[Mark Pearce]

AG,

There wouldn't be any sudden cut off here.  If you're just 30 yards behind a pro-distance player then you'd lose distance too.  Say he lost 30 yards, then perhaps you'd lose 25.  Given that he has probably gained more than you from modern technology then yes, I'd be fine with that.  He still has his advantage in length for hitting it harder but, as should be the case, the disadvantage that hitting it harder spins it more.

[jeffwarne]

AG,

The great thing about the Pro-V1 and equivalents is that it spins proprtionatly far less at high club head speeds than it does at low clubhead speeds.  This is a function of the multi-layer design and the specific properties of those layers.  It cannot be beyond the wit of man to develop a spec that provides the same benefits for the average golfer but, as swing speeds approach those of the elite players, spins more than the current generation of ball.

Mark,
Even IF this can be done, and I am by no means certain that it can, are you seriously interested in a golf ball that would reward lesser players and penalize better players?  I play regularly with a friend who hits it 30 yds. past me repeatedly; he drives the ball pro distances.  We are essentially the same age, size, use the same equipment, practice and play the same amount, and so on.  He does this because he has a better golf swing than I do and produces more clubhead speed.  Do you think that there is benefit to a ball that helps me at his expense, and that golf would be better off accordingly?

AG,
Did you play much golf with this friend pre 1995?
I'd bet he didn't used to be 30 yards longer than you

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,

The great thing about the Pro-V1 and equivalents is that it spins proprtionatly far less at high club head speeds than it does at low clubhead speeds.  This is a function of the multi-layer design and the specific properties of those layers.  It cannot be beyond the wit of man to develop a spec that provides the same benefits for the average golfer but, as swing speeds approach those of the elite players, spins more than the current generation of ball.

Mark,
Even IF this can be done, and I am by no means certain that it can, are you seriously interested in a golf ball that would reward lesser players and penalize better players?  I play regularly with a friend who hits it 30 yds. past me repeatedly; he drives the ball pro distances.  We are essentially the same age, size, use the same equipment, practice and play the same amount, and so on.  He does this because he has a better golf swing than I do and produces more clubhead speed.  Do you think that there is benefit to a ball that helps me at his expense, and that golf would be better off accordingly?

AG,
Did you play much golf with this friend pre 1995?
I'd bet he didn't used to be 30 yards longer than you

We did play together pre 1995, and the gap was pretty much the same.  The only thing that has really happened to us is that we haven't gotten shorter as we've aged (I'm now 60, he's 58).  In fact, we have both gained distance since 1995 because now we are using Pinnacles with nice covers now; then we were using Titleist balatas or Professionals (not sure of the date for those).  The key point, IMO, is that we COULD have used Pinnacles then (as now) because the ODS was already in place.  So what do we "roll back" to?

BTW, I know that it is not the popular view here, but I'm not aware of any data that shows a disproportional benefit of the ProV1 type ball at faster swing speeds.  The manufacturers say it isn't true, and so does the USGA.  The obvious reason that the gains seem bigger for better players is that they weren't using solid core balls before; now they are.  That's all.

Look, there are four options, and only four, for the golf ball.
   1. make the ball go a shorter distance
   2. make the ball curve more
   3. bifurcate
   4. leave it alone

1 and 2 are bad for the game, clearly.  3 in my opinion would also prove to be bad for the game.  So I'm an advocate of 4 by default.

FWIW, I also believe that the ball is simply the most obvious part of the distance gains, and may or may not even be the most important.  Tom Wishon has said that the real technology improvement in golf over the last 15 years isn't the equipment itself but the ability to match the equipment to the golfer.   Add in instruction, Tiger-inspired conditioning, along with materials and clubhead sizes and you have a VERY complex dynamic and one that is probably impossible to quantify for the individual components.

I generally oppose simple solutions to complex problems; they don't usually work, and they often create much bigger problems.  The golf ball strikes me as such a situation.

[Brent Hutto]

I generally oppose simple solutions to complex problems; they don't usually work, and they often create much bigger problems.  The golf ball strikes me as such a situation.

I share that inclination but I will say if you must have a "simple" point solution to this putative problem, the only single change likely to have any effect at all is lowering the ODS. Or ideally, replacing the current ODS/Initial Velocity specification with something a bit more sophisticated AND lowering the overall performance.

Of course that's fundamentally impossible given the realities of golfer expectations, ball manufacturer legal and marketing clout and basically the entire string of historical contingencies leading up to the current situation. So instead they'll do even more wrong-headed changes with even worse side effects resulting in even less benefit to golfers.

[Jason Thurman]

So what do we "roll back" to?

This is the real question, right? It's easy to talk about how the current ball is conceptually flawed and needs to be fixed. It's much harder to actually address what "fixing" it looks like, or how to handle the ramifications of fixing it.

The characteristics of the modern ball are much simpler than "It has high compression and low spin." That's been true for Top Flites and Pinnacles for years. If we roll back the ball, should those Top Flites and Pinnacles become illegal? You want to talk about hurting the game, let's talk about eliminating all the balls sold at megastores like Wal-Mart for less than $20/dozen. I'm pretty sure we could close two courses in my hometown alone if we did that.

What do you Rollbackers want the ball rolled back to?

[Jud_T]

The problem as I see it is that we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.  A rollback that affects the average golfer is particularly unappetizing and bifurcation comes with it's own set of issues. 

[Tim Gavrich]

The greatest portion of the objection to the golf ball's current state of technological advancement seems to stem from an objection to perceived unstoppably plunging scores on Tour. So if more PGA Tour events were held on courses that didn't reward the longest hitters disproportionately, would this discussion be as vigorous? I go through the annual PGA Tour schedule and notice that a lot of the longest courses are among the less interesting ones from a GCA perspective. Torrey Pines South, Redstone, TPC Louisiana, Congressional, Firestone.

But we have the likes of Riviera, Pebble Beach, PGA National, Harbour Town, TPC Sawgrass, Colonial, TPC River Highlands, Greenbrier, Sedgefield, East Lake that are all under 7,300 yards. And due to land constraints, I don't see many of them growing much longer. Nor do we see mostly bombers prospering on them.

Instead of rolling back the ball--which, as many have shown on this thread, is a huge can of worms--why not take a look at tournament golf course setup and pursue adjustments that shift the advantage away from those who drive the ball too far for the folks who believe in ball rollback? In the end, driving the ball is but one part of the game. Chicks may dig the long ball, but the winners are still the ones who hole the putts.

[Josh Tarble]

Here's the one thing I keep coming back to and haven't seen mentioned.  One of the great things about golf is that "you and I" can go play the exact same course and nearly identical equipment as Rory McIlroy and Tiger Woods.  Sure, that's not the main thing most of us on this site care about, but numerous players DO care about that stuff.  To bifurcate the ball or rules would mean that's no longer true.

[Jud_T]

Josh,

The point is that bifurcation seems the best of the bad choices available at this juncture.

[Rich Goodale]

Here's the one thing I keep coming back to and haven't seen mentioned.  One of the great things about golf is that "you and I" can go play the exact same course and nearly identical equipment as Rory McIlroy and Tiger Woods.  Sure, that's not the main thing most of us on this site care about, but numerous players DO care about that stuff.  To bifurcate the ball or rules would mean that's no longer true.

Not true, Josh.  When bifurcation comes, you will be fully entitled to play the same ball and equipment as Rory and Tiger.  The only difference is that the equipment will be less forgiving and the ball less va-va-voom! than what you normally play.

[Alex Miller]

Here's the one thing I keep coming back to and haven't seen mentioned.  One of the great things about golf is that "you and I" can go play the exact same course and nearly identical equipment as Rory McIlroy and Tiger Woods.  Sure, that's not the main thing most of us on this site care about, but numerous players DO care about that stuff.  To bifurcate the ball or rules would mean that's no longer true.

Considering the number of 20+ handicappers I've seen playing from the back tees in an effort to play like the pros, I'm not sure there would be as much bifurcation as we may be assuming.

[JMEvensky]

Here's the one thing I keep coming back to and haven't seen mentioned.  One of the great things about golf is that "you and I" can go play the exact same course and nearly identical equipment as Rory McIlroy and Tiger Woods.  Sure, that's not the main thing most of us on this site care about, but numerous players DO care about that stuff.  To bifurcate the ball or rules would mean that's no longer true.

Not true, Josh.  When bifurcation comes, you will be fully entitled to play the same ball and equipment as Rory and Tiger.  The only difference is that the equipment will be less forgiving and the ball less va-va-voom! than what you normally play.

You should re-type your theory on bifurcation leading back to a new and improved unification.

[Josh Tarble]

Here's the one thing I keep coming back to and haven't seen mentioned.  One of the great things about golf is that "you and I" can go play the exact same course and nearly identical equipment as Rory McIlroy and Tiger Woods.  Sure, that's not the main thing most of us on this site care about, but numerous players DO care about that stuff.  To bifurcate the ball or rules would mean that's no longer true.

Considering the number of 20+ handicappers I've seen playing from the back tees in an effort to play like the pros, I'm not sure there would be as much bifurcation as we may be assuming.

That's definitely true, probably never a way to stop it, regardless of rules.

Jud,
You are probably right, just glad I follow the rules, not make them.  Can't please everyone.


In the end, I can't seem to make up my mind on what the best course of action should be.  In one aspect, I don't really care what the pros are shooting but on the other I don't want to continue to see courses destroyed for hosting a tournament once every few years.  All that I'd really like to see if ProV performance that costs $2 a ball, not $4.

[Rich Goodale]

Here's the one thing I keep coming back to and haven't seen mentioned.  One of the great things about golf is that "you and I" can go play the exact same course and nearly identical equipment as Rory McIlroy and Tiger Woods.  Sure, that's not the main thing most of us on this site care about, but numerous players DO care about that stuff.  To bifurcate the ball or rules would mean that's no longer true.

Not true, Josh.  When bifurcation comes, you will be fully entitled to play the same ball and equipment as Rory and Tiger.  The only difference is that the equipment will be less forgiving and the ball less va-va-voom! than what you normally play.

You should re-type your theory on bifurcation leading back to a new and improved unification.

JM

Since developing the grand unifying theory of bifurcation a few years ago, I have grown intellectually and now do not believe that unifurcation is possible.  As long as man believes that size matters, Pro V1xs and plutonium drivers will always find a market--particularly with that segment of mankind which is, unfortunately, size-challenged in oh so many ways....

Rich

[Garland Bayley]

...  All that I'd really like to see if ProV performance that costs $2 a ball, not $4.

I bought some Snake Eyes three piece "Tour" balls for $.90 at Golfsmith this year. How's that for beating ProV prices?
TopFlite Tours now named Gamers have been around $1.25 a ball for years. Golf Digest groups their performance right up there with ProV.
Maxfli has the Urethane three piece U3 for $1.50.

Happy?

[JMEvensky]

JM

Since developing the grand unifying theory of bifurcation a few years ago, I have grown intellectually and now do not believe that unifurcation is possible.  As long as man believes that size matters, Pro V1xs and plutonium drivers will always find a market--particularly with that segment of mankind which is, unfortunately, size-challenged in oh so many ways....

Rich

Say it ain't so--I've quoted it like scripture. It was to equipment as TEPaul's maintenance meld is to greenkeeping.


I hate it when golf's verities stop making sense.

[Jim_Kennedy]

In the end, I can't seem to make up my mind on what the best course of action should be.  In one aspect, I don't really care what the pros are shooting but on the other I don't want to continue to see courses destroyed for hosting a tournament once every few years.  All that I'd really like to see if ProV performance that costs $2 a ball, not $4.

Buy these and you only have to spend the $2
 http://www.knetgolf.com/?gclid=COPKlr3P97MCFVCd4AodAG8AWw

[Garland Bayley]

In the end, I can't seem to make up my mind on what the best course of action should be.  In one aspect, I don't really care what the pros are shooting but on the other I don't want to continue to see courses destroyed for hosting a tournament once every few years.  All that I'd really like to see if ProV performance that costs $2 a ball, not $4.

Buy these and you only have to spend the $2
 http://www.knetgolf.com/?gclid=COPKlr3P97MCFVCd4AodAG8AWw

But even their graphic shows you don't get ProV performance! 

[Jim_Kennedy]

They're not the only suppliers of perfectly good/slightly used PROV1's on the planet.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()