Deane Beman- 50 more yards

[peter_p]

In his Golf Digest interview, Deane Beman predicted that the longest hitters would be gaining an additional fifty yards in the next ten years. This should wake up the professionals
as it will directly affect them. The spacing between groups will have to increase. A wave will only have about 20 groups on the course at one time. That means small fields. Which means fewer people becoming all-exempt, fewer jobs for the professionals.

[JESII]

In his Golf Digest interview, Deane Beman predicted that the longest hitters would be gaining an additional fifty yards in the next ten years. This should wake up the professionals
as it will directly affect them. The spacing between groups will have to increase. A wave will only have about 20 groups on the course at one time. That means small fields. Which means fewer people becoming all-exempt, fewer jobs for the professionals.

How do you figure?

[peter_p]

In order for a player to be able to hit, they will have to wait until the preceding group is out of range. A course will only be able to accomodate one group per hole, two groups on the par fives. Any more than this will negatively impact pace of play. Twenty may be too low, 22-24 might be a better estimate. I think they have 28-30 groups in the current wave.
 

[John_Conley]

In his Golf Digest interview, Deane Beman predicted that the longest hitters would be gaining an additional fifty yards in the next ten years.

I don't read GD.  Did he say where this would come from?

My contention is that averages will rise because college players are maxing out while they'll be replacing the Donnie Hammonds, John Cooks, and Olin Brownes.  But I don't see how they can hit it any longer than they do now.

Everyone knew, or should have known, that the wound Titleist preferred by Tour players was more like the PoDo than like a distance ball.  Nearly all balls in play today would have been called "distance" balls 20-25 years ago.

Tell me where the yards will come from and I might believe it.  (Mucci has proposed a "slippery" material that has less drag.)  Otherwise it is meaningless.  People don't high jump 25' and they can't run a 3 minute mile.  Race cars can't get around Daytona at 300 mph.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Here is the article in Golf World with the letter Beman wrote to Fred Ridley.

Deane Beman article

[JESII]

Today they tee off in threesomes every ten minutes for no more than two hours which gives you a max of 26 groups in each wave.

If everyone is longer how would the situation be different than today? The group in front will simply be further down the fairway (than they are today) when the group behind is waiting on the tee. You will still have two or three groups on a par four and capacity for three groups on par fives.

[peter_p]

John,
There was nothing specific. When asked if there's still a lot of distance to be gained by the best players with modern equipment and training he replied "I'll stand by this. By 2020 there will be another 50 yards in the long-driving leaders, to an average of 350 yards." Nothing to back it up.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Speaking of Beman's letter to Fred Ridley, after a quick Google look-around I found Ridley's bio on his law firm's site.  Seems that he specializes in real estate developments, many that focus on golf.  

Fred Ridley bio

I wonder if that makes him less receptive to proposals (less lively ball, smaller clubheads) that could be argued make the game a bit more difficult for the average player and thus slow the growth of the game.

[Doug Siebert]

If he focuses on real estate developments, he probably doesn't want to have to use more land for an 8000 yard course with wider playing areas, meaning more is spent on golf course land per housing lot where he's making his real money.

[Kevin_Reilly]

If he focuses on real estate developments, he probably doesn't want to have to use more land for an 8000 yard course with wider playing areas, meaning more is spent on golf course land per housing lot where he's making his real money.

He's an attorney...he gets paid as long as the development is done.

[TEPaul]

It seems to me at this point on distance the USGA/R&A and its critics on distance are sort of stuck in a netherworld of interpretation of terms and general meaning!

If one reads carefully the USGA/R&A "Joint Statement on Principles" one sees the USGA/R&A plans to do something to reign in distance if distance increase from here 'is significant'. They don't say in that statement what "significant" means to them though! In that same statement the USGA also says ‘if a situation of meaningful distance increases arises’ they would consider that “undesirable’ and would move to prevent it. They don’t say what “meaningful distance increases” means though.

Put next to that “Joint Statement on Principles” regarding distance increase the USGA’s new test protocol on ball distance they now call “The Overall Distance and Symmetry Test” which basically says at a swing speed of 120mph a conforming ball cannot go farther than 320 yards (which includes a +/- 3%) and what have you got?

It seems to me you have something pretty interesting---perhaps a positioning on the part of the USGA/R&A to attempt to do something to cap distance once they determine a few additional things and perhaps in the not distant future.

To see why this might be interesting one needs to go back to that “Joint Statement of Principles” and notice what else it says regarding what they’re referring to as relates to the potential factors that could cause distance increase. When one looks at that in their statement one sees, remarkably I might add, that they’ve now thrown in everything seemingly possible that COULD cause a distance increase including (I believe for the first time) the strength (swing speed) of any player!!

What does this mean when the “statement” and the new ODS protocol are put together? It seems like it means the new 120mph swing speed (and what the maximum distance (including roll) achieves which is 320yds) may not be an accurate reflection in the real world of the longest players!!

And if that fact turns out to be the case (by either testing the swing speeds of players) or by observing an actual increase in distance over app 320 yards maximum (on the ground and in play in tournaments which the USGA test people do!!) that they plan to move to do something about that. But of course this all goes back to what they mean by ‘significant’ or ‘meaningful increase in distance’.

But once that’s known and hopefully it will be soon, they actually have sort of protected their future actions in the “Joint Statement of “Principles” by stating they can and will act through their “notice and comment’ procedure to offer new I&B rules and regulations to limit ‘significant’ or ‘meaningful distance increases’.

If and when they do that though, what will it be? One probably needs to look at this new rather heavily funded study they’ve been referring to on better understanding the technologic possibilities of the golf ball. This, on the one hand, is probably their attempt to get somewhere near the R&D curve and cutting edge of the manufacturers because the fact is the USGA/R&D test center has been constantly forced to be “reactive” to what comes down the production pipeline and we can see in the last 10-15 years that in certain ways the manufacturers have effectively “tricked” the USGA test procedures and protocols AND their I&B rules and regs by basically "technologies" (including symbiotic club and ball computer analysis know as "optimization") that produced a distance increase while at the same time staying WITHIN the limitations of the USGA/R&A I&B and ODS rules and regs.

This new golf ball research the USGA/R&A is looking into scares me though because I think it’s possible that the manufacturers may be able to produce balls in a sort of “weird science” way that actually begin to distort distance production against swing speed in a non-linear way. This is apparently one of the factors the USGA/R&A and perhaps even in conjunction with the manufacturers may soon come to know. What scares me is they might actually eventually legislate that!

If they do that I believe that may actually tamper with the factor of “skill” in golf (which is so very hard to define (don't know that it ever has been by the USGA/R&A)) and the results of it that we have always known it to be (in a distance context). Do they actually have plans to legislate a linear distortion of swing speed in relation to distance production in their effort to control distance? To me that would be worse than what we have now in the fundamental sense of what golf is!

[JohnV]

Tom,

The USGA has said what they consider significant.  While it hasn't been in a formal statement like the JSOP, here is a quote from the GolfWorld article:

"That said, both Rugge and Jim Vernon, head of the USGA's equipment standards committee, were quick to note the USGA has no intention of implementing any changes in the foreseeable future. Moreover, if the one-yard increase in average driving distance seen on the PGA Tour in 2004 continued, the status quo would remain. "It would require something along the lines of the big jump in 2001 and 2003," noted Vernon, referring to years where the increase was more than six yards."

The new ODS is 317 + 3 yards for 320, not 3%.

I think the point of the USGA's study is to make sure they fully understand the physics so that any new rule would be setup in a way that the manufacturers couldn't get around it by something they hadn't forseen.  I look at the new ODS as a stopgap while they get all the information and can act in a way that ends the problem once and for all if needed.

[Lou_Duran]

JVB,

I can't think of a single person who has more breadth of experience on this issue at least on the user's (player) side than you.  Your knowledge base on the technical issues is surely much higher than average.  If you were Mr. Ridley and were given carte blanche to correct "the problem", what would you do?

Kevin R,

Coming from you, the insinuations about Fred Ridley are troubling.  I don't know the man, but I would wager most anything that personal financial interest has nothing to do with his handling of "the problem".

The complaint that the ball is going too far has been with us since shortly after the game first became organized.  For reasons so often cited here, I tend to believe that we have reached the critical point.  The same was probably felt and said by many others through the past 100 years.

BTW, Mr. Siebert is correct.  If the golf course requires more land, the lot yields go down, and the price per lot has to go up in order to make the project pencil out.  Alternatively, the developer could acquire more land, but that has the same results.

Given that many real estate developments are only made possible through golf as the centerpiece amenity, if you drive these costs up, fewer projects will be planned, proposed, and built.  In actuality, if Mr. Ridley made his money from real estate transactions or just doing the legal/regulatory work for the developer, it would be in his self-interest to harness the distance of the ball.  I would only be suspicious of his motives if he was clamoring for the Cayman ball.

Mr. Ridley, the USGA, the R & A, etc. have many constituents.  Personally, I am for a tournament ball, a more targeted approach though not without problems.  Let the 99% or so golfers play for fun with whatever they can find.  Many will probably gravitate to whatever the tournament players use anyways.    

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I have said this before, but IF the USGA aws willing to make the ball companies make the current balls conform to their specs at all swing speeds we would not have a problem of such significance.

It has been explained to me by the finest ball scientists on the planet that the problem lies in the manufacturers ability to 'get around' the Usga rules by having the ball conform at the USGA spec speed..but it does not conform at higher swing speeds..but it is legal...simply make it conform at all swing speeds.

I know that the USGA has increased that spec speed some, but obviously not enough..

[JohnV]

I have said this before, but IF the USGA aws willing to make the ball companies make the current balls conform to their specs at all swing speeds we would not have a problem of such significance.

It has been explained to me by the finest ball scientists on the planet that the problem lies in the manufacturers ability to 'get around' the Usga rules by having the ball conform at the USGA spec speed..but it does not conform at higher swing speeds..but it is legal...simply make it conform at all swing speeds.

I know that the USGA has increased that spec speed some, but obviously not enough..

What do you mean by "does not conform"?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

At high cluhead speeds, the ball comes off the face at aspeed that exceeds that approved by the USGA..BUT..that only happens beyond a certain clubhead speed.
The manufacturers know that, so it is somewhat of a loophole..it is as though the ball sters up into a super power zone beyond a certain cluhead spped.
That is why people like me, do not see the vast differences in yardage as do the likes of the long hitters.
Do you remember when the prov first came out, tour players said they were hitting it 30 yards further..well maybe that was only 20...but with the same ball and a lower clubhaed speed the advantage was minimal.....and conforming to the USGA specs

[Ted Kramer]

At high cluhead speeds, the ball comes off the face at aspeed that exceeds that approved by the USGA..BUT..that only happens beyond a certain clubhead speed.
The manufacturers know that, so it is somewhat of a loophole..it is as though the ball sters up into a super power zone beyond a certain cluhead spped.
That is why people like me, do not see the vast differences in yardage as do the likes of the long hitters.
Do you remember when the prov first came out, tour players said they were hitting it 30 yards further..well maybe that was only 20...but with the same ball and a lower clubhaed speed the advantage was minimal.....and conforming to the USGA specs

From everything that I have read and heard on the subject this is 100% correct. The distance gains increase exponentially with higher swing speeds. And the balls are not tested by the governing bodies at the speeds which the Tour Players can achieve.

-Ted

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Ted
You are 100% correct, I have seen this done in the lab, and the numbers flat out do not lie..it really is something that the ruling bodies can take of rather easily......if they want to...so one can only assume they dont!

The ball expert I was with, siad it would be so easy to solve, but obviously the ball companies are not going to do anything voluntarily!

[A.G._Crockett]

MWP,
I would submit that the ProV distance gain that the pros reported initially had to do only with going to a ball that was fundamentally a Pinnacle with a soft cover from balatas and Professionals, rather than any non-conformity at high speeds.  The ProVI was not and is not the longest ball available, regardless of clubhead speed or material.  It has always been well within the ODS.

The effect of higher clubhead speed seems simple enough, though my command of physics isn't great.  If, for instance, there is a 2% gain for every 10% of clubhead speed, since 10% of faster speeds is increasingly more mph, then the 2% gain would be increasingly larger too.  That is what "non-linear" means, I think, rather than the gain become 5% at some high speed.

The "loophole" was the old ODS clubhead speed and material, and that has been closed, as I understand it.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

AG
All I can say is that I saw the numbers in the lab, and the increase is not linear..it has something to do with the inner core doing something totally unique after it is compressed beyond a certain point...that point being at a swing speed BEYOND that required for USGA testing.
I am not arguing with you, but as I said my source is one of the leading ball men in the world..and his lab test showed it perfectly.

I was using the prov purely as an examlpe as it was the first of the new generation of balls.
You are reasonably correct though these current balls are indeed..improved pinnacles..that was also explained to me at the lab.
Basically a pinnacle/top flite with feel

[Kevin_Reilly]

Kevin R,

Coming from you, the insinuations about Fred Ridley are troubling.  I don't know the man, but I would wager most anything that personal financial interest has nothing to do with his handling of "the problem".
 

To make it clear, I am not saying that he has a personal financial interest involved.  Absolutely not.

My point, as misguided as it may be, is that a man who has made his living advising developers is likely to be conditioned to think about the growth in the game in terms of numbers of players.  Make the game easier, more players take to it.  More players take to it, more courses needed.  More courses needed, more developments.

Not developments that he has an interest in.

But if you've spent a few decades making your living advising developers, then your frame of reference might be growth is good and thus any proposal that potentially impinges on that would be viewed with a negative eye.

[Doug Siebert]

Another problem with the ODS (and one that the 120 mph test @ 320 yards doesn't address) is that where before if you had a conforming ball that when hit at 109 mph flew 250 and rolled 40 for a total of 290 it was conforming.  Fine, no problem.  Now, let's invent a new ball that launches at a higher angle and therefore falls to the ground more sharply.  It flies 275 and rolls 15.  Still 290, still conforming, but which is more useful to a golfer and which impacts strategy of golf the most?

In fact, if you had a ball that flew 250 and wanted to make it fly 275, one way to do that might be to make it 10% "hotter", along with the modifications to the dimple patterns and construction to make it launch higher and despite being hotter, it'd still fit within the letter of the law.

They really ought to have been measuring how far a ball goes on the fly from the get-go, and they could have avoided this whole mess.  The ODS would have been say 250, and unless they produced a ball that flew 250 at 20 feet off the ground and rolled 80 yards, they'd have a hard time gaming the system.  And at least a ball that rolled 80 yards would not take bunkers and dogleg corners out of play, and not really be useful to the pros unless it could somehow work normally off iron shots.

But now by raising the ODS and swing speed but keeping the roll in the equation, they are making the same mistake.  It would be interesting to see how much is carry and how much is roll when the USGA is doing their testing with modern balls, and compare it to where things were 10 years ago.  I mean, how hard would it have been for them to have a white line painted on their testing range at x yards and having someone out there watching the balls come down to verify they are hitting short of the line?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I agree, plus the increase in tHE USGA ODS and swing speed is still not sufficient to DEAL the problem.
It is this factor that worries me the most, with regard to just how much control do the manufacturers have over the USGA.

[Brent Hutto]

Doug,

I agree totally that carry distance is what matters. Regulate carry and if you're worried about somebody coming up with a ball that rolls 200 yards (not that such a ball would be playable by anyone who has to actually hole out with it) then add an additional roll limit and test. Combining carry and roll was a stupid decision from the get-go and is one of many thing that demonstrate what happens when you let common sense substitute for engineering.

The other conceptual mistake the ball regulators made and continue to make (not being the sort of people to learn lessons, apparently) is that you specify your restrictions beyond any forseeable improvement or change in the way the game is played. So maybe forty years ago a persimmon driver and 105mph (or whatever) swing speed seemed like pretty good hitting. Now they want to change it to a metal driver and 120mph (or whatever) that seems like pretty good hitting today.

The proper regulations, of course, would specify the performance of the ball at 90mph and at 120mph and at 150mph clubhead speed. Or whatever it takes to capture a range of performance far beyond what is forseeable today. So what if you end up specifying performance in a domain that nobody ever ends up being able to produce? Better to have set the limit and never used it than to yet again find yourself in a 15-year Rules cycle and faced with a 5-year cycle of improvement in the golfer's ability to hit the ball harder.

[Gary_Nelson]

Part of Deane Beman's argument was that the balls don't curve.  Is there any part of the ball specs that regulate spin?  I think we've talked about this before but I don't know if there is a way to achieve anything meaningful from this ball characteristic.

I think Beaman's point was that long hitters don't have to worry about their drives ending up in the woods.  I'd like to see the risk factor go up as the drives get longer.  In other words, a mis-hit with a 120mph swing speed should curve WAY out of the intended line.   It seems like Vijay and the boys can smash away with little risk of the ball curving too far off line.  True?