Ohio Golf Assoc: First to try "Tournament Ball"

[JSlonis]

Well...somebody finally stepped up and is trying something.  It may be only for one event, but it'll be interesting to see if it has any domino effect for other events and golf associations around the country.

Here is a link to the full article:

http://www.golfweek.com/285580365361247.php

[PThomas]

Geoff S has the link too

guess they beat Hootie to it

good for them!

[jeffwarne]

Nice to see someone take a stand

Their solution only seems to be aimed at the exponential gains acheived above 120 mph
Hope the science is as good as the theory

[Ryan Wharton]

As a resident buckeye, this came as a shock to me when i opened up my golfweek today. I didn't know that our state association was so progressive with scaling back the ball. If I qualify for that tournament, I will probably play in it now just to gived this a try. Not being a long hitter off the tee, I'm interested in getting my hands on one of these balls to see if it will really make a big difference for an average-length person like myself.

[Doug Siebert]

Interesting idea, but given that ball makers will sometimes change the ball without changing the name, what do they do if there are multiple versions of the same make available on the market?  Are they actually handing the players a dozen balls when they sign up or will they just say "you gotta play the DT Solo" and leave it to the players to provide their own?

Nevertheless, even if it is not practical it will surely stimulate thought and discussion on the issue, so bravo to the Buckeyes (not often you hear a Hawkeye fan say that!)

[Mike Benham]

Interesting idea, but given that ball makers will sometimes change the ball without changing the name, what do they do if there are multiple versions of the same make available on the market?  Are they actually handing the players a dozen balls when they sign up or will they just say "you gotta play the DT Solo" and leave it to the players to provide their own?

Nevertheless, even if it is not practical it will surely stimulate thought and discussion on the issue, so bravo to the Buckeyes (not often you hear a Hawkeye fan say that!)

Doug - if you read the article, you will answer your own questions

The OGA declined to reveal the manufacturer of its tournament ball. The only name on the ball will be that of the OGA. Players will receive balls free of charge about two weeks before the event.

[jg7236]

Those Ohio boys are damn smart.  Always ahead of the competition.....

[Tony_Muldoon]

The damn has sprung a leak?

I've never heard of the the Ohio Golf Association.  It's possible they could be in every future "History of Golf".

They say it's an experiment and it's all the more welcome for that.

 

[ForkaB]

The damn has sprung a leak?

Great tyop, Tony!

I agree.  This is a VERY positive development.  It will be very interesting to see who will be producing the ball.  If (as is likely) it is not Titleist, a possible reason for their recent patent applications becomes more clear....

[Jesse Jones]

Windy Knoll is a nice track..There's at least one heroic carry on #5 a 479 yard uphill dogleg left par 4..The carry is about 240 from the back tees into the wind..You can bail right..but that leaves you an impossible second shot..
I'd love to see how these guys handle that with the new ball..

[TEPaul]

This is really interesting. I didn't know the OGA had a such a reputation as independent thinkers on Rules and such and had butted heads with the USGA over Rules in the past---eg tapping down spike marks.

Typically, being in golf administration, I'm no fan of golf associations who think to buck R&A/USGA Rules of Golf (like allowing tapping down spike marks). That kind of thing smacks of the original problems the young USGA had with the Western Golf Association back in the teens when the "Western" threatened to go off and institute their own Rules of Golf independent of the USGA Rules of Golf. That kind of thing extrapolated leads to factionalization in rules in golf and a basically a mess due to total lack of unity.

But this one is interesting, because it's goal seems so postive.

It may not matter to most of you but to a golf administrator the fact that the OGA is going to go with some kind of "standard" ball that may not go as far over 105 mph as other R&A/USGA "conforming" balls do is very interesting.

The fact that there is no "Local" Rule in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf that gives a "tournament committee" (OGA's) that right is also interesting because technically if the OGA REQUIRES the competitors in that OGA championship to play the tounament with some ball that is different in some way from the rest of the R&A/USGA "conforming" golf balls then the OGA is basically not playing that tournament under the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

Technically, the way the OGA could REQUIRE the competitors to play some designated ball is to put that requirement on their "conditions of competition" sheet. But again, there is no "Local" Rule that allows that in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. The OGA would have to come up with their own "Local" Rule for that and the fact is the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf does not allow a tournament committee to do something like that.

But do you notice how the OGA apparently intends to get around violating the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf? Apparently they are NOT going to come up with their own "Local" Rule REQUIRING all competitors to play with their designated ball, they are only going to ASK the compeititors if they will use it.

So presumably if any of their competitors want to tee it up with any R&A/USGA "conforming" golf ball (other than the OGA recommended standard designated ball) the OGA will not disqualify them for it which they could do if there was a R&A/USGA "Local" Rule that would allow them to DQ.

This will be interesting. This really is a grass roots move.

I remember Alan Fadel. I qualified with him or played with him a few times in the Crump Cup. But do you know why I really remember Alan Fadel pretty well? Because I always thought he seemed like a guy with very strong opinions about things and he was never hesitant to express them, that's for sure!  

[Jim Sweeney]

Perhaps, no probably, I am confused....

I don't infer from the article a break with the rules of golf. The ball the OGA intends to use will conform to the rules. It apparently is a ball currently manufactured and on the market, but not one which (reportedly) performs exponentially better distance wise at swing speeds in excess of 115 mph.

So I disagree with my friend the distinguished poster and golf philosopher TEPaul. The issue here is really not a rules question at all, It is a question about the conditions of the competition, which are set by the committee, and must not be contrary to any rule.

The condition of competition question in this case combines the condition requiring the ball appearing on the list of approved balls, and the one ball rule. Both conditions are within the rules and are met in this case, so again, there is no problem rules-wise. I searched and searched, but I could find no rule, condition, decision, or anything that gives a player the right to play any ball he wishes.

There may be a problem with posting scores for handicap purposes (analagous to the limitation on clubs issue) but that is another discussion.

I just can't see where there is any question that the OGA's action is not contrary to the rules, conditions of the competition, or anything else for that matter.

The OGA's legendary Executive Director Nick Popa and long time president Earl Hamilton were the USGA's thorns over the issue of fixing spike marks. Nick and Earl are now both gone, and Nick's son Jim is Executive Director of the OGA and the Columbus District Golf Association. The relationship between the OGA/CDGA and the USGA has been warm; the CDGA conducts US Open Sectional Qualifying, issues USGA HAndicaps using the GHIN System, and slope rates golf courses.

My hope is that golf associations (including the USGA) watch what happens during this tournament, but don't overreact either positively or negatively. Maybe others will try as well, or maybe the USGA could conduct a series of experiments in golf associations around the country to witness the effects of such a ball limitation ( these experiments would have to be in top rate competition, such as state ams or mid-ams.) They have done the same thing with handicapping. But if we, as golfers or representatives of golf associaitons, pre judge the outcomes or push for changes without factual information, the process will be destroyed, and there needs to be process.

[Brent Hutto]

The spike mark kerfuffle is on point as demonstrating the Ohio Golf Association's history of doing things their own way.

But there's no analogy to be drawn between a agreed-upon violation of the Rules of Golf masquerading as a condition of competition such as allowing spike marks to be repaired before putting versus the specification of a single ball for a particular competition. The latter sort of condition is quite mainstream and in keeping the letter and spirit of the Rules, IMHO. I'll be interested in seeing the anecdotal results of their little experiment.

[Garland Bayley]

So how are they going to pull this off. Here's my theory. The USGA has an initial velocity test and an overall distance standard. Ball manufacturers would be crazy not to max out against these tests. Therefore, the most obvious way Ohio will get the balls they want, is to use a ball that spins proportional to the angle of the clubface. Where are they going to get such balls? I sent a question to Titleist about such balls and the reply was we held out the longest making such balls, however, the world has moved on. We have no such balls and we have no way to make such balls.

Good luck Buckeyes!

[Jim Sweeney]

GArland:

If I read the article correctly, I infered that the OGA will use currently produced balls which are on the USGA list of approved balls.

The balls may meet the maximum limits in the rules. However, they will have arithmentic instead of exponential performance characteristics. In other words, a 10% increase in clubhead speed will produce a 10% increase in distance (all else being equal) rather than a 12% increase, for example.

This takes the ProVs and Callaway Blacks out. It may leave the Nike Mojo, Titleist Solo, Precept Laddie, etc. in. I don't know that for a fact, but these are the models designed for slower swing speeds, and jumping from 110-115 mph will not exponentially increase distance, so I am told.

[Ted Kramer]

I'm 100% in favor of a "rolled back" ball.
And I completely disagree with any notion that there is ball on the market that provides an exponential distance gain at the higher swing speeds.

-Ted

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

If I read the article correctly, they were talking about a sublinear increase for higher swing speeds. I believe as Ted does that there is no exponential increase for any ball. Spin optimization helps restore the linear increase. It does not increase the energy of the ball.

[RJ_Daley]

The article states "we haven't chosen the exact ball yet" and "we are leaning towards one".  

Is there any chance that they could specify a set of known performance specification numbers which fall within several manufacturers models or series of balls?  That way, there couldn't be any cause to file a suit by a specific manufacturer claiming restraint of trade type of arguments.  Or, is that what is intended by OGA and just not fully explained?

It is a worthwhile effort and I'm glad the OGA has the independant spirit to go with it.

[Garland Bayley]

The article states "we haven't chosen the exact ball yet" and "we are leaning towards one".  
...

Your quote is both wrong and out of context.
"but we are leaning to one that optimizes (distance efficiency off the tee) between 100 and 105 miles per hour (driver swing speed)."
To me this says they have specs, but no ball.

[JohnV]

Jim,

I agree with your analysis of a Competition Committee specifying a particular ball and whether it is allowed.  I see no reason that they can't do that.

In the article from their website, they say they will be measuring distance and ball speed at various holes around the course.  This would be interesting data to see.  I wonder if they have taken similar measurements at previous events and seen if the current ball really does what they say it does or if it all their evidence is anecdotal.  That would be even more interesting data to see.

[Jim Sweeney]

Garland:

The article about the OGA move states, "Several studies show that golfers who acheive a swing speed of 115-120 miles per hour can get a distance boost from many modern balls. Aerodynamically, it is almost as if these balls shift into overdrive."

What does that mean, if not that distance performance increases at an increasing rate at higher swing speeds? Isn't that what the discussion is all about? If not, then we no longer need to discuss limiting equipment, but whether it is OK to limit human performance, which was never the issue before.

I would agree that there should not be a penalty for better human performance; i.e., that if you can swing the club faster than your fellow competitor, you should be rewarded proportionately (and accept greater penalties for your misses!).

John V.:

I think it would be interesting to see where drives finished in relation to fairway hazards.

Jim

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

It seems the distance gains are linear.

...This is obviously also why the USGA Tech Center says the distance increase of these new balls in relation to swing speed is linear.

It also seems Ohio won't correctly choose a ball that performs in the fashion they desire.

...
As far as the R&A/USGA putting the distance "genie" back in the bottle---of course they can do that. All they have to do is write new or additional I&B rules and regs that put limitations on the distance increases we've seen in the last 10-15 years. They claim they know enough (after their recent $10 mil study) to begin to do that. Obviously both politcially and legally that's not an easy thing to do. Hardly anyone on this website seems to understand or appreciate that fact but it's nonetheless completely true.

If they effectively erase the distance gains of particularly elite players in the last 10-15 years they will need to deem as "nonconforming" probably every ball on the market and being used today. That transition takes time obviously.
...

I think the Ohio people have created an intractable problem for themselves. They are going to measure "distance and ball speed around the course". With whose swing and whose club? If they pick one ball that performed the way they want with a particular swing and club, then they are in the same boat as the USGA. The USGA verifies all balls meet the ODS with a particular swing and club. Unfortunately, the same ball with a different swing and club will far exceed the ODS. That's why players get on the launch monitor now. If you have been on the launch monitor to pick your optimal club and all your fellow competitors have been too, then there is a equitable match. If you pick a ball that is optimal for one 120 mph swinger and not optimal for another then it is not an equitable match.

Probably their best chance of getting the results they want is to pick the Cayman ball and have them play from the ladies tees.

[JohnV]

The USGA verifies all balls meet the ODS with a particular swing and club. Unfortunately, the same ball with a different swing and club will far exceed the ODS. That's why players get on the launch monitor now.

So do you think the USGA should test every possible combination of Ball/Club/Swing/Launch Angle and reject a ball because some specific driver with a particular swing and launch angle exceeds the ODS?  

Then they would have to test every ball, every time a new driver came out and balls that were conforming would suddenly become non-conforming.  Or perhaps they have a ball-and-driver list which says you can't use this ball with this driver, but you can with this one or you can't use this ball if you have a 13.5 degree launch angle.  And do we ban someone who swings harder than 120 MPH from using certain balls because that would exceed the spec?  And if some guy comes along and suddenly swings 5% faster than everyone else we have to take all the balls back and retest them.  Oops, I forgot to include different shafts.

Sorry, I'm getting carried away.

There is no way to test every possible combination.  I know that some people have gone on for a long time about the USGA's proposed (and dropped) optimization test, but even it wouldn't have tested all the combinations, only specific launch angles, it wouldn't have actually hit every ball with every club.

The USGA test is for a specific configuration.  It does not attempt to say that a ball hit in a different way or with a different club won't go further, just that this is the limit for a ball when hit under this configuration of club/ball/launch-angle/speed.  Others will exceed it, but if the club-head is legal and the ball is legal, then the other factors which are controlled by the player's swing such as clubhead speed and launch angle are due to his physical abilities (of course there is always the shaft which still bugs me).

All that being said, there is still a reasonable belief that the distance that the current test allows is too much and the ball should possibly be rolled back to correct that.  Even if that happens, there will still be players who hit it further than the new specified test numbers.

[Garland Bayley]

So do you think the USGA should test every possible combination of Ball/Club/Swing/Launch Angle and reject a ball because some specific driver with a particular swing and launch angle exceeds the ODS?  
...

No, I think the USGA should re-establish the linear relationship of ball spin to clubface angle. But, that is off topic.

Here, I am suggesting that Ohio will not be very successful with what they are attempting to do.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

The article about the OGA move states, "Several studies show that golfers who acheive a swing speed of 115-120 miles per hour can get a distance boost from many modern balls. Aerodynamically, it is almost as if these balls shift into overdrive."

Which article did this quote come from? It's not in the Golfweek article cited above.  Who's being quoted.  Which studies are they? I wonder if the studies are available?  There is so much speculation and so little hard facts around this subject it's mind boggling.  

The Golfweek article says Ohio's had a ball committee for 5 years (I guess they should be grouped with the USGA as slow off the mark on ball distance).  One wonders if any of their test results are publicly available?  Any Ohioans out there who'd like to ask.

John,

I agree wholeheartedly with your premise that there's no way to test and regulate every possible combination of club,  ball and swing.  There will always be debate about whatever regulation is eventually arrived at.  Just as people criticize the current ODS standard and test, so will they criticize the new regulations and tests whenever they are instituted.

Re Ohio, it says they've been at this for 5 years, so hopefully they have a baseline for comparison to the tournament play, although a tournament doesn't seem like much of a controlled test to me.  Will they have swing speed monitors and launch monitors to capture key data for every driver of every player at every driving hole?  How will they measure carry, as opposed to total distance?  Will they choose to ignore the data from players who choose to play low stinger type drives for roll and not carry? Is there a statistically representative sample in what they will measure.  So many questions, so few answers.

I wonder how they decided that a ball optimized for swing speeds  of 100 to 105 mph was the right place to land.  Suits me since I'm right in the middle of that range.  If I swang at 95mph I might feel that I was being penalized.  The implication is that faster swingers will be penalized (compared to current balls) more.  I wonder if they'll publish their test results on how much the distance loss will be, to the competitors before the competition.  Giving them the ball 2 weeks before is not giving them much time to do their own testing and dial in new understanding of their own performance with the new ball.  Something of an additional competitive disadvantage in this tournament.
 

Others will exceed it, but if the club-head is legal and the ball is legal, then the other factors which are controlled by the player's swing such as clubhead speed and launch angle are due to his physical abilities (of course there is always the shaft which still bugs me).

I agree.  There doesn't seem to be enough credit given around here for the physical abilities of those people who can and do swing fast and achieve great distance with the driver and keep it in play.  It is a talent and a skill.

What is it about the shaft that bugs you?  It's common wisdom that if you use a softer flex shaft you can achieve greater clubhead speed (at some supposed loss of control).  And it's generally agreed that lighter shafts can be swung faster.  Or made longer, at the same weight, to increase clubhead speed.  Presumably the USGA at least is considering all these factors in addressing the distance issue.

Now, off to the basement to put some new graphite shafts in my irons.  Hope springs eternal, until it's regulated out of existance.