[Ron Kern]

Yesterday the mail - lady delivered the latest INSIDE The USGA publication.  And, inside was a question / answer session with Dick Rugge.  the final question and answer is telling, maybe.

Q.  Will balls keep getting longer?

A.  The new ODS limit chosen does not allow any further distance increases.

Here's a link to the USGA website discussing the changes made to their ball evaluation process.

The date for this update is 7-3-2003, so if this has already been discussed, my apologies.

Apparently this ends any speculation that the ball will be rolled back.

http://www.usga.org/press/2003/2003_63.html

At the bottom of the release, there is mention that comments will be taken until December 20th regarding this issue.

I do hope that this is the end of the ball issue - now on to controlling the clubs.

The new MAC "woods" by Burrows golf are trouble - I have seen them in action.  Here's a link for your curiosity.

http://www.burrowsgolf.com/index_flash.html

Good Golf,


Ron Kern

[A.G._Crockett]

Ron Kern,
I read this with interest, and hope that it is true.  I believe that it is solid science.
As to the Mac woods, I tried a variety at a local range and I don't think they are a bit longer than my Titliest.  They look intimidating, and some players may make more aggressive swings due to the crazy head size, but for better players who have already tweaked shafts and clubheads to fit them, I don't see them as anything out of the ordinary.  They are wild-looking, though!

[RJ_Daley]

Ron, in a fast glance at the MAC driver website and press releases, I didn't see any mention that it is USGA approved as legal.  Or, did I miss that?

Thus, we’ve proposed to set the limit at a place that provides meaningful restrictions on distance, tightens the ODS standard by seven yards, maintains the continuity of the current conforming list, and provides a framework through which we can monitor our test procedures and modify them as player swing speeds and other conditions change. We feel that Phase II accomplishes all these important goals."

I don't know if this was discussed earlier either, but after adding up the ODS to 326.8 and their then reducing the new ODS to 320, aren't they sluffing off the resposibility to restrict further distance to the so called "other conditions" phraze in the above quote?  i.e. softer fairways perhaps?

[Ron Kern]

The MAC wood's sweetspots are expanded across the face allowing off center hits to fly more true and long

This allows the better player to take a bigger pass at the shot thereby increasing his clubhead speed and adding distance to the shot.

It reminds me of the oversized tennis raquet approach.

A golf pro friend is playing the driver and he has gained distance and accuracy - he says the MAC, with all of its clubfitting options, is the best driver he has hit and is the next step in club technology.

Bill Rogers is using and promoting the product - it has been approved by the USGA.

The product was developed over a 7 year period of serious research and testing.

Ron Kern

[john_stiles]

Ron,

I read the USGA reference and hope it (the new ODS regulations) works.   However, the rule seems to be based on clubhead speed of 120 mph and there are references to  " modern equipment technology and player ability".

So, if players' clubhead speed increases to say.... 125 mph or 130 mph... by better conditioned/trained players or better shafts or longer shafts....manufacturers can probably figure out how to get added distance from 130 mph swings and still pass test at 120 mph.  Manufacturers have already been there and done that (109 vs 120 for example by USGA testing). I am talking about clubhead speeds on the whole or average, not just a handfull of players, to the point where additional course length is needed.

Does the USGA revise ODS again to, in the future,  to " maintain the continuity of the current conforming list "  to address higher swing speed ?  That statement 'to maintain continuity of the current conforming list' also bothers me and speaks to serving the manufacturers and not the game of golf.

The USGA will be behind the 'curve' again and again if you maintain the current conforming list. The recent ball changes are small and gradual but look at what has been accomplished by the manufacturers so far. There is no doubt that the professional game influences classic course restorations or worse, renovations, and  increases the length needed for new 'championship' courses.

The USGA will continue to effectively muscle  'weak' courses unable due to pride or money to stop hosting events into lengthening, pushing out bunkers, or wholesale changes to golf courses.

Manufacturers are constantly changing almost every ball line on a yearly basis. They change dimples, dimple patterns, dimple depths, shell materials, shell thicknesses, core diameters, core material, the number of shells, etc. on many of the lines or all of the lines of balls.

Manufacturers can roll the ball back which is what is really needed.  They can all still claim, with a rolled back ball, that 'their' ball goes the furthest, is the softest, or has the best 'feel', etc.  Everyone would still have a golf ball that they designed and has unique characteristics.  

You could do that over a 2 or 3 year period which gives time to empty warehouse supplies and old lines of balls.  Retailers have that problem now anyway.  

One quote was  "The same balls simply go farther when hit at higher speeds with modern equipment." I didn't see any explanation or thoughts about how the future issues will be addressed.

Until they really get with the manufacturers, nothing has changed and there will be more problems in about 5 years or 10 years due to accumulated factors.

I could be all screwed in my concerns and would appreciate anyone's explanation of how the ODS will work with higher swing speeds.  Of course, manufacturers have not started working on that ball yet .... still.......when players' swing speeds increase,  the manufacturers will be right there, ready to get more market share and increase profits.  

So,  I would like to see at least some gradual increase in clubhead speed built into the ODS.

I love what the USGA does,  the rules, first tee, competitions, and I am a USGA member, support first tee progream courses, but every once in a while,  I wish they could fix the whole distance/technology/ball/club/fitness issues with length by using the $3 ball.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John Stiles,
Take a bow!

I typed off a few questions similar to Mr. Rugge, and haven't heard back as of yet. I odn't doubt for one second his abilties and his knowledge-however, I do doubt his sincerity in helping the USGA govern the Game without commericial influence. I really do hope I'm wrong.

[Doug Siebert]

I'll believe it when I see it...

I don't think they are really doing anything very useful here, just increasing the clubhead speed and changing the composition of the head itself.  If the Pro V1x I'm hitting now is still legal under this new standard (and I'm sure it is, or they'd never have the guts to push it through) its too little, too late.  7000 yards is the middle tees these days.

But I guess the first step is to slow or stop the increase, so here's hoping this will do that, at least for the ball.  That MAC club sure sounds interesting, but I really wish the USGA would flunk it for the "traditional in appearance" part of the club legality test and arrest this line of development before we make it even easier to hit bad shots with a good result.  20 years ago it required a halfway decent shot to put it out there 250, nowadays it is amazing how poorly you can hit it and get it beyond that mark!

[Evan_Green]

Ron-

Couple of questions for you about the MAC driver -

Is it longer than normal drivers only on offcenter shots or on on center shots as well?

and
How come more pros arent using it if it is longer than the titleist?

Thanks
Evan

[Ron Kern]

While I have yet to take the time to get fitted for one, it seemed to not be appreciably longer, but the pro had less fear about taking a big cut as the off center hits flew just as far and didn't go very far off line at all.  After I take the time to hit one that is properly fitted I will let you know.

As for why more pros aren't playing one - I have no idea how many are playing it - Bill Rogers may be the one to answer that. (Fond memories of Rogers coming to Woodland CC in the 70's to play with Don Padgett - boy could he strike it well - it's fun to see him back playing on the Senior, or whatever they call it, tour.)

Right now Burrows Golf is pitching its product to local golf pros with an extensive fitting program - it is very interesting how simple it is to change shafts - so it seems that the main push is for the recreational golfer rather than the touring pro.  But then again, I am not privy to anything other than what I observe.

Ron Kern

[john_stiles]

Tommy,

I reworked by comments/questions/rant, put in 'swing speed' rather than clubhead speed and sent my question on to Mr. Rugge.   Maybe the USGA staff can cut and paste his answer to you and forward to me.

No doubt that USGA testing knowledge and experience is one of the best if not the best,  but the USGA is dealing with many manufacturers who probably have a large accumulation of design and research experience, maybe more design experience than the USGA and more funds available for research.  So, we'll see what happens during this comment phase for ODS.  

I was quite surprised at what 'recently' happened when the USGA floated a clubhead size regulation and were completely flattened by the manufacturers. It sure appeared to me as if the USGA did not know what was going on in the real world.

I remain hopeful.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John,
Mr. Rugge responded to me first thing this morning, and I felt he was gracious in doing so as well has left open the door for more questions.

I'll email you his responses as well as my questions to him, but I was distressed to find out in the process that they are using one (1) club, of an "unbranded" source to do these tests. With all of the different processes out there in clubhead design and manufacturing, I found this to be somewhat alarming.

[TEPaul]

John Stiles:

When the USGA monitors and sets an ODS limit on balls (and clubs) and uses a MPH number like 109mph all they're really doing is creating a scientific test protocol for a "pass/fail" line to judge balls (and clubs with "spring like effect"--increased COR) conforming or not.

When they picked that 109 swing speed quite a few years ago it was picked because they felt that was about as fast as most anyone swung. Was that set too low to deal with reality? I don't think they thought so for many years at least not until they saw Davis Love at the Walker Cup. Then they all sort of scratched their heads and said; Uh Oh?!

With balls that were at the ODS limit without "spring-like effect clubs" the total distance was judge to be about 290 something I think--or whatever it was could be found in their literature if not the back of the rules book.

But that never meant that the USGA was trying to prevent a golf ball from EVER going farther than that ODS calculation of 290 something. All they were ever trying to do is prevent golfers from being AIDED by technology beyond some determined point to create a "pass/fail" test for balls and clubs. If any player was able to swing beyond 109 or now 120 that was simply player skill or talent in their opinion and that was never--repeat never ever something the USGA was trying to prevent or restrain.

All they've ever tried to do is prevent technology from aiding a given set of circumstances (their test protocol). Some people think the USGA has been trying to or should limit the actual distance any golf ball can ever go and that's not something they're into or ever have been.

What happens when some gorilla comes along and hits conforming equipement farther with a much higher swing speed due only to raw physical talent? Do people then expect the regulatory bodies to roll back the ODS limit? That will never happen.

Their philosophy and practice is only that physical talent should ONLY be responsible for hitting a golf farther completely unaided by technologic advances beyond a determined point (the ODS).

It'd probably be instructive to know that the "S" in ODS is only a "standard" for "pass/fail" testing--its not supposed to be an outright LIMITATION on how far a golf ball can ever go. But the only factor they want to see increase distance is player talent and skill, period, not technology!

[john_stiles]

TEPaul,

I understand your comment and have always understood that players have been able with equipment and abilities to exceed the ODS.  I am sorry to have said or implied that the USGA was trying to prevent a golf ball from ever going farther than that ODS distance standard.  

They previously missed on setting the swing speed and I read by your note, they knew this when they saw Davis Love at the Walker Cup in 1985.  And why were they concerned when they saw ONE player hit it so far ?  Because, I suspect, that it was thought that this was only the beginning.  "Uh-oh" in 1985 could equal 'Uh-oh' in 2008.

BTW, my friend, captain of the Univ of Tennessee golf team in the 1980s saw Davis win a long drive contest with a persimmon driver and Titleist of the day with a drive over 300 yards on a test that was not downwind, not downhill,  or on hard ground.  I realize that some swings are such that the ODS is exceeded by many, and USGA swing speed is exceeded by some,  and a few players may average greater than the proposed ODS in 'tournament' competition.

But, the manufacturers used that gap between 109 and whatever swing speed you want to mention (120 mph or the PGA norm which is below 120 mph),  to get on average, a pretty significant increase in distance as recently measured by standards in the USGA lab and more importantly on the course.  And golf courses have spend millions in resorations and renovations to revise tees, bunkers, etc. and millions extra to lengthen to 7400 or 7500 at new courses.

So,  I am worried that they may have again underestimated swing speed and may have not provisions for addressing the issue in the future other than to say everything made (at some future point in time) is okay and  USGA revises ODS and go on from here.

So, my questions are :

Is 120 mph swing speed high enough ?   If so, why do you (USGA) think that 120 mph is high enough.  

If 120 mph is above the PGA norm now, will it be above the norm in 10 years ?    

If the USGA just  'monitors'  the swing speed, and you find it needs to be adjusted, the USGA may again be in the position of saying 'All present balls conform to the new ODS'.  Why do you monitor ?  If swing speed is a key element, you monitor swing speed.  You must think that it (swing speed) could go up.  If you think it could go up, make plans for this.

If you have a plan to increase the swing speed and can get some agreement on that now,  the USGA will be in much better shape than just monitoring swing speed.

In case you have underestimated the swing speed, are there plans or provisions to address this ?   I realize that the USGA could revise the swing speed, revise the ODS, and then state all current golf balls comply with the new ODS.

I think if all balls comply now at 120 mph swing speed then in the future, they will have to increase the swing speed again.

If you now set swing speeds to go up in the future (and probably in effect say your ball will not comply in 2008 or some future date) then they can maybe get some concession from the manufacturers to go along with swing speed increases.  

Otherwise, the manufacturers will probably be so far ahead in 10 or so years, that a new ODS will be needed. I guess I do not believe that swing speeds will go down and do not believe they will remain static over 10 years. If the PGA norm swing speeds (which are said to be below 120 mph now) go up, the ball goes further.

There will be some combination of club and ball technology that will allow future gains only by technology and not players ability.

Those guys (manufacturers) are good !!!

[TEPaul]

"There will be some combination of club and ball technology that will allow future gains only by technology and not players ability."

John:

Perhaps, but that's what they (USGA) will try to prevent. I think in a way you might be misunderstanding what I'm saying about the swing speed used in their "pass/fail" ball test protocol. Although 109 may seem somewhat low to them or you now I don't think it really makes a bit of difference what the swing speed used in their test protocol is. Obviously that presupposes that there're no extrapolations or anomolies in performance given various swing speeds--that everything distance-wise across the MPH scale is basically straight-line.

Some say the new PRO-Vx can only be hit to its maximum distance potential above 109 but that would indicate to me that at say 109 or below it may not go as far as say the Pinnacle that's supposedly right on the ODS limit at 109.

What I'm saying is the MPH used is sort of meaningless as all it is is a component in a test protocol to determine if a ball's distance characteristics are conforming or non-conforming just as they were at 109. I don't believe that going from a swing speed MPH of 109 to 120 in their test protocol has changed a thing as far as distance limitations or distance restrictions on the ball. The USGA has not loosened their previous ODS limitations as far as I can tell--all they've done is to use another mph number to basically determine the same ODS distance limitations they were testing at 109mph. 120 is probably nothing more than perception as it just SEEMS more realistic. For that matter they could probably even use 100 or even 80 or even 160mph and get the same "pass/fail" results with balls that they had been at 109 and will soon at 120.

[john_stiles]

TEP,

Well....

Would an old Titleist, using all the same equipment and same test procedures, travel as far as a new ProV, or travel a shorter distance, or travel the same distance ?

From my experience, listening to others on the home course, listening to and reading about other's experiences, I think the new ProV goes further.  

So,  I would like to see what, if any, additional distance can be attributed to the golf ball. I have not seen any test data comparing old 'brand' balls to new 'brand' balls.

I think the manufacturers have some very good 'scientists and engineers' working on the materials and construction and composition of the ball and aerodynamics and have created a ball that will travel further at the same clubhead or swing speed than a ball, constructed in some different manner.

If there is any increase solely attributed to the golf ball, then I would like to see that increase managed and would like to see test procedures to preclude futher increases in length, all other factors being equal, from occurring due only to the golf ball.

Technology pure and simple (and no big surprise) has allowed a golf ball to be struck further under the same conditions than before.

However, if this is not true, then 109 mph seems like a perfectly good number for a swing speed as it is much higher than the average person and myself and maybe 98% of the golfers.

Higher swing speed...the ball goes further all other factors  being equal.  

Same swing speed...and the ball goes further....something has been gained by the use of that ball.  Now the USGA will just 'monitor' this in the future. They were apparently 'monitoring' since the 'Uh-oh' at the Walker Cup in 1985 when seeing Davis Love drive .... and nothing came of that except all balls now pass the new ODS.

The gain in distance could be trivial unless you end up spending millions on course changes and renovations and new courses are more expensive.

The issue, of course, is also about other technology improvements and player fitness in regards to length ........but save the courses, your biggest investment and expense,  and change the $2 ball.

Give all of them a five year break and
roll the ball back in two thousand eight !

[TEPaul]

John:

Much of this has been discussed on here before and is obviously now in the back pages.

A few factors are reputed to have caused the recent distance spike--but what they are is very interesting. The irony is that none of them have gone beyond the ODS limitations that have been in existence for over 26 years!

Just think about that for a second. Obviously you'll ask youself how could that be if these high quality players are hitting the ball so much farther than they did just ten years ago.

Its clearly a combination of factors with a single factor contributing most of it, in my opinion, and in the opinion of tech people and the opinion of good players.

You asked;

"Would an old Titleist, using all the same equipment and same test procedures, travel as far as a new ProV, or travel a shorter distance, or travel the same distance?"

Firstly, make that the old three piece Titleist balata! And the generally accepted answer amongst all these people is no it would not travel as far as the ProV or the Pro Vx. In short those old three piece balata balls that almost ALL good players used to use where probably no where near the ODS limitations that have been in existence for a few decades.

But the two piece, hard covered balls (Pinnacles, Top Flites, Slazengers et al) that have also been around for decades were near or at the ODS limitations that have not changed in few decades.

The thing was no good players ever used that kind of ball. Why? Because it had none of the control they liked to have for their approach shots, short game and putting!

But if they ever did decide to use one of those old Pinnacles way back then the thinking is that they could have hit them basically the same distances as they're now hitting a ball like the ProV and ProVx.

So what happened? Essentially about 10 years ago the manufacturers finally figured out how to do the unthinkable, which was to finally COMBINE the distance characteristics of the old two piece balls with the soft control characteristics of the old balata type three piece ball!

That's what considered the so-called new age ball--the ProV and ProVx and their like from other manufacturers. Manufacturers also began to get into what they call "optimization" by studying maximum effect for any player of combinations of clubface and ball characteristics--basically things such as "optimum" launch angle and spin rate for any particular player.

But here's the thing to keep in mind and which is utlimately important in this overall distance discussion--all of this new technology DOES NOT EXCEED THE DECADES OLD ODS LIMITATIONS!!!

It's simply that high quality players are now able to use equipment that they never chose to use before (particularly a type of ball--the long distance two piece "rock") that would have gone about as far as the present new age composite or combination ball!

So you see, the USGA has not loosened the ODS limits in decades and amazingly the manufacturers have not broken those limitations either.

But did the USGA get outflanked when the manufacturers finally figured out how to make that new age ball? Of course they did--they didn't expect that and when Frank Thomas explained that to them quite a few years ago, according to him anyway they neither believed it or saw the true significance of it.

COR (the clubface) is another story in this saga--and when that became apparent--ie "spring-like effect", Thomas recommended that they limit that at approximately .780 or .790 which was believed to be the COR of the old persimmon driver--which basically was no "spring-like effect". They (USGA) chose not to heed that warning either and eventually set COR limitations at .830.

So now you should see that even despite all this new so-called manufacturer "optimization" none of this equipment has as yet EXCEEDED the decades old USGA ODS limitations! Nothing except something like the ERC2 driver of that abusive man to golf's regulatory organizations and the spirit of the game--Eli Callaway, who, in my opinion, purposely tried to break the rules to see if he could get away with it! But he's gone now and apparently so has his purposely non-conforming driver!

All these very important facts are necessary to understand and keep in mind!

[A.G._Crockett]

TEPaul,
Great post, to which I would add only that it explains why "rolling the ball back" is an impossibility.  The ProV's, which is really what all this is about, is STILL not the longest ball available, though the differences are not great anymore.  Whatever the "fix" might be, it just can't be a "roll back."

[john_stiles]

" But here's the thing to keep in mind and which is utlimately important in this overall distance discussion--all of this new technology DOES NOT EXCEED THE DECADES OLD ODS LIMITATIONS!!! "

Wait a minute here.  They did improve the ball. Did they work on the shells and cores and materials to 'help' get optimal spin rates ?   Sure,  they may have found that fact when they worked on the feel and touch.  

Then again, let's see now.  It is impossible to roll the ball back. The USGA says their test should be good for the ages but they will 'monitor'.  I get it.

Your cannot make any more 'ball' distance improvements and likewise you cannot, never go backwards.

Sounds like everything will be good for another 10 years years.

I have gotten off track from my original post which was for the most part :

1) The USGA plan for the future is to 'monitor'.  Well, in my opinion 'monitoring' isn't much of a plan for the future.

2) Swing speed was increased (presumably first thought to be a problem based of observations in 1985 at a Walker Cup). Monitoring didn't work then or just took 19 years. Well, there are not any provisions to provide for increased swing speeds in the future. Not even an arbitrary increase.  

The precedent for any addressing any new technology, in any single or combination of effects,  is to draw a new line in the sand where you now stand. The precedent is not good but they promise or say it will not be that way in the future. There is hope.

3)  They could roll the ball back !   With the other COR rules and 'monitoring' equipment,  you could now resolve the majority of the issues with the ball.

As to the sidetrack about the ball and ODS ...

'They' did figure out the Pinnacle distance long ago and get that only recently into the ProV.  I also do not think with modern equipment that the old Pinnacle (w/ its shells/aero effects/spin rate package) will go as far as the new Pinnacle with its 'new' package.  Aero package is 'part' of the ball, dimples, shells, and all.

As you and I and others have said.... it is a combination of a lot of factors all of which have been discussed and numerous others and myself have discussed.  Also, I agree that this requirement for additional course length, as you noted, is not about what you and I could or can now do with old or new Pinnacles.

However, you get to some of the issue about course work and future courses by rolling the ball back for 'them' or having the dreaded tournament ball.  It is not about my game or your game when it comes to golf course renovations and new courses. If everyone wants to continue the status quo of spending millions of dollars for 'renovating' the 'classics' and building 7500 yard new courses then that is fine.  

The golf ball manufacturers will not be spending all their time, money, and research on figuring which paint to use for the lettering.  

I think the manufacturers' ability to improve golf balls (and clubs and shafts) exceeds the ability of the USGA to monitor.

I could be so wrong and certainly hope so.

[Ken Fry]

Ron,

I've hit a number of shots with the Mac driver.  A very good club with a decent price point.  It's not any longer than the newer clubs by Talor Made, Ping, Cobra and Titleist.  I'm hitting a 983 K from Titleist with the Pro V1X ball.  I've easliy picked up 30 yards on my driving from the beginning of the season.  No one can convince me the technology hasn't gotten out of hand.

[TEPaul]

"Swing speed was increased (presumably first thought to be a problem based of observations in 1985 at a Walker Cup). Monitoring didn't work then or just took 19 years. Well, there are not any provisions to provide for increased swing speeds in the future. Not even an arbitrary increase."

John:

Again, swing speed may be something the USGA might monitor simply for interest but they have never had plans to limit swing speed and they obviously never will. Swing speed is a characteristic of the physical ability of the golfer and the USGA's I&B rules and regs and limitations have never been interested in controlling or limiting that--only technology's attempt to enhance it beyond their published ODS limitations. Again, the 109mph or 120mph or whatever mph they choose to use to test the "pass/fail" line on golf balls is only a test protocol factor.

When I mention Davis Love and the Walker Cup and the surprise of the USGA there has nothing to do with limiting anything merely that they were very surprised that anybody could hit the ball that far with a 90 compression balata. They never thought to limit Love's swing speed but they did toy with the idea of asking him to come to the USGA to test balls against his swing speed to see if perhaps there might be some kind of distance extrapolation in an exponential sense regarding swing speed. I believe they later learned that was and is not the case.

There was no concern about COR back then in the Walker Cup either. Love was one of the very last to give up the persimmon driver and while at PVGC for the Walker Cup Love never even used a wood--only irons!

[Patrick_Mucci]

AGCrockett,

There might be the possibility of a rollback under the following stepped scenario.

1    ANGC adopts a tournament ball that is the only ball
      permited in The Masters competition.
 
2    The USGA adopts the "Augusta" ball as their ball for all
      competitions.

3     Regional and State Golf Associations adopt the "Augusta"
      ball as their competition ball.

4     Golf Clubs adopt the "Augusta" ball as their competition
       ball.

5     The golfers who play in these competitions adopt the
       "Augusta" ball as their ball for daily play.

6     Some or many of remaining golfers adopt the "Augusta"
       ball as their ball for daily play.

The above scenario would seem to avoid lawsuits, permit rolling back and transition the golfing world to a ball with uniform specifications and performance qualities.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[john_stiles]

TEPaul,

I was really speaking to the swing speed for the 'test', not a maximum swing speed for a player.  Not the swing for a player.  

Obviously, there are some player swing speeds, as acknowledged by the USGA today,  as above 120.  However, the USGA says the PGA norm is just below 115 mph.

I was thinking more or less about some plan to increase swing speed slightly in the future, some plan, albeit arbitrary, albeit very slight,  but at least the ability (or plan) to increase swing speeds in the future and keep the ODS distance the ' same'.

If you just monitor swing speeds, or just monitor anything, and your general approach has been that everything up to now, or everything up to that date in the future is 'legal' and 'conforming',   then it just seems like you draw the line in sand again where you stand.

But, again, back to one of my original points, the USGA has no plans other than to monitor.  Monitoring has not worked in the past.

The USGA was waxed on titanium heads, then, as you pointed out someone thought a COR of 0.78 was needed. Now 0.83 is being used.

Time after time the USGA is behind.

Anytime the USGA gets behind, there is no way in their mind to go backward.  Probably afraid, as anyone would be,  of lawsuits.

And futhermore, the USGA is always in a position of reacting as there are never and can never be on the inside of development.  In the first place, USGA and manufacturers  may not trust each other. Second place it is an  'us' versus USGA versus the other manufacturers.  Third, manufacturers need to make money.  The manufacturers have more people who do nothing but develop, test, change materials, develop, test, change materials or construction.  The USGA has very fine people who only test.

Hence, they WILL ALWAYS BE BEHIND THE TECHNOLOGY CURVE.  I just do not think that someone will call the USGA and say 'Hey this is our new idea'  or  'Come on over and see what we have done.'

If your plan is to monitor,  it just doesn't sound very good to me.

BTW,   I actually like Pat Mucci's idea and think that would work.

[TEPaul]

John Stiles:

With the USGA ODS rules and regs there're basically just two things--the clubs and the ball. Technology will undoubtably try to perfect the performance of clubs, particularly drivers and metal wood heads, probably shafts but there are rules and regs limitations for that--but that side of I&B is not as defined as to distance producing limitations as is the ball, in my opinion. With the golf ball in the future I don't really see what more technology will or can do with the ball to enhance distance without just manufacturing and marketing nonconforming balls in contravention of the USGA I&B rules and regs because if technology enhances distance with the ball hereinout the USGA will simply declare such balls to be "nonconforming" as they have in the past. So once again, swing speed is really not that relevant to the determination of a ball's distance conformance.

[Doug Siebert]

Perhaps, but that's what they (USGA) will try to prevent. I think in a way you might be misunderstanding what I'm saying about the swing speed used in their "pass/fail" ball test protocol. Although 109 may seem somewhat low to them or you now I don't think it really makes a bit of difference what the swing speed used in their test protocol is. Obviously that presupposes that there're no extrapolations or anomolies in performance given various swing speeds--that everything distance-wise across the MPH scale is basically straight-line.

It is this assumption (that the performance at various swing speeds is straight-line) that I believe is flawed.  What I understand (from what I've read from ball makers and engineers who work for them) is that ball makers have utilized computer modelling to optimize the total carry of the ball subject to constraints in terms of initial launch speed and total distance when hit with a given club of a given loft at a given swing speed.

They are free to play with variables such that different performance characteristics occur at higher swing speeds, and they found one.  Namely the amount of compression that a ball undergoes at impact, and what form that compression takes.  Play with the composition of the ball, the compressibility of the ball (ever wonder why we are all hitting 80 compression balls these days?) and so on and you can produce a ball that when hit at 109 mph with Iron Byron stays within the limits, but when hit at a higher speed compresses more and leaves the face with a more elongated "bullet" shape that reduces air resistance during the first part of its travel.  It goes further under these conditions because it undergoes less air resistance for this initial part of its travel, and thus the distance increase versus swing speed is in fact non linear.

I've even got some anecdotal observations that back this up.  I've noticed that the Pro V1 performs worse in cold weather (for me, talking about 50-60F) relative to its normal performance in nice weather (80-90F)  Try a ball designed for slower swing speeds, like the Lady Precept, and while that ball goes shorter than the Pro V1 in warm weather, it is longer for me in cold weather!  My guess would be because the V1 isn't compressing enough for me when its colder, if my theory's correct I should see an even larger discrepancy with the V1x (and if so, probably should just play the Lady when its cold!)

I started playing the Pro V1x recently when my supply of V1s ran out, and off my driver it is in fact longer, noticeably so.  I see no difference on short irons, a bit of effect on my 1 iron off the tee perhaps but its hard to know for sure as the sweet spot is so small on the thing its hard to account for that until I've been using the V1x a bit longer.  On the other hand a friend of mine who isn't as long as me (he's got around 100-105 mph swing speed) who uses the Pro V1 tried the V1x as well and found no difference for him.  FWIW.

So anyway, the USGA will now test at 120 mph so perhaps part of this bag of tricks goes away for ball makers, maybe they can find away around it by the fact the USGA uses only one club for its testing -- it may perform differently enough to whatever driver technology is in force in 5-10 years that another crack in the door is formed.  And of course they can still optimize for swing speeds of well over 120 mph, which won't be relevant to me any longer, or even a good number of today's tour pros, but it'll help a few of them (does Hank Kuehne need more distance?) and I still fear to think what kids who grow up whaling away with 400cc drivers will swing like when they hit the tour in 10 years!

I still say, drop the ODS by 10%, increase the size of the ball to something like 1.75" while keeping the weight the same so it is easy to recognize a ball that is made to the new standard versus the billions of old ones that'll be around and gain the side benefit that it is affected more by the wind since they've also engineered that out of the ball lately.  I don't think ball makers would really fight the USGA on this, because they'd still be free to make better balls, they just have to operate under a different set of constraints.  And a 470 yard par 4 would go back to something typically played without a short iron or wedge.

[TEPaul]

DougS:

Really good post excellently presented;

When I said this in a post;

"Obviously that presupposes that there're no extrapolations or anomolies in performance given various swing speeds--that everything distance-wise across the MPH scale is basically straight-line.",

I really meant that--that that's only a supposition. That all balls perform in a straight line across the MPH scale is only a supposition and very well may not be the case with some new-age balls such as the ProV1 and the ProV1x.

There certainly are a number of people such as Ken Bakst whose looked into this to pretty good extent and a few tech people and many others who do believe that there is an exponential (not straight-line) distance effect on some of these new age balls above 109mph. That may be one of the primary reasons the USGA did go to 120mph with their ball test swing speed number. That would of course promote the question of why they don't go to an even higher number now to prepare for the future. Obviously they probably feel that swing speeds increasing above 120 is not a concern and will not be a concern that enough top caliber players will be able to swing in excess of 120 anytime soon, if ever, but of course that too may be questionable. If they are able, for some reason to swing in excess of 120 in the future and enough in excess obviously the concern arises again that the manufacturers could be able to "optimize" over 120 to create another exponential distance effect as they may have above the old 109mph number.

And if players en masse are not ever able to swing in excess of 120mph it really doesn't matter what combination of ball and club technology the manufacturers apply in the future in the way of optimization or whatever it will not be able to produce a distance effect over ODS without being deemed nonconforming.

But again that does presuppose that golfers will not generally swing much in excess of 120 in the future. That may be one of the reasons recently we've seen the swing speed test applied to a few long hitting pros such as Woods, Love, Singh, Mickelson etc on television during tournaments. All of them were right around 120mph.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()