I just cannot imagine that Augusta is going to make such a move unilaterally.

Ask any player about Augusta National and they will tell you what a fine line there is between a great shot and a mediocre one ... on several holes they have to land the ball within a yard of the perfect distance if they have any hope of a makeable birdie putt.

So how in the world would they adjust if they arrive on Monday and are given a new ball which doesn't fly the same distance as the one they play every other week?

They may be the leaders in working toward a more sensible golf ball for the Tour pros, but unless they can convince the Tour or the USGA to make the change with them, I cannot see them making the switch.

....alright, I give up on the distance thing ....just let it go...we will adapt or perish.
Hell, even #1 at TOC was once two stout smacks of a feather ball before paying your third over the burn....talk about a future mean par three...whoa.

So how in the world would they adjust if they arrive on Monday and are given a new ball which doesn't fly the same distance as the one they play every other week?

Give them the ball a month before the tournament.

OK....if they do move to a ball that gets less distance, do they also go with one that curves more as well....or is it less distance while still keeping the current straight ball that has made all the tree planting at least a little strategic.

Staying in the chute on #18 would be a real thrill with the curvy short ball

It would seem more appropriate for the R&A to take the lead on a competition ball for the Open than ANGC at this point.  Augusta's current length is far more than St.Andrews as an example.

One minor problem being, of course, that such a ball doesn't  currently exist...

Rich,
I have a Dell computer box in my garage full of old golf balls, and 3 or 4 sleeves of various balatas and Professionals as well.  That's not the same, of course, as those balls still being in production, which they are not.

It would be cool, though, for you and I to become the exclusive suppliers of golf balls for the Masters!  I'd have to tighten security in my garage dramatically.

So how in the world would they adjust if they arrive on Monday and are given a new ball which doesn't fly the same distance as the one they play every other week?

just to play Devil's advocate...don't the balls fly a different distance every time the pros tee it up at Castle Pines?

The biggest obstacle to geting a complete redesignation of ball criteria for legality is agreement of the ball manufacturers on those criteria.  It is probably developments now being tested for the next "generation of balls" that is the obstacle.  All that R&D money already spent. Surely Calloway, Bridgestone and of course Titleist has such development underway.  How far in advance are the companies already planning?  One, two, three seasons?

Given that they will all have to produce new balls to meet these new, currently unstated criteria, I do not understand the reluctance on their parts other than this R&D money already spent to get on board.  The differences will remain, they will just be a proportional one.

New balls for absolutely everyone!  All golfers.  What an opportunity for sales.  THE american dream, a whole new market (the same old one - they just must have the new product.  If the new balls are required for handicap purposes, its done.

It is rather more likely that determining these new ball criteria is the obstacle.


Very over-simplified:
Lets say arbitrarily that you keep the same ball size and weight. (A good idea)
Use a standard club, face orientation, clubhead speed and angle of attack for testing, or use the same bench criteria with new standards.  Voila!

Using a 120 mph speed (chs) or 100 mph chs is probably irrelevant or at least negligable.

Initial velocity (iv)  of 180 with 120 chs reduced by 20% from (again just #'s) is 144, with 150 iv from 100 chs  is 120

Side spin reduced a 20-30% figure, using same club percentages are the same

Back spin (There is no such thing as top spin, it is just a lower or absent back spin.) again reduce by a determined percentage.

... and a few other technical matters

THAT's all that needs agreement.  


If ANGC decides to do it first and goes with a single manufacturer, who loses?  All the other manufacturers.

Question is:

Should that happen who will fall in line and how quickly? (That's two questions.)

 

Titleist has so many ______ ______ golf shop professionals on their staff hawking their wares, public, CC-FAD and private that that is very unlikely to happen, IMObservation.  Titleist is just fine and always be.  Wally and the boys are plenty safe.

Most golfers are very brand loyal, that's why Titleist is on top.  They made the best balls back in the 1930's, 1940, 1950's, 1960's and 1970' and 80's, too - while every one else's wound balls were not as good, liquid, solid or steel core, no matter, Titleist's windings and balata were better.  Only in the 1990's did the balls all come together quality wise with teh advent of solid balls.  Pure plastic is pure plastic, all you need is a good chemist, change the polymer of your competitor jsut a little and voila! your own patent protected formula.

That's the unspoken flattner in the ball world.  Titleist remains on top because of brand loyalty, not quality.

What ball did YOUR father play?

Bill – I agree with you, but I suppose my point is that Titleist is the only company that really runs the risk of losing something as a result of a rollback. We can debate the level of that risk all we want, but there’s no question they have a comfortable share of the market right now. Changing the specs on the ball could affect that.

So what’s holding the USGA up?