[Jeff Schley]

https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/30821872/usga-ra-unveil-equipment-standards-changes-include-different-rules-elite-players

For the first time, golf's governing bodies appear poised to allow for significant rules differences between elite players and other golfers as a way to combat the distance gains the sport has seen with the advancement of technology.

Known as "bifurcation,'' it would mean the professional tours and elite amateur competitions could require competitors to use equipment that is restricted while allowing everyday players the benefits that those technological gains bring them. The United States Golf Association and the R&A jointly announced Tuesday that they are proposing equipment standards changes, including a potential local rule for club and ball specifications. They are also proposing changes to club length.

A year ago, the USGA and R&A released their "Distance Insights Project," in which they stated that the continuing increase in length was "detrimental' to the game.

On Tuesday, they announced three proposed changes:

• A limit on the maximum driver length from 48 inches to 46 inches. U.S. Open champion Bryson DeChambeau is one of the high-profile players who has experimented with the longest-shafted driver in order to attain more distance off the tee.
• Changes to how drivers are tested for distance, which is known as the spring-like effect, and changes to how golf balls are tested by revising the conditions.
• The driver-length maximum will have a one-month review period, while the other testing proposals will be reviewed over six months.

As part of the proposal, the governing bodies gave the example where a committee could limit the maximum driver length through a "model local rule'' and that the change is ''recommended for use only in competitions limited to highly skilled players.'' That means golfers at the recreational level would still be playing by the rules even if using the longer clubs.

The professional tours, including the PGA Tour, European Tour, LPGA Tour as well as the major championships, all play by USGA or R&A rules, depending on jurisdiction. The exceptions made at the highest levels -- such as the "one-ball'' rule used on the pro tours -- are all covered in the rule book, typically under local provisions.

After years of discussion on the topic, the governing bodies now appear ready to act on distance gains.

"The research ... clearly shows that hitting distances have consistently increased through time, and if left unchecked, could threaten the long-term future of our game at every level and every golf course on which it is played,'' said Mike Davis, chief executive officer of the USGA. "This is the first forward step in a journey and a responsibility the USGA and the R&A share with the worldwide golf community, to ensure that golf continues to thrive for the next hundred years and beyond.''

Said Martin Slumbers, chief executive of the R&A: "The research topics and the proposed changes we have announced will be the focus of our attention in the coming months, and we look forward to gaining insights from the golf industry and fully understanding their perspectives in key areas. We remain fully committed to conducting this hugely important exercise for the sport thoroughly, efficiently and collaboratively.''

[Tom_Doak]

I heard something about this a couple of months ago, but whether it will have a significant effect depends on how far they are willing to go, which is still to be announced.


It does make the timing of Mike Davis' departure from the USGA this summer more interesting -- as well as the job skills required of his successor!

[David Ober]

I heard something about this a couple of months ago, but whether it will have a significant effect depends on how far they are willing to go, which is still to be announced.


It does make the timing of Mike Davis' departure from the USGA this summer more interesting -- as well as the job skills required of his successor!

Agreed. I really hope they make the ball significantly "spinnier." It's definitely a (almost lost) art to be able to control a more spinny ball. Of course, they're pros and they will adapt. But it will be fun watching them have to do so....

[Peter Flory]

I do sympathize with the argument against limiting driver length as being discriminatory against tall players.  I've rather see the head size limited and allow someone to swing a 10 foot long driver if they feel like it.  That solution would be naturally limiting. 

For instance, Yao Ming (7'6") loves golf.  His pitching wedge is 45". 


Does it make sense that both of these guys would have the same driver length limit?  It actually looks like Gary Player is the ideal length to be Yao's driver. 

[David Ober]

Peter, how about if you're over 7' tall, you can use a longer driver? Eezy-Peezy

[John Kavanaugh]

I hope I can go back to my long putter like some pros continue to use.

[Peter Pallotta]

This isn't going to end well, I don't think.
Does anyone else get the feeling that the USGA has never had less clout than it does today? That the PGA Tour, the European Tour, and major manufacturers have never been as willing to ignore the governing bodies as they are right now?
In these proposed changes, the USGA-R&A seem to me to have done the very least they could do; they could not have proposed less and still have called it a proposal.
I think it may be because they read the writing on the wall, and didn't want to risk the humiliation (and worse) of an open rebellion -- a direct challenge to their authority, a denial of their role as arbiters of the game. 
So they put forward proposals that they thought agreeable, so that they could be agreed to by all -- thus preserving the status quo, and maintaining the established order. 'Let us continue to govern, and in turn we won't impinge on your businesses'.
But I can't shake the sense that, even with all this, they've still read the room wrong, i.e. I don't think the PGA or European Tours or the big manufacturers care one bit about the USGA-R&A's notion of the status quo or the established order -- not now, not anymore.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

They proposed things and they're open for discussion. Some of the discussion periods aren't until the end of 2021.

[Tim_Weiman]

This isn't going to end well, I don't think.
Does anyone else get the feeling that the USGA has never had less clout than it does today? That the PGA Tour, the European Tour, and major manufacturers have never been as willing to ignore the governing bodies as they are right now?
In these proposed changes, the USGA-R&A seem to me to have done the very least they could do; they could not have proposed less and still have called it a proposal.
I think it may be because they read the writing on the wall, and didn't want to risk the humiliation (and worse) of an open rebellion -- a direct challenge to their authority, a denial of their role as arbiters of the game. 
So they put forward proposals that they thought agreeable, so that they could be agreed to by all -- thus preserving the status quo, and maintaining the established order. 'Let us continue to govern, and in turn we won't impinge on your businesses'.
But I can't shake the sense that, even with all this, they've still read the room wrong, i.e. I don't think the PGA or European Tours or the big manufacturers care one bit about the USGA-R&A's notion of the status quo or the established order -- not now, not anymore.

Peter,


They just need to give every USGA and R&A official a baseball bat to whack any golf professional or equipment manufacturer that complains.


Golf doesn’t need 300 yard drives.

[Niall C]

I heard something about this a couple of months ago, but whether it will have a significant effect depends on how far they are willing to go, which is still to be announced.


It does make the timing of Mike Davis' departure from the USGA this summer more interesting -- as well as the job skills required of his successor!

Agreed. I really hope they make the ball significantly "spinnier." It's definitely a (almost lost) art to be able to control a more spinny ball. Of course, they're pros and they will adapt. But it will be fun watching them have to do so....

David

Surely you'd want less spin on the ball making it harder to get that spin. That way they would have to control where they put the ball both from the POV of lie and angle of approach. At the moment they just bomb it down there knowing the lie (ie. rough) doesn't matter much and neither does it matter if there is a bunker in the way as they can check the ball very easily.

Power should have its reward but not without accuracy.

Niall

[Bryan Izatt]

Here is what the USGA/R&A say they are looking at vis-a-vis the ball.  I think this will require some thought about what the impact might be.  It seems that they think optimizing launch conditions is a problem.  The proposed change won't affect those players that can swing faster than 120 mph. The target seems to be to limit the overall distance standard to 317 yards, so this is probably not going to appeal to the roll-back-the-ball crowd.


"Update on testing method for golf balls Following the update to the testing associated with the Overall Distance Standard adopted in 2002, the test protocol has remained essentially unaltered. At that time, we considered whether changes to the testing conditions used for the determination of conformance to the Overall Distance Standard (Equipment Rules, Part 4, 6.) was merited. We decided that a ball’s Actual Launch Conditions (ALC) would be utilised in determining a ball’s overall distance. Testing utilizing ALC continues to be the method currently employed. We now propose a modification to the testing conditions which would use a ball’s optimum launch conditions within a bounding window.

The ball speed would still be determined via the current protocol (using a mechanical golfer to hit balls with a calibration driver swinging at a clubhead speed of 120 mph such that a calibration ball is launched at 10 degrees and 42 revolutions per second). However, rather than using the ball’s Actual Launch Conditions, the ball’s optimum launch conditions would be used. The optimum launch conditions would be defined as those between a launch angle of 7.5 and 15 degrees, and backspin between 2200 rpm and 3000 rpm, such that the ball’s total distance is optimised. This value would be used to determine the conformance of the ball against the limit of 317 yards plus the current testing tolerance of 3 yards.

We envision if this change was adopted, it would be phased in via the relisting of previously submitted golf balls as well as all new golf ball submissions. Comments on this proposal are requested by 2 August 2021 (within 181 days of this notice).

Further details regarding the proposed testing method and the implications for balls currently included on the List of Conforming Golf Balls will be made available when appropriate. It is proposed that a ball’s optimum launch conditions in its longest orientation will be utilised to assess its Spherical Symmetry (Equipment Rules, Part 4, 4.)."


The proposed change to the Characteristic Time is even more opaque to me- but it seems to apply to drivers on down to fairway woods, rescue clubs and long irons with lofts less than 35°.

"Change to testing tolerance – Characteristic Time

The preamble to the Equipment Rules includes the following dictate:

“Where a club, ball, device, other equipment, or part thereof, is required to meet a specification
within the Equipment Rules, it must be designed and manufactured with the intention of meeting
that specification.”

The evaluation of equipment for conformance to the specifications set out in the Equipment Rules
utilises tolerances to ensure the repeatability and reproducibility of the measurement. The
Equipment Standards groups are continually looking to improve testing methods and clarity.
Associated with this is a review of testing tolerances. This proposal is associated with an update to
the testing tolerance associated with the evaluation of a club’s spring-like effect (Equipment Rules,
Part 2, 4c (i)). This section refers to the “Pendulum Test Protocol (on file)”. The testing tolerance
within the Pendulum Test Protocol of 18 microseconds was designed to replicate the allowance
within the preceding cannon test (communicated on 2 December 2003). However, as detailed in the
“Technical Description of the Pendulum Test” issued in November 2003, a gauge repeatability and
reproducibility study determined that the actual testing tolerance for the Pendulum Test was 6
microseconds.

As such, we propose a revision to the testing tolerance for the Pendulum Test to 6 microseconds.
This value would be utilised to assess the conformance status of clubs with lofts less than 35
degrees. Please refer to the communication on 11 January 2016 for further detail. Also, please note
that the Pendulum Test will continue to be used as a screen for those clubs with a suitable radius of
curvature. As part of this proposal, consideration will be given to elimination of the limitation of the
characteristic time outside the impact area (Equipment Rules, Part 2, 4c(ii))."

[Adam Lawrence]

I heard something about this a couple of months ago, but whether it will have a significant effect depends on how far they are willing to go, which is still to be announced.


It does make the timing of Mike Davis' departure from the USGA this summer more interesting -- as well as the job skills required of his successor!

Agreed. I really hope they make the ball significantly "spinnier." It's definitely a (almost lost) art to be able to control a more spinny ball. Of course, they're pros and they will adapt. But it will be fun watching them have to do so....

David

Surely you'd want less spin on the ball making it harder to get that spin. That way they would have to control where they put the ball both from the POV of lie and angle of approach. At the moment they just bomb it down there knowing the lie (ie. rough) doesn't matter much and neither does it matter if there is a bunker in the way as they can check the ball very easily.

Power should have its reward but not without accuracy.

Niall

David is referring to sidespin. The lack of spin on the modern ball means that working your shots is becoming a lost art at the top level. They can still impart plenty of backspin.

[Thomas Dai]

They just need to give every USGA and R&A official a baseball bat to whack any golf professional or equipment manufacturer that complains.
Golf doesn’t need 300 yard drives.

Tim,
+1
Maybe the chap in the big hat who appears at the 40 sec point would be a suitable candidate - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d7CPzUUc0y4 -
The game is more important than the manufacturers.
Atb



Later edit - for those in favour of more skill, creativity and artistry being shown here's Gil Morgan at the US Open at Pebble Beach in 1992 - https://twitter.com/i/status/1357460102677110785 - "it's not good, it's brilliant."

[David Ober]

I heard something about this a couple of months ago, but whether it will have a significant effect depends on how far they are willing to go, which is still to be announced.


It does make the timing of Mike Davis' departure from the USGA this summer more interesting -- as well as the job skills required of his successor!

Agreed. I really hope they make the ball significantly "spinnier." It's definitely a (almost lost) art to be able to control a more spinny ball. Of course, they're pros and they will adapt. But it will be fun watching them have to do so....

David

Surely you'd want less spin on the ball making it harder to get that spin. That way they would have to control where they put the ball both from the POV of lie and angle of approach. At the moment they just bomb it down there knowing the lie (ie. rough) doesn't matter much and neither does it matter if there is a bunker in the way as they can check the ball very easily.

Power should have its reward but not without accuracy.

Niall

David is referring to sidespin. The lack of spin on the modern ball means that working your shots is becoming a lost art at the top level. They can still impart plenty of backspin.

Spin of both types, actually. What some don't seem to understand is that too much spin hinders both accuracy and distance. Part of the distance explosion is that manufacturers realized that if they made the balls firmer, and reduced spin, they would go farther. They simultaneously engineered the balls to also have enough spin for greenside shots and wedge shots.


I would love to see some data, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Titleist balata from, say, 1985, would spin a full 50% more off a driver than the Pro V1x, for instance. That additional spin on the driver absolutely kills distance -- and it make the ball harder to control when it's hit offline.


It's a win-win for golf by mandating a "spinnier" ball.

[jeffwarne]

Just remember.
Anyone 35 and under has never played a competitive round with anything but a Pro V-1 and a titanium face caving springy driver


26 years since Great Big Bertha 25 for BiggestBig(46 inches)
20 for Prov 1


Fat lady sang while the blue coats were denying and doddering.


But do study some more.

[JESII]

I'm happy to see them attack optimization as opposed to just reducing the ODS. I've felt that a straight roll back will result in the Tour guys finding that "lost" distance within a pretty short period while the rest of the world will not.


Is there any reason to think the distance gains from 2000 to today are any more than optimization and individual swing dynamics (size, strength, speed etc...)?  In other words, does the 2021 ProV1 actually go any further than the 2001 ProV?


I understand the evolution of the solid core ball enabled a ~10% jump in distance in pretty short order so I'm not suggesting the modern ball doesn't go a lot further than old balls...just that I believe framing the research as they have enables them to put the limit anywhere they want without missing the next scientific innovation.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Here is what the USGA/R&A say they are looking at vis-a-vis the ball.  I think this will require some thought about what the impact might be.  It seems that they think optimizing launch conditions is a problem.  The proposed change won't affect those players that can swing faster than 120 mph. The target seems to be to limit the overall distance standard to 317 yards, so this is probably not going to appeal to the roll-back-the-ball crowd.

<<SNIP>>

My initial thought is that to some degree, the governing bodies are finally catching up to the manufacturers in the R&D arena. Which makes sense to me as the manufactuers have a slightly more vested interest in this particular facet of the game than the governing bodies, who must maintain a broader focus.


Which also may explain Adam Scott's new driver shaft last week...

[JESII]

What's the story with Scott's driver?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Here is what the USGA/R&A say they are looking at vis-a-vis the ball.  I think this will require some thought about what the impact might be.  It seems that they think optimizing launch conditions is a problem.  The proposed change won't affect those players that can swing faster than 120 mph. The target seems to be to limit the overall distance standard to 317 yards, so this is probably not going to appeal to the roll-back-the-ball crowd.

How much effect do you think this is going to have? The current testing standard is pretty close to the optimal launch conditions for all premium balls, so it's really not going to change things very much.

They're just updating the testing mechanism from a set of launch conditions to finding the optimal launch conditions for that model and testing them at that. It's a small change.

I wonder how many balls, currently at the edge, may be a yard or two or three "too long" once optimized conditions are used.

I would love to see some data, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Titleist balata from, say, 1985, would spin a full 50% more off a driver than the Pro V1x, for instance. That additional spin on the driver absolutely kills distance -- and it make the ball harder to control when it's hit offline.

https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/

2200 RPM, 170 MPH, 12.5°, sea level… 284.3 carry.
3300 RPM, 170 MPH, 12.5°, sea level… 275.3 carry. (+50% spin)

And that's just making the ball spin 50% more, without making ANY adjustments to knock that spin down even more.

Spin doesn't do quite as much as I think many rollback fans think it does.

Is there any reason to think the distance gains from 2000 to today are any more than optimization and individual swing dynamics (size, strength, speed etc...)?  In other words, does the 2021 ProV1 actually go any further than the 2001 ProV?

They also swing faster, and realize the importance/value of distance. Those don't have much to do with "optimization." The 2001 Pro V1x doesn't go much shorter than the 2021, though, no. It is a little more stable in wind, a yard or two or three longer, etc. Small stuff.

What's the story with Scott's driver?

Google the AutoFlex. You'll see some TXG videos, so watch those, too.

[Ian Mackenzie]

We all get the issues with the golf ball.
Most, I would imagine, get the issues with 460cc driver heads and the trampoline effect.


BUT, what about the driver shaft itself?


I walked into a club in October where I was a guest and the "buzz" in the shop was all about some $1,000 Korean shaft that 10 members ordered for their new Titleist drivers claiming 20 more yards...;-)...on the launch monitor/trackman.


Why do shaft technologies rarely get dragged into the distance debate?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

We all get the issues with the golf ball.
I walked into a club in October where I was a guest and the "buzz" in the shop was all about some $1,000 Korean shaft that 10 members ordered for their new Titleist drivers claiming 20 more yards...;-)...on the launch monitor/trackman.

That's the AutoFlex, yeah.

[Peter Flory]

Maybe the USGA should create a test lab mini tour (similar to how MLB experiments with ideas in the minor leagues).  They could try every idea under the sun in a tournament environment and measure the hell out of what happens.  Then they would have something real to study and we could all judge the entertainment aspects of it all.  They could even have a few tag on divisions with amateurs in different handicap ranges to make it a real study.

I am sure that if they offered even modest prize money, they would attract more than enough players willing to be guinea pigs.  Or if they didn't have the budget for that, they could just offer a US Open exemption for the winner from each event.  In that 2nd scenario, they could charge entry fees to pros and ams. 

Week 1: tournament ball
Week 2: tournament ball- restricted flight
Week 3: max clubhead cc = 190
Week 4: 10 club max
Week 5: No equipment restrictions 1st two rounds, blades and persimmon last two rounds- 6,500 course
etc.

Have the fans vote on what they wanted the experiments to be. 

[JESII]

Week 6 - play the ball down

[Garland Bayley]

Spin of both types, actually. What some don't seem to understand is that too much spin hinders both accuracy and distance. Part of the distance explosion is that manufacturers realized that if they made the balls firmer, and reduced spin, they would go farther.

I am sure you knew this, but I think you meant to say that manufacturers realized that if they made the firm balls spinier with the short clubs, then they could take advantage of their long distance.

They simultaneously engineered the balls to also have enough spin for greenside shots and wedge shots.

No "simultaneously" about it. They added spin to the already long firm ball for short shots.

I would love to see some data, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Titleist balata from, say, 1985, would spin a full 50% more off a driver than the Pro V1x, for instance. That additional spin on the driver absolutely kills distance -- and it make the ball harder to control when it's hit offline.


It's a win-win for golf by mandating a "spinnier" ball.

My position exactly.

[Garland Bayley]

I would love to see some data, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Titleist balata from, say, 1985, would spin a full 50% more off a driver than the Pro V1x, for instance. That additional spin on the driver absolutely kills distance -- and it make the ball harder to control when it's hit offline.

https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/

2200 RPM, 170 MPH, 12.5°, sea level… 284.3 carry.
3300 RPM, 170 MPH, 12.5°, sea level… 275.3 carry. (+50% spin)

And that's just making the ball spin 50% more, without making ANY adjustments to knock that spin down even more.

Spin doesn't do quite as much as I think many rollback fans think it does.

I think you miss David's point. Spinier balls will effectively rollback distance beyond what your flightscope stats say.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()