[JSlonis]

Here is a link to a Golf Digest article with the very latest info concerning a memo from the USGA to the Equipment Manufacturers.

http://www.golfdigest.com/index.ssf

**I couldn't link the article itself.  The article is on the home page about half way down..."EXAMINING THE BALL"

The question now is...Better late than NEVER?

Has there been enough of an uproar across the board for the USGA to seriously take a better and possibly final look into reigning in the golf ball?

[Kevin_Reilly]

Here is the article.

[TEPaul]

Very Interesting! Look at the last thread on here about I&B and distance. The response from Snell is what's knee-jerk. Looks like the USGA is beginning to pave the road in such a way that they're basically won't be a judge in the land who'd rule in favor of a manufacturer plaintiff lawsuit due to restraint of trade because of some arbitrary I&B rules-making action on the part of the USGA! The only real lie in the entire article is that Hootie didn't know about any of this! Yeah, RIGHT!

[JSlonis]

Kevin,

Thanks for the link.  For some reason I couldn't get the entire address to work in my post.

[Kevin_Reilly]

You need to post long links like that with the following added to them...at the beginning {url} ...at the end {/url}  but instead of using { use [ .  Hope that is clear.

In other words, type:
{url}http://www.golfdigest.com/equipment/index.ssf?/equipment/20050413usga.html {/url}

But use [ and ] instead.

[Doug Siebert]

I agree with TEPaul, sounds like Snell is the one who is reacting quickly without thought.  Tightening things up at 290-320 sounds fine to him because it means he doesn't have to do anything different.  But for average players not playing the tips but from say 70 yards up those tightened fairways are in their prime landing area at 220-250.  How long does he want a round of golf to take exactly?

Its really pretty pathetic because a guy who is the head of R&D for golf balls at a top manufacturer knows damn well it isn't just because of guys generating more clubhead speed.  And if that is the case, why does he still have a job if he hasn't improved Maxfli's balls for the last 15 years?

[TEPaul]

"Its really pretty pathetic because a guy who is the head of R&D for golf balls at a top manufacturer knows damn well it isn't just because of guys generating more clubhead speed.  And if that is the case, why does he still have a job if he hasn't improved Maxfli's balls for the last 15 years?"

Doug:

I don't know that I'd call it pathetic. In the modern euphemistic, politically correct world we live in it's called "fudging"!    

The time problem of R&D and all that other garbage mentioned of producing such a ball is fudging too. If any of those manufacturers thought they'd lose market share they could probably have a ball like that on the market in six months or less!

[JohnV]

Its really pretty pathetic because a guy who is the head of R&D for golf balls at a top manufacturer knows damn well it isn't just because of guys generating more clubhead speed.  And if that is the case, why does he still have a job if he hasn't improved Maxfli's balls for the last 15 years?

Actually, he is right that SOME golf balls have been at the limit for 15 or more years, but 15 years ago they were Top-Rocks and Pinnacles.   Now, ALL golf balls are at the limit and the pros use them.  Add in better conditioned players, oversized titantium heads, graphite shafts, better agronomics, and optimization and you get a ball that goes a lot further.

As many have argued here, the easiest way to dial all this back is with the ball.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

The old softer three piece balata type balls the pros used to use may've been below the ODS limit but how much is the interesting question. I asked that of Frank Thomas one time but he didn't appear to have an exact answer. He sort of estimated it. Of course there're two questions really---1. How far below the 109 mph test speed limit were they and, 2. How far behind the modern age ball would they be when hit about 120 mph?

This thread doesn't seem to be getting much interest. I guess it's a lot more interesting on here to just criticize the USGA.  

It would also be nice to hear from the R&A on this matter. Rich, if you're anywhere in the neighborhood of the R&A would you do us all a favor and go wake them up?  

[Ted Kramer]

Balls used to either:
go far
or
spin
You had to choose one or the other, and the pros chose spin because on Tour short game is King.

Now the balls do both. . . and they do both more efficiently. . .especially at the highest swing speeds.

Modern balls don't spin much off the driver, and go really far, especially at higher swing speeds AND spin like crazy off the short irons and wedges.

Just make the balls spin more off the driver.

I see no problem with the rules evolving as they pertain to equipment.

-Ted

[Lynn_Shackelford]

For me this is very positive.  Let's hope this process keeps moving forward, uh moving the ball backward.
I think there may be a road map for this process somewhere in Dick Rugge's office.  I hope so.

I say develop a ball which helps allow the 220 yard drive to stay the same but takes the 320 yard drive back to 290.  The manufacturers can claim victory and keep selling balls and making dinero.

[JohnV]

Oh, Heavens to Murgitroid, the USGA isn't contemplating a Rules change, are they?  

Only ones that make sense Shivas.  

[Alfie]

 

Full credit to "your" USGA in getting this rollback ball rolling - although I'll refrain from flying the Lion Rampant until the good deed is done ! All I've ever asked for in this debate was that some sort of action be taken (by the USGA and/or R&A) and that some pure honesty be restored to solve the obvious problem. Bob Thurman should also be applauded for going public and dispelling the myth that a rollback would be impossible to invoke - "Thurman said "it would not be that expensive" to develop the requested prototypes.
"We (Wilson) are already looking at limited flight range balls in our research, so we already are developing the technology for a roll-back ball that would feel the same as the ones we have today but would simply come off the club face with less velocity," he said. "The cost of prototyping outside of the changing of the dimple pattern is fairly negligible, maybe a few thousand dollars. And we could do it in weeks, not months."

Well, of course they can, and will if they have to. And those who seek to damage the sport further through daft litigation's might find themselves up against the average golfer who might just give the ruling bodies the support they need to push this through ?

TEP ; It would also be nice to hear from the R&A on this matter. Rich, if you're anywhere in the neighborhood of the R&A would you do us all a favor and go wake them up?

I think Rich might need a shovel in order to "dig them up" to get a response. And that's a bloody disgrace from my viewpoint. Maybe Huggan will have some revelations in this weeks Scotland On Sunday ?

Positivity could be on the way back, for golf.

Alfie

[Doug Siebert]

Actually, he is right that SOME golf balls have been at the limit for 15 or more years, but 15 years ago they were Top-Rocks and Pinnacles.   Now, ALL golf balls are at the limit and the pros use them.  Add in better conditioned players, oversized titantium heads, graphite shafts, better agronomics, and optimization and you get a ball that goes a lot further.

As many have argued here, the easiest way to dial all this back is with the ball.

All balls were at the limit.  Maybe not both simultaneously but one or the other.  If the limit said X initial velocity and 280 yards + 7% tolerance why would they make two piece balls that could achieve one or both of the limits and three piece balls that couldn't hit either?  Someone else would have come along and used a livelier core on a three piece so it would nudge up to the limit.  I'll refrain from once again posting about my experience the one time I hit an "illegal" ball 20 years ago pin high on a 386 yard hole, probably 50 yards further than I'd ever been previously at that time.  Suffice to say that it was only the USGA rules that were holding back what ball makers could do even 20 years ago and probably further back than that.

The reason the two piece balls went further is probably just down to the spin.  If you have a ball that spins less it goes straighter and therefore longer on average so it plays longer for most golfers.  Or it may have turned out they hit the initial velocity limit on the balatas but the extra spin kept them from reaching the ODS limit because they just plain didn't roll as far.  I know I used to have a problem with never getting any roll on my drives unless the ground was really firm when I played the balatas -- it was the main reason I switched to the Professional when it came out.

What you seem to imply is that it used to be that only Rock Flites and their ilk were maxed out 20 years, but now everything is.  Well, the standard didn't change, so by that logic you should be able to take a ball made to the 1985 Spalding Top Flight specs and hit it as far as Pro V1x today.  I'll bet you wouldn't get within 15 yards of that Pro V1x using today's equipment with identical swings.  Believe me, every few years I dig out my good old fashioned persimmon driver with the 43" steel shaft and take it out alongside my modern driver, and on the really square hits, there is little or no difference.  The average distance, of course, is another story

Did it last in 2001, when I bought my 400cc driver and had just switched to the Pro V1.  Might have to try it again, but I'm nearing 40 and I may no longer be able to swing that old driver fast enough -- has a DG X100 shaft tipped a couple inches, because back then I REALLY took a tug at the ball!  Scary that I hit it as far or further than I did back then but I put so much less effort into the swing (not because my swing is better, I just eventually realized those 95% effort swings just aren't worth it for 30 more yards....maybe Tiger will figure out that someday )

[TEPaul]

"Well, of course they can, and will if they have to. And those who seek to damage the sport further through daft litigation's might find themselves up against the average golfer who might just give the ruling bodies the support they need to push this through?"

Alfie:

You are so right about that. We all, on here, can continue to talk about what the USGA/R&A should do about distance control or a distance rollback or what the manufacturers may do to counter a move like that but in the end what either one of them wants to do is not as important as what the average golfer wants or will do.

If the average golfer actually wants a distance rollback it will happen and there's not much the manufacturers will be able to do about it. But if the average golfer is willing to buy en masse balls or equipment that do not conform to new I&B  distance controls or a rollback it will never happen.

If and when the USGA makes some real I&B distance rollback proposals what will the average golfer want, and what will he do? Can golf put the "distance genie" back in the bottle? As far as I know this has never actually happened in any major way in any sport. Will golf be the first?

[TEPaul]

DougS:

The old three piece softer balls that the pros and good players pretty much all used were effectively not at the ODS distance limit the way the old two piece rocks were. And you're right that the basic reason had to do with spin rates. The old "rocks"  being lower spinning just launched off drivers and other clubs higher and therefore they created a higher overall trajectory. That trajectory effectively produced most of the additional distance we see today vs the three-piece softer balls whose trajectory simply started lower and did not climb to their maximum height for maybe 100 or more yards. The latter trajectory with the softer, higher spinning ball, although perhaps of the same initial velocity as the "rocks" just did not produce the type of overall trajectory that produced maximum distance. The USGA test center now knows that and has for a number of years.

Given that, one answer to distance control, or even rollback is to add a new regulation or new I&B rule that puts a limitation on the MINIMUM amount of allowable spin rate of the golf ball. This has never been done before. It seems to be what they are now looking into. For it to have a distance rollback effect basically it would mean the good and strong player's shots would look more like the old three-piece soft ball tracjectories where the shots would start out much lower than they do today before beginning their steep climb perhaps 100 or so yards out as they used to do when most all good players played the higher spinning softer balls!

As for what such a new rule or reg (limiting the MINIMUM amount of spin-rate allowable on a golf ball) would do to the side-spin of a ball or a good players shot, I'm told (by the tech center) it probably would not and will not have as much of a sideways effect as it will have a "height" effect on the ball's initial trajectory!! Again, that much lower initial trajectory has a much greater effect on limiting over-all distance (carry distance) than most have been aware of.

[A.G._Crockett]

Very interesting, and very exciting.

I would think that the manufacturerers would be really getting excited over the possibility of marketing a "new" ball to the masses.  The USGA's apparent intention of co-opting the retail side of the game is a critical and wise strategy.  Makes me think my membership money is being well-spent!  

I don't swing fast enough to take advantage of the technology anyway.  I hit the ProV about as far as I did the Professional, which I hit about as far as an older wound ball.  My selfish hope, though, is that I'll still be able to get urethane covers on whatever is made.  The damn things last forever, and I hate buying golf balls.

[JohnV]

The way the USGA is going about this reminds me of how the startup I was involved with went about raising venture capital.  We made it well known that we wanted money and started courting the VCs.  Eventually one VC bit at the price we wanted and all the rest jumped right in, not wanting to be left out of the deal.

The USGA has gone out and asked the ball companies to make them a ball so they can test it.  Some companies are whineing and screaming about it, but as soon as one company makes a ball, the others will jump right in.  Even the biggest cry-babies like Wally Uhlein are probably designing balls right now to meet the new specs, but will try to hold out as long as possible.  Look for one of the mid-range manufacturers to be the first to take the leap and watch the big boys follow in a rush.  They won't be left behind.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't know if anyone else sees it this way but two sentences in the story lead me to believe that all of the testing will lead to the creation of a competition ball and not affect the existing standards for non-competitive play.  

We expect that testing balls made to conform to the reduced limits will enable an appropriate evaluation of how a reduced distance golf ball would affect playing of the game.

I have never heard that the USGA worries about the distance issue as it pertains to the game as played by the vast majority of its participants. Pro V1s and the like add yardage to the average players game and I know many who have benifitted from them, most of whom don't have 120 mph club head speeds and aren't hitting 300+ yard drives.

....the USGA suggests the idea of a rollback is being given serious consideration (at least in terms of an intellectual exercise), Rugge has made it clear in the past that such a scenario has no precedent in equipment rulemaking.

There aren't enough PR specialists in the country to convince the general playing public that rolling back the ball will not affect them, even if it's true. Try to tell the player that found an extra ten yards with a new ball that he can no longer use it for everyday play and he no longer sends in his $25.00, buys the sweater, hat, calendar, Christmas card etc..

This is why I believe it's a competition ball in the making and I think, if created, it will find its way into the top-ranked non-tour events and eventually trickle down into more and more club tournaments.        

[Alfie]

TEP,
"We all, on here, can continue to talk about what the USGA/R&A should do about distance control or a distance rollback or what the manufacturers may do to counter a move like that but in the end what either one of them wants to do is not as important as what the average golfer wants or will do."

I agree, and I think the next few months could be full of intrigue ? In my mind, there are two kinds of average golfer ; the who has a desire for competitive golf through a members club, and the one who just wants to play some casual golf.

I don't think it's so much of a case of what the average golfer may want / wish for, rather what he / she is given (by the ruling bodies) ! And I say that without trying to be dictatorial.......I just reckon that's the way affiliated golfers' will accept 'any' new ruling.  What non-affiliates might think about a rollback is neither here nor there, IMO. Clubs and their members have a power which has, as yet, and as far as I know, never been really unleashed and heard en masse in golfing history ?
One can only assume that these first rumblings from the USGA will gather momentum in the ensuing months ahead, and with that, there is going to be greater awareness of the "facts" relating to a proposed rollback of the ball and why it's deemed necessary to invoke it, through media and mags etc.. thereby educating all those average golfers that a new ball rule isn't going to kill them nor destroy their pleasure in golf. I'm sure the USGA / R&A will have fully assesed their position before actually sending out this e-mail to the manufacturers in the first place ?
So if certain "ball" manufacturers get huffed about the possibility of a rollback - then they should be wary of the sleeping giant. Providing, of course, that club members back the USGA / R&A should they eventually invoke new ball rules ?
I don't know what the stats are for the US, but in Scotland there are an estimated 500,000 regular golfers annually. Of which there are 260,000 bona fide club members ! That's a good lobby to start with if the R&A can get them on board, and there's no reason why they can't achieve that by enlisting the support of our own Scottish Golf Union.......and the hundreds of similar golf unions spread around the world.
Litigation ? What litigation !
And since Bob Thurman has made Wilson's position crystal clear (IMO) I can't see any renegade ball makers being so foolish as to go against the "will" of the golfing public (members) ?
The manufacturers will, however, "retain" their "right" to continue making unconforming equipment and presumably sell their wares to the other average golfer who neither cares nor wishes to be competitive within a club set up.

I've always believed that this "distance genie" can be stuck back into the bottle and will cite Formula 1 as being the first to take what many reckoned to be a retrograde step back in "their" sport. Haven't heard too many complaints there ?

2005 is going to be an interesting year in golf's history - either way !

Alfie.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()