What Would the Ball Look Like Post Rollback or Bifurcation?

[JJShanley]

Let's say USGA and R&A roll the ball back or mandate a ball for elite amateur and pro events.  What would that ball look like?  Can it keep the ProV1 construction, but simply flying a shorter distance?  Do we go back to wound-and-balata?  Does the ball increase in size?

[Thomas Dai]

Good question.
It could be argued that bifurcation already exists given the difference in the way existing balls are manufactured - ie different cover materials, different dimple depth and patterns, different number of layers, different cores etc - and the way these contribute to a balls performance...ie spin, trajectory, roll etc.
From an analysis point of view it would be interesting to observe the folks we watch on TV play with say, surlyn covered, deep dimpled, two-piece balls playing into firm greens. Not only would it be interesting to observe this from a full-shot distance and control aspect but also from a short game aspect.
Just saying.
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Its my understanding thru various readings that this can be achieved solely thru dimpling....not that other ball properties couldn't be changed as well.

[Jim Hoak]

What if there were a ball that flew the same distance as now for regular players but was shorter for elite players?  Based on swing speeds, I assume.
Then there would no bifurcation.  Same ball for all.
I have been told that the USGA has the design of such a ball.  But I am extremely skeptical.  And I still don't see the professional tours accepting it.

[Thomas Dai]

Its my understanding thru various readings that this can be achieved solely thru dimpling....not that other ball properties couldn't be changed as well.

I’ve linked to this dimple video before but here it is again -
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aeibKavgytc
Atb

[Joe Zucker]

What if there were a ball that flew the same distance as now for regular players but was shorter for elite players?  Based on swing speeds, I assume.
Then there would no bifurcation.  Same ball for all.
I have been told that the USGA has the design of such a ball.  But I am extremely skeptical.  And I still don't see the professional tours accepting it.

I'm not sure this ball would be popular because it would reduce the advantage longer players have over their peers. From everything I've read, few people want to take away Dustin Johnson's power advantage.  If he hits it 15% farther than slower swinging players now, he should still hit it 15% farther with the new ball, but a shorter absolute difference.  The new ball could curve more, making it tougher to control and place a premium on accuracy so slower swing speeds might be optimal, but I can't see how it is a good solution to penalize the amazing skill bombers have without proportionately penalizing slower swinging players in the same way.


I personally thing we should bifurcate and people who play for a living should be the only ones with the new ball.  I don't know the physics of how it can be achieved, but a ball that flies 10-20% shorter and curves slightly more would be by ideal choice.  With a ball that curves more, some shot making and artistry might come back into the game, but I would not want to only shorten the top end of the distribution.

[Garland Bayley]

..., but I can't see how it is a good solution to penalize the amazing skill bombers have without proportionately penalizing slower swinging players in the same way.

But it was OK to penalize the slower swing players by producing a ball the gorillas could go after without fear, thereby giving them a disproportionate advantage?

Those slower swinging players had a skill that has been obsoleted! Why is it not fair to go back to a state that previously existed, but fair to throw caution to the wind and adopt a new state Willy nilly?

[Rich Goodale]

Round....

[Joe Zucker]

..., but I can't see how it is a good solution to penalize the amazing skill bombers have without proportionately penalizing slower swinging players in the same way.

But it was OK to penalize the slower swing players by producing a ball the gorillas could go after without fear, thereby giving them a disproportionate advantage?

Those slower swinging players had a skill that has been obsoleted! Why is it not fair to go back to a state that previously existed, but fair to throw caution to the wind and adopt a new state Willy nilly?

I mostly agree with you. In the rest of my post, I proposed a ball that spins more so it would be harder to control and the ability to shape and manage the ball in flight would be rewarded more.  Obviously this would be easier to do at slower swing speeds, thus accentuating the skill slower swinging players have.  However, if someone can swing a club 130 MPH with a perfectly square face with consistency to manage a spinnier ball, I don't think it would make sense to punish just the top 10-20% of pros. 


Having the ability to be long and straight has always been an advantage in golf, that's a skill that should still be a good thing.

[George Pazin]

Round....

  Some might even guess spherical.

[Mark Pearce]

Round....

Spherical.  With dimples.  More often than not, white.

[Mark Smolens]

Round....

and sometimes white, sometimes colored, and sometime with little pentagons and colored...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But it was OK to penalize the slower swing players by producing a ball the gorillas could go after without fear, thereby giving them a disproportionate advantage?

How is their advantage "disproportionate" in any way, Garland?

Those slower swinging players had a skill that has been obsoleted! Why is it not fair to go back to a state that previously existed, but fair to throw caution to the wind and adopt a new state Willy nilly?

Hitting it farther takes MORE skill than hitting it shorter. Speed in virtually every sport is part of the skill set. If you have two wide receivers who are otherwise equally skilled, but one is faster than the other… they aren't equally skilled.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Hitting it farther takes MORE skill than hitting it shorter. Speed in virtually every sport is part of the skill set. If you have two wide receivers who are otherwise equally skilled, but one is faster than the other… they aren't equally skilled.[/font]

Bullocks. Hitting it far is easy compared to controlling the ball and moving it in a controlled fashion. Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth could hit it way far, but had no chance of gaining a reasonable control over the ball. Ben Hogan was as long as they come, but he won by being better able to control the ball than any of his competitors. How do you hit Hogan's alley at Carnoustie four days in a row? With control over the ball, not with excessive length. How many people in that open had the skill set to even attempt the shot without flirting disaster. One.

And, apparently you have never heard of Freddy Bilitnikov, or however you spell his name. The old timers on this site will know who I mean.

[Garland Bayley]

But it was OK to penalize the slower swing players by producing a ball the gorillas could go after without fear, thereby giving them a disproportionate advantage?

How is their advantage "disproportionate" in any way, Garland?

...

They don't have to play the game like Chi Chi to be successful. Not even sure if they could even approximate such a game.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

...
Hitting it farther takes MORE skill than hitting it shorter. Speed in virtually every sport is part of the skill set. If you have two wide receivers who are otherwise equally skilled, but one is faster than the other… they aren't equally skilled.

Bullocks.

Bollocks back at you, Garland. The ability to swing fast is a skill, just as the ability to run fast is a skill in other sports. Speed is a skill in virtually every sport. Heck, some have said it's one of the ways you can differentiate between a sport and a game - physical speed doesn't help you much in chess or darts, but it does in football (either kind), baseball, speed skating, etc.

And, apparently you have never heard of Freddy Bilitnikov, or however you spell his name. The old timers on this site will know who I mean.

I drive past a field named after him a few times a month. Guy was a good route runner, but slow. He'd have been a better receiver if he had the same skills he had, plus more speed.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Hitting it farther takes MORE skill than hitting it shorter. Speed in virtually every sport is part of the skill set. If you have two wide receivers who are otherwise equally skilled, but one is faster than the other… they aren't equally skilled.

Bullocks.

Bollocks back at you, Garland. The ability to swing fast is a skill, just as the ability to run fast is a skill in other sports. Speed is a skill in virtually every sport. Heck, some have said it's one of the ways you can differentiate between a sport and a game - physical speed doesn't help you much in chess or darts, but it does in football (either kind), baseball, speed skating, etc.

And, apparently you have never heard of Freddy Bilitnikov, or however you spell his name. The old timers on this site will know who I mean.

I drive past a field named after him a few times a month. Guy was a good route runner, but slow. He'd have been a better receiver if he had the same skills he had, plus more speed.

  And Bob Hayes would have been a better receiver if he could catch as well as Freddy.

As your receiver example clearly points out, faster is not the only skill required.

However, the balance has been upset in golf with the advent of the new ball to faster, but not necessarily as skilled, just as if putting weights in defensive backs shoes would give speedster Bob H an advantage over skilled Freddy B.

The ball disproportionately diminishes the skills of Chi Chi, Lee Buck, and Bantam Ben compared to DJ whose skills it enhances.

Are you beginning to catch on or do I have to come to Erie and knock some sense into your head?
 


 

[Jon Wiggett]

...
Hitting it farther takes MORE skill than hitting it shorter. Speed in virtually every sport is part of the skill set. If you have two wide receivers who are otherwise equally skilled, but one is faster than the other… they aren't equally skilled.

Bullocks.

Bollocks back at you, Garland. The ability to swing fast is a skill, just as the ability to run fast is a skill in other sports. Speed is a skill in virtually every sport. Heck, some have said it's one of the ways you can differentiate between a sport and a game - physical speed doesn't help you much in chess or darts, but it does in football (either kind), baseball, speed skating, etc.

And, apparently you have never heard of Freddy Bilitnikov, or however you spell his name. The old timers on this site will know who I mean.

I drive past a field named after him a few times a month. Guy was a good route runner, but slow. He'd have been a better receiver if he had the same skills he had, plus more speed.

And yet the players who are considered the most skilful are those able to work the ball in the air and around the green. I think you are mistaking a skill with skillfulness Erik.

[jeffwarne]

Hitting it farther takes MORE skill than hitting it shorter. Speed in virtually every sport is part of the skill set. If you have two wide receivers who are otherwise equally skilled, but one is faster than the other… they aren't equally skilled.

Agreed completely that hitting it farther takes more skill than hitting it shorter.


The ProV1 provided more "skill" overnight. Both short hitters and long hitters benefitted though I would argue that the professional longer hitter no longer had to fear overspinning it into an upshooter with a high speed swing, whereas a professional short hitter never had that problem


Doesn't hitting it straighter take more skill than hitting it crooked?
The oversized titanium driver and lower spin ball provided more straigtness overnight.
That negated the skill advantage of the short straight hitter.


Yes players swing it faster now because
1.longer, lighter clubs
2.athleticism emerging
3. Fitness


They hit it farther because of the above and
1.the ball
2.Optimization
3. Face springing characteristics that wood did not have.




So the long and short hitter distance gap grew (in absolute yards-not in %)
and the long and short hitter accuracy gap shrunk


seems an imbalance of skill reward

[Bryan Izatt]

To the original question - lighter and/or larger.  That would be the easiest way to regulate and police.


To the question of skill - successful golf requires a whole set of skills, of which length is only one.  How about distance control, sand shots, chipping, green reading, putting, spin control, trajectory control, shaping ability. No one, not even the greatest, were at the top of all skills (e.g. Nicklaus and short game, Tiger and driving accuracy).  New technology has helped different skills - graphite enabling longer shafts and more distance, u-grooves improving spin out of the rough, anchored putters calming putting yips, higher moi yielding more forgiveness, etc. -each of these benefited different players in different ways.


Garland, vis-a-vis your frequent claims that the longer pros were given a ball that allowed them to hit it even longer and straighter, I give you the following examples to ponder - not that you ponder for long.


I took five long hitters from 1997 - Daly, Woods, Love III, Mickelson. and Couples - and looked at their distance gain by 2003.  In order they gained 12, 5, 11, 22, and 9 yards.  So, Mickelson was the only one who got an egregious distance gain.  Then looking at each of their % of fairways hit comparing 1997 to 2003, the results were, in order, -5, -6, -3, -18, and -9.  So, Mickelson paid a big price in the accuracy game for the large distance gain.  The rest gained some distance and lost some accuracy.  I would conclude based on this limited sample that, although there were distance gains attributable to the ball, there was an accuracy price to pay.


Jeff,


Re your statement "So the long and short hitter distance gap grew (in absolute yards-not in %)", I'd offer the following chart from a couple of years ago.  The bottom half shows the delta , in yards, between the Tour's longest and shortest hitter.  It's been remarkably stable around 50 yards since 1991.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As your receiver example clearly points out, faster is not the only skill required.

Please find the point at which I said speed is the only skill required. I never did. I said that speed is a skill.

The ball disproportionately diminishes the skills of Chi Chi, Lee Buck, and Bantam Ben compared to DJ whose skills it enhances.

No it doesn't. (I like this form of arguing where you just state your opinion as if it's a fact. It's so tidy!)

I understand that you think that way. You think it's so, and it's your opinion. Others feel differently. I feel differently. Though I would occasionally root for the Corey Pavin types, that's not the only way to play the game. Tiger Woods was brilliant in his play in 2000/2001. Nicklaus too in his era. Both hit the ball a long way. You want more players like Chi Chi? That's your position? There are hundreds of players more skilled than Chi Chi these days. Just because players don't hit the curving types of shots doesn't mean they can't.

How much skill was required here? Do you think he practices this shot very often? And, contrary to what some will tell you, the ball curves a fair amount.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bf2HvE8jK89/

How about Bubba's shot on 10 to win the Masters? Did the ball curve? Bubba bombs it… and curves it a lot, too.

Are you beginning to catch on or do I have to come to Erie and knock some sense into your head?

I'm beginning to catch on to something… 

[Garland Bayley]

So Erik, you are telling me DJ could replicate Ben Hogan's feat at Carnoustie?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So Erik, you are telling me DJ could replicate Ben Logan's feat at Carnoustie?

Garland, I never said anything about that, nor do I plan to respond to you in the future. I find your style of discourse (misreading things, misquoting, putting words in my mouth, ad hominems, stupid threats to beat some sense into me or whatever) disingenuous at best.

[Garland Bayley]

Erik,

I find your views to be so narrow minded that you don't even begin to understand points being made, because you interpret everything based on your limited knowledge and understanding.

You advertise yourself as a contrarian. Well it is easy to take contrarian views if you don't know anything else.

[Kyle Harris]

So Erik, you are telling me DJ could replicate Ben Logan's feat at Carnoustie?

Hogan's feat(s) at Carnoustie is/are special because nobody then could even replicate it.

Like most fish, red herrings tend to stink after they're left out for a few days or posts.