Deane Beman and Tom Paul

[A.G._Crockett]

In the newest issue of Golf Digest, Deane Beman postulates that what is needed is a ball that spins more, as Tom Paul has been advocating here.  Beman's point is that there have always been big strong guys who could hit it a mile; it's just that now they are able to swing from the heels on every shot because they KNOW that the ball will not curve disasterously as in days of yore.  

In other words, the distance gains on tour are a function of low spin rates off the driver more than anything else.  The ball goes long because the ball doesn't curve.  The "rollback" that is so desired here by so many might be easier to accomplish through spin rates, as TEP has pointed out.

Interestingly, in the same issue, Johnny Miller points out that for the first time in golf history, the top 5 golfers in the world are all big men, over 6 feet.  Miller mentions that height used to be considered something of a drawback in golf, and it may be that the  ball has lessened the swing arc problems, allowing more powerful athletes to prosper.

[Brent Hutto]

Interestingly, in the same issue, Johnny Miller points out that for the first time in golf history, the top 5 golfers in the world are all big men, over 6 feet.  Miller mentions that height used to be considered something of a drawback in golf, and it may be that the  ball has lessened the swing arc problems, allowing more powerful athletes to prosper.

I'll invoke Occam's Razor and suggest a simpler explanation. Perhaps big men figured out how to swing without the arc problems that Miller assumes are characteristic of a big man's swing.

Look at Johnny Miller's swing when he was winning a bunch of tournaments. Then look at Ernie Els' swing today. It seems obvious to me that they are not trying to swing the club in the same way. I think the supposed disadvantages to being tall and/or mesomorphic were in fact drawbacks to the mid-20th-century theory of leg action and rolling feet and reverse-C finish positions. The modern swing is simpler, more efficient and just generally an improvement relative to what came before. Not hard to believe that it obviates some of the conventional wisdom about the ideal golfer looking like Ben Hogan (60's) or Johnny Miller (70's).

[Paul_Turner]

You could legislate for spin i.e. a max spin for a given loft.

But it's still quite an involved test for the USGA.  

Much simpler just to force the ball to be 20-30 % lighter.  A lighter ball would fly more off line for any given mishit.

Also legistlating for spin removes a great deal of creative flexibility for the engineers at Titleist et al.  So the manufacturers will not like this at all.  It would make it much more difficult for the manufacturers to distinguish their product from the competition.

I believe a weight change would be easier to "sell" to Titleist...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

I like the idea ...... Floaters !  

[Paul_Turner]

That's it Patrick!  30% lighter and the ball just floats.

Also a lighter ball would impact the pros much more than the bogey man.  It's straight physics, the pro would lose about 30 yards, the bogey man about 10.

[JohnV]

Paul,  I assume you have read my "In My Opinion" piece on the floater/balloon ball and how the regular golfers hated it as much or more than the pros.  And that was only a 4% difference in weight from the current one (1.55 vs 1.62).  20% would yield a ball that weighs in at a light weight of 1.296 ounces.  It would be totally uncontrollable.  30% lighter would be 1.134 ounces.

[Paul_Turner]

John

I don't think a floater would be totally uncontrollable.

The manufacturers would deepen the dimples to help stabilise the ball.

But yes, balls being blown off greesn might be a problem....slower greens...more contour!

[A.G._Crockett]

I think that the salient point here is that there is no simple solution to the problems that concern so many here.  If you approach a complex problem expecting simple solutions to work, constant disappointment should not be a surprise.

If you start from the point of view that the USGA is made up of intelligent people with the best interests of the game (in all the complexities of that), then it is easier to give them credit for not having moved too quickly.  

To me, the absolute worst case scenario would be a USGA "solution" which doesn't fix the problem (to whatever extent there is one!) AND results in damage to the game.  If the problem of distance is caused by synergy between bigger athletes, better swings, better clubs, better turf, optimum launch info, and low-spin balls, and the USGA declines to change the ball simply because it is the easiest and most obvious thing to do, I can't understand why so many can't understand the USGA's very measured approach to this.

[George Pazin]

Along the lines of what AG says (no simple solutions), why even advocate a solution? Why not simply rollback the ODS 5% or whatever, or change the parameters of the test to more closely match today's game, and then allow the manufacturers to come up with their own solution? Then they can still choose to market their design as the best.

The only thing difficult in this whole situation is the PR angle of it. If not handled properly, golfers may simply abandon the USGA/R&A's rules.

[A.G._Crockett]

Along the lines of what AG says (no simple solutions), why even advocate a solution? Why not simply rollback the ODS 5% or whatever, or change the parameters of the test to more closely match today's game, and then allow the manufacturers to come up with their own solution? Then they can still choose to market their design as the best.

The only thing difficult in this whole situation is the PR angle of it. If not handled properly, golfers may simply abandon the USGA/R&A's rules.  

The answer to the first part (Why not rollback the ODS?) is simply that it makes the game more difficult for the vast, vast majority of the golf world who already struggle every time they play.  That, of course, leads to the second part of your post...

And that is indeed a difficult thing, more than worth considering in all of this.  That's why a "simple" solution that fails will be worse than doing nothing.

[George Pazin]

It is certainly worth thinking things through before acting rashly.

However, to me the fact that an ODS exists implies that most involved recognize the inherent problem that ever increasing distance presents. Therefore, I think it's very possible to sell most golfers on the idea of either a competition ball or an ODS rollback.

Honestly, most golfers are so inconsistent, and so incapable of taking advantage of the top technology, that I don't even think most would notice the difference. I am not talking about rolling back distance by 50 yards, just maybe tweaking things a little.

What golfers would notice a difference in is shorter and cheaper courses that one could play faster.

Maybe if the USGA even explained their logic behind not doing anything rash that would suffice.

[JohnV]

Along the lines of what AG says (no simple solutions), why even advocate a solution? Why not simply rollback the ODS 5% or whatever, or change the parameters of the test to more closely match today's game, and then allow the manufacturers to come up with their own solution? Then they can still choose to market their design as the best.

The only thing difficult in this whole situation is the PR angle of it. If not handled properly, golfers may simply abandon the USGA/R&A's rules.

George, Starting in June of last year, the USGA changed its testing procedures so that they use a titanium driver and a faster swing speed.  The swing speed was changed from 109 to 120 and the Overall distance from 296 to 320.  In doing so, they  lowered the maximum distance by 1.8% if you believe that it increases linearly, as the same ball that went 296 at 109 should go 325.8 yards at 120.  

Of course there are those who have argued here that it isn't linear and you get more from a faster swing, in which case the ODS was lowered by a greater percentage.

[A.G._Crockett]

George,
Assuming that courses would get shorter and therefore cheaper assumes that they are getting longer and more expensive because of the golf ball, and I'm not sure that I buy that assumption.  I would argue that marketing is much, much more important, with a par 72 and 7000+ course being standard.  Would we see lots of par 70's and/or 6600 yd. courses being built?  I have a really hard time imagining it.

[George Pazin]

John -

Glad to hear that. wonder why we didn't hear more about it in the press.

AG -

Marketing is certainly a gigantic factor, but I do tend to believe everyone takes their cues from the big guys. When the PGA Tour continually sets up courses that emphasize length and the ability to hit the ball high, that reinforces the belief that length is the be all and end all for everyone. Similarly, when the USGA relies on stretching courses as one of its automatic changes for its tournament venues, it reinforces the belief among most golfers that length is the be all and end all for everyone.

Honestly, I don't know what the answer is. Maybe it is to do as little as possible. But I am concerned with: 1) the willingness of all parties involved to alter the game's great venues and 2) the cost - money & time - that it takes to play. In no way am I saying that the ruling bodies aren't concerned with these things as well, I'd just like to see a little more proactive, public approach to explaining to everyone why the endless pursuit of distance isn't necessarily a good thing.

Some of the most successful courses built in recent years have not been the mega length tracks, like Pac Dunes. I'd be curious to know what play rates are like at the newest and glitziest 7500 yard monsters are.

[Doug Siebert]

Along the lines of what AG says (no simple solutions), why even advocate a solution? Why not simply rollback the ODS 5% or whatever, or change the parameters of the test to more closely match today's game, and then allow the manufacturers to come up with their own solution? Then they can still choose to market their design as the best.

The only thing difficult in this whole situation is the PR angle of it. If not handled properly, golfers may simply abandon the USGA/R&A's rules.

George, Starting in June of last year, the USGA changed its testing procedures so that they use a titanium driver and a faster swing speed.  The swing speed was changed from 109 to 120 and the Overall distance from 296 to 320.  In doing so, they  lowered the maximum distance by 1.8% if you believe that it increases linearly, as the same ball that went 296 at 109 should go 325.8 yards at 120.  

Of course there are those who have argued here that it isn't linear and you get more from a faster swing, in which case the ODS was lowered by a greater percentage.

John,

Actually they RAISED the ODS, because the old limit was 280 yards.  They allowed 6% as "margin for error" since ball manufacturing wasn't too precise (especially in the wound ball days)  So more precise manufacturing gave the ballmakers some "free" yards they took advantage of.  But the old standard was 280, so the increase to 320 for only a 10% increase in swing speed was bigger than linear.

[TEPaul]

I'm no tech person but my thought is if the ball had a higher spin rate it's not going less far because it's not going as straight---it's going less far because of the trajectory of a higher spinning ball compared to a lower spinning ball. I believe that's what I was told by a golf equipment tech person but I'll call him again and ask. If this fellow confirms it, I'd say it's confirmed. But I'm no tech person.

[JohnV]

John,

Actually they RAISED the ODS, because the old limit was 280 yards.  They allowed 6% as "margin for error" since ball manufacturing wasn't too precise (especially in the wound ball days)  So more precise manufacturing gave the ballmakers some "free" yards they took advantage of.  But the old standard was 280, so the increase to 320 for only a 10% increase in swing speed was bigger than linear.

Doug, I believe that Frank Thomas has said almost every ball was right up to the 296 mark.  The 6% was supposed to be dropped to 4% as technology improved, but it never was so it became the defacto standard.  The new mark is offically 317 +3 yards tolerance, but it really is 320.