Colour-coding of restricted distance balls per standard of player

[Thomas Dai]

An old subject I know but.........

I have been trying a restricted distance ball as an experiment.

The one I've been using is this one - 'Almost Golf' ball - lightweight, limited distance, and less impact damage on a head-hit - http://www.almostgolf.com

As mentioned on a couple of threads, they're okay. Different game though. Brings features/hazards back into play that haven't been relevant for decades, which I guess can't be that bad in many ways.....but the spec is the same for all.

Then I started to think of another approach, one based on squash, where different specification balls for different levels of player are colour-coded.

Would this work in golf?

Say for example,

- novices/beginners/high hcps use a full spec ball with a denoting coloured stripe
- mid hcps use a very slightly restricted ball with a different coloured denoting stripe
- low hcps use a more restricted ball with another different coloured denoting stripe
- elite players/pros use a heavily restricted ball with a further different coloured denoting stripe

I've used 4 categories for example purposes, but the could be more or less categories.

Due to the colour coding self-policing should ensurable and as the players game improves then more restriction applies and vice versa.

Thoughts.

Atb

[Brian Finn]

What % of your normal distance do you get with these balls?  Is the ratio consistent throughout your set of clubs?

[Thomas Dai]

Good point Brian. This is just one example of a restricted ball, there are others. I have completed a yardage comparison sheet but it's not easily to hand at the moment - it's in my golf ball which is currently several thousand miles away from me! If folks wish to try some I got mone from E-bay.

I do have a few of these balls and if I remember I shall bring some along to the Buda get-together so that others can experience/experiment with them if time permits as it may well be that different types/strengths gain/lose more from such a restricted ball,..........which is where the colour-coded specification in relation to ability/hcp idea came in and that's the main point of thread.

[/size]Atb

[Tim Fenchel]

Such a tricky topic.  The more I contemplate it...the more I lean in the direction of needing a dialed back ball. I'm more of an Arnie guy...but I'm with Jack on this one.  The ball has gotten out of control.


However, I think you go too far with the options you presented.  I would simplify it.


Just have 2 balls.  One with restrictions and one without.


Allow any governed competition to determine which ball is allowable. (PGA, Amateur, Juniors, Local, etc)


For your Saturday morning nassau...you can duke it out with your buddies as needed.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Multiple balls is just too complicated and would play havoc with handicapping.


Ideally the ball should be reined in for everyone, but start with the Pros. Let all Pro tournaments be played with a limited ball.




As soon as that was established and accepted, it would be a short step to roll the new ball out to amateur golf.


The ball manufacturers would squeal, but what the heck?  Let them.


They may have to change the specifications of their balls, but they will still sell as many of the buggers!

[John Kavanaugh]

I'd rather see you limit the maximum length of a club for the pros. So much less science required for conformance inspections.

[Brian Bowman]

Honestly, i disagree with all of it.  The continued talk about length and whine and blah.  Merion held one of the harder U.S. Opens in the past decade at 7000 yards.  All of this talk is about the technology getting too big for the course.  however the course is outdated, and technology has passed it.  The golf courses are still great, and 90% of them will still challenge your average amateur.  However, for the pro's and exceptionally low handicap players, the scores will be lower, the ball will go further, which is, you know, what people want to see. (from a spectator standpoint).  Does it ruin old course defenses? Yes.  Does tech ruin the game? No.

[Thomas Dai]

Squash generally uses 4 specs of ball to differentiate between different levels of ability but for golf it could be 3 or 5 or whatever but with the same idea as mentioned above.....the better you get (as determined by hcp/turning pro) the more the ball is rolled-back.

For begineers/high hcps you could even roll the ball forward, yes forward, by allowing a Polara type self-correcting ball or have some techno gadget inside it that allows it to be found in the gunch. 'Grow the game' and keep players playing and all that.

And as I mentioned on another thread, folks spend money everyday on clubs, balls, lessons, fitness etc etc in the hope of hitting the ball further. Then more money is spent on buying land and lengthening courses and maintaining larger areas of property. And it's often highlighted that 18-holes are ever taking more time to play. I suspect Mr Spock would say "illogical". Just roll the bloody ball back, the more so for the better player.

Atb

PS - By the way, shortening shafts doesn't automatically reduce distance unless you cut them way, way, way down. Indeed for some (most?) a bit shorter it can mean the opposite as the quality of the strike improves,

[Joe Sponcia]

the ball will go further, which is, you know, what people want to see. (from a spectator standpoint).

It's all relative.  If everyone is hitting it 5-10% less and the top player is 270 and the Zach Johnsons of the world are hitting it 240...it is the same as now without going through the ridiculous cost of retrofitting courses to hold majors and/or WEB.com/PGA events.


This ascertain that the Baba-Booeys and Mashed Potatoes are what matters is laughable. 


How the greatest player to ever live gets ignored (Nicklaus) on this issue is both insulting and typical head-in-the-sand-thinking by both the golf press, golf manufacturers, and most egregious, the USGA. 


What would honestly be the harm in going back to the ball of the 1970's?  Really, I want someone to walk us whiney curmudgeons through how people will start quitting in mass?

[John Kavanaugh]

I was just kidding about short clubs though I would love to take on Dustin Johnson playing a 24" driver. I get it, some people, not many, are better than me. I had my shot and blew it, no biggie. Hey, I'll still put my life against any mfer in the buis.

[Sean_A]

Bifurcation is the clear answer to any notions of the long ball.  For most, the ball isn't an issue.  For flat bellies the ball is really only an issue in so far as how knucklehead, designers, developers and green comms design and alter courses to accommodate the long ball.  The easiest solution is not to alter courses at all for reasons of added length, but that would require big egos to be holstered.  If we all held our ground on this issue it would become a problem only for the flat bellies to sort out, but again, those big egos....When a large enough percentage of joe blows stop buying into the longer ball concept things will change.  Until then, forget it.  You guys who want to see a reduction in distance across the board are dreaming.  As I say, your best bet is to argue for bifurcation, maybe, just maybe you get somewhere.


Ciao

[Doug Siebert]

It would make for an interesting experiment, and possibly another way to let golfers of different abilities compete against each other besides handicaps. I like the idea of allowing a slice correcting ball for higher handicappers, and perhaps the ball for the good players will be "slice accentuating" and bring back more balata like characteristics so hitting into a strong wind is as scary as it used to be.

Might be interesting to play from the forward tees with a ball that's 30% shorter...

[David_Tepper]

"I like the idea of allowing a slice correcting ball for higher handicappers"

Doug S. -

There already are "slice correcting" balls for higher handicappers. Haven't you seen the Peter Jacobson/SrixonTV commercial for their Q-Star ball? PJ clearly states the Q-Star is designed to have less side spin than their tour model Z-Star ball.

The Bridgestone e-6  is designed the same.

DT

[Jim Sherma]

Rebuild the lines that made the Titleist professional, limit club heads to 320cc or so and go back to enforcing the no spring effect faces. All would be well again.

[Dan Herrmann]

The rules are already bifurcated.   Lift/Clean/Cheat is rarely, if ever seen at the club level.  TIO's don't exist.   One ball rule doesn't exist. etc, etc..


The answer is simple - have high-level golf events use a reduced flight ball like the USGA/R&A had us play in an local event in 2008.