[Tom_Doak]

With respect to Ben Crenshaw, Jack Nicklaus, and others, you cannot have a "competition ball" just for one venue.  Players today base everything on precise distance judgment, and switching back and forth between different balls just wouldn't work.

That's a good thing, because it is the key to how the golf ball issue could be resolved.

I saw it happen 20 years ago, when the "small" 1.62-inch ball was slowly relieved of duty.  First, they made it illegal for the Open and Amateur championships only.  Anyone who aspired to play in those events had to get used to playing the big ball all the time, so pretty quickly there was pressure from them to disallow the small ball from major amateur and local professional events.  The small ball continued to be played by average 10- and 20-handicappers for many years afterwards, until in stages it was disallowed for the club championship and Sunday medal competitions.  Finally, it disappeared altogether.

That's all that needs to happen here in America today.  If the USGA made a spec for its national championships that any ball manufacturer could follow, and the PGA Tour went along, we'd be on our way.

The only problem is that the new ball would probably have to be somewhat similar to the "balloon ball" tried in the early 1930's -- which means softer landings and less roll.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom:

I agree that it would make little sense for there to be a "Masters ball", i.e., a ball different than the one used at other major championships (or PGA tour events).

But, my sense is that people urge ANGC to make the first move based on the assumption that no manufacturer would dare sue the club.

Ideally, the USGA and the R&A would take a leadership position on the idea of a "competition ball".

As this doesn't seem in the cards, getting Augusta to take a stand seems like the next best option.

[Gary Sherman]

I have thought about the concept of a competition ball and read Ben's remarks with interest.  I have some questions about it's practical application.

1. If a new spec is developed for the PGA Tour and the National Championships, what becomes of the current ball spec.  Does it go away, thus allowing the ball manufacturers to push the technology envelope even further for the everyman's ball?
2. If the old spec remains and the new one is just for the Tour and Golf's Major's, policing of ball's played may lead to some ugly incidences.  What happens when the first player is accused of playing a non-conforming (ie, the current spec) ball?  How does the PGA and USGA monitor compliance?  
3. The testing procedure for the competition ball will have to be extremely precise.  The ball manufacturers will push the technology to the edge of the spec.  What happens when a ball is tested, deemed acceptable, and then after it is played in it's first major championship determined that further testing is required because it appears to be too long?  New tests are then performed and it is found non-compliant (maybe the calibration of the equipment when it was tested was off or a new test had to be performed to measure combined characteristics).  What happens if a player won that major with this ball?

I believe there should be only one specification. Perhaps it is time to roll back the current spec.  Based on what I saw at the PGA this week, the younger stronger players with the modern swing (ie solid foundation, quiet lower body, create maximum torque with the upper body) are able to crush the new Pro V's with the new drivers.  Michelson averaged 320 yards off the tee on Thursday on a wet course.  

[Scott_Burroughs]

As I stated in another thread, the Tour players can't go by their "precise distance judgment" when they play at The International (or Opens at Cherry Hills), where the ball flies 10% farther.  A Masters tournament ball would the same thing in the opposite direction.  
Heck, they can't use their judgment when they play the British Open, where the heavy winds make the ball go either a lot farther or a lot shorter, or at the AT&T, in the heavy moist air.  That's the great thing about golf.  Different conditions, both ground and air, make it different everywhere.

[Dan King]

Good as time as any to jump back in here.

This isn’t rocket science.  Making a ball that doesn’t travel as far is a lot easier than making a ball that travels further.  Personally I'd like to see tough rules on construction and dimple pattern, so the ball doesn't fly as straight, but that might be a tougher sell.

There is an overall distance standard that golf balls can’t go further than 280 yards. The problem is that the manufacturers were much better at getting around the USGA and R&A test faster than the governing bodies were at improving the test.

So now there will be a new test.  But since the governing bodies have already approved all of the balls on the market, they can’t retroactively outlaw all of these balls or their equivalent. We are stuck with what we have now.

However, a rule could be made allowing a local rule that committees could specify a competition ball.  This would be a ball that fit within the 280 yard overall distance standard under much more stringent tests. The manufacturers will fight it because it will hurt their marketing, but they won’t fight it nearly as hard as trying to make their existing inventory illegal.  

I don’t see a big problem with enforcement.  Sure occasionally some player will have the non-competition ball in his bag and accidentally play it and the player will be penalized appropriately.  I don't see that as a problem.

I do think the general golfing public is gullible enough that eventually they will want to play the same ball as the pros and there will be a demand for the competition ball.  But that will be market conditions making their golf ball inventory obsolete, not the governing bodies.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"How much of the perceived advantage is real versus the placebo effect has yet to be established. We have seen some players generate occasional distance differences, but how much of that is attributable to what's between their ears when they align it that way off the tee remains to be seen. I can say we do not see, in machine testing, some of the distance gains assigned to the alignment phenomena that players allege they see in human testing."
--Wally Uihlein (Acushnet chairman on Titleist Pro V1 seaming)

[Rick Wolffe]

I don't buy this getting used to thing.  It didn't take the touring pros long to get used to the VI and the other soft two piece distance balls.  It wouldn't take them long to get used to the old balata ball again.

Ben Crenshaw is one of the games greatest statesman.  I hope his words help shape the golf policy makers into moving the ball in the right direction -- backwards.

Geez, all the crack players are talking about it at the PGA.  Azinger's remarks yesterday on the Golf Channel were on the mark.

[Jamie Slonis]

This is a very timely topic. I don't know if all of you saw the "Viewer's Forum" program on the Golf Channel this evening, but Peter Kessler spoke about this topic with Dave Pelz and Dean Reinmuth. All on the panel agreed that something needs to be done. Dave Pelz gave the same example that I gave on this topic a couple of weeks ago...that being Hogan's famous 1 iron at Merion.  In this day and age would we be talking about "Hogan's 8 Iron" with the same sort of reverence? Probably not.
I know from my own experience that I've been hitting many more shorter irons into longer holes than I ever did before the Pro V1. Granted, in the past I could've played a rock hard Distance ball and got the same yardage as today, but with that, came an increased loss of feel and spin. With the new Pro V1, you no longer have that problem. It is the best of both worlds...but is it the best thing for professional golf in the long run?
Not if we have to sacrifice our classic venues in favor of new "monster" designs that lack the character and charm of their predecessors.
Dan King...welcome back!

[aclayman]

Hows this for a radical idea? Reverse psychology.
Lets promote a tournament where non-conforming balls and clubs are encouraged. Every inventor would have the opportunity to debut their inventions.

Now, this idea should turnout to prove that the madness must stop. Assuming a ball can and will go 500 yards or more.

If the powers that be don't see it as a major threat, I will ________ (akin to eating my hat, but am open to suggestions)  

[RobertWalker]

I do not belive that the TOUR would want to require a shorter distance ball. Distance iss on of their selling points, and one of the reasons spectators attend tour events.
The USGA need to roll back the OAD.
It would not be that hard to do.

[Dan King]

RobertWalker, how many balls have you invented?  

Rollin' back the OAD may be simple, but it won't hold up in a court of law.  The USGA has their famous $200 million dollar war chest (the R&A has no such stash) but there isn't enough money to win a bad case. The USGA and R&A has given their blessing to the balls on the market now. Suddenly decide to make existing inventories illegal and you'll end up in court, and you'll lose.

If ratings drop and sponsors get upset, the PGA Tour® will go to a competition ball. I think viewers will eventually get tired of watching everyone having putts for birdie and stop watching. Especially if Augusta, the R&A, USGA and PGA of America go to a competition ball, the Tours will eventually have to follow.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"If a way is discovered of making the present ball go even farther, I imagine that the committee would clamp down upon it to prevent courses becoming more 'unbalanced' than they are today, at least for good players. What we really want is two kinds of ball, the present one for most of us and a shorter one for the experts, which would make the second shots play as the architect originally designed."
--Henry Longhurst, 1962

[Geoff_Shackelford]

The distance thing is funny when it's cited as a key selling point for golf. I just watched PGA highlights on TGC and Sportscenter. The only drives they show are Tiger's bad ones. All other "highlights" are made putts, great recovery shots, deft chip shots or sharp iron play. They didn't show a single long drive, yet the Tour and others place such importance on long driving as a selling point, particularly for ratings.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Dan King:

Granted we live in more litigious times, but the USGA never ended up in court when they banned Sam Snead's croquet-style putter, and that had previously been legal.  And as a matter of common sense, one could simply set the date of illegality for a year or two down the road, giving every manufacturer and pro shop ample time to liquidate their inventories.

I'm also curious why you feel that USGA would have a poor legal case.  I'm surely not an attorney but it seems to me that they would be on very solid ground indeed.  They write rules that players choose to follow voluntarily, period.  If you or I elect to use non-conforming equipment, so what?  We can't enter a USGA national championship or, apparently, file for a handicap under their system (I'll admit to abject ignorance on the latter as the subject holds little interest for me).  

Bottom line: Whose trade is being restrained if players CHOOSE to play under USGA rules?

Frank Hannigan has written that he's certain they would win any manufacturer's lawsuit, of course, and I'll willingly admit to placing much emphasis on what he says.

DW

[herrstein]

If baseball, basketball, football, lacrosse, jai alai, wiffle ball, water polo, tennis, ping pong, bowling, and every other sport I can think of have a regulation ball with uniform performance specifications, why can't golf?
This lawsuit business is a bunch of hooey.
The USGA doesn't have the kahoneys to make the rule.
Maybe Augusta National does.
Let's hope so, because we are ruining the game.
In my opinion, the most destructive effect of the added length on the game is that it requires us to build ever longer courses in order to continue having two and three shot holes of any variety. Then, it takes walking out of the picture- or at least, walking in less than two and a half hours.
As a point- I can walk Lookout Mountain by myself. holing every putt in 1 hour and 51 minutes- always less than 2 hours. The best I can do at Black Creek is 2 hours 30 minutes. It's all because of the length.
We must roll back the OAD.

[TEPaul]

Logically, Dan Wexler sounds right to me. There is no particular legal reason the USGA could NOT roll back distance requirements or that doing so would create a bad case in a court of law. I can't imagine why a judge would assume that they could only go one way (greater distance) and not another (less distance).

This charge about restraint of trade by the likes of Callaway is bogus anyway if you really look at it. The USGA has never specifically tried to regulate what equipment anybody specifically uses anyway--they only regulate it as it applies to their thirteen championships, period! It's just that so far almost everyone has followed their lead and that is a world that is one of massive "voluntary compliance". The USGA certainly has no penalty structure or enforcement ability for anyone who does otherwise. The use of conforming equipment for handicap purposes is clearly a little more tricky though.

Ultimately, in the hands of a good lawyer working for the USGA (like David Boies) the USGA could claim that if somebody didn't choose to conform to their regulations they could easily find another method of determining their handicap and in the end that is the issue that determines restraint of trade. Very curiously, the legal determinant from a case that is already extant (precedent) is even if the USGA and its GHIN system was to capture almost 100% of a particular locality (the area at issue in the case) for handicapping that cannot really constitute restraint of trade! Guess why? It's because of the freedon of the INTERNET!!

Basically, the whole issue of using conforming equipment and its connection to handicapping is one that is voluntary and a plantiff like Callaway would somehow have to prove otherwise in a court of law to establish a case of restraint of trade against the USGA.

And well presented, it should be quite clear to anyone and everyone that there really isn't anything in this for the USGA--all they are trying to do is protect the game. They are there for the good of the game.  

Of course there's a real danger in this for the USGA because a larger segment of the golfing public could simply voluntarily decide not to conform to their rules, something that has not happened yet on a massive scale. But if it was to happen then the USGA would start to lose its relevancy real quick! And that's something that clearly worries them and may be making them unwilling to move or move forcefully at this point--they don't want to lose relevance or control--and I for one don't want to see that happen either.

I, for one, would like to see them roll back the distance standard but how they do it is the question. To do it right without losing relevancy can be done but it must be done correctly.

The first thing for them to do is to get out there and clearly state that they are only in this game for one thing-to protect it and its character. And to state there is nothing really in it for them except to protect the game and see that it might prosper--and in the end that can't be bad for even the manufacturers.

[RobertWalker]

I am not a lawyer, but I did read that Callaway Golf settled its suit with the RCGA. That tells me that Callaway et al do not want to spend time and money in court. I think they want to make and sell equipment.

USGA:
Roll back the OAD. Let players use previously manufactured and approved balls for score posting but require new balls for tournament use. New balls would be stamped with a "manufactured-on" date.

[john_stiles]

Ditto regarding rolling back the OAD.

The manufacturers are now changing their 'line of products' year after year after year with  different materials for the shell and cores, varied shell cover thickness and core diameters, different dimpling, totally new lines of balls within every brand, etc. etc.

Even with a new OAD, it would still be like today in that all could tweak their lines to claim they have the longest and straightest just like they do for present OAD.  We all know they will laugh all the way to the bank.  The ad guys, players, etc. would still have jobs and contracts.

They could phase out the old, phase in the new much as they did with the small ball, the old Ping irons with the groove issue, et al.  As others have stated, it (new, shorter OAD ball) might start as a competition ball but would soon 'spread' throughout golf.

The manufacturers know how to make changes and could go backwards if needed at the drop of a US OPEN visor.

But wait a minute.... another idea is for USGA/PGA to start building  'the fazio jones dye competition trail'  courses near or at major east,west,north,south  locations. Maybe buy a few more existing 'Vahalla' courses as needed.  If war chest is large,  start building 36 hole complexes for competition only,  let us USGA associates play for $75, everyone else $100, kids for $25. Probably can built a decent USGA/PGA venue, 36 hole course (will need one course for parking and tents you know) for less than $20 million on average.  Have Dye, Fazio, R. Jones get started now, fire up the yellow iron... built about 8 complexes....that's $160 million...8 times 2 is 16 courses,  times 30,000 rounds a year times average of $75 per round is $36 million a year less $16 million for course maintenance and salaries, put these 'archies' on a yearly stipend and change every course to suit the ball every 4 years or so....

Then they (USGA/PGA) could leave the rest of the courses the 'heck' alone ... stay away from the rest... 'You can dig in only in these 8 or so places...from this line to this line, these 36 greens, do what you want, whatever you want to these 36 holes, stay within the lines....THATS IT!!'

Old classic courses (where members or club presidents or committees desire changes for reasons other than tourneys) could change their masterpieces if they so wish for reasons other than hosting a tourney and trying to hold the scores down !

ps - keep sending in your USGA membership money to Arnie so the USGA can continue on its current path

[ForkaB]

john

That will never work.  It is far too logical.

[Mr. Good O. Game]

John Stiles:

Very interesting and even more so because in essence it really isn't all that much different from something William Flynn himself proposed for the USGA back in the 1920s.

Unfortunately, that proposal might smack of "business" to the USGA--and the word "business" is not used at all in Far Hills NJ. They do not use it and do not tolerate others using it--not at the USGA headquarters in Far Hills NJ.

"Did you say something about 200+ million dollars in the war chest, foundation or otherwise? Shame on you and shut up--talking about money sounds dangerously like "business" and we don't talk about business around here, ya know!"

[Romero]

"Roy, its 237! Play it smart. Lay up, Roy"-- Romero

"No one has gotten there in two all week. Even John Daly knocked it in the water trying to reach the green."--Ken Venturi(Annoucer)

"Give me the three wood, I'm going!" Roy McEvoy(Tin Cup)

Scene--1996 US Open, 556 yard 72nd hole(Kinda of a hookie movie, except for Ms Russo)

Result--Now even recent movies are getting outdated by the "current" ball--237 yards? Its a 6 or 7 iron today--

Hollywood will not stand for it!  Bring on the Competition ball!

[TEPaul]

Hollywood just might stand for it. They can always rerun Bill Murray in "Caddie Shack" hitting shots in what he imagined to be something like the US Open or the PGA championship. Of course he wasn't exactly hitting shots, he was clipping flowers off their stems with a golf club in a severely stoned state.

But I do recall his slurred remarks as something like: "He's only got about 387yds to the pin, so he's gonna massage a little 8 iron up there (clips off a flower from its stem) and so forth. Talk about futuristic!!

[RobertWalker]

Murray was talking about the 18th at the Masters (last day), and he was using a sythe that True Temper made which had a golf pride grip and a lie much like a Mid-Iron (2 iron).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()