Rollback alliance

[Jim Sherma]

The physics/engineering required to make golf a proportional and smaller game is readily solvable. The specifics of the solution are less relevant than the political/cultural will needed to make it happen. Right now there is no meaningful constituency that requires the solution. The Cayman ball was created and tried because of a location that had land scarcity and someone that was willing to make an economic investment in a smaller game thinking that he could make an economic return from it. Until there is a problem that requires a solution there will be no economic necessity to mandate a smaller game.


This of course does not keep someone from self selecting into one of the alternatives such as hickory or persimmon/blade golf. Just don't expect any mass movement until there is a general problem for which that is the only solution.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Considering being good at putting is relative to one being bad at putting, doesn't the question center around how difficult it would be for the good putter and bad putter to adjust to the new weight ball?

I'm not talking about adjusting. I'm talking about how a lighter ball would actually behave when putted.

A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Considering being good at putting is relative to one being bad at putting, doesn't the question center around how difficult it would be for the good putter and bad putter to adjust to the new weight ball?

I'm not talking about adjusting. I'm talking about how a lighter ball would actually behave when putted.

A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes.

That sounds like it would fall under the definition of "Rub of the Green". Any impact a green may have to a lighter ball would be equally experiences by all players.

Randomness is good in golf. It is what creates interest. If we knew exactly where each shot was going to go before we hit it we wouldn't play. We accept the impact of randomness in all aspects of play, both positive and negative. We expect the way we play to be influenced by randomness, as we try as much as possible to control it.

This is where skill comes into the equation. Luck, as the manifestation of randomness, does not diminish the importance of skill, in fact is it the exact opposite. As randomness is heightened, skill and strategy is heightened in turn. If you believe randomness can level a playing field, it should be easy to also see that same randomness is better for identifying great skill. As great skill will rise above the effects of randomness across a field of players. Negating the bad and accentuating the good.

Greens have not been smooth and flat for long. Probably a shorter amount of time than the 1.62" ball has been banned. Yet, for the entire history of the game there have been players that have been identified as great putters. Putting on bumpy greens, players like Locke, Crenshaw, Nicklaus, Casper, Jones, & Travis were still able to unquestionably separate themselves from the rest.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Luck, as the manifestation of randomness, does not diminish the importance of skill, in fact is it the exact opposite.

Nope.

[Ken Moum]

Dave Tutelman suggests that a lighter weight ball would both decrease distance from high swing speed players AND increase distance from low swing speed players, while having virtually no distance change to the average swing speed player.

Which is what I have been saying for years.


And as regards the essay Jon wrote, it completely ignores the improvements in ball construction made in the last 90 years.


Anyway,  my contention is that there's a sweet spot weight at which you achieve the goal without going too far.


Yes,  a lighter ball would be harder to control. But that would affect longer hitters much more than short hitters, it's a ballistic thing  FWIW.


Finally, I suspect limited flight range balls are lighter. If someone has some putting a few on a good scale would be telling.

[Ken Moum]

Considering being good at putting is relative to one being bad at putting, doesn't the question center around how difficult it would be for the good putter and bad putter to adjust to the new weight ball?

I'm not talking about adjusting. I'm talking about how a lighter ball would actually behave when putted.

A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes.

Sounds like a whiny PGA Tour pro talking.  Luck is part of the game

[Ben Hollerbach]

More spin in the ball would be negated by many very quickly with Club/shaft/swing adjustments

It's true that club/shafts/swings could change to counteract a higher spinning ball. But like everything in golf, those changes require a tradeoff. 

As an example: You can lower ball spin coming of a club by moving the center of gravity forward in the head.  But this reduces the MOI in the club, making it less forgiving.  So if a player wants to go down that route, they have to take a risk with a club that won't hide their miss hits.  Tradeoff. 

What's happened the last 20 years is players have moved to higher MOI more forgiving drivers, yet at the same time, moved to a higher MOI, lower spinning ball, so they never had to experience this trade off of a more forgiving higher MOI driver adding spin to a drive.  Capping MOI on the ball restores this tradeoff to the game. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

Luck, as the manifestation of randomness, does not diminish the importance of skill, in fact is it the exact opposite.

Nope.

As long as the impact of luck is relatively balanced, the effect of randomness on play is equitable, i.e.:

• A drive hitting a tree and being deflected out of bounds vs. a drive hitting a tree OB and bouncing back inbounds
• A bladed sand shot hitting the pin and dropping in vs. a well struck approach hitting the pin and ricocheting into a bunker
• An online putting being deflected out by a spike mark vs. an offline putt that is redirected back online by a pebble

The existence of randomness in game play gives the player opportunities to demonstrate their skills.

A high skilled player who's approach shot hit the flagstick and ricochets into a bunker can easily get up and down, negating the impact of their "bad luck". While a low skilled player may end up making bogey from the same circumstance.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As long as the impact of luck is relatively balanced, the effect of randomness on play is equitable, i.e.:

No, it isn't.

More luck, more randomness, decreases the separation between higher skilled and lower skilled players.

I'm going to try not to get further into it with you because you've shown a propensity to ignore facts, science, etc.

[Bryan Izatt]

Could you point us to some empirical data about the MOI of modern and Balata balls.  There's plenty of discussion on the MOI of clubs but few actual numbers.  There is zero information that I can find on MOI of balls.

“the moment of inertia for a 1.62 oz and 1.68 inch golf ball with evenly distributed weight through any diameter is 0.4572 oz·inch². Hence, moments of inertia higher than about 0.46 oz·inch² would be considered as a high moment of inertia ball.”
~(Golf ball having a high moment of inertia) Acushnet Co. / Titleist

Old two piece balls would have had MOI’s close even distribution.  This Dunlop / Maxfli / TaylorMade patent compares their high MOI wound ball to two piece balls in 2001. (Golf ball with high specific gravity threads) They show the 2 piece balls at 12.5 g in², which is 0.44 oz in².

The Titleist Tour Balata was calculated as having a MOI of between 0.407-0.412 oz in², with the variance most likely the result of a difference between the 90 and 100 compression balls. (Golf Ball) Top Flight Golf Co. / Callaway Golf Co.

In the same Titleist patent listed above, they state a MOI above 0.575 oz in² was ideal.

“The present invention is also preferably directed to a ball comprising a core, an intermediate layer and a cover wherein the weight or mass of the ball is allocated outwardly to form a high moment of inertia and wherein the cover is made from a soft material having a hardness of 65 (shore D) or less. The moment of inertia of the ball is preferably greater than 0.46 oz·inch², more preferably 0.50 oz·inch², and most preferably 0.575 oz·inch². Similar to the embodiment discussed above, the intermediate layer may comprise a non-continuous layer having a high specific gravity. It may also comprise a thin dense layer and/or a second non-continuous layer. The core preferably has a low specific gravity and is preferably foamed. The specific gravities, locations, thicknesses, hardness and surface areas discussed above relating to the individual layers of the inventive golf ball are equally applicable to this embodiment.” ~(Golf ball having a high moment of inertia) Acushnet Co. / Titleist

Interestingly, Titleist discussed in the patent how to make a ball with .6898 oz in² MOI.

If we take Titleist’s 0.575 oz in² preferable number vs a two piece ball, we see it was 30% higher. Compared to a Tour Balata, the difference is now 40% higher.

As this patent is more than 15 years old, If the 0.6898 oz in² was turned into a ball then we are starting to push towards these balls having twice the MOI of wound liquid filled balls!

Thanks for the links to the patents.  Most seemed to have expired now.  Their focus seemed to have been how to build golf balls with a particular set of characteristics, one of which was MOI.  They seemed focused on foam cores or hollow cores or even cores floating in an aqueous layer as ways to increase the MOI and achieve their lift and drag coefficient goals.  I'm not aware that balls built to the specs patented actually made it into a real retail ball.  Their definition of high spin balls was 3700 rpms and low spin balls was 3100 rpms.

I don't dispute that a higher MOI ball will have lower spin.  I do wonder how much of an impact an MOI change would have on spin rate and how much the MOI factor is compared to all the other factors that cause a ball to spin.

One of them even promotes that skilled players prefer higher spin rates for better control.

"The spin rate of golf balls is the end result of many variables, one of which is the distribution of the density or specific gravity within the ball. Spin rate is an important characteristic of golf balls for both skilled and recreational golfers. High spin rate allows the more skilled players, such as PGA professionals and low handicapped players, to maximize control of the golf ball. A high spin rate golf ball is advantageous for an approach shot to the green. The ability to produce and control back spin to stop the ball on the green and side spin to draw or fade the ball substantially improves the player's control over the ball. Hence, the more skilled players generally prefer a golf ball that exhibits high spin rate."

What I find missing is any of the patents and what I was really looking for was some empirical mathematical relationship between MOI and spin - that is if you raise the MOI from 0.4 to 0.5 it reduces the spin by xxx rpm's.  Also of interest is how much does MOI contribute to spin compared to the spin angle, the various gear factors, the friction of the collision, etc.  It is a complex multivariate physical event to mathematically model.  It would be helpful to your argument if there were some experimental data that defined the relationship between MOI and spin.

About 8 years ago I did an anecdotal test on a sim with a Titleist Balata, a Professional and a modern ball.  The Balata did spin more on average.  But, the average delta (700 rpm) was less than the variation between shots with the same ball (as high as 1000 rpm). 

[Bryan Izatt]

Funny.
Some

Tried to mess with grooves to eliminate spin in hopes of creating a demand for more “control”


Now some wanting more spin for less control


More spin in the ball would be negated by many very quickly with Club/shaft/swing adjustments

Yes, yes, yes.  A 6° driver with a high kickpoint x-stiff shaft and a +3° AoA would probably do the job.

And that added spin would just make short game easier.


Like the grooves change, it would screw up a few players, but the overall change would not be what is hoped for re distance  imo

[Ben Hollerbach]

Shifty Eric, who has shown a propensity to mix matters of opinion with matters of fact,

Here are two facts for you:

• A ball with more spin will fly shorter
• A ball with more spin will curve more

It is just your opinion that this change in ball flight is not enough to impact the game and won't matter. But the fact that ball flight does change is not disputable.

If you think golfing skill is best identified from hitting a ball exactly where you want in an environment of little randomness, then you need to stay in your indoor driving bay.
 
Playing golf is very much about the strategy of how to deal with the randomness found on the golf course. It would be boring and dull if it wasn't.  This is why firm and fast conditions are preferable to soft and wet. The randomness of the bounce makes the strategy of play more engaging. Skill is found in navigating the randomness of that environment, which is part of what makes golf so unique, and what makes golf course architecture so interesting.  If you can't see that, this site may not be for you.
 

[Bryan Izatt]

More spin in the ball would be negated by many very quickly with Club/shaft/swing adjustments

It's true that club/shafts/swings could change to counteract a higher spinning ball. But like everything in golf, those changes require a tradeoff. 

As an example: You can lower ball spin coming of a club by moving the center of gravity forward in the head.  But this reduces the MOI in the club, making it less forgiving.  So if a player wants to go down that route, they have to take a risk with a club that won't hide their miss hits.  Tradeoff. 

What's happened the last 20 years is players have moved to higher MOI more forgiving drivers, yet at the same time, moved to a higher MOI, lower spinning ball, so they never had to experience this trade off of a more forgiving higher MOI driver adding spin to a drive.  Capping MOI on the ball restores this tradeoff to the game.

I don't understand your logic.  How does a higher MOI driver add spin to a drive?    A skilled player will adjust their club/shaft swing to reduce the spin to where they want it and achieve optimal launch conditions regardless of the MOI. What is the tradeoff?  What is it that they lose? 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What I find missing is any of the patents and what I was really looking for was some empirical mathematical relationship between MOI and spin - that is if you raise the MOI from 0.4 to 0.5 it reduces the spin by xxx rpm's.  Also of interest is how much does MOI contribute to spin compared to the spin angle, the various gear factors, the friction of the collision, etc.  It is a complex multivariate physical event to mathematically model.  It would be helpful to your argument if there were some experimental data that defined the relationship between MOI and spin.

If you hold all other variables the same (weight, cover formulation, etc.) and JUST change the ball's MOI, it's inversely proportional.

If Ball B has 2x the MOI of Ball A, B would spin at half the rate of A (on the same axis, with the same ball speed, etc.). This is shown in the formulas I posted earlier.

Shifty Eric, who has shown a propensity to mix matters of opinion with matters of fact,

Well, good thing I'm not this "Eric" fella.

Here are two facts for you:

• A ball with more spin will fly shorter
• A ball with more spin will curve more

I never said otherwise.

What I did say was that even more than doubling the spin results in a smaller change than I think a lot of people would guess. And that engineers, etc. would work around an increase in spin pretty easily.

If you think golfing skill is best identified from hitting a ball exactly where you want in an environment of little randomness, then you need to stay in your indoor driving bay.

That's not what I said. I said that when you increase randomness, you decrease the role skill plays in determining the outcome. That's true.

[Bryan Izatt]

Shifty Eric, who has shown a propensity to mix matters of opinion with matters of fact,

Here are two facts for you:

• A ball with more spin will fly shorter

Not necessarily.  More spin may lead to more distance at a different launch angle.

• A ball with more spin will curve more

Also, not necessarily.  A straight shot or a straight pull or a straight push all with a zero spin axis tilt don't curve more regardless of spin rate.

It is just your opinion that this change in ball flight is not enough to impact the game and won't matter. But the fact that ball flight does change is not disputable.

If you think golfing skill is best identified from hitting a ball exactly where you want in an environment of little randomness, then you need to stay in your indoor driving bay.
 
Playing golf is very much about the strategy of how to deal with the randomness found on the golf course. It would be boring and dull if it wasn't.  This is why firm and fast conditions are preferable to soft and wet. The randomness of the bounce makes the strategy of play more engaging. Skill is found in navigating the randomness of that environment, which is part of what makes golf so unique, and what makes golf course architecture so interesting.  If you can't see that, this site may not be for you.

The general "facts" don't help your case.  It's hard to devise a strategy to deal with randomness.  You can use your golf skills to take advantage of or recover from the results of randomness.  The randomness of many links courses is fun for me with limited skills but probably not for tour pros who like predictability to best utilize their skills to beat their opponents.

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,


You should try out the Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer here:   https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/.

And, you could look at the TrajectoWare Drive here:  https://trajectoware.tutelman.com/description.php

Both are designed to predict the flight of a golf ball based on a set of launch conditions that you can specify.  The math of them is beyond me but they are no doubt vetted against real life data.  Just because they allow you to enter values for parameters that you don't think can happen in real life doesn't mean that they don't accurately predict the flight.  I should point out that the TrajectoWare says that it's only good for drivers up to 4000 rpm's.   Have fun trying them out.

[Bryan Izatt]

Re the ball size or weight discussion, I have suggested in the past that these are the easiest to regulate and enforce and which it would be hardest to circumvent and return to longer distances. 

As points of reference, floater range balls are generally lighter than the current standard.  The few times I've used then on a water range they didn't seem to fly any different.  Hard to tell about the distance on a water range.

As to bigger balls, I saw a test of the Supersoft Magna ball from Callaway that is 3% larger and 10-15 yards shorter.  The old British ball was a little more than 3% smaller and reputedly could go up to 50 yards further.

So, a ball a little larger than the Magna might do the job especially for the higher speed drivers.

[Ken Moum]

Re the ball size or weight discussion, I have suggested in the past that these are the easiest to regulate and enforce and which it would be hardest to circumvent and return to longer distances. 

As points of reference, floater range balls are generally lighter than the current standard.  The few times I've used then on a water range they didn't seem to fly any different.  Hard to tell about the distance on a water range.

As to bigger balls, I saw a test of the Supersoft Magna ball from Callaway that is 3% larger and 10-15 yards shorter.  The old British ball was a little more than 3% smaller and reputedly could go up to 50 yards further.

So, a ball a little larger than the Magna might do the job especially for the higher speed drivers.

The proponents of the original TopFlite Magna and apparently the new Cally, claim it's actually longer for low swing speeds.


And Dave Tutelman's numbers say I'm right about lighter balls helping them too.


FWIW I weighed a ProV1 and it was 1.619 oz. Which is really close to the limit.


Oddly I have a Tour Balata and it was under 1.6 and an old NIB Reach Eagle that's even lighter.


And a Cayman that's only .69 oz.

[Bryan Izatt]

Ken,


From reviews I read, the Supersoft Magna was shorter off the tee; straighter on all shots; longer with irons; and, less control around he green for high swing speed players.  For slower swingers - maybe no loss from driver or slightly longer from more solid hits; straight; longer irons; and, less spin around the green.  None of this is, of course, a reliable repeatable test.  But, if decreasing distance for fast swingers is the goal, then bigger is one way to go, although these anecdotal reviews suggest that although it's shorter it's also straighter and less workable.  Of course if they did different covers and layers and dimples they might get different results.  Ball design and construction is a complicated art.


The old Balata and Professional balls I have are lighter too.  I attribute it to the balls drying out with age.  I'd bet they were close to the standard weight when new.

[BCrosby]

Bryan -


I have not read all of this fascinating thread, but your conclusion that the best way to limit the ball is by way of max. weight and/or min. size is also what John Low and others concluded in 1920 at the time of the first ball regulations. There had been a great deal of ball experimentation pre and post WWI. John Low, Crumbo Croome and others tested all sorts of balls and met regularly with ball manufacturers. They did not have the tools to make the measurements we can today, but they understood how complicated the interface was between ball technology and creating an effective ball limit.


Like you, they concluded that the best and simplest way to fix the ball problem was a rule based on size and weight. Which is what they did. The R&A and the USGA have both tweaked those limits over the years (not always in sync), but min. size and max. weight were seen as not only the best way to limit the ball, but the easiest rule to enforce.


If anyone is interested, I wrote a couple of pieces on the first ball rule for Through the Green some years ago and a podcast at the Fried Egg on the topic more recently.


Bob


 


 

[Rob Marshall]

"I'm not talking about adjusting. I'm talking about how a lighter ball would actually behave when putted.[/size]A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes."


Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them. [/size]

[Steve Kline]

"I'm not talking about adjusting. I'm talking about how a lighter ball would actually behave when putted.A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes."


Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.

It seems like we usually see good putters play on poa greens when they get bumpy late in the day. It is a real skill to make putts, particularly shorter putts, on late afternoon, bumpy poa greens that cause seemingly random bounces to throw putts off line.

[Ben Hollerbach]

"I'm not talking about adjusting. I'm talking about how a lighter ball would actually behave when putted.A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes."


Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.

It seems like we usually see good putters play on poa greens when they get bumpy late in the day. It is a real skill to make putts, particularly shorter putts, on late afternoon, bumpy poa greens that cause seemingly random bounces to throw putts off line.

Putting on bumpy greens takes conviction and confidence. Players who strike their putts firm and hole them with pace rise to the top on bumpy greens. This style is commonplace among very good putters.

The 2015 US Open and the putting styles between Spieth and DJ are an excellent example. Spieth was a much better putter that season, his more authoritarian putting style was more effective on Chambers Bay's bumpy greens. DJ putts softer and his uncommitted putting on 18 cost him the tournament. The better putter won that week because they were able to overcome the greens.

[Thomas Dai]

Worth a read and/or Podcast listen - USGA’s Mike Whan - https://thefriedegg.com/mike-whan-usga-ceo-on-distance-debate-equipment-guidelines/
Make of it what you wish.
Atb

[Peter Flory]

Maybe the Premier Golf League should carve out their niche with dialed back equipment and host the tournaments on shorter and more historic venues.