Consequences of a "tournament ball"...

[JESII]

This seems to be the only suggestion many on here (and out there...) can come up with to revive championship level golf.

Augusta National is usually brought into the conversation  due to their being a private club that controls their tournament.

The Ohio Golf Association took a run at this idea last year.

There is clearly a downside to moving in this direction...what are some possible worst case scenarios? And, is the upside benefit worth the risk of that worst case scenario?





For me, the worst case scenario for Augusta would be a slow and steady stream of players deciding they were not interested in an annual "experiment" and therefore stopped coming. In my opinion, this would not be worth the risk when the benefit is that they no longer need to tweak the golf course to make it more challenging.

[Andy Troeger]

For me, the worst case scenario for Augusta would be a slow and steady stream of players deciding they were not interested in an annual "experiment" and therefore stopped coming. In my opinion, this would not be worth the risk when the benefit is that they no longer need to tweak the golf course to make it more challenging.

To me the only chance this idea has of working is if other organizations were to follow suit. If Augusta ends up going out on its own I think it could be a potential disaster for them...might bring the idea of goofy golf to an entirely different dimension trying to play that course with a ball unknown to the players. Its hard enough (obviously) for them to hit their spots at Augusta with the current ball. The changes to the course wouldn't change it that much.

[Mark Bourgeois]

What a depressing thought in that post, JES. Given that Jack and Tiger both geared their games explicitly towards winning majors, what makes you think your scenario would play out and not:
1. Other tournaments getting in line to draw a "Masters quality" field; i.e., one consisting of players who wanted to use the ball in tournament conditions?  If the Houston tournament tried to replicate conditions (ha ha ha), then why wouldn't some tournament(s) out there be tempted?
2. Top-flight golfers regearing their games around the ball?
3. The USGA and R&A caving in?
4. Getting back to #1, what if ANGC specified that winners of PGA events got an automatic invitation only if they used a Masters ball? For starters, I bet all those "opposite field" events would switch in a heartbeat.

I'm not saying that's what WOULD happen, but it COULD happen.  It doesn't at all have to be the way you're thinking it.

Remember Tiger getting slayed some years back for his play in non-major tournaments at the beginning of the season?  He said he was practicing shots he'd need for Augusta and would rather do that than win the tournament that week...then he went out and won the Masters that year.

[Glenn Spencer]

Well, I am not a tournament director or a past or present chairman at Augusta, so I don't know if my thoughts are relevant or not. I can completely see what JES outlines up there. Couple a year and so forth and then all of a sudden the top guys start it or continue it and you are left with a lesser tournament. The risk? The risk for Augusta will never be worth it for those reasons. They could only improve their tournament and their course slightly, while risking the whole deal. It will never add up and that is why they need support from the other organizations in golf.

[RSLivingston_III]

A couple of things,
The Ohio tournament ball was not "dialed back". It was an existing ball.
A ball specific to the Masterss will not work, but a ball for the PGA tour would.

[RJ_Daley]

Perhaps we are looking in the wrong place for the test "pilot" event to mandate a truly dialed back ball.  Maybe a place like Carnoustie is the right venue and correct event and sanctioning body?  I don't know the politics.  Many over the years have scoffed at the R&A doing anything out of lock-step with the USGA and manufactures.  But, still... wouldn't the Open be a better place to have a serious study of the effects of the dialed back ball?

[Bill Shamleffer]

I think bowling is the only sport where the competitor has some control over the specifics of the ball used.  And as far as I know, that may only be limited to the weight, the positions of the holes, and the material used to make the ball.  In addition, each of these is regulated.

However, in bowling the ball has similarities to both the clubs and the ball.

Golfers are allowed to choose, within regulated limitations, the clubs they use.  But there is no reason golfers need to be able to choose the ball they use.  If I were "forced" to only use a single make of ball, it would barely affect my scores, and within one year I would have no problem with having to use that one type of ball.

Also, if the type of ball chosen were selected so as to result in any negative consequences for women golfers, it again would barely cause any difference in my scores.

They only difference I can tell between types of balls are when chipping and putting.  And if forced to play one type of ball, I would adjust within a few months.

A ball is a ball is a ball!  To seriously think that it would be bad for golf to have a single regulation golf is a wonderful testimony to Madison Ave.

When all of you were kids, you played whatever ball you could find and use (except HamiltonBHearst).  You did not need a ball made for a junior golfer, you used the same balls college guys used, that pros used, and that 90 year-old men used.

Now have at me all of you doubters.

[Ken Moum]

If somone simply said golf balls can't weigh more than 1.5 ounces, everything everyone hates about bomb and gouge would go away.

If you wonder about such a solution, read this on the 1.62-ounce, 1.62-inch ball of the 1920s: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionshack5.html

Then read what happened in 1931: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionvanderborght.html

Personally, I think John is wrong in his essay, primarily because the ball of 2007 is SO much easier to hit straight than the ball of 1930.

In addition, the light ball would actually help those who hit it 100-150 yards off the tee by being easier to get airborn and easier to keep in the air.

Ken

[RSLivingston_III]

I had not read that Max Behr article. Great read!
That was real cool that he weighed and measured a bunch of the popular gutty balls. I knew they were mostly about 1.7" but was surprised by the weight. The only thing he missed was the Eclipse. It wasn't made of Gutta Percha, but was the first solid rubber ball. The lack of distance came from it's softness. Hutchison talked about how the club makers were complaining about it because it reduced the amount of repair work they were getting. A gutty was hard enough to actually bend the face of an Iron and the Woods needed regular face repair.

[RSLivingston_III]

One characteristic to consider of a lighter ball is that it will drop dead, or at least with noticeably less roll. Especially on chipping/pitching.

[Jim Nugent]

Decades ago the British played a smaller ball than the Americans.  It went further than the U.S. ball.  For U.S. golfers that only came into play in the British Open.  Can't remember if the U.S. guys played that ball or the ball they were used to.  This might have some bearing on whether a tournament ball could work at Augusta.

[RJ_Daley]

Well, I remember throwing up this proposition when GCA.com was new.  Why not take a cue from baseball?  You have mandated equipment (at various levels of play) including hard ball and soft ball.  The playing fields are big lot and small lot.  

College hard ball can use aluminum bats.  So can many minor league levels.  Major league baseball mandates the specs on the ball, and has a range of specs on bats.  All the fields of play are diverse to some extent in the distance to the HR walls, distance behind home, to baselines, etc.

Softball, has its own set of rules for ball and impliments.

Why can't golf recognise that apart from the power and skill of the best players in the world, there is an inequitable split in the distances of the fields of play that MUST require a mandate of equipment specs to truly match playing the game with the venues and the wide disparity in skill levels?

They should have specs on the ball and impliments for any course played under ~6700 for amatuers and 7400 for pros.  That should include a reduced distance spec ball, and the specs on the clubs.  Over 6700 ams, 7400, let them wail away with pro Vs and the like, and souped up drivers.  

Why can baseball set specs, and not golf?

[JESII]

RJ,


As I asked in my initial post...what is the worst case scenario for the organizing bodies if they mandate a lower distance ball?


Somewhat as an aside, I think one of the great things about golf is that there really is just one set of rules. It would be pretty tough to categorize players if there were multiple sets of rules. How would you be handicapped when you traveled to a member-guest on the other side of the state?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Decades ago the British played a smaller ball than the Americans.  It went further than the U.S. ball.  For U.S. golfers that only came into play in the British Open.  Can't remember if the U.S. guys played that ball or the ball they were used to.  This might have some bearing on whether a tournament ball could work at Augusta.

Jim,

The R&A ball certainly went farther into the wind, I'm not so sure it went farther down wind.

You might also recall the reasons behind the introduction of the "one ball" rule.

The notion that a "tournament" ball would be harmful to The Masters is nonsense.

"Tournament" balls are already being used at The Masters and every other USGA event, they're called "conforming" balls.

I think it's likely that ANGC will introduce a "Tournament" ball before the USGA and R&A do.

To posture that playing The Masters with a ball circa 1970 would bring about its demise is absurd.

PGA Tour Pros adapt well to change.

They did it years ago, repeatedly, every time they went and played in the British Open with the R&A "Tournament" ball.

The Masters would be no different.

The USGA could/should adopt that ball for Tournament play.  Then all regional and State golf associations would do the same until it got to the local club level for tournament play.

The conversion would take but a few short years.

THEN they could work on dialing back the tennis racket sized heads on drivers

[RJ_Daley]

Sully, while over my head on this, I'd think that we already have different CR/Slope ratings for member and back tees.  Why not have a further modification for each CR/Slope?  Wouldn't that really be minute differences?  After you play, just note if you enter your score with high tech or restricted distance equipment.  Course ratings for CR/slope from various tees with restricted B&I would probably cause a fractional difference in your H.I.  I play with women that maintain a different H.I. for ladies and mens regular tees, why not all golfers who wish to do so, maintain two handi's for restricted B&I and high tech?  It would be a full employment act for course raters.  

[JESII]

RJ,

I hadn't thought of it like that and cannot come up with any reason it can't work...if there is a desire.

Let's get to the bottom of why there is so little desire...what's the downside to the USGA/R&A/PGA/PGA Tour?



Pat,

Then please explain to me why Augusta has not introduced a "tournament ball"...

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

Then please explain to me why Augusta has not introduced a "tournament ball"...

JES II,

Because they've had alternatives.

Namely, they've had the real estate to lengthen the tees, but now, they've almost run out of real estate.

And, they've been able to alter (narrow) the golf course.
But, that too is coming to an end.

Leaving but one alternative.

A "Tournament" ball.

It's been on the radar screen for a few years.
Had the weather not dampened scoring this year, it might be more than just a "blip"

[JESII]

Pat,


Do you really see no repricussions after an introduction of a "tournament" ball?

How would that ball be different from today's?


My personal opinion is that if they were to go it alone they would risk their standing as one of four major golf championships. Note that my concern is based on them going it alone. If they get support from the regulatory bodies and/or the manufacturer's it could be hugely beneficial to golf in general...hence, huge upside and huge downside...from my view.

[Ken Moum]

Let's get to the bottom of why there is so little desire...what's the downside to the USGA/R&A/PGA/PGA Tour?

I think it's a realization that drawing the line for where to use the Tournament ball would be difficult.

Suppose it was PGA Tour, and Majors.

What about all the non-pros who play in those events?

If they had to use it for competition, they'd certainly not want to switch back and forth all summer long.

So they'd use it every day. But what about the non-tour, non-major events they played in? Would they have to switch back? Or would they play with the tournament ball giving up the "advantage" of the amateur ball?

And if they managed to lobby State Associations to use the Tournament Ball, would the State Am competitors be willing to swtich back and forth, or would they try to get their clubs to use it too?

In baseball, no one from college or the local club team gets to play in the World Series. But we have lots of guys aspiring to play in the USGA national events, but who primarily play college or club golf.

Ken

[Bill Shamleffer]

The downside to the PGA Tour is all the endorsement money the pros receive from the ball makers, and all of the commercial time purchased during their tournaments.

Therefore, there will be NO "single tournament ball".

[Ken Moum]

The downside to the PGA Tour is all the endorsement money the pros receive from the ball makers, and all of the commercial time purchased during their tournaments.

Therefore, there will be NO "single tournament ball".

Don't you think that ball makers would find plenty of ways to differentiate their Pro ball from everyone else's Pro ball?

I agree that No ruling body will ever make a one-brand rule, but I think a rule that changes the weight, or ODS would open up a whole new world of innovation.

And if it works, it might let the rulesmakers turn loose some of the shackles on the golf club designers.

K

[Jim Nugent]

Would the same clubs work with a tournament ball?  Or would the pro's need different clubs for a higher-spinning, bigger-bending ball?  

[Ken Moum]

One characteristic to consider of a lighter ball is that it will drop dead, or at least with noticeably less roll. Especially on chipping/pitching.

Isn't that also what the balata did?

The ones I used for 40+ years certainly seemed to, and I miss that dearly.

K

[Gary Slatter]

What if:  Augusta had all the major ball sellers (Nike, Callaway, Titleist, etc.) supply the balls.
Each Pro could then use that Nike, that Callaway, that Titleist ball, maybe even the same ball we can buy at Edwin Watts.  
Right now there are just too many custom golf balls.  The Masters players would still use their contract company's ball, it just might not be the one they normally use.  
IMO the few shots that Tiger misses might be related to ball tweaking. The correct answer to "what the Hell happened there?" might be, "sorry, I gave you the wrong ball".

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Do you really see no repricussions after an introduction of a "tournament" ball?

I don't see any repercussions of consequence.

How would that ball be different from today's?

I couldn't provide the specs, but, in general form I would think it would be desirable to have it perform circa 1970's-1980's.

My personal opinion is that if they were to go it alone they would risk their standing as one of four major golf championships.

I disagree.

If you take a step back, and view the consequences of the USGA and R&A coming out with a "Tournament" ball, versus The Masters doing it, I think it becomes apparent that if you could orchestrate the introduction, ANGC and The Masters would be the preferred entry point.

Then, the USGA and R&A could adopt THAT ball as their "competition" ball for all events.

Once that happens, every regional and State golf association would follow suit.

And, once that happens, it would be adopted by the local clubs for their competitions.

The progression, the adoption process is a natural, and, it's the least cumbersome, legally.

More than perhaps anything else, legal issues have been the primary impediment to the introduction of a "tournament" ball.

Thus, ANGC and The Masters holds the keys to the kingdom.

Help us Obi won Payne, you're our only hope.

Note that my concern is based on them going it alone. If they get support from the regulatory bodies and/or the manufacturer's it could be hugely beneficial to golf in general...hence, huge upside and huge downside...from my view.

It's doubtful that the manufacturers would be willing participants, their interests are at odds with the USGA and the R&A.