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

[jeffwarne]

I don't think the ball should be rolled back.  I think the "spin slope" of golf balls should be regulated, meaning distance should be regulated as a function of spin and vice versa.  The technical genius of the modern tour ball is not how far it goes, it is how far it goes while retaining short game control.  Obviously it will be difficult and require some solid analysis and mathematics, but it's the only way to regulate distance while avoiding bifurcation.  One set of rules, any golfer can select any ball that adheres to a specified spin slope continuum.  Elite players will always need a ball that will check on a short wedge shot and stop dead off an 8 iron and grab up on a bunker explosion.  So they will always select a high spin ball.  The high spin ball will have a corresponding allowance for distance that is less than a longer ball.  This system will allow Gramps to play his Slazenger Raw which is basically a knuckleball, and allow DJ to play his spin ball, but neither golfer will get to have his cake and eat it too.

Bingo-always true
Lee Trevino played 2 piece Faultless for a number of years
tradeoffs

[JMEvensky]

If you told DJ his ball now spun 20% more, it would take less than an afternoon to find a shaft/head combo and slight swing tweak to eliminate that 20%.

More likely less than an hour.

[John Kavanaugh]

I was told and believed that back in the 70's the pro's were playing balls of a compression that suited their games. While we would buy off the rack 100 compression Titleist they were given even higher compression balls that would match their swing speeds. Optimization so to speak.

[Peter Pallotta]

I've never come across the one 'stat' I'd be most interested in, i.e. what the actual driver swing speeds were for some of the great and long hitting golfers of the past. 
I assume they can do that now with modern camera/computer technology, i.e. take old tv or film footage of Snead or Nicklaus or Norman and factor in frames-per-second rates etc and figure out how fast they were able to get those club-heads and 43 inch steel shafts moving when they really let loose.   
Until then, here's parts of an interview with Greg Norman. I know we'll all take it for 'what it's worth'; but I'd be curious to know especially what the good players and teaching pros around here think of it:

With today's equipment, I [Old Greg] can get it out there 315, 320 yards. I carry it 295, compared to 280 back then. I used a persimmon driver and used to drive it 300 yards with an old Tour Edition golf ball that used to spin too much.

Twenty-four-year-old Greg Norman playing today's clubs would hit it 340, 350 yards, easy. I'd say Young Greg averages 350 off the tee. Back in 1977, my club-head speed was 132. Today, that means I'd carry it 340.

Just compare our club-head speeds and do the math. Mine was 132 mph. He's [ie Tiger] probably 130, 131. If I didn't hit it at least 320, 330 on average, I'd be upset.

Do you think that's true? Could GN (or a Jack Nicklaus) actually generate that kind of club-head speed with the old drivers & shafts?

When he let loose with the old equipment (and 132 mph club head speed), Greg remembers carrying it 280 yards. He says that this same club head speed today would have the ball carrying 340 yards -- 60 yards more.

Can this be true? Have club and balls *alone* -- independent, at least for the top guys, of any better athleticism and strength -- added that much distance for the longest hitters?

[Garland Bayley]

If you told DJ his ball now spun 20% more, it would take less than an afternoon to find a shaft/head combo and slight swing tweak to eliminate that 20%.

He would find an optimization similar to what the old timers used with lower lofted drivers, would he not.

Now with a higher spin ball, and a lower lofted driver, would not he become more crooked off the tee?

What adjustment would he make then?

[Garland Bayley]

I.e., Jim, why did Jack Nicklaus is always say he generally swung at 80%?

[John Kavanaugh]

I.e., Jim, why did Jack Nicklaus is always say he generally swung at 80%?

Because he played to win.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Tim, great post. Without giving it too much thought I would support a roll-back on driver head size, while I do not support a roll-back on the ball at all. I think those opposed to bifurcation would even support a condition of competition a bit more so that limited driver head size too, than a "tournament ball" one. (I would still not support bifurcation: I'd want a roll-back of the driver head sizes everywhere.)

I also don't think that's likely to happen either. Equipment manufacturers would still have a reason to complain, and more than make balls, because virtually every ball maker makes clubs, but many driver makers don't also make balls. PING springs to mind first and foremost.

So unfortunately that's probably a non-starter too.

Peter, Greg makes stupid comments all the time. HE recently made some comments about wedge play that aren't backed by stats at all.

[Garland Bayley]

I.e., Jim, why did Jack Nicklaus is always say he generally swung at 80%?

Because he played to win.

By the transitive property DJ should swing 80% if he were to play to win.

I don't for sure know whether big driver heads or restricted spin balls allowed the all out swing, but the bigger distance gain discontinuity with the introduction of the ball tells me most likely it is the ball that should rollback. Besides $4 for a new ball vs $400 for a new driver suggests change the ball.

[jeffwarne]

Tim, great post. Without giving it too much thought I would support a roll-back on driver head size, while I do not support a roll-back on the ball at all. I think those opposed to bifurcation would even support a condition of competition a bit more so that limited driver head size too, than a "tournament ball" one. (I would still not support bifurcation: I'd want a roll-back of the driver head sizes everywhere.)

Well we agree in principle.
But now everybody's gotta go get a new driver.(rather than a few playing a different ball)
Nice to see you support romantic and even more impractical ideas than I.
It's coming.....

[Pat Burke]

I seem to remember that Bubba led the tour in having the highest avg "smash factor" for a couple years (when he was winning)Justin Thomas has insane efficiency numbers.Before my injury, I hit my old Honma and Cleveland persimmons quite often.  Really had no issue other than the ball going to low, just had to hit a little cut.For those wanting less distance, I really don't think spin is the answer, the players will make the adjustments to get right back to lower spin tee shots, and the yardage differences will be minimal.  Same with clubhead size, I could swing my old heavy persimmons about 5 mph slower than my M1, bit my M1 was heavier than standard.....was realistically 10 yards longer with the M1 in carry, but lighter and longer was responsible for most of that (heavily opinion comment)

[Tim Gavrich]

Question for those in favor of rollback and/or bifurcation:

Do you believe golf club and ball technology can improve ad infinitum? Do you believe that given enough time, the distance golfers can hit a golf ball will increase without limit?

If not, do you believe we are nearing the limits?

Tim:


I do not believe club and ball tech can improve ad infinitum.  However if players continue to develop higher swing speeds, equipment can be better tailored to those swing speeds, and driving distances will continue to increase slowly over time.


Personally, I agree with you that the modern driver has changed the game as much as the modern ball did.  Nicklaus and Greg Norman were revered by their fellow pros because they could hit the driver with both distance and accuracy.  Now everyone can, or at least, they are not afraid of a mishit that would have looked embarrassing if they were using the drivers from when I started playing the game.  So they all swing harder.


I'm skeptical that such a change can be rolled back simply by addressing the ball.  But if, as you say, a generation of players has learned the game with the new drivers, those players would probably object more strongly to changing the driver than to changing the ball, because changing the driver would make them psychologically uncomfortable. 


With the ball, it's just going to go a bit less far, but they won't have to swing differently; I think you could get the players on board for that, if their sponsors weren't threatening to cut off their allowance.

Tom--


I appreciate the response, and agree wholeheartedly that the current relationship between OEMs and players is a big thorn to be removed if there are going to be any significant changes to golf equipment tech regulations.


Re: players increasing their swing speeds, how much room for increase do you think there may be? Looking at some posted TrackMan numbers for young big-hitters like Justin Thomas, Xander Schauffele and Jon Rahm, it looks like their driver SS is 116-119ish. Rory McIlroy and Jason Day are in that range, and they and other pros are starting to get the kind of injuries that seem to result from hitting thousands of golf shots over many years with the type of swing engineered to produce that sort of speed.


Is the clearly increasing potential for injury going to help elite golfers find a level that gives them the performance they believe they need to compete and the longevity to have a whole, successful career?


If leading swing speeds level off in the sub-120 range, is there as-yet-untapped technology that OEMs could deploy such that they could produce drivers that give these players 20-30 more reliable yards? Though I'm not a physicist, I'm not quite sure how, given that those OEMs are currently at the .830 COR limits imposed by the USGA.


So, if we can generally agree, it seems like we're reaching a plateau of driver technology. At such a point, I wonder if the OEMs might be OK with a reduction in driver head size, because they'd be able to take past driver models they all have and start to innovate again.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So, if we can generally agree, it seems like we're reaching a plateau of driver technology. At such a point, I wonder if the OEMs might be OK with a reduction in driver head size, because they'd be able to take past driver models they all have and start to innovate again.

This, combined with the fact that the great majority of golfers area already content from 6500 yards or less, are why I am not all that worked up about this issue.

I don't think there's some legal but as yet undiscovered technology that's going to add even 10 yards to the modern driver. (Though PGA Tour pros could add 2-3" and get 10-15 yards, but they don't do that likely because they mis-hit it more frequently.)

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim, great post. Without giving it too much thought I would support a roll-back on driver head size, while I do not support a roll-back on the ball at all. I think those opposed to bifurcation would even support a condition of competition a bit more so that limited driver head size too, than a "tournament ball" one. (I would still not support bifurcation: I'd want a roll-back of the driver head sizes everywhere.)

Well we agree in principle.
But now everybody's gotta go get a new driver.(rather than a few playing a different ball)
Nice to see you support romantic and even more impractical ideas than I.
It's coming.....

Jeff--


I had been thinking about this, and it was seeming like that was the big flaw with the argument: the lifespan and cost of a dozen golf balls are both much shorter than a driver.


But then I played golf yesterday with my old 350cc driver, had a lot of fun hitting it, and realized that the vast majority of golfers have a similar club collecting dust in their closet or garage. In the face of a snap-reduction in driver head sizes, most golfers would be able to find a new-old gamer either for the cost of a new grip or less than $50 on eBay or Play it Again Sports. That club would tide them over for the four months it would take...


Titleist to reengineer and re-release the 983K...
TM to reengineer and re-release the r510/r540/r580 line...
Callaway to reengineer and re-release the GBB II (they've already embraced the throwback trend with the new Steelhead fairway woods)...
PING to reengineer and re-release the ISI and Tec drivers...


Then there'd be an issue with what to do with the last decade's worth of used drivers. Could the OEMs melt 'em down and recycle the materials? There's going to be a materials problem either way; we just shouldn't let that dictate the direction of any future tech rules changes.

[John Kavanaugh]

I.e., Jim, why did Jack Nicklaus is always say he generally swung at 80%?

Because he played to win.

By the transitive property DJ should swing 80% if he were to play to win.

I don't for sure know whether big driver heads or restricted spin balls allowed the all out swing, but the bigger distance gain discontinuity with the introduction of the ball tells me most likely it is the ball that should rollback. Besides $4 for a new ball vs $400 for a new driver suggests change the ball.

May we please not compare the golf intellect of DJ to Nicklaus. It's God Damn embarrassing. I don't think any great golfer, including DJ, swings over 90%...10% of the time.

[John Kavanaugh]

We could end all this talk about distance if the pros played "slug and plug" like so many of us in the USA.

[Peter Pallotta]

This is a good & interesting discussion, but let’s not let slip by the comments of tour-level players: look at (former) tour player Pat B’s experience with old vs new equipment; and, earlier in the thread (or it might be in another) the seemingly similar experience of current tour member Zac Blair — both of them, by tour standards, ‘average length’ drivers (then and now). I think their comments are important and instructive, though I’m not sure how/why. Maybe others can draw out the significance (ie to this particular topic).

[Garland Bayley]

I would think that players like Pat that did not see big gains from technology would be calling for a rollback the loudest.

[Garland Bayley]

... For those wanting less distance, I really don't think spin is the answer, the players will make the adjustments to get right back to lower spin tee shots, and the yardage differences will be minimal. 
...

To me this seems to lack sound logic. When the new ball was put into play, there was an immediate increase in distance without optimization. Shortly thereafter there was an additional increase when players learned to optimize.

I would argue that players were somewhat optimized for the old ball as they would have searched out equipment that worked best for them. So optimized for the old ball went through a big jump to optimized with the new ball.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think there's some legal but as yet undiscovered technology that's going to add even 10 yards to the modern driver.

Actually the technology is already discovered; that engineer I mentioned earlier in this thread explained it to me a dozen years ago.  It may be a factor in the recent optimization (it would not be obvious to the eye), but I think they've kept it under wraps because they're afraid it would cause the USGA to roll things back even further.


The engineers for the big equipment companies should not be underestimated; there are some seriously smart people in that end of the business.

[jeffwarne]

I don't think there's some legal but as yet undiscovered technology that's going to add even 10 yards to the modern driver.

Actually the technology is already discovered; that engineer I mentioned earlier in this thread explained it to me a dozen years ago.  It may be a factor in the recent optimization (it would not be obvious to the eye), but I think they've kept it under wraps because they're afraid it would cause the USGA to roll things back even further.


The engineers for the big equipment companies should not be underestimated; there are some seriously smart people in that end of the business.

So true-nobody's rolling out the advances all at once when they can instead sell you 5 drivers over 10 years with "jailbreak" technology.


And for the record, I'm not crediting/blaming only "the ball", it's jut the simplest variable to roll back-even if it's simply for "athleticism"

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So true-nobody's rolling out the advances all at once when they can instead sell you 5 drivers over 10 years with "jailbreak" technology.

I don't buy that at all. If someone had some of this "technology" that could somehow, within the ODS, the CoR rules, etc. add 20 yards, they'd release it in a heartbeat, make a ton of money, bask in the halo effect for years to come, because it'd be patented, too… and not scratch by with 15% driver market share or whatever they have now. Delaying only lets other competitors possibly release it first.

Frankly, I don't believe this magical technology exists. And yes, maybe this is my "640 K ought to be enough for anybody" moment, and I'll look stupid in ten years, but I've got some degrees in the sciences and usually have a good feel for this stuff. Advances in distance over the past few decades (if you consider that the modern Pro V1x is a 1990 Pinnacle with short-game spin) have come from average driver clubhead speeds being 11+ MPH faster than they used to be: longer, lighter, larger-headed drivers.

P.S. All Callaway's Jailbreak stuff does is help off-center hits maintain ball speed. The benefits to good players are small; the benefits to people who mis-hit it a little all the time are nice. Average ball speeds are a few MPH higher than a comparison club. But the top end is the same as always. Same with the G400.

[Pat Burke]

... For those wanting less distance, I really don't think spin is the answer, the players will make the adjustments to get right back to lower spin tee shots, and the yardage differences will be minimal. 
...

To me this seems to lack sound logic. When the new ball was put into play, there was an immediate increase in distance without optimization. Shortly thereafter there was an additional increase when players learned to optimize.

I would argue that players were somewhat optimized for the old ball as they would have searched out equipment that worked best for them. So optimized for the old ball went through a big jump to optimized with the new ball.

The initial jump was simply guys spinning it less.  Drivers in 2000 were weighted differently, typically had less loft (to limit spin) and were not even close to what is "ideal" today.  Guys went from a Professional (which wasn't real spinny, but still spun a lot) to the ProV1 which spun less off drivers, but still could spin with he massive grooves in irons back then.  For many players, too much spin was a challenge with wedges and irons.  The better feeling, less spinny balls, along with a selection of shredding grooves. 
So yes, there was a jump, but many at the time really didn't understand all the whys.  Then the PRECEPT Lady ball was discovered by some good players in the Southeast around 2000-01 and a softer core, soft feeling ball was suddenly leaping off good players clubs, but still felt better...It was an accident that led designers in another direction.
We went from 6.5-8 degree drivers in the late 90's (with wound balls) to today having a ton of loft, shafts that allow for less spin, heads designed to adjust spin out, and (trackman/boditrak/ 3d video), that allow very good players to make adjustments to reach "ideals"


So, those experiences are why I said what I did....just fwiw

[Tom_Doak]

So true-nobody's rolling out the advances all at once when they can instead sell you 5 drivers over 10 years with "jailbreak" technology.

I don't buy that at all. If someone had some of this "technology" that could somehow, within the ODS, the CoR rules, etc. add 20 yards, they'd release it in a heartbeat, make a ton of money, bask in the halo effect for years to come, because it'd be patented, too… and not scratch by with 15% driver market share or whatever they have now. Delaying only lets other competitors possibly release it first.

I'll stick with the R & D guy I spent a day with, who definitely had "degrees in the sciences."


He very patiently explained to a group of us how the equipment business works ... that they get an idea, but roll it out via a series of patents, to extend the life of the idea for several years longer.  If they just released something all at once, it wouldn't be too long before their competitors started anticipating the expiration of the patent, and just flat-out copied it, knowing it would be moot by the time it got through the court system.


He also explained that their R & D is usually 2-3 years ahead of their current product cycle, so if there were going to be major changes in equipment regulation, it would only be fair to have 3 years' advance warning, so they don't waste money developing stuff they won't be allowed to sell.  I guess that was one of the main issues with the Ping "square grooves" rule, and why they wanted them grandfathered in ... so they could sell all the stuff they were already making.

[Mike_Young]

I'll stick with the R & D guy I spent a day with, who definitely had "degrees in the sciences."

Yep...I had one such guy with a major iron manufacturer in ATL explain that distance gain may only be one or two yards average on Iron Byron etc and allow advertising of distance gain.  Often that was carried out in order toe extend life cycle as you mention and often it was as simple as increasing shaft length 1/2 inch with the same clubhead design but new colors and markings.