Ball rollback: a different angle

[Brent Hutto]

What the non-balata Tour ball brought into play was the end to a precarious equilibrium based on a peculiar historical contingency of golf ball design.

In effect, the best players were all in agreement not to hit the ball as far as possible during a period of several decades. At any time during the 70's or 80's a Tour player could have used a hard-cover ball and hit it farther than his contemporaries on Tour. It never became a popular choice because of the severe limitations (perceived limitations at any rate) in performance green-side. So everyone was happy, the Tour players (influence leaders) got their Balata balls for free, the ball makers sold them at very high prices (given how easily damaged each ball was) to wanna-be elite players and being a "long hitter" or a "short hitter" was constrained to a relatively small total range on Tour.

Such an equilibrium could not last. Someone, somewhere was bound to figure out a way to make higher performance (w.r.t. distance) balls acceptable to elite players green-side. Once that happened, it was inevitable that a few then many then all Tour players would bail out of the gentleman's agreement as to the range of "long" to "short" on Tour. Everybody could now be Longer Than Long Used To Be. And so they did.

I do not think USGA can stuff that particular genie back in the bottle. Once they've seen the big city, yada, yada, yada. But that's what you guys are asking for. You want USGA to somehow make it so unattractive for an elite player to try and hit it as far as possible under the distance standard the rest of us live by, that they'll go back to playing sub-optimum equipment and we can imagine that we're Not Really All That Far Behind our betters in the game. The whinging in this thread is basically down to Why Should They Hit It Twice As Far As Me Just Because They Can Swing Twice As Hard?

I am perfectly happy knowing that with whatever ball I can poot my little 200-yarders out there, someone like Bubba Watson can hit it 400 yards. Why shouldn't it be otherwise? Look at him, look at me. The good news is, if you cut back the performance of the ball (distance performance and ball speed, not namby-pamby spin numbers) by 20% that's going to cost Bubba 80 yards (thereby saving 80 yards per hole of real estate) while only costing me 40 yards which after a while I'll barely notice. After all I hit lots of badly struck tee shots every day that come up 40 yards short and I don't despair.

[Brent Hutto]

Comparing PGA and LPGA tour stats shows evidence that stronger players have gained more in distance in the last 20 or so years.  Thsi obviously covers all tech gains and other changes which are harder to quantify (fitness?  course speed?).  

As much as I appreciate Paul taking the trouble to post those graphs (and Paul, I do appreciate it very much) the statistician/geek in me has to point out that the charted numbers are potentially very misleading. The "gains" should be plotted as percentage gains, not absolute numbers. Without knowing distances at baseline, it's hard to know if 25 yards increase for an LPGA player is more or less than 30 yards increase for a PGA Tour player.

P.S. Given the tenor of this discussion I realize not everyone will agree with that characterization. For some people, apparently to gain 5 yards on a 300-yard drive and only 4 yards on a 200-yard drive is unfair as hell. After all they get an extra yard just because they swing so hard and hit it so far!

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

AG
I was just using the word Balata as a general term.
I dont think it matters what the damn ball is made of if "dialing it back" is the issue just do it.
I dont care if it is to Pro Traj 100 specs , the specs of the old Dt or Maxfli Revolution or even the Top Flite lets quit quibbling about who is going to get hurt the most, lets all get hurt.
Golf courses will still be great at 6800 yards, we can save money on"restorations" and as I said we will still have long hitters just like we always did.
Players can still use "longer" balls just like they always did, but they just wont go as far.
I jus dont see why it is that hard of an issue to solve,IF somebody wnats to, which of course they DONT.

[Paul_Turner]

Brent

I kind of agree, but I think the absolute numbers are useful too...it implies that some parts of tech "switch on" more at some strength threshold but then flattens out (due to competing factors like COR drop?).  Why is there no trend within PGA tour but there is between tours and a small one within the LPGA tour?

It's not a huge effect though...5-7 yards for Bubba and Co vs the weakest LPGA players (name?).

[Brent Hutto]

Brent

I kind of agree, but I think the absolute numbers are useful too...it implies that some parts of tech "switch on" more at some strength threshold.  Why is there no trend within PGA tour but there is between tours and a small one within the LPGA tour.

It's not a huge effect though...5-7 yards for Bubba and Co vs the weakest LPGA player (name?).

So presumably using 1992 equipment Bubba would hit it, what, let's say 100 yards longer than the shortest LPGA player and now he'll hit it 106 yards longer than the shortest LPGA player? That's on the same order as noise in the data, hardly a basis for justifying rule changes or not.

[Paul_Turner]

Brent

Approximately yes but it's more like a 75yards difference between the two groups has now become 80-85 yards difference.

I shouldn't have really used the name Bubba because there can be some larger noisy changes in the "tails" i.e. a single player can in a given year be 5 yards longer than anyone else and similarly at the bottom you can a laggard that 5-10 yards shorter.  Which is why I used deciles.

[Richard Choi]

I still don't understand why anyone, including USGA, cares about 99% of the courses out there being obsolete for 0.01% of the players.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Richard,
Kind of my point, either do something or dont, quit bitching and moaning and concentrate on speeding up play and banning anchored putters

[Garland Bayley]

I still don't understand why anyone, including USGA, cares about 99% of the courses out there being obsolete for 0.01% of the players.

Because it puts an emphasis on length in peoples minds that causes every client to insist on courses over 7000 yards from their architects. Most architects aren't in a position to tell the client they won't do a course that long, but instead make the concession. That means golf course construction and operating costs go beyond what they have to.

It puts an emphasis on length in peoples minds that causes them to dismiss shorter courses as being inferior, when as we know here, they are often actually superior.

Because it causes architects to build six or seven tees to try to satisfy everyone, while segregating people and in reality satisfying few.
...

[Richard Choi]

Why do you care that people with more money and ego than brains, build courses that will be more expensive to build/sustain than necessary? If the market won't support it it will just go bankrupt and the following owners will dial it down. Why is it USGA's job to stop stupid people from making stupid decisions?

[Garland Bayley]

The comment about "better part of 100 yards" was comparing today to something more like 1949 than 1999. Back when wooden clubs and rubber-band wound balls were the only realistic options for good players and back when the test they were still using in 1999 was actually meaningful.

Doesn't matter. They were not averaging 241 yards off the tee in 1949 so that you can round off the distance to 100.

All I know is this. If they want elite players NOT to be hitting the ball such-and-such distances in the year 2033 then they have to enforce a meaningful limit on ball speed AND carry distance as measured at the clubhead speeds likely to prevail at that time for the strongest players. If you don't want a 150mph swing to propel the ball at 220mph and see it travel 400 yards through the air then make a rule that say just how far a ball is allowed to travel when struck at 150mph.

IMO this is the most impractical rules suggestion I have ever seen on this matter.

Don't make a rule intended to make 130mph swingers today hold back and not try to swing 150mph tomorrow. Or a rule that tweaks the dimples on a Pro V1 to produce a ball that upshots and flies crooked. Cleverness is not going to work. Not for long, anyway.

There is no attempt to make swingers hold back. They can swing as hard as they want to and see what they get. Even with the modern ball they are already holding back to make it on the PGA Tour. Many of the Nationwide tour guys have told how they have had to dial it back significantly to survive on the PGA Tour once they qualify.

Great players like Jack used their strength wisely and judiciously. Just look at how much Tiger currently dials it back even with the current technology.

The history of regulation addresses the factor that caused the need for regulation.
Balls got too hot. The initial velocity standard was put in place.
Some balls went too far even with initial velocity regulation. The ODS standard was put in place.
Balls flew too straight by using dimple mods. The dimple regulation standard was put in place.
Now that spin has been manipulated to make balls go farther than intended given existing regulations, IMO it is time to regulate spin.

Was it A.G. that wanted to know if people would play "inferior" balls? Clearly they will, because there are superior balls that have only a small segment of the marketplace.

[Garland Bayley]

Why do you care that people with more money and ego than brains, build courses that will be more expensive to build/sustain than necessary? If the market won't support it it will just go bankrupt and the following owners will dial it down. Why is it USGA's job to stop stupid people from making stupid decisions?

Actually Richard, my concern is that people will ignore the good courses that cannot be stretched longer for physical or financial reasons. When these courses go under because someone has built trash nearby that meets the paying public's perception that long is good, then I see a problem.

[Richard Choi]

I have yet to hear average golfers avoid courses because they are too short. They avoid courses for many reasons, too boring, too poor conditions, too busy, too expensive, etc., but never too short. In fact the most popular course in my area is a muni that plays at 5700 yards. It is impossible to get a tee time there!!! So what real problem is this supposed to be addressing?

The only reason USGA is on this unholy warpath is because of their delusional devotion to "protecting par", which has no relation to 99.9% of the golfing public it is supposed to serve. This quixotic obsession needs to stop.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have yet to hear average golfers avoid courses because they are too short. They avoid courses for many reasons, too boring, too poor conditions, too busy, too expensive, etc., but never too short. In fact the most popular course in my area is a muni that plays at 5700 yards. It is impossible to get a tee time there!!! So what real problem is this supposed to be addressing?

The only reason USGA is on this unholy warpath is because of their delusional devotion to "protecting par", which has no relation to 99.9% of the golfing public it is supposed to serve. This quixotic obsession needs to stop.

Richard,

I hear everything you say, but, golfers are a unique breed, for some reason they want to play the same course that the PGA Tour Pros play.

Most clubs hosting a major notice a huge increase in guest play from the time the event is awarded until a year or so after the event.

And, invariably, many golfers want to play the course that the PGA Tour Pros will be playing.

I don't know if you remember the thread on ANGC and it's now 7,500 yard length and how many insisted that if given an invitation to ANGC that they would play it at 7,500, despite the fact that it's well beyond their ability.

For some reason, over the last 30 or so years, difficulty has been equated with quality.
And, difficulty is inextricably tied to length.

Golfers seem to revel in getting beat up by long, difficult courses and they tend to pooh pooh shorter courses

That's just the nature of the lunatic golfing mentality in us all.

[Garland Bayley]

And the most popular course where it is impossible to get a tee time at in New York is the longest.

A private club has to attract serious golfers, because the cost dictates they play a lot. I've been told that our club, being < 6000 yards has people deciding against joining, because it is too short. IMHO or perhaps IMPO there is nothing they would be playing in the area that comes close to the course quality at a similar cost level.

The only way to get better quality is to go to a much higher price point at Royal Oaks.

[David_Tepper]

"I don't know if you remember the thread on ANGC and it's now 7,500 yard length and how many insisted that if given an invitation to ANGC that they would play it at 7,500, despite the fact that it's well beyond their ability."

Pat M. -

Other than for the Masters, is really possible to play AGNC at that length? I have always been under the impression that, for the balance of the golf season at AGNC, the course plays from the much shorter "Members" tees.

DT

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I don't know if you remember the thread on ANGC and it's now 7,500 yard length and how many insisted that if given an invitation to ANGC that they would play it at 7,500, despite the fact that it's well beyond their ability."

Pat M. -

Other than for the Masters, is really possible to play AGNC at that length?

Absolutely.
You can play the tees of your choice, Masters or Members, but, you'd better have the ability to handle the Masters tees or I doubt that you'd be reinvited.

I always played the Masters tees until they made the quantum leap to 7,500 which is far beyond my ability and far beyond my enjoyment level.


I have always been under the impression that, for the balance of the golf season at AGNC, the course plays from the much shorter "Members" tees.
No, both tees are available for play during the course of the season.

But, the fact is, at 7,500 and cooler weather in Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb and March, only exceptional golfers or morons would play the Masters tees.

[David_Tepper]

Pat M. -

Thanks for the clarification. For some reason I always thought all play was from the Members tees aside from Masters week.

DT

[Richard Choi]

Last time I checked, Pine Valley is not the longest course around. But I don't think they are having much trouble getting members...

I've got a news for you. These private courses are having membership issues because the younger generation does not have the discretionary income to spend on initiation fees and monthly dues. The problem is demographic. You can turn everyone of these struggling privates into 9000 yard behemoths and you will STILL have problems with memberships. Hell, the problem would be worse since it is now more expensive to join!

If a course "cannot survive" without adding more tees, perhaps it would be best if that  course closed its membership and become a daily fee course. There is nothing good that can come from people obsessing over who has a bigger dick when they are starving.

[jeffwarne]

Why do you care that people with more money and ego than brains, build courses that will be more expensive to build/sustain than necessary? If the market won't support it it will just go bankrupt and the following owners will dial it down. Why is it USGA's job to stop stupid people from making stupid decisions?

Richard,
Why do you care that we care?
If you're comfortable with the ball, and it doesn't bother you that every time a major goes to a classic course it is bastardized,good on you.
If you don't care that the costs of the game are driven up by the need for more real estate for lengthening and/or safety corridors, good on you.
You are 100% entitled to your opinion and you can vote with your dollars.

No one's saying the game's too easy, just that the corridors required have to be larger, for a lot more than .01%. I teach several 15 handicappers that hit it 300 yards, often 50-60 yards off line. Big difference between a ball hit 300 ,60 yards off line, and a ball hit 270, 50 yards off line.
A good attorney will advise a course owner he needs more room -that's not a stupid person making a stupid decision-they do plenty of that on their own .

The USGA is the self appointed rulesmaker of the game.
They made rules for a reason, and equipment rules specifically to make golf a game of skill.
Innovation has always been a part of the game, lately it's just accelerated.
The equipment manufacturers found a way to innovate faster than the USGA could regulate, it happens in all sports.
Other sports have responded by adjusting rules accordingly.

I'm completely stunned that people can be against anchoring, which causes no change to our fields of play at any level, yet be in support of balls and equipment that go farther every year, driving change to the fields of play for a variety of reasons, including misguided narrowing of corridors in the name of "protection of par" , safety, pace of play, etc.

Talking about it is a start; us rollback freaks may find out we're a minority, and the talk will go away.
Or perhaps we're not, and dialogue is a positive beginning.
As Brent says, it took the USGA 10 years  to aknowledge the ball went farther, then decided it was too late to do anything (unless of course it's a putting technique that's been around 20-30 years)

Put another way, I think golf would be better on a 6900 yard course with greens and tees proportionately closer vs. a 7500 yard course with tees and greens proportionately farther apart, using a ball that goes 10% shorter, and playing whatever tees one wants to. You still have to walk by the back tees, unless they're making you walk backwards, which is even worse.
 In a world fighting for additional leisure time, only golf is expanding its  real estate needs and wondering why it tales longer to walk and play 10% more real estate.

Will we still say golf is evolving when elite players are driving it 500 yards?
Guess it will help me with wedge sales though

[Garland Bayley]

Last time I checked, Pine Valley is not the longest course around. But I don't think they are having much trouble getting members...

I've got a news for you. These private courses are having membership issues because the younger generation does not have the discretionary income to spend on initiation fees and monthly dues. The problem is demographic. You can turn everyone of these struggling privates into 9000 yard behemoths and you will STILL have problems with memberships. Hell, the problem would be worse since it is now more expensive to join!

No, I've got news for you. There is no initiation fee, and play 6 times a month and you are already ahead on dues.

If a course "cannot survive" without adding more tees, perhaps it would be best if that  course closed its membership and become a daily fee course. There is nothing good that can come from people obsessing over who has a bigger dick when they are starving.

[Bryan Izatt]

Clearly with too much time on my hands I spent a while on a monitor today hitting a Pro V1, a (probably) 15 year old Titleist Tour Balata  100 and a (probably) 14 year old Titleist Professional 100.  Now, I'd bet that the two old Titleists have lost a bit of their pop over the years, but it was worth a try.  The monitor I was on was questionable on clubhead speed, but it was near what my speed is on more accurate monitors and the club speeds were pretty consistent.  I don't have a robot-like swing so there is plenty of variation amongst the results within each ball, but I think the average results are indicative.  I believe the ball speed and spin are reasonably accurate.  The distances are, of course, dependent on the system's algorithm, but they are comparable to my results on other more accurate monitors.




Not surprisingly (given they are 15 years old) the old balls were about 9 yards shorter than the Pro V1.  The ball speeds were about 3 mph slower.  The Professional was surprisingly close in spin, while the Tour Balata was significantly higher.  Despite the extra spin with the Tour Balata, the distances weren't any shorter than the Professional.

I now have one point I could put on the Quintavalla chart - a point about 9 yards lower at around 99 mph.  Now all I need is a person who swings at at 90 mph and another at 110 mph and another who swings at 120 mph and I'd have a rough cut at what the old ball and modern driver distance/swing speed line would be.  Sadly, I don't know where to find those two people.   

Good piece of work Bryan. Note the Balata spins close to 4000, whereas the ProV spins close to 3000 for you.

Gosh, Garland, that's some major league rounding you're doing to make your point.  The delta between the spin rates is not 1000 rpm as you postulate, it's 707 rpm to be accurate.  

Now if you go back to http://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI%20Newsletter/news05-02-04.htm
you can see how the high swing speed player gains disproportionally more at their swing speeds over what you would gain.

If I understand you (not really sure I do) you are saying that going from a 4000 rpm ball to a 3000 rpm ball helps a 120 mph swinger more than it helps a 100 mph swinger.  And by a disproportionate amount.  If by disproportionate you mean 5 yards then I guess that's what the table says.  Keep in mind that there wasn't a 1000 rpm difference, it was only 707.  And, keep in mind that that the table is derived from an algorithm derived from a model that the blogger developed from a spreadsheet.  Do you wonder what the margin of error might be in the algorithm or about the accuracy of the model.  And, keep in mind that the spin rate is significantly dependent on the angle of attack and the dynamic loft at impact.  Those are much larger factors than whether the ball was balata covered or not.  Back a couple of decades I doubt that very many people had much of a clue about the angle of attack and dynamic loft and optimal launch conditions.  I think the whole fitting process has had more impact than the cover of the ball.  Certainly the solid core was an advance over windings too.  Bottom line, there are many factors of which spin rate is one.  

For your edification I've posted this Trackman chart of angles of attack and their impact on distance.  Notice how radically different the spin rates are.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Last time I checked, Pine Valley is not the longest course around. But I don't think they are having much trouble getting members...

Richard, PV is pretty long, in fact, I'd classify it as very long from the back tees, as it's a par 70.

The 500+ members are spread throughout the country so it's not like a local club where all of the members are a short drive away from playing.
Hence, I don't think you can use PV or ANGC as a typical example of a local club.

I've got a news for you. These private courses are having membership issues because the younger generation does not have the discretionary income to spend on initiation fees and monthly dues.

I agree with that, and I'd add another factor.  In their quest to be all things to all people the cost of belonging to a private club has gone through the roof.  To the degree that it's almost absurd

The problem is demographic. You can turn everyone of these struggling privates into 9000 yard behemoths and you will STILL have problems with memberships. Hell, the problem would be worse since it is now more expensive to join!

While that's true, the converse is also true, if they were shortened to 6,000 yards, you'd still have the same problem.
But, given the choice between two equal clubs, the golfer will almost always choose the more difficult/longer one.
It's like the "Red Badge of Courage" and an almost inate flaw in golfers.

If a course "cannot survive" without adding more tees, perhaps it would be best if that  course closed its membership and become a daily fee course. There is nothing good that can come from people obsessing over who has a bigger dick when they are starving.

Except that people have been obsessing over bigger dicks for centuries.

And, "starving" is an extreme term.  "Starving" people don't join clubs
Belonging to a private club is a luxury and if the prospective applicant can afford it, his choice in joining is probably going to factor in the quaiity and difficulty of the golf course.

[JESII]

Jeff,

You say golf is the only liesure time activity "expanding" its real estate...I'm assuming by real estate your equating that to cost, fair?

How much do Yankees or Cowboys games cost today in their new stadiums versus 10 years ago?

How much has ever actually been paid out in lawsuits from one golfer hitting another on an adjacent hole?

Let's use our heads folks...and not worry about telling a consultant they're wrong once in a while.

[Richard Choi]

Jeff, with less spin on modern balls, the dispersion pattern is a lot smaller than what it was with balata, even when you are driving 20 yards further. People are not making courses longer because of that.

What I object to is being subjected to needless changes when those changes have nothing to do with 99.9% of the golfing public. They already made my old wedges illegal and it has made absolutely no difference to ANYONE, including the pros. How do we know the ball changes will be different?


Why should I care that someone wins US Open at 22 under instead of 4 under? If they care about par so much, why don't the just declare that par is 68 instead of 71? Why choose the most widely affecting changes for vanity sakes? Why would I care that some future Bubba can drive it 500 yards other than just admiring their abilities?