It's not the balls, silly - USGA specs

[John_Conley]

I'm happy about this.  Instead of focusing on the ball, the USGA has proposed max length (47") and max size (385cc) for clubs.  This will do more to stop the onslaught of bangers than addressing the ball.



USGA PROPOSES NEW RULES
GOVERNING CLUBS, BALL TESTING

The U.S. Golf Association Dec. 19 announced its intent to adopt two equipment-related rules, one placing a cap on clubhead size and length, and another changing its methods for testing balls.

Clubheads will be limited to 385 cc, a limit above most clubs, though some larger already have been approved, according to the USGA's statement. Decisions about previously approved, larger clubs will not be made until after the USGA has considered manufacturers' feedback.

The USGA proposes to cap club lengths at 47 inches. There currently is no maximum club length.

Balls, meanwhile, will continue to be tested using an Iron Byron, though the mechanical golfer only will be used to determine balls' velocity, backspin and launch angle -- and not distance. These launch conditions then will be replicated in the USGA's new indoor test range to produce more accurate distance measurements not affected by weather conditions. The test range also is available for testing year-round.

For more, visit http://www.golfweek.com/articles/2001/business/news/25947.asp

[JohnV]

By the way, the maximum length is for non-putters.  Putters can still be longer.  This is a proposed rule that if adopted will go into the 2004 rule book.  It is unclear if the R&A is going along with this one or not.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Too bad they can't include the putter.
Chickens.
The PGA tour should disallow them.
Bigger chickens.
Everyone whe says they can't sink a putt with
a 35" putter...
Biggest chickens.

[JSlonis]

As it applys to this thread, the new USGA Specs will have absolutely no effect.  Tour pros use mainly 45 inch drivers and clubheads smaller than 385cc.
Sounds like misguided thinking to me...

Mike,
Why should the tour ban long putters? Scott McCarron, Rocco Mediate, Bernhard Langer, & Ian Woosnam don't win every week...
If the long putter is so easy....why isn't everyone using them?

[Paul Richards]

John:

I'm not impressed.  So what?  Now guys won't be able
to hit clubs bigger than the Flintstones used?

Time to make the pro's all play one ball in competition...

[Mike Nuzzo]

J-
Appendix II - design of clubs
1.a general - The club shall not be substantially different from the traditional and customary form and make.
Putting with one axis of rotation is substantially different from 2 axis.  The 10 deg shaft rule is effectively overlooked because the angle is taken out while putting.
Those are the rules.  I don't think it has an advantage but it goes to the players intent.  Plus they shouldn't be allowed to use it for the purpose of drops.
Much of what the intent of the USGA did was to update the test set up.  Until then it will probably be difficult to reign in the ball as their will be too many variables.  
mike

[John_Conley]

As it applys to this thread, the new USGA Specs will have absolutely no effect.  Tour pros use mainly 45 inch drivers and clubheads smaller than 385cc.
Sounds like misguided thinking to me...

But Jamie, it will stop the gradual increase of driver length in the future.  Another poster tried to use data from the Re/Max long drive finals about a month ago to show that the BALL is hot.  As also mentioned above, there are MANY variables.  Holding the line on clubhead size and driver length will max out what can be done there, just like ball distance was max'd out a few years ago.

I know, I know... someone who doesn't know any better will take paid endorsers words that the Pro V1 is longer.  And it is.  Longer than other balls that were wound and/or had softer covers.

One big reason for increased distance is the acceptance of "performance" balls by better players.  When is the last time you played with someone using a Titleist Tour Balata 100, considered de riguer just five years ago?  Most all of the Tour chose not to play superior models from Bridgestone or Spalding and now that Titleist has a similar offering they are using it.

[John_Conley]

Making a player use the same ball as everyone else makes as much sense as making them use the same clubs.  

As long as players select a ball that falls within the allowable limits, what is wrong with that? There is a trade-off between feel, spin, roll factor, wind tolerance, and distance.  What is the harm in letting them choose a ball that is best for them?

[Paul Richards]

John:

The general idea is to use a standardized ball.  Whether the
ball that week is a distance ball, a spin-ball, whatever, or
if it is always the same standardized ball, it doesn't really
matter.  The point is that the standardized ball will make
every player improve in the areas he is weak in - instead
of today where you just use the ball that fits your game.

You would be forced to improve your skills, instead of buying
a better game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How can you fellows criticize a step in the right direction  ?

Especially when you've/we've be clamoring for action.

Perhaps it's a trial balloon for the next round ?  

[John_Conley]

Paul:

Do you play golf?  That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.  Team sports like baseball and football have a standardized ball because both have to use it, ditto tennis where two people oppose each other.

We'll see standardized balls when we see standardized clubs, which is only slightly before bowling goes to a set ball.

Who gets to pick the standard?  If you made everyone play Tiger's Nike, that wouldn't be fair to those who prefer other playing characteristics.  Ditto a Revolution.

Some top bowlers travel with 40 balls to handle various lane conditions.  The notion that they are "buying a better game" (your words, not mine) is erroneous.  One skill in golf has always been the ability to adjust to various conditions.

To help your argument, which I can't imagine ever agreeing with, why don't you specify the technical aspects of this mythical ball?

I see no problem with a weight limit, size limit, symmetry law, and initial velocity restriction.  Anything done within those constraints is fair game, because everyone knows that you must accept tradeoffs in other areas to maximize any one variable.

If you'd like to see a reduction in the initial velocity restriction as a way to rein in length, I can understand.  Buy why should a player who chooses a ball because it has a dimple pattern that will help him gain lift have that option taken away because the spec you demand is a flat, shallow dimple like Tiger's wind balls - or vice versa?

For all the hype and the orange hats, almost no one is still using the Spalding with the pebble in it.  It ballooned, causing Tour players to switch back to the Tour Professional.  Some senior in Missouri may want the extra carry as a concession to age.  And you'd take that away.

I'll send you $5 and you send me a sleeve of the balls.  I'll commit to playing them if you commit to using standardized clubs.  I'll assign you my friend Carl's 50" left-handed Pings with insanely stiff Gramman shafts.  What sense would that make?

[Mike_Young]

Seems to me like a step in the right direction.....athleticism consist of a large part hand-eye coordination....no matter which ball is used you have to convert the energy that is in the swing to the golf ball....the larger the clubhead, the more likely it is to have a larger CofGravity....combine this with a lighter weight and place it on a longer shaft and speed will increase.  No matter which ball of which era is used.. this larger clubhead on a longer shaft will hit it farther on average.  

 While we might not be going back ; it will at least keep it from going forward.   Accuracy with an acceptable distance has always been the combination of choice and will continue.  If I recall I think Tiger is using a 43" steel shaft on a J driver.

I have always thought that perimeter weihted irons had a small effect on the average golfer compared to the advent of the metal wood.  I can remember the vast improvement it was for me in consistency.  The fact will always remain that the greatest energy transfer will be at the Center of gravity on a particular club and when you limit clubhead size and shaft length you stop the increase in clubhead speed therefore limiting distance to be gained with an approved ball.
 If you don't think this makes sense; have your foursome play with the Pro V (or whatever new ball you desire) but all of you use your old wooden clubs.  I have tried it and I will only hit the sweetspot about once in 18 holes.  Alot tougher second shots.
Mike

[Doug Wright]

JohnV,

The R&A says it supports this proposal.

Happy Holidays,

[Paul Richards]

Pat:

Agreed.  It is a step in the right direction.  
Let's just hope it's not too little, too late.

John:

Silly question.  Yes I do play golf! ;
Not always well, mind you, but I do play.

The ball needs to be reined in.  It is out of control.  
As an example, I grew up as a caddie / bag room attendent
at my classic home course.  During college, I was a pretty
good 4-handicapper, and could hit that ball a long way.

Today, as a middle-aged 9-handicapper, I'm blowing by
all the bunkers and the areas I used to hit it to less than
20 years ago!

Today, I often hit drives on the fly PAST the areas the best players used to hit all their drives with roll.

The ball needs to be reined in.  This debate has been on
GCA before.  One standardized ball for the pro's during
tournaments is an idea that has been floated around on
many occasions.  It is not my original idea.
in our area used to

[John_Conley]

Paul:

I hear you, but I disagree that it is the ball.  As previously mentioned, larger heads and longer shafts PLUS players' willingness to accept harder balls (in large part because they are better now) are also factors - not just the balls themselves.

Why not just dictate the specs?  Oh wait, that's the way it is now.  I'm trying to help you make the argument that the ball needs to be reined in by reducing how far it can go... I'm giving you an opening by suggesting a roll-back of the initial velocity.  Doubt it would ever happen, but it at least has a chance.  How can you standardize the ball when you could never standardize the machinery in different plants?

As Mr. Mucci states, at least this shows that the USGA is congnizant of "the problem".

[Paul Richards]

John:

It's simple to standardize the ball - the PGA Tour picks one
and that's the ball for the day, the week, the year, whatever.

I understand where you are going with this.

It just angers me so much to see how technology is
taking away our classic courses from being tournament
venues!

[Jim_Kennedy]

As expected, the major manufacturers are in a lather about the proposed new rules. They say they were blindsided by the USGA and that they should be consulted with before new regs are implemented even though there is a time for comment before these new rules take effect.

This is a step in the right direction for the USGA, as noted by Pat, and I feel they(USGA) should use this as a stepping stone to further assert their authority. Their 100+ yr. history of regulating the game in this country gives them major legal precedent for deciding the future direction of golf and  preserving the game for future generations. That much history would be hard to defeat in any law court.

If they step up to the tee right now and take on those that put profit ahead of the game then golf as we know it will continue to flourish.

[Paul Richards]

Jim:

A call to arms for the USGA!

You said:

>If they step up to the tee right now and take on those that
>put profit ahead of the game then golf as we know it will
>continue to flourish.

Amen to that!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Here is some interesting additional info  

* USGA TEST CREATES MANUFACTURER CONCERNS

By E. Michael Johnson
  While causing less of a furor than its proposed new club regulations,
the USGA's plan to update its golf ball testing methodology, also
announced this week, has caught the eye of golf ball manufacturers.
  "We have concerns about it," said Joe Nauman, senior VP and general
counsel for the Acushnet Co. "New equipment and launch conditions for the
test might prejudice certain ball constructions, ball types and ball
manufacturers."
  There are three major components to the ball test changes:
    --The USGA is proposing using an Indoor Test Range (ITR) to monitor the
overall distance a ball may travel, arguing that ITR results will be more
accurate than those from the current outdoor tests;
    --Rather than scrap Iron Byron, the golf ball hitting machine, as had been planned previously, the USGA wants to use it to measure specific launch conditions, such as velocity, launch angle and backspin;
    --Around March 1, 2002, the test conditions will change to reflect "a
manner similar to the way current highly skilled players drive the ball."
In addition, a modern golf ball and titanium driver will be used in
addition to the existing ball and club (a Pinnacle ball and Spalding
laminated wood club) to establish the Overall Distance Standard.
  The USGA expects the Overall Distance Standard limit to change to
reflect the updated test conditions, but does not expect to alter the list
of conforming balls as a result of the launch condition update.
  "We agree with modernizing launch conditions," said John Calabria, head
of ball R&D for Dunlop Slazenger Group Americas. But, he added, "If you're
not going to have any balls not conform, why change the test? . . . This
proposed change could obsolete a lot of our test data. If there are new
launch conditions, we'll have to re-test at those conditions

[Jim_Kennedy]

And here is what some retailers think. I sell nothing that is non-conforming in my shop.

* RETAILERS REACT TO PROPOSED CLUBHEAD LIMIT

By E. Michael Johnson and Farrell Evans
  A day after the USGA publicly proposed a limitation on the size of
clubheads at 385cc, the retail community voiced many of the same concerns
that manufacturers had a day earlier.
  "What we don't need the USGA to do is make it more difficult for the
retailer to sell golf clubs," said George Whalin, president of Retail
Management Consultants in San Marcos, Calif. "It's tough enough already."
  Whalin noted that retailers are going to be leery of clubs that might
later be ruled nonconforming. "With the [PGA Merchandise Show] coming up,
there are going to be a lot of big clubs out there," said Whalin, "and the
golf buyers are going to say, 'If this thing is going to be illegal, I'm
not going to buy it.' "
  That sentiment was validated by Burch Wilkes, director of merchandising
at Penn State University GC. "If the USGA doesn't allow it, then we won't
buy it," said Wilkes, "We have learned that if the USGA doesn't give a
club its approval then golfers don't want it."
  Currently, drivers over the proposed limit are relatively scarce.
Companies such as Jazz (with its 500cc driver), Hippo, Lynx, Honma and a
few others offer clubs exceeding 385cc. Zevo is planning to introduce a
410cc club in Orlando and Orlimar is planning to unveil a 420cc version of
its driver

[Matt_Ward]

Slightly off topic but somewhat related to "controlling" the game is an idea raised by Frank Thomas (January 02 / Golf Digest p.118), "Making a Case for 10 Clubs."

Why do we continue with 14 clubs? Where is that written in stone? Make players make choices about what they will use. This is especially so at the world class level -- although considerably less so at the amateur level.

According to Thomas ... "This arbitrary number has become entrenched in the system. However, of all the rules governing equipment, the 14-club rule would be the easiest to change. The number of clubs permitted in a player's bag could simply be governed by a local rule and treated as a conditoin of play."

Make players make hard choices ... make players actually shape shots instead of predictably pulling out the 70-degree wedge to hit that one "specific" shot for the one"specific" situation. This doesn't stop players from buying 14 or more clubs (as many do now) but it would mean some sort of real decision "before" teeing it up.

I think the restriction on clubhead size is OK ... ditto the max on club length. But, reining in the maximum amount the ball flies needs to be on the agenda. I don't believe you need to say "only one ball" for everyone. Let the players bring what they want but take the "hot air" out that is happening with today's ball. Take the ball back a minimum of 5% and a lot of concerns could be met relating to the continued feasibility for a number of the classic courses.

P.S. For what it's worthy I think the long-putter is not in alignment with what is conventional golf. How the USGA permitted this is somewhat odd. If drivers have a max length you cannot look away from the putter equation.

Finally, remember -- any sort of restriction of ANY type will NEVER satisfy many of the equipment companies. They have their agenda and it is simply $$$$$$$. The USGA deserves some sort of delayed acknowledgement, albeit a bit late, but nonetheless some movement is better than none at all.

Just an opinion ...

[Shane Gurnett]

Its all about reducing the length/carry of the ball for the pro's. As long as they all have to comply with the same rules, it would be no problem at all. Each manufacturer would simply have to produce a ball that meets the tour's distance criteria, which should be say 10-15% less distance/carry than what we have now. This would also apply to first class amatuer events. Would it hurt sales of Nike balls if Tiger only averaged 250 off the tee instead of 300? I think not.

Maybe then we could see somehwere like Merion back on the US Open roster. All it takes is the courage of the USGA/R&A to say "enough is enough" and draw a line in the sand and start over.  The manufacturers could still make whatever clubs they want, and everyone would be happy.

[John_Conley]

Paul:

Please give me specifics on this ball you want.  Will it be something that is available today, or reined in somehow?

No dimples?  Larger?  Mushier?  Or like a current model with a blend of desirable playing characteristics?

One of my clients just gave me a dozen Callaway 30s, which is either same as or nearly the Rule 35 Red.  Also a dozen HX, which I don't think is being sold yet.  Fully covered with a honeycomb dimple.  REAL cool.  Can't wait to try it over the next two days.

[Paul Richards]

John:

How about a Po-Do?

[Craig Van Egmond]

The distance a ball travels is not a new problem, William Diddel built a golf ball that was shorter in the 1930's.