Ball rollback: a different angle

[JESII]

And, "starving" is an extreme term.  "Starving" people don't join clubs

But starving clubs make rash decisions in hopes of attracting new members...you know as many as I do.

[Garland Bayley]

Richard,

You are the only person I know that thinks the USGA is interested in regulating the ball to protect par.

Also, what chapter and verse of the rules have made your wedges illegal?

[jeffwarne]

Jim,
I no longer attend professional sports games for just that reason.

I'm talking about more than cost, also time.

Re:corridors for safety, are you saying there should be none?
and if we are saying there should be an "acceptable" corridor, whatever we deem acceptable, should it not expand by the same % as golf balls go farther?

I've seen greens and tees ordered by local governments to be moved over safety corridors,and a driving range closed that was there first, so I think any business should take safety issues seriously, despite our mutual agreement on consultants

Richard,
If future Bubba can drive it 500, that's great. Just less great if he did it because some geek spent months in a wind tunnel with an engineer tweaking equipment that soon have other wannabeBubbas hitting it 450 into my backyard, and having to wait when 300 out on a par 5.

I honestly don't care about "protecting par", and in fact I hate it when they SHORTEN a par 5 to lower par.
I do like seeing all skills tested, and irons with numbers on the bottom, not just letters , should be part of that challenge.
Although Merion will be great test of long irons, off the tees  

And Richard, I'm with you on the wedge changes being stupid, and guess what, the modern wedges now give just as much spin.
That's another reason I thnk going after anchoring is so stupid. They're spending needless credibility capital on a silly battle IMHO.

 

[Doug Siebert]

Thanks for calling my post/opinion bullshit.  Greatly appreciated, and a good example of why I don't bother to spend much time on this site anymore.  

What driver/shaft combo were you using in those scrambles back in the 80's and 90's?  In the 80's, I was using persimmon (didn't even know the loft!) with a steel shaft, and then in the 90's I was using one version or another of the Big Bertha with a stock shaft or the Grafalloy Prolite in it.  The Big Bertha was about 225 cc's I think. 

I currently use a 460cc Ping K15 with a 56g Xcon5 shaft that I was fit to in an hour and a half session with one of Ping's best fitters in a PingNflight center using a Trackman.  I know my launch angle, spin rate, smash factor, clubhead speed, ball speed, and both my carry and overall distances.

I was using what others were using, persimmon for a few years when I first started but eventually went to metal because I realized the lower lofted heads available helped keep my excessively high trajectory under a semblance of control.  I used a tipped DG X100 43" in the 80s and switched to various graphite shafts in the 90s - never OEM, they were always way too soft.  I played around with the shaft lengths between 43" and 44" - the cut length I ended up with mainly depended on the shaft weight so I could get the heavy swingweight I prefer.

In my bag right now is a clone of a Nike driver (the one with the yellow bottom from 2009 or so) I bought online for $120 including shaft, grip, assembly and shipping.  It has a 44.25" shaft, the longest I've ever used is 44.75".  The ones I've bought in the last few years (whether cheap clone or the expensive real thing) seem to suffer either a cracked head or broken shaft in a few months, so even though this clone Nike isn't a particular favorite of mine I keep having to go back to it!

I've never done a launch monitor so I have no idea what my launch angle, spin rate, smash factor, or clubhead/ball speed are.  In fact, the only times I ever had my clubhead speed measured was when I was in college in the 80s, using some probably not very accurate device you clipped onto the bottom of your shaft, and about 10 years ago on one of those little swing computers for the home a friend had.  Presumably if I do a launch monitor session did I could optimize myself to hit a bit further, which I probably should do since age and swing problems started eating into my distance around 2007 or so, but until I figure out what the heck has been going on with my swing the last few years it seems pointless to optimize for a faulty swing that can't seem to make decent contact even with short irons on any consistent basis any longer

I know what you're trying to say, the drivers are a factor also.  That's true, but since I can't buy 1990 balls that aren't 23 years old to test on my modern driver, and a Pro V1 would obviously be handicapped launch angle wise if I tried to use my old 6.5* driver on it (I think it is still laying around somewhere) there isn't any way for me to separate the effect of ball versus effect of driver.

The argument for the drivers being the main cause of the distance gains kind of falls apart if you look at how far pros are hitting their irons now since irons are relatively unchanged since the 80s.  I've been using the same set of irons with the same shafts since 1989, so I'm probably a pretty good control for any changes in iron technology someone wants to claim, and I never hit my irons further than I did in the early 2000s after switching to the Pro V1/V1x from the Professional.  Further than I ever did when I'd play a rock back in the 80s, despite being on the wrong end of my 30s when the Pro V1 was introduced and not swinging as hard as I used to back in the day.

[Bryan Izatt]

...

Roll back the ODS to 290 (or the number of your choice) yards for all balls.  Then let the manufacturers figure out how to do it.  You could try to regulate the slope and linearity of the distance/swing speed line, but it then gets way more complicated to design and build and to police.  IMHO, this is a nightmare can of worms.

Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean rollback to the old ODS before they increased the distance specified by the ODS, then all balls will pass that test.

If you mean make all balls limit to 290 no matter what, then you are advocating exactly what the USGA decided they couldn't do when the new balls came out and created a problem. You would be obsoleting the vast majority of balls, and creating a great financial hardship for many ball manufacturers.

I meant that the easiest and simplest to regulate and police would be to keep the current test parameters and to reduce the ODS from 317 (+3) yards to 290 (+3) yards.  Yes, it would make most current balls non-conforming, but then that would be true of any "roll-back".  I didn't say the USGA would do it.  I was just trying to counterpoint your (and others) attempt to "roll back" by selecting the characteristic of the ball (spin) that you want to change.  Do you want to increase spin for what you think will be the distance impact or do you just want a shorter ball.  The manufacturers are in the best position to figure out how to get to a lower ODS and spin may not be the answer.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Brent, Bryan,

Are either (or both) of you arguing that because  a "roll-back" (and that's an unfortunate phrase, no one really wants a rollback, rather a new, reduced distance specification) would be complicated and difficult, the R&A and USGA shouldn't try?

No, I'm not saying that they shouldn't try because it's too complicated. 

The original article is at best misleading, by the way.  It's well known that both the R&A and USGA have been conducting tests on reduced distance balls for several years now, the balls produced by ball manufacturers and the results have been quite playable.  Designing a new ball would be nowhere near as difficult as the article attempts to portray.

It depends on how many characteristics of the ball the R&A and the USGA try to regulate.  Develpment of the ball will simpler if they just lower the ODS with the current test parameters and let the manufacturers figure it out.

[Bryan Izatt]

That's terrific Greg.  I look forward to the results.  Do you have any 90 or 120 mph friends you could sucker in to this experiment?

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.   

I swing pretty close to 110 (probably average 107) and have plenty of titleist balatas, professionals and prov1's.  I'll hit some on a monitor in the next few days and provide the data to you.

[Bryan Izatt]

Brent,

I believe the two of us are of a mind on this point.

Brent, Bryan,

Are either (or both) of you arguing that because  a "roll-back" (and that's an unfortunate phrase, no one really wants a rollback, rather a new, reduced distance specification) would be complicated and difficult, the R&A and USGA shouldn't try?

The original article is at best misleading, by the way.  It's well known that both the R&A and USGA have been conducting tests on reduced distance balls for several years now, the balls produced by ball manufacturers and the results have been quite playable.  Designing a new ball would be nowhere near as difficult as the article attempts to portray.

Not at all. A reduction in the performance of the golf ball can either be done (legally, politically) or it can not. I am totally unqualified to judge that probability. All I'm saying is technically if it is going to be at all, it needs to be done in a straightforward manner because any attempt to out-clever the industry or the elite players will either be laughably ineffective or it will backfire with unintended consequences.

If the "problem" is defined as Today's Golf Ball Flies Too Far When Struck By Elite Players then the "solution" can only be to require that Golf Balls In Future Fly Less Far When Struck By Elite Players. There is no "exponential curve" and futzing around with spin or dimples without an outright distance restriction is sure to fail. Specify what you want to happen, don't specify unrelated parameters in the vain hope that it ought to somehow indirectly result in less distance.

[Bryan Izatt]

............................................


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.

What is impractical about it?  Set the ODS at 290 yards at a swing speed of 150 mph.  When (and if) anybody ever gets a swing above 150 mph then change the ODS parameters so that the max distance at that speed is still capped at 290 yards.  And, btw the initial velocity regulation is kind of redundant.  Who cares what the initial velocity is.  All that really matters is the overall distance standard.

............................................

Now that spin has been manipulated to make balls go farther than intended given existing regulations, IMO it is time to regulate spin.

Arguably spin manipulation is caused more by the club and swing technique than by the properties of the ball.  I don't care how you design a ball to cause it to spin, I can find a club and swing that will cause that ball to launch with optimal RPM's for whatever swing speed.  The really good players will gravitate to those clubs and those swings and will negate whatever spin you think you've built into the ball.

[Garland Bayley]

...

Roll back the ODS to 290 (or the number of your choice) yards for all balls.  Then let the manufacturers figure out how to do it.  You could try to regulate the slope and linearity of the distance/swing speed line, but it then gets way more complicated to design and build and to police.  IMHO, this is a nightmare can of worms.

Not sure what you mean by this. If you mean rollback to the old ODS before they increased the distance specified by the ODS, then all balls will pass that test.

If you mean make all balls limit to 290 no matter what, then you are advocating exactly what the USGA decided they couldn't do when the new balls came out and created a problem. You would be obsoleting the vast majority of balls, and creating a great financial hardship for many ball manufacturers.

I meant that the easiest and simplest to regulate and police would be to keep the current test parameters and to reduce the ODS from 317 (+3) yards to 290 (+3) yards.  Yes, it would make most current balls non-conforming, but then that would be true of any "roll-back".  I didn't say the USGA would do it.  I was just trying to counterpoint your (and others) attempt to "roll back" by selecting the characteristic of the ball (spin) that you want to change.  Do you want to increase spin for what you think will be the distance impact or do you just want a shorter ball.  The manufacturers are in the best position to figure out how to get to a lower ODS and spin may not be the answer.  

The USGA has already rejected rolling back the ODS and putting companies out of business. So it may be easy for the USGA, but not easy for the industry. The roll back by spin regulation would only make the high end (vast minority) balls non-conforming.

[Brent Hutto]

So in your estimation Titleist would be fine with the Pro V1 being ruled non-conforming as long as they could keep selling all those NXT's and DT Solo's?

[Garland Bayley]

What is impractical about it?  Set the ODS at 290 yards at a swing speed of 150 mph.  When (and if) anybody ever gets a swing above 150 mph then change the ODS parameters so that the max distance at that speed is still capped at 290 yards.  And, btw the initial velocity regulation is kind of redundant.  Who cares what the initial velocity is.  All that really matters is the overall distance standard.

............................................

Now that spin has been manipulated to make balls go farther than intended given existing regulations, IMO it is time to regulate spin.

Arguably spin manipulation is caused more by the club and swing technique than by the properties of the ball.  I don't care how you design a ball to cause it to spin, I can find a club and swing that will cause that ball to launch with optimal RPM's for whatever swing speed.  The really good players will gravitate to those clubs and those swings and will negate whatever spin you think you've built into the ball.

Why do you think the old wood driver heads had such low loft? Why do you think it took a couple of years for the the players to take full advantage of the new ball?

Now consider how significantly reduced loft on the driver affects the play of the club. All the big names have been able to hit it over 300 yards when they wanted to from Bobby Jones, to Sam Snead, to Ben Hogan, to Arnold Palmer, to Jack Nicklaus. But, what was their average? Well short of that, because they knew they needed to keep the ball in play.

[Doug Siebert]

So in your estimation Titleist would be fine with the Pro V1 being ruled non-conforming as long as they could keep selling all those NXT's and DT Solo's?

You think Titleist wouldn't develop a Pro V2 that is the best ball they can make under whatever restraints the rollback would put on them?  They'd still have most of the tour playing their ball, still have many better players and wanna-be better players buying them because they've always bought Titleist.  The only scenario where Titleist is significantly hurt by a rollback is if the Pro V2 sucks compared to the best ball Srixon, Callaway, and Nike make so people who have a choice (i.e. everyone but pros under contract) switch from Titleist to something else.

It isn't as though the USGA would issue new rules for the rollback and have them start in three months from the date of the announcement, and all the OEMs would be caught flat footed unable to develop new balls in time.