[Jim Sweeney]

Richard:

All the competitors played the same ball in that tournament. There were no eye-popping revelations. It was a one and done.

As long as tour players are paid to play a brand of ball, there will not be a tournamnet ball, or even balls that have different names but perform the same. Demand for differentiation is what creates markets, ask any economist.

[Bill Hyde]

This debate has another side to it. What about all the clubs, like mine, that have already altered there course to deal with the technology issue? I have about 8k wrapped up in new bunkers, tees, etc. that were all designed to modernize a classic course that was no longer relevant due to technology. Let's also recognize that this technology change has also provided a lot of work for architects who develop master plans, restore/renovate classic courses. Now we want to turn the clock back?!?! Oh great, that means more greens committee meetings and powerpoint presentations and assesments!

Let's just halt the ball where it is and move on.

By the way, the effect of the groove change was immensely effective in Moline...well done Golf House!

[Melvyn Morrow]

The real value is in the course and I would have thought that wiser heads than mine may have realised this by now, yet  nothing is done to protect our courses in real terms.

What about the sites that cannot expand any more having no option of further land purchased.  No problem I hear some say, let’s find another site, give the lads some design and construction work. We have deep pockets – what’s the difference from £ 90 per round to say £150 a round  - oops yes  of courses the result in new courses closing down soon after they have opened. But at least the lads had a job.

We need common sense, we need serious planning for the future direction with all bodies working for  the same gaol. Control the technology will enable the majority of existing courses to survive - hopefully

We seem to be doing all things to our courses but we should remember they are a very precious resource not to mention expensive to design & build, so should certainly be uppermost in not just our minds but those who make the decisions.

To delay in making a decisions is verging on being incompetent and is hurting our game.

Is it really wrong to expect direction from our Governing Bodies ?

Melvyn

[Ken Moum]

I have always felt the regulators (the USGA and R&A) and the manufacturers will roll it all back under I&B unification for all (if they have not been thinking and negotiating together on this for up to the last 7-8 years I will be shocked), so that it will actually hurt the high mph swing-speed players while at the same time helping the lower MPH swing-speed players. (the realities of modern day I&B technology really is something else and I think we will be seeing it in this vein in not too long a time now).

Hell, Tom, there's even a patent on the books that show how simple it would be... http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5497996/description.html.

If you register, you can see the actual patent documents, which simply show that by making the ball slightly lighter--reducing the weight from the current 45.93 grams, to something in the 42-44.5 gram range--you'd slightly increase distance for anyone who hits it under 200 yards, and slightly decreease it for those hitting it over 250 or so.

FWIW, 44 grams would be almost exactly the same as the hated Balloon Ball of 1931 (see http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball)

Note that I TOTALLY disagree with John on this one, as the modern ball is much easier to control than the balata balls of the 1930s. I am also inclined to take the word of Bobby Jones, who apparently thought the detractors were simply using the new ball as an alibi for their bad golf.

K

[Ken Moum]

They tried a tourney only ball here in Ohio for the Ohio Amateur a few years back, but I don't know what ever came of it. I think the players who qualified were given a few options for which ball they could choose to put into play.

That was the Volvik PROsPECT ball, and everyone in the event had to use it. http://www.floridagolfmagazine.com/volvik/Volvik-Fall06.html. http://www.worldgolf.com/newswire/browse/6742-Volvik-PROsPECT-top--and-only--ball-at-Ohio-Champions-event

They currently seem to be selling only the colored Crystal balls that first made them well-known.

I actually bought a dozen after it was revealed who made them.  They didn't spin as much as the modern Tour quality ball, but they were crazy long for my puny clubhead speed.

My normal driving distance isn't much over 200 yards, and I hit a couple of 230-yard seven woods with those things.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

I've been advocating a "competition ball" for over a decade.

What happened to the Ohio GA experiment ?

[Ken Moum]

Chris,

I've been advocating a "competition ball" for over a decade.

What happened to the Ohio GA experiment ?

One and done, the ball--a Volvik PROsPECT--had a huge run in sales immediately afterward, and now appears to be out of production.

K

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken,

Thanks.

What happened to the ball is immaterial, what happened with the OGA ?

What did they decide to do for future year's tournaments ?

Augusta and the Masters represents the only hope that a "competition" ball will be introduced.

If they were to mandate its use, I can see the USGA subsequently adopting it for their competitions, then, regional, state and local associations and local clubs could/would adopt it for their competitions.  Then, the golfing universe, save for a few would adopt it.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()