[Peter Pallotta]

The myth is you guys thinking there is any widespread constituency for making golf balls not fly as far as they do today. It's just one long Grandpa Simpson rant.

As Fonzie used to say, "correctamundo". 

From the perspective of an average golfer playing a lot of average courses with hundreds of different (but equally average) golfers, I can say this: 

I have never, ever, never heard a single word or even a sign that anyone, ever, had even a tiny hint of a desire to ever see the ball rolled back.  Never.

[Mike_Clayton]

They effectively rolled the ball back for the 'rest of the world' in the early 1980s when they went from the 1.62 ball to 1.68. Barely anyone noticed and almost no one complained about the theoretical loss of distance.

[JESII]

Was it really that recently Mike...interesting. As a 39 year old, I was just beginning to play in the early 80's and occassionally heard talk of the small ball as though it were some mystery from a long ago time. Maybe because I grew up in the states and it had been gone longer here...

[Jim Eder]

I would love to have the opportunity again to play a ball like the old balatas (but more durable hopefully). Less distance and more movement on poorly struck shots. I actually find it more interesting and fun to have long irons and mid irons into par 4s. In fact, I often lay back on par 4s just to experience those shots just like I used to have 25+ years ago.  I would love a rollback ball option.  

I would guess a full rollback, on the margin, would hurt some modern courses because of the carry issues, green issues (to accept less lofted approaches) and possibly requiring some redesign work (bunker placement etc). But it sure is a lot easier to use a front tee (move forward) than to try to go back to a non-existent tee on a classic course. But I am not sure a full rollback would be great for the game. I am all for a Tour/top Am ball and the existing balls for all other golfers (if they so desire).

[Sean_A]

GJ

They certainly can use science reduce distance for flat bellies.  But to rollback for everybody with the mantra of its good for game is bogus.  The USGA has set up a false scenario with roll back or no roll back insisting that bifurcation is not option.  Its quite obvious that bifurcation is at the very least a step forward if not a solution to the "distance problem".  But then I am one to believe the bigger problem is not distance, but the knee jerk reaction to the long ball. 

Ciao

Ciao

Alister MacKenzie felt the ball should be rolled back for everybody for the good of the game. His mantra was "walk less, play more golf".
As a hacker, I am interested in rolling the ball back so that I can at least see where it lands and have a chance to find it. I guess my mantra is "see more, search less".

GJ

Thats a great mantra cuz guess what, you control exactly how you want to play.  If you are waiting for the USGA to mandate your fun, find another another game to play.

Ciao

[Tom Bacsanyi]

duplicate

[Paul Gray]

The myth is you guys thinking there is any widespread constituency for making golf balls not fly as far as they do today. It's just one long Grandpa Simpson rant.

As Fonzie used to say, "correctamundo". 

From the perspective of an average golfer playing a lot of average courses with hundreds of different (but equally average) golfers, I can say this: 

I have never, ever, never heard a single word or even a sign that anyone, ever, had even a tiny hint of a desire to ever see the ball rolled back.  Never.

Absolutely.

Nonetheless, pie in the sky though this all is, I'm firmly in favour of a roll back for all.

This afternoon I played a currently less than mediocre course which measures 6201 with a par of 71. The greenkeeper, who I happen to know, loves nothing better than to defend the relatively short course by growing knee high grass everywhere. I have spoken to him in depth about it but it's all he seems to know to defend par. And this afternoon he won, assuming that defending par is more import to him than golfers enjoying the game: without hitting anything wild I managed to lose four Pro V1s. I can play my home course, which is actually far tougher and infinitely better, and not lose that many balls in a dozen rounds.

Roll it back and the average golfer will find less of this long stuff because the ball simply won't be travelling so far. And even the wildest of shots might be somewhat safer as the knee high stuff cold have disappeared all together. After all, it's only there as a defence against technology.   

[Mike_Clayton]

Jim

I'm not sure when America adopted the 1.68 ball - but I have always assumed the lusher fairways made it easier because it didn't sit down in the grass as much as the smaller ball. The smaller ball was more suited to Britain and Australia because the wind is generally more problematic - and the fairways leaner.
The Open Championship made the 1.68 ball mandatory in 1974 and in Australia the tour adopted it in 1978. I'm not sure when the European Tour mandated it but the small ball was gone for all by the early 80s

[Mike Bowen]

I think a great way to rollback the ball is to mandate a dimple pattern.  I think everyone remembers the days when dimples were in straight lines and roughly 1/3 of the surface did not have dimples.  It's a way all of the manufacturers can continue to make their own ball.

I am in favour of a rollback for all for various reasons, but would be fine to see it only for the pro's and high level amateurs.  I think what would happen is everyone who could get the ball around the course would start playing the "tournament" equipment.  Most golfers don't follow the rules by the letter of the law, but I don't see very many "old grooves."

Golf is as much about pride as anything and I can only imagine the conversation when someones best round of their life is discredited because they were using the "hot" ball.

[jeffwarne]

They effectively rolled the ball back for the 'rest of the world' in the early 1980s when they went from the 1.62 ball to 1.68. Barely anyone noticed and almost no one complained about the theoretical loss of distance.

way too logical of a post

[Tom Bacsanyi]

One possibility that no one seems to be talking about:  Not regulating the distance of a ball, but the "spin slope" of a ball.  By spin slope I mean the driver distance relative to spin off short irons and wedges.  If you set a frontier where you can basically put a ball anywhere along the boundary that you want it might be the best compromise.  So you can have explosive distance off the driver, but you can't spin it for beans around the green.  So if Gramps wants to play his Slazenger Raw or whatever he can, if Bubba wants to play a balataesque ball that he can move around like crazy he can.  You just can't have both...

[Dan Herrmann]

FWIW, the Bridgestone ball the USGA had us test was an E5 or E6.   The flight characteristics were changed solely by changing he dimple pattern.   The dang thing flew like a ProTrajectory but had the durability of a Blue Max. 

[Tom Bacsanyi]

For you spinny ball aficionado's I remember the Nike One Platinum being ridiculously spinny relative to ProV's of the same vintage.  I think I may experiment with some.  They also might be very good if you like to take out a persimmon now and again.

[Garland Bayley]

One possibility that no one seems to be talking about:  Not regulating the distance of a ball, but the "spin slope" of a ball.  By spin slope I mean the driver distance relative to spin off short irons and wedges.  If you set a frontier where you can basically put a ball anywhere along the boundary that you want it might be the best compromise.  So you can have explosive distance off the driver, but you can't spin it for beans around the green.  So if Gramps wants to play his Slazenger Raw or whatever he can, if Bubba wants to play a balataesque ball that he can move around like crazy he can.  You just can't have both...

I have been talking about that for ages. Doug Siebert (sp?) and I welcome you to the club.

[Ben Hollerbach]

FWIW, the Bridgestone ball the USGA had us test was an E5 or E6.   The flight characteristics were changed solely by changing he dimple pattern.   The dang thing flew like a ProTrajectory but had the durability of a Blue Max. 

Dan,

What did the dimple pattern look like?

I've been doing some testing recently for the Mcintyre Golf Company and their reproduction balls for hickory play. All of their balls are originally made by Wilson but have covers that resemble the balls of the era. I've found that the mesh pattern ball average 15-20 yards shorter off of the driver and shows little difference in distance control with the irons, when compared to its modern counterpart. Their dimpled ball is actually even shorter, around 20-25 yards behind the modern equivalent. Both balls are not as stable in flight as the modern ball, but not to an overwhelming degree.

It wasn't until I read your comment that it dawned on me the easiest way to rollback the ball in a universal way would be to control the aerodynamics of the ball. Many slower swing speed hickory players do not notice a performance difference when playing with a Mcintyre ball, its only the high swing speed players, at which point its the aerodynamics of the ball that is limiting its performance.

I wonder if the USGA required all balls to go back to a "parallel" dimple patter, like you would see on the Spalding Dot, if that would effectively curb the balls top end distance?

[Thomas Dai]

FWIW, the Bridgestone ball the USGA had us test was an E5 or E6.   The flight characteristics were changed solely by changing he dimple pattern.   The dang thing flew like a ProTrajectory but had the durability of a Blue Max. 

Dan,
What did the dimple pattern look like?
I've been doing some testing recently for the Mcintyre Golf Company and their reproduction balls for hickory play. All of their balls are originally made by Wilson but have covers that resemble the balls of the era. I've found that the mesh pattern ball average 15-20 yards shorter off of the driver and shows little difference in distance control with the irons, when compared to its modern counterpart. Their dimpled ball is actually even shorter, around 20-25 yards behind the modern equivalent. Both balls are not as stable in flight as the modern ball, but not to an overwhelming degree.
It wasn't until I read your comment that it dawned on me the easiest way to rollback the ball in a universal way would be to control the aerodynamics of the ball. Many slower swing speed hickory players do not notice a performance difference when playing with a Mcintyre ball, its only the high swing speed players, at which point its the aerodynamics of the ball that is limiting its performance.
I wonder if the USGA required all balls to go back to a "parallel" dimple patter, like you would see on the Spalding Dot, if that would effectively curb the balls top end distance?

Interesting post Ben, especially the point about slower swing speed hickory players not noticing a performance difference. 
The Spalding Dot. I remember playing them way, way back. Came individually wrapped in sticky paper as I recall (as did other balls of the time).

atb

[Doug Siebert]

Got me thinking - what would happen to modern courses if the ball were rolled back?   For example, would today's forced carries become impossible for a 10 handicapper?   Would a long, uphill par 5 become tough to reach in 3?  Or - would the game be enhanced?

Why would we abandon the idea of people playing tees that are appropriate for them just because there's a rollback?  If equipment was rolled all the way to what we had in the mid 80s, I damn sure would no longer be playing my home course's tips at nearly 7300 tree choked yards!

[Tony Ristola]

What's so hard about rolling the ball back for the pros and top amateurs only?  Just have a tournament ball for the Tour pros and top amateurs and keep the current ball for the recreational golfer.  Why is that difficult?

The game does not need to be made more difficult for the recreational golfer, and technology should not render courses obsolete for the top players.  Bifurcation solves that problem, and it's not an unprecedented move (see the tournament grooves ruling).

The masses of golfers wouldn't notice if the ball was rolled back and nobody told them.

[Ivan Lipko]

I would just roll back to feathery balls and wooden sticks. I would also roll the courses back to playing some random rabbit holes, this is much more fun and you can get some nice meat along the way.

[BHoover]

What's so hard about rolling the ball back for the pros and top amateurs only?  Just have a tournament ball for the Tour pros and top amateurs and keep the current ball for the recreational golfer.  Why is that difficult?

The game does not need to be made more difficult for the recreational golfer, and technology should not render courses obsolete for the top players.  Bifurcation solves that problem, and it's not an unprecedented move (see the tournament grooves ruling).

The masses of golfers wouldn't notice if the ball was rolled back and nobody told them.

I definitely disagree.

[Dan Herrmann]

Ben - Let me take a picture and I'll post it if it shows the pattern well.

[BCowan]

Dan,

   I'm with Hoover, except I wanna see the pro's/top am's hitting woods, not metals vs one ball rule.  There is more skill involved and it rewards better shot makers.  Plus the average joe can even tell when a pro misses the sweet spot.

[Tony Ristola]

I have.  Jack is a powerful influence.  Plenty of serious golfers know this will do way more for the growth of "the game" than all the stupid 15 inch cup nonsense.  The disparity between a cold bladed 7 iron and a well struck 7 iron is way too great now. 

This reminds me of a hilarious happening when I was a junior playing against one of my favorite rivals in the club. We were both juniors and the guy was a character, a scrappy type filled with gamesmanship. We of course had some type of bet going. It was the 7th hole at the club, a par-5 of only 500-yards... he musn't have hit his first couple shots too well as he had 150 left to the hole.

He takes his 7-iron, and blades it... the fairways are baked... and after blading it he's having a fit. Throws his club to the ground and is cursing a storm. Meanwhile, I'm watching his ball scoot up the fairway, bouncing along, settles to a roll in front of the green, goes up the slope to the narrow green and rolls into the cup for eagle.

He goes from having one type of fit to another. Makes me chuckle thinking about it.

[Dan Herrmann]

Photos of the USGA/R&A Bridgestone prototype ball (notice the shallow dimples, which introduced a more "Balata" ball flight, and shorter carries for longer hitters, but slightly longer carries for short hitters)



---------------------------------------

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks Dan,

I assume that is just one of many ways the rules bodies could go with new ball regulations.

Certainly different than anything I have seen before.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()