News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #75 on: February 14, 2004, 06:37:42 AM »
TEPaul,
"Golf balls used by the vast majority of highly skilled players today have largely reached the performance limits for initial velocity and overall distance which have been part of the Rules since 1976. The governing bodies believe that golf balls, when hit by highly skilled golfers, should not of themselves fly significantly further than they do today. In the current circumstances, the R&A and the USGA are not advocating that the Rules relating to golf ball specifications be changed other than to modernize test methods."

Pat:

I guess you're reading comprehension has diminished. Why aren't they advocating a rollback? It looks like they believe golf balls have reached the limits of their performance levels and they believe controlling further significant increase can be done through improved tests methods.

The above statement ignores, or is in denial about the huge jump in distance achieved in the last 5-10 years and the negative impact it has had upon the game.

I'll repeat, I've never seen any statement by the USGA as to why they don't endorse a roll back, have you ?


Have you got your answer yet?

NO

If not and you want to mince words about it--mince the words with them!   ;)

I'm hoping to have a conversation with an executive committee member on the subject in the not too distant future


TEPaul

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #76 on: February 14, 2004, 07:01:23 AM »
Pat Mucci said:

"The above statement ignores, or is in denial about the huge jump in distance achieved in the last 5-10 years and the negative impact it has had upon the game.
I'll repeat, I've never seen any statement by the USGA as to why they don't endorse a roll back, have you?"

This is another classic Pat Mucci response fellas. Somebody doesn't agree with him and all he can do is claim that they're in denial and they have NOT addressed the issue.

Have I seen a statement from the USGA/R&A as to why they don't endore a rollback? Yes I have Pat and I just produced it for you. The reason is they don't believe the ball has gone too far and their plans are to control any further distance increase through improved testing! You may not like their answer, I may not like it, and others may not like it but that's their answer and those are their reasons for not rolling the ball back and, again, as far as I'm concerned they produced their answer in that statement.

You're going to meet with a USGA Exective member in the not too distance future and have a conversation on the subject? Good show---knock yourself out MINCING!! If you ask him what the USGA/R&A position is and the reasons why he'll probably refer you to these two statements  ;)

PS:

For your information the USGA intends to pour a considerable amount of research money into the area of the ball and everything about it in the near term.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2004, 07:02:17 AM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #77 on: February 14, 2004, 07:33:41 AM »
"The above statement ignores, or is in denial about the huge jump in distance achieved in the last 5-10 years and the negative impact it has had upon the game.
I'll repeat, I've never seen any statement by the USGA as to why they don't endorse a roll back, have you?"

This is another classic Pat Mucci response fellas. Somebody doesn't agree with him and all he can do is claim that they're in denial and they have NOT addressed the issue.

You've so missed the point that it's absurd.
How can I disagree with the USGA's position on rolling back the ball when I've never seen their position articulated



Have I seen a statement from the USGA/R&A as to why they don't endore a rollback? Yes I have Pat and I just produced it for you.

Do you honestly believe that the USGA addressed their position on why they are against a rollback in the above paragraph ???  If so, your reading skills are far beyond anyone's I've ever encountered.  I can't read between the lines that well

The reason is they don't believe the ball has gone too far

Where have they ever stated this ?

and their plans are to control any further distance increase through improved testing!

I know what their future plans are, that part I can read

You may not like their answer, I may not like it, and others may not like it but that's their answer and those are their reasons for not rolling the ball back and, again, as far as I'm concerned they produced their answer in that statement.

Again, I haven't seen any position paper or official statement specifically addressing their reasons for not endorsing a rollback

You're going to meet with a USGA Exective member in the not too distance future and have a conversation on the subject? Good show---knock yourself out MINCING!! If you ask him what the USGA/R&A position is and the reasons why he'll probably refer you to these two statements  ;)

In other words, a NON-ANSWER

PS:

For your information the USGA intends to pour a considerable amount of research money into the area of the ball and everything about it in the near term.

So what, the horse is already out of the barn, or hadn't you noticed.

By the way, weren't you the one touting Geoff Shackleford's book and position on the ball and equipment, or was that someone else ?


A_Clay_Man

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #78 on: February 14, 2004, 07:48:06 AM »
Quote
The above statement ignores, or is in denial about the huge jump in distance achieved in the last 5-10 years and the negative impact it has had upon the game.

One of the quotes used in GW's article was from Sandy Tatum. He used "15 years" as a number on how long he's been combating the ball issue. I was unaware that the recent onslaught, hasn't been that recent. Perhaps he mis-spoke or he was in the loop early on, to know of the problem before the balls hit the shelf.

The negative impact? Interesting!

I do believe Mr. Tatum would come off a lot better if he didn't play the same ball.

TEPaul

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #79 on: February 14, 2004, 08:17:08 AM »
Pat:

Regarding your post #77;

WHATEVER! I'm not gonna get into mincing words endlessly with you.

I suppose you think they should write a position paper explaining that they might have concerns about getting sued, that they might have concerns about manufacturer intransigience, that they might have concerns about whether the great golfing public wants a rollback, that they might have concerns about some people thinking they've let this go too far!

Pat, get real will you? They're not going to put that in a position paper but why don't you do what I do and just ASSUME IT??? That way if you want to talk to them and help them do something about this you can better work with what might be their percieved obstacles--and if you do it this way you might just find you can both talk to them and work with them better!

I've got an idea and maybe you might want to dicuss it with that executive committee fellow you plan to talk to. I think I might too.

They should conduct a convocation of all the entities of golf, and make it a massively public affair, as public as possible for all the world's golfers to see (they've got the structure and communication ability to do this), make their recommendations on the ball with the other recommendations of the other entities and then use their communication ability and their structure to get their answer from the golfers of the world. Obviously this needs to be a USGA/R&A concerted effort. In this atmosphere I have very little doubt  the USGA/R&A will come out strongly on the side of defending and preserving present and future architecture for all the reasons they've been giving for years and probably including some new and even better reasons!

If they do that, the'll have their answer, it should be representative of their constituencies, it's honest, It's open, it creates a completely defensible position for them to move forward on proposing legislation etc. And the best part is if this is what the great golfing public wants there's not a lot the manufacturers can say or do to the contrary because, guess what, that's their constituiencies too!

The best answer right now is to create this effort to ask the questions and make the recommendations and get the natural answer because if they do something first without knowing what the great golfing public wants it probably won't work very well anyway.

They don't have to get an anwer from every golfer in the world or even 1/10,000th of them. Well constructed polls honestly and efficiently managed do the job in our world of mass communication!
« Last Edit: February 14, 2004, 08:20:15 AM by TEPaul »

Lynn_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #80 on: February 14, 2004, 01:59:23 PM »
Pretty interesting discussion guys.  But there is a problem which needs to be addressed.  This is because the game as we once knew has changed, USGA or not.  Maybe it is okay, maybe not.  But a recent discussion on Golf Channel, Kelly T.  "So Frank Nobilo, do we need an 8,000 yard course?"  Nobilo, "yes, today's par 5's are not 3 shot holes.  8,000 yards would be a better test for the pros."  Brian Hewitt, media guy, "I disagree, we don't need an 8,000 yard course.  All you need to do is lengthen the rough and narrow the fairways."
Are either of these alternatives desirable?  This would be about baseball discussing a need for a 400' left field foul line.
We can discuss the USGA's intent, interest or whatever, but the game took off a few years back and went out of their control.  Tom Paul can say they never had control, but you would have trouble convincing Joe Dey and P.T. Boatwright of that.
It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.  A golf course should never pretend to be, nor is intended to be, an infallible tribunal.
               Tom Simpson

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #81 on: February 14, 2004, 08:45:24 PM »
Lynn:

It's amazing. It couldn't have been more than a year ago when I suggested here that we were headed for 8,000 yard courses and someone replied I was being ridiculous, exaggerating how much the golf technology arms race was spiraling out of control.

Now we have someone on the Golf Channel actually asking: "do we NEED (my emphasis) 8,000 yard golf courses?"

And, guess what, the professional golfer asked the question actually answers "yes"!

Are these people actually idiots? Why aren't they asking:

What is the most sensible way - the most economical way for everyday golfers - to deal with the technology issue?

Can anyone associated with the USGA not see how ridiculous this is becoming when Golf Channel journalists ask such stupid questions?

Tim
Tim Weiman

TEPaul

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #82 on: February 14, 2004, 09:26:07 PM »
"Tom Paul can say they never had control, but you would have trouble convincing Joe Dey and P.T. Boatwright of that."

Lynn:

I guess I could say something like that but I can't imagine why I would. I doubt I ever have. I've never implied anything like that. Why would you say I'd say Joe Dey had no control? He was the strongest executive director of the USGA by a hundred miles, in my opinion. The USGA probably needs a strong hand like Dey today but in Dey's era we lived in a different world and the primary difference is the manufacturers today. Back then the manufacturers and the USGA were basically all friends, there wasn't remotely the adversialness there is today. I know, my Dad worked for Spalding and Joe Dey was a friend of his. Back in Dey's day the equipment companies didn't dream of taking advantage of the USGA like they do today--it was entirely different.  

A_Clay_Man

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #83 on: February 15, 2004, 09:23:51 AM »
Shiv- Please clarify, are you saying Tatum and Jn have no interest, financially? or was U be'in facetious?

Mashie1

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #84 on: February 15, 2004, 09:46:01 AM »
RE:  Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?

Does it really matter why the USGA is against a rollback of the ball?  Certainly not in my mind.

The USGA's position is clear.  Wondering "why" is obviously fruitless and will never be articulated to a point where those opposed to the USGA's stance will be satisfied.



 8)

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #85 on: February 15, 2004, 11:10:42 AM »
Mashie1:

I'm not clear. Can you explain the USGA's position?

Alternatively, can you explain the case for the golf technology arms race?

Tim Weiman

Mashie1

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #86 on: February 15, 2004, 03:35:15 PM »
I had the link to this on a previous post, but here's the whole thing pasted into this post.  This makes their position pretty darn clear.



USGA Announces Phase II of Its Proposal to Update
Golf Ball Conformance Tests

FAR HILLS, N.J. – The United States Golf Association, which tests golf balls to determine whether or not they conform to the Rules of Golf, has issued the second phase of its proposal to update its golf ball test methods. The proposal reflects current swing speeds and equipment and improves the speed and accuracy of the testing process.

A notice outlining details of this Phase II proposal has been sent to manufacturers for comment. The proposal is subject to change after completion of a notice-and-comment period. The opportunity to comment is available to all the game’s constituents.

The Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews has made a similar proposal in its jurisdiction outside of the United States and Mexico. All golf balls that currently appear on the USGA’s List of Conforming Golf Balls will continue to comply with the Rules under the Phase II proposal.

"The new test is really a common sense approach that can test balls under swing speed, equipment, and launch conditions used by today’s longer-hitting PGA Tour players," USGA Senior Technical Director Dick Rugge said. "It reflects modern equipment technology and player ability. We have also been able to improve test repeatability due to more precise measurement technology. It’s designed to enhance our test procedures, not take balls off the Conforming Ball List."

Phase II follows the first phase of updates that moved all golf ball tests to the USGA’s Indoor Test Range at its Research & Test Center located in Far Hills. This move permits year-round testing of balls.

"This latest proposal reflects years of work and dialogue with the manufacturers regarding needed updates to our test procedures," Rugge added. "Through this new test, we’ll be able to establish a precise and relevant performance limit regarding golf ball distance. Thus, any additional distance gains will not be due to design or construction changes in the ball itself. We think this new test provides the right framework for us to utilize state-of-the-art technology to test golf balls in a manner that is relevant to today’s game and not the one of a generation ago."


New Test Characteristics

Phase II proposes to update the USGA’s ball test procedures and the resulting Overall Distance Standard (ODS). The current ball test procedure and ODS standard were adopted in 1976 and have remained largely unchanged since that time. The changes to the test under Phase II are as follows:

Swing speed will be increased to 120 miles per hour from 109 miles per hour;

A non-branded titanium club head with a Coefficient of Restitution (COR) of .820 will replace the laminated wooden head now in use;

A modern, non-branded set-up ball will replace the current set-up ball that has been in use.

The new ball test will maintain the current ball launch angle of 10 degrees, the current back spin at 42 revolutions per second, and a steel shaft in the test club.

Increasing the swing speed under Phase II by 11 miles per hour adds about 22 yards to golf ball distance. The shift to a titanium club head with a .820 COR spring-like effect boosts distance by approximately another 8 yards. But instead of increasing the current ODS limit of 296.8 yards by a full 30 (22 + 8) yards, the USGA has proposed to set the limit using the new ball test procedure at 320 yards, or seven fewer overall yards.

"It’s not accurate to compare the new limit to the old one and assume we’ve allowed more yards," Rugge stressed. "The same balls simply go farther when hit at higher speeds with modern equipment. By updating the test and modernizing procedures, it’s inevitable that the ODS limit would need to rise to reflect the changes in test methods. For example, if you modernized the test procedures but left the limit where it now stands, nearly every ball that now conforms would fail under the new procedure. 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."


Statement of Principles

"The joint Statement of Principles governing equipment rules that we formulated with the R&A in 2002 makes clear that we are concerned about increases in distance from any source and we’ll continue to remain vigilant and monitor trends," Rugge continued. "If distance continues to increase from any source – balls, clubs, agronomy, or enhanced physical fitness – then we’ll need to consider how to uphold the Statement of Principles."
[/i]


Notice and Comment

The USGA welcomes comments regarding Phase II of its proposal. All comments must be in writing. They should be directed to: Dick Rugge; Senior Technical Director; USGA; P.O. Box 708; Far Hills; N.J 07931; Fax: (908) 234-9687; or e-mail at drugge@usga.org.

The comment period will run until December 20th of this year. After all comments are received, the USGA will carefully consider them. A final decision will be announced next spring. Under the proposal, the prospective implementation date for Phase II would be June, 2004.


And as for the "arms race."  It seems, like everything else these days, it's all about money.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2004, 03:39:38 PM by Mashie1 »

Lynn_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #87 on: February 15, 2004, 06:28:32 PM »
T. Paul:
What you have said in the past I believe was that the USGA has no legal authority to control or enforce their rules or regulations.  Therefore they are the caretakers and are only followed by the golf industry in a "voluntary" way.  My point is, legal or not, they are the caretakers of the game.
Yes, you are right it is a different world.
On the change of the nominating process to the Executive Committee, Wally Uihlein, "clearly, any attempt to improve upon the selection of Executive Commmittee members through the past Nominating Committee process is a step in the right direction, and we are encouraged," "however, there are still some other shoes that need to fall before we can accurately glean a sense of what these changes all mean, and how they will lead it to a more game-of-golf responsive Executive Committee."
It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.  A golf course should never pretend to be, nor is intended to be, an infallible tribunal.
               Tom Simpson

TEPaul

Re:Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2004, 10:12:07 PM »
"T. Paul:
What you have said in the past I believe was that the USGA has no legal authority to control or enforce their rules or regulations."

Lynn:

Yes, that's what I've said in the past and I'd reiterate that. They certainly are the caretakers of the game in an I&B sense and have been for about 100 years. However, I'd stress again that their caretaking is completely based on "voluntary compliance" from both the manufacturers and the golfers of America who use those products.

If they write I&B rules and regs that the manufacturers choose to ignore and the golfing public buys those products that the manufacturers make that ignore the USGA rules and regs, what then?  

Matthew Essig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #89 on: November 20, 2017, 07:14:11 PM »
http://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/usgas-davis-impact-course-expansion-horrible/?cid=twitter-gc-a-usgas-davis-impact-course-expansion-horrible-112017&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral


Is it time for our monthly discussion on a ball rollback?  ::)

Mike Davis:

"You can't say you don't care about distance, because guess what? These courses are expanding and are predicted to continue to expand. The impact it has had has been horrible."

"I don't care how far Tiger Woods hits it. The reality is this is affecting all golfers and affecting them in a bad way. All it's doing is increasing the cost of the game."
« Last Edit: November 20, 2017, 07:17:08 PM by Matthew Essig »
"Good GCA should offer an interesting golfing challenge to the golfer not a difficult golfing challenge." Jon Wiggett

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #90 on: November 20, 2017, 10:19:44 PM »
http://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/usgas-davis-impact-course-expansion-horrible/?cid=twitter-gc-a-usgas-davis-impact-course-expansion-horrible-112017&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral


Is it time for our monthly discussion on a ball rollback?  ::)

Mike Davis:

"You can't say you don't care about distance, because guess what? These courses are expanding and are predicted to continue to expand. The impact it has had has been horrible."

"I don't care how far Tiger Woods hits it. The reality is this is affecting all golfers and affecting them in a bad way. All it's doing is increasing the cost of the game."


Better late than never....
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Matthew Essig

  • Karma: +0/-0
"Good GCA should offer an interesting golfing challenge to the golfer not a difficult golfing challenge." Jon Wiggett

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #92 on: November 20, 2017, 11:54:12 PM »
2017. 17 years of patent validity lapsing. Curtail the ball!
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #93 on: November 21, 2017, 03:48:15 AM »

Pretty weak argument by Uihlein when it comes to the extra cost. It only takes a little bit of thought to realise that longer courses use more land which costs more to buy/lease and maintain. Typical company spin and I bet were professional golf to embrace a shorter ball he would be trumpeting how great a decision it was and how his companies ball was the best  ::)


Jon

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #94 on: November 21, 2017, 04:02:05 AM »
I wonder if Mr U has seen this Titleist video (sic) ? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeibKavgytc


Maybe not that difficult to change things after all?


atb

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #95 on: November 21, 2017, 07:04:50 AM »
Brandel Chamblee has the solution—build 8,500 yard championship courses!
https://twitter.com/chambleebrandel/status/932806137858154496

Steve Flesch says the solution is to grow up the rough to challenge players.
https://twitter.com/steve_flesch/status/932802421902004224

Actually, maybe these guys are right. Just build 4 super-length “championship” courses with calf-high rough to host the majors and leave the other courses along.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 07:10:17 AM by BHoover »

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #96 on: November 21, 2017, 07:46:57 AM »
Interesting to read the commentary from 13 years ago.   


Can we at least roll back the ball to then?
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #97 on: November 21, 2017, 08:44:01 AM »
Interesting to read the commentary from 13 years ago.   


Can we at least roll back the ball to then?


Common sense has gathered momentum.
Even a year ago those calling for bifurcation and or a rollback were few and far between.(at least publicly)


At some point those in the golf "business" need to understand that if golf itself becomes a laughingstock and continues to demonstrate its unsustainability, that there'll be no business.


Goofy setups(deep rough,narrow fairways,  less clubs) that don't address the issue (the scale has changed) are doomed to fail and further slow the game.


Bummer Wally-you had it good for a long time-now get on board or get left behind.
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Eric LeFante

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #98 on: November 21, 2017, 09:20:04 AM »

From the Wall Street Journal on Uihlein's comments:



“The only people that seem to be grappling with advances in technology and physical fitness are the short-sighted golf course developers and the supporting golf course architectural community who built too many golf courses where the notion of a ‘championship golf course’ was brought on line primarily to sell real estate,” he wrote.

Rather than courses being lengthened in response to the distance boom, Titleist argues that developers made courses longer so they could brand them as “championship” venues and thus sell more houses.

Uihlein also discounted comments made earlier this month by Tiger Woods, who said on a podcast, “We need to do something about the golf ball.” He noted that Woods endorses Bridgestone, which—according to Uihlein—has been selected by the USGA to produce reduce-distance golf balls on an experimental basis.

“Given Bridgestone’s very small worldwide market share and paltry presence in professional golf, it would seem logical they would have a commercial motive making the case for a reduced distance golf ball,” Uihlein wrote.


It's ironic that he is blaming other's financial interests for the reason golf courses got longer. Titleist has a lot to lose if the pros start using different golf balls than amateurs. They must be worried that amateurs won't be willing to pay $50 per dozen if those balls aren't the ones the pros use.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 09:26:26 AM by Eric LeFante »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?
« Reply #99 on: November 21, 2017, 09:28:44 AM »
What just happened?
Did aliens kidnap Mr D and replace him with an (almost) exact duplicate?
He went from zero to a hundred, just like that.
I was dead wrong (and Jeff W right) about TW's recent comments.
I thought they'd prove totally irrelevant.
Instead they seem to have been part of a strategic communications plan - the 'leak' from a high placed source that prepared the way for the 'official' statement from Mr Davis (or his almost exact alien duplicate).
Peter
 
   
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 09:35:22 AM by Peter Pallotta »