Ohio Golf Assoc. one ball - new info

[TEPaul]

"The complete quote is as follows:
'the ball seemed to go no more offline than usual... if that's possible to say for a player of my limited skill"

Garland:

I actually spoke with the Tech Center on that basic subject too and the basic message I heard was that a high spin rate golf ball hit with a driver by a high swing speed player would have it's up and down trajectory effected a good deal more than it would its sideways performance. This would somewhat contradict Deane Beamon's primary contention that a higher spin rate golf ball would have the effect of contributing to far more wild shots by good players.

[Garland Bayley]

The idea that golf at ANY level, much less the professional level, has been "deskilled" is really odd to me.  Where's the evidence of that?  
...

A.G.

You are probably right. It is probably better said as "differently skilled". E.g., the difference between the skills of Payne Stewart discussed above and the current crop of players such as Bubba Watson.

Payne Stewart, Billy Mayfair, Lee Trevino, and Tiger Woods would probably consider it de-skilling. Bubba Watson and J.B. Holmes probably don't consider it so.

[Garland Bayley]

"The complete quote is as follows:
'the ball seemed to go no more offline than usual... if that's possible to say for a player of my limited skill"

Garland:

I actually spoke with the Tech Center on that basic subject too and the basic message I heard was that a high spin rate golf ball hit with a driver by a high swing speed player would have it's up and down trajectory effected a good deal more than it would its sideways performance. This would somewhat contradict Deane Beamon's primary contention that a higher spin rate golf ball would have the effect of contributing to far more wild shots by good players.

Thanks Tom,

That is good information. However, the scientist in me wants to know what were the methods used to conduct the experiment, were they valid, and who has replicated the result? The logician in me says that makes sense, suppose the driver has 9 degrees of loft, what player is trying to hit the ball with a driver that is 9 degrees open or closed?

The subtle thing said by what you report is that the USGA says the higher spinning ball will go offline more than the lower spinning ball. But then we all knew that. So the total result is that the higher spinning ball balloons when struck at high speeds and goes more offline when not struck perfectly square. Sounds like a good pointer to how to start regulating future balls to me.  

[A.G._Crockett]

The idea that golf at ANY level, much less the professional level, has been "deskilled" is really odd to me.  Where's the evidence of that?  
...

A.G.

You are probably right. It is probably better said as "differently skilled". E.g., the difference between the skills of Payne Stewart discussed above and the current crop of players such as Bubba Watson.

Payne Stewart, Billy Mayfair, Lee Trevino, and Tiger Woods would probably consider it de-skilling. Bubba Watson and J.B. Holmes probably don't consider it so.

Who cares about Bubba Watson?  He has never won a professional golf tournament, on either the Nationwide or PGA tours.  He is currently 25 or so spots below Billy Mayfair on the money list, and Mayfair had cancer surgery, for crying out loud.
(Holmes is only a bit different.  He has 1 tour victory.)

If I was Tiger, I would want the Rules to state that the players would hit marbles with broom handles.  The tougher it gets, the more he would win.  That is NOT to say that the game has been deskilled, though.

As to Trevino (one of my heroes, BTW) he was a low-ball hitter that always played a fade.  He is also old now.  There is no surprise in hearing him lament the "good old days"; that seems to be human nature, especially among old guys.  (I'm 54, so I'm no kid!)  I don't think Lee Buck complained about the ball and equipment when he was in HIS prime being better than what Hogan used, just like Jack didn't complain then but does now.

Selective memory by them, and moving from the instance to the generalization by us.  Both poor ways to view reality.

[A.G._Crockett]

"The complete quote is as follows:
'the ball seemed to go no more offline than usual... if that's possible to say for a player of my limited skill"

Garland:

I actually spoke with the Tech Center on that basic subject too and the basic message I heard was that a high spin rate golf ball hit with a driver by a high swing speed player would have it's up and down trajectory effected a good deal more than it would its sideways performance. This would somewhat contradict Deane Beamon's primary contention that a higher spin rate golf ball would have the effect of contributing to far more wild shots by good players.

Thanks Tom,

That is good information. However, the scientist in me wants to know what were the methods used to conduct the experiment, were they valid, and who has replicated the result? The logician in me says that makes sense, suppose the driver has 9 degrees of loft, what player is trying to hit the ball with a driver that is 9 degrees open or closed?

The subtle thing said by what you report is that the USGA says the higher spinning ball will go offline more than the lower spinning ball. But then we all knew that. So the total result is that the higher spinning ball balloons when struck at high speeds and goes more offline when not struck perfectly square. Sounds like a good pointer to how to start regulating future balls to me.  

Garland,
With the danger of oversimplifying what he has written, Tom Paul has been advocating exactly that on this website for several years now, as opposed to a "rollback" or bifurcation.  The issue would be finding a way to do it that wouldn't negatively impact the rank and file of the golf world, OR take away the skills of the professionals around the greens.  That is NOT easy, and it is something the USGA continues to research and work on.

[Garland Bayley]

Who cares about Bubba Watson?  ...

Careful A.G.

We lefties tend to stick together! Probably comes from all the abuse from those people who don't hit from the right side of the ball.  

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
With the danger of oversimplifying what he has written, Tom Paul has been advocating exactly that on this website for several years now, as opposed to a "rollback" or bifurcation.  The issue would be finding a way to do it that wouldn't negatively impact the rank and file of the golf world, OR take away the skills of the professionals around the greens.  That is NOT easy, and it is something the USGA continues to research and work on.

Perhaps you can explain to me what you mean by rollback and why it would be wrong. In baseball, someone discovered that throwing a spitter gave them an advantage. Baseball rolled back the rules to outlaw it. Did that unfairly negatively impact the rank and file of the burgeoning cadre of spitball throwers?
Later someone discovered that using sandpaper on the ball gave them an advantage. Baseball rolled that one back too.


P.S. I am glad to hear that Tom Paul and I have been on the same side of this discussion all this time.  

[A.G._Crockett]

Who cares about Bubba Watson?  ...

Careful A.G.

We lefties tend to stick together! Probably comes from all the abuse from those people who don't hit from the right side of the ball.  

I, too, am lefthanded, though I golf my ball from the right side.  Like so many lefties, I am confused often.

[A.G._Crockett]

Garland,
With the danger of oversimplifying what he has written, Tom Paul has been advocating exactly that on this website for several years now, as opposed to a "rollback" or bifurcation.  The issue would be finding a way to do it that wouldn't negatively impact the rank and file of the golf world, OR take away the skills of the professionals around the greens.  That is NOT easy, and it is something the USGA continues to research and work on.

Perhaps you can explain to me what you mean by rollback and why it would be wrong. In baseball, someone discovered that throwing a spitter gave them an advantage. Baseball rolled back the rules to outlaw it. Did that unfairly negatively impact the rank and file of the burgeoning cadre of spitball throwers?
Later someone discovered that using sandpaper on the ball gave them an advantage. Baseball rolled that one back too.


P.S. I am glad to hear that Tom Paul and I have been on the same side of this discussion all this time.  

The spitball was banned because it was dangerous; pitchers were throwing the ball with so much crap on it that they couldn't control it at all.  The pitchers who were predominantly spitball pitchers, most notably Burleigh Grimes, were allowed to finish their careers still throwing it.

Sandpapering a baseball would be comparable to vasoline on the clubface, which is already illegal.

I'm going to decline the opportunity to threadjack even more than I already have by starting down the "rollback" road.  It's been done here a million times, and I'm deadset against it.  Spin rate management makes much, much better sense to me.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Sandpapering a baseball would be comparable to vasoline on the clubface, which is already illegal.
...

The golf ball manufacturers have virtually selectively vasolined the low loft clubfaces!