Roll back the ball - saving golf

[Andrew Brown]

The thread regarding the Road Hole makes me write this (BTW, I've parred it, so it isn't that hard  )

Whilst I am a golfer & golf fan who cares passionately about the problems due to increased ball distance due to both balls & clubs, I agree with the idea of a ball rollback / equipment standards rollback to «save» the game of golf.

We all know that the cry to «Roll back the ball» is a little too simple in regards to what is the reality.

Isn't one of the real reasons that the ruling bodies would be opposed in litigation by the affected equipment companies?
It would cost a lot, with a very real risk of losing. What would be the end result for golf then?

Willy Uilhein's take on what it will take for the ruling bodies to gain control over the ball;
John Huggan:
What can the rules makers do that would not provoke litigation?
Willy Uihlein:
You would have to go in and buy up all the patents and put them into the public domain so that everyone can practice them on a paid-up license. Then, whatever specification changes they came up with, no one would have any legal downside consequences. That’s the reality. And that is the element of the discourse that has never been acknowledged by anyone in the media.
This is not about private sector versus public sector. It is not about private sector versus regulatory bodies. When you roll it back, it will not only prejudice the performance of the players, it will also prejudice the patent portfolios of one company over another.
We are dealing with multi-million dollar investments. So it’s not just about the sensibilities of those who profess to care about the game and them questioning why we wouldn’t support that view. It’s not that simple. It’s almost like it is beyond our control. When I get into a court—and they have little to do with truth, justice, and reason—they are 80 percent about theater. It comes down to who has the best trial lawyer.
Unless the regulatory bodies are prepared to create a super-fund, buy up all those patents, and tell us all what balls we can make, nothing is going to change.

I know there are tests ongoing with the USGA regarding a reduction in the distance of the ball (Ulhein refers to it in his interview), but what are the chances it will eventuate?

The equipment companies are not going to roll back the ball «for the good of the game». I think that's a given.

What is the real future of golf regarding equipment? Will a compromise be reached? Or will the status quo continue?

Opinions anyone?

Regards
Andrew Brown
Moss, Norway.

[Niall C]

I've never really understood the litigation arguments and perhaps some lawyer on this site will be able to help me. If the R&A and there American counterparts simply said that to play in our competitions from now on you have to play with a club/ball meeting the following criteria, what hold to the manufacturers have over them ? After all its their tournaments they can do what they like, can't they ? For instance it is standard etiquette that there is a dress code at most clubs if not stated explicitly in the tournament rules. Most dress codes preclude jeans yet as far as I know Levi's or Wrangler have yet to issue a lawsuit ?

On another tack having to conform to the new rules could actually produce a lot of market opportunity as manufacturers race to provide the best conforming ball/equipment. Clearly the market leaders aren't going to be too chuffed but should a company be allowed to hold a competitive advantage by threat of litigation ?

Niall

[Dan Herrmann]

Andrew,
I participated in a joint USGA/R&A ball test at my club this summer.  They had us play with a throttled-down ball. They took a large number of measurements, had us hit 3 tee shots with launch monitors, and spent at least 30 minutes with every group in a post-round interview.

They also had us spend time on the practice range doing detailed real-world comparisons between the range balls and the "new" throttled down ball.

Distance was definitely more affected on the longer clubs...  My 8 iron was only 2 yards shorter, my driver about 12.

The distance "control" was due to a dimple pattern that increased drag.

To me, the ball felt like an old Titleist Pro-Trajectory ball.  I really liked it.  (The ball was actually built by Bridgestone, but the USGA told me that they had models from all major companies).

Honestly, I have no idea what they'll do with the data, but I hope we see a change in the future.
------------
That said, there were a couple of testers that thought the idea was stupid and we should be able to hit the ball as far as we can.   I'd guess their opinion is shared by many others, and the difficulty of the ball roll-back is probably selling the idea to the public.


--------
PS - Let me know if you want more details on the ball testing...

[C. Squier]

My guess on the litigation is that companies have spent a ton of dough on R&D/patents for balls that are currently allowed.  Changing the rules without grandfathering in the current equipment will instantly wipe out any value for those patents.  Just a guess.

I just don't think there is that much left to be gained in technology.....there has to be a point of diminishing returns, right?  With the COR on the driver and the physical limits of the materials used on balls, I can't imagine we're too far away.  I just don't believe 8000 yard courses will be the norm. 

Then again, Bill Gates did say that 256k would be enough memory for anyone's computer 

[TEPaul]

"I've never really understood the litigation arguments and perhaps some lawyer on this site will be able to help me. If the R&A and there American counterparts simply said that to play in our competitions from now on you have to play with a club/ball meeting the following criteria, what hold to the manufacturers have over them ? After all its their tournaments they can do what they like, can't they ?"



Niall:

There are numerous threads in the back pages that go into all this stuff in minute detail and in a real way nothing much has changed since.

Regarding your questions above; sure the USGA/R&A could say that to play in their tournaments golf balls have to conform to X but the larger problem could be what if the manufacturers just decided to massively market non-conforming balls anyway and the public essentially just bought them as they buy conforming balls today? If that happened in many ways the USGA/R&A who monitor and control and write I&B Rules and Regs for golf around the world would be essentially irrelevent.

For instance, the USGA also says to post a score for handicap purposes a golfer must use conforming equipment and balls.

As far as an effective lawsuit from any manufacturer it has always been my belief that the USGA and R&A would never really lose a lawsuit (a manufacturer as the plaintiff and the USGA/R&A as the defendant) because the USGA/R&A could always use the defense that their I&B Rules and Regs are basically VOLUNTARY but then again if they used that defense there is nothing standing between the manufacturers just marketing a ton of nonconforming balls and equipment and the point, again, is, if the public buys USGA/R&A I&B non-conforming equipment en masse essentially the USGA/R&A will become largely irrelevent with I&B in the larger world of golf.

[Tom_Doak]

In another twenty years [or maybe ten] Wally Uilhein's opinion will be irrelevant and so will the USGA's.

All the balls will be designed and made in China, and they won't care what anybody else tells them, as long as the balls sell over here.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Believe me, if the current ball manufacturers think the Chinese are about to massively market nonconforming balls they will definitely beat the Chinese by marketing nonconforming balls themselves! Do you really expect all the non-Chinese ball manufacturers around the world to sit around and wait to completely lose their market share because they feel some moral responsibility to the USGA/R&A's to voluntary conform to their I&B Rules and Regs?

The NIKE Co was internally talking about prospect of massively marketing nonconforming I&B over five years ago. A Northwest reporter got wind of that internal NIKE discussion and wrote about it in some small Northwest publication. I called her and talked to her about it. At the time she didn't seem to completely understand the larger implications for golf. Afterwards she said NIKE denied what she had reported.

[Niall C]

Tom P

The fact that NIKE didn't go ahead with the non conforming ball tells me that they knew fine well that there would be no market for it if the average club golfer couldn't tee it up in a medal. Which takes me back to my original point, what business is it of the golf manufacturers to say to the R&A and the USGA, and by extension the golf clubs which would almost certainly fall in line, that if my equipment is not allowed in your tournaments which you run then we'll sue. Just can't see the legal argument.

Tom D

I don't doubt that China is going to become a huge market and will continue to be the main manufacturer of golfing equipment, as I believe they are already, but if they want to sell stuff over hear it has to be what the market over here wants. And that is where I am saying the USGA and the R&A have the upper hand as they can hugely influence consumer choice by controlling the rules of competition. It may be they will develop there own market and golfing culture with their own rules which I think would be a great shame but the others might disagree.

Niall

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom Paul,
I once worked for Nike, and at one time they would have definitely sold non-conforming equipment.  But they really blew their initial foray into European Football - they ignored its traditions and tried the "we're here to blow your minds" method.

Nike failed horribly, and learned some valuable lessons - namely to push the envelope but respect the game.

Today, they're one of the top soccer brands in the world.

PS - China already makes the vast majority of stuff you play.

[Mark Chaplin]

The lead in rolling back the ball will IMO be ANGC, they have the power to specify what players can use in their event. There could be a sponsor led boycott but golf needs the Masters more than ANGC. The R&A split the members club from the guv'nor of the game to remove member's personal liaiblity.

[TEPaul]

"Which takes me back to my original point, what business is it of the golf manufacturers to say to the R&A and the USGA, and by extension the golf clubs which would almost certainly fall in line, that if my equipment is not allowed in your tournaments which you run then we'll sue. Just can't see the legal argument."


Niall:

That is a very good point and I believe that is precisely why you have not seen and probably never will see the two I&B regulatory bodies (USGA or R&A) ever have much of any comment on what any manufacturer is doing other than to formally deem any ball or piece of equipment nonconforming if it does not pass various very well known Rules and Regs. It is also why various formal procedures have been developed by the USGA/R&A such as their "Notice and Comment" periods as well as their common procedure of assigning quite long duration times for equipment previous conforming to be "grandfathered out" if it is ever deemed non-conforming (such as U grooves are about to be). The whole idea is to very much limit the grounds that any manufacturer might legally use to sue the USGA/R&A which in almost every case has been or would be "Restraint of Trade."

[Jim_Kennedy]

Andrew,
After the calendar year 2010 Tour season is in the books I think you will be see driving distance stats closer to those of the middle to late 90s, between '96 and '99.

edit: not the 'longest' but the mean. In 2009 the mean was ca. 287, in 1999 it was 272. I think we'll see 2010's mean under 280, closer to the 1999 figure.

[Dan Herrmann]

Jim,
Why?

[Bill Brightly]

Dan,

I am really happy that the USGA and R & A conducted such testing this summer. That is incredibly encouraging, as is the fact that several ball manufacturers have samples ready. I have been praying for a ball roll back for years, so maybe there is hope.

Have there been any public comments from the USGA  or the R & A about this testing?

[Cliff Hamm]

I frankly don't understand the restraint of trade arguments, etc.  The USGA operates as an independent body from the manufacturers.  They should have every right to set the rules as they see fit, as long as they don't intentionally favor one manufacturer over another.   If the USGA were to announce today that the ball would have certain limits, I don't understand how the manufacturers could fight it and win.  Yes, I understand that courts make bad and very bad decisions.  Naively it just seems that the USGA should have the right to set the rules of the game.  Plain and simple, isn't it?

My related thought is if baseball were to decide that aluminum bats were now to be allowed, would the wooden bat manufacturers have a case?  I would hope and think not.  It is up to baseball to decide its rules, not the manufacturers.  So be it with golf.

[TEPaul]

"Dan,

I am really happy that the USGA and R & A conducted such testing this summer. That is incredibly encouraging, as is the fact that several ball manufacturers have samples ready. I have been praying for a ball roll back for years, so maybe there is hope.

Have there been any public comments from the USGA  or the R & A about this testing?"


BillB:

This has all been ongoing since 2002 when the USGA announced their app $10 mil. program to study as many facets of ball technology as possible. Part of it involved calling for all ball manufacturers to submit "prototype" balls that would go '15 AND 25 yards less far' for the USGA to study (as far as I can tell all ball manufacturers agreed to develop and submit to the USGA those asked for "prototype" balls). The first stage was to study them in the lab (the USGA's tech facility) and following that the next stage was to test them with real golfers which Dan Hermann and his club was part of.

Of course what follows from here will be interesting to watch and follow!  

Obviously, one of the most logical and appropriate questions would be those "prototype" balls go '15 AND 25 yards' less far than WHAT? I would assume it would be 15 AND 25 yards less far than the present ODS conforming standard! (app. 300 yards at the USGA ODS protocol of 120-122MPH swing speed).

If in fact those "prototype" balls became the new USGA/R&A "conforming" ODS requirement for golf balls it would be, in effect, a distance rollback from what we have now!

[Ken Moum]

My guess on the litigation is that companies have spent a ton of dough on R&D/patents for balls that are currently allowed.  Changing the rules without grandfathering in the current equipment will instantly wipe out any value for those patents.  Just a guess.

While that seems to be the standard position, I can't understand why it's true for a ball that costs anywhere from a buck to about $4 retail, but it's not true of $500 drivers or $125 wedges.

And it's even more odd when you consider that the balls have extremely short lifespans, and the clubs can last decades. Not only that, but the manufacturers like to claim that their balls are new and better EVERY year... so we need to buy the newest ones.

Maybe that's the answer. The OEMs don't mind the USGA making clubs obsolete via the rules as they just get to sell more new ones. But the balls they've been telling us are'nt really new and better, and the don't want us to find out.

Ken

[Dan Herrmann]

By the way - one really nice thing I found during the USGA/R&A testing was that the rolled-back ball affected high swing speeds much more than slow swing speeds.

My wife Laura (shoots in the 90s) has a driver swing speed of around 70MPH.  She noticed absolutely no difference in distance, and preferred the feel of the rolled-back ball.

Guys up over 105MPH were seeing tee shots reduced by 10-20 yards and 8-irons by about 3-5 yards.

[jeffwarne]

Andrew,
After the calendar year 2010 Tour season is in the books I think you will be see driving distance stats closer to those of the middle to late 90s, between '96 and '99.

edit: not the 'longest' but the mean. In 2009 the mean was ca. 287, in 1999 it was 272. I think we'll see 2010's mean under 280, closer to the 1999 figure.

because they're all hitting 3 woods

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
New, softer balls will have an impact on driving distance and as Jeff pointed out, more three woods for better control as you won't want to be hitting shots from the rough to firm and fast greens with early '80s spin.

Part ball + part equipment = good start.


kmoum,
Golf balls have long lifespans. No one wants a 5-year old driver but they'll buy 5 year old golf balls out of the used bin. Acushnet makes a significant profit on its golf ball sales, clubs are a distant second. 

[Tony_Muldoon]

Andrew thanks for starting this.  I posted the full interview here a couple of weeks and was amazed when it got no responses.



Wally Uilheim
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41624.msg883477/   


There’s another old thread that I think is relevant.

If a competition ball was adopted by local rule the old balls would still be legal for the 95% of golf rounds played (not sure about the US handicap situation).

Something very similar applies in the game squash.  Because the best squash players use a very slow ball, nearly all players adopt this ball even though it puts them at a disadvantage.  I.e. Golfers would want to buy the rolled back ball BY THEIR OWN FREE WILL - so sue me for that.  All manufactures would have access to this market, but Wally really is the Elephant in the room as he has the most to lose – currently 40% market share.

Squash Ball
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=4p6v1e5p57osutgga1fijk1b95&topic=21535.0

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:

The situation with the squash ball is the same as it was for the British vs. American golf balls in the 1970's and early 80's.  Once the R & A made the "small ball" illegal for the Open and Amateur Championships  [so American players wouldn't have to adjust to the smaller ball when they came over for the Open], all of the best players in Britain switched to the 1.68-in ball full-time.  And then THEY were the ones who started insisting the big ball become standard for other amateur events, club events, etc.  The better players dragged the average players along with them.  From my experience, that change was worth about 25 yards off the tee to most players.

Tom P:

I don't think the balance of power in the manufacturing world is very well understood here.  As Dan says, nearly all of the equipment you play is already made in China.  It was an engineer with one of the equipment companies who suggested to me that it won't be long before the Chinese control the entire process.  And once the switch is complete, do you believe that some British or American company is going to manufacture a ball which sells for twice as much (because they won't be as efficient at making it, and won't be making it in the same high volume) in the hope that Americans will buy it to preserve the game as it is?

If you do think so, then check around your house and tell me how much American- or European-made stuff you can find.  Hint:  don't bother to look at anything which is electronic.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Interesting remarks you made about the golf ball manufacturing world. I must admit I haven't followed it that closely in recent years. I can certainly understand if a lot of product is actually made in China (lower labor costs) but aren't the companies making it still the non-Chinese companies most all of us have known for years? I'd think there would be a big difference in perspective with USGA/R&A I&B conformance depending on whether a ball manufacturing company is Chinese compared to a non-Chinese company that just manufactures in China to lower their manufacturing costs.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

The manufacturing is in China, and so is most of the engineering now.  My friend said in ten years the only connection to America will be the executives like Wally U., and when that's the case, it won't be long before they do to him the same thing they did to Mr. RCA.

[TEPaul]

"By the way - one really nice thing I found during the USGA/R&A testing was that the rolled-back ball affected high swing speeds much more than slow swing speeds.

My wife Laura (shoots in the 90s) has a driver swing speed of around 70MPH.  She noticed absolutely no difference in distance, and preferred the feel of the rolled-back ball.

Guys up over 105MPH were seeing tee shots reduced by 10-20 yards and 8-irons by about 3-5 yards."



Dan:

First of all, I very much doubt you will see anyone from the USGA in any position of authority referring to these new "prototype" balls that reputedly were designed to go 15 AND 25 yards less far as a "rolled back" ball. While they obviously are in effect that they have gone to lengths to explain those balls were only called for to better understand the physics and characteristics of golf ball technology; essentially to get on the same R&D curve as the manufacturers.

In effect though I think this whole thing really is an attempt to fly it all way under the radar screen and that what you said about the difference in distance affect between say Laura and a golfer with a swing speed of 105mph plus is the truth!! 

We will know it's the truth if the trajectories (particularly with a driver) by the high swing speed players is a return to that old low to high trajectory of the high swing speed players with those higher spinning softer balls all the good players used to use up until about the mid-1990s.