[Chuck Brown]

 I get more pleasure from trying, selecting, working on and possessing golf CLUBS than golf BALLS.

Really, why would any lover of golf want to give up clubs?  I don't understand.

Chuck, obviously you enjoy clubs. I do too. I just choose to use less while playing the game.   It changes the game, try it.  It changes how you look at the land and puts more "touch" swing thoughts into the mind; i.e. half/full swing and closed/open face, etc.). I find it more interesting. As far as scores being better or worse, I don't know, I don't keep score very often. 
And because Richard Goodale will lose faith in mankind if I go back to the max allowed. (He's a bit of a puritanical thug - in a good way.) 

 And the old caddy at Prestwick, Jimmy, sure liked carrying my bag.

Ahh, Slag.  What you and I would get pleasure from, that is a different matter, apart from the Rules of Golf.  But we agree!  To me, I can think of few better experiences in golf than playing in the early evening on an empty golf course and carrying about seven clubs.

Seven clubs seems like the perfect number to me:  A Sunday bag, a 13-degree 3-wood, a hybrid 3-iron, 5-, 7- and 9-irons, a sand wedge and a putter.

That kind of game is pure fun and I recommend it to all.  (You, obviously, are way ahead of me and need no recommendation.)

As for tournament golf, however, fewer clubs do nothing to address technologically-aided distance.

[Chuck Brown]

John Burzynski started this thread off with a good question about loft rules.  We've gone off on a number of tangents, but not unfairly I think.  It's all the same game, and all part of the same equation; the same seamless web.

My initial thought in answer to John's question was that any loft rules may have been a direct offshoot of the USGA attempting to reach a certain goal with the new groove rules (not, say, just to arbitrarily 'make the game harder', or skew scoring results) and they might have percieved, from early testing, that instead of demanding spinnier balls, tour players might just employ extreme-lofted wedges.  (Negating, perhaps an unspoken USGA desire to get the big boys to go back to spinny golf balls.)

Well, now we have Tiger Woods, live from Sherwood, weighing in on the topic.  Impliedly, he seems to bear out what my thoughts had been:

~~~~~~~~
Q. In 2010 the USGA is changing the rule for grooves. Is that going to affect what's in your bag now or how you play golf courses in the coming years?
TIGER WOODS: Yeah, it'll affect what's in my bag. I can't have my two sand wedges the way I have them now.
But as far as -- I play the spinniest ball on TOUR, so for me, my transition will be a little bit easier than the rest of the guys, guys who play a harder golf ball. They're going to have to maybe a little bit more of an adjustment, whether they do it with loft. Some guys are experimenting with 64-degree wedges to try to help them out that way so they can hit fuller shots with more spin, or guys just might be making -- actually more mental adjustments in their course management skills, going for greens, because you know you actually can't get the ball to spin like you used to so it puts more of a premium on putting the ball in the fairway. With the wedges you can't blast it out there on the par-5s and expect an easy up-and-down. You've got to miss it on the proper side more than ever. But it'll be very interesting to see what happens, how guys make that adjustment.
~~~~~~~~

Tiger clearly thinks the first reaction to the new groove rules is for players to adjust their own golf ball specs.  Just as many of us suggested was the true aim of the USGA.  And, Tiger himself seems to think that his own wedges lofts will definitely change in relation to the need for something else around the green.  I presume, a 60+ degree wedge.  Unless, of course, such wedges are also banned, in which case there will presumably be a need for even more definitive, player-demanded ball changes. ?

[John Burzynski]

Certainly the groove changes and even loft limitations might make the short game tougher.  But when the pro's are saying that with the rules changes it will force more ball changes for players to try to adapt, this should be an indication for the USGA where the ultimate problem and solution lie. 

The ball is the ultimate common denominator with all players. 

What about growing the greens a bit longer, so they don't stimp out at 12+ ?  Maybe the putting would get a bit less predictable for the pros, keeping their scores low.  It wouldn't be as easy to walk up and pendulum putt, it might reintroduce a wristy motion into the putting, and a bit less predictability for many pros.  The good ones would adapt, of course.  I know the ball might hold better on a shaggier green, so approach shots might stick, but a premium would be set on good short iron play / accuracy.

Or maybe I am way off my rocker?

 

[Chuck Brown]

No, John, you're not off your rocker at all.  But isn't it remarkable to what extents people will go, with theories about what to do to the Rules of Golf, before addressing the one thing that HAS changed, and the one thing that would be easiest, by far, to correct -- the ball.

Here we are, talking about grooves, and lofts, and the number of clubs, and green speeds, etc., etc.  Twisting ourselves into knots over the specifications of the cheapest, least interesting, most inconsequential part of the game.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chuck,
Rolling back the ball might be the expedient remedy, but it would be the hardest thing to do, not the easiest.

[John Moore II]

But what would we roll the balls back to? I mean, are we talking about going back to wound or what? Or reducing ball velocity? And if we do choose to reduce velocity, what should be the standard number? And with the technology and money poured into golf balls these days, what is to say that the ball can meet the velocity standard for a given club (or however the test works) but go faster than allowed on another just based on a different set of variables? And with the current situation of 2 and 3 cover golf balls that behave differently on different clubs, whats to prevent having 4 or 5 covers, so that someone who does not compress the ball very much gets very good velocity because of a softer cover, but someone with high swing speed also gets very good velocity because they can compress down to a very hard cover/core? Its a very complex problem with golf balls that I don't understand nearly as well as I do clubs. But I feel that even if we change the standards, companies will find ways around it.

[Chuck Brown]

Chuck,
Rolling back the ball might be the expedient remedy, but it would be the hardest thing to do, not the easiest.

Jim, do you mean "hardest" in terms of combatting litigation from, say Acushnet?

Because I feel certain you can't mean that rolling back the ball represents the kind of cost involved in golf course renovations, or the kind of technical challenge posed by club regulations, or the kind of wholesale rule and game changes posed by limitations on the number of clubs.

I see a huge benefit in the USGA's taking on, and defeating, a ProV 1 lawsuit.  It would restore the primacy that the USGA began to lose as a result of the Ping Eye 2 litigation.  Why wouldn't the USGA win?  Why shouldn't the USGA win?

If there is a problem with golf balls going too far, that is almost entirely related to the design and construction of those balls, doesn't it make the most sense to address the balls, instead of other parts of the game?

[Chuck Brown]

But what would we roll the balls back to?

Something less, in terms of the ODS, than what we have now.  I'd like to see something that accomplishes that for very high swing speeds and does little to affect lower swing speeds.  I don't think that is at all impossible.  It's be nice if the USGA, whcih I have supported for 20 years this year, would share or publish the data from their six-year study of golf balls in the Pro V era.

I mean, are we talking about going back to wound or what?

Nope.

Or reducing ball velocity?

Yep.  In general terms.  See above.

And if we do choose to reduce velocity, what should be the standard number?

You think it is an arbitrary number, somehow?  How did we get the current protocols for 317 yards plus or minus 3 yards, or whatever they are pretending to enforce?

And with the technology and money poured into golf balls these days, what is to say that the ball can meet the velocity standard for a given club (or however the test works) but go faster than allowed on another just based on a different set of variables?

Is that now the case?  Perhaps, but only in the most perverse sort of way, in which some particular balls, opitmized for elite-level performance, are going much, much farther than was intended under the original ODS.

And with the current situation of 2 and 3 cover golf balls that behave differently on different clubs, whats to prevent having 4 or 5 covers, so that someone who does not compress the ball very much gets very good velocity because of a softer cover, but someone with high swing speed also gets very good velocity because they can compress down to a very hard cover/core?

I'm not sure there is anything like that.  But if you've got a particular idea about a problem or a solution, I think the USGA would be happy to hear about it.

Its a very complex problem with golf balls that I don't understand nearly as well as I do clubs. But I feel that even if we change the standards, companies will find ways around it.

Yes, John.  You have that exactly right.  And I shall never understand ball physics and chemistry as well as the people who make them for a living.  I'm like you.  I'll sooner undrstand most things related to golf clubs, in their present state of evolution, than golf balls.
But if the companies "find a way around" any regulations on balls, we'll just craft more regulations.  We are doing it all the time on things like putters, drivers, etc.  I would never abandon all ball regulations just because something might change in the future. I'll pretty much guarantee that "something will change in the future."

[John Moore II]

Actually, I was talking about a 4 or 5 cover ball, or whatever, as a way for companies to get around the rules. I really have no idea how to roll back the balls. I was just asking questions as to what we might have in mind. I am just thinking that companies will find ways to manipulate the rules the same way they do now.

[Chuck Brown]

Actually, I was talking about a 4 or 5 cover ball, or whatever, as a way for companies to get around the rules. I really have no idea how to roll back the balls. I was just asking questions as to what we might have in mind. I am just thinking that companies will find ways to manipulate the rules the same way they do now.

I understand.  And actually, I agree with you.  I think the manufacturers will do that as long as there is no "one-ball" rule or condition of play.  And I must tell you, that doesn't bother me.  I welcome innovation, research and development of new products.  Let's just fit it all to the existing courses, that's all.
Indeed, John, we may need the best and most advanced research to accomplish the kind of carefully tailored rollback I am thinking about.
Of course, golf equipment business shouldn't be hurt by a rollback.  People will still need golf balls.
The only reason that Acushnet would seem to be a proposed plaintiff is that they have such a massive market-share in balls, and it is presumed that they'll do anything to protect it.  Protection of the status quo, is what it boils down to.  Acushnet's [presumed] position has nothing to with protecting the greater golf equipment business from the big bad USGA.

[Garland Bayley]

My response to JohnV on geoff's site about how to roll back the ball.

"John,

It's the slope! The Strata and Pro V changed the slope! Plot the line of spin vs loft for the balata ball, and the rock flite. You get similar slopes. Plot the line for the Pro V, you get a significantly steeper slop. If this slope were regulated, everyone could find a ball the would go their maximum off the driver. There is no reason to take away Pinnacles. That should be a choice the golfer makes when he decides he needs to step it up for steeper competition. You know just like the old rock flite, balata days."

Hopefully that has enough detail to make it understandable. I suspect JohnV having started in my profession can understand it.

[John Moore II]

My response to JohnV on geoff's site about how to roll back the ball.

"John,

It's the slope! The Strata and Pro V changed the slope! Plot the line of spin vs loft for the balata ball, and the rock flite. You get similar slopes. Plot the line for the Pro V, you get a significantly steeper slop. If this slope were regulated, everyone could find a ball the would go their maximum off the driver. There is no reason to take away Pinnacles. That should be a choice the golfer makes when he decides he needs to step it up for steeper competition. You know just like the old rock flite, balata days."

Hopefully that has enough detail to make it understandable. I suspect JohnV having started in my profession can understand it.

So you disagree with golf balls that produce different spin rates off different clubs? (I get that all balls produce different spin rates on different clubs, but that the newer ones produce greater spin on wedges and far less spin on drivers) But really, why is this a problem? Why does everything have to be regulated to death? Has there ever been regulations on golf balls beyond the velocity and distance standards? Why regulate now? I mean, we talk about great courses being butchered to stay relevant, but how many courses changed, became obsolete or even closed when we switched from gutta percha to the haskel to wound balata? Or from hickory shafts to steel?

And what the hell does flatter line spin through the set have to do with wedge lofts and hole difficulty?

[Chuck Brown]

...

... But really, why is this a problem? Why does everything have to be regulated to death? Has there ever been regulations on golf balls beyond the velocity and distance standards? Why regulate now? I mean, we talk about great courses being butchered to stay relevant, but how many courses changed, became obsolete or even closed when we switched from gutta percha to the haskel to wound balata? Or from hickory shafts to steel?

...

At tremendous risk of repeating myself (more than a risk, I regret)...
John, speaking only for myself, I don't reject all technology and what it may have done to the game if it is good technology.  What is "good" versus "bad" technology?  Simple, really.  Technology like steel shafts, metal heads, modern epoxy and surlyn balls all helped to make the game less expensive, made it easier to build low-cost and consistent golf clubs for the average guy, and generally aided in the democratization of the game.  You can't say that about high-cost titanium heads, or exotic composite shafts or even laser rangefinders (he says, after setting down his laser rangefinder to return to the keyboard).

Featheries, guttys = terribly expensive.  Hickory shafts = also expensive.  Very difficult to work with and make consistent.  Ditto = persimmon heads.  Susceptible to moisture, inconsistent, more exensive, re-shafting akin to major surgery.

There are gray areas, yes, and some complicated judgments on overall utility, yes, but I think it is pretty clear that some technology helps the average player, and helps make the game more affordable and more likely to grow.  And then there is some technology that is extraordinarily expensive, that makes the game less accessible to those who cannot afford it, etc.

[Garland Bayley]

So you disagree with golf balls that produce different spin rates off different clubs? (I get that all balls produce different spin rates on different clubs, but that the newer ones produce greater spin on wedges and far less spin on drivers) But really, why is this a problem?

Because it is the root of the problem. It is what created the great gains in distance on tour.

Why does everything have to be regulated to death?

Because we don't want to mandate featheries. I.e., Baseball has specific regulation that specifies a leather cover and a specific wound center. We are not regulating to death, but regulating to keep the nature of the game the same.

Has there ever been regulations on golf balls beyond the velocity and distance standards?

No, but there was a time when these regulations did not exist, and they were put into place for exactly the same reason regulation of the ball is being proposed now.

Why regulate now? I mean, we talk about great courses being butchered to stay relevant, but how many courses changed, became obsolete or even closed when we switched from gutta percha to the haskel to wound balata?

The regulations on the ball are the significant ones. The changes in the ball has had the greatest effect of changing the game with respect to its playing fields. It is the ball that has gotten out of control again. Therefore, it is the ball that should be regulated.

Or from hickory shafts to steel?

This was a consistency and durability issue. There should be no objection to continued development of the  ball for consistency and durability. Balls could be more balanced so that you don't need a machine to find their balance point and put a line indicating it, etc.

And what the hell does flatter line spin through the set have to do with wedge lofts and hole difficulty?

It forces players to hit approaches with longer clubs, thereby reducing the spin available, and alleviating the need to regulate wedges.

[John Moore II]

And this is probably a repeat of what I have said before as well...
But my whole point is that as new technology has come out over the years, some golf courses have either closed or had to rebuild. It happens. I think the wound balata had a rather long lifespan, something like 50-60 years without a significant change in craftsmanship or technology. We are just now at the frontside of a new change in golf balls. Is it really the end of the world? I think not. Its simply evolution. (As for other technology such as exotic heads and $1000 shafts, I won't go there)

[Chuck Brown]

And this is probably a repeat of what I have said before as well...
But my whole point is that as new technology has come out over the years, some golf courses have either closed or had to rebuild. It happens. I think the wound balata had a rather long lifespan, something like 50-60 years without a significant change in craftsmanship or technology. We are just now at the frontside of a new change in golf balls. Is it really the end of the world? I think not. Its simply evolution. (As for other technology such as exotic heads and $1000 shafts, I won't go there)

John, let's just take the issue of golf balls in that case...
I don't for one moment suggest going back to old designs of golf balls -- wound cores, balata covers, etc.  We may find that technology in the Pro V era has something to offer the recerational player.  (For the most part, however, all evidence that I know of suggests that the Pro V was a much bigger aid to elite-level players.)
And I don't object to to new ball designs.  But as far as scaling them to existing courses, that seems to me to be both:
~entirely arbitrary, inasmuch as all games are essentially arbitrary constructions, and merely devoted to encouraging a certain kind of play and certain sporting venues (100-yard football field, 10-foot baskets, 60' 6" mound-to-plate baseball), AND
~amenable to careful and evolutionary standards.  Above, we remarked that golf balls are not suddenly being "regulated to death."  They have ALWAYS been regulated, and the regs have ALWAYS evolved.  Don't forget size and weight restrictions, which have changed over the years.  And the changes in USGA testing equipment, in the modern era. 

It won't surprise me one bit if there are new golf ball developments, provoking revised technical standards, in 2015, and again in 2025, and 2055, etc.  And players in those future times will probably no more caer about the Pro V1 per se, than we now care about Ben Hogan's Spalding Dot or Harry Vardon's Haskell ball.  I care much more about the courses; the historical continuity to be found at Merion or at St. Andrews, where Hogan and Vardon played, than any consistency or inconsistency in their equipment, particularly golf balls. 

Can I ask you, John, what is the harm to the game in any ball rollback, presuming that such a rollback is largely imperceptible to the vast majority of recreational players?  How is a rollback anything but beneficial to the game in that instance?  In asking this, I am specifically and avowedly excluding the interest of Acushnet and the Fortune Brands stock price.  My judgment is to elevte the interest and history of the game over any claimed, and unproven, harm to Titleist.

[Jim_Kennedy]

you can have some fun with this:
http://www.usga.org/equipment/technica_report_for_publication.pdf

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

That one has been discussed to death here before. They show that higher swing speeds don't gain disproportionally over slower swings speeds using what is essentially the same technology. Absent was the comparison of old technology to new.

When the tour got the new technology, they used it to make very significant distance gains.

[Chuck Brown]

Jim,

That one has been discussed to death here before. They show that higher swing speeds don't gain disproportionally over slower swings speeds using what is essentially the same technology. Absent was the comparison of old technology to new.

When the tour got the new technology, they used it to make very significant distance gains.

Exactly right.  I always wondered if that study "Was made possible by a generous grant from Fortune Brands, Inc., makers of Titleist balls and golf clubs, Cobra golf equipment and FootJoy shoes, gloves and apparel.  And also by viewers like you..."

Anyway, what the study does acknowledge is that if you have a higher swing speed, the ball will go farther.  And we know that if you are launch-monitor optimized (for launch angle, spin, and angle of descent) the ball will go farther.  Do all associated conditions work together in such a way that tour pros and elite players are now hitting the ball a LOT farther than 10-12 years ago?  Yes.  If someone wants to suggest that they can just swing a lot faster now, I'd say, "Probably right -- let's look at how ball spin allows that..." (Shaft length and weight, combined with the forgiveness of larger clubheads and lower-spin balls, are all no doubt part of a larger complex of conditions.)

So Steve Quntana's paper disproves one of the alleged "distance myths" that Dick Rugge wrote about -- but those "distance myths" were a lot of red herrings anyway.

What do we see, on the ground, in play?  That elite-level players' distances went up, way up, with the advent of the Pro V era, and that they have leveled off as the Pro V and other urethane balls have settled into design sameness.  It isn't "fitness," or driver design, or teaching or training that produces those kinds of stats.  It is/was the ball.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think you're all mistaken.
          
          yds.      yr.     yds.        
Tiger 295   -1997- 302  Daly
          296      '98    299             
          293       99    305
          298      '00    301
          298       01    306
          293       02    306
          299       03    314
          302       04    306
          316       05    310
          306       06    307
          302       07    313

You tell me how much these two gained as balls changed from wound to solid core, and then you can all apologize to Steve Quintana and Dick Rugge for thinking you know more than they do.   

Additionally: Average the top ten drivers of the ball in 1980 and do the same in 2007. It's ca. 40 yards of difference over 38 years and that's not taking into consideration any gains from clubhead materials, lighter and longer graphite shafts, fitness, better mechanics, faster fairways, etc..


edit: in 1980 the bottom 10 (#s 165 to 175) players had the same 40 yd. differential as the players at that place did in 2007, about 40 yards.     

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[John Moore II]

Jim,

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I think he's trying to say that the idea that pro's hit the ball worlds farther today than they did in 1997 is a load of bollocks. Maybe on average they do, but thats a product of the shorter hitters not being on tour anymore. As a teacher, I teach people distance first, then control. I can reign in Bubba Watson and get him straighter, but I can take Corey Pavin and get his average drive up to 295 yards (that analysis was excluding body types and such, certainly Bubba can likely generate far more head speed than Corey).

I would go and look at winning distances for the LDA Championship. Have they gone up significantly over the past 10 years? I don't think so, I seem to remember Jason Zuback winning in 96 or 97 with a drive of 410~ yards. The winning distances now aren't greater than that, at least not by much, I think Sadlowski won this years with about 415. Those guys have not seen great increased in length, though they are able to use the same technology as Tour guys. And don't tell me the technology in those Pinnacles they use doesn't far exceed the technology of the balls used 10 years ago.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Very simple. All the 'significant gains' that technology (every bit of it) has produced have added roughly 40 yards to the drive in 38 years( or 1 yd per yr), and ProV type balls haven't given anyone extraordinary length, as shown by the pre 2000 and post 2000 yardages that two of these top ten players hit the ball.  

[Chuck Brown]

Jaimie Diaz, writing in May, 2003:

While the typical amateur is still struggling with the 200-yard standard (even if he thinks and says he hits it 250), the PGA Tour driving-distance average has jumped from 260.4 in 1993 to 279.8 in 2002 to 287.8 this year. Ask a veteran tour player and he'll say that in the last three years he's picked up yardage that previously wouldn't be gained in a decade.




From the USGA and R & A Joint Statement of Principles, 2002:

Golf balls used by the vast majority of highly skilled players today have largely reached the performance limits for initial velocity and overall distance which have been part of the Rules since 1976. The governing bodies believe that golf balls, when hit by highly skilled golfers, should not of themselves fly significantly further than they do today. In the current circumstances, the R&A and the USGA are not advocating that the Rules relating to golf ball specifications be changed other than to modernize test methods.

The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase.



2002 PGA Tour Driving Distance average was 279.8 yards.
2008 PGA Tour Driving Distance average was 287.3 yards.
> +7.5 yards
"... any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable..."!?!




And finally this, putting together, quite nicely, a long-term look at basic stats:

http://www.waggleroom.com/2008/11/14/661484/2008-pga-tour-by-the-numbe

[Garland Bayley]

Very simple. All the 'significant gains' that technology (every bit of it) has produced have added roughly 40 yards to the drive in 38 years( or 1 yd per yr), and ProV type balls haven't given anyone extraordinary length, as shown by the pre 2000 and post 2000 yardages that two of these top ten players hit the ball.  

Jim,

A sample size of two is not a good way to support your case. Especially since both players in your sample have stated they have taken steps to reduce their distance.

The previous threads here have clearly shown the distance gain is real, and across the board. If you graph the data for 40 years you see two significant steps, 1 when the new ball was introduced, 2 when launch monitor optimization began.

Yours and JKM's attempt to claim it ain't so is BS. (Channeling JKM there).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()