[Phil_the_Author]

In an effort to put some things in perspective, I thought that the views on this subject by a voice from the past might be interesting, espcially when looked at from today's perspective.

In the January, 1932, issue of Golf Illustrated, Tilly wrote an article titled, “How Ball Changes Affect a Golf Course.” He continued saying, “A very drastic change in the standard ball might make necessary a considerable remodeling of greens and an entire readjustment of distances of the holes themselves… as a builder of courses, I have had to observe closely through the years the subtle changes that have crept into shot-making and to an extent, reconcile course design to new balls…”

He went on to say that, “My profession causes me to regard the golf ball solely from the viewpoint of the designer and builder of courses, particularly the greens…” For me this is an important point because of the four words, "My profession causes me..." That is really at the root of the problem - everyone has a different agenda on this issue. The Professional Players agenda is to get an advantage so that he can earn more money. The Equipment Manufacturers is to produce a product that is both measurably and quantifiably better than the competition so that more can be sold. The Average Player wants only the pleasure of a good round that will keep him coming back for more, the Governing Bosies is to legislate the game in the aftereffects of this nonsense (after because they don't have ability to peek into the future with any accuracy), etc... The real problem is that no one is on the same page agenda-wise.

Tilly also wrote, "In these days of long flying golf balls we are forced to insure the future values of various holes against even more lively balls than those of the present.” and “The interest of the play over some courses has been sacrificed to the fetish of length…”

Actually Tilly became so concerned about this issue that in Golf Illustrated, in the March 1935 issue, he wrote an article called, “The Fetish of Length.” He began by stating that, “We regard the present tendency to stretch golf courses out to greater lengths than ever before, as an unfortunate and mistaken policy.”

“The average golfer, who cannot begin to get the prodigious lengths of the mighty ones, does like to encounter holes that are not beyond the range of two of his best efforts. When he is forced to face the necessity of covering four hundred and sixty yards to accomplish this under normal conditions, he can’t quite make it with any two shots in his bag. Yet a hole of this length and longer is plain duck soup to the great players with but few exceptions. Certainly such holes must be provided for occasions when the big fellows are competing, but for the day-in and day-out play of the modest ones, who yet delight in calling themselves ‘golfers,’ considerably less length should be offered.”

One of the things that jump out at me in the above statement is the distance he cited - 460 yards for a par-four. After all of these years and arguing over distance and technology, the fact does remain that a 460 yard Par-four is considered a long hole even in major championships as against that creature called par, and it still remains a bit beyond the average, and even the better, amateur players ability to reach in two.

I think that the most important thing that Tilly wrote about distance is, “The merit of any hole is not judged by its length but rather by its interest and its variety as elective play is apparent. It isn’t how far but how good!”

It is n't how far but how good," THAT should be the real bottom line!

[Alfie]

Philip said ;
"The Equipment Manufacturers is to produce a product that is both measurably and quantifiably better than the competition so that more can be sold. "
A ; As in cricket, baseball (I think ?) etc....many ball sports have standardised their ball as protection against technology....and appear to be selling their standardised products very well.

P ;"The Average Player wants only the pleasure of a good round that will keep him coming back for more, the Governing Bosies is to legislate the game in the aftereffects of this nonsense (after because they don't have ability to peek into the future with any accuracy), etc..."

A ; perhaps the gov bodies could go back to the 1930's, and take a peek into the future, from there ? It's old history !

 P ; "It is n't how far but how good," THAT should be the real bottom line!

A ; agreed. Good stuff Philip

Alfie

[TEPaul]

Philip Young:

Interesting remarks by Tillie about the 460 yard par 4. I wouldn't be surprised by that though as in that day with holes like that the philosophy was far more in the realm of what some of them called "shot testing".

A good player back in the mid-1930s would've invariably used his driver and probably a 3 wood to cover that distance, but this is what many of them did and expected to do back then on holes like that. Today's expert player would cover a distance like that with perhaps a drive or even a 3 wood and a 9 iron or wedge and with his drive and 3 wood he'd likely cover a distance of about 575 yards or more.

Tillie also waxed eloquent about what he called the real "Three Shotter" that virtually could not be reached in two shots and frankly one of the reasons it couldn't or shouldn't is the green simply wasn't supposed to be designed to recieve a long second shot. Today for the expert player such a hole type and a philosophy such as that vurtually does not exist.

[David Sneddon]

"There is precedent for two different types of ball."

David:

One could say that but is that the type of precedent that would work well today? Having two sets of ball specs between the USGA and R&A was something that just evolved out of the beginning of golf's organizations in the last century. To go back to that would be to claim at this point that unification to a single type ball was not a good idea. Is that what we want to do now? There were some good reasons for going to a unified ball back then---it resolved some problems about what tournament players were using in tournaments. Should we have a "competition" ball now and give tournament players the choice of using it or the ball we have now? That's essentially the way it used to be before the "unification" of the ball, I think. And all of that preceded the local rule used in almost every single tournament today known as the "One Ball Rule".

Your point is well taken, Tom.

Prior to unification, if one played tournaments under USGA sanction - the larger ball was the only ball allowed, and similarly R&A sanctioned events only used the small ball.  There was, IIRC, a 'transition' period in the UK, but not the US, where either ball could be used.  Shortly thereafter the one ball rule for both USGA and R&A events came into being.

Myself, I'd rather see just one ball for everyone, however it has been suggested that a two ball system may be something contemplated by the powers that be.   Should a two ball system come to be, I'm sure they will cite the precedent.

[Doug Siebert]

It looks like DL III (and some responding here) don't understand what options there are for a "rollback".  Yes, a change could be made to the specs that basically cut exactly 10% (or whatever) off the liveliness of the golf ball such that every golfer, from DL III down to an 80 year old lady, would lose approximately 10% of their carry distance with every club in the bag.  With such a change the ball would otherwise behave exactly as it does today.

But that's surely not the best option.  Everyone agrees that the recent changes that have greatly inflated distance in recent years helped those with higher swing speeds much more.  Those with lesser swing speeds were helped little, or possibly not at all.  We can quibble over what the dividing line is, what percentage of players see measureable increases, what percentage of players can usefully benefit from more distance, etc.  What should be clear to everyone is that if changes were made that pulled back that advantage such that if a guy who carried it 270 yards before now carries it 300 went back to carrying it 270, and a guy who carried it 190 before and 192 today went back to carrying it 190, it should be a solution that would please most everyone.

Its clearly possible to do this or at least something close to it, it would just require unwinding some of the changes that made these things possible in the first place.  The guys who are happy with a 225 yard drive need not give up their 460cc drivers, or be forced to accept 200 yard drives to reign in the big hitters, if the rollback is done properly.  While I'm not happy with the USGA's slow pace and lack of communication on this, I guess its a good sign that they seem to be asking the right questions, and the quick and dirty solution of an across the board 10% rollback for everyone would have been done already if they were going to go that route.

I'm just continually stunned that in a forum like GCA there is anyone that isn't in favor of reigning in the out of control ball.

[David Sneddon]

I'm just continually stunned that in a forum like GCA there is anyone that isn't in favor of reigning in the out of control ball.

Simplest way, IMHO, is to go back to the specs of the Titleist Balata ball.   You'd sacrifice distance and also demand accuracy, since the current 330 yard drive, 20 yards offline but playable would result in 290-300yard drive but 50 yards offline and in the trees.

Chi-Chi and Trevino coud make their next fortunes in teaching these guys how to really work the ball.

There is no doubt that the ball is way out of control, when I as an almost 56 yr old, can now hit it further than I could at 30.  

[TEPaul]

“Myself, I'd rather see just one ball for everyone, however it has been suggested that a two ball system may be something contemplated by the powers that be.  Should a two ball system come to be, I'm sure they will cite the precedent.”

DavidS:

I seriously doubt the “powers that be” are contemplating a “two ball system” or what we refer to as a “competition ball”. Here’s why. They have made it patently clear in their “Joint Statement of Principles” written in 2002 that they are not considering such a thing and won’t be. This paragraph from their “Joint Statement of Principles” makes it very clear:

“The R&A and the USGA continue to believe that the retention of a single set of rules for all players of the game, irrespective of ability, is one of golf's greatest strengths. The R&A and the USGA regard the prospect of having permanent separate rules for elite competition as undesirable and have no current plans to create separate equipment rules for highly skilled players.”

[TEPaul]

DougS (& DavidS):

I sure do agree with what you said in your last post. I said essentially the same thing in post #30 and have been saying for a long time the most equitable way to manage some type of distance rollback on the golf ball for those who benefited from it without hurting those who haven't benefited from it would be to basically remove from the ball the technological wrinkles that created that distance spike for high MPH players in the first place.

Using just the golf ball to do this would take some analysis statistically and other-wise for the simple reason that the most knowledgeable tech people now understand that the factors that created this distance spike for high MPH players in the last 10-12 years are essentially three things.

1. A higher COR on driver clubfaces than there used to be before metal drivers became as sophisticated as they have compared to the old persimmon woods.

2. The rather extraordinary technological breakthrough on the part of ball manufacturers in the last 10 or so years in creating a golf ball that has both the soft feel of the old balata ball and the distance enhancing flight characteristics of the old hard ball (the rock).

3. Optimization. This is a computer analysis process developed during this time span of analyzing the most ideal symbiotic relationship of club and golf ball for any particular player generally only evidenced in real increased distance by high MPH players.

Generally speaking these three factors are considered to have contributed to the distance spike amongst only high MPH swing speed players about equally---in other words about 1/3 each.

Is that quantifiable distance-wise? Apparently it is. According to some informal conversations with former USGA tech director Frank Thomas it was about 10 yards each or 30 yards altogether for a high MPH swing speed player in the last 10 or so years (some on here may disagree with that quantifiable increase through things like personal experience but for the purposes of this discussion that is essentially what Frank Thomas has said who is probably more likely to scientifically know what he's talking about than most on here ).

So if it is only to be the golf ball that is to be used to effect a distance rollback of up to 30 yards (300 minus 10%=270 yards or a 30 yard rollback) for the high MPH swing speed players in the last ten or so years then the golf ball used by high MPH swing speed players will have to be rolled back distance-wise three times more than it contributed to the distance spike in the first place amongst high MPH swing speed players.

Is that possible to do? Of course it is. But the question might then become would high swing speed players use that rolled back ball? We know that almost all good players and high MPH swing speed players used to use the softer ball for primarily reasons of control around the greens. According to someone like Thomas the old soft ball could be considered to be about ten yards shorter than the hard ball that has been around for almost 40 years now. That hard ball that has been legal for 40 years could be considered to be about as long a ball as the present “composite” super balls like the ProVs. Apparently good players and high MPH swing speed players were content for decades to give up about 10 yards (driver distance) for that softer control feel. But would they be willing to give up 30 yards for that softer feel if the golf ball only was used to affect the entire 30-yard rollback? That would be questionable at best, in my opinion.

The reason the hard ball has been longer than the old softer balata type ball off the driver and other clubs for about 40 years is basically because it is much lower spinning (the hard ball has a much lower spin rate than the old balata type soft ball).

They could do this only using the golf ball to affect the entire 10% 30 yard rollback but would it be used and be effective? If not then they’d have to roll the distance characteristics of the hard ball back too that has been legal for decades and that then would affect the distance of all golfers who are not high MPH swing speed players and it would also deem “nonconforming" every golf ball that is on the market now and has been for over four decades.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()