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

[Andy Hughes]

Jim if I were an average player (hell, I am an average player) and somebody said, "Your new golf balls will go 5 yards shorter," and walked away, I'd feel pretty deflated.

If, on the other hand, somebody said, "We are imposing new standards in all of golf.  New golf balls will go 5 yards shorter, for you, Chuck.  For Vijay, Ernie, and Tiger, they will go 20 yards shorter.  For JB Holmes, probably 25 yards shorter.  You all will play a more similar game as a result."  I'd think that would be pretty good.

Chuck, why would the average player care whether JB Holmes, who he may or may not know, hits the ball 25 yards shorter? Why would be think it pretty good that Tiger will be 20 yards shorter, when he enjoys watching Tiger smash tee shots and roll in eagle putts? And the whipped cream on top that he himself will be shorter as well, when he has never come close to overpowering a course will not be particularly sweet I don't believe.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Jim if I were an average player (hell, I am an average player) and somebody said, "Your new golf balls will go 5 yards shorter," and walked away, I'd feel pretty deflated.
...

No reason to be deflated. 95% of golfers cannot determine on course whether or not their ball goes 5 yards shorter or not, AND 95% of the people telling them the ball goes 5 yards shorter would have no way of knowing correctly without taking them to a launch monitor.

You must remember that most people hitting "the longest ball" were actually losing distance because of lack of club head speed and spin.

[John Moore II]

Chuck--my main thing was not so much the technology, but the discussion that happens on here so often about courses becoming obsolete. And I don't think urethane has made balls that much more expensive. I don't recall the current Pro V1 being that much more than a Tour Balata, given regular inflation.

I agree. The cost of the ball is marketing, not manufacturing. Titleist says it is their best ball and sets the price accordingly. I believe TopFlite is selling the same technology in The Gamer for less than half of what the ProV goes for.

And I am not certain the cover makes that much a difference. How much difference in distance was there between the Tour Balata and the Profesisonal? I don't remember that much difference. I understand you don't oppose technology, but many on here do. I am just trying to make the case that 'obsolete' courses aren't a direct function of todays technology, but that it has always happened.

Agree. It has always happened. It is just that the justification for the newer technology is not there like it was for hickory to steel, and feathery to gutta. The justifications get flimsier and flimsier and for some of us they have crossed the line in validity with respect to course design. For others, they haven't. For others, they never will.

Well, the Gamer has an Ionomer cover, whatever that stuff is. Its not exactly the same technology, but yeah, the tech involved in the lower end balls and the upper end balls is much the same, just they market the upper end ones more. I really think the core and multicover technology is what has made a huge difference in distance. You go back to the old Balata balls and much of the distance goes away.

...
Jim if I were an average player (hell, I am an average player) and somebody said, "Your new golf balls will go 5 yards shorter," and walked away, I'd feel pretty deflated.
...

No reason to be deflated. 95% of golfers cannot determine on course whether or not their ball goes 5 yards shorter or not, AND 95% of the people telling them the ball goes 5 yards shorter would have no way of knowing correctly without taking them to a launch monitor.

You must remember that most people hitting "the longest ball" were actually losing distance because of lack of club head speed and spin.

You know, I agree with that. Very few people can benefit from the Pro V1 or the Callaway iX. It just doesn't happen. We had the Bridgestone ball fitting truck at Mid South, one of the older members, real good player, used the Pro V1. The Bridgestone people fit him to the e5 I think, softer core, slightly firmer cover, but he picked up 15-20 yards of distance with every club and his touch around the greens was basically the same. The Pro V1 only really works for people with very high swing speeds. Those with lower speeds benefit far more from other balls. Works the other way as well, someone with very high swing speeds will be hurt if they play something like a DT So/Lo.

[Garland Bayley]

See John,

We are totally in sync, with the exception that you play ping pong in the rain, and I don't.
 

[John Moore II]

See John,

We are totally in sync, with the exception that you play ping pong in the rain, and I don't.
 

I'm just saying the USGA test proved two things, depending on the conditions. Given vacuum type conditions, the spin move up in direct relation to face angle. But when anything else is added to the equation, something that comes between the face and the ball, the spin goes down in relation to higher face angle. We are each correct given the conditions. You are correct when operating in a vacuum, I am correct when we are dealing with real conditions on the course.

[Chuck Brown]

Jim if I were an average player (hell, I am an average player) and somebody said, "Your new golf balls will go 5 yards shorter," and walked away, I'd feel pretty deflated.

If, on the other hand, somebody said, "We are imposing new standards in all of golf.  New golf balls will go 5 yards shorter, for you, Chuck.  For Vijay, Ernie, and Tiger, they will go 20 yards shorter.  For JB Holmes, probably 25 yards shorter.  You all will play a more similar game as a result."  I'd think that would be pretty good.

Chuck, why would the average player care whether JB Holmes, who he may or may not know, hits the ball 25 yards shorter? Why would be think it pretty good that Tiger will be 20 yards shorter, when he enjoys watching Tiger smash tee shots and roll in eagle putts? And the whipped cream on top that he himself will be shorter as well, when he has never come close to overpowering a course will not be particularly sweet I don't believe.

Hmmm.  Okay.  Maybe, since I am a GCA member, and a proud owner of The Confidential Guide, and have played the entire rota of the British Open Courses, just maybe, I am not an average golfer in terms of my tastes.  I am average in terms of my talent, my index and my apsirations.

Anyway, I undestand your point, and I thoroughly reject it.  Even if your appraisal of popular opinion is correct, I reject it on the merits.  I shudder for the future of golf if average golfers can't understand that the JB Holmeses are what drives us to conducting major championships at incomprehensible golf courses.  Your argument, I think, is in pursuit of the lowest common denominator, from a golf course architecture standpoint.

[Andy Hughes]

Anyway, I undestand your point, and I thoroughly reject it.  Even if your appraisal of popular opinion is correct, I reject it on the merits.  I shudder for the future of golf if average golfers can't understand that the JB Holmeses are what drives us to conducting major championships at incomprehensible golf courses.  Your argument, I think, is in pursuit of the lowest common denominator, from a golf course architecture standpoint.

But Chuck, it surely was not my point. You are the one who appealed to the average player and how he would react (to you telling him you were changing the equipment he is happy with because you do not enjoy watching the way JB Holmes plays Merion  ). I was just trying to point out I thought your reading of the average golfer was likely not right.

[Rob Rigg]

So if you take the population growth of the US and index the TV numbers against that, more people watched golf 10 to 20 years ago then do today.

It must be because it was more interesting back then because of the intricate shotmaking with longer irons and Seve's of the world pumping balls onto the green from parking lots.

1) Limit the ball for these guys
2) Limit the size of club head on drivers
3) Limit the grooves
4) 12 clubs max to make weapon selection more important

Don't do anything for the golfing public because they are not getting any better despite all the fancy smancy tech on the market.

[Chuck Brown]

Anyway, I undestand your point, and I thoroughly reject it.  Even if your appraisal of popular opinion is correct, I reject it on the merits.  I shudder for the future of golf if average golfers can't understand that the JB Holmeses are what drives us to conducting major championships at incomprehensible golf courses.  Your argument, I think, is in pursuit of the lowest common denominator, from a golf course architecture standpoint.

But Chuck, it surely was not my point. You are the one who appealed to the average player and how he would react (to you telling him you were changing the equipment he is happy with because you do not enjoy watching the way JB Holmes plays Merion  ). I was just trying to point out I thought your reading of the average golfer was likely not right.

Again, Andy, I understand your point.  I'd like to have a chance at explaining the issue to the average golfer in the terms I suggested.  As of now, the average golfer is inundated with golf magazines that are beholden to their equipment-manufacturer advertisers, golf journalists on tv who are largely afraid of confronting the equipment technology issue, a USGA that is ducking the issue and at least one company, Titleist, that is actively propagandizing the subject. 
Among the only places anyone hears or sees an opposing viewpoint are weblogs like Geoff Shackelford's and message boards like GCA.  Even when noteworthy people speak out on the subject (Nicklaus, Palmer, Woods, Crenshaw, Doak) those views are rarely given much attention.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chuck,
No one would be giving up any distance unless they wanted to play a ball with higher spin. The same types of product you see today will still be available.

Independent testing (golf.com for one) shows only an 8 yard spread (247 to 255 yds) in distance between the top 10 balls on the market when they are machine hit at a 90 mph swing speed. That's probably around the 'average' speed for a reasonably healthy and athletic male golfer, and there isn't a ball on the market that flies too far at that swing speed. It only becomes an issue you get up to 'Tour' speeds.

All I am suggesting is that rolling back grooves and wedge lofts could create a demand among the upper echelon of players for balls with higher spin rates. The added spin by itself would affect their distance, and it could get them to throttle back a little in an effort to play for the fairway, now that they only have a 56* wedge with standard grooves to get themselves out of any trouble.                                                                                                                  
                                                                     

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck,
No one would be giving up any distance unless they wanted to play a ball with higher spin. The same types of product you see today will still be available.

Independent testing (golf.com for one) shows only an 8 yard spread (247 to 255 yds) in distance between the top 10 balls on the market when they are machine hit at a 90 mph swing speed. That's probably around the 'average' speed for a reasonably healthy and athletic male golfer, and there isn't a ball on the market that flies too far at that swing speed. It only becomes an issue you get up to 'Tour' speeds.

All I am suggesting is that rolling back grooves and wedge lofts could create a demand among the upper echelon of players for balls with higher spin rates. The added spin by itself would affect their distance, and it could get them to throttle back a little in an effort to play for the fairway, now that they only have a 56* wedge with standard grooves to get themselves out of any trouble.                                                                                                                  
                                                                     

Jim, you may very well be correct.  I have no basis upon which to declare this theory, with which many others agree, as wrong.

Isn't it odd, however, that the USGA doesn't articulate that vision?  They just speak cryptically about scoring and success in relation to fairways hit.

You mentioned the (lack of) different performance with different balls with lower swing speeds.  If I understand what you are saying correctly, I agree entirely.  For the average player, the Pro V has been a meaningless development in terms of distance.  But the Pro V has been a revolution for elite players.  Again, that is what I've been saying all along.  That it has been a peculiar, perverse development technologically, in which "the long got longer."  To the tremendous detriment of the classic major championship golf courses.

[TEPaul]

John Stiles:

My recollection of the so-called PING lawsuit is that it resulted from what I might call a somewhat unfortunate series of events.

(I should preface by saying I actually spoke to Frank Thomas about it personally some years later as well as one of the five members of the interesting five man-oversight committee that was set up as a result of the settlement of the Ping Suit. Even though I spoke to them personally I'm not sure how technically related our conversations were and I've never read the case history).

First of all, the U or Box groove displacement that the PING Eye2 used had been legal previously. I think the dispute began when PING radiused the edges of the grooves apparently to prevent excessive stripping of paint off golf balls. When they did that the question arose of how or from where to measure the distance between grooves (ie off a vertical line or off a point established by the axis of the radiused top of the groove. While there was an existing limitation on the distance between grooves I don't believe anyone had thought of how or from where to measure the top of a radiused groove so the issue probably became one of PING claiming the USGA had arbitrarily inflicted a technical rule or regulation on them AFTER the fact (manufacture and distribution).

It got into something of a personal pissing match and I believe PING actually refused to supply a copy of the radiused groove club to the USGA. I think the USGA claimed the distance between a point at the axis of the radius consequently made PING's grooves too close together thereby violating that preexisting I&B regulation. I suppose PING claimed the vertical measurement point. I believe the rule existing today is from the axis point but the deal was back then that rule did not exist when PING Eye 2s went into production and distribution.

The suit which was PING against the USGA (and the PGA for going along with the USGA) also included a suit against Frank Thomas personally. The suit was settled and the PING Eye 2 was grandfathered in play but there was a production limitation date I believe.

Out of the settlement of the PING suit came the formation of a five man independent committee of five "disinterested" members. Apparently this was requested by Karsten Solheim. One of the responsibilities of this committee was to consider "cause" if the PGA (or Tour) ever wanted to get into I&B matters apparently on their own.

I have actually had my eye on that independent committee to be used perhaps as a form of "Honest Broker" or mediator in potential disputes between the USGA/PGA/PGA Tour and the manufacturers. Some years ago I suggested using them in that capacity and to include as the chairman of that five member committee Pres. George Bush (#41).

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

Regarding your post #69, I'm pretty much in total agreement with what you say. My position on all that is in the previous threads on these subjects from a few years ago that are now well back in the back pages of this website.

It seems to me (or let's say I hope) that the USGA and the manufacturers have reached a point in their overall relationships whereby they have somewhat agreed to work together far more quietly and behind the scenes rather than allow these I&B issues and potential issues to result in lawsuits.

If that is the case is some kind of effective rollback in distance somewhere in the future of golf? It very well may be in a behind the scenes manner. I remind you that about two years ago the USGA/R&A called on all the ball manufacturers to submit prototype balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far, and as far as I can tell all ball manufacturers have complied with that request in one way or another. The interesting part is the USGA/R&A in no way told or suggested to the manufacturers how to go about doing this. It was left up to them to figure it out indivdually and as far as I can tell some to perhaps most have patented their individual processes to accomplish these too types of prototype balls (15 and 25 yards less far). Obviously a legitimate question in this request, submission and process is, 15 and 25 yards less far THAN WHAT? 

It seems the nominal reason for the request was to further study potential dynamics and characteristics of golf balls (via distance and other things?). Even if research study seemed to be the initial reason given, nevertheless there they are and I don't see it as beyond the realm of expectation that they might be actually required via USGA/R&A I&B Rules and Regs at some point in the future.

Believe it or not there may even be something of a win/win result in all of this whereby the distance of high MPH players would effectively be rolled back while the distance of lower MPH players may be somewhat enhanced or increased compared to the low spin balls most all use now.

This is a gross generalization (believe me, I'm no scientist, it's just that I've followed these events quite closely for some years now ) but physics may reveal that a higher spin ball may decrease the distance of high MPH players while actually increasing the distance of lower MPH players-----eg spin=lift but at some MPH point (perhaps around 105-110) too much spin tends to create additional drag that actually keeps the trajectory of a ball down for an inital distance until that excessive drag can disipate (who remembers this common trajectory from the past with the high MPH players all of whom used golf balls that were much higher spinning than the balls they use now?). 

(Or something like that)

[Andy Hughes]

Again, Andy, I understand your point.  I'd like to have a chance at explaining the issue to the average golfer in the terms I suggested.  As of now, the average golfer is inundated with golf magazines that are beholden to their equipment-manufacturer advertisers, golf journalists on tv who are largely afraid of confronting the equipment technology issue, a USGA that is ducking the issue and at least one company, Titleist, that is actively propagandizing the subject. 
Among the only places anyone hears or sees an opposing viewpoint are weblogs like Geoff Shackelford's and message boards like GCA.  Even when noteworthy people speak out on the subject (Nicklaus, Palmer, Woods, Crenshaw, Doak) those views are rarely given much attention.

Chuck, do you genuinely believe many average golf fans will care at all? I do understand your point (and agree) regarding this reeking of the lowest common demoninator, but that is how you are broaching the subject, in terms of how the pros play at the majors and how the equipment will change for the pros as well as the average golfers you wish to lobby.

I would be shocked if you could get even a small percentage of golfers to think yours is a good idea, when they hear you are going to make their drives shorter but that it is OK because Holmes will have a few more yards taken from his drives. Even when they find out the true reason you want to make their drives shorter, your desire to see Merion played by the pros as you wish them to play it, I just don't see any type of groundswell of support.

[Chuck Brown]

Again, Andy, I understand your point.  I'd like to have a chance at explaining the issue to the average golfer in the terms I suggested.  As of now, the average golfer is inundated with golf magazines that are beholden to their equipment-manufacturer advertisers, golf journalists on tv who are largely afraid of confronting the equipment technology issue, a USGA that is ducking the issue and at least one company, Titleist, that is actively propagandizing the subject. 
Among the only places anyone hears or sees an opposing viewpoint are weblogs like Geoff Shackelford's and message boards like GCA.  Even when noteworthy people speak out on the subject (Nicklaus, Palmer, Woods, Crenshaw, Doak) those views are rarely given much attention.

Chuck, do you genuinely believe many average golf fans will care at all? I do understand your point (and agree) regarding this reeking of the lowest common demoninator, but that is how you are broaching the subject, in terms of how the pros play at the majors and how the equipment will change for the pros as well as the average golfers you wish to lobby.

I would be shocked if you could get even a small percentage of golfers to think yours is a good idea, when they hear you are going to make their drives shorter but that it is OK because Holmes will have a few more yards taken from his drives. Even when they find out the true reason you want to make their drives shorter, your desire to see Merion played by the pros as you wish them to play it, I just don't see any type of groundswell of support.

Well Andy, we already know that if an initiative like that were undertaken by the USGA, there would be dozens and dozens of top professionals, architects and golf writers who would be saying, in unison, "Finally!  You guys finally did it!  This is great!"  I can see a couple of USGA psa's -- one with Tiger Woods, Jack Nickluas and Arnold Palmer all saying how good the new rule is, and why.  That might get a little attention.  Then, another one with Geoff Oglivy and Ernie Els.  And a series of articles in GD and Golf Mag., by Pete Dye, Tom Doak and Ron Whitten.  Do you think that would have no effect?  Do you think that those voices would not carry the day? 

An even more interesting question might be -- Who the hell would speak out in opposition to such a new technical spec?

[Andy Hughes]

Well Andy, we already know that if an initiative like that were undertaken by the USGA, there would be dozens and dozens of top professionals, architects and golf writers who would be saying, in unison, "Finally!  You guys finally did it!  This is great!"  I can see a couple of USGA psa's -- one with Tiger Woods, Jack Nickluas and Arnold Palmer all saying how good the new rule is, and why.  That might get a little attention.  Then, another one with Geoff Oglivy and Ernie Els.  And a series of articles in GD and Golf Mag., by Pete Dye, Tom Doak and Ron Whitten.  Do you think that would have no effect?  Do you think that those voices would not carry the day? 

I think the effect would be negligible. (I am not sure what you mean by 'carry the day'--convince the public it is a good thing?)
I think this for several reasons.
1. The average guy will be told that he will forced to use a ball that will make him shorter off the tee, but that it is a good thing because JB Holmes needs to hit 4 irons into Merions par 4s rather than 8 irons as he does now. I can't imagine this is a winning argument because almost nobody cares what Holmes hits for his approach shots.
2. The average guy will be told that he will be forced to use a ball that will make him shorter off the tee, but that it is a good thing because classic courses like Merion are forced to disfigure their layouts otherwise.  This is a loser for several reasons;
                a. Where's Merion?
                b. Why is Merion's architecture more important to me than the length of my shots and my enjoyment of the game?
                c. I will never ever play Merion
                d. If Merion's architecture is so important and historical, why would they disfigure it just to stop the greatest players in the world from shooting great scores for the 4 days every 20 years they play there?
3. The average guy will be told that he will be forced to use a ball that will make him shorter off the tee, but that it is a good thing because courses won't have to lengthen themselves to 7,400 yards to retain the challenge. The average golfer will ask, 'retain the challenge for whom?  The game is plenty long at 6,500 or 6,800 for almost everyone, and for that tiny minority who find the game too easy? Don't use the latest and greatest clubs and balls if it'll make you happier.  What kind of course would go through all the time, effort and expense to do that to themselves when it effects almost nobody?'
4. The average guy will be told that he will be forced to use a ball that will make him shorter off the tee, but that it is a good thing because he will get to enjoy greater shotmaking from the pros.  This will fail for any number of reasons, and strikes me as a non-starter.
               

[Chuck Brown]

Geeze, I didn't realize what a lowbrow slug the average guy is.

[Andy Hughes]

 

[Chuck Brown]

Seriously, Andy, your argument is the same as Wally Uihlein's; that golf is an "aspirational" endeavor, reliant, monetarily, on people thinking that they are moving up even if they aren't, and that it is important that they have the feeling of advancing.

The alternative I suppose is to do nothing.  And in that event it is inevitable that the future of major championship golf will be conducted on courses the we either do not know or don't recognize.  Or, to do something in the form of bifurcation, to reign in the tiny number of elite tournament players but leave recreational golf alone.  Of course that sets up a game in which recreational golf becomes divorced from tournament golf.

I guess I am still waiting to hear about who it might be who is a knowledgable figure in golf, a leader, a notable player or architect or writer or wise man of the game, who would say, "Oh yeah, let's keep building longer and longer equipment..."?  Other than the guys who sell a certain brand of golf balls for a living, who is that?  Or would we have the unusual situation in which an ad hoc army of Joe Sixpacks, led solely by John Cleese, protests the USGA?  Because I don't think the players on the PGA Tour Policy Board would be anything but supportive.

[John Moore II]

I don't think the average golfer will be affected by a golf ball change. A change would likely only affect the Pro V1, Tour iX, etc. The NXT, DT, Burner and others would likely not be changed much. So, I think any major change in the golf ball would likely only affect the high level players. The lessers players (who use the right ball anyway) would see no affect (except if you lowered the 'compression' of the Pro V1 to make it shorter for a high end player, the lower swing speed player might actually see an increase in distance using those balls; yes I know solid core balls don't have 'compression' its the best word I can think of that everyone can relate to)

[Kalen Braley]

I can't ever ever ever recall hearing one conversation at the local golf course, or golf buddies talking in general where they brag about hitting any club shorter.

Its always, always about getting that little bit of extra distance in the form of:

"Hey joe, you should have seen the drive I hit on 15...it was 300 yards right down the middle"

or

"Hey Hank, what iron did you hit back there?"
 "A stock 7 iron"
"It was soft 8 for me"

or

"Hey Larry, I've been working on my game big time at the range, i"ve noticed I've gained 5-10 yards extra on most of my tee shots"


I'm curious what fantasy world exists where guys want anything to do with ball rollbacks?  If it were up to me, I'd just do all this pulling back stuff in secret and label the balls the exact same.  That way when guys are moaning about hitting it shorter, it'd be easy to just say "Sorry, guess you need to work on your game a little harder."   

[Andy Hughes]

Seriously, Andy, your argument is the same as Wally Uihlein's; that golf is an "aspirational" endeavor, reliant, monetarily, on people thinking that they are moving up even if they aren't, and that it is important that they have the feeling of advancing.

Chuck, in reality it is not my argument at all. You have broached the subject several times about how to sell it to the average golfer out there, or how the average golfer would be glad to make the changes you suggest as long as it is 'sold' properly (i.e. 'yes you will hit it shorter, but JB Homes will lose more yards than you'). My point is that I think you would not find the average golfer anywhere near as receptive as you believe. Woods, Nicklaus, Palmer, Ogilvy and others have been preaching it for years--has it had any effect on the average golfer?

I am not necessarily opposed to a ball rollback, but I find many of the arguments on here to be far from compelling, nor do I feel the sky is anywhere near falling.

[Chuck Brown]

I can't ever ever ever recall hearing one conversation at the local golf course, or golf buddies talking in general where they brag about hitting any club shorter.

Its always, always about getting that little bit of extra distance in the form of:

"Hey joe, you should have seen the drive I hit on 15...it was 300 yards right down the middle"

or

"Hey Hank, what iron did you hit back there?"
 "A stock 7 iron"
"It was soft 8 for me"

or

"Hey Larry, I've been working on my game big time at the range, i"ve noticed I've gained 5-10 yards extra on most of my tee shots"


I'm curious what fantasy world exists where guys want anything to do with ball rollbacks?  If it were up to me, I'd just do all this pulling back stuff in secret and label the balls the exact same.  That way when guys are moaning about hitting it shorter, it'd be easy to just say "Sorry, guess you need to work on your game a little harder."   

I thought that's what the USGA was already doing in reverse; working with Titleist, in secret, on balls that dodge the current Overall Distance Standard, and not telling anybody about it.  Trouble is, the balls only go farther for the elite-level, launch-monitored, tour players.  And recreational players are left standing still, effectively.

I feel like Michael Corleone, with a freshly busted jaw as he suggests to Sonny and Tom Hagen that they kill a New York police captain:

" Tom, wait a minute. I'm talking about a cop – that's mixed up in drugs. I'm talking about ah... ah... a dishonest cop – a crooked cop who got mixed up in the rackets and got what was coming to him. That's a terrific story. And we have newspaper people on the pay roll, don't we, Tom? {Hagen nods in the affirmative.}  And they might like a story like that."

[JohnV]

A number of PGA Tour pros have already asked for balls that spin more in 2010.

Assuming that Titleist does produce a ball that spins more, will they get replace the current Pro-V1 and Pro-V1x or will there be a new "Pro-V1-spin"? 

I assume they will continue to make the current balls.  Some pros might still want them and enough other golfers will continue to buy them.  Essentially golfers will self-bifurcate based on their needs.  There will be no need for the USGA / R&A  to legislate a ball that spins more or is shorter for everyone or to come up with separate rules for the pros.

Even if Titleist did do away with the current Pro-V series, there would still be Top-Flites and Pinnacles around that would not spin and would still go just as far as today.  Contrary to John Moore's comment, all golf balls are at or near the limit today.  A new limit would roll back all of them, while the proposed change will cause new balls to be designed and manufactured without delegitamizing the current ones.  Essentially we'll be back to the balata / Top-Rock divide of the past century (although I'm sure it won't be a big a difference.)

At least that is the way that the USGA / R&A would like things to work in the perfect world.  Will it work?  I don't know, but I hope so.

[John Moore II]

A number of PGA Tour pros have already asked for balls that spin more in 2010.

Assuming that Titleist does produce a ball that spins more, will they get replace the current Pro-V1 and Pro-V1x or will there be a new "Pro-V1-spin"? 

I assume they will continue to make the current balls.  Some pros might still want them and enough other golfers will continue to buy them.  Essentially golfers will self-bifurcate based on their needs.  There will be no need for the USGA / R&A  to legislate a ball that spins more or is shorter for everyone or to come up with separate rules for the pros.

Even if Titleist did do away with the current Pro-V series, there would still be Top-Flites and Pinnacles around that would not spin and would still go just as far as today.  Contrary to John Moore's comment, all golf balls are at or near the limit today.  A new limit would roll back all of them, while the proposed change will cause new balls to be designed and manufactured without delegitamizing the current ones.  Essentially we'll be back to the balata / Top-Rock divide of the past century (although I'm sure it won't be a big a difference.)

At least that is the way that the USGA / R&A would like things to work in the perfect world.  Will it work?  I don't know, but I hope so.

My comment was not so much directed at the current ball velocity standard, I would certainly assume that all golf balls are as close to the velocity limit as possible. What I was meaning was that if a 'new' ball needs to be made based on the new grooves that is softer and more responsive for those players, there would be little effect on the average player. And even if they reduce the max ball velocity standard, it would still likely have little effect on the average player, who would not generate enough head speed to notice a difference in distance. There is a reason that the Pro V is firmer as a whole than the NXT, which is harder than the SOLO. I would say that given the current Pro V1 and Tour iX, a player would lose distance from optimal if they do not have a head speed of 110+ mph.