It's the ball, stupid! Can we help change it?

[Chuck Brown]

I remember Frank Thomas -- he's the guy who told us all, back when driver clubheads were around 360 cc, that they had reached the point of diminishing returns and would not get any bigger.  

Honestly, it would have been simple in my view to have done the right thing(s) -- limit clubhead size to about 300 cc, and give meaning to the Overall Distance Standard in USGA ball testing.

Metal clubheads themselves are not the enemy.  If you've ever built or repaired clubs, you'd know that persimmon was a nightmare.  It was like open-heart surgery to replace a shaft.  Persimmon was inconsistent in use and in play.  Some persimmon drivers were great and some were terrible.  If not treated very carefully, they could swell if they got rained on.  The sole plates fell out.  The face inserts got loose.  The whipping (remember whipping?) came loose.  I remember the days, in the mid-seventies, when collectors were selling prime MacGregor Tommy Armour persimmon drivers for $500-$1000.

Metal clubheads have made the game more affordable, more accessible.  All the things we want to promote in golf.  That is not to say, however, that all is good with clubs.  The USGA missed the boat on clubhead size regulations, and I don't think anyone bears more blame for that than Frank Thomas.

And sure; it practically goes without saying -- the ball is the one part of the game that ought to be easiest to regulate.  It is the cheapest, least consequential, most fungible, most easily-replaced, least memorable part of the golfing experience.  What other sports would fail to protect their most sacred venues in the face of a company wanting to make a ball that went faurther?  Would baseball move the outfield walls at Fenway if somebody invented a farther-flying baseball?  The problem is that it golf balls are such a huge profit centers for a few big corporations.  And one in particular that wishes to protect its market share.

As for the folks who say, "No ordinary recreational golfers are obsoleting anything, be it Merion or Maidstone..."  It's mostly true -- but only if bifurcation is acceptable to you (it isn't to me) can you say, "Let the tour players play with a special tournament ball if that is what is needed for them."  That is another debate entirely; one in which I am happy to participate, but  which is also one in which the battle lines get drawn very differently.  Titliest, for example, which opposes a ball rollback as desperately as anyone on planet Earth, also strongly opposes bifurcation...

The fact that PGA Tour players' games are so different from that of average golfers, makes me less interested in PGA Tour golf, not more.  But even many of the collegians I saw playing at Inverness this summer were rendering that course (a U.S. Open course!) obsolete...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Doak,

I am not sure which responses you are speaking of.

[Mike Benham]

Hitting a persimmon wood with a modern golf ball is not a valid process to then state that the cause is "the implements" ...

Take a 1980s iron, Haig Ultra or Wilson FG-17 like I have, and hit a modern golf ball.  I may be old but I do remember that my 7 iron would top out at 150 yards ... now, with a ProV1, that same club will fly 155-160 ...

[Bill Brightly]

[/quote]

P.S. to Bill B:  I don't think Mr. Nicklaus is going to let you take credit for starting the movement.
[/quote]


I didn't write the article...the NY Times did...

Nicklaus can have the credit, I would settle for his signature on the top of petition.

[Tim Bert]

Tom Doak,

I am not sure which responses you are speaking of.

If you are talking about Tom's last post on this thread, then you probably just need to look more closely.  I didn't see his responses the first time either.

Tom typed some responses to some of your comments in his post.  It's hard to see them as his responses are embedded in the portion where he quotes you, but if you look closely Tom provided comments in brackets and perhaps a slightly different shade gray.

[Jim Nugent]

While I am in essential agreement with those of you who worry about making courses obselete, I am also disturbed, in a merely political way. Where are the capitalists among you now? This call for the clamping intervention of socialist governing bodies on the businesses of golf equipment makers is very contrary to oft expressed ideals of many on this site. Could it possibly be that when the religion of capitalism begins to impinge on your own businesses/creations, you will call forth the satanic practicioners of governing power to quash liberty?


Doug

There is no contradiction with capitalism.  The USGA only has power in its own events.  Same with the PGA and R&A.  Manufacturers are free to make any balls or clubs they wish, no matter what the ruling bodies say.  Golfers are free to use that equipment -- except in events/matches where they are banned.  

In practice, classic courses mostly have become less challenging for top players only.  If the USGA and PGA pulled back ball technology, that would probably keep the beloved courses still relevant.

  

[Adrian_Stiff]

I want to know exactly which courses are too easy for the posters on GCA.  Or for that matter, any of our club's members. 

When the world finally figures out that the guys on TV are just DAMN GOOD, we can finally just let them shoot -20 each week and be done with it.  It's the egos of millions of golfers getting in the way, not a poor little golf ball or titanium driver.

I've yet to encounter a golf course where I walk off 18 and think, "man, I just made that course feel obsolete".  Just doesn't happen....and my hdcp is anywhere from a 1-4 during the year.  Who gives a sh!t if they fly bunkers that we can't....TV golf is an exhibition.

Clint,

It is not that the courses are too easy for average golfers, nor is it just the way pros overpower most courses. My concern is the PRESSURE this puts on clubs to add new tees and bunkers "to fit today's modern game." I trust that you do not doubt this. We are talking about projects that cost hundreds of thousands, even milllions, on a per club basis. Mainly brought about, IMO, but Pro V1-type balls.

I am not an engineer, but simple math tells me that a 10% roll back on the average flight of a drive would bring a 300 yard drive back to 270, a 250 drive back to 225. And most existing bunkers would be brought back into play.

A roll back on the ball is such a simple solution that seems to be in everyone's interest. The ball manufacturers will still sell as many balls, just a different type.

Bill - I think you are right. Maybe some courses need a 90% ball to bring the hazards back, it can just be for some courses for informal play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim Bert,

Thanks for pointing that out. The small type of the quote features is the worst feature of the new golfclubatlas.com format.  

Maybe PatM needs to teach TD how to format and insert color coded answers!  No matter, because frankly, TD's responses don't merit a response.

[Jim_Kennedy]

If this thread were read by every golfer in the country, 97 out of 100 of them would think you are all nuts. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Frank Thomas survey on the grooves issue:

.......The  majority of golfers believe that the performance of the elite golfer alone should not dictate how the rule should be changed and certainly not if this change is going to affect 99% of golfers.

The majority of golfers (85%) believe that the game should be played under one set of rules, however, if the rule changes are going to be based on the performance of the elite golfer alone and will affect the majority of golfers then nearly half (48%) believe that two sets of rules is preferable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here is his response to a "hot button" question from a reader.  The FT website is http://www.franklygolf.com/QA_weekly.html for those who want to read it their ownselves.

Dear Frank,
I really appreciate what you are doing for the game, and keeping us informed about equipment etc. I have read your book “Just Hit It” -- GREAT read.

I know you addressed this issue in your book but do you still think we need not be concerned about the distance pros are now hitting the ball and my question is do you think there is an end to this increase in distance and if not, what will the USGA have to do to control it?

--Sean    

Sean,
Thanks for your kind comments and for buying my book. I am pleased you enjoyed it.

You have pushed another one of my ‘Hot Buttons’ so let me clear up a few things about a very real problem.

The problem is not that the pros are continuing to increase their driving distance but that people think they are doing this.

This perception is based on some anomalies reinforced by dramatization of situations for media ratings which appeal to the “Big Dog” syndrome.  Yes we have seen -- reinforced by several replays and  without appropriate explanation -- extraordinary feats by a few individuals able to drive the ball in excess of 380 yards. The fact that the ball rolled three to four times farther than the average and  conditions were conducive to long drives is rarely discussed as this would take away from the “Wow” and “You-da-Man” factor.

The problem – which will not go away -- is that many viewers, some of whom are concerned golfers and even administrators, treat these extraordinary feats as common place. This is the real problem.

Sean, the laws of nature have limited the distance a golfer can drive the ball given a specific club head speed, and club head speeds are not getting very much faster unless you go to the circus or long drive competitions.

So here are the facts. The chart below shows how the PGA Tour average driving distance has changed since 1968 – distance data was not recorded between 1969 and 1980. The big jump came between 1995 and 2003 when Spring-like effect in drivers was permitted to avoid litigation.

The multilayered ball and the spring like effect – commonly referred to as increased COR (Coefficient of Restitution) – has allowed pros to launch balls higher with less spin. These conditions were not achievable by Jack Nicklaus or others  of his era with the equipment available to them at the time. These new launch conditions approach the absolute optimum launch conditions (i.e. a unique launch angle and spin rate for a particular ball speed to achieve the maximum distance given average turf conditions.)

It was predicted some ten years ago that when these optimum conditions were met the average distance would level off. Now the only way to increase distance is to increase head speed – and we all know what happens when we try to kill the ball. Tiger’s head speed is not measurably faster than Jack Nicklaus’ was  forty-five  years ago so we shouldn’t expect a dramatic increase in average head speeds on the tour in the near future.

I think the graph below speaks for itself.  Neither you nor any others need to be concerned unless we consider the anomalies to be the norm. Mother Nature has taken control of distance.

(GRAPH WON"T INSERT)

Sean, as far as the average golfer is concerned, we have not seen significant improvements in distance over the last fifteen years or so. This is in spite of all the new technology introduced and advertising claims which if true--every new club will increase your distance 15-20 yards-- most of us would be driving the ball at least 300 yards by now.

The laws of nature do not change at midnight on December the 31st every year. So don't expect any significant improvement in distance from a new club compared to last years model.

However, if you have not upgraded your driver in the last 7 years then it is time to consider a new one, or even last year's model, which will save you some money.

Sean, the USGA does not have to be concerned about distance increases anymore but you can be assured that this issue which is now more than 100 years old will not go away any time soon. For more facts about equipment and the game, be sure to register as a Frankly Friend for my FREE weekly updates.

Frank


 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I played a practice round yesterday for the Met Sr. Open with a couple of real nice pros. Without prompting, they started a discussion about the length of today's players, and they both agreed that it is the BALL, not the clubs, that is making it go so far.

While the ball is certainly juiced compared to the old balatas, you can't discount the impact that equipment has made.

Reducing club face size on drivers, limiting shaft length would also help, but, I think it's too late for that.

They both remembered the old balata ball, and how well you could shape shots. Of course i chimed in with how the great old courses were being made obsolete, money was being wasted to protect the courses, and we all agreed that a change in the ball would be great for the game.

They mentioned how Nicklaus got the Ohio state golf association to use a softer ball in events, all players get the ball before they tee off.


It may have been Alan Fadel and others rather than Nicklaus.


With all the writing talent on this website, plus all the archies, I wonder what the reaction would be to a well-crafted petition with thousands of signatures sent to the USGA, R & A, PGA and Augusta to change the ball, or at least try it.

I believe that ANGC is the only hope.

I don't see the USGA, PGA or R&A doing anything, it would seem that that opportunity is long gone.

ANGC is perfectly positioned to adopt a tournament ball.
Once adopted, the USGA could adopt it as their tournament ball.
Then, regional, state and local golf associations could adopt it as their tournament ball,
And finally, local clubs could adopt it as their tournament ball.
That in turn would cause most tournament golfers to play the ball all the time.

That's the only scenario I can envision at this point.

Yes, I am a dreamer, but somehow I sense the time might be right to try something like this. Am I nuts?


You may be, but, it's still a noble pursuit.

[Garland Bayley]

The big drivers are equally responsible ... they made it possible for players to swing 100% at the driver.  In Nicklaus' day, or even Norman's, few pros were consistently long and straight with the driver.  That's why they were in awe of Nicklaus and Norman.  Nowadays damn near anybody can hit the driver.

According to the USGA, Tom has it right. Using Iron Byron, you get at most 5 extra yards with the greater COR of the metal woods. According to the USGA as reported by Tom Paul, you get 25 extra yards with the modern ball vs. the balata ball.

I believe Tom correctly identifies the advantage of the big drivers. The advantage is a larger sweet spot much more than the composition of the head materials.

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff:  responses below.

Tom Doak,

ASGCA did have representatives on the USGA equipment committee. If we have an official position, I think its just to know how such things affect design. I think Damiam Pascuzzo took a pretty strong stance against longer balls as Prez.  [Thank goodness Damian solved the problem.  What about Steve Smyers, who was on the I & B committee for years, and who thinks all golf courses need to be 7800 yards long?]  

Frankly, I have never heard anyone, other than posters here, comment that we favor anything because it brings in more business.  [Of course not.  Who else would say anything, besides Geoff Shackelford?  That is the problem -- nearly everyone in the golf business is in favor of how they profit from creeping distance gains.]  

Far more courses ask me to remodel to improve maintenance conditons than to add length or move bunkers.  Courses need renovation for so many reasons that doing so for equiment is a pretty insignificant portion of any gca's business.  [Yes, too many of these clubs have bought into the notion that bunkers and greens have to be rebuilt often and that Donald Ross's ghost needs to be happy.  But, don't most of your renovation clients think they need to add length?  And do you give it to them?  If so, why, since you seem to be suggesting below that the problem is exaggerated?]  

BTW, Frank Thomas had another of his "we have reached the limit" articles on his website just a few days ago.  And in it, he again states why statistically we think the problem is way bigger than it really is.

P.S. to Bill B:  I don't think Mr. Nicklaus is going to let you take credit for starting the movement.

P.P.S. to Bill. Tom is right. I think you are engaging in "urban legend" to say Jack got the OGA to use a special ball in their tournament.

[Bill Brightly]

P.S. to Bill B:  I don't think Mr. Nicklaus is going to let you take credit for starting the movement.
[/quote]

P.P.S. to Bill. Tom is right. I think you are engaging in "urban legend" to say Jack got the OGA to use a special ball in their tournament.

[/quote]

Bayley, you might be right, maybe Nicklaus was not involved. (I'll bring it up with the pro who told me...) But at least I got the "Ohio" part right, and my hat is off to them for doing this!

http://www.dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2006/08/22/20060822-E1-00.html

[Garland Bayley]

Check it out Bill

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?board=1%3Baction=display%3Bthreadid=25297