Is the USGA the 80lb weakling?

[BCrosby]

Joe -

I think that is a very good idea.

Handicaps are already weighted differently for tournament rounds and casual rounds.

Bob

[Dan Kelly]

Tom Paul -

I've seen a lot of nouns become transitive verbs in my day, but to "radius" something takes the cake.

"Become transitive verbs"?

That's not the right expression.

The right expression is "to transitive-verbify."

[JohnV]

Joe,

I have explained a way to handle handicapping quite a few times in previous discussions like this.  The simple way is to come up with a different course rating and slope for a round played with the "short" ball vs the current "long" ball rating.  Then you just post under the appropriate rating.  This would be the same as if you played from a different set of tees today.  Initially this could be done by just changing the formula used in the final calculations so that every club could have both ratings the day the new ball appeared.  Over time, the course ratings for both sets of balls would be re-calculated by rating teams making their routine rating updates.

A player could choose which ball to use before teeing off.  The only restriction would be that you can't change between the two types of balls during the round.

For club competitions that were played at gross, the club would probably want to say which ball would be used.  For net competitions, handicaps could be adjusted based on which ball the player was using just as they can be today based on which tee you were playing from.

All this works because the course rating system handles different sets of tees for the same course and effectively all you would be doing by using a shorter ball would be moving back to a longer course.

Bob, I'm assuming you are talking about T scores when you say that scores for tournaments are weighted differently than other scores today.

I don't think that Tom Paul invented the verb "to radius"  I certainly heard it used around my father's tool and die shop back in the 1970s.

[ForkaB]

Good thinking, John, but.......

......I don't think it is necessary.  From my experience (playing in 10-15 stroke play competitions per year) there has been absolutely no discernible improvement in scoring for single digit handicap players over the past 5-10 years.  I do not doubt that people (including myself) CAN hit balls farther than we used to (sometimes) with the latest B&I stuff, and I am convinced that pros and elite amateurs who really know what they are doing can probably score better than they used to.  But........not the 99.9% of us who have handicaps higher than +3 or so.  At least in my opinion.

[Jim Sweeney]

Ad infinitum, ad nauseum......

Who "won" the Ping/USGA settlement? Leaving aside the concept that both sides must be satisfied with the outcome of negotiations or else no settlement could be reached, let's look at it.....

PING sued the USGA for $100,000,000. With punitive damages, that could have turned into $300,000,000. The amount of the payment in the settlement was: $0.

USGA +1

PING's goal was to have the USGA approve the groove configuration of the EYE 2 iron as it stood. PING agreed that it was non conforming and agreed to stop producing the club with that configuration.

USGA +2

Ping agree that it should submit clubs to the USGA for a ruling as to their conformity before sending them to market, which had not happened with the EYE 2.

USGA +3

The exisiting, non conforming clubs were grandfathered. The USGA could do that because it knew that the microscopic difference between the groove configuration on the older (non radiused) and newer (radiused) clubs had no performance value. PING benefitted by avoiding a class action lawsuit by the hundreds of thousands of people who had bought the clubs believing that they conformed to the rules of golf.

USGA 3 1/2. PING 1/2. Consumers the big winners.

SQUARE GOOVES WERE NOT THE ISSUE. SQUARE GROOVE PERFORMANCE WAS NOT THE ISSUE. SQUARE GROOVES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN LEGAL. Every wooden club ever made with grooves had square grooves. Square grooves  on irons were a result of the casting process. The rules make allowances for such situations. For PING this was an economic issue- what impact the USGA's ruling would have on the company's bottom line and its right to innovate. The USGA saw this as a challenge to its position of writing and interpreting the rules of golf. BOTH POSITIONS WERE VALIDATED. THERE IS NOT A "WINNER" OR A "LOSER." The biggest winner was golf. Noone was injured. The USGA's position as rules maker was preserved, a good thing for the game. Just consider the alternatives.

As for the ball:

I support a rollback, but:

Please consider just exactly where this game and its equipment would be if the USGA HAD NOT been regulating the equipment all these years? There's not enough room on this planet to make the courses long enough, not enough fertilizer to grow the roughs high enough, enough sand to fill all the bunkers, or enough plastic to line all the water hazards we'd need to keep some resemblance to the game we grew up playing.

Rolling back the ball is a good idea of which I approve. Do you realize that the tour, the Masters, your state GA, even your club could require a "short" ball under the rules of golf as they exist today? The rules set out limits- most a ball can weigh, largest diameter, maximum initial velocity, etc. Let's say somone makes a ball with a max IV of 200fps instead of 250fps. That ball conforms, yet it won't go as far. If Augusta wanted to require such a ball, it could, under the rules as they exist today.

It won't because noone would show up. Because the manufacturers won't pay the players to use a ball they can't sell to the public. In  today's world, if it doesn't pay, they won't play. (Team matches excepted, though that question isn't dead yet, either.)

So. All the shouters have to target the USGA. Fine. Let Jack, and Gary, and Arnold,and all the others, go to their equipment sponsors and say, "for the good of the game, the ball has to  be rolled back. I have consulted with the USGA and they have a plan that I approve. I am going to support the USGA in this, in public, with my reputation and my money on the line. I am willing to void my agreement with you, if necessary." Let's see them all line up for that. No. They want someone else to take the risk.

All the rest of us need to stop buying the ProV1X, etc. perhaps only use the waterlogged old Spalding Dots from the driving range.

I am in favor of a rollback. I believe we will see one within the next few years, or at least a proposal. Even then, the equipment companies, which answer not to the USGA but to their shareholders, will come up with "improvements," make the "longest, straightest, best feeling" balls, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

The USGA is against bifurcation because it is unneccessary.  The argument that so many people don't play by the rules is a cannard. That will always be the case, even if we had bi-, tri- or quadrification of the rules. The question is: do you play by the rules? If not, you are not part of the solution.

A "tour ball" is a bad idea because then it's technology that separates us from them, not ability, drive, determination, etc. Is that what we really want for this game? Certainly that is not preserving or protecting the game.


As for posting scores with a "short" ball," JohnV. is absolutely correct. Part of the rating system in the size, configuration, and level-ness of the drive landing area. and the target value on the subsequent shot, which is greater for longer shots. If those are different for a "short" ball, then the course would need a "short" ball rating, which could be figured into one's handicap juat as if one played a different set of tees or an entirely different course.

Could we move on, please? Or at least could anyone with a "Jr. member" or greater status not bring this up again? Or maybe let's start a separate page for this discussion? It clogs up this forum and serves no further purpose, unless it relates directly to a architecture question, which in this thread is not apparent.

Ad infinitum, ad naseum.









 

[rgkeller]

It seems to me that the distance the golf ball travels is directly related to golf course architecture.

The previous post was quite informative, at least to me, and clarified the issues and choices available.

The fact remains that the USGA (and R&A) are responsible for setting the maximum standards under the rules. The additional fact that others may establish a bifurcated system does not, in my mind, absolve the USGA from establishing and enforcing ball distance limits which have clearly gotten out of hand.

The companies that make golf balls are not entities with unlimited resources that can overpower the USGA. The USGA is in better financial shape then those companies combined and has plenty of ammunition to use as leverage or to use in a legal fight if it came to that.

The USGA is an 80 pound weakling because it has chosen to be.

[TEPaul]

jesplusone;

Your post is without a scintilla of a doubt the best, most accurate, most informative, most realistic description and/or recommendations on this entire distance issue to date on here and perhaps almost anywhere. As such it's perhaps the best, most accurate and informative post I've ever seen on Golfclubatlas.com on any subject or issue.

This distance issue does relate enough to the subject of golf course architecture to deserve to be discussed continuously on here but I would definitely encourage ANYONE, any contributor on here to seriously consider the things jesplusone has presented on his post and question him, discuss them etc as much as anyone likes. He has presented an incredibly cogent, accurate and realistic evaluation of this entire issue.

What we need on here is more posts like his and certainly far less of those who just gratuitously criticize the USGA or R&A as organiztions, or it's members as incompetents with basically no real knowledge of the realities of the things an organization such as the USGA deals with and the world they operate in.

Too many on here criticize the USGA and organizational entities like it without offering any realistically constructive alternative or realistic solutions. jesplusone has offered those things, he's explained the proper, effective function of an organization such as the USGA and alternatives and solutions to how they can do even better.

What he should do next is take the time to paint a picture of what golf would be like if organizations such as the USGA/R&A did not exist. For all who criticize them gratuitously without constructive alternatives and solutions I can almost guarantee golf without them would be a wasteland noone would ever want to see!

[A_Clay_Man]

Moving par would be alot easier. You and I could still play the 370 yarders as a par 4 but if your a pro, it's a par 3 and we still have the same rules.

As for the architecture of the older courses becoming obsolete...if they want the rigamaroll circus of a pro event they should try a comp ball and see who shows up.

[TEPaul]

"Moving par would be alot easier. You and I could still play the 370 yarders as a par 4 but if your a pro, it's a par 3 and we still have the same rules."

Adam:

Instead of doing something like that how about the concept of just a single round "par" for any course for someone like a tour pro? Forget about single hole pars and consider whole round "par". After all--in the end that really is all that matters in the stroke play format! Who cares how they did it? The single round number in the end is all that ultimately matters.

Of course match play, even for a tour pro, is a whole different kettle of fish.

[Doug Siebert]

Doug -

An 18 handicapper in not going to be happy about shortening his tee ball so that the pro's can play the US Open at Merion again. In fact, I think the great unwashed will be mucho p.o.'ed.

And that is the heart of the bifurcation issue and why it is such a hard one for the USGA.

The change in the UK ball was a different breed of cat. There the R&A was acceding to a common international ball standard.

OTOH, rolling back distance in the name of some abstract principle like "preserving the shot values of Golden Age courses" is going to be a very, very hard sell. The average golfer won't like it. Even a little bit. And the USGA knows it.

Bob

 

The USGA shouldn't try to "sell" it as saving courses like Merion.  Hell, if they bring Merion up that'd probably make people more against it, the average golfer isn't exactly a fan of the exclusive country club type places (except Augusta, thanks to CBS' good marketing for the past 40 years)

The USGA should be telling them it is all about keeping down the cost of the game in terms of course size and maintenance, and keeping down slow play.  All golfers from richest to poorest and fastest to slowest are in favor of golf costing less and not taking as long, who could be against such things.

Geez, I feel dirty, I guess this is what a Bush or Clinton speechwriter must feel like every day  

[ForkaB]

jesplusone

You are being naive when you say that "noone (sic) would show up" if the Masters adopted a "competition ball."  Of course, we don't know for sure what would happen, but I can't see guys giving up the opportunity for a green jacket just to placate one of their (relatively minor) sponsors.  I also think that the manufacturers would find a solution (after lots of bluff and attempts at intimidation, rom both sides--which is what happened in the Ping suit, BTW).  I'm sure that Wally Uihlein (for example) would not want to be painted as "The guy who killed the Masters."

The only reason I, and others, talk up the competition ball idea from time to time is that we think it is much more feasible than the "Get Jack and the other guys to talk to the USGA" scenario you advocate.

And, as others have said (including you, in your "where would we be without the USGA?" discussion) it is ALL about architecture.  Why would any of us care about this B&I arcana if it didn't affect past, present and future golf courses and their architecture?

Finally, there already is officially sponsored Rules bifurcation:  the "one ball" rule; use of carts; line of sight relief from immovable obstructions such as scoreboards, etc.  WE do NOT play the same gaem that the pros do.  And, as others have said, we have a specific historical incidence of a bifurcation in terms of a "competition ball"--in the 1980's when the R&A was allowing the small ball for day to day play but requiring the "big ball" for play in its competitions.  Do you want to know what happened (I was spending a lot of time and playing a lot of golf in the UK at that time)?  Well, even if you don't, here it is:

--most relatively good players (i.e. <5 HCP) adopted the "big ball" almost immediately, giving up probably as much distance as one would today by switching from the ProV1x to a Professional.
--over the 3-5 year transition period, more and more higher handicaps adopted the "big ball", and manufacturers scaled down produciton of the little ball.
--when the changeover was made permanent, it was seamless, and you didn't see any discernible difference in the market shares of the various balls.  People who played little Titleist played big Titelists, little Pinnacles big Pinnacles, etc.

No one knows the future, but I think that my vision is more likely to come to pass than yours.  You may of course, disagree.

[TEPaul]

It appears the USGA is beginning to countenance something regarding distance control or a competition ball. Probably the best place to see what form that might take is in a distinction in Geoff Shackelford's recent article in the LA Times on the subject of the ball and distance.

About that distinction Geoff Shackelford said on here;

"One clarification. After it was sent in, we were able to add confirmation from Marty Parkes that the USGA is exploring NOT a tournament ball but instead, exploring an amendment or addition to the rules allowing for a committee to dictate a certain specification ball be used for their competition. Mr. Parkes confirmed that these discussions have taken place, unfortunately, that may not have been clear in the article.”
Geoff

Marty Parkes is the USGA’s director of communications. Parkes’s clarification in Shackelford’s article seems to suggest that at this point the USGA is not going to get into recommending the adoption of a competition ball through its I&B framework or legislating separate specs within their I&B rules for a competition ball (basically legislating a competition ball and an official bifurcated I&B roll-back) that may be limited in some way in relation to their present ODS standard (and ball specs).  It does appear, though, when Parkes mentions the USGA is exploring a local rule inclusion (akin to the “one ball” rule which is a local rule) that would address the use of a "competition ball" within competitions that the USGA is basically preparing to explain that that is not “waiving or modifying a rule of golf”.

The USGA has their 34 rules that may be called regular rules. Those rules are supported and defined in the Rules Appendix sections and further supported and defined in the “Decisions on the Rule of Golf”. In the Appendix sections various situations are dealt with basically explaining if they conform to the regular rules of golf or not. Many of these situations are dealt with in the “Decisions” in Rule 33 (“The Committee”). The “Committee” (Rule 33) is the mechanism whereby the Rules can institute various local rules provided the “Committee” does not waive or modify a regular rule of golf (Rule 33-1 and 33-8b). At present they’re what the rules book refers to as “seven matters” that are basically local rules. These include the “one ball condition” that must be instituted by the “Committee” and listed in the “Conditions of Competitions” sheet to be in effect in play. The USGA may be about to add to this section something that might be referred to as a something like a “competition ball condition” (somewhat similar to the “one ball condition”). In effect this would be the Rules of Golf explaining that the adoption of a “competition ball” does not waive or modify a rule of golf and is adoptable in competitions.

Why would they do this or do it this way? It’s pretty obvious to me they’re doing it this way because this would completely avoid the possibility of legal action against them from manufacturers for actually requiring something in the vein of distance control by rolling back the ball officially. What this in effect does is let others know that if someone else wants to do this (such as ANGC and the Masters) it’s OK in the framework of the Rules of Golf and that there’s also a “condition” within the rules to provide for it through its enactment by the “Committee” via its inclusion on the “conditions of Competition”.

But one wonders what the specs of a “competition ball” would actually be if the USGA is not ready to define it and legislate it? That’s a good question. It appears the USGA would prefer that this distance control effort or rollback start at the grass-roots level and not with them. It seems to me all they’re prepared to consider right now is that if a “Committee” wants to require the use of a limited distance ball they can do it under the rules. It appears what they care about is not so much how far below the ODS limit a ball may be but only if it exceeds that limit in which case it would be deemed non-conforming and would not make it onto the USGA’s “list of conforming balls” (which happens to be another of the seven “matters” included in Appendix 1, Part C-1a.).

Interesting way of going about this. I’d assume if the Masters really wanted to do this they’d simply tell all the manufacturers that they were requiring it and to manufacture golf balls with a particular distance limitation specification.

It probably wouldn’t be hard for all the manufacturers to do that (although they might at first say it is!). Frankly, they could probably just gear up again by pulling the specs out of the drawer for the balls they used to manufacture before they all got into this new wrinkle of “optimization” which included the ball. It’s important to know that those old non-optimized balls all the pros and good players used to use were probably not anywhere near the USGA’s ODS limits which have been in effect for about 27 years and have not changed.

What will be really interesting will be how the manufacturers will present this to the general golfing public, who, by the way will not be effected by this unless they choose to be!

Perhaps all the manufacturers could adopt Merion's description of their recent restoration as one that is "Back to the Future!"

 

[JohnV]

Tom, I'm not sure if I read the comment by Marty in quite the same way.

I think the clarification is that they will not be manufacturing (or approving one company to manufacture) the "official golf ball of the US Open".

If the USGA does decide to define a local rule allowing the Committee to specify that a "competition" ball be used, it does not preclude the USGA from specifying its characteristics.  As a matter of fact, I think that would have to be the way for them to do it.  You couldn't simply define a new ball in the Appendix without having a local rule that could be used for the times you want it used.

I wouldn't be happy if they left it up to each organization to define its own specs for a ball.  If the USGA decides to have a competition ball for for the US Open and the R&A decides on the same ball, it will become the defacto standard for all the other tours and events.  IF the USGA and R&A disagree on the specs, it wouldn't be any worse than it was before, with the US playing a different ball from the rest of the world.   But, if every tour and the Masters gets to pick its own ball it would be a mess.

[Mike Benham]

But, if every tour and the Masters gets to pick its own ball it would be a mess.

Why would it be a mess?

The players would have to be the ones to adjust to the characteristics of the ball.  If one tournament defined that the Titleist XYZ-ball (a USGA/R&A legal ball) was the aprpoved ball for the tournament, why would anyone care, except for the manufacturer other than Titleist and the player.

[Jim Sweeney]

TEPaul:

The content of your last post leaves little doulbt that we will have some statement in the not-too-distant future from the USGA about the golf ball. One shouldn't infer too much from Parkes's remarks, however, because the issues are very complex. For example, would such a local rule allow for different committees to require different tournament ball specs? That would be chaos, and chaos is the last thing anyone wants. This is one point upon which the all the players in this drama agree. Order in the game is the primary reason the manufacturers, tours, and others voluntarily comply with the rules of golf as written and approved by the governing bodies.

It seems likely that in this case the message that the USGA  is seriously debating the issue is the real message.

Rich_Goodale:

Reading your post reminds me of a poem I studied in high school. I don't remember the title or one single line, but the subject was two soldiers, enemies, facing off on the battlefield. IN the moment before whatever is going to happen happens, one of them contemplates how, in a different situation, the two might have met somewhere in a cafe, sat, drank, talked and laughed.

This forum is too much lie a battlefield sometimes. However, your post is well thought out and I respect your opinion.

Bifurcation would exist if there were two sets of rules, and different groups were required to play by one or the other. That's not the issue with local rules. Local rules, like those you mentioned, recognize that conditions exist in one place that may not exist in another, and they have to be accounted for. So long as the local rule does not contradict the rules of golf, it is fine to use. Several situations are fairly common, so the USGA has formalized wording for local rules to cover those conditions. Temporary immoveable obstructions, for example, are common at tournament sites but not in everyday situations But if a TIO did exist at your course for some reason, the committee could adopt that local rule for your club's use as long as the TIO existed. Loca rules are not different for different calsses of players, they cover different course conditions.

The one ball condition was not written to separate the pros from the rest of us, but was written in recognition that one should not tailor his equipment during the round depending on conditions. Just like the rule against changing the playing characteristics of a club during the round, for example. Clearly, the effect is greater on better players; poorer players wouldn't see much difference anyway. The one ball rule is actually used pretty extensively in club championships, as well as local and regional tournaments. (Too extensively, truth be told.) Since all the top balls these days are so close in performance, the point is approaching becoming moot, anyway.

I confess to a bit of hyperbole in my "no-one would show up" comment. But it is not completely unrealistic. I can't imagine the fine people at Titleist, Maxfli, Hogan, Precept, Spalding, Nike, or Callaway being happy about not being able to promote "the ball that one the Masters," and sell the same ball to the general public.

Your example of the elimination of the British ball and the worldwide adoption of the big ball is interesting. But we're not in the same world that existed at that time. There is so much more at stake. It would be wonderful if the USGA and R&A could just say, "we're knocking 15% off the ball, starting immeadiately, and completely over the next five years. In the interim, local committees can choose which ball they prefer for their competitions." What they'd be doing is ensuring that the companies would continue to produce and market non-conforming equipment at the end of the term, as the demand would certainly exist.

You may be absolutely correct (in fact, I have no doubt of this) that your scenario is more likely to occur than mine. In fact, it is highly doubtful that Jack, Arnie, Gary, et. al. would do any such thing such as I suggested. But wouldn't it be great?

 

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

The USGA is never going to get into making or manufacturing a competition ball or anything else in equipment. The USGA is a non-profit--they aren't in the equipment business and never will be--they couldn't be and remain what they are. And they surely aren't going to get into naming and approving of a single company to make something like a "competition ball" to the exclusion of other companies being able to do so! My God, you want to talk about grounds for "restraint of trade" suits, that would be it!

I realize instituting basically a local rule for the use of a limited distance ball doesn't preclude the USGA from coming up with specs on a limited distance ball but I can't see anything they're doing now to suggest that they're interested in coming up with those specs. It seems like they're putting themselves in the position of just watching someone else come in with specs, certainly ANGC would seem to be the most likely candidate.

The USGA/R&A's recent memorandum on principles says in no uncertain terms they're NOT interested in two OFFICIAL (or more) sets of I&B rules and regulations on balls and equipment--that they're only interested in a single set of I&B rules on clubs and balls which really deal with a limit beyond which something can't be maximized not minimized or rolled back. They are not for legislated (by them) bifurcation in balls and equipment.

Marty Parkes also said publicly that they are NOT exploring a tournament ball. What he means by that since they surely aren't going to MAKE a golf ball has to be they are NOT now exploring how to define one which would be coming up with official legislated specifications on a reduced distance ball!

[Jim_Kennedy]

You've got the Tour saying fix it or we will, you've got manufacturers saying no limits on equipment. Damn, there's an exploitable rift if I ever saw one.

[TEPaul]

".....you've got manufacturers saying no limits on equipment."

JimK:

You do? Other than the ERC2 driver I haven't noticed any major manufacturers saying their interested in going beyond the allowable USGA/R&A I&B ODS limits, COR limits and other  rules and regulations of golf clubs and golf balls. They pretty much accept the fact that if they do that their balls and impliments will be deemed non-conforming as always!