[Chuck Brown]

John, I think your point as you repeated it is exactly right.  By creating a mostly innocuous rule of bifurcation (pros need to ditch their U-grooves, recreational players don't), the USGA's unspoken, unarticulated point might well be to encourage a kind of elective rollback among the tour players and elites, one which wouldn't affect the equipment among recreational players.

And, returning to the opening theme of this thread, I can't help but think that perhaps the USGA thought that the use of 60+ degree wedges would foil the plan to encourage a voluntary ball rollback, with some players continuing to bomb-and-gouge with current-formulation balls, but with a 64-degree V-groove wedge instead of a 60-degree U-groove wedge.

I honestly don't know.  And in truth, I have been an agnostic on the groove issue throughout.  I continue to hold the revolutionary belief that the way to regulate golf ball distance is, uh, to regulate golf ball distance, and not by sneaking in a ball rollback by way of reconfigured grooves...

To me, it is like enforcing a speed limit by forcing drivers to ride on bald tires.

[Ken Moum]

John, my view is that the USGA missed the boat on drivers.  Thanks (or no thanks, as the case may be) to Frank Thomas, the former Technical Director who proclaimed, back when the newest drivers were less than 360cc, that head size was rapidly reaching a point of diminishing returns.  He was wrong, and he did not foresee what additional technologies (springlike faces and Higher MoI) would accompany very high-volume drivers.

I am not completely certain of it, but I believe one of the things that Thomas wanted to do--and was vetoed on--was to simply enforce the existing rule on spring-like effect.

When springy faces were discovered on the Great Big Bertha, I believe he wanted to grandfather those heads--because they weren't built that way on purpose. Then simply test all future clubs to see that they adhered to the existing rule that forbid ANY spring-like effect.

If he had been allowed to do that, things would different today. (Of course, the USGA might have been bakrupted by the law suits, which seems to be the reason they never enforved the rule as it was written.)

Instead, they re-wrote the definition of "no spring-like effect" to allow the hottest existing drivers, then added a little wiggle room.

Ken Moum

[C. Squier]

While we're busy taking away JB Holmes' natural ability to hit it farther, we should also do something to minimize Crenshaw's putting stroke, Mickelson's wedge play, Hale Irwin's long iron play and Tiger's mental acuity.  "Here little boy, take this tranquilizer....now mind you, this will only make you 25% as loopy as Tiger's pill does, but keep in mind we're trying to keep the playing field as fair as we can."

Chuck, we just can't have a tour event at Cypress Point anymore.  Or Shoreacres.  As much as I'd love to see it, that's just not in the cards.  Even the Golden Age GCA's buried courses long ago to build longer ones.  That's just the nature of it.  A rollback won't work, but I'm all in favor of freezing things where they are today. 

[John Moore II]

I am not sure if I buy the whole idea of a 'spring like effect.' Now, the face buckling in a bit, I can buy, and if it goes in, it will naturally rebound outwards. But to me, knowing that the ball stays on the face for not more than .001 second, its hard for me to think that additional buckling inwards of the face would make that big a difference.

Here's a little math (which may be wrong): If the club face currently has a COR of .830 (using the USGA method where a ball is launched at a club at 100 mph, if the COR is .830, the ball rebounds at 83.0 mph) and the golf ball travels 300 yards when struck with this club, a COR increase to .84 or .85 would only result in a net gain of 3 or 6 yards. Now, let it be known, there is no physically possible way to attain a COR of 1.00, the max possible is .930, so the max possible yardage gain from COR is 30 yards.

I don't think the COR makes much of a difference really. Obviously drivers today go farther than drivers from 10 years ago, with the COR the same. Like I say, I think the spring effect is a bit of a myth. There is not a lot of 'springing' that can happen in .001 second.

[Chuck Brown]

While we're busy taking away JB Holmes' natural ability to hit it farther, we should also do something to minimize Crenshaw's putting stroke, Mickelson's wedge play, Hale Irwin's long iron play and Tiger's mental acuity.  "Here little boy, take this tranquilizer....now mind you, this will only make you 25% as loopy as Tiger's pill does, but keep in mind we're trying to keep the playing field as fair as we can."

Chuck, we just can't have a tour event at Cypress Point anymore.  Or Shoreacres.  As much as I'd love to see it, that's just not in the cards.  Even the Golden Age GCA's buried courses long ago to build longer ones.  That's just the nature of it.  A rollback won't work, but I'm all in favor of freezing things where they are today. 

I can't even count the number of times that I have siad that I have no desire to impede JB Holmes' ability to win, or to increase Corey Pavin's ability to win.  A long hitter who is accurate and skilled will always have the advantage over an equally skilled short hitter; I'm good with that.  (I'd expect, with most of the kinds of golf ball changes that we may be considering that Mr. Tiger Woods would be even more dominant, given the character of his game.)

What is inargable is that the elite players' games do not fit on most great golf courses anymore, and we see more and more changes to courses to accomodate what those players can do, with the asistance of modern equipment technology. 

Those golf course changes are to a great extent antithetical to the intent of the designer(s).  And, we see changes that produce less and less intersting golf at its highest levels.

You talk about a "freeze."  What does that mean?  So the ODS remains the same.  So maximum head size and MoI and CT remain the same.  Do you think R&D will stop?  I don't think so.  I hope not!  I don't wish to freeze the game in some kind of time warp.  All I want -- and I think this is a very simple, very clear goal -- is to scale the game and its equipment (equipment being a very small part of the golfing experience) to the existing courses.  It is the courses that are the most valuable, most fragile part of the game.  Whether or not we preserve Shoreacres or CPC, in particular, is of course not by itself deteminative for me.  None of this can ever by reduced to an equation or those kinds of specifics.  It is all, in the end, an aesthetic issue.  But that much is common to all games and all sports.  Why a stadium like Fenway Park?  Why 60 feet 6 inches?  Why bats made only of wood?  Why baseballs stitched and fabricated the way they are?  It's all in pursuit of a game that adheres to a certain aesthetic, and, with that aesthetic, a place in history.  (Our British friends -- you have to substitute your own MCC-Lords' analogies...)

[Andy Hughes]

I can't even count the number of times that I have siad that I have no desire to impede JB Holmes' ability to win...

Chuck, Clint didn't say anything about Holmes' ability to win. He referenced Holmes' distance, which is exactly what you have been railing against.  I have not seen a clear and compelling argument that would persuade the average golfer why he should be happy to have his typical drive shortened.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Here's a little math (which may be wrong): If the club face currently has a COR of .830 (using the USGA method where a ball is launched at a club at 100 mph, if the COR is .830, the ball rebounds at 83.0 mph) ...

Actually it rebounds at something like 150 mph. I don't know the exact numbers, but I do know the ball is launched at a much higher speed that the club head is travelling. Don't forget the COR of the ball (which had already been limited by the initial velocity test).

[Garland Bayley]

...I have not seen a clear and compelling argument that would persuade the average golfer why he should be happy to have his typical drive shortened.

Don't need any persuasion of the average golfer that his "typical drive" be shortened. If you regulate spin, as I have advocated ever since I joined this site, the average golfer could go get fitted for ball and hit the ball as far as he does now!

Only the highly skilled golfers have had their drives lengthened by the new ball!

[Rob Rigg]

Golf Channel had a long drive competition thingy on this aft.

150 mph swing translated into a 200 mph+ ball launch speed depending on where it hit on the face. Sweet spot gave it something like 220 mph.

Sidenote - Those guys were hitting it between 350 and 390 yards and keeping it "in play". Unreal.

Pinnacle Gold Distance (or something) ball.

[C. Squier]

I can't even count the number of times that I have siad that I have no desire to impede JB Holmes' ability to win...

Chuck, Clint didn't say anything about Holmes' ability to win. He referenced Holmes' distance, which is exactly what you have been railing against.  I have not seen a clear and compelling argument that would persuade the average golfer why he should be happy to have his typical drive shortened.

Furthermore, who here has played a course that you rendered too short?  I can hit it a little further past my own shadow, but I can't think of a place that wasn't fun because the hazards were never in play.  Certainly there are much longer players than I am, who has had this experience?

Pros are a completely different story.  They play for a paycheck, we play for entertainment.  They don't care where hazards are, nor do they care about GCA Thurs-Sun.  I'd relate it to professional poker.....the pros think of the game of nothing more than probability math, where we think it's a great excuse to eat pretzels and smell like cigars.  We need to get past thinking that courses need to be pro ready to be relevant. 

[John Moore II]

...
Here's a little math (which may be wrong): If the club face currently has a COR of .830 (using the USGA method where a ball is launched at a club at 100 mph, if the COR is .830, the ball rebounds at 83.0 mph) ...

Actually it rebounds at something like 150 mph. I don't know the exact numbers, but I do know the ball is launched at a much higher speed that the club head is travelling. Don't forget the COR of the ball (which had already been limited by the initial velocity test).

That is not the USGA test. In the USGA test the head is fastened in place and a golf ball launched at the head from a 'gun.' At least that was the original test.

Garland it is physically impossible for a ball to rebound at greater speed than launched. If it rebounded at 100 mph (when fired at 100 mph) there would be no sound. You can't have 100% energy transfer. Here, read the research:

http://www.calgolftech.com/whats_new/driver58.html
Scroll down to the section that says Testing Driver Heads for Coefficient of Restitution

http://www.wishongolf.com/faq_tech_answer.php?techKey=1
This defines what max COR is and also tells the difference in yardage for .830 and .860.

http://www.usga.org/equipment/research_studies/Second_Report_on_Study_of_Spin_Generation.pdf
And go to that one, yet more proof that higher lofted clubs don't equate to higher spin from the rough. This study simply says that the 3 iron spins 89 rps (rotation per second), the 5 93 rps, the 7 iron spins at 94 rps, the 9 at 92 rps, and the SW at 80 rps with U grooves. With V grooves, the results are a little bit more zig-zaged.   These results listed on page 42 of 63.

Garland, please stop making me prove you wrong about everything you say. Its really no fun for me and it just makes you look less and less intelligent.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Here's a little math (which may be wrong): If the club face currently has a COR of .830 (using the USGA method where a ball is launched at a club at 100 mph, if the COR is .830, the ball rebounds at 83.0 mph) ...

Actually it rebounds at something like 150 mph. I don't know the exact numbers, but I do know the ball is launched at a much higher speed that the club head is travelling. Don't forget the COR of the ball (which had already been limited by the initial velocity test).

That is not the USGA test. In the USGA test the head is fastened in place and a golf ball launched at the head from a 'gun.' At least that was the original test.

Garland it is physically impossible for a ball to rebound at greater speed than launched. If it rebounded at 100 mph (when fired at 100 mph) there would be no sound. You can't have 100% energy transfer. Here, read the research:

http://www.calgolftech.com/whats_new/driver58.html
Scroll down to the section that says Testing Driver Heads for Coefficient of Restitution

http://www.wishongolf.com/faq_tech_answer.php?techKey=1
This defines what max COR is and also tells the difference in yardage for .830 and .860.

http://www.usga.org/equipment/research_studies/Second_Report_on_Study_of_Spin_Generation.pdf
And go to that one, yet more proof that higher lofted clubs don't equate to higher spin from the rough. This study simply says that the 3 iron spins 89 rps (rotation per second), the 5 93 rps, the 7 iron spins at 94 rps, the 9 at 92 rps, and the SW at 80 rps with U grooves. With V grooves, the results are a little bit more zig-zaged.   These results listed on page 42 of 63.

Garland, please stop making me prove you wrong about everything you say. Its really no fun for me and it just makes you look less and less intelligent.

Hey John, guess you'll have to go after that DS Rob Rigg for his outlandish claims above too!

[John Moore II]

...
Here's a little math (which may be wrong): If the club face currently has a COR of .830 (using the USGA method where a ball is launched at a club at 100 mph, if the COR is .830, the ball rebounds at 83.0 mph) ...

Actually it rebounds at something like 150 mph. I don't know the exact numbers, but I do know the ball is launched at a much higher speed that the club head is travelling. Don't forget the COR of the ball (which had already been limited by the initial velocity test).

That is not the USGA test. In the USGA test the head is fastened in place and a golf ball launched at the head from a 'gun.' At least that was the original test.

Garland it is physically impossible for a ball to rebound at greater speed than launched. If it rebounded at 100 mph (when fired at 100 mph) there would be no sound. You can't have 100% energy transfer. Here, read the research:

http://www.calgolftech.com/whats_new/driver58.html
Scroll down to the section that says Testing Driver Heads for Coefficient of Restitution

http://www.wishongolf.com/faq_tech_answer.php?techKey=1
This defines what max COR is and also tells the difference in yardage for .830 and .860.

http://www.usga.org/equipment/research_studies/Second_Report_on_Study_of_Spin_Generation.pdf
And go to that one, yet more proof that higher lofted clubs don't equate to higher spin from the rough. This study simply says that the 3 iron spins 89 rps (rotation per second), the 5 93 rps, the 7 iron spins at 94 rps, the 9 at 92 rps, and the SW at 80 rps with U grooves. With V grooves, the results are a little bit more zig-zaged.   These results listed on page 42 of 63.

Garland, please stop making me prove you wrong about everything you say. Its really no fun for me and it just makes you look less and less intelligent.

Hey John, guess you'll have to go after that DS Rob Rigg for his outlandish claims above too!

Robs stats aren't wrong, at least not at first look. Now the launch monitors might be wrong, but thats another issue. The numbers do seem a little bit out of line, but my personal numbers (a few months ago) were 122 clubhead speed with something like 155 mph ball speed. When you actually swing a club, the ball comes off the face at a higher velocity than swing speed. But the USGA COR test is not conducted using an actual club swinging motion. The USGA test involves firing a golf ball at a clubhead fastened in place and recording the rebound velocity.

But Rob's numbers are about right. A good way to determine max carry distance based off clubhead speed is take clubhead speed and multiply it by 2.5. So, at 150 mph, the max carry distance is 375 yards, add in 15-20 yards roll, and you've got drives in the range of 395 yards.

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry John,

I didn't read your post clearly enough to see you were speaking exclusively about the USGA test. I guess I got confused when you discussed 300 yards drives in your post.

I was thinking of data like Rob reported. Perhaps he misread your post too.

[Garland Bayley]

...
http://www.usga.org/equipment/research_studies/Second_Report_on_Study_of_Spin_Generation.pdf
And go to that one, yet more proof that higher lofted clubs don't equate to higher spin from the rough. This study simply says that the 3 iron spins 89 rps (rotation per second), the 5 93 rps, the 7 iron spins at 94 rps, the 9 at 92 rps, and the SW at 80 rps with U grooves. With V grooves, the results are a little bit more zig-zaged.   These results listed on page 42 of 63.

Garland, please stop making me prove you wrong about everything you say. Its really no fun for me and it just makes you look less and less intelligent.

Guess I don't know why you included this here. I did not go to page 42 and 63 to see the results, because at no point did I claim that spin goes up by using higher loft in the rough. I discussed primarily two things. Dry conditions, which translates to playing from the fairway. In dry conditions, increasing loft translates to more ball spin, and that it matters little whether you have U or V grooves. The second thing was that the advantage to U grooves was in the rough and wet, because they provide greater volume for displacing grass and water that would diminish the club face contact. I needed to read no farther than page 9 of the USGA report above to see that is exactly the result of their player testing. The interesting thing I learned was that the five iron spun more from the rough that from the fairway. The USGA had reported in the past that you could achieve more spin from the rough than from the fairway, but I had never seen them report which club.

[Rich Goodale]

I thought this topic was about "wedge loft."  Does anybody out there swing their 60+ degree wedges @ 122 MPH?  If so, I'm impressed!

[TEPaul]

"Don't need any persuasion of the average golfer that his "typical drive" be shortened. If you regulate spin, as I have advocated ever since I joined this site, the average golfer could go get fitted for ball and hit the ball as far as he does now!"

Garland:

I think you're right and I've mentioned the same thing for years too. I'm no physcist but I've heard from tech people (within and without the USGA Tech Center) that if spin rate was regulated (to require higher spin rate balls) at least in theory slower swing speed players may actually pick up some distance compared to now or over the last forty or so years since most all of them have been playing lower spin rate hard balls (pretty much the opposite of what would be maximally distance enhancing for low swing speed players). Obviously it's not only the ball but the point is for all golfers to optimize their clubs and balls to develop the optimum trajectory (for distance) for their particular swing speed. Essentially spin creates lift even though that's not all there is to it. The high swing speed players do generally generate that low to high trajectory (why is it that it seems only high swing speed players (generally around 105MPH+ are generally capable of that?) which is the opposite of optimum for carry distance with high spin rate balls but it seems low swing speed players (below perhaps 100mph) cannot do that.

In that seeming reality may be something of a win/win situation for low to high swing speed players regarding optimum distance generation---ie lower swing speed players may pick up some while high swing speed players may lose some with spin rate regulation (a regulation on MINIMUM amount of spin rate).

Or to put it another way----eg up until about ten years ago it may've been that high swing speed players were using balls with too high spin rate for maximum distance (trajectory) while on the other side of the spectrum most all low swing speed players were using balls that were too low spinning for maximum distance (trajectory).

[Andy Hughes]

Only the highly skilled golfers have had their drives lengthened by the new ball!

Garland last week in a discussion of the ball and increased length, you were just saying your son, who only plays now and then, was hitting his wedge at the 167 yard flag at the range. Your point was clearly that you felt the ball was enabling him to hit great distances. Are you now saying your son is also a highly skilled player? If not, then I am having a hard time seeing how your logic flows.

[Garland Bayley]

Only the highly skilled golfers have had their drives lengthened by the new ball!

Garland last week in a discussion of the ball and increased length, you were just saying your son, who only plays now and then, was hitting his wedge at the 167 yard flag at the range. Your point was clearly that you felt the ball was enabling him to hit great distances. Are you now saying your son is also a highly skilled player? If not, then I am having a hard time seeing how your logic flows.

No, I was using him as a midpoint of the age range I gave for those that can hit the ball a long ways. If I remember correctly, someone was claiming that no one could carry a ball as far as Nicklaus could back in the day. I was claiming that many 18 to 38 year olds could do exactly that. My son, who is 28 was an example of such a person. I could do it back at that age too.

It does not take a highly skilled player to hit the ball a long ways (e.g., how many long drive contest champions do you see on the tours?). It takes a highly skilled player to score extraordinarily well. Those players were all playing high spin balls. With the new ball, they gained distance. The distance was always there. The initial velocity test was always there. Therefore, if today's technology had been available, anyone could have gotten on a luanch monitor in the old days and found a ball that would maximize their drive just like they do today.

[JESII]

I thought this topic was about "wedge loft."  Does anybody out there swing their 60+ degree wedges @ 122 MPH?  If so, I'm impressed!

only after the ball has plugged into the face of the front bunker...obviously.

[Andy Hughes]

No, I was using him as a midpoint of the age range I gave for those that can hit the ball a long ways. If I remember correctly, someone was claiming that no one could carry a ball as far as Nicklaus could back in the day. I was claiming that many 18 to 38 year olds could do exactly that. My son, who is 28 was an example of such a person. I could do it back at that age too.

Nicklaus had nothing to do with the discussion.  Someone commented on how far they felt the ball now goes,  and that it was making courses too short. I asked too short for whom, and you responded with your son and those in his age group.  So I take it then that you feel courses have always been too short for those who are 18-38?

[Garland Bayley]

No, I was using him as a midpoint of the age range I gave for those that can hit the ball a long ways. If I remember correctly, someone was claiming that no one could carry a ball as far as Nicklaus could back in the day. I was claiming that many 18 to 38 year olds could do exactly that. My son, who is 28 was an example of such a person. I could do it back at that age too.

Nicklaus had nothing to do with the discussion.  Someone commented on how far they felt the ball now goes,  and that it was making courses too short. I asked too short for whom, and you responded with your son and those in his age group.  So I take it then that you feel courses have always been too short for those who are 18-38?

When it comes to needing to hit every club in the bag they have been. The long hitters in that age group have been playing bomb and gouge for ages. It is only a recent development on tour.

[Andy Hughes]

Garland, I have lost all sense of what you are trying to say or where you are headed. Last week the sky was falling and the game needed to make changes because the ball was going too far, specifically according to you for those aged 18-38.  This week you say that yes indeed the ball goes too far for that age group but that it always has gone too long for them. 

If this has always been an issue for that cohort, and by your implication only that cohort, then why is it now/today that suddenly changes need to be made and rules instigated and not earlier? Because pros on tour now play what you call bomb and gouge?

[Chuck Brown]

I can't even count the number of times that I have siad that I have no desire to impede JB Holmes' ability to win...

Chuck, Clint didn't say anything about Holmes' ability to win. He referenced Holmes' distance, which is exactly what you have been railing against.  I have not seen a clear and compelling argument that would persuade the average golfer why he should be happy to have his typical drive shortened.

Andy, you betcha I have a problem with how far Holmes hits driver, when the USGA's Overall Distance Standard "limitation" is a mythical 317 yards or so, and JB might pound out drives of 330, 340 or 350 yards on a semi-regular basis.
Yes, I am railing against driver distance, and yes it is a problem that is unique to the elite-level players.

Rich Goodale notes that we have strayed for the original topic somewhat (include me among the guilty), but I'm sure that even Rich understands that there are good reasons to question the USGA about "balls" even when they say they are limiting "grooves" or "loft."  And a big part of that problem is that the USGA has mostly concealed information (i.e., with its ball-study-data) or contradicted itself (i.e., the Joint Statement of Principles versus the Dick Rugge Distance Myths Memo).

[Garland Bayley]

... Because pros on tour now play what you call bomb and gouge?

Yep! Suddenly it matters a lot more, because before the unskilled players were not changing the nature of the game, and the courses upon which it is played. The USGA believed it to be a problem significant enough when they introduced the initial velocity tests, and the overall distance standard tests. Why is it not just as signficant now? Why are they introducing standards on grooves and loft, instead of limiting the ball which has renewed the problem? Why do I have to buy new irons and wedges when that is something I normally would only do occaisionally, when it would be easier to buy new balls since that is something I do often?

Furthermore, I object to the manipulation of materials to produce a type off effect that you would not find in nature. I would note that baseball has found it needs to limit bats as they are getting too hot. What's wrong with limiting the implements in golf that are getting to hot?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()