Would a rollback of the golf ball.....

[Michael Powers]

Jes,
A real word example?

Around 1995 I was playing a 10 degree Big Bertha with a stock shaft.  That spring Callaway came out with the GBB.  I stuck an AJ Tech shaft on that thing and it was nuclear.  This club had a much thinner face on it, which increased the spring-like effect (COR) of the club.  I hit it at least 25 yards further in the air than the BB.  This was the point in time that COR started to become a real factor in ball speed and, therefore distance.  The concept that the ball is the ONLY factor is innaccurate.

Garland,
At the risk of sounding even more impressive to you, consider this.  I am in full agreement that the ball has gotten out of control, I concede that.  My point is that the concept of rolling back the ball would be impossible to implement, and even if certain criteria were to be adopted, the ball manufacturers would circumvent the restrictions, and the effect would be minimal.  As long as the manufacturers continue to make 3 and 4 piece balls with a solid core and urethane covers, the ball will never be rolled back.  I offer the roll back on COR as an alternative.  If the USGA placed a new restriction on COR and/or face thickness, the ball speed would be reduced substantially.  This type of roll back would only effect golfers who are able to swing at a speed of 100 mph, which is a smaller number than many would think.  If they are not swinging at this speed, then impact lacks the force to create spring-like effect. 

[TEPaul]

"As long as the manufacturers continue to make 3 and 4 piece balls with a solid core and urethane covers, the ball will never be rolled back."

Michael Powers:

What are you talking about?

Are you aware that in the last couple of years the USGA has asked all the ball manufacturers to submit prototype golf balls for testing that go 15 and 25 yards less far and that all the manufacturers have done that?

If for some reason the USGA (R&A) decided to make one of those balls the new ODS limitation how is that not a rollback?

If, then, the manufacturers began producing balls that exceeded that new ODS limitation the USGA/R&A has always had the option to deem them non-conforming! The manufacturers know that---it's been that way for years. It's not that the USGA has never deemed a golf ball distance "non-conforming".

Another thing the USGA has been talking about (almost bragging about) in the last 4-5 years is that they have now managed to get ahead of the R&D curve compared to the way they used to be by a factor of perhaps ten. In other words, they feel now they are far more capable of figuring out what's coming down the R&D pipeline at them BEFORE it happens rather than AFTER it happens and gets out there in play.

But it seems like some people who criticize the USGA tend to forget they DO HAVE the option of deeming anything in I&B as "non-conforming". As you know, they actually did that with COR AFTER the R&A took about five years figuring it out and admitting it and to go along with the USGA on it.

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck

I am not sure what that means.  How far do you want the ball rolled back because of technology?  A lot of golf is about technology - from the clubs we hit, the balls we use, the courses we play on and the gadgets we employ to figure out yardage and to improve our swings.  The game of golf and technology are hopelessly meshed.  You cannot take one away from the other. 

I don't have a problem if you want to change the rules.  I follow the rules and will follow them whatever they are.  My problem is with folks who say the game is compromised by technology then use the stuff.  Its very bizarre behaviour for those that don't make a living at the GAME (golf is a game- no?).  Furthermore, then these golfers blame somebody else for creating rules which allows them to compromise the game.  Stand back and give this concept some thought.  From my perspective two things should happen if golfers really believe the game is on the rocks because of technology - unfortunately, both require action on the part of golfers which is why any success on this front will take a long time.

1. Stop supporting a system which runs counter to your beliefs.  If equipment is a problem, don't use the equipment or find another way limit its effect.

2. Start creating competitions with other like minded golfers in which equipment is negated. 

I do differ from you in that I don't really care how the big boys play the game, I don't really care if there are two sets of rules depending on how good a player is and I believe that lengthening courses due to a few long hitters is a terrible knee jerk reaction on the part of clubs that is mostly driven by ego on the part of members to have their club be seen as the best and toughest - enough so to take on the pros.  I think this sort of thinking is silly and in the long run, if acted upon, a great disservice to most members. 

Once again, the power of choice lies with each golfer.  Sometimes, we are forced to make uncomfortable choices in matching our behaviour with our beliefs.  It may not be ideal, but golf is afterall, just a game. 

Ciao

Sean I don't honestly know "how much" of a rollback there should be.  I know that I don't have a percentage in mind and never have.  I don't think like that.  I am not thinking about protecting par, or scoring, or anything else like that.  Rather, it is a qualitative determination.  It is an aesthetic question.

As for my using the latest driver and a Pro V1, as I said before, no course, be it TOC or Maidstone or Merion has anything to fear from me.  The only point of a rollback is to contain elite-level players and I am assuredly not one of those.  If you say that you wouldn't mind it if the rules were bifurcated, it makes it easy for you.  You could advocate one kind of rolled back ball for TOC, another for Riviera, another for Oakland Hills, etc., if that's what anybody wanted.  The USGA doesn't want to do that and I agree with them.  Where is the hypocrisy on my part if I say that I will play by the rules (including the best equipment legally allowable under the rules) but that I advocate a change of the rules...?  I think it is a bit of a silly and specious argument to say that before I can advocate for an adjustement in the rules, I should first play by changed rules.  No one would ever accept that kind of thinking if, for instance I advocated a rule change to allow 500cc driver heads and just to prove my point I used an illegal 500cc driver head.

As you say, there is an element of choice in the game and with equipment puchases, and if a golfer didn't care to play by the rules, he could easily buy himself some illegal bandit balls or some other model of illegal technology.  If a golfer has no care for the rules, but has a fascination with technology, I suppose he could satisfy that urge if he chose to do so.  That has no bearing on me.  I advocate that the USGA would better serve the game and protect its core values if it rolled back its fail-point for ODS testing.  For no reason other than to protect a certain kind of game on existing golf courses.  Others are welcome to disagree, and there is no right or wrong.  Certainly no 'hypocrisy.'

But where is technology taking us?  With few serious improvements to the Pro V1 over the past 3 to 5 years, and with the advent of limitations on driver head size, CT and MoI, there has not been much new in teh way of technology and therefore not much new in distance gains.  But I trust that technology will find a way to crack whatever performance barriers there are now, and that distance gains will again be seen, sometime, in the future.  The USGA and the R&A have already made their declaration, in a Joint Statement of Principles.  They say that any substantial new gains in technologically-produced distance would be undesirable.  So now, they must either wait to see what happens and then re-act, or else take the matter in hand with a rollback now, and allow the R&D wizards to go back to work, which is inevitable.

[Garland Bayley]

Gotta get me one of those ray guns that was on 60 minutes tonight. Boy could I play with a hot ball then! I suspect there is no rule against me doing that so my argument to the USGA would be that they let the ball be vaselined, therefore they can't outlaw my ray gun!

[Sean_A]

Chuck

I am not sure what that means.  How far do you want the ball rolled back because of technology?  A lot of golf is about technology - from the clubs we hit, the balls we use, the courses we play on and the gadgets we employ to figure out yardage and to improve our swings.  The game of golf and technology are hopelessly meshed.  You cannot take one away from the other. 

I don't have a problem if you want to change the rules.  I follow the rules and will follow them whatever they are.  My problem is with folks who say the game is compromised by technology then use the stuff.  Its very bizarre behaviour for those that don't make a living at the GAME (golf is a game- no?).  Furthermore, then these golfers blame somebody else for creating rules which allows them to compromise the game.  Stand back and give this concept some thought.  From my perspective two things should happen if golfers really believe the game is on the rocks because of technology - unfortunately, both require action on the part of golfers which is why any success on this front will take a long time.

1. Stop supporting a system which runs counter to your beliefs.  If equipment is a problem, don't use the equipment or find another way limit its effect.

2. Start creating competitions with other like minded golfers in which equipment is negated. 

I do differ from you in that I don't really care how the big boys play the game, I don't really care if there are two sets of rules depending on how good a player is and I believe that lengthening courses due to a few long hitters is a terrible knee jerk reaction on the part of clubs that is mostly driven by ego on the part of members to have their club be seen as the best and toughest - enough so to take on the pros.  I think this sort of thinking is silly and in the long run, if acted upon, a great disservice to most members. 

Once again, the power of choice lies with each golfer.  Sometimes, we are forced to make uncomfortable choices in matching our behaviour with our beliefs.  It may not be ideal, but golf is afterall, just a game. 

Ciao

Sean I don't honestly know "how much" of a rollback there should be.  I know that I don't have a percentage in mind and never have.  I don't think like that.  I am not thinking about protecting par, or scoring, or anything else like that.  Rather, it is a qualitative determination.  It is an aesthetic question.

As for my using the latest driver and a Pro V1, as I said before, no course, be it TOC or Maidstone or Merion has anything to fear from me.  The only point of a rollback is to contain elite-level players and I am assuredly not one of those.  If you say that you wouldn't mind it if the rules were bifurcated, it makes it easy for you.  You could advocate one kind of rolled back ball for TOC, another for Riviera, another for Oakland Hills, etc., if that's what anybody wanted.  The USGA doesn't want to do that and I agree with them.  Where is the hypocrisy on my part if I say that I will play by the rules (including the best equipment legally allowable under the rules) but that I advocate a change of the rules...?  I think it is a bit of a silly and specious argument to say that before I can advocate for an adjustement in the rules, I should first play by changed rules.  No one would ever accept that kind of thinking if, for instance I advocated a rule change to allow 500cc driver heads and just to prove my point I used an illegal 500cc driver head.

As you say, there is an element of choice in the game and with equipment puchases, and if a golfer didn't care to play by the rules, he could easily buy himself some illegal bandit balls or some other model of illegal technology.  If a golfer has no care for the rules, but has a fascination with technology, I suppose he could satisfy that urge if he chose to do so.  That has no bearing on me.  I advocate that the USGA would better serve the game and protect its core values if it rolled back its fail-point for ODS testing.  For no reason other than to protect a certain kind of game on existing golf courses.  Others are welcome to disagree, and there is no right or wrong.  Certainly no 'hypocrisy.'

But where is technology taking us?  With few serious improvements to the Pro V1 over the past 3 to 5 years, and with the advent of limitations on driver head size, CT and MoI, there has not been much new in teh way of technology and therefore not much new in distance gains.  But I trust that technology will find a way to crack whatever performance barriers there are now, and that distance gains will again be seen, sometime, in the future.  The USGA and the R&A have already made their declaration, in a Joint Statement of Principles.  They say that any substantial new gains in technologically-produced distance would be undesirable.  So now, they must either wait to see what happens and then re-act, or else take the matter in hand with a rollback now, and allow the R&D wizards to go back to work, which is inevitable.

Chuck

I don't mind bifurcated rules because I honestly don't care how top golfers play the game - it has no bearing on me or the vast majority players - so I can't see different rules being a problem.  To be honest, they play a game which I can't even dream about.  I am under no illusion that a handicap system can place me on the same tee with them and hope to "compete".  Having said that, if the USGA wants to roll back technology, thats fine by me so long as it doesn't cost me money.  The only difference between us is that I don't believe the anti-technos have proven their point by a long shot.  Distance is constantly blamed for courses being altered.  If courses are altered for this specific reason then I don't think its a clever idea.  However, I realize that this a decision made by clubs at which I have no vested interest.  Any one of these clubs can say no thanks, we will keep our course as it is.  If that isn't good enough take your championship elsewhere.  Clubs have the power to stop what is happening without having to look toward Big Brother for guidance. 

I don't know where technology is taking us - presumably further and further from what attracts me to the game.  Personally, I think we went well past what is "good for the game" when course design started accomodating the use of carts and the need to know exact yardage became all the rage.  I believe these two aspects effect the game much more than distance yet these things have been welcomed with open arms.  That isn't to say that I won't change my mind and declare distance a problem in the future.  I often don't see any practical benefit to longer courses, but I don't see it as harmful either. I do think its often a waste of money, but I think that about a lot of stuff - so what?

Ciao