Why is the USGA opposed to a rollback of the ball ?

[John Kavanaugh]

Has anyone else noticed the increasing number of baseball pitchers who throw 95+? Why are we so scared to recognize the advancements of fitness and technique?

[Peter Pallotta]

No other field of play, for any sport - and you can name them all - has ever and/or continues to change so much as golf courses have and do.

Football fields, baseball diamonds, tennis and basketball courts, soccer pitches, hockey rinks -- those fields of play are all much the same as they have always been, despite the fact that the games themselves and the top professionals who play them have all evolved dramatically.   

It is only golf courses that have been forced to change, and that continue to change, and that change always in exactly the same direction, i.e. ever longer, ever bigger, on ever more massive sites.

Dismiss out of hand if you'd like all the other considerations from Jeff's (I thought excellent) list; but I think no one who loves golf either as a game or a profession would be wise to so quickly and easily dismiss the sustainability issue (acreage, water use, costs, perceptions etc).     

Few want to seriously grapple with it, even on a website dedicated to gca like the one we're all on right here; and that’s whether we're talking about classic courses or (where it is even more striking and obvious) about modern golf course design as manifested in the latest string of mega-sized resorts and courses  — which, besides the exclusivity they project and the prestige they promise, are scaled the way they are because of the way the current game is played even by average/amateur/retail golfers.

I hope that Jeff can gain traction with his calls for change; I think he's articulate enough and experienced enough and savvy enough to gain that traction.  I hope this because I think the game more fun and interesting to watch (and to play) on shorter, more walkable courses with a more spinny golf ball.

I also hope this because I think that, whether because of the "facts" and/or because of the "perceptions", the increasing (and sometimes literally massive) scale of golf's fields of play will become a serious issue/problem in years to come.

Peter   

[John Kavanaugh]

Many an American went outside yesterday on our most beloved holiday and threw around a football. Few would call themselves football players. Those of us who golfed are still fortunate to call ourselves golfers. I believe this is simply because we, professionals and amateurs alike continue to play the same game by the same rules. I, and I believe many others do not want to lose that simple title. That of a golfer.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Dismiss out of hand if you'd like all the other considerations from Jeff's (I thought excellent) list; but I think no one who loves golf either as a game or a profession would be wise to so quickly and easily dismiss the sustainability issue (acreage, water use, costs, perceptions etc).

I've not dismissed it out of hand. I also don't think we're going to see players get that much longer. We have rules, players are already using longer balls, longer drivers, maximizing their launch conditions, etc.

Tournament scores are not super low. We're not seeing weeks where you have to average 64 to win. You can still get it done with four 67s or 68s many weeks.

The vast majority of golfers are fine with courses measuring 6500 yards. Or less.

I don't know where my personal line exists. It's not like I'm in favor of letting people hit it as far as possible, ever, always. I just think physics has kicked in, and we're getting just about all we can out of modern equipment, launch conditions, etc. There are two limiting factors here: the rules and physics. Unless physics changes, or players somehow get THAT much faster, I don't think where we're at NOW with a tiny fraction of golfers is worth a sweeping change.

I respect that others have another opinion. I just don't agree that we're close or there yet.

Many an American went outside yesterday on our most beloved holiday and threw around a football. Few would call themselves football players. Those of us who golfed are still fortunate to call ourselves golfers. I believe this is simply because we, professionals and amateurs alike continue to play the same game by the same rules. I, and I believe many others do not want to lose that simple title. That of a golfer.

It's a powerful thing.

[jeffwarne]

Has anyone else noticed the increasing number of baseball pitchers who throw 95+? Why are we so scared to recognize the advancements of fitness and technique?

John,
Excellent points.
In baseball the defense gets bigger, faster stronger.
So does the offense.
Equal opposing forces,but, when deemed needed, the ball is tweaked and the equipment is certainly technologically curtailed


In golf, it's only the offense that gets faster, bigger, stronger and longer
along with the equipment

[jeffwarne]

Dismiss out of hand if you'd like all the other considerations from Jeff's (I thought excellent) list; but I think no one who loves golf either as a game or a profession would be wise to so quickly and easily dismiss the sustainability issue (acreage, water use, costs, perceptions etc).

I've not dismissed it out of hand. I also don't think we're going to see players get that much longer. We have rules, players are already using longer balls, longer drivers, maximizing their launch conditions, etc.

Tournament scores are not super low. We're not seeing weeks where you have to average 64 to win. You can still get it done with four 67s or 68s many weeks.

The vast majority of golfers are fine with courses measuring 6500 yards. Or less.

I don't know where my personal line exists. It's not like I'm in favor of letting people hit it as far as possible, ever, always. I just think physics has kicked in, and we're getting just about all we can out of modern equipment, launch conditions, etc. There are two limiting factors here: the rules and physics. Unless physics changes, or players somehow get THAT much faster, I don't think where we're at NOW with a tiny fraction of golfers is worth a sweeping change.

I respect that others have another opinion. I just don't agree that we're close or there yet.

Erik,
Yours is a very reasoned response.
Except that it's the exactly same response we've been getting for 25 years from the governing bodies.
But, at some point down the road, you'll say enough is enough, and get shouted down by the next group .

[John Kavanaugh]

Has anyone else noticed the increasing number of baseball pitchers who throw 95+? Why are we so scared to recognize the advancements of fitness and technique?

John,
Excellent points.
In baseball the defense gets bigger, faster stronger.
So does the offense.
Equal opposing forces,but, when deemed needed, the ball is tweaked and the equipment is certainly technologically curtailed


In golf, it's only the offense that gets faster, bigger, stronger and longer
along with the equipment

The professional tour remains 40 strokes short of perfection. I know of no other stronger defense in sport.

[Peter Pallotta]

Erik - btw, you said about what JK references in his post that it was a "powerful thing".
I agree completely.
So powerful in fact that, as strange as this might sound to a golfer like you, I firmly believe that if the modern golf ball was ever deemed "non-conforming" neither me nor any of the other 7 average golfers I play with in my regular Monday night outing would play with it.
We all hack it around to one degree or other, and all want to score well -- and yet while as individuals we're all very different, I'm almost certain that we have this in common, i.e. we all want to adhere to the traditions of the game, and none of us would want to look like "the cheater" in anyone else's eyes.

Peter
PS - I really believe that most average golfers feel the same way; which is why I think a company like Titleist hates the idea of bifurcation as much (maybe even more) than the idea of an across-the-board roll-back, i.e.  they are afraid that if, say, the current ProV1 was deemed "non confirming", its sales would plummet.   

In other words, I think JMEvensky and the Goodale Bifurcation Theory (TM) are spot on: i.e. "bifurcation will ultimately lead back to unification -- using the more restricted ball. Pro's being forced to use a restricted ball would eventually filter down to club tournaments. The only people using non-PGAT conforming golf balls will be the same types who put Vaseline on their drivers back in the day."

[SL_Solow]

Late to the party as usual.  I too am troubled by the clear evidence that the combination of larger headed metal drivers with the ever improving balls have led to longer and straighter drives.  This has led to older courses losing a significant portion of their challenge, at least for players at the highest level.  It has also led to an increase in the length of courses and attendant increases in costs and the time needed to play.  But regardless of your view about the USGA, I think we are all overestimating its ability to dictate changes in the ball.

The USGA has no inherent right to govern the game.  It, along with the R&A assumed that role early in the development of the game when a few leading clubs formed the organization to bring some order to the game.  They have maintained  that  position because all of those involved have consented to their role.  Notably, when Karsten challenged that role with his suit challenging the square grooves rule, the USGA blinked.  Since then, despite building a large litigation war chest, the USGA has not "taken on" any major manufacturer.

Putting aside any litigation, assume the USGA changes the rules either via scaling back the ball or via bifurcation. Assume further that the equipment manufacturers  tell the touring pros that because the pros are no longer the model for amateurs due to their inability to market increased distance, the endorsement payments will be cut significantly.  It would not be surprising for the PGA tour to adopt its own equipment rules.  Their only risk would be a ban at the US Open and maybe the British Open.  The counter risk for the governing bodies would be the tour sponsoring counter tourney's and declaring them "majors".

Under that scenario, who would the average player/fan follow.?   I suggest that amateur golf has a very small following while the pros are viewed as the standard setters.  Currently, only a very small percentage of golfers really play by the Rules of Golf.  So, putting aside all the other issues regarding bifurcation involving high level amateurs, if economics caused the touring pros to defy the USGA, the USGA runs the risk of becoming irrelevant in a short time.  I suggest that the USGA  is likely considering this risk which may explain why it periodically floats trial balloons and doesn't follow through.

This is not to belittle the many arguments relating to the impact of increased distance on classical architecture.  Similarly, the sustainability issue is not impacted by these observations.  It is merely to suggest that these arguments, valid though they may be, are likely to fail in the face of economic considerations.  If one believes that the touring pros (who are paid by the manufacturers) and the manufacturers will go along, then the other arguments become critical.  Similarly, if one is convinced that the golfing public will follow the USGA and deem decisions made by the pros to be irrelevant, then further discussion of the merits may bear fruit.  But I, for one, am dubious.

[Tom_Doak]

Shel:


If Mark Felt had not been recently outed as the source behind the Watergate leaks, I would have guessed it was you who was telling Woodward and Bernstein:  "Follow the money."   


Thus it seems like we are dependent upon the benevolent people who run Titleist to do the right thing.


Perhaps the other equipment companies should all go to the Tour and the USGA and offer to make a new, shorter ball if they would legislate the specs for it, in an attempt to break their rival's stranglehold on the golf ball business.

[Mike_Young]

Do we ever stop and think that the game is played everyday by so many golfers both private and public who don't know the USGA from the PGA and don't know which does what.  They could careless if we change the ball.  That is the average golfer in the US.  Everything else is brought about by associations trying to gain power etc.  I watched guy play today who would hit any ball the same distance because as older golfers they cannot compress.  This game can fix itself if left alone and allowed to shrink or expand as needed.  The constant useof the game for other motives is where the problem is. 

[SL_Solow]

Tom;  your suggestion would only have a chance based on my assumptions if the other manufacturers would be willing to continue to pay endorsement money at current levels to the tour pros.  I recall that back in the balata days, Titleist advertised in part on the basis that its ball was more consistent.  Not nearly as appealing as the promise of more distance.  So its hard to believe companies will pay individual endorsement dollars under that scenario.

Mike,  I agree that most golfers don't care.  But they still buy "the longest ball" even if it doesn't work for them.  My point is that most ignore the rules already and few will listen if the USGA outlaws balls if the pros continue to use them.

[Mike_Young]

Tom;  your suggestion would only have a chance based on my assumptions if the other manufacturers would be willing to continue to pay endorsement money at current levels to the tour pros.  I recall that back in the balata days, Titleist advertised in part on the basis that its ball was more consistent.  Not nearly as appealing as the promise of more distance.  So its hard to believe companies will pay individual endorsement dollars under that scenario.

Mike,  I agree that most golfers don't care.  But they still buy "the longest ball" even if it doesn't work for them.  My point is that most ignore the rules already and few will listen if the USGA outlaws balls if the pros continue to use them.

Agree

[Peter Pallotta]

Shel, Mike, Tom - you’re realists, and you make a compelling case for the likelihood that the status quo will remain just that.
And that status quo informs/shapes our collective vision of the game as we currently play and experience it --  ie what we expect from golf and our golf courses, what we take for granted about the game and its fields of play, what we believe represents quality architecture and an enjoyable challenge etc.
But let’s take that ‘collective vision’ and project it out just 10 years into the future -- without assuming any more distance gains whatsoever.
The now-10 year olds who watched Justin Thomas (certainly not a behemoth) hit a 300 yard+ 3 wood to a 600 yard+ Par 5 on an 8,000 yard Erin Hills will all be 20 years old. Some of them may even be golfers.
What will those young golfers expect from golf and their golf courses? What will they take for granted about the game and its fields of play? What will they believe represents quality architecture and an enjoyable challenge?
Will an Erin Hills be the bare minimum? Will even a Mammoth Dunes be wide enough for a 300 yard slice?
Will any golf course, including all those in their own cities and communities, built before 1950 or 1960 or 1970 (or even before Erin Hills!) seem to them much more than quaint anachronisms, suitable only for the old and infirm? And what will happen to those golf courses as a result (and to the by-then old timers who've played those courses -- i.e. who have played and paid for golf -- for 30 and 40 years)? 
Which is to say (via rhetorical questions): For the governing bodies and the golf industry as a whole, I don’t think the realistic view will seem all that realistic for very much longer.
Yes, as you all note: "follow the money" as a guide to how this will play out. But I suspect that's maybe why a Mike Davis and a Mr. Titleist are finally having the roll-back/bifurcation debate out in the open, i.e. they both know -- or at least have a sinking feeling -- that the paths to the potfuls of money are being washed away as we speak.
Peter

PS - a much different industry to be sure (and one that I know barely more about than I do the golf industry), but look at Hollywood. Netflix entered the feature-film production business and Amazon entered the film distribution business and together they changed the rules -- and the money flows -- almost literally over night.   

[jeffwarne]

Heavy sigh.....


Good stuff Peter

[Mike_Young]

Shel, Mike, Tom - you’re realists, and you make a compelling case for the likelihood that the status quo will remain just that.
And that status quo informs/shapes our collective vision of the game as we currently play and experience it --  ie what we expect from golf and our golf courses, what we take for granted about the game and its fields of play, what we believe represents quality architecture and an enjoyable challenge etc.
But let’s take that ‘collective vision’ and project it out just 10 years into the future -- without assuming any more distance gains whatsoever.
The now-10 year olds who watched Justin Thomas (certainly not a behemoth) hit a 300 yard+ 3 wood to a 600 yard+ Par 5 on an 8,000 yard Erin Hills will all be 20 years old. Some of them may even be golfers.
What will those young golfers expect from golf and their golf courses? What will they take for granted about the game and its fields of play? What will they believe represents quality architecture and an enjoyable challenge?
Will an Erin Hills be the bare minimum? Will even a Mammoth Dunes be wide enough for a 300 yard slice?
Will any golf course, including all those in their own cities and communities, built before 1950 or 1960 or 1970 (or even before Erin Hills!) seem to them much more than quaint anachronisms, suitable only for the old and infirm? And what will happen to those golf courses as a result (and to the by-then old timers who've played those courses -- i.e. who have played and paid for golf -- for 30 and 40 years)? 
Which is to say (via rhetorical questions): For the governing bodies and the golf industry as a whole, I don’t think the realistic view will seem all that realistic for very much longer.
Yes, as you all note: "follow the money" as a guide to how this will play out. But I suspect that's maybe why a Mike Davis and a Mr. Titleist are finally having the roll-back/bifurcation debate out in the open, i.e. they both know -- or at least have a sinking feeling -- that the paths to the potfuls of money are being washed away as we speak.
Peter

PS - a much different industry to be sure (and one that I know barely more about than I do the golf industry), but look at Hollywood. Netflix entered the feature-film production business and Amazon entered the film distribution business and together they changed the rules -- and the money flows -- almost literally over night.

Peter,
I see your argument.  Remember when football was mainly a running game.  I just barely do but those guys never thought the pass would come into play as it has and yet they keep the same field.  But the game took on new strategies.  Same for golf.  We rarely hear it discussed as to how the percentage of putts made from 10ft have increased since the 1970's due to agronomics.  That has had a huge affect on the really low scores as much if not more than distance... While fans and the average player love the long game the true fan or player will always appreciate the short game more and odds are we will one day have stimps of 15 and fairways at less than a .250 etc.  The way the game is played will keep changing and if no course is ever lengthened again I feel there will still be challenge.  Remember being taught to chip with a 7 iron and allow for 1/3 air and 2/3rds roll.    That's out the window so who knows...maybe the 58 degree wedge will be out soon.  And IMHO I predict there will be a day when there is no rough and the ball will move sideways as a way to mess with the longball, short sides and various shots around the greens...So I don't care how far they continue to hit it ( well I do care and don't really like it) there will be golf played and enjoyed...

[Thomas Dai]

The comment by Mike above about no rough and the ball moving sideways sounds like burnt-up summer links golf, and probably a few other types and locations of courses as well if watering and irrigation go the way they might. Time to practice the Texas Wedge game and/or buy a Jigger!
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

I suspect that's maybe why a Mike Davis and a Mr. Titleist are finally having the roll-back/bifurcation debate out in the open, i.e. they both know -- or at least have a sinking feeling -- that the paths to the potfuls of money are being washed away as we speak.
 

Good point.  There are lots of folks who wish the status quo would go on forever, but the world is always changing.


I suspect that's why Titleist / Acushnet stock went public when it did ... time to cash out while the valuation was still high.

[Tim Gavrich]

Question for those in favor of rollback and/or bifurcation:


Do you believe golf club and ball technology can improve ad infinitum? Do you believe that given enough time, the distance golfers can hit a golf ball will increase without limit?


If not, do you believe we are nearing the limits? Does the increase in injury to professional golfers - especially related to the back - give you reason to believe we're getting close to the plateau of golf equipment re: distance?


Or do you genuinely believe that there's a club/ball combination possible under the current tech rules that could allow pros to hit it, say, 500 yards off the tee? 600 yards? 1,000 yards?


~ ~ ~

Pure anecdote here:


I played golf today in chilly (but not unpleasantly so) Connecticut today with clubs I used about 12-15 years ago, including a 350cc TaylorMade r540 driver. It was eye-opening how a heelward mishit would produce a short, spinny, go-nowhere fade. I'm talking 25-30 yards shorter than an equivalent mishit with the 460cc driver I currently game.


Because small mishits don't really mean much with the 460cc max-sized drivers, and they've been around for the better part of a generation, we have a generation of 460cc-native elite golfers who have built their golf swings with the knowledge that they can swing for the fences due to the size of contemporary drivers' sweet spots. I bet that if the governing bodies went to, say, a new 350cc limit, it would solve a lot of the problems. By necessity, pros would have to dial back their swings most of the time, fearing real consequences for an off-center hit. There'd be a little more balance between the skill of driving it far and the skill of driving it straight.


Is this a more salable change than the ball? It certainly seems like an easier one to make from the seat of the OEMs, who could continue to innovate and market new driver tech, just within new parameters.

[Garland Bayley]

There of course is a limit, because there are initial velocity and overall distance limits already in place. Without regulation we already would be well beyond where we are now.

I am comfortable with human conditioning extending the hitting range, because at one time I was a highly conditioned bomber. What I oppose is engineering that adds additional distance.

There is a history of regulation of engineering advancements. Let that trend continue.

Pure anecdote here.

At 67, I hit one 280 today.

With help from a gorge tailwind of course.

[Tom_Doak]

Question for those in favor of rollback and/or bifurcation:

Do you believe golf club and ball technology can improve ad infinitum? Do you believe that given enough time, the distance golfers can hit a golf ball will increase without limit?

If not, do you believe we are nearing the limits?

Tim:


I do not believe club and ball tech can improve ad infinitum.  However if players continue to develop higher swing speeds, equipment can be better tailored to those swing speeds, and driving distances will continue to increase slowly over time.


Personally, I agree with you that the modern driver has changed the game as much as the modern ball did.  Nicklaus and Greg Norman were revered by their fellow pros because they could hit the driver with both distance and accuracy.  Now everyone can, or at least, they are not afraid of a mishit that would have looked embarrassing if they were using the drivers from when I started playing the game.  So they all swing harder.


I'm skeptical that such a change can be rolled back simply by addressing the ball.  But if, as you say, a generation of players has learned the game with the new drivers, those players would probably object more strongly to changing the driver than to changing the ball, because changing the driver would make them psychologically uncomfortable. 


With the ball, it's just going to go a bit less far, but they won't have to swing differently; I think you could get the players on board for that, if their sponsors weren't threatening to cut off their allowance.

[Garland Bayley]

...
With the ball, it's just going to go a bit less far, but they won't have to swing differently; I think you could get the players on board for that, if their sponsors weren't threatening to cut off their allowance.

Why does everyone automatically seem to assume the regulation should be to reduce the COR of the ball? Increasing the COR is not what brought about the increase in distance, so why not address the root cause instead of reducing the COR?

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I don't think the ball should be rolled back.  I think the "spin slope" of golf balls should be regulated, meaning distance should be regulated as a function of spin and vice versa.  The technical genius of the modern tour ball is not how far it goes, it is how far it goes while retaining short game control.  Obviously it will be difficult and require some solid analysis and mathematics, but it's the only way to regulate distance while avoiding bifurcation.  One set of rules, any golfer can select any ball that adheres to a specified spin slope continuum.  Elite players will always need a ball that will check on a short wedge shot and stop dead off an 8 iron and grab up on a bunker explosion.  So they will always select a high spin ball.  The high spin ball will have a corresponding allowance for distance that is less than a longer ball.  This system will allow Gramps to play his Slazenger Raw which is basically a knuckleball, and allow DJ to play his spin ball, but neither golfer will get to have his cake and eat it too.

[Garland Bayley]

Spin slope continuum!

Love it.

[JESII]

If you told DJ his ball now spun 20% more, it would take less than an afternoon to find a shaft/head combo and slight swing tweak to eliminate that 20%.