[Ken Moum]

I would like to see the USGA / R&A release a list of current balls that would meet the new spec, that might cool some heads as to how the change will impact you.

The manufacturers of those balls definitely don't want that.

It's basically the Wilson 50, the Maxfli SoftFLI, and balls like that. Balls designed for slower swings. They just get mushy at higher speeds.

It makes a person wonder whether the experts who design balls can make a ProV 1 "S", that conforms at 125 mph swing speed, and works better at 80 mph than current ProV1s.


You know, like  TopFlite Magna.

Is this a ball compression issue? I recall using lower compression balls as the temperature dropped to mitigate loss of distance.

Ciao

In the case of the Magna, it was larger than standard.  1.73" to be precise.


The Callaway Reva is a new version of the same ball. I've played both and at my pitiful clubhead speed,  they are pretty long,  but on the course,  it's hard to say...


Here's an explanation https://www.golfmonthly.com/reviews/balls/callaway-reva-golf-ball-review


There's no doubt that by playing with weight and diameter,  ball makers could build a ball that worked better for short hitter than long hitters.

[Sean_A]

I would like to see the USGA / R&A release a list of current balls that would meet the new spec, that might cool some heads as to how the change will impact you.

The manufacturers of those balls definitely don't want that.

It's basically the Wilson 50, the Maxfli SoftFLI, and balls like that. Balls designed for slower swings. They just get mushy at higher speeds.

It makes a person wonder whether the experts who design balls can make a ProV 1 "S", that conforms at 125 mph swing speed, and works better at 80 mph than current ProV1s.


You know, like  TopFlite Magna.

Is this a ball compression issue? I recall using lower compression balls as the temperature dropped to mitigate loss of distance.

Ciao

In the case of the Magna, it was larger than standard.  1.73" to be precise.


The Callaway Reva is a new version of the same ball. I've played both and at my pitiful clubhead speed,  they are pretty long,  but on the course,  it's hard to say...


Here's an explanation https://www.golfmonthly.com/reviews/balls/callaway-reva-golf-ball-review


There's no doubt that by playing with weight and diameter,  ball makers could build a ball that worked better for short hitter than long hitters.

I am talking about conforming balls.


That sentence looks dubious on the screen 😎.


Ciao

[Ken Moum]

I am talking about conforming balls.


That sentence looks dubious on the screen 😎.


Ciao

So was I.


Based on actions by TopFlite and Callaway, specifically the Magna and Reva, there's some evidence that a larger ball would help weaker players. They are .05 inches bigger than normal and conforming.


Unless they defy the laws of physics,  when struck by a 125 mph clubhead,  the cannot exceed the ODS. 


Golf balls don't magically break the rules of ballistic coefficient,  which is why I have argued for years that 1.68" ball with the same ballistic coefficient would or could do the same thing.

[John Kavanaugh]

This is bifurcation without legislation. A genius move by the ruling bodies. Civilians will not play the shorter ball, competitors will.

[Wayne_Kozun]

If you don't believe that this rollback makes sense then why have any rules governing balls or clubs at all?

On the Fire Pit Podcast Matt Ginella was passionately going on about why hurt the amateur with these rules.  But this new rule isn't something radically new, we have had rules for decades governing the ball and the club.  The arguments that he made against the rollback apply exactly the same about the current rules governing balls and clubs.

So many people discussing this issue on both sides seem to come back to the conclusion that bifurcation makes the most sense.
And we have had bifurcation for a long time in clubs and other areas, so why is bifurcation of the golf ball a big deal?

[Craig Sweet]

Have any of the older golfers, or slow swingers, tried the Callaway Reve?

[Ken Moum]

So many people discussing this issue on both sides seem to come back to the conclusion that bifurcation makes the most sense.
And we have had bifurcation for a long time in clubs and other areas, so why is bifurcation of the golf ball a big deal?

Because the industry has been selling the fable that pros and amateurs play the same equipment.


Which is why I've been arguing that they can use existing technology to make a ball that performs for low chs players while still limiting the top end.


Bridgestone and Titleist have models now aimed at different players but there's no reason not to have a ProV1 model for 80 mph stingers.


Except the fable.

[Ken Moum]

Have any of the older golfers, or slow swingers, tried the Callaway Reve?

I have.  They aren't earth-shatteringly better, but they do seem to work.


The pearl paint probably puts some off, however.


Plus, IMHO,  they've been poorly marketed. No one wants to admit their weaknesses,  just like the guys I know who hit it  under 140 yards off the tee but won't move up to the red tees with me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()