Roll Back. What we must do.

[Niall C]

Tony

Whatever is done should not interrupt the Championship nor should it embarras the R&A/USGA otherwise it will be counterproductive.

I think the first thing to do is establish a case, yes "everyone knows advances in technology is a bad thing" however it is human nature to try to improve and to you use the best equipment you can get to do so. What we need to do is show how this hiiting golfers pockets ie. cost of modifying and extending golf courses to cope. People have a tendency to vote with their pocket. Also the effect it has had/will have on the classic courses.

Secondly, having established the case, you need credibility and getting someone like Nicklaus or a Doak, or preferably both and any other architect who might be willing to stick his head above the parapet, assuming they agree with the argument, to be part of it would be the key. Havin them present a few case studies might just bring it home to people what is happening.

Niall

[Tony Ristola]

We've been on rolling the ball back for the better part of a decade on GCA.

What to do?

Start a website, list the few reasons why the golf ball should be rolled back. Consice points... bang, bang, bang...
Have a section linking all the articles, or statements from those known in the game supporting it.

The main drive of the site is to have a petition of support for rolling the ball back.

But... I wouldn't hold my breath. The governing bodies like playing with the stuff around the edges... they don't seem to have the gravitas to do what need be done.

.

[Dan Herrmann]

FYI, the USGA/R&A came out to my club this year for "rolled back" ball testing with real-world golfers.

The ball we played was a Bridgestone with a different dimple pattern that increased spin, increased height, and shortened distance by about 10% for a guy that hit his driver 220, 15% for a 280 yard drive, and 0% for a 165 yard drive.

The distance difference for an 8 iron was about 3-5 yards for all but the slowest swing speeds which actually saw a very slight increase in distance.

Each group spent about 30 minutes discussing their experiences with a USGA/R&A staffer after the round.  Unfortunately, the USGA/R&A did't say a thing about when the rolled ball would become official.

But to me, the fact that the R&A sent a guy from Scotland just to help out for one weekend in Philly says they are taking it seriously.

(Merry Christmas!)

[Tony Ristola]

FYI, the USGA/R&A came out to my club this year for "rolled back" ball testing with real-world golfers.

The ball we played was a Bridgestone with a different dimple pattern that increased spin, increased height, and shortened distance by about 10% for a guy that hit his driver 220, 15% for a 280 yard drive, and 0% for a 165 yard drive.

The distance difference for an 8 iron was about 3-5 yards for all but the slowest swing speeds which actually saw a very slight increase in distance.

Each group spent about 30 minutes discussing their experiences with a USGA/R&A staffer after the round.  Unfortunately, the USGA/R&A did't say a thing about when the rolled ball would become official.

But to me, the fact that the R&A sent a guy from Scotland just to help out for one weekend in Philly says they are taking it seriously.

(Merry Christmas!)

Dan,

Sorry, I find it laughable. This smacks so much of typical corporate bureaucracy. They will create a group to find out what need be done, have someone build test balls, then generate a group to study the results, and have someone write a report of the findings. We'll get back to you in about ten years. It sounds like the US auto industry in the 1970's.

Fact is, they can reset to rules in a flash if they were serious; faster than it took to assess your group's input. They have more than enough data. If not, they haven't been paying attention.

Set the rules and have the manufacturers figure out how to produce said balls; high spin, low spin to serve different market segments.

They can fly back and forth to the moon, it won't make a bit of difference as to what should have been done 10-years ago. The writing was on the wall then, now the wall is plastered with messages. Are they blind, or spineless?

.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tony,
I hear you...

My guess is that their biggest fear is lawsuits.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I’ve received an email reminding me that this was taking place.  Mark Pearce's son also played in a similar day this summer in Scotland.


I started off this thread in an inflammatory way and that doesn't seem to have gathered much support.  What if the idea was flipped and whatever publicity WE can raise is directed to supporting this effort by the governing bodies?   This would have the effect of keeping these trials in the public eye. Like Tony I fear for the outcome of the trials, that they will be diluted by compromise and delay.  Our efforts can simultaneously keep the pressure on the bodies to drive this effort forward and serve as a popular mandate for them when times get hard?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Dan

Question is how serious were the R&A and the guy who attended and what was his major concerns. If I remember correctly, the ball never really came into the equation when discussing the 2010 Open

I think these trips need to be looked at by the position held with the R&A of these individuals who attend outing like yours.

Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tony Muldoon,
Not only did you need to brush up on the current status of the Titleist V. Callaway situation  , you should also have a look at the 5 patents that Titleist has applied for under the heading of "High Performance Golf Ball Having A Reduced Distance".

They made these applications in May of 2009:

20090124422
20090124423
20090124424
20090124425
and
20090124428

You can plug the numbers in here:   http://www.pat2pdf.org/pat2pdf/foo.pl

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tony Ristola,

What you're leaving out is that change in ball construction takes a lot of up front capital and no one is going to make the investment until trials are conducted and until the USGA settles on all the parameters, like overall distance, fps of travel, spin, etc.

There is nothing to be gained by taking the approach you are suggesting, that sort of tactic goes nowhere, as shown by the Ping fiasco. Compare that with how the Callaway incident was resolved and it becomes evident that cooperation, not confontation, makes for better policy. 

So, now we see the USGA/R&A took the necessary steps to 'roll back' grooves which will help to put back the premium on drivng the ball in the fairway instead of bombing it as far as one can. We see testing of reduced distance balls. We see companies like Acushnet taking patents on golf balls with lo-COR, lower weight, harder covers, softer centers, highly imaginative dimple patterns, and other highly technical functions that are geared to bring a reduced distance ball to market that has the same characteristics of play as the premium balls we are used to.

It seems that the prayers of the Holy Rollbackers are being answered, and they cannot see that their Rapture is at hand.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Gentlemen,

I've read through these comments but I don't think I've seen a suggestion for exactly what action you'd like the ruling bodies to take.

A question arises as I was reading from an collection of essays by Herbert Warren Wind last night and came across this in an article about the 1970 Open Championship:

"Though the Old Course measure 6,951 from the back tees, for world-class pros it is only a drive and pitch course unless a wind is abroad.  It also helps if the ground is fast and fiery, but for the 1970 Open it was the slowest it has ever been.  Last year a sprinkling system was installed on the greens and tees, and this year some spots on the fairways have also been artificially watered, so the fine natural fescue has already been overrun to a surprising degree by a coarse, bunchy grass not much different from the strains on inland American courses.  Accordingly, on that windless...day of the opening round, the Old Course was no match for the field...21 players..equaled par, 72, and another 43 broke par...Tony Jacklin went out in 29..."

A couple of things stand out for me:

1) In 1970 a 6,951-yd course was deemed a "drive and pitch course" for world-class players;
2) Ill-advised maintenance practices did as much or perhaps more damage to the Old Course's defenses than strong players with advanced technology.

That was forty years ago.  We have instituted bifurcation of threads, but I think this is the appropriate one to ask the question--exactly what in equipment terms are we going to roll  back to?  What are the claims and resolutions of your proposed petition?

[Tony Ristola]

Tony Ristola,

What you're leaving out is that change in ball construction takes a lot of up front capital and no one is going to make the investment until trials are conducted and until the USGA settles on all the parameters, like overall distance, fps of travel, spin, etc.

There is nothing to be gained by taking the approach you are suggesting, that sort of tactic goes nowhere, as shown by the Ping fiasco. Compare that with how the Callaway incident was resolved and it becomes evident that cooperation, not confontation, makes for better policy.  

So, now we see the USGA/R&A took the necessary steps to 'roll back' grooves which will help to put back the premium on drivng the ball in the fairway instead of bombing it as far as one can. We see testing of reduced distance balls. We see companies like Acushnet taking patents on golf balls with lo-COR, lower weight, harder covers, softer centers, highly imaginative dimple patterns, and other highly technical functions that are geared to bring a reduced distance ball to market that has the same characteristics of play as the premium balls we are used to.

It seems that the prayers of the Holy Rollbackers are being answered, and they cannot see that their Rapture is at hand.

The Ping fiasco was due to different interpretations of The Rules. How to measure the width of the grooves. It was due to having rules that were unclear. Different fruit.

They do not need the manufacturers in this. They are the governing bodies. They can come out, set a date for the ball to be reduced, and let the mfg.'s figure it out. This is all smoke and mirrors... as the governing bodies know... or should know what need be done. If they don't know, I question their competence. It's not like this has been a problem for a mere few weeks.

The companies interests are not tied to the good of the game, but protecting/increasing their market share and profit. They shouldn't be at the table. The governing bodies don't need their input.

As for the crap they've pulled with clubs, had they acted on the ball, making clubs obsolete would be unnecessary. So in the last few years club members have had to replace perfectly good drivers that gave them nary an advantage, and now it's the same with a set of irons. All of this could have been taken care of by the ball. And the new irons? My bet is they will spin just as aggressively as the old.

They're playing around the edges as Rome burns. Of course the mfg.'s love it... they get to sell more sticks.

.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tony,
The Ping issue is completey relevant. If the USGA/R&A move against the manufacturers it will cost them millions of dollars to win and much more if they lose.

As far as their competence goes, well, I see that no one else has entered that arena in the many, many decades of their existence.
 
The price of equipment is irrelevant. A 10 year old driver in the hands of the average player works as well as a new one. Just because a person falls for marketing has little to do with the distance issue.

Actually, what would have more of an impact than anything else is for you, and others who believe like you, to refuse to build anything longer than 6,700 yards.

I seriously doubt we'll see that happening anytime soon.

[Tony Ristola]

Tony,
The Ping issue is completey relevant. If the USGA/R&A move against the manufacturers it will cost them millions of dollars to win and much more if they lose.

As far as their competence goes, well, I see that no one else has entered that arena in the many, many decades of their existence.
 
The price of equipment is irrelevant. A 10 year old driver in the hands of the average player works as well as a new one. Just because a person falls for marketing has little to do with the distance issue.

Actually, what would have more of an impact than anything else is for you, and others who believe like you, to refuse to build anything longer than 6,700 yards.

I seriously doubt we'll see that happening anytime soon.

Jim,

The PING issue is only relevant in that the governing bodies need to lay down clear rulings.

Cost of a potential law suit is irrelevant. It's their duty to govern, and they have enough in dues to take on the mfg.'s. If they don't, I'd like to know what they do with the masses in TV and membership revenue.  If they forfeit their duty because of potential suits, they're failing in their duty to lead. If they go to court and lose, then we know they are useless and can start again.

I'll correct myself on the grooves issue; the ruling immediately impacts only 1% at the moment. I'll miss my 13-year old Ping ISI's.

As for the driver, I agree. So why did they render perfectly good and harmless drivers obsolete, force oodles of club golfers to buy new clubs when it didn't make a lick of difference.

I've built only one course longer than 7,000 yards... and one less than 6,000... the remainder in the 6,600 - 6,900 yard range... but reality is for many developers, they see 7,000 yards as a threshold. Today 7,000 yards isn't quite what it used to be. I remember a 400-yard hole being a good test, a mid-iron approach. Today it's a wedge of some sort, depending on the conditions. The cumulative effects have made it so, the ball is the only way to correct the insanity... and the delay in acting is insane.

From 2002, 2003... same/similar discussion... same arguments... same inaction by our governing bodies.
Their inability to make a decision "for the good of the game" is mind blowing.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,3493.0/
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,4827.0/
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,3404.0/

.