type of awkward ball flight that raised any flags from the first tee shot. It hung in the air as desired, no knuckling, and proceeded to perform well on my next shot, which was a flip-wedge inside 100. Even distances, both tee shot and with the wedge, stopped appropriately in the dewy morning conditions.

“The next hole, Proto B was tried for the first time, and immediately I knew we were going to have issues. The ball just visually looked heavy in the air. From my eyes, it never reached its desired apex and looked like a rock falling from the sky. Distance was quickly sacrificed from every aspect, even 40-yard pitch shots. It took me 2 swings total to no longer have a desire to continue to test Proto B.

“Proto A presented almost zero issues, and had I been given that ball to test knowing it wasn’t a rollback ball, I would have never even had a thought that it was modified in any way. Proto A performed in all facets exactly how I wanted it to. Spin control, distance, trajectory control, shot shaping—all met my expectations.”

Fast-swinging amateur golfer

While much of the noise about the rollback balls has centered on early testing feedback from elite players, with some suggesting they were losing 40 to 50 yards off the tee. Those numbers made headlines—and understandably stoked fear among everyday golfers.

The problem? Most amateurs haven’t had the opportunity to test the prototypes themselves. Until now.

I jumped at the chance to put our two prototypes through the paces on the course. With a 2.4 handicap index and driver ball speeds that typically live in the 160–162 mph range, I’m still on the higher end of the amateur speed spectrum — though I’m also realistic enough to admit the fastball probably isn’t getting any faster as I creep into my early 40s. Still, I like to think years of testing equipment has given me a fairly discerning eye and ear when it comes to product differences.

That’s why I took both prototypes—Proto A and Proto B—out for on-course testing, alternating balls and capturing data along the way with a Foresight QuadMax launch monitor.

From the jump, Proto A was almost indistinguishable from my current gamer.

Off the tee, carry numbers were essentially identical. If anything, the difference hovered in the 2–3 yard range — well within the margin you’d expect from strike variability. Spin crept up slightly, roughly 100–200 RPMs, but launch conditions remained playable and dispersion didn’t widen in any meaningful way. The ball held its line, produced the same towering window I’m accustomed to seeing and didn’t force me to rethink strategy. The similarities extended into the scoring zones. Pitch shots inside 30 yards produced the familiar check-and-trundle reaction I expect from a premium urethane ball. Through the first round, I shot 74 while alternating between Proto A and my gamer ball. If you’d handed me two unmarked balls afterward and asked me to identify the rolled-back model, it would’ve been a coin flip.

Proto B, however, told a completely different story. The difference was noticeable from the first tee shot. Impact sounded hollow and the ball struggled to hold its line in the air. Spin jumped dramatically — 600-800 RPM higher in some cases — while launch dropped nearly three degrees compared to my normal driver window. The flight reminded me of balata-era golf balls. Shots ballooned, moved excessively in the wind and punished anything less than a precise strike. Approach shots showed similar tendencies. In breezy conditions, the ball was easily nudged offline, making distance control far more difficult than usual. Around the green, the performance gap wasn’t nearly as pronounced, but the sound was a constant distraction. Every strike produced the same dull, lifeless tone, making it difficult to tell the difference between a flushed shot and a mishit. I caught myself focusing on the sound more than the shot itself and never really found a rhythm, limping to an 83 that felt worse than the number suggests.

If the testing reinforced anything, it’s this: there’s real value in hitting a product yourself instead of reacting to headlines.

If Proto A represents what a conforming ball could ultimately look like under the new testing standards, the average golfer probably doesn’t have much to fear. Change might be coming—but it may not be nearly as dramatic as many think. —Jonathan Wall

Average male golfer

Ever since the golf-ball rollback was proposed by the USGA and R&A, everyday golfers have been caught in a confusing crossfire of competing narratives. The ruling bodies essentially say it’s no big deal—three to five yards, tops. The staunchest rollback opponents throw the b.s. flag on that claim, believing the penalty will be much worse for the working man and woman.

So, what to believe?

Golf Digest was fortunate enough to obtain prototype golf balls that conform to the proposed standard (we know this because we sent them to the USGA for a conformance check. As my partner in equipment coverage, Mike Stachura, is fond of saying, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”). We robot-tested them and had a tour-caliber player try them out. That, however, doesn’t get to the everyday player question.

Enter yours truly.

For background, I’m 64 years old, with an index that ranges from 11 to 14. Once a very good player, Father Time and a disdain for robust exercise has led to a loss of swing speed (now sub-90 m.p.h. with the driver). However, armed with a lifetime of experience, I feel more than capable in assessing what I’m experiencing. To be clear, the purpose of this exercise is not to take an absolute position one way or the other, but relay what it was like to use a rolled-back ball on my home course where I know where my shots should end up.

I played nine holes. A small sample to be sure, but enlightening, nonetheless. On the first hole my tee shot covered the crest of a hill 200 yards out, which I typically do. I skanked the second but the third from 60 yards behaved as any multilayer, urethane-cover ball would.

On No. 2, I had a distance that would normally be a 9-iron. I decided in advance to pull clubs I would using my gamer ball. The shot was well struck and caught the back of the green and stopped. At the third I had a 7-iron that hit the front of the green and rolled out a bit.

No. 5 is a lengthy par 3 and here is where I first noticed a difference. A 9-wood for me, I caught it well but watched as it came up 10 yards short. Interesting. Things stayed pretty much as expected until the tee ball on No. 8, which I hit very well. There’s a rock in the right rough that I get slightly past when hitting a good one. This was a few yards short of that.

Bottom line: I shot 38. One of my best nines of the year. I only noticed a true difference on a few shots and other than the head-scratcher on 5, nothing I would give a second thought to if I hadn’t known I was using a rolled-back ball. Chips, pitches and putts came off as expected.

I think it is important to know that, personally, I am anti-rollback. Always have been, probably always will be. Duty, however, dictates we deal in facts and 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. Yes, it was only nine holes, but it also was an early effort from the manufacturer which has nearly four years to improve on it. Take it as you see fit. – E. Michael Johnson