The Golf Ball

[Craig Sweet]

I'd like the to see everybody be able to hit the ball only as far as I do.  No need for more back tees, no need for additional forward tees.  LOL!    Everyone would have to use strategy, skill, and brains to get around the course. 

[MCirba]

This topic has been hashed and re-hashed, like another one I can think of.

They would only need to change one thing....the dimpling.  Super easy fix...

Interesting, Kalen.

[Ben Hollerbach]

This topic has been hashed and re-hashed, like another one I can think of.

They would only need to change one thing....the dimpling.  Super easy fix...

As I recall, when a reduced flight ball was tested after a Nationwide/Korn Ferry event years ago they were given a Bridgestone made ball to play with that had noticeably more shallow dimples.

[A.G._Crockett]

Always an amusing topic to me, and ever more so as I age.


Ironically, I played a two-day tournament at Mid Pines and Pine Needles this week, which are about as “classic” as it gets.  In my division of the tournament (Super Senior/65+) we played both at around 5500 yds, +/-.


The first day at Mid Pines, ONE player broke 80, with a 78.  Scores were better the second day at Pine Needles, probably due to less wind, but +10 won gross, and both days had a +3 PCC adjustment in GHIN. 


So forgive me if I can’t get too excited about changing the golf ball because of how far Rory McIlroy hits it compared to some fat guy prior to titanium and the ProV1.  And graphite. And Trackman. And the weight room.  And video. And perfect course conditions. And great coaching. And so on…(I don’t see that as a “problem” anyway, but I get that others do.)


If you want to argue for bifurcation, have at it, though simplistic solutions to complex problems generally fail miserably.  But (and forgive me for saying it) a universal change to the golf ball to reduce distance, is just a really, really dumb idea lacking any rational expectation for benefit to the game.

[Garland Bayley]

...
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, consistency is what it takes to get that winning low score.

What has always made sense to me is that the modern ball changed the slope of the spin rate plotted against the loft of a club. The slope plotted for two piece balls started with low spin, and stayed lower through the loft changes than the slope plotted for the old balata ball that start with higher spin for lower lofted clubs, and stayed with higher spin through the higher lofted clubs.

The modern ball starts with the spin of the two piece ball at lower lofts and ends with the spin of the balata ball at high lofts. The slope of its plot changed significantly.

My assumption is that you could require all balls be two piece. Soft covers for the pros who can hit it straighter than the average crooked golfer. Hard covers for the average crooked golfer, who in general does not have a short game up to snuff with the pros.

[Connor Lewis]

I will add my two cents and perhaps someone will give me change.


I don’t buy the idea that the best Golden Age Courses are becoming obsolete due to distance, or perhaps better said I don’t buy it for 99% of the golfing population. Imagine if we dictated every decision in this world for only the < 1%.


I was a supporter of bifurcation in the case of a rollback. What is the average driving distance for a male golfer? < 230 yards. How about a single digit handicap 240-260 yards. Surely these distances don’t make NGLA or Cypress Point obsolete so why handicap these players?


We make a lot of rules for those guys (not even the ladies) who play on Sundays and to me it doesn’t make a lot of sense.


From a historical standpoint, the last golf ball rollback in the US occurred in 1931 (the year after Bobby Jones won the Grand Slam and then retired). In 1931 the USGA introduced a slightly larger and slightly lighter ball. The outcome was horrible. The ball they nicknamed the “balloon ball” was horrid in windy conditions and before 1931 had come to an end they tweaked the ball to the parameters we have today.

[Mike Bodo]

I don’t buy the idea that the best Golden Age Courses are becoming obsolete due to distance, or perhaps better said I don’t buy it for 99% of the golfing population. Imagine if we dictated every decision in this world for only the < 1%.

I agree 100%! While some of the best Golden Age courses may have become obsolete for men's professional golf, they're perfectly fine and every bit as challenging/rewarding for the memberships - despite all the advances in equipment and ball technology. Just leave it well enough alone, as there comes a point of diminishing returns and we're by and large pretty much there. With the existing restrictions currently in place I don't see there being any major technological advances that's going to add another 10 - 15 yds of additonal distance beyond the incremental gains seen the past 20 yrs. I think we're pretty much maxed out.

[Garland Bayley]

...The ball they nicknamed the “balloon ball” was horrid in windy conditions and before 1931 had come to an end they tweaked the ball to the parameters we have today.

Not really. The parameters changed significantly c. 2000 resulting in a discontinuity in performance and quickly a 20 yards increase driving distance.

[JohnVDB]

From a historical standpoint, the last golf ball rollback in the US occurred in 1931 (the year after Bobby Jones won the Grand Slam and then retired). In 1931 the USGA introduced a slightly larger and slightly lighter ball. The outcome was horrible. The ball they nicknamed the “balloon ball” was horrid in windy conditions and before 1931 had come to an end they tweaked the ball to the parameters we have today.

Way back in 2009, I wrote an In My Opinion on the Balloon Ball Experiment for this site.


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/

[Thomas Dai]

Am I fussed about the relationship between the modern ball and the architectural, historical design or scoring aspects of the game? Not particularly. Am I fussed about spin rates and all that techie stuff? Not particularly.
What I don’t want though, is some outside vested interest agency or heaven forbid some politician or semi-legal body jumping on a publicity bandwagon and forcing a change to the game or courses we love for likely self-aggrandising and career enhancing reasons due to strong lads and lasses etc bombing tee-shots way, way offline and off the golf course. Media frenzy, writs etc.
And golf through the R&A and USGA’s etc failure to hold the ball manufacturers to account and regulate the game properly are giving these kind of folks the opportunity to do just this.
The fact that golf uses too much space, too much land and too much water and other resources on a finite sized planet with ever increasing population levels is also a factor.
Atb

[Dave Doxey]

I will add my two cents and perhaps someone will give me change.


I don’t buy the idea that the best Golden Age Courses are becoming obsolete due to distance, or perhaps better said I don’t buy it for 99% of the golfing population. Imagine if we dictated every decision in this world for only the < 1%.


I was a supporter of bifurcation in the case of a rollback. What is the average driving distance for a male golfer? < 230 yards. How about a single digit handicap 240-260 yards. Surely these distances don’t make NGLA or Cypress Point obsolete so why handicap these players?


We make a lot of rules for those guys (not even the ladies) who play on Sundays and to me it doesn’t make a lot of sense.


From a historical standpoint, the last golf ball rollback in the US occurred in 1931 (the year after Bobby Jones won the Grand Slam and then retired). In 1931 the USGA introduced a slightly larger and slightly lighter ball. The outcome was horrible. The ball they nicknamed the “balloon ball” was horrid in windy conditions and before 1931 had come to an end they tweaked the ball to the parameters we have today.

I do not understand why old courses have become obsolete.   The scores in a pro tournament may be lower - so what?

[Mike Bodo]

I do not understand why old courses have become obsolete. The scores in a pro tournament may be lower - so what?

I concurr! While it was mentioned previously that a number of great golden age courses have become obsolete for all types of tournament play, let alone professional men's golf, I vehmently disagree - especially at the lower echelons of tournament golf.


To cite an example, each year Sylvania Country Club, where I'm member, hosts the AJGA Junior Open. The course, yardage-wise maxes out at a little over 6,700 yds. Over the three days the event is held the tourment winner shot -9 under par and won the event in a playoff. Of the 48 players that qualified for the tournament only 10 shot under par all three days. While there were a number of players in the field that could bomb their drives 300+ yds. they didn't pummel the course from a scoring perspective. In fact, the majority of the field finished several strokes over par and higher. In short, the course held up well and we're at the lower end of the spectrum yardage-wise to most golden age chamionship coureses. I'm sure if these same kids played Inverness from the tips scores would have been significantly higher and perhaps no one finishes under par for the tourney.


So, am I to understand that we're supposed to roll the ball back for this or a handfull of exceptions? If so, that's Nuts!

[Jim Sherma]

A few years ago I ran simple comparison between a new Titleist NXT and an old Top-Flite with the small dimples in the octahedral pattern that I had in seemingly very good condition given the age, example of the type of Top Flite used shown in the link below:


https://www.ebay.com/itm/203204884409?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=203204884409&targetid=1262779894769&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=1027266&poi=&campaignid=14859008593&mkgroupid=130497710760&rlsatarget=pla-1262779894769&abcId=9300678&merchantid=118869172&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIz_SH5dC9_QIV9vTjBx1qtgrUEAQYAyABEgIALvD_BwE

Playing the two balls around 9 holes was very informative. Distance for well struck shots were essentially the same. Where I saw a meaningful difference were on mishits where the Top-Flite tended to curve more sharply resulting in shorter shots with more dispersion. Definitely felt that there was more margin for error with the NXT compared to the Top-Flite. Interestingly, while the NXT sounded less "clicky" the amount of spin on full approach shots appeared pretty equivalent. Around the greens I did not see a large difference other than the softer sound of the NXT, however I am not a high spin short game plater in any event.


Rolling back the aerodynamics by mandating the amount of "flat" area on the surface does seem to be a route that could be used to bring back some tighter margins of error on the ball striking of elite players. Coupled with adding some spin back into the ball could meaningfully get us back to a game with a slightly smaller scale and more reward for solid ball striking.

[Mike Bodo]

Jim,

I'm so glad you brought this up as I was searching YouTube last night to see if anyone had done a distance comparison test of vintage Top-Flite balls from the 70's or even 80's to today's modern solid core balls to see if there was a signifcant variance. 

Solid core balls have been around a long time. Back when I caddied and played high school golf in the late 70's to mid 80's we referred to them as "Rock Flites" because they felt and sounded as though you were hitting a rock when the ball came off the clubface. They were fine for range use, but typically only hackers used them for course play and, later, Pinnacles. Wound surlyn and balata balls still ruled the day for virtually all respectable mid to low handicap players, despite Trevino pushing the Top-Flite ball for Spalding. Obviously, the PRO V changed all that when it was introduced and signaled the dealth knell for the wound ball.

That said, I'm somewhat, but not totally surprised there wasn't a discernable distance difference between the vintage Top-Flite ball vs. the Titleist NXT using the same equipment. Essentially, what this tells me is that distance gains attributed to solid core ball technology pales in comparison to the impact advances in equipment technology has had on the game. As I expressed previously in the topic thread, I feel we've reached a point of diminishing returns on the equipment side of things and that any yardage gains from here on out will be nominal at best. However, if it's proven that the push by manufacturers for more carbon face and headed drivers provides an additional  10 - 15 yds. beneft over titanium as the technology advances in the coming years then outlaw or ban it for tournament use, I say.