Titleist rolled back ball

[BCrosby]

Where is the Titleist rolled back ball they promised the USGA a year or so ago?

I suspect the answer is embarrassing. Which I why I ask.

Since Titleist got the publicity benefits of announcing they would provide them (all in the spirit of what's best for the game, as you may recall), it doesn't seem unfair to ask when the balls might, like, actually arrive at Far Hills.

Bob

[Brad Klein]

Bob, I think it was in April that the USGA informed all ball manufacturers of a request for such golf balls. Is that what you are referring to? - prototypes to aid in the USGA's studies?

[Mike Benham]

New Balls Please

[TEPaul]

Bobzee:

I'll tell you where Titleist's new rolled back ball is---it's in about a million pieces all over the USGA's outdoor test range in Far Hills NJ.

What happened, you see, is when the USGA got it they called up Nebraska's Long John Hurley to come and test the ball since he offered them his services (seriously). Long John's ball speed is the highest ever recorded in real life on the USGA's computer tests (seriously). Long John told them he'd ratchet his swing speed up slowly and that the first swing would only be one of his dink, cut/fade shots that generated 193mph at Merion but unfortunately when he put that first control swing on the rolled back ball----POOF---it was in a million piece all over the USGA test range.

Test Center to WallyU;

"Uh, Wally, back to the drawing boards, Pal!"

[Marty Bonnar]

New Balls Please

...and written by Mr L Donegan, erstwhile Commotion, muso, caddy, golfer and friend to our very own Mr L Cole, esq.

FBD.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

As I've said for years, all this I&B stuff on the part of the golfing public and the ball and equipment manufacturers is essentially based on voluntarism. Perhaps this kind of intransigence on the part of the manufacturers means the long road of voluntarism that golfers and golf manufacturers have traveled all these decades with the two ruling golf organizations is almost at an end. If the two organizations ask them to produce some rolled back ball samples (as they have done back in March/April) and they don't do it, obviously the next step to get them to do it is to actually legislate with new ball rules and regs (they would have to do that right through negative "comment" in their formal "notice and comment" process). If they refuse to do it then the end will have come of close to one hundred years of I&B rules and regs administration on the part these two ruling bodies. If that happens golf and distance in the future will make what's happened to date pale by comparison.

[Brian_Ewen]

After I read this article back in July , I always thought the making of the ball wasnt the problem ? .

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/golf/story/0,10069,1525783,00.html

[Mike Benham]

Brian's real link

[Garland Bayley]

Hasn't the USGA rolled back the ball before, which gives precedent for doing it again?

"Bobby Jones on Golf" chapter on driving for distance reports,
"Each contestant drove three times with the new standard ball and three times with the 1931 standard ball, thus affording an opportunity for actual human demonstration of the difference between the two."

"The manufacturers and the U.S.G.A. had told us that on a 250 yard drive the new ball was approximately five yards shorter than the old. But that figure was determined by tests with a driving machine."

[TEPaul]

Garland:

I think you're right about that. That may've been the result of the great "floater" ball debate. I don't have the specifics facts in front of me but I believe that new ball (rolled back) may've been slightly lighter (floater) but it was not very popular and it was pretty quickly dropped, as I recall.

[BCrosby]

TEP - Agreed.

What irks me is that Titleist has garnered kudos for its willingness to work with the USGA and the R&A, and then..... no follow-through.

This isn't rocket science. They have the machines and know how to crank out slower balls without a lot of effort or expense. (Heck, just dust off the machines that made the Professional 100 several years ago.)

Until we see the rolled back ball, after all these months I think we ought to assume that the ball manufacturers are yanking our chain and operating in bad faith.

I hope people will use this forum to keep the issue alive. I can't think of a more important one.

Bob

 

[BCrosby]

John VB will know the details, but I recall that in the early 30's distance was rolled back by way of new requirements regarding minimum ball diameter and weight.

But I forget the details. It was a big deal at the time.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"This isn't rocket science. They have the machines and know how to crank out slower balls without a lot of effort or expense. (Heck, just dust off the machines that made the Professional 100 several years ago.)"

Bob:

Of course this isn't rocket science. If the manufacturers saw the prospect of profit in a rolled back ball they'd have the thing manufactured in about two weeks. It's no secret at all why they're dragging their feet----eg they feel if they agree to this then their ever-lasting pitch that their ball is longer and longest is just all the more exposed to erosion and ineffectiveness. And face it, the ever-lasting marketing and sales pitch of more distance in golf is probably one of the greatest seductions in golf and its entire history.

[Tony_Muldoon]

John VB will know the details, but I recall that in the early 30's distance was rolled back by way of new requirements regarding minimum ball diameter and weight.

He has already penned a piece here for the "In my Opinion" section.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionvanderborght.html

[Craig Sweet]

Ahhhh....not rocket science?

I think the goal would be a "rolled back" ball that sounds and feels like the current standard, not a round "rock" from the past.

Would this not mean reformulating materials for covers, cores etc.??

That said, why would yoou want to "roll back" the ball for anyone but the pro's?  That's a narrow market no matter how you slice it. (no pun intended)....

Why not have the pro's come up with a standardize ball, just like every sport, except perhaps bowling, and contract with a company to manufacture it....just as they do in every other pro sport?  

[Kelly Blake Moran]

According to my recent issue of the Golf Letter the 1931 ball was 1.55 oz.  A gentleman named John Staver is advocating in the Golf Letter giving another look at the lighter ball.  He descibes the benefits of doing so.  Apparently there is an upper weight limit of 1.62 oz. but not a lower weight limit.

[JohnV]

John Staver is a gentleman and he really knows a lot about equipment and the rules.

The rollback in 1931 was to a 1.55 ounce ball and also was when the USGA increased the size to 1.68 inches.  It was hated, but the size was liked so they went back to a 1.62 ounce ball, but kept the larger size which is what we all play today.

It is correct that there is a 1.62 maximum weight just as there is a 1.68 inch minimum size (remember the Magnum from TopFlight?)

I'd like to see John's article.  How can I get a copy of the Golf Letter?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Gary Galyean's Golf Letter
P.O. Box 644393
Vero Beach, FL 32964
772/492-0016

[A_Clay_Man]

1974

Longest drive in the history of the pga tour----525 yards


Azinger shared this fact on this weekends skins game

[ForkaB]

(Heck, just dust off the machines that made the Professional 100 several years ago.)

I hope people will use this forum to keep the issue alive. I can't think of a more important one.

Bob

Bob

I played one of my old Professional 100s in May at Deal, and Wow, was that fun!  I've argued many times before that this should be the standard--long enough to satisfy the wannabes, enough spin to sort them out from the good players, and tough enough to not require 3-5 balls a round.

As for the last paragraph, fully agree, but I'm tired of spending 5 years pissing into the wind on this one.  You younger guys can pick up the qauntlet for a while.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

"Fun" is the right word.

You may have read the accounts of the "dead" ball that was given to some pros several months ago by an anonymous oem? The idea was (apparently) that once the pros saw how short the ball was, the hue and cry for a roll back would evaporate.

Their reaction was quite the opposite. In fact their reaction was like our reaction. The game was a lot more fun. The pros' request for more of the dead balls was greeted by silence. The oem that provided the balls has not fessed up (to my knowldege) and the balls have not reappeared.

I think the little experiment was a shocker for the oems. I think the reason for the delay is that they fear people will love the deader balls. I think their fears are justified.

Meanwhile I am guarding my single remaining sleeve of Professional 100's like a bottle of fine wine, only to be opened for a very special round.

Bob

[A.G._Crockett]

Unfortunately, I think it IS rocket science, at least to some degree.

This is because:

1. the ProV generation of golf balls have a non-linear distance increase, so that

2. Professional golfers and a very few amateurs can get very, very large distance increases at extreme swing speeds that I can't get.  I hit the ball the same distance I always did, only much, much straighter.

3. Therefore, the trick becomes to find a new ball that reverses the non-linear gain in such a way as to remove the apparently disproportionate distance gains of the professionals without significantly shortening the distances of "ordinary" golfers.

4. The solution in #3 above then would mean that the ball would NOT reward a highly skilled player to the same extent that it would a less-skilled player (namely me!), which is a dumb idea.

5. Therefore, the thing to do is find a way to make the pros voluntarily either reduce their swing speeds back to the 110 mph range OR hit 3 woods and irons off the tee because it is in their own best interest to do so, which would be best accomplished by

6. A change upward in the minimum spin rate of the ball off the driver, with the spin rate increasing as the swing speed does, so that the curvature of the ball becomes much, much more pronounced than it currently is.  However,

7. Now the Topflites, Pinnacles, and so forth that the great mass of the golf world uses will spin too much, not go as far, get lost more frequently, and cause the game to cost more and take longer!  Another dumb idea...

So, the bottom line is, we're in a tight spot!    Perhaps some good rocket science is exactly what we need, but that may take awhile.

[BCrosby]

A.G. -

You are making things unnecessarily complicated.

If the problem is the non-linearity of the pros' performance, the solution is that only pros would be required to play a rolled back ball.

No other rules change.

Sort of like wooden bats in the bigs v. aluminum bats in the minors.

Bob

[JESII]

Or, how about more courses designed like Riviera, Harbor Town, or Colonial on Tour? Especially if they were kept as firm and fast (read: green is not the goal).

If the guys played these courses three out of four weeks, I guarantee you they would clamour for the old professional because of its workability.

I understand the econimics behind the TPC generation of Tour venues, but the proof is in the pudding. How did the FLOGGERS do at those three sites this year? Did they even play?

[JohnV]

One of the interesting things about spin rate is that the Pro-V1 which is the favorite whipping boy doesn't have a "low" spin rate off the driver.

The USGA Conforming ball list gives all balls a rating of Low, Medium or High spin rate for both the driver and a short iron.

All versions of the Pro-V1 are listed as Medium for the driver and High for the irons.  Many other high-end balls such as the various TW models of Nikes and most Calloway HX Tours are listed as Low spin off the driver.

There is no definition of what Low, Medium or High means, but it seems that the Pro-V1 isn't one of those with the lower spin rate.

Perhaps the definition of spin rate would require that the spin rate off the driver and irons be similar so that a Low/High or even Medium/High couldn't be built.  That way the Top Flites and Pinnacles could keep their Low/Low spin rates and the balls the pros use would have to have both high spin rates or medium.