Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?

[Sean_A]

Matthew

Thanks.  This is a tough issue to tackle and I understand folks willing to take any measures to achieve their golf of distance reduction...its an easy option.  But like Brexit, I haven't heard fuly formed arguments about what happens after rollback.  How is the rank and file golfer taken care of in this scenario?  Will courses actually be preserved?  How is the game protected?  It seems to me these are very important and yet open-ended questions which rollbackers can't properly answer. They are hopeful things will turn out better...I don't share that same enthusiasm even though I understand we are now in a bit of a pickle.  It just seems to me that using the rules as the vehicle for saving courses is indirect and leaves me apprehensive.  So of course...I take the middle road option...the cowards way out    But then I am not at all precious about one set of rules for all.  I don't see anything inherently beneficial about this approach.  Its more about rooted history and tradition then it is about what is the best way to move forward in attacking the issue.

Ciao

[Rick Lane]

Very interesting thread.   I don't believe in rolling back the ball for everyone, yes we all hit it farther and straighter, but as said above, 99.999 percent of us are still challenged by our 6800 yard courses.  We hit it now as Hogan did then, that's ok.   The 600 or so pros in the world can do whatever they want IMHO, and yes, my old 6800 yard course is too small for them (or for TV), but our course record is still 64.  We can set it up pretty hard.
Fact is that courses like ours are "obsolete" for more than those 600 players.   We cant have a US Am, a Met Open, a Met Am. or probably even a Mid Am.   That's kind of a shame, but it is what it is.   We had a Met Junior a few years back and it was Driver wedge everywhere and lots of holes they teed with Irons.   But they shot 67 as lowest.   I guess distance is one thing and scoring is another, and "fun to watch on TV" is yet another

[Sean_A]

Rick

To me, the lessened entertainmant value of smashmouth golf will eventually cost pros money.  When their pocket books are hit they will start to look for solutions.  I am somewhat surprised we haven't seen worse tv ratings for golf.  It is practically unwatchable these days.  But that is not just because of smashmouth golf...I am not convinced golf translates well to the modern concept of bling sportscasting.  Golf is by nature quiet, slow and deliberate.  TV sports are now presented as brash, in your face and relentless and loud.   

Ciao

[Dave Doxey]

  Why the need to lengthen courses?  Leave them as they are & just let winning scored get lower.  Score is only a number.  The best player will still win.

 
Equipment will never get rolled back.  Too much money in equipment.  How’d you like to be the ball company marketing guy assigned to build an advertising campaign for a ball that flies shorter?

 
USGA might also be afraid that equipment manufacturers would simply ignore a rollback and continue to market non-conforming balls or completely stop caring about USGA rules and sell even longer balls.  99 percent of golf ball buyers never play in sanctioned competition & thus would not care.  USGA would lose control of their influence on the game.  Scary to them.

 
There is no evidence that recent interest decline in the game is due to equipment changed. In fact,  one could just as easily argue for the reverse to be true.

 
If we did roll back, what would we roll back to?  Wooden shafts & featheries would bring the game back to it’s roots….

[BHoover]

I say roll back to 1986. Remember the Masters that year? Pretty, pretty good.

[MCirba]

Mike,

I assume you fancied yourself a good player that needed to play the wound balata ball. Therefore, I can understand you getting longer with the new ball.

Now those of us that didn't fancy ourselves to be good players played the Topflite or Pinnacle and have been losing distance as we age and continue to use 2 piece balls.

Hi Garland,

Actually, back then I mostly played with anything I found!   

My favorites, simply because I liked the name, were the Golden Ram and Ram 3D balls, but in those days I played everything from Spalding DOTs and Top-Flites to Club Specials and Blue Max's. 

Actually, finding a balata ball in those days was not such a good thing because if it wasn't cut already the first thinned shot would do the job, particularly with Titleist and Maxfli's.

By the time I was buying balls my favorite became Pinnacle, which I played regularly through my 20s and 30s.   

Maybe I was just a wimpy kid?   

[Eric LeFante]

Very interesting thread.   I don't believe in rolling back the ball for everyone, yes we all hit it farther and straighter, but as said above, 99.999 percent of us are still challenged by our 6800 yard courses.  We hit it now as Hogan did then, that's ok.   The 600 or so pros in the world can do whatever they want IMHO, and yes, my old 6800 yard course is too small for them (or for TV), but our course record is still 64.  We can set it up pretty hard.
Fact is that courses like ours are "obsolete" for more than those 600 players.   We cant have a US Am, a Met Open, a Met Am. or probably even a Mid Am.   That's kind of a shame, but it is what it is.   We had a Met Junior a few years back and it was Driver wedge everywhere and lots of holes they teed with Irons.   But they shot 67 as lowest.   I guess distance is one thing and scoring is another, and "fun to watch on TV" is yet another

I think the ball should be rolled back for pros and competitive amateurs. As Rick stated above, even the scratch golfers have wedge in on most holes. The scores haven't gone down because the greens have gotten so much faster over the decades. That is the only reason good players aren't shooting better scores than they did 30 years ago. If the USGA wants to truly test the best players in the world in the US Open, and the state golf associations want to test the best players in the area, the players need to start hitting mid and long irons again. This is a very small percentage of golfers and recreational golfers should be allowed to play the current ball. For those that are hitting it further than they did 20 years ago and are unhappy about it, they are welcome to buy the reduced distance ball.

[John Kavanaugh]

Anything that increases the length of time it takes to listen to a golf story which includes how someone played is a very bad thing. Example...What did you shoot becomes what did you shoot using which ball and so on and so on. How about just shooting me instead.


When we all stop playing the same game by the same rules everything left that still resembles "honorable" goes out the window.


It is simply not honorable to change the rules to punish those who work harder than you may choose. Golf is the one game where you are as talented as the choices you make. Choosing a better ball than your peers is not currently on the menu.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bifurcation should at least be considered one of the options; but I assume Titleist etc would fight that proposal as much as it would a general roll-back. If I remember how the ERC II-Palmer issue played out, then I'm sure Mr. Uihlein does too. What Mr. Palmer was suggesting back then was a kind of bifurcation, i.e. USGA rules for the pros/competition, a non-conforming and longer-hitting club for everyone else. But surprisingly, even with the King promoting it, the majority of average golfers just didn't go for the ERC II -- at least not in the numbers that ever had Callaway bringing out another non-conformer. Maybe many golfers actually do share JK's sentiments (above), i.e. that the same rules need to apply to everyone.  It sure seems that way.     

[Kalen Braley]

Even if they drew a line in the sand with todays distances, it would at least be progress.....

[MClutterbuck]

I am totally convinced the ball needs to be rolled back, and while I am not opposed to bifurcation as a matter of principal, I do think it needs to be rolled back for all players.


50 year olds are hitting it further than in their mid 20s at all levels. We have 12-16 handicappers hitting a driver 300 yards today. Of course those 300 yards are sometimes at 45% angle or worse of intended flight path. Players are hitting houses or roads deemed safe 15 years ago. Lawsuits are mounting.

I certain did not hit it further in my 50s than in my mid 20s. You have had 12-16 handicappers and higher hitting a driver 300 yards well before the new ball introduction. I.e., Topflites. Houses and roads have not ever been safe. If they are less safe now it is because more are closer to the course than in the days before residential real estate courses.

Garland, most of my friends, 2-25 handicap are hitting it further today than in their 20s. It is true that certain balls have produced more flight for quite some time, but many longer players did not use them much. I am hitting it consistently further than with my Persimmon and original Taylor Made drivers 30 years later, while my handicap has doubled due to lack of play. While the ball is not to blame for all of the distance change, the ball is the obvious solution.


Several leading architect firms changed their standard safety corridors around 2005 due to increased ball flight. These architects worked with residential real estate courses before and after. Some are pulling homes even further back in the last couple of years.

[MCirba]

I have a bunch of 1970s era golf balls and now I have pretty close to a full set of 1970s clubs. 


Does anyone know how much the performance of those balls may have degraded over the last 40 or so years?


I'd be tempted on an open course someday to have a go at it with the 1970s era clubs and balls played against modern implements.

[JESII]

Even if they drew a line in the sand with todays distances, it would at least be progress.....

What would the game look like if there was an absolute MAX on distance?


Not speed...not spin...not effectiveness, but on flat out distance.


Sort of like saying; if you make $X, you pay 100% tax on any additional earnings.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I am dead set against an across the board roll back because

1. I don't believe that shorter hitters (the majority of golfers) won't be effected.

2. I don't believe all the back tees will be abandoned so courses will simply play longer when for a signficant percentage of golfers courses are already too long.

3. I don't like the idea of making radical changes to the rules based on a small percentage of golfers.  It isn't the rule makers' job to protect golf courses...that is the job of owners and clubs. 

Ciao

1. It makes absolutely no difference whether or not the shorter hitters will be affected (other than perhaps their egos). Their competition will not be affected. The games they play will amongst themselves will not change one iota. Any handicaps they use will compensate for the changes for everyone. The distance they will lose will be easily compensated for by moving markers forward.

2. I really don't care whether the back tees will be abandoned. I don't care what tees people play from as long as they maintain a decent pace of play. I do care that people complain about high handicappers playing from long tees, when the high handicappers can play as quickly from there as the low handicappers complaining.

3. Restricting the distance the ball travels is not a radical rule change. It is the history of golf rule regulation with the initial velocity limit, and the overall distance standard. The claim coming from the former USGA equipment head is that they did not regulate against the new ball, because they felt they would bankrupt a company that made its whole business from low spin balls, and was instrumental in producing the modern 3 piece ball with low spin from the driver. They had a rule already readied for adoption, but chose not to implement, because of the financial impact.

[Garland Bayley]

Even if they drew a line in the sand with todays distances, it would at least be progress.....

What would the game look like if there was an absolute MAX on distance?


Not speed...not spin...not effectiveness, but on flat out distance.


Sort of like saying; if you make $X, you pay 100% tax on any additional earnings.

I don't really think that is what he meant Jim.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Does anyone know how much the performance of those balls may have degraded over the last 40 or so years?
...

Lots. My guess is maybe even more than 50%. Ever find an old rubber band lying around the house that had completely disintegrated. The old balls were made from rubber bands. The difference being inside the ball they are protected from the environment some.

[MCirba]

...
Does anyone know how much the performance of those balls may have degraded over the last 40 or so years?
...

Lots. My guess is maybe even more than 50%. Ever find an old rubber band lying around the house that had completely disintegrated. The old balls were made from rubber bands. The difference being inside the ball they are protected from the environment some.

How about the early two-piece balls?

[JESII]

Even if they drew a line in the sand with todays distances, it would at least be progress.....

What would the game look like if there was an absolute MAX on distance?


Not speed...not spin...not effectiveness, but on flat out distance.


Sort of like saying; if you make $X, you pay 100% tax on any additional earnings.

I don't really think that is what he meant Jim.

I think it is.


If the longest hitting top player today (Dustin Johnson I guess) were told he cannot seek any additional yardage by equipment improvements, he would still find some incremental yardage over these next several years through a variety of methods. Strength and flexibility and swing effectiveness being the top 3 obviously.

[Tom_Doak]

Matthew

Thanks.  This is a tough issue to tackle and I understand folks willing to take any measures to achieve their golf of distance reduction...its an easy option.  But like Brexit, I haven't heard fuly formed arguments about what happens after rollback.  How is the rank and file golfer taken care of in this scenario?  Will courses actually be preserved?  How is the game protected?  It seems to me these are very important and yet open-ended questions which rollbackers can't properly answer. They are hopeful things will turn out better...I don't share that same enthusiasm even though I understand we are now in a bit of a pickle.  It just seems to me that using the rules as the vehicle for saving courses is indirect and leaves me apprehensive.  So of course...I take the middle road option...the cowards way out    But then I am not at all precious about one set of rules for all.  I don't see anything inherently beneficial about this approach.  Its more about rooted history and tradition then it is about what is the best way to move forward in attacking the issue.

Sean:


I guess you didn't live in the UK when they still played the 1.62-in ball.  They managed to abandon it slowly but surely over a 15-year period, without anyone getting their panties in a knot.  First they made it non-conforming for the Open and the Amateur, to appease the American players ... and then they just sat back and let the best amateur players insist that their smaller competitions require the big ball, until it worked its way on back down the food chain to club events.  They didn't make everyone switch right away ... there had been de facto bifurcation as long as I'd been alive, and nobody was particularly worried about it.


It could be done just the same way today, if they really wanted to do it.  I remain unconvinced that they want to.  The only bifurcation at present is between the words of the governing bodies, and their actions.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Does anyone know how much the performance of those balls may have degraded over the last 40 or so years?
...

Lots. My guess is maybe even more than 50%. Ever find an old rubber band lying around the house that had completely disintegrated. The old balls were made from rubber bands. The difference being inside the ball they are protected from the environment some.

How about the early two-piece balls?

The reports I have seen say they lose a lot less than the wound balata.
If you compete, you don't want to use a wound balata more than two or three years old as it already has lost a significant amount, whereas the two piece ball has lost very little.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom’s post reminded me of when Jack Nicklaus drove the 18th at St Andrews (1970?). Does any know or remember if/how the R&A reacted to that? Did it have something to do with the change away from the small/British ball?

[MClutterbuck]

Is it that difficult?


Javelin redesigns

Uwe Hohn (pictured in 1984) holds the "eternal world record" with a throw of 104.80 m as a new type of javelin was implemented in 1986.

On 1 April 1986, the men's javelin (800 grams (1.76 lb)) was redesigned by the governing body (the IAAFTechnical Committee). They decided to change the rules for javelin design because of the increasingly frequent flat landings and the resulting discussions and protests when these attempts were declared valid or invalid by competition judges. The world record had also crept up to a potentially dangerous level, 104.80 m (343.8 ft) by Uwe Hohn. With throws exceeding 100 meters, it was becoming difficult to safely stage the competition within the confines of a stadium infield. The javelin was redesigned so that the centre of gravity was moved 4 cm (1.6 in) forward. In addition, the surface area in front of centre of gravity was reduced, while the surface area behind the centre of gravity was increased. This had an effect similar to that produced by the feathers on an arrow. The javelin turns into the relative wind. This relative wind appears to originate from the ground as the javelin descends, thus the javelin turns to face the ground. As the javelin turns into the wind less lift is generated, reducing the flight distance by around 10% but also causing the javelin to stick in the ground more consistently. In 1999, the women's javelin (600 grams (1.32 lb)) was similarly redesigned.

[Kalen Braley]

Even if they drew a line in the sand with todays distances, it would at least be progress.....

What would the game look like if there was an absolute MAX on distance?


Not speed...not spin...not effectiveness, but on flat out distance.


Sort of like saying; if you make $X, you pay 100% tax on any additional earnings.

I don't really think that is what he meant Jim.

I think it is.


If the longest hitting top player today (Dustin Johnson I guess) were told he cannot seek any additional yardage by equipment improvements, he would still find some incremental yardage over these next several years through a variety of methods. Strength and flexibility and swing effectiveness being the top 3 obviously.

Just to clarify,


I was thinking specifically of flight limited balls, like they have in softball so they can play on smaller field. The pro ball would be specifically tailored to the pro swing, where even when the pros kill it, it only goes 290-300 yards.


The technology to do this has been around for decades....very easy to do.  Just a matter of the will I suppose

[Thomas Dai]

An alternative perspective. Money and water and safety.

Money. Golf on TV is/has become boring. Tee shots, short irons and putts and not much else. Boring is poor for viewer ratings. Poor ratings are bad for advertising. Less advertising means lower prize money/appearance fees/contracts etc. Roll-back the ball, more exciting golf, better ratings ......

Water availability. Generally the larger the playing area, the more water that’s used. A smaller playing area with a rolled-back ball would use less w....

Safety. A hit on the noggin etc hurts/causes damage. Hurt/damage means compensation and fees and hassle. A rolled-back considerably softer ball wouldn’t do as much hurt/damage.

Although I am not presently holding my breath, clouds can have silver linings, although sometimes convoluted ones!

Atb

[Garland Bayley]

That's right Dai, roll it back to nerf ball standards.