"The complete quote is as follows:
'the ball seemed to go no more offline than usual... if that's possible to say for a player of my limited skill"

Garland:

I actually spoke with the Tech Center on that basic subject too and the basic message I heard was that a high spin rate golf ball hit with a driver by a high swing speed player would have it's up and down trajectory effected a good deal more than it would its sideways performance. This would somewhat contradict Deane Beamon's primary contention that a higher spin rate golf ball would have the effect of contributing to far more wild shots by good players.

Quote from: TEPaul on September 05, 2006, 11:32:12 AM

"The complete quote is as follows:
'the ball seemed to go no more offline than usual... if that's possible to say for a player of my limited skill"

Garland:

I actually spoke with the Tech Center on that basic subject too and the basic message I heard was that a high spin rate golf ball hit with a driver by a high swing speed player would have it's up and down trajectory effected a good deal more than it would its sideways performance. This would somewhat contradict Deane Beamon's primary contention that a higher spin rate golf ball would have the effect of contributing to far more wild shots by good players.

Thanks Tom,

That is good information. However, the scientist in me wants to know what were the methods used to conduct the experiment, were they valid, and who has replicated the result? The logician in me says that makes sense, suppose the driver has 9 degrees of loft, what player is trying to hit the ball with a driver that is 9 degrees open or closed?

The subtle thing said by what you report is that the USGA says the higher spinning ball will go offline more than the lower spinning ball. But then we all knew that. So the total result is that the higher spinning ball balloons when struck at high speeds and goes more offline when not struck perfectly square. Sounds like a good pointer to how to start regulating future balls to me.  

Garland,
With the danger of oversimplifying what he has written, Tom Paul has been advocating exactly that on this website for several years now, as opposed to a "rollback" or bifurcation.  The issue would be finding a way to do it that wouldn't negatively impact the rank and file of the golf world, OR take away the skills of the professionals around the greens.  That is NOT easy, and it is something the USGA continues to research and work on.

Quote from: A.G._Crockett on September 05, 2006, 12:37:05 PM

Garland,
With the danger of oversimplifying what he has written, Tom Paul has been advocating exactly that on this website for several years now, as opposed to a "rollback" or bifurcation.  The issue would be finding a way to do it that wouldn't negatively impact the rank and file of the golf world, OR take away the skills of the professionals around the greens.  That is NOT easy, and it is something the USGA continues to research and work on.

Perhaps you can explain to me what you mean by rollback and why it would be wrong. In baseball, someone discovered that throwing a spitter gave them an advantage. Baseball rolled back the rules to outlaw it. Did that unfairly negatively impact the rank and file of the burgeoning cadre of spitball throwers?
Later someone discovered that using sandpaper on the ball gave them an advantage. Baseball rolled that one back too.


P.S. I am glad to hear that Tom Paul and I have been on the same side of this discussion all this time.