Arnie calls for doing something about the ball

[ForkaB]

Doug

It's been a while since I argued for "bifurcation" but what I said then (3-4 years ago) remains valid now, IMO, i.e. persuade pro (and maybe top amateur) events to use a "competition" ball, probably at about the specs of the old Titleist Professional.  In practice this would probably be done by inserting a "local option" into the rules--reinforced by the USGA and R&A adopting those rules for their championships.  If we're lucky, the Masters will join in the "fun" and before you can say "Bob Huntley's your uncle" most serious players will be playing the competition ball full time.  Allow all other balls (e.g. "modern" ones) to be used in casual and low level competitive play.

PS--I'm 58, less fit than when I was 38 and I still CAN hit the ball about the same distance off the tee as 20 years ago (my test lab is the 14th at Dornoch, which is still driver/SW for me on very good days).  The big difference is that I hit it more consistently near to my maximum distance and also a bit straighter than I did with my persimmon.  However, I am losing distance with my irons--probably time to finally get rid of the blades......

[Brent Hutto]

Doug,

As I've said, I don't really think what I'm talking about would be "bifurcation" if that means "two sets of rules". Basically, anyone putting on a competition in which they want big hitters hitting longer clubs on shorter courses should specify a lower-performing golf ball as a condition of competition. That would solve one problem, namely the perception that pretty soon only 8,000 yard courses will be suitable for competition at the highest levels (a perception that I think is wrong, BTW).

To my mind the issue of distance for the 999 out of 1,000 players who are not competing at a high level is a totally separate one. I agree that the USGA/R&A have waited about ten years too long to come up with a meaningful ball test and that they should remedy that error today if not sooner. Personally, I'd gladly play golf if my choices of golf balls were something like the Strata Tour Pro 90 vs. Titleist DT (which were pretty much the state of the art for soft vs. hard two piece balls when I started playing golf a few years ago). And it is completely reasonable to tighten up the testing regimen so that in a few years we don't have balls 10% hotter for the big hitters than we have now (which is my best guess as to the limit obtainable by gaming the current testing rules).

However, and this is a big however, such a rollback to balls slightly slower than those which have come to market in the past several years will not satisfy those who are complaining about people hitting the ball too long. If you let a college golfer (who is a actually Tour pro in training) have a modern driver (even with a COR restriction) on a course to modern maintenances standard (fast, perfect fairways and receptive greens) he is going to bomb it long, high and far given any reasonable golf ball. I'm not saying the goal is for a hacker swinging at 90mph to be able to play 6,700 yard tees and hit irons into the long two-shotters. I'm just saying that no matter what ball you use, Brad Swanson and I are going to play two different games on the same course even if we use tees 1,000 yards different in length. You can't come up with equipment that lets Brad play a 400-yard hole with driver and mid-iron while also letting me play it from 330 yards with driver and long-iron. Architecturally, you can't design courses that play the same from the back tees and from 60 to 100 yards forward. So my conclusion is that on any course suitable for wide range of players with reasonable separations between the different tees, Brad's going to be hitting wedges into a lot of Par 4's and I'm going to be hitting fairway woods into a lot of Par 4's. You can't narrow that down with equipment restrictions.

I think what people hope to accomplish with additional restrictions on technology is to have the longest hitters play traditional length courses hitting traditional clubs into the greens. Any equipment that accomplishes that goal will render the millions of short hitters out there unable to experience those same courses in any meaningful way.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

If you change the spped of the clubhead test, you dont need to bifurcate , that is my entire point.
The only reason the ball is a problem, is this high swing speed"trampoline effect" that ball makers can get away with because the Usga test speed is so slow...up the test speed and we are back to when we all played balatas..long hitters will still be long hitters but not as much longer than the rest of us, as is now the case.

[Alex_Wyatt]

MWP, Yessir, you sir are CORRECT.

[Brent Hutto]

So basically a 2004 ProV1x and a 1996 Titleist Professional will react within a couple percent of each other when I hit them with a driver. As far as the USGA ball test is concerned they are very similar in performance. The fact that a 2004 ProV1x goes 30 yards farther than a 1996 Titleist Professional when Ernie Els hits them is a loophole in the testing regimen.

So if all golf balls on the conforming list behaved like a 1996 Titleist Professional when Ernie Els hits them, would that quiet the cries of "Roll back the ball and save the classic courses!" or would those cries continue after a short pause? I suspect the latter. I think the most vocal critics of the current status quo are dreaming of the day when Ernie Els has to hit 4-iron approach shots on 450-yard holes.

Of course the testing regime is broken. I just don't think fixing it will make as big a difference as you might think given the improvements in driver heads, shafts, physical conditioning and training of golfers.

[A.G._Crockett]

If you change the spped of the clubhead test, you dont need to bifurcate , that is my entire point.
The only reason the ball is a problem, is this high swing speed"trampoline effect" that ball makers can get away with because the Usga test speed is so slow...up the test speed and we are back to when we all played balatas..long hitters will still be long hitters but not as much longer than the rest of us, as is now the case.

Wouldn't the problem with this approach be that any number of currently conforming balls would immediately become non-conforming?  If manufacturers, acting in good faith, did R&D on the balls and produced a product that became ex post facto illegal, wouldn't the USGA be acting illegally?

I assume that is why the USGA has drawn the line and said no more distance, but no "rollback."  

By the way, and with all due respect, Nike has a TREMENDOUS amount to gain economically by a rollback.  Titliest is so dominant at this point in the premium ball market that anything that breaks their stranglehold is likely to be viewed by the other players in the market as to their self-interest.  That is NOT the same thing as having the good of the game at heart, IMHO.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

A.G.
I knew that somebody was going to get me on the economics of the issue regarding Nike.
You are correct...but..dont you also think that as fast as they are progressing as a golf company, their experts will come up with a ball that has the same advantages?
actually the one"black" ball has..and tests at the higher speeds to be as long as the Pro VI x, actually with a little more spin.

But you have a very valid point, however, it is still an issue all the ball companies would have to conform with if the USGA had the balls..no pun intended...to alter the test speed to say 128/135 instead of the current 122 I believe it is.

Please!! all if my comments come with a huge discalimer..."this is not in any way shape or form..the opinion of the Nike company"
it is just my interpretation of what I believe is the case, I certainly do not want to get the guys at Nike upset.

[A.G._Crockett]

Michael,
I think that the premium balls currently sold by Callaway, Nike, Precept, and possibly others are already just as good as the ProV.  In fact, I think the Callaway actually suits me a bit better; seems to launch higher.  The fact is, though, that none of those companies are close to competing with Titliest in the premium ball market, and aren't going to in the foreseeable future.  As a business matter, a rollback of any sort hurts Titliest, helps everybody else by taking everybody back to the starting line.  Nike, for instance, would seemingly have relatively little to lose if their One ball suddenly became nonconforming.  In fact, if by chance the swing speed in the tests was raised and the One ball was still conforming but the ProV wasn't, Nike might gain hugely!

I don't put much stock in Titliest saying that things should be left alone, nor much in the other companies if they say that "for the good of the game" things should change. Companies with shareholders and a Board of Directors are not famous for protecting the game, whatever that game might be.  When Robert McNamara said that "What's good for GM is good for the U.S.", he was dead wrong.