News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JESII

  • Total Karma: -2
Re: Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.
« Reply #75 on: December 26, 2009, 02:22:03 PM »
Jim,

I tried to wade through the first patent application and would need a while to make sense of what they are doing...can you summarize?

Jim_Kennedy

  • Total Karma: 1
Re: Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.
« Reply #76 on: December 26, 2009, 02:47:48 PM »
Jim,
I think most of these patent apps are written to cover the widest possible area, thereby protecting as much intellectual property as is possible. Titleist figures that the USGA is going to require a 15 to 25 yard rollback in distance at the highest levels of performance and they are giving themselves the protected latitude in which to operate.

 
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Jim_Kennedy

  • Total Karma: 1
Re: Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.
« Reply #77 on: December 26, 2009, 02:55:39 PM »
Here's another beauty. Bridgestone, Srixon and Acushnet are all patenting wierd dimples. some look like little galaxies, some sre dimple in dimple, others are channels around the ball, etc.. 
It's going to be a brave new world....  ;D
 
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat20090298618.pdf

After the opener check out page 8. 
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

RSLivingston_III

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.
« Reply #78 on: December 26, 2009, 04:15:21 PM »
Those ball patterns remind me of the globe pattern ball produced in the 1890's.
"You need to start with the hickories as I truly believe it is hard to get inside the mind of the great architects from days gone by if one doesn't have any sense of how the equipment played way back when!"  
       Our Fearless Leader

Tony_Muldoon

  • Total Karma: 1
Re: Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.
« Reply #79 on: December 27, 2009, 03:32:49 AM »
Thanks Jim, interesting developments.

However if the R&A have any confidence that a Rollback is iminent why mess with the 17th TOC?




The question remains that if you believe a Rollback is necessary, then what are you doing to make sure it happens?
2025 Craws Nest Tassie, Carnoustie.

Mark Pearce

  • Total Karma: 1
Re: Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.
« Reply #80 on: December 27, 2009, 04:12:00 AM »
Tony,

Don't assume that just because Titleist are filing patents for rolled back balls they expect it to happen.  It strikes me that they are merely protecting their territory in case of roll back, not because of.

I have to say that as a physics graduate and patent litigator I would be very concerned about any move to govern equipment with detailed technical specifications.  The more complex you make the rules the more room there is for dispute and the harder companies will work to design around the specification.  Weight and size are fundamentals and they are what I would look to see legislation in respect of.
In July I will be riding two stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity, including Mont Ventoux for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.
« Reply #81 on: December 27, 2009, 11:21:16 AM »

The decision is simple, sit back and do nothing or try to do something with hopefully the benefit of protecting our great course in the process.

For me the case is very, very simple, I do not want to pay more, I do not want to see land wasted, I do not want to see courses increased with the cost incurred to build and maintain these long golf courses (i.e. water, cutting, fertilizer and general maintenance) just for the sake of a hand full of golfers.
Nor do I want to see courses close, which is already starting to happen for many reasons, not necessary linked to the roll back issues.

As for litigation, that again is very simple, a campaign to boycott those manufacturers who want to bring any action against re-introducing some common sense back in to the governing of our game. Use technology to our overall advantage not just for the few.

As for the average golfer, if the game is more interesting, costs are reduced, even slightly, this must counter any misgivings. Of course, the problem is that change even a roll back is seen by many as surrender, as with deep bunkers on the fairway, the thought of retreating out the rear is considered failure in the eyes of some, but to the thinking golfer it is the only sensible course of action to save the game. A singe battle or two can be lost, but by maintaining your forces (temper, cool, composure and thought process intact), you are ready to fight again on the next hole without having inflicted a mortal blow to your score. The brave and sensible approach, rather than the modern gun-hoe way – and becoming a casualty of your own friendly fire.     

This debate can go on and on, delay, disagree, but consider the options. Action will have to be taken, we just cannot go on in the manner we are doing so at the moment, because money is already becoming tight to get hold of. The environment will throw in a few curved balls as well, then the emissions rules may start to bite and of course, we have the old problem of water for irrigation. All can be overcome by throwing money at the problem, but who’s money, Mr Average is the only one who tends to pay for most of it as it is, so the burden will just increase diminishing the numbers of Mr Average, the last thing the owners want as it will just increase the closure of our courses.

So those who do not consider it is a problem, please think again, consider that all things affecting all of us and then decide if some fast quick action now will alleviate any pain later. Remember my comment re Tiger, some months ago. Many did not like and certainly disagreed with – the short sharp shock of a ban or other serious action and it may have stopped him before his world fell apart and he was exposed for the true man he is. Not to mention how millions have also been hurt by the false image he portrayed to get his sponsorship deals. Through our money in believing the lie, we made him a very rich man, who is using that money to insulate himself from the current world with all its uncertainties, which we have to face head on.

Agree or not with me, but as always I hope you will consider the problem and have a serious suggestion that will help Tony move this debate forward for all our sakes. Sitting back and doing nothing - is that a serious option for any golfer at this time?

Happy New Year

Melvyn 


Craig Sweet

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.
« Reply #82 on: December 27, 2009, 11:36:26 AM »
The solution is quite simple...you have the pro's play a restricted flight ball.

Pro baseball players use wood bats after years of aluminium... stock cars have been "dumbed down" for safety reasons to reward driver skill...college football players have to have one foot inbounds when receiving a pass, pro players two feet...ski racers have limits placed on boot height and ski width...

Jim_Kennedy

  • Total Karma: 1
Re: Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.
« Reply #83 on: December 27, 2009, 11:39:53 AM »
Tony,
I've talked this question over with company reps, nothing beyond that, but I'm not as worried as others about it because it's a non issue, on many fronts, for the vast majority of people who play the game.

Most equipment is the same price* or cheaper today than it was in the past (believe it or not) and the 'extra' land needed to build courses may be chalked up somewhat to length and width, but all that extra land is due more to regulations than anything else. Added to the expense is all the other BS involved, like hi tech irrigation, big clubhouses, huge architect fees, owner's ego,  etc.

Outside of the other factors like strength, conditioning, huge headed drivers, lightweight shafts, computer optimization, etc., the ball itself is only an 'issue' because the Pros are now using 'it', and 'it' is little more than a solid core distance ball that has been in production for around 4 decades. The present day version of that ball has the feel, spin, and trajectory that the older versions lacked.

So, as seen in these Acushnet patents, they are experimenting with ways to knock back some yardage without taking anything away from the feel, trajectory, and performance characteristics associated with the premium ball that Pros like..... and do it without causing any real harm to the average player.

I think Acushnet is covering their bases, but I also think they feel this is going to happen. It won't be tomorrow because the potential effects of the groove rollback have to be measured first, but it won't be much longer.


*80 years ago a premium ball sold for $12.00 dozen. In today's money that's about $144.00
« Last Edit: December 27, 2009, 11:41:54 AM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Richard Choi

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.
« Reply #84 on: December 27, 2009, 04:55:38 PM »
Craig is right. I don't understand why this is a problem at all when it only applies to 0.00001% of the golfers. Overwhelming majority of the golfers have difficulty navigating a 6000 yard course, let alone a 7000+ one, even with the latest and greatest drivers and balls.

This is not even a very technical problem, just make the tournament balls lighter so they fly less.

Tailoring the rule of golf to meet the needs of several hundred golfers against the desires of tens (if not hundreds) of millions is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

Craig Sweet

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.
« Reply #85 on: December 28, 2009, 07:11:34 PM »
I just don't understand why a "classic course" won't say NO when asked to host a tournament. It sounds as if most jump through hoops and modify their course for these tournaments....is it an ego thing?  Aren't they saying by accepting these tournaments that THEY are ok with the equipment status quo ?

Tony Ristola

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Roll Back a thread for people to debate the need for it.
« Reply #86 on: December 29, 2009, 03:19:56 AM »
Tony,
I'm in a position to see 1,000's of golfers per season tee off on hole #1 and come in on hole # 9. Those who are in no danger of hitting the ball far, far, far, far, etc., outnumber those who are.

If the USGA/R&A and the PGA Tour agree to yank back the ball for tournament play than I say OK, but leave everyone else alone, they're having a hard enough time out there as it is.

Jim,

They have every advantage in the world today, and nobody is talking about taking these cumulative improvements away. Frying pans for clubheads that are weighted beyond our wildest dreams even 15-years ago, long, light shafts so it's easier to hit it into the deep woods, a single iron today has more metal than an entire set of old forged blades, hybrids or lofted fairway woods replacing medium and long irons... fairway woods that could get a lead ball in the air... and putters with more balls than a juggler...

... and yes, most don't make consistent contact, so the effective improvement is small. So, if they rolled the ball back 15% and didn't tell anyone, the average golfer probably wouldn't notice.

.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 03:22:44 AM by Tony Ristola »