What if the ball was rolled back?

[A.G._Crockett]

As it has been for years here (and other places) the term "roll back" is misleading at best and at worst a silly distraction.

The ODS has been in place for 30 years, and nobody had a problem with it when it was adopted.  It is only now that Rory and the boys are hitting what amounts to a Pinnacle off the tee and then a balata ball into the greens that it is an issue.

So what do you "roll back" TO exactly?  Do you go back before Surlyn?  Do you require actual balata for covers?  Rubber bands inside?  What will be the result to the cost of a golf ball?  Will this make an already (often prohibitively) expensive game cheaper?  I don't think so...

Of course, none of these are going to happen; that day has passed, and that's a good thing.  More golfers can find a really good golf ball at a really good price now than ever before.  Making the masses play a ball that doesn't go as far or curves much more or costs much more isn't good for the game and it isn't going to happen, IMO.

So, the issue is bifurcation vs. one set of rules (more or less...).  I know what I prefer.

[Pat Burke]

I've chimed in a couple of times, but can't resist

QUick background.  Former tour player, nothing outrageous in that career.
                              Currently a coach/instructor with students from beginners to Tour players.
                             3rd generation golf professsional.  Grandfather, his 3 brothers, mom, dad, brother are golf pros.

Background is simply to disclose my biases, not to imply an all knowing presence!

1) I believe the changes of TOC, anchoring ban, and distance debate are a reaction to less than 1% of the golfing public
2) I believe a roll back would hurt an already struggling business of golf
3) I believe bifurcation would be a nightmare.  This comes from my playing days, where I saw many  players make the mistake of changing equipment for $$$ and ruin their games, as well as my own struggles when clubs were stolen, trying to replace them.
As an instructor, bifurcation leads me to wonder when my students need to work with the limited equipment.
Junior golf leads to college scholarships, college leads to varying professional opportunities.  Where do you change from competing to training with new equipment.  This leads me to believe any roll back should be across the board.

Most important, please note, I say, "I believe".  Not I know.

[Jim Sherma]

So what do you "roll back" TO exactly?

My preference would be the Titleist Professional (or some performance facsimile). It was more durable than the balatas but still maintained the tendency to overcompress resulting in the natural governor to very high clubhead speeds. This coupled with smaller driver clubheads (350cc or so with a face size limit would probably limit at least some of the COR attributes that high clubhead speeds can take full advantage of) would get us close to where we probably should be.

The drivers of the past are comparable to todays three woods. I took a persimmon driver out last week and hit it the same distance off of the tee as my RBZ 15-degree (250yds). There is no comparable club to today's drivers. The physics of the rest of the set is probably similar enough to leave alone.

[Greg Clark]

I'm not getting into this here -- but there is no chance someone hitting a balata would hit it farther than a ProV1 -- and spin, btw, hurts distance.

...
I think if you rolled back the ball it would really hurt the sport -- people who are already struggling for distance would simply stop playing. Kids like the power game -- watch any range with teenagers on it. They are working on finessing a feathery wedge. They are gripping and ripping -- and usually slicing 50 yards offline into a range net.

...

This is nonsense. People who are struggling for distance would have had more distance with the balata covered ball than the ProV1. They needed the spin to keep the ball in the air. Did they quit playing when the ProV1 came out?

Kids have been gripping and ripping it from the beginning of golf. No change there to hurt the "sport".

Optimal spin as it relates to distance is a function of ball and clubhead speed. At slow swing speeds more spin increases total distance by increasing the lift and time in the air. At high swing speeds it hurts distance by ballooning the ball and creating too steep an angle of descent. That is why there are low compression balls like the noodle that spin more for slower club head speeds.

The old spinny ball created a natural governor to useful clubhead speed. There was little reason to swing beyond a reasonable speed at a balata because most players could not control it. You had the choice to use a top-rock, but at a cost of control in the rest of your game. The multi-layer urethane covered balls allowed high clubhead speeds to no longer have to manage the tradeoff between risking too much spin and giving up control over the rest of the game.

While your comments are accurate, the previous suggestion that a balata ball goes further than a ProV1 is rather silly(for any golfer).  I have played a lot of golf with persimmon woods in the last 3 years and have played them with balata, titleist professionals, and lots of modern balls including the ProV1.  I have a moderate swing speed, and the old balls - while wonderful to chip and putt with - aren't competitve distance wise.  When you translate that to modern gear, even for someone with a 70-75 mile an hour swing speed, the ProV1 is going to be significantly longer than a balata ball.

Now that slow swinger will hit a Bridgestone 330 RXS (the best ball by far for playing with persimmon as an FYI) farther than something like a Bridgestone 330 or Srixon XV (particularly on off center hits), but the idea that they will hit a balata further than a ProV1 is one of the funnier things I have read in awhile. 

[Kirk Moon]

Roll back the ball.  

Get rid of 460cc drivers.  

Get rid of strong irons and hot faced clubs.

Get rid of long putters.

The enjoyment of the game for those who really "get it" doesn't depend upon any of these artifacts.

Golf is relatively unique in that the enjoyment of the game for most players is largely derived from subjective factors rather than objective performance measures.  Being in a beautiful place with good people.  Sharing the highs and lows of the eternal struggle with your comrades. Enjoying the competition of a weekend match for low (or high, as the case may be) stakes.  Getting immense satisfaction from the rare perfectly hit shot or perfectly played hole.  Occasionally scoring low enough to keep the flames of hope alive.

No one who really understands the deeper satisfactions of golf needs any of the performance based nonsense that has infused the game over the last 30-40 years to really enjoy it (although they may want it.)

The game will sink or swim on its own merits.  If it is out of touch with modern sensibilities, so be it.  Compromising the quality of the game to appeal to a modern audience hasn't saved it.  Why bother?  

[Garland Bayley]

If the ball is rolled back I'm gonna go to the course and play golf, new ball, old ball, long ball, short ball, I'm gonna play golf. The object is still to get it in the hole in the least amount of strokes.

This is the kind of golfer we need. We don't need the self indulgent -- if they take my ball away, I'm going to quit; or if they outlaw my VW Bug on a stick, I'm going to quit.

[Garland Bayley]

I'm not getting into this here -- but there is no chance someone hitting a balata would hit it farther than a ProV1 -- and spin, btw, hurts distance.

...
I think if you rolled back the ball it would really hurt the sport -- people who are already struggling for distance would simply stop playing. Kids like the power game -- watch any range with teenagers on it. They are working on finessing a feathery wedge. They are gripping and ripping -- and usually slicing 50 yards offline into a range net.

...

This is nonsense. People who are struggling for distance would have had more distance with the balata covered ball than the ProV1. They needed the spin to keep the ball in the air. Did they quit playing when the ProV1 came out?

Kids have been gripping and ripping it from the beginning of golf. No change there to hurt the "sport".

The empirical and scientific evidence says that at about an 85 mph driver speed the cross-over happens. People swinging slower than 85 hit the spinning ball farther.

You need to follow golf a little more.

[Garland Bayley]

I'm not getting into this here -- but there is no chance someone hitting a balata would hit it farther than a ProV1 -- and spin, btw, hurts distance.

...
I think if you rolled back the ball it would really hurt the sport -- people who are already struggling for distance would simply stop playing. Kids like the power game -- watch any range with teenagers on it. They are working on finessing a feathery wedge. They are gripping and ripping -- and usually slicing 50 yards offline into a range net.

...

This is nonsense. People who are struggling for distance would have had more distance with the balata covered ball than the ProV1. They needed the spin to keep the ball in the air. Did they quit playing when the ProV1 came out?

Kids have been gripping and ripping it from the beginning of golf. No change there to hurt the "sport".

Optimal spin as it relates to distance is a function of ball and clubhead speed. At slow swing speeds more spin increases total distance by increasing the lift and time in the air. At high swing speeds it hurts distance by ballooning the ball and creating too steep an angle of descent. That is why there are low compression balls like the noodle that spin more for slower club head speeds.

The old spinny ball created a natural governor to useful clubhead speed. There was little reason to swing beyond a reasonable speed at a balata because most players could not control it. You had the choice to use a top-rock, but at a cost of control in the rest of your game. The multi-layer urethane covered balls allowed high clubhead speeds to no longer have to manage the tradeoff between risking too much spin and giving up control over the rest of the game.

Jim,

Have I welcomed you to the website yet? If not, WELCOME. It's good to see golf knowledgeable people on the site to counter the golf ignorant.

[Ken Moum]

The old spinny ball created a natural governor to useful clubhead speed. There was little reason to swing beyond a reasonable speed at a balata because most players could not control it. You had the choice to use a top-rock, but at a cost of control in the rest of your game. The multi-layer urethane covered balls allowed high clubhead speeds to no longer have to manage the tradeoff between risking too much spin and giving up control over the rest of the game.

True, and IMHO, that means that truly skilled ball strikers had some of their skill advantage taken away and given to the bombers.

That, i think, is a bad thing.

K

[Garland Bayley]

... I have played a lot of golf with persimmon woods in the last 3 years and have played them with balata, titleist professionals, and lots of modern balls including the ProV1. ...

Making an argument using results from the last 3 years hitting balata balls is immensely silly. Those were wound balls. After a year, they were dead. They lost their resiliency. Since none of them have been manufactured in the last ten years, you might as well use nerf balls.

When they were new they reached the initial velocity limit just like the ProV1 does now. Since they were equally lively, simple logic would tell you that at some point the spin characteristics would cause a cross over in distance.

[Greg Clark]

Well I've played a lot of golf with brand new balatas back in the day as well.  They didn't approach the length of the modern ball with modern gear at any speed even in their brand new glory.  Plenty of slow swinging amateurs had the opportunity to keep playing balatas or Professionals after the modern ball came out in the late 90's.  It wasn't that long ago, and yet the balata and Professionals (an like wound balls) disappeared almost overnight.  Amateurs didn't change over just because the covers held up better.  They were longer.  Look, I love playing with old stuff, but they weren't longer.  God bless.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How would you react to it personally? Would you run out to Golfsmith and buy a crate of Pro V1's to last until eternity? Would you comply and maybe just move up a set of tees? Would you get the same sort of a thrill from a 275-yard drive or reaching a 510-yard par 5 as you would from a 300-yard drive or reaching a 550-yard par 5?

How would it change the game of golf in general? Less money spent trying to find new Tiger tees on classic courses?

What about tournament golf? Wouldn't the cream still rise to the top? Maybe bring back the concept of a par 72?

Jim,

You can't roll back the ball without a commensurate roll back in the yardage of the courses.

You can't dial back the ball and leave the yardage at 7,600.

The two have to work hand in glove.

[Patrick Kiser]

- Tournament spec ball, pure and simple.  Weight the thing down ... whatever it takes.  Anyone caught cheating ... ban for a season? pull your card?
- Change spec testing for all clubs to use the new tournament ball and implement standards for the testing that duplicates as much as possible tournament player levels.  In other words, control the smash factor from both sides (ball and club).  Otherwise, the race will shift to the shaft and clubhead even more.
- To address the 7,600 concern Pat mentions ... move up the tees if need be.

Keep the existing ball technology for the 99% who can use the help...

The ball is the lowest common denominator and I would think easier to control ... given the other options.

How long has the ball been in discussion?  I remember reading the DOGs talking about it even back then.  The time has come to do something about it.  Otherwise, those 400 yard drives and 8,000 yard courses are around the corner.

[Tom_Doak]

A roll-back in ball or club technology might help some aspects of the pro game, but it would be DEVASTATING to the game played by the rest of us. It would kill the game and manufacturers would get slaughtered. The Luddites will not prevail. Or at least I hope they won't. Bifurcation is the only answer, IMO.

This is why nothing is being done ... because the equipment companies have managed to convince many otherwise intelligent golfers that the game would be ruined if we didn't hit the ball as far.

I wonder why the steroids suppliers in baseball didn't use the same argument?  Nobody will watch without them!  You'll lose revenue!

I think it's all b.s.  I've played for years and years with inferior equipment and it only mattered when I was playing against others who were armed to the teeth.  Otherwise, HITTING SOLID SHOTS is the thrill of golf.  If it only had to do with how far the ball went, then most golfers would have quit long ago.

And, for Patrick:  Mr. Dye has said for thirty years that there is always room for a few more forward tees, if people really need them.  But most likely they just need to move up a set from where they've been playing.

[Mark Pearce]

and spin, btw, hurts distance.

Rubbish.  For shorter hitters and those who need help getting the ball in the air spin creates lift, which adds distance.  Your first post ignored the fact that a ball "rolled back" for pros needn't produce proportionate reductions in distance for the amateur player, your second suggested you have no grasp of the physics. 

[A.G._Crockett]

and spin, btw, hurts distance.

Rubbish.  For shorter hitters and those who need help getting the ball in the air spin creates lift, which adds distance.  Your first post ignored the fact that a ball "rolled back" for pros needn't produce proportionate reductions in distance for the amateur player, your second suggested you have no grasp of the physics. 

Mark,
It isn't completely accurate, but it isn't rubbish.  Your statements are the same.

There is an optimal spin rate for each golfer, and ALL golfers will get the best distance if the spin rate is correct.  But for ANY golfer, there is a point at which the spin rate would be so high that it would reduce distance, not add to it.  I know that you understand the physics of this.  Spin rate is just one of the variables that go into distance.  Angle of attack, clubhead speed, launch angle, and on and on, are others. 

Also, remember that a ball that spins more curves more; pros can control that, amateurs for the most part cannot.  Simply adding spin to the ball is not an answer, IMO.

One reason that I oppose simpleminded solutions to complex problems is that they often have unintended consequences worse than the original problem.  The assumption here is that the ball is the cause, and that "fixing" the ball would be the solution.  This ignores so many other factors that go into how far pros hit the ball, which is what "optimization" is all about.

So, again, it is bifurcation or leave it alone.  (FWIW, I oppose bifurcation in the Rules in ANY form, but that's just me.)

[Mark Pearce]

A.G.  Everything you write about the physics is correct.  However, Robert's statement and mine weren't the same.  His point, which is rubbish, is that there is no golfer for whom a "spinnier" ball would do other than decrease distance.  As your post explains so well, that's simply not true.

[Mark Pearce]

Perhaps "rolling back" is the wrong expression and damages the cause.  The reality is that the technological developments of the past 20 years cannot be undone and what is known about materials and aerodynamics is valuable.  Instead, what the ruling bodies should concentrate on is a ball specifiction that produces reduced distance at very high (read tounament pro) swing speeds but does not significantly reduce distance at average amateur swing speeds (let's say 85mph, for argument's sake).  I imagine this could best be achieved by a combination of initial ball speed and spin but the scientists may have a better way of doing it.  The magic of the modern ball, after all, is that it is far spinnier when hit softly than when hit hard.  It cannot be impossible to change the parameters to produce a shorter ball for high swing speeds but one that still benefits the rest of us hackers.

[Rich Goodale]

As I have written often, if the ball is rolled back (say to the construction and standards of the Titleist Professional) for elite competitions (say professionals and regional/national amateur competitions), the following will happen:

1.  The pros and the elite amateurs will switch over quickly and happily
2.  The new ball as a standard willl trickle down to the lower level tournament golfers
3.  The 85% of golfers who do not have a handicap and do not play by the Rules of Golf will continue to play whatever ball is available to them and they like

This is fine by me.

[Sean_A]

As I have written often, if the ball is rolled back (say to the construction and standards of the Titleist Professional) for elite competitions (say professionals and regional/national amateur competitions), the following will happen:

1.  The pros and the elite amateurs will switch over quickly and happily
2.  The new ball as a standard willl trickle down to the lower level tournament golfers
3.  The 85% of golfers who do not have a handicap and do not play by the Rules of Golf will continue to play whatever ball is available to them and they like

This is fine by me.

Rihc

Si.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

A roll-back in ball or club technology might help some aspects of the pro game, but it would be DEVASTATING to the game played by the rest of us. It would kill the game and manufacturers would get slaughtered. The Luddites will not prevail. Or at least I hope they won't. Bifurcation is the only answer, IMO.

This is why nothing is being done ... because the equipment companies have managed to convince many otherwise intelligent golfers that the game would be ruined if we didn't hit the ball as far

I think it's all b.s.  I've played for years and years with inferior equipment and it only mattered when I was playing against others who were armed to the teeth.  Otherwise, HITTING SOLID SHOTS is the thrill of golf.  If it only had to do with how far the ball went, then most golfers would have quit long ago.

Finally someone said it. +1

And to those who talk about people liking to hit it far.
I'd be shocked if 99% knew how far they actually hit it.
MANY, MANY times I'll have someone tell me how far they drove it on a certain hole, using a back tee measurement, when I know I've placed the tee markers up two teeing areas for an event. and these are people that play the course daily.
It's usually downhill, downwind to boot.
If you took 5 yards away from them they'd still be exagerating that shot by 50 yards.
I used to use the term "otherwise intelligent people", but at some point you wonder about the middle word.

What stuns me is that the shorter hitters are the ones who protect the balls the most and are getting the least benefit.
You can't take a 10 year old balata and a wooden club and do a comparison.
Modern, rolled back balls would still be durable, and could be hit by a lightweight shafted big headed driver.
Of course there could be complications, but not anything that couldn't be worked out at a fraction of what the companies spendi on the arms race.


When I play softball, the big hitters hit it shockingly far compared to me. Say 300 FEET to my 220 FEET. But it seems like they hit it forever, because it's all relative,yet they're still only hitting it 100 yards.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

There is no question in my mind that a large percentage of golfers over-estimate their distance by a decent margin.  It must be hundreds of times I found balls 20-40 yards behind where the hitter was looking.  I tell golfers all the time that 275 is very large hit and 250 is very long by average standards.  I think what people do is remember those best hits of their life and then say that is how far they hit it.  Yeah, sure, I ave hit some 300+ yard shots in extreme circumstances, but I have hit countless more 220 yard drives than 300+ drives.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.  Everything you write about the physics is correct.  However, Robert's statement and mine weren't the same.  His point, which is rubbish, is that there is no golfer for whom a "spinnier" ball would do other than decrease distance.  As your post explains so well, that's simply not true.

Mark,
Robert went too far, but not much too far.  There are a very, very few golfers out there who MIGHT hit a ball that spins as much as a balata ball used to spin farther because of lift and carry.  But they would be indeed few and far between; the manufacturers figured out spin rates long, long ago for those golfers.  They simply don't make balls that spin TOO LITTLE, and it becomes a matter of choosing a ball that suits your swing and preferences in the distance/control tradeoff.

The reason so many high handicappers hit their 3 or 5 woods farther than a driver is NOT because of more spin; it is because of loft and the resulting launch angle, accompanied by more spin, of course.  Lots of clubfitters now are fitting these golfers with higher lofted drivers to get these launch angles, but only up to the point where spin rates become excessive and overall distance begins to drop.

It is more important to remember, I think, that more spin means more spin on ANY possible axis.  That means, of course, with the driver that the ball is curving more AND for most players going a shorter distance.  This simply is not a good recipe for growing the game.  (I'd add that balls that spin more have always cost more, but that's another issue.)

So, again; bifurcate or leave it alone.  Period.

[Mark Pearce]

AG,

The great thing about the Pro-V1 and equivalents is that it spins proprtionatly far less at high club head speeds than it does at low clubhead speeds.  This is a function of the multi-layer design and the specific properties of those layers.  It cannot be beyond the wit of man to develop a spec that provides the same benefits for the average golfer but, as swing speeds approach those of the elite players, spins more than the current generation of ball.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,

The great thing about the Pro-V1 and equivalents is that it spins proprtionatly far less at high club head speeds than it does at low clubhead speeds.  This is a function of the multi-layer design and the specific properties of those layers.  It cannot be beyond the wit of man to develop a spec that provides the same benefits for the average golfer but, as swing speeds approach those of the elite players, spins more than the current generation of ball.

Mark,
Even IF this can be done, and I am by no means certain that it can, are you seriously interested in a golf ball that would reward lesser players and penalize better players?  I play regularly with a friend who hits it 30 yds. past me repeatedly; he drives the ball pro distances.  We are essentially the same age, size, use the same equipment, practice and play the same amount, and so on.  He does this because he has a better golf swing than I do and produces more clubhead speed.  Do you think that there is benefit to a ball that helps me at his expense, and that golf would be better off accordingly?