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

[Rich Goodale]

Who is going to be the expert police?

My understanding is that the first three anointed experts are going to be Tom Paul, Pat Mucci and Tommy Naccarato and they are going to be there the next time you show up on the first tee of a course designed by Seth Raynor and if you do not take the proper line off the tee, you will be sent into the naughty corner in the locker room.


Slainte

[Ken Moum]

Jeff, you're too young...


From about 1900 to sometime in the 1960s EVERYONE played balata balls and blade irons.  'Cause that's all there was.


The first Surlyn covers came out in the mid 60s and the Spalding introduced the two-piece ball in the early 70s.


FWIW, I'm not sure they'll get any credit, but the first Surlyn covered balls I ever saw were made by Ram.

[Thomas Dai]

From about 1900 to sometime in the 1960s EVERYONE played balata balls and blade irons.  'Cause that's all there was.
The first Surlyn covers came out in the mid 60s and the Spalding introduced the two-piece ball in the early 70s.
FWIW, I'm not sure they'll get any credit, but the first Surlyn covered balls I ever saw were made by Ram.

My recollection is that some brands of balata ball were easier to cut than others. Did some maybe have different size cores or thicker covers than others?
I also recall some one-piece all rubber balls - soft, very durable, would spin like hell but didn't go as far as balata.



Nice short video of how golf balls used to be made - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-0U_R8zwkk


And from an earlier period - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF913Ju4F28


atb

[Rich Goodale]

Dai


I think that you are remembering your early golfing experiences when the "gutty" was all the rage.


ATB


Rich

[Thomas Dai]

Tweed jacket and a pinch of sand Rich!
Hit some shots with my hickories yesterday. First time in a while. Enjoyable as ever.

atb

[jeffwarne]

Jeff, you're too young...


From about 1900 to sometime in the 1960s EVERYONE played balata balls and blade irons.  'Cause that's all there was.


The first Surlyn covers came out in the mid 60s and the Spalding introduced the two-piece ball in the early 70s.


FWIW, I'm not sure they'll get any credit, but the first Surlyn covered balls I ever saw were made by Ram.

all true
started in 1974 at 11 and even then all blades pretty much.
I just was attempting to point out many, many poor players played blades and balata long after there were options.


Just doesn't seem like there'd be much disruption at all-unless you were a manufacturer or tour player disproportionately aided by current equipment.
Funny how a rollback or bifurcation would be "disruptive and unpredictable" but the roll "forward", the last 20 years, with all its consequences, is supposed to be totally accepted, despite the incredibly negative consequences it has sown.


The world shed no tears for me when bifurcation took away my Eye 2 wedges-yes I'm bitter

[Eric LeFante]

Funny how a rollback or bifurcation would be "disruptive and unpredictable" but the roll "forward", the last 20 years, with all its consequences, is supposed to be totally accepted, despite the incredibly negative consequences it has sown.

Great point Jeff.


I think Tiger was a loser with improved equipment. He was so much better than everyone else the first 5 or so years he was on tour. Everyone had steel shafts through the bag and the driver heads were 275 cc and under. He was longer than just about everyone and relatively straight with the 43" driver.


I'm sure everyone remembers Phil's comment in 2003 about Tiger's "inferior equipment". Tiger took much longer to adapt to the 45" graphite shaft 460 cc driver. Everyone else saw immediate improvement and Tiger didn't really adapt as well as the others.


People used to talk about Tiger's long irons rivaling Nicklaus; he could hit any shot he wanted with his 2 iron. Hybrids really took away that advantage.

[Peter Pallotta]

RIP architectural intent. I'm sorry that so few, even here, have shed any tears at your loss.
You were a very fine idea, and a charming companion to so many golfers, for so many for decades - but your time has now passed.
Mr. Jones loved you, and Mr. Hogan and a young Mr. Nicklaus too. He was long off the tee, but he too knew and honoured you. 
But to the young golfers today, well, to them you're like a quiet old man, sitting on a park bench in the middle of New York city, feeding bread crumbs to the pigeons: if they notice you at all, they might sense at some level that you have a long and interesting story to tell -- but they have no idea what it is, and so they quickly move on.
And those in charge today? I'm sorry to tell you, but they simply believe that they know and love golf better than you do.
(Or I should say: "better than you *did*" - look at me, still using the present tense, as if you're still with us.) 
They'll stretch Shinnecock to 7500 yards so that golfers land their drives in the same place as ever; but of course, they're now coming in with 4 clubs less than originally intended, so greens are made to play like polished linoleum.
Yes - there are a few loving and committed doctors, struggling to resuscitate you: Doctor Warne and Doctor Clayton, for example. They went to the finest schools, and have trained extensively and specialized in architectural intent.
But I have to be honest: I think they're fighting an uphill battle. It's money these days - it's all about money. No one values or cries over a 'concept' anymore. You are (or were) a great concept -- but in a money-driven world even the best concept is too subtle, too insubstantial. The sad truth is: you're not profitable enough, architectural intent. 
So, anyway -- RIP my old friend.
Maybe my grandchildren will see you again one day --  when every course is 8700 yards long and some young architects and golfers (studying the old dusty tomes) re-discover the joys of your company. 
     

[MCirba]

RIP architectural intent. I'm sorry that so few, even here, have shed any tears at your loss.
You were a very fine idea, and a charming companion to so many golfers, for so many for decades - but your time has now passed.
Mr. Jones loved you, and Mr. Hogan and a young Mr. Nicklaus too. He was long off the tee, but he too knew and honoured you. 
But to the young golfers today, well, to them you're like a quiet old man, sitting on a park bench in the middle of New York city, feeding bread crumbs to the pigeons: if they notice you at all, they might sense at some level that you have a long and interesting story to tell -- but they have no idea what it is, and so they quickly move on.
And those in charge today? I'm sorry to tell you, but they simply believe that they know and love golf better than you do.
(Or I should say: "better than you *did*" - look at me, still using the present tense, as if you're still with us.) 
They'll stretch Shinnecock to 7500 yards so that golfers land their drives in the same place as ever; but of course, they're now coming in with 4 clubs less than originally intended, so greens are made to play like polished linoleum.
Yes - there are a few loving and committed doctors, struggling to resuscitate you: Doctor Warne and Doctor Clayton, for example. They went to the finest schools, and have trained extensively and specialized in architectural intent.
But I have to be honest: I think they're fighting an uphill battle. It's money these days - it's all about money. No one values or cries over a 'concept' anymore. You are (or were) a great concept -- but in a money-driven world even the best concept is too subtle, too insubstantial. The sad truth is: you're not profitable enough, architectural intent. 
So, anyway -- RIP my old friend.
Maybe my grandchildren will see you again one day --  when every course is 8700 yards long and some young architects and golfers (studying the old dusty tomes) re-discover the joys of your company. 
   

+1,000,000

[jeffwarne]

Funny how a rollback or bifurcation would be "disruptive and unpredictable" but the roll "forward", the last 20 years, with all its consequences, is supposed to be totally accepted, despite the incredibly negative consequences it has sown.

Great point Jeff.


I think Tiger was a loser with improved equipment. He was so much better than everyone else the first 5 or so years he was on tour. Everyone had steel shafts through the bag and the driver heads were 275 cc and under. He was longer than just about everyone and relatively straight with the 43" driver.


I'm sure everyone remembers Phil's comment in 2003 about Tiger's "inferior equipment". Tiger took much longer to adapt to the 45" graphite shaft 460 cc driver. Everyone else saw immediate improvement and Tiger didn't really adapt as well as the others.


People used to talk about Tiger's long irons rivaling Nicklaus; he could hit any shot he wanted with his 2 iron. Hybrids really took away that advantage.

It's always justified by "making the game fun".
Whenever I hear that agenda driven BS, I think of Callaway with their nonconforming driver using that as their mantra.


Yet participation continues to dwindle.


We continue to pander to the "make it fun" masses(rules changes, waffle sized clubs, blah blah blah)while ignoring the core golfers who have stayed loyal to the values of the game(and denying new golfers those same experiences). Meanwhile, we build hard long courses that slow the game, take longer to play, and cost more-because we're having so much fun. And wonder why new golfers think we're crazy to take an entire day playing.


But we're supposed to believe the ball's not going farther, and we're not deskilling it-but yet it's been made more fun.


I'm pretty sure I was having fun with my Wilson Staff in 1974 or 1991 with my Cleveland Classic-and I know it was more fun not to walk backwards to every tee-and hunt for my ball in the "par protecting" gunch.


Peter-nice post.Our posts were about to pass.


As I think and try to justify the new normal, as I age, I guess with bifuraction I could simply continue to play the hot equipment and stay back or same tee relevant.
I suggested this in a an earlier thread-Have less sets of tees and play different length balls with your favorite equipment.
As Sean points out, we don't have to participate in the arms race, but for those who compete-they do- and even as I phase off that stage-selfishly, I would enjoy seeing great players play classic courses with some semblance of skill, dignity and historical perspective-not smashmouth-cheater line-green reading book golf.(and all of its defensive game slowing side effects)

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -
I think that the new normal can influence us (i.e. amateur-average golfers) in ways that we don't even realize.
You mention sets of tees.
When I first got to this site, I read many posts criticizing the-then big name signatures for building courses with 5 sets of tees (instead of 3). A decade later, some of today's leading architects are designing highly-rated courses with 6 sets of tees, and there is hardly a peep about it.   
Why?
I think it's because a decade or so of watching the pros hit and hold every green with aerial shots using little more than 8 irons has influenced all of us.
In other words, we now half-expect 6 sets of tees on every new course so that each and every one of us can have that same experience/sense of the game, i.e. hitting a lot of greens with relatively short irons from wherever we happen to find ourselves on -- or even off -- the fairways.
I could be completely off base with that theory. But if I try to understand what most of us mean when we talk about having "fun" on a modern golf course, it sure does seem to be something like that.
Someone like JK will say: yeah, we want to make birdies.
Yes, I want to make birdies too. But I'd like to feel like I've earned them.

[jeffwarne]

Peter,
See my response to the lowering of par thread.


yep new normal sux at many places.
Fortunately there are plenty of courses that still keep it simple.
I think how many sets of tees a course has say everything I need to know about whether I'm going to enjoy it or not.


I was kind've hoping to go out the way I came in-hitting 4 woods into greens and having a deft short game.
Now kids play from 150 and seniors have tees with neutral colors so they can keep their manhood hitting 7 iron in after teeing off in front of the women's tees.


Interesting that we talk about variety and lack of homogonization, yet we glorify courses that have tees to present the exact same challenge to golfers throughout their golfing life.


Used to love playing with that old guy who ran that 4 wood up through a gap and kicked my arse.Similarly,the first time I played with Charles Howell he was hitting 2nd and 3rd shot 3 woods inside my second and third shot wedges. Nowadays, growing up he'd have set of tees that would allow him more "fun"

[John Kavanaugh]

We are currently in a world of one ball and nine tees of varying length. It appears we are headed for one tee and nine balls each of varying lengths. As a golfer improves they will be given a ball that travels less far. As a golfer gets worse, or ages, they will be given a ball that travels equidistant to when they were younger. No class of golfer hits it any further than any other. Architecture reigns supreme as we all play one universal unquestionable strategy.

[jeffwarne]

We are currently in a world of one ball and nine tees of varying length. It appears we are headed for one tee and nine balls each of varying lengths. As a golfer improves they will be given a ball that travels less far. As a golfer gets worse, or ages, they will be given a ball that travels equidistant to when they were younger. No class of golfer hits it any further than any other. Architecture reigns supreme as we all play one universal unquestionable strategy.

Well summed up.
far mores sensible than giving tees and shots.


Surely the gambler in you sees opportunity in this John

[Jim Hoak]

Jeff, I hear your point on "fun" being elusive and unquantifiable.  But it can be defined that the average score for all amateur golfers of all levels has not decreased over the past 10-20 years despite the increase in equipment technology.  Some months ago, it was reported that the R&A was experimenting with a ball that decreased distance for all players by 8%.  That would mean that the average golfer who drives it 200 yards, now hits it 184 yards.  Is that acceptable to you?  It wasn't to most people I know.
So, if it is not, that means that unless we want to decrease participation in the game even more, we need to focus on bifurcation, not an overall reduction in length for all golfers.  And I am making a judgement--based on all I have read and heard--that bifurcation with the PGA Tour in agreement is doubtful.  I guess maybe I'm just objecting to the title of this thread (which I know came from several years ago)--it's not the USGA opposing a rollback that is the issue; it's other players that are to blame if there is blame.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,


The gambler in me tries to limit the opportunities for cheating. People already "throw off" to acquire higher handicaps. What makes you think that those same people won't be found playing balls not commiserate with their abilities?


We like to play what is called "Capitalist Golf". The better you play the more you win. No subsidies or handouts. If you start losing you might have to: lose some weight, don't stay out all night drinking, go to the short game area for a couple of hours, practice, take a lesson, buy some new clubs, etc...etc. It's all healthy for the loser and good for the game.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,


The gambler in me tries to limit the opportunities for cheating. People already "throw off" to acquire higher handicaps. What makes you think that those same people won't be found playing balls not commiserate with their abilities?


Or worse yet establish a handicap with a shite ball-cheaters gonna cheat


We like to play what is called "Capitalist Golf". The better you play the more you win. No subsidies or handouts. If you start losing you might have to: lose some weight, don't stay out all night drinking, go to the short game area for a couple of hours, practice, take a lesson, buy some new clubs, etc...etc. It's all healthy for the loser and good for the game.

If more people played your game, we'd have no need for 6 sets of tees.


Golf's the only game where you can really suck for a period of time, and be the favorite the next time out-via extra shots

[Thomas Dai]

The 8% scenario mentioned by Jim above is one I haven’t heard before.

Is it really 8% for all though? Won’t there be a sliding scale dependent on swingspeed?


Also, no slight intended, but for the top-n-duff with an occasional decent shot player, does it matter if playing with a 100% ball or a 92% ball?

One other point....aren’t most shots played during a round putts and short game shots? Can’t see the stats on these being effected by a rolled-back ball ..... or for that matter by a bifurcated ball either!

Atb

[John Kavanaugh]

If our course was presented to the members in the same condition as it is to the pros we would not need 6 sets of tees. Make the pros play slug and plug every week and no one will be building any more back tees.

[Jim Hoak]

Thomas, I don't know the physics of the -8% ball, but as I understood it, it goes 8% less for all players regardless of swing speed.  All golfers would use the same ball; no bifurcation.  Maybe someone else on here knows what happened to that experiment from a couple of years ago?
In any case, it sets up a decision--Do you want a ball that equally hurts all golfers--or do you want to have different balls for skilled players vs. the rest of us?  Or do you just want to leave things as they are?

[Jim Sherma]

Simplest method would seem to be managing the aerodynamics via dimple coverage, size and depth. If the octahedral pattern with small dimples, like the Top Flite circa 1970, became the standard the manufacturers could still compete but with less aerodynamical optimized balls. If a standard is chosen that requires higher spin rates to work well then the manufacturers would all move in that direction. If the octahedral pattern is too restricting then maybe the pattern that the Tour Balata one generation after the octahedral pattern.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But it can be defined that the average score for all amateur golfers of all levels has not decreased over the past 10-20 years despite the increase in equipment technology.

Sorry, still staying mostly out of it (but still reading)… but had to comment on that. That's a myth, and untrue. The average handicap has dropped several strokes in the last 10-25 years.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/hotlistevolution-0902

Despite decades of naysayers and experts alike suggesting that the average handicap is not dropping, has not dropped and never will drop, the fact is, it has. Let's say that again: The average handicap of all golfers -- men, women and children -- has decreased consistently for the past 15 years. The average handicap today is two strokes better than it was in the early 1990s, according to research provided to Golf Digest by the USGA's Golf Handicap & Information Network (GHIN).

The article is from 2009, but the drop has continued, at least according to my golf association's data. Though I'd like to credit improved instruction, that's just because I'm in instruction, and I'm sure the actual cause is VERY multi-faceted.

No more comments from me on the topic, but… I wanted to bring that point out. The average golfer IS getting better. Please help that myth die. It's simply, from what I've seen, repeated so often everyone just believes it, but nobody actually looks to verify whether it's true or not. It's not true.

[jeffwarne]

Erik,
It would make sense that the average handicap is dropping-though hard to measure. As a teacher, I hope that's the case.
Equipment is easier to hit, clubs are better fit, instruction is much better, the ball goes further via clubs/balls.Greens are smoother, shorter tees are more available.
I think course ratings go higher on some courses also so scores may not be that much lower.
On the modern monstrocities, I also wonder if there are more "x"s which would've been 12's that go down a max score of say 6 or 7, but might've been 8's on a old school course.
For sure there are more better players (5 hdcp and below) than ever .


I do wonder how much of this is due to certain players quitting.
It would seem when the game was growing it would be hard for the average handicap to decrease with new higher handicappers always entering.
When the game is shrinking, there are less new players coming in, and those who continue to play are probably better players.

[Rich Goodale]

But it can be defined that the average score for all amateur golfers of all levels has not decreased over the past 10-20 years despite the increase in equipment technology.

Sorry, still staying mostly out of it (but still reading)… but had to comment on that. That's a myth, and untrue. The average handicap has dropped several strokes in the last 10-25 years.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/hotlistevolution-0902

Despite decades of naysayers and experts alike suggesting that the average handicap is not dropping, has not dropped and never will drop, the fact is, it has. Let's say that again: The average handicap of all golfers -- men, women and children -- has decreased consistently for the past 15 years. The average handicap today is two strokes better than it was in the early 1990s, according to research provided to Golf Digest by the USGA's Golf Handicap & Information Network (GHIN).

The article is from 2009, but the drop has continued, at least according to my golf association's data. Though I'd like to credit improved instruction, that's just because I'm in instruction, and I'm sure the actual cause is VERY multi-faceted.

No more comments from me on the topic, but… I wanted to bring that point out. The average golfer IS getting better. Please help that myth die. It's simply, from what I've seen, repeated so often everyone just believes it, but nobody actually looks to verify whether it's true or not. It's not true.

Erik


When you talk about handicaps are you talking about the USGA system?  If so, I'm sure that much of any recent improvement relates to the modern technology of being able to post your scores over the internet without any corroboration or signatures of fellow players.  Not only that, but the tchnology that allows medicore players to hit more greens in regulation also alllows for more sweeping away putts that go 4 feet past or short of the hole.  I'll believe USA statistics when they/we (I'm an American) base statistics on rounds played strictly by the Rules of golf.


Rich

[Garland Bayley]

Thomas, I don't know the physics of the -8% ball, but as I understood it, it goes 8% less for all players regardless of swing speed. ...

I believe that is aerodynamically impossible. If it went 8% less far for the high speed swingers, I might suggest it would be perhaps 5% less far for the slower swingers. My very layman's understanding is that the faster the ball speed, drag increases disproportionally more.