[Niall C]

Tom P:

I don't think the balance of power in the manufacturing world is very well understood here.  As Dan says, nearly all of the equipment you play is already made in China.  It was an engineer with one of the equipment companies who suggested to me that it won't be long before the Chinese control the entire process.  And once the switch is complete, do you believe that some British or American company is going to manufacture a ball which sells for twice as much (because they won't be as efficient at making it, and won't be making it in the same high volume) in the hope that Americans will buy it to preserve the game as it is?

If you do think so, then check around your house and tell me how much American- or European-made stuff you can find.  Hint:  don't bother to look at anything which is electronic.

Tom

I don't follow the point you're making. Yes China is doing all the manufacturing but they are doing it to a spec which is determined by the rules of golf, and the rules of golf are determined by the R&A and the USGA. When you look round your house and see all those Taiwanese and Chinese elctrical items I bet they all conform to the legal requirements for goods sold in the USA. Just because the Chinese/Taiwanese manufacturer can build a fridge/freezer to another design which would be cheaper to build and therefore give more profits, they can't do that and sell it in the US unless it meets US regs. The power that the R&A and USGA have is that of the regulator.

Niall

[A.G._Crockett]

I don't follow the point you're making. Yes China is doing all the manufacturing but they are doing it to a spec which is determined by the rules of golf, and the rules of golf are determined by the R&A and the USGA. When you look round your house and see all those Taiwanese and Chinese elctrical items I bet they all conform to the legal requirements for goods sold in the USA. Just because the Chinese/Taiwanese manufacturer can build a fridge/freezer to another design which would be cheaper to build and therefore give more profits, they can't do that and sell it in the US unless it meets US regs. The power that the R&A and USGA have is that of the regulator.

Niall

Niall,
This isn't quite correct.  A ball manufacturer in China will manufacture to the specs determined by their CUSTOMER, not the USGA/R&A.  The electrical items analogy doesn't work because there are import laws and and product liability concerns, neither of which would be the case with golf balls.

But the most telling part is the statement "The power that the R&A and USGA have is that of the regulator."  The governing bodies have no formal power, except over competitions that THEY sponsor; the vast, vast majority of rounds of golf played worldwide are NOT under their "power", except to the extent that golfers wish to go along with their rules.

I have no date or info to support this, but I have always assumed that among the many reasons that the rule-making bodies (as distinguished from governing bodies) haven't changed the ball is because they don't want to lose the spirit of voluntary compliance that now is the norm.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I have no date or info to support this, but I have always assumed that among the many reasons that the rule-making bodies (as distinguished from governing bodies) haven't changed the ball is because they don't want to lose the spirit of voluntary compliance that now is the norm.

They're nothing without it.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I just don't think there is that much left to be gained in technology.....there has to be a point of diminishing returns, right?  With the COR on the driver and the physical limits of the materials used on balls, I can't imagine we're too far away. 

No offense Clint, but this reminds me of a quote from Charles Duell, who headed up the US Patent Office in 1899.  He said that the patent office will soon close because everything that can be invented has been invented.

I am guessing that there are still lots of things that could be found - revolutionary types of materials that we have not yet invented that will have a significant impact on distances.

[Jim_Kennedy]

We will know it's the truth if the trajectories (particularly with a driver) by the high swing speed players is a return to that old low to high trajectory of the high swing speed players with those higher spinning softer balls all the good players used to use up until about the mid-1990s.

I don't think you'll see the trajectory you're looking for from the present day batch of drivers. Persimmon woods had small heads and a high center of gravity and so did the early generation of metalwoods.  The super size driver of today is so much different than that, as you well know.
You might see something similar to that trajectory if they continue to hit strong-lofted 3 woods, whose weighting is more in-line with that of the older driver.

[Sean_A]

I just don't think there is that much left to be gained in technology.....there has to be a point of diminishing returns, right?  With the COR on the driver and the physical limits of the materials used on balls, I can't imagine we're too far away.  

No offense Clint, but this reminds me of a quote from Charles Duell, who headed up the US Patent Office in 1899.  He said that the patent office will soon close because everything that can be invented has been invented.

I am guessing that there are still lots of things that could be found - revolutionary types of materials that we have not yet invented that will have a significant impact on distances.

Wayne

I agree with you.  That said, I just don't care how far flat bellies hit the ball.  If those that have the power in the big wig clubs didn't care they wouldn't alter their courses.  Its a great pity they do care because I believe length race is two horse race and the clubs are one of the horses.  If they told the R&A and USGA to suck scissors all those years ago things would be very different now.  The bottom line is that if we are going to allow what amounts to a very small number of players influence how we build courses than we deserve what we get.  IMO, it wouldn't matter if a rollback happened.  Clubs would still want to make changes to their courses.  At the moment the USGA etc are a convenient scapegoat for thoughtless stupidity. 

Ciao

[Dan King]

I've said it before, but I might as well repeat myself.

I find plenty of challenge on the golf course. I fail to see how rolling back a golf ball will save the game of golf from me. Should the USGA and R&A decide that I need to start hitting a marshmallow because a very small percentage of golfers are hitting the ball too far, then I will ignore the USGA and R&A and continue to hit the ball I want to hit.

Regardless if it is subject to litigation (I think the USGA/R&A would lose such litigation), is it really fair to equipment manufacturers who have spent a fortune developing balls to fit within the USGA/R&A specs to suddenly have those specs change? Why not a more gradual change, similar to the R&A's gradual change to the larger American ball?

And to those that think it is fair that this new ball only hurts people with fast swing speed, is it really fair the talent they have developed should be the only skill adversely affected? For competition, wouldn't it be fair if the ball affected all players equally?

Cheers,
Dan King

It consists in pitting little balls into little holes with instruments ill adapted to the purpose.
 --Horace Hutchinson

[Tom_Doak]

Dan:

I totally agree with you that any change in the ball would require giving the manufacturers several years' notice so they won't waste money on R & D for a ball that is illegal when it's ready for production.

However, that's one of the conundrums of this discussion ... if the governing bodies agreed the change had to be made, and gave the manufacturers fair notice, they would just fight the new rule tooth and nail in the press and then three years later say they hadn't had enough time to retool because they didn't think the change would stick.  (That was their approach on the grooves change, anyway.)

But, I still think any change in the ball could easily be made over time, just by making the new spec. ball required for the Open and Amateur Championships, and then letting peer pressure take over from there.  But the Tour would probably have to be on board, too, and they're resistant to the idea because the players are all in the manufacturers' pockets.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I don't see the introduction of dimple patterns designed to reduce drag, as a viable proposition. It's this one of the areas where manufacturers spend so much on research? This is what makes one manufacturers' ball better than another's. It's what drives the competition, generates business and revenues. The game needs ball research. I believe the simplest way to tackle this issue is for the R&A/USGA to increase the minimum weight of the ball. Manufacturers could continue to spend millions of developing the outer cores and cover of the ball.

Dan:

Yes, the majority of golfers find the game challenging enough and feel that the ball issue is not relevant to their own game. I myself have not noticed much of a difference in my game. I may hit the ball a bit further, but I still score as I did 20 years ago. But it can affect you indirectly. As someone who appreciates golf course architecture, you will be familiar with many classic design courses that have been altered so that they are able to "defend" their par. We all wish to play "genuine" McKenzie, Raynor, Ross, Colt etc. courses, but it's becoming less and less a possibility these days. Their creations are being slowly (or very quickly in many cases) destroyed.

I would accept that professional golfers have improved over the years. They are now fitter, stronger and can now be considered athletes. But give them a persimmon driver and an old balata and you will then see what a difference the current equipment makes. They have benefited greatly from the improvements in ball and equipment. Amateurs have also benefited, but not to the same extent as the professionals, and this is probably due to fitness etc. A new ball would affect everyone, but I don't think amateurs would see a huge difference.

Tom/Dan:

A gradual change is the only way, but you're not going to see a situation where both balls (if a new ball is the solution) balls are played, as was the case with the large (US) and small (GB) balls. The gradual change that is needed is in the hearts and minds of manufacturers, R&A/USGA, amateurs and professionals, and architects. I don't mind if it takes 10 years, but a decision needs to be made now.

Dónal.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Dónal

Time is a very serious concern, but perhaps the current world financial climate has given the time you mention, however, this is not something new. This problem of length or distance the ball travels has been around for years and years.

Serious action is needed or do we see all our old courses (anything pre-2000) being either rebuilt or modified (land permitting). Time is now short, the day of 36 holes in a day are numbered. Do we allow the ‘powers that be’ to continue to dither while our own costs go up to cover the course modifications because no one is willing to take a firm stance on the matter. 

The game has ceased to be consistent. We can no longer give credence to a new course records due to the fact that it is either equipment generated or on a newly modified course. The official records (even our own cherished old scorecards) of 10, 20, 30 years ago are meaningless,  tomorrow you may go out and beat your previous record, but did you achieve that or was it just down to the improvement in your equipment.

Are we reaching the stage that a handful of golfers (highly able and fit) are going to minimise our courses because of the inaction of our Lords and Masters in Golf.

Are we getting back to the good old days when golf was only for the rich who could afford the latest equipment i.e. the highly technical Feathery Ball etc. We may, because they will be the only ones able to pay the Green Fees with all these possible course changes, not to mention the latest equipment. Carts will soon be mandatory to allow the golfer to complete a round in daylight due to the ever expanding length of our courses – no, they will not be ours, we may have paid for the modifications but they will be owned by the wealthy.

Stupid scenario, God I hope so but who knows, yet by fast and serious action all could be resolved and we give back to the game the very thing that has been lost but sorely needed ‘Consistency’ of course and equipment.

The upside is that we keep all our great courses, to retain the great designs and allow the soul of the game some peace.

Melvyn 

[C. Squier]

I just don't think there is that much left to be gained in technology.....there has to be a point of diminishing returns, right?  With the COR on the driver and the physical limits of the materials used on balls, I can't imagine we're too far away. 

No offense Clint, but this reminds me of a quote from Charles Duell, who headed up the US Patent Office in 1899.  He said that the patent office will soon close because everything that can be invented has been invented.

I am guessing that there are still lots of things that could be found - revolutionary types of materials that we have not yet invented that will have a significant impact on distances.

Distance is already limited!  It's the relationship between spin and max distance that has been improved on over the years.  Pre-Pro V1, the only way to have a ball go max distance (The maximum velocity of the ball may not exceed 250 feet per second (76 m/s) under test conditions ) was to hit a ball that didn't spin much.  The ProV1 increases the distance of a high spinning ball.  There is a point of diminishing returns, you'll have a ball that goes max distance and spins too much eventually.  I don't have USGA data in front of me, but I think the ProV is nearly there today. 

[C. Squier]

I've said it before, but I might as well repeat myself.

I find plenty of challenge on the golf course. I fail to see how rolling back a golf ball will save the game of golf from me. Should the USGA and R&A decide that I need to start hitting a marshmallow because a very small percentage of golfers are hitting the ball too far, then I will ignore the USGA and R&A and continue to hit the ball I want to hit.

Regardless if it is subject to litigation (I think the USGA/R&A would lose such litigation), is it really fair to equipment manufacturers who have spent a fortune developing balls to fit within the USGA/R&A specs to suddenly have those specs change? Why not a more gradual change, similar to the R&A's gradual change to the larger American ball?

And to those that think it is fair that this new ball only hurts people with fast swing speed, is it really fair the talent they have developed should be the only skill adversely affected? For competition, wouldn't it be fair if the ball affected all players equally?

Cheers,
Dan King

It consists in pitting little balls into little holes with instruments ill adapted to the purpose.
 --Horace Hutchinson

Dan, I agree on all points 100%.  I doubt there are 2 people on this board who have made any course "obsolete".  The problem, IMO, lies with clubs that think they need to be 7500 yards when they'll never, ever hold a Tour event.  Compound that with the idea of "protecting par" and you have a mess.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom Doak,

I think it's just a matter of time, a few years is too short, but 10 or 15 isn't. Ping had 15 years of grandfathering, and a bifurcation of the rules now exists for the modern wedges, and again, there is a 10 year grace period for amateur play.

What the USGA has to have, as they did with Ping, is an exact set of parameters so there can be little or no confusion at the time the change is enacted.

If the USGA had a few events over the 10 year period where they required a rolled back ball it could 'test' to see if everyone was more or less headed in the same direction.

[Niall C]

I don't follow the point you're making. Yes China is doing all the manufacturing but they are doing it to a spec which is determined by the rules of golf, and the rules of golf are determined by the R&A and the USGA. When you look round your house and see all those Taiwanese and Chinese elctrical items I bet they all conform to the legal requirements for goods sold in the USA. Just because the Chinese/Taiwanese manufacturer can build a fridge/freezer to another design which would be cheaper to build and therefore give more profits, they can't do that and sell it in the US unless it meets US regs. The power that the R&A and USGA have is that of the regulator.

Niall

Niall,
This isn't quite correct.  A ball manufacturer in China will manufacture to the specs determined by their CUSTOMER, not the USGA/R&A.  The electrical items analogy doesn't work because there are import laws and and product liability concerns, neither of which would be the case with golf balls.

But the most telling part is the statement "The power that the R&A and USGA have is that of the regulator."  The governing bodies have no formal power, except over competitions that THEY sponsor; the vast, vast majority of rounds of golf played worldwide are NOT under their "power", except to the extent that golfers wish to go along with their rules.

I have no date or info to support this, but I have always assumed that among the many reasons that the rule-making bodies (as distinguished from governing bodies) haven't changed the ball is because they don't want to lose the spirit of voluntary compliance that now is the norm.

AG

From my previous posts you will see that I was postulating that the R&A/USGA have the power because clubs and golfers largely conform to their rules. Witness the number of illegal drivers a few years back that golf shops couldn't give away. If they sold them it was usually to some beginner who didn't understand what they were being sold.

You are right that it is market driven. But it is a market that the R&A/USGA create or at least help define at the boundaries because of the rules on equipment that they define.

Following my last post I was doing my weekly drive from Glasgow to Elgin with not much to think about this and came to the conclusion that the reason that the authorities don't outlaw the existing equipment to rein in distance etc, is not because they don't think they would win any court case but more because they know they couldn't afford to lose (or possibly even fight a case which could take years against a number of wealthy multi-nationals). Can't really balme them when I think about it like that.

Niall

[Ulrich Mayring]

The logical first step would be that the professional Tours start rolling back the ball. Have the Tour Pros hit it shorter, that will save those classic courses that are used by the Tours. And I fail to see any litigation there, as there is no market selling balls to Tour Pros.

Once we have a Tour ball, let's see where to take it from there.

Rolling back the ball for amateurs is probably unnecessary. And it may even be uncomfortable: suppose your buddy, who always drives it 240 down the middle, now has to play with the rolled back ball and still drives it 240 down the middle, while you lose 15 yards on your drive. What would you think? That your buddy has the better golf swing or that he has, perhaps, bought a crate of illegal balls that were re-labelled in Hongkong?

Illegal drivers are one thing, not many will be able to get one and they are much harder to transform into something legal. But golf balls? They're going to make millions in China and just label them whatever they please. For this reason I think the ball will not be made illegal, until every local club has the means to determine a given ball's legality on the spot.

I kinda liked the suggestion that the only restriction on golf balls should be that they have to float in water. How about your competitor challenging you to prove your ball's legality by dropping it in the water hazard?

Ulrich

[Tony_Muldoon]

I kinda liked the suggestion that the only restriction on golf balls should be that they have to float in water. How about your competitor challenging you to prove your ball's legality by dropping it in the water hazard?

Ulrich

Perfect, at last a valid reason for water on the links!

Weight would be the quickest and easiest test and it can be done without touching on any of the patents Wally is so quick to threaten us with.


I'm still waiting for a lawyer to comment on the whole restraint of trade issue.  Would there be a real case or is it just like the end of Bonfire of the Vanities where the protagonist faces an endless limbo in the courts.

[Brent Hutto]

Weight would be the quickest and easiest test and it can be done without touching on any of the patents Wally is so quick to threaten us with.

Any significant change in the density or size of the golf ball would render useless the majority of those patents and a fair bit of the detailed, applied research behind them. It's fine for us to pooh-pooh the claims of those patent-holders but, no joke, there is some quite subtle development work behind the differences in a ProV1 and a 1995-vintage Titliest Professional. Make the ball bigger/smaller, lighter/heavier and all that work has to be done anew.

[Dan Herrmann]

Brent,
In 1901, I had a patent for a great horseshoe changer.  It quickly became worthless because of changes.

Times change all the time, and formerly valuable patents become worthless. 

000000000
I played the "new" ball, and found it to be a lot of fun.   Sure - there are a number of players that'd scream, but I'd say ignore them.  The USGA/R&A should grow some b*lls and act now!

[Matt_Ward]

Dan, et al:

Has anyone bothered to check the overall distance figures of the PGA Tour -- the gains (i.e. from the doom and gloom prophets) are just not there.

A.G., is right -- voluntary compliance is a big part of the issue for the bodies like USGA & R&A.

Jeff W -- certain people on tour may be using three-metals but the bulk are still using the bit stick. Those using the three-metals are doing so for better percentage for fairways they can hit. Just check the distance stats and see what it means.

Guys:

The issue of distance often gets distorted in a big time way because a very small handful of people bust it big time. This is no different than Hootie and the gang that could not shoot straight overdoing it when Lefty hits a PW into the 11th and Hootie freaks out to create the dog of a hole you see now.

 

[Dan Herrmann]

Matt -check out http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/2007/101.html

1980 - longest driver of the ball was Dan Pohl - 274 yards
1990 - longest driver of the ball was Dan Purtzer - 279 yards
2007 - longest driver of the ball was Bubba Watson - 315 yards

In 2007, a guy with an average distance of 274 was in 188th place!

[Matt_Ward]

Dan:

Check out the spread in distance since the ProVI balls were introduced into the market place -- the last 3-4 years. I'm not arguing about stats from 30 years ago -- those were balls far different than the models seen now.

Check out also the median distance -- not just throwing forward the top guy like Bubba Watson. If anything the distance element on the PGA Tour has really slowed down to next to nothing in terms of any continued significant yardage increase. Frank Thomas, the former USGA equipment guru, has said no less and the stats I've seen have demonstrated that to me.

Like I said before -- the folks at ANGC over-reacted big time to the distance debate. They see one or two guys hit the ball big on a few holes and they decide to blow up the design and come forward with hideous holes.

[tlavin]

People have been imploring the USGA and the R&A for decades to roll back the ball.  Believe it or not, I found an article by the famous golf writer O.B. Keeler, in which he made the argument that the "modern golf ball" had to be adjusted to prevent the inexorable march to 7,000 yard golf courses.  He wrote this in 1928!  I think that it's very, very unlikely that anything will be done to take away the "improvements" to the golf ball.  I think we just have to accept that the professionals play a much different game and that the older courses are going to be changed if they hope to keep hosting professional tournaments.

[DMoriarty]

Matt,

The last 3-4 years?   Have you been lost in a time warp?   The ProV1 was introduced in the fall of 2000.  

From 1995 until 2005 the median average distance for the top 50 drivers on the PGA Tour increased over 27 yards.

In the past few years driving distances have not increased and in some cases have very slightly decreased, but this should be expected given that the players have so outgrown the courses.   Almost everyone has scaled back their game, because they can't even hit their drivers any more on many holes where driver used to be a necessity.  What used to be long par 5'sare now reachable with a good three wood and a mid iron.  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Dan

How can you get away with saying the following

000000000
I played the "new" ball, and found it to be a lot of fun.   Sure - there are a number of players that'd scream, but I'd say ignore them.  The USGA/R&A should grow some b*lls and act now!

And I can’t because people with no b*lls complain about my tone.

Melvyn

PS Its never too late, unless you are dead.

[JMEvensky]

In the past few years driving distances have not increased and in some cases have very slightly decreased, but this should be expected given that the players have so outgrown the courses.   Almost everyone has scaled back their game, because they can't even hit their drivers any more on many holes where driver used to be a necessity.  What used to be long par 5'sare now reachable with a good three wood and a mid iron.  

That's an interesting conclusion.I have no proof,but I think it makes sense.

Is there now a higher percentage of 3-woods used on measured holes?

Where's Pat Burke when you need him?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()