USGA to limit wedge loft? Will this bring some challenge back to some holes?

[Andy Hughes]

Andy, you betcha I have a problem with how far Holmes hits driver, when the USGA's Overall Distance Standard "limitation" is a mythical 317 yards or so, and JB might pound out drives of 330, 340 or 350 yards on a semi-regular basis.
Yes, I am railing against driver distance, and yes it is a problem that is unique to the elite-level players.

Chuck, that's cool, I was merely pointing out that what you disagreed with was not what Clint had said.

But I should point out yet again, I believe you have a mighty mountain to cross if you want to convince the average player that it is for the best that he hit it shorter. I remain curious how you propose to sell that in a way that will win you converts.  What exactly are the arguments that convince non-GCA.com types?


Garland, like I said, I have no idea what you are driving at anymore.  Just a week ago the ball was to blame for the silly distance your son hits the ball. This week? Sounds like an entirely different take on the same situation as now it is merely his age.
I will disagree with you re the balls by the way. I am 43, play less than 5 times a year and hit it every bit as far as I did when I was 25 and a good player.  I can promise you it is not due to my prodigous workout regimine 

[John Moore II]

Garland is just wrong and can't admit it. In any condition outside of a vacuum, the ball spins less going up in loft when there is any water, a blade of grass, etc. present. There are about a dozen graphs in those USGA tests that show that. On the golf course, there is no such thing as totally 'dry' conditions.

And by the way, the whole deal with this discussion has to do with wedge lofts, spin, short siding greens, etc. So in that case, the higher the wedge loft, the less the spin, just look at the reports. How many times do you short side yourself into a flat lie on fairway length grass? If thats the case, its likely you are not shortsided, even at a place like Pinehurst. Most (95%) of the time when you are short sided, you are in the rough. In that case, the USGA tests show that the higher lofts result in less spin. So why limit wedge lofts? USGA testing shows them to be of no advantage. Pelz testing shows them to not produce more spin than the others. Any other cases for there not being a need to limit wedge loft?

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck...
... I should point out yet again, I believe you have a mighty mountain to cross if you want to convince the average player that it is for the best that he hit it shorter. I remain curious how you propose to sell that in a way that will win you converts.  What exactly are the arguments that convince non-GCA.com types?

I'm quite comfortable with making the argument that "your game will be closer to the tour pros' games; and the tour game that you watch on tv will be more interesting."
I also quite like the idea of having everybody who favors a ball rollback, including Tiger, Jack, Arnie, Tom Watson, Gary Player, Ben Crenshaw, Johnny Miller, Geoff Ogilvy, Ernie Els, and on and on and on and on, all do their USGA p.s.a.'s endorsing the idea.  We'll get Quincy Jones to lead them all in a chorus or two of "We Are the World."
I can't think of who, with any charisma in a position of leadership would publicly oppose it.  Uh, Brad Faxon?

[John Garrison]

The most confusing club I have in my bag is the gap wedge, the one between the pitching wedge and the sand wedge. I grew up in the two wedge era and can't seem to treat the gap wedge as more than a novelty, or an evil club I can't hit well because I never practice with it. We were all better shot-makers in the two wedge days. Personally, I think I'll dump the gap next season and add my old one iron.
And, yes, I've tried the 60 degree wedge. It's fine if you want to hit it nearly straight up and 30 yards. But why carry a club you use only once every 2-3 rounds?

[Andy Hughes]

I'm quite comfortable with making the argument that "your game will be closer to the tour pros' games; and the tour game that you watch on tv will be more interesting."
I also quite like the idea of having everybody who favors a ball rollback, including Tiger, Jack, Arnie, Tom Watson, Gary Player, Ben Crenshaw, Johnny Miller, Geoff Ogilvy, Ernie Els, and on and on and on and on, all do their USGA p.s.a.'s endorsing the idea.  We'll get Quincy Jones to lead them all in a chorus or two of "We Are the World."

Chuck, if you had told me you would be singing 'We are the World', you would have had me much earlier  

On the serious side, however, the gap between the average player and Tiger Woods is so vast that saying his game will be closer to Woods is akin to telling someone to move a little higher in his apartment building so he'll be that much closer to the Moon.  Also, it might be a nice list of guys doing PSAs, but they still need to sell the idea that the average guy will be better off hitting it shorter. Nicklaus and Palmer and Woods have been saying this for years, and I do not believe many have been swayed.

I can't think of who, with any charisma in a position of leadership would publicly oppose it.  Uh, Brad Faxon?

Careful pal! Faxon and I went to the same school and we are all hugely charismatic from there!

[Garland Bayley]

As far as the test goes, I looked it up. OK, so in a vacuum, the U and V grooves work the same, I could have told you that yesterday when we started this. But scroll down to section 8.2 where there is actually something on the face. It says that with any type of external 'stuff' in play, the U grooves spin more. AND!! if I am reading the charts right, the two charts labeled 8.3 show that the ball, with external factors in play, spins progressively less off clubs with lofts greater than about 35 degrees in the Dupont test and progressively less off all clubs in the newsprint test. So, like I said, if I can read the charts (pretty sure I can) the charts marked 8.3 prove me right, outside of a vacuum environment, or on a golf course, where real golf takes place.

John,

It doesn’t help to make comments on my intelligence, or about my stubbornness. It helps to make clear what is written, and to correct misunderstandings. Our whole discussion progressed to the point where you made the above post before you mentioned external ‘stuff’ in play. If you had mentioned that from the beginning, I would have understood where you were coming from. Without the knowledge of you talking about external stuff, it simply sounded like you did not know of the USGA study and the spin information it puts forth.

I also have to object to you characterizing the spin explanations I gave as being what happens in a vacuum. The USGA report calls it hitting from the fairway, and the results you were describing as hitting from the rough.

Also, when I mentioned the amount of spin being determined by the amount of time spent on the club face, you began to write about me asserting that the ball stuck to the club face. You would be better off asking what I meant than changing my words to something else. I think you know what makes the ball stay on the club face longer. The ball clearly stays on your club face longer than it stays on my club face or Kalen’s club face. Therefore, I suspect you might have noticed that while playing with Kalen you generated more back spin than he did.

[Pat Burke]

A playing/teaching thought.
Different rules for different levels causes many issues
If you are a good junior, amateur, or mini tour player, you will almost "have" to use the new standard to be comfortable with how that will work should you qualify for that type of event.  Many of these level events will hesitate to play by the "tour" rule to avoid passing the cost that many of these players would have.  It will be chaos trying to figure out what events have whatever rules in place.
The genie is way out of the bottle and the USGA was asleep at the wheel.  When they woke up, they were largely afraid of litigation, and reacted to events rather than being proactive. 
Now there is a choice, put the genie back in the bottle, fix the ball, find an acceptable ball speed measurement, suck it up and make rules that are good for the game.
8000 yard courses and 6 hour rounds have been the response to much of technology, and it is helping to kill the growth of the game BEFORE this economic crisis hit.
Our rules makers need to grow some, and golfers who actually car about the game need to have there backs in any way possible, including not using equipment from the companies who will inevitably sue the rules makers.  Or we can have 3 sets of rules and make it impossible to even know what tournament has which rules.
Or we could make it simple, I like Matt's thought, 12 clubs, figure out what you want to use

[John Moore II]

As far as the test goes, I looked it up. OK, so in a vacuum, the U and V grooves work the same, I could have told you that yesterday when we started this. But scroll down to section 8.2 where there is actually something on the face. It says that with any type of external 'stuff' in play, the U grooves spin more. AND!! if I am reading the charts right, the two charts labeled 8.3 show that the ball, with external factors in play, spins progressively less off clubs with lofts greater than about 35 degrees in the Dupont test and progressively less off all clubs in the newsprint test. So, like I said, if I can read the charts (pretty sure I can) the charts marked 8.3 prove me right, outside of a vacuum environment, or on a golf course, where real golf takes place.

John,

It doesn’t help to make comments on my intelligence, or about my stubbornness. It helps to make clear what is written, and to correct misunderstandings. Our whole discussion progressed to the point where you made the above post before you mentioned external ‘stuff’ in play. If you had mentioned that from the beginning, I would have understood where you were coming from. Without the knowledge of you talking about external stuff, it simply sounded like you did not know of the USGA study and the spin information it puts forth.

I also have to object to you characterizing the spin explanations I gave as being what happens in a vacuum. The USGA report calls it hitting from the fairway, and the results you were describing as hitting from the rough.

Also, when I mentioned the amount of spin being determined by the amount of time spent on the club face, you began to write about me asserting that the ball stuck to the club face. You would be better off asking what I meant than changing my words to something else. I think you know what makes the ball stay on the club face longer. The ball clearly stays on your club face longer than it stays on my club face or Kalen’s club face. Therefore, I suspect you might have noticed that while playing with Kalen you generated more back spin than he did.

Generation of backspin has nothing to do with the ball staying on the face longer. Actually (without test results) I may be inclined to say the ball stays on my clubface a shorter amount of time, though, whether or not it stays on mine longer or shorter time than it stays on Kalens clubface, is only in microseconds. Spin is caused by downward impact of the club to the ball, with factors of grooves (in some cases), grass, moisture, etc. also in play. But the ball does not 'stick' to the clubface in order to produce spin, and I am 99.9% certain that no amount of USGA testing can prove a correlation between spin rates and the time the ball spends on the face of the club.

And I'd really have to look. Kalen uses different clubs than I use, different golf balls and swings differently. But honestly, if he and I used the same club with the same golf ball, I'd bet his spin rates would not be so far below mine, in the short irons anyway.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Garland, like I said, I have no idea what you are driving at anymore.  Just a week ago the ball was to blame for the silly distance your son hits the ball. This week? Sounds like an entirely different take on the same situation as now it is merely his age.
I will disagree with you re the balls by the way. I am 43, play less than 5 times a year and hit it every bit as far as I did when I was 25 and a good player.  I can promise you it is not due to my prodigous workout regimine 

So what ball and driver did you use 18 years ago?

18 years ago, if the young bombers wanted to play competitively, they had to change balls and become shorter. Now the young bombers matter more than they did.

[Garland Bayley]

Woo-Jin Roh and Chong-Won Lee, Center for Noise and Vibration Control (NOVIC), Department of Mechanical Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, Korea

"Golf ball spin rate after impact with club is created by the contact force, which is greatly influenced by ball and club mass, material, impact speed, and club loft angle. Previous studies showed that the contact force is determined as the resultant force of the reaction forces normal and tangential to the club face at the contact point. The normal force causes the compression and restitution of the ball, and the tangential force creates the spin. Especially, the tangential force takes either positive or negative value as the ball rolls and slides along the club face during impact. Although the positive and negative tangential forces are known to create and reduce the back spin rate, respectively, the mechanism of ball spin creation has not yet been discussed in detail. It is shown in this work that the linear impulse of the tangential force is directly related to generation of back spin rate of golf ball. The linear impulse can be calculated from the tangential force, which depends upon many factors such as ball and club mass, material, impact speed, and club loft angle. In this research, the influence of the contact force between golf club and ball is investigated to analyze the mechanism of impact. For this purpose, the contact force and the contact time at impact between golf club head and ball are computed using finite element method (FEM)."

Emphasis added.

[John Moore II]

Woo-Jin Roh and Chong-Won Lee, Center for Noise and Vibration Control (NOVIC), Department of Mechanical Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon, Korea

"Golf ball spin rate after impact with club is created by the contact force, which is greatly influenced by ball and club mass, material, impact speed, and club loft angle. Previous studies showed that the contact force is determined as the resultant force of the reaction forces normal and tangential to the club face at the contact point. The normal force causes the compression and restitution of the ball, and the tangential force creates the spin. Especially, the tangential force takes either positive or negative value as the ball rolls and slides along the club face during impact. Although the positive and negative tangential forces are known to create and reduce the back spin rate, respectively, the mechanism of ball spin creation has not yet been discussed in detail. It is shown in this work that the linear impulse of the tangential force is directly related to generation of back spin rate of golf ball. The linear impulse can be calculated from the tangential force, which depends upon many factors such as ball and club mass, material, impact speed, and club loft angle. In this research, the influence of the contact force between golf club and ball is investigated to analyze the mechanism of impact. For this purpose, the contact force and the contact time at impact between golf club head and ball are computed using finite element method (FEM)."

Emphasis added.

And what are you telling me that I didn't know?? But yet I ask you to tell me if the USGA is wrong? In all simulations other than perfectly dry and perfectly lying conditions, spin rate goes down when loft goes up, according to the USGA tests. As a matter of fact, in my most recent post, I said exactly what those scientists said, everything comes together to produce spin.

Especially, the tangential force takes either positive or negative value as the ball rolls and slides along the club face during impact.

Thats BS, I can't say it any other way. It has long been proven that golf balls do not roll or slide on the face of the club during or after impact. The ball is struck and about 1 millisecond later, the ball is gone from the face. There is no moving of the golf ball up, down or side to side on the clubface.

I just don't know where we can go with this. We can each keep trying to dig up obscure research on the subject in vain attempt to prove the other wrong. Heaven help the poor outsiders trying to find their way through this. I just don't know where else to go. I mean, you've proven that in absolute perfect conditions, spin increases as loft increases (which is what you've said all along). I've proven that in less than perfect conditions (i.e. 95% of all lies on a real golf course) the spin rates decrease as loft increases (which is what I've said all along). I'm just not sure where this can lead. We're both correct, depending on conditions.

[Jim_Kennedy]

When you read the conclusions of the USGA reports you understand where they are headed, i.e.:
-Tour Pros and good amateurs will be headed for softer balls so they can impart more spin to their lower lofted wedges that sport new grooves that perform more like V instead of U.
-The trade off will be a loss of distance for their drivers.
-Even the bomb and gouge guys will probably switch to higher spinning, softer cover balls.
-The ordinary, everyday golfer will probably stay with their surlyn covered balls as their shot patterns don't really require a soft ball, and anyway, there is no appreciable difference whether they use V or U shaped grooves.
-A certain percentage of golfers will stay with the PROV1 type, semi soft cover balls, that give them the yardage they want along with enough to keep them happy.

Very positive, no-hassle steps in the right direction.
      

[Garland Bayley]

John,

You are fond of saying the ball is on the club face for about a millisecond. How far do the club and ball travel while they are in contact?

[John Moore II]

John,

You are fond of saying the ball is on the club face for about a millisecond. How far do the club and ball travel while they are in contact?

Well, I can't say with absolute certainty, but based on looking as some very slow motion swing images, it would seem that the club moves hardly at all while the ball is 'on' the face. I would say that the club moves forward not more than 1/4" while the ball is on the face. I would actually say it moves forward less than that.

Now, what was the purpose of your question?

[Garland Bayley]

Assuming your 1 millisecond is correct, and using 100 mph club head speed for easy calculation (unfortunately with feet, inches, hours, minutes, seconds it is the only easy calculation), then the ball is stuck on the club face for nearly 2 inches.

I got curious about it, because 1 millisecond seems pretty small (unless you are in the computer business).

I think the result is surprisingly long, because we can't see it happen. The collisions that are slow enough for us to observe seem instantaneous to us and give us no concept of what happens at 100 mph. I always find it amazing to see photos of a fully compressed ball at impact. The ball seems so hard that you can't imagine something compressing it that much.

[TEPaul]

Guys, instead of trying to solve and decide these technical questions on your own on this DG have any of you ever considered just calling the USGA Research Center and asking them what some of the answers are to these questions? After-all this is what they do and have been doing for over thirty years! 

Have any of you even been there? If so, have you noticed the special I&B tests and testing equipment complete with computerization they have designed and built to answer these technical questions?

Or do some of you think you can do this stuff better than they do?   

If, not, here is their #.  908-234-2300. If Joan answers the phone just ask her to connect you to the Research Center! 

[Chuck Brown]

A playing/teaching thought.
Different rules for different levels causes many issues
If you are a good junior, amateur, or mini tour player, you will almost "have" to use the new standard to be comfortable with how that will work should you qualify for that type of event.  Many of these level events will hesitate to play by the "tour" rule to avoid passing the cost that many of these players would have.  It will be chaos trying to figure out what events have whatever rules in place.
The genie is way out of the bottle and the USGA was asleep at the wheel.  When they woke up, they were largely afraid of litigation, and reacted to events rather than being proactive. 
Now there is a choice, put the genie back in the bottle, fix the ball, find an acceptable ball speed measurement, suck it up and make rules that are good for the game.
8000 yard courses and 6 hour rounds have been the response to much of technology, and it is helping to kill the growth of the game BEFORE this economic crisis hit.
Our rules makers need to grow some, and golfers who actually car about the game need to have there backs in any way possible, including not using equipment from the companies who will inevitably sue the rules makers.  Or we can have 3 sets of rules and make it impossible to even know what tournament has which rules.
Or we could make it simple, I like Matt's thought, 12 clubs, figure out what you want to use

Yes, Pat!  We should never lose sight of the fact that the more complicated the rules, the more the game risks disrepute through hypertechnical rulings.  
You raise the issue of players, and events, on the fringes of the elite-level play that is the subject of scrutiny.  (High-level juniors, High-level ams, lower-level professionals, etc.)  What rules should apply there?  And, with the mix of players and equipment in the lower ranks, will low-level tournament officials be forced into the position of measuring loft and inspecting grooves?
Yes, I again submit that good specs for galf balls might make all of this hyper-technicality moot.
And no, I don't see how 12 clubs advances the cause of competitive respect for golf course architecture.  To me, the more that you eliminate the numbers of clubs, the more emphasis that you place on three of them -- driver, wedge, putter.
Truly, my interest in a ball rollback has basically nothing to do with scoring.  It is all about taking the game that we already love, and properly scaling it to our classic golf courses.

[Chuck Brown]

Guys, instead of trying to solve and decide these technical questions on your own on this DG have any of you ever considered just calling the USGA Research Center and asking them what some of the answers are to these questions? After-all this is what they do and have been doing for over thirty years! 

Have any of you even been there? If so, have you noticed the special I&B tests and testing equipment complete with computerization they have designed and built to answer these technical questions?

Or do some of you think you can do this stuff better than they do?   

If, not, here is their #.  908-234-2300. If Joan answers the phone just ask her to connect you to the Research Center! 

I will say this; Dick Rugge has very, very graciously given me e-mail replies in the past.
But I'm not so concerned about my own edification as I am about the public debate and official action by the USGA.

[Pat Burke]

A playing/teaching thought.
Different rules for different levels causes many issues
If you are a good junior, amateur, or mini tour player, you will almost "have" to use the new standard to be comfortable with how that will work should you qualify for that type of event.  Many of these level events will hesitate to play by the "tour" rule to avoid passing the cost that many of these players would have.  It will be chaos trying to figure out what events have whatever rules in place.
The genie is way out of the bottle and the USGA was asleep at the wheel.  When they woke up, they were largely afraid of litigation, and reacted to events rather than being proactive. 
Now there is a choice, put the genie back in the bottle, fix the ball, find an acceptable ball speed measurement, suck it up and make rules that are good for the game.
8000 yard courses and 6 hour rounds have been the response to much of technology, and it is helping to kill the growth of the game BEFORE this economic crisis hit.
Our rules makers need to grow some, and golfers who actually car about the game need to have there backs in any way possible, including not using equipment from the companies who will inevitably sue the rules makers.  Or we can have 3 sets of rules and make it impossible to even know what tournament has which rules.
Or we could make it simple, I like Matt's thought, 12 clubs, figure out what you want to use

Yes, Pat!  We should never lose sight of the fact that the more complicated the rules, the more the game risks disrepute through hypertechnical rulings.  
You raise the issue of players, and events, on the fringes of the elite-level play that is the subject of scrutiny.  (High-level juniors, High-level ams, lower-level professionals, etc.)  What rules should apply there?  And, with the mix of players and equipment in the lower ranks, will low-level tournament officials be forced into the position of measuring loft and inspecting grooves?
Yes, I again submit that good specs for galf balls might make all of this hyper-technicality moot.
And no, I don't see how 12 clubs advances the cause of competitive respect for golf course architecture.  To me, the more that you eliminate the numbers of clubs, the more emphasis that you place on three of them -- driver, wedge, putter.
Truly, my interest in a ball rollback has basically nothing to do with scoring.  It is all about taking the game that we already love, and properly scaling it to our classic golf courses.

Agreed on the ball.  I was ineffectively adding the 12 club comment in regard to the limit of loft question.
Versatility would become more important.  In fact, I have quite a few of my better playing students play some rounds with half their clubs to get them to develop some feel and different shots.  It makes them better GOLFERS not just swingers.
Fixing the ball fixes a lot.  I still play my 1989 Cleveland Tour Action irons, and hit them one full club further now than when I quit playing in 2001 (Pro V1).  BTW, that extra size I have to swing now, is from 31 flavors, NOT 24 Hour Fitness.   

[Norbert P]

  It would be easier and more effective to reduce the amount of clubs to 10 or less.   Then we'll see if these guys want an 89 degree wedge in their bag, or not. 

[Garland Bayley]

It seems to me that the tour is addicted to the lob wedge. Reducing the number of clubs will not cause them to give it up. If they want to score low, there are enough good players out there that they have to go pin hunting much of the time. If they succeed, they get birdie. If they fail, the lob wedge gets them par instead of bogey.

[Chuck Brown]

Again, Slag, why mess with the number of clubs instead of the ball?  I get more pleasure from trying, selecting, working on and possessing golf CLUBS than golf BALLS.

Really, why would any lover of golf want to give up clubs?  I don't understand.

But more than anything, I think reducing the number of clubs wouldn't do one damned thing about drivers, wedges or putters.  If you told me to build a set of clubs with only ten to thirteen clubs, I would begin by pulling my driver, putter and 58-degree wedge out of my current bag and putting them in the new bag.  After that?  Eh.  Whatever.  So my iron gaps go from 4 to 6 or 8 degrees.  Big deal.  Getting JB Holmes to decide about a cut, and choked five iron instead of a hard and hooded seven iiron (you picke the example) is fine, but you still have the issue of him hitting 340-yard drives.  In fact, it will make it all the more important that he bomb it close enough, all the time, to just get within range of his wedge(s).

[TEPaul]

"I will say this; Dick Rugge has very, very graciously given me e-mail replies in the past.
But I'm not so concerned about my own edification as I am about the public debate and official action by the USGA."


Chuck:

Yes, that Dick Rugge is a very nice man. As far as public debate and official action by the USGA, are you familiar with the USGA's rather formal "Notice and Comment" process and period that is part of any I&B Rules or Regs proposed changes? It would seem they welcome comment from golfers and all other interested parties. The only problem for them seems to be that given potentially hundreds or even thousands of different opinions from golfers and other interested parties on any particular issue that most everyone blames the USGA if they do not follow one's own particular opinion! Wouldn't it be lovely if they could apply hundreds or even thousands of different solutions to some single issue? Unfortunately, that is generally not possible.

[Norbert P]

 I get more pleasure from trying, selecting, working on and possessing golf CLUBS than golf BALLS.

Really, why would any lover of golf want to give up clubs?  I don't understand.

Chuck, obviously you enjoy clubs. I do too. I just choose to use less while playing the game.   It changes the game, try it.  It changes how you look at the land and puts more "touch" swing thoughts into the mind; i.e. half/full swing and closed/open face, etc.). I find it more interesting. As far as scores being better or worse, I don't know, I don't keep score very often. 
And because Richard Goodale will lose faith in mankind if I go back to the max allowed. (He's a bit of a puritanical thug - in a good way.) 

 And the old caddy at Prestwick, Jimmy, sure liked carrying my bag.

[John Moore II]

Assuming your 1 millisecond is correct, and using 100 mph club head speed for easy calculation (unfortunately with feet, inches, hours, minutes, seconds it is the only easy calculation), then the ball is stuck on the club face for nearly 2 inches.

I got curious about it, because 1 millisecond seems pretty small (unless you are in the computer business).

I think the result is surprisingly long, because we can't see it happen. The collisions that are slow enough for us to observe seem instantaneous to us and give us no concept of what happens at 100 mph. I always find it amazing to see photos of a fully compressed ball at impact. The ball seems so hard that you can't imagine something compressing it that much.

Well, I think we both know the ball does not stay on the face for 2 inches. You can clearly see that on any slow motion camera shot. The club head has barely moved when the ball has left the face. And yes, its pretty cool to see a compressed golf ball. I'd like to see a shot of an old Tour Balata hit with a modern driver by a long drive competitor, that would be a sight.