[Tom Huckaby]

Tom D:

RIGHT ON!  That's just how I see it playing out also.  Then if the answer is "regular", the snickers begin.

AGC - you make a good point, and for that reason this ball won't be for everybody.  But then again, neither are forged irons.  And it's not all THAT long ago that the main difference between golf balls was balata or surlyn cover.  MANY players used balata knowing full well they wouldn't go as far.  Of course many did so for "feel" or spin issues, so it's not a perfect comparison.

So it's hard to say these rolled-back balls will be universally accepted; my take is just that there will be a segment that wants them initially.  Hopefully that segment will grow, due to coolness/tourney requirement/play like the pros issues become more pervasive.  But it's uncertain, for sure.

TH

[JohnV]

Remember the Joint Statement of Principles says:

The R&A and the USGA continue to believe that the retention of a single set of rules for all players of the game, irrespective of ability, is one of golf's greatest strengths. The R&A and the USGA regard the prospect of having permanent separate rules for elite competition as undesirable and have no current plans to create separate equipment rules for highly skilled players.

The R&A and the USGA are not planning on having a tournament ball and a "regular" ball.  If they roll it back, it will be all balls.  Of course, they could always say their plans changed and change the statement, but I doubt it.

As for Titleist patenting their ball, I'm not surprised, since Calloway just sued them for patent infringement on the Pro-V1.  They aren't going to let someone else get ahead of them on this.

[Tom Huckaby]

JV: understood.  I'm just using those words for ease of use here.  Because of course the old ball will still be available for purchase... won't it?

But that does bring up a good point.  If all that is legal for use is the new rolled-back ball, then of course the market becomes HUGE.  Illegal balls exist now - and the market for them is tiny.  Wouldn't that just continue to be the case, more or less?

TH

[Ted Kramer]

What do you guys think about these ideas . . .

*Many weekend players want to play what the pros play
*Many lousy players play the tips because that is what the pros do
*Many 10 handicaps play blades because Tiger does
*Nike, for example, could come up with an awsome marketing campaign based on being a "keeper of the game" with a rolled-back ball
*If the pros play a rolled back ball the weekend players will follow

-Ted

Here's the risk, though.  In the past, the wish to play what the pros play has meant getting better, or at least believing that you might.  That will NOT be the case here, and that makes it different than anything before, and therefore greatly uncertain.

Any 10 handi with a 3 iron muscle-back in his or her bag who thinks that his/her clubs are improving his/her game is out of his/her mind.

I know a lot of 10 handis who play blades. They would hit a lot more greens with any number of more forgiving irons, and thus, "get better". And these people aren't playing blades for reasons having to do with the game's equipment getting out of hand. . .they play blades because Tiger, Sergio, Els, and a lot of the Big Boys plays blades.

-Ted

[George Pazin]

What's the downside to trying the tournament ball? Even for the manufacturer?

Does anyone want to try to make the case that all balls made by all the companies sell well? New models pop up all the time, and old ones become obsolete in months, in some cases. Is putting another option out there going to bankrupt anyone? No way.

How many people bought the Tiger Woods ball, even though it was repeatedly said that few people other than Tiger could use it effectively? Heck, didn't Nike put out a David Duval ball briefly? Can't imagine that sold anywhere near what a tournament ball would, yet it didn't bankrupt them.

How about that Taylor Made Innergel ball that McCord was touting a few years ago? That disappeared in the blink of an eye, yet Taylor Made is considering re-entering the ball fray.

[JohnV]

Assuming the ball still meets the other ball specifications for weight, size and symmetry, Titleist could submit these balls for inclusion on the conforming ball list and then start selling them.

I have just gone to Titleist's website and sent them the following e-mail:

I have noted with interest that Titleist has filed for a patent on a reduced flight ball.  I think that you should submit this to the USGA for inclusion on the conforming ball list and then start selling it to those people who would like the option of playing  courses with balls that make the game more interesting.

Thank you for your consideration.

I'll be interested to see if I get a reply.

To do something similar, go to http://www.titleist.com/corporate/emailus.asp

Perhaps if enough people do it, they might consider manufacturing it without waiting for the USGA to roll the ball back officially.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I know a lot of 10 handis who play blades. They would hit a lot more greens with any number of more forgiving irons, and thus, "get better". ...

Do you have any empirical evidence that demonstrates this conclusion?

[Ted Kramer]

...
I know a lot of 10 handis who play blades. They would hit a lot more greens with any number of more forgiving irons, and thus, "get better". ...

Do you have any empirical evidence that demonstrates this conclusion?

No.
Do you really think that I need any?

-Ted

[Garland Bayley]

Ted,

Have you ever seen any club manufacturer tout any real data on the "game improvement" irons? If not, don't you wonder why not?
Note: If you were to change your statement to "hit a few more greens" then I wouldn't be asking these questions.

[Ted Kramer]

Ted,

Have you ever seen any club manufacturer tout any real data on the "game improvement" irons? If not, don't you wonder why not?
Note: If you were to change your statement to "hit a few more greens" then I wouldn't be asking these questions.

Would hitting 2 more greens per round, over 50 rounds per year, during the next 40 years be "a lot" of greens? Or would that be "a few" greens?

And if this anonymous 10 handi only hits 6 greens per round, wouldn't an additional 2 per round, or 33% more, be a lot.

Or would a really strong tiger be able to beat up a lion? Or could a really fast dog beat a horse in a race? Or could my dad beat up your dad?

I didn't know you had the official definition of "a lot" and "a few". I'll be sure to be more careful with my words next time.

-Ted

[Jim_Kennedy]

John,
You said: "The R&A and the USGA are not planning on having a tournament ball and a "regular" ball.  If they roll it back, it will be all balls."

What's are the chances that the USGA/R&A don't force a rollback, they just request manufacturers to submit reduced distance balls that conform, which should be no problem, and then let tournament venues select the category of ball they want played at their events?  

[RSLivingston_III]

The US already did a tech limit on the ball (please no more "roll back") in 1931 and it seems to have gone smoothly.

[Jay Flemma]

Ralph:  what more can you tell us about the 1931 rollback?  How, how much, what brands, any thing else interesting?

I dont agree that "if the pros play a rollback ball, people will  buy it" or if Nike said "be a keeper of the game, play a rollback" that people would do it.

Why?  Most people more interested in the game with more than just a passing fancy dont like or use Nike equipment so won't fall victim to a Nike campaign.  I dont think they'd do it if Titleist told them to do it...I wont...and I dont think I should be forced to play a roll back ball because .02% of the population are ruining golf for the rest of us...that being said, we need the tournament ball now at ST. Andrews and ANGC NOW....and then we can bring back Merion!

[JohnV]

Jim,

That is what they would be doing if they created a tournament ball specification.  They would have two different conforming ball lists and a tournament could select which one it wanted to require.  They would not "require" its use in tournaments (other than their own events), but would leave it up to the event.  But, in doing that, they would, in their opinion, be creating two sets of rules for balls and I don't think they want to do that.

[JohnV]

Jay, read my In My Opinon piece on the Balloon ball for more on the 1931 ball.

[Ted Kramer]

Ralph:  what more can you tell us about the 1931 rollback?  How, how much, what brands, any thing else interesting?

I dont agree that "if the pros play a rollback ball, people will  buy it" or if Nike said "be a keeper of the game, play a rollback" that people would do it.

Why?  Most people more interested in the game with more than just a passing fancy dont like or use Nike equipment so won't fall victim to a Nike campaign.  I dont think they'd do it if Titleist told them to do it...I wont...and I dont think I should be forced to play a roll back ball because .02% of the population are ruining golf for the rest of us...that being said, we need the tournament ball now at ST. Andrews and ANGC NOW....and then we can bring back Merion!

Can I ask you a few questions?

How far do you generally hit the ball off the tee?
What ball do you play?
How often do you play?
What is your handicap?
If the USGA made your current ball of choice non-conforming but it was still available, would you continue to play it?

-Ted

[RSLivingston_III]

Handicaps could only be based on the new ball once implimented. If you aren't playing it, what happens when you play an event and have to use it then? Especially then when your competition is looking over your shoulder to check what your playing?
Once implimented, everyone will start using it, except for the public course weekend warriors playing with there buddies.

[Garland Bayley]

Ted,

2 out of 18 is a lot. I am thinking less than 1 out of 90 as a few with the Pro V. Game improvement clubs may have been more effective with the balata balls. I don't believe the amount of improvement with game improvement irons is that significant. Of course, I don't have empirical data either. I have always told myself I would conduct experiments with my old blades and my new game improvment clubs, but somehow I always find things more interesting/important todo.

[RSLivingston_III]

Ralph:  what more can you tell us about the 1931 rollback?  How, how much, what brands, any thing else interesting?

I dont agree that "if the pros play a rollback ball, people will  buy it" or if Nike said "be a keeper of the game, play a rollback" that people would do it.

Why?  Most people more interested in the game with more than just a passing fancy dont like or use Nike equipment so won't fall victim to a Nike campaign.  I dont think they'd do it if Titleist told them to do it...I wont...and I dont think I should be forced to play a roll back ball because .02% of the population are ruining golf for the rest of us...that being said, we need the tournament ball now at ST. Andrews and ANGC NOW....and then we can bring back Merion!

Can I ask you a few questions?

How far do you generally hit the ball off the tee?
What ball do you play?
How often do you play?
What is your handicap?
If the USGA made your current ball of choice non-conforming but it was still available, would you continue to play it?

-Ted

Jay
The 1931 ball was a tech limit placed on production that required the balls to be 1.68" or larger and 1.55oz. or lighter. The balls previously were required to be 1.62" or larger and 1.62oz or lighter. The complaint was the balls were almost uncontrollable in the wind and the weight was upped to 1.62oz @ 1.68". Even though people were still playing the larger lighter balls, I think it was the begining of the end for diversity in size and weight choices. I will post some ball ads when I have time to demonstrate what was happening.

Ted
The last few years have been tough for me and my play has been subpar. I was try to give some examples though;
I was a 5-9 handicap (hickory), but have been shooting 85-95 in the last couple of years.
Layt year was happy to hit it 230. Was able to hit drives up to 280-290 on firm fairways in the US, typically used a Brassie or Driving Iron in Scotland for most of my tee ball shots. Most better players that have tried my clubs have hit the Driver within 5-25 yards of there modern driver. 10 yards seemed to be the average, if the club fit them. That was up to two years ago, nothing very recent.
I play a regular ProV1.
If health this year, I hope to get back to playing 3-4 times a week. 2-3 times a week of range/practice.
I will happily play whatever the conforming ball is, and also play the distance appropriate tees.

[Ted Kramer]

Ralph,

Sounds like you are true traditionalist.
I've never even seen a hickory in person, let alone hit a ball with one. I'm going to have to do something to change that unfortunate fact sometime soon.

My quesions were posed to Jay so I could try to get a decent handle on what segment of the golfing population he fits into. While I don't share his opinions, they do interest me a great deal.

And I wish you a healthy 2006!!

-Ted

[Garland Bayley]

Hey Ted,

Jay is a short hitter. We all know that.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Jay:

I get where you're coming from, truly I do.

But I ask you this:  if this change is made, would you play an illegal ball just because it goes as far as you had become accustomed to?

I'm sure SOME people would - but not much more than use the illegal balls that are indeed available even today, of those that bought the Callaway ERC driver after it was declared illegal.

So no, I don't think many people would play the rolled-back ball just because Titleist offered it, or Nike, or whoever.  Some would, for the reasons I listed before.

But if the USGA/R&A comes out with this as the new legal ball, well... to me that's all she wrote - it becomes used by 99% of golfers.

TH

[JohnV]

Handicaps could only be based on the new ball once implimented. If you aren't playing it, what happens when you play an event and have to use it then? Especially then when your competition is looking over your shoulder to check what your playing?

You get a Handicap Index which is converted to a course handicap by using the Slope tables.  And your score is converted back to a differential by reversing the process.  This already allows you to play one round from the blue tees and another from the white tees and have a handicap that might be different depending on which tee you play from that day and post both scores for your handicap.

Effectively all a shorter ball would mean is that you have a longer set of tees that you are playing from that day.   Therefore, there would just need to be two different Course Ratings and Slope Ratings for each set of tees.  One for the current ball and one for the shorter one.

If you are playing in a competition that requires the shorter ball, you would probably be DQ'ed for using the longer one, just like if you were to use a ball that wasn't conforming today.  It seems to me that the USGA should require a certain marking on all shorter balls so that they were obvious to help avoid accidental or intentional switching to a longer ball.

[Tom Huckaby]

All very true, JV.

But isn't the assumption that they aren't going to bifurcate?  That is, that the new ball will be the ONLY legal ball; that is, the old ones that go further won't be legal to use any time?

I'm confused...

TH

[JohnV]

Tom,

That would be correct, but if they did bifurcate it could be handled as I described.  If they don't bifurcate, you and I could be very busy re-rating a lot of courses unless they come up with a mathmatical formula to re-rate all courses.

Even if they permantenlty bifurcate, there probably would be a period where both balls would be allowed, at least for handicap purposes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()