[mike_malone]

Last night Roger Maltbie compared using a competition ball to the one ball rule.I think he used the term"condition of play".He said the average golfer is not held to the one ball rule,so similarily we need only make it a condition of play on the tour that the competion ball must be used.This would not neccessitate a rule change.

[Jim Sweeney]

Clearly, the rules set upper and lower limits for equipment. If a ball falls within those limits, it is conforming. There are many balls on the conforming list that do not max out the limits for initial velocity and overall distance. The tour could have a "condition" limiting the balls used, but it is a bad idea. The manufacturer's lawyers would have a field day with restraint of trade suits on behalf of the players being paid to play distinctly different equipment. So it won't happen. Better to work with the USGA (and R&A) on this one.

I attended a conference yesterday at which USGA Sr. Technical Director Dick Rugge gave a presentation focussed on the ball and the challenges of addressing the ball issue. I think what follows is a fair summary:

1. Over ten years, players are hitting the ball, on average, about twenty yards farther. This conclusion is based on driving statistices provided by the tour.

2. Half of the distance increase came after the development of titanium headed drivers and the ability to manipulate COR.

3. There has been an increase of almost ten yards in the past two or three years as players switched en-masse to the solid ball. The biggest development in solid ball has been manufacturers' ability to regulate its hardness. There have been solid core distance balls for decades, but now they have the playability of the old wound/balata ball.

4. Athleticism, technique, mental training, the "Tiger effect (competition)," and huge money motivation all have a role in the distance increases, though those are hard to measure scientifically. Course conditioning may also contribute, but "not as much as you'd think." (I was surprised by that statement, having watched drives bounce and role 40 yards and more at many tour events htis year.)

5. The ball itself, when compared to those of ten years ago in scientifically controlled conditions, is about ten yards longer.

There are basically three tracks the USGA could take:

1. Modify existing rules. This is a tough challenge. The USGA (and R&A) is actively listening to representatives from throughout golf- manufacturers, tour players, the tour leadership, the PGA, scientific experts, etc. There is no single clear course. Rolling back the ball (in this scenario) means roling it back for everyone. Is Joe Average golfer willing to give up his perceived ten yard equipment gain? Is it right to require manufacturers to re-tool, perhaps give up a competitive edge? Does the scientific evidence really suggest the necessity of changing the rules?

2. Two sets of rules: Authorizing a lower speed "tour ball" is, in effect, recognizing a rules system with two standards- one for highly skilled players and one for everyone else. There are many issues. A.) Do we really want to cut the cord that links all golfers? That link is stronger in golf than in any other sport. All who want to play by the rules can play by the same set of rules. The tour is responsible in great part for the growth of golf; we risk damaging the ability to attract and retain new golfers if that cord is cut. B.) Adherence to the rules is voluntary. Why have a second set of rules if some people aren't going to follow them anyway? C.) How far should we go? Ban box grooves on tour? Allow 20 clubs for non-highly skilled players? What other changes should we consider, if we're going to make this one? If we change one rule for someone, somebody else will lobby for a different change. D.) The highly skilled/non-highly skilled argument was put out for public consumption during the COR debate, and it proved unpopular and unworkable.

3. Do nothing. Noone believes this is an option.

The USGA is studying and experimenting. Rugge and his staff and his committee rely on scientific evidence and consultation. Any new regulation will be based on three inputs- ball, club, and player.

One probable major change to the test procedure will be to increase clubhead speed in the testing protocall from 109mph to somewhere in the neighborhood of 120mph. This would effectively increase the ODS limit, not cause balls to fail the test.

Please note that these are my reflections on Rugge's presentation and may not be correct to the letter. I hope, however, that it gives readers a sense of where the USGA seems to be on the ball issue.

  

[mike_malone]

jesplusone
    Thank you for your response.Maybe after i read it 20 or 30 more times i might understand all of it.

[ForkaB]

Very good exposition jes+1

I vote for 2. = two sets of rules.  This "cord" you (and others) talk about that "links" all golfers is a fictitious one, which both the manufactureres and the USGA are guilty of creating and sustaining.  The current "one ball" rule is just one of many significant differences between competitive and friendly golf.  The facts are that the elite golfers play a completely different game than 99% of us, even those of us with a +1 handicap!

If there were to be a "competition ball" the sky would not fall.  The fact that virtually all recreational golfers would probably choose to continue to play "hot" balls (with no discernible impact on their performance) would not harm the game one iota.  The fact that all competions would then be played with balls that suited most of our current courses would be a great plus.

[Matt_Ward]

jesplusone:

Thanks for the details -- your comments mesh with a recent intereview I had with Frank Thomas who stated that the increase in distances we have seen is really the end game because the golf ball today is as aerodynamically designed as it can be.

No doubt about the effect of titanium and the reboud off the face you see today on the high tech clubs. The gain the professionals made came from titanium and the move to multi-layer balls away from straight balata.

If truly we are seeing the "max out" effect regarding clubs and balls you have to wonder if the talk on providing for a "competition ball" is warranted?

[Dan Kelly]

I second Prof. Goodale.

And I thank Jesplusone for the report.

[A.G._Crockett]

Rich,
I'm not sure I follow your logic.

You believe that if a competition ball were adopted, that "virtually all" recreational golfers would continue to play a "hot" ball.  Why do you assume this?  The fact that "virtually all" recreational golfers currently play with conforming equipment sets of 14 clubs argues otherwise, doesn't it?  Let's assume that the equipment manufacturers know their market well, and that if there was a market for nonconforming clubs and balls, we would already see a lot more of them!

If you are referring to the fact that the vast majority of golfers take mulligans off the first tee, give and receive gimme putts, sometimes/often don't take stroke and distance penalties, this is unquestionably the case.  This may not be the same as the clubs or balls we use, however.

When I step to the first tee on any given day, I have the option to play a game that is, for all intents and purposes, the same as Tiger and the boys.  I may choose to bend the rules to suit me (or conditions), but at least I had the option, and I think most recreational golfers want that option deeply.

I think the USGA's fear is that a restricted ball WOULD be used by the recreational golfers, and that the game would be more difficult and less enjoyable accordingly, leading to a reduction of the game's growth and popularity.  It would be hard to see anyone benefitting from this development.

[tonyt]

We don't all use the same equipment. Nike only a year and a bit ago modified the ball offered to the public, so that finally, we had access to the ball used by Tiger (previously made ONLY for Tiger). The PGA Tour players use clubs that are modified for them to their specs more so than we can have done during fitting and alterations for ourselves, and they use staff bags that are different to any branded bags we can often buy.

I add my name to the list of those who are open minded about at least trialling a Tour ball. There are a number of tour local rules among the various professional tours in the world, and this one would be fine. Especially if all the manufacturers were still allowed to be makers of a conforming tour ball. Then Joe Public can still buy a player's brand, and choose his ball, or a higher performing hot ball legal for club golf play.

I do see an issue as to where is the line (ie. top amateurs play a tour event, or turn pro, and are forced to switch to an unfamiliar ball). A player will one day have to abandon their preferred ball for the Tour ball. But this is a transparent move. They'll be aware of having to do it, and so will no doubt have played a lot of golf with it and be prepared when the change happens upon them.

[Dan Kelly]

When I step to the first tee on any given day, I have the option to play a game that is, for all intents and purposes, the same as Tiger and the boys.  I may choose to bend the rules to suit me (or conditions), but at least I had the option, and I think most recreational golfers want that option deeply.

You will still have that option! No one is proposing that Competition Balls be sold only to PGA Tour golfers!

[A.G._Crockett]

Dan,
Agreed and understood, and in fact I would opt for the competition ball.  So would most, if not all, of the people that I play with.  My point is only that the USGA fears that if recreational golfers continue to behave as they do now and choose equipment that conforms to the tour, i.e., the competition ball, the game could become more difficult, less enjoyable, and less popular.  In that scenario, everyone loses.

I'm not necessarily arguing against the competition ball in this case, just empathizing with the USGA's dilemma.  Given that such a rules split would be a huge, huge change in the history of the game, I think the governing bodies are fearful of a rush to judgement, and rightfully so.

[ForkaB]

AG

I'm assuming that the ODS rules (as modified) will still apply, so your pals can play the ProV69+, if they want to.  However, if you want to play in a competition, you play the "competition ball", same specs and the balls that Tiger et. al. have to play.  A Dan K. rightly says, you and I and Dan etc. will probably play that ball anyway, in our day to day games too.

Maybe you are a really, really good player, but I for one have asolutely no illusion that I am in any way playing the same game as Tiger and the boys when I tee it up, even though I am probably less of a slouch than Judge Smails.  I can sing a bit too, but I'd never try to match diaphramatic control with Pavorotti.

[ChasLawler]

If a "competition ball was created what kind of ball would pros use with regard to specifications?

If it's just one set of specs - who makes it? Every manufacturer making the exact same ball seems kind of silly.

If the ball just has to fall into a certain range of specifications, how would that be determined? That's what we have right now, and look what's happened.

Here's my 2 cents, although I really don't think anyone should change anything at all:

Although it may literally wipe out a few manufacturers, a simple solution may be to just outlaw the solid core ball in professional events. Isn't that really where the problem with the ball started? I know Nicklaus may have been advocating a competion ball for a long time, but it's really only in the last 5 years that things appear to have gotten out of hand. Before that most of the major distance gains were due to such technological advancenments as the graphite shaft and metal wood heads. In addition to outlawing the solid core ball, I would think the USGA/PGA would have to be pro-active in setting up some additional specification guidelines to ensure that the competition balls don't get too "hot" as technology advances.

Another option, instead of changing the ball, is to make all professionals play with real wood woods. Baseball does it, why shouldn't golf?

Or just limit the size of the head - 250cc for example. They may still hit it 300 yards, but probably not as consistently.

I would think equipment manufacturers would lose far less money if the woods were restricted as opposed to the ball. Not sure about that though...

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Jes, thanks for the concise report.

Matt W.
I believe the problem for many is we are not at a "max out" situation.  Surely there is a product out there superior to titanium that will be introduced soon.  Perhaps also for the ball.  Maybe not in the next two years, but in the next five.  So do we stop at 7500-8000 yard courses or do we plan for longer than 8000 yards.

It always troubles me that the USGA always fees the need for consulting with the manufacturers.  Fine, talk to them, then go do what you think is best for the game, disregarding short term anger from manufacturers.  The manufacturers will figure out the market place and adapt nicely.

[JakaB]

Basketball is fun on a nine foot goal but its not basketball...Hockey is fun on asphalt but its not hockey...Golf is not just golf...its a combination of honor and dreams delicately held together through a set of uniform rules and traditions.  I would ask what is more important to you people who propose a competition ball...years and years of tradition and the spirit of the game or yards of grass that may be replaced by some misguided greens committee in the protection of par....Keep searching for easy answers and you will continue to find questions that fill your gut with uneasiness.  You may find your solution is that you don't really have a problem...please somebody tell me how Tiger and company has affected your life in a negative way by blasting 340yd drives...and then tell me how liberalism has improved you life with feel good easy answers.

[JohnV]

Jes+1, Thanks for the report.  I'm surprised that Mr. Rugge didn't say anything about shafts which I think have had a huge effect on distance.  I've seen women tour players change shafts and gain 10-20 yards.  If I had to choose between choice 1 and 2, I'd go with #2.

Cabell, I think you are overcomplicating the issue.  All that needs to be done is come out with a new Overall Distance Standard for a competition ball, say 260 yards vs the current 296 and then let the manufacturers build balls to that standard just like the build balls today.  The only financial effect on a golf ball manufacturer would be the cost of maintaining two product lines from development through manufacturing.  If I look in the current Conforming Ball List, I see that Acushnet has 67 balls on the list.  If they just move 10 or so of their production and R&D efforts to new competition balls nobody would probably notice.

As I've said before here, it would be easy to accomodate this in the handicapping arena so that players could play either ball and still post scores for handicap.  One concern I have is that players would play the competition ball and post under the old ball rating and get a sandbag handicap in a way that would be harder to catch.  Of course, if we just went to a system closer to the R&A's we wouldn't have that problem.  (Thought I'd get that in before Rich or someone else did.   )

Jakab, one simple way that this has affected me is that the Mystic Creek course at Nemacolin Woodlands outside Pittsburgh is currently adding a bunch of length to an already long course in order to host the PGA Tour later this summer.  This means the course will be closed until July this year so I can't play it.  It also probably means that they'll be raising the already high price of golf there because of the costs of the construction and maintenance of these new areas.  While I probably won't go to play there very often, if it costs more I'll go less.  Also, we have to go back and re-rate it for new Course Rating and Slope numbers.

[Tim_Weiman]

Lynn shackelford:

I share your skepticism that we have reached the technical limits of golf equipment (clubs and/or balls). It sounds like the famous statement from the 1800's about how everything that can be invented has already been invented.

Cabell Ackerly:

I like your suggestion about requiring real wood woods, but I don't understand your suggestion that implementing a competition ball would wipe out a few manufacturers. Why would the economics of the golf ball business change that much?

John V:

I think your analysis is right on. Adding one ball isn't going to change things significantly. The manufacturers know how to do it and can do it quite easily.

[JakaB]

John...the only reason that course will cost more to play is because of increased demand due to the hosting of a PGA tour event.   Unless its a municipal course...economics do not allow fees to be raised simply because of increased expenses.  A competion ball might simply result in the course adjusting their architecture rather than length to draw a Tour event...the costs may be more and the time to construct would surely be longer resulting in even more problems for you...who is making them host an event...the manufactures, PGA or USGA...sounds like another bunch of misguided owners or members....and as in most cases wouldn't architectural adjustments be more detrimental to the average player than a set of tees they will never play.

[ChasLawler]

Tim - my proposal to outlaw the soild core ball in professional golf would significantly affect the marketability of manufacturers such as Precept/ Bridgestone (isn't that all they make?).

But I think JohnV was right, and I am complicating the issue, so my comments regarding the solid core ball should probably be ignored anyway.

[JohnV]

Jakab, Joe Hardy who owns 84 Lumber (actually some say it should have been renamed 42 Lumber after his divorce a few years ago   is the man behind Nemacolin Woodlands and the arrival of the PGA Tour event there.  Prices are based on costs as well as what the market will bear.  The price will go up because of the increased exposure and the costs will also go up.  Having the event causes both things to happen.  They made that choice and others might make the choice not to play there because of that increase in price.  In the end, the resort will make more money, but it will remove one more place for many golfers to experience it.  Do you think that your home course would be as long and difficult as it is if it wasn't for the desire of the owner to host a major event?  If not, wouldn't it have been less expensive for you to join?  Even if it never gets that event, you are still paying the freight for the high cost of construction and maintenance aren't you?

As for architectural adjustments instead of length, why do you assume that they would be negative?  They might make the course more interesting for the average joe playing the front tees.

[JakaB]

John,

My home course is 7239 yds from the back tees...not an unreasonable distance....I know that there is an unreasonalbe tee on a par three that stretches the hole from 194 to 208 that has been debated as questionable...but for the most part I enjoy the ability to set the course up with a mixture of back, middle and front tees that having a back tee on each hole provides....so no I don't mind paying the cost associated with maintaining a 7239 yd course.

As for the cost of the construction of my home course...it was a gift to the community from a generous owner...initiation fees and dues were never meant to recoup the costs...and they never will.  

[Chris Kane]

increase in distances we have seen is really the end game because the golf ball today is as aerodynamically designed as it can be.

Matt,
Does anyone actually think that Titleist and co. don't have products in design for release in five years time.  People have been saying that the limit is near for years, and it hasn't happened.

A guy from the R&A said last year that the ball could go no further according to laws of physics.  Guess what?  The ProV1x was released.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I fall on the side of increasing the head speed for ball testing. It is by far the easiest, less intrusive to the sport, less troublesome method for halting distances.

Higher clubhead speed is the #1 way the Pro or anyone else gains distance. Swing at 100 and you carry the ball about 250. Swing at 130 and you carry the ball about 325. Launch angles, COR, head and shaft material, swing technique and physical fitness all contribute to the equation but the most important is head speed. If the USGA increases their measuring speed to 115 mph, which is probably a better average today, and keeps any other measuring factor at slightly less than optimal it will allow the average player to still make yardage gains by improving on his equipment while limiting the player on the top side. This arrangement keeps the game safe and everyone happy. What more can you ask for?

There is no need for two sets of rules and no need for a competition ball. There is only a need for a higher clubhead speed when measuring ball travel and velocity.

[Robert_Walker]

Chris Kane,
On what basis do you say the Prov1x is going farther?
Ernie and Phil?

[Jeff_Lewis]

This is a very important dialogue. I have two points.

1. Golf has always derived a measure of its appeal from our ability to perform the same acts as our heros. We can never hit a Nolan Ryan fastball, but we can go to Kiawah Island and hit the green that Mark Calcavecchia missed, FROM THE EXACT SAME SPOT. One of the big effects of recent technological innovation has been (because of the quirks of ODS) a WIDENING of performance between pros and amateurs. Ten years ago, I hit a 7 iron about the same yardage as most pros. Now I am 1 1/2 to 2 clubs shorter and I hit the ball slightly further than I did then.

2. The dirty little secret of all this technology is that as one's ability gets further from that of the professionals, one's benefit from the improvements declines. The fact of the matter is that improving ODS and rolling the ball back 5 years won't even affect 98% of amateurs. The whole problem is that these new balls don't go further at the dated clubhead speed and launch angle specs. BUT THAT IS HOW THE REST OF US SWING! We aren't benefitting very much.

The stats are clear. Game improvement technology has not improved the play of amateurs. Unfortunately, the game is hard for most of us, and always will be. But, when our best shots were hit with similar clubs as the pros, well that was FUN!!! Increasing the gap between the pros and the fans only makes the game less entertaining, at least for me.

[Paul Richards]

Jeff:

I second your motion!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()