[Michael Morandi]

In a few private conversations with a former senior USGA official, I’ve learned that the USGA is seemingly focused on reducing the ball’s distance/speed by mandating an increase in  its spin rate. GCA has no doubt covered this topic but the ruination of many a fine classic golf course has come to a head, according to my source. (I’m not  the only one he’s told this to: indeed I might be the last)  A 300 yard drive has to be extraordinary again, and not the norm. Endorsement contracts have to be adjusted to reflect the change so that the longest hitters still get rewarded for using equipment that promises distance, just not 340 yards. Nicklaus advocated a tournament ball years ago. Do you think the USGA and R&A will pull it off?  Does the game still need to allow 60 something’s the opportunity to hit it as long as when they were 35?  Is the ball the only culprit or do  fitness and clubs also explain much?  As a newbie to this site, excuse me if I’m hashing over old ground but the USGA officials comments are fairly recent.

[Mike_Clayton]

The ball was rolled back about 10% in the early 1980s (earlier for pros. 1974 Open at Lytham was the first 1.68 Open) with no noticeable problems.
No one gave up golf because the ball went shorter.
No reason not to do it again.
Of course, no US golfer had to deal with the problem of switching. The 'rest of the world' just fell into line.

[Kyle Harris]

The ball was rolled back about 10% in the early 1980s (earlier for pros. 1974 Open at Lytham was the first 1.68 Open) with no noticeable problems.
No one gave up golf because the ball went shorter.
No reason not to do it again.
Of course, no US golfer had to deal with the problem of switching. The 'rest of the world' just fell into line.

Couple this with the fact that most golfers aren't playing the longest balls they can field anyway, as though that found Pro-V1 that's been laying out in the rough for who-knows-how-long is longer than a brand new two-piece Pinnacle they won't buy.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Adding spin is a pretty lousy way to go. Even if you could force a Tour player to hit a ball with double the spin, it doesn't curve as much as people seem to think and it doesn't lose as much distance as people seem to think. Plus, it'd be hell with wedges and you're not going to be able to lock Tour players into double the spin.

Ball Speed	Spin Rate	Carry	Total	Lateral
180 mph	2400 rpm	298.2	306.4	8.6L
180 mph	4800 rpm	282.4	284.7	6.3L

[/t]

Both balls were launched 3° left with 6° right spin axis (increasing spin doesn't change the spin axis).

If I start the ball at 0° the 4800 RPM ball finishes 8.5 yards right and the 2400 RPM ball finishes 7 yards right.

Spin axis not tilted enough? Let's double it to 12° but start it 3° left again: 2400 = 1.6 yards left, 4800 = 2.2 yards right.

[Ben Hollerbach]

An 7% reduction in ball distance would be significant. A 7,500 yard golf course today could be shorted to ~6,950 yards with the high spin ball tomorrow.

[Ian Andrew]

-

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No reason not to do it again.

The world is a little different now than it was then, and that change didn't affect nearly as many people then as it would now (not only was that change to just one of the two balls, there were far fewer golfers then than now, with far different coverage, etc.). And there are many reasons not to do it again — just saying "no reason" doesn't make it true.

An 7% reduction in ball distance would be significant. A 7,500 yard golf course today could be shorted to ~6,950 yards with the high spin ball tomorrow.

If you think they'd somehow never reduce the spin from 2x… I've got a bridge to sell you somewhere. They'd knock it back down quite quickly. So who would that hurt more off the tee? Amateur golfers. Pros would probably struggle to figure out how to hit wedges that didn't suck off the green like Norman did, but they'd gain almost all of that 7% back faster than you seem to think.

I was allowed to watch play, ask questions of the players (they knew I was there) and hit balls on the range. It was interesting. I found the ball hit, chipped and putted the exact same.

Your margins (and ability to see differences) are quite different than a PGA Tour player's. For them, 200 RPM spin on a short game shot is significant, and matters.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/inside-tiger-woods-ball-testing-process

That's why so many guys will still play, for example, "the 2017 Pro V1" or whatever. Adjusting to a new ball takes time. It'd result in a shift in who had the skills to play at the elite level: it would help some players (maybe those who struggled to generate enough spin) and hurt some others (some higher spin players perhaps).


I've said a few things here on this. I don't think a rollback is needed because it over-weights a tiny percentage of the golf population. I've said that if you want to justify a rollback, the argument that carries the most weight with me is land use, water use, resources. I've said that if they do roll the ball back, I'd want them to REALLY understand what they're doing and what effect(s) it would have, because I wouldn't want a massive disruption to the game of golf to result in… nothing really changing at the pro level (and the amateurs being harmed worse), because elite golfers and their manufacturers "figured it out" pretty quickly. I've also said I'm against bifurcation because it harms everyone just below whatever level they draw the line.

[Thomas Dai]

Have a look this thread Miceal - https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,67453.0.html
Atb

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I have no faith in the regulatory agencies to do anything of significance.  If they were serious organizations regulation would have occurred 10 to 20 years ago.  Millions of dollars have been spent by golf courses needlessly, and the sport has been hurt by the emphasis on distance.  I suspect they will do something small, pat themselves on the back and apologize profusely to Titleist, Callaway and TaylorMade.

[jeffwarne]

LOL-I thought the post was from 1998.
Let's "study" that awhile...

[Sean_A]

If bifurcation is brought in the sky is the limit on what they can do to limit the extravagant effects of equipment. Manufacturers can still make their dosh schilling to Joe Bloggs and people can stop worrying about golf courses they never play.

Ciao

[Mike_Clayton]

Eric,


The last rollback affected pretty much the whole world. South Africa, New Zealand, Australia. Japan. All of south east Asia. Europe. Great Britain.
Sure, more would be affected now - but it was hardly an insignificant group of golfers. The vast majority accepted the loss of distance without complaint. Of course, the loss of distance was a side effect of standardising the game - something which was a good and necessary change.


But you're right - the world is different now. Distance is a much more important issue than it was in 1982 and that surely makes it more important to do something?

[Thomas Dai]

As good a sentence now as when it was uttered by Mike Cirba a few years ago in his interview piece herein with Ran…

“ A game dependent on so much of the earth’s acreage on a shrinking planet with finite resources is inevitably going to be on the wrong side of history and a game where the balls and implements aren’t effectively controlled within certain parameters befitting the challenge is similarly going to become antiquated, ..”

Do I trust the authorities who currently regulate the game to do something significant regarding equipment rollback and its bigger implications? Not really.
Am I concerned that various bodies and outside agencies, some of whom likely have anti-golf leanings, may in due course try to enforce limitations of some kind on the game? Yes.
Better I suggest to control golf’s destiny by those who regulate the game introducing limitation measures themselves rather than have restrictions of one kind or another forced on the game by various outside non-golfing bodies likely with the own various vested interests.
Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The last rollback affected pretty much the whole world. South Africa, New Zealand, Australia. Japan. All of south east Asia. Europe. Great Britain.

It didn't affect the U.S. and even if it had literally affected the whole world, there are several hundred percent more golfers now than then. There's more money in the sport, media coverage is significantly larger, social media exists… etc.

I don't care what the game's best players, the top 0.1%, are doing. That's not "golf."

Like I said before:

I've said a few things here on this. I don't think a rollback is needed because it over-weights a tiny percentage of the golf population. I've said that if you want to justify a rollback, the argument that carries the most weight with me is land use, water use, resources. I've said that if they do roll the ball back, I'd want them to REALLY understand what they're doing and what effect(s) it would have, because I wouldn't want a massive disruption to the game of golf to result in… nothing really changing at the pro level (and the amateurs being harmed worse), because elite golfers and their manufacturers "figured it out" pretty quickly. I've also said I'm against bifurcation because it harms everyone just below whatever level they draw the line.

[Mark Pearce]

The last rollback affected pretty much the whole world. South Africa, New Zealand, Australia. Japan. All of south east Asia. Europe. Great Britain.

It didn't affect the U.S. and even if it had literally affected the whole world, there are several hundred percent more golfers now than then. There's more money in the sport, media coverage is significantly larger, social media exists… etc.

I don't care what the game's best players, the top 0.1%, are doing. That's not "golf."

Like I said before:

I've said a few things here on this. I don't think a rollback is needed because it over-weights a tiny percentage of the golf population. I've said that if you want to justify a rollback, the argument that carries the most weight with me is land use, water use, resources. I've said that if they do roll the ball back, I'd want them to REALLY understand what they're doing and what effect(s) it would have, because I wouldn't want a massive disruption to the game of golf to result in… nothing really changing at the pro level (and the amateurs being harmed worse), because elite golfers and their manufacturers "figured it out" pretty quickly. I've also said I'm against bifurcation because it harms everyone just below whatever level they draw the line.

The distance issue isn't just the 0.1% though, is it?  I have three sons all with teen handicaps and all of whom drive the ball well over 300 yards.


And doesn't a higher spinning ball help some of the weakest golfers by helping them get the ball in the air?

[Tim Gavrich]

I don't care what the game's best players, the top 0.1%, are doing. That's not "golf."

Erik--


Isn't your book called Lowest Score Wins? It seems like elite competitive golf is at the core of what you do...


Anyway, golfers have always cared about what those great golfers are doing - what equipment they're using, what apparel they're wearing and what courses they're playing. Even courses that have never held - and will never hold - a PGA Tour event feel compelled to take measures that use more space, cost more to maintain and cause the courses to take longer to play.


You can shout "Stop caring so much!" all you want but the reality on the ground is that a golf ball that flies shorter distances is better for all golfers in part because it will make the pro game better and more sustainable from a space/time perspective.

[Dave Doxey]

I question the popular thinking that equipment changes force courses to be longer (and thus more costly).   If courses stayed the same, average scores might be lower for top players. What’s so bad about that?


Most golfers don’t need to play the full distance anyway and sure as hell don’t need longer courses.  Would more pro rounds in the 50’s be that terrible?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And doesn't a higher spinning ball help some of the weakest golfers by helping them get the ball in the air?

That's a reach at best. The net effect of a higher spinning ball on the average amateur would be negative.

Isn't your book called Lowest Score Wins? It seems like elite competitive golf is at the core of what you do...

My book applies to golfers who shoot 88, too.

Anyway, golfers have always cared about what those great golfers are doing - what equipment they're using, what apparel they're wearing and what courses they're playing.

They care less and less. Witness the reduced size and quantity of PGA Tour club equipment sponsorships in favor of NLU, Good Good, Chasing Scratch, etc. being sponsored.

I question the popular thinking that equipment changes force courses to be longer (and thus more costly).


If courses stayed the same, average scores might be lower for top players. What’s so bad about that? Most golfers don’t need to play the full distance anyway and sure as hell don’t need longer courses.  Would more pro rounds in the 50’s be that terrible?

6500 yards is plenty for like 95% of golfers.

[Mark Pearce]

And doesn't a higher spinning ball help some of the weakest golfers by helping them get the ball in the air?

That's a reach at best. The net effect of a higher spinning ball on the average amateur would be negative.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about the average golfer when I said "some of the weakest".  I was talking about those who struggle to hit the ball more than, say 150 yards due to low clubhead speed.  My son played a trial round in a special medal while a junior at Elie with a softer higher spin ball several years ago.  Most players noticed almost no difference in their scores or game.  A very few of the flatbellies lost a bit of distance.


Isn't it worth at least trialling?  Writing the regulations might be tough and yes, I'm sure the manufacturers will try to game them, so the governing bodies may have to be agile and responsive going forwards. 

[Jason Topp]

I am skeptical that increased spin would have the effect of reducing drive distance.  Couldn't a high-level player just go with a lower loft driver and find launch conditions closer to ideal? 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

To be clear, I wasn't talking about the average golfer when I said "some of the weakest".  I was talking about those who struggle to hit the ball more than, say 150 yards due to low clubhead speed.

Spin isn't going to do anything for them.

Let's say 110 MPH ball speed, 15° launch… 2200 RPM spin. Ball carries 156, rolls out 12.5 yards. Double the spin somehow and they're now flying the ball only 154.1 with only 4.6 yards of roll.

Bad golfers can't hit the ball far because they don't hit it solidly OR with much speed. Spin is not their savior.

Isn't it worth at least trialling?

It has been tried, and some things… we can just model to know they won't work.

I am skeptical that increased spin would have the effect of reducing drive distance.  Couldn't a high-level player just go with a lower loft driver and find launch conditions closer to ideal?

They could get back a huge chunk of the lost 7% or whatever in a few swings. Then even more once they had time to mess with the equipment.


Increasing spin would be a dumb way to try to make the ball go shorter IMO.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I am skeptical that increased spin would have the effect of reducing drive distance.  Couldn't a high-level player just go with a lower loft driver and find launch conditions closer to ideal?

If players had to go to a lower loft, and presumably a more forward cg driver design, to combat an increase in spin would that not also decrease club forgiveness? Leading to little to no distance difference in perfect strikes, but an increase in error on less than perfect strikes?

An equipment change does not have to directly make the ball fly shorter, it just needs to make it more challenging to consistently try to hit the ball farther.

[Charlie Goerges]

I am skeptical that increased spin would have the effect of reducing drive distance.  Couldn't a high-level player just go with a lower loft driver and find launch conditions closer to ideal?

If players had to go to a lower loft, and presumably a more forward cg driver design, to combat an increase in spin would that not also decrease club forgiveness? Leading to little to no distance difference in perfect strikes, but an increase in error on less than perfect strikes?

An equipment change does not have to directly make the ball fly shorter, it just needs to make it more challenging to consistently try to hit the ball farther.

And it only needs to be one of a constellation of changes made that can add up to a reduction of distance.

[Cal Carlisle]

I'd start with shortening tees. Not a cure-all, but it's a start. It's a Spy vs. Spy kind of thing. I have every confidence engineers would eventually find some kind of way around it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'd start with shortening tees. Not a cure-all, but it's a start. It's a Spy vs. Spy kind of thing. I have every confidence engineers would eventually find some kind of way around it.

Tour players generally tee the ball much lower than average golfers. This would affect average golfers far more negatively than it would affect PGA Tour players.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()