Interesting comment by Mickelson

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Jeff,

Your argument is a legitimate part of the equation. But l'll say this. Courses are looking for length. I'm consulting on some minor bunker restoration at a Bell club and they are constantly looking for length, or fighting suggestions to expand greens that have shrunk to nothing. Why? Because the good players believe the course is too easy. Who cares right? Except that most courses listen to good players and ignore the rest. This is traditional in golf and will continue to be I'm afraid. Tour golf influences the everyday game in good and bad ways.

So the constant "progress" does affect the overall game in many different ways. Most ways are rather unfair and for silly reasons, but it does happen and will continue to.
Geoff

[THuckaby2]

That makes great sense to me, David.

But the $64K question is, will that make any sense to the 98%?

In any case, you have made a good start, as the 98% is now down to 97.999 - you've convinced me!  

TH

[DMoriarty]

Are non-pro big hitters hitting the ball farther and turning the great courses into pitch and putts?  Are the great private clubs pitch and putts for members?  I understand that the pros are murdering courses, but there is a flip side to some of the technology advances.

Jeff, courses certainly aren't pitch and putts for me either.  But the problem is that courses are being built, and more importantly, "restored" with the professsional golfer in mind.  As the distance between the pro golfer and the recreational golfer grows, it becomes impossible to accomodate both on the same course.  

[Jeff Goldman]

I concede the point.  Even more, I have heard discussed here that sometimes club members don't want their course to have the reputation of being too easy (or having slow greens), so they are often willing to undertake renovations and (and speed up greens, which requires softening them) that may hurt original features.  

Jeff

[DMoriarty]

But the $64K question is, will that make any sense to the 98%?

I think the p.r. machines at Titleist and Nike could go a long way to selling the idea . . . if their bottom line depended on it.

I can see the Nike add now.  Tiger Woods on a course with some overweight hack (me, for instance;)  Tiger crushes one 300 down the middle and looks satisfied;  Hack slaps one 270 with a smug look on his face.  Tiger looks frustrated.  Cut to long par 3; Tiger pulls a 5 iron and knocks it stiff;  hack pulls a 4 iron and hits it just outside Tiger.  Tiger scowls and shakes his head.  Cut to black screen with white lettering, and swoosh.  "The new Nike Rec 4.  Distance that will make even a Tiger sweat."

[THuckaby2]

That's perfect, David.  You sure you aren't an ad exec?  

TH

[DMoriarty]

My suggestion above might also go a long ways toward cutting down any perceived damages these companies might dream up in the inevitable lawsuit that would follow the roll back.  

Arguably because these companies receive the vast majority of their income from the recreational golfer, a limit that might actually help the recreational golfer would be difficult to characterize as bad for business.  

[Andy]

I still think that it really comes down to the fact that only players generating clubhead spead in the 120 MPH range are seeing real benefit, so the answer to me is to roll back to a 1994 type ball that all manufacturers can produce(spec wise).  Let the PGA Tour start it, and then see if the USGA will follow suit for US AM and other events.  I like the idea of the average 15 handicapper using whatever he wants, but events played at a professional level, or perhaps even at the highest amateur level, have some standardized ball, just like baseball with aluminum versus wood bats...

[TEPaul]

Fellows:

Other than speculating on ways that the manufacturers might factor in diminishing distance return over 109mph for the long hitting pros and such so as not to affect the rest of the 98%, just consider this.

Certainly this is a bit of a simplification but some tech people seem to starting to agree with this. Some have even said that when the USGA created the present ODS back in 1974 they factored in some kind of discount factor that it would take golf balls a number of years to reach the 109mph ODS limit for distance production at the "pass/fail" line of app 296 yds! Some say we're actually just getting there now.

That doesn't sound too logical to me somehow. Why would it take the manufacturers about 20 years to get to the ODS "pass/fail" limit of 296yds? Certainly the manufacturers were not unaware of that factored in distance discount, if it were true which it probably isn't.

The truth is these pros today could probably hit a 1975 pinnacle in the exact neighborhood of what they're hitting their present balls in (despite Shivas's personal stats).

The way the manufacturers did this is pretty simple. They combined the pinnacle into the old tour pro soft ball by what's now called "optimization".

The regulatory bodies did not have to worry about distance problems with that 98% back in 1974 and they don't have to worry about distance problems with that 98% now.

So if they don't want to hurt the 98% by rolling back ODS then don't roll back ODS.

Just ask the manufacturers (actually demand of the manufacturers) that they basically DEoptimize the golf ball which probably in effect was no more than those manufacturers finally figuring out a way to combine (unify")the old soft feel ball with the pinnacle.

The solution here would simply become "DEoptimization" or "UNunification" (of the pinnacle and soft ball) because none of any of these various balls have ever been over the ODS line anyway. In essence this would be the new legislation and ODS would not have to be touched.

You can call the solution a Tour competition ball or whatever, but in effect all it would really be is about the same thing as the old Titleist balata. Regulate that DEOptimization or "UNunification" with rules and regs and that's the solution forever!

Then the tour players could have a choice (just like they used to). They could use the soft ball or they could hit a ball that felt like the old pinnacle that goes a lot farther. They didn't hit that thing back then and then wouldn't do it now or in the future.

This is all basically just regulating a return or rollback of the golf ball manufacturing world to what it was about ten years ago which was basically two vastly different types of ball and the "DEoptimization" rules and regs becomes the only new wrinkle in overall ODS! Back in 1974 there were no ODS rules or regs that the manufacturers could not combine, optimize or unify the two types of ball into one and there's nothing like that now. But there needs to be!

Getting the manufacturers to do this might be sort of tough but if they agreed to those new "DEoptimization" rules and regs (super simple rollback) actually doing it technically would be a super snap!

I know I've said this before on here but where does this recommendation fall apart?

[THuckaby2]

TEP:  the only stumbling block I see to this very well-reasoned proposal is how do you measure the "deoptomization" factor of this ball?  Can "softness" be measured?

I'm not saying it can't, only asking.  If it can, than this seems to be one hell of a good solution... although you would still have the same legal issues (potential lawsuits by manufacturers) as any change to the equipment rules is going to have.  I'm just gonna punt on that and assume such can be overcome.

TH

[Pete Lavallee]

I agree with Dave that the root of the problem is that the ball manufactuers have concentrated all their efforts into making their premium brand fly farther for the elite golfer with highest swing speed. Think about it, can you remember a golf ball commercial that touts the benefits of any ball for the below average player? One of the most popular balls of the last 2 years was the Precept Lady, which accidentally found favor, after someone started hitting his wifes and noticed it went farther for him too! Manufactuers only jumped on the band wagon after the fact.

Maybe it's time that the regulators say that they will no longer allow balls to be taylored to specific swing speeds. All balls will need to be tested at 80, 110, and 140 mph, and the performance has to be linear, i.e., there will be the same distance seperating each of the test drives. Surely they would then have to redesign the ball so it doesn't go as far at the 140 mph speed and help its' 80 mph performance. This would seem to be an easy point to sell, the longer hitters will still be longer, the ball will perform equally for all classes of player, a noble aspiration. And as Dave mentioned the manufactuers can finally put their best minds to work on making us hacks longer, and therefore close the distance gap by pulling us towards them.

[TEPaul]

TomH:

Unfortunately I'm a dunce on technology issues. Clearly you're asking how can you get the genie back in the bottle?

I don't know--all I know is there's a solution to any problem if everyone wants there to be which starts by recognizing and admitting there is a problem.

How can softness be measured? I don't know. Or even if it could how could it be measured in relation or in combination to the distance any measurably soft ball goes?

Is it possible for the regulatory bodies to simply analyze the entire evolution of "optimization" (both in R&D and manufacturing) that began about ten years ago and then just simply ban the whole process of "optimization"? Maybe instead of not only testing future balls for distance they can just break them open also and analyze their compositons and if they conform to composition standards in relation to their  distance standards.

But I don't really know TomH. But I do believe solutions to those sorts of problems could be found.

I believe it so much I'd like to now propose that you and me get some grub money up and buy ourselves as many balata tree plantations in Indonesia as we can get our hands on!

[TEPaul]

Shivas;

In some kinds of problem solving I'm always looking for what I call "similarities of interest".

You appear to have idenified some "similarities of interest" between the regulatory bodies and Wally. Could be a pretty powerful combination to get things to begin to roll BACK. Who cares what they're separate motives are? All that matters is that the end result is the same! Christ, this could be wonderful! Some manufacturer decides to sue the USGA and that manufacturer immediately gets hit by a massive countersuit from Titleist!

Somebody should call Wally and tell him; "Wally, have I got an idea for you!"

Do you want to call him or should I?

[THuckaby2]

But I don't really know TomH. But I do believe solutions to those sorts of problems could be found.

I believe it so much I'd like to now propose that you and me get some grub money up and buy ourselves as many balata tree plantations in Indonesia as we can get our hands on!
 

Sounds good to me, TEP.  I believe there must be an answer to this also, just thought I asked you cuz you so frequently have these things perfectly worked out!

Long live balata!

TH

[Rick_Lamb]

Clearly noted in this thread is the straighter AND longer issue, where the strategic choices that the architect put before the players, even at the level of longer-hitting 3-4 handicappers,  are now simple carries or blow-it-over-the-trees corner cuts.

Golf is still golf, that is, a game of temperament, not one of wits, and a 5-footer for a half at dormie-1 is not aided too much by the equipment, but the strategic thinking asked of the players by the architect is getting irrelevant because the choices are easier to make.

The reason I lost interest in tennis was that it became just a power game and the finesse was hard to spot in between the grunts and smashed overheads. Golf is headed into the same problem.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,  an interesting proposal but I think it has some problems.

1.  As Tom H mentioned, quantifying your plan into a reasonable standard might be difficult.

2.  Even if you could quantify it, unless your plan went so far as to dictate exactly how the ball was built, the companies will likely find a way around your limitation, just as they have the ODS.

3.  Also, if the USGA dictated exactly how the ball was built (making a competition ball without calling it so) the ball companies would not likely take it well.  It is one thing to say, "Do whatever you want so long as your ball cannot go any further than X yards under Y conditions."  It is quite another to say, build the ball exactly this way, or we will not allow you to play our game.  For one thing, I think the latter is much more susceptible to lawsuits.  (For example, I imagine the small ball manufacturers would view such a draconian rule as locking the market share status quo into place, and unreasonably favoring the large companies by eliminating all future competition and innovation.)

4. Lastly, whether you call it a competition ball or not, your suggestion would create a separate set of rules for the pros.  

I do agree, however, that the goal of any plan should be to find as many "similarities of interest" as we can amongst the parties.  But I don't agree that we should count on Titleist seeing it our way, and defending reform in the courts.  When Titleist starts jumping to the defense of the USGA, we have a potential conflict of interest/antitrust problem on our hands.  

[Tim Weiman]

Dave Moriarty:

I agree with you on #3.

For comparison's sake, when the California Air Resources Board wanted cleaner burning gasoline, they just published the specs gasoline must meet, reducing acceptable limits of chemical properties deemed harmful to the environment.

They never told oil companies HOW to meet the new specs. CARB just said somehow it must be done.

The difference here is that golf ball manufacturers simply need to revert to older, cheaper manufacturing standards. It is not the least bit difficult to do.

Oil companies, on the other hand, needed to invest lots of money and stretch the limits of oil refining technology to produce cleaner fuels.

[DMoriarty]

Pete L,  we are definitely on the same wave length here.  I actually took a Lady Precept paragraph out of my post to keep it from being confusing.  

One of the things that I like about this approach is that it has the potential to keep the advantage of length, while at the same time curving the disproportionate advantage that the current equipment is giving long hitters.  

Tim, that is a good example of the kind of approach I am talking about.  

Not sure the old companies would back up to old production methods, though.  I tend to look at as an opportunity for the companies to use their technology and R and D to meet the limitation while still distinguishing themselves and while still benefiting their players and customers.  In short, it keeps the possibility for competitiveness and innovation open.  

[Paul Richards]

Think about this - when Phil Mickelson can drive a 403-yard par 4 like he did at the 10th at Phoenix, most every course is obsolete!

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Theoretically most every other course would be obsolete but not actually, unless Phil joins most every other course.

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

Then let's change that to read:

>Think about this - when Phil Mickelson can drive a 403-yard par 4 like he did at the 10th at Phoenix, most every tournament course is now obsolete!

 

[Robert_Walker]

How far did Phil hit his 4 drives on 10 at Phoenix last year?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff,

It was about a year ago that some were stating that the ball had maxed out.  One year later, it's going farther.

Articles in recent publications seem to indicate that research that can improve golf balls is ongoing and that new materials are being developed which may allow the ball to be propelled even farther.

The PGA has some vestigal restrictions from the Ping lawsuit.
I doubt the manufacturers are going to endorse flat or diminished sales, hence, a USGA competition ball, that filters down to regional, state and local golf associations and into the golf clubs themselves, seems like the only viable alternative.

This method would seem to avoid costly litigation because only competitors in USGA events would be required to play this ball.  If regional, state and local golf associations followed the lead, gradually, more and more play would gravitate toward the competition ball.  If clubs adopted the USGA competition ball for club tournaments the cycle would be complete.

It wouldn't be a quick fix, but a practical one, over time, with the desired results, without the legal headaches.

After the introduction of the USGA competiton ball, the PGA Tour COULD adopt the same ball for tournament play.  
And even if they didn't, so what.  They're haven't played with the same balls as the public since..... forever.

ANGC could also adopt the USGA competition ball for play at The Masters.

Wishful thinking ? Yes, but it just might be possible, over time.

[Rick Shefchik]

There is a fear, often expressed here, that a Competition Ball would mean that the pros and the rest of us are playing a different game.

Aside from that fact that I believe all serious competitive golfers, from tournament-quality amateurs down to ambitous junior golfers, would quickly switch to a tournament ball, I really can't see a problem with two sets of rules. Titleist, Callaway, Nike and the other ball manufacturers would continue to manufacture millions of non-Competition balls each year for the 98% of players (to use Tom H.'s figure) who care more about how far their drives go than they do about the good of the Game of Golf.

The ball manufacturers could still claim to make the Longest Ball. They could still pay gobs of endorsement money to Brad Faxon and Esteban Toledo for wearing their corporate logos -- even though the public would clearly understand that the Titleist Faxon and Toledo play is a throttled-back version of the Titleist sold over the counter.

Would the game truly suffer under this scenario? More than it is suffering now?

[Paul Turner]

Geoff,

It was about a year ago that some were stating that the ball had maxed out.  One year later, it's going farther.

Articles in recent publications seem to indicate that research that can improve golf balls is ongoing and that new materials are being developed which may allow the ball to be propelled even farther.

Back the first paragraph with some FACTS.

Where are these articles?