[TEPaul]

"Yes, I have.
But, last night I had the opportunity to talk directly to one of the architects of the "competition" ball adoption by the OGA. "

Patrick:

OGA didn't spec out and get a ball manufactured as a competition ball---they simply bought about $10 grand worth of a particular ball that they think maxes out performance-wise at about 105 mph. I spoke with OGA about all this about six weeks ago.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm aware of that.
I'm also aware of the difficulties and lack of support they encountered.

Today Ohio, Tomorrow the World

[Kelly Blake Moran]

"The fellow from Ohio was involved in the decision making process.
He's intelligent, articulate and concerned about a game he loves.
But, last night I had the opportunity to talk directly to one of the architects of the "competition" ball adoption by the OGA."

Well then, rather than asking us a bunch of questions, why don't you just tell us what the hard working common folk told you at dinner.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly Blake Moran,

Since you asked, one of the things that surprised me was that their idea was not greeted with open arms when floated before the USGA.

The other thing was that the ball is manufactured in Europe.

And, that they don't feel the the rollback vis a vis this ball is enough, but, certainly it's a start in the right direction.

While it appears that higher spin rates will affect distance, there's a hope that ball control will also be affected by higher spin rates, returning "shot making" to the game.

Since spin rates aren't the only component that affect distance, the question remains, will someone "spec out" a competition ball, rather then buy a production ball, in the not too distant future ?

Will other golf associations adopt the OGA concept ?

TEPaul, what's Pennsylvania doing ?
What's the GAP doing ?

And, will the recent changes at ANGC accelerate or decelerate that pursuit.

Is that good enough for you, your crankiness ?

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick....can you blame the USGA for not being too happy that a state golf association took it upon themselves to make a decision regarding equipment?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

What does that tell you ?

The USGA is a wonderful organization with terrific people, but, like all of us they're not infallible.

They missed the boat on this issue years ago.

They should have been thrilled that a grass roots movement was forming and that a state association took a positive step.

Pride of Authorship shouldn't enter into the equation.

[Craig Sweet]

Is it authorship or authority?

It's a little like the political scene...the conservatives are all for states rights, until they're not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is it authorship or authority?

It's a little like the political scene...the conservatives are all for states rights, until they're not.

So you feel that the Liberals have the best solutions for every problem we face ?  ? ?

I don't want to get off on a rant, but they both stink.
All they can do is argue against one another while NOTHING gets done to fix the problems we face, many of which they created.  They all have short memories and long reaches into our pockets.

[Craig Sweet]

No...no political rants!!!  

I was mearly commenting on what I perceive as the USGA's authority (at least in their minds) and that of local golf associations.

UNLIKE the political scene, the USGA has probably never advocated a form of "states rights" or Federalism. All authority flows from the top.

Back to spin rates....

How much of this is having the technology to measure spin rate and the ability to build a golf club to the data you desire?  In other words, the old Mac. Tourney persimon driver put spin on the ball but we had no idea how much. Could we not build a mac. Tourney out of wood, and using today's swing monitor manufacture it to give us the desired results....longer...straighter drives??

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

Once you return to wood the whole equation changes.

The clubhead weight is an impediment to swing speed to all but the strongest golfers.


Shaft length is affected as well.

And, if you returned to wood, clubhead size would also be limited, dramatically affecting play.

I know it's unlikely to happen, but, it's a wonderful quick solution.

And, you wouldn't have to worry as much about spin rates.

[TEPaul]

"Your crankiness"

Patrick:

I like that. Good show.

Is the Pa Golf Association or GAP going to follow OGA in using some apparent limited distance "competition" ball in any of our tournaments?

No, we aren't and I haven't found any other associations who are willing to do that. I think I might've mentioned the idea at our last board meeting and the general responses were some pretty harsh criticisms of that move by OGA, unfortunately.

Perhaps the primary issues for golf associations and tournament administrators on this OGA thing is not about distance, it's about The Rules of Golf.

I realize that most on here probably couldn't care less about what I'm about to say but to golf associations and tournament administrators its a big deal and that is there is no "Local" Rule in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf that can allow a "Tournament Committee" to require players to use a specific golf ball at the exclusion of any other golf balls on the R&A/USGA's list of conforming golf balls. In other words there is no "Competition" ball Local Rule in the Rules of Golf to allow a tournament ""Committee" to require this kind of thing on their "Conditions of Competition" sheet.

For a golf association, tournament, tournament committee etc to try to make players do that in a tournament is consequently not playing the tournament under the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

That's the way the USGA looks at this as do most golf associations and tournament administrators. Essentially they want to contest tournaments under the Rules of Golf.

Will the R&A/USGA institute such a "Local" Rule (to allow tournament committees to require the use of a "competition ball) one of these days? I don't know, I just know they haven't planned on that yet.

OGA is more than aware of that impending Rule 33 problem and so they are running this one tournament as an "invitational". In other words, it states on the tournament invitation that this is what they are going to do.

I asked OGA what would happen if one of the competitors even knowing before accepting the invitation that that is what they were going to do decided when he got to the tournament that he was going to play a R&A/USGA conforming ball of his own choice anyway and not OGA's specificed "competition" ball.

The OGA fellow told me he supposed they probably just wouldn't accept his scorecard. I asked him if he meant they'd DQ him and he said no, that they just wouldn't accept his scorecard. I think I told him that in effect that was essentially the same thing.  

As with most everything else you talk about this issue is not quite so simple as you want to make it. Not at this point anyway.

I have a real hunch that what this OGA thing will really do is put some new meaning and new definition into the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf about how much autonomy a "tournament committee" can have to use their own "Local Rules" and still play within the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

It's my understanding that this whole thing is the inspiration of OGA's Alan Fadel. I knew Alan from the Crump Cup days and I called him about this and he put me onto another guy involved too. Alan is a good player but what I remember most about Alan is he always was a man with very diefinite and very strong opinions on things. I wish him and OGA well in this, but I'm not seeing a lot of support for it right now among other associations, or in the USGA.

[TEPaul]

"Will higher spin rates also serve to put "working the ball" and "controlling the ball" back into play?"

Patrick:

It would seem so. There appears to be some amount of spin rate at which "working the ball" and controlling the performance of a ball once it hits the green takes over. I'm told as a generality the old high spin rate golf balls had a spin rate of app 3,000 rpms while the new age balls may be down to app 2,000 rpms. I suppose it's logical to assume that this is evident at something around the ODS (either the old one of 109mph or the new one of 120mph)

"Do spin rates affect those golfers with higher swing speeds more then golfers with lower swing speeds?"

I believe various spin rates effect the performance of the golf ball depending on the golfer's mph (among a few other things). The most interesting effect apparently is that a high spin rate golf ball will effect the trajectory of a high swing speed player much more and much more negatively for distance enhancement then it will a lower swing speed player.

This phenomenon just may be something of a win/win situation with this distance problem. In effect if the regulatory bodies legislated that golf balls MUST have a significantly higher spin rate than most do now the trajectories of high swing speed players would return to what they used to be before the production of these new age golf balls like the ProV series that feel fairly soft but are relatively low spinning.

As I've said for a few years now it would be most interesting to see what the distance effect would be on high swing speed players if the R&A/USGA for the first time wrote a regulation on golf ball CONFORMANCE that would LIMIT the MINIMUM amount of spin rate a golf ball could have to something significantly higher than the spin rate of most all the new age balls today.

Obviously if they did that it would render as non-conforming most all the golf balls on the market today. To do something like that would take time and obviously be quite controversial.

However, I just don't see the regulatory bodies REQUIRING only high spin rate balls to be used in competition when low spin rate balls are still considered to be conforming. A situation like that would in effect legislate a "competition" ball within the R&A/USGA I&B Rules and Regulations and they have said in no uncertain terms they do not intend to do that (just read the "R&A/USGA Joint Statement of Principles" written in 2002 (apparently by Walter Driver---current USGA President)). That statement can be found on the USGA's website.

But in a word, it would seem that spin rate can be a huge contributing factor in controlling distance of high swing speed players as well as other performance characteristics of high swing speed players.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

It would seem there is another very important underlying question in this entire issue, and that is at what swing speed is a golfer considered to be "high swing" speed in the sense of being able to begin to generate that flatter trajectory that is actually negative to distance enhancement? It's beginning to look like that effect may begin to happen with players who swing at around 105mph and obviously that effect on trajectory increases as swing speed rises above app 105 mph.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm curious,

What were some of the objections to the concept of reigning in distance vis a vis a competition ball ?

Was the primary one, not being aligned with the USGA's position ?

What were the dissenting views ?

[Bryan Izatt]

The other thing was that the ball is manufactured in Europe.

And, that they don't feel the the rollback vis a vis this ball is enough, but, certainly it's a start in the right direction.

While it appears that higher spin rates will affect distance, there's a hope that ball control will also be affected by higher spin rates, returning "shot making" to the game.

Since spin rates aren't the only component that affect distance, the question remains, will someone "spec out" a competition ball, rather then buy a production ball, in the not too distant future ?

Any ideas on who manufactures ball in Europe?  Dunlop?  Could it be the return of the Dunlop 65?

Did the Ohio architect of the "competition ball" give you any insight as to how they are going to carry out the "experimental" tournament?  What are they going to observe or measure to help them determine the impact of the ball.  Will they measure or observe distance?  Or spin? Or frequency of interfaces with architectural features on the course? Or scoring?  Or shot making?  What will they use as a baseline for comparisons?

I'm having a hard time understanding what they will learn or demonstrate.  A double blind test would be informative.  Divide the field into two comparably skilled groups.  Give one group the unmarked "tournament ball" and the other group unmarked Pro V1's.  Have them play a second 18 hole round and switch the unmarked balls.  From that you might get some information about the impact of the ball.  I don't suppose they plan to do this.

Did you get any other info from him that might shed light on their approach?  Was there any comment on what they might publish after the fact on what conclusions they came to?  Or will it be confidential?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I'm curious,
What were some of the objections to the concept of reigning in distance vis a vis a competition ball ?
Was the primary one, not being aligned with the USGA's position ?
What were the dissenting views?"

Patrick:

Objections where?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Any ideas on who manufactures ball in Europe?  Dunlop?  Could it be the return of the Dunlop 65?

I don't know.

Did the Ohio architect of the "competition ball" give you any insight as to how they are going to carry out the "experimental" tournament?  

They're going to "carry out" the tournament like every other tournament.

The competitors will be provided with a supply of "competition" balls, tee it up and post their scores

What are they going to observe or measure to help them determine the impact of the ball.  Will they measure or observe distance?  Or spin? Or frequency of interfaces with architectural features on the course? Or scoring?  Or shot making?  What will they use as a baseline for comparisons?

How would they go about measuring every shot, allowing for weather, wind, time of day and soil conditions ?

I think they've made a decision to play a dialed back ball and they'll simply conduct the tournament as they always have.

I'm having a hard time understanding what they will learn or demonstrate.  A double blind test would be informative.  Divide the field into two comparably skilled groups.  Give one group the unmarked "tournament ball" and the other group unmarked Pro V1's.  Have them play a second 18 hole round and switch the unmarked balls.  From that you might get some information about the impact of the ball.  I don't suppose they plan to do this.

I believe that wouldn't be in conformance with the rules or equity.

Did you get any other info from him that might shed light on their approach?

Yes.

Was there any comment on what they might publish after the fact on what conclusions they came to?  

They're going to publish the results of the tournament, as they always have.

Or will it be confidential?

No, the scores will be posted.

What are you afraid of ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Objections where?

TEPaul,

If the issue was brought before the PA Golf Association, and the GAP, and they didn't adopt a standard competition ball like the OGA, I would imagine that there was some discussion on the issue before they voted against adoption.

I was curious as to the reasons NOT to adopt a competition ball.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
If the issue was brought before the PA Golf Association, and the GAP, and they didn't adopt a standard competition ball like the OGA, I would imagine that there was some discussion on the issue before they voted against adoption.
I was curious as to the reasons NOT to adopt a competition ball."

Pat:

I'm no longer on on the board of GAP so I can't speak to that board's opinion on the OGA position.

On the Pa Golf Association's board, of which this year I am the president, the OGA's move on a competition ball in one of their tournaments did not come up for a vote on our board. The OGA's move on a competition ball may've been informally discussed but my sense was there was no support at all to do something in our tournament competitions similar to what the OGA is doing this year in that one tournament of theirs in which they will apparently require the use of a  ball of their selection.

The GAP and the Pa Golf Association supports the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf and the R&A/USGA Rules and Regulations on golf balls and golf implements.  
 
 

[Bryan Izatt]

Did the Ohio architect of the "competition ball" give you any insight as to how they are going to carry out the "experimental" tournament?

They're going to "carry out" the tournament like every other tournament.

The competitors will be provided with a supply of "competition" balls, tee it up and post their scores

What are they going to observe or measure to help them determine the impact of the ball.  Will they measure or observe distance?  Or spin? Or frequency of interfaces with architectural features on the course? Or scoring?  Or shot making?  What will they use as a baseline for comparisons?

How would they go about measuring every shot, allowing for weather, wind, time of day and soil conditions ?

I think they've made a decision to play a dialed back ball and they'll simply conduct the tournament as they always have.

I'm having a hard time understanding what they will learn or demonstrate.  A double blind test would be informative.  Divide the field into two comparably skilled groups.  Give one group the unmarked "tournament ball" and the other group unmarked Pro V1's.  Have them play a second 18 hole round and switch the unmarked balls.  From that you might get some information about the impact of the ball.  I don't suppose they plan to do this.

I believe that wouldn't be in conformance with the rules or equity.

Did you get any other info from him that might shed light on their approach?

Yes.   Are you going to share?

Was there any comment on what they might publish after the fact on what conclusions they came to?

They're going to publish the results of the tournament, as they always have.

Or will it be confidential?

No, the scores will be posted.

What are you afraid of ?

I wasn't aware that my questions indicated that I was afraid of anything on this topic.  I was just curious.  I still am; curious that is.

I understood from threads on this site that the OGA has decided to use a "tournament ball" in one of their tournaments.  I assumed that they were trying to determine something by doing that.  I wondered what it was.

I found the following on the Toledo Golf Association web site that sheds some light:

"The ball to be used will be a modern ball, with specifications as similar as possible to most popular balls, the only exception will be a lower compression. The ball to be used will be on the USGA's approved ball list.

Like a tour event, the Champions Tournament will have several stations where ball flight, distance and swing speeds will be measured and documented for the entire field. The purpose is to extrapolate information that will prove useful in the ultimate goal of identifying a tournament golf ball."

I guess that answers your question above about how they would do it.  Still, I don't understand what measuring ball flight, distance and swing speed will achieve in terms of understanding the impact of a common tournament ball, in the absence of some baseline data for comparison.

I guess they could provide a distance vs swing speed graph (as are beloved by Moriarty and me) for a low compression ball.  I guess they could compare that to the USGA's recent paper on the lack of an exponential distance effect in modern tour golf balls.

Still leaves my questions unanswered.  What will they use as a baseline for comparison; and will they publish some kind of results from the "experiment".  

Yes, I know they'll publish the scores.

[TEPaul]

"I believe that wouldn't be in conformance with the rules or equity."

Patrick:

You seem to be missing something here. Not every single one but most of the Rules authorities I've checked with (including the USGA's Rules Committee) believes that to conduct a tournment by requiring the competitors to play a specified ball is not conducting the tournament in conformance with the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

I think they've concluded that the ball is going too far and this is their initial step to halt, or retro that progression.

I don't understand the need to "stat" the tournament.

I don't know what the "stats" will accomplish.

Does anyone recall the deadline for the reduced distance spec ball that the USGA requested from the manufacturers ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I believe that wouldn't be in conformance with the rules or equity."

Patrick:

You seem to be missing something here. Not every single one but most of the Rules authorities I've checked with (including the USGA's Rules Committee) believes that to conduct a tournment by requiring the competitors to play a specified ball is not conducting the tournament in conformance with the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf.

I asked that question and was told the it had been researched very carefully by the OGA and others, and that initially there was some concern on the USGA's part, but, that they acquiesced on the issue.   I can't verify whether that's accurate or not

[Glenn Spencer]

3 things- OGA has 'invented' a tournament for 'champions' and they can't have a Match Play event? Someone please explain that, no never mind, I will just have to not pay attention to anything that was said in the thread about golf associations. 10k on balls for a test- sounds like they are hurting alright.

Does an official follow you around the golf course and supply you with new or more balls if you want one. What if you think your ball needs to be replaced because of whatever reason and the official doesn't. I hope the OGA has enough money to properly supply all the ball requests.

I will be shocked if they learn anything that is truly true from this event and the reason is that the course they are playing Windy Knoll Farm is a links-style course and it plays as hard and as fast as you could want a golf course to play. The ball runs forever here and the only thing that they may learn is the off-center flight of the balls because as the name suggests there is a lot of wind.

[TEPaul]

"I asked that question and was told the it had been researched very carefully by the OGA and others, and that initially there was some concern on the USGA's part, but, that they acquiesced on the issue.  I can't verify whether that's accurate or not."

Pat:

The USGA has acquesced on the issue??

How is that? What have they acquiesced to? And who are you going to check with? Someone from the OGA?

It seems to me that a number of pretty central Rules authorities believe that for a "Tournament Committee" to REQUIRE competitors in a tournament to play a specified ball ("competition ball") is not conducting the competition in conformance with the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf. One reason may be that no "Local Rule" exists in the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf to provide for such a requirement in the "Conditions of Competition". Such a "Local Rule" would probably be somewhat similar to the "One Ball Condition" Local Rule (One Ball Rule). But again, no Local Rule exists that allows a "committee" to require the use of a specified or competition ball.

The OGA obviously wants to promote the acceptance and use of a "competition" ball in tournament golf but what they may precipitate is a new definition of what type of authority, if any, a "committee" has to require the use of Local Rules if those Local Rules are deemed by the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee to not be in conformance with the Rules of Golf.

Since I became aware of this OGA "competition" ball issue I've tried to research what Rule of golf the OGA would not be in conformance with if they required a "competition ball".

So far it is not clear to me although the final authority on rules matters is the R&A/USGA and what they decide on this matter will be the final ruling. It looks to me like this may require an additional definition under Rule 33-8a or some additional clarification under Appendix 1. And ultimately that would come from the R&A/USGA Joint Rules Committee. They are the final word on all R&A/USGA Rules of Golf matters.

When you or the OGA say the USGA has 'acquiesced' on this issue that could very well mean that they have deemed that this OGA tournament is going to be conducted not in conformance with the Rules of Golf and if the OGA for some reason wanted to have something clarified or ruled on by the USGA during this tournament the USGA would have nothing to say---eg they'd refuse to make a ruling on any question at all during the tournament as they deem the tournament to be conducted not in conformance with the Rules of Golf.
 
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()