USGA Notice to Manufacturers

[Ira Fishman]

No thread started yet?

[jeffwarne]

I was a rabid oroponent of a rollback as early as the mid late 90's until very recently
Titleist Professional ball(at the time was a quantum leap from Titliest balata)
Oversized long and light Callaway Biggest Big bertha.
Then came the multi layer ball-speciifcally the ProV1, giving Topflite length yet appropriate spin with wedges.

Thin faced drivers with high CORS-limited to .83 in early 2000's, but far higher than wood and original metalwoods.


The higher COR, combined with lower spin balls, longer, more lightweight shafts(more speed), and oversized drivers with space age materials allowing more forgiveness without a loss of speed due to weight, all conspired to allow the ball to be hit significantly farther with a mere proper fitting without a commensurate improvement in technique or skill.
Then throw in improved physical conditioning, better knowledge, improved fitting skills, better technique and higher skill and you have the modern tour player.
and occasionally, the modern long and wrong athletic kid launching the ball far further offline into the neighbor's house.
Not all of that is bad per se, and we have many spirited debates on this topic so I won't rehash why I felt that way so long.


But the train began leaving the station 30 years ago, and certainly nearly all of the major innovations are 20 years old, and an entire generation has grown up playing that equipment, and know nothing else.
Billions has been spent retrofitting golf courses, etc. etc.


I'm guess I'm glad to hear the USGA has woken up to what I moaned about for YEARS.
BUT, Rip Van Winkle missed his window-by a mile.
AT LEAST 10-12 years too late, nearly 20 I'd say.


It's pretty much the same as if the USGA had decided to roll back to hickory in my youth when no virtually no one had used hickory for 30-40 plus years.


The ship sailed IMHO, and "better late than never" doesn't really apply when your group's putting out on #1 green.


I hate that it's come to this, but as I say to my staff, I hate complaints, but I hate them more when the complainer is correct.
i.e. a change now would be completely foreign to a majority of people who play or watch the game, and those familiar with old tech might not care anymore, or enjoy the new benefits of it, and think 300 plus in the air is the best form of golf entertainment(simply IMHO because it's all they've ever known)




So reluctantly, I completely understand why this simply is an idea who's time passed awhile ago, and can't possibly see who in power will rabidly support this.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:


I've talked to one or two players who would like to see things rolled back - maybe not as far as what the USGA is exploring, but significantly.  They would like to get back to where hitting "shots" is rewarded, over just mashing the ball.  One even said he doesn't know why he tries to hit a high draw anymore, half the time it just falls out of the air due to lack of spin, but he just can't stop trying to hit the shots he was so good at long ago.


I agree with you that it's too late to roll the driver back to something completely different.  The elite players won't accept a rule that renders some of them non-elite.  Half the younger guys would be unable to compete if the equipment changed that much.

[Tim Gavrich]

Couple reactions to the above:


1. Re: any change being "foreign to a majority of people who play the game," I would just offer that while there are a lot of younger (Gen X, Millennial, Gen Z) people taking up golf, I don't think they are yet golf's core constituency, and they're certainly not who spends the majority of the money that makes the industry go. Golfers who knew and probably hit persimmon drivers are still an enormous percentage of the participation numbers, and they also happen to be the folks whose drives any rollback would affect the least. I would also add that every time I see upstart golf brands on Instagram invoking retro aesthetics and nostalgia for the 90s and early 2000s, I feel a little better that my generation actually wouldn't be that upset about a rollback.


2. I'm of two minds about Tom's statement that the youngest elite golfers would be "unable to compete" in the face of a significant rollback. My first reaction is to say, "So be it," because it would mean those players' current golf skillsets are actually not the ones most valued by the more balanced game that we pro-rollback folk would like to see. My second reaction, though, is that the young crop of golfers are as generally talented as ever, more athletic and better coached than any previous one, so I feel like the ones with the most talent would adapt quickly and ultimately stick around.


3. I wonder if the USGA and R&A are looking to give the impression that they've gone too far, in order to move the eventual settlement position closer to the bolder part of the range of possible changes that they'd be comfortable with and consider feasible.


I was paired with a relatively casual golfer last week - a doctor in his late 30s who had a full bag of late-90s/early-00s equipment: PING Darby putter, Cleveland 588 wedges, Hogan Apex Irons, Ping i3 woods and a Titleist 975D driver that he hit beautifully and, despite only being about a 10-rounds-a-year golfer, was able to manipulate high and low, mostly with a tight draw off the tee. I've never felt more confident that golfers could learn to deal with a driver head limit around that 275cc mark than I did after that round. But, to Jeff and Tom's points, I do wonder if the political will exists to affect changes like that. I think it would be great in the medium and long terms.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff:


I've talked to one or two players who would like to see things rolled back - maybe not as far as what the USGA is exploring, but significantly.  They would like to get back to where hitting "shots" is rewarded, over just mashing the ball.  One even said he doesn't know why he tries to hit a high draw anymore, half the time it just falls out of the air due to lack of spin, but he just can't stop trying to hit the shots he was so good at long ago.


I agree with you that it's too late to roll the driver back to something completely different.  The elite players won't accept a rule that renders some of them non-elite.  Half the younger guys would be unable to compete if the equipment changed that much.

agreed 100% with the first paragraph, and spouted as much for 20-25 years.
And the game would be far more fun (for me) with spin, and for many? some? spectators
Just think those one-two guys you spoke to would be overwhelmed by the outcry.
Hope I'm wrong, but few are left who remember or care. (or got old)
Hopefully Tim's correct!
WTF took the organizations so freaking long?


As far as the second, I think there would be casualties, and some names might change, but I'm not ever knocking the skill and talent of the newer more properly technique and physical fitness informed.
To say nothing of the sheer number of better athletes who now choose golf cause it's not a niche [size=78%] sport as it was when I was a kid.[/size]

[Pat Burke]

Jeff,
Funny, when I tried to play some senior golf after turning 50, I hadn’t played much at all for 10+ years.  All my clubs were from around 2000.


I searched and searched for a ball that would spin more.  The clubs and balls produced little to no spin for me (my swing).
After not being able to find equipment to fix it, I changed my swing quite a bit to
A) pick up more height in my shots. (About 30 feet)
B) more spin.  I picked up about 700RPM with my irons.


I had to stop playing again when my accident ruined my shoulder.
I e played a handful of times with my old irons (square grooves). It’s funny how short I hit it but hit irons so consistently with the easy spin from the irons!


No point to this for the arguments, but your “spin comment” got my interest!!

[Jim Sherma]

i agree that it is unlikely that we will see much is any roll-back of the equipment - Possibly in face flex and head size, but I think that is even unlikely. I think the only likely route forward is the ball being dialed back to possibly making it spin more at higher swing speeds. This would re-introduce the natural governor of the wound balls where they would become more and more difficult to control at higher swing speeds. Maybe re-introduce some combined standards around cover hardness and boll compression/spin to get back the trade-off seen between the top-flite vs the titleist tour balls.

[Ken Moum]

I hate to keep beating this old drum, but there's ONE thing that would deliver almost everything you guys are talking about. And would only affect the cheapest, most disposable piece of equipment.


A slightly lighter ball would decelerate at a higher rate for high ball speeds than low ball speeds, curve more, stay in the air better at low ball speeds and overall be slightly shorter for those at the top of the game.


For the shortest hitters it would be easier to get in the air and fly farther.


I know John Vander Borght trashed the Balloon Ball here 13 years ago, but those balls were wound balata and both the diameter and the weight were changed at the same time. From 1.62 ounces and 1.62 inches, the balloon ball became 1.68 inches and only 1.55 ounces.


But today we've all been playing the "big" ball for decades and decades, and today's balls especially the ones most average players use, don't spin anything like the balls of the 30's and onward, so dropping a weight a bit won't create the problems of the past.


In fact, Spalding and now Callaway have sold balls that are even bigger than 1.62 inches, touting them as having the same advantages as I mentioned above.


It would not be necessary to go to 1.55 ounces, but a lighter ball would absolutely affect the longest hitters while potentially helping the shortest hitter.


The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.

[jeffwarne]

The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.

why is that a negative?-given that it's been virtually removed from the game at many high end courses

[Paul Jones]

The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.

why is that a negative?-given that it's been virtually removed from the game at many high end courses

Jeff,


What do you mean by virtually removed... are you talking about chipping or the ball sitting up or both? 

[Ken Moum]

The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.

why is that a negative?-given that it's been virtually removed from the game at many high end courses

I don't see it as a negative. either.  But apparently some of the people who make these decisions do.


BTW, anyone who wonders how this can limit the top end while have no effect, or a benefit to the bottom end, have a look at how ballistic coefficient and drag are related.


The chart below shows that drag doubles between 100 mph and 150 mph, and about triples when you get into Bryson's 200 mph ball speed. So a ball starting at 80 mph has about a quarter of the initial drag of one at 210 mph. so the fast one will lose speed MUCH more quickly, it will always be faster, but the gap will close, until the fast one is down to 80 mph, and the slow one is probably on the ground.


Ballistic coefficient measures the ability of a projectile to overcome drag. Lowering the weight lowers the BC which means that the light ball will be affected more than a heavy one. This difference should affect the 200 mph ball the most, because it is in the air longer, and it will also mean the light one will be more affected by spin...think of a how a whiffle ball curves vs. a baseball. Of course a 1.58 ounce golf ball isn't a whiffle ball.

[JohnVDB]

I know John Vander Borght trashed the Balloon Ball here 13 years ago, but those balls were wound balata and both the diameter and the weight were changed at the same time. From 1.62 ounces and 1.62 inches, the balloon ball became 1.68 inches and only 1.55 ounces.
[size=78%].[/size]

Having just gone back and reread my Opinion piece from 2009, I did not trash the ball, but merely quoted the various opinions from the time on both sides (not that there were many supporters).


I will note that I wrote that piece before I went to work at the USGA. Now that I’ve retired I have no insight into the current thinking,  it that I had much while I was 5ere as the folks in the Equipemt Standards department are very tight lipped about proposals.

[Ken Moum]

I know John Vander Borght trashed the Balloon Ball here 13 years ago, but those balls were wound balata and both the diameter and the weight were changed at the same time. From 1.62 ounces and 1.62 inches, the balloon ball became 1.68 inches and only 1.55 ounces.
[size=78%].[/size]

Having just gone back and reread my Opinion piece from 2009, I did not trash the ball, but merely quoted the various opinions from the time on both sides (not that there were many supporters).


I will note that I wrote that piece before I went to work at the USGA. Now that I’ve retired I have no insight into the current thinking,  it that I had much while I was 5ere as the folks in the Equipemt Standards department are very tight lipped about proposals.

Fair enough.  Your comment at the end of the article might be the most accurate.


If the 1930 debacle is the deterrent,  it's unfortunate because there's little doubt it would work.


And, FWIW,  I wouldn't expect it to change scores much. It would change the way elite players approached the game

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.

It would narrow the separation between better putters and worse putters. It'd (very slightly) reduce the skill of putting and (very slightly) increase the role of luck.

[Ken Moum]

The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.

It would narrow the separation between better putters and worse putters. It'd (very slightly) reduce the skill of putting and (very slightly) increase the role of luck.

Because it wouldn't track as well?


Do you suppose that would be less noticeable on "perfect" greens?


Or would bumpier ones magnify it.


In the end it might be a worthwhile trade for getting one that requires more skill to control in the air.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Because it wouldn't track as well?

Yes. A lighter ball would be more likely to be bounced around/offline by stuff on the green. Skill plays a lesser role, luck a larger one.

[Ben Hollerbach]

It would narrow the separation between better putters and worse putters. It'd (very slightly) reduce the skill of putting and (very slightly) increase the role of luck.

Sigh...no.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sigh...no.

Still yes, and people far smarter than you or I agree. The more randomness you add, the less the role of skill plays a role in the outcome.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Sigh...no.

Still yes, and people far smarter than you or I agree. The more randomness you add, the less the role of skill plays a role in the outcome.

Where are your sources?

[John McCarthy]

If there is a shorter ball there will be complaints on the PGA Tour for a week then it will be over.  These guys can play tournaments at altitude and get the hang of it in a few days.  They are insanely good at their jobs. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Where are your sources?

I'm not having this discussion again as it'd be the third time. It's all there for others to see in the other topic(s).

Your responses thus far are "sigh, no" and "where are your sources?" So… "sigh, yes" and "where are your sources?" right back? But again, please understand… I don't really actually care, because you're incorrect here, and neither of us have changed our minds, so… there's no point.

These guys can play tournaments at altitude and get the hang of it in a few days.

No, they don't. They get used to it about as well as they can, because they have no other choice, but they still fly a few greens by 20 yards, or the wind treats the ball differently at altitude, etc. True ball testing takes an entire off-season or more. Talk to some of the guys who switch from Titleist to TaylorMade or whatever after a few years (i.e. when they're not just spinning positive for their new contract) and they'll tell you how many shots they hit before they truly trust it, truly understand it, etc.

There's a reason so many Tour players stick with, say, the 2017 Pro V1 or whatever.

They are insanely good. They're also insanely picky, as they should be, about their equipment (some more than others).

[Ben Hollerbach]

The only real negative I heard anyone mention is that it would make chipping easier because the ball would sit up a little better.

It would narrow the separation between better putters and worse putters. It'd (very slightly) reduce the skill of putting and (very slightly) increase the role of luck.

Because it wouldn't track as well?


Do you suppose that would be less noticeable on "perfect" greens?


Or would bumpier ones magnify it.


In the end it might be a worthwhile trade for getting one that requires more skill to control in the air.

Nearly 50% of all putts are played within 5 feet of the hole. From this distance, better putters make more putts in the middle of the cup, while worse putters are more likely to require the whole cup. A slightly lighter ball will be bounced around slightly more on any green compared to the current ball. Because the better putter’s putts are more likely tracking towards the middle of the hole, a small bounce is less likely to knock the ball out of the hole. As the weaker putter uses the entire hole, a small bounce is more likely to cause the putt to miss. Therefore, on short putts the lighter ball would actually emphasize putting skill, not detract from it. The lighter ball is a wonderful idea.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I'm not having this discussion again as it'd be the third time. It's all there for others to see in the other topic(s).

Third time having this discussion?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Nearly 50% of all putts are played within 5 feet of the hole.

And you can largely ignore the tap-ins, which take out a good chunk of that "nearly 50%."

From this distance, better putters make more putts in the middle of the cup, while worse putters are more likely to require the whole cup. A slightly lighter ball will be bounced around slightly more on any green compared to the current ball. Because the better putter’s putts are more likely tracking towards the middle of the hole, a small bounce is less likely to knock the ball out of the hole. As the weaker putter uses the entire hole, a small bounce is more likely to cause the putt to miss. Therefore, on short putts the lighter ball would actually emphasize putting skill, not detract from it.

Arguing your point gets a whole lot easier when you get to just make stuff up while ignoring anything (putts outside of five feet?) that don't help you.

Third time having this discussion?

Yep. It would be the third time for me.

[Tom_Doak]

Still yes, and people far smarter than you or I agree. The more randomness you add, the less the role of skill plays a role in the outcome.

Did you ever think about the perspective that maybe more "randomness" [also known as "difficulty"] would be BETTER for the sport?  It would keep the game harder for the best players while the average guy might not even notice the difference.