Is that a Tsunami forming on the distant horizon ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The USGA requests that the manufacturers design a ball that will go 15 to 25 yards less ?

Dick Rugge discusses a serious rollback in clubhead size to 260 cc's.

The USGA is conducting serious research in the area of grooves.

USGA testing indicates that mis-hits seven eighths (7/8) of an inch off center on a modern driver lose just ten (10) yards compared to center hits, while persimmon drivers lost forty five (45) yards on such contact.

With discussions on limiting shaft lengths and increasing spin rates, does anyone see a Tsunami forming on the Horizon ?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

No, but at least there is a reason to talk about getting the surf boards down.

[Peter_Collins]

If by Tsunami you mean lawsuit: Yes.  

I'm all for a tournament ball to keep old classic courses relevant as major championships venues (pro and am).  But, for the average golfer on an average golf course the advances in technology have made golf much more enjoyable.  I cannot imagine the "greater good" of the game being served by rolling back equipment.  If the USGA was going to act on golf equipment the time to act was 10 years ago.  Now that the average golfer has experienced the wonders of 460 cc low moment of inertia drivers and multi-layer golfballs they aren't going back without a fight.  As the old saying goes "how do you get them back on farm when they've been to gay Paris"

[Scott Coan]

The tsunami swamped us years ago with the introduction of metal WOODS.  That genie should NEVER have been let out of the bottle.

20 years ago it took a huge amount of skill and power to hit a drive 300 yards with a persimmon head and steel shaft.  Today a complete tosser can do it with any of the top of the line titanium drivers.

[George Pazin]

Scott, I resent cheap shots like that.

Anyone care to assess the likelihood of anything approaching these proposals passing?

[Anthony Butler]

The tsunami swamped us years ago with the introduction of metal WOODS.  That genie should NEVER have been let out of the bottle.

20 years ago it took a huge amount of skill and power to hit a drive 300 yards with a persimmon head and steel shaft.  Today a complete tosser can do it with any of the top of the line titanium drivers.

Must admit following Greg Norman in '78 and watching him drive the balata ball with a M85 Macgregor Driver was the most impressive thing I've ever seen on a golf course. He is probably the player most disadvantaged by the intro of the solid ball and metal wood.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Oh, I dunno about that...I enjoyed the game way the hell more with a Titleist Low Traj, a bag full of blades with leather grips, an 8802 and a couple of Hogan Six-Screws...

Since when are you an average golfer... an average knucklehead is more like it...

Pat - where did you read about them going back to 260cc?
I would applaud it, I was quite surprised when they came out with the limit in the 300s, and the next day they asked for a mulligan and bumped it to 460...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Nuzzo,

I too was disappointed when the USGA blinked and increased the maximum.

Did they ever give a reason, not just for increasing the limit, but for increasing the limit in a quantum leap ?

Dick Rugge spoke at Muirfield Village during the Memorial Tournament, to the Captains Club.

While Rugge confirmed that there was discussion about clubhead size, he was quick to dismiss it as anything other than that.... talk.   "It was theoretical" Rugge said.
"Everything is theoretical at this point.  There are no plans to make any changes on this.  None."

Jack Nicklaus, a member of the Captains Club and a golfer who won 18 Majors with a poor/weak to average short game according to some on this site, said, " I'm simply encouraged that they are looking at it."

The fact that the USGA is testing the impact of driver size and that the USGA's test results reflect such a dramatic performance gap between a modern driver and a standard persimmon driver, would seem to indicate that they're starting to accept that a distance issue/problem clearly exists.

A 35 yard differential in mis-hits of 7/8ths of an inch seems rather substantial, AND, that's with a modern ball.

In addition to the yardage, I wonder what the directional deviation of those mis-hits was ?

If it resulted in an angular deflection of 5 or 10 degrees coupled with a 35 yard loss, that should send a relatively clear signal to those administering the tests, wouldn't you think ?

[TEPaul]

"Is that a Tsunami forming on the distant horizon?"

Patrick:

I posted the meat of Chairman Jim Vernon's Equipment Standards Committee report that he gave at the USGA's annual meeting in Atlanta Ga. back in February which had basically all this you just mentioned in it, and in some detail.

Are you just getting around to figuring out what it said about five months after the fact? You are slow on the uptake, as usual.

While you've been yammering about a "competition" golf ball and this independent move by the OGA, apparently what the USGA seems to be in the process of doing for more than the last half year in I&B has obviously gone right by you without you even noticing.

You know what they say---better late than never---hopefully you'll get up to speed one of these years.  

[Jason Topp]

A relatively meaningless data point, but nonetheless, last night I discovered a balata ball when practicing and took it out to the couse to play 5 holes before dark with a bunch of other balls.  

I only hit two shots that seemed to be struck identically with the balata and a pro V1x -- a driver and a 5 iron.  In both instances, the Pro V1x went exactly 1 yard longer.

I am largely supportive of a rollback, but it did indicate that rolling back the ball alone might not make much difference for me (SS in the 90's, 250 average off the tee), at least in the absence of wind.  

Of course, no one needs to roll it back for me.

The flush balata iron shots really felt good.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

Are you sure it was a balata ball ?
What were the specs ?

TEPaul,

Long before the USGA FINALLY decided to "look into" the issue, I was advocating the need to reign in hi-tech I & B products which produced longer, straighter balls.

Long before you "saw the light" and jumped on the USGA bandwagon, I, like Ron Prichard, was constructively critical of the issue and the lack of addressing the issue by the ruling bodies.

If anyone's been sleeping at the switch, it's been Rip Van Winkle Paul and the Bluecoats, which by the way is a great name for your new "Rock" band.

I want 15 % of the royalties and 25 % of any products marketed under that name.

Anything less and "Tony Soprano and the Heart Stops" will visit you at Happydale Farms.

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

Are you sure it was a balata ball ?
What were the specs ?

Yes.

I believe it was a Titleist Professional 100, slightly yellow from sitting in my shag bag for about 8 -10 years.

[Jon Wiggett]

If I am not much mistaken the top players (Low handicappers and pros) have benefitted the most from the modern technology. The average player with 18+ hasn't seen a significant effect on their game. This seems to beg the question of is regulation of equipment required by the USGA or R&A? Outside the Open Championships where they are the governing bodies organising the event most events are run by the PGA Tours who would have less problem bringing in new rules to offsett the advances of the last 20 years or so.

[TEPaul]

"Outside the Open Championships where they are the governing bodies organising the event most events are run by the PGA Tours who would have less problem bringing in new rules to offsett the advances of the last 20 years or so. "

Jon;

The R&A/USGA write and interpret the Rules of Golf worldwide which include the "playing" Rules as well as the I&B (Implements and Ball) Rules and Regs of golf. I very much doubt any professional tour, including Finchem and the PGA Tour, would be interested in getting into that area for obvious reasons. Even if the PGA Tour wanted to do that and attempted to do that there is a certain process they must follow in that vein (It's a legally binding process that emanated out of the Ping/PGA Tour lawsuit settlement).
 
 

[john_stiles]

At least there is some hope.

However, when 'they' set the MOI wasn't that set well above what anyone currently manufactures ?  Probably a reaction to how they were burned on clubhead size,  when they didn't know some manufacturers had product well above the proposed limit.

There is some hope, always.  

However,  we see mostly Batman type announcements (in 2006)  like    ' Wow !  Jumping titanium Robin '  Holy balata !  You can hit 7/8 inch off center and not lose much distance.

Reallllyyy ?  Where have these guys been.  These type of announcements (if true) are almost laughable.

But there is hope and I continue to send in my fricking check every year.

I look for some help relative to spin.

What came of the ultra secret meeting in the last year or so ?

Maybe that will result in a spin regulation.

[TEPaul]

"With discussions on limiting shaft lengths and increasing spin rates, does anyone see a Tsunami forming on the Horizon?"

Patrick:

Where do you see that the R&A/USGA are actually discussing increasing spin rate? If you see that somewhere I wish you'd point it out to us. Do you suppose it would be a rule or regulation on the spin rate of the golf ball?

Are you aware that there is not now nor has there ever been a R&A/USGA I&B rule or regulation on the spin rate of a golf ball?

The R&A/USGA I&B rules and regulations put limitations on five characteristics of the golf ball and spin rate is not one of them nor has it ever been.

It's my belief (from what I've been able to garner from some reputable tech people about the flight characteristics of golf balls) that if a sixth regulation were introduced into the R&A/USGA I&B Rules and Regulations putting a limitation on the MINIMUM allowable spin rate of a golf ball the effects on distance production would be most interesting.

There're certainly other ways to go about regulating distance but it appears that a limitation on the MINIMUM amount of spin rate of a golf ball might have a very significant effect on controlling (rolling back?) this increased distance we have seen in the last 10-15 years on the part of high swing speed or power hitters. Obviously where that minimum spin rate regulation is set could be hugely significant to distance production.

In this vein (the world of physics and golf ball flight characteristics) what should be considered a high swing speed player? It appears the number is right around 105mph and up.

The interesting news is if this were done it would probably have a significant effect on limiting distance production on the part of high and very high swing speed players and it would not much effect the distance production of lower swing speed players.

When it comes to the golf ball in this vein, in a general sense it seems to be all about lift, drag and trajectory!  

The point seems to be that what high swing speed players can produce regarding drag and trajectory with high spin rate golf balls lower swing speed players cannot and in that fact there is some potentially very good news----perhaps even a win/win situation in the world of physics and golf ball flight characteristics when it comes to distance production across the spectrum of swing speeds.  

[Jim Franklin]

I didn't think the Titleist Professional was a balata ball.

[Jim Nugent]

Jack Nicklaus, a member of the Captains Club and a golfer who won 18 Majors with a poor/weak to average short game...

Good to hear you are finally seeing the light, Patrick.  

[TEPaul]

"I didn't think the Titleist Professional was a balata ball."

Jim:

It wasn't. But it was a golf ball with a higher spin rate than the balls that are in use today on the part of elite players.

Essentially spin rate of a golf ball is what a lot of this is all about. In a comparative sense the old so-called "balatas" (what many of us called "soft" balls) had a spin rate of app 3,000rpms while balls like ProVxs may have a spin rate of as low as app 2,000rpms.

In that difference or differential apparently there is a lot going on regarding distance production on the part of high swing speed players.

Essentially with a high spin rate golf ball (app 3,000rpms) high swing speed players (app 105mph and up) put a very different trajectory on the ball than lower swing speed players are capable of. Of course that different trajectory is logically progressive (exponential ?) as spin rate and swing speed increases.

The fact is that the very different trajectory that very high swing speed players put on a high spin rate golf ball IS NOT the type of trajectory that is distance enhancing. Very much the opposite, in fact. (ex. It is possible that a very high swing speed player (120mph and up) may lose up to 25 yards in carry distance at the same mph with a high spin rate ball vs a low spin rate ball)  

By the way, real balata---ie a natural substance from a rubber tree, has not been used in golf ball production in decades.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Nugent,

Would you please post the entire quote and not a misleading, incomplete excerpt.  Thanks  

TEPaul,

Until recently noone, with the possible exception of the manufacturers understood spin rates and their impact on distance.

20 years ago, I doubt anyone could accurately measure them.
Even 10 years ago they were rarely mentioned and understood.

It's only in the last 5 years that they've come to the fore.

If you believe that spin rates aren't a topic of discussion amongst the tech and admin staff at the USGA an R&A, then you've been spending too much time plucking the cows and milking the chickens down at Happydale Farms.  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I asked you a question and as per usual you didn't answer it.

Where did you see that the R&A/USGA were actually discussing INCREASING the spin rate of the golf ball (perhaps via another (6th) Rule or Regulation?).

If you haven't figured it out yet it could be immensely important and significant to distance control amongst very high swing speed players. This is a suggestion I've been making on here for perhaps two years now if you didn't notice that either---which I'm quite sure you didn't.

It's just amazing how you repeat the things I've been saying about two years after I've said them and you even act as if you just thought of them yourself.  

And if you haven't figured this out---if that spin rate regulation works as effectively as it should it would very likely PRECLUDE any need for a COMPETITION golf ball----the very thing you've been fixating on endlessly.  

You have a very valuable teacher in me and it's about time you realize that and begin to pay attention a whole lot more than you have in the past.

[Jon Wiggett]

TE Paul,

it is obvious to me who is responsible fort he rules of golf. The PGAs are however in the position of been effectively private members clubs who organise tournaments and as such could, if they so desired set out certain competion rules that are not in the rules of golf. An example of this is the one ball rule brought in for the pros a number of years ago (same make and compression for the duration of the round)
It is common on the tour for players to use clubs and balls that are not those of their sponsors but carry the sponsors logo and this is all that the manufactures are interrested in. Such a ruling could be implemented fairly easily and quickly. It would also effect those who have mainly benefited from the improvements, the pros. Only a small percentage of amateur players have benefited in this way and even with these it is rare that one hears of a US or British amateur event producing results that worry the golfing press.
I agree with you fully that it is unlikely to happen as the Tours governing bodies are often more interrested in the commercial rather than the competitive side of the game.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

If by Tsunami you mean lawsuit: Yes.  

I'm all for a tournament ball to keep old classic courses relevant as major championships venues (pro and am).  But, for the average golfer on an average golf course the advances in technology have made golf much more enjoyable.  I cannot imagine the "greater good" of the game being served by rolling back equipment.  If the USGA was going to act on golf equipment the time to act was 10 years ago.  Now that the average golfer has experienced the wonders of 460 cc low moment of inertia drivers and multi-layer golfballs they aren't going back without a fight.  As the old saying goes "how do you get them back on farm when they've been to gay Paris"

The lawsuit will come and be used as leverage by the equipment companies while they estimate how much they can sell on a "Replacement Basis" should I & B specs be rolled back.  

If the USGA and the R&A roll back the specs, the equipment companies will clean up in profits and a vast number of mid to high handicappers will find something else to do on the weekends.  The game is too hard on them already.

We have kicked this dog around some many times on this site that I am surprised that it still comes home to eat.

Let's see, rounds are down, participation is down, entry to the game is the highest price point that it has ever been in terms of disposable income which is shrinking due to speculative commodity pressures in oil can other commodities, and now we'll have to replace all of our stuff.

Deal or No Deal?  "I just spent $500 on a driver and it's illegal?"  

Regulation has always been a great catalyst to industry (Dripping sarcasm here), and I really miss shooting balatas up the elevator shaft at 225 yards off of one of the rarest woods (Persimmon) in the world...

Who wins here?

The USGA (If it survives the ensuing litigation)
The equipment companies
Old, established clubs that have very restrictive guest policies whose layouts are museums
The very talented golfer/ball striker who wears out the sweetspots on his Hogan Apex +1's

The losers:

Joe Six Pack golfer who will have to go to the range to figure out how to hit the new/old equipment.
Golf Course Architects who will no longer be needed to renovate/revitalize classic layouts.
Land/Golf Course Community developers who can now sell lots on the abandoned tees that gave them a 7,500 yard layout.

At worse, the line for I & B specs have been drawn in the sand.  The very least that the ruling bodies could do is tell the profiteers:  "No More."

A roll back of specs will be as well received as "New Coke" was in the 1990's.

JWK


Nonetheless,

[john_stiles]

A competition ball that spins more will raise scores and bring more existing hazards into play.

A lot of the pros are dialing in distance with less curvature by having a ball with proper spin rates and launch angles (for drives).

Maybe a minimium spin rate should be added to USGA B&I standards.

Whether by a competition ball, or minimum spin rates, reduced driving distances can be achieved without impacting joe six pack.  

Change the ball,  which now hovers around $1 to $2 for joe six pack for brand new, high quality golf balls.  

Why keep making capital and O&M for golf courses more expensive,   when you can change the ball ?

[peter_p]

Any tea leave reading with the announcement that Merion gets the 2013 US Open? I surmise the USGA thinks a rollback will be in place by then.