Bob, I think it was in April that the USGA informed all ball manufacturers of a request for such golf balls. Is that what you are referring to? - prototypes to aid in the USGA's studies?

Bobzee:

I'll tell you where Titleist's new rolled back ball is---it's in about a million pieces all over the USGA's outdoor test range in Far Hills NJ.

What happened, you see, is when the USGA got it they called up Nebraska's Long John Hurley to come and test the ball since he offered them his services (seriously). Long John's ball speed is the highest ever recorded in real life on the USGA's computer tests (seriously). Long John told them he'd ratchet his swing speed up slowly and that the first swing would only be one of his dink, cut/fade shots that generated 193mph at Merion but unfortunately when he put that first control swing on the rolled back ball----POOF---it was in a million piece all over the USGA test range.

Test Center to WallyU;

"Uh, Wally, back to the drawing boards, Pal!"

Bob:

As I've said for years, all this I&B stuff on the part of the golfing public and the ball and equipment manufacturers is essentially based on voluntarism. Perhaps this kind of intransigence on the part of the manufacturers means the long road of voluntarism that golfers and golf manufacturers have traveled all these decades with the two ruling golf organizations is almost at an end. If the two organizations ask them to produce some rolled back ball samples (as they have done back in March/April) and they don't do it, obviously the next step to get them to do it is to actually legislate with new ball rules and regs (they would have to do that right through negative "comment" in their formal "notice and comment" process). If they refuse to do it then the end will have come of close to one hundred years of I&B rules and regs administration on the part these two ruling bodies. If that happens golf and distance in the future will make what's happened to date pale by comparison.

Garland:

I think you're right about that. That may've been the result of the great "floater" ball debate. I don't have the specifics facts in front of me but I believe that new ball (rolled back) may've been slightly lighter (floater) but it was not very popular and it was pretty quickly dropped, as I recall.

John VB will know the details, but I recall that in the early 30's distance was rolled back by way of new requirements regarding minimum ball diameter and weight.

But I forget the details. It was a big deal at the time.

Bob

John VB will know the details, but I recall that in the early 30's distance was rolled back by way of new requirements regarding minimum ball diameter and weight.

He has already penned a piece here for the "In my Opinion" section.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionvanderborght.html

According to my recent issue of the Golf Letter the 1931 ball was 1.55 oz.  A gentleman named John Staver is advocating in the Golf Letter giving another look at the lighter ball.  He descibes the benefits of doing so.  Apparently there is an upper weight limit of 1.62 oz. but not a lower weight limit.

Gary Galyean's Golf Letter
P.O. Box 644393
Vero Beach, FL 32964
772/492-0016

(Heck, just dust off the machines that made the Professional 100 several years ago.)

I hope people will use this forum to keep the issue alive. I can't think of a more important one.

Bob

Bob

I played one of my old Professional 100s in May at Deal, and Wow, was that fun!  I've argued many times before that this should be the standard--long enough to satisfy the wannabes, enough spin to sort them out from the good players, and tough enough to not require 3-5 balls a round.

As for the last paragraph, fully agree, but I'm tired of spending 5 years pissing into the wind on this one.  You younger guys can pick up the qauntlet for a while.

Unfortunately, I think it IS rocket science, at least to some degree.

This is because:

1. the ProV generation of golf balls have a non-linear distance increase, so that

2. Professional golfers and a very few amateurs can get very, very large distance increases at extreme swing speeds that I can't get.  I hit the ball the same distance I always did, only much, much straighter.

3. Therefore, the trick becomes to find a new ball that reverses the non-linear gain in such a way as to remove the apparently disproportionate distance gains of the professionals without significantly shortening the distances of "ordinary" golfers.

4. The solution in #3 above then would mean that the ball would NOT reward a highly skilled player to the same extent that it would a less-skilled player (namely me!), which is a dumb idea.

5. Therefore, the thing to do is find a way to make the pros voluntarily either reduce their swing speeds back to the 110 mph range OR hit 3 woods and irons off the tee because it is in their own best interest to do so, which would be best accomplished by

6. A change upward in the minimum spin rate of the ball off the driver, with the spin rate increasing as the swing speed does, so that the curvature of the ball becomes much, much more pronounced than it currently is.  However,

7. Now the Topflites, Pinnacles, and so forth that the great mass of the golf world uses will spin too much, not go as far, get lost more frequently, and cause the game to cost more and take longer!  Another dumb idea...

So, the bottom line is, we're in a tight spot!    Perhaps some good rocket science is exactly what we need, but that may take awhile.

Or, how about more courses designed like Riviera, Harbor Town, or Colonial on Tour? Especially if they were kept as firm and fast (read: green is not the goal).

If the guys played these courses three out of four weeks, I guarantee you they would clamour for the old professional because of its workability.

I understand the econimics behind the TPC generation of Tour venues, but the proof is in the pudding. How did the FLOGGERS do at those three sites this year? Did they even play?