Ball rollback: a different angle

[Dave McCollum]

John Paul Newport’s WSJ piece is not about whether a ball roll back is wise. Nor is it about bifurcation.  It’s about the technical difficulties about actually producing a distance restricted ball.

http://online.wsj.com/article/golf_journal.html

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

When I read the article I couldn't help but think about the old betting adage, "you get out the way you got in."

Thus, I viewed the article, and the manufacturer's perspective, as sheer nonsense.

[Dave McCollum]

Yeah, Pat, me too.

[Powell Arms]

I seriously question the premise that it is exceedingly difficult to develop a reduced flight ball that is consistent throughout the bag. The post article comments by the author are interesting, seeming to acknowledge that a reduced flight ball could be developed that is not a linear reduction, but rather has a greater distance reduction at higher swing speeds ( the ideal, IMHO) , but that using such a ball wouldn't be fair to those pros with higher swing speeds. Wait, so maybe it can be developed, but wouldn't be fair.  Seems to contradict a main premise of the article and calls into question the credibility of the whole article.

[Pat Burke]

Now, accepting that better players have taken better advantage of the latest equipment
technology, much of that advantage has come from fitting, optimization, and the ability of
better players to make swing adjustments to improve launch and spin levels.

When I read some rollback proponents, I often read (or misread?) that there is a desire
to create equipment that has a larger impact high speeds.

I would hope any roll back would have a set club speed/ball speed across the board,
not a diminishing distance at higher speeds

[A.G._Crockett]

I seriously question the premise that it is exceedingly difficult to develop a reduced flight ball that is consistent throughout the bag. The post article comments by the author are interesting, seeming to acknowledge that a reduced flight ball could be developed that is not a linear reduction, but rather has a greater distance reduction at higher swing speeds ( the ideal, IMHO) , but that using such a ball wouldn't be fair to those pros with higher swing speeds. Wait, so maybe it can be developed, but wouldn't be fair.  Seems to contradict a main premise of the article and calls into question the credibility of the whole article.

Are we reading the same article, or are you referring to another article?  I don't see any of that in the WSJ article that was linked here.  It is strictly about the technical difficulties; the author makes it clear that he doesn't want to get into the philosophical side of the issue.

[A.G._Crockett]

Now, accepting that better players have taken better advantage of the latest equipment
technology, much of that advantage has come from fitting, optimization, and the ability of
better players to make swing adjustments to improve launch and spin levels.

When I read some rollback proponents, I often read (or misread?) that there is a desire
to create equipment that has a larger impact high speeds.

I would hope any roll back would have a set club speed/ball speed across the board,
not a diminishing distance at higher speeds

This is just a critical piece, and thanks for saying it.  The idea that it is somehow fair to penalize a player with a 115 mph swing speed disproportionally more than my 95 mph is just absurd.  It is socialism come to golf in the worst way, and I'm a far-left liberal Democrat!

[Steve Lang]

  manufacturer propaganda

and i don't think there has ever been a ball that played equally across one's set of clubs..  there has always been a compromise.. 

caddy, hand me the Robin Hood ball

[Brent Hutto]

There's an idea, frankly idiotic, that gets touted every time this sort of thing comes up. It claims that the current golf balls have somehow magically granted huge increases in distance to the strongest players while lesser player gain very little.

Once that meme gets lodged into the conversation it starts seeming perfectly natural to demand that Something Be Done!!!!!! to magically punish the strongest players while having little effect on weaker players. It's only fair, right?

I don't know who started the entire line of thinking but it's pure conjecture with no relation to reality, in addition to being bloody-minded.

[Powell Arms]

I seriously question the premise that it is exceedingly difficult to develop a reduced flight ball that is consistent throughout the bag. The post article comments by the author are interesting, seeming to acknowledge that a reduced flight ball could be developed that is not a linear reduction, but rather has a greater distance reduction at higher swing speeds ( the ideal, IMHO) , but that using such a ball wouldn't be fair to those pros with higher swing speeds. Wait, so maybe it can be developed, but wouldn't be fair.  Seems to contradict a main premise of the article and calls into question the credibility of the whole article.

Are we reading the same article, or are you referring to another article?  I don't see any of that in the WSJ article that was linked here.  It is strictly about the technical difficulties; the author makes it clear that he doesn't want to get into the philosophical side of the issue.

The author wrote a comment in the comment thread to the article. The philosphical part is not in the article itself.

11 hours ago
John Paul Newport Wrote:
WSJ Reporter
 
Message
Connect
Interesting comments, everyone. Here are two other points there wasn't room to include in the column:

1. Golf balls clearly weren't the only cause of the big distance jumps on Tour that started in the 1990s. Better drivers with longer shafts and bigger heads that have spring-like effect and huge sweet spots; faster fairways; and better athletes with better techniques (especially when they were freer to swing all out using those big-sweet-spot drivers) contributed much more to the distance increases, cumulatively, than longer balls did. But reformers tend to focus on the ball as the simplest, one-shot way to take things back.

2. Manufacturers could devise reduced-distance balls that take less distance away from shorter hitters than from longer hitters, especially comparing a 120 mph top Tour-level swing to a 75 mph senior amateur swing. The narrower the swing-speed gap, however, the harder it is to differentiate, so that to roll the ball back significantly for a typical 113 mph Tour player would also necessarily roll it back a lot for a typical 95 mph to 100 mph amateur. There's also an issue of fairness that arises with a graduated ball like that. To penalize Dustin Johnson and his 120 mph swing big time while penalizing far less those shorter-hitting Tour players who swing at 105 mph (I was surprised to learn how many there still are in that category) is not fair to Dustin Johnson. Hitting the ball a long way is not a bad thing -- it's one of the game's most important skills and should be rewarded.

[V. Kmetz]

manufacturer propaganda

and i don't think there has ever been a ball that played equally across one's set of clubs..  there has always been a compromise.. 

caddy, hand me the Robin Hood ball

Shhhhhh.... don't tell anyone but 28 years ago in a HS match I used a Robin Hood ball for the last 4 holes, because I was down to three and of the other two, one was a balata with a huge smile, and the other was a treasured ball used to tally my lowest round at that point.

I knew better but...

cheers

vk

[A.G._Crockett]

manufacturer propaganda

and i don't think there has ever been a ball that played equally across one's set of clubs..  there has always been a compromise.. 

caddy, hand me the Robin Hood ball

I think Rugge's point is that there might be inconsistencies within the set.  He gives the example of more spin from deeper dimples impacting the 5 iron MORE than the driver, but not impacting the wedges as much.  His explanation of this sounds completely plausible to me.

I think there is an assumption on this board that the technology of a "roll back" could be done in such a way as to let us have everything at once; less distance for higher swing speeds off the driver but in a nonlinear fashion but with little impact on the average golfer of the other clubs in the bag, etc.

I just don't see any reason to believe that this is possible, even if it is desirable, and Rugge is saying that is the case.  "Spiderwebs", as he says.  I see no reason to think that he is being other than factual.

[Jim Colton]

I'm calling BS on this:

"Let's say you make a drive go 25 yards shorter by aerodynamics," said Dean Snell, TaylorMade's vice president for golf-ball research and development. "That same ball hit with a five iron might lose even more distance, since five irons create more spin to start with. It might lose 40 or 50 yards."

[Powell Arms]

manufacturer propaganda

and i don't think there has ever been a ball that played equally across one's set of clubs..  there has always been a compromise.. 

caddy, hand me the Robin Hood ball

I think Rugge's point is that there might be inconsistencies within the set.  He gives the example of more spin from deeper dimples impacting the 5 iron MORE than the driver, but not impacting the wedges as much.  His explanation of this sounds completely plausible to me.

I think there is an assumption on this board that the technology of a "roll back" could be done in such a way as to let us have everything at once; less distance for higher swing speeds off the driver but in a nonlinear fashion but with little impact on the average golfer of the other clubs in the bag, etc.

I just don't see any reason to believe that this is possible, even if it is desirable, and Rugge is saying that is the case.  "Spiderwebs", as he says.  I see no reason to think that he is being other than factual.

The reason I question Rugge's statement is that the problem he describes has been solved for the current generation of balls.  Therefore, I would think it could be addressed for shorter balls.  The change that achieves shorter distance may not be dimples, it could be the core. 

As for the non-linear response of a reduced flight ball, I guess that depends.  If it is true that the current balls are non-linear in their response by being more responsive to higher swing speeds, I would think the converse could be true.  That said, all of this is speculation because there seems to be scant data released from the USGA, even though playing tests with amateurs have occurred with reduced distance balls over the past few years.  Granted, that no-linear reduction may not be desirable, but it is an interesting discussion. 

[jeffwarne]

So he greatest ball engineers in the world, who have managed to make balls that go 10-15% farther, spin better when needed, more durable, and more consistent, couldn't produce a ball that goes shorter on a consistent predictable basis?
Couldn't or wouldn't?
Total BS.
Of course there would be initial inconsistencies, and it might take more than 5 minutes to figure it out-but give me a break.

Amazing that the manufacturers are silently preparing, but it seems the USGA isn't.
I can ship them a box of Titeleist balata 90's circa 1990 if that helps.
Wonder why the makers of wood bats didn't pull out the "we can't make it card" ?
It is refereshing to hear that the manufacturers think they can squeeze another 70 yards out of the ball (I wonder if the "inconsistencies" would slow them down there and make them abandon that quest)

I love how the USGA putter ban debacle is brought up as a possible impediment to rolling back the ball.
Well if they'd gone after something relevant like distance that affects the variety,cost, size, safety, and speed of playing  via ball or COR restrictions, rather than a technique 30 years after the fact that does nothing to affect any of the above listed factors, they might have more credibility, rather than less.
After the putter nonsense, they definitely have made the ball rollback an even more uphill battle.

[BCrosby]

I'm with Jeff. If Titleist could make balata 90's in 1995, I'm having trouble understanding how, 20 years later, they would have forgotten how to do it.

Bob

 

[Steve Lang]

manufacturer propaganda

and i don't think there has ever been a ball that played equally across one's set of clubs..  there has always been a compromise.. 

caddy, hand me the Robin Hood ball

I think Rugge's point is that there might be inconsistencies within the set.  He gives the example of more spin from deeper dimples impacting the 5 iron MORE than the driver, but not impacting the wedges as much.  His explanation of this sounds completely plausible to me.

I think there is an assumption on this board that the technology of a "roll back" could be done in such a way as to let us have everything at once; less distance for higher swing speeds off the driver but in a nonlinear fashion but with little impact on the average golfer of the other clubs in the bag, etc.

I just don't see any reason to believe that this is possible, even if it is desirable, and Rugge is saying that is the case.  "Spiderwebs", as he says.  I see no reason to think that he is being other than factual.

A.G.  I have no illusion that a perfect ball can be made for all or that the laws of physics can be suspended, it has always been a matter of choice by the player to pick a ball best suited to goals, spin, feel, compression, distance, sound, color and adapt for the other shots that might be impacted.  

Spiderwebs indeed, and marketing like when a ball is said to have titanium content  (the power marketing word) and its really just titanium dioxide used as a pigment to make the cover polymer or paint white  

VK    I  was wondering who might pick up on the Robin Hood ball thing.. that's funny, they were literally around for a while, never knew if they were really illegal or not...  when we used to find them they'd usually be held for the next par 5 tee shot and mysteriously disappear into a pocket after being marked on the green..


Color me a skeptical old fart

[BCrosby]

There's an idea, frankly idiotic, that gets touted every time this sort of thing comes up. It claims that the current golf balls have somehow magically granted huge increases in distance to the strongest players while lesser player gain very little.

Once that meme gets lodged into the conversation it starts seeming perfectly natural to demand that Something Be Done!!!!!! to magically punish the strongest players while having little effect on weaker players. It's only fair, right?

I don't know who started the entire line of thinking but it's pure conjecture with no relation to reality, in addition to being bloody-minded.

Brent -

You have said similar things in the past and I'm not sure I follow. First, as a matter of simple math, if you increase the distance all players hit drives by, say, 15%, those who originally hit it 295 will get a larger yardage boost than those who hit it 230. 15% of 295 is a larger number than 15% of 230, no?

But beyond that, my understanding from the USGA is that there are exponential (not arithmetic) distance benefits as swing speeds increase. I don't have the relevant studies at hand, but I've heard it from reliable sources. You dismiss such notions out of hand. I will defer to your superior math skills, so if you have something contra, I'd love to see it.

Finally, I don't get the argument based on just rewards. A player should enjoy the benefits of his ability to hit it long. But that is not an axiom that ends the discussion. Constraints on distance are not inherently unfair. Such constraints are the whole point of USGA ball standards, as flaccid as they may be. Are you suggesting that we should dispense with all standards in the name of just rewards for those with high swing speeds?

For those who oppose a roll-back based on notions of 'just rewards', couldn't it be argued just as easily that if longer players benefited disproportionately from the new balls, shouldn't they also bear the burden of a roll-back?

At bottom the distance issue is about the game you want golf to be. If there were a tennis ball that was unreturnable against stronger players, tennis would ban it. The game as we know it would break down if you didn't. The parallel with golf is not exact, but haven't we reached the point in golf where golf courses can't return serve, as it were?

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob,

I seem to recall a USGA rule/reg relating to "initial velocity" that stated that the ball couldn't travel at more than 250 ft/sec

In addition the USGA regulates the size (1.68) and weight (1.62) of the ball.

The article mentions that balls could easily produce another 40-70 yards.
Imagine how that would decimate the interfacing of the architectural features with the golfer.

I go back to my previous question:  Would golf suffer a dire fate if the ball used in 1970 was reintroduced ?

[BCrosby]

"Would golf suffer a dire fate if the ball used in 1970 was reintroduced ?"

The non-passive way of asking the question is whether the game would be better than today's game? I think the answer is clearly 'yes'.

Note to all. Rolling the ball back does not mean everyone will then hit it the same distance. I means that everyone will hit it shorter but that the gap between median lengths and the longest will be reduced. That seems to me a good thing.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob,

In 1964, soon after Ken Venturi won the U.S. Open he came to my home course to play an exhibition match for charity against my dad.

I've probably played that course 2,000 times, so I'm reasonable familiar with it.

Venturi was long, but the distance gap between his game and my game wasn't that pronounced, maybe a club length or so.

Today, there's an enormous gap.

Was golf terrible in 1964-1970 ?

Or did it enjoy increasing popularity ?

Most on this site keep harping about "affordable golf" on one hand, yet on the other hand, they don't want to see the ball rolled back.

They have no understanding of how "distance" and all that comes with it, including multiple tees, INCREASES the cost of golf, making it less affordable.

They can't have it both ways.

[Garland Bayley]

Now, accepting that better players have taken better advantage of the latest equipment
technology, much of that advantage has come from fitting, optimization, and the ability of
better players to make swing adjustments to improve launch and spin levels.

When I read some rollback proponents, I often read (or misread?) that there is a desire
to create equipment that has a larger impact high speeds.

I would hope any roll back would have a set club speed/ball speed across the board,
not a diminishing distance at higher speeds

This is just a critical piece, and thanks for saying it.  The idea that it is somehow fair to penalize a player with a 115 mph swing speed disproportionally more than my 95 mph is just absurd.  It is socialism come to golf in the worst way, and I'm a far-left liberal Democrat!

That's just nonsense. The three piece ball penalized the player with the 95 mph swing speed proportionally more than it penalized a player with a 115 mph swing speed. So it has nothing to do with socialism, or capitalism. It simply has to do with returning golf to what it was and playing the courses they way they used to be played.

Also, when a golf manufacturer starts telling you that a 5 iron shot might travel 40 yards shorter, either he is a total incompetent, because he doesn't know how far it would travel, or he is simply trying to scare you with highly improbable outcomes, because he is opposed to the idea.

[Garland Bayley]

There's an idea, frankly idiotic, that gets touted every time this sort of thing comes up. It claims that the current golf balls have somehow magically granted huge increases in distance to the strongest players while lesser player gain very little.

Once that meme gets lodged into the conversation it starts seeming perfectly natural to demand that Something Be Done!!!!!! to magically punish the strongest players while having little effect on weaker players. It's only fair, right?

I don't know who started the entire line of thinking but it's pure conjecture with no relation to reality, in addition to being bloody-minded.

I get it the physics of aerodynamics is idiotic. What we need are some real alchemists!

[jeffwarne]

"Would golf suffer a dire fate if the ball used in 1970 was reintroduced ?"

The non-passive way of asking the question is whether that game would be better than today's game? I think the answer is clearly 'yes'.

Note to all. Rolling the ball back does not mean everyone will then hit it the same distance. I means that everyone will hit it shorter but that the gap between median lengths and the longest will be reduced. That all seems to me to be a good thing.

Bob

+1
Those who condemn us "whiners" underestimate the effect of taking a stand.
Anyone think GCA hasn't been changed dramatically by the discussions and attention on this website over the last 10-15 years is being naiv
It's got to start somewhere, and as more get on board, perhaps the USGA lurkers will realize they need to step up.
I grow tired of hearing the 99% don't care(and find it hard to believe 99% oppose a rollback-let's also remember that the 1% or whatever the # is play a lot more than 1% of rounds))
If they don't care then they'll be fine with a rollback too.
Plenty of tees (both long and shor)t have been built in the last 20 years. Play the ones that work for you, and for that matter, play the ball that works for you.
If you're part of those who don't care, then just get out of the way.

There's an entire industry who embraces your apathy, and continues to cheapen the game yearly.

It's a bit of a shame when optimizing equipment takes up as much preparation time as actual practice, but then why work on a revoltionary new technique-If it works for someone, there's a risk the USGA might ban it

Ironic that GJ and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum handicapwise, yet share the same ideas on equipment.
Seems us 1%ers are growing

 

[Pat Burke]

That's just nonsense. The three piece ball penalized the player with the 95 mph swing speed proportionally more than it penalized a player with a 115 mph swing speed. So it has nothing to do with socialism, or capitalism. It simply has to do with returning golf to what it was and playing the courses they way they used to be played.

Also, when a golf manufacturer starts telling you that a 5 iron shot might travel 40 yards shorter, either he is a total incompetent, because he doesn't know how far it would travel, or he is simply trying to scare you with highly improbable outcomes, because he is opposed to the idea.

[/quote]

Penalized how?  Not being a dick, wondering what you are referring to.  Distance? Slice? etc