[JESII]

Garland,


I think he hit David's point pretty square.


I'm not sure how that FlightScope Optimizer works, but with 50% more spin than the current idea, the ball loses 9 yards.


If you want to say add 200% spin, great. It would take further distance off the ball, but that wouldn't be rolling back to something anyone ever played.


My concern with that line of attack is that the Tour guys would figure out how to compensate a hell of a lot quicker than the next couple tiers of good players. Somewhere along that spectrum, I think more spin actually helps players, doesn't it?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,


I think he hit David's point pretty square.


I'm not sure how that FlightScope Optimizer works, but with 50% more spin than the current idea, the ball loses 9 yards.


If you want to say add 200% spin, great. It would take further distance off the ball, but that wouldn't be rolling back to something anyone ever played.


My concern with that line of attack is that the Tour guys would figure out how to compensate a hell of a lot quicker than the next couple tiers of good players. Somewhere along that spectrum, I think more spin actually helps players, doesn't it?

I think David's point was that the sideways component of the added spin will reduce the brute force approach's effectiveness. Think of bombers Sam Snead and Ben Hogan. When Sam tried to hit it long, he lost. Ben struggled for a long time trying to control his ball and win while trying to hit it long. He eventually settled on a repeatable fade, and a strategy of mapping out his landing areas for effectiveness of the next shot as opposed to nearness to the green.

Notice that I wrote "effectively roll back distance beyond ..." Sure flightscope will show a small distance loss, but needing to play in control will create a bigger distance loss.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My concern with that line of attack is that the Tour guys would figure out how to compensate a hell of a lot quicker than the next couple tiers of good players. Somewhere along that spectrum, I think more spin actually helps players, doesn't it?

They would. You can hit a balata ball at 2200 RPM. Look at the loft of Bryson's driver, for example.

"Adding spin" to the golf ball doesn't have nearly the same effect as people seem to think. It doesn't reduce distance much, and the pros would be able to work around that pretty quickly.

-----

Now, here's something I think is important.

According to Brandel Chamblee, having talked with Thomas Pagel, bifurcation or a rolled-back ball is intended for the 4000-yard courses or the highly land constrained courses so that they can still offer a full golf experience. He says it's not about the PGA Tour, or regular golf, but about the very small/short courses.

Start listening at about 34:00 of episode 20:
https://www.golfchannel.com/brandel-chamblee-podcast-jaime-diaz

[Jim Sherma]

I would be very surprised if anything other than very minimal changes ever happens on this. I could see the 46" limit being instituted followed by a lot of self congratulations on how aggressive and confrontational they were in accomplishing it. Real change will not happen unless there are significant law suits resulting from distance concerns (i.e. a class action suit of landowners bordering courses making a case that the USGA and the manufacturers have conspired to endanger them by not maintaining historical distance and dispersion patterns - or something like that). Returning the spin and removing the flex face would go some way to creating somewhat of a natural governor to the returns of incremental clubhead speed, while rewarding those that can consistently hit on or near the sweetspot. Unlikely to happen though.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()