[RobertWalker]

ClubHead speed has an impact on distance.

[Dan King]

RobertWalker writes:
I repeat...(perplexed face here)
Were there any lawsuits when the RANDA did away with the small ball?

I'd repeat what I wrote above, but it's too much to type, just read it.

Your comparing apples and oranges.

What would be the basis for suing the ruling bodies if they rolled back the OAD, without outlawing existing stock piles.

So you are saying that the USGA would leave it up to the manufacturers when the ball would change? There is always going to be some amount of stock piles.  There is going to be innovation that the manfacturers want to see a return on. What would you expect the manufacturers to do while waiting for the roll back?

Also, can clubhead speed be governed?

I don't see how, nor do I think it should. Golfers with great club-head speed (who can also control the ball) should be rewarded. It's not like we are trying to outlaw relative length. Develop a swing that hits the ball a long way and you should be rewarded.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"For many years I had an impression of my golf swing, which was: that I vividly resembled Tom Weiskopf in the takeaway and Dave Marr on the downswing. Unfortunately, there came a day when I was invited to have my golf swing filmed via a video camera. Something I will never do again. When it was played back, what I saw -- what you would have seen -- was not Weiskopf and Marr but a man simultaneously climbing into a sweater and falling out of a tree."
--Alister Cooke

[T_MacWood]

You right clubhead speed does increase distance, under my proposal golfers with ultra fast clubhead speeds will be able to hit the ball further -- further into the parking lot.

You can make a 90* turn at 100 MPH with some today's ultrawide space-age-material tires, but try it in a car with tires that are solid rubber with narrow treads and wooden spokes -- you'll find yourself in a ditch.

[RobertWalker]

Huh? (insert perplexed face here)

[Mike_Cirba]

What happens post-transition when you happen to "find" one of the older, now illegal balls?  

Could you use it?  Or should I tell my dad to turn over his 2000+ golf ball collection to a museum?  I swear sometimes he gets more pleasure out of finding balls than playing!

[RobertWalker]

Mike Cirba,
Good question. Follow me on this one. This is how it would work.
1   The USGA sets a roll back goal of 7.5 yards in 5 years. (1.5 yards/year)
2   In any given year, you can only compete using that year’s ball.
3   All approved balls are “grandfathered in”, and are approved for score posting (handicapping) purposes.
4   The public is not inconvenienced and the OAD is gradually rolled back.
5   The Manufacturers are competing within the same arena, and have no reason to sue.
Now everyone should be happy….he will now have his “competition ball”.

Finally, the long hitters are still going to be hitting short irons into long par 4’s, because they are hitting the
ball a ton today. For instance, Tiger will have 94.5 yards into 18 at Augusta instead of 87yards.

[Mike_Cirba]

Robert;

Wouldn't that be better expressed as a % rather than a yardage?  In other words, let's say 1%, for discussion purposes.

In that case, Tiger's 330 yard drive would go 326.7, losing 3.3 yards.

My crooked 240 yard drive would go 237.6, losing 2.3 yards.  

A 1% difference over 5 years, based on taking 1% OFF OF the prior year's ball would have a cumulative effect, getting close to the 10% or so that everyone seems to think is about the right number.

Does this make sense, or am I losing it?

[dratcliffe]

Hey, Guys...

I had only a brief comment on the thread topic, but I wanted to say "hi" to everyone... I was just passing through (I actually DO that occasionally) and wanted to put my two cents worth in.  It is so good to be able to come here months (even years) later and see the same guys posting!  

Dick!  How are you! Hibernation isn't exactly how I'd describe my situation, but it is good to post once in a while.  I'll try to stop by more frequently.  Tommy: Good to see you're still around! Things just wouldn't be as interesting if you weren't still keeping the kettle stirred!! I'm sure I've missed some good things.

Regarding the "competition" ball... I think it would be difficult for the USGA to adopt standards that would result in an acceptable solution.  A much more reasonable scenario would be the PGA Tour adopting a "Tournament" ball spec that was geared down from the current specs.  The USGA (and the R & A) could keep the approved list (and current specs) right where they are, because the "Tournament" ball would conform.  Each manufacturer could produce balls that conformed with this reduced distance ball, for sale to the general public as well as tournament competition.  Competitions could limit use to THESE golf balls through a notation on the notice to competitors or rules sheet... or not, as they chose.  Players could continue to play "approved" golf balls in regular play and in competitions where the "tournament" ball spec wasn't invoked.  This would allow the general golfing public to continue to benefit from something that would make the game more enjoyable to them, (and not be deemed "illegal, or "non-conforming") yet at the same time prevent the top 2% or so of the golfers out there from steamrolling the courses.  How's that for an idea??

[Dan King]

Del,

The idea of the competition ball came up before regarding the Men of Green.  John Morrissett has said it would be against the current Rules of Golf to restrict the balls that are used.  You can have the one-ball rule and the ball on the Conforming Ball list because those are allowed in Decisions. There is currently no decision allowing you to restrict the balls beyond the ones that are already restricted and still be playing by the Rules of Golf.

Of course, the USGA and R&A could change the Rules of Golf and allow the competition ball.

RobertWalker, I fail to understand why your system is better than just going to a competition ball and letting the masses follow voluntarily. More complicated, yes, but better? I don't see it.

Look at your proposal from Wally Uihlein's view.  Do you see him having a problem with your proposal?  He'd have to develop and manufacture a different ball every year -- a ball that would have minimal sales.

Also the USGA has recognized they made a mistake in allowing people to not follow the Rules of Golf and still post for handicaps (artificial devices.) They are moving away from such allowances (COR) not toward more.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"As far as the USGA is concerned, we (manufacturers) are merely commercial pimps who exist to corrupt the game. They don't ask us what we think, and they really do not actively solicit our input. The USGA guys are not interested in democracy and due process. Frankly, I think they have gotten to the point where they believe that if not for them, the game would be completely corrupted by the manufacturers."
--Wally Uihlein (chief executive officer of Acushnet Co.)

[T_MacWood]

Robert
As you pointed out, one of the reasons the ball is travelling so far is the increased clubhead speed. And one of the reasons they are generating more speed is the increased strength and conditioning of the modern golfer, there has been a great emphasis on becoming more fit. You combine that strength with improved shafts, lighter stronger materials, larger heads and much larger sweet spots and balls that resist curving, and you have the modern dilemma. Even the less fit seniors benefit from all these factors. The forgiveness of modern equipment has has increased the importance of strength and the ability to generate speed.

You can attempt to decrease the distance of the ball, but all distance measurements are relative to certain clubhead speed. You can turn back the ball by X%, but if clubhead speeds increase due to other equipment advancements, what good will turning the ball back do?

Not only does the distance the ball travels need to be addressed -- but also the size of clubs, the materials used for balls and clubs and the effects of dimple patterns.

The USGA and R&A needs to produce a standard ball -- made of a standard material both for the cover and the interior, with a standard dimple pattern -- no derivations. The other sports play with a standard ball, including materials and seams, why not golf.

They also need to standarize the size of clubheads, just as they limit the size and shape of grips. No oversized heads and I'd seriously consider forcing woods be made of wood, just as baseball requires wooden bats. Shaft materials also need to addressed.

If you stop innovation dead in its tracts players will need to look to other areas for improved results -- especially skill. Golf is a sport where it is man against course, man has been gaining dramatic advantages over the last few years and unfortunately the golf course has been forced follow suit -- the result has been detremental to the game. Wouldn't it be nice to put an end to it all -- the new refrain would be "we need to shorten our course".

[RobertWalker]

As I have said several times, I believe the OAD of the ball needs to be rolled back. Maybe in 2 year increments instead of 1 year, but I believe that the solution lies in rolling back that OAD. I do not oppose the idea of a competition ball, to the contrary I think there is already a competition ball.

Tom MacWood,
I have never said there is a problem with the ball, I have said that the ball may well be the solution. I am, however, opposed to the idea of 2 sets of rules in golf, and that is where a competition ball would take us. After all said and done, the players are flat out better, and stronger today than they were 25 years ago.
25 years ago, where was the long driver on the money list. Where is he today? (J Daly doesn't count)

[RobertWalker]

Tom MacWood,
Do you think that if the USGA implemented all of your ideas that there might be a lawsuit or 2? I think there might be, especially if I were manufacturing shafts and was told that I was defacto out of business because of a rules change.

[T_MacWood]

I have no idea where Jim Dent was on the money list, not very high. Golf is game of skill first, strength second. The importance of skill is being undermined by equipment that rewards uncontrolled speed and strength. If you have a combination of both skill and strength, like a Nicklaus or Woods, you will dominate -- but when banjo hitters are now bringing classic courses to their knees, something is wrong.

The ruling bodies are reponsible for protecting the integrity of the game, including her great venues. Of course they will be sued, but they are not responsible for protecting the ability of companies to make profit. And why won't they be able to make money, will they sell less equipment? If the game is protected and improved, won't there be more participation and in turn a potential for more sales?

[jack stack]

robert walker do you have any idea what your talking about    i would like to know where you get your ideas because if they are the same as the usgas the game is in trouble  

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Robert,

I appreciate your idea regarding a general rollback, but I think it's a bit like President Bush's proposed tax cut, which as I understand it, is supposed to provide a boost to the economy. But like the presidents plan, a five year rollback in the ball would be too little, too late, if it could be effective at all.

The increase in clubhead speed has been aided by lighter clubs and more consistency in the technology (shafts, driver faces, etc...), allowing players to swing significantly faster and more freely, wouldn't you agree? Again, technology is aiding the improvement a lot more than the conditioning and athleticism of the players.

So yes, to answer your question, clubhead speed can be governed assuming there is a governing body in touch with the past, present and future of the game. And yes, lawsuits will happen, but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't there a $200 million stash in the bank that was amassed for the purpose of discouraging equipment company lawsuits, or handling them when they arise? Isn't that why the USGA is so concerned with corporate tents at their US Open sites, to take the profits to protect the game. Because if that isn't the case, then they need to lose the corporate tent villages.
Geoff

[RobertWalker]

Jack Stack,
I think I know what I am talking about. What have I said that indicates otherwise?
Geoff,
When I bring up the idea that the ball needs to be rolled back, I am reminded that there will be lawsuits, and that would be bad. When others bring up going back to the 19th century, then the party line is "what is that $200 million for"?
The fact is, however, that a rollback in OAD is a good start.

[RobertWalker]

Tom MacWood,
Golf is a game where one tries to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes, and within the rules! (insert smiley face here)

[T_MacWood]

Robert
I think you may have confused golf with putt-putt. Golf is the game where one tries to head the long driving/money list.  

[Paul Turner]

Looking at the physics, changing the ball is the answer.

When the club and ball impact, the ball compresses and stores elastic energy in this compression.  The ball then transfers this energy into forward motion.  The club is much less important and can essentially be treated as rigid (even the ERC 11),when compared with the relatively huge amount of compression in the ball.  

The efficiency with which the ball transfers this elastic energy into foward motion is quantified as the Coefficient of Restitution (COR).  A perfect (elastic) collision which has 100% of the elastic energy transferred into motion of the ball would need a ball  with a  COR of 1, which is impossible in the real world.   A ball of playdough that sticks to the clubs surface has a COR of 0.

Because the ball COR essentially defines the ball velocity for a given club velocity,  then this where the laws need to be tightened up.  The maximum COR should be reduced.  The influence of club materials and shafts are much much smaller where distance is concerned.  

The COR is dependent to a small degree on the clubhead velocity i.e. it isn't quite a constant.  And I think that the latest apparent increase in length has been due to the manufacturers tuning their COR for the faster swing speed of todays players. The governing bodies have possibly not been testing at high enough club velocities.

Anyway, the club/ball manufacturers are actually right at the maximum of possible COR values (I think at about 0.8, compared for about 0.7 for wood/old ball) and so any further increase will be dominated by the players.  

In addition, if the ball was made slightly lighter it would not only fly less far but also deviate more on mishit shots. And so this could negate the effects of larger clubheads...

Enough of the physics!

[RobertWalker]

Paul Turner,
You took the words right out of my mouth!

[dratcliffe]

Dan,

Boy, I hate I missed the conversation regarding restricting the ball used in a specific competition.  I think I could argue a whole thread out of that one!  I would read 33-1 to ALLOW a committee to restrict the players to use of a certain type ball, as long as that ball was on the conforming list.

While 33-1 states the committee cannot waive a rule, I don't understand the basis for the interpretation that you can't specifically prohibit certain equipment, even if it IS normally allowed under the rules.  For example, you can prohibit the use of a caddy if you so desire...you can even be very specific in prohibiting the use of a caddy, to the point of excluding a parent from being a caddy during a junior tournament, but allowing a non-parent to be a caddy.  The whole idea of what you CAN prohibit under the rules is an interesting thing that I had never really considered...I might just have to investigate it further.

Even a rules change that specifically addressed a "competition" ball would not be ground-breaking, though.  Aren't there rules that specifically address tournament conditions (Temporary Immovable Obstructions comes to mind)?  

To me, defining a more restrictive ball that COULD be used for competition if the committee holding the competition so desires, yet keeping the conforming list intact(along with the current specifications) would be a whole lot easier to implement than any other suggestion I've seen.

Man, one post and I'm hooked again.    

[ForkaB]

Del

Great to see you (back?) on this site.

So, just how does the USGA justify banning perfectly conforming balls from its competitions just because they are not exactly the same as the other perfectly conforming balls which you have played in the course of the same round in that competition (the "one ball" rule)?

The answer?  They can't.

[Mike_Rewinski]

There is one very important point being missed in this discussion, it was brought up in regards to this topic when it was discussed several months ago. I had a conversation with a USGA official who is a member at my club about changing the OAD regulation, he said that one big problem faced by the USGA is the fact balls used by regular golfers travel further than 'tour' balls. This means that if they roll back the OAD the average golfer will lose a significant amount of distance because those Pinnacles and Top-Flites are longer than 'tour' balls. I believe that we had a post from a ball manufacturer's representative stating that this is true. This brings up the interesting question of 'is the average golfer hitting the ball too far?' If not then this lends support to the idea of a 'tour ball' rather than a rollback of the OAD.

[Dan King]

dratcliffe writes:
Boy, I hate I missed the conversation regarding restricting the ball used in specific competition. I think I could argue a whole thread out of that one! I would read 33-1 to ALLOW a committee to restrict the players to use of a certain type ball, as long as that ball was on the conforming list.

First I agree with you in principle. I think the USGA should allow a competition ball.  The question is:
If the Committee were to write as a condition of the competition that all balls must meet a standard that is lower than the one by the USGA could a player refuse and use a ball that did fit within the USGA guidelines, but not the Committees?  Whose side would the USGA take?

The answer from John Morrissett is that 33-1 does not allow a competition ball and therefore the USGA would side with the player.

The cases you mention: equipment, caddie, etc... are all covered by an existing Decision.

Click here for Decisions related to Rule 33-1

To me, defining a more restrictive ball that COULD be used for competition if the committee holding the competition so desires, yet keeping the conforming list intact(along with the current specifications) would be a whole lot easier to implement than any other suggestion I've seen.

You'll get no argument from me.  My only point is that it will require a change by the USGA and/or R&A to get it to happen.

Rich, The Reason why the USGA can allow a local rule specifying the one-ball rule is because it is written in the rules (Appendix I):

quote:1. Specification of the Ball (Note to Rule 5-1)

b. One Ball Condition

If it is desired to prohibit changing brands and types of golf balls during a stipulated round, the following condition is recommended:

Limitation on Balls Used During Round: (Note to Rule 5-1)

i.“One Ball” Condition

During a stipulated round, the balls a player uses must be of the same brand and type detailed by a single entry on the current List of Conforming Golf Balls.

The USGA could also write such a decision to cover the competition ball.  But to play by the Rules of Golf and have a competition ball the new decision is required.

We can argue what should or shouldn't (though I think we are in agreement) I'm only making the point that the current Rules of Golf do not allow a competition ball who's standards are different than the ones specified in Appendix III.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"Golf is the only game in which a precise knowledge of the rules can earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship."
 --Patrick Campbell

[ForkaB]

Dan

I never said that the USGA did not have the authority to do what they want to do vis a vis the "one ball" rule--after all they write the rules, don't they?

I just asked if they could "justify" the contradiction between that rule and their seeming opposition to the "competition ball" proposed-rule.  As far as I can see, they can't.

"I write the rules that make the whole world cry...."

B Manilow/J Dey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()