Ball Rollback and effect on architecture

[Niall C]

On another thread there has been some chat about the possibility of equipment being rolled back to what it was previously with much of the focus being on the golf ball. While there seems to be some sort of consensus that something needs to be done, there doesn't seem to be any consensus (or at least I'm not aware of it) as to what standard we should adopt. For instance, do you curtail the distance a ball could fly, in which case the manufacturers may make balls roll further once they hit the ground and would that be a bad thing, or would the amount of spin on the ball be reduced as well/instead ?

If you were to pick one characteristic in the ball that you would change, which would it be and how do you think it would impact on architecture or how do you think course design might cghange to take it into account ?

Niall

[Niall C]

Just to jog this one along a bit, I was thinking that if I had a choice I would reduce spin rates making it harder to stop a golf ball. If you do that then the angle of approach becomes a lot more important. To my mind the ability to stop a golf ball dead on a green takes a way to a large extent strategy.

Thoughts ?

Niall

[Nigel Islam]

Or increase spin levels to make it harder to hit the ball dead straight?

[Niall C]

Nigel

Good one, that raises an interesting point, would that count as roll forward ?! What "standard" do you go back to ? Anyway not an issue on this thread, its all hypothetical.

Niall

[Jim Hoak]

Does anyone know any new info on the ball being tested by the R&A that is supposed to have an 8% reduction in distance?  Where does the test stand?  How does it play with the questions being asked--is the 8% flying distance only?  Is the roll the same?

[Niall C]

Jim

No idea. Anyway, what would you like to see happen and what impact might that have on course design ?

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Does anyone know any new info on the ball being tested by the R&A that is supposed to have an 8% reduction in distance?  Where does the test stand?  How does it play with the questions being asked--is the 8% flying distance only?  Is the roll the same?

Not heard this one. I understand the USGA are installing giant fans at the back of all the greens for the next US Open so all play will be into a 50 mph wind. That will stop them breaking par

Jon

[Jim Hoak]

I have mixed feelings.  If this had been done 20 years ago, I think it would have been advisable.  My understanding is that the current ball is no hotter than balls that were available in the early '90's, but that those balls were too hard to be playable by most players (the Pinnacle, for example).  It is the cover that has changed to make the former hot ball now playable.  Also, spin characteristics have changed to make it more playbable.
So in the past 20 years, many new courses have been built, and others renovated, to correspond to the increased length.  Restricting the ball by 8% would obsolete many back tees.  And we'd all be moving up one tee box, I guess.
But, as they say, is "the horse already out of the barn?"  Maybe so.
It reminds me of the long-putter rule.  I support that new proposed rule, but I wish it had been done many years ago.  But, unfortunately, none of us--including the golf rulesmakers--has a crystal ball.  I fault them less than others might, because I think they do the best they can with the information they have at the time.
That's why I'd like to withhold an opinion till we see what the R&A experiment shows.
Is that enough of a "cop-out"?

[Jim Hoak]

Jon--The R&A experiment has been publicly reported.  It's not an inside story.  I just haven't heard any conclusions.  Probably none released yet.

[Niall C]

Jim

Not a cop out at all. It seems to me that shortening the distance a ball travels might have minimal impact in the sense that all you're doing is pushing up the tee grounds as you say, but that the cut grassed area (otherwise known as fairway) might remain where it is as presumably carry distances will be forshortened. That being the case perhaps not much savings to be made on reducing the amount of cut turf. Where it might make a difference is the amount of club needed to reach the green. But what will that do for strategy ? Will it mean having to redesign the green to make it more receptive ?

It would be ironic would it not, if rolling back the ball lead to courses being tweaked to cater for the new circumstances.

Niall

[Michael Whitaker]

Nigel

Good one, that raises an interesting point, would that count as roll forward ?! What "standard" do you go back to ? Anyway not an issue on this thread, its all hypothetical.

Niall

Naill & Nigel,

I think increasing the spin rate would accomplish most of what everyone would like to see from a "rollback." It would require players to throttle back on their swings to make sure the ball does not curve off the course... which they don't have to worry about now... effectively reducing the distance they hit the ball. It would also bring more touch into the wedge game as players would once again fear the "vampire suck" shot that spins backwards off the green... remember the mighty spins that Norman used to get with his wedges?

It is the lack of spin that has allowed players to hit the ball the great distances they do today. Bring back the spin and we would all be happy campers!

[Sven Nilsen]

Johnny Miller has talked about going back to the old dimple pattern.

His take was that the less aerodynamic pattern would make it harder to keep the ball in the air and would punish mishits.  

The manufacturers would still be able to market certain aspects of the ball, including materials.  But the added influence on ball-striking would differentiate the pure hitter from the guy with the quickest swing.

Here's an old thread on the topic:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,16292.0.html

Sven

[Dave McCollum]

There is a sleep-inducing thread over on Geoff Shack’s blog about handicapping based on the ball used:

 http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2011/12/19/john-solheim-wants-everyone-to-have-three-balls-and-other-am.html

Nobody cares what I think, but I’ll spout off anyway.  To me, these debates have nothing to do with 98% of golfers.  Give them grenade launchers and rocket propelled balls and they still can’t play a lick.  I include myself in this group.  I like the modern balls and clubs.  Encourages the illusion that I can play a bit.  Relative to the hacks I play with, of course, not pro golfers on TV.  I think anything within reason that makes the game more enjoyable and less difficult is just fine.  Level the playing field for competitions if you want with whatever local rules the players mutually want.  I don’t care a hoot about bifurcation of the rules.  If the problem is that pros are making us alter our courses because of the hot ball, then make them play a slowed-down competition ball.  It won’t hurt ball sales because 98% will still buy and play the balls they like.  The only golfers that would be hurt are the guys getting paid to play free balls.  Drop the endorsement deals and reduce the selling price while keeping the same margins.  The pro game is a different game than the one we play.  They should have different standards to match that reality! 

[Anders Rytter]

To me it's not only about rolling back, it's also about not having the process continue.

[Nigel Islam]

Not to mention increasing the spin level would help to identify the players that could control the ball and the spin. I personally feel that Tiger would have stood out even more in his glory years if everyone had played balatas. I might be way off base though because he did not start dominating until he started using the TW tour accuracy which was a huge advantage in 2000 for him over the Titleist players (Prov1 came out the week after the 2000 PGA).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

I think there are a number of ways to dial back the ball.

I tend to favor increased spin rates due to the impact on ball flight/deviation.

If the ball was dialed back 10 % I think you'd see a lot of back tees abandoned.

[Mark Pearce]

I have mentioned before that my eldest son played in a trial medal competition at Elie, using the R&A trial ball mentioned by Jim.  In that medal most golfers noticed little difference.  Cameron (who was then 14, I think) reckoned he lost half a club in length.  Better players lost a bit more than one club in distance.  Scores weren't radically different from what might be expected in a normal medal.  Cameron did comment that the ball felt a bit odd when chipping and putting.  I believe the R&A ran a number of these trial medals.  It's a shame they haven't (won't?) share the findings with the public.

[Niall C]

Mike

Interesting. I was thinking of the opposite effect where lack of spin, or stop, in hard and fast conditions would put a premium on correct angle of approach. Perhaps thinking more of older UK courses when I say that, courses where the hazards tend to be more of a flanking nature rather than a cross hazard of some sort.

Can't recall the last time where I played a course and regularly had to land the ball in front of the green to allow for the roll. Reduce the spn and keep the distance. Long hitters who hit the ball in the right direction will still be rewarded whereas the wild slashers will be punished by no longer being able to get themsleves out of trouble so easily.

Niall

[Doug Siebert]

Just undo what the Pro V1 did.  It used multiple layers so that if you hit the ball with a slow swing speed, it spins a lot.  That's good for the short game and short irons.  If you hit with a high swing speed you hit "through" the outer layer to the inner layer, which reacts with little spin.  That's good for tee shots.

Change the rules so that there has to be some relationship of spin rates for a ball hit at different swing speeds that prevent this sort of thing being done.  Then players can choose between hitting it a long way but having little spin for short shots, or have a lot of spin for those shots but too much spin to hit the ball as far as it currently goes off the driver.

Or, to make things even simpler, mandate a cover of a certain thickness, with an inside that's required to be of uniform consistency.  Basically all balls would be required to have a solid uniform center of for example 1.58" with a thin uniform cover 0.05" in thickness.  Thus no room for multiple layers gaming the spin rates.  Let them continue to mess around with dimple patterns - those aren't the problem.

This wouldn't hurt the bad player, who would play the equivalent of the old school Top Flite to get more distance just like he did in 1980, while the better player would be forced to play the equivalent of the Titleist Balata, because he wouldn't be able to give up the control with the short game, and thus wouldn't be able to hit high trajectory drives that carried 310 yards any longer, nor 230 yard 5 irons.

[Niall C]

Doug

I can't say I totally followed everything you said but to me the problem isn't length off the tee but the increased control of the ball when landing, which I think is the point you're making. If we could somehow make it harder to control the ball on landing, then I think that would go along way to bringing accuracy and strategy back into the game. That of course assumes fast and firm conditions, otherwise they could compensate for lack of spin by having soft greens.

On another thread A.G. Crocket seems convinced restricting the ball in any shape or form is a non-starter for reasons of potential litigation. Perhaps he's right, time will tell.

Niall

[Doug Siebert]

Niall,

You used to have a choice between control or distance.  With the Pro V1, you could have both.  If they changed the rules to make a Pro V1 "no compromise" ball illegal, we'd be back to the same choice.  Almost all pros would choose control, amateurs could decide between control or distance depending on which they felt was more important / needed more help with.