Everyone plays the same ball

[BCrosby]

In a recent interview, Tom Weiskopf suggests a rollback of the ball (which we don't need to rehash). He also suggests that all players in a given tournament use the SAME ball.

I'm not sure I understand the objections to Weiskopf's last proposal. I can't think of another sport that involves a ball where all players don't use the same ball. They all adjust their individual games to maximize the ball adopted by a given competition.

For example, there are a number of different tennis balls on the market. But in a given competition, only one brand is used.

Why should golf tournaments be different? Don't we want to maximize - as is done in other sports - an apples to apples contest of playing skills? Isn't that the point of taking pains that the course set-up plays the same way for all players each day?

Bob

   

[Scott Warren]

I think golf is different because the ball is not contested or played between two opponents like other ball sports. If you're going to have a uniform ball, why not also issue uniform clubs?

[Anthony Gray]

  ENDORCEMENT REVENUE

 

[Lou_Duran]

BCrosby,

I like Tom's suggestion, but with an added twist.  Borrowing from the "Iron Chef", just prior to Thursday's first tee time, the tournament sponsor would unveil the "secret ingredient", say a ball made to the early 1970s Maxfli-Red specifications, and changed each week.  Players teeing off later during the day would be prohibited from practicing with the designated ball prior to their round, but the balls would be available at the range for post round practice and the remainder of the tournament.  So the selection process is not gamed or corrupted, the ball type would be selected randomly. 

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

This is an idea so obviously good for the game that a number of us have been advocating it on this forum for a long time.  However, as Anthony implies, follow the money if you want to know why it will never work unless the powers that be find a way to grow some cojones.

Rich

[JMEvensky]

Didn't Nicklaus once say that a barrel of golf balls should be on the 1st tee and each player just grab a handful before each tournament round?

My question is whom would be most effected by a single ball?Tour players certainly benefit by choosing a certain ball's characteristics.High level amateurs benefit to a lesser degree.Beyond that,what difference does it really make?

Like most golf equipment-related marketing,the people being targeted probably benefit the least from these improvements.The biggest beneficiaries of a non-standard ball are probably the manufacturers themselves.

Standardize the ball.Let the lawsuits begin.

[Brent Hutto]

I can't think of another sport that involves a ball where all players don't use the same ball.

For me that alone is enough reason to keep golf as it has been for half a millennium. It's not like other sports and at least for the moment professional, organized competition-as-entertainment has not totally determined how the game is played. What's wrong with being unique.

[C. Squier]

Other sports don't play w/ the same ball:

Pitchers can throw a ball out that has too much / too little New Jersey mud.

Football teams will keep their game balls at a certain temp to either make their QB happy or the other QB's worse. 

Tennis players know that all balls don't have the same tension, they throw them back all the time.


But on topic, why does it matter?  Why can't we have a bunch of different balls that fit within a narrow set of rules and be happy?  Amateurs can't tell the difference and who cares about how the pros play? 

[Adam Clayman]

Bob, I know of no instance where comparing golf to other games is fruitful. Golf is just different and should remain so. Attempts to turn this sport into other games, or, place it in some neatly constructed model, will always fail and diminish the incalculable versatility.

[Garland Bayley]

I think golf is different because the ball is not contested or played between two opponents like other ball sports. If you're going to have a uniform ball, why not also issue uniform clubs?

Why not make all basketball players wear the same size uniforms and shoes? Because the players bodies are different, just like different golfers require different clubs. It is an extension of the body. Baseball players get to choose their bats, but not the ball. Three point shot contests, and slam dunk contests all use the same ball.

[Garland Bayley]

Bob, I know of no instance where comparing golf to other games is fruitful. Golf is just different and should remain so. Attempts to turn this sport into other games, or, place it in some neatly constructed model, will always fail and diminish the incalculable versatility.

Adam,

Seriously? The incalculable versatility of the ball? Are you advocating the USGA throw out all ball regulations?

[Adam Clayman]

the sport, Garland, not the ball.

[Richard Choi]

I can't think of another sport that involves a ball where all players don't use the same ball.

I think that is because there aren't many "ball" sports where players don't interact with one another. But in almost all of those cases, you can use your own ball like bowling.

If you look at any other sport where players don't physically interact with each other like racing, all participants use wide variety of equipment.

[David Stamm]

Remember, with every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If a player chooses one ball, he is also inheriting the con's of that choice as well. If a player plays a ball that spins less, he'll sacrifice the advtages of having that spin. If he plays a driver w/ an open face to fight off a hook and he comes over the top, the choice has back fired at that moment. There is no fool proof formula that will fix every situation. In a perfect world, I would like to see very one play the same ball, but it isn't really cut and dried that it would "fix" everything. And which formaula for a ball to you go with? There can't possibly be one that they'll all be happy with.

[Garland Bayley]

...There can't possibly be one that they'll all be happy with.

Why would anyone care whether the pros are all happy with the ball. If they want to be happy with the ball then they can all go join a club and play matches with the other members. The pros are entertainers. They earn their money by entertaining the fans. It is the fans that are supposed to be happy. And, it is quite obvious that many of the pros have forgotten that, especially the world #1.

[David Stamm]

...There can't possibly be one that they'll all be happy with.

Why would anyone care whether the pros are all happy with the ball. If they want to be happy with the ball then they can all go join a club and play matches with the other members. The pros are entertainers. They earn their money by entertaining the fans. It is the fans that are supposed to be happy. And, it is quite obvious that many of the pros have forgotten that, especially the world #1.

Garland, "all" includes more than just the players. The negotiations on what will be "the" ball would be as controversial as the Council of Nicea.

[Bill Shamleffer]

I can't think of another sport that involves a ball where all players don't use the same ball.   

Bowling.

I agree that the endorcement money is too great for the Tour to allow that to be lost per the ball.

But in keeping with Mr. Weiskopk's sentiments, I wonder if just limiting the number of dimples on the ball to say under 350 and requiring every dimple to be the same size would be an effective start in limiting the distance.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

In your first post it looks like you are sort of suggesting two different things. At one point you only talk about tournament golf, while at the end you seem to be suggesting the same thing for all players and every day.

Are you thinking about a single standardized ball just for tournaments, what we've been calling a "competition" ball (to be adopted as a "Condition of Competition" by the tournament's "committee") or are you talking about one ball for all of golf?

I ask because both ideas and philosophies have in some ways and for many, many years been very much linked together in a single philosophy or policy to do with I&B Rules and Regulations which in and of themselves are to a large extent very much a form of "standardization."

[Garland Bayley]

...There can't possibly be one that they'll all be happy with.

Why would anyone care whether the pros are all happy with the ball. If they want to be happy with the ball then they can all go join a club and play matches with the other members. The pros are entertainers. They earn their money by entertaining the fans. It is the fans that are supposed to be happy. And, it is quite obvious that many of the pros have forgotten that, especially the world #1.

Garland, "all" includes more than just the players. The negotiations on what will be "the" ball would be as controversial as the Council of Nicea.

David,

Your first post only mentioned players. I assume your current "negotiations" would also involve manufacturers. I don't see them involved, as the USGA would set the specifications for manufacture like baseball does, an a particular brand could be chosen for each tournament.

[Chuck Brown]

Yes, Nicklaus and Norman have both advocated a "competition ball."  Now Weiskopf has as well.

It's a bad idea in my view.

First, we do desperately need a review of golf ball performance and a re-crafting of the technical standards.  We need a ball rollback.  We need it so badly, that we should compromise wherever possible to get it.  And a "competition ball" is a too-radical approach for the golf ball industry to tolerate.  It will be a non-starter.

I think it was Titleist's resident mouthpiece, Brad Faxon, who once replied to a question about Jack Nicklaus' criticism of modern golf balls by saying, "Has Jack ever had a decent ball contract?"  Faxon was referring to the fact that in his heyday, Nicklaus played the reprehensible MacGregor Tourney.  (MacGregor made brilliant clubs, and awful balls in those days.)  And after Jack left MacGregor, and then started Nicklaus Golf Co. in the old Toney Penna factory, Jack had floundered around from one ball company to the next.  Jack neveer made much money off of golf balls.  Faxon seemed to think that made Jack prejudiced, somehow(!?).  In my mind, Faxon's ambassadorial position at Titleist makes him more than prejudiced; he's been bought and paid for.

We'd have no need for talk about competition balls, if the USGA would step up and properly regulate current ball standards.  That is exactly what the USGA should do.  The talk of competition balls is a fallback position.  It is the "Nuclear Option."  If the USGA won't regulate balls properly, and if advanced technology makes The Old Course obsolete for an Open Championship, I'd readily agree with "an Open ball."  And if the choice is between further awful changes to Augusta, or "a Masters ball," I'd happily see ANGC pick its own ball.

But again, I see this issue as little more than a crazy threat.  The first order of business is to make the case for better understanding of ball performance and better regulation of that performance.

[Chuck Brown]

Quoting myself:

...  If the USGA won't regulate balls properly, and if advanced technology makes The Old Course obsolete for an Open Championship, I'd readily agree with "an Open ball."  And if the choice is between further awful changes to Augusta, or "a Masters ball," I'd happily see ANGC pick its own ball...

I realized that here in the friendly confines of GCA, many will argue that ANGC was long ago "obsoleted" as we knew it, and that the last two Opens at The Old Course were played on something that only vaguely represented what the course actually looks like within its traditional boundaries.

I won't argue...

[BCrosby]

If the goal is to conduct competitions on as even a playing field as possible, why should we permit differences in balls to be a factor in outcomes?  

The problem pops up in a number of ways. For example, is it right that a newie on the Tour should be disadvanteged becasue he is not given access to the latest prototype balls that top players use?

The reason you can't go all the way and standardize clubs is because of the differences in sizes, shapes and swings of different players. All that would make workable rules about club standarization too hard to write. As in all other sports, differences in equipment ought to be permitted (within certain limits) for all of those reasons.

I understand the economic reasons for our current situation with balls. That, however, does not justify the situation.

Bob

P.S. Bill - Yes, bowling is an exception. But the same questions apply to the ball rule in bowling.

[TEPaul]

"I assume your current "negotiations" would also involve manufacturers. I don't see them involved, as the USGA would set the specifications for manufacture like baseball does,"



Garland Bayley:

I don't know much about the way baseball's balls and equipment procedures work but apparently you don't know much about the way golf's balls and equipment procedures work if you think the R&A and USGA would make I&B rules and regs changes without consulting with the manufacturers and other "interested parties" first.

I suggest you carefully read the R&A/USGA "Joint Statement of Principles" and take special notice of what is called their "Notice and Comment Period." That is a pretty formal procedure in their I&B guidelines and procedures and one I doubt they would ever think about not abiding by if they were even considering some I&B Rules and Regs chance.

[Garland Bayley]

TEP,

We're talking about ideal worlds here. You know ones in which everyone plays the same ball, etc. Therefore, my proposal was slanted towards an ideal world.

I know some about how the USGA goes about doing it's regs. How could I not know since you are constantly posting about it, and your posts are the most important to read on this board. 

[C. Squier]

The reason you can't go all the way and standardize clubs is because of the differences in sizes, shapes and swings of different players.

Exactly the same reason you can't for balls either.  Different swings have different ball characteristics that benefit them. 

The treehouse is always harping on Tour players because shot making is supposedly dead.  Introduce a one ball rule and you'll find even less shotmaking.  Players will have to adapt to a new ball which will infinitely limit their shotmaking options.